C25K / running advice
Options
Replies
-
bcalvanese wrote: »So I guess the heart rate does not increase when a person exerts energy to perform a task (unless its the 1980's).
You're confusing cause and effect.
To use a comparison... Does your car burn more fuel because your speedometer reads 70mph going uphill than if your speedometer is reading that on a downhill?
1 -
bcalvanese wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Pretty sure it's a function of heart rate and time rather than body mass and distance.
Body mass most definitely comes into play with all exercise, not just running. A 250 pound man is going to burn quite a few more calories running 3 miles than a 120 pound woman.
A 250 pound man will have to exert more energy thus increasing heart rate more. So it's still heart rate.
The basic rule of cardio training is heart rate and time. Physical metrics are a factor to some degree (because everyone is different), but the heart adjusts to your body metrics over your lifetime thus being a better way to estimate calorie burn in general.
Also, heart rate and time is the best way to determine training effect and fitness level. So many people think they are getting a cardio yet wondering why their fitness level is not improving. It's because they are not keeping their heart rate at X BPM for X number of minutes non-stop. To them it may feel like they are working out, but if they measured their heart rate during the workout, they may realize they are not in a cardio zone for the minimum 20 minutes & a minimum of 3 times per week that is recommended to get a minimum training effect.
I am far from an expert, but I was a fitness instructor in the Army back in the 1980's, and have a pretty good basic knowledge of fitness. I'm sure there are many more theories since then though...:)
A 250 pound man is going to exert more energy than the 120 pound woman just sitting on his *kitten* with the same heart rate.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Pretty sure it's a function of heart rate and time rather than body mass and distance.
Body mass most definitely comes into play with all exercise, not just running. A 250 pound man is going to burn quite a few more calories running 3 miles than a 120 pound woman.
A 250 pound man will have to exert more energy thus increasing heart rate more. So it's still heart rate.
The basic rule of cardio training is heart rate and time. Physical metrics are a factor to some degree (because everyone is different), but the heart adjusts to your body metrics over your lifetime thus being a better way to estimate calorie burn in general.
Also, heart rate and time is the best way to determine training effect and fitness level. So many people think they are getting a cardio yet wondering why their fitness level is not improving. It's because they are not keeping their heart rate at X BPM for X number of minutes non-stop. To them it may feel like they are working out, but if they measured their heart rate during the workout, they may realize they are not in a cardio zone for the minimum 20 minutes & a minimum of 3 times per week that is recommended to get a minimum training effect.
I am far from an expert, but I was a fitness instructor in the Army back in the 1980's, and have a pretty good basic knowledge of fitness. I'm sure there are many more theories since then though...:)
A 250 pound man is going to exert more energy than the 120 pound woman just sitting on his *kitten* with the same heart rate.
As a woman who weighs 116 pounds, I'm trying to figure out the differential between heart rates there'd have to be going by this metric for this to hold true.
The range of human heart rates just isn't that wide, and is also age dependent. As far as I know, calorie burns from exercise aren't age-dependent.
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The range of human heart rates just isn't that wide, and is also age dependent. As far as I know, calorie burns from exercise aren't age-dependent.
They're not.
If I run a mile in ten minutes with an HR of 135 I'll burn 100 calories. If I run the same mile in 7 minutes at 165BPM, my lactate threshold, I'll still burn 100 calories, but quicker. If I increase my HR above my lactate threshold and get down to a 6 minute mile I'll still burn 100 calories.
The thing is, I can do 1 mile at that place, but at a 10 minute mile I can run about 15 miles. That said, over that 15 miles my HR will steadily increase, due to a number of physiological phenomena, so any calorie estimate based on HR will be skewed.
To many things influence HR for it to be a reliable proxy; caffeine, tiredness, hydration etc.
2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The range of human heart rates just isn't that wide, and is also age dependent. As far as I know, calorie burns from exercise aren't age-dependent.
They're not.
If I run a mile in ten minutes with an HR of 135 I'll burn 100 calories. If I run the same mile in 7 minutes at 165BPM, my lactate threshold, I'll still burn 100 calories, but quicker. If I increase my HR above my lactate threshold and get down to a 6 minute mile I'll still burn 100 calories.
The thing is, I can do 1 mile at that place, but at a 10 minute mile I can run about 15 miles. That said, over that 15 miles my HR will steadily increase, due to a number of physiological phenomena, so any calorie estimate based on HR will be skewed.
To many things influence HR for it to be a reliable proxy; caffeine, tiredness, hydration etc.
And a person who's 50 pounds heavier than you who does those exact same runs at the exact same paces will burn significantly more calories than you, even at the exact same heart rates.2 -
Here are two of my workouts. They are both the same distance and average pace, and are both power walk/jog interval workouts. I power walk at about a 4.5 mph pace and jog at about a 5 mph pace. Sometimes I make the jog intervals longer so my average heart rate is different on both of these workout.
movescount.cn/moves/move133304234
movescount.cn/moves/move134137513
You will notice that I burned 157 more calories on the one with the higher average heart rate. On one my average heart rate is 137 and the other it's 145.
This may not seem high to people who are younger and in much better shape than me, but I'm 59 and my max heart rate is 161 (results from a stress test), so i'm in zone 4 & 5 for most of these workouts.
I am pretty sure my body mass has not changed in one week.0 -
You're using a heart rate monitor to assess your burns and using that as proof that heart rate determines burn?
Do you realize the lack of logic behind your reasoning here?
Edit: Also, let's go further with this. My run this morning was about half the distance of your first run. My average heart rate was 146, higher than yours.
According to you, I should burn more calories than you, since mass doesn't figure into the equation.
You burned over 1000 calories on that run, half of that would be 500.
According to the mass calculation, I burned 250.
According to my Fitbit adjustment on MFP, I burned around 175.
How? If you're theory is correct, how did this happen, if I had a higher heart rate?
I'm 54, btw.
ETA: I think I may have figured out the source of your confusion since you're using your own comparative data to draw your conclusions.
When you set up your heart rate monitor, you entered statistics on your height, weight, and age. Your HR monitor factors those into your calorie burns along with your heart rate. It's still factoring in mass. Some people don't feel intensity is entering into the equation, others do. I'm staying out of that fight. The reason you get different readings is because for those who think intensity of the run affects calorie burn for the same amount of distance/time, your elevated heart rate compared to one over the other, moving the same mass for the same amount of time but exerting greater effort, is going to presumably produce a greater calorie burn.
It's not just all about heart rate.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You're using a heart rate monitor to assess your burns and using that as proof that heart rate determines burn?
Do you realize the lack of logic behind your reasoning here?
Edit: Also, let's go further with this. My run this morning was about half the distance of your first run. My average heart rate was 146, higher than yours.
According to you, I should burn more calories than you, since mass doesn't figure into the equation.
You burned over 1000 calories on that run, half of that would be 500.
According to the mass calculation, I burned 250.
According to my Fitbit adjustment on MFP, I burned around 175.
How? If you're theory is correct, how did this happen, if I had a higher heart rate?
I'm 54, btw.
ETA: I think I may have figured out the source of your confusion since you're using your own comparative data to draw your conclusions.
When you set up your heart rate monitor, you entered statistics on your height, weight, and age. Your HR monitor factors those into your calorie burns along with your heart rate. It's still factoring in mass. Some people don't feel intensity is entering into the equation, others do. I'm staying out of that fight. The reason you get different readings is because for those who think intensity of the run affects calorie burn for the same amount of distance/time, your elevated heart rate compared to one over the other, moving the same mass for the same amount of time but exerting greater effort, is going to presumably produce a greater calorie burn.
It's not just all about heart rate.
I think we are saying the same thing in two different ways.
Yes, I have to exert more effort to make the same mass travel the same distance in the same amount of time.
What happens when I apply more effort?
My heart rate increases.
And I never said mass does not factor in at all, I said it factors in but only to a certain extent.
Also, your max heart rate is at least 5 bpm higher than mine which changes your zones, and maybe your fitness level is better than mine too.
I would also like to add that MFP is notorious for not accurately calculating calories. I have a pretty high end device and a chest strap heart rate monitor that I use for all my workouts.
But the bottom line is... I don't really care about all that scientific mumbo jumbo. I know that if I train the right way using heart rate, I will burn more calories and increase my fitness level. And anyone who can exercise can use the same approach and get the same result.
And the only reason I use this device is because it records everything I need for me so I can focus on the workouts, and not have to worry about calculations and formulas.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Pretty sure it's a function of heart rate and time rather than body mass and distance.
Just quoting this again, not to start trouble, but just to show why this whole discussion took place.2 -
bcalvanese wrote: »Here are two of my workouts. They are both the same distance and average pace, and are both power walk/jog interval workouts. I power walk at about a 4.5 mph pace and jog at about a 5 mph pace. Sometimes I make the jog intervals longer so my average heart rate is different on both of these workout.
movescount.cn/moves/move133304234
movescount.cn/moves/move134137513
You will notice that I burned 157 more calories on the one with the higher average heart rate. On one my average heart rate is 137 and the other it's 145.
This may not seem high to people who are younger and in much better shape than me, but I'm 59 and my max heart rate is 161 (results from a stress test), so i'm in zone 4 & 5 for most of these workouts.
I am pretty sure my body mass has not changed in one week.
Using HR to track calories burned during intervals is pointless. It's not accurate so the numbers you are using as proof probably aren't correct. The thing is, an HR monitor is a training tool, not a calorie burn estimator. The whole calorie burn crap is more marketing than anything.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Pretty sure it's a function of heart rate and time rather than body mass and distance.
Just quoting this again, not to start trouble, but just to show why this whole discussion took place.
Guess you missed this one...
The basic rule of cardio training is heart rate and time. Physical metrics are a factor to some degree (because everyone is different),
You only post little parts of what I say, but you're not trying to start trouble?
I'm not going to argue about this anymore, we've already hijacked this thread enough, and over such a trivial thing too.0 -
I did not see that line, and I apologize.
But let me add this.
I came of age in the 80's, when "feel the burn" and the kind of jargon about heart rate and being all intense about exercise was the rage.
You know what all of that did for me? Put me off exercise for years.
I know you feel that training for heart rate simplifies things for you, but you know what made it easy for me?
The advice: "If you can't carry on a conversation or sing a song, you're running too fast."
That was simple. I didn't have to remember any formulas, or zones or anything. I just had to try to sing.
I know this is moving away from the idea of calorie burns, but calorie burns and exercise being "effective" aren't really something I worry overmuch about. I worry about not injuring myself. When I first started running, my mindset was that I'd rather run properly so I could keep running consistently and not be sidelined by injury by trying to do too much, too soon in the name of training to some metric or another.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »As far as I've found in my (pitiful) running career. long runs (whether they are 20mins straight or 20 miles) always involve a slower pace than the intervals. The long run is all relative depending upon your current ability. I'd definitely agree that you should slow down and try to hit the time goal, mainly because part of those is learning how to be comfortable while running (which is inherently an uncomfortable activity for most of us).
Have you signed up for a race yet? If not, I think you should. Just having a goal to shoot for always made training motivation easier for me. Find a local charity 5k for right around the time you finish the program. Then work to the 10k, then your half. Miles always get easier
I competed in a 5k on Saturday and did HORRIBLE (my treadmill incline doesn't work and it has been a long time since I ran outside) but I am in training to participate in a half marathon next fall. I did it 2 years ago and I liked it but I didn't train properly so I wasn't last but it took me a very long time to finish and last year I didn't do much for running as I was trying to figure out what was up with my calves/shins
Are you using a treadmill to train for a half marathon?
I did/do. Do you find something inherently wrong with that?1 -
bcalvanese wrote: »As far as I've found in my (pitiful) running career. long runs (whether they are 20mins straight or 20 miles) always involve a slower pace than the intervals. The long run is all relative depending upon your current ability. I'd definitely agree that you should slow down and try to hit the time goal, mainly because part of those is learning how to be comfortable while running (which is inherently an uncomfortable activity for most of us).
Have you signed up for a race yet? If not, I think you should. Just having a goal to shoot for always made training motivation easier for me. Find a local charity 5k for right around the time you finish the program. Then work to the 10k, then your half. Miles always get easier
I competed in a 5k on Saturday and did HORRIBLE (my treadmill incline doesn't work and it has been a long time since I ran outside) but I am in training to participate in a half marathon next fall. I did it 2 years ago and I liked it but I didn't train properly so I wasn't last but it took me a very long time to finish and last year I didn't do much for running as I was trying to figure out what was up with my calves/shins
Are you using a treadmill to train for a half marathon?
I did/do. Do you find something inherently wrong with that?
I wouldn't say wrong, but I do think that training for running for a marathon would have better results running on the ground than a treadmill. On a treadmill, you're not actually pushing yourself forward as you would be running on the ground, and every step is the same on a treadmill where every step on the ground could be slightly different.
my sister runs 3 miles on her treadmill, but can't run 1 mile on the ground.
Certainly nothing wrong with treadmills for cardio, but I think if training for something you would want to train as close to the real thing as possible.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I came of age in the 80's, when "feel the burn" and the kind of jargon about heart rate and being all intense about exercise was the rage.
HR zone training has a place, although for the vast majority it's essentially pointless as you're trying to work out what HR to train at without any reliable knowledge of maximum HR, lactate threshold or cardiac threshold. Using the theoretical 220-age is a waste of time.
If one has access to a lab and can determine maximum HR, lactate and cardiac thresholds and VO2Max, and one is training for performance improvement, then there is potential value.
Bluntly, if one of my soldiers came back having done the Endurance Training Leaders Course and started advocating HR zone training then I'd not employ them as fitness trainers.
For the vast majority of people being able to talk whilst training is a good indicator of appropriate intensity.
1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I came of age in the 80's, when "feel the burn" and the kind of jargon about heart rate and being all intense about exercise was the rage.
HR zone training has a place, although for the vast majority it's essentially pointless as you're trying to work out what HR to train at without any reliable knowledge of maximum HR, lactate threshold or cardiac threshold. Using the theoretical 220-age is a waste of time.
If one has access to a lab and can determine maximum HR, lactate and cardiac thresholds and VO2Max, and one is training for performance improvement, then there is potential value.
Bluntly, if one of my soldiers came back having done the Endurance Training Leaders Course and started advocating HR zone training then I'd not employ them as fitness trainers.
For the vast majority of people being able to talk whilst training is a good indicator of appropriate intensity.
I'm a recreational runner with with two forms of arthritis. It was simply a goal of mine to be able to run for an hour, and I've met that goal. I now run for the love of it. I have no interest in running races or anything like that.
I understand that heart rate training has its place for more serious athletes, but I'm not in that category
I'm just someone doing something she never in a million years thought she'd be able to do.
I also am hoping someone knowledgeable like you will tackle the treadmill assertions being made.
I don't think they're true. Then again, I didn't start running on a treadmill until recently. I did all of my initial running until recently outside and on an indoor track. I'm really not noticing any difference on a treadmill other than not dealing with wind resistance.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I did not see that line, and I apologize.
But let me add this.
I came of age in the 80's, when "feel the burn" and the kind of jargon about heart rate and being all intense about exercise was the rage.
You know what all of that did for me? Put me off exercise for years.
I know you feel that training for heart rate simplifies things for you, but you know what made it easy for me?
The advice: "If you can't carry on a conversation or sing a song, you're running too fast."
That was simple. I didn't have to remember any formulas, or zones or anything. I just had to try to sing.
I know this is moving away from the idea of calorie burns, but calorie burns and exercise being "effective" aren't really something I worry overmuch about. I worry about not injuring myself. When I first started running, my mindset was that I'd rather run properly so I could keep running consistently and not be sidelined by injury by trying to do too much, too soon in the name of training to some metric or another.
I respect your opinions and I have read some about the breathing thing in the different zones too. not sure if it is as accurate as knowing heart rate, but it certainly is a way to ballpark ones training load. The thing with breathing (at least for me) is, as my fitness level increased, I was able to breath easier in higher heart rate zones. My breathing in zone 5 now feels like it used to feel in zone 4, and my breathing in zone 4 feels like it used to feel in zone 3. In zone 3 now, I don't even feel like I am getting a workout.
I like to stay in zone 4 & 5 now, and I prefer to push it to the point that I can only speak a few words at a time. That used to be zone 3 for me. now it's zone 4. I could only stay in zone 5 for about a minute before, and my last intense workout, I stayed in zone 5 for over an hour.
I guess what I'm trying to say is breathing is a factor that seems to change with fitness level, and maybe other factors, so to me, heart rate seems to be a more accurate approach then breathing, but I guess once you know your own body it would be good to use.
I use a GPS watch synced to a chest strap heart rate monitor, so I can simply glance at my wrist and see my heart rate at that point in time. Then I simply adjust my intensity to keep my heart rate where I want it. It also records and calculates everything for me, so I don't have to be bothered with all that stuff, and can focus on the workout.
I have a saying...
"if you ain't huffing and puffing and sweating, you ain't doing it right"
I know that may sound a little hard core to some people, but it helps keep me motivated...:)0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I came of age in the 80's, when "feel the burn" and the kind of jargon about heart rate and being all intense about exercise was the rage.
HR zone training has a place, although for the vast majority it's essentially pointless as you're trying to work out what HR to train at without any reliable knowledge of maximum HR, lactate threshold or cardiac threshold. Using the theoretical 220-age is a waste of time.
If one has access to a lab and can determine maximum HR, lactate and cardiac thresholds and VO2Max, and one is training for performance improvement, then there is potential value.
Bluntly, if one of my soldiers came back having done the Endurance Training Leaders Course and started advocating HR zone training then I'd not employ them as fitness trainers.
For the vast majority of people being able to talk whilst training is a good indicator of appropriate intensity.
I'm a recreational runner with with two forms of arthritis. It was simply a goal of mine to be able to run for an hour, and I've met that goal. I now run for the love of it. I have no interest in running races or anything like that.
I understand that heart rate training has its place for more serious athletes, but I'm not in that category
I'm just someone doing something she never in a million years thought she'd be able to do.
I also am hoping someone knowledgeable like you will tackle the treadmill assertions being made.
I don't think they're true. Then again, I didn't start running on a treadmill until recently. I did all of my initial running until recently outside and on an indoor track. I'm really not noticing any difference on a treadmill other than not dealing with wind resistance.
What have you heard about treadmills?
It is true that it is easier to run on a treadmill. It is also very true that they are the most boring machine ever invented.
Not sure what else I could say. I do my best to avoid them. 0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I came of age in the 80's, when "feel the burn" and the kind of jargon about heart rate and being all intense about exercise was the rage.
HR zone training has a place, although for the vast majority it's essentially pointless as you're trying to work out what HR to train at without any reliable knowledge of maximum HR, lactate threshold or cardiac threshold. Using the theoretical 220-age is a waste of time.
If one has access to a lab and can determine maximum HR, lactate and cardiac thresholds and VO2Max, and one is training for performance improvement, then there is potential value.
Bluntly, if one of my soldiers came back having done the Endurance Training Leaders Course and started advocating HR zone training then I'd not employ them as fitness trainers.
For the vast majority of people being able to talk whilst training is a good indicator of appropriate intensity.
I'm a recreational runner with with two forms of arthritis. It was simply a goal of mine to be able to run for an hour, and I've met that goal. I now run for the love of it. I have no interest in running races or anything like that.
I understand that heart rate training has its place for more serious athletes, but I'm not in that category
I'm just someone doing something she never in a million years thought she'd be able to do.
I also am hoping someone knowledgeable like you will tackle the treadmill assertions being made.
I don't think they're true. Then again, I didn't start running on a treadmill until recently. I did all of my initial running until recently outside and on an indoor track. I'm really not noticing any difference on a treadmill other than not dealing with wind resistance.
What have you heard about treadmills?
It is true that it is easier to run on a treadmill. It is also very true that they are the most boring machine ever invented. Not sure what else I could say. I do my best to avoid them.
I'm not thrilled about them either, but I recently had to quit my gym with the indoor track, and I do not handle the cold very well.
Needs must.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I did not see that line, and I apologize.
But let me add this.
I came of age in the 80's, when "feel the burn" and the kind of jargon about heart rate and being all intense about exercise was the rage.
You know what all of that did for me? Put me off exercise for years.
I know you feel that training for heart rate simplifies things for you, but you know what made it easy for me?
The advice: "If you can't carry on a conversation or sing a song, you're running too fast."
That was simple. I didn't have to remember any formulas, or zones or anything. I just had to try to sing.
I know this is moving away from the idea of calorie burns, but calorie burns and exercise being "effective" aren't really something I worry overmuch about. I worry about not injuring myself. When I first started running, my mindset was that I'd rather run properly so I could keep running consistently and not be sidelined by injury by trying to do too much, too soon in the name of training to some metric or another.
I respect your opinions and I have read some about the breathing thing in the different zones too. not sure if it is as accurate as knowing heart rate, but it certainly is a way to ballpark ones training load. The thing with breathing (at least for me) is, as my fitness level increased, I was able to breath easier in higher heart rate zones. My breathing in zone 5 now feels like it used to feel in zone 4, and my breathing in zone 4 feels like it used to feel in zone 3. In zone 3 now, I don't even feel like I am getting a workout.
I like to stay in zone 4 & 5 now, and I prefer to push it to the point that I can only speak a few words at a time. That used to be zone 3 for me. now it's zone 4. I could only stay in zone 5 for about a minute before, and my last intense workout, I stayed in zone 5 for over an hour.
I guess what I'm trying to say is breathing is a factor that seems to change with fitness level, and maybe other factors, so to me, heart rate seems to be a more accurate approach then breathing, but I guess once you know your own body it would be good to use.
I use a GPS watch synced to a chest strap heart rate monitor, so I can simply glance at my wrist and see my heart rate at that point in time. Then I simply adjust my intensity to keep my heart rate where I want it. It also records and calculates everything for me, so I don't have to be bothered with all that stuff, and can focus on the workout.
I have a saying...
"if you ain't huffing and puffing and sweating, you ain't doing it right"
I know that may sound a little hard core to some people, but it helps keep me motivated...:)
We disagree on your saying
Firstly, sweating is not a metric of effort. It just means that you're hot. I'm personally not a person who is prone to sweating, even from very hot weather. I don't really sweat from exercise. That doesn't mean I'm not working hard enough. I've obviously had results from my training efforts, so something I'm doing is working.
As for huffing and puffing, that goes back to the mentality from the 80's that turned me off exercise. I've become pretty fit building that fitness slowly and gradually without overly pushing myself by taking a gentler approach with things. This doesn't mean I don't challenge myself, but there's a line between a gentle challenge where you still have enough in the tank to go out the next day and "huffing and puffing" to the point where it's more uncomfortable than exhilarating.
Maybe our differences in this discussion are just semantic. I see exercise as a pleasurable challenge of one's abilities. I think you see it as more of a test of grit or something and like the idea of all-out effort. Even on my hard runs, I'm never huffing and puffing. Mildly breathless? Yup.
At any rate, since this discussion started out about the C25K program, the idea that "if you ain't huffing and puffing and sweating, you ain't doing it right" is probably wrong-headed for a beginner. New runners should most definitely be running as slow as possible and not huffing and puffing at all.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions