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.
Is this a bit scary and confusing, or have I simply not thought it through?
Replies
-
rainbowbow wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.
For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?
People who want to have an accurate idea of the actual nutritional info.
I wish that the US required calories per 100 grams to cut down on the hiding-through-rounding of the nutritional info. When the manufacturer's serving size is 7 grams, that lets them round down what they don't want you to see and round up what they do want you to see.
Pam cooking spray would have a harder time claiming they were fat free if they had to show per 100 grams rather than just their chosen 0.25 g serving size.
It might be nice supplemental information on the label but personally I would be shocked if 5% of US households have a scale that measure grams.
For most calories in the container or part of the container is more useful information
You don't need a scale for per 100 g to be useful information.
For instance:
1. Does Brand A or Brand B have more calories? With a per 100 g column, you can see that at a glance even if Brand A lists a serving size as 75 grams and Brand B lists a serving size of 60 grams. Having a per 100 g lets you directly compare.
2. Pam cooking spray has "for fat-free cooking" right on the can when almost all, if not all, of the calories in Pam are from fat. They can do that because they have an unrealistic serving size of 0.25 grams and that rounds down to zero in all of the nutrition columns. If they were required to have a per 100 g column, they couldn't get away with the fat-free claim.
I agree that calories in the container will be very useful but I'd like to have per 100 g as well. I'd have the whole back panel covered in nutritional information if I could.
You don't need a food scale for "per 100g" info to be useful, no. It's an interesting bit of info. But, you do need a food scale if per 100g is the ONLY information available. If I don't have a food scale in front of me, especially if I'm not used to weighing my food (personally, I've been weighing and measuring for over 4 years now, so I've gotten pretty good at eyeballing in a pinch, but I realize this makes me an outlier in the US, not the norm), it's FAR more useful for me to know how many calories are in "15 pretzels (28g)" than how many calories are in "100g of pretzels," since I have absolutely no clue how to identify 100g of pretzels without a scale. Even if the 15 pretzels I counted out actually weighed 22g or 35g, at least I'm in the ballpark.
Just wanted to say that now i'm in europe where there is no serving size just per 100g (SOMETIMES per package). It's actually not that bad unless it's a huge container of something.
for example, a package is 250 grams, i know how many calories are in a 100, etc. it's really not that hard.
If anything, i found the serving size in the US terrible because i think too many people are relying on that information without weighing and it can be totally off. Like chips (about 13 chips) and then you weigh it and it's actually 9 chips are that weight. In my opinion, the entire "serving size" thing is complete and utter B.S. to begin with.
Atleast for me, having the calories per 100g (for people like me who weigh things) and calories per package are really the only thing we need to know.
p.s. i used to get pissed that everything was now harder to track, but if anything it's forced me to weigh things. *shrug*
@rainbowbow - What do you do when you don't have a food scale?0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.
For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?
People who want to have an accurate idea of the actual nutritional info.
I wish that the US required calories per 100 grams to cut down on the hiding-through-rounding of the nutritional info. When the manufacturer's serving size is 7 grams, that lets them round down what they don't want you to see and round up what they do want you to see.
Pam cooking spray would have a harder time claiming they were fat free if they had to show per 100 grams rather than just their chosen 0.25 g serving size.
It might be nice supplemental information on the label but personally I would be shocked if 5% of US households have a scale that measure grams.
For most calories in the container or part of the container is more useful information
You don't need a scale for per 100 g to be useful information.
For instance:
1. Does Brand A or Brand B have more calories? With a per 100 g column, you can see that at a glance even if Brand A lists a serving size as 75 grams and Brand B lists a serving size of 60 grams. Having a per 100 g lets you directly compare.
2. Pam cooking spray has "for fat-free cooking" right on the can when almost all, if not all, of the calories in Pam are from fat. They can do that because they have an unrealistic serving size of 0.25 grams and that rounds down to zero in all of the nutrition columns. If they were required to have a per 100 g column, they couldn't get away with the fat-free claim.
I agree that calories in the container will be very useful but I'd like to have per 100 g as well. I'd have the whole back panel covered in nutritional information if I could.
You don't need a food scale for "per 100g" info to be useful, no. It's an interesting bit of info. But, you do need a food scale if per 100g is the ONLY information available. If I don't have a food scale in front of me, especially if I'm not used to weighing my food (personally, I've been weighing and measuring for over 4 years now, so I've gotten pretty good at eyeballing in a pinch, but I realize this makes me an outlier in the US, not the norm), it's FAR more useful for me to know how many calories are in "15 pretzels (28g)" than how many calories are in "100g of pretzels," since I have absolutely no clue how to identify 100g of pretzels without a scale. Even if the 15 pretzels I counted out actually weighed 22g or 35g, at least I'm in the ballpark.
Just wanted to say that now i'm in europe where there is no serving size just per 100g (SOMETIMES per package). It's actually not that bad unless it's a huge container of something.
for example, a package is 250 grams, i know how many calories are in a 100, etc. it's really not that hard.
If anything, i found the serving size in the US terrible because i think too many people are relying on that information without weighing and it can be totally off. Like chips (about 13 chips) and then you weigh it and it's actually 9 chips are that weight. In my opinion, the entire "serving size" thing is complete and utter B.S. to begin with.
Atleast for me, having the calories per 100g (for people like me who weigh things) and calories per package are really the only thing we need to know.
p.s. i used to get pissed that everything was now harder to track, but if anything it's forced me to weigh things. *shrug*
@rainbowbow - What do you do when you don't have a food scale?
i use the factor of 10 like someone else said above. To be fair it's not like i'm buying big bags of chips, or products with 50 million servings in them. Actually most of the time i'm buying stuff without a nutrition label anyway (like produce).
But, for example, most products have something like this:
And if they don't have the bar's calories listed i can STILL look and see "okay this is a 65g bar". Of course if i'm logging this into MFP all i have to do is find the right listing, make sure the 100g info matches, and select .65% or change it to 1g and 65 servings.
But if i'm doing it in my head it's still pretty dang easy to estimate how many calories are in one full thing. It's very rarely i'm not weighing, or eating things i don't already have in my diary, but either way because the calories are per 100g it's pretty easy to go "okay, about 50% of this" or "there is 250 in this entire thing, so if i eat a little less than half i'll have x per 100g".
i hope that makes sense.
p.s. absolutely every. single. product. has a weight on it in clearly visible text.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.
For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?
People who want to have an accurate idea of the actual nutritional info.
I wish that the US required calories per 100 grams to cut down on the hiding-through-rounding of the nutritional info. When the manufacturer's serving size is 7 grams, that lets them round down what they don't want you to see and round up what they do want you to see.
Pam cooking spray would have a harder time claiming they were fat free if they had to show per 100 grams rather than just their chosen 0.25 g serving size.
It might be nice supplemental information on the label but personally I would be shocked if 5% of US households have a scale that measure grams.
For most calories in the container or part of the container is more useful information
You don't need a scale for per 100 g to be useful information.
For instance:
1. Does Brand A or Brand B have more calories? With a per 100 g column, you can see that at a glance even if Brand A lists a serving size as 75 grams and Brand B lists a serving size of 60 grams. Having a per 100 g lets you directly compare.
2. Pam cooking spray has "for fat-free cooking" right on the can when almost all, if not all, of the calories in Pam are from fat. They can do that because they have an unrealistic serving size of 0.25 grams and that rounds down to zero in all of the nutrition columns. If they were required to have a per 100 g column, they couldn't get away with the fat-free claim.
I agree that calories in the container will be very useful but I'd like to have per 100 g as well. I'd have the whole back panel covered in nutritional information if I could.
You don't need a food scale for "per 100g" info to be useful, no. It's an interesting bit of info. But, you do need a food scale if per 100g is the ONLY information available. If I don't have a food scale in front of me, especially if I'm not used to weighing my food (personally, I've been weighing and measuring for over 4 years now, so I've gotten pretty good at eyeballing in a pinch, but I realize this makes me an outlier in the US, not the norm), it's FAR more useful for me to know how many calories are in "15 pretzels (28g)" than how many calories are in "100g of pretzels," since I have absolutely no clue how to identify 100g of pretzels without a scale. Even if the 15 pretzels I counted out actually weighed 22g or 35g, at least I'm in the ballpark.
Just wanted to say that now i'm in europe where there is no serving size just per 100g (SOMETIMES per package). It's actually not that bad unless it's a huge container of something.
for example, a package is 250 grams, i know how many calories are in a 100, etc. it's really not that hard.
If anything, i found the serving size in the US terrible because i think too many people are relying on that information without weighing and it can be totally off. Like chips (about 13 chips) and then you weigh it and it's actually 9 chips are that weight. In my opinion, the entire "serving size" thing is complete and utter B.S. to begin with.
Atleast for me, having the calories per 100g (for people like me who weigh things) and calories per package are really the only thing we need to know.
p.s. i used to get pissed that everything was now harder to track, but if anything it's forced me to weigh things. *shrug*
@rainbowbow - What do you do when you don't have a food scale?
i use the factor of 10 like someone else said above. To be fair it's not like i'm buying big bags of chips, or products with 50 million servings in them. Actually most of the time i'm buying stuff without a nutrition label anyway (like produce).
But, for example, most products have something like this:
And if they don't have the bar's calories listed i can STILL look and see "okay this is a 65g bar". Of course if i'm logging this into MFP all i have to do is find the right listing, make sure the 100g info matches, and select .65% or change it to 1g and 65 servings.
But if i'm doing it in my head it's still pretty dang easy to estimate how many calories are in one full thing. It's very rarely i'm not weighing, or eating things i don't already have in my diary, but either way because the calories are per 100g it's pretty easy to go "okay, about 50% of this" or "there is 250 in this entire thing, so if i eat a little less than half i'll have x per 100g".
i hope that makes sense.
p.s. absolutely every. single. product. has a weight on it in clearly visible text.
OK, now imagine you're a typical consumer who does not want or need to weigh every single thing you eat because you more or less maintain a healthy weight naturally, but you still like to keep a general eye on your calories and make informed decisions. You have a bag of almonds in front of you that has 12 servings in it and is 360 grams total, and 100g has 576 calories. You don't have a food log to compare back to because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You don't have a food scale in front of you because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You don't have an alternative source of nutrition info available because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You eat 15 almonds, maybe about 1/3 of a cup. How many calories did you consume?1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.
For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?
People who want to have an accurate idea of the actual nutritional info.
I wish that the US required calories per 100 grams to cut down on the hiding-through-rounding of the nutritional info. When the manufacturer's serving size is 7 grams, that lets them round down what they don't want you to see and round up what they do want you to see.
Pam cooking spray would have a harder time claiming they were fat free if they had to show per 100 grams rather than just their chosen 0.25 g serving size.
It might be nice supplemental information on the label but personally I would be shocked if 5% of US households have a scale that measure grams.
For most calories in the container or part of the container is more useful information
You don't need a scale for per 100 g to be useful information.
For instance:
1. Does Brand A or Brand B have more calories? With a per 100 g column, you can see that at a glance even if Brand A lists a serving size as 75 grams and Brand B lists a serving size of 60 grams. Having a per 100 g lets you directly compare.
2. Pam cooking spray has "for fat-free cooking" right on the can when almost all, if not all, of the calories in Pam are from fat. They can do that because they have an unrealistic serving size of 0.25 grams and that rounds down to zero in all of the nutrition columns. If they were required to have a per 100 g column, they couldn't get away with the fat-free claim.
I agree that calories in the container will be very useful but I'd like to have per 100 g as well. I'd have the whole back panel covered in nutritional information if I could.
You don't need a food scale for "per 100g" info to be useful, no. It's an interesting bit of info. But, you do need a food scale if per 100g is the ONLY information available. If I don't have a food scale in front of me, especially if I'm not used to weighing my food (personally, I've been weighing and measuring for over 4 years now, so I've gotten pretty good at eyeballing in a pinch, but I realize this makes me an outlier in the US, not the norm), it's FAR more useful for me to know how many calories are in "15 pretzels (28g)" than how many calories are in "100g of pretzels," since I have absolutely no clue how to identify 100g of pretzels without a scale. Even if the 15 pretzels I counted out actually weighed 22g or 35g, at least I'm in the ballpark.
Just wanted to say that now i'm in europe where there is no serving size just per 100g (SOMETIMES per package). It's actually not that bad unless it's a huge container of something.
for example, a package is 250 grams, i know how many calories are in a 100, etc. it's really not that hard.
If anything, i found the serving size in the US terrible because i think too many people are relying on that information without weighing and it can be totally off. Like chips (about 13 chips) and then you weigh it and it's actually 9 chips are that weight. In my opinion, the entire "serving size" thing is complete and utter B.S. to begin with.
Atleast for me, having the calories per 100g (for people like me who weigh things) and calories per package are really the only thing we need to know.
p.s. i used to get pissed that everything was now harder to track, but if anything it's forced me to weigh things. *shrug*
@rainbowbow - What do you do when you don't have a food scale?
i use the factor of 10 like someone else said above. To be fair it's not like i'm buying big bags of chips, or products with 50 million servings in them. Actually most of the time i'm buying stuff without a nutrition label anyway (like produce).
But, for example, most products have something like this:
And if they don't have the bar's calories listed i can STILL look and see "okay this is a 65g bar". Of course if i'm logging this into MFP all i have to do is find the right listing, make sure the 100g info matches, and select .65% or change it to 1g and 65 servings.
But if i'm doing it in my head it's still pretty dang easy to estimate how many calories are in one full thing. It's very rarely i'm not weighing, or eating things i don't already have in my diary, but either way because the calories are per 100g it's pretty easy to go "okay, about 50% of this" or "there is 250 in this entire thing, so if i eat a little less than half i'll have x per 100g".
i hope that makes sense.
p.s. absolutely every. single. product. has a weight on it in clearly visible text.
OK, now imagine you're a typical consumer who does not want or need to weigh every single thing you eat because you more or less maintain a healthy weight naturally, but you still like to keep a general eye on your calories and make informed decisions. You have a bag of almonds in front of you that has 12 servings in it and is 360 grams total, and 100g has 576 calories. You don't have a food log to compare back to because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You don't have a food scale in front of you because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You don't have an alternative source of nutrition info available because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You eat 15 almonds, maybe about 1/3 of a cup. How many calories did you consume?
About 170-200.
I truly wonder how literally every other country on planet earth manages.
P.s. I forgot, Americans still use measurements like "2 cups flour". This is also ridiculous and crazy. TFW almost every other country on planet earth weighs ingredients.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.
For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?
People who want to have an accurate idea of the actual nutritional info.
I wish that the US required calories per 100 grams to cut down on the hiding-through-rounding of the nutritional info. When the manufacturer's serving size is 7 grams, that lets them round down what they don't want you to see and round up what they do want you to see.
Pam cooking spray would have a harder time claiming they were fat free if they had to show per 100 grams rather than just their chosen 0.25 g serving size.
It might be nice supplemental information on the label but personally I would be shocked if 5% of US households have a scale that measure grams.
For most calories in the container or part of the container is more useful information
You don't need a scale for per 100 g to be useful information.
For instance:
1. Does Brand A or Brand B have more calories? With a per 100 g column, you can see that at a glance even if Brand A lists a serving size as 75 grams and Brand B lists a serving size of 60 grams. Having a per 100 g lets you directly compare.
2. Pam cooking spray has "for fat-free cooking" right on the can when almost all, if not all, of the calories in Pam are from fat. They can do that because they have an unrealistic serving size of 0.25 grams and that rounds down to zero in all of the nutrition columns. If they were required to have a per 100 g column, they couldn't get away with the fat-free claim.
I agree that calories in the container will be very useful but I'd like to have per 100 g as well. I'd have the whole back panel covered in nutritional information if I could.
You don't need a food scale for "per 100g" info to be useful, no. It's an interesting bit of info. But, you do need a food scale if per 100g is the ONLY information available. If I don't have a food scale in front of me, especially if I'm not used to weighing my food (personally, I've been weighing and measuring for over 4 years now, so I've gotten pretty good at eyeballing in a pinch, but I realize this makes me an outlier in the US, not the norm), it's FAR more useful for me to know how many calories are in "15 pretzels (28g)" than how many calories are in "100g of pretzels," since I have absolutely no clue how to identify 100g of pretzels without a scale. Even if the 15 pretzels I counted out actually weighed 22g or 35g, at least I'm in the ballpark.
Just wanted to say that now i'm in europe where there is no serving size just per 100g (SOMETIMES per package). It's actually not that bad unless it's a huge container of something.
for example, a package is 250 grams, i know how many calories are in a 100, etc. it's really not that hard.
If anything, i found the serving size in the US terrible because i think too many people are relying on that information without weighing and it can be totally off. Like chips (about 13 chips) and then you weigh it and it's actually 9 chips are that weight. In my opinion, the entire "serving size" thing is complete and utter B.S. to begin with.
Atleast for me, having the calories per 100g (for people like me who weigh things) and calories per package are really the only thing we need to know.
p.s. i used to get pissed that everything was now harder to track, but if anything it's forced me to weigh things. *shrug*
@rainbowbow - What do you do when you don't have a food scale?
i use the factor of 10 like someone else said above. To be fair it's not like i'm buying big bags of chips, or products with 50 million servings in them. Actually most of the time i'm buying stuff without a nutrition label anyway (like produce).
But, for example, most products have something like this:
And if they don't have the bar's calories listed i can STILL look and see "okay this is a 65g bar". Of course if i'm logging this into MFP all i have to do is find the right listing, make sure the 100g info matches, and select .65% or change it to 1g and 65 servings.
But if i'm doing it in my head it's still pretty dang easy to estimate how many calories are in one full thing. It's very rarely i'm not weighing, or eating things i don't already have in my diary, but either way because the calories are per 100g it's pretty easy to go "okay, about 50% of this" or "there is 250 in this entire thing, so if i eat a little less than half i'll have x per 100g".
i hope that makes sense.
p.s. absolutely every. single. product. has a weight on it in clearly visible text.
OK, now imagine you're a typical consumer who does not want or need to weigh every single thing you eat because you more or less maintain a healthy weight naturally, but you still like to keep a general eye on your calories and make informed decisions. You have a bag of almonds in front of you that has 12 servings in it and is 360 grams total, and 100g has 576 calories. You don't have a food log to compare back to because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You don't have a food scale in front of you because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You don't have an alternative source of nutrition info available because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You eat 15 almonds, maybe about 1/3 of a cup. How many calories did you consume?
About 170-200.
I truly wonder how literally every other country on planet earth manages.
P.s. I forgot, Americans still use measurements like "2 cups flour". This is also ridiculous and crazy. TFW almost every other country on planet earth weighs ingredients.
On what are you basing the 170-200? What in the nutritional information tells you that?
Also, personally, while I fully agree American labels could use some improvements, I manage just fine, thanks. And I'm a pretty accomplished amateur baker, so I always weigh my flour, but thanks for the tip.1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.
For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?
People who want to have an accurate idea of the actual nutritional info.
I wish that the US required calories per 100 grams to cut down on the hiding-through-rounding of the nutritional info. When the manufacturer's serving size is 7 grams, that lets them round down what they don't want you to see and round up what they do want you to see.
Pam cooking spray would have a harder time claiming they were fat free if they had to show per 100 grams rather than just their chosen 0.25 g serving size.
It might be nice supplemental information on the label but personally I would be shocked if 5% of US households have a scale that measure grams.
For most calories in the container or part of the container is more useful information
You don't need a scale for per 100 g to be useful information.
For instance:
1. Does Brand A or Brand B have more calories? With a per 100 g column, you can see that at a glance even if Brand A lists a serving size as 75 grams and Brand B lists a serving size of 60 grams. Having a per 100 g lets you directly compare.
2. Pam cooking spray has "for fat-free cooking" right on the can when almost all, if not all, of the calories in Pam are from fat. They can do that because they have an unrealistic serving size of 0.25 grams and that rounds down to zero in all of the nutrition columns. If they were required to have a per 100 g column, they couldn't get away with the fat-free claim.
I agree that calories in the container will be very useful but I'd like to have per 100 g as well. I'd have the whole back panel covered in nutritional information if I could.
You don't need a food scale for "per 100g" info to be useful, no. It's an interesting bit of info. But, you do need a food scale if per 100g is the ONLY information available. If I don't have a food scale in front of me, especially if I'm not used to weighing my food (personally, I've been weighing and measuring for over 4 years now, so I've gotten pretty good at eyeballing in a pinch, but I realize this makes me an outlier in the US, not the norm), it's FAR more useful for me to know how many calories are in "15 pretzels (28g)" than how many calories are in "100g of pretzels," since I have absolutely no clue how to identify 100g of pretzels without a scale. Even if the 15 pretzels I counted out actually weighed 22g or 35g, at least I'm in the ballpark.
Just wanted to say that now i'm in europe where there is no serving size just per 100g (SOMETIMES per package). It's actually not that bad unless it's a huge container of something.
for example, a package is 250 grams, i know how many calories are in a 100, etc. it's really not that hard.
If anything, i found the serving size in the US terrible because i think too many people are relying on that information without weighing and it can be totally off. Like chips (about 13 chips) and then you weigh it and it's actually 9 chips are that weight. In my opinion, the entire "serving size" thing is complete and utter B.S. to begin with.
Atleast for me, having the calories per 100g (for people like me who weigh things) and calories per package are really the only thing we need to know.
p.s. i used to get pissed that everything was now harder to track, but if anything it's forced me to weigh things. *shrug*
@rainbowbow - What do you do when you don't have a food scale?
i use the factor of 10 like someone else said above. To be fair it's not like i'm buying big bags of chips, or products with 50 million servings in them. Actually most of the time i'm buying stuff without a nutrition label anyway (like produce).
But, for example, most products have something like this:
And if they don't have the bar's calories listed i can STILL look and see "okay this is a 65g bar". Of course if i'm logging this into MFP all i have to do is find the right listing, make sure the 100g info matches, and select .65% or change it to 1g and 65 servings.
But if i'm doing it in my head it's still pretty dang easy to estimate how many calories are in one full thing. It's very rarely i'm not weighing, or eating things i don't already have in my diary, but either way because the calories are per 100g it's pretty easy to go "okay, about 50% of this" or "there is 250 in this entire thing, so if i eat a little less than half i'll have x per 100g".
i hope that makes sense.
p.s. absolutely every. single. product. has a weight on it in clearly visible text.
OK, now imagine you're a typical consumer who does not want or need to weigh every single thing you eat because you more or less maintain a healthy weight naturally, but you still like to keep a general eye on your calories and make informed decisions. You have a bag of almonds in front of you that has 12 servings in it and is 360 grams total, and 100g has 576 calories. You don't have a food log to compare back to because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You don't have a food scale in front of you because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You don't have an alternative source of nutrition info available because you're a typical consumer, not an MFP user. You eat 15 almonds, maybe about 1/3 of a cup. How many calories did you consume?
About 170-200.
I truly wonder how literally every other country on planet earth manages.
P.s. I forgot, Americans still use measurements like "2 cups flour". This is also ridiculous and crazy. TFW almost every other country on planet earth weighs ingredients.
I love to bake and use both cups and my scale, depending. I'm sorry that other countries can't grasp a simple concept like measuring cups.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions