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.
Intermittent Fasting - Is it a good idea?
Replies
-
lukejoycePT wrote: »It’s pretty obvious that you two don’t like IF and because of this your don’t like hearing that IF is better than a “conventional” way of eating.
Concluding that I "don't like" IF when by your own definition I do it 3 days a week and think it's great when others find it helpful is extremely strange. (It's true I find it ridiculously grandiose to call not eating breakfast "fasting." I might as well call not eating for 9 hours between lunch and dinner, which I do on the other 4 days "fasting.")
I don't like false claims about it, telling others they need to do it, or telling others that schedules that work well for them should be ditched based on unsupported claims that they aren't as healthy as your preferred schedule. I also generally dislike the diet wars -- the need for some to insist how they eat is morally superior or more virtuous or healthier or superior or more challenging or just generally better than how others eat, and so everyone needs to ditch their diets (even if perfectly healthy and working with them) to do the hot new thing.
That the evangelical impulse applies to diets in this way is so odd.
I also don't like inaccurate historical claims.17 -
@lukejoycePT, you’re preaching to the choir (me) in your posts. I’m an IF lifestyle enthusiast with stellar results in both weight loss and weight maintenance during my current fitness, health and wellness journey.
I’ve “debated” in this subject as you are currently doing and it’s like chasing wind here at MFP. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Stop by our MFP Intermittent Fasting Group when you have time and share your knowledge and experiences with a captive audience.
Wishing you the best.18 -
1. Didn’t say everyone had to follow it - I stated it was better for the body than standard food frequency.
2. I have made no false claims about it. Previously I even gave links to certain studies that nobody bothered to read.
3. While I’m not a historian I know enough about human history and evolution to know how we were hunter gatherers for 100’s of 1000’s of years. You just get butt hurt that what I am saying is correct and you can not refute it.
4. At no point did I say you didn’t follow any IF. Nor do I care. The question was is IF a good idea and I answered that question, it’s you guys who started coming at me with baseless, claims.
5. Finally, I honestly don’t care if you have a problem with anything or anyone. Your opinion has no effect on me or how I live my life. If you disagree with me. Great, that’s you progative.
6. My religion points where down to Indian and eastern fasting protocols. These are all done for religious and health reasons. They’ve been done forever and for good reason. I am in no way religious but there is rhyme and reason why ancient civilisations practiced fasting for health.lukejoycePT wrote: »It’s pretty obvious that you two don’t like IF and because of this your don’t like hearing that IF is better than a “conventional” way of eating.
Concluding that I "don't like" IF when by your own definition I do it 3 days a week and think it's great when others find it helpful is extremely strange. (It's true I find it ridiculously grandiose to call not eating breakfast "fasting." I might as well call not eating for 9 hours between lunch and dinner, which I do on the other 4 days "fasting.")
I don't like false claims about it, telling others they need to do it, or telling others that schedules that work well for them should be ditched based on unsupported claims that they aren't as healthy as your preferred schedule. I also generally dislike the diet wars -- the need for some to insist how they eat is morally superior or more virtuous or healthier or superior or more challenging or just generally better than how others eat, and so everyone needs to ditch their diets (even if perfectly healthy and working with them) to do the hot new thing.
That the evangelical impulse applies to diets in this way is so odd.
I also don't like inaccurate historical claims.
21 -
Thanks man. I don’t really understand this hate that’s thrown for an opinion on here. Very strange. But hey I’ll stop by that thread sometime.pierinifitness wrote: »@lukejoycePT, you’re preaching to the choir (me) in your posts. I’m an IF lifestyle enthusiast with stellar results in both weight loss and weight maintenance during my current fitness, health and wellness journey.
I’ve “debated” in this subject as you are currently doing and it’s like chasing wind here at MFP. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Stop by our MFP Intermittent Fasting Group when you have time and share your knowledge and experiences with a captive audience.
Wishing you the best.
11 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »3. While I’m not a historian I know enough about human history and evolution to know how we were hunter gatherers for 100’s of 1000’s of years. You just get butt hurt that what I am saying is correct and you can not refute it.
You are seriously misreading my posts if you think I am "butt hurt." (Or that not agreeing that IF is the One Best Way of Eating = hate. Thanks for the laugh. If someone says they didn't like a movie you liked are they haters? If you say that NYC is the capital of New York and someone else says "no, it's Albany," is that person expressing hate?)
That humans were hunter gatherers for a long time does not demonstrate that we were "designed" to eat in an IF pattern, let alone to go without eating for "days." It also does not demonstrate that there's something wrong with not eating in a particular "window." (Btw, current research seems to be that in many places new agriculturalist populations largely replaced the earlier hunter gatherers. While their ancestors would have been hunter gatherers at one point too, it would have been in different locations and what and how hunter gatherer populations eat is location specific.)
Modern hunter-gatherers and more recent hunter gatherer cultures do/did not generally go without eating for days. I think it's likely they did eat during daylight hours, although I am hesitant to generalize across all human cultures as you keep doing (I would also say that US farming populations in the 19th c largely ate during daylight). But that doesn't mean that eating later (due to work schedules and electric lights) is inherently bad for us (and many people who IF still eat when it's dark in the winter, perhaps all of their food then). Beyond that, the assertion that something is healthier (like avoiding agriculture, not consuming dairy) because its common in hunter gatherer cultures is not a good argument. (It's also commonly based on a misunderstanding, as with most of the rules in the paleo diet, we now know.)you guys who started coming at me with baseless, claims.
I don't think anyone has been making claims but you (I don't insist that my preferred eating schedule is best or healthiest for all), and you have not supported the claims you have made. As I pointed out before, there are no clear research conclusions about IF, the studies are all over the place.16 -
Also, what paleo humans did isn't particularly relevant, IMO. There's no reason to assume it was optimal. That's why the various false claims spread about their diets (i.e., the whole "paleo" thing) and way of eating is especially annoying.
If paleo man came upon a huge pile of twinkies he or she would poke it, sniff it, taste it and then eat the whole pile. There is this very bizarre moral notion attached to paleo as if they would or would not eat certain things...
12 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »It’s pretty obvious that you two don’t like IF and because of this your don’t like hearing that IF is better than a “conventional” way of eating.
I don’t need to prove myself to you or anyone.
You guys are so intent on claiming IF has no benefits that even if I did provide you with studies to show evidence that IF is effective you’d shoot it down.
This is not my way of eating, it’s the way of eating for millions of people.
What’s upset you the most is that I’ve called you out as just people who post on forums. The way you write is as if you know for a fact that IF doesn’t work. But you are not qualified to do so.
Unless you guys are biologists i suggest you stop making claims you know that IF doesn’t work as there are many far far more qualified individuals who would disagree with you completely.magnusthenerd wrote: »
An eating pattern has been around longer than eating patterns? Do you realize that's a contradiction?lukejoycePT wrote: »I didn’t invent IF, it’s been around for 1000’s of years, long before any regular eating patterns. It’s been practiced in many religions and festivals since the invention of said beliefs.
It is a healthier way of eating and just because a small handful of people on here don’t believe that, doesn’t make it any less true.
If you seriously believe that allowing your digestive system a break from processing food is not beneficial then you don’t understand how the body works.
I want people to remember this is a forum. The people on here are not experts. They act like the are but they are not. Question everything, even what I say and find out for yourself.It just seems weird to call not eating while you sleep "fasting."
I see no reason to think my body "enjoys" a rest from food. Digestion takes longer if you eat more, so the difference between a bunch of small meals or 2 big ones (or grazing within a window or whatever) seems minimal to me.
Lately, I eat at around 6:30, 12, and 9 on Mon-Thurs, and at around noon and whenever dinner time is (earlier) on Friday through Sunday. My Friday through Sunday schedule just naturally fits in a common IF pattern, although I have other reasons for it (it allows for 2x a month Friday work lunches, dinner at restaurant on Fri or Sat, and either a bigger brunch or bigger dinner on Sunday, and on Friday through Sunday I can eat dinner earlier without having to eat it at work (and often eat before a play or a concert)). I don't really think I "fast" more on Friday through Sunday in reality -- I eat about the same amount, and I spend the same amount of time not eating. In any case, my body does not seem to "enjoy" one pattern more than the other. Why the need to claim your way of doing things is superior?
Fasting for religious and other holiday reasons is not IF, it is just fasting.
I don't know that anyone is saying is logical or illogical. Presenting it that way is really deflating your claims to an absurd level - no one here is going to say it is illogical or even without or against evidence that a body should not be constantly eating food - no one is making that claim. If you want to say, "sometimes, don't eat", obviously no one is arguing that, and if you're trying to make that anyone's response to you, you're strawmanning their objections.lukejoycePT wrote: »Your body enjoys a rest from food. I don’t really get why you guys don’t think that’s logical.
What people are saying is unevidenced (not illogical) are the large claims of the benefits of IF some practicioners and worse, quacks, make about it.
What people are saying IF won't do is (since these seem to be claims or implied claims of some IF proponents)
1. Automatically cause a calorie deficit.
2. Fix unknown hormonal issues preventing weight loss.
3. Cause weight loss without a calorie deficit.
4. Improve one's relationship with food.
I think a requirement of something being obvious and not just seeming obvious is that it is true. So no, it is not obvious that I dislike IF because of anything - I don't have a dislike of IF. I followed an IF eating pattern at one time, but I felt it didn't work when I was leaner, and with the research on MPS activation, I tend to think 3 to 4 boluses of protein is a bit more optimal than 1 or 2. I was a fan of Martin Berkhan and appreciated him as an evidenced based person in the physique and nutrition space.
What should be obvious that I don't like is exaggerated and false claims about IF.
Just calling me a contrarion isn't really an argument - whether I shoot down IF because I have an agenda or not isn't germane to if my evaluation of a study is accurate: that's how science works, a criticism or explanation of limitations of a study is valid regardless of who or why they say it has said issues.
That's also why it would not matter if I was a biologist. Though I don't think even a biologist is really the specialty you'd want to say is appropriate. IF falls more under the heading of dietitian or nutrition science (not just someone calling themselves nutritionist) researcher.
And again, I've not made a claim IF doesn't work. I don't even know what "works" means - that could be ten million things depending on context. If one means it always causes someone to lose weight or moderate to keep a healthy weight, it doesn't always do that.15 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »1. Didn’t say everyone had to follow it - I stated it was better for the body than standard food frequency.
2. I have made no false claims about it. Previously I even gave links to certain studies that nobody bothered to read.
3. While I’m not a historian I know enough about human history and evolution to know how we were hunter gatherers for 100’s of 1000’s of years. You just get butt hurt that what I am saying is correct and you can not refute it.
4. At no point did I say you didn’t follow any IF. Nor do I care. The question was is IF a good idea and I answered that question, it’s you guys who started coming at me with baseless, claims.
5. Finally, I honestly don’t care if you have a problem with anything or anyone. Your opinion has no effect on me or how I live my life. If you disagree with me. Great, that’s you progative.
6. My religion points where down to Indian and eastern fasting protocols. These are all done for religious and health reasons. They’ve been done forever and for good reason. I am in no way religious but there is rhyme and reason why ancient civilisations practiced fasting for health.lukejoycePT wrote: »It’s pretty obvious that you two don’t like IF and because of this your don’t like hearing that IF is better than a “conventional” way of eating.
Concluding that I "don't like" IF when by your own definition I do it 3 days a week and think it's great when others find it helpful is extremely strange. (It's true I find it ridiculously grandiose to call not eating breakfast "fasting." I might as well call not eating for 9 hours between lunch and dinner, which I do on the other 4 days "fasting.")
I don't like false claims about it, telling others they need to do it, or telling others that schedules that work well for them should be ditched based on unsupported claims that they aren't as healthy as your preferred schedule. I also generally dislike the diet wars -- the need for some to insist how they eat is morally superior or more virtuous or healthier or superior or more challenging or just generally better than how others eat, and so everyone needs to ditch their diets (even if perfectly healthy and working with them) to do the hot new thing.
That the evangelical impulse applies to diets in this way is so odd.
I also don't like inaccurate historical claims.
Well except for #1, I can show studies where IF is not any better for composition than non IF.12 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »Thanks man. I don’t really understand this hate that’s thrown for an opinion on here. Very strange. But hey I’ll stop by that thread sometime.pierinifitness wrote: »@lukejoycePT, you’re preaching to the choir (me) in your posts. I’m an IF lifestyle enthusiast with stellar results in both weight loss and weight maintenance during my current fitness, health and wellness journey.
I’ve “debated” in this subject as you are currently doing and it’s like chasing wind here at MFP. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Stop by our MFP Intermittent Fasting Group when you have time and share your knowledge and experiences with a captive audience.
Wishing you the best.
Honey/bees gentlemen. I've seen both of you jump in feet first calling people out, calling people awful things and awful names; and in general doing the same thing you're complaining about....therefore a stigma is born, just say'n.13 -
IF works because it helps people stay under their maintenance calories.
Personally, if I wait until my stomach is really rumbling to eat, I'd eat a whole pizza, then a burger, then another pizza, etc. My ability to make better choices would take a huge hit!
9 -
i was 285 3 months ago started Very low carb and 16 hour fasts daily Im down 42 pounds, almost off insulin and blood pressure meds and its time to buy new clothes... feelin great
8 -
Also, what paleo humans did isn't particularly relevant, IMO. There's no reason to assume it was optimal. That's why the various false claims spread about their diets (i.e., the whole "paleo" thing) and way of eating is especially annoying.
If paleo man came upon a huge pile of twinkies he or she would poke it, sniff it, taste it and then eat the whole pile. There is this very bizarre moral notion attached to paleo as if they would or would not eat certain things...
Nor would that same hunter gatherer, when presented with food, shake his head and say, "Nah man, I am outside my IF feeding window."
19 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Also, what paleo humans did isn't particularly relevant, IMO. There's no reason to assume it was optimal. That's why the various false claims spread about their diets (i.e., the whole "paleo" thing) and way of eating is especially annoying.
If paleo man came upon a huge pile of twinkies he or she would poke it, sniff it, taste it and then eat the whole pile. There is this very bizarre moral notion attached to paleo as if they would or would not eat certain things...
Nor would that same hunter gatherer, when presented with food, shake his head and say, "Nah man, I am outside my IF feeding window."
If he did, his mates would mock him mercilessly and call him a punter blatherer.14 -
7
-
lukejoycePT wrote: »
Your link is not working - gets 'application error' trying to load the page.0 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »
Your link is not working - gets 'application error' trying to load the page.
It opened for me - clear cache or try a different browser? Way too much to C&P here...0 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »
Your link is not working - gets 'application error' trying to load the page.
It should work dude. It’s just a helpful guide on IF/TRE and how to do it. With some citations.9 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »
@lukejoycePT that is an awesome link and pulled together years of reading on this subject. The 36% reduction in brest cancer reoccurrence was noteworthy.13 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »
So how do you feel about this cited study:
^ Moro, Tatiana, Grant Tinsley, Antonino Bianco, Giuseppe Marcolin, Quirico Francesco Pacelli, Giuseppe Battaglia, Antonio Palma, Paulo Gentil, Marco Neri, and Antonio Paoli. Effects of eight weeks of time-restricted feeding (16/8) on basal metabolism, maximal strength, body composition, inflammation, and cardiovascular risk factors in resistance-trained males Journal of Translational Medicine 14, no. 1 (October 2016).
In particular, how do you feel about TRF lowering Total Testosterone and IGF-1 significantly?11 -
I dont feel anything about it, in fact I don’t care. Anything in the universe has it’s positives and negative outcomes. I’ve not come across anything that doesn’t. This doesn’t effect my that’s for sure
Personally I do 16:8 Sunday to Friday
Calorie/ carb cycling
And on Saturdays I fill my boots.
Lost 16lbs in 6.5 months doing that.
Never get tired in the gym.
Increased strength every week.
Lost fat every week.
Don’t feel like i am begrudging myself of treats. So I’ve not experienced any decrease in anything like that yet. But it’s totally possible.
Love how you focus on the negatives tho.magnusthenerd wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »
So how do you feel about this cited study:
^ Moro, Tatiana, Grant Tinsley, Antonino Bianco, Giuseppe Marcolin, Quirico Francesco Pacelli, Giuseppe Battaglia, Antonio Palma, Paulo Gentil, Marco Neri, and Antonio Paoli. Effects of eight weeks of time-restricted feeding (16/8) on basal metabolism, maximal strength, body composition, inflammation, and cardiovascular risk factors in resistance-trained males Journal of Translational Medicine 14, no. 1 (October 2016).
In particular, how do you feel about TRF lowering Total Testosterone and IGF-1 significantly?
10 -
@lukejoycePT, your payoff from following an IF-lifestyle mirrors mine except I lost 34 lbs. 6.5 months and another 5 lbs. since then while being in maintenance.
@magnusthenerd, I've read this study carefully and consider the positive outcomes to outweigh the few negative outcomes that you accentuate. There was no strength loss noted despite the declines you mention.
In fact, I posted that study here at MFP a couple of times. I doubt many people read it thoroughly like I did but you wouldn't know by the trigger-happy negative comments posted by many. It was a well-constructed study with no design holes in it. The significantly different fat loss among the IF group was interesting, don't you think?10 -
My recollection was you said something like IF was superior for everything. Now you're saying everything is just trade offs?lukejoycePT wrote: »I dont feel anything about it, in fact I don’t care. Anything in the universe has it’s positives and negative outcomes. I’ve not come across anything that doesn’t. This doesn’t effect my that’s for sure
Personally I do 16:8 Sunday to Friday
Calorie/ carb cycling
And on Saturdays I fill my boots.
Lost 16lbs in 6.5 months doing that.
Never get tired in the gym.
Increased strength every week.
Lost fat every week.
Don’t feel like i am begrudging myself of treats. So I’ve not experienced any decrease in anything like that yet. But it’s totally possible.
Love how you focus on the negatives tho.magnusthenerd wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »
So how do you feel about this cited study:
^ Moro, Tatiana, Grant Tinsley, Antonino Bianco, Giuseppe Marcolin, Quirico Francesco Pacelli, Giuseppe Battaglia, Antonio Palma, Paulo Gentil, Marco Neri, and Antonio Paoli. Effects of eight weeks of time-restricted feeding (16/8) on basal metabolism, maximal strength, body composition, inflammation, and cardiovascular risk factors in resistance-trained males Journal of Translational Medicine 14, no. 1 (October 2016).
In particular, how do you feel about TRF lowering Total Testosterone and IGF-1 significantly?11 -
pierinifitness wrote: »@lukejoycePT, your payoff from following an IF-lifestyle mirrors mine except I lost 34 lbs. 6.5 months and another 5 lbs. since then while being in maintenance.
@magnusthenerd, I've read this study carefully and consider the positive outcomes to outweigh the few negative outcomes that you accentuate. There was no strength loss noted despite the declines you mention.
In fact, I posted that study here at MFP a couple of times. I doubt many people read it thoroughly like I did but you wouldn't know by the trigger-happy negative comments posted by many. It was a well-constructed study with no design holes in it. The significantly different fat loss among the IF group was interesting, don't you think?
Testosterone impacts things besides strength. When I get towards single digit BF%, strength changes aren't what I initially notice about the changes in testosterone.
Do you feel failing to report free testosterone, particularly given it looks like they collected it, was not a design issue?
You don't feel there was a problem with no preliminary maintenance period? The loss seems to be because the IF group wasn't eating at maintenance when developing their base diet. Yet without a preliminary maintenance period, the researchers suggested adiponectin increased activity was behind the weight loss.
Like, I'm not sure what is interesting that people in a slight deficit that stayed in it lost a small about of weight7 -
I still stand by that. I still believe it is a superior method of eating.
Conventional eating patterns negate many of the benefits of fasting. You could argue this all day but all eating patterns have their drawbacks. Ultimately the amount of benifits that appear to be gained from IF over a little dip in testosterone (which you will find with any prolonged dieting) make it superior.
If you stay in a deficit long enough to get below double digits of body fat (for me) then you will see a dip in testosterone anyway so I don’t really see how that makes any differencemagnusthenerd wrote: »
My recollection was you said something like IF was superior for everything. Now you're saying everything is just trade offs?lukejoycePT wrote: »I dont feel anything about it, in fact I don’t care. Anything in the universe has it’s positives and negative outcomes. I’ve not come across anything that doesn’t. This doesn’t effect my that’s for sure
Personally I do 16:8 Sunday to Friday
Calorie/ carb cycling
And on Saturdays I fill my boots.
Lost 16lbs in 6.5 months doing that.
Never get tired in the gym.
Increased strength every week.
Lost fat every week.
Don’t feel like i am begrudging myself of treats. So I’ve not experienced any decrease in anything like that yet. But it’s totally possible.
Love how you focus on the negatives tho.magnusthenerd wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »
So how do you feel about this cited study:
^ Moro, Tatiana, Grant Tinsley, Antonino Bianco, Giuseppe Marcolin, Quirico Francesco Pacelli, Giuseppe Battaglia, Antonio Palma, Paulo Gentil, Marco Neri, and Antonio Paoli. Effects of eight weeks of time-restricted feeding (16/8) on basal metabolism, maximal strength, body composition, inflammation, and cardiovascular risk factors in resistance-trained males Journal of Translational Medicine 14, no. 1 (October 2016).
In particular, how do you feel about TRF lowering Total Testosterone and IGF-1 significantly?
9 -
In the past I have done 16/8 IF and loved it. At other times I have hated it. I’ve learned some valuable lessons from it, one being that if I miss a meal nothing negative will be a result of it.
IMO, compliance trumps all so at the end of the day, the best diet method only works if you can stick to it.
It is my understanding that some of the benefits of fasting (autophagy and an increase in growth hormone in particular) can also be achieved by training, so I see no real detriment from not practicing IF.
I do not view IF as “the best” method. I don’t think there is a best method. As always, for me the answer to these questions is, it depends. Best for who? Best for what? Context matters.
I see fasting as a tool in the toolbox. One of many methods a person can use to achieve a goal. If you like it do it. If not, don’t sweat it.
15 -
I started IF about 2 months ago and I love it. Dinner is usually between 6 and 8pm (we're more flexible with our schedule in the summer), I wake at 5/6am, workout almost daily, 30min to 2 hours depending on my schedule, and break-fast between 10am and 1pm. I try to listen to my body's hunger cues and some days I can go longer than others. I always have coffee and water prior to my first meal. I don't find that my workout performance has been compromised in any way not do I experience any sort of brain fog, it's quite the opposite actually! I highly recommend!2
-
I couldn't agree more with both of these statements. There are always claims of superiority to one diet method or another, always based on scant or distorted evidence and promulgated by "true believer".In the past I have done 16/8 IF and loved it. At other times I have hated it. I’ve learned some valuable lessons from it, one being that if I miss a meal nothing negative will be a result of it.
IMO, compliance trumps all so at the end of the day, the best diet method only works if you can stick to it.
It is my understanding that some of the benefits of fasting (autophagy and an increase in growth hormone in particular) can also be achieved by training, so I see no real detriment from not practicing IF.
I do not view IF as “the best” method. I don’t think there is a best method. As always, for me the answer to these questions is, it depends. Best for who? Best for what? Context matters.
I see fasting as a tool in the toolbox. One of many methods a person can use to achieve a goal. If you like it do it. If not, don’t sweat it.
In the end, there is very little fundamental difference in outcomes between most balanced, nutritionally dense diets. The best is the one you can sustain to reach your goals and that will vary based on the individual. That is why claims of superiority for one method or another and patently absurd.10 -
Oddly enough, I usually eat my last meal (a dessert) between 9pm - 10pm. I wake up at 5am and don't usually have breakfast until after I've trained at around 9am - 10am. So I have gone 12 hours without eating as it stands...2
-
-
Then there is the idea of it being superior. Superior to what? To a diet of nutrient dense food combined with a good exercise program and adequate rest? Probably not. And even if it is, probably not enough to warrant doing it if you hate it.
Again, that's if you HATE it. If you like it, do it. I just don't believe you HAVE to do it to get the results you are after...7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions