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.
Is anyone confused?
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »@fitfamilyguy I'm really having trouble understanding your post or what your point is at this point. But I'll go back to my original post - being able to vet sources. "Science" isn't defined by one study, or the most recent study. It is constantly doubling back, taking one study which leads to several other studies, which lead to dozens of studies, continuing to drill down, pin down variables, correct inaccurate assumptions. THAT is the scientific method. The problem is the average consumer isn't educated enough about the scientific method, and so when their trainer shows them a study that "proves" that his diet or workout program is the best, they think they should believe it because "science". The best charlatans are the ones that can misuse science and confuse their marks.
I have talked to far too many bodybuilders/trainers who looked amazing and didn't know *kitten* about biology or science to assume that someone with a great physique would give good advice. Said that I should eat 1200 cals, or I had to IF to maximize fat loss, or I had to use little pink weights because I was a girl, or I had to use the fat burners that they could give me a discount on. Sorry.
Fair enough. I liked your "*kitten*" comment. Funny.
Again, nothing is perfect. The bodybuilder in your example is likely doing something right but again nothing is perfect. I wouldn't follow that guy either. But the other side of that is the intellectual that can't figure out why their science based approach to fitness won't get them the fit body they constantly work on. I've met plenty of them too. Again, I think it comes down to multiple ways of learning. No need to apologize. Were you insulting me?
I've been following this thread but I haven't jumped in yet. I think the fundamental difference you're missing here is that on the science side of things, the idea isn't to take advice from the scientist. The idea is to take the science from a conglomeration of scientists and then use it to apply to your own situation.
If a guy at the gym tells me I can't eat carbs after 7 and I need to do a ton of cardio and eat salad and boiled cod all day to lose weight, and then it doesn't work for whatever reason, I don't have the information I need to troubleshoot why it isn't working. I can go back to the bro, but he likely won't know. I can find a different person to ask. I can flounder or give up. I can bounce from plan to plan. But I don't have the tools I need to get into the right groove unless I get there by accident. And then I won't be able to adjust as I go, anyway.
If instead I learn that meal timing doesn't amount to a large percentage of weight loss, cardio can increase a deficit but isn't required, and salad and cod just happen to be low calorie/high protein foods, and that calories lead to weight loss, then I have knowledge. I don't have someone else's plan. I don't have what some reporter put in a magazine about what they think a study says. I can build the plan that works for me. I can take the pieces of advice I like and throw the rest away. I can tweak. I can troubleshoot. I can adjust things. And I don't have to bounce from plan to plan unsure of what's going on in my own body. The knowledge gives me control over what's happening.
There are absolutely confused people in the world. I just think some of the people in this thread differ on how best to help them. Whether it's best to give them a plan that might work or to give them the knowledge to make their own plan.
Very well said! There is a reason you have.... 14,564 comments under your belt. Perhaps I should pay more attention to what you say because you have done something earn my attention. Your not a scientist are you? You don't have to be, you think clearly. You have logical ideas. I'm not a scientist but I can tell that with my common sense. I agree that good advice and leadership should come from a foundation understanding. I think this is part of the filtering process. However, I think another part of the issue in the threat is that threshold. It seems to me that some people seem to think that unless Dr. is attached to your name or your part of a very big corporation, the words from a fit person on not even worth considering. I agree that the "hey look what I have been able to do" is only the marketing so to speak. I don't mean marketing literally but rather a starting point to say that now that you see some proof, I may have some more credibility that I'm onto something and you can find out for yourself over time. The "hey look what I have been able to do" may end up being full of very, very wise and helpful information. That same guy may end up being full of BS. Who knows. Personally, I'm willing to learn from others as they probably have a combination of practical advice and advice based on science and it is my job to determine what I do and do not value. I've never really heard people argue so hard against the concept of learning from successful people. It is very strange to me. To be honest, it almost starts to feel like a way of controlling information and shutting downs others ability to share than actually offering a variety of solutions to help people. But again, I really do think you made a lot of darn good sense. Thanks.
No, I'm not a scientist. I have a degree in art history and classical antiquities and I work a desk job. My post count is high because I've been here for almost 7 years. I'm not sure why you're making that personal - some weird negging or whatever - but okay.
To this:It seems to me that some people seem to think that unless Dr. is attached to your name or your part of a very big corporation, the words from a fit person on not even worth considering.
Putting aside how corporations got into this because that's a weird jump. What I'm specifically saying is that even with the title of Doctor or part of a very large corporation, the words of one individual mean absolutely nothing on objective matters. With subjective matters, like the feelings associated with weight loss, I think they have some merit. But if a hypothetical weight loss specialist who was a doctor and part of a large corporation and had the perfect body and years of training materialized in my living room with the words of God on weight loss inscribed on a tablet, their advice would be absolutely worthless unless it was replicatable and had science behind it.
This isn't about scientists vs non-scientists. It's not about individuals at all. It's about who you trust to get you to your goals. I don't trust any individuals to give me what I need for that. Not personal trainers or scientist or science reporters or academics or dudes at the gym. I trust what the science says - the actual reproducible reports, not the scientists.
I'm not going to address anything else in that post since it's some weird strawman/guilt trip stuff.
Sorry I'm falling behind again and I am sorry if it felt personal. Your making some good points... I'm sure I probably made a mistake but I can't get specific right now. I may be able to address them better but the time is getting crazy. I would say that I would value the opinions of that person in your "living room".
Take care. 5 -
What if that random dude was Mr Olympia or Arnold Schwarzenegger who has had success??? is bro science any good then??? But then again these guys would have learnt from the best info available and have info that others may not have. If you just payed for a test to be done that cost you half of million will you just post it on the internet? Maybe you will?10
-
Seems to me that this, like many other online bayoneting of strawmen discussions, all revolves around what science is.
Science is not a religious tradition. It is something quite apart from that - it is a word for a system of investigation into how the world around us works and the results of those investigations.
There are tens of thousands of incredible athletes who all attribute their success to hard work + doing something unusual. Just asking any one of the athletes at the top will not help you that much, and that's where investigating it properly comes into play, by asking as many as possible, and using maths to determine what is a coincidence and what is statistically significant.
P.S. It is my personal observation that if there is a sport you care about doing well in, don't depend on asking the best player for advice. The reason the person is doing so well is genetic good luck, youth, dedication to training, and good coaching, and s/he has no idea on how to guide you into improving your own shoddy technique.
Ask his or her trainer.7 -
Has there been some sort of moratorium on giving personal experience that I haven't heard about? Or, is the issue that there are people who are questioning the advice given?5
-
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Of course my friend. Some specifics are not allowed. I can't condense my theories onto a paragraph because there is often too much to cover and often I would be accused of self promotion, I'd be censored and banned. This post is more about a general philosophies. I mentioned this before, as open as a forum is, there are governing bodies that limit and control how the information flows. I get why this happens but it is still a reality. I do sometimes wonder how many times I answer to an actual user versus a moderators account. That is part of life online.
I don't understand this.
Myself, I eat a wide variety of foods keeping a deficit each day, do 3 full body workouts per week and cardio/abs 2-3 times per week. My exercise plan is based on AthleanX Ax1 and Ax2.
That's a very small paragraph and I'm fairly certain it is within forum guidlines. What am I missing?Duck_Puddle wrote: »BFitFamilyGuy wrote: »Of course my friend. Some specifics are not allowed. I can't condense my theories onto a paragraph because there is often too much to cover and often I would be accused of self promotion, I'd be censored and banned. This post is more about a general philosophies. I mentioned this before, as open as a forum is, there are governing bodies that limit and control how the information flows. I get why this happens but it is still a reality. I do sometimes wonder how many times I answer to an actual user versus a moderators account. That is part of life online.
I don't understand this.
Myself, I eat a wide variety of foods keeping a deficit each day, do 3 full body workouts per week and cardio/abs 2-3 times per week. My exercise plan is based on AthleanX Ax1 and Ax2.
That's a very small paragraph and I'm fairly certain it is within forum guidlines. What am I missing?
The difference is you’re not selling something.
Again, I think this kind of thing is a form of discrediting and dismissing the individual when typing things like "bro" "woo" "sales pitch"... I'm not selling anything. I don't have a method to sell. I have countless theories that have been helpful for me and I think they could help a lot of people. Nothing to sell.
Then why are you being so coy about it? There's nothing wrong with sharing firsthand experience and advice on these forums with others, especially if you believe it will be truly beneficial to them. People do it all the time!
No problem. What do you want to know? What would be sufficient to help with this thread? I did mention earlier that I was short on time and didn't know where to start. What do you want to know about my theories or strategy? Earlier someone accused me of wanting others to ask me about my strategies and I wanted prove that wasn't the case. I'm trying not to talk about my strategies but what would you like to know?3 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »jasonpoihegatama wrote: »I'm just throwing this line of thought out there because I can't help but think there's been a massive breakdown between who is discussing research, who is discussing science (a moment on that one please) and who is discussing how we learn and what from. I'm addressing this strictly from an "end user" PoV so to speak.
I know my view is simplistic (overly) but at the moment, until I learn more, it works for me.
To me, research is what a body does in order to find out how something works, by using scientific methodology.
The scientific results gained from that research are what lead to a change in behavior (learning) and are in a constant state of flux due to variables being added or removed.
What I do and/or change...or do not do, is a direct result of how that application works for me. The example I'll use is the study of and discussions about concentric and eccentric motion. Bicep curls. Both concentric and eccentric motion work for me, but concentric causes pain, eccentric does not.
I need treatment for that tendonitus that is based upon medical research, the results of which are taught to doctors so they can tell me why, and properly treat it.
I do not need (won't accept because I don't like pain) someone telling that xyz worked for them without any understanding that xyz may cause further damage.
I also need and will listen to someone with the proper education who can help me do what I would like to based on my particular variables or, possibly, advise me to get it fixed before attempting any other routines with that arm. This is why I go to men and women who have that proper training and have learned to apply it in real world situations.
We all know biceps curls strengthen/build biceps. But what can a person tell me about my biceps in particular and why there's pain when I try to exercise them? Is it skeletal/musculature/tendon? I need to know that.
The supplements are another matter entirely for me as I just do not take any other than protein. I have seen (we all have) some crazy pitches before, but that's past for me today.
Now i see why you are confused!
Haha! I was just reading but wasn't going to reply to any of the posts at this time. However, I did laugh when I saw yours! Well done.Duck_Puddle wrote: »Something else is kind of gnawing at me a little.
You haven’t told us what your miracle methods are. I’m assuming that’s available for purchase somewhere.
Regardless.
According to your profile, you’re 41. As you’ve mentioned more times than I can count, you’ve been doing this same thing for 26 years.
So...you’ve been doing the exact same thing during a period of your life when your body was still growing to adult size, when it was thriving with peak levels of testosterone and other hormones, and now as you begin to age some. You’ve not made a single change as you’ve gone through these stages?
Duck_Puddle are you baiting me to be banned for self promotion? I can't tell you as much as I would love to. At some point I may go silent and it may just be because I slip up and someone says I was self promoting and I get booted. Who knows. But that isn't what this thread is about anyway. I think you've been one my biggest critics so I wouldn't expect you to be interested.
To answer your other questions, yes I have made many changes. Two and a half decades is a long time at any age! I experiment, I try theories, I listen to others, I read magazines years ago, I research online, I learn scientific principles etc. etc... some things work better than others. I will say that I do keep coming back to a style of training that is very similar to what I started with. I am grateful that I found the best strategy for me all of those years back. At 41 I find myself just as motivated and possibly even more enthusiastic than at 21. I can say that I have even found ways to get leaner and in some exercises stronger. Now that was just to answer your questions so I hope that isn't used to discredit me with terms like "bro" "woo" "sales pitch" etc.
I don't have any methods for purchase. If I did, I think that would be a positive thing as it could possibly help a lot of people and for many years to come. (more than you can count.... haha. You got a chuckle out of me.)
I really don’t understand the need for the cloak and dagger. We all routinely share what we do (and don’t do) and why. This is a public forum built with intention of sharing knowledge. If you’re not wanting to receive payment for your knowledge directly nor via website clicks, what is so privileged that you can’t share it here? Sharing knowledge doesn’t get you banned. Trying to sell stuff (including website traffic clicks) is against the TOS.
I’m not a critic of YOU. As I’ve said before-this isn’t about YOU. at all.
I-like all the other “we” in this thread-do criticize the idea that there is great value in getting guidance or information from some random dude who has had success. When we already know why he’s had success and can get that information without a bunch of nonsense.
No problem. What do you want to know? What would be sufficient to help with this thread? I did mention earlier that I was short on time and didn't know where to start. What do you want to know about my theories or strategy? Earlier someone accused me of wanting others to ask me about my strategies and I wanted prove that wasn't the case. I'm trying not to talk about my strategies but what would you like to know?3 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
Again, I think this kind of thing is a form of discrediting and dismissing the individual when typing things like "bro" "woo" "sales pitch"... I'm not selling anything. I don't have a method to sell. I have countless theories that have been helpful for me and I think they could help a lot of people. Nothing to sell.
Lots and lots of new folks asking for help in the open forums.
I'm out folks. I love learning and debate when the topic is appropriate. This thread....isn't that.
No problem. What do you want to know? What would be sufficient to help with this thread? I did mention earlier that I was short on time and didn't know where to start. What do you want to know about my theories or strategy? Earlier someone accused me of wanting others to ask me about my strategies and I wanted prove that wasn't the case. I'm trying not to talk about my strategies but what would you like to know?5 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Seems to me that this, like many other online bayoneting of strawmen discussions, all revolves around what science is.
Science is not a religious tradition. It is something quite apart from that - it is a word for a system of investigation into how the world around us works and the results of those investigations.
There are tens of thousands of incredible athletes who all attribute their success to hard work + doing something unusual. Just asking any one of the athletes at the top will not help you that much, and that's where investigating it properly comes into play, by asking as many as possible, and using maths to determine what is a coincidence and what is statistically significant.
P.S. It is my personal observation that if there is a sport you care about doing well in, don't depend on asking the best player for advice. The reason the person is doing so well is genetic good luck, youth, dedication to training, and good coaching, and s/he has no idea on how to guide you into improving your own shoddy technique.
Ask his or her trainer.
That's a fair opinion. Thanks for sharing. I would ask the athlete and be very interested in their journey from start to finish. There is probably a lot of good information to be learned there. Thanks again.3 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Of course my friend. Some specifics are not allowed. I can't condense my theories onto a paragraph because there is often too much to cover and often I would be accused of self promotion, I'd be censored and banned. This post is more about a general philosophies. I mentioned this before, as open as a forum is, there are governing bodies that limit and control how the information flows. I get why this happens but it is still a reality. I do sometimes wonder how many times I answer to an actual user versus a moderators account. That is part of life online.
I don't understand this.
Myself, I eat a wide variety of foods keeping a deficit each day, do 3 full body workouts per week and cardio/abs 2-3 times per week. My exercise plan is based on AthleanX Ax1 and Ax2.
That's a very small paragraph and I'm fairly certain it is within forum guidlines. What am I missing?
I read that as - my knowledge is too complicated for you folks to understand, and I'd really have to link you to my website and sales page which I'm not allowed to do here.
No problem. What do you want to know? What would be sufficient to help with this thread? I did mention earlier that I was short on time and didn't know where to start. What do you want to know about my theories or strategy? Earlier someone accused me of wanting others to ask me about my strategies and I wanted prove that wasn't the case. I'm trying not to talk about my strategies but what would you like to know?5 -
Lets talk about your strategies. What are they?1
-
diannethegeek wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »@fitfamilyguy I'm really having trouble understanding your post or what your point is at this point. But I'll go back to my original post - being able to vet sources. "Science" isn't defined by one study, or the most recent study. It is constantly doubling back, taking one study which leads to several other studies, which lead to dozens of studies, continuing to drill down, pin down variables, correct inaccurate assumptions. THAT is the scientific method. The problem is the average consumer isn't educated enough about the scientific method, and so when their trainer shows them a study that "proves" that his diet or workout program is the best, they think they should believe it because "science". The best charlatans are the ones that can misuse science and confuse their marks.
I have talked to far too many bodybuilders/trainers who looked amazing and didn't know *kitten* about biology or science to assume that someone with a great physique would give good advice. Said that I should eat 1200 cals, or I had to IF to maximize fat loss, or I had to use little pink weights because I was a girl, or I had to use the fat burners that they could give me a discount on. Sorry.
Fair enough. I liked your "*kitten*" comment. Funny.
Again, nothing is perfect. The bodybuilder in your example is likely doing something right but again nothing is perfect. I wouldn't follow that guy either. But the other side of that is the intellectual that can't figure out why their science based approach to fitness won't get them the fit body they constantly work on. I've met plenty of them too. Again, I think it comes down to multiple ways of learning. No need to apologize. Were you insulting me?
I've been following this thread but I haven't jumped in yet. I think the fundamental difference you're missing here is that on the science side of things, the idea isn't to take advice from the scientist. The idea is to take the science from a conglomeration of scientists and then use it to apply to your own situation.
If a guy at the gym tells me I can't eat carbs after 7 and I need to do a ton of cardio and eat salad and boiled cod all day to lose weight, and then it doesn't work for whatever reason, I don't have the information I need to troubleshoot why it isn't working. I can go back to the bro, but he likely won't know. I can find a different person to ask. I can flounder or give up. I can bounce from plan to plan. But I don't have the tools I need to get into the right groove unless I get there by accident. And then I won't be able to adjust as I go, anyway.
If instead I learn that meal timing doesn't amount to a large percentage of weight loss, cardio can increase a deficit but isn't required, and salad and cod just happen to be low calorie/high protein foods, and that calories lead to weight loss, then I have knowledge. I don't have someone else's plan. I don't have what some reporter put in a magazine about what they think a study says. I can build the plan that works for me. I can take the pieces of advice I like and throw the rest away. I can tweak. I can troubleshoot. I can adjust things. And I don't have to bounce from plan to plan unsure of what's going on in my own body. The knowledge gives me control over what's happening.
There are absolutely confused people in the world. I just think some of the people in this thread differ on how best to help them. Whether it's best to give them a plan that might work or to give them the knowledge to make their own plan.
Very well said! There is a reason you have.... 14,564 comments under your belt. Perhaps I should pay more attention to what you say because you have done something earn my attention. Your not a scientist are you? You don't have to be, you think clearly. You have logical ideas. I'm not a scientist but I can tell that with my common sense. I agree that good advice and leadership should come from a foundation understanding. I think this is part of the filtering process. However, I think another part of the issue in the threat is that threshold. It seems to me that some people seem to think that unless Dr. is attached to your name or your part of a very big corporation, the words from a fit person on not even worth considering. I agree that the "hey look what I have been able to do" is only the marketing so to speak. I don't mean marketing literally but rather a starting point to say that now that you see some proof, I may have some more credibility that I'm onto something and you can find out for yourself over time. The "hey look what I have been able to do" may end up being full of very, very wise and helpful information. That same guy may end up being full of BS. Who knows. Personally, I'm willing to learn from others as they probably have a combination of practical advice and advice based on science and it is my job to determine what I do and do not value. I've never really heard people argue so hard against the concept of learning from successful people. It is very strange to me. To be honest, it almost starts to feel like a way of controlling information and shutting downs others ability to share than actually offering a variety of solutions to help people. But again, I really do think you made a lot of darn good sense. Thanks.
No, I'm not a scientist. I have a degree in art history and classical antiquities and I work a desk job. My post count is high because I've been here for almost 7 years. I'm not sure why you're making that personal - some weird negging or whatever - but okay.
To this:It seems to me that some people seem to think that unless Dr. is attached to your name or your part of a very big corporation, the words from a fit person on not even worth considering.
Putting aside how corporations got into this because that's a weird jump. What I'm specifically saying is that even with the title of Doctor or part of a very large corporation, the words of one individual mean absolutely nothing on objective matters. With subjective matters, like the feelings associated with weight loss, I think they have some merit. But if a hypothetical weight loss specialist who was a doctor and part of a large corporation and had the perfect body and years of training materialized in my living room with the words of God on weight loss inscribed on a tablet, their advice would be absolutely worthless unless it was replicatable and had science behind it.
This isn't about scientists vs non-scientists. It's not about individuals at all. It's about who you trust to get you to your goals. I don't trust any individuals to give me what I need for that. Not personal trainers or scientist or science reporters or academics or dudes at the gym. I trust what the science says - the actual reproducible reports, not the scientists.
I'm not going to address anything else in that post since it's some weird strawman/guilt trip stuff.
Very quickly I did want to re-address you. I actually did like your original post. I was trying to make the point that I felt compelled to hear your common sense logic because you earned it with your post. I didn't feel the need to dismiss you because your only one person who wasn't referencing a scientific paper. I was using you as an example of someone who was worth listening to based on a common sense filtering process. A lot of the argument against my comments has been that only science matters and there is as explained by some comments zero reason to listen to my opinions and personal experiences. Sorry if it did not come across the right way.
I can't address all of the points because it becomes too much but I also didn't do a great job of explaining the Dr. or corporation comment. I certainly don't want to call out any brands directly and I can see those comments could be confusing.
Oh I didn't mean to make the comment count personal. In your case it was a poor job of complimenting you on your first post. I will say that I sometimes get the feeling that more than one account may be used by a few people to shape the perception of the thread. The way a group consensus, swings from one lopsided common theme to another is kind of amazing. At one point the group kept mocking me for trying to get inquires about my techniques. At another point the group consensus took a huge swing and suddenly the various accounts pushed for program information. Not to mention how the accounts quickly "woo" all my comments and "like", "hug", "inspire" etc. each other. It seems like a bit much and it is really quite interesting.
I can't say I agree with your second post but I respect your opinion. I see a lot of value and have done really well in learning from others experiences but I get that for whatever reason not everyone does. 9 -
We are separate people, I assure you. Occasionally - not always - we concur.
Most of the people on this thread are folks I'm familiar with, from long forum participation: They generously spend their time being explicit about what they've done, and succeeded with. Their posts are based on their understanding of science and practice, and they try to help others progress.
They're not sock puppets. Nor am I.16 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Of course my friend. Some specifics are not allowed. I can't condense my theories onto a paragraph because there is often too much to cover and often I would be accused of self promotion, I'd be censored and banned. This post is more about a general philosophies. I mentioned this before, as open as a forum is, there are governing bodies that limit and control how the information flows. I get why this happens but it is still a reality. I do sometimes wonder how many times I answer to an actual user versus a moderators account. That is part of life online.
I don't understand this.
Myself, I eat a wide variety of foods keeping a deficit each day, do 3 full body workouts per week and cardio/abs 2-3 times per week. My exercise plan is based on AthleanX Ax1 and Ax2.
That's a very small paragraph and I'm fairly certain it is within forum guidlines. What am I missing?Duck_Puddle wrote: »BFitFamilyGuy wrote: »Of course my friend. Some specifics are not allowed. I can't condense my theories onto a paragraph because there is often too much to cover and often I would be accused of self promotion, I'd be censored and banned. This post is more about a general philosophies. I mentioned this before, as open as a forum is, there are governing bodies that limit and control how the information flows. I get why this happens but it is still a reality. I do sometimes wonder how many times I answer to an actual user versus a moderators account. That is part of life online.
I don't understand this.
Myself, I eat a wide variety of foods keeping a deficit each day, do 3 full body workouts per week and cardio/abs 2-3 times per week. My exercise plan is based on AthleanX Ax1 and Ax2.
That's a very small paragraph and I'm fairly certain it is within forum guidlines. What am I missing?
The difference is you’re not selling something.
Again, I think this kind of thing is a form of discrediting and dismissing the individual when typing things like "bro" "woo" "sales pitch"... I'm not selling anything. I don't have a method to sell. I have countless theories that have been helpful for me and I think they could help a lot of people. Nothing to sell.
Then why are you being so coy about it? There's nothing wrong with sharing firsthand experience and advice on these forums with others, especially if you believe it will be truly beneficial to them. People do it all the time!
No problem. What do you want to know? What would be sufficient to help with this thread? I did mention earlier that I was short on time and didn't know where to start. What do you want to know about my theories or strategy? Earlier someone accused me of wanting others to ask me about my strategies and I wanted prove that wasn't the case. I'm trying not to talk about my strategies but what would you like to know?
I'm not asking for your advice. Just wondering what's stopping you from participating in other threads where people DO ask for help and you feel your perspective might be helpful to them. That's what most of the rest of us do.10 -
A super quick way to make sure your opinions don’t pass the “common sense” filter is to alienate your audience, dismiss everyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion in a thread you started (in the DEBATE section), among so many other things. So. Many.
“We” (those of us who are indeed different people but just happen to agree in this instance) have not asked you for your advice. We have suggested that if you have advice to share-go do that like the rest of us do. Share you info with the people asking for advice. There are tons.
The people that have responded to your thread here are some of the kindest, most thoughtful and rational people in these forums. I wish you luck with the those who aren’t.
12 -
@FitFamilyGuy I noticed you posted this link to a reply in another thread.
Is this where you are coming from?
https://www.4fitnessrules.com/start-here/
Cheers, h.13 -
Army everyone eats the same and does the same exercise. Athletes exercise is made to suit the person. I haven't read any of the post before mine so i could be of track15
-
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Seems to me that this, like many other online bayoneting of strawmen discussions, all revolves around what science is.
Science is not a religious tradition. It is something quite apart from that - it is a word for a system of investigation into how the world around us works and the results of those investigations.
There are tens of thousands of incredible athletes who all attribute their success to hard work + doing something unusual. Just asking any one of the athletes at the top will not help you that much, and that's where investigating it properly comes into play, by asking as many as possible, and using maths to determine what is a coincidence and what is statistically significant.
P.S. It is my personal observation that if there is a sport you care about doing well in, don't depend on asking the best player for advice. The reason the person is doing so well is genetic good luck, youth, dedication to training, and good coaching, and s/he has no idea on how to guide you into improving your own shoddy technique.
Ask his or her trainer.
That's a fair opinion. Thanks for sharing. I would ask the athlete and be very interested in their journey from start to finish. There is probably a lot of good information to be learned there. Thanks again.
I won an annual tournament once. I know the people who won in the years before me and the years before me, and asking any individual one of us about our journey from start to finish would get you completely different answers.
So, who will get you where you want? Asking winner 2015, winner 2016, winner 2017 or winner 2018?
5 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Seems to me that this, like many other online bayoneting of strawmen discussions, all revolves around what science is.
Science is not a religious tradition. It is something quite apart from that - it is a word for a system of investigation into how the world around us works and the results of those investigations.
There are tens of thousands of incredible athletes who all attribute their success to hard work + doing something unusual. Just asking any one of the athletes at the top will not help you that much, and that's where investigating it properly comes into play, by asking as many as possible, and using maths to determine what is a coincidence and what is statistically significant.
P.S. It is my personal observation that if there is a sport you care about doing well in, don't depend on asking the best player for advice. The reason the person is doing so well is genetic good luck, youth, dedication to training, and good coaching, and s/he has no idea on how to guide you into improving your own shoddy technique.
Ask his or her trainer.
That's a fair opinion. Thanks for sharing. I would ask the athlete and be very interested in their journey from start to finish. There is probably a lot of good information to be learned there. Thanks again.
I won an annual tournament once. I know the people who won in the years before me and the years before me, and asking any individual one of us about our journey from start to finish would get you completely different answers.
So, who will get you where you want? Asking winner 2015, winner 2016, winner 2017 or winner 2018?
If you don't mind me asking what tournament did you win for which country????2 -
Ha. Not country level. Local one. I'm not comfortable with giving out what town I live in on the internet, sorry.jasonpoihegatama wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Seems to me that this, like many other online bayoneting of strawmen discussions, all revolves around what science is.
Science is not a religious tradition. It is something quite apart from that - it is a word for a system of investigation into how the world around us works and the results of those investigations.
There are tens of thousands of incredible athletes who all attribute their success to hard work + doing something unusual. Just asking any one of the athletes at the top will not help you that much, and that's where investigating it properly comes into play, by asking as many as possible, and using maths to determine what is a coincidence and what is statistically significant.
P.S. It is my personal observation that if there is a sport you care about doing well in, don't depend on asking the best player for advice. The reason the person is doing so well is genetic good luck, youth, dedication to training, and good coaching, and s/he has no idea on how to guide you into improving your own shoddy technique.
Ask his or her trainer.
That's a fair opinion. Thanks for sharing. I would ask the athlete and be very interested in their journey from start to finish. There is probably a lot of good information to be learned there. Thanks again.
I won an annual tournament once. I know the people who won in the years before me and the years before me, and asking any individual one of us about our journey from start to finish would get you completely different answers.
So, who will get you where you want? Asking winner 2015, winner 2016, winner 2017 or winner 2018?
If you don't mind me asking what tournament did you win for which country????
1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Ha. Not country level. Local one. I'm not comfortable with giving out what town I live in on the internet, sorry.jasonpoihegatama wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Seems to me that this, like many other online bayoneting of strawmen discussions, all revolves around what science is.
Science is not a religious tradition. It is something quite apart from that - it is a word for a system of investigation into how the world around us works and the results of those investigations.
There are tens of thousands of incredible athletes who all attribute their success to hard work + doing something unusual. Just asking any one of the athletes at the top will not help you that much, and that's where investigating it properly comes into play, by asking as many as possible, and using maths to determine what is a coincidence and what is statistically significant.
P.S. It is my personal observation that if there is a sport you care about doing well in, don't depend on asking the best player for advice. The reason the person is doing so well is genetic good luck, youth, dedication to training, and good coaching, and s/he has no idea on how to guide you into improving your own shoddy technique.
Ask his or her trainer.
That's a fair opinion. Thanks for sharing. I would ask the athlete and be very interested in their journey from start to finish. There is probably a lot of good information to be learned there. Thanks again.
I won an annual tournament once. I know the people who won in the years before me and the years before me, and asking any individual one of us about our journey from start to finish would get you completely different answers.
So, who will get you where you want? Asking winner 2015, winner 2016, winner 2017 or winner 2018?
If you don't mind me asking what tournament did you win for which country????
How about sport?2 -
Martial arts.jasonpoihegatama wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Ha. Not country level. Local one. I'm not comfortable with giving out what town I live in on the internet, sorry.jasonpoihegatama wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Seems to me that this, like many other online bayoneting of strawmen discussions, all revolves around what science is.
Science is not a religious tradition. It is something quite apart from that - it is a word for a system of investigation into how the world around us works and the results of those investigations.
There are tens of thousands of incredible athletes who all attribute their success to hard work + doing something unusual. Just asking any one of the athletes at the top will not help you that much, and that's where investigating it properly comes into play, by asking as many as possible, and using maths to determine what is a coincidence and what is statistically significant.
P.S. It is my personal observation that if there is a sport you care about doing well in, don't depend on asking the best player for advice. The reason the person is doing so well is genetic good luck, youth, dedication to training, and good coaching, and s/he has no idea on how to guide you into improving your own shoddy technique.
Ask his or her trainer.
That's a fair opinion. Thanks for sharing. I would ask the athlete and be very interested in their journey from start to finish. There is probably a lot of good information to be learned there. Thanks again.
I won an annual tournament once. I know the people who won in the years before me and the years before me, and asking any individual one of us about our journey from start to finish would get you completely different answers.
So, who will get you where you want? Asking winner 2015, winner 2016, winner 2017 or winner 2018?
If you don't mind me asking what tournament did you win for which country????
How about sport?
1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Martial arts.jasonpoihegatama wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Ha. Not country level. Local one. I'm not comfortable with giving out what town I live in on the internet, sorry.jasonpoihegatama wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Seems to me that this, like many other online bayoneting of strawmen discussions, all revolves around what science is.
Science is not a religious tradition. It is something quite apart from that - it is a word for a system of investigation into how the world around us works and the results of those investigations.
There are tens of thousands of incredible athletes who all attribute their success to hard work + doing something unusual. Just asking any one of the athletes at the top will not help you that much, and that's where investigating it properly comes into play, by asking as many as possible, and using maths to determine what is a coincidence and what is statistically significant.
P.S. It is my personal observation that if there is a sport you care about doing well in, don't depend on asking the best player for advice. The reason the person is doing so well is genetic good luck, youth, dedication to training, and good coaching, and s/he has no idea on how to guide you into improving your own shoddy technique.
Ask his or her trainer.
That's a fair opinion. Thanks for sharing. I would ask the athlete and be very interested in their journey from start to finish. There is probably a lot of good information to be learned there. Thanks again.
I won an annual tournament once. I know the people who won in the years before me and the years before me, and asking any individual one of us about our journey from start to finish would get you completely different answers.
So, who will get you where you want? Asking winner 2015, winner 2016, winner 2017 or winner 2018?
If you don't mind me asking what tournament did you win for which country????
How about sport?
Ok thanks!0 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »@fitfamilyguy I'm really having trouble understanding your post or what your point is at this point. But I'll go back to my original post - being able to vet sources. "Science" isn't defined by one study, or the most recent study. It is constantly doubling back, taking one study which leads to several other studies, which lead to dozens of studies, continuing to drill down, pin down variables, correct inaccurate assumptions. THAT is the scientific method. The problem is the average consumer isn't educated enough about the scientific method, and so when their trainer shows them a study that "proves" that his diet or workout program is the best, they think they should believe it because "science". The best charlatans are the ones that can misuse science and confuse their marks.
I have talked to far too many bodybuilders/trainers who looked amazing and didn't know *kitten* about biology or science to assume that someone with a great physique would give good advice. Said that I should eat 1200 cals, or I had to IF to maximize fat loss, or I had to use little pink weights because I was a girl, or I had to use the fat burners that they could give me a discount on. Sorry.
Fair enough. I liked your "*kitten*" comment. Funny.
Again, nothing is perfect. The bodybuilder in your example is likely doing something right but again nothing is perfect. I wouldn't follow that guy either. But the other side of that is the intellectual that can't figure out why their science based approach to fitness won't get them the fit body they constantly work on. I've met plenty of them too. Again, I think it comes down to multiple ways of learning. No need to apologize. Were you insulting me?
I've been following this thread but I haven't jumped in yet. I think the fundamental difference you're missing here is that on the science side of things, the idea isn't to take advice from the scientist. The idea is to take the science from a conglomeration of scientists and then use it to apply to your own situation.
If a guy at the gym tells me I can't eat carbs after 7 and I need to do a ton of cardio and eat salad and boiled cod all day to lose weight, and then it doesn't work for whatever reason, I don't have the information I need to troubleshoot why it isn't working. I can go back to the bro, but he likely won't know. I can find a different person to ask. I can flounder or give up. I can bounce from plan to plan. But I don't have the tools I need to get into the right groove unless I get there by accident. And then I won't be able to adjust as I go, anyway.
If instead I learn that meal timing doesn't amount to a large percentage of weight loss, cardio can increase a deficit but isn't required, and salad and cod just happen to be low calorie/high protein foods, and that calories lead to weight loss, then I have knowledge. I don't have someone else's plan. I don't have what some reporter put in a magazine about what they think a study says. I can build the plan that works for me. I can take the pieces of advice I like and throw the rest away. I can tweak. I can troubleshoot. I can adjust things. And I don't have to bounce from plan to plan unsure of what's going on in my own body. The knowledge gives me control over what's happening.
There are absolutely confused people in the world. I just think some of the people in this thread differ on how best to help them. Whether it's best to give them a plan that might work or to give them the knowledge to make their own plan.
Very well said! There is a reason you have.... 14,564 comments under your belt. Perhaps I should pay more attention to what you say because you have done something earn my attention. Your not a scientist are you? You don't have to be, you think clearly. You have logical ideas. I'm not a scientist but I can tell that with my common sense. I agree that good advice and leadership should come from a foundation understanding. I think this is part of the filtering process. However, I think another part of the issue in the threat is that threshold. It seems to me that some people seem to think that unless Dr. is attached to your name or your part of a very big corporation, the words from a fit person on not even worth considering. I agree that the "hey look what I have been able to do" is only the marketing so to speak. I don't mean marketing literally but rather a starting point to say that now that you see some proof, I may have some more credibility that I'm onto something and you can find out for yourself over time. The "hey look what I have been able to do" may end up being full of very, very wise and helpful information. That same guy may end up being full of BS. Who knows. Personally, I'm willing to learn from others as they probably have a combination of practical advice and advice based on science and it is my job to determine what I do and do not value. I've never really heard people argue so hard against the concept of learning from successful people. It is very strange to me. To be honest, it almost starts to feel like a way of controlling information and shutting downs others ability to share than actually offering a variety of solutions to help people. But again, I really do think you made a lot of darn good sense. Thanks.
The point you continue to miss is that the reason the people are experiencing success is because they are doing the things that have proven (by science) to be successful.
The science IS the information of value.
And that can be regardless if they know they are or not7 -
I wondered, does the "this is kind of true for me, and this is kind of true for science" apply to other things beyond nutrition, maybe even beyond biology?
Like, can it be kind of true for me that the diversity of species is explained by a magic unicorn that taps its horn to force snakes to turn into rabbits when rabbits have never existed, but also kind of true that evolution explains biodiversity for science?
Can it be true for me that stars are really just fireflies that have flown really high, but also true for science that they are the result of accumulated hydrogen, helium, and other trace elements that collapse under gravity with enough pressure and heat to cause fusion into higher elements?0 -
Bullying... like in the real world this does not apply to everyone but it applies none the less.
a) The original comment is a thoughtful and innocent post. I don't see any negativity there.
b) Some directed questions to or about me specifically. I tried to answered them and then was belittled for making the post about me. (discrediting and bullying)
c) Some said things like "we all" as though it was a consensus against my views of balanced learning. (discrediting and bullying)
d) Some grouped together to belittle and push that I was trying to get questions about my methods and I explained that I was not fishing for that. (discrediting and bullying)
e) Some accounts made some less than friendly accusation and quickly supported one another in quotes and agreeance. (discrediting and bullying)
f) Regardless of how trivial or profound the statement the group supports one another with "likes" "insightful", "inspiring" "hugs"... lots of support. If the comment is negative towards me, there seems to be more so of it. (discrediting and bullying)
g) Regardless of the post I make that may or may not be trivial or answers to questions, or something to consider the groups "woo's" or ignores the comment. (discrediting and bullying) (edit... this one can be ignored... the "group" just seems one sided. My woos are through the roof. Statistically, it's kind of impressive.)
h) The group swings to a new angle and went from "we don't want your strategies and don't say them" to "why won't you tell us your strategies and why are your hiding them"? The swing was swift and strong. (discrediting and bullying)
Some of these things on their own are not bullying but the one sided attack and accumulation of the points above are quite clearly a less than friendly and supportive exchange.
I think there is a great deal of kind and thoughtful people here! There are plenty of fantastic exchanges as well! I also think there is an effort by a few people, possibly operating more than one account, maybe not, to bully and discredit my posts and then bury it deep into the archives. Why? I tried to answer all questions at first but it got to be too much so I did my best to keep up.
This is really unfortunate. But don't take my word for it, read the posts and see for yourself. Was I trying to answer the questions? Was I trying to be kind and if I made a mistake did I apologize and try to clarify?
If I upset anyone I really do apologize and want you to know that I do make mistakes and it was not my intent. I welcome debate and I enjoy it too! I think there is a great deal of wonderful, smart, genuine and thoughtful people here. Thank you to them. And still, no hard feelings. Things can always turn around. No hard feelings for anyone.
7 -
This isn't reddit. All posts within a thread are displayed in chronological order, regardless of what reactions they've garnered. Posts cannot be buried.
Threads within a forum are ordered by which has most recently been commeted on, so every post on this thread has bumped it back to the top of the debate forum.
5 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »I wondered, does the "this is kind of true for me, and this is kind of true for science" apply to other things beyond nutrition, maybe even beyond biology?
Like, can it be kind of true for me that the diversity of species is explained by a magic unicorn that taps its horn to force snakes to turn into rabbits when rabbits have never existed, but also kind of true that evolution explains biodiversity for science?
Can it be true for me that stars are really just fireflies that have flown really high, but also true for science that they are the result of accumulated hydrogen, helium, and other trace elements that collapse under gravity with enough pressure and heat to cause fusion into higher elements?
No, "true for me" over science is not good way to look at things. I agree with your stance that proven facts are proven facts. But, "true for me" and "true for you" and "true for someone doing well" can be a great way to learn and reach a goal. I don't need a science experiment to tell me how a fire should happen but I can watch someone make a fire, learn from it and do it myself. I do see your point but we are just not aligning on some finer points. 2 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
I think there is a great deal of kind and thoughtful people here! There are plenty of fantastic exchanges as well! I also think there is an effort by a few people, possibly operating more than one account, maybe not, to bully and discredit my posts and then bury it deep into the archives. Why? I tried to answer all questions at first but it got to be too much so I did my best to keep up.
This is really unfortunate. But don't take my word for it, read the posts and see for yourself? Was I trying to answer the questions? Was I trying to be kind and if I made a mistake did I apologize and try to clarify?
If a lot of people disagree with you, and tell you so, the simplest answer is not hivemind conspiracy.7 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »The "we" in this thread will be quick to list off all of the reasons why real world results form individuals is a problem so I don't need to do that here. They exist. I get it. There are problems learning from one guys results.
These reasons have been outlined multiple times for you and yet you continue to propose that it is optimal to get our information from these individuals.
Can you list off any of these reasons?FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
Now, forget about "fit guy". What about a bodybuilder? Can't we look at what a bodybuilder generally does, recognize that they are pretty darn good at building muscle and burning fat and learn from that? You don't have to want to be a bodybuilder to learn from the principles and apply some or all of them to replicate some results. You can also talk to one bodybuilder to find out what he does and then learn from that.
Following your answer to the above, can you apply all those reasons to why “we” really don’t hold value on this as a research method?
Perhaps this is the issue.
You possibly feel that I am trying to provide a new way to do science. I don't think that at all.
I believe in taking a balanced approach to learning for an individual like me or someone else. I am talking about learning on an individual level and finding a way to cut through the noise and confusion. As said many times part of that is learning from others and science.
What does it mean to "learn on an individual level"?
One of the reasons why I think you're getting pushback is that what you're advising -- at least to my reading -- seems to be so vague.
Of course my friend. Some specifics are not allowed. I can't condense my theories onto a paragraph because there is often too much to cover and often I would be accused of self promotion, I'd be censored and banned. This post is more about a general philosophies. I mentioned this before, as open as a forum is, there are governing bodies that limit and control how the information flows. I get why this happens but it is still a reality. I do sometimes wonder how many times I answer to an actual user versus a moderators account. That is part of life online.
Why would you be accused of self-promotion?
I could tell you exact details about my plan and never be accused of self-promotion because I have nothing to promote. Are you telling me that your advice is reliant on purchasing something from you or following you on another social media site? If so, I think we're quite right to be skeptical because people who are telling you that they've found THE WAY for weight management/fitness and they're willing to tell you if you only pay this/follow this . . . well, they're not exactly great sources usually.
(You can tell when you're responding to an actual user because moderators have it noted under their user name).2 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »@fitfamilyguy I'm really having trouble understanding your post or what your point is at this point. But I'll go back to my original post - being able to vet sources. "Science" isn't defined by one study, or the most recent study. It is constantly doubling back, taking one study which leads to several other studies, which lead to dozens of studies, continuing to drill down, pin down variables, correct inaccurate assumptions. THAT is the scientific method. The problem is the average consumer isn't educated enough about the scientific method, and so when their trainer shows them a study that "proves" that his diet or workout program is the best, they think they should believe it because "science". The best charlatans are the ones that can misuse science and confuse their marks.
I have talked to far too many bodybuilders/trainers who looked amazing and didn't know *kitten* about biology or science to assume that someone with a great physique would give good advice. Said that I should eat 1200 cals, or I had to IF to maximize fat loss, or I had to use little pink weights because I was a girl, or I had to use the fat burners that they could give me a discount on. Sorry.
Fair enough. I liked your "*kitten*" comment. Funny.
Again, nothing is perfect. The bodybuilder in your example is likely doing something right but again nothing is perfect. I wouldn't follow that guy either. But the other side of that is the intellectual that can't figure out why their science based approach to fitness won't get them the fit body they constantly work on. I've met plenty of them too. Again, I think it comes down to multiple ways of learning. No need to apologize. Were you insulting me?
I've been following this thread but I haven't jumped in yet. I think the fundamental difference you're missing here is that on the science side of things, the idea isn't to take advice from the scientist. The idea is to take the science from a conglomeration of scientists and then use it to apply to your own situation.
If a guy at the gym tells me I can't eat carbs after 7 and I need to do a ton of cardio and eat salad and boiled cod all day to lose weight, and then it doesn't work for whatever reason, I don't have the information I need to troubleshoot why it isn't working. I can go back to the bro, but he likely won't know. I can find a different person to ask. I can flounder or give up. I can bounce from plan to plan. But I don't have the tools I need to get into the right groove unless I get there by accident. And then I won't be able to adjust as I go, anyway.
If instead I learn that meal timing doesn't amount to a large percentage of weight loss, cardio can increase a deficit but isn't required, and salad and cod just happen to be low calorie/high protein foods, and that calories lead to weight loss, then I have knowledge. I don't have someone else's plan. I don't have what some reporter put in a magazine about what they think a study says. I can build the plan that works for me. I can take the pieces of advice I like and throw the rest away. I can tweak. I can troubleshoot. I can adjust things. And I don't have to bounce from plan to plan unsure of what's going on in my own body. The knowledge gives me control over what's happening.
There are absolutely confused people in the world. I just think some of the people in this thread differ on how best to help them. Whether it's best to give them a plan that might work or to give them the knowledge to make their own plan.
Very well said! There is a reason you have.... 14,564 comments under your belt. Perhaps I should pay more attention to what you say because you have done something earn my attention. Your not a scientist are you? You don't have to be, you think clearly. You have logical ideas. I'm not a scientist but I can tell that with my common sense. I agree that good advice and leadership should come from a foundation understanding. I think this is part of the filtering process. However, I think another part of the issue in the threat is that threshold. It seems to me that some people seem to think that unless Dr. is attached to your name or your part of a very big corporation, the words from a fit person on not even worth considering. I agree that the "hey look what I have been able to do" is only the marketing so to speak. I don't mean marketing literally but rather a starting point to say that now that you see some proof, I may have some more credibility that I'm onto something and you can find out for yourself over time. The "hey look what I have been able to do" may end up being full of very, very wise and helpful information. That same guy may end up being full of BS. Who knows. Personally, I'm willing to learn from others as they probably have a combination of practical advice and advice based on science and it is my job to determine what I do and do not value. I've never really heard people argue so hard against the concept of learning from successful people. It is very strange to me. To be honest, it almost starts to feel like a way of controlling information and shutting downs others ability to share than actually offering a variety of solutions to help people. But again, I really do think you made a lot of darn good sense. Thanks.
The point you continue to miss is that the reason the people are experiencing success is because they are doing the things that have proven (by science) to be successful.
The science IS the information of value.
And that can be regardless if they know they are or not
I am sorry if I have not addressed this specific comment because I do get the point and felt it was answered in other posts. I wrote along these lines to someone else but I think it applies here:
I don't need a science experiment to tell me how a fire should happen but I can watch someone make a fire, learn from it and do it myself. The point is that learning from others success is a great way to learn and the results are often fantastic! In this case, the fire burning is the end goal and science can prove that but it didn't have to. I do see your point but we are just not aligning on some finer points. I love and agree with the scientific method but I see huge value in combining my scientific understanding with learning from others real world experiences and results. 5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions