So how does the amount of protein you need every day change with your activity?
SpookyPockets
Posts: 33 Member
So how does the amount of protein you need change depending on your activity level?
I was told that I should try to eat 1-1.5g of protein for every kg of lbm. I don't know my fat% but if I guessed at between 18-24% I should be eating around uhh...
(100-18)/100*46 = 34.5
(100-24)/100*46*1.5 = 52.5
Is that correct? Between 34.5g and 52.5g of protein a day? Is that to maintain my current muscle, to gain?
I may be overthinking it and from my bit of logging I don't think I'm going to have any trouble meeting those numbers at all but I just wanted to check with what everyone else was doing and their understandings?
I was told that I should try to eat 1-1.5g of protein for every kg of lbm. I don't know my fat% but if I guessed at between 18-24% I should be eating around uhh...
(100-18)/100*46 = 34.5
(100-24)/100*46*1.5 = 52.5
Is that correct? Between 34.5g and 52.5g of protein a day? Is that to maintain my current muscle, to gain?
I may be overthinking it and from my bit of logging I don't think I'm going to have any trouble meeting those numbers at all but I just wanted to check with what everyone else was doing and their understandings?
0
Replies
-
Try this:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/
That's based on recent research, and they'll tell you what research, in their guide. (They don't sell supplements, BTW - they're generally regarded as evidence-based and neutral).
To me, 34.5g and 52.5g both sound low.
You're smaller than me, at 46kg (101.4lbs). I'm female, 56.7kg (125 pounds), 165cm (5'5"). I'm active. I figure my LBM is maybe around 96kg +/- a few pounds, so I eat 100g protein daily. It's a nice round easy to remember number, and because I'm vegetarian I prefer to err on the high side. If it matters, that is me in my profile photo, so neither bodybuilder nor completely devoid of muscle; and I'm age 65.
Our national authority (USDA) recommends 45g protein minimum for me, but I think they seriously lowball based on the more recent research, for active people who want to maintain/gain muscle. Your numbers are probably around what they'd recommend for you, but I don't know your age or height to calculate. The calculator link is below, but it's in pounds/inches, not kg/cm, because US.
https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dri-calculator/0 -
Try this:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/
That's based on recent research, and they'll tell you what research, in their guide. (They don't sell supplements, BTW - they're generally regarded as evidence-based and neutral).
To me, 34.5g and 52.5g both sound low.
You're smaller than me, at 46kg (101.4lbs). I'm female, 56.7kg (125 pounds), 165cm (5'5"). I'm active. I figure my LBM is maybe around 96kg +/- a few pounds, so I eat 100g protein daily. It's a nice round easy to remember number, and because I'm vegetarian I prefer to err on the high side. If it matters, that is me in my profile photo, so neither bodybuilder nor completely devoid of muscle; and I'm age 65.
Our national authority (USDA) recommends 45g protein minimum for me, but I think they seriously lowball based on the more recent research, for active people who want to maintain/gain muscle. Your numbers are probably around what they'd recommend for you, but I don't know your age or height to calculate. The calculator link is below, but it's in pounds/inches, not kg/cm, because US.
https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dri-calculator/
Thanks, I had a read through their summary and might look at some of the studies later. You're right they seem a lot higher than I've been told before and that USDA calculator (which put me at 37g).
The calculator you linked me is putting me at 55g at sedentary and 64-74g active depending on if I want to maintain or gain. If those are accurate I probably am still relatively okay without thinking too carefully about protein sources but I'll keep an eye on it.
I'm 46kg (101lb) but only 148cm (4'10) tall so my TDEE is fairly low unless I am quite active. You said you aim on the high side because you're vegetarian, is that because of the potential protein absorption mentioned in some of the studies?
I'm a little confused at whether protein requirements increase based on how much extra activity you do. For example if I burnt another 500kcal daily over my BMI compared to 800kcal or even doubling it at like 1500kcal or or would that be more protein needed? Or does the protein required for repair/muscle building cap out and not really work in a linear way like that?
0 -
SpookyPockets wrote: »Try this:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/
That's based on recent research, and they'll tell you what research, in their guide. (They don't sell supplements, BTW - they're generally regarded as evidence-based and neutral).
To me, 34.5g and 52.5g both sound low.
You're smaller than me, at 46kg (101.4lbs). I'm female, 56.7kg (125 pounds), 165cm (5'5"). I'm active. I figure my LBM is maybe around 96kg +/- a few pounds, so I eat 100g protein daily. It's a nice round easy to remember number, and because I'm vegetarian I prefer to err on the high side. If it matters, that is me in my profile photo, so neither bodybuilder nor completely devoid of muscle; and I'm age 65.
Our national authority (USDA) recommends 45g protein minimum for me, but I think they seriously lowball based on the more recent research, for active people who want to maintain/gain muscle. Your numbers are probably around what they'd recommend for you, but I don't know your age or height to calculate. The calculator link is below, but it's in pounds/inches, not kg/cm, because US.
https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dri-calculator/
Thanks, I had a read through their summary and might look at some of the studies later. You're right they seem a lot higher than I've been told before and that USDA calculator (which put me at 37g).
The calculator you linked me is putting me at 55g at sedentary and 64-74g active depending on if I want to maintain or gain. If those are accurate I probably am still relatively okay without thinking too carefully about protein sources but I'll keep an eye on it.
I'm 46kg (101lb) but only 148cm (4'10) tall so my TDEE is fairly low unless I am quite active. You said you aim on the high side because you're vegetarian, is that because of the potential protein absorption mentioned in some of the studies?
I'm a little confused at whether protein requirements increase based on how much extra activity you do. For example if I burnt another 500kcal daily over my BMI compared to 800kcal or even doubling it at like 1500kcal or or would that be more protein needed? Or does the protein required for repair/muscle building cap out and not really work in a linear way like that?
I aim on the high side as a vegetarian because my protein sources are likely to include some of lower quality, in terms of essential amino acid (EAA) completeness. I vary the sources to counter that (different things are short in different EAAs), and try to prefer more complete sources as much as possible. Since I'm also aging (65, as I said), and there's some limited evidence that we may absorb/metabolize/utilization as we age, that's also a consideration for me.
I'm not the right person to respond about the deep details of protein needs. My amateur understanding is that if one is more active (particularly strength exercise) and has goals of increasing muscularity/strength, then one can benefit from adequate protein . . . but the definition of "adequate" is not very well pinned down, more like approximated.
A heathy person (without diseases, conditions or genetics that suggest limiting protein would be prudent) is not harmed by relatively more protein than needed, within reason . . . the definition of "reason" being, IMO, not crowding out other important nutrition within calorie goal. Excess protein just becomes calories for other purposes, pretty much.
A downside of protein (vs. other macros) is that it can be somewhat more expensive (in money!). I can afford the cost without stress. So, that's part of my thinking, for myself, too.
As far as I know, we need enough good quality protein (right EAA balance over time) to make the muscle repairs in the best possible way. I don't know how that translates to exercise loads, but I'd guess it doesn't translate directly to exercise *calories*. For example, heavy weight training is generally regarded as not being the hugest possible calorie burner (vs. maybe something like fast cycling?), but it does require a large amount of muscle repair because of the nature of the exercise, therefore if more exercise requires more protein for muscle repair, that would seem like it would matter.
Personally, if I did a gazillion calories of exercise, I'd want a fair fraction of that calorie increase to be carbs, but I'm not a low-carber who thinks being fat-adapted is useful to me.
But, like I said, I'm not expert in muscle protein synthesis and related topics. You could probably get a good discussion going over in the bodybuilding part of the MFP Community about how exercise relates to protein needs, and probably some of what was asserted would even be useful and true. 😉 I personally just set my minimum at what I think are high-ish normal levels, eat that every day (exercise or no), and often eat more (and having more exercise calories helps with that, but the exercise isn't the main reason I increase it).0 -
MFP's calories and macros are based on your activity level BEFORE intentional exercise. When you exercise, you need more calories, which will also increase your macros.
I shoot for @ 500 calories of exercise per day, and when I do, using the MFP default of 20% protein aligns with the protein recommendation from the examine calculator above. If I were completely sedentary, I'd need to bump it up to 30%.0 -
SpookyPockets wrote: »Try this:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/
That's based on recent research, and they'll tell you what research, in their guide. (They don't sell supplements, BTW - they're generally regarded as evidence-based and neutral).
To me, 34.5g and 52.5g both sound low.
You're smaller than me, at 46kg (101.4lbs). I'm female, 56.7kg (125 pounds), 165cm (5'5"). I'm active. I figure my LBM is maybe around 96kg +/- a few pounds, so I eat 100g protein daily. It's a nice round easy to remember number, and because I'm vegetarian I prefer to err on the high side. If it matters, that is me in my profile photo, so neither bodybuilder nor completely devoid of muscle; and I'm age 65.
Our national authority (USDA) recommends 45g protein minimum for me, but I think they seriously lowball based on the more recent research, for active people who want to maintain/gain muscle. Your numbers are probably around what they'd recommend for you, but I don't know your age or height to calculate. The calculator link is below, but it's in pounds/inches, not kg/cm, because US.
https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dri-calculator/
Thanks, I had a read through their summary and might look at some of the studies later. You're right they seem a lot higher than I've been told before and that USDA calculator (which put me at 37g).
The calculator you linked me is putting me at 55g at sedentary and 64-74g active depending on if I want to maintain or gain. If those are accurate I probably am still relatively okay without thinking too carefully about protein sources but I'll keep an eye on it.
I'm 46kg (101lb) but only 148cm (4'10) tall so my TDEE is fairly low unless I am quite active. You said you aim on the high side because you're vegetarian, is that because of the potential protein absorption mentioned in some of the studies?
I'm a little confused at whether protein requirements increase based on how much extra activity you do. For example if I burnt another 500kcal daily over my BMI compared to 800kcal or even doubling it at like 1500kcal or or would that be more protein needed? Or does the protein required for repair/muscle building cap out and not really work in a linear way like that?
I aim on the high side as a vegetarian because my protein sources are likely to include some of lower quality, in terms of essential amino acid (EAA) completeness. I vary the sources to counter that (different things are short in different EAAs), and try to prefer more complete sources as much as possible. Since I'm also aging (65, as I said), and there's some limited evidence that we may absorb/metabolize/utilization as we age, that's also a consideration for me.
I'm not the right person to respond about the deep details of protein needs. My amateur understanding is that if one is more active (particularly strength exercise) and has goals of increasing muscularity/strength, then one can benefit from adequate protein . . . but the definition of "adequate" is not very well pinned down, more like approximated.
A heathy person (without diseases, conditions or genetics that suggest limiting protein would be prudent) is not harmed by relatively more protein than needed, within reason . . . the definition of "reason" being, IMO, not crowding out other important nutrition within calorie goal. Excess protein just becomes calories for other purposes, pretty much.
A downside of protein (vs. other macros) is that it can be somewhat more expensive (in money!). I can afford the cost without stress. So, that's part of my thinking, for myself, too.
As far as I know, we need enough good quality protein (right EAA balance over time) to make the muscle repairs in the best possible way. I don't know how that translates to exercise loads, but I'd guess it doesn't translate directly to exercise *calories*. For example, heavy weight training is generally regarded as not being the hugest possible calorie burner (vs. maybe something like fast cycling?), but it does require a large amount of muscle repair because of the nature of the exercise, therefore if more exercise requires more protein for muscle repair, that would seem like it would matter.
Personally, if I did a gazillion calories of exercise, I'd want a fair fraction of that calorie increase to be carbs, but I'm not a low-carber who thinks being fat-adapted is useful to me.
But, like I said, I'm not expert in muscle protein synthesis and related topics. You could probably get a good discussion going over in the bodybuilding part of the MFP Community about how exercise relates to protein needs, and probably some of what was asserted would even be useful and true. 😉 I personally just set my minimum at what I think are high-ish normal levels, eat that every day (exercise or no), and often eat more (and having more exercise calories helps with that, but the exercise isn't the main reason I increase it).
Thanks that makes sense, I am vegan so I probably should be paying attention to whether my protein sources are complete. My understanding generally was as long as you're not getting the majority from a single source (soy, wheat, beans etc.) it's rarely a major concern but I guess it makes sense to err on safe side and eat towards the higher end of the range.
The specifics of nutrition are something I've never paid too much attention to. I always assumed if I was eating a varied diet and meeting my calorific needs at maintenance it would be fine so there's a lot of understanding I still need I think. I've never bothered to even look at macro and micro nutrients but what you say does make a lot of sense! Having less to think about and just supplementing towards the high end might just be easier. I am going to continue to track and work out what my natural sort of protein intake is at the moment before I start adapting anything though.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »MFP's calories and macros are based on your activity level BEFORE intentional exercise. When you exercise, you need more calories, which will also increase your macros.
I shoot for @ 500 calories of exercise per day, and when I do, using the MFP default of 20% protein aligns with the protein recommendation from the examine calculator above. If I were completely sedentary, I'd need to bump it up to 30%.
I guess that's what I mean though? Are these guidelines for X grams of protein (and therefore calories worth of pure protein I guess) intake per day percentages of your TDEE that linearly increase with an increase in calorific need? My instinct and my admittedly limited understanding says that it likely is correlated but probably isn't that simple and probably isn't linear to calories. These studies seem to suggest there's a ceiling of how much protein is useful. Although I guess aside from the financial cost and limitations on your diet there's no harm in increasing intake linearly?0 -
SpookyPockets wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »MFP's calories and macros are based on your activity level BEFORE intentional exercise. When you exercise, you need more calories, which will also increase your macros.
I shoot for @ 500 calories of exercise per day, and when I do, using the MFP default of 20% protein aligns with the protein recommendation from the examine calculator above. If I were completely sedentary, I'd need to bump it up to 30%.
I guess that's what I mean though? Are these guidelines for X grams of protein (and therefore calories worth of pure protein I guess) intake per day percentages of your TDEE that linearly increase with an increase in calorific need? My instinct and my admittedly limited understanding says that it likely is correlated but probably isn't that simple and probably isn't linear to calories. These studies seem to suggest there's a ceiling of how much protein is useful. Although I guess aside from the financial cost and limitations on your diet there's no harm in increasing intake linearly?
I think the percentages are more of a convenience factor: They work pretty well, for many people, with normal average-ish calorie budgets and exercise schedules. Kshama, for example, found out that fairly standard percentages work quite nicely for her, in her current circumstances, in terms of what the research-based grams formulas would suggest. Percentages are handy, and for many, plenty close enough.
I can't give you a well-founded research study to justify my saying this, but personally I think it's useful to investigate gram-based goals for one's particular situation, especially if one's circumstances are more unusual, such as having a big calorie deficit but strength training to preserve muscle, having extremely variable or unusually high/low calorie needs for some reason, etc. A percentage may be close enough, even the MFP default percentages may be close enough, but without looking into it, how would one know whether the MFP default percent fits, or not?
I get that some people aren't that concerned with protein, or with being structured about nutrition in other ways, and that's none of my business (and most people with a generally healthy diet aren't protein deficient, though I do see seriously low protein intake in some female friends my age +/- who are very salad-centric, and among some vegetarians/vegans). Anyone may decide to increase or decrease protein for non-nutrition reasons, like satiation, taste-preference, cost, practicality, or whatever, too.
If one *does* care about nutrition, wants to be more structured about it, reading some and getting an informed personal opinion, makes sense before setting a starting percentage goal, IMO.
BTW, you mention being vegan, not knowing lots about nutrition, but you're showing some interest. Given that, in case you haven't learned of it, this is a really good, evidence-based nutrition site for vegans:
https://veganhealth.org/
Sadly, there are really a lot of "imaginative" vegan advocacy sites and influencers, sadly, who put out information that doesn't have a good basis in science. (Some even say you don't need to worry about protein intake, you'll automatically get enough, because plants are just so good that you don't need very much protein. Just no.)
P.S. Protein and protein quality become more important with muscle-gain goals. It's not that one needs to eat EAA-complete foods exclusively, or combine complementary foods all in one meal like we thought in the 1970s. But well-rounded EAAs over a day or few is a good idea, IMO. The site I linked above has pretty solid information about how to consider this without obsessing. 😉0 -
SpookyPockets wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »MFP's calories and macros are based on your activity level BEFORE intentional exercise. When you exercise, you need more calories, which will also increase your macros.
I shoot for @ 500 calories of exercise per day, and when I do, using the MFP default of 20% protein aligns with the protein recommendation from the examine calculator above. If I were completely sedentary, I'd need to bump it up to 30%.
I guess that's what I mean though? Are these guidelines for X grams of protein (and therefore calories worth of pure protein I guess) intake per day percentages of your TDEE that linearly increase with an increase in calorific need? My instinct and my admittedly limited understanding says that it likely is correlated but probably isn't that simple and probably isn't linear to calories. These studies seem to suggest there's a ceiling of how much protein is useful. Although I guess aside from the financial cost and limitations on your diet there's no harm in increasing intake linearly?
If you use the TDEE method all your activity and calories are already built in.
However, MFP uses NEAT and has you add activity as you go, which will give you more calories, and higher macro goals as you add your exercise.1 -
You are trying to figure out the minimum needed? Why not just eat extra protein? You think 35-50 g a day is too low?? Eat 75 g. Anything your body doesn't use will be excreted.
Too much protein can cause issues, but 75 g isn't too much.. it is simply a bit extra. According to Google, most women need 50-60. Even if 50 is great for you, 75 isn't going to be a big deal. Better than worrying if you are eating too little. Too much protein is not going to be an issue just by eating an extra 20-30 grams. You would need to eat quite a bit to be a problem.
Since excess protein is excreted, and not useful, eating a lot of extra protein would be a waste, and not desirable, but 25g is about 4 ozs. of fish.. it's not like we are talking about much.
0 -
russellholtslander1 wrote: ».
Since excess protein is excreted, and not useful, eating a lot of extra protein would be a waste, and not desirable, but 25g is about 4 ozs. of fish.. it's not like we are talking about much.
While I agree eating more protein is unlikely to be problematic, excess protein, unlike water soluble vitamins, is not excreted. It will be used as energy or, when eating more calories than maintenance level, will contribute to fat gain.3 -
russellholtslander1 wrote: ».
Since excess protein is excreted, and not useful, eating a lot of extra protein would be a waste, and not desirable, but 25g is about 4 ozs. of fish.. it's not like we are talking about much.
While I agree eating more protein is unlikely to be problematic, excess protein, unlike water soluble vitamins, is not excreted. It will be used as energy or, when eating more calories than maintenance level, will contribute to fat gain.
Yup. Protein can be utilized in glycogenesis (carbs are preferred if available, perhaps habitual diet may play a role in practice), or in lipogenesis (with net fat storage to bodyfat if calorie surplus). Some waste products of protein will be excreted, but it wouldn't be normal to excrete excess protein as a whole.
Personally, I wouldn't use Google as a source for estimating protein needs. As a way to find sources of more nuanced info, maybe Google.
A simple Google query will likely pop up the national/international health bodies' basic generic recommendations for abiding malnutrition, but OP asked a more nuanced question.2 -
SpookyPockets wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »MFP's calories and macros are based on your activity level BEFORE intentional exercise. When you exercise, you need more calories, which will also increase your macros.
I shoot for @ 500 calories of exercise per day, and when I do, using the MFP default of 20% protein aligns with the protein recommendation from the examine calculator above. If I were completely sedentary, I'd need to bump it up to 30%.
I guess that's what I mean though? Are these guidelines for X grams of protein (and therefore calories worth of pure protein I guess) intake per day percentages of your TDEE that linearly increase with an increase in calorific need? My instinct and my admittedly limited understanding says that it likely is correlated but probably isn't that simple and probably isn't linear to calories. These studies seem to suggest there's a ceiling of how much protein is useful. Although I guess aside from the financial cost and limitations on your diet there's no harm in increasing intake linearly?
I think the percentages are more of a convenience factor: They work pretty well, for many people, with normal average-ish calorie budgets and exercise schedules. Kshama, for example, found out that fairly standard percentages work quite nicely for her, in her current circumstances, in terms of what the research-based grams formulas would suggest. Percentages are handy, and for many, plenty close enough.
I can't give you a well-founded research study to justify my saying this, but personally I think it's useful to investigate gram-based goals for one's particular situation, especially if one's circumstances are more unusual, such as having a big calorie deficit but strength training to preserve muscle, having extremely variable or unusually high/low calorie needs for some reason, etc. A percentage may be close enough, even the MFP default percentages may be close enough, but without looking into it, how would one know whether the MFP default percent fits, or not?
I get that some people aren't that concerned with protein, or with being structured about nutrition in other ways, and that's none of my business (and most people with a generally healthy diet aren't protein deficient, though I do see seriously low protein intake in some female friends my age +/- who are very salad-centric, and among some vegetarians/vegans). Anyone may decide to increase or decrease protein for non-nutrition reasons, like satiation, taste-preference, cost, practicality, or whatever, too.
If one *does* care about nutrition, wants to be more structured about it, reading some and getting an informed personal opinion, makes sense before setting a starting percentage goal, IMO.
BTW, you mention being vegan, not knowing lots about nutrition, but you're showing some interest. Given that, in case you haven't learned of it, this is a really good, evidence-based nutrition site for vegans:
https://veganhealth.org/
Sadly, there are really a lot of "imaginative" vegan advocacy sites and influencers, sadly, who put out information that doesn't have a good basis in science. (Some even say you don't need to worry about protein intake, you'll automatically get enough, because plants are just so good that you don't need very much protein. Just no.)
P.S. Protein and protein quality become more important with muscle-gain goals. It's not that one needs to eat EAA-complete foods exclusively, or combine complementary foods all in one meal like we thought in the 1970s. But well-rounded EAAs over a day or few is a good idea, IMO. The site I linked above has pretty solid information about how to consider this without obsessing. 😉
Yeah I can totally see why most people are totally happy with increasing it linearly, I guess for me it's partly wanting to understand better and partly because I so have a relatively low sedentary TDEE but am fairly active in a non-working out way so . And I have a history of disordered eating so I'm hesitant to change up what I'm eating or do anything other than be passively aware of what I'm eating unless it's clearly not working for me at which point I will try to adapt. I'm in a fairly good place right now assuming I don't fall into the trap of micromanaging what it is I eat it plan too much. What I'm interested in right now is working out what I need, whether or not I'm currently getting it, and whether or not it's enough to be trying to gain muscle and get stronger (which is something I'd love to do).
Thanks for that website. Yeah I'm trying to understand and learn about nutrition a little more so that'll be amazing. Trying to stick to more science based stuff even if it does make for denser reading is perfect for what I want.0 -
russellholtslander1 wrote: »You are trying to figure out the minimum needed? Why not just eat extra protein? You think 35-50 g a day is too low?? Eat 75 g. Anything your body doesn't use will be excreted.
Too much protein can cause issues, but 75 g isn't too much.. it is simply a bit extra. According to Google, most women need 50-60. Even if 50 is great for you, 75 isn't going to be a big deal. Better than worrying if you are eating too little. Too much protein is not going to be an issue just by eating an extra 20-30 grams. You would need to eat quite a bit to be a problem.
Since excess protein is excreted, and not useful, eating a lot of extra protein would be a waste, and not desirable, but 25g is about 4 ozs. of fish.. it's not like we are talking about much.
Partly because I want to know what works for me and whether or not things fit into my natural diet and partly for pure academic curiosity. It's only partly about wanting to solve a problem I may or may not have.0 -
There are a few things to unpack there. If you've burned an extra 500 cals and you're eating back some or most of that, you might as well keep going at your current macros. Otherwise, that suggests you'd be eating something very high carb or fat instead of something healthier.SpookyPockets wrote: »I'm a little confused at whether protein requirements increase based on how much extra activity you do. For example if I burnt another 500kcal daily over my BMI compared to 800kcal or even doubling it at like 1500kcal or or would that be more protein needed? Or does the protein required for repair/muscle building cap out and not really work in a linear way like that?
If you've done an hour of weights training and burned say 300 cals, you should want more total protein than the person of same weight and height who burned 600 cals on a stationary bike. It's more about the type of activity than the number of calories.
The chart Ann posted is a good starting point. Generally, you'll want to have more protein if you're:
a) Strength training.
b) In a deficit, to help preserve muscle.
c) Older.
If all of those apply, aim for the high end of the recommended range. The good thing is, that helps to satiate you. You'd need to go over that range by a huge amount to have health problems. The more immediate problem for most people getting more than they actually need is probably the financial cost of that.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions