Losing Weight is NOT that simple..imo..
Options
Replies
-
kimberlyjoy159 wrote: »But sometimes people need to see the second step in order to grasp the first step. Sometimes understanding CICO comes when they get help in that process. There is the truth or fact of CICO and there is how to apply it in my setting.
Agreed. Telling someone just that losing weight is all about CICO is about as helpful as telling someone that the proper way to prepare dinner is to cook the food. It's kind of self-evident, and it's definitely true, but it doesn't help at all in the process to achieve that end result. There are steps to cooking food, and there are steps to achieving CICO.
0 -
CICO covers weight gain, weight maintenance and weight loss. It's not a WOE or a weight loss strategy.
Since so many people here have stated that they had no idea that eating more could make you gain weight, it's good that it's pointed out. But for the vast and overwhelming majority of people who did hear this at some point, it's not all that helpful. It isn't knowing how it works that is a problem, it's knowing how to lose weight - the practice, not the theory.0 -
It isn't knowing how it works that is a problem, it's knowing how to lose weight - the practice, not the theory.
This is why expensive, silly diet programs (I'm looking at YOU, 21-Day Fix) are so easy to sell. They promise the path to CICO, though they rarely flat-out say that. "The destination is weight loss, and the way to do that is to use these seven little containers with every meal," etc.
0 -
OP ... your post sounds like my thinking for 10 years of attempted dieting, where I bounced around between 50 and 100 lbs overweight.
It wasn't until I started MFP, started weighing/measuring virtually everything I ate (which drove my wife nuts sometimes when she was trying to cook), consistently tracked my input, and consistently maintained a level of activity, that I finally succeeded at losing 100 lbs (in my early 50s, I returned to a weight I last saw in my early 20s).
Exercise cals burned are hard to measure, so I purposely underestimated them (I used the typical "eat back only half those calories" advice).
My food intake was 90% measured. For that other 10% (e.g., grabbing a meal out, etc), I overestimated my intake, to create a buffer.
As I lost weight, I also had to reduce my intake from time to time, as my body got more efficient. But then something interesting happened ... once I got fit enough, my activities became longer and more intense ... and I needed to up my intake to avoid dropping too quickly.
The net is ... yes ... there can be variance in the numbers, but without numbers (food cals, exercise cals, etc), you have nothing to work with ... you are just guessing. With numbers, you can roughly correlate against your scale progress, and slightly tweak your numbers ... and succeed.
It can be done. I'm far from the only one here who has made it work via this method.
Best of luck to you!
Note: Edited to fix typos, punctuation, etc.0 -
danieltsmoke wrote: »I've lost 40lbs about, so what I'm doing is working for me, I'm not complaining. But I get frustrated when I see a forums response like "Just eat less calories than you're burning...are you sure you're weighing accurately?" This seems patronizing, and also is flawed in a couple ways.
First, it's really difficult to just know how many calories you're burning..I don't have a butt stamp indicating that number, or even an owners manual, so the best I've got is taking blood tests and running fitness experiments (which simply isn't practical for an average person), OR using an online calculator/guestimator, which let's be honest, has a HUGE margin of error. Some sites I have a 2500 TDE, some say 3500..
Secondly, its really difficult to just know how many calories you're eating..Have you googled "food label accuracy"? That stuff can often be 20%-40% wrong..not even to mention that some things just cant be calculated accurately..ie. one steak from a package could be hugely more caloric-ly dense simply due to a higher fat content.
My point is, even if you follow all the right steps, you could easily have an over estimated TDE (by no fault of your own), and eat far underestimated calories (by no fault of your own), and simply not lose weight. Thus "just eat less than you burn" is fairly useless.
If I had any advice to offer to people struggling, I'd say it's all about trial and error, which can be frustratingly slow. You gotta try something, whether its working out more, or trying to stay under a certain amount-ish of calories, and see how that goes for a few weeks. If that doesn't work, change it up, and try again. Patience has been my biggest struggle but probably my greatest ally during the last few months, and I know that once you find your groove you're gonna kick your fitness goals right in the somewhat large *kitten*. Rant over..
When I first started the forum I was quite surprised by the responses too. It was all about CICO, which I agree is the root of weight control whether it is loss maintenance or gaining, but it felt as though there was only one acceptable way to do it and that was through moderation, or IIFYM to a lesser degree. There seems to be very little respect for other ways of eating like veganism, LCHF, vegetarianism, keto diet, or even reducing processed foods or sugars.
If someone asks for dietary advice or just support for their way of eating, a common response is "why are you doing this if it isn't medically needed?" or what the OP is doing wrong in their opinion, or "humour" that is often at the OP's expense. Responses too frequently do not to answer the question. IMO.
If this was a home Renovation forum I think threads would look like this:
OP: "Do you think mustard yellow would look good in my family room?" Posted with a pic of room and said yellow.
Responses I might expect could be:
I think you need a window on the north wall.
The room is too small, it should be enlarged.
I like beige rooms. It's relaxing.
You. I like.
Why are you painting? Are you moving soon?
Looks like my kid's diaper fill. LOL
I thought people would be more helpful with their response, maybe offer some advice, and that the advice would involve fewer absolutes that their way must be right. There are very few scientific facts that are proven absolutes. Generally, a theory is accepted as the best until it is disproven. I don't believe nutrition and weight management is black or white. There are a lot of greys in there.
Responding to posts that you are not supportive of or knowledgeable in is not helpful in many instances. People who are cutting back on something, often sugars, will immediately have many responses about why that is not a good idea. Very little advice on how to cut back successfully, few words of support, but often more of a discussion on why that will fail. I think offering education on the WOE this person is using could be more helpful. Maybe they won't fail then? Sure, let them know how that diet doesn't work for some and why. Maybe tell them ways it can work for them...
And I know that saying a WOE is dumb, ignorant or other name calling isn't helpful. I think just saying, "I think you are wrong in this," would be more effective.
Asking if people weigh correctly or have their correct calorie count can be very helpful and relevant, but only one person needs to ask. After that it can come off as nagging or even bullying - not many people enjoy 5 on 1.
JMO. Just my impressions.
0 -
From the FDA's Guidance for Industry: Nutrition Labeling Manual - A Guide for Developing and Using Data Bases:
Nutritional labels are allowed to be 40% inaccurate for the specified serving size? Could you post some reading material on this?
Better get yourself an accurate bomb calorimeter to go with it, the OP was making the point that nutritional labels themselves are not required to be very accurate.This part - no. If you use a digital food scale, and weigh all solid foods, you can be very accurate with calorie counting.Class I nutrients must be present at 100% or more of the value declared on the labelClass II nutrients must be present at 80% or more of the value declared on the label.
Some things need to have a minimum of exactly what's shown (more is fine), some things need to have at least 80% of what's shown (more is fine), and some things have to have less than 120% of what's shown on the nutritional label (less is fine).For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less
The fact that manufacturers can stay out of jail if they are within a 20% margin of error does not mean that actual calories are off 20%, let alone of on one direction. This focus on theoretical inaccuracies is an archetypal example of letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. The fact is that CICO implemented by honest measuring (or estimation, if you prefer) works for the vast majority of people. Empirical measures always trump theoretical predictions.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »danieltsmoke wrote: »I've lost 40lbs about, so what I'm doing is working for me, I'm not complaining. But I get frustrated when I see a forums response like "Just eat less calories than you're burning...are you sure you're weighing accurately?" This seems patronizing, and also is flawed in a couple ways.
First, it's really difficult to just know how many calories you're burning..I don't have a butt stamp indicating that number, or even an owners manual, so the best I've got is taking blood tests and running fitness experiments (which simply isn't practical for an average person), OR using an online calculator/guestimator, which let's be honest, has a HUGE margin of error. Some sites I have a 2500 TDE, some say 3500..
Secondly, its really difficult to just know how many calories you're eating..Have you googled "food label accuracy"? That stuff can often be 20%-40% wrong..not even to mention that some things just cant be calculated accurately..ie. one steak from a package could be hugely more caloric-ly dense simply due to a higher fat content.
My point is, even if you follow all the right steps, you could easily have an over estimated TDE (by no fault of your own), and eat far underestimated calories (by no fault of your own), and simply not lose weight. Thus "just eat less than you burn" is fairly useless.
If I had any advice to offer to people struggling, I'd say it's all about trial and error, which can be frustratingly slow. You gotta try something, whether its working out more, or trying to stay under a certain amount-ish of calories, and see how that goes for a few weeks. If that doesn't work, change it up, and try again. Patience has been my biggest struggle but probably my greatest ally during the last few months, and I know that once you find your groove you're gonna kick your fitness goals right in the somewhat large *kitten*. Rant over..
When I first started the forum I was quite surprised by the responses too. It was all about CICO, which I agree is the root of weight control whether it is loss maintenance or gaining, but it felt as though there was only one acceptable way to do it and that was through moderation, or IIFYM to a lesser degree. There seems to be very little respect for other ways of eating like veganism, LCHF, vegetarianism, keto diet, or even reducing processed foods or sugars.
If someone asks for dietary advice or just support for their way of eating, a common response is "why are you doing this if it isn't medically needed?" or what the OP is doing wrong in their opinion, or "humour" that is often at the OP's expense. Responses too frequently do not to answer the question. IMO.
If this was a home Renovation forum I think threads would look like this:
OP: "Do you think mustard yellow would look good in my family room?" Posted with a pic of room and said yellow.
Responses I might expect could be:
I think you need a window on the north wall.
The room is too small, it should be enlarged.
I like beige rooms. It's relaxing.
You. I like.
Why are you painting? Are you moving soon?
Looks like my kid's diaper fill. LOL
I thought people would be more helpful with their response, maybe offer some advice, and that the advice would involve fewer absolutes that their way must be right. There are very few scientific facts that are proven absolutes. Generally, a theory is accepted as the best until it is disproven. I don't believe nutrition and weight management is black or white. There are a lot of greys in there.
Responding to posts that you are not supportive of or knowledgeable in is not helpful in many instances. People who are cutting back on something, often sugars, will immediately have many responses about why that is not a good idea. Very little advice on how to cut back successfully, few words of support, but often more of a discussion on why that will fail. I think offering education on the WOE this person is using could be more helpful. Maybe they won't fail then? Sure, let them know how that diet doesn't work for some and why. Maybe tell them ways it can work for them...
And I know that saying a WOE is dumb, ignorant or other name calling isn't helpful. I think just saying, "I think you are wrong in this," would be more effective.
Asking if people weigh correctly or have their correct calorie count can be very helpful and relevant, but only one person needs to ask. After that it can come off as nagging or even bullying - not many people enjoy 5 on 1.
JMO. Just my impressions.
Amen!0 -
After losing 40 pounds the body is completely different. What worked 40 pounds ago might not work now. Also when you start exercising, a 1 mile run might burn a lot of calories, but as you get fitter you will need to run more and faster to burn the same amount of calories.970Mikaela1 wrote: »After losing 40 pounds you have enough data that it really shouldn't be guesswork anymore. Accurately tracking your data points should all but eliminate the guesswork.
You're body is still the same body. What worked 40 pounds ago will still work(a deficit) . yes you will have to work harder or longer to burn the same calories. Realistically in a 40 pound loss you lose what about 200 calories a day?0 -
kimberlyjoy159 wrote: »But sometimes people need to see the second step in order to grasp the first step. Sometimes understanding CICO comes when they get help in that process. There is the truth or fact of CICO and there is how to apply it in my setting.
Agreed. Telling someone just that losing weight is all about CICO is about as helpful as telling someone that the proper way to prepare dinner is to cook the food. It's kind of self-evident, and it's definitely true, but it doesn't help at all in the process to achieve that end result. There are steps to cooking food, and there are steps to achieving CICO.
^^0 -
Losing weight is simply eating less than you're burning in the same way as to stop being an alcoholic you just stop drinking. Neither are that simple or easy in real life.0
-
kimberlyjoy159 wrote: »But sometimes people need to see the second step in order to grasp the first step. Sometimes understanding CICO comes when they get help in that process. There is the truth or fact of CICO and there is how to apply it in my setting.
Agreed. Telling someone just that losing weight is all about CICO is about as helpful as telling someone that the proper way to prepare dinner is to cook the food. It's kind of self-evident, and it's definitely true, but it doesn't help at all in the process to achieve that end result. There are steps to cooking food, and there are steps to achieving CICO.
I will confess to not really knowing CICO before MFP. I hear it's taught in school here but I don't recall this from any classrooms (okay I skipped most of my college health classes, ALRIGHT???). All I heard about was diet pills, low carb, appetite suppressants, starvation mode, special diet number 124 that costs $400 a month. So much *kitten* out there cluttering the simple facts. They said CICO works. I logged my food and exercise. Didn't see any results for like two to three weeks. Read MFP some more. Read about water retention and weight fluctuation. Kept watching the scale. TADA!! Results! No, saying its all about calories in and calories out was NOT useless for me. I literally needed to read it dozens of times before hearing it above all the *kitten* noise. I finally did hear it, and boy am I glad I did
For other people though, a more specific plan may be best. You're more likely to encounter plain ol calorie counters who prefer to structure their own eating plans based on individual preferences on MFP, though.
0 -
The reason CICO is always the first answer, is because so many people have no idea that CICO is the basis of all weight gain and loss. They really don't. When people find out I am losing weight by keeping a food log to achieve CICO, they immediately ask - but you eat rice and potatoes - don't they make you fat? What ingredient in your breakfast smoothie is increasing your weight loss? Do you take fat burners? I heard kettlebell workouts burn a lot of fat, do you do that? What supplements do you take? They don't believe it's as simple as CICO, they insist there is some magic formula I have.
Yes, once you understand CICO, there is still work to be done. You have to figure out how to eat and exercise to make it work in your individual life. But IMO it is easier to figure that out when you have the correct goal - CICO.
I've seen plenty of threads here with posters who insist that CICO doesn't apply to them, so it makes sense to first tell someone who is struggling - CICO. Weigh and log. That's it. If what you are doing is too complicated, start at the beginning, and tweak from there.
The answer to how to lose weight IS simple, but it can be hard for some to be mentally ready to do the work. For some people, acknowledging that it was in their control all along is demoralizing, and it's easier to think it is too complicated and I don't have time to deal with this. I am 42, and I could kick myself for not getting in shape 10 years ago. Because if I knew then what I know now, I totally could have. Instead I followed all the fads and tried to get a masters degree in weight loss and fitness magic formulas. I had to throw all that out, and just eat what I like and accurately log. Then I took that data and tweaked until I started getting results. And now it IS easy. Just like anything else, practice makes perfect. Or at least close enough to perfect!0 -
danieltsmoke wrote: »I've lost 40lbs about, so what I'm doing is working for me, I'm not complaining. But I get frustrated when I see a forums response like "Just eat less calories than you're burning...are you sure you're weighing accurately?" This seems patronizing, and also is flawed in a couple ways.
First, it's really difficult to just know how many calories you're burning..I don't have a butt stamp indicating that number, or even an owners manual, so the best I've got is taking blood tests and running fitness experiments (which simply isn't practical for an average person), OR using an online calculator/guestimator, which let's be honest, has a HUGE margin of error. Some sites I have a 2500 TDE, some say 3500..
Secondly, its really difficult to just know how many calories you're eating..Have you googled "food label accuracy"? That stuff can often be 20%-40% wrong..not even to mention that some things just cant be calculated accurately..ie. one steak from a package could be hugely more caloric-ly dense simply due to a higher fat content.
My point is, even if you follow all the right steps, you could easily have an over estimated TDE (by no fault of your own), and eat far underestimated calories (by no fault of your own), and simply not lose weight. Thus "just eat less than you burn" is fairly useless.
If I had any advice to offer to people struggling, I'd say it's all about trial and error, which can be frustratingly slow. You gotta try something, whether its working out more, or trying to stay under a certain amount-ish of calories, and see how that goes for a few weeks. If that doesn't work, change it up, and try again. Patience has been my biggest struggle but probably my greatest ally during the last few months, and I know that once you find your groove you're gonna kick your fitness goals right in the somewhat large *kitten*. Rant over..
Good rant!
Most nutritional info is possibly valid for the middle 1/2 of the population, if you are not average in all nutrition aspects you just gotta figure it out!
0 -
kimberlyjoy159 wrote: »But sometimes people need to see the second step in order to grasp the first step. Sometimes understanding CICO comes when they get help in that process. There is the truth or fact of CICO and there is how to apply it in my setting.
Agreed. Telling someone just that losing weight is all about CICO is about as helpful as telling someone that the proper way to prepare dinner is to cook the food. It's kind of self-evident, and it's definitely true, but it doesn't help at all in the process to achieve that end result. There are steps to cooking food, and there are steps to achieving CICO.
I will confess to not really knowing CICO before MFP. I hear it's taught in school here but I don't recall this from any classrooms (okay I skipped most of my college health classes, ALRIGHT???). All I heard about was diet pills, low carb, appetite suppressants, starvation mode, special diet number 124 that costs $400 a month. So much *kitten* out there cluttering the simple facts. They said CICO works. I logged my food and exercise. Didn't see any results for like two to three weeks. Read MFP some more. Read about water retention and weight fluctuation. Kept watching the scale. TADA!! Results! No, saying its all about calories in and calories out was NOT useless for me. I literally needed to read it dozens of times before hearing it above all the *kitten* noise. I finally did hear it, and boy am I glad I did
For other people though, a more specific plan may be best. You're more likely to encounter plain ol calorie counters who prefer to structure their own eating plans based on individual preferences on MFP, though.
I have to admit to always wondering where these people were educated. We had the whole calorie concept in grade school and high school. My son did, too. I used to be stunned by the people who said, "I never heard that eating more food made you gain weight! I didn't know about calories!" thing. But so many people have reported that they hadn't heard that! They can't all be lying!
Maybe, like you, they weren't paying attention. But maybe some people really aren't taught?
Anyway, it is good to point it out for those who never learned it, but it's also good to remember that many people know it and are looking for more. They are trying to find a WOE that they can live with, that helps them achieve their weight loss. Does that make sense to you?0 -
Maybekimberlyjoy159 wrote: »But sometimes people need to see the second step in order to grasp the first step. Sometimes understanding CICO comes when they get help in that process. There is the truth or fact of CICO and there is how to apply it in my setting.
Agreed. Telling someone just that losing weight is all about CICO is about as helpful as telling someone that the proper way to prepare dinner is to cook the food. It's kind of self-evident, and it's definitely true, but it doesn't help at all in the process to achieve that end result. There are steps to cooking food, and there are steps to achieving CICO.
I will confess to not really knowing CICO before MFP. I hear it's taught in school here but I don't recall this from any classrooms (okay I skipped most of my college health classes, ALRIGHT???). All I heard about was diet pills, low carb, appetite suppressants, starvation mode, special diet number 124 that costs $400 a month. So much *kitten* out there cluttering the simple facts. They said CICO works. I logged my food and exercise. Didn't see any results for like two to three weeks. Read MFP some more. Read about water retention and weight fluctuation. Kept watching the scale. TADA!! Results! No, saying its all about calories in and calories out was NOT useless for me. I literally needed to read it dozens of times before hearing it above all the *kitten* noise. I finally did hear it, and boy am I glad I did
For other people though, a more specific plan may be best. You're more likely to encounter plain ol calorie counters who prefer to structure their own eating plans based on individual preferences on MFP, though.
I have to admit to always wondering where these people were educated. We had the whole calorie concept in grade school and high school. My son did, too. I used to be stunned by the people who said, "I never heard that eating more food made you gain weight! I didn't know about calories!" thing. But so many people have reported that they hadn't heard that! They can't all be lying!
Maybe, like you, they weren't paying attention. But maybe some people really aren't taught?
Anyway, it is good to point it out for those who never learned it, but it's also good to remember that many people know it and are looking for more. They are trying to find a WOE that they can live with, that helps them achieve their weight loss. Does that make sense to you?
If someone says, "I'm not losing weight and I don't know why", telling them to weigh their food and be careful about exercise burns seems fully adequate to me. It was, for me
If, on the other hand, they're concerned about not being sated on XX00 calories, that usually prompts a bit more than "weigh your food", in my experience, anyway. You (general "you") can't blame people for not answering a question that hasn't been asked
0 -
Maybekimberlyjoy159 wrote: »But sometimes people need to see the second step in order to grasp the first step. Sometimes understanding CICO comes when they get help in that process. There is the truth or fact of CICO and there is how to apply it in my setting.
Agreed. Telling someone just that losing weight is all about CICO is about as helpful as telling someone that the proper way to prepare dinner is to cook the food. It's kind of self-evident, and it's definitely true, but it doesn't help at all in the process to achieve that end result. There are steps to cooking food, and there are steps to achieving CICO.
I will confess to not really knowing CICO before MFP. I hear it's taught in school here but I don't recall this from any classrooms (okay I skipped most of my college health classes, ALRIGHT???). All I heard about was diet pills, low carb, appetite suppressants, starvation mode, special diet number 124 that costs $400 a month. So much *kitten* out there cluttering the simple facts. They said CICO works. I logged my food and exercise. Didn't see any results for like two to three weeks. Read MFP some more. Read about water retention and weight fluctuation. Kept watching the scale. TADA!! Results! No, saying its all about calories in and calories out was NOT useless for me. I literally needed to read it dozens of times before hearing it above all the *kitten* noise. I finally did hear it, and boy am I glad I did
For other people though, a more specific plan may be best. You're more likely to encounter plain ol calorie counters who prefer to structure their own eating plans based on individual preferences on MFP, though.
I have to admit to always wondering where these people were educated. We had the whole calorie concept in grade school and high school. My son did, too. I used to be stunned by the people who said, "I never heard that eating more food made you gain weight! I didn't know about calories!" thing. But so many people have reported that they hadn't heard that! They can't all be lying!
Maybe, like you, they weren't paying attention. But maybe some people really aren't taught?
Anyway, it is good to point it out for those who never learned it, but it's also good to remember that many people know it and are looking for more. They are trying to find a WOE that they can live with, that helps them achieve their weight loss. Does that make sense to you?
If someone says, "I'm not losing weight and I don't know why", telling them to weigh their food and be careful about exercise burns seems fully adequate to me. It was, for me
If, on the other hand, they're concerned about not being sated on XX00 calories, that usually prompts a bit more than "weigh your food", in my experience, anyway. You (general "you") can't blame people for not answering a question that hasn't been asked
Fair enough!
0 -
If, on the other hand, they're concerned about not being sated on XX00 calories, that usually prompts a bit more than "weigh your food", in my experience, anyway. You (general "you") can't blame people for not answering a question that hasn't been asked
This absolutely. If posters are unhappy about the quality of answers, then they are free to take their time and post their own responses in a way they think is more suitable to their outlook.0 -
I had been yo-yo dieting for years on lots of different diet plans; you name I've tried it. Nothing worked for very long because I had no idea what I was doing. I ended up on MFP because I so sick of being overweight.
Reading the forums over and over again until I understood what I was doing and learned how calories in/calories out works is how I have successfully lost close to 50lbs over 1 1/2 years. I find it very simple. I weigh everything I eat, I exercise, use a tracker for calories burn estimates, and make educated, informed food choices that nourish my body.
There are no quick fixes or diet plans. You have to spend time educating yourself on how calories in/calories out works. You are responsible for doing this, no one else. Yes, there is a learning curve and it is trial and error but it is so very simple if you have patience.
Thank goodness for all the experienced people (that many call rude meanies) on here who try so very hard to help newbies forget about all the "diet" crap out there. Many on here whine that they can't lose weight but refuse to put the work in and educate themselves, jumping on the VLCDs, no carb, paleo, shake, fix, craziness that, in the end is unsustainable.
It is simple and it is calories in and calories out the rest is just noise. Just my two cents.
Best regards -0 -
For me as a short woman, eating 1200 cal/day is the most I can eat if I want to lose any weight. It's also the least I can eat to maintain any kind of healthy diet. Having a slow metabolism exascerbated by genetics, previous loss & gain, and increasing age, does not help with the process. Trying to lose weight with diet alone is a slow frustrating process with a very fine line between eating enough and not eating too much.
But it's still about CICO. I can hardly mess with calorie intake, I'm very limited on that side of the equation. I've come to the reluctant realization that I must do some kind of intense exercise (as well as a 1200 cal/day diet) to lose at a moderate pace. Increase the calories out so I have a larger deficit. This difficulty is due to my own preferences because I don't like exercise. I wouldn't blame it on calculator and label inaccuracies. The amount of deficit you need to lose at a moderate pace is much larger than those errors.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions