Fatlogic
mackfoo
Posts: 28 Member
Good article in the Guardian. Finally an article on weight loss I agree with...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/05/truth-obesity-five-fat-myths-debunked
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/05/truth-obesity-five-fat-myths-debunked
6
Replies
-
Yeah, I like that, too, and find little to disagree with on the substance.
One thing I'm curious about, slightly tangent to it: The whole fitness/health/obesity definition thing.
To me, fitness is about athletic performance and athletically related markers (resting heart rate, endurance, strength, pace at some activity(ies), maybe competitive accomplishments, that sort of thing).
To me, health is about relative freedom from active disease/disability, needing no/minimal medications for daily functioning, and health markers (blood chemistry including lipids/sugar metabolism, blood pressure, state of one's blood vessels/lungs/heart/bones/etc., and that sort of thing).
Obesity is about some combination of assessments like body fat percent, BMI, etc. (I know that technically BMI defines obesity in one sense, but I'm trying to recognize that BMI doesn't *100%* capture what's relevant about body weight.)
It seems like some sources conflate these - treat them as synonymous. I think you can be reasonably fit (by the measures above) while obese, and some few lucky (and probably still young) people could be fairly healthy (for the moment) as per above while obese. While I agree that people on average - as noted in the Guardian article - usually over-rate their fitness, under-rate their obesity, and over-rate their health, I think it still can be meaningful to assess them separately.
I was reading a clickbait-thingie** today about very heavy (obese) football players (US football) who lost massive amounts of weight after retiring from football, typically becoming healthier . . . but I have trouble thinking of an active, and in many of these cases quite successful, football player as "unfit". In some respects, they may be fitter when thinner, too, but . . . unfit during their career? Gee, I dunno.
I think in the overwhelming majority of real life cases, poor fitness, compromised health (current/outlook), and obesity do most often co-occur. But I don't think they always do, and it seems like we lose something by mixing the vocabulary. For one, my reading (and experience) suggests that there are benefits to fitness even while obese, when the comparison standard is both unfit and obese. Certainly, there are benefits to being at a healthy weight while unfit vs. both unfit and obese.
Both fit and healthy weight is obviously the best plan, of course. But they're not inextricably linked. We see more people here - I think - pursue weight loss and ignore fitness, and not that many here who pursue fitness while staying obese, but the latter combination exists (and not just among football players). (Many, maybe most people here pursue both weight management and fitness, I understand - not saying otherwise. But that "fatlogic" definition of fitness is still pretty common: That tyranny of low expectations.)
But I admit this is all a side trip to the provocative opinion piece you linked.
** https://thesportsdrop.com/20-nfl-players-that-lost-a-ton-of-weight/12 -
Good article in the Guardian. Finally an article on weight loss I agree with...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/05/truth-obesity-five-fat-myths-debunked
Now all those "I'm gaining on 1000 calories" people are going to have a hissy fit.4 -
Excellent article. Thanks for sharing. Rings very true for me personally.1
-
Good article, I had to learn all these things the hard way through trial and error oh well, live and learn!0
-
Fatty_Nuff wrote: »Good article in the Guardian. Finally an article on weight loss I agree with...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/05/truth-obesity-five-fat-myths-debunked
Now all those "I'm gaining on 1000 calories" people are going to have a hissy fit.
I think most of us have been there at one point or another.
Hey, at a certain time I thought eating black bread, the stuff you get in Scandinavia is good and I will lose weight. Only thing is: I ate it additionally to what I'd normally eat3 -
Yeah, I like that, too, and find little to disagree with on the substance.
One thing I'm curious about, slightly tangent to it: The whole fitness/health/obesity definition thing.
To me, fitness is about athletic performance and athletically related markers (resting heart rate, endurance, strength, pace at some activity(ies), maybe competitive accomplishments, that sort of thing).
To me, health is about relative freedom from active disease/disability, needing no/minimal medications for daily functioning, and health markers (blood chemistry including lipids/sugar metabolism, blood pressure, state of one's blood vessels/lungs/heart/bones/etc., and that sort of thing).
Obesity is about some combination of assessments like body fat percent, BMI, etc. (I know that technically BMI defines obesity in one sense, but I'm trying to recognize that BMI doesn't *100%* capture what's relevant about body weight.)
It seems like some sources conflate these - treat them as synonymous. I think you can be reasonably fit (by the measures above) while obese, and some few lucky (and probably still young) people could be fairly healthy (for the moment) as per above while obese. While I agree that people on average - as noted in the Guardian article - usually over-rate their fitness, under-rate their obesity, and over-rate their health, I think it still can be meaningful to assess them separately.
I was reading a clickbait-thingie** today about very heavy (obese) football players (US football) who lost massive amounts of weight after retiring from football, typically becoming healthier . . . but I have trouble thinking of an active, and in many of these cases quite successful, football player as "unfit". In some respects, they may be fitter when thinner, too, but . . . unfit during their career? Gee, I dunno.
I think in the overwhelming majority of real life cases, poor fitness, compromised health (current/outlook), and obesity do most often co-occur. But I don't think they always do, and it seems like we lose something by mixing the vocabulary. For one, my reading (and experience) suggests that there are benefits to fitness even while obese, when the comparison standard is both unfit and obese. Certainly, there are benefits to being at a healthy weight while unfit vs. both unfit and obese.
Both fit and healthy weight is obviously the best plan, of course. But they're not inextricably linked. We see more people here - I think - pursue weight loss and ignore fitness, and not that many here who pursue fitness while staying obese, but the latter combination exists (and not just among football players). (Many, maybe most people here pursue both weight management and fitness, I understand - not saying otherwise. But that "fatlogic" definition of fitness is still pretty common: That tyranny of low expectations.)
But I admit this is all a side trip to the provocative opinion piece you linked.
** https://thesportsdrop.com/20-nfl-players-that-lost-a-ton-of-weight/
So that's interesting. My gut tells me it can't be healthy to be 300 lbs, even if you are a football player, but couldn't find any factual evidence to back it up.
While I disagree with the methods of "Biggest Loser", I do recall (yes, I watched) that within the first week of intensive exercise, many of the participants improved their health significantly, though they were still very obese. (I'm recalling specifically one participant who completely got off his asthma meds on the first week.)
Maybe intensive exercise can negate a lot of the effects of obesity? Maybe a good area for further research...1 -
Yeah, I like that, too, and find little to disagree with on the substance.
One thing I'm curious about, slightly tangent to it: The whole fitness/health/obesity definition thing.
To me, fitness is about athletic performance and athletically related markers (resting heart rate, endurance, strength, pace at some activity(ies), maybe competitive accomplishments, that sort of thing).
To me, health is about relative freedom from active disease/disability, needing no/minimal medications for daily functioning, and health markers (blood chemistry including lipids/sugar metabolism, blood pressure, state of one's blood vessels/lungs/heart/bones/etc., and that sort of thing).
Obesity is about some combination of assessments like body fat percent, BMI, etc. (I know that technically BMI defines obesity in one sense, but I'm trying to recognize that BMI doesn't *100%* capture what's relevant about body weight.)
It seems like some sources conflate these - treat them as synonymous. I think you can be reasonably fit (by the measures above) while obese, and some few lucky (and probably still young) people could be fairly healthy (for the moment) as per above while obese. While I agree that people on average - as noted in the Guardian article - usually over-rate their fitness, under-rate their obesity, and over-rate their health, I think it still can be meaningful to assess them separately.
I was reading a clickbait-thingie** today about very heavy (obese) football players (US football) who lost massive amounts of weight after retiring from football, typically becoming healthier . . . but I have trouble thinking of an active, and in many of these cases quite successful, football player as "unfit". In some respects, they may be fitter when thinner, too, but . . . unfit during their career? Gee, I dunno.
I think in the overwhelming majority of real life cases, poor fitness, compromised health (current/outlook), and obesity do most often co-occur. But I don't think they always do, and it seems like we lose something by mixing the vocabulary. For one, my reading (and experience) suggests that there are benefits to fitness even while obese, when the comparison standard is both unfit and obese. Certainly, there are benefits to being at a healthy weight while unfit vs. both unfit and obese.
Both fit and healthy weight is obviously the best plan, of course. But they're not inextricably linked. We see more people here - I think - pursue weight loss and ignore fitness, and not that many here who pursue fitness while staying obese, but the latter combination exists (and not just among football players). (Many, maybe most people here pursue both weight management and fitness, I understand - not saying otherwise. But that "fatlogic" definition of fitness is still pretty common: That tyranny of low expectations.)
But I admit this is all a side trip to the provocative opinion piece you linked.
** https://thesportsdrop.com/20-nfl-players-that-lost-a-ton-of-weight/
So that's interesting. My gut tells me it can't be healthy to be 300 lbs, even if you are a football player, but couldn't find any factual evidence to back it up.
While I disagree with the methods of "Biggest Loser", I do recall (yes, I watched) that within the first week of intensive exercise, many of the participants improved their health significantly, though they were still very obese. (I'm recalling specifically one participant who completely got off his asthma meds on the first week.)
Maybe intensive exercise can negate a lot of the effects of obesity? Maybe a good area for further research...
I think this comes down to immediate effects vs. long term effects. Obesity is a ticking time bomb. You can likely mitigate or eliminate some short-term medical issues as an obese person by leading an active lifestyle, but over time, the risks of other medical issues are still there, lying in wait. Heart disease, high blood pressure, some forms of cancer, and a host of other issues are obesity related issues, and the damage with these diseases takes time to be done.
I know that I personally had a big wake up call when meningiomas were added to the list of obesity related cancers since I have one. Again, the ticking time bomb analogy.3 -
I am myopic but I wear glasses. The first time I put on a pair of glasses I smiled "Wow, I didn't realize that I didn't see well!"
I have always been overweight, and obese for a few years now.
This resonated with me so much: "I might be fat, but I didn’t smoke, drink, consume fast food or red meat." Also I have optimal adult BP, naturally low resting heart rate, and I sleep well. So losing weight for me was never about health now but the thought that maybe I should buy an insurance for the future in the form of lower weight getting into my 40s.
I don't think I am physically fit but I don't know for sure what that means on a day to day basis. I really look forward to knowing what I don't know and to seeing some improvement in my quality of life just like my eye sight was once improved.8 -
I am myopic but I wear glasses. The first time I put on a pair of glasses I smiled "Wow, I didn't realize that I didn't see well!"
I have always been overweight, and obese for a few years now.
This resonated with me so much: "I might be fat, but I didn’t smoke, drink, consume fast food or red meat." Also I have optimal adult BP, naturally low resting heart rate, and I sleep well. So losing weight for me was never about health now but the thought that maybe I should buy an insurance for the future in the form of lower weight getting into my 40s.
I don't think I am physically fit but I don't know for sure what that means on a day to day basis. I really look forward to knowing what I don't know and to seeing some improvement in my quality of life just like my eye sight was once improved.
@MsBaz2018 This is a great post. We do a lot of things to deny our condition in order to save ourselves from anything we might deem unpleasant that may be required to change our condition. Other times we are simply not aware of how far we have gone from where we thought we were.
The eye glass example was perfect. I remember a friend of mine that I hadn't seen in awhile was wearing glasses when we met up after a few years apart. We were at a minor league baseball game and I tried his cool-looking glasses on to see how they'd look on me. It was at that point that I realized I couldn't see. Turns out his prescription was probably very close to what mine was.
Realizing that you don't know what you don't know and being on the lookout for things you want to know is one of life's most motivating things to me. When I started this almost two years ago I got very excited in the same way you are. It hasn't gone away yet. I love learning new things. I am also naturally a worrier about not knowing what I don't know when it comes to almost everything. So I guess it's exciting and nerve-wracking at the same time.
[ETA] - If you dive into the process, I think you'll find an amazing improvement over time. You may not notice it day-to-day or week-to-week, but it is great when you've gotten into it for awhile. I started just before I turned 54. I'll be 56 in a couple of months and I'm in better shape than I was 20+ years ago.5 -
Yeah, I like that, too, and find little to disagree with on the substance.
One thing I'm curious about, slightly tangent to it: The whole fitness/health/obesity definition thing.
To me, fitness is about athletic performance and athletically related markers (resting heart rate, endurance, strength, pace at some activity(ies), maybe competitive accomplishments, that sort of thing).
To me, health is about relative freedom from active disease/disability, needing no/minimal medications for daily functioning, and health markers (blood chemistry including lipids/sugar metabolism, blood pressure, state of one's blood vessels/lungs/heart/bones/etc., and that sort of thing).
Obesity is about some combination of assessments like body fat percent, BMI, etc. (I know that technically BMI defines obesity in one sense, but I'm trying to recognize that BMI doesn't *100%* capture what's relevant about body weight.)
It seems like some sources conflate these - treat them as synonymous. I think you can be reasonably fit (by the measures above) while obese, and some few lucky (and probably still young) people could be fairly healthy (for the moment) as per above while obese. While I agree that people on average - as noted in the Guardian article - usually over-rate their fitness, under-rate their obesity, and over-rate their health, I think it still can be meaningful to assess them separately.
I was reading a clickbait-thingie** today about very heavy (obese) football players (US football) who lost massive amounts of weight after retiring from football, typically becoming healthier . . . but I have trouble thinking of an active, and in many of these cases quite successful, football player as "unfit". In some respects, they may be fitter when thinner, too, but . . . unfit during their career? Gee, I dunno.
I think in the overwhelming majority of real life cases, poor fitness, compromised health (current/outlook), and obesity do most often co-occur. But I don't think they always do, and it seems like we lose something by mixing the vocabulary. For one, my reading (and experience) suggests that there are benefits to fitness even while obese, when the comparison standard is both unfit and obese. Certainly, there are benefits to being at a healthy weight while unfit vs. both unfit and obese.
Both fit and healthy weight is obviously the best plan, of course. But they're not inextricably linked. We see more people here - I think - pursue weight loss and ignore fitness, and not that many here who pursue fitness while staying obese, but the latter combination exists (and not just among football players). (Many, maybe most people here pursue both weight management and fitness, I understand - not saying otherwise. But that "fatlogic" definition of fitness is still pretty common: That tyranny of low expectations.)
But I admit this is all a side trip to the provocative opinion piece you linked.
** https://thesportsdrop.com/20-nfl-players-that-lost-a-ton-of-weight/
So that's interesting. My gut tells me it can't be healthy to be 300 lbs, even if you are a football player, but couldn't find any factual evidence to back it up.
While I disagree with the methods of "Biggest Loser", I do recall (yes, I watched) that within the first week of intensive exercise, many of the participants improved their health significantly, though they were still very obese. (I'm recalling specifically one participant who completely got off his asthma meds on the first week.)
Maybe intensive exercise can negate a lot of the effects of obesity? Maybe a good area for further research...
I 100% agree that carrying substantial amounts of excess fat is unhealthy, either currently or in the sense of future risk.
I'm trying to say, though, that excess fat (too the point of obesity) and lack of exercise capability (poor "fitness" as I described it in my post) are separate influencers of health . . . not the same thing.
Yes, most people who are obese are also unfit. In my social setting, a very large fraction of people who are not obese are unfit, too, and that's not optimally healthy either. In my experience, many of those people use "unfitlogic" (of various sorts, that boil down to "at least I'm not fat"). They have some of the same reasoning about it as described in the Guardian article, thinking that pretty low-level athletic accomplishments are a big deal, writing off not being able to climb stairs without getting out of breath, etc.
I'd guess that most fit people are not obese, but those football players were obese - not just in a technical sense of high BMI because muscular, but very substantially overfat. They were not unfit, in the sense of being weak, objectively slow, etc. That's not optimally healthy either.
There's been research, to a certain extent. I've actually read some science-based material on the effects of fitness as considered separately from obesity. It's healthier to be athletically active/capable ("fit") while obese, than not to be fit, in terms of certain disease risks. The fitness is worth pursuing, in itself. It's much better still to be fit and normal weight, of course.
But healthy weight alone doesn't make someone fit.
Healthy weight and fitness are two different - though inter-related - health influencers. Both are worth pursuing, if the goal is improving current health, and reducing future health risk.
I tried for quite a while to convince myself that fitness was the bigger deal. (I was quite active while obese, and fitter than most people my age (and many younger). Fitness was worth something. But it wasn't enough.
But just being a healthy weight isn't enough, either.
6 -
Yeah, I like that, too, and find little to disagree with on the substance.
One thing I'm curious about, slightly tangent to it: The whole fitness/health/obesity definition thing.
To me, fitness is about athletic performance and athletically related markers (resting heart rate, endurance, strength, pace at some activity(ies), maybe competitive accomplishments, that sort of thing).
To me, health is about relative freedom from active disease/disability, needing no/minimal medications for daily functioning, and health markers (blood chemistry including lipids/sugar metabolism, blood pressure, state of one's blood vessels/lungs/heart/bones/etc., and that sort of thing).
Obesity is about some combination of assessments like body fat percent, BMI, etc. (I know that technically BMI defines obesity in one sense, but I'm trying to recognize that BMI doesn't *100%* capture what's relevant about body weight.)
It seems like some sources conflate these - treat them as synonymous. I think you can be reasonably fit (by the measures above) while obese, and some few lucky (and probably still young) people could be fairly healthy (for the moment) as per above while obese. While I agree that people on average - as noted in the Guardian article - usually over-rate their fitness, under-rate their obesity, and over-rate their health, I think it still can be meaningful to assess them separately.
I was reading a clickbait-thingie** today about very heavy (obese) football players (US football) who lost massive amounts of weight after retiring from football, typically becoming healthier . . . but I have trouble thinking of an active, and in many of these cases quite successful, football player as "unfit". In some respects, they may be fitter when thinner, too, but . . . unfit during their career? Gee, I dunno.
I think in the overwhelming majority of real life cases, poor fitness, compromised health (current/outlook), and obesity do most often co-occur. But I don't think they always do, and it seems like we lose something by mixing the vocabulary. For one, my reading (and experience) suggests that there are benefits to fitness even while obese, when the comparison standard is both unfit and obese. Certainly, there are benefits to being at a healthy weight while unfit vs. both unfit and obese.
Both fit and healthy weight is obviously the best plan, of course. But they're not inextricably linked. We see more people here - I think - pursue weight loss and ignore fitness, and not that many here who pursue fitness while staying obese, but the latter combination exists (and not just among football players). (Many, maybe most people here pursue both weight management and fitness, I understand - not saying otherwise. But that "fatlogic" definition of fitness is still pretty common: That tyranny of low expectations.)
But I admit this is all a side trip to the provocative opinion piece you linked.
** https://thesportsdrop.com/20-nfl-players-that-lost-a-ton-of-weight/
So that's interesting. My gut tells me it can't be healthy to be 300 lbs, even if you are a football player, but couldn't find any factual evidence to back it up.
While I disagree with the methods of "Biggest Loser", I do recall (yes, I watched) that within the first week of intensive exercise, many of the participants improved their health significantly, though they were still very obese. (I'm recalling specifically one participant who completely got off his asthma meds on the first week.)
Maybe intensive exercise can negate a lot of the effects of obesity? Maybe a good area for further research...
The biggest loser was extremely dangerous, even under medical supervision. Kai Hibbard has said a lot about what they went through and even Jillian Michaels quit the show three times because she was concerned about the poor care of the contestants. From less then 1,000 calorie a day diets, there first workout was 4 hours long(it would go up to 8 hours eventually) and Hibbard's feet were constantly bleeding for the first three weeks of the competition. Serious injuries have happened, in an article in 2015 they were talking that there were two contestants hospitalized in the 2014 season. One contestant had a half torn calf, the doctors told her to rest but production told her that she can't. So on the show they asked her to run, she said no and when edited it looked like she was just lazy when she was seriously injured.
Hibbard's period stopped, her hair is falling out, her thyroid is in poor condition thanks to the biggest loser. There was also an article about how the biggest loser lowered the bmr of the biggest loser contestants by 500 when compared to the regular person. Don't get tricked by shows that only show you the positives. https://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-loser-contestant-slams-show-treatment-2015-10 -
Eternally_Hers wrote: »Yeah, I like that, too, and find little to disagree with on the substance.
One thing I'm curious about, slightly tangent to it: The whole fitness/health/obesity definition thing.
To me, fitness is about athletic performance and athletically related markers (resting heart rate, endurance, strength, pace at some activity(ies), maybe competitive accomplishments, that sort of thing).
To me, health is about relative freedom from active disease/disability, needing no/minimal medications for daily functioning, and health markers (blood chemistry including lipids/sugar metabolism, blood pressure, state of one's blood vessels/lungs/heart/bones/etc., and that sort of thing).
Obesity is about some combination of assessments like body fat percent, BMI, etc. (I know that technically BMI defines obesity in one sense, but I'm trying to recognize that BMI doesn't *100%* capture what's relevant about body weight.)
It seems like some sources conflate these - treat them as synonymous. I think you can be reasonably fit (by the measures above) while obese, and some few lucky (and probably still young) people could be fairly healthy (for the moment) as per above while obese. While I agree that people on average - as noted in the Guardian article - usually over-rate their fitness, under-rate their obesity, and over-rate their health, I think it still can be meaningful to assess them separately.
I was reading a clickbait-thingie** today about very heavy (obese) football players (US football) who lost massive amounts of weight after retiring from football, typically becoming healthier . . . but I have trouble thinking of an active, and in many of these cases quite successful, football player as "unfit". In some respects, they may be fitter when thinner, too, but . . . unfit during their career? Gee, I dunno.
I think in the overwhelming majority of real life cases, poor fitness, compromised health (current/outlook), and obesity do most often co-occur. But I don't think they always do, and it seems like we lose something by mixing the vocabulary. For one, my reading (and experience) suggests that there are benefits to fitness even while obese, when the comparison standard is both unfit and obese. Certainly, there are benefits to being at a healthy weight while unfit vs. both unfit and obese.
Both fit and healthy weight is obviously the best plan, of course. But they're not inextricably linked. We see more people here - I think - pursue weight loss and ignore fitness, and not that many here who pursue fitness while staying obese, but the latter combination exists (and not just among football players). (Many, maybe most people here pursue both weight management and fitness, I understand - not saying otherwise. But that "fatlogic" definition of fitness is still pretty common: That tyranny of low expectations.)
But I admit this is all a side trip to the provocative opinion piece you linked.
** https://thesportsdrop.com/20-nfl-players-that-lost-a-ton-of-weight/
So that's interesting. My gut tells me it can't be healthy to be 300 lbs, even if you are a football player, but couldn't find any factual evidence to back it up.
While I disagree with the methods of "Biggest Loser", I do recall (yes, I watched) that within the first week of intensive exercise, many of the participants improved their health significantly, though they were still very obese. (I'm recalling specifically one participant who completely got off his asthma meds on the first week.)
Maybe intensive exercise can negate a lot of the effects of obesity? Maybe a good area for further research...
The biggest loser was extremely dangerous, even under medical supervision. Kai Hibbard has said a lot about what they went through and even Jillian Michaels quit the show three times because she was concerned about the poor care of the contestants. From less then 1,000 calorie a day diets, there first workout was 4 hours long(it would go up to 8 hours eventually) and Hibbard's feet were constantly bleeding for the first three weeks of the competition. Serious injuries have happened, in an article in 2015 they were talking that there were two contestants hospitalized in the 2014 season. One contestant had a half torn calf, the doctors told her to rest but production told her that she can't. So on the show they asked her to run, she said no and when edited it looked like she was just lazy when she was seriously injured.
Hibbard's period stopped, her hair is falling out, her thyroid is in poor condition thanks to the biggest loser. There was also an article about how the biggest loser lowered the bmr of the biggest loser contestants by 500 when compared to the regular person. Don't get tricked by shows that only show you the positives. https://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-loser-contestant-slams-show-treatment-2015-1
I think the point was that exercise/fitness has benefits, even without weight loss.
There are sensible ways to get fit (even while fat), just like there are sensible ways to lose weight.
That show isn't a sensible model for how to do anything, and I don't think anyone in this thread was saying that it was.2 -
I hate it when people quote studies they can't produce, but I have given up after Googling and will just make a general statement about what I read...
A large percentage of morbidly obese people indicated that their obesity was in part or completely due to a diagnosed condition while doctors who were surveyed indicated that they rarely if ever gave any of their patients such a diagnosis.
My highest BMI was "only" 35.0 and only for a short while, but I was around 32 for a few years and above 28 for decades. I thought I looked pretty good in the 28-30 range. My target weight that I managed to reach a couple of ties was a BMI of 26.6 and I thought that was amazingly healthy. Now at 23.6, it is beyond me how I ever believed all that, but I absolutely did. Sometimes people are in denial and they really know what they don't want to believe is true, but that wasn't the case. It wasn't until I was about 18 months from turning 60 (my current age) that I started really worrying about mortality and looking harder at the science.3
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