Weight loss woo keeps getting worse.
Options
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks?
(If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
Thanks. I'll take a look. You are pretty active. Was that the case as you were in deficit? I don't know that diet breaks would have made your NEAT any higher. I think they primarily make the process of fat loss more efficient and less taxing, both hormonally and psychologically. The effects on leptin when we go into deficit take place fairly soon, within a few days but bounce back fairly quickly.0 -
-
Interesting. Possibly indicative that exercise helps stave off the effects. Would have like it if they referenced to BMR instead of TDEE. I think that would have taken out a variable.stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
Thanks. I'll take a look. You are pretty active. Was that the case as you were in deficit? I don't know that diet breaks would have made your NEAT any higher. I think they primarily make the process of fat loss more efficient and less taxing, both hormonally and psychologically. The effects on leptin when we go into deficit take place fairly soon, within a few days but bounce back fairly quickly.
On the exercise front, active before deficit while obese (for around 10 years), active during deficit, active since. Exercise volume/type hasn't changed much. On the daily activity front (i.e. non-exercise), mostly sedentary throughout.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
This post suggested 6 months - 7 years for it to "heal", if I'm remembering correctly: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
One of the problems with a lot of the research on AT which led to the findings at the higher end is that the participants in them were on extreme deficits.
I looked into this extensively when I first started dieting and had a lot of difficulty finding research on subjects who had dieted with a reasonable deficit and lost weight slowly while taking diet breaks to see if there was a difference.
Given that we don't see people in the maintenance subforum complaining en masse about drastically reduced intakes vs. expected, I always wondered about the data.5 -
Interesting. Possibly indicative that exercise helps stave off the effects. Would have like it if they referenced to BMR instead of TDEE. I think that would have taken out a variable.stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
IIRC, there was a study somewhere with exercise mitigating AT. Brain fuzziness happening at the moment. But yes, it is a thing and a controlled study was done.2 -
sytchequeen wrote: »I get these things on my pinterest all the time. They make me giggle. All you need to have epic poop is spend some quality time on prescription morphine! (trust me... I had to fight them with a stick) tmi, I know.
You must have had a one off reaction.... opioids constipate. Or maybe that's what you meant, that when you are finally able to poop, it's HUGE.1 -
walktalkdog wrote: »
Short for woo-woo, which as far as anyone can tell, comes from the spooky music in a sci-fi show, or maybe from ghosts, or maybe just the noise made by a self-styled-shaman hippie dancing naked around a camp fire at the full moon summoning his spirit animal.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Interesting. Possibly indicative that exercise helps stave off the effects. Would have like it if they referenced to BMR instead of TDEE. I think that would have taken out a variable.stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
IIRC, there was a study somewhere with exercise mitigating AT. Brain fuzziness happening at the moment. But yes, it is a thing and a controlled study was done.
He was replying to a comment that linked one. 0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »walktalkdog wrote: »
Short for woo-woo, which as far as anyone can tell, comes from the spooky music in a sci-fi show, or maybe from ghosts, or maybe just the noise made by a self-styled-shaman hippie dancing naked around a camp fire at the full moon summoning his spirit animal.
Haha not quite!
It's either woo like "yay! woo-hoo!" or woo like "diet-woo" which is sometimes a way to show that you disagree with what was said.
I like yours a LOT better though!1 -
rachelr1116 wrote: »I blame Pinterest for all the crazy things my friend has tried to get me to do to lose weight. She swears that some turmeric drink concoction is magical. And when I told her I'd gained about 15 lbs because I'd stopped tracking my calories she said "no, you just need to poop, you're just bloated." I wish I'd taken a picture of her face when I said "No, I'm not bloated. It is fat, I can feel my butt and my stomach jiggle and that isn't bloat." because anytime she gains weight she swears she's just bloated and all she needs to do is drink some kombucha.
WOW a 15 pile of poop, that'll clog up the toilet1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Interesting. Possibly indicative that exercise helps stave off the effects. Would have like it if they referenced to BMR instead of TDEE. I think that would have taken out a variable.stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
IIRC, there was a study somewhere with exercise mitigating AT. Brain fuzziness happening at the moment. But yes, it is a thing and a controlled study was done.
He was replying to a comment that linked one.
That wasn't the one I was thinking of, though 2 -
-
livenfree45 wrote: »rachelr1116 wrote: »I blame Pinterest for all the crazy things my friend has tried to get me to do to lose weight. She swears that some turmeric drink concoction is magical. And when I told her I'd gained about 15 lbs because I'd stopped tracking my calories she said "no, you just need to poop, you're just bloated." I wish I'd taken a picture of her face when I said "No, I'm not bloated. It is fat, I can feel my butt and my stomach jiggle and that isn't bloat." because anytime she gains weight she swears she's just bloated and all she needs to do is drink some kombucha.
WOW a 15 pile of poop, that'll clog up the toilet
Where can I get some of that stuff that makes you poop 15 pounds. 3 times and I am done!5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »YepItsKriss wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Side note my aunts back at it. Today she told me she reworked the public school snack program to chocolate chip granola bars and mini sugary cereal boxes with milk off of fresh apples and sandwiches because their lower calorie and shes fighting the obesity problem. By swapping apples for chocolate granola bars. Funnily they are 150-200 calorie bars. The apples they had been using were around 90 calories. Her logic just dumbfounds me
edited to wonder if shell be putting butter on their granola bars
Lol.. Those 60 to 120 calories less will definitely make a huge impact.. Cause it was the granola bars and not the possibility of the parents over feeding them at home. Apple's will totally make a difference
If I understood, aunt is eliminating apples for granola bars. Not vice versa.
that lol0 -
Sorry to report....did the Norovirus cleanse for a couple of days but have regained all the weight. Tried, tested and failed.
Next please?!1 -
iamthemotherofdogs wrote: »I have a patient who came in here letting us know how she lost her weight by just cutting out anything but leafy greens, citrus fruits, and hot tea.
She tried to give me a print-out about it. I wish I'd taken it.
Don’t you love getting expert advice from patients? Had a extremely overweight gentleman yesterday who INSISTED he had put on 6 pounds since I last saw him because he has been going to the gym once a week to use the treadmill for half an hour....so must have gained 6 pounds of muscle (in three weeks) from his brisk walking!
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions