Tell me why? Only serious replies please.
Replies
-
< 1000 calories 5'7" will lower your ability to lift weights, retain lean mass and maintain intense aerobic activity. More mass loss will be muscle vs. fat compared to a slower loss.
Weaker workouts = less conditioning. Fewer calories burned. Less benefit from exercise.
You will last two weeks, perhaps longer (fitness competitors often crash diet and overexercise before their shows),
and then the physical decline will be too significant to ignore.
Ideally for an athletically minded person it would be better to eat at a minor deficit and destroy it at the gym.
You've asked us not to give you sound advice on moderate weight loss. So there's really no win - win here.0 -
Netting is a little different than only eating 1000 calories. There are some problems with those four things you listed though. The way our bodies process food is far too complex to reduce everything to "a calorie is a calorie no matter what" ways of thinking. Where your calories come from does matter. I have worked as a nutrition educator for the past nine years. How far below 1000 were looking at going?
You should be careful. At a certain point, your internal organs won't be able to function properly and can be irreversibly damaged over time if you sustain calorie levels that are too low,
The thing is, the smaller you get, the longer it takes to take a pound off. This is normal. I know if it frustrating if you see the scale stall out for a little bit. Fitness isn't always reflected on the scale though. It is possible to get smaller and gain weight. Body composition determines health more than a number.
I am not in for the calorie debate. I think we are all on this site to track calories because excess calories is what makes or rather made us fat.
I do agree with the body composition comment which is why my ticker no longer reflects my goals. I want to be at a health %BF. Right now I am considered obese at 40%. (Which is weird being I don't see obese in the mirror and neither do most people who look at me.) Anyways that is the number I am aiming to change. I do understand the closer I get to my goal the harder weight loss is.0 -
wow, you guys are really being tough on her for asking a question. I haven't seen a response from her yet that indicates she isn't open to an honest discussion. I think a lot of you are making some unfair assumptions about the OP.
OP - I pretty much agree with your 4 bullets from your first post with a little qualification. There really isn't anything magical about 1200 calories. If I eat 1100 calories am I going to die?! For me personally, 1200 would be very unhealthy. The only thing about 1200 calories that has some thread of validity is from a nutritional standpoint, it gives you enough calories that you can get a decent nutritional value from the diet. Technically, you can go below 1200 calories TEMPORARILY as long as you are really paying attention to nutritional needs. If you stick with it for a week or more, your body will adapt and the weight loss will start to slow (not stop).
I think what it really boils down to is "CAN you" vs "SHOULD you". Low calorie, temporary diets are meant for people that might have 5 lbs to lose before a competition or event. Your bodybuilder trainer would be a perfect candidate to cut those last few pounds a couple of weeks before a competition. You, on the other hand, are 40% BF. You have a lot of weight to lose. A low calorie, temporary diet isn't really intended for your demographic. You would be much better served by a steady, controlled weight loss that is sustainable over time and changes your habits.
Can you do it - yes, just be careful. Should you do it - probably not.
Wow, a sensical and well thought out post in a topic dominated by "know it all" trolls.0 -
< 1000 calories 5'7" will lower your ability to lift weights, retain lean mass and maintain intense aerobic activity. More mass loss will be weights vs. fat compared to a slower loss.
Weaker workouts = less conditioning. Fewer calories burned. Less benefit from exercise.
You will last two weeks, perhaps longer (fitness competitors often crash diet and overexercise before their shows),
and then the physical decline will be too significant to ignore.
Ideally for an athletically minded person it would be better to eat at a minor deficit and destroy it at the gym.
You've asked us not to give you sound advice on moderate weight loss. So there's really no win - win here.
HUH? I think you've missed something somewhere.0 -
wow, you guys are really being tough on her for asking a question. I haven't seen a response from her yet that indicates she isn't open to an honest discussion. I think a lot of you are making some unfair assumptions about the OP.
OP - I pretty much agree with your 4 bullets from your first post with a little qualification. There really isn't anything magical about 1200 calories. If I eat 1100 calories am I going to die?! For me personally, 1200 would be very unhealthy. The only thing about 1200 calories that has some thread of validity is from a nutritional standpoint, it gives you enough calories that you can get a decent nutritional value from the diet. Technically, you can go below 1200 calories TEMPORARILY as long as you are really paying attention to nutritional needs. If you stick with it for a week or more, your body will adapt and the weight loss will start to slow (not stop).
I think what it really boils down to is "CAN you" vs "SHOULD you". Low calorie, temporary diets are meant for people that might have 5 lbs to lose before a competition or event. Your bodybuilder trainer would be a perfect candidate to cut those last few pounds a couple of weeks before a competition. You, on the other hand, are 40% BF. You have a lot of weight to lose. A low calorie, temporary diet isn't really intended for your demographic. You would be much better served by a steady, controlled weight loss that is sustainable over time and changes your habits.
Can you do it - yes, just be careful. Should you do it - probably not.
Wow, a sensical and well thought out post in a topic dominated by "know it all" trolls.
I know, right?0 -
I knew eating a VLCD ruins your metabolism but does eating a regular calorie diet but netting low ruining your metabolism? This is more or less my question.
Aren't the SAME thing?? Low Calorie is Low Calorie no matter how you got there (because you ate low or because you worried off a lot of calories)
I would think it's like:
person A only puts $10 in the bank
Person B deposits $40 then withdraws $30.
They both have TEN dollars in the bank to use.
Person B, who netted low instead of simply depositing low, still only has $10 to pay his bills.0 -
I knew eating a VLCD ruins your metabolism but does eating a regular calorie diet but netting low ruining your metabolism? This is more or less my question.
Aren't the SAME thing?? Low Calorie is Low Calorie no matter how you got there (because you ate low or because you worried off a lot of calories)
I would think it's like:
person A only puts $10 in the bank
Person B deposits $40 then withdraws $30.
They both have TEN dollars in the bank to use.
Person B, who netted low instead of simply depositing low, still only has $10 to pay his bills.
The $30 was actually used to fuel the body and give it nutrients though. The person who only deposited $10 did not have that to use.0 -
I think what it really boils down to is "CAN you" vs "SHOULD you". Low calorie, temporary diets are meant for people that might have 5 lbs to lose before a competition or event. Your bodybuilder trainer would be a perfect candidate to cut those last few pounds a couple of weeks before a competition. You, on the other hand, are 40% BF. You have a lot of weight to lose. A low calorie, temporary diet isn't really intended for your demographic. You would be much better served by a steady, controlled weight loss that is sustainable over time and changes your habits.
Can you do it - yes, just be careful. Should you do it - probably not.
^ This is really good advice.
Sustainability is the key since it's going to take you a lot longer than just a few weeks to get where you want to be.0 -
I knew eating a VLCD ruins your metabolism but does eating a regular calorie diet but netting low ruining your metabolism? This is more or less my question.
Aren't the SAME thing?? Low Calorie is Low Calorie no matter how you got there (because you ate low or because you worried off a lot of calories)
I would think it's like:
person A only puts $10 in the bank
Person B deposits $40 then withdraws $30.
They both have TEN dollars in the bank to use.
Person B, who netted low instead of simply depositing low, still only has $10 to pay his bills.
The $30 was actually used to fuel the body and give it nutrients though. The person who only deposited $10 did not have that to use.
Hense my original question.0 -
You are on the road to malnutrition!0
-
You are on the road to malnutrition!
Did you read the word "NET" under 1000 calories. You know I am eating more right?0 -
Here's why. Short and simple.
You have energy needs. If they exceed your intake, the energy is taken from your body.
If your deficit is high enough, you will exceed your body's ability to metabolise fat, and then that energy must come from muscle, bone, organs, etc.
Carry on.
Also, osteoperosis.0 -
I think what it really boils down to is "CAN you" vs "SHOULD you". Low calorie, temporary diets are meant for people that might have 5 lbs to lose before a competition or event. Your bodybuilder trainer would be a perfect candidate to cut those last few pounds a couple of weeks before a competition. You, on the other hand, are 40% BF. You have a lot of weight to lose. A low calorie, temporary diet isn't really intended for your demographic. You would be much better served by a steady, controlled weight loss that is sustainable over time and changes your habits.
Can you do it - yes, just be careful. Should you do it - probably not.
^ This is really good advice.
Sustainability is the key since it's going to take you a lot longer than just a few weeks to get where you want to be.
I thought the more weight has to lose the higher deficit they can handle. Ignore my ticker because I set that up when I had a goal weight. Now look at my 40% body fat.... does that not suggest I have a lot to lose.0 -
I knew eating a VLCD ruins your metabolism but does eating a regular calorie diet but netting low ruining your metabolism? This is more or less my question.
Aren't the SAME thing?? Low Calorie is Low Calorie no matter how you got there (because you ate low or because you worried off a lot of calories)
I would think it's like:
person A only puts $10 in the bank
Person B deposits $40 then withdraws $30.
They both have TEN dollars in the bank to use.
Person B, who netted low instead of simply depositing low, still only has $10 to pay his bills.
The $30 was actually used to fuel the body and give it nutrients though. The person who only deposited $10 did not have that to use.
Hense my original question.
OK, lets say it cost $20 for the body to just function... Breath, pump blood, grow hair & fingernail, the simple stuff.
Joe deposits $10, too low, but he's trying to not spend much in hopes to ....whatever....
Then Tom deposits $40, enough to just barely function and buy a game of basketball and vacuuming, then withdraws $30 to pay for his 10mile run and swimming... He paid for those EXTRA things and now only has $10 to pay for the base body functions that cost $20.
That's how my mind makes sense of it. It's like a budget to pay your bills and have some extra for going to the movies and out to dinner... Spend too much on the extras and you can't pay all the bills.0 -
"Starvation mode" is a myth...but that doesn't mean that netting super low calories is healthy. It's not healthy in the least. Enjoy your hair falling out though...should be fun.0
-
7 pages in 4 hours. This looks like a one day roll thread to me. Let's make it happen people chop chop. I have a roll gif in my pocket and I ain't afraid to use it.
In other news....OP how come you don't ask this burning question to awesome legit certified (iable) trainer lady?
Why ask us bunch of peons if she already has the answers to the rest of life's questions. BTW, when you see her can you please ask her why the sky is blue? Never got that answer yet. Oh and who shot J.R. ?
of course his head is missing. OF COURSE. it could be any number of MFPers! any one of these headless shirtless mofo's0 -
My daughter did a bikini competition last year and her "trainer" and I use that word loosely...had her on such a severe diet her hair was falling out like crazy...So glad she is back to eating normally, and enjoying the regrowth of her hair...proven fact that it will fall out if you cut the nutrition your body desperately needs to keep running...where you think you may be getting results in one area...another part of your body will be starving for nutrients.0
-
I knew eating a VLCD ruins your metabolism but does eating a regular calorie diet but netting low ruining your metabolism? This is more or less my question.
Aren't the SAME thing?? Low Calorie is Low Calorie no matter how you got there (because you ate low or because you worried off a lot of calories)
I would think it's like:
person A only puts $10 in the bank
Person B deposits $40 then withdraws $30.
They both have TEN dollars in the bank to use.
Person B, who netted low instead of simply depositing low, still only has $10 to pay his bills.
The $30 was actually used to fuel the body and give it nutrients though. The person who only deposited $10 did not have that to use.
Hense my original question.
OK, lets say it cost $20 for the body to just function... Breath, pump blood, the simple stuff.
Joe deposits $10, too low, but he's trying to not spend much in hopes to ....whatever....
Then Tom deposits $40, enough to just barely function and buy a game of basketball and vacuuming, then withdraws $30 to pay for his 10mile run and swimming... He paid for those EXTRA things and now only has $10 to pay for the base body functions that cost $20.
That's how my mind makes sense of it. It's like a budget to pay your bills and have some extra for going to the movies and out to dinner... Spend too much on the extras and you can't pay all the bills.
I guess that's where we differ. I think a bank account is a bad analogy because my body has a huge savings attached to that account to be used. 40% BF to be exact.0 -
My daughter did a bikini competition last year and her "trainer" and I use that word loosely...had her on such a severe diet her hair was falling out like crazy...So glad she is back to eating normally, and enjoying the regrowth of her hair...proven fact that it will fall out if you cut the nutrition your body desperately needs to keep running...where you think you may be getting results in one area...another part of your body will be starving for nutrients.
QFT: Cause, yeah hair's cool.0 -
40% of fat. Not 40% of protein, vitamins and minerals.I knew eating a VLCD ruins your metabolism but does eating a regular calorie diet but netting low ruining your metabolism? This is more or less my question.
Aren't the SAME thing?? Low Calorie is Low Calorie no matter how you got there (because you ate low or because you worried off a lot of calories)
I would think it's like:
person A only puts $10 in the bank
Person B deposits $40 then withdraws $30.
They both have TEN dollars in the bank to use.
Person B, who netted low instead of simply depositing low, still only has $10 to pay his bills.
The $30 was actually used to fuel the body and give it nutrients though. The person who only deposited $10 did not have that to use.
Hense my original question.
OK, lets say it cost $20 for the body to just function... Breath, pump blood, the simple stuff.
Joe deposits $10, too low, but he's trying to not spend much in hopes to ....whatever....
Then Tom deposits $40, enough to just barely function and buy a game of basketball and vacuuming, then withdraws $30 to pay for his 10mile run and swimming... He paid for those EXTRA things and now only has $10 to pay for the base body functions that cost $20.
That's how my mind makes sense of it. It's like a budget to pay your bills and have some extra for going to the movies and out to dinner... Spend too much on the extras and you can't pay all the bills.
I guess that's where we differ. I think a bank account is a bad analogy because my body has a huge savings attached to that account to be used. 40% BF to be exact.0 -
OK, lets say it cost $20 for the body to just function... Breath, pump blood, the simple stuff.
Joe deposits $10, too low, but he's trying to not spend much in hopes to ....whatever....
Then Tom deposits $40, enough to just barely function and buy a game of basketball and vacuuming, then withdraws $30 to pay for his 10mile run and swimming... He paid for those EXTRA things and now only has $10 to pay for the base body functions that cost $20.
That's how my mind makes sense of it. It's like a budget to pay your bills and have some extra for going to the movies and out to dinner... Spend too much on the extras and you can't pay all the bills.
I guess that's where we differ. I think a bank account is a bad analogy because my body has a huge savings attached to that account to be used. 40% BF to be exact.
but only 18 pounds of weight.
still not sure how you have 40% BF. what method do use to measure??
and the extra body fat is only ENERGY. it is not nutrients.0 -
Gotta love losing tons of weight and struggling the whole time with not eating enough to see the scale go down, but your BF% stay the same... ahh good times... I see that down the road.0
-
After following the forums for quite sometime, it seems to me that most of the more educated or more experienced people on here give the following advice:
1. There is no starvation mode unless you haven't ate in over 48 hours.
2. There is no magic eating times or amount of meals to eat.
3. A calorie is a calorie (in regards to energy not nutrition)
4. The only weight loss formula is calories in < calories out.
So based on this information, is ok for me to only net under 1000 calories a day? I'm 5'7", 173 pounds, 40% BF, 35 years old, female. I believe my BMR is around 1400 and TDEE is around 1800 to 1900. ( I have a desk job and I use to eat back exercise calories so I calculate my TDEE with light activity). My trainer and I, are doing an extreme cut right now and since starting my net calories are very low. We are trying to rapidly bring down my 40% BF. My trainer is certified, educated, and a pro-body builder so she knows her stuff.
I don't want a flood of responses that tell me to eat more or to eat TDEE - 20%. I want to legitly know, with back up, what the problem is with me netting less then 1000 calories while trying to lose weight. I know that you need a certain amount of calories just to function but will my body not used the stored stuff if I do not feed it enough? I am told body builders net extremely low prior to shows and it works for them with little to no side effects?
Some more things to consider, I am making sure I eat at least 100 grams a protein daily. I haven't been eating the healthiest all the time. I do take BCAA supplements to help retain muscle from my extreme calorie burn. Keeping in mind this cut is a phase, so a temperary program to give specific results. Please don't responsed with eat more calories, eat more protien, starvation mode, eat healthier.... etc. Just please give me only serious answers to my question.
Just because your trainer does shows, is a pro, certified, etc., still doesn't mean jack squat! Trust me on this. It's well talked about in the body building community. Look up names like phd Layne Norton, Lyle Mcdonald, or Kiefer for more information on what really happens as far as bio metabolics goes. I'll give every trainer the benefit of the doubt until until they do or say or have their client do something stupid.
Only ignorant bodybuilders run very low calories doing a show. Plenty of smart ones run thousands of calories and eat hundreds of grams of carbs right up to show day!
The term starvation mode is arguable, but what happens is that your metabolism is always going to want to slow down with low calorie intake or with even moderate calorie intake with "high calorie burn" workouts...as it should. It doesn't like or care about exercise or how you feel about what's attractive. It's trying to protect the body and get it into tomorrow. It's not that 48 hours is a magic number, but it takes about 48 to 72 hours for protein break down and other catabolic(self digesting/ slower metabolic) triggers to really take in effect. It's the hormonal triggers that result from not eating or eating very low calories or nutrients that slows down the metabolism to protect you.
Yes your body runs off of stored fat but REMEMBER...fat is not a complete nutritional product. It gets converted over to glucose to burn for energy in your cells, and it stores SOME vitamins and minerals, not all of them, and it doesn't give possible beneficiary hormonal responses that eating protein and carbs do such as leptin, glucagon, igf, etc., and it doesn't provide NITROGEN...remember that other key life sustaining element? Your body will go catabolic, slow your functions via altering thyroid and brain outputs and rates(which affects about everything else) and strip your muscle to get nitrogen. You need it to rebuild DNA!!!!!! and make VITAL hormones, enzymes, etc. Protein isn't just a word for bodybuilders. But I won't say eat more protein because you said not to. BCAA's help with nitrogen balance but they have no thermic effect. For most people eating more protein sources to get those amino's would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more beneficial, especially for weight loss.
Then with low calories and low protein you're more apt to lose lean body mass(muscle). We already know about that and how it lowers your furnace.
There are no magic eating times because why would there be? Your body is directed by hormones in a check and balance kind of way. You eat less, this goes up, you eat more that goes down, vice versa, etc., So over the course of 3 days to a week, you even out any "spike" or late night eating or skipping breakfast or not eating after a workout, by eating a net total of what your body needs. If you have 100 dollars in the bank and you withdraw it all You're at zero for the day. Say you go two days, then you deposit 150. You made 50 bucks. If you had 100, took it all out, then put back 125 the next day, then 25 the day after, you made the same amount of money. So over the course of two days your net affect is the same and unless you're in an extreme situation (bodybuilder for the stage, medical emergency,etc) your body could care less as long as the bills are paid from the account! Body builders, especially those on hormonal assistance may gain a small percentage of advantage with meal timing because they HAVE THE EXTRA HORMONAL POTENTIAL to direct the nutrients to acceptable places. Your body runs on 24 hour cycles but you can train your hormonal outputs by proper total macronutrient intake, so that your hormonal shifts at the end of a few days or a week are the same net effect.
A calorie is a calorie is technically and scientifically false because the human body is not a closed system.Everything is limited by hormones and there is heat and waste to deal with. But given a healthy body that is devoid of major malfunction or disease, the effects are predictable. This is why TDEE and maintenance levels of calories takes into account that fact that your heart needs to beat, your liver needs to run, that lump of fat in your head(the brain is mostly fat), needs calories, your retina needs calories and nutrients and carbs. Your iris needs carbs. Your skin burns calories. Your cuticles...get the idea...all the stuff we forget about it needs calories AND nutrition. The thermic effect of food is the amount of energy and thus heat that you body must use to digest and deal with food which also can throw off the calorie in/out theory. The more important part of this rule is that when you're tracking, if you're not cheating and you're measuring, you have a baseline to go off of. It doesnt matter if calories in truly equals calories out. If you're not achieving your goals,and again if you're healhty, you adjust your macro nutrient intake and caloric intake from your baseline levels, to get change. Protein is roughly 10 times more work for your body to deal with than fat and carbohydrate, and a positive nitrogen balance is VITAL to keeping metabolism in a favorable position. Guess what's not in carbohydrate and fat. Nitrogen! These are the two top reasons why we shout protein so much! Remember that we LOVE to UNDEREAT AND OVER EXERCISE our selves into a malfunction which changes the hormones, thus changes the rules, due to malfunctioning of metabolic pathways.
Under-eating and over exercising slows metabolic rate, and over time your hormonal outputs get trained in this lower rate. This is why many overweight people are eating 1000 calories and still not losing weight. How can that be? There bodily functions, thyroid outputs, adrenals, etc., have been lowered to accomodate for the lower input, plus digestive enzymes and hormones as well. So then to lose any more weight they need to eat even less and or exercise even more which of course is even way more unhealthy and down right dangerous, and drives the metabolic rate down even further and or results in sickness.
Plus way more "trainers" and "body builders" than you probably suspect are on some form of hormonal assistance or they train those that do so they can get away with non optimal protocols. What you are embarking on is a non optimal protocol, and you risk metabolic slow down and only priming your system to store fat later. A more optimal protocol would have you eating more, using the thermic effect of food, the power of carbohydrates and exercising less or without anything resembling "extreme" besides extreme consistency.
At least you're not in denial of the term temporary. As your achievements or some portion thereof are that much more likely to be temporary. The idea of doing short extreme bouts of exercise or dieting is popular due to before and after pics and bodybuilding trainers(on steroids). These people always gain back considerable weight or lose gains made.0 -
I knew eating a VLCD ruins your metabolism but does eating a regular calorie diet but netting low ruining your metabolism? This is more or less my question.
Aren't the SAME thing?? Low Calorie is Low Calorie no matter how you got there (because you ate low or because you worried off a lot of calories)
I would think it's like:
person A only puts $10 in the bank
Person B deposits $40 then withdraws $30.
They both have TEN dollars in the bank to use.
Person B, who netted low instead of simply depositing low, still only has $10 to pay his bills.
The $30 was actually used to fuel the body and give it nutrients though. The person who only deposited $10 did not have that to use.
Hense my original question.
What about $1 bills? I usually have plenty of those.0 -
OK, lets say it cost $20 for the body to just function... Breath, pump blood, the simple stuff.
Joe deposits $10, too low, but he's trying to not spend much in hopes to ....whatever....
Then Tom deposits $40, enough to just barely function and buy a game of basketball and vacuuming, then withdraws $30 to pay for his 10mile run and swimming... He paid for those EXTRA things and now only has $10 to pay for the base body functions that cost $20.
That's how my mind makes sense of it. It's like a budget to pay your bills and have some extra for going to the movies and out to dinner... Spend too much on the extras and you can't pay all the bills.
I guess that's where we differ. I think a bank account is a bad analogy because my body has a huge savings attached to that account to be used. 40% BF to be exact.
but only 18 pounds of weight.
still not sure how you have 40% BF. what method do use to measure??
and the extra body fat is only ENERGY. it is not nutrients.
My ticker goal was set before I knew my body fat. I am not trying to achieve a goal wieght anymore. I am trying to achieve a BF%0 -
My ticker goal was set before I knew my body fat. I am not trying to achieve a goal wieght anymore. I am trying to achieve a BF%
Then your huge calorie deficit is the absolute wrong way to go about it.
It's much easier to lose fat while sparing muscle than it is to put that muscle back on later.
If your goal is a certain body fat %, then you are best served by trying to keep every ounce of lean mass you have.0 -
Gotta love losing tons of weight and struggling the whole time with not eating enough to see the scale go down, but your BF% stay the same... ahh good times... I see that down the road.
We are monitoring my body fat not weight. I will know right away and be able to stop if this is the case.0 -
My ticker goal was set before I knew my body fat. I am not trying to achieve a goal wieght anymore. I am trying to achieve a BF%
Then your huge calorie deficit is the absolute wrong way to go about it.
It's much easier to lose fat while sparing muscle than it is to put that muscle back on later.
If your goal is a certain body fat %, then you are best served by trying to keep every ounce of lean mass you have.
I know. Hence the strength training and higher protein, etc.0 -
Gotta love losing tons of weight and struggling the whole time with not eating enough to see the scale go down, but your BF% stay the same... ahh good times... I see that down the road.
We are monitoring my body fat not weight. I will know right away and be able to stop if this is the case.
This has been asked but I have not seen an answer:
What method are you using to measure body fat?0 -
My ticker goal was set before I knew my body fat. I am not trying to achieve a goal wieght anymore. I am trying to achieve a BF%
Then your huge calorie deficit is the absolute wrong way to go about it.
It's much easier to lose fat while sparing muscle than it is to put that muscle back on later.
If your goal is a certain body fat %, then you are best served by trying to keep every ounce of lean mass you have.
I know. Hence the strength training and higher protein, etc.
So you know your current methods are sub-optimal for achieving your stated goal...... and you are going to continue it anyway.
OK. Glad you started and perpetuated this thread asking for opinions and facts when you were going to discount them all and keep doing what you're doing all along.
Thanks for wasting everyone's time.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions