New protein consumption article-- everyone is going to go nuts over this!
Replies
-
I went a little off kilter with a very long response, which I think means it's a good time to ring the bell and head home.
EDIT:
Oh, what the hay, I already typed it all out:Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.
Keep in mind that I'm female and 5'6-5'7, so my maintenance calories are closer to 2,100. 2100-640=1460. If I'm on a 500-750 cal/day deficit, that gives me 710-960 of things OTHER than protein to eat, which is definitely NOT as fun as 2360-2660. And seeing as protein rarely comes in "pure" form, those 640 calories are going to get muddled while I'm trying to get my protein.
So yes, excessive.
I wouldn't know to keep your gender and height in mind since it was never mentioned.
Maintenance calories for body weight are energy parameters to sustain that exact weight. Gender and height play a relative factor in calculating a range of optimal weight and body fat, but are not the ultimate determinant to sustain mass. That's an energy balance equation based on current body weight and activity levels. If you have a metabolic issue going on, then that also gets thrown into the equation, but that was also never mentioned, so I'm basing calculated maintenance strictly from what is or isn't mentioned.
710 - 960kcal of "OTHER" things is 178-240g of all carbs, or 79-107g of all fat. Certainly a combination of any of those macros can be manageable. Food being "fun" is a hedonistic implication and by definition, indulgent.
As for protein rarely coming in "pure" form, of course natural sources of protein aren't going to be purely protein. This is constantly mentioned as calculating your total calories as a combination of other macros. Extreme examples of macros are being used to illustrate its contribution to that total.
And there's still no context for what is considered excessive. It fits within your given deficit that you've calculated for yourself.
Hedonism is what landed me here in the first place. It should be no surprised, then, that hedonism is what's helping define my measure of "excess".
What macros are you prioritizing?
The only interpretation that I'm able to deduce from your rebuttals (and I could very well be incorrect) is that you would prefer to sacrifice protein intake to spare more room for a higher combination of carbs and fat, which in a western obesogenic diet, are the two primary macronutrients that drive hyperpalatability and hedonic signaling - it's actually a precisely engineered combination of sugar, fat, and salt that make industrial food tasty, non-satiating, and easy to eat more. Likely because protein and micronutrients are sorely lacking from those types of food.
You're interpreting me exactly the way that I intended. I am not prioritizing macros beyond ~109g of protein or so. I am prioritizing "tasty" and "happy". Higher protein sacrifices "tasty" (to me. Subjective. YMMV.). Which is EXACTLY why I'm complaining.
I think you're being much more clinical about this than I am, and more power to you for that, but I do not (and never have) prioritized the functionality of a food over its subjective attributes. So this new study, which somewhat implies (and I say somewhat because of @lemurcat12 's comment above) that I need to increase my protein (which I do *not* enjoy) means decreasing the amount of carbs and fats (which I *do* enjoy).
This would not be such an issue if I were in maintenance. The net calories after protein is accounted for would be plenty. But now I'm being told that those are not only to be reduced in favor of protein, but further reduced (disproportionately to protein, I might add!) by a caloric deficit.
To people like me (who struggle to get enough protein anyway), this could have emotionally debilitating consequences. After all, what's the point of trying to diet if I'm *already* not doing something right (not getting enough protein), and then on top of it I have to eat food that I don't really care for, and have to FURTHER decrease the food that I DO like in favor of the food that I don't? I'd try it for exactly four and a half days before throwing in the towel, binging on a pizza, and deciding that I'm not good enough.
TL;DR: I didn't get fat because I look at the utility of food.
TL;DR - if you want to lose fat, some things need to change.
Haha, I KNEW this was going to happen. Yes, some things have to change, but why can't they change PROPORTIONALLY? If I have to decrease my calories, say.... 25%, why can't that 25% come from ALL the macros?Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.
Keep in mind that I'm female and 5'6-5'7, so my maintenance calories are closer to 2,100. 2100-640=1460. If I'm on a 500-750 cal/day deficit, that gives me 710-960 of things OTHER than protein to eat, which is definitely NOT as fun as 2360-2660. And seeing as protein rarely comes in "pure" form, those 640 calories are going to get muddled while I'm trying to get my protein.
So yes, excessive.
I wouldn't know to keep your gender and height in mind since it was never mentioned.
Maintenance calories for body weight are energy parameters to sustain that exact weight. Gender and height play a relative factor in calculating a range of optimal weight and body fat, but are not the ultimate determinant to sustain mass. That's an energy balance equation based on current body weight and activity levels. If you have a metabolic issue going on, then that also gets thrown into the equation, but that was also never mentioned, so I'm basing calculated maintenance strictly from what is or isn't mentioned.
710 - 960kcal of "OTHER" things is 178-240g of all carbs, or 79-107g of all fat. Certainly a combination of any of those macros can be manageable. Food being "fun" is a hedonistic implication and by definition, indulgent.
As for protein rarely coming in "pure" form, of course natural sources of protein aren't going to be purely protein. This is constantly mentioned as calculating your total calories as a combination of other macros. Extreme examples of macros are being used to illustrate its contribution to that total.
And there's still no context for what is considered excessive. It fits within your given deficit that you've calculated for yourself.
Hedonism is what landed me here in the first place. It should be no surprised, then, that hedonism is what's helping define my measure of "excess".
What macros are you prioritizing?
The only interpretation that I'm able to deduce from your rebuttals (and I could very well be incorrect) is that you would prefer to sacrifice protein intake to spare more room for a higher combination of carbs and fat, which in a western obesogenic diet, are the two primary macronutrients that drive hyperpalatability and hedonic signaling - it's actually a precisely engineered combination of sugar, fat, and salt that make industrial food tasty, non-satiating, and easy to eat more. Likely because protein and micronutrients are sorely lacking from those types of food.
You're interpreting me exactly the way that I intended. I am not prioritizing macros beyond ~109g of protein or so. I am prioritizing "tasty" and "happy". Higher protein sacrifices "tasty" (to me. Subjective. YMMV.). Which is EXACTLY why I'm complaining.
I think you're being much more clinical about this than I am, and more power to you for that, but I do not (and never have) prioritized the functionality of a food over its subjective attributes. So this new study, which somewhat implies (and I say somewhat because of @lemurcat12 's comment above) that I need to increase my protein (which I do *not* enjoy) means decreasing the amount of carbs and fats (which I *do* enjoy).
This would not be such an issue if I were in maintenance. The net calories after protein is accounted for would be plenty. But now I'm being told that those are not only to be reduced in favor of protein, but further reduced (disproportionately to protein, I might add!) by a caloric deficit.
To people like me (who struggle to get enough protein anyway), this could have emotionally debilitating consequences. After all, what's the point of trying to diet if I'm *already* not doing something right (not getting enough protein), and then on top of it I have to eat food that I don't really care for, and have to FURTHER decrease the food that I DO like in favor of the food that I don't? I'd try it for exactly four and a half days before throwing in the towel, binging on a pizza, and deciding that I'm not good enough.
TL;DR: I didn't get fat because I look at the utility of food.
Look, you're going to have to reduce eating your favorite foods anyway. And by being in a deficit, there's going to be some hunger issues regardless. Why not make some of that hunger a bit more manageable with a little more protein?
Because it doesn't TASTE GOOD. Don't misunderstand me when I say that to mean that my food is bland. I can season a protein with the best of them, and *thoroughly* enjoy cooking. Personally, I don't find hunger to be a huge problem, and I don't find protein to be more satiating. That might be the most important part. Why is there such a large emphasis on a certain macro when the others get left by the wayside? And now it's a GROWING guideline? This obsession with protein isn't even necessarily getting in the way of my Girl Scout cookies, but it IS trying to shove protein into every single meal where I can easily go for several days without eating meat.
Maybe I need to introduce a different perspective; volume eating. I eat ALL. DAY. LONG.
For lunch today, I had a butternut squash soup, a couple of slices of veggie pizza, and a banana. For dinner, I plan to have leek, coconut milk, and potato soup, at least a pound of parmesan roasted cauliflower, and at least a whole melon. These things TASTE well, are carby and fatty, allow me to eat copious amounts of food, fit into my calories, but most certainly do not provide nearly two hundred grams of protein.
As it stands, I have to dedicate an entire meal towards at least meeting the LOWER recommendation (109g). If I had to ramp it up, and was continuing to read on these forums that "protein is all you need
" I'd lose my dang mind! DRINKING additional protein defeats the point because it's additional calories, I don't get to chew, and it's not nearly as FUN.
The title of this thread is apt in that I'm going to go nuts over this.
Main point:
If I'm a newbie coming to these forums with 50+ pounds to lose, I'm unlikely to already be getting this much protein in my diet (according to you, it's highly satisfying, so wouldn't it stand to reason that I would not be seriously over eating?). We wouldn't be seeing all of the "I'm addicted to sugar!" posts if it was *normal* to get this much protein in.
So I'm a newbie who eats your hedonistic diet, I come to MFP, learn to cut calories, and notice that if I'm depriving myself of the things that I'm *used* to, I'm more likely to binge. Telling a newbie to FURTHER deprive themselves of the things that they're used to and subbing in lean chicken breast is going to be as much of a turn off as a Whole 30, Keto, Paleo, what-have-you to someone who is just struggling in the first place. This is why we tell those posters to eat what they like, just LESS of it. Except this post is doing the opposite of that by saying eat even LESS of the PREVIOUS less and instead eat more Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, fish, chicken, legumes, red meat, etc.10 -
Brad Schoenfeld was involved with the meta analysis this article was based on.
He called the article a “nice piece” on Twitter.
Looks like the mainstream media finally got one right.2 -
-
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »According to the NYTimes, it's settled. You need to eat lots more protein than the RDA. They are recommending 1.6 g protein per kg body weight. (The US RDA is 0.8g per kg of body weight, so the NYT is pretty much recommending doubling that amount.)
https://nyti.ms/2BJefoq
Here is the study that the article is based on:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/01/18/bjsports-2017-097608
They are doing a "meta-analysis" where they average prior studies to get a final result. The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat. Here's one of the figures, for example. They are measuring changes in muscle fiber cross section and looking for a correlation with increased protein consumption. "0" would mean there's no correlation. The results are all over the place and the ranges are very large!
My decision has been to eat somewhat more than the RDA, but I don't quite make it to 1.6 g/kg. I would think the most important part is lifting weights, not over-eating protein. I would go out on a limb to say that over-eating protein without lifting weights is pretty useless.
Meta-analyses are actually a lot more complicated than just averaging the results of a bunch of small studies, at least the way most laypeople think of "averaging" (apologies if that wasn't what you meant). A well-constructed meta-analysis can be much more statistically accurate than any individual study.
Definitely more than averages, a peer-reviewed meta analysis is a lot of work. Correlation is not the only factor, the variables being tested must also show some kind of relationship (t-test, ANOVA, etc). You can have variables that have a perfect correlation, but show no actual relationship.0 -
I went a little off kilter with a very long response, which I think means it's a good time to ring the bell and head home.
EDIT:
Oh, what the hay, I already typed it all out:
...
The title of this thread is apt in that I'm going to go nuts over this.
I assure you I read your response. There's a lot of reasons why protein is important, but ultimately, no one's forcing you to eat more. Again, there was a lot of context missing from your responses supporting any notion that hunger wasn't an issue. Really, all the information I could gather from what was written was that you enjoy palatable food and would rather opt for those over protein.
If whatever you're doing is keeping you adherent to your diet and you enjoy what you're eating, then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ do you. That's more important for fat loss than anything. I mean, really, I'm just some rando on the internet. So screw what I say or what anyone else says. You don't need approval for your choices.6 -
Aeloine already explained it well, but I want to make a couple of points too.So I'm going to be candid as well. If focusing on subjectively tasty food led to the current situation, and just to clarify so we're on the same page, I'm equating "tasty food" to mean easily consumable food with a high satisfaction (subjective/psychological) and low satiety (physiological/physically full) factor. Then, there's going to be a bit of a gamble in keeping tasty food as the priority in your diet.
TL;DR - if you want to lose fat, some things need to change.
I actually think that the main reason people (or a lot of people) gain weight is they eat thoughtlessly, just whatever they want and based on taste. Not because they eat non satiating food or are hungry.
I also think that a big reason why these people may not be motivated to lose weight is that they think it's a choice between losing and not enjoying their food or being as they are and being able to eat what they want. Understanding that they can (to some degree) have both, that they can lose and eat food they enjoy, can be a huge and motivating revelation.
Your assumptions that the diet she is eating if not higher protein will leave her hungry (or does) or that the trade off is mostly stuff like donuts isn't warranted.
[Edit: I see you responded in the meantime -- I got interrupted when writing so didn't see the response before. So never mind.]4 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat.
So you think researchers should just throw out data that doesn't agree with their preconceptions or desired outcomes??1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat.
So you think researchers should just throw out data that doesn't agree with their preconceptions or desired outcomes??
I think that's reserved for people like Fung and Taubes.
9 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat.
So you think researchers should just throw out data that doesn't agree with their preconceptions or desired outcomes??
I think that's reserved for people like Fung and Taubes. 0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat.
So you think researchers should just throw out data that doesn't agree with their preconceptions or desired outcomes??
I think that's reserved for people like Fung and Taubes.
Lol win0 -
I went a little off kilter with a very long response, which I think means it's a good time to ring the bell and head home.
EDIT:
Oh, what the hay, I already typed it all out:
...
The title of this thread is apt in that I'm going to go nuts over this.
I assure you I read your response. There's a lot of reasons why protein is important, but ultimately, no one's forcing you to eat more. Again, there was a lot of context missing from your responses supporting any notion that hunger wasn't an issue. Really, all the information I could gather from what was written was that you enjoy palatable food and would rather opt for those over protein.
If whatever you're doing is keeping you adherent to your diet and you enjoy what you're eating, then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ do you. That's more important for fat loss than anything. I mean, really, I'm just some rando on the internet. So screw what I say or what anyone else says. You don't need approval for your choices.
Tbh I was just really bored at work and this was a fun debate! Figured at least someone should fight for the other side!3 -
You should base your protein intake on LBM, your fat doesn't need proteins. The protein is essential for muscle repair (growth), but limiting anything in your diet is just silly... you need carbs for fuel during intense workouts and healthy fats for proper brain function. All 3 are good for other things too obviously, but those are some pretty good reasons not to leave out or limit any of them. Personally I base my diet around 1.14g of protein per lb of LBM, the rest of my calories are then split between carbs and fat.0
-
1.6? Pffffft. I get that much just from the vegetables, potatoes and nut butters that I eat. Don’t even get me started on the chicken, fish and eggs. /flex (or something)1
-
I went a little off kilter with a very long response, which I think means it's a good time to ring the bell and head home.
EDIT:
Oh, what the hay, I already typed it all out:
...
The title of this thread is apt in that I'm going to go nuts over this.
I assure you I read your response. There's a lot of reasons why protein is important, but ultimately, no one's forcing you to eat more. Again, there was a lot of context missing from your responses supporting any notion that hunger wasn't an issue. Really, all the information I could gather from what was written was that you enjoy palatable food and would rather opt for those over protein.
If whatever you're doing is keeping you adherent to your diet and you enjoy what you're eating, then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ do you. That's more important for fat loss than anything. I mean, really, I'm just some rando on the internet. So screw what I say or what anyone else says. You don't need approval for your choices.
Tbh I was just really bored at work and this was a fun debate! Figured at least someone should fight for the other side!
Yeah, I usually respond while I’m at work too. I’m a proponent for protein, obviously. Debates are good if they’re productive in some fashion.0 -
My protein intake is excessive for my weight. I am 43 kgs but consume more than 100 grams of protein daily which isn't really that much on a 2000ish calorie a day diet.1
-
That's about the norm for me. Nothing new here.0
-
Haha, I KNEW this was going to happen. Yes, some things have to change, but why can't they change PROPORTIONALLY? If I have to decrease my calories, say.... 25%, why can't that 25% come from ALL the macros?
Protein is actually more important in a deficit as otherwise, a large % of your loss will come from lean muscle. As a % of your total calories, Protein should be much higher than in maintenance or a bulk. even the total grams should be higher, not just the %.
as an example: Say you eat 100 grams at maintenance cals of 2000 (20% of total cals), but in a deficit, you should probably get 120 on 1500 cals (32%).4 -
I see somewhat of a bias for eating more protein in this thread, which seems to match our societal narrative at the moment. The food industry uses protein content as a marketing tool these days, adding it to everything and touting it all over the place. But I avoid processed foods, in general, so what ever the protein content the food has, it has.
I eat what I think is plenty of protein without really trying. My goal has been 100g/day or 400 out of 2000kcals, 20% of my daily intake, which I comfortable achieve or exceed by eating some meat at both lunch and dinner. This advice would have me increase to 124g. That would basically mean changing from oatmeal to eggs for breakfast, or something. I don't want to, so I won't!
Note that the Wellness blog at NYTimes.com is, in general, excellent. Almost no important news (such as this) gets by them. They always link to original sources (and don't just say "recent studies show"). You need a subscription to access it and it's totally worth it.5 -
I'm confused at how veggie pizza tastes better than a good steak.
I mean I love pizza- almost all pizza. But there is no way a veggie pizza tastes better than a good steak.3 -
I'm confused at how veggie pizza tastes better than a good steak.
I mean I love pizza- almost all pizza. But there is no way a veggie pizza tastes better than a good steak.
What makes a steak good is the fat. Low-fat steaks are dang tough.
High-protein low-fat low-carb foods are a bit rough to eat in general. Unless you enjoy egg whites, skinless chicken breast, etc.0 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »I'm confused at how veggie pizza tastes better than a good steak.
I mean I love pizza- almost all pizza. But there is no way a veggie pizza tastes better than a good steak.
What makes a steak good is the fat. Low-fat steaks are dang tough.
High-protein low-fat low-carb foods are a bit rough to eat in general. Unless you enjoy egg whites, skinless chicken breast, etc.
I'll take the fat. You can't have all three "low" you have to eat SOMETHING. Why go low fat if you are going low carb? Pick one.2 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »I'm confused at how veggie pizza tastes better than a good steak.
I mean I love pizza- almost all pizza. But there is no way a veggie pizza tastes better than a good steak.
What makes a steak good is the fat. Low-fat steaks are dang tough.
High-protein low-fat low-carb foods are a bit rough to eat in general. Unless you enjoy egg whites, skinless chicken breast, etc.
I'll take the fat. You can't have all three "low" you have to eat SOMETHING. Why go low fat if you are going low carb? Pick one.
Because PSMF is soul sucking and I'm a glutton for punishment 4 -
I'm confused at how veggie pizza tastes better than a good steak.
I mean I love pizza- almost all pizza. But there is no way a veggie pizza tastes better than a good steak.
Veggie pizza, no way. A good Chicago-Style or NY Style pizza with cheese, meats, a little veggies, and grease; I'll take that all day over steak. 0 -
100_PROOF_ wrote: »NY times is getting to be as bad as the daily mail. I would take it all with a grain of salt and do your own research.
They published a research study.
Reading it is LITERALLY “doing your own research”.
<facepalm>
1 -
Good time as any to ask for input.
2497 Calories per day
Current Marco’s
P 150g
C 175g
F 133g
Exercise; 35-40 minutes daily, walking, indoor Spin Bike, Ourdoor Bicycle, and Eliptical Trainer.
Have not added weight training yet. Primary goals is fat loss. Second preparation for Outdoor Cycling March thru October. Goal to work up to 20 miles 3 days/week and longer Saturday/Sunday rides and hiking.
Current Weight:341.6 lbs
Goal Weight: 250 lbs
Max Weight: 485 lbs
Any/All Input Welcome.
-F-1 -
franklin5280 wrote: »Good time as any to ask for input.
2497 Calories per day
Current Marco’s
P 150g
C 175g
F 133g
Exercise; 35-40 minutes daily, walking, indoor Spin Bike, Ourdoor Bicycle, and Eliptical Trainer.
Have not added weight training yet. Primary goals is fat loss. Second preparation for Outdoor Cycling March thru October. Goal to work up to 20 miles 3 days/week and longer Saturday/Sunday rides and hiking.
Current Weight:341.6 lbs
Goal Weight: 250 lbs
Max Weight: 485 lbs
Any/All Input Welcome.
-F-
First congrats on loping a whole person off your body. Great work.
Your diet seems a bit high in fat at close to 50% of your calories. How do you feel with this split, and more importantly what does your doctor say regarding your labs?. Absent and other information, personally I would cut back on the fat to stay in the recommended range and bump protein first, then carbs. As you get to the riding season, you may want to up the carb % a bit for a couple days before long rides.
"The Institute of Medicine provides acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges (AMDR) for carbs, protein and fat. These AMDRs are 45 percent to 65 percent of calories from carbs, 10 percent to 35 percent from protein and 20 percent to 35 percent of total calories coming from dietary fat"
https://www.livestrong.com/article/81042-calculate-percentage-calories-fat-carbohydrate/2 -
franklin5280 wrote: »Good time as any to ask for input.
2497 Calories per day
Current Marco’s
P 150g
C 175g
F 133g
Exercise; 35-40 minutes daily, walking, indoor Spin Bike, Ourdoor Bicycle, and Eliptical Trainer.
Have not added weight training yet. Primary goals is fat loss. Second preparation for Outdoor Cycling March thru October. Goal to work up to 20 miles 3 days/week and longer Saturday/Sunday rides and hiking.
Current Weight:341.6 lbs
Goal Weight: 250 lbs
Max Weight: 485 lbs
Any/All Input Welcome.
-F-
You are awesome! Diet strong!
I am not a professional in any way, but eating ~50% of daily calories from fat worked well for me while cutting. You can even go higher in fat and lower carbs, of course, but I found that balancing the carbs roughly with my cardio burn ("exercise calories") worked incredibly well and kept me more satisfied than an ultra-low carb approach. And, I never did the macro split very carefully, I focused (and still focus) on eating healthy balanced home-cooked meals that I liked and were within my calorie limit.0 -
Interesting article. I have been wondering about this, as I was looking back on my nutrition reports over the last couple months. About two months ago I started making a concerted effort to get more protein into my diet, and most days I manage to hit the RDA, but not all. I almost never hit the MFP default number - it just seems like soooo much protein to me.
All of that said - I feel great. I've hit my goal weight, my strength training goals are progressing nicely, and my body fat % is consistently dropping. So while perhaps MOAR PROTEIN would be helpful in gaining strength faster, I really don't think it's realistic given my lifestyle and dietary choices (ovo-lacto vegetarian).0 -
I eat way more protein than I probably need. On heavy lift days I go for my bodyweight in protein, especially since i'm slightly underweight and trying to bulk as lean as possible. idk if it makes a huge difference, but I feel less sore that way and fuller!0
-
I feel so much better when I consume lots of protein, try to make a lot of it nuts instead of meat and whey but my body works better with higher than recommended amounts and I lose weight easier when I have plenty of protein and healthy fats.1
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
- 176K 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
- 96.4K 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