A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE
Replies
-
Soooo in for this one... Because we didn't have enough of these floating around already.
A calorie is not a calorie? So does that mean an inch is not an inch? And a mile is not a mile? Well dammit to hell. Nothing in my life makes sense anymore... :grumble:
A calorie IS a calorie. It's an energy measurement unit. If you are going to argue that "clean eating" is what matters.. you might want to get the title of the topic right.
Yes, if you're speaking in pure chemical/physics terms, that's correct. But if you're speaking in how affects weight loss, metabolism, bodily function and composition. Presumably, since this is a fitness website and we're discussing the latter and not the former, so that's what really matters.
Please stop with all the strawman arguments and red herrings.0 -
Soooo in for this one... Because we didn't have enough of these floating around already.
A calorie is not a calorie? So does that mean an inch is not an inch? And a mile is not a mile? Well dammit to hell. Nothing in my life makes sense anymore... :grumble:
A calorie IS a calorie. It's an energy measurement unit. If you are going to argue that "clean eating" is what matters.. you might want to get the title of the topic right.
Yes, if you're speaking in pure chemical/physics terms, that's correct. But if you're speaking in how affects weight loss, metabolism, bodily function and composition. Presumably, since this is a fitness website and we're discussing the latter and not the former, so that's what really matters.
Please stop with all the strawman arguments and red herrings.
considering that many of the people you're arguing with eat a fairly "regular" non-clean diet, count calories, watch macros, exercise and lift, and are fit, healthy and at goal, it's unlikely you are going to convince us that what we're doing doesn't work. What evidence do you have that what you're arguing for is more effective than what we're currently doing?0 -
So now you are talking about the amount of weight lost not just weight.....which is a different topic...please stay on topic.
it doesn't matter if you eat in a deficet of maintenance calories you lose weight...if you eat an excess you gain, the quality of the calories have no bearing on the weight loss...that is science.
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 2500 in good quality foods you will gain....
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 2500 in non "quality" foods you will gain...
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 1500 in non "quality" foods you will lose....
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 1500 in good "quality" foods you will lose....
ETA: I did agree that the quality affects muscle vs fat loss...are you now disagreeing with that?:bigsmile:
Yes, of course. Aren't people really trying to lose fat, not muscle?
As I said, if you're just taking a binary view on whether weight loss will happen or not, it doesn't matter. But, if you're taking about FAT loss, the type of weight loss (i.e. fat vs. muscle) or the AMOUNT of weight loss, it does matter. And generally, people are way more concerned with those issues than just the yes/no binary situation you posit.
Pretending it's not that way is a dangerous oversimplification and hurts people's weight loss/fat loss efforts.0 -
Soooo in for this one... Because we didn't have enough of these floating around already.
A calorie is not a calorie? So does that mean an inch is not an inch? And a mile is not a mile? Well dammit to hell. Nothing in my life makes sense anymore... :grumble:
A calorie IS a calorie. It's an energy measurement unit. If you are going to argue that "clean eating" is what matters.. you might want to get the title of the topic right.
Yes, if you're speaking in pure chemical/physics terms, that's correct. But if you're speaking in how affects weight loss, metabolism, bodily function and composition. Presumably, since this is a fitness website and we're discussing the latter and not the former, so that's what really matters.
Please stop with all the strawman arguments and red herrings.
no instead change it from weight loss to the amount of weight loss to prove a point that doesn't need proved because it is wrong and has been shown to be wrong based on the original op article referenced from Harvard, along with numerous other studies.0 -
Yes, if you're speaking in pure chemical/physics terms, that's correct. But if you're speaking in how affects weight loss, metabolism, bodily function and composition. Presumably, since this is a fitness website and we're discussing the latter and not the former, so that's what really matters.
Please stop with all the strawman arguments and red herrings.
considering that many of the people you're arguing with eat a fairly "regular" non-clean diet, count calories, watch macros, exercise and lift, and are fit, healthy and at goal, it's unlikely you are going to convince us that what we're doing doesn't work. What evidence do you have that what you're arguing for is more effective than what we're currently doing?
First off, you haven't even asked what I do. I'm simply arguing the biological fact that not all calories are treated the same or result in the same effect.
If you want to talk about something more than that, I'm game for it and can explain what I do and why it works for me. But, what will work for someone else may vary greatly as they have different factors at play. That's why it's not such a simple premise as calories in and calories out, as much as many of us wish it were.0 -
So now you are talking about the amount of weight lost not just weight.....which is a different topic...please stay on topic.
it doesn't matter if you eat in a deficet of maintenance calories you lose weight...if you eat an excess you gain, the quality of the calories have no bearing on the weight loss...that is science.
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 2500 in good quality foods you will gain....
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 2500 in non "quality" foods you will gain...
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 1500 in non "quality" foods you will lose....
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 1500 in good "quality" foods you will lose....
ETA: I did agree that the quality affects muscle vs fat loss...are you now disagreeing with that?:bigsmile:
Yes, of course. Aren't people really trying to lose fat, not muscle?
As I said, if you're just taking a binary view on whether weight loss will happen or not, it doesn't matter. But, if you're taking about FAT loss, the type of weight loss (i.e. fat vs. muscle) or the AMOUNT of weight loss, it does matter. And generally, people are way more concerned with those issues than just the yes/no binary situation you posit.
Pretending it's not that way is a dangerous oversimplification and hurts people's weight loss/fat loss efforts.
That's where you slip up...we aren't talking about fat loss we are talking about weight loss...and for that quanity is what counts.
Most people want the number on the scale to go down...they don't care what they lose to get that number smaller.
There is however a percentage of the population that cares about maintaining muscle mass and those are the ones that realize they have to be in a deficet of maintenance and care about what they are eating to hit their macros...
But I will say that might be 25% of the people who want to lose weight.0 -
no instead change it from weight loss to the amount of weight loss to prove a point that doesn't need proved because it is wrong and has been shown to be wrong based on the original op article referenced from Harvard, along with numerous other studies.
You're simply wrong on this one, Steph. We can discuss the various biological processes if you want or studies that show that different calories affect the body differently -- the protein one I referenced earlier is an easy example. If protein amount didn't matter then it would have no effect on maintaining or minimizing LBM loss in a deficit, but it does. You can't have it both ways.0 -
Yes, if you're speaking in pure chemical/physics terms, that's correct. But if you're speaking in how affects weight loss, metabolism, bodily function and composition. Presumably, since this is a fitness website and we're discussing the latter and not the former, so that's what really matters.
Please stop with all the strawman arguments and red herrings.
considering that many of the people you're arguing with eat a fairly "regular" non-clean diet, count calories, watch macros, exercise and lift, and are fit, healthy and at goal, it's unlikely you are going to convince us that what we're doing doesn't work. What evidence do you have that what you're arguing for is more effective than what we're currently doing?
First off, you haven't even asked what I do. I'm simply arguing the biological fact that not all calories are treated the same or result in the same effect.
If you want to talk about something more than that, I'm game for it and can explain what I do and why it works for me. But, what will work for someone else may vary greatly as they have different factors at play. That's why it's not such a simple premise as calories in and calories out, as much as many of us wish it were.
you eat primal/paleo...we know that...
and as ndj said this OP was about calories not mattering for weight loss ...not the biological effect they have...0 -
Soooo in for this one... Because we didn't have enough of these floating around already.
A calorie is not a calorie? So does that mean an inch is not an inch? And a mile is not a mile? Well dammit to hell. Nothing in my life makes sense anymore... :grumble:
A calorie IS a calorie. It's an energy measurement unit. If you are going to argue that "clean eating" is what matters.. you might want to get the title of the topic right.
Yes, if you're speaking in pure chemical/physics terms, that's correct. But if you're speaking in how affects weight loss, metabolism, bodily function and composition. Presumably, since this is a fitness website and we're discussing the latter and not the former, so that's what really matters.
Please stop with all the strawman arguments and red herrings.
Except that I actually DO look at calories as a simple measurement.
I actually DO look at JUST THAT to determine my weight loss / maintenance.
I look at macro and micro nutrients separately, actually, even though on MFP they share a screen.
The macro & micro aren't measured in calories. They're measured in mg or however applicable.
I like to track protein, carbohydrates, micronutrients, etc. for health, but not for weight management.0 -
considering that many of the people you're arguing with eat a fairly "regular" non-clean diet, count calories, watch macros, exercise and lift, and are fit, healthy and at goal, it's unlikely you are going to convince us that what we're doing doesn't work. What evidence do you have that what you're arguing for is more effective than what we're currently doing?
First off, you haven't even asked what I do. I'm simply arguing the biological fact that not all calories are treated the same or result in the same effect.
If you want to talk about something more than that, I'm game for it and can explain what I do and why it works for me. But, what will work for someone else may vary greatly as they have different factors at play. That's why it's not such a simple premise as calories in and calories out, as much as many of us wish it were.
[/quote]
That's kind of why you're running into trouble here. you're basically arguing without any definition of your own argument. the basic premise of weight loss is CI/CO. If people want to lose weight, they need to start with a calorie deficit. In order to be successful in the long run, they need to do that without trying to make themselves feel deprived, which leads to failure the majority of the time. Therefore, eating at a calorie deficit is the most important first step.0 -
no instead change it from weight loss to the amount of weight loss to prove a point that doesn't need proved because it is wrong and has been shown to be wrong based on the original op article referenced from Harvard, along with numerous other studies.
You're simply wrong on this one, Steph. We can discuss the various biological processes if you want or studies that show that different calories affect the body differently -- the protein one I referenced earlier is an easy example. If protein amount didn't matter then it would have no effect on maintaining or minimizing LBM loss in a deficit, but it does. You can't have it both ways.
*shakes head*
You are going in your own little circle and not digesting what you are reading....
you can't argue that the quantity of calories does not mater for weight loss...
The op wasn't about hitting macros is was about the fact that it's quality over quantity for weight loss...period...nothing more..nothing less.0 -
That's where you slip up...we aren't talking about fat loss we are talking about weight loss...and for that quanity is what counts.
Most people want the number on the scale to go down...they don't care what they lose to get that number smaller.
There is however a percentage of the population that cares about maintaining muscle mass and those are the ones that realize they have to be in a deficet of maintenance and care about what they are eating to hit their macros...
But I will say that might be 25% of the people who want to lose weight.
Quantity matters in both. I'm not advocating that quantity doesn't matter. I'm simply advocating that quality ALSO matters.
And that quality will affect how much you weight you lose and how quickly. The more muscle you lose, the quicker the scale will go down. However, that usually is not a good overall strategy as losing muscle results in a slower metabolism and higher fat percentage -- the "skinny fat" phenomenon.
Folks that lose more fat will likely see better results in the mirror soon but the scale will go down slower and they may end up weighing more than they envisioned because the same volume of muscle weighs more than the same volume of fat.
Many do just focus on the numbers and plenty of people (including you I believe) try to refocus them because the scale isn't the best measure for such things.0 -
So now you are talking about the amount of weight lost not just weight.....which is a different topic...please stay on topic.
it doesn't matter if you eat in a deficet of maintenance calories you lose weight...if you eat an excess you gain, the quality of the calories have no bearing on the weight loss...that is science.
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 2500 in good quality foods you will gain....
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 2500 in non "quality" foods you will gain...
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 1500 in non "quality" foods you will lose....
If maintenance is 2000 calories and you eat 1500 in good "quality" foods you will lose....
ETA: I did agree that the quality affects muscle vs fat loss...are you now disagreeing with that?:bigsmile:
Yes, of course. Aren't people really trying to lose fat, not muscle?
As I said, if you're just taking a binary view on whether weight loss will happen or not, it doesn't matter. But, if you're taking about FAT loss, the type of weight loss (i.e. fat vs. muscle) or the AMOUNT of weight loss, it does matter. And generally, people are way more concerned with those issues than just the yes/no binary situation you posit.
Pretending it's not that way is a dangerous oversimplification and hurts people's weight loss/fat loss efforts.
That's where you slip up...we aren't talking about fat loss we are talking about weight loss...and for that quanity is what counts.
Most people want the number on the scale to go down...they don't care what they lose to get that number smaller.
There is however a percentage of the population that cares about maintaining muscle mass and those are the ones that realize they have to be in a deficet of maintenance and care about what they are eating to hit their macros...
But I will say that might be 25% of the people who want to lose weight.
Even then, all you have to do is
1) get a decent amount of protein and fat, which is not terribly hard if you live in America and
2) stay in a deficit
3) while doing some sort of resistance exercise.
You don't have to "eat clean" or avoid banana or drink green smoothies or eliminate bread or "white foods" or go low carb or low fat or never touch anything "processed". You just need to meet a minimum allotment of protein and fat and move your butt while losing weight.0 -
That's where you slip up...we aren't talking about fat loss we are talking about weight loss...and for that quanity is what counts.
Most people want the number on the scale to go down...they don't care what they lose to get that number smaller.
There is however a percentage of the population that cares about maintaining muscle mass and those are the ones that realize they have to be in a deficet of maintenance and care about what they are eating to hit their macros...
But I will say that might be 25% of the people who want to lose weight.
Quantity matters in both. I'm not advocating that quantity doesn't matter. I'm simply advocating that quality ALSO matters.
And that quality will affect how much you weight you lose and how quickly. The more muscle you lose, the quicker the scale will go down. However, that usually is not a good overall strategy as losing muscle results in a slower metabolism and higher fat percentage -- the "skinny fat" phenomenon.
Folks that lose more fat will likely see better results in the mirror soon but the scale will go down slower and they may end up weighing more than they envisioned because the same volume of muscle weighs more than the same volume of fat.
Many do just focus on the numbers and plenty of people (including you I believe) try to refocus them because the scale isn't the best measure for such things.
and that is not what the OP was about so as NDJ said start your own thread.
Quality of calories does not matter in weight loss...only quantity.
Quality matters in the type of weight you lose not the amount.0 -
That's where you slip up...we aren't talking about fat loss we are talking about weight loss...and for that quanity is what counts.
Most people want the number on the scale to go down...they don't care what they lose to get that number smaller.
There is however a percentage of the population that cares about maintaining muscle mass and those are the ones that realize they have to be in a deficet of maintenance and care about what they are eating to hit their macros...
But I will say that might be 25% of the people who want to lose weight.
Quantity matters in both. I'm not advocating that quantity doesn't matter. I'm simply advocating that quality ALSO matters.
And that quality will affect how much you weight you lose and how quickly. The more muscle you lose, the quicker the scale will go down. However, that usually is not a good overall strategy as losing muscle results in a slower metabolism and higher fat percentage -- the "skinny fat" phenomenon.
Folks that lose more fat will likely see better results in the mirror soon but the scale will go down slower and they may end up weighing more than they envisioned because the same volume of muscle weighs more than the same volume of fat.
Many do just focus on the numbers and plenty of people (including you I believe) try to refocus them because the scale isn't the best measure for such things.
sigh.
"Skinny fat" happens when people are in too aggressive a calorie deficit, not from "bad" calories. People whose muscles atrophy from lack of use get "skinny fat". People who starve themselves and their bodies use too much muscle as fuel get "skinny fat".0 -
For weight loss: calories in < calories out
For body composition: get enough protein and lift heavy
For overall health: get enough micronutrients
For your sanity: don't eliminate a whole group of foods for no medical reason
Now these are words to live by!
I agree!
Can we pin this somewhere?0 -
For weight loss: calories in < calories out
For body composition: get enough protein and lift heavy
For overall health: get enough micronutrients
For your sanity: don't eliminate a whole group of foods for no medical reason
Now these are words to live by!
I agree!
Can we pin this somewhere?
agreed...I can think of a few places we could start with....:devil: :devil: :devil:0 -
Skinny fat from "bad" calories. LOL just LOLThat's where you slip up...we aren't talking about fat loss we are talking about weight loss...and for that quanity is what counts.
Most people want the number on the scale to go down...they don't care what they lose to get that number smaller.
There is however a percentage of the population that cares about maintaining muscle mass and those are the ones that realize they have to be in a deficet of maintenance and care about what they are eating to hit their macros...
But I will say that might be 25% of the people who want to lose weight.
Quantity matters in both. I'm not advocating that quantity doesn't matter. I'm simply advocating that quality ALSO matters.
And that quality will affect how much you weight you lose and how quickly. The more muscle you lose, the quicker the scale will go down. However, that usually is not a good overall strategy as losing muscle results in a slower metabolism and higher fat percentage -- the "skinny fat" phenomenon.
Folks that lose more fat will likely see better results in the mirror soon but the scale will go down slower and they may end up weighing more than they envisioned because the same volume of muscle weighs more than the same volume of fat.
Many do just focus on the numbers and plenty of people (including you I believe) try to refocus them because the scale isn't the best measure for such things.
sigh.
"Skinny fat" happens when people are in too aggressive a calorie deficit, not from "bad" calories. People whose muscles atrophy from lack of use get "skinny fat". People who starve themselves and their bodies use too much muscle as fuel get "skinny fat".0 -
That's where you slip up...we aren't talking about fat loss we are talking about weight loss...and for that quanity is what counts.
Most people want the number on the scale to go down...they don't care what they lose to get that number smaller.
There is however a percentage of the population that cares about maintaining muscle mass and those are the ones that realize they have to be in a deficet of maintenance and care about what they are eating to hit their macros...
But I will say that might be 25% of the people who want to lose weight.
Quantity matters in both. I'm not advocating that quantity doesn't matter. I'm simply advocating that quality ALSO matters.
And that quality will affect how much you weight you lose and how quickly. The more muscle you lose, the quicker the scale will go down. However, that usually is not a good overall strategy as losing muscle results in a slower metabolism and higher fat percentage -- the "skinny fat" phenomenon.
Folks that lose more fat will likely see better results in the mirror soon but the scale will go down slower and they may end up weighing more than they envisioned because the same volume of muscle weighs more than the same volume of fat.
Many do just focus on the numbers and plenty of people (including you I believe) try to refocus them because the scale isn't the best measure for such things.
once again you faill to realize that original OP was that Quality trumps Quantity ...
there was no other discussion of macros in the OP ....did you even read it?
Again, you get an A+ for thread derailment.0 -
Even then, all you have to do is
1) get a decent amount of protein and fat, which is not terribly hard if you live in America and
2) stay in a deficit
3) while doing some sort of resistance exercise.
You don't have to "eat clean" or avoid banana or drink green smoothies or eliminate bread or "white foods" or go low carb or low fat or never touch anything "processed". You just need to meet a minimum allotment of protein and fat and move your butt while losing weight.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you there. But the fact that even you emphasize protein and fat amounts underlines the whole idea that not all calories are created equal.
I think some can benefit from certain restrictions and some won't (it will be all the same for them) -- I'd love to be in the latter group, but I'm not. So, that's a separate debate and I think there are legitimate reasons for both and vary according to the individual -- neither path is the best path for ALL people.0 -
sigh.
"Skinny fat" happens when people are in too aggressive a calorie deficit, not from "bad" calories. People whose muscles atrophy from lack of use get "skinny fat". People who starve themselves and their bodies use too much muscle as fuel get "skinny fat".
Partly true. It happens when people lose too much muscle in a caloric deficit, usually because they're too focused on the numbers on the scale. There are different reasons that happens. And it is affected by the type of calories you eat, as well as the quantity.0 -
After reading this thread, I'm eating 10 peanut M&Ms instead of 2 cups of cantaloupe. Damn if I know which one is better.0
-
sigh.
"Skinny fat" happens when people are in too aggressive a calorie deficit, not from "bad" calories. People whose muscles atrophy from lack of use get "skinny fat". People who starve themselves and their bodies use too much muscle as fuel get "skinny fat".
Partly true. It happens when people lose too much muscle in a caloric deficit, usually because they're too focused on the numbers on the scale. There are different reasons that happens. And it is affected by the type of calories you eat, as well as the quantity.
No, it's not. Which is entirely why every doctor will tell you to keep weight loss to 1-2 lbs per week, to avoid muscle loss. It doesn't matter the food source, just the calorie deficit.0 -
Even then, all you have to do is
1) get a decent amount of protein and fat, which is not terribly hard if you live in America and
2) stay in a deficit
3) while doing some sort of resistance exercise.
You don't have to "eat clean" or avoid banana or drink green smoothies or eliminate bread or "white foods" or go low carb or low fat or never touch anything "processed". You just need to meet a minimum allotment of protein and fat and move your butt while losing weight.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you there. But the fact that even you emphasize protein and fat amounts underlines the whole idea that not all calories are created equal.
I think some can benefit from certain restrictions and some won't (it will be all the same for them) -- I'd love to be in the latter group, but I'm not. So, that's a separate debate and I think there are legitimate reasons for both and vary according to the individual -- neither path is the best path for ALL people.
calorie deficit works for everyone, period.
barring some kind of medical condition...and even, then you still have to be on the negative side of energy balance to lose.0 -
^ This.Soooo in for this one... Because we didn't have enough of these floating around already.
A calorie is not a calorie? So does that mean an inch is not an inch? And a mile is not a mile? Well dammit to hell. Nothing in my life makes sense anymore... :grumble:
A calorie IS a calorie. It's an energy measurement unit. If you are going to argue that "clean eating" is what matters.. you might want to get the title of the topic right.
Yes, if you're speaking in pure chemical/physics terms, that's correct. But if you're speaking in how affects weight loss, metabolism, bodily function and composition. Presumably, since this is a fitness website and we're discussing the latter and not the former, so that's what really matters.
Please stop with all the strawman arguments and red herrings.
considering that many of the people you're arguing with eat a fairly "regular" non-clean diet, count calories, watch macros, exercise and lift, and are fit, healthy and at goal, it's unlikely you are going to convince us that what we're doing doesn't work. What evidence do you have that what you're arguing for is more effective than what we're currently doing?0 -
I'm going to MELT the M&Ms....and then have chocolate-covered cantaloupe.After reading this thread, I'm eating 10 peanut M&Ms instead of 2 cups of cantaloupe. Damn if I know which one is better.
0 -
After reading this thread, I'm eating 10 peanut M&Ms instead of 2 cups of cantaloupe. Damn if I know which one is better.
eat both, just keep them in your total calorie deficit for the day. Well-rounded is the way to go. As long as you enjoy.0 -
sigh.
"Skinny fat" happens when people are in too aggressive a calorie deficit, not from "bad" calories. People whose muscles atrophy from lack of use get "skinny fat". People who starve themselves and their bodies use too much muscle as fuel get "skinny fat".
Partly true. It happens when people lose too much muscle in a caloric deficit, usually because they're too focused on the numbers on the scale. There are different reasons that happens. And it is affected by the type of calories you eat, as well as the quantity.
No, it's not. Which is entirely why every doctor will tell you to keep weight loss to 1-2 lbs per week, to avoid muscle loss. It doesn't matter the food source, just the calorie deficit.
exactly this.
In fact, the people to whom I am referring often don't pay any attention to a scale at all.0 -
once again you feel to realize that original OP was that Quality trumps Quantity ...
there was no other discussion of macros in the OP ....did you even read it?
Again, you get an A+ for thread derailment.
I didn't read it that way. The title of the thread is "A Calorie is Not a Calorie" and then she said:This is not something that some people don't like to hear and we are hearing it again and again. For the large percentage of people who do like to hear it, here it is from HARVARD HEALTH.
LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/best-diet-quality-counts/
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity
You interpret that whole "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality." as trumping. I don't. I read the study and it was showing that quality matters also --- once again, not an either/or scenario, but a both/and.
But people like you are just as guilty of the OP of taking a certain premise and then using it as proof for a further extrapolation, which doesn't hold up. Some said the type of calories (i.e quality) doesn't matter -- that it's only about quantity. And that's what I've been challenging. Exactly, on point.0 -
After reading this thread, I'm eating 10 peanut M&Ms instead of 2 cups of cantaloupe. Damn if I know which one is better.
if it is just cantaloupe go for the M&M's
if it is prosciutto wrapped in cantaloupe then go for that..0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions