EATING CLEAN VERSUS EATING LESS
Replies
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I don't understand how you're supporting this. You know it's bad science, n=1...EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
You can edit a post for an hour. Mouse rollover the post and click on the right corner gear icon.
Well that time is gone... thank you for letting me know....
We understand your update, just reflect it in your diary and start it up. Good luck!
I always support doing your own personal research and learning by observation. The OP isn't doing something harmful, readers that follow her wouldn't be doing something harmful so there is no reason not to support her - science can stand to be challenged by personal observation.
Whatever the outcome - the OP will have an overall healthier diet.
Agreed!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Peoples' negative responses, in such arrogant manner, are the reason I've stopped posting to either help, defend or assist anyone in any way on the forums.. Nor will I ever ask for advice or post opinion regarding health and nutrition again.0
-
OP I think there are some things for you to consider here--
You were talking about a small cut, then maintenance, and in your last post you said you're going to be eating in a surplus. It sounds like a surplus is really what you want (to prove that eating "clean" allows you to eat over your maintenance calories), so I'd aim for a couple of hundred calories over your TDEE. The problem is that you don't really know your TDEE. Might I suggest a month or two of logging to establish your actual tested maintenance? For example, MFP says my maintenance is 1600 calories but it's actually at least 100 calories higher than that, plus exercise calories. So if I ate at "maintenance" without having tested it first I'd still lose weight. That's going to throw off your results. Also are you going to have a control? That is, a month where you don't eat "clean" to compare the results?
Secondly you need to define what you mean by "clean." I would not consider protein shakes to be unprocessed. Quite the opposite. I also wouldn't consider things like cheese, preserved meats like sausage, bread of any kind, etc. to be "clean." Other people might think some of those are okay-- I think if you're Paleo, for example, you can have butter but it has to be grass fed. Personally I'd think butter would be out.
I agree that an open diary is a must. Specifically I'm not interested so much in whether you lose more weight but in how your adherence is. Because to me even if I wanted to eat "clean" it just isn't practical. Like you pointed out, that's a lot of meat and vegetables. That's one reason why the IIFYM crowd say that it won't hurt anything to include some foods that aren't considered "clean." If your TDEE is 3500 like some of the guys here it just isn't practical not to include some of those foods.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Hi all, welcome to my experiment...
I will be eating almost 800 calories over what the suggested amount is for losing 2lbs a week
What I entered :
Weight 260
Height 5'7
Lifestyle: sedentary
The suggest 1390 a day
I will be eating 2100
I believe I will still lose weight without starving myself because eating clean and burning fat is far different than eating junk and burning muscle... whats more I think I will lose more weight this way...
I will also be drinking approximation 120 ounces of water a day to help flush fat cells
I will be posting my diary link so that you can check it, I will be logging in every day, and weighing myself once a week...
I am excited to see these results!!!
I don't get it...
You're going to compare eating "junk food" with eating "clean" how are you going to compare them? You mention nothing of how long of clean or dirty eating you're going to do.
Also if you lose weight one way, it can have a hormonal impact that will effect the other way of eating. I am pretty sure you're not even using a a good method to determine TDEE...
BTW I lost most of my weight "eating dirty"
ETA: I also realized, your title. "Eating clean vs eating less" which is contradictory to what you posted.
I am not eating both... I am doing one...
INSTEAD of eating below TDEE and whatever I want....like pizza... I am eating ABOVE TDEE stuff like protein shake... thats all....
Hold on, I thought you weren't doing processed. Protein shakes is about as processed as you get. A McDonalds burger has more real food in it than a protein shake.
Oh no please do not assume anything.... I mean greens, natural chi seeds, garbanzo beans, and maybe some pineapple.... a protein shake is a skake with protien, lol...
Processed is like orange juice
0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
Welllll, I'm gonna get nitpicky here, and point out that any domesticated crop is a GMO (genetically modified organism) by definition, and spelt is a hybrid of domesticated wheat and wild goat-grass (or of domesticated emmer and domesticated bread wheat). The earliest archaeological evidence of its existence is from around the 5th millennium BCE. In the grand scheme of things that's not very original. But okay.
Nit picky just here huh? LOL. Actually its believed that hexaploid wheat originated via hybridization of hulled tetraploid emmer with Aegilops tauschii (genomes DD) and that the nascent hexaploid was spelt, from which free-threshing wheat evolved by mutations.
And anyway, GMO means genetically modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination... so just any crop is hybrid does not mean its considered GMO.
Ya see @Nony_Mouse understands what she wrote whereas I doubt you have the slightest inkling of the meaning of what you copied and pasted
And over here we are lead to believe that US grains are indeed GM crops ...we were surprised that this was allowed as there was a huge uproar in the UK re GM0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
Welllll, I'm gonna get nitpicky here, and point out that any domesticated crop is a GMO (genetically modified organism) by definition, and spelt is a hybrid of domesticated wheat and wild goat-grass (or of domesticated emmer and domesticated bread wheat). The earliest archaeological evidence of its existence is from around the 5th millennium BCE. In the grand scheme of things that's not very original. But okay.
Nit picky just here huh? LOL. Actually its believed that hexaploid wheat originated via hybridization of hulled tetraploid emmer with Aegilops tauschii (genomes DD) and that the nascent hexaploid was spelt, from which free-threshing wheat evolved by mutations.
And anyway, GMO means genetically modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination... so just any crop is hybrid does not mean its considered GMO.
You missed the domesticated part. I fully admit that I'm being facetious, but it just intrigues me how 'clean eaters' decide one thing is okay and something else isn't (eg one form of wheat vs another).0 -
billieljaime wrote: »I already did this exirament way before you for the sake of science.......
ate 500 plus calories and cut out "processed" aka "dirty" foods
I did not eat pasta or bread either
I gained weight
good luck.
A defecit is a defecit.
There is a benefit to eating nutrient dense aka "cleaner" foods as in they have an overall better impact on your health and leave you feeling better, but in terms of weight loss it boils down to thermogenics and science.
You are like a decade late on your expirament, and a month is worthless in terms of time. It needs to be a minimum of 90 days for lasting results.
I am currently in a "vegetarian" expirament. I just did a nine month "plant based" expirament. I did two years of full on Atkins, the whole book, every phase, for science. Thirty days is nothing.
30 days gets you no where.
For the sake of fun though, good luck!
Ok I hear ya.... its like I said I could be completely wrong but at least I tried it...decade late and dollar short but gotta start somewhere... let me know how your vegetarian thing turns out...0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
Welllll, I'm gonna get nitpicky here, and point out that any domesticated crop is a GMO (genetically modified organism) by definition, and spelt is a hybrid of domesticated wheat and wild goat-grass (or of domesticated emmer and domesticated bread wheat). The earliest archaeological evidence of its existence is from around the 5th millennium BCE. In the grand scheme of things that's not very original. But okay.
Nit picky just here huh? LOL. Actually its believed that hexaploid wheat originated via hybridization of hulled tetraploid emmer with Aegilops tauschii (genomes DD) and that the nascent hexaploid was spelt, from which free-threshing wheat evolved by mutations.
And anyway, GMO means genetically modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination... so just any crop is hybrid does not mean its considered GMO.
Ya see @Nony_Mouse understands what she wrote whereas I doubt you have the slightest inkling of the meaning of what you copied and pasted
And over here we are lead to believe that US grains are indeed GM crops ...we were surprised that this was allowed as there was a huge uproar in the UK re GM
No GMO has the same definition everywhere, you can genetically change items through interbreeding its considered natural and not GMO, but I wont argue terms you can look up yourself.
Meantime, many botanist believe that wheat originated through spelt, not the other way around but because it was so long ago you are going to have differing opinions. Not really relent but its not GMO based on recombination, that has never been part of the definition. Again, look it up yourself.
0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
Welllll, I'm gonna get nitpicky here, and point out that any domesticated crop is a GMO (genetically modified organism) by definition, and spelt is a hybrid of domesticated wheat and wild goat-grass (or of domesticated emmer and domesticated bread wheat). The earliest archaeological evidence of its existence is from around the 5th millennium BCE. In the grand scheme of things that's not very original. But okay.
Nit picky just here huh? LOL. Actually its believed that hexaploid wheat originated via hybridization of hulled tetraploid emmer with Aegilops tauschii (genomes DD) and that the nascent hexaploid was spelt, from which free-threshing wheat evolved by mutations.
And anyway, GMO means genetically modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination... so just any crop is hybrid does not mean its considered GMO.
Ya see @Nony_Mouse understands what she wrote whereas I doubt you have the slightest inkling of the meaning of what you copied and pasted
And over here we are lead to believe that US grains are indeed GM crops ...we were surprised that this was allowed as there was a huge uproar in the UK re GM
Several years of drumming theories of domestication into the minds of 18/19 year olds who didn't really care
.
I do know what the popular usage of GMO refers to, I just like to be a brat
0 -
TyronnePanaino wrote: »Peoples' negative responses, in such arrogant manner, are the reason I've stopped posting to either help, defend or assist anyone in any way on the forums.. Nor will I ever ask for advice or post opinion regarding health and nutrition again.
That's a shame as there is a wealth of information and support on here not unlike RL.
You wouldn't stop leaving the house or meeting new people just because of a bad experience in life would you?
There are a lot of knowledgeable people on here who are willing to provide free advice, support etc read this link below for an example of how much people go out of their way to share.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/833026/important-posts-to-read/p10 -
Well thank you to everyone who is humoring me and gave good insight... to everyone else really its MFP lighten up... lifes a game you don't make it out alive....
0 -
Can I volunteer for the eating all the junk food and still loosing weight experiment please?0
-
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
Welllll, I'm gonna get nitpicky here, and point out that any domesticated crop is a GMO (genetically modified organism) by definition, and spelt is a hybrid of domesticated wheat and wild goat-grass (or of domesticated emmer and domesticated bread wheat). The earliest archaeological evidence of its existence is from around the 5th millennium BCE. In the grand scheme of things that's not very original. But okay.
Nit picky just here huh? LOL. Actually its believed that hexaploid wheat originated via hybridization of hulled tetraploid emmer with Aegilops tauschii (genomes DD) and that the nascent hexaploid was spelt, from which free-threshing wheat evolved by mutations.
And anyway, GMO means genetically modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination... so just any crop is hybrid does not mean its considered GMO.
Ya see @Nony_Mouse understands what she wrote whereas I doubt you have the slightest inkling of the meaning of what you copied and pasted
And over here we are lead to believe that US grains are indeed GM crops ...we were surprised that this was allowed as there was a huge uproar in the UK re GM
No GMO has the same definition everywhere, you can genetically change items through interbreeding its considered natural and not GMO, but I wont argue terms you can look up yourself.
Meantime, many botanist believe that wheat originated through spelt, not the other way around but because it was so long ago you are going to have differing opinions. Not really relent but its not GMO based on recombination, that has never been part of the definition. Again, look it up yourself.
Hmmm, interesting, given that we have much older archaeological evidence for other wheats, both wild and domesticated than we do for spelt (and fyi, their domestication didn't necessarily involve any hybridisation, just human-induced genetic changes - ie selective breeding - of the original plants themselves) .0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »OP I think there are some things for you to consider here--
You were talking about a small cut, then maintenance, and in your last post you said you're going to be eating in a surplus. It sounds like a surplus is really what you want (to prove that eating "clean" allows you to eat over your maintenance calories), so I'd aim for a couple of hundred calories over your TDEE. The problem is that you don't really know your TDEE. Might I suggest a month or two of logging to establish your actual tested maintenance? For example, MFP says my maintenance is 1600 calories but it's actually at least 100 calories higher than that, plus exercise calories. So if I ate at "maintenance" without having tested it first I'd still lose weight. That's going to throw off your results. Also are you going to have a control? That is, a month where you don't eat "clean" to compare the results?
Secondly you need to define what you mean by "clean." I would not consider protein shakes to be unprocessed. Quite the opposite. I also wouldn't consider things like cheese, preserved meats like sausage, bread of any kind, etc. to be "clean." Other people might think some of those are okay-- I think if you're Paleo, for example, you can have butter but it has to be grass fed. Personally I'd think butter would be out.
I agree that an open diary is a must. Specifically I'm not interested so much in whether you lose more weight but in how your adherence is. Because to me even if I wanted to eat "clean" it just isn't practical. Like you pointed out, that's a lot of meat and vegetables. That's one reason why the IIFYM crowd say that it won't hurt anything to include some foods that aren't considered "clean." If your TDEE is 3500 like some of the guys here it just isn't practical not to include some of those foods.
One other person on here gave me sight they got their TDEE from, which put mine at 2309... and someone else said just add 1000 calories to my loss deficit which put me at about the same...so I will be aiming for minimal 2310.... you have to understand if I do this a month and have only lost .5 lbs that not a win, I am looking for like an 8lb drop minimal first month....I am not so narcissistic as to claim victory over split hairs, I am not that person....
No if I were going to do both I would definitely eat clean first, then eat not clean just for hormone reasons...
I agree butter is out, I never use it anyway.... I use light olive oil... but yes I there is a lot I will not be eating... it wont be convieint and again I am nnot sure I can eat that much in the kind of foods I inteend to eat but I sure will try and we will see what happens, I am not affraid to fail and I don't mind being wrong...
Yes I know not including clean food sometimes but I mean i literally had a person tell me they eat hamburgers with doughnuts as their bread ... so not sure about their cholesterol or diabetes but hey their weight is ok.... lol0 -
Karen_libert wrote: »Can I volunteer for the eating all the junk food and still loosing weight experiment please?
Are you serious???0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »OP I think there are some things for you to consider here--
You were talking about a small cut, then maintenance, and in your last post you said you're going to be eating in a surplus. It sounds like a surplus is really what you want (to prove that eating "clean" allows you to eat over your maintenance calories), so I'd aim for a couple of hundred calories over your TDEE. The problem is that you don't really know your TDEE. Might I suggest a month or two of logging to establish your actual tested maintenance? For example, MFP says my maintenance is 1600 calories but it's actually at least 100 calories higher than that, plus exercise calories. So if I ate at "maintenance" without having tested it first I'd still lose weight. That's going to throw off your results. Also are you going to have a control? That is, a month where you don't eat "clean" to compare the results?
Secondly you need to define what you mean by "clean." I would not consider protein shakes to be unprocessed. Quite the opposite. I also wouldn't consider things like cheese, preserved meats like sausage, bread of any kind, etc. to be "clean." Other people might think some of those are okay-- I think if you're Paleo, for example, you can have butter but it has to be grass fed. Personally I'd think butter would be out.
I agree that an open diary is a must. Specifically I'm not interested so much in whether you lose more weight but in how your adherence is. Because to me even if I wanted to eat "clean" it just isn't practical. Like you pointed out, that's a lot of meat and vegetables. That's one reason why the IIFYM crowd say that it won't hurt anything to include some foods that aren't considered "clean." If your TDEE is 3500 like some of the guys here it just isn't practical not to include some of those foods.
One other person on here gave me sight they got their TDEE from, which put mine at 2309... and someone else said just add 1000 calories to my loss deficit which put me at about the same...so I will be aiming for minimal 2310.... you have to understand if I do this a month and have only lost .5 lbs that not a win, I am looking for like an 8lb drop minimal first month....I am not so narcissistic as to claim victory over split hairs, I am not that person....
No if I were going to do both I would definitely eat clean first, then eat not clean just for hormone reasons...
I agree butter is out, I never use it anyway.... I use light olive oil... but yes I there is a lot I will not be eating... it wont be convieint and again I am nnot sure I can eat that much in the kind of foods I inteend to eat but I sure will try and we will see what happens, I am not affraid to fail and I don't mind being wrong...
Yes I know not including clean food sometimes but I mean i literally had a person tell me they eat hamburgers with doughnuts as their bread ... so not sure about their cholesterol or diabetes but hey their weight is ok.... lol
The point is that that's just what a calculator says your maintenance is. You need to test it to be sure it's correct.
Olive oil is processed too. You probably think that's hair splitting but that's the point. You need to explain what your rules are going to be.
You also need to account for the water weight drop you'll likely see from the drop in sodium. That's assuming you eat processed foods now.0 -
I find it interesting...
FYI though, light olive oil is more processed than extra virgin. It is only called light due to its lighter color. Learned that on The Chew the thee day.0 -
Trollpost is too obvious. Where's the fun in that?
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Cryptonomnomicon wrote: »Never said I know what is best or implied it. Also I think you mistake humor for more negative connotations.
You may have encountered several of the "aforementioned ["curse word edited"s]" but what of the thousands of helpful and positive posts and replies? I think you fixate upon the negative, I think you need to lighten up.
Yeah, maybe you're right. A few bad apples and all that...
I think it may help to improve our "playground" to report those bad apples...
Report people who are being abusive. Do not report people who are simply telling another poster that they're wrong, or their idea won't work. It's a waste of the mods time, and frankly - we're all supposed to be adults. This thread, for instance - not one person has been rude or mean to the OP. They've disagreed with her idea, and have said so, but there is nothing at all reportable in this thread. Y'know, except for someone calling other people a-holes.0 -
If it is impossible to gain weight eating "real" food or "clean" food, how did the human race survive to even invent processing? Wouldn't our ancestors all died due to failure to put on weight?0
-
To the OP there is a MFP forum called EM2WL (eat more to weight less @em2wl.com).
You should join this group.
When I read your initial post I suspected trolling but when I saw the amount of weight needed to loose I predicted you consume or consumed a lot more than 2100 calories to gain 80+ pounds..
Good luck with this... you have chosen a fine path to follow...
0 -
Wow, why are you people being so rude, if that's the way she wants to go about it, she can. We're all here for one reason which is to become more healthy and loose weight the healthy way, everyone's body is different it it doesn't work out then she can try an different method. While I'm still on my journey, I've definitely been switching things up to see which method works for me. And I know for a fact that every person that has lost weight had to eventually find out which beat his or her body moves too. Stay Blessed Everyone0
-
Wow, why are you people being so rude, if that's the way she wants to go about it, she can. We're all here for one reason which is to become more healthy and loose weight the healthy way, everyone's body is different. . .
Nobody is saying she can't eat this way.
The issue is with her declaration that this experiment will potentially demonstrate that one can lose weight without a caloric deficit. Everyone's body is different, but our bodies aren't that different. Even if they were, an "experiment" of one doesn't provide meaningful information.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Wow, why are you people being so rude, if that's the way she wants to go about it, she can. We're all here for one reason which is to become more healthy and loose weight the healthy way, everyone's body is different. . .
Nobody is saying she can't eat this way.
The issue is with her declaration that this experiment will potentially demonstrate that one can lose weight without a caloric deficit. Everyone's body is different, but our bodies aren't that different. Even if they were, an "experiment" of one doesn't provide meaningful information.
If someone claims they can lose weight without a caloric deficit, then they are claiming that their body is a black hole able to magically make ingested energy disappear without it being accounted for. The government would like to explore this phenomenon and will pay OP a visit shortly0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
Welllll, I'm gonna get nitpicky here, and point out that any domesticated crop is a GMO (genetically modified organism) by definition, and spelt is a hybrid of domesticated wheat and wild goat-grass (or of domesticated emmer and domesticated bread wheat). The earliest archaeological evidence of its existence is from around the 5th millennium BCE. In the grand scheme of things that's not very original. But okay.
Nit picky just here huh? LOL. Actually its believed that hexaploid wheat originated via hybridization of hulled tetraploid emmer with Aegilops tauschii (genomes DD) and that the nascent hexaploid was spelt, from which free-threshing wheat evolved by mutations.
And anyway, GMO means genetically modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination... so just any crop is hybrid does not mean its considered GMO.
Ya see @Nony_Mouse understands what she wrote whereas I doubt you have the slightest inkling of the meaning of what you copied and pasted
And over here we are lead to believe that US grains are indeed GM crops ...we were surprised that this was allowed as there was a huge uproar in the UK re GM
No GMO has the same definition everywhere, you can genetically change items through interbreeding its considered natural and not GMO, but I wont argue terms you can look up yourself.
Meantime, many botanist believe that wheat originated through spelt, not the other way around but because it was so long ago you are going to have differing opinions. Not really relent but its not GMO based on recombination, that has never been part of the definition. Again, look it up yourself.
You know American isn't the only language right? As far as I'm aware GMO and GE are only used in the states and the prevalent meaning of GM in the UK is your GE
So I apologise for not translating your meaning up front when you copied and pasted that hexaploid line ...oh the curse of a google education0 -
Wow, why are you people being so rude, if that's the way she wants to go about it, she can. We're all here for one reason which is to become more healthy and loose weight the healthy way, everyone's body is different it it doesn't work out then she can try an different method. While I'm still on my journey, I've definitely been switching things up to see which method works for me. And I know for a fact that every person that has lost weight had to eventually find out which beat his or her body moves too. Stay Blessed Everyone
People are different. Bodies, chemistry etc are very similar. Weight loss is calories in vs out, period. You eat more than you burn, you gain weight. You eat less than you burn, you lose. It's that simple. Illness, hormonal imbalances, etc. may effect the calories out side of the equation, but it's still calories in vs out. To think that "eating clean" is magical, and that you can eat as much as you want without gaining weight because you are eating "healthy", illustrates a true lack of understanding. And your second bolded statement - You know for a fact? really? I didn't need to find a beat, so I guess you should check your facts.0 -
Good luck! I think you're very bold for doing this publicly. Gotta give you credit for that. cheers!0
-
Cryptonomnomicon wrote: »I believe there is no harm in the OP from learning from first hand experience, sometimes borrowed knowledge just isn't satisfying enough.
I can understand this point of view. For example, when I decided that I needed to post on this thread, I felt that I simply couldn't rely on using a computer that was designed and made with knowledge and processes that I didn't experience myself. Instead of spending some money at my local electronics retailer, I spent 5000 years rediscovering electronics, programming, microchip fabrication, mining, transportation, electricity etc etc and singlehandedly crafted a 14.1" Sony VAIO from scratch.
TOTALLY worth it.
0 -
I'm eating Chocolate Oatmeal Cookies for Breakfast, so Count me in on the junk food diet! Really working so far at Day 200!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions