Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Carnivore diet
Options
Replies
-
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.
Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.neanderthin wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.
Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.
It was mentioned that Lucky Charms was more nutritious than steak, and I couldn't find that quote in the USDA but I do remember the Lucky Charm being referenced in this manner and remember Joe Rogan talking about it. It's really just bad algorithms and it's called the Food Compass.
Led by Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, the Dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, the Tufts researchers spent three years developing the new NPS. These ranking systems are used, they note, to “supply the science for local and national policies such as package labeling, taxation, warning labels and restrictions on marketing to children.”
Called “Food Compass,” the new ranking system uses 54 different nutrient characteristics such as vitamins, minerals, fiber, protein, lipids, phytochemicals etc. to score the “healthfulness” of specific foods, beverages, and mixed meals. They applied this ranking to 8032 common foods and beverages consumed by average Americans. The end result is a numbered ranking on a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).
Anyway diet doctor talked about it.
https://dietdoctor.com/are-lucky-charms-and-cheerios-healthier-than-beef-and-eggs
Snopes
https://snopes.com/news/2023/01/16/lucky-charms-healthier-than-steak-food-pyramid/
From Snopes:
"...We found, in short, that there is not, in fact, a new U.S. government-funded food pyramid chart that promotes to the general public the idea that the children's breakfast cereal Lucky Charms is healthier than steak. Despite how it was described, the chart was actually put together to demonstrate the shortcomings of systems used to rank the healthfulness of foods."5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.
Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.neanderthin wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.
Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.
It was mentioned that Lucky Charms was more nutritious than steak, and I couldn't find that quote in the USDA but I do remember the Lucky Charm being referenced in this manner and remember Joe Rogan talking about it. It's really just bad algorithms and it's called the Food Compass.
Led by Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, the Dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, the Tufts researchers spent three years developing the new NPS. These ranking systems are used, they note, to “supply the science for local and national policies such as package labeling, taxation, warning labels and restrictions on marketing to children.”
Called “Food Compass,” the new ranking system uses 54 different nutrient characteristics such as vitamins, minerals, fiber, protein, lipids, phytochemicals etc. to score the “healthfulness” of specific foods, beverages, and mixed meals. They applied this ranking to 8032 common foods and beverages consumed by average Americans. The end result is a numbered ranking on a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).
Anyway diet doctor talked about it.
https://dietdoctor.com/are-lucky-charms-and-cheerios-healthier-than-beef-and-eggs
Snopes
https://snopes.com/news/2023/01/16/lucky-charms-healthier-than-steak-food-pyramid/
From Snopes:
"...We found, in short, that there is not, in fact, a new U.S. government-funded food pyramid chart that promotes to the general public the idea that the children's breakfast cereal Lucky Charms is healthier than steak. Despite how it was described, the chart was actually put together to demonstrate the shortcomings of systems used to rank the healthfulness of foods."kshama2001 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.
Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.neanderthin wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.
Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.
It was mentioned that Lucky Charms was more nutritious than steak, and I couldn't find that quote in the USDA but I do remember the Lucky Charm being referenced in this manner and remember Joe Rogan talking about it. It's really just bad algorithms and it's called the Food Compass.
Led by Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, the Dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, the Tufts researchers spent three years developing the new NPS. These ranking systems are used, they note, to “supply the science for local and national policies such as package labeling, taxation, warning labels and restrictions on marketing to children.”
Called “Food Compass,” the new ranking system uses 54 different nutrient characteristics such as vitamins, minerals, fiber, protein, lipids, phytochemicals etc. to score the “healthfulness” of specific foods, beverages, and mixed meals. They applied this ranking to 8032 common foods and beverages consumed by average Americans. The end result is a numbered ranking on a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).
Anyway diet doctor talked about it.
https://dietdoctor.com/are-lucky-charms-and-cheerios-healthier-than-beef-and-eggs
Snopes
https://snopes.com/news/2023/01/16/lucky-charms-healthier-than-steak-food-pyramid/
From Snopes:
"...We found, in short, that there is not, in fact, a new U.S. government-funded food pyramid chart that promotes
the general public the idea that the children's breakfast cereal Lucky Charms is healthier than steak. Despite how it was described, the chart was actually put together to demonstrate the shortcomings of systems used to rank the
of foods."
Yeah, it really exposes the shortcomings in algorithms when it comes to what is expected to be better than something else. cheers
0 -
Tufts University came up with the Food Compass.
https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/
https://now.tufts.edu/2021/10/14/ranking-healthfulness-foods-first-worst
Here's the original study.
https://nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34195-8[/url
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Yeah, familiar with both those links. I always thought Brazil's was interesting. Cheers.
Brazil's guidelines ARE very interesting actually.
But so are the USDA ones.
Which, based on my understanding of SAD, they are neither dictating nor suggesting.
I provided the links because you used the word "dictate" in conjunction with the USDA guidelines.
Furthermore the USDA guidelines do NOT suggest ingesting more energy than is needed.
Not saying that people aren't doing so.
Just saying that the current guidelines are not the ones suggesting it!
3 -
neanderthin wrote: »Yeah, familiar with both those links. I always thought Brazil's was interesting. Cheers.
Brazil's guidelines ARE very interesting actually.
But so are the USDA ones.
Which, based on my understanding of SAD, they are neither dictating nor suggesting.
I provided the links because you used the word "dictate" in conjunction with the USDA guidelines.
Furthermore the USDA guidelines do NOT suggest ingesting more energy than is needed.
Not saying that people aren't doing so.
Just saying that the current guidelines are not the ones suggesting it!
I didn't say the guidelines were asking people to eat excess energy, that would be kinda strange, no? I meant, and obviously should have been more clear, was, and again this is only my opinion, the protein to energy ratio is off balance in favor of energy, upwards of 88% are fuel sources. Generally speaking free living animals which include humans will eat until their protein needs have been met. If protein is in short supply or consumed animals will continue to consume energy sources until their protein needs are met which is basic to thrive and reproduce. Cheers.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Yeah, familiar with both those links. I always thought Brazil's was interesting. Cheers.
Brazil's guidelines ARE very interesting actually.
But so are the USDA ones.
Which, based on my understanding of SAD, they are neither dictating nor suggesting.
I provided the links because you used the word "dictate" in conjunction with the USDA guidelines.
Furthermore the USDA guidelines do NOT suggest ingesting more energy than is needed.
Not saying that people aren't doing so.
Just saying that the current guidelines are not the ones suggesting it!
I didn't say the guidelines were asking people to eat excess energy, that would be kinda strange, no? I meant, and obviously should have been more clear, was, and again this is only my opinion, the protein to energy ratio is off balance in favor of energy, upwards of 88% are fuel sources. Generally speaking free living animals which include humans will eat until their protein needs have been met. If protein is in short supply or consumed animals will continue to consume energy sources until their protein needs are met which is basic to thrive and reproduce. Cheers.
The protein hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis. It has never been studied, proven, or really even demonstrated that an animal will eat until they reach a certain amount of protein. It's a thought, nothing more.1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Yeah, familiar with both those links. I always thought Brazil's was interesting. Cheers.
Brazil's guidelines ARE very interesting actually.
But so are the USDA ones.
Which, based on my understanding of SAD, they are neither dictating nor suggesting.
I provided the links because you used the word "dictate" in conjunction with the USDA guidelines.
Furthermore the USDA guidelines do NOT suggest ingesting more energy than is needed.
Not saying that people aren't doing so.
Just saying that the current guidelines are not the ones suggesting it!
I didn't say the guidelines were asking people to eat excess energy, that would be kinda strange, no? I meant, and obviously should have been more clear, was, and again this is only my opinion, the protein to energy ratio is off balance in favor of energy, upwards of 88% are fuel sources. Generally speaking free living animals which include humans will eat until their protein needs have been met. If protein is in short supply or consumed animals will continue to consume energy sources until their protein needs are met which is basic to thrive and reproduce. Cheers.
The protein hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis. It has never been studied, proven, or really even demonstrated that an animal will eat until they reach a certain amount of protein. It's a thought, nothing more.
Here's a couple studies that tested it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22634200/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28121382/
What peaked my interest in thinking about this whole concept was from my research into low carb diets, which is the diet I'm on and have been on for a while. An interesting aspect of the methodology kept coming up over and over again which was, the low carb arm of the study was told to eat ad libitum while the other arm was to reduce calories. These were comparing weight loss and lean mass. Generally speaking, the low carb diet either had similar weight loss or better and lean mass was retained better. So while first world countries continue to consume too many calories for reasons that apparently are unknown, I'm throwing my hat into this research until I find a better answer. Do you have any thoughts as to reasons why?
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Yeah, familiar with both those links. I always thought Brazil's was interesting. Cheers.
Brazil's guidelines ARE very interesting actually.
But so are the USDA ones.
Which, based on my understanding of SAD, they are neither dictating nor suggesting.
I provided the links because you used the word "dictate" in conjunction with the USDA guidelines.
Furthermore the USDA guidelines do NOT suggest ingesting more energy than is needed.
Not saying that people aren't doing so.
Just saying that the current guidelines are not the ones suggesting it!
I didn't say the guidelines were asking people to eat excess energy, that would be kinda strange, no? I meant, and obviously should have been more clear, was, and again this is only my opinion, the protein to energy ratio is off balance in favor of energy, upwards of 88% are fuel sources. Generally speaking free living animals which include humans will eat until their protein needs have been met. If protein is in short supply or consumed animals will continue to consume energy sources until their protein needs are met which is basic to thrive and reproduce. Cheers.
The protein hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis. It has never been studied, proven, or really even demonstrated that an animal will eat until they reach a certain amount of protein. It's a thought, nothing more.
Here's a couple studies that tested it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22634200/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28121382/
What peaked my interest in thinking about this whole concept was from my research into low carb diets, which is the diet I'm on and have been on for a while. An interesting aspect of the methodology kept coming up over and over again which was, the low carb arm of the study was told to eat ad libitum while the other arm was to reduce calories. These were comparing weight loss and lean mass. Generally speaking, the low carb diet either had similar weight loss or better and lean mass was retained better. So while first world countries continue to consume too many calories for reasons that apparently are unknown, I'm throwing my hat into this research until I find a better answer. Do you have any thoughts as to reasons why?
Because we've learned that if you mix fat, sugar, and salt together, it tastes awfully good. So good, in fact, that people will eat it to excess. This is why whole food plant based and low carb both elicit weight loss even when people eat as much as they want. They both keep you from mixing fat, sugar, and salt together.3 -
I've talked about this quite a bit here, and agree, no doubt about it. Why a whole food diet, and it doesn't necessarily have to be just plant based and a low carb/ketogenic diet seems to mitigate or lessen those effects is where we'll find some answers and there's no doubt macronutrients do affect hormones that effect satiety and hunger signaling. Cheers2
-
At some point these threads end up being one big yawn…1
-
tomcustombuilder wrote: »At some point these threads end up being one big yawn…
Really? I find the links and research very interesting. Maybe it's just me but the whole search for the "perfect" diet I find very intriguing.
(I mean I would never eat a carnivore diet even if it was found to be the best (because eww). But I would never eat Lucky Charms either.
I tend to lean towards the belief that humans can thrive on various (whole food) diets in various circumstances - but I still enjoy the research and even the debate.) 4 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »At some point these threads end up being one big yawn…
Really? I find the links and research very interesting. Maybe it's just me but the whole search for the "perfect" diet I find very intriguing.
(I mean I would never eat a carnivore diet even if it was found to be the best (because eww). But I would never eat Lucky Charms either. I tend to lean towards the belief that humans can thrive on various (whole food) diets in various circumstances - but I still enjoy the research and even the debate.)
Yeah, it's about as restrictive a diet can get and all animal products to boot. I did a carnivore diet for 60 days and there's no possible way I could just eat meat either. I will say that mental clarity and energy was noticeably better and my nagging arthritis in one hand and knee disappeared after about 3 weeks but generally speaking, that was about it and the pain in both joins are back, but to a leaser degree. If a person has few or no health issues, then like the video that was linked earlier doing it for 30 or 60 days really doesn't mean very much and I agree, within that context.
I suspect the more visible carnivore gets going forward that we'll see more people try it just for weight loss and fail a lot, simply because of the restrictions and to be quite honest I expected to see more posts here professing CICO is all you need to lose weight and even though that is a true statement it doesn't address health issues or anything else associated with food.
Most people that have actually adopted the carnivore lifestyle and are sticking with it are people that have had numerous health issues most of their lives and have struggled physically and mentally just getting out of bed. Eventually from the simple lack of improvement of their health or getting worse and the medications these people have to take just to make life barrable, eventually some will seek to investigate lifestyle alternatives. Generally speaking that road leads to lifestyles changes like vegetarian, mediterranean, vegan, keto, atkins, low carb and all will show some improvements and the operative word is some. Almost all the people that I've watched or heard, their stories pretty much tell this story. The fodmap diet works very well but again it doesn't address all the health issues.
The primary driver from what I can glean from my investigations and interest are, that a carnivore diet is the most restrictive diet a person can be on and apparently red meat specifically is the least allergenic food source there is, so it's basically a fodmap diet on steroids'. I suspect that the nagging arthritis that I have is an inflammatory response from something and because it came back after I stopped carnivore it might be a compound in a food I went back to, and yes just an n:1 observation but adding up thousands of n:1's from the community that are on the carnivore diet has some reason to not discount it, in my opinion. Cheers
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »<snip>
The primary driver from what I can glean from my investigations and interest are, that a carnivore diet is the most restrictive diet a person can be on and apparently red meat specifically is the least allergenic food source there is, so it's basically a fodmap diet on steroids'. I suspect that the nagging arthritis that I have is an inflammatory response from something and because it came back after I stopped carnivore it might be a compound in a food I went back to, and yes just an n:1 observation but adding up thousands of n:1's from the community that are on the carnivore diet has some reason to not discount it, in my opinion. Cheers
Unless you are unfortunate enough to develop AGS.
1 -
That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.1 -
Thanks, interesting, I never heard of this.neanderthin wrote: »<snip>
The primary driver from what I can glean from my investigations and interest are, that a carnivore diet is the most restrictive diet a person can be on and apparently red meat specifically is the least allergenic food source there is, so it's basically a fodmap diet on steroids'. I suspect that the nagging arthritis that I have is an inflammatory response from something and because it came back after I stopped carnivore it might be a compound in a food I went back to, and yes just an n:1 observation but adding up thousands of n:1's from the community that are on the carnivore diet has some reason to not discount it, in my opinion. Cheers
Unless you are unfortunate enough to develop AGS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-gal_allergy
Alpha-gal allergy has been reported in 17 countries on all six continents where humans are bitten by ticks, particularly the United States and Australia.[6] As of November 2019 Australia has the highest rate of mammalian meat allergy and tick anaphylaxis in the world.[7]
It's apparently the transfer of a carbohydrate molecule from a tick that humans then react too and not so much something that people are allergic too that is specifically found in meat, or at least that is what science believe is the cause. Also it's apparently the first time an allergy was caused by a carbohydrate instead of a protein, interesting stuff. Cheers0 -
There's a show I sometimes listen to on NPR called Radio Lab. It's produced by WNYC (New York Public Radio). They did a show on Alpha-Gal about five years ago that they repeat from time to time. Weirs stuff for sure.1
-
That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.
One of the main drivers for lucky charms and other dubious products coming out ahead of all animal sources is in the algorithm when any product contain saturated fat and cholesterol, even the preference of 0% fat dairy is based on that. It shows and egg substitute cooked vegetable oil to be better than a whole egg fried in butter or even a poached egg. For me, that is a problem that filters down from the USDA to institutions like the military, hospitals, schools, old age/assisted living homes, where guidelines must be met. Of course generally speaking anybody can eat whatever they like including lucky charms and like you said it's mostly in the context and dosage that creates problems. cheers.0 -
There's a show I sometimes listen to on NPR called Radio Lab. It's produced by WNYC (New York Public Radio). They did a show on Alpha-Gal about five years ago that they repeat from time to time. Weirs stuff for sure.
Thanks, I'll definitely take a listen. cheers.0 -
.neanderthin wrote: »That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.
One of the main drivers for lucky charms and other dubious products coming out ahead of all animal sources is in the algorithm when any product contain saturated fat and cholesterol, even the preference of 0% fat dairy is based on that. It shows and egg substitute cooked vegetable oil to be better than a whole egg fried in butter or even a poached egg. For me, that is a problem that filters down from the USDA to institutions like the military, hospitals, schools, old age/assisted living homes, where guidelines must be met. Of course generally speaking anybody can eat whatever they like including lucky charms and like you said it's mostly in the context and dosage that creates problems. cheers.
That's the thing: The Snopes article you linked, including the videos included, suggest that that's not "filtering down from USDA" in any deeply meaningful way. We're talking about a chart cherry-picked by an advocacy group, looks like misleadingly so about the big picture, from an academic paper on a research tool to assess individual foods, one of whose developers says that the tool usefully considers some factors that other tools don't consider, but that still needs improvement, and seemingly agrees that that chart (in its original academic critique context) makes good points.
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I've poked around beyond the surface in USDA "My Plate", and I'm seeing mostly encouragement to eat whole foods (yes, including whole grains), to get plenty of veggies/fruits, etc. Yeah, it lowballs protein for my taste, but IMO it's not terrible. Yeah, I think there's a mild tinge of "meet people where they are" in things like "make half of your grains whole grains", rather than going all the way. But overall the stuff that many of its casual critics say about that USDA guidance doesn't match up with what I'm seeing actually in that guidance, especially when going beyond the cartoon-simple plate picture that's basically logo-like.
As far as the advocacy-rag article that mis-used the chart from an academic critique of the still-research-y food assessment tool, talking about a "new food pyramid" that's absolutely imaginary as far as an reasonable evidence suggests . . . I don't see how we should take anything they say seriously, TBH. Joe Rogan and others going off on it based on that article . . . well, jeez. Vet your sources, grown ups.2 -
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions