CI/CO vs Clean Eating
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »And you're right that the reality is very likely that "clean" eaters are really eating moderately, and moderate eaters are most likely eating nutritious foods. It's just a preference in terms of *ways of thinking about it*
I think it relates to how you see your own diet vs. others. Why claim to eat clean unless you are asserting that others who don't are eating "unclean"? Especially if you don't, in fact, eat the way you claim to.
I find it quite illuminating that so-called "clean" eaters so often tend to assume that everyone not "eating clean" is eating McD's and Twinkies constantly or occasionally donuts, that we don't care about health or nutrition.
Because that's how people think. In global, imprecise, sometimes inconsistent terms that may or may not reflect what they actually do.
But I'm asking here why make those assumptions about people who don't eat clean. Why do they always go immediately from someone saying "it's okay to include some less nutrient dense foods in an overall balanced, healthy diet that meets micros and macros and is calorie appropriate" to "they are saying it's the same to eat all donuts as all broccoli!" (For the record both would be stupid choices.) This seems to want to make rather uncharitable and offensive assumptions about other people, simply because they don't self-define as "clean eaters."
I'm not at all convinced that people who want to pursue what they call "clean eating" judge others; people can hold different standards for themselves than they do for other people, despite whatever readings can be abstracted from what they say about themselves.
I'm basing this 100% on what I've seen on MFP, which I think support my views here. In particular rude comments I've received from self-proclaimed "clean" eaters. (Most of whom do have their diaries closed and when they don't they always eat as much "processed" food as I do, IME.)
I think the "clean eating" thing here is entirely about judging others, usually based on false assumptions due to the person's own prior habits. For example, I think it's super weird that anyone would think that eating what you like in moderation, within the context of a balanced, nutritious diet would mean 100% McD's and Twinkies, but that's a very common assumption. In that I never eat McD's or Twinkies, I find it bizarre. (I do eat added sugar and was low on calories so actually had quite a lot today.)But if they did, I think one reason might be what another poster mentioned earlier - that threads often veer into these polarized meme-for-alls, where people post pictures of monster burgers, those huge donuts I guess, cake, etc. Those images misrepresent the moderate approach. The earlier poster also mentioned that people posting those pics often have a lot more calories to play with than some, who might, you know, resent the cynicism about the kind of care they have to take to meet their macros within their budget, maybe by thinking about "clean eating".
Nope. People repeatedly say eat mostly nutrient dense foods, meet your macros and micros and then include some treats, learn moderation. Those responses are to people saying you MUST give up "added" sugar or refined grains, etc. IMO, including pasta (which I normally eat as whole grain, but the differences are minor) in my diet makes it healthier, as it tends to decrease sat fat and adds veggies. And as I make my pasta sauce at home and don't add tons of oil or cheese and don't have insane servings, the calories are quite reasonable.lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't disagree with this in general. I don't see how the term "clean" helps particularly vs. the old standby "healthy." It seems to add on either some element of religious thinking or else some effort to create disgust (these two things are related) by thinking of the food the person wants not to want as "dirty" or "unclean." Which again I think tends to be somewhat harmful and also rude when it comes to the characterizations of others.And there are also probably variations in who actually responds better to whichever diets.
I'm not convinced we are really talking about different ways of eating.
But yeah, I know that the way the term "clean" rubs me the wrong way is kind of like my version of tilting at windmills. ;-)
"Clean" just has currency right now, it's trendy, that's all. I'm familiar with the purity/disgust axis but again am not sure how many people actually, fully apply this categorization. I think it's just a shorthand for a lot of people. Not saying some don't get religious about it, but for the most part, for those who haven't eaten the way you have, and want to eat healthier (no scare quotes because it just is healthier), it might be an important way of making sense of things, at least initially. I guess this is really an empirical question, though. [/quote]
Yeah, I guess I just don't understand this, as there are tons of other--less obnoxious--terms to use if you just mean you want to eat healthier or cook more.
One significant factor for me is all the people asking for "clean eating recipes". I mean, WTH? I have about 800 cookbooks, and they are all based on whole foods. Who thinks you need special "clean eating" cookbooks unless you have some bizarre, irrational, and rude idea about others, like that they include giant amounts of sugar or canned goods or fast food or whatever in their savory cooking. Or perhaps that they are just idiots and have no idea about cooking at all. I mean, I didn't really cook regularly until I was 30, but I didn't assume there was some "clean eating" cooking and "dirty eating" cooking. This really offends me.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »And you're right that the reality is very likely that "clean" eaters are really eating moderately, and moderate eaters are most likely eating nutritious foods. It's just a preference in terms of *ways of thinking about it*
I think it relates to how you see your own diet vs. others. Why claim to eat clean unless you are asserting that others who don't are eating "unclean"? Especially if you don't, in fact, eat the way you claim to.
I find it quite illuminating that so-called "clean" eaters so often tend to assume that everyone not "eating clean" is eating McD's and Twinkies constantly or occasionally donuts, that we don't care about health or nutrition.
Because that's how people think. In global, imprecise, sometimes inconsistent terms that may or may not reflect what they actually do.
But I'm asking here why make those assumptions about people who don't eat clean. Why do they always go immediately from someone saying "it's okay to include some less nutrient dense foods in an overall balanced, healthy diet that meets micros and macros and is calorie appropriate" to "they are saying it's the same to eat all donuts as all broccoli!" (For the record both would be stupid choices.) This seems to want to make rather uncharitable and offensive assumptions about other people, simply because they don't self-define as "clean eaters."
And I've had those assumptions stated about me even after I explained that I think eating with attention to nutrition is important and that I wouldn't call myself a "clean eater" in part because "processed" foods include foods like, well, greek yogurt and bagged spinach.In slogans, if you like. We (all of us, humans) take cognitive shortcuts. It makes parsing the environment (e.g. grocery store) & negotiating day-to-day life easier.
I don't disagree with this in general. I don't see how the term "clean" helps particularly vs. the old standby "healthy." It seems to add on either some element of religious thinking or else some effort to create disgust (these two things are related) by thinking of the food the person wants not to want as "dirty" or "unclean." Which again I think tends to be somewhat harmful and also rude when it comes to the characterizations of others.And there are also probably variations in who actually responds better to whichever diets.
I'm not convinced we are really talking about different ways of eating.
Oh for the ways of eating we've been talking about until now, yeah I agree. Sorry, should have been more specific - I mean more ways of eating than just that. I do think though that as I mentioned before, some people do have subclinical or undiagnosed issues, try something out, and find they do better with it than they did when they didn't consider food quality (or reduce carbs or increase Omega 3s or whatever). It just works for them in a way other approaches didn't. And they might never actually know for sure. (Lots of women, in particular, have PCOS or thyroid issues and their docs just don't put the dots together, or ask the right questions, or order the right tests.) Who knows what else could make someone a responder to a given diet and not to another, probably there are
latent variables. [/quote]
I think what we are really talking about is some people eat absurd diets (and assume everyone else does) and rather than merely cutting down on sugar or fast food or the like cut it out and of course feel better. And they assume that most people ate like they used to when of course most people do not and most people know what a healthy diet is. There's no real need to go from 100% fast food (or sugar) to none, and if you do chances are you will miss it. I don't eat fast food and don't miss it because I never really ate much and don't like it, but that's why making some big point about cutting it out is not interesting to me. My guess is for those whom that's a big thing it's not a good approach. Similarly, I didn't find cutting out added sugar a big thing, so added it back in. If someone really eats so much that's a big deal, they are going to want it again. (And personally I did, and see no reason not to have it.)0 -
BILLBRYTAN wrote: »Obesity has skyrocketed since we were told to replace animal fats with polyunsaturated refined industrial oils.
No.
Obesity skyrocketed as calorie intake went up.
0 -
BILLBRYTAN wrote: »...Gary Taubes...
Seriously? That guy's agenda was exposed years ago.
You're waaaaaaaaaaaay behind....0 -
BILLBRYTAN wrote: »
Were your fats from refined corn, canola, safflower or soybean oil? Did you also eat white sugar, flour and rice?lemurcat12 wrote: »BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition
Nope.
Once again, I got fat when eating a diet that had adequate protein, plenty of fat (both olives and olive oil and animal fats, including lots of salmon), and lots of veggies.
Really, it's extremely possible. It's not even hard. I could gain weight even on a low carb diet if I wasn't careful about portions, because I love protein/fat/salt.
I ate some white flour, not a ton, because I don't care about most bread and usually prefer whole grains. I ate occasional pasta (interchangeably whole wheat and white) and naan about once a week.
I ate some sugar, but likely less than I am eating now while losing. I don't have a huge sweet tooth, I'm a salt, fat, protein girl, as I said before.
No, my fats were not from those, but from olive oil and meat/bacon/egg fat, and dairy fat/butter. I was really into "natural" eating (my personal version of what I now understand is "clean eating").0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »And you're right that the reality is very likely that "clean" eaters are really eating moderately, and moderate eaters are most likely eating nutritious foods. It's just a preference in terms of *ways of thinking about it*
I think it relates to how you see your own diet vs. others. Why claim to eat clean unless you are asserting that others who don't are eating "unclean"? Especially if you don't, in fact, eat the way you claim to.
I find it quite illuminating that so-called "clean" eaters so often tend to assume that everyone not "eating clean" is eating McD's and Twinkies constantly or occasionally donuts, that we don't care about health or nutrition.
Because that's how people think. In global, imprecise, sometimes inconsistent terms that may or may not reflect what they actually do.
But I'm asking here why make those assumptions about people who don't eat clean. Why do they always go immediately from someone saying "it's okay to include some less nutrient dense foods in an overall balanced, healthy diet that meets micros and macros and is calorie appropriate" to "they are saying it's the same to eat all donuts as all broccoli!" (For the record both would be stupid choices.) This seems to want to make rather uncharitable and offensive assumptions about other people, simply because they don't self-define as "clean eaters."
I'm not at all convinced that people who want to pursue what they call "clean eating" judge others; people can hold different standards for themselves than they do for other people, despite whatever readings can be abstracted from what they say about themselves.
I'm basing this 100% on what I've seen on MFP, which I think support my views here. In particular rude comments I've received from self-proclaimed "clean" eaters. (Most of whom do have their diaries closed and when they don't they always eat as much "processed" food as I do, IME.)
I think the "clean eating" thing here is entirely about judging others, usually based on false assumptions due to the person's own prior habits. For example, I think it's super weird that anyone would think that eating what you like in moderation, within the context of a balanced, nutritious diet would mean 100% McD's and Twinkies, but that's a very common assumption. In that I never eat McD's or Twinkies, I find it bizarre. (I do eat added sugar and was low on calories so actually had quite a lot today.)But if they did, I think one reason might be what another poster mentioned earlier - that threads often veer into these polarized meme-for-alls, where people post pictures of monster burgers, those huge donuts I guess, cake, etc. Those images misrepresent the moderate approach. The earlier poster also mentioned that people posting those pics often have a lot more calories to play with than some, who might, you know, resent the cynicism about the kind of care they have to take to meet their macros within their budget, maybe by thinking about "clean eating".
Nope. People repeatedly say eat mostly nutrient dense foods, meet your macros and micros and then include some treats, learn moderation. Those responses are to people saying you MUST give up "added" sugar or refined grains, etc. IMO, including pasta (which I normally eat as whole grain, but the differences are minor) in my diet makes it healthier, as it tends to decrease sat fat and adds veggies. And as I make my pasta sauce at home and don't add tons of oil or cheese and don't have insane servings, the calories are quite reasonable.lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't disagree with this in general. I don't see how the term "clean" helps particularly vs. the old standby "healthy." It seems to add on either some element of religious thinking or else some effort to create disgust (these two things are related) by thinking of the food the person wants not to want as "dirty" or "unclean." Which again I think tends to be somewhat harmful and also rude when it comes to the characterizations of others.And there are also probably variations in who actually responds better to whichever diets.
I'm not convinced we are really talking about different ways of eating.
But yeah, I know that the way the term "clean" rubs me the wrong way is kind of like my version of tilting at windmills. ;-)
"Clean" just has currency right now, it's trendy, that's all. I'm familiar with the purity/disgust axis but again am not sure how many people actually, fully apply this categorization. I think it's just a shorthand for a lot of people. Not saying some don't get religious about it, but for the most part, for those who haven't eaten the way you have, and want to eat healthier (no scare quotes because it just is healthier), it might be an important way of making sense of things, at least initially. I guess this is really an empirical question, though.
Yeah, I guess I just don't understand this, as there are tons of other--less obnoxious--terms to use if you just mean you want to eat healthier or cook more.
One significant factor for me is all the people asking for "clean eating recipes". I mean, WTH? I have about 800 cookbooks, and they are all based on whole foods. Who thinks you need special "clean eating" cookbooks unless you have some bizarre, irrational, and rude idea about others, like that they include giant amounts of sugar or canned goods or fast food or whatever in their savory cooking. Or perhaps that they are just idiots and have no idea about cooking at all. I mean, I didn't really cook regularly until I was 30, but I didn't assume there was some "clean eating" cooking and "dirty eating" cooking. This really offends me.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »And you're right that the reality is very likely that "clean" eaters are really eating moderately, and moderate eaters are most likely eating nutritious foods. It's just a preference in terms of *ways of thinking about it*
I think it relates to how you see your own diet vs. others. Why claim to eat clean unless you are asserting that others who don't are eating "unclean"? Especially if you don't, in fact, eat the way you claim to.
I find it quite illuminating that so-called "clean" eaters so often tend to assume that everyone not "eating clean" is eating McD's and Twinkies constantly or occasionally donuts, that we don't care about health or nutrition.
Because that's how people think. In global, imprecise, sometimes inconsistent terms that may or may not reflect what they actually do.
But I'm asking here why make those assumptions about people who don't eat clean. Why do they always go immediately from someone saying "it's okay to include some less nutrient dense foods in an overall balanced, healthy diet that meets micros and macros and is calorie appropriate" to "they are saying it's the same to eat all donuts as all broccoli!" (For the record both would be stupid choices.) This seems to want to make rather uncharitable and offensive assumptions about other people, simply because they don't self-define as "clean eaters."
And I've had those assumptions stated about me even after I explained that I think eating with attention to nutrition is important and that I wouldn't call myself a "clean eater" in part because "processed" foods include foods like, well, greek yogurt and bagged spinach.In slogans, if you like. We (all of us, humans) take cognitive shortcuts. It makes parsing the environment (e.g. grocery store) & negotiating day-to-day life easier.
I don't disagree with this in general. I don't see how the term "clean" helps particularly vs. the old standby "healthy." It seems to add on either some element of religious thinking or else some effort to create disgust (these two things are related) by thinking of the food the person wants not to want as "dirty" or "unclean." Which again I think tends to be somewhat harmful and also rude when it comes to the characterizations of others.And there are also probably variations in who actually responds better to whichever diets.
I'm not convinced we are really talking about different ways of eating.
Oh for the ways of eating we've been talking about until now, yeah I agree. Sorry, should have been more specific - I mean more ways of eating than just that. I do think though that as I mentioned before, some people do have subclinical or undiagnosed issues, try something out, and find they do better with it than they did when they didn't consider food quality (or reduce carbs or increase Omega 3s or whatever). It just works for them in a way other approaches didn't. And they might never actually know for sure. (Lots of women, in particular, have PCOS or thyroid issues and their docs just don't put the dots together, or ask the right questions, or order the right tests.) Who knows what else could make someone a responder to a given diet and not to another, probably there are
latent variables. [/quote]
I think what we are really talking about is some people eat absurd diets (and assume everyone else does) and rather than merely cutting down on sugar or fast food or the like cut it out and of course feel better. And they assume that most people ate like they used to when of course most people do not and most people know what a healthy diet is. There's no real need to go from 100% fast food (or sugar) to none, and if you do chances are you will miss it. I don't eat fast food and don't miss it because I never really ate much and don't like it, but that's why making some big point about cutting it out is not interesting to me. My guess is for those whom that's a big thing it's not a good approach. Similarly, I didn't find cutting out added sugar a big thing, so added it back in. If someone really eats so much that's a big deal, they are going to want it again. (And personally I did, and see no reason not to have it.) [/quote]
I think the diet you call absurd is more common than you think. A lot of people eat too much food that is low-value/low-satiety/low-nutrient. I think that is why there is an obesity epidemic. It's true that some might gain on what people call "clean" foods, but it's way harder to do that. Check out forums here and elsewhere, where bodybuilders strive to consume as much as possible on a "clean" diet for their gainz. It's simply not as easy to pound down 3000 calories of chicken and broccoli as it is to overindulge on chicken wings and fries, or pasta carbonara (with garlic bread, and a dessert...). Satiety tends to level off when people eat a certain way. I don't even want to give it a name at this point
(Also - I am not saying everyone should eat chicken and broccoli.)
I think we actually agreed that the holy rollers who eat 0% treats are probably few, and that most people wind up doing 80/20, and use these different heuristics to think through their meals and days. I'm not bothered if they're not entirely self-consistent, as long as they're seeing results that promote normal weight (and health). I really haven't noticed rudeness, so I can't speak to that.
Curious: what offends you about people looking for recipes? Or about the idea that some people don't know how to cook? It's a fact, there are people who don't know how to cook. Or people who cooked in ways that didn't serve their goals and now want to learn something else.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »BILLBRYTAN wrote: »
Yes, the guy who tells the truth and refuses to be bullied by misguided public opinion.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition; the poor body is screaming for nutrients which it never gets and therefore the person is never satisfied and always eating. If we all ate properly there would be no reason to count calories. And eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
i
Oh boy, it's this guy.
More like the guy who likes to rustle jimmies and flame-bait.
*kitten* did I miss some jimmies being rustled??
oh with the rustled jimmies again
I've been wondering how you have 3k+ posts and no avi
it's like
y u do dis
I don't know, I should get an avi, you're right.0 -
BILLBRYTAN wrote: »eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
I've lost 9.5 kg in 70 days without cooking with butter or lard once.0 -
Isn't Lard White? So you're not supposed to eat it? ;-)BILLBRYTAN wrote: »eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
Just when you think threads like this can't get any sillier ........
0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »
Isn't Lard White? So you're not supposed to eat it? ;-)BILLBRYTAN wrote: »eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
Just when you think threads like this can't get any sillier ........
Lard is also processed and refined.
"Industrially-produced lard, including much of the lard sold in supermarkets, is rendered from a mixture of high and low quality fat sources from throughout the pig.[11] To improve stability at room temperature, lard is often hydrogenated. Hydrogenated lard sold to consumers typically contains fewer than 0.5g of transfats per 13g serving.[12] Lard is also often treated with bleaching and deodorizing agents, emulsifiers, and antioxidants, such as BHT.[6][13] These treatments make lard more consistent and prevent spoilage. "0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition; the poor body is screaming for nutrients which it never gets and therefore the person is never satisfied and always eating. If we all ate properly there would be no reason to count calories. And eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
i
Oh boy, it's this guy.
He lost me at lard. But I'm willing to learn more about this idea... The body is always hungry searching for nutrients, so the human remains hungry. I could roll with that, possibly.
It's patently untrue. Except in some woo promoter's utopian fantasies. The truth is that obesity is a complicated, mutlti-factorial problem and there are many reasons people overeat. There's no one single reason at all.
Hunger is a complicated issue and the idea that it's a finely tuned mutable hormonal response is hogwash. It's so easy to hack hunger hormones with placebos it's not even funny. Your hunger response can be tricked by what you expect, sometimes even simply by reading advertising on a package.
The mere idea that "hunger" is responding to a search for nutrients as a wholesale explanation for obesity is laughable. Especially when someone is saying the answer is lard and no white rice.
0 -
From Taubes to Hyman??? LOLOLOLOLOLOL.0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition; the poor body is screaming for nutrients which it never gets and therefore the person is never satisfied and always eating. If we all ate properly there would be no reason to count calories. And eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
i
Oh boy, it's this guy.
He lost me at lard. But I'm willing to learn more about this idea... The body is always hungry searching for nutrients, so the human remains hungry. I could roll with that, possibly.
It's patently untrue. Except in some woo promoter's utopian fantasies. The truth is that obesity is a complicated, mutlti-factorial problem and there are many reasons people overeat. There's no one single reason at all.
Hunger is a complicated issue and the idea that it's a finely tuned mutable hormonal response is hogwash. It's so easy to hack hunger hormones with placebos it's not even funny. Your hunger response can be tricked by what you expect, sometimes even simply by reading advertising on a package.
The mere idea that "hunger" is responding to a search for nutrients as a wholesale explanation for obesity is laughable. Especially when someone is saying the answer is lard and no white rice.
@PeachyCarol You've probably just written the single most sensible post of the whole thread. I do love your attitude0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
I really think you got the answers to your questions OP, back in the beginning of the thread, about whether it matters if you eat "clean" vs IIFYM.
...
I'm not sure what else you think you're going to hear differently, I actually think we have a pretty solid level of agreement for one of these threads, aside from the AA derailment, I think this one should probably just fade off before it turns into something that needs to be locked and/or deleted by mods.
I agree that my question was answered. I enjoy some of the additional comments and perspectives people are leaving, though, and am not claiming my question went unanswered. I always enjoy the knowledge and perspective of those who have more experience-- so thank you again for your help.
Even if we did have to wade through rather confusing conversations to get the answers I was seeking.
I hope the mods do not delete this thread and see no real reason for them to. There is a lot of great information here -- information that I searched for previously and was unable to find before posting.
I agree that up until the last page or so when a particularly polarizing poster arrived, this thread was filled with fairly civil debate.
However now that Mr "Obesity Comes From Malnutrition" has arrived and started in with the unnecessary demonization of white foods, I would give this thread another 5 pages or about 3 hours from now (give the West Coasters time to wake up and see this) before it gets really ugly and locked/nuked by a mod.
It really is a shame.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
Yes.
Because the problem isn't so much as their body metabolizes alcohol differently than every other human being, but rather they personally lack the mental ability to moderate their alcohol consumption (Or drugs, or gambling).0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »From Taubes to Hyman??? LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
IKR?
There is research that links malnutrition to obesity.
You know how it is done?
You look at BMI in a country like Brazil.
You do some math and notice that those that have early malnutrition are likelier to be obese.
Oh. And you notice this because that malnutrition is linked to stunting.
What every single article I've read on this FAILS to do is question that the BMI equation doesn't necessarily make sense at low heights.
So yeah. Short people have higher BMIs because of measurement bias. Malnutrition leads to shorter populations (and also occurs with populations that learn poor nutritional management). Corrected for economic evolution or vs height in non-malnourished groups and poof! that relationship is not significant.
0 -
BILLBRYTAN wrote: »Enjoy the inflammation from excessive omega 9's. And remember, fats are all the same.
Trans fats are the same?0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IasCZL072fQ
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions