The latest food/diet buzzword - 'reducetarian'
Replies
-
clairesbeachbody wrote: »and this is why I don't come in the forums
*opens floodgates*
I'm not entirely sure what you were expecting from this thread. The name seems stupid, no one is saying anything about the life style.
And if you want recipes, there are tons of vegetarian recipes, just replace a few of your typically meat filled meals with some of those. You might also want to look into Mark Bittman's cook book, "the food matters cookbook". It focuses on sustainability of food and carbon footprint and whatnot in the intro, but it also is based on his personal experience with weight loss, and a lot of the recipes treat meat more as a side dish than the main focus. It was an interesting read, and I love the chili recipe I got from it (although I personally add meat to it because I like meat).
Thank you! This is useful information. I agree with the thread that the name is stupid, I am just interested in having a play about with my food in not always making meat the main component of my meal. Thanks for the tips
0 -
williams969 wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I am still waiting for the explanation as to how the "beef industry is bad for the environment"...???
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=beef+industry+impact+on+environment&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=2q2uVJ7UIMTksASR8YKQCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA
really? so what you are saying is that you cannot provide an explanation and are going to link me to thirty + pages of google stuff...
cows produce methane on their own without being herded for production ...so do you want to eliminate all cows too?
how about humans? We produce C02 just by, you know, breathing...
Right? And where I'm from (solidly in the middle of "Cow Country", "America's Dairyland", large farms collect that methane and use it as fuel to power their facilities. And...often times they have excess that is sold back to the public utilities for all to use. Info here: wisconsinpublicservice.com/business/methane_gas.aspx
That's pretty darn environmental. Imagine if we turn back all the cows to the wild. All that wasted methane energy. That's NOT environmental; that's wasteful.
Well, hopefully more farms will be able to do this! (I think I'm from the same part of the country as you, by the way).
Remember that the US meat industry is an increasingly smaller portion of the world's meat production, though, as industrializing countries adopt an increasingly meat-based, western-style diet. Just because some innovation is taking place in Wisconsin doesn't mean that's taking place nationwide or worldwide, though, or that the majority of what we eat was raised in such facilities.
Obviously, this is a good reason to support future research in environmental engineering so we can keep eating our meat for generations to come with fewer sustainability issues. In the meantime, I probably won't be eating burgers and steaks every day. (And I do love beef--you'd have to pry short ribs from my cold, dead hands before I'd go totally beef free!)0 -
Since you read Cooked I'm surprised you find him "whole hog berserkly" on the vegan wagon. A lot of that book was about how to grill and braise meats.
I think the depth an subject matter he covered in Cooked to be quite good. Omni's dilemma was a good thought exercise, but ultimately off base.
I like him because he's a legit writer, not a blogger with a book deal, which is what most of the food and cookbook writing out there is.
0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I am still waiting for the explanation as to how the "beef industry is bad for the environment"...???
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=beef+industry+impact+on+environment&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=2q2uVJ7UIMTksASR8YKQCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA
really? so what you are saying is that you cannot provide an explanation and are going to link me to thirty + pages of google stuff...
cows produce methane on their own without being herded for production ...so do you want to eliminate all cows too?
how about humans? We produce C02 just by, you know, breathing...
If people stopped raising cows for food, do you think there would be hundreds of millions of cows (edit: 1.3-1.5 billion, according to USDA estimates) in the wild? It's the scale that is the problem, not the existence of cows. Humans breed way more livestock than would ever be sustained in a natural population.
And judging by your previous posts, I assume if she had given an explanation, you would have dismissed it and demanded to see research studies. So she skipped a step and showed you the studies. If you truly want to know, pick one of them and read it.
0 -
You've never heard of one of the most influential food writers of our generation. I don't think people will take your word on what are established facts about the food industry.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I am still waiting for the explanation as to how the "beef industry is bad for the environment"...???
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=beef+industry+impact+on+environment&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=2q2uVJ7UIMTksASR8YKQCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA
Edited to Add a very simplified general explanation, courtesy of our lovely wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
Like I said before, I don't feel super passionately about this issue, but it is an established fact.
I am not going to get into an environmental/global warming debate on a nutrition site..
but I would go with no, that is not an established fact...
Humans have been involved in agriculture for tens of thousands of years....we seem to have made it this far in fairly good shape...
0 -
All confirmed omnivores in my house, with my youngest daughter being beyond awkward, cant have dairy, which in even includes anything cow related (same protein she's allergic too)
Having stupid terms is stupid (obvs lol!) Cause what on earth would you use to describe my youngest? Omnivore obvs, but a Sanboefivore would be more accurate lol.
Meat really needn't be in every days meal plan. I didn't really realise people did rthat...or are they meaning reducing all forms of meat? Including by-products?
Personally, the vegan diet doesn't appeal to me because I love, and need, dairy.
Vegetarianism doesn't either because I love meat.
But I don't always have it in meals? Lentil bolognaise, quorn shepherds pie, omelette...etc etc0 -
Yeah...clairesbeachbody wrote: »and this is why I don't come in the forums *opens floodgates*
But aside from that, I'm a pescetarian and have been for the last 15 years or so. But I am trying to cut down on dairy too - no idea what that makes me. *kitten* the labels though. I think anything that makes you more adventurous with food is a great thing
There are lots of good veggie/vegan threads on here and tonnes of great veggie recipe blogs round. Feel free to add me and use my diary for inspiration if you like. I eat a lot of fish and my boyfriend is a hungry carnivore gardener so I understand the challenge of trying to get out of food ruts and please everyone!
0 -
Call yourself whatever you want, I'm going to have a steak and make gains.0
-
I'm a firm believer that buzzwords are mostly for idiots who aren't capable of logical independent thought...0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
You've never heard of one of the most influential food writers of our generation. I don't think people will take your word on what are established facts about the food industry.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I am still waiting for the explanation as to how the "beef industry is bad for the environment"...???
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=beef+industry+impact+on+environment&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=2q2uVJ7UIMTksASR8YKQCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA
Edited to Add a very simplified general explanation, courtesy of our lovely wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
Like I said before, I don't feel super passionately about this issue, but it is an established fact.
I am not going to get into an environmental/global warming debate on a nutrition site..
but I would go with no, that is not an established fact...
Humans have been involved in agriculture for tens of thousands of years....we seem to have made it this far in fairly good shape...
sorry, I don't accept the new York times as peer reviewed source....because newspaper..
0 -
Reducitarian is already taken...
0 -
I thought we were here to talk about dinosaurs0
-
tempehforever wrote: »
Then don't eat feed lot beef. Beef is bad, but chicken is far worse.
Well, I think part of the point is that meat that is raised more sustainably/ethically tends to be a lot more expensive. So if you eat less meat, you can afford to buy stuff that is better environmentally.
I buy hand raised pork and lamb, an animal at a time, then I have it processed. I'm at about $3.50 a pound averaged between both animals.
These are hand raised, they have names, they get hugs, cookies, and they're delicious. Anyone that feels food ethics is an issue can do something along these lines, if they were actually dedicated to food ethics.
(shots fired.)0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I think it is because of environmental concerns and less about diet. The beef industry is pretty terrible for the enviornment
I've never been a huge meat eater, but I eat about 90% paleo now so I have meat at almost every meal, typically chicken. I like beef but I rarely cook it for myself so I only have it occasionally.
I agree that having a term for this is a little silly.
Then don't eat feed lot beef. Beef is bad, but chicken is far worse.
Not in terms of methane gas, actually. I'm sure there are environmental concerns with chicken as well, but in terms of methane production beef is just about the worst thing. Its worse than all cars/trains/planes combined. Like I said I still have some, but I could understand why someone would intentionally cut back. And it doesn't have to dow ith feed lot- even local grass fed can cause the issues.
aw, bless your heart. That's not the issue. That's actually one of the areas of least concern. Far more important is issues like effluent, etc.0 -
tempehforever wrote: »
Then don't eat feed lot beef. Beef is bad, but chicken is far worse.
Well, I think part of the point is that meat that is raised more sustainably/ethically tends to be a lot more expensive. So if you eat less meat, you can afford to buy stuff that is better environmentally.
I buy hand raised pork and lamb, an animal at a time, then I have it processed. I'm at about $3.50 a pound averaged between both animals.
These are hand raised, they have names, they get hugs, cookies, and they're delicious. Anyone that feels food ethics is an issue can do something along these lines, if they were actually dedicated to food ethics.
(shots fired.)
so you admit to eating processed food?0 -
MaternalCopulator wrote: »I'm a firm believer that buzzwords are mostly for idiots who aren't capable of logical independent thought...
I think "vegetarian" and "vegan" are useful in situations where there is actually going to be food served, because it lets the host/server/caterer know that there are certain options that need to be made available. Pescatarian would make sense if anyone knew WTF it meant.
Flexitarian or reducetarian make no sense in that context because there is no need to prepare anything special.0 -
melimomTARDIS wrote: »im a vegetarian who misses white fish, so that makes me?
Racist?0 -
tempehforever wrote: »
Like a chicken? This just made me giggletempehforever wrote: »This is a really stupid term that makes me want to KILL SOMETHINGtempehforever wrote: »Personally, I feel like if you're not going to go full-fledged vegan, what's the point of still eating animal products like eggs and cheese but not eating meat? You're still contributing to the production of animal products for consumption, if that's what you have an ethical issue with.
I can think of a lot of reasons. I have been vegetarian for 2 years and only vegan for several months out of it. Reasons I can think of right away for someone to still eat animal products but not meat include but are not limited to:
- Wanting to do something to make a difference: saying there's no point in cutting out meat if you don't cut out dairy too is like saying there's no point in putting $5 in your savings if you can't put $500, or saying why run a mile if you can't run a marathon? Everyone has to start somewhere and doing something is better than nothing.
- Vegan is hard. There is "hidden" dairy and eggs in so much stuff. So someone might want to be vegan and not know how to or think it's too hard, but vegetarian is easy.
- Access to ethically farmed eggs and dairy. I know for an absolute fact that the eggs I eat are not coming from chickens who have miserable lives and are mistreated, cause I picked them up from the nest a few hours or days before I ate them. Our chickens are healthy and well cared for, and as much as one could claim a chicken is happy, ours are. The eggs are demonstrably more nutritious than store bought eggs too. There are lots of sources for animal products that don't cause the animals as much suffering as factory farming, and don't take the life of the animal the way meat does.
- Just plain not liking meat, but liking animal products.
Oh, well I agree with a lot of these, such as just not liking meat (also: way jealous of your chickens!). I'd point out, though, that many of us try to find ethically raised meat as well (I buy whole chickens from the same farmer I get my eggs from). If you find killing animals no matter what unethical, of course, that's different!
I'm someone who falls in the "something is better than nothing" camp. Which is why I feel like if I'm going to eat animal products, I might as well reduce the amount I consume OVERALL, rather than simply eliminating some completely, but keeping others. I don't think it is always unethical to eat animals, though, so meat vs. eggs is kind of an arbitrary distinction for me.
It is possible to find ethically raised meat, but it's a bit harder and more expensive than doing the same for ethically sourced animal products. (You can treat a chicken nicely and get a lot more $$ worth of eggs than meat over it's lifetime.) And yes, there are people who would say it's okay to take the eggs and milk (I mean eggs especially, since chickens produce them no matter what - cows only produce milk after having a baby cow) but don't think it's okay to kill the animal.
Personally I would be okay with eating meat I raised and butchered if I wanted to eat meat, but I don't want to eat meat at all, so it's not an issue for me 0 -
Everything cute is tasty.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I think it is because of environmental concerns and less about diet. The beef industry is pretty terrible for the enviornment
I've never been a huge meat eater, but I eat about 90% paleo now so I have meat at almost every meal, typically chicken. I like beef but I rarely cook it for myself so I only have it occasionally.
I agree that having a term for this is a little silly.
Then don't eat feed lot beef. Beef is bad, but chicken is far worse.
But beef is cuter. Wait I mean cows. Cows are cuter than chickens.
(I think I just let off that when I look at cows, I mostly think of steak...)
When I see rabbits, I just want to hold them and hug them and pat them. They make excellent stew.
Veal? My god, so cute. So delicious.
Quail? Well, I could go on.
You forgot pigs. Baby pigs? Adorable. Big, fat sows? Bacon.
I tend to go for those fresh little 9 month old pigs. Still have the baby cute, with the adult bacon. Dear bubba from up above, we're going whole hog son. 0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Since you read Cooked I'm surprised you find him "whole hog berserkly" on the vegan wagon. A lot of that book was about how to grill and braise meats.
I think the depth an subject matter he covered in Cooked to be quite good. Omni's dilemma was a good thought exercise, but ultimately off base.
I like him because he's a legit writer, not a blogger with a book deal, which is what most of the food and cookbook writing out there is.
I do, I do. I like cooked because it was far more anthropology and culture (slowly disappearing) as opposed to cherry picking fear points.0 -
I admit not just to eating processed food, but processing it personally. Let me pull a pic.tempehforever wrote: »
Then don't eat feed lot beef. Beef is bad, but chicken is far worse.
Well, I think part of the point is that meat that is raised more sustainably/ethically tends to be a lot more expensive. So if you eat less meat, you can afford to buy stuff that is better environmentally.
I buy hand raised pork and lamb, an animal at a time, then I have it processed. I'm at about $3.50 a pound averaged between both animals.
These are hand raised, they have names, they get hugs, cookies, and they're delicious. Anyone that feels food ethics is an issue can do something along these lines, if they were actually dedicated to food ethics.
(shots fired.)
so you admit to eating processed food?
0 -
-
I appreciate the comment from the MFP contributor who is living right in the middle of cattle country. I do too. Industrial farming is a big reason why we've managed to keep our burgeoning population fed. I don't think home-grown will ever be able to match the efficiency of these operations. I am happy to hear that methane is being captured as well. Out of the environment and supporting our energy needs. dbmata mentioned effluent as a concern. My (engineering) company has ideas to harvest the effluent as fertilizer as well. There are still parts of the world where fertilizer is needed.
0 -
Often people write books and are considered authorities. Peer reviewed journals are terrific but it's not the only place you find authoritative information.WalkingAlong wrote: »
You've never heard of one of the most influential food writers of our generation. I don't think people will take your word on what are established facts about the food industry.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I am still waiting for the explanation as to how the "beef industry is bad for the environment"...???
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=beef+industry+impact+on+environment&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=2q2uVJ7UIMTksASR8YKQCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA
Edited to Add a very simplified general explanation, courtesy of our lovely wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
Like I said before, I don't feel super passionately about this issue, but it is an established fact.
I am not going to get into an environmental/global warming debate on a nutrition site..
but I would go with no, that is not an established fact...
Humans have been involved in agriculture for tens of thousands of years....we seem to have made it this far in fairly good shape...
sorry, I don't accept the new York times as peer reviewed source....because newspaper..
But here's one example of peer reviewed articles that treat it as established fact-
Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments
M. de Vries, I.J.M. de Boer,
doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2009.11.007
Abstract
Livestock production has a major impact on the environment. Choosing a more environmentally-friendly livestock product in a diet can mitigate environmental impact. The objective of this research was to compare assessments of the environmental impact of livestock products. Twenty-five peer-reviewed studies were found that assessed the impact of production of pork, chicken, beef, milk, and eggs using life cycle analysis...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141309003692
(Which was probably in the initial Google scholar search results someone gave and the wikipedia page sources that you dismissed out of hand, so I'm not sure why I bother.)0 -
I admit not just to eating processed food, but processing it personally. Let me pull a pic.tempehforever wrote: »
Then don't eat feed lot beef. Beef is bad, but chicken is far worse.
Well, I think part of the point is that meat that is raised more sustainably/ethically tends to be a lot more expensive. So if you eat less meat, you can afford to buy stuff that is better environmentally.
I buy hand raised pork and lamb, an animal at a time, then I have it processed. I'm at about $3.50 a pound averaged between both animals.
These are hand raised, they have names, they get hugs, cookies, and they're delicious. Anyone that feels food ethics is an issue can do something along these lines, if they were actually dedicated to food ethics.
(shots fired.)
so you admit to eating processed food?
so you are one of those "evil processors"?0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I am still waiting for the explanation as to how the "beef industry is bad for the environment"...???
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=beef+industry+impact+on+environment&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=2q2uVJ7UIMTksASR8YKQCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA
really? so what you are saying is that you cannot provide an explanation and are going to link me to thirty + pages of google stuff...
cows produce methane on their own without being herded for production ...so do you want to eliminate all cows too?
how about humans? We produce C02 just by, you know, breathing...
I don't see why you find this weird at all, I linked you to ANY number of sources that you can read if you'd like to learn more.
I'm not stating a controversial opinion. This has been long established. And if you even read the wikipedia article, it points to the percentage of greenhouse gasses caused by livestock farming (including chickens). Its that simple.
Do I still eat meat? Sure. Do I think this is a valid reason to cut down? yep. Do I think putting a term on that is dumb? Definitely. Sorry you're so grumpy!0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I am still waiting for the explanation as to how the "beef industry is bad for the environment"...???
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=beef+industry+impact+on+environment&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=2q2uVJ7UIMTksASR8YKQCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA
really? so what you are saying is that you cannot provide an explanation and are going to link me to thirty + pages of google stuff...
cows produce methane on their own without being herded for production ...so do you want to eliminate all cows too?
how about humans? We produce C02 just by, you know, breathing...
I don't see why you find this weird at all, I linked you to ANY number of sources that you can read if you'd like to learn more.
I'm not stating a controversial opinion. This has been long established. And if you even read the wikipedia article, it points to the percentage of greenhouse gasses caused by livestock farming (including chickens). Its that simple.
Do I still eat meat? Sure. Do I think this is a valid reason to cut down? yep. Do I think putting a term on that is dumb? Definitely. Sorry you're so grumpy!
I just thought I might get an explanation from the person making sad claim, rather than have to search through 30+ pages of google scholar...0 -
Mostly because he doesn't share. If he were truly evil he'd post again about the carnivore program...
I admit not just to eating processed food, but processing it personally. Let me pull a pic.tempehforever wrote: »
Then don't eat feed lot beef. Beef is bad, but chicken is far worse.
Well, I think part of the point is that meat that is raised more sustainably/ethically tends to be a lot more expensive. So if you eat less meat, you can afford to buy stuff that is better environmentally.
I buy hand raised pork and lamb, an animal at a time, then I have it processed. I'm at about $3.50 a pound averaged between both animals.
These are hand raised, they have names, they get hugs, cookies, and they're delicious. Anyone that feels food ethics is an issue can do something along these lines, if they were actually dedicated to food ethics.
(shots fired.)
so you admit to eating processed food?
so you are one of those "evil processors"?0 -
tempehforever wrote: »williams969 wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I am still waiting for the explanation as to how the "beef industry is bad for the environment"...???
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=beef+industry+impact+on+environment&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=2q2uVJ7UIMTksASR8YKQCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA
really? so what you are saying is that you cannot provide an explanation and are going to link me to thirty + pages of google stuff...
cows produce methane on their own without being herded for production ...so do you want to eliminate all cows too?
how about humans? We produce C02 just by, you know, breathing...
Right? And where I'm from (solidly in the middle of "Cow Country", "America's Dairyland", large farms collect that methane and use it as fuel to power their facilities. And...often times they have excess that is sold back to the public utilities for all to use. Info here: wisconsinpublicservice.com/business/methane_gas.aspx
That's pretty darn environmental. Imagine if we turn back all the cows to the wild. All that wasted methane energy. That's NOT environmental; that's wasteful.
Well, hopefully more farms will be able to do this! (I think I'm from the same part of the country as you, by the way).
Remember that the US meat industry is an increasingly smaller portion of the world's meat production, though, as industrializing countries adopt an increasingly meat-based, western-style diet. Just because some innovation is taking place in Wisconsin doesn't mean that's taking place nationwide or worldwide, though, or that the majority of what we eat was raised in such facilities.
Obviously, this is a good reason to support future research in environmental engineering so we can keep eating our meat for generations to come with fewer sustainability issues. In the meantime, I probably won't be eating burgers and steaks every day. (And I do love beef--you'd have to pry short ribs from my cold, dead hands before I'd go totally beef free!)
Totally agree with this. I'm not sure why folks are getting so defensive. The science is all there, the research has been done. If we can find ways to turn this into something GOOD for the enviornment then that is great, and for those that can buy from farms making these adjustments that is wonderful. It is also most likely more expensive and harder to come by, which sort of supports the idea of cutting down and only buying it when you know it is responsibly sourced.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Often people write books and are considered authorities. Peer reviewed journals are terrific but it's not the only place you find authoritative information.WalkingAlong wrote: »
You've never heard of one of the most influential food writers of our generation. I don't think people will take your word on what are established facts about the food industry.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I am still waiting for the explanation as to how the "beef industry is bad for the environment"...???
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=beef+industry+impact+on+environment&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=2q2uVJ7UIMTksASR8YKQCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA
Edited to Add a very simplified general explanation, courtesy of our lovely wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
Like I said before, I don't feel super passionately about this issue, but it is an established fact.
I am not going to get into an environmental/global warming debate on a nutrition site..
but I would go with no, that is not an established fact...
Humans have been involved in agriculture for tens of thousands of years....we seem to have made it this far in fairly good shape...
sorry, I don't accept the new York times as peer reviewed source....because newspaper..
But here's one example of peer reviewed articles that treat it as established fact-
Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments
M. de Vries, I.J.M. de Boer,
doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2009.11.007
Abstract
Livestock production has a major impact on the environment. Choosing a more environmentally-friendly livestock product in a diet can mitigate environmental impact. The objective of this research was to compare assessments of the environmental impact of livestock products. Twenty-five peer-reviewed studies were found that assessed the impact of production of pork, chicken, beef, milk, and eggs using life cycle analysis...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141309003692
(Which was probably in the initial Google scholar search results someone gave and the wikipedia page sources that you dismissed out of hand, so I'm not sure why I bother.)
Thanks for backing me up! I didn't realize I said anything controversial.
I think this is a valid reason for cutting back on meat. I still think the term OP is talking about is pretty silly, but it may have been coined as part of an environmental initiative.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions