Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss
Replies
-
The study that most of this discussion centered around did see resolution of AT, but it was over months to years. There was a single case study mentioned somewhere in the last couple of pages where someone resolved a really bad case in only 6 weeks. But worst case, if you have to just deal with it, I don't think it is that much of a hardship. The calculators tell me I should be able to eat over 2000 with no exercise but it seems more like I need to be under 1900. Again, take my numbers with a grain of salt because I am not strictly logging what I eat or using a HRM when running.
Yes, there is a lot of discussion on avoiding AT by going slow or ignoring it and pressing on because it only slows loss a little, does not cause stalls, and then hoping it will resolve itself over time (in the studies,it usually does). Both ways have their adherents and stories of success and failure. You just have to figure out which way you believe in enough to stick to it and commit.Too much to read, but disheartened by some of what I read.
Can someone summarize if there has been any discussion for workaround to Adaptive Thermogenesis? My thinking is that surely if you maintain a reasonable calorie intake and continue strengths training then your muscles will continue to grow and thus extra calories will go towards growing and maintaining muscle rather than fat gains? Surely the way out is just to keep getting leaner, fitter and more toned to create such a large gap between fit you and unfit old you that you will never really go back, at worst you will just gain a few which you can burn off again with more hard work?!
Thank you.
It seems to me it is also about how strong willed and patient you can be. Because to go slow means you have to have a chill personality that doesn't panic if you go up the scales a little but can bring it back down over time.
For those of us that get too anxious when something like that happens though, I would say the latter works for us, almost at an intuitive level. You continue to eat less and press yourself, you continue to work harder in the gym and the results continue to pour in (not just weight loss, but BF% and leanness etc), so you keep creating new goals and moving forward.
Eventually, and hopefully this is where more and more clinical trials are needed, hopefully someone can prove if AT can resolve itself over time. If it doesn't, I still don't think it is a big deal, so long as you continue to be lean and fit to the best of your efforts, after all we are dealing with muscles...1 -
The only way to look like arnold is to take steroids. Natural lifters with low bf% are actually pretty skinny. It takes over 3-4 years of dedicated lifting to get big as a natural lifter. Most natty meatheads at the gym are really 20-25% bf to look bigger and soothe their body image issues.Seriously you are a female, so you are not going to look like Arnold when you workout....
I know I sure don't and I have been in the gym pushing iron for almost 20 yrs now, religiously.1 -
The study that most of this discussion centered around did see resolution of AT, but it was over months to years. There was a single case study mentioned somewhere in the last couple of pages where someone resolved a really bad case in only 6 weeks. But worst case, if you have to just deal with it, I don't think it is that much of a hardship. The calculators tell me I should be able to eat over 2000 with no exercise but it seems more like I need to be under 1900. Again, take my numbers with a grain of salt because I am not strictly logging what I eat or using a HRM when running.
Yes, there is a lot of discussion on avoiding AT by going slow or ignoring it and pressing on because it only slows loss a little, does not cause stalls, and then hoping it will resolve itself over time (in the studies,it usually does). Both ways have their adherents and stories of success and failure. You just have to figure out which way you believe in enough to stick to it and commit.Too much to read, but disheartened by some of what I read.
Can someone summarize if there has been any discussion for workaround to Adaptive Thermogenesis? My thinking is that surely if you maintain a reasonable calorie intake and continue strengths training then your muscles will continue to grow and thus extra calories will go towards growing and maintaining muscle rather than fat gains? Surely the way out is just to keep getting leaner, fitter and more toned to create such a large gap between fit you and unfit old you that you will never really go back, at worst you will just gain a few which you can burn off again with more hard work?!
Thank you.
It seems to me it is also about how strong willed and patient you can be. Because to go slow means you have to have a chill personality that doesn't panic if you go up the scales a little but can bring it back down over time.
For those of us that get too anxious when something like that happens though, I would say the latter works for us, almost at an intuitive level. You continue to eat less and press yourself, you continue to work harder in the gym and the results continue to pour in (not just weight loss, but BF% and leanness etc), so you keep creating new goals and moving forward.
Eventually, and hopefully this is where more and more clinical trials are needed, hopefully someone can prove if AT can resolve itself over time. If it doesn't, I still don't think it is a big deal, so long as you continue to be lean and fit to the best of your efforts, after all we are dealing with muscles...
For some of us it can be quite a big deal. The calculators say that I can maintain around 1900. For the past six weeks I have been averaging about 1500. I was up 2.5 pounds. Yes some of that is water. I expect that at best I will be right at even when the water goes away. So to lose, I would have to drop even lower. That IS a big deal. I feel really hungry lower than 1500. I have a hard time getting proper nutrition at much under that . So I truly am stuck. So for small women, it is a big deal if we are supressed since we dont get a big number to begin with. I exercise regularly (6 days a week) and even strength train a bit (working on doing that more) and the weight wont budge. And no I am not already underweight. Just about 8 lbs up from what I believe is ideal (and some calculators even predict that I should have a lower goal even than the one I have.)1 -
remember that hose calculators are completely ignorant of your background, genetics, past obesity (or other weight issues), muscle conditioning/efficiency, etc. At beast they are a very rough estimate... especially when you use one that tries to factor in an arbitrary "level of activity". 1900 calories per day for a small woman is a lot of food. I don't know how small you actually are (height, weight, etc), but even 1500 sounds like it's too much. It may well be that you have been affected by AT to a certain extent, but it may also be that the calculators just don't work for someone your size. Go get your BMR tested, do morning temperature measurements, etc. There are ways to know what shape your metabolism is really in. Depending on your level of activity though, you sound about normal. Assuming your definition of "small" is the same as mine.1
-
And again, with respect to the study we are primarily discussing, the numbers are in the 10% - 15% range as far as the effect of AT on metabolic rate. If you see more than that, I think something else is going on. There is only so much efficiency to be had. Hauling the body around, digesting food, pumping blood, breathing and typing in internet posts are all activities that have quantifiable amounts of work involved. The body can't do these things without expending energy. It can only go so far in conserving energy and still getting these tasks done. If you function normally and are able to exercise, it just isn't possible that you aren't expending energy somewhat close to the normal range (I am considering the 15% drop off to be "somewhat close").
ETA - I do believe in AT, but I think some people are latching on to AT as an explanation for more than the 15% drop the study found as a max. I just don't see that in the data presented and it doesn't make logical sense to me. You can only save energy up to a point.0 -
This.remember that hose calculators are completely ignorant of your background, genetics, past obesity (or other weight issues), muscle conditioning/efficiency, etc. At beast they are a very rough estimate... especially when you use one that tries to factor in an arbitrary "level of activity". 1900 calories per day for a small woman is a lot of food. I don't know how small you actually are (height, weight, etc), but even 1500 sounds like it's too much. It may well be that you have been affected by AT to a certain extent, but it may also be that the calculators just don't work for someone your size. Go get your BMR tested, do morning temperature measurements, etc. There are ways to know what shape your metabolism is really in. Depending on your level of activity though, you sound about normal. Assuming your definition of "small" is the same as mine.
Sedentary TDEE - 500 is a good place to start. Adjust as necessary.
As far as AT goes, there's really nothing revolutionary about this study. It confirmed what is already accepted knowledge -- a slow approach to weight loss augmented with an exercise program will lead to maximizing fat loss and minimizing lean body mass loss. Beyond that, your body is going to react the way it reacts to weight loss based on genetic differences and there's not a whole lot you can do about AT beyond raising exercise intensity/duration or lowering caloric intake to compensate for it if it happens.0 -
This.remember that hose calculators are completely ignorant of your background, genetics, past obesity (or other weight issues), muscle conditioning/efficiency, etc. At beast they are a very rough estimate... especially when you use one that tries to factor in an arbitrary "level of activity". 1900 calories per day for a small woman is a lot of food. I don't know how small you actually are (height, weight, etc), but even 1500 sounds like it's too much. It may well be that you have been affected by AT to a certain extent, but it may also be that the calculators just don't work for someone your size. Go get your BMR tested, do morning temperature measurements, etc. There are ways to know what shape your metabolism is really in. Depending on your level of activity though, you sound about normal. Assuming your definition of "small" is the same as mine.
Sedentary TDEE - 500 is a good place to start. Adjust as necessary.
As far as AT goes, there's really nothing revolutionary about this study. It confirmed what is already accepted knowledge -- a slow approach to weight loss augmented with an exercise program will lead to maximizing fat loss and minimizing lean body mass loss. Beyond that, your body is going to react the way it reacts to weight loss based on genetic differences and there's not a whole lot you can do about AT beyond raising exercise intensity/duration or lowering caloric intake to compensate for it if it happens.
My sedentary TDEE is about 1450. So i dont plan on eating 950! And I'm not sedentary. I teach music (read I wave my hands in the air a lot and move around a good bit of moderate weight equipment daily. I run more days than I don't. I strength train. (Not as much as I should!) some days I even teach some very basic dance and I often am drumming with my ensembles. None of my non exercise activity is vigorous but I accumulate about 2 hours of moderate activity a day through the work week. And on my run days I get 30-45 minutes of vigorous activity. All of this is according to my body media fit. In fact it says I burn about 2000 on non exercise days and 2300+ on exercise days.
This study that the OP posted is the first true evidence I've seen that explains my body. So it is important to me because I want to get to eat as much as possible wothout gaining and really id like to lose some of my re gain! Us little gals get hungry too. I once had a male mfp poster respond to some thing I posted with, "well you are small so you don't get as hungry as bigger people." So untrue and so unsympathetic!
Joshdann, I have wondered if the tables are off for smaller people too. After all they probably are based on the average height.1 -
My sedentary TDEE is about 1450. So i dont plan on eating 950! And I'm not sedentary. I teach music (read I wave my hands in the air a lot and move around a good bit of moderate weight equipment daily. I run more days than I don't. I strength train. (Not as much as I should!) some days I even teach some very basic dance and I often am drumming with my ensembles. None of my non exercise activity is vigorous but I accumulate about 2 hours of moderate activity a day through the work week. And on my run days I get 30-45 minutes of vigorous activity. All of this is according to my body media fit. In fact it says I burn about 2000 on non exercise days and 2300+ on exercise days.
So what are you trying to accomplish?0 -
My sedentary TDEE is about 1450. So i dont plan on eating 950! And I'm not sedentary. I teach music (read I wave my hands in the air a lot and move around a good bit of moderate weight equipment daily. I run more days than I don't. I strength train. (Not as much as I should!) some days I even teach some very basic dance and I often am drumming with my ensembles. None of my non exercise activity is vigorous but I accumulate about 2 hours of moderate activity a day through the work week. And on my run days I get 30-45 minutes of vigorous activity. All of this is according to my body media fit. In fact it says I burn about 2000 on non exercise days and 2300+ on exercise days.
So what are you trying to accomplish?
1. Lose the approximately 8 lbs that I regained as I tried to go to maintenance. (I would like to fit comfortably in the clothes I bought after my initial 43 lb loss--some are tight now). Or lose the equivalent fat percentage that would allow the clothes to fit.
2. Maintain at somewhere close to where the calculators and body media put me (1800-2300 gross cals). Right now I seem to maintain on about 1550. I would like to not feel like I am on a diet just to maintain a healthy weight. Btw right now mi BMI is 22 which is right in the middle of healthy.0 -
1. Lose the approximately 8 lbs that I regained as I tried to go to maintenance. (I would like to fit comfortably in the clothes I bought after my initial 43 lb loss--some are tight now). Or lose the equivalent fat percentage that would allow the clothes to fit.
2. Maintain at somewhere close to where the calculators and body media put me (1800-2300 gross cals). Right now I seem to maintain on about 1550. I would like to not feel like I am on a diet just to maintain a healthy weight. Btw right now mi BMI is 22 which is right in the middle of healthy.
If your feeling gutsy/adventurous....look into Intermittent Fasting.1 -
1. Lose the approximately 8 lbs that I regained as I tried to go to maintenance. (I would like to fit comfortably in the clothes I bought after my initial 43 lb loss--some are tight now). Or lose the equivalent fat percentage that would allow the clothes to fit.
2. Maintain at somewhere close to where the calculators and body media put me (1800-2300 gross cals) . Right now I seem to maintain on about 1550. I would like to not feel like I am on a diet just to maintain a healthy weight. Btw right now mi BMI is 22 which is right in the middle of healthy.
If your feeling gutsy/adventurous....look into Intermittent Fasting.
Or strength train harder which will help achieve the bolded parts. Increase LBM is really the fastest way to lower bf% and higher RMR.0 -
Great info...bump for later0
-
I'm adding some information that I found interesting.
A study on a VLC diet (500 cals/day) showed a metabolic adjustment of -17% of resting energy expenditure in 24 weeks versus a diet of 1200 cals. This gap, when you consider the activity multipliers, can perhaps result in 25% or more change in total daily expenditure.
Consider also that fat free mass loss was 2x greater in the lower diet. Close to 50% of the weight was from FFM.
Resting energy expenditure (REE), weight, and body composition were measured up to seven times in 13 obese women during a 24-wk study. Patients were randomly assigned to a very-low-calorie diet (VLCD, 500 kcal/d) or a balanced-deficit diet (BDD, 1200 kcal/d). After 8 wk of supplemented fasting, REE of the VLCD patients decreased by 17% whereas that of the BDD patients was virtually unchanged. REE of the VLCD patients increased during 12 subsequent weeks of realimentation such that differences in REE between the two groups were not statistically significant at week 24 (VLCD = -11%, BDD = -2%). Reductions in weight and fat-free mass (FFM) were 12.1% and 3.6% for the VLCD patients and 10.6% and 4.1% for the BDD patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in pre- to posttreatment changes in REE normalized to FFM. Results suggest that REE recovers partially after consumption of a VLCD. They also provide evidence of a possible metabolic advantage of weight loss by a more moderate restriction.
Article: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/51/2/167.short0 -
Consider also that fat free mass loss was 2x greater in the lower diet. Close to 50% of the weight was from FFM.
Article: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/51/2/167.short
The full text says that " There were also no significant differences between the groups in changes in body fat or FFM from baseline to the end of treatment " ie the two treatments had the same outcome by the end.
It also says "VLCD patients lost 2. 1 kg FFM as compared with 2.4 kg
in BDD patients. These data suggest that a VLCD providing
protein ofhigh biological quality does not unduly compromise FFM. We (32) showed previously that 32% ofthe excess weight
in obese persons (averaging 105 kg) consists of FFM and that
the average excess FFM is 1 5 kg. Thus, a 2. 1-kg loss seems quite
acceptable. "
I am unclear where you observed the 2x greater loss of fat free mass.0 -
Consider also that fat free mass loss was 2x greater in the lower diet. Close to 50% of the weight was from FFM.
Article: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/51/2/167.short
The full text says that " There were also no significant differences between the groups in changes in body fat or FFM from baseline to the end of treatment " ie the two treatments had the same outcome by the end.
It also says "VLCD patients lost 2. 1 kg FFM as compared with 2.4 kg
in BDD patients. These data suggest that a VLCD providing
protein ofhigh biological quality does not unduly compromise FFM. We (32) showed previously that 32% ofthe excess weight
in obese persons (averaging 105 kg) consists of FFM and that
the average excess FFM is 1 5 kg. Thus, a 2. 1-kg loss seems quite
acceptable. "
I am unclear where you observed the 2x greater loss of fat free mass.
It's time for you to let this go. Really. It's not healthy. I suggest you leave the VLCD thing behind and find a more positive focus for your energy... something that will lead you to achievements and fulfilment on a personal level... perhaps something involving an outside activity?
Good luck! :flowerforyou:0 -
Thanks.Consider also that fat free mass loss was 2x greater in the lower diet. Close to 50% of the weight was from FFM.
Article: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/51/2/167.short
The full text says that " There were also no significant differences between the groups in changes in body fat or FFM from baseline to the end of treatment " ie the two treatments had the same outcome by the end.
It also says "VLCD patients lost 2. 1 kg FFM as compared with 2.4 kg
in BDD patients. These data suggest that a VLCD providing
protein ofhigh biological quality does not unduly compromise FFM. We (32) showed previously that 32% ofthe excess weight
in obese persons (averaging 105 kg) consists of FFM and that
the average excess FFM is 1 5 kg. Thus, a 2. 1-kg loss seems quite
acceptable. "
We could keep the rest of the article and discuss the AT - however, reading further.When the changes in REE were normalized to FFM, VLCD
patients showed an 8. 1% reduction in the ratio (REE:FFM)
from baseline to the end of treatment. Despite very similar
losses of FFM, the BDD patients showed a 4. 1% increase in
REE:FFM. The difference between groups, which was not statistically
different, was attributable to a proportionally larger
decline in REE in VLCD patients than in the BDD patients.
The possibility can not be ruled out that the lack of statistically
significant differences between groups in end-of-treatment
REE and REE:FFM may have been an artifact of the small
sample size.
So even though a Thermogenic Adaptation was seen (and was large at weeks 8-15) the sample size really limits the value of this study.I am unclear where you observed the 2x greater loss of fat free mass.
My mistake from reading table three. Retracted.
Ok. I'm going consider it as a poor addition to the discussion.0 -
It's time for you to let this go. Really. It's not healthy. I suggest you leave the VLCD thing behind and find a more positive focus for your energy... something that will lead you to achievements and fulfilment on a personal level... perhaps something involving an outside activity?
Good luck! :flowerforyou:
Thank you for your misplaced concern, Hildy.
Mens sana in corpore sano0 -
It's time for you to let this go. Really. It's not healthy. I suggest you leave the VLCD thing behind and find a more positive focus for your energy... something that will lead you to achievements and fulfilment on a personal level... perhaps something involving an outside activity?
Good luck! :flowerforyou:
Thank you for your misplaced concern, Hildy.
Mens sana in corpore sano
I apologise if my suggestions made you feel a little threatened and brought up some hostility.
Bygones? :flowerforyou:0 -
Thanks!0
-
It's time for you to let this go. Really. It's not healthy. I suggest you leave the VLCD thing behind and find a more positive focus for your energy... something that will lead you to achievements and fulfilment on a personal level... perhaps something involving an outside activity?
Good luck! :flowerforyou:
Thank you for your misplaced concern, Hildy.
Mens sana in corpore sano
I apologise if my suggestions made you feel a little threatened and brought up some hostility.
Bygones? :flowerforyou:
Neither threatened nor hostile although I am somewhat curious as to the reason for your personal criticism couched as mealy-mouthed false concern. It seems to come out from left-field in a long thread on this subject. Any particular reason?0 -
Sorry I am being lazy,
But EvgeniZyntx, can you give the cliff notes on your view/position?0 -
I'd say these are the cliff notes
And in Practice?
1) Weight loss reduces TDEE in a way that is goes 10%-15% beyond what is expected from LBM. In order to combat this, it is either essential to maximize LBM during the weight loss process or one is likelier to struggle with that reduced calorie allowance.
2) Reevaluate working TDEE not from the equations but what you experience from tracking.
3) Take diet breaks and go to maintenance with the most calories that do not result in a weight gain when needed to reduce or recover the effect of adaptation. These diet breaks can be extensive (And this creates a logical framework for me for the Eat More to Loss process – if eating more “resets” the metabolism, then a loss will occur at what was maintenance)
4) Yes, there are factors that help create so-called plateaus (periods of no loss) by increasing hunger, decrease energy expenditure and affecting various physiological functions: Understanding them and how exercise and diet interact will help in defining personal strategies for successful weight loss - whether you choose to wait them out, cut calories, measure better or exercise more.
5) Success is measured in years, plan for it and adjust.
Finally, another bit of speculation - one of the reasons the bulk and cut cycles work so well beyond developing LBM, is that the refeed period of a bulk creates an efffecive diet break allowing for restabilization of hormonal and the other factors discussed...1 -
1) I would agree....that is why I encourage people to lift weights when they are trying to lose weight....
If not, they will want to revisit their caloric needs ~60 days, maybe sooner.
2) I agree with the tracking aspect....but the equations can give you a ball park figure in which to work with.
3) I agree with this also.....I think leptin comes to mind, as well as other hormonal issues. Prolly most apparent in women.
4) I remember reading an article, about a trainer who charted one of his clients weight loss over a long period of time.....and in the graph, the overall trend was downward, but there were times, where the client appeared to "plateau"....if I recall, I think at those times the trainer would have the client eat a bit more food....i.e. a refeed. Then get back with the diet plan, and the downward progression would begin again.
5) Yep, the process is definitely a marathon, not a sprint.
I could go with the bulk/cut angle....some what.
I don't necessarily think it a "healthy" or proper choice for most people though....
reason being those bodybuilders are doing some pretty extreme stuff to get cut for a competition.
As you said in point 5, a paced and planned approach is better.0 -
4) I remember reading an article, about a trainer who charted one of his clients weight loss over a long period of time.....and in the graph, the overall trend was downward, but there were times, where the client appeared to "plateau"....if I recall, I think at those times the trainer would have the client eat a bit more food....i.e. a refeed. Then get back with the diet plan, and the downward progression would begin again.
I could go with the bulk/cut angle....some what.
I don't necessarily think it a "healthy" or proper choice for most people though....
reason being those bodybuilders are doing some pretty extreme stuff to get cut for a competition.
As you said in point 5, a paced and planned approach is better.
I think it's sadly one of those hindsight things.
Like that client with long progress chart. If they could have known at the beginning what the average deficit really ended up being over the entire time, including the plateaus and the eat more times, and they made the diet actually match that from the start, with bigger deficit up front of course to little at the end, would the deficit have been small enough those times of long plateaus and needing to eat more would have been eliminated?
I think that's where it depends on genetics and abuse to the body over the years, and current abuse too really, like what type and frequency of exercise, food sensitivities, disease or sickness, ect. Basically everyone is different.
Like the folks that hit a 3 month plateau, finally take the recommendation to eat more, eat a mere 200 calories more, and start losing again within the week.
Others do that same thing for weeks at a time and never start losing, or make it even bigger and then take a deficit and loss stops.
It sounds like the recovery phase of the cut/bulk cycle is good idea at least, otherwise called a diet break. But if a lot to lose, no need to try to bulk yet.0 -
Will need to read this later. lol0
-
I think it's sadly one of those hindsight things.
Like that client with long progress chart. If they could have known at the beginning what the average deficit really ended up being over the entire time, including the plateaus and the eat more times, and they made the diet actually match that from the start, with bigger deficit up front of course to little at the end, would the deficit have been small enough those times of long plateaus and needing to eat more would have been eliminated?
I think that's where it depends on genetics and abuse to the body over the years, and current abuse too really, like what type and frequency of exercise, food sensitivities, disease or sickness, ect. Basically everyone is different.
Like the folks that hit a 3 month plateau, finally take the recommendation to eat more, eat a mere 200 calories more, and start losing again within the week.
Others do that same thing for weeks at a time and never start losing, or make it even bigger and then take a deficit and loss stops.
It sounds like the recovery phase of the cut/bulk cycle is good idea at least, otherwise called a diet break. But if a lot to lose, no need to try to bulk yet.
I will say this, and for me personally.
By doing some reading and educating my self on diet and nutrition in the past 3 months (I have always been interested in it).....I feel I am understanding more regarding diet and exercise.
From Jan 14th - Aug 5th of this year, I was consuming 2300 - 2500 calories / day.....mostly in protein.
Fat and Carbs were low.
In 8 months, I went from ~193 -> 182
On Aug. 6th, I started doing LeanGains style Intermittent Fasting.....after having done some reading.....
Because I wanted to give it a shot....I spent the previous 8 months frustrated that I could not get the lower abs and lower back to burn off the fat.....when I thought I was doing all the right things.
But starting LGs, my workout day calories are >3000 calories.
My rest days are ~2500 calories.
My carb intake and fat intake are up.....carbs ~300 - 450 gr on workout days.
I weighed myself on Oct. 6th (2 months in), I weighed in at 174
Now I am hoping and my thinking is that it is fat being burnt off.....
Because I am lifting where I was before, if not more.
And the things I have done was:
1) Shift when I eat.
2) Eat more
3) Kick @$$ when in the gym0 -
Similar story here. I needed to eat more to support the higher activity level I wanted. Went from no-carb to 300g/day carb. Ironically, my deficits actually got bigger, even though I was eating more than 50% more than before, because my activity level is approaching "off the hook" status, by typical MFP standards.0 -
That is great research. I did not know that. It is funny because I learned how to eat better and those things that you described happened without my knowledge. Thank you..0
-
I was just gonna say ALL that!
0 -
Bump0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions