Compound Exercise vs Cardio and burning calories
Options
mpkpbk2015
Posts: 766 Member
Can someone please explain how compound exercise burns more calories than cardio exercises. I keep getting conflicting answers. So I want to hear from the people that actually do them.
0
Replies
-
It's very difficult to get an accurate calorie burn calculation for a compound exercise. My strength training is almost exclusively compound kettlebell exercises. There is no question in my mind that performing 30 seconds of a kettlebell goblet jump-squat press burns way more calories than a 30 second jog. BUT, I can run for 1 hour without stopping -- I can't do those moves for 1 hour without stopping.
So, while compound lifts burn more calories per minute, they don't burn more calories per session.
My weight loss has always matched the CICO model and my workouts are 50% strength, 50% running. I log roughly 2x the calorie burn for running (per hour) as I do for strength training.0 -
Cardio is an extremely broad term with a massive range of calorie burn rates - I would be extremely dubious of any articles making sweeping statements about one mode of exercise burning more than something that could range from say 130cals from gentle walking up to an elite cyclist burning over 1,400 cals an hour.
How exactly are they estimating these burns from "compound exercises"?
Metabolic chamber perhaps?
Outside of that kind of facility people simply aren't going to have accurate numbers, just numbers that work for them in context of a whole range of estimated calories in and calories out. A lot of those numbers will be either guesswork or using totally inaccurate/inappropriate devices.
If your sole aim is burning calories (which would be a real shame) you won't beat moderate intensity cardio with long duration. I burned an accurate 1,459 net calories cycling 3hrs today for example - not for the calorie burns but for enjoyment of lovely countryside and fitness.
Maybe link these articles or opinions you have come across to get feedback on their worth?
3 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »It's very difficult to get an accurate calorie burn calculation for a compound exercise. My strength training is almost exclusively compound kettlebell exercises. There is no question in my mind that performing 30 seconds of a kettlebell goblet jump-squat press burns way more calories than a 30 second jog. BUT, I can run for 1 hour without stopping -- I can't do those moves for 1 hour without stopping.
So, while compound lifts burn more calories per minute, they don't burn more calories per session.
My weight loss has always matched the CICO model and my workouts are 50% strength, 50% running. I log roughly 2x the calorie burn for running (per hour) as I do for strength training.
Thank you, so to get the most out of it you combine the two if I am understanding you.0 -
Cardio is an extremely broad term with a massive range of calorie burn rates - I would be extremely dubious of any articles making sweeping statements about one mode of exercise burning more than something that could range from say 130cals from gentle walking up to an elite cyclist burning over 1,400 cals an hour.
How exactly are they estimating these burns from "compound exercises"?
Metabolic chamber perhaps?
Outside of that kind of facility people simply aren't going to have accurate numbers, just numbers that work for them in context of a whole range of estimated calories in and calories out. A lot of those numbers will be either guesswork or using totally inaccurate/inappropriate devices.
If your sole aim is burning calories (which would be a real shame) you won't beat moderate intensity cardio with long duration. I burned an accurate 1,459 net calories cycling 3hrs today for example - not for the calorie burns but for enjoyment of lovely countryside and fitness.
Maybe link these articles or opinions you have come across to get feedback on their worth?
My sole aim is not burning calories. I want to understand the real world truth behind what I am reading by talking to people that actually do the exercise opposed to those who theorize and write the articles.
My understanding prior to reading the articles was you got more of a burn from cardio and after reading the articles I was left wondering.
I appreciate you breaking it down for me from your experience. I have always believed knowledge is power so I am just trying to educate myself by getting insights from the people on the frontlines doing the work.
Have a great day and stay warm it's cold all over right now. I'm headed out for a walk/run around the neighborhood since we are finally not having sub zero weather and it's in the 40's.
Thanks again.0 -
mpkpbk2015 wrote: »Cardio is an extremely broad term with a massive range of calorie burn rates - I would be extremely dubious of any articles making sweeping statements about one mode of exercise burning more than something that could range from say 130cals from gentle walking up to an elite cyclist burning over 1,400 cals an hour.
How exactly are they estimating these burns from "compound exercises"?
Metabolic chamber perhaps?
Outside of that kind of facility people simply aren't going to have accurate numbers, just numbers that work for them in context of a whole range of estimated calories in and calories out. A lot of those numbers will be either guesswork or using totally inaccurate/inappropriate devices.
If your sole aim is burning calories (which would be a real shame) you won't beat moderate intensity cardio with long duration. I burned an accurate 1,459 net calories cycling 3hrs today for example - not for the calorie burns but for enjoyment of lovely countryside and fitness.
Maybe link these articles or opinions you have come across to get feedback on their worth?
My sole aim is not burning calories. I want to understand the real world truth behind what I am reading by talking to people that actually do the exercise opposed to those who theorize and write the articles.
My understanding prior to reading the articles was you got more of a burn from cardio and after reading the articles I was left wondering.
I appreciate you breaking it down for me from your experience. I have always believed knowledge is power so I am just trying to educate myself by getting insights from the people on the frontlines doing the work.
Have a great day and stay warm it's cold all over right now. I'm headed out for a walk/run around the neighborhood since we are finally not having sub zero weather and it's in the 40's.
Thanks again.
Which people doing the exercise will have accurate numbers though?
You will have to look at research studies using lab facilities not the random guesswork from people working out in a gym. The people on here may have opinions based on their calorie balance but very few will have accurate numbers from specific exercise (cycling is a bit of an anomaly here in having accessible if expensive tools available to the general public).
Again I strongly suggest you link these articles, they may have some merit, they may be absolute trash but at least people can see the author's definitions and reasoning.
They might be majoring on weasel words and quoting different EPOC percentages without clarifying the actual numbers involved.
They might be talking about people doing traditional strength training (a low burn rate) or they might be talking about more circuit training style (higher burn rate but unless you are purely talking about short duration exercise you are limited in how long you can sustain that intensity).2 -
mpkpbk2015 wrote: »Thank you, so to get the most out of it you combine the two if I am understanding you.
It's my opinion that a well rounded fitness regimen is preferred.
I run because I like it, I can do it almost anywhere and because it burns a lot of calories per hour. During my 5+ years of successfully maintaining my weight I never gained weight on vacations because I ran an hour run in the morning before my wife and kids are awake. During that time frame, I never gained weight during our yearly trip to my parents the week of Thanksgiving because I run an hour in the morning before everyone is awake. It's much harder to maintain a strength training regimen on the road -- pretty simple with running.
I strength train because I like it and it helps build/retain muscle which is often lost as we lose weight and age. I believe it will be key to maintaining functional mobility in my 70s, 80s, and hopefully even 90s.
1 -
As mentioned, compound exercises with good intensity and resistance can burn more per minute, but due to lactic acid buildup can't be done for a full say 30 minutes without stopping.
Most cardio is done with body weight and can be done in 30 minutes continually for a person in decent shape. Which is why in most cases for a person doing both, they will burn more calories per session duration with cardio versus compound lifting per session with the same duration.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
mpkpbk2015 wrote: »Cardio is an extremely broad term with a massive range of calorie burn rates - I would be extremely dubious of any articles making sweeping statements about one mode of exercise burning more than something that could range from say 130cals from gentle walking up to an elite cyclist burning over 1,400 cals an hour.
How exactly are they estimating these burns from "compound exercises"?
Metabolic chamber perhaps?
Outside of that kind of facility people simply aren't going to have accurate numbers, just numbers that work for them in context of a whole range of estimated calories in and calories out. A lot of those numbers will be either guesswork or using totally inaccurate/inappropriate devices.
If your sole aim is burning calories (which would be a real shame) you won't beat moderate intensity cardio with long duration. I burned an accurate 1,459 net calories cycling 3hrs today for example - not for the calorie burns but for enjoyment of lovely countryside and fitness.
Maybe link these articles or opinions you have come across to get feedback on their worth?
My sole aim is not burning calories. I want to understand the real world truth behind what I am reading by talking to people that actually do the exercise opposed to those who theorize and write the articles.
My understanding prior to reading the articles was you got more of a burn from cardio and after reading the articles I was left wondering.
I appreciate you breaking it down for me from your experience. I have always believed knowledge is power so I am just trying to educate myself by getting insights from the people on the frontlines doing the work.
Have a great day and stay warm it's cold all over right now. I'm headed out for a walk/run around the neighborhood since we are finally not having sub zero weather and it's in the 40's.
Thanks again.
Which people doing the exercise will have accurate numbers though?
You will have to look at research studies using lab facilities not the random guesswork from people working out in a gym. The people on here may have opinions based on their calorie balance but very few will have accurate numbers from specific exercise (cycling is a bit of an anomaly here in having accessible if expensive tools available to the general public).
Again I strongly suggest you link these articles, they may have some merit, they may be absolute trash but at least people can see the author's definitions and reasoning.
They might be majoring on weasel words and quoting different EPOC percentages without clarifying the actual numbers involved.
They might be talking about people doing traditional strength training (a low burn rate) or they might be talking about more circuit training style (higher burn rate but unless you are purely talking about short duration exercise you are limited in how long you can sustain that intensity).
Thanks I will link the articles and see what else is published out there. Just got back in felt good to run in the fresh air again. Have a good afternoon.0 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »mpkpbk2015 wrote: »Thank you, so to get the most out of it you combine the two if I am understanding you.
It's my opinion that a well rounded fitness regimen is preferred.
I run because I like it, I can do it almost anywhere and because it burns a lot of calories per hour. During my 5+ years of successfully maintaining my weight I never gained weight on vacations because I ran an hour run in the morning before my wife and kids are awake. During that time frame, I never gained weight during our yearly trip to my parents the week of Thanksgiving because I run an hour in the morning before everyone is awake. It's much harder to maintain a strength training regimen on the road -- pretty simple with running.
I strength train because I like it and it helps build/retain muscle which is often lost as we lose weight and age. I believe it will be key to maintaining functional mobility in my 70s, 80s, and hopefully even 90s.
Makes sense, and I definitely want to be able after all this effort want to maintain and stay healthy in my 70,80's and beyond. Thanks again.0 -
As mentioned, compound exercises with good intensity and resistance can burn more per minute, but due to lactic acid buildup can't be done for a full say 30 minutes without stopping.
Most cardio is done with body weight and can be done in 30 minutes continually for a person in decent shape. Which is why in most cases for a person doing both, they will burn more calories per session duration with cardio versus compound lifting per session with the same duration.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
As always ninerbuff you are always on point being in the business you have great technical insight and knowledge. Thank you and have a great weekend0 -
mpkpbk2015 wrote: »mpkpbk2015 wrote: »Cardio is an extremely broad term with a massive range of calorie burn rates - I would be extremely dubious of any articles making sweeping statements about one mode of exercise burning more than something that could range from say 130cals from gentle walking up to an elite cyclist burning over 1,400 cals an hour.
How exactly are they estimating these burns from "compound exercises"?
Metabolic chamber perhaps?
Outside of that kind of facility people simply aren't going to have accurate numbers, just numbers that work for them in context of a whole range of estimated calories in and calories out. A lot of those numbers will be either guesswork or using totally inaccurate/inappropriate devices.
If your sole aim is burning calories (which would be a real shame) you won't beat moderate intensity cardio with long duration. I burned an accurate 1,459 net calories cycling 3hrs today for example - not for the calorie burns but for enjoyment of lovely countryside and fitness.
Maybe link these articles or opinions you have come across to get feedback on their worth?
My sole aim is not burning calories. I want to understand the real world truth behind what I am reading by talking to people that actually do the exercise opposed to those who theorize and write the articles.
My understanding prior to reading the articles was you got more of a burn from cardio and after reading the articles I was left wondering.
I appreciate you breaking it down for me from your experience. I have always believed knowledge is power so I am just trying to educate myself by getting insights from the people on the frontlines doing the work.
Have a great day and stay warm it's cold all over right now. I'm headed out for a walk/run around the neighborhood since we are finally not having sub zero weather and it's in the 40's.
Thanks again.
Which people doing the exercise will have accurate numbers though?
You will have to look at research studies using lab facilities not the random guesswork from people working out in a gym. The people on here may have opinions based on their calorie balance but very few will have accurate numbers from specific exercise (cycling is a bit of an anomaly here in having accessible if expensive tools available to the general public).
Again I strongly suggest you link these articles, they may have some merit, they may be absolute trash but at least people can see the author's definitions and reasoning.
They might be majoring on weasel words and quoting different EPOC percentages without clarifying the actual numbers involved.
They might be talking about people doing traditional strength training (a low burn rate) or they might be talking about more circuit training style (higher burn rate but unless you are purely talking about short duration exercise you are limited in how long you can sustain that intensity).
Thanks I will link the articles and see what else is published out there. Just got back in felt good to run in the fresh air again. Have a good afternoon.
Think you will find this a very interesting read although it's comparing cardio intervals to cardio steady state a lot of the same issues apply when comparing different exercise modalities: very short duration but high burn versus possibly longer duration and moderate rates and also EPOC and its impact on total calorie burn (which isn't a lot!).
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/ss-vs-hiit-epoc-application0 -
If an article literally compares "cardio" to compound strength training, using those terms, with respect to calorie burn, ignore that article. That would be my advice.
As sijomial says, the range of cardio exercises is much, much too broad and varied for "cardio" (as a generality) to be compared to anything (in calorie burn terms, or most other term). It's like comparing "land vehicles" to "boats", in terms of speed, say. Which land vehicle: Skateboard, bike, racecar? Which boat: Canoe, sailboat, cigarette-style racing boat?
I burn maybe 230 net calories per hour walking briskly, 114 calories walking slowly. I burn maybe 470 net calories per hour machine rowing at a sustainable pace, more than twice as many per minute as brisk walking, four times as many as slow walking. How can I lump all of those in one calorie-burn category as "cardio" even though both the brisk walking and the machine rowing are about the pace I can sustain for the full time period, so equal levels of "steady state cardio" in that sense? (It's another level of nonsense in these comparisons that some forms of cardio use/develop more strength than others, but are still lumped into "cardio" in some of these comparisons.)
When I do compound strength exercises, I usually do them in the old-school reps/sets format. That doesn't burn very many calories per minute. If I do compound moves in something like kettlebell circuit format, it burns more calories per minutes than the reps/sets version, but not as many per minute - in my best estimates - as machine rowing, and I can't keep going as long.
Strength training is hard to estimate calories for outside a sports lab**. That's why I'm not comparing specific numbers for the strength training. Some cardio is pretty easy to estimate with reasonable accuracy, but not all.
The EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, a.k.a. afterburn) percentage can be higher for strength training, but even different forms or intensities of both strength training and cardio have different estimated EPOC percents. Also, it's a percent of the original exercise calories, so the actual calorie numbers might not be different: 10% EPOC on a 500 calorie burn would be 50 calories, as would be 20% EPOC on a 250 calorie burn, even though the difference in percents looks dramatic.
Comparing the percents obscures important information, about how long you can sustainably do the exercise, and how many calories it burns while you do it. (Usually the high burn, high EPOC exercises can't be done for as long a time or as frequently as lower burn, lower EPOC ones, for the reasons the guys mentioned above. Boils down to one type or another of fatigue, very loosely.)
So, back at my original point: If an article literally compares "cardio" to compound strength training exercise in terms of calorie burn, and doesn't analyze specifics and details, ignore that article. It's overgeneralized. Either they're trying to convince you to do their preferred exercise, or they're using dumbed-down myths they learned somewhere to rationalize their personal exercise preferences.
Some compound strength exercises burn more calories per minute than some cardio exercises. Some burn fewer. Same deal with the EPOC. Comparing any/all compound strength exercise to any/all cardio is just nonsense talk.
It's good to do both strength exercise and cardio exercise regularly. This is also a big generality, but compound strength exercises can be especially useful and efficient forms of strength exercise.
** This is a good article to get a better understanding of calorie burn in cardio vs. strength training. It talks about heart rate monitor estimates specifically, but contains background information that helps understand the issues.
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view?id=hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-176981 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »mpkpbk2015 wrote: »Thank you, so to get the most out of it you combine the two if I am understanding you.
It's my opinion that a well rounded fitness regimen is preferred.
I run because I like it, I can do it almost anywhere and because it burns a lot of calories per hour. During my 5+ years of successfully maintaining my weight I never gained weight on vacations because I ran an hour run in the morning before my wife and kids are awake. During that time frame, I never gained weight during our yearly trip to my parents the week of Thanksgiving because I run an hour in the morning before everyone is awake. It's much harder to maintain a strength training regimen on the road -- pretty simple with running.
I strength train because I like it and it helps build/retain muscle which is often lost as we lose weight and age. I believe it will be key to maintaining functional mobility in my 70s, 80s, and hopefully even 90s.
OP, I'll chime in and agree with the response above. I'd also point out that several responses mention that the cardio and strength activities are chosen because people like them, not merely as calorie burning activities. I burn a LOT of calories training for long course triathlon races, but the reality is that I do it because I LIKE swimming, cycling and running. I also do some strength training and yoga to maintain muscle and mobility as I age. I'm 63 years old, so that is a real concern for me.
So I'd suggest picking a fitness activity (or two!) that you enjoy and find a group of like minded people to enjoy it with. That way, exercise will become a habit and never a chore.3 -
Not sure if this was mentioned...intense compound exercises are going to require longer rest periods between sets (which will impact overall calorie burn).
I've used the MFP strength training selection to estimate calories burned. I have successfully cut/bulked using this method. For me, the MFP estimation is pretty accurate. I burn less calories during a 2 hour lifting session than I would burn in 2 hrs of steady state cardio.
As mentioned, it is best to balance both lifting and cardio for best weight loss results and over all fitness/health. If your main goal is weight loss, then you may focus more on cardio than lifting. Incorporating lifting during weight loss will help you retain muscularity, and you will be more satisfied with your long-term weight loss results vs. dieting and cardio alone for weight loss.1 -
deputy_randolph wrote: »Not sure if this was mentioned...intense compound exercises are going to require longer rest periods between sets (which will impact overall calorie burn).
I've used the MFP strength training selection to estimate calories burned. I have successfully cut/bulked using this method. For me, the MFP estimation is pretty accurate. I burn less calories during a 2 hour lifting session than I would burn in 2 hrs of steady state cardio.
As mentioned, it is best to balance both lifting and cardio for best weight loss results and over all fitness/health. If your main goal is weight loss, then you may focus more on cardio than lifting. Incorporating lifting during weight loss will help you retain muscularity, and you will be more satisfied with your long-term weight loss results vs. dieting and cardio alone for weight loss.
Thank you as I am about to enter the maintenance phase of my journey hopefully when I weigh in tomorrow I will be at goal. I was 1/2 pound off last week. I am looking now to incorporate strength training into my routine and tone up some of the areas from the 100 pound loss that need firming now. I do 6 days a week of cardio now and before I start I am doing some research trying not to go into this blind. Thanks for your advice have a great rest of your weekend.0 -
FitAgainBy55 wrote: »mpkpbk2015 wrote: »Thank you, so to get the most out of it you combine the two if I am understanding you.
It's my opinion that a well rounded fitness regimen is preferred.
I run because I like it, I can do it almost anywhere and because it burns a lot of calories per hour. During my 5+ years of successfully maintaining my weight I never gained weight on vacations because I ran an hour run in the morning before my wife and kids are awake. During that time frame, I never gained weight during our yearly trip to my parents the week of Thanksgiving because I run an hour in the morning before everyone is awake. It's much harder to maintain a strength training regimen on the road -- pretty simple with running.
I strength train because I like it and it helps build/retain muscle which is often lost as we lose weight and age. I believe it will be key to maintaining functional mobility in my 70s, 80s, and hopefully even 90s.
OP, I'll chime in and agree with the response above. I'd also point out that several responses mention that the cardio and strength activities are chosen because people like them, not merely as calorie burning activities. I burn a LOT of calories training for long course triathlon races, but the reality is that I do it because I LIKE swimming, cycling and running. I also do some strength training and yoga to maintain muscle and mobility as I age. I'm 63 years old, so that is a real concern for me.
So I'd suggest picking a fitness activity (or two!) that you enjoy and find a group of like minded people to enjoy it with. That way, exercise will become a habit and never a chore.
I agree with you 100 % I don't want to look at it as a chore or I know myself I won't stick with it. I am hopefully going to reach goal in the morning when I weigh in missed last week by 1/2 pound. It's been a 2 year journey and I have gotten here by going slow and analyzing what I am doing and why and researching how I am going to do what and when to be successful. So I do cardio now 6 days a week. And after losing this 100 pounds there are areas that need firming and toning so it's time for weight training. But I want it to be fun and effective. So with that said thank you for your advice I will take it to heart because I want to be fit well into my 70's and 80's and beyond God willing.1 -
If an article literally compares "cardio" to compound strength training, using those terms, with respect to calorie burn, ignore that article. That would be my advice.
As sijomial says, the range of cardio exercises is much, much too broad and varied for "cardio" (as a generality) to be compared to anything (in calorie burn terms, or most other term). It's like comparing "land vehicles" to "boats", in terms of speed, say. Which land vehicle: Skateboard, bike, racecar? Which boat: Canoe, sailboat, cigarette-style racing boat?
I burn maybe 230 net calories per hour walking briskly, 114 calories walking slowly. I burn maybe 470 net calories per hour machine rowing at a sustainable pace, more than twice as many per minute as brisk walking, four times as many as slow walking. How can I lump all of those in one calorie-burn category as "cardio" even though both the brisk walking and the machine rowing are about the pace I can sustain for the full time period, so equal levels of "steady state cardio" in that sense? (It's another level of nonsense in these comparisons that some forms of cardio use/develop more strength than others, but are still lumped into "cardio" in some of these comparisons.)
When I do compound strength exercises, I usually do them in the old-school reps/sets format. That doesn't burn very many calories per minute. If I do compound moves in something like kettlebell circuit format, it burns more calories per minutes than the reps/sets version, but not as many per minute - in my best estimates - as machine rowing, and I can't keep going as long.
Strength training is hard to estimate calories for outside a sports lab**. That's why I'm not comparing specific numbers for the strength training. Some cardio is pretty easy to estimate with reasonable accuracy, but not all.
The EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, a.k.a. afterburn) percentage can be higher for strength training, but even different forms or intensities of both strength training and cardio have different estimated EPOC percents. Also, it's a percent of the original exercise calories, so the actual calorie numbers might not be different: 10% EPOC on a 500 calorie burn would be 50 calories, as would be 20% EPOC on a 250 calorie burn, even though the difference in percents looks dramatic.
Comparing the percents obscures important information, about how long you can sustainably do the exercise, and how many calories it burns while you do it. (Usually the high burn, high EPOC exercises can't be done for as long a time or as frequently as lower burn, lower EPOC ones, for the reasons the guys mentioned above. Boils down to one type or another of fatigue, very loosely.)
So, back at my original point: If an article literally compares "cardio" to compound strength training exercise in terms of calorie burn, and doesn't analyze specifics and details, ignore that article. It's overgeneralized. Either they're trying to convince you to do their preferred exercise, or they're using dumbed-down myths they learned somewhere to rationalize their personal exercise preferences.
Some compound strength exercises burn more calories per minute than some cardio exercises. Some burn fewer. Same deal with the EPOC. Comparing any/all compound strength exercise to any/all cardio is just nonsense talk.
It's good to do both strength exercise and cardio exercise regularly. This is also a big generality, but compound strength exercises can be especially useful and efficient forms of strength exercise.
** This is a good article to get a better understanding of calorie burn in cardio vs. strength training. It talks about heart rate monitor estimates specifically, but contains background information that helps understand the issues.
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view?id=hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698
Thank you so much, I really appreciate the analogies they make it clearer for me. You have gone into great detail which is great as well. I will checkout the link and you provided. I have come to trust you as you have answered many of my questions lately. Again thank you for your support and have a great rest of your weekend.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions