Are nutrition labels really accurate?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's only certain nutrients that are not allowed to be over-represented on the label (by law). Not everything. And definitely not calories.
ETA: I think I remember the nutrients that could not be over-represented on the label (but could be under-represented) were supplements like added vitamin D in milk, but I can't find the right FDA CFR document to confirm. Oh well.
"The Third Group nutrients include calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. However, for products (e.g., fruit drinks, juices, and confectioneries) with a sugars content of 90 percent or more of total carbohydrate, to prevent labeling anomalies due in part to rounding, FDA treats total carbohydrate as a Third Group nutrient instead of a Class II nutrient. For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less, i.e., the label is considered to be out of compliance if the nutrient content of a composite of the product is greater than 20% above the value declared on the label. For example, if a laboratory analysis found 8 g of total fat/serving in a product that stated that it contained 6 g of total fat/serving, the ratio between the laboratory value and the label value would be (8 / 6) x 100 = 133%, and the product label would be considered to be out of compliance."
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm063113.htm
I think you guys are saying the same thing.
Certain nutrients (where we are particularly concerned that they not mislead you into thinking there are more whatever than there is) are supposed to be within a reasonable amount of the number when tested* but, specifically, must be at least 80% of the number given to be in compliance with the law.
Others (and this includes calories), where we are particularly concerned that they not mislead you into thinking there is less whatever than there is, are also supposed to be within a reasonable amount of the number when tested* but, specifically, must not be more than 120% of it to be in compliance with the law.
*Reasonable excesses of class I and II nutrients above labeled amounts and reasonable deficiencies of the Third Group nutrients are usually considered acceptable by the agency within good manufacturing practices.
Agreed, I think I worded it wrong in my original post. I knew what I was saying, but just didn't say it right. lol.
0 -
I work in food manufacturing and there are a lot of variables that can work their way into this situation. Are labels 100% correct? Nope. Can that yogurt be packed at 110%? Yes. Would that add another 10% calories on top of the label claim? Yes. Why could it be 110%?
I'm glad you asked. There are laws against under-packing food there are no laws against giving you more than we tell you we will give you. So some products have to be over packed to a known percentage to make sure we don't under-pack them.
Will that matter in a 10 lb tub of yogurt? Nope. Will it matter if you eat 10 single serve small containers of yogurt? Yup.
That is just one instance where your food or ingredients can be out of alignment with the label.
Like one of the women said before. Find what works for you and do that. It won't work for everyone but it will work for you.
Find what DOESN'T work for you and don't do that.0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's only certain nutrients that are not allowed to be over-represented on the label (by law). Not everything. And definitely not calories.
ETA: I think I remember the nutrients that could not be over-represented on the label (but could be under-represented) were supplements like added vitamin D in milk, but I can't find the right FDA CFR document to confirm. Oh well.
"The Third Group nutrients include calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. However, for products (e.g., fruit drinks, juices, and confectioneries) with a sugars content of 90 percent or more of total carbohydrate, to prevent labeling anomalies due in part to rounding, FDA treats total carbohydrate as a Third Group nutrient instead of a Class II nutrient. For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less, i.e., the label is considered to be out of compliance if the nutrient content of a composite of the product is greater than 20% above the value declared on the label. For example, if a laboratory analysis found 8 g of total fat/serving in a product that stated that it contained 6 g of total fat/serving, the ratio between the laboratory value and the label value would be (8 / 6) x 100 = 133%, and the product label would be considered to be out of compliance."
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm063113.htm
I think you guys are saying the same thing.
Certain nutrients (where we are particularly concerned that they not mislead you into thinking there are more whatever than there is) are supposed to be within a reasonable amount of the number when tested* but, specifically, must be at least 80% of the number given to be in compliance with the law.
Others (and this includes calories), where we are particularly concerned that they not mislead you into thinking there is less whatever than there is, are also supposed to be within a reasonable amount of the number when tested* but, specifically, must not be more than 120% of it to be in compliance with the law.
*Reasonable excesses of class I and II nutrients above labeled amounts and reasonable deficiencies of the Third Group nutrients are usually considered acceptable by the agency within good manufacturing practices.
Nope, not the same thing, but in the same document (BTW, this is an old version, there's a newer one). This is what I was trying to remember:
In order to evaluate the accuracy of nutrition label information against a standard for compliance purposes, FDA regulations define two nutrient classes (Class I and Class II) (21 CFR 101.9(g)(3)) and list a third group (Third Group) of nutrients (21 CFR 101.9(g)(5)). Class I nutrients are those added in fortified or fabricated foods. These nutrients are vitamins, minerals, protein, dietary fiber, or potassium. Class I nutrients must be present at 100% or more of the value declared on the label ; in other words, the nutrient content identified by the laboratory analysis must be at least equal to the label value. For example, if vitamin C is added in a fortified product and the label states that vitamin C is present at 10% Daily Value (DV), the laboratory value must equal at least 6 mg of vitamin C/serving (i.e., 10% of the 60 mg Reference Daily Intake (RDI) for vitamin C that is specified in 21 CFR 101.9(c)(8)(iv)). The ratio between a laboratory finding of 4.8 mg vitamin C/serving (i.e., 8% DV) and the label value of 10% DV would be calculated as follows: ...0 -
jeanmariemcp wrote: »
Thanks, but it's not my quote. It's usually attributed to Voltaire.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's only certain nutrients that are not allowed to be over-represented on the label (by law). Not everything. And definitely not calories.
ETA: I think I remember the nutrients that could not be over-represented on the label (but could be under-represented) were supplements like added vitamin D in milk, but I can't find the right FDA CFR document to confirm. Oh well.
"The Third Group nutrients include calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. However, for products (e.g., fruit drinks, juices, and confectioneries) with a sugars content of 90 percent or more of total carbohydrate, to prevent labeling anomalies due in part to rounding, FDA treats total carbohydrate as a Third Group nutrient instead of a Class II nutrient. For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less, i.e., the label is considered to be out of compliance if the nutrient content of a composite of the product is greater than 20% above the value declared on the label. For example, if a laboratory analysis found 8 g of total fat/serving in a product that stated that it contained 6 g of total fat/serving, the ratio between the laboratory value and the label value would be (8 / 6) x 100 = 133%, and the product label would be considered to be out of compliance."
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm063113.htm
I think you guys are saying the same thing.
Certain nutrients (where we are particularly concerned that they not mislead you into thinking there are more whatever than there is) are supposed to be within a reasonable amount of the number when tested* but, specifically, must be at least 80% of the number given to be in compliance with the law.
Others (and this includes calories), where we are particularly concerned that they not mislead you into thinking there is less whatever than there is, are also supposed to be within a reasonable amount of the number when tested* but, specifically, must not be more than 120% of it to be in compliance with the law.
*Reasonable excesses of class I and II nutrients above labeled amounts and reasonable deficiencies of the Third Group nutrients are usually considered acceptable by the agency within good manufacturing practices.
Nope, not the same thing, but in the same document (BTW, this is an old version, there's a newer one). This is what I was trying to remember:
In order to evaluate the accuracy of nutrition label information against a standard for compliance purposes, FDA regulations define two nutrient classes (Class I and Class II) (21 CFR 101.9(g)(3)) and list a third group (Third Group) of nutrients (21 CFR 101.9(g)(5)). Class I nutrients are those added in fortified or fabricated foods. These nutrients are vitamins, minerals, protein, dietary fiber, or potassium. Class I nutrients must be present at 100% or more of the value declared on the label ; in other words, the nutrient content identified by the laboratory analysis must be at least equal to the label value. For example, if vitamin C is added in a fortified product and the label states that vitamin C is present at 10% Daily Value (DV), the laboratory value must equal at least 6 mg of vitamin C/serving (i.e., 10% of the 60 mg Reference Daily Intake (RDI) for vitamin C that is specified in 21 CFR 101.9(c)(8)(iv)). The ratio between a laboratory finding of 4.8 mg vitamin C/serving (i.e., 8% DV) and the label value of 10% DV would be calculated as follows: ...
My point was that what you were saying wasn't in disagreement with the point Hornsby was making. You appeared to be disagreeing but there was not actually a conflict.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's only certain nutrients that are not allowed to be over-represented on the label (by law). Not everything. And definitely not calories.
ETA: I think I remember the nutrients that could not be over-represented on the label (but could be under-represented) were supplements like added vitamin D in milk, but I can't find the right FDA CFR document to confirm. Oh well.
"The Third Group nutrients include calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. However, for products (e.g., fruit drinks, juices, and confectioneries) with a sugars content of 90 percent or more of total carbohydrate, to prevent labeling anomalies due in part to rounding, FDA treats total carbohydrate as a Third Group nutrient instead of a Class II nutrient. For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less, i.e., the label is considered to be out of compliance if the nutrient content of a composite of the product is greater than 20% above the value declared on the label. For example, if a laboratory analysis found 8 g of total fat/serving in a product that stated that it contained 6 g of total fat/serving, the ratio between the laboratory value and the label value would be (8 / 6) x 100 = 133%, and the product label would be considered to be out of compliance."
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm063113.htm
I think you guys are saying the same thing.
Certain nutrients (where we are particularly concerned that they not mislead you into thinking there are more whatever than there is) are supposed to be within a reasonable amount of the number when tested* but, specifically, must be at least 80% of the number given to be in compliance with the law.
Others (and this includes calories), where we are particularly concerned that they not mislead you into thinking there is less whatever than there is, are also supposed to be within a reasonable amount of the number when tested* but, specifically, must not be more than 120% of it to be in compliance with the law.
*Reasonable excesses of class I and II nutrients above labeled amounts and reasonable deficiencies of the Third Group nutrients are usually considered acceptable by the agency within good manufacturing practices.
Nope, not the same thing, but in the same document (BTW, this is an old version, there's a newer one). This is what I was trying to remember:
In order to evaluate the accuracy of nutrition label information against a standard for compliance purposes, FDA regulations define two nutrient classes (Class I and Class II) (21 CFR 101.9(g)(3)) and list a third group (Third Group) of nutrients (21 CFR 101.9(g)(5)). Class I nutrients are those added in fortified or fabricated foods. These nutrients are vitamins, minerals, protein, dietary fiber, or potassium. Class I nutrients must be present at 100% or more of the value declared on the label ; in other words, the nutrient content identified by the laboratory analysis must be at least equal to the label value. For example, if vitamin C is added in a fortified product and the label states that vitamin C is present at 10% Daily Value (DV), the laboratory value must equal at least 6 mg of vitamin C/serving (i.e., 10% of the 60 mg Reference Daily Intake (RDI) for vitamin C that is specified in 21 CFR 101.9(c)(8)(iv)). The ratio between a laboratory finding of 4.8 mg vitamin C/serving (i.e., 8% DV) and the label value of 10% DV would be calculated as follows: ...
My point was that what you were saying wasn't in disagreement with the point Hornsby was making. You appeared to be disagreeing but there was not actually a conflict.
It is a disagreement, because he was originally implying all nutrients can't be underestimated by law when in actuality that only applies to some nutrients. The rest can be higher or lower than the stated amount, and that includes total calories.
It isn't any big deal to me, except that people start defaulting to 'unpackaged food is more accurately estimated than packaged', which is not true since it's ALL variable and ALL the counts we rely on are based on a mean determined by someone. Which you already know, of course.0 -
All I know is I lose weight referencing them. If you're eating at a 1lb a week deficit for example, MFP is taking 500 calories off your daily maintenance total to create a deficit of 3500 a week... or approximately a pound. So even if I am 200 calories off by label error every day that's still 2100 calorie deficit over the week - that's still 0.6 lbs and that's not going to happen day in and day out. Plus your calorie burn, at least for the vast majority of us, isn't that static... you burn more on some days than others just by living. Some days you walk 2,000 extra steps cause you went to the grocery store, some days you scrub floors, some days you're just plain lazy and watch 10 hours of netflix - if you are paying close attention to labels and following them accurately, you should be close enough to lose weight. 5 extra calories worth of ketchup won't ruin your life... don't let calories become an overwhelming obsession, but just focus on the trends you see and the better choices you are making.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »So in other words, the inaccuracy of the labels is going to drive people who weigh their food batty, but the rest of us don't have to worry about it because we're allowing for broad inaccuracy anyway.
That's making quite big assumptions...
I weigh my food *and* allow for broad inacuracy too. (Meaning, I accept that no estimate of calories in food is 100% correct and am fine with it, not that I am allowing a calorie "buffer or sth).
The biggest advantage of weighing for me is increased awareness of how much and what I am eating and learning crucial portion control skills. For fun, I always try to estimate before I weigh and it's gratifying how better my estimates are becoming. Also, weighing is an excellent way to avoid increasing the inacuracy that's already there!
I am not saying that weighing is the way to go for everyone, but it seems to me the quoted post paints it as some kind of OCD, freak-out-over-every-gram thing, which could drive away from weighing people for whom it would be extremely beneficial. I am sure that wasn't what the poster intended, but felt it was important to clarify.
ETA the text in brackets.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's only certain nutrients that are not allowed to be over-represented on the label (by law). Not everything. And definitely not calories.
ETA: I think I remember the nutrients that could not be over-represented on the label (but could be under-represented) were supplements like added vitamin D in milk, but I can't find the right FDA CFR document to confirm. Oh well.
"The Third Group nutrients include calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. However, for products (e.g., fruit drinks, juices, and confectioneries) with a sugars content of 90 percent or more of total carbohydrate, to prevent labeling anomalies due in part to rounding, FDA treats total carbohydrate as a Third Group nutrient instead of a Class II nutrient. For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less, i.e., the label is considered to be out of compliance if the nutrient content of a composite of the product is greater than 20% above the value declared on the label. For example, if a laboratory analysis found 8 g of total fat/serving in a product that stated that it contained 6 g of total fat/serving, the ratio between the laboratory value and the label value would be (8 / 6) x 100 = 133%, and the product label would be considered to be out of compliance."
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm063113.htm
I think you guys are saying the same thing.
Certain nutrients (where we are particularly concerned that they not mislead you into thinking there are more whatever than there is) are supposed to be within a reasonable amount of the number when tested* but, specifically, must be at least 80% of the number given to be in compliance with the law.
Others (and this includes calories), where we are particularly concerned that they not mislead you into thinking there is less whatever than there is, are also supposed to be within a reasonable amount of the number when tested* but, specifically, must not be more than 120% of it to be in compliance with the law.
*Reasonable excesses of class I and II nutrients above labeled amounts and reasonable deficiencies of the Third Group nutrients are usually considered acceptable by the agency within good manufacturing practices.
Nope, not the same thing, but in the same document (BTW, this is an old version, there's a newer one). This is what I was trying to remember:
In order to evaluate the accuracy of nutrition label information against a standard for compliance purposes, FDA regulations define two nutrient classes (Class I and Class II) (21 CFR 101.9(g)(3)) and list a third group (Third Group) of nutrients (21 CFR 101.9(g)(5)). Class I nutrients are those added in fortified or fabricated foods. These nutrients are vitamins, minerals, protein, dietary fiber, or potassium. Class I nutrients must be present at 100% or more of the value declared on the label ; in other words, the nutrient content identified by the laboratory analysis must be at least equal to the label value. For example, if vitamin C is added in a fortified product and the label states that vitamin C is present at 10% Daily Value (DV), the laboratory value must equal at least 6 mg of vitamin C/serving (i.e., 10% of the 60 mg Reference Daily Intake (RDI) for vitamin C that is specified in 21 CFR 101.9(c)(8)(iv)). The ratio between a laboratory finding of 4.8 mg vitamin C/serving (i.e., 8% DV) and the label value of 10% DV would be calculated as follows: ...
My point was that what you were saying wasn't in disagreement with the point Hornsby was making. You appeared to be disagreeing but there was not actually a conflict.
It is a disagreement, because he was originally implying all nutrients can't be underestimated by law when in actuality that only applies to some nutrients. The rest can be higher or lower than the stated amount, and that includes total calories.
He said it unclearly or confusingly (or backwards), as he clarified, but based on what he quoted I think you were trying to make the same point. But maybe you and I are disagreeing: calories are class III, so as I read it (not checking the actual current CFR, since I don't care that much) they by law must be 120% or less--in other words, are not supposed to be unreasonably different either way, but specifically are out of compliance if they are measured at 125 calories with a label of 100 calories. With something like Vitamin A, it's the opposite (as you said), they can't be 79% if they say 100% (or however they are measured).
In other words, calories, of course, can be over- or under-estimated, but the law is stricter with respect to underestimation. With Vitamin A it's the opposite.It isn't any big deal to me, except that people start defaulting to 'unpackaged food is more accurately estimated than packaged', which is not true since it's ALL variable and ALL the counts we rely on are based on a mean determined by someone. Which you already know, of course.
Yes, we agree on this. You just have to accept that everything is an estimate.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »So in other words, the inaccuracy of the labels is going to drive people who weigh their food batty, but the rest of us don't have to worry about it because we're allowing for broad inaccuracy anyway.
It's still smart to weight your food because it teaches you what portion control looks like - I think it's also OK to accept that the number on the label might not be exactly accurate down to the calorie... it's close enough though! I think the crazy with weighing comes from the people who weigh every slice of bread, etc. I use the scale of oz's of meat and grams of chips... stuff like that but a gram or two off isn't going to hurt anyone.
And, as someone above me pointed out, on the bell curve of those meals tested, they averaged out...
I'm gonna go log something delicious now.
Cheers0 -
They're close enough for me. If I was using packaged food as a major part of my diet I might care but I try to use as little processed food as possible. I'm pretty sure I didn't get fat because of inaccurate labels and I doubt that I won't lose weight because the labels are exact. Counting calories is not an exact process. Just tracking and recording makes me more mindful and changes my choices0
-
Just today: Can of garbanzo beans say a serving is 1/2 cup or 130 g. So because I generally prefer to weigh I put my 1/2 cup measuring cup on the food scale, hit the tare to make it zero...and the cup was full before it got to 100g. It was overflowing at 105 g. No way you could even get close to 130g. I was puzzling now...and still am...which is the accurate measure for the nutrition info given: the 1/2 cup or the 130 g?
I stuck with the 1/2 cup for today - and now wonder, did I under-eat or did I eat the 110 calories and other nutrients? LOL
- This kind of thing will drive me nuts.0 -
merlewalton wrote: »
I'm glad you asked. There are laws against under-packing food there are no laws against giving you more than we tell you we will give you. So some products have to be over packed to a known percentage to make sure we don't under-pack them.
The mother of a friend growing up worked at Oscar Mayer in Madison in their bacon packaging plant. Her job was to weigh each package as it came down the line and add that extra small piece of bacon you get to make sure the package was at least a pound. Sometimes she just needed to add 1/4 strip, sometimes almost a whole strip.
0 -
You can't let it drive you nuts. Just pick a method and stick with it, because all that matters are the relative numbers--you know if you reduce calories or increase them whether or not the absolute numbers are right (they aren't, they are an estimate).
I always use weight.
Similarly, I get meat from a farm and estimate about fat content and such all the time when choosing entries. I try to be as honest as possible, but if it is underestimating I may just need to have a lower goal than I otherwise would, to make up for the fact that my calories are in reality higher than I think. Doesn't really matter.0 -
No matter how accurate the labels are and how accurate your scale is, you will still not be perfect. One package of strawberries may have more calories because they have less water and/or more sugar than the next package. We can't be perfect, the best we can do is minimize known variables and roll with it.0
-
@wizzybeth You underate. The package is telling you "a serving is 130g, which in our laboratory or factory was measurable as 1/2 cup." This is exactly why we weigh -- because volume measurements are estimates at best, whereas a gram is a gram is always and forever a gram. (Here on Earth, anyway.)0
-
I never had any problems...I weigh and otherwise measured everything...I ate back most of my exercise calorie burn (fueling your fitness is kind of important when you're on a bike for 50 miles) and I fully understood there were variances and that product X didn't necessarily have exactly Y calories...but it all was close enough.
People get so wrapped up in minutia and, "OMG, there might be 10 more calories in this thing than I thought."...silly.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »So in other words, the inaccuracy of the labels is going to drive people who weigh their food batty, but the rest of us don't have to worry about it because we're allowing for broad inaccuracy anyway.
Ummm...no. By weighing foods and understanding that there is some inaccuracies I'm being more accurate than you arbitrarily assigning some "broad" and arbitrary value to that inaccuracy.0 -
Before I even saw this video I was thinking how dieters are so dependent on food labels. You only hope they are accurate. This is why I always never eat back my exercise calories in addition to leaving 100 extra calories as a buffer in case I measured calories incorrectly. Or in this case, labels are inaccurate. Anyway, I thought people here would find this video interesting...
Thanks for sharing. It was interesting...like you, I have always kept a "buffer" (reminds me of the Godfather movie) and never eat back all my exercise calories.
As someone else noted: "10 meals tested, 3 were under, 4 were close and only 3 were over";
“According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, men ages 19 and older reported consuming an average of 2,640 calories…actual calorie consumption…may be higher than reports show due to underreporting of energy intake, especially in overweight and obese populations.”
I don’t think in most cases, a few extra calories in some pre-packaged meals to be the real culprit. Those of us that have been “obese” know the problem. IMHO.
I am NOT saying labels and nutritional knowledge (as well as common sense) are not required. For example: the entire bottle of I Can't Believe It's Not Butter (zero-calorie) spray contains around 900 calories and 90 grams of fat.
0 -
This.honkytonks85 wrote: »Calorie counting is not an exact precise science regardless of what you eat. Neither is estimating calories burned in a day.
0 -
all the more reason to eat real food and not stuff that comes from a box.....
If you weigh your food, there should be very little variance or miscalculations.0 -
But of course there is--fruit is riper or less ripe, meat has more or less fat, a scoop of stew has more or less potatoes, etc.
Doesn't mean we have to be neurotic about it!0 -
Just today: Can of garbanzo beans say a serving is 1/2 cup or 130 g. So because I generally prefer to weigh I put my 1/2 cup measuring cup on the food scale, hit the tare to make it zero...and the cup was full before it got to 100g. It was overflowing at 105 g. No way you could even get close to 130g. I was puzzling now...and still am...which is the accurate measure for the nutrition info given: the 1/2 cup or the 130 g?
I stuck with the 1/2 cup for today - and now wonder, did I under-eat or did I eat the 110 calories and other nutrients? LOL
- This kind of thing will drive me nuts.
I believe they count the liquid too. I always drain my liquid with canned beans. It says on the label there is 3.5 servings and a serving is 130 g. Once drained and weighed out, I am getting roughly 2.5 servings. Also, don't use measuring cups for beans they should strictly be for liquids. Some foods are more dense than others and will weigh more. Just use a scale.
0 -
Not sure if its been mentioned, but legally labels can be off 20%. But on the up side only 85% of calories from nuts are absorbed. Freebeee!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