General Weight Loss Advice Beyond Calories In and Calories Out
Replies
-
Thanks SLLRunner
0 -
LeadingMuscle wrote: »Good tips OP. I'll offer one too. Incorporate refeed days. It's been shown to make calories in calories out even more effective with fat loss.
http://suppversity.blogspot.de/2014/11/calorie-shifting-refeeding-for-max-fat.html
Thanks, I found that article very informative. It further justifies my much needed periodic diet breaks!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
in for laughs0
-
Good list OP. Clearly CICO fundamentally works for most people, but then there are many who swear by 5-2 or LCHF as well and have proved it without needing to count calories. From my experience CICO works fine with a sensible diet but the closer you get to optimum weight the more the details do matter, eg reduce sugar, fat:protein:carb ratios, type of exercise, etc etc.
If people can't discuss the different nuances of weight control on these pages where can they?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The fact that most of America is overweight is proof enough that knowing CICO isn't all that is needed for many people. They aren't fat because they're too stupid to understand it. Everyone understands it. Ten year old kids understand it when it's explained to them. Grasping that concept isn't difficult, lol.
Everyone gets it. Yet, many remain fat.
OP, it's great to share what works for you and it may help someone who reads it. Helpful and supportive info isn't welcomed by all, but what can you do there.
If you'd like to share your list of low-cal, high protein items, I'd love to read it. Protein is a struggle for me. Always looking for more!
Brilliantly Written!!! I wish more people would read this, good sound advice!!0 -
Paul_Collyer wrote: »Good list OP. Clearly CICO fundamentally works for most people, but then there are many who swear by 5-2 or LCHF as well and have proved it without needing to count calories.
5-2 and LCHF are tactics that people use to get a deficit without having to count. When I lost weight back in '03 and maintained for some years after that, before I knew about calorie counting websites, I just focused on exercising a lot and eating three balanced meals with lots of veggies and not going over my understanding of a proper portion size for meat or starches and snacking between meals/having dessert only rarely (I also cut out bread to make room for wine, but that's another story and was not actually healthy in practice, although it didn't stop my weight loss). Based on my lifestyle at the time that served to create a deficit, but doesn't mean that CICO wasn't underlying what I was doing, even though I couldn't have said how many calories I was eating.
0 -
Helen71017 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »Some of the tips in the OP work for me, some don't apply.
Agreed.Some of us are very well equipped and able to just get down to business, find what works for us, and move toward our goals. But plenty of people need more guidance, tips and examples. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what the OP did.
For some reason, and as I said I might be misreading tone, it felt somewhat condescending to me. There's a difference between saying "these are things I did" in response to an actual question vs. a post that purports to tell everyone what we must do (which should be what OP did). Especially when it's stuff that largely seems like rather obvious common sense, and when it was clarified by a post that in essence said that lots of people are fat, so they must not know these things. But I admit my reaction to this is not the only legitimate one, and as I said before I expect it was well-intentioned. It just read a bit like "anyone fat must also be a moron."
I apologize if my tone came off as condescending.
I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions and misread the tone.
0 -
PrettyPearl88 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »PrettyPearl88 wrote: »I definitely agree with you that while the calories in versus calories out concept is a basic fundamental principle for weight loss, there's a little more to it than simply eating less than you burn. I've found that while it's definitely possible to lose weight eating all junk food but limiting your calorie intake, it's harder to keep that up because it doesn't leave you feeling as full and satisfied.
Why do people say stuff like this? I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative, but genuinely curious. When you started, did you think that losing weight eating "all junk food" would be a good idea? Do you assume that others trying to lose weight typically follow that approach unless advised otherwise?
I think I was probably a bit too quick assume condescension in the OP's post and I feel a little bad about that, but this is the kind of thing that led to me seeing it--I tend to assume that others are generally as knowledgeable about stuff as I am (since why would I be so special), so if something seems like common sense or basic knowledge to me I don't typically assume that others are operating without such insight. If someone asks questions that indicate that they are seeking such information, that's (of course) different.
But then I also find it odd that people want to be told what to eat and seem not to have an understanding of what a basic healthy diet would be sometimes (although of course there's a tremendous variation of possibilities within this category and room for debate), so it's entirely possible I'm the weird one here.
No, I didn't think that losing weight eating ALL junk food would be a good idea when I started...but honestly, I did think that I could still eat a decent portion of junk food (just lower calorie junk food or smaller amounts of junk food) and that that would be perfectly okay and healthy.
That's interesting (and not a bad thing). I guess I tend to see more people who think that you must do all or nothing--cut out all junk food (and even things I don't think are junk food) or give up. Even in my social circle, which is probably disproportionally educated (and not overweight) and filled with people into healthy foods who get excited about stuff like raising chickens, the tendency is to get into weird restrictive diets. Atkins was all the rage at one point, and now gluten free is, of course, but people have a whole slew of dietary things like that. So to me "you can eat whatever" (ideally in moderation, of course) seems a nice contrast and more similar to my own view, which is that generally eating a sensible balanced diet is good.I said what I said purely for argument's sake though, for the sole purpose of refuting the opposing argument. The opposing argument (the version I hear too often) is basically this: You don't have to restrict any foods; eat whatever you want as long as you're eating less than you burn and you'll lose weight. To help their argument, they often use extreme examples, such as "Eating only Oreos while still consuming less calories than you burn will result in weight loss." They seem to focus on the question of whether it's POSSIBLE to eat junk food and lose weight, instead of whether it's ADVISABLE to do so. My comment was specifically addressing people who make these kind of arguments.
This is simply a difference of perception, I think, because my reading of the forums is that the "eat only Oreo" arguments are typically made by "clean" eaters--who contrast their elimination diets to how everyone else (strawman!) eats junk 24/7, as if anyone did--or on occasion to counter a claim that the same person would gain more weight eating 1400 calories of the SAD (whatever that even is) vs. 3000 calories of chicken breast, sweet potatoes, broccoli, bananas, and coconut oil (although the thought of a 3000 calorie day made up of those foods--all of which I like--is not appealing).
I actually think that people who debate in the forums mostly eat pretty healthy, and the widespread claim that people are promoting eating junk for a huge portion of your calories is more based on the fact that many dislike the term "junk" than what's really recommended. Obviously, I don't read every post, though.
On the whole, when people are clear that they are not saying that 1800 calories of cake would cause someone with maintenance of 2400 to gain, but that very few people would feel good or be able to sustain a diet made up of 1800 calories of cake, there's no disagreement.And believe it or not, there are actually people who think that a healthy plan for weight loss includes an average day such as this:
-A Fiber One bar for breakfast
-4 oz of chicken plus a lettuce salad with Walden Farms 0-calorie Caesar dressing for lunch
-Snacks of: one banana, one little pudding cup of Jello sugar-free chocolate pudding, and one serving of Lays Salt and Vinegar potato chips
-4 oz of chicken with steamed broccoli for dinner
Not only are these people all over MFP, but I, myself, used to be one of them. I used to strive to eat a diet pretty much exactly like that at first.
I agree, but don't you think that person doesn't think she can lose on "junk," but that she's eating healthy and perhaps eliminating the "junk" she used to eat? I think that plan is sad, but not because it has too much "junk"--based on what's traditionally considered "junk"--but because it is too depressingly diet and about cutting calories at the expense of satisfaction, interest, and taste. But I'm also conscious that just because I'd find something dull and impossible to stick to, not everyone else would.
Related "things that worked for me" I'd give, though:
Learn to cook vegetables well, experiment with different ones, find ways to get yourself excited about them.
Don't think that you must eat diet foods. There are usually (not always, but IMO mostly) alternatives that will be more satisfying and fit in your calories. Also, consider experimenting with mustards and vinegars and learning to mix up a salad dressing.
A huge variety of meats will fit in your calories--you don't need to limit yourself to boneless, skinless chicken breast. Also, fish is great, so if you aren't experienced with it or aren't comfortable cooking it, that's a great thing to learn.0 -
LeadingMuscle wrote: »Good tips OP. I'll offer one too. Incorporate refeed days. It's been shown to make calories in calories out even more effective with fat loss.
http://suppversity.blogspot.de/2014/11/calorie-shifting-refeeding-for-max-fat.html
Thanks, I found that article very informative. It further justifies my much needed periodic diet breaks!
Not sure how that was so informative but ok.
Not sure how my post was addressing you, but ok.-1 -
Paul_Collyer wrote: »Clearly CICO fundamentally works for most people, but then there are many who swear by 5-2 or LCHF as well and have proved it without needing to count calories.
How are 5-2 or LCHF not CICO?
0 -
LeadingMuscle wrote: »Good tips OP. I'll offer one too. Incorporate refeed days. It's been shown to make calories in calories out even more effective with fat loss.
http://suppversity.blogspot.de/2014/11/calorie-shifting-refeeding-for-max-fat.html
Thanks, I found that article very informative. It further justifies my much needed periodic diet breaks!
Not sure how that was so informative but ok.
Not sure how my post was addressing you, but ok.
You posted in a public forum - your post addressed everyone who read it, by definition.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »PrettyPearl88 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »PrettyPearl88 wrote: »I definitely agree with you that while the calories in versus calories out concept is a basic fundamental principle for weight loss, there's a little more to it than simply eating less than you burn. I've found that while it's definitely possible to lose weight eating all junk food but limiting your calorie intake, it's harder to keep that up because it doesn't leave you feeling as full and satisfied.
Why do people say stuff like this? I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative, but genuinely curious. When you started, did you think that losing weight eating "all junk food" would be a good idea? Do you assume that others trying to lose weight typically follow that approach unless advised otherwise?
I think I was probably a bit too quick assume condescension in the OP's post and I feel a little bad about that, but this is the kind of thing that led to me seeing it--I tend to assume that others are generally as knowledgeable about stuff as I am (since why would I be so special), so if something seems like common sense or basic knowledge to me I don't typically assume that others are operating without such insight. If someone asks questions that indicate that they are seeking such information, that's (of course) different.
But then I also find it odd that people want to be told what to eat and seem not to have an understanding of what a basic healthy diet would be sometimes (although of course there's a tremendous variation of possibilities within this category and room for debate), so it's entirely possible I'm the weird one here.
No, I didn't think that losing weight eating ALL junk food would be a good idea when I started...but honestly, I did think that I could still eat a decent portion of junk food (just lower calorie junk food or smaller amounts of junk food) and that that would be perfectly okay and healthy.
That's interesting (and not a bad thing). I guess I tend to see more people who think that you must do all or nothing--cut out all junk food (and even things I don't think are junk food) or give up. Even in my social circle, which is probably disproportionally educated (and not overweight) and filled with people into healthy foods who get excited about stuff like raising chickens, the tendency is to get into weird restrictive diets. Atkins was all the rage at one point, and now gluten free is, of course, but people have a whole slew of dietary things like that. So to me "you can eat whatever" (ideally in moderation, of course) seems a nice contrast and more similar to my own view, which is that generally eating a sensible balanced diet is good.I said what I said purely for argument's sake though, for the sole purpose of refuting the opposing argument. The opposing argument (the version I hear too often) is basically this: You don't have to restrict any foods; eat whatever you want as long as you're eating less than you burn and you'll lose weight. To help their argument, they often use extreme examples, such as "Eating only Oreos while still consuming less calories than you burn will result in weight loss." They seem to focus on the question of whether it's POSSIBLE to eat junk food and lose weight, instead of whether it's ADVISABLE to do so. My comment was specifically addressing people who make these kind of arguments.
This is simply a difference of perception, I think, because my reading of the forums is that the "eat only Oreo" arguments are typically made by "clean" eaters--who contrast their elimination diets to how everyone else (strawman!) eats junk 24/7, as if anyone did--or on occasion to counter a claim that the same person would gain more weight eating 1400 calories of the SAD (whatever that even is) vs. 3000 calories of chicken breast, sweet potatoes, broccoli, bananas, and coconut oil (although the thought of a 3000 calorie day made up of those foods--all of which I like--is not appealing).
I actually think that people who debate in the forums mostly eat pretty healthy, and the widespread claim that people are promoting eating junk for a huge portion of your calories is more based on the fact that many dislike the term "junk" than what's really recommended. Obviously, I don't read every post, though.
On the whole, when people are clear that they are not saying that 1800 calories of cake would cause someone with maintenance of 2400 to gain, but that very few people would feel good or be able to sustain a diet made up of 1800 calories of cake, there's no disagreement.And believe it or not, there are actually people who think that a healthy plan for weight loss includes an average day such as this:
-A Fiber One bar for breakfast
-4 oz of chicken plus a lettuce salad with Walden Farms 0-calorie Caesar dressing for lunch
-Snacks of: one banana, one little pudding cup of Jello sugar-free chocolate pudding, and one serving of Lays Salt and Vinegar potato chips
-4 oz of chicken with steamed broccoli for dinner
Not only are these people all over MFP, but I, myself, used to be one of them. I used to strive to eat a diet pretty much exactly like that at first.
I agree, but don't you think that person doesn't think she can lose on "junk," but that she's eating healthy and perhaps eliminating the "junk" she used to eat? I think that plan is sad, but not because it has too much "junk"--based on what's traditionally considered "junk"--but because it is too depressingly diet and about cutting calories at the expense of satisfaction, interest, and taste. But I'm also conscious that just because I'd find something dull and impossible to stick to, not everyone else would.
Related "things that worked for me" I'd give, though:
Learn to cook vegetables well, experiment with different ones, find ways to get yourself excited about them.
Don't think that you must eat diet foods. There are usually (not always, but IMO mostly) alternatives that will be more satisfying and fit in your calories. Also, consider experimenting with mustards and vinegars and learning to mix up a salad dressing.
A huge variety of meats will fit in your calories--you don't need to limit yourself to boneless, skinless chicken breast. Also, fish is great, so if you aren't experienced with it or aren't comfortable cooking it, that's a great thing to learn.
I actually think I do eat a good portion of "junk," and still lose weight. I'd say it's 50/50, if you include things like pizza and fast food chicken salads as junk. The other half of my diet is mostly homemade, organic, lean meats, dairy, and high in fiber. But everyone defines "junk" differently, which is where the problem lies with labeling foods as healthy or unhealthy.
0 -
LeadingMuscle wrote: »Good tips OP. I'll offer one too. Incorporate refeed days. It's been shown to make calories in calories out even more effective with fat loss.
http://suppversity.blogspot.de/2014/11/calorie-shifting-refeeding-for-max-fat.html
Thanks, I found that article very informative. It further justifies my much needed periodic diet breaks!
Not sure how that was so informative but ok.
Not sure how my post was addressing you, but ok.
You posted in a public forum - your post addressed everyone who read it, by definition.
I am aware of where I am posting. His response to my post still had no point.-1 -
It had a point. That you found something that wasn't informative, very informative. Says a lot.LeadingMuscle wrote: »Good tips OP. I'll offer one too. Incorporate refeed days. It's been shown to make calories in calories out even more effective with fat loss.
http://suppversity.blogspot.de/2014/11/calorie-shifting-refeeding-for-max-fat.html
Thanks, I found that article very informative. It further justifies my much needed periodic diet breaks!
Not sure how that was so informative but ok.
Not sure how my post was addressing you, but ok.
You posted in a public forum - your post addressed everyone who read it, by definition.
I am aware of where I am posting. His response to my post still had no point.
Thank you! I put A LOT of stock in your opinion, obviously.
-1 -
I know that this topic is covering CICO and I am doing CICO, I am wondering just for learning what is 5-2 or LCHF. Or point somewhere I can read about it..
0 -
Ok no one answered. Sticking with CICO. LOL0
-
I know that this topic is covering CICO and I am doing CICO, I am wondering just for learning what is 5-2 or LCHF. Or point somewhere I can read about it..
5-2 is intermittent fasting, eating as low as 500 calories some days.
Low Carb High Fat is just a different way of doing macros but still is under the CICO idea of reducing your intake
I don't know if either would be helpful to you.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Thanks for your posts. I believe all of this is accurate.0
-
LMAO Hilarious.0
-
My actual weight is around 108 to 111 lbs. I have been researching and researching and the basic thing is: CALORIES IN AND CALORIES OUT - PERIOD. The less you eat, and the more you move the "skinnier you will be".. Ha.. growing older (age) has her grasp on me like being tied up in chains head to toe. I have measured, weighed, exercised, cook, ... blah blah... and it comes back to this for me... All the online calculators are just wrong for my size, I need so few calories to live and breathe that I may as well just eat dirt on a daily basis.. And just for starters, I can gain two pounds just eating too much salt... yes if I have just eat a tsp of salt I blow up and gain weight as if I had eaten 8000 calories the night before..
It is just sickening to me.. because 10 years ago I weighed 102 lbs and never ever thought about counting anything.. Who knew a big mac had 980 calories? I did not know then but I know now...
So let me get this straight:
The most you seem to have ever weighed is about 115 pounds?
So what you are losing, is for most of us reading the op's post, VANITY pounds.
Ok I can see how knitting or sewing for you would be just sheer stupidity. I get it calories in calories out are important.
But what YOU with your vanity pounds fail to grasp is myself and many, many others here either spent a lifetime FAT or became FAT slowly without intentionally meaning to.
Habits are excessively hard to break. Let me enlighten you to how hard that is, Given that you seem to have never needed to lose triple digit numbers of pounds of fat, ignorance would be bliss and lead to some serious holier than thou attitude.
Ever used food as comfort? Ever had food be your only friend? Your only way to ease stress? Celebrate? Mourn? or show love or worse be shown love?
No, it would seem not. Your post was condescending and downright ugly in how you responded to the Op genuinely and sincerely posting what helped her/him that the op thought might be useful to someone else.
In my lifetime I have weighed as much as 256 pounds. And as little as 126.
I have personally used most of the things including crocheting, while not the knitting you deride, very close to break my food habits ingrained over a lifetime and not starve, diet pill or resort to other equally unhealthy and down right destructive patterns.
Not only have I weighed 256 once, and lost 106 from that, but I have done it twice.
Habits are hell to break. Since I have been on this site, I have lost about 50-55 pounds, given the time of the month I happen to be at.
I have also kept it off for 2 years and counting.
But you rock on with your vanity pounds and come critique the op if you ever have to lose more than that.
Oh, and crocheting is seriously fun. Give it a try, that stick up your hoohah might be a knitting needle. But you will never know til you retrieve it and find out.0 -
Ah, maybe I'M reading gia wrong but I don't think she was having a go at OP. I thought she was frustrated with CICO at her size (stature) and age.0
-
But everyone defines "junk" differently, which is where the problem lies with labeling foods as healthy or unhealthy.
True. I used to think I knew what people meant by "junk food," whether I agreed with them or not, and now I increasingly think you have to know the person to know what they mean.
0 -
Living with a spouse that does not have to worry about weight gain can be an additional challenge. My husband is 6’4”. He can (and does) eat anything he wants and then complains that he is not gaining weight (but he means specifically muscle weight).
Some painful numbers:
- My TDEE is about 1780, and his TDEE is about 2740 calories.
- If I go on a 30minute jog with my husband I burn about 255 calories, and he burns 433 calories for the same effort.
We have come up with some compromises:
1. He keeps soda in the house but not my favorites flavors. I don’t feel strongly about regular Pepsi but love cherry Pepsi.
2. He started a candy stash in his nightstand. I am not tempted since it is in his “personal space” and most of the time I forget about it.
3. I still cook some high calorie entrées like Italian Sausage Lasagna and Cassoulet. I plan for them in my day, but I mostly pack the leftovers in his lunches.
4. I still cook his favorite desserts like 1000 calorie per slice carrot cake but half of it goes to work the next day. Again moderation for me and only a few days of temptation.
5. I like cooking food that can be served in a variety of ways. When I make Mediterranean Turkey Burgers (http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/mediterranean-turkey-burgers), I cut them into meatball size pieces and serve them with tomato sauce and spaghetti for him. I put mine on lettuce with a greek yogurt based blue cheese dressing. This gives him a high calorie meal, without obligating me to have one.0 -
Helen71017 wrote: »Living with a spouse that does not have to worry about weight gain can be an additional challenge. My husband is 6’4”. He can (and does) eat anything he wants and then complains that he is not gaining weight (but he means specifically muscle weight).
Some painful numbers:
- My basal metabolic rate is about 1780, and his basal metabolic rate is about 2740 calories.
- If I go on a 30minute jog with my husband I burn about 255 calories, and he burns 433 calories for the same effort.
We have come up with some compromises:
1. He keeps soda in the house but not my favorites flavors. I don’t feel strongly about regular Pepsi, but love cherry Pepsi.
2. He has a candy stash in his nightstand. I know about it, but it is easier for me not to be tempted since it is in his “personal space”
3. I still cook some high calorie entrées like Italian Sausage Lasagna and Cassoulet. I plan for them in my day, but I mostly pack the leftovers in his lunches.
4. I still cook his favorite desserts like 1000 calorie per slice Carrot Cake but half of it goes to work the next day. Again moderation for me and only a few days of temptation.
5. I like cooking food that can be served in a variety of ways. When I make Mediterranean Turkey Burgers (http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/mediterranean-turkey-burgers), I cut them into meatball size pieces and serve them with tomato sauce and spaghetti for him. I put mine on lettuce with a greek yogurt based blue cheese dressing. This gives him a high calorie meal, without obligating me to have one.
Love how you handle food in your home.
However, keep in mind that hubby doesn't gain weight because he eats at maintenance level. If he didn't, he would either lose or gain weight. Also, he could be one of those normal folks, for lack of a better phrase, who intuitively knows when to stop eating, therefore to the rest of the world it look like he can eat however much he wants a not gain. But, if he ate over his TDEE, he would gain weight like anyone else.
BMR is the amount of calories that it takes to sustain you if you were in a coma. Your TDEE is what's important because if you eat over this amount, you will gain weight. Since your numbers sound a bit high, did you mean TDEE and not BMR?
I understand on the calorie burns. The bigger a person is, the more they burn and the more calories they are allowed to eat. Guys usually get to burn more calories than us gals. Lucky them!
0 -
Helen71017 wrote: »Living with a spouse that does not have to worry about weight gain can be an additional challenge. My husband is 6’4”. He can (and does) eat anything he wants and then complains that he is not gaining weight (but he means specifically muscle weight).
Some painful numbers:
- My basal metabolic rate is about 1780, and his basal metabolic rate is about 2740 calories.
- If I go on a 30minute jog with my husband I burn about 255 calories, and he burns 433 calories for the same effort.
We have come up with some compromises:
1. He keeps soda in the house but not my favorites flavors. I don’t feel strongly about regular Pepsi, but love cherry Pepsi.
2. He has a candy stash in his nightstand. I know about it, but it is easier for me not to be tempted since it is in his “personal space”
3. I still cook some high calorie entrées like Italian Sausage Lasagna and Cassoulet. I plan for them in my day, but I mostly pack the leftovers in his lunches.
4. I still cook his favorite desserts like 1000 calorie per slice Carrot Cake but half of it goes to work the next day. Again moderation for me and only a few days of temptation.
5. I like cooking food that can be served in a variety of ways. When I make Mediterranean Turkey Burgers (http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/mediterranean-turkey-burgers), I cut them into meatball size pieces and serve them with tomato sauce and spaghetti for him. I put mine on lettuce with a greek yogurt based blue cheese dressing. This gives him a high calorie meal, without obligating me to have one.
Love how you handle food in your home.
However, keep in mind that hubby doesn't gain weight because he eats at maintenance level. If he didn't, he would either lose or gain weight. Also, he could be one of those normal folks, for lack of a better phrase, who intuitively knows when to stop eating, therefore to the rest of the world it look like he can eat however much he wants a not gain. But, if he ate over his TDEE, he would gain weight like anyone else.
BMR is the amount of calories that it takes to sustain you if you were in a coma. Your TDEE is what's important because if you eat over this amount, you will gain weight. Since your numbers sound a bit high, did you mean TDEE and not BMR?
I understand on the calorie burns. The bigger a person is, the more they burn and the more calories they are allowed to eat. Guys usually get to burn more calories than us gals. Lucky them!
You are right, that's probably approximate TDEE. I used a website calculator that said it compensated for activity to calculate BMR. I fixed my post.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I see lots of posts debating the calories in versus calories out concept. Although it is an important fundamental principle for weight loss, it is also a gross oversimplification of the challenges one faces to achieve lasting weight loss.
No it isn't. Keep your calories lower than your requirements and don't make excuses.
What you're offering is a list of things that work for you. These may not be the case for everyone.
Exactly, short and simple and so true!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions