Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
The problem with cutting sugar is... what happens when you reintroduce it? Will you be able to eat it in moderation? That's the main issue really...
If one tried to eliminate sugar altogether,sure
But that is not what OP is suggesting.
He is suggesting that for many people reducing sugar is easiest way to cut calories - if I ,for example, swap full sugar soft drinks for diet drinks and have 1 chocolate bar per day instead of 2 and stop adding sugar to my coffee - once I have made these changes why would I ever have to re introduce them?0 -
paperpudding wrote: »The problem with cutting sugar is... what happens when you reintroduce it? Will you be able to eat it in moderation? That's the main issue really...
If one tried to eliminate sugar altogether,sure
But that is not what OP is suggesting.
He is suggesting that for many people reducing sugar is easiest way to cut calories - if I ,for example, swap full sugar soft drinks for diet drinks and have 1 chocolate bar per day instead of 2 and stop adding sugar to my coffee - once I have made these changes why would I ever have to re introduce them?
Bingo!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Stunning that people can't grasp the idea of moderation so here's a nice easy example - seasonal as well.....
Moderation: Advent calendar - open one window a day, eat a small piece of chocolate.
Not moderation: Eating a huge bar of chocolate that takes you way over your TDEE.
Elimination: Never eating chocolate.0 -
Here is a plethora of gifs to demonstrate the stupidity of this thread.
(this was such a solid episode, omg. Poor Leoben.)
I think the problem with this thread occurred when the original post was misread as an elimination diet, anti sugar and anti moderation thread. Some people like to hijack and misdirect threads - that's life and that's what makes internet forums so interesting!
Not sure how it was misread, there were lots of statements pertaining to eating sugar - such as:
I think the message for newbies looking to reduce their sugar intake is first off - well done for wanting to do something! But also a reminder that they only need to cut enough to get them into the deficit they need.
And......:
Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.
The purpose of my thread was to suggest that sugar is possibly the easiest thing to cut to get into a calorie deficit - and the word ! stress is possibly!
Yes its subjective, but in the world of MFP and diets in general, what isn't?
Almost every post on every thread to do with best practice diets is subjective and someones opinion!
0 -
How did this thread go from "reduction" strategies to "elimination" strategies?
I can't leave you people to play nicely by yourselves for 5 minutes *grumbles*
0 -
Moderation and elimination, for me, are just opposite sides to the same coin.
Both are restriction based, both require sacrifice, self discipline and self control.
Both are practical and sustainable for some, both are difficult and unsustainable for other.
My personal experience with moderation was it was impractical and totally unsustainable for my enjoyment of food. Would I recommend it to others - yes! Do i think it works for everyone - absolutely not.
The same goes for elimination diets!
I would love to see some figures on success and failure rates for both! My guess would be: They would not be a million miles from each other.
My personal experience with a low carb diet was it was easy and fitted perfectly with mylife style and my personal food choices. I don't have to worry about logging food and I can eat till I'm satisfied.
So both are good and both work - is one better than the other? Not as far as I am concerned!0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand why we are splitting hairs here, or why people are against elimination. If it works for someone (for various reasons) who are we to tell them it should be otherwise?
I completely eliminated quite a few things, like doughnuts, because they were things I used to eat for the mere act of chewing and swallowing. I don't like them, I don't crave them, and I don't need them. How would removing something I don't care for set back my diet?
I cut way back on some things, like peanut butter, because they're simply not important enough to spend a lot of calories on. I eat just enough of it to satisfy my desire for eating said item, and it just happens to be not as often or as much as I used to mindlessly eat. How would cutting back on things that I don't crave often set back my diet?
I replaced some items, like bread or soda, with lower calorie alternatives. I buy soy and bran bread, for example, because it has the same texture as conventional bread for half the calories and serves the exact purpose I used bread for. How would replacing something set back my diet if the alternative tasted just as good to me as the original and doesn't leave me deprived?
For some things moderation doesn't work for me. If I want a whole bag of chips I will still eat a whole bag of chips, and I can do that guilt free BECAUSE I have eliminated/cut back/replaced enough things that aren't too important to me to make room for things that are more important and enjoyable to me, and if I go over by a lot, nothing a quick 500 calorie fast day can't solve.
How exactly is trying to make the dieting process easier for yourself, using whatever tools you have available (including elimination) setting back your diet, when the whole point and definition of a sustainable diet is choosing the easiest route that still gets results and can last long term?
It's seriously just a fight over what you call what you did with doughnuts at this point, not about the strategy itself.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »The problem with cutting sugar is... what happens when you reintroduce it? Will you be able to eat it in moderation? That's the main issue really...
If one tried to eliminate sugar altogether,sure
But that is not what OP is suggesting.
He is suggesting that for many people reducing sugar is easiest way to cut calories - if I ,for example, swap full sugar soft drinks for diet drinks and have 1 chocolate bar per day instead of 2 and stop adding sugar to my coffee - once I have made these changes why would I ever have to re introduce them?
Yep.
My only disagreement with the OP is why make it about sugar specifically. It's a nice general rule that can be tailored to what people actually eat without deciding the problem MUST be sugar (which does seem like demonization). For me, focusing on sugar wouldn't have addressed the issue.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I would love to see some figures on success and failure rates for both! My guess would be: They would not be a million miles from each other.
My suspicion is the failure rate (defined as the ability to keeping all or most of the weight lost off where the weight loss was significant, say 10% of total starting bodyweight) would be very high for both. Certainly over 75%.
I say this because dieting in general is a massive failure in that regard as it doesn't address the things that are altogether more important: dealing with compulsive and deeply ingrained habitual behaviour.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
My only disagreement with the OP is why make it about sugar specifically.
I guess added sugar is simply a convenient proxy to identify foods which are potentially high in calories and low in volume and satiety. It is by no means perfect of course but I doubt any method is in that regard.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »The problem with cutting sugar is... what happens when you reintroduce it? Will you be able to eat it in moderation? That's the main issue really...
If one tried to eliminate sugar altogether,sure
But that is not what OP is suggesting.
He is suggesting that for many people reducing sugar is easiest way to cut calories - if I ,for example, swap full sugar soft drinks for diet drinks and have 1 chocolate bar per day instead of 2 and stop adding sugar to my coffee - once I have made these changes why would I ever have to re introduce them?
Yep.
My only disagreement with the OP is why make it about sugar specifically. It's a nice general rule that can be tailored to what people actually eat without deciding the problem MUST be sugar (which does seem like demonization). For me, focusing on sugar wouldn't have addressed the issue.
I'm certainly not demonizing sugar, I'm not promoting it either.
It serves a purpose and that's it. From a nutrient point of view it's neutral.
The point of the thread was (and this is only my opinion and I did use the word possibly) sugar is a quick fix to reduce in order to get into a deficit.
I am not saying don't eat sugar, in fact I did say that once you are in a deficit there is no need to reduce it any further.
It's just my opinion, but I wouldn't want to reduce protein and I wouldn't want to reduce fat as both are essential macro nutrients and reducing either may reduce my required Micro nutrients (they may not, but at least with sugar there is no second guessing).
Again not loving something doesn't automatically mean you hate it!
Sadly there is too much one dimensional thinking on the general forums. I was going to say on MFP in general, but have you seen some of the creative thinking on the Chit Chat forums?
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
There are reasons to be gluten free other than just wanting to eliminate it. I am allergic to gluten (as in trace amounts will close off my airway). I would think that is a decent reason to not eat it. However, I don't believe in eliminating foods either. In fact, I eat bread, pasta, pizza etc, just ones that are wheat, oat, and gluten free (due to allergies).
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I would love to see some figures on success and failure rates for both! My guess would be: They would not be a million miles from each other.
My suspicion is the failure rate (defined as the ability to keeping all or most of the weight lost off where the weight loss was significant, say 10% of total starting bodyweight) would be very high for both. Certainly over 75%.
I say this because dieting in general is a massive failure in that regard as it doesn't address the things that are altogether more important: dealing with compulsive and deeply ingrained habitual behaviour.
Oh yep - that's probably the case.
It would be interesting to know the number of people that have passed through MFP and have been and continue to be successful?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I would love to see some figures on success and failure rates for both! My guess would be: They would not be a million miles from each other.
My suspicion is the failure rate (defined as the ability to keeping all or most of the weight lost off where the weight loss was significant, say 10% of total starting bodyweight) would be very high for both. Certainly over 75%.
I say this because dieting in general is a massive failure in that regard as it doesn't address the things that are altogether more important: dealing with compulsive and deeply ingrained habitual behaviour.
Oh yep - that's probably the case.
It would be interesting to know the number of people that have passed through MFP and have been and continue to be successful?
I saw an announcement that MFP had reached 75 million users. That is bonkers. How many of those will secure long term success? My suspicion is not that many for all the success stories sadly.
The question really is "what makes me and my method different to the rest?" Look at this thread. In five years time only a few of us, I believe, will have been successful *cough* me *cough*
May the odds forever be in your favour...
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
Would it help you to consider the entire category of calorie-dense foods as one? That's what I do. As in, I can have pizza OR fried chicken in one day, not both.
To me it would be easier (than "moderation" as defined above) to have a few great favorites, be it pizza, or nachos or wings, or whatever and build those into a natural, normal lifestyle (as they naturally occur) and otherwise to eat a nutrient dense, and tasty whole foods diet.
Rather than saying ANYTHING (as long as it fits my 1500 hypothetical calories, and the rest of my day, and I worked out, or will work out, and it fits my macros), I'd much more easily say: I eat a few key tasty-assed calorie bombs, when they naturally occur in life, and otherwise I try to fuel my body with great tasting nutrient dense foods.
Dunno. But that's basically what I do already. All these years. I build my diet around great tasting and healthful foods, with the occasional indulgence in something I wouldn't normally eat regularly because it's so calorically dense, and nutrient light.
And then yes, I'll keep limiting added sugars, and highly processed convenience foods. Works for me.
Calorie-dense foods occur in my life pretty much daily. I don't indulge in anything, because everything can be very easily worked into my caloric intake. Whether that means eating to maintenance or even a bit above maintenance if needed, doesn't matter. Most of the time it fits into my deficit. The times I've eaten to maintenance I had no problems fitting things into my macros. But then again I don't consider any foods to be healthful vs not healthful. It's all food, and I just see it as sources of a) tastiness, b) calories, c) macros.
Well, time will tell if macros are enough for a lifetime.
and cherry picking. cheers
What does that even mean?
which part
Both
The poster said she doesn't consider any foods to be healthful versus not healthful. I question whether that approach will work for the long run as an approach.
Cherry picking: doesn't that speak for itself on an internet forum?
Yes, it is sustainable, because I don't eat donuts all day. In order to meet my macros, while also feeling satisfied, I eat a variety of foods that are considered to be healthy by most people. Not demonizing food and labeling something as inherently healthy or not healthy =/= being ignorant to eating nutritiously.
Again, who's demonizing??
for the sake of curiosity, how long have you been at it, this time?0 -
My point exactly. It's food to you. And we'll see how it all plays out for YOU, in the end. Since your diet is about you. Mine is about me.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
Would it help you to consider the entire category of calorie-dense foods as one? That's what I do. As in, I can have pizza OR fried chicken in one day, not both.
To me it would be easier (than "moderation" as defined above) to have a few great favorites, be it pizza, or nachos or wings, or whatever and build those into a natural, normal lifestyle (as they naturally occur) and otherwise to eat a nutrient dense, and tasty whole foods diet.
Rather than saying ANYTHING (as long as it fits my 1500 hypothetical calories, and the rest of my day, and I worked out, or will work out, and it fits my macros), I'd much more easily say: I eat a few key tasty-assed calorie bombs, when they naturally occur in life, and otherwise I try to fuel my body with great tasting nutrient dense foods.
Dunno. But that's basically what I do already. All these years. I build my diet around great tasting and healthful foods, with the occasional indulgence in something I wouldn't normally eat regularly because it's so calorically dense, and nutrient light.
And then yes, I'll keep limiting added sugars, and highly processed convenience foods. Works for me.
Calorie-dense foods occur in my life pretty much daily. I don't indulge in anything, because everything can be very easily worked into my caloric intake. Whether that means eating to maintenance or even a bit above maintenance if needed, doesn't matter. Most of the time it fits into my deficit. The times I've eaten to maintenance I had no problems fitting things into my macros. But then again I don't consider any foods to be healthful vs not healthful. It's all food, and I just see it as sources of a) tastiness, b) calories, c) macros.
Well, time will tell if macros are enough for a lifetime.
and cherry picking. cheers
What does that even mean?
which part
Both
The poster said she doesn't consider any foods to be healthful versus not healthful. I question whether that approach will work for the long run as an approach.
Cherry picking: doesn't that speak for itself on an internet forum?
I fail to see why looking at food in terms of nutrients (macros, etc) instead of viewing certain foods as good or bad would not be a sustainable approach.
Why do you question that approach? A concrete answer.
Choosing foods simply based on macros and deeming all foods as "good for you"? (if none are bad for you), no. I don't think it is.
It's not "demonizing" but no. IMHO, McDonalds isn't "good for you" other than meeting some magical arbitrary macros. Not fear mongering. Not demonizing. It's just barely food.
Im out. The dogs need walking. cheers
That's your own opinion. Mcdonalds is food to me - protein, fat, and carbs. Calcium and iron as well. Would I eat it daily if I weren't GF? No, because I'd get tired of eating it daily and I wouldn't be able to properly meet my macro needs eating only mcdonalds every day.
Yep, I choose all foods based on macros. Ate calorie-dense foods today because I was lazy and it all fit my macros. Does it matter that I ate sloppy joes or went over my sodium? nope, because it's one day out of many and one type of meal out of many. moderation leads to variation.
0 -
:flowerforyou: I'll ask one thing:
Next time someone asks: "I'm doing IIFYM how should I set them?" We'll all answer and provide them the support they need to do that well.
The next time someone says: "I'm doing Low carb and looking for support", or "I'm looking to cut back on added sugar". We'll all answer their actual questions and provide the support they need to do that well.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
What typically happens?
IIFYM macros questions get IFFYM answers
Low carb, or low added sugar questions get IIFYM folks saying "just do IIFYM", or "why demonize?" "I eat all the foods just in moderation" or what not...
in other words: "don't do what you want to do, do what I'm doing, because obviously I know better for you"
Imagine if we (those doing something other than your version of IIFYM) went into the "what should my macros be" threads and said "just count carbs" or "just cut back added sugars?" Unhelpful, and disrespectful.
and, finally, we're all doing IIFYM to an extent. I just also focus a lot on MICROS (and creating a long term healthstyle. so more of a IIFMH), and those doing low carb just have THEIR MACROS set different than YOURS (for their own healthstyle). Because it's not about you.
What a wonderful world.
:drinker:0 -
personally i eliminated sugar all together (because outside of it tasting amazing and being in pretty much everything that is easy to eat really quick without doing any preparation I get nothing from it) and let me tell you, this is the ultimate exercise in willpower. But, I want, nay, I need to exercise my willpower. However, if my willpower fails, I might end up binge eating sugar and back to where I started.
It's tough. There are foods that have basically no carbohydrates in them that work to suppress most of my urges/cravings, but every now and then i still get this almost overwhelming urge to just eat a ton of grains/processed sugar/fruit, whatever is high in sugars. It's like quitting drugs cold turkey but it haunts you even weeks after you've given up sugar. It can be a nightmare.
Like, wtf. But I have to do it this way, because if I eat sugar then I want to eat more, and then a little later I want to eat more and it is all downhill from there where I'm getting most of my calories (and I'm overeating) from sugar and it's like i'm a snowball rolling down a hill getting more and more massive. And I'm not even one that has ever been heavy (my heaviest weight ever was 195, my current weight, I'm not even talking about years of being obese or anything, which, if I had to guess, most people that are obese have been struggling with sugar intake for years).
I just hope one day I wake up and never crave sugar again. It's so good and I don't want to put that stuff in my body, because it isn't doing me any favors. It isn't my friend, it's more like a local dealer always whispering in my ear that I should do more. And someone with not a lot of willpower (me) just can't deal with it.
(I forgot to mention) Many carbohydrates actually give me acid reflux. Despite the tremendous amount of pain I get from eating sugar and wheat, I STILL feel like I need it all the time. Eliminating those completely rids me of my acid reflux, yet I still have to exercise extreme willpower in order to stop myself from eating them (even though they make me want to rip out my esophagus).
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »:flowerforyou: I'll ask one thing:
Next time someone asks: "I'm doing IIFYM how should I set them?" We'll all answer and provide them the support they need to do that well.
The next time someone says: "I'm doing Low carb and looking for support", or "I'm looking to cut back on added sugar". We'll all answer their actual questions and provide the support they need to do that well.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
What typically happens?
IIFYM macros questions get IFFYM answers
Low carb, or low added sugar questions get IIFYM folks saying "just do IIFYM", or "why demonize?" "I eat all the foods just in moderation" or what not...
in other words: "don't do what you want to do, do what I'm doing, because obviously I know better for you"
Imagine if we (those doing something other than your version of IIFYM) went into the "what should my macros be" threads and said "just count carbs" or "just cut back added sugars?" Unhelpful, and disrespectful.
and, finally, we're all doing IIFYM to an extent. I just also focus a lot on MICROS (and creating a long term healthstyle. so more of a IIFMH), and those doing low carb just have THEIR MACROS set different than YOURS (for their own healthstyle). Because it's not about you.
What a wonderful world.
:drinker:
If only this is what really happens. Nobody goes into a low carb thread and pushes IIFYM for the sake of it. People suggest it when an OP states that they are going low carb specifically for weight loss, and are under the erroneous assumption that it's necessary to go low carb for weight loss.
Not everyone going low carb is doing it because they want to. And most of them don't even need to, but someone told them that's how they have to lose weight, so that's what they try to do. Then they struggle, because they don't enjoy the restriction, then they fail, then they post looking for advice. I try to tailor advice to what the OP wants to accomplish, based on info provided. I don't just blindly agree or disagree with any one plan or idea.0 -
tigersword wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »:flowerforyou: I'll ask one thing:
Next time someone asks: "I'm doing IIFYM how should I set them?" We'll all answer and provide them the support they need to do that well.
The next time someone says: "I'm doing Low carb and looking for support", or "I'm looking to cut back on added sugar". We'll all answer their actual questions and provide the support they need to do that well.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
What typically happens?
IIFYM macros questions get IFFYM answers
Low carb, or low added sugar questions get IIFYM folks saying "just do IIFYM", or "why demonize?" "I eat all the foods just in moderation" or what not...
in other words: "don't do what you want to do, do what I'm doing, because obviously I know better for you"
Imagine if we (those doing something other than your version of IIFYM) went into the "what should my macros be" threads and said "just count carbs" or "just cut back added sugars?" Unhelpful, and disrespectful.
and, finally, we're all doing IIFYM to an extent. I just also focus a lot on MICROS (and creating a long term healthstyle. so more of a IIFMH), and those doing low carb just have THEIR MACROS set different than YOURS (for their own healthstyle). Because it's not about you.
What a wonderful world.
:drinker:
If only this is what really happens. Nobody goes into a low carb thread and pushes IIFYM for the sake of it. People suggest it when an OP states that they are going low carb specifically for weight loss, and are under the erroneous assumption that it's necessary to go low carb for weight loss.
Not everyone going low carb is doing it because they want to. And most of them don't even need to, but someone told them that's how they have to lose weight, so that's what they try to do. Then they struggle, because they don't enjoy the restriction, then they fail, then they post looking for advice. I try to tailor advice to what the OP wants to accomplish, based on info provided. I don't just blindly agree or disagree with any one plan or idea.
False. But then, I knew that would be the response.
Again, I'll ask you to look around. Look at the beginnings of low carb threads even ones just asking for friends.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
no, i have 20 grams or less (net carbs). there are a lot of incidental carbs in things (and I try to get some fiber). also, i eat green leafy veggies. they have almost no carbs (hell, they have almost not calories at all). like broccoli, kale, broccolini, usually drizzle it in butter and have it with whatever meat i'm eating.
i also eat a ton of nuts. they usually have a few carbs in them but are mostly protein and fats.0 -
Ahh, net carbs. The marketing gimmick to trick low carbers into eating more carbs than they think they are.0
-
I think when people say they eliminate sugar they mean processed sugar. I know that's what I mean when I say it.
It triggers migraines for me if eaten in overabundance. I rarely indulge.0 -
fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
My only disagreement with the OP is why make it about sugar specifically.
I guess added sugar is simply a convenient proxy to identify foods which are potentially high in calories and low in volume and satiety. It is by no means perfect of course but I doubt any method is in that regard.
I think we are all just repeating ourselves at this point, but given the huge number of other foods that can be overeaten and don't add a lot of nutrients for the calories, I think focusing just on sugar is probably going to miss the broader issue for a lot of people and those who really do just overeat sugar almost certainly know it, so I'm not sure what the advice is supposed to accomplish.
Also, as I indicated above, I dislike the idea that fat people must all be lacking self-control around sugar or got fat because we spend our days eating cookies. I like a cookie from time to time, like most people, but that wasn't my issue. People are better served by understanding the issues with their own diets than being scared to death about the power of sugar or the evils of sugar. (Not saying OP was doing this--I agree with much of what OP said--but the threads he seems to be defending, about Fed Up or with titles such as "sugar is the devil" (like that literally has been the title of multiple threads), are not consistent with a sensible and realistic at one's overall diet, etc. )0 -
miketoryan wrote: »fiber isn't absorbed in the stomach or intestines.
Are you sure about that?
positive, with the caveat that the fermentation process in the colon does provide the body some energy, but it's a small amount, and I normally stick to mostly insoluble fiber anyway so I'm not worried about a couple grams of carbs getting into my body from soluble fiber.0 -
tigersword wrote: »Ahh, net carbs. The marketing gimmick to trick low carbers into eating more carbs than they think they are.
Y U no give "Like Button" in forums!?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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