Does it matter what foods make up my daily calorie intake?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Long term probably as many as can do keto.
Which means some.7 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.
Never claimed low-fat is great for everyone and low-fat is bad for everyone. It just seems to me that there are more successes with a higher-fat, lower carb diet than the other way around.
And it seems that way to you based on what? Your own N=1 experience/ bias. If you believe this is true, there must be nutritional studies that prove it, no? Feel free to show a peer reviewed study of a good number of subjects where calories and protein were held constant and high fat/ low carb diet demonstrated any metabolic advantage over any other dietary method.6 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.
Never claimed low-fat is great for everyone and low-fat is bad for everyone. It just seems to me that there are more successes with a higher-fat, lower carb diet than the other way around.
Evidence for this other than your feels?
PubMed. And besides PubMed, I like to listen to dozens or hundreds doctors and nutritionists who know what they are talking about (and not selling anything).
Actually, a very low-fat plant-based/vegan diet will also do the trick. But how many people can do a plant-based/vegan diet?
I've been an ovo-lacto vegetarian for over 25 years. These days, generally high-carb and lower (not 'very low') fat. I focus on hitting protein and iron, let the rest fall where it falls and that's pretty much where it falls. Down 83 lbs as of today. But please continue to tell me how this isn't successful.8 -
Like others, I would be interested in OPs motivation for posting this in the first place. Was it merely a hypothetical to provoke discussion? Or are you considering filling your 1800 calorie days with nothing but "junk" food? And what does that mean to you OP? What would your ideal 1800 calorie day look like?1
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Unless you really think that their culture of fat shaming is the sole reason they aren't obese. If you really think that, I'm just going to walk away shaking my head.
The Japanese have the same fast-food restaurants and high-calorie packaged junk food offerings that we have, yet the remain just about the thinnest country on the planet. Meanwhile, obesity and T2 diabetes are soaring in China.
WHY?
More non sequiturs from you.
When I was growing up in the 60's, we had fast food restaurants and packaged convenience foods too.
The population was much thinner then.
The answer to your question is that people avail themselves of these things as occasional indulgences rather than regular parts of their daily diets.
This isn't rocket science.
Energy balance is still king.3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »It does matter because some food will provide you with more satiety than other food. Find the foods that you enjoy and fill you up. It will make your life a lot easier.
Everyone is different. If I eat a 350-calorie donut I might as well have eaten nothing. But a 250-calorie omelet stuffed with all sorts of stuff (the eggs contain 150 calories) keeps me full for a long time.
A 350 cal donut (I'm looking at you apple fritter) would totally fill me up. So you see, it's all individual.
Pssst....apple fritter is closer to 410
3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.
Never claimed low-fat is great for everyone and low-fat is bad for everyone. It just seems to me that there are more successes with a higher-fat, lower carb diet than the other way around.
Evidence for this other than your feels?
PubMed. And besides PubMed, I like to listen to dozens or hundreds doctors and nutritionists who know what they are talking about (and not selling anything).
Actually, a very low-fat plant-based/vegan diet will also do the trick. But how many people can do a plant-based/vegan diet?
Say what? You did a research review of every study in Pub Med and came to this conclusion?
I doubt it.
Sarcasm aside, people who know what they're doing (the ones with actual research backgrounds), without bias involved know the following things
1. Protein is the most satiating macro
2. Dietary satisfaction is the most important key to dietary compliance
3. Dietary compliance is the most important key to dietary success
4. When protein and calories are equated, people do just as well on low carb as they do on high carb
5. Bottom line? The BEST diet for any individual is the one they can stick to
So you can keep trying to find some way to assert superiority in some objective sense for something that's merely your personal preference. We've all been down this route before, you're not the first person following low carb who's been passionate about it to come to these boards trying to argue this.
You're as wrong as everyone else was.
You do you, and keep doing what works for you. I'm glad you found something you enjoy. Guess what? You don't need the rest of us to convert to doing things your way to validate it as being right for you. You can just go ahead and keep doing it. Let us keep doing what's working for us.15 -
It matters in how it affects your satiety. But no, it doesn't matter in terms of weight loss. I know this because most days I eat alot of sweets- donuts, ice cream, ect. I still lose as long as I'm in deficit. You could eat an entire box of cereal and still lose, but will you feel good or satiated for long? That's the problem..1
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.
Never claimed low-fat is great for everyone and low-fat is bad for everyone. It just seems to me that there are more successes with a higher-fat, lower carb diet than the other way around.
Evidence for this other than your feels?
PubMed. And besides PubMed, I like to listen to dozens or hundreds doctors and nutritionists who know what they are talking about (and not selling anything).
Actually, a very low-fat plant-based/vegan diet will also do the trick. But how many people can do a plant-based/vegan diet?
Say what? You did a research review of every study in Pub Med and came to this conclusion?
I doubt it.
Sarcasm aside, people who know what they're doing (the ones with actual research backgrounds), without bias involved know the following things
1. Protein is the most satiating macro
2. Dietary satisfaction is the most important key to dietary compliance
3. Dietary compliance is the most important key to dietary success
4. When protein and calories are equated, people do just as well on low carb as they do on high carb
5. Bottom line? The BEST diet for any individual is the one they can stick to
So you can keep trying to find some way to assert superiority in some objective sense for something that's merely your personal preference. We've all been down this route before, you're not the first person following low carb who's been passionate about it to come to these boards trying to argue this.
You're as wrong as everyone else was.
You do you, and keep doing what works for you. I'm glad you found something you enjoy. Guess what? You don't need the rest of us to convert to doing things your way to validate it as being right for you. You can just go ahead and keep doing it. Let us keep doing what's working for us.
QFT and general all around awesomeness!5 -
This is quite a long thread for a OP question that can be addressed in a single sentence: In the context of weight loss, the answer is no, it does not matter.
People can talk in circles forever defending their preferred eating habits, but the fact of the matter is they offer no metabolic advantage. People who claim they do are clueless. They should at least stick to their anecdotes, or "feels", since this is about their only hope for legitimacy as it's difficult to disprove pure conjecture and supposition.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
^^ ROFL. Thanks
0 -
Well ! You're no fun.JustRobby1 wrote: »This is quite a long thread for a OP question that can be addressed in a single sentence: In the context of weight loss, the answer is no, it does not matter.
People can talk in circles forever defending their preferred eating habits, but the fact of the matter is they offer no metabolic advantage. People who claim they do are clueless. They should at least stick to their anecdotes, or "feels", since this is about their only hope for legitimacy as it's difficult to disprove pure conjecture and supposition.
Debating woo diets keeps the boards a-rollin'..
I suppose I can't argue with that one. Fad diet folks can be useful in terms of pure entertainment value. Some get really animated about it too, which has it's finer charms on an otherwise melancholy day. Talking smack on their diet is roughly akin to pimp slapping their little brother, so they lash out. Pure gold sometimes.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »It matters in how it affects your satiety. But no, it doesn't matter in terms of weight loss. I know this because most days I eat alot of sweets- donuts, ice cream, ect. I still lose as long as I'm in deficit. You could eat an entire box of cereal and still lose, but will you feel good or satiated for long? That's the problem..
You must have a very high calorie limit. Once you eat a lot of donuts and ice cream, there's not much left for anything else.
I have 1700 Calories to work with plus excersise. I eat one meal so I eat alot in one sitting. That's alot for me because I'm only 112 lbs.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Like others, I would be interested in OPs motivation for posting this in the first place. Was it merely a hypothetical to provoke discussion? Or are you considering filling your 1800 calorie days with nothing but "junk" food? And what does that mean to you OP? What would your ideal 1800 calorie day look like?
Considering the OP's other posts are on needing to gain weight, or asking how much weight she'll gain after a couple of days of excess calories, I'd like to know the motivation too...2 -
So?Ericnutrition wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
What you said is totally reasonable. And you get a bunch of "woo" votes for saying something totally reasonable.
The "woo" voters are saying, with 100% confidence, that the word satiety doesn't matter. It matters a lot. In fact, it is probably the most important factor when it comes to weight loss if you are counting calories and have greatly reduced the amount of food you were eating prior to counting.
FTR, some of the things he listed as simple carbohydrates are complex carbohydrates. Sugar is a simple carb. The starches (potatoes, white flour, and white rice) are complex carbs.
Some people, and I'm one of them, are quite satiated by starches. There are quite a few of us who post on these forums who find the combination of starch and protein very satiating and don't find fat satiating in the least. There's no rise and plummet and hunger spike for us, just lasting satiety and easy compliance with our deficit.
Why does what he said get woo votes? Because satiety is individual, and making statements about it that are meant to apply in a universal sense is woo. There's no one size fits all formula that's true.
So no, what he said isn't totally reasonable, it's just what low-carb gurus tell everyone.
Well it is interesting that the MFP low-carb group has 46,000 members. The low-fat group? Is there a low-fat group?
A group with 46,000 members does not spell success of low carb.
Low carb is not for weight everyone. It certainly wasn't for me.
0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Like others, I would be interested in OPs motivation for posting this in the first place. Was it merely a hypothetical to provoke discussion? Or are you considering filling your 1800 calorie days with nothing but "junk" food? And what does that mean to you OP? What would your ideal 1800 calorie day look like?
Considering the OP's other posts are on needing to gain weight, or asking how much weight she'll gain after a couple of days of excess calories, I'd like to know the motivation too...
Ahhh, good to know.0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Like others, I would be interested in OPs motivation for posting this in the first place. Was it merely a hypothetical to provoke discussion? Or are you considering filling your 1800 calorie days with nothing but "junk" food? And what does that mean to you OP? What would your ideal 1800 calorie day look like?
Considering the OP's other posts are on needing to gain weight, or asking how much weight she'll gain after a couple of days of excess calories, I'd like to know the motivation too...
I would love it if just once this OP came back to one of her many threads and actually engaged with the people here trying to help her!!!!2 -
I see no one advocating "eating a lot of donuts and ice cream" *facepalm* Most here stick to a 80/20 rule (80% nutritious, 20% "treats".) I have never seen anyone advocating an all junk diet here.Ericnutrition wrote: »It matters in how it affects your satiety. But no, it doesn't matter in terms of weight loss. I know this because most days I eat alot of sweets- donuts, ice cream, ect. I still lose as long as I'm in deficit. You could eat an entire box of cereal and still lose, but will you feel good or satiated for long? That's the problem..
You must have a very high calorie limit. Once you eat a lot of donuts and ice cream, there's not much left for anything else.
2 -
This is NOT woo, according to my PCP, bariatric physician, and registered dietician.Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.8 -
msjennigirl wrote: »
This is NOT woo, according to my PCP, bariatric physician, and registered dietician.Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
They all agree that potatoes are simple carbs?
That's a shame. I'd like to hope that qualified medical professionals would know the difference between simple and complex carbs (mono- and disaccharides vs. polysaccharides).
I'd also like to hope that qualified medical professionals would know enough about the most basic principles of physiology and energy balance to understand that there is no net storage of fat while in a caloric deficit regardless of the macro composition of one's diet.11 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »msjennigirl wrote: »
This is NOT woo, according to my PCP, bariatric physician, and registered dietician.Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
The amateurs who post here know much more than your PCP, bariatric physician, and registered dietician.
That's the whole doggone problem with the internet - you just never know who's an amateur and who's not. There are quite a few professionals here in various healthcare/diet disciplines. A username doesn't always indicate somebody's level of expertise - or lack thereof.7 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »msjennigirl wrote: »
This is NOT woo, according to my PCP, bariatric physician, and registered dietician.Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
The amateurs who post here know much more than your PCP, bariatric physician, and registered dietician.
That's the whole doggone problem with the internet - you just never know who's an amateur and who's not. There are quite a few professionals here in various healthcare/diet disciplines. A username doesn't always indicate somebody's level of expertise - or lack thereof.
The point is, the science is not settled.
In your opinion. I don't think that's the point at all.
[ETA:] Putting my response into context, is it your opinion that the science is not settled as to whether potatoes are simple or complex carbohydrates? That was the specific point I addressed in my reply. Along with the fact that there is no net storage of fat while in a caloric deficit, regardless of the macro composition of one's diet. I don't find either of those to be controversial points.9 -
They all included potatoes in the list of carbs to limit.msjennigirl wrote: »
This is NOT woo, according to my PCP, bariatric physician, and registered dietician.Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
They all agree that potatoes are simple carbs?
That's a shame. I'd like to hope that qualified medical professionals would know the difference between simple and complex carbs (mono- and disaccharides vs. polysaccharides).
7 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »msjennigirl wrote: »
This is NOT woo, according to my PCP, bariatric physician, and registered dietician.Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
The amateurs who post here know much more than your PCP, bariatric physician, and registered dietician.
So I've noticed.6 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »msjennigirl wrote: »
This is NOT woo, according to my PCP, bariatric physician, and registered dietician.Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
The amateurs who post here know much more than your PCP, bariatric physician, and registered dietician.
That's the whole doggone problem with the internet - you just never know who's an amateur and who's not. There are quite a few professionals here in various healthcare/diet disciplines. A username doesn't always indicate somebody's level of expertise - or lack thereof.
The point is, the science is not settled.
In your opinion. I don't think that's the point at all.
[ETA:] Putting my response into context, is it your opinion that the science is not settled as to whether potatoes are simple or complex carbohydrates? That was the specific point I addressed in my reply. Along with the fact that there is no net storage of fat while in a caloric deficit, regardless of the macro composition of one's diet. I don't find either of those to be controversial points.
They are not. One is correct by definition and the other has been studied to death and is well proven. But hey, there is always someone who will think not.......
4
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