someone, explain how eating more = weightloss? please
Replies
-
To everyone who explained emtwl ,Thank You for explaining this, I finally understand.0
-
I wish I were unscrupulous enough to do something like that. So much more money in BS than in the truth.Yes, I'm sure the entire medical and scientific community have it all wrong and you have it right.
Of course people can lose at a higher deficit. What they can't do is lose more than they can at a lower deficit.
Forum readers sent the Kimkins gal millions of dollars for her diet plan. Did that mean it was based on scientific facts? At least your's isn't dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimkins
She's still in business, albeit with a disclosure on her site that's probably court ordered.
http://www.kimkins.com/0 -
^^^^^
0 -
Wow.. people are so closed minded! if they don't want to keep the weight they lose off that's their stupidity Dan. We all know your right.!0
-
Then give me a better example... please, cause they still prove my point that eating more does not = weight lossthen why are all the kids in Africa... the ones you see on "feed the children" ads... all are bone? their bodies have gone for how long with out food?
I know the body can survive at least 40 days without food, water much less... I doubt one day is going to make that big of a difference.
They are ACTUALLY starving. Their bodies have used their fat stores.... that's why they're all bone. That is a very very extreme example that cannot be applied here...
They have very little LBM as well.
By eating more you are feeding the LBM to preserve or in some cases of extremely overweight who can actually build muscle while in a deficit.
By eating slightly lower than TDEE youll lose fat while maintaining LBM.
If you diet down too low at a low calorie, hormonal responses will signal the body to maintain fat stores for energy later.
Leptin bottoms out telling the CNS to burn other energy sources.
These energy sources tend to come from protein sources like damaged muscle tissue or even organ tissue.
hope that answers your question.
I think if the responses to hormones and LBM and metabolism were as severe as people here believe them to be, no doctor or managed weight plan would have people eating below their BMR. They all do.
Do people really think you're onto something from reading internet forums and blogs that the medical and weight loss community missed?
LOL the 200 or so ppl following my plan seem to be doing well.
they eat closer to 2k a day and lose fat but maintain LBM and are getting stronger.
To that I laugh!
Doctors and weight loss programs tend to be short term and also tend to have a lot of bounce back.
It helps business!
Yes, I'm sure the entire medical and scientific community have it all wrong and you have it right.
Of course people can lose at a higher deficit. What they can't do is lose more than they can at a lower deficit.
Forum readers sent the Kimkins gal millions of dollars for her diet plan. Did that mean it was based on scientific facts? At least your's isn't dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimkins
I'm mot making any money off the ppl I help so I only want them to lose the weight the correct way.
I don't want them to crash diet down to goal then come back a year later after it all came back but now it's harder to take off.
Same thing with 128 question PTs.
They have brand new clients doing ****ty 4 day splits because they know that the client will have to keep coming back.
Not to mention the MediFast groups and the deals they have with food companies is all based around money.
So unless you've tried my plans or any type of "Eat More to Weigh Less" I don't see how you could refute it.
It makes logical sense.
You fuel your day not starve it.
AND
The fact that I have ppl who rarely plateau and constantly lose says volumes on how well this works.
Either you try it and see for yourself or STFU about it.0 -
Then give me a better example... please, cause they still prove my point that eating more does not = weight lossthen why are all the kids in Africa... the ones you see on "feed the children" ads... all are bone? their bodies have gone for how long with out food?
I know the body can survive at least 40 days without food, water much less... I doubt one day is going to make that big of a difference.
They are ACTUALLY starving. Their bodies have used their fat stores.... that's why they're all bone. That is a very very extreme example that cannot be applied here...
They have very little LBM as well.
By eating more you are feeding the LBM to preserve or in some cases of extremely overweight who can actually build muscle while in a deficit.
By eating slightly lower than TDEE youll lose fat while maintaining LBM.
If you diet down too low at a low calorie, hormonal responses will signal the body to maintain fat stores for energy later.
Leptin bottoms out telling the CNS to burn other energy sources.
These energy sources tend to come from protein sources like damaged muscle tissue or even organ tissue.
hope that answers your question.
I think if the responses to hormones and LBM and metabolism were as severe as people here believe them to be, no doctor or managed weight plan would have people eating below their BMR. They all do.
Do people really think you're onto something from reading internet forums and blogs that the medical and weight loss community missed?
LOL the 200 or so ppl following my plan seem to be doing well.
they eat closer to 2k a day and lose fat but maintain LBM and are getting stronger.
To that I laugh!
Doctors and weight loss programs tend to be short term and also tend to have a lot of bounce back.
It helps business!
Yes, I'm sure the entire medical and scientific community have it all wrong and you have it right.
Of course people can lose at a higher deficit. What they can't do is lose more than they can at a lower deficit.
Forum readers sent the Kimkins gal millions of dollars for her diet plan. Did that mean it was based on scientific facts? At least your's isn't dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimkins
I'm mot making any money off the ppl I help so I only want them to lose the weight the correct way.
I don't want them to crash diet down to goal then come back a year later after it all came back but now it's harder to take off.
Same thing with 128 question PTs.
They have brand new clients doing ****ty 4 day splits because they know that the client will have to keep coming back.
Not to mention the MediFast groups and the deals they have with food companies is all based around money.
So unless you've tried my plans or any type of "Eat More to Weigh Less" I don't see how you could refute it.
It makes logical sense.
You fuel your day not starve it.
AND
The fact that I have ppl who rarely plateau and constantly lose says volumes on how well this works.
Either you try it and see for yourself or STFU about it.
I have been following Dan's plan for a few months. I have lost weight during that time...and 30 inches since March 2. When I started MFP I did the recommended 1200 and it took about 3 weeks for me to realize it sucks. I had NO energy at all. I also was constantly hungry - which led to binges, which led to guilt trips. After reading Dan's information, having him run my #..I'm not losing as quickly as I was (on the scale). I have, however, lost all those inches since starting the higher cals. I have more energy, I'm not obsessed with the counting calories and my binges have basically stopped.
I'll admit - I was very nervous about starting the higher calories - but I am glad I did!0 -
What that means is when you eat enough, you aren't putting your body in starvation mode.
If you drop your calorie intake by a considerable amount (like 600 calories a day in an attempt to lose weight) and start starving yourself, your body will start to hold on to every calorie you eat and store it as fat because it thinks you are starving and there is no food. However, if you eat small meals frequently and do not starve yourself, then your body has no reason to hold on to calories, thus increasing your metabolism which promotes weight loss. Of course, exercise promotes health and increases metabolism too.
Well put!
0 -
What that means is when you eat enough, you aren't putting your body in starvation mode.
If you drop your calorie intake by a considerable amount (like 600 calories a day in an attempt to lose weight) and start starving yourself, your body will start to hold on to every calorie you eat and store it as fat because it thinks you are starving and there is no food. However, if you eat small meals frequently and do not starve yourself, then your body has no reason to hold on to calories, thus increasing your metabolism which promotes weight loss. Of course, exercise promotes health and increases metabolism too.
Well put!
Meal timing has no impact on metabolism (everything else being equal re calories and macros)0 -
Dan- I am not going to STFU about it. I think it's terrific you're helping people. I think losing slowly is a fabulous idea. I have never once advocated any specific calorie level, much less Medifast level.
What I will not STFU about is the misinformation here. I care about the people, too. Theories are fine but not presented as facts.
Yes, you will lose more LBM at lower calorie levels and yes, your odds of regaining are higher. But you absolutely will not lose more by eating more. It's impossible. If metabolism was that elastic, someone besides you would've noticed by now.
There are people on here daily that are confused as hell by the contradictory information. MFP and everywhere else gives them a floor of 1200. Then people here say, "NO! You can't eat below your BMR!" Then the confused people say, "I'm stalled!" or "I have a headache!" and people here automatically jump to "Eat more! You're hurting yourself! Join this group! I eat 2000 calories a day and the weight is falling off me!"
It seems like a lot of people have wasted a lot of time trying to 'eat more and lose more' and have gained, and some have succeeded. I wonder how many gave up and left the site and are not here to post that it didn't work for them? They probably feel like they failed or they 'broke' their metabolism permanently by taking the original MFP rec of 1200 for 2 weeks.0 -
To the OP - It may be a good idea to have a read of these threads
Plenty of people who have upped calories and lost better.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/518533-major-sucess-with-higher-calories
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/395881-people-who-lost-weight-eating-more?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/531086-before-and-after-pics-no-starvation?
These threads are a few months old now, so it would be interesting to see how many of them are still around, and how many of them are still eating at that level.0 -
Writes fantastic post, deletes it before posting.0
-
What that means is when you eat enough, you aren't putting your body in starvation mode.
If you drop your calorie intake by a considerable amount (like 600 calories a day in an attempt to lose weight) and start starving yourself, your body will start to hold on to every calorie you eat and store it as fat because it thinks you are starving and there is no food. However, if you eat small meals frequently and do not starve yourself, then your body has no reason to hold on to calories, thus increasing your metabolism which promotes weight loss. Of course, exercise promotes health and increases metabolism too.
Well said.....0 -
To those who have been civil, thank you. There's no reason to argue about this because the views are not mutually exclusive.
Do you accept that you will lose more on a 1000 calorie daily deficit than a 500 calorie daily deficit? Then you accept that you will lose more on a larger deficit.
Can decreasing your deficit help with stalls and be a sustainable and effective way to lose weight? I don't think anyone is arguing with that.
Both of these points have a place on this forum.
Let's not create an artificial argument and pretend like the other approach is invalid. That's what the vegetarian threads are for.0 -
interesting0
-
*bumping* for later reading0
-
Ok - so I guess that I don't really understand these numbers. My BMR is 2200; my TDEE is 2650 - and to lose weight I should eat between those numbers daily....... then why is my daily target set by myfitnesspal at 1550?
MFP sets your deficit based on diet alone, no exercise!! Hence why they suggest you eat your exercise calories back, to fuel yourself. TDEE has your activity level included to represent your average calories burned if you are consistent with working out so you only eat at that level to maintain or cut 15-20% from that number to lose.0 -
The minimum amount you'll burn in a day is BMR. The actual amount you burn in a day is called TDEE around here (Total Daily Energy Expenditure), which includes exercise AND a whole bunch of other activities like showering, eating, driving, moving around an office, changing diapers, sex, and whatever else you do in a day.
If you eat more than BMR but less than TDEE you will lose weight.
So some of us want to eat closer to our actual TDEE to lose weight (I like a ~400 cal/day deficit, personally) to lose weight slowly and without much effort while preserving lean muscle mass. Others choose to eat closer to BMR... or less.
Many people decide they want to lose weight and are bombarded with messages about eating 1200 calories/day, eating 500 calories plus HCG injections, eating 300 calories plus B vitamin injections or whatever... the truth is, as long as what you eat is somewhat less than what you burn, you'll lose weight.
It doesn't have to be super restrictive. Just tracked accurately.
Could you help me figure mine? I'm female, age 38, 5'9 and I weigh 250. I want to weigh 170, after an 80 lb loss. Thanks!
WHat is your weekly exercise like?
I am pretty active. I clean houses 5 days a week for 4-5 hours each day for work, and I have been taking moderate paced morning walks 3-5 days a week for 60 minutes each time.
Wow thats a hefty amount of exercise.
Calculating based on Strenuous activity:
BMR - 1882
TDEE - 3247
TDEE - 20% cut target - 2597
You would be shooting for 2600 calories (not eating back exercise calories.
This equates to a deficit that allows for roughly 1.3lbs per week lost.
*however I would suggest something like a BodyMedia FIT that you wear 24 hours day to monitor closer how many calories you burn in a day.
Cleaning house can very in exertion level
Thank you for this! Couple questions: Can I see a break-down of how you got the numbers? Also does the TDEE include the walks, or just house cleaning?
Also, given the fact that I have a LOT of weight to lose (80 pounds!!) is it safe to eat that much... meaning will I still lose weight? That's a LOT of calories! Last week I ate about 1800 cals per day and I lost 2.5 lbs. I would like to lose 2lbs a week.
lbs. I run a lot and have a very active lifr
I use a TDEE calculation to determine my calorie target. I am 5' tall and about lbs. I run a lot and have a very active life. I eat 2000 cals a day.
FYI - I used this TDEE approach to improve my emotional relationship with food and exercise...when I had my MFP goal and then got to eat back my exercise. My calorie goal thus changed each day based on exercise. I felt like I had to earn my right to eat. I am trying TDEE now as each day is the same target and I do not specifically eat back my exercise calories....The point I want to note...regardless of which approach I am using I happen to eat about the same net calroies daily with energy to run, take care of 4 kids, teach, etc etc and have somewhat defined lean muscles. Either approach....MFP target + eating back exercise cals ....or TDEE and not specifically eating back exercise...I am netting about the same and I am maintaining as I want to.....If this all seems too complicated be honest in you MFP settings and eat back exercise and you will feel full, happy and still see results. Over restricting is not good for you...think of your body as a car...you can run around on E for a while and even on fumes for a short distance but eventually the car will stall without fuel. If you keep the car filled up with the correct amount of fuel the car will continue to work fine...if you try to put too much fuel in the car you will either spill the gas on the ground or you have to carry the extra around in red cans...put the right amount of fuel in your car.0 -
the human body is amazing in its ability to survive. Those little children have gone for so long without a decent amount of food they have used up all their reserves. Once the body feels the need to survive it will hold onto the fat first and start burning lean muscle. Eventually it will start on the fat. 1 day would not really make that huge a difference but I guess if it is habitual it would. The human body can manage around 3-4 days without water.0
-
It's about eating the RIGHT foods and not the wrong ones. You can eat all you want in fruits and veggies.0
-
I have just been tracking my calories and workouts here for a short while. I am 5'10", 169, 60 years old, bf 17%. I want to get down to 160, maybe 155. Want to get my bf% down.
I am just about done with the P90X2 exercise program which is fairly intense about 4 days of the week. On the other days, I sometimes do Yoga, elliptical, bike riding. So I am fairly active.
When I log in my calories and exercise it usually says something like. If every day was like today, you would weigh 155 in 5 weeks.
One week has gone by with similar messages and I have gone from 170 to 169. Obviously, something is not right.
Am I eating too little? The graphic tells me my goal is 1390 calories before adding in exercise. This goal was calculated to give me a daily calorie deficit of 750. I usually have an additional 300-500 calorie deficit per day.0 -
The idea as far as I can tell is this: Your caloric intake should be on par with your activity level. The overall health benefits associated with maintaining a high enough activity level to justify (and necessitate) a higher calorie food intake are far greater than the health benefits of losing weight through simple low-calorie or low-carb dieting with a low activity level.
Basically the goal behind the people pushing you to eat more to weigh less is remind you that if you're exercising, you need to increase your calorie intake accordingly in order to keep you fueled for your activity level and preserve lean muscle mass, which leads to more fat loss in a shorter period of time and greater overall health benefits.
As far as I can tell, anyway. And it's 100% true, if that's what they're trying to push on you.
Example: Three people who both each a BMR of 1700 calories a day, leading to a 1200 calorie per day goal for weight loss (deficit of 500 calories below maintenance which is ideal). Person A sits on their butt all day and eats their 1200 calories. The other two, Persons B and C, follow a fairly rigorous workout regimen that burns ~1000 calories a day. Person B continues to eat the 1200 calories per day despite the higher activity level. Person C increases their calorie intake by 1000 to adjust for the 1000 everyday they are burning through exercise. They will all lose weight. HOWEVER...
Person A gains no lean muscle mass and gains no real health benefits aside from those that comes with lowering your BMI.
Person B loses a lot in the beginning, unfortunately a lot of it is lean muscle mass as well as fat. Also, Person B is unable to maintain their activity level for very long and eventually falls off the exercise wagon due to lack of fuel for the machine that is their body. They then become Person A, or something close to it with their activity level.
Person C keeps losing, keeps working out rigorously building lean mass, improving overall health, and losing fat (but not necessarily weight due to the lean mass gain) at a greater speed than Persons A and B.
This, by far, has been the most intelligent and easy to understand answer of any i have seen on all threads regarding this topic!!!! I hope people read and undersatand how truly simply this is!!!!0 -
I have just been tracking my calories and workouts here for a short while. I am 5'10", 169, 60 years old, bf 17%. I want to get down to 160, maybe 155. Want to get my bf% down.
I am just about done with the P90X2 exercise program which is fairly intense about 4 days of the week. On the other days, I sometimes do Yoga, elliptical, bike riding. So I am fairly active.
When I log in my calories and exercise it usually says something like. If every day was like today, you would weigh 155 in 5 weeks.
One week has gone by with similar messages and I have gone from 170 to 169. Obviously, something is not right.
Am I eating too little? The graphic tells me my goal is 1390 calories before adding in exercise. This goal was calculated to give me a daily calorie deficit of 750. I usually have an additional 300-500 calorie deficit per day.
BMR 1755
TDEE 2414
Perfect weight 153lbs
Should be netting daily to lose wight 1900-2100 daily.
Can eat up to 2900 on workout days up to 3 days a week and still remain in a deficit for the week.
Eating 2k a day will result in a 1lb loss per week in fat as long as you maintain 3 days on P90X.
1300?
These numbers if eaten daily you wont be adding in calories burned.0 -
I agree with most of the 'person A, B & C' example except for a few things.
There is no reason person B will run out of fuel. His body uses stored calories, like all machines with gas tanks.
Also, all three people will lose some fat and some LBM. Person A does not lose all LBM and person C all fat.
Also, person C will likely lose the least scale weight (which is fine). But many people just want to lose weight and get that feedback from the scale that what they're doing is working. If they don't see that scale go down, they often give up. Is it rational? No, but they don't want to build muscle right now or exercise off and eat 7000 calories per week. They just want to lose some weight for now. The plan is often being presented as though person C will lose the most WEIGHT. He might gain the most health over a year but he won't lose the most weight. And if he mis-estimates anything, he might spin his wheels for a while. Some dieters will quit if that happens to them. Just like they will quit if they make their deficits too extreme.To those who have been civil, thank you. There's no reason to argue about this because the views are not mutually exclusive.
Do you accept that you will lose more on a 1000 calorie daily deficit than a 500 calorie daily deficit? Then you accept that you will lose more on a larger deficit.
Can decreasing your deficit help with stalls and be a sustainable and effective way to lose weight? I don't think anyone is arguing with that.
Both of these points have a place on this forum.
Let's not create an artificial argument and pretend like the other approach is invalid. That's what the vegetarian threads are for.
LOL about vegetarian threads! And thank you.0 -
bump to read more later. thanks everyone0
-
Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.0
-
Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.
Oh honey, I think you have mis-read the thread.
A moderate defict is perfect for burning fat, and aggressive defict has been shown to burn more lean muscle.
I doubt you are eating at a high defict on 1820.
Don't panic, you seem to be doing it right.
:flowerforyou:0 -
Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.
Oh honey, I think you have mis-read the thread.
A moderate defict is perfect for burning fat, and aggressive defict has been shown to burn more lean muscle.
I doubt you are eating at a high defict on 1820.
Don't panic, you seem to be doing it right.
:flowerforyou:
I'm going to go set my lifestyle meter to the one above sedentary. I' m not actually sedentary because I do a lot of moving. It's just not formal exercise. That way it will be less of a calorie deficit. <Deep breath> I'm not hungry so I guess that's a good sign.0 -
Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.
This is exactly my point. You are not losing ALL MUSCLE when you eat at a healthy deficit. Don't give up.
Listen to what authorities say: Eat at a deficit of up to 1000 calories per day but above 1200, do resistance exercise to protect muscle. End of story. (Of course, modify this as suggested for the breastfeeding.)0 -
Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.
Oh honey, I think you have mis-read the thread.
A moderate defict is perfect for burning fat, and aggressive defict has been shown to burn more lean muscle.
I doubt you are eating at a high defict on 1820.
Don't panic, you seem to be doing it right.
:flowerforyou:
I'm going to go set my lifestyle meter to the one above sedentary. I' m not actually sedentary because I do a lot of moving. It's just not formal exercise. That way it will be less of a calorie deficit. <Deep breath> I'm not hungry so I guess that's a good sign.
You're still breastfeeding so don't worry about it too much at the moment, that burns extra calories too, and you don't want to go too low as it could affect your milk supply, just keep doing what you are doing and re-assess when you have stopped feeding.
You are probably right that you aren't sedentary looking after a new baby.
That is really only for people who sit at a desk all day, and on their couch all night.0 -
Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.
Oh honey, I think you have mis-read the thread.
A moderate defict is perfect for burning fat, and aggressive defict has been shown to burn more lean muscle.
I doubt you are eating at a high defict on 1820.
Don't panic, you seem to be doing it right.
:flowerforyou:
I'm going to go set my lifestyle meter to the one above sedentary. I' m not actually sedentary because I do a lot of moving. It's just not formal exercise. That way it will be less of a calorie deficit. <Deep breath> I'm not hungry so I guess that's a good sign.
You're still breastfeeding so don't worry about it too much at the moment, that burns extra calories too, and you don't want to go too low as it could affect your milk supply, just keep doing what you are doing and re-assess when you have stopped feeding.
You are probably right that you aren't sedentary looking after a new baby.
That is really only for people who sit at a desk all day, and on their couch all night.
Just to add to Lady's good advice. Breastfeeding is 'allocated' 500 calories a day for the amount of extra calories used in producing breast milk.
And you definately would not be sedentary in my opinion.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions