Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Dr Jason Fung - The Useless Concept of Calories
Replies
-
On top of that, he is a zealot of one method.
To be fair MFP relies on one method, CICO. A lot of people on the MFP's forums also tout CICO as really the only thing that is truly underpinning and important for weight loss (I'd count me among them). I don't think being a "zealot" for one particular method is inherently wrong, it just needs to be a viable method based on some actual supporting evidence.
8 -
ok thank you..i appreciate your feedback guys! i honestly wasn’t trying to be a smart butt..really wanted to hear your reasons why you dislike his beliefs & i understand what you’re saying. you have valid points...all which i previously believed too, until i listened to him talk & read his books...now i’ll all kinds of confused on what to try & what i can stick to. he said reducing calories just slows your metabolism & fasting studies show that fasting increases metabolism. and that if you’re overweight..chances are you have an insulin problem. i have a lot to lose & this first week of keto is hell for me. if there a valid reasons why what he says is crap, and this feeling of crap i have is not gonna be worth it, then maybe i should rethink my strategy.. ughh. thanks again :-)
There's a great thread on "refeeds and diet breaks" you may be interested in reading. @Nony_Mouse started it...
Keto is not required for weight loss. If it doesn't suit you, don't do it. I personally couldn't do keto because I like vegetables too much and having to limit them due to keto is stupid to me.7 -
he said reducing calories just slows your metabolism & fasting studies show that fasting increases metabolism. and that if you’re overweight..chances are you have an insulin problem. i have a lot to lose & this first week of keto is hell for me. if there a valid reasons why what he says is crap, and this feeling of crap i have is not gonna be worth it, then maybe i should rethink my strategy.. ughh. thanks again :-)
Think about some of these. Reducing calories slows your metabolism... but if you reduce them all the way to zero it does the opposite? If you're overweight chances are you have an insulin problem... so since we have an obesity epidemic in this country, we actually have some kind of pandemic insulin problem that's never been so widespread before?
Fact is, he rather grotesquely misunderstands basic thermodynamics, as he revealed in the OP's link when he suggested that a pound of sugar was equivalent to a pound of lettuce as far as weight gain goes. That's pretty obviously nonsense, and not because the sugar induces an "insulin spike" that the lettuce does not, but because what we extract from our foods -- the thing we need from them -- is energy. This energy is carried by chemical compounds, and we use it by breaking those compounds down. When we consume an excess of energy, those compounds are transformed into something else and then stored. Some foods contain more of these energy-carrying compounds than others. We call those compounds "macronutrients" -- fat, protein, and carbohydrates. We measure the energy they provide in "calories". Summarizing the energy carried by the macronutrients in a type of food as "calories" is thus a good shorthand way to figure out how much of them you need. And yes, pure white sugar has MUCH more in the way of energy-carrying macronutrients than lettuce, pound for pound.
Unless you already have some kind of metabolic disorder, that's really all there is to it. No complicated explanations, no illogical endpoints, no handwaving, no magic bullet or One True Diet.
Different combinations of macronutrients are also important for different fitness or health goals, but we're talking about weight loss here. When it comes to weight loss, it's the calories.10 -
ok thank you..i appreciate your feedback guys! i honestly wasn’t trying to be a smart butt..really wanted to hear your reasons why you dislike his beliefs & i understand what you’re saying. you have valid points...all which i previously believed too, until i listened to him talk & read his books...now i’ll all kinds of confused on what to try & what i can stick to. he said reducing calories just slows your metabolism & fasting studies show that fasting increases metabolism. and that if you’re overweight..chances are you have an insulin problem. i have a lot to lose & this first week of keto is hell for me. if there a valid reasons why what he says is crap, and this feeling of crap i have is not gonna be worth it, then maybe i should rethink my strategy.. ughh. thanks again :-)
IF studies have been a bit over exaggerated, largely because they have been on animal models. Is there an increase in metabolism during long periods of fasting, yes but its not alot and not sustained ling term (i.e., it occurs during thay day). IF in no way provides long term sustainment to metabolic functions. But do you know what does? Protein and resistance training. Ironically, those two aspects arent covered as much in keto communties which i feel sad about.
Now about about insulin resistance and obesity. In animal models there is evidence that IF can improve insulin sensitivity. In human models, IS improves largely from exercise and weight loss.
This is the problem i have with these types of people. They take one or two studies and run with it. Ironically, if i would take advice on IF or Keto, it wouldn't be from Dr. Fung, it would be from Martin Berkham or Lyle McDonald. Those two are the ones who pretty much started this. Fung is just another pawn who theorizes and rides the coat tails of trends diets.
Here was a recent meta anaylsis discussion on IF: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10615049/alan-aragon-on-intermittent-fasting#latest8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »On top of that, he is a zealot of one method.
To be fair MFP relies on one method, CICO. A lot of people on the MFP's forums also tout CICO as really the only thing that is truly underpinning and important for weight loss (I'd count me among them). I don't think being a "zealot" for one particular method is inherently wrong, it just needs to be a viable method based on some actual supporting evidence.
While i see where you are coming from I'd argue that most of us see CICO as the underlying energy balance equation. Where i think people need to expand their mind is how different diets can individualistic have impact on that. Also, i also think many people on this board struggle to recognize the benefits of some other diets, especially when science doesnt show the same benefit from their diet (i.e., Ketogenic diets therapeutic benefits for neurologic disorderss)2 -
ok thank you..i appreciate your feedback guys! i honestly wasn’t trying to be a smart butt..really wanted to hear your reasons why you dislike his beliefs & i understand what you’re saying. you have valid points...all which i previously believed too, until i listened to him talk & read his books...now i’ll all kinds of confused on what to try & what i can stick to. he said reducing calories just slows your metabolism & fasting studies show that fasting increases metabolism. and that if you’re overweight..chances are you have an insulin problem. i have a lot to lose & this first week of keto is hell for me. if there a valid reasons why what he says is crap, and this feeling of crap i have is not gonna be worth it, then maybe i should rethink my strategy.. ughh. thanks again :-)
There's nothing wrong with keto, IF or any of that. However, the basics still boil down to calories. You should do whatever helps you keep your calories in check. For many, that is keto. Any change in diet can come with growing pains, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you've given it a fair-enough shake and decide it isn't working, and you aren't able to lose weight on it, it's not because you did something wrong, or because you're weak or defective somehow. It just wasn't the right method for you.5 -
ccsernica - Fung says when you reduce calories to 0, you finally get a break from your “fed state” & insulin goes down, your body can start burning your stored fat as energy as it thinks its starving..and that we were created to exist this way..we didn’t always have an obesity problem, that when we constantly snack, we don’t let our insulin levels stabilize, therefore insulin stays high & we keep storing (not burning) fat. have you ever heard of Butter Bob? He lost 140 lbs low carbing & doing IF and supports these same ideas. he says even when you fast, you’re still getting calories from your stores fat. i tried fasting for 60 hours...i felt like death & was so weak & irritable (was waiting for the feeling of energy people say they get from fasting) but people told me it was because i wasn’t fat adapted yet & to eat keto for about a month first to make the fast easier. thats why i’m trying keto now & not watching calories (if weight loss is supposed to be hormonal, according to Fung). in your opinion, is fasting really just another way to reduce calories and thats why people lose? thats what i originally thought until i listened to Fung & thought maybe i should try it to reverse my insulin resistance (that i just assume i have lol).
thanks guys again for all the replies! i am taking it all in :-)16 -
Burning stored fat -- which is exactly what you'd expect to happen if you're not eating enough to provide energy to meet your needs -- isn't the same thing as "increasing metabolism". It's in fact exactly what happens with a CICO approach to weight loss. When we "constantly snack", it ought to be pretty obvious that we're consuming lots and lots of calories. Never mind "letting our insulin levels stabilize", we're taking in more energy than we're using. The excess doesn't disappear. It can't. That's basic thermodynamics. It gets stored as fat.ccsernica - Fung says when you reduce calories to 0, you finally get a break from your “fed state” & insulin goes down, your body can start burning your stored fat as energy as it thinks its starving..and that we were created to exist this way..we didn’t always have an obesity problem, that when we constantly snack, we don’t let our insulin levels stabilize, therefore insulin stays high & we keep storing (not burning) fat.
All such diets, when they work, work because they provide fewer calories than you burn. This is true no matter what they consist of. Once a few years ago I lost about 10 lbs fairly quickly eating lots of saturated fat -- including butter -- and protein. That's because it made me feel so sated that I didn't want to eat much of anything else. I was in fact eating less, much less. But there are other potential health costs: My LDL and triglycerides went through the roof.have you ever heard of Butter Bob? He lost 140 lbs low carbing & doing IF and supports these same ideas. he says even when you fast, you’re still getting calories from your stores fat.
And again, OF COURSE you're getting energy from your fat stores when you fast. That's what your fat stores are for in the first place! You need energy, and it has to come from somewhere. That is not increasing your metabolism.6 -
what about autophagy? i’m worried when i lose this weight, i’ll have sagging skin...which extended fasts over 36 hrs are supposed to kick you into this autophagy12
-
You gotta be fungin' kidding me.
3 minutes of my life gone forever. 2 -
Just curious as to why the people saying Fung is crazy, why do you believe so? Have you read his books or listened to any of his podcasts? Can’t really claim he’s crazy if not. And he’s not all about making money..anyone can watch what he has to say on Youtube for free sooo.. How do you not accept the science behind it?? You all still really believe its all about calories? Ok..count calories & lose weight, but stall..and then what? Take calories even lower to keep losing?? Add a crapload of exercise?? How do you explain his numerous patients who have had success reversing their insulin resistance??
130 lbs lost, no stalls, almost no exercise. I'm just fine just counting calories.10 -
Anything you *kitten* do that drops a load of lbs off your back and increases your exercise substantially (preferably at the same time and even if that exercise is just "moderate") has a really really good chance of helping your reverse your slide towards/beginning of type 2 diabetes.
"Anything" would include the Keto, Banana, McDonald's, Snicker's, and/or Balanced Diet way of eating as long as you are able to *kitten* drop your calories enough so that you lose a substantial amount of weight at a reasonable rate of loss.
Why does it have to come down to bragging rights because of someone called Butter Bob? I see your Butter Bob, and raise him 282g of carbs (128g of which were sugars) each and every day on average for a whole year while dropping 72lbs.
16 -
ccsernica - Fung says when you reduce calories to 0, you finally get a break from your “fed state” & insulin goes down, your body can start burning your stored fat as energy as it thinks its starving..and that we were created to exist this way..we didn’t always have an obesity problem, that when we constantly snack, we don’t let our insulin levels stabilize, therefore insulin stays high & we keep storing (not burning) fat. have you ever heard of Butter Bob? He lost 140 lbs low carbing & doing IF and supports these same ideas. he says even when you fast, you’re still getting calories from your stores fat. i tried fasting for 60 hours...i felt like death & was so weak & irritable (was waiting for the feeling of energy people say they get from fasting) but people told me it was because i wasn’t fat adapted yet & to eat keto for about a month first to make the fast easier. thats why i’m trying keto now & not watching calories (if weight loss is supposed to be hormonal, according to Fung). in your opinion, is fasting really just another way to reduce calories and thats why people lose? thats what i originally thought until i listened to Fung & thought maybe i should try it to reverse my insulin resistance (that i just assume i have lol).
thanks guys again for all the replies! i am taking it all in :-)
This is the problem with Fung. You dont need to be in an extended fasted state to burn body fat (which you are when you are sleeping). You just need an addressed energy balance. Lets say you maintained weight on 3k. If one person at 5 meals a day and another at within a 4 hour window, they both would have consumed the same amount of calories. The difference is this... larger meals (those following IF) would take longer to digest (but less frequent); those with smaller meals would take shorter to digest but more frequent. The end result would be equal time. All you end up doing is adjusting the windows for digestion.
Now the one argument against IF is protein turnover to support muscle building and/or sustainment and i dont know if there is adequate science to support one way or another. There is some theory that suggest that more fequent protein consumption would increase protein turnover. Because when you eat protein, it drive MPS which supports the creation of new proteins. The ladt study done on this (schoenfeld, aragon, helms) would suggest there is a potential benefit to spreading protein but more research was required for confirmation.
Similarly we dont often talk about thr benefits of insulin. Since its a storage hormone and inhibits lipolysis, it also inhibits protein degredation (breakdown of proteins). This isnome reason carbs are king with bulks and keto is not greater for building muscle; this is also why there are ckd/tkd styke keto diets to help minimize those impacts. Additionally, carbs support muscle recovery unlike keto diets.
Ultimately, you have to find what works for you and what supports your goals. My goals are based on body composition and lifting performance. Keto is far from optimal when it comes to it, even while fat adapted.
Info on that.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10611377/anyone-read-the-latest-research-on-keto-by-alan-aragon/p112 -
This content has been removed.
-
I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.19
-
I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.25 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!19 -
ok thank you..i appreciate your feedback guys! i honestly wasn’t trying to be a smart butt..really wanted to hear your reasons why you dislike his beliefs & i understand what you’re saying. you have valid points...all which i previously believed too, until i listened to him talk & read his books...now i’ll all kinds of confused on what to try & what i can stick to. he said reducing calories just slows your metabolism & fasting studies show that fasting increases metabolism. and that if you’re overweight..chances are you have an insulin problem. i have a lot to lose & this first week of keto is hell for me. if there a valid reasons why what he says is crap, and this feeling of crap i have is not gonna be worth it, then maybe i should rethink my strategy.. ughh. thanks again :-)
Everyone has to find what works for them I guess and there's more than one way to lose weight.
My own experience for what it's worth.... About 5 years ago I dropped from 108kg to 78kg in about 9 months by counting calories (but not changing macros and still having sweet treats when calorie budget allowed) and running 5k and cycling most days... Dropping the first 20kg was fairly quick and the last 5kg was really hard. However, it worked well and the calorie deficit and predicted weight loss was pretty bang on the money - supporting CICO - I was sure it all made sense on my Excel spreadsheet ! :-)
However, I was still not happy with my body fat % even at 78kg (I'm 6ft tall). The main problem I had was that I was often hungry and always fighting cravings. Eventually, my resolve slowly cracked and my weight started to rise. I fought back but after about 6 more months I was defeated - I gained weight back to 98kg over the next few years. (This might be something to do with a slowed metabolism or might be heightened ghrelin or leptin setpoint forcing me back up or it might be just that my willpower cracked and the cravings became too much - i don't really know).
So, after being fat again for the last few years, I came across something on Twitter where a very obese lady who had lost a massive amount of weight was asked which of all the diet books she'd read, which was the most important for her. She replied with a list of about 15 books but No 1 was The Obesity Code by Fung. I bought it and it resonated for me. I recognised my own experience of having cravings for simple carbs and sugar and how I was hungry every few hours eating my regular diet.
I was enthused by the theories in the book and eager to see how I would get on. I dived in head first and fasted for 2 days right off the bat with just water then started feeding myself keto LCHF - (not the best way - better to go keto before fasting so you are already fat adapted).
Honestly, I have to say without hyperbole that it's been a complete revelation to me. The weight loss is not the most significant thing at all - although it has been fairly rapid. 13kg in about 2 months.
The weight loss just one of the revelations. The most amazing thing for me about dropping simple carbs (I eat plenty of fibrous low GI carbs like spinach and broccoli) and getting into ketosis has been the way my hunger and cravings have completely disappeared. I was such a sugar junkie I could never imagine not having sugar in my tea. I used to eat huge bags of sweets (candies) and crisps (chips). I cut it all out completely and the cravings have 97% gone.
It's hard to explain but it's like the idea of a chocolate bar might pop into my head but my stomach doesn't want it. Whereas before, it was like the head and stomach both experienced the desire and both hijacked me and overcame my willpower. The keto diet / IF has given me much more CONTROL. I really notice now how, when people get hungry, they need to eat NOW. I used to be like that. In some ways it reminds me of my old addiction to smoking - not being in control.
I've done 3 day fasts a couple of times during this period and I can confirm there is a definite mild euphoria when the brain starts running on ketones. I flew an airplane from Shanghai to London having only consumed water for 3 days and I felt amazing. Sharp and focussed and very positive mood. My crew thought I was insane. They were doing as I used to and shovelling chocolate bars down at 3am flying over Siberia to battle fatigue - a massive challenge in long-haul aviation. I was able to just sip my fizzy water and green tea with lemon. Hunger pangs would pop up and then just pass like waves. Hunger doesn't build and build like I imagined it would - it just passes after a minute or so. Short term hunger (if you have enough body fat and you're fat adapted) just passes in waves and can be easily shrugged off with a glass of water. But this is me talking about extended (>24hr) fasts. You don't have to fast at all. The Keto diet (LCHF) is very satiating because it's fat and protein so you never get hungry. You find yourself automatically unconsciously intermittent fasting and skipping meals because you're just not hungry anymore.
Also these are tools you can use to eat simple carbs if you want to. For example, if I wanted to go to a birthday party and not be a killjoy by refusing cake etc, I could just fast before and after the party to compensate and then flip back to LCHF after the party.
I would advise anyone who's interested to listen to some of the stories of real people who were suffering terribly with a range of metabolic illnesses before they discovered keto / IF (not just being fat *kitten* like me). http://obesitycodepodcast.com/ I agree with the poster before who said there are multiple ways - I've seen the studies too for LFHC reversals. However, my own view is that LCHF / Keto / IF is the easiest way because it lowers the hunger (by making it easier to feed of your own body fat for fuel - lowering insulin (carbs) facilitates lipolysis) and lowers cravings (because you stop craving simple carbs after you haven't eaten them for a while - maybe a dopamine / addiction aspect?).
Of course 3 months in it remains to be seen how things will go long term. I won't be in ketosis all the time - I'm looking into theories about carb cycling etc. But when I do eat more carbs more regularly again it will be complex carbs like sweet potato and legumes - not chips and chocolate. I don't think I should mess with that stuff anymore than an ex-alcoholic should work in a bar.
I imagine a lot of people on here don't like Taubes but his article here in the New York Times about being a Carboholic (simple carbs) certainly resonates for me.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/well/eat/are-you-a-carboholic-why-cutting-carbs-is-so-tough.html
keto1777 - you have to know what you're doing technically with LCHF / Keto. Most people who try it casually will fail as there are unpleasant symptoms in first weeks if it's not properly prepared. Hit me up for some tips or look online or get some books.
31 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
CICO is physics. It IS that simple because it breaks the whole process down to the lowest common denominator. You physically can not lose fat if you are not absorbing fewer calories than your body is using. That is a fact based on the laws of physics.
There's things that can change the amount of calories your body absorbs and/or uses so how much you need is not always clear, but having to consume less than you're using is the bottom line that any diet that you may choose to follow has to abide by, or else it won't do anything.8 -
I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
Which hormones specifically? And what is Teta's protocol and what hormones does it address?
And if you spend time on the board, you will see that people with PCOS or IR, follow LCHF? Its a fairly recongized thing because there is significant evidence supporting it. Its when you extrapolate those finding to those without tjose conditions that is a bit absurd.
7 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
Considering there is a very long thread on diet breaks and re-feeds that references, at the least, Lyle McDonalds work, I'm not sure how you can make this statement?
Yes, calories are not the only thing that matter but there is a huge difference between referencing McDonald and referencing Fung.
But we are right back to the question of who says it is ONLY calories? I've not found this person. Calories may be stressed, but it seems to always be with a note on nutrition.10 -
CICO is preached because it is the formula of how weight is managed. That's it. Hormones, medical conditions, daily activity, muscle mass or lack thereof, how long one has been dieting and a bunch of other stuff, those are all things that can affect the CO half of the equation. And they are all things that are made mention of when these discussions come up. CICO still stands, what those numbers are and if different dietary protocols are worth experimenting with (LCHF, keto, higher carb etc) will be different for each individual because of all of the aforementioned factors. Why is this so hard to grasp or accept?18
-
ok thank you..i appreciate your feedback guys! i honestly wasn’t trying to be a smart butt..really wanted to hear your reasons why you dislike his beliefs & i understand what you’re saying. you have valid points...all which i previously believed too, until i listened to him talk & read his books...now i’ll all kinds of confused on what to try & what i can stick to. he said reducing calories just slows your metabolism & fasting studies show that fasting increases metabolism. and that if you’re overweight..chances are you have an insulin problem. i have a lot to lose & this first week of keto is hell for me. if there a valid reasons why what he says is crap, and this feeling of crap i have is not gonna be worth it, then maybe i should rethink my strategy.. ughh. thanks again :-)
Everyone has to find what works for them I guess and there's more than one way to lose weight.
My own experience for what it's worth.... About 5 years ago I dropped from 108kg to 78kg in about 9 months by counting calories (but not changing macros and still having sweet treats when calorie budget allowed) and running 5k and cycling most days... Dropping the first 20kg was fairly quick and the last 5kg was really hard. However, it worked well and the calorie deficit and predicted weight loss was pretty bang on the money - supporting CICO - I was sure it all made sense on my Excel spreadsheet ! :-)
However, I was still not happy with my body fat % even at 78kg (I'm 6ft tall). The main problem I had was that I was often hungry and always fighting cravings. Eventually, my resolve slowly cracked and my weight started to rise. I fought back but after about 6 more months I was defeated - I gained weight back to 98kg over the next few years. (This might be something to do with a slowed metabolism or might be heightened ghrelin or leptin setpoint forcing me back up or it might be just that my willpower cracked and the cravings became too much - i don't really know).
So, after being fat again for the last few years, I came across something on Twitter where a very obese lady who had lost a massive amount of weight was asked which of all the diet books she'd read, which was the most important for her. She replied with a list of about 15 books but No 1 was The Obesity Code by Fung. I bought it and it resonated for me. I recognised my own experience of having cravings for simple carbs and sugar and how I was hungry every few hours eating my regular diet.
I was enthused by the theories in the book and eager to see how I would get on. I dived in head first and fasted for 2 days right off the bat with just water then started feeding myself keto LCHF - (not the best way - better to go keto before fasting so you are already fat adapted).
Honestly, I have to say without hyperbole that it's been a complete revelation to me. The weight loss is not the most significant thing at all - although it has been fairly rapid. 13kg in about 2 months.
The weight loss just one of the revelations. The most amazing thing for me about dropping simple carbs (I eat plenty of fibrous low GI carbs like spinach and broccoli) and getting into ketosis has been the way my hunger and cravings have completely disappeared. I was such a sugar junkie I could never imagine not having sugar in my tea. I used to eat huge bags of sweets (candies) and crisps (chips). I cut it all out completely and the cravings have 97% gone.
It's hard to explain but it's like the idea of a chocolate bar might pop into my head but my stomach doesn't want it. Whereas before, it was like the head and stomach both experienced the desire and both hijacked me and overcame my willpower. The keto diet / IF has given me much more CONTROL. I really notice now how, when people get hungry, they need to eat NOW. I used to be like that. In some ways it reminds me of my old addiction to smoking - not being in control.
I've done 3 day fasts a couple of times during this period and I can confirm there is a definite mild euphoria when the brain starts running on ketones. I flew an airplane from Shanghai to London having only consumed water for 3 days and I felt amazing. Sharp and focussed and very positive mood. My crew thought I was insane. They were doing as I used to and shovelling chocolate bars down at 3am flying over Siberia to battle fatigue - a massive challenge in long-haul aviation. I was able to just sip my fizzy water and green tea with lemon. Hunger pangs would pop up and then just pass like waves. Hunger doesn't build and build like I imagined it would - it just passes after a minute or so. Short term hunger (if you have enough body fat and you're fat adapted) just passes in waves and can be easily shrugged off with a glass of water. But this is me talking about extended (>24hr) fasts. You don't have to fast at all. The Keto diet (LCHF) is very satiating because it's fat and protein so you never get hungry. You find yourself automatically unconsciously intermittent fasting and skipping meals because you're just not hungry anymore.
Also these are tools you can use to eat simple carbs if you want to. For example, if I wanted to go to a birthday party and not be a killjoy by refusing cake etc, I could just fast before and after the party to compensate and then flip back to LCHF after the party.
I would advise anyone who's interested to listen to some of the stories of real people who were suffering terribly with a range of metabolic illnesses before they discovered keto / IF (not just being fat *kitten* like me). http://obesitycodepodcast.com/ I agree with the poster before who said there are multiple ways - I've seen the studies too for LFHC reversals. However, my own view is that LCHF / Keto / IF is the easiest way because it lowers the hunger (by making it easier to feed of your own body fat for fuel - lowering insulin (carbs) facilitates lipolysis) and lowers cravings (because you stop craving simple carbs after you haven't eaten them for a while - maybe a dopamine / addiction aspect?).
Of course 3 months in it remains to be seen how things will go long term. I won't be in ketosis all the time - I'm looking into theories about carb cycling etc. But when I do eat more carbs more regularly again it will be complex carbs like sweet potato and legumes - not chips and chocolate. I don't think I should mess with that stuff anymore than an ex-alcoholic should work in a bar.
I imagine a lot of people on here don't like Taubes but his article here in the New York Times about being a Carboholic (simple carbs) certainly resonates for me.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/well/eat/are-you-a-carboholic-why-cutting-carbs-is-so-tough.html
keto1777 - you have to know what you're doing technically with LCHF / Keto. Most people who try it casually will fail as there are unpleasant symptoms in first weeks if it's not properly prepared. Hit me up for some tips or look online or get some books.
So honest question, if you were unhappy with your goals previously, how is this current plan going to get you there? You are losing fairly aggressively, which would make it harder to sustain muscle mass which is unlikely going to provide that body that you are probably looking to achieve.
Also, just to point out the fallacies that taubes. Lustig and Fung commonly discuss when it comes to carbs; they always tend to list items that are more than carbs. In fact, things like chips, baked goods, etc... used to be considered bad fats 20 years ago. Its just hyperpalatable foods that are tough.
Having said that, i do find it good that you found a sustainable diet so far (albeit it doesnt seem like you have been doing it for a long time). Ultimately, that is the key to long term sustainment.12 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »On top of that, he is a zealot of one method.
To be fair MFP relies on one method, CICO. A lot of people on the MFP's forums also tout CICO as really the only thing that is truly underpinning and important for weight loss (I'd count me among them). I don't think being a "zealot" for one particular method is inherently wrong, it just needs to be a viable method based on some actual supporting evidence.
I don't actually agree with this. CICO is understanding HOW weight loss happens. It is not a particular means of achieving that. It leaves open the question of what the best way of achieving that might be for you (logging and counting calories, some other kind of portion control, low carb, WFPB, being nutrition conscious and cutting out snacking, intermittent fasting (of one sort or another, as there are many) or so on, including a combination of methods).
By claiming it's not about calories, Fung (and other similar diet gurus) then force their disciples to follow their own methods, even if they are not good fits, and give them false or incomplete information as to why they work (often to push the method that you are not responsible for being overweight).
To the extent Fung insists obesity is all a result of IR, he both ignores that simply being obese often causes IR and, even more significantly, that many who are obese are not IR. He also ignores that not everyone responses well to fasting or low carb. To contrast that, I think CICO works for everyone (although some may have medical conditions to clear up before trying to lose, i.e., thyroid medication may be needed), but I do not think calorie counting/logging is the best method for all.9 -
I simply love when people who have been eating some form of a low carb high fat diet for a relatively short time come here completely sure that it is the answer to life, the universe, and everything. And I am saying this fondly, because I've been there.
I low carbed for ten years.
I ultimately did not find it sustainable. A life without potatoes is not a life worth living, which brings up a point that occurred to me reading @Barry7879 's last post.
I always wonder why the comparison is keto vs. sugary junk food. There is never anyone who comes here and says That they previously dieted on whole grains, tubers, legumes, lean protein, plenty of veggies, and healthy fats with occasional treats and were just beset with relentless cravings and had to turn to keto/LCHF because nothing else would rid them of their addiction to steel cut oats or lentils.
The other issue that I had with the post that must be made is that it's great that he finds fat satiating, but he should know that not everyone does. I know I don't. I need a bit to feel sated, but protein combined with starch is where it's at for me.
The thing is that Barry isn't talking just as Barry. He's saying what Fung and his ilk peddle to the masses. There's no other alternative to a nutritionless waste of a diet but keto. That's a huge strawman that he and his cohorts are constantly arguing against and it's ridiculous.
Furthermore. I was class II obese. I was never insulin resistant.26 -
ok thank you..i appreciate your feedback guys! i honestly wasn’t trying to be a smart butt..really wanted to hear your reasons why you dislike his beliefs & i understand what you’re saying. you have valid points...all which i previously believed too, until i listened to him talk & read his books...now i’ll all kinds of confused on what to try & what i can stick to. he said reducing calories just slows your metabolism & fasting studies show that fasting increases metabolism. and that if you’re overweight..chances are you have an insulin problem. i have a lot to lose & this first week of keto is hell for me. if there a valid reasons why what he says is crap, and this feeling of crap i have is not gonna be worth it, then maybe i should rethink my strategy.. ughh. thanks again :-)
Everyone has to find what works for them I guess and there's more than one way to lose weight.
My own experience for what it's worth.... About 5 years ago I dropped from 108kg to 78kg in about 9 months by counting calories (but not changing macros and still having sweet treats when calorie budget allowed) and running 5k and cycling most days... Dropping the first 20kg was fairly quick and the last 5kg was really hard. However, it worked well and the calorie deficit and predicted weight loss was pretty bang on the money - supporting CICO - I was sure it all made sense on my Excel spreadsheet ! :-)
However, I was still not happy with my body fat % even at 78kg (I'm 6ft tall).
What I read from this: you either lost fat too aggressively and lost some muscle or found that you had less muscle than you would have wanted when you got rid of much of the covering fat. That's not uncommon. There are many other MFPers and others who have had this experience and thus followed weight loss by focusing on muscle building.
Doing low carb doesn't mean you end up with more muscle. To the contrary, carbs + sufficient protein can be very helpful in building and maintaining muscle and if you do LCHF it is important to add MORE protein to compensation. One source: http://caloriesproper.com/muscle-growth-sans-carbs/ (explore the blog, it's pro low carb).The main problem I had was that I was often hungry and always fighting cravings. Eventually, my resolve slowly cracked and my weight started to rise. I fought back but after about 6 more months I was defeated - I gained weight back to 98kg over the next few years.
What I read from this: YOUR diet was not satiating to you (and that was perhaps more apparent when the excitement of weight loss was gone -- I think it's really common for many people to find it easier to keep a deficit without being hungry and then become unsatisfied on more calories and the same diet when weight loss is over, so the fact you are currently in the middle of weight loss and higher body fat than when at maintenance I think makes this a not very reliable comparison and suggests you may not yet know if low carb has that magical effect when you are not losing weight). To compare, I started by cutting fat and carbs and doing less than 1200 (I did not know that until I started logging and when I saw I increased calories). Because I was eating a good diet -- NOT low carb, I was just eating lots of nutrient dense foods and adequate protein -- I did not feel hungry, probably more because of the mental joy of losing weight and getting control of my diet than what I was eating. I bumped calories to 1250, again NOT low carb (I added back in some carbs to hit my goals), and felt amazing and was losing weight super fast. Could I eat that same diet now at maintenance and feel the same? No, but it has nothing to do with carbs, it's lower body fat and not having that initial dieting excitement. It kicks it for me whenever I try something new, too, so I tend to be pretty skeptical when someone reports having found the One True Way.
That aside, YES what we eat matters for satiety and different things work for different people. But the choices are not low carb or some poor diet with lots of added sugar, and the same things (again) do not work for all. I'm currently (until Thanksgiving) doing a 100% plant-based diet that is lower protein than I am used to and higher carb and I thought I'd do poorly on it based on last time I did something similar (although I loved it when I did it for Lent some years ago), and I'm super satiated and enjoying it. Probably the new diet thing, but maybe not. I can do pretty well on a very healthy, vegetable-filled LCHF too, but find a breakfast of, say, eggs and bacon one of the few breakfasts that makes me hungry again in about an hour (I need fiber).(This might be something to do with a slowed metabolism or might be heightened ghrelin or leptin setpoint forcing me back up or it might be just that my willpower cracked and the cravings became too much - i don't really know).
Yeah, could be. Worth noting that exercise is important for helping with that -- increases leptin sensitivity.I recognised my own experience of having cravings for simple carbs and sugar and how I was hungry every few hours eating my regular diet.
I think lots of people experience this because of bad habits -- IME I want to eat when I'm used to eating and crave the kinds of foods I eat. I have gone from wanting to snack whenever food was available to never thinking about food outside of meals (and being happy with 3 healthy meals -- the pattern that fits best in my life most days) eating a wide variety of macros. So the Fung "one size fits all" or "you will crave unless you do this" or -- the most dishonest -- you can't burn body fat without doing this is, IMO, obviously false.
I'm not saying LCHF is not the right choice for you -- perhaps it will turn out to be a great longterm solution, as I think it is for some. But to push it on others as the One Right Way is, IMO, wrong and false. And to assume that those who are not doing some similar type of eating pattern are starving and unhappy and craving is even worse.10 -
I frankly don't give a damn. I've done my own experiments over the past 70 years: I eat fewer calories and move more, and I lose weight. I eat more calories and move less, and I gain weight. End of story. You all want to make things more complicated than they need to be, and people like Dr. Fung want to make money off whatever better mousetrap they're trying to sell you.40
-
Kind of echoing @GottaBurnEmAll but it always strikes me how the low carb evangelists always equate carbs with junk food, and always assume that because they don't find pretzels and twizzlers satiating, that no one finds any carbs satiating.
When I overeat, it tends to be high fat foods - cheese and other full fat dairy, dark meat chicken, nuts and nut butters. Put a bread basket in front of me by itself and I might eat one piece. Add a dish of creamy butter and I will eat several slices just so I can smother them with butter. Give me cheap off brand ice cream that has lots of air and sugar and I'll have a small serving,. Give me a pint of fatty creamy Hagen Daz and I'll absentmindedly eat the whole thing.
I find potatoes, pasta, oatmeal, beans, and rice filling. I find a diet with balanced macros and high fiber gives me energy, good digestion, great bloodwork, and an appetite nicely proportioned to my calories goal. All the Blue Zones eat that kind of diet as well (in fact, probably a bit higher fiber/carb than I aspire to!).
Carbs aren't always highly processed. Fat isn't satiating for everyone. Just because something is useful in treating a medical condition doesn't mean it is required to prevent a medical condition. Just because something works to keep you at a calorie deficit doesn't mean it is required for everyone to achieve a calorie deficit. LCHF works well for those who find carbs increase their appetite and fats fill them up, but that's not everyone. Not sure why that needs to be repeated over and over again!25 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
Considering there is a very long thread on diet breaks and re-feeds that references, at the least, Lyle McDonalds work, I'm not sure how you can make this statement?
Yes, calories are not the only thing that matter but there is a huge difference between referencing McDonald and referencing Fung.
But we are right back to the question of who says it is ONLY calories? I've not found this person. Calories may be stressed, but it seems to always be with a note on nutrition.
I think you assumed you that I'm agreeing with Jason Fung? See this is why it's pointless doing debates on MFP because people just assume things.8 -
stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't understand all this debating. On the one hand we have the die hard Cico folk who ignore hormones and then on the other hand we have the hormonal folk who ignore Cico. Why can't we have BOTH??? We need a calorie deficit and a hormonal balance. This is why I follow Dr Jade Teta's protocol. He addresses how to do a calorie deficit in line with balancing hormones. Perfect. As some one who has PCOS I find his work very enlightening.
See, there is a sort of a miscommunication happening. CICO simply means the balance of incoming and outgoing calories, and that tipping the balance to one side or another is the only way to lose/gain fat. It means nothing else. It doesn't say anything about the quality of food or its nutrients. It doesn't say anything about how sustainable is a particular diet for a certain individual. It doesn't say anything about hormones or health conditions that affect how many calories a person absorbs/burns (yes, these exist and the CICO folks don't deny them). It doesn't say anything about how eating a certain way helps one health condition or another. These are all separate topics. The issues with the "hormone folks" is that they deny the very fundament of weight control.
There is nothing wrong with following an approach that is beneficial for a certain health condition, but that can be achieved without believing woo. I have a few hormonal and physical conditions that affect how many calories I burn. Being aware of that helps me develop strategies that insure that my calories in are fewer than calories out taking these conditions into account. Fung denies that calories have anything to do with weight gain in people with hormonal issues (and goes further to say that hormonal issues are the cause for all weight gain). That's a load of... Yeah. He's a master of saying things that are technically true, but mean nothing in context. That's the definition of a quack.
Yes I agree with you but I also find those people frustrating who think it's just calories in and out and THATS IT. what so the human body is that simple??? No we're so complex that scientists and nutrition experts are only starting to look at female fat loss now! Our hormones change every single week, wow. When we start our menstrual cycle then estrogen is higher and that helps with pushing our workouts as females are stronger, during ovulation that's when we are the strongest and then during the later phase of the cycle (follicular phase) progesterone is higher and energy levels can plummet just before the period begins. I learnt this from Lyle McDonald's podcast with Mike Mathews and from Dr Jade Teta.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/lyle-mcdonald-podcast/
https://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-female-fat-loss-formula/
Before, just by counting calories I was not getting any results but after following these guys I now know how to work counting calories, macros along with my hormones!
CICO is physics. It IS that simple because it breaks the whole process down to the lowest common denominator. You physically can not lose fat if you are not absorbing fewer calories than your body is using. That is a fact based on the laws of physics.
There's things that can change the amount of calories your body absorbs and/or uses so how much you need is not always clear, but having to consume less than you're using is the bottom line that any diet that you may choose to follow has to abide by, or else it won't do anything.
No, I'm sorry it's not that simple. Maybe for the people on MFP, but for the other 99% of people it's definitely not. It's doable. Definitely. But it's not that simple. We're too complex for simplicity. Also there's different people with different metabolisms. Some people have to just make a small deficit and whoosh the weight falls off, whereas other people just look at food and they pack on the pounds.37
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