WHY AM I NOT LOSING??? :(
Replies
-
Hey! I was saving that reference as my trump card! Way to ruin it for me
A kinesiologist trying to sell books... Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.0 -
Why exercise then? What is the net benefit?
Conditioning your body to work more efficiently and to be healthier.0 -
Re: exercise. Who said this? I read it here: "if you want to look better in your clothes, diet. If you want to look better naked, workout."
Eating back calories- exercise can matter as much as diet in weight loss. It depends how you want to run it. You can build your day anyway you choose to create a deficit. I like to build my day with a cal deficit, then burn a ton of calories, and eat them. I have the same deficit 'you' do, only I get to enjoy more food, and I get a stronger, healthier body out of it. You have to put out more cals than you take in-- and exercise, movement, that's what the 'put out' part MEANS, so no pretending it's useless, not for me!
0 -
A kinesiologist trying to sell books... Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.
Still waiting on your research0 -
ok... so she's eating 1200 calories. She then exercises and burns 400. Now what? Now she's netting 800. Is that ok? That's what we've been saying from the beginning. 1200 net calories may be fine for her, but she's not NETTING 1200... she's eating 1200 then exercising and burning, so she's netting something below that. That's the point we are making... eat them back so you get back to the 1200. No one is telling her to eat back to 2000 net calories.He didn't say to stop eating. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that if you're on a calorie deficit of 1200 calorie limit, you're going to lose weight if your body was accustomed to 2000+ calories. However, it does not warrant eating back all the calories you just burned. How is your body supposed to tap into its own resources if you're putting back in what you just burned off?
Again, it's simple math.
ok, then I'll stop worrying about people with eating disorders because they want to look better.Who are we to tell her what her goal should and shouldn't be? Whatever gets her to be healthy, whatever gets her to lose unnecessary weight should be what she focuses on. If looking good is what her ultimate goal is, then so be it. More power to her!
Sure, in most cases you're right... whatever it takes to get someone to be HEALTHY. But again, that's the point we are making... netting 800 or 900 calories isn't healthy for most people. Since we don't know the OP, and there was relatively little info given, we assume she is an average person as far as these things go.0 -
Again, it's simple math.
I don't think you understand the math behind mfp then0 -
Hey! I was saving that reference as my trump card! Way to ruin it for me
A kinesiologist trying to sell books... Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.
Yea, books... never any good info in those, is there. Stupid dictionaries/encyclopedias/etc.0 -
People have posted before and after pics witht he 30-day shred here before, and some of them got noticably ripped. So if you are indeed losing inches, it's muscle, because a pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat. Inches are really all that mater, in fact.0
-
I agree with you 100%. I was certainly not saying that doing 0 exercise was a good thing, just that you didn't need it to lose weight. It was a response to the question of what the net benefit of exercise is, my point was that it was much more than weight loss. Apologies if I wasn't clear on that.Diet & Exercise go hand-in-hand. Exercise fuels weight loss and diet helps the body to continue to lose. I can't believe there are people on this message board telling people that you don't need to exercise to lose weight.
I don't come here for unhealthy thinking. Cocaine also helps you lose weight, should I start the cocaine diet? Starving yourself also helps you lose weight. Should I become anorexic? This is not healthy thinking.
You're right, it is simple math. The problem is that the variables are hard to determine. Our argument (well my argument at least) is not that you don't need a deficit to lose weight (you do). MFP already incorporates a deficit into the target calorie count, so the act of not eating back your exercise calories increases your deficit to a level that could be unhealthy. That is assuming perfect accuracy on MFP's part when calculating your BMR and equally perfect accuracy on the user's part when logging their intake cals (both of which tend to be off quite a bit). Will not eating your calories back kill you? Probably not. But if you get to the extreme case where you have a 1200 calorie diet which already includes a massive deficit and you put in an intense 1000 calorie workout without taking anything in to counter that hit, there could be some serious physiological consequences. At the same time, I mentioned an extreme case. If you don't eat back every single calorie from a workout you won't suddenly go into starvation mode and put on 1000 lbs either, knowing what the numbers mean is important though.He didn't say to stop eating. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that if you're on a calorie deficit of 1200 calorie limit, you're going to lose weight if your body was accustomed to 2000+ calories. However, it does not warrant eating back all the calories you just burned. How is your body supposed to tap into its own resources if you're putting back in what you just burned off?
Again, it's simple math.0 -
Why do you put on weight when you start exercising?
It is often seen that you put on weight in the beginning when you start exercising. And it can be demotivating if one of your exercise goals is to lose weight. If your weight is increased it is seldom because you put on fat, but far more often because you accumulate more carbohydrates (sugar) in your body in the beginning. For each gram of sugar you accumulate three grams of water. That can mean a total weight increase of one kilo. In addition, more water can be accumulated because your muscles are exercised and get a little "worn". When your muscles are sore it will increase fluid accumulation. Also, your body will start producing more blood very quickly to meet the increased exercise requirements. And you may quickly put on 1-2 litres of blood if you go from inactive to active. Only after about 6-8 weeks of regular exercising will your muscles start developing due to the increased loads. If you do hard workout, you may put on quite a few kilos of muscle mass over the following weeks and months. If you exercise moderately, the muscle build-up will usually stop after 3-4 months. If you exercise lightly, the muscle build-up will stop again quite soon, and the muscle mass will be maintained through exercising.
That is a quote from a website. I have also been told by doctors that for about the first months any weight lost is water weight, not fat. You will usually lose/gain the same 5 to 10 pounds for about 3 months as you build muscle and lose fat. I know that when I did JM 30 DS I had to add in extra cardio to see pounds lost, but I lost inches. I am doing the 30 DS again right now, L1 D8, and for the first 5 days I just did the DS workout and lost 1.5" from hips, .5" from waist, .25" from butt... then I added in extra cardio with it and lost 1.5 pounds in two days.0 -
with the shred you are losing inches, plus you are toning and developing muscle. Remember, muscle weighs more than fat Keep at it and don't give up; the pounds will eventually come off as well! Good job so far!
*sigh* muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle and 5 lbs of fat are both 5 lbs.
Muscle is DENSER than fat, so the same volume of muscle will weigh more than the same volume of fat.
Edited to add: 5 pounds is 5 pounds is 5 pounds... I agree with what this person posted - muscle is dense. Check out that pic. You could add 2 or more of the muscle replicas in the same space as one of the fat replicas.
To the OP... break out that tape measure!! I bet you are ROCKIN'!0 -
I don't think you understand the math behind mfp then
There is no difference between the math of MFP and the math of weight loss. Calories in, Calories out. Calories out have to be more than calories in. BMR?
I understand what you and jack are saying regarding calories - we are on the same page, so I'm not sure what all the fighting is about. If she burns 200 calories in the gym, does she really need to eat that back? No. Is that deficit going to put her in the hospital? No. If she burned 800 calories in the gym and did not replenish that, then yeah, that kind of daily practice will likely make her sick. So I'm not disagreeing with anybody saying she shouldn't be eating back her calories. What I'm saying is calories in, calories out. Allow your body to use its own fuel that is has stored.ok, then I'll stop worrying about people with eating disorders because they want to look better.
You know that's not healthy. She's working her plan, she's losing the weight (or at least trying) why knock her for the reasons she wants to lose the weight? She's doing it properly, she's doing it healthily. I don't think knocking someone down for their reasons is supportive at all. If she wants to lose weight because she wants to be sexy for her boyfriend/husband, is that wrong? Who are we to say? That is my point.0 -
Hey! I was saving that reference as my trump card! Way to ruin it for me
A kinesiologist trying to sell books... Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.
Yea, books... never any good info in those, is there. Stupid dictionaries/encyclopedias/etc.
Do kinesiologists even study chemistry..biology...physics...? He references a single case study and then speculates on what might be going on. Did you even read the last two paragraphs in that article? He basically admits he doesn't have a clue. And this is the solid research that supports your position?
Here are the last two paragraphs of that article:
"So that’s that, a look at one of the oddities of fat loss, the situation where the combination of excessive caloric deficits and excessive amounts of activity seem to hurt rather than help fat loss, along with some gross speculation (and just enough research to make it sound like I know what I’m talking about) on what may be going on.
In a practical sense, of course, most of the background isn’t that relevant. The simple facts for the majority of folks is this: you can either cut calories hard OR do large amounts of activity. But you can’t do both. Well you can do both, you just probably shouldn’t under most circumstances."0 -
Again, it's simple math.
I don't think you understand the math behind mfp then
Sadly, you're right. The math behind it is very simple. What you seem to fail to realize is that our bodies aren't mathematical formulas, we can't simply plug in a few variables and get the results we need. Please don't misunderstand, im double majoring in math and science and I can say i honestly LOVE math. But the body isn't just simple math, which is why math students arent required to take biology and why as a doctor you don't technically need more than first year calculus.... the body doesnt work as simple math. Its complex and ever changing, and there are far too many variables out there for it to ever be considered simple.
Also, simple math = encouragement of eating disorders. Its simple math, so this way of thinking should be completely fine, right?0 -
I gained 3 lbs when I started the 30 DS and I was DEPRESSED. I was sore, could barely move, needed to take hot showers to function after working out and I GAINED WEIGHT?!?!?! WTH!?!? I almost gave up on it. I only lost about 3-4 lbs when I did the shred which was very upsetting but I also lost 4 inches in my lower stomach. That made it all better!!!
I would definitely recommend making your diary public. I learned that if I wasn't eating my exercise calories back I wasn't losing weight. It didn't make sense to me. I was finally able to eat quality food in decent portions so I wasn't starving and staying under 1200 calories and I wasn't losing?!?! But when I started eating back my exercise calories (I still maintain a deficit usually of around 100 calories because I'll take a taste of my husband's soda/beer, not measure my salad dressing exactly, etc) I found that I was losing weight again. There is science behind that about starvation mode and stuff but I don't understand all of that sometimes. I just know it worked for me.
I would also recommend eating more whole foods and less processed foods. I'm not perfect at it (ie Trader Joe's meals for lunch but as a working mom it's a necessary evil and they have less crap in them) but I try to eat less pre-packaged stuff. It's made a difference for me!!!
Good luck and if you want another friend you can add me!!!0 -
A kinesiologist trying to sell books... Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.
Still waiting on your research
I already posted a link. Thermodynamics is at the absolute core of this debate - and it's not my research. There's no need to introduce any more voodoo pseudoscience into this discussion.
In general, I'd say rationalization gets most people into this mess. And it's that same misguided rationalization that prevents them from getting out of it. People just need to harden the *kitten* up. Mental games will sabotage the effort much faster than anything else.0 -
Get yourself a food scale. You'll be shocked to see how small a true portion is. Could be 2-3x's less then you think. Believe it!0
-
I did change my goal weekly weight loss to be 1 lb rather then 2. Also, I AM eating SOME of my exercise calories back, but not all. I'm not limiting myself to 1200 calories total after a workout. Thank you for all your help and support!!!!! I will keep working at this and try focusing on the inches lost (when I measure again THERE BETTER BE SOME!) and looking better in my clothes! That Jillian sure is a tough trainer but gives you quite the workout. I know I'm sure dripping with sweat after each workout! I REALLY hate level 2 of the shred but I'm gonna stick with it! I'm determined to get back into my cute clothes that are wasting SO much space in my closet! I want that great body back!!!! 0
-
A lot of people will say starvation mode is a myth. This is true and false.
I think the confusion comes from the misinterpretation of the condition. You aren't starving, but you aren't losing either. If you don't fuel your body enough, you'll subconsciously slow yourself down. you won't fidget, you'll sleep less efficiently, you'll get tired more easily, or not be able to work out as hard. This leads to an overall slowing of the metabolism and burning fewer calories, thus no weight loss. Your body can run on 800 cals/day, but it will force you to slow down eventually or start sacrificing muscle mass. The less muscle you have, the fewer calories you will burn, so your body might make this tradeoff.
It's more than just simply calories in and calories out. Your body is an amazing machine that will try to adapt to what you put it through, but there is a point that it will give. This is why starvation will make you lose weight eventually, but I think everyone can agree that this is not healthy.
MFP already creates a deficit based on your lifestyle WITHOUT any extra exercise. If you exercise, you need to eat more, or your body will eventually slow itself down to compensate. You can lose weight without exercise, but much of that will be muscle mass. you don't want that, so you exercise to try to retain that sexy muscle mass, AND have the bonus of eating more on the MFP program!
I was just like the OP once. I didn't ever eat my exercise calories. I lost... at first. Then I would plateau. I got tired, grumpy, and was NOT losing anymore. Then I ate more. I gained a little for a week or two, then I starting dropping consistently again, and felt better to boot! Go ahead and eat your exercise calories. Your body will thank you.
FYI don't look at my diary for guidance on that. My diary is set to maintenance and I use another device to track my calories burned everyday, so my diary will show my true deficit, rather than the rough estimated deficit from MFP.0 -
Do kinesiologists even study chemistry..biology...physics...? He references a single case study and then speculates on what might be going on. Did you even read the last two paragraphs in that article? He basically admits he doesn't have a clue. And this is the solid research that supports your position?
I'm at work so I don't have time for an exhaustive study. Here's what a quick search yielded:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20746251/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360304/abstract;jsessionid=64F038F526CBB4401545101DAE8B8AD5.d03t03
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/986
From what I gathered based on those (not the best sources granted, but better than ___________ which is what you've listed) calorie restriction is good for you, but in moderation. Extreme restriction (as would be the case with a low calorie diet that already incorporates a deficit coupled with rigorous exercise) can be hazardous to your health.
Edit to incorporate your comment while I was typing this: I never argued that calories in must be less than calories out to generate weight loss. The argument is that extreme deficits are dangerous and ultimately cause more problems than the weight loss generated by them. It's not just a matter of sacking up and pushing harder, you still need to provide your body with a base level of nutrition for it to operate properly. Not doing so will diminish your performance and ultimately hinder your progress.0 -
Again, it's simple math.
I don't think you understand the math behind mfp then
Sadly, you're right. The math behind it is very simple. What you seem to fail to realize is that our bodies aren't mathematical formulas, we can't simply plug in a few variables and get the results we need. Please don't misunderstand, im double majoring in math and science and I can say i honestly LOVE math. But the body isn't just simple math, which is why math students arent required to take biology and why as a doctor you don't technically need more than first year calculus.... the body doesnt work as simple math. Its complex and ever changing, and there are far too many variables out there for it to ever be considered simple.
Also, simple math = encouragement of eating disorders. Its simple math, so this way of thinking should be completely fine, right?
It's a simple energy balance. Yes, the variables are numerous, but almost all of those variables can be eliminated or normalized very easily. The human body is cool that way. Weight loss doesn't need to be complicated. We make it complicated in order to justify our perceived failures and/or ignorance.0 -
Do kinesiologists even study chemistry..biology...physics...? He references a single case study and then speculates on what might be going on. Did you even read the last two paragraphs in that article? He basically admits he doesn't have a clue. And this is the solid research that supports your position?
I'm at work so I don't have time for an exhaustive study. Here's what a quick search yielded:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20746251/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360304/abstract;jsessionid=64F038F526CBB4401545101DAE8B8AD5.d03t03
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/986
From what I gathered based on those (not the best sources granted, but better than ___________ which is what you've listed) calorie restriction is good for you, but in moderation. Extreme restriction (as would be the case with a low calorie diet that already incorporates a deficit coupled with rigorous exercise) can be hazardous to your health.
Edit to incorporate your comment while I was typing this: I never argued that calories in must be less than calories out to generate weight loss. The argument is that extreme deficits are dangerous and ultimately cause more problems than the weight loss generated by them. It's not just a matter of sacking up and pushing harder, you still need to provide your body with a base level of nutrition for it to operate properly. Not doing so will diminish your performance and ultimately hinder your progress.
Let's stay on point here. All I'm arguing is that it's a waste to eat back all your exercise calories. And your use of the word "extreme" is noted. Your body's vital processes require a certain amount of energy and certain key nutritional components. The argument that these resources are suddenly absent when some arbitrary daily calorie threshold is exceeded is fallacious at best0 -
Unless you start removing limbs and internal organs, you can't ever come close to eliminating or "normalizing" all the variables involve in weight loss. Add in water retention, hormones/thyroid or glandular issues, and stress on top of everything else the human body does, it is NEVER going to be that simple. If it were that simple, there wouldn't be any overweight people.It's a simple energy balance. Yes, the variables are numerous, but almost all of those variables can be eliminated or normalized very easily. The human body is cool that way. Weight loss doesn't need to be complicated. We make it complicated in order to justify our perceived failures and/or ignorance.0 -
Do kinesiologists even study chemistry..biology...physics...? He references a single case study and then speculates on what might be going on. Did you even read the last two paragraphs in that article? He basically admits he doesn't have a clue. And this is the solid research that supports your position?
I'm at work so I don't have time for an exhaustive study. Here's what a quick search yielded:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20746251/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360304/abstract;jsessionid=64F038F526CBB4401545101DAE8B8AD5.d03t03
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/986
From what I gathered based on those (not the best sources granted, but better than ___________ which is what you've listed) calorie restriction is good for you, but in moderation. Extreme restriction (as would be the case with a low calorie diet that already incorporates a deficit coupled with rigorous exercise) can be hazardous to your health.
Edit to incorporate your comment while I was typing this: I never argued that calories in must be less than calories out to generate weight loss. The argument is that extreme deficits are dangerous and ultimately cause more problems than the weight loss generated by them. It's not just a matter of sacking up and pushing harder, you still need to provide your body with a base level of nutrition for it to operate properly. Not doing so will diminish your performance and ultimately hinder your progress.
Let's stay on point here. All I'm arguing is that it's a waste to eat back all your exercise calories. And your use of the word "extreme" is noted. Your body's vital processes require a certain amount of energy and certain key nutritional components. The argument that these resources are suddenly absent when some arbitrary daily calorie threshold is exceeded is fallacious at best
So how many should people eat back? If maintenance for me is 2300cal per day, and I want to lose 2lbs per week, that puts my daily goal at 1300. Then I go for a bike ride and burn 1000cal. How many should I eat back?0 -
Unless you start removing limbs and internal organs, you can't ever come close to eliminating or "normalizing" all the variables involve in weight loss. Add in water retention, hormones/thyroid or glandular issues, and stress on top of everything else the human body does, it is NEVER going to be that simple. If it were that simple, there wouldn't be any overweight people.It's a simple energy balance. Yes, the variables are numerous, but almost all of those variables can be eliminated or normalized very easily. The human body is cool that way. Weight loss doesn't need to be complicated. We make it complicated in order to justify our perceived failures and/or ignorance.
Statements like that only help to strengthen my argument. Intentional weight gain is just as simple for most of us - but without all the mental drama.0 -
Nevermind, I don't have time this afternoon, and I think I confused the person I quoted for someone else. I'd delete if I could, but for now "nevermind" will have to suffice. 0
-
Do kinesiologists even study chemistry..biology...physics...? He references a single case study and then speculates on what might be going on. Did you even read the last two paragraphs in that article? He basically admits he doesn't have a clue. And this is the solid research that supports your position?
I'm at work so I don't have time for an exhaustive study. Here's what a quick search yielded:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20746251/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360304/abstract;jsessionid=64F038F526CBB4401545101DAE8B8AD5.d03t03
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/986
From what I gathered based on those (not the best sources granted, but better than ___________ which is what you've listed) calorie restriction is good for you, but in moderation. Extreme restriction (as would be the case with a low calorie diet that already incorporates a deficit coupled with rigorous exercise) can be hazardous to your health.
Edit to incorporate your comment while I was typing this: I never argued that calories in must be less than calories out to generate weight loss. The argument is that extreme deficits are dangerous and ultimately cause more problems than the weight loss generated by them. It's not just a matter of sacking up and pushing harder, you still need to provide your body with a base level of nutrition for it to operate properly. Not doing so will diminish your performance and ultimately hinder your progress.
Let's stay on point here. All I'm arguing is that it's a waste to eat back all your exercise calories. And your use of the word "extreme" is noted. Your body's vital processes require a certain amount of energy and certain key nutritional components. The argument that these resources are suddenly absent when some arbitrary daily calorie threshold is exceeded is fallacious at best
So how many should people eat back? If maintenance for me is 2300cal per day, and I want to lose 2lbs per week, that puts my daily goal at 1300. Then I go for a bike ride and burn 1000cal. How many should I eat back?
If you're hell bent on maxing out at 2 lbs per week, then by all means, throw down another 1000 calories. I'm not saying that you can't eat some of your calories back. Let your body tell you. The scenario you outlined is basically my average day. Do I stick with my 1300 calorie limit? Not usually. I usually eat around 1500 calories per day and burn an additional 800 through exercise. This is all anecdotal and should be interpreted as such. My point is, find out what works for you - don't let MFP dictate your life. You're not going to slip into a coma if your net calories aren't 1300 each and every damn day. I typically enjoy exercise, and I know I would be disgusted with myself if I ate back the 800 extra calories I burn a day. Talk about defeating...0 -
Earlier you said that eating back exercise calories was BS. Now you're saying do what works for you? Which is it?
The OP isn't eating back her calories and it isn't working for her, so now what? Are you trying to argue with me/us, or trying to help the OP?
Furthermore, very few people would say a regular diet of 600cal (net) per day is a good idea. While I agree that you should find out what works for you, I'm responsible enough to NOT run around blindly suggesting the things that work for me.0 -
Earlier you said that eating back exercise calories was BS. Now you're saying do what works for you? Which is it?
The OP isn't eating back her calories and it isn't working for her, so now what? Are you trying to argue with me/us, or trying to help the OP?
Furthermore, very few people would say a regular diet of 600cal (net) per day is a good idea. While I agree that you should find out what works for you, I'm responsible enough to NOT run around blindly suggesting the things that work for me.
I said that eating back ALL your exercise calories was BS. And, just for the record, I think eating back any significant portion of exercise calories is ridiculous if your primary goal is weight loss. You're not going to convince me that an increase in net calories, any way you choose to spin it, is somehow going to lead to an increase in weight loss - not in the reality I live in. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? I just don't believe anyone who claims that this is indeed the case. There's no scientific basis for it. We can argue all day about what a healthy deficit is, but that's not what I'm trying to do here.
All I'm saying is that it's stupid to go and do a bunch of exercise with the goal of losing weight, and then eat it all back just because MFP says you should. Yeah, exercise has many more benefits than just losing weight. But I'd venture to guess that the primary drive of most MFP users is to lose weight. Eating back exercise calories is just plain sabotage to weight loss.
Have you ever watched The Biggest Loser on television? Do you think those people are eating back all their exercise calories? Do those deficits qualify as "extreme"? Give me a freaking break. Of course the "experts" don't advocate such aggressive weight loss programs. It's not that the human body can't physically handle the stress. It's just that the average physically lazy and overweight person isn't mentally tough enough to stick with it. Our primitive ancestors survived on a much more limited and less diverse diet than what we have, and they were a lot more active to boot. We've gone soft. Like I said earlier, people just need to harden the *kitten* up and stop obsessing about so-called unhealthy deficits.
Don't waste your time exercising (unless you actually enjoy it) if you're just planning on eating those calories back. I'm out.0 -
If your calories is already set for 1-2lb loss per week, then I see no reason to eat back your calories? The weight loss is built into the calorie allotment.
I exercise to gain enough to meet my goal. It's really hard to eat only 1600 or so. But if I work out, I can typically have an allotment over 2,000 and still be in my losing range. ie.. eat 1900 or 1800 calories or so.
I work out for many reasons. Calories is just one of the many0
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K 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