The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »OP I think next time when you explain yourself which I really thought you did pretty well that people know what terms you use mean. Half the nonsense in this thread is hilarious. It like people really do not know what a calorie deficit really is.
it was going well for the first four pages, but like all other MFP threads it took a nose dive on page five and never recovered.
Are you ready for this though. So for people who eat clean do you wonder if they consume for example too many fat soluble vitamins? There is a such thing as too much micro nutrients. So for you example. Lets leave weight loss out of your example because it is clear as day the results. Would person A technically be more healthier than person B?0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
then why use it as an example of intake for someone else?????????????
Because it's a logical extension to make if someone really wants to prove that the only thing that counts for weight-loss is calories.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
You missed the point. Clean eaters are not saying that including some small percentage of non-clean food is ok to be considered clean. It's the non-clean eaters who are saying that they eat mostly healthy, but include some small percentage of treats and processed foods. Clean eaters tend to be tee-totallers...if you eat anything processed, you are not eating clean.
It's the non-clean eaters who always seem intent on telling others who choose to follow a more defined plan that they're doing it all wrong.
I think you need to re read some of those response. What people say is your way to create a calories deficit is unnecessary.0 -
jessupbrady wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
My answer is that it would be more useful to think of the subject of clean eating in terms that actually have some relevance to real life.
Please explain how earlier you said the person eating clean would lose more weight in a hypothetical situation but now when certain variables are eliminated you say it would be better to have some relevance to real life, how convenient. You're trying to wiggle out of a situation because it doesn't benefit you.
You're not making sense again (surprise surprise). I said that in a real-life situation the person eating clean would be able to have a higher calorie deficit whilst maintaining optimum nutrition for good health, and would therefore lose more weight.
But that observation was deemed to be off topic.
I'm curious about this. I thought (for good health) it wasn't safe to have too high of a calorie deficit?
It's not--or for the maintenance of muscle.
Chrys is invested in the idea that really aggressive deficits are okay (to an extent that seems disordered to me) and sees "eating clean" (or in some cases eating low carb, which is often reported as a technique that prevents hunger even on really low calories) as a way to justify really low calories.
I eat a nutritious diet whether I "eat clean" or not--indeed, a lot of what I eat that's "processed" is part of how I get lower calorie protein, which is important to a nutritious diet, as well as omega 3s (smoked salmon). So I don't think that within a reasonable calorie deficit it matters a hoot whether I "eat clean" or not. Sure, if I wanted to eat 900 calories or even, say, 1200 with the activity I do (I'm training for a half ironman and also try to fit in strength training), that would be more possible on a really strict diet that COULD be a clean one (I actually think it would be easier if I included stuff like egg whites from the carton and skinless chicken breast and protein powder, and clearly I'd need coffee). But the fact is it would be extremely unhealthy and counterproductive to my goals.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Ah, but he did, tho.tedboosalis7 wrote: »Okay - eat 1500 calories of cake - and I will eat 1500 calories of pure nutritious food (as I do now but MORE) and I will flat out not only lose fat pounds but I will retain my muscle mass over the course of one year.
I did the above - it doesn't work. DOESN'T WORK.
You can't outrun a bad diet.
Several people even questioned him on the cake and only today did he come back and admit it wasn't all cake.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
then why use it as an example of intake for someone else?????????????
Because it's a logical extension to make if someone really wants to prove that the only thing that counts for weight-loss is calories.
Only if that person then limits the "clean" eater to eating only one item. And then, guess what? The cake would most likely have a better nutritional profile, considering it's made of multiple ingredients.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
then why use it as an example of intake for someone else?????????????
Because it's a logical extension to make if someone really wants to prove that the only thing that counts for weight-loss is calories.
so a 1500 intake of only cake is logical, really??????????0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
Forget about the 500 calorie deficit for a minute. I said the clean eater could have a higher defict (i.e. greater than 500 calories) than the non clean eater, whilst maintaining his nutritional needs . In other words he can eat fewer calories and still be healthy; the junk eater needs more calories to get his macro/micronutrients in because he is eating stuff that doesn't have a good calorie to nutrient ratio. 'Empty calories', dare I use the term.
Or the clean eater could eat more than the dirty eater based on volume and calories and still retain the fabled 500 calorie deficit. So a 1500 calorie diet of "dirty" foods would be equivalent to let's say 1800 in a clean eater because of the metabolics involved. Either way - you are right - the clean eater wouldn't have to eat 1500 to obtain the nutrients that a dirty eater would obtain at 1500. Nice point.
What? Do you even math?
If your TDEE is 2000 calories per day, and you have a 500 calorie deficit...you believe that it's possible to...eat...1800 calories?
It's a matter of equivalency - which relates to an earlier post about what is considered to be a pound in caloric terms - anywhere between 1500 and 3000 or something like that.
Point being - a 500 caloric deficit for a clean eater could amount to eating more in calories and still obtain the same result - than the person eating 1500 calories of processed foods. Metabolics would support this - eating protein requires 1/3 of the protein to be used to digest and synthesize - so really only 2/3rds of the protein's calories are available for tabulation into caloric totals.
This is all part of the variances available.
Doesn't matter - what matters to me is this - I lost the weight eating more calories and volume and I was doing it eating clean - versus eating dirty as I had done before. I have all the proof on that. That would mean there's a significant metabolic difference in my body when it relates to how my body interprets the types of food I am eating.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
You missed the point. Clean eaters are not saying that including some small percentage of non-clean food is ok to be considered clean. It's the non-clean eaters who are saying that they eat mostly healthy, but include some small percentage of treats and processed foods. Clean eaters tend to be tee-totallers...if you eat anything processed, you are not eating clean.
It's the non-clean eaters who always seem intent on telling others who choose to follow a more defined plan that they're doing it all wrong.
example please ...0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
You missed the point. Clean eaters are not saying that including some small percentage of non-clean food is ok to be considered clean. It's the non-clean eaters who are saying that they eat mostly healthy, but include some small percentage of treats and processed foods. Clean eaters tend to be tee-totallers...if you eat anything processed, you are not eating clean.
It's the non-clean eaters who always seem intent on telling others who choose to follow a more defined plan that they're doing it all wrong.
Because those on restrictive diets have shown time and time again a higher fail rate. Secondly, it's typically used under the thought process that "it'll burn more fat", which isn't the case.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
Forget about the 500 calorie deficit for a minute. I said the clean eater could have a higher defict (i.e. greater than 500 calories) than the non clean eater, whilst maintaining his nutritional needs . In other words he can eat fewer calories and still be healthy; the junk eater needs more calories to get his macro/micronutrients in because he is eating stuff that doesn't have a good calorie to nutrient ratio. 'Empty calories', dare I use the term.
Or the clean eater could eat more than the dirty eater based on volume and calories and still retain the fabled 500 calorie deficit. So a 1500 calorie diet of "dirty" foods would be equivalent to let's say 1800 in a clean eater because of the metabolics involved. Either way - you are right - the clean eater wouldn't have to eat 1500 to obtain the nutrients that a dirty eater would obtain at 1500. Nice point.
What? Do you even math?
If your TDEE is 2000 calories per day, and you have a 500 calorie deficit...you believe that it's possible to...eat...1800 calories?
It's a matter of equivalency - which relates to an earlier post about what is considered to be a pound in caloric terms - anywhere between 1500 and 3000 or something like that.
Point being - a 500 caloric deficit for a clean eater could amount to eating more in calories and still obtain the same result - than the person eating 1500 calories of processed foods. Metabolics would support this - eating protein requires 1/3 of the protein to be used to digest and synthesize - so really only 2/3rds of the protein's calories are available for tabulation into caloric totals.
This is all part of the variances available.
Doesn't matter - what matters to me is this - I lost the weight eating more calories and volume and I was doing it eating clean - versus eating dirty as I had done before. I have all the proof on that. That would mean there's a significant metabolic difference in my body when it relates to how my body interprets the types of food I am eating.
so you put yourself in a calorie surplus and lost weight?0 -
I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
It's a loaded question because you didn't define "clean food" and there isn't any real definition. Furthermore your "moderate diet" could be almost anything. For the sake of argument, I'll just assume the person eating "clean" is eating mostly minimally processed foods. And I'll assume the moderate diet includes a lot of highly processed foods.
In that case the person eating "clean" would lose slightly more weight. This is because calories are determined by "Atwater" calculations. Atwater tends to underestimate calories in highly processed foods and overestimate calories in minimally processed foods. The reason is that highly processed and cooked foods are absorbed more readily in your GI tract (nothing to do with "thermal effect").
Yup
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?ref=health&_r=1
I'm not saying people need to eat "clean" to lose weight (I certainly don't). But it's a gross oversimplification to say all calories are equal (for weight loss).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Oh no, he is by far the only example. And his results are specious because there's no evidence he was accurately counting calories.
We can pull in @lemurcat12, and there's also me. I've eaten just like Ted and gained weight.
In fact, since clean eaters keep mentioning health... I was eating "clean" and developed a progressive autoimmune disease.
The difference is that Ted was in a calorie deficit, assuming his calorie counting was accurate (we have no reason to think it wasn't.) If I've understood you correctly from previous posts, you weren't. You said that you ate clean but ate too many calories and therefore gained weight.
Oh, we do have reason to think he wasn't.
Also, he claims he was eating basically 1500 calories of cake or some such (which is absurd), which is NOT the hypothetical.
For the record, during my weight loss I've eaten in ways that would be categorized as "clean," I think, and ways that wouldn't (specifically because I gave up added sugar and grains for a time). My loss has not varied in rate based on whether I do one or the other.
I do mostly eat from whole foods and get lots of protein and veggies, but that's consistent with OP's hypothetical of the non clean eater, as opposed to this nonsense about someone eating only "junk food."
yea, but then he came back and admitted that he never ate 1500 calories of cake a day ...LOLZ
Shocking!
(How did I know that would be the case?)0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
You missed the point. Clean eaters are not saying that including some small percentage of non-clean food is ok to be considered clean. It's the non-clean eaters who are saying that they eat mostly healthy, but include some small percentage of treats and processed foods. Clean eaters tend to be tee-totallers...if you eat anything processed, you are not eating clean.
It's the non-clean eaters who always seem intent on telling others who choose to follow a more defined plan that they're doing it all wrong.
Because those on restrictive diets have shown time and time again a higher fail rate. Secondly, it's typically used under the thought process that "it'll burn more fat", which isn't the case.
Plus, I have seen more than one person who thinks they can eat as much as they want of "clean" food and they will still lose weight. They need to be disabused of that notion as quickly as possible. Yes, some people eat as much as they want and stay in a deficit but not everyone does.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
Forget about the 500 calorie deficit for a minute. I said the clean eater could have a higher defict (i.e. greater than 500 calories) than the non clean eater, whilst maintaining his nutritional needs . In other words he can eat fewer calories and still be healthy; the junk eater needs more calories to get his macro/micronutrients in because he is eating stuff that doesn't have a good calorie to nutrient ratio. 'Empty calories', dare I use the term.
Or the clean eater could eat more than the dirty eater based on volume and calories and still retain the fabled 500 calorie deficit. So a 1500 calorie diet of "dirty" foods would be equivalent to let's say 1800 in a clean eater because of the metabolics involved. Either way - you are right - the clean eater wouldn't have to eat 1500 to obtain the nutrients that a dirty eater would obtain at 1500. Nice point.
what????
Do you ever make sense?
Obviously discussing things in theoretical terms isn't something you like to do - or to just brainstorm and provide a brainstorming session without judgement. I love to brainstorm on the fly and be more vocal about it - and others have done the same on this thread.
I think we can all agree to disagree. Your original post based upon hard and fast CICO rules would suggest that yes, they are one and the same and anyone without a medical condition would both lose the weight at the same rate provided all things remained constant between the two individuals.
I add that variances will cause one to lose more than the other - those include the metabolic effects of eating one way versus another - and to what degree one is more sustainable than the other - depending on the person - again, assuming there's something going on that causes distress for the dirty eater versus nothing on the clean side.
It's easy to answer when you don't introduce any variance into the mix - that's the reason there's so much study done on the topic and simply answering yes or no to the question is simply not the true answer - taken literally, sure I agree with you. But that's a context that isn't realistic or even true. It's a zero-sum game - everything we do has consequences - clean or dirty.0 -
mommyvalarie wrote: »I think, and this is JMHO, that the clean eater would lose more in the long run because they are eating enough protein to maintain lean muscle mass. If you are losing muscle and fat equally, you're metabolism is going to slow down
Why is person B not eating enough protein?
In answering, please refer to the facts as stated in the hypothetical.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Person A will lose more, as person B will retain toxinz that make them fat.
Was that a joke? LOL toxins make you fat. Forks make you fat, toxins might make you feel less energetic (maybe) but they do not add fuel to your body and therefor cannot make you gain weight. If you eat less than you burn you will lose weight - period. -500 calories = -500 calories no matter what those calories are. Now if you are eating 3 donuts a day instead of balanced meals you are making dieting way harder on yourself than you have to and you will be miserable but if you are eating +500 calories in carrots per day you will still gain 1lb per week. Clean eating is great but it is not the answer to weight loss. It is just a tool to make weight loss easier for some and improve the health of some others.0 -
Pretty sure spelling it toxinz is the tip off that it's not serious. (Also, I am familiar with the poster's prior work.)0
-
I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
I see nothing wrong with how person A or B eats. Both are eating nutrient dense foods. There's nothing wrong with occasional treats in the absence of health issues. The problem is you labeling person A ridiculous. To each his own. Live and let live!0 -
I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
I see nothing wrong with how person A or B eats. Both are eating nutrient dense foods. There's nothing wrong with occasional treats in the absence of health issues. The problem is you labeling person A ridiculous. To each his own. Live and let live!
That's not what he said at all. Your reading comprehension is askew. He said the premise that person A would lose more weight is ridiculous.
0 -
I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
I see nothing wrong with how person A or B eats. Both are eating nutrient dense foods. There's nothing wrong with occasional treats in the absence of health issues. The problem is you labeling person A ridiculous. To each his own. Live and let live!
reading comprehension fail.
I said that the premise that Person A will lose more weight is ridiculous.0 -
It depends on the food.
For example person B will eat an ice cream at afternoon-> he will spike his insuline levels-> he ll be more likely to store fat from the nearby meal.
Person A will eat complex carbs with low glycemic index -> less % to store fat from nearby meal.
Furthermore Person A will have more Vitamins,etc from Person B.
Not tested but in my opinion they will loose about the same weight.
Its like IIFYM. As for me i would choose healthy vs unhealthy diet.0 -
kuriakos_chris wrote: »It depends on the food.
For example person B will eat an ice cream at afternoon-> he will spike his insuline levels-> he ll be more likely to store fat from the nearby meal.
Person A will eat complex carbs with low glycemic index -> less % to store fat from nearby meal.
Furthermore Person A will have more Vitamins,etc from Person B.
Not tested but in my opinion they will loose about the same weight.
Its like IIFYM. As for me i would choose healthy vs unhealthy diet.
people store fat in calorie deficits, really?
Also, what about the insulin spike from protein?
So you are saying that a person that hits their micros/macros is unhealthy because of 200 calories of ice cream?
0 -
The best part of threads like these is learning or reaffirming which people can safely be ignored.
The answer is clearly C.0 -
kuriakos_chris wrote: »It depends on the food.
For example person B will eat an ice cream at afternoon-> he will spike his insuline levels-> he ll be more likely to store fat from the nearby meal.
Person A will eat complex carbs with low glycemic index -> less % to store fat from nearby meal.
Furthermore Person A will have more Vitamins,etc from Person B.
Not tested but in my opinion they will loose about the same weight.
Its like IIFYM. As for me i would choose healthy vs unhealthy diet.
Your post is filled with contradictory statements. Also, I don't think you understand what the bolded part means. Lastly, please differentiate between a healthy and an unhealthy diet. Please list an entire days worth of food choices for what you are calling a healthy diet, and then an unhealthy diet.
0 -
Once upon a time I collected a list of definitions of clean eating from these forums. These were all given as off the cuff answers to a question about what clean eating is. I formatted a few of them to match others, but most of them are copy/pasted directly from the posts in which they were posted.
Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
Nothing at all with a barcode.
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
No added sugar.
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown.
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.
What? You don't remember the Frito Bandito?
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Once upon a time I collected a list of definitions of clean eating from these forums. These were all given as off the cuff answers to a question about what clean eating is. I formatted a few of them to match others, but most of them are copy/pasted directly from the posts in which they were posted.
Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
Nothing at all with a barcode.
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
No added sugar.
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown.
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.
I love this!
Yesterday someone in a thread had two scenarios, it may have been what prompted NDJ to post this thread.
Scenario A - McDonalds Egg McMuffin
Scenario B - Greek Yogurt, Navel Orange, Hard Boiled Egg, and Coffee with Coffeemate creamer
I asked which one was the processed scenario and the poster thought I was being snarky in not being able to label one of those definitively clean and the other one definitively processed.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.
What? You don't remember the Frito Bandito?
Thank you - I will now be singing this all day!
Ay ay ayayaiiiii
0 -
Is it worth going back through the 10 pages?
Can someone cliff's?
Sure.
Myths. Junk science. More myth. No bible of what clean eating is. Some arguing with statements that can't be backed up. No consensus. I feel like I'm reading something from a cover of a magazine..eat this, lose weight fast....lol
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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