Why not just starve?
Replies
-
it's not sustainable and it's terrible for you in the long run. This was a good fat2fitradio.com episode on the topic of starvation diets: http://www.fat2fitradio.com/2011/02/fat-2-fit-118-the-evils-of-starvation-diets/
That's a really cool radio program. Definitely adding to my bookmarks!0 -
i apologize for those who post unnecessary and rude comments, people come on here to feel supported, so a,rude, but anyway..... last year i lost 5-7 pounds and hit my goal weight because for a week and a half i was basically eating jello and small meals because i had surgery in my mouth and I have kept the weight off, im not saying its healthy to STARVE yourself, but if a person wants to go on a "diet" for a week or two to jumpstart or to break through a platueo? (ha spelling sorry)... i think that is perfectly fine. just dont get into a bad habit!0
-
There are a lot of issues. Essentially, you will get the same results as an anerexic person. Problem with that is you eat away all your muscle, your bone mass starts to deteriorate, your internal organs start to have issues, your stomach starts to eat itself with the acid that lines your stomach and a huge amount of complicated issues that follow. It will kill your metabolism to a point that any type of calories you intake, it will hold on to for as long as possible. And as someone else stated earlier, you lost your water weight. People can hold up to 7 lbs or something like that in water weigh (woman more than men for many reasons). Eating the low amount of calories will only make your BF % increase.0
-
Because if you do it for a long period of time, your metabolism will adjust down to burning only that small number of calories each day. Your weight loss will slow down dramatically and then even if/when you reach your goal weight, you'll continue to have to eat that tiny number of calories or you'll gain weight. At least that's what I've read.
Plus, when you have the stomach flu, it feels easy to eat that few calories because you have no appetite. When you are well again, you will feel starving on that number of calories and it will be a miserable way to lose weight!0 -
I understand where you're coming from. Last summer I had some stomach issues, and lost a bunch of weight. Then after I felt better I've lost none by eating healthy and exercising. Nothing at all since november. However I haven't gained any of it back which is awesome..but still.0
-
Oh also, if you continue to listen to fat2fit (and it's backed up in everywhere else I've read about this), you'll hear them talk about the long term effects of starvation diets.
One of their big goals is being fit AND getting to eat a lot. They advocate eating lots of healthy foods and still losing/ maintaining weight.
If you starve yourself (eating under your daily caloric requirement) your body starts to freak out and toss muscle out, because muscle is more work to keep up with in the body (like tossing the heaviest cargo overboard during a storm at sea). It takes more calories to keep your muscles running than your fat, so your body throws out the muscle and keeps the fat.
You eventually hit a plateau where your body is running very efficiently at starvation levels (the body can adapt) and then you are starving yourself, not losing weight, and wrecking your body. When you eventually come back to eating normlly, not only do you gain weight from your body trying to recover from starving, you've lost muscle mass.
I've heard a pound of fat burns 5 calories a day just sitting there....a pound of muscle burns something like 35 calories a day just sitting there.
So if you have less muscle, you are burning less calories per day just existing and have to eat less the rest of your life...and some people can't do that and end up binging, an no one should HAVE to do that regardless.
You want to exercise, build up your muscle mass (not like a bodybuilder you know, just healthy amounts of muscle all over) and slowly get fit over time...and get to eat lots of yummy food!
I've been consistently losing weight and I never touch salads...I eat lots of lean meat, healthy-style mac and cheese, veggies, various other dishes that are low-cal but NOT "diet food"
the occasional burrito or burger when I am out with friends, a bit of dessert once in a while.... but I eat healthy 90% of the time and let myself go about 10% of the time. I'm losing weight(not fast but fairly steady), my body is getting toned and sexy and I am never hungry.
Keep reading up on this, but that's the consensus I've come after lots of research (online, admittedly).
Good luck!0 -
Starving is fine. Look how healthy the kids in Ethiopia look. :indifferent:
damn you you stole my post.
and well 1000 cals i would not really call starving. now doing much lesaroudn 500 yes. and that would be fine if you dont mind organ faliure0 -
You've lost water...... you'll gain it all back within days...0
-
Simple fact...
It's not healthy.
You can't drive a car with no fuel. You can't have a healthy/active body without any fuel either...
(edit: You may be thin but you're still fat (unhealthy) at least at your weight right now you're correcting old habits and making yourself healthy. Just because you're thin doesn't mean you're healthy and strong)0 -
Starving DOES work, unfortunately the end result isn't pretty.
Good answer!0 -
Well just a little food for though. The first thing you lose when you starve yourself is water weight, then your body will go after your muscle not fat. So not good. Then you have no energy to do anything. Simple formula eat+exercise=muscle which =fat loss and increased metabolism.0
-
Same thing happend to me! I know I will probably gain it back.
But you are right- no question is a dumb question!0 -
Because if you lose weight too fast by starving your body will "eat" itself for nutrients and then as soon as you eat you'll gain but probably be very ill. Ask yourself this question ...Do you want to live?0
-
What is the definition of extreme calorie deficit?0
-
It may not have totally been the starving that caused you to lose weight while you were sick. Your body was fighting something and probably fighting fiercely. It was busy. Starving when you feel healthy is extremely difficult to sustain. And your body will do whatever it can to get by on as little calories as possible so even the slightest increase in calories will cause weight gain.
Completely agree, you probably lost the weight because your body was doing extra work fighting off the illness. Don't remain on the low calories, now you have recovered you need to go back to your normal calorie amount and exercise when well enough! : )0 -
WOW. I don't think she was asking how to lose weight fast and I don't think your answer was appropriate. Next time, if you have an answer like that, keep it to yourself. This is NOT helping anyone.0
-
Thank you to everyone who gave all the great answers to my question. I promise you I wont starve. I love food, and I actually don't even want to get to my "ideal" weight according to all these charts. I want to get to about 150 which is 20 pounds heavier than my "ideal" weight.
I hope to be feeling all better soon, and I will resume my normal 1200 calories each day.
Again, thank you for all the great info.0 -
starving works but it's a super ****ty cycle to be in. It's not sustainable in the long term unless you stick with a starvation diet the rest of your life. Instead when you eat you're going to start binging and your body will be more susceptible to holding onto that weight0
-
That's a very valid question. Less is good, lots less has been good for me, but there's the law of diminishing returns.OK, here goes.
I have been sick for about 5 days now with a stomach virus. I am past the bad part, but still eating less than 1000 calories a day. I did finally start exercising again yesterday. But here is my question. If starving is such a bad way to lose weight...then why does it work so well? I have lost more weight in the last 5 days then I have in the last 5 weeks! So, I guess my real question is why not do this for a while and get some of the excess weight off and then start to slowly eat more and exercise more? I know there are all kinds of theories about metabolism, and what this will do to it, but I am not sure anymore. I feel great, I look better, I just wonder what would happen if I keep up the less than 1000 calories and exercise????
Consuming 800 to 1k net calories a day can be an excellent way to lose weight. It's called a "very low calorie diet" and it's been proven to be safe and effective. In fact, it's been used by a company here in Southern California for over 40 years to help hundreds of thousands of people lose weight and keep it off.
Yes, hundreds of thousands of people. And over 40 years.
The diet I'm on is based on their system and, in the 160 days since I started, I have lost 80 pounds in a very predictable pattern.
I've gone from 44" relaxed fit jeans to 36" slim fit, my chest has dropped from 52" to 47", and my neck has gone from 18 1/2" to 15 1/2".
I'm off BP meds and my fitness level has improved significantly. I'm working out three times per week on an elliptical and twice per week with dumbbells. (I was hoping to be able to get ready for a half marathon in August but I don't think I'm going to be able to pull that off.)
A VLCD is not for everyone. Many folks here at MFP abhor the idea of eating less than 1200 calories per day. Personally, I have no qualms with folks who choose to lose weight by eating 1200 calories. It's their body, their choice.
If 800 to 1k is good, that does not mean that less is better. Some people at the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless consume as little as 700 net cals but that is for about a week or so and that is done only if the client has complied with the rule of weighing in every day.
Once you get lower than 700 cals, you're getting into the calorie range that causes what's medically described as "starvation".
I've seen citations of two medical sources in the postings about "starvation mode" here on MFP and both of them refer to…starvation. Think Auschwitz. Think North Korea. The two studies that I read dealt with feeding subjects 400 calories (+/-) per day for extended periods. And the subjects suffered serious, though temporary, issues.
There are some days where I end up eating very few calories but that's a mistake. I don't mind the extra "attention to detail" that I put in on a VLCD but I've decided that 800 cals is as low as I want to go.
My thinking - see if a VLCD works for you.
*I'm almost "getting to done" so I have to start thinking about my diet when I stop losing. My girlfriend, who runs one of the 44 weight loss clinics for the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless explained it to me last night . If you go the VLCD route, send me a PM when you're ready, and I'll go over it with you.0 -
Ok, so everyone seems to keep missing the point that the question is why not -- temporarily-- starve yourself to supress your appetite and then start eating and exercising. Essentially, why not fast? While some diets promote this, it probably isn't the best method to take. Even though you eventually start eating and exercising, for this diet to continue working and for you to continue losing weight, you'll have to fast more than once and this yo-yo effect is very very bad for your body. Even though people fast for dieting and religious purposes, it isn't ideal for losing weight. One key reason you lost weight like you did while you were sick is because being sick suppressed your appetite. Your body went into an "emergency SOS" mode. Your body was more concerned with fighting off the illness and put eating on the back burning. It drew from your stored energy to fight off the sickness. If you were to just stop eating by choice, it most likely would not have the same effect. Without a higher priority, your body will focus on wanting food. You'll have hunger pains, be extra sensitive to the smell of food, you'll get headaches, you'll feel faint, and you'll salivate alot more. In short, it's miserable. Just to give you an idea of the experience, most religious practices that involve fasting usually use fasting as a way of self punishment for the lord they serve. Probably not a diet plan you want to adhere to. And if you keep this up over time it will do damage to your body just the same an anorexia, even if you just starve yourself sparingly. It's like trying to run a car with very little oil. It will ruin the whole engine and it can't be fixed.
But yes, it's ok to enjoy this spring board you got in your diet. You were miserable for days so you should utilize the one benefit to your suffering. Your stomach has had time to shrink so be aware of when you're full and don't eat your usual portion sizes so you don't stretch it back out. Be careful with the exercising. Your body just went through alot. To you it may have just been a nasty cold but to your body it was a small trauma. Don't over do it.
And as for support for my statement I'd like to add that I have a degree in psychology from one of the top psychology departments in the US and took courses on Motivation and Emotion (why your body reacts the way it does) and an Eating Disorders class and Behaviorial Neuroscience.
(Note: Just so I'm not taken the wrong way, I'm in no way bragging, I'm just trying to state what little qualifications I have behind my statement. I'm in no way an expert.)0 -
Because it's hard to keep it up. Can you go another 4 months, or however long you need on a low cal diet? What about after you hit your goal weight? Starvation works (and I think its ridiculous that people are so afraid of "starvation mode"- Fat people die of nutrition deficiencies, not energy deficiencies.) but you have to have a massive amount of self control. And there's the whole nutrition thing, you can't guarantee absorption with supplements. But yeah, starvation absolutely works, but use this high to kick start your diet, not an unhealthy habit 0
-
I'm not aware of any medical evidence that any particular type of diet, when you stop that diet, causes one to gain weight.im going to get crucified for this... but i dont really believe that if you go back to HEALTHY eating habits and reasonable calories, you'll get fat/gain ridiculous amounts of weight etc.
Think about someone who breaks their leg playing basketball so they go to the ER, get a cast, and spend a month letting their leg heal. Then they go out, play hoop again, and break their leg.
Does it make sense to blame the hospital and the ER staff who fixed his leg? No. What it means is that he hasn't learned to not break his leg!
Same with diets. Fad diets, crash diets, 1199 calories per day diets, and 1201 calories per day diets don't not work if that person changes their behavior and starts eating more calories than they expend. It's not because the 1201 calories per day diet "doesn't work"! It's cause that person hasn't changed their eating habits.
Well, that is the point of rehab, eh?if you look at anorexics who go through rehab - and im talking they have SERIOUS problems and have been starving themselves for prolonged periods of time - they're not all overweight when they come out.
The issue, though, is not that the OP wanted to starve herself. She was asking a very valid question about eating less than 1k cals/day. Maybe 999 works for her. Or 900.
I haven't seen anything from a medical source that contradicts what you've said.i don't condone starving yourself, at all. i couldn't do it. but i don't think that doing it and then eating again will cause you to gain bunches of weight... as long as you're not going back to your old eating habits that made you overweight to begin with.
Further, my understanding, from someone who has seen hundreds of people lose weight on a very low calorie diet, is that folks who stay "compliant" with "maintenance mode" do maintain their weight levels.0 -
That's a very valid question. Less is good, lots less has been good for me, but there's the law of diminishing returns.OK, here goes.
I have been sick for about 5 days now with a stomach virus. I am past the bad part, but still eating less than 1000 calories a day. I did finally start exercising again yesterday. But here is my question. If starving is such a bad way to lose weight...then why does it work so well? I have lost more weight in the last 5 days then I have in the last 5 weeks! So, I guess my real question is why not do this for a while and get some of the excess weight off and then start to slowly eat more and exercise more? I know there are all kinds of theories about metabolism, and what this will do to it, but I am not sure anymore. I feel great, I look better, I just wonder what would happen if I keep up the less than 1000 calories and exercise????
Consuming 800 to 1k net calories a day can be an excellent way to lose weight. It's called a "very low calorie diet" and it's been proven to be safe and effective. In fact, it's been used by a company here in Southern California for over 40 years to help hundreds of thousands of people lose weight and keep it off.
Yes, hundreds of thousands of people. And over 40 years.
The diet I'm on is based on their system and, in the 160 days since I started, I have lost 80 pounds in a very predictable pattern.
I've gone from 44" relaxed fit jeans to 36" slim fit, my chest has dropped from 52" to 47", and my neck has gone from 18 1/2" to 15 1/2".
I'm off BP meds and my fitness level has improved significantly. I'm working out three times per week on an elliptical and twice per week with dumbbells. (I was hoping to be able to get ready for a half marathon in August but I don't think I'm going to be able to pull that off.)
A VLCD is not for everyone. Many folks here at MFP abhor the idea of eating less than 1200 calories per day. Personally, I have no qualms with folks who choose to lose weight by eating 1200 calories. It's their body, their choice.
If 800 to 1k is good, that does not mean that less is better. Some people at the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless consume as little as 700 net cals but that is for about a week or so and that is done only if the client has complied with the rule of weighing in every day.
Once you get lower than 700 cals, you're getting into the calorie range that causes what's medically described as "starvation".
I've seen citations of two medical sources in the postings about "starvation mode" here on MFP and both of them refer to…starvation. Think Auschwitz. Think North Korea. The two studies that I read dealt with feeding subjects 400 calories (+/-) per day for extended periods. And the subjects suffered serious, though temporary, issues.
There are some days where I end up eating very few calories but that's a mistake. I don't mind the extra "attention to detail" that I put in on a VLCD but I've decided that 800 cals is as low as I want to go.
My thinking - see if a VLCD works for you.
*I'm almost "getting to done" so I have to start thinking about my diet when I stop losing. My girlfriend, who runs one of the 44 weight loss clinics for the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless explained it to me last night . If you go the VLCD route, send me a PM when you're ready, and I'll go over it with you.
VLCDs are not "proven safe"...they are proven to have many risks, some of which can be deadly. Sometimes, a person is in immediate medical danger from obesity related health issues, which may justify the risks associated with VLCDs. That does not mean the risks are not there, it just means that for certain people (morbidly obese), the benefits may outweigh the risks.
Suggesting to the OP that she "try a VLCD" is irresponsible at best. She is NOT at a level of obesity that would make it necessary or desirable or safe.
I'm sure you won't look at it, but here are just some of the scientific medical studies done on the risks of VLCDs (mainly in obese persons, the risks are far higher in someone who is not obese) - which include, but are not limited to: gallstones, arrhythmias, diabetes, hair/skin issues, menstruation issues, excess loose skin, liver/kidney damage, fatigue and depression, weight regain and death.
Starvation mode (or famine response or adaptive thermogenesis or whatever you'd like to call it) is NOT starvation. It is a point before starvation, and a higher cal level. Look up the definitions.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf
http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-I/dp/0816672342/ref=pd_sim_b_3
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-II/dp/0816672334/ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://journals.lww.com/amjmedsci/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=04000&article=00007&type=abstract
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full
http://www.annals.org/content/119/10/1029.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2051001&dopt=Citation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/
http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/0 -
That's a very valid question. Less is good, lots less has been good for me, but there's the law of diminishing returns.OK, here goes.
I have been sick for about 5 days now with a stomach virus. I am past the bad part, but still eating less than 1000 calories a day. I did finally start exercising again yesterday. But here is my question. If starving is such a bad way to lose weight...then why does it work so well? I have lost more weight in the last 5 days then I have in the last 5 weeks! So, I guess my real question is why not do this for a while and get some of the excess weight off and then start to slowly eat more and exercise more? I know there are all kinds of theories about metabolism, and what this will do to it, but I am not sure anymore. I feel great, I look better, I just wonder what would happen if I keep up the less than 1000 calories and exercise????
Consuming 800 to 1k net calories a day can be an excellent way to lose weight. It's called a "very low calorie diet" and it's been proven to be safe and effective. In fact, it's been used by a company here in Southern California for over 40 years to help hundreds of thousands of people lose weight and keep it off.
Yes, hundreds of thousands of people. And over 40 years.
The diet I'm on is based on their system and, in the 160 days since I started, I have lost 80 pounds in a very predictable pattern.
I've gone from 44" relaxed fit jeans to 36" slim fit, my chest has dropped from 52" to 47", and my neck has gone from 18 1/2" to 15 1/2".
I'm off BP meds and my fitness level has improved significantly. I'm working out three times per week on an elliptical and twice per week with dumbbells. (I was hoping to be able to get ready for a half marathon in August but I don't think I'm going to be able to pull that off.)
A VLCD is not for everyone. Many folks here at MFP abhor the idea of eating less than 1200 calories per day. Personally, I have no qualms with folks who choose to lose weight by eating 1200 calories. It's their body, their choice.
If 800 to 1k is good, that does not mean that less is better. Some people at the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless consume as little as 700 net cals but that is for about a week or so and that is done only if the client has complied with the rule of weighing in every day.
Once you get lower than 700 cals, you're getting into the calorie range that causes what's medically described as "starvation".
I've seen citations of two medical sources in the postings about "starvation mode" here on MFP and both of them refer to…starvation. Think Auschwitz. Think North Korea. The two studies that I read dealt with feeding subjects 400 calories (+/-) per day for extended periods. And the subjects suffered serious, though temporary, issues.
There are some days where I end up eating very few calories but that's a mistake. I don't mind the extra "attention to detail" that I put in on a VLCD but I've decided that 800 cals is as low as I want to go.
My thinking - see if a VLCD works for you.
*I'm almost "getting to done" so I have to start thinking about my diet when I stop losing. My girlfriend, who runs one of the 44 weight loss clinics for the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless explained it to me last night . If you go the VLCD route, send me a PM when you're ready, and I'll go over it with you.
VLCDs are not "proven safe"...they are proven to have many risks, some of which can be deadly. Sometimes, a person is in immediate medical danger from obesity related health issues, which may justify the risks associated with VLCDs. That does not mean the risks are not there, it just means that for certain people (morbidly obese), the benefits may outweigh the risks.
Suggesting to the OP that she "try a VLCD" is irresponsible at best. She is NOT at a level of obesity that would make it necessary or desirable or safe.
I'm sure you won't look at it, but here are just some of the scientific medical studies done on the risks of VLCDs (mainly in obese persons, the risks are far higher in someone who is not obese) - which include, but are not limited to: gallstones, arrhythmias, diabetes, hair/skin issues, menstruation issues, excess loose skin, liver/kidney damage, fatigue and depression, weight regain and death.
Starvation mode (or famine response or adaptive thermogenesis or whatever you'd like to call it) is NOT starvation. It is a point before starvation, and a higher cal level. Look up the definitions.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf
http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-I/dp/0816672342/ref=pd_sim_b_3
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-II/dp/0816672334/ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://journals.lww.com/amjmedsci/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=04000&article=00007&type=abstract
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full
http://www.annals.org/content/119/10/1029.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2051001&dopt=Citation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/
http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/
*Like* lol0 -
Unless some of the posts were deleted, I didnt see anyone attacking anyone. The OP was asking "why not..." because there was a result in not eating. Some responses were what was asked..."Why not" they were personal opinions, personal expierence, researched answers and so forth. The old saying "Dying to be thin..."
I am a victim of anorexia and here I am having to fight my weight and do it the right way, because it worked...but my body was telling me it was struggling, survival mode was loosing...but I looked great, (I thought) I was thin, isnt that what matters? I "feel" some individuals take some comments (even the innocent and helpful ones) the wrong way. :happy:0 -
Unless some of the posts were deleted, I didnt see anyone attacking anyone. The OP was asking "why not..." because there was a result in not eating. Some responses were what was asked..."Why not" they were personal opinions, personal expierence, researched answers and so forth. The old saying "Dying to be thin..."
I am a victim of anorexia and here I am having to fight my weight and do it the right way, because it worked...but my body was telling me it was struggling, survival mode was loosing...but I looked great, (I thought) I was thin, isnt that what matters? I "feel" some individuals take some comments (even the innocent and helpful ones) the wrong way. :happy:
Yes, some posts were moderated.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
- 426 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