Are we doomed?
Options
Replies
-
OKAY. Soooo does this mean that doing a very low calorie restriction plus an insane amount of excersize for just six weeks makes your body fight tooth and nail to become obese again for the rest of your life???0
-
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »They kept saying "have slower metabolisms when they lost the weight" when I think what they were really talking about was the completely normal situation where being thinner means you need fewer calories.
What the heck did the author think was gonna happen? That a 190 lb man and a 430lb man can have the same calorie needs?
No, the study is saying that the 190 pound man who got there by starting at 435 and doing an extreme weight loss diet cannot eat as much, to maintain that 190 pounds, as an average 190 pound man. If they eat to maintain 190 like most guys can, they will gain weight. If they want to maintain at 190, they must eat as though they are much lighter, or as thought they are still trying to lose. Normal calculations will not work. Their bodies have adapted to run on less energy than would be expected.
Which makes sense, logically. Because they were obese, and then starved, and survived it. If a body could think, and it had survived starvation conditions by making itself obese once, it seems like a good strategy to put the fat back on, in case you experience another starvation.
But that's the thing. If you take Danny Cahill's RMR for being a 190 lb man, age 39, height 5'11", it's 1884. (http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/rmr-calculator.html)
His was actually higher, 1996 plus or minus 358 at the end of the 30 week competition. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full) This link is to the study in full detail.
After the 6 years, the study stated it was 1903 PLUS OR MINUS 466 calories. That means it could be anywhere between 2369 and 1437. That's a HUGE margin. And by the end of the 6 years, he was a hundred lbs heavier, so his RMR is showing in the aforementioned calculator as being 2466 (don't forget to adjust for age, he's 45 now). That looks like only 100 calories off their margin to me, and that's not outside the norm of what we all on MFP have experienced between physically similar users with different calorie needs.
They are acting like his RMR has so significantly declined (looks like not when you account for the massive margin of error) that it prevents him from maintaining. It hasn't. Unless their own margin of error is incorrect as all get out and his RMR is really 1437, then that doesn't make sense. 1903 is a perfectly viable amount of calories for a 45 year old male under 6 feet for RMR only.
And most importantly, this study IS NOT TALKING about TDEE. RMR tells us nothing about this guy's daily caloric needs in real life. Just like my own RMR would say nothing of my daily calorie needs. You need TDEE for that, or NEAT at the very least. If he's 290 lbs now, he's burning a metric **** ton more calories than my 5'2" 150 lb self just walking to the bathroom, or going upstairs. His RMR may not be showing a huge increase (that margin of error is ridiculous, that's HALF of my daily food intake, half a person people) but his TDEE would have had to increase by the weight gain alone. RMR only accounts for about 60% of your body's daily energy requirements according to (http://breakingmuscle.com/health-medicine/its-not-your-metabolism-its-your-neat-thats-stopping-your-fat-loss). So what does this study really tell us about this man's situation? Not much.
I'm also not seeing ANY discussion in the article about the massive increase in BF%. Their own study states that BF% was 28.1 ± 8.9 at 30 weeks, and 44.7 ± 10 at 6 years. That's DOUBLE. Is it news to anyone that your body burns fewer calories if you have less muscle than if you have more? I don't see this mentioned in the actual detailed study either. No mention at all as to Mr. Cahill's and the other participants BF% change compared to the population at large. The popuation at large of adult males has an 18-24% BF%. Mr. Cahill's was 44.7 ± 10. That's significant in the extreme.
If that's unclear, I mean to say: a 290lb body builder is gonna have a MUCH MUCH higher RMR than a 290lb person with a BF% of 44%, and so is average Joe at that 18-24%. So why didn't the study control for that difference, cause as far as I can tell, all they did was record it and then stop thinking about it.
I'm no scientist. I didn't go to college. But I smell something fishy about this study (at least how it's being protrayed) and I'm not the only one. The biggest teller for me? The Minnesota Starvation Study. Those guys were LITERALLY starved for a year and they all experienced adaptive thermogenesis too. But that study goes on to state that those men's metabolisms returned to normal after they began eating a normal non-vlcd diet again. So what happened with this study? What variable was different? My money is on the things they didn't talk about, like BF% and actual TDEE.
ETA: And this is important to say: I could be completely off the wall crazy wrong here, and this study STILL doesn't apply to any of us here on MFP. The biggest loser people lost MASSIVE poundage over a very very short time period, the definition of a doctor-supervision only or you're insane VLCD. Their own number cannot be extrapolated to apply to the population at large unless the population at large is also using VLCD's accompanied by intense exercise, and we're not. So even if everything I just researched and wrote about is completely stupid and wrong, it couldn't matter less if it tried. No one is doing what the biggest loser people did. If they were, there might be an argument, but since they're not, I'll defer to studies of actual members of the population who lost weight and kept it off by using SUSTAINABLE weight loss strategies and losing the weight over a long time period slowly and healthily.
ETA2: I may have misrepresented the "margin of error" I was referring to, and would like to clarify. That margin exists to account for the 16 different people included in the study, so it's not a margin of error on Mr. Cahill himself. I pointed it out because the article's subject (and my own) is specifically Mr Cahill, and they are applying the RMR number 1903 to him alone, as though that is not the average across the 16 people and is his personal number. It's not. And that bothered me enough to harp on.12 -
@CoffeeNCardio Great post.2
-
@CoffeeNCardio Great post.
Thanks. I could be totally talking out of my *** for all I know though, I just followed the data to what I hope is it's logical conclusion, so don't take it as gospel or anything. Just promise not to take the study as gospel either and I can die a happy woman;)1 -
@CoffeeNCardio I think you explained how I was feeling about it, but I couldn't find the words.
So if you are right, I'm right. If you are wrong, you are on your own. LOL! jk!4 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »They kept saying "have slower metabolisms when they lost the weight" when I think what they were really talking about was the completely normal situation where being thinner means you need fewer calories.
What the heck did the author think was gonna happen? That a 190 lb man and a 430lb man can have the same calorie needs?
No, the study is saying that the 190 pound man who got there by starting at 435 and doing an extreme weight loss diet cannot eat as much, to maintain that 190 pounds, as an average 190 pound man. If they eat to maintain 190 like most guys can, they will gain weight. If they want to maintain at 190, they must eat as though they are much lighter, or as thought they are still trying to lose. Normal calculations will not work. Their bodies have adapted to run on less energy than would be expected.
Which makes sense, logically. Because they were obese, and then starved, and survived it. If a body could think, and it had survived starvation conditions by making itself obese once, it seems like a good strategy to put the fat back on, in case you experience another starvation.
But that's the thing. If you take Danny Cahill's RMR for being a 190 lb man, age 39, height 5'11", it's 1884. (http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/rmr-calculator.html)
His was actually higher, 1996 plus or minus 358 at the end of the 30 week competition. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full) This link is to the study in full detail.
After the 6 years, the study stated it was 1903 PLUS OR MINUS 466 calories. That means it could be anywhere between 2369 and 1437. That's a HUGE margin. And by the end of the 6 years, he was a hundred lbs heavier, so his RMR is showing in the aforementioned calculator as being 2466 (don't forget to adjust for age, he's 45 now). That looks like only 100 calories off their margin to me, and that's not outside the norm of what we all on MFP have experienced between physically similar users with different calorie needs.
They are acting like his RMR has so significantly declined (looks like not when you account for the massive margin of error) that it prevents him from maintaining. It hasn't. Unless their own margin of error is incorrect as all get out and his RMR is really 1437, then that doesn't make sense. 1903 is a perfectly viable amount of calories for a 45 year old male under 6 feet for RMR only.
And most importantly, this study IS NOT TALKING about TDEE. RMR tells us nothing about this guy's daily caloric needs in real life. Just like my own RMR would say nothing of my daily calorie needs. You need TDEE for that, or NEAT at the very least. If he's 290 lbs now, he's burning a metric **** ton more calories than my 5'2" 150 lb self just walking to the bathroom, or going upstairs. His RMR may not be showing a huge increase (that margin of error is ridiculous, that's HALF of my daily food intake, half a person people) but his TDEE would have had to increase by the weight gain alone. RMR only accounts for about 60% of your body's daily energy requirements according to (http://breakingmuscle.com/health-medicine/its-not-your-metabolism-its-your-neat-thats-stopping-your-fat-loss). So what does this study really tell us about this man's situation? Not much.
I'm also not seeing ANY discussion in the article about the massive increase in BF%. Their own study states that BF% was 28.1 ± 8.9 at 30 weeks, and 44.7 ± 10 at 6 years. That's DOUBLE. Is it news to anyone that your body burns fewer calories if you have less muscle than if you have more? I don't see this mentioned in the actual detailed study either. No mention at all as to Mr. Cahill's and the other participants BF% change compared to the population at large. The popuation at large of adult males has an 18-24% BF%. Mr. Cahill's was 44.7 ± 10. That's significant in the extreme.
If that's unclear, I mean to say: a 290lb body builder is gonna have a MUCH MUCH higher RMR than a 290lb person with a BF% of 44%, and so is average Joe at that 18-24%. So why didn't the study control for that difference, cause as far as I can tell, all they did was record it and then stop thinking about it.
I'm no scientist. I didn't go to college. But I smell something fishy about this study (at least how it's being protrayed) and I'm not the only one. The biggest teller for me? The Minnesota Starvation Study. Those guys were LITERALLY starved for a year and they all experienced adaptive thermogenesis too. But that study goes on to state that those men's metabolisms returned to normal after they began eating a normal non-vlcd diet again. So what happened with this study? What variable was different? My money is on the things they didn't talk about, like BF% and actual TDEE.
ETA: And this is important to say: I could be completely off the wall crazy wrong here, and this study STILL doesn't apply to any of us here on MFP. The biggest loser people lost MASSIVE poundage over a very very short time period, the definition of a doctor-supervision only or you're insane VLCD. Their own number cannot be extrapolated to apply to the population at large unless the population at large is also using VLCD's accompanied by intense exercise, and we're not. So even if everything I just researched and wrote about is completely stupid and wrong, it couldn't matter less if it tried. No one is doing what the biggest loser people did. If they were, there might be an argument, but since they're not, I'll defer to studies of actual members of the population who lost weight and kept it off by using SUSTAINABLE weight loss strategies and losing the weight over a long time period slowly and healthily.
I'm in agreement. The studies regarding metabolism returning to normal or very near normal after dieting still have me convinced. I also agree that the results could be due to lower muscle%. If they are due to behavioral adaptations (like less fidgeting), than so be it. It hardly means we are doomed. I'm more interested in appetite changes than metabolism changes anyway. Six years later do they have to resist more feelings of hunger/urges to eat than a 190lb person who never lost weight? If so, how much more? Wish it were more easily measurable.
2 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
ETA: And this is important to say: I could be completely off the wall crazy wrong here, and this study STILL doesn't apply to any of us here on MFP. The biggest loser people lost MASSIVE poundage over a very very short time period, the definition of a doctor-supervision only or you're insane VLCD. Their own number cannot be extrapolated to apply to the population at large unless the population at large is also using VLCD's accompanied by intense exercise, and we're not. So even if everything I just researched and wrote about is completely stupid and wrong, it couldn't matter less if it tried. No one is doing what the biggest loser people did. If they were, there might be an argument, but since they're not, I'll defer to studies of actual members of the population who lost weight and kept it off by using SUSTAINABLE weight loss strategies and losing the weight over a long time period slowly and healthily.
That, we agree on completely! I do not think that results from Obesity to Thin in 6 Weeks Using Starvation and Forced Exercise can be extrapolated to Obesity to Thin in 2 years using small deficits and healthy levels of activity. I absolutely do not believe that bodies always seek to return to their highest weight, in fact I think that once fit, bodies seek to return to that state. But I do believe you can break that system, and also that metabolism varies among people, even people of the same weight, age, height, activity levels.2 -
LOL at all of the hand wringing this has caused over the last couple of days....2
-
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
ETA: And this is important to say: I could be completely off the wall crazy wrong here, and this study STILL doesn't apply to any of us here on MFP. The biggest loser people lost MASSIVE poundage over a very very short time period, the definition of a doctor-supervision only or you're insane VLCD. Their own number cannot be extrapolated to apply to the population at large unless the population at large is also using VLCD's accompanied by intense exercise, and we're not. So even if everything I just researched and wrote about is completely stupid and wrong, it couldn't matter less if it tried. No one is doing what the biggest loser people did. If they were, there might be an argument, but since they're not, I'll defer to studies of actual members of the population who lost weight and kept it off by using SUSTAINABLE weight loss strategies and losing the weight over a long time period slowly and healthily.
That, we agree on completely! I do not think that results from Obesity to Thin in 6 Weeks Using Starvation and Forced Exercise can be extrapolated to Obesity to Thin in 2 years using small deficits and healthy levels of activity. I absolutely do not believe that bodies always seek to return to their highest weight, in fact I think that once fit, bodies seek to return to that state. But I do believe you can break that system, and also that metabolism varies among people, even people of the same weight, age, height, activity levels.
In that we are in full agreement:) I wasn't responding specifically at you, your comment was just the one that led into mine, no one would know what I was blathering about if I didn't use it as a starting point:)0 -
This is nothing new. I've seen plenty of evidence over the years that crash diets cause rapid weight loss followed by rapid weight gain and a damaged metabolism. Anybody surprised by this?1
-
goldthistime wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »They kept saying "have slower metabolisms when they lost the weight" when I think what they were really talking about was the completely normal situation where being thinner means you need fewer calories.
What the heck did the author think was gonna happen? That a 190 lb man and a 430lb man can have the same calorie needs?
No, the study is saying that the 190 pound man who got there by starting at 435 and doing an extreme weight loss diet cannot eat as much, to maintain that 190 pounds, as an average 190 pound man. If they eat to maintain 190 like most guys can, they will gain weight. If they want to maintain at 190, they must eat as though they are much lighter, or as thought they are still trying to lose. Normal calculations will not work. Their bodies have adapted to run on less energy than would be expected.
Which makes sense, logically. Because they were obese, and then starved, and survived it. If a body could think, and it had survived starvation conditions by making itself obese once, it seems like a good strategy to put the fat back on, in case you experience another starvation.
But that's the thing. If you take Danny Cahill's RMR for being a 190 lb man, age 39, height 5'11", it's 1884. (http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/rmr-calculator.html)
His was actually higher, 1996 plus or minus 358 at the end of the 30 week competition. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full) This link is to the study in full detail.
After the 6 years, the study stated it was 1903 PLUS OR MINUS 466 calories. That means it could be anywhere between 2369 and 1437. That's a HUGE margin. And by the end of the 6 years, he was a hundred lbs heavier, so his RMR is showing in the aforementioned calculator as being 2466 (don't forget to adjust for age, he's 45 now). That looks like only 100 calories off their margin to me, and that's not outside the norm of what we all on MFP have experienced between physically similar users with different calorie needs.
They are acting like his RMR has so significantly declined (looks like not when you account for the massive margin of error) that it prevents him from maintaining. It hasn't. Unless their own margin of error is incorrect as all get out and his RMR is really 1437, then that doesn't make sense. 1903 is a perfectly viable amount of calories for a 45 year old male under 6 feet for RMR only.
And most importantly, this study IS NOT TALKING about TDEE. RMR tells us nothing about this guy's daily caloric needs in real life. Just like my own RMR would say nothing of my daily calorie needs. You need TDEE for that, or NEAT at the very least. If he's 290 lbs now, he's burning a metric **** ton more calories than my 5'2" 150 lb self just walking to the bathroom, or going upstairs. His RMR may not be showing a huge increase (that margin of error is ridiculous, that's HALF of my daily food intake, half a person people) but his TDEE would have had to increase by the weight gain alone. RMR only accounts for about 60% of your body's daily energy requirements according to (http://breakingmuscle.com/health-medicine/its-not-your-metabolism-its-your-neat-thats-stopping-your-fat-loss). So what does this study really tell us about this man's situation? Not much.
I'm also not seeing ANY discussion in the article about the massive increase in BF%. Their own study states that BF% was 28.1 ± 8.9 at 30 weeks, and 44.7 ± 10 at 6 years. That's DOUBLE. Is it news to anyone that your body burns fewer calories if you have less muscle than if you have more? I don't see this mentioned in the actual detailed study either. No mention at all as to Mr. Cahill's and the other participants BF% change compared to the population at large. The popuation at large of adult males has an 18-24% BF%. Mr. Cahill's was 44.7 ± 10. That's significant in the extreme.
If that's unclear, I mean to say: a 290lb body builder is gonna have a MUCH MUCH higher RMR than a 290lb person with a BF% of 44%, and so is average Joe at that 18-24%. So why didn't the study control for that difference, cause as far as I can tell, all they did was record it and then stop thinking about it.
I'm no scientist. I didn't go to college. But I smell something fishy about this study (at least how it's being protrayed) and I'm not the only one. The biggest teller for me? The Minnesota Starvation Study. Those guys were LITERALLY starved for a year and they all experienced adaptive thermogenesis too. But that study goes on to state that those men's metabolisms returned to normal after they began eating a normal non-vlcd diet again. So what happened with this study? What variable was different? My money is on the things they didn't talk about, like BF% and actual TDEE.
ETA: And this is important to say: I could be completely off the wall crazy wrong here, and this study STILL doesn't apply to any of us here on MFP. The biggest loser people lost MASSIVE poundage over a very very short time period, the definition of a doctor-supervision only or you're insane VLCD. Their own number cannot be extrapolated to apply to the population at large unless the population at large is also using VLCD's accompanied by intense exercise, and we're not. So even if everything I just researched and wrote about is completely stupid and wrong, it couldn't matter less if it tried. No one is doing what the biggest loser people did. If they were, there might be an argument, but since they're not, I'll defer to studies of actual members of the population who lost weight and kept it off by using SUSTAINABLE weight loss strategies and losing the weight over a long time period slowly and healthily.
I'm in agreement. The studies regarding metabolism returning to normal or very near normal after dieting still have me convinced. I also agree that the results could be due to lower muscle%. If they are due to behavioral adaptations (like less fidgeting), than so be it. It hardly means we are doomed. I'm more interested in appetite changes than metabolism changes anyway. Six years later do they have to resist more feelings of hunger/urges to eat than a 190lb person who never lost weight? If so, how much more? Wish it were more easily measurable.
Me too. I mean, let's just say this study is the holy grail after all and Indiana Jones is waiting to hand them a fruit basket. That still wouldn't matter to me. If my BMR shrunk to near nothing, that wouldn't matter to me at all if I was still healthy and never hungry. I could have a BMR of 60 and as long as the one cheese stick a day made me feel full and satisified, who cares?0 -
No we are not doomed. I have maintained my 100 lbs loss from my late teens early 20s for 10 years. I lost on a "diet" that was sustainable for ME. Nothing drastic (like BL), just a deficit and exercise . I don't think I am special. I don't think my metabolism was damaged at all. I have maintained at 2000 to 3500 calories depending on my activity level at the time.3
-
The author clearly didn't talk to MFP users, otherwise they would have plenty of examples of people successfully losing weight and maintaining. This article is misleadingly narrow in scope.3
-
No we are not doomed. I have maintained my 100 lbs loss from my late teens early 20s for 10 years. I lost on a "diet" that was sustainable for ME. Nothing drastic (like BL), just a deficit and exercise . I don't think I am special. I don't think my metabolism was damaged at all. I have maintained at 2000 to 3500 calories depending on my activity level at the time.
Actually, I have to disagree, you ARE special. Statistically at least. I've seen a variety of stats, but the highest % of maintainers I have seen is 30%. Some would have you in an even more elite group. But, with regards to metabolism returning to normal or near normal, we do agree.
Do you have a comment on your hunger levels/cravings after having lost that weight? I know there are some studies about hunger hormones after dieting that do look like we will have a struggle for a while but I don't know of any 6 years or even 10 years out.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »No we are not doomed. I have maintained my 100 lbs loss from my late teens early 20s for 10 years. I lost on a "diet" that was sustainable for ME. Nothing drastic (like BL), just a deficit and exercise . I don't think I am special. I don't think my metabolism was damaged at all. I have maintained at 2000 to 3500 calories depending on my activity level at the time.
Actually, I have to disagree, you ARE special. Statistically at least. I've seen a variety of stats, but the highest % of maintainers I have seen is 30%. Some would have you in an even more elite group. But, with regards to metabolism returning to normal or near normal, we do agree.
Do you have a comment on your hunger levels/cravings after having lost that weight? I know there are some studies about hunger hormones after dieting that do look like we will have a struggle for a while but I don't know of any 6 years or even 10 years out.
I don't think the failure to maintain has so much to do with metabolism as it does with people being "done" and returning to old habits and failing to realize and acknowledge that there has to be a new normal.
I've maintained for over three years now and I eat around 2,800 - 3,000 calories on average which is in the neighborhood of what all of these calculators give me for my stats and activity level...but I've adopted a lifestyle that is about 180* different from the way I used to live...which is the key...everything else is just excuses.9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »No we are not doomed. I have maintained my 100 lbs loss from my late teens early 20s for 10 years. I lost on a "diet" that was sustainable for ME. Nothing drastic (like BL), just a deficit and exercise . I don't think I am special. I don't think my metabolism was damaged at all. I have maintained at 2000 to 3500 calories depending on my activity level at the time.
Actually, I have to disagree, you ARE special. Statistically at least. I've seen a variety of stats, but the highest % of maintainers I have seen is 30%. Some would have you in an even more elite group. But, with regards to metabolism returning to normal or near normal, we do agree.
Do you have a comment on your hunger levels/cravings after having lost that weight? I know there are some studies about hunger hormones after dieting that do look like we will have a struggle for a while but I don't know of any 6 years or even 10 years out.
I don't think the failure to maintain has so much to do with metabolism as it does with people being "done" and returning to old habits and failing to realize and acknowledge that there has to be a new normal.
I've maintained for over three years now and I eat around 2,800 - 3,000 calories on average which is in the neighborhood of what all of these calculators give me for my stats and activity level...but I've adopted a lifestyle that is about 180* different from the way I used to live...which is the key...everything else is just excuses.
I absolutely agree. Habits or behavioral changes are, imo, the biggest factor. Not metabolism or even hunger hormones.
3 -
If we are doomed, can we save the dogs and cats first? The article is just as crappy as the show.2
-
Even *if* we were to give credit that the science demonstrates in some way that being overweight and then losing puts one at some sort of metabolic disadvantage, it is still on us to throw that into the "so f*n what" bucket. We can't spend our lives in despair at every speed bump. We suck it up and push through. I could spend my day feeling sorry that my TDEE is lower because I'm short, or not 21 anymore, just as easily as I could that I potentially slowed things down for myself by getting to a place where I needed to lose significant weight.
The only thing I've gained from this study and subsequent article is to wonder if I need to have my own BMR measured, something I never felt compelled to do before. Not to feel sorry for myself, but to embrace the science and get as accurate as possible in what I need to do.4 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
Me too. I mean, let's just say this study is the holy grail after all and Indiana Jones is waiting to hand them a fruit basket. That still wouldn't matter to me. If my BMR shrunk to near nothing, that wouldn't matter to me at all if I was still healthy and never hungry. I could have a BMR of 60 and as long as the one cheese stick a day made me feel full and satisified, who cares?
Agreed. The leptin information is more interesting.
Volume eating may be very beneficial for those people who have been obese for a long time and lose weight.
1 -
jandsstevenson887 wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »I only watch this show in the first week or two when they exercise and puke.
There was a good show on TLC that got cancelled after like 1 season called "Honey, We're Killing Our Kids." I liked it because it had the whole family learn good habits together. Pretty sure when it came out 10 years ago people weren't ready for it.
I actually hated that show because I thought they tried to make too radical of changes too quickly. They would take a family who ate nothing but frozen chicken tenders and give them a 2 hour long recipe for making steamed clams or something equally stupid instead of teaching them how to make quick, healthier baked chicken tenders. My husband and I were so frustrated by the experts because their suggestions seemed over the top.
Yeah, but I think we are looking at it differently. I liked the entertainment of the show mostly. The only part of the show I seriously found helpful was that they made families do it together. But it was funny when they made a dude bury his fryer and his kid try tofu and he yakked. I understand the UK version was even more sensational.
That and when they showed the kids at 40 they always gave them a mullet. lol3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions