dropping body Fat - macros?
Replies
-
I also think 50 protein is way to high, your body can actually store unused protein as fat . If your lifting a good rule of thumb is 1 gram per pound of body weight or sometimes as many grams as your desired body weight.
The body does not convert protein to fat under anything but extreme conditions (eg. eating 100% protein in excess of one's caloric needs).0 -
bump0
-
Wouldn't the President of Bariatric Surgeons want you to stay fat? You know, so you need bariatric surgery?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Only if you're a cynic and conspiracy theorist who believes that doctors wink and cross their fingers when taking the hippocratic oath. What's more, it's physicians, not surgeons.0 -
To belabor the obvious, yes, I'm talking about Dr. Eric Westman who makes chump change (albeit probably your annual salary) consulting for Atkins; and yes, that would the Dr. Eric Westman who is the President of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians.
As for the science, let me spoon feed this to you. It's been settled since 1965, starting with Benoit and more practically for those on this site, Young CM, Scanlan SS, Im HS, Lutwak L, "Effect of body composition and other parameters in obese young men of carbohydrate level of reduction diet", Am J Clin Nutr 1971, 24:290-6. PubMed Abstract. The studies are legion.
You should be able to use your own body as a judge. It's clear as day that you, as a sugar burner, needed to become very light to achieve a respectable body fat percentage.
" It's been settled since 1965, starting with Benoit and more practically for those on this site, Young CM, Scanlan SS, Im HS, Lutwak L, "Effect of body composition and other parameters in obese young men of carbohydrate level of reduction diet", Am J Clin Nutr 1971, 24:290-6. PubMed Abstract. The studies are legion."
So the studies that occurred afterwards showing no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets should be dismissed?
And don't you find it interesting in "Effect of body composition and other parameters in obese young men of carbohydrate level of reduction diet" that they took out the weight loss and other measurements of subject 3 in group A and the fat loss measurements of subject 1 in group C? And how reliable are caliper measurements, nowhere in the study does it mention that the exact same person took the measurements both times0 -
Oh I remember that guy lyle mcdonald, isn't he the guy who says "you can't build muscle and lose body fat at the same time?" Then wrote a book on how to do it UD 2.0... I think he also wrote a complete book on protein that used a futile method of going by bodyweight and not LBM. I remember that guy.
My point exactly, I'd rather take the advice of someone in great shape than someone with a degree who will recant his statements later on because studies proved otherwise...0 -
Jillian Michaels has NO NUTRITION EDUCATION!!! She has one fitness certification that can be taken in a weekend and the test is one my daughter passed when she was 11. Talk to a sports nutritionist for dietary advice specific to your needs. If you don't have access to a sports nutritionist, read my blog. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/TrainingWithTonya The last two posts are about figuring your Calorie needs and macros based on an actual education in sports nutrition.
16 years Certified Personal Trainer and Group Exercise Instructor
9 years Certified Sports Nutritionist
Bachelors in Exercise Physiology with a Minor in Nutritional Science
ACSM Certified Clinical Exercise Specialist
NSCA Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist0 -
40/40/20
40% Protein
40% Carbs
20% Fats
That's the ratio that most bodybuilders use to cut weight for a contest, it's the ratio that I also use and it seems to work just fine.
would have to agree with this as the general guidelines for getting leaner... i like to be around 35% carbs 40% protein and 25% fat tho.0 -
To belabor the obvious, yes, I'm talking about Dr. Eric Westman who makes chump change (albeit probably your annual salary) consulting for Atkins; and yes, that would the Dr. Eric Westman who is the President of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians.
As for the science, let me spoon feed this to you. It's been settled since 1965, starting with Benoit and more practically for those on this site, Young CM, Scanlan SS, Im HS, Lutwak L, "Effect of body composition and other parameters in obese young men of carbohydrate level of reduction diet", Am J Clin Nutr 1971, 24:290-6. PubMed Abstract. The studies are legion.
You should be able to use your own body as a judge. It's clear as day that you, as a sugar burner, needed to become very light to achieve a respectable body fat percentage.
" It's been settled since 1965, starting with Benoit and more practically for those on this site, Young CM, Scanlan SS, Im HS, Lutwak L, "Effect of body composition and other parameters in obese young men of carbohydrate level of reduction diet", Am J Clin Nutr 1971, 24:290-6. PubMed Abstract. The studies are legion."
So the studies that occurred afterwards showing no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets should be dismissed?
And don't you find it interesting in "Effect of body composition and other parameters in obese young men of carbohydrate level of reduction diet" that they took out the weight loss and other measurements of subject 3 in group A and the fat loss measurements of subject 1 in group C? And how reliable are caliper measurements, nowhere in the study does it mention that the exact same person took the measurements both times
____________________________________________________________________________________
No, frankly, I don't find it interesting, but rather than have a bunch of Pub. Med ninjas trying to interpret science, it's much easier to simply take a look at the largest meta-regression analysis ever performed on the matter.
It's titled the "Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression", published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. It's simply beyond dispute that low carbohydrate diets are superior for body composition. You'd do well to purchase the study. http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/2/260.abstract?ijkey=bc16f8718471695d87a0abc5ea0cdcdc1fba673f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
When you're finished with that study, you should read all of Westman's work: it's dispositive on the health and body composition benefits of low carbohydrate, high fat, moderate protein diets. There are at least 50 studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Westman, Eric C[Author - Full]
Finish up with Galileo Galilei and that sun and earth thing: it's a great metaphor for the absurdity we've been taught during the last 40 years because of political expediency, funding bias, and vegan zealots.0 -
____________________________________________________________________________________No, frankly, I don't find it interesting, but rather than have a bunch of Pub. Med ninjas trying to interpret science, it's much easier to simply take a look at the largest meta-regression analysis ever performed on the matter.
It's titled the "Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression", published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. It's simply beyond dispute that low carbohydrate diets are superior for body composition. You'd do well to purchase the study. http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/2/260.abstract?ijkey=bc16f8718471695d87a0abc5ea0cdcdc1fba673f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Got it 33% of the subjects in 2 of the 3 groups were discarded, but no biggie.
As for your meta analysis, read the 2nd to the last section by the lead author here
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285When you're finished with that study, you should read all of Westman's work: it's dispositive on the health and body composition benefits of low carbohydrate, high fat, moderate protein diets. There are at least 50 studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Westman, Eric C[Author - Full]
This was the only one that had relevance to the population at large, however it uses BIA to measure bf%, doesn't hold protein constant and relies on self reported intake
A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-fat diet to treat obesity and hyperlipidemia: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004 May 18;140(10):769-77.Finish up with Galileo Galilei and that sun and earth thing: it's a great metaphor for the absurdity we've been taught during the last 40 years because of political expediency, funding bias, and vegan zealots.
Funding bias? Like this?
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interests: Grants received: E.C. Westman (Robert C. Atkins Foundation); Grants pending: E.C. Westman and W.S. Yancy Jr. (Robert C. Atkins Foundation0 -
That much fat daily would be detrimental to your health in the long term.
It turns out that carbs are worse for your blood's lipid profile than fat. I was pretty mad when I learned about that after avoiding saturated fat for so frickin long.0 -
____________________________________________________________________________________No, frankly, I don't find it interesting, but rather than have a bunch of Pub. Med ninjas trying to interpret science, it's much easier to simply take a look at the largest meta-regression analysis ever performed on the matter.
It's titled the "Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression", published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. It's simply beyond dispute that low carbohydrate diets are superior for body composition. You'd do well to purchase the study. http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/2/260.abstract?ijkey=bc16f8718471695d87a0abc5ea0cdcdc1fba673f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Got it 33% of the subjects in 2 of the 3 groups were discarded, but no biggie.
As for your meta analysis, read the 2nd to the last section by the lead author here
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285When you're finished with that study, you should read all of Westman's work: it's dispositive on the health and body composition benefits of low carbohydrate, high fat, moderate protein diets. There are at least 50 studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Westman, Eric C[Author - Full]
This was the only one that had relevance to the population at large, however it uses BIA to measure bf%, doesn't hold protein constant and relies on self reported intake
A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-fat diet to treat obesity and hyperlipidemia: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004 May 18;140(10):769-77.Finish up with Galileo Galilei and that sun and earth thing: it's a great metaphor for the absurdity we've been taught during the last 40 years because of political expediency, funding bias, and vegan zealots.
Funding bias? Like this?
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interests: Grants received: E.C. Westman (Robert C. Atkins Foundation); Grants pending: E.C. Westman and W.S. Yancy Jr. (Robert C. Atkins Foundation
____________________________________________________________________________________________
"Discarded." Yes, perhaps you'd like to state why, rather than resort to an elementary school "argument from fallacy."
Most important is the author's bottom line, which states the obvious: "The bottom line is that there is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate intake that is independent of a high protein intake."
Of course not: it's the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
He goes on: "There is a metabolic advantage to a high protein diet, which will increase the calories you burn by 80-100 calories per day. There is also a dramatic satiety advantage to a high protein intake. A low carbohydrate intake (low enough to cause ketosis) can increase this satiety advantage, but individual responses will vary." (emphasis in general)
The BIA issue is a red herring; it's consistently within 1 to 2 percentage points of hydrostatic weighing. In any event, even if it did under or overestimate, so long as it's consistently wrong, that's all that is material.
Yes, that's what "funding bias" means. It's also why "peer review" is important.
I'd encourage you to give the 55F, 30P, 15C a go, and I'd bet a brick house against a plate full of sugar that you won't have to drop your weight so low to achieve a respectable body fat percentage.0 -
QUOTE:
That much fat daily would be detrimental to your health in the long term.
It turns out that carbs are worse for your blood's lipid profile than fat. I was pretty mad when I learned about that after avoiding saturated fat for so frickin long.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Somebody should go to jail for the years of lies. I'd love to see Senator McGovern's legislative aide come out of the woodwork and take some responsibility. The video "Big Fat Lie" exposes this whole fraud rather well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4
Here's the second part of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWe8qSV8E5s 0 -
____________________________________________________________________________________No, frankly, I don't find it interesting, but rather than have a bunch of Pub. Med ninjas trying to interpret science, it's much easier to simply take a look at the largest meta-regression analysis ever performed on the matter.
It's titled the "Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression", published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. It's simply beyond dispute that low carbohydrate diets are superior for body composition. You'd do well to purchase the study. http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/2/260.abstract?ijkey=bc16f8718471695d87a0abc5ea0cdcdc1fba673f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Got it 33% of the subjects in 2 of the 3 groups were discarded, but no biggie.
As for your meta analysis, read the 2nd to the last section by the lead author here
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285When you're finished with that study, you should read all of Westman's work: it's dispositive on the health and body composition benefits of low carbohydrate, high fat, moderate protein diets. There are at least 50 studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Westman, Eric C[Author - Full]
This was the only one that had relevance to the population at large, however it uses BIA to measure bf%, doesn't hold protein constant and relies on self reported intake
A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-fat diet to treat obesity and hyperlipidemia: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004 May 18;140(10):769-77.Finish up with Galileo Galilei and that sun and earth thing: it's a great metaphor for the absurdity we've been taught during the last 40 years because of political expediency, funding bias, and vegan zealots.
Funding bias? Like this?
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interests: Grants received: E.C. Westman (Robert C. Atkins Foundation); Grants pending: E.C. Westman and W.S. Yancy Jr. (Robert C. Atkins Foundation
____________________________________________________________________________________________Most important is the author's bottom line, which states the obvious: "The bottom line is that there is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate intake that is independent of a high protein intake."
Of course not: it's the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
He goes on: "There is a metabolic advantage to a high protein diet, which will increase the calories you burn by 80-100 calories per day. There is also a dramatic satiety advantage to a high protein intake. A low carbohydrate intake (low enough to cause ketosis) can increase this satiety advantage, but individual responses will vary." (emphasis in general)
So we agree there is no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets. So why would they be unquestionably better for body composition?The BIA issue is a red herring; it's consistently within 1 to 2 percentage points of hydrostatic weighing. In any event, even if it did under or overestimate, so long as it's consistently wrong, that's all that is material.
Read the post by Krieger on body fat testing he links to in the link. And since I think you agree higher protein intakes do have a metabolic advantage, the low carb group in that study self reported about 30% higher protein intake. So was the greater bodyfat reduction due to the low carbs or higher protein. And what do you think of self reported intakes anyways, reliable?0 -
'i was looking on jillian michaels site and put in my statistics. the site put my ratios for macros at
20% carbs
50% protein
30 fat
i tried today and ive got 400 calories under my daily intake and im already over carbs.....tough eh... didnt have potatoes or carb heavy veg eg parsnips etc
do these ratios look correct for dropping body fat? im lifting heavy weights 3-4 times a week so are the carbs at 20% do able?
what are your views?
Ditch ratios and shoot for around a minimum of 1g of pro per lb of lb and .33-.4g of fat per lb of bw, fill in the rest of your cals however you please
This ^^^
Definitely.0 -
[/quote]
Ditch ratios and shoot for around a minimum of 1g of pro per lb of lb and .33-.4g of fat per lb of bw, fill in the rest of your cals however you please
[/quote]
^^ This0 -
____________________________________________________________________________________
You wrote:
So we agree there is no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets. So why would they be unquestionably better for body composition?
=======================
No, we don't agree. First, you're conflating "metabolic advantage" with body composition. In any event, "metabolic advantage" is achieved much more easily on a low carbohydrate diet. The most bioavailable and male-friendly proteins, in particular, come from foods that are either devoid of or low in carbohydrates. Moreover, to the conflated point, satiety is what drives fat loss and metabolic advantage, and low carbohydrate diets, as noted by the author, help to drive satiety. He writes: "As you can see in the chart, while increased protein reduced appetite, the combination of high protein and no carbohydrate reduced appetite even further. This means that a low-carbohydrate diet can provide an advantage in regards to reducing appetite that is independent of the protein intake."
Stated otherwise, sugar-burners are rarely satiated.
In fact, with macros of 55F, 30P, 15C, maintaining calories at RMR or lower is effortless.
You further wrote in part:
"And since I think you agree higher protein intakes do have a metabolic advantage, the low carb group in that study self reported about 30% higher protein intake. So was the greater bodyfat reduction due to the low carbs or higher protein. And what do you think of self reported intakes anyways, reliable?"
====================================================
For the reasons already stated, it doesn't surprise me at all that the low-carb group reported higher protein intakes. As for whether self-reporting is "reliable," the simple answer is: it may or may not be. In any event, elementary statistics can generally make the point moot.0 -
I actually do a 40/30/30. So my carbs are my highest. I do heavy lifting, and average around 1 g of protein per body weight.
Me too. When you lift weight, you'll be needing more carbs & protein so lowering carbs that much isn't a good idea.0 -
'i was looking on jillian michaels site and put in my statistics. the site put my ratios for macros at
20% carbs
50% protein
30 fat
i tried today and ive got 400 calories under my daily intake and im already over carbs.....tough eh... didnt have potatoes or carb heavy veg eg parsnips etc
do these ratios look correct for dropping body fat? im lifting heavy weights 3-4 times a week so are the carbs at 20% do able?
what are your views?
Ditch ratios and shoot for around a minimum of 1g of pro per lb of lb and .33-.4g of fat per lb of bw, fill in the rest of your cals however you please
This ^^^
Definitely.
Add another ^^this to the list.0 -
Oh I remember that guy lyle mcdonald, isn't he the guy who says "you can't build muscle and lose body fat at the same time?" Then wrote a book on how to do it UD 2.0... I think he also wrote a complete book on protein that used a futile method of going by bodyweight and not LBM. I remember that guy.
My point exactly, I'd rather take the advice of someone in great shape than someone with a degree who will recant his statements later on because studies proved otherwise...
Why would you take advice from someone who is in great shape most likely because they are blessed with good genetics over someone who uses science to back up their advice? You should want people who are willing to recant their statements when new evidence comes out to suggest they were wrong.0 -
Oh I remember that guy lyle mcdonald, isn't he the guy who says "you can't build muscle and lose body fat at the same time?" Then wrote a book on how to do it UD 2.0... I think he also wrote a complete book on protein that used a futile method of going by bodyweight and not LBM. I remember that guy.
My point exactly, I'd rather take the advice of someone in great shape than someone with a degree who will recant his statements later on because studies proved otherwise...
Why would you take advice from someone who is in great shape most likely because they are blessed with good genetics over someone who uses science to back up their advice? You should want people who are willing to recant their statements when new evidence comes out to suggest they were wrong.
Blaming someones good physique on "good genetics" is a weak cop out. Someone with "good genetics" is just someone naturally skinny, not someone in great shape with significant muscle development like I'm talking about.
My question to you is why you would take the advice of someone talking science who is in terrible shape?0 -
Oh I remember that guy lyle mcdonald, isn't he the guy who says "you can't build muscle and lose body fat at the same time?" Then wrote a book on how to do it UD 2.0... I think he also wrote a complete book on protein that used a futile method of going by bodyweight and not LBM. I remember that guy.
My point exactly, I'd rather take the advice of someone in great shape than someone with a degree who will recant his statements later on because studies proved otherwise...
Why would you take advice from someone who is in great shape most likely because they are blessed with good genetics over someone who uses science to back up their advice? You should want people who are willing to recant their statements when new evidence comes out to suggest they were wrong.
Blaming someones good physique on "good genetics" is a weak cop out. Someone with "good genetics" is just someone naturally skinny, not someone in great shape with significant muscle development like I'm talking about.
My question to you is why you would take the advice of someone talking science who is in terrible shape?
So you're saying favorable body composition (ie. large amounts of muscle) has nothing to do with genetics?
The reason I would take advice from someone talking science who is in terrible shape is because I do believe genetics plays a huge role. Also just because people have knowledge about something, doesn't mean they are practicing it on themselves. I think the results of their client base would hold much more weight than their own body composition.
Look at Nick Bolletieri the world re-known tennis coach. He would get crushed by your average recreational player yet he has had a number of World #1's go through his training academy.0 -
So you're saying favorable body composition (ie. large amounts of muscle) has nothing to do with genetics?
The reason I would take advice from someone talking science who is in terrible shape is because I do believe genetics plays a huge role. Also just because people have knowledge about something, doesn't mean they are practicing it on themselves. I think the results of their client base would hold much more weight than their own body composition.
Look at Nick Bolletieri the world re-known tennis coach. He would get crushed by your average recreational player yet he has had a number of World #1's go through his training academy.
I don't know what religion has to do with it. People shouldn't spout their religious beliefs as fact. Nothing wrong with having them though.
I never said that genetics has nothing to do with someones physique... What I said was that good or bad genetics doesn't make or break people, with clean eating habits and regular exercise anyone can be in great shape. I'm an endomorph and a perfect example of that.
As far as your comparison goes, there isn't one. You can't compare a coach for a sport with someone with their masters degree in nutrition. Sports require someone with an athletic gift to be able to play them at a professional level, something you have to be born with. A coach for a sport can know everything there is to know about the sport but not have the athletic gift to be able to perform at a professional level. ANYONE can be in great shape though, anyone can eat clean and exercise regularly, so there's no excuse for a scholar in nutrition to not be in a good shape, it's not something that requires some kind of rare genetic birth right.0 -
Bump0
-
So you're saying favorable body composition (ie. large amounts of muscle) has nothing to do with genetics?
The reason I would take advice from someone talking science who is in terrible shape is because I do believe genetics plays a huge role. Also just because people have knowledge about something, doesn't mean they are practicing it on themselves. I think the results of their client base would hold much more weight than their own body composition.
Look at Nick Bolletieri the world re-known tennis coach. He would get crushed by your average recreational player yet he has had a number of World #1's go through his training academy.
I don't know what religion has to do with it. People shouldn't spout their religious beliefs as fact. Nothing wrong with having them though.
I never said that genetics has nothing to do with someones physique... What I said was that good or bad genetics doesn't make or break people, with clean eating habits and regular exercise anyone can be in great shape. I'm an endomorph and a perfect example of that.
As far as your comparison goes, there isn't one. You can't compare a coach for a sport with someone with their masters degree in nutrition. Sports require someone with an athletic gift to be able to play them at a professional level, something you have to be born with. A coach for a sport can know everything there is to know about the sport but not have the athletic gift to be able to perform at a professional level. ANYONE can be in great shape though, anyone can eat clean and exercise regularly, so there's no excuse for a scholar in nutrition to not be in a good shape, it's not something that requires some kind of rare genetic birth right.
It requires a lot of effort and discipline to be in good shape. Maybe these nutrition scholars would rather spend their time reading studies over spending time in the gym, as they are getting paid for their information, not for what they look like.0 -
Okay..... Thanks??
Think I managed to pick the advice out the heated replies! Talk about hijacking! Haha I'm
Joking before anyone starts an arguement with me! :-)
Will do g per lb of body weight for protein and 0.33-0.4 for fat. Works out about
40/30/30 coincidentally. Will adjust as weight goes up/down0 -
Yeah, I have a hard time listening to any expert who can't practice what they preach. And being in shape really isn't all that hard if you know what you're doing.
Although, to play the devil's advocate, you might not find it so easy to hit the gym every day when you're in your late 30's, have serveral young kids running all over your house, and that hour you spend at the gym is the only hour of free time you would have had all day.0 -
My question to you is why you would take the advice of someone talking science who is in terrible shape?
Which one of these guys is in terrible shape? (Before you say "Lyle has no muscle", he's an endurance athlete. His build is appropriate for his goals).
0 -
My question to you is why you would take the advice of someone talking science who is in terrible shape?
Which one of these guys is in terrible shape? (Before you say "Lyle has no muscle", he's an endurance athlete. His build is appropriate for his goals).
HAHAHA you actually took the time to search for a pic of Lyle and Alan, that's adorable of you. Anyone can appear to be in good shape fully clothed. I don't see any kind of muscle definition or size that I find to be impressive, if you do, then you have no clue what someone in good shape looks like. I don't expect them to look like Greg Plitt, but I'd expect atleast above average.0 -
I like how you move the goalposts. You used the words "terrible shape". Both those guys are in good shape for their age and fitness goals (Lyle is a skater - look at Apolo Ohno and try to tell me how jacked he is).
Judging someone's level of knowledge based on their physique is nonsense anyway. Like another poster pointed out, if you want to judge knowledge based on physique look at the clients, not the trainer.
By your rationale, nobody should take weightlifting advice from this guy:
0 -
Judging someone's level of knowledge based on their physique is nonsense anyway. Like another poster pointed out, if you want to judge knowledge based on physique look at the clients, not the trainer.
Exactly look at these modern day geniuses
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions