Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Does anyone else find this creepy?
Replies
-
aqsylvester wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »That link states 150 calorie increase in sugar, not 150 calories of soda. Soda was used as an approximate reference.
You're implying there is a difference between 150 calories of sugar and 150 calories of soda?
Sorry, no. I didn't type that properly. I was trying to make the point that Bane made about the study looking at the availability of sugar, not a consumption of 1 can of soda. I worded it poorly. My bad.
Yes, They looked at sugar availability, not sugar consumption, and still found a statistically significant variation in diabetes rates independent of other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. Sounds pretty impressive to me, but I guess they made big mistake there. If only someone had just told them! Doh.
So, you admit that the study didn't actually measure sugar consumption? Then why are you asking people about their soda consumption?1 -
tincanonastring wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »That link states 150 calorie increase in sugar, not 150 calories of soda. Soda was used as an approximate reference.
You're implying there is a difference between 150 calories of sugar and 150 calories of soda?
Sorry, no. I didn't type that properly. I was trying to make the point that Bane made about the study looking at the availability of sugar, not a consumption of 1 can of soda. I worded it poorly. My bad.
Yes, They looked at sugar availability, not sugar consumption, and still found a statistically significant variation in diabetes rates independent of other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. Sounds pretty impressive to me, but I guess they made big mistake there. If only someone had just told them! Doh.
So, you admit that the study didn't actually measure sugar consumption?
Um, yes, you can read the abstract too, I assume.0 -
Nope. I don't find it creepy but maybe our definitions of creepy are different.3
-
When you say "from time to time", is that including if one is choosing to do it every single day, 365 days a year?Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
1 -
Question, would you be comfortable adding 150 cal of honey into your diet?2
-
aqsylvester wrote: »Has anyone else seen this on the soda fridges in stores?
I've seen this "PSA" several times lately while out getting groceries, and I'm just creeped out. I looked it up... they've been funding research and trying to turn public opinion toward exercise as more important than diet in the current obesity epidemic. Since when do Coca Cola and Pepsi unite in concern over consumers' health?
Sorry, guys, but it's clear what you really care about: sales and PROFIT. If you get people to believe the myth that liquid sugar is just a few harmless "extra calories" they need to burn off (not that, for one thing, it independently raises one's risk of diabetes by 11 fold compared to an increase in calories from any other source), you can keep uneducated consumers buying and drinking. Please, just get your nose out of health, nutrition, and research. It's so unscrupulous.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
It's not a PSA, it's an advertisement. Ads should be ignored. Ads are not your friends. The information they present is biased. Their purpose is to help convince you to part with your money, sometimes its worthwhile and other times it's not, but in either case it's not an unbiased source of information.0 -
Not sure why it would be "creepy" given it's the premise on which MFP is based it's probably viewed as perfectly rational here.
This. That sticker says "Balance" and that's the most sound advice ever, regardless of their motivation. Moderation in all things. Calories in vs calories out for weight loss,and no - it doesn't matter where those calories come from.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »My point was the other risk factors - overweight, sedentary, family history, high cholesterol/triglycerides, hypertension, ethnicity - play a larger part than consuming soda/sugar in moderate amounts.
You have to look at the context of someone's diet and lifestyle as a whole. You can't blame one thing.
Also this. Example: my mom never drinks soda is overweight and got the diabetes; my dad drinks almost a liter (of full calorie pepsi) a day is borderline underweight and doesn't have diabetes. If soda itself caused obesity and diabetes that would be the other way around.1 -
AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.4 -
The only problem is that it isn't clear whether "balance" means that people should or should not consume a bottle of soda, or whether or not they should choose 0 calorie diet soda instead. The sign is just for awareness, but prompts each consumer to determine what that means within the context of his/her personal circumstances. How is that a bad thing?2
-
NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Has anyone else seen this on the soda fridges in stores?
I've seen this "PSA" several times lately while out getting groceries, and I'm just creeped out. I looked it up... they've been funding research and trying to turn public opinion toward exercise as more important than diet in the current obesity epidemic. Since when do Coca Cola and Pepsi unite in concern over consumers' health?
Sorry, guys, but it's clear what you really care about: sales and PROFIT. If you get people to believe the myth that liquid sugar is just a few harmless "extra calories" they need to burn off (not that, for one thing, it independently raises one's risk of diabetes by 11 fold compared to an increase in calories from any other source), you can keep uneducated consumers buying and drinking. Please, just get your nose out of health, nutrition, and research. It's so unscrupulous.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
It's not a PSA, it's an advertisement. Ads should be ignored. Ads are not your friends. The information they present is biased. Their purpose is to help convince you to part with your money, sometimes its worthwhile and other times it's not, but in either case it's not an unbiased source of information.
Yeah, I totally see it as an advertisement as well. Confused as to why someone would think this is some sort of non-biased educational notice?1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
When you say "from time to time", is that including if one is choosing to do it every single day, 365 days a year?Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
It would depend on the person's overall diet and lifestyle. For me, with a calorie goal of about 1600 to lose weight, I prefer not to drink my calories, so moderation for me might be one regular soda per month (though I drink diet soda quite often).
A fit and active male with plenty of LBM who maintains on 3,000 calories and rides their bike 50 miles per day could probably have one a day and it would still be "in moderation."
Context matters.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Has anyone else seen this on the soda fridges in stores?
I've seen this "PSA" several times lately while out getting groceries, and I'm just creeped out. I looked it up... they've been funding research and trying to turn public opinion toward exercise as more important than diet in the current obesity epidemic. Since when do Coca Cola and Pepsi unite in concern over consumers' health?
Sorry, guys, but it's clear what you really care about: sales and PROFIT. If you get people to believe the myth that liquid sugar is just a few harmless "extra calories" they need to burn off (not that, for one thing, it independently raises one's risk of diabetes by 11 fold compared to an increase in calories from any other source), you can keep uneducated consumers buying and drinking. Please, just get your nose out of health, nutrition, and research. It's so unscrupulous.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
It's not a PSA, it's an advertisement. Ads should be ignored. Ads are not your friends. The information they present is biased. Their purpose is to help convince you to part with your money, sometimes its worthwhile and other times it's not, but in either case it's not an unbiased source of information.
It's an advertisement modeled as advice. Not everyone is paying attention enough to understand the underlying misinformation here. The average consumer is the one who gets hurt.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Big food is responsible to CICO? I thought that was big science.5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Big food is responsible to CICO? I thought that was big science.
Um, ok, now I'm confused. Maybe check out who funded the science you speak of?1 -
scorpiophoenix wrote: »Not sure why it would be "creepy" given it's the premise on which MFP is based it's probably viewed as perfectly rational here.
This. That sticker says "Balance" and that's the most sound advice ever, regardless of their motivation. Moderation in all things. Calories in vs calories out for weight loss,and no - it doesn't matter where those calories come from.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »My point was the other risk factors - overweight, sedentary, family history, high cholesterol/triglycerides, hypertension, ethnicity - play a larger part than consuming soda/sugar in moderate amounts.
You have to look at the context of someone's diet and lifestyle as a whole. You can't blame one thing.
Also this. Example: my mom never drinks soda is overweight and got the diabetes; my dad drinks almost a liter (of full calorie pepsi) a day is borderline underweight and doesn't have diabetes. If soda itself caused obesity and diabetes that would be the other way around.
Terrible analogy, millions of people go outside in the sun every day, some get skin cancer. Yet, you are still told to watch the suns rays and use sunscreen even though not all the millions get it. Same thing for smoking, some people smoke 5 packs a day for 20 years no lung cancer, some smoke for 2 years and get it. Just because it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it's not dangerous or could be.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?
And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?1 -
This content has been removed.
-
scorpiophoenix wrote: »Not sure why it would be "creepy" given it's the premise on which MFP is based it's probably viewed as perfectly rational here.
This. That sticker says "Balance" and that's the most sound advice ever, regardless of their motivation. Moderation in all things. Calories in vs calories out for weight loss,and no - it doesn't matter where those calories come from.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »My point was the other risk factors - overweight, sedentary, family history, high cholesterol/triglycerides, hypertension, ethnicity - play a larger part than consuming soda/sugar in moderate amounts.
You have to look at the context of someone's diet and lifestyle as a whole. You can't blame one thing.
Also this. Example: my mom never drinks soda is overweight and got the diabetes; my dad drinks almost a liter (of full calorie pepsi) a day is borderline underweight and doesn't have diabetes. If soda itself caused obesity and diabetes that would be the other way around.
Terrible analogy, millions of people go outside in the sun every day, some get skin cancer. Yet, you are still told to watch the suns raise and use sunscreen even though not all the millions get it. Same thing for smoking, some people smoke 5 packs a day for 20 years no lung cancer, some smoke for 2 years and get it. Just because it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it's not dangerous.
Exactly, anecdotal evidence is the worst and lowest form of evidence... yet somehow creates the biggest cognitive biases.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Again, the "all calories are equal" notion is being misconstrued.
9 -
aqsylvester wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Has anyone else seen this on the soda fridges in stores?
I've seen this "PSA" several times lately while out getting groceries, and I'm just creeped out. I looked it up... they've been funding research and trying to turn public opinion toward exercise as more important than diet in the current obesity epidemic. Since when do Coca Cola and Pepsi unite in concern over consumers' health?
Sorry, guys, but it's clear what you really care about: sales and PROFIT. If you get people to believe the myth that liquid sugar is just a few harmless "extra calories" they need to burn off (not that, for one thing, it independently raises one's risk of diabetes by 11 fold compared to an increase in calories from any other source), you can keep uneducated consumers buying and drinking. Please, just get your nose out of health, nutrition, and research. It's so unscrupulous.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
It's not a PSA, it's an advertisement. Ads should be ignored. Ads are not your friends. The information they present is biased. Their purpose is to help convince you to part with your money, sometimes its worthwhile and other times it's not, but in either case it's not an unbiased source of information.
It's an advertisement modeled as advice. Not everyone is paying attention enough to understand the underlying misinformation here. The average consumer is the one who gets hurt.
How is someone hurt by the wise advice that they shouldn't consume more calories than they will burn?11 -
Of course its creepy. The way some of you act you must be a bunch of corporation apologists, shouldn't you be at a Trump rally or something. Corporations are almost all scum, now that is the truth.3
-
janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?
And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?
"Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?
And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?
"Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?
Yes. It's an ad. To sell soda. That's why people are asking why you keep referring to it as a "PSA."
Your outrage seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what it actually is. That space isn't donated to the company, they purchase the right to display the message to us. We can then balance what we know about advertising (it's designed to get us to buy stuff) to help determine if we want to purchase the product.
Many ads contain "advice-like" content. Some of it is accurate, some of it is less so. If this upsets you, I can only imagine you must be annoyed frequently.
I knew when I woke up this morning that soda companies wanted me to buy soda. This isn't news. On the whole, I prefer their acknowledgment that excess calories are harmful than them pretending this isn't the case.15 -
aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?
And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?
"Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?
I just don't get the problem. Obviously there motivations are not altruistic but would you prefer the Paunch Burger route instead?
[video]
https://youtu.be/2BsNEz9qNZs[/video] 3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?
And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?
"Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?
It sounds more like an advertisement than a PSA.
Advertisements for any company's products are there to encourage people to purchase their products, and just about every for-profit company uses them in some way, shape or form.
0 -
is this also a PSA? or an ad for milk?
5 -
blues4miles wrote: »There are studies showing sitting too much is bad for you, or that those with diabetes and other conditions who add in walking are healthier than those that don't.
How dare La-Z-Boy make comfortable chairs! And recliners that hold people over 180 lbs. We better get out the anti-corporation boycott materials!
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?
And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?
"Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?
Yes. It's an ad. To sell soda. That's why people are asking why you keep referring to it as a "PSA."
Your outrage seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what it actually is. That space isn't donated to the company, they purchase the right to display the message to us. We can then balance what we know about advertising (it's designed to get us to buy stuff) to help determine if we want to purchase the product.
Many ads contain "advice-like" content. Some of it is accurate, some of it is less so. If this upsets you, I can only imagine you must be annoyed frequently.
I knew when I woke up this morning that soda companies wanted me to buy soda. This isn't news. On the whole, I prefer their acknowledgment that excess calories are harmful than them pretending this isn't the case.
Well, that's good for you, in the bubble where you live. I suppose maybe I've been over-exposed to the human suffering related to the debilitating and mortal effects of diabetes... among so many other issues in our current healthcare crisis.0 -
blondie_mfp wrote: »is this also a PSA? or an ad for milk?
I'm sorry . . . I can't look away from the picture long enough to evaluate the text. Someone else is going to have to answer the question.11 -
aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?
And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?
"Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?
Yes. It's an ad. To sell soda. That's why people are asking why you keep referring to it as a "PSA."
Your outrage seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what it actually is. That space isn't donated to the company, they purchase the right to display the message to us. We can then balance what we know about advertising (it's designed to get us to buy stuff) to help determine if we want to purchase the product.
Many ads contain "advice-like" content. Some of it is accurate, some of it is less so. If this upsets you, I can only imagine you must be annoyed frequently.
I knew when I woke up this morning that soda companies wanted me to buy soda. This isn't news. On the whole, I prefer their acknowledgment that excess calories are harmful than them pretending this isn't the case.
Well, that's good for you, in the bubble where you live. I suppose maybe I've been over-exposed to the human suffering related to the debilitating and mortal effects of diabetes... among so many other issues in our current health epidemic.
In the bubble where I live? My father died of multiple organ failure related to heart disease and diabetes (unrelated to soda, which he never drank). Your assumptions about my life are seriously out of line.
Stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about the impact of obesity and/or diabetes. It may make you feel better to think that, but it isn't true. Consider this: people can have legitimate disagreement with your positions without being ignorant.
16
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
- 175.9K 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
- 96.3K 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