So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?
Replies
-
My maintenance seems to be 1800-2000 for most normal days. (Desk job.) Some weekend days I have a very high activity level, and feel the need to eat more either that day or the next to compensate.
I feel 1800-2000 is a good 'normal'. Especially when I focus on getting adequate lean protein & veggies which provide bulk but not many calories. But I also know I can eat higher here & there and it won't be a trajedy. I figure an occasional high consumption day can blend in and work itself out due to long term averages. And I intend to keep an eye on my weight with my goal range being 125-129. If I go up, I can always go back to 1500-1700 for a few weeks as needed.I'm curious to know if those who maintain at lower than 2000 a day are happy with that and are you planning to continue it for life. If not what is your plan and do you think that low calorie maintenance will have an impact on you health?
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »
I am barely in the overweight bmi range. i choose to be here, I am eating 2300 a day to stay here, and some days its not easy to eat that much actually. I have my own justification for this from research I have read, no just one artical. But the things I have read from one particular author have lengthy bibliographies amd I am not in a position to look at all the research and post links. Its not new research, I am gathering that some of you have heard about these findings before. Even some news articles have covered it, especially in UK news. It wont be hard to locate.Iron_Feline wrote: »The op just wants to justify the fact that they are overweight by claiming it is unhealthy to eat less that 2000 cals.
So far they have yet to provide a single link to back up their claims, not surprising as they are nonsense.
I completely agree. The OP was making the same claims on another thread and when I brought up the accurate information and asked for sources I got the same responses.
OP just wants someone to tell her it's ok to be overweight and that she should continue eating whatever she wants. It's pretty clear from her posts. And all the citing of this "research" sounds delusional.
Actually, if you want us to research your claims ourselves, what is the name of the female researcher you are referring to? Let me guess, you don't have time to post that?
Thanks for your criticism!
Gambling here?
Only with caloric intake and what of the steaks?
I'm completely shocked to find that you're still unwilling to provide the name of the researcher. Completely. Shocked.
eta: I also find it completely telling that you don't have time to find your sources but you do have time to repeatedly come back and respond to this thread and your others.0 -
I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
0 -
I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
No inactive women eat over 2000 to maintain. Logic and science contradict you at every turn.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Hi,
based on my targeted period + potential weight loss to be achieved, I am on 1280 calories/day. I have only had double that calorie intake once when I visited both kfc n McDonald's. I want to continue it for a very long time, to the point where I'm acclamatised to eating only when I need to n wisely too.
Low calorie intake should be done with some protein, fruits and veges as part of the day's menu. You could never go wrong nutrition-wise.
I must confess I started with the Cambridge weight plan where I was on 810kcals/day. So this is me taking my time now yet staying on track...hopefully.
P.S: with the CWP, lost 6kg in 3weeks!
OK great for posting this! Another vote for " yes! I am willing to do less than 2000 a day to keep my weight down."
Its really becoming clear that a lot, maybe MOST of us MPF'ers are willing to keep restricting calories under 2000 a day, isnt it?
A couple of things are very clear. First, you don't understand how weight is maintained, lost, or gained ... your hangup on the 2000 calorie level and willful ignorance as to why people eat below it based on solid science demonstrates this issue. Second, you have a skewed view of weight management. Third, the concept of scientific research published in the public domain eludes you ... if you understood it then you would provide a link to the research you claim to have read. I could go on, but honestly, it would be a waste of my time trying to highlight where logic, fact, and the scientific method all fail to support your posts since you are obviously unwilling to listen.
I didn't actually think everyone should be eating 2000 calories. I didn't say it either. It was brought to my attention, while reqding some science papers that eating under 2000 was not enough for hardly anyone to sustain good health. So I was curious to know how many dieters here were 'maintaining' under 2000 calories after dropping in weight through restricting calories.
I am interested in how that plays out in real peoples lives. How they feel, are they hungry, do they have to keep dropping caloric i take to 'maintain', do they find it difficult, is it worth it to them, do they plan to keep on with that plan, if not, then what do they do?
Thanks for your reply to me here!
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
No inactive women eat over 2000 to maintain. Logic and science contradict you at every turn.
Unless they would rather stay in the obese category (my current inactive maintenance at 35.5 MBI is slightly less than 2000). Being obese is unhealthy by all standards and according to every research on the matter, including the ones OP is referring to.0 -
KHaverstick wrote: »2000 calories per day would cause me to gain weight. Even when I was exclusively breastfeeding (i.e burning extra calories), and when I weighed more than I do now, I tried eating 500 extra calories above my maintenance, which put me somewhere between 1900 and 2000 calories per day, and I started gaining weight. I had to cut back by 200 calories to keep from gaining. For the size I am now, 1440 calories is maintenance for me. There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to eating to maintain a healthy weight.
Hi K!
Thank you for sharing your experience. Are you very small now, I mean hight and weight?
Congratulations on the birth of your child and of breastfeeding successfully! Cheers! :-)
0 -
13 pages and this thread is no providing useful information and this woman may be lonely or encouraging MFP members to keep posting the same freaking information...
OP CHOOSE TO EAT ABOVE 2000 CALORIES AND BE IN AN OVERWEIGHT BMI...
Why does it matter that 99.9% of will gain weight at this point, choose to in take calories modestly and we are happy to do so...
People are really still responding to this load of crap to keep the OP engaged in something that was answered 12 pages ago...
0 -
If you wanted to be useful you would provide a link to the research, or at least the name of the researcher. You've repeatedly refused.
If you wanted to be useful, you wouldn't keep changing your story and denying your past comments.
Your behavior shows you aren't here to be useful.0 -
The OP choose to stay in an overweight BMI on purpose!
Again, this thread is a train wreck.... You know you should not look, but you just can't help but look no matter what you might see!
Its true, I chose, still choosing, to eat enough to ensure robust health into old age. I'm 65 and having a 26 bmi is, from what I read, good for health and happiness. It could even be possibly better at 27 bmi.
I am fortunate to have no health problems. I'm not taking or been prescribed any meds.
I don't smoke or do formal excersize and am a bit of a dirty eater.
I can't twke any credit for this however, because in fact , besides quiting smoking over 30 years ago I havent been very attentive or concerned to my health.
I posted this topic becaus of my recent interest in caloric intake and health.
Love the picture!
0 -
Wiseandcurious wrote: »
My time zone is different and I am often off line. My life is busy at times. I didn't notice the other thread closed.
I didnt get to poston it.
0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »
I am barely in the overweight bmi range. i choose to be here, I am eating 2300 a day to stay here, and some days its not easy to eat that much actually. I have my own justification for this from research I have read, no just one artical. But the things I have read from one particular author have lengthy bibliographies amd I am not in a position to look at all the research and post links. Its not new research, I am gathering that some of you have heard about these findings before. Even some news articles have covered it, especially in UK news. It wont be hard to locate.Iron_Feline wrote: »The op just wants to justify the fact that they are overweight by claiming it is unhealthy to eat less that 2000 cals.
So far they have yet to provide a single link to back up their claims, not surprising as they are nonsense.
I completely agree. The OP was making the same claims on another thread and when I brought up the accurate information and asked for sources I got the same responses.
OP just wants someone to tell her it's ok to be overweight and that she should continue eating whatever she wants. It's pretty clear from her posts. And all the citing of this "research" sounds delusional.
Actually, if you want us to research your claims ourselves, what is the name of the female researcher you are referring to? Let me guess, you don't have time to post that?
Thanks for your criticism!
Hi
I wonder if I could get you to maybe look at this from a different angle to the BMI one.
I would like to work out (with your permission) your body fat percentage, to see if that is in the healthy range?
All I would need is your weight,height, wrist measurement, hip, waist (at naval) measurement.
I would be able to tell you what your BF percentage is which is a far better indicator of health than the BMI index which takes no account of the composition of the person.
Are you up for a bit of open mindedness?
That will be the day! when 65 year olds start posting their stats on social web sites!!! LOLLLLLL!
Just pm me. Your BMI says you're overweight, and if you aren't very active then you could be in a high bf range which you should be aware of (and other readers) brings a risk of many health complaints.
I'm 45 and have no issue in posting my photo and stats, because I know I'm in good physical shape. This isn't a social website, it's a website about health and fitness so forgive us if we are disagreeing with your idea that being overweight is in any way healthy. People are reading these threads all the time looking for guidance. You are just giving a distorted point of view.
0 -
I can't believe I just read 13 pages...I should of been working!0
-
Springfield1970 wrote: »Hi,
based on my targeted period + potential weight loss to be achieved, I am on 1280 calories/day. I have only had double that calorie intake once when I visited both kfc n McDonald's. I want to continue it for a very long time, to the point where I'm acclamatised to eating only when I need to n wisely too.
Low calorie intake should be done with some protein, fruits and veges as part of the day's menu. You could never go wrong nutrition-wise.
I must confess I started with the Cambridge weight plan where I was on 810kcals/day. So this is me taking my time now yet staying on track...hopefully.
P.S: with the CWP, lost 6kg in 3weeks!
OK great for posting this! Another vote for " yes! I am willing to do less than 2000 a day to keep my weight down."
Its really becoming clear that a lot, maybe MOST of us MPF'ers are willing to keep restricting calories under 2000 a day, isnt it?
Again, it's not RESTRICTING if that is how much energy is needed to MAINTAIN a certain weight. You can't teach your body to absorb more calories. You can just be more active or burn a handful more calories with muscle that you have added, it's not like we've CHOSEN to follow the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.
People quite often get their TDEE wrong, either way.
When you've meticulously weighed everything,got your average weekly weight and measurements, and stabilised for a good few weeks, you can say that you've found your set point. Mine is 1750 without exercise, a bit higher than the good calculators sedentary numbers for my size, age and weight coz I am active outside my exercise too. I then add my exercise calories and eat em all up! I quite often go into the mid 2000s, but I am still always a bit hungry. I was always a bit hungry when I was 5 stone higher too. That is maintenance unfortunately. Getting pretty darn hungry before meals.
My dictionary says restrict is the same as reduce. Am I still not getting these words right?
I thought natural setpoint was what was reached when a person eats to their appetite.
Finally I get to know how much you eat! I wish you werent still hungry. Sometimes I am hungry for more than 2300 myself, and I just go ahead and eat more. Usually next day I will be a bit under, so its no bother. I am at my natural set point as nearly as I can tell, as I have described above. Although I havemore days where I don't really feel like eating 2300 than ones were I am hungry enough to eat over 2300!
I want to thank you for your offer to do my body fat levels. You are a fitness trwiner maybe?
or you ar a generous person. Nice. :-)
Reduce/ restrict same thing. If your weight is stable you aren't doing either of those things.
When a person eats to their appetite, most of the time they become overweight.
I stated how much I ate pages ago. I actually eat more than I should at my age according to most calculators. I'm lucky my metabolism is normal, and my body fat is low.
It's perfectly normal to be a bit hungry before dinner. It's something that normal weight people feel. Perhaps an hour before food. There are days when I overeat as food is a hobby of mine, and I bulk and cut too.
I'm not a trainer, but I do know what I'm talking about. I choose to be at low end of BMI range, I'm fine boned, and like nice clothes, having a bounce in my step and being competitive at sports.
0 -
I can't believe I just read 13 pages...I should of been working!
LOL...brianpperkins wrote: »
If you wanted to be useful you would provide a link to the research, or at least the name of the researcher. You've repeatedly refused.
If you wanted to be useful, you wouldn't keep changing your story and denying your past comments.
Your behavior shows you aren't here to be useful.
Yep .... THIS..0 -
After wasting more time than I care to admit on this thread.
A) I believe this summarizes OP's position and the research behind it:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size
For the record, I am not sold on this approach. I have chosen to maintain at the mid-point of healthy BMI which for my gender, age, height, and activity level means less than 2000 cal average. If I ate ad libitum I would probably net 2500 on most days, weigh about 300 lbs, and have a BMI in the mid-40s. I do not think I would be happy or healthy at that size.
C) in this and other posts OP does touch on a couple of interesting truths. Namely:
1) there is a psychological cost to managing one's calories and it makes sense to ask whether the health/aesthetic gains are worth it. For me I found there were diminishing returns and did stop short of what some would consider ideal.
2) the physiological cost of yoyo-ing may be higher than that of maintaining at a moderately overweight BMI so it is worth considering one's long term commitment before setting a weight loss goal.0 -
The OP choose to stay in an overweight BMI on purpose!
Again, this thread is a train wreck.... You know you should not look, but you just can't help but look no matter what you might see!
Its true, I chose, still choosing, to eat enough to ensure robust health into old age. I'm 65 and having a 26 bmi is, from what I read, good for health and happiness. It could even be possibly better at 27 bmi.
I am fortunate to have no health problems. I'm not taking or been prescribed any meds.
I don't smoke or do formal excersize and am a bit of a dirty eater.
I can't twke any credit for this however, because in fact , besides quiting smoking over 30 years ago I havent been very attentive or concerned to my health.
I posted this topic becaus of my recent interest in caloric intake and health.
Love the picture!
Okay, OP. Okay then. Let us just ACCEPT your claim that a 26 bmi is good for health. No one is disputing that that is only a bit overweight. And let's also accept that you are not lying when you say you eat 2300 per day. I'm less inclined to believe that, but for purposes of my questions we will assume its accurate.
Now. MANY MANY PEOPLE, if they were to eat 2300 calories every day, would have a BMI of 35+. Not everyone, but for many people that would be the case.
Are you suggesting that that person should eat 2300 calories a day regardless? Are you suggesting they would be HEALTHIER at a BMI of 35 because they are eating over 2300 calories? Is this what you are advocating?
Or, are you advocating everyone strive for a BMI of 26? Because if that is the case, you need to accept that many people would need to eat well under 2000 calories to maintain a BMI of 26.
Please answer these questions.
0 -
I am only 4'11", age 49 with a sedentary job, and my TDEE is 1268, so if I ate at 2000, I would definitely gain. I have my calories set at 1000 and eat back all my exercise calories (FitBit or HRM calcs). This a slow loss of .5 per week. I am very healthy and active outside of work.
So no, not everyone can eat 2000 and not be gaining. I only wish...sigh0 -
I think most ladies who have never been overweight always ate 2000 or less(men likely a little higher), us who have been larger, got large because we have been eating more and gaining weight. To us (who have been heavy) it may seem to be a deficit to eat less(2000 or lower on maintenance) then what we were accustomed too,but we should have been doing this all along and we wouldn,t have been heavy in the first place.0
-
OK now the OP's spelling and style have changed :huh: A different troll or the old troll tired of maintaining the 65-year old woman persona with proper care to detail?People are really still responding to this load of crap to keep the OP engaged in something that was answered 12 pages ago...
You know what, I think that might actually be doing some good in the world? While they're kept busy peddling their fads here they can't at the same time go and actively do it somewhere else where they would do more damage.
0 -
Doesn't want to post stats, but expects other to do so when she asks.Springfield1970 wrote: »
I am barely in the overweight bmi range. i choose to be here, I am eating 2300 a day to stay here, and some days its not easy to eat that much actually. I have my own justification for this from research I have read, no just one artical. But the things I have read from one particular author have lengthy bibliographies amd I am not in a position to look at all the research and post links. Its not new research, I am gathering that some of you have heard about these findings before. Even some news articles have covered it, especially in UK news. It wont be hard to locate.Iron_Feline wrote: »The op just wants to justify the fact that they are overweight by claiming it is unhealthy to eat less that 2000 cals.
So far they have yet to provide a single link to back up their claims, not surprising as they are nonsense.
I completely agree. The OP was making the same claims on another thread and when I brought up the accurate information and asked for sources I got the same responses.
OP just wants someone to tell her it's ok to be overweight and that she should continue eating whatever she wants. It's pretty clear from her posts. And all the citing of this "research" sounds delusional.
Actually, if you want us to research your claims ourselves, what is the name of the female researcher you are referring to? Let me guess, you don't have time to post that?
Thanks for your criticism!
Hi
I wonder if I could get you to maybe look at this from a different angle to the BMI one.
I would like to work out (with your permission) your body fat percentage, to see if that is in the healthy range?
All I would need is your weight,height, wrist measurement, hip, waist (at naval) measurement.
I would be able to tell you what your BF percentage is which is a far better indicator of health than the BMI index which takes no account of the composition of the person.
Are you up for a bit of open mindedness?
That will be the day! when 65 year olds start posting their stats on social web sites!!! LOLLLLLL!
0 -
This:
Does not coincide with this:I just wondered if people were truly prepared to eat so measily a bunch of rations for the rest of their lives when they could be eating more.I have no axe to grind
You very clearly have an axe to grind. It is obviously vitally important to you to feel okay about overeating and being slightly overweight. But you aren't okay with it. So you need to *attack* people who look at food primarily as a source of fuel as opposed to a source of pleasure. It's okay that you want to overeat and be slightly overweight. You do you, ya know? Even if *you* is fake-nice and passive aggressive.
Needing to see what others eat as *measly rations* is pretty indicative of your mindset. I eat a heaping bowl of delicious sundae almost every night. I eat pastries. I eat sandwiches. I eat fabulous 3 or 4 course meals everyday. Some days, I just choose to eat pretty much non-stop all day long. I'm also working towards having a strong heart and lungs, good endurance and physical strength. Should anything untoward happen, I'd like to be as prepared to survive it as possible.
But hey. If you need to see my lifestyle as *scraping by on meager rations* in order to feel better about yourself, have at it! No skin off my nose. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a frozen yogurt, blueberry, strawberry and peach sundae with a *kitten*-ton of cool whip on it calling my name. Take care and good health to you!
0 -
I also find your repeated use of the word *robust* interesting.
From Dictionary.com:( <- see that? It's called *citing a source* It's a handy little thing people do to back up their otherwise completely empty assertions)
1. strong and healthy; hardy; vigorous
2. strongly or stoutly built
3. suited to or requiring bodily strength or endurance
Synonyms (from Oxford Dictionaries.com):
strong, vigorous, sturdy, tough, powerful, solid, muscular, sinewy, rugged, hardy, strapping, brawny, burly, husky, heavily built; healthy, fit, fighting fit, hale and hearty, lusty, in fine fettle
So when you use *robust* you mean in the *husky, strapping, brawny, heavily built* sense, I suppose? Where as I see myself as *robust* in the *strong, vigorous, tough, powerful, solid, muscular, sinewy, rugged, hardy, healthy, fit, fighting fit, hale and hearty, lusty, in fine fettle* sense. Still robust though. And still eating sundaes. And still running around the block without coughing up a lung. Go me!
0 -
As someone who is "fun sized" my maintenance is low. However, I can get it above 2000 with exercise. On rest days though, it's 1530.
I haven't lost any weight since I got to this point, so I'm pretty sure I found my zone.0 -
I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
I am NOT innactive thank you very much...
Did you even look at my profile pic. I am also 30...0 -
I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
I am NOT innactive thank you very much...
Did you even look at my profile pic. I am also 30...
Your activity level doesn't matter to the OP ... only what she deems as your activity matters. Reality doesn't interfere with her world view.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I eat over 3,000 to maintain a body weight of 144lbs (maintained a 127lbs loss for over a year. 2000 calores would be harsh a deficit for me. Do you happen to follow Linda Bacon? The op seems very HAES and Linda is worshiped over there. She has never mentioned 2000 calories, but feels that people in the overweight category are healthier. She also speaks about people eating too few calories and gaining weight...
That's probqbly more to the topic I think. " worshiped over there" where is it?
I'll google Linda Bacon. thank you.
You are the first one to post what I expected most inactive women under 25 or inactive men to be eating ( over 3000) but you are the first, I'm pretty sure, to post this.
Thanks for adding it to the thread!
I am NOT innactive thank you very much...
Did you even look at my profile pic. I am also 30...
Your activity level doesn't matter to the OP ... only what she deems as your activity matters. Reality doesn't interfere with her world view.
I will accept the under 25 though
0 -
0
-
Op, after clicking on the red links of the halls charts website (as you suggested a few pages back), I found the below. Is this the "research" you are referring to? Just curious. Thanks.
"The most common reason that people use these charts is to find out if they, or someone they love, is overweight. While it is scientifically proven that obesity is unhealthy, please also remember that a negative self-image is also unhealthy. If you are overweight, these charts show that you are not alone. The people you see on television or in magazines, don’t represent the real population.
Medical science can suggest a normal range of body mass index values that are equally reasonable and healthy. Outside of that normal range, when either overweight or underweight, then some statistically significant health risks have been proven. On the other hand, public opinion, as influenced by television and print advertising, portrays an unrealistic narrow range of "ideal". So, remember that genetics and family history is the most significant determinant of your height and weight. (Just don’t use that as an excuse to avoid exercise and good nutrition).
The halls.md charts were created by Steven B. Halls, MD, FRCPC and John Hanson, MSc.
Notice on the charts, that adults get gradually heavier with age, and their BMI gets larger, until around age 60. Not only is that Normal, it’s Healthy. Research in the past decade has proved that having weight near the average for your age, is healthiest for long term survival. It’s not a fluke. You can be marginally skinnier or marginally fatter than average, and it doesn’t matter. But if you are significantly skinny or significantly fatter than the average for your age, then it does affect longevity."
0
This discussion has been closed.
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