Eating what you want within calories vs Keto within calories
Replies
-
Just wondering how many of you have tried both keto (within your calorie limit) & eating whatever you want (within your calorie limit)? What did you find was easier to do?
Oh, man. The hard part is sticking to your calories. Being able to have a raspberry smoothie after a long bike ride is a lot easier than having to use butter to flavor your coffee.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »Hi guys!
Just wondering how many of you have tried both keto (within your calorie limit) & eating whatever you want (within your calorie limit)? What did you find was easier to do?
I've tried eating anything I want to a set calorie goal many times. Failed them all every time as well lol. If I say to myself, go ahead and have that reese's pbc just count the cals...by the end of the day the whole bag is gone and I'm back to square one.
But then you AREN'T eating a balanced diet within your calorie limit, right?I would always feel intense hunger on a CICO only diet as well. 24/7. Going to bed, waking up and in the middle of the day, hunger.
There are usually other ways of eating that control this besides keto.
Not saying you shouldn't do keto if you like it -- I think keto can be a good choice for some. But so often people switch from a diet that wasn't particularly what is normally recommended for health or satiety (for example, includes a lot of candy or other junk foods, not a lot of veg or other sources of fiber, maybe lower on protein than what they later adopt) and then blame "carbs" or not doing keto for their hunger issues.
I think for some of us, a LCHF, often keto, diet is what is left after you remove those trigger foods that prevent us from eating within our calories limit. (I wouldn't say "balanced" as that is a personal interpretation, IMO.)
Yes, I think that's possible, but so many people say that they raised protein and vegetables eating low carb that I think many don't genuinely try eating a sensible healthful diet that has higher carbs (for many the "trigger" foods seem to be things like candy, as the poster mentioned, and not oats or apples or corn, and yet "carbs" are blamed vs. "hyperpalatable foods" or eating an unbalanced, not particularly satisfying diet before going keto).
I do agree that for some -- you are one, there are some other frequent lower carb posters -- there does seem to be an issue with any higher carb foods (like starches in general, fruit) making a diet less satiating. My pet theory is that this may be related to a problem with insulin resistance, but who knows, but I see many others who claim that "cutting carbs" made the diet more filling when the prior diet wasn't close to what anyone would call satiating or healthful and included lots of foods that are high fat AND high carb that for some reason get classified as "carbs" (like donuts, chips).
I also think that independent of what macro is most satiating that some do have issues with hunger and that keto (probably because for the body it mimicks starvation in some ways) tends to kill the appetite. I suspect that most people who eat a healthful diet with more carbs won't have hunger as a major thing (or can deal with mental hunger by breaking bad habits), but I do think people are different and for some this effect of keto can be enormously valuable (while for others it never kicks in or is counterproductive).
All I object to are: (a) claims that "carbs" aren't filling when what people are referring to are specific carbs (like candy, donuts) that often also are high in fat, (b) claims that we all find fat filling and carbs not; and (c) claims that anyone not doing keto/low carb will be struggling with hunger or cravings. There are ways I can eat that DO cause hunger or cravings to be a problem (I shifted away from them naturally, as I think anyone sensible should), but it has nothing to do with carb %.
I think that insulin resistance does have an effect on hunger and which foods keep you full. Large blood sugar swings defintely play a part in my experiences. I don't agree that its because it mimics starvation, unless you consider steadier blood sugar as being similar to starvation.
I realize that you feel that foods that cause hunger or craving problems have nothing to do with carb percentages. We differ there. Your experiences with food, hunger and overeating are quite foreign to me just like it appears mine are to you.My trigger foods are sugars and starches. That leaves meats, seafood, eggs, dairy, veggies and some fruit. That tends towards low carb (under 100-150g of carbs per day) very naturally. Many people eat low carb because they have chosen those foods. Their macros naturally land there. I think you fall around that range (correct me if I am wrong).
Yes, I naturally end up around 150 g carbs when at maintenance and less (more like 100-125 g) when at a deficit, and I really enjoy eating that way as it allows me to eat a bit more fat which isn't specifically satiating to me (protein is, so is fiber and some other carbs like potatoes, and I find just a plate of vegetables pretty filling or a piece of fruit), but which I love and find makes my diet overall more enjoyable. I've tried lower fat since I've toyed with plant based, and tend to be less satisfied although never hungry. I'm more apt to desire other foods in a hedonistic way than when eating a higher fat and protein diet. And yes, I naturally think of the meat or other source of protein plus vegetables as making a full meal and other things as extras, so that's how I naturally tend to eat. That happens without me watching macros at all and did when I was gaining weight too, which is why for me I know just cutting carbs doesn't ensure weight loss/maintenance.
But all that aside, I don't think of my carb percentage as low carb -- it's moderate carb. I'd say at a lower cal level low is under 100 g, and of course that's WAY above keto.
There are no carb percentages for low carb, at least that I know of. Low carb is under 100-150g of carbs. Those that go with 100g are often using net carbs. I suppose some would consider your diet to be moderate carb. Others will call it low carb.
Keto is under 50g by most definitions. Your carbs are about twice as high as a keto'er but about half a much as a typical moderate carb diet. IMO.Others, like me, landed at that diet/food choices because of our chosen macros. For me, I knew I needed to eat fewer carbs due to IR. We ended up with similar food choices but approached it from different directions.
Yeah, I agree with this, except I don't think we have similar food choices, really. But I see nothing wrong with lower carb and would probably fall within the broadest lower carb umbrella myself, certainly when at a deficit. I've experimented with trying to force myself to eat higher carb to see if it helped my training and concluded that even if it did, a little, I really don't like eating that way and prefer percentages for low carbvvmore moderate carb or slightly lower carb for me personally. I also often write about how I think low carb can be a good choice for people (including keto), so long as it doesn't mean cutting out/giving up on vegetables, of course, and that what people find satisfying and satiating is individual. I think I understand why people would find low carb preferable and recommend that anyone interested experiment with it.
This is why I find it frustrating that you seem to peg me as anti LC or complain when I point out that it's not the right choice for everyone and that traditional healthy diets are commonly higher carb. My point is never that low carb is bad, but only that low carb isn't right for everyone or somehow inherently healthier, especially if people focus on their reaction to low nutrient/high fat and carb junk foods as what "carbs" are.
(I include this last paragraph as I would like to get past this as I don't think we are as far apart on all this as you often seem to believe, from my reading of your comments toward me.)
I think our food choices are quite similar. The quanity of those choices varies. I don't eat as much plant foods as you because it bothers my stomach and affects my BG. I don't believe these are issues you are limited by.
I have no idea why you found my comments above as pegging you as anti-LC. I don't see why you perceived what I wrote as complaining about something you said. I was attempting to build on what you had written and point out the similarities in how we eat. We both tend to skip what some would label as "bad carbs". I realize you have not said that low carb is bad, just as I hope you realize that I did not write that low carb is the only true path to good health.
The bolded is basically what my initial reply was all about.1 -
Fortunately there's a gigantic continuum of food selections between "keto" and "eat whatever I want".
In my opinion, there's a good probability that you just need to modify your food choices to improve satiety without necessarily going on a ketogenic diet.
I feel like we are discussing the endpoints here and excluding the middle.
This is what I don't get. Just because you can eat anything, doesn't mean people should be eating like crap all day long. I tend to keep carbs around 300g a day, protein around 175g and the rest fat. But at the end of the day, I am concentrating on whole foods that allow for high volume.
What I have found, both with myself and working with people.... those who are volume eaters tend to do better with carbs. Those who are not, tend to gravitate towards fat. I suffer on low carb. I thrive on high carb.4 -
It should be noted that in isocaloric studies that hold protein constant, there is NO difference in fat loss between the two diets, especially over time. LCHF/Keto diets have greater weight loss short term due to glycogen/water loss..3
-
It should be noted that in isocaloric studies that hold protein constant, there is NO difference in fat loss between the two diets, especially over time. LCHF/Keto diets have greater weight loss short term due to glycogen/water loss..
True. The main strength of LCHF seems to be that (many/most) low carbers naturally tend to eat less which leads to slightly greater weight loss. Low carbers tend towards hypocaloric diets....1 -
It should be noted that in isocaloric studies that hold protein constant, there is NO difference in fat loss between the two diets, especially over time. LCHF/Keto diets have greater weight loss short term due to glycogen/water loss..
True. The main strength of LCHF seems to be that (many/most) low carbers naturally tend to eat less which leads to slightly greater weight loss. Low carbers tend towards hypocaloric diets....
True. And for me, it's had other health benefits, too, that I wasn't even necessarily expecting, but that's where individual medical conditions can come into play. That's why I plan to stay LCHF for life, though now at maintenance I'm gradually experimenting with what foods and carb levels seem to trigger my symptoms (everything from cycle irregularity to joint pain to reflux to constant hunger/cravings) and which don't.0 -
I think that insulin resistance does have an effect on hunger and which foods keep you full. Large blood sugar swings defintely play a part in my experiences. I don't agree that its because it mimics starvation, unless you consider steadier blood sugar as being similar to starvation.
You are conflating two separate points that I was making.
I think low carb/keto can be helpful for IR people who tend to feel hungry/unsatisfied/craving after eating carbs, and think that has to do with them not being able to use the carbs properly or experiencing the satiation feeling that follows insulin with people who are sensitive to it/able to use it properly. I don't think IS people normally experience this (and can say that I do not find that I am hungrier eating carbs or find carbs non satiating or to trigger cravings).
I ALSO think -- and this is based on reading -- that people not IR can find that keto eliminates feelings of hunger and even makes them not feel like eating. I believe that this is because keto to your body is similar to a period of starvation in some ways (not saying this makes it bad), and therefore the presence of ketones can often diminish feelings of hunger, which would be problematic if one didn't have food available and felt miserable and lethargic. To me it's like fasting for a bit and you stop feeling as hungry (which is something I've experienced). I don't think this happens to everyone, but it does seem to happen not uncommonly, and is why for some who struggled with hunger (and often seem to imagine that everyone struggles with hunger) it can be a wonderful thing.I realize that you feel that foods that cause hunger or craving problems have nothing to do with carb percentages. We differ there. Your experiences with food, hunger and overeating are quite foreign to me just like it appears mine are to you.
But I didn't say this at all. That's inconsistent with what I said and you responded to above. I think it's something that matters for people who have serious issues with feeling hungry (which I think can happen to some from our food environment) -- this is keto, specific -- and that it also matters (and can be helped by lowering carbs, even to no keto levels) for others who find carbs unsatiating, often people who have insulin resistance problems.
But I also think that many (not all) people who claim they were unsatisfied eating carbs were specifically eating not just higher carb diets, but the SAD, which is not especially high carb, but includes lots of foods that aren't particularly satiating and are easily overeaten. It's not really a comparison in many cases between a healthful diet of 50% carbs (lots of vegetables and legumes and whole grains and fruit) and 25% protein and one that is lower carb. Like I said, I agree there are exceptions and that carbs in general can be problems for some who are IR (many of whom can solve that problem just by losing weight, but again not all).There are no carb percentages for low carb, at least that I know of. Low carb is under 100-150g of carbs. Those that go with 100g are often using net carbs. I suppose some would consider your diet to be moderate carb. Others will call it low carb.
There's no hard and fast definition at all. I think percentage makes more sense, as the recommendations tend to be in percentages (40-65% carbs or some such). I'm around 40% at maintenance, lower at a deficit probably. I've been letting myself eating a bit lower than that this year (before going vegetarian for Lent, which led me to increase carbs, and I am looking forward to eating more like I was earlier in the year again), so moderate to low-ish compared to the US average/normal recommendations, sure (I also eat more vegetables, more meat and eggs, and less grains than the usual recommendations would suggest, although of course there's no upper limit on veg, and this is largely because I don't care much about grains). I'm somewhat interested in experimenting with going a bit lower too, just to see what I think of it, which is why I'd read the low carb group if it were open to me (I used to read it and the paleo group sometimes and never commented -- I'd not go in a group and argue, as I think that would be rude). Anyway, I've thought of trying keto but I don't think I want to worry about eating starchier veg or amounts of them (I eat lots of root veg like carrots and turnips and so on plus winter squash in the winter) or fruit, and I also don't think I'd enjoy eating that much fat, so will just let preferences guide me. But like I said I see nothing wrong with keto, although I think the fact that no or nearly no traditional diets result in ketosis precludes the argument that it is healthier for the average person (I agree that it is good for certain medical conditions, although we disagree somewhat on which ones or how widespread this is).Keto is under 50g by most definitions. Your carbs are about twice as high as a keto'er but about half a much as a typical moderate carb diet. IMO.
150 g is generally considered moderate carb, as I understand it. 100 g, yeah, I think that's more low-ish, which is why I kept saying that I am kind of low carb when I was hanging out more around 100 g in January.I have no idea why you found my comments above as pegging you as anti-LC. I don't see why you perceived what I wrote as complaining about something you said. I was attempting to build on what you had written and point out the similarities in how we eat. We both tend to skip what some would label as "bad carbs". I realize you have not said that low carb is bad, just as I hope you realize that I did not write that low carb is the only true path to good health.
The bolded is basically what my initial reply was all about.
I am reacting to past interactions and discussions, including a thread recently (that of course I cannot recall the name of!) where you were claiming that people were being anti keto, which seemed to be directed in part at me. (We were discussing myths, but it wasn't that food myth thread. You had asked if people would treat vegan and paleo diets with the same kinds of "it's not necessary for everyone" comments.) Anyway, doesn't matter and if you understand I'm not anti LC, that's cool. Sometimes when people comment about what "people" say it's hard to know if it is directed at you or not, since I don't see anyone else saying whatever it is either, and I had been given to believe from other sources that there was an impression I was anti LC which I'd found unfair (especially since my carbs are not all that high, so I'd be anti myself!).
Anyway, if I was wrong about that I really am delighted, since I was feeling like I was being read differently than intended.1 -
It should be noted that in isocaloric studies that hold protein constant, there is NO difference in fat loss between the two diets, especially over time. LCHF/Keto diets have greater weight loss short term due to glycogen/water loss..
Also, the studies that show a difference tend to show that it's beneficial for those who are IR and beneficial to low fat (by comparison) for those who are IS. But I myself (who am IS) am evidence that a possible slight increase in metabolism isn't that significant given other things, as I am just happier eating moderate to lower carb and not low fat, even if I don't lose as fast as I could/have a slightly lower TDEE.0 -
Hi guys!
Just wondering how many of you have tried both keto (within your calorie limit) & eating whatever you want (within your calorie limit)? What did you find was easier to do?
I'm asking because I have tried both myself & when I wasn't doing keto, I always felt hungry & cranky. So, I started keto last week & I do feel fuller eating at the same deficit, but I'm also fighting cravings to eat carbs & feel like giving up. Lol, I don't know what I want to do!
Share your experience with me!
Me. Almost. I lost my excess 60 pounds eating ~40%carbs/30p/30f. Based on total calories allocated through weight loss, this placed me ~160 carbs total down to ~120 as I lost weight and grams adjusted. I didn't eat "anything I wanted" but occasionally had sweets, pasta, etc. My NET carbs probably averaged less than ~100 down to 60 or so. I ate plenty of vegetables, fruits and legumes for carbs. After weight loss, my maintenance calories were ~1500 @ stationary. I'm 63, female and do not exercise much.
I continued to eat 40/30/30 for ~2 years of maintenance. The only problem I had was that I was honestly always hungry. I was able to white knuckle through the chronic hunger and maintain. It was true hunger. 3 years maintaining now, I know the difference between eating for any number of reasons and eating for hunger. I was hungry. Nuff said.
In 4/16 I learned of Ketogenic diets for various medical reasons and the one that applies to me is a neurological movement disorder, Cervical Dystonia aka Spasmodic Torticollis. I decided to try Keto (~20grams of carbs, 15-20% protein, 75-80% fat). I continued with 1500 maintenance calories and just ate different foods/macro. I've eaten keto for 1 year and have been strict in regards to keeping both protein and carbohydrates limited (so not a high protein type keto diet). My observations:
1) keto did minimize the hunger. Fat must satiate me better than carbs or protein.
2) keto did reduce my "cravings" for my favored sweets. I rarely "slip" .
3) keto makes it easier for me to stay @ calories due to satiation HOWEVER
4) keto foods are high calorie and it was/is very easy for me to eat over since I sometimes "inhale" foods.
5) I have had to be EXTREMELY mindful of calories/habits with keto foods to not go over my calorie limit.
6) I have not found keto to have a metabolic advantage. 1500 calories before. 1500 calories on keto. I maintain.
7) I have not noticed that I have become a miracle "fat burning machine". The clothes I purchased in April/May of 2014 after I lost my weight are still worn today and fit exactly as they did then. No additional body "shrinkage" this past year while eating keto.
Info below is not weight loss maintenance related. ST/CD update:
Unfortunately, after about 6 months keto, the improvement I had noted from about week 2,3,4 (early) regarding the minimizing of my involuntary movements, began to diminish. Change is every easy for me to gauge. The movement/unusual postures are obvious to the eye of others and myself. Certainly for me, I feel the obvious difference. My head is either turned right and I am looking over my shoulder with the inability to look forward, or I am not.
10/2017: I chose to experiment with the ketogenic MCT Oil diet for about 4 months though I still kept carbs and protein at the same limit just adding MCT Oil for fat. No luck.
I'm pretty disappointed. I have no research to back my idea but my idea is that Keto stopped working for my neurological disorder perhaps just as a medication for Epilepsy or Parkinson's may stop working for an individual. Not sure what my plan is now but I'm not hungry.
I just have to be careful (again) that I don't stab myself in the cheek with a fork when my head decides to take an additional spaz to the the right. 
Upside is, CD/ST does slow down my eating. 3 -
@kpk54 I'm sorry that it stopped working for your symptoms. That must be frustrating. I hope you find something else that helps. 1
-
Fortunately there's a gigantic continuum of food selections between "keto" and "eat whatever I want".
In my opinion, there's a good probability that you just need to modify your food choices to improve satiety without necessarily going on a ketogenic diet.
I feel like we are discussing the endpoints here and excluding the middle.
Why Should Today Be Different?4 -
CICO for me, I really enjoy my carbs, life is too short to feel "miserable"
Lost 50 lbs that way, every time I tried keto I lost 3 lbs only to gain them back...1 -
Ok thanks again everyone for your input! :-). I do understand its CICO to lose, so please don't think I was trying to tick you all off by making you explain that again, lol..:-). Just wondered how you all felt when you ate at different macro levels for the same caloric deficit..I know everyone is different, but its always nice to hear others experience & what helped all of you. I know its not healthy to eat a bunch of candy, doritos, etc to make up your calories for the day...when I was eating "whatever I wanted"..it was stuff like an english muffin with peanut butter & banana, tuna melt on white bread, a can of soup, a hot dog, a portioned size bag of chip at lunch with a sandwich, white instant rice with some protein & veggies for dinner, a couple dark hershey kisses when I could fit them,...etc. Geez as I type this I realize I was eating a lot of processed food! It was just easy to grab "fast" stuff like that as long as I tracked, but perhaps as some of you suggest, I can just eat some better, whole grain carbs, and healthier things in general to improve my satiety. Good advice!!!! Thanks again everyone! I appreciate everyones input, whether it be keto or CICO you choose, I'm glad its working for you! I am learning from all of you & taking it all in on all the different aspects of losing weight & how to make it work for me in a not so miserable way...:-)0
-
Ok thanks again everyone for your input! :-). I do understand its CICO to lose, so please don't think I was trying to tick you all off by making you explain that again, lol..:-). Just wondered how you all felt when you ate at different macro levels for the same caloric deficit..I know everyone is different, but its always nice to hear others experience & what helped all of you. I know its not healthy to eat a bunch of candy, doritos, etc to make up your calories for the day...when I was eating "whatever I wanted"..it was stuff like an english muffin with peanut butter & banana, tuna melt on white bread, a can of soup, a hot dog, a portioned size bag of chip at lunch with a sandwich, white instant rice with some protein & veggies for dinner, a couple dark hershey kisses when I could fit them,...etc. Geez as I type this I realize I was eating a lot of processed food! It was just easy to grab "fast" stuff like that as long as I tracked, but perhaps as some of you suggest, I can just eat some better, whole grain carbs, and healthier things in general to improve my satiety. Good advice!!!! Thanks again everyone! I appreciate everyones input, whether it be keto or CICO you choose, I'm glad its working for you! I am learning from all of you & taking it all in on all the different aspects of losing weight & how to make it work for me in a not so miserable way...:-)
Keep in mind one more thing... there is no reason you need to only adhere to one diet or another. Thats the beauty. If you aren't working to address a medical condition, you have free range in that you can eat however. So some days might be high carb, others might be low carb or keto. Heck, as much as a carboholic i am, i occasionally eat keto... because i love meat and cheese even more. In fact, i struggle to moderate good cheese, which is why i dont eat it often because i literally will eat the block. And yes, i have done it which is also why i know fat doesn't really satiate me.
So unless you want to stick to keto for whatever reason, you really have vast options out there... getting stuck on one just might not be beneficial for you.4 -
@lemurcat12 if you look at most studies, the point of low carb does occur around 140g and below. At least from all the research i have seen.1
-
@psuLemon schwooo! you just made me feel a lot better! what you said makes perfect sense! i don't know why i always feel like i have to do one or the other & i always stress myself out over it. i keep jumping back & forth, never sticking to something longer than 2 weeks. i buy all low carb stuff & give away my carby foods, only to give up & go back to cico & buy back all the carby foods, quit & go back to low carb again. sometimes i feel i'm going crazy! which is why i love that i can come here to ask advice. sounds like i just need to find my happy medium! :-)1
-
The best one to chose is the one that you can stick with once you have reached your goal. No point going on a diet you can not sustain only to revert to old habits once you have lost sufficient weight as that weight will come straight back on again.2
-
I lost thirty pounds on keto and then started bingeing and gained ten back. For me, I'll say again FOR ME I think the restrictions result in obsession, which led to bingeing. Not everyone has disorders such as I, but it's something to be aware of.
I went ahead and allowed myself to get it out of my system, and now I'm in my first week of counting calories only.
I have many friends who rock keto, and have been successful and are succeeding with their weight loss goals.5 -
@lemurcat12 if you look at most studies, the point of low carb does occur around 140g and below. At least from all the research i have seen.
What supposedly happens there? Or do you just mean that's where it's set as the dividing line?
It seems obvious to me that unless it's claimed that something specific happens with less than 140 g, that percentage has to be relevant. 140 g is 46.7% of 1200 calories. That would be moderate, IMO, and is barely less than the MFP default. But if you eat 3000 calories, it would be only 18.7% -- I'd say that's on the low side.
My personal sense would be that low is under 30%, but I would agree that 30-40% could be considered low-ish given that the average in the US is more like 50% (although it varies a lot, obviously some eat much more, and it's hard to know for sure).
I DO think that suggesting there's a hard and fast distinction between low and not low carb, or even suggesting that the MFP default (50%) or 200 g or some such = HIGH carb, as I see people suggesting, but that 150 and below is LOW carb, is confusing. Someone eating 150 g at 1200 calories or even 1500 calories is more obviously similar in diet to someone eating 200 g at 2000 calories or 2400 calories than to someone eating under 20 g of carbs.
I'd probably say under 10% = keto (could be wrong about that, is it 5%?), under 30% is low to low-ish, 30-45% is moderate or moderate-to-low, 45-60% is average, over 60% is somewhat high to high, depending.
But it probably doesn't matter.
Someone eating 140 g of carbs at 1200 calories would likely (if using the same ideas about protein I do), be eating around 33.3% protein (100 g) or more, and that only leaves 20% for fat (or 26.7 g). That's obviously very far from a LCHF diet, and probably more properly characterized as low fat than low carb. (I didn't want to eat that low fat, so during the brief period of time I ate around 1200 I naturally dropped carbs down further, but it was still more like 33-33-33 (1% to spare!).
At 1500, it's 37% C, 26% P, 36% F (still an extra 1% out there!). Maybe lowish carbs, but still not high fat at all -- pretty average in fat percentage.
NOT saying any of this matters, but I think it's interesting where people draw the lines and why.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@lemurcat12 if you look at most studies, the point of low carb does occur around 140g and below. At least from all the research i have seen.
What supposedly happens there? Or do you just mean that's where it's set as the dividing line?
It seems obvious to me that unless it's claimed that something specific happens with less than 140 g, that percentage has to be relevant. 140 g is 46.7% of 1200 calories. That would be moderate, IMO, and is barely less than the MFP default. But if you eat 3000 calories, it would be only 18.7% -- I'd say that's on the low side.
My personal sense would be that low is under 30%, but I would agree that 30-40% could be considered low-ish given that the average in the US is more like 50% (although it varies a lot, obviously some eat much more, and it's hard to know for sure).
I DO think that suggesting there's a hard and fast distinction between low and not low carb, or even suggesting that the MFP default (50%) or 200 g or some such = HIGH carb, as I see people suggesting, but that 150 and below is LOW carb, is confusing. Someone eating 150 g at 1200 calories or even 1500 calories is more obviously similar in diet to someone eating 200 g at 2000 calories or 2400 calories than to someone eating under 20 g of carbs.
I'd probably say under 10% = keto (could be wrong about that, is it 5%?), under 30% is low to low-ish, 30-45% is moderate or moderate-to-low, 45-60% is average, over 60% is somewhat high to high, depending.
But it probably doesn't matter.
Someone eating 140 g of carbs at 1200 calories would likely (if using the same ideas about protein I do), be eating around 33.3% protein (100 g) or more, and that only leaves 20% for fat (or 26.7 g). That's obviously very far from a LCHF diet, and probably more properly characterized as low fat than low carb. (I didn't want to eat that low fat, so during the brief period of time I ate around 1200 I naturally dropped carbs down further, but it was still more like 33-33-33 (1% to spare!).
At 1500, it's 37% C, 26% P, 36% F (still an extra 1% out there!). Maybe lowish carbs, but still not high fat at all -- pretty average in fat percentage.
NOT saying any of this matters, but I think it's interesting where people draw the lines and why.
I think, and I am not sure of this, that the low carb line is drawn where most people's basic glucose needs are. About 130-140ish grams is the basic glucose needs for people who use carbs as their primary fuel. Below that people will be using more fat than glucose for fuel, and will need to rely on GNG to meets some of their basic glucose needs.
This does change over time once one is fat adapted. After eating low carb for a few months, the body's minimum glucose needs drops by a fair bit.
When looking at macros, low carb can be anywhere between zero and 40% for most people.
Ketosis has no set limit either. It is typically under 50g but one can go higher, or need to go lower, depending on their metabolic health, activity level, and timing of carb intake. Ketosis just means that one is relying on fat for their energy, and can be measured by blood or breath tests. For most, that is somewhere under 50g. Some of us go lower because the lower we go the better we feel.
I think the diet recommended by the government is about 55% carbs. I believe having more than half of your calories come from carbs is called high carb.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@lemurcat12 if you look at most studies, the point of low carb does occur around 140g and below. At least from all the research i have seen.
What supposedly happens there? Or do you just mean that's where it's set as the dividing line?
It seems obvious to me that unless it's claimed that something specific happens with less than 140 g, that percentage has to be relevant. 140 g is 46.7% of 1200 calories. That would be moderate, IMO, and is barely less than the MFP default. But if you eat 3000 calories, it would be only 18.7% -- I'd say that's on the low side.
My personal sense would be that low is under 30%, but I would agree that 30-40% could be considered low-ish given that the average in the US is more like 50% (although it varies a lot, obviously some eat much more, and it's hard to know for sure).
I DO think that suggesting there's a hard and fast distinction between low and not low carb, or even suggesting that the MFP default (50%) or 200 g or some such = HIGH carb, as I see people suggesting, but that 150 and below is LOW carb, is confusing. Someone eating 150 g at 1200 calories or even 1500 calories is more obviously similar in diet to someone eating 200 g at 2000 calories or 2400 calories than to someone eating under 20 g of carbs.
I'd probably say under 10% = keto (could be wrong about that, is it 5%?), under 30% is low to low-ish, 30-45% is moderate or moderate-to-low, 45-60% is average, over 60% is somewhat high to high, depending.
But it probably doesn't matter.
Someone eating 140 g of carbs at 1200 calories would likely (if using the same ideas about protein I do), be eating around 33.3% protein (100 g) or more, and that only leaves 20% for fat (or 26.7 g). That's obviously very far from a LCHF diet, and probably more properly characterized as low fat than low carb. (I didn't want to eat that low fat, so during the brief period of time I ate around 1200 I naturally dropped carbs down further, but it was still more like 33-33-33 (1% to spare!).
At 1500, it's 37% C, 26% P, 36% F (still an extra 1% out there!). Maybe lowish carbs, but still not high fat at all -- pretty average in fat percentage.
NOT saying any of this matters, but I think it's interesting where people draw the lines and why.
I think, and I am not sure of this, that the low carb line is drawn where most people's basic glucose needs are. About 130-140ish grams is the basic glucose needs for people who use carbs as their primary fuel. Below that people will be using more fat than glucose for fuel, and will need to rely on GNG to meets some of their basic glucose needs.
Ah, something like that may be right. Quick googling turns up glucose need of 100-120 g for the brain, with 130 g often stated as "just to be safe" version of this." (130 g is the RDA.) So I suspect you are right and it's about the glucose requirement, although I think everyone will be producing ketones at times of the day anyway.
For what it's worth, I've dropped down below 100 g plenty of times and never had any kind of "keto flu" effect, even when I was quite active, perhaps because you are still able to rely MOSTLY on glucose through the more preferred process (by your body, not making a value judgment) vs. mostly ketones.
Given that the RDA is 130, I think there's a pretty good argument for calling low carb anything under that, although of course I still think there's a big difference between 130 g at 1200 calories (which will still be pretty low fat, well below the SAD) and 130 g at 3000 calories (which will be LCHF, probably).When looking at macros, low carb can be anywhere between zero and 40% for most people.
But what's the point of calling them all "low carb" as if they were essentially the same, and then calling 51% high carb? 40% vs. 51% can be almost the same, especially since most will flex carbs more than the other macros when cutting calories, and of course that the person with 51% may be much more active. It seems like a weird classification.Ketosis has no set limit either. It is typically under 50g but one can go higher, or need to go lower, depending on their metabolic health, activity level, and timing of carb intake. Ketosis just means that one is relying on fat for their energy, and can be measured by blood or breath tests. For most, that is somewhere under 50g. Some of us go lower because the lower we go the better we feel.
Do you have a specific definition for ketosis? I know there is one, and certainly something happens that leads to the adjustment period called keto flu (I know part of this is dumping water and electrolytes, but I think not all). However, it's not just burning fat, since we all do that (when sleeping or at low intensity activity) and I think I've read that we all will make ketones at times too -- maybe it's about average keto percentage or some such? Just curious -- I wish I had an easy source that discussed how keto/low carb works that didn't seem to be potentially quite biased.I think the diet recommended by the government is about 55% carbs. I believe having more than half of your calories come from carbs is called high carb.
No, it's broader: 45-65%. But like I said, the RDA is only 130 g. I think the percentage is based on the diet pattern and an estimate from that. I don't take it too seriously. But interestingly although the mid-point of that is 55%, the SAD is generally estimated to be higher fat and comes in around 50% -- 50%-35%-15% or so. (As you know, I don't think the SAD is problematic because of its macros, but because the make up of those macros tend to be highly refined carbs (including lots of added sugar), highly processed vegetable oils and sat fat, a lot of red meat, fast food, terrible ratio of omega 6 to omega 3, and very low in vegetables and other produce and fiber. Some of those things might be okay on their own, some not, but as a combination they are bad.)
Ed. to add:
From a site I like, here are a couple of interesting posts:
http://caloriesproper.com/ketosis-in-an-evolutionary-context/
http://caloriesproper.com/carbs-low-vs-lower/
The latter is a study comparing interventions for obese (around 35+ BMI) adults, half were on keto (5% carbs, 60% fat) and the other half on non-keto LC (which was 40% carb, 30% fat). They were sedentary. Fat loss was the same, both improved IS (can't see if there were any differences there, but the blogger says no significant difference).
One argument WAS that the NK-LC wasn't low carb, but the blogger (Bill Lagakos) points out that for people that obese on 1500 calories (which they were) it meant abut 150 g, and for people burning as much as they likely were (about 3000 calories), that ends up being quite low. This both supports the argument that 40% can be low carb AND that percentage/context matters, IMO -- 150 g carbs for a sedentary 110 lb, 5'1 woman is way different than 150 g for an active 6'3, 200 lb man.
Anyway, I think this is interesting, and I hope you do too.0 -
I guess I'd be considered low-moderate carb on average. I focus on protein primarily, then fat, then carbs. I find I do much better managing my appetite with starchy carbs included in my meals. Not necessarily a lot either.
Then there are some days where I basically just eat bread. And again that keeps me very full, it just lacks other nutrients and macros! So I can't do that all the time.
So I'm one of those people that just swings about with food choices depending on what I fancy that day. It's one of the reasons I don't food prep/food prep doesn't appeal, because I will always always change my mind. In that respect I like the freedom of calorie counting as the main focus.3 -
I've pretty much tried every (healthy) diet out there and I can honestly say that I don't think any of them work more than the other, rather the ones you enjoy more and the ones that make you feel more full and satisfied (which will be a different method for everyone) work best. For myself, that's calorie controlled (but I can eat back my calories if I want) and eat anything but trying to stick to healthier foods has worked the best and is something I can sustain.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »@lemurcat12 if you look at most studies, the point of low carb does occur around 140g and below. At least from all the research i have seen.
What supposedly happens there? Or do you just mean that's where it's set as the dividing line?
It seems obvious to me that unless it's claimed that something specific happens with less than 140 g, that percentage has to be relevant. 140 g is 46.7% of 1200 calories. That would be moderate, IMO, and is barely less than the MFP default. But if you eat 3000 calories, it would be only 18.7% -- I'd say that's on the low side.
My personal sense would be that low is under 30%, but I would agree that 30-40% could be considered low-ish given that the average in the US is more like 50% (although it varies a lot, obviously some eat much more, and it's hard to know for sure).
I DO think that suggesting there's a hard and fast distinction between low and not low carb, or even suggesting that the MFP default (50%) or 200 g or some such = HIGH carb, as I see people suggesting, but that 150 and below is LOW carb, is confusing. Someone eating 150 g at 1200 calories or even 1500 calories is more obviously similar in diet to someone eating 200 g at 2000 calories or 2400 calories than to someone eating under 20 g of carbs.
I'd probably say under 10% = keto (could be wrong about that, is it 5%?), under 30% is low to low-ish, 30-45% is moderate or moderate-to-low, 45-60% is average, over 60% is somewhat high to high, depending.
But it probably doesn't matter.
Someone eating 140 g of carbs at 1200 calories would likely (if using the same ideas about protein I do), be eating around 33.3% protein (100 g) or more, and that only leaves 20% for fat (or 26.7 g). That's obviously very far from a LCHF diet, and probably more properly characterized as low fat than low carb. (I didn't want to eat that low fat, so during the brief period of time I ate around 1200 I naturally dropped carbs down further, but it was still more like 33-33-33 (1% to spare!).
At 1500, it's 37% C, 26% P, 36% F (still an extra 1% out there!). Maybe lowish carbs, but still not high fat at all -- pretty average in fat percentage.
NOT saying any of this matters, but I think it's interesting where people draw the lines and why.
I think, and I am not sure of this, that the low carb line is drawn where most people's basic glucose needs are. About 130-140ish grams is the basic glucose needs for people who use carbs as their primary fuel. Below that people will be using more fat than glucose for fuel, and will need to rely on GNG to meets some of their basic glucose needs.
Ah, something like that may be right. Quick googling turns up glucose need of 100-120 g for the brain, with 130 g often stated as "just to be safe" version of this." (130 g is the RDA.) So I suspect you are right and it's about the glucose requirement, although I think everyone will be producing ketones at times of the day anyway.
For what it's worth, I've dropped down below 100 g plenty of times and never had any kind of "keto flu" effect, even when I was quite active, perhaps because you are still able to rely MOSTLY on glucose through the more preferred process (by your body, not making a value judgment) vs. mostly ketones.
Given that the RDA is 130, I think there's a pretty good argument for calling low carb anything under that, although of course I still think there's a big difference between 130 g at 1200 calories (which will still be pretty low fat, well below the SAD) and 130 g at 3000 calories (which will be LCHF, probably).
There is a contextual difference in how low a low carb diet is. I agree. Your diet may not be a classic LCHF diet.... What is high fat? Is that above 40%? I'll have to look that up.
Do you remember a poster called kittensmaster? He used to do really long, 5-8 hour bike rides and stay in ketosis but his carbs could go well over 200g in that day (according to ketostix). A very different carb level, not even technically low carb, but he still experienced the benefits of the diet (usually health related or a decreased appetite).When looking at macros, low carb can be anywhere between zero and 40% for most people.
But what's the point of calling them all "low carb" as if they were essentially the same, and then calling 51% high carb? 40% vs. 51% can be almost the same, especially since most will flex carbs more than the other macros when cutting calories, and of course that the person with 51% may be much more active. It seems like a weird classification.
It may be an odd classification. Perhaps one day it will be changed but the medical community likes to draw lines in the sand. This test is normal but a couple percentage points difference is a flagged test result. They don't seem to tolerate gray areas well.Do you have a specific definition for ketosis? I know there is one, and certainly something happens that leads to the adjustment period called keto flu (I know part of this is dumping water and electrolytes, but I think not all). However, it's not just burning fat, since we all do that (when sleeping or at low intensity activity) and I think I've read that we all will make ketones at times too -- maybe it's about average keto percentage or some such? Just curious -- I wish I had an easy source that discussed how keto/low carb works that didn't seem to be potentially quite biased.
I don't have a definition for ketosis. Volek describes it as under 50g of non-fibre carbs. He also describes it as using fat for your primary fuel as can be tested with a RQ of about 07 rather than 1 - less CO2 is produced.... Lower greehouse gases and go keto! LOL I think fat as the primary fuel is the key part of that definition.
Keto flu really is just an electrolyte imbalance. If you managed to avoid it is simply means that you took good care of your electrolyte needs.
There is a period of a few week to a few months where fat adaptation will occur. People will often notice a dip in enerhy while the body makes the switch to fat as it's primary fule source. It takes a while for it to become the preferred fuel source. During that time, energy may be slightly lower but it is transient and it does pass.
Not everyone gets through those first few months though. When my energy levels went up, it felt as though I had more energy than ever. This is partially due to the BG rollercoaster I was on before. The difference felt extraordinary and can make it easy to understand (to me) why keto'ers may sing its praises from the rooftops.I think the diet recommended by the government is about 55% carbs. I believe having more than half of your calories come from carbs is called high carb.
No, it's broader: 45-65%. But like I said, the RDA is only 130 g. I think the percentage is based on the diet pattern and an estimate from that. I don't take it too seriously. But interestingly although the mid-point of that is 55%, the SAD is generally estimated to be higher fat and comes in around 50% -- 50%-35%-15% or so. (As you know, I don't think the SAD is problematic because of its macros, but because the make up of those macros tend to be highly refined carbs (including lots of added sugar), highly processed vegetable oils and sat fat, a lot of red meat, fast food, terrible ratio of omega 6 to omega 3, and very low in vegetables and other produce and fiber. Some of those things might be okay on their own, some not, but as a combination they are bad.)
I completely agree that SAD is mainly a problem due to high refined carb intake. Vegetable oils too. That is part of the reason so many new low carbers exclaim that they are eating more vegetables than ever. They excluded the starchy refined grains and sugars and ended up with very very low carbs that could be increased with more leafy green vegetables. When the potatoes and bread are off the plate there is more room or greens, I guess we could say.
I do disagree that the problem is due to high saturated fat and red meats though. I haven't seen the evidence to support that.Ed. to add:
From a site I like, here are a couple of interesting posts:
http://caloriesproper.com/ketosis-in-an-evolutionary-context/
http://caloriesproper.com/carbs-low-vs-lower/
The latter is a study comparing interventions for obese (around 35+ BMI) adults, half were on keto (5% carbs, 60% fat) and the other half on non-keto LC (which was 40% carb, 30% fat). They were sedentary. Fat loss was the same, both improved IS (can't see if there were any differences there, but the blogger says no significant difference).
One argument WAS that the NK-LC wasn't low carb, but the blogger (Bill Lagakos) points out that for people that obese on 1500 calories (which they were) it meant abut 150 g, and for people burning as much as they likely were (about 3000 calories), that ends up being quite low. This both supports the argument that 40% can be low carb AND that percentage/context matters, IMO -- 150 g carbs for a sedentary 110 lb, 5'1 woman is way different than 150 g for an active 6'3, 200 lb man.
Anyway, I think this is interesting, and I hope you do too.
Good articles. Thanks. No real surprises. LCHF = good and keto = good, mainly with those with IR. Most who use a ketogenic diet long term know that ketones are not needed for weight loss. Most use a ketogenic diet long term for the health benefits. Many of us, myself included, slip into just low carb when it suits us, but I usually go back to ketogenic because I feel better doing it. If higher ketones don't make a difference to how a person feels or their overall health, there is no reason to continue it.
And those needs will change over time. Many who have started in keto switched to higher carb levels after they got what they needed from the diet. It's like stopping a medication once it has helped with a problem. If the problem is fixed the meds are no longer needed.
I'm curious - you don't seem to like the idea of labeling your diet as low carb. Is there a dietary label you would give or apply your woe?
I call myself very low carb or ketogenic because my carbs are unusually low compared to many (usually below 30g) but I could also call my diet primal - it seems to fit that. And IF....1 -
I'm curious - you don't seem to like the idea of labeling your diet as low carb. Is there a dietary label you would give or apply your woe?
I'm neutral on the idea of calling how I eat low carb. One part of why I don't, however, is that I perceive the low carbers at MFP, on average, to be keto-oriented, and to count carbs, and to be extremely low and often the implied suggestion so often, as I read it anyway (and I don't mean from you, but more generally) is that carbs (even vegetables, fruit, other whole foods) are bad because carbs, less is always better, any carbs are bad for health, being close to 0 in sugar is good, even if the sugar is from fruits and veg, etc. That is definitely not how I think of things. I have a personal preference for a diet that happens to be lower than average in total carbs, but not because I think high carb or average carb diets are unhealthy or would be bad for me. Just because of food preferences.
Beyond that, I think of low carb as actively counting and monitoring carbs and I don't try to hit any particular number or really care if I eat more carbs one day, more fat the next. When I log and eat as I like (mainly because for me the meat (or other protein) and vegetables are the essential part of the meals, the starch the extra and for me satisfying even in smaller quantities and not essential to a meal), I happen to come in at 100-150 g, on average. So I'd say I'm not actively low carbing (although like I said I am kind of interested in trying it for a bit, just not so low that I'd be limiting vegetables).
As for what I call my diet, I don't really like the idea of named diets or ways of eating, but if I had to characterize mine I'd just say it was a nutrition-conscious, mostly whole foods based style of eating. I think that's healthy within a wide range of carbs, I just happen to have taste preferences that put me on the lower third (maybe) of that wide range.
My debating about 150 g being low carb (or 140 or whatever) ISN'T because it bothers me if it is, but because people slam the SAD or the MFP default as high carb and that seems inconsistent to me. The SAD is about 50% carb and at 1200 calories 150 g IS 50% carbs. Sure, I think it's better to eat a bit higher cal, for most people, but even at 1600, 50% carbs is only 200 g -- I don't quite get saying that anything from 0-150 are low carb and are basically the same way of eating, but 200=high carb. There is more of a difference in eating under 20 g of carbs (which would be really challenging for me) from 125 g, IMO, than between 150 g and 200 g (and I say that even though I found eating around 200 g to be not for me).
But of course I'm biased by personal experience, and that's that my carbs were probably about 40%-45% when I was gaining weight. I didn't really change the ratio of fats to carbs ever -- I cut both fat and carbs and increased protein some when I decided to lose. So for me it just didn't feel like low carbing; that wasn't the main change, being mindful about some other things was (and dealing with emotional eating, but my emotional eating was mostly fat+carb).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm curious - you don't seem to like the idea of labeling your diet as low carb. Is there a dietary label you would give or apply your woe?
I'm neutral on the idea of calling how I eat low carb. One part of why I don't, however, is that I perceive the low carbers at MFP, on average, to be keto-oriented, and to count carbs, and to be extremely low and often the implied suggestion so often, as I read it anyway (and I don't mean from you, but more generally) is that carbs (even vegetables, fruit, other whole foods) are bad because carbs, less is always better, any carbs are bad for health, being close to 0 in sugar is good, even if the sugar is from fruits and veg, etc. That is definitely not how I think of things. I have a personal preference for a diet that happens to be lower than average in total carbs, but not because I think high carb or average carb diets are unhealthy or would be bad for me. Just because of food preferences.
Beyond that, I think of low carb as actively counting and monitoring carbs and I don't try to hit any particular number or really care if I eat more carbs one day, more fat the next. When I log and eat as I like (mainly because for me the meat (or other protein) and vegetables are the essential part of the meals, the starch the extra and for me satisfying even in smaller quantities and not essential to a meal), I happen to come in at 100-150 g, on average. So I'd say I'm not actively low carbing (although like I said I am kind of interested in trying it for a bit, just not so low that I'd be limiting vegetables).
As for what I call my diet, I don't really like the idea of named diets or ways of eating, but if I had to characterize mine I'd just say it was a nutrition-conscious, mostly whole foods based style of eating. I think that's healthy within a wide range of carbs, I just happen to have taste preferences that put me on the lower third (maybe) of that wide range.
My debating about 150 g being low carb (or 140 or whatever) ISN'T because it bothers me if it is, but because people slam the SAD or the MFP default as high carb and that seems inconsistent to me. The SAD is about 50% carb and at 1200 calories 150 g IS 50% carbs. Sure, I think it's better to eat a bit higher cal, for most people, but even at 1600, 50% carbs is only 200 g -- I don't quite get saying that anything from 0-150 are low carb and are basically the same way of eating, but 200=high carb. There is more of a difference in eating under 20 g of carbs (which would be really challenging for me) from 125 g, IMO, than between 150 g and 200 g (and I say that even though I found eating around 200 g to be not for me).
But of course I'm biased by personal experience, and that's that my carbs were probably about 40%-45% when I was gaining weight. I didn't really change the ratio of fats to carbs ever -- I cut both fat and carbs and increased protein some when I decided to lose. So for me it just didn't feel like low carbing; that wasn't the main change, being mindful about some other things was (and dealing with emotional eating, but my emotional eating was mostly fat+carb).
Thanks for the explanation.
You might consider joining the Low Carber Daily. It may help you with ideas or information. Two of the mods are slow carbers: one is slightly above the usual rough 150g carb limit for what is low carb, and the other has been as low as keto but has found it isn't meeting her needs anymore and has moved on to a higher low carb level. Another mod is using LCHF to keto to treat T2D, and another is basically a carnivore.
Like on the main boards, I think the keto'ers tend to be more active and vocal. Many low carbers don't even bother joining the LCD because they feel their carb macro is not unusually low - they need no extra support. Sort of like your experiences.
Anyways, something to consider. Following discussions could sway your opinion to try lower carb one way or the other.0 -
It's funny, I'd probably largely be considered low carb but I would never put that label on myself and I wouldn't join the LCD either. It's not a conscious decision, it's just the way it falls, I don't even look at my daily carb amount and in fact only had a look back recently as there was a discussion about peoples averages.
Who knows, maybe when I move to maintenance and have more calories to play with I will naturally plug the gap with starchy carbs but whilst in a deficit I guess I'm low carb.
And if I was asked to describe my WOE I'd just call it "normal", moderation or some such. I don't really need or want to put a label on it to be honest but that's probably about my aversion to named diets generally.0 -
I've done both and it seems like I'm in the minority when I say that I was constantly ravenous when I was keto. I did like the structure that came with keto, however, for me it just wasn't sustainable. "Eating whatever you want" really means some serious accountability in comparison with keto for many (myself included) but lately I definitely feel far more satisfied and generally better than when I was keto. However, there are plenty of people who have incredible success and love how they feel, and more power to them! 1
-
You might consider joining the Low Carber Daily. It may help you with ideas or information. Two of the mods are slow carbers: one is slightly above the usual rough 150g carb limit for what is low carb, and the other has been as low as keto but has found it isn't meeting her needs anymore and has moved on to a higher low carb level. Another mod is using LCHF to keto to treat T2D, and another is basically a carnivore.
I actually might. I know Sabine is one of the mods, and I think I eat kind of like she does anyway, and I am curious about seeing how eating lower affects me (I was going to wait until a marathon I was thinking about running, as I didn't want to change things up while training, but I am switching to the half and not doing a full until October, which gives me tons of time to decide if I can eat lower carb while training, so I may start playing around with it now that I have some time). I don't feel like I need more support, but I do like reading the discussions and the sources posted and used to read the group some before it got closed.
I had thought about it before, but got the sense that all the low carbers hated me and thought I was anti low carb, which I'm not, and I wouldn't say it in a group even if I was, because that would be inappropriate. I know I'm probably just paranoid, LOL. ;-)1 -
@lemurcat12 you're definitely welcome over there! It's a friendly group. 1
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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