Clean eating- does it matter?
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »This thread truly is the gift that keeps on giving.
It is, but it's kind of like the gift from Great Aunt Martha, where may be a gift, but it's also something you grew out of years ago but she keeps insisting on giving you the same thing, year after year and you have to be polite and pretend you like it...7 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »This thread truly is the gift that keeps on giving.
It is, but it's kind of like the gift from Great Aunt Martha, where may be a gift, but it's also something you grew out of years ago but she keeps insisting on giving you the same thing, year after year and you have to be polite and pretend you like it...
Hahahahaha we've all got a great aunt Martha. It's usually socks or tea towels for me.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »This thread truly is the gift that keeps on giving.
It is, but it's kind of like the gift from Great Aunt Martha, where may be a gift, but it's also something you grew out of years ago but she keeps insisting on giving you the same thing, year after year and you have to be polite and pretend you like it...
Hahahahaha we've all got a great aunt Martha. It's usually socks or tea towels for me.
Or mints with lint stuck to them.4 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »This thread truly is the gift that keeps on giving.
It is, but it's kind of like the gift from Great Aunt Martha, where may be a gift, but it's also something you grew out of years ago but she keeps insisting on giving you the same thing, year after year and you have to be polite and pretend you like it...
Hahahahaha we've all got a great aunt Martha. It's usually socks or tea towels for me.
Or mints with lint stuck to them.
She could at least have given you clean, lint free mints. Geez. Get with the thread, aunt Martha!3 -
This thread has taught me that I have apparently done it all wrong... Sad I am.2
-
paperpudding wrote: »
At the kind of deficits we're talking about here? Yeah, that's broscience. Doesn't really happen.
Interesting... so the lowered energy expenditure, slower metabolism and what we call plateaus are just bro science, my example isn't of impovershed conditions so please stop taking it out of context and going to the extreme, its in relation to the person who thinks eating at 1000 calorie deficit will equate to more weight loss and now they are eating way lower cals than they should, this person will not have any sustained weight loss, the body will slow down to save energy and depending on the food thats coming in they can store fat, lose muscle and be worse off than when they started ... search through the forum plenty of examples of this very thing, the " i don't know whats happening" posts " help gaining weight and don't know why" ..... i digress though, lol hey if its bro science then thats cool because everything ive done to this point has worked
Your attempt to identify cases where people don't know what's happening as gaining weight from decreased calorie consumption is like when people see something they don't understand in the sky and conclude that this unidentified flying object must be an alien spacecraft. No, it's unidentified. That means you don't know what it is. But someone else might. It's the same here. Do I really need to paste that flowchart in here?
I'm speaking from experience, as someone who for a stretch was regularly underestimating his daily consumption by about 700 calories. I was losing -- but not as fast as I might have, and probably because of my exercise burn. It's very easy to miscount your calories if you're not careful. So when I see people insist they're only eating X calories and they're gaining, I take it with a very large grain of water-retaining salt.
Now, what the wrong choice of macros in calorie reduction with insufficient exercise might to do body composition is another matter entirely, but we're talking about weight loss here, not other fitness goals.
Semantics... lets be real here, no one is ok with losing weight just to see a lower number on the scale, the goal isn't to drop weight and gain fat, so yes we are discussing other fitness goals and body composition as they go hand in hand... who in life has set out to lose 40 lbs and increase bf percentage, this mentality is why people end up skinny fat sometimes with a higher percentage of bf than they began with because instead of fat they lost water and muscle... i equate weight gain with fat gain, its not just a number on a scale yes i can gain water weight, yes i can gain muscle, but i really only care about the fat because gaining that is where the problems are ...who looks in the mirror and is like damn I'm 40% bf but *kitten* i lost 10lbs water weight almost at my goal.. lol
Well, yes,some people are ok with just losing weight to see a lower number on the scale or to fit into a wedding dress or those sort of non health related goals.
They aren't setting out to increase bf % and I doubt anyone loses weight and increases their bf % to 40% anyway.
And ,No, we are not discussing fitness goals and body composition - the question was 'clean eating - does it matter for weight loss?'
And simple answer - No it doesn't.
Calorie deficit does.
Eating a reasonably nutritious balanced diet matters for health - but doesn't have to be the extreme clean super disciplined no treats for a month thing you are advocating.
40% was an exaggerated random number i tossed out to make a point ... lets try this..
Lets say someone is starting at 32% bf 5'8 225lbs (I'm making up numbers so no need to tell me how this is inaccurate lol) they have a goal to reach 200lbs, they eat at a caloric deficit of 1000 cals and only consume 1200 a day... they hit their macro goals though, but mind you these macros aren't accurate because of the deficit they are also getting fats and carbs from candy and cookies, or whatever unhealthy option you want to say... calories in vs calories out would say this person will lose weight, the number on the scale will drop.. yaaay they hit 200lbs but have lost muscle and water and a little fat... but they are still, well, fat... at this point does the number on the scale matter? This isn't a realistic approach to weight loss if you start at 32% and end at 30%, increasing calories and eating at an appropriate deficit and eating clean foods that contain less of the "bad stuff" will always equal better results, when i hear people encourage this eat what you want thing especially on a platform like this this is what i think of. This is why i am so passionate about clean strict nutrition, when you've reached your goals and have maintained them for a period of time and the weight loss is sustainable then yeah you can be a little more relaxed, you've already done the work, you at this point know how your body responds to certain foods and exercise, but to say eating clean makes no difference is crazy and its all calories in vs calories out .. nah still not buying that one at all, America is soooo obese, now look at countries where processed and fast foods aren't the norm, obesity isn't much of an issue. Yes this is due to portions and sedentary American lifestyles and over indulgence but its also about the quality of food, 500 calories from rice is going to be utilized in the body much better than 500 calories from a slice of cheesecake, both carbs, same calories but the body will break these down and utilize these two in a much different way
why is it always a false choice between 100% clean and 100% dirty foods? The point that has been made several times, and that you keep ignoring, is that what matters is the context of the overall diet. If you meet your micros and macros and have 200 calories left for the day, what difference does it make it you get 200 calories from oreos, or from carrots? Your body can only process so many nutrients, and macro requirements are set as minimums, not maximums.
Absolutely no one in this thread is making the argument that if you eat a diet of "junk" that you will get extra lean or will meet advanced body composition goals. However, a lot of people don't care about getting super lean or dropping body fat, they just want to get a reasonable body weight and don't care about anything else.
Finally, there are no bad foods, just bad diets.
500 calories from rice = 500 calories of cheesecake, the difference is that they do not contain the same nutritional profile.
Please tell me how your body knows the difference between the cheesecake carb and the rice carb...
3 -
paperpudding wrote: »
At the kind of deficits we're talking about here? Yeah, that's broscience. Doesn't really happen.
Interesting... so the lowered energy expenditure, slower metabolism and what we call plateaus are just bro science, my example isn't of impovershed conditions so please stop taking it out of context and going to the extreme, its in relation to the person who thinks eating at 1000 calorie deficit will equate to more weight loss and now they are eating way lower cals than they should, this person will not have any sustained weight loss, the body will slow down to save energy and depending on the food thats coming in they can store fat, lose muscle and be worse off than when they started ... search through the forum plenty of examples of this very thing, the " i don't know whats happening" posts " help gaining weight and don't know why" ..... i digress though, lol hey if its bro science then thats cool because everything ive done to this point has worked
Your attempt to identify cases where people don't know what's happening as gaining weight from decreased calorie consumption is like when people see something they don't understand in the sky and conclude that this unidentified flying object must be an alien spacecraft. No, it's unidentified. That means you don't know what it is. But someone else might. It's the same here. Do I really need to paste that flowchart in here?
I'm speaking from experience, as someone who for a stretch was regularly underestimating his daily consumption by about 700 calories. I was losing -- but not as fast as I might have, and probably because of my exercise burn. It's very easy to miscount your calories if you're not careful. So when I see people insist they're only eating X calories and they're gaining, I take it with a very large grain of water-retaining salt.
Now, what the wrong choice of macros in calorie reduction with insufficient exercise might to do body composition is another matter entirely, but we're talking about weight loss here, not other fitness goals.
Semantics... lets be real here, no one is ok with losing weight just to see a lower number on the scale, the goal isn't to drop weight and gain fat, so yes we are discussing other fitness goals and body composition as they go hand in hand... who in life has set out to lose 40 lbs and increase bf percentage, this mentality is why people end up skinny fat sometimes with a higher percentage of bf than they began with because instead of fat they lost water and muscle... i equate weight gain with fat gain, its not just a number on a scale yes i can gain water weight, yes i can gain muscle, but i really only care about the fat because gaining that is where the problems are ...who looks in the mirror and is like damn I'm 40% bf but *kitten* i lost 10lbs water weight almost at my goal.. lol
Well, yes,some people are ok with just losing weight to see a lower number on the scale or to fit into a wedding dress or those sort of non health related goals.
They aren't setting out to increase bf % and I doubt anyone loses weight and increases their bf % to 40% anyway.
And ,No, we are not discussing fitness goals and body composition - the question was 'clean eating - does it matter for weight loss?'
And simple answer - No it doesn't.
Calorie deficit does.
Eating a reasonably nutritious balanced diet matters for health - but doesn't have to be the extreme clean super disciplined no treats for a month thing you are advocating.
40% was an exaggerated random number i tossed out to make a point ... lets try this..
Lets say someone is starting at 32% bf 5'8 225lbs (I'm making up numbers so no need to tell me how this is inaccurate lol) they have a goal to reach 200lbs, they eat at a caloric deficit of 1000 cals and only consume 1200 a day... they hit their macro goals though, but mind you these macros aren't accurate because of the deficit they are also getting fats and carbs from candy and cookies, or whatever unhealthy option you want to say... calories in vs calories out would say this person will lose weight, the number on the scale will drop.. yaaay they hit 200lbs but have lost muscle and water and a little fat... but they are still, well, fat... at this point does the number on the scale matter? This isn't a realistic approach to weight loss if you start at 32% and end at 30%, increasing calories and eating at an appropriate deficit and eating clean foods that contain less of the "bad stuff" will always equal better results, when i hear people encourage this eat what you want thing especially on a platform like this this is what i think of. This is why i am so passionate about clean strict nutrition, when you've reached your goals and have maintained them for a period of time and the weight loss is sustainable then yeah you can be a little more relaxed, you've already done the work, you at this point know how your body responds to certain foods and exercise, but to say eating clean makes no difference is crazy and its all calories in vs calories out .. nah still not buying that one at all, America is soooo obese, now look at countries where processed and fast foods aren't the norm, obesity isn't much of an issue. Yes this is due to portions and sedentary American lifestyles and over indulgence but its also about the quality of food, 500 calories from rice is going to be utilized in the body much better than 500 calories from a slice of cheesecake, both carbs, same calories but the body will break these down and utilize these two in a much different way
why is it always a false choice between 100% clean and 100% dirty foods? The point that has been made several times, and that you keep ignoring, is that what matters is the context of the overall diet. If you meet your micros and macros and have 200 calories left for the day, what difference does it make it you get 200 calories from oreos, or from carrots? Your body can only process so many nutrients, and macro requirements are set as minimums, not maximums.
Absolutely no one in this thread is making the argument that if you eat a diet of "junk" that you will get extra lean or will meet advanced body composition goals. However, a lot of people don't care about getting super lean or dropping body fat, they just want to get a reasonable body weight and don't care about anything else.
Finally, there are no bad foods, just bad diets.
500 calories from rice = 500 calories of cheesecake, the difference is that they do not contain the same nutritional profile.
Please tell me how your body knows the difference between the cheesecake carb and the rice carb...
Plus the cheesecake has fibre from crust, protein from the cheese and calcium from the cheese plus some other things including fat. So actually more nutritionally dense than rice. I enjoy both.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
At the kind of deficits we're talking about here? Yeah, that's broscience. Doesn't really happen.
Interesting... so the lowered energy expenditure, slower metabolism and what we call plateaus are just bro science, my example isn't of impovershed conditions so please stop taking it out of context and going to the extreme, its in relation to the person who thinks eating at 1000 calorie deficit will equate to more weight loss and now they are eating way lower cals than they should, this person will not have any sustained weight loss, the body will slow down to save energy and depending on the food thats coming in they can store fat, lose muscle and be worse off than when they started ... search through the forum plenty of examples of this very thing, the " i don't know whats happening" posts " help gaining weight and don't know why" ..... i digress though, lol hey if its bro science then thats cool because everything ive done to this point has worked
Your attempt to identify cases where people don't know what's happening as gaining weight from decreased calorie consumption is like when people see something they don't understand in the sky and conclude that this unidentified flying object must be an alien spacecraft. No, it's unidentified. That means you don't know what it is. But someone else might. It's the same here. Do I really need to paste that flowchart in here?
I'm speaking from experience, as someone who for a stretch was regularly underestimating his daily consumption by about 700 calories. I was losing -- but not as fast as I might have, and probably because of my exercise burn. It's very easy to miscount your calories if you're not careful. So when I see people insist they're only eating X calories and they're gaining, I take it with a very large grain of water-retaining salt.
Now, what the wrong choice of macros in calorie reduction with insufficient exercise might to do body composition is another matter entirely, but we're talking about weight loss here, not other fitness goals.
Semantics... lets be real here, no one is ok with losing weight just to see a lower number on the scale, the goal isn't to drop weight and gain fat, so yes we are discussing other fitness goals and body composition as they go hand in hand... who in life has set out to lose 40 lbs and increase bf percentage, this mentality is why people end up skinny fat sometimes with a higher percentage of bf than they began with because instead of fat they lost water and muscle... i equate weight gain with fat gain, its not just a number on a scale yes i can gain water weight, yes i can gain muscle, but i really only care about the fat because gaining that is where the problems are ...who looks in the mirror and is like damn I'm 40% bf but *kitten* i lost 10lbs water weight almost at my goal.. lol
Well, yes,some people are ok with just losing weight to see a lower number on the scale or to fit into a wedding dress or those sort of non health related goals.
They aren't setting out to increase bf % and I doubt anyone loses weight and increases their bf % to 40% anyway.
And ,No, we are not discussing fitness goals and body composition - the question was 'clean eating - does it matter for weight loss?'
And simple answer - No it doesn't.
Calorie deficit does.
Eating a reasonably nutritious balanced diet matters for health - but doesn't have to be the extreme clean super disciplined no treats for a month thing you are advocating.
40% was an exaggerated random number i tossed out to make a point ... lets try this..
Lets say someone is starting at 32% bf 5'8 225lbs (I'm making up numbers so no need to tell me how this is inaccurate lol) they have a goal to reach 200lbs, they eat at a caloric deficit of 1000 cals and only consume 1200 a day... they hit their macro goals though, but mind you these macros aren't accurate because of the deficit they are also getting fats and carbs from candy and cookies, or whatever unhealthy option you want to say... calories in vs calories out would say this person will lose weight, the number on the scale will drop.. yaaay they hit 200lbs but have lost muscle and water and a little fat... but they are still, well, fat... at this point does the number on the scale matter? This isn't a realistic approach to weight loss if you start at 32% and end at 30%, increasing calories and eating at an appropriate deficit and eating clean foods that contain less of the "bad stuff" will always equal better results, when i hear people encourage this eat what you want thing especially on a platform like this this is what i think of. This is why i am so passionate about clean strict nutrition, when you've reached your goals and have maintained them for a period of time and the weight loss is sustainable then yeah you can be a little more relaxed, you've already done the work, you at this point know how your body responds to certain foods and exercise, but to say eating clean makes no difference is crazy and its all calories in vs calories out .. nah still not buying that one at all, America is soooo obese, now look at countries where processed and fast foods aren't the norm, obesity isn't much of an issue. Yes this is due to portions and sedentary American lifestyles and over indulgence but its also about the quality of food, 500 calories from rice is going to be utilized in the body much better than 500 calories from a slice of cheesecake, both carbs, same calories but the body will break these down and utilize these two in a much different way
why is it always a false choice between 100% clean and 100% dirty foods? The point that has been made several times, and that you keep ignoring, is that what matters is the context of the overall diet. If you meet your micros and macros and have 200 calories left for the day, what difference does it make it you get 200 calories from oreos, or from carrots? Your body can only process so many nutrients, and macro requirements are set as minimums, not maximums.
Absolutely no one in this thread is making the argument that if you eat a diet of "junk" that you will get extra lean or will meet advanced body composition goals. However, a lot of people don't care about getting super lean or dropping body fat, they just want to get a reasonable body weight and don't care about anything else.
Finally, there are no bad foods, just bad diets.
500 calories from rice = 500 calories of cheesecake, the difference is that they do not contain the same nutritional profile.
Please tell me how your body knows the difference between the cheesecake carb and the rice carb...
Plus the cheesecake has fibre from crust, protein from the cheese and calcium from the cheese plus some other things including fat. So actually more nutritionally dense than rice. I enjoy both.
You could have rice pudding, as well. It hits all macros!2 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
At the kind of deficits we're talking about here? Yeah, that's broscience. Doesn't really happen.
Interesting... so the lowered energy expenditure, slower metabolism and what we call plateaus are just bro science, my example isn't of impovershed conditions so please stop taking it out of context and going to the extreme, its in relation to the person who thinks eating at 1000 calorie deficit will equate to more weight loss and now they are eating way lower cals than they should, this person will not have any sustained weight loss, the body will slow down to save energy and depending on the food thats coming in they can store fat, lose muscle and be worse off than when they started ... search through the forum plenty of examples of this very thing, the " i don't know whats happening" posts " help gaining weight and don't know why" ..... i digress though, lol hey if its bro science then thats cool because everything ive done to this point has worked
Your attempt to identify cases where people don't know what's happening as gaining weight from decreased calorie consumption is like when people see something they don't understand in the sky and conclude that this unidentified flying object must be an alien spacecraft. No, it's unidentified. That means you don't know what it is. But someone else might. It's the same here. Do I really need to paste that flowchart in here?
I'm speaking from experience, as someone who for a stretch was regularly underestimating his daily consumption by about 700 calories. I was losing -- but not as fast as I might have, and probably because of my exercise burn. It's very easy to miscount your calories if you're not careful. So when I see people insist they're only eating X calories and they're gaining, I take it with a very large grain of water-retaining salt.
Now, what the wrong choice of macros in calorie reduction with insufficient exercise might to do body composition is another matter entirely, but we're talking about weight loss here, not other fitness goals.
Semantics... lets be real here, no one is ok with losing weight just to see a lower number on the scale, the goal isn't to drop weight and gain fat, so yes we are discussing other fitness goals and body composition as they go hand in hand... who in life has set out to lose 40 lbs and increase bf percentage, this mentality is why people end up skinny fat sometimes with a higher percentage of bf than they began with because instead of fat they lost water and muscle... i equate weight gain with fat gain, its not just a number on a scale yes i can gain water weight, yes i can gain muscle, but i really only care about the fat because gaining that is where the problems are ...who looks in the mirror and is like damn I'm 40% bf but *kitten* i lost 10lbs water weight almost at my goal.. lol
Well, yes,some people are ok with just losing weight to see a lower number on the scale or to fit into a wedding dress or those sort of non health related goals.
They aren't setting out to increase bf % and I doubt anyone loses weight and increases their bf % to 40% anyway.
And ,No, we are not discussing fitness goals and body composition - the question was 'clean eating - does it matter for weight loss?'
And simple answer - No it doesn't.
Calorie deficit does.
Eating a reasonably nutritious balanced diet matters for health - but doesn't have to be the extreme clean super disciplined no treats for a month thing you are advocating.
40% was an exaggerated random number i tossed out to make a point ... lets try this..
Lets say someone is starting at 32% bf 5'8 225lbs (I'm making up numbers so no need to tell me how this is inaccurate lol) they have a goal to reach 200lbs, they eat at a caloric deficit of 1000 cals and only consume 1200 a day... they hit their macro goals though, but mind you these macros aren't accurate because of the deficit they are also getting fats and carbs from candy and cookies, or whatever unhealthy option you want to say... calories in vs calories out would say this person will lose weight, the number on the scale will drop.. yaaay they hit 200lbs but have lost muscle and water and a little fat... but they are still, well, fat... at this point does the number on the scale matter? This isn't a realistic approach to weight loss if you start at 32% and end at 30%, increasing calories and eating at an appropriate deficit and eating clean foods that contain less of the "bad stuff" will always equal better results, when i hear people encourage this eat what you want thing especially on a platform like this this is what i think of. This is why i am so passionate about clean strict nutrition, when you've reached your goals and have maintained them for a period of time and the weight loss is sustainable then yeah you can be a little more relaxed, you've already done the work, you at this point know how your body responds to certain foods and exercise, but to say eating clean makes no difference is crazy and its all calories in vs calories out .. nah still not buying that one at all, America is soooo obese, now look at countries where processed and fast foods aren't the norm, obesity isn't much of an issue. Yes this is due to portions and sedentary American lifestyles and over indulgence but its also about the quality of food, 500 calories from rice is going to be utilized in the body much better than 500 calories from a slice of cheesecake, both carbs, same calories but the body will break these down and utilize these two in a much different way
why is it always a false choice between 100% clean and 100% dirty foods? The point that has been made several times, and that you keep ignoring, is that what matters is the context of the overall diet. If you meet your micros and macros and have 200 calories left for the day, what difference does it make it you get 200 calories from oreos, or from carrots? Your body can only process so many nutrients, and macro requirements are set as minimums, not maximums.
Absolutely no one in this thread is making the argument that if you eat a diet of "junk" that you will get extra lean or will meet advanced body composition goals. However, a lot of people don't care about getting super lean or dropping body fat, they just want to get a reasonable body weight and don't care about anything else.
Finally, there are no bad foods, just bad diets.
500 calories from rice = 500 calories of cheesecake, the difference is that they do not contain the same nutritional profile.
Please tell me how your body knows the difference between the cheesecake carb and the rice carb...
Plus the cheesecake has fibre from crust, protein from the cheese and calcium from the cheese plus some other things including fat. So actually more nutritionally dense than rice. I enjoy both.
You could have rice pudding, as well. It hits all macros!
Oh man do I love rice pudding. Baked so you get a skin. Excuse me while I have a moment.
And to add. If it's baked cheesecake (I prefer unbaked) than you also get all the good stuff from eggs.3 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »This thread truly is the gift that keeps on giving.
It is, but it's kind of like the gift from Great Aunt Martha, where may be a gift, but it's also something you grew out of years ago but she keeps insisting on giving you the same thing, year after year and you have to be polite and pretend you like it...
Hahahahaha we've all got a great aunt Martha. It's usually socks or tea towels for me.
Or mints with lint stuck to them.
She could at least have given you clean, lint free mints. Geez. Get with the thread, aunt Martha!
Poor Aunt Martha, not even here to defend herself. Why does she keep so many package free mints in the bottom of her purse?1 -
I'm not spewing some illogical broscience, I've done my due diligence on the subject. People are so caught up in whats familiar or what the general consensus is that they just totally negate any shred of evidence I've provided and albeit my approach may not be the best but i don't coddle people when it comes to fitness, obviously discipline and will power are key issues for people who struggle with weight and sometimes things need to be said how they are, it may not be the asnwer people are looking for but no one is going to tell me its not the truth ... to me the eat what you want approach is just an excuse for not holding yourself accountable because "its too hard to be so restricted" "i have to have cookies and burgers and cakes or else i won't stick to my diet" .... lmao wtf
I'm failing to see how people who have lost weight and are successfully doing so and/or maintaining are not holding themselves accountable. Just because I have whatever I want, fitting in my calorie goals - I'm not being accountable? I'm pretty sure those hours at the gym and hundreds of miles I'm running are holding me quite accountable. Who cares if someone has to eat cookies and burgers and cakes because they won't stick to their diet? If they are losing weight, why does it matter to you what manner it's in? At the end of the day, weighing less and eating not "clean" is a hell of a lot healthier than being fat and still eating "clean". You can eat clean and be fat. So who cares. You do you.
I know this was pointless to post, but there was another thread recently that someone was basically calling everyone ignorant who didn't agree with him - this one just irked me too.
Will you convincing all of us your way is the best way save the world? Will you win the lottery in life because you converted everyone to your way of thinking? Is it possible that there are many other ways to achieve the same goal?
Here's a simple analogy - weight-loss is like traveling. Lets say we're all going to the same end point. We are all beginning at different starting points. You can take a plane, train, boat, ship, raft, car, bike, walk, run, horse, sled, etc to the same location... and the end result is still the same. You got there.3 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
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