Not eating back exercise calories VS eating them back
Replies
-
If I eat 2000 calories in a day, and exercise and burn 400, but decide to eat back my exercise calories there is 400 calories less that I would have been in deficit.I personally dont eat them back.
I just feel it defeats the purpose, plus many people over estimate the calories burned during a workout and it has them eat too many calories.
How does it "defeat the purpose"?
If I am in maintenance mode, maybe that would be the case but in a strict weight loss mode I want that exercise to be most beneficial.
If MFP suggests 2000 calories a day and you choose 1 lb a week weight loss goal, your daily calorie requirement is 2500 calories to maintain weight. When you eat 2000, you are at a 500 calorie deficit. If you add 400 calories in exercise, your body needs 2900 calories (2500 + 400 in additional calories because of the exercise) and you are only eating 2000. So you now have a 900 calorie deficit instead of a 500.
When you are looking at more aggressive weight loss goals or higher activity levels, this can be problematic. There are tons of reasons to maintain a modest calorie deficit.
Drop those numbers to around 1200 - 1400 where a lot of women are, and you are looking at feeding your body 800 calories when it needs closer to 2000 or more.
and I would rather have a higher deficit than a lower deficit. That is why I dont eat back my calories from exercise.
What you prefer is up to you. Many prefer not to for a lot of reasons. But that is a world away from it "defeats the purpose"
^^^Exactly...Drop those numbers to around 1200 - 1400 where a lot of women are, and you are looking at feeding your body 800 calories when it needs closer to 2000 or more.
Just to make the point again.0 -
If I eat 2000 calories in a day, and exercise and burn 400, but decide to eat back my exercise calories there is 400 calories less that I would have been in deficit.I personally dont eat them back.
I just feel it defeats the purpose, plus many people over estimate the calories burned during a workout and it has them eat too many calories.
How does it "defeat the purpose"?
If I am in maintenance mode, maybe that would be the case but in a strict weight loss mode I want that exercise to be most beneficial.
If MFP suggests 2000 calories a day and you choose 1 lb a week weight loss goal, your daily calorie requirement is 2500 calories to maintain weight. When you eat 2000, you are at a 500 calorie deficit. If you add 400 calories in exercise, your body needs 2900 calories (2500 + 400 in additional calories because of the exercise) and you are only eating 2000. So you now have a 900 calorie deficit instead of a 500.
When you are looking at more aggressive weight loss goals or higher activity levels, this can be problematic. There are tons of reasons to maintain a modest calorie deficit.
Drop those numbers to around 1200 - 1400 where a lot of women are, and you are looking at feeding your body 800 calories when it needs closer to 2000 or more.
and I would rather have a higher deficit than a lower deficit. That is why I dont eat back my calories from exercise.
What you prefer is up to you. Many prefer not to for a lot of reasons. But that is a world away from it "defeats the purpose"
Not really a world away. If a person busts their balls to burn 500 calories then why, if weight loss is your goal, why eat those calories back? Make that workout worth it to the nth degree.
but everyone does it different.I prefer not to, but some do. I know some people will want to burn alot in a day just so they can eat more.0 -
Okay, just for the record, I eat back 1/2 my exercise calories but that's because I use the MFP recommendations.
If you're using TDEE method, then you're not supposed to eat back the calories according to everything I've read.
Nothing more to add.
OK, so I guess I was initially confused...or just chose the best of both worlds...if I go with the NEAT-MFP recommendations of losing half a pound a week it tells me to eat 1200 calories a day...the Scooby method gave me a few more calories....however I see now I should NOT be eating my calories back if I go with the Scooby method....makes sense I was maintaining for the last 6 months...and it was just the last 2-3 weeks I now enter (1) for exercise calories burned and I don't eat them back....I guess im just jealous at all the others that can eat 1500 plus calories...I really just need to get off my booty and exercise more!! I also don't have a ton to lose, so I guess it will be slower...
But with the Scooby method you did not include your exercise, you chose the sedentary option. Go back and figure with your correct activity level.0 -
If I eat 2000 calories in a day, and exercise and burn 400, but decide to eat back my exercise calories there is 400 calories less that I would have been in deficit.I personally dont eat them back.
I just feel it defeats the purpose, plus many people over estimate the calories burned during a workout and it has them eat too many calories.
How does it "defeat the purpose"?
If I am in maintenance mode, maybe that would be the case but in a strict weight loss mode I want that exercise to be most beneficial.
If MFP suggests 2000 calories a day and you choose 1 lb a week weight loss goal, your daily calorie requirement is 2500 calories to maintain weight. When you eat 2000, you are at a 500 calorie deficit. If you add 400 calories in exercise, your body needs 2900 calories (2500 + 400 in additional calories because of the exercise) and you are only eating 2000. So you now have a 900 calorie deficit instead of a 500.
When you are looking at more aggressive weight loss goals or higher activity levels, this can be problematic. There are tons of reasons to maintain a modest calorie deficit.
Drop those numbers to around 1200 - 1400 where a lot of women are, and you are looking at feeding your body 800 calories when it needs closer to 2000 or more.
and I would rather have a higher deficit than a lower deficit. That is why I dont eat back my calories from exercise.
What you prefer is up to you. Many prefer not to for a lot of reasons. But that is a world away from it "defeats the purpose"
Not really a world away. If a person busts their balls to burn 500 calories then why, if weight loss is your goal, why eat those calories back? Make that workout worth it to the nth degree.
but everyone does it different.I prefer not to, but some do. I know some people will want to burn alot in a day just so they can eat more.
You are right. If weight loss is your goal, then you make sense. If being fit, retaining LBM, and maintaining after you get to your goal weight is of any importance, then you should be eating your exercise calories back.0 -
If your exercise calories are about 1500 per week, that averages to 300 calories per day. It would take you about 2 weeks to notice a 1 pound difference if you decided not to eat them back. In 4 weeks, maybe a 2 pound difference. However, our bodies are not always perfectly linear when it comes to weight loss. Especially when you take water into consideration. I don't think that 4 weeks is enough time to determine that eating your exercise calories back or not makes no difference for you.0
-
If I eat 2000 calories in a day, and exercise and burn 400, but decide to eat back my exercise calories there is 400 calories less that I would have been in deficit.I personally dont eat them back.
I just feel it defeats the purpose, plus many people over estimate the calories burned during a workout and it has them eat too many calories.
How does it "defeat the purpose"?
If I am in maintenance mode, maybe that would be the case but in a strict weight loss mode I want that exercise to be most beneficial.
If MFP suggests 2000 calories a day and you choose 1 lb a week weight loss goal, your daily calorie requirement is 2500 calories to maintain weight. When you eat 2000, you are at a 500 calorie deficit. If you add 400 calories in exercise, your body needs 2900 calories (2500 + 400 in additional calories because of the exercise) and you are only eating 2000. So you now have a 900 calorie deficit instead of a 500.
When you are looking at more aggressive weight loss goals or higher activity levels, this can be problematic. There are tons of reasons to maintain a modest calorie deficit.
Drop those numbers to around 1200 - 1400 where a lot of women are, and you are looking at feeding your body 800 calories when it needs closer to 2000 or more.
and I would rather have a higher deficit than a lower deficit. That is why I dont eat back my calories from exercise.
What you prefer is up to you. Many prefer not to for a lot of reasons. But that is a world away from it "defeats the purpose"
Not really a world away. If a person busts their balls to burn 500 calories then why, if weight loss is your goal, why eat those calories back? Make that workout worth it to the nth degree.
but everyone does it different.I prefer not to, but some do. I know some people will want to burn alot in a day just so they can eat more.
Because if your weightloss goal is 1 lb a week, your deficit needs to be 500 calories less than what you need. If you are follow MFP, their calorie goal has that built in. If you do additional exercise and eat those calories back, you are maintaining your 500 calorie deficit. It is not defeating the purpose.
Yes, some people find low calorie goals difficult to maintain. Sustainability is a huge key to this whole weight loss game. Allowing the extra for exercise while maintaining a deficit helps a lot of people stay on track.
Eating too little food, especially when active, can wreck havoc on health and performance.
Huge calorie deficits can have negative effects on your metabolism and lean body mass.
Maintaining a modest calorie deficit by following MFP and eating your exercise calories can help avoid a lot of these issues. It is not "defeating the purpose" at all. If anything, it is HELPING.
Yes, there are issues with overestimating exercises/underestimating food, but that comes back on the person not the system.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
If I eat 2000 calories in a day, and exercise and burn 400, but decide to eat back my exercise calories there is 400 calories less that I would have been in deficit.I personally dont eat them back.
I just feel it defeats the purpose, plus many people over estimate the calories burned during a workout and it has them eat too many calories.
How does it "defeat the purpose"?
If I am in maintenance mode, maybe that would be the case but in a strict weight loss mode I want that exercise to be most beneficial.
If MFP suggests 2000 calories a day and you choose 1 lb a week weight loss goal, your daily calorie requirement is 2500 calories to maintain weight. When you eat 2000, you are at a 500 calorie deficit. If you add 400 calories in exercise, your body needs 2900 calories (2500 + 400 in additional calories because of the exercise) and you are only eating 2000. So you now have a 900 calorie deficit instead of a 500.
When you are looking at more aggressive weight loss goals or higher activity levels, this can be problematic. There are tons of reasons to maintain a modest calorie deficit.
Drop those numbers to around 1200 - 1400 where a lot of women are, and you are looking at feeding your body 800 calories when it needs closer to 2000 or more.
and I would rather have a higher deficit than a lower deficit. That is why I dont eat back my calories from exercise.
What you prefer is up to you. Many prefer not to for a lot of reasons. But that is a world away from it "defeats the purpose"
Not really a world away. If a person busts their balls to burn 500 calories then why, if weight loss is your goal, why eat those calories back? Make that workout worth it to the nth degree.
but everyone does it different.I prefer not to, but some do. I know some people will want to burn alot in a day just so they can eat more.
OK....
MFP gives you the deficit to meet your goal already.... Let's say I plug in I want to lose 1lb per week. I get ~1800 calories. I work off 500, and now I'm at 1300 calories. That is an extremely low amount of calories for a male at my ht, wt, age, with little weight to lose. Why not properly fuel the body and lose the weight at the goal set, thus allowing the individual to take the workout to the "nth" degree because the body is properly fueled to do so.
People with larger amounts of weight to lose can get away with eating less calories back, but the closer a person gets to that goal weight the more important those calories become.0 -
But with the Scooby method you did not include your exercise, you chose the sedentary option. Go back and figure with your correct activity level.
[/quote]
so with Scooby method...adjusting activity level...it really increases my calories...
holy smokes batman!! ok, when I enter 3-5 hours a week of moderate exercise...ready for this???(wasn't sure what to pick as I play minimum 6 hours of doubles-(easy) tennis and 2 hours crossfit a week)..NOTHING very intense at all...
TDEE 2344
to lose 1875
BMR 15120 -
I have two goals here:
Goal number 1: Lose fat to drop down to around 15% bodyfat. For this goal I eat at a modest deficit for sustainable weight loss
Goal number 2: Improve my cardiovascular fitness and my strength. For this goal I do both cardio exercise and weight lifting. In order to properly fuel my workouts so that I can make the improvements I desire I eat the amount of calories I burn.
I can do both at the same time but only if I eat the calories back from exercise. This provides the fuel necessary to have intensity during my workouts and see gains in fitness and strength while still maintaining my modest caloric deficit for fat loss.
I do not exercise to lose weight I exercise to be fit. If all I cared about was losing weight faster I would just eat at a higher caloric deficit and wouldn't bother with exercise.0 -
so with Scooby method...adjusting activity level...it really increases my calories...as if im not fat enough! LOL
holy smokes batman!! ok, when I enter 3-5 hours a week of moderate exercise...ready for this???(wasn't sure what to pick as I play minimum 6 hours of doubles-(easy) tennis and 2 hours crossfit a week)..NOTHING very intense at all...
TDEE 2344
to lose 1875
BMR 1512
Not sure I would go with that high of calories just because I am not sure how many calories you burn playing tennis. I wouldn't thing it would be a crazy amount. I would start at like 2100 or so and go from there.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
bump0
-
I don't eat all my calories back. But I do allow myself to exceed my calorie limit modestly on a day when I have been very active. For example today I walked to and from the gym which is 2 hours of walking spent an hour in the gym doing a core workout session. So considering I also walk briskly it is probably safe to say I burned 1000 calories today.
I don't actually eat 1000 calories extra. Maybe 400 extra. Just to give my body a bit of carbs and protein to repair and resupply. In the war against my fat *kitten* logistics are of utmost importance! Gotta keep those front lines well supplied.0 -
But with the Scooby method you did not include your exercise, you chose the sedentary option. Go back and figure with your correct activity level.
so with Scooby method...adjusting activity level...it really increases my calories...as if im not fat enough! LOL
holy smokes batman!! ok, when I enter 3-5 hours a week of moderate exercise...ready for this???(wasn't sure what to pick as I play minimum 6 hours of doubles-(easy) tennis and 2 hours crossfit a week)..NOTHING very intense at all...
TDEE 2344
to lose 1875
BMR 1512
Scooby is a douche bag and his calculations are high.
Go to iifym.com and get a real reading.
[/quote]
at iifym...
BMR 1299
TDEE 17800 -
so with Scooby method...adjusting activity level...it really increases my calories...as if im not fat enough! LOL
holy smokes batman!! ok, when I enter 3-5 hours a week of moderate exercise...ready for this???(wasn't sure what to pick as I play minimum 6 hours of doubles-(easy) tennis and 2 hours crossfit a week)..NOTHING very intense at all...
TDEE 2344
to lose 1875
BMR 1512
Not sure I would go with that high of calories just because I am not sure how many calories you burn playing tennis. I wouldn't thing it would be a crazy amount. I would start at like 2100 or so and go from there.
increase my daily calories by about 800 a day??? Heck I would blow up bigger then a tick on a fat dog!!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
so with Scooby method...adjusting activity level...it really increases my calories...as if im not fat enough! LOL
holy smokes batman!! ok, when I enter 3-5 hours a week of moderate exercise...ready for this???(wasn't sure what to pick as I play minimum 6 hours of doubles-(easy) tennis and 2 hours crossfit a week)..NOTHING very intense at all...
TDEE 2344
to lose 1875
BMR 1512
Not sure I would go with that high of calories just because I am not sure how many calories you burn playing tennis. I wouldn't thing it would be a crazy amount. I would start at like 2100 or so and go from there.
increase my daily calories by about 800 a day??? Heck I would blow up bigger then a tick on a fat dog!!
2000 as your TDEE - eat less than that by whatever your goals are.0 -
so with Scooby method...adjusting activity level...it really increases my calories...as if im not fat enough! LOL
holy smokes batman!! ok, when I enter 3-5 hours a week of moderate exercise...ready for this???(wasn't sure what to pick as I play minimum 6 hours of doubles-(easy) tennis and 2 hours crossfit a week)..NOTHING very intense at all...
TDEE 2344
to lose 1875
BMR 1512
Not sure I would go with that high of calories just because I am not sure how many calories you burn playing tennis. I wouldn't thing it would be a crazy amount. I would start at like 2100 or so and go from there.
increase my daily calories by about 800 a day??? Heck I would blow up bigger then a tick on a fat dog!!
Not necessarily.
A lot of people here have had success with upping their calories after eating at very low numbers. There is a group called Eat More to Weigh Less (this isn't eat as much as you want, or eat over TDEE, people seem to confuse that).
That said this is based on a few things -
1. This is assuming you are accurately logging to begin with. Accurate logging is key. If logging isn't as accurate as possible - ie logging everything, weighing and measuring - there is no point upping calories.
2. It isn't recommended to make a huge jump all at once. Up a little at a time.
3. You will see movement in the scale, likely upwards at first. This takes time.
If you are interested you can check the group out here. There are a lot of stickies with tons of information and tons of people who have experienced this.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/3817-eat-more-to-weigh-less0 -
That I can agree with.
If I eat 2000 calories in a day, and exercise and burn 400, but decide to eat back my exercise calories there is 400 calories less that I would have been in deficit.I personally dont eat them back.
I just feel it defeats the purpose, plus many people over estimate the calories burned during a workout and it has them eat too many calories.
How does it "defeat the purpose"?
If I am in maintenance mode, maybe that would be the case but in a strict weight loss mode I want that exercise to be most beneficial.
If MFP suggests 2000 calories a day and you choose 1 lb a week weight loss goal, your daily calorie requirement is 2500 calories to maintain weight. When you eat 2000, you are at a 500 calorie deficit. If you add 400 calories in exercise, your body needs 2900 calories (2500 + 400 in additional calories because of the exercise) and you are only eating 2000. So you now have a 900 calorie deficit instead of a 500.
When you are looking at more aggressive weight loss goals or higher activity levels, this can be problematic. There are tons of reasons to maintain a modest calorie deficit.
Drop those numbers to around 1200 - 1400 where a lot of women are, and you are looking at feeding your body 800 calories when it needs closer to 2000 or more.
and I would rather have a higher deficit than a lower deficit. That is why I dont eat back my calories from exercise.
What you prefer is up to you. Many prefer not to for a lot of reasons. But that is a world away from it "defeats the purpose"
Not really a world away. If a person busts their balls to burn 500 calories then why, if weight loss is your goal, why eat those calories back? Make that workout worth it to the nth degree.
but everyone does it different.I prefer not to, but some do. I know some people will want to burn alot in a day just so they can eat more.
OK....
MFP gives you the deficit to meet your goal already.... Let's say I plug in I want to lose 1lb per week. I get ~1800 calories. I work off 500, and now I'm at 1300 calories. That is an extremely low amount of calories for a male at my ht, wt, age, with little weight to lose. Why not properly fuel the body and lose the weight at the goal set, thus allowing the individual to take the workout to the "nth" degree because the body is properly fueled to do so.
People with larger amounts of weight to lose can get away with eating less calories back, but the closer a person gets to that goal weight the more important those calories become.
Some times I forget the type of people who are this site. This has quite a few people who are in fine shape, whereas I guess I just assume everyone is trying to lose alot of weight.
I can see the point and when/why to eat back your calories, and when I am at my goal weight and actually did keep track of stuff I did do so.0 -
That I can agree with.
Some times I forget the type of people who are this site. This has quite a few people who are in fine shape, whereas I guess I just assume everyone is trying to lose alot of weight.
I can see the point and when/why to eat back your calories, and when I am at my goal weight and actually did keep track of stuff I did do so.
My responses were strictly from a weight loss standpoint.
I've done the huge calorie deficits and tons of exercising. I learned.0 -
That I can agree with.
Some times I forget the type of people who are this site. This has quite a few people who are in fine shape, whereas I guess I just assume everyone is trying to lose alot of weight.
I can see the point and when/why to eat back your calories, and when I am at my goal weight and actually did keep track of stuff I did do so.
My responses were strictly from a weight loss standpoint.
I've done the huge calorie deficits and tons of exercising. I learned.
Trial and error, trial and error!
Everyone has to find what works best for them that is fo sho!0 -
That I can agree with.
Some times I forget the type of people who are this site. This has quite a few people who are in fine shape, whereas I guess I just assume everyone is trying to lose alot of weight.
I can see the point and when/why to eat back your calories, and when I am at my goal weight and actually did keep track of stuff I did do so.
My responses were strictly from a weight loss standpoint.
I've done the huge calorie deficits and tons of exercising. I learned.
Trial and error, trial and error!
Everyone has to find what works best for them that is fo sho!
Since you're a male, I would advise you to investigate the deficit you're running. It's not about a "goal weight", but a goal size. Many sacrifice muscle mass by running too large of a deficit only to appease the number on the scale, not the number on the tape measure, or the look in the mirror.0 -
so with Scooby method...adjusting activity level...it really increases my calories...as if im not fat enough! LOL
holy smokes batman!! ok, when I enter 3-5 hours a week of moderate exercise...ready for this???(wasn't sure what to pick as I play minimum 6 hours of doubles-(easy) tennis and 2 hours crossfit a week)..NOTHING very intense at all...
TDEE 2344
to lose 1875
BMR 1512
Not sure I would go with that high of calories just because I am not sure how many calories you burn playing tennis. I wouldn't thing it would be a crazy amount. I would start at like 2100 or so and go from there.
increase my daily calories by about 800 a day??? Heck I would blow up bigger then a tick on a fat dog!!
Not necessarily.
A lot of people here have had success with upping their calories after eating at very low numbers. There is a group called Eat More to Weigh Less (this isn't eat as much as you want, or eat over TDEE, people seem to confuse that).
That said this is based on a few things -
1. This is assuming you are accurately logging to begin with. Accurate logging is key. If logging isn't as accurate as possible - ie logging everything, weighing and measuring - there is no point upping calories.
2. It isn't recommended to make a huge jump all at once. Up a little at a time.
3. You will see movement in the scale, likely upwards at first. This takes time.
If you are interested you can check the group out here. There are a lot of stickies with tons of information and tons of people who have experienced this.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/3817-eat-more-to-weigh-less
I will check this out...thanks for the information0 -
I am with you on this one. I just want to eat healthy, lose weight, and maintain. I try not to eat my calories back but it is good to have that option.0
-
Weigh in grams..... not ounces, cups, half cups, etc.....
I eat back some exercise calories each day butnot all. I seem to be doing fine!
I weigh in grams because Australia is in the metric system - but how on earth will it make any difference if OP weighs in ounces.
If her system uses imperial measurements what is the point of converting to grams???0 -
I eat back every calorie I burn from running - I add it to my 1400 base calorie intake. I don't log the strength training I do twice a week for a total of about an hour, so I don't eat that back - seems like the amount would be negligible. I'm a 45 year old woman 5'7". It's worked for me so far.0
-
I am eating back some, not all. I also begun weighing the food. The other thing I noticed with the food data is you need to check your items against MFP food data to see if the calories are right.
Noticed that you have to search to get the right one with the same calories that is labelled on your food. Like the tin of baked beans. If it isn't there then you need to add it.
I also add a few more calories into the food just incase i have under estimated. Think it pretty much balances itself out.
Seems to be working because I have lost 1 kg this week.
bit of trial and error with it.0 -
If I eat 2000 calories in a day, and exercise and burn 400, but decide to eat back my exercise calories there is 400 calories less that I would have been in deficit.I personally dont eat them back.
I just feel it defeats the purpose, plus many people over estimate the calories burned during a workout and it has them eat too many calories.
How does it "defeat the purpose"?
If I am in maintenance mode, maybe that would be the case but in a strict weight loss mode I want that exercise to be most beneficial.
If MFP suggests 2000 calories a day and you choose 1 lb a week weight loss goal, your daily calorie requirement is 2500 calories to maintain weight. When you eat 2000, you are at a 500 calorie deficit. If you add 400 calories in exercise, your body needs 2900 calories (2500 + 400 in additional calories because of the exercise) and you are only eating 2000. So you now have a 900 calorie deficit instead of a 500.
When you are looking at more aggressive weight loss goals or higher activity levels, this can be problematic. There are tons of reasons to maintain a modest calorie deficit.
Drop those numbers to around 1200 - 1400 where a lot of women are, and you are looking at feeding your body 800 calories when it needs closer to 2000 or more.
and I would rather have a higher deficit than a lower deficit. That is why I dont eat back my calories from exercise.
What you prefer is up to you. Many prefer not to for a lot of reasons. But that is a world away from it "defeats the purpose"
Not really a world away. If a person busts their balls to burn 500 calories then why, if weight loss is your goal, why eat those calories back? Make that workout worth it to the nth degree.
but everyone does it different.I prefer not to, but some do. I know some people will want to burn alot in a day just so they can eat more.
This morning, I planned out my food for today. When I finished logging, I noticed I went over by 68 calories. Not much, but I like to be under rather than over. So what did I do? I made sure that went for my run, I burned at least that amount (which is never an issue, as I burn a good deal more than that).
Exercising gives me an extra blanket of security so I know that even if I go over, I can bring my deficit back down with a little effort, and I can enjoy a day's worth of food instead of feel guilty about it all or starve myself.0 -
[/quote]
This morning, I planned out my food for today. When I finished logging, I noticed I went over by 68 calories. Not much, but I like to be under rather than over. So what did I do? I made sure that went for my run, I burned at least that amount (which is never an issue, as I burn a good deal more than that).
Exercising gives me an extra blanket of security so I know that even if I go over, I can bring my deficit back down with a little effort, and I can enjoy a day's worth of food instead of feel guilty about it all or starve myself.
[/quote]
Sounds like me. I will no doubt feel hungrier today, busy day ahead. I like a walk or a run at the end of the day. Missed it last night as I was flat out, this week though the end of the day walks have been very short. normally do long ones 6-9 kms. this week has been upto 3kms in the evening. My body really needed to slow down a bit this week. but still hitting the gym in the mornings.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions