Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
Why do people do anything stupid?
We're not a species made to last.3 -
RecognitionT wrote: »Why do people do anything stupid?
We're not a species made to last.
No no. I completely trust natural selection. They might not last. I am.14 -
Explain how CICO relates to all the woo Dr. Oz type "supplements" such as apple cider vinegar, green coffee bean extract, raspberry ketones, hoodia, 'detox tea', and all the other so-called "fat burners" or "weight loss aids".
I'm not talking about what ridiculous pie-in-the-sky claims they make in their advertising hype, I'm talking about what actual relation they have to CICO.
Having done a Herbal Magic diet here in Canada. 95% is about restricting calories in creative ways, 0% is about exercise, and about 5% is from "supplements". Those supplements such as caffeine (main ingredient in majority of fat burners), fiber, CLA, etc, are claiming through limited studies, that they increase the "calories out" slightly or the appetite (make it easier to follow those portions). So yes, those supplements to varying degrees also support CICO but only if they work as claimed.10 -
CICO is problematic to many because:
1) There is no marketable product associated with it. Who is going to make money if you switch to CICO? You don’t need a commercial product to make it work, and if you can’t sell it, no one is going to push it.
2) There isn’t anything colorful or exciting about it. People just want some crazy diet plan with a colorful name or some other type of quick fix (cleanse, detox) unsustainable habit change for a few days or weeks that is going to reverse all of their problems. Being told that they can just take their current diet, making a few tweaks, reduce the volume, and try to exercise occasionally over a long period of time is usually met with a yawn and skepticism.
13 -
gebeziseva wrote: »Why? Because people are not taught in school that science is not made like in ancient Greece - through deduction. Also they have no idea what the difference is between a hypothesis and a theory. Also they can't be arsed to learn these. Therefore you shouldn't be arsed to explain or prove anything to anybody.
I recently tore into a PhD candidate that did not know the difference between hypothesis and theory. A *kitten* PhD candidate!?!?!
The Socratic method isn't taught anymore. I'm not overly concerned as I just think it makes it better for those who can think and reason.8 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »CICO is problematic to many because:
1) There is no marketable product associated with it. Who is going to make money if you switch to CICO? You don’t need a commercial product to make it work, and if you can’t sell it, no one is going to push it.
This is pretty funny because Under Armor owns MFP and they don't even sell a kitchen scale.
7 -
gebeziseva wrote: »Why? Because people are not taught in school that science is not made like in ancient Greece - through deduction. Also they have no idea what the difference is between a hypothesis and a theory. Also they can't be arsed to learn these. Therefore you shouldn't be arsed to explain or prove anything to anybody.
The Socratic method isn't taught anymore. I'm not overly concerned as I just think it makes it better for those who can think and reason.
My point is that the scientific method is not taught either.2 -
fitoverfortymom wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »CICO is problematic to many because:
1) There is no marketable product associated with it. Who is going to make money if you switch to CICO? You don’t need a commercial product to make it work, and if you can’t sell it, no one is going to push it.
This is pretty funny because Under Armor owns MFP and they don't even sell a kitchen scale.
Why would Under Armor sell a kitchen scale?1 -
My favorite is people that claim they eat 1200 calories but still aren’t losing weight. Here’s the kicker- they don’t own a food scale because that’s just “crazy.” I just stopped talking after that nonsense.
Not all, go in the keto community for example, many will claim carbs are bad and evil, then you have other groups who blame sugar and when I listen to the nonsense being thrown by my coworkers about nutrition....I get the impression the majority of the people have no clue how weight loss really works. My mom for example thinks she eats 1200 calories, but she doesn't weigh anything and visually I can tell she eats more calories than that, but she denies it.terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
Very well said. Our bodies are not simple. There is so much people don't understand about how hormones control metabolism, cravings, hunger, fat storage, muscle development, etc. CICO works, but for some it is much harder to master, and not because they are lazy or not trying.
16 -
My favorite is people that claim they eat 1200 calories but still aren’t losing weight. Here’s the kicker- they don’t own a food scale because that’s just “crazy.” I just stopped talking after that nonsense.
Not all, go in the keto community for example, many will claim carbs are bad and evil, then you have other groups who blame sugar and when I listen to the nonsense being thrown by my coworkers about nutrition....I get the impression the majority of the people have no clue how weight loss really works. My mom for example thinks she eats 1200 calories, but she doesn't weigh anything and visually I can tell she eats more calories than that, but she denies it.terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
Very well said. Our bodies are not simple. There is so much people don't understand about how hormones control metabolism, cravings, hunger, fat storage, muscle development, etc. CICO works, but for some it is much harder to master, and not because they are lazy or not trying.
They just feel it's too much work...it's funny because I hate estimating my calories these days.5 -
-
Because they don't want to admit that there is a problem and the solution is SIMPLE, but requires DEDICATION. My wife is a solid believer in CICO. One day, early on in her weight loss, or possibly just before, we were in the store and she reached for a bottle of supplements/diet pills and I said "It doesn't come in a bottle". She asked what I meant and I said "Skinny doesn't come in a bottle". She immediately put them down and we walked off down the aisle. I knew she wasn't too excited about my comment, but I later found out that it *really* bothered her. Shortly thereafter she took up running, counting calories, and lost 70lbs over a period of time. It was because she was ready to admit that she had to change her ways to achieve what she wanted, and she did it.26
-
DomesticKat wrote: »I've had this conversation a few times with people who are chronic yo-yo, fad dieters within my circle. They've seen how successful I've been with losing weight and always ask about it. At first they INSIST that they can't ever lose weight unless they cut out whole food groups, exercise excessively, create extreme deficits, or completely change their diets to foods they don't even like. Stuff that isn't sustainable. And they know it. I press them about it and eventually they concede that yep, it's that simple to just eat less.
It's wild how simple it is. But it's not fast enough for them. It doesn't take the weight off quickly enough. People demand instant gratification and a modest deficit over a long period of time doesn't provide that. The ability to stick to something for a long period of time and not give up when it isn't instantaneous requires trust. It requires trust in ourselves and trusting the process and having faith in a result that can't yet be seen. Humans generally don't do a great job with that. So I guess they'd rather yo-yo and keep regaining the weight they lose over and over again, and trying something different each time to see if it provides an instant result.
Thank you for this post...you just helped me understand why people do what they do in one post, and these are the exact things I've been trying to grasp for several years now.
3 -
seltzermint555 wrote: »
Thank you for this post...you just helped me understand why people do what they do in one post, and these are the exact things I've been trying to grasp for several years now.
The more people talk to me about what their ideas of weight loss consist of, the more that explanation makes sense to me. Humans are just bad at being patient and planning long-term for anything. I have one friend who insisted she could not lose weight if she ate more than 1000 calories a day doing some meal replacement diet. I talked to her about BMR, about all the things that went wrong with her plan, about how she couldn't stick to it and crashed, binged, and gained weight back. Her response was that she enjoyed losing so much weight every week. It was motivating. So it wasn't that she couldn't lose weight eating more. She just wanted to see huge losses every week regardless of the toll it took of her health. Cognitive dissonance, I guess.
7 -
I suspect it's because CICO is simple (simple not neccessarily easy) and people don't like to fail at something that's simple. So they pick difficult, they pick complicated, they pick drastic. Then when they fail they have a ready made excuse as to why they didn't stick with it.
I also suspect that it is SO simple that it's hard for people to believe. It almost smacks of "Whatif I told you you could lose weight with no exercise and continuing to eat the same foods you always have with one simple trick!". It's the stuff of spam email and pop up ads and people are conditioned to distrust something that seems "too good to be true"
Thirdly I suspect that people like to boast and CICO doesn't sound impressive. A picture of steamed rice, boiled chicken breast and broccoli makes much better Facebook fodder than a post about how you choose to only eat 3 slices of pizza instead of the whole thing. People also like to be a martyr and complain and CICO doesn't really give you much to complain about in my experience. Or my favourite, *bragplaining* this is where you combine both braging and complaining at the same time. "Oh I hate when co-workers to bring in donuts while I'm on my diet #temptation #eatingclean #notgivingin #yayme"
Oh and when I say people, I mean me in the past
38 -
Hmmm...I think what people are perhaps saying is that, of course, anyone who is calorie restricted will eventually lose weight. It’s just not a simple linear relationship. At 1200 calories/day, starting at the same weight, some will lose a lot of weight, and quickly, while others will lose less weight and slowly. Most women know the pain of going on a diet with their male partner, only to see them lose weight rapidly by cutting out desserts, while they struggle to lose weight on a restrictive low calorie diet. Hormones. Someone who was formerly obese, and has lost a significant amount of weight, will unfortunately have a lower resting metabolic rate. So yes, they can still lose weight by cutting calories, but they’ll have to cut their calories far more drastically than someone without a history of obesity who is on their first diet. It’s not always as simple as telling someone who’s struggling that they need to do a better job of weighing and measuring, because they ”should” be losing weight at the caloric intake they’re at.23
-
terryritter1 wrote: »It is that simple. The problem is with those who believe they have a deeper understanding of biology, but have enough just enough basic knowledge to create confirmation bias.
This is why there's just a textbook titled "Biochemistry" and not "Terry's Biochemistry".
Oh, I've read more than my share and anyone else's share of biochemistry. My masters degree is in Human Nutrition and Advanced Metabolism, and I've been practicing in the health and wellness community for the past 20 years, so I'm pretty sure I don't fall under the category you stated.
There are a whole host of factors that influence how calories are stored and which are more effectively digested. So, yeah, if you could know all that, I guess you can do a CICO...but you can't. It's not the concept that's amiss, but the practicality of arguing it. No one can tell me what their CI is...or their CO for that matter. But, again, if it gets you to create a deficit, that serves the purpose.10 -
Yes, exactly.0
-
CICO has to work. It’s a basic law of the universe. If we can’t agree on that, we can’t move forward.
However, estimating the CO is a lot more challenging than many people (especially those of us losing weight) like to admit. Even the CI is an estimate. Not every piece of pork or broccoli that weighs the same amount calories. It just doesn’t. One has more water or one piece of pork has more fat or whatever. They are guidelines that work for most people.
As a biomedical engineer I have seen special people that had biological processes that went against every principle known to be true. Things that I would not have believed could be true if i did not see them.
CICO works. It’s accounting for the CI and especially the CO that’s problematic.21 -
Hmmm...I think what people are perhaps saying is that, of course, anyone who is calorie restricted will eventually lose weight. It’s just not a simple linear relationship. At 1200 calories/day, starting at the same weight, some will lose a lot of weight, and quickly, while others will lose less weight and slowly. Most women know the pain of going on a diet with their male partner, only to see them lose weight rapidly by cutting out desserts, while they struggle to lose weight on a restrictive low calorie diet. Hormones. Someone who was formerly obese, and has lost a significant amount of weight, will unfortunately have a lower resting metabolic rate. So yes, they can still lose weight by cutting calories, but they’ll have to cut their calories far more drastically than someone without a history of obesity who is on their first diet. It’s not always as simple as telling someone who’s struggling that they need to do a better job of weighing and measuring, because they ”should” be losing weight at the caloric intake they’re at.
What kind of a difference in rate of loss do you think two people starting at the same weight, both eating the same 1200 calories, would see? In your hypothetical example, do they have the same activity level and exercise routine as well? So what are the causes for the differences in the rate of loss? The example of husband and wife isn’t relevant because they likely wouldn’t be starting at the same weight and husband shouldn’t be cutting to 1200.
18 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hmmm...I think what people are perhaps saying is that, of course, anyone who is calorie restricted will eventually lose weight. It’s just not a simple linear relationship. At 1200 calories/day, starting at the same weight, some will lose a lot of weight, and quickly, while others will lose less weight and slowly. Most women know the pain of going on a diet with their male partner, only to see them lose weight rapidly by cutting out desserts, while they struggle to lose weight on a restrictive low calorie diet. Hormones. Someone who was formerly obese, and has lost a significant amount of weight, will unfortunately have a lower resting metabolic rate. So yes, they can still lose weight by cutting calories, but they’ll have to cut their calories far more drastically than someone without a history of obesity who is on their first diet. It’s not always as simple as telling someone who’s struggling that they need to do a better job of weighing and measuring, because they ”should” be losing weight at the caloric intake they’re at.
What kind of a difference in rate of loss do you think two people starting at the same weight, both eating the same 1200 calories, would see? In your hypothetical example, do they have the same activity level and exercise routine as well? So what are the causes for the differences in the rate of loss? The example of husband and wife isn’t relevant because they likely wouldn’t be starting at the same weight and husband shouldn’t be cutting to 1200.
And at the same body weight, a man will commonly have more muscle in proportion to body fat than a woman. (There are exceptions; I'm talking averages.) This is an important factor in expected loss rate between them.7 -
So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
In my experience when people say "not all calories are equal" they are basically refering to how different foods can have different levels of satiety for the same amount of calories. That is true...but they mistakenly think that somehow CICO is somehow in denial of that, which it isn't. Saying all calroies are equal is not the same thing as saying any random collection of foods makes a good diet.13 -
The point I was trying to make is that there are numerous variables that would affect how quickly people lose weight. People seem to misinterpret CICO as meaning everyone will lose weight at a similar rate if they restrict to a similar level, but of course they don’t. That’s why the insistence of some that slower weight loss is purely because of inaccurate measuring (because CICO) can be experienced as offensive and hurtful to some people. And it’s also just wrong. There are a multitude of factors that affect the amount of energy we extract from food, the extent of our insulin response to identical diets, our level of satiety following a meal, or our resting metabolic rate etc...These affect our CI (calories extracted from food) and CO (calories expended from identical amounts of activity). Which, in the absence of some pretty specialized testing, most of us don’t actually know with any precision.
I see patients quite frequently who are eating very little (600-800 calories), exercising excessively/obsessively (hours per day) and still not losing weight. They get there by following advice to cut calories and up their exercise when their weight loss plateaued. The answer in these cases is ALMOST always to eat more and exercise less. There’s a small initial weight gain followed by steady weight loss. Yes, they could theoretically eat even less and exercise even more and eventually they’d lose weight. But at great cost to their health. And why would you want to do it that way?
* Note the ALMOST. A thorough history is required before giving that advice.33 -
OK. The perspective of a former denier.
We want to lose weight yesterday. No matter how long it took for me to put it on, I want it gone yesterday after I start my diet.
And complete and utter lack of understanding on calories. “I had a heavy lunch so I am simply going to drink milk for dinner” with around 10 teaspoons of sugar in it. “I had a small snack. Just 20-30 chips and a small sugary drink”.
“I was good with my diet today. So I am going to eat this double scoop ice cream. It’s all liquid in the end”. The concept of “liquid has no calories” kills it for many people.
“I don’t want to weigh my food. I know this looks like 100 grams.”
The food I cook at home and the food I eat outside has the same number of calories. (I lost 4 kgs in 2 months by just stopping eating out. No other effort apart from this).
About the CO part of the equation. I folded laundry today. I ll add “housework- moderate intensity” for 60 minutes. Cool. That gives me 200 additional calories.
I do this for a week. At best I don’t see a change in the scale and then I proclaim “CICO is a lie”.
I did all of this. Did an online test “do I have hypothyroid”. The result was obviously yes. Went and got my thyroid tested. It was in perfect range. My last defense crumbled. I had a threshold weight in my head. I thought I cannot get below it. And then I moved my house. Got closer to my workplace. Started walking to work. Cooked at home. Got good rest. Result: I am 3kgs below the “threshold weight” I thought I cannot cross.
Somethings you just have to learn the hard way. Only then do you realize that it did not have to be so hard.
42 -
That's why we always emphasize that maximum healthy weightloss rate is determined by height, weight, sex, activity level. A max rate of 1% of total body weight per week is an often thrown around rule of thumb. Percentage is a concept that's hard for many people to understand. Sometimes I link Wikipedia articles, but I don't think they're interested. The same goes for "maximum"; no amount of paraphrazing, like "up to" and "no more than", not even "maybe this much, if all these factors are present and constant, but most likely less, and decreasing as you lose weight" hits home.The point I was trying to make is that there are numerous variables that would affect how quickly people lose weight. People seem to misinterpret CICO as meaning everyone will lose weight at a similar rate if they restrict to a similar level, but of course they don’t.
We also make sure people are informed that fat loss can be masked by water weight fluctuations, so you need a least a few weeks of consistent weigh-ins, while sticking to a consistent diet/exercise, to see a true trend.That’s why the insistence of some that slower weight loss is purely because of inaccurate measuring (because CICO) can be experienced as offensive and hurtful to some people.
The technicalities might be correct, but they will have no real impact on the end result, and each person has to adjust for real life results anyway; any estimation is just a qualified guess. Satiety is not just individual, it's also subjective; it's not just physical, it's also psychological - some people enjoy feeling empty, others feel anxious.And it’s also just wrong. There are a multitude of factors that affect the amount of energy we extract from food, the extent of our insulin response to identical diets, our level of satiety following a meal, or our resting metabolic rate etc...These affect our CI (calories extracted from food) and CO (calories expended from identical amounts of activity). Which, in the absence of some pretty specialized testing, most of us don’t actually know with any precision.
Self-reported food intake and exercise will always be inaccurate, and overweight people tend to underestimate intake and overestimate exercise. Even patients in weightloss clinics find ways to cheat. People are desperate, yes, but desperation doesn't usually lead to rational behavior. Misinformation and superstition feeds the irrational behavior. Neutral, balanced information can be a gamechanger, but the person/patient has to be willing to change their attitude. Knowing is not the same as accepting as facts.I see patients quite frequently who are eating very little (600-800 calories), exercising excessively/obsessively (hours per day) and still not losing weight. They get there by following advice to cut calories and up their exercise when their weight loss plateaued. The answer in these cases is ALMOST always to eat more and exercise less. There’s a small initial weight gain followed by steady weight loss. Yes, they could theoretically eat even less and exercise even more and eventually they’d lose weight. But at great cost to their health. And why would you want to do it that way?
* Note the ALMOST. A thorough history is required before giving that advice.15 -
The point I was trying to make is that there are numerous variables that would affect how quickly people lose weight. People seem to misinterpret CICO as meaning everyone will lose weight at a similar rate if they restrict to a similar level, but of course they don’t. That’s why the insistence of some that slower weight loss is purely because of inaccurate measuring (because CICO) can be experienced as offensive and hurtful to some people. And it’s also just wrong. There are a multitude of factors that affect the amount of energy we extract from food, the extent of our insulin response to identical diets, our level of satiety following a meal, or our resting metabolic rate etc...These affect our CI (calories extracted from food) and CO (calories expended from identical amounts of activity). Which, in the absence of some pretty specialized testing, most of us don’t actually know with any precision.
I see patients quite frequently who are eating very little (600-800 calories), exercising excessively/obsessively (hours per day) and still not losing weight. They get there by following advice to cut calories and up their exercise when their weight loss plateaued. The answer in these cases is ALMOST always to eat more and exercise less. There’s a small initial weight gain followed by steady weight loss. Yes, they could theoretically eat even less and exercise even more and eventually they’d lose weight. But at great cost to their health. And why would you want to do it that way?
* Note the ALMOST. A thorough history is required before giving that advice.
That completely ignores the CO part of CICO.13 -
The point I was trying to make is that there are numerous variables that would affect how quickly people lose weight. People seem to misinterpret CICO as meaning everyone will lose weight at a similar rate if they restrict to a similar level, but of course they don’t. That’s why the insistence of some that slower weight loss is purely because of inaccurate measuring (because CICO) can be experienced as offensive and hurtful to some people. And it’s also just wrong. There are a multitude of factors that affect the amount of energy we extract from food, the extent of our insulin response to identical diets, our level of satiety following a meal, or our resting metabolic rate etc...These affect our CI (calories extracted from food) and CO (calories expended from identical amounts of activity). Which, in the absence of some pretty specialized testing, most of us don’t actually know with any precision.
I see patients quite frequently who are eating very little (600-800 calories), exercising excessively/obsessively (hours per day) and still not losing weight. They get there by following advice to cut calories and up their exercise when their weight loss plateaued. The answer in these cases is ALMOST always to eat more and exercise less. There’s a small initial weight gain followed by steady weight loss. Yes, they could theoretically eat even less and exercise even more and eventually they’d lose weight. But at great cost to their health. And why would you want to do it that way?
* Note the ALMOST. A thorough history is required before giving that advice.
But how significantly do you think those variables impact the rate of loss, and what percentage of individuals do you think are actually impacted by what you describe?
Because I find posts like this - providing exceptions and reasons why someone might not lose exactly 1 lb/week if they cut 500 cals from their diet but instead might lose 0.8 lb/week to be introducing unnecessary noise to a simple equation which works in principle for everyone. The fact is that all of the numbers, both CI and CO, are estimates and subject to some individual variability. But if a person is consistent, uses their own real world data, and adjusts accordingly - the principle of CICO still holds.
Introducing why something might not work precisely for everyone who tries, and providing all kinds of examples of people with medical conditions, damaged metabolism, etc - when that doesn’t apply to the vast majority of people - is just going to result in some people thinking they’d be better off not trying, assuming they are one of your exception cases rather than one of the countless individuals who just needs to focus on better logging and be more patient to see results. You’re validating people’s common belief that weight loss is hard and complex and difficult to control and that’s the opposite of what the OP, and so many others on these boards are saying. When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras or unicorns.
20 -
Because it isn't always true..but CICO folks take on a superiority complex. They're like born again christians who think they're the only ones going to heaven. When in reality.. all sorts of good people are going to heaven. And..for me - calorie counting never worked.. i've lost almost all my weight Since jan. 1 not counting a single calorie and eating way more then when i did. Different approaches work for different people.
57 -
elisa123gal wrote: »Because it isn't always true..but CICO folks take on a superiority complex. They're like born again christians who think they're the only ones going to heaven. When in reality.. all sorts of good people are going to heaven. And..for me - calorie counting never worked.. i've lost almost all my weight Since jan. 1 not counting a single calorie and eating way more then when i did. Different approaches work for different people.
So you’re one of the people who doesn’t understand what CICO means... it doesn’t mean calorie counting. It is simply an energy balance. If you lost weight since Jan 1st that’s great - but it was because you were in a calorie deficit. CICO applies whether you are losing, maintaining, or gaining weight.
42 -
elisa123gal wrote: »Because it isn't always true..but CICO folks take on a superiority complex. They're like born again christians who think they're the only ones going to heaven. When in reality.. all sorts of good people are going to heaven. And..for me - calorie counting never worked.. i've lost almost all my weight Since jan. 1 not counting a single calorie and eating way more then when i did. Different approaches work for different people.
So calorie counting didn't work but you are eating more than ever. That makes sense
17
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