Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »“In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. Here’s how it happened:
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan’s transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
One of Hayes’ first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI’s recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”
It scares me.
Yes, I realize there are lots of things on the internet that are written in such a way as to scare you in order to get those clicks. For what it is worth I am sorry that this particular op-ed article scared you. That is why I made this post in the first place. Is there anything I actually said in this post that you disagree with?
Also if you are going to copy paste from an article you should include a link to that article so people know your source and so that the original source gets the appropriate credit. In this case an Op-Ed written in the "Blog" section of HuffPost India written by a " music, author, educator,bodyboarder, orchardist and piano/keyboard enthusiast"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
Pounding out a quick Op-Ed and getting it published on the internet on a website that publishes Op-Eds is not hard to do and they don't vet or check sources. I know because I've done it.
Everything in the timeline is true. Tge people, their titles, the FDA reports. I didn’t include the author’s opinion.
The credit part got cut accidentally due to difficulty maneuvering around a tiny phone screen with a big finger.
9 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »“In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. Here’s how it happened:
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan’s transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
One of Hayes’ first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI’s recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”
It scares me.
Your conspiracy theories still don't trump the science...
It’s a timeline of events - Time isn’t a conspiracy theory.
Rumsfeld’s not going down in history as an honest and ethical man, anyway.
Read this thread from the beginning.
No.14 -
9
-
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »Everything in the timeline is true.
This part is very misleading and untrue:and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals
The idea that aspartame "sickened and killed thousands of animals" isn't true....that would be the fear-mongering bit....probably why it was written to just be implied.12 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »“In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. Here’s how it happened:
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan’s transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
One of Hayes’ first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI’s recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”
It scares me.
Yes, I realize there are lots of things on the internet that are written in such a way as to scare you in order to get those clicks. For what it is worth I am sorry that this particular op-ed article scared you. That is why I made this post in the first place. Is there anything I actually said in this post that you disagree with?
Also if you are going to copy paste from an article you should include a link to that article so people know your source and so that the original source gets the appropriate credit. In this case an Op-Ed written in the "Blog" section of HuffPost India written by a " music, author, educator,bodyboarder, orchardist and piano/keyboard enthusiast"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
Pounding out a quick Op-Ed and getting it published on the internet on a website that publishes Op-Eds is not hard to do and they don't vet or check sources. I know because I've done it.
What in the *kitten* have we come to when people are basing scientific opinions on op-ed pieces from a pianist in the Huffington Post?6 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »“In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. Here’s how it happened:
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan’s transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
One of Hayes’ first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI’s recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”
It scares me.
Your conspiracy theories still don't trump the science...
It’s a timeline of events - Time isn’t a conspiracy theory.
Rumsfeld’s not going down in history as an honest and ethical man, anyway.
Read this thread from the beginning.
No.
So, no reason to take you seriously then.
Sounds good.
8 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »“In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. Here’s how it happened:
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan’s transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
One of Hayes’ first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI’s recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”
It scares me.
Yes, I realize there are lots of things on the internet that are written in such a way as to scare you in order to get those clicks. For what it is worth I am sorry that this particular op-ed article scared you. That is why I made this post in the first place. Is there anything I actually said in this post that you disagree with?
Also if you are going to copy paste from an article you should include a link to that article so people know your source and so that the original source gets the appropriate credit. In this case an Op-Ed written in the "Blog" section of HuffPost India written by a " music, author, educator,bodyboarder, orchardist and piano/keyboard enthusiast"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
Pounding out a quick Op-Ed and getting it published on the internet on a website that publishes Op-Eds is not hard to do and they don't vet or check sources. I know because I've done it.
Everything in the timeline is true. Tge people, their titles, the FDA reports. I didn’t include the author’s opinion.
The credit part got cut accidentally due to difficulty maneuvering around a tiny phone screen with a big finger.
I don't question the accuracy of the historical timeline of aspartame FDA approval....not because I know it is accurate but rather because I don't know enough about it to comment nor, frankly, do I care all that much because it isn't directly relevant to whether or not aspartame is safe. That said if I wanted to know the justifications and history of the approval process I'd probably want to read something from a disinterested source who has a full understanding of the scientific study methodology and the FDA approval process, not an OP-ed from a musician who clearly views aspartame to be dangerous. Regardless I don't see how it is important in evaluating the actual safety of aspartame which would come down to the scientific study results as well as the relation aspartame has to other common food-stuffs which is what I covered in my post here.9 -
Just going to pop in here some more science behind not just aspartame but other nutritional sweeteners
https://youtu.be/FKciZz3hfVc 4 -
Just going to pop in here some more science behind not just aspartame but other nutritional sweetenershttps://youtu.be/FKciZz3hfVc
I watched the video up through the aspartame part and it is pretty spot on in my opinion.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Just going to pop in here some more science behind not just aspartame but other nutritional sweetenershttps://youtu.be/FKciZz3hfVc
I watched the video up through the aspartame part and it is pretty spot on in my opinion.
The synopsis of the others.. if you eat within the ADI standards, then there is no evidence to suggest it will cause any harm. And the only animals models that demonstrated otherwises were insane dosage... About the equivalent of 40 cans of soda a day.1 -
Story Time rant-bump!
So I was having a conversation with friends the other day. I admitted that I made the switch from regular high calorie soda's to *GASP* aspartame containing diet soda! You would think I told them I kick puppies for fun! I was scolded about the deadly effects of aspartame and how it "builds in your system" and killz you! I was told a deadly tale of how a beloved family member DIED from drinking diet soda! (Not kidding that is what they said) The guy drank a dozen a day for decades... I'm not saying that's what got the guy... But he could have been PKU and didn't know it. Or it could have been something else entirely.
All I could do was concede the fact I try to not buy too much aspartame containing stuff, since my husband is actually PKU and reacts negatively to aspartame anyways.. They would not accept that the occasional diet soda really wont, in fact kill me. Actually, Splenda the (more accepted alternative) makes me feel more thirsty, and aspartame doesn't. Not sure what's going on with that. Just throwing that out there.
In the spirit of squashing misinformation, and hopefully converting a few people over to the aspartame consuming dark side,( we have calorie free beverages). I'm bumping this thread, lol. . New readers please read the 1st page! It's the most important page to read if you read any at all.7 -
The guy drank a dozen a day for decades... I'm not saying that's what got the guy... But he could have been PKU and didn't know it. Or it could have been something else entirely.
Not sure what this guy died from - but he certainly did not have PKU and not know it.
PKU is a genetic disease diagnosed in infancy and people with it have to stick to an EXTREMELY limited diet for life.
They 'react negatively' (as in suffer irreparable brain damage) to all protein forms not just aspartame
( as you surely know if your husband has it??)
5 -
Well, he was tested for it as a baby and it came up positive. He's been told to avoid aspartame his whole life, and if he consumes it, it makes him feel like crap. What I've read about PKU is that there are less severe forms of it where the body has retained some ability to process phenylalanine. So unless the testing for it in the US is faulty and comes up with false negatives, yes. I am sure he has it. He Just not the form where he can't consume any protein containing phenylalanine without getting sick. I'm not sure when testing babies for PKU became a requirement/ in the US. So that's why I was thinking the guy mentioned above could have maybe had a mild form of it without realizing it. Therefor it could have possibly slowly built up in his body at a faster rate then his body had the ability to processes out. Or it was something completely unrelated to his diet soda consumption (more likely), which is why my friends comment irked be about my occasional diet soda.2
-
I'd have to think if he was ok with drinking a dozen of any kind of soda (diet or otherwise) a day, the rest of his nutrition might not have been stellar.5
-
I got curious and did some googling. Because, When I look up PKU I often wonder why we're told the doctor's said he tested positive, yet he can eat any protein with no ill effect. It's just aspartame that makes him feel bad.
I found an interesting article about the history of testing for it. I'm not sure how it was done in the late 80's. Maybe he did have a false posative, or a higher then normal, but not definativly PKU reading? Or they got crap advice from the doc that tested for it, and he should have been avoiding protien this whole time? He and all his siblings have been diagnosed with some type of mood disorder with varying severities (mild to moderate) at some point in thier lives. Could it be PKU related? (as it is genetic) Or just a coincidence? I'm kind of perplexed now. Maybe someone a little more knowlegeble then I may come to the rescue and offer some insight, lol.
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/guthrie-test-early-diagnosis-phenylketonuria
1 -
@pinuplove I tend to agree on that one. Anyways pretty much anything in excess cannot be good for you. Or so I believe. It seems (key word here) to be that so many anecdotal claims of X Y or Z being "toxic" tends to be related to consuming the product in question in excessive amounts. I'm not saying that about aspartame, or anything really. It's just when I read one of those mommy blogs about things like that, I like to look into it. I then find the case they are making their whole fear mongering blog out of , and find that the person/ case in question consumed or used that product regularly, and in excess for decades. The one that comes to mind is the case against Johnson & Johnson for their baby powder causing cancer. The woman used baby powder on her genitals daily for decades. To my knowledge they have studied normal use (powdering a few baby bums, or occasional adult use) and can not find a correlation to cancer.1
-
Now I feel sorry for Sprague-Dawley rats...2
-
Honestly the amount of phenylalanine in a diet soda that contains aspartame is so low that I doubt it would actually have that much negative affect on someone with PKU relative to say just eating protein in general. I'm not saying they shouldn't avoid it, they should avoid any unnecessary sources of phenyalanine and aspartame containing diet soda drinks certainly qualifies as something to that is unnecessary. That said I strongly doubt drinking diet soda would kill someone with PKU, they are going to get substantially more phenylalanine from the protein in their diet that they need to be eating.
Protein contains on average about 4% phenylalanine
(see Section 5 Amino Acid Composition for the protein database)
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/uniprot/TrEMBLstats
Now not all amino acids weigh the same but they aren't all that different in weight and for sake of ease of calculation I'm going to assume they all weigh the same. That means that 100 grams of protein has roughly 4 grams of phenylalanine in it.
How much phenylalanine is in 1 can of an aspartame containing diet soda? Diet Coke has the most and that has 125mg.
Aspartame is by weight about 50% phenylalanine so 62.5 mg of the 125 mg of aspartame in a can of diet coke is phenylalanine.
(see my OP for reference)
What that means is that if your diet has 100 grams of protein in it then the amount of phenylalanine you get from that is equivalent to 64 cans of diet coke. As far as phenylalanine is concerned drinking a diet coke is like taking a bite of chicken.
So even for someone with PKU a can of diet coke a day isn't really going to influence how much phenylalanine they are getting overall...although as I said they should still avoid it.
EDIT: Here is a clinical trial that demonstrates that diet soda consumption didn't really affect phenyalalnine plasma levels in PKU patients. So yeah, no real sign that it causes a problem although for emphasis probably safer to avoid anyways because there is at least a reason to avoid it in principle.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16178639 -
Interesting... I'm still perplexed as to why my hubby got told he was PKU... and why he does not react negatively to eating protein. Because what you posted supports what I've read about it. A piece of chicken has way more phenylalanine in it then a can of diet coke. I'm guessing he must have had a positive test for it, but no follow up testing? That kind of boggles my mind a bit. If it is such a serious disease (of which I'm not questioning), then I wonder why no one followed up with it, or even informed my MIL what being PKU entails? Supposedly she was told she had it too. She was presenting with a series of symptoms at the time (including mood and mental type symptoms) that I believe brought about the PKU diagnosis. She was told to quit drinking diet drinks, and she quit them cold turkey. She has likened the experience to coming off of drugs and claims to have actually been addicted, and went through withdrawals coming off of diet soda. Like mood swings, body pains, feeling sick, the whole bit. All the while probably eating plenty of meat along the way.
Please don't woo me on this, this is just the story I've been told, and I realize it's purely anecdotal. I'm still of the belief that there is no reason to avoid it unless you have a negative reaction to it. (Like with any food really). Instead of a woo, please tell me why you disagree with my POV. I really try not to spread misinformation or pass anecdotal claims as facts. But I do like the opportunity to learn more from different points of view.
I'm just confused about why on earth would doctors say "Ma'am, you and your baby have tested positive for a potentially life threatening disease that will alter the way you eat for the rest of your life." And was not given any other information other then to "avoid aspartame". Then again they could have had a quack with old or poor information. My hubby and his family have a history of getting some of the quackiest health care professionals I have ever heard of. OR Maybe they could have misinterpreted what they were told too.. I don't know...0 -
Crafty_camper123 wrote: »Interesting... I'm still perplexed as to why my hubby got told he was PKU... and why he does not react negatively to eating protein. Because what you posted supports what I've read about it. A piece of chicken has way more phenylalanine in it then a can of diet coke. I'm guessing he must have had a positive test for it, but no follow up testing? That kind of boggles my mind a bit. If it is such a serious disease (of which I'm not questioning), then I wonder why no one followed up with it, or even informed my MIL what being PKU entails? Supposedly she was told she had it too. She was presenting with a series of symptoms at the time (including mood and mental type symptoms) that I believe brought about the PKU diagnosis. She was told to quit drinking diet drinks, and she quit them cold turkey. She has likened the experience to coming off of drugs and claims to have actually been addicted, and went through withdrawals coming off of diet soda. Like mood swings, body pains, feeling sick, the whole bit. All the while probably eating plenty of meat along the way.
Please don't woo me on this, this is just the story I've been told, and I realize it's purely anecdotal. I'm still of the belief that there is no reason to avoid it unless you have a negative reaction to it. (Like with any food really). Instead of a woo, please tell me why you disagree with my POV. I really try not to spread misinformation or pass anecdotal claims as facts. But I do like the opportunity to learn more from different points of view.
I'm just confused about why on earth would doctors say "Ma'am, you and your baby have tested positive for a potentially life threatening disease that will alter the way you eat for the rest of your life." And was not given any other information other then to "avoid aspartame". Then again they could have had a quack with old or poor information. My hubby and his family have a history of getting some of the quackiest health care professionals I have ever heard of. OR Maybe they could have misinterpreted what they were told too.. I don't know...
I have nothing to add to any of this conversation, but I wanted to just say... don't take the woo so personally. Some people seem to think it's a positive thing, others use it to show that they dislike a post (not necessarily the same as disagreement), others use it just because they don't like the poster (my woos have doubled in the last week and many on very innocuous posts, I assumed I angered someone somewhere), and some do it just because they are cowardly and don't have any interest in actual discourse, they just want to be disagreeable.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions