An open letter to foodies... stop labelling things as "guilt free"
Options
Replies
-
I like her.. she makes sense
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's just a label. Perhaps you are reading too much into it.
I disagree. It's labels like "clean," "guilt-free," "junk food," "healthy," etc., that make people so confused these days about nutrition and overeating. If people weren't thrown so many terms all the time about what they eat, and understood calories and how they relate to their bodies, people might not find it so difficult to eat in moderation.
Food is food, and I think that glamourizing and demonizing different types of foods is contributing to the obesity epidemic by overcomplicating things.
I disagree. Labels aren't making us fat.
Exactly. It's lack of knowledge or desire to learn what we need to do to take care of ourselves. This labeling is just yet another marketing ploy and we all need to be smart enough to see past it.
Yep.
This is basically what I said, yet you agree with her and disagree with me.
Starting to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
It is indeed a marketing ploy that overcomplicates nutrition. Nutrition is not complicated, and if the population would realize that instead of labeling foods as good or bad, we might could actually overcome this obesity "epidemic." Although it's really more of an ignorance epidemic, IMO.
*edit - changed him to her, I didn't see the original poster of the quoted response, sorry!
Arguing requires more than one person. I argue for the same reason as others.
You can't teach common sense with a label. Anyone that thinks "guilt free" on a label is nutrition information is not using commong sense.
What I meant was you are arguing with me and agreeing with someone else that is making the same point that I was making. Which is pointless.
And it may be common sense on MFP, but not if you look at the population as a whole. None of my Facebook friends has any clue about nutrition. They're always talking about the latest fad diets and pinning their disgusting cauliflower recipes and cheering each other on about how "good" they're being. They sell their wraps and peddle their shakes. It's ridiculous.
Labels do not literally make us fat, but they complicate things for the general, uneducated (about nutrition) populace. Which is why I and many others do not like them.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's just a label. Perhaps you are reading too much into it.
I disagree. It's labels like "clean," "guilt-free," "junk food," "healthy," etc., that make people so confused these days about nutrition and overeating. If people weren't thrown so many terms all the time about what they eat, and understood calories and how they relate to their bodies, people might not find it so difficult to eat in moderation.
Food is food, and I think that glamourizing and demonizing different types of foods is contributing to the obesity epidemic by overcomplicating things.
I disagree. Labels aren't making us fat.
Exactly. It's lack of knowledge or desire to learn what we need to do to take care of ourselves. This labeling is just yet another marketing ploy and we all need to be smart enough to see past it.
Yep.
This is basically what I said, yet you agree with her and disagree with me.
Starting to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
It is indeed a marketing ploy that overcomplicates nutrition. Nutrition is not complicated, and if the population would realize that instead of labeling foods as good or bad, we might could actually overcome this obesity "epidemic." Although it's really more of an ignorance epidemic, IMO.
*edit - changed him to her, I didn't see the original poster of the quoted response, sorry!
Arguing requires more than one person. I argue for the same reason as others.
You can't teach common sense with a label. Anyone that thinks "guilt free" on a label is nutrition information is not using commong sense.
What I meant was you are arguing with me and agreeing with someone else that is making the same point that I was making. Which is pointless.
Perhaps it's just the wording but I did not glean the same meaning from her post as yours. She seemed to be agreeing with me that labels weren't a cause of obesity, you seemed to be saying the opposite.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's just a label. Perhaps you are reading too much into it.
I disagree. It's labels like "clean," "guilt-free," "junk food," "healthy," etc., that make people so confused these days about nutrition and overeating. If people weren't thrown so many terms all the time about what they eat, and understood calories and how they relate to their bodies, people might not find it so difficult to eat in moderation.
Food is food, and I think that glamourizing and demonizing different types of foods is contributing to the obesity epidemic by overcomplicating things.
I disagree. Labels aren't making us fat.
Exactly. It's lack of knowledge or desire to learn what we need to do to take care of ourselves. This labeling is just yet another marketing ploy and we all need to be smart enough to see past it.
Yep.
This is basically what I said, yet you agree with her and disagree with me.
Starting to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
It is indeed a marketing ploy that overcomplicates nutrition. Nutrition is not complicated, and if the population would realize that instead of labeling foods as good or bad, we might could actually overcome this obesity "epidemic." Although it's really more of an ignorance epidemic, IMO.
*edit - changed him to her, I didn't see the original poster of the quoted response, sorry!
Arguing requires more than one person. I argue for the same reason as others.
You can't teach common sense with a label. Anyone that thinks "guilt free" on a label is nutrition information is not using commong sense.
What I meant was you are arguing with me and agreeing with someone else that is making the same point that I was making. Which is pointless.
And it may be common sense on MFP, but not if you look at the population as a whole. None of my Facebook friends has any clue about nutrition. They're always talking about the latest fad diets and pinning their disgusting cauliflower recipes and cheering each other on about how "good" they're being. They sell their wraps and peddle their shakes. It's ridiculous.
Labels do not literally make us fat, but they complicate things for the general, uneducated (about nutrition) populace. Which is why I and many others do not like them.
it is not common sense on MFP ..just look at all the threads on here ..."is it bad if I eat after 8pm?" is it bad if I eat three strawberries because sugar?" is it bad if "fill in the bank"..
or just look at all the clean eating nonsense that goes on all the time...0 -
The phrase "common sense" and the word "nutrition" rarely go together...0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's just a label. Perhaps you are reading too much into it.
I disagree. It's labels like "clean," "guilt-free," "junk food," "healthy," etc., that make people so confused these days about nutrition and overeating. If people weren't thrown so many terms all the time about what they eat, and understood calories and how they relate to their bodies, people might not find it so difficult to eat in moderation.
Food is food, and I think that glamourizing and demonizing different types of foods is contributing to the obesity epidemic by overcomplicating things.
I disagree. Labels aren't making us fat.
Exactly. It's lack of knowledge or desire to learn what we need to do to take care of ourselves. This labeling is just yet another marketing ploy and we all need to be smart enough to see past it.
Yep.
This is basically what I said, yet you agree with her and disagree with me.
Starting to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
It is indeed a marketing ploy that overcomplicates nutrition. Nutrition is not complicated, and if the population would realize that instead of labeling foods as good or bad, we might could actually overcome this obesity "epidemic." Although it's really more of an ignorance epidemic, IMO.
*edit - changed him to her, I didn't see the original poster of the quoted response, sorry!
Arguing requires more than one person. I argue for the same reason as others.
You can't teach common sense with a label. Anyone that thinks "guilt free" on a label is nutrition information is not using commong sense.
What I meant was you are arguing with me and agreeing with someone else that is making the same point that I was making. Which is pointless.
Perhaps it's just the wording but I did not glean the same meaning from her post as yours. She seemed to be agreeing with me that labels weren't a cause of obesity, you seemed to be saying the opposite.
Nope. Never said they caused obesity.
I said they overcomplicate nutrition, which contributes to the ignorance of the population about nutrition, which contributes to obesity.
My point was the same, just more in depth. You read what you wanted to read and argued with me over it, which seems to be a trend with you in other threads.0 -
COMPLETELY agree with the OP!0
-
but, i enjoy saying i am going to be bad & eat some really bad food. bad bad.0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's just a label. Perhaps you are reading too much into it.
I disagree. It's labels like "clean," "guilt-free," "junk food," "healthy," etc., that make people so confused these days about nutrition and overeating. If people weren't thrown so many terms all the time about what they eat, and understood calories and how they relate to their bodies, people might not find it so difficult to eat in moderation.
Food is food, and I think that glamourizing and demonizing different types of foods is contributing to the obesity epidemic by overcomplicating things.
I disagree. Labels aren't making us fat.
Exactly. It's lack of knowledge or desire to learn what we need to do to take care of ourselves. This labeling is just yet another marketing ploy and we all need to be smart enough to see past it.
Yep.
This is basically what I said, yet you agree with her and disagree with me.
Starting to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
It is indeed a marketing ploy that overcomplicates nutrition. Nutrition is not complicated, and if the population would realize that instead of labeling foods as good or bad, we might could actually overcome this obesity "epidemic." Although it's really more of an ignorance epidemic, IMO.
*edit - changed him to her, I didn't see the original poster of the quoted response, sorry!
Arguing requires more than one person. I argue for the same reason as others.
You can't teach common sense with a label. Anyone that thinks "guilt free" on a label is nutrition information is not using commong sense.
What I meant was you are arguing with me and agreeing with someone else that is making the same point that I was making. Which is pointless.
And it may be common sense on MFP, but not if you look at the population as a whole. None of my Facebook friends has any clue about nutrition. They're always talking about the latest fad diets and pinning their disgusting cauliflower recipes and cheering each other on about how "good" they're being. They sell their wraps and peddle their shakes. It's ridiculous.
Labels do not literally make us fat, but they complicate things for the general, uneducated (about nutrition) populace. Which is why I and many others do not like them.
it is not common sense on MFP ..just look at all the threads on here ..."is it bad if I eat after 8pm?" is it bad if I eat three strawberries because sugar?" is it bad if "fill in the bank"..
or just look at all the clean eating nonsense that goes on all the time...
You are right, I was a little too generous with that statement! :laugh:0 -
Bugs me too -- good post, OP. I have to deal with the guilt of always wanting sweets and sometimes struggle with the feeling of throwing in the towel sometimes when I go off the beaten path and over my calorie limit. I'm working on this (and myself) every day, and the idea that some candy bar is entirely devoid of guilt because it has 20% less fat (and the same amount of calories) is ridiculous. It's a passing fad, but the idea that some company/blogger thinks that they can decide what I feel guilty about is insulting to say the least.
I can take or leave gluten free recipes, but I would never go out of my way to make them since I've yet to try anything that tasted better or was cheaper when I modified it with gluten free ingredients. Even though I have friends with legitimate need for a gluten free diet (they have celiac disease/allergies to gluten), I see it as more of a dietary choice like vegetarianism 90% of the time.
What people need to be talking about more is raising awareness of how many calories your body needs in a day, and how easy it is to blow past that # if you eat the wrong things. A large milkshake or nutrient-dense smoothie can easily be 80% of your daily calorie intake, yet some people gobble them down and wonder why they're ballooning up. It's amazing how much weighing and logging everything you eat will open your eyes to the realities of food.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's just a label. Perhaps you are reading too much into it.
I disagree. It's labels like "clean," "guilt-free," "junk food," "healthy," etc., that make people so confused these days about nutrition and overeating. If people weren't thrown so many terms all the time about what they eat, and understood calories and how they relate to their bodies, people might not find it so difficult to eat in moderation.
Food is food, and I think that glamourizing and demonizing different types of foods is contributing to the obesity epidemic by overcomplicating things.
I disagree. Labels aren't making us fat.
Exactly. It's lack of knowledge or desire to learn what we need to do to take care of ourselves. This labeling is just yet another marketing ploy and we all need to be smart enough to see past it.
Yep.
This is basically what I said, yet you agree with her and disagree with me.
Starting to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
It is indeed a marketing ploy that overcomplicates nutrition. Nutrition is not complicated, and if the population would realize that instead of labeling foods as good or bad, we might could actually overcome this obesity "epidemic." Although it's really more of an ignorance epidemic, IMO.
*edit - changed him to her, I didn't see the original poster of the quoted response, sorry!
+10 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's just a label. Perhaps you are reading too much into it.
I disagree. It's labels like "clean," "guilt-free," "junk food," "healthy," etc., that make people so confused these days about nutrition and overeating. If people weren't thrown so many terms all the time about what they eat, and understood calories and how they relate to their bodies, people might not find it so difficult to eat in moderation.
Food is food, and I think that glamourizing and demonizing different types of foods is contributing to the obesity epidemic by overcomplicating things.
I disagree. Labels aren't making us fat.
Exactly. It's lack of knowledge or desire to learn what we need to do to take care of ourselves. This labeling is just yet another marketing ploy and we all need to be smart enough to see past it.
Yep.
This is basically what I said, yet you agree with her and disagree with me.
Starting to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
It is indeed a marketing ploy that overcomplicates nutrition. Nutrition is not complicated, and if the population would realize that instead of labeling foods as good or bad, we might could actually overcome this obesity "epidemic." Although it's really more of an ignorance epidemic, IMO.
*edit - changed him to her, I didn't see the original poster of the quoted response, sorry!
Arguing requires more than one person. I argue for the same reason as others.
You can't teach common sense with a label. Anyone that thinks "guilt free" on a label is nutrition information is not using commong sense.
What I meant was you are arguing with me and agreeing with someone else that is making the same point that I was making. Which is pointless.
Perhaps it's just the wording but I did not glean the same meaning from her post as yours. She seemed to be agreeing with me that labels weren't a cause of obesity, you seemed to be saying the opposite.
Nope. Never said they caused obesity.
I said they overcomplicate nutrition, which contributes to the ignorance of the population about nutrition, which contributes to obesity.
Oh my bad. Labels contribute to obesity. Still I disagree.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's just a label. Perhaps you are reading too much into it.
I disagree. It's labels like "clean," "guilt-free," "junk food," "healthy," etc., that make people so confused these days about nutrition and overeating. If people weren't thrown so many terms all the time about what they eat, and understood calories and how they relate to their bodies, people might not find it so difficult to eat in moderation.
Food is food, and I think that glamourizing and demonizing different types of foods is contributing to the obesity epidemic by overcomplicating things.
I disagree. Labels aren't making us fat.
Exactly. It's lack of knowledge or desire to learn what we need to do to take care of ourselves. This labeling is just yet another marketing ploy and we all need to be smart enough to see past it.
Yep.
This is basically what I said, yet you agree with her and disagree with me.
Starting to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
It is indeed a marketing ploy that overcomplicates nutrition. Nutrition is not complicated, and if the population would realize that instead of labeling foods as good or bad, we might could actually overcome this obesity "epidemic." Although it's really more of an ignorance epidemic, IMO.
*edit - changed him to her, I didn't see the original poster of the quoted response, sorry!
Arguing requires more than one person. I argue for the same reason as others.
You can't teach common sense with a label. Anyone that thinks "guilt free" on a label is nutrition information is not using commong sense.
What I meant was you are arguing with me and agreeing with someone else that is making the same point that I was making. Which is pointless.
Perhaps it's just the wording but I did not glean the same meaning from her post as yours. She seemed to be agreeing with me that labels weren't a cause of obesity, you seemed to be saying the opposite.
Nope. Never said they caused obesity.
I said they overcomplicate nutrition, which contributes to the ignorance of the population about nutrition, which contributes to obesity.
Oh my bad. Labels contribute to obesity. Still I disagree.
Just in case you are misunderstanding her, she isn't referring to the labels with nutrition information. She is referring to labeling things as good or bad or junky or crap, etc.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's just a label. Perhaps you are reading too much into it.
I disagree. It's labels like "clean," "guilt-free," "junk food," "healthy," etc., that make people so confused these days about nutrition and overeating. If people weren't thrown so many terms all the time about what they eat, and understood calories and how they relate to their bodies, people might not find it so difficult to eat in moderation.
Food is food, and I think that glamourizing and demonizing different types of foods is contributing to the obesity epidemic by overcomplicating things.
I disagree. Labels aren't making us fat.
Exactly. It's lack of knowledge or desire to learn what we need to do to take care of ourselves. This labeling is just yet another marketing ploy and we all need to be smart enough to see past it.
Yep.
This is basically what I said, yet you agree with her and disagree with me.
Starting to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
It is indeed a marketing ploy that overcomplicates nutrition. Nutrition is not complicated, and if the population would realize that instead of labeling foods as good or bad, we might could actually overcome this obesity "epidemic." Although it's really more of an ignorance epidemic, IMO.
*edit - changed him to her, I didn't see the original poster of the quoted response, sorry!
Arguing requires more than one person. I argue for the same reason as others.
You can't teach common sense with a label. Anyone that thinks "guilt free" on a label is nutrition information is not using commong sense.
What I meant was you are arguing with me and agreeing with someone else that is making the same point that I was making. Which is pointless.
And it may be common sense on MFP, but not if you look at the population as a whole. None of my Facebook friends has any clue about nutrition. They're always talking about the latest fad diets and pinning their disgusting cauliflower recipes and cheering each other on about how "good" they're being. They sell their wraps and peddle their shakes. It's ridiculous.
Labels do not literally make us fat, but they complicate things for the general, uneducated (about nutrition) populace. Which is why I and many others do not like them.
Maybe it's more of a case of placing blame? Some people blame the labels and the marketers for the general ignorance regarding nutrition, but I (and I believe Need2Exerc1se) blame the people who believe the labels and don't take the time to learn facts.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's just a label. Perhaps you are reading too much into it.
I disagree. It's labels like "clean," "guilt-free," "junk food," "healthy," etc., that make people so confused these days about nutrition and overeating. If people weren't thrown so many terms all the time about what they eat, and understood calories and how they relate to their bodies, people might not find it so difficult to eat in moderation.
Food is food, and I think that glamourizing and demonizing different types of foods is contributing to the obesity epidemic by overcomplicating things.
I disagree. Labels aren't making us fat.
Exactly. It's lack of knowledge or desire to learn what we need to do to take care of ourselves. This labeling is just yet another marketing ploy and we all need to be smart enough to see past it.
Yep.
This is basically what I said, yet you agree with her and disagree with me.
Starting to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
It is indeed a marketing ploy that overcomplicates nutrition. Nutrition is not complicated, and if the population would realize that instead of labeling foods as good or bad, we might could actually overcome this obesity "epidemic." Although it's really more of an ignorance epidemic, IMO.
*edit - changed him to her, I didn't see the original poster of the quoted response, sorry!
Arguing requires more than one person. I argue for the same reason as others.
You can't teach common sense with a label. Anyone that thinks "guilt free" on a label is nutrition information is not using commong sense.
What I meant was you are arguing with me and agreeing with someone else that is making the same point that I was making. Which is pointless.
Perhaps it's just the wording but I did not glean the same meaning from her post as yours. She seemed to be agreeing with me that labels weren't a cause of obesity, you seemed to be saying the opposite.
Nope. Never said they caused obesity.
I said they overcomplicate nutrition, which contributes to the ignorance of the population about nutrition, which contributes to obesity.
Oh my bad. Labels contribute to obesity. Still I disagree.
yea, that is not what she is saying..she is saying ignorance does...
or did you just gloss over that whole part?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's just a label. Perhaps you are reading too much into it.
I disagree. It's labels like "clean," "guilt-free," "junk food," "healthy," etc., that make people so confused these days about nutrition and overeating. If people weren't thrown so many terms all the time about what they eat, and understood calories and how they relate to their bodies, people might not find it so difficult to eat in moderation.
Food is food, and I think that glamourizing and demonizing different types of foods is contributing to the obesity epidemic by overcomplicating things.
I disagree. Labels aren't making us fat.
Exactly. It's lack of knowledge or desire to learn what we need to do to take care of ourselves. This labeling is just yet another marketing ploy and we all need to be smart enough to see past it.
Yep.
This is basically what I said, yet you agree with her and disagree with me.
Starting to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
It is indeed a marketing ploy that overcomplicates nutrition. Nutrition is not complicated, and if the population would realize that instead of labeling foods as good or bad, we might could actually overcome this obesity "epidemic." Although it's really more of an ignorance epidemic, IMO.
*edit - changed him to her, I didn't see the original poster of the quoted response, sorry!
Arguing requires more than one person. I argue for the same reason as others.
You can't teach common sense with a label. Anyone that thinks "guilt free" on a label is nutrition information is not using commong sense.
What I meant was you are arguing with me and agreeing with someone else that is making the same point that I was making. Which is pointless.
Perhaps it's just the wording but I did not glean the same meaning from her post as yours. She seemed to be agreeing with me that labels weren't a cause of obesity, you seemed to be saying the opposite.
Nope. Never said they caused obesity.
I said they overcomplicate nutrition, which contributes to the ignorance of the population about nutrition, which contributes to obesity.
Oh my bad. Labels contribute to obesity. Still I disagree.
yea, that is not what she is saying..she is saying ignorance does...
or did you just gloss over that whole part?0 -
I feel sorry to people who feel compelled to write open letters to a group of people who will never read the letter, or if they do, wouldn't give tow poops about it.
I'm sorry you wasted so much of your time writing it. I hope you can sleep a bit better tonight.0 -
I agree. Tying "guilt" to certain foods creates the idea that eating things you like is inherently bad and deserving of shame. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the concept of "guilt" in a nutritional context is directly aimed at people who are trying to make the best choices for them in order to achieve weight loss. That's what it seems like to me.
I don't see skinny or fit people being baited into the idea that they shouldn't eat foods that aren't "guilt free". Because there's no negative consequence for them when they eat oreos. Whereas it's assumed that a person carrying weight will hold on to it when they eat that oreo.
EVERYTHING in moderation! =w=0 -
lthames0810 wrote: »
I do, too, and that's why this whole thread is very confusing to me.
I like OP's intentions though.
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »I feel sorry to people who feel compelled to write open letters to a group of people who will never read the letter, or if they do, wouldn't give tow poops about it.
I'm sorry you wasted so much of your time writing it. I hope you can sleep a bit better tonight.
do you even irony?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions