The Clean Eating Delusion...
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
you can manipulate context to make nearly any food "good" or "bad".
Is that a random thought, or is that what you were attempting to say originally?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/
...The economic logic behind the feedlot system is hard to refute. And yet so is the ecological logic behind a ruminant grazing on grass. Think what would happen if we restored a portion of the Corn Belt to the tall grass prairie it once was and grazed cattle on it. No more petrochemical fertilizer, no more herbicide, no more nitrogen runoff. Yes, beef would probably be more expensive than it is now, but would that necessarily be a bad thing? Eating beef every day might not be such a smart idea anyway—for our health, for the environment. And how cheap, really, is cheap feedlot beef? Not cheap at all, when you add in the invisible costs: of antibiotic resistance, environmental degradation, heart disease, E. coli poisoning, corn subsidies, imported oil and so on. All these are costs that grass-fed beef does not incur.
...Meat-eating may have become an act riddled with moral and ethical ambiguities, but eating a steak at the end of a short, primordial food chain comprising nothing more than ruminants and grass and light is something I’m happy to do and defend. We are what we eat, it is often said, but of course that’s only part of the story. We are what what we eat eats too.
Pollan's sentiments are quaint and may be feasible if we all still lived in small villages with local ranchers, lots of open land and a limited population to feed. The problem is, we're too overpopulated and overbuilt for that model to be practical.
I agree that the world would have to eat less red meat for grazing cattle to work.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.0 -
I do not eat organic or gluten-free unless it actually saves me money which in most cases it does not. I think the science showing organic to be superior to GMO foods is dubious and has a long way to go to make their case. Sadly, the masses have bought it as established fact. This is just not the case. Save yourselves some money and buy some GMO food. Your wallet will thank you and your body won't know the difference.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
In proper context and dosage, they're not. But that's another 60 page thread.
But no, that's not what I meant. What I meant is that an organic tomato is no better for me than a "non-organic" tomato.
Organic or "clean" or non-GMO doesn't make it a better food. It only makes it a food that fits one's preference0 -
I do not eat organic or gluten-free unless it actually saves me money which in most cases it does not. I think the science showing organic to be superior to GMO foods is dubious and has a long way to go to make their case. Sadly, the masses have bought it as established fact. This is just not the case. Save yourselves some money and buy some GMO food. Your wallet will thank you and your body won't know the difference.
Agreed. I just eat mostly from non-organic meat, eggs and produce with some frozen things. I'm doing fine and I save money as best I can. No need to eat gluten-free treats when everything you eat is a gluten-free treat.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false
I was more addressing the part after that "but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...".
What are you saying there if not that people don't try to lose weight because they think they can't afford to?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Yet everyday there's a new thread asking "will the chemicals in my diet soda make me fat?" or "I read an article that the chemicals in processed foods are bad for me. What are some non-processed snacks?"0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false
I was more addressing the part after that "but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...".
What are you saying there if not that people don't try to lose weight because they think they can't afford to?
It's not my quote so I'm not saying anything. But I have heard/read all kinds of people saying that they "can't afford to eat healthy."
ETA: which I believe is the argument they were making: the constant inundation of bad information claiming that you have to eat clean or organic in order to be healthy has led all kinds of people to think that they can't eat healthy on regular food. Thus they look at the prices of organic, free-range, non-GMO foods and declare "I can't afford to eat healthy."
And yes, that is a real thing.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false
thats called selective reading...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false
I was more addressing the part after that "but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...".
What are you saying there if not that people don't try to lose weight because they think they can't afford to?
I've seen plenty of people saying things along the lines of "I tried to lose weight but all that healthy food is making me poor."0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
LOL just read through the threads on here and you will see the majority fearing those evil chemicals...
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Yet everyday there's a new thread asking "will the chemicals in my diet soda make me fat?" or "I read an article that the chemicals in processed foods are bad for me. What are some non-processed snacks?"
I said "everyone". You can find someone that believes just about anything. People are strange.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false
I was more addressing the part after that "but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...".
What are you saying there if not that people don't try to lose weight because they think they can't afford to?
I've seen plenty of people saying things along the lines of "I tried to lose weight but all that healthy food is making me poor."
I was watching something on tv where the people basically said "we really can't afford organic, but we make sacrifices elsewhere so that we can buy organic"0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
LOL just read through the threads on here and you will see the majority fearing those evil chemicals...
Yet when I read through this thread I would think the opposite.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Yet everyday there's a new thread asking "will the chemicals in my diet soda make me fat?" or "I read an article that the chemicals in processed foods are bad for me. What are some non-processed snacks?"
I said "everyone". You can find someone that believes just about anything. People are strange.
Maybe not everyone (because I'm part of everyone) but it is a staggering majority.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions