City of Davis to institute new ordinance on soda "ban" with kid's meals
Replies
-
Ugh. This sucks. The nanny state is not the answer! Education and making healthy options more attractive is the answer. Anyone remember the deal with prohibition, with alcohol? See how well that worked? *shakes head* I am very sick of govt intruding into our personal lives at every possible level. >:(0
-
jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
I see parents all the time buying large sodas for their kids (and toddlers!) and they just sit there slurping down probably all the calories they need in a day.
I think teaching kids to drink water (and even milk) will help them in the long run. My son will ask for water before anything else. When we go out, he would choose a banana as a treat over doughnuts or cookies any day.
We give them the tools (or take the bad stuff out of the forefront) and it will help them learn healthy habits for the future!
We rarely buy juice at home and only buy soda when someone has a stomachache (ginger ale etc). My kids nearly exclusively drink water. The only times they get a soda is one occasion when they eat out. While soda is obviously high sugar, you don't know if the kids you are seeing are only having their once a quarter treat. My kids are not overweight and are active. I love the sweets and so do they, but they eat a full variety of fruits and veggies so I'm not too worried. We are doing our best to teach them about moderation. Honestly binging on fruit and binging on junk are both bad things to do, so I figure it's best to train then to have healthy attitudes about food.
That being said, I am okay with the ban. Obesity is expensive for society and the government down the road. Obviously many parents aren't doing what they need to, so these kinds of rules get passed.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »How many of you if favor of this support the government saying what YOU can order as a default option?
Why would I care what the "default" option is. I'm wondering if you understand what the word "option" means?
Nice failure to answer the question. It's amazing how supportive people are of infringement on freedoms when they aren't inconvenienced while failing to see the impact on all of society.-1 -
When will they make boiled skinless chicken breast with steamed, unsalted, unbuttered vegetables the default option for kids' meals? Or are they allowed to have fried chicken tenders and french fries because "it's just a treat now and then"?
Yet, it's clearly the soda that is the problem...0 -
It's an actual NEW ordinance not done anywhere else right now, so it's actually a good discussion.I'm in favor of the ordinance, and get a little frustrated when people react as though it's some horrible example of government over-reach. Decisions focused on public health are sensitive, for sure, but this one is a good example of a helpful one. Parents still have complete autonomy over deciding what they want to purchase for their child.
I'm also not a fan of starting a thread like this, really, as it just seems like flame-bait that can easily transition into the sort of political debate that I thought was discouraged on these boards. What's the purpose of the thread?
But I'm new here, so maybe I'm off-base.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »How many of you if favor of this support the government saying what YOU can order as a default option?
Why would I care what the "default" option is. I'm wondering if you understand what the word "option" means?
Nice failure to answer the question. It's amazing how supportive people are of infringement on freedoms when they aren't inconvenienced while failing to see the impact on all of society.
Having to ask for something is not an infringement on your freedom. Not being allowed to vote - that's an infringement. You act like they're banning pop. All they've done is changed the order process from:
What kind of drink with that?
Coke
to
Water, milk or juice?
Coke
Yeah, major lose of personal freedoms there.0 -
Ah, but pipe smoking and cigar smoking increased according to CDC.
My bad, I left out the word "on" after work.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Lol, that's done a lot to reduce the use of alcohol, gas and cigarettes right?Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Probably not the example you wanted to use. Smoking has dropped exponentially since tax hikes started piling on. A pack of cigarettes these days costs close to what a carton was 30 years ago.The largest changes occurred from 2008 to 2011, when roll-your-own consumption decreased from 10.7 billion to 2.6 billion (a 75.7% decrease), whereas pipe tobacco consumption increased from 2.6 billion to 17.5 billion (a 573.1% increase).
Substantial changes also were observed in consumption of small cigars† and large cigars (Figure 1). From 2000 to 2011, consumption of small cigars decreased 65.0%, whereas large cigar consumption increased 233.1% (Table 2). The largest changes occurred from 2008 to 2011, when small cigar consumption decreased from 5.9 billion to 0.8 billion (an 86.4% decrease), whereas large cigar consumption increased from 5.7 billion to 12.9 billion (a 126.3% increase).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6130a1.htm
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »How many of you if favor of this support the government saying what YOU can order as a default option?
Why would I care what the "default" option is. I'm wondering if you understand what the word "option" means?
Nice failure to answer the question. It's amazing how supportive people are of infringement on freedoms when they aren't inconvenienced while failing to see the impact on all of society.
Having to ask for something is not an infringement on your freedom. Not being allowed to vote - that's an infringement. You act like they're banning pop. All they've done is changed the order process from:
What kind of drink with that?
Coke
to
Water, milk or juice?
Coke
Yeah, major lose of personal freedoms there.
When the government starts using the word "ban" it is an impending infringement.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »A lot of people's regular, everyday meals are fast food these days. There's nothing wrong with having milk and water be the default, easier option.
The food culture in America clearly needs to change and this is a small step in that direction -- we need a new normal.
This is basically how I feel.
On the whole, I don't think it's going to do any good, but I also can't see any possible harm from regulating what is in essence marketing aimed at children, which we already do anyway.
I agree completely. Marketing aimed at children has always been a special category...as it should be.
The parent can still order anything they want for the child. This can't hurt, and there is at least the possibility, even if small, of it being helpful. Childhood obesity rates are out of control.0 -
Or it gives them a good reason to go out on their own. Kids do that you know.Jaxxie1181 wrote: »Lol, and you don't think that today's kids today won't ride a bike or drive a car outside the city limits to be able to buy one? Do you have kids?
If a kid is going to be so desperate for a soda that they'll take public transit to the next city over to buy one, then clearly an ordinance like this is needed.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
I agree with the 'junk/sin tax'! It might help pay for the health care needed eventually for those that have lived unhealthy lives and now 'eat up' - no pun intended - all our health care resources as they become sick as they age.
Also, 'crap food' as suggested should be more expensive - if government wants to become involved, I say they should subsidize farmers - organic would be great! Also, offer those individuals who are living healthy lives tax incentives/benefits - have supplements, etc., a part of health plans, etc.,
Um, our government already heavily subsidizes the farming industry-look into the Farm Bill, the newest one which was signed by President Obama last year. Interestingly, two of the biggest subsidized crops are corn and soy, which are a couple of the main ingredients in so much of the 'processed junk' food out there
Yes. I'd say we should just stop ag subsidies entirely, but that would be political! ;-)
I'd agree with that. Farm subsidies of any type are a terrible idea and should go.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »How many of you if favor of this support the government saying what YOU can order as a default option?
Why would I care what the "default" option is. I'm wondering if you understand what the word "option" means?
Nice failure to answer the question. It's amazing how supportive people are of infringement on freedoms when they aren't inconvenienced while failing to see the impact on all of society.
Having to ask for something is not an infringement on your freedom. Not being allowed to vote - that's an infringement. You act like they're banning pop. All they've done is changed the order process from:
What kind of drink with that?
Coke
to
Water, milk or juice?
Coke
Yeah, major lose of personal freedoms there.
When the government starts using the word "ban" it is an impending infringement.
No government entity used the word "ban." The clickbait reporter who wrote the article in the OP, which is summarizing another article from another source, used the word "ban." The actual ordinance doesn't call it a ban on anything.
http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20150526/07-Kids-Meal-Beverages.pdf0 -
So you can't give a kid soda, but can ply them full of chicken nuggets or McYuck burgers? I'm not really seeing much of a distinction re: 'healthy choices.' But that doesn't mean government should take on the role of surrogate parent and make decisions like this. What's next, being jailed for buying your kid ice cream instead of low fat frozen yogurt?0
-
buffveganme wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
I agree with the 'junk/sin tax'! It might help pay for the health care needed eventually for those that have lived unhealthy lives and now 'eat up' - no pun intended - all our health care resources as they become sick as they age.
Also, 'crap food' as suggested should be more expensive - if government wants to become involved, I say they should subsidize farmers - organic would be great! Also, offer those individuals who are living healthy lives tax incentives/benefits - have supplements, etc., a part of health plans, etc.,
In other words...force people to eat what you think they should be eating?
Many people buy what they can afford...sometimes that might be what you consider "crap food".
I have had times in my life that all I could afford were some boxes of macaroni and cheese...1lb of bologna...buy one get one free packages of hotdogs. If they had of put a tax on those foods because someone called them "crap food" I would not have even been able to afford them.
0 -
The cigarette tax has done nothing to reduce lung cancer.buffveganme wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
I agree with the 'junk/sin tax'! It might help pay for the health care needed eventually for those that have lived unhealthy lives and now 'eat up' - no pun intended - all our health care resources as they become sick as they age.
Also, 'crap food' as suggested should be more expensive - if government wants to become involved, I say they should subsidize farmers - organic would be great! Also, offer those individuals who are living healthy lives tax incentives/benefits - have supplements, etc., a part of health plans, etc.,The number of deaths due to lung cancer has increased approximately 3.5 percent between 1999 and 2012 from 152,156 to 157,499. The number of deaths among men has reached a plateau but the number is still rising among women. In 2012, there were 86,740 deaths due to lung cancer in men and 70,759 in women.
http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html
And raising the price of "crap food" isn't going to reduce the price of organic food.
I live a healthy life eating "crap food". I haven't been sick for 4 years (good for my employer). I don't go to the hospital except for yearly checkups. Yet I know people who eat "healthy" and are in the hospital every couple of months for some malady or another.
And supplements have more contamination that the majority of "crap" foods out there since they aren't regulated by the FDA.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Or it gives them a good reason to go out on their own. Kids do that you know.Jaxxie1181 wrote: »Lol, and you don't think that today's kids today won't ride a bike or drive a car outside the city limits to be able to buy one? Do you have kids?
If a kid is going to be so desperate for a soda that they'll take public transit to the next city over to buy one, then clearly an ordinance like this is needed.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
They also have a tendency to want what is forbidden. Yes...I know that their parents can buy it for them but when you make it appear as if something is "bad"...they want it all the more.
All we hear is how we want less involvement by the government...until they happen to do something that agrees with ones personal opinion.
0 -
Due to bad parenting. Kids don't pay for groceries. Obese kids usually follow the eating pattern of their parents or are ALLOWED to eat as much as they want.MoiAussi93 wrote: »Childhood obesity rates are out of control.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
Well since childhood obesity is run rampant, many parents don't do anything about it and the government is paying over 50% of healthcare costs.
How about a $.05 per ounce tax on pop, mandated to go to healthcare? Wonder how many people would buy the 64 oz bladder buster at $4.50 vs $.99?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »It's ridiculous. Dad, do you want water or milk with your happy meal for junior? Soda! Okay.
They're passing a law so they look like they're doing something, but you can still order the soda. The parents still, as they should, have the choice.
Context. No one knows if junior is getting milk every other time and this time soda is a treat or what. This is not a matter for laws to decide.
It's actually about changing the defaults. That does affect peoples behaviors. The idea is to make the default option the healthier option. I agree that soda shouldn't be banned, but I don't see a problem with this particular policy.
That's not a government decision. That's a decision that should be market-driven.
Why, other than ideological preference?0 -
They did this with gas and tobacco products. Adding "sin" tax does little to deter usage. Obesity is an issue due to lack of concern at HOW MUCH someone is consuming. Not just WHAT someone is consuming. There are lots and lots of healthy people who consume sugared drinks within a decent calorie amount. There are sugared teas, juices, coffee, etc. that don't fall under the same scrutiny as soda, yet yield some of the same amounts in grams.Packerjohn wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
Well since childhood obesity is run rampant, many parents don't do anything about it and the government is paying over 50% of healthcare costs.
How about a $.05 per ounce tax on pop, mandated to go to healthcare? Wonder how many people would buy the 64 oz bladder buster at $4.50 vs $.99?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
FWIW I think this is totally a step in the right direction.
All a person has to do to be a parent is make an error of omission on a single night. Don't tell me they're all living up to idealized moral and educational obligations as guardians. Did anyone see the video of the woman swinging an infant (must have been less than 6 months old) around a washtub like a piece of cloth?
The gov't here is arriving at a way of helping kids of less than thoughtful parents. Good for the gov't and good for those kids.0 -
Government going to government.0
-
fricking ridiculous !0
-
gertudejekyl wrote: »fricking ridiculous !
We can say that however they are just doing what they think will get them elected. We are sheep and vote for incumbents and fall for fear mongering.0 -
So no, the government shouldn't "ban" food choices. But how much of a ban is this, its still readily available for anyone who wants to get it for their kid. They just have to specifically ask for it after they are given the "more preferable" options first. I don't see how that is much different than a lot of other things stores and advertising agencies can do to you. Just the other day I had to get my oil changed and the mechanic gave me the more expensive premium option first. I had to tell him "no thank you, I'll take the regular cheap stuff". It really wasn't much of an inconvenience for me. But wasn't he kind of doing the same thing, giving me the option his company would prefer I pick first? Except that wasn't for my health or well being, it was so he can make more money off of me...0
-
They did this with gas and tobacco products. Adding "sin" tax does little to deter usage. Obesity is an issue due to lack of concern at HOW MUCH someone is consuming. Not just WHAT someone is consuming. There are lots and lots of healthy people who consume sugared drinks within a decent calorie amount. There are sugared teas, juices, coffee, etc. that don't fall under the same scrutiny as soda, yet yield some of the same amounts in grams.Packerjohn wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
Well since childhood obesity is run rampant, many parents don't do anything about it and the government is paying over 50% of healthcare costs.
How about a $.05 per ounce tax on pop, mandated to go to healthcare? Wonder how many people would buy the 64 oz bladder buster at $4.50 vs $.99?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Talk to someone who works in the auto industry about what happens to sales of pick ups and large SUVs vs small cars when the price of gas is over $4 a gallon vs $2.50. Ask them if the price of gas deters usage. BTW, would personally have no problem with a similar tax on the other sugared items mentioned.
0 -
jesikalovesyou wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
So you're educating him on better options right?I see parents all the time buying large sodas for their kids (and toddlers!) and they just sit there slurping down probably all the calories they need in a day.
I think teaching kids to drink water (and even milk) will help them in the long run. My son will ask for water before anything else. When we go out, he would choose a banana as a treat over doughnuts or cookies any day.
So if we ban drugs and alcohol or keep them away from kids, that's a for sure way to ensure they don't engage in either?We give them the tools (or take the bad stuff out of the forefront) and it will help them learn healthy habits for the future!
Education is more important than banning. Lots and lots of kids who become legal adults at 18 engage in activities/food/behaviors that they weren't allowed to do under too strict a rule.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah. My parents didn't educate me on healthy eating habits. They fed us terrible food and didn't tell us what was good for us.
My parents were drug addicts and alcoholics. When they got clean, they made sure that we weren't doing any drugs whatsoever. Yes. It is easier for the parents to teach the kids if they aren't bombarded with the terrible stuff. I never saw people doing drugs or drinking at all growing up, so it was easier to not do drugs or drink.
In Japan, they give water with your meal. Unless it is a chain (like McDonald's), you will automatically get a glass of water. Getting soda or juice isn't a thing. You have to specially request it if it is that important to you. I feel they are doing it right.
Am I missing something? Every restaurant I've been to, with the exception of fast food places, serves water by default. Just like Japan. I find it annoying because I hate drinking water and the extra glasses clutter up the table. Only difference is the waitstaff then ask if I want something else to drink.
Anywho, yes it's overreach. If the government wants to put in their 2 cents, let them fund infomercials and the like to educate. That's within their purview. Otherwise they can butt out.
I'm not saying they bring you water with your drink. They only bring water, nothing else. If you want a different kind of drink, you have to order it. They don't ask.0 -
The PARENT should be making the prominent option, not the government. When I order a kids meal for my kid, I order milk for her instead of soda. But again, that's the option I make based on common sense.
Telling businesses how and what they can and can't advertise (and fining them for it if not compliant) shouldn't be the governments job.
My belief is this is just a step to an eventual "sin" tax on sugared items.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Um, that's exactly one of those roles of government: To regulate trade....0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
I agree with the 'junk/sin tax'! It might help pay for the health care needed eventually for those that have lived unhealthy lives and now 'eat up' - no pun intended - all our health care resources as they become sick as they age.
Also, 'crap food' as suggested should be more expensive - if government wants to become involved, I say they should subsidize farmers - organic would be great! Also, offer those individuals who are living healthy lives tax incentives/benefits - have supplements, etc., a part of health plans, etc.,
Um, our government already heavily subsidizes the farming industry-look into the Farm Bill, the newest one which was signed by President Obama last year. Interestingly, two of the biggest subsidized crops are corn and soy, which are a couple of the main ingredients in so much of the 'processed junk' food out there
Absolutely! USDA policies favor the production of commodity crops that are now lucrative on global markets, including corn, soy, cotton, wheat, rice and oats.
I believe in the US your policies discourage farmers from growing fruits and vegetables. For example, farmers who grow crops such as corn and soy are not eligible for subsidies if they also grow fruits and vegetables on the same land.
0 -
buffveganme wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
I agree with the 'junk/sin tax'! It might help pay for the health care needed eventually for those that have lived unhealthy lives and now 'eat up' - no pun intended - all our health care resources as they become sick as they age.
Also, 'crap food' as suggested should be more expensive - if government wants to become involved, I say they should subsidize farmers - organic would be great! Also, offer those individuals who are living healthy lives tax incentives/benefits - have supplements, etc., a part of health plans, etc.,
What if I told you I do get an incentive on my medical deductables for being healthy, and being healthy includes eating out a few times per week, with some sodas and beers mixed in.
That's great - you must live outside Canada? I wish I had the same! Families with children can currently deduct their 'physical activity sport' expense on their taxes, but there is nothing in place for 'healthy eating' or for individuals. Our government will not allow one to claim supplements, etc.,
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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