it is probably not "muscle"
Replies
-
Going to lay this one out there, because lately it seems like I am seeing this one a lot and it makes my head hurt.
It usually goes a little something like this…
OP comes into thread and says they are not losing and are on a 1200 calorie diet and are doing 30 minutes a day of "exercise", which does not involve a lifting program where one progressively lifts heavier weights.
Posters come into the thread and say "oh, you are just gaining muscle"
Sigh, I am sorry but a 1200 calories diet and doing a 30 minute a day cardio based program that MAY have some resistance training built into it, you are not gaining muscle.
Can you build muscle in a calorie deficit? Yes, you can but it is usually limited to two populations…
1. The obese beginner that starts out and is doing weight training where they lift progressively heavier things.
2. High performance athletes.
For the 90% of the rest of us we are not going to build muscle in a deficit.
Building muscle is hard work, and the fact that some think that it will just magically appear on a 1200 to 1400 calorie diet drives me crazy.
0 -
Thank you so much for this!! I hear this BS litterally ALL the damn time. I am a woman, 5'4", 35yrs old, and 195lbs. I am on a low carb "Paleo" style diet (roughly 1,500 cal a day) and I do HIT as well as cardio. I'm frustrated because my weight isn't going down and all I ever hear is "you are probably just gaining muscle"0
-
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »So glad to see this cleared up. Of course if they're only eating 1200 calories, they need to eat more to lose weight, right?
That's the one that drives me nuts as well. Just keep raising those calories until the weight starts coming off.
0 -
I don't know what the "why" would be either, and I am not suggesting this would be something that happens all the time in most people under ordinary circumstances. But there's no real "why not" either.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
What I mean is, say someone has an actual TDEE of 3000 calories. They are also following a progressive weightlifting program. Then say this person eats 2500 calories per day, and their body fat releases another 1000 calories worth of lipids into their bloodstream during the course of a day, instead of the 500 that you would normally expect.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I would like you to expand your theory on that please.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I would guess that when one has a significant amount of body fat, this can supply a large amount of calories to the body even when "eating" is at a deficit, thus supplying enough energy for muscle building to take place under the right circumstances. This is all speculation, of course. But in these cases I think that the use of "caloric deficit" may require more context than it is typically given.
Tell me if this is what you mean:
(A)An obese individual would require a specific amount of calories to maintain basic life function plus sufficient energy to ward off muscle tissue catabolism, (B)the number of calories that person would need to maintain an obese weight can be very high, (C)they knock off sufficient calories to be in a nice deficit but at the same time the difference between A and C would provide enough extra nutrition to provide a positive nitrogen balance as well as glycogen, GH1, insulin etc to promote hypertrophy?
Not in that amount of detail, but yeah pretty much. Like I said it's pure speculation. What I was thinking was 1: what controls how much fat (energy) is released from fat cells when it is needed? And B: is this mechanism lock-stepped with actual energy needs, or can it be overridden/out of tune? (I'm fairly certain it can be out of tune, because IIRC nicotine causes fat cells to do this.)
So if more fat is being released from the cells than is needed for basic functions, where would the excess go? Would it free up dietary protein (and energy, etc) to be used for muscle building?
Also, I would think "deficit" and "surplus" are not a single system-wide thing because some cells might see the situation differently than others. (Isn't that pretty much what happens when newbie gains occur?)
When you say more fat is realeasd by fat cells than is needed for basic function, basic function as in oxidization for energy? I have never read into nicotine and how it affects it but we sort of know that your body will oxidize a certain amount of fat per day and past that we lbm starts to suffer. I'm not sure if the example you gave about freeing up protein will allow it to use it more for energy in building muscle works that way because I think the variable of how large of a deficit can our body handle in oder to max out the amount of fat it can oxidize compared to how much protein it would take to provide sufficient amino acids along with the necessary glycogen, would not allow us to get calories into the range it would need to be for that without increasing the calories above lowest point for max fat oxidization.
That might have been hard to read because it made no sense. It makes sense in my head. But just like you said, I'm also speculating.
Are they in a "surplus" or a "deficit?" Depends on which cells you ask. Assuming this can actually happen. But honestly I don't see any specific reason why it would be impossible. (Again, what exactly allows legit newbie gains to happen, and what specifically limits it to newbies?)
Okay. Well, I have no way to respond to that because I just don't know.
I think he is getting at having preferential substrate utilization.
Yea I follow up to there, I just don't follow why I would be release that extra hypothetical of fat just because. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.
And something akin to this (body fat releasing enough to make total available energy greater than TDEE) has to happen in order for newbie gains to occur. (Does anyone know the actual explanation for newbie gains?)
What prevents it from happening in non-newbies, and how much does this characteristic vary between individuals, and how much variation would be needed in order for it to allow someone to build muscle in an "intake" deficit, and if that did would any other side effects produce any sort of "medical condition" that anyone would even notice? (I'm guessing nobody will be able to answer those here, but that was the line of thinking I was on.)0 -
Does anyone know the actual explanation for newbie gains?
The basic survival mechanism. In a deficit that mechanism will still be activated but dependent on many variables and limited of course by the nature of that deficit, which is why the hypertrophy slows, comes to a stop, then atrophy begins.0 -
Amen0
-
Thank you so much for this!! I hear this BS litterally ALL the damn time. I am a woman, 5'4", 35yrs old, and 195lbs. I am on a low carb "Paleo" style diet (roughly 1,500 cal a day) and I do HIT as well as cardio. I'm frustrated because my weight isn't going down and all I ever hear is "you are probably just gaining muscle"
If you're not losing the weight then you are not in a deficit. Type of diet is irrelevant as to weight loss (calories in/calories out), so I'd suggest looking at your logging habits.
Do you weight your food? Log everything single thing you eat? Take steps to ensure you are using correct entries?
As for exercise, do you log your calorie burns and eat some of your exercise calories back? The caveats to this are:
(1) log only your cardio calories, not the high intensity training or any weight lifting, as these calories are difficult to gauge.
(2) if you use MFP, internet sources, or a phone app for exercise estimates, eat only about half to 75 % of those calories back because those amounts are generally overestimated.
0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »Yeah, no, there is no scientific proof that you cannot build muscle on a deficit, and no scientific proof you can. I find it interesting that many of the people who believe you cant gain muscle on a deficit, also seem to have an un-reasoned special category for the "elite athletes" saying they can do it too, when in fact if you read the studies these same try to use as proof, it tends to indicate keeping a higher body fat may be a key to gaining some muscle on a deficit, not magical "elite-ness". But really does it matter? Why argue something you dont know anyways? Science does not equal belief. A couple studies interpreted by laypeople to their own preferred conclusions do not make it "science" or a given. The truth is the jury is out, and there are plenty of anecdotal cases where it seems to happen.
Is it likely to happen? No. Is it optimal? No. = don't do it for muscle gains!
Are random new exercisers likely to gain muscle when they start weight training? We don't know for sure, but probably no to a little. Is it the +5lbs of muscle they think it is? No. Are they a lot better off keeping enthusiasm for their strength gains whether or not is muscle? YES! = keep it going!
Fact of the matter is you can gain strength while on a deficit, focus on this, steer someone to keep this going instead. Why try to nit-pick and deflate someone's enthusiasm so you can try to be a know it all and say its probably not muscle?
Especially since you would be flat out wrong, you can, people do, we just don't know the exact conditions that limit it, and its not good for gaining muscle and certainly NOT OPTIMAL.
never said it was optimal...I just said those instances are the only limited occurrences where it can happen...
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ndj1979 it needed to be said (period).0
-
Good info.
I definitely don't think it is as simple as "you can't" on a deficit unless you are "this" (obese, returning athlete, etc). There are other circumstances I think that we just don't know yet that allow you build on a deficit.
The quickest and most efficient way will always be a standard bulk/cut cycle though.
0 -
That's not what I was looking for. I meant more specifically. Because hormones and receptors and other cellular mechanisms are not direct cause-effect relationships, can vary widely between individuals, and can be interfered with in many ways to pretty much any degree. The idea that such a mechanism is foolproof would need some serious explaining.neanderthin wrote: »Does anyone know the actual explanation for newbie gains?
The basic survival mechanism. In a deficit that mechanism will still be activated but dependent on many variables and limited of course by the nature of that deficit, which is why the hypertrophy slows, comes to a stop, then atrophy begins.
0 -
in for laughs-1
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
-1 -
All it says is that newb gains happen. I don't think anyone is disputing that. What I was talking about is something like, I dunno, for a hypothetical example, "muscle and fat cells take in energy based on blood insulin levels and their sensitivity decreases as they get bigger, thus when fat cells are big and muscle cells are small the muscles will take in more energy while fat either refuses or even loses and muscle will grow while fat shrinks, and as muscle grows and fat shrinks this balance shifts thus preventing muscle from getting as big a share of the nutrients and requiring a smaller deficit and eventually a larger surplus for significant growth." If it were something like that, then someone whose muscles lost sensitivity more slowly and/or fat gained resistance more quickly would likely be capable of more prolonged/significant newbie gains. Etc.thecunninglinguist wrote: »
here's a good article on newb gains, though its a little wordyLiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
That's not what I was looking for. I meant more specifically. Because hormones and receptors and other cellular mechanisms are not direct cause-effect relationships, can vary widely between individuals, and can be interfered with in many ways to pretty much any degree. The idea that such a mechanism is foolproof would need some serious explaining.neanderthin wrote: »Does anyone know the actual explanation for newbie gains?
The basic survival mechanism. In a deficit that mechanism will still be activated but dependent on many variables and limited of course by the nature of that deficit, which is why the hypertrophy slows, comes to a stop, then atrophy begins.
http://startingstrength.com/articles/novice_effect_rippetoe.pdf0 -
Reading though all these discussions doesnt help anyone new btw. It is kind of discouraging ..because it doesn’t seem anyone has a concrete answer … just a lot of arguing and opposing views
Ok so just to make this clear to myself from the 5 pages I just read ...because I have never lifted weights but have started to 3-5 days a week at least an hour with someone that knows what they are doing and is increasing it incrementally... some cardio (meaning every day 10-20 minutes), weighing my food, condiments etc... that the only thing weight training will do for me at this point is maintain my existing muscle while loosing weight?0 -
Reading though all these discussions doesnt help anyone new btw. It is kind of discouraging ..because it doesn’t seem anyone has a concrete answer … just a lot of arguing and opposing views
Ok so just to make this clear to myself from the 5 pages I just read ...because I have never lifted weights but have started to 3-5 days a week at least an hour with someone that knows what they are doing and is increasing it incrementally... some cardio (meaning every day 10-20 minutes), weighing my food, condiments etc... that the only thing weight training will do for me at this point is maintain my existing muscle while loosing weight?
So knowing that discourages you from lifting. Do you know how it is to lose weight with losing a lot of Lean Body Mass. That's not fun and you might have a higher body fat% then before the weight you lost.
I have done the wrong way to lose weight. I looked like *kitten* and everyone thought I looked so good. So I stopped and blew up to my heaviest weight ever.-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »And something akin to this (body fat releasing enough to make total available energy greater than TDEE) has to happen in order for newbie gains to occur. (Does anyone know the actual explanation for newbie gains?)
In my opinion, "noob gains" aren't real. They're an artifact of a sedentary society, and only represent a kind of making up for lost time because we're starting from an unexpectedly low level of muscular fitness. It's the body fighting to return to "normal".
Take a 21 year old male who's been slinging hay bales on mom's farm for the past 18 years, drop his lean, strong body into a gym, and you won't see much, if any, noob gains.
I think some of this discussion is getting lost in the cracks between local and global. The body can be at a deficit overall, and at a surplus locally. If someone is eating right at maintenance - and they hit the weights (or go running or whatever) - the muscles being hit will metabolize fat stores local to the muscle itself for additional fuel. It's not all adipose - some of this is intramuscular fat, which is precisely what it's there for (it can be a looooong way from the middle of a big muscle to the nearest large fat deposit!)
So the local muscles can be in a surplus, while the overall body is not.
(ETA: As a side note, burning intramuscular fat is incredibly inefficient in terms of oxygen usage - which is part of why lifting heavy comes with so much huffing and puffing even though the body's not really going anywhere.)
If you do the thought experiment and drop intake 1 calorie at a time, it should be clear that situations exist where the overall body is at a deficit but a specific muscular region can be at a surplus. It should also be clear that there comes a point where the overall deficit overwhelms the ability of any individual region to compensate, so there will be a deficit level at which even noob gains become impossible.
BUT...if you are eating back those exercise calories you won't be at maintenance anymore, you'll be at surplus!
Follow?
The body isn't one system - it's a bunch of linked systems working independently while taking cues off of each other.
ETA: This is why a properly executed PSFM works so well...it walks the line of maximum local fat metabolization to prevent (significant) toasting of lean body mass.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »Reading though all these discussions doesnt help anyone new btw. It is kind of discouraging ..because it doesn’t seem anyone has a concrete answer … just a lot of arguing and opposing views
Ok so just to make this clear to myself from the 5 pages I just read ...because I have never lifted weights but have started to 3-5 days a week at least an hour with someone that knows what they are doing and is increasing it incrementally... some cardio (meaning every day 10-20 minutes), weighing my food, condiments etc... that the only thing weight training will do for me at this point is maintain my existing muscle while loosing weight?
So knowing that discourages you from lifting. Do you know how it is to lose weight with losing a lot of Lean Body Mass. That's not fun and you might have a higher body fat% then before the weight you lost.
I have done the wrong way to lose weight. I looked like *kitten* and everyone thought I looked so good. So I stopped and blew up to my heaviest weight ever.
Sorry I dont understand your answer... what discourages me from lifting weights is that I dont have a concrete answer as to why I should continue doing it while I am trying to lose weight. Should I just concentrate on cardio and lose weight and forget lifting until I want to build muscle/and or tone? Especially since I see crazy fluctioantions in my weight as much as 5 lbs in a day... which apparently shouldnt be attributed to lifting weights...0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »Reading though all these discussions doesnt help anyone new btw. It is kind of discouraging ..because it doesn’t seem anyone has a concrete answer … just a lot of arguing and opposing views
Ok so just to make this clear to myself from the 5 pages I just read ...because I have never lifted weights but have started to 3-5 days a week at least an hour with someone that knows what they are doing and is increasing it incrementally... some cardio (meaning every day 10-20 minutes), weighing my food, condiments etc... that the only thing weight training will do for me at this point is maintain my existing muscle while loosing weight?
So knowing that discourages you from lifting. Do you know how it is to lose weight with losing a lot of Lean Body Mass. That's not fun and you might have a higher body fat% then before the weight you lost.
I have done the wrong way to lose weight. I looked like *kitten* and everyone thought I looked so good. So I stopped and blew up to my heaviest weight ever.
Sorry I dont understand your answer... what discourages me from lifting weights is that I dont have a concrete answer as to why I should continue doing it while I am trying to lose weight. Should I just concentrate on cardio and lose weight and forget lifting until I want to build muscle/and or tone? Especially since I see crazy fluctioantions in my weight as much as 5 lbs in a day... which apparently shouldnt be attributed to lifting weights...
Doing some kind of resistance training preserves muscle mass...when you diet and you don't work those muscles, you will lose both muscle and fat...ideally, you would want to lose as little muscle mass as possible.
It is much easier to preserve what you have than to lose it and then have to build it again.
Also, 5Lbs day to day fluctuations are completely normal...body weight isn't static...you don't weigh exactly XXX Lbs. I can easily fluctuate 3-5 Lbs day to day depending on water retention/release, more/less waste in my system at weigh in, etc.0 -
I have to disagree with you. Reading conversations like this does help people, especially people that want to learn. We can all learn things from conversations like this. It's up to the individual that wants to learn to do some research as well if they want more answers.Reading though all these discussions doesnt help anyone new btw. It is kind of discouraging ..because it doesn’t seem anyone has a concrete answer … just a lot of arguing and opposing views
Ok so just to make this clear to myself from the 5 pages I just read ...because I have never lifted weights but have started to 3-5 days a week at least an hour with someone that knows what they are doing and is increasing it incrementally... some cardio (meaning every day 10-20 minutes), weighing my food, condiments etc... that the only thing weight training will do for me at this point is maintain my existing muscle while loosing weight?
So if someone said to you as an example that while losing weight you could either
A. Lift weights and do as much as you can to preserve the muscle you do have while losing body fat
B. Not lift weights and lose body fat while losing muscle
You would choose B?
you also misunderstood... I dont find it helpful because I wasnt sure if lifting weights wile loosing did anything for me given all the arguing back and forth.... How can one find it helpful when there is no consensus?... However, I think I got it. I should lift while trying to lose because I will maintain muscle and just overall be stronger!! Also... I am here to learn that is why I am asking ..thank you for your reply
0 -
Wanted to add...the body isn't a static system, either. "Maintenance" changes day to day, even under conditions where the activity level is constant. Because of that, there is a very strong mathematical argument for some degree of caloric and macro cycling - if you yo-yo by, say, 20%, you will hit optimum intake more often than if you stay at one level all the time.
For anyone interested in chasing down the math, it's similar to dose-response issues, where the optimum intake of a drug isn't the recommended dosage, it's alternating between taking a bit too much and taking a bit too little (averaging out to "recommended" over time).
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »Reading though all these discussions doesnt help anyone new btw. It is kind of discouraging ..because it doesn’t seem anyone has a concrete answer … just a lot of arguing and opposing views
Ok so just to make this clear to myself from the 5 pages I just read ...because I have never lifted weights but have started to 3-5 days a week at least an hour with someone that knows what they are doing and is increasing it incrementally... some cardio (meaning every day 10-20 minutes), weighing my food, condiments etc... that the only thing weight training will do for me at this point is maintain my existing muscle while loosing weight?
So knowing that discourages you from lifting. Do you know how it is to lose weight with losing a lot of Lean Body Mass. That's not fun and you might have a higher body fat% then before the weight you lost.
I have done the wrong way to lose weight. I looked like *kitten* and everyone thought I looked so good. So I stopped and blew up to my heaviest weight ever.
Sorry I dont understand your answer... what discourages me from lifting weights is that I dont have a concrete answer as to why I should continue doing it while I am trying to lose weight. Should I just concentrate on cardio and lose weight and forget lifting until I want to build muscle/and or tone? Especially since I see crazy fluctioantions in my weight as much as 5 lbs in a day... which apparently shouldnt be attributed to lifting weights...
Doing some kind of resistance training preserves muscle mass...when you diet and you don't work those muscles, you will lose both muscle and fat...ideally, you would want to lose as little muscle mass as possible.
It is much easier to preserve what you have than to lose it and then have to build it again.
Also, 5Lbs day to day fluctuations are completely normal...body weight isn't static...you don't weigh exactly XXX Lbs. I can easily fluctuate 3-5 Lbs day to day depending on water retention/release, more/less waste in my system at weigh in, etc.
ok great.. thank you! This is what I needed to know0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »Reading though all these discussions doesnt help anyone new btw. It is kind of discouraging ..because it doesn’t seem anyone has a concrete answer … just a lot of arguing and opposing views
Ok so just to make this clear to myself from the 5 pages I just read ...because I have never lifted weights but have started to 3-5 days a week at least an hour with someone that knows what they are doing and is increasing it incrementally... some cardio (meaning every day 10-20 minutes), weighing my food, condiments etc... that the only thing weight training will do for me at this point is maintain my existing muscle while loosing weight?
So knowing that discourages you from lifting. Do you know how it is to lose weight with losing a lot of Lean Body Mass. That's not fun and you might have a higher body fat% then before the weight you lost.
I have done the wrong way to lose weight. I looked like *kitten* and everyone thought I looked so good. So I stopped and blew up to my heaviest weight ever.
Sorry I dont understand your answer... what discourages me from lifting weights is that I dont have a concrete answer as to why I should continue doing it while I am trying to lose weight. Should I just concentrate on cardio and lose weight and forget lifting until I want to build muscle/and or tone? Especially since I see crazy fluctioantions in my weight as much as 5 lbs in a day... which apparently shouldnt be attributed to lifting weights...
Doing some kind of resistance training preserves muscle mass...when you diet and you don't work those muscles, you will lose both muscle and fat...ideally, you would want to lose as little muscle mass as possible.
It is much easier to preserve what you have than to lose it and then have to build it again.
Also, 5Lbs day to day fluctuations are completely normal...body weight isn't static...you don't weigh exactly XXX Lbs. I can easily fluctuate 3-5 Lbs day to day depending on water retention/release, more/less waste in my system at weigh in, etc.
^this
I don't believe there is any dispute whatsoever about the effectiveness and benefits of resistance training while in a deficit...or while at maintenance or a surplus. That anyone would use it as an excuse not to is not (IMHO) the fault of those having a conversation about this particular nuance of the process.0 -
I have to disagree with you. Reading conversations like this does help people, especially people that want to learn. We can all learn things from conversations like this. It's up to the individual that wants to learn to do some research as well if they want more answers.Reading though all these discussions doesnt help anyone new btw. It is kind of discouraging ..because it doesn’t seem anyone has a concrete answer … just a lot of arguing and opposing views
Ok so just to make this clear to myself from the 5 pages I just read ...because I have never lifted weights but have started to 3-5 days a week at least an hour with someone that knows what they are doing and is increasing it incrementally... some cardio (meaning every day 10-20 minutes), weighing my food, condiments etc... that the only thing weight training will do for me at this point is maintain my existing muscle while loosing weight?
So if someone said to you as an example that while losing weight you could either
A. Lift weights and do as much as you can to preserve the muscle you do have while losing body fat
B. Not lift weights and lose body fat while losing muscle
You would choose B?
you also misunderstood... I dont find it helpful because I wasnt sure if lifting weights wile loosing did anything for me given all the arguing back and forth.... How can one find it helpful when there is no consensus?... However, I think I got it. I should lift while trying to lose because I will maintain muscle and just overall be stronger!! Also... I am here to learn that is why I am asking ..thank you for your reply
The bold is consensus.
0 -
Yep, I follow and I agree. I would add that variation exists between individuals as far as the point where gains taper off and how much of a "deficit" prevents muscle growth.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »And something akin to this (body fat releasing enough to make total available energy greater than TDEE) has to happen in order for newbie gains to occur. (Does anyone know the actual explanation for newbie gains?)
In my opinion, "noob gains" aren't real. They're an artifact of a sedentary society, and only represent a kind of making up for lost time because we're starting from an unexpectedly low level of muscular fitness. It's the body fighting to return to "normal".
Take a 21 year old male who's been slinging hay bales on mom's farm for the past 18 years, drop his lean, strong body into a gym, and you won't see much, if any, noob gains.
I think some of this discussion is getting lost in the cracks between local and global. The body can be at a deficit overall, and at a surplus locally. If someone is eating right at maintenance - and they hit the weights (or go running or whatever) - the muscles being hit will metabolize fat stores local to the muscle itself for additional fuel. It's not all adipose - some of this is intramuscular fat, which is precisely what it's there for (it can be a looooong way from the middle of a big muscle to the nearest large fat deposit!)
So the local muscles can be in a surplus, while the overall body is not.
(ETA: As a side note, burning intramuscular fat is incredibly inefficient in terms of oxygen usage - which is part of why lifting heavy comes with so much huffing and puffing even though the body's not really going anywhere.)
If you do the thought experiment and drop intake 1 calorie at a time, it should be clear that situations exist where the overall body is at a deficit but a specific muscular region can be at a surplus. It should also be clear that there comes a point where the overall deficit overwhelms the ability of any individual region to compensate, so there will be a deficit level at which even noob gains become impossible.
BUT...if you are eating back those exercise calories you won't be at maintenance anymore, you'll be at surplus!
Follow?
The body isn't one system - it's a bunch of linked systems working independently while taking cues off of each other.
ETA: This is why a properly executed PSFM works so well...it walks the line of maximum local fat metabolization to prevent (significant) toasting of lean body mass.
It's like a Rube Goldberg machine made out of trillions of intertwined Rube Goldberg machines.The body isn't one system - it's a bunch of linked systems working independently while taking cues off of each other.
This is why "deficit" needs to be taken in context, because if you take the body as "one system" then growth of anything in a deficit doesn't make sense. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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