"eating" the calories burned with exercise...
Replies
-
I’m at 129 now. I did a back workout today, 46 minutes and it said 135 cals burned. When I go running for 30 minutes it’ll say less than 300 burned and I know that can’t be right. My heart rate indicates my intensity is high. For today I actually have 62 cals left and my 5 week weight prediction is 127. I realize it’s just an app and there are many factors but I want to fully understand the results it gives.1
-
hotstrawberry wrote: »I’m at 129 now. I did a back workout today, 46 minutes and it said 135 cals burned. When I go running for 30 minutes it’ll say less than 300 burned and I know that can’t be right. My heart rate indicates my intensity is high. For today I actually have 62 cals left and my 5 week weight prediction is 127. I realize it’s just an app and there are many factors but I want to fully understand the results it gives.
You’re exactly 129? Not 129.3 or something? And that’s the weight mfp has for you today? And it is giving you exactly 127?
At your weight, you’ll burn about 80 calories per mile that you run (regardless of how fast). I don’t know how many miles you’re covering in 30 minutes, but less than 300 calories seems about right? Unless you’re running very fast.
And sadly, the 135 also seems pretty close (assuming you’re doing a standard weightlifting workout).
1 -
Oh well, I guess I'm just destined to hold onto these last 5 pounds or starve myself. I don't feel like I dog it when I workout, I do put in effort, but it doesn't seem like I'm really working very hard if these numbers are correct. Thank you for your replies.2
-
hotstrawberry wrote: »Oh well, I guess I'm just destined to hold onto these last 5 pounds or starve myself. I don't feel like I dog it when I workout, I do put in effort, but it doesn't seem like I'm really working very hard if these numbers are correct. Thank you for your replies.
No, you just have an unrealistic idea of how many calories exercise burns.11 -
You are doing excellent. And you seem to have good adherence. What you need to do is lose the idea that the prediction means anything. And lose the timelines. In fact, if you are seeing your weight move while gliding into maintenance you're not gliding! 0.5lb a week weight loss, because of water weight variations is probably not visible to the naked eye i.e. without using a weight trend application.1
-
hotstrawberry wrote: »Oh well, I guess I'm just destined to hold onto these last 5 pounds or starve myself. I don't feel like I dog it when I workout, I do put in effort, but it doesn't seem like I'm really working very hard if these numbers are correct. Thank you for your replies.
You know that old saw about weight management being "80% diet, 20% exercise" or the other one about how you "can't outrun your fork"? Well, neither of those is precisely or universally true, but you're discovering why people say stuff like that.
Exercise burns fewer calories than most people imagine, especially once you're at a lighter bodyweight . . . even if you're working really, really intensely. And working extremely intensely, by definition, means a person can't keep at it very long, so the calorie burn is still limited. Sad, it is.
Just work at trying to lose the 5 pounds slowly, which would be the sensible thing at your weight (or my weight, which isn't that much more).
I'm old and a little slow. I can hit a weight-adjusted 700 calories per hour pace on a rowing machine, which is an OK-ish pace for my demographics . . . but I can't keep it up for a solid hour. I can eat 700 calories in 15 minutes without even working at it.
You're working hard. It's good. Mostly, it's for fun and fitness, I hope . . . because the calorie benefits are (sadly) inherently fairly modest.
Best wishes!4 -
Thank you @AnnPT77. It’s a work in progress as they say. Forward momentum and discipline is all I can do2
-
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »Do you "eat" the calories you burn with exercise? if so, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of exercise?
The purpose of exercise is physical fitness and overall health and well being. Part of what MFP is teaching here as a health and wellness site is how to properly fuel your body for your activity which will be pretty crucial in maintenance.
Your MFP has a calorie target that includes you weight loss deficit without any exercise whatsoever.1 -
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »Pardon my ignorance but what is TDEE?
Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
You have BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) which is the calories you burn merely being alive...then you have your NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis)...the calories you burn going about your day to day stuff without exercise. For people that don't exercise, that would also be there TDEE...but if you exercise you would include that in your TDEE since you are expending that energy.
For example, my BMR is around 1800 calories...that plus my day to day general activity gives me a NEAT of roughly 2400-2500 calories. With regular exercise my actual TDEE is more like 3000+, so I can lose about 1 Lb per week eating around 2500 calories on average.2 -
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »Thank you all so much. Yes I know weight training is important. At the moment, I am rehabbing a shoulder so my physical therapist does not want me doing weight training. I see him this week and will revisit that issue. And yes that TV is on all the while I am on my bike...Igfrie, what was your biking schedule? how long and how often?
Still, MFP says I will lose .4 lb a week by eating 1200 calories and doing 20 min of biking 4-5 x's a week. That is awfully s-l-o-w. In my early 40's I would often lose that much per week. Certainly not that little. I understand that I am older and slower, but SHEESH! at this rate, I will still not have the 30 lbs off in a year...only 20. Any thoughts or suggestions?
That estimate is also based on your non-exercise activity level matching what you selected - likely Sedentary.
So how do you get a bigger deficit that for at least 15 lbs loss might support 1 lb weekly?
(when you get to 15 lbs left, 1/2 weekly is more reasonable)
Increase your non-exercise Activity level to Lightly-Active.
And then actually be lightly active in your daily life - go out for short walks you don't log as exercise. Walk the longer distance to/from anywhere. Get up during day and make the rounds of the house.
Shoot - you may not be at MFP sedentary already - that level is less than 4K steps usually, a desk job with no getting around, and then home to plop on the couch for the evening and all weekend with no household duties being done. Many people really aren't sedentary anyway.
Keep your biking there for exercise that really pushes your heart and log it (then eat more when you do more). The short easy walks or other increases to daily activity won't likely be intense enough to improve heart health.0 -
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »Thank you all so much. Yes I know weight training is important. At the moment, I am rehabbing a shoulder so my physical therapist does not want me doing weight training. I see him this week and will revisit that issue. And yes that TV is on all the while I am on my bike...Igfrie, what was your biking schedule? how long and how often?
Still, MFP says I will lose .4 lb a week by eating 1200 calories and doing 20 min of biking 4-5 x's a week. That is awfully s-l-o-w. In my early 40's I would often lose that much per week. Certainly not that little. I understand that I am older and slower, but SHEESH! at this rate, I will still not have the 30 lbs off in a year...only 20. Any thoughts or suggestions?
That estimate is also based on your non-exercise activity level matching what you selected - likely Sedentary.
So how do you get a bigger deficit that for at least 15 lbs loss might support 1 lb weekly?
(when you get to 15 lbs left, 1/2 weekly is more reasonable)
Increase your non-exercise Activity level to Lightly-Active.
And then actually be lightly active in your daily life - go out for short walks you don't log as exercise. Walk the longer distance to/from anywhere. Get up during day and make the rounds of the house.
Shoot - you may not be at MFP sedentary already - that level is less than 4K steps usually, a desk job with no getting around, and then home to plop on the couch for the evening and all weekend with no household duties being done. Many people really aren't sedentary anyway.
Keep your biking there for exercise that really pushes your heart and log it (then eat more when you do more). The short easy walks or other increases to daily activity won't likely be intense enough to improve heart health.
Gonna use this as an opportunity to suggest this link:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1
. . . because a little extra daily life activity can help any of us, and people put a lot of different good ideas on that thread.
0 -
No you do not the remaining should be between 500 to 1000 each day to burn 1 to 2 pounds a week. Where it says goal is actually your bmr and your suppose to eat less than your bmr.0
-
tawnyamh1209 wrote: »No you do not the remaining should be between 500 to 1000 each day to burn 1 to 2 pounds a week. Where it says goal is actually your bmr and your suppose to eat less than your bmr.
If MFP calculates your calorie goal, and you told it you wanted to lose weight at a certain rate (X pounds/kg per week), that's incorrect.
MFP has already subtracted the 500 calories (to lose 1 pound a week) or 1000 calories (to lose 2 pounds a week) from your daily calorie expenditure before any intentional exercise.
So, you eat your MFP calorie goal (all of it, or very close). That has your weight loss goal built in already. Therefore, if you do an actual 500 calories (or whatever) of exercise, you eat back those calories in addition, so you keep the same weight loss rate.
Your BMR (basal metabolic rate) is pretty much the number of calories you'd burn in a coma, completely immobilized. MFP doesn't show you that, anywhere that I know of offhand, though it does use something like that in its calculations behind the scenes.
MFP's goal is an estimate of your NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis, the amount you burn including BMR plus your daily life activity (job, home chores, non-exercise hobbies, etc.).
Exercise calories + NEAT is TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). If you use a so-called calculator outside of MFP to get a calorie estimate, it will usually be a TDEE estimate, and have your planned exercise already averaged into it, and either you or that outside calculator do (in that case only) need to subtract calories to create weight loss. The plus of that (for some people) is that they can eat the same amount of calories each day, whether they exercise or not. The potential downside is that if a person doesn't actual do the planned exercise, they may not lose weight, or may lose more slowly.3 -
tawnyamh1209 wrote: »No you do not the remaining should be between 500 to 1000 each day to burn 1 to 2 pounds a week. Where it says goal is actually your bmr and your suppose to eat less than your bmr.
There's some confusion.
BMR = basal metabolic rate. That's calories your body uses if you never get out of bed.
NEAT = non-exercise activity thermogenisis. This is your BMR + Activity Level (before exercise)
TDEE = total daily energy expenditure. This is BMR + Activity + Exercise. This is your maintenance..
My Fitness Pal (MFP) uses NEAT. If you tell MFP you want to lose 1 pound a week, you MEET the calorie goal it gives you. You don't "have to" burn any additional calories because the deficit is already built in. If you choose to exercise you earn additional calories.
If your exercise is consistent you can choose to use a TDEE calculator and eat less than maintenance for weight loss. No one is "supposed to" eat less than BMR.
https://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/3 -
tawnyamh1209 wrote: »No you do not the remaining should be between 500 to 1000 each day to burn 1 to 2 pounds a week. Where it says goal is actually your bmr and your suppose to eat less than your bmr.
Either I am confused, or you may be confused. But this statement is confusing to me.
Factually:
a) MFP does not use the word GOAL to denote BMR.
and b) There is no universal supposition that that you are supposed to eat less than your BMR.
To the contrary, there exists a debatable viewpoint that you should not eat below your BMR.
My opinion is that a deficit that puts you below your BMR by definition exceeds a 20% deficit from your TDEE in most cases. This would make it too large of a deficit, for someone who would be correctly classified as overweight or normal weight if one were to consider their energy reserves. If they would be correctly classified as obese then they might well tolerate a 25% deficit from their TDEE; but, again, eating below BMR has a high likelihood of creating a larger deficit than that.
Generally deficits that exceed 20% of your TDEE are considered aggressive.
As originally intended to be used, MFP's GOAL already includes your selected deficit. As has already been mentioned in this thread.
Indiscriminately pursuing faster weight loss is not necessarily a good strategy.
To pursue your stated goals you are supposed to eat back the actual calories that you burned over and above the activity level you selected on MFP during set-up and deficit selection.
2 -
Yes, at least half. Not all because I don't fully trust my Fitbit. But I am 226 lbs and MFP has me on only 1,400 when I set it to lightly active (1,200 if I set it to sedentary). I can't imagine how STARVING I would be if I ate that little, exercised, and didn't eat them back.0
-
@MyrnaSolganick Don't get discouraged. As long as the weight is heading in the direction you want it to, and you are feeling healthy otherwise, you're golden Set some small goals, some of which have nothing to do with what the scale says--maybe getting some ease in clothing that feels tight now, or finding yourself able to up the intensity on your bike, or just finding that moving around is easier. Two pounds a month seems small if you're fixed on that #30 pounds. 1
-
The purpose of exercise is to improve strength and cardiovascular fitness. To provide fuel, nutrients, and macros to do and recover properly from exercise, one must eat.
To lose weight, the total number calories in must be less than the total number of calories out.
You can do both.
2 -
Ok let me clear this up. I have a scale that gives me my bmr and it’s linked to mfp so when it did that where it says goal changed to exactly what my bmr is. I know it sounds strange. Go on Facebook and look up Jillian Michaels she has a video that explains it all. I have no idea why mfp shows goal when it should say bmr. I’ve watched the Jillian Michael video and have been surprised with results but she explains it in a better understanding way than I can.2
-
tawnyamh1209 wrote: »Ok let me clear this up. I have a scale that gives me my bmr and it’s linked to mfp so when it did that where it says goal changed to exactly what my bmr is. I know it sounds strange. Go on Facebook and look up Jillian Michaels she has a video that explains it all. I have no idea why mfp shows goal when it should say bmr. I’ve watched the Jillian Michael video and have been surprised with results but she explains it in a better understanding way than I can.
Because BMR isn't GOAL with MFP. BMR is the calories you burn merely existing...I'm sure you do more than that.
My BMR is around 1800 calories...with my daily hum drum my NEAT is around 2400-2500 calories. With regular exercise my TDEE is around 3,000+ calories. To lose weight you consume fewer calories than your total expenditure...so I can eat around 2500 calories on average and lose about 1 Lb per week. Why would I have a GOAL of BMR when I can safely lose weight easily on 700 calories more? Not to mention, there's no way I could do the exercise and training I do eating BMR calories...I'd be on my *kitten*.5 -
tawnyamh1209 wrote: »Ok let me clear this up. I have a scale that gives me my bmr and it’s linked to mfp so when it did that where it says goal changed to exactly what my bmr is. I know it sounds strange. Go on Facebook and look up Jillian Michaels she has a video that explains it all. I have no idea why mfp shows goal when it should say bmr. I’ve watched the Jillian Michael video and have been surprised with results but she explains it in a better understanding way than I can.
You have a touching faith in electronic devices.
Shame they can't actually do what you think they can do.5 -
tawnyamh1209 wrote: »Ok let me clear this up. I have a scale that gives me my bmr and it’s linked to mfp so when it did that where it says goal changed to exactly what my bmr is. I know it sounds strange. Go on Facebook and look up Jillian Michaels she has a video that explains it all. I have no idea why mfp shows goal when it should say bmr. I’ve watched the Jillian Michael video and have been surprised with results but she explains it in a better understanding way than I can.
You shouldn't be eating under your BMR. If Jillian Michaels is recommending that people do that, then that's not good advice.
Technology, like linked scales, is just a tool. We can't assume they're always going to be correct. We've got to double check their recommendations to make sure they're safe and reasonable. If your linked scale is changing your MFP goal to be below your BMR, this is a good example of technology that needs to be used with caution.4 -
tawnyamh1209 wrote: »Ok let me clear this up. I have a scale that gives me my bmr and it’s linked to mfp so when it did that where it says goal changed to exactly what my bmr is. I know it sounds strange. Go on Facebook and look up Jillian Michaels she has a video that explains it all. I have no idea why mfp shows goal when it should say bmr. I’ve watched the Jillian Michael video and have been surprised with results but she explains it in a better understanding way than I can.
Maybe because your bmr are the calories needed to sustain you if you were in a coma. Are you in a coma? Are we in a Stephen King novel and what you're thinking is being typed out?
No idea about linking your scale to mfp and the wording but no, not usually a good idea to eat below bmr.1 -
tawnyamh1209 wrote: »Ok let me clear this up. I have a scale that gives me my bmr and it’s linked to mfp so when it did that where it says goal changed to exactly what my bmr is. I know it sounds strange. Go on Facebook and look up Jillian Michaels she has a video that explains it all. I have no idea why mfp shows goal when it should say bmr. I’ve watched the Jillian Michael video and have been surprised with results but she explains it in a better understanding way than I can.
No matter what Jillian said, that's not how MFP is designed to be used.
It's possible to use MFP successfully in ways that are not what it's designed for. If that's what you want to do for yourself, and it's working for you, that's great!
But it's confusing if you give people advice to use alternative methods, and include unusual definitions of terms, when they're trying to use MFP in the normal way. What you are saying is different from the way MFP's own instructions and documentation are written.
I hope your/Jillian's method will be very successful for you!5 -
tawnyamh1209 wrote: »Ok let me clear this up. I have a scale that gives me my bmr and it’s linked to mfp so when it did that where it says goal changed to exactly what my bmr is. I know it sounds strange. Go on Facebook and look up Jillian Michaels she has a video that explains it all. I have no idea why mfp shows goal when it should say bmr. I’ve watched the Jillian Michael video and have been surprised with results but she explains it in a better understanding way than I can.
Your scale cannot give your BMR, it can merely estimate your BMR. It might give a slightly different estimate than MFP does if it claims to be able to measure fat percentage (scales don't do that accurately either, but using the scale estimate might well be better than using NO estimate as MFP does).
However, what MFP does is not based on making goal BMR. Instead, it is as follows:
(1) apply equation (I think it is Mifflin St Jeor) based on height and weight and age and sex to determine BMR.
(2) multiply by a number chosen based on activity level to determine your maintenance calories in the absence of intentional exercise.
That gives you a goal (which is necessarily higher than BMR).
Then MFP subtracts an amount based on your loss goal (500 for a 1 lb/week loss).
Then you add back calories if you do exercise.
_________________________
Some more accurate equations (such as Katch McArdle) are not based on height and weight and age and sex, but instead height and weight and lean mass percentage (which was estimated based on age and sex in the other). So I can see the scale substituting the initial calculation and then multiplying that by the activity level number, etc.
_____________________________
Illustration:
Based on my height and weight and age and sex, MFP (or Harris Benedict) tells me I have a BMR of 1282. If I multiply by the lightly active multiplier (1.375), though, it becomes 1763. If I ask for 1 lb per week, it is near my presumed BMR (1263), but of course that is before adding back exercise I do.
That the BMR and goal are close in my case under this method is just a coincidence.
___________________________________
One more thing: The BMR is not a real thing. No one (including your body) knows what it is, we can merely estimate it. Nothing bad happens if you eat below your BMR.
What is true is, as PAV said, usually (but not always) eating below one's BMR may be consistent with a too aggressive loss rate, but that is not because it's below BMR, but because the loss rate is too aggressive (and it can be too aggressive and be above BMR too).
More sedentary people with more to lose are more likely to be able to eat below BMR. But it's more fun to NOT eat below BMR (since more cals), so not being sedentary is usually helpful (also healthier).3 -
tawnyamh1209 wrote: »Ok let me clear this up. I have a scale that gives me my bmr and it’s linked to mfp so when it did that where it says goal changed to exactly what my bmr is. I know it sounds strange. Go on Facebook and look up Jillian Michaels she has a video that explains it all. I have no idea why mfp shows goal when it should say bmr. I’ve watched the Jillian Michael video and have been surprised with results but she explains it in a better understanding way than I can.
Your scale may SHOW you your BMR based on the exact same gender, age, height, and changing weight that MFP also uses to get a BMR figure.
Your scale is NOT sending your BMR to MFP, only your weight.
MFP takes your BMR times a non-exercise activity factor to arrive at a NEAT daily burn estimate.
It subtracts a deficit (250, 500, 750, 1000) of your choosing to arrive at base eating goal prior to exercise.
It is entirely possible for a person to select a deficit that causes an eating goal to happen to match your BMR out of sheer coincidence or even below if your BMR is above 1200 for female, 1500 for male - happens all the time.
BMR 2000 x 1.25 sedentary = 2500 daily non-exercise burn - 500 deficit = 2000 base eating goal.
Any BMR below 2000 with sedentary setting and 1 lb weekly loss will result in an eating goal below BMR, until you reach 1200 or 1500.
If you select 250 deficit, then your BMR can be down to 1000 lowest for that to occur. From 1000 to 2000 you could get what you saw. Eating goal matches BMR.
This is without any exercise being included, which of course you do more, you eat more, and no longer eating at BMR.
Again, MFP is only using your scale for the weight update - the rest is all math by MFP. The scale is probably even using a Harris BMR formula compared to MFP using Mifflin.
Mere chance eating goal matched.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tawnyamh1209 wrote: »Ok let me clear this up. I have a scale that gives me my bmr and it’s linked to mfp so when it did that where it says goal changed to exactly what my bmr is. I know it sounds strange. Go on Facebook and look up Jillian Michaels she has a video that explains it all. I have no idea why mfp shows goal when it should say bmr. I’ve watched the Jillian Michael video and have been surprised with results but she explains it in a better understanding way than I can.
You shouldn't be eating under your BMR. If Jillian Michaels is recommending that people do that, then that's not good advice.
Not that I care about Jillian Michaels, but she seems to be saying the same thing as MFP, at least here:
https://www.jillianmichaels.com/blog/health-and-fitness/how-many-calories-do-you-burn-day
"Contrary to the current trend, calories DO matter when it comes to weight loss, weight gain, and weight maintenance. For this reason, knowing how many calories you burn in a day is critical information when it comes to achieving your health goals.
In order to figure this out, the first thing we need to do is calculate your BMR or Basal Metabolic Rate. Your basal metabolic rate refers to the amount of calories your body uses for involuntary bodily functions – basically when you are asleep or at rest. It does not take into account the amount of calories you’ll burn from your daily activity, though. That’s your AMR or active metabolic rate. I’ll get into that in a minute...."
[goes through how to calculate BMR]
"After you have run through these simple calculations and come up with your BMR, we need to then calculate your AMR. This next exercise is going to tell us how many calories you are burning in a day without adding in your exercise burn. Simply the amount you burn throughout an average day of your life (sans exercise)...."
[goes through how to add activity multipliers]
"Once you have identified which category you best fit take that number and multiply it with your BMR. So, if my BMR is 1300, I would then multiply it by 1.3 and arrive at 1690. Now I’d know that if I eat around 1700 calories a day on the days I don’t work out, I won’t gain weight. Additionally, on the days I do work out I’ll be able to factor in that additional burn and ramp up my AMR even more....
"So say I added 30 minutes of focused training into my day and I burned 300 calories during that time frame, then my total AMR would be 2000. Plus the EPOC, or afterburn effect on my metabolism, is likely giving me another 100 or so calories burned over a 24 hour period."
(MFP sensibly doesn't include this afterburn thing, IMO, but otherwise it's just the same.)3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tawnyamh1209 wrote: »Ok let me clear this up. I have a scale that gives me my bmr and it’s linked to mfp so when it did that where it says goal changed to exactly what my bmr is. I know it sounds strange. Go on Facebook and look up Jillian Michaels she has a video that explains it all. I have no idea why mfp shows goal when it should say bmr. I’ve watched the Jillian Michael video and have been surprised with results but she explains it in a better understanding way than I can.
You shouldn't be eating under your BMR. If Jillian Michaels is recommending that people do that, then that's not good advice.
Not that I care about Jillian Michaels, but she seems to be saying the same thing as MFP, at least here:
https://www.jillianmichaels.com/blog/health-and-fitness/how-many-calories-do-you-burn-day
"Contrary to the current trend, calories DO matter when it comes to weight loss, weight gain, and weight maintenance. For this reason, knowing how many calories you burn in a day is critical information when it comes to achieving your health goals.
In order to figure this out, the first thing we need to do is calculate your BMR or Basal Metabolic Rate. Your basal metabolic rate refers to the amount of calories your body uses for involuntary bodily functions – basically when you are asleep or at rest. It does not take into account the amount of calories you’ll burn from your daily activity, though. That’s your AMR or active metabolic rate. I’ll get into that in a minute...."
[goes through how to calculate BMR]
"After you have run through these simple calculations and come up with your BMR, we need to then calculate your AMR. This next exercise is going to tell us how many calories you are burning in a day without adding in your exercise burn. Simply the amount you burn throughout an average day of your life (sans exercise)...."
[goes through how to add activity multipliers]
"Once you have identified which category you best fit take that number and multiply it with your BMR. So, if my BMR is 1300, I would then multiply it by 1.3 and arrive at 1690. Now I’d know that if I eat around 1700 calories a day on the days I don’t work out, I won’t gain weight. Additionally, on the days I do work out I’ll be able to factor in that additional burn and ramp up my AMR even more....
"So say I added 30 minutes of focused training into my day and I burned 300 calories during that time frame, then my total AMR would be 2000. Plus the EPOC, or afterburn effect on my metabolism, is likely giving me another 100 or so calories burned over a 24 hour period."
(MFP sensibly doesn't include this afterburn thing, IMO, but otherwise it's just the same.)
Thanks for verifying - this sounds much more reasonable.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions