It's NOT always as simple as a deficit
Replies
-
I can't believe how many people on this site seriously believe "a calorie is a calorie." That is no true. Yes, a deficit is all you need to lose weight… AT FIRST. This is true when you have a lot of weight to lose. But if you're like me, it is always about 3-5 lbs of weight.
I can eat at a calorie deficit, meticulously weighing my food and I will NOT lose weight. And I have done this for months on end with no result. I have maybe 5 pounds to lose to where I would be at about 17%BF we (me and my trainer) figure. Those final pounds are incredibly difficult to lose and a deficit does not result in that for everybody, and certainly not me. I fluctuate between where I am now and 5 lbs less and it is purely based on what I eat. It doesn't matter how much I exercise or workout or how many calories in deficit I am. It is completely about not eating processed foods, too much sugar, too much salt, etc. FOR ME.
I find it hilarious how many of you seem to think you are the expert on this topic. If a deficit gets you to where you want to be, then great. I'm glad that works for you. But it will not work for everybody. And for so many of you to come on here state so a matter of fact like… well you have no credibility. Different foods are digested differently by different people. If that weren't true, then why does broccoli turn my best friends stomach upside down? If that weren't true, then I could sit here and eat a whole avocado without feeling like a knife is going through me. So how could you even begin to think that digestion doesn't play into this in terms of weight loss? And for so many of you to completely disregard that and act like a "calorie is a calorie" for everybody, well maybe you need to speak to a respected nutritionist. Or maybe several.
Thankfully I understand MY body and know how to get it where I want it, because it would seem pretty gloomy if I had to rely on the "expertise" of the people posting in this thread. I'd be sitting here eating bread and drink soda wondering why I can't lose weight even though I was very carefully counting my calories.
So to the OP, you're absolutely right and don't let the last 11 pages of completely madness get to you. Deficits are great and probably worked for you to a point. And if they don't anymore, then you figure out what does. For those that it's as simple as a deficit, well lucky them.
Yet you ask the non- experts in another thread to teach you how to use calipers on your abs correctly because you can't get an accurate measurement because you can't grab enough flesh.
So... Tell us more about that trainer?
Maybe you aren't 17%?0 -
Popping back in to see if its still full of people who aren't troubled by physics. Goes away wondering how they go on with the Law of Gravity0
-
I can't believe how many people on this site seriously believe "a calorie is a calorie."
The whole MFP "method" and app is based on that, so it shouldn't be news to you that followers believe or at least accept the calorie reduction principle.0 -
I use a heart rate monitor to measure my calories and I find that the myfitnesspal calculations can sometimes be completely off.
This is partly why I only eat back around 50% of my exercise cals - I don't have a HRM and have no idea of MFP's accuracy. Better safe than sorry, or something.0 -
for me i had to eat more calories to lose weight....at 1200 calories a day was too low for me which put my body in starvation mode which can slow down weight loss. I now eat 1600 calories a day and when i exercise i eat the calories i've burned off to net 1600 calories a day. Working well for me!
Really? :huh:
You did not put your body in starvation mode by eating too few calories...0 -
I can eat at a calorie deficit, meticulously weighing my food and I will NOT lose weight.
Impossible, by definition. If you are not losing weight, you are not eating at a calorie deficit.
Your body does not work differently than everyone elses... If you were truly in a deficit, you would have lost weight. If you did not lose weight you were not in a deficit...0 -
I had terrible problems with water retention. I'd eat at a deficit (250 calories) per day, weighing out all of my food religiously and my weight wouldn't budge for ages. Then all of a sudden it would all fall off in a big lump. I'm not talking about 2 weeks of nothing then losing 1lb, I'm talking 12-16 weeks of nothing then suddenly dropping between 10 and 14lb over the course of a few days. I lost 14lb in 5 days after losing nothing for 16 weeks and believe me I spent the entire time with a full bladder, I couldn't empty it fast enough.
I don't eat processed foods, never had added salt to my meals, cook everything from scratch, eat foods as damn close to their 'natural' state as possible (I have IBD so I can't afford to skimp on this), and yet my body would constantly replace the fat with water so it would look like I wasn't losing anything. I kept joking that if I had a £ for every person who asked me if I'd been really ill when I dropped large amounts of 'weight' over the course of a few days I could have retired!
My doctor had no idea what was going on, or why it was happening. After the third long period followed by massive water loss I took more direct action and worked out that having a 'calorie spike' day (which put me marginally over maintenance calories and not into the realms of binge-eating) every 10-14 days seemed to provoke my body into letting go of the excess water before it became a problem.
I'm quite sure I've not reacted 'normally' to a calorie restricted diet, but I would say if anyone is not losing weight and they are sure they are weighing, logging and working out their calorie burn as correctly as is humanly possible then to just keep going. I know it's miserable when your really good for 4-5 weeks and nothing seems to be happening, I've been there and then some, but you have to keep going because your body will catch up when it realizes you don't need to hold onto replacing water any more.0 -
A calorie is a calorie, but for a people with insulin disorders, the type of calorie can ake a difference.0
-
0 -
Abhorrent huh? Pretty strong word there...
Here's the thing. If you are going to post about the virtues of a particular diet plan because it worked for you, then be prepared for people to look at your diary to see what's working! Otherwise, hide your diary.
If you go back and actually read the posts, there aren't that many haters here at all. It's a pretty tame thread. But, on a forum where people are always posting about no carb, low carb, less carb, more carb, all carb, you can expect that people will be looking for clarification, evidence, etc.
There are other boards set up for dietary nitpicking, such as the Food and Nutrition one. In case you hadn't noticed the OP was giving motivation and support in the appropriately named Motivation and Support board! She did not post the virtues of a particular type of diet, merely shared that people who are experiencing difficulties might have more success by tweaking their macro proportions and basically not to give up trying.
And yes, I do find online bullying or personal attacks abhorrent; and shameful
Since you quoted me here, please show me one of my posts that was bullying or a personal attack?0 -
No, actually. There isn't any evidence that that is true. Low carbing nets you more up front loss, but that is mostly water weight. In the end, either method is equally effective.
And now, really out!
So I didn't misquote you or misunderstand your reference to macros then, when I was asked:Is there a post in particular in this thread where someone is assuming that macronutrient composition is irrelevant and that the only factor that matters is the energy intake, regardless of energy output?
It depends on if you are talking about weight loss only. For weight loss only, the only thing that matters is that you be in a calorie deficit (see 'The Twinkie Diet). If you want a nice end result, then macros matter a great deal.
Well yes, in terms of this thread topic, weight loss is what we are talking about.
With regards to the Twinkie Diet you cannot claim he was eating an unbalanced mix of macros http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/diary/who/haub/ as he ate a fair mix of foods, not just Twinkies. For a man the diet is VLC and I have never said weight loss does not correlate with calorie deficit!
However macros are metabolised and affect satiety levels differently.
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/0 -
I think that a calorie deficit will create weight loss, but I also believe that a deficit along with healthier non processed foods is a better weight loss. What's the point of losing all that weight just to find out that your heart is going berserk due to eating high sodium foods? Or having low energy because you ate at your goal for the day already but you only got to eat 4 things that were higher in calories instead of eating 15 things that were low calorie and better nutrients?
A person can eat processed foods and still stay within the healthy range for sodium. A person can also eat processed foods and still eat plenty of food, meet your nutrient needs, stay within your calorie goals, and have plenty of energy. If you prefer to choose non-processed foods over processed ones, that's fine, but people who do not use the same approach are not necessarily going to end up nutrient-deficient, passed out on the side of the road with heart issues. There are plenty of processed foods that are also healthy foods.
This is my own personal strategy. I have had high blood pressure in the past and also have heart disease in my family so I was advised to watch out for sodium/cholesterol and such. I like to eat so I'd rather eat veggies where I can eat a lot of them instead of only eating 6 triscuts for the same amount of calories. I find myself satisfied more and with better energy. It's basically volumetrics and it has worked well for me.0 -
Abhorrent huh? Pretty strong word there...
Here's the thing. If you are going to post about the virtues of a particular diet plan because it worked for you, then be prepared for people to look at your diary to see what's working! Otherwise, hide your diary.
If you go back and actually read the posts, there aren't that many haters here at all. It's a pretty tame thread. But, on a forum where people are always posting about no carb, low carb, less carb, more carb, all carb, you can expect that people will be looking for clarification, evidence, etc.
There are other boards set up for dietary nitpicking, such as the Food and Nutrition one. In case you hadn't noticed the OP was giving motivation and support in the appropriately named Motivation and Support board! She did not post the virtues of a particular type of diet, merely shared that people who are experiencing difficulties might have more success by tweaking their macro proportions and basically not to give up trying.
And yes, I do find online bullying or personal attacks abhorrent; and shameful
Since you quoted me here, please show me one of my posts that was bullying or a personal attack?
I quoted you because I was responding to you. I did not accuse you of anything at all <sigh>0 -
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.0 -
And every single one of you has missed the point of the post.
There ARE people where this isn't the case. Medical issues? Maybe! Other issues, perhaps. EITHER WAY, they (we) need support and motivation too.
Not trying to come off as mean, but you will lose if you have more out then in. no matter what you eat. I could eat cheetos and only cheetos (and be soooo unhealthy, lol, but delicious) but keep them within my goal calories, and still lose weight.
As other posters said, a lot of time it has to do with underestimating your food. If you stall, try measuring everything on a scale.0 -
lol at people blaming under active thyroids. study's are showing that only amounts to an extra 10 lbs on a person, in which they can still lose if they adjust there calories properly, your body cant hold on to bodyfat without the food to feed it.. under active thyroid will slow metabolism and require abit more of a deficit to lose on... but even untreated thyroid , that means low levels.. can still lose weight the thyroid gland does not make or break the laws of thermodynamics , starting to seem like a heavy excuse... people probably stall for a week or 2 and know they have a sluggish thyroid and assume they cant lose weight... if you took a hypothyroidism person with no meds, and starved them. the fat would go , if you took the same person and fed them under the amount of calories it takes to sustain there weight.. the fat HAS to start burning.. yes if the problem is so bad there sick. sure they cant lose weight cause there sedentary and need meds, but if they didn't eat above maint. calories, they would lose weight.. i feel bad for people with the issue.. but it doesn't stop weight loss. science is showing that now, people with hypo are making it sound like they have no bmr , and that they hold fat no matter what.. thats non-sense0
-
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.
FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:0 -
I warned you about that poster back on page 4. That other thread I linked in here had the same exact thing happen.
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.
FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:0 -
Just a subtle tweaking of a study and you can produce whatever results you want.
0 -
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.
FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:
I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?0 -
OP I disagree, it's like saying a car engine will burn more gas on one trip than on another. Engine performance will decrease with with say low octane fuel versus high octane fuel. But not by a lot, and the cost of the more expensive fuel will drive your miles per DOLLAR lower. Eating whole and clean comes at a cost.0
-
And every single one of you has missed the point of the post.
There ARE people where this isn't the case. Medical issues? Maybe! Other issues, perhaps. EITHER WAY, they (we) need support and motivation too.
I totally agree with you - some of us (like me) do have medically diagnosed health issues that make it difficult to lose. Some of us take medications that cause weight gain - just look at the side effects listed with the drug inserts. Some of us even take multiple medications by prescription that cause weight gain. All of this combined makes it difficult to lose, no matter how diligent we are. I tend to get really frustrated with sweeping generalities.
And you have my support!0 -
I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?
of course he wasn't going to gain muscle- he was eating at a deficit.0 -
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.
FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:
I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?
No, you are confused. I said all that is needed is a calorie deficit to lose weight. And that is true.0 -
I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?
of course he wasn't going to gain muscle- he was eating at a deficit.
Like I said ...0 -
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.
FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:
I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?
No, you are confused. I said all that is needed is a calorie deficit to lose weight. And that is true.
I am confused, because you just mentioned studies that show a specific protein intake optimises calorie restricted diets. I think you meant this optimises building muscle mass not calorie restriction!0 -
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.
FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:
I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?
No, you are confused. I said all that is needed is a calorie deficit to lose weight. And that is true.
I am confused, because you just mentioned studies that show a specific protein intake optimises calorie restricted diets. I think you meant this optimises building muscle mass not calorie restriction!
No, she was correct. In order to maintain lean mass while restricting calories, protein requirements have been shown to be in excess of 1 gram per lb of lean mass. Protein requirements in absolute grams tend to go up as calorie intake goes down.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/240927650 -
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.
FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:
I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?
No, you are confused. I said all that is needed is a calorie deficit to lose weight. And that is true.
I am confused, because you just mentioned studies that show a specific protein intake optimises calorie restricted diets. I think you meant this optimises building muscle mass not calorie restriction!
You are not going to build muscle while in a calorie deficit. :huh:0 -
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.
FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:
I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?
No, you are confused. I said all that is needed is a calorie deficit to lose weight. And that is true.
I am confused, because you just mentioned studies that show a specific protein intake optimises calorie restricted diets. I think you meant this optimises building muscle mass not calorie restriction!
You are not going to build muscle while in a calorie deficit. :huh:
Again, I know and never said anything of the sort!0 -
I think most people are arguing the same thing here. It is about creating a deficit but that deficit need not always be simple.
BMR calculators and the like probably work well for a lot of people out there but in reality they can have up to 20% variance in their results. Everyone's metabolism works differently and a lot of this is down to hormones; thyroid, PCOS and diabetes are examples of hormone imbalances causing dysfunction, but often these imbalances can be asymptomatic and thus very hard to factor into your BMR calculations. There are also unexplained reasons for a variation of almost 30% in BMR between similar individuals.
Here's a very interesting article if you have access: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/427059?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103339568197
Also: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.long
So then you adjust. Mfp suggests 1450 for me to lose a pound a week. I moved myself to 1650 then 1700 then 1800 to average that pound a week.
Tweaking calories is a fairly simple process: anyone with basic observational skills can do it.
Not losing weight? Adjust down!
Losing too much? Adjust up!
Repeat until desired rate is found.
Damn. How complicated.
Where it becomes complicated is when your calorie intake is already only 800, 900, 1200 and you still can't lose weight. How low should you adjust?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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