Clean eating- does it matter?
Options
Replies
-
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
Yeah, I don't know why that took me is long to figure out haha. I guess I didn't know what clean eating actually meant. Thanks for understanding guysdiannethegeek wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »Or wait, is there a way to add an edit to an existing thread?
You can only edit a post for the first hour, unfortunately. Those of us who are participating can see that clearly we've come around to understanding each other (I can totally see why this thread looks like it does if you thought we were all talking about just not eating healthy). But you'll have posters pop in for the next few days who clearly haven't read past the first post. For the most part, you can just ignore them.
That's the crux of the problem, and exactly why every "clean eating" thread goes down this same sewer hole. "Clean eating" is a vague, subjective, opinion-based phrase with no clear definition. Ask a keto dieter what "clean eating" means. Ask a low-fat dieter. Ask a paleo dieter. Ask a vegetarian. Ask a vegan. Each one of them will have different definitions - perhaps with some overlap here and there, but there will be some stark differences as well.
Here's an easy example: You've said that you're a "whole foods plant-based" eater. Google "keto fat bomb" and check some of the recipes. Those are things which are considered "clean eating" by many keto dieters. Do they fit your definition of "clean"?8 -
Eat anything you want as long as you hit your macros. Clean eating or not will not affect your goals as long as you hit yours macros.
Macros are for health and any other aesthetic/athletic goals one may have. They don't matter when we're strictly talking about weight loss.
And to cover all bases because I fear 6 pages worth isn't enough. Nutrition is important, I am not advocating for a diet solely based on ice cream/chips/Oreos/your evil food of choice.2 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
I appreciate all the responses. I agree that some treats are fine in moderation. Maybe I can get a screen grab of her food diary with her permission but anyway- I think I've just kind of lost my way in this thread. I did t realize clean eating was such a loaded word. I thought it was interchangeable with healthy or nutrient richVintageFeline wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
well if you're hitting all your nutritional goals most days, then you're obviously eating a predominately healthy diet. My friend is eating mcdonalds and cookies just super small portionscwolfman13 wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »My view is yes. I eat a super clean diet Within my calorie range and I am losing more then a pound a week (even though I'm not overweight) I'm 5"8 and started at about 160 and now I'm at 138. It's been super easy and my skin and hair look great.
My best friend is focusing only on calories and she is losing too but she always feels hungry, her nails are breaking too and she gets moody. So I think clean eating is super important during weight loss. What do you guys think?
P.S. my food diary is open if you want to look and friend adds are welcome
I think "clean eating" is a pretty much meaningless term...everyone is going to have their own definition of what "clean" means.
I eat a diet rich in whole food nutrition whether I'm losing or maintaining...but I also enjoy pizza night most Fridays and whatnot. If nutritional requirements are met then it's all good...you don't get extra credit for more broccoli.cassandrarodriguez89 wrote: »Yes, it 100% matters, for instance, I eat healthy. I ate one cancer meal (taco bell) and broke out in sweat throwing up for hours. If I eat a slice of cake I get horrid acne. Actually, anything that has no good nutrition sends me into oblivion, I will get sick, depressed and acne. Not to mention I hate the taste of white bread, white rice and fried foods. The flavors are nasty, I don't understand why some people enjoy the taste, I honestly think they pretend to like it because they don't want to make effort in eating healthy. White bread tastes like paper... unless they have weird taste buds its a strange concept to me. I will say sugar is different though, it tastes AMAZING... and sometimes its worth the acne and migraine
Seems like that's all in your head...probably a crap relationship with food bordering on orthorexia.
Why are you asking for our experiences, referencing the responses you've had but insisting we talk about your friend who we know nothing about other than your insistence all she's eating is "junk"?
It's really not. There's a connotation of superiority. If you had asked about the importance of a balanced diet, you would have received a completely different response.
ETA: I see we have an understanding reached. Awesome!2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »It might help to clarify which version of clean eating we're talking about.
Calories matter for weight loss. Good nutrition matters for things like hunger and health. But those can both be achieved with or without a "clean" diet.
Your diary shows a really low fat intake. I just want to be sure you're being smart about that because I can't imagine keeping my fat that low (and I have to stay low fat without my gallbladder).
Best of luck with your goals! :flowerforyou:
I have to eat low fat because fat cause my skin to break out and give me breakouts but I make sure I get my omegas from my greens on chronometer and if I don't, I'll have a tbsp of seeds. All my blood work is perfect for the first time in my life. I think eating clean just helps you feel full. For example, I'm going to feel a lot more full on a giant salad then two Oreos so I feel like it would be harder to feel full without eating clean
Who makes a choice between a giant salad, or two oreos? What harm will I come to, if I eat a salad AND eat Oreos, when I have room in my calories for both?
She already stated that eating Oreos would not make her feel full (and presumably would lead to overeating).
If you are someone who can eat anything, anytime and stay in tiptop shape, well then..hallelujah.
I make good steaks.
Eating Oreos instead of a salad would not make her feel full. Me neither. I really can't think of a time when I was trying to decide between a salad, which I would consider a meal, and two Oreos, which I would consider dessert. My point is that why does there always have to be this false dilemma? Are there people who choose to eat Oreos instead of a sensible meal? Not that they choose to consume Oreos after a sensible meal, but instead of? Those are the scenarios that are always proposed in these threads and they just don't seem realistic to me.
Eat anything, any time and stay in tip top shape? I don't think I would go that far, but I don't see how my comments indicate that I believe that I do that. I'm not striving for top top shape.... I'm striving for generally healthy and happy, and a diet that includes a variety of Whole Foods, processed foods, and even Oreos in moderation - helps me achieve that.
The problem is you are speaking from the perspective of someone who's healthy and rational and balanced.
But nothing is rational or absurd, rare about this false dilemma when it comes to food choice for people with eating disorder.
I think it's encouraging that the OP finds salad to be a solution for her, however it may seem trivial to you. Also, people like me could read more from it and develop other ideas. It doesn't have to be for a meal. Anytime I feel hungry, instead of going for Oreos, I can preemptively eat a big salad.
Does it mean I think Oreos are bad? No. But while dealing with an eating disorder, I need to pick a side and decide that Oreos would derail my effort and need to be avoided. It's like an alcoholic forgoing alcohol drinks completely to deal with his problem instead of striving for a balance like responsible drinkers do.
Whilst I respect and empathise with your situation it is completely different from the average person, this has sort of been brought up before. Should we, in every thread, tiptoe round and cover every single eventuality and medical issue someone might be dealing with if they haven't disclosed that to be an issue?
That's something someone should be working on with their treatment team if they have one. It's not my responsibility or expertise to make sure that when I say you can have a salad and an Orea that someone with an ED might be thrown for a loop because they find the notion in conflict with themselves. It's horrible for that person no doubt, but this isn't an ED specific support forum.
I think where you and I differ is your impression that this eating disorder is medical and can only be treated by professional. That's not my impression. This overeating disorder brought up in a wt loss forum can be helped with good strategies shared by ordinary successful people.
Being a forum you're gonna get different topics and individual cases.
Anyway, do you think that any dieter -- I'm not talking about those with medical issue -- can take the generic advice that she can have a salad and Oreos and have it work, even if it works for you? I think it's a little naive if you think so.
But if that's my experience and I clearly state that's what I do but YMMV what else can I do?
I mean, I'm not even a fan of Oreos but I can certainly see the merits of fitting one in if you so desire and can moderate them.
I can't cover all bases because I only have my personal experience to offer, or at the very least all I can offer is generic advice if the OP/person asking doesn't fully disclose any issues they may have.
Take moderation, it's been argued to death repeatedly but the general consensus is moderation works for some people but doesn't for others. Same as complete cutout.
The OP's view falls exactly on the same plane. Clean eating, as in salad and not oreos, and not her friend's way, works for her. It's just funny to me to see so many rushing in to correct her, mainly imposing their way on her, eg you gotta choose sensibly; have everything but moderate.2 -
cassandrarodriguez89 wrote: »Cancer meal means that ingredients in the food have been proven to cause cancer or cause death. When they make white bread and white rice in the process they get rid of good nutrition. This is in every single science article and all over the news almost every day in the past several decades.
Proven? Then post proof (scientific, of course)...2 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »It might help to clarify which version of clean eating we're talking about.
Calories matter for weight loss. Good nutrition matters for things like hunger and health. But those can both be achieved with or without a "clean" diet.
Your diary shows a really low fat intake. I just want to be sure you're being smart about that because I can't imagine keeping my fat that low (and I have to stay low fat without my gallbladder).
Best of luck with your goals! :flowerforyou:
I have to eat low fat because fat cause my skin to break out and give me breakouts but I make sure I get my omegas from my greens on chronometer and if I don't, I'll have a tbsp of seeds. All my blood work is perfect for the first time in my life. I think eating clean just helps you feel full. For example, I'm going to feel a lot more full on a giant salad then two Oreos so I feel like it would be harder to feel full without eating clean
Who makes a choice between a giant salad, or two oreos? What harm will I come to, if I eat a salad AND eat Oreos, when I have room in my calories for both?
She already stated that eating Oreos would not make her feel full (and presumably would lead to overeating).
If you are someone who can eat anything, anytime and stay in tiptop shape, well then..hallelujah.
I make good steaks.
Eating Oreos instead of a salad would not make her feel full. Me neither. I really can't think of a time when I was trying to decide between a salad, which I would consider a meal, and two Oreos, which I would consider dessert. My point is that why does there always have to be this false dilemma? Are there people who choose to eat Oreos instead of a sensible meal? Not that they choose to consume Oreos after a sensible meal, but instead of? Those are the scenarios that are always proposed in these threads and they just don't seem realistic to me.
Eat anything, any time and stay in tip top shape? I don't think I would go that far, but I don't see how my comments indicate that I believe that I do that. I'm not striving for top top shape.... I'm striving for generally healthy and happy, and a diet that includes a variety of Whole Foods, processed foods, and even Oreos in moderation - helps me achieve that.
The problem is you are speaking from the perspective of someone who's healthy and rational and balanced.
But nothing is rational or absurd, rare about this false dilemma when it comes to food choice for people with eating disorder.
I think it's encouraging that the OP finds salad to be a solution for her, however it may seem trivial to you. Also, people like me could read more from it and develop other ideas. It doesn't have to be for a meal. Anytime I feel hungry, instead of going for Oreos, I can preemptively eat a big salad.
Does it mean I think Oreos are bad? No. But while dealing with an eating disorder, I need to pick a side and decide that Oreos would derail my effort and need to be avoided. It's like an alcoholic forgoing alcohol drinks completely to deal with his problem instead of striving for a balance like responsible drinkers do.
Whilst I respect and empathise with your situation it is completely different from the average person, this has sort of been brought up before. Should we, in every thread, tiptoe round and cover every single eventuality and medical issue someone might be dealing with if they haven't disclosed that to be an issue?
That's something someone should be working on with their treatment team if they have one. It's not my responsibility or expertise to make sure that when I say you can have a salad and an Orea that someone with an ED might be thrown for a loop because they find the notion in conflict with themselves. It's horrible for that person no doubt, but this isn't an ED specific support forum.
I think where you and I differ is your impression that this eating disorder is medical and can only be treated by professional. That's not my impression. This overeating disorder brought up in a wt loss forum can be helped with good strategies shared by ordinary successful people.
Being a forum you're gonna get different topics and individual cases.
Anyway, do you think that any dieter -- I'm not talking about those with medical issue -- can take the generic advice that she can have a salad and Oreos and have it work, even if it works for you? I think it's a little naive if you think so.
But if that's my experience and I clearly state that's what I do but YMMV what else can I do?
I mean, I'm not even a fan of Oreos but I can certainly see the merits of fitting one in if you so desire and can moderate them.
I can't cover all bases because I only have my personal experience to offer, or at the very least all I can offer is generic advice if the OP/person asking doesn't fully disclose any issues they may have.
Take moderation, it's been argued to death repeatedly but the general consensus is moderation works for some people but doesn't for others. Same as complete cutout.
The OP's view falls exactly on the same plane. Clean eating, as in salad and not oreos, and not her friend's way, works for her. It's just funny to me to see so many rushing in to correct her, mainly imposing their way on her, eg you gotta choose sensibly; have everything but moderate.
Wait, where did any of us say she needed to change what she was doing? I think you're projecting onto some of these posts here. I never said or attempted to imply that she needed to change her diet if it works for her (except to check on the low fat thing, which seems to work for her fine). But if anyone believes that clean eating is a requirement, that I won't look good with clean eating, or that their friend needs to eat clean in order to see results, then I'm gonna clarify some things.4 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »It might help to clarify which version of clean eating we're talking about.
Calories matter for weight loss. Good nutrition matters for things like hunger and health. But those can both be achieved with or without a "clean" diet.
Your diary shows a really low fat intake. I just want to be sure you're being smart about that because I can't imagine keeping my fat that low (and I have to stay low fat without my gallbladder).
Best of luck with your goals! :flowerforyou:
I have to eat low fat because fat cause my skin to break out and give me breakouts but I make sure I get my omegas from my greens on chronometer and if I don't, I'll have a tbsp of seeds. All my blood work is perfect for the first time in my life. I think eating clean just helps you feel full. For example, I'm going to feel a lot more full on a giant salad then two Oreos so I feel like it would be harder to feel full without eating clean
Who makes a choice between a giant salad, or two oreos? What harm will I come to, if I eat a salad AND eat Oreos, when I have room in my calories for both?
She already stated that eating Oreos would not make her feel full (and presumably would lead to overeating).
If you are someone who can eat anything, anytime and stay in tiptop shape, well then..hallelujah.
I make good steaks.
Eating Oreos instead of a salad would not make her feel full. Me neither. I really can't think of a time when I was trying to decide between a salad, which I would consider a meal, and two Oreos, which I would consider dessert. My point is that why does there always have to be this false dilemma? Are there people who choose to eat Oreos instead of a sensible meal? Not that they choose to consume Oreos after a sensible meal, but instead of? Those are the scenarios that are always proposed in these threads and they just don't seem realistic to me.
Eat anything, any time and stay in tip top shape? I don't think I would go that far, but I don't see how my comments indicate that I believe that I do that. I'm not striving for top top shape.... I'm striving for generally healthy and happy, and a diet that includes a variety of Whole Foods, processed foods, and even Oreos in moderation - helps me achieve that.
The problem is you are speaking from the perspective of someone who's healthy and rational and balanced.
But nothing is rational or absurd, rare about this false dilemma when it comes to food choice for people with eating disorder.
I think it's encouraging that the OP finds salad to be a solution for her, however it may seem trivial to you. Also, people like me could read more from it and develop other ideas. It doesn't have to be for a meal. Anytime I feel hungry, instead of going for Oreos, I can preemptively eat a big salad.
Does it mean I think Oreos are bad? No. But while dealing with an eating disorder, I need to pick a side and decide that Oreos would derail my effort and need to be avoided. It's like an alcoholic forgoing alcohol drinks completely to deal with his problem instead of striving for a balance like responsible drinkers do.
Whilst I respect and empathise with your situation it is completely different from the average person, this has sort of been brought up before. Should we, in every thread, tiptoe round and cover every single eventuality and medical issue someone might be dealing with if they haven't disclosed that to be an issue?
That's something someone should be working on with their treatment team if they have one. It's not my responsibility or expertise to make sure that when I say you can have a salad and an Orea that someone with an ED might be thrown for a loop because they find the notion in conflict with themselves. It's horrible for that person no doubt, but this isn't an ED specific support forum.
I think where you and I differ is your impression that this eating disorder is medical and can only be treated by professional. That's not my impression. This overeating disorder brought up in a wt loss forum can be helped with good strategies shared by ordinary successful people.
Being a forum you're gonna get different topics and individual cases.
Anyway, do you think that any dieter -- I'm not talking about those with medical issue -- can take the generic advice that she can have a salad and Oreos and have it work, even if it works for you? I think it's a little naive if you think so.
But if that's my experience and I clearly state that's what I do but YMMV what else can I do?
I mean, I'm not even a fan of Oreos but I can certainly see the merits of fitting one in if you so desire and can moderate them.
I can't cover all bases because I only have my personal experience to offer, or at the very least all I can offer is generic advice if the OP/person asking doesn't fully disclose any issues they may have.
Take moderation, it's been argued to death repeatedly but the general consensus is moderation works for some people but doesn't for others. Same as complete cutout.
The OP's view falls exactly on the same plane. Clean eating, as in salad and not oreos, and not her friend's way, works for her. It's just funny to me to see so many rushing in to correct her, mainly imposing their way on her, eg you gotta choose sensibly; have everything but moderate.
And yet the OP went on to clarify that she includes many "non clean" items in her diet and admitted she'd misunderstood the generally accepted connotations the phrase "clean eating" conjures up.3 -
Does clean eating matter? You betcha. You can pick up all kinds of disease if you don't wash your hands before touching your food or if you don't wash your fruits and vegetables.5
-
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »Sometimes in these "clean eating" conversations, the concept of nutrition seems to get lost. I see repeated statements that calorie deficit is THE ONLY THING that matters, and that food choices are an irrelevant personal preference. Sure, there's a certain physics involved in weight loss, and you could lose weight eating nothing but candy bars if you count calories accurately -- but our bodies are more than just numbers on a scale! There are a whole bunch of nutrients we need, and more of those nutrients exist in foods like lean meats, cheeses, beans, dark green vegetables, whole grains, etc., than exist in cupcakes and soda. Nutrition is actually a real science. What you put in your mouth matters for more reasons than just calories. It affects our brains, our cardiac systems, all the delicate chemistry of our bodies.
Furthermore, when you're eating fewer calories than you burn, every bite of food you take becomes more important in terms of meeting your body's needs. For instance, I'm eating at around 1200 calories a day plus most of my exercise calories. At 1200 calories, my body's nutritional demands simply don't leave any room for foods that aren't nutrient dense. I have to make sure every bite is maximally nutritious, or I'd end up thinner but malnourished.
I also see a lot of arguments that "clean eating" doesn't exist, because it doesn't have an ironclad definition. It seems sensible to substitute the phrase "nutrient dense" for "clean." That's objectively measurable. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of kale and chicken, you'll be getting protein, fiber, Vitamins A, K, C, B6, manganese, calcium, copper, potassium, magnesium, selenium, phosphorus, and more. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of 2 cookies, what do you get? Some fat, some refined carbs, and maybe a bit of protein from eggs in the recipe?
It's also worth noting that added sugars are not a nutrient our bodies need. While scientists are still disputing the exact health outcome of eating more sugar than we need, nobody claims that our bodies NEED added sugar. We can get all the sugars we need from eating fruits and vegies and grains that include fiber and other important nutrients in the same package.
So while we're eating fewer calories than we're burning, it doesn't make sense to squander those precious calories on something our bodies just don't need.
I completely agree. I think if a lot of people checked their food intake on chronometer.com (which shows your whole RDA) instead of just MyFitnessPal, they'd realize how many nutrient deficiencies their diet may be contributing to. I think you'll have an easier time excercise he, sticking to a diet and generally moving around your life if you are eating a nutrient rich diet with minimally processed foods
Things that don't list some nutrients on the label won't have that filled out on chronometer either though. So you might think you have deficiencies where there are none.2 -
Hey OP, go to this thread.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10534218/fast-food-for-the-month#latest0 -
Foods lacking in nutrients are not "unhealthy". If I eat 90% whole unprocessed nutrient rich foods, and 10% processed sugars, it does not follow that 90% of my diet is healthy and 10% is unhealthy. It is NOT the case that I am eating unhealthy foods in moderation. "Unhealthy" only exists in CONTEXT (dosage of poisons, overall malnourishment, allergies, etc).
A DIET lacking in nutrients (which a 100% "clean" diet is completely capable of being) is unhealthy. 225g of Spinach and 125g of pink salmon and a delicious, delicious Dairy Milk chocolate bar is a completely healthy lunch. And far more nutritious than a completely "clean" lunch of the same caloric amount of potatoes and chicken.
That dairy milk is no more unhealthy than the sugar in fruit. Nobody would refer to an apple as 70% healthy, 30% junk. And just like assessing that apple, it's unhealthy and potentially damaging way to look at an overall diet in that way.
(There are exceptions, like trans fats. But that has nothing to do with overall nutrient density).
"Clean" diets often leave people undernourished. We should strive to be nutrient rich within our caloric limits. There's NOTHING dirty about your twinkie in that context. In any sense that "lacking nutrients" is dirty, an unprocessed diet consisting of nothing but potatoes, chicken, and a variety of badly balanced but individually "high quality" wholefoods could be much "dirtier" than my chocolate and McD's Bonanzas, because my diet is more nutritionally dense and complete .
Yes, there is less room for low-density nutrition foods when your calories are really low.
"Nutrient rich & balanced diet" >>>> "Clean eating".8 -
i am late to the game, but what definition of clean are we operating off of?2
-
prattiger65 wrote: »Hey OP, go to this thread.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10534218/fast-food-for-the-month#latest
Okay, thank you! I will0 -
-
@ndj1979, if you haven't read the whole thread, the OP clarified later what she was really talking about and we pretty much all came to an understanding. Might back up and read like the last two pages to get caught up.1
-
I agree with a lot of what you said here. I ended up realizing that clean eating was a loaded term so I should have just said healthy, balanced diet.comeonnow142857 wrote: »Foods lacking in nutrients are not "unhealthy". If I eat 90% whole unprocessed nutrient rich foods, and 10% processed sugars, it does not follow that 90% of my diet is healthy and 10% is unhealthy. It is NOT the case that I am eating unhealthy foods in moderation. "Unhealthy" only exists in CONTEXT (dosage of poisons, overall malnourishment, allergies, etc).
A DIET lacking in nutrients (which a 100% "clean" diet is completely capable of being) is unhealthy. 225g of Spinach and 125g of pink salmon and a delicious, delicious Dairy Milk chocolate bar is a completely healthy lunch. And far more nutritious than a completely "clean" lunch of the same caloric amount of potatoes and chicken.
That dairy milk is no more unhealthy than the sugar in fruit. Nobody would refer to an apple as 70% healthy, 30% junk. And just like assessing that apple, it's unhealthy and potentially damaging way to look at an overall diet in that way.
(There are exceptions, like trans fats. But that has nothing to do with overall nutrient density).
"Clean" diets often leave people undernourished. We should strive to be nutrient rich within our caloric limits. There's NOTHING dirty about your twinkie in that context. In any sense that "lacking nutrients" is dirty, an unprocessed diet consisting of nothing but potatoes, chicken, and a variety of badly balanced but individually "high quality" wholefoods could be much "dirtier" than my chocolate and McD's Bonanzas, because my diet is more nutritionally dense and complete .
Yes, there is less room for low-density nutrition foods when your calories are really low.
"Nutrient rich & balanced diet" >>>> "Clean eating". thanks for your input
3 -
cassandrarodriguez89 wrote: »Cancer meal means that ingredients in the food have been proven to cause cancer or cause death. When they make white bread and white rice in the process they get rid of good nutrition. This is in every single science article and all over the news almost every day in the past several decades.
Even though I am Jewish I gave up snarkiness for lent and this post is torturing me.17 -
In all fairness, OP has clarified her stance in the last couple pages. But for many other posters, yep - processed foods, teh sugarz, prepared meals, etc.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions