Paleo diet?
Replies
-
what I don't get is why would we want to eat like they did thousands of years ago when the lift expectancy was less than 40 years of age??
^^^^THIS^^^^
there were a lot of things shortening life, not what they ate, modern medicine has extended out lives drastically! not to mention we are no longer having to protect ourselves from predators.
Yes, modern medicine is extending the human life and so is the "modern" diet, when not abused. Bone and teeth samples from early man have shown plenty of vitamin A and C deficiency. I guess they weren't doing Paleo correctly.0 -
I recognize that one from the paleo bible. In reality, we have very little idea of disease from that point in history. Life expectancy was so short back then that only the healthy likely survived to adulthood anyways.Your answer is that no heart diseases, diabetes or so many cancers have been reported by history or by scientists that did the research for times before grains, processed food and heavy diary.
Agreed, cancer is present through our evolution and in wild animals apparently, so the Paleo/Primal diet can't magically prevent it. Perhaps diet can help reduce it's risk, honestly don't know.0 -
what I don't get is why would we want to eat like they did thousands of years ago when the lift expectancy was less than 40 years of age?? I just can't get past this to even bother taking the diet seriously.
I understand avoiding processed and refined foods, and to some extent wheat..
It was probably less than 40yrs cause they were getting eaten by dinosaurs!
Hahaha, no I'm just kidding (:0 -
what I don't get is why would we want to eat like they did thousands of years ago when the lift expectancy was less than 40 years of age??
^^^^THIS^^^^
there were a lot of things shortening life, not what they ate, modern medicine has extended out lives drastically! not to mention we are no longer having to protect ourselves from predators.
Yes, modern medicine is extending the human life and so is the "modern" diet, when not abused. Bone and teeth samples from early man have shown plenty of vitamin A and C deficiency. I guess they weren't doing Paleo correctly.
You don't know the modern diet is having that effect, and what is "the modern diet" anyway? Of course some fossils could show deficiency, that doesn't suggest anything useful. What point are you trying to make?0 -
i tried for 3 weeks i lost 6lb it really changes your thought on food now i dont do the diet 100% but i now rarely eat bread i noticed that its not very feeling still makes you hungry after awhile...when i was on it id be so full with veggies and meat and at the end of the day id only have eaten 900cals i know you should eat more but cant help it if your super stuffed0
-
+1 for this. No gas. No energy ups and downs. Just a steady feeling of well being. It works for me. I have the occasoinal no-no, but I dont make a habit of it and I feel 100 times better than I ever had on any other diet. What you decide to eat will shape your physical an mental well being. The general concensus is that processed foods are not as good for you as natural foods.There are exceptions to the rule and we can argue about them until we are blue in the face. In the end, it is all about what works for you. A marathon runner might need 2000calories worth of carbs, but for the generally non active-public a diet based around highly processed carbs and refined sugars just doesnt work for most people.0
-
I'm not knocking the diet because I haven't looked into it, but I have to say that I've done a restrictive diet in the past (Atkins) and although I stuck to it for a year and a half and lost 65lbs I was completely unable to stick to it in the long term. I immediately gained 30lbs in the year following ending the diet. Currently I'm just cutting processed foods as much as possible (but I love mac & cheese and you aren't going to stop me from eating it once in a while!!!! lol) and sticking with whole foods. Completely eliminating whole food groups (while seems logical at the time) backfires as soon as you stop eating that way (which is nearly inevitable - unless you have super human willpower). I hope you have luck finding what works for you!0
-
I probably should cut out wheat and a few others grains since I am autistic and have digestive problems with wheat and dairy as a result. That being said, I am also a vegetarian, and I am on the pill for hormonal-imbalance (I am not sure about the science of this, but it seems that getting estrogen through the pill AND soy MIGHT be a bit too much.) I eat tofu and other soy products in moderation. If I cut out grains and other legumes, I will never get complete proteins. And I am simply not a carnivore at all. So, what would that leave me? Starving! It might be interesting to try for people that aren't vegetarians though.0
-
what I don't get is why would we want to eat like they did thousands of years ago when the lift expectancy was less than 40 years of age??
^^^^THIS^^^^
there were a lot of things shortening life, not what they ate, modern medicine has extended out lives drastically! not to mention we are no longer having to protect ourselves from predators.
Yes, modern medicine is extending the human life and so is the "modern" diet, when not abused. Bone and teeth samples from early man have shown plenty of vitamin A and C deficiency. I guess they weren't doing Paleo correctly.
You don't know the modern diet is having that effect, and what is "the modern diet" anyway? Of course some fossils could show deficiency, that doesn't suggest anything useful. What point are you trying to make?
Yes, we do know that diet, modern medicine, and hygiene are suspected as the main reasons for increased life expectancy in recent history. The point I'm trying to make is that there's no need for the Paleo diet or any other fad diets for healthy individuals. Fads are attractive because people feel they're partaking in a special regimen that's only backed up by cherry picked science. When you read about it a nice book written by someone with phd next to their name it sounds even better. Often these diets work in spite of themselves simply because they get people to eat better and less than they were before. While this seems like a positive thing it's really not. It purveys false information. It's like balancing a ball on your head and crossing the street and then proclaiming that's the best way to get a ball across street.0 -
So it's pretty obvious to most that we're not living 150,000 years ago. And no, the life expectancy isn't 40 today..it's almost double that!!! Seriously....we have medicine, remember??? Get that???
The formula is pretty simple--eat right, exercise, hydrate, and have a solid emotional balance. The last one is almost as important as the others. I've seen way too many friends focus on all the right food and exercise, but give up on a solid emotional foundation. Disaster in waiting! I was there once!
Who cares if you burn 5000 calories, eat fruits, veggies, and grains every day when you can't manage your emotions or maintain normal relationships?? Good health is a good life balance. Good luck!0 -
I think this site says it best:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/07/healthiest-foods-nutrition-lifestyle-health-healthiest-foods.html
"What is the best diet for human beings?
Vegetarian? Vegan? High-protein? Low-fat? Dairy-Free?
Hold on to your shopping carts: There is NO perfect diet for human beings. At least not one that's based on how much protein, fat or carbohydrates you eat.
People have lived and thrived on high-protein, high-fat diets (the Inuit of Greenland); on low-protein, high-carb diets (the indigenous peoples of southern Africa); on diets high in raw milk and cream (the people of the Loetschental Valley in Switzerland); diets high in saturated fat (the Trobriand Islanders) and even on diets in which animal blood is considered a staple (the Massai of Kenya and Tanzania). And folks have thrived on these diets without the ravages of degenerative diseases that are so epidemic in modern life--heart disease, diabetes, obesity, neurodegenerative diseases, osteoporosis and cancer.
The only thing these diets have in common is that they're all based on WHOLE FOODS with minimum processing. Nuts, berries, beans, raw milk, grass-fed meat. Whole, real, unprocessed food is almost always healthy, regardless of how many grams of carbs, protein or fat it contains.
All these healthy diets have in common the fact that they are absent foods with bar codes. They are also extremely low in sugar. In fact, the number of modern or ancient societies known for health and longevity that have consumed a diet high in sugar would be ... let's see ... zero.
Truth be told, what you eat probably matters less than how much processing it's undergone. Real food--whole food with minimal processing--contains a virtual pharmacy of nutrients, phytochemicals, enzymes, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, anti-inflammatories and healthful fats, and can easily keep you alive and thriving into your 10th decade."
Love this...best thing I've read all day!0 -
what I don't get is why would we want to eat like they did thousands of years ago when the lift expectancy was less than 40 years of age??
^^^^THIS^^^^
there were a lot of things shortening life, not what they ate, modern medicine has extended out lives drastically! not to mention we are no longer having to protect ourselves from predators.
Yes, modern medicine is extending the human life and so is the "modern" diet, when not abused. Bone and teeth samples from early man have shown plenty of vitamin A and C deficiency. I guess they weren't doing Paleo correctly.
You don't know the modern diet is having that effect, and what is "the modern diet" anyway? Of course some fossils could show deficiency, that doesn't suggest anything useful. What point are you trying to make?
Yes, we do know that diet, modern medicine, and hygiene are suspected as the main reasons for increased life expectancy in recent history. The point I'm trying to make is that there's no need for the Paleo diet or any other fad diets for healthy individuals. Fads are attractive because people feel they're partaking in a special regimen that's only backed up by cherry picked science. When you read about it a nice book written by someone with phd next to their name it sounds even better. Often these diets work in spite of themselves simply because they get people to eat better and less than they were before. While this seems like a positive thing it's really not. It purveys false information. It's like balancing a ball on your head and crossing the street and then proclaiming that's the best way to get a ball across street.
I don't think so, hygiene and medicine helps reduce infant mortality and death rates due to infection etc. I don't think you can categorically say our recent macro nutrient intake has extended our life span.
You are right that there is no need for special diet programs in principle in order to lose weight. You can eat twinkies at a calorie deficit and lose weight. However, if you are someone who has either lost a large amount of weight or are trying to being told "it's simple, eat less and move more" is pretty useless to be honest. It's a tautology, it's obviously true. A diet framework can help immensely, much depends on the individual, same may have great success cutting out soda and, tracking their calories and going for a run, but many people, especially those with 100 lb or more to lose are facing quite possibly a couple of years of calorie deficits. Few people can do that. Primal and other diets, be they "fad diets" as you say or more accepted diets like Weight Watchers provide people with a support system and a methodology for losing weight. I like Primal because it makes sense to me, I know quite a lot about nutrition although I'm not formally educated in that field, and Primal gels with much of my research. I certainly won't argue with the laws of thermodynamics or the health benefits of exercise, but a program that encourages the points I listed in my other post is hardly a bad one whether you are a dietician (like my sister who I regularly discuss this with), a doctor or a PhD researcher.
I don't think you know much about Primal/Paleo but you are right to argue against some fad diets. If you knew Primal, if you discussed it's implications with it's proponents you would realize there are many learned, intelligent individuals who are more than capable of detecting cherry picked science and considering the points you list. To rule it out because it seems to just fit in with other fad diets created by dudes with a PhD and the desire for some money doesn't do it justice.0 -
It sounds too restrictive for me. I can't really see wanting to give up all the healthy grains and beans I enjoy based on a theory that has no scientific evidence behind it.
Just wondering... Why did you put the "healthy" in front of the grains?0 -
what I don't get is why would we want to eat like they did thousands of years ago when the lift expectancy was less than 40 years of age??
^^^^THIS^^^^
there were a lot of things shortening life, not what they ate, modern medicine has extended out lives drastically! not to mention we are no longer having to protect ourselves from predators.
Yes, modern medicine is extending the human life and so is the "modern" diet, when not abused. Bone and teeth samples from early man have shown plenty of vitamin A and C deficiency. I guess they weren't doing Paleo correctly.
You don't know the modern diet is having that effect, and what is "the modern diet" anyway? Of course some fossils could show deficiency, that doesn't suggest anything useful. What point are you trying to make?
Yes, we do know that diet, modern medicine, and hygiene are suspected as the main reasons for increased life expectancy in recent history. The point I'm trying to make is that there's no need for the Paleo diet or any other fad diets for healthy individuals. Fads are attractive because people feel they're partaking in a special regimen that's only backed up by cherry picked science. When you read about it a nice book written by someone with phd next to their name it sounds even better. Often these diets work in spite of themselves simply because they get people to eat better and less than they were before. While this seems like a positive thing it's really not. It purveys false information. It's like balancing a ball on your head and crossing the street and then proclaiming that's the best way to get a ball across street.
I don't think so, hygiene and medicine helps reduce infant mortality and death rates due to infection etc. I don't think you can categorically say our recent macro nutrient intake has extended our life span.
You are right that there is no need for special diet programs in principle in order to lose weight. You can eat twinkies at a calorie deficit and lose weight. However, if you are someone who has either lost a large amount of weight or are trying to being told "it's simple, eat less and move more" is pretty useless to be honest. It's a tautology, it's obviously true. A diet framework can help immensely, much depends on the individual, same may have great success cutting out soda and, tracking their calories and going for a run, but many people, especially those with 100 lb or more to lose are facing quite possibly a couple of years of calorie deficits. Few people can do that. Primal and other diets, be they "fad diets" as you say or more accepted diets like Weight Watchers provide people with a support system and a methodology for losing weight. I like Primal because it makes sense to me, I know quite a lot about nutrition although I'm not formally educated in that field, and Primal gels with much of my research. I certainly won't argue with the laws of thermodynamics or the health benefits of exercise, but a program that encourages the points I listed in my other post is hardly a bad one whether you are a dietician (like my sister who I regularly discuss this with), a doctor or a PhD researcher.
I don't think you know much about Primal/Paleo but you are right to argue against some fad diets. If you knew Primal, if you discussed it's implications with it's proponents you would realize there are many learned, intelligent individuals who are more than capable of detecting cherry picked science and considering the points you list. To rule it out because it seems to just fit in with other fad diets created by dudes with a PhD and the desire for some money doesn't do it justice.
With respect to nutrition and life expectancy there's plenty of research to show that in the early years of development, diet deficiencies cause major problems later in life. You don't have to look far back to see this.
i know enough about paleo, but all anyone needs to know is that is categorically restricts a lot of foods unnecessary. You say paleo might be better for someone with a lot of weight to lose? How is a highly restrictive diet easier to follow than a sensible one that allows you to eat all foods in moderation? I agree that a framework like paleo can help but it's not the only framework and it's an unnecessary one as well. The problem comes when that fad achieves cult like status and the pseudo-science of paleo gets regurgitated as fact.0 -
With respect to nutrition and life expectancy there's plenty of research to show that in the early years of development, diet deficiencies cause major problems later in life. You don't have to look far back to see this.
i know enough about paleo, but all anyone needs to know is that is categorically restricts a lot of foods unnecessary. You say paleo might be better for someone with a lot of weight to lose? How is a highly restrictive diet easier to follow than a sensible one that allows you to eat all foods in moderation? I agree that a framework like paleo can help but it's not the only framework and it's an unnecessary one as well. The problem comes when that fad achieves cult like status and the pseudo-science of paleo gets regurgitated as fact.
Ah, so now it's in the early years of development, okay, of course, I have a 6 month old so it's quite relevant to me right now. Anyway, this is not evidence that a modern diet provides these nutrients in any better quantity than a paleolithic diet.
I don't agree that categorically restricting foods is always bad. Trans fats are pretty much universally condemned, is it bad to exclude them? I have to chuckle when people say "eat a balanced diet", balanced based on what? Based on our own imperfect understanding of our biology, filtered through a scientific establishment that despite all our best efforts often makes the mistake of selection bias, over reaching conclusions. The same establishment that encouraged consumption of trans fats. Beyond that, "balance" may depend on the individual.
I don't understand why people are calling Primal a highly restrictive diet? In fact, it's not at all. I have reduced my consumption of refined carbohydrates and processed foods, but I eat a wealth of fruits, vegetables and protein. I eat yogurt, milk, cream. How is this "highly restrictive"? I eat awesome meals, my breakfast has changed from refined grain with skim milk followed by whole grain bread with some low fat spread to frittatas loaded with vegetables and protein, greek yogurt smoothies with fruit. I love eating this way, all I've given up is slices of bread with every meal and I eat a lot less bland potatoes (although some primal eaters consume potatoes). All diets are restrictive in some ways, if they don't restrict carbs they will likely restrict fat. So on a standard diet that you refer to I can eat some bread, and legumes, but probably not eat the egg fried in coconut oil. On primal it's the opposite, so which is more restrictive? Just because our society is set up to support the former doesn't make it optimal.
There is plenty of pseudoscience out there, there is plenty of it in the mainstream as well. Eat lots of small meals to keep your metabolism going, women shouldn't lift weights, eating low carb means you can eat as much as you want. So on and so on. If people quote Paleo pseudoscience as fact then they aren't quoting Paleo or Primal. You shouldn't judge the entire concept based on a few peoples mistaken assumptions.0 -
It sounds too restrictive for me. I can't really see wanting to give up all the healthy grains and beans I enjoy based on a theory that has no scientific evidence behind it.
Just wondering... Why did you put the "healthy" in front of the grains?
Indoctrination...
Everyone knows... "Healthy Whole Grains" and "Artery Clogging Saturated Fat".0 -
With respect to nutrition and life expectancy there's plenty of research to show that in the early years of development, diet deficiencies cause major problems later in life. You don't have to look far back to see this.
i know enough about paleo, but all anyone needs to know is that is categorically restricts a lot of foods unnecessary. You say paleo might be better for someone with a lot of weight to lose? How is a highly restrictive diet easier to follow than a sensible one that allows you to eat all foods in moderation? I agree that a framework like paleo can help but it's not the only framework and it's an unnecessary one as well. The problem comes when that fad achieves cult like status and the pseudo-science of paleo gets regurgitated as fact.
btw, I respect your position on this, I appreciate the rational discussion and lack of name calling. You're obviously a fit, well informed dude.0 -
^^^This.I don't agree that categorically restricting foods is always bad. Trans fats are pretty much universally condemned, is it bad to exclude them? I have to chuckle when people say "eat a balanced diet", balanced based on what? Based on our own imperfect understanding of our biology, filtered through a scientific establishment that despite all our best efforts often makes the mistake of selection bias, over reaching conclusions. The same establishment that encouraged consumption of trans fats. Beyond that, "balance" may depend on the individual.
^^^And this.I don't understand why people are calling Primal a highly restrictive diet? In fact, it's not at all. I have reduced my consumption of refined carbohydrates and processed foods, but I eat a wealth of fruits, vegetables and protein. I eat yogurt, milk, cream. How is this "highly restrictive"?
^^^This too.All diets are restrictive in some ways, if they don't restrict carbs they will likely restrict fat. So on a standard diet that you refer to I can eat some bread, and legumes, but probably not eat the egg fried in coconut oil. On primal it's the opposite, so which is more restrictive? Just because our society is set up to support the former doesn't make it optimal.
^^^Also this.There is plenty of pseudoscience out there, there is plenty of it in the mainstream as well. Eat lots of small meals to keep your metabolism going, women shouldn't lift weights, eating low carb means you can eat as much as you want. So on and so on.0 -
Totally agreed.I think this site says it best:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/07/healthiest-foods-nutrition-lifestyle-health-healthiest-foods.html
"What is the best diet for human beings?
Vegetarian? Vegan? High-protein? Low-fat? Dairy-Free?
Hold on to your shopping carts: There is NO perfect diet for human beings. At least not one that's based on how much protein, fat or carbohydrates you eat.
People have lived and thrived on high-protein, high-fat diets (the Inuit of Greenland); on low-protein, high-carb diets (the indigenous peoples of southern Africa); on diets high in raw milk and cream (the people of the Loetschental Valley in Switzerland); diets high in saturated fat (the Trobriand Islanders) and even on diets in which animal blood is considered a staple (the Massai of Kenya and Tanzania). And folks have thrived on these diets without the ravages of degenerative diseases that are so epidemic in modern life--heart disease, diabetes, obesity, neurodegenerative diseases, osteoporosis and cancer.
The only thing these diets have in common is that they're all based on WHOLE FOODS with minimum processing. Nuts, berries, beans, raw milk, grass-fed meat. Whole, real, unprocessed food is almost always healthy, regardless of how many grams of carbs, protein or fat it contains.
All these healthy diets have in common the fact that they are absent foods with bar codes. They are also extremely low in sugar. In fact, the number of modern or ancient societies known for health and longevity that have consumed a diet high in sugar would be ... let's see ... zero.
Truth be told, what you eat probably matters less than how much processing it's undergone. Real food--whole food with minimal processing--contains a virtual pharmacy of nutrients, phytochemicals, enzymes, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, anti-inflammatories and healthful fats, and can easily keep you alive and thriving into your 10th decade."
Love this...best thing I've read all day!
0 -
With respect to nutrition and life expectancy there's plenty of research to show that in the early years of development, diet deficiencies cause major problems later in life. You don't have to look far back to see this.
i know enough about paleo, but all anyone needs to know is that is categorically restricts a lot of foods unnecessary. You say paleo might be better for someone with a lot of weight to lose? How is a highly restrictive diet easier to follow than a sensible one that allows you to eat all foods in moderation? I agree that a framework like paleo can help but it's not the only framework and it's an unnecessary one as well. The problem comes when that fad achieves cult like status and the pseudo-science of paleo gets regurgitated as fact.
There is really nothing restrictive about eating clean or Paleo, Primal, controlled carb............whatever label you want to put on it.
Most people that eat this way are getting way above the RDA in nutrients in all categories, so what is restrictive about eating this way?
I eat at least 5-7 servings of vegetables a day, a couple of pieces of fruit and enough protein and fat to keep me full and satisfied.
I don't find eating this way restrictive at all. In fact, not having to count calories and such is very freeing and liberating, allowing me to live stress free unlike many people (women especially) on this site that obsess over each and every number.
That is not something I wish to deal with ever again.0 -
Yes, we do know that diet, modern medicine, and hygiene are suspected as the main reasons for increased life expectancy in recent history. The point I'm trying to make is that there's no need for the Paleo diet or any other fad diets for healthy individuals. Fads are attractive because people feel they're partaking in a special regimen that's only backed up by cherry picked science. When you read about it a nice book written by someone with phd next to their name it sounds even better. Often these diets work in spite of themselves simply because they get people to eat better and less than they were before. While this seems like a positive thing it's really not. It purveys false information. It's like balancing a ball on your head and crossing the street and then proclaiming that's the best way to get a ball across street.
Best post in this entire thread.0 -
bump0
-
diets come and diets go, books are written, seminars heard.......eat healthy, we are omnivors...eat what makes you feel good and gets you where you need to be...there are no experts0
-
There has been a lot of people that have reported improvement in various digestive some autoimmune disorders by going paleo. My wife has had some digestive issues and is finishing up a month of 90% paleo. In the month I think she has gained a couple of pounds and she doesn't feel much better than when she started. But it did reduce blood sugar swings and she did feel kind of ill after eating a meal that would have been typical prior to her paleo trial.
I tried it but bailed in less than a week. It is comparatively difficult and expensive diet to implement if you eat out frequently. But if you're a carnivore you'll love the diet. Even though I ate a lot of vegetables It did not provide me with enough "regularity", and frankly, I didn't care for the menu. I'd rather count calories and eat what I wanted within reason, a little junk might not be good for the body, but man is it good for the soul. I have since considerably reduce my carb and wheat intake, but mainly because it helps me control my appetite better, not because i feel better.
I do believe paleo can be effective at weight loss with just a little effort to stay away from too many nuts. there's nothing magic about the weight loss, though. Because of the macro profile it's fairly effective at controlling your appetite and it creates an environment conduicive to a natural caloric deficit.
I would say if you're intrigued by it, or affected by any digestive/autoimmune disorder it's worth a shot. If you otherwise feel good and calorie counting works for your weight loss, I see no compelling reason to switch.0 -
I have since considerably reduce my carb and wheat intake, but mainly because it helps me control my appetite better, not because i feel better.
I've noticed that my carb intake is now reduced after having tried paleo. I cut out pasta for the most part. And I've never been a big bread eater. Sugar is definitely my weakness. I doubt I'd be happy going a day without a dessert. Fruit does help with that though.
Cutting wine out of my diet was a huge factor in stabilizing my diet. I tried to do paleo while keeping up my drinking habit, that was just nonsense. Cutting out the liquid sugar did wonders.
Paleo may help some as a learning process maybe? Or just an experiment. That's what it was for me. Go for it if you're interested.
But, I think it's foolish to think paleo is a superior diet for humankind. Because a few good things happen doesn't mean it's the panacea for the "modern" diet.0 -
bump0
-
I'm more on the primal lifestyle, and I love it. I think one has to commit to it long term to enjoy the benefits it can offer. And I think the primal/paleo lifestyle either works for a person or it doesn't. For me, it was like a light switch. I stopped craving sweet stuff, had a ton of energy, and I felt better almost immediately. I didn't eat a lot of grains to begin with, which probably helped.0
-
I see two sides to this diet. One if it seems impossible to do you won't stick with it. But I have heard people say that giving up grains and dairy are good for digestion and allergies if you have them. Legumes on the other hand are good protein. So hard to say.0
-
Thanks for answering my question. 0
-
I think the original comment about life expectancy was pulled from some random Internet look-up or something. It's a highly uneducated assumption with zero merit and no factual evidence. As much as I enjoy helpful comments and feedback, these ridiculous statements should be policed. Didn't your mother ever tell you to not believe everything you read on the internet???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
- 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