A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE
Options
Replies
-
I don't understand why this has to be an "either or" argument. Why can't it be a "both and" argument?
Those that think that the content of calories doesn't affect metabolism and fat/muscle loss are simply incorrect. You may lose weight in a caloric deficit, but the type of weight you lose (i.e. muscle vs. fat) is definitely affected by the content of your calories and many different factors in any given individual (body type, natural propensity to build muscle, hormone levels, sensitivity to carbs, etc.). For example, it has been shown that one way to minimize LBM loss while in a caloric deficit is to eat a certain amount of protein. If all calories were created equal, this wouldn't matter. But, it does. So, although "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is nice for its simplicity and definitely gets the message across that quantity of calories does matter, it's simply incorrect as pertains to metabolism, body composition, fat/muscle loss and health. And, really, isn't that what we're truly interested in?
Same goes for exercise. Burning 200 calories running, walking or weight lifting is going to have seriously different effects on your body. Just burning calories isn't the end all be all. It's important but so is how you choose to do it. It won't result in the same weight loss as it affects how much muscle vs. fat is metabolized -- and the more muscle you lose vs. fat, the more weight you will lose as a lb of fat metabolizes 3500 calories and a lb of muscle releases considerably fewer (somewhere in the 600-1500 calorie range). So if you're losing a higher percentage of fat, the scale will go down more slowly compared with someone that is losing more muscle.
That being said, it's not a reason to swing 100% the other way either -- restricting a whole bunch of foods unnecessarily. Some restrict for different reasons -- whether medical or based on burgeoning evidence of certain food groups having different effects on the body (obviously, this research is far from definitive and there are many that disagree with it).
However, BOTH quantity of calories AND quality of calories makes a difference in weight loss, fat vs. muscle catabolism, micro nutrient, metabolic response and over all health. To pretend that it doesn't is willful ignorance.
Let the flaming begin.
^^^^^ this
0 -
I don't understand why this has to be an "either or" argument. Why can't it be a "both and" argument?
Those that think that the content of calories doesn't affect metabolism and fat/muscle loss are simply incorrect. You may lose weight in a caloric deficit, but the type of weight you lose (i.e. muscle vs. fat) is definitely affected by the content of your calories and many different factors in any given individual (body type, natural propensity to build muscle, hormone levels, sensitivity to carbs, etc.). For example, it has been shown that one way to minimize LBM loss while in a caloric deficit is to eat a certain amount of protein. If all calories were created equal, this wouldn't matter. But, it does. So, although "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is nice for its simplicity and definitely gets the message across that quantity of calories does matter, it's simply incorrect as pertains to metabolism, body composition, fat/muscle loss and health. And, really, isn't that what we're truly interested in?
Same goes for exercise. Burning 200 calories running, walking or weight lifting is going to have seriously different effects on your body. Just burning calories isn't the end all be all. It's important but so is how you choose to do it. It won't result in the same weight loss as it affects how much muscle vs. fat is metabolized -- and the more muscle you lose vs. fat, the more weight you will lose as a lb of fat metabolizes 3500 calories and a lb of muscle releases considerably fewer (somewhere in the 600-1500 calorie range). So if you're losing a higher percentage of fat, the scale will go down more slowly compared with someone that is losing more muscle.
That being said, it's not a reason to swing 100% the other way either -- restricting a whole bunch of foods unnecessarily. Some restrict for different reasons -- whether medical or based on burgeoning evidence of certain food groups having different effects on the body (obviously, this research is far from definitive and there are many that disagree with it).
However, BOTH quantity of calories AND quality of calories makes a difference in weight loss, fat vs. muscle catabolism, micro nutrient, metabolic response and over all health. To pretend that it doesn't is willful ignorance.
Let the flaming begin.
way to brand everyone who disagrees with you as ignorant...
great start...
ETA - OP's post was specifically referring to a study (which did not even back up her claim) that it is not about calories in vs calories out but about calorie "quality"....which I suppose means you can disregard the whole calories in vs calories out energy balance and just eat "quality" calories and you will lose...so I eat 1000 calories over maintenance of "quality" calories I can still lose weight...
You then somehow went off a tangent about an "either or" argument that has nothing to do with the original post..
but good attempt at derailing the thread to what you want to talk about..0 -
I don't understand why this has to be an "either or" argument. Why can't it be a "both and" argument?
Those that think that the content of calories doesn't affect metabolism and fat/muscle loss are simply incorrect. You may lose weight in a caloric deficit, but the type of weight you lose (i.e. muscle vs. fat) is definitely affected by the content of your calories and many different factors in any given individual (body type, natural propensity to build muscle, hormone levels, sensitivity to carbs, etc.). For example, it has been shown that one way to minimize LBM loss while in a caloric deficit is to eat a certain amount of protein. If all calories were created equal, this wouldn't matter. But, it does. So, although "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is nice for its simplicity and definitely gets the message across that quantity of calories does matter, it's simply incorrect as pertains to metabolism, body composition, fat/muscle loss and health. And, really, isn't that what we're truly interested in?
Same goes for exercise. Burning 200 calories running, walking or weight lifting is going to have seriously different effects on your body. Just burning calories isn't the end all be all. It's important but so is how you choose to do it. It won't result in the same weight loss as it affects how much muscle vs. fat is metabolized -- and the more muscle you lose vs. fat, the more weight you will lose as a lb of fat metabolizes 3500 calories and a lb of muscle releases considerably fewer (somewhere in the 600-1500 calorie range). So if you're losing a higher percentage of fat, the scale will go down more slowly compared with someone that is losing more muscle.
That being said, it's not a reason to swing 100% the other way either -- restricting a whole bunch of foods unnecessarily. Some restrict for different reasons -- whether medical or based on burgeoning evidence of certain food groups having different effects on the body (obviously, this research is far from definitive and there are many that disagree with it).
However, BOTH quantity of calories AND quality of calories makes a difference in weight loss, fat vs. muscle catabolism, micro nutrient, metabolic response and over all health. To pretend that it doesn't is willful ignorance.
Let the flaming begin.
way to brand everyone who disagrees with you as ignorant...
great start...
ETA - OP's post was specifically referring to a study (which did not even back up her claim) that it is not about calories in vs calories out but about calorie "quality"....which I suppose means you can disregard the whole calories in vs calories out energy balance and just eat "quality" calories and you will lose...so I eat 1000 calories over maintenance of "quality" calories I can still lose weight...
You then somehow went off a tangent about an "either or" argument that has nothing to do with the original post..
but good attempt at derailing the thread to what you want to talk about..
It is ignorance. Period. This isn't actually an area of legitimate debate. How those different calories affect those areas -- now that is up for debate. But to state that there is literally no difference is incorrect.
The point is that the OP is correct, in part, as are others correct, in part. But, both ends of the spectrum (i.e. only quality matters vs. only quantity matters) are wrong. They're both important and affect the overall equation.
It would be better if people just acknowledged that than rather trying to extrapolate to non-sense like you said with ignoring the whole calorie in calorie out equation. That too would be incorrect.0 -
I don't understand why this has to be an "either or" argument. Why can't it be a "both and" argument?
Those that think that the content of calories doesn't affect metabolism and fat/muscle loss are simply incorrect. You may lose weight in a caloric deficit, but the type of weight you lose (i.e. muscle vs. fat) is definitely affected by the content of your calories and many different factors in any given individual (body type, natural propensity to build muscle, hormone levels, sensitivity to carbs, etc.). For example, it has been shown that one way to minimize LBM loss while in a caloric deficit is to eat a certain amount of protein. If all calories were created equal, this wouldn't matter. But, it does. So, although "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is nice for its simplicity and definitely gets the message across that quantity of calories does matter, it's simply incorrect as pertains to metabolism, body composition, fat/muscle loss and health. And, really, isn't that what we're truly interested in?
Same goes for exercise. Burning 200 calories running, walking or weight lifting is going to have seriously different effects on your body. Just burning calories isn't the end all be all. It's important but so is how you choose to do it. It won't result in the same weight loss as it affects how much muscle vs. fat is metabolized -- and the more muscle you lose vs. fat, the more weight you will lose as a lb of fat metabolizes 3500 calories and a lb of muscle releases considerably fewer (somewhere in the 600-1500 calorie range). So if you're losing a higher percentage of fat, the scale will go down more slowly compared with someone that is losing more muscle.
That being said, it's not a reason to swing 100% the other way either -- restricting a whole bunch of foods unnecessarily. Some restrict for different reasons -- whether medical or based on burgeoning evidence of certain food groups having different effects on the body (obviously, this research is far from definitive and there are many that disagree with it).
However, BOTH quantity of calories AND quality of calories makes a difference in weight loss, fat vs. muscle catabolism, micro nutrient, metabolic response and over all health. To pretend that it doesn't is willful ignorance.
Let the flaming begin.
way to brand everyone who disagrees with you as ignorant...
great start...
ETA - OP's post was specifically referring to a study (which did not even back up her claim) that it is not about calories in vs calories out but about calorie "quality"....which I suppose means you can disregard the whole calories in vs calories out energy balance and just eat "quality" calories and you will lose...so I eat 1000 calories over maintenance of "quality" calories I can still lose weight...
You then somehow went off a tangent about an "either or" argument that has nothing to do with the original post..
but good attempt at derailing the thread to what you want to talk about..
It is ignorance. Period. This isn't actually an area of legitimate debate. How those different calories affect those areas -- now that is up for debate. But to state that there is literally no difference is incorrect.
The point is that the OP is correct, in part, as are others correct, in part. But, both ends of the spectrum (i.e. only quality matters vs. only quantity matters) are wrong. They're both important and affect the overall equation.
It would be better if people just acknowledged that than rather trying to extrapolate to non-sense like you said with ignoring the whole calorie in calorie out equation. That too would be incorrect.
then start a new thread about your "thoughts on calories" but please don't derail this one...0 -
I don't understand why this has to be an "either or" argument. Why can't it be a "both and" argument?
Those that think that the content of calories doesn't affect metabolism and fat/muscle loss are simply incorrect. You may lose weight in a caloric deficit, but the type of weight you lose (i.e. muscle vs. fat) is definitely affected by the content of your calories and many different factors in any given individual (body type, natural propensity to build muscle, hormone levels, sensitivity to carbs, etc.). For example, it has been shown that one way to minimize LBM loss while in a caloric deficit is to eat a certain amount of protein. If all calories were created equal, this wouldn't matter. But, it does. So, although "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is nice for its simplicity and definitely gets the message across that quantity of calories does matter, it's simply incorrect as pertains to metabolism, body composition, fat/muscle loss and health. And, really, isn't that what we're truly interested in?
Same goes for exercise. Burning 200 calories running, walking or weight lifting is going to have seriously different effects on your body. Just burning calories isn't the end all be all. It's important but so is how you choose to do it. It won't result in the same weight loss as it affects how much muscle vs. fat is metabolized -- and the more muscle you lose vs. fat, the more weight you will lose as a lb of fat metabolizes 3500 calories and a lb of muscle releases considerably fewer (somewhere in the 600-1500 calorie range). So if you're losing a higher percentage of fat, the scale will go down more slowly compared with someone that is losing more muscle.
That being said, it's not a reason to swing 100% the other way either -- restricting a whole bunch of foods unnecessarily. Some restrict for different reasons -- whether medical or based on burgeoning evidence of certain food groups having different effects on the body (obviously, this research is far from definitive and there are many that disagree with it).
However, BOTH quantity of calories AND quality of calories makes a difference in weight loss, fat vs. muscle catabolism, micro nutrient, metabolic response and over all health. To pretend that it doesn't is willful ignorance.
Let the flaming begin.
way to brand everyone who disagrees with you as ignorant...
great start...
ETA - OP's post was specifically referring to a study (which did not even back up her claim) that it is not about calories in vs calories out but about calorie "quality"....which I suppose means you can disregard the whole calories in vs calories out energy balance and just eat "quality" calories and you will lose...so I eat 1000 calories over maintenance of "quality" calories I can still lose weight...
You then somehow went off a tangent about an "either or" argument that has nothing to do with the original post..
but good attempt at derailing the thread to what you want to talk about..
It is ignorance. Period. This isn't actually an area of legitimate debate. How those different calories affect those areas -- now that is up for debate. But to state that there is literally no difference is incorrect.
The point is that the OP is correct, in part, as are others correct, in part. But, both ends of the spectrum (i.e. only quality matters vs. only quantity matters) are wrong. They're both important and affect the overall equation.
It would be better if people just acknowledged that than rather trying to extrapolate to non-sense like you said with ignoring the whole calorie in calorie out equation. That too would be incorrect.
then start a new thread about your "thoughts on calories" but please don't derail this one...
x10 -
It is ignorance. Period. This isn't actually an area of legitimate debate. How those different calories affect those areas -- now that is up for debate. But to state that there is literally no difference is incorrect.
The point is that the OP is correct, in part, as are others correct, in part. But, both ends of the spectrum (i.e. only quality matters vs. only quantity matters) are wrong. They're both important and affect the overall equation.
It would be better if people just acknowledged that than rather trying to extrapolate to non-sense like you said with ignoring the whole calorie in calorie out equation. That too would be incorrect.
then start a new thread about your "thoughts on calories" but please don't derail this one...
Um, I'm speaking the exact original premise of this thread. That "a calorie is NOT calorie" -- that's the premise of the original statement by OP.
I disagree with her later assertions and analysis and so have explained my own. But that's perfectly on-track, my friend.0 -
I don't understand why this has to be an "either or" argument. Why can't it be a "both and" argument?
Those that think that the content of calories doesn't affect metabolism and fat/muscle loss are simply incorrect. You may lose weight in a caloric deficit, but the type of weight you lose (i.e. muscle vs. fat) is definitely affected by the content of your calories and many different factors in any given individual (body type, natural propensity to build muscle, hormone levels, sensitivity to carbs, etc.). For example, it has been shown that one way to minimize LBM loss while in a caloric deficit is to eat a certain amount of protein. If all calories were created equal, this wouldn't matter. But, it does. So, although "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is nice for its simplicity and definitely gets the message across that quantity of calories does matter, it's simply incorrect as pertains to metabolism, body composition, fat/muscle loss and health. And, really, isn't that what we're truly interested in?
Same goes for exercise. Burning 200 calories running, walking or weight lifting is going to have seriously different effects on your body. Just burning calories isn't the end all be all. It's important but so is how you choose to do it. It won't result in the same weight loss as it affects how much muscle vs. fat is metabolized -- and the more muscle you lose vs. fat, the more weight you will lose as a lb of fat metabolizes 3500 calories and a lb of muscle releases considerably fewer (somewhere in the 600-1500 calorie range). So if you're losing a higher percentage of fat, the scale will go down more slowly compared with someone that is losing more muscle.
That being said, it's not a reason to swing 100% the other way either -- restricting a whole bunch of foods unnecessarily. Some restrict for different reasons -- whether medical or based on burgeoning evidence of certain food groups having different effects on the body (obviously, this research is far from definitive and there are many that disagree with it).
However, BOTH quantity of calories AND quality of calories makes a difference in weight loss, fat vs. muscle catabolism, micro nutrient, metabolic response and over all health. To pretend that it doesn't is willful ignorance.
Let the flaming begin.
way to brand everyone who disagrees with you as ignorant...
great start...
ETA - OP's post was specifically referring to a study (which did not even back up her claim) that it is not about calories in vs calories out but about calorie "quality"....which I suppose means you can disregard the whole calories in vs calories out energy balance and just eat "quality" calories and you will lose...so I eat 1000 calories over maintenance of "quality" calories I can still lose weight...
You then somehow went off a tangent about an "either or" argument that has nothing to do with the original post..
but good attempt at derailing the thread to what you want to talk about..
It is ignorance. Period. This isn't actually an area of legitimate debate. How those different calories affect those areas -- now that is up for debate. But to state that there is literally no difference is incorrect.
The point is that the OP is correct, in part, as are others correct, in part. But, both ends of the spectrum (i.e. only quality matters vs. only quantity matters) are wrong. They're both important and affect the overall equation.
It would be better if people just acknowledged that than rather trying to extrapolate to non-sense like you said with ignoring the whole calorie in calorie out equation. That too would be incorrect.
It's funny how often this comes up - every time someone loses weight eating only McDonald's, every time an article comes out on the horrible ingredients in Subway, everytime someone wants to debate about the evils of sugar. Lindsey, the point here is that eating in moderation a variety of calories from sources like carbohydrates, proteins, fats, etc, is what works for weight loss when done at a deficit. Those of us on the"calorie is just a calorie" side tells anyone to eat a deficit of calories all from one source, or to eliminate an entire food group. IIFYM means eating at a calorie deficit after doing research to determine what the appropriate food sources are for you, and your exercise, and your own ultimate goals. There's always room to fit in treats and McD's and other foods when macro goals have been met. The debate is really ongoing and foolish and keeps coming up, which is quite frustrating.
0 -
However, BOTH quantity of calories AND quality of calories makes a difference in weight loss,
No it doesn't only quantity affects this
but...
Yes quality counts here...fat vs. muscle catabolism, micro nutrient, metabolic response and over all health.0 -
Thank you, I weigh and count EVERY SINGLE THING I consume, I am home all day as I have an injury so I have the time to do it 100% right.
I did use 744 calories on oranges yes bu it was within my calories and I was actually under by 89 calories that day.
I buy my fruit puree and fruit nuggets already made and with no added sugar and preservatives and put down everything I eat.
The yogurt coated nuts are in the form of a bar from the eat natural range and are 172 calories per bar so I know I have my math correct when I log my food.
Thank you for your reply.
I haven't read all the way to the end yet, so sorry if someone has already said this. It's possible that this is just a natural fluctuation that happens to everyone at various times when losing weight. It's also possible that you are eating more carbs and simple sugar (from the oranges, etc) than you are used to and it's causing a touch of water retention. As long as you are absolutely sure of your calorie count, just wait it out for a few more weeks and you should see your weight start to move again.
On another note, just wondering why your daily calorie goal is so low if you started out with 100lbs to lose? That just seems like a very low goal for someone 100lbs overweight and it doesn't give you much room to go down in calorie intake as you approach your goal weight. Maybe you should check with your doctor about your calorie goal if you haven't done it already.
Good luck with your continue weight loss!
ETA: the original comment I was replying to!0 -
It is ignorance. Period. This isn't actually an area of legitimate debate. How those different calories affect those areas -- now that is up for debate. But to state that there is literally no difference is incorrect.
The point is that the OP is correct, in part, as are others correct, in part. But, both ends of the spectrum (i.e. only quality matters vs. only quantity matters) are wrong. They're both important and affect the overall equation.
It would be better if people just acknowledged that than rather trying to extrapolate to non-sense like you said with ignoring the whole calorie in calorie out equation. That too would be incorrect.
then start a new thread about your "thoughts on calories" but please don't derail this one...
Um, I'm speaking the exact original premise of this thread. That "a calorie is NOT calorie" -- that's the premise of the original statement by OP.
I disagree with her later assertions and analysis and so have explained my own. But that's perfectly on-track, my friend.
Just to refresh your memory ...this is from her original post:
"LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality. "
so again she is saying that weight loss is about quality of calories over quantity of calories "calories in vs calories out" ..which is malarkey, as we all know that calorie deficit is what leads to weight loss....Anything else would be well, ignorant..0 -
Came here just to say this. ^^^0 -
Why do people keep making this same thread instead of just doing a search? Of course no one wants to hear it. We've heard it a zillion times already.
Rather see this than another single "Friendly or not friendly...what would you say to the person above you..." or other such bullsh*t thread. Talk about overdone.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
^^^This says it!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
I'll add, for overall health, cardio helps too
but what i came here to say is, i love you
/thread0 -
It is ignorance. Period. This isn't actually an area of legitimate debate. How those different calories affect those areas -- now that is up for debate. But to state that there is literally no difference is incorrect.
The point is that the OP is correct, in part, as are others correct, in part. But, both ends of the spectrum (i.e. only quality matters vs. only quantity matters) are wrong. They're both important and affect the overall equation.
It would be better if people just acknowledged that than rather trying to extrapolate to non-sense like you said with ignoring the whole calorie in calorie out equation. That too would be incorrect.
It's funny how often this comes up - every time someone loses weight eating only McDonald's, every time an article comes out on the horrible ingredients in Subway, everytime someone wants to debate about the evils of sugar. Lindsey, the point here is that eating in moderation a variety of calories from sources like carbohydrates, proteins, fats, etc, is what works for weight loss when done at a deficit. Those of us on the"calorie is just a calorie" side tells anyone to eat a deficit of calories all from one source, or to eliminate an entire food group. IIFYM means eating at a calorie deficit after doing research to determine what the appropriate food sources are for you, and your exercise, and your own ultimate goals. There's always room to fit in treats and McD's and other foods when macro goals have been met. The debate is really ongoing and foolish and keeps coming up, which is quite frustrating.
Well, I think that's what it often turns into, but that's a separate, derivative argument. The fact that IIFYM talks about macros obviously shows that macros do matter -- that all calories are not the same.
I don't want to get into the moderation/IIFYM debate. I find it useless. It's certainly a useful path, but it's not the ONLY path to success. There are different, legitimate paths to success as well. And what any individual will choose will vary on his/her issues.0 -
However, BOTH quantity of calories AND quality of calories makes a difference in weight loss,
No it doesn't only quantity affects this
but...
Yes quality counts here...fat vs. muscle catabolism, micro nutrient, metabolic response and over all health.
Incorrect. The percentage of fat vs. muscle you lose will result in different weight loss numbers. Will you lose weight in both scenarios? Yes. But how much you lose will differ based on how much muscle vs. fat you're catabolizing (or maintaining) and that is affected by many factors, including the type of calories you eat.0 -
Just to refresh your memory ...this is from her original post:
"LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality. "
so again she is saying that weight loss is about quality of calories over quantity of calories "calories in vs calories out" ..which is malarkey, as we all know that calorie deficit is what leads to weight loss....Anything else would be well, ignorant..
Once again, I said I didn't agree with her conclusions or later assertions. But, I do agree with the initial premise that not all calories are created equal -- and gave my reasons why.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.0 -
However, BOTH quantity of calories AND quality of calories makes a difference in weight loss,
No it doesn't only quantity affects this
but...
Yes quality counts here...fat vs. muscle catabolism, micro nutrient, metabolic response and over all health.
Incorrect. The percentage of fat vs. muscle you lose will result in different weight loss numbers. Will you lose weight in both scenarios? Yes. But how much you lose will differ based on how much muscle vs. fat you're catabolizing (or maintaining) and that is affected by many factors, including the type of calories you eat.
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:0 -
Eight pages later
We've been talking on the phone for hours and hours.
You can give me a call whenever you like to.
And if you would fall you know I will catch you.
Yeah I'll stick around, I'll be right beside you.
Whooo ohh ohh..
I'm sure you always knew what you had to do.
And I'm sure you had your reasons you change 'em every season.
Hold on, hold on.
I'm taking a vacation, I'll see you at the station.
Hey, Hey, Hey.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions