What is "woo"
Replies
-
Thanks! Couldn't tell.
That's actually Ricardo Montalban. Great Carson clip!
Is that Robert Loggia next to Mr. Psychic Liar guy? So hard to tell because it's fuzzy.nakedraygun wrote: »A little history lesson here.
The term "woo" (if I recall correctly ) was originally coined by James Randi as woo-woo."James Randi is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). Randi began his career as a magician, but when he retired at age 60, he switched to investigating paranormal, occult, and supernatural claims, which he collectively calls "woo-woo." Although often referred to as a "debunker," Randi rejects that title owing to its perceived bias, instead describing himself as an "investigator". He has written about the paranormal, skepticism, and the history of magic. He was a frequent guest on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson and is occasionally featured on the television program Penn & Teller: *kitten*!."
Randi just recently retired from the organization which bares his name "The James Randi Educational Foundation." A big component of the JREF was to test paranormal claims by offering a million dollars to prove if you indeed possess any supernatural powers. Many tried, all failed.
His busting of the fraud Yuri Gellar and exposing cold reading for what is classic skepticism in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo
Randi is personal hero of mine, right up there with Carl Sagan.
He should've taken Yuri to his island and given him real psychic powers.
0 -
Thanks! Couldn't tell.
That's actually Ricardo Montalban. Great Carson clip!
Is that Robert Loggia next to Mr. Psychic Liar guy? So hard to tell because it's fuzzy.nakedraygun wrote: »A little history lesson here.
The term "woo" (if I recall correctly ) was originally coined by James Randi as woo-woo."James Randi is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). Randi began his career as a magician, but when he retired at age 60, he switched to investigating paranormal, occult, and supernatural claims, which he collectively calls "woo-woo." Although often referred to as a "debunker," Randi rejects that title owing to its perceived bias, instead describing himself as an "investigator". He has written about the paranormal, skepticism, and the history of magic. He was a frequent guest on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson and is occasionally featured on the television program Penn & Teller: *kitten*!."
Randi just recently retired from the organization which bares his name "The James Randi Educational Foundation." A big component of the JREF was to test paranormal claims by offering a million dollars to prove if you indeed possess any supernatural powers. Many tried, all failed.
His busting of the fraud Yuri Gellar and exposing cold reading for what is classic skepticism in action.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo
Randi is personal hero of mine, right up there with Carl Sagan.
He should've taken Yuri to his island and given him real psychic powers.
KHAAAAAAAAAAN0 -
Yes, he was that, too, lol.
Thanks! Couldn't tell.
That's actually Ricardo Montalban. Great Carson clip!
Is that Robert Loggia next to Mr. Psychic Liar guy? So hard to tell because it's fuzzy.nakedraygun wrote: »A little history lesson here.
The term "woo" (if I recall correctly ) was originally coined by James Randi as woo-woo."James Randi is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). Randi began his career as a magician, but when he retired at age 60, he switched to investigating paranormal, occult, and supernatural claims, which he collectively calls "woo-woo." Although often referred to as a "debunker," Randi rejects that title owing to its perceived bias, instead describing himself as an "investigator". He has written about the paranormal, skepticism, and the history of magic. He was a frequent guest on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson and is occasionally featured on the television program Penn & Teller: *kitten*!."
Randi just recently retired from the organization which bares his name "The James Randi Educational Foundation." A big component of the JREF was to test paranormal claims by offering a million dollars to prove if you indeed possess any supernatural powers. Many tried, all failed.
His busting of the fraud Yuri Gellar and exposing cold reading for what is classic skepticism in action.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo
Randi is personal hero of mine, right up there with Carl Sagan.
He should've taken Yuri to his island and given him real psychic powers.
KHAAAAAAAAAAN
And his car had "rich, Corinthian leather." Later, on Johnny Carson, he admitted that the car company made the name up, which most of America already knew, lol. But it sounded good, rolling off his tongue. Rich, Corinthian leather.
0 -
BurnWithBarn2015 wrote: »yeah and the big deal is your 100 gram of cooked rice (normally around 135ish calories) is now 50% less so about 62ish calories....but dont forget to calculate the tablespoon of coconut oil you added which is 117 calories.
A win win situation? ....right
It mixes your macros up a bit though lol.0 -
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.0 -
It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The euphemism treadmill?
0 -
.0
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »If it was meant to inform, they'd use informative words like dangerous, harmful or misleading. They don't use those words.
Personally if I'm going to describe something as woo, using one of those alternatives would lend it far more credence than it deserves.
Where something is unsubstantiated bollocks nonsense then sometimes ridiculing the information is an entirely appropriate response.
When discussing topics, I like to remain civil and void the use of poorly understood and very subjective words. Objective words get the point across without unnecessary belittling of people's legitimate questions. If a person can't use grown up words to have an adult discussion, then they should just avoid having conversations with other adults.
And in what world does saying something is dangerous lend credence to it? The next time I'm waking on a street where there's construction, I'm going to hope the warning signs say woo because saying danger doesn't lend enough credence to the situation.0 -
The sad thing is that some people are too unwilling to let go of their scientifically devoid and debunked positions ... aka woo ... that they are incapable of feeling shame for buying into such concepts.0
-
nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
Are you suggesting we use Patton Oswald as our guide for proper forum etiquette?0 -
It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.0 -
It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.
Mocking flawed concept is not the same as mocking a person who should be able to learn and grow beyond believing in mock-worthy concepts.0 -
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.
Mocking flawed concept is not the same as mocking a person who should be able to learn and grow beyond believing in mock-worthy concepts.
I agree with you on your latter point but we should also be able to grow beyond believing that pop culture words should be used in adult conversations. I can see sparkpeople using it but anyone over 18 should use words with non subjective meanings that everyone can understand without having to start threads to ask what it means. Or is Urban Dictionary now our go to for words meant to relay information and guidance in these factual discussions?0 -
nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
Personal attacks are not appreciated and will be summarily ignored.
Note to self: nakedraygun is not to be taken seriously anymore becuase he/she is incapable of having a discussion without falling back to personal attacks. It's probably why he/she is championing the use of the word woo.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The problem with "woo" is not just that it's subjective (and as pointed out earlier, not always correct in the case of vindicated folk knowledge) but that it's invariably used as a sneer word. It's a passive-aggressive way to denigrate someone without ending up with jail bars on your avatar.
It's not productive either, because no one who's laboured under bad science or misinformation was ever helped by being mocked. It generally has the opposite effect -- of driving them further into a defensive pose which renders them harder to reach out to and help.
("Derp" on the other hand originated with South Park and yes, is pretty common as gamer slang for any dumb move that gets one's self killed. It's just the successor to the older "D'oh" (ex of The Simpsons) which is now largely passé.)0 -
nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
How is Brower47 not being rational? Please explain using your superior analytical skills. I'm always in awe of you science-y folks
0 -
It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.
That poster said it was to mock. I said otherwise. I also apologized. No one apologized for using words that I don't understand in an attempt to make me and make me feel stupid. However, I am sure that is because I don't matter. I'm used to that. Don't take it personally or feel the need to consider my feelings. They are not important.
Everyone's feelings are important. That's why we should try to be as inclusive as possible with our word choice along with using the most concise words available to us. I'm sorry you felt that way. You do matter, very much so.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
The word is not used to shame others, nor it is a way to be mean spirited. I am sorry you took it that way. I will apologize then and attempt to never use it when I see your username around.
I don't even know what sipsy means. I am wondering if that word was used to shame me in a mean spirited way. I sure hope not, but now I am not so sure. Now I feel shamed.
It's intended to mock as another supporter of that word stated outright.
That poster said it was to mock. I said otherwise. I also apologized. No one apologized for using words that I don't understand in an attempt to make me and make me feel stupid. However, I am sure that is because I don't matter. I'm used to that. Don't take it personally or feel the need to consider my feelings. They are not important.
Everyone's feelings are important. That's why we should try to be as inclusive as possible with our word choice along with using the most concise words available to us. I'm sorry you felt that way. You do matter, very much so.
Woo seems concise and inclusive. One word so short and yet able to cover so many people and so many cases.
It seems so many people are ready to be snarky with very little.
Perhaps, Pollyanna, you expect the best out of people.
0 -
Whereas words like "derp" and "broscience" are the hallmark of genius?nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.0 -
Whereas words like "derp" and "broscience" are the hallmark of genius?nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
Are you trying to insult people who use them? How ironic.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »If it was meant to inform, they'd use informative words like dangerous, harmful or misleading. They don't use those words.
Personally if I'm going to describe something as woo, using one of those alternatives would lend it far more credence than it deserves.
Where something is unsubstantiated bollocks nonsense then sometimes ridiculing the information is an entirely appropriate response.
When discussing topics, I like to remain civil and void the use of poorly understood and very subjective words. Objective words get the point across without unnecessary belittling of people's legitimate questions. If a person can't use grown up words to have an adult discussion, then they should just avoid having conversations with other adults.
And in what world does saying something is dangerous lend credence to it? The next time I'm waking on a street where there's construction, I'm going to hope the warning signs say woo because saying danger doesn't lend enough credence to the situation.
Right?! When I see the word derp and woo used by adults....yikes. Especially derp......Lol.
I don't know (don't keep up with it) but maybe they have been declared...scientific words.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
Are you suggesting we use Patton Oswald as our guide for proper forum etiquette?
No, I'm suggesting arrogant jerks sometimes say things that make sense:)0 -
Nope. I don't have to make fun of them. I don't have to make fun of anyone.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Whereas words like "derp" and "broscience" are the hallmark of genius?nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
Are you trying to insult people who use them? How ironic.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what point that person is making, because for the life of me, I cannot.
Does he really think that the woman suggesting that more "adult" words be employed is foolish (or "irrational") because "derp" and "broscience" are the kind of words that smart people use when having interesting conversations?
Does anyone think that?
I really don't know. It would appear so, but I need clarification.0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
How is Brower47 not being rational? Please explain using your superior analytical skills. I'm always in awe of you science-y folks
Where woo is called an attack, blatant condescending attitude towards "science-y" posters is perfectly acceptable I assume?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions