Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are all calories the same??
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Do you think that has any relation to this thread?0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Perhaps the claim that you can eat more on low carb and maintain or not gain is true in Gale's case. I have no idea, I haven't had the guts to test the theory...
That's sort of the essence of the thread really, is a certain number of calories of low carb a maintenance diet and some other number a high carb maintenance diet ? The high carb athletes in this study had a +300 calorie daily intake over the LC athletes, but with 10 in each group and high variability the difference isn't significant. There's also the self recall issue.
There are overfeeding studies where people don't put on weight (or anything like as much as one expect) with certain oils or alcohol, but they are a bit oddball. Enough to point out that the calorie does not rule supreme.
My point of view is that you can maintain or gain or lose on any combination of foods.0 -
5 tbsp. of coconut oil is around 600 cals, no?queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »@GaleHawkins
Again Gale your numbers do not add up. Eating 2500-3000 is your maintenance calories, not buying it and all the exercise you can manage is 1/4 mile a day?
You have said you ingest 1200 calories in coconut oil but that leaves lots of calories left. How many grams of protein do you eat because you claim you keep your carbs below 50g per day. Again the math is fuzzy.
@queenliz99 I am not sure where you came up with the 1200 calories in coconut oil and all of the exercise that I can manage is 1/4 mile daily from my earlier post from today? I no longer use a power chair so I walk to the bathroom, car, etc. My daily 1/4 walk is the one physical activity I do daily as long as ice or snow is not on the steep hill which often is at midnight. As you know I typically do not count anything unless some of you want more numbers because I do not diet. I eat until I get very full and I eat again when I get hungry again. My weight management is internal not external for the most part. I just stay away from sugar, all grains and eat medium on protein which no longer require conscious effort unless I eat an unknown source of food. Before my WOE became a habit I did have to count.
On protein I try to keep it in the 70-90 gram range so I do not knock myself out of nutritional ketosis by spiking my blood glucose levels on protein. Nutritional Ketosis is not a requirement to lose or maintain weigh. I just do it to help lower my cancer risk by living more on ketones (fats) than glucose (carbs) as you read in the article on Keto and cancer prevention I posted above. One blip is: (v) Some laboratory studies indicate a direct anti-tumor potential of ketone bodies. During the past years, a multitude of mouse studies indeed proved anti-tumor effects of KDs for various tumor types, and a few case reports and pre-clinical studies obtained promising results in cancer patients as well. Several registered clinical trials are going to investigate the case for a KD as a supportive therapeutic option in oncology."
queenliz99 as you know most all social media is fuzzy as is the math. I do not hide behind false profiles on social media. I have nothing to prove. NO ONE should take anything from social media as advice because most of it is not factual. With Chrome I can search anything by highlighting it and clicking on it. That is how I found MFP when I was trying to learn how to use my $15 eBay breath analyzer to measure my ketone levels a couple years ago.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1236978/breathalyzer-for-ketosis-check
By the way I blew a .052 this morning setting off the meter's alarm. The meter lets me know if I a getting too heavy into carbs and or protein so I do not have to count them. My bathroom scales fully monitors the net results of my CICO. So I do count/compute my numbers but with digital equipment but you already know I run a software development business from info in my profile.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/35648789#Comment_35648789
@KVS1985 I skip the blender part but do 5 tablespoon of coconut oil and 2 oz of Heavy Whipping Cream in my first cup of coffee each morning. This gives me a good start on getting 1600 calories daily from fat for my macro.
Tapering into using large amounts like I do is strongly suggested if one has a need to use coconut oil.
Your words ^^^^^
Yes - I'm looking at the label of a jar of it organic coconut oil: 1tbsp = 130calories, so 5 tbsp = 650 calories. I don't think that I would forfeit a breakfast, lunch, or dinner for an epic cup of coffee with 5 tbsp of coconut oil, but to each his own...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Do you think that has any relation to this thread?
Yes, I do. I think it should be brought up whenever Gale goes into his anti carb spiel, and I note that in this thread he asserted that carbs caused cancer and fat did not when his own source says that sat fat has a correlation with cancer (as do high GI carbs).
To use that to argue against including fruit and veg in the diet is irresponsible or worse and, IMO, needs to be disputed, ideally by mods.
Mods don't dispute bad science. We only enforce the rules. I was asking to get back on topic as the OP, which includes my recommendation to him, even though he called out my food diary, which is fine because I always have it public.
Honestly, if people want to debate wrong science, please feel free to start up another thread dedicated to keto and health, but I don't feel my thread is the place to argue that.
so when someone says carbs cause cancer no one should dispute it because not on topic?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Do you think that has any relation to this thread?
Yes, I do. I think it should be brought up whenever Gale goes into his anti carb spiel, and I note that in this thread he asserted that carbs caused cancer and fat did not when his own source says that sat fat has a correlation with cancer (as do high GI carbs).
To use that to argue against including fruit and veg in the diet is irresponsible or worse and, IMO, needs to be disputed, ideally by mods.
Mods don't dispute bad science. We only enforce the rules. I was asking to get back on topic as the OP, which includes my recommendation to him, even though he called out my food diary, which is fine because I always have it public.
Honestly, if people want to debate wrong science, please feel free to start up another thread dedicated to keto and health, but I don't feel my thread is the place to argue that.
so when someone says carbs cause cancer no one should dispute it because not on topic?
If you look at my initial comment, it was about members bringing up others dietary composition. When you start bring up with members say from other threads and nitpicking their dietary choices, it will violate:
6. No Intentionally Hurtful Posts
Topics or posts which are started with the intent to belittle others, either directly named or through enough descriptive commentary to be possibly identified, are prohibited. This includes stalking a poster through the forums, posting about past events gone sour, divulging personal information, or spreading gossip or rumors. At our discretion, any post referring to the behavior or posts of other users of the site will be removed.
I understand there will be some deviation. But I would rather not turn the whole thread into another debate that this was not intended for.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Do you think that has any relation to this thread?
Yes, I do. I think it should be brought up whenever Gale goes into his anti carb spiel, and I note that in this thread he asserted that carbs caused cancer and fat did not when his own source says that sat fat has a correlation with cancer (as do high GI carbs).
To use that to argue against including fruit and veg in the diet is irresponsible or worse and, IMO, needs to be disputed, ideally by mods.
Mods don't dispute bad science. We only enforce the rules. I was asking to get back on topic as the OP, which includes my recommendation to him, even though he called out my food diary, which is fine because I always have it public.
Honestly, if people want to debate wrong science, please feel free to start up another thread dedicated to keto and health, but I don't feel my thread is the place to argue that.
so when someone says carbs cause cancer no one should dispute it because not on topic?
If you look at my initial comment, it was about members bringing up others dietary composition. When you start bring up with members say from other threads and nitpicking their dietary choices, it will violate:
6. No Intentionally Hurtful Posts
Topics or posts which are started with the intent to belittle others, either directly named or through enough descriptive commentary to be possibly identified, are prohibited. This includes stalking a poster through the forums, posting about past events gone sour, divulging personal information, or spreading gossip or rumors. At our discretion, any post referring to the behavior or posts of other users of the site will be removed.
I understand there will be some deviation. But I would rather not turn the whole thread into another debate that this was not intended for.
In that Gale brings up his diet incessantly, as if it were an ideal, I hardly think questioning him about it or suggesting that 1200 cals of sat fat in coffee is not actually considered by nutrition experts to be a smart idea is going to be hurtful, and I think it's important to counter the evangelism for newbies.
I realize that Gale is just going to say that nutrition experts don't know what they are talking about, sat fat is ideal in all quantities and carbs and only carbs are bad. 2016 is an irritating year in a lot of ways. Pretty soon Trump will probably come out against carbs and then all stars will align.
Old CarbThulhu still ketos in old r'lyehFlavin.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Do you think that has any relation to this thread?
Yes, I do. I think it should be brought up whenever Gale goes into his anti carb spiel, and I note that in this thread he asserted that carbs caused cancer and fat did not when his own source says that sat fat has a correlation with cancer (as do high GI carbs).
To use that to argue against including fruit and veg in the diet is irresponsible or worse and, IMO, needs to be disputed, ideally by mods.
Mods don't dispute bad science. We only enforce the rules. I was asking to get back on topic as the OP, which includes my recommendation to him, even though he called out my food diary, which is fine because I always have it public.
Honestly, if people want to debate wrong science, please feel free to start up another thread dedicated to keto and health, but I don't feel my thread is the place to argue that.
so when someone says carbs cause cancer no one should dispute it because not on topic?
If you look at my initial comment, it was about members bringing up others dietary composition. When you start bring up with members say from other threads and nitpicking their dietary choices, it will violate:
6. No Intentionally Hurtful Posts
Topics or posts which are started with the intent to belittle others, either directly named or through enough descriptive commentary to be possibly identified, are prohibited. This includes stalking a poster through the forums, posting about past events gone sour, divulging personal information, or spreading gossip or rumors. At our discretion, any post referring to the behavior or posts of other users of the site will be removed.
I understand there will be some deviation. But I would rather not turn the whole thread into another debate that this was not intended for.
In that Gale brings up his diet incessantly, as if it were an ideal, I hardly think questioning him about it or suggesting that 1200 cals of sat fat in coffee is not actually considered by nutrition experts to be a smart idea is going to be hurtful, and I think it's important to counter the evangelism for newbies.
I realize that Gale is just going to say that nutrition experts don't know what they are talking about, sat fat is ideal in all quantities and carbs and only carbs are bad. 2016 is an irritating year in a lot of ways. Pretty soon Trump will probably come out against carbs and then all stars will align.
I do think people expect mods to be a voice of reason and consider them a representative of MFP's view, so I do hope mods counter bad information.
In this thread, I do not see Gale promoting NO fruits or veggies or drinking 1200 calories of saturated fats? Can you quote them from this thread? Otherwise, you are picking part from other threads and bringing them into this thread. Which is exactly my point and exactly why there are violations of the above rule.
And NO mods do NOT represent the voice of nutrition advice for MFP and we are NOT here to dispute or moderate content. If people need more information on that topic, they should pm me or an admin because that thread will be locked down quickly.
His claim about cancer on p 4:It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research. While my 50 pound weigh loss has now been maintained for one year that I am off of most all sugars and all forms of grain all I know is my joint and muscle pain is well managed in my case if I keep total daily carbs <50 grams.
This is contradicted by the very site that he referred to in the first thread he started to talk about lung cancer and carbs (don't know where it is, perhaps it was deleted).
I think he's putting his own diet into issue here, and making a virtue of not eating sugars (including vegetables and fruit, which have sugars) while not mentioning the fact that he gets a huge amount of calories from sat fat seems to call for the rebuttal. If he didn't advocate for a diet, I wouldn't bring up his -- I only comment on people's diets when they make a point of claiming that other diets are unhealthy in hypocritical fashion.0 -
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10352999/do-carbs-protein-and-fats-all-impact-cancer-risks-or-not#latest
OK here is the thread as to how carbs, proteins may/can/do impact cancer risks.0 -
No.
200 cals of wine make me much happier than 200 cals of carrots. Ergo, not the same. You're welcome.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10352999/do-carbs-protein-and-fats-all-impact-cancer-risks-or-not#latest
OK here is the thread as to how carbs, proteins may/can/do impact cancer risks.
And what does that have to do with this thread???
Posts about cancer risks of different macros per some were taking this thread off track perhaps.0 -
I don't see "can increase cancer risks" as the same thing as suggesting people avoid all fruits and vegetables.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Do you think that has any relation to this thread?
Yes, I do. I think it should be brought up whenever Gale goes into his anti carb spiel, and I note that in this thread he asserted that carbs caused cancer and fat did not when his own source says that sat fat has a correlation with cancer (as do high GI carbs).
To use that to argue against including fruit and veg in the diet is irresponsible or worse and, IMO, needs to be disputed, ideally by mods.
Mods don't dispute bad science. We only enforce the rules. I was asking to get back on topic as the OP, which includes my recommendation to him, even though he called out my food diary, which is fine because I always have it public.
Honestly, if people want to debate wrong science, please feel free to start up another thread dedicated to keto and health, but I don't feel my thread is the place to argue that.
so when someone says carbs cause cancer no one should dispute it because not on topic?
If you look at my initial comment, it was about members bringing up others dietary composition. When you start bring up with members say from other threads and nitpicking their dietary choices, it will violate:
6. No Intentionally Hurtful Posts
Topics or posts which are started with the intent to belittle others, either directly named or through enough descriptive commentary to be possibly identified, are prohibited. This includes stalking a poster through the forums, posting about past events gone sour, divulging personal information, or spreading gossip or rumors. At our discretion, any post referring to the behavior or posts of other users of the site will be removed.
I understand there will be some deviation. But I would rather not turn the whole thread into another debate that this was not intended for.
In that Gale brings up his diet incessantly, as if it were an ideal, I hardly think questioning him about it or suggesting that 1200 cals of sat fat in coffee is not actually considered by nutrition experts to be a smart idea is going to be hurtful, and I think it's important to counter the evangelism for newbies.
I realize that Gale is just going to say that nutrition experts don't know what they are talking about, sat fat is ideal in all quantities and carbs and only carbs are bad. 2016 is an irritating year in a lot of ways. Pretty soon Trump will probably come out against carbs and then all stars will align.
I do think people expect mods to be a voice of reason and consider them a representative of MFP's view, so I do hope mods counter bad information.
In this thread, I do not see Gale promoting NO fruits or veggies or drinking 1200 calories of saturated fats? Can you quote them from this thread? Otherwise, you are picking part from other threads and bringing them into this thread. Which is exactly my point and exactly why there are violations of the above rule.
And NO mods do NOT represent the voice of nutrition advice for MFP and we are NOT here to dispute or moderate content. If people need more information on that topic, they should pm me or an admin because that thread will be locked down quickly.
His claim about cancer on p 4:It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research. While my 50 pound weigh loss has now been maintained for one year that I am off of most all sugars and all forms of grain all I know is my joint and muscle pain is well managed in my case if I keep total daily carbs <50 grams.
This is contradicted by the very site that he referred to in the first thread he started to talk about lung cancer and carbs (don't know where it is, perhaps it was deleted).
I think he's putting his own diet into issue here, and making a virtue of not eating sugars (including vegetables and fruit, which have sugars) while not mentioning the fact that he gets a huge amount of calories from sat fat seems to call for the rebuttal. If he didn't advocate for a diet, I wouldn't bring up his -- I only comment on people's diets when they make a point of claiming that other diets are unhealthy in hypocritical fashion.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't see "can increase cancer risks" as the same thing as suggesting people avoid all fruits and vegetables.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Do you think that has any relation to this thread?
Yes, I do. I think it should be brought up whenever Gale goes into his anti carb spiel, and I note that in this thread he asserted that carbs caused cancer and fat did not when his own source says that sat fat has a correlation with cancer (as do high GI carbs).
To use that to argue against including fruit and veg in the diet is irresponsible or worse and, IMO, needs to be disputed, ideally by mods.
Mods don't dispute bad science. We only enforce the rules. I was asking to get back on topic as the OP, which includes my recommendation to him, even though he called out my food diary, which is fine because I always have it public.
Honestly, if people want to debate wrong science, please feel free to start up another thread dedicated to keto and health, but I don't feel my thread is the place to argue that.
so when someone says carbs cause cancer no one should dispute it because not on topic?
If you look at my initial comment, it was about members bringing up others dietary composition. When you start bring up with members say from other threads and nitpicking their dietary choices, it will violate:
6. No Intentionally Hurtful Posts
Topics or posts which are started with the intent to belittle others, either directly named or through enough descriptive commentary to be possibly identified, are prohibited. This includes stalking a poster through the forums, posting about past events gone sour, divulging personal information, or spreading gossip or rumors. At our discretion, any post referring to the behavior or posts of other users of the site will be removed.
I understand there will be some deviation. But I would rather not turn the whole thread into another debate that this was not intended for.
In that Gale brings up his diet incessantly, as if it were an ideal, I hardly think questioning him about it or suggesting that 1200 cals of sat fat in coffee is not actually considered by nutrition experts to be a smart idea is going to be hurtful, and I think it's important to counter the evangelism for newbies.
I realize that Gale is just going to say that nutrition experts don't know what they are talking about, sat fat is ideal in all quantities and carbs and only carbs are bad. 2016 is an irritating year in a lot of ways. Pretty soon Trump will probably come out against carbs and then all stars will align.
I do think people expect mods to be a voice of reason and consider them a representative of MFP's view, so I do hope mods counter bad information.
In this thread, I do not see Gale promoting NO fruits or veggies or drinking 1200 calories of saturated fats? Can you quote them from this thread? Otherwise, you are picking part from other threads and bringing them into this thread. Which is exactly my point and exactly why there are violations of the above rule.
And NO mods do NOT represent the voice of nutrition advice for MFP and we are NOT here to dispute or moderate content. If people need more information on that topic, they should pm me or an admin because that thread will be locked down quickly.
His claim about cancer on p 4:It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research. While my 50 pound weigh loss has now been maintained for one year that I am off of most all sugars and all forms of grain all I know is my joint and muscle pain is well managed in my case if I keep total daily carbs <50 grams.
This is contradicted by the very site that he referred to in the first thread he started to talk about lung cancer and carbs (don't know where it is, perhaps it was deleted).
I think he's putting his own diet into issue here, and making a virtue of not eating sugars (including vegetables and fruit, which have sugars) while not mentioning the fact that he gets a huge amount of calories from sat fat seems to call for the rebuttal. If he didn't advocate for a diet, I wouldn't bring up his -- I only comment on people's diets when they make a point of claiming that other diets are unhealthy in hypocritical fashion.
Yes, that's from other threads and the avoiding sugar stuff.
My point about the cancer is his very own link contradicted his claims and said that cancer risks had been associated with sat fat.
To quote myself from page 6:Yes, I do. I think it should be brought up whenever Gale goes into his anti carb spiel, and I note that in this thread he asserted that carbs caused cancer and fat did not when his own source says that sat fat has a correlation with cancer (as do high GI carbs).
To use that to argue against including fruit and veg in the diet is irresponsible or worse and, IMO, needs to be disputed, ideally by mods.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Do you think that has any relation to this thread?
Yes, I do. I think it should be brought up whenever Gale goes into his anti carb spiel, and I note that in this thread he asserted that carbs caused cancer and fat did not when his own source says that sat fat has a correlation with cancer (as do high GI carbs).
To use that to argue against including fruit and veg in the diet is irresponsible or worse and, IMO, needs to be disputed, ideally by mods.
Mods don't dispute bad science. We only enforce the rules. I was asking to get back on topic as the OP, which includes my recommendation to him, even though he called out my food diary, which is fine because I always have it public.
Honestly, if people want to debate wrong science, please feel free to start up another thread dedicated to keto and health, but I don't feel my thread is the place to argue that.
so when someone says carbs cause cancer no one should dispute it because not on topic?
If you look at my initial comment, it was about members bringing up others dietary composition. When you start bring up with members say from other threads and nitpicking their dietary choices, it will violate:
6. No Intentionally Hurtful Posts
Topics or posts which are started with the intent to belittle others, either directly named or through enough descriptive commentary to be possibly identified, are prohibited. This includes stalking a poster through the forums, posting about past events gone sour, divulging personal information, or spreading gossip or rumors. At our discretion, any post referring to the behavior or posts of other users of the site will be removed.
I understand there will be some deviation. But I would rather not turn the whole thread into another debate that this was not intended for.
In that Gale brings up his diet incessantly, as if it were an ideal, I hardly think questioning him about it or suggesting that 1200 cals of sat fat in coffee is not actually considered by nutrition experts to be a smart idea is going to be hurtful, and I think it's important to counter the evangelism for newbies.
I realize that Gale is just going to say that nutrition experts don't know what they are talking about, sat fat is ideal in all quantities and carbs and only carbs are bad. 2016 is an irritating year in a lot of ways. Pretty soon Trump will probably come out against carbs and then all stars will align.
I do think people expect mods to be a voice of reason and consider them a representative of MFP's view, so I do hope mods counter bad information.
In this thread, I do not see Gale promoting NO fruits or veggies or drinking 1200 calories of saturated fats? Can you quote them from this thread? Otherwise, you are picking part from other threads and bringing them into this thread. Which is exactly my point and exactly why there are violations of the above rule.
And NO mods do NOT represent the voice of nutrition advice for MFP and we are NOT here to dispute or moderate content. If people need more information on that topic, they should pm me or an admin because that thread will be locked down quickly.
His claim about cancer on p 4:It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research. While my 50 pound weigh loss has now been maintained for one year that I am off of most all sugars and all forms of grain all I know is my joint and muscle pain is well managed in my case if I keep total daily carbs <50 grams.
This is contradicted by the very site that he referred to in the first thread he started to talk about lung cancer and carbs (don't know where it is, perhaps it was deleted).
I think he's putting his own diet into issue here, and making a virtue of not eating sugars (including vegetables and fruit, which have sugars) while not mentioning the fact that he gets a huge amount of calories from sat fat seems to call for the rebuttal. If he didn't advocate for a diet, I wouldn't bring up his -- I only comment on people's diets when they make a point of claiming that other diets are unhealthy in hypocritical fashion.
He mentions carb restriction (and even grains). And you are conflating his post from other threads, as a means to argue. In this thread, there is no reference to sat fats or restricting veggies.
You can restrict carbs and still eat veggies and some select few. And just like every other diet, there a good diets and bad diets. But until someone makes a claim in this thread, you are arguing something not said.0 -
And you are conflating his post from other threads, as a means to argue. In this thread, there is no reference to sat fats or restricting veggies.
Page 4:It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research
This is a reference to the thread he started about carbs and lung cancer, in which he appeared not to have read the link at issue, which -- contrary to his claims -- did not say that all carbs caused cancer (it said there was a link or correlation with a high GI diet, but ALSO said that fruits and veg had a correlation with a lower risk of cancer) and certainly did not say that fats did not -- it said there was a correlation between a high sat fat diet (which Gale frequently promotes as healthy) and cancer.
I'm skeptical about either being directly causal, btw -- in the US it's typical for a generally unhealthful no fruits and veg diet to both be high sat fat and high GI.0 -
That would depend on one's maintenance level and specific food choices. For a lot of men on here, 5% of total calories would mean about 30-35g of carbs. That would allow for multiple servings of some vegetables (like broccoli, spinach, carrots) along with a couple servings of berries.As someone who has eaten moderate low carb and extreme low carb....I doubt anyone eating 5% carbs is eating much if any vegetables, let alone any fruit. Maybe I'm wrong though.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
That would depend on one's maintenance level and specific food choices. For a lot of men on here, 5% of total calories would mean about 30-35g of carbs. That would allow for multiple servings of some vegetables (like broccoli, spinach, carrots) along with a couple servings of berries.As someone who has eaten moderate low carb and extreme low carb....I doubt anyone eating 5% carbs is eating much if any vegetables, let alone any fruit. Maybe I'm wrong though.
I had 28 carbs just from vegetables (including tomatoes, though) for dinner yesterday. 13 carbs from vegetables at breakfast today, plus 10 more from blueberries. 30-35 for a full day seems low to me, and that assumes no other carb source.
Anyway, my comment about him being anti fruits and veg is because of specific comments elsewhere which I guess should not be discussed in this thread.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K 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
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions