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.
Interesting way that people excuse their overweight / obesity
Replies
-
Gravity didn't work for me so how can you say gravity exists? Checkmate.14
-
Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
3 -
LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
Yes, but one's calorie requirement can decrease naturally as one ages, often without a corresponding decrease in hunger. Therefore one can eat the same as one always did and still gain weight. The reasons for the decrease in energy expenditure can vary greatly, which is why it can be hard to understand why one is suddenly gaining weight when they didn't before, especially if the reason is something 'unseen' like hormone levels.
As far as macros affecting weight loss, I don't think there have been a ton of studies in this area, at least not in humans (more in rats/mice). I at least find the hypothesis that macro composition could impact weight loss to be plausible, through a hormone or gut bacteria mechanism that would change nutrient absorption. I'm not saying something as extreme as true nutrient malabsorption. Just different digestion efficiencies, basically.
But like I said, while it's an intriguing hypothesis there's no comprehensive studies to back it up yet. Would like to see more research on that area to either prove or disprove it once and for all though!3 -
This might be a very weak analogy for what I was trying to say earlier, buy I'm gonna do it anyway:paulgads82 wrote: »Gravity didn't work for me so how can you say gravity exists? Checkmate.
If a person is in outer space, they may not feel the effects of gravity. However, the law of gravity still applies to them.
A person may be unaware that they were in balance or a deficit while eating as much as they wanted (because what they wanted was <=CO), but CICO still applied.
OK, that was a bad analogy, carry on.
7 -
I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
Yeah, philosophers have been chewing on the "mind-body problem", or mind-body dualism if you prefer, for centuries if not millennia. {Shrug.}
Like some other who've commented, I think it's best understood as figurative or metaphorical, and that trying to parse such things rationally, in extensional terms, is just another common example of being confused by abstractions.3 -
shinycrazy wrote: »I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
I'm a psychology major and one of the things that stuck with me was locus of control(it's been 10 years so bear with me). It's the idea of whether you (internal) or outside forces (external) control your behavior or outcomes. Many folks are more comfortable explaining behavior based on an external locus of control because then they are off the hook for what is happening.
^^^^
A huge "pet peeve"
Even when I was obese, I knew it was because of my choices.7 -
lithezebra wrote: »I can't paraphrase it very well, but there was a thread in this forum about how long it takes for the body to stop trying to regain the weight you lose. It was a hormonal thing, if I remember correctly, and the time frame was a little less than a year. I found it very hopeful. If a person can hold out for a year, your body gets the hint.
I don't think its hormonal but psychological. And behavioral repetition - aka creating habits.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I didn't say that ageing was a reason for "getting fat." I said it was natural to gain some weight as a consequence of the pelvic girdle widening. The person I was replying to noted a *small* gain in weight over some course of years that wouldn't be out of line with their body having become wider due to bone growth. It's not like the pelvic girdle widens and nothing happens within the body.6 -
I don't believe it's as simple as CICO for a lot of people. Pretty simplistic view IMO..The majority of successful weight loss comes from the mind..one has to change their lifestyle. Fairly easy for some people to label other people's challenges as excuses and woefully wrong IMO to generalize that way. If weight loss were easy, it would not be a $20 Billion industry. Many people have to learn how to eat, how to control urges, how to count calories, what is healthy and what isn't. This is not simply and to boil it down to fat people make excuses..is terribly wrong.
Just my opinion...ymmv12 -
It's as simple as CICO because you can't gain weight on a calorie deficit, and you can't lose weight with a calorie surplus.19
-
Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
You do tend to lose lean muscle mass as you age though, so your "metabolism" does slow down. To be fair. So...weight training I guess but not everyone knows that.3 -
I agree with midwesterner.
CI is easy to determine.
CO is individual and not easily determined. The calculators are accurate for some users. They are not accurate for others. There are ways to more accurately find out what one's BMR is, and calculate what one is burning off while exercising, but they may involve enlisting the help of a professional.
The point is, when one person says CICO works and another says it doesn't, it might just mean that the second person needs a more accurate way of determining CO for their body. Of course it is all about CICO, but the CO part is tricky to determine for certain people, especially those with endocrine conditions, metabolic syndrome, on certain medications, etc.15 -
I think the idea of a set point probably comes from the fact that a lot of us are creatures of habit.
When maintaining our larger frame we were probably eating similar things each day and so our "normal" diet maintained a given weight (albeit an overweight weight).
Then we "go on a diet" eat less calories for a bit, lose some pounds then go back to the diet "we know we don't gain at", not realising that the only reason we were maintaining was because we were at the weight maintained by that intake.
The whole "dieting" then going back to "normal eating" could lead you to believe that you're "destined" to be the weight maintained by the diet you gravitate to.
It's the exact opposite of the reason our weight-loss slows down if we eat the same number of calories that helped us lose 2lbs a week to start with. The smaller frame needs less calories so gradually your deficit decreases.
I think these observations could easily lead someone to believe in their body having a set point.11 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »I agree with midwesterner.
CI is easy to determine.
CO is individual and not easily determined. The calculators are accurate for some users. They are not accurate for others. There are ways to more accurately find out what one's BMR is, and calculate what one is burning off while exercising, but they may involve enlisting the help of a professional.
The point is, when one person says CICO works and another says it doesn't, it might just mean that the second person needs a more accurate way of determining CO for their body. Of course it is all about CICO, but the CO part is tricky to determine for certain people, especially those with endocrine conditions, metabolic syndrome, on certain medications, etc.
^^^
This. All day long.
Causes a lot of frustration and leads to many people just giving up because "I'm doing everything right and still not losing weight."
9 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »I agree with midwesterner.
CI is easy to determine.
CO is individual and not easily determined. The calculators are accurate for some users. They are not accurate for others. There are ways to more accurately find out what one's BMR is, and calculate what one is burning off while exercising, but they may involve enlisting the help of a professional.
The point is, when one person says CICO works and another says it doesn't, it might just mean that the second person needs a more accurate way of determining CO for their body. Of course it is all about CICO, but the CO part is tricky to determine for certain people, especially those with endocrine conditions, metabolic syndrome, on certain medications, etc.
^^^
This. All day long.
Causes a lot of frustration and leads to many people just giving up because "I'm doing everything right and still not losing weight."
But this has 0 to do with CICO not working. Everyone acknowledges that CO is individual and must be figured out by trial and error, although there are some good estimates, especially if you are willing to have an aggressive deficit and are someone for whom that's appropriate.
If that doesn't work, a good log (which is often lacking -- for many CI is not that easy to figure out) is helpful for going to a dr and diagnosing a condition.8 -
Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I was simply responding to the fact that the pelvic girdle widens - I find that interesting. If I ever got down to my 20 year-old weight again, which I won't because I would look terrible, it would be interesting to see if there is a difference.0 -
LaceyBirds wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I was simply responding to the fact that the pelvic girdle widens - I find that interesting. If I ever got down to my 20 year-old weight again, which I won't because I would look terrible, it would be interesting to see if there is a difference.
FWIW, I'm now (at age 60) at about the same weight as when I was 20. My hip measurement appears to be about the same as when I was 20. I can't recall my 20 y/o waist measurement, but I think it's in the ballpark.
However, I've never been pregnant. I wonder if that makes a difference? The article linked doesn't seem to comment on male/female differences (both sexes were included in the study), and I have to admit that I'm insufficiently fascinated to try to track down the original paper. Per the article, though, they're comparing young people to old, not the same people at both young & old ages, so that's kinda iffy right there.
6 -
Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much nope here.
Correction: CICO works....if you don't use cups/spoons/estimate CI or CO/log incorrectly (the typical reasons why CICO doesn't work). It is scientifically proven. Give you body less energy than it needs and you WILL lose weight. There is no possibly way fat can be created if you do not give your body more energy than it needs to maintain it's current weight. Weight loss is not magic, it's science. Proven science. An excess of carbs protein and/or fats over maintenance calories will cause weight gain.
So, according to your post, how did I manage to lose 85lbs without restricting any food and at times sedentary due to pain? Sedentary people can and do lose weight, and scientifically speaking, a calorie IS a calorie. A calorie is a unit of energy and fat, carbs and protein provide the body this energy. Sometimes my carbs are higher than usual and I still lose weight.
Starvation mode? The body doesn't hold onto fat or store fat in a calorie deficit, ever. This is scientifically impossible. In a calorie deficit, there is not enough energy to fuel the body, so the body starts going for fat stores and even muscle. With a calorie surplus, you're giving your more energy than it needs so of course the excess energy gets stored.
Meal timing and frequency does not matter. The metabolism runs 24/7. Sometimes I just eat one meal with all my calories, and others I eat small amounts of food throughout the day, same calories. I lose at the same rate.
You decreased your carbs and lost water weight.
6 -
I'm sharing my personal story--it's bizarre for people to say that my weightloss didn't happen just because it happened in a different way than them. In the strength training and bodybuilding community, it's common knowledge that WHAT you eat matters just as much as HOW MUCH you eat in order to lose fat, especially when you don't have much to lose. (Just google macros) I'm happy to share this with the general public who is just trying to lose weight (which is why I did share), but surprised that rather than think "oh that's interesting" or "I'll have to read one of the many articles available on that", many people are basically responding with "I've never heard of that before, so you must be wrong."zoeysasha37 wrote: »Incorrect and inaccurate
I think the MFP discussion boards should be educational and supportive of other's struggles and successes. Health and fitness education is important to me, so I read a lot about it. I encourage others to do so as well before posting hasty, unsupported comments. We're all just trying to better ourselves and education is key.
That's because they're applying proven scientific knowledge to weight loss and you are not.
So seriously though. I ate 'crap' food and lost 85lbs. Your argument is invalid.7 -
I was really thinking how neat having this community was but this thread is extremely judgemental so I think maybe I don't really want to join in much. No one out there knows everyone else's struggles and what they go through their entire lives up and down in weight unless they have gone thru it. If it works for you then great, but don't judge others because you don't have similar experiences. Just like the saying goes.... If you haven't walked in my shoes.... I mean seriously, it pisses me off when I use my handicapped placard on the days I have to and i'm told to get off my lazy *kitten* and park in the other spaces. No one knows my struggles or that I only use it when I absolutely have to because I truly would like to leave it for those in a wheelchair. Strangers making others cry and feel unworthy are the worst IMO anyway.15
-
itsalifestylenotadiet wrote: »I was really thinking how neat having this community was but this thread is extremely judgemental so I think maybe I don't really want to join in much. No one out there knows everyone else's struggles and what they go through their entire lives up and down in weight unless they have gone thru it. If it works for you then great, but don't judge others because you don't have similar experiences. Just like the saying goes.... If you haven't walked in my shoes.... I mean seriously, it pisses me off when I use my handicapped placard on the days I have to and i'm told to get off my lazy *kitten* and park in the other spaces. No one knows my struggles or that I only use it when I absolutely have to because I truly would like to leave it for those in a wheelchair. Strangers making others cry and feel unworthy are the worst IMO anyway.
What is being said is not meant, in any way, to disregard your struggles and experiences. The wording may sound hurtful on the surface because it's cut and dry non-negotiable science, but in reality it's actually a relief. A glint of hope that you no longer need to limit your choices or deprive yourself.
I personally have physical challenges too, in addition to a condition that renders the calories I need to lose and maintain lower than average. But you know what? I'm grateful to have come across the fact that all I need to do is eat fewer calories than I burn (even if what I burn is lower than it should be). The feeling of freedom that comes with that is refreshing. I'm no longer a slave to certain pre-defined choices. I can make my own food choices and happily, slowly and surely lose weight. Dieting doesn't need to be a struggle, or at least it can be made less of a struggle. I wouldn't have lasted long enough to lose 90 lb had I limited myself to "common wisdom" and attempted to muscle it through with sheer willpower. Having a thicker skin and being able to see past the words into the facts helped a lot. Regardless how it's worded, it's not a bad thing to hear that weight loss is pretty simple and you are not a slave to your condition. That all you need to do is take that simple fact and build your own strategies around it to fit your own conditions, preferences and personality.26 -
NorthCascades wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
Weight gain is not an autonomic reflex.
That's true. I answered the question of why people use figures of speech like "my body wants" versus "I want" by pointing to autonomic reflexes as a tangible example of why people might do this.
And you are correct to do so. The body has a large number of non-conscious feedback loops that aren't autonomic reflexes. Hunger, tiredness, pain impinge on consciousness and affect our ability to decide on how we manage calories in or calories out.
I'm surprised by a few points brought into the debate that seem misunderstood.
Set points (if they actually exist, that's a long discussion) - it isn't that the body wants to be at a specific weight, but that the feedback loops of hunger, activity and homeostasis balance out at as certain point. Add/drop a few hundred calories and your body is going to be slightly more/less active, you're likelier to produce a bit more/less necessary metabolites, be more/less hungry and boom - balance. To gain or lose, one needs to step out of the equilibrium zones. Unfortunately, for many, the barrier to gain is quite small.
As to CICO not working - it's a semantics problem. When someone say it doesn't work for them they aren't saying the math doesn't work (or it's a discussion of what the term actually encompasses); They mean they actually need to look at composition to manage hunger, or that certain ways of eating allows them to remain consistently under calorie needs. Macros, meal frequency, meal time, etc. may influence individual hunger, fatigue, performance... which in turn impact weight loss.11 -
Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
Yes, but one's calorie requirement can decrease naturally as one ages, often without a corresponding decrease in hunger. Therefore one can eat the same as one always did and still gain weight. The reasons for the decrease in energy expenditure can vary greatly, which is why it can be hard to understand why one is suddenly gaining weight when they didn't before, especially if the reason is something 'unseen' like hormone levels.
As far as macros affecting weight loss, I don't think there have been a ton of studies in this area, at least not in humans (more in rats/mice). I at least find the hypothesis that macro composition could impact weight loss to be plausible, through a hormone or gut bacteria mechanism that would change nutrient absorption. I'm not saying something as extreme as true nutrient malabsorption. Just different digestion efficiencies, basically.
But like I said, while it's an intriguing hypothesis there's no comprehensive studies to back it up yet. Would like to see more research on that area to either prove or disprove it once and for all though!
Then if one doesn't want to gain weight because of less activity/muscle mass it's simply a matter of eating less, again CICO. One can adapt to eating a bit less to avoid weight gain.
The change in caloric needs is minimal and occurs over a long period of time. For example a moderately active 20 yo male needs 2800 calories a day. When that person gets to age 66 and older they need 2200, a change in daily caloric needs of around 100 a decade. Easy to adapt to if someone wants it.
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_patterns/EstimatedCalorieNeedsPerDayTable.pdf
Refer to title of the thread.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I didn't say that ageing was a reason for "getting fat." I said it was natural to gain some weight as a consequence of the pelvic girdle widening. The person I was replying to noted a *small* gain in weight over some course of years that wouldn't be out of line with their body having become wider due to bone growth. It's not like the pelvic girdle widens and nothing happens within the body.
Again, even if the pelvis widens, the person can reduce calories and/or increase exercise to avoid weight gain.0 -
@itsalifestylenotadiet There are so many other threads on MFP that are supportive. Not every thread attracts snarkiness.
If you keep looking, you will find a group that you feel comfortable in, don't give up! Concerning the handicapped placard and people shaming you for using it. All I can say is shame on them! Anyone who has to stop to rest after walking 200 feet is entitled to one. There are so many conditions other than being wheelchair-bound that qualify for a placard, and assuming anything about the person parking in a handicapped spot just shows ignorance. 5 -
Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection.
Imma gonna let you finish, but you immediately conflated losing WEIGHT with losing FAT.
They are not the same.2 -
I can barely walk some days and haven't left the house much in 2 months. CICO is still a fact. I lost weight and gained weight because of it. Nothing about a scientific principle undermines my personal struggles nor does people explaining it.11
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
Weight gain is not an autonomic reflex.
That's true. I answered the question of why people use figures of speech like "my body wants" versus "I want" by pointing to autonomic reflexes as a tangible example of why people might do this.
And you are correct to do so. The body has a large number of non-conscious feedback loops that aren't autonomic reflexes. Hunger, tiredness, pain impinge on consciousness and affect our ability to decide on how we manage calories in or calories out.
I'm surprised by a few points brought into the debate that seem misunderstood.
Set points (if they actually exist, that's a long discussion) - it isn't that the body wants to be at a specific weight, but that the feedback loops of hunger, activity and homeostasis balance out at as certain point. Add/drop a few hundred calories and your body is going to be slightly more/less active, you're likelier to produce a bit more/less necessary metabolites, be more/less hungry and boom - balance. To gain or lose, one needs to step out of the equilibrium zones. Unfortunately, for many, the barrier to gain is quite small.
As to CICO not working - it's a semantics problem. When someone say it doesn't work for them they aren't saying the math doesn't work (or it's a discussion of what the term actually encompasses); They mean they actually need to look at composition to manage hunger, or that certain ways of eating allows them to remain consistently under calorie needs. Macros, meal frequency, meal time, etc. may influence individual hunger, fatigue, performance... which in turn impact weight loss.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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