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.
How do we judge a healthy weight range? BMI is no longer valid?
Replies
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Unless that person is unusually muscular a bodyfat% goal or BMI goal will result in a goal in pounds that is very similar
I am not unusually muscular, yet I have mathematically demonstrated more than once that a better-than-average BF goal of 15% still puts me well above the very lower limit of "overweight" for my height according to BMI.
I do have broad shoulders and a disproportionately long torso (that latter is a factor I had overlooked), but if that is enough in itself to qualify me as "unusually muscular" then there is a lot greater percentage of such folks in the general population than BMI defenders are admitting to.
Since it just popped up, your FFMI at your goal would also put you at "the upper edge of what is humanly possible".
Let me say that again.
Every. Single. Measurement. of muscular potential that is commonly used says "yeah no, you don't just get to that goal just like that no matter how much you say so unless you're a one in a million person who also trains like hell for years". While you keep saying "Oh, I'm not that muscular."
See the problem?9 -
stevencloser wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Unless that person is unusually muscular a bodyfat% goal or BMI goal will result in a goal in pounds that is very similar
I am not unusually muscular, yet I have mathematically demonstrated more than once that a better-than-average BF goal of 15% still puts me well above the very lower limit of "overweight" for my height according to BMI.
I do have broad shoulders and a disproportionately long torso (that latter is a factor I had overlooked), but if that is enough in itself to qualify me as "unusually muscular" then there is a lot greater percentage of such folks in the general population than BMI defenders are admitting to.
Since it just popped up, your FFMI at your goal would also put you at "the upper edge of what is humanly possible".
Let me say that again.
Every. Single. Measurement. of muscular potential that is commonly used says "yeah no, you don't just get to that goal just like that no matter how much you say so unless you're a one in a million person who also trains like hell for years". While you keep saying "Oh, I'm not that muscular."
See the problem?
Exactly. At 181cm I'm shooting for 175-180 with somewhere in the high teens BF%. Say 17 for round numbers.FFMI of 20.9. To me that is a pretty high goal to set at 44. To shoot for an FFMI at the very peak of elite natural bodybuilders and athletes at 46 is quite the goal. I hesitate to use "impossible" but when dudes in their 20 have to literally work for years to even come close to that well...lets say at 46 it is physiologically improbable to hit 6'1 220lbs at 15%BF without "enhancing" your training.
I don't say that to be mean, but to encourage you to be realistic with your goals. Getting down to 220 is a great goal, but man I hope you won't be bummed when you don't see the ripped physique you think you will see at that weight.
This has gotten kind of off track of BMI, but to swing it back round. 6'1 185lbs which is the top end of the BMI "healthy" range well, that looks like that dude from the link I gave at 7% bodyfat if you are "overly"muscled.
4 -
I have talked with the Fiance a lot about dysmorphia - he bulked and did gain a lot of muscle and too much fat, 200lb at 5'10" and he talked with me about feeling like he didn't want to lose mass, that it felt good in a way to be "big". He's still pretty darn muscled at 185 and has plenty to lose in the belly, but his mind is different now, he looks more toward health and less toward building mass.
As a woman who has had trouble in the other direction, this idea of wanting to be "big" had simply never occured to me. I'd always choose to be lean, and skinnier is better looking to me, and I feel too fat most of the time even when thin, my desire is always toward leaning out a little more, or getting just a little smaller around (I like being tall though). It was almost incomprehensible that someone would feel like it was bad to be whip lean and strong, to me it was just obvious that this was an attractive body type, it's healthy and looks good...Runners, athletes. I love the way regular active guys look too, padded is fine with me, but saying some guy is "too skinny" when he is in great shape just didn't compute in my mind at all.
MarkusDarwath, you are in zero danger of getting too thin without noticing it. You could just lose weight by dieting, work out normally, and your body composition will change for the better. Even if you are attached to being big, as a tall guy you will always be big whether skinny or fat, and you already said you have big frame, how in the world would that change if you got lean? Just lose weight and see how you like it, if you start to feel better and look better maybe it will change your outlook. Less weight on you joints, less weight on your feet, less stress on your heart. You don't know what is possible until you try it.
10 -
stevencloser wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Unless that person is unusually muscular a bodyfat% goal or BMI goal will result in a goal in pounds that is very similar
I am not unusually muscular, yet I have mathematically demonstrated more than once that a better-than-average BF goal of 15% still puts me well above the very lower limit of "overweight" for my height according to BMI.
I do have broad shoulders and a disproportionately long torso (that latter is a factor I had overlooked), but if that is enough in itself to qualify me as "unusually muscular" then there is a lot greater percentage of such folks in the general population than BMI defenders are admitting to.
Since it just popped up, your FFMI at your goal would also put you at "the upper edge of what is humanly possible".
Let me say that again.
Every. Single. Measurement. of muscular potential that is commonly used says "yeah no, you don't just get to that goal just like that no matter how much you say so unless you're a one in a million person who also trains like hell for years". While you keep saying "Oh, I'm not that muscular."
See the problem?
Yeah, with all his calculations, 6'1'. 220, 15% BF at 46 and not " unusually muscular" just does not pass the smell test.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Unless that person is unusually muscular a bodyfat% goal or BMI goal will result in a goal in pounds that is very similar
I am not unusually muscular, yet I have mathematically demonstrated more than once that a better-than-average BF goal of 15% still puts me well above the very lower limit of "overweight" for my height according to BMI.
I do have broad shoulders and a disproportionately long torso (that latter is a factor I had overlooked), but if that is enough in itself to qualify me as "unusually muscular" then there is a lot greater percentage of such folks in the general population than BMI defenders are admitting to.
Since it just popped up, your FFMI at your goal would also put you at "the upper edge of what is humanly possible".
Let me say that again.
Every. Single. Measurement. of muscular potential that is commonly used says "yeah no, you don't just get to that goal just like that no matter how much you say so unless you're a one in a million person who also trains like hell for years". While you keep saying "Oh, I'm not that muscular."
See the problem?
Yeah, with all his calculations, 6'1'. 220, 15% BF at 46 and not " unusually muscular" just does not pass the smell test.
To be fair, that is his goal, not his current.0 -
BillMcKay1 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Unless that person is unusually muscular a bodyfat% goal or BMI goal will result in a goal in pounds that is very similar
I am not unusually muscular, yet I have mathematically demonstrated more than once that a better-than-average BF goal of 15% still puts me well above the very lower limit of "overweight" for my height according to BMI.
I do have broad shoulders and a disproportionately long torso (that latter is a factor I had overlooked), but if that is enough in itself to qualify me as "unusually muscular" then there is a lot greater percentage of such folks in the general population than BMI defenders are admitting to.
Since it just popped up, your FFMI at your goal would also put you at "the upper edge of what is humanly possible".
Let me say that again.
Every. Single. Measurement. of muscular potential that is commonly used says "yeah no, you don't just get to that goal just like that no matter how much you say so unless you're a one in a million person who also trains like hell for years". While you keep saying "Oh, I'm not that muscular."
See the problem?
Yeah, with all his calculations, 6'1'. 220, 15% BF at 46 and not " unusually muscular" just does not pass the smell test.
To be fair, that is his goal, not his current.
Understand. With the information given, IMO, only way the goal possibly happens is if he is a long time lifter who let his weight get away from him.1 -
BillMcKay1 wrote: »If your waist at the navel is 47inches as you said you are pushing 40%+ in bodyfat currently. Not 34-35%. You have to be honest with yourself man. I spent a number of years telling myself I was an outlier too...
http://www.builtlean.com/2012/09/24/body-fat-percentage-men-women/
You can't *kitten* BF% using waist size without any reference to height (at a minimum), there's just nothing to base it on. Visually speaking, I look a lot more like the 35% pics in your link than the 40%. Actually, in the one group I look more like the 30% guy, as he visibly looks fatter than the one labeled 35%
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Since it just popped up, your FFMI at your goal would also put you at "the upper edge of what is humanly possible".
You keep saying that, yet the implication would be that I'm already very close to max FFM. I just don't buy that when my forearm measurement is only 13" (least fat part of my body aside from wrist and fingers) and I know for a fact I've got a lot of room to grow in strength.
15 pounds more muscle spread over my whole body just wouldn't be that much, especially in comparison with the extra 55 pounds of fat I'm carrying now. I would definitely look in good condition at my goals, but I wouldn't really even be bulky (compared to my basic size).
0 -
BillMcKay1 wrote: »[
I don't say that to be mean, but to encourage you to be realistic with your goals. Getting down to 220 is a great goal, but man I hope you won't be bummed when you don't see the ripped physique you think you will see at that weight.
I don't expect or want to look 'ripped'. I do plan to look 'solid'.
1 -
MarkusDarwath, you are in zero danger of getting too thin without noticing it. You could just lose weight by dieting, work out normally, and your body composition will change for the better. Even if you are attached to being big, as a tall guy you will always be big whether skinny or fat, and you already said you have big frame, how in the world would that change if you got lean?
15% body fat -is- lean, that's my goal. It's muscle mass that I don't intend to sacrifice.
"skinny" to me is low fat and low muscle, like distance runners. It's not a look I like.0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »If your waist at the navel is 47inches as you said you are pushing 40%+ in bodyfat currently. Not 34-35%. You have to be honest with yourself man. I spent a number of years telling myself I was an outlier too...
http://www.builtlean.com/2012/09/24/body-fat-percentage-men-women/
You can't *kitten* BF% using waist size without any reference to height (at a minimum), there's just nothing to base it on. Visually speaking, I look a lot more like the 35% pics in your link than the 40%. Actually, in the one group I look more like the 30% guy, as he visibly looks fatter than the one labeled 35%
Good luck man. I guess keep telling yourself what you need to...8 -
Penn of Penn and Teller said when he was over 300# he liked being a monolith.I have talked with the Fiance a lot about dysmorphia - he bulked and did gain a lot of muscle and too much fat, 200lb at 5'10" and he talked with me about feeling like he didn't want to lose mass, that it felt good in a way to be "big". He's still pretty darn muscled at 185 and has plenty to lose in the belly, but his mind is different now, he looks more toward health and less toward building mass.
As a woman who has had trouble in the other direction, this idea of wanting to be "big" had simply never occured to me.
0 -
I've never looked at this before, thanks. It does put me at extremely slim though whereas my bmi puts me at healthy, I guess there is a big range for both. Also I think it takes quite a big weight loss (or gain) for change in waist size, I would think it gets to a point where it's more about structure than fat..,Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'd also recommend waist to height measurement as a good indicator.
0 -
There's a massive gap between doing the math to calculate the goal and the incredible amount of effort it takes to hit that goal.
No one has ever lowered their BF% by simply punching numbers into a calculator. Good luck with hitting your target. Once you hit your goal post your results and demonstrate the faults.of the BMI metric. Actually changing your body will speak far louder than the math.7 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »You are basing your claim on measurements taken by a notoriously inaccurate device and assuming your muscle mass will be the same when you reach goal.
I'm not exactly convinced.
And BMI defenders base their claims on appeal to authority. That's not exactly convincing either.
There's an appeal to authority, which is actually proper. ie, When doing research in college for a paper, any claim you make must be cited by an authority until you are creating the research. If you are creating research, you cite your data.
Then, there's the false appeal to authority. ie, using a statement from a cardiologist to support a claim regarding physics.
The latter is an "appeal to false authority". There's nothing wrong with citing experts on the subject.12 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »You have plenty beside functional muscle to shed... You're sitting at about 35% BF currently (If your pics are current).
My pics are 21 pounds ago at 281, I'm at 260 now, but still around 34%. To get down to a 24.4 BMI I would have to get all the way down to 185. To reach that without losing lean mass I'd have to get all the way down to 7.5 percent body fat, which I have no desire to do. To hit 185 at my goal body fat of 15%, there is no way to do it without shedding lean mass to a point where I would (continue to) have a less than average percentage of muscle mass.
Based on my present lean mass excluding muscle, to be at 15% BF and average muscle percentage (between 40 and 45% of total body weight) I need to be between 209 and 235 pounds. I choose 220.
Even taking 21 pounds off of that pic, you are not 34% BF. Closer to 40.
I am 170 currently, and 5'10". My bf% is hovering around 17%. From the sounds of it, you've got 2" in height on me. Again, you have plenty of weight to shed, that is not lean muscle mass. And, nowhere near single digit bf%...7 -
coreyreichle wrote: »There's nothing wrong with citing experts on the subject.
There is if someone is presenting reasoning against the generally accepted postion, and the argument in favor amounts to frequently repeated platitudes attributed to the "experts" without presenting the reasoning and data in support.
The data in support of BMI shows it has a reasonably good correlation with overall health risks in large population samples (except that the category delineations are off and the "healthy" range should actually be 20 to 27). The idea that said relationship continues to hold on the individual level is basically an extrapolation that ignores some basic mathematical facts regarding large-sample averages. What is need are studies of the relationship between BMI and BF% on the individual level, if one is to validate or invalidate BMI as an estimate of personal fatness.0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »There's nothing wrong with citing experts on the subject.
There is if someone is presenting reasoning against the generally accepted postion, and the argument in favor amounts to frequently repeated platitudes attributed to the "experts" without presenting the reasoning and data in support.
The data in support of BMI shows it has a reasonably good correlation with overall health risks in large population samples (except that the category delineations are off and the "healthy" range should actually be 20 to 27). The idea that said relationship continues to hold on the individual level is basically an extrapolation that ignores some basic mathematical facts regarding large-sample averages. What is need are studies of the relationship between BMI and BF% on the individual level, if one is to validate or invalidate BMI as an estimate of personal fatness.
We get it. You are a genetic freak that blows BMI into invalidity....10 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »There's nothing wrong with citing experts on the subject.
There is if someone is presenting reasoning against the generally accepted postion, and the argument in favor amounts to frequently repeated platitudes attributed to the "experts" without presenting the reasoning and data in support.
The data in support of BMI shows it has a reasonably good correlation with overall health risks in large population samples (except that the category delineations are off and the "healthy" range should actually be 20 to 27). The idea that said relationship continues to hold on the individual level is basically an extrapolation that ignores some basic mathematical facts regarding large-sample averages. What is need are studies of the relationship between BMI and BF% on the individual level, if one is to validate or invalidate BMI as an estimate of personal fatness.
There was. It was even linked earlier.
It showed more people have too much fat while at a normal BMI than people with unproblematic amounts of bodyfat who are above normal BMI.
Any other arguments?5 -
coreyreichle wrote: »Even taking 21 pounds off of that pic, you are not 34% BF. Closer to 40. [/quote}
I disagree. If my scale is reading that far off, it is outside the standard margin of error generally attributed to BIA devices, and I chose the unit I did specifically because reviews have rated it at the top end for accuracy and consistency.
I'll be taking progress pics in a couple weeks when I hit my half-way point.I am 170 currently, and 5'10". My bf% is hovering around 17%. From the sounds of it, you've got 2" in height on me.
But do you know your current muscle percentage? It's hard to tell from your profile picture, but looking at your neck it appears you're carrying quite a bit less muscle than I would personally be comfortable with.Again, you have plenty of weight to shed, that is not lean muscle mass. And, nowhere near single digit bf%...
Pointing out the obvious about my present condition doesn't change the reality of how my composition would compare between 220 pounds and 185.0 -
BillMcKay1 wrote: »We get it. You are a genetic freak that blows BMI into invalidity....
You don't get it. I'm -not- a genetic freak. The invalidity of BMI as a personal indicator is because there is a large percentage of the population who are outside of BMI predicted norms, without being freaks.
0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »We get it. You are a genetic freak that blows BMI into invalidity....
You don't get it. I'm -not- a genetic freak. The invalidity of BMI as a personal indicator is because there is a large percentage of the population who are outside of BMI predicted norms, without being freaks.
Except there isn't a large percentage of people outside the BMI predicted norms when body fat % is taken into consideration. There is however lots of people outside the BMI predicted norms who overestimate their lean body mass then state there is as an excuse to tell themselves they aren't overweight, just super muscled or big boned or what have you.
Dude I'm 6' Currently 231 and have squatted 350, deadlifted 400 and benched 235. At 200lbs I still wore a 48 suit jacket to fit my shoulders. I carry more muscle than most dudes and yet I know to get a lean,strong look around 15-17%BF I need to be between 170-180 and that right now I am carrying around 155-160lbs of LBM.
At 44 I know better than to compare myself with 25 year old dudes who are elite athletes and natural bodybuilders. I also know that guys who train natural bodybuilders have an unique insight into what is actually physiologically possible given that they work day in and day out with actual genetic freaks who have worked their *kitten* off for years to reach the highest percentiles of muscle mass attainable without steroids. If these guys tell me that for 99% of the population, my maximum potential at my height is 180lbs at 5-6%BF which is 171lbs of muscle mass.Thats maximum potential I could have maybe obtained 20 years ago.
So therefore with my maximum muscle mass potential at 15%BF I would be around 185-190lbs. I'm realistic in the fact at 44 the chances of me hitting the muscle mass of a 25 year old elite competitor is pretty damn slim so the more logical goal for a lean strong look is 170-180lbs at 15-17%BF.
9 -
stevencloser wrote: »There was. It was even linked earlier.
It showed more people have too much fat while at a normal BMI than people with unproblematic amounts of bodyfat who are above normal BMI.
Any other arguments?
So the study showed BMI is a poor screening tool for individuals because it will miss a bunch of people who should be flagged, as well as flagging many who shouldn't be.
If anything, the higher numbers of over-fat people with "healthy" BMI supports my position that BMI charts promote low muscle mass, because if BMI says you're good, but in reality you are above safe fat percentages then you are deficient in muscle by default.
0 -
BillMcKay1 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »We get it. You are a genetic freak that blows BMI into invalidity....
You don't get it. I'm -not- a genetic freak. The invalidity of BMI as a personal indicator is because there is a large percentage of the population who are outside of BMI predicted norms, without being freaks.
Except there isn't a large percentage of people outside the BMI predicted norms when body fat % is taken into consideration. There is however lots of people outside the BMI predicted norms who overestimate their lean body mass then state there is as an excuse to tell themselves they aren't overweight, just super muscled and BMI is bunk.
It reminds me of the fat rednecks I work with, who are convinced that heavily muscled and lean individuals just have "show muscle", while Hoss, the 300 lbs. cornfed tractor rider has "real strength".5 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »We get it. You are a genetic freak that blows BMI into invalidity....
You don't get it. I'm -not- a genetic freak. The invalidity of BMI as a personal indicator is because there is a large percentage of the population who are outside of BMI predicted norms, without being freaks.
Except there isn't a large percentage of people outside the BMI predicted norms when body fat % is taken into consideration. There is however lots of people outside the BMI predicted norms who overestimate their lean body mass then state there is as an excuse to tell themselves they aren't overweight, just super muscled and BMI is bunk.
It reminds me of the fat rednecks I work with, who are convinced that heavily muscled and lean individuals just have "show muscle", while Hoss, the 300 lbs. cornfed tractor rider has "real strength".
I spent 6+ years after I quit lifting fooling myself and packing on weight.5 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »We get it. You are a genetic freak that blows BMI into invalidity....
You don't get it. I'm -not- a genetic freak. The invalidity of BMI as a personal indicator is because there is a large percentage of the population who are outside of BMI predicted norms, without being freaks.
You mentioned lifting weights in high school. Are you currently lifting on a regular basis? If not, I'm convinced your scale is off at 34% BF.
You mentioned wearing size 36 pants with a 47 inch waist measuremnt. This would indicate lack of muscle in the legs and hips which are the biggest muscles in the body. I think there would need to be much more muscle in these areas ton get to 34% given current height and weight.6 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »There's nothing wrong with citing experts on the subject.
There is if someone is presenting reasoning against the generally accepted postion, and the argument in favor amounts to frequently repeated platitudes attributed to the "experts" without presenting the reasoning and data in support.
The data in support of BMI shows it has a reasonably good correlation with overall health risks in large population samples (except that the category delineations are off and the "healthy" range should actually be 20 to 27). The idea that said relationship continues to hold on the individual level is basically an extrapolation that ignores some basic mathematical facts regarding large-sample averages. What is need are studies of the relationship between BMI and BF% on the individual level, if one is to validate or invalidate BMI as an estimate of personal fatness.
That data is available, and it has been done. In fact, BMI works for about 97% of the population as a measure of healthy weight ranges, and in fact, was adjusted a couple of years back to bring it more in line with that.0 -
At home bioempedance is only slightly better than a best guess.MarkusDarwath wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Even taking 21 pounds off of that pic, you are not 34% BF. Closer to 40. [/quote}
I disagree. If my scale is reading that far off, it is outside the standard margin of error generally attributed to BIA devices, and I chose the unit I did specifically because reviews have rated it at the top end for accuracy and consistency.
I'll be taking progress pics in a couple weeks when I hit my half-way point.I am 170 currently, and 5'10". My bf% is hovering around 17%. From the sounds of it, you've got 2" in height on me.
But do you know your current muscle percentage? It's hard to tell from your profile picture, but looking at your neck it appears you're carrying quite a bit less muscle than I would personally be comfortable with.
How do you know what you're comfortable with? Do you prefer an immobile neck? No, I don't know my current lean mass, haven't had a DXA scan. Muscle hypertrophy isn't something in my current goals.
Shocker: The picture in my profile was me +10 lbs. My neck has actually remained constant, regardless of my weight. In fact, your neck typically does, until you start getting to the top end of obesity, and the only way to get a "large neck" while being a healthy weight is specifically working for muscle hypertrophy in those regions.
Now, if you have a pic of my quads and calves, you'd likely see a different story. Those muscle groups are very well developed these days, due to the 30+ miles I run each week.Again, you have plenty of weight to shed, that is not lean muscle mass. And, nowhere near single digit bf%...
Pointing out the obvious about my present condition doesn't change the reality of how my composition would compare between 220 pounds and 185.
Actually, it does, because you keep claiming you don't have much lean mass to lose. Bottom line: You are not a special snowflake. Unless you are purposefully working on muscle hypertrophy, for years, you don't need to worry about being a BMI outlier. If you're worried about muscle mass right now, perhaps you should consider a 30-40 lbs cut cycle.9 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »We get it. You are a genetic freak that blows BMI into invalidity....
You don't get it. I'm -not- a genetic freak. The invalidity of BMI as a personal indicator is because there is a large percentage of the population who are outside of BMI predicted norms, without being freaks.
No, there's really not. However, if you have data that supports that supposition, I'm open to correction.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »You mentioned lifting weights in high school. Are you currently lifting on a regular basis?
No. At the moment, doing physical work is my only regular exercise.You mentioned wearing size 36 pants with a 47 inch waist measuremnt. This would indicate lack of muscle in the legs and hips which are the biggest muscles in the body. I think there would need to be much more muscle in these areas ton get to 34% given current height and weight.
The manufacturer's waist size is not a fair estimation. They are "relaxed fit" and I'm pretty sure I've stretched them out quite a bit. My actual measurement at the waist band (taken just now in just underwear) is 43" and my widest point hip measurement is 44.5"
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions