"Scientists confirms Paleo diet is nonsense" anyone else see this article?
Options
Replies
-
I will cease contributing to your education. It isn't worth my time. I hope others aren't dissuaded from a particular dieting approach because of ill informed posters.
"I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence!"
Lol. So unlikely = "not working" Strawman is a strawman No, I read the FULL sentence. Brain metabolic demands not being met means dysfunction
"Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level)."
Strong comprehension, ""Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency" From your statement, efficiency is not important for gluconeogenesis and ketogenesis. There must not be any other biochemical processes.Again you seem to have trouble reading. The CONTROL of these processes is regulated solely by availability not efficiency. Your statement that there must not be any other biochemical processes is nonsensical. Living organisms have numerous biochemical processes in play all the time..
"This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient."
So what is glucose and what is hypoglycemia? According to your statement hypoglycemia is fine I guess you seriously are asking this question, given that I stated that low blood glucose exerts a negative effect on cognition.The human body can make all the glucose it needs. You don't have to eat any to survive. That's what gluconeogenesis means
" I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone"0 -
stevencloser wrote: ».....
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
It would be nice if people actually knew something about what they post on.
McClellan WS, Du Bois EF (1930). "Clinical calorimetry. XLV. Prolonged meat diets with a study on kidney function and ketosis" (PDF). J. Biol. Chem. 87 (3): 651–668.
This paper is a study from 1930 in which two men consumed nothing but meat and remained in a perpetual state of ketosis for a full year while in constant observation in Bellvue hospital. Physicians treated children with epilepsy with ketogenic diets for years before effective antiepileptic medications were discovered. No body ever drops dead because they don't have dietary carbohydrate.
Reading comprehension is a skill that needs to be exercised.0 -
Domicinator wrote: »Domicinator wrote: »I have noticed some very interesting things since starting to lose lots of weight using "calorie counting" in MFP (other than the fact that it has gotten me MAJOR results--47 lbs lost so far!!). And I know what I'm about to say is going to get some backlash, but I don't really care that much.
1) The people I know that are on fad diets (low carb, paleo, wheat belly, etc), for the most part, are still overweight, haven't made much progress at all if they've made any to begin with, and are mostly just miserable because they're depriving themselves of foods that are perfectly fine. Somebody on the news told them that gluten, carbs, fat, and sugar are all horrible for you, and they believe it. Many of them even think they're "allergic" to these foods. In my 38 years on this planet, I have never seen so many people "allergic" to so many foods. I find it 100% ridiculous. We are turning into a society of hypochondriacs who are absolutely insufferable at restaurants. What's more, these fad diets and made up ailments do NOTHING to help people lose weight because they still pig out and don't even do any kind of exercise to counteract it.
2) The people I know who have had success getting down to a healthy weight did it through calorie counting and exercising, and the people I know who have maintained the weight loss have done it by continuing to log their food and exercise.
3) The people I know who are already at a healthy weight and always have been, such as all the runners in my family, ALSO tend to count calories, log, and weigh and measure their foods when cooking at home. They also tend to not eat out nearly as much as most people I know.
The reason I have observed these things is that when people see that I've lost a lot of weight, they want to talk about it with me. I have learned a lot about the health of my friends and family that I didn't know before. The people that are already fit and healthy work at it JUST AS HARD as I am. They just made it seem effortless before becuase I was not someone they would have ever talked to about fitness.
So the people you know who are good about consistency and discipline with diet and exercise are successful, but the people who are not tend to fail? That's not the fault of the eating style, that's people choosing an approach that doesn't fit with the reality of their lives. That does make low carb or paleo a fad, people who are able to consistent and disciplined in following those ways of eating are able to do it long term as well. Success is determined by the individual finding what is right for them and sticking with it, not any one diet.
The people who tend to run to these kind of diets and are looking for a short cut to weight loss tend to be the people who don't have the discipline or willingness to follow CICO. If eating like a caveman or whatever works for someone, then fine, do what you gotta do. But I feel like most of the time people do it because they think it's a quick fix. Then eventually it doesn't work and they say "Ugh, dieting just doesn't work for me."
This is why when I tell people how I'm losing weight, the often don't believe me and think that I'm doing something unhealthy or taking some kind of supplement or doing some kind of magical exercise to lose all the pounds. As someone else said, fad diets are big business and we've been surrounded by the hype for decades in the US. I think part of the reason Weight Watchers works so well for some people is that they feel like they're doing something other than standard dieting to lose the weight, when really they're just using a different number system for CICO. MFP is basically Weight Watchers but free.
CICO required for living...everyone takes calories in...everyone expends calories out.
It is not a weight loss plan.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
This is incorrect. Glucose is essential to live, but it can be produced from protein, dietary or your own muscle. Carbs are comprised or differing amounts and combinations of the basic sugars (glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose - if it ends in "ose" it's in a carb).
I have gone 2 or three days without any carb sources besides the carb (or two) in eggs or the minute amount of lactose in the whipping cream in my coffee. I've had many days where MFP records my carbs at 3g, and glycolysis makes enough glucose for my body systems that use it (brain RBC's, etc).0 -
I will cease contributing to your education. It isn't worth my time. I hope others aren't dissuaded from a particular dieting approach because of ill informed posters.
"I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence!"
Lol. So unlikely = "not working" Strawman is a strawman No, I read the FULL sentence. Brain metabolic demands not being met means dysfunction
"Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level)."
Strong comprehension, ""Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency" From your statement, efficiency is not important for gluconeogenesis and ketogenesis. There must not be any other biochemical processes.Again you seem to have trouble reading. The CONTROL of these processes is regulated solely by availability not efficiency. Your statement that there must not be any other biochemical processes is nonsensical. Living organisms have numerous biochemical processes in play all the time..
"This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient."
So what is glucose and what is hypoglycemia? According to your statement hypoglycemia is fine I guess you seriously are asking this question, given that I stated that low blood glucose exerts a negative effect on cognition.The human body can make all the glucose it needs. You don't have to eat any to survive. That's what gluconeogenesis means
" I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone"
"Hardy's team highlights the following observations to build a case for dietary carbohydrate being essential for the evolution of modern big-brained humans:
(1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;"
^ This is talking about glucose demands required for the evolution of the human brain. Where does it talk about dysfunction? Oh right it didn't it was made up by you to knock down.
"Again you seem to have trouble reading. The CONTROL of these processes is regulated solely by availability not efficiency. Your statement that there must not be any other biochemical processes is nonsensical. Living organisms have numerous biochemical processes in play all the time.. "
We are talking about the evolution of the human brain, not modern humans.... Also if we have numerous biochemical processes in play at all times,
"I guess you seriously are asking this question, given that I stated that low blood glucose exerts a negative effect on cognition.The human body can make all the glucose it needs. You don't have to eat any to survive. That's what gluconeogenesis means"
Where did I say anything about eating carbohydrate, that is not what I was asking. Did you really question my reading ability then knock down another strawman? Did you skip over the first part, of me asking you what glucose is?
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
This is incorrect. Glucose is essential to live, but it can be produced from protein, dietary or your own muscle. Carbs are comprised or differing amounts and combinations of the basic sugars (glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose - if it ends in "ose" it's in a carb).
I have gone 2 or three days without any carb sources besides the carb (or two) in eggs or the minute amount of lactose in the whipping cream in my coffee. I've had many days where MFP records my carbs at 3g, and glycolysis makes enough glucose for my body systems that use it (brain RBC's, etc).
Carbs are essential is incorrect according to you. Then you go on to say glucose is essential to live, is glucose now not a carb? What is glucose? Fairydust?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
This is incorrect. Glucose is essential to live, but it can be produced from protein, dietary or your own muscle. Carbs are comprised or differing amounts and combinations of the basic sugars (glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose - if it ends in "ose" it's in a carb).
I have gone 2 or three days without any carb sources besides the carb (or two) in eggs or the minute amount of lactose in the whipping cream in my coffee. I've had many days where MFP records my carbs at 3g, and glycolysis makes enough glucose for my body systems that use it (brain RBC's, etc).
Carbs are essential is incorrect according to you. Then you go on to say glucose is essential to live, is glucose now not a carb? What is glucose? Fairydust?
Just in case it helps to mitigate this misunderstanding: Your body requires glucose to live. You do not need to eat carbohydrates for your body to make glucose. Your body can make that minimum it needs from fat and proteins.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
This is incorrect. Glucose is essential to live, but it can be produced from protein, dietary or your own muscle. Carbs are comprised or differing amounts and combinations of the basic sugars (glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose - if it ends in "ose" it's in a carb).
I have gone 2 or three days without any carb sources besides the carb (or two) in eggs or the minute amount of lactose in the whipping cream in my coffee. I've had many days where MFP records my carbs at 3g, and glycolysis makes enough glucose for my body systems that use it (brain RBC's, etc).
Carbs are essential is incorrect according to you. Then you go on to say glucose is essential to live, is glucose now not a carb? What is glucose? Fairydust?
Just in case it helps to mitigate this misunderstanding: Your body requires glucose to live. You do not need to eat carbohydrates for your body to make glucose. Your body can make that minimum it needs from fat and proteins.
It's not a misunderstanding, who has stated you have to ingest carbs to make glucose? I have seen a few posters state carbs are not essential to the human body, since apparently in their little fantasy world glucose isn't a carb.0 -
It is actually true. Under typical conditions, the human brain will use somewhere in the 100g range worth of glucose daily. People under ketosis will have adaptations that bring this number down more towards 25g, but it isn't necessarily without consequence - memory seems less on a low carb diet.Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
The second issue is, Inuit don't have a ketogenic diet. You can get plenty of carbs eating raw meat that has glycogen stores in it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
This is incorrect. Glucose is essential to live, but it can be produced from protein, dietary or your own muscle. Carbs are comprised or differing amounts and combinations of the basic sugars (glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose - if it ends in "ose" it's in a carb).
I have gone 2 or three days without any carb sources besides the carb (or two) in eggs or the minute amount of lactose in the whipping cream in my coffee. I've had many days where MFP records my carbs at 3g, and glycolysis makes enough glucose for my body systems that use it (brain RBC's, etc).
Carbs are essential is incorrect according to you. Then you go on to say glucose is essential to live, is glucose now not a carb? What is glucose? Fairydust?
Just in case it helps to mitigate this misunderstanding: Your body requires glucose to live. You do not need to eat carbohydrates for your body to make glucose. Your body can make that minimum it needs from fat and proteins.
It's not a misunderstanding, who has stated you have to ingest carbs to make glucose? I have seen a few posters state carbs are not essential to the human body, since apparently in their little fantasy world glucose isn't a carb.
I think you're misunderstanding folks. Glucose is a hexose (well, so technically a carbohydrate, but not one we need to consume in the diet) with the molecular formula of C6H12O6. Glucose is contained in many carbohydrates we eat, true. But your body can also make it. It can also make alanine, cysteine, glutamine and all kinds of other molecules we think of as nutrients from other chemicals, molecules, etc.0 -
.0
-
Which is what I said but nvomketo and robert seem to have misunderstood.stevencloser wrote: »Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
This is incorrect. Glucose is essential to live, but it can be produced from protein, dietary or your own muscle. Carbs are comprised or differing amounts and combinations of the basic sugars (glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose - if it ends in "ose" it's in a carb).
I have gone 2 or three days without any carb sources besides the carb (or two) in eggs or the minute amount of lactose in the whipping cream in my coffee. I've had many days where MFP records my carbs at 3g, and glycolysis makes enough glucose for my body systems that use it (brain RBC's, etc).
Carbs are essential is incorrect according to you. Then you go on to say glucose is essential to live, is glucose now not a carb? What is glucose? Fairydust?
Just in case it helps to mitigate this misunderstanding: Your body requires glucose to live. You do not need to eat carbohydrates for your body to make glucose. Your body can make that minimum it needs from fat and proteins.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
This is incorrect. Glucose is essential to live, but it can be produced from protein, dietary or your own muscle. Carbs are comprised or differing amounts and combinations of the basic sugars (glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose - if it ends in "ose" it's in a carb).
I have gone 2 or three days without any carb sources besides the carb (or two) in eggs or the minute amount of lactose in the whipping cream in my coffee. I've had many days where MFP records my carbs at 3g, and glycolysis makes enough glucose for my body systems that use it (brain RBC's, etc).
Carbs are essential is incorrect according to you. Then you go on to say glucose is essential to live, is glucose now not a carb? What is glucose? Fairydust?
Just in case it helps to mitigate this misunderstanding: Your body requires glucose to live. You do not need to eat carbohydrates for your body to make glucose. Your body can make that minimum it needs from fat and proteins.
It's not a misunderstanding, who has stated you have to ingest carbs to make glucose? I have seen a few posters state carbs are not essential to the human body, since apparently in their little fantasy world glucose isn't a carb.
I think you're misunderstanding folks. Glucose is a hexose with the molecular formula of C6H12O6. Glucose is contained in many carbohydrates we eat, true. But your body can also make it. It can also make alanine, cysteine, glutamine and all kinds of other molecules we think of as nutrients from other chemicals, molecules, etc.
No, I understand just fine. It's inconsequential if the body can make glucose, what is glucose?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
This is incorrect. Glucose is essential to live, but it can be produced from protein, dietary or your own muscle. Carbs are comprised or differing amounts and combinations of the basic sugars (glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose - if it ends in "ose" it's in a carb).
I have gone 2 or three days without any carb sources besides the carb (or two) in eggs or the minute amount of lactose in the whipping cream in my coffee. I've had many days where MFP records my carbs at 3g, and glycolysis makes enough glucose for my body systems that use it (brain RBC's, etc).
Carbs are essential is incorrect according to you. Then you go on to say glucose is essential to live, is glucose now not a carb? What is glucose? Fairydust?
Well, nice ... A belittling comment doesn't make your statement more correct or mine wrong.
From http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/161547.php
Carbohydrates (saccharides) - Molecules consist of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. A major food source and a key form of energy for most organisms. When combined together to form polymers, carbohydrates can function as long term food storage molecules, as protective membranes for organisms and cells, and as the main structural support for plants and constituents of many cells and their contents
Carbohydrates are sugars, starches and fibre. Yes, glucose is a sugar, monosaccharide, and technically a type of carbohydrate, but saying our body needs carbohydrates is different than saying our body needs glucose. The body doesn't need the other monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, or polysaccharides. In fact, one does not need to eat glucose in order to have (make) the glucose it needs to function.
Saying the body needs carbohydrates or they will die is a vague statement, similar to saying all vehicles of transportation should be on roads, which is fine if you are thinking of automobiles but a problem for planes, trains and boats.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
This is incorrect. Glucose is essential to live, but it can be produced from protein, dietary or your own muscle. Carbs are comprised or differing amounts and combinations of the basic sugars (glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose - if it ends in "ose" it's in a carb).
I have gone 2 or three days without any carb sources besides the carb (or two) in eggs or the minute amount of lactose in the whipping cream in my coffee. I've had many days where MFP records my carbs at 3g, and glycolysis makes enough glucose for my body systems that use it (brain RBC's, etc).
Carbs are essential is incorrect according to you. Then you go on to say glucose is essential to live, is glucose now not a carb? What is glucose? Fairydust?
Well, nice ... A belittling comment doesn't make your statement more correct or mine wrong.
From http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/161547.php
Carbohydrates (saccharides) - Molecules consist of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. A major food source and a key form of energy for most organisms. When combined together to form polymers, carbohydrates can function as long term food storage molecules, as protective membranes for organisms and cells, and as the main structural support for plants and constituents of many cells and their contents
Carbohydrates are sugars, starches and fibre. Yes, glucose is a sugar, monosaccharide, and technically a type of carbohydrate, but saying our body needs carbohydrates is different than saying our body needs glucose. The body doesn't need the other monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, or polysaccharides. In fact, one does not need to eat glucose in order to have (make) the glucose it needs to function.
Saying the body needs carbohydrates or they will die is a vague statement, similar to saying all vehicles of transportation should be on roads, which is fine if you are thinking of automobiles but a problem for planes, trains and boats.
Yes, clearly different as glucose isn't a carb. Now if glucose was a carb then saying our body needs carbs or sugar to live would be a factual statement. Statements to the contrary would be false.
Who would make such a statement that all vehicles of transportation belong on roads? That isn't a real world comparison.0 -
Scientists never confirm. They theorize.0
-
Domicinator wrote: »Domicinator wrote: »I have noticed some very interesting things since starting to lose lots of weight using "calorie counting" in MFP (other than the fact that it has gotten me MAJOR results--47 lbs lost so far!!). And I know what I'm about to say is going to get some backlash, but I don't really care that much.
1) The people I know that are on fad diets (low carb, paleo, wheat belly, etc), for the most part, are still overweight, haven't made much progress at all if they've made any to begin with, and are mostly just miserable because they're depriving themselves of foods that are perfectly fine. Somebody on the news told them that gluten, carbs, fat, and sugar are all horrible for you, and they believe it. Many of them even think they're "allergic" to these foods. In my 38 years on this planet, I have never seen so many people "allergic" to so many foods. I find it 100% ridiculous. We are turning into a society of hypochondriacs who are absolutely insufferable at restaurants. What's more, these fad diets and made up ailments do NOTHING to help people lose weight because they still pig out and don't even do any kind of exercise to counteract it.
2) The people I know who have had success getting down to a healthy weight did it through calorie counting and exercising, and the people I know who have maintained the weight loss have done it by continuing to log their food and exercise.
3) The people I know who are already at a healthy weight and always have been, such as all the runners in my family, ALSO tend to count calories, log, and weigh and measure their foods when cooking at home. They also tend to not eat out nearly as much as most people I know.
The reason I have observed these things is that when people see that I've lost a lot of weight, they want to talk about it with me. I have learned a lot about the health of my friends and family that I didn't know before. The people that are already fit and healthy work at it JUST AS HARD as I am. They just made it seem effortless before becuase I was not someone they would have ever talked to about fitness.
So the people you know who are good about consistency and discipline with diet and exercise are successful, but the people who are not tend to fail? That's not the fault of the eating style, that's people choosing an approach that doesn't fit with the reality of their lives. That does make low carb or paleo a fad, people who are able to consistent and disciplined in following those ways of eating are able to do it long term as well. Success is determined by the individual finding what is right for them and sticking with it, not any one diet.
The people who tend to run to these kind of diets and are looking for a short cut to weight loss tend to be the people who don't have the discipline or willingness to follow CICO. If eating like a caveman or whatever works for someone, then fine, do what you gotta do. But I feel like most of the time people do it because they think it's a quick fix. Then eventually it doesn't work and they say "Ugh, dieting just doesn't work for me."
This is why when I tell people how I'm losing weight, the often don't believe me and think that I'm doing something unhealthy or taking some kind of supplement or doing some kind of magical exercise to lose all the pounds. As someone else said, fad diets are big business and we've been surrounded by the hype for decades in the US. I think part of the reason Weight Watchers works so well for some people is that they feel like they're doing something other than standard dieting to lose the weight, when really they're just using a different number system for CICO. MFP is basically Weight Watchers but free.
CICO required for living...everyone takes calories in...everyone expends calories out.
It is not a weight loss plan.
Yes, that was more or less my point.0 -
So, I see that at least some of you don't understand the meaning of the word "essential" when applied to a nutrient.
An essential nutrient is a nutrient required for normal human body function that either cannot be synthesized by the body at all, or cannot be synthesized in amounts adequate for good health (e.g., niacin, choline), and thus must be obtained from a dietary source.[1]
"What is an essential nutrient?". NetBiochem Nutrition, University of Utah.0 -
(Worth noting: The researchers believe the tubers were collected by postmenopausal women, who shared them with the younger female relatives, which in turn, allowed them to have more babies. Men are not mentioned.)
I am as skeptical as can be of anything diet with the word "paleo" in it, but this statement is baloney. The archaeological remains cannot tell you information like this. Very little in the way of botanical remains have survived from this period, and you can only tell so much from bones and teeth (also rare to survive).
What? Bones and teeth can survive a very long time. You can actually tell a great deal from bones and teeth, like diet, age, sex, disease, work likely performed, etc.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions