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.
Unpopular opinions
Replies
-
youcantflexcardio wrote: »What unpopular/controversial opinions do you have regarding fitness/exercise/food? No BS broscience, just things that other people find harsh/do not necessarily agree with. It's better if you can back these opinions up with some sort of decent argument. I'll start, I've got a couple I wholeheartedly believe.
Unpopular opinion: Food is fuel, not therapy.
Argument - food is about giving your body what it needs, not what your brain craves. The occasional cheat is ok and mentally healthy, but the bulk of what a person consumes should be for a purpose; weight loss, weight gain, maintenence, hit macro goals, stay within calorie goals, hit micro goals, and try to fill all nutritional gaps. This is not to say you can't eat foods you enjoy and occasionally cheat, but that one should make a conscious effort to give the body what it needs with good, quality food.
Unpopular opinion: Walking is not exercise
Argument - this one is probably the most controversial of my beliefs. I do not believe walking is true exercise. Walking is good - and is a lot better than nothing, but walking does not fall into the same intensity category as things like running, cycling, swimming, weightlifting, etc. A lot of this belief stems from the quote "The human body was not designed for a sedentary lifestyle, it evolved to walk 40 miles a day and hunt saber tooth tigers". I hold that quote to be true...humans are bipedal - walking is what we evolved as our main mode of transportation. True exercise pushes the limits - walking is good and everyone should make an effort to walk more, but it is not enough on it's own to qualify a person as more than sedentary or lightly active at best.
What opinions do you have that might seem harsh or controversial?
I agree with you on point #1.
Point #2 I completely disagree with. Sure, walking is not as intense as running or cycling but power walking is my main form of cardio (I lift 3 -4 times per week and do yoga at least once per week). I walk 8 - 9 miles per walk and it takes me 2 hours or less. I aim for 50 miles per month minimum but in Nov. I walked over 80 miles.
I don't think that will change your mindset regarding walking nor am I trying to, but I am well aware that runners, cyclists, etc. are regarded as serious athletes and walkers are dismissed so I promote it any chance I get.22 -
My unpopular opinion?
We don't actually need 2 threads about unpopular opinions. 3 if you count the one in the food forum.25 -
Same here. And I also had gasoline-powered ride-on toys (go-karts and dirt bikes), and a video game console too, no less! And I ate like a horse - but was skinny as a rail. Go figure.When I was a kid I'd love to spend hours and hours sitting on the couch reading.
Exactly. In addition to being an avid reader and having ride-on toys, I also played baseball, football, basketball, raced bicycles, rode skateboards, bodysurfed, swam (at the pool and beach), etc. My overall lifestyle was very balanced between sedentary/resting activities and being active.janejellyroll wrote: »I don't see how a battery-operated ride-on toy "encourages" obesity any more than a toy/activity that encourages a child to stay in one place (like a dollhouse or a book or a bunch of crayons). It's all about the overall lifestyle of the child, not any single toy.
Its just the same old tired attempt of trying to point to any one thing in particular to blame for the obesity epidemic. If its not battery powered cars, its video games, or carbs, or sugar. God forbid people enjoy any of these things in moderation and practice balance in their lives in terms of overall activity such as you(and my daughters, and I) did.14 -
Or half a dozen threads about how BMI is not relevant started by people who believe they are outliers.35 -
Or half a dozen threads about how BMI is not relevant started by people who believe they are outliers.
Or one of the several dozen threads about "eating clean."17 -
youcantflexcardio wrote: »What unpopular/controversial opinions do you have regarding fitness/exercise/food? No BS broscience, just things that other people find harsh/do not necessarily agree with. It's better if you can back these opinions up with some sort of decent argument. I'll start, I've got a couple I wholeheartedly believe.
Unpopular opinion: Food is fuel, not therapy.
Argument - food is about giving your body what it needs, not what your brain craves. The occasional cheat is ok and mentally healthy, but the bulk of what a person consumes should be for a purpose; weight loss, weight gain, maintenence, hit macro goals, stay within calorie goals, hit micro goals, and try to fill all nutritional gaps. This is not to say you can't eat foods you enjoy and occasionally cheat, but that one should make a conscious effort to give the body what it needs with good, quality food.
Unpopular opinion: Walking is not exercise
Argument - this one is probably the most controversial of my beliefs. I do not believe walking is true exercise. Walking is good - and is a lot better than nothing, but walking does not fall into the same intensity category as things like running, cycling, swimming, weightlifting, etc. A lot of this belief stems from the quote "The human body was not designed for a sedentary lifestyle, it evolved to walk 40 miles a day and hunt saber tooth tigers". I hold that quote to be true...humans are bipedal - walking is what we evolved as our main mode of transportation. True exercise pushes the limits - walking is good and everyone should make an effort to walk more, but it is not enough on it's own to qualify a person as more than sedentary or lightly active at best.
What opinions do you have that might seem harsh or controversial?
I agree with you on point #1.
Point #2 I completely disagree with. Sure, walking is not as intense as running or cycling but power walking is my main form of cardio (I lift 3 -4 times per week and do yoga at least once per week). I walk 8 - 9 miles per walk and it takes me 2 hours or less. I aim for 50 miles per month minimum but in Nov. I walked over 80 miles.
I don't think that will change your mindset regarding walking nor am I trying to, but I am well aware that runners, cyclists, etc. are regarded as serious athletes and walkers are dismissed so I promote it any chance I get.
Preach! I power walk 5 miles every morning. I do 15 minute miles. And I'm very short, so that's a good clip.10 -
Same here. And I also had gasoline-powered ride-on toys (go-karts and dirt bikes), and a video game console too, no less! And I ate like a horse - but was skinny as a rail. Go figure.
Anybody who thinks dirt biking (the motorized kind) doesn't require at least a halfway decent amount of upper body strength/leg strength and moderate cardio has probably never been on a dirt bike for a full day of trail riding or a couple hrs on an mx track.
In fact, buying another dirtbike is what kicked me back into caring about fitness. A 20 mile trail ride whooped my *kitten* and I knew there was no way I was going to hang with my friends on our Moab trip if I didn't get back to lifting and get my cardio up as well.
0 -
-
A "Would you X with the unpopular opinion above" thread anyone?10
-
My unpopular opinion about exercise is that what can be considered "exercise" needs to be viewed in the context of the whole of a person's capabilities, not just "this isn't hard enough to be exercise for me so that's true for everyone". A leisurely stroll to the park and back isn't exercise for me, but it would certainly be exercise for my 90 year old father. I've heard people dismiss chair exercise, pool aerobics, silver sneakers programs and yoga at various times, and it may be very true that any of those things might not be difficult enough to benefit people who have greater physical capabilities, but in my opinion, if it pushes your limits even a little, it's exercise. Congratulations, you've taken an important step toward improving your health!33
-
^This is a valid point and shouldn't be an unpopular opinion at all.My unpopular opinion about exercise is that what can be considered "exercise" needs to be viewed in the context of the whole of a person's capabilities, not just "this isn't hard enough to be exercise for me so that's true for everyone"...
For example, for somebody who runs regularly and has developed a decent cardio base, a 1-mile walk wouldn't even qualify as a warm-up. But for an obese/sedentary person who is just starting out and wanting to get into an exercise program, a 1-mile walk could be a huge endeavor and a significant accomplishment. What is or isn't "exercise" is relative to the individual.24 -
My unpopular opinion about exercise is that what can be considered "exercise" needs to be viewed in the context of the whole of a person's capabilities, not just "this isn't hard enough to be exercise for me so that's true for everyone". A leisurely stroll to the park and back isn't exercise for me, but it would certainly be exercise for my 90 year old father. I've heard people dismiss chair exercise, pool aerobics, silver sneakers programs and yoga at various times, and it may be very true that any of those things might not be difficult enough to benefit people who have greater physical capabilities, but in my opinion, if it pushes your limits even a little, it's exercise. Congratulations, you've taken an important step toward improving your health!
I agree. Right now my only allowed form of exercise is walking because I just had surgery 10 weeks ago and I am still on weight and exercise restrictions. Exercise restrictions are due to not being able to consume enough calories to get through a heavy workout and not pass out.
3 -
Another one, even if you won the Boston Marathon, going for a one mile walk is exercise. Using the overly used generalization....humans evolved to sleep and sit, both of which are not exercise...moving around is.6
-
This content has been removed.
-
From what I can see, soy can have an impact on the body's ability to absorb hypothyroid medication for people who already have thyroid issues. Do you have any sources that show that it also causes damage to a healthy thyroid?
4 -
Soy (especially processed soy) is not healthy and damaging to the thyroid. I hate seeing soybean oil and soy protein isolate in everything
Everything? I rarely eat soybean oil or soy protein isolate. It's not that difficult to find foods without them.
I'm not aware of any good evidence they're damaging to the thyroid, but if you're eating a variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans, it's not really difficult to build a diet that rarely or never includes them.
Of course, I also eat tofu, tempeh, and miso a few times a week, so I guess by that logic I should already have one foot in the grave.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Soy (especially processed soy) is not healthy and damaging to the thyroid. I hate seeing soybean oil and soy protein isolate in everything
Everything? I rarely eat soybean oil or soy protein isolate. It's not that difficult to find foods without them.
I'm not aware of any good evidence they're damaging to the thyroid, but if you're eating a variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans, it's not really difficult to build a diet that rarely or never includes them.
Of course, I also eat tofu, tempeh, and miso a few times a week, so I guess by that logic I should already have one foot in the grave.
You and me both, at that level of soy intake (I'm near daily, actually). And I'm already hypo: Noticed no difference in either symptoms or regular 6-month TSH levels when I started eating more soy around the time evidence-based guidance changed for breast cancer survivors a while back.
But, at age 63, survivor of stage III BC, plenty of other 'bad' habits besides, I'm doubtless more than one foot in the grave, even before the soy.
2 -
I hate steak 🤢3
-
I'm probably going to get woo'd into another dimension here but here goes.
CICO is not exactly true.
A version of CICO is true where CI is not the calories that go into your body. It's the calories you are able to extract from the food. We don't have that information.
We determine calories in food by burning the food. Your body is not a furnace. To my knowledge, nobody has done laborious testing to determine how many calories you can extract from different foods using stomach acid, bile, etc. So that information is not available to us.
If you're about to inform me that you can lose weight eating Twinkies, you're missed my point. Of course you can do that. You're definitely not going to get more calories from something using your body than from burning it. Hell, maybe it's even harder for our GI tract to get Twinkie calories than kale calories. F if I know. That's my point.
Also, CO isn't something you can really calculate either. I mean, humans aren't machines with four setting that include sedentary, active.... so on. You can be sedentary but super fidgety and burn quite a few calories.
I don't know of a better way to lose weight than to act as though CICO is exactly true. So we can probably calm down a bit. There's no need for a huge flame war. Those are the best estimates available to us. They are far from accurate.
The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.
This solves the problem of people saying they are not losing at 1000 cal/day. The response is, "You aren't losing at what you've calculated to be 1000 cal/day. So adjust down to what you calculate to be 800 cal/day."
"But 1000 is so little."
"It's not actually 1000. Nobody is eating the calories we think we're eating. We're all just estimating at best. Some better than others. Either dramatically change the way you estimate your calories or adjust down."
Hell, I know I'm not getting 1600. Don't care. If I start losing weight, I'll continue doing what I'm doing. If not, I'll make a change.
That super long thread here where a guy claims to have tracked his calories to the point where he lost the exact amount calculated he should lose, that is just a huge fluke.5 -
Waking up and immediately getting on the station bike, some say don't do this I say they're making excuses5
-
I'm probably going to get woo'd into another dimension here but here goes.
CICO is not exactly true.
A version of CICO is true where CI is not the calories that go into your body. It's the calories you are able to extract from the food. We don't have that information.
We determine calories in food by burning the food. Your body is not a furnace. To my knowledge, nobody has done laborious testing to determine how many calories you can extract from different foods using stomach acid, bile, etc. So that information is not available to us.
If you're about to inform me that you can lose weight eating Twinkies, you're missed my point. Of course you can do that. You're definitely not going to get more calories from something using your body than from burning it. Hell, maybe it's even harder for our GI tract to get Twinkie calories than kale calories. F if I know. That's my point.
Also, CO isn't something you can really calculate either. I mean, humans aren't machines with four setting that include sedentary, active.... so on. You can be sedentary but super fidgety and burn quite a few calories.
I don't know of a better way to lose weight than to act as though CICO is exactly true. So we can probably calm down a bit. There's no need for a huge flame war. Those are the best estimates available to us. They are far from accurate.
The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.
This solves the problem of people saying they are not losing at 1000 cal/day. The response is, "You aren't losing at what you've calculated to be 1000 cal/day. So adjust down to what you calculate to be 800 cal/day."
"But 1000 is so little."
"It's not actually 1000. Nobody is eating the calories we think we're eating. We're all just estimating at best. Some better than others. Either dramatically change the way you estimate your calories or adjust down."
Hell, I know I'm not getting 1600. Don't care. If I start losing weight, I'll continue doing what I'm doing. If not, I'll make a change.
That super long thread here where a guy claims to have tracked his calories to the point where he lost the exact amount calculated he should lose, that is just a huge fluke.
You're confusing the biological process of CICO with our ability to accurately measure/account for it.
The biological process of it is absolutely true. Our ability to account for it down to the very last decimal with pin-point accuracy? That's difficult without access to some very sophisticated laboratory equipment.
Saying that, generally, with careful tracking and reasonable application of logic, most people are able to achieve a "close enough is good enough" approximation over time.19 -
I'm probably going to get woo'd into another dimension here but here goes.
CICO is not exactly true.
A version of CICO is true where CI is not the calories that go into your body. It's the calories you are able to extract from the food. We don't have that information.
We determine calories in food by burning the food. Your body is not a furnace. To my knowledge, nobody has done laborious testing to determine how many calories you can extract from different foods using stomach acid, bile, etc. So that information is not available to us.
If you're about to inform me that you can lose weight eating Twinkies, you're missed my point. Of course you can do that. You're definitely not going to get more calories from something using your body than from burning it. Hell, maybe it's even harder for our GI tract to get Twinkie calories than kale calories. F if I know. That's my point.
Also, CO isn't something you can really calculate either. I mean, humans aren't machines with four setting that include sedentary, active.... so on. You can be sedentary but super fidgety and burn quite a few calories.
I don't know of a better way to lose weight than to act as though CICO is exactly true. So we can probably calm down a bit. There's no need for a huge flame war. Those are the best estimates available to us. They are far from accurate.
The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.
This solves the problem of people saying they are not losing at 1000 cal/day. The response is, "You aren't losing at what you've calculated to be 1000 cal/day. So adjust down to what you calculate to be 800 cal/day."
"But 1000 is so little."
"It's not actually 1000. Nobody is eating the calories we think we're eating. We're all just estimating at best. Some better than others. Either dramatically change the way you estimate your calories or adjust down."
Hell, I know I'm not getting 1600. Don't care. If I start losing weight, I'll continue doing what I'm doing. If not, I'll make a change.
That super long thread here where a guy claims to have tracked his calories to the point where he lost the exact amount calculated he should lose, that is just a huge fluke.
This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Regarding CI:
Person A eats apple and processes 80 kcals from a 80 kcal serving.
Person B eats apple and processes 78 kcals from a 80 kcal serving.
It is impossible to process > 80 kcals from this serving.
Regarding CO:
Person A estimates their activity as sedentary, so their online calculation is 1600, but actually 1600.
Person B estimates their activity as sedentary and fidgets, so their online calculation is 1600, but actually 1660.
Person C estimates their activity as active, so their online calculation is 1800, but actually 1600.
In any case the results will tell you if you are in caloric deficit, maintenance, or surplus. This will take a matter of weeks/months over hours/days.
10 -
I'm probably going to get woo'd into another dimension here but here goes.
CICO is not exactly true.
A version of CICO is true where CI is not the calories that go into your body. It's the calories you are able to extract from the food. We don't have that information.
This has been discussed over and over again. It is understood.
In practice, it doesn't matter -- you adjust.Also, CO isn't something you can really calculate either. I mean, humans aren't machines with four setting that include sedentary, active.... so on. You can be sedentary but super fidgety and burn quite a few calories.
Same point, you adjust. It's not complicated.
Eating what I think is 2000 and being consistent in counting, I lose, maintain, or gain, and so I eat less or more or the same, depending on what my goal is. Easy-peasy.
As it happened, when I started I thought I'd lose about 1.6 lbs on 1250, ended up losing more like 3 lbs on a consistent basis, and realized I was more active than I'd realized. I increased calories to 1500 and ate back exercise calories and as I got less fat started losing 2 lb/week and then 1.5 lb/week, so on.This solves the problem of people saying they are not losing at 1000 cal/day. The response is, "You aren't losing at what you've calculated to be 1000 cal/day. So adjust down to what you calculate to be 800 cal/day."
If their tracking is way, way off, it's helpful for them to be aware of that so they can fix it. Sometimes it's something like not thinking cooking oil matters or other errors that might affect what they actually eat.8 -
This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
What bias do you think I am confirming, even? If we came to basically the same conclusion, what bias do you perceive I have.The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see that we are coming to basically the same conclusion?Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
I am saying that the way we measure the calories in food is nowhere near anything similar to the way the body processes the calories in food. Burning v. dissolving, it's not similar at all.
It is entirely possible that eating 100 calories of kale doesn't give you anywhere near the same calories that 100 calories of donuts gives you.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's very possible and nothing I've ever seen has convinced me this is NOT true.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
I'm not saying this as advice or anything. I'm sharing it only as an opinion that is unpopular. Because that's what this thread is about. I knew this one was super unpopular, I shared it, I got like 16 woo's confirming it's unpopular.
There couldn't be a more appropriate place for me to share this opinion.
It doesn't even make any sense to call it confirmation. The only thing I'm confirming is doubt, We don't know that 100 calories of kale is the same as 100 calories of donut. Because, FFS, we don't even really know that 100 calories of food is 100 calories.10 -
This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
What bias do you think I am confirming, even? If we came to basically the same conclusion, what bias do you perceive I have.The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see that we are coming to basically the same conclusion?Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
I am saying that the way we measure the calories in food is nowhere near anything similar to the way the body processes the calories in food. Burning v. dissolving, it's not similar at all.
It is entirely possible that eating 100 calories of kale doesn't give you anywhere near the same calories that 100 calories of donuts gives you.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's very possible and nothing I've ever seen has convinced me this is NOT true.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
I'm not saying this as advice or anything. I'm sharing it only as an opinion that is unpopular. Because that's what this thread is about. I knew this one was super unpopular, I shared it, I got like 16 woo's confirming it's unpopular.
There couldn't be a more appropriate place for me to share this opinion.
It doesn't even make any sense to call it confirmation. The only thing I'm confirming is doubt, We don't know that 100 calories of kale is the same as 100 calories of donut. Because, FFS, we don't even really know that 100 calories of food is 100 calories.
Anything is possible, but do you have any particular reason to think that 100 calories of donut *isn't* 100 calories of donut? You can use the excuse of "anything is possible" to doubt everything. Before you know it, we're making sacrifices to the moon to prevent space babies from coming down and stealing our silverware.9 -
This seems like an exercise in confirmation bias.
What bias do you think I am confirming, even? If we came to basically the same conclusion, what bias do you perceive I have.The best you can do is apply this CICO for a while until you get to a calculated Ci and CO that results in weight loss, from there you shoot for precision, not accuracy.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see that we are coming to basically the same conclusion?Very few things outside of the abstract are true, precise, and constant.
I am saying that the way we measure the calories in food is nowhere near anything similar to the way the body processes the calories in food. Burning v. dissolving, it's not similar at all.
It is entirely possible that eating 100 calories of kale doesn't give you anywhere near the same calories that 100 calories of donuts gives you.
I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's very possible and nothing I've ever seen has convinced me this is NOT true.Acknowledging this your caloric intake estimate is a maximum/worst case scenario, so while you may be correct, this information is largely irrelevant for the purpose of weight management.
I'm not saying this as advice or anything. I'm sharing it only as an opinion that is unpopular. Because that's what this thread is about. I knew this one was super unpopular, I shared it, I got like 16 woo's confirming it's unpopular.
There couldn't be a more appropriate place for me to share this opinion.
It doesn't even make any sense to call it confirmation. The only thing I'm confirming is doubt, We don't know that 100 calories of kale is the same as 100 calories of donut. Because, FFS, we don't even really know that 100 calories of food is 100 calories.
I'm curious - why do you want to believe this?1 -
youcantflexcardio wrote: »What unpopular/controversial opinions do you have regarding fitness/exercise/food? No BS broscience, just things that other people find harsh/do not necessarily agree with. It's better if you can back these opinions up with some sort of decent argument. I'll start, I've got a couple I wholeheartedly believe.
Unpopular opinion: Food is fuel, not therapy.
Argument - food is about giving your body what it needs, not what your brain craves. The occasional cheat is ok and mentally healthy, but the bulk of what a person consumes should be for a purpose; weight loss, weight gain, maintenence, hit macro goals, stay within calorie goals, hit micro goals, and try to fill all nutritional gaps. This is not to say you can't eat foods you enjoy and occasionally cheat, but that one should make a conscious effort to give the body what it needs with good, quality food.
Unpopular opinion: Walking is not exercise
Argument - this one is probably the most controversial of my beliefs. I do not believe walking is true exercise. Walking is good - and is a lot better than nothing, but walking does not fall into the same intensity category as things like running, cycling, swimming, weightlifting, etc. A lot of this belief stems from the quote "The human body was not designed for a sedentary lifestyle, it evolved to walk 40 miles a day and hunt saber tooth tigers". I hold that quote to be true...humans are bipedal - walking is what we evolved as our main mode of transportation. True exercise pushes the limits - walking is good and everyone should make an effort to walk more, but it is not enough on it's own to qualify a person as more than sedentary or lightly active at best.
What opinions do you have that might seem harsh or controversial?
I would only argue with the walking is not exercise. When you're carrying 100+ extra pounds on your body walking is ABSOLUTELY exercise. If you haven't been that fat, you don't know the stress simply walking can put on the body. I sweat like a PIG when I walk, my heart pounds in my chest, my body has the same reaction it used to have to running (when I ran).
So it's all relative.13 -
My unpopular opinion:
It's better to resurrect an old thread then start a new one with the same topic. :P19
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions