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.
Anyone else frustrated with the CICO mantra?
Replies
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
This isn't exactly a wholehearted endorsement.
Also, this review is not written by the American Diabetes Association. It's a review published in an ADA journal and it was written by a blogger who has diabetes and is a consumer advocate but claims no medical or scientific experience or training.
Fair.
But I think “controversial” would be a better word than “quack”2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
There have been a few times in my life when I wasn't in charge of the menu or didn't have access to American supermarkets and I did learn to ignore hunger. It is indeed more challenging when I have unlimited access to hyperpalatable food.
Regular posters do spend a lot of time addressing hunger issues, with two main points:
1. We often caution against creating too aggressive a calorie deficit and I post this graphic ad nauseam:
2. Finding the foods/macro combos an individual finds most satiating and focusing on them.
So, CICO is key to weight loss, and dialing in one's deficit and most filling foods makes compliance easier.
(There was a great weight loss graphic that had Compliance on 50% of a pyramid that I thought I bookmarked but didn't. If anyone has it, please @ me.)
@kshama2001
I found that graphic:
6 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I try to put the point as delicately as possible, but there have been studies on “diet resistant” individuals using food laced with radioactive isotopes so that the exact amount of food taken in can be tracked. One such study found that obese people who claimed not to be able to lose weight through calorie restriction were reporting on average only 1/3 of their actual intake - and this is knowing that they were being observed!
People who are obese have had a lifetime of learning to lie to themselves and others about food and some of them have gotten so good at it that they don’t even know they are doing it. When someone says they weigh 250 lbs, work out six hours a day, and eat 1200 calories and haven’t lost a pound in six weeks, the overwhelming likelihood is dishonest logging. It’s either tell the truth or say nothing.lorib642 wrote:
"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/
I found it. I will look for the one I mentioned with the different groups including dietitians under reporting. Got it. The dieticians were much closer but under"
With regard to the above:
1. This paper is weak
I went into reading this with an open mind. But the paper is completely useless in informing current practitioners with regard to dietary advice. Issues:
Sample enrolment: "The subject was enrolled in group 1 if the average reported daily caloric intake for seven subsequent consecutive days was less than 1200 kcal, with continued weight stability." They selected people on the basis of being crap at estimating calories. They didn't randomly sample people. They picked the ones that were bad at it.
If you look in detail at the results: the control group is also bad at estimating calories: (control 1700 vs 2390, test 1030 vs 2080). I would hypothesise that there was a broad distribution of struggling to accurately measure calories throughout the population, and through selection bias they have picked the worst of their population and published it
Sample size: n=10. Extrapolating anything in a population based on ten people is a terrible idea. Particularly something as complex as dietary habits.
Sample homogeneity: the test group is 9 women, 1 man. An ideal population would be an accurate cross section of society - impossible with 10 people. The age is quite high: a function of who gets referred, but weakening the generalisability of the study.
Case-control matching: The groups are not matched for very very basic things. Like thyroid disease. Seriously: how did it get published without matching for simple factors which are known to affect weight? There is no substantial mention of where people were in the midst of their thyroid treatment. (P.S. being euthyroid at the time of enrolment is not a sufficient control for this in my opinion, as all this means is a TSH in the normal range: who knows what the trajectory is or has been).
I could go on: I have issues with the psychometric evaluation and the causation assessment, with the reporting of the main finding, but not reporting minor findings.
The most fundamental issue is that this was done in 1992. The availability of dietary (particularly calorie) information now is so different that this study doesn't really inform how people manage these issues now. Which is what is relevant to current discussions and advice on weight management.
2. You've misrepresented the findings of this paper
Even taking for granted the findings of the paper, you've misreported the numbers and then ascribed exactly the incorrect explanation to why people struggled.
The 'diet resistant' group underestimated 50% of their actual calories, while the non-diet resistant group underestimated by approx 30%. So there is not such a massive difference in reporting between the groups.
But mainly you say obese people "lie", and that they are "dishonest" and they should "tell the truth". Each of these statements fundamentally opposes the statements of the authors: "Misreporting by the subjects in group 1 does not appear to be a facile deception, for several reasons." And they go on to list a few, but offer no real explanation as to what is actually going on (which I suspect is a combination of misperception, lack of knowledge and experience, and other psychological factors)
Your comment highlights a fundamental issue: bad science is interpreted badly to create a narrative where obese people have a fundamental flaw: they are dishonest. And this is the issue I have with CICO. CICO is absolute, and must be true according to the laws of the universe we live in, therefore any discrepancy is a lie in calories in or calories out. But a lie is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Obese people are a multitude, but don't (necessarily) deliberately mislead themselves or others, but rather have any one of a number of unhealthy relationships with food, up to and including an inability to assess calorie intake.
It does not take into account the fundamental aspects of humans, that all visual (and other sensory) information is processed and altered before being consciously analysed. We, as humans, are entirely incapable of perceiving an objective reality. It ignores that memory and understanding are fallible. It ignores that to have a degree of accuracy in counting calories (to comply with CICO) requires skill, rigour, and most importantly, time energy and motivation. In a vacuum, where there is infinite time, energy and motivation, CICO is perfect, and cannot fail. In real life, targeting of these personal resources to achieve a healthier lifestyle is personal and must be individualised and mutable over time to achieve goals.
I don't have any longer to spend on this post: I too am a scientist and have to get back to an experiment in a futile attempt to perceive objective reality...10 -
@autobahn66
Thanks for taking the time.
This whole thread is suspect, honestly. It was based on a false assumption from the start. 6 -
clairesimpson4 wrote: »@cmriverside did you read my post? I don't deny that CICO is true. I'm saying it's unhelpful to keep saying it to people over and over because we all know it. I don't have a solution, it's not my area of expertise. But the answer isn't to shrug our shoulders and dismiss the idea that it really is more complicated than that. We need more research. But you're wrong about where the problem lies. I refer to my alcoholic example again - telling an alcoholic not to drink so much doesn't help the person quit.
As an aside, a lot of medications cause weight gain, most often by increasing appetite. The opposite is also true - Saxenda for example works for weight loss partially by decreasing appetite. Hunger is part of the problem. Humans aren't designed to ignore it. It's why most diets fail.
Posts here show that people DON'T "all know it." I certainly didn't fully understand it when I began using MFP.7 -
autobahn66 wrote: »
With regard to the above:
1. This paper is weak
I went into reading this with an open mind. But the paper is completely useless in informing current practitioners with regard to dietary advice. Issues:
Sample enrolment: "The subject was enrolled in group 1 if the average reported daily caloric intake for seven subsequent consecutive days was less than 1200 kcal, with continued weight stability." They selected people on the basis of being crap at estimating calories. They didn't randomly sample people. They picked the ones that were bad at it.
If you look in detail at the results: the control group is also bad at estimating calories: (control 1700 vs 2390, test 1030 vs 2080). I would hypothesise that there was a broad distribution of struggling to accurately measure calories throughout the population, and through selection bias they have picked the worst of their population and published it
Sample size: n=10. Extrapolating anything in a population based on ten people is a terrible idea. Particularly something as complex as dietary habits.
Sample homogeneity: the test group is 9 women, 1 man. An ideal population would be an accurate cross section of society - impossible with 10 people. The age is quite high: a function of who gets referred, but weakening the generalisability of the study.
Case-control matching: The groups are not matched for very very basic things. Like thyroid disease. Seriously: how did it get published without matching for simple factors which are known to affect weight? There is no substantial mention of where people were in the midst of their thyroid treatment. (P.S. being euthyroid at the time of enrolment is not a sufficient control for this in my opinion, as all this means is a TSH in the normal range: who knows what the trajectory is or has been).
I could go on: I have issues with the psychometric evaluation and the causation assessment, with the reporting of the main finding, but not reporting minor findings.
The most fundamental issue is that this was done in 1992. The availability of dietary (particularly calorie) information now is so different that this study doesn't really inform how people manage these issues now. Which is what is relevant to current discussions and advice on weight management.
2. You've misrepresented the findings of this paper
Even taking for granted the findings of the paper, you've misreported the numbers and then ascribed exactly the incorrect explanation to why people struggled.
The 'diet resistant' group underestimated 50% of their actual calories, while the non-diet resistant group underestimated by approx 30%. So there is not such a massive difference in reporting between the groups.
But mainly you say obese people "lie", and that they are "dishonest" and they should "tell the truth". Each of these statements fundamentally opposes the statements of the authors: "Misreporting by the subjects in group 1 does not appear to be a facile deception, for several reasons." And they go on to list a few, but offer no real explanation as to what is actually going on (which I suspect is a combination of misperception, lack of knowledge and experience, and other psychological factors)
Your comment highlights a fundamental issue: bad science is interpreted badly to create a narrative where obese people have a fundamental flaw: they are dishonest. And this is the issue I have with CICO. CICO is absolute, and must be true according to the laws of the universe we live in, therefore any discrepancy is a lie in calories in or calories out. But a lie is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Obese people are a multitude, but don't (necessarily) deliberately mislead themselves or others, but rather have any one of a number of unhealthy relationships with food, up to and including an inability to assess calorie intake.
It does not take into account the fundamental aspects of humans, that all visual (and other sensory) information is processed and altered before being consciously analysed. We, as humans, are entirely incapable of perceiving an objective reality. It ignores that memory and understanding are fallible. It ignores that to have a degree of accuracy in counting calories (to comply with CICO) requires skill, rigour, and most importantly, time energy and motivation. In a vacuum, where there is infinite time, energy and motivation, CICO is perfect, and cannot fail. In real life, targeting of these personal resources to achieve a healthier lifestyle is personal and must be individualised and mutable over time to achieve goals.
I don't have any longer to spend on this post: I too am a scientist and have to get back to an experiment in a futile attempt to perceive objective reality...
Well, I was quoting statistics from memory which is a bad idea. It would however be accurate to say individuals in the study misreported their intake by up to 2/3.
You are misrepresenting what I said regarding honesty. I made it clear that these individuals are also lying TO THEMSELVES and don’t believe they are lying. It’s not a facile deception. It is, however, only corrected in the exact same way a facile deception is fixed - by telling the truth. When your internal reality and external reality don’t coincide, the correct response is to fix your perception, not to fix reality.
It’s also certainly true that to accurately keep track of CICO requires time, energy, and motivation. And? Of course adherence to any diet plan at all is a matter of targeting these. My personal first bit of advice to anyone on these forums is to attempt to increase non-food based sources of happiness. But doing that, without also eating less than you take in, will not cause weight loss. Only a calorie deficit causes weight loss.5 -
autobahn66 wrote: »
With regard to the above:
1. This paper is weak
I went into reading this with an open mind. But the paper is completely useless in informing current practitioners with regard to dietary advice. Issues:
Sample enrolment: "The subject was enrolled in group 1 if the average reported daily caloric intake for seven subsequent consecutive days was less than 1200 kcal, with continued weight stability." They selected people on the basis of being crap at estimating calories. They didn't randomly sample people. They picked the ones that were bad at it.
If you look in detail at the results: the control group is also bad at estimating calories: (control 1700 vs 2390, test 1030 vs 2080). I would hypothesise that there was a broad distribution of struggling to accurately measure calories throughout the population, and through selection bias they have picked the worst of their population and published it
Sample size: n=10. Extrapolating anything in a population based on ten people is a terrible idea. Particularly something as complex as dietary habits.
Sample homogeneity: the test group is 9 women, 1 man. An ideal population would be an accurate cross section of society - impossible with 10 people. The age is quite high: a function of who gets referred, but weakening the generalisability of the study.
Case-control matching: The groups are not matched for very very basic things. Like thyroid disease. Seriously: how did it get published without matching for simple factors which are known to affect weight? There is no substantial mention of where people were in the midst of their thyroid treatment. (P.S. being euthyroid at the time of enrolment is not a sufficient control for this in my opinion, as all this means is a TSH in the normal range: who knows what the trajectory is or has been).
I could go on: I have issues with the psychometric evaluation and the causation assessment, with the reporting of the main finding, but not reporting minor findings.
The most fundamental issue is that this was done in 1992. The availability of dietary (particularly calorie) information now is so different that this study doesn't really inform how people manage these issues now. Which is what is relevant to current discussions and advice on weight management.
2. You've misrepresented the findings of this paper
Even taking for granted the findings of the paper, you've misreported the numbers and then ascribed exactly the incorrect explanation to why people struggled.
The 'diet resistant' group underestimated 50% of their actual calories, while the non-diet resistant group underestimated by approx 30%. So there is not such a massive difference in reporting between the groups.
But mainly you say obese people "lie", and that they are "dishonest" and they should "tell the truth". Each of these statements fundamentally opposes the statements of the authors: "Misreporting by the subjects in group 1 does not appear to be a facile deception, for several reasons." And they go on to list a few, but offer no real explanation as to what is actually going on (which I suspect is a combination of misperception, lack of knowledge and experience, and other psychological factors)
Your comment highlights a fundamental issue: bad science is interpreted badly to create a narrative where obese people have a fundamental flaw: they are dishonest. And this is the issue I have with CICO. CICO is absolute, and must be true according to the laws of the universe we live in, therefore any discrepancy is a lie in calories in or calories out. But a lie is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Obese people are a multitude, but don't (necessarily) deliberately mislead themselves or others, but rather have any one of a number of unhealthy relationships with food, up to and including an inability to assess calorie intake.
It does not take into account the fundamental aspects of humans, that all visual (and other sensory) information is processed and altered before being consciously analysed. We, as humans, are entirely incapable of perceiving an objective reality. It ignores that memory and understanding are fallible. It ignores that to have a degree of accuracy in counting calories (to comply with CICO) requires skill, rigour, and most importantly, time energy and motivation. In a vacuum, where there is infinite time, energy and motivation, CICO is perfect, and cannot fail. In real life, targeting of these personal resources to achieve a healthier lifestyle is personal and must be individualised and mutable over time to achieve goals.
I don't have any longer to spend on this post: I too am a scientist and have to get back to an experiment in a futile attempt to perceive objective reality...
Hey I agree calorie estimating can be hard. If you saw the other links even RDs have trouble. I found the link because someone else referred to it. But the people thought they were hopeless due to genetics and really they were undercounting.7 -
Because it caters to ADA more than others? I mean of course the ADA would endorse him more than say a high carb book writer on weight loss.MargaretYakoda wrote: »If Fong is a “quack” then why doesn’t the American Diabetes Association say so when they review his book?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640893/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
You say it is common knowledge and obvious, but there is a lot of misleading information that ties weight loss to something other than calories (clean eating, carbs etc). I don't think we DO all know it
Absolutely this. Not everybody knows (or believes) that it is this simple...thus all the fad diets, miracle products, etc. Some people really don't know.7 -
Because it caters to ADA more than others? I mean of course the ADA would endorse him more than say a high carb book writer on weight loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I didn’t say the ADA endorsed Dr Fong.
3 -
Here's a good discussion of Fung's scientific accuracy: https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/the-obesity-code-unlocking-the-secrets-of-weight-loss/
They score it at 31%, which is not great, and consistent with the other reviewer who states that key claims made by Fung's other book are inaccurate (namely that he has the one true method for weight loss and diabetes control).8 -
rheddmobile wrote: »People who are obese have had a lifetime of learning to lie to themselves and others about food and some of them have gotten so good at it that they don’t even know they are doing it. When someone says they weigh 250 lbs, work out six hours a day, and eat 1200 calories and haven’t lost a pound in six weeks, the overwhelming likelihood is dishonest logging. It’s either tell the truth or say nothing.
In 3 places here you suggest that obese people (all obese people, as though they are one homogeneous group) deliberately lie.
1. When you say some have gotten so good at it they don't know what they are doing - the implication here is that some progress from lying deliberately to believing the lie, and that most are deliberately lying.
2. Dishonest logging: you could say inaccurate, wrong, incorrect, incomplete, inexact, even lazy or haphazard. But you said dishonest. Dishonest means they re lying. There is a clear difference between dishonest and any other word in this context.
3. Its either tell the truth or say nothing. This implies there is a binary between the truth (an objective empirical reality) and everything else, which might as well be nothing. You offer no middle ground of trying honestly and failing due to the fallibility of people.
In any case you reiterate the 2/3rds number from that paper... I'm sorry I want be clear: that paper is absolutely unreliable, and critically biased. You should not quote any number from it.
9 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »
While the review in the ADA journal (which I think is different from an official ADA review) doesn't say Fung is a quack, lines like "Where this book will challenge some diabetes health care professionals is in its claims that all current evidence-based, conventional treatments are wrong; this assertion is clearly untrue, so skip that part" seem to make it clear that they have serious concerns with his approach.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
While the review in the ADA journal (which I think is different from an official ADA review) doesn't say Fung is a quack, lines like "Where this book will challenge some diabetes health care professionals is in its claims that all current evidence-based, conventional treatments are wrong; this assertion is clearly untrue, so skip that part" seem to make it clear that they have serious concerns with his approach.
And some people have had success with the approach.
Which is why I said “controversial” would be a better word than “quack”
Here come a bunch more disagree reacts.
5 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »
And some people have had success with the approach.
Which is why I said “controversial” would be a better word than “quack”
Here come a bunch more disagree reacts.
I don't think anyone denies that people have had success with Fung's approach. The truth is that any eating style that creates weight loss tends to improve the chronic diseases associated with excess weight.
The issue is whether or not the people touting a particular diet are correct when they make claims that they've found the ONLY way to control weight.
Some people have also had success with John McDougall's high carbohydrate plant-based diet when it comes to chronic disease control and weight management, but this doesn't mean he's found the only way to control weight. To the extent that he (or Fung) make claims that weight control requires eating according to their plan, they're being quacks.
From what I know of Fung's plan, it's a healthy way to eat. It's just not (IMO) the ONLY healthy way to eat and that's where I think he crosses the line.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't think anyone denies that people have had success with Fung's approach. The truth is that any eating style that creates weight loss tends to improve the chronic diseases associated with excess weight.
The issue is whether or not the people touting a particular diet are correct when they make claims that they've found the ONLY way to control weight.
Some people have also had success with John McDougall's high carbohydrate plant-based diet when it comes to chronic disease control and weight management, but this doesn't mean he's found the only way to control weight. To the extent that he (or Fung) make claims that weight control requires eating according to their plan, they're being quacks.
From what I know of Fung's plan, it's a healthy way to eat. It's just not (IMO) the ONLY healthy way to eat and that's where I think he crosses the line.
My original point was that calling Fung a “quack” was uncalled for.
And, sadly, lots of people think their way is the only way.2 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »
My original point was that calling Fung a “quack” was uncalled for.
And, sadly, lots of people think their way is the only way.
What would you describe this sales pitch as?
"Everything you believe about how to lose weight is wrong. Weight gain and obesity are driven by hormones—in everyone—and only by understanding the effects of the hormones insulin and insulin resistance can we achieve lasting weight loss."
This is the beginning of the item description of "The Obesity Code" on Amazon.
The truth is that thousands and thousands of people are able to manage their weight long-term without giving thought one to insulin and insulin resistance.
This is the essence of quackery. Only I have the information that can help you. Everyone else is wrong. You're doomed without me.
23 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »
My original point was that calling Fung a “quack” was uncalled for.
And, sadly, lots of people think their way is the only way.
You may disagree with my opinion but my opinion is that he’s a quack, and that what makes him a quack is primarily (ironically, given your comment) his stating that his way is the only way. It’s not. It’s not even the only way for diabetics. My a1c is consistently under 5 now, I’ve maintained my weight for years, and I have never eaten extreme low carb. Also, the evidence that diabetes is truly reversed by his method as opposed to managed is lacking.13 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »
My original point was that calling Fung a “quack” was uncalled for.
And, sadly, lots of people think their way is the only way.
"Mendacious shyster" is better. Now let's do Mercola! 🙂16 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
"Mendacious shyster" is better. Now let's do Mercola! 🙂
I like "flim flam man" and I'm doing my best to bring it back.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I like "flim flam man" and I'm doing my best to bring it back.
Can the flim flam man sell s'moreos?
2 -
Hey I agree calorie estimating can be hard. If you saw the other links even RDs have trouble. I found the link because someone else referred to it. But the people thought they were hopeless due to genetics and really they were undercounting.
I think that's the key point.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I like "flim flam man" and I'm doing my best to bring it back.
Thing is, some people have success with his method. Unlike something like laetrile, which absolutely is quackery.1 -
clairesimpson4 wrote: »You hear it all the time on diet plans, from your doctor, etc. But it's apparent simplicity is both misleading and unhelpful.
Yes, CICO is true(ish, there are exceptions) But that's answering the wrong question. The question of why someone is overweight is, given that most dieters already know this, why do some people eat too much?
I'm a scientist and I hate this CICO mantra being thrown around like it's something we haven't heard before. Its unhelpful. We don't tell alcoholics that they are alcoholics because they drink too much booze. The answer to the obesity crisis lies in answering the real question.
No, most don't already know this. There are a whole lot of people who have absolutely no clue about how many calories they take in or how many they burn. Look at all the stupid fad diets out there - I don't think people would be so quick to jump on them if they truly understood CICO.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
What would you describe this sales pitch as?
"Everything you believe about how to lose weight is wrong. Weight gain and obesity are driven by hormones—in everyone—and only by understanding the effects of the hormones insulin and insulin resistance can we achieve lasting weight loss."
This is the beginning of the item description of "The Obesity Code" on Amazon.
The truth is that thousands and thousands of people are able to manage their weight long-term without giving thought one to insulin and insulin resistance.
This is the essence of quackery. Only I have the information that can help you. Everyone else is wrong. You're doomed without me.
Doctors disagree frequently.
In my opinion what makes someone a quack is intentional dishonesty just to make a buck.
Like Andrew Wakefield.
Or psychics who milk Grandma for every dime she has in hopes of speaking to Grandpa.
Fung is controversial. And, obviously not everyone’s cup of tea. But I haven’t yet seen any evidence that his methods are harmful.
Although If such evidence turns up? Especially if he doesn’t back off in light of such evidence? Then ya. I’ll call him a quack at that point.4 -
"Weight loss is hormones not calories" is lying to make a buck. Doctors saying false things like that is probably part of why everybody doesn't know CICO, to bring this full circle.25
-
NorthCascades wrote: »
"Mendacious shyster" is better. Now let's do Mercola! 🙂
Yes. Let’s. Please.
Mercola’s name is a frequent find on Quackwatch
https://quackwatch.org/?s&_sf_s=Mercola
I am limited to my phone, but I was unable to find Fung mentioned even once. Maybe it’s there?0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »"Weight loss is hormones not calories" is lying to make a buck. Doctors saying false things like that is probably part of why everybody doesn't know CICO, to bring this full circle.
Hormones aren’t involved? 🤨1 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »
Doctors disagree frequently.
In my opinion what makes someone a quack is intentional dishonesty just to make a buck.
Like Andrew Wakefield.
Or psychics who milk Grandma for every dime she has in hopes of speaking to Grandpa.
Fung is controversial. And, obviously not everyone’s cup of tea. But I haven’t yet seen any evidence that his methods are harmful.
Although If such evidence turns up? Especially if he doesn’t back off in light of such evidence? Then ya. I’ll call him a quack at that point.
Wakefield and psychics are quacks too.
Dishonest ones out to make a buck too.
the fact there are other quacks doesnt mean Fung is not one.9 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »
Hormones aren’t involved? 🤨
I dont think anyone is saying hormones are not involved.
But they don't change the bottom line of CICO - so 'weight loss is hormones, not calories' is an incorrect statement.
15
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.2K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 446 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions