MFP warning about eating under BMR
Replies
-
Ok, I need some help here. When I started MFP I entered sedintary bc frankly all I did was sit at the computer on Facebook. Now I excercise at least 3 times a week and I get up and out of the house which I never used to do. So, how do I go back and fix MFP if my TDEE is 2664? Sorry, I am very new at all the calculating and stuff. I was raised "old school" eat 1200 cals or less to lose weight
0 -
My BMR is 1513. I have been eating around 1600 a day, so I guess I should be eating more considering I walk around all day at work. I have been losing steadily for three months now though. Maybe I'm ok due to my "cheating" here and there for special occasions or pizza night?0
-
Ohh I think I get it... so the number at the top on Fat 2 Fit is my actual BMR and the number down at the bottom where it takes into account the activity is actually the TDEE? SO my BMR is actually 1547 and with moderate activity my TDEE is 2195 meaning I should NET somewhere between 1547 and 2195 calories daily to begin to lose weight?
Did I do that right??
Not quite - the number at the bottom in the table is what you should be eating - it already includes a deficit.0 -
So how does this work out for someone who is really heavy?
I have a BMR of 3098 and a TDEE of 4260.
Even eating at my calculated BMR seems to be too much. I've been tracking my food for about a week and using the MFP calculated numbers that have me eating about 2650/day. I've felt fine and not really been hungry at all even with increasing the amount of exercise I'm doing.
I haven't really changed what I'm eating yet since we haven't made a trip to the grocery, just eating a little less and passing on things occasionally.0 -
Ohh I think I get it... so the number at the top on Fat 2 Fit is my actual BMR and the number down at the bottom where it takes into account the activity is actually the TDEE? SO my BMR is actually 1547 and with moderate activity my TDEE is 2195 meaning I should NET somewhere between 1547 and 2195 calories daily to begin to lose weight?
Did I do that right??
Not quite - the number at the bottom in the table is what you should be eating - it already includes a deficit.
That seems like a lot of calories to eat to lose weight! I usually end up around 1700-1800 a day. Is that unhealthy? Will that stall weight loss or will I only have trouble losing weight if I eat less than the 1547?
I appreciate everyone's help on this! I'm sure we all appreciate everyone that is answering our questions!
I'm probably overthinking this, but it just seems like there are so many sites telling me different things and different calories and since I haven't lost any weight in 2 weeks I'm either eating too much or not enough and it's tough to tell which!0 -
My BMR is 1513. I have been eating around 1600 a day, so I guess I should be eating more considering I walk around all day at work. I have been losing steadily for three months now though. Maybe I'm ok due to my "cheating" here and there for special occasions or pizza night?
You are not below your BMR so that is good. Also, its fine to look at your goals on a weekly basis - this allows indulgence days ( not cheats unless you are not logging!!), Just do not go too far below your target each day. I usually try to get within 50 - 100 of my goal each day (I have a 200 buffer between my target and BMR so would never go below) and 'use' that deficit at the weekend.0 -
Ohh I think I get it... so the number at the top on Fat 2 Fit is my actual BMR and the number down at the bottom where it takes into account the activity is actually the TDEE? SO my BMR is actually 1547 and with moderate activity my TDEE is 2195 meaning I should NET somewhere between 1547 and 2195 calories daily to begin to lose weight?
Did I do that right??
Not quite - the number at the bottom in the table is what you should be eating - it already includes a deficit.
That seems like a lot of calories to eat to lose weight! I usually end up around 1700-1800 a day. Is that unhealthy? Will that stall weight loss or will I only have trouble losing weight if I eat less than the 1547?
I appreciate everyone's help on this! I'm sure we all appreciate everyone that is answering our questions!
I'm probably overthinking this, but it just seems like there are so many sites telling me different things and different calories and since I haven't lost any weight in 2 weeks I'm either eating too much or not enough and it's tough to tell which!
According to your stated BMR and TDEE, 1700-1800 is fine.0 -
Is it possible for MFP to give warning to people eating under their BMR instead of capping out at 1200 calories? Or to state somewhere (like under Tools>BMR) that eating under that amount is not sustainable? There's a lot of people out there who are unaware of this so you get cases where 5'9 women are eating 1200 calories because this is what they think is right because this site tells them to do it despite the fact it's well under their BMR. And how are they suppose to know this isn't healthy if the site doesn't warn them? I even seen a case where a 19 year old man of average height was eating 1200 calories a day which just doesn't seem right to me.
I have no issue with letting people know I consider eating too little to be a problem, and likely to be counterproductive for both health and weight loss and I do it all the time. But MFP already does too much "nannying" of adults. It would be inappropriate for MFP to tell people what to do or how to eat. How you are "supposed to know" what is right is to read and get some critical skills. Read studies, look and see if they are scientifically controlled and peer reviewed. Ask people on the forums, then look at the studies and see which of the advice is worth taking and which is "broscience." MFP is a tool, but it's never a good idea to depend on only one tool!0 -
:laugh: I find myself in envious position of having to disagree with you all....I'm sorry. There are many diet systems out there with success stories of people having lost and now in maintenance mode. I admire you for doing it healthy way, I didn't. I've followed a diet which let me lose as many as 5 to 8 kilos in 14 days flat. I'm not recommending such diet. I write strictly for myself. Dare me..I'll post copies of my latest medical reports to prove, I'm as healthy as rest of you in your 30's/40's. Go ahead ask me obvious and I'll tell you what brings me here? MFP is a great website full of helpful and supportive groups of members..do not draw parameters around it..PLEASE.0
-
I agree. I thought this site was correct as i've been eating 1200, where can I go to find out my real Cals??
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ is a good one.
MFP uses good calculations (Mifflin St Jeor, if I'm not mistaken), it just takes out the activity factor and gives you back "exercise calories"... which can be misunderstood, misused, abused, etc.
MFP told me 1200. That told me about 2000. I like that lol0 -
The danger with MFP I've found so far is that it attract people like myself who aren't quite knowledgeable about eating habits and caloric needs/intake and follow the recommended settings. In my case my BMR according to the site was roughly 1750calories per day and with a deficit it was putting me around 1500 calories a day!
After professional testing I found out my true BMR is 2299! A far cry from the basics this site provides and I was grossly under-eating. The site uses basic values to determine your rough BMR but without knowing your true fat % and lean body mass it's just that, an estimate. The fact that the site is recommending that you eat below your BMR is plain wrong and if you ask any dietitian who is versed in the field they will confirm it's completely wrong and unhealthy.
I use the site to track my calories from food and my macro-nutrients. Also I have made wonderful friends who guide and motivate me but that's all I use this site for, I don't follow the recommendations for calorie intake as I know for a fact they are totally false in my case.
I don't use WebMD to diagnose a mole on my back and in turn I don't use MFP to determine healthy eating habits, I use it as a tracking and collaboration tool only.
EXACTLY!! ^^^^THIS^^^^
MFP is a tool. It is your and my and everybody else's responsibility to get real nutrition information that applies to US, individually. It's not possible for a website tool to do that, so the warning being asked for is useless and possibly harmful. Furthermore, adults have the right to make bad choices.0 -
Ohh I think I get it... so the number at the top on Fat 2 Fit is my actual BMR and the number down at the bottom where it takes into account the activity is actually the TDEE? SO my BMR is actually 1547 and with moderate activity my TDEE is 2195 meaning I should NET somewhere between 1547 and 2195 calories daily to begin to lose weight?
Did I do that right??
Not quite - the number at the bottom in the table is what you should be eating - it already includes a deficit.
That seems like a lot of calories to eat to lose weight! I usually end up around 1700-1800 a day. Is that unhealthy? Will that stall weight loss or will I only have trouble losing weight if I eat less than the 1547?
I appreciate everyone's help on this! I'm sure we all appreciate everyone that is answering our questions!
I'm probably overthinking this, but it just seems like there are so many sites telling me different things and different calories and since I haven't lost any weight in 2 weeks I'm either eating too much or not enough and it's tough to tell which!
Its all a little overwhelming with all the advice and all the different sites and numbers flying around. Eating 1700 - 1800 a day is not unhealthy as such (and its above your BMR) - but I would suggest upping your calories as if you eat too little for too long you can end up having your metabolism slow to that number (and who want 1700 as mainenance when they can have 2500?). If you are unsure, you should try upping your calories by 100 - 200 per week until you get to the higher target. You may find a little eight gain at first as your body adapts to the higher number - give it at least 4 weeks - some folks find an immediate drop in weight the first week they up calories, and for others it takes longer.
To hopefully help with the understandable trepidation of eatings lots of caloris, I am 5 6" and 44 :grumble:(slower metabolism) and eat around 2,000 calories a day, weight train 3 - 4 x a week but basically do no cardio and have a desk job - and I am currently losing 1lb a week.0 -
My BMR is 1513. I have been eating around 1600 a day, so I guess I should be eating more considering I walk around all day at work. I have been losing steadily for three months now though. Maybe I'm ok due to my "cheating" here and there for special occasions or pizza night?
You are not below your BMR so that is good. Also, its fine to look at your goals on a weekly basis - this allows indulgence days ( not cheats unless you are not logging!!), Just do not go too far below your target each day. I usually try to get within 50 - 100 of my goal each day (I have a 200 buffer between my target and BMR so would never go below) and 'use' that deficit at the weekend.
Thanks for the input.0 -
I've been eating between 250 to 500 calories below my BMR for the last 9 months, have lost 63 pounds of fat and gained lean muscle mass in the process. I'm in the best shape of my life. Oh and I spike once a week at about 4000 to 5000 calories.
Are you going to tell me and about 90% of my circle of support which is a good number of bodybuilders they're doing it wrong?
Sounds like some folks need to step back and realize that regardless of works for you and what you believe works for you that you may not have all the facts about what others are doing or how their bodies re-act. Most people can lose as much as 2 pounds of fat per week w/o compromising lean muscle mass. That requires approximately a 7000 calorie weekly deficit to achieve or 1000 calories a day. For most people that's about 500 below BMR. It's not dangerous and if you employ proper re-feed methods, spikes or dietary breaks you won't end up with a slowed metabolism either.0 -
Very new to all this. I wonder why the mainstream experts mostly recommend low calories diets in order to lose weight? It is so confusing to me. I read monthly women's magazines and the Dr. Oz's and the likes all recommend eating 1400-1500. It seems like a blanket statement for all. Then when I visit WebMD or other sites, I also get low calorie diets recommended. I am 5'2" and they do seem to advise me to eat at a low calorie deficit.
Just wondering how you all feel about this?0 -
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ is a good one.
I just want you to know that I put my info in on this page, and it gave me BMRs of 1725 and 1764.
It says I should eat between 2092 for sedentary to 3312 for extremely active. I eat way more than that.
Regarding the original topic, I have not seen any legitimate journal entries that concludes eating below your BMR is dangerous. Anyone have any?0 -
Ohh I think I get it... so the number at the top on Fat 2 Fit is my actual BMR and the number down at the bottom where it takes into account the activity is actually the TDEE? SO my BMR is actually 1547 and with moderate activity my TDEE is 2195 meaning I should NET somewhere between 1547 and 2195 calories daily to begin to lose weight?
Did I do that right??
Not quite - the number at the bottom in the table is what you should be eating - it already includes a deficit.
That seems like a lot of calories to eat to lose weight! I usually end up around 1700-1800 a day. Is that unhealthy? Will that stall weight loss or will I only have trouble losing weight if I eat less than the 1547?
I appreciate everyone's help on this! I'm sure we all appreciate everyone that is answering our questions!
I'm probably overthinking this, but it just seems like there are so many sites telling me different things and different calories and since I haven't lost any weight in 2 weeks I'm either eating too much or not enough and it's tough to tell which!
Its all a little overwhelming with all the advice and all the different sites and numbers flying around. Eating 1700 - 1800 a day is not unhealthy as such (and its above your BMR) - but I would suggest upping your calories as if you eat too little for too long you can end up having your metabolism slow to that number (and who want 1700 as mainenance when they can have 2500?). If you are unsure, you should try upping your calories by 100 - 200 per week until you get to the higher target. You may find a little eight gain at first as your body adapts to the higher number - give it at least 4 weeks - some folks find an immediate drop in weight the first week they up calories, and for others it takes longer.
To hopefully help with the understandable trepidation of eatings lots of caloris, I am 5 6" and 44 :grumble:(slower metabolism) and eat around 2,000 calories a day, weight train 3 - 4 x a week but basically do no cardio and have a desk job - and I am currently losing 1lb a week.
Thanks so much for your advice! I recently listened to MFP and tried 1200 which I think is why I wasn't losing. I recently upped it to 1700. I'll try this for a little bit and then, like you said, increase it a bit more each week to see which works best. I think the reason I'm so unsure is that I wasn't paying attention to calories when I was eating before. So I don't know what the decrease is. If that makes sense. I ate healthy some of the time before but wound up bingeing a lot. So I don't have any idea of the changes I'm making. I feel pretty good at 1700 now. I feel full and feel like I'm eating quite a bit with the right planning. I'll have to play with it a little bit and see how things go. i'm just so impatient! I'm big on instant gratification and allowing time to play isn't part of that! haha0 -
Its all basic physics and basic math.
A calorie is a unit of measure of energy to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C
All these calories are energy used to power your body throughout the day. If you move more, you use more calories.
Your BMR (Basic Metabolic Rate) is the amount of energy required by your body to simply stay alive if you were to remain perfectly still and just breathe and do nothing else.
If you eat more calories than your BMR and don't do anything to work them off, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than your BMR, you will lose weight, but not in a healthy way. Your body will consume any muscle tone you have just to stay alive.
Here's the important part:
If you eat an amount of calories ABOVE your BMR...but BELOW what your body consumes by adding your BMR to your exercise calories...you can safely lose weight.
This is an over simplification but close enough for me.0 -
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ is a good one.
I just want you to know that I put my info in on this page, and it gave me BMRs of 1725 and 1764.
It says I should eat between 2092 for sedentary to 3312 for extremely active. I eat way more than that.
Regarding the original topic, I have not seen any legitimate journal entries that concludes eating below your BMR is dangerous. Anyone have any?
I don't think eating below your BMR in itself is necessarily dangerous.
I think eating below your BMR every day for an extended period of time is dangerous. How many days in a row constitutes an extended period of time? I don't know. How about when one becomes weak, dizzy and cannot concentrate or loses mobility. It would eventually happen if one consistently eats below their BMR.0 -
The site DOES warn!! If you complete your food diary and have consumed too few calories, there's a warning!
[/quI don't get it if i eat within 100 calories of what i should i get the warning if i less than that i don't get it 200 les 300 less no warning ????ote]0 -
Its all basic physics and basic math.
A calorie is a unit of measure of energy to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C
All these calories are energy used to power your body throughout the day. If you move more, you use more calories.
Your BMR (Basic Metabolic Rate) is the amount of energy required by your body to simply stay alive if you were to remain perfectly still and just breathe and do nothing else.
If you eat more calories than your BMR and don't do anything to work them off, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than your BMR, you will lose weight, but not in a healthy way. Your body will consume any muscle tone you have just to stay alive.
Here's the important part:
If you eat an amount of calories ABOVE your BMR...but BELOW what your body consumes by adding your BMR to your exercise calories...you can safely lose weight.
This is an over simplification but close enough for me.
Actually this is incorrect. If you consume in calories your BMR you will lose weight unless you're in a coma which obviously if you're reading this you're not. You're not taking into account the calories you burn doing everything else during the day. The number of calories you burn in a day is the TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) which is "ESTIMATED" by taking your BMR and a multiplier of anywhere from 1.2 for sedentary up to 1.9 for very active (typically elite athletes).
That being said the rest of the nonsense about eating below your BMR is utter hooey. You can eat moderately below your BMR for quite some time before it shows any adverse affect. There are several ways to re-boot your metabolism if it starts to slow down as well.
I guess I should also address the fact that yes indeed there are a good number of individuals using MFP that eat entirely too little and that's why they have stalled in their efforts. However, in order for a complete stall to happen it has to be for quite a long time and at quite a severe caloric deficit not just a few hundred calories below their BMR.0 -
Read the rest of this thread. Today someone gave an example (they had gall blatter attacks eating below)http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ is a good one.
I just want you to know that I put my info in on this page, and it gave me BMRs of 1725 and 1764.
It says I should eat between 2092 for sedentary to 3312 for extremely active. I eat way more than that.
Regarding the original topic, I have not seen any legitimate journal entries that concludes eating below your BMR is dangerous. Anyone have any?0 -
I am so confused as well.
If my BMR (on Fitness Frog ) is 1430 and TDEE is 2217 - how many calories a day do I get??0 -
Hi,
To gather adequate info, I would recommend to initially fill in your MFP questionnaire With the objective to MAINTAIN your weight.
You will get your TDEE and calories to eat ... And an indicative BMR ... ( TDEE/1.2 ... for sedentary people)
Then, as a second step, for Weigh loss,
with the objective to remain at BMR level, people can decide on :
1. Weigh loss by a calorie deficit
2. Weigh loss by exercise
3. Weigh loss by a combination thta suits their life style ...
And adjust their MFP goals accordingly ...0 -
No, because there aren't any. Starvation mode is a myth (although your metabolism WILL slow down after extended caloric restriction, it is only by ~25% of original BMR tops). Eating under BMR being unhealthy is a myth (in fact, there is a large body of evidence showing calorie restriction and fasting have a wide variety of health benefits). People just tell themselves what they want to believe so they can eat the way they want to eat and have their lack of results be 'not my fault'.http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ is a good one.
I just want you to know that I put my info in on this page, and it gave me BMRs of 1725 and 1764.
It says I should eat between 2092 for sedentary to 3312 for extremely active. I eat way more than that.
Regarding the original topic, I have not seen any legitimate journal entries that concludes eating below your BMR is dangerous. Anyone have any?
Sorry to be blunt, but this is the truth.0 -
No, because there aren't any. Starvation mode is a myth (although your metabolism WILL slow down after extended caloric restriction, it is only by ~25% of original BMR tops). Eating under BMR being unhealthy is a myth (in fact, there is a large body of evidence showing calorie restriction and fasting have a wide variety of health benefits). People just tell themselves what they want to believe so they can eat the way they want to eat and have their lack of results be 'not my fault'.http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ is a good one.
I just want you to know that I put my info in on this page, and it gave me BMRs of 1725 and 1764.
It says I should eat between 2092 for sedentary to 3312 for extremely active. I eat way more than that.
Regarding the original topic, I have not seen any legitimate journal entries that concludes eating below your BMR is dangerous. Anyone have any?
Sorry to be blunt, but this is the truth.
I have results on eating way above my BMR - I eat more because I would prefer to do that than restrict myself and risk my metabolism slowing down - I have no idea where you get the assumption that we want to lay any blame anywhere else. The people who are responding eat below their TDEE and as such get results.
Also, while it may not be technically correct, most people use the term starvation mode to mean exactly what you have said does happen - metabolic slowdown. And would really rather my metabolism slow down at all, let alone by 25% - that's a lot and means I would have to continue to restrict my calories indefinately.
So your impression of the truth...is not...0 -
No need to get defensive. You can't deny that every day here there are a dozen threads about eating 1200 calories and not losing weight. That is what I had in mind when posting. If anyone is REALLY eating 1200 calories per day and doing any amount of exercise, they will be losing weight. And even if, hypothetically speaking, someone were not, the answer is to eat MORE?
Great example: recently had a friend go from pre-diabetic and 180/120 blood pressure to GREAT blood sugar and 115/75 BP in a couple of months on a 600 calorie a day diet. For people who are morbidly obese, eating well under BMR can be very beneficial (obviously consult with your doctor).
Lots of bad advice here regarding this stuff. Just trying to help.0 -
No need to get defensive. You can't deny that every day here there are a dozen threads about eating 1200 calories and not losing weight. That is what I had in mind when posting. If anyone is REALLY eating 1200 calories per day and doing any amount of exercise, they will be losing weight. And even if, hypothetically speaking, someone were not, the answer is to eat MORE?
Great example: recently had a friend go from pre-diabetic and 180/120 blood pressure to GREAT blood sugar and 115/75 BP in a couple of months on a 600 calorie a day diet. For people who are morbidly obese, eating well under BMR can be very beneficial (obviously consult with your doctor).
Lots of bad advice here regarding this stuff. Just trying to help.
Errr....no need to get senstive...I was not getting defensive, I was responding to a comment/opinion that I believed false and basically an accusation that people on a lower deficit are looking to blame someone for thir failures (what failures I have to ask by the way).
I absolutely agree that eating below your BMR for a limited time is actually OK for morbidly obese folks.
The problem is, most folks on MFP are looking to lose weight and have not consulted a doctor and do not know how to do PSMF properly. Isn't it better to give advise that will actually work for the majority of people and not have possibly bad side effects? I am sure you will agree that a VLCD without proper medical supervision or any breaks/refeeds will negatively impact someone's metabolism which can take a while to fix.0 -
I've started losing weight in September last year on a ( as I did it when I was way younger) 1ooo cal diet. That was not sustainable as I felt hungry most of the time.
I found MFP and thought: wow, that's great. I can eat more (1200 cals)....and I was as happy as can be. I quit smoking,too, and was desperate NOT TO GAIN weight. I ate between 1000 and 1200 calories a day, not eating back my exercise calories. I lost weight without a plateau....weight loss stalled for 3 weeks, but that's not a real plateau in my opinion.
So far so good and I could be an example for losing healthily on low calorie intake, because I am never ill, I have nice muscles from working out, am as fit as a fiddle and cook healthy foods, always low in sodium...no fast food....... BUT.........
6 pounds before I reached my goal I switched to maintenance because several people, hubby included, said, I looked great and shouldn't lose more...I was skinny enough for my age (almost 53).
I slowly upped my calories from 1000 net to 1200 net (now I eat back calories so that I net at least 1200 which is my BMR) and guess what ?
I am hungry, I am craving for carbs (never did a low carb diet) and I'm gaining weight.
If only I had known, if only.... now I'm sitting here and find maintenance terribly difficult. It's like still being on a low calorie diet because eating at a normal maintenance level makes me gain.
I ate at such a low level that my metabolism, which is slower when you're older any way, slowed down and maintaining my weight is as difficult as losing.
What I've taught my body is: you have to make do with a low calorie diet! And now I'm expecting it to work normal :noway:
My way of weight loss was NOT sustainable nor is my way of maintenance and now I have to find a way out because otherwise I will gain all the pounds back I've lost.:grumble:
Eating below BMR causes the yoyo effect- I'm sure.
What I want? I want to warn those eating below BMR every day
What I need? I need advice on how I can speed up my metabolism again.
I'm almost 53, 5'4'', 136 pounds, I eat very healthy foods (own produce, hardly any processed food), I exercise almost daily: I run 10-12 miles a week, resistance training 3x a week. So on 6 days a week I would burn approximately 300-700 calories/day.
A very interesting thread btw:flowerforyou:0 -
My lack of results put me on the lowest end of the healthy BMI scale and feeling about 28 pounds lighter. Yes, calorie restriction is fine...I do calorie restriction eating on average 1600-2400 calories a day (at least several hundred above my BMR). Calorie restriction to a ridiculous level? There's no need of it in most cases. Sorry I don't have a large number for you, but I'd rather not be so underweight.
No, because there aren't any. Starvation mode is a myth (although your metabolism WILL slow down after extended caloric restriction, it is only by ~25% of original BMR tops). Eating under BMR being unhealthy is a myth (in fact, there is a large body of evidence showing calorie restriction and fasting have a wide variety of health benefits). People just tell themselves what they want to believe so they can eat the way they want to eat and have their lack of results be 'not my fault'.http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ is a good one.
I just want you to know that I put my info in on this page, and it gave me BMRs of 1725 and 1764.
It says I should eat between 2092 for sedentary to 3312 for extremely active. I eat way more than that.
Regarding the original topic, I have not seen any legitimate journal entries that concludes eating below your BMR is dangerous. Anyone have any?
Sorry to be blunt, but this is the truth.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
- 232.6K 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
- 96.3K 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