The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »danicristina2015 wrote: »The person who eats clean food will lose weight quicker. Because the body digests natural food easier and gets rid of it easier. Constipation makes you gain weight too and you can't have that problem when eating carrots
Constipation isn't weight gain, just as wearing clothes isn't weight gain.
Also I haven't seen anything that said "natural foods" digest better. In fact, someone above pretty much said your body has an easier time digesting a "processed" carrot as opposed to a raw one.
Which is true. (This new thing that I keep seeing that the body digests foods better so doesn't obtain the calories from them or turn them into fat is obviously bunk. From the perspective of your body (and human history) being able to obtain MORE calories from foods is obviously a positive. This idea now that a food is healthier if it has calories we can't use is kind of weird if you think about it.)
The one possible reason the "clean" eater might do better in the OP's scenario is because meat and high fiber foods AREN'T digested as efficiently by your body, so the calories as currently labeled are overstated. This would affect a higher percentage of the "clean" eater's foods than the moderate eater's.
If you say same macros, same fiber from food, it would likely avoid any meaningful effect, though.0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »The thing is not even the 'Clean eating' people can decide what eating clean actually is. I see many so called clean eaters eating cheese, protein powders and many other things that are the definition of processed in my mind.
This argument like many on MFP is just a fallacy because as normal it's one or the other. I eat a lot of foods the clean eaters would see as clean but hey I also sometimes eat 'non clean' foods. Why does it need to be one or the other? It's this obsession about putting labels on everything. Why do you have to be 'paleo', 'clean' or anything else why not just say I eat foods I like that fit in with my goals/lifestyle?
Cosign
0 -
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.
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 moot point. Whether Person A and Person B lose the same or different amounts of weight in your scenario could be down to a number of factors other than calorie intake (i.e. there is no way to guarantee that they are going to have the exact same deficit). The only way to definitively prove or disprove the clean eating 'myth' would be to magically create a groundhog day where the same person ate clean and then dirty, during the same time period, expending the exact same amount of energy... etc. In other words, it's impossible.
I think the more pertinent point is that a person who is eating clean can meet their nutritional requirements on far fewer calories than one who is including (any amount of) junk, and therefore the clean person can potentially lose a greater amount of weight more quickly without health repercussions.
0 -
Okay, it's come up twice, so I'll mention this again. Another poster brought this up before.
For some dieters, losing weight quickly is their first concern. If that's your jam, chose the route that will get you to the finish line fastest and go for it. Hope you have a plan for what to do once you get there to keep you going though, because the race continues.
For other dieters? It's not a race in the first place, they want to eat in a way they can eat for the rest of their lives and losing weight fast doesn't matter. So save your arguments about losing faster. Compliance is key. Sustainability is key. I fall into this category. I'm happiest eating foods I love (which by and large happen to be nutritious, but I like a little treat here and there) and don't care how long it takes me to lose my weight. I have fitness goals to meet and worry more about preserving my lean muscle mass along the way. I'll get there.
Save your breath about "fast loss". I... and all the others who don't care about "faster loss" still end up at the finish line. And we have a way of eating that will see us through on the path that continues on from there.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
I think the more pertinent point is that a person who is eating clean can meet their nutritional requirements on far fewer calories than one who is including (any amount of) junk, and therefore the clean person can potentially lose a greater amount of weight more quickly without health repercussions.
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.
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….
Any healthy, well rounded diet takes a bit of thought and planning to make sure you get enough of what your body needs. But once you've hit your macros and micros within your calories, which I'd imagine is possible for pretty much any deficit level with room to spare, you don't need to keep hitting those macros and micros. You're not gonna get superfoodpowers or anything. Have some dirty dirty chocolate.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »...For other dieters? It's not a race in the first place, they want to eat in a way they can eat for the rest of their lives and losing weight fast doesn't matter. So save your arguments about losing faster. Compliance is key. Sustainability is key. I fall into this category. I'm happiest eating foods I love (which by and large happen to be nutritious, but I like a little treat here and there) and don't care how long it takes me to lose my weight. I have fitness goals to meet and worry more about preserving my lean muscle mass along the way. I'll get there.
Save your breath about "fast loss". I... and all the others who don't care about "faster loss" still end up at the finish line. And we have a way of eating that will see us through on the path that continues on from there.
The original question posed was "who will lose more weight"? There are cases for better adherence on both sides of the debate, but people who have pointed this out already were told they were off-topic.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »...For other dieters? It's not a race in the first place, they want to eat in a way they can eat for the rest of their lives and losing weight fast doesn't matter. So save your arguments about losing faster. Compliance is key. Sustainability is key. I fall into this category. I'm happiest eating foods I love (which by and large happen to be nutritious, but I like a little treat here and there) and don't care how long it takes me to lose my weight. I have fitness goals to meet and worry more about preserving my lean muscle mass along the way. I'll get there.
Save your breath about "fast loss". I... and all the others who don't care about "faster loss" still end up at the finish line. And we have a way of eating that will see us through on the path that continues on from there.
The original question posed was "who will lose more weight"? There are cases for better adherence on both sides of the debate, but people who have pointed this out already were told they were off-topic.
You raised the losing faster issue, did you not?
As for the losing more weight, care to show how, since the original stipulation was that they were consuming equal calories, how the "clean eater" would lose more weight?
You changed the scenario by lowering the clean eater's calorie count.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »...For other dieters? It's not a race in the first place, they want to eat in a way they can eat for the rest of their lives and losing weight fast doesn't matter. So save your arguments about losing faster. Compliance is key. Sustainability is key. I fall into this category. I'm happiest eating foods I love (which by and large happen to be nutritious, but I like a little treat here and there) and don't care how long it takes me to lose my weight. I have fitness goals to meet and worry more about preserving my lean muscle mass along the way. I'll get there.
Save your breath about "fast loss". I... and all the others who don't care about "faster loss" still end up at the finish line. And we have a way of eating that will see us through on the path that continues on from there.
The original question posed was "who will lose more weight"? There are cases for better adherence on both sides of the debate, but people who have pointed this out already were told they were off-topic.
You raised the losing faster issue, did you not?
As for the losing more weight, care to show how, since the original stipulation was that they were consuming equal calories, how they'd lose more weight?
I read the question to mean "who will lose the most weight in the same time period", so = "losing faster".
And as I said earlier the original point is moot – there are too many individual factors that can influence CO. Even for two people the same weight etc doing the same amount of exercise.
So, who can lose the most weight healthfully in a given time period? The clean eating person, because he can meet his nutritional requirements on fewer calories.0 -
Adherence was taken out of the hypothetical by how it was framed.
It's not relevant.
(How the eating styles affect adherence depend on the person and are debatable and require more information to predict anyway.)0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »...For other dieters? It's not a race in the first place, they want to eat in a way they can eat for the rest of their lives and losing weight fast doesn't matter. So save your arguments about losing faster. Compliance is key. Sustainability is key. I fall into this category. I'm happiest eating foods I love (which by and large happen to be nutritious, but I like a little treat here and there) and don't care how long it takes me to lose my weight. I have fitness goals to meet and worry more about preserving my lean muscle mass along the way. I'll get there.
Save your breath about "fast loss". I... and all the others who don't care about "faster loss" still end up at the finish line. And we have a way of eating that will see us through on the path that continues on from there.
The original question posed was "who will lose more weight"? There are cases for better adherence on both sides of the debate, but people who have pointed this out already were told they were off-topic.
You raised the losing faster issue, did you not?
As for the losing more weight, care to show how, since the original stipulation was that they were consuming equal calories, how they'd lose more weight?
I read the question to mean "who will lose the most weight in the same time period", so = "losing faster".
And as I said earlier the original point is moot – there are too many individual factors that can influence CO. Even for two people the same weight etc doing the same amount of exercise.
So, who can lose the most weight healthfully in a given time period? The clean eating person, because he can meet his nutritional requirements on fewer calories.
You. are. changing. the question. The stipulation was that they were both consuming the same amount of calories.
Answer the question as it was asked, not as it suits your presuppositions.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
You. are. changing. the question. The stipulation was that they were both consuming the same amount of calories.
Answer the question as it was asked, not as it suits your presuppositions.
The answer to the question as it was asked is: Person A or Person B may lose more weight, or they may lose exactly the same amount of weight, but either way, it does not prove or disprove anything about eating clean.0 -
Person A will eventually lose more because he has more energy to lift heavier weights/be more active. Person A will also be smarter, per all the studies that show a relationship between clean eating and cognitive performance.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
i specifically said no medical conditions in my OP ….0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Justygirl77 wrote: »
This is an "All Things Being Equal" scenario. When it exists, then FINE! If all you are measuring is the one-dimensional result of losing weight, and are satisfied and get those results, Bravo!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….
For a many people, All Things Are Not Equal! There are other factors (whether they are measuring/tracking them or not) which are weighing into the scenario, causing this simplistic model to NOT WORK.
It's because the body is not simple math. If CICO is all you are interested in, then you are not interested in physiology, or else you don't really care enough when other signs of problems (showing up as symptoms a person is having) are causing people to fail with the CICO mindset.
No where in my OP did I mention CICO ..
how does one fail with a CICO mindset which is the basis of all weight loss? Eat less than you burn is tried and tested and works for e very one, even those with medical conditions.
if someone does not weigh/track and is not in a deficit and does not lose, then that is still CICO.0 -
Person A will eventually lose more because he has more energy to lift heavier weights/be more active. Person A will also be smarter, per all the studies that show a relationship between clean eating and cognitive performance.
Oh, please post those studies.
You are also changing the question. It stipulated that they had the same level of activity.
Also, did you note the upthread mention that the clean eating bodybuilders had improved performance after cheat days?
And ... look up the way Michael Phelps eats.
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.
Actually that's not the case, there was a study done on people with insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance. Their BMR was calculated through respiratory methods(had a few drinks can't recall the name of it at the moment). They where put on a 400 calorie deficit. The results varied based on diet, some did high carb some did low carb.
There might be small differences in weightloss when factoring in different macros, because different macros have different thermogenic effects while being digested (some require more calories to digest than others, some contain more indigestible fiber than others.) That still doesn't address clean vs. unclean.
I believe they got half of the insulin sensitive people and put them on a high carb diet, and put the other half on a low carb diet, same wsa true for the insulin resistance people. The insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diet, the insulin resistance people lost more on low carb diet. The insulin sensitive people lost more weight on the high carb diet. As already mentioned the calorie deficit was 400 calories per person.
Yet again, it had nothing to do with clean vs. unclean, which is the subject of the thread ....
What is unclean eating? processed foods, usually high in sugar/carbs. hence the high carb group.
Yeah it's not been defined I don't think. My knee-jerk definition of clean eating is "whole grains, lean meats, veg, healthy fats, nuts", would include dairy and fruits and higher-carb veg, some might not.
i am not aware of any "clean" diet that eliminated higher carb veg. Paleo limits fruit. Some veggies are limited but not based on carbs. You can eat things like squash. Paleo would probably be the lowest carb thoug due to grains being totally eliminated.
Clean eating a la Tosca Reno had plenty of carbs involved.
The other popular one, I can't think of the name (Eat to Live maybe?) but is more vegetarian, is actually a high carb "clean" diet.
But once again, we are back to the issue of there is no real meaning to "clean" eating. But it certainly isn't necessarily low carb.
"Processed" food is not just high carb.0 -
But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.
Actually that's not the case, there was a study done on people with insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance. Their BMR was calculated through respiratory methods(had a few drinks can't recall the name of it at the moment). They where put on a 400 calorie deficit. The results varied based on diet, some did high carb some did low carb.
again with the insulin sensitivity. I specially said NO medical condition. Are you on a mission for people with insulin sensitivity? You bring it up in every thread and it is tiresome. Maybe you should start a foundation.0 -
Hi Guys, sorry if I missed this being mentioned in the slew of acronyms but, from my understanding, the reason why 'clean' eating tends to result in better results than 'processed' eating is to do with how the food is metabolised.
Exhibit A - Raw carrot - 120cal (clean example)
Exhibit B - Cooked and mashed carrot - 120cal (processed example)
Person eats raw carrot. Digesting raw carrot burns 25cal.
Person eats cooked and mashed carrot. Digesting burns10cal.
Actual calories entering the system for A is 95cal.
Actual calories entering the system for B is 110cal.
Therefore, on a diet of raw carrots a person would loose weight faster than if they ate cooked and mashed carrot.
I have no idea what exactly the differences are between digesting one over the other are only that a processed food is easier and quicker to digest while the raw requires more activity to burn and is more likely to pass through undigested (corn vs pop corn anyone?).
It really has nothing to do with toxins and warm and fuzzies. This is also the basis of the Atkins diet funnily enough. Meat takes alot more calories to digest than a carrot.
HOWEVER, in my opinion, if you are on a CICO diet with processed food which is resulting in weight loss and you are able to stick to it I say go for it. Its better to do something slow and steady and stick to it then go too hard and not be able to see it through.
If you want to get healthy though, that's another story
I did CICO/IF and continued to eat a very SAD diet (fast food several times a week, 'processed' foods etc). Not only did I lose the weight, but I also IMPROVED my health in the process. My glucose number went from the pre-diabetic range, down into the normal range. My cholesterol numbers improved etc etc. I've been maintaining for over two years now and continue to have great blood panels-glucose number still in the normal range, cholesterol is great, blood pressure excellent etc. I have no health issues, am successfully maintaining an almost 60lb loss and I eat 'dirty'. I've very curious to know how you define 'get healthy'?
0 -
If all you are looking at is weight loss, you may be correct, they will lose roughly the same weight. If you want to talk about nutrition and long term health, the guy with the doughnut will not do as well. I am concerned with health, not just weight loss. Stay away from processed foods.0
-
isulo_kura wrote: »The thing is not even the 'Clean eating' people can decide what eating clean actually is. I see many so called clean eaters eating cheese, protein powders and many other things that are the definition of processed in my mind.
This argument like many on MFP is just a fallacy because as normal it's one or the other. I eat a lot of foods the clean eaters would see as clean but hey I also sometimes eat 'non clean' foods. Why does it need to be one or the other? It's this obsession about putting labels on everything. Why do you have to be 'paleo', 'clean' or anything else why not just say I eat foods I like that fit in with my goals/lifestyle?
i tend to agree …
and I will stop bringing it up when the clean eaters agree to stop acting like their food choice is someone superior to everyone else's ….or when the Paleo people admit that the Paleo Diet has absolutely nothing to do with how Paleolitchic People eat.
I don't have a name for what I do, I just eat food and hit macro/micro/calorie targets.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
You. are. changing. the question. The stipulation was that they were both consuming the same amount of calories.
Answer the question as it was asked, not as it suits your presuppositions.
The answer to the question as it was asked is: Person A or Person B may lose more weight, or they may lose exactly the same amount of weight, but either way, it does not prove or disprove anything about eating clean.
it proves my point that clean eating is not superior and you lose just as much weight eating clean as you would by following a moderate approach.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Person A will eventually lose more because he has more energy to lift heavier weights/be more active. Person A will also be smarter, per all the studies that show a relationship between clean eating and cognitive performance.
Oh, please post those studies.
You are also changing the question. It stipulated that they had the same level of activity.
Also, did you note the upthread mention that the clean eating bodybuilders had improved performance after cheat days?
And ... look up the way Michael Phelps eats.
yes, please post those studies….0 -
rossinator63 wrote: »If all you are looking at is weight loss, you may be correct, they will lose roughly the same weight. If you want to talk about nutrition and long term health, the guy with the doughnut will not do as well. I am concerned with health, not just weight loss. Stay away from processed foods.
why not?
I specifically said that Person B will hit their micros and macros, so that means they are getting their essential nutrients.
So one donut a day is going to impact your health negatively?
That is news to me as I eat about 200 calories of ice cream a day and my lab work comes back nearly perfect every year...0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »The thing is not even the 'Clean eating' people can decide what eating clean actually is. I see many so called clean eaters eating cheese, protein powders and many other things that are the definition of processed in my mind.
This argument like many on MFP is just a fallacy because as normal it's one or the other. I eat a lot of foods the clean eaters would see as clean but hey I also sometimes eat 'non clean' foods. Why does it need to be one or the other? It's this obsession about putting labels on everything. Why do you have to be 'paleo', 'clean' or anything else why not just say I eat foods I like that fit in with my goals/lifestyle?
i tend to agree …
and I will stop bringing it up when the clean eaters agree to stop acting like their food choice is someone superior to everyone else's ….or when the Paleo people admit that the Paleo Diet has absolutely nothing to do with how Paleolitchic People eat.
I don't have a name for what I do, I just eat food and hit macro/micro/calorie targets.
How are people going to feel special and holier-than-thou then?0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »The thing is not even the 'Clean eating' people can decide what eating clean actually is. I see many so called clean eaters eating cheese, protein powders and many other things that are the definition of processed in my mind.
This argument like many on MFP is just a fallacy because as normal it's one or the other. I eat a lot of foods the clean eaters would see as clean but hey I also sometimes eat 'non clean' foods. Why does it need to be one or the other? It's this obsession about putting labels on everything. Why do you have to be 'paleo', 'clean' or anything else why not just say I eat foods I like that fit in with my goals/lifestyle?
i tend to agree …
and I will stop bringing it up when the clean eaters agree to stop acting like their food choice is someone superior to everyone else's ….or when the Paleo people admit that the Paleo Diet has absolutely nothing to do with how Paleolitchic People eat.
I don't have a name for what I do, I just eat food and hit macro/micro/calorie targets.
How are people going to feel special and holier-than-thou then?
IDK ..
can't they just eat and be merry?0 -
Good post op.. and In for clean zealots0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The answer to the question as it was asked is: Person A or Person B may lose more weight, or they may lose exactly the same amount of weight, but either way, it does not prove or disprove anything about eating clean.
it proves my point that clean eating is not superior and you lose just as much weight eating clean as you would by following a moderate approach.
It doesn't prove anything. To prove it you need to keep all the variables constant and change only one thing: eating clean or not. Right from the off you've used two different people so you're not keeping the variables constant. As I said, it would be impossible to prove this one way or the other.
The closest thing we have in this thread to a proper example (i.e. someone who has tried both methods and lost more weight using the clean eating method, with documentation to prove it) is @tedboosalis7. Obviously his results weren't done in the same time period so even that isn't a true experiment, but it's the closest thing anyone can offer. All the people posting saying they've lost or maintainted weight eating junk don't prove anything because how do they know how much they would have lost or how healthy they would be if they didn't eat the junk?
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »Hi Guys, sorry if I missed this being mentioned in the slew of acronyms but, from my understanding, the reason why 'clean' eating tends to result in better results than 'processed' eating is to do with how the food is metabolised.
Exhibit A - Raw carrot - 120cal (clean example)
Exhibit B - Cooked and mashed carrot - 120cal (processed example)
Person eats raw carrot. Digesting raw carrot burns 25cal.
Person eats cooked and mashed carrot. Digesting burns10cal.
Actual calories entering the system for A is 95cal.
Actual calories entering the system for B is 110cal.
Therefore, on a diet of raw carrots a person would loose weight faster than if they ate cooked and mashed carrot.
I have no idea what exactly the differences are between digesting one over the other are only that a processed food is easier and quicker to digest while the raw requires more activity to burn and is more likely to pass through undigested (corn vs pop corn anyone?).
It really has nothing to do with toxins and warm and fuzzies. This is also the basis of the Atkins diet funnily enough. Meat takes alot more calories to digest than a carrot.
HOWEVER, in my opinion, if you are on a CICO diet with processed food which is resulting in weight loss and you are able to stick to it I say go for it. Its better to do something slow and steady and stick to it then go too hard and not be able to see it through.
If you want to get healthy though, that's another story
I did CICO/IF and continued to eat a very SAD diet (fast food several times a week, 'processed' foods etc). Not only did I lose the weight, but I also IMPROVED my health in the process. My glucose number went from the pre-diabetic range, down into the normal range. My cholesterol numbers improved etc etc. I've been maintaining for over two years now and continue to have great blood panels-glucose number still in the normal range, cholesterol is great, blood pressure excellent etc. I have no health issues, am successfully maintaining an almost 60lb loss and I eat 'dirty'. I've very curious to know how you define 'get healthy'?
Yup. The simple fact is that the biggest health problem most of have is being over an ideal weight.
I think a lot of people LIKE the idea that they can hold off the bogeyman of bad health by doing this or that, but a lot of it will still be down to genes and luck.
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