eating less vs burning more
Options
Trish1c
Posts: 549 Member
Can someone please explain this to me:
On days when I'm not hungry, I tend to eat less than 1000 calories. I'm not going to force food down my throat when I'm not hungry. It's not often but when I log it & hit complete diary, MFP scolds me for eating too little.
But then I see diaries where people eat their calories but work out like demons. (I wish I had that time & stamina) It's not about comparing myself to them. I just want to know what happens on MFP when the net calories for the day are under 1000. Even somebody who consumed 2000 calories but worked out hard & burned 1100 calories, their net consumption would be less than 1000.
Are both behaviors equally unhealthy? Is eating but burning better?
I'm losing. I'm OK with what I'm doing. I'm simply trying to educate myself about food, nutrition, exercise & human metabolism.
On days when I'm not hungry, I tend to eat less than 1000 calories. I'm not going to force food down my throat when I'm not hungry. It's not often but when I log it & hit complete diary, MFP scolds me for eating too little.
But then I see diaries where people eat their calories but work out like demons. (I wish I had that time & stamina) It's not about comparing myself to them. I just want to know what happens on MFP when the net calories for the day are under 1000. Even somebody who consumed 2000 calories but worked out hard & burned 1100 calories, their net consumption would be less than 1000.
Are both behaviors equally unhealthy? Is eating but burning better?
I'm losing. I'm OK with what I'm doing. I'm simply trying to educate myself about food, nutrition, exercise & human metabolism.
1
Replies
-
Can someone please explain this to me:
On days when I'm not hungry, I tend to eat less than 1000 calories. I'm not going to force food down my throat when I'm not hungry. It's not often but when I log it & hit complete diary, MFP scolds me for eating too little.
But then I see diaries where people eat their calories but work out like demons. (I wish I had that time & stamina) It's not about comparing myself to them. I just want to know what happens on MFP when the net calories for the day are under 1000. Even somebody who consumed 2000 calories but worked out hard & burned 1100 calories, their net consumption would be less than 1000.
Are both behaviors equally unhealthy? Is eating but burning better?
I'm losing. I'm OK with what I'm doing. I'm simply trying to educate myself about food, nutrition, exercise & human metabolism.
Yes...the more active you are, the more you need to eat to remain healthy...If someone is eating 2,000 calories and burning off 1100 (which I actually would wonder about), that's just as bad as underfeeding...exercise is good for you, but it's also a huge stress on the body...you need calories (energy) and nutrition for recovery and performance...underfeeding your training just stresses the body out and will ultimately lead to recovery issues, performance issues, and usually injury...not to mention, cortisol levels will rise and inhibit fat loss.
What should be done is to determine a maintenance level of calories that would include all of that exercise and then cut from that...unless you're obese, it should be about a 500 calorie per day cut from maintenance.3 -
Can someone please explain this to me:
On days when I'm not hungry, I tend to eat less than 1000 calories. I'm not going to force food down my throat when I'm not hungry. It's not often but when I log it & hit complete diary, MFP scolds me for eating too little.
But then I see diaries where people eat their calories but work out like demons. (I wish I had that time & stamina) It's not about comparing myself to them. I just want to know what happens on MFP when the net calories for the day are under 1000. Even somebody who consumed 2000 calories but worked out hard & burned 1100 calories, their net consumption would be less than 1000.
Are both behaviors equally unhealthy?
Whether or not it's unhealthy (subjective measures aside) will depend on whether or not the individual is meeting nutritional needs within that calorie intake. The lower your calorie intake goes, the less opportunity exists to meet nutrient needs and consequently the more nutritious the diet needs to be.Is eating but burning better?
One main advantage is that you have more opportunity to meet micronutritional needs. A second huge advantage is that exercise causes beneficial adaptations to occur that can have long term health and lifestyle implications for the better. Dieting alone can cause fat loss which is ALSO a huge health benefit, but there are things you can accomplish with training that you cannot accomplish with diet.
However on the flip side, it's difficult to create enough energy expenditure through activity increases to cause appreciable fat loss in most scenarios and so consequently, some form of dietary intervention is typically needed.
Assuming no differences in adherence (which is a false assumption to begin with but for purposes of discussion I'm using it) I would generally favor more activity vs sedentary.
0 -
They get dinged too.
And yes, undereating by extreme for whatever your level of activity is a great way to lose muscle mass and get an unhealthy fat body - even if it does happen to be lighter than before.
At least if it's being burnt by extra exercise, there may be a decent amount of fat burn along with carb burn, so not a total lack of extra needed calories. As well as some workouts at least are asking the muscle to be rebuilt with the minimal food intake available for all the body's needs.
But no exercise just low eating, your body won't build some muscle back as it daily breaks it down - you lose muscle mass - great way to fail when maintenance is attempted.
And just as many on MFP listened to their body and ate when they didn't need to - and now need to lose weight....
You also can't totally trust the fact you may not feel hungry.
You feeling full and your body being fully fed are 2 totally different things.
If you have have knowledge on all the ways your body can fool you and not feel hungry despite the fact it needs nutrients and calories (2 different things there too) - then listening to your body can work.
Majority lack such knowledge.1 -
And just as many on MFP listened to their body and ate when they didn't need to - and now need to lose weight....
You also can't totally trust the fact you may not feel hungry.
You feeling full and your body being fully fed are 2 totally different things.
If you have have knowledge on all the ways your body can fool you and not feel hungry despite the fact it needs nutrients and calories (2 different things there too) - then listening to your body can work.
Majority lack such knowledge.
I have no illusions about the days I don't feel hungry. My nutrition sucks. It's better than it has ever been in my life but it's far from good. Still I'm not going to eat if I'm not hungry.
Can you please elaborate about the ways your body can fool you into thinking you are not hungry when when it needs calories? I get feeling or even being full but not having enough nutrient, e.g. if I eat a whole cake I will feel full but that's hardly proper nutrition.
0 -
Can someone please explain this to me:
On days when I'm not hungry, I tend to eat less than 1000 calories. I'm not going to force food down my throat when I'm not hungry. It's not often but when I log it & hit complete diary, MFP scolds me for eating too little.
But then I see diaries where people eat their calories but work out like demons. (I wish I had that time & stamina) It's not about comparing myself to them. I just want to know what happens on MFP when the net calories for the day are under 1000. Even somebody who consumed 2000 calories but worked out hard & burned 1100 calories, their net consumption would be less than 1000.
Are both behaviors equally unhealthy?
Whether or not it's unhealthy (subjective measures aside) will depend on whether or not the individual is meeting nutritional needs within that calorie intake. The lower your calorie intake goes, the less opportunity exists to meet nutrient needs and consequently the more nutritious the diet needs to be.Is eating but burning better?
One main advantage is that you have more opportunity to meet micronutritional needs. A second huge advantage is that exercise causes beneficial adaptations to occur that can have long term health and lifestyle implications for the better. Dieting alone can cause fat loss which is ALSO a huge health benefit, but there are things you can accomplish with training that you cannot accomplish with diet.
However on the flip side, it's difficult to create enough energy expenditure through activity increases to cause appreciable fat loss in most scenarios and so consequently, some form of dietary intervention is typically needed.
Assuming no differences in adherence (which is a false assumption to begin with but for purposes of discussion I'm using it) I would generally favor more activity vs sedentary.
Except for the fact that micronutrient needs will usually increase with higher activity levels as well.0 -
And just as many on MFP listened to their body and ate when they didn't need to - and now need to lose weight....
You also can't totally trust the fact you may not feel hungry.
You feeling full and your body being fully fed are 2 totally different things.
If you have have knowledge on all the ways your body can fool you and not feel hungry despite the fact it needs nutrients and calories (2 different things there too) - then listening to your body can work.
Majority lack such knowledge.
I have no illusions about the days I don't feel hungry. My nutrition sucks. It's better than it has ever been in my life but it's far from good. Still I'm not going to eat if I'm not hungry.
Can you please elaborate about the ways your body can fool you into thinking you are not hungry when when it needs calories? I get feeling or even being full but not having enough nutrient, e.g. if I eat a whole cake I will feel full but that's hardly proper nutrition.
The point that is being made about hunger signals or lack of them is that for those who have struggled with weight for a long time, usually the brain functions that register whether they are full or not is messed up. Thus, no only do those who struggle with weight have the issue of eating too much because they don't properly register when they are full, but often, when they are seeking to lose weight, this continues, but the other direction, that is, they feel full even when they have not reached an appropriate level of energy (calories) or nutrition. Part of the process of healthy fat loss is to re-train one's body to know what an appropriate amount of food is to hopefully get those signals on when they are hungry or full will get straightened up. Until such happens, setting an appropriate calorie goal at a moderate deficit and eating to that goal even when not feeling hungry is part of the process.2 -
On days when I'm not hungry, I tend to eat less than 1000 calories. I'm not going to force food down my throat when I'm not hungry. It's not often but when I log it & hit complete diary, MFP scolds me for eating too little.
If it's not often (or according to a reasonable plan), I'd stop reading this as a scold (or just not close). Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm reading in that this bothers you.But then I see diaries where people eat their calories but work out like demons. (I wish I had that time & stamina) It's not about comparing myself to them. I just want to know what happens on MFP when the net calories for the day are under 1000. Even somebody who consumed 2000 calories but worked out hard & burned 1100 calories, their net consumption would be less than 1000.
I don't think MFP gives a message for this, just under 1000. It definitely didn't use to, but I do TDEE so wouldn't see it even if I close. I don't think it should for a couple of reasons: (1) lots of people feel good logging lots of high cal activities that probably don't burn nearly so much (like the 800 calories for cooking dinner things) or simply get overstated calories (1000 cals for a 1 hour Zumba class), and so whether the exercise calories are so much really depends; and (2) you could say "active" and not log it back and still have the same net calories and not get the hypothetical message.Are both behaviors equally unhealthy? Is eating but burning better?
Both CAN BE unhealthy, and whether one is worse than the other really depends. IMO, for example, a non dr supervised diet where you are regularly eating before 1000 is worrisome, as you likely have too high a deficit and are not getting nutrition you need. A huge deficit from activity (eat 1300 but do hard cardio 2 hours a day) is not going to be a problem because of lack of nutrients, but because you are overstressing your body and will burn out, and because you have too high a deficit. I think the latter can be more harmful if the person eating 950 regularly is doing so with a careful diet and is pretty sedentary, but neither is a good idea. Related, perhaps, there are exercise-related anorexias (not sure if it's technically classed that, though) and other disorders.
MFP doesn't seem to monitor deficit at all (it won't assign you more than 1000 cal deficit, but you can manually select anything you want), all it monitors is that you eat a minimum number of calories.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »On days when I'm not hungry, I tend to eat less than 1000 calories. I'm not going to force food down my throat when I'm not hungry. It's not often but when I log it & hit complete diary, MFP scolds me for eating too little.
If it's not often (or according to a reasonable plan), I'd stop reading this as a scold (or just not close). Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm reading in that this bothers you.But then I see diaries where people eat their calories but work out like demons. (I wish I had that time & stamina) It's not about comparing myself to them. I just want to know what happens on MFP when the net calories for the day are under 1000. Even somebody who consumed 2000 calories but worked out hard & burned 1100 calories, their net consumption would be less than 1000.
I don't think MFP gives a message for this, just under 1000. It definitely didn't use to, but I do TDEE so wouldn't see it even if I close. I don't think it should for a couple of reasons: (1) lots of people feel good logging lots of high cal activities that probably don't burn nearly so much (like the 800 calories for cooking dinner things) or simply get overstated calories (1000 cals for a 1 hour Zumba class), and so whether the exercise calories are so much really depends; and (2) you could say "active" and not log it back and still have the same net calories and not get the hypothetical message.Are both behaviors equally unhealthy? Is eating but burning better?
Both CAN BE unhealthy, and whether one is worse than the other really depends. IMO, for example, a non dr supervised diet where you are regularly eating before 1000 is worrisome, as you likely have too high a deficit and are not getting nutrition you need. A huge deficit from activity (eat 1300 but do hard cardio 2 hours a day) is not going to be a problem because of lack of nutrients, but because you are overstressing your body and will burn out, and because you have too high a deficit. I think the latter can be more harmful if the person eating 950 regularly is doing so with a careful diet and is pretty sedentary, but neither is a good idea. Related, perhaps, there are exercise-related anorexias (not sure if it's technically classed that, though) and other disorders.
MFP doesn't seem to monitor deficit at all (it won't assign you more than 1000 cal deficit, but you can manually select anything you want), all it monitors is that you eat a minimum number of calories.
On my long run days I am often under 1,000 net (because running usually suppresses my hunger and I just eat the calories back the next day when I'm hungry again) and I don't get the message when I close my diary on those days.0 -
On hunger, I think for a lot of us hunger signals aren't that driven by actual bodily hunger. You can see this with the reverse, of course -- it's not uncommon at all to think you are hungry at times when it makes no physical sense. I've found that being aware of this and waiting will usually make it go away, and that getting into a regular eating schedule prevents me from (usually) being hungry at other times, so that's one case when I'd say not to assume that hunger means much.
The reverse (which I also experience) is not perceiving hunger due to other things -- being into a work project or something else you are doing and forgetting to eat/not feeling like it is mealtime until much later, or losing appetite because of an emotional upset or stress (I usually do the reverse, but sometimes this). When people are really motivated with a new way of eating, it's common to not feel hungry (I don't think feeling like you CAN'T eat, but like you don't need to) and feel like eating when you aren't feeling like you need to is wrong. Also hard exercise can kill the appetite.
As a result of this, and that I know my appetite signals are more based on habit/routine and the availability of something I want to eat, I find it easier to eat according to a schedule (which, for what it's worth, is also what was recommended to us to get in enough calories when I was doing a really heavy exercise schedule for some endurance training events). Not saying anyone else should do this, and I don't personally think it's a big deal to have an occasional low day.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On days when I'm not hungry, I tend to eat less than 1000 calories. I'm not going to force food down my throat when I'm not hungry. It's not often but when I log it & hit complete diary, MFP scolds me for eating too little.
If it's not often (or according to a reasonable plan), I'd stop reading this as a scold (or just not close). Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm reading in that this bothers you.But then I see diaries where people eat their calories but work out like demons. (I wish I had that time & stamina) It's not about comparing myself to them. I just want to know what happens on MFP when the net calories for the day are under 1000. Even somebody who consumed 2000 calories but worked out hard & burned 1100 calories, their net consumption would be less than 1000.
I don't think MFP gives a message for this, just under 1000. It definitely didn't use to, but I do TDEE so wouldn't see it even if I close. I don't think it should for a couple of reasons: (1) lots of people feel good logging lots of high cal activities that probably don't burn nearly so much (like the 800 calories for cooking dinner things) or simply get overstated calories (1000 cals for a 1 hour Zumba class), and so whether the exercise calories are so much really depends; and (2) you could say "active" and not log it back and still have the same net calories and not get the hypothetical message.Are both behaviors equally unhealthy? Is eating but burning better?
Both CAN BE unhealthy, and whether one is worse than the other really depends. IMO, for example, a non dr supervised diet where you are regularly eating before 1000 is worrisome, as you likely have too high a deficit and are not getting nutrition you need. A huge deficit from activity (eat 1300 but do hard cardio 2 hours a day) is not going to be a problem because of lack of nutrients, but because you are overstressing your body and will burn out, and because you have too high a deficit. I think the latter can be more harmful if the person eating 950 regularly is doing so with a careful diet and is pretty sedentary, but neither is a good idea. Related, perhaps, there are exercise-related anorexias (not sure if it's technically classed that, though) and other disorders.
MFP doesn't seem to monitor deficit at all (it won't assign you more than 1000 cal deficit, but you can manually select anything you want), all it monitors is that you eat a minimum number of calories.
On my long run days I am often under 1,000 net (because running usually suppresses my hunger and I just eat the calories back the next day when I'm hungry again) and I don't get the message when I close my diary on those days.
Thanks. That's what I thought (and what it used to be).
I'm also often under 1000 net on a long run day and don't worry since I know I am eating plenty over the course of the week (since I do TDEE method).0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Can someone please explain this to me:
On days when I'm not hungry, I tend to eat less than 1000 calories. I'm not going to force food down my throat when I'm not hungry. It's not often but when I log it & hit complete diary, MFP scolds me for eating too little.
But then I see diaries where people eat their calories but work out like demons. (I wish I had that time & stamina) It's not about comparing myself to them. I just want to know what happens on MFP when the net calories for the day are under 1000. Even somebody who consumed 2000 calories but worked out hard & burned 1100 calories, their net consumption would be less than 1000.
Are both behaviors equally unhealthy?
Whether or not it's unhealthy (subjective measures aside) will depend on whether or not the individual is meeting nutritional needs within that calorie intake. The lower your calorie intake goes, the less opportunity exists to meet nutrient needs and consequently the more nutritious the diet needs to be.Is eating but burning better?
One main advantage is that you have more opportunity to meet micronutritional needs. A second huge advantage is that exercise causes beneficial adaptations to occur that can have long term health and lifestyle implications for the better. Dieting alone can cause fat loss which is ALSO a huge health benefit, but there are things you can accomplish with training that you cannot accomplish with diet.
However on the flip side, it's difficult to create enough energy expenditure through activity increases to cause appreciable fat loss in most scenarios and so consequently, some form of dietary intervention is typically needed.
Assuming no differences in adherence (which is a false assumption to begin with but for purposes of discussion I'm using it) I would generally favor more activity vs sedentary.
Except for the fact that micronutrient needs will usually increase with higher activity levels as well.
I don't think that makes anything I've said incorrect but I'd be willing to change my view on that.
I still think that higher energy expenditure's tend to make it easier to meet nutrient needs when in a deficit0 -
wrote: »
Hunger ques are driven by hormones...when you diet, you jack around with those hormones...when you eat very low calories you jack with them even more...this is how anorexics can eat very little and honestly say they aren't hungry.
Often, when increasing calories towards maintenance for example...people go the other way...they're eating more and they become more hungry...again...hormones. When I went to maintenance I was insatiable for a couple of weeks despite the fact that I was more or less fine on my diet...bumped up the calories and just couldn't get enough for a couple of very uncomfortable weeks while my hormones reset and my metabolism kicked up from being adapted to lower calories.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Hunger ques are driven by hormones...when you diet, you jack around with those hormones...when you eat very low calories you jack with them even more...this is how anorexics can eat very little and honestly say they aren't hungry.
This is what I'm afraid of. Been there. Done that. Have the T-shirt (didn't wear it because I thought it made me look fat).
Still I have a hard time eating when I'm not hungry. But I do eat when I am hungry even though I'm starting right now but bound & determined to wait 1/2 hour to eat my lunch at lunch time, not before.
0 -
I think its a lot healthier to eat 2000 kCal and burn off 1000 with exercise than to only eat 1000 and sit on your butt all day.
This past year of changing my eating and exercising I have learned that hunger cues are weird. Days I run and exercise I have little problem sticking to my WOE. Lazy (aka recovery) days I really struggle, especially in the evenings. After eating in a deficit for months (and not having serious hunger issues), then increasing my caloric intake, I find that I can not control my hunger. It's like I want to eat everything in the house now.
Try not to worry if you have occasional low calorie days. Some people advocate intermittent fasting which would not be much different. Look at the long run calorie track.1 -
silverfiend wrote: »I think its a lot healthier to eat 2000 kCal and burn off 1000 with exercise than to only eat 1000 and sit on your butt all day.
This past year of changing my eating and exercising I have learned that hunger cues are weird. Days I run and exercise I have little problem sticking to my WOE. Lazy (aka recovery) days I really struggle, especially in the evenings. After eating in a deficit for months (and not having serious hunger issues), then increasing my caloric intake, I find that I can not control my hunger. It's like I want to eat everything in the house now.
Try not to worry if you have occasional low calorie days. Some people advocate intermittent fasting which would not be much different. Look at the long run calorie track.
Without knowing someone's base energy needs, I'm not sure it would be healthier to try to run all your body's non-exercise needs on 1,000 calories. If I'm doing exercise sufficient to burn 1,000 calories and eating 2,000, I still need to run everything else my body needs on that 1,000 calories. This would put me at a deficit of around 400 calories and I know I couldn't sustain that for very long (I'm at my goal weight, at the lower end of the BMI scale).
Yeah, exercise is good for you -- if you're properly fueled and it isn't resulting in dangerously low weights.0 -
In the begining before finding this place - Thank you all- well most of you.lol. I was riding my bike twice a day 45 min each time walking dogs, walking just me, and hitting weights 6 days a week while living on 1600 calories. I would never recommend this type of extreme weight loss but looking back it worked because I was losing over two pounds a week for Months on end. I was also going through a divorce so I was screwed up on so many other levels why not this way too... right? NO!!!
My days off I eat very little and burn more than any other day so I moved to weekly calories 5 days a week I do 3500-4000 calories knowing the other two day I'll be lucky to hit 1500 calories.
My POINT--- It works for me and a lot of times you need to find what works for you. Try weekly calories if MFP doesn't let you log do a bulk 500 calorie log and keep track of it so when your ready to eat that double chocolate malted crunch 1/2 gallon icecream you know you have the calories in the bank. Doing weekly calories takes more of a time investment which can be good as well for your overall evaluation of you..0 -
silverfiend wrote: »I think its a lot healthier to eat 2000 kCal and burn off 1000 with exercise than to only eat 1000 and sit on your butt all day.
This past year of changing my eating and exercising I have learned that hunger cues are weird. Days I run and exercise I have little problem sticking to my WOE. Lazy (aka recovery) days I really struggle, especially in the evenings. After eating in a deficit for months (and not having serious hunger issues), then increasing my caloric intake, I find that I can not control my hunger. It's like I want to eat everything in the house now.
Try not to worry if you have occasional low calorie days. Some people advocate intermittent fasting which would not be much different. Look at the long run calorie track.
It's certainly healthier to move more and exercise...but underfeeding is underfeeding. If I was regularly burning 1,000 calories per day in my workout (which I kind of find laughable) then that would put my TDEE around 3,500 calories or so...eating only 2,000 calories would be substantially underfeeding...I'm around 12-15% BF right now so this would just wreck me and cause all kinds of problems.0 -
Pushing the green button gets the scold if you ate less than 1200 calories, whether you are male or female. The algorithm doesn't consider net calories in this decision, so any exercise sufficient to drive your net calories below 1200 does not cause the scold if your eaten calories are over 1200.0
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Can someone please explain this to me:
On days when I'm not hungry, I tend to eat less than 1000 calories. I'm not going to force food down my throat when I'm not hungry. It's not often but when I log it & hit complete diary, MFP scolds me for eating too little.
But then I see diaries where people eat their calories but work out like demons. (I wish I had that time & stamina) It's not about comparing myself to them. I just want to know what happens on MFP when the net calories for the day are under 1000. Even somebody who consumed 2000 calories but worked out hard & burned 1100 calories, their net consumption would be less than 1000.
Are both behaviors equally unhealthy?
Whether or not it's unhealthy (subjective measures aside) will depend on whether or not the individual is meeting nutritional needs within that calorie intake. The lower your calorie intake goes, the less opportunity exists to meet nutrient needs and consequently the more nutritious the diet needs to be.Is eating but burning better?
One main advantage is that you have more opportunity to meet micronutritional needs. A second huge advantage is that exercise causes beneficial adaptations to occur that can have long term health and lifestyle implications for the better. Dieting alone can cause fat loss which is ALSO a huge health benefit, but there are things you can accomplish with training that you cannot accomplish with diet.
However on the flip side, it's difficult to create enough energy expenditure through activity increases to cause appreciable fat loss in most scenarios and so consequently, some form of dietary intervention is typically needed.
Assuming no differences in adherence (which is a false assumption to begin with but for purposes of discussion I'm using it) I would generally favor more activity vs sedentary.
Except for the fact that micronutrient needs will usually increase with higher activity levels as well.
I don't think that makes anything I've said incorrect but I'd be willing to change my view on that.
I still think that higher energy expenditure's tend to make it easier to meet nutrient needs when in a deficit
Not incorrect, but what it does is point out that if one is less active, they can likely get away with a lower micro intake than someone who is burning and eating. Therefore, speaking purely from a nutritional perspective, it should all come out in a wash, assuming that the diets are both scaled properly.
Of course, this completely ignores the health benefits of not being sedentary, but I think you see what I mean. It also makes the assumption (though probably a bad one, given the questions we see every day) that a person knows how to set up intake at any level for proper micro intake.0
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
- 390 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
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions