A Calorie is NOT Just a Calorie - New Study
cPT_Helice
Posts: 403
Study Challenges The Notion That A Calorie Is Just A Calorie
PRNewswire-USNewswire
06-27-12
Reducing refined carbohydrates may help maintain weight loss better than reducing fat
BOSTON, June 26, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association challenges the notion that "a calorie is a calorie." The study, led by Cara Ebbeling, Ph.D., associate director and David Ludwig, MD, director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center Boston Children's Hospital, finds diets that reduce the surge in blood sugar after a meal--either low-glycemic index or very-low carbohydrate-may be preferable to a low-fat diet for those trying to achieve lasting weight loss. Furthermore, the study finds that the low-glycemic index diet had similar metabolic benefits to the very low-carb diet without negative effects of stress and inflammation as seen by participants consuming the very low-carb diet.
Weight re-gain is often attributed to a decline in motivation or adherence to diet and exercise, but biology also plays an important role. After weight loss, the rate at which people burn calories (known as energy expenditure) decreases, reflecting slower metabolism. Lower energy expenditure adds to the difficulty of weight maintenance and helps explain why people tend to re-gain lost weight.
Prior research by Ebbeling and Ludwig has shown the advantages of a low glycemic load diet for weight loss and diabetes prevention, but the effects of these diets during weight loss maintenance has not been well studied. Research shows that only one in six overweight people will maintain even 10 percent of their weight loss long-term.
The study suggests that a low-glycemic load diet is more effective than conventional approaches at burning calories (and keeping energy expenditure) at a higher rate after weight loss. "We've found that, contrary to nutritional dogma, all calories are not created equal," says Ludwig, also director of the Optimal Weight for Life Clinic at Boston Children's Hospital. "Total calories burned plummeted by 300 calories on the low fat diet compared to the low carbohydrate diet, which would equal the number of calories typically burned in an hour of moderate-intensity physical activity," he says.
Each of the study's 21 adult participants (ages 18-40) first had to lose 10 to 15 percent of their body weight, and after weight stabilization, completed all three of the following diets in random order, each for four weeks at a time. The randomized crossover design allowed for rigorous observation of how each diet affected all participants, regardless of the order in which they were consumed:
-- A low-fat diet, which reduces dietary fat and emphasizes whole grain
products and a variety of fruits and vegetables, comprised of 60 percent
of daily calories from carbohydrates, 20 percent from fat and 20 percent
from protein.
-- A low-glycemic index diet made up of minimally processed grains,
vegetables, healthy fats, legumes and fruits, with 40 percent of daily
calories from carbohydrates, 40 percent from fat and 20 percent from
protein. Low glycemic index carbohydrates digest slowly, helping to keep
blood sugar and hormones stable after the meal.
-- A low-carbohydrate diet, modeled after the Atkins diet, comprised of 10
percent of daily calories from carbohydrates, 60 percent from fat and 30
percent from protein.
The study used state-of-the-art methods, such as stable isotopes to measure participants' total energy expenditure, as they followed each diet.
Each of the three diets fell within the normal healthy range of 10 to 35 percent of daily calories from protein. The very low-carbohydrate diet produced the greatest improvements in metabolism, but with an important caveat: This diet increased participants' cortisol levels, which can lead to insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease. The very low carbohydrate diet also raised C-reactive protein levels, which may also increase risk of cardiovascular disease.
Though a low-fat diet is traditionally recommended by the U.S. Government and Heart Association, it caused the greatest decrease in energy expenditure, an unhealthy lipid pattern and insulin resistance.
"In addition to the benefits noted in this study, we believe that low-glycemic-index diets are easier to stick to on a day-to-day basis, compared to low-carb and low-fat diets, which many people find limiting," says Ebbeling. "Unlike low-fat and very- low carbohydrate diets, a low-glycemic-index diet doesn't eliminate entire classes of food, likely making it easier to follow and more sustainable."
Other coauthors of the study include Henry Feldman and Erica Garcia-Lago from Boston Children's Hospital, Janis Swain from Brigham and Women's Hospital, William Wong from Baylor College of Medicine and David Hachey from Vanderbilt University. The study was funded by The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases, the National Center for Research and Resources, the National Institutes of Health and the New Balance Foundation.
Boston Children's Hospital is home to the world's largest research enterprise based at a pediatric medical center, where its discoveries have benefited both children and adults since 1869. More than 1,100 scientists, including nine members of the National Academy of Sciences, 11 members of the Institute of Medicine and nine members of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute comprise Boston Children's research community. Founded as a 20-bed hospital for children, Boston Children's today is a 395 bed comprehensive center for pediatric and adolescent health care grounded in the values of excellence in patient care and sensitivity to the complex needs and diversity of children and families. Boston Children's also is the primary pediatric teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School. For more information about research and clinical innovation at Boston Children's, visit: http://vectorblog.org.
CONTACT: Keri Stedman Boston Children's Hospital 617-919-3110 keri.stedman@childrens.harvard.edu
Boston Children's Hospital
Web site: http://www.childrenshospital.org//
Copyright PRNewswire-USNewswire 2012
PRNewswire-USNewswire
06-27-12
Reducing refined carbohydrates may help maintain weight loss better than reducing fat
BOSTON, June 26, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association challenges the notion that "a calorie is a calorie." The study, led by Cara Ebbeling, Ph.D., associate director and David Ludwig, MD, director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center Boston Children's Hospital, finds diets that reduce the surge in blood sugar after a meal--either low-glycemic index or very-low carbohydrate-may be preferable to a low-fat diet for those trying to achieve lasting weight loss. Furthermore, the study finds that the low-glycemic index diet had similar metabolic benefits to the very low-carb diet without negative effects of stress and inflammation as seen by participants consuming the very low-carb diet.
Weight re-gain is often attributed to a decline in motivation or adherence to diet and exercise, but biology also plays an important role. After weight loss, the rate at which people burn calories (known as energy expenditure) decreases, reflecting slower metabolism. Lower energy expenditure adds to the difficulty of weight maintenance and helps explain why people tend to re-gain lost weight.
Prior research by Ebbeling and Ludwig has shown the advantages of a low glycemic load diet for weight loss and diabetes prevention, but the effects of these diets during weight loss maintenance has not been well studied. Research shows that only one in six overweight people will maintain even 10 percent of their weight loss long-term.
The study suggests that a low-glycemic load diet is more effective than conventional approaches at burning calories (and keeping energy expenditure) at a higher rate after weight loss. "We've found that, contrary to nutritional dogma, all calories are not created equal," says Ludwig, also director of the Optimal Weight for Life Clinic at Boston Children's Hospital. "Total calories burned plummeted by 300 calories on the low fat diet compared to the low carbohydrate diet, which would equal the number of calories typically burned in an hour of moderate-intensity physical activity," he says.
Each of the study's 21 adult participants (ages 18-40) first had to lose 10 to 15 percent of their body weight, and after weight stabilization, completed all three of the following diets in random order, each for four weeks at a time. The randomized crossover design allowed for rigorous observation of how each diet affected all participants, regardless of the order in which they were consumed:
-- A low-fat diet, which reduces dietary fat and emphasizes whole grain
products and a variety of fruits and vegetables, comprised of 60 percent
of daily calories from carbohydrates, 20 percent from fat and 20 percent
from protein.
-- A low-glycemic index diet made up of minimally processed grains,
vegetables, healthy fats, legumes and fruits, with 40 percent of daily
calories from carbohydrates, 40 percent from fat and 20 percent from
protein. Low glycemic index carbohydrates digest slowly, helping to keep
blood sugar and hormones stable after the meal.
-- A low-carbohydrate diet, modeled after the Atkins diet, comprised of 10
percent of daily calories from carbohydrates, 60 percent from fat and 30
percent from protein.
The study used state-of-the-art methods, such as stable isotopes to measure participants' total energy expenditure, as they followed each diet.
Each of the three diets fell within the normal healthy range of 10 to 35 percent of daily calories from protein. The very low-carbohydrate diet produced the greatest improvements in metabolism, but with an important caveat: This diet increased participants' cortisol levels, which can lead to insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease. The very low carbohydrate diet also raised C-reactive protein levels, which may also increase risk of cardiovascular disease.
Though a low-fat diet is traditionally recommended by the U.S. Government and Heart Association, it caused the greatest decrease in energy expenditure, an unhealthy lipid pattern and insulin resistance.
"In addition to the benefits noted in this study, we believe that low-glycemic-index diets are easier to stick to on a day-to-day basis, compared to low-carb and low-fat diets, which many people find limiting," says Ebbeling. "Unlike low-fat and very- low carbohydrate diets, a low-glycemic-index diet doesn't eliminate entire classes of food, likely making it easier to follow and more sustainable."
Other coauthors of the study include Henry Feldman and Erica Garcia-Lago from Boston Children's Hospital, Janis Swain from Brigham and Women's Hospital, William Wong from Baylor College of Medicine and David Hachey from Vanderbilt University. The study was funded by The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases, the National Center for Research and Resources, the National Institutes of Health and the New Balance Foundation.
Boston Children's Hospital is home to the world's largest research enterprise based at a pediatric medical center, where its discoveries have benefited both children and adults since 1869. More than 1,100 scientists, including nine members of the National Academy of Sciences, 11 members of the Institute of Medicine and nine members of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute comprise Boston Children's research community. Founded as a 20-bed hospital for children, Boston Children's today is a 395 bed comprehensive center for pediatric and adolescent health care grounded in the values of excellence in patient care and sensitivity to the complex needs and diversity of children and families. Boston Children's also is the primary pediatric teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School. For more information about research and clinical innovation at Boston Children's, visit: http://vectorblog.org.
CONTACT: Keri Stedman Boston Children's Hospital 617-919-3110 keri.stedman@childrens.harvard.edu
Boston Children's Hospital
Web site: http://www.childrenshospital.org//
Copyright PRNewswire-USNewswire 2012
0
Replies
-
The study is complete garbage. No control for adherence, and despite the claims of differing TEE
"“Body weight did not differ significantly among the 3 diets (mean [95% CI], 91.5 [87.4-95.6] kg for low fat; 91.1 [87.0-95.2] kg for low glycemic index; and 91.2 [87.1-95.3] kg for very low carbohydrate”."
According to their calculations TEE exceeded caloric intake, but nobody lost weight. Yeah right.
http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=3680
MISSING: What was the REE/TDEE of these subjects in the last two weeks of the weight-reduced stabilization period??
MISSING: Food logs, dietary recall, etc. ... Basically ANY sort of indication as to compliance with either of the three regimes. Worse yet ...
MISSING: Actual intake composition data. Recent studies have shown just how important this is in making comparisons!
MISSING: Body weight at each time point.
MISSING: The usual dropouts over a 3 month period for 1 month each spent on radically different diets. (The final n=21 resulted from only 1 dropout during this portion of the study, although the "rotten apples may have been weeded out in the weight loss portion).
So we have no clue how closely any of these participants adhered to the prescribed diets or whether they maintained, lost or even gained weight during that leg of the study. GARBAGE IN.
Garbage out.
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2012/06/friday-jama-lama-ding-dong.html
Edit A nutritional researcher made this post on another forum. Pretty much sums it up:Let's change all three variables, and say it occurred due to one of then. Way to go MDs.0 -
The title should read: Macronutrient calories differ from one another.
A calorie is a calorie scientifically speaking. 1 calorie of fat is equal to one calorie of protein and is equal to one calorie of carbs in terms of energy (which is what a calorie is). How the body "processes" it with hormones is different.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
So...... eat your veggies......
0 -
There's thousands of tickers on here from people who don't go into it that deep which all say who cares what a study has found. Its working.0
-
Each micronutrient has a different calorie value per gram so that should be a good indication that each one is not equal; carbohydrates and fats are used as fuel and protein is used to repair and rebuild the body.
Can't be bothered to type it so here is a copy and paste:
CARBOHYDRATES:
Carbohydrates have six major functions within the body:
Providing energy and regulation of blood glucose
Sparing the use of proteins for energy
Breakdown of fatty acids and preventing ketosis
Biological recognition processes
Flavor and Sweeteners
Dietary fiber
Carbohydrates add on to the taste and appearance of food item, thus making the dish tempting and mouthwatering.
PROTEINS:
Proteins have many functions. They serve as enzymatic catalysts, are used as transport molecules (hemoglobin transports oxygen) and storage molecules (iron is stored in the liver as a complex with the protein ferritin); they are used in movement (proteins are the major component of muscles); they are needed for mechanical support (skin and bone contain collagen-a fibrous protein); they mediate cell responses (rhodopsin is a protein in the eye which is used for vision); antibody proteins are needed for immune protection; control of growth and cell differentiation uses proteins (hormones). These are just a few examples of the many, many functions of proteins.
FATS:
A certain amount of fat, between 20 and 35 percent of total consumed calories, is necessary to ensure a sufficient energy and nutrient intake. The fat-soluble vitamins-vitamins A,D,E, and K-must be delivered in a fat package. The essential fatty acids, which are needed for specific body functions but that we are incapable of synthesizing, must also be consumed. Some dietary fat is also needed to give us a feeling of satiety during the meal, creating the important physiological signal that it is time to stop eating. Dietary fats have a longer gastric emptying time than do carbohydrates, which contributes to the feeling of satiety.
So I'm afraid that a calorie is not just a calorie when consumed considering the individual workload of each.0 -
TL;DR
Calories are calories are calories... Studies like this are a WASTE of time.0 -
TL;DR
Calories are calories are calories... Studies like this are a WASTE of time.
No they are not. Many of us have known for a long time that all calories are NOT equal.
When the body processes calories differently from one another makes them not equal.0 -
Reducing refined carbohydrates may help maintain weight loss better than reducing fat
no way....
seriously, a waste of time considering its been known that refined carbs are rather bad for you. congrats to the researchers for wasting time and stating the obvious, yet again.0 -
Reducing refined carbohydrates may help maintain weight loss better than reducing fat
no way....
seriously, a waste of time considering its been known that refined carbs are rather bad for you. congrats to the researchers for wasting time and stating the obvious, yet again.
Go on and explain how/why they are rather bad for you0 -
Reducing refined carbohydrates may help maintain weight loss better than reducing fat
no way....
seriously, a waste of time considering its been known that refined carbs are rather bad for you. congrats to the researchers for wasting time and stating the obvious, yet again.
Considering the amount of processed foods that flies off the shelves and into the carts of many at the grocery stores very few understand that, so in that respect, IT IS NOT a waste of time.
Also, there are soo many people on this site that are merely worried about caloric intake and not worried in the least where those calories come from - which makes me SMH out of the shame that it really is.
People are so addicted to those refined carbs that they "think" they can not live without _____________ food. Which is why the obesity epidemic will never go anywhere and will only get worse and people will get sicker and wonder why.
And companies like Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, etc will continue to take over and ruin the food supply while they exercise their world dominance.0 -
I only read the first few paragraphs because it doesn't sound like they're refuting that a calorie is a calorie, just saying you get different satiety effects from different foods. That's just common sense.0
-
Reducing refined carbohydrates may help maintain weight loss better than reducing fat
no way....
seriously, a waste of time considering its been known that refined carbs are rather bad for you. congrats to the researchers for wasting time and stating the obvious, yet again.
Considering the amount of processed foods that flies off the shelves and into the carts of many at the grocery stores very few understand that, so in that respect, IT IS NOT a waste of time.
Also, there are soo many people on this site that are merely worried about caloric intake and not worried in the least where those calories come from - which makes me SMH out of the shame that it really is.
People are so addicted to those refined carbs that they "think" they can not live without _____________ food. Which is why the obesity epidemic will never go anywhere and will only get worse and people will get sicker and wonder why.
And companies like Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, etc will continue to take over and ruin the food supply while they exercise their world dominance.
Clearly it is just the refined carbs making them and keeping them fat. And let's all put our tinfoil hats on and chat about monsanto etc0 -
The study is complete garbage. No control for adherence, and despite the claims of differing TEE
"“Body weight did not differ significantly among the 3 diets (mean [95% CI], 91.5 [87.4-95.6] kg for low fat; 91.1 [87.0-95.2] kg for low glycemic index; and 91.2 [87.1-95.3] kg for very low carbohydrate”."
This.
End of thread.0 -
I will merely say this.... it truly amazes me how many people on this site will quote lines from blogs and other sources, simply because it says what they want it to say or what they already believe, and will follow what some body builder, with no scientific background, will post on Bodybuilding.com as if it is pure gospel, yet trash a peer reviewed, reputable study performed by doctors and well established scientists, who have actually done the research.
As for the first responder to this article..... How many studies have you published? I would be surprised if the answer was anything more than zero for you to think that the data you mentioned would be presented in a release to the public. Study results released to the general public never have the information you are asking for. You would lose your audience after the first paragraph. Go to the journal for that. Public releases (news releases) are merely findings with sufficient support for the general audience.0 -
I will merely say this.... it truly amazes me how many people on this site will quote lines from blogs and other sources, simply because it says what they want it to say or what they already believe, and will follow what some body builder, with no scientific background, will post on Bodybuilding.com as if it is pure gospel, yet trash a peer reviewed, reputable study performed by doctors and well established scientists, who have actually done the research.
As for the first responder to this article..... How many studies have you published? I would be surprised if the answer was anything more than zero for you to think that the data you mentioned would be presented in a release to the public. Study results released to the general public never have the information you are asking for. You would lose your audience after the first paragraph. Go to the journal for that. Public releases (news releases) are merely findings with sufficient support for the general audience.
LOL. I was referring to the actual journal article -- NOT the lay-press interpretation. Have you ever read a journal article. Ever??? Methodology and raw data is supposed to be included -- in this case it wasn't.
How about you actually address the actual criticisms of the study rather than just providing appeals to authority and ad hominem??0 -
I will merely say this.... it truly amazes me how many people on this site will quote lines from blogs and other sources, simply because it says what they want it to say or what they already believe, and will follow what some body builder, with no scientific background, will post on Bodybuilding.com as if it is pure gospel, yet trash a peer reviewed, reputable study performed by doctors and well established scientists, who have actually done the research.
As for the first responder to this article..... How many studies have you published? I would be surprised if the answer was anything more than zero for you to think that the data you mentioned would be presented in a release to the public. Study results released to the general public never have the information you are asking for. You would lose your audience after the first paragraph. Go to the journal for that. Public releases (news releases) are merely findings with sufficient support for the general audience.
LOL. I was referring to the actual journal article -- NOT the lay-press interpretation. Have you ever read a journal article. Ever??? Methodology and raw data is supposed to be included -- in this case it wasn't.
How about you actually address the actual criticisms of the study rather than just providing appeals to authority and ad hominem??
No.... never read one.... not event the ones I published. (Yes, sarcasm intended) Methodology is included, though not always in the detail you might like, but raw data is not included - never. Only processed data is included in appropriate table, chart or graph format depending on the type of data and the requirements of the journal. In fact, some journals (PNAS for example) only allows for a certain number of tables, etc and any actual data needs to be submitted as supplementary information.
As for addressing the criticisms, that's up to the authors. Address it to them, if you like. I find their work reputable and it is not mine to have to defend. I have reposted it here to help people - period! Take it or leave it.0 -
I completely agree with this study. You can eat 1200 calories of McDonald's a day or 1200 calories of clean, nutritious food. Your body will know the difference and react. That's why WHAT you eat is as important as HOW MUCH.0
-
I could provide a study with citations saying a calorie IS just a calorie. It would be just as valid as this one, and probably more helpful for weight loss.0
-
Gotta check this out after work.0
-
Of course not - no study needed.
Calories come attached to foods either nutritionally dense of not.
Simple deal.0 -
Or, we can discuss it, since this is a discussion forum. You posted this thinking no one has the right to respond?As for addressing the criticisms, that's up to the authors. Address it to them, if you like. I find their work reputable and it is not mine to have to defend. I have reposted it here to help people - period! Take it or leave it.0 -
I will merely say this.... it truly amazes me how many people on this site will quote lines from blogs and other sources, simply because it says what they want it to say or what they already believe, and will follow what some body builder, with no scientific background, will post on Bodybuilding.com as if it is pure gospel, yet trash a peer reviewed, reputable study performed by doctors and well established scientists, who have actually done the research.
As for the first responder to this article..... How many studies have you published? I would be surprised if the answer was anything more than zero for you to think that the data you mentioned would be presented in a release to the public. Study results released to the general public never have the information you are asking for. You would lose your audience after the first paragraph. Go to the journal for that. Public releases (news releases) are merely findings with sufficient support for the general audience.
LOL. I was referring to the actual journal article -- NOT the lay-press interpretation. Have you ever read a journal article. Ever??? Methodology and raw data is supposed to be included -- in this case it wasn't.
How about you actually address the actual criticisms of the study rather than just providing appeals to authority and ad hominem??
No.... never read one.... not event the ones I published. (Yes, sarcasm intended) Methodology is included, though not always in the detail you might like, but raw data is not included - never. Only processed data is included in appropriate table, chart or graph format depending on the type of data and the requirements of the journal. In fact, some journals (PNAS for example) only allows for a certain number of tables, etc and any actual data needs to be submitted as supplementary information.
As for addressing the criticisms, that's up to the authors. Address it to them, if you like. I find their work reputable and it is not mine to have to defend. I have reposted it here to help people - period! Take it or leave it.
I'll leave it.
Did you even read the actual study? It was *kitten*. They claimed an isocaloric diet - but didn't control for adherence. They claimed that the low carb group had a higher energy expenditure, but nobody lost any weight. They changed several variables, yet attributed the results to only one of them.0 -
I completely agree with this study. You can eat 1200 calories of McDonald's a day or 1200 calories of clean, nutritious food. Your body will know the difference and react. That's why WHAT you eat is as important as HOW MUCH.
I agree that it's important for our health to eat nutritious healthy food. Not just worry about the calories. You could lose weight on a restricted calorie diet and not care about what you are putting into your body, but you won't be healthy.0 -
Deleted.0
-
bump0
-
I completely agree with this study. You can eat 1200 calories of McDonald's a day or 1200 calories of clean, nutritious food. Your body will know the difference and react. That's why WHAT you eat is as important as HOW MUCH.
Exactly what is nutritious food now a days? Your body does not know your eating McDonalds vs an apple vs a steak. You will lose weight eating 1200 calories of McDonalds like you will lose weight on 1200 calories of veggies, fruits, proteins etc. You will just eat more of these foods because they have less calories over all in them but they are not better than McDonalds they provide the same energy. The problem is self control when you eat 1200 of McDonalds vs the other calories but both are equal.
In a health stand point what you eat matters but if we are going by just health do you know how much food we would have to eat to get all the miconutrients that our bodies need? The holistic health approach is a fad in itself. In a weight stand point its all about how much you eat and in North America with ample food supply this is the biggest problem we face!0 -
I completely agree with this study. You can eat 1200 calories of McDonald's a day or 1200 calories of clean, nutritious food. Your body will know the difference and react. That's why WHAT you eat is as important as HOW MUCH.
I agree that it's important for our health to eat nutritious healthy food. Not just worry about the calories. You could lose weight on a restricted calorie diet and not care about what you are putting into your body, but you won't be healthy.
But the question to beg is I know quite a few people if not a few dozen who eat like they don't care, they don't stress what they eat and are the healthiest people I have seen. Which comes to my understanding if you attract positive thoughts to what your eating garbage or not you will be ok. Its when we become obsessive about micros, macros that things start to happen.
Its not about health or calories its what you BELIEVE IN that will make you healthy.0 -
????0
-
TL;DR
Calories are calories are calories... Studies like this are a WASTE of time.
No they are not. Many of us have known for a long time that all calories are NOT equal.
When the body processes calories differently from one another makes them not equal.
Exactly.
I'm actually testing a theory right now. I used to have carbs as my late night snack - popcorn or a serving of chips or oatmeal (yes, oatmeal). Until I gained a pound. Now, I'm trying to end my night with less carbs and more protein. So far, I've lost a pound.0 -
Oh really now?Which comes to my understanding if you attract positive thoughts to what your eating garbage or not you will be ok. Its when we become obsessive about micros, macros that things start to happen.
Its not about health or calories its what you BELIEVE IN that will make you healthy.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
- 96.3K 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