All Calories are not created equal!
Replies
-
Please explain how the metabolism turns into a black hole where ingested energy just disappears. I will await a scientific response!While reading through the posts as the OP was getting beat up on, I couldn't help but wonder that if the only way to lose weight is by having a calorie deficit, how do people on Atkins type diets manage to lose weight while eating more calories then required. Is it possible that there is more then one scientifically based method to losing weight.
17 -
If you have a Paypal account and are willing to bet, I'll take you up on that.jpaulparis wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.
If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?
Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?
Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
That's crazy talk. My diet consists almost entirely of carbs, and I'm losing weight. I'm eating between 1500 and 1900 calories a day of all the carbs too.... And absolutely zero meats at all (or cheese, milk, yogurt) And I'm not hungry...2
-
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jpaulparis wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.
If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?
Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?
Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
How much are you willing to bet? I've got some student loans that need paying and I could use the easy money.
I'm so tempted to try this, for real. I'm just worried about what my friends and family will think of me looking like death all the time.
But then again it is only a week. I could say I had a stomach bug or something.
I can see it now - The Twinkie VLCD - coming to your Health & Fitness blogs soon!!5 -
While reading through the posts as the OP was getting beat up on, I couldn't help but wonder that if the only way to lose weight is by having a calorie deficit, how do people on Atkins type diets manage to lose weight while eating more calories then required. Is it possible that there is more then one scientifically based method to losing weight.
They don't...6 -
I know this will generate a lot of critical comments but shouldn't we all think deeper?
People who have healthy bodies, and I don't just mean physically fit, but healthy without any sort of disease or disorders, are often passionate about straight up calorie in/out methods of weigh loss or menu plans. Calories may all count up to some number the same way but the genetic make up of each food is very different. It seems important to always remember that many people on MFP have something else going on medically. Celiac, Hypothyroid (all unique versions of it), Autoimmune issues, Allergies, RA, Crones disease and many others. Many of the alternate dietary and fitness plans that work for people, which others consider wrong in some way, are helpful to those with various health concerns.
Each person has their own magic formula just as each persons body has its own magic genetics. Certain foods can trigger adverse affects in people that seem just fine to a healthy person. For example-I have family members with MSUD, which is a metabolic disorder caused by a deficiency of the branched-chain alpha-keto acid dehydrogenase complex (BCKDC), leading to a buildup of the branched-chain amino acids (leucine, isoleucine, and valine) and their by-products (ketoacids) in the blood and urine. A hamburger or fish, regardless of the calories, can cause death. For them, calories are not just calories...Even in people who have the same Dx, our individual body genetics can mean, we each process nutrients and chemicals in our body differently. Some extreme, some less threatening but none the less impactful.
There is no one size fits all, not even calorie in/out formula for every person on earth. One of the things that concerns me about any of these threads are passionate responses that in appearance, seem to lump every human body into functioning exactly the same. Optimal human bodies work a certain way...but in practice, the advances in medicine show all our bodies are unique. No matter your credentials, DX someone and condemning what has worked for them via thread comment seems irresponsible. When the comments get ugly, a perception that mental/emotional fitness may be lacking in an overall fitness program for some people.23 -
lisawolfinger wrote: »People who have healthy bodies, and I don't just mean physically fit, but healthy without any sort of disease or disorders, are often passionate about straight up calorie in/out methods of weigh loss or menu plans. Calories may all count up to some number the same way but the genetic make up of each food is very different.
Not sure what the genes of our foods have to do with it, but sure, the genes of a carrot are different from the genes of a parsnip.
I do agree that the NUTRITIONAL make-up of various foods is different and that that matters, but I expect that EVERYONE in this discussion agrees. It has nothing to do with OP's argument that essentially we need to cut carbs to lose weight, which is false.It seems important to always remember that many people on MFP have something else going on medically. Celiac, Hypothyroid (all unique versions of it), Autoimmune issues, Allergies, RA, Crones disease and many others. Many of the alternate dietary and fitness plans that work for people, which others consider wrong in some way, are helpful to those with various health concerns.
Specific plans may be helpful for someone with a specific problem (i.e., if you are lactose intolerant, avoid lactose; if you are celiac, avoid gluten). OP's comment was made as general diet advice, and supposedly about how to lose weight, so that's not really a defense of it. It's still wrong and woo.Each person has their own magic formula
For weight loss? No. There are individual things you can do that will make things easier or harder for you, yes, but that has more to do with psychology and what foods or eating patterns you find sating (probably a mix of biology and psychology and habits). But there are a huge range of dietary choices that can work for people, even one individual person. The way weight loss works, period, is through calorie deficit. What makes a calorie deficit easy to keep (or makes it harder) will depend on the person. OP made general claims for humans as a whole, so that there are individual elements, again, is not a defense of OP's silly post.each persons body has its own magic genetics.
Our genetic differences are actually not particularly great, and they aren't magic, I'm not sure what the purpose of that term is. The evidence is that humans can thrive on a huge range of diets and, relevant to this thread, that the diets with the best results seem to be higher carb (although I don't personally think that's because it's better to be high carb, I think there are other things associated with those diets and carb percentage is irrelevant unless things you need are absent (like protein, healthy fats -- these should not be a concern with a developed nation).
I of course agree that if a food gives a bad result you should avoid it. I am puzzled -- seriously, really, really puzzled -- why you think the discussion of CICO denies this.There is no one size fits all
The ONLY person asserting that there is a one size fits all was OP. She thinks we should all do it the way she is outlining.
And again, that weight loss works through calorie deficit -- something I get passionate about because understanding the facts is important, there is way too much fact denial in our world -- does not mean that there aren't OTHER things that go into what is a good, healthy diet. Of course there is. That someone could lose weight eating only bread doesn't mean that eating only bread is easy to do, without overeating (I think it would be, I'd get way bored of bread, but others might differ). It also does not mean that a diet made up of only bread would be healthy (it's not), or that it would not be a disaster for someone with celiac (of course it would be). But none of that has a thing to do with CICO.11 -
We're also not all that different...7
-
Sort of.
Overeating on a nutrient-dense diet (which I did) might (or might not) be healthier than overeating on a very poor diet. I think it probably is a little healthier, but eh. Fact is that however you get fat, it's unhealthy to be fat. Was it healthier for me to be fat eating lots of vegetables, a balanced (if excessive) diet, lots of home-cooked foods and no fast food and not a whole lot of sweets (not my thing) vs. someone who is not fat but eats the SAD? IMO, probably not. If you add in that I, in this hypothetical, am sedentary, and the thin person who eats the SAD is active, well, I'd say the thin person definitely would be healthier.
Now, is WHAT the calories consist of ALSO important, not merely how many, if we are talking about health? Sure, a healthy diet is better than an unhealthy one (although a healthy one can include some foods that don't contribute much in the way of micronutrients, if it is otherwise adequate).
I don't think you and I actually disagree on any of this, but this was just a good place to tag on my thoughts. ;-)1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
I'm going to take a crack at answering this fully.
Calories are a unit of measurement of energy in the form of heat. Specifically one calorie is the amount of energy necessary to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree celsius. When you are talking calories in food then it is written as Calorie and you are actually talking about kilocalories or the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degree celsius. 1 kg of water is the same as 1 liter of water.
Hydrocarbons (combinations of hydrogen and carbon) react with oxygen in high heat to form carbon dioxide and water plus releasing heat. All of our macros, protein/fat/carbs are hydrocarbons. The fact that the reaction releases heat means that once started it can self-sustain.
Take glucose (sugar) for example, it is a hydrocarbon...specifically it is a carbohydrate (hydrated carbon). Hydrated carbons have the chemical formula of C(x)H(2x)O(x) because they are literally carbon C with water H20. Glucose is C6H12O6.
If you heat up glucose in atmosphere containing oxygen the following reaction happens.
C6H12O6 + 602 + heat ==> 6CO2 + 6 H2O + heat
In atmosphere with sufficient heat this manifests as fire where the CO2 billows off as smoke and the water produced turns gaseous from the heat and leaves with the smoke as steam. If you capture all the heat produced from this reaction you would find that burning 10 grams of glucose would provide enough to heat 40 liters of water by 1 degree celsius (which is actually a very large amount of energy) and that amount of energy is equal to 40 Calories. Therefore carbohydrates have about 40 Calories in 10 grams or 4 Calories per gram.
In your body you injest the glucose and you breath in oxygen. Rather than cause the chemical reaction between glucose and oxygen by heat your body instead uses enzymatic catalysis by having enzymes in your body arrange the molecules in such a way that the reaction happens at 37 degrees celsius instead of much hotter. The reaction proceeds through many different enzymatic steps at the end of which 6 CO2 and 6 H2O are produced. Heat is also produced which helps maintain your body at 37 degrees celsius (or hotter in which case you perspire) and your body gets rid of the CO2 through exhaling and the H20 through urination. The reason more heat isn't produces (as in the case of a fire) is that most of that energy is actually captured and contained by enzymatically coupoling the metabolic breakdown of the carbohydrate to the formation of new chemical bonds in other molecules. Commonly this is in the form of the molecule ATP which can then be used in other chemical reactions as a means of supplying the energy required to carry out those reactions.
Reactions breaking down molecules are called catabolic, reactions building molecules are called anabolic and combined they are called metabolic. The metabolic breakdown of glucose forms ATP molecules and some waste heat in addition to CO2 and H2O in pretty much what amounts to a controlled burning of the molecule.
So with all of that said a "calorie" isn't a physical thing, its a unit of energy. Our bodies derive that energy from the metabolic conversion of foods in the forms of hydrocarbons into water, carbon dioxide, a little waste heat and ATP that can be used for other useful work. The amount of energy we derive from a certain amount of hydrocarbon is measured in Calories because it is a measure of energy production. When you say this hamburger has 600 Calories you are literally saying that if you fully metabolized (burning or enzymatically breaking down) that hamburger it would release enough energy to heat 600 liters of water by 1 degree celsius.
Can I just say--WOW!
That says it succinctly
Great post @Aaron_K1230 -
jpaulparis wrote: »Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.
But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.1 -
FrugalMomsRock75 wrote: »That's crazy talk. My diet consists almost entirely of carbs, and I'm losing weight. I'm eating between 1500 and 1900 calories a day of all the carbs too.... And absolutely zero meats at all (or cheese, milk, yogurt) And I'm not hungry...
WITCH! BURN HER!
I'll watch whilst munching on chips.7 -
I always find it fascinating when MFP users at the beginning/middle of their weight loss journey seem inclined to dispense philosophical fitness advice to the world.15
-
Bry_Lander wrote: »I always find it fascinating when MFP users at the beginning/middle of their weight loss journey seem inclined to dispense philosophical fitness advice to the world.
It's the evil endorphines I tell you. That's a sign of addiction you know.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sort of.
Overeating on a nutrient-dense diet (which I did) might (or might not) be healthier than overeating on a very poor diet. I think it probably is a little healthier, but eh. Fact is that however you get fat, it's unhealthy to be fat. Was it healthier for me to be fat eating lots of vegetables, a balanced (if excessive) diet, lots of home-cooked foods and no fast food and not a whole lot of sweets (not my thing) vs. someone who is not fat but eats the SAD? IMO, probably not. If you add in that I, in this hypothetical, am sedentary, and the thin person who eats the SAD is active, well, I'd say the thin person definitely would be healthier.
Now, is WHAT the calories consist of ALSO important, not merely how many, if we are talking about health? Sure, a healthy diet is better than an unhealthy one (although a healthy one can include some foods that don't contribute much in the way of micronutrients, if it is otherwise adequate).
I don't think you and I actually disagree on any of this, but this was just a good place to tag on my thoughts. ;-)
I hear ya. That's why I used "probably". There are very few absolutes in my experience...1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »I always find it fascinating when MFP users at the beginning/middle of their weight loss journey seem inclined to dispense philosophical fitness advice to the world.
Still, it's probably more actionable than the philosophical advice dispensed after the final-final portion of our weight loss journeys. "Eram quod es, eris quod sum."0 -
While reading through the posts as the OP was getting beat up on, I couldn't help but wonder that if the only way to lose weight is by having a calorie deficit, how do people on Atkins type diets manage to lose weight while eating more calories then required. Is it possible that there is more then one scientifically based method to losing weight.
Why do you believe that people on Atkin's (ie low carb) diets lose weight while eating more calories than required? You believe they eat more than their TDEE and still lose weight? Can you share your source for this information?5 -
lisawolfinger wrote: »I know this will generate a lot of critical comments but shouldn't we all think deeper?
People who have healthy bodies, and I don't just mean physically fit, but healthy without any sort of disease or disorders, are often passionate about straight up calorie in/out methods of weigh loss or menu plans. Calories may all count up to some number the same way but the genetic make up of each food is very different. It seems important to always remember that many people on MFP have something else going on medically. Celiac, Hypothyroid (all unique versions of it), Autoimmune issues, Allergies, RA, Crones disease and many others. Many of the alternate dietary and fitness plans that work for people, which others consider wrong in some way, are helpful to those with various health concerns.
Each person has their own magic formula just as each persons body has its own magic genetics. Certain foods can trigger adverse affects in people that seem just fine to a healthy person. For example-I have family members with MSUD, which is a metabolic disorder caused by a deficiency of the branched-chain alpha-keto acid dehydrogenase complex (BCKDC), leading to a buildup of the branched-chain amino acids (leucine, isoleucine, and valine) and their by-products (ketoacids) in the blood and urine. A hamburger or fish, regardless of the calories, can cause death. For them, calories are not just calories...Even in people who have the same Dx, our individual body genetics can mean, we each process nutrients and chemicals in our body differently. Some extreme, some less threatening but none the less impactful.
There is no one size fits all, not even calorie in/out formula for every person on earth. One of the things that concerns me about any of these threads are passionate responses that in appearance, seem to lump every human body into functioning exactly the same. Optimal human bodies work a certain way...but in practice, the advances in medicine show all our bodies are unique. No matter your credentials, DX someone and condemning what has worked for them via thread comment seems irresponsible. When the comments get ugly, a perception that mental/emotional fitness may be lacking in an overall fitness program for some people.
Firstly, OP presented her post as advice that should be followed. So she is actually the person suggesting "one size fits all".
While there are clearly differences in the way different people's bodies react to different foods, everything I've ever seen suggests that the effect on metabolism is negligible.
It seems what you are talking about is health concerns. But CICO is NOT about health, it is about weight loss. And what it says is that whether you are 100% healthy, have thyroid issues, have food sensitivities, have autoimmune disorders, whatever - if you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight. Our bodies cannot create matter out of nothing. CICO doesn't say eat whatever you want and you will be healthy. It doesn't say all foods supply the same nutrition. It doesn't say which macros will keep you full. It just says Calories In must equal Calories Out to maintain weight. This is a FACT.
Some people feel better eating low carb, so they are better able to stick to the right calories and lose weight. Some people do better with lots of veggies. Some with everything more balanced. These things affect satiety, emotional well-being, digestion, etc. But if your body burns 2000 cals a day to maintain, whether you eat 2000 cals of low carb, high carb, vegetarian, junk food, anything - you will maintain your weight. You might feel like crap on one diet and feel fabulous on another, but if you stick to the right amount of calories, you will maintain. There are no specific foods you must eat or you must avoid to lose weight, and the foods that make it easy for one person can make it difficult for another. But CICO is the only constant for everyone.
And I really don't think the little dig at the end of your post was necessary. Those of us that stick around to answer questions do it out of a desire to help people, as we have seen many people struggle to lose weight until they finally get that they don't have to torture themselves into a restrictive diet and follow all the crazy rules out there to succeed. If more people would call out the BS that passes for diet advice on the internet, more people would be able to achieve a more healthy weight. This is not OPs only post, and she is posting lots of misleading info all over the boards like she's an expert, supposedly she is going to write a weight loss book
18 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »I always find it fascinating when MFP users at the beginning/middle of their weight loss journey seem inclined to dispense philosophical fitness advice to the world.
Still, it's probably more actionable than the philosophical advice dispensed after the final-final portion of our weight loss journeys. "Eram quod es, eris quod sum."
I recently took up cycling and bought a new road bike - I basically know how to balance on the two wheels and operate the brakes at this point. So I guess I'm qualified to instruct everyone on the nuances of cycling, please hit me up for some solid advice...10 -
While reading through the posts as the OP was getting beat up on, I couldn't help but wonder that if the only way to lose weight is by having a calorie deficit, how do people on Atkins type diets manage to lose weight while eating more calories then required. Is it possible that there is more then one scientifically based method to losing weight.
Because they aren't....3 -
Atkins type diets are how I needed to lose even more weight. It is quite possible to have 4-5 Miller lites, 1 dozen deep fried wings with celery and blue cheese dressing, and still be way under whatever magical carb level I was targeting.7
-
This content has been removed.
-
jpaulparis wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.
If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?
Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?
Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
That's a guarantee you will be wrong on. Blows my mind, This is why I have a rule and it's never take advice from someone who has less than 50 posts (actually it's really at least 1,000), 95% of the time they are nothing but a fount of misinformation and body cleansing toxins BS. You could have at least googled a credible source to find out if you were right first.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sort of.
Overeating on a nutrient-dense diet (which I did) might (or might not) be healthier than overeating on a very poor diet. I think it probably is a little healthier, but eh. Fact is that however you get fat, it's unhealthy to be fat. Was it healthier for me to be fat eating lots of vegetables, a balanced (if excessive) diet, lots of home-cooked foods and no fast food and not a whole lot of sweets (not my thing) vs. someone who is not fat but eats the SAD? IMO, probably not. If you add in that I, in this hypothetical, am sedentary, and the thin person who eats the SAD is active, well, I'd say the thin person definitely would be healthier.
Now, is WHAT the calories consist of ALSO important, not merely how many, if we are talking about health? Sure, a healthy diet is better than an unhealthy one (although a healthy one can include some foods that don't contribute much in the way of micronutrients, if it is otherwise adequate).
I don't think you and I actually disagree on any of this, but this was just a good place to tag on my thoughts. ;-)
Heck-a-roonie, I over-ate (to the point of obesity) on mostly healthy foods (especially if you don't count beer/wine as unhealthy
), and was very active and athletic - both at the same time, for over a decade.
Your theoretical thin, active person eating SAD was almost certainly healthier than I was: I was prehypertensive and had very high triglycerides/cholesterol, musculoskeletal issues, and some health problems involving systemic inflammation.
Now, actual thin, active me is healthier than obese active me was, while still eating much the same things (including the beer/wine), just less of them; and doing the same activities, too . . . healthier, despite being 3 years older (about to turn 62).
I'll bet nutritious eating beats SAD for health, and that active beats inactive. But the body weight, and the body weight alone, makes a big difference, IME.
Correct CICO FTW, fer shure.
7 -
goldthistime wrote: »I see from another thread that you're writing a book about weight loss. It's good that you're throwing out some of your ideas here first.
That explains a lot. This kind of *baby-feline* will sell - heck, it's all over the diet books section already. It won't work, but it'll sell.
Not working is part of the magic formula that keeps the chump consumer coming back for more.
(P.S. One of my (overweight) friends argued very passionately that it was impossible to lose weight except by cutting carbs, literally telling me indignantly that she knew this because she had "read all the books over the Winter, and they all said so". The fact that what I'd done over the Winter (plus a few months) was go from obese to the lower end of a normal BMI, while continuing to eat carbs? Completely unpersuasive. SMH.)4 -
goldthistime wrote: »I see from another thread that you're writing a book about weight loss. It's good that you're throwing out some of your ideas here first.
That explains a lot. This kind of *baby-feline* will sell - heck, it's all over the diet books section already. It won't work, but it'll sell.
Not working is part of the magic formula that keeps the chump consumer coming back for more.
(P.S. One of my (overweight) friends argued very passionately that it was impossible to lose weight except by cutting carbs, literally telling me indignantly that she knew this because she had "read all the books over the Winter, and they all said so". The fact that what I'd done over the Winter (plus a few months) was go from obese to the lower end of a normal BMI, while continuing to eat carbs? Completely unpersuasive. SMH.)
You can't fight faith with facts...
8 -
emmydoodles83 wrote: »jpaulparis wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.
If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?
Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?
Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
That's a guarantee you will be wrong on. Blows my mind, This is why I have a rule and it's never take advice from someone who has less than 50 posts (actually it's really at least 1,000), 95% of the time they are nothing but a fount of misinformation and body cleansing toxins BS. You could have at least googled a credible source to find out if you were right first.
Whoa, I do the same thing but thought that was just me being a snob. It's rare that anyone under a certain amount of posts (not really sure of the amount tho) doesn't need some schoolin'.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »I always find it fascinating when MFP users at the beginning/middle of their weight loss journey seem inclined to dispense philosophical fitness advice to the world.
Me too0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions