why does sugar make us fat
Options
Replies
-
It doesn't exclusively. Overeating makes you fat. Unless you're seasoned in this fitness realm the anti sugar campaign can really skew the reality of things. If you eat a block of sugar one day you won't wake up fat the next day. That's cartoon *kitten*.0
-
goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think that sort of thing makes sense on a population level, sure. I think the WHO recommendations do too. I just don't think that means it's about satiety.
If it's not about satiety, what is it? Why are organizations like AHA and WHO suggesting we curtail our sugar consumption? Why the association with adiposity?
Cutting added sugar is an easy way to cutting calories. It may also be about satiety when in free form (candy, soda, etc..).
...Why is it only about satiety in free form? Why is it not also about satiety in my donut too?
Wait, failed to notice this bit when responding above. Don't they recommend cutting added sugar? That's the sugar in a donut. The WHO calls it "free sugar," but they mean added sugar plus juice plus honey/syrup/agave nectar, etc. (I just checked, and the AHA indeed seems to follow the pattern and recommend cutting "added sugar," which includes that in a donut. They also recommend keeping sat fat pretty low and fat at 25-35%.)0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »imajollyroger wrote: »Sugar and carbs absolutely make you fat! What do you think beer belly is? There's no fat in beer. The body converts sugar/carbs into fat if it can't utilize it immediately for fuel. Doesn't matter if excess calories. I can run a calorie deficit and gain weight if I consume too many carbs without using them. Sugar and carbs also make you more hungry like eating Chinese food. Your insulin gets high which blocks your satiety signals to your brain. Your body won't burn fat until the glycogen is depleted. First it uses glycogen, then it uses fat as reserve.
That's not accurate on both accounts. You will NEVER gain real weight in a calorie deficit no matter what you eat, and insulin actually signals satiety. You always burn both fat and glycogen no matter what you eat, more fat when you are inactive actually, no matter what you eat. Yes, insulin does trigger fat storage, but the overall result in calorie burn and weight loss is unchanged if you are in an energy deficit because you don't have surplus energy to store as fat.
A low carb diet has its own fat gain mechanisms. These mechanisms may be different and may not require large amounts of insulin, but fat gain happens regardless of how it happens if you are eating too much. Again, You can’t get fatter unless you feed your body more energy than it burns.
Also you cannot generalize your experience with Chinese or carb heavy foods for everyone. I, for one, find starchy carbs pretty satiating.
A side note: protein triggers insulin release as well.
Too much intake of protein triggers insulin release1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »imajollyroger wrote: »Sugar and carbs absolutely make you fat! What do you think beer belly is? There's no fat in beer. The body converts sugar/carbs into fat if it can't utilize it immediately for fuel. Doesn't matter if excess calories. I can run a calorie deficit and gain weight if I consume too many carbs without using them. Sugar and carbs also make you more hungry like eating Chinese food. Your insulin gets high which blocks your satiety signals to your brain. Your body won't burn fat until the glycogen is depleted. First it uses glycogen, then it uses fat as reserve.
That's not accurate on both accounts. You will NEVER gain real weight in a calorie deficit no matter what you eat, and insulin actually signals satiety. You always burn both fat and glycogen no matter what you eat, more fat when you are inactive actually, no matter what you eat. Yes, insulin does trigger fat storage, but the overall result in calorie burn and weight loss is unchanged if you are in an energy deficit because you don't have surplus energy to store as fat.
A low carb diet has its own fat gain mechanisms. These mechanisms may be different and may not require large amounts of insulin, but fat gain happens regardless of how it happens if you are eating too much. Again, You can’t get fatter unless you feed your body more energy than it burns.
Also you cannot generalize your experience with Chinese or carb heavy foods for everyone. I, for one, find starchy carbs pretty satiating.
A side note: protein triggers insulin release as well.
Too much intake of protein triggers insulin release
I strongly suggest you look up why the body releases insulin, because it is a natural part of our biological processes not a wrong thing and of course there is an insulin response to protein intake...there's supposed to be a response
Look up insulin - glucagon how it feeds the body's cells, how it helps build and repair the body's cells
The issue is if you have faults with your insulin levels or processing, which is a medical diagnosis5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »imajollyroger wrote: »Sugar and carbs absolutely make you fat! What do you think beer belly is? There's no fat in beer. The body converts sugar/carbs into fat if it can't utilize it immediately for fuel. Doesn't matter if excess calories. I can run a calorie deficit and gain weight if I consume too many carbs without using them. Sugar and carbs also make you more hungry like eating Chinese food. Your insulin gets high which blocks your satiety signals to your brain. Your body won't burn fat until the glycogen is depleted. First it uses glycogen, then it uses fat as reserve.
That's not accurate on both accounts. You will NEVER gain real weight in a calorie deficit no matter what you eat, and insulin actually signals satiety. You always burn both fat and glycogen no matter what you eat, more fat when you are inactive actually, no matter what you eat. Yes, insulin does trigger fat storage, but the overall result in calorie burn and weight loss is unchanged if you are in an energy deficit because you don't have surplus energy to store as fat.
A low carb diet has its own fat gain mechanisms. These mechanisms may be different and may not require large amounts of insulin, but fat gain happens regardless of how it happens if you are eating too much. Again, You can’t get fatter unless you feed your body more energy than it burns.
Also you cannot generalize your experience with Chinese or carb heavy foods for everyone. I, for one, find starchy carbs pretty satiating.
A side note: protein triggers insulin release as well.
Too much intake of protein triggers insulin release
I strongly suggest you look up why the body releases insulin, because it is a natural part of our biological processes not a wrong thing and of course there is an insulin response to protein intake...there's supposed to be a response
Look up insulin - glucagon how it feeds the body's cells, how it helps build and repair the body's cells
The issue is if you have faults with your insulin levels or processing, which is a medical diagnosis
I just looked up the info on glucagon/ insulin again as you suggested. It's really interesting that they are opposite hormones, insulin reacts to high Blood sugar and is produced in pancreas.
Glycogen reacts to low blood sugar, inciting the body to pull stored sugars out of fat stores for use.
They are very different mechanisms.
I think that if you eat enough foods that give you increased blood sugar, you will make insulin which acts to uptake what the body needs and store the excess as fat.
But if you eat high protein, low carb for long enough which depletes the bloods supply of sugar then your body responds by producing glucagon which pulls glucose out of the fat storehouse.
I don't think eating protein in itself causes an insulin release. I think any foods that cause blood sugar to raise will make the pancreas release insulin.
That's of course if you do not have diabetes T1 then your body doesn't produce insulin and eats away at your fat stores and muscle because of the glucagon response.
Well this is how I understand it. Thanks for encouraging me too look it up. I needed a refresher
Read the link below, it's pretty straight forward
Cheers
http://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/diabetes/normal-regulation-blood-glucose0 -
...I don't think eating protein in itself causes an insulin release. I think any foods that cause blood sugar to raise will make the pancreas release insulin.
No?
Read about a third of the way down the page, under the heading "MYTH: Carbohydrate is Singularly Responsible for Driving Insulin": http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Protein can be just as potent a stimulus for insulin as carbohydrate. Might as well read the rest of the research review while you're there, you may find it enlightening.3 -
...I don't think eating protein in itself causes an insulin release. I think any foods that cause blood sugar to raise will make the pancreas release insulin.
No?
Read about a third of the way down the page, under the heading "MYTH: Carbohydrate is Singularly Responsible for Driving Insulin": http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Protein can be just as potent a stimulus for insulin as carbohydrate. Might as well read the rest of the research review while you're there, you may find it enlightening.
Yes it can be... but only if it's eaten in an excessive amount. Eaten within limits it dies not produce insulin. I'm going to go with the endocrine experts advice. Read the highlighted protein section.
Thanks for the robust discussion
Cheers
0 -
-
Yes it can be... but only if it's eaten in an excessive amount. Eaten within limits it dies not produce insulin. I'm going to go with the endocrine experts advice. Read the highlighted protein section.
Thanks for the robust discussion
Cheers
Since you obviously didn't read the research review, I won't bother continuing the discussion any further.4 -
goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think that sort of thing makes sense on a population level, sure. I think the WHO recommendations do too. I just don't think that means it's about satiety.
If it's not about satiety, what is it? Why are organizations like AHA and WHO suggesting we curtail our sugar consumption? Why the association with adiposity?
Cutting added sugar is an easy way to cutting calories. It may also be about satiety when in free form (candy, soda, etc..).
Cutting any food group is an easy way to cut calories. The AHA didn't come out and say to limit fat consumption in children, or protein consumption. They targeted sugar specifically.
Why is it only about satiety in free form? Why is it not also about satiety in my donut too?
They said to limit fat consumption in the '80s. That didn't work either. Now sugar is the new bogeyman. It's just a matter of time until they find something else to demonize when they realize that while sugar consumption has gone down, the obesity epidemic has continued to increase.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »imajollyroger wrote: »Sugar and carbs absolutely make you fat! What do you think beer belly is? There's no fat in beer. The body converts sugar/carbs into fat if it can't utilize it immediately for fuel. Doesn't matter if excess calories. I can run a calorie deficit and gain weight if I consume too many carbs without using them. Sugar and carbs also make you more hungry like eating Chinese food. Your insulin gets high which blocks your satiety signals to your brain. Your body won't burn fat until the glycogen is depleted. First it uses glycogen, then it uses fat as reserve.
That's not accurate on both accounts. You will NEVER gain real weight in a calorie deficit no matter what you eat, and insulin actually signals satiety. You always burn both fat and glycogen no matter what you eat, more fat when you are inactive actually, no matter what you eat. Yes, insulin does trigger fat storage, but the overall result in calorie burn and weight loss is unchanged if you are in an energy deficit because you don't have surplus energy to store as fat.
A low carb diet has its own fat gain mechanisms. These mechanisms may be different and may not require large amounts of insulin, but fat gain happens regardless of how it happens if you are eating too much. Again, You can’t get fatter unless you feed your body more energy than it burns.
Also you cannot generalize your experience with Chinese or carb heavy foods for everyone. I, for one, find starchy carbs pretty satiating.
A side note: protein triggers insulin release as well.
Too much intake of protein triggers insulin release
You really need to do more research on the subject. Insulin is released by protein because insulin and it's associated IGF-1 are part of the cells growth and regeneration signaling. Insulin is not bad, it's necessary and it's anabolic.
If you look at this article you'll see that 50g of protein alone gives a similar insulin response as 50g only of carbohydrates and if you give them together you get an increase in insulin response. If you look at the insulin index you'll notice that beef has a higher index than white rice or white pasta and whole grains.4 -
...I don't think eating protein in itself causes an insulin release. I think any foods that cause blood sugar to raise will make the pancreas release insulin.
No?
Read about a third of the way down the page, under the heading "MYTH: Carbohydrate is Singularly Responsible for Driving Insulin": http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Protein can be just as potent a stimulus for insulin as carbohydrate. Might as well read the rest of the research review while you're there, you may find it enlightening.
Yes it can be... but only if it's eaten in an excessive amount. Eaten within limits it dies not produce insulin. I'm going to go with the endocrine experts advice. Read the highlighted protein section.
Thanks for the robust discussion
Cheers
It's talking about blood sugar, not insulin. That's not interchangable words.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think that sort of thing makes sense on a population level, sure. I think the WHO recommendations do too. I just don't think that means it's about satiety.
If it's not about satiety, what is it? Why are organizations like AHA and WHO suggesting we curtail our sugar consumption? Why the association with adiposity?
Cutting added sugar is an easy way to cutting calories. It may also be about satiety when in free form (candy, soda, etc..).
Cutting any food group is an easy way to cut calories. The AHA didn't come out and say to limit fat consumption in children, or protein consumption. They targeted sugar specifically.
Why is it only about satiety in free form? Why is it not also about satiety in my donut too?
Cutting added sugar results in mostly cutting snack foods and sweetened beverages and also results in cutting fat. (As I keep mentioning, the only sweet treats that interest me a bit tend to be half fat, and I don't think I'm unusual in this.) I happen to think the focus on sugar is a little unbalanced (I doubt chips or fries are more satiating on average), but it's true that sweet tends to be particularly appealing to kids, it's an easy thing to focus on since it is so clearly targeted at snacky stuff/dessert, not foods that could be part of a main meal (as potatoes are, for example, or oils), and reducing sugar probably does affect the palate for some (although I've never had the issue some claim of being unable to taste sweetness in fruits and veg or appreciate non sweet food -- that always seemed weird to me.)
The WHO and Dietary Guidelines and probably the AHA, although I'm less familiar with those, also recommends limiting sat fat, so it's not true that it only focuses on sugar. (Same with the Harvard Nutrition recs.)
Somehow, in my mind yesterday, the fact that they limited only sat fat rather than limiting fats overall was very meaningful, but I've lost my own train of thought. This morning the best I can do is to draw parallels to sat fat as the bogeyman of fats and sugar as the bogeyman of carbs.
You have a delightful style in that you address each point in a post, so that I feel I have been heard. When I'm pecking away on my phone or my ipad I just can't manage that. In fact, lots of times, it's not just about keyboarding, my brain just doesn't want to address everything. So kudos.
I like fats added to sugars too. I like hard candies too, but the attraction isn't as great as when there's a fat involved. Feels like that could be meaningful but I don't know how.
I suspect that chips are slightly more satiating, but I do agree that all high calorie/low nutrient foods are a problem when overconsumed. In fact I had a bit of an epiphany last night such that I'm more accepting of the idea that across the population the focus on sugar as the most important factor in obesity is unbalanced.
Two things led to this epiphany. First, I saw a couple discussions about hunger/appetite cues that broadened the topic to include things a whole bunch of other things, like time of day etc. I know this is what you (and others) have been saying all along, it just registered more at that moment. One of them was in a discussion of sugar addiction where the authors said that one of their concerns with creating a classification for sugar specifically was that it encouraged too narrow a view of a more complex problem. (There were lots of others too, I'm hoping not to wander off into an addiction discussion). The other was in the discussion of a study or two relating to glycemic index.
I'm pretty sure I have read something you posted at some time that said glycemic index isn't nearly as meaningful as glycemic load. To me this all relates to the discussion of sugar and appetite, but if it gets too far off base I may go looking for a thread that discusses GI/GL specifically.
I have some thoughts I would like to explore (on my own or ideally with others) based upon what I'm reading in this study:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/142/1/27/T1.expansion.html
I invite you to have a look if you have a moment. Basically I'm looking for evidence that there are groups of people who respond more strongly to high GI foods.lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think that sort of thing makes sense on a population level, sure. I think the WHO recommendations do too. I just don't think that means it's about satiety.
If it's not about satiety, what is it? Why are organizations like AHA and WHO suggesting we curtail our sugar consumption? Why the association with adiposity?
Cutting added sugar is an easy way to cutting calories. It may also be about satiety when in free form (candy, soda, etc..).
...Why is it only about satiety in free form? Why is it not also about satiety in my donut too?
Wait, failed to notice this bit when responding above. Don't they recommend cutting added sugar? That's the sugar in a donut. The WHO calls it "free sugar," but they mean added sugar plus juice plus honey/syrup/agave nectar, etc. (I just checked, and the AHA indeed seems to follow the pattern and recommend cutting "added sugar," which includes that in a donut. They also recommend keeping sat fat pretty low and fat at 25-35%.)
This was just a direct response to psulemon, perhaps better phrased as "I disagree that it is only about free form sugar (candy/soda etc)".1 -
goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think that sort of thing makes sense on a population level, sure. I think the WHO recommendations do too. I just don't think that means it's about satiety.
If it's not about satiety, what is it? Why are organizations like AHA and WHO suggesting we curtail our sugar consumption? Why the association with adiposity?
Cutting added sugar is an easy way to cutting calories. It may also be about satiety when in free form (candy, soda, etc..).
Cutting any food group is an easy way to cut calories. The AHA didn't come out and say to limit fat consumption in children, or protein consumption. They targeted sugar specifically.
Why is it only about satiety in free form? Why is it not also about satiety in my donut too?
They said to limit fat consumption in the '80s. That didn't work either. Now sugar is the new bogeyman. It's just a matter of time until they find something else to demonize when they realize that while sugar consumption has gone down, the obesity epidemic has continued to increase.
Lol. I just realized I had skimmed before replying and subsequently used your "bogeyman" in my earlier reply. I hate when that happens. Like when I post an encouraging remark to one of my friends and then see that someone posted the exact same phrase above.
This argument (sugar is the new bogeyman) had been lost on me previously. Just because science got too focussed on fat consumption previously didn't mean that they were wrong about emphasizing sugar now. In my mind, there was a strong association between the consumption of high levels of sugar and obesity that was not just meaningful, but MOST meaningful. I'm softening in stance a bit. For me, sugar is always involved in weight gain, but I'm willing to admit that it might not be for everyone else.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think that sort of thing makes sense on a population level, sure. I think the WHO recommendations do too. I just don't think that means it's about satiety.
If it's not about satiety, what is it? Why are organizations like AHA and WHO suggesting we curtail our sugar consumption? Why the association with adiposity?
Cutting added sugar is an easy way to cutting calories. It may also be about satiety when in free form (candy, soda, etc..).
Cutting any food group is an easy way to cut calories. The AHA didn't come out and say to limit fat consumption in children, or protein consumption. They targeted sugar specifically.
Why is it only about satiety in free form? Why is it not also about satiety in my donut too?
They said to limit fat consumption in the '80s. That didn't work either. Now sugar is the new bogeyman. It's just a matter of time until they find something else to demonize when they realize that while sugar consumption has gone down, the obesity epidemic has continued to increase.
Lol. I just realized I had skimmed before replying and subsequently used your "bogeyman" in my earlier reply. I hate when that happens. Like when I post an encouraging remark to one of my friends and then see that someone posted the exact same phrase above.
This argument (sugar is the new bogeyman) had been lost on me previously. Just because science got too focussed on fat consumption previously didn't mean that they were wrong about emphasizing sugar now. In my mind, there was a strong association between the consumption of high levels of sugar and obesity that was not just meaningful, but MOST meaningful. I'm softening in stance a bit. For me, sugar is always involved in weight gain, but I'm willing to admit that it might not be for everyone else.
That's a good thing to admit. For you, most of your weight gain revolved around high calorie foods that happened to have sugar in them, and most of my weight gain (up to super obesity level) involved around high calorie foods that happened to have lots of fat in them with hardly any sugar, but if you take a look at some of the "naturally thin" people you will notice they can have no problems eating high sugar or high fat foods because they autonomously self-regulate the quantity. I have seen many stick-thin children who basically live on sugary treats and stay thin. The issue is not a particular food or macro, the issue is how natural self-regulation of energy varies among people.6 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »imajollyroger wrote: »Sugar and carbs absolutely make you fat! What do you think beer belly is? There's no fat in beer. The body converts sugar/carbs into fat if it can't utilize it immediately for fuel. Doesn't matter if excess calories. I can run a calorie deficit and gain weight if I consume too many carbs without using them. Sugar and carbs also make you more hungry like eating Chinese food. Your insulin gets high which blocks your satiety signals to your brain. Your body won't burn fat until the glycogen is depleted. First it uses glycogen, then it uses fat as reserve.
That's not accurate on both accounts. You will NEVER gain real weight in a calorie deficit no matter what you eat, and insulin actually signals satiety. You always burn both fat and glycogen no matter what you eat, more fat when you are inactive actually, no matter what you eat. Yes, insulin does trigger fat storage, but the overall result in calorie burn and weight loss is unchanged if you are in an energy deficit because you don't have surplus energy to store as fat.
A low carb diet has its own fat gain mechanisms. These mechanisms may be different and may not require large amounts of insulin, but fat gain happens regardless of how it happens if you are eating too much. Again, You can’t get fatter unless you feed your body more energy than it burns.
Also you cannot generalize your experience with Chinese or carb heavy foods for everyone. I, for one, find starchy carbs pretty satiating.
A side note: protein triggers insulin release as well.
Too much intake of protein triggers insulin release
You really need to do more research on the subject. Insulin is released by protein because insulin and it's associated IGF-1 are part of the cells growth and regeneration signaling. Insulin is not bad, it's necessary and it's anabolic.
If you look at this article you'll see that 50g of protein alone gives a similar insulin response as 50g only of carbohydrates and if you give them together you get an increase in insulin response. If you look at the insulin index you'll notice that beef has a higher index than white rice or white pasta and whole grains.
Hmm, the study I was trying to link in didn't show up for some reason and now (at work) I can't locate it. Essentially, it was primary research that showed that 50g of protein and 50g of glucose had very similar insulin release and that when you combine the two together there is a large synergistic effect that releases much more insulin than the two added together would have been expected to achieve.0 -
the amount of misinformation on these boards is frightening...3
-
the amount of misinformation on these boards is frightening...
The amount of misinformation in diet box, diet blogs, websites the media etc is even more frightening. I don't think people put too much stock on a few posts but books and documentaries have the appearance of legitimate authority even though so many are just completely inane.
11 -
goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think that sort of thing makes sense on a population level, sure. I think the WHO recommendations do too. I just don't think that means it's about satiety.
If it's not about satiety, what is it? Why are organizations like AHA and WHO suggesting we curtail our sugar consumption? Why the association with adiposity?
Cutting added sugar is an easy way to cutting calories. It may also be about satiety when in free form (candy, soda, etc..).
Cutting any food group is an easy way to cut calories. The AHA didn't come out and say to limit fat consumption in children, or protein consumption. They targeted sugar specifically.
Why is it only about satiety in free form? Why is it not also about satiety in my donut too?
They said to limit fat consumption in the '80s. That didn't work either. Now sugar is the new bogeyman. It's just a matter of time until they find something else to demonize when they realize that while sugar consumption has gone down, the obesity epidemic has continued to increase.
Lol. I just realized I had skimmed before replying and subsequently used your "bogeyman" in my earlier reply. I hate when that happens. Like when I post an encouraging remark to one of my friends and then see that someone posted the exact same phrase above.
This argument (sugar is the new bogeyman) had been lost on me previously. Just because science got too focussed on fat consumption previously didn't mean that they were wrong about emphasizing sugar now. In my mind, there was a strong association between the consumption of high levels of sugar and obesity that was not just meaningful, but MOST meaningful. I'm softening in stance a bit. For me, sugar is always involved in weight gain, but I'm willing to admit that it might not be for everyone else.
Well if you look at a lot of the science, it's not concentrated on sugars, but only added sugars, but constraining calorie is still a must. I believe the overall strategy of the governments of our world is to identify easy ways to support caloric restriction. Also, many of the strongly correlated studies on sugar and obesity are still as result of the easiness to acquire calories. Because how often do you hear about people getting fat from fruits (which are largely sugar).1 -
ok so I've tried a lil experiment on myself a number of times.
I will eat the same cals = 2100
One week with high protein, low carbs...I will be about 1 lb lighter and not hungry at night
One week high carbs and sugar (chocolate for lunch yum)...I will be about 2 lbs heavier and very hungry at night.
Why would this be if I'm eating the same amount of calories?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions