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.
Calorie Deficit vs Starving Yourself
Replies
-
@senecarr Well, it's more like I'm cherry picking on a handful of cases (others are referenced in the study), but still, I get your point. I would say that anybody planning on drastically altering their weight should be under medical supervision. What are the side effect of amino acid deficiencies? Are they worse than the side affects of living with an extra 200+ pounds of fat? I don't know. What about bariatric surgery patients? I'm pretty sure most of those folks are under 1500 calories (if any of you are reading feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Regarding the plane analogy, a lot more people have jumped out of planes than have fasted for over a year, ijs.
@stevencloser I agree. Fat loss = fat use. Obviously, if you have more available, you are losing a lesser percentage than someone who had substantially less.0 -
@senecarr Well, it's more like I'm cherry picking on a handful of cases (others are referenced in the study), but still, I get your point. I would say that anybody planning on drastically altering their weight should be under medical supervision. What are the side effect of amino acid deficiencies? Are they worse than the side affects of living with an extra 200+ pounds of fat? I don't know. What about bariatric surgery patients? I'm pretty sure most of those folks are under 1500 calories (if any of you are reading feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Regarding the plane analogy, a lot more people have jumped out of planes than have fasted for over a year, ijs.
@stevencloser I agree. Fat loss = fat use. Obviously, if you have more available, you are losing a lesser percentage than someone who had substantially less.
There is a huge difference between a self prescribe vlcd than a doctor supervised, especially on the nutrient side. And as much as we would all love to believe we are doing a great job, it becomes even more difficult to get those nutrients on a lcd.
But it does come down to pros and cons. But generally those that are 300 have a good chance on being under dr care.0 -
@senecarr Well, it's more like I'm cherry picking on a handful of cases (others are referenced in the study), but still, I get your point. I would say that anybody planning on drastically altering their weight should be under medical supervision. What are the side effect of amino acid deficiencies? Are they worse than the side affects of living with an extra 200+ pounds of fat? I don't know. What about bariatric surgery patients? I'm pretty sure most of those folks are under 1500 calories (if any of you are reading feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Regarding the plane analogy, a lot more people have jumped out of planes than have fasted for over a year, ijs.
@stevencloser I agree. Fat loss = fat use. Obviously, if you have more available, you are losing a lesser percentage than someone who had substantially less.
Well the potential side effects of both are death. Being deficient in amino acids is probably going to do it a lot faster than being 200+ pounds overweight.
Any proper VLCD done by an actual doctor and dietician with specialty in weight loss and nutrition is going to be safe currently.
My personal feeling as I've lost weight is that I can't recommend surgery as a weight loss method for anyone, though anyone who has done it is free to feel it was worth it to them. As far as the calories, post surgery it might be that low and for such a time it would be medically supervised. Even after recovery, my understanding is anyone that has undergone such surgeries has to supplement under medical direction because of malabsorption from the surgery. Long term it can't stay at 1500 calories - that would be below the BMR of even a 5'4", 140 lb 30 year old man, let alone TDEE.0 -
I was once prescribed by a doctor to a diet of 1100 calories for months. No other supplements were prescribed. I was also told to avoid carbs, specifically what he called 'white' carbs (rice, flour, sugar, etc.). I was not what I would call severely o erweight at the time either maybe 50 pounds.0
-
I was once prescribed by a doctor to a diet of 1100 calories for months. No other supplements were prescribed. I was also told to avoid carbs, specifically what he called 'white' carbs (rice, flour, sugar, etc.). I was not what I would call severely o erweight at the time either maybe 50 pounds.
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school.0 -
I was once prescribed by a doctor to a diet of 1100 calories for months. No other supplements were prescribed. I was also told to avoid carbs, specifically what he called 'white' carbs (rice, flour, sugar, etc.). I was not what I would call severely o erweight at the time either maybe 50 pounds.
My doctor prescribed me the highest dose of Phentermine when I was 15lb overweight, so yeah.. Doctors are not always responsible or knowledgeable on ALL things human.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I was once prescribed by a doctor to a diet of 1100 calories for months. No other supplements were prescribed. I was also told to avoid carbs, specifically what he called 'white' carbs (rice, flour, sugar, etc.). I was not what I would call severely o erweight at the time either maybe 50 pounds.
My doctor prescribed me the highest dose of Phentermine when I was 15lb overweight, so yeah.. Doctors are not always responsible or knowledgeable on ALL things human.
Possible heart valve damage for 15 lbs? Interesting trade off your doctor thought was worth it.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I was once prescribed by a doctor to a diet of 1100 calories for months. No other supplements were prescribed. I was also told to avoid carbs, specifically what he called 'white' carbs (rice, flour, sugar, etc.). I was not what I would call severely o erweight at the time either maybe 50 pounds.
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.0 -
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.0 -
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
We generalize it because I'd rather error on the side of someone having a discussion with a doctor and dietitian with knowledge of nutrition than see someone put themselves on a calorie plan that is highly likely to put them in some kind of deficiency. I'm perfectly fine with generalizing that people shouldn't make dietary plans below certain minimums without expert guidance.
You're now stating that you're on a plan by a doctor, which would imply you aren't in anyway contradicting the statement you're claiming you're contradicting: "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision."0 -
But isn't CICO for weightloss a deficiency by definition? How do we determine the certain minimums? Why 1500? Erring on the side of caution is great, but that's a lot different than telling someone they are without question eating too little, without taking into account their whole situation.
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
We generalize it because I'd rather error on the side of someone having a discussion with a doctor and dietitian with knowledge of nutrition than see someone put themselves on a calorie plan that is highly likely to put them in some kind of deficiency. I'm perfectly fine with generalizing that people shouldn't make dietary plans below certain minimums without expert guidance.
Actually, I am not on that plan. The reference was to a situation in the past. I gave the example as a situation in which your statement that...You're now stating that you're on a plan by a doctor, which would imply you aren't in anyway contradicting the statement you're claiming you're contradicting: "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision."
...didn't quite apply, unless the 4-5 months that I followed that program doesn't fit your definition of "long term". Of course, I would also contend that someone with more weight to lose than me could have sustained that type of eating for longer.Long term it can't stay at 1500 calories - that would be below the BMR of even a 5'4", 140 lb 30 year old man, let alone TDEE.
0 -
But isn't CICO for weightloss a deficiency by definition?
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
We generalize it because I'd rather error on the side of someone having a discussion with a doctor and dietitian with knowledge of nutrition than see someone put themselves on a calorie plan that is highly likely to put them in some kind of deficiency. I'm perfectly fine with generalizing that people shouldn't make dietary plans below certain minimums without expert guidance.
Actually, I am not on that plan. The reference was to a situation in the past. I gave the example as a situation in which your statement that...You're now stating that you're on a plan by a doctor, which would imply you aren't in anyway contradicting the statement you're claiming you're contradicting: "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision."
...didn't quite apply, unless the 4-5 months that I followed that program doesn't fit your definition of "long term". Of course, I would also contend that someone with more weight to lose than me could have sustained that type of eating for longer.Long term it can't stay at 1500 calories - that would be below the BMR of even a 5'4", 140 lb 30 year old man, let alone TDEE.
No. All weight loss happens because of a calorie deficit, not a deficiency, whether you're calorie counting or not - all weight loss is CICO. A deficit simply means less than an expenditure, in this case the calorie expenditure from activity and being alive.
A deficiency is a lack of something that will actually cause health problems.
Your fallacy is (a poor attempt at) equivocation:
https://bookofbadarguments.com/images/equivocation.png1 -
But isn't CICO for weightloss a deficiency by definition?
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
We generalize it because I'd rather error on the side of someone having a discussion with a doctor and dietitian with knowledge of nutrition than see someone put themselves on a calorie plan that is highly likely to put them in some kind of deficiency. I'm perfectly fine with generalizing that people shouldn't make dietary plans below certain minimums without expert guidance.
Actually, I am not on that plan. The reference was to a situation in the past. I gave the example as a situation in which your statement that...You're now stating that you're on a plan by a doctor, which would imply you aren't in anyway contradicting the statement you're claiming you're contradicting: "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision."
...didn't quite apply, unless the 4-5 months that I followed that program doesn't fit your definition of "long term". Of course, I would also contend that someone with more weight to lose than me could have sustained that type of eating for longer.Long term it can't stay at 1500 calories - that would be below the BMR of even a 5'4", 140 lb 30 year old man, let alone TDEE.
No. All weight loss happens because of a calorie deficit, not a deficiency, whether you're calorie counting or not - all weight loss is CICO. A deficit simply means less than an expenditure, in this case the calorie expenditure from activity and being alive.
A deficiency is a lack of something that will actually cause health problems.
Your fallacy is (a poor attempt at) equivocation:
https://bookofbadarguments.com/images/equivocation.png
But isn't CICO for weightloss a deficiency by definition?
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
We generalize it because I'd rather error on the side of someone having a discussion with a doctor and dietitian with knowledge of nutrition than see someone put themselves on a calorie plan that is highly likely to put them in some kind of deficiency. I'm perfectly fine with generalizing that people shouldn't make dietary plans below certain minimums without expert guidance.
Actually, I am not on that plan. The reference was to a situation in the past. I gave the example as a situation in which your statement that...You're now stating that you're on a plan by a doctor, which would imply you aren't in anyway contradicting the statement you're claiming you're contradicting: "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision."
...didn't quite apply, unless the 4-5 months that I followed that program doesn't fit your definition of "long term". Of course, I would also contend that someone with more weight to lose than me could have sustained that type of eating for longer.Long term it can't stay at 1500 calories - that would be below the BMR of even a 5'4", 140 lb 30 year old man, let alone TDEE.
No. All weight loss happens because of a calorie deficit, not a deficiency, whether you're calorie counting or not - all weight loss is CICO. A deficit simply means less than an expenditure, in this case the calorie expenditure from activity and being alive.
A deficiency is a lack of something that will actually cause health problems.
Your fallacy is (a poor attempt at) equivocation:
https://bookofbadarguments.com/images/equivocation.png
Easy, bro. It was an honest question (see below). We're having a discussion here, right? There's no need to come at me and accusing me of attempting to inject a fallacy into the argument. We can surely address the content of the discussion without devolving to personal attacks.from Bing
def·i·cit.
[ˈdefəsət]
NOUN
1.the amount by which something, especially a sum of money, is too small.
synonyms: shortfall · deficiency · shortage · debt · arrears ·
[more]0 -
I think starving yourself is defined as eating less than 1000 calories. But what's really the difference between the two?
Calorie deficit on MFP is never below 1,200 (which is only for small people like myself, and is definitely possible to do without starving per se...just have to get in the habit of snacking and not wasting all 1,200 cals on one meal)0 -
Many doctors don't learn more about nutrition than what you did in school by a Google search.
FIFY.
I understand these sentiments, but in the context of the argument that was made, "Any man on a plan involving under 1500 calories a day should be under some kind of medical guidance and supervision." there is an implication that the doctor offers some level of expertise in the field. In my case, the doctor did in fact specialize in weightloss. How can we come to the conclusion the he didn't know what he was doing based only on the treatment he recommended?
By no means am I saying that a very low calorie diet should be the preferred method, but I don't think it is as scary an undertaking as most people make it out to be for very overweight individuals. I think that a successful plan should be tailored to the individual taking in to account all appropriate factors (including mental, emotional, support system, work environment, obesity level, etc.). I just think when we generalize the entire population and take options off of the table according to that generalization, we do a disservice to the whole idea of weightloss.
There will always be scenario's where being a very low calorie diet is more acceptable; generally, those are generally under the care of some medical professional so they run continuous blood work to ensure no deficiencies. Generally, you will see this in those who are very obese (males at 300lbs +). In these cases, the aggressive weight loss disadvantages can outweigh the disadvantages of being obese. Where issues become a factor is self prescribed very low calorie diets. This is where real deficiencies can occur. And yes, I have seen people hospitalized for real life deficiencies. My friend see them all the time (she is a pediatric cardiologist); between extreme restriction and/or diet pills, it can lead to all kinds of problems.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »All this VLCD information. Is just that, those who want to go under 1000 cal will. We won't be able to educate them or make them see a GP to monitor them. I am happy to sit at 1350 when losing, but speaking from experience VLCD can be quite damaging to people around you. I would personally never go under 1350.
That is a very sensible approach however I'm now confused as to why you would say on another thread that you lost 10kg (22lbs) in 1 month?0 -
[...] What most people are referring to is adaptive thermogenesis. This is a naturally occurring part of dieting. To what extent can be determined by many factors (training, how large of a deficit, etc..).
“Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition. [...]"
So I wonder how this plays into the recommended 1200/1500 recommended minimum intake?
I'm always vastly skeptical of these claims. Of the reviews that state this, I often find they all get the number based on a specific study that involved not 20% decrease in TDEE, but actually a decrease in energy used to pedal a bike at low levels. This same study also only found it for low speed, and only in individuals that lost weight without any resistance training - they even avoided letting the people have much physical movement in the facility where they were studied.
I'm generally skeptical of them in that they clash with evolution. Why would the body bother waiting for the first famine event to alter calorie use? Evolution involves constant selection for organisms that produce the most offspring per calorie count, and most of human evolution has been a story of feast-famine cycles. Again, why wait for the first time a person hits a famine to reduce their calorie use if the body has access to a power saver mode?
Consider something like muscular coordination - with training, muscles fiber recruitment becomes more efficient and uses less energy in exercise; any cardiovascular fitness program focused on driving an improved response in oxygen utilisation. Why aren't we always at the top of our muscular recruitment and cardiovascular form? Because these processes are driven by other things than evolutionary cost.
The same thing occurs with weight gain - functional efficiencies and costs (from creating fat cells, vascularisation, liver weight, muscle loss in activity driven through weight gain, etc...) change the process cost in ways not driven by evolutionary needs. So either that 200-400 calorie differential hysteresis effect has not been such that it drives evolutionary selection or it is a rate limiting element that can't be avoided.
In any case, hysteresis is clearly documented, your feelings of skepticism don't change that.1 -
Back to the topic question - in my opinion, starvation is a chronic OR acute deficit in basic nutritional needs which can include calories AND/OR specific nutrients. I consider that someone can be starving in the nutritional sense while overeating calories. Rabbit starvation - when eating too much protein without sufficient fats is an example of this.
Or you can say I'm totally wrong and just talking about nutritional deficiencies. Fine - I'll take that. These types of deficiencies are highly important in that we read about people experiencing them all the time on MFP - from hair loss, to depression, to hypothyroidism these outcomes are sometimes driven by this type of "starvation".
There are plenty of examples of people starving themselves on restrictive diets like vegetarianism (note this doesn't mean one can't eat properly as a vegetarian), etc. when no attention is paid to nutrition.
The lower limits of calories that one can sustain during dieting without seeing dietary deficiencies that are long term harmful is somewhere in the 600-700 cals but requires strict supplementation, important focus on nutrient partitioning and little exercise activity. Hence the recommendations of 1200 cals in general.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »[...] What most people are referring to is adaptive thermogenesis. This is a naturally occurring part of dieting. To what extent can be determined by many factors (training, how large of a deficit, etc..).
“Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition. [...]"
So I wonder how this plays into the recommended 1200/1500 recommended minimum intake?
I'm always vastly skeptical of these claims. Of the reviews that state this, I often find they all get the number based on a specific study that involved not 20% decrease in TDEE, but actually a decrease in energy used to pedal a bike at low levels. This same study also only found it for low speed, and only in individuals that lost weight without any resistance training - they even avoided letting the people have much physical movement in the facility where they were studied.
I'm generally skeptical of them in that they clash with evolution. Why would the body bother waiting for the first famine event to alter calorie use? Evolution involves constant selection for organisms that produce the most offspring per calorie count, and most of human evolution has been a story of feast-famine cycles. Again, why wait for the first time a person hits a famine to reduce their calorie use if the body has access to a power saver mode?
Consider something like muscular coordination - with training, muscles fiber recruitment becomes more efficient and uses less energy in exercise; any cardiovascular fitness program focused on driving an improved response in oxygen utilisation. Why aren't we always at the top of our muscular recruitment and cardiovascular form? Because these processes are driven by other things than evolutionary cost.
The same thing occurs with weight gain - functional efficiencies and costs (from creating fat cells, vascularisation, liver weight, muscle loss in activity driven through weight gain, etc...) change the process cost in ways not driven by evolutionary needs. So either that 200-400 calorie differential hysteresis effect has not been such that it drives evolutionary selection or it is a rate limiting element that can't be avoided.
In any case, hysteresis is clearly documented, your feelings of skepticism don't change that.
I don't find that number well documented at all. It stems mainly from Rosenbaum repeating his own research in reviews. He also touts the 90% regain in that review, even though that number is more repeated adage than based on substance.
And avoiding calorie expenditure to produce mute offspring is pretty cut throat in evolution. Upright human posture seems to have evolved to save around 4 calories to the walking km. Having 300 to 400 spare metabolic capacity seems incredulous in comparison to an extent that raises my skepticism not just as a feeling, but as points they don't coincide without better explanatory mechanisms.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Back to the topic question - in my opinion, starvation is a chronic OR acute deficit in basic nutritional needs which can include calories AND/OR specific nutrients. I consider that someone can be starving in the nutritional sense while overeating calories. Rabbit starvation - when eating too much protein without sufficient fats is an example of this.
Or you can say I'm totally wrong and just talking about nutritional deficiencies. Fine - I'll take that. These types of deficiencies are highly important in that we read about people experiencing them all the time on MFP - from hair loss, to depression, to hypothyroidism these outcomes are sometimes driven by this type of "starvation".
There are plenty of examples of people starving themselves on restrictive diets like vegetarianism (note this doesn't mean one can't eat properly as a vegetarian), etc. when no attention is paid to nutrition.
The lower limits of calories that one can sustain during dieting without seeing dietary deficiencies that are long term harmful is somewhere in the 600-700 cals but requires strict supplementation, important focus on nutrient partitioning and little exercise activity. Hence the recommendations of 1200 cals in general.
You're basically in line with the official definition with the exception of severity, FWIW. If a nutritional deficiency can be lived with, it's not considered starvation.
"Starvation is the result of a severe or total lack of nutrients needed for the maintenance of life."
- Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 3rd ed. | 2006 | Polsdorfer, J.; Frey, Rebecca; COPYRIGHT 2006 Thomson Gale.
ETA: Notice time scale is not mentioned.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions