Bogus calories and macros in database
Replies
-
J9LynnHelton wrote: »I do understand what you are saying though. Everyone is always advising others to weigh your food to be sure you are accurate on portion size. But if the calorie database of foods are inaccurate then being accurate on measuring is rather moot. Then we are told to only aim for a 500 calorie deficit, but are told that the exercise calories are over estimated. Sometimes it feels like you are throwing darts.
That said I consistently have been losing 1.5 to 2 pounds a week.
I like to think of calorie counting as educated guessing. The basic concept is simple: CICO. The nitty-gritty are incredibly complex and sometimes even completely unknown. However, if you trend consistently close enough to a regular deficit, then you will lose weight. It just takes time and observation. Most people don't eat completely different foods every single day - I would guess the majority of people have a fairly small selection of go-to foods that they eat regularly. Figure out how your body reacts to those foods in combination. See what your weight does over time. Getting too focused on being exactly correct assumes that there is objectively knowable nutrition information out there, but there really isn't. Maybe calorie counting isn't for you at all - plenty of people lose weight just by reducing their portion sizes, relying on common sense and nutrition labels and the number on the scale.4 -
Did what you said. "usda pork center cut chops boneless raw"......only looked at USDA listings......8 listings then I quit because it was quite scary.
Highest....Cal 239....Carbs 1g....Pro 24g....Fat 16g
Lowest.....Cal 130....Carbs 0g....Pro 20g....Fat 5g
You may need to be more specific than "usda pork center cut chops boneless raw" if you want to hone in on a more exact number. The above is sold in various forms of lean-ness and cut so you would have to specify.
from USDA:
And this is, by far, the most complete database out there. Any site where the entries are fully checked by an administrative team are going to be either tiny and/or very expensive. The quality/completeness of the user-entered food name/description usually gives a good idea of the quality of the following information. In some cases, packaged foods have been reformulated at some point so you can get varying information there (with possibly both versions of an item available in different stores). Sometimes the entries don't make it clear whether an item is uncooked/dried or cooked (beans, rice, etc)-don't use those. If you eat something frequently, very closely check the entry or make your own entry (mine are initialled after the description so they come up quicker when searching).3 -
MFP has users from all over the world, not just in the US or wherever you're from. That means that there are thousands of entries for foods you've probably never encountered, let alone the thousands of foods you'd regularly see at your local grocery store (which are different from the thousands of foods someone in a different geographical area would see in THEIR local grocery store, etc.)Nony_Mouse wrote: »Yes I understand all of that. But you didn't answer the question. The MFP database is so polluted with bogus numbers that it's really not usable. It's no wonder there are so many failure stories in the community here. I'm searching for a RELIABLE source of data to track calories and macros. Even something as simple as a boneless pork center cut chop has numbers listed in the MFP database that vary up to 100 cals. The folks entering the data are really screwing up the database.
I would like to be within 50 or so cals per day. Meaning, if an item is off 5 or 10 cals I don't sweat it. But the database here is so full of bogus numbers that I don't trust any of it. If a food has a nutrition data label I use that. But most meats don't have a label thus the need for a reliable source.
Use the USDA entries. Search for whatever it is you want with, for example, 'USDA pork raw', and tada! There is is. You should be able to find all whole foods that way, everything else you can get the info from the packet. Create your own entries for those things if you must.
Yes, the database is full of appalling entries, but it's really not that hard to work around if you care to do so. Once you've added something to your diary, it's there in your recent foods list for future use.
Did what you said. "usda pork center cut chops boneless raw"......only looked at USDA listings......8 listings then I quit because it was quite scary.
Highest....Cal 239....Carbs 1g....Pro 24g....Fat 16g
Lowest.....Cal 130....Carbs 0g....Pro 20g....Fat 5g
There is no way anyone can accurately track calories and macros using this database. I feel sorry for people that are struggling with their progress not knowing that they're using bogus numbers from the MFP database.
The whole database needs to go away. Pure rubbish! Shame on MFP for not taking an active role on cleaning this up. Advertising money aside, they should show some integrity and clean up their act.
How would you propose they "take an active role in cleaning this up"? Delete and start from scratch? If so, that would probably mean that people in countries where MFP doesn't have employees would be unable to use the site for much longer than other countries, and that's really not fair. Do you want them to start combing through all the pork chop entries and independently verifying them and deleting the ones that don't match the USDA ones? If so, that's the same thing you're unwilling to do for yourself, and you'd only have to do it for the few entries you actually use.
16 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Yes I understand all of that. But you didn't answer the question. The MFP database is so polluted with bogus numbers that it's really not usable. It's no wonder there are so many failure stories in the community here. I'm searching for a RELIABLE source of data to track calories and macros. Even something as simple as a boneless pork center cut chop has numbers listed in the MFP database that vary up to 100 cals. The folks entering the data are really screwing up the database.
I would like to be within 50 or so cals per day. Meaning, if an item is off 5 or 10 cals I don't sweat it. But the database here is so full of bogus numbers that I don't trust any of it. If a food has a nutrition data label I use that. But most meats don't have a label thus the need for a reliable source.
Use the USDA entries. Search for whatever it is you want with, for example, 'USDA pork raw', and tada! There is is. You should be able to find all whole foods that way, everything else you can get the info from the packet. Create your own entries for those things if you must.
Yes, the database is full of appalling entries, but it's really not that hard to work around if you care to do so. Once you've added something to your diary, it's there in your recent foods list for future use.
Did what you said. "usda pork center cut chops boneless raw"......only looked at USDA listings......8 listings then I quit because it was quite scary.
Highest....Cal 239....Carbs 1g....Pro 24g....Fat 16g
Lowest.....Cal 130....Carbs 0g....Pro 20g....Fat 5g
There is no way anyone can accurately track calories and macros using this database. I feel sorry for people that are struggling with their progress not knowing that they're using bogus numbers from the MFP database.
The whole database needs to go away. Pure rubbish! Shame on MFP for not taking an active role on cleaning this up. Advertising money aside, they should show some integrity and clean up their act.
The reason there are lots of different USDA listings for pork chops was covered in my post above. Different pork chops have different calories per gram depending on how much fat is in the cut.
There is no database that can fix this, you have to learn to understand what you are eating or, if you need to, buy food with labels and use that.
Personally, I was able to be successful counting calories using meat without labels and the USDA entries, however, so I know for a fact it's false to claim you cannot be successful this way. You do need to be honest with yourself, of course.5 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Yes I understand all of that. But you didn't answer the question. The MFP database is so polluted with bogus numbers that it's really not usable. It's no wonder there are so many failure stories in the community here. I'm searching for a RELIABLE source of data to track calories and macros. Even something as simple as a boneless pork center cut chop has numbers listed in the MFP database that vary up to 100 cals. The folks entering the data are really screwing up the database.
I would like to be within 50 or so cals per day. Meaning, if an item is off 5 or 10 cals I don't sweat it. But the database here is so full of bogus numbers that I don't trust any of it. If a food has a nutrition data label I use that. But most meats don't have a label thus the need for a reliable source.
Use the USDA entries. Search for whatever it is you want with, for example, 'USDA pork raw', and tada! There is is. You should be able to find all whole foods that way, everything else you can get the info from the packet. Create your own entries for those things if you must.
Yes, the database is full of appalling entries, but it's really not that hard to work around if you care to do so. Once you've added something to your diary, it's there in your recent foods list for future use.
Did what you said. "usda pork center cut chops boneless raw"......only looked at USDA listings......8 listings then I quit because it was quite scary.
Highest....Cal 239....Carbs 1g....Pro 24g....Fat 16g
Lowest.....Cal 130....Carbs 0g....Pro 20g....Fat 5g
There is no way anyone can accurately track calories and macros using this database. I feel sorry for people that are struggling with their progress not knowing that they're using bogus numbers from the MFP database.
The whole database needs to go away. Pure rubbish! Shame on MFP for not taking an active role on cleaning this up. Advertising money aside, they should show some integrity and clean up their act.
What were the serving sizes?
I lost 40 Lbs pretty easily using this data base...it's really not that hard to verify entries unless one is simply lazy.8 -
I love this free app. I think the failure stories are less about the entries from users and more from execution of calorie counting. I also appreciate how I can enter in my own entries when there's something missing from the database.9
-
I find it really easy to match up my entries with the food I'm eating, it's pretty easy to weed through the bad ones, and if you can't find one that matches make your own.2
-
I'm also not especially anal about tracking my macros and micros 100% accurately so if I can't find an entry with barcode or manually, I just quick add from the nutrition info on the packet. Even lazy loggers can find a way.0
-
MFP needs to find a way to clean up their database for sure. It wouldn't be a difficult task tbh. And possibly require people to make "recipes" for themselves without adding them to the whole database. Finally, it would be smart if they got the official information from the Companies regarding retail products and delete anything that isn't an official
Clearly leave the stuff you can't get an official number on. But anything you can, you don't need to have anything else in the database. Update the database annually.4 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »MFP needs to find a way to clean up their database for sure. It wouldn't be a difficult task tbh. And possibly require people to make "recipes" for themselves without adding them to the whole database. Finally, it would be smart if they got the official information from the Companies regarding retail products and delete anything that isn't an official
Clearly leave the stuff you can't get an official number on. But anything you can, you don't need to have anything else in the database. Update the database annually.
It wouldn't be difficult to go through the millions of user-entered items and double-check them against packaging and/or the USDA or other national nutrition databases? How do you figure?15 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »MFP needs to find a way to clean up their database for sure. It wouldn't be a difficult task tbh. And possibly require people to make "recipes" for themselves without adding them to the whole database. Finally, it would be smart if they got the official information from the Companies regarding retail products and delete anything that isn't an official
Clearly leave the stuff you can't get an official number on. But anything you can, you don't need to have anything else in the database. Update the database annually.
Not difficult, but incredibly time consuming. And that comes with a monetary cost. This is a free app (with the option to pay for more features if one chooses). How do you propose they pay for the substantial cost of completely overhauling the database?4 -
Wendy's in Canada now has to list calories on their in store menu boards.
This started THIS YEAR and their in store board lists a small chili at 220 Cal.
The Canadian web site nutritional information lists a small chili at 190 Cal (which is the value I have been using these past few years).
I texted customer support (neat, first time I see an option to text a 1-800 number). They said that their 2017 nutritional guide lists the small chili at 170 Cal.
Which value should be used in the MFP database?
What about Wendy's in the US? Australia?8 -
The MFP database allows users to create their own entries, so some are more accurate than others. Nobody is able to double-check entries, so it's a "buyer beware" kind of situation. Generally speaking, look for entries that have the green check mark or include the phrase "USDA" to find more-accurate entries. Stay away from any entries marked generic or homemade, because there's no way to know whether your homemade food matches someone else's. Also, stay away from entries that describe a whole dish (like "1 PB&J" or "scrambled eggs") because, again, who knows whether you make scrambled eggs in the same way as anyone else.
even some of the green check marked entries are off. so it pays to cross reference between the label you have for a product and the green check marked entry info, also info on packaging changes from time to time so what may have been correct may not be now
3 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »MFP needs to find a way to clean up their database for sure. It wouldn't be a difficult task tbh. And possibly require people to make "recipes" for themselves without adding them to the whole database. Finally, it would be smart if they got the official information from the Companies regarding retail products and delete anything that isn't an official
Clearly leave the stuff you can't get an official number on. But anything you can, you don't need to have anything else in the database. Update the database annually.
ok so what if they were to clean up the database and then the info for some food packaging changed? which it does from time to time? they would then have to take the time to change things yet again. as for making recipes and not adding it to the database you can make your own and not add it and it will be in your recipes. users probably thought they were doing others a favor by adding their info for recipes. the thing is we dont know whats in those "homemade" or other recipes and the the macro counts.1 -
I have to agree with the OP. I love MFP, but I hate their database, or rather its ergonomics.
It's such a relatively straight forward thing to add some sort of crowd-based verification/correction/flagging system, and yet it's been this poor for years.
Even the system for adding foods is very bad - the lack of clarity there is the cause of a lot of the bad entries in the database - all the mix ups between portions, servings, numbers of servings in a packet etc.1 -
I work with data all the time. You know what I do if the data isn't as squeaky clean as I like it? I scrub it.
You, too, can correct any entries that are not right. I have corrected (and verified) many entries. Granted, it is not as entertaining as going into high dudgeon (or even low dudgeon) over it.
I have also created entries, being very precise to note the serving size to the gram (or convert it to 100 grams) and being very specific in the title.
Sometimes I just say screw it and make an educated guess, for example in a fancy restaurant where I'm not going to disassemble the food and weight it on my scale.
Amazingly enough, I have lost 25 lbs, tracked a wide variety of macros and micros, and have been in maintenance for over a year. I have reaped so many (free) benefits from MFP, I feel it is incumbent upon me to pay back through a little research and work. (And also, mea culpa, to make up for the couple of really stupid entries I made the first week or so I was using it).
If you feel things aren't up to snuff, get crackin'. My perspective is, it's better to roll up my own sleeves than to demand that other people do the work for me (unless I happen to be paying them--then the work better be commensurate with the amount I am paying them).23 -
Wendy's in Canada now has to list calories on their in store menu boards.
This started THIS YEAR and their in store board lists a small chili at 220 Cal.
The Canadian web site nutritional information lists a small chili at 190 Cal (which is the value I have been using these past few years).
I texted customer support (neat, first time I see an option to text a 1-800 number). They said that their 2017 nutritional guide lists the small chili at 170 Cal.
Which value should be used in the MFP database?
What about Wendy's in the US? Australia?
Just find the appropriate Canadian entry (or five) and correct them, noting that it was updated for 2017.2 -
dillydaisys wrote: »I scan a lot of food when I can (other than fresh produce) using the barcode but never cross checked it and assumed it was accurate, I might start paying more attention.
Depending on type of food item - possibly not.
Manufacturers keep the same SKU but change the makeup of the food, and there goes the nutrition label.
I'm not sure how MFP ties existing SKU & database entry to a newer more accurate entry.
I've had a bunch of frozen rice vegetable dishes go inaccurate when the package size got smaller and recipes redone.
Soups change, as well as bread very often.
I stopped using the SKU's years ago when I noticed my Balance bars were changed at some point before I started eating them, and SKU was based on that ancient package.
If the label ever says "Taste better" "less sugar" "no _____ fat" then the nutritional label almost always changed.0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Wendy's in Canada now has to list calories on their in store menu boards.
This started THIS YEAR and their in store board lists a small chili at 220 Cal.
The Canadian web site nutritional information lists a small chili at 190 Cal (which is the value I have been using these past few years).
I texted customer support (neat, first time I see an option to text a 1-800 number). They said that their 2017 nutritional guide lists the small chili at 170 Cal.
Which value should be used in the MFP database?
What about Wendy's in the US? Australia?
Just find the appropriate Canadian entry (or five) and correct them, noting that it was updated for 2017.
Nope. Because the oral update on the nutritional guide is not quite believable when the store sign that was made this year is that much different. so on balance... the web site is in the middle
The example does demonstrate, however, how it can be very difficult to arrive at "one" value.
MFP *could* leverage the good-will of site users and "crowd-source" corrections or even a new database-all it would take would be a flag to denote a new type of entry. It would take one or two full time staff to coordinate and act as final decision makers in terms of disagreement. Heck... possibly even a single staff member.0 -
Bogus entries aside, you hit on one of the hardest cases: The calories you consume from pork depends strongly on how much of the fat you include. It is certainly dismaying!
I typically eat pork loin or a pork chop at least once a week. When I was tracking carefully to lose weight, I trimmed off the fat and bone and weighed my portion, using "Tyson boneless pork chop" to record it. This is a verified entry at about 33kcals/oz. Now that I've done it many times, I just look at the chop and guess the weight. I've gotten pretty good at it!1 -
I have loss 70+ pounds since 11/2016 counting bogus MFP calories. I get creative and usually use the highest of the entries and try to find one with the green check marks. I don't eat back my exercise calories to account for the bogus calorie entries made by others and call it a day. Many people on here have been very successful in counting calories and losing weight with MFP. With that being said, it's not for everyone and maybe you need a different app to meet your needs. Good luck!5
-
French_Peasant wrote: »I work with data all the time. You know what I do if the data isn't as squeaky clean as I like it? I scrub it.
You, too, can correct any entries that are not right. I have corrected (and verified) many entries. Granted, it is not as entertaining as going into high dudgeon (or even low dudgeon) over it.
I have also created entries, being very precise to note the serving size to the gram (or convert it to 100 grams) and being very specific in the title.
Sometimes I just say screw it and make an educated guess, for example in a fancy restaurant where I'm not going to disassemble the food and weight it on my scale.
Amazingly enough, I have lost 25 lbs, tracked a wide variety of macros and micros, and have been in maintenance for over a year. I have reaped so many (free) benefits from MFP, I feel it is incumbent upon me to pay back through a little research and work. (And also, mea culpa, to make up for the couple of really stupid entries I made the first week or so I was using it).
If you feel things aren't up to snuff, get crackin'. My perspective is, it's better to roll up my own sleeves than to demand that other people do the work for me (unless I happen to be paying them--then the work better be commensurate with the amount I am paying them).
This is my perspective too. I've benefited a lot from people making entries here. Yes, some of them are bad. When I find them, I correct them. When there isn't one, I make my own and ensure that it is as correct as possible. I do a bit of research and it has paid off well for me -- 42 pounds lost and maintaining for over two years now.
The combination of the free app and my own research skills has been a huge win for me.8 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Wendy's in Canada now has to list calories on their in store menu boards.
This started THIS YEAR and their in store board lists a small chili at 220 Cal.
The Canadian web site nutritional information lists a small chili at 190 Cal (which is the value I have been using these past few years).
I texted customer support (neat, first time I see an option to text a 1-800 number). They said that their 2017 nutritional guide lists the small chili at 170 Cal.
Which value should be used in the MFP database?
What about Wendy's in the US? Australia?
Just find the appropriate Canadian entry (or five) and correct them, noting that it was updated for 2017.
Nope. Because the oral update on the nutritional guide is not quite believable when the store sign that was made this year is that much different. so on balance... the web site is in the middle
The example does demonstrate, however, how it can be very difficult to arrive at "one" value.
MFP *could* leverage the good-will of site users and "crowd-source" corrections or even a new database-all it would take would be a flag to denote a new type of entry. It would take one or two full time staff to coordinate and act as final decision makers in terms of disagreement. Heck... possibly even a single staff member.
I'm sorry, I misread you--I had it in my head that the board and the rep were correlating with each other. Yep, you're screwed. In this case, I would send an angry note to Wendy's HQ and possibly angle for free food coupons.
(Having worked at a factory making Ben & Jerry's in my college days, I know some companies also give out free food coupons for compliments.) Anyway, MFP has an excuse, Wendy's doesn't.
ETA: I have just been thinking on this, and I believe Wendy's serves its chili with sour cream and a sprinkle of cheese...? If this is the case, maybe the higher amount reflects the add-ons. I now I have been annoyed at fast food places because what is posted on the board reflects every add on, whereas the nutritional guide gets granular. Just a possibility.1 -
I will add my $0.02 to this. I think that - if we are all being honest (and I am all too well-known for that in my circles) - it comes down to personal accountability and responsibility.
Is this the best app in the world (with respect to the food database)? No....not likely. Is it free? Yes, ma'am! Yes, sir!
What I have done in the past (when I actually used it) was to find the food items in the database that I actually use and to compare what was in the database with what the label showed. If the MFP database info was accurate then I used that. If it was not, then I created something for myself.
I am not being overly critical with this (the written word does not always convey emotion.....or the intent | perspective of the one sending it) but we need to take some personal accountability and responsibility for this. This is MY journey. Not yours! So, I am going to make sure that the food that is not accurate - whatever that means - is not in my lists. I do not just blindly assume that everything is correct.
If we each took on that mindset then things might look different. Is it frustrating to spend all this time looking for something only to find out four months later that something is not correct? Sure is!!!! No doubt! But, if we "trust, but verify" then none of us has this issue.
And I have been trying to make shorter posts! Not this time! 7 -
And, yes - I understand the irony in my statement about "not blindly assuming that everything is correct" given my recent "lesson learned" with respect to BMR and AMR.......1
-
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Wendy's in Canada now has to list calories on their in store menu boards.
This started THIS YEAR and their in store board lists a small chili at 220 Cal.
The Canadian web site nutritional information lists a small chili at 190 Cal (which is the value I have been using these past few years).
I texted customer support (neat, first time I see an option to text a 1-800 number). They said that their 2017 nutritional guide lists the small chili at 170 Cal.
Which value should be used in the MFP database?
What about Wendy's in the US? Australia?
Just find the appropriate Canadian entry (or five) and correct them, noting that it was updated for 2017.
Nope. Because the oral update on the nutritional guide is not quite believable when the store sign that was made this year is that much different. so on balance... the web site is in the middle
The example does demonstrate, however, how it can be very difficult to arrive at "one" value.
MFP *could* leverage the good-will of site users and "crowd-source" corrections or even a new database-all it would take would be a flag to denote a new type of entry. It would take one or two full time staff to coordinate and act as final decision makers in terms of disagreement. Heck... possibly even a single staff member.
I'm sorry, I misread you--I had it in my head that the board and the rep were correlating with each other. Yep, you're screwed. In this case, I would send an angry note to Wendy's HQ and possibly angle for free food coupons. (Having worked at a factory making Ben & Jerry's in my college days, I know some companies also give out free food coupons for compliments.) Anyway, MFP has an excuse, Wendy's doesn't.
ETA: I have just been thinking on this, and I believe Wendy's serves its chili with sour cream and a sprinkle of cheese...? If this is the case, maybe the higher amount reflects the add-ons. I now I have been annoyed at fast food places because what is posted on the board reflects every add on, whereas the nutritional guide gets granular. Just a possibility.
the wendys near me doesnt add sour cream or cheese unless you ask for it0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »ETA: I have just been thinking on this, and I believe Wendy's serves its chili with sour cream and a sprinkle of cheese...? If this is the case, maybe the higher amount reflects the add-ons. I now I have been annoyed at fast food places because what is posted on the board reflects every add on, whereas the nutritional guide gets granular. Just a possibility.
No cheese or sour cream as free options as far as I'm aware... but, you MIGHT be on to something as the store usually serves the chilli with a 2 pack of Zesta saltines (24-25 Cal) and, officially, a hot sauce packet (5 cal). 190 (web site) + 30 condiments would bring it to the 220 (board). But it still leaves the 170 on their internal nutritional guide!
Good idea though!0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »ETA: I have just been thinking on this, and I believe Wendy's serves its chili with sour cream and a sprinkle of cheese...? If this is the case, maybe the higher amount reflects the add-ons. I now I have been annoyed at fast food places because what is posted on the board reflects every add on, whereas the nutritional guide gets granular. Just a possibility.
No cheese or sour cream as free options as far as I'm aware... but, you MIGHT be on to something as the store usually serves the chilli with a 2 pack of Zesta saltines (24-25 Cal) and, officially, a hot sauce packet (5 cal). 190 (web site) + 30 condiments would bring it to the 220 (board). But it still leaves the 170 on their internal nutritional guide!
Good idea though!
For TWO packs (four crackers) wouldn't it be 50 cals then, and account for the 170?
(We are such nerds! )
1 -
You guise. The database doesn't work for OP. That means it's just got to go. Simple as that. All you people who have had success are just MFP shills riding on high horses.
ONE SINGLE PERSON IS HAVING DIFFICULTY, so let's nuclear option the entire site. Makes perfect sense.25 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »MFP needs to find a way to clean up their database for sure. It wouldn't be a difficult task tbh. And possibly require people to make "recipes" for themselves without adding them to the whole database. Finally, it would be smart if they got the official information from the Companies regarding retail products and delete anything that isn't an official
Clearly leave the stuff you can't get an official number on. But anything you can, you don't need to have anything else in the database. Update the database annually.
I work with large scale databases and projects to make changes - and trust me, "cleaning it up" would not be easy. For a simple example - delete all the entries in the database. Would that have a ripple effect on user's historical tracking data? Get official information from the companies regarding retail products - how many companies manufacture food in just the US, let alone worldwide. Either you have someone whose full time job is to chase down companies for this information - and what value proposition do these companies have to spend the time to provide the data in a format that MFP would use? If you are going to store user created entries independently vs. having a single source, db storage will explode (data stored 1x vs 100x) and therefore associated costs with running the site. Making db changes would most likely involve changes to the MFP web page, and there is a high likelihood that there are separate dev teams maintaining the code (different skill sets) so there's co-ordination time internally. I could easily go on...8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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