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.
Dr Sarah Hallburg: Calories in vs calories out pet peeve
Expatmommy79
Posts: 940 Member
I have started watching a few of Dr Sarah Hallburgs LCHF videos.
As far as LCHF goes in regards to controlling diabetes type 2, and insulin resistance, I understand the metabolic advantages as it relates to controlling blood glucose.
What I don't understand is her saying that Insulin resistance makes us fat and that it's a pet peeve of hers when she hears calories in vs calories out. She says CI vs CO is another way to call people gluttons and sloths.
My question is this: if you eat at or below maintenance and are insulin resistant, how do you still get fat?
My issue with her is as follows:
She says insulin resistance (70% of Americans she says) and a high carb diet forces the body to convert carbs into fat. And the spikes cause hunger which cause you to eat more... So is that not just another way to say you are taking in too many calories? She isn't specific if the same happens when eating at a deficit.
She also says your macro breakdown should be 70-80% fat and 20-50g of carbs...but she doesn't want people to count calories. In order to track those two macros, isn't that another way to count calories?
For women, she says we should have about 80g of protein, making up 15% of our diet. And 70%-80% fat and 20-35g carbs. Which is about 1600 calories. So how is her formula not calorie counting?!
She says if you follow the macro ratios you will loose weight. But purposefully glosses over actual calories and energy output.
My question for discussion is this: in her logic, is she trying to say, regardless of the deficit, people with IR will put on weight with a higher carb diet?
And to another point, the essential fatty acids and essential amino acids arguments made by LCHF followers... She says the same thing, that there is no "essential" carb because the body can make its own glucose. But if the body can make its own glucose, doesn't that just prove how essential it is that we have created a mechanism for creating glucose ourselves in the absence of any new raw material?
What is the real truth about weight gain and insulin resistance?
I was pcos/IR. My dr told me if I lost 10% of my body weight it would reverse. He was right. I did it with calorie counting and a balanced diet. Am I a special snowflake?
As far as LCHF goes in regards to controlling diabetes type 2, and insulin resistance, I understand the metabolic advantages as it relates to controlling blood glucose.
What I don't understand is her saying that Insulin resistance makes us fat and that it's a pet peeve of hers when she hears calories in vs calories out. She says CI vs CO is another way to call people gluttons and sloths.
My question is this: if you eat at or below maintenance and are insulin resistant, how do you still get fat?
My issue with her is as follows:
She says insulin resistance (70% of Americans she says) and a high carb diet forces the body to convert carbs into fat. And the spikes cause hunger which cause you to eat more... So is that not just another way to say you are taking in too many calories? She isn't specific if the same happens when eating at a deficit.
She also says your macro breakdown should be 70-80% fat and 20-50g of carbs...but she doesn't want people to count calories. In order to track those two macros, isn't that another way to count calories?
For women, she says we should have about 80g of protein, making up 15% of our diet. And 70%-80% fat and 20-35g carbs. Which is about 1600 calories. So how is her formula not calorie counting?!
She says if you follow the macro ratios you will loose weight. But purposefully glosses over actual calories and energy output.
My question for discussion is this: in her logic, is she trying to say, regardless of the deficit, people with IR will put on weight with a higher carb diet?
And to another point, the essential fatty acids and essential amino acids arguments made by LCHF followers... She says the same thing, that there is no "essential" carb because the body can make its own glucose. But if the body can make its own glucose, doesn't that just prove how essential it is that we have created a mechanism for creating glucose ourselves in the absence of any new raw material?
What is the real truth about weight gain and insulin resistance?
I was pcos/IR. My dr told me if I lost 10% of my body weight it would reverse. He was right. I did it with calorie counting and a balanced diet. Am I a special snowflake?
0
Replies
-
It sounds like you can see through the smoke and mirrors that she's trying to use.
She's playing into the currently popular LCHF model in order to earn a portion of the huge diet industry money pie.0 -
Yes, that's her logic. And it's the logic of many, many people with IR.Expatmommy79 wrote: »
My question for discussion is this: in her logic, is she trying to say, regardless of the deficit, people with IR will put on weight with a higher carb diet?
0 -
Expatmommy79 wrote: »My question is this: if you eat at or below maintenance and are insulin resistant, how do you still get fat?
You don't.0 -
Yes, that's her logic. And it's the logic of many, many people with IR.Expatmommy79 wrote: »
My question for discussion is this: in her logic, is she trying to say, regardless of the deficit, people with IR will put on weight with a higher carb diet?
Yes, yes it is.0 -
Expatmommy79 wrote: »I have started watching a few of Dr Sarah Hallburgs LCHF videos.
As far as LCHF goes in regards to controlling diabetes type 2, and insulin resistance, I understand the metabolic advantages as it relates to controlling blood glucose.
What I don't understand is her saying that Insulin resistance makes us fat and that it's a pet peeve of hers when she hears calories in vs calories out. She says CI vs CO is another way to call people gluttons and sloths.
My question is this: if you eat at or below maintenance and are insulin resistant, how do you still get fat?
My issue with her is as follows:
She says insulin resistance (70% of Americans she says) and a high carb diet forces the body to convert carbs into fat. And the spikes cause hunger which cause you to eat more... So is that not just another way to say you are taking in too many calories? She isn't specific if the same happens when eating at a deficit.
She also says your macro breakdown should be 70-80% fat and 20-50g of carbs...but she doesn't want people to count calories. In order to track those two macros, isn't that another way to count calories?
For women, she says we should have about 80g of protein, making up 15% of our diet. And 70%-80% fat and 20-35g carbs. Which is about 1600 calories. So how is her formula not calorie counting?!
She says if you follow the macro ratios you will loose weight. But purposefully glosses over actual calories and energy output.
My question for discussion is this: in her logic, is she trying to say, regardless of the deficit, people with IR will put on weight with a higher carb diet?
And to another point, the essential fatty acids and essential amino acids arguments made by LCHF followers... She says the same thing, that there is no "essential" carb because the body can make its own glucose. But if the body can make its own glucose, doesn't that just prove how essential it is that we have created a mechanism for creating glucose ourselves in the absence of any new raw material?
What is the real truth about weight gain and insulin resistance?
I was pcos/IR. My dr told me if I lost 10% of my body weight it would reverse. He was right. I did it with calorie counting and a balanced diet. Am I a special snowflake?
That alone (bolded) is a tone trolling appeal to consequences. Whether people use it to call people gluttons and sloths or not does not have anything to do with the truth value of it.
Various forms of insulin might alter calories out to an extent or another, and might make some macros better for feeling full and energetic until one has it better under control. It does not, however, negate the laws of thermodynamics.
As far as there being no essential amount of carbs - I've seen insulin hypothesis proponents tout that over and over again. I always ask them why don't you also suggested eating as little saturated fat as possible as there is no proven minimum for that. It seems like their dietary reasoning only applies to carbohydrates, which makes it special pleading.0 -
Expatmommy79 wrote: »I have started watching a few of Dr Sarah Hallburgs LCHF videos.
As far as LCHF goes in regards to controlling diabetes type 2, and insulin resistance, I understand the metabolic advantages as it relates to controlling blood glucose.
What I don't understand is her saying that Insulin resistance makes us fat and that it's a pet peeve of hers when she hears calories in vs calories out. She says CI vs CO is another way to call people gluttons and sloths.
My question is this: if you eat at or below maintenance and are insulin resistant, how do you still get fat?
My issue with her is as follows:
She says insulin resistance (70% of Americans she says) and a high carb diet forces the body to convert carbs into fat. And the spikes cause hunger which cause you to eat more... So is that not just another way to say you are taking in too many calories? She isn't specific if the same happens when eating at a deficit.
She also says your macro breakdown should be 70-80% fat and 20-50g of carbs...but she doesn't want people to count calories. In order to track those two macros, isn't that another way to count calories?
For women, she says we should have about 80g of protein, making up 15% of our diet. And 70%-80% fat and 20-35g carbs. Which is about 1600 calories. So how is her formula not calorie counting?!
She says if you follow the macro ratios you will loose weight. But purposefully glosses over actual calories and energy output.
My question for discussion is this: in her logic, is she trying to say, regardless of the deficit, people with IR will put on weight with a higher carb diet?
And to another point, the essential fatty acids and essential amino acids arguments made by LCHF followers... She says the same thing, that there is no "essential" carb because the body can make its own glucose. But if the body can make its own glucose, doesn't that just prove how essential it is that we have created a mechanism for creating glucose ourselves in the absence of any new raw material?
What is the real truth about weight gain and insulin resistance?
I was pcos/IR. My dr told me if I lost 10% of my body weight it would reverse. He was right. I did it with calorie counting and a balanced diet. Am I a special snowflake?
You are a special snowflake because you followed sound advice from your doctor and it worked. I am shocked that a doctor would make such ridiculous claims about the LCHF diet. It may have its merits but I know that weight gain is from eating more calories than you expend aka CICO. Period. If your CI are more than your CO, not only do you gain weight but the liver stores the excess calories and pumps them out as triglycerides. Eating large amounts of saturated fat also messes horribly with your cholesterol. Then your doctor puts you on a statin and your A1C goes up making you prediabetic (not always but it did for me.)
Losing weight if you are obese, through calorie counting, a balanced diet, and exercise will usually reverse or lessen any health problems like these. It's slow but it's working pretty good for me.0 -
My general rule: Any time a person going by "Dr Something" or "So and so, PhD" is pushing an agenda in a public forum, avoid that person and their advice.0
-
I haven't watched much of her stuff, but what I have seen makes perfect sense for those with insulin resistance: high ( or even moderate) carb intake raises insulin which will eventually lead to IR for many people. Insulin is a fat storing hormone. Those who take insulin know that high levels of insulin will eat to weight gain; this appears to be true even if CI are kept the same. It won't be massive weight gain if calries are not increased but it will be there.
People with IR have high levels of insulin. Insulin (high evels) leads to weight gain. It makes sense that those with IR gain weight if they eat too any carbs for their health.
I completely agree that CI must be less than CO in order to lose weight. Where many of us with IR get excited is when CO seems to (seemingly magically) go up so we can lose weight easier. Some may not need to count calories because we can lose at a higher level of caloric consumption.
And then there is the lowered appetite. Most experience a drop in appetite when they go LCHF. If you aren't hungry, it makes it easer to lose weight by eating less. For those who experience this, carb intake is a main driving force behind appetite. Does our appetite drop becase of lower resultant insulin? I don't know. It is a possibility.
CICO does not need to be the focus for many with IR on a LCHF diet. If I keep carbs below 20g my appetite drops. If I follow her rule to not eat when not hungry, I lose weight. I naturally eat around 1400-1800 kcal and low a couple of pounds per week. Lately my carbs are higher, closer to 30g and my appetite is up. I am eating way over 2000kcal per day ( no exercise) and I am not gaining a thing... This appears to often hold true for those with IR who keep carbs low - it is harder to gain weight.
From past experience I know that if I ate a lot of carbs and a 2000+ kcal diet, I would be gaining weight and very hungry every couple of hours.... Perhaps this is what she she means when she says calorie counting is not needed?
And she is completely right, there are no essential carbs. There are only a few systems that will use glucose for fuel when someone has adjusted to using fat for fuel: red blood cells, portions of the brain and... Oops, I've forgotten (liver?). The rest easily switches to fat. Many organs, like the brain, seem to show a preference for fats (with better functioning) after becoming fat adapted after a few months.
One theory about why glucose is used so quickly by the body is because high levels of glucose in the blood is toxic nd quite damaging over time. The body makes a large effort to keep glucose levels steady by using it for fuel, the fastest way to "get rid of it".
OP, you are fortunate that losing 10% of your body weight helped your IR. perhaps you were not too IR or the carbs you cut when reducing calories was enough to have an effect on your health. I was not so lucky.
I had prediabetes, lost over 20% of my body weight to get to a midrange, normal BMI and it had almost no effect on my IR. As my carbs approach 30g my blood glucose goes up. Her advice is spot on for me. I'll skip most carbs since they do almost nothing beneficial for my health. I would be dumb to eat carbs at moderate or high levels, unless I want my disease to keep progressing.
0 -
Eating super low carb makes you IR. There's no way to tell if you are still IR in reality or not unless you eat carbs for a while. But I understand you don't want to eat vegetables.0
-
I usually ignore advice from people with something to sell.0
-
I don't think she has anything to sell. I am curious as to what if she does.0
-
Expatmommy79 wrote: »I have started watching a few of Dr Sarah Hallburgs LCHF videos.
As far as LCHF goes in regards to controlling diabetes type 2, and insulin resistance, I understand the metabolic advantages as it relates to controlling blood glucose.
What I don't understand is her saying that Insulin resistance makes us fat and that it's a pet peeve of hers when she hears calories in vs calories out. She says CI vs CO is another way to call people gluttons and sloths.
My question is this: if you eat at or below maintenance and are insulin resistant, how do you still get fat?
My issue with her is as follows:
She says insulin resistance (70% of Americans she says) and a high carb diet forces the body to convert carbs into fat. And the spikes cause hunger which cause you to eat more... So is that not just another way to say you are taking in too many calories? She isn't specific if the same happens when eating at a deficit.
She also says your macro breakdown should be 70-80% fat and 20-50g of carbs...but she doesn't want people to count calories. In order to track those two macros, isn't that another way to count calories?
For women, she says we should have about 80g of protein, making up 15% of our diet. And 70%-80% fat and 20-35g carbs. Which is about 1600 calories. So how is her formula not calorie counting?!
She says if you follow the macro ratios you will loose weight. But purposefully glosses over actual calories and energy output.
My question for discussion is this: in her logic, is she trying to say, regardless of the deficit, people with IR will put on weight with a higher carb diet?
And to another point, the essential fatty acids and essential amino acids arguments made by LCHF followers... She says the same thing, that there is no "essential" carb because the body can make its own glucose. But if the body can make its own glucose, doesn't that just prove how essential it is that we have created a mechanism for creating glucose ourselves in the absence of any new raw material?
What is the real truth about weight gain and insulin resistance?
I was pcos/IR. My dr told me if I lost 10% of my body weight it would reverse. He was right. I did it with calorie counting and a balanced diet. Am I a special snowflake?
I'm just lurking, but regarding the bolded part, I got like 2100-2300 calories, is that wrong?0 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »
Isn't she gaining financially by making the video?0 -
I don't assume anyone's wrong simply because they have financial gain to make off of their claim, or are funded by groups that do. I do let it influence the level of scrutiny I'll pay to someone, particularly a person making claims counter to the established body of evidence and practice.
She does cement my opinion about scrutinizing TEDx talks and remembering how different the vetting process is for it compared to real TED talks.0 -
She is an obesity dr and specialized in diabetes. The videos are free and I don't see any books.
I think this her legit belief. She sounds credible but then I think... Wait.... So I shouldn't count calories, but I should follow:
20g carbs
80g protein
135g fat
Isn't gram counting macros the same as calorie counting? That's when it started sounding off to me.
And also her part about insulin causing hunger... But goes on to say CICO doesn't matter. She is saying that people are eating too much without saying it.
I can't put my finger on it but I find it weird.0 -
She gets PAID to endorse this and speak on it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
-
Well, it is to an extent, but I think she would tell you that the fat is more like a goal, not a limit. So in your case, if you told her that you ate:Expatmommy79 wrote: »She is an obesity dr and specialized in diabetes. The videos are free and I don't see any books.
I think this her legit belief. She sounds credible but then I think... Wait.... So I shouldn't count calories, but I should follow:
20g carbs
80g protein
135g fat
Isn't gram counting macros the same as calorie counting? That's when it started sounding off to me.
And also her part about insulin causing hunger... But goes on to say CICO doesn't matter. She is saying that people are eating too much without saying it.
I can't put my finger on it but I find it weird.
20g carbs
80g pro
150g fat
She would probably be fine with that. At least that's the way I understand it. In this example, you would go from 1615 to 1750 calories. You could go as high as 175g fat (1975 cals) and be within that 80% number. However, as @nvmomketo pointed out, people on LCHF probably tend to cut calories as fat seems to be better at satisfying hunger than carbs. That is my experience with it as well. Since I have started, I have no problem staying under the mfp prescribed calorie allotment even though that is no longer my goal.
0 -
Well, it is to an extent, but I think she would tell you that the fat is more like a goal, not a limit. So in your case, if you told her that you ate:Expatmommy79 wrote: »She is an obesity dr and specialized in diabetes. The videos are free and I don't see any books.
I think this her legit belief. She sounds credible but then I think... Wait.... So I shouldn't count calories, but I should follow:
20g carbs
80g protein
135g fat
Isn't gram counting macros the same as calorie counting? That's when it started sounding off to me.
And also her part about insulin causing hunger... But goes on to say CICO doesn't matter. She is saying that people are eating too much without saying it.
I can't put my finger on it but I find it weird.
20g carbs
80g pro
150g fat
She would probably be fine with that. At least that's the way I understand it. In this example, you would go from 1615 to 1750 calories. You could go as high as 175g fat (1975 cals) and be within that 80% number. However, as @nvmomketo pointed out, people on LCHF probably tend to cut calories as fat seems to be better at satisfying hunger than carbs. That is my experience with it as well. Since I have started, I have no problem staying under the mfp prescribed calorie allotment even though that is no longer my goal.
Actually, lots of studies suggest that carbs are more satiating than fat for the average person (which is my experience).
Carb choice matters, though, as fiber is more satiating for most than highly refined or low fiber carbs. Often people who claim to have benefited from a low carb diet were making terrible carb choices before and also increase their protein (which is satiating to most).
I do agree that for some people fat is probably satiating. It's not for me at all.0 -
If you eat at a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. HOW you do it varys from person to person, so while LCHF may work for one person, it won't for another. Take the low carb group. Someone determined to go low carb may find that that approach makes them pay more attention to the food they eat and cut out a lot of high calorie/low nutrition choices. They are still eating at a calorie deficit, just adapting their diet to a specific plan. I would never want to go low carb, I enjoy bread WAY to much! So it wouldn't work for me.
I would also like to point out that watching carbs is important for diabetics. Your body breaks it down into sugar, which will spike your blood sugar. You don't have to cut it out, but you do have to watch it and make sure you're not overloading. HSpoon has a limit of carbs he eats for each meal. That seems to do the best at keeping his blood sugar where it's supposed to be, but that doesn't mean he can't enjoy pasta. Just need to know about it beforehand to plan for it in his day.0 -
Word. What's an example of the types of carb choices for greater satiating effect?lemurcat12 wrote: »
Well, it is to an extent, but I think she would tell you that the fat is more like a goal, not a limit. So in your case, if you told her that you ate:Expatmommy79 wrote: »She is an obesity dr and specialized in diabetes. The videos are free and I don't see any books.
I think this her legit belief. She sounds credible but then I think... Wait.... So I shouldn't count calories, but I should follow:
20g carbs
80g protein
135g fat
Isn't gram counting macros the same as calorie counting? That's when it started sounding off to me.
And also her part about insulin causing hunger... But goes on to say CICO doesn't matter. She is saying that people are eating too much without saying it.
I can't put my finger on it but I find it weird.
20g carbs
80g pro
150g fat
She would probably be fine with that. At least that's the way I understand it. In this example, you would go from 1615 to 1750 calories. You could go as high as 175g fat (1975 cals) and be within that 80% number. However, as @nvmomketo pointed out, people on LCHF probably tend to cut calories as fat seems to be better at satisfying hunger than carbs. That is my experience with it as well. Since I have started, I have no problem staying under the mfp prescribed calorie allotment even though that is no longer my goal.
Actually, lots of studies suggest that carbs are more satiating than fat for the average person (which is my experience).
Carb choice matters, though, as fiber is more satiating for most than highly refined or low fiber carbs. Often people who claim to have benefited from a low carb diet were making terrible carb choices before and also increase their protein (which is satiating to most).
I do agree that for some people fat is probably satiating. It's not for me at all.
0 -
The most satiating food of all is potatoes in my opinion.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »
Isn't she gaining financially by making the video?
not sure how many million youtube hits you need to make an income that would be of interest to a Doctor0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Actually, lots of studies suggest that carbs are more satiating than fat for the average person (which is my experience).
In the context of a moderate or high carb diet perhaps ?
The LCHF claim is not about fats being satiating but the whole low insulin / low blood glucose / ketogenic "state" being hunger suppressing.
So its futile to look for example foods or meals and say whether they are more or less filing to someone, the LCHF thing is the absence of hunger or whatever it is that leads many people on ad lib LCHF diets to simply eat less voluntarily.
0 -
Word. What's an example of the types of carb choices for greater satiating effect?lemurcat12 wrote: »
Well, it is to an extent, but I think she would tell you that the fat is more like a goal, not a limit. So in your case, if you told her that you ate:Expatmommy79 wrote: »She is an obesity dr and specialized in diabetes. The videos are free and I don't see any books.
I think this her legit belief. She sounds credible but then I think... Wait.... So I shouldn't count calories, but I should follow:
20g carbs
80g protein
135g fat
Isn't gram counting macros the same as calorie counting? That's when it started sounding off to me.
And also her part about insulin causing hunger... But goes on to say CICO doesn't matter. She is saying that people are eating too much without saying it.
I can't put my finger on it but I find it weird.
20g carbs
80g pro
150g fat
She would probably be fine with that. At least that's the way I understand it. In this example, you would go from 1615 to 1750 calories. You could go as high as 175g fat (1975 cals) and be within that 80% number. However, as @nvmomketo pointed out, people on LCHF probably tend to cut calories as fat seems to be better at satisfying hunger than carbs. That is my experience with it as well. Since I have started, I have no problem staying under the mfp prescribed calorie allotment even though that is no longer my goal.
Actually, lots of studies suggest that carbs are more satiating than fat for the average person (which is my experience).
Carb choice matters, though, as fiber is more satiating for most than highly refined or low fiber carbs. Often people who claim to have benefited from a low carb diet were making terrible carb choices before and also increase their protein (which is satiating to most).
I do agree that for some people fat is probably satiating. It's not for me at all.
Potatoes are commonly found to be satiating, as Hornsby says, and higher fiber is usually a positive factor.
The main thing is that people differ, so it's going to depend on the person.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Actually, lots of studies suggest that carbs are more satiating than fat for the average person (which is my experience).
In the context of a moderate or high carb diet perhaps ?
The LCHF claim is not about fats being satiating but the whole low insulin / low blood glucose / ketogenic "state" being hunger suppressing.
So its futile to look for example foods or meals and say whether they are more or less filing to someone, the LCHF thing is the absence of hunger or whatever it is that leads many people on ad lib LCHF diets to simply eat less voluntarily.
I get the argument about ketogenic diets, but the fact is that people continually assert that fat is more satiating on MFP, outside that context. That's what I'm arguing against.0 -
Expatmommy79 wrote: »My question for discussion is this: in her logic, is she trying to say, regardless of the deficit, people with IR will put on weight with a higher carb diet?
And to another point, the essential fatty acids and essential amino acids arguments made by LCHF followers... She says the same thing, that there is no "essential" carb because the body can make its own glucose. But if the body can make its own glucose, doesn't that just prove how essential it is that we have created a mechanism for creating glucose ourselves in the absence of any new raw material?
A "deficit" is post hoc energy accounting, so if someone puts on weight they weren't in a deficit as they have more energy in store at the end than the beginning.
There's a lot of individual variation to carbohydrate and indeed calorie restriction. Some studies show a general trend for IR subjects to lose more weight on low carb, others don't. In general insulin levels fall with calorie restriction, which eases insulin resistance, so IR is itself a moving target in an individual losing weight.
The word "essential" in nutrition means something that you have to eat to get it as you can't make it. Is doesn't just mean "something you have to have". Seems to be widely accepted that the minimum carbohydrate intake compatible with life is zero and that there is no diagnosable disease of carbohydrate intake insufficiency.0 -
I've never heard of her but I've heard similar arguments and it seems to be not that they are saying CI<CO won't result in fat loss, but that focusing only on calories isn't the right way to approach weight loss, especially if you have IR.
It's a popular argument. IIFYM does the same thing. Worry about your macros, and calories will follow by default. WW does something similar as well. Worry about points and calories will work themselves out.0 -
"lemurcat12 wrote: »Potatoes are commonly found to be satiating, as Hornsby says, and higher fiber is usually a positive factor.
The main thing is that people differ, so it's going to depend on the person.
Aren't potatoes relatively low in fiber though? Meh. I guess it all comes down to "To each his own".
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions