Accuracy of Cardio Machine Calorie Burn?
Options
Replies
-
BrianSharpe wrote: »I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.
Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.
The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.
Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.
OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)
You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.
Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.
You don't burn less, the heart rate monitors and the treadmill calorie counter are only tracking heart rate. Your heart rate goes down as you become more physically fit, but it still takes a certain number of calories to (say) run three miles.
Fewer calories as you lose weight, sure. But that isn't the same thing as lower heart rate at the same weight.
It takes the same calories for a 170 pound man to run three miles whether his heart rate is 90 or 125. The heart rate monitor and the treadmill don't give an accurate representation of these two scenarios. All they have to go on is heart rate and weight. Heart rate is misleading.
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-214722 -
-
Cardio only will not help you retain as much muscle while losing, which is why it is good to incorporate resistance training too. that helps ensure a larger % of your loss comes from fat.
Makes sense. I was hoping cardio would get me down to a Normal range and then I could work on muscle building. I'm going to try the 300cal/hour for the next couple weeks and then start strength training. I think there's a sticky post somewhere for an intro to weight training that I'll finally look into.
0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.
Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.
The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.
Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.
OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)
You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.
Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.
No, no it won't... you get better at it and can get faster/stronger with the same perceived effort, that does not mean burn fewer calories, as you get more fit/efficient you can burn more not fewer calories.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »At 5'5" 155, your BMI is 25.8. You are 5 pounds outside the healthy weight range for your height. Your scale is nuts. Those bioimpedence scales are notoriously inaccurate.
Congratulations on almost Normal Weight.
And yeah, I bought my food scale at about the point you are at, too. It's necessary - for me. I want to make sure I eat enough, not just make sure I don't eat too much. It's a delicate balance with not much weight to lose.
I know I am close to a normal BMI range, but someone at 5'5" with a lot more muscle than me could also be 155 and have a much different body fat % than me, no?
It is possible with doing nothing but cardio with what sounds like a huge deficit to lose that 50 lbs (not eating more when you did more, eating minimal amount for safety).
You are likely entering the realm of "skinny fat" because you lost decent amount of muscle mass along with fat in those 50 lbs.
Only way to correct is doing strength training.
And cutting out the unreasonable deficit and making it slower and reasonable.
Body already adjusted to the unreasonable, probably burning less than it could otherwise.
Just have to live with that and accept likely fact you'll be eating even less than potential.
You do some recomp and that last 5 lbs may not even be needed because you'll look better.
Likely no one sees you weigh naked in the morning to even know your weight, unless you wear a sign.
Are your workouts after that weight loss about the same pace/speed/intensity - then you are burning less moving less weight around.
Have you made them more intense to compensate - then you may be burning same amount.
Just a few random thoughts on your comments so far.2 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.
Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.
The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.
Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.
OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)
You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.
Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.
When it's moving less weight it burns less calories at the same pace/speed/intensity.
Not because you failed to "mix it up". Efficiency improvements in most cardio is very minor.
Gym classes are another thing, you can only move so much faster, usually to the beat, so no increase of intensity.
But like most people that lose weight - you do go faster, harder, more intense because of becoming fitter, and being lighter.
Many will actually find themselves burning more for those reasons.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »Well, weight loss is very easy and it's hard to screw it up when you have a lot of weight to lose. First, your body will use your body fat as fuel even when you are undereating. Second, any deficit at all will lead to loss, and you don't even have to be close, number-wise.
Now that you are close to goal, you really need to nail this down. Don't continue to under-eat, with little body fat it is going to blow up in your face. Weight loss is easy with a lot of weight to lose. It becomes a much tighter range as you get close, like you are now.
Pick a number for the exercise and use it consistently for a month. See what happens. 300 is a good number.
This isn't an exact science. I figure even with my food scale and making most of my own food from home I still make a couple hundred calories of errors a day, probably. I decided to nail down that Exercise variable in the way I did it so that I could know where to adjust if needed.
I still have 36% body fat, per the measurement from my scale, which I would like to see decrease to the mid 20s eventually. I'm not sure I could qualify as having 'little body fat' right now?
I do not have a food scale, but the longer I'm on these forums the more I'm getting convinced I should start using one. I'm going to assume the closer I am to a healthy range, and to stay in maintenance, a scale is going to be crucial.
A few things, in response to not just this one of your post, but also some others:
* I joined MFP specifically because I had been estimating calories, without a food scale, and my weight loss was stalling in the mid-150s (at 5'5").
Not only are they more accurate, I think you'll find using one easier than cups/spoons measurements if you're using those at all **. They're also very inexpensive. It's not necessarily an essential tool, IMO, but it can be an extremely helpful one, if only for a period of time to accurately diagnose what's going on.
* I'm another who feels some doubt about that 36% number. Possible? Sure. You mention the idea that someone else your height could have more muscle than you at 5'5". Theoretically, that could be true, but I think this idea is sometimes oversold. Women add muscle slowly, and the best results require significant effort. It isn't common. Twenty pounds of extra muscle (on top of amounts needed to live a normal life, and do 4-6 hours a week of cardio ), say, would be quite a lot. Are you of very narrow frame, lightly built: Especially, do you have narrow shoulders, narrow pelvic width, fine bones generally?**** If not, the 36% is even less likely IMO.
* You mention being very sedentary. One thing you can consider is consciously trying to increase your daily life activity, in ways that don't typically create a big time demand. These are not calories you can typically log, but they do affect your weight loss rate. There's a thread about that here, if you're interested.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1
* It's not that cardio has zero impact on muscle retention (if one reads the research), but you might want to consider adding some strength to your routine earlier rather than later. Granted, it's a lower calorie burner (per minute). However, it's part of the standard recommendation for general fitness (150 minutes of moderate cardio, 2 days a week strength training). It is a bit more helpful in retaining lean mass as you lose. Muscle is slow/challenging for women to build, so keeping as much as possible while losing fat is a great idea. Being stronger will generally have appearance benefits to your goal-weight body. Women, especially as we age, tend to lose muscle mass to the detriment of our TDEE and our practical independence/health. (I see this last in friends my own age frequently, sadly.) Almost no one wishes they'd waited longer to start strength training.
It sounds like you have a good plan going forward, with the reduced exercise calorie estimates, and incorporating a food scale: Wishing you much success!
** This thread is about using a food scale efficiently, despite the joke-y clickbait title:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10498882/weighing-food-takes-too-long-and-is-obsessive
**** The idea of "big bones", as in the bones themselves being heavy, isn't very important to weight/body fat. There's a small range of variation in total weight of bones, among same-height people. Bones don't account for a large fraction of body weight. Fat & lean tissue are the biggies. Women with wider shoulders, pelvises, bigger hands and arms and legs (bone-structure-wise) require more meat to wrap around those bones - geometrically more, in fact. That can account for material weight differences at the same body fat. Another factor for women is breast size. If you have large breasts, they're partly fat and partly breast tissue. If they don't shrink much when you're losing weight, there's probably relatively less fat, but any fat that's there increases your actual body fat percent in ways that aren't necessarily scary/harmful.3 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.
Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.
The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.
Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.
OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)
You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.
Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.
No, your point is just inaccurate, as others have said.
Some activities have a larger skill/efficiency factor, so there's the potential to burn slightly fewer calories as you get more efficient at doing them (waste less motion). For most common activities, that's a pretty small effect, as a percentage of the total.
Calorie burn is predominantly determined by work, in the physics sense of that term.
As you get lighter (in body weight), you burn fewer calrories doing the same activity, if that activity includes a fair amount of moving your body through space (as with running/walking, say). As you get fitter, at the same body weight and skill level (=efficiency), the calorie burn is about the same on a "per output" basis (per mile, for example). Fitter people can ususally create more output per time interval (e.g., run faster), so they can potentially burn more calories per minute than less people of same size/skill, while still not becoming more exhausted (fitness bonus!).
However, an equivalent output (such as miles) for an equivalent time period for equally-skilled fit and unfit people will feel easier for the fit person, and harder for the unfit person . . . perhaps dramatically so. That's a fitness effect, not about calorie burn. In general, heart-rate-based calorie estimates will give the fit person a lower calorie burn estimate, but that difference between the two people's HRM-based estimates is simple inaccuracy of that estimating method.
It's irrelevant that you see people doing hours of cardio over long time periods, without losing weight. If they do the cardio, then head out and eat commensurately, they'll never lose weight. I did that for about a decade (FTR, wasn't trying to lose weight at the time): I did lots of cardio, even some strength training, and - amazingly - even some switching things up (because I wanted to learn some new things). Then, I kept doing exactly those same things, and lost about 50 pounds in less than a year. It's not about "confusing the body" or "switching up the exercise": It's about calorie balance, calorie intake vs. output.2 -
LOL, i'll stop posting, so many here are clueless.0
-
BrianSharpe wrote: »I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.
Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.
The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.
Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.
OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)
You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.
Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.
Twaddle.
Usually as people get fitter they burn more calories as they can exercise at a higher intensity and/or longer duration.1 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.
Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.
The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.
Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.
OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)
You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.
Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.
Twaddle.
Usually as people get fitter they burn more calories as they can exercise at a higher intensity and/or longer duration.
Again missing the complete point, and since you don't read and understand the point, I'm done. I get so sick of people highjacking posts and ripping on people that give advice, instead of just replying to the original poster.0 -
You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.
Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.
I'm not missing your point I'm telling you that you're wrong.
If I run 8 km as a newbie and the same 8km 6 months later assuming that my weight is the same my body burns the same number of calories. If you want to get stronger, yes you need a progressive program but in terms of calorie burn if you do the same routine using the same weights forever you still burn the same number of calories - it's physics pure and simple.
When your body becomes more efficient, as you put it, it means you can run faster, jump higher etc etc etc but it doesn't mean you burn fewer calories for the same amount of work.
3 -
I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.
Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.
You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.
Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.
Everyone that is telling you a point of yours was wrong is going off your comment. Which your later comments backed up your belief.
The advice about adding lifting is not bad - the reason behind doing so is not bad.
The one singular point about changing the difficulty was correct.
The other reasons given to do with burning less calories is wrong though.
If you think we are wrong - one research study is all it would take.
And your metabolism is pretty efficient already - it's been doing it's thing since before you were born.
Perhaps you are mistaking metabolism with higher level things like moving and exercising.
The fact you see people at the gym perhaps doing the exact same pace/speed/intensity and not making visual progress, has so many factors behind it to think your observations are telling the whole story is rather naive.5 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.
Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.
The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.
Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.
OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)
You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.
Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.
Twaddle.
Usually as people get fitter they burn more calories as they can exercise at a higher intensity and/or longer duration.
Again missing the complete point, and since you don't read and understand the point, I'm done. I get so sick of people highjacking posts and ripping on people that give advice, instead of just replying to the original poster.
I've read your point and it's simply wrong.
Please educate yourself as you are trying to mislead people with your bro science nonsense.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Well, weight loss is very easy and it's hard to screw it up when you have a lot of weight to lose. First, your body will use your body fat as fuel even when you are undereating. Second, any deficit at all will lead to loss, and you don't even have to be close, number-wise.
Now that you are close to goal, you really need to nail this down. Don't continue to under-eat, with little body fat it is going to blow up in your face. Weight loss is easy with a lot of weight to lose. It becomes a much tighter range as you get close, like you are now.
Pick a number for the exercise and use it consistently for a month. See what happens. 300 is a good number.
This isn't an exact science. I figure even with my food scale and making most of my own food from home I still make a couple hundred calories of errors a day, probably. I decided to nail down that Exercise variable in the way I did it so that I could know where to adjust if needed.
I still have 36% body fat, per the measurement from my scale, which I would like to see decrease to the mid 20s eventually. I'm not sure I could qualify as having 'little body fat' right now?
I do not have a food scale, but the longer I'm on these forums the more I'm getting convinced I should start using one. I'm going to assume the closer I am to a healthy range, and to stay in maintenance, a scale is going to be crucial.
At 5'5" 155, your BMI is 25.8. You are 5 pounds outside the healthy weight range for your height. Your scale is nuts. Those bioimpedence scales are notoriously inaccurate.
Congratulations on almost Normal Weight.
And yeah, I bought my food scale at about the point you are at, too. It's necessary - for me. I want to make sure I eat enough, not just make sure I don't eat too much. It's a delicate balance with not much weight to lose.
I have no idea if the scale is accurate or not, or if the OP is measuring under consistent conditions...but, 36% body fat at 155 lbs indicates a lean mass of 99lbs. At 5’5” that is not really that low (it’s maybe slightly lower than average).
Again, I don’t know the specifics about the OPs frame, muscle mass, or anything else. But, even if the scale reading is just random coincidence, it would not be that unusual if that was indeed close to the OP’s body fat.
The point I am trying to make is that you can’t use BMI to dismiss the OP’s concerns about lowering her body fat. Using only BMI to try to assess an individual’s body composition is as inaccurate a method as any out there.
4 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.
Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.
The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.
Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.
OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)
You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.
Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.
No, he understood your point quite well. But your point is 100% wrong—that’s why he disagreed.
When people “do the same thing over and over again”, and it “barely does anything for them”, it’s because, over time, we tend to make subtle lifestyle changes to restore an energy balance, NOT because the “body adjusts and burns fewer calories”.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions