Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
80% diet, 20% exercise.
Options
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Weight management is 100% about balancing energy consumption and expenditure. Exercise has numerous health benefits...and yes, exercise is going to change how you look and your overall composition...it also makes weight management easier in that you are expending more energy...but it isn't necessary to weight management.
That said, I've been in maintenance for going on three years this week and regular exercise is a pretty key component to that in that it makes it more difficult to over eat...it's certainly not impossible to overeat, but I have a lot more latitude than if I didn't exercise. If I didn't exercise, I'd just have to eat quite a bit less to maintain...which would be sucky.
If you look at most people who maintain a healthy weight, they tend to maintain a healthy lifestyle in general...they tend to eat relatively well and they tend to get regular exercise and are often just more active in general.
It's too easy to overeat when you're sedentary.
^^^100%0 -
LisaMarieSwain wrote: »@GBrady43068 thank you for clarifying! That post makes more sense now.
Now to my next question ... Is there an accurate formula that can be used to determine how many actual calories you are burning? (I've heard that Fitbit and similar trackers are an average, but what if I wanted to dial it in?)
No one formula will be a catch all.
FitBits and the like are good estimates because they start with your height, weight, gender and age. Then they also track movement via (1 or more): pedometer, altimeter, and/or heart rate monitor. But these are still estimates because they lack information re: muscle mass %, hormonal issues, exertion levels during activities, and more.
More exact calorie burns could be found in a laboratory. But the good news is, using a device (pick the one best suited for your activities) day in and day out allows you to gauge the accuracy for your activity, your exercise. You learn to dial in thru repeated use of your device. There are thousands of "maintainers" who use trackers as helpers.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.
You say you are exercising A LOT, so you are burning A LOT more calories, so you can eat more and still lose weight. Eating 1500 and maintaining @ 152 while sedentary vs: eating 1700 and losing and exercising A LOT would indicate that you are burning more than 200 extra calories, so you should be losing weight. You are eating less calories than you are burning. Now you are at maintenance, eating the same amount of calories 1700, exercising less. Nothing amusing, just CICO, eating less calories than you burn to lose, eating the same amount of calories to maintain and exercising less, and it is not 100% because of exercise it is CICO.
You clearly missed my point. Nobody is disputing CICO. The question is, is weightloss necessarily 80% diet and 20% exercise as 'everyone' says?
Some, like @readergirl3 above, say they lost weight without exercise, that's 100% diet and 0% exercise.
In my case, I continued eating the same and slightly more than I did at the beginning, but put all the effort in the CO part of CICO. So for me, yes, it was 0% diet and 100% exercise.
1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »That said, I've been in maintenance for going on three years this week and regular exercise is a pretty key component to that in that it makes it more difficult to over eat...it's certainly not impossible to overeat, but I have a lot more latitude than if I didn't exercise. If I didn't exercise, I'd just have to eat quite a bit less to maintain...which would be sucky.
If you look at most people who maintain a healthy weight, they tend to maintain a healthy lifestyle in general...they tend to eat relatively well and they tend to get regular exercise and are often just more active in general.
It's too easy to overeat when you're sedentary.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I know exercise is key for me. I'd rather be overweight than eat as little as I'd be able without exercise.
If your question is purely about weight control then obviously weight can be gained or lost without exercise. But activity level does play a part in weight control. You may actually lose fewer pounds with regular exercise since you'll likely retain more muscle.Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.girlinahat wrote: »psychologically I think the exercise component is important. When I exercise, I feel inclined to be healthy in other aspects of my life, it makes my body feel more energised and keep me away from stuffing myself. On a day when I don't keep active, I tend to eat too much - the weekend was a case in point. I drove everywhere, I ate too much, I drank too much wine.
Yesterday I rediscovered the joy of walking into the city for a class, then feeling energised I walked home again rather than take the bus. I chose not to eat too much and fill my stomach BECAUSE I had that feeling of being energised. I think the concept of weightloss alone by diet is terrifyingly boring. I care far more about getting fitter so I can do more things, than a figure on a scale, and the weightloss is just a by-product brought on by my more active lifestyle. I doubt you can separate the two, and I imagine that those who succeed long-term, are those who do both.
All of this.
I would never eat below my BMR consistently, day in day out for months at a time. It's too restrictive and not sustainable. I'll go out and burn 800 kCal a day though. Last night I ran a 5k, tonight it's hill repeats on the bike, every day I spend my lunch hour walking, hike or long bike ride on weekend days, etc. These things make my body feel good, which motivates me to make better food choices. Hell, it has me craving healthier food to fuel the exercise. And it gets me out of the house.
Exercise is part of CICO. It doesn't have to be for everybody but if anybody ever tells you "exercise doesn't count as calories out," stop listening to anything they have to say.3 -
LisaMarieSwain wrote: »Now to my next question ... Is there an accurate formula that can be used to determine how many actual calories you are burning?
kCal = 1.1 to 1.3 times kilo-Jules of work done.
kCal per hour = 1.1 to 1.3 times (3,600 times your current output in watts)
You need a power meter to measure the amount of work you're doing and the rate at which you're doing it. Power meters are a reliable technology on a bike, and in the experimental stages for running. Some gym machines can measure your power output too. If the PM is reliable this will get you within 5 % of the truth.1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.
You say you are exercising A LOT, so you are burning A LOT more calories, so you can eat more and still lose weight. Eating 1500 and maintaining @ 152 while sedentary vs: eating 1700 and losing and exercising A LOT would indicate that you are burning more than 200 extra calories, so you should be losing weight. You are eating less calories than you are burning. Now you are at maintenance, eating the same amount of calories 1700, exercising less. Nothing amusing, just CICO, eating less calories than you burn to lose, eating the same amount of calories to maintain and exercising less, and it is not 100% because of exercise it is CICO.
You clearly missed my point. Nobody is disputing CICO. The question is, is weightloss necessarily 80% diet and 20% exercise as 'everyone' says?
Some, like @readergirl3 above, say they lost weight without exercise, that's 100% diet and 0% exercise.
In my case, I continued eating the same and slightly more than I did at the beginning, but put all the effort in the CO part of CICO. So for me, yes, it was 0% diet and 100% exercise.
You claimed you are/were exercising A LOT, @ 1700 calories. If so, you are definitely burning more than the additional 200 calories more that you are eating. You are not losing by exercise alone.
I am well aware of losing weight without exercising. I lost over 100# before I began to even walk more than I had to. 0% exercise, but you have to be dead to not be burning calories.
You are missing my point. You absolutely can not lose weight without eating less calories than your body is burning, no matter if you exercise or not.
I am maintaining a 160# weight loss at 1600 calories and going to the gym every day. If I go over that 1600 calories, I begin to gain. I have been maintaining for over 2 years so I do know what works for me. I do agree that it is not 80/20 for everyone, as with everything related to weight loss, gain, or maintaining, it is individual, but the 80/20 figure is a good estimate for most people. People that are very physically fit (tri-athletes) have told me it is probably an even higher figure 90/10.
0 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
I'll be the odd one out here-lost the extra weight with zero exercise and now 3 years into maintenance with no exercise regiment. For me it's been 100% diet /calorie intake, 0% exercise. And I'm in excellent health by all the markers my doctor goes by, even without regular exercise. My blood panels improved and are now good across the board (used to have higher glucose numbers, those have now stabilized into the 80s), blood pressure improved and is now good, I have no health issues, take no medication etc etc.
Can I ask if you mean that it is simply your diet that is leading to your good health? Do you think that part of this is also genetics? I lost 90lbs and have maintained it for 4 years with diet and exercise both. Now, I do take medication for high blood pressure. But neither my doctor nor I can figure out why this is so. I eat very well and exercise 6 days a week and am in the healthy weight range. So do you think that in your case your genetics give you an advantage where you can achieve this without exercise? Without exercise, I'd be a blob! I'm not trying to be obnoxious...I'm interested in what you think.
1 -
For the love of all that is good, 80-20 is the Pareto Principal:
"The 80/20 Rule means that in anything a few (20 percent) are vital and many(80 percent) are trivial. In Pareto's case it meant 20 percent of the people owned 80 percent of the wealth. In Juran's initial work he identified 20 percent of the defects causing 80 percent of the problems. Project Managers know that 20 percent of the work (the first 10 percent and the last 10 percent) consume 80 percent of your time and resources. You can apply the 80/20 Rule to almost anything, from the science of management to the physical world."
http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Pareto081202.htm
All it's saying is more of weight loss/gain is due to diet vs movement. It might be 80%, might be 90% or 70%.4 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.
You say you are exercising A LOT, so you are burning A LOT more calories, so you can eat more and still lose weight. Eating 1500 and maintaining @ 152 while sedentary vs: eating 1700 and losing and exercising A LOT would indicate that you are burning more than 200 extra calories, so you should be losing weight. You are eating less calories than you are burning. Now you are at maintenance, eating the same amount of calories 1700, exercising less. Nothing amusing, just CICO, eating less calories than you burn to lose, eating the same amount of calories to maintain and exercising less, and it is not 100% because of exercise it is CICO.
You clearly missed my point. Nobody is disputing CICO. The question is, is weightloss necessarily 80% diet and 20% exercise as 'everyone' says?
Some, like @readergirl3 above, say they lost weight without exercise, that's 100% diet and 0% exercise.
In my case, I continued eating the same and slightly more than I did at the beginning, but put all the effort in the CO part of CICO. So for me, yes, it was 0% diet and 100% exercise.
You are missing my point. You absolutely can not lose weight without eating less calories than your body is burning, no matter if you exercise or not.
Once again, you don't seem to understand what we're debating here. The debate here is not about how cico works, you're 'preaching to the choir'. We all understand it.
The debate is about the 80/20 rule, which suggests that food intake is substantially more important than how much you exercise if you are trying to lose weight. And I'm saying, no, not necessarily.
For SOME, like me, how much I exercise is substantially more important. Why? Because compared to the STARTING POINT, I did NOT alter my intake by lowering it. I put all my weight loss efforts on my exercise. IF I had continued being sedentary or maybe started walking a bit and instead just focused on reducing my intake, then in that case, it would have been 80/20. Instead, what I did was 0/100. I don't know why you're struggling with this simple explanation.6 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
I'll be the odd one out here-lost the extra weight with zero exercise and now 3 years into maintenance with no exercise regiment. For me it's been 100% diet /calorie intake, 0% exercise. And I'm in excellent health by all the markers my doctor goes by, even without regular exercise. My blood panels improved and are now good across the board (used to have higher glucose numbers, those have now stabilized into the 80s), blood pressure improved and is now good, I have no health issues, take no medication etc etc.
Can I ask if you mean that it is simply your diet that is leading to your good health? Do you think that part of this is also genetics? I lost 90lbs and have maintained it for 4 years with diet and exercise both. Now, I do take medication for high blood pressure. But neither my doctor nor I can figure out why this is so. I eat very well and exercise 6 days a week and am in the healthy weight range. So do you think that in your case your genetics give you an advantage where you can achieve this without exercise? Without exercise, I'd be a blob! I'm not trying to be obnoxious...I'm interested in what you think.
My family tree is full of type 2 diabetes, as well as a host of other health issues. It's also full of obese and overweight people. My doctor told me I was genetically predisposed towards Type 2 but here I am today, with normal glucose numbers. That's compared to in 2012 when I was flirting with prediabetes. After I lost around 50lbs my glucose number stabilized into the 80s, where they've stayed since 2013.
I do think genetics can play a big part for some people, but I honestly don't know how they factor in for me?0 -
I don't remember where I read this so it could be wildly inaccurate, but I remember reading an article a couple years ago that suggested taken ALONE controlling food makes a bigger difference in weight loss and exercise becomes more significant for maintenance. The article did, however, emphasize that both together provide the best result in terms of weight loss. Maintenance was just a side note for the exercise component.
From my own personal experience, diet is the most significant aspect to what causes my weight to change up or down. However getting more consistent exercise seems to help me weather periods of overeating more easily. Meaning I may manage to not gain weight from a day or two of overeating or that weight will come off more quickly. I assume this is related to water weight retention.1 -
I've been here on MFP 100 days thus far and track my weekly results in a spreadsheet, including the number of miles walked per week. I have found that the weeks where I walk 15 miles or less I don't lose as much, but the weeks I walk more than 15 miles I lose more.
So I do think exercise can play a part in addition to calorie restriction. My one person study shows that result, anyway.
1 -
For me personally, the 80/20 rule is pretty true. Tracking my food and be mindful of my eating has been the biggest contributor to losing and maintaining my weight. I've lost and maintained my weight all while varying from pretty much sedentary to mostly weight training to running 60 MPW over the course of the past 5 years. When I initially tried to lose weight, I started working out and trying to eat less crap, but that only got me to stop gaining. It wasn't until I tracked that I realized how much I was eating and started to lose weight.
Exercising regularly does help me make more room for foods I like and allow me more flexibility, but my appetite increases with increased activity as well.
It is very, very hard to outrun a fork. I've seen many folks have trouble losing weight, and even gaining weight, while training for a marathon or Ironman.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »For the love of all that is good, 80-20 is the Pareto Principal:
"The 80/20 Rule means that in anything a few (20 percent) are vital and many(80 percent) are trivial. In Pareto's case it meant 20 percent of the people owned 80 percent of the wealth. In Juran's initial work he identified 20 percent of the defects causing 80 percent of the problems. Project Managers know that 20 percent of the work (the first 10 percent and the last 10 percent) consume 80 percent of your time and resources. You can apply the 80/20 Rule to almost anything, from the science of management to the physical world."
http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Pareto081202.htm
All it's saying is more of weight loss/gain is due to diet vs movement. It might be 80%, might be 90% or 70%.
THANK YOU for posting this. 80-20 is a rule of thumb, not a scientifically quantifiable principle.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »For the love of all that is good, 80-20 is the Pareto Principal:
"The 80/20 Rule means that in anything a few (20 percent) are vital and many(80 percent) are trivial. In Pareto's case it meant 20 percent of the people owned 80 percent of the wealth. In Juran's initial work he identified 20 percent of the defects causing 80 percent of the problems. Project Managers know that 20 percent of the work (the first 10 percent and the last 10 percent) consume 80 percent of your time and resources. You can apply the 80/20 Rule to almost anything, from the science of management to the physical world."
http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Pareto081202.htm
All it's saying is more of weight loss/gain is due to diet vs movement. It might be 80%, might be 90% or 70%.
THANK YOU for posting this. 80-20 is a rule of thumb, not a scientifically quantifiable principle.
+21 -
The strong (and somewhat simplistic IMO) statements re the relationship between diet and exercise for weight loss are made--at least from my perspective--to make 2 points. 1) Weight (fat) loss is subject to one's ongoing energy balance (calories in vs calories). That is fundamental and cannot change. There are other important factors involved, but they are peripheral to this core principle. Without a deficit, you cannot see success. No matter how much exercise you do, if your calorie intake matches or exceeds your output, you will not lose weight. There are still a lot of people who think they can just start an exercise program and they will lose weight without having to pay attention to their diet. You can lose weight with a calorie deficit and no exercise, but you cannot lose weight with exercise and no calorie deficit.
2) The second point is a little more esoteric, but there have been a number of studies, articles, books, documentaries that have tried to use the "exercise only" approach as a means of trying to diminish, disparage, or dismiss any positive effects from exercise. For those of us who DO believe in exercise as an important part of both weight loss and health, we need to make sure that we do not "oversell" exercise as a magic bullet for weight loss, because it is not supported by research and it risks turning people off to exercise in general.
While it is important to separate energy balance from exercise benefits, I do think that, in practical terms, we sometimes go too far in the opposite direction and are too dismissive of the important role that exercise plays for short-term weight loss and even more so for long-term maintenance of weight loss.
Exercise plays several important roles for short-term weight loss: contributes to the establishment/maintenance of a calorie deficit, conserves lean mass (strength training), improves feelings of self-esteem, and enhances compliance to the program.
Long-term effects are even more important IMO. There is some indication that non-resting energy expenditure remains suppressed for a year or longer following a period of dynamic weight loss (Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88:906 –12.). The extra calorie expenditure realized from a vigorous exercise program (and the gain/conservation of lean mass) could be crucial to counteracting this tendency to regain weight. One of the characteristics of successful long-term maintenance of weight loss (per the National Weight Control Registry) is maintaining an exercise program of at least 5day/wk, 60 min/day.
Long-term statistics also point out the weakness in the "calorie deficit" only model of weight loss. Depending on where you look for statistics, diet-only weight loss efforts have a 90%-97% long-term failure rate. Those are not good odds. (Granted the failure rate for diet+exercise programs is in excess of 60%--but that is still significantly better).
My bottom line is this: It is technically true that weight loss "only requires a calorie deficit", and it is important to emphasize that point to those who think exercise alone will be sufficient for weight loss. It is also important that there is no "best" exercise program for weight loss--with a calorie deficit, they can all be successful, without it none of them will be effective.
However, given the long-term success rates, in real-life terms, I think it is highly unlikely that one can achieve long-term weight loss success without an exercise program. So, IMO, to say "you don't need exercise to lose weight" is both true (academically) and untrue (practically) at the same time.12 -
The strong (and somewhat simplistic IMO) statements re the relationship between diet and exercise for weight loss are made--at least from my perspective--to make 2 points. 1) Weight (fat) loss is subject to one's ongoing energy balance (calories in vs calories). That is fundamental and cannot change. There are other important factors involved, but they are peripheral to this core principle. Without a deficit, you cannot see success. No matter how much exercise you do, if your calorie intake matches or exceeds your output, you will not lose weight. There are still a lot of people who think they can just start an exercise program and they will lose weight without having to pay attention to their diet. You can lose weight with a calorie deficit and no exercise, but you cannot lose weight with exercise and no calorie deficit.
2) The second point is a little more esoteric, but there have been a number of studies, articles, books, documentaries that have tried to use the "exercise only" approach as a means of trying to diminish, disparage, or dismiss any positive effects from exercise. For those of us who DO believe in exercise as an important part of both weight loss and health, we need to make sure that we do not "oversell" exercise as a magic bullet for weight loss, because it is not supported by research and it risks turning people off to exercise in general.
While it is important to separate energy balance from exercise benefits, I do think that, in practical terms, we sometimes go too far in the opposite direction and are too dismissive of the important role that exercise plays for short-term weight loss and even more so for long-term maintenance of weight loss.
Exercise plays several important roles for short-term weight loss: contributes to the establishment/maintenance of a calorie deficit, conserves lean mass (strength training), improves feelings of self-esteem, and enhances compliance to the program.
Long-term effects are even more important IMO. There is some indication that non-resting energy expenditure remains suppressed for a year or longer following a period of dynamic weight loss (Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88:906 –12.). The extra calorie expenditure realized from a vigorous exercise program (and the gain/conservation of lean mass) could be crucial to counteracting this tendency to regain weight. One of the characteristics of successful long-term maintenance of weight loss (per the National Weight Control Registry) is maintaining an exercise program of at least 5day/wk, 60 min/day.
Long-term statistics also point out the weakness in the "calorie deficit" only model of weight loss. Depending on where you look for statistics, diet-only weight loss efforts have a 90%-97% long-term failure rate. Those are not good odds. (Granted the failure rate for diet+exercise programs is in excess of 60%--but that is still significantly better).
My bottom line is this: It is technically true that weight loss "only requires a calorie deficit", and it is important to emphasize that point to those who think exercise alone will be sufficient for weight loss. It is also important that there is no "best" exercise program for weight loss--with a calorie deficit, they can all be successful, without it none of them will be effective.
However, given the long-term success rates, in real-life terms, I think it is highly unlikely that one can achieve long-term weight loss success without an exercise program. So, IMO, to say "you don't need exercise to lose weight" is both true (academically) and untrue (practically) at the same time.
Excellent post.
1 -
When i went to the gym my trainer drummed the 80/20 mantra into me. She would have made more money off me had she not said it lol0
-
You can lose weight with a calorie deficit and no exercise, but you cannot lose weight with exercise and no calorie deficit.
It is also important that there is no "best" exercise program for weight loss--with a calorie deficit, they can all be successful, without it none of them will be effective.
Exercise plays into a calorie deficit, does it not? If an overweight person is maintaining eating the same exact meals every day, he or she will lose weight if they begin an exercise program (provided they weren't exercising while they were previously maintaining).
In theory, the best exercise program for weight loss would be the one that burns the most calories. Sure ones that build muscle could gain some advantage in terms of increasing metabolism, but I'm not really trying to address that here, but I think it could be quantified.
I think the gist of the 80/20 statement is to say that it is much easier to create a deficit with diet than it is with exercise. One of my doctors once explained it to me this way, concerning my bad habit to have a chocolate milkshake almost daily:
"You can have a 600 calorie shake, but you will have to run for about an hour in order to burn it off. Now tell me, which is harder for you, not getting the shake or running for an hour?" Being obese at the time, I knew there was no way I would be running for an hour, so I chose not to drink the shakes.
3 -
Is this not basically the chicken or the egg debate only on weight loss terms? Lol1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions