Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Is the Insulin Theory of Obesity Over?
Replies
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »
No one ever said to give up or avoid fruit (I addressed that earlier when you asked). Why hasn't anyone addressed the whole "fatty food" comment? When I think of fatty foods I think of whole eggs, salmon, seeds and nuts, avocados, olive oil, butter, cheese, dark meat chicken... Or was J72FIT referring to "fatty foods" like packaged cookies and snack cakes, potato chips, and other junk foods (and what of fat free sodas and sports drinks)? In that case why didn't he say, avoid junk food? Why hate on fatty foods?tlflag1620 wrote: »
No one ever said to give up or avoid fruit (I addressed that earlier when you asked). Why hasn't anyone addressed the whole "fatty food" comment? When I think of fatty foods I think of whole eggs, salmon, seeds and nuts, avocados, olive oil, butter, cheese, dark meat chicken... Or was J72FIT referring to "fatty foods" like packaged cookies and snack cakes, potato chips, and other junk foods (and what of fat free sodas and sports drinks)? In that case why didn't he say, avoid junk food? Why hate on fatty foods?
Yes...0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Anywho... I'm rambling now. One last thing - I don't think IR is necessarily about carb percentage, so much as it is genetic (I have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes, so I'm fairly confident IR plays a role in how well I do on any given diet). In cultures with a high carb traditional diet, IR would pose a problem (overeating, never feeling full, getting overweight, etc). Those with IR in a high carb society may have ended up not being able to pass on their genes. Where as those with IR in a culture that eats lower carb would have done just fine. That's why I wonder if there are racial or ethnic variations wrt the rates of IR in different populations.
It's really impossible to tell. Diet has changed so much, too, so the question is what period is important. My understanding is that IR is generally uncommon among any traditional populations on the traditional diet. It clearly has become more common in the US (and UK) in recent years, which is probably diet related but not carb % related (the amount of carbs we eat has not increased as much as people claim, as a percentage, and the amount of fat we eat has also increased, just not as much). Even the diet component is hard to say for sure because obesity is clearly a factor. (Not everyone who becomes IR is obese, but the increase in the US tracks the increase in obesity rate and we know obesity is a huge risk factor.)
If you look at where IR is common now, it is societies with higher obesity rates. Within the US it's more common in Latino and African American populations, I believe, but so is obesity.
My ethnic background is pretty much the same as you described (absent the Native American, add in a little German), and who knows. All I can say for sure is that lactose intolerance is uncommon and I love my dairy. ;-)0 -
Hydrogenated vegetable oils for one. Eliminate completely? No, not necessary. Moderate consumption, yes. But that goes for most things.
Thank you for clarifying! And yes, I agree that trans fats should be avoided - they are bad for not only liver health, but for numerous other aspects of health. But just as lemon thinks "fruit" rather than "soda" when she hears the word "fructose" I think "salmon" rather than "crisco" when I hear "fat". Context is key.
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »
Should I avoid fat? "Fatty foods" (whatever the hell that means) are not necessarily "taxing" on the liver - the type of fat matters. NAFLD is strongly linked to overconsumption of carbs, especially fructose. The modest amounts found in reasonable quantities of fruit probably don't pose a problem. But the alarming amounts found in soda and other heavily processed foods is concerning. Want to be kind to your liver? Avoid alcohol, cigarettes, fructose, omega 6 fats, and trans fats. (Note I said avoid, not necessarily eliminate, through in the case of cigarettes and trans fats, eliminate is probably sound advice!)
No reason to avoid omega 6 fats if you get enough omega 3. The ratio is the issue, not omega 6 being bad.
And not all highly processed foods have lots of sugar -- I dislike frozen meals, but you can definitely find examples that have no added sugar. I would agree that soda is a significant source and the amount of soda that some people consume these days (especially children) is likely a factor in some of these health issues. I'm glad I've never really liked sugary soda (I will enjoy an occasional diet soda, despite it being highly processed, and black coffee, which also is, I think).
Not trying to give you a hard time, but focusing on processing alone (as such a wide range of foods are covered by the term) rather than the actual ingredients or what is removed in a particular use seems to me to be a red herring.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
No reason to avoid omega 6 fats if you get enough omega 3. The ratio is the issue, not omega 6 being bad.
And not all highly processed foods have lots of sugar -- I dislike frozen meals, but you can definitely find examples that have no added sugar. I would agree that soda is a significant source and the amount of soda that some people consume these days (especially children) is likely a factor in some of these health issues. I'm glad I've never really liked sugary soda (I will enjoy an occasional diet soda, despite it being highly processed, and black coffee, which also is, I think).
Not trying to give you a hard time, but focusing on processing alone (as such a wide range of foods are covered by the term) rather than the actual ingredients or what is removed in a particular use seems to me to be a red herring.
My biggest problem was meat. Burgers, wings, steak, and real philly cheesesteak (none of that crap that you find outside of Philly)0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »
I'm not really sure how fatty foods hurt the liver. I've never heard that one! Fatty acids can circulate freely in the blood and can be used by all over the body. Fructose cannot. No body tissue can utilize it. It can only be broken down by the liver.
Here you are: http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/010614p48.shtml
There used to be a poster here who was on the NASH diet and at least as it was prescribed to her it was very low fat. (It seemed to be working for her, as she'd lost lots of weight and improved her health.)0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Or was J72FIT referring to "fatty foods" like packaged cookies and snack cakes, potato chips, and other junk foods (and what of fat free sodas and sports drinks)? In that case why didn't he say, avoid junk food? Why hate on fatty foods?
This is what I always say when people refer to these same foods (typically about half fat, half carbs, only a little protein) as "carbs."
Heh.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
No reason to avoid omega 6 fats if you get enough omega 3. The ratio is the issue, not omega 6 being bad.
And not all highly processed foods have lots of sugar -- I dislike frozen meals, but you can definitely find examples that have no added sugar. I would agree that soda is a significant source and the amount of soda that some people consume these days (especially children) is likely a factor in some of these health issues. I'm glad I've never really liked sugary soda (I will enjoy an occasional diet soda, despite it being highly processed, and black coffee, which also is, I think).
Not trying to give you a hard time, but focusing on processing alone (as such a wide range of foods are covered by the term) rather than the actual ingredients or what is removed in a particular use seems to me to be a red herring.
Oh I agree, and I'm not usually one to harp on "processed foods". It's a meaningless term - cheese and butter are "processed" milk, olive oil is "processed" olives, the chicken I eat tonight will be "processed" (once the "process" of cooking it is complied with anyway). I just don't have a better term to use for what I'm describing.
As for omega 6:3 ratio, yes, bumping up the omega 3 helps, but reducing the omega 6 at the same time is more efficient than simply trying to up the omega 3. I guess I'm coming from a mind set where it is easier to avoid the high omega 6 oils than it is to find a way to get enough of an omega 3 intake to offset that. I like fish and all, but I'd be hard pressed to get enough if I didn't keep the omega 6 in check in the first place, kwim?
1 -
My biggest problem was meat. Burgers, wings, steak, and real philly cheesesteak (none of that crap that you find outside of Philly)
Mine was all kinds of things, but fancy cheese was up there.
I've actually never had a real philly cheesesteak -- I think the bad versions they serve outside of Philly have scared me off (my college dining hall did them occasionally, ugh). I go to Philadelphia occasionally, I really need to correct this omission.1 -
I'm not going to read several pages of posts, but here's my comment after reading the linked article: you're talking a study or two with a small number of individuals. Kevin Hall is making a truth claim based on his study. The way science works, other researchers are welcome to duplicate his results or poke holes in his methodology. Time and other studies will follow but the way the media work, they'll jump on a single study or interview with a researcher for the provocative headline value (like Nutrition Wonk's headline: "Is the Insulin Theory of Obesity Over?").
The most important statement I take away from the article is this:... possibility that the primary benefit of a lower carbohydrate diet is an increase in satiety. And if low-carb diets do have positive impacts on satiety, they can cause spontaneously lower caloric intake in an ad libitum diet...
Which is to say, in a sense, it doesn't matter whether the insulin theory turns out to be wrong or not. If an eating strategy helps you stick to your diet and reduce caloric intake without cravings or hunger, it's a good strategy. Reducing carbs, especially sugars, and increasing fiber, protein, and good fats in my diet has helped me stay on course and win the race. Low fat/high carb diets were a disaster for me. 'Nuff said.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Mine was all kinds of things, but fancy cheese was up there.
I've actually never had a real philly cheesesteak -- I think the bad versions they serve outside of Philly have scared me off (my college dining hall did them occasionally, ugh). I go to Philadelphia occasionally, I really need to correct this omission.
Tony Lukes or Jims.. thank me later. Don't bother with Pats or Ginos...1 -
Since total carbs do matter in relation to someone with IR (100g of carbs at a meal is probably too many for those with IR regardless of how much protein/fat is contained in the meal), in this context I could see these foods being referred to as carb sources. In other words, these foods are carb-dense for those with IR.lemurcat12 wrote: »
This is what I always say when people refer to these same foods (typically about half fat, half carbs, only a little protein) as "carbs."
Heh.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's really impossible to tell. Diet has changed so much, too, so the question is what period is important. My understanding is that IR is generally uncommon among any traditional populations on the traditional diet. It clearly has become more common in the US (and UK) in recent years, which is probably diet related but not carb % related (the amount of carbs we eat has not increased as much as people claim, as a percentage, and the amount of fat we eat has also increased, just not as much). Even the diet component is hard to say for sure because obesity is clearly a factor. (Not everyone who becomes IR is obese, but the increase in the US tracks the increase in obesity rate and we know obesity is a huge risk factor.)
If you look at where IR is common now, it is societies with higher obesity rates. Within the US it's more common in Latino and African American populations, I believe, but so is obesity.
My ethnic background is pretty much the same as you described (absent the Native American, add in a little German), and who knows. All I can say for sure is that lactose intolerance is uncommon and I love my dairy. ;-)
What I wonder is, if IR is largely genetic, and we already know pregnancy increases IR (hence the glucose screenings everyone is supposed to do) wouldn't women who have IR in the first place be more likely to develop GD? And in the context of a high carb culture, that GD would go unchecked. Without modern obstetric care, GD is incredibly dangerous often resulting in hopelessly obstructed labors (due to macrosomic babies as a direct result of high blood sugars), so many IR women and their babies would never survive the delivery. And even if they did manage to survive, babies whose mothers have uncontrolled GD are at high risk of severe hypoglycemia in the hours after delivery. Without acute medical care they will suffer organ failure, brain damage, and, eventually, death. I would think that IR women would have had a hard time passing on their genes in a culture that eats a high carb traditional diet. And so, that trait would not be passed on, so IR wouldn't be common in those cultures, hence a higher carb tolerance level in those populations. Not sure if I'm making sense here.
I love dairy too! My Mediterranean-descent husband may be able to eat way more carbs than me, but I get the joy of dairy (without the, ahem, issues he suffers from when eating cow juice, lol).
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Since total carbs do matter in relation to someone with IR (100g of carbs at a meal is probably too many for those with IR regardless of how much protein/fat is contained in the meal), in this context I could see these foods being referred to as carb sources. In other words, these foods are carb-dense for those with IR.
And some vegans who like to stick to 10% fat call them fatty foods (and some others will find the sat fat of concern, as it does cause higher cholesterol in some, like my dad).
But the fact is that it's silly to single out one macro with them as if the fact some "junk" food was a "carb" (when its just as much a fat) meant that carbs are unhealthy or as if the fact that they have lots of fat means that fat is unhealthy. For most people, overconsumption (not all consumption) of these foods is unwise because they are high cal and don't have a lot of micronutrients.4 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »
What I wonder is, if IR is largely genetic, and we already know pregnancy increases IR (hence the glucose screenings everyone is supposed to do) wouldn't women who have IR in the first place be more likely to develop GD? And in the context of a high carb culture, that GD would go unchecked. Without modern obstetric care, GD is incredibly dangerous often resulting in hopelessly obstructed labors (due to macrosomic babies as a direct result of high blood sugars), so many IR women and their babies would never survive the delivery. And even if they did manage to survive, babies whose mothers have uncontrolled GD are at high risk of severe hypoglycemia in the hours after delivery. Without acute medical care they will suffer organ failure, brain damage, and, eventually, death. I would think that IR women would have had a hard time passing on their genes in a culture that eats a high carb traditional diet. And so, that trait would not be passed on, so IR wouldn't be common in those cultures, hence a higher carb tolerance level in those populations. Not sure if I'm making sense here.
I love dairy too! My Mediterranean-descent husband may be able to eat way more carbs than me, but I get the joy of dairy (without the, ahem, issues he suffers from when eating cow juice, lol).
I get it, and it's interesting. But European cultures have had reasonably high carb (as high as the US) diets for centuries, whatever the historic diets of various people who often migrated from elsewhere (see, e.g., Bryan Sykes' books). So I wouldn't think there's some greater susceptibility in most of us European mutts vs., I dunno, people in blue zones. Maybe a concern for Inuits and the like (but again hard to separate out from the obesity rate).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
And some vegans who like to stick to 10% fat call them fatty foods (and some others will find the sat fat of concern, as it does cause higher cholesterol in some, like my dad).
But the fact is that it's silly to single out one macro with them as if the fact some "junk" food was a "carb" (when its just as much a fat) meant that carbs are unhealthy or as if the fact that they have lots of fat means that fat is unhealthy. For most people, overconsumption (not all consumption) of these foods is unwise because they are high cal and don't have a lot of micronutrients.
Indeed...
0 -
I don't remember if it was on this thread or the one where people are trying to detox from sugar that the comments were made, but where does the whole "we didn't evolve to eat sugars" line of argument come from? Maybe we didn't evolve to eat so freakin' much, but honey, although it has some vague benefits, trace antioxidants and such, isn't that much better than table sugar for spiking blood sugar or packing on the pounds. I'm pretty sure my mead-drinking Viking, Celt, and honey-lovin' ancient cavemen ancestors would have done everything they could to access honey, and even chimpanzees go to great lengths to access honey with what Nat Geo describes as an elaborate "Swiss army toolkit" far beyond any other tools chimps use.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/01/chimps-use-swiss-army-toolkit-to-rob-beehives/1 -
There is an interesting discussion about this study on Brad Schoenfeld's Facebook page with a few people chiming in.
https://www.facebook.com/brad.schoenfeld.cscs?fref=ts
"Brad Schoenfeld- This was a proof of principle study designed to test the hypothesis that insulin is responsible for promoting weight gain. To this point, the study appears to have provided compelling evidence against this hypothesis. Will wait to read the entire study before drawing firm conclusions, but based on the lead authors explanation the insulin hypothesis needs serious rethinking."0 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »I don't remember if it was on this thread or the one where people are trying to detox from sugar that the comments were made, but where does the whole "we didn't evolve to eat sugars" line of argument come from? Maybe we didn't evolve to eat so freakin' much, but honey, although it has some vague benefits, trace antioxidants and such, isn't that much better than table sugar for spiking blood sugar or packing on the pounds. I'm pretty sure my mead-drinking Viking, Celt, and honey-lovin' ancient cavemen ancestors would have done everything they could to access honey, and even chimpanzees go to great lengths to access honey with what Nat Geo describes as an elaborate "Swiss army toolkit" far beyond any other tools chimps use.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/01/chimps-use-swiss-army-toolkit-to-rob-beehives/
I've never heard anything like we aren't evolved to eat sugar. Human breast milk contains quite a bit of sugar (granted it's lactose, so when it breaks down it is glucose and galactose, the latter being primarily used in nervous system development). Honey would have represented a rare treat (and would have been highly prized!). But, no, honey isn't any better than table sugar for spiking blood sugar or packing on the pounds - sugar is sugar as it pertains to blood glucose spikes, though pairing it in sensible amounts with fat, fiber, and protein can help; and pounds are still about calories. Though I do believe we (the collective we, not necessarily those engaged in this debate) eat too much sugar, overconsumption of everything contributes to obesity. I find low carb more satiating than higher carb diets (regardless of the source of carbs), but a great many people eat plenty of carbs and find that just as satiating.
1 -
Why does it matter where it's broken down? It still is converted to glucose. Your liver has many functions and that happens to be one of them.
Sigh.
One of the key elements of fructose, and why some diabetic diets traditionally include it are related to the normal metabolism of fructose which occurs without sugar and tends to release glucose at a slower rate than an alimentary bolus. This lower glucose / insulin response by the body may sometimes be considered desirable for diabetic diets.
People that suggest that fruit should be eliminated from diet because "liver metabolism" or "insulin" don't really understand the beneficial effects of those mechanisms.
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »
What I wonder is, if IR is largely genetic, and we already know pregnancy increases IR (hence the glucose screenings everyone is supposed to do) wouldn't women who have IR in the first place be more likely to develop GD? And in the context of a high carb culture, that GD would go unchecked. Without modern obstetric care, GD is incredibly dangerous often resulting in hopelessly obstructed labors (due to macrosomic babies as a direct result of high blood sugars), so many IR women and their babies would never survive the delivery. And even if they did manage to survive, babies whose mothers have uncontrolled GD are at high risk of severe hypoglycemia in the hours after delivery. Without acute medical care they will suffer organ failure, brain damage, and, eventually, death. I would think that IR women would have had a hard time passing on their genes in a culture that eats a high carb traditional diet. And so, that trait would not be passed on, so IR wouldn't be common in those cultures, hence a higher carb tolerance level in those populations. Not sure if I'm making sense here.
I love dairy too! My Mediterranean-descent husband may be able to eat way more carbs than me, but I get the joy of dairy (without the, ahem, issues he suffers from when eating cow juice, lol).
It's specifically the placenta doing weird things that causes GD. While I'm high risk for diabetes genetically and due to obesity, outside of pregnancy my blood glucose and Ha1c are perfect (not even borderline). During pregnancy I required oodles of insulin per day with my second kid, and probably had late developing GD undiagnosed with my first (baby over 9 lbs).
However, there is still probably some sort of link. Every single other person in my GD class had to use assisted reproductive technologies to conceive. I was the only one in the room to get pregnant the old fashioned way. Given that type 2 diabetes is associated with a whole host of metabolic/endocrine disorders including those that affect fertility, it really made me wonder.
0 -
jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.
is it published ? Did he measure serum ketones and insulin (somewhat of a necessity I feel if trying to assess the role of insulin in a ketogenic diet).
He also said in the video that there was an error of over 500 cals/day in the metabolic chamber measurements which led them to lose weight in the metabolic ward, is that the case ?
I always cringe when a eucaloric study delivery weight loss. Were the researchers asleep ? I've done industrial trials in awful places and would never have left site with such a glaring error in my work.0 -
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry.
I use three points of evidence - one is the reduced calorie consumption of ad-lib low carb arms of diet studies where subjects have a habit of eating less than the calorie limited low fat arm.
The 2nd is this place, the "OMG I would eat my arm off on 1300 calories" response.
3rd is the carboholic vegetarians that I can never get out of the damned kitchen as they eat continually.
So these measures tell me what at least a sample of other people do, though as always the sample variation will be high. Do you have butter on your baked potato ? I think there's a study of potato satiety that points to that being helpful.0 -
I use three points of evidence - one is the reduced calorie consumption of ad-lib low carb arms of diet studies where subjects have a habit of eating less than the calorie limited low fat arm.
The 2nd is this place, the "OMG I would eat my arm off on 1300 calories" response.
3rd is the carboholic vegetarians that I can never get out of the damned kitchen as they eat continually.
So these measures tell me what at least a sample of other people do, though as always the sample variation will be high. Do you have butter on your baked potato ? I think there's a study of potato satiety that points to that being helpful.
1. Yes, in some studies there is a reduction in calories ad-lib
2. I have seen similar response for low carb. Again, not a universal response and most satiety indexs would suggest the highest SI foods are fibrous carbs and lean proteins
3. I have seen both types of vegetarians. Ones that constantly eat and others who eat a few meals a day. I suspect its more personal preference and habit.
4. I sometime put butter on my potato but not always. And when I do, it's a tbsp or less.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »No reason to avoid omega 6 fats if you get enough omega 3. The ratio is the issue, not omega 6 being bad.
If omega 6 is inflammatory then the omega 3 may help, but the absolute intake of omega 6 doesn't fare well in some analyses. The problem is what you replace them with when designing the experiment.
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/on-drinking-varnish.html0 -
1. Yes, in some studies there is a reduction in calories ad-lib
2. I have seen similar response for low carb. Again, not a universal response and most satiety indexs would suggest the highest SI foods are fibrous carbs and lean proteins
3. I have seen both types of vegetarians. Ones that constantly eat and others who eat a few meals a day. I suspect its more personal preference and habit.
4. I sometime put butter on my potato but not always. And when I do, it's a tbsp or less.
Actually the study I've seen shows LESS satiety for potato with butter (I don't use butter personally, although I use a small amount of olive oil and have been known to cook potato with chicken, which results in delicious fatty potatoes). I think it's because when you add butter or other fat (fries) you get that carb/fat/salt combo people have trouble not overeating.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Actually the study I've seen shows LESS satiety for potato with butter (I don't use butter personally, although I use a small amount of olive oil and have been known to cook potato with chicken, which results in delicious fatty potatoes). I think it's because when you add butter or other fat (fries) you get that carb/fat/salt combo people have trouble not overeating.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26878318 Kids had lowest intake with boiled mashed potato as side. This was the study in my head. There's a lot of fat in all the "carb" sides in varying proportions and of different types. Butter in the mashed potato.0 -
I really don't have issues with hunger on any diet. My issues are other. I think there must be a subset who struggle with hunger and for them keto helps.
I do think that if there's a huge disruption to how you eat (low carb OR super low fat, i.e. 10%), then you naturally cut calories a lot at first and then adjust. I've heard the same thing from people who become vegan. I have talked about doing a vegan Lent and losing a ton of weight without trying to, and been assured by vegan friends that that stops as you learn what vegan treats are. ;-) Anyway, I was the opposite of hungry doing vegan -- I was satiated at what must have been around 1000 calories per day (which I am not recommending). I was also eating less protein than I think is ideal.0 -
I use three points of evidence - one is the reduced calorie consumption of ad-lib low carb arms of diet studies where subjects have a habit of eating less than the calorie limited low fat arm.
The 2nd is this place, the "OMG I would eat my arm off on 1300 calories" response.
3rd is the carboholic vegetarians that I can never get out of the damned kitchen as they eat continually.
So these measures tell me what at least a sample of other people do, though as always the sample variation will be high. Do you have butter on your baked potato ? I think there's a study of potato satiety that points to that being helpful.
You know, that doesn't necessarily lead to "fat keeps you less hungry".
Too fatty cuts of meat make me nauseous for example, taht would also lead to less ad-lib intake but not for the desired reasons.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
You know, that doesn't necessarily lead to "fat keeps you less hungry".
my personal stance has always been that LCHF or ketogenic hypocaloric diets appear to suppress hunger, rather than any issue about an individual meal or food in isolation.
Individual meals can be (and have been ) tested, but typically in a single dietary context.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions