1200 is really low
Replies
-
1200 calories is too Damn low!!!0
-
I normally eat around 1200 and it's been working for me. However I'm basically sedentary and I'm really small(4'11").0
-
A lot of people say 1200 is too low, but if you're short, thin, and/or not very active MFP might put you on 1200 calories. Also, the number of calories you need decreases with age, so people will need less calories than they did when they were younger. My step-grandmother, when she eats fast food, will choose the kids' meal instead of a regular meal and I think that's about the right portion size for her.
What is "too low"? It depends on the person. If you're set to lose more than a recommended speed of weight, then I'd say it's too low. Otherwise, 1200 net calories is fine. MFP won't let you go below 1200 even if it means you won't lose weight as fast as you'd like. You can eat back exercise calories, but be sure you know how much was burned and how much you ate so you don't eat back too many calories.
I think it's about portion control. We are so used to eating large portions, growing up being told to finish what's on our plate, etc. Try to hit or get close to hitting your macros because nutrition is important. If you eat smaller portions you should be able to eat what you like (within reason) and still stay under your calorie goal.0 -
I'm small, petite,older, and pretty much sedentary. Trying to change that part though. I'm finding 1200 calories just maintains my weight for me. I was on WW for a while, and they put me on 800 calories a day based on my weight. That was a starvation diet pretty much. But, I did lose weight.
I can't go back to 800 calories. It was just too hard, but it seems 1200 isn't working either. Most days I stick with it, some days I go over a little. But still, the weight doesn't change. Sigh.
I'm rather surprised Weight Watchers would put someone on 800 calories a day. I thought that they were one of the safer, more reasonable programs. 800 a day is a VLCD diet.0 -
They don't. On their current program, people average over 1800 calories a day. Some of their programs from 10+ years ago did go as low as 1000-1200 for some but usually only if the person had tried more and found it didn't work.I'm small, petite,older, and pretty much sedentary. Trying to change that part though. I'm finding 1200 calories just maintains my weight for me. I was on WW for a while, and they put me on 800 calories a day based on my weight. That was a starvation diet pretty much. But, I did lose weight.
I can't go back to 800 calories. It was just too hard, but it seems 1200 isn't working either. Most days I stick with it, some days I go over a little. But still, the weight doesn't change. Sigh.
I'm rather surprised Weight Watchers would put someone on 800 calories a day. I thought that they were one of the safer, more reasonable programs. 800 a day is a VLCD diet.0 -
My doctor says not to eat back exercise calories; ignore "net".
So if your calorie goal is 1200, and you've exercised for what MFP claims is 200, your total for the day should be around 1200, not 1400.
If you add cardio (walk, bicycle, swim, rollerskate, elliptical) you'll burn more calories in less time than weightlifting.
Weights are still important, esp. as you age, to keep bone density and overall strength.
They're just not very efficient at burning calories.
But since you have so little to lose, you're going to lose slowly. And actually 5 lb could be water weight fluctuation over a month. Set your info at sedentary, and your goal to lose 0.5 lb per week.
If your doctor isn't a nutritionist or a doctor specilized in sports medicine, I would probably disregard his opinion about nutrition and weight loss. Our doctors are generalists and doesn't have an extensive formation about nutrition and how to support sport performance with nutrition, and they often rely on old science to give their advice. It's not that bad. They're trying to help, and they can be helpful in some case, but if you want to have advice about nutrition, weight loss and how to eat when you do physical activity, you should consult a specialist.
In your case, the doctor is wrong. You're already eating at a deficit, a respectably large deficit if you're eating 1200 cals a day, creating a larger deficit by not eating back your exercise cals could put your health at risk. Sure, you will lose weight faster, but you will not only create a calorie deficit, you will also create nutritional deprivation, and this is not good. Eating back your exercise calories gives you the fuel you need to support those activities.
Also: weight lifting create a smaller deficit than cardio exercise if you compare the calories you burn while doing each activities (minutes to calories burned ratio), but weight lifting comes with a phenomenon called excess post-exercise oxygene consumption (EPOC) that increases your metabolism for hours after a lifting session. EPOC will help your body burn fat for up to 48 hours after an heavy lifting workout.
You're right about the fact that when one have only a few pounds to lose, a weight loss of 0.5 pounds per week is enough to achieve goal, though.0 -
That makes sense. People still growing need more calories.
"This is because after the age of 25 — which is the age where we stop growing bone — the metabolic rate goes down by 2 percent or more per decade, she says. So, in order to stay at the same weight without a change to your level of activity, you would have to cut your daily calories by the same amount."But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/basal-metabolic-rate-changes-as-you-age/2013/03/05/d26b1c18-80f1-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html
Not a study by any means, but it appears to be an actual change in bodily function apart from any changes in activity or muscle mass.
The brain actually uses like 20% of our RMR. I wonder if us learning less as we age affects things?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-calories/0 -
I never said it had anything to do with EDs. It was an example of how your premise and logic are flawed. It appears unlikely that will sink in, given that you can't distinguish between a factor which affects something and one which determines something.
It appears that you believe "affects" is a synonym for "determines."But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
It's absurd to claim age effect weight loss when plenty of people on this forum do not have that problem.
By your argument, eating disorders don't affect weight loss because plenty of people on this forum don't have that problem.
No, I believe as I posted.
This has nothing to do with EDs so your argument doesn't hold any water because one has nothing to do with the other.0 -
I never said it had anything to do with EDs. It was an example of how your premise and logic are flawed. It appears unlikely that will sink in, given that you can't distinguish between a factor which affects something and one which determines something.
It appears that you believe "affects" is a synonym for "determines."But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
It's absurd to claim age effect weight loss when plenty of people on this forum do not have that problem.
By your argument, eating disorders don't affect weight loss because plenty of people on this forum don't have that problem.
No, I believe as I posted.
This has nothing to do with EDs so your argument doesn't hold any water because one has nothing to do with the other.
If it didn't have anything to do with ED then you should have never brought that into the discussion. The only person with a flawed premise and logic is you. The age factor does not determine weight loss. It is unlikely that you would ever comprehend very well since you failed to explain the reason many people who are of a certain age don't have any issues with losing weight despite a slow metabolism.0 -
I've been on 1200 since January and I find it fairly manageable - the first month was hard but then I got used to it! I'm 5'4 and started at 232lbs and now I'm 175lbs (whacked a lot of weight on last year hence the reason my slider says I've lost less than this!).
I don't eat any of my exercise cals back either but that's personal choice - I generally train in the evenings and by the time I'm home, I only want something light!0 -
My mother and I both lost weight fairly easily. We're the same height. But despite the fact that I started at a lower weight than she did (160ls for me, 190lbs for her) and her being more active than me (I'm sedentary, she's lightly active), she was allotted fewer calories than me. Why? Because I'm 26 and she's 59. Her body needed fewer calories than mine just to survive due to age. Though she didn't have any trouble meeting this goal, she got to eat less than me. It was harder for her body to lose the weight than mine. Just because it was easy for her mind doesn't mean it wasn't hard for her body.Age affects the "calories out" part of the "calories in < calories out" formula. Therefore, it affects weight loss. You're using the phrase differently than everyone else.
Saying "age affects weight loss" implies that it's harder to lose weight with increasing age. That's 100% bunk, and people use it as a BS excuse.0 -
My mother and I both lost weight fairly easily. We're the same height. But despite the fact that I started at a lower weight than she did (160ls for me, 190lbs for her) and her being more active than me (I'm sedentary, she's lightly active), she was allotted fewer calories than me. Why? Because I'm 26 and she's 59. Her body needed fewer calories than mine just to survive due to age. Though she didn't have any trouble meeting this goal, she got to eat less than me. It was harder for her body to lose the weight than mine. Just because it was easy for her mind doesn't mean it wasn't hard for her body.Age affects the "calories out" part of the "calories in < calories out" formula. Therefore, it affects weight loss. You're using the phrase differently than everyone else.
Saying "age affects weight loss" implies that it's harder to lose weight with increasing age. That's 100% bunk, and people use it as a BS excuse.
It wasn't harder for her. She just had to consume fewer calories.0 -
As far as the debate over whether weight loss is harder as you age, yes, it is "harder"; it's not b****. As an older person, I have to consume fewer calories than a younger person. It's hard for many to readjust their calories that low. 1400 calories a day for a 59 year old vs 1800 for a 29 year old is a big difference in the amount of food you eat. Yes, you can do it; you can lose the weight, but it is a bigger adjustment and it takes a lot more work. This is why older people gain -- it's not a bs reason -- their metabolisms are slower and they need to eat a lot less. I just came back from vacation 2 lbs. heavier, eating a quarter the amount I used to eat in my 30s, when I could still wear a bikini after eating fried clams and Dairy Queen every day. And on those vacations, I did zilch -- just sat by the pool or beach all day. Now, I walk a couple of miles a day and went to the gym 4 times and did my usual workout.0
-
That makes sense. People still growing need more calories.
"This is because after the age of 25 — which is the age where we stop growing bone — the metabolic rate goes down by 2 percent or more per decade, she says. So, in order to stay at the same weight without a change to your level of activity, you would have to cut your daily calories by the same amount."But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/basal-metabolic-rate-changes-as-you-age/2013/03/05/d26b1c18-80f1-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html
Not a study by any means, but it appears to be an actual change in bodily function apart from any changes in activity or muscle mass.
The brain actually uses like 20% of our RMR. I wonder if us learning less as we age affects things?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-calories/
The decline in learning is not inevitable... older people who make an effort to keep their brains active don't suffer a decline in cognitive abilities and it can even protect against senile dementia/altzeimer's until the late stages (i.e. it can't stop the illness but the amount of cognitive decline can be masked until the late stages of the disease). Exercise also has a protective effect against the decline in cognitive abilities as you age. Additionally, most of the reasons why it's harder for adults to learn is because adults don't have the amount of time in their lives dedicated to learning. Kids are at school all day. Kids are immersed in environments that optimise their learning opportunities while adults have to hold down jobs, earn a salary and run a household. Kids can spend hours on hobbies (which leads to learning specialised skills), most adults can't.
Similarly, most of the decline in metabolic rate is due to being less active. If you're less active, you burn fewer calories. If you're less active you slowly lose lean muscle mass - even if you're not eating at a deficit (and if you are eating at a deficit, then this loss is a lot greater) - both these things result in someone burning far more calories at age 30 than they do at age 50... but it's not inevitable. If you make the effort to be as active as a 30 year old and to do strength training and eat enough protein to maintain your lean muscle mass, you can have the metabolism of a 30 year old. Trouble is, most people won't do this. They balk at the idea of doing strength training and want to sit on their behind all day. There are so many health benefits to being active and health risks to being sedentary, it's a wonder that so many people are happy to be sedentary.
The hormonal changes at menopause do speed up the loss of lean mass and bone density - that just makes it all the more important to be active and eat plenty of protein and calcium. you need the activity - especially weight bearing exercise - to be able to maintain or even increase bone density and lean mass. Enough protein and calcium gives you the building blocks for this, but without the weight bearing exercise/strength training, the building blocks won't be used. Also, if the total number of calories eaten is too little, that's also going to put the halt on any building/preservation of bone density and muscle mass.
So yes, aging does result in a decline in metabolic rate - but that just makes it all the more important to eat and exercise right to maintain lean mass and bone density and keep your metabolism fast. It seems to me that being sedentary and eating 1200 cals/day is close to the worst thing you can do to stay health when you're aging... I sure as anything am not going to resort to that if I have any choice in the matter... if someone's medically unable to do any exercise at all, I guess such things must be inevitable. But short of anything terrible like that befalling me, you'll see me still barbell training (within my capabilities) in my 70s and 80s.0 -
My mother and I both lost weight fairly easily. We're the same height. But despite the fact that I started at a lower weight than she did (160ls for me, 190lbs for her) and her being more active than me (I'm sedentary, she's lightly active), she was allotted fewer calories than me. Why? Because I'm 26 and she's 59. Her body needed fewer calories than mine just to survive due to age. Though she didn't have any trouble meeting this goal, she got to eat less than me. It was harder for her body to lose the weight than mine. Just because it was easy for her mind doesn't mean it wasn't hard for her body.Age affects the "calories out" part of the "calories in < calories out" formula. Therefore, it affects weight loss. You're using the phrase differently than everyone else.
Saying "age affects weight loss" implies that it's harder to lose weight with increasing age. That's 100% bunk, and people use it as a BS excuse.
It wasn't harder for her. She just had to consume fewer calories.
I still called it bullsh$t because as people age, they become less active, overeat, become overweight, and become more sedentary. Therefore, weight loss become harder based on their inappropriate diets and inactive lifestyles rather than age. My aunt is 62 years old and has been active all of her life and never once had any issues with a slow metabolism or weight loss. There are plenty of people in the "Success Stories" section of this forum who are over 30, 40, etc., who lost weight just fine once they adhered to a proper diet and active lifestyle. The age issue was never a factor for many of them.0 -
And it's absurd to assume there are NOT plenty of people who ARE having issues losing weight. Why do you assume YOUR experience applies to everyone? There are plenty of success stories. And there are plenty of folks struggling.But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
It's absurd to claim age effect weight loss when plenty of people on this forum do not have that problem.
Yes, older folks metabolism slows (mine's now down to 1300, my sister's is down to about 1100)
Yes, hormones factor in for many 50+ women
Yes, the margin for error becomes smaller and smaller (see #1)
Yes, Many (see how I didn't say all) women notice that they've become somewhat more insulin resistant (see number 2)
Many women don't find it more challenging.
Many women do.
I see many very overweight menopausal (and post) women who are able to lose weight. And some who really struggle. I see a few menopausal women who are able to shift 10-20 vanity pounds as readily as they used to, using the same techniques they used to use. And I see a lot who've been battling the same few pounds for a few years, or who find that they successfully lose a pound a month.
I see my experience (hanging on to maintenance using strategies that used to lead to weight loss).
It does get harder for many women, for a number of reasons.
Why does this discussion have you so hot under the collar?0 -
And it's absurd to assume YOUR experience applies to everyone. Why does this have you so hot under the collar?But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
It's absurd to claim age effect weight loss when plenty of people on this forum do not have that problem.
It is absurd to assume you are making any kind of valid point here. Where did I state that my experience applies to everyone or that I was hot under the collar? You are the one coming at me with attitude so I suggest you check yourself before addressing me.0 -
A: See edit (I haven't had coffee yet, and hit reply too quickly)
And it's absurd to assume YOUR experience applies to everyone. Why does this have you so hot under the collar?But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
It's absurd to claim age effect weight loss when plenty of people on this forum do not have that problem.
It is absurd to assume you are making any kind of valid point here. Where did I state that my experience applies to everyone or that I was hot under the collar? You are the one coming at me with attitude so I suggest you check yourself before addressing me.
B: see ALL your previous posts where you "call bullish"0 -
A: See edit (I haven't had coffee yet, and hit reply too quickly)
And it's absurd to assume YOUR experience applies to everyone. Why does this have you so hot under the collar?But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
It's absurd to claim age effect weight loss when plenty of people on this forum do not have that problem.
It is absurd to assume you are making any kind of valid point here. Where did I state that my experience applies to everyone or that I was hot under the collar? You are the one coming at me with attitude so I suggest you check yourself before addressing me.
B: see ALL your previous posts where you "call bullish"
A. I have seen your edit and understand the struggles. There is also an epidemic of childhood obesity in this country and those young children have their own set of struggles, too. Aside from those with medical problems, healthy lifestyle and proper dietary adherence are the common primary factors and not age in both cases.
B. I will continue to call bullsh$t when age is used as a hindrance for weight loss. Nonetheless, this doesn't make me hot under the collar by any means.0 -
Then you don't understand A.
A: See edit (I haven't had coffee yet, and hit reply too quickly)
And it's absurd to assume YOUR experience applies to everyone. Why does this have you so hot under the collar?But is it something about aging BESIDES that we virtually all grow less active? Does our BMR itself downshift? It does during dieting, it might just during aging, too. There is probably less or slower cell regeneration going on, less reproductive type maintenance activity for women, etc. ? I don't know, just throwing out ideas.
It's absurd to claim age effect weight loss when plenty of people on this forum do not have that problem.
It is absurd to assume you are making any kind of valid point here. Where did I state that my experience applies to everyone or that I was hot under the collar? You are the one coming at me with attitude so I suggest you check yourself before addressing me.
B: see ALL your previous posts where you "call bullish"
A. I have seen your edit and understand the struggles. There is also an epidemic of childhood obesity in this country and those young children have their own set of struggles, too. Aside from those with medical problems, healthy lifestyle and proper dietary adherence are the common primary factors and not age in both cases.
B. I will continue to call bullsh$t when age is used as a hindrance for weight loss. Nonetheless, this doesn't make me hot under the collar by any means.
Best of luck on your journey.0 -
[/quote]Then you don't understand A.
Best of luck on your journey.
[/quote]
I understand A very well but good luck to you in using A as your excuse.0 -
[/quote]
They don't. On their current program, people average over 1800 calories a day.
[/quote]
That way too high. I had success on it years ago, and wanted to try it again after Atkins & menopause scare. I gained, and I was following it as accuratly as I could. Too many apples!0 -
Then you don't understand A.
Best of luck on your journey.
[/quote]
I understand A very well but good luck to you in using A as your excuse.
[/quote]I'm at maintenance. And have been for almost 13 years. :flowerforyou:0 -
Then you don't understand A.
Best of luck on your journey.
I understand A very well but good luck to you in using A as your excuse.
[/quote]I'm at maintenance. And have been for almost 13 years. :flowerforyou:
[/quote]
If you say so. :drinker:0 -
I'm at maintenance. And have been for almost 13 years. :flowerforyou:
Then you don't understand A.
Best of luck on your journey.
I understand A very well but good luck to you in using A as your excuse.
[/quote]
If you say so. :drinker:
[/quote]If I say I'm at maintenance? wow. you're quite the POW.0 -
If you say so. :drinker:If I say I'm at maintenance? wow. you're quite the POW.
Yes, if you say so!
Right back at cha!0 -
Is it inconceivable that they also just require fewer calories in addition to the reasons under their control? It's been posted that they regenerate less bone. Less cell/tissue regeneration would imply less energy needed.I still called it bullsh$t because as people age, they become less active, overeat, become overweight, and become more sedentary. Therefore, weight loss become harder based on their inappropriate diets and inactive lifestyles rather than age. My aunt is 62 years old and has been active all of her life and never once had any issues with a slow metabolism or weight loss. There are plenty of people in the "Success Stories" section of this forum who are over 30, 40, etc., who lost weight just fine once they adhered to a proper diet and active lifestyle. The age issue was never a factor for many of them.
No one's saying it's impossible to lose when older. Knowing people who did lose 'just fine' would only rule out the impossibility. We don't know how much age was a factor in anyone's weight loss.0 -
Is it inconceivable that they also just require fewer calories in addition to the reasons under their control? It's been posted that they regenerate less bone. Less cell/tissue regeneration would imply less energy needed.I still called it bullsh$t because as people age, they become less active, overeat, become overweight, and become more sedentary. Therefore, weight loss become harder based on their inappropriate diets and inactive lifestyles rather than age. My aunt is 62 years old and has been active all of her life and never once had any issues with a slow metabolism or weight loss. There are plenty of people in the "Success Stories" section of this forum who are over 30, 40, etc., who lost weight just fine once they adhered to a proper diet and active lifestyle. The age issue was never a factor for many of them.
No one's saying it's impossible to lose when older. Knowing people who did lose 'just fine' would only rule out the impossibility. We don't know how much age was a factor in anyone's weight loss.
I didn't state anything about reducing calories. I stated proper diet and a healthy lifestyle. At the end of the day, it still boils down to an appropriate diet and a healthy lifestyle whether the person in question is an obese child or a 40+ year old woman. The biggest struggle is finding the balance, not age.0 -
For the love of Zod, no one is saying age is the only factor or even the most important factor. Only that it is a factor. How can you not grasp that by this point?
Is it inconceivable that they also just require fewer calories in addition to the reasons under their control? It's been posted that they regenerate less bone. Less cell/tissue regeneration would imply less energy needed.I still called it bullsh$t because as people age, they become less active, overeat, become overweight, and become more sedentary. Therefore, weight loss become harder based on their inappropriate diets and inactive lifestyles rather than age. My aunt is 62 years old and has been active all of her life and never once had any issues with a slow metabolism or weight loss. There are plenty of people in the "Success Stories" section of this forum who are over 30, 40, etc., who lost weight just fine once they adhered to a proper diet and active lifestyle. The age issue was never a factor for many of them.
No one's saying it's impossible to lose when older. Knowing people who did lose 'just fine' would only rule out the impossibility. We don't know how much age was a factor in anyone's weight loss.
I didn't state anything about reducing calories. I stated proper diet and a healthy lifestyle. At the end of the day, it still boils down to an appropriate diet and a healthy lifestyle whether the person in question is an obese child or a 40+ year old woman. The biggest struggle is finding the balance, not age.0 -
For the love of Zod, no one is saying age is the only factor or even the most important factor. Only that it is a factor. How can you not grasp that by this point?
Is it inconceivable that they also just require fewer calories in addition to the reasons under their control? It's been posted that they regenerate less bone. Less cell/tissue regeneration would imply less energy needed.I still called it bullsh$t because as people age, they become less active, overeat, become overweight, and become more sedentary. Therefore, weight loss become harder based on their inappropriate diets and inactive lifestyles rather than age. My aunt is 62 years old and has been active all of her life and never once had any issues with a slow metabolism or weight loss. There are plenty of people in the "Success Stories" section of this forum who are over 30, 40, etc., who lost weight just fine once they adhered to a proper diet and active lifestyle. The age issue was never a factor for many of them.
No one's saying it's impossible to lose when older. Knowing people who did lose 'just fine' would only rule out the impossibility. We don't know how much age was a factor in anyone's weight loss.
I didn't state anything about reducing calories. I stated proper diet and a healthy lifestyle. At the end of the day, it still boils down to an appropriate diet and a healthy lifestyle whether the person in question is an obese child or a 40+ year old woman. The biggest struggle is finding the balance, not age.
For the love of Zod, God, and anyone else, you are still wrong. How can you not grasp that by this point? Some young women go through menopause at very young ages. They have the same struggles with weight loss as older women. The point remains, age is not the problem. It is their diet and lifestyle.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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