Why counting calories could be making you fatter.
Options
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, they don't. That link you provided proved my point. Thanks!!!herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, most foods do not include an "allowance" for TEF. You are completely wrong about that.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Depending on the foods, it can be significant. I am not sure how many less calories rare meat has vs well done, but there was a recent study released specifically on almonds. Almonds are apparently very hard for the body to digest, and some of the calories just aren't available. I believe that is said that 1/3 of the calories in almonds aren't digested/used by the body. Considering the standard 1 ounce serving of almonds has almost 200 calories, that means it is really only about 134 calories. That is not something to dismiss...I often eat an ounce of almonds, and some days eat even more.EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »Ummmm ....
"...a rare steak is harder to digest than a well-done one - so will be less calorific."
I can't.
It's true. Raw meat (rare steak is just a raw meat meat sandwich) is harder to digest and produces fewer net calories than cooked meat.
I get the concept, but I can't imagine that the difference would be that great. Not enough that people would notice any signifigant weight loss if they ate the same calories but in harder to digest foods.
There was also an article on resistant starch and rice recently. Cooling rice after it is cooked lowers the calories by about 50%. And even if you later reheat it, the calories still stay lower.
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. This stuff matters.
Not really. You just adjust your count accordingly.
It's majoring in the minors - if you count your calories, adjusting for TEF if it's not already been accounted for, and maintain a deficit, which will depend on individual needs and circumstances, you will lose weight. Everything else is window dressing.
Not really? So you think it is not significant that chilling starchy foods before eating can reduce calories by 50% is insignificant? Maybe you have a fast metabolism and can eat enough that it truly doesn't matter...if so, you're lucky. I am not so lucky... 50% is very significant to me.
And how does mfp adjust the calorie count for how you cook your meat? Or your rice or pasta? Or the fact that 1/3 of the calories in almonds can't be used by the body? Oh, that's right...it doesn't. So it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible for the average person to simply "adjust their count" accordingly.
Nope. Because it won't in reality. Most foods already have an allowance for TEF built in.
It's a nice bonus, but it doesn't change the fundamentals.
And it is not just TEF we are talking about. In the case of almonds, it is that the body just can't access the calories at all...NOT that the body burns more digesting them. They are never absorbed in the first place.
Actually they do.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/
Food labelling uses the Altwater system that splits the food down by composition and assigns calorie values to them based on nutrients. Those values include an allowance for thermic effect, although, like the whole system, it isn't precise.
As for your reduction in calories, so far you've shown that the number for almonds may be wrong, in which case it will simply be adjusted downwards, and referred to an experiment on rice which promised 50% reductions in calories, but which has so far only shown 10-12%, which may or may not be significant. So about a 20 Kcal saving on a standard portion.
So, yeah. Majoring in the minors and no real difference.
The Atwater system attempts to measure how much energy the food provides (that's why it subtracts fiber...it is not digested by the body, and thus provides no energy)...it completely ignores how much energy the body uses to process and digest it. THAT is the thermic effect. Atwater measures (or tries to) calories in. It ignores calories out...which is TEF.
And the rice depends on variety. And it is still significant...even with the worst variety. If somebody could eat 10-12% more calories without gaining based on choosing the right foods, they would probably call that significant.
I think you're overestimating how insignificant the impact that would have psychologically. If someone's in it to lose weight in the first place and is still counting calories, it's all well and fine, but for the average person?
Simply look to what diet soda consumption likely does to a great many people. They think they have extra calories to spend elsewhere, and eat to excess.
No, I don't think it should have any psychological impact at all...for people with healthy habits.
Not everyone who drinks diet soda eats more to make up the calories they "saved". Some do...some don't. There are tons of people here claiming they drink it every day and lose weight...so that is obviously where the psychology you speak of plays in. Those that eat more are obviously not forming a habit that is supportive of long term weight management. But that does not mean other people can't drink diet soda and use it to remove empty calories they would otherwise drink. I personally don't drink any soda..but I just prefer other things.
I eat almonds regularly...always have...I like them. However, now that I know the calories are overstated, I am not eating extra almonds to make up the difference. That would be counterproductive. I just look at the "savings" as a nice benefit.
The point is knowledge like this can be used to make more informed, better choices...even for people who don't count calories. If how you cook something impacts effective calories, you don't need to adjust anything or eat more or less...but you can consider that when deciding how to prepare it. Or you can choose one snack instead of another, at least on occasion...to help maintain a healthy weight. Some people will make that effort or change, others won't...the individual can decide if it is worth it for them.
The point is being healthy is the result of many individual habits. No one thing will make or break you., but making mindful informed choices goes a long way. If you can't be bothered to chill your pasta, you can still be healthy and maintain or lose weight. But it could be an easy change that could give an incremental benefit to others.
Right. Because the general population is so focused on healthy decision making that on the whole, average weight is just that: average. People out there not counting calories are succeeding left and right, apparently.
You are talking about people TRYING to make better choices and are very informed, but the point I was making was in terms of the general population that's on the whole, seen record obesity rates. Media reporting on medical issues is bullet-point driven, and the psychology of people wanting an easy fix is something not to be underestimated.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing about here. The media's reporting on medical issues is bullet proof driven. It is with political news and everything else as well. I agree with you that this is a problem. We're on the same page there.
But I believe it is good that the news is at least out there...even if the headlines don't always tell the full story. Those who are focused on their health...or some political issue for that matter... will take the time to look deeper...and could benefit. Those looking for an easy fix won't act consistently on whatever they are told regardless. It takes consistent effort to make real changes. Some people just aren't at a point where they are ready to do that...regardless of how the information is packaged.
Everybody here is motivated to some degree, or they wouldn't be here. It seems to me that people here can benefit from a discussion of these things. For the record, I don't believe chilling your pasta alone will take you from seriously obese to BMI at the midpoint of healthy. However, a person who eats a lot of pasta and rice could potentially benefit from that change. Someone who only eats it once a week might decide they don't get much bang for their buck from that one and focus on different aspects of their diet. It's just one more thing to keep in mid depending on your personal preferences. The same thing with the almonds, or TEF, or anything else. There is no magic bullet...but with some thought you can put together a plan that makes things easier for you and gives you a little more wiggle room. That's all I'm trying to say.0 -
I'm just that darn good.
:drinker:
Heck, all calories are not equal even if the only consideration is weight loss.
0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »BrentJulius wrote: »
Oh brother.BrentJulius wrote: »This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
No one on MFP has EVER argued that macros are not important...at least not in the context presented.
ETA: OK in the interest of not making a blanket statement, maybe some goober at some point has, but certainly no where near "many" people.
I've argued that they aren't important... for particular circumstances. Just wanting to lose weight = not at all important. For satiety, body composition, fitness goals, medical conditions, they are important.
Also this thread has gone to crap.-1 -
Right. Which is all just a complicated way of saying that in every way that actually matters to people looking to improve their health, all calories are NOT equal.
yes, I agree the calories do not matter.
what matters is the make up of the overall diet, dosage, and that one hits their macros/micros…0 -
Well hell, just drink salty water and you'll be healthy and full0
-
ceoverturf wrote: »BrentJulius wrote: »
Oh brother.BrentJulius wrote: »This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
No one on MFP has EVER argued that macros are not important...at least not in the context presented.
ETA: OK in the interest of not making a blanket statement, maybe some goober at some point has, but certainly no where near "many" people.
I've argued that they aren't important... for particular circumstances. Just wanting to lose weight = not at all important.
Of course they are. How do you come to the conclusion they aren't?
0 -
I'm just that darn good.
:drinker:
Heck, all calories are not equal even if the only consideration is weight loss.
If you say so. You know what I meant but it's already clear that you play words games. You can play by yourself.
0 -
Right. Which is all just a complicated way of saying that in every way that actually matters to people looking to improve their health, all calories are NOT equal.
Do I need to get the kilometers out again?
1 km = 1 km, or 1 mile = 1 mile if you're that way inclined.
You can traverse that distance in multiple different ways, and it is definitely better for you to go that distance on foot or with a bike on occasion instead of in a car all the time.
But that does not change anything about the distance. At. All. The mile don't give a *kitten* how you traverse it, it's still a mile.0 -
I didn't read the article, but when someone mentioned the bullet points, I checked those out:
TV show aired tomorrow night aims to explore science of calories
It's the type of calories we consume - and not the number - that's important
Eating the 'right' kind of calories can fill you up and stave off hunger pangs
Consuming the 'wrong' type will leave you hungry - and probably heavier
However it 's often easier to burn off calories than many of us realise
Show reveals a morning of housework burns as many calories as workout
#1...no idea what the show said
#2...I disagree with in general...unless you look at #3 and #4.
#3...Yup, filling up on protein and fat will keep you feeling full longer
#4...Yup, spending all your calories on sugar and sweets will leave you hungry...which could make you overeat
#5...eh...it depends
#6...could be, depending on how and what you're cleaning
so, my take on it, I don't see anything blatantly "wrong" with their bullet points.
There isnt much wrong with what it says if people bother to read the article, but they seem happy to make a decision based on a headline and something they havent read. Its a bit sneaky and makes some bit presumptions in certain places, but there isnt much wrong with it. Thye just span it at an angle.MonsoonStorm wrote: »[
I think this is mostly down to the fact that it's free and a well known name.
Unfortunately the less trashy newspapers prefer to charge you to read a lot of their online content.
It knows its market and is great at making money. As far as i understand it most if not all other newspapers are in decline and losing money fast. noy sue NYT has turned it around. DM is a sensationally run business.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Right. Which is all just a complicated way of saying that in every way that actually matters to people looking to improve their health, all calories are NOT equal.
Do I need to get the kilometers out again?
1 km = 1 km, or 1 mile = 1 mile if you're that way inclined.
You can traverse that distance in multiple different ways, and it is definitely better for you to go that distance on foot or with a bike on occasion instead of in a car all the time.
But that does not change anything about the distance. At. All. The mile don't give a *kitten* how you traverse it, it's still a mile.
We're not talking about "miles" - we're talking about weight loss and health. And it damn sure does matter for weight loss how you traverse the miles.
Macros matter for weight loss. Which means all calories are not equal, for weight loss.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Right. Which is all just a complicated way of saying that in every way that actually matters to people looking to improve their health, all calories are NOT equal.
Do I need to get the kilometers out again?
1 km = 1 km, or 1 mile = 1 mile if you're that way inclined.
You can traverse that distance in multiple different ways, and it is definitely better for you to go that distance on foot or with a bike on occasion instead of in a car all the time.
But that does not change anything about the distance. At. All. The mile don't give a *kitten* how you traverse it, it's still a mile.
We're not talking about "miles" - we're talking about weight loss and health. And it damn sure does matter for weight loss how you traverse the miles.
Macros matter for weight loss. Which means all calories are not equal, for weight loss.
They don't really all that much. An energy deficit gets equalized by energy you've got stored. I guess if you were to lose exclusively muscle you'd lose more weight for the same deficit because muscle doesn't yield as many calories as fat for the same weight. But that doesn't really happen now, does it?
And that still doesn't change anything about the calories.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »BrentJulius wrote: »
Oh brother.BrentJulius wrote: »This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
No one on MFP has EVER argued that macros are not important...at least not in the context presented.
ETA: OK in the interest of not making a blanket statement, maybe some goober at some point has, but certainly no where near "many" people.
I've argued that they aren't important... for particular circumstances. Just wanting to lose weight = not at all important.
Of course they are. How do you come to the conclusion they aren't?
CICO. Eating 70% carbs on 1500 calories when your maintenance is 2000 calories will not make you lose less fat than eating 20% carbs on 1500 calories.
Therefore not important for general, nondescript weightloss. If they were then I wouldn't have lost weight 5 years ago when I had no concept of calories or macros.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Right. Which is all just a complicated way of saying that in every way that actually matters to people looking to improve their health, all calories are NOT equal.
Do I need to get the kilometers out again?
1 km = 1 km, or 1 mile = 1 mile if you're that way inclined.
You can traverse that distance in multiple different ways, and it is definitely better for you to go that distance on foot or with a bike on occasion instead of in a car all the time.
But that does not change anything about the distance. At. All. The mile don't give a *kitten* how you traverse it, it's still a mile.
We're not talking about "miles" - we're talking about weight loss and health. And it damn sure does matter for weight loss how you traverse the miles.
Macros matter for weight loss. Which means all calories are not equal, for weight loss.
They don't really all that much. An energy deficit gets equalized by energy you've got stored. I guess if you were to lose exclusively muscle you'd lose more weight for the same deficit because muscle doesn't yield as many calories as fat for the same weight. But that doesn't really happen now, does it?
That's not why.
Why do we have protein intake guidelines when eating in a deficit? Because of the desire to preserve lean body mass. What is proportional to your lean body mass? Your BMR. What happens when your LBM goes down, all else being equal? Your BMR goes down.
A person eating X calories heavy on carbs and light on protein will lose less weight than the same person eating the same X calories over the same period of time but heavy on the protein and light on the carbs.
Macros matter for weight loss. All calories are not equal for weight loss.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, they don't. That link you provided proved my point. Thanks!!!herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, most foods do not include an "allowance" for TEF. You are completely wrong about that.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Depending on the foods, it can be significant. I am not sure how many less calories rare meat has vs well done, but there was a recent study released specifically on almonds. Almonds are apparently very hard for the body to digest, and some of the calories just aren't available. I believe that is said that 1/3 of the calories in almonds aren't digested/used by the body. Considering the standard 1 ounce serving of almonds has almost 200 calories, that means it is really only about 134 calories. That is not something to dismiss...I often eat an ounce of almonds, and some days eat even more.EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »Ummmm ....
"...a rare steak is harder to digest than a well-done one - so will be less calorific."
I can't.
It's true. Raw meat (rare steak is just a raw meat meat sandwich) is harder to digest and produces fewer net calories than cooked meat.
I get the concept, but I can't imagine that the difference would be that great. Not enough that people would notice any signifigant weight loss if they ate the same calories but in harder to digest foods.
There was also an article on resistant starch and rice recently. Cooling rice after it is cooked lowers the calories by about 50%. And even if you later reheat it, the calories still stay lower.
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. This stuff matters.
Not really. You just adjust your count accordingly.
It's majoring in the minors - if you count your calories, adjusting for TEF if it's not already been accounted for, and maintain a deficit, which will depend on individual needs and circumstances, you will lose weight. Everything else is window dressing.
Not really? So you think it is not significant that chilling starchy foods before eating can reduce calories by 50% is insignificant? Maybe you have a fast metabolism and can eat enough that it truly doesn't matter...if so, you're lucky. I am not so lucky... 50% is very significant to me.
And how does mfp adjust the calorie count for how you cook your meat? Or your rice or pasta? Or the fact that 1/3 of the calories in almonds can't be used by the body? Oh, that's right...it doesn't. So it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible for the average person to simply "adjust their count" accordingly.
Nope. Because it won't in reality. Most foods already have an allowance for TEF built in.
It's a nice bonus, but it doesn't change the fundamentals.
And it is not just TEF we are talking about. In the case of almonds, it is that the body just can't access the calories at all...NOT that the body burns more digesting them. They are never absorbed in the first place.
Actually they do.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/
Food labelling uses the Altwater system that splits the food down by composition and assigns calorie values to them based on nutrients. Those values include an allowance for thermic effect, although, like the whole system, it isn't precise.
As for your reduction in calories, so far you've shown that the number for almonds may be wrong, in which case it will simply be adjusted downwards, and referred to an experiment on rice which promised 50% reductions in calories, but which has so far only shown 10-12%, which may or may not be significant. So about a 20 Kcal saving on a standard portion.
So, yeah. Majoring in the minors and no real difference.
The Atwater system attempts to measure how much energy the food provides (that's why it subtracts fiber...it is not digested by the body, and thus provides no energy)...it completely ignores how much energy the body uses to process and digest it. THAT is the thermic effect. Atwater measures (or tries to) calories in. It ignores calories out...which is TEF.
And the rice depends on variety. And it is still significant...even with the worst variety. If somebody could eat 10-12% more calories without gaining based on choosing the right foods, they would probably call that significant.
I think you're overestimating how insignificant the impact that would have psychologically. If someone's in it to lose weight in the first place and is still counting calories, it's all well and fine, but for the average person?
Simply look to what diet soda consumption likely does to a great many people. They think they have extra calories to spend elsewhere, and eat to excess.
No, I don't think it should have any psychological impact at all...for people with healthy habits.
Not everyone who drinks diet soda eats more to make up the calories they "saved". Some do...some don't. There are tons of people here claiming they drink it every day and lose weight...so that is obviously where the psychology you speak of plays in. Those that eat more are obviously not forming a habit that is supportive of long term weight management. But that does not mean other people can't drink diet soda and use it to remove empty calories they would otherwise drink. I personally don't drink any soda..but I just prefer other things.
I eat almonds regularly...always have...I like them. However, now that I know the calories are overstated, I am not eating extra almonds to make up the difference. That would be counterproductive. I just look at the "savings" as a nice benefit.
The point is knowledge like this can be used to make more informed, better choices...even for people who don't count calories. If how you cook something impacts effective calories, you don't need to adjust anything or eat more or less...but you can consider that when deciding how to prepare it. Or you can choose one snack instead of another, at least on occasion...to help maintain a healthy weight. Some people will make that effort or change, others won't...the individual can decide if it is worth it for them.
The point is being healthy is the result of many individual habits. No one thing will make or break you., but making mindful informed choices goes a long way. If you can't be bothered to chill your pasta, you can still be healthy and maintain or lose weight. But it could be an easy change that could give an incremental benefit to others.
Right. Because the general population is so focused on healthy decision making that on the whole, average weight is just that: average. People out there not counting calories are succeeding left and right, apparently.
You are talking about people TRYING to make better choices and are very informed, but the point I was making was in terms of the general population that's on the whole, seen record obesity rates. Media reporting on medical issues is bullet-point driven, and the psychology of people wanting an easy fix is something not to be underestimated.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing about here. The media's reporting on medical issues is bullet proof driven. It is with political news and everything else as well. I agree with you that this is a problem. We're on the same page there.
But I believe it is good that the news is at least out there...even if the headlines don't always tell the full story. Those who are focused on their health...or some political issue for that matter... will take the time to look deeper...and could benefit. Those looking for an easy fix won't act consistently on whatever they are told regardless. It takes consistent effort to make real changes. Some people just aren't at a point where they are ready to do that...regardless of how the information is packaged.
Everybody here is motivated to some degree, or they wouldn't be here. It seems to me that people here can benefit from a discussion of these things. For the record, I don't believe chilling your pasta alone will take you from seriously obese to BMI at the midpoint of healthy. However, a person who eats a lot of pasta and rice could potentially benefit from that change. Someone who only eats it once a week might decide they don't get much bang for their buck from that one and focus on different aspects of their diet. It's just one more thing to keep in mid depending on your personal preferences. The same thing with the almonds, or TEF, or anything else. There is no magic bullet...but with some thought you can put together a plan that makes things easier for you and gives you a little more wiggle room. That's all I'm trying to say.
We're talking about two different populations. I'm talking about the general public and what they will do with that sort of information.
You're talking about informed, conscientious dieters and what they will do with it.
That's all. Not really an argument. We're just talking at cross-purposes.
0 -
Yeah, I just did some mathematics stuff on iifym. Looks like you lose a whooping 10 calories of BMR per pound of LBM you lose.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Right. Which is all just a complicated way of saying that in every way that actually matters to people looking to improve their health, all calories are NOT equal.
Do I need to get the kilometers out again?
1 km = 1 km, or 1 mile = 1 mile if you're that way inclined.
You can traverse that distance in multiple different ways, and it is definitely better for you to go that distance on foot or with a bike on occasion instead of in a car all the time.
But that does not change anything about the distance. At. All. The mile don't give a *kitten* how you traverse it, it's still a mile.
We're not talking about "miles" - we're talking about weight loss and health. And it damn sure does matter for weight loss how you traverse the miles.
Macros matter for weight loss. Which means all calories are not equal, for weight loss.
They don't really all that much. An energy deficit gets equalized by energy you've got stored. I guess if you were to lose exclusively muscle you'd lose more weight for the same deficit because muscle doesn't yield as many calories as fat for the same weight. But that doesn't really happen now, does it?
That's not why.
Why do we have protein intake guidelines when eating in a deficit? Because of the desire to preserve lean body mass. What is proportional to your lean body mass? Your BMR. What happens when your LBM goes down, all else being equal? Your BMR goes down.
A person eating X calories heavy on carbs and light on protein will lose less weight than the same person eating the same X calories over the same period of time but heavy on the protein and light on the carbs.
Macros matter for weight loss. All calories are not equal for weight loss.
0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »BrentJulius wrote: »
Oh brother.BrentJulius wrote: »This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
No one on MFP has EVER argued that macros are not important...at least not in the context presented.
ETA: OK in the interest of not making a blanket statement, maybe some goober at some point has, but certainly no where near "many" people.
I've argued that they aren't important... for particular circumstances. Just wanting to lose weight = not at all important.
Of course they are. How do you come to the conclusion they aren't?
CICO. Eating 70% carbs on 1500 calories when your maintenance is 2000 calories will not make you lose less fat than eating 20% carbs on 1500 calories.
Therefore not important for general, nondescript weightloss. If they were then I wouldn't have lost weight 5 years ago when I had no concept of calories or macros.
The first example will cause greater loss of LBM and subsequent drop in BMR than the second (assuming the macro shift is to proteins). The second path will result in greater weight loss.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions