Low carb dieters!
Replies
-
\"More, most, a lot." The vast majority of LC and keto people already know and never claim otherwise that eating at a deficit goes hand in hand with weight loss. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of people on it don't have to bother counting calories to do it, or that they can eat more food to satiety than they did on strict calorie counting that went hand in hand with more deprivation in order to meet a higher carb count.
This isn't some great wisdom anyone is laying down in this thread. Any newbie who shows up to any LC forum or group or website is informed pretty quickly if they have fairy tale dreams of dropping carbs and magically losing 30 lbs. The implication that it's some epidemic, with everyone on lc running around like pied pipers, lying to people about how it works, is the real strawman people have built up just to hear themselves argue.
I should make it clear that when I low-carbed, I didn't really have time to be online. I had a young child and Atkins book. That book was the problem because it did NOT stress calories. It was all the "eat until you feel full" stuff.
I didn't have forum support telling me to eat at and calculate a deficit. I wasn't eating to a deficit after a certain point in my weight loss.
0 -
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
0 -
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
Strong first post; 29 year old male who has this figured out.
0 -
--0
-
*facepalm*
so much wrong in this post…
if you are low carb then you are low calorie..the two are not mutually exclusive they are the SAME thing….
calories = energy so 100 calories of bagels = 100 calories of ground beef
please post peer reviewed studies show that carbs are 'bad for your body' in people with no medical condition ...
@ndj1979 Hold on, you actually believe that low carb and low calorie are the same thing? Do you live on bagels and pasta, or do you live on ground beef? Both are certainly not the same. Perhaps you also believe that the earth is flat?
Strong second post.Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Correct me if I'm wrong, I might be getting my quacks mixed up, but doesn't Taubes suggest that cico doesn't work and that it's sugar that makes people fat?0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »The best way ive found to drop lbs without pills or starving! Anyone else use this method? Interested in ideas, recipes, and success stories!
Im very happy for you that a low carb diet is working for you. I think the reason so many people around here are anti-low carb diets is because weve done them before. They do work for a time, but its still a diet and its very difficult to keep up a diet for the rest of your life.
When you see success stories of people who lost a lot of weight and keep it off.. its always the same trick. They ate less and exercised more. Try not to get wrapped up in a specific diet like juicing, low carb, paleo or replacing all your meals with kale smoothies etc. Try to find something sustainable. Good luck.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »My issue is that a lot of low carbers claim they can eat as much they want and still lose weight as long as they keep their carbs low.
As yet I haven't seen a simple straight forward answer to this...
In other words, low carbers are exempt from calorie counting.
I am afraid there is not a simple straight forward answer, but if you want to have a look at the science behind the low-carbing you may want to read Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat.
That being said, I think that low-carbing can have a space also within the CICO dogma, as a strategy to eat less whilst not feeling hungry (and yes you can be in a deficit without counting calories)
NONSENSE0 -
christinev297 wrote: »My issue is that a lot of low carbers claim they can eat as much they want and still lose weight as long as they keep their carbs low.
As yet I haven't seen a simple straight forward answer to this...
In other words, low carbers are exempt from calorie counting.
That statement is correct to a certain degree.
I can eat meals for the day high in fat and protein and low in carbs, stop when I'm full and still be in a calorie deficit.
Maybe they are not claiming magic, just they can eat the food they want to satisfy their hunger and still be under in cals.
I certainly can do this when I'm low carbing - I definitely can't when I'm not.
All of my weight loss has come from eating in a calorie deficit and I've not logged one piece of food in all that time.
Some people - like myself find following low carb the easy option.
0 -
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »AfricazMost wrote: »With that being said Mark Haub, a professor at Kansas State University, went on a "convenience store" diet which mainly consisted of Twinkies, Oreos, and Doritos to demonstrate that counting calories is what matters most in weight loss, not the nutritional value in food. He lost 27 pounds in only two months.
That experiment is often mentioned here, unfortunately. Anyway, what amazes me more is how a nutrition professor could actually be at least 27 pounds overweight (unless he gained on purpose before).
degree in nutrition does not equal that one has a healthy weight..
isn't it in england or somewhere where their health department minister is actually "obese"..???
You're thinking of Belgium, Maggie De Block (at least I think she is still the minister for health).
Our Secretary of State for health is Jeremy Hunt (he's a slim Jim).
0 -
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
YOU'RE not restricting calories, but the appetite suppressing effect of ketosis is, right?
The thing is, that appetite suppressing thing doesn't work for people who are emotional eaters. This is my beef with simplistic explanations of low carbing that state "eat all you want". Saying that to an emotional eater is not a good idea. They will eat past the feeling of fullness and past a caloric deficit.
Been there, done that. Didn't lose that much weight on low carb.
It's not that low carb can't be effective, but how it's talked about in general terms could be clearer.
0 -
Eating carbs makes me hungry so I eat more; eating fat/protein makes me full so I eat less. So yes, losing weight is super easy for me when I'm eating low-carb. It is non-restrictive because there are no food cravings.
Obviously you need to eat a caloric deficit in order to lose fat. This is simple thermodynamics, whether you're in ketosis or not.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
YOU'RE not restricting calories, but the appetite suppressing effect of ketosis is, right?
The thing is, that appetite suppressing thing doesn't work for people who are emotional eaters. This is my beef with simplistic explanations of low carbing that state "eat all you want". Saying that to an emotional eater is not a good idea. They will eat past the feeling of fullness and past a caloric deficit.
Been there, done that. Didn't lose that much weight on low carb.
It's not that low carb can't be effective, but how it's talked about in general terms could be clearer.
Yes but It works for me and that's exactly how it works for me, I have no other explanation. Therefore it is factual and it is correct.
I'm not sure I've seen a post saying it works for everyone!!!!
Sorry if it doesn't work for you, that's life. I can't get my tongue to touch the tip of my nose, we've all got *kitten* to deal with.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
now you are just playing a semantic game...
if you are low carbing and losing weight then you are in a calorie deficit because you have restricted calories. In this instance, you have chosen to restrict carbs to a minimal amount in order to get into a deficit.
0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Eating carbs makes me hungry so I eat more; eating fat/protein makes me full so I eat less. So yes, losing weight is super easy for me when I'm eating low-carb. It is non-restrictive because there are no food cravings.
Obviously you need to eat a caloric deficit in order to lose fat. This is simple thermodynamics, whether you're in ketosis or not.
so restricting carbs is non restrictive? Got ya...0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
YOU'RE not restricting calories, but the appetite suppressing effect of ketosis is, right?
The thing is, that appetite suppressing thing doesn't work for people who are emotional eaters. This is my beef with simplistic explanations of low carbing that state "eat all you want". Saying that to an emotional eater is not a good idea. They will eat past the feeling of fullness and past a caloric deficit.
Been there, done that. Didn't lose that much weight on low carb.
It's not that low carb can't be effective, but how it's talked about in general terms could be clearer.
Yes but It works for me and that's exactly how it works for me, I have no other explanation. Therefore it is factual and it is correct.
I'm not sure I've seen a post saying it works for everyone!!!!
Sorry if it doesn't work for you, that's life. I can't get my tongue to touch the tip of my nose, we've all got *kitten* to deal with.
Oh, I'm not disputing anything about how it works for you. I'm questioning the words you use and how helpful it might be to someone reading.
Saying that you can "eat until you're full" is a nebulous concept that doesn't explain HOW low carbing works to make you lose weight. To an emotional eater, it sounds like a magic ticket for weight loss.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
now you are just playing a semantic game...
if you are low carbing and losing weight then you are in a calorie deficit because you have restricted calories. In this instance, you have chosen to restrict carbs to a minimal amount in order to get into a deficit.
Right. And some of the low carb WK's wonder why some of us have issue with low-carbers? It's because of word games like this.
0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Eating carbs makes me hungry so I eat more; eating fat/protein makes me full so I eat less. So yes, losing weight is super easy for me when I'm eating low-carb. It is non-restrictive because there are no food cravings.
Obviously you need to eat a caloric deficit in order to lose fat. This is simple thermodynamics, whether you're in ketosis or not.
so restricting carbs is non restrictive? Got ya...
If I don't fancy eating something and therefore don't eat it - is that restricting?
I think you will find that the people low carb works for and who find it sustainable, don't really miss eating lots of carbs.
By your definition anyone eating high carb is on a fat restricting diet??
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Eating carbs makes me hungry so I eat more; eating fat/protein makes me full so I eat less. So yes, losing weight is super easy for me when I'm eating low-carb. It is non-restrictive because there are no food cravings.
Obviously you need to eat a caloric deficit in order to lose fat. This is simple thermodynamics, whether you're in ketosis or not.
so restricting carbs is non restrictive? Got ya...
If I don't fancy eating something and therefore don't eat it - is that restricting?
I think you will find that the people low carb works for and who find it sustainable, don't really miss eating lots of carbs.
By your definition anyone eating high carb is on a fat restricting diet??
anyone in a calorie deficit is restricting, period.
and as I am cutting right now, I would include myself in that definition. I just choose to restrict all the foods into a deficit.
so yes, if you go high carb and choose to restrict fats, then you are restricting fats.
why is that so hard to understand.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
now you are just playing a semantic game...
if you are low carbing and losing weight then you are in a calorie deficit because you have restricted calories. In this instance, you have chosen to restrict carbs to a minimal amount in order to get into a deficit.
If you do not require, or want as many calories in your diet - is that restricting???
By your definition everything we do is restricting something.
If I eat 10,000 I'm restricting calories because I haven't eaten 10,001.
Surely if you stop eating when you've had enough, then you're not restricting.
I agree you are controlling your calories, but restricting (I don't think so).
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
now you are just playing a semantic game...
if you are low carbing and losing weight then you are in a calorie deficit because you have restricted calories. In this instance, you have chosen to restrict carbs to a minimal amount in order to get into a deficit.
If you do not require, or want as many calories in your diet - is that restricting???
By your definition everything we do is restricting something.
If I eat 10,000 I'm restricting calories because I haven't eaten 10,001.
Surely if you stop eating when you've had enough, then you're not restricting.
I agree you are controlling your calories, but restricting (I don't think so).
I am done playing word games with you.
if you are in a calorie deficit then you are restricting/controlling/eliminating something so that you eat less.
the fact that you are even arguing this is dumb
Go get a thesaurus.
0 -
If you're eating less calories than you expend, you're restricting them, regardless of if you do it consciously or not. Right now I'm restricting my calories against my will because I'm sick and can't bring myself to eat another bite.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
now you are just playing a semantic game...
if you are low carbing and losing weight then you are in a calorie deficit because you have restricted calories. In this instance, you have chosen to restrict carbs to a minimal amount in order to get into a deficit.
If you do not require, or want as many calories in your diet - is that restricting???
By your definition everything we do is restricting something.
If I eat 10,000 I'm restricting calories because I haven't eaten 10,001.
Surely if you stop eating when you've had enough, then you're not restricting.
I agree you are controlling your calories, but restricting (I don't think so).
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Eating carbs makes me hungry so I eat more; eating fat/protein makes me full so I eat less. So yes, losing weight is super easy for me when I'm eating low-carb. It is non-restrictive because there are no food cravings.
Obviously you need to eat a caloric deficit in order to lose fat. This is simple thermodynamics, whether you're in ketosis or not.
so restricting carbs is non restrictive? Got ya...
If I don't fancy eating something and therefore don't eat it - is that restricting?
I think you will find that the people low carb works for and who find it sustainable, don't really miss eating lots of carbs.
By your definition anyone eating high carb is on a fat restricting diet??
anyone in a calorie deficit is restricting, period.
and as I am cutting right now, I would include myself in that definition. I just choose to restrict all the foods into a deficit.
so yes, if you go high carb and choose to restrict fats, then you are restricting fats.
why is that so hard to understand.
Okay, I'll agree with that definition.
Restricting by controlling, as opposed to restricting by depriving.
It's just that when most people who do not follow or do not like low carb refer to it as a restrictive diet, I think they are referring to depriving!!
But your definition of controlling, I agree with.
So we are in agreement, low carb, moderation, IIFYM are all restricting diets.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
now you are just playing a semantic game...
if you are low carbing and losing weight then you are in a calorie deficit because you have restricted calories. In this instance, you have chosen to restrict carbs to a minimal amount in order to get into a deficit.
Right. And some of the low carb WK's wonder why some of us have issue with low-carbers? It's because of word games like this.
This is MFP, if you've got more than 1000 posts, then you are one of the people definitely playing the semantics game.0 -
If the goal is fat loss then yes all are restrictive. If the goal is maintenance or a bulk, IIFYM and moderation are not. Low carb still would be...tennisdude2004 wrote: »So we are in agreement, low carb, moderation, IIFYM are all restricting diets.
Not saying that it is a good or bad thing, just that it is...
0 -
If the goal is fat loss then yes all are restrictive. If the goal is maintenance or a bulk, IIFYM and moderation are not. Low carb still would be...tennisdude2004 wrote: »So we are in agreement, low carb, moderation, IIFYM are all restricting diets.
Not saying that it is a good or bad thing, just that it is...
Why would it be if you are eating low carb in a surplus.
You are still eating carbs, just a higher volume of fat. By that definition whatever macro split you have you are restricting something. Unless your split is 33.333% across the board.0 -
I guess in that context you would be right. In order to balance something on one end, something else needs to be restricted on the other...tennisdude2004 wrote: »
If the goal is fat loss then yes all are restrictive. If the goal is maintenance or a bulk, IIFYM and moderation are not. Low carb still would be...tennisdude2004 wrote: »So we are in agreement, low carb, moderation, IIFYM are all restricting diets.
Not saying that it is a good or bad thing, just that it is...
Why would it be if you are eating low carb in a surplus.
You are still eating carbs, just a higher volume of fat. By that definition whatever macro split you have you are restricting something. Unless your split is 33.333% across the board.
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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