LOVE BREAD, PASTA OR SWEETS? Hurting your fat loss
Replies
-
Ps. Read the whole post. I didn't advocate a long run. I advocated a short run to help those who need a jump start. That's all stated very clearly. NO ONE could maintain this or want to maintain this for a lifetime. You gotta read the entire post peeps.
And you have to learn a little too before posting such garbage0 -
It really annoys me when anybody says not to eat fruit. Fruit will not make anyone fat! I can guarantee nobody is on here because they ate too many grapes, bananas, melon, etc. Years ago I went through a program at a hospital and was told this by a nutritionist!! They are natural sugars.
There is a such thing as too much of a good thing. Not saying that people get fat from eating fruit, but the sugar in fruit is still just that...SUGAR! Natural or not. I did a 10 day sugar free fast...and I mean NO sugar unless it came from a vegetable, and I lost 7 pounds after going up and down on the scale for months. I didn't eat bread, fruit, or condiments (i.e. mustard, mayo, miracle whip, salad dressings, vinegar). I think there is something to be said for cutting out sugars and it's correlation to weight loss. No matter what the sugar source is...if your body doesn't use it...it becomes FAT...period!
"Fruits and vegetables naturally contain fructose; however, they're also good for you because they're nutrient-dense and they contain fiber that slows down the digestion and absorption of sugar. Fruit juices that don't contain fiber can still be very nutritious, but without the bulk of whole fruit, the simple carbohydrates are absorbed much more quickly. Generally, it's better to eat whole fruit rather than drink fruit juice."
I lost almost 30 pounds eating fruit. Everything is different for everyone. That is why I very much dislike when someone says you need to cut this our that out. Do what works for you and that is all that matters...period!0 -
^^^ Ab Wars 2012. Get your tickets now!
Edit: Doh, someone snuck in before my post! :laugh:0 -
I miss the days when eating too many calories meant you'd gain fat, and eating less calories than you burn means losing fat.
You mean the good ol' days when people didn't make things harder than they have to be? Yeah, some of us are still there.0 -
I miss the days when eating too many calories meant you'd gain fat, and eating less calories than you burn means losing fat.
This. I'll continue soaking up my soup with a roll of bread and continue losing weight, thanks.0 -
For giggles
Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full
Summary
The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation
Not saying I agree or disagree with what anyone is saying...but don't post abstracts without reading the full article
Conclusions
This review examined the effect of GI on fuel partitioning
(Table 1). Short-, medium- and long-term studies failed to
demonstrate that meals or diets of contrasting GI have
significant effects on carbohydrate and fat oxidation and
body composition. It is possible that no effects are observed
because the GI-induced serum insulin differences are not
sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel
oxidation.
An exception was observed with isolated oral fructose
vs. glucose, in which case a lower fat oxidation was
observed with the former. These results are likely explained
by the differential fructose hepatic oxidation rate.
In conclusion, the hypothetical beneficial effects of low-
GI diets on fuel partitioning need further support.
Its important to know why no significant findings were found.0 -
You guys are hilarious. Really. Did I say never eat them? No. Did I say not to eat fruit. No. I love fruit. This is about helping people who have a lot of weight to lose and want to do it more quickly. A bunch of you are at a point where you can eat whatever you want pretty much because you are lean enough to do so. That's great. I am too. But you can't argue the fact that for those people that are 15, 30 or 50 lbs overweight - if they cut out most of the simple carbs from their diet, they will lose weight. Those are the people that I am trying to help.
You can't post a topic with absolutes then qualify them later. You know newbies will read this and go"oh my god I have to cut out all carbs completely!"
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/496770-misinformation?hl=misinformation
Misinformation is bad.0 -
You guys are hilarious. Really. Did I say never eat them? No. Did I say not to eat fruit. No. I love fruit. This is about helping people who have a lot of weight to lose and want to do it more quickly. A bunch of you are at a point where you can eat whatever you want pretty much because you are lean enough to do so. That's great. I am too. But you can't argue the fact that for those people that are 15, 30 or 50 lbs overweight - if they cut out most of the simple carbs from their diet, they will lose weight. Those are the people that I am trying to help.
Well, I am still 30-50 pounds overweight, but I will pass on your help. I eat bread, pasta, fruit, pizza, pretty much whatever I want. And, I've lost 40 pounds so far. Only 20 pounds to go to my first goal. I think I'll stick with what I'm doing.....which is as simple as eating at a calorie deficit.0 -
^^^ Ab Wars 2012. Get your tickets now!
Edit: Doh, someone snuck in before my post! :laugh:
Where do I sign up?? Haha seriously though...I think pasta and bread would be an upgrade in the normal diet of some overweight people. People try to make it too complicated. Get enough protein and eat under your maintinance calories to lose weight0 -
Ps. Read the whole post. I didn't advocate a long run. I advocated a short run to help those who need a jump start. That's all stated very clearly. NO ONE could maintain this or want to maintain this for a lifetime. You gotta read the entire post peeps.
Yes, I see that now. I get what you are saying. But in general I try to stay away from any quick fixes, period. Fasts, juice fasting, low card, no sugar, etc. etc. Other people are different, but like I said, for me, I prefer to work hard at establishing healthier habits that I can continue in the long run, as opposed to torturing myself for 3 weeks. And see that is the problem with your advice. Unless your "listeners" have good long term habits to fall back on, they may very well gain all the weight back they lost during their low carb phase. Which is what most studies have shown for low carb, haven't they. They work well in the short term, but not int he long term. In fact, the best diet for long term weight loss has consistently been WW, which is just your basic eat less than you burn.0 -
For giggles
Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full
Summary
The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation
Not saying I agree or disagree with what anyone is saying...but don't post abstracts without reading the full article
Conclusions
This review examined the effect of GI on fuel partitioning
(Table 1). Short-, medium- and long-term studies failed to
demonstrate that meals or diets of contrasting GI have
significant effects on carbohydrate and fat oxidation and
body composition. It is possible that no effects are observed
because the GI-induced serum insulin differences are not
sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel
oxidation.
An exception was observed with isolated oral fructose
vs. glucose, in which case a lower fat oxidation was
observed with the former. These results are likely explained
by the differential fructose hepatic oxidation rate.
In conclusion, the hypothetical beneficial effects of low-
GI diets on fuel partitioning need further support.
Its important to know why no significant findings were found.
Because not a big enough in serum insulin? Then look at low carb/keto diets vs a higher cho diet where protein and cals are held constant. Fat oxidation slightly increases on the low carb due to the higher fat intake but fat loss isn't significantly different between the two in the majority of studies.0 -
I just read this and I thought it might apply here:
Spotting an A-hole on the internet can be tougher than you think. Part of their talent can be making you feel like you’re the jerk for feeling the way you do. It’s a no brainer when the insults are direct and overt but that’s not always the case. Today I want to expose some of the more sneaky and subversive types of A-holism.
The following tutorial will help you see through their crap, because if they’re pointing a finger at you, they’re probably pointing 3 back at themselves. (Get it?)
Knowing these signs will have you spotting web trolls and pompous editorials in no time. The only thing left for you to do will be to sit back and watch the author’s stupor at those who take offense. The very best examples of A-holetry will use most if not all of the techniques we’ll discuss here. Anything that only has 1 or 2, you’ll just have to make a gut call.
Without further adieu, things to look for to spot an A-hole on the internet:
1. Bias. Typically you’ll see this right up front. The author will lead with a quick but subtle bias in their introduction. They’ll use somewhat vague adjectives with negative connotations right away, things like “frivolous”, “impractical” or “well-intentioned”. An even more subtle approach you could see to undermine credibility is the use of nouns like “fad” or “hobby”. They might even compare the subject to something they know is entirely opposite or unrelated and will be offensive to their target.
Ex. Mainstream a-hole: The Paleo diet is the most popular whim since the Master Cleanse.
2. Passive-aggressiveness. A tell-tale sign would be to notice the author possibly being open minded to other opinions but quickly shutting that down with a backhand.
Ex. Paleo a-hole: You don’t have to agree with us; if you want to let your oblivion kill you, then best of luck to you.
3. Mis-characterization. This can be done in two ways. First, you might get the idea that this person has very little knowledge of what they’re arguing against. This is also known as ignorance. Second, the mis-characterization may come in the form of using only the most extreme examples to illustrate points.
Ex. Mainstream a-hole: On The Paleo diet, you can only eat animals that you have whacked over the head with a rock. Paleo dieters don’t even wear shoes!
4. Polarization. There will be no shades of gray, only black and white. Remember, they’re using extreme examples, so even though it’s not realistic at all to think that everything is so cut and dry you’ll notice that this will never be acknowledged.
Ex. Mainstream & Paleo a-hole: If you eat a Paleo diet, you can never eat dairy again…NEVER, EVER…EVER.
5. Using rhetorical questions as main defense. Imagine a scene from Law and Order.
Prosecution: “You wanted her dead didn’t you?…that’s why you left the toilet seat up knowing she would fall in.”
Defendant: “No, I uh, I….”
Defense: “Objection your honor, leading the witness!”
Judge: “Sustained.”
Are the points being made with an open ended cross-examination of the things being disputed? The key is to omit actual answers and substantiation.
Ex. Mainstream a-hole: How can you trust someone who eats raw meat and doesn’t wear shoes? How could fat (bacon) possibly be good for you if most M.D.s don’t think it is?
6. Contradiction. No A-hole postulation can be complete without this. There are 2 types of contradictions you’ll see employed. For starters, you may find the author says one thing and then draws a completely opposite or mutually exclusive conclusion just a few words later. Alternately, they could use contradiction known commonly as “the pot calling the kettle black”. Fighting dogma WITH dogma. If you notice the same methods being used as what one claims to be against, BINGO, contradiction.
Ex. Paleo a-hole: You should never eat “Paleo” food that replicates junk food, it won’t cure your psychological problems. By the way, here’s a recipe for Paleo Fried Chicken. (<– this really happens in Paleo blogland. A lot.)
Mainstream & Paleo a-hole: It wouldn’t surprise me that you’d recommend a different nutrition plan to everyone if you make a living off of personal consultations. You should buy my plan instead; it’s a one-size-fits-all plan that will help you figure out what personal adjustments you should make.
Paleo a-hole: I’m so tired of feeling like I should look a certain way based on societal pressure. Now let me tell all you “intellectually challenged” people how you should actually look if you want to be healthy.
7. Condescension. You will perceive this as being ”talked down” to. The writer will appear miffed that anyone would believe something different than they do. Patronizing commentary and sarcasm works for their purpose here as well. You will read things like “waste of time” or even simply quotes around a word to imply eye rolling.
Ex. Paleo a-hole: Questioning what we’re telling you to eat makes you stupid, that’s probably why you can’t understand what we’re telling you. Mainstream a-hole: Including more meat is a great idea, if you love horrible ideas.
8. Assumptions and generalizations. You know the saying about assuming right? NO? It makes an *kitten* out of U and ME. Enough said. But I’ll say more anyway, this one really ties back into #3 (Mis-characterization.) and #4 (Polarization.) but it’s worth mentioning. The A-train has to keep running and it’s fueled by assumptions and generalizations. You will find continued instances that ignore the practical side of what’s being debated and drive home a few more unsubstantiated accusations.
Ex. Mainstream a-hole: The Paleo diet is a low carb diet. The Paleo diet is impractical. The Paleo diet costs 10 zillion dollars a month.
9. Arrogance. Nothing crushes A-holyness faster than admitting you don’t know it all. That’s why this one is a little harder to detect since it’s more about what is NOT said. You may get a hint of this if you notice claims that are just as hard to prove as those denied…but…since the author knows only black and white (see #4) they will imply that their way is the ONLY way. With all due respect though, they probably are special snowflakes. (#1, #2, #6, #7, #8 all in one!)
Ex. Mainstream & Paleo a-hole: How dare you quote a random study to support your argument! I have a random study right here that says the exact opposite, except this one is right.
10. Big words. The author will need to seem like they are very intelligent so you’ll think, “well, they did say ‘ad hominem’ so they must know what they’re talking about.”
Bonus. Sketchy motivation. (This one is not required but it can really put the icing on the cake.) This can be as easy as selling a product that happens to be the opposite of what is being argued against or even needing attention. Other examples include denouncing things that threaten them or being the smartest, most interesting person on Earth and having a desire to make sure everyone knows it.0 -
I just read this and I thought it might apply here:
Spotting an A-hole on the internet can be tougher than you think. Part of their talent can be making you feel like you’re the jerk for feeling the way you do. It’s a no brainer when the insults are direct and overt but that’s not always the case. Today I want to expose some of the more sneaky and subversive types of A-holism.
The following tutorial will help you see through their crap, because if they’re pointing a finger at you, they’re probably pointing 3 back at themselves. (Get it?)
Knowing these signs will have you spotting web trolls and pompous editorials in no time. The only thing left for you to do will be to sit back and watch the author’s stupor at those who take offense. The very best examples of A-holetry will use most if not all of the techniques we’ll discuss here. Anything that only has 1 or 2, you’ll just have to make a gut call.
Without further adieu, things to look for to spot an A-hole on the internet:
1. Bias. Typically you’ll see this right up front. The author will lead with a quick but subtle bias in their introduction. They’ll use somewhat vague adjectives with negative connotations right away, things like “frivolous”, “impractical” or “well-intentioned”. An even more subtle approach you could see to undermine credibility is the use of nouns like “fad” or “hobby”. They might even compare the subject to something they know is entirely opposite or unrelated and will be offensive to their target.
Ex. Mainstream a-hole: The Paleo diet is the most popular whim since the Master Cleanse.
2. Passive-aggressiveness. A tell-tale sign would be to notice the author possibly being open minded to other opinions but quickly shutting that down with a backhand.
Ex. Paleo a-hole: You don’t have to agree with us; if you want to let your oblivion kill you, then best of luck to you.
3. Mis-characterization. This can be done in two ways. First, you might get the idea that this person has very little knowledge of what they’re arguing against. This is also known as ignorance. Second, the mis-characterization may come in the form of using only the most extreme examples to illustrate points.
Ex. Mainstream a-hole: On The Paleo diet, you can only eat animals that you have whacked over the head with a rock. Paleo dieters don’t even wear shoes!
4. Polarization. There will be no shades of gray, only black and white. Remember, they’re using extreme examples, so even though it’s not realistic at all to think that everything is so cut and dry you’ll notice that this will never be acknowledged.
Ex. Mainstream & Paleo a-hole: If you eat a Paleo diet, you can never eat dairy again…NEVER, EVER…EVER.
5. Using rhetorical questions as main defense. Imagine a scene from Law and Order.
Prosecution: “You wanted her dead didn’t you?…that’s why you left the toilet seat up knowing she would fall in.”
Defendant: “No, I uh, I….”
Defense: “Objection your honor, leading the witness!”
Judge: “Sustained.”
Are the points being made with an open ended cross-examination of the things being disputed? The key is to omit actual answers and substantiation.
Ex. Mainstream a-hole: How can you trust someone who eats raw meat and doesn’t wear shoes? How could fat (bacon) possibly be good for you if most M.D.s don’t think it is?
6. Contradiction. No A-hole postulation can be complete without this. There are 2 types of contradictions you’ll see employed. For starters, you may find the author says one thing and then draws a completely opposite or mutually exclusive conclusion just a few words later. Alternately, they could use contradiction known commonly as “the pot calling the kettle black”. Fighting dogma WITH dogma. If you notice the same methods being used as what one claims to be against, BINGO, contradiction.
Ex. Paleo a-hole: You should never eat “Paleo” food that replicates junk food, it won’t cure your psychological problems. By the way, here’s a recipe for Paleo Fried Chicken. (<– this really happens in Paleo blogland. A lot.)
Mainstream & Paleo a-hole: It wouldn’t surprise me that you’d recommend a different nutrition plan to everyone if you make a living off of personal consultations. You should buy my plan instead; it’s a one-size-fits-all plan that will help you figure out what personal adjustments you should make.
Paleo a-hole: I’m so tired of feeling like I should look a certain way based on societal pressure. Now let me tell all you “intellectually challenged” people how you should actually look if you want to be healthy.
7. Condescension. You will perceive this as being ”talked down” to. The writer will appear miffed that anyone would believe something different than they do. Patronizing commentary and sarcasm works for their purpose here as well. You will read things like “waste of time” or even simply quotes around a word to imply eye rolling.
Ex. Paleo a-hole: Questioning what we’re telling you to eat makes you stupid, that’s probably why you can’t understand what we’re telling you. Mainstream a-hole: Including more meat is a great idea, if you love horrible ideas.
8. Assumptions and generalizations. You know the saying about assuming right? NO? It makes an *kitten* out of U and ME. Enough said. But I’ll say more anyway, this one really ties back into #3 (Mis-characterization.) and #4 (Polarization.) but it’s worth mentioning. The A-train has to keep running and it’s fueled by assumptions and generalizations. You will find continued instances that ignore the practical side of what’s being debated and drive home a few more unsubstantiated accusations.
Ex. Mainstream a-hole: The Paleo diet is a low carb diet. The Paleo diet is impractical. The Paleo diet costs 10 zillion dollars a month.
9. Arrogance. Nothing crushes A-holyness faster than admitting you don’t know it all. That’s why this one is a little harder to detect since it’s more about what is NOT said. You may get a hint of this if you notice claims that are just as hard to prove as those denied…but…since the author knows only black and white (see #4) they will imply that their way is the ONLY way. With all due respect though, they probably are special snowflakes. (#1, #2, #6, #7, #8 all in one!)
Ex. Mainstream & Paleo a-hole: How dare you quote a random study to support your argument! I have a random study right here that says the exact opposite, except this one is right.
10. Big words. The author will need to seem like they are very intelligent so you’ll think, “well, they did say ‘ad hominem’ so they must know what they’re talking about.”
Bonus. Sketchy motivation. (This one is not required but it can really put the icing on the cake.) This can be as easy as selling a product that happens to be the opposite of what is being argued against or even needing attention. Other examples include denouncing things that threaten them or being the smartest, most interesting person on Earth and having a desire to make sure everyone knows it.
That is just absurd. To think that you could characterize random strangers based on a single written discourse is completely uncalled for.
You a-hole! :laugh:
(Yes, this was sarcastic. I didn't have time to try to include one of every item on the list.)0 -
I think cutting out bread, pasta, sugary stuff etc will certainly kick start weight loss but not because of any metabolic advantage or other such nonsense but simply because of the following:
1) it makes eating at a calorie deficit more achievable for many people because
2) it helps with satiety as most people either replace them with items better for blunting hunger (good quality protein sources / fibrous veg etc) or end up eating less in general due to stable blood sugar levels (whilst I think GI and GL are over rated they are still a useful guideline for many people)
If you can stick to a sensible calorie deficit whilst eating bread, pasta and sweets and you like it then: do that
If you can't and find replacing them with something else which keeps you in deficit: do that0 -
I think cutting out bread, pasta, sugary stuff etc will certainly kick start weight loss but not because of any metabolic advantage or other such nonsense but simply because of the following:
1) it makes eating at a calorie deficit more achievable for many people because
2) it helps with satiety as most people either replace them with items better for blunting hunger (good quality protein sources / fibrous veg etc) or end up eating less in general due to stable blood sugar levels (whilst I think GI and GL are over rated they are still a useful guideline for many people)
If you can stick to a sensible calorie deficit whilst eating bread, pasta and sweets and you like it then: do that
If you can't and find replacing them with something else which keeps you in deficit: do that
QFT. awesome post.0 -
I read an article about a guy who ate nothing but Little Debbie snack cakes and fast food and still lost weight! Calorie is King, am I right?0
-
Even if there was a well proven documented study that told me beyond doubt that cutting BREAD, PASTA OR SWEETS from my diet was gonna give me a body like Gisele Bundchen............still wouldn't do it! I love them too much and life is too short. I have learned to eat these things in limited portions. They are now more of a treat rather than a staple in my diet. I could give a flying *kitten* about the science pro's or con's. I like it, I eat it.0
-
I think cutting out bread, pasta, sugary stuff etc will certainly kick start weight loss but not because of any metabolic advantage or other such nonsense but simply because of the following:
1) it makes eating at a calorie deficit more achievable for many people because
2) it helps with satiety as most people either replace them with items better for blunting hunger (good quality protein sources / fibrous veg etc) or end up eating less in general due to stable blood sugar levels (whilst I think GI and GL are over rated they are still a useful guideline for many people)
If you can stick to a sensible calorie deficit whilst eating bread, pasta and sweets and you like it then: do that
If you can't and find replacing them with something else which keeps you in deficit: do that
Round of applause for you, sir!
OP- I've got much more than 50lbs to lose; 100lbs or more. And I ain't gonna cut out my fruit, no way in HELL. With my problems, if I choose to munch on a red delicious rather than a packet of cookies, I'm gonna give myself a slap on the back and not worry myself over the amount of sugars and carbs in that piece o' fruit.0 -
I can't even concentrate on what this thread is about! Too many bare male torsos!0
-
Oh! That's why my very knowledgeable boot camp instructor strongly recommends a glass of chocolate milk right after class- the combination of sugar and protein! Interesting. Thanks for the very informative post. Have a great day!0
-
JUMP START Your Body Fat Loss...you gotta remove these...and here is why:
[ ...]
PS. I encourage lifting weights or some sort of strength training too. Having more muscle will help your body burn calories even when you aren’t working out!
My 2 cents.....................
Seriously ?0 -
NO!!! I love my pasta and bread, I really do! But I know you're right damnit.:sad:0
-
This is a terrible post...honestly, no one thats new should listen to this at all. It'll take you down a path you don't need to go to lose weight.0
-
I have lost 60+ pounds, most of that fat, while eating bread, pasta, and sweets on a regular basis, sometimes all of them in one day. I just eat a lot less of them than I used to. Along with everything else.
On the other hand, I eat *more* fruit than I did when I was el chunko.0 -
NO!!! I love my pasta and bread, I really do! But I know you're right damnit.:sad:
No he isn't.0 -
It really annoys me when anybody says not to eat fruit. Fruit will not make anyone fat! I can guarantee nobody is on here because they ate too many grapes, bananas, melon, etc. Years ago I went through a program at a hospital and was told this by a nutritionist!! They are natural sugars.
This is what I always think too! I'm definitely not here because I got fat off of fruit, or even bread and pasta for that matter. I got fat from eating too many calories and sitting on my *kitten* all day.0 -
I can't even concentrate on what this thread is about! Too many bare male torsos!
LOL0 -
I love bread, pastas, and sweets! We do need carbs, but we can get them from other sources (fruits, veggies, legumes). He's not saying to cut out a complete component, he's only saying that you will lose fat faster if you make choices other than grains and sweets. Simple, and true.
0 -
bump0
-
OoOo a lot of abs in this thread. :bigsmile:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K 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
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions