Obesity Journal study: It's not just CICO
Options
Replies
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »if you don't lift weights while losing fat your BMR will go down more than you want. This is just 101 stuff.
I think you're overstating it a bit there. There are plenty of exercises that can help that don't involve lifting weights. Body weight training, swimming, biking, etc. can all help maintain and build muscle mass to help with BMR. Weight training has the advantage of allowing one to change weight and rep schemes down to a rather fine degree.
none come close to strength training.
Weights are not the only way to strength train.
no, but they are the only worthwhile way for the majority of people. What are you arguing exactly? Not to strength train while cutting? I mean, go for it if you want. It is very obvious this is important to most people.
Read my initial response. It was a clarification not an argument. You're confusing strength training and weight lifting even in your last post. And, as for "most people" it still depends on their goals.
I lift, my wife lifts, I love lifting, but it's not the only or even best way for all people.
Well, I would argue that it is. Strength training involves weights. It involves progressive loading. It is the best way for the majority of people, even if they do other activities. Strength is applicable in all sports.
Keep in mind there are a number of people who won't or can't lift for various reasons. The percentage of those people increases with age. It's not helpful for them to think there is no other way to strength train.
Agreed. I've seen plenty of injured vets successfully using TRX straps for example. My wife's PT after cancer treatment specialized in working around the limitations of injured vets, cancer patients, and others with serious limitations. One can strength train even if weights are off limits.
My n = 1: As an ignorant middle-aged woman, it was a good thing I didn't know that weight lifting is the only way to add muscle or get stronger. Somehow, I managed to add enough muscle by taking up rowing (boats and machines) that I lost at least 2 sizes (at constant bodyweight) and got dramatically stronger.
I freely admit that weight lifting would've done this faster, and I'm working to do more weight training now. But rowing is strength training, and it isn't weight lifting . . . unless you now want to start jacking with the definition of the latter.
I don't look like a serious weight-lifter, but those are decent muscles, for a 60 y/o woman, in my profile pic. They're from rowing.
Anything that makes people stronger is strength training. Even physical jobs, for heaven's sake. And stronger, any way you go about it, is a fine and helpful thing.
(Sorry; this was a digression in this thread, and I added to it. But the "weight training is the only way" argument kinda makes me eye-roll.)
Decent muscles indeed
How did your progression go on the rowing machine specifically, because I enjoy that and it's easy for me to relate to? Did you start with...5 minutes (?) ...and work up to ? Over what period of time?1 -
I thought this article in NYT by Gina Kolata (who I have always found lite on nutrition/exercise science) was really lacking/stupid. There was nothing about muscle mass and weight loss, lifting weights vs. aerobic exercise, type of diets (carb heavy vs. carb lite), insulin resistence, etc. My experience with maintenance (sample size of 1) is that if I don't lift weights and exercise most days, and if I go back to eating my binge foods (sugary carby things) I will always gain the weight back. Also sugary carby things triggers my hunger.
Also fast weight loss has never worked for me and seems to be the case for a lot of people (always slow is better for tons of reasons. ). I think nutrition/weight loss research is very sucky. I have studied epidemiology/research design in grad school, and most "research" is pretty pathetic when it comes to weight loss. so is studying a few "biggest loser" failures and then implying they are all born with screwed up metabolisms.
In her book on Diet & Exercise, Gina Kolata had the same message: might as well give up because you were born to be fat. I just don't buy it. I think we may need to really work hard to find what works for us, and may need a lot of support, but it is doable for most. Would these people profiled have "slower" metabolism if they lifted weights? Had more muscle mass? So many questions so few answers.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »if you don't lift weights while losing fat your BMR will go down more than you want. This is just 101 stuff.
I think you're overstating it a bit there. There are plenty of exercises that can help that don't involve lifting weights. Body weight training, swimming, biking, etc. can all help maintain and build muscle mass to help with BMR. Weight training has the advantage of allowing one to change weight and rep schemes down to a rather fine degree.
none come close to strength training.
Weights are not the only way to strength train.
no, but they are the only worthwhile way for the majority of people. What are you arguing exactly? Not to strength train while cutting? I mean, go for it if you want. It is very obvious this is important to most people.
Read my initial response. It was a clarification not an argument. You're confusing strength training and weight lifting even in your last post. And, as for "most people" it still depends on their goals.
I lift, my wife lifts, I love lifting, but it's not the only or even best way for all people.
Well, I would argue that it is. Strength training involves weights. It involves progressive loading. It is the best way for the majority of people, even if they do other activities. Strength is applicable in all sports.
Keep in mind there are a number of people who won't or can't lift for various reasons. The percentage of those people increases with age. It's not helpful for them to think there is no other way to strength train.
Agreed. I've seen plenty of injured vets successfully using TRX straps for example. My wife's PT after cancer treatment specialized in working around the limitations of injured vets, cancer patients, and others with serious limitations. One can strength train even if weights are off limits.
My n = 1: As an ignorant middle-aged woman, it was a good thing I didn't know that weight lifting is the only way to add muscle or get stronger. Somehow, I managed to add enough muscle by taking up rowing (boats and machines) that I lost at least 2 sizes (at constant bodyweight) and got dramatically stronger.
I freely admit that weight lifting would've done this faster, and I'm working to do more weight training now. But rowing is strength training, and it isn't weight lifting . . . unless you now want to start jacking with the definition of the latter.
I don't look like a serious weight-lifter, but those are decent muscles, for a 60 y/o woman, in my profile pic. They're from rowing.
Anything that makes people stronger is strength training. Even physical jobs, for heaven's sake. And stronger, any way you go about it, is a fine and helpful thing.
(Sorry; this was a digression in this thread, and I added to it. But the "weight training is the only way" argument kinda makes me eye-roll.)
Decent muscles indeed
How did your progression go on the rowing machine specifically, because I enjoy that and it's easy for me to relate to? Did you start with...5 minutes (?) ...and work up to ? Over what period of time?
I'm going to PM you - I hope that's OK. The weight training point was a thread derail, and rowing chit-chat (something I'm always up for!
) would be a derailment of a derailment. Short answer: It's been a lot of rowing, cumulatively speaking. 2 -
[No, we're actually only talking about the New York Time's interpretation of a study that may or may not have made those claims because journalists are notoriously guilty of misrepresenting research data. So in reality it's even less applicable to the general population.
Gina Kolata is a pretty good health and fitness journalist. But you can look at the actual study yourself; it was published online today, and it's open access. Abstract of results:Of the 16 “Biggest Loser” competitors originally investigated, 14 participated in this follow-up study. Weight loss at the end of the competition was (mean ± SD) 58.3 ± 24.9 kg (P < 0.0001), and RMR decreased by 610 ± 483 kcal/day (P = 0.0004). After 6 years, 41.0 ± 31.3 kg of the lost weight was regained (P = 0.0002), while RMR was 704 ± 427 kcal/day below baseline (P < 0.0001) and metabolic adaptation was −499 ± 207 kcal/day (P < 0.0001). Weight regain was not significantly correlated with metabolic adaptation at the competition's end (r = −0.1, P = 0.75), but those subjects maintaining greater weight loss at 6 years also experienced greater concurrent metabolic slowing (r = 0.59, P = 0.025).
Thanks for posting the link! So from skimming the abstract, two things jump out at me...
"RMR was determined... at the end of the 30 week competition and 6 years later." So no, they did not have their BMR from when they first signed up for the show to compare to. So theoretically, their RMR could have been naturally lower, perhaps contributing to them getting so overweight in the first place.
And the conclusion, "Metabolic adaptation persists over time and is likely a proportional, but incomplete, response to contemporaneous efforts to reduce body weight". There are lots of fancy words in there, but it doesn't say everyone who loses weight experiences metabolic adaptation. It says IF you experience metabolic adaptation, it doesn't go away as quickly as one might think. And it says metabolic adaptation is proportional to your efforts. To me that says the faster and more extreme your weight loss, the more extreme the effect on your metabolism, right?
In a previous study they did check the people in question before the competition. It's Reference 3 in the study. They used the same people.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »if you don't lift weights while losing fat your BMR will go down more than you want. This is just 101 stuff.
I think you're overstating it a bit there. There are plenty of exercises that can help that don't involve lifting weights. Body weight training, swimming, biking, etc. can all help maintain and build muscle mass to help with BMR. Weight training has the advantage of allowing one to change weight and rep schemes down to a rather fine degree.
none come close to strength training.
Weights are not the only way to strength train.
no, but they are the only worthwhile way for the majority of people. What are you arguing exactly? Not to strength train while cutting? I mean, go for it if you want. It is very obvious this is important to most people.
Read my initial response. It was a clarification not an argument. You're confusing strength training and weight lifting even in your last post. And, as for "most people" it still depends on their goals.
I lift, my wife lifts, I love lifting, but it's not the only or even best way for all people.
Well, I would argue that it is. Strength training involves weights. It involves progressive loading. It is the best way for the majority of people, even if they do other activities. Strength is applicable in all sports.
Keep in mind there are a number of people who won't or can't lift for various reasons. The percentage of those people increases with age. It's not helpful for them to think there is no other way to strength train.
Agreed. I've seen plenty of injured vets successfully using TRX straps for example. My wife's PT after cancer treatment specialized in working around the limitations of injured vets, cancer patients, and others with serious limitations. One can strength train even if weights are off limits.
My n = 1: As an ignorant middle-aged woman, it was a good thing I didn't know that weight lifting is the only way to add muscle or get stronger. Somehow, I managed to add enough muscle by taking up rowing (boats and machines) that I lost at least 2 sizes (at constant bodyweight) and got dramatically stronger.
I freely admit that weight lifting would've done this faster, and I'm working to do more weight training now. But rowing is strength training, and it isn't weight lifting . . . unless you now want to start jacking with the definition of the latter.
I don't look like a serious weight-lifter, but those are decent muscles, for a 60 y/o woman, in my profile pic. They're from rowing.
Anything that makes people stronger is strength training. Even physical jobs, for heaven's sake. And stronger, any way you go about it, is a fine and helpful thing.
(Sorry; this was a digression in this thread, and I added to it. But the "weight training is the only way" argument kinda makes me eye-roll.)
Nice work!
2 -
I would take any study based off "The Biggest Loser" with a grain of salt. That show uses constant monitoring and supervision, very low calorie diets and high levels of exercise to force massive weight drops. I certainly believe having someone lose 7-9kgs a week for 10 weeks will ruin their metabolism, which pushes the point for "slow & steady!".2
-
They had an obesity expert on NPR addressing this study today.
Her conclusion: Most of the contestants kept off at least 10% of their body weight. Losing 10% of your body weight results in major health gains, therefore the contestants who managed to do this were successful. The fact that many regained some weight is disappointing for them, but they should focus on the health gains they received instead....1 -
CICO based on internet calculators of TDEE is not accurate for everyone, and can be significantly off for some people. Period. Of course they work for MOST people. They're averages, and those averages have to be based on something. But there are going to be outliers.
I don't think it's unreasonable to, after an individual has (1) given a reduced calorie intake enough time to have good data and actually see results, (2) ensured that logging is happening accurately - food is weighed, liquids are measured, etc., and (3) received a full medical workup, to suggest that they have their RMR tested.
Everyone here on MFP is so quick to INSIST that CICO is the answer, is science, and cannot be violated or cheated. And they're 100% right. But what people fail to do is acknowledge that the "CO" side can be the wild card, rather than assuming that the only answer is that they're doing something wrong on the CI side. Some people really might be eating 1300 calories most days and not losing. It's possible.
I'm a prime example. I successfully lost about 90lbs in college (sensibly, and relatively easily - used Weight Watchers and lost that weight over a little more than full year, about 1.5lbs/week), and then gained it all back while I was pregnant and my kids were babies. I started trying to lose again by joining MFP just shy of 4 years ago, when my second and last child was about 9 months old. I've lost about 25lbs in that entire 4 years. All the info out there - Fitbits, online calculators, HRMs, EVERYTHING - was telling me that based on my stats and activity I should be easily losing 1-2 lbs per week eating about 1,500-1,700 calories per day even before exercise calories (which I did eat some of), but the scale barely budged. Every morsel I consumed was put on a scale first. Doctor's appointments confirmed that I was in near perfect health except for my weight. Finally, last November my doctor got my RMR tested. The result was that my RMR was 25-30% lower than any calculation that existed for my statistics (depending on what it was), which makes a lot more sense when compared to my actual change in weight over time. I even have decent muscle mass for my size, and I do and have always lifted weights, but that hasn't helped. It just turns out that, for whatever unknown reason, instead of burning 2,200 calories on a super sedentary day and 3,000+ on a very good day, my range is more like 1,500-2,000. You can see why I wasn't losing, I'm sure.
Since then, I've adjusted my intake, since it's clear that I need to stay under 1,300/day to lose even 0.75-1lbs per week, and that one bad day on a weekend could wipe out an entire week's worth of work. I've lost about 4 more lbs. However, if I ever do lose the weight (I'm still 60lbs over my goal weight) it's just going to get worse and worse - I may end up in a situation where 1,300 or less is my maintenance, even at 160lbs and with a moderately active lifestyle.
I'm not arguing that CICO isn't solid science, or that assuming that you have a crap metabolism should be something that people jump to when things aren't working for them - there are a LOT of steps to take first. But it needs to be recognized that some people really honestly DO burn significantly less than expected.
This is important for us to be aware of. For some people it is not really difficult. For others it is extremely difficult. While I'm all for people taking responsibility for themselves, some people have a harder road than others. Knowing this can help us have more compassion for ourselves and others.4 -
Thank you BarbieAS, my point exactly!CICO based on internet calculators of TDEE is not accurate for everyone, and can be significantly off for some people. Period. Of course they work for MOST people. They're averages, and those averages have to be based on something. But there are going to be outliers.
I don't think it's unreasonable to, after an individual has (1) given a reduced calorie intake enough time to have good data and actually see results, (2) ensured that logging is happening accurately - food is weighed, liquids are measured, etc., and (3) received a full medical workup, to suggest that they have their RMR tested.
Everyone here on MFP is so quick to INSIST that CICO is the answer, is science, and cannot be violated or cheated. And they're 100% right. But what people fail to do is acknowledge that the "CO" side can be the wild card, rather than assuming that the only answer is that they're doing something wrong on the CI side. Some people really might be eating 1300 calories most days and not losing. It's possible.
I'm a prime example. I successfully lost about 90lbs in college (sensibly, and relatively easily - used Weight Watchers and lost that weight over a little more than full year, about 1.5lbs/week), and then gained it all back while I was pregnant and my kids were babies. I started trying to lose again by joining MFP just shy of 4 years ago, when my second and last child was about 9 months old. I've lost about 25lbs in that entire 4 years. All the info out there - Fitbits, online calculators, HRMs, EVERYTHING - was telling me that based on my stats and activity I should be easily losing 1-2 lbs per week eating about 1,500-1,700 calories per day even before exercise calories (which I did eat some of), but the scale barely budged. Every morsel I consumed was put on a scale first. Doctor's appointments confirmed that I was in near perfect health except for my weight. Finally, last November my doctor got my RMR tested. The result was that my RMR was 25-30% lower than any calculation that existed for my statistics (depending on what it was), which makes a lot more sense when compared to my actual change in weight over time. I even have decent muscle mass for my size, and I do and have always lifted weights, but that hasn't helped. It just turns out that, for whatever unknown reason, instead of burning 2,200 calories on a super sedentary day and 3,000+ on a very good day, my range is more like 1,500-2,000. You can see why I wasn't losing, I'm sure.
Since then, I've adjusted my intake, since it's clear that I need to stay under 1,300/day to lose even 0.75-1lbs per week, and that one bad day on a weekend could wipe out an entire week's worth of work. I've lost about 4 more lbs. However, if I ever do lose the weight (I'm still 60lbs over my goal weight) it's just going to get worse and worse - I may end up in a situation where 1,300 or less is my maintenance, even at 160lbs and with a moderately active lifestyle.
I'm not arguing that CICO isn't solid science, or that assuming that you have a crap metabolism should be something that people jump to when things aren't working for them - there are a LOT of steps to take first. But it needs to be recognized that some people really honestly DO burn significantly less than expected.
0 -
I have not read all the responses, I did read the article. My one comment is all the studies, both the one on the Biggest Losers and the other one mentioned from Australia (IIRC) were extreme deficits. I mean the winner of that year was looking to lost one pound a day, yes a day, during the at home segment. That is a 3500 calorie deficit a day which not simply going a little below ones TDEE, it is going negative net calories by a huge amount. I read what he was eating, and thought to myself, no wonder permanent damage is done. The other diet was 550 calories eaten a day, again likely negative net calories for all the participants. I would really like studies of a far more moderate deficit that included long term follow up to see how the numbers compare. As it is, this seems more like a huge warning against such extreme approaches to losing weight.3
-
I'm new here, just joined today. I read the article and got really depressed. But then I found this article....not sure which one to believe. I hope the 2nd one. http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/04/14/Study-suggests-method-to-maintain-stable-weight-loss/3191460643328/
It's weird that both articles say different things (I'm no scientist). Welcome any thoughts and any success stories from maintainers that aren't miserable!2 -
I'm new here, just joined today. I read the article and got really depressed. But then I found this article....not sure which one to believe. I hope the 2nd one. http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/04/14/Study-suggests-method-to-maintain-stable-weight-loss/3191460643328/
It's weird that both articles say different things (I'm no scientist). Welcome any thoughts and any success stories from maintainers that aren't miserable!
With most studies, there are design decisions that are made through the process which will limit their generalizability to the general population. When possible, read the original research with a questioning eye to the methodology and the outcomes, along with if the conclusions are actually supported by the data, and whether or not the sample under study represent the general population enough to be worth worrying about. I was doing a paper on the state of health, nutrition, and obesity as it is currently portrayed in the media (January and February at the time). Of the articles I reviewed, the media translation of the studies themselves were, at times, laughable. There is a tendency toward sensationalism and fear mongering in reporting, because a simple "if you take high risks, the outcome has a greater chance of not being what you would like are significantly increased" doesn't sell a lot of papers. Read things with a big grain of salt. And welcome!5 -
stevencloser wrote: »[No, we're actually only talking about the New York Time's interpretation of a study that may or may not have made those claims because journalists are notoriously guilty of misrepresenting research data. So in reality it's even less applicable to the general population.
Gina Kolata is a pretty good health and fitness journalist. But you can look at the actual study yourself; it was published online today, and it's open access. Abstract of results:Of the 16 “Biggest Loser” competitors originally investigated, 14 participated in this follow-up study. Weight loss at the end of the competition was (mean ± SD) 58.3 ± 24.9 kg (P < 0.0001), and RMR decreased by 610 ± 483 kcal/day (P = 0.0004). After 6 years, 41.0 ± 31.3 kg of the lost weight was regained (P = 0.0002), while RMR was 704 ± 427 kcal/day below baseline (P < 0.0001) and metabolic adaptation was −499 ± 207 kcal/day (P < 0.0001). Weight regain was not significantly correlated with metabolic adaptation at the competition's end (r = −0.1, P = 0.75), but those subjects maintaining greater weight loss at 6 years also experienced greater concurrent metabolic slowing (r = 0.59, P = 0.025).
Thanks for posting the link! So from skimming the abstract, two things jump out at me...
"RMR was determined... at the end of the 30 week competition and 6 years later." So no, they did not have their BMR from when they first signed up for the show to compare to. So theoretically, their RMR could have been naturally lower, perhaps contributing to them getting so overweight in the first place.
And the conclusion, "Metabolic adaptation persists over time and is likely a proportional, but incomplete, response to contemporaneous efforts to reduce body weight". There are lots of fancy words in there, but it doesn't say everyone who loses weight experiences metabolic adaptation. It says IF you experience metabolic adaptation, it doesn't go away as quickly as one might think. And it says metabolic adaptation is proportional to your efforts. To me that says the faster and more extreme your weight loss, the more extreme the effect on your metabolism, right?
In a previous study they did check the people in question before the competition. It's Reference 3 in the study. They used the same people.
Thanks, that's what happens when I skim...1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »I'm new here, just joined today. I read the article and got really depressed. But then I found this article....not sure which one to believe. I hope the 2nd one. http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/04/14/Study-suggests-method-to-maintain-stable-weight-loss/3191460643328/
It's weird that both articles say different things (I'm no scientist). Welcome any thoughts and any success stories from maintainers that aren't miserable!
With most studies, there are design decisions that are made through the process which will limit their generalizability to the general population. When possible, read the original research with a questioning eye to the methodology and the outcomes, along with if the conclusions are actually supported by the data, and whether or not the sample under study represent the general population enough to be worth worrying about. I was doing a paper on the state of health, nutrition, and obesity as it is currently portrayed in the media (January and February at the time). Of the articles I reviewed, the media translation of the studies themselves were, at times, laughable. There is a tendency toward sensationalism and fear mongering in reporting, because a simple "if you take high risks, the outcome has a greater chance of not being what you would like are significantly increased" doesn't sell a lot of papers. Read things with a big grain of salt. And welcome!
Thank you so much
0 -
Dr. Fung's explanation of the 2 compartment model is still basic, but far more realistic than the CICO model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk&feature=youtu.be
1 -
Dr. Fung's explanation of the 2 compartment model is still basic, but far more realistic than the CICO model.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk&feature=youtu.be
What a silly video. That's not how any of this works. If you want to get technical the body is a multi compartment storage not only liver and subcutaneous fat. CICO does not claim a single compartment storage. Adaptation has nothing to do with insulin or the type of diet you are on. It's brought about strictly by certain biological and behavioral responses to caloric restriction (like decreased spontaneous non-exercise activity without being aware of it) .
The biggest loser contestants were not eating nearly enough to have a high insulin response and the grueling exercise routine likely burned through any liver glycogen. They were essentially fasting, exactly what this video is advocating. They also utilized dehydration and dropping water weight, so it's likely their diet was actually low carb since carbs tend to be stored along with water.
10 -
I guess I must be the special snowflake here as my TDEE did not change with weight loss. Yes, it of course it did go down with losing weight, but all reduction in TDEE seems to be purely due to having a smaller body and none due to dieting. Granted, I only lost 40lbs, and lost them slowly. I should have expected a 200kcal reduction in daily calorie need according to calculators, and that is exactly what I got. Only difference: calculators currently put me on 1540 and originally on 1750, while it's more like 1750 and 1950 without any sports.1
-
Everyone talks about metabolism as if it was this magical mystery thing that we have no control over. It's just fuel consumption.
Your body normally operates with a fuel consumption which is a little higher than the minimum. This is because, if there's energy to spare, there are plenty of functions that are worth spending it on - generating enough heat to wear lighter clothing, running your brain at top capacity, moving about when not strictly necessary (psychologically good as well as good for muscle tone).
It's like driving the car with the AC on, radio turned up, picnic fridge in the back and LED Christmas tree on the dashboard. All those things increase your fuel consumption, but if you've got plenty of fuel, they seem worth it to you.
On the other hand, if you're running on empty, you switch that stuff off to get the car down to its minimum fuel consumption. That's what your body is doing when it slows down metabolism - it's economising. So you'll get cold, you'll feel lazy, your brain will get foggy.
My point is, first of all, that metabolism isn't some magic breach of CICO, it's just cutting the CO a bit - and that's my main point - a BIT. If you own a car, you know there's only so low the fuel consumption can go, and the same is true of your body. I highly doubt it can economise more than a few hundred calories.
My second point is that most of these economy measures can be vetoed by you. They're not out of your control. You can choose to move more. You can choose to wear lighter clothing. If you do that, the body can't economise - those things cost energy and it has to find it from somewhere.
And my third point is that, unless you have a thyroid problem, your body will only economise if it has reason to think there's a shortage. That's where the slow loss comes in. Lose slowly and sustainably. Don't give your body a reason to fight you. It doesn't surprise me to know that a body that was basically starved for a significant period of time is going to be reluctant to give up its stern economies. So don't starve.
And the study? It's a pretty small sample of people who lost weight in an extreme, unhealthy way, and didn't have experience of sustainable loss or (more crucially) of maintenance, which everyone here knows is the hardest part. I'm not losing sleep over it.7 -
No one addresses the issue that these people were severely obese at the start of the show.
They ARE special snowflakes. They already had either metabolism/emotional/other issues.
They are not really representatives of the average population...12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions