Warning to never eat below your BMR?
Replies
-
I dont understand this either- in for the replies0
-
Which is why I wrote earlier, "No" it can't be explained. Even with the caveat, one must burn off more calories than the additional intake, so the net is still lower, not higher.
Yeah, some do. On almost every thread involving someone's not losing weight or not losing as fast as he expected to.I've tried to understand all of this and it still confuses me. I am 34yrs old, 5'2.5" and currently 191lbs. I have a desk job so I sit all day long but I do exercise for 30-60 min normally every day (I did not miss any days in August and none so far this month).
According to the scooby calculator it tells me my BMR is 1614, my TDEE (the amount needed to maintain my current weight) is 1937 and that my daily calories to lose should be 1452 (that is with 25% reduction or a deficit of 484 cal/day). I typically eat 1200-1400 cal/day and then exercise 100-200 cal/day but I normally do not eat back my exercise calories so I am netting 1000-1300 cal/day if my math is correct. From what I gather that means I am eating below BMR? I've tried over the last week to increase my calories and I get scared of netting 1400 even though that's what the scooby calculator tells me to do.
How did I not give my stats??? Never mind I'll get help and answers from someone who actually cares to answer my question
People don't say that you should increase calories in order to lose more weight.
Fair enough. I'll rephrase. If people say that you should increase calories to lose more weight they are, for the most part, wrong. With the caveat that eating more calories can give more energy which can allow for more activity and harder workouts.
Yep, agreed.
Misread - nm.
Oh good. I thought I had agreed with the "health" standpoint earlier so then I was confused. :laugh:0 -
The point was about weight loss. Your point isn't about weight loss.
Which is why I wrote earlier, "No" it can't be explained. Even with the caveat, one must burn off more calories than the additional intake, so the net is still lower, not higher.
Yeah, some do. On almost every thread involving someone's not losing weight or not losing as fast as he expected to.I've tried to understand all of this and it still confuses me. I am 34yrs old, 5'2.5" and currently 191lbs. I have a desk job so I sit all day long but I do exercise for 30-60 min normally every day (I did not miss any days in August and none so far this month).
According to the scooby calculator it tells me my BMR is 1614, my TDEE (the amount needed to maintain my current weight) is 1937 and that my daily calories to lose should be 1452 (that is with 25% reduction or a deficit of 484 cal/day). I typically eat 1200-1400 cal/day and then exercise 100-200 cal/day but I normally do not eat back my exercise calories so I am netting 1000-1300 cal/day if my math is correct. From what I gather that means I am eating below BMR? I've tried over the last week to increase my calories and I get scared of netting 1400 even though that's what the scooby calculator tells me to do.
How did I not give my stats??? Never mind I'll get help and answers from someone who actually cares to answer my question
People don't say that you should increase calories in order to lose more weight.
Fair enough. I'll rephrase. If people say that you should increase calories to lose more weight they are, for the most part, wrong. With the caveat that eating more calories can give more energy which can allow for more activity and harder workouts.
Yep, agreed.
Not agreed.
Generally when this happens it's because the person is originally eating so low or so carelessly that they're not getting sufficient nutrients. Bumping it up can let them get in the nutrition so they feel better. Sometimes it's not just about energy balance.
So studies have shown right that you can in fact lose weight still eating a not so nutritious diet. Me personally if my body does not get the nutrition it needs and can now feel myself when I become unhealthy. It effects my workouts big time.1 -
I get confused about eating/not eating below my BMR as well, but mainly because I have gotten a range of answers from different BMR calculators. I've been told anywhere from 1900-2150. I know it's just an estimate but it's making me confused about what my calorie intake should be. MFP has it at 1820 (to lose 1lb a week) but that seems low. I originally had it at 2000 but even that is considered low if my BMR is actually over 2000. I have a lot of weight to lose so maybe I don't need to worry about eating under BMR as much? I'm not sure.
Confused. LOL0 -
I'm not implying that one must eat below BMR.So studies have shown right that you can in fact lose weight still eating a not so nutritious diet. Me personally if my body does not get the nutrition it needs and can now feel myself when I become unhealthy. It effects my workouts big time.
If someone isn't getting enough nutrition or doesn't have enough energy to accomplish his goals, he should probably eat more and lose more slowly.
On the other hand, if someone is doing fine eating below BMR, staying active, increasing weight or reps, or whatever, BMR likely isn't the danger line people make it out to be.0 -
This is going to be a bad example but here ya go. For example If I get into a car accident and go into a coma. The BMR is the calories needed for maintenance to say the same weight. We are using energy right now type time so everyday the amount of calories we burn is more than our BMRs. That where TDEE comes into play. When I went into the bod pod I was told my RMR which is the same as BMR. MY TDEE is way more than the RMR. Did not account for muscles.I get confused about eating/not eating below my BMR as well, but mainly because I have gotten a range of answers from different BMR calculators. I've been told anywhere from 1900-2150. I know it's just an estimate but it's making me confused about what my calorie intake should be. MFP has it at 1820 (to lose 1lb a week) but that seems low. I originally had it at 2000 but even that is considered low if my BMR is actually over 2000. I have a lot of weight to lose so maybe I don't need to worry about eating under BMR as much? I'm not sure.
Confused. LOL
You have a lot to lose so that is why you can technically lose weight fast. It like being this high in weight is unhealhier than losing at like a 2-3 pounds per week in the beginning range. Sometimes more I am not too sure from my experience. Especially when you change all those habits of yours that got you to where you are now.0 -
Yeah, I definitely agree that psychology and adherence are important. But I wonder how much reading here over and over that "you might have more energy at a higher calorie level" makes people feel that they do?
The 'more energy' argument is an interesting one, too, though you see it here all the time. I know there is some adaptive thermogenesis with dieting and its main effect is to reduce non-exercise activity, so in that respect I see how many feel like sitting around more when dieting. But our bodies have access to energy in the form of calories from fat, which is how weight loss happens. I know there can also be blood sugar issues for some or glycogen issues, with long workouts.Fair enough. I'll rephrase. If people say that you should increase calories to lose more weight they are, for the most part, wrong. With the caveat that eating more calories can give more energy which can allow for more activity and harder workouts.
But overall I think for most dieters, feeling like you have more energy at 1500 calories vs. 1300, e.g., is probably mostly psychological. Like DeguelloTex suggested, I doubt most of them 'exercise off' those extra 200 calories due to feeling differently, so the net effect is slower losses. Though I guess if your goal isn't to speed up weight loss but to maximize exercise time/effort...
I don't feel more energetic at higher calorie levels, not that anecdote means much. If anything I probably feel less energetic the more I've eaten. Feeling light and energetic is often reported from people fasting, too. Not that I'm recommending that here.
Could be psychological. For me it seems to be true just gauging by my activity tracker. But I've got medical conditions so I can't always apply my own experience to the general population.
I would point out though that psychology is important. Not really relevant to the discussion of speed of weight loss, but important to overall adherence.
I know I feel more patient and less deprived at more calories, and those DO count, too!
Back when "eating below your BMR" was a huge taboo here, there were lots of threads of people claiming all kinds of awful side effects of doing so. People would post that they couldn't lose any weight that low but that the weight was falling off them once they increased 500 calories a day. Which is really interesting. I think there's a tendency toward groupthink here often, but it's getting less so all the time. The forum is getting a lot smarter and more critical thinking, I think. 0 -
No.Can anyone explain to me how/why a person would need to eat more calories to lose weight?
I could but there is no point to bringing in unhealhty issues.
Maybe what I'm asking is not clear because I don't understand these responses? What I'm saying is if I'm currently netting 1200 calories and the scooby calculator tells me I should 1450 calories can someone tell me why that would be? Why is it telling me to higher calories when I'm trying to lose? I don't understand why I'm not losing faster when I'm creating an even larger deficit than the calculator tells me. People on the boards have said to eat more I'm just wanting to understand WHY. I'm not bringing up any unhealthy issues I'm trying to understand how this works.
There are any number of reasons for the advice to eat more. One being most of us didn't get fat because we could effortlessly eat 1200 calories consistently. But if you can handle it for the long haul, I suppose why not. With more calories though, there's just a bit more room to fit in things you like, whether or not they would be categorized as "healthy" food. Another one is if someone's exercising hard and eating very few calories , they may be advised to eat more to properly fuel their bodies rather than passing out
Why you're not losing weight with more of a deficit? There could be any number of reasons for that. Water retention, somehow your logging accuracy with regards to food and exercise got worse, etc.0 -
For about two-thirds of my weight loss ~journey~ I ate below my BMR and saw no ill effects. I think it's one of those things people say without really researching because it sounds good. Whether you eat below your BMR or below your TDEE, you're still eating less than your body needs to maintain your weight. I'd like someone to explain to me why one is awful, terribad, and the other is perfect.
I say listen to your body - if you're starving, eat more. If you're deficient in nutrients, make sure you get them. If you feel unwell, eat more. You'll be fine.
I find this very reassuring, thank you.0 -
The 'more energy' argument is an interesting one, too, though you see it here all the time. I know there is some adaptive thermogenesis with dieting and its main effect is to reduce non-exercise activity, so in that respect I see how many feel like sitting around more when dieting. But our bodies have access to energy in the form of calories from fat, which is how weight loss happens. I know there can also be blood sugar issues for some or glycogen issues, with long workouts.Fair enough. I'll rephrase. If people say that you should increase calories to lose more weight they are, for the most part, wrong. With the caveat that eating more calories can give more energy which can allow for more activity and harder workouts.
But overall I think for most dieters, feeling like you have more energy at 1500 calories vs. 1300, e.g., is probably mostly psychological. Like DeguelloTex suggested, I doubt most of them 'exercise off' those extra 200 calories due to feeling differently, so the net effect is slower losses. Though I guess if your goal isn't to speed up weight loss but to maximize exercise time/effort...
I don't feel more energetic at higher calorie levels, not that anecdote means much. If anything I probably feel less energetic the more I've eaten. Feeling light and energetic is often reported from people fasting, too. Not that I'm recommending that here.
I do think at a certain level, eating too close or below the BMR can affect energy level, and it's not all "psychological." I'm at or near normal weight, and if I go under 1200 on a particular day, I do feel light headed, irritable, and lacking in energy. I had a low day yesterday due to first day of my semester, and I knew I couldn't eat a ton because I didn't work out, and by the end of the day, it was a struggle to take a 30 minute walk. The day after a "low" day, I may get light-headed during a vigorous workout, or need to bring a snack to eat before I go home. Is this because I really need food or is it just "psycological" and I should "tough it out" at the lower calorie level? Also, there is a certain energy level and euphoria that goes with fasting (although I 've never experienced it); however, that is not necessarily an indication that this practice is beneficial or not harmful to the body, but a side effect of fasting. It's why mystics do it; it's also why anorexic girls do it because there is a "natural high."0 -
i am eating around 800 calories under my BMR + Active Burn. this does not include my calories burned through exercise, which you can say add upto 250-450 calories.
essencially, my deficit hovers around 800--1200 calories. I still eat around 1900 calories a day.
i feel fine, i eat well, and my weight loss is going well.
am i doing something wrong?0 -
I doubt your BMR is 2600.i am eating around 700 calories under my BMR + Active Burn. this does not include my calories burned through exercise, which you can say add upto 250-450 calories.
essencially, my deficit hovers around 800-1000 calories. I still eat almost around 1900 calories a day.
i feel fine, and my weight loss is going well.0 -
I doubt your BMR is 2600.i am eating around 700 calories under my BMR + Active Burn. this does not include my calories burned through exercise, which you can say add upto 250-450 calories.
essencially, my deficit hovers around 800-1000 calories. I still eat almost around 1900 calories a day.
i feel fine, and my weight loss is going well.
BMR: 2294
Active Burn: 458.8
TOTAL: 2,752.8
Calories consumed: 1900
Caloric Deficit: 852.8
Calories Burnd Via Exercise: 200-400
TOTAL CALORIC DEFICIT: 1052.8-1252.8
So, am i doing something wrong here? I read that it is fine for an obese male to take a maximum caloric deficit of 1400 calories.0 -
Do you think it's because 1200 is near your BMR or because 1200 is just a fairly low calorie level for everyone?I do think at a certain level, eating too close or below the BMR can affect energy level, and it's not all "psychological." I'm at or near normal weight, and if I go under 1200 on a particular day, I do feel light headed, irritable, and lacking in energy.
I'm referring more to the people who have a BMR that is significantly higher than 1200 but MFP suggests 1200 to them (or something else below their BMR). That's the question I see all the time-- "MFP tells me 1400 but my BMR is 1660, is MFP suggesting a dangerously low calorie level?"0 -
Probably also because being near normal weight means lower fat stores to call on to make up the difference between what is eaten and what the body needs.
Do you think it's because 1200 is near your BMR or because 1200 is just a fairly low calorie level for everyone?I do think at a certain level, eating too close or below the BMR can affect energy level, and it's not all "psychological." I'm at or near normal weight, and if I go under 1200 on a particular day, I do feel light headed, irritable, and lacking in energy.
I'm referring more to the people who have a BMR that is significantly higher than 1200 but MFP suggests 1200 to them (or something else below their BMR). That's the question I see all the time-- "MFP tells me 1400 but my BMR is 1660, is MFP suggesting a dangerously low calorie level?"0 -
I doubt your BMR is 2600.i am eating around 700 calories under my BMR + Active Burn. this does not include my calories burned through exercise, which you can say add upto 250-450 calories.
essencially, my deficit hovers around 800-1000 calories. I still eat almost around 1900 calories a day.
i feel fine, and my weight loss is going well.
BMR: 2294
Active Burn: 458.8
TOTAL: 2,752.8
Calories consumed: 1900
Caloric Deficit: 852.8
Calories Burnd Via Exercise: 200-400
TOTAL CALORIC DEFICIT: 1052.8-1252.8
So, am i doing something wrong here? I read that it is fine for an obese male to take a maximum caloric deficit of 1400 calories.
You're perfectly fine at 1900 calories, provided you're losing weight and feeling fine.0 -
No one's talking about doing it concentration camp style.when you eat below your BMR your body gets its fuel from other places than just fat, lean tissue, muscle, even organs if you go long enough and far enough below.
I have about 80 pounds of fat. At 31 calories per pound per day, metabolizing my organs probably won't be an issue for quite a while.
This!0 -
Probably also because being near normal weight means lower fat stores to call on to make up the difference between what is eaten and what the body needs.
Do you think it's because 1200 is near your BMR or because 1200 is just a fairly low calorie level for everyone?I do think at a certain level, eating too close or below the BMR can affect energy level, and it's not all "psychological." I'm at or near normal weight, and if I go under 1200 on a particular day, I do feel light headed, irritable, and lacking in energy.
I'm referring more to the people who have a BMR that is significantly higher than 1200 but MFP suggests 1200 to them (or something else below their BMR). That's the question I see all the time-- "MFP tells me 1400 but my BMR is 1660, is MFP suggesting a dangerously low calorie level?"
This.0 -
BMR: 2294
Active Burn: 458.8
TOTAL: 2,752.8
Calories consumed: 1900
Caloric Deficit: 852.8
Calories Burnd Via Exercise: 200-400
TOTAL CALORIC DEFICIT: 1052.8-1252.8
So, am i doing something wrong here? I read that it is fine for an obese male to take a maximum caloric deficit of 1400 calories.
Doing the math wrong and understanding what your body burns.
There is a whole lot more in your daily burn than BMR and active burn, if by that you mean exercise.
About 10% of food you eat is burned in processing it.
Your daily activity burns a bit depending on job.
Then your exercise is added too.
Eating around 2000 would indeed give you that 1000 cal deficit on average.0 -
I get confused about eating/not eating below my BMR as well, but mainly because I have gotten a range of answers from different BMR calculators. I've been told anywhere from 1900-2150. I know it's just an estimate but it's making me confused about what my calorie intake should be. MFP has it at 1820 (to lose 1lb a week) but that seems low. I originally had it at 2000 but even that is considered low if my BMR is actually over 2000. I have a lot of weight to lose so maybe I don't need to worry about eating under BMR as much? I'm not sure.
Confused. LOL
I wouldn't worry about your BMR. Just pick a deficit that seems reasonable to you and take it off of your TDEE (or just use MFP).
If your BMR is 1900 to 2150 and you are sedentary, then you'd have a TDEE of 2280 to 2580. If you are more active, it would be higher. If MFP tells you to eat 1820 to lose 1 lb a week, that means it is estimating your maintenance (without exercise) at about 2320, which is perfectly consistent with that range.
If you are happy losing 1 lb/week, I'd start with the MFP number and see what you actually lose and then adjust. Remember that the way MFP works is that you add back in your exercise calories or some reasonable amount of them, which is yet another reason why worry about whether your BMR is below your MFP goal seems an unnecessary complication. A deficit of 500 when you have a lot to lose is not overly aggressive for most people.0 -
According to the scooby calculator it tells me my BMR is 1614, my TDEE (the amount needed to maintain my current weight) is 1937 and that my daily calories to lose should be 1452 (that is with 25% reduction or a deficit of 484 cal/day). I typically eat 1200-1400 cal/day and then exercise 100-200 cal/day but I normally do not eat back my exercise calories so I am netting 1000-1300 cal/day if my math is correct. From what I gather that means I am eating below BMR? I've tried over the last week to increase my calories and I get scared of netting 1400 even though that's what the scooby calculator tells me to do.
My thinking is if I'm not losing very fast eating such a large calorie deficit now then how am I going to lose if I increase it?
These are all estimates, but based on these numbers (not including the exercise), you'd be losing on average about 1.2 to 1.3 lb/week at 1300. If you did the 25% deficit, you'd be losing a bit under a lb/week. That's what people often don't understand about the 20% of TDEE deficit--if one's TDEE is around 2000 (common if one is lighter or sedentary or some combination), then even 20% of TDEE is less than a pound. That's why it gives you a much different number sometimes than MFP (based on a goal of 2 lb/week or some such). NOT because there's some magical way that eating more makes you lose more.
Anyway, as others have said, once you have your own numbers, those are what govern, not the theoretical ones, although I find it still worth comparing with the theoretical ones to see if the numbers I'm getting seem to make sense, are high or low compared to average, etc. I suppose if mine were way off I'd want to talk to a doctor about whether that means something is wrong. Yours seem a bit low, but not really weirdly so. It could easily be due to normal variation or just imperfections in estimating everything.
Now of course it's better not to have an overly aggressive deficit, which is why MFP caps it at 1200 and 2 lbs/week (1200 also because one needs a minimum number of calories to get adequate nutrition, etc.). But in your case (and mine, back when I started), MFP's recommendation is low because your numbers are already low, not because it's an aggressive deficit. It still may be a more aggressive deficit than you want--it's better to lose more slowly if the alternative is not sustainable or miserable, etc. But if you are happy with what you are eating and only losing about a lb/week fluctuating between 1200 and 1400, I see no particular benefit to raising calories just because of some idea about your BMR.0 -
I get confused about eating/not eating below my BMR as well, but mainly because I have gotten a range of answers from different BMR calculators. I've been told anywhere from 1900-2150. I know it's just an estimate but it's making me confused about what my calorie intake should be. MFP has it at 1820 (to lose 1lb a week) but that seems low. I originally had it at 2000 but even that is considered low if my BMR is actually over 2000. I have a lot of weight to lose so maybe I don't need to worry about eating under BMR as much? I'm not sure.
Confused. LOL
I wouldn't worry about your BMR. Just pick a deficit that seems reasonable to you and take it off of your TDEE (or just use MFP).
If your BMR is 1900 to 2150 and you are sedentary, then you'd have a TDEE of 2280 to 2580. If you are more active, it would be higher. If MFP tells you to eat 1820 to lose 1 lb a week, that means it is estimating your maintenance (without exercise) at about 2320, which is perfectly consistent with that range.
If you are happy losing 1 lb/week, I'd start with the MFP number and see what you actually lose and then adjust. Remember that the way MFP works is that you add back in your exercise calories or some reasonable amount of them, which is yet another reason why worry about whether your BMR is below your MFP goal seems an unnecessary complication. A deficit of 500 when you have a lot to lose is not overly aggressive for most people.
Thanks 0 -
Argh, I'm still finding the concept understanding of BMR and TDEE really overwhelming (is that stupid?!) It makes sense, but I don't get it? Although I pretty much still eat at mostly below my minimum calorie goal, I stopped losing any thing ages ago. But, I'm scared that if I increase to boost weight loss again, then it'll pile back on? *confused face*0
-
Argh, I'm still finding the concept understanding of BMR and TDEE really overwhelming (is that stupid?!) It makes sense, but I don't get it? Although I pretty much still eat at mostly below my minimum calorie goal, I stopped losing any thing ages ago. But, I'm scared that if I increase to boost weight loss again, then it'll pile back on? *confused face*
Pile what back on?
Water or fat?
What if you knew the first big amount of weight loss was purely water weight (which it was) - would that matter?
What if you knew you do cardio outside in summer your blood volume will increase with more water - would it matter?
What if you knew you were depleted in normal muscle carb stores, with attached water, maintaining a false lower weight that would go back up when you ate normal - would it matter?
Or do you rather care about losing fat? Fat from places that people see, inches, no matter what it might happen to weigh?
TDEE is literally a daily thing, and MFP actually uses that method.
They start with non-exercise TDEE basically, maintenance. Take a deficit off. Because you merely need to eat less than you burn to lose weight.
But when your exercise, your real TDEE for that day goes up by whatever you burned in exercise. Take the exact same deficit off that now bigger number, and you obviously eat more.
But in both cases - you are eating less than you burn, each day, exercise or not.
BMR, what you body burns for basic functions of metabolism (all day burn is NOT metabolism), is the life sustain functions.
You got muscles helping you breath, muscles pumping your heart, brain using energy (more when awake), growing hair/nail/skin? You are burning those calories all day long.
You also burn calories processing food, from the muscles moving it along, to the breaking it down and transporting it.
You also burn more calories when you wake up and start moving.
And of course if you go out and purposely exercise.
Add all that up - that's TDEE, which obviously is very variable daily, but you can estimate a rough amount.
MFP just leaves the exercise out of that list until you really do it. Then you log it, TDEE goes up, you eat more.
So here's a fun test, because you are obviously eating at maintenance right now. Whether that be whatever number you think your are, or include the binges that may happen because it's so low, or add on for the inaccuracies in bad food logging.
You are eating at maintenance right now.
But is it suppressed maintenance because your body didn't like what you were doing to it, or potential maintenance and your numbers are just terrible estimates?
Eat 250 more calories daily for 2 weeks.
Guess how much you gain slowly if you were already eating at true potential maintenance?
1 pound. Reread that.
If you gain more or faster, then it's obviously water weight, because fat can't go on that fast eating a mere 250 more.
What that does prove though, is your body is still getting less than it wants, and it has you with depleted carb stores in the muscles, which stores with water.
You eat 250 more for 3 days and gain 1 lb, you just increased those carb stores.
Good, needed, normal, carb stores. If you think it's bad weight, then you should bleed yourself too, because there is likely unneeded blood volume with extra water weight too.
Foolish thinking on both parts though.
You may also gain none - which means your body increased it's daily burn to match what you are feeding it - meaning prior eating level was obviously not potential maintenance or TDEE.0 -
That's actually one of the more logical responses I've had to that question.. it's a good way of looking at it, and thank you for clarifying the differences between MFP and TDEE too, it's been a bit baffling! >.< Water isn't so much, it's more the fat which scares me. My BMI is around 19 now, but that's from coming down at a BMI of 31 a few years ago prior to having an eating disorder, so my metabolism.. I'm sure.. is a bit messed up any way!0
-
xxhalokitty, you have a BMI of 19 and you are stil ltrying to lose weight?
Why?0 -
It's more a worry of how to maintain whilst knowing I'm really not functioning to my best ability (probably due to deficit) as it is. That's where the confusion of TDEE etc came from0
-
It's more a worry of how to maintain whilst knowing I'm really not functioning to my best ability (probably due to deficit) as it is. That's where the confusion of TDEE etc came from
However, you mentioned earlier in this thread that you are eating below your BMR to maintain. If you're a BMI of 19, then you need to be eating more than your BMR. People eat at BMR or below to lose weight, not maintain0 -
Thank you! 0
-
I have eaten below my BMR (by approx 200 calories) and lived to tell the tale.
I did this for 2 weeks at a time, AND exercised 5 days per week during this phase.
Worked REALLY well for scrubbing fat.
I may try this again, although I would keep it to Short Controlled Bursts, and not just because it's an awesome album. (Google will help with my non-sequitor). Eating below BMR would likely be tough on a body if done for an extended period of time, although I have no actual proof on which to base this idea....
^^This seems right to me.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions