Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
Is there a "set weight" for people?
Replies
-
psychod787 wrote: »To to clarify...
The is some confusion about what the term "set point" means/refers to. Some people use it when discussing the idea that there is some weight or body composition that we are pre-disposed to, be it genetic or evolutionary. Other people use it as OP did - when talking about difficulty managing weight, especially losing weight at or below a certain number.
From what I've read, there is merit to the first scenario. The body wants to be at a healthy body composition. Too much fat and/or too little muscle and the body will respond, and it will be easier to drop fat or add muscle. Similarly, too little fat or too much muscle is also not healthy (from an evolutionary/survival standpoint), and the body will also adjust. The important thing to note here is that it goes BOTH ways. It's not just about getting lighter/leaner, it also adapts, when necessary, making it easier to get heavier/fatter.
Scenario 2, there is no merit to that from a biological perspective. The validity in this conversation is related entirely to habits and behaviors. People have a way the like to eat. A little change to that is relatively easy. A big change is relatively hard. Same with exercise. Where those points intersect (diet and exercise) is where your weight will tend to hover. The more you want to shift your weight, the harder you'll have to work and the greater changes you'll need to make to your habits related to both eating and exercise.
I agree. There is a body of evidence that shows that the body gets "used" to a certain bf lvl and will fight to defend it. People just don't like to admit it.
Then how do people get overweight to begin with if their body defends (...somehow) their bodyfat?
Because things like reduced hunger cues don't always stop people from eating.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »To to clarify...
The is some confusion about what the term "set point" means/refers to. Some people use it when discussing the idea that there is some weight or body composition that we are pre-disposed to, be it genetic or evolutionary. Other people use it as OP did - when talking about difficulty managing weight, especially losing weight at or below a certain number.
From what I've read, there is merit to the first scenario. The body wants to be at a healthy body composition. Too much fat and/or too little muscle and the body will respond, and it will be easier to drop fat or add muscle. Similarly, too little fat or too much muscle is also not healthy (from an evolutionary/survival standpoint), and the body will also adjust. The important thing to note here is that it goes BOTH ways. It's not just about getting lighter/leaner, it also adapts, when necessary, making it easier to get heavier/fatter.
Scenario 2, there is no merit to that from a biological perspective. The validity in this conversation is related entirely to habits and behaviors. People have a way the like to eat. A little change to that is relatively easy. A big change is relatively hard. Same with exercise. Where those points intersect (diet and exercise) is where your weight will tend to hover. The more you want to shift your weight, the harder you'll have to work and the greater changes you'll need to make to your habits related to both eating and exercise.
I agree. There is a body of evidence that shows that the body gets "used" to a certain bf lvl and will fight to defend it. People just don't like to admit it.
Then how do people get overweight to begin with if their body defends (...somehow) their bodyfat?
Because things like reduced hunger cues don't always stop people from eating.
You can say that the other way around too. Increased hunger doesn't always make people eat more.
Right. I guess I'm not sure what your point is.
People who subscribe to the biological set point theory (not sure what else to call it, but I want to clearly separate it from the habitual or lifestyle set point which some are talking about in this thread) aren't saying that the body prevents weight loss or gain, only that it "responds" to current state of leanness with signals/hormones in an attempt to get the person to eat more or less. But yes, it does go both ways - gaining weight and losing weight. However, what the person actually does is a completely separate issue.5 -
annaskiski wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »To to clarify...
The is some confusion about what the term "set point" means/refers to. Some people use it when discussing the idea that there is some weight or body composition that we are pre-disposed to, be it genetic or evolutionary. Other people use it as OP did - when talking about difficulty managing weight, especially losing weight at or below a certain number.
From what I've read, there is merit to the first scenario. The body wants to be at a healthy body composition. Too much fat and/or too little muscle and the body will respond, and it will be easier to drop fat or add muscle. Similarly, too little fat or too much muscle is also not healthy (from an evolutionary/survival standpoint), and the body will also adjust. The important thing to note here is that it goes BOTH ways. It's not just about getting lighter/leaner, it also adapts, when necessary, making it easier to get heavier/fatter.
Scenario 2, there is no merit to that from a biological perspective. The validity in this conversation is related entirely to habits and behaviors. People have a way the like to eat. A little change to that is relatively easy. A big change is relatively hard. Same with exercise. Where those points intersect (diet and exercise) is where your weight will tend to hover. The more you want to shift your weight, the harder you'll have to work and the greater changes you'll need to make to your habits related to both eating and exercise.
I agree. There is a body of evidence that shows that the body gets "used" to a certain bf lvl and will fight to defend it. People just don't like to admit it.
I'm not sure why this got woos.
I think that the Minnesota Starvation experiment and the recent similar experiment (can't remember the name) both showed that people experience extreme hunger not just until the weight was regained, but the body fat percentage.
I think that there was a recent discussion on the maintenance board about how the first year of maintenance is the most difficult due to the body's hormones trying to regain the lost weight. (both hunger and lethargy)
People regain the weight because they think that they are 'home free' once they reach the target weight.
Whenever someone says "the body wants" they have stepped into the woo zone. Then using an example that says sometimes losing fat and gaining muscle is easy didn't do a whole lot for credibility.6 -
To clarify...
There is some confusion about what the term "set point" means/refers to. Some people use it when discussing the idea that there is some weight or body composition that we are pre-disposed to, be it genetic or evolutionary. Other people use it as OP did - when talking about difficulty managing weight, especially losing weight at or below a certain number.
Those two things you describe are exactly the same. Also people only ever talk about it as a weight they can't get below, not one they have trouble gaining above. It seems evident that people habitually fall into eating at a caloric volume that sustains a certain weight, the math of CICO will apply regardless. How someone feels about adjusting those habits or how much difficulty they have dieting is nothing to do with their physical construction and everything to do with an individual life and a brain full of its own experiences.
5 -
flippy1234 wrote: »Seems no matter what I do short of starving myself, I cannot seem to get under a certain weight. I eat well, most of the time, I don't drink and I work out almost daily. I do stick to or under my calories regularly. I have read that people have a "set weight". The weight that they body is comfortable at and it will stay there unless you take extreme measures, i.e.: starve yourself, ...
Any truth to this?
@flippy1234 in my personal experience I had a set point on the high side even when eating HCHF of about 250 pounds that I had never crossed by the age of 63 when I when LCHF. Eating in the range of 2500-3000 calories daily and walking a 1/4 of a mile come hail or high water a year later was just under 200. Eating the same I have maintained at 190-200 for three years now.
There is no medical question about the fact animals tend to maintain weight levels year after year on full food as long as they are eating the macros that work to provide the best health markers in each of their cases. The same WOE does not work the same for every human on the face of the earth today.18 -
No, there is no such thing as a set weight point. When we get close to a healthy weight it is harder to lose those last few pounds but it can be done with meticulous logging.
I thought at one point my body was happy at a certain weight as it seemed really hard to drop any lower, once I recommitted to losing those last few pounds and eating at calorie deficit my weight dropped to where I wanted it to.9 -
psychod787 wrote: »To to clarify...
The is some confusion about what the term "set point" means/refers to. Some people use it when discussing the idea that there is some weight or body composition that we are pre-disposed to, be it genetic or evolutionary. Other people use it as OP did - when talking about difficulty managing weight, especially losing weight at or below a certain number.
From what I've read, there is merit to the first scenario. The body wants to be at a healthy body composition. Too much fat and/or too little muscle and the body will respond, and it will be easier to drop fat or add muscle. Similarly, too little fat or too much muscle is also not healthy (from an evolutionary/survival standpoint), and the body will also adjust. The important thing to note here is that it goes BOTH ways. It's not just about getting lighter/leaner, it also adapts, when necessary, making it easier to get heavier/fatter.
Scenario 2, there is no merit to that from a biological perspective. The validity in this conversation is related entirely to habits and behaviors. People have a way the like to eat. A little change to that is relatively easy. A big change is relatively hard. Same with exercise. Where those points intersect (diet and exercise) is where your weight will tend to hover. The more you want to shift your weight, the harder you'll have to work and the greater changes you'll need to make to your habits related to both eating and exercise.
I agree. There is a body of evidence that shows that the body gets "used" to a certain bf lvl and will fight to defend it. People just don't like to admit it.
Then how do people get overweight to begin with if their body defends (...somehow) their bodyfat?
Because things like reduced hunger cues don't always stop people from eating.
You can say that the other way around too. Increased hunger doesn't always make people eat more.
Trouble is, there are other "reasons" to eat than hunger. Boredom, stress, depression etc. can all lead to increased eating even when the person is not really hungry. I know boredom drove, and still drives, my eating more than I should.6 -
I think the question was answered in the OP when it was acknowledged that a person could lose weight if they "starved themselves". Starved themselves was not defined by the OP so they may view smaller portions or eating vegetables as starving rather than defining starvation as consuming less than would nourish and sustain life.
As an adult I have weighed as low as 100 lbs and gone up to 180ish. I have maintained very different weights in that range during a 20+ year period for long periods of time (more than a year) over without logging, weighing food, special diet, etc. My experience suggests to me that I become habituated to certain portion sizes or activity level that allows me to maintain a certain weight easily. It does not mean that I could not gain or lose weight if I made a change in my CICO equation. I believe that I could weigh 100 lbs if I was willing to do what it took to get to that weight. I am not willing to do what it would take to be that weight because it would be vastly uncomfortable and unenjoyable. My "set point" is me not wanting to be uncomfortable or work harder. I think that is pretty much mental.
If you are having trouble losing first log everything as accurately as you can with a food scale, check that the entries you use are correct even if you scan labels. Check that you are not overestimating your activity. Do that for at least 3-4 weeks.
If everything checks out go to the doctor and rule out medical conditions.12 -
nevermind.2
-
flippy1234 wrote: »Seems no matter what I do short of starving myself, I cannot seem to get under a certain weight. I eat well, most of the time, I don't drink and I work out almost daily. I do stick to or under my calories regularly. I have read that people have a "set weight". The weight that they body is comfortable at and it will stay there unless you take extreme measures, i.e.: starve yourself, ...
Any truth to this?
There is no truth to this. If this was true then why are extreme measures not required to gain weight?
Your weight is an output of behavior.
Are you using a food scale to weigh your caloric intake?6 -
flippy1234 wrote: »Seems no matter what I do short of starving myself, I cannot seem to get under a certain weight. I eat well, most of the time, I don't drink and I work out almost daily. I do stick to or under my calories regularly. I have read that people have a "set weight". The weight that they body is comfortable at and it will stay there unless you take extreme measures, i.e.: starve yourself, ...
Any truth to this?
There is no truth to this. If this was true then why are extreme measures not required to gain weight?
Your weight is an output of behavior.
Are you using a food scale to weigh your caloric intake?
Ehh... might not be as common, but there are plenty of people who struggle with weight gain. Myself included. I see it in the gaining forum everyday. There is even a stickie in there to help people out who struggle.5 -
flippy1234 wrote: »Seems no matter what I do short of starving myself, I cannot seem to get under a certain weight. I eat well, most of the time, I don't drink and I work out almost daily. I do stick to or under my calories regularly. I have read that people have a "set weight". The weight that they body is comfortable at and it will stay there unless you take extreme measures, i.e.: starve yourself, ...
Any truth to this?
There is no truth to this. If this was true then why are extreme measures not required to gain weight?
Your weight is an output of behavior.
Are you using a food scale to weigh your caloric intake?
Ehh... might not be as common, but there are plenty of people who struggle with weight gain. Myself included. I see it in the gaining forum everyday. There is even a stickie in there to help people out who struggle.
Not muscle specific. If you eat at a surplus you don't gain weight?
This sounds like confirmation bias in action. I see it as well, but just as with those who cannot lose, but aren't weighing food consistently, the same root cause applies to those who cannot gain. People don't think they eat as much/less than they do.
I would love objective evidence to the contrary. I have searched multiple scholarly articles claiming proof of a set point, but I have yet to find one that controls the caloric intake of the participants.4 -
flippy1234 wrote: »Seems no matter what I do short of starving myself, I cannot seem to get under a certain weight. I eat well, most of the time, I don't drink and I work out almost daily. I do stick to or under my calories regularly. I have read that people have a "set weight". The weight that they body is comfortable at and it will stay there unless you take extreme measures, i.e.: starve yourself, ...
Any truth to this?
There is no truth to this. If this was true then why are extreme measures not required to gain weight?
Your weight is an output of behavior.
Are you using a food scale to weigh your caloric intake?
Ehh... might not be as common, but there are plenty of people who struggle with weight gain. Myself included. I see it in the gaining forum everyday. There is even a stickie in there to help people out who struggle.
Not muscle specific. If you eat at a surplus you don't gain weight?
This sounds like confirmation bias in action. I see it as well, but just as with those who cannot lose, but aren't weighing food consistently, the same root cause applies to those who cannot gain. People don't think they eat as much/less than they do.
I would love objective evidence to the contrary. I have searched multiple scholarly articles claiming proof of a set point, but I have yet to find one that controls the caloric intake of the participants.
Oh definitely, not arguing with that. But that doesn't mean it isn't a struggle for people to get into a surplus or deficit. When I am trying to gain and get to a certain bodyfat% I feel uncomfortably full all the time, I start to develop taste aversions and don't even want to look at food anymore. My body craves more movement. So no, it isn't a set point in the sense that my body actually stops putting on weight in a surplus, but that I fail to be in a surplus because of lack of hunger and my body wanting to move more. To overcome this possible of course, but it is very very uncomfortable, for me at least.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »To to clarify...
The is some confusion about what the term "set point" means/refers to. Some people use it when discussing the idea that there is some weight or body composition that we are pre-disposed to, be it genetic or evolutionary. Other people use it as OP did - when talking about difficulty managing weight, especially losing weight at or below a certain number.
From what I've read, there is merit to the first scenario. The body wants to be at a healthy body composition. Too much fat and/or too little muscle and the body will respond, and it will be easier to drop fat or add muscle. Similarly, too little fat or too much muscle is also not healthy (from an evolutionary/survival standpoint), and the body will also adjust. The important thing to note here is that it goes BOTH ways. It's not just about getting lighter/leaner, it also adapts, when necessary, making it easier to get heavier/fatter.
Scenario 2, there is no merit to that from a biological perspective. The validity in this conversation is related entirely to habits and behaviors. People have a way the like to eat. A little change to that is relatively easy. A big change is relatively hard. Same with exercise. Where those points intersect (diet and exercise) is where your weight will tend to hover. The more you want to shift your weight, the harder you'll have to work and the greater changes you'll need to make to your habits related to both eating and exercise.
I agree. There is a body of evidence that shows that the body gets "used" to a certain bf lvl and will fight to defend it. People just don't like to admit it.
Then how do people get overweight to begin with if their body defends (...somehow) their bodyfat?
Because things like reduced hunger cues don't always stop people from eating.
You can say that the other way around too. Increased hunger doesn't always make people eat more.
Right. I guess I'm not sure what your point is.
People who subscribe to the biological set point theory (not sure what else to call it, but I want to clearly separate it from the habitual or lifestyle set point which some are talking about in this thread) aren't saying that the body prevents weight loss or gain, only that it "responds" to current state of leanness with signals/hormones in an attempt to get the person to eat more or less. But yes, it does go both ways - gaining weight and losing weight. However, what the person actually does is a completely separate issue.
This is exactly what I am referring to above. It just becomes more of a hurdle to get over those signals for some people.5 -
psychod787 wrote: »To to clarify...
The is some confusion about what the term "set point" means/refers to. Some people use it when discussing the idea that there is some weight or body composition that we are pre-disposed to, be it genetic or evolutionary. Other people use it as OP did - when talking about difficulty managing weight, especially losing weight at or below a certain number.
From what I've read, there is merit to the first scenario. The body wants to be at a healthy body composition. Too much fat and/or too little muscle and the body will respond, and it will be easier to drop fat or add muscle. Similarly, too little fat or too much muscle is also not healthy (from an evolutionary/survival standpoint), and the body will also adjust. The important thing to note here is that it goes BOTH ways. It's not just about getting lighter/leaner, it also adapts, when necessary, making it easier to get heavier/fatter.
Scenario 2, there is no merit to that from a biological perspective. The validity in this conversation is related entirely to habits and behaviors. People have a way the like to eat. A little change to that is relatively easy. A big change is relatively hard. Same with exercise. Where those points intersect (diet and exercise) is where your weight will tend to hover. The more you want to shift your weight, the harder you'll have to work and the greater changes you'll need to make to your habits related to both eating and exercise.
I agree. There is a body of evidence that shows that the body gets "used" to a certain bf lvl and will fight to defend it. People just don't like to admit it.
Then how do people get overweight to begin with if their body defends (...somehow) their bodyfat?
Because things like reduced hunger cues don't always stop people from eating.
You can say that the other way around too. Increased hunger doesn't always make people eat more.
Right. I guess I'm not sure what your point is.
People who subscribe to the biological set point theory (not sure what else to call it, but I want to clearly separate it from the habitual or lifestyle set point which some are talking about in this thread) aren't saying that the body prevents weight loss or gain, only that it "responds" to current state of leanness with signals/hormones in an attempt to get the person to eat more or less. But yes, it does go both ways - gaining weight and losing weight. However, what the person actually does is a completely separate issue.
That's a good breakdown!
I think the problem with set point, like so many other diet and weight loss ummm "things" is that it means different things to different people. I can assure you there are people out there who believe the body will not allow them to get below a certain weight, no matter what they do, how little they eat. And there is ample evidence that this simply isn't the case.
I could possibly get on board the idea that your body "becomes accustomed" to you being a certain weight, in that it's energy usage, hormonal patterns, etc become synced to that weight and your appetite signals will attempt to keep you at the CI and CO to maintain homeostasis. And I could see where it would be easier and more common for a person to override those signals and eat more, less so to eat less and lose weight. It would require determination, attention to detail, and patience to override it so it would be more difficult for some people than for others. I'm not sure it's a thing, but I could see it being a thing
Habitual or lifestyle set point I think is self evident, and honestly is most often the case. There are so many little habits that we don't even realize we fall into, and someone can feel like their body is fighting them until they figure out and change those inconspicuous patterns we come to think are just life happening but are really choices we make.
Honestly though, if your goal weight is healthy but you feel you are stuck at a set point, whether it's a homeostasis set point or a lifestyle set point, I think the fix is the same - attention to detail, habit change, critical thinking, and patience. And 100% of those are tough!4 -
flippy1234 wrote: »Seems no matter what I do short of starving myself, I cannot seem to get under a certain weight. I eat well, most of the time, I don't drink and I work out almost daily. I do stick to or under my calories regularly. I have read that people have a "set weight". The weight that they body is comfortable at and it will stay there unless you take extreme measures, i.e.: starve yourself, ...
Any truth to this?
There is no truth to this. If this was true then why are extreme measures not required to gain weight?
Your weight is an output of behavior.
Are you using a food scale to weigh your caloric intake?
Ehh... might not be as common, but there are plenty of people who struggle with weight gain. Myself included. I see it in the gaining forum everyday. There is even a stickie in there to help people out who struggle.
Not muscle specific. If you eat at a surplus you don't gain weight?
This sounds like confirmation bias in action. I see it as well, but just as with those who cannot lose, but aren't weighing food consistently, the same root cause applies to those who cannot gain. People don't think they eat as much/less than they do.
I would love objective evidence to the contrary. I have searched multiple scholarly articles claiming proof of a set point, but I have yet to find one that controls the caloric intake of the participants.
Oh definitely, not arguing with that. But that doesn't mean it isn't a struggle for people to get into a surplus or deficit. When I am trying to gain and get to a certain bodyfat% I feel uncomfortably full all the time, I start to develop taste aversions and don't even want to look at food anymore. My body craves more movement. So no, it isn't a set point in the sense that my body actually stops putting on weight in a surplus, but that I fail to be in a surplus because of lack of hunger and my body wanting to move more. To overcome this possible of course, but it is very very uncomfortable, for me at least.
I think this is where communication on set point breaks down. I speak very literally, so when I see issues of set point I speak primarily biologically and physiologically. I note that many are speaking in much more general terms - psychologically and behaviorally.
In your case, and from introspection mine, I suspect what is happening is a set of behaviors engage toward consistency. In ours (hard gainers) when we eat we feel driven to move and work. Our appetites change, stress increases, sleep patterns modify, etc.
Change is remarkably uncomfortable and fails in most cases. I note that dramatic change is only realistically possible with a large staff focused on behavioral modification - e.g military boot camp. Why no one should ever feel ashamed at failing to implement change, especially great changes. Struggle is constant. We need to remove the negative connotations around failure. There is merit behind "First Attempt In Learning".
I can't remember who launched this, but there was an outstanding series "Profiles in Failure" highlighting some of the greatest people in their field, but focusing on the lifetime of failure it took to reach that point. We tend to overlook the hardship and focus on where they are now, rather than focus on the struggle they overcame to reach success.7 -
flippy1234 wrote: »Seems no matter what I do short of starving myself, I cannot seem to get under a certain weight. I eat well, most of the time, I don't drink and I work out almost daily. I do stick to or under my calories regularly. I have read that people have a "set weight". The weight that they body is comfortable at and it will stay there unless you take extreme measures, i.e.: starve yourself, ...
Any truth to this?
Highlighting the words that indicate the most likely culprit.
One's "set point" is nothing more than the weight to which their activity and dieting habits lead.6 -
flippy1234 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I think that if there was a "set point" to weight, it would be a weight it was difficult to go over, too, not just under. I think the explanation is really simple - for most people, today, it's easy to eat too much, and it takes a conscious effort to eat less. Are you at a healthy weight? "Eat well, most of the time, don't drink, work out almost daily, stick to or under calories regularly" isn't good enough when it comes to weight management, because weight loss, gain and maintenance is all about calories over time. Your phrasing betrays your subconscious mind: "I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little" - are you looking to validate your assumption you're almost starving youself (to justify eating more)? If you're not nearing underweight, you're not almost starving yourself, it's all about perception and attitude, habits and preferences, which are part instinct, but also learned, to a large extent.
"Palm of hand", "fist", "hockey puck" etc as measurements for food portions is a pointless game without the proper context. Not because they're inaccurate measurements - nutrition for healthy adults doesn't require a high degree of precision - but because you would also have to remember how many servings of each food you're allowed for a day, and how many of each you've eaten, and the rules have to be learned and differentiated and memorized, and still, you have to stop when you've had enough, which is the real challenge.
In the context "I'm using a food scale", "serving size" is practically redundant.
No, I am not looking to validate starving myself. I am merely saying that I am having a difficult time reaching my goal weight as no matter what I seem to do, I stay around the same weight day in and day out. Do I use a food scale? No i do not, and when I have, just to see if I am on track, I find that my portions are actually lower than i thought they were. I measure my food and log according to MFP. I also do not eat back my exercise calories. I do not believe in "starvation mode" either. I asked a question...is a "set weight" something that exists. I read that it does. I am hearing here that it does not.
I don't know if there is a set point, and nobody else on this forum would know either. (even though some would claim they know)
What we DO know is that over 90% of dieters fail to either lose weight, or maintain their new weight . The failure rate is quite extraordinary, and that alone would suggest that the body will fight hard to get back to where you were before you began your weight loss journey.
Or it would suggest that a return to old habits facilitates a return to old results.7 -
I don't mind being in the woo zone btw. So let's take a look at something. We humans are survivors... yes? We have survived a kitten ton of stuff. There was actually a genetic bottle neck year's ago. Are we really not that different from our ancestors. I will give you that diet and activity help determine weight, but if humans could not survive famine, which was common.. well still is in some places. Anyways, we evolved to store energy when it was in plenty and make it harder to starve during famine. So, why would we not have a push to hold onto bf? I don't believe it's always rmr that really slows after weight loss, but movement become more energy efficient. More so than would be expected by weight change. Thyroid drops, leptin drops. Ghlenin increases, we become more sensitive to our insulin. A double edged sword btw. So after a weightloss we tend to be hungrier and burn less energy than expected for an activity. Weightology.net has a food review on why it's so easy to regain weight. Set point maybe no. Drive to regain.... uhh hell yes!6
-
I dropped to 105 5'8 pretty easily and quickly (not on purpose) and I'm pretty sure if set point was true bmi 15.9 would be no where near mine.13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 413 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions