The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »
I think she sis saying she does not eat clean and loses more weight than clean eaters...? which actually is the first time I have heard a non clean eater say they lose more than a clean eater...
0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »My two, unscientifically-founded cents:
If you weigh 350 and have 100+ pounds of fat to lose, calories are calories and the composition is not very important.
If you weigh 180 and have 15% body fat and you're trying to lose 10 pounds to get yourself to 10% body fat, composition is going to be much more important.
I have no facts to support this, although I have a lot of experience being really overweight and losing some of it. It comes off faster if I try to eat cleaner, but the deficit is what matters when you've got a lot of fat to lose.
All that being said, if you hit your calorie goals and are at or near good macro levels while you do it, you can't be eating a very dirty diet. Can't eat mostly junk food and hit good macros.
I don't think anyone is arguing with the part that I bolded.
What are you defining as eating "mostly junk food" ..25% of diet, 50%, etc?
I hit macros and micros, but some of the clean eating purists would call my diary dirty, which is open for anyone to review by the way ...
Agreed with the bold as well. I would surmise that the majority of us who are down at the 15% levels are more conscience of their diets because there is much less room for error. But that is all part of the learning process. I started with calories, then started focusing on macros and now focus on macros and types of food.
yup, same here.
I struggle to get below 12% body fat, because I like good food too much ....maybe one day...LOL
Yeah, I just don't see how people do that. After my bulk, I'm going to try and cut as much as possible. But I don't see me getting that low.
It take serious dedication ...and I like drinking beers on the beach too much on Saturdays ..LOL0 -
I didn't read all 25 pages, so apologies if this was already posted:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
...At Harvard Medical School, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology whose research was cited by experts in the film, said that the long-held idea that we get fat solely because we consume more calories than we expend is based on outdated science.
He has studied the effects that different foods have on weight gain and said that it is true that 100 calories of fat, protein and carbohydrates are the same in a thermodynamic sense, in that they release the same amount of energy when exposed to a Bunsen burner in a lab. But in a complex organism like a human being, he said, these foods influence satiety, metabolic rate, brain activity, blood sugar and the hormones that store fat in very different ways.
Studies also show that calories from different foods are not absorbed the same. When people eat high-fiber foods like nuts and some vegetables, for example, only about three-quarters of the calories they contain are absorbed. The rest are excreted from the body unused. So the calories listed on their labels are not what the body is actually getting.
“The implicit suggestion is that there are no bad calories, just bad people eating too much,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But the evidence is very clear that not all calories are created equal as far as weight gain and obesity. If you’re focusing on calories, you can easily be misguided.”0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Holy hell. It's Friday.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »
Protein powder - Natural Force or Legion or AllMax - if you read the ingredients, it's pure stuff. Yeah is there a "process" absolutely. Natural Force is endorsed by the Paleo Foundation - the only endorsed supplement product on the market by that very foundation. They don't throw their name around.
Done with thread. Have fun. Hope you didn't stay up all night and lose sleep over this.
OMG there is a Paleo Foundation?!
http://paleofoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Our-Services.pdf
Hilarious. This is my favorite part:
"In a recent poll in the largest online Paleo Community group [conveniently not identified], 100% of paleo adherents said they would try a new product simply because it displayed a Paleo Foundation label..."
This is classic. I had no idea Cavemen were such marketing geniuses!
My favorite part is actually this one:
8. WE WORK fast.
It only takes two weeks from start to finish
on new applications before the magic starts
happening on our side. When we say magic,
we mean magic. We promise to not shut up
about your products during your entire
certification period.
Ok but I have a serious question after looking through that site. What exactly are they certifying? A particular food product? A restaurant? I really don't understand and it isn't explained well, at all, which, if you think about it, is quite ironic. Also that is the most comma filled sentence I have ever typed.
0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »My two, unscientifically-founded cents:
If you weigh 350 and have 100+ pounds of fat to lose, calories are calories and the composition is not very important.
If you weigh 180 and have 15% body fat and you're trying to lose 10 pounds to get yourself to 10% body fat, composition is going to be much more important.
I have no facts to support this, although I have a lot of experience being really overweight and losing some of it. It comes off faster if I try to eat cleaner, but the deficit is what matters when you've got a lot of fat to lose.
All that being said, if you hit your calorie goals and are at or near good macro levels while you do it, you can't be eating a very dirty diet. Can't eat mostly junk food and hit good macros.
I don't think anyone is arguing with the part that I bolded.
What are you defining as eating "mostly junk food" ..25% of diet, 50%, etc?
I hit macros and micros, but some of the clean eating purists would call my diary dirty, which is open for anyone to review by the way ...
Agreed with the bold as well. I would surmise that the majority of us who are down at the 15% levels are more conscience of their diets because there is much less room for error. But that is all part of the learning process. I started with calories, then started focusing on macros and now focus on macros and types of food.
yup, same here.
I struggle to get below 12% body fat, because I like good food too much ....maybe one day...LOL
Yeah, I just don't see how people do that. After my bulk, I'm going to try and cut as much as possible. But I don't see me getting that low.
It takes another level of desire and motivation.
you questioning my motivation????????????????????????
bahahahahaha0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »I can't believe you guys are still entertaining this crowd. I can't wait for the day when this whole crowd cruelly puts up progress pictures to show the application of all their awesome beliefs.
Stay tune for July when I have another physical with bod pod. I will gladly post my results. I want to see how much more I can naturally increase my testosterone.
I think for my next thread, I am going to post my lab results and watch all the clean eaters heads explode.
In your picture it seems you are basically a young healthy guy..why would you lab results be bad? Your young and often times the result of our bad behavior shows up in the later years of our life...where is your habits leading you...to age well or deteriorate...for the most part we all can go without sleep...drink to much, eat lousy food when we are young...that is not the barometer we use to measure our healthy behaviors and habits.
That is incorrect. I guess I will ask my doctor for my previous blood work(almost weighed 50 more pounds). I was in shape on the outside but not on the inside. The age really doesn't make a difference. That why I said I will post my July stats to show that even at a young age blood work can improve from a non clean diet.
Yep-my husband is 33 yrs old, plays hockey and stays pretty active, but he was over weight about 25lbs and the results were high cholesterol and pre-hypertension. He just got done losing the extra weight while continuing to eat a very SAD diet, but being mindful of his calories/eating at a deficit, and his blood pressure is normal now (have to get blood work done yet for the cholesterol). Age really hasn't been a factor for us.
Your husband is only 33? You dirty cougar you...
0 -
are you going to address your ridiculous twinkie and dying young comment, or just gloss over that like it never happened?
My comment made no correlation whatsoever between eating Twinkies and dying young (although I wouldn't be surprised to learn there is one). Go back and read it again. And BTW you can insert name of any junk food you like in place of Twinkies.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I didn't read all 25 pages, so apologies if this was already posted:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
...At Harvard Medical School, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology whose research was cited by experts in the film, said that the long-held idea that we get fat solely because we consume more calories than we expend is based on outdated science.
He has studied the effects that different foods have on weight gain and said that it is true that 100 calories of fat, protein and carbohydrates are the same in a thermodynamic sense, in that they release the same amount of energy when exposed to a Bunsen burner in a lab. But in a complex organism like a human being, he said, these foods influence satiety, metabolic rate, brain activity, blood sugar and the hormones that store fat in very different ways.
Studies also show that calories from different foods are not absorbed the same. When people eat high-fiber foods like nuts and some vegetables, for example, only about three-quarters of the calories they contain are absorbed. The rest are excreted from the body unused. So the calories listed on their labels are not what the body is actually getting.
“The implicit suggestion is that there are no bad calories, just bad people eating too much,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But the evidence is very clear that not all calories are created equal as far as weight gain and obesity. If you’re focusing on calories, you can easily be misguided.”
Ok - run an experiment on yourself. Eat in a caloric surplus of 500 calories of the "right" calories. Do this for three months and report back with the results. I 100% guarantee you will gain weight.
If this is true, then everyone that is counting calories is off by the same error margin so it should not make a difference, because assuming that my calorie count is off by 25% that just means that if my maintenance level is 2000 and I think I am eating 2000 but really eating 2500 (25% error rate) than my real maintenance level is 2500...0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »My two, unscientifically-founded cents:
If you weigh 350 and have 100+ pounds of fat to lose, calories are calories and the composition is not very important.
If you weigh 180 and have 15% body fat and you're trying to lose 10 pounds to get yourself to 10% body fat, composition is going to be much more important.
I have no facts to support this, although I have a lot of experience being really overweight and losing some of it. It comes off faster if I try to eat cleaner, but the deficit is what matters when you've got a lot of fat to lose.
All that being said, if you hit your calorie goals and are at or near good macro levels while you do it, you can't be eating a very dirty diet. Can't eat mostly junk food and hit good macros.
I don't think anyone is arguing with the part that I bolded.
What are you defining as eating "mostly junk food" ..25% of diet, 50%, etc?
I hit macros and micros, but some of the clean eating purists would call my diary dirty, which is open for anyone to review by the way ...
Agreed with the bold as well. I would surmise that the majority of us who are down at the 15% levels are more conscience of their diets because there is much less room for error. But that is all part of the learning process. I started with calories, then started focusing on macros and now focus on macros and types of food.
yup, same here.
I struggle to get below 12% body fat, because I like good food too much ....maybe one day...LOL
Yeah, I just don't see how people do that. After my bulk, I'm going to try and cut as much as possible. But I don't see me getting that low.
My goals actually are to get around 8-10% body fat %. I am sure that I can and will by the end of this year.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
are you going to address your ridiculous twinkie and dying young comment, or just gloss over that like it never happened?
My comment made no correlation whatsoever between eating Twinkies and dying young (although I wouldn't be surprised to learn there is one). Go back and read it again. And BTW you can insert name of any junk food you like in place of Twinkies.
I don't need to find the quote...you just did it..0 -
Oh, here's the article I wanted:
Which Diet Works?
One of the challenges of arguing that hyperprocessed carbohydrates are largely responsible for the obesity pandemic (“epidemic” is no longer a strong enough word, say many experts) is the notion that “a calorie is a calorie.”
Accept that, and you buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans. And Big Food — which has little interest in selling broccoli or beans — would have you believe that if you expend enough energy to work off those 100 calories, it simply doesn’t matter.
There’s an increasing body of evidence, however, that calories from highly processed carbohydrates like white flour (and of course sugar) provide calories that the body treats differently, spiking both blood sugar and insulin and causing us to retain fat instead of burning it off.
In other words, all calories are not alike.
Read more: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/which-diet-works/0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »I can't believe you guys are still entertaining this crowd. I can't wait for the day when this whole crowd cruelly puts up progress pictures to show the application of all their awesome beliefs.
Stay tune for July when I have another physical with bod pod. I will gladly post my results. I want to see how much more I can naturally increase my testosterone.
I think for my next thread, I am going to post my lab results and watch all the clean eaters heads explode.
In your picture it seems you are basically a young healthy guy..why would you lab results be bad? Your young and often times the result of our bad behavior shows up in the later years of our life...where is your habits leading you...to age well or deteriorate...for the most part we all can go without sleep...drink to much, eat lousy food when we are young...that is not the barometer we use to measure our healthy behaviors and habits.
That is incorrect. I guess I will ask my doctor for my previous blood work(almost weighed 50 more pounds). I was in shape on the outside but not on the inside. The age really doesn't make a difference. That why I said I will post my July stats to show that even at a young age blood work can improve from a non clean diet.
Yep-my husband is 33 yrs old, plays hockey and stays pretty active, but he was over weight about 25lbs and the results were high cholesterol and pre-hypertension. He just got done losing the extra weight while continuing to eat a very SAD diet, but being mindful of his calories/eating at a deficit, and his blood pressure is normal now (have to get blood work done yet for the cholesterol). Age really hasn't been a factor for us.
Your husband is only 33? You dirty cougar you...
Yeah I got him while he was young and clueless lol! Will celebrate our 13 year anniversary this year though, so it's worked in spite of me being an older woman
0 -
If this is true, then everyone that is counting calories is off by the same error margin so it should not make a difference, because assuming that my calorie count is off by 25% that just means that if my maintenance level is 2000 and I think I am eating 2000 but really eating 2500 (25% error rate) than my real maintenance level is 2500...
Not correct – according to the report, a person's error margin would be influenced by how many high-GI and high-fibre foods they consume. So not the same for everyone.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Oh, here's the article I wanted:
Which Diet Works?
One of the challenges of arguing that hyperprocessed carbohydrates are largely responsible for the obesity pandemic (“epidemic” is no longer a strong enough word, say many experts) is the notion that “a calorie is a calorie.”
Accept that, and you buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans. And Big Food — which has little interest in selling broccoli or beans — would have you believe that if you expend enough energy to work off those 100 calories, it simply doesn’t matter.
There’s an increasing body of evidence, however, that calories from highly processed carbohydrates like white flour (and of course sugar) provide calories that the body treats differently, spiking both blood sugar and insulin and causing us to retain fat instead of burning it off.
In other words, all calories are not alike.
Read more: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/which-diet-works/
We are assuming a caloric deficit is in effect in both scenarios.
We are assuming people are being accurate with measuring intake in both scenarios.
We are assuming calories and macros are held constant in both scenarios.
Obviously it is easier to overconsumer processed carbs as opposed to 100 calories worth of broccoli, or other volume/nutritionally dense foods.
The article is not geared towards those types of scenarios, but rather people who don't track or anything like that.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
If this is true, then everyone that is counting calories is off by the same error margin so it should not make a difference, because assuming that my calorie count is off by 25% that just means that if my maintenance level is 2000 and I think I am eating 2000 but really eating 2500 (25% error rate) than my real maintenance level is 2500...
Not correct – according to the report, a person's error margin would be influenced by how many high-GI and high-fibre foods they consume. So not the same for everyone.
No, you are missing the point.
If I figure my maintenance based on my current loss rate and decide it's 2200, but I eat mostly processed foods, I'm probably right, and it probably is about 2200. So when I eat 1700 to lose 1 lb/week I probably will.
Similarly, if I think it's 2200 but eat lots of meat and high fiber foods, chances are I'm wrong and it's really 2000. But when I eat my 1700, that also will be more like 1500 (or close enough), so I should lose 1 lb/week then too.
It doesn't matter unless you think your maintenance is defined by some calculator and aren't willing to adjust based on real world results.0 -
I will say that I've been eating extra almonds since that article about undercounting calories came out, though, which probably isn't all that sensible. I'm not logging at the moment anyway, so will worry about it when I start logging again or if I seem not to be maintaining.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
kshama2001 wrote: »Oh, here's the article I wanted:
Which Diet Works?
One of the challenges of arguing that hyperprocessed carbohydrates are largely responsible for the obesity pandemic (“epidemic” is no longer a strong enough word, say many experts) is the notion that “a calorie is a calorie.”
Accept that, and you buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans. And Big Food — which has little interest in selling broccoli or beans — would have you believe that if you expend enough energy to work off those 100 calories, it simply doesn’t matter.
There’s an increasing body of evidence, however, that calories from highly processed carbohydrates like white flour (and of course sugar) provide calories that the body treats differently, spiking both blood sugar and insulin and causing us to retain fat instead of burning it off.
In other words, all calories are not alike.
Read more: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/which-diet-works/
well put. thank you. all calories are not alike.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Oh, here's the article I wanted:
Which Diet Works?
One of the challenges of arguing that hyperprocessed carbohydrates are largely responsible for the obesity pandemic (“epidemic” is no longer a strong enough word, say many experts) is the notion that “a calorie is a calorie.”
Accept that, and you buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans. And Big Food — which has little interest in selling broccoli or beans — would have you believe that if you expend enough energy to work off those 100 calories, it simply doesn’t matter.
There’s an increasing body of evidence, however, that calories from highly processed carbohydrates like white flour (and of course sugar) provide calories that the body treats differently, spiking both blood sugar and insulin and causing us to retain fat instead of burning it off.
In other words, all calories are not alike.
Read more: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/which-diet-works/
well put. thank you. all calories are not alike.
OK sure. No need to start an argue about units of measurements =/= same units of measurements.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
If this is true, then everyone that is counting calories is off by the same error margin so it should not make a difference, because assuming that my calorie count is off by 25% that just means that if my maintenance level is 2000 and I think I am eating 2000 but really eating 2500 (25% error rate) than my real maintenance level is 2500...
Not correct – according to the report, a person's error margin would be influenced by how many high-GI and high-fibre foods they consume. So not the same for everyone.
No, you are missing the point.
If I figure my maintenance based on my current loss rate and decide it's 2200, but I eat mostly processed foods, I'm probably right, and it probably is about 2200. So when I eat 1700 to lose 1 lb/week I probably will.
Similarly, if I think it's 2200 but eat lots of meat and high fiber foods, chances are I'm wrong and it's really 2000. But when I eat my 1700, that also will be more like 1500 (or close enough), so I should lose 1 lb/week then too.
It doesn't matter unless you think your maintenance is defined by some calculator and aren't willing to adjust based on real world results.
That makes sense. Thanks.
So it would be a problem, then, if a person varied their diet a lot, and ate lots of processed foods one day and none the next. A problem if they were counting calories, I mean.
It could also help to explain why some people who go cold turkey from processed onto clean eating lose so rapidly – they're probably cutting their calories by more than they think.
Basically the way calories for certain foods have been calculated is incorrect.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Oh, here's the article I wanted:
Which Diet Works?
One of the challenges of arguing that hyperprocessed carbohydrates are largely responsible for the obesity pandemic (“epidemic” is no longer a strong enough word, say many experts) is the notion that “a calorie is a calorie.”
Accept that, and you buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans. And Big Food — which has little interest in selling broccoli or beans — would have you believe that if you expend enough energy to work off those 100 calories, it simply doesn’t matter.
There’s an increasing body of evidence, however, that calories from highly processed carbohydrates like white flour (and of course sugar) provide calories that the body treats differently, spiking both blood sugar and insulin and causing us to retain fat instead of burning it off.
In other words, all calories are not alike.
Read more: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/which-diet-works/
well put. thank you. all calories are not alike.
How do you imagine this article is relevant to the OP?
I really am curious.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Ok - run an experiment on yourself. Eat in a caloric surplus of 500 calories of the "right" calories. Do this for three months and report back with the results. I 100% guarantee you will gain weight.
When I lived in the wilds of Costa Rica for two months and had no access to processed or otherwise junk foods, I lost 20 pounds effortlessly. I didn't log calories, but had three meals and one or two snacks per day and was never hungry. Food cravings were not really an issue, as pizza, ice cream, etc. simply were not available. I did eat a lot of mango, bananas, and pineapple. Supermarket bananas are like a completely different food from these bananas, which were like ambrosia from the gods.
(When I say "wilds," I mean that literally. We were in the last town before the jungle separating Costa Rica from Panana. Farmers delivered rice and beans to us on horseback. A veggie truck was scheduled to come twice a week, but sometimes the road was washed out and it couldn't make it, in which case we had more green papaya salad and otherwise foraged.)
So, yeah, I'm in the clean food camp. My challenge is doing it amidst a plethora of unhealthy choices, and while cooking for people who don't want to be super-clean.
0 -
But you lost weight due to lack of availability to many foods and probably you were more active. So it wasn't the fact that your foods were more natural, but rather more limited and unavailable, so you were forced to eat lower calorie foods.kshama2001 wrote: »Ok - run an experiment on yourself. Eat in a caloric surplus of 500 calories of the "right" calories. Do this for three months and report back with the results. I 100% guarantee you will gain weight.
When I lived in the wilds of Costa Rica for two months and had no access to processed or otherwise junk foods, I lost 20 pounds effortlessly. I didn't log calories, but had three meals and one or two snacks per day and was never hungry. Food cravings were not really an issue, as pizza, ice cream, etc. simply were not available. I did eat a lot of mango, bananas, and pineapple. Supermarket bananas are like a completely different food from these bananas, which were like ambrosia from the gods.
(When I say "wilds," I mean that literally. We were in the last town before the jungle separating Costa Rica from Panana. Farmers delivered rice and beans to us on horseback. A veggie truck was scheduled to come twice a week, but sometimes the road was washed out and it couldn't make it, in which case we had more green papaya salad and otherwise foraged.)
So, yeah, I'm in the clean food camp. My challenge is doing it amidst a plethora of unhealthy choices, and while cooking for people who don't want to be super-clean.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Oh, here's the article I wanted:
Which Diet Works?
One of the challenges of arguing that hyperprocessed carbohydrates are largely responsible for the obesity pandemic (“epidemic” is no longer a strong enough word, say many experts) is the notion that “a calorie is a calorie.”
Accept that, and you buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans. And Big Food — which has little interest in selling broccoli or beans — would have you believe that if you expend enough energy to work off those 100 calories, it simply doesn’t matter.
There’s an increasing body of evidence, however, that calories from highly processed carbohydrates like white flour (and of course sugar) provide calories that the body treats differently, spiking both blood sugar and insulin and causing us to retain fat instead of burning it off.
In other words, all calories are not alike.
Read more: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/which-diet-works/
well put. thank you. all calories are not alike.
How do you imagine this article is relevant to the OP?
I really am curious.
OP here and I am curious about this too, as this is not about a calorie is a calorie ...0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Ok - run an experiment on yourself. Eat in a caloric surplus of 500 calories of the "right" calories. Do this for three months and report back with the results. I 100% guarantee you will gain weight.
When I lived in the wilds of Costa Rica for two months and had no access to processed or otherwise junk foods, I lost 20 pounds effortlessly. I didn't log calories, but had three meals and one or two snacks per day and was never hungry. Food cravings were not really an issue, as pizza, ice cream, etc. simply were not available. I did eat a lot of mango, bananas, and pineapple. Supermarket bananas are like a completely different food from these bananas, which were like ambrosia from the gods.
(When I say "wilds," I mean that literally. We were in the last town before the jungle separating Costa Rica from Panana. Farmers delivered rice and beans to us on horseback. A veggie truck was scheduled to come twice a week, but sometimes the road was washed out and it couldn't make it, in which case we had more green papaya salad and otherwise foraged.)
So, yeah, I'm in the clean food camp. My challenge is doing it amidst a plethora of unhealthy choices, and while cooking for people who don't want to be super-clean.
What does this have to do with the quoted text?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
- 427 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