Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners
Replies
-
...oh yes, and why I think paleos and vegans argue these points so vigorously when people who eat SAD-style are removed from it? I think it's because the SAD eaters bob along without much passion for this subject. It's apathy and perhaps a tiny bit of guilt if they are aware of the problems with the way they are eating.0
-
There is no reason for a primal or paleo person to disrespect or put down a vegan. I'll even agree there is more of a reason for you to be against paleo sense it is against your values . all I ask is for honesty about the true motives, instead of hideing behind it being about health.0
-
This is exactly what I keep pointing out to people. Paleo is mainly just like vegan just with meat. So why is so much of the vegan communities wrath pointed at paleo instead of the main American diet on these forums?
Oh, you know.. people like to feel superior to others, would rather be right than happy, and so on. Why does anybody feel the need to point at someone else? People are silly...
You probably mean that statement in the best of ways. That's all I'm going to say about it.0 -
There is no reason for a primal or paleo person to disrespect or put down a vegan. I'll even agree there is more of a reason for you to be against paleo sense it is against your values . all I ask is for honesty about the true motives, instead of hideing behind it being about health.
I personally never argue that a vegan diet is 'healthier' than any other, though I personally believe it is (emphasis on personally). Unless we imprison people in labs their entire lives and feed them controlled diets, we can only go so far in ecological research methods. Most nutrition science is looking at the microcosm, rather than the whole picture. It can still be helpful, but it can never be definitive--not for paleo, not for vegan diets.
Still, I am amazed that at the age of 57 (and veg*n for going on 40 years), that I am in such good health. It compels me to keep doing what I'm doing.0 -
This is exactly what I keep pointing out to people. Paleo is mainly just like vegan just with meat. So why is so much of the vegan communities wrath pointed at paleo instead of the main American diet on these forums?
Oh, you know.. people like to feel superior to others, would rather be right than happy, and so on. Why does anybody feel the need to point at someone else? People are silly...
You probably mean that statement in the best of ways. That's all I'm going to say about it.
I honestly do. There are just too many other things I feel strongly or passionately about that what others choose to eat or how to live their lives doesn't concern me. Really.
editing to add that I'm being honest, truly. I'd rather people think and learn what works for them than be told what to think.. sorry for posting in your thread. 0 -
I have no objections to a vegan diet if it works for you. Before I went primarily primal my body had such bad rashes it was sometimes hard for me to sit, and I had hypertension. Now the rashes are gone and my blood pressure is normal. I think the two diets are far superior to the standard American diet.0
-
This is exactly what I keep pointing out to people. Paleo is mainly just like vegan just with meat. So why is so much of the vegan communities wrath pointed at paleo instead of the main American diet on these forums?
Oh, you know.. people like to feel superior to others, would rather be right than happy, and so on. Why does anybody feel the need to point at someone else? People are silly...
You probably mean that statement in the best of ways. That's all I'm going to say about it.
I honestly do. There are just too many other things I feel strongly or passionately about that what others choose to eat or how to live their lives doesn't concern me. Really.
That's good because my initial reaction to your statement wasn't a warm and fuzzy one, but I always try to check for intent before reacting.0 -
I have no objections to a vegan diet if it works for you. Before I went primarily primal my body had such bad rashes it was sometimes hard for me to sit, and I had hypertension. Now the rashes are gone and my blood pressure is normal. I think the two diets are far superior to the standard American diet.
I am glad you found a way to correct those two conditions. Part of me wishes that you had given veganism a shot first, but that is because I would hope it would be a win for you, and I know it would be a win for the animals.
But, I agree that focusing on natural whole foods is the way to go.0 -
And unless you are an expert on making Oldowan tools, my guess is you "made" your own bow using modern tools, So if civilization is so horrible, why would you do such a thing? You should first of all learn how to find hard minerals, then you should learn how to chip them so they get sharp edges, THEN you should make your bow. Remember, you are the one who says it is awful for me to "import" tofu because I am dependent upon civilization. But then you go out and do the same thing,
The term if flint knapping,,,,, what did you say your degree was in? LOL
Which degree. I have three. But I don't intend to tell you what any of them were.
Don't intend to tell you waht any of them were? Well we know English isn't one of them.0 -
Everything I have ever read about Paleo from a non-Paleo source, including US News, says the diet is awful.
As for what I said about the genome, that is standard genetics and epigenetics. It is in any textbook.
Please, of scientific one, please provide the exact quote of any "expert" saying the paleo diet is "awful"
I have already posted several articles. Read them,
Oh no, I want the exact quote, "paleo diet is awful" Yoiu are so good at demanding exact links, poney up.
Okay, then try reading what I linked to. Oh, wait. Since asking you to do that might be challenging and difficult for you, I will reprint it for you:
"Experts took issue with the diet on every measure. Regardless of the goal—weight loss, heart health, or finding a diet that’s easy to follow—most experts concluded that it would be better for dieters to look elsewhere. “A true Paleo diet might be a great option: very lean, pure meats, lots of wild plants,” said one expert—quickly adding, however, that duplicating such a regimen in modern times would be difficult."
Nope don't see the word awful in that quote. So you were lying when you said that?0 -
So in your opinion, anyone who has actually seriously studied a subject, has done novel high impact work in the field, and who has established credentials is a "peter pan?" Is this part of another Paleo fairy tale?
Nope you set the bar so high that it's impossible to provide you with what you want. How about these three guys, you think the're "experts"? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison. After all none of them had PHD's hell they never even graduated from College.0 -
[/quote]This is exactly what I keep pointing out to people. Paleo is mainly just like vegan just with meat. So why is so much of the vegan communities wrath pointed at paleo instead of the main American diet on these forums?
[/quote]
Not really,
1 you will never find a Paleo trying to legeslate their diet on others
2 you will never find a Paleo doing it for Missplaced moral or ethical reasons
3 other that popking fun at their missplace moral superiority complex you will never find a paleo calling somone a torturer, killer, or throwing blood on them at fasion shows.0 -
So in your opinion, anyone who has actually seriously studied a subject, has done novel high impact work in the field, and who has established credentials is a "peter pan?" Is this part of another Paleo fairy tale?
Nope you set the bar so high that it's impossible to provide you with what you want. How about these three guys, you think the're "experts"? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison. After all none of them had PHD's hell they never even graduated from College.
Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll bite. To do effective studies on nutrition, you need to have multiple trials in a controlled environment with many participants in which all factors can be accounted for. That would be hard to do outside of a research university.0 -
*******************
Then why are you always asking for studies?
*****************
Well, the studies are hopefully more than just a PhD's opinion. They are peer reviewed (hopefully) and thus subject to the brains of many, reducing the impact of bias, but never eliminating it.
It's not that I place no value on the PhD/credentials, I just don't automatically assume their opinion is correct. I think it's perfectly valid for an undergraduate to question a PhD. It's those 18-30 year olds who are the engine of science after all.0 -
So in your opinion, anyone who has actually seriously studied a subject, has done novel high impact work in the field, and who has established credentials is a "peter pan?" Is this part of another Paleo fairy tale?
Nope you set the bar so high that it's impossible to provide you with what you want. How about these three guys, you think the're "experts"? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison. After all none of them had PHD's hell they never even graduated from College.
Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll bite. To do effective studies on nutrition, you need to have multiple trials in a controlled environment with many participants in which all factors can be accounted for. That would be hard to do outside of a research university.
It's basically impossible to do what you described with human beings. However, studying the whole animal all at once is not the only way. We can use a bottom up approach, eventually we will reverse engineer the entire human body, probably not in our lifetimes though. Then we can understand the mechanisms and how they interact. That's the ultimate goal of the science of human biology IMO.
These studies so often performed using food questionnaires, following people for a few months etc. are so problematic, yet we run around acting like the conclusions drawn from them are rock solid science... scary. The entire low fat heart health dogma was preached to the public based on almost no evidence a few decades ago, that's scary too.0 -
This is exactly what I keep pointing out to people. Paleo is mainly just like vegan just with meat. So why is so much of the vegan communities wrath pointed at paleo instead of the main American diet on these forums?
[/quote]
Not really,
1 you will never find a Paleo trying to legeslate their diet on others
2 you will never find a Paleo doing it for Missplaced moral or ethical reasons
3 other that popking fun at their missplace moral superiority complex you will never find a paleo calling somone a torturer, killer, or throwing blood on them at fasion shows.
[/quote]
I have been a veg*n for almost 40 years.
1. I don't legislate anything, other than a curfew for my teens.
2. I don't use words like 'misplaced' when talking about other people's values. It's rude and disrespectful.
3. Paleos are a diverse group. Why would anyone presume to speak for them?
4. Why dredge up old stereotypes about throwing blood on furs at fashion shows? I resent being stereotyped just as much as you do.0 -
I agree with it to a certain point but it should not be a piece of dogma. We re living in a different world from what existed a million years ago. We have a different civilization and we should take advantage of it.
There are some nutty cavemen types around who go back to nature, wear loin clothes and carry a spear etc. However, I think you'll find most intelligent Paleo types have no interest in leaving civilization behind. Many of the Paleo supporters are big bloggers after all, bit hard to do without high technology. For them the Paleo connection is a starting point, a framework on which to base their choices. In the absence of near certainty based on the science, they use that framework to guide their nutritional decisions. It's all rather obvious really, choose unprocessed, whole foods. Stuff we could have potentially eaten prior to agriculture and industrialization. Saying that, if the science said we've created the perfect synthetic food and the science was really compelling, then the good Paleo proponents would include it in their diet. It's not dogma to be applied without thought.
People who blindly follow the dogma t are basically idiots. It's why I like some of the Paleo/Primal communities so much, lots of rational discussion, willingness to evolve the WOE (Way Of Eating). Just look at the Paleo Hacks site, it's all about discussing and evolving Paleo. If you read the old posts on Mark Sisson's Primal site, you'll see how he has adjusted his recommendations over time as science has come along and shown the way. I don't think this is a weakness, I think it's a strength.
Case in point... legumes... initially Paleo pretty much excluded all legumes. Now, many of the Paleo variants recognize that many legumes are actually pretty benign, with the exception of peanuts and soy. Although Primal's perspective on it is why bother, it's a pain in the butt to properly prepare them for human consumption for little gain. Others think it's worth it.
You can argue that if compelling evidence against meat consumption came along then Paleo would gradually adapt, sadly it would probably then die because it would just be veggie/vegan depending on the variant and be a whole lot less popular.
Paleo also has another aspect to it, and that is exercise and fitness. Paleo types tends to be pretty into exercise and this pervades the community. Paleo is pretty heavily linked with Crossfit, a form of exercise that has been growing rapidly. I'm seeing crossfit gyms everywhere now.
So I'll say it again, how is this all so horrible? It's freakin awesome.
1) It's healthier than most diets around
2) It's willing to evolve and adapt to the science. The science always wins.
3) It encourages physical activity and healthy lifestyles0 -
So in your opinion, anyone who has actually seriously studied a subject, has done novel high impact work in the field, and who has established credentials is a "peter pan?" Is this part of another Paleo fairy tale?
Nope you set the bar so high that it's impossible to provide you with what you want. How about these three guys, you think the're "experts"? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison. After all none of them had PHD's hell they never even graduated from College.
Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll bite. To do effective studies on nutrition, you need to have multiple trials in a controlled environment with many participants in which all factors can be accounted for. That would be hard to do outside of a research university.
It's basically impossible to do what you described with human beings. However, studying the whole animal all at once is not the only way. We can use a bottom up approach, eventually we will reverse engineer the entire human body, probably not in our lifetimes though. Then we can understand the mechanisms and how they interact. That's the ultimate goal of the science of human biology IMO.
These studies so often performed using food questionnaires, following people for a few months etc. are so problematic, yet we run around acting like the conclusions drawn from them are rock solid science... scary. The entire low fat heart health dogma was preached to the public based on almost no evidence a few decades ago, that's scary too.
I know that this site has a pro-vegan bias, so I am reluctantly linking to it for fear that I will be accused of 'spin.' I just happen to know about this site, so my apologies for the bias:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-women-should-eat-to-live-longer/
This longitudinal study goes back to 1976. It probably suffers some inaccuracy due to research methodology, like dietary recall. Still, I think the protective role of fiber and the deleterious effect of dietary cholesterol are worth noting. Studies of 35+ years duration are pretty darn good.0 -
@Tidmutt: That's super interesting about the role of legumes in paleo. This is news to me.
On a personal note, any guy who finds a method to drop 58 pounds earns my respect. I'm glad you dropped the unholy trinity of salt-sugar-fat in any combination. This is layer-upon-layer of brain stimulating hell, which makes your brain behave like it's in the presence of a potent drug. A little isn't enough to satisfy; it's only a start. So, know that I understand your attachment to paleo: it has worked for you.0 -
Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll bite. To do effective studies on nutrition, you need to have multiple trials in a controlled environment with many participants in which all factors can be accounted for. That would be hard to do outside of a research university.
It's basically impossible to do what you described with human beings. However, studying the whole animal all at once is not the only way. We can use a bottom up approach, eventually we will reverse engineer the entire human body, probably not in our lifetimes though. Then we can understand the mechanisms and how they interact. That's the ultimate goal of the science of human biology IMO.
These studies so often performed using food questionnaires, following people for a few months etc. are so problematic, yet we run around acting like the conclusions drawn from them are rock solid science... scary. The entire low fat heart health dogma was preached to the public based on almost no evidence a few decades ago, that's scary too.
I've read plenty of well controlled scientific studies that back up the most well established nutritional recommendations using biomarkers rather than questionnaires. These studies have helped established mechanisms for how the metabolism of nutrients work. Which, yes, is what I would view as the ultimate goal of the science of human biology as well. Sure, there's plenty of research that still needs to be done, and every study has limitations and potential for error, but I believe these controlled studies are the best way of establishing those mechanisms.0 -
Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll bite. To do effective studies on nutrition, you need to have multiple trials in a controlled environment with many participants in which all factors can be accounted for. That would be hard to do outside of a research university.
It's basically impossible to do what you described with human beings. However, studying the whole animal all at once is not the only way. We can use a bottom up approach, eventually we will reverse engineer the entire human body, probably not in our lifetimes though. Then we can understand the mechanisms and how they interact. That's the ultimate goal of the science of human biology IMO.
These studies so often performed using food questionnaires, following people for a few months etc. are so problematic, yet we run around acting like the conclusions drawn from them are rock solid science... scary. The entire low fat heart health dogma was preached to the public based on almost no evidence a few decades ago, that's scary too.
I've read plenty of well controlled scientific studies that back up the most well established nutritional recommendations using biomarkers rather than questionnaires. These studies have helped established mechanisms for how the metabolism of nutrients work. Which, yes, is what I would view as the ultimate goal of the science of human biology as well. Sure, there's plenty of research that still needs to be done, and every study has limitations and potential for error, but I believe these controlled studies are the best way of establishing those mechanisms.
I guess when I think about using biomarkers, I think back to when the human genome was being mapped. The natural question back then was 'Whose genome was being mapped?' And now I ask 'Whose biomarkers are being studied?'0 -
I've read plenty of well controlled scientific studies that back up the most well established nutritional recommendations using biomarkers rather than questionnaires. These studies have helped established mechanisms for how the metabolism of nutrients work. Which, yes, is what I would view as the ultimate goal of the science of human biology as well. Sure, there's plenty of research that still needs to be done, and every study has limitations and potential for error, but I believe these controlled studies are the best way of establishing those mechanisms.
I guess when I think about using biomarkers, I think back to when the human genome was being mapped. The natural question back then was 'Whose genome was being mapped?' And now I ask 'Whose biomarkers are being studied?'
I'm a little confused about what you are asking and whether or not it is a rhetorical question. The biomarkers being studied would be of whichever participants were in that particular study. Which is why, of course, to establish an accepted mechanism, it's important to have many studies in many population groups. This is especially important in the light of nutrigenomics, in which further research could lead to personalized dietary advice based on one's unique genotype.0 -
I would go eve further and say all studies are false. Unless you accurately test each person on the planet for whatever you are testing, the results are going to be an estimate, and not 100%.0 -
lol"Hunter Gatherers?" Do you live in the year 10,000BC?
Campbell is in it for the $, same old...Activists In It For The Money?
Much like the Natural Law Party’s John Fagan rants against genetically improved foods to drive business to his food testing company, Dr. T. Colin Campbell, of the anti-meat Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and friends warn of the supposed dangers of dioxin in food (especially in meat) to drive business to Campbell’s dioxin testing company.October 9, 2001
Udder Nonsense
T. Colin Campbell grew up on a Virginia dairy farm, and came to consider milk “the nectar of life.” But after becoming a nutritional researcher, he changed his tune, and now says “it’s unnatural to drink milk.” Could this be because Campbell, who spread his anti-dairy views in a recent writeup in Discover, is president and CEO of Paracelsian — “a company that promotes holistic health and sells assays to measure dioxinlike chemicals and evaluate herbal products”?
Campbell is also a member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), whose president, Neal Barnard tells Discover, “It would be hard to imagine a worse vehicle [than milk] for delivering calcium to the human body.” Of course, the same article quotes Gregory Miller of the National Dairy Council noting that PCRM is “essentially an animal rights organization” — one that has been repeatedly denounced by the American Medical Association, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the American Council on Science and Health, and others.
“People might think we’re nuts,” Campbell concedes. “But nondairy beverages and foods are pretty good once you adjust to the taste.”
and yeah, from Berman's site, but it's not hard to google to follow the $.
I have been a member of PCRM practically since its inception. I can tell you Campbell had nothing to do with the founding of the organization or the running of it in the early years. Neal Barnard founded and ran the organization. As for drinking milk, there is not another species on the planet that drinks the milk of another species. Cow milk was not designed for humans, it was designed for young cattle.0 -
I am totally missing the point about why you think T. Colin Campbell is all about the money. I just wrote to him a couple weeks ago on a technical point on protein and weight-restricted vegans. He was gracious and spent a lot of time emailing me back and forth. And he wasn't selling me anything, unlike the dairy council. There were no pictures of celebrities wearing green mustaches from drinking spinach smoothies. No banners saying 'Kale. It's a natural.' And he didn't even mention digoxin testing. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I would really appreciate less quoting about why you think Campbell is all about the money, and more clarity in your own point of view on the subject.
Hear! Hear!0 -
lol"Hunter Gatherers?" Do you live in the year 10,000BC?
Campbell is in it for the $, same old...Activists In It For The Money?
Much like the Natural Law Party’s John Fagan rants against genetically improved foods to drive business to his food testing company, Dr. T. Colin Campbell, of the anti-meat Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and friends warn of the supposed dangers of dioxin in food (especially in meat) to drive business to Campbell’s dioxin testing company.October 9, 2001
Udder Nonsense
T. Colin Campbell grew up on a Virginia dairy farm, and came to consider milk “the nectar of life.” But after becoming a nutritional researcher, he changed his tune, and now says “it’s unnatural to drink milk.” Could this be because Campbell, who spread his anti-dairy views in a recent writeup in Discover, is president and CEO of Paracelsian — “a company that promotes holistic health and sells assays to measure dioxinlike chemicals and evaluate herbal products”?
Campbell is also a member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), whose president, Neal Barnard tells Discover, “It would be hard to imagine a worse vehicle [than milk] for delivering calcium to the human body.” Of course, the same article quotes Gregory Miller of the National Dairy Council noting that PCRM is “essentially an animal rights organization” — one that has been repeatedly denounced by the American Medical Association, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the American Council on Science and Health, and others.
“People might think we’re nuts,” Campbell concedes. “But nondairy beverages and foods are pretty good once you adjust to the taste.”
and yeah, from Berman's site, but it's not hard to google to follow the $.
+1
Just about everyone is in it for the money to a certain extent. Sisson, Robb Wolf etc. on the Paleo side, Ornish and so on. I should rephrase that, they all stand to gain financially from the success. I don't know what their motives are, they may be altruistic, but they probably don't mind the money too. Campbell is no more immune to this, and this illustrates that point for those who may point the finger at the Paleo guys saying they are "just in it for the money". I've seen that one plenty of times... Snore, I like money too...
In the case of Campbell, Bernard, etc., to Howard Lyman, the vegan ex-cattle rancher, all had established careers before they devoted themselves to promoting vegetarianism. Overall, I would say they probably lost money by doing what they did.0 -
I would go eve further and say all studies are false. Unless you accurately test each person on the planet for whatever you are testing, the results are going to be an estimate, and not 100%.
Which is why a single study is never used to create nutritional recommendations. This article is a nice summary of what makes a research claim more likely to be accurate- large number of studies, narrow focus, large number of subjects, ect. These studies often state their own limitations and make suggestions for future research that could lead to more conclusive results.0 -
This is exactly what I keep pointing out to people. Paleo is mainly just like vegan just with meat. So why is so much of the vegan communities wrath pointed at paleo instead of the main American diet on these forums?Hi! I'm VegesaurusRex's wife and the OP of this thread, which I might point out is about the mystery of why TDEE isn't higher in active hunter-gatherer populations as compared to typical Westerns working office jobs.
But, okay, I get it--tangents happen. I just want to say that I agree with anyone who avoids buying packaged food. Give me the produce aisle any day of the week. But, I also 'forage' the bulk food aisles in the natural food store for nuts, seeds, grains and beans. Right now, I'm setting up some rejuvalac to make some 'cheese' out of raw cashews. So, I agree with the idea of natural, whole foods, that are minimally processed. It seems to me that the paleos and the veg*ns here have much more in common than people eating the standard American diet. Can't this clashing of swords at least stop long enough to acknowledge that?
I don't have anything more against Paleo than I do against other meat centered diets. In fact Mutt and others like yourself have convinced me that, like you say, Paleo is probably the least offensive diet to vegetarian sensibilities. However, even though it had some good components, eating natural, avoiding factory farmed meat, and despite having some strange dogma, like avoiding grains and legumes, it still keeps the door open for meat. The reality is that Paleolithic man when considered in all environments, probably was 99% vegetarian. This is shown by our dentition, having molars to grind, which carnivores do not have, and not having fangs to rip meat, as carnivores do have. We also can move our jaws sideways to grind, which carnivores cannot do. Physiologically we are herbivores. (Omnivores is a recent term made up, I believe, by meat eaters because clearly we are not carnivores, and they did not want only that choice or vegetarian.) Omnivore refers not to physiology, but to choice of diet. Look it up. Herbivores and carnivores are physiological definitions.
Since Paleo seems to suggest that physiologically we should have a diet similar to our ancestors, why even include meat. Most of our Australopithicene ancestors only ate veggies (A. robustus, for example) Most humans today eat little or no meat (outside of the USA and other "civilized areas, of course)
Vegetarianism was my choice for ethical reasons. Other benefits include health. But I really like that I can eat vegetarian and feel that I am getting good karma and helping the world.0 -
Also I respect people who abstain from meat for ethical reasons but to be honest it looks to me like that's the main reasons people and cultures that have practiced it do and only sense the fat paranoia has it been health.
Most poor people in the world, which is by far the majority of people in the world are vegetarian because that is their only choice. Ironically, in rich Western countries, the wealthiest and best educated people are vegetarian, and the poor eat the most meat. Go figure,0 -
Everything I have ever read about Paleo from a non-Paleo source, including US News, says the diet is awful.
As for what I said about the genome, that is standard genetics and epigenetics. It is in any textbook.
Please, of scientific one, please provide the exact quote of any "expert" saying the paleo diet is "awful"
I have already posted several articles. Read them,
Oh no, I want the exact quote, "paleo diet is awful" Yoiu are so good at demanding exact links, poney up.
Okay, then try reading what I linked to. Oh, wait. Since asking you to do that might be challenging and difficult for you, I will reprint it for you:
"Experts took issue with the diet on every measure. Regardless of the goal—weight loss, heart health, or finding a diet that’s easy to follow—most experts concluded that it would be better for dieters to look elsewhere. “A true Paleo diet might be a great option: very lean, pure meats, lots of wild plants,” said one expert—quickly adding, however, that duplicating such a regimen in modern times would be difficult."
Nope don't see the word awful in that quote. So you were lying when you said that?
Look, I've agreed to play nice, If you want to be an idiot, go ahead, but you sure are not doing your cause any good, If you can argue rationally, which I haven't seen yet, then join in. Otherwise just continue playing the fool and we can all have a good laugh,0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions