Short, old(ish), sedentary, 1200kcals and 15-20,000 steps a day
Replies
-
0.07℅ of bodyweight per week is more lean mass preserving than 1%.
2x RDA of protein the same. A compromise would be about 0.8g to 1g per lb of bodyweight at the top end of your normal weight range.
0.35 to 0.45g of fat as minimum for women. With reduced estrogen I would consider aiming for the higher end of that I.e. 0.45g of fat per lb of bodyweight at top end of normal weight range. This is again a minimum. 28g of fiber or more for comfort.
The remainder carbs or mixture that keeps you satisfied and satiated.
WHO health recommendations include two strength training sessions a week in addition to the moderate cardio you plan to engage in.
Thank you. I've been reading a lot this morning, after reading these posts and see that some form of resistance training is pretty much necessary, despite not being keen.
Do you know of anything that's relatively easy to do at home (resistance bands?) that might make a difference. I don't want to join a gym. I know myself well enough to know I'll do it at home, but won't keep up a gym membership.
Hopefully, this, added to increased protein and calories on the days I walk lots will make a difference.
you can buy a set of light weights from target (or similar) and use at home - lots of free videos on youtube (I use fitnessblender a lot); ditto with resistance bands - google online workouts1 -
If this is working for you and you are not getting sick or anything like that, I say continue doing what works for you. One thing I have learned is what works for one may not be the case for someone else. So, it seems that you found what works best for you. Best of luck!0
-
1200 calories is very very low... you're probably burning more than that just with the exercise alone. You have to be very careful you're getting enough micronutrients and protein otherwise you're going to start suffering the effects of anorexia. Hairloss, brittle nails, weakening teeth, all kinds of terrifying things. And these effects aren't just a quick "uh oh I better turn it around" type thing... they take about 2 months after the fact to start showing up, and take another couple of months to correct, if not even longer. I'd try to eat at least 1500 and make sure you're getting enough protein and vital nutrients. I strongly suggest working with a doctor and monitoring your blood and make sure your liver and kidneys aren't getting stressed as well.1
-
Yoga!2
-
Check out body weight exercises. There are several on line but I like Darebee. Also plenty of free on line yoga too.1
-
I've doubled my daily protein goals (120g), upped fat goals and will increase my calories. I'll also purchase some resistance bands (if you think that's a good way to go). I think I'd prefer these over dumbbells but would rather do whichever yields the best results.
I need to have a strong word with myself about increasing calories. My head wants to plow on and lose weight as quickly as I can, although I now know that at my age, that is a dangerous route to take. I think I'll increase cals by 100 to start with, with the intention of increasing further if I'm losing more than 1lb a week. Does that sound like a reasonable plan?3 -
Sounds good to me. Resistance bands can certainly be a good place to start and/or bodyweight (just search either on Youtube and off you go, you'll find someone that suits your preferences with a bit of digging and trying). Really the heavier the better, so you may feel you'll want to progress to dumbbells at some stage. Lots of people start strength training thinking they'll absolutely hate it and find out they actually love it (this is sort of what happened with me).
Your protein probably doesn't need to be quite as high as that so don't stress too much if you can't hit it every day.
The more muscle you preserve and the more active you keep the less you'll feel the effects of ageing in 10, 15, 20 years. It also has the added bonus of keeping your calorie needs a little higher than average and who doesn't like to be able to eat more!
As to losing faster, i get it, we all get it but the view to take is you'll have the rest of your life to maintain it so taking a little time to get there is no bad thing.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Sounds good to me. Resistance bands can certainly be a good place to start and/or bodyweight (just search either on Youtube and off you go, you'll find someone that suits your preferences with a bit of digging and trying). Really the heavier the better, so you may feel you'll want to progress to dumbbells at some stage. Lots of people start strength training thinking they'll absolutely hate it and find out they actually love it (this is sort of what happened with me).
Your protein probably doesn't need to be quite as high as that so don't stress too much if you can't hit it every day.
The more muscle you preserve and the more active you keep the less you'll feel the effects of ageing in 10, 15, 20 years. It also has the added bonus of keeping your calorie needs a little higher than average and who doesn't like to be able to eat more!
As to losing faster, i get it, we all get it but the view to take is you'll have the rest of your life to maintain it so taking a little time to get there is no bad thing.
Thank you! Glad to have an endorsement of my plan. Re the protein, the things I particularly like happen to be high in protein anyway (quark, chicken, turkey, pork etc), so it won't be hard to increase these. I won't stress it though, as you suggest. Heading to Amazon for some fitness bands now
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »At 5'1" and almost 170, I personally see nothing wrong with losing 2 lbs per week. But if you just added all this walking, I'd monitor and up calories. I like considering walking/step count as part of my NEAT and including it in activity level. I know some posters have luck logging it as exercise and eating back the calories as well.
I couldn't disagree with you more Steph. Especially at her age and activity level. It's too aggressive a deficit. I know the math because her stats are similar to mine and I've been there. It's not sustainable.
OP, take my word for it, it's not good to try to sustain your rate of activity with that rate of loss. BTDT.
I do take your word for it, I take it very seriously.
As I've written above, I'm going to start looking at some sort of strength/resistance exercise (I'm inherently lazy and prefer to do this at home, so not sure what would be best), I'm going to increase my calories/monitor the scale and also going to up my protein intake with those extra calories.
If you or someone could recommend what would be the best resistance training to get into at home without having to buy expensive equipment, I'd be most grateful.
2 lbs/week at 5'1", 170 lb is too aggressive.. MFP would have given you the minimum 1200 cal since 2 lb/wk for a 170 lb female set at sedentary would have put you below the safe minimum. @ that number of calories, make sure you have either upped your activity level from sedentary and re-calculated calories or are logging at least the treadmill, walks to the stores as exercise (and eat them back) - walking/running are pretty well-characterized activities (by mile) so I would trust the burn estimates to be fairly accurate and eat them all back.
Starting out, I would buy a few dumbells (not too expensive) and youtube/check exercise apps for some exercises.1 -
I don't have a problem not eating them back - I don't feel the need. I log every mouthful, and am successfully losing weight at a rate I'm happy with. I just need to know if because of the kcals I must be burning through walking whilst sticking to my 1200kcals, if I'm endangering myself in any way.
Nope - you are doing great. Just keep doing what you're doing if its working well. At that calorie rate you should be getting plenty of the nutrients you need
I disagree wholeheartedly. If she's logging that kind of step count consistently, then she's likely netting well under 1200 cals. That is NOT good for her body over the long term. She should be netting 1200 at a minimum - which means eating back some of those exercise cals.
OP, I know at a shorter height, your total cals are reduced, but I do not think you should allow yourself to dip below 1200 NET.3 -
I've doubled my daily protein goals (120g), upped fat goals and will increase my calories. I'll also purchase some resistance bands (if you think that's a good way to go). I think I'd prefer these over dumbbells but would rather do whichever yields the best results.
I need to have a strong word with myself about increasing calories. My head wants to plow on and lose weight as quickly as I can, although I now know that at my age, that is a dangerous route to take. I think I'll increase cals by 100 to start with, with the intention of increasing further if I'm losing more than 1lb a week. Does that sound like a reasonable plan?
That sounds very reasonable for now. As you get close to goal weight, it will be a good plan to begin increasing calories further, to slow down to more like half a pound a week.
Resistance bands will be a good start, but I'd also join others in suggesting you might want to look into bodyweight training: There are zero-equipment exercises, and they can carry you quite a way as a beginner. Some that people like include Convict Conditioning (seriously
) and Nerd Fitness. You could Google those and others mentioned above to learn more, if you like. 1 -
I've doubled my daily protein goals (120g), upped fat goals and will increase my calories. I'll also purchase some resistance bands (if you think that's a good way to go). I think I'd prefer these over dumbbells but would rather do whichever yields the best results.
I need to have a strong word with myself about increasing calories. My head wants to plow on and lose weight as quickly as I can, although I now know that at my age, that is a dangerous route to take. I think I'll increase cals by 100 to start with, with the intention of increasing further if I'm losing more than 1lb a week. Does that sound like a reasonable plan?
That sounds very reasonable for now. As you get close to goal weight, it will be a good plan to begin increasing calories further, to slow down to more like half a pound a week.
Resistance bands will be a good start, but I'd also join others in suggesting you might want to look into bodyweight training: There are zero-equipment exercises, and they can carry you quite a way as a beginner. Some that people like include Convict Conditioning (seriously ) and Nerd Fitness. You could Google those and others mentioned above to learn more, if you like.
Thank you very much. The exercise recommendations are exactly what I need. There are too many variables for a beginner to guess at, so specific suggestions are very valuable. 0 -
I will second AnnPT77's recommendations.
You can add resistance band work to some body weight moves and have something solid going for yourself.2 -
LOL sedentary and walking 20k steps a day.3
-
trigden1991 wrote: »LOL sedentary and walking 20k steps a day.
Yes, now, but only as of a week ago. I'm aware of the irony 2 -
trigden1991 wrote: »LOL sedentary and walking 20k steps a day.
Yes, now, but only as of a week ago. I'm aware of the irony
It doesn't matter when you started. If that is your current norm then your current activity level should reflect it.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »LOL sedentary and walking 20k steps a day.
Yes, now, but only as of a week ago. I'm aware of the irony
It doesn't matter when you started. If that is your current norm then your current activity level should reflect it.
Thanks. I'm doing it manually for now, until I'm sure what will become the norm.3 -
trigden1991 wrote: »LOL sedentary and walking 20k steps a day.
weird to think about it, but yeah..if those 20k steps are largely from purposeful exercise and not obtained from movement during a typical work day, then yep.."sedentary and 20k steps".0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »LOL sedentary and walking 20k steps a day.
weird to think about it, but yeah..if those 20k steps are largely from purposeful exercise and not obtained from movement during a typical work day, then yep.."sedentary and 20k steps".
To me, that just highlights the absurdity of distinguishing between "purposeful exercise" and "typical activity" (aka NEAT). The same steps burn the same calories and have the same health benefits whether they're done as part of day-to-day life or as "I'm going to exercise now".
So, I gave up on logging any of that and got a FitBit which does all the math for me and doesn't care how I get my activity.6 -
trigden1991 wrote: »LOL sedentary and walking 20k steps a day.
weird to think about it, but yeah..if those 20k steps are largely from purposeful exercise and not obtained from movement during a typical work day, then yep.."sedentary and 20k steps".
I don't work anymore, so am home all day, I'm set at sedentary but average 15-20k steps per day. Anything over 3,000 steps is purposeful exercise for me, 2-3k is how many i average during a normal day with zero exercise.
I have set myself to lightly active before which gave me 250 extra calories, but because i go to bed early i lost around 200 calories every night, so basically had to leave those extra calories untouched, so changing activity levels is pointless for me. I dread to think how hard i'd have to work and how many calories i'd lose by the next morning if i was set at active or highly active, i'd have to be constantly moving from early morning to late,late night.1 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »LOL sedentary and walking 20k steps a day.
weird to think about it, but yeah..if those 20k steps are largely from purposeful exercise and not obtained from movement during a typical work day, then yep.."sedentary and 20k steps".
To me, that just highlights the absurdity of distinguishing between "purposeful exercise" and "typical activity" (aka NEAT). The same steps burn the same calories and have the same health benefits whether they're done as part of day-to-day life or as "I'm going to exercise now".
So, I gave up on logging any of that and got a FitBit which does all the math for me and doesn't care how I get my activity.
to clarify, I meant that the OP made a point to get the extra steps in (ie treadmill, adding walks)..so it won't necessarily be an everyday thing unless they make the effort to do it everyday (as opposed to an active job where you don't have a choice but to get all those steps/physical labor in so it makes sense to adjust activity level in that case).1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »LOL sedentary and walking 20k steps a day.
weird to think about it, but yeah..if those 20k steps are largely from purposeful exercise and not obtained from movement during a typical work day, then yep.."sedentary and 20k steps".
I don't work anymore, so am home all day, I'm set at sedentary but average 15-20k steps per day. Anything over 3,000 steps is purposeful exercise for me, 2-3k is how many i average during a normal day with zero exercise.
I have set myself to lightly active before which gave me 250 extra calories, but because i go to bed early i lost around 200 calories every night, so basically had to leave those extra calories untouched, so changing activity levels is pointless for me. I dread to think how hard i'd have to work and how many calories i'd lose by the next morning if i was set at active or highly active, i'd have to be constantly moving from early morning to late,late night.
This is the same as me. I'm at home all day too, and walk 2-3k during a normal, non exercise day. The treadmill steps are a (cool) new thing for me that I'm really enjoying, but I may not want to do this every day, so prefer to work out cals burnt myself, rather than allowing MFP to do it for me.
I'm not sure I trust my tracker, so I've had my steps/stride measured and measure my treadmill walks in 1km lengths for ease of tracking. For now, I'll only eat back half of what I earn on the treadmill and see how I go with it.
1 -
Sorry, this is a resounding disagreement post to the previous MFPers whose consensus seems to be that you're doing fine.
I note that you just started this excess activity so you don't really know yet what the full effects are. 4 weeks is a much better gauge than 2 weeks.
Note that first of all the 15 to 20000 steps a day **if not logged separately as an exercise** puts you ABOVE the VERY ACTIVE category on MFP.
@bbell1985 you have already suffered a degree of adaptation because of under-eating to effect weight loss. Your step count of 12,500 steps a day yielding results for lightly active is NOT indicative of the general population. The general population is probably more represented in this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035 which clearly categorises individuals who take >12,500 steps as highly active.
Whether @tar2323 is seeing or not seeing results commensurate with being highly active and under-eating for that activity level could depend on many issues including her logging and intensity of the steps.
While a 3-6lb loss per month is not extreme and does not exceed the 1% mark many consider safe, it does potentially exceed the 0.07% of bodyweight lost per week which I personally consider to be even more safe in terms of lean mass preservation.
As an overweight individual (bottom of obese by WHO standards but at an age group where this is considered more overweight than obese) @tar2323 (http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/result.html?unit=1&hf=5&hi=1&wl=168&us=1&ua=55&gl=) would benefit from a deficit of up to 20% of her Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
A quick look through scooby and using more correct activity classifications for someone walking 15-20K steps a day yields a weight loss of 0.7 to 0.9lbs a week while eating 1800 Cal a day.
If you want to eat the least amount of food possible from now on and successfully reduce your food bill, by all means eat the least your can, exercise the most you can and lose weight as fast as you can. 1200 targets are great for that.
If you want to arrive at your target weight eating the most amount of food possible, something which I personally imagine will make maintaining your target weight a bit easier, then you win by meeting your goals while eating the most you can.
1800Cal a day correctly logged and assuming no health issues that change your predicted Calories In Calories Out equation (CICO), should have you losing weight at a more than adequate clip given the activity you stated.
Use a trending weight application or web site (libra android, happy scale iphone, trendweight.com, weightgrapher.com) to track changes to your long term weight level as opposed to daily water weight fluctuations.
Best of luck.
scooby: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
Activity levels differ from site to site.
MFP activity levels are
sedentary 1.25x
lightly active 1.4x
active 1.6x
very active 1.8x
Mifflin StJeor BMR
I strongly disagree with the classification from that article. I can easily hit 12,500 steps a day, with walking an hour at lunch, and during a couple of short breaks. However I have a DESK job, and am sitting on my tail for a minimum of 8 hours a day. That is sedentary.0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Sorry, this is a resounding disagreement post to the previous MFPers whose consensus seems to be that you're doing fine.
I note that you just started this excess activity so you don't really know yet what the full effects are. 4 weeks is a much better gauge than 2 weeks.
Note that first of all the 15 to 20000 steps a day **if not logged separately as an exercise** puts you ABOVE the VERY ACTIVE category on MFP.
@bbell1985 you have already suffered a degree of adaptation because of under-eating to effect weight loss. Your step count of 12,500 steps a day yielding results for lightly active is NOT indicative of the general population. The general population is probably more represented in this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035 which clearly categorises individuals who take >12,500 steps as highly active.
Whether @tar2323 is seeing or not seeing results commensurate with being highly active and under-eating for that activity level could depend on many issues including her logging and intensity of the steps.
While a 3-6lb loss per month is not extreme and does not exceed the 1% mark many consider safe, it does potentially exceed the 0.07% of bodyweight lost per week which I personally consider to be even more safe in terms of lean mass preservation.
As an overweight individual (bottom of obese by WHO standards but at an age group where this is considered more overweight than obese) @tar2323 (http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/result.html?unit=1&hf=5&hi=1&wl=168&us=1&ua=55&gl=) would benefit from a deficit of up to 20% of her Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
A quick look through scooby and using more correct activity classifications for someone walking 15-20K steps a day yields a weight loss of 0.7 to 0.9lbs a week while eating 1800 Cal a day.
If you want to eat the least amount of food possible from now on and successfully reduce your food bill, by all means eat the least your can, exercise the most you can and lose weight as fast as you can. 1200 targets are great for that.
If you want to arrive at your target weight eating the most amount of food possible, something which I personally imagine will make maintaining your target weight a bit easier, then you win by meeting your goals while eating the most you can.
1800Cal a day correctly logged and assuming no health issues that change your predicted Calories In Calories Out equation (CICO), should have you losing weight at a more than adequate clip given the activity you stated.
Use a trending weight application or web site (libra android, happy scale iphone, trendweight.com, weightgrapher.com) to track changes to your long term weight level as opposed to daily water weight fluctuations.
Best of luck.
scooby: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
Activity levels differ from site to site.
MFP activity levels are
sedentary 1.25x
lightly active 1.4x
active 1.6x
very active 1.8x
Mifflin StJeor BMR
I strongly disagree with the classification from that article. I can easily hit 12,500 steps a day, with walking an hour at lunch, and during a couple of short breaks. However I have a DESK job, and am sitting on my tail for a minimum of 8 hours a day. That is sedentary.
*That* burns more calories than the sedentary setting on MFP. You can choose to log the walks or you can choose a higher activity level. It really doesn't matter which choice you make; the results are the same. But please understand that the "sedentary" setting on MFP is for the typical sedentary North American - drives to work, sits at a desk all day, drives home, sits all evening (maybe watching TV). Does minor cleaning and walking at the grocery store, but does not "go for a walk" any farther than the mailbox. If that does not describe you, the sedentary setting is not for you *unless* you log the walks in some way (step tracker or just using the exercise log).4 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »I strongly disagree with the classification from that article. I can easily hit 12,500 steps a day, with walking an hour at lunch, and during a couple of short breaks. However I have a DESK job, and am sitting on my tail for a minimum of 8 hours a day. That is sedentary.
It doesn't matter whether it is *kittens* flying to the moon.
What 12,500 steps isn't is BMR x 1.25.
THAT is what MFP sedentary is.
A LABEL that describes a particular predicted value for your daily caloric expenditure.4 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Sorry, this is a resounding disagreement post to the previous MFPers whose consensus seems to be that you're doing fine.
I note that you just started this excess activity so you don't really know yet what the full effects are. 4 weeks is a much better gauge than 2 weeks.
Note that first of all the 15 to 20000 steps a day **if not logged separately as an exercise** puts you ABOVE the VERY ACTIVE category on MFP.
@bbell1985 you have already suffered a degree of adaptation because of under-eating to effect weight loss. Your step count of 12,500 steps a day yielding results for lightly active is NOT indicative of the general population. The general population is probably more represented in this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035 which clearly categorises individuals who take >12,500 steps as highly active.
Whether @tar2323 is seeing or not seeing results commensurate with being highly active and under-eating for that activity level could depend on many issues including her logging and intensity of the steps.
While a 3-6lb loss per month is not extreme and does not exceed the 1% mark many consider safe, it does potentially exceed the 0.07% of bodyweight lost per week which I personally consider to be even more safe in terms of lean mass preservation.
As an overweight individual (bottom of obese by WHO standards but at an age group where this is considered more overweight than obese) @tar2323 (http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/result.html?unit=1&hf=5&hi=1&wl=168&us=1&ua=55&gl=) would benefit from a deficit of up to 20% of her Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
A quick look through scooby and using more correct activity classifications for someone walking 15-20K steps a day yields a weight loss of 0.7 to 0.9lbs a week while eating 1800 Cal a day.
If you want to eat the least amount of food possible from now on and successfully reduce your food bill, by all means eat the least your can, exercise the most you can and lose weight as fast as you can. 1200 targets are great for that.
If you want to arrive at your target weight eating the most amount of food possible, something which I personally imagine will make maintaining your target weight a bit easier, then you win by meeting your goals while eating the most you can.
1800Cal a day correctly logged and assuming no health issues that change your predicted Calories In Calories Out equation (CICO), should have you losing weight at a more than adequate clip given the activity you stated.
Use a trending weight application or web site (libra android, happy scale iphone, trendweight.com, weightgrapher.com) to track changes to your long term weight level as opposed to daily water weight fluctuations.
Best of luck.
scooby: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
Activity levels differ from site to site.
MFP activity levels are
sedentary 1.25x
lightly active 1.4x
active 1.6x
very active 1.8x
Mifflin StJeor BMR
I strongly disagree with the classification from that article. I can easily hit 12,500 steps a day, with walking an hour at lunch, and during a couple of short breaks. However I have a DESK job, and am sitting on my tail for a minimum of 8 hours a day. That is sedentary.
*That* burns more calories than the sedentary setting on MFP. You can choose to log the walks or you can choose a higher activity level. It really doesn't matter which choice you make; the results are the same. But please understand that the "sedentary" setting on MFP is for the typical sedentary North American - drives to work, sits at a desk all day, drives home, sits all evening (maybe watching TV). Does minor cleaning and walking at the grocery store, but does not "go for a walk" any farther than the mailbox. If that does not describe you, the sedentary setting is not for you *unless* you log the walks in some way (step tracker or just using the exercise log).
All of this. I have a desk job too for 8-9 hours a day, but averaging 15K steps a day, whether from an intense exercise session or just being busy and never stopping moving when I'm not sitting at my desk at work, means I'm not sedentary. I'm set at Active and I still eat back exercise adjustments from my FitBit.
I wish during the set up process, MFP provided more info about how to choose the right activity level and that users are meant to eat back exercise calories when they do them. I think so many people end up with a goal that is too low and find it unsustainable so they just give up altogether.3 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »
*That* burns more calories than the sedentary setting on MFP. You can choose to log the walks or you can choose a higher activity level. It really doesn't matter which choice you make; the results are the same. But please understand that the "sedentary" setting on MFP is for the typical sedentary North American - drives to work, sits at a desk all day, drives home, sits all evening (maybe watching TV). Does minor cleaning and walking at the grocery store, but does not "go for a walk" any farther than the mailbox. If that does not describe you, the sedentary setting is not for you *unless* you log the walks in some way (step tracker or just using the exercise log).
Actually that is completely contrary to what I have read. If you have a desk job, meaning that you are seated all day - no matter how much you walk or exercise (short of being an athlete) then you are considered to have a "sedentary" day, for the purposes of settings on sites like these. People that are on their feet all day and moving all day, for their job, absolutely should have a higher activity setting. The setting is meant to describe the majority of your day. And for me, the majority of the day is spent in a chair. I can run or walk several miles, go to the gym, but that does not change the fact that most of my day - timewise - is sedentary.
I do use a fitbit, and log my exercise on that. I have done it this way for years. That said, what works for me, might not work for everyone. So each person needs to find their own method.
0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »LOL sedentary and walking 20k steps a day.
weird to think about it, but yeah..if those 20k steps are largely from purposeful exercise and not obtained from movement during a typical work day, then yep.."sedentary and 20k steps".
To me, that just highlights the absurdity of distinguishing between "purposeful exercise" and "typical activity" (aka NEAT). The same steps burn the same calories and have the same health benefits whether they're done as part of day-to-day life or as "I'm going to exercise now".
So, I gave up on logging any of that and got a FitBit which does all the math for me and doesn't care how I get my activity.
My thoughts exactly. I aim for total steps in a day, by whatever means.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions