A Calorie is NOT just a Calorie
Options
Replies
-
I just don't understand why people would rather have 1,500 of junk that in the end will do more harm than good to your health than eating 1,500 of tasty, healthy food that will make you a healthier human being. Why would I like to eat 1,000 at one sitting on McDonalds instead of 1,000 calories of meat, veggies, nuts, and even dessert during the day?
And forgive my english...
yea, you just don't get it..no one is saying that…
what people are trying to say is that you can eat moderately healthy and still have things like pizza, cookies, fast food, etc, and you will lose weight, hit your goals, and be in good health ...
It would seem that's what some hear when all they read is "a calorie is a calorie" and "you can lose weight eating only at McDonalds". Which is the danger in posting that again and again and again with no further explanation.
Yeah, what you just said? That's what they're saying *now*. A colossal improvement from "eat whatever you want".
I did that.
again, you miss the point. Yes, technically, you can eat whatever you want, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I always advocate the 80/20 approach..80% healthy/20% whatever you want….so I am not sure who the "they" is that you are talking about …
I believe some people use that as an example to demonstrate it really is calories in vs calories out..but I have not seen anyone provided advice that one follow that approach….
The point is that "technically" isn't very good advice. And the non stop drone of nonsense could (and obviously DID) create the wrong impression. And it's misleading to have a whole gang of people trained to say it again and again, when they know (again, obviously by posts they've made here) that there's more to it than that.
Look at what you just said. If a calorie is a calorie, why do you advocate the 80/20 approach? And what's "healthy"? I've been told again and again that "there's no bad food". Then what's the 20? And why, in the name of GOD would you take offense to anyone saying that there's more to know than "a calorie is a calorie" after they acknowledge again and again that "technically" it's accurate?
As soon as you segregate calories into "Healthy" and "Whatever you want" you're saying - are you ready for this - A calorie is NOT a calorie! Congratulations.0 -
I just don't understand why people would rather have 1,500 of junk that in the end will do more harm than good to your health than eating 1,500 of tasty, healthy food that will make you a healthier human being. Why would I like to eat 1,000 at one sitting on McDonalds instead of 1,000 calories of meat, veggies, nuts, and even dessert during the day?
And forgive my english...
yea, you just don't get it..no one is saying that…
what people are trying to say is that you can eat moderately healthy and still have things like pizza, cookies, fast food, etc, and you will lose weight, hit your goals, and be in good health ...
It would seem that's what some hear when all they read is "a calorie is a calorie" and "you can lose weight eating only at McDonalds". Which is the danger in posting that again and again and again with no further explanation.
Yeah, what you just said? That's what they're saying *now*. A colossal improvement from "eat whatever you want".
I did that.
again, you miss the point. Yes, technically, you can eat whatever you want, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I always advocate the 80/20 approach..80% healthy/20% whatever you want….so I am not sure who the "they" is that you are talking about …
I believe some people use that as an example to demonstrate it really is calories in vs calories out..but I have not seen anyone provided advice that one follow that approach….
The point is that "technically" isn't very good advice. And the non stop drone of nonsense could (and obviously DID) create the wrong impression. And it's misleading to have a whole gang of people trained to say it again and again, when they know (again, obviously by posts they've made here) that there's more to it than that.
Look at what you just said. If a calorie is a calorie, why do you advocate the 80/20 approach? And what's "healthy"? I've been told again and again that "there's no bad food". Then what's the 20? And why, in the name of GOD would you take offense to anyone saying that there's more to know than "a calorie is a calorie" after they acknowledge again and again that "technically" it's accurate?
If this "gang" that you are referring to is some of the IIFYM folks around here, all they are saying is that you do not have to restrict entire food groups to lose weight, and that you can continue to eat the foods that you like and still lose weight. Rather then trying 21 day water fasts, detox jump starts, low carb, eliminate all sugar, et al….I don't see how that makes them a gang? Are the Keto people a gang too? what about the paleo/clean eating people?
I am not taking offense at anything. You are the one that seems all bent out of shape about it. I am not running around talking about "cults" and what not. It is calories in vs calories out, but at the same time no one is denying that macro nutrient composition is important from a body recomp standpoint. I agree there is no bad food, if someone wants to eat ice cream all day and stay in a deficit then more power to them. For myself, I choose to eat chicken, meat, fish, pork, fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta, etc about 80% of the time, and then I throw in pizza, ice cream, cake, cookies, whatever the other 20% of the time. That is what works for me, and that is what my advice is based on.0 -
I just don't understand why people would rather have 1,500 of junk that in the end will do more harm than good to your health than eating 1,500 of tasty, healthy food that will make you a healthier human being. Why would I like to eat 1,000 at one sitting on McDonalds instead of 1,000 calories of meat, veggies, nuts, and even dessert during the day?
And forgive my english...
yea, you just don't get it..no one is saying that…
what people are trying to say is that you can eat moderately healthy and still have things like pizza, cookies, fast food, etc, and you will lose weight, hit your goals, and be in good health ...
It would seem that's what some hear when all they read is "a calorie is a calorie" and "you can lose weight eating only at McDonalds". Which is the danger in posting that again and again and again with no further explanation.
Yeah, what you just said? That's what they're saying *now*. A colossal improvement from "eat whatever you want".
I did that.
again, you miss the point. Yes, technically, you can eat whatever you want, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I always advocate the 80/20 approach..80% healthy/20% whatever you want….so I am not sure who the "they" is that you are talking about …
I believe some people use that as an example to demonstrate it really is calories in vs calories out..but I have not seen anyone provided advice that one follow that approach….
The point is that "technically" isn't very good advice. And the non stop drone of nonsense could (and obviously DID) create the wrong impression. And it's misleading to have a whole gang of people trained to say it again and again, when they know (again, obviously by posts they've made here) that there's more to it than that.
Look at what you just said. If a calorie is a calorie, why do you advocate the 80/20 approach? And what's "healthy"? I've been told again and again that "there's no bad food". Then what's the 20? And why, in the name of GOD would you take offense to anyone saying that there's more to know than "a calorie is a calorie" after they acknowledge again and again that "technically" it's accurate?
As soon as you segregate calories into "Healthy" and "Whatever you want" you're saying - are you ready for this - A calorie is NOT a calorie! Congratulations.
We are all adults here, and I would hope that everyone understands that just because you could lose weight eating pure junk doesn't mean that you should or that it is a good idea. The message is clearly calories in<calories out, but eat your vice foods in moderation. That is the beauty of it. Everyone is different and can choose what works for them specifically while keeping this method in mind. It's not complicated. No one is advocating an all junk diet. Although the nutritional makeup may vary, a calorie is a calorie.0 -
I cannot believe this thread is almost 750 posts long and we haven't even had a knockdown, drag out fight regarding the thermogenic properties of different macronutrients. Come on people, that's critical in the grand scheme of things and oh so ripe for vicious meaningless word-parsing pissing contests! I frankly expect more from MFP. :grumble:
Maybe some of the more motivated no-nothings on the board have taken my advice and downloaded a Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology.
And maybe they have actually READ portions of it, which brings them perilously close to being ejected from the vaunted Legion of the Ignoramus.
Oh Steve!!!
I prefer the Legion of Doom!!
0 -
I just don't understand why people would rather have 1,500 of junk that in the end will do more harm than good to your health than eating 1,500 of tasty, healthy food that will make you a healthier human being. Why would I like to eat 1,000 at one sitting on McDonalds instead of 1,000 calories of meat, veggies, nuts, and even dessert during the day?
And forgive my english...
yea, you just don't get it..no one is saying that…
what people are trying to say is that you can eat moderately healthy and still have things like pizza, cookies, fast food, etc, and you will lose weight, hit your goals, and be in good health ...
It would seem that's what some hear when all they read is "a calorie is a calorie" and "you can lose weight eating only at McDonalds". Which is the danger in posting that again and again and again with no further explanation.
Yeah, what you just said? That's what they're saying *now*. A colossal improvement from "eat whatever you want".
I did that.
again, you miss the point. Yes, technically, you can eat whatever you want, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I always advocate the 80/20 approach..80% healthy/20% whatever you want….so I am not sure who the "they" is that you are talking about …
I believe some people use that as an example to demonstrate it really is calories in vs calories out..but I have not seen anyone provided advice that one follow that approach….
The point is that "technically" isn't very good advice. And the non stop drone of nonsense could (and obviously DID) create the wrong impression. And it's misleading to have a whole gang of people trained to say it again and again, when they know (again, obviously by posts they've made here) that there's more to it than that.
Look at what you just said. If a calorie is a calorie, why do you advocate the 80/20 approach? And what's "healthy"? I've been told again and again that "there's no bad food". Then what's the 20? And why, in the name of GOD would you take offense to anyone saying that there's more to know than "a calorie is a calorie" after they acknowledge again and again that "technically" it's accurate?
If this "gang" that you are referring to is some of the IIFYM folks around here, all they are saying is that you do not have to restrict entire food groups to lose weight, and that you can continue to eat the foods that you like and still lose weight. Rather then trying 21 day water fasts, detox jump starts, low carb, eliminate all sugar, et al….I don't see how that makes them a gang? Are the Keto people a gang too? what about the paleo/clean eating people?
I am not taking offense at anything. You are the one that seems all bent out of shape about it. I am not running around talking about "cults" and what not. It is calories in vs calories out, but at the same time no one is denying that macro nutrient composition is important from a body recomp standpoint. I agree there is no bad food, if someone wants to eat ice cream all day and stay in a deficit then more power to them. For myself, I choose to eat chicken, meat, fish, pork, fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta, etc about 80% of the time, and then I throw in pizza, ice cream, cake, cookies, whatever the other 20% of the time. That is what works for me, and that is what my advice is based on.
It's a cult. Not a gang. And NOOOOOOO. It is NOT the IIFYM people. That is the RIGHT idea. It's the "a calorie is a calorie... period" people. The ones who don't acknowledge anything like your 80/20 because all calories are exactly the same. I keep saying this, but the cult is so strong you and many others aren't hearing it. So I'll say it again. I'm not "clean" or "vegan" or "paleo" or anything. I'm drinking a glass of wine right now. I had Tyson Anytizer Buffalo Style Boneless Chicken Wingz" just a few minutes ago.
Here's the thing. I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING that is at odds with what you've been saying in the last two posts. But look how you beat me up for suggesting that a calorie is NOT a calorie. Then, what did you do when I kept pressing you on it? You whip out 80/20, which says a calorie is NOT a calorie. The first part of this thread was, literally dozens, if not a hundred posts saying "a calorie is a calorie" leaving it at that, and ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise. The irony is, the people doing the ridiculing KNOW that they're doing something like your 80/20. They've just been so conditioned to chant the cult mantra that they pile on anyone who says "um... but you shouldn't JUST eat junk". "Noooo!" they proclaim. "Why, one guy in Azerbaijan lost weight eating nothing but twice fried french fries wrapped in bacon!" Um. That is useful information for... who exactly? When all they needed to say was "Well, yeah, probably not all the time. But mixing in some treats sure makes it more likely to stick with it long term, and as long as you hit your macros and your calorie goal, there's nothing wrong with it." To which I would reply "Exactly".
You just spent all this time arguing with me - for saying that you should know something more than "a calorie is a calorie". Then you said you suggest 80/20. You totally agree with me. So why is it sacrilege to say "a calorie is a calorie" is not the end of the story? And once you acknowledge that you agree with me, yet see all the push back I'm getting, you have to agree, there's a bit of insanity happening here. And I'm not talking about the work out.0 -
I cannot believe this thread is almost 750 posts long and we haven't even had a knockdown, drag out fight regarding the thermogenic properties of different macronutrients. Come on people, that's critical in the grand scheme of things and oh so ripe for vicious meaningless word-parsing pissing contests! I frankly expect more from MFP. :grumble:
Maybe some of the more motivated no-nothings on the board have taken my advice and downloaded a Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology.
And maybe they have actually READ portions of it, which brings them perilously close to being ejected from the vaunted Legion of the Ignoramus.
steve, steve., steve…would you be the President of the League of Ignoramus..?0 -
I just don't understand why people would rather have 1,500 of junk that in the end will do more harm than good to your health than eating 1,500 of tasty, healthy food that will make you a healthier human being. Why would I like to eat 1,000 at one sitting on McDonalds instead of 1,000 calories of meat, veggies, nuts, and even dessert during the day?
And forgive my english...
yea, you just don't get it..no one is saying that…
what people are trying to say is that you can eat moderately healthy and still have things like pizza, cookies, fast food, etc, and you will lose weight, hit your goals, and be in good health ...
It would seem that's what some hear when all they read is "a calorie is a calorie" and "you can lose weight eating only at McDonalds". Which is the danger in posting that again and again and again with no further explanation.
Yeah, what you just said? That's what they're saying *now*. A colossal improvement from "eat whatever you want".
I did that.
again, you miss the point. Yes, technically, you can eat whatever you want, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I always advocate the 80/20 approach..80% healthy/20% whatever you want….so I am not sure who the "they" is that you are talking about …
I believe some people use that as an example to demonstrate it really is calories in vs calories out..but I have not seen anyone provided advice that one follow that approach….
The point is that "technically" isn't very good advice. And the non stop drone of nonsense could (and obviously DID) create the wrong impression. And it's misleading to have a whole gang of people trained to say it again and again, when they know (again, obviously by posts they've made here) that there's more to it than that.
Look at what you just said. If a calorie is a calorie, why do you advocate the 80/20 approach? And what's "healthy"? I've been told again and again that "there's no bad food". Then what's the 20? And why, in the name of GOD would you take offense to anyone saying that there's more to know than "a calorie is a calorie" after they acknowledge again and again that "technically" it's accurate?
If this "gang" that you are referring to is some of the IIFYM folks around here, all they are saying is that you do not have to restrict entire food groups to lose weight, and that you can continue to eat the foods that you like and still lose weight. Rather then trying 21 day water fasts, detox jump starts, low carb, eliminate all sugar, et al….I don't see how that makes them a gang? Are the Keto people a gang too? what about the paleo/clean eating people?
I am not taking offense at anything. You are the one that seems all bent out of shape about it. I am not running around talking about "cults" and what not. It is calories in vs calories out, but at the same time no one is denying that macro nutrient composition is important from a body recomp standpoint. I agree there is no bad food, if someone wants to eat ice cream all day and stay in a deficit then more power to them. For myself, I choose to eat chicken, meat, fish, pork, fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta, etc about 80% of the time, and then I throw in pizza, ice cream, cake, cookies, whatever the other 20% of the time. That is what works for me, and that is what my advice is based on.
It's a cult. Not a gang. And NOOOOOOO. It is NOT the IIFYM people. That is the RIGHT idea. It's the "a calorie is a calorie... period" people. The ones who don't acknowledge anything like your 80/20 because all calories are exactly the same. I keep saying this, but the cult is so strong you and many others aren't hearing it. So I'll say it again. I'm not "clean" or "vegan" or "paleo" or anything. I'm drinking a glass of wine right now. I had Tyson Anytizer Buffalo Style Boneless Chicken Wingz" just a few minutes ago.
Here's the thing. I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING that is at odds with what you've been saying in the last two posts. But look how you beat me up for suggesting that a calorie is NOT a calorie. Then, what did you do when I kept pressing you on it? You whip out 80/20, which says a calorie is NOT a calorie. The first part of this thread was, literally dozens, if not a hundred posts saying "a calorie is a calorie" and ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise. The irony is, the people doing the ridiculing KNOW that they're doing something like your 80/20. They've just be so conditioned to chant the cult mantra that they pile on anyone who says "um... but you shouldn't JUST eat junk". "Noooo!" they proclaim. "Why, one guy in Azerbaijan lost weight eating nothing but twice fried french fries wrapped in bacon!" Um. That is useful information for... who exactly? When all they needed to say was "Well, yeah, probably not all the time. But mixing in some treats sure makes it more likely to stick with it long term, and as long as you hit your macros and your calorie goal, there's nothing wrong with it." To which I would reply "Exactly".
You just spent all this time arguing with me - for saying that you should know something more than "a calorie is a calorie". Then you said you suggest 80/20. You totally agree with me. So why is it sacrilege to say "a calorie is a calorie" is not the end of the story? And if you once you acknowledge that you agree with me, yet see all the push back I'm getting, you have to agree, there's a bit of insanity happening here. And I'm not talking about the work out.
I think you confused me with someone else. I was replying to a poster who was saying why would you want to eat 1500 of "junk"..to which i was just clarifying that no one is really advocating that.
IDK what is so hard about saying it is calories in vs calories out and YES you can eat twinkles all day, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I am not sure if that is the best way to do it, but you could do it that way; and that a more sensible approach is just to continue to eat the foods that you like and maintain a moderate deficit…
*shrugs shoulders*
For the record, I was not arguing with you ..you jumped into a comment I made to another poster and I just replied…
I have not really seen anyone attack you ..but I got into this thread late and was barely in the original ...0 -
I just don't understand why people would rather have 1,500 of junk that in the end will do more harm than good to your health than eating 1,500 of tasty, healthy food that will make you a healthier human being. Why would I like to eat 1,000 at one sitting on McDonalds instead of 1,000 calories of meat, veggies, nuts, and even dessert during the day?
And forgive my english...
yea, you just don't get it..no one is saying that…
what people are trying to say is that you can eat moderately healthy and still have things like pizza, cookies, fast food, etc, and you will lose weight, hit your goals, and be in good health ...
It would seem that's what some hear when all they read is "a calorie is a calorie" and "you can lose weight eating only at McDonalds". Which is the danger in posting that again and again and again with no further explanation.
Yeah, what you just said? That's what they're saying *now*. A colossal improvement from "eat whatever you want".
I did that.
again, you miss the point. Yes, technically, you can eat whatever you want, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I always advocate the 80/20 approach..80% healthy/20% whatever you want….so I am not sure who the "they" is that you are talking about …
I believe some people use that as an example to demonstrate it really is calories in vs calories out..but I have not seen anyone provided advice that one follow that approach….
The point is that "technically" isn't very good advice. And the non stop drone of nonsense could (and obviously DID) create the wrong impression. And it's misleading to have a whole gang of people trained to say it again and again, when they know (again, obviously by posts they've made here) that there's more to it than that.
Look at what you just said. If a calorie is a calorie, why do you advocate the 80/20 approach? And what's "healthy"? I've been told again and again that "there's no bad food". Then what's the 20? And why, in the name of GOD would you take offense to anyone saying that there's more to know than "a calorie is a calorie" after they acknowledge again and again that "technically" it's accurate?
If this "gang" that you are referring to is some of the IIFYM folks around here, all they are saying is that you do not have to restrict entire food groups to lose weight, and that you can continue to eat the foods that you like and still lose weight. Rather then trying 21 day water fasts, detox jump starts, low carb, eliminate all sugar, et al….I don't see how that makes them a gang? Are the Keto people a gang too? what about the paleo/clean eating people?
I am not taking offense at anything. You are the one that seems all bent out of shape about it. I am not running around talking about "cults" and what not. It is calories in vs calories out, but at the same time no one is denying that macro nutrient composition is important from a body recomp standpoint. I agree there is no bad food, if someone wants to eat ice cream all day and stay in a deficit then more power to them. For myself, I choose to eat chicken, meat, fish, pork, fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta, etc about 80% of the time, and then I throw in pizza, ice cream, cake, cookies, whatever the other 20% of the time. That is what works for me, and that is what my advice is based on.
It's a cult. Not a gang. And NOOOOOOO. It is NOT the IIFYM people. That is the RIGHT idea. It's the "a calorie is a calorie... period" people. The ones who don't acknowledge anything like your 80/20 because all calories are exactly the same. I keep saying this, but the cult is so strong you and many others aren't hearing it. So I'll say it again. I'm not "clean" or "vegan" or "paleo" or anything. I'm drinking a glass of wine right now. I had Tyson Anytizer Buffalo Style Boneless Chicken Wingz" just a few minutes ago.
Here's the thing. I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING that is at odds with what you've been saying in the last two posts. But look how you beat me up for suggesting that a calorie is NOT a calorie. Then, what did you do when I kept pressing you on it? You whip out 80/20, which says a calorie is NOT a calorie. The first part of this thread was, literally dozens, if not a hundred posts saying "a calorie is a calorie" leaving it at that, and ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise. The irony is, the people doing the ridiculing KNOW that they're doing something like your 80/20. They've just been so conditioned to chant the cult mantra that they pile on anyone who says "um... but you shouldn't JUST eat junk". "Noooo!" they proclaim. "Why, one guy in Azerbaijan lost weight eating nothing but twice fried french fries wrapped in bacon!" Um. That is useful information for... who exactly? When all they needed to say was "Well, yeah, probably not all the time. But mixing in some treats sure makes it more likely to stick with it long term, and as long as you hit your macros and your calorie goal, there's nothing wrong with it." To which I would reply "Exactly".
You just spent all this time arguing with me - for saying that you should know something more than "a calorie is a calorie". Then you said you suggest 80/20. You totally agree with me. So why is it sacrilege to say "a calorie is a calorie" is not the end of the story? And if you once you acknowledge that you agree with me, yet see all the push back I'm getting, you have to agree, there's a bit of insanity happening here. And I'm not talking about the work out.
I hear and understand exactly where you are coming from FAST EDDIE , There has been very good info from a lot of posters from both sides of the same fence and actually when they are standing on the same side. My opinion and this is only my opinion and in no way is advice is that this entire thread has lost all common sense and turned into a major circle jerk !0 -
IDK what is so hard about saying it is calories in vs calories out and YES you can eat twinkles all day, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I am not sure if that is the best way to do it, but you could do it that way; and that a more sensible approach is just to continue to eat the foods that you like and maintain a moderate deficit…
*shrugs shoulders*
I don't know what's so hard about it either. And that is EXACTLY the point I've been making. So... why were you arguing with me again?0 -
IDK what is so hard about saying it is calories in vs calories out and YES you can eat twinkles all day, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I am not sure if that is the best way to do it, but you could do it that way; and that a more sensible approach is just to continue to eat the foods that you like and maintain a moderate deficit…
*shrugs shoulders*
I don't know what's so hard about it either. And that is EXACTLY the point I've been making. So... why were you arguing with me again?
LOL nothing ..I believe we may have found common ground...0 -
I just don't understand why people would rather have 1,500 of junk that in the end will do more harm than good to your health than eating 1,500 of tasty, healthy food that will make you a healthier human being. Why would I like to eat 1,000 at one sitting on McDonalds instead of 1,000 calories of meat, veggies, nuts, and even dessert during the day?
And forgive my english...
yea, you just don't get it..no one is saying that…
what people are trying to say is that you can eat moderately healthy and still have things like pizza, cookies, fast food, etc, and you will lose weight, hit your goals, and be in good health ...
It would seem that's what some hear when all they read is "a calorie is a calorie" and "you can lose weight eating only at McDonalds". Which is the danger in posting that again and again and again with no further explanation.
Yeah, what you just said? That's what they're saying *now*. A colossal improvement from "eat whatever you want".
I did that.
again, you miss the point. Yes, technically, you can eat whatever you want, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I always advocate the 80/20 approach..80% healthy/20% whatever you want….so I am not sure who the "they" is that you are talking about …
I believe some people use that as an example to demonstrate it really is calories in vs calories out..but I have not seen anyone provided advice that one follow that approach….
The point is that "technically" isn't very good advice. And the non stop drone of nonsense could (and obviously DID) create the wrong impression. And it's misleading to have a whole gang of people trained to say it again and again, when they know (again, obviously by posts they've made here) that there's more to it than that.
Look at what you just said. If a calorie is a calorie, why do you advocate the 80/20 approach? And what's "healthy"? I've been told again and again that "there's no bad food". Then what's the 20? And why, in the name of GOD would you take offense to anyone saying that there's more to know than "a calorie is a calorie" after they acknowledge again and again that "technically" it's accurate?
If this "gang" that you are referring to is some of the IIFYM folks around here, all they are saying is that you do not have to restrict entire food groups to lose weight, and that you can continue to eat the foods that you like and still lose weight. Rather then trying 21 day water fasts, detox jump starts, low carb, eliminate all sugar, et al….I don't see how that makes them a gang? Are the Keto people a gang too? what about the paleo/clean eating people?
I am not taking offense at anything. You are the one that seems all bent out of shape about it. I am not running around talking about "cults" and what not. It is calories in vs calories out, but at the same time no one is denying that macro nutrient composition is important from a body recomp standpoint. I agree there is no bad food, if someone wants to eat ice cream all day and stay in a deficit then more power to them. For myself, I choose to eat chicken, meat, fish, pork, fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta, etc about 80% of the time, and then I throw in pizza, ice cream, cake, cookies, whatever the other 20% of the time. That is what works for me, and that is what my advice is based on.
It's a cult. Not a gang. And NOOOOOOO. It is NOT the IIFYM people. That is the RIGHT idea. It's the "a calorie is a calorie... period" people. The ones who don't acknowledge anything like your 80/20 because all calories are exactly the same. I keep saying this, but the cult is so strong you and many others aren't hearing it. So I'll say it again. I'm not "clean" or "vegan" or "paleo" or anything. I'm drinking a glass of wine right now. I had Tyson Anytizer Buffalo Style Boneless Chicken Wingz" just a few minutes ago.
Here's the thing. I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING that is at odds with what you've been saying in the last two posts. But look how you beat me up for suggesting that a calorie is NOT a calorie. Then, what did you do when I kept pressing you on it? You whip out 80/20, which says a calorie is NOT a calorie. The first part of this thread was, literally dozens, if not a hundred posts saying "a calorie is a calorie" leaving it at that, and ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise. The irony is, the people doing the ridiculing KNOW that they're doing something like your 80/20. They've just been so conditioned to chant the cult mantra that they pile on anyone who says "um... but you shouldn't JUST eat junk". "Noooo!" they proclaim. "Why, one guy in Azerbaijan lost weight eating nothing but twice fried french fries wrapped in bacon!" Um. That is useful information for... who exactly? When all they needed to say was "Well, yeah, probably not all the time. But mixing in some treats sure makes it more likely to stick with it long term, and as long as you hit your macros and your calorie goal, there's nothing wrong with it." To which I would reply "Exactly".
You just spent all this time arguing with me - for saying that you should know something more than "a calorie is a calorie". Then you said you suggest 80/20. You totally agree with me. So why is it sacrilege to say "a calorie is a calorie" is not the end of the story? And if you once you acknowledge that you agree with me, yet see all the push back I'm getting, you have to agree, there's a bit of insanity happening here. And I'm not talking about the work out.
I hear and understand exactly where you are coming from FAST EDDIE , There has been very good info from a lot of posters from both sides of the same fence and actually when they are standing on the same side. My opinion and this is only my opinion and in no way is advice is that this entire thread has lost all common sense and turned into a major circle jerk !
Well if you're going to bring awesome 80s punk bands into it...
Yes. This has gone to an extreme. And that's good. Mind if I explain why? I'll do so anyway.
What's the point of saying "You could eat only Twinkies and still lose weight"? It's taking an idea to an extreme in an effort to make a point. I'm using the same tactic to make another point: It's misleading to say "a calorie is a calorie" over and over again with no other context.0 -
I just don't understand why people would rather have 1,500 of junk that in the end will do more harm than good to your health than eating 1,500 of tasty, healthy food that will make you a healthier human being. Why would I like to eat 1,000 at one sitting on McDonalds instead of 1,000 calories of meat, veggies, nuts, and even dessert during the day?
And forgive my english...
yea, you just don't get it..no one is saying that…
what people are trying to say is that you can eat moderately healthy and still have things like pizza, cookies, fast food, etc, and you will lose weight, hit your goals, and be in good health ...
It would seem that's what some hear when all they read is "a calorie is a calorie" and "you can lose weight eating only at McDonalds". Which is the danger in posting that again and again and again with no further explanation.
Yeah, what you just said? That's what they're saying *now*. A colossal improvement from "eat whatever you want".
I did that.
again, you miss the point. Yes, technically, you can eat whatever you want, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I always advocate the 80/20 approach..80% healthy/20% whatever you want….so I am not sure who the "they" is that you are talking about …
I believe some people use that as an example to demonstrate it really is calories in vs calories out..but I have not seen anyone provided advice that one follow that approach….
The point is that "technically" isn't very good advice. And the non stop drone of nonsense could (and obviously DID) create the wrong impression. And it's misleading to have a whole gang of people trained to say it again and again, when they know (again, obviously by posts they've made here) that there's more to it than that.
Look at what you just said. If a calorie is a calorie, why do you advocate the 80/20 approach? And what's "healthy"? I've been told again and again that "there's no bad food". Then what's the 20? And why, in the name of GOD would you take offense to anyone saying that there's more to know than "a calorie is a calorie" after they acknowledge again and again that "technically" it's accurate?
If this "gang" that you are referring to is some of the IIFYM folks around here, all they are saying is that you do not have to restrict entire food groups to lose weight, and that you can continue to eat the foods that you like and still lose weight. Rather then trying 21 day water fasts, detox jump starts, low carb, eliminate all sugar, et al….I don't see how that makes them a gang? Are the Keto people a gang too? what about the paleo/clean eating people?
I am not taking offense at anything. You are the one that seems all bent out of shape about it. I am not running around talking about "cults" and what not. It is calories in vs calories out, but at the same time no one is denying that macro nutrient composition is important from a body recomp standpoint. I agree there is no bad food, if someone wants to eat ice cream all day and stay in a deficit then more power to them. For myself, I choose to eat chicken, meat, fish, pork, fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta, etc about 80% of the time, and then I throw in pizza, ice cream, cake, cookies, whatever the other 20% of the time. That is what works for me, and that is what my advice is based on.
It's a cult. Not a gang. And NOOOOOOO. It is NOT the IIFYM people. That is the RIGHT idea. It's the "a calorie is a calorie... period" people. The ones who don't acknowledge anything like your 80/20 because all calories are exactly the same. I keep saying this, but the cult is so strong you and many others aren't hearing it. So I'll say it again. I'm not "clean" or "vegan" or "paleo" or anything. I'm drinking a glass of wine right now. I had Tyson Anytizer Buffalo Style Boneless Chicken Wingz" just a few minutes ago.
Here's the thing. I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING that is at odds with what you've been saying in the last two posts. But look how you beat me up for suggesting that a calorie is NOT a calorie. Then, what did you do when I kept pressing you on it? You whip out 80/20, which says a calorie is NOT a calorie. The first part of this thread was, literally dozens, if not a hundred posts saying "a calorie is a calorie" leaving it at that, and ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise. The irony is, the people doing the ridiculing KNOW that they're doing something like your 80/20. They've just been so conditioned to chant the cult mantra that they pile on anyone who says "um... but you shouldn't JUST eat junk". "Noooo!" they proclaim. "Why, one guy in Azerbaijan lost weight eating nothing but twice fried french fries wrapped in bacon!" Um. That is useful information for... who exactly? When all they needed to say was "Well, yeah, probably not all the time. But mixing in some treats sure makes it more likely to stick with it long term, and as long as you hit your macros and your calorie goal, there's nothing wrong with it." To which I would reply "Exactly".
You just spent all this time arguing with me - for saying that you should know something more than "a calorie is a calorie". Then you said you suggest 80/20. You totally agree with me. So why is it sacrilege to say "a calorie is a calorie" is not the end of the story? And if you once you acknowledge that you agree with me, yet see all the push back I'm getting, you have to agree, there's a bit of insanity happening here. And I'm not talking about the work out.
I hear and understand exactly where you are coming from FAST EDDIE , There has been very good info from a lot of posters from both sides of the same fence and actually when they are standing on the same side. My opinion and this is only my opinion and in no way is advice is that this entire thread has lost all common sense and turned into a major circle jerk !
Well if you're going to bring awesome 80s punk bands into it...
Yes. This has gone to an extreme. And that's good. Mind if I explain why? I'll do so anyway.
What's the point of saying "You could eat only Twinkies and still lose weight"? It's taking an idea to an extreme in an effort to make a point. I'm using the same tactic to make another point: It's misleading to say "a calorie is a calorie" over and over again with no other context.
Exactly !0 -
IDK what is so hard about saying it is calories in vs calories out and YES you can eat twinkles all day, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I am not sure if that is the best way to do it, but you could do it that way; and that a more sensible approach is just to continue to eat the foods that you like and maintain a moderate deficit…
*shrugs shoulders*
I don't know what's so hard about it either. And that is EXACTLY the point I've been making. So... why were you arguing with me again?
LOL nothing ..I believe we may have found common ground...
Another one deprogrammed. It's been a good day. Go forth and preach your 80/20 gospel, for it is good, and provides context to the cult's trite mantra.0 -
I just don't understand why people would rather have 1,500 of junk that in the end will do more harm than good to your health than eating 1,500 of tasty, healthy food that will make you a healthier human being. Why would I like to eat 1,000 at one sitting on McDonalds instead of 1,000 calories of meat, veggies, nuts, and even dessert during the day?
And forgive my english...
yea, you just don't get it..no one is saying that…
what people are trying to say is that you can eat moderately healthy and still have things like pizza, cookies, fast food, etc, and you will lose weight, hit your goals, and be in good health ...
It would seem that's what some hear when all they read is "a calorie is a calorie" and "you can lose weight eating only at McDonalds". Which is the danger in posting that again and again and again with no further explanation.
Yeah, what you just said? That's what they're saying *now*. A colossal improvement from "eat whatever you want".
I did that.
again, you miss the point. Yes, technically, you can eat whatever you want, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I always advocate the 80/20 approach..80% healthy/20% whatever you want….so I am not sure who the "they" is that you are talking about …
I believe some people use that as an example to demonstrate it really is calories in vs calories out..but I have not seen anyone provided advice that one follow that approach….
The point is that "technically" isn't very good advice. And the non stop drone of nonsense could (and obviously DID) create the wrong impression. And it's misleading to have a whole gang of people trained to say it again and again, when they know (again, obviously by posts they've made here) that there's more to it than that.
Look at what you just said. If a calorie is a calorie, why do you advocate the 80/20 approach? And what's "healthy"? I've been told again and again that "there's no bad food". Then what's the 20? And why, in the name of GOD would you take offense to anyone saying that there's more to know than "a calorie is a calorie" after they acknowledge again and again that "technically" it's accurate?
If this "gang" that you are referring to is some of the IIFYM folks around here, all they are saying is that you do not have to restrict entire food groups to lose weight, and that you can continue to eat the foods that you like and still lose weight. Rather then trying 21 day water fasts, detox jump starts, low carb, eliminate all sugar, et al….I don't see how that makes them a gang? Are the Keto people a gang too? what about the paleo/clean eating people?
I am not taking offense at anything. You are the one that seems all bent out of shape about it. I am not running around talking about "cults" and what not. It is calories in vs calories out, but at the same time no one is denying that macro nutrient composition is important from a body recomp standpoint. I agree there is no bad food, if someone wants to eat ice cream all day and stay in a deficit then more power to them. For myself, I choose to eat chicken, meat, fish, pork, fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta, etc about 80% of the time, and then I throw in pizza, ice cream, cake, cookies, whatever the other 20% of the time. That is what works for me, and that is what my advice is based on.
It's a cult. Not a gang. And NOOOOOOO. It is NOT the IIFYM people. That is the RIGHT idea. It's the "a calorie is a calorie... period" people. The ones who don't acknowledge anything like your 80/20 because all calories are exactly the same. I keep saying this, but the cult is so strong you and many others aren't hearing it. So I'll say it again. I'm not "clean" or "vegan" or "paleo" or anything. I'm drinking a glass of wine right now. I had Tyson Anytizer Buffalo Style Boneless Chicken Wingz" just a few minutes ago.
Here's the thing. I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING that is at odds with what you've been saying in the last two posts. But look how you beat me up for suggesting that a calorie is NOT a calorie. Then, what did you do when I kept pressing you on it? You whip out 80/20, which says a calorie is NOT a calorie. The first part of this thread was, literally dozens, if not a hundred posts saying "a calorie is a calorie" leaving it at that, and ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise. The irony is, the people doing the ridiculing KNOW that they're doing something like your 80/20. They've just been so conditioned to chant the cult mantra that they pile on anyone who says "um... but you shouldn't JUST eat junk". "Noooo!" they proclaim. "Why, one guy in Azerbaijan lost weight eating nothing but twice fried french fries wrapped in bacon!" Um. That is useful information for... who exactly? When all they needed to say was "Well, yeah, probably not all the time. But mixing in some treats sure makes it more likely to stick with it long term, and as long as you hit your macros and your calorie goal, there's nothing wrong with it." To which I would reply "Exactly".
You just spent all this time arguing with me - for saying that you should know something more than "a calorie is a calorie". Then you said you suggest 80/20. You totally agree with me. So why is it sacrilege to say "a calorie is a calorie" is not the end of the story? And if you once you acknowledge that you agree with me, yet see all the push back I'm getting, you have to agree, there's a bit of insanity happening here. And I'm not talking about the work out.
I hear and understand exactly where you are coming from FAST EDDIE , There has been very good info from a lot of posters from both sides of the same fence and actually when they are standing on the same side. My opinion and this is only my opinion and in no way is advice is that this entire thread has lost all common sense and turned into a major circle jerk !
Well if you're going to bring awesome 80s punk bands into it...
Yes. This has gone to an extreme. And that's good. Mind if I explain why? I'll do so anyway.
What's the point of saying "You could eat only Twinkies and still lose weight"? It's taking an idea to an extreme in an effort to make a point. I'm using the same tactic to make another point: It's misleading to say "a calorie is a calorie" over and over again with no other context.
Exactly !
It's like a twofer. Anyone else? Going for the hat trick. Say "HALLELUJAH" brother!0 -
Yeah, people just get caught up in semantics mostly. People confuse a calorie is a calorie with not all calories are created equal all the time.0
-
I just don't understand why people would rather have 1,500 of junk that in the end will do more harm than good to your health than eating 1,500 of tasty, healthy food that will make you a healthier human being. Why would I like to eat 1,000 at one sitting on McDonalds instead of 1,000 calories of meat, veggies, nuts, and even dessert during the day?
And forgive my english...
yea, you just don't get it..no one is saying that…
what people are trying to say is that you can eat moderately healthy and still have things like pizza, cookies, fast food, etc, and you will lose weight, hit your goals, and be in good health ...
It would seem that's what some hear when all they read is "a calorie is a calorie" and "you can lose weight eating only at McDonalds". Which is the danger in posting that again and again and again with no further explanation.
Yeah, what you just said? That's what they're saying *now*. A colossal improvement from "eat whatever you want".
I did that.
again, you miss the point. Yes, technically, you can eat whatever you want, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I always advocate the 80/20 approach..80% healthy/20% whatever you want….so I am not sure who the "they" is that you are talking about …
I believe some people use that as an example to demonstrate it really is calories in vs calories out..but I have not seen anyone provided advice that one follow that approach….
The point is that "technically" isn't very good advice. And the non stop drone of nonsense could (and obviously DID) create the wrong impression. And it's misleading to have a whole gang of people trained to say it again and again, when they know (again, obviously by posts they've made here) that there's more to it than that.
Look at what you just said. If a calorie is a calorie, why do you advocate the 80/20 approach? And what's "healthy"? I've been told again and again that "there's no bad food". Then what's the 20? And why, in the name of GOD would you take offense to anyone saying that there's more to know than "a calorie is a calorie" after they acknowledge again and again that "technically" it's accurate?
If this "gang" that you are referring to is some of the IIFYM folks around here, all they are saying is that you do not have to restrict entire food groups to lose weight, and that you can continue to eat the foods that you like and still lose weight. Rather then trying 21 day water fasts, detox jump starts, low carb, eliminate all sugar, et al….I don't see how that makes them a gang? Are the Keto people a gang too? what about the paleo/clean eating people?
I am not taking offense at anything. You are the one that seems all bent out of shape about it. I am not running around talking about "cults" and what not. It is calories in vs calories out, but at the same time no one is denying that macro nutrient composition is important from a body recomp standpoint. I agree there is no bad food, if someone wants to eat ice cream all day and stay in a deficit then more power to them. For myself, I choose to eat chicken, meat, fish, pork, fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta, etc about 80% of the time, and then I throw in pizza, ice cream, cake, cookies, whatever the other 20% of the time. That is what works for me, and that is what my advice is based on.
It's a cult. Not a gang. And NOOOOOOO. It is NOT the IIFYM people. That is the RIGHT idea. It's the "a calorie is a calorie... period" people. The ones who don't acknowledge anything like your 80/20 because all calories are exactly the same. I keep saying this, but the cult is so strong you and many others aren't hearing it. So I'll say it again. I'm not "clean" or "vegan" or "paleo" or anything. I'm drinking a glass of wine right now. I had Tyson Anytizer Buffalo Style Boneless Chicken Wingz" just a few minutes ago.
Here's the thing. I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING that is at odds with what you've been saying in the last two posts. But look how you beat me up for suggesting that a calorie is NOT a calorie. Then, what did you do when I kept pressing you on it? You whip out 80/20, which says a calorie is NOT a calorie. The first part of this thread was, literally dozens, if not a hundred posts saying "a calorie is a calorie" leaving it at that, and ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise. The irony is, the people doing the ridiculing KNOW that they're doing something like your 80/20. They've just been so conditioned to chant the cult mantra that they pile on anyone who says "um... but you shouldn't JUST eat junk". "Noooo!" they proclaim. "Why, one guy in Azerbaijan lost weight eating nothing but twice fried french fries wrapped in bacon!" Um. That is useful information for... who exactly? When all they needed to say was "Well, yeah, probably not all the time. But mixing in some treats sure makes it more likely to stick with it long term, and as long as you hit your macros and your calorie goal, there's nothing wrong with it." To which I would reply "Exactly".
You just spent all this time arguing with me - for saying that you should know something more than "a calorie is a calorie". Then you said you suggest 80/20. You totally agree with me. So why is it sacrilege to say "a calorie is a calorie" is not the end of the story? And if you once you acknowledge that you agree with me, yet see all the push back I'm getting, you have to agree, there's a bit of insanity happening here. And I'm not talking about the work out.
I hear and understand exactly where you are coming from FAST EDDIE , There has been very good info from a lot of posters from both sides of the same fence and actually when they are standing on the same side. My opinion and this is only my opinion and in no way is advice is that this entire thread has lost all common sense and turned into a major circle jerk !
Well if you're going to bring awesome 80s punk bands into it...
Yes. This has gone to an extreme. And that's good. Mind if I explain why? I'll do so anyway.
What's the point of saying "You could eat only Twinkies and still lose weight"? It's taking an idea to an extreme in an effort to make a point. I'm using the same tactic to make another point: It's misleading to say "a calorie is a calorie" over and over again with no other context.
Exactly !
It's like a twofer. Anyone else? Going for the hat trick. Say "HALLELUJAH" brother!
You actualy made your point about 25 pages ago. "HALLELUJAH"0 -
Yeah, people just get caught up in semantics mostly. People confuse a calorie is a calorie with not all calories are created equal all the time.
There's the hat trick! Sometimes it's good to be me.0 -
I just don't understand why people would rather have 1,500 of junk that in the end will do more harm than good to your health than eating 1,500 of tasty, healthy food that will make you a healthier human being. Why would I like to eat 1,000 at one sitting on McDonalds instead of 1,000 calories of meat, veggies, nuts, and even dessert during the day?
And forgive my english...
yea, you just don't get it..no one is saying that…
what people are trying to say is that you can eat moderately healthy and still have things like pizza, cookies, fast food, etc, and you will lose weight, hit your goals, and be in good health ...
It would seem that's what some hear when all they read is "a calorie is a calorie" and "you can lose weight eating only at McDonalds". Which is the danger in posting that again and again and again with no further explanation.
Yeah, what you just said? That's what they're saying *now*. A colossal improvement from "eat whatever you want".
I did that.
again, you miss the point. Yes, technically, you can eat whatever you want, be in a deficit, and lose weight. I always advocate the 80/20 approach..80% healthy/20% whatever you want….so I am not sure who the "they" is that you are talking about …
I believe some people use that as an example to demonstrate it really is calories in vs calories out..but I have not seen anyone provided advice that one follow that approach….
The point is that "technically" isn't very good advice. And the non stop drone of nonsense could (and obviously DID) create the wrong impression. And it's misleading to have a whole gang of people trained to say it again and again, when they know (again, obviously by posts they've made here) that there's more to it than that.
Look at what you just said. If a calorie is a calorie, why do you advocate the 80/20 approach? And what's "healthy"? I've been told again and again that "there's no bad food". Then what's the 20? And why, in the name of GOD would you take offense to anyone saying that there's more to know than "a calorie is a calorie" after they acknowledge again and again that "technically" it's accurate?
If this "gang" that you are referring to is some of the IIFYM folks around here, all they are saying is that you do not have to restrict entire food groups to lose weight, and that you can continue to eat the foods that you like and still lose weight. Rather then trying 21 day water fasts, detox jump starts, low carb, eliminate all sugar, et al….I don't see how that makes them a gang? Are the Keto people a gang too? what about the paleo/clean eating people?
I am not taking offense at anything. You are the one that seems all bent out of shape about it. I am not running around talking about "cults" and what not. It is calories in vs calories out, but at the same time no one is denying that macro nutrient composition is important from a body recomp standpoint. I agree there is no bad food, if someone wants to eat ice cream all day and stay in a deficit then more power to them. For myself, I choose to eat chicken, meat, fish, pork, fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta, etc about 80% of the time, and then I throw in pizza, ice cream, cake, cookies, whatever the other 20% of the time. That is what works for me, and that is what my advice is based on.
It's a cult. Not a gang. And NOOOOOOO. It is NOT the IIFYM people. That is the RIGHT idea. It's the "a calorie is a calorie... period" people. The ones who don't acknowledge anything like your 80/20 because all calories are exactly the same. I keep saying this, but the cult is so strong you and many others aren't hearing it. So I'll say it again. I'm not "clean" or "vegan" or "paleo" or anything. I'm drinking a glass of wine right now. I had Tyson Anytizer Buffalo Style Boneless Chicken Wingz" just a few minutes ago.
Here's the thing. I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING that is at odds with what you've been saying in the last two posts. But look how you beat me up for suggesting that a calorie is NOT a calorie. Then, what did you do when I kept pressing you on it? You whip out 80/20, which says a calorie is NOT a calorie. The first part of this thread was, literally dozens, if not a hundred posts saying "a calorie is a calorie" leaving it at that, and ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise. The irony is, the people doing the ridiculing KNOW that they're doing something like your 80/20. They've just been so conditioned to chant the cult mantra that they pile on anyone who says "um... but you shouldn't JUST eat junk". "Noooo!" they proclaim. "Why, one guy in Azerbaijan lost weight eating nothing but twice fried french fries wrapped in bacon!" Um. That is useful information for... who exactly? When all they needed to say was "Well, yeah, probably not all the time. But mixing in some treats sure makes it more likely to stick with it long term, and as long as you hit your macros and your calorie goal, there's nothing wrong with it." To which I would reply "Exactly".
You just spent all this time arguing with me - for saying that you should know something more than "a calorie is a calorie". Then you said you suggest 80/20. You totally agree with me. So why is it sacrilege to say "a calorie is a calorie" is not the end of the story? And if you once you acknowledge that you agree with me, yet see all the push back I'm getting, you have to agree, there's a bit of insanity happening here. And I'm not talking about the work out.
I hear and understand exactly where you are coming from FAST EDDIE , There has been very good info from a lot of posters from both sides of the same fence and actually when they are standing on the same side. My opinion and this is only my opinion and in no way is advice is that this entire thread has lost all common sense and turned into a major circle jerk !
Well if you're going to bring awesome 80s punk bands into it...
Yes. This has gone to an extreme. And that's good. Mind if I explain why? I'll do so anyway.
What's the point of saying "You could eat only Twinkies and still lose weight"? It's taking an idea to an extreme in an effort to make a point. I'm using the same tactic to make another point: It's misleading to say "a calorie is a calorie" over and over again with no other context.
Exactly !
It's like a twofer. Anyone else? Going for the hat trick. Say "HALLELUJAH" brother!
You actualy made your point about 25 pages ago. "HALLELUJAH"
Meh. I was on a roll.0 -
lol...Yeah, people just get caught up in semantics mostly. People confuse a calorie is a calorie with not all calories are created equal all the time.
There's the hat trick! Sometimes it's good to be me.0 -
So much bro-love in this thread now.
When y'all start kissing, post pics.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions