Wheat Belly?
Replies
-
tammibarbagallo wrote: »tammibarbagallo wrote: »I would like to read this research that says wheat is significantly different in any way from a century ago
Also the clinical trials dealing with wheat and health issues in those who are not celiac or gluten intolerant would be interesting
Thank you
Check out Dr. Mercola. He's always a great place to start.
Link the studies please
It's your contention, your burden of proof
lol, my burden of proof? I did not realize this was a court case. I think you guys take message boards waaaay too seriously. Thank you for reminding me of my life behind a computer screen before I got off my rear and into shape.
That's how the world works. You make a claim, you have to be able to provide support for it.
0 -
tammibarbagallo wrote: »tammibarbagallo wrote: »I would like to read this research that says wheat is significantly different in any way from a century ago
Also the clinical trials dealing with wheat and health issues in those who are not celiac or gluten intolerant would be interesting
Thank you
Check out Dr. Mercola. He's always a great place to start.
Link the studies please
It's your contention, your burden of proof
lol, my burden of proof? I did not realize this was a court case. I think you guys take message boards waaaay too seriously. Thank you for reminding me of my life behind a computer screen before I got off my rear and into shape.
Some people think that claims should be backed by some sort of evidence. Whether the claim is made on a computer is irrelevant. Do you think online statements should have a lower standard for accuracy than statements made in other ways?0 -
tammibarbagallo wrote: »tammibarbagallo wrote: »I would like to read this research that says wheat is significantly different in any way from a century ago
Also the clinical trials dealing with wheat and health issues in those who are not celiac or gluten intolerant would be interesting
Thank you
Check out Dr. Mercola. He's always a great place to start.
Link the studies please
It's your contention, your burden of proof
lol, my burden of proof? I did not realize this was a court case. I think you guys take message boards waaaay too seriously. Thank you for reminding me of my life behind a computer screen before I got off my rear and into shape.
That's how the world works. You make a claim, you have to be able to provide support for it.
I'm going to assume you don't have anything to support your claim at this point,
This isn't the world sweetie. This is a message board.
-5 -
..... on Canadian Western Red Spring Wheat.The comments are directed at me, even though I was not quoted. The article was about a study done by independent sources, not by the Canadian Wheat council.
http://cerealchemistry.aaccnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/CCHEM-02-15-0029-R
Most of the grain that you consume is not from this variety.
Example: Most pasta products are produced from Durham Wheat.
A totally different species which goes back to "all wheat is not created equal."
What is the difference between that wheat and durham wheat and how will it impact how my body processes it?0 -
tammibarbagallo wrote: »tammibarbagallo wrote: »tammibarbagallo wrote: »I would like to read this research that says wheat is significantly different in any way from a century ago
Also the clinical trials dealing with wheat and health issues in those who are not celiac or gluten intolerant would be interesting
Thank you
Check out Dr. Mercola. He's always a great place to start.
Link the studies please
It's your contention, your burden of proof
lol, my burden of proof? I did not realize this was a court case. I think you guys take message boards waaaay too seriously. Thank you for reminding me of my life behind a computer screen before I got off my rear and into shape.
That's how the world works. You make a claim, you have to be able to provide support for it.
I'm going to assume you don't have anything to support your claim at this point,
This isn't the world sweetie. This is a message board.
On the WORLD wide web
Don't call me sweetie, its rude, btw.
It works like that outside the web as well.0 -
tammibarbagallo wrote: »tammibarbagallo wrote: »I would like to read this research that says wheat is significantly different in any way from a century ago
Also the clinical trials dealing with wheat and health issues in those who are not celiac or gluten intolerant would be interesting
Thank you
Check out Dr. Mercola. He's always a great place to start.
Link the studies please
It's your contention, your burden of proof
lol, my burden of proof? I did not realize this was a court case. I think you guys take message boards waaaay too seriously. Thank you for reminding me of my life behind a computer screen before I got off my rear and into shape.
Oh so you do understand
If you post a weight loss theory on MFP it is helpful if you are able and willing to support your claim
Otherwise it's just more media based dieting industry woo that will just keep people on the merry go round of loss and gain and that's all we are trying to counteract
0 -
tammibarbagallo wrote: »tammibarbagallo wrote: »tammibarbagallo wrote: »I would like to read this research that says wheat is significantly different in any way from a century ago
Also the clinical trials dealing with wheat and health issues in those who are not celiac or gluten intolerant would be interesting
Thank you
Check out Dr. Mercola. He's always a great place to start.
Link the studies please
It's your contention, your burden of proof
lol, my burden of proof? I did not realize this was a court case. I think you guys take message boards waaaay too seriously. Thank you for reminding me of my life behind a computer screen before I got off my rear and into shape.
That's how the world works. You make a claim, you have to be able to provide support for it.
I'm going to assume you don't have anything to support your claim at this point,
This isn't the world sweetie. This is a message board.
Wait, does this message board exist independently of the world? Or is it actually part of the world that we inhabit?0 -
I'm not checking any more notifications. Go ahead and believe conventional everything, dismiss everything else. If you want to believe there's no studies because I refuse to waste my time citing studies that you can pick apart and dismiss then so be it! They exist and a little bit of research would prove that to you. I used to believe that organic, whole wheat bread was a superfood!! After tons of personal experience and research I changed my mind. And It's not even 100% changed! New information and/or experience could change my mind again! I am open to everything and attached to nothing. I'm not a mindless fool who will accept anything that the mainstream feeds me. And I am proud of that. Like I said, I refuse to check any more notifications. You guys just want to argue. If you truly wanted to learn you'd log off of here and LEARN!!-1
-
tammibarbagallo wrote: »I'm not checking any more notifications. Go ahead and believe conventional everything, dismiss everything else. If you want to believe there's no studies because I refuse to waste my time citing studies that you can pick apart and dismiss then so be it! They exist and a little bit of research would prove that to you. I used to believe that organic, whole wheat bread was a superfood!! After tons of personal experience and research I changed my mind. And It's not even 100% changed! New information and/or experience could change my mind again! I am open to everything and attached to nothing. I'm not a mindless fool who will accept anything that the mainstream feeds me. And I am proud of that. Like I said, I refuse to check any more notifications. You guys just want to argue. If you truly wanted to learn you'd log off of here and LEARN!!
If you change your mind and become willing to share the studies that convinced you, I'd still love to see them.0 -
Now you are asking the right questions.janejellyroll wrote: »What is the difference between that wheat and durham wheat and how will it impact how my body processes it?
The only way you are going to know for sure is to eliminate wheat from your diet for a period of time and then reintroduce it for comparison purposes. Don't expect the processor to get down to the plant species in their product when the law says labeling it as "wheat" satisfies the requirement.
It is regarded as a oxidant (inflammatory). That does not mean that your body will react that way but it's a great source of instant glucose.0 -
Now you are asking the right questions.janejellyroll wrote: »What is the difference between that wheat and durham wheat and how will it impact how my body processes it?
The only way you are going to know for sure is to eliminate wheat from your diet for a period of time and then reintroduce it for comparison purposes. Don't expect the processor to get down to the plant species in their product when the law says labeling it as "wheat" satisfies the requirement.
It is regarded as a oxidant (inflammatory). That does not mean that your body will react that way but it's a great source of instant glucose.
The only way to determine the differences between wheat strains is to do individual experiments? But how would this even work when I don't know the species that I am eliminating and reintroducing?
Is there any evidence, other than individuals reporting on their self-experimentations, that our body processes different strains differently?0 -
tammibarbagallo wrote: »They exist and a little bit of research would prove that to you.
...
If you truly wanted to learn you'd log off of here and LEARN!!
Why should I go through the trouble of looking for these studies you claim exist and run the risk of finding the wrong ones or none at all? That would turn out to be a huge waste of MY time, and it is also not my responsibility to prove your claims for you. If you truly wanted to educate, you'd pony up the links.0 -
As someone forced to cut out a large portion of foods that I used to eat regularly due to an allergy, I am holding onto my carbs until someone rips them from my cold, dead, carb-lovin' hands.
Unless you have an allergy or intolerance it just seems silly to cut all of any type of food from your diet.0 -
Now you are asking the right questions.janejellyroll wrote: »What is the difference between that wheat and durham wheat and how will it impact how my body processes it?
The only way you are going to know for sure is to eliminate wheat from your diet for a period of time and then reintroduce it for comparison purposes. Don't expect the processor to get down to the plant species in their product when the law says labeling it as "wheat" satisfies the requirement.
It is regarded as a oxidant (inflammatory). That does not mean that your body will react that way but it's a great source of instant glucose.
Which is interesting, since whole-grain products are considered an antioxidant food source.0 -
tammibarbagallo wrote: »I'm not checking any more notifications. Go ahead and believe conventional everything, dismiss everything else. If you want to believe there's no studies because I refuse to waste my time citing studies that you can pick apart and dismiss then so be it! They exist and a little bit of research would prove that to you. I used to believe that organic, whole wheat bread was a superfood!! After tons of personal experience and research I changed my mind. And It's not even 100% changed! New information and/or experience could change my mind again! I am open to everything and attached to nothing. I'm not a mindless fool who will accept anything that the mainstream feeds me. And I am proud of that. Like I said, I refuse to check any more notifications. You guys just want to argue. If you truly wanted to learn you'd log off of here and LEARN!!
So you waste just as much time arguing that you can't be bothered to share the studies that changed your mind on wheat consumption and would rather argue the toss?
Personally, if I'm so convinced there's cold hard evidence for my unconventional views you can be damn sure I will share them with all and anyone who expresses a vague interest in seeing them. But then I like basing my arguments in fact and not anecdote or flimsy opinion.0 -
I have a diabetic friend who was told to cut back on carbs and lost a lot of weight very quickly doing so, and has kept it off. If carbs are something you have a problem with, scaling back for a while will probably help your weight loss! Just make sure that when/if you add them back in you don't go hog wild, and continue to count your calories, or you can very easily gain the weight back. I hope this is a good solution for you guys! Having someone in the household who can't eat the carbs might help keep you in check. Good luck!
EDIT: Oh, this thread is super old. My bad.0 -
I have a diabetic friend who was told to cut back on carbs and lost a lot of weight very quickly doing so, and has kept it off. If carbs are something you have a problem with, scaling back for a while will probably help your weight loss! Just make sure that when/if you add them back in you don't go hog wild, and continue to count your calories, or you can very easily gain the weight back. I hope this is a good solution for you guys! Having someone in the household who can't eat the carbs might help keep you in check. Good luck!
EDIT: Oh, this thread is super old. My bad.
It's been newly active. it's okay.
The reason that your friend lost so much weight is because of the calorie deficit. Cutting out a food group without replacing those calories by bumping up another food group leads to a calorie deficit, which leads to weight loss.0 -
The reason that your friend lost so much weight is because of the calorie deficit. Cutting out a food group without replacing those calories by bumping up another food group leads to a calorie deficit, which leads to weight loss.
...... or not. Low carb has been around since before the calorie unit was even implemented.MYTH #1: YOU MUST COUNT CALORIES TO LOSE WEIGHT
Back in the 1800s there was a very fat man named William Banting who thought he was going deaf.
Banting was a prosperous 66-year-old London undertaker who was so rotund he couldn’t tie his own shoelaces. At 5’5” and 202 pounds (!) he was so fat he had to walk downstairs backwards. In August 1862 Banting took himself to see a doctor named William Harvey, who promptly figured out that Banting’s problem wasn’t deafness; it was obesity.
His fat was pressing on his inner ear!
Dr. Harvey took a look at Banting’s diet, which was heavily laden with bread, sugar, pastries and beer, and put him on a diet of meat. Instead of starting the day with sugared tea and toast, Banting now started the day with 5 or 6 ounces of beef, mutton, kidneys, bacon or broiled fish. He stopped eating potatoes and pastry. He still consumed some carbs, but only a fraction of the amount he had been consuming previously.
The calorie as a unit of measurement hadn’t been invented yet, but we know now that on the meat-centered diet Banting was consuming close to 2800 calories, which is a lot.
He lost over 50 pounds in 6 months.
Postscript: He kept the weight off and lived comfortably till the age of 81.0 -
The reason that your friend lost so much weight is because of the calorie deficit. Cutting out a food group without replacing those calories by bumping up another food group leads to a calorie deficit, which leads to weight loss.
...... or not. Low carb has been around since before the calorie unit was even implemented.MYTH #1: YOU MUST COUNT CALORIES TO LOSE WEIGHT
Back in the 1800s there was a very fat man named William Banting who thought he was going deaf.
Banting was a prosperous 66-year-old London undertaker who was so rotund he couldn’t tie his own shoelaces. At 5’5” and 202 pounds (!) he was so fat he had to walk downstairs backwards. In August 1862 Banting took himself to see a doctor named William Harvey, who promptly figured out that Banting’s problem wasn’t deafness; it was obesity.
His fat was pressing on his inner ear!
Dr. Harvey took a look at Banting’s diet, which was heavily laden with bread, sugar, pastries and beer, and put him on a diet of meat. Instead of starting the day with sugared tea and toast, Banting now started the day with 5 or 6 ounces of beef, mutton, kidneys, bacon or broiled fish. He stopped eating potatoes and pastry. He still consumed some carbs, but only a fraction of the amount he had been consuming previously.
The calorie as a unit of measurement hadn’t been invented yet, but we know now that on the meat-centered diet Banting was consuming close to 2800 calories, which is a lot.
He lost over 50 pounds in 6 months.
Postscript: He kept the weight off and lived comfortably till the age of 81.
A way to measure the energy in food wasn't invented, or a name for it but calories still existed. Cutting out carbs just reduced the energy intake. The name for it is irrelevant, the science remains that energy in was less energy than out resulting in lost weight. This can be achieved without cutting whole food groups.
This excerpt only gives an estimate for calories after carbs, not one for the period he did consume them. It's a terrible example for the argument against carb consumption all round.0 -
The reason that your friend lost so much weight is because of the calorie deficit. Cutting out a food group without replacing those calories by bumping up another food group leads to a calorie deficit, which leads to weight loss.
...... or not. Low carb has been around since before the calorie unit was even implemented.MYTH #1: YOU MUST COUNT CALORIES TO LOSE WEIGHT
Back in the 1800s there was a very fat man named William Banting who thought he was going deaf.
Banting was a prosperous 66-year-old London undertaker who was so rotund he couldn’t tie his own shoelaces. At 5’5” and 202 pounds (!) he was so fat he had to walk downstairs backwards. In August 1862 Banting took himself to see a doctor named William Harvey, who promptly figured out that Banting’s problem wasn’t deafness; it was obesity.
His fat was pressing on his inner ear!
Dr. Harvey took a look at Banting’s diet, which was heavily laden with bread, sugar, pastries and beer, and put him on a diet of meat. Instead of starting the day with sugared tea and toast, Banting now started the day with 5 or 6 ounces of beef, mutton, kidneys, bacon or broiled fish. He stopped eating potatoes and pastry. He still consumed some carbs, but only a fraction of the amount he had been consuming previously.
The calorie as a unit of measurement hadn’t been invented yet, but we know now that on the meat-centered diet Banting was consuming close to 2800 calories, which is a lot.
He lost over 50 pounds in 6 months.
Postscript: He kept the weight off and lived comfortably till the age of 81.
This makes no logical sense. If you don't know the calorie count of what he was eating, how can you say what the calorie count was over a hundred years later, and that it made no difference?
"People can come up with statistics to prove anything Kent, Forfty percent of people know that!" - Homer Simpson0 -
I can site study after study where a group with higher calorie count with lower carbs has resulted in greater weight loss than a group with lower calorie count and higher carbs.
The CICO people typically reject that argument rather than investigate it.0 -
The reason that your friend lost so much weight is because of the calorie deficit. Cutting out a food group without replacing those calories by bumping up another food group leads to a calorie deficit, which leads to weight loss.
...... or not. Low carb has been around since before the calorie unit was even implemented.MYTH #1: YOU MUST COUNT CALORIES TO LOSE WEIGHT
Back in the 1800s there was a very fat man named William Banting who thought he was going deaf.
Banting was a prosperous 66-year-old London undertaker who was so rotund he couldn’t tie his own shoelaces. At 5’5” and 202 pounds (!) he was so fat he had to walk downstairs backwards. In August 1862 Banting took himself to see a doctor named William Harvey, who promptly figured out that Banting’s problem wasn’t deafness; it was obesity.
His fat was pressing on his inner ear!
Dr. Harvey took a look at Banting’s diet, which was heavily laden with bread, sugar, pastries and beer, and put him on a diet of meat. Instead of starting the day with sugared tea and toast, Banting now started the day with 5 or 6 ounces of beef, mutton, kidneys, bacon or broiled fish. He stopped eating potatoes and pastry. He still consumed some carbs, but only a fraction of the amount he had been consuming previously.
The calorie as a unit of measurement hadn’t been invented yet, but we know now that on the meat-centered diet Banting was consuming close to 2800 calories, which is a lot.
He lost over 50 pounds in 6 months.
Postscript: He kept the weight off and lived comfortably till the age of 81.
Do you think scientific principals exist even before we have developed the necessary understanding or vocabulary to discuss them?
Banting lost weight because he consumed fewer calories than he was burning. That there wasn't a way to describe that at the time doesn't change anything, just like the fact that people died when they fell off cliffs before we understood gravity doesn't invalidate gravity.0 -
I can site study after study where a group with higher calorie count with lower carbs has resulted in greater weight loss than a group with lower calorie count and higher carbs.
The CICO people typically reject that argument rather than investigate it.
Cite away. Don't let us uneducated lot stop you.0 -
The reason that your friend lost so much weight is because of the calorie deficit. Cutting out a food group without replacing those calories by bumping up another food group leads to a calorie deficit, which leads to weight loss.
...... or not. Low carb has been around since before the calorie unit was even implemented.MYTH #1: YOU MUST COUNT CALORIES TO LOSE WEIGHT
Back in the 1800s there was a very fat man named William Banting who thought he was going deaf.
Banting was a prosperous 66-year-old London undertaker who was so rotund he couldn’t tie his own shoelaces. At 5’5” and 202 pounds (!) he was so fat he had to walk downstairs backwards. In August 1862 Banting took himself to see a doctor named William Harvey, who promptly figured out that Banting’s problem wasn’t deafness; it was obesity.
His fat was pressing on his inner ear!
Dr. Harvey took a look at Banting’s diet, which was heavily laden with bread, sugar, pastries and beer, and put him on a diet of meat. Instead of starting the day with sugared tea and toast, Banting now started the day with 5 or 6 ounces of beef, mutton, kidneys, bacon or broiled fish. He stopped eating potatoes and pastry. He still consumed some carbs, but only a fraction of the amount he had been consuming previously.
The calorie as a unit of measurement hadn’t been invented yet, but we know now that on the meat-centered diet Banting was consuming close to 2800 calories, which is a lot.
He lost over 50 pounds in 6 months.
Postscript: He kept the weight off and lived comfortably till the age of 81.
Cute story
The calorie was first defined in the early 1800s when William Banting was 27
https://archive.org/details/letteroncorpulen00bant
Page 18 is pretty cool to read ..someone should enter it into MFP to see the calorie count 0 -
The reason that your friend lost so much weight is because of the calorie deficit. Cutting out a food group without replacing those calories by bumping up another food group leads to a calorie deficit, which leads to weight loss.
...... or not. Low carb has been around since before the calorie unit was even implemented.MYTH #1: YOU MUST COUNT CALORIES TO LOSE WEIGHT
Back in the 1800s there was a very fat man named William Banting who thought he was going deaf.
Banting was a prosperous 66-year-old London undertaker who was so rotund he couldn’t tie his own shoelaces. At 5’5” and 202 pounds (!) he was so fat he had to walk downstairs backwards. In August 1862 Banting took himself to see a doctor named William Harvey, who promptly figured out that Banting’s problem wasn’t deafness; it was obesity.
His fat was pressing on his inner ear!
Dr. Harvey took a look at Banting’s diet, which was heavily laden with bread, sugar, pastries and beer, and put him on a diet of meat. Instead of starting the day with sugared tea and toast, Banting now started the day with 5 or 6 ounces of beef, mutton, kidneys, bacon or broiled fish. He stopped eating potatoes and pastry. He still consumed some carbs, but only a fraction of the amount he had been consuming previously.
The calorie as a unit of measurement hadn’t been invented yet, but we know now that on the meat-centered diet Banting was consuming close to 2800 calories, which is a lot.
He lost over 50 pounds in 6 months.
Postscript: He kept the weight off and lived comfortably till the age of 81.
Erm. Just because someone doesn't know they are doing something doesn't mean they aren't doing it. Little children running and playing don't know that they are burning calories, but they are still doing that. People who are eating in a calorie deficit but not aware that they are in a deficit are still going to lose weight.
Unless someone traveled back in time and weighed each serving of meat that Banting consumed, there ins't any way that someone can know how many calories he was consuming. If he lost weight, he was eating in a deficit. That's how the science of weight loss works.
Low carb is just one way to eat in a calorie deficit.0 -
The reason that your friend lost so much weight is because of the calorie deficit. Cutting out a food group without replacing those calories by bumping up another food group leads to a calorie deficit, which leads to weight loss.
...... or not. Low carb has been around since before the calorie unit was even implemented.MYTH #1: YOU MUST COUNT CALORIES TO LOSE WEIGHT
Back in the 1800s there was a very fat man named William Banting who thought he was going deaf.
Banting was a prosperous 66-year-old London undertaker who was so rotund he couldn’t tie his own shoelaces. At 5’5” and 202 pounds (!) he was so fat he had to walk downstairs backwards. In August 1862 Banting took himself to see a doctor named William Harvey, who promptly figured out that Banting’s problem wasn’t deafness; it was obesity.
His fat was pressing on his inner ear!
Dr. Harvey took a look at Banting’s diet, which was heavily laden with bread, sugar, pastries and beer, and put him on a diet of meat. Instead of starting the day with sugared tea and toast, Banting now started the day with 5 or 6 ounces of beef, mutton, kidneys, bacon or broiled fish. He stopped eating potatoes and pastry. He still consumed some carbs, but only a fraction of the amount he had been consuming previously.
The calorie as a unit of measurement hadn’t been invented yet, but we know now that on the meat-centered diet Banting was consuming close to 2800 calories, which is a lot.
He lost over 50 pounds in 6 months.
Postscript: He kept the weight off and lived comfortably till the age of 81.
That's kind of like saying gravity didn't exist until the apple fell on Newton's head.
Just because someone hadn't developed the term of calorie doesn't mean the energy balance didn't exist.0 -
I don't want to spend the time.VintageFeline wrote: »Cite away. Don't let us uneducated lot stop you.
..... same as others.
0 -
I don't want to spend the time.VintageFeline wrote: »Cite away. Don't let us uneducated lot stop you.
..... same as others.
If you have the sources already, it will take as much time to share them as it will take to share (inaccurate) anecdotes about people supposedly losing weight before calories existed. You're on here, posting, anyway. What time are you saving by keeping your sources to yourself?0 -
Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N., and M.S. Jacobsen. 2003. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors in overweight adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Medicine. 142(3): 253–8Fast-forward to 2002, when an overweight pediatrician named Stephen Sondike finally decided to do something about his weight. Bucking conventional medical wisdom and risking the disapproval of his conservative colleagues, Sondike tried a high-protein, high-fat, low-carb diet much like the one Banting tried 150 years earlier.
The weight melted off.
Sondike ran every possible blood test on himself and found—quite contrary to the expectations of his colleagues—that everything had improved.
Encouraged, he decided to design a study to test scientifically what he had observed in his own life. He took a group of overweight adolescent boys and assigned them to one of two dietary conditions. Group one was put on the traditional low-fat diet. Group two went on a low-carb diet much like the one that worked for Sondike.
Here’s what happened …
After 12 weeks, the group eating the conventional low-fat diet had lost an average of 8.5 pounds. However, the group eating the low-carb diet lost 19 pounds!
Moreover, the low-fat group had consumed an average of 1100 calories day while the low-carb group had consumed 1803.
I work with scientific models designed for animal nutrition on a daily basis. I can run a diet through a biological model that mimics a human and see the results. That experience as well as my own application of this low carb approach on my own lifestyle prove out the approach.
This has been around for a long, long time.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions