Which activity tracker works best with MFP?
Options
Replies
-
So I read this article: https://www.digitaltrends.com/health-fitness/best-cheap-fitness-trackers/
And it was also a good vote for the Fitbit Flex 2, so that remains in my list. But it also made me very curious about the Moov Now and Huawei Pro & Garmin Vivofit 4 & whether they work well with MFP or not really. Maybe a more unknown brand is more of a risk?
Be aware that indeed the cheaper brands don't sync with MFP through their app, but there may be a 3rd party app that does, so round-about can get there.
Also be aware that some less-known brands report their info differently, some take the Apple approach and you have a daily calorie burn, and an exercise calorie burn that is not included in the daily figure.
Or sometimes a base calorie burn (like their math for sedentary that may or may not match MFP sedentary), and then an Active calorie burn for anything above that.
Problem with those methods if reported in the sync - MFP is only going to do math correctly if it receives a TDEE calorie burn, and as the term implies, that would include any exercise calories received.
Even if the optional method of sending workouts over is used, like Garmin correctly does.
So if the desire to sync with MFP is for MFP to correct itself to potentially better estimates of activity level and therefore daily eating goal - some of those won't work even if they do sync.
If it's to merely sync over a workout so your friend's list can see it and you don't manually post about it - some don't even do that optional transfer like Fitbit doesn't.
Oh geez. Thank you so much!!! ❤️ I didn’t even consider this. Yeah my goal is absolutely to make MFP’s eating goal more accurate. Which trackers would do that? Maybe then not the Moov or Huawei - but also not the Fitbit or Garmin?
I don’t care about posting anything about my activity. I’m capable of posting a status to MFP if I think the thing needs to be Known lol.
No - Fitbit and Garmin both work.
Garmin uses the optional method of sending the workout as it's own record.
Fitbit does not. Which sounds like it doesn't matter.
Both send daily burn that contains the workout so MFP can do math correctly.2 -
So I read this article: https://www.digitaltrends.com/health-fitness/best-cheap-fitness-trackers/
And it was also a good vote for the Fitbit Flex 2, so that remains in my list. But it also made me very curious about the Moov Now and Huawei Pro & Garmin Vivofit 4 & whether they work well with MFP or not really. Maybe a more unknown brand is more of a risk?
Be aware that indeed the cheaper brands don't sync with MFP through their app, but there may be a 3rd party app that does, so round-about can get there.
Also be aware that some less-known brands report their info differently, some take the Apple approach and you have a daily calorie burn, and an exercise calorie burn that is not included in the daily figure.
Or sometimes a base calorie burn (like their math for sedentary that may or may not match MFP sedentary), and then an Active calorie burn for anything above that.
Problem with those methods if reported in the sync - MFP is only going to do math correctly if it receives a TDEE calorie burn, and as the term implies, that would include any exercise calories received.
Even if the optional method of sending workouts over is used, like Garmin correctly does.
So if the desire to sync with MFP is for MFP to correct itself to potentially better estimates of activity level and therefore daily eating goal - some of those won't work even if they do sync.
If it's to merely sync over a workout so your friend's list can see it and you don't manually post about it - some don't even do that optional transfer like Fitbit doesn't.
Oh geez. Thank you so much!!! ❤️ I didn’t even consider this. Yeah my goal is absolutely to make MFP’s eating goal more accurate. Which trackers would do that? Maybe then not the Moov or Huawei - but also not the Fitbit or Garmin?
I don’t care about posting anything about my activity. I’m capable of posting a status to MFP if I think the thing needs to be Known lol.
No - Fitbit and Garmin both work.
Garmin uses the optional method of sending the workout as it's own record.
Fitbit does not. Which sounds like it doesn't matter.
Both send daily burn that contains the workout so MFP can do math correctly.
Thank you!!! I think I will stick to those 2 brands from now on in my reading. My priority is accurate connections with MFP.0 -
I’ve been doing more research and I am unsure if I’m being skewed pricier by reviews.
Does HR tracking really impact the accuracy of calorie counting? Is GPS useful for non-runners?
It makes sense and then I pull back and think maybe it’s overkill. I’m not an athlete. I can’t run. I am going to use this for steps/work activity, swimming. Other activities I do are yoga & bodyweight & strength exercises. (Is the HR tracking actually a detriment here because HR goes up but calorie burn doesn’t?)0 -
I’ve been doing more research and I am unsure if I’m being skewed pricier by reviews.
Does HR tracking really impact the accuracy of calorie counting? Is GPS useful for non-runners?
It makes sense and then I pull back and think maybe it’s overkill. I’m not an athlete. I can’t run. I am going to use this for steps/work activity, swimming. Other activities I do are yoga & bodyweight & strength exercises. (Is the HR tracking actually a detriment here because HR goes up but calorie burn doesn’t?)
HR is most useful as a proxy for calorie expenditure in steady state cardio exercise (cycling, running, swimming, etc.). It's far less useful (and less accurate) for things such as yoga and strength training. Many of the trackers won't even try to record HR while swimming because the water interferes with optical heart rate readings - for Garmin to record swimming HR, they require your tracker to be paired with a chest strap designed for swimming and/or triathlons.
Optical heart rate readings work differently (and by that I mean better or worse) for different people, for various reasons. I find mine works great during my normal (non-exercise) daily activities, but it's essentially useless for strength training and even sketchy during steady state cardio. I don't worry about it for strength training, and I pair it with a HR strap during for cardio workouts, which is much more accurate than the wrist-based optical heart rate. Some people find the wrist-based OHR works great for cardio, but I'm not one of them.
GPS is/can be useful for outdoor exercises (again - running, cycling, open water swimming, hiking, rowing/kayaking, etc.), but most devices won't even turn it on for indoor workouts because it's not necessary or useful and just drains battery life. Thus, it wouldn't be used (or useful) for your daily steps/work activity, nor for your yoga/strength training, nor for your swimming if you're doing it in an indoor pool.2 -
I’ve been doing more research and I am unsure if I’m being skewed pricier by reviews.
Does HR tracking really impact the accuracy of calorie counting? Is GPS useful for non-runners?
It makes sense and then I pull back and think maybe it’s overkill. I’m not an athlete. I can’t run. I am going to use this for steps/work activity, swimming. Other activities I do are yoga & bodyweight & strength exercises. (Is the HR tracking actually a detriment here because HR goes up but calorie burn doesn’t?)
HR is most useful as a proxy for calorie expenditure in steady state cardio exercise (cycling, running, swimming, etc.). It's far less useful (and less accurate) for things such as yoga and strength training. Many of the trackers won't even try to record HR while swimming because the water interferes with optical heart rate readings - for Garmin to record swimming HR, they require your tracker to be paired with a chest strap designed for swimming and/or triathlons.
Optical heart rate readings work differently (and by that I mean better or worse) for different people, for various reasons. I find mine works great during my normal (non-exercise) daily activities, but it's essentially useless for strength training and even sketchy during steady state cardio. I don't worry about it for strength training, and I pair it with a HR strap during for cardio workouts, which is much more accurate than the wrist-based optical heart rate. Some people find the wrist-based OHR works great for cardio, but I'm not one of them.
GPS is/can be useful for outdoor exercises (again - running, cycling, open water swimming, hiking, rowing/kayaking, etc.), but most devices won't even turn it on for indoor workouts because it's not necessary or useful and just drains battery life. Thus, it wouldn't be used (or useful) for your daily steps/work activity, nor for your yoga/strength training, nor for your swimming if you're doing it in an indoor pool.
Thank you!!!!
So the HR thing would/could be useful for accuracy day-to-day but it should be turned off for swimming & strength/yoga to prevent inaccuracies/overestimating?
A lot of reviews seem to suggest that HR tracking is important for accuracy for calories burned but it also seems like it might be a problem too. I’m not sure if it’s valuable?
GPS would be pretty useless for me. I go for outdoor walks sometimes but not terribly far.
0 -
Hi! I have the Fitbit Alta HR, having previously had the Charge HR. I loved both. The Alta HR, as well as, if I understood correctly, most newer Fitbit models come with changeable straps, so I ordered some cheap nice straps from Amazon and now my Fitbit actually looks like a watch and not a fitness tracker with a rubber band.
HR: I absolutely LOVE the constant HR. I have found it to be accurate with my way of using it, regardless of what kind of sport (I do strength training regularly) I do. I have the sync enabled, so my daily steps and overall calories are automatically synced between Fitbit and MFP. This includes any calories from my workouts, so I do NOT log workouts to MFP separately, as that would lead to double dipping. I have had them synced since the beginning of April, and my Fitbit overall burn, logged food, and actual weight loss consistently match what they should be mathematically. Over the summer I lapsed in logging my food and also hit a plateau, but that seems to be a causality between those two and not the Fitbit. The only thing is, I have my deficit goal set at 500 calories, but the Fitbit calorie adjustment is consistently trying to make the deficit 350, which would of course lead to a smaller loss. That's not a problem since the deficit goal is an even 500, so it's pretty easy to do the math in my head.
The Alta HR itself doesn't have GPS, I think the pricier models do, but you can use your phone's gps function within the Fitbit app.2 -
I was doing more reading and it said that the Fitbits - Ionic, Versa & Flex 2 - aren’t actually waterproof. They’re water resistant but swimming may damage them over time/if you swim too long 😞0
-
I was doing more reading and it said that the Fitbits - Ionic, Versa & Flex 2 - aren’t actually waterproof. They’re water resistant but swimming may damage them over time/if you swim too long 😞
That was an absolute rabbit hole. It turns out 10ATM is best for swimming, but as best I can tell no fitness trackers are actually 10ATM and 5ATM seems to be standard across the Fitbit and Garmin devices okayed for swimming.
But it is a reason to go for a less costly item, if it's more likely to break over time with swim wear. Although my old Misfit Flash was always fine and it was apparently only 3ATM, however without a display or small buttons the design was safer.
On this note, I would be tempted to get the Misfit Shine because I am confident that that design is safe for swimming. But I was too embarrassed to have it on my wrist at work because it doesn't have the time and looks like a watch, and people kept asking me the time. And wearing it on my waistband/in my pocket is how I lost the first one. Plus, I found the app very limited. It's focus on this vague system of "points" was annoying, and I didn't feel like it did anything interesting with the data.
If 5ATM is okay, and I'm absolutely ignoring the higher end models I was looking into before (the Fitbit Versa and Garmin VivoActive 3 were my favourites yesterday), I've found a few models to focus at looking into.
Fitbit Flex 2 - $80CAD - Basically the Misfit except you a) have to charge it and b) have access to the Fitbit Realm & app. No HR or floors climbed. Has some swim-tracking features, which sounds pretty cool.
Garmin VivoFit 3 - $80 CAD - Has a tiny screen with steps info & digital time! Basically the same as the Misfit with the replaceable battery, but with a screen & the Garmin app instead. It's not going to be an invasive screen with too many alerts or colours. No HR or floors climbed. Can be paired with a HR monitor strap if I decided to get one (unlikely, but options). Has no swim-tracking features.
Garmin VivoSmart HR - $100 - Has an HR tracker, small touch screen (a reviewer noted it as scratchable, which worries me), needs to be charged every 5 days. Tracks stairs. No swim-tracking features.
If the HR sensing is totally valuable for daily calories burned, I'd see the VivoSmart HR being my pick. I really like the swim tracking for the Flex 2, but the lack of the time causes problems day-to-day. I like that the VioFit 3 has the little screen AND doesn't need to be tracked, but it's definitely a bummer that it doesn't track any more info on swimming.
There seems to be so many different ones, and yet I still want to pick and choose features haha. I would ideally like to finish this research by next week, but I still feel pretty overwhelmed by it. Any more suggestions of places to look or experiences to share are welcome!0 -
5 ATM means it’s waterproof to 165 feet underwater. As long as you don’t plan on swimming any deeper than that, 5 ATM should be fine.
If you haven’t done so already, go to dcrainmaker.com and read his reviews of the devices. He’s much more in depth and comprehensive than most of the derpy magazine/blog reviews out there.0 -
5 ATM means it’s waterproof to 165 feet underwater. As long as you don’t plan on swimming any deeper than that, 5 ATM should be fine.
If you haven’t done so already, go to dcrainmaker.com and read his reviews of the devices. He’s much more in depth and comprehensive than most of the derpy magazine/blog reviews out there.
Thank you, yes I read several of his reviews. He hasn't reviewed all of the ones I was interested in learning about, and doesn't seem to interrogate water resistance (unless I'm navigating his website wrong).
https://www.howtogeek.com/218747/water-resistant-gadgets-arent-waterproof-what-you-need-to-know/
That's the article I read about water resistance, and summarizes that trackers "rated to 5 ATM means they are perfectly splashproof and will survive the sweatiest workout, a run in the rain, or a trip into the shower just fine. (But, like the Fitbit lineup, should not be used for swimming, diving, or watersports.)"
Whereas DCRainmaker's response to the Flex 2 is "The unit is waterproof to 50m of depth, so you can go swimming all day long." Which is apparently an incorrect understanding of what 5ATM means, according to the above. https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/08/fitbit-flex-2-and-fitbit-charge-2.html
This is why I'm a little confused on this point.
0 -
Is there a store where you could go to that would have these on display for you to check out in person? Like Best Buy or something similar?0
-
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Is there a store where you could go to that would have these on display for you to check out in person? Like Best Buy or something similar?
I know the Fitbits are available at Canadian Tire but I don’t think they carry the Garmin ones. Best Buy is a little far (maybe 1.25h) but I could call first to check if they carry them.0 -
Was reading this https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html
And it appears that HR tracking may not increase the accuracy of a tracker.0 -
I use Fitbit, but its not linked0
-
I’ve been doing more research and I am unsure if I’m being skewed pricier by reviews.
Does HR tracking really impact the accuracy of calorie counting? Is GPS useful for non-runners?
It makes sense and then I pull back and think maybe it’s overkill. I’m not an athlete. I can’t run. I am going to use this for steps/work activity, swimming. Other activities I do are yoga & bodyweight & strength exercises. (Is the HR tracking actually a detriment here because HR goes up but calorie burn doesn’t?)
HR is most useful as a proxy for calorie expenditure in steady state cardio exercise (cycling, running, swimming, etc.). It's far less useful (and less accurate) for things such as yoga and strength training. Many of the trackers won't even try to record HR while swimming because the water interferes with optical heart rate readings - for Garmin to record swimming HR, they require your tracker to be paired with a chest strap designed for swimming and/or triathlons.
Optical heart rate readings work differently (and by that I mean better or worse) for different people, for various reasons. I find mine works great during my normal (non-exercise) daily activities, but it's essentially useless for strength training and even sketchy during steady state cardio. I don't worry about it for strength training, and I pair it with a HR strap during for cardio workouts, which is much more accurate than the wrist-based optical heart rate. Some people find the wrist-based OHR works great for cardio, but I'm not one of them.
GPS is/can be useful for outdoor exercises (again - running, cycling, open water swimming, hiking, rowing/kayaking, etc.), but most devices won't even turn it on for indoor workouts because it's not necessary or useful and just drains battery life. Thus, it wouldn't be used (or useful) for your daily steps/work activity, nor for your yoga/strength training, nor for your swimming if you're doing it in an indoor pool.
Thank you!!!!
So the HR thing would/could be useful for accuracy day-to-day but it should be turned off for swimming & strength/yoga to prevent inaccuracies/overestimating?
A lot of reviews seem to suggest that HR tracking is important for accuracy for calories burned but it also seems like it might be a problem too. I’m not sure if it’s valuable?
GPS would be pretty useless for me. I go for outdoor walks sometimes but not terribly far.
HR is useless and inflated for normal daily activity levels - as was mentioned it's only for steady-state cardio.
Having average daily pace stride length (not grocery store shuffle, not exercise level) corrected will improve your daily burn to best it'll be estimated at.
As well as confirmed settings for sensitivity are truly catching all steps, but not tons of extra.
You don't have to turn off HR readings on other activities - merely input your own workout manually with better estimate of calorie burn.
Manual input replaces device discovered - as long as you got the same start time and duration.
Depending on your workouts, and time spent doing them - HR based calorie burn could be useful.
Do a lot of riding many days during the week - could be very useful.
Do 15 min x 3 weekly of lifting - not useful, and while inflated, if you were otherwise very active - doesn't matter in the scheme of the week either.
75 min of lifting 6 days a week in otherwise sedentary lifestyle - now you got an issue with inflated burns impacting accuracy overall.
HR thing can be more interesting for you to do what it was designed to do - Monitor your HR - but over a span of time.
Getting more aerobically fit, HR won't go as high though pushing harder, good sign. Resting HR goes down, recovery from hard effort is faster, ect.3 -
Was reading this https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html
And it appears that HR tracking may not increase the accuracy of a tracker.
Flawed study, just like the others that have been done.
They didn't know their product they were testing.
They all require a good 1-2 weeks to get to know the person, decide where the aerobic exercise zone starts and daily activity level is left behind, use resting HR to get better estimate of exercise calories, frequency of workouts and duration, ect.
All those needed things to improve the estimate aren't possible when you strap it to a test subject for an exercise session or a couple of days.4 -
I’ve been doing more research and I am unsure if I’m being skewed pricier by reviews.
Does HR tracking really impact the accuracy of calorie counting? Is GPS useful for non-runners?
It makes sense and then I pull back and think maybe it’s overkill. I’m not an athlete. I can’t run. I am going to use this for steps/work activity, swimming. Other activities I do are yoga & bodyweight & strength exercises. (Is the HR tracking actually a detriment here because HR goes up but calorie burn doesn’t?)
HR is most useful as a proxy for calorie expenditure in steady state cardio exercise (cycling, running, swimming, etc.). It's far less useful (and less accurate) for things such as yoga and strength training. Many of the trackers won't even try to record HR while swimming because the water interferes with optical heart rate readings - for Garmin to record swimming HR, they require your tracker to be paired with a chest strap designed for swimming and/or triathlons.
Optical heart rate readings work differently (and by that I mean better or worse) for different people, for various reasons. I find mine works great during my normal (non-exercise) daily activities, but it's essentially useless for strength training and even sketchy during steady state cardio. I don't worry about it for strength training, and I pair it with a HR strap during for cardio workouts, which is much more accurate than the wrist-based optical heart rate. Some people find the wrist-based OHR works great for cardio, but I'm not one of them.
GPS is/can be useful for outdoor exercises (again - running, cycling, open water swimming, hiking, rowing/kayaking, etc.), but most devices won't even turn it on for indoor workouts because it's not necessary or useful and just drains battery life. Thus, it wouldn't be used (or useful) for your daily steps/work activity, nor for your yoga/strength training, nor for your swimming if you're doing it in an indoor pool.
Thank you!!!!
So the HR thing would/could be useful for accuracy day-to-day but it should be turned off for swimming & strength/yoga to prevent inaccuracies/overestimating?
A lot of reviews seem to suggest that HR tracking is important for accuracy for calories burned but it also seems like it might be a problem too. I’m not sure if it’s valuable?
GPS would be pretty useless for me. I go for outdoor walks sometimes but not terribly far.
HR is useless and inflated for normal daily activity levels - as was mentioned it's only for steady-state cardio.
Having average daily pace stride length (not grocery store shuffle, not exercise level) corrected will improve your daily burn to best it'll be estimated at.
As well as confirmed settings for sensitivity are truly catching all steps, but not tons of extra.
You don't have to turn off HR readings on other activities - merely input your own workout manually with better estimate of calorie burn.
Manual input replaces device discovered - as long as you got the same start time and duration.
Depending on your workouts, and time spent doing them - HR based calorie burn could be useful.
Do a lot of riding many days during the week - could be very useful.
Do 15 min x 3 weekly of lifting - not useful, and while inflated, if you were otherwise very active - doesn't matter in the scheme of the week either.
75 min of lifting 6 days a week in otherwise sedentary lifestyle - now you got an issue with inflated burns impacting accuracy overall.
HR thing can be more interesting for you to do what it was designed to do - Monitor your HR - but over a span of time.
Getting more aerobically fit, HR won't go as high though pushing harder, good sign. Resting HR goes down, recovery from hard effort is faster, ect.
Thank you for explaining! I wasn't finding any descriptions of what it was supposed to do, and all the articles said it made calorie counting more accurate. It sounds useful, for the purpose of just seeing how my HR is doing. I did really like some of the "stress" features on the Garmin ones.
The only trackers I can find that will do both HR tracking and swimming are extremely expensive ($250+). I had been considering those as an investment possibility (the 200-250 range), maybe the data would be a nice rewarding fun-factor addition. Like something I would have planned to do for my birthday/Christmas if I still had my old one and more time to leisurely research.
However, my reading about the water-resistance was leading me to think that it's more risky to get a pricey item that could accrue more damage. The touch-sensitive screens seem to be prone to scratches (pool lane guards are not kind, and I would feel safer with a more durable device).
So maybe HR is not needed right now. My dedicated workouts are not daily. Lately they haven't even been weekly. I might do something like the stationary bike once or twice a week, an outdoor walk, a yoga class, a short weights session (if I can brave the new machines at my gym and figure out how they work), and one weekly swim in addition to my daily 2x physio routine and work activity (2-3x/week now). And that's likely more than I would do every week.0 -
Was reading this https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html
And it appears that HR tracking may not increase the accuracy of a tracker.
Flawed study, just like the others that have been done.
They didn't know their product they were testing.
They all require a good 1-2 weeks to get to know the person, decide where the aerobic exercise zone starts and daily activity level is left behind, use resting HR to get better estimate of exercise calories, frequency of workouts and duration, ect.
All those needed things to improve the estimate aren't possible when you strap it to a test subject for an exercise session or a couple of days.
Thank you! That makes me more optimistic. My experience with weight loss has been awkward and I did find having a tracker, even a simpler one, more helpful.
I’m currently leaning back towards getting something with HR, for the reason that it sounds interesting & useful (even if more so as I get more fit than I am currently), and I don’t want to end up re-purchasing a device in under a year and spending more total than I would on a more complete device.
I read/watched DCRainmaker’s review on the incoming Fitbit Charge 3 and I am thinking I will wait for that one. It has the swim tracking, and no physical buttons which appeared to be the flaw in the Garmin design that caused water damage despite being cleared for swimming. Also the Garmin ones don’t really track swimming with any interesting information other than time, which would be the same as my old device on a much pricier item.
I was looking at the Fitbit Flex 2. I thought the light/small design would be comfortable, and the lack of a watch-shape would maybe encourage people to not ask me the time even if I wore it on my wrist. It’s cheaper and likely more durable without a screen, and less devastating if broken. However the battery life is only 5 days, and you have to charge it but it doesn’t track heart rate 😐
the Charge 3 has a longer battery life and more information including HR, and is still cheaper than my previous idea of the Garmin Vivoactive 3, which was also much larger. Plus I can see myself actually functioning with a once a week battery charge rather than twice (I switched to Bluetooth headphones last year and I still often end up with dead headphones for several days because I can’t seem to get the hang of it).
I felt like I had to decide ASAP but I reminded myself I will lose weight either way. This isn’t a necessity it’s more of a Fun Tool. Its useful but I did fine without one. Even though it’s much harder to gauge exacts (I seem to swing between losing too fast and gaining, not seeming to find that 1/2 to 1lb/week happy zone).1 -
I'm currently debating between the Misfit Shine 2 Swimmers Edition and the Fitbit Charge 3.
Misfit Shine 2 pros: Familiar with app, know the calorie adjustment is fairly accurate for me, has swim tracking with laps distance etc (with in-app $10 upgrade, apparently), 6 months battery - no charging!, different wearable positions - can be more discreet and possibly more accurate because I move my arms a lot & push carts at work so I worry a wrist-based tracker will have troubles. Also for tracking stationary bike rides it can be pinned on my shoe. ~$70 cheaper. Going for $100 plus tax on Sport Check rn, but the price is more like $130 elsewhere.
Fitbit Charge 3 Pros: Supposedly a better app? people say fitbit does more with the data, and Misfit doesn't do much with it. Also I'd probably be able to add people from work & school. HR tracking, could be fun. Will be a watch with the time also, which I've kinda needed at work sometimes. Has swim data tracking. $200 plus tax for pre-order at the moment.
0 -
I'm on the market for a tracker also. My first one. I am a ua fanboy, so I wanted the ua band. Just to find out it was discontinued. UA backed out of the fitness tracking devices to focus more on the apps. They signed a deal with samsung. So it makes sense that the samsung gear syncs up so well with mfp. So i'm leaning towards the fit2 pro. I just wonder if the price is truly justified?2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions