Sweets when bulking?
Replies
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, I can understand that assuming all micronutrient needs have been met. But a lot of people don't eat as healthy as they should from a micronutrient perspective. The average American eats plenty of white bread, white rice, meat, dairy, and sweets, and some fruits/vegetables. Obviously, it is very easy to meet macro needs from this, but half of these foods are not very rich in many micronutrients. Vegetables are known for their rich micronutrient content (depending on the specific vegetable), and aside from potatoes you won't find the average American chomping down on the recommended number of servings of vegetables. Although I believe my general diet to be healthier than the average American diet, I already admitted that I personally fall well short when it comes to vegetables.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree that it doesn't. I'll admit that a lot of the things I read on here I think of in a general context, which is why I was thrown off when beastcompany made the statement that "no food is healthy or unhealthy".ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
again, you miss context…if you already hit your micros and the brownie rounds out your macros, what does it matter???
That still doesn't make sense though.
Even in general context, there is nothing "unhealthy" about a brownie.
So in the context of a diet that supplies all the micronutrients in the right amounts, yeah I can agree that a brownie isn't unhealthy. But, that's simply not how the average person in this culture eats. A typical brownie is really nothing but white flour and sugar. Aside from the vitamins that are sometimes added to flour, neither of these ingredients have anything beneficial to offer the body other than calories.
And despite the fact that my diet is healthier than the typical American diet, I know that there are some micronutrients that I don't meet the recommended amounts of. So therefore, in a general context, I think a brownie would still be considered unhealthy. Am I making sense?
BTW, I do eat some quantity of foods like this regularly, so I'm definitely not depriving myself either.
You are missing context again.
1) A brownie has more than sugar and flour - it has micronutrients that broccoli does not - maybe the brownie will get you close to your needs than broccoli will
2) maybe your fiber is way high - not always a good thing, so a brownie will be better in that context
3) maybe you are about to work out and need fast acting carbs
4) maybe you are just full and need to get your calories in (which, when bulking can be a challenge)
A brownie, or any other food is not healthy or unhealthy - the totality of ones diet may be healthier or unhealthier, depending on its make up.
So much this
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, I can understand that assuming all micronutrient needs have been met. But a lot of people don't eat as healthy as they should from a micronutrient perspective. The average American eats plenty of white bread, white rice, meat, dairy, and sweets, and some fruits/vegetables. Obviously, it is very easy to meet macro needs from this, but half of these foods are not very rich in many micronutrients. Vegetables are known for their rich micronutrient content (depending on the specific vegetable), and aside from potatoes you won't find the average American chomping down on the recommended number of servings of vegetables. Although I believe my general diet to be healthier than the average American diet, I already admitted that I personally fall well short when it comes to vegetables.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree that it doesn't. I'll admit that a lot of the things I read on here I think of in a general context, which is why I was thrown off when beastcompany made the statement that "no food is healthy or unhealthy".ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
again, you miss context…if you already hit your micros and the brownie rounds out your macros, what does it matter???
That still doesn't make sense though.
Even in general context, there is nothing "unhealthy" about a brownie.
So in the context of a diet that supplies all the micronutrients in the right amounts, yeah I can agree that a brownie isn't unhealthy. But, that's simply not how the average person in this culture eats. A typical brownie is really nothing but white flour and sugar. Aside from the vitamins that are sometimes added to flour, neither of these ingredients have anything beneficial to offer the body other than calories.
And despite the fact that my diet is healthier than the typical American diet, I know that there are some micronutrients that I don't meet the recommended amounts of. So therefore, in a general context, I think a brownie would still be considered unhealthy. Am I making sense?
BTW, I do eat some quantity of foods like this regularly, so I'm definitely not depriving myself either.
In this case, it would be the total diet that's not healthy, not the inclusion of the brownie. The brownie is still neither healthy nor unhealthy. Could this hypothetical average person who's not meeting their micro needs have made a better choice? Yes. But it's not the brownie's fault.
In order to define a food as healthy or unhealthy, you need to be able to define specific parameters to categorize those foods. You can do that with diets. A diet is healthy if it hits all of a person's macro, micro, and calorie needs. But you can't do that with a single food taken out of context. What makes something healthy? Is it just the inclusion of micro nutrients? Is it the exclusion of sugar? How do you define it?
No one ever seems to ask which is healthier: chicken breast or broccoli? Because, again, there's no way to determine it. This conversation relies on ridiculous polar opposites and foods that are understood to be unhealthy vs. foods that are understood to be healthy. It seems that healthy foods vs. unhealthy foods is a lot like pornography: there's no way to define it but you know it when you see it. And since the definition is so subjective and so fluid, there's just no way to have the conversation.
tl;dr version: There's no way to backpeddle out of this conversation. Stop with the brownie hate.
0 -
Wow.
I think you guys missed completely where was coming from with that post. For one thing, I'm not referring to health in terms of weight management (I know this thread was about bulking, but that wasn't in the context of my previous post).
Maybe some of you don't care about other measures of health, but there's a lot more to health than just weight management.
Also, you guys are bringing up situations like if one is starving, when you need to increase calories in a bulk, etc. I never stated that a brownie is never a better choice than broccoli. But what you guys are saying are not general situations. You guys are talking about specific situations that just don't apply to the general population. The average person I know is not bulking, eating to a specific macro nutrient split, etc. I don't understand how you all took what I said and completely missed the general context of it.0 -
FFS0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »Wow.
I think you guys missed completely where was coming from with that post. For one thing, I'm not referring to health in terms of weight management (I know this thread was about bulking, but that wasn't in the context of my previous post).
Maybe some of you don't care about other measures of health, but there's a lot more to health than just weight management.
Also, you guys are bringing up situations like if one is starving, when you need to increase calories in a bulk, etc. I never stated that a brownie is never a better choice than broccoli. But what you guys are saying are not general situations. You guys are talking about specific situations that just don't apply to the general population. The average person I know is not bulking, eating to a specific macro nutrient split, etc. I don't understand how you all took what I said and completely missed the general context of it.
As I tried to explain above, the "general context" of this debate is that there is no such thing as general context. There is no way to define a food as healthy or unhealthy in general context because general context is meaningless. You're looking at a single food or two in a vacuum and trying to say which is healthier. There are too many variables. It's like picking up a single rock and trying to determine whether it's light or heavy. Compared to what?
Some foods are understood to be healthy or unhealthy by most people, but it's a misnomer. It's a feeling that people have, not a fact. You have to look at the context.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »Wow.
I think you guys missed completely where was coming from with that post. For one thing, I'm not referring to health in terms of weight management (I know this thread was about bulking, but that wasn't in the context of my previous post).
Maybe some of you don't care about other measures of health, but there's a lot more to health than just weight management.
Also, you guys are bringing up situations like if one is starving, when you need to increase calories in a bulk, etc. I never stated that a brownie is never a better choice than broccoli. But what you guys are saying are not general situations. You guys are talking about specific situations that just don't apply to the general population. The average person I know is not bulking, eating to a specific macro nutrient split, etc. I don't understand how you all took what I said and completely missed the general context of it.
Dude, it's YOU that's missing the point. No ONE food is healthy or unhealthy. And we aren't talking about weight as the only marker of health.
And you obviously don't know this, but everyone that is replying to you has a wealth of knowledge. So ask yourself, is it us, or is it you? Just let it go...0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Wow.
I think you guys missed completely where was coming from with that post. For one thing, I'm not referring to health in terms of weight management (I know this thread was about bulking, but that wasn't in the context of my previous post).
Maybe some of you don't care about other measures of health, but there's a lot more to health than just weight management.
Also, you guys are bringing up situations like if one is starving, when you need to increase calories in a bulk, etc. I never stated that a brownie is never a better choice than broccoli. But what you guys are saying are not general situations. You guys are talking about specific situations that just don't apply to the general population. The average person I know is not bulking, eating to a specific macro nutrient split, etc. I don't understand how you all took what I said and completely missed the general context of it.
I think you are missing where we are coming from.
Also, please refer back to the OP - and the topic.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, I can understand that assuming all micronutrient needs have been met. But a lot of people don't eat as healthy as they should from a micronutrient perspective. The average American eats plenty of white bread, white rice, meat, dairy, and sweets, and some fruits/vegetables. Obviously, it is very easy to meet macro needs from this, but half of these foods are not very rich in many micronutrients. Vegetables are known for their rich micronutrient content (depending on the specific vegetable), and aside from potatoes you won't find the average American chomping down on the recommended number of servings of vegetables. Although I believe my general diet to be healthier than the average American diet, I already admitted that I personally fall well short when it comes to vegetables.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree that it doesn't. I'll admit that a lot of the things I read on here I think of in a general context, which is why I was thrown off when beastcompany made the statement that "no food is healthy or unhealthy".ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
again, you miss context…if you already hit your micros and the brownie rounds out your macros, what does it matter???
That still doesn't make sense though.
Even in general context, there is nothing "unhealthy" about a brownie.
So in the context of a diet that supplies all the micronutrients in the right amounts, yeah I can agree that a brownie isn't unhealthy. But, that's simply not how the average person in this culture eats. A typical brownie is really nothing but white flour and sugar. Aside from the vitamins that are sometimes added to flour, neither of these ingredients have anything beneficial to offer the body other than calories.
And despite the fact that my diet is healthier than the typical American diet, I know that there are some micronutrients that I don't meet the recommended amounts of. So therefore, in a general context, I think a brownie would still be considered unhealthy. Am I making sense?
BTW, I do eat some quantity of foods like this regularly, so I'm definitely not depriving myself either.
You are missing context again.
1) A brownie has more than sugar and flour - it has micronutrients that broccoli does not - maybe the brownie will get you close to your needs than broccoli will
2) maybe your fiber is way high - not always a good thing, so a brownie will be better in that context
3) maybe you are about to work out and need fast acting carbs
4) maybe you are just full and need to get your calories in (which, when bulking can be a challenge)
A brownie, or any other food is not healthy or unhealthy - the totality of ones diet may be healthier or unhealthier, depending on its make up.
All of that^^^^^ Every single point.
And all these people claiming enriched white rice provides no nutrients or very little and instead say eat brown rice. Hmmmm. Well let me ask something, how many of these white rice demonizers are taking the necessary time to soak the brown rice in order reduce the phytic acid? Because if you aren't then how great is your brown rice if human does posses the ability to absorb all those wonderful nutrients that are encased?
Jason has clearly never in his life made a brownie that he believes it's only flour and sugar. Hold on, white flour, white sugar, brown........brownie. Magic!!!
I'm going to reach into my pocket now and take my multi vitamin that I got on sale, 2 bottles for $8 and eat a brownie. Mmmmmmm vitamins and minerals.
A big part of learning is realizing and admitting that there is something that you don't know.
Yup--cocoa powder=brown and contains fiber and antioxidants. Okay, definitely making "healthy" brownies this weekend!!!0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Wow.
I think you guys missed completely where was coming from with that post. For one thing, I'm not referring to health in terms of weight management (I know this thread was about bulking, but that wasn't in the context of my previous post).
Maybe some of you don't care about other measures of health, but there's a lot more to health than just weight management.
Also, you guys are bringing up situations like if one is starving, when you need to increase calories in a bulk, etc. I never stated that a brownie is never a better choice than broccoli. But what you guys are saying are not general situations. You guys are talking about specific situations that just don't apply to the general population. The average person I know is not bulking, eating to a specific macro nutrient split, etc. I don't understand how you all took what I said and completely missed the general context of it.
Like what? Because much of it is linked to improvement in weight and body composition.0 -
Alright, I'd say I get it.diannethegeek wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Wow.
I think you guys missed completely where was coming from with that post. For one thing, I'm not referring to health in terms of weight management (I know this thread was about bulking, but that wasn't in the context of my previous post).
Maybe some of you don't care about other measures of health, but there's a lot more to health than just weight management.
Also, you guys are bringing up situations like if one is starving, when you need to increase calories in a bulk, etc. I never stated that a brownie is never a better choice than broccoli. But what you guys are saying are not general situations. You guys are talking about specific situations that just don't apply to the general population. The average person I know is not bulking, eating to a specific macro nutrient split, etc. I don't understand how you all took what I said and completely missed the general context of it.
As I tried to explain above, the "general context" of this debate is that there is no such thing as general context. There is no way to define a food as healthy or unhealthy in general context because general context is meaningless. You're looking at a single food or two in a vacuum and trying to say which is healthier. There are too many variables. It's like picking up a single rock and trying to determine whether it's light or heavy. Compared to what?
Some foods are understood to be healthy or unhealthy by most people, but it's a misnomer. It's a feeling that people have, not a fact. You have to look at the context.
And MrM, I'd venture to say I might have you beat in terms of my cholesterol levels, at least what it was when I had it checked a couple years ago.0 -
Also, I have made brownies from scratch. White flour (no fortified nutrients in this particular brand of flour), baking powder, eggs, cocoa, oil, and sugar. Divide all of that up into a normal size brownie, and you get almost nothing (except calories and sugar).0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »Also, I have made brownies from scratch. White flour (no fortified nutrients in this particular brand of flour), baking soda, eggs, cocoa, baking powder, oil, and sugar. Divide all of that up into a normal size brownie, and you get almost nothing (except calories and sugar).
I guess it's a good thing that your diet isn't consisting of only brownies then, huh?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Also, I have made brownies from scratch. White flour (no fortified nutrients in this particular brand of flour), baking soda, eggs, cocoa, baking powder, oil, and sugar. Divide all of that up into a normal size brownie, and you get almost nothing (except calories and sugar).
And? So?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Also, I have made brownies from scratch. White flour (no fortified nutrients in this particular brand of flour), baking soda, eggs, cocoa, baking powder, oil, and sugar. Divide all of that up into a normal size brownie, and you get almost nothing (except calories and sugar).
what??
You just listed a bunch of ingredients - which apparently only turn into calories and sugar when mixed together and cooked????
You must have a magic oven.
0 -
0 -
Body composition would be more so the key as opposed to just weight. But things such as blood glucose levels, HDL, blood pressure. I know from being around other people that high blood pressure is possible in the absence of being overweight or even having too much body fat.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Wow.
I think you guys missed completely where was coming from with that post. For one thing, I'm not referring to health in terms of weight management (I know this thread was about bulking, but that wasn't in the context of my previous post).
Maybe some of you don't care about other measures of health, but there's a lot more to health than just weight management.
Also, you guys are bringing up situations like if one is starving, when you need to increase calories in a bulk, etc. I never stated that a brownie is never a better choice than broccoli. But what you guys are saying are not general situations. You guys are talking about specific situations that just don't apply to the general population. The average person I know is not bulking, eating to a specific macro nutrient split, etc. I don't understand how you all took what I said and completely missed the general context of it.
Like what? Because much of it is linked to improvement in weight and body composition.
0 -
I don't feel like taking the time to calculate the exact amount of micronutrients in one of my normal sized brownies, but I can guarantee that for most micronutrients it won't come anywhere close to anything noteworthy (like 3 mg of magnesium, when the recommended amount is 400 mg.) Can brownies help get me to my goal? Yes. Will it make any kind of dent? Absolutely not.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Body composition would be more so the key as opposed to just weight. But things such as blood glucose levels, HDL, blood pressure. I know from being around other people that high blood pressure is possible in the absence of being overweight or even having too much body fat.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Wow.
I think you guys missed completely where was coming from with that post. For one thing, I'm not referring to health in terms of weight management (I know this thread was about bulking, but that wasn't in the context of my previous post).
Maybe some of you don't care about other measures of health, but there's a lot more to health than just weight management.
Also, you guys are bringing up situations like if one is starving, when you need to increase calories in a bulk, etc. I never stated that a brownie is never a better choice than broccoli. But what you guys are saying are not general situations. You guys are talking about specific situations that just don't apply to the general population. The average person I know is not bulking, eating to a specific macro nutrient split, etc. I don't understand how you all took what I said and completely missed the general context of it.
Like what? Because much of it is linked to improvement in weight and body composition.
Yes, it's possible... There are always outliers. However, many of those factors improve given weight reduction or body comp changes positively speaking.0 -
My comment about weight and health was in response to ndj's post, which was all about weight control. His post made it seem like weight control was everything.
Some of you probably have a better diet than me (depending on how you view it), but I'm guessing most of you probably eat better than the average American.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »I don't feel like taking the time to calculate the exact amount of micronutrients in one of my normal sized brownies, but I can guarantee that for most micronutrients it won't come anywhere close to anything noteworthy (like 3 mg of magnesium, when the recommended amount is 400 mg.) Can brownies help get me to my goal? Yes. Will it make any kind of dent? Absolutely not.
Neither will brocolli in my magnesium requirement, or my leucine requirement - a brownie will however do a better job.
Context.......0 -
OP here. One more quick question: I'm assuming the same thing goes for alcohol? As long as I'm hitting my macros and keeping my calories in check, all's good right?
By the way, thanks for all the help everyone. Even with all the debate and arguing, y'all have actually been super helpful and have forced me to do a lot of research myself as I prepare for my bulk.0 -
OP here. One more quick question: I'm assuming the same thing goes for alcohol? As long as I'm hitting my macros and keeping my calories in check, all's good right?
By the way, thanks for all the help everyone. Even with all the debate and arguing, y'all have actually been super helpful and have forced me to do a lot of research myself as I prepare for my bulk.
A few beers or the odd glass of wine here and there really will not make any significant impact - assuming that it does not impact your performance at the gym. It is not beneficial to gym performance like, say a brownie can be - so just be mindful.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
OP here. One more quick question: I'm assuming the same thing goes for alcohol? As long as I'm hitting my macros and keeping my calories in check, all's good right?
By the way, thanks for all the help everyone. Even with all the debate and arguing, y'all have actually been super helpful and have forced me to do a lot of research myself as I prepare for my bulk.
A few beers or the odd glass of wine here and there really will not make any significant impact - assuming that it does not impact your performance at the gym. It is not beneficial to gym performance like, say a brownie can be - so just be mindful.
I don't know about that - first time I got 3 chin-ups in a row I was a tad tipsy =D
0 -
Alcohol is 7 calories per gram. When factoring it into your overall macros, some take the approach of substituting either their carbs or fats, depending on which one you have more of to spare (with beer, I'll track both the carbs and alcohol content as carbs). Obviously it's not an exact, but its one way of tracking.
As @sarauk2sf stated, be mindful of your performance in the gym.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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