U.K food makers told to cut calories by 20%
LivingtheLeanDream
Posts: 13,342 Member
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/06/food-makers-told-to-cut-calories-by-20-by-2024
I think it would serve better if people were educated in portion sizes and learn to know calories in foods in general and how much their bodies need to maintain their weight. Also if portion sizes in restaurants/cafes were kept more realistic too - people in general don't seem to know what a normal portion size should be.
IMO knowledge of the amount of calories leads to overall better choices (its the reason I have been maintaining an almost 30lbs weight loss for 5 years).
I think it would serve better if people were educated in portion sizes and learn to know calories in foods in general and how much their bodies need to maintain their weight. Also if portion sizes in restaurants/cafes were kept more realistic too - people in general don't seem to know what a normal portion size should be.
IMO knowledge of the amount of calories leads to overall better choices (its the reason I have been maintaining an almost 30lbs weight loss for 5 years).
22
Replies
-
This reminds me of the sugar tax they added for soft drinks. It's an attempt to fix the problem without, you know, actually educating people to make healthier choices.
I'm not even sure how it'd work if, say, they applied it to all packaged foods. Would they suddenly start selling nuts in 80g packages instead of 100g?
I like to keep a few healthier ready meals in the freezer (things like veggie-filled curries) for emergencies. I've actually struggled to find any that have *enough* calories; the ones from my grocery store's own-brand healthy line are around 260 calories and so low in fat they leave me hungry half an hour later. I'd be very unimpressed if the meals I've found that are on the lower end of acceptable for a meal (360 calories or so) suddenly had 20% fewer calories in a bid to be healthier. It would actually be LESS healthy for me, as I'd eat it, be unsatisfied, and graze from the cupboard all evening, ultimately taking in more calories.9 -
A lot of products in this country have shrunk their sizes, but that is an attempt to hide the fact of rising prices. I find it irritating every time I run into it. i.e. bottle of beer at 11.2 oz, can of tomatoes at 10.5 oz instead of 14, half gallon of ice cream that is only 1.5 quarts, etc. Fast food places OTOH, seem to be increasing sizes, at least on some products. We got a milk shake at Arby's the other day. The medium has gone from 16 to 20 oz, with a corresponding increase in calories. I wasn't happy since it is now 750 calories, but a lot of people would be.6
-
You can tell people till you're blue in the face about obesity dangers some will listen some won't. Some people want to educate themselves and their children and some don't. In this day & age most people have the tools to know or find out about calories, nutrition etc but don't bother. You can't force people to eat healthy or eat a certain amount, in the end it all comes down to choice. Just like people smoke, take drugs, drink alcohol knowing the dangers. Teach kids in schools etc then let them make their own choices. Sadly most will choose not to worry about it till it's too late.9
-
You can tell people till you're blue in the face about obesity dangers some will listen some won't. Some people want to educate themselves and their children and some don't. In this day & age most people have the tools to know or find out about calories, nutrition etc but don't bother. You can't force people to eat healthy or eat a certain amount, in the end it all comes down to choice. Just like people smoke, take drugs, drink alcohol knowing the dangers. Teach kids in schools etc then let them make their own choices. Sadly most will choose not to worry about it till it's too late.
Yep, it's like most other things. If there wasn't a problem, there wouldn't be a law.2 -
The pity is that those on low income can't really afford to eat healthily, they eat cheap, filling, fattening food. It isn't only down to education but also to disposable income. My experience is in the UK, could this be the case in the US also?16
-
The pity is that those on low income can't really afford to eat healthily, they eat cheap, filling, fattening food. It isn't only down to education but also to disposable income. My experience is in the UK, could this be the case in the US also?
There are lots of very different areas in the US, so youcan't really generalize, but in my personal experience stuff like oats, dried beans, frozen veggies, in season fruit, canned tuna, root veggies, cabbage, generic whole grains, chicken pieces, eggs etc are all pretty affordable. The problem is people would rather get food they don't have to prepare, not that ultra-processed food is any less expensive.
As to the OP, I don't know how an initiative like that will help. Especially if serving size isn't held stable. People who are used to eating too many calories will continue to eat too many calories until they make a conscious decision to eat less. Making a bag of potato chips 240 cals per serving instead of 300 isn't going to change anything.14 -
It's more annoying that some foods that will be affected are not inherently unhealthy. Pasta, crackers and breads are on the list.
And you know that prices won't change even though you're getting less in a product because business have no incentive to reduce price too.7 -
The pity is that those on low income can't really afford to eat healthily, they eat cheap, filling, fattening food. It isn't only down to education but also to disposable income. My experience is in the UK, could this be the case in the US also?
I feel that it's more down to having to actually cook for themselves rather than price. £20 at the supermarket will go much further than £20 in fast food.
I can't afford to buy food at work/uni everyday, I take my own in.21 -
I was looking through some calorie counts at Tim Horton's yesterday and this discussion brings to mind the initiative by a candy bar maker to reduce all their Canadian bars to under, I believe it is 250 cal each.
So I happened to look at the Tim Horton 2013 and 2018 nutritional PDFs. The scones (tea bisquits) are down 10g from 90g to 80g.
My background is multi-year obese. Obviously over the past few years I am changing my world-view as to how much is enough. But what do you think happens when I am staring at what looks like a (smaller) snickers bar or a (smaller) donut or (smaller) tea bisquit?
a) I buy the smaller item and I am happy not even noticing that the size has become even smaller?
b) I buy TWO of the smaller items. Or I buy one of the items and because it doesn't quite look enough I throw in a Tim Bit, or two.
So what happened there?
The people who wouldn't have gotten overweight in the first place (the ones who won't even notice) just donated a small hidden price increase to the manufacturer.
The people who have a propensity to get overweight (here's looking at me ordering TWO sandwiches and fries for many many years)... why yes, of course they will eat two or three frozen entrees, or two chocolate bars, or more than one donut...
I somehow don't expect industry to resist the intitiative of reducing sizes across the board.21 -
Yes thiiis. I really struggle to find easy ready meals that are mid range calorie wise. It’s either 309 calorie weight watchers style meals or excessive 700-900 ones.I like to keep a few healthier ready meals in the freezer (things like veggie-filled curries) for emergencies. I've actually struggled to find any that have *enough* calories; the ones from my grocery store's own-brand healthy line are around 260 calories and so low in fat they leave me hungry half an hour later. I'd be very unimpressed if the meals I've found that are on the lower end of acceptable for a meal (360 calories or so) suddenly had 20% fewer calories in a bid to be healthier. It would actually be LESS healthy for me, as I'd eat it, be unsatisfied, and graze from the cupboard all evening, ultimately taking in more calories.
3 -
The pity is that those on low income can't really afford to eat healthily, they eat cheap, filling, fattening food. It isn't only down to education but also to disposable income. My experience is in the UK, could this be the case in the US also?
In the US, most low-income people can eat reasonably healthy if they truly desire it. Lots of websites explain how. But poor people often opt for "junk" food because it's tastier and easier. It requires self-discipline to choose foods that are less tasty and take longer to prepare. It also requires discipline to exercise. Incidentally, increasing one's income and saving money require discipline.
OP - I agree. Our government used to make health recommendations - now they go straight to coercion and taking money.17 -
The pity is that those on low income can't really afford to eat healthily, they eat cheap, filling, fattening food. It isn't only down to education but also to disposable income. My experience is in the UK, could this be the case in the US also?
I feel that it's more down to having to actually cook for themselves rather than price. £20 at the supermarket will go much further than £20 in fast food.
I can't afford to buy food at work/uni everyday, I take my own in.
If you don't have stable housing, or the apartment you can afford doesn't come with a refrigerator/freezer/stove, or if you constantly have to worry that you can't pay the utility bills so your electricity or water might get turned off, cooking for yourself can be a lot less feasible.26 -
To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.31 -
I think a lot of people could eat healthier if they put effort into cooking themselves. Veg is pretty cheap for the most part (my family picked up lots of 5p carrots and potatoes supermarkets were selling around christmas and made soup etc with them) but yes, it takes time and effort to cook something from scratch. A lot of meat is, I'll agree, on the more pricey side but there are cheaper options. I'm not going to claim to be an angel or shining example - I suffer from bouts of severe depression where getting up is too hard, never mind actually bothering to eat so I can relate to those with no energy - but I believe if people bought fewer ready meals etc and cooked their own food they'd find it goes further for less.
I imagine most people live in walking distance of a shop too. I'm not exactly urban and I live within 15 mins walk of 1 supermarket, Aldi and Lidl. I'd have to walk further to get to a takeaway/fast food place. All of my friends live within at least 15 mins walk of some type of shop that sells veg etc - that's including the more rural ones.
I also do some work with kids and I think a lot more education about food in general is needed. I had 13 year olds who were convinced chicken is a dairy product, that pancakes with nutella were a healthy breakfast and who beyond horrified at the thought of chicken and potatoes rather than chicken nuggets and chips. I asked the 14/15 year olds I work with to prepare a healthy food item for an activity we were doing and every single one of them struggled and only 1 admitted she'd ever done any cooking. By that age I wasn't cooking meals every night but I was often in the kitchen helping my parents cook.
I'm actually quite in favour of the size cutting as I know from my own foods that 1 portion (fish and chips especially!) is actually a more reasonable amount for 2 people rather than 1. If I eat at out an Italian I often have to factor in the portion size being 3x what I'd call a portion rather than 1 etc. I think some companies almost compete in case they lose business by not having the biggest portion. As for snacks, most people I know just pick up a bag/bar without thinking much of it as there's often not many healthy options available and every little may help.6 -
An adult portion should be about what is currently considered a "kid's meal." Obviously some people have different nutritional needs, but those who do can order an extra side or a starter.2
-
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Those are all valid reasons for choosing canned or frozen foods over fresh ones. They are not valid reasons for obesity.10 -
Cherimoose wrote: »The pity is that those on low income can't really afford to eat healthily, they eat cheap, filling, fattening food. It isn't only down to education but also to disposable income. My experience is in the UK, could this be the case in the US also?
In the US, most low-income people can eat reasonably healthy if they truly desire it. Lots of websites explain how. But poor people often opt for "junk" food because it's tastier and easier. It requires self-discipline to choose foods that are less tasty and take longer to prepare. It also requires discipline to exercise. Incidentally, increasing one's income and saving money require discipline.
OP - I agree. Our government used to make health recommendations - now they go straight to coercion and taking money.
Please tell me you’re not reasoning that people are poor because they lack the self discipline to save money.Cherimoose wrote: »The pity is that those on low income can't really afford to eat healthily, they eat cheap, filling, fattening food. It isn't only down to education but also to disposable income. My experience is in the UK, could this be the case in the US also?
In the US, most low-income people can eat reasonably healthy if they truly desire it. Lots of websites explain how. But poor people often opt for "junk" food because it's tastier and easier. It requires self-discipline to choose foods that are less tasty and take longer to prepare. It also requires discipline to exercise. Incidentally, increasing one's income and saving money require discipline.
OP - I agree. Our government used to make health recommendations - now they go straight to coercion and taking money.19 -
To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.12 -
To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
what about people who don't get paid monthly?7 -
I'm sorry but poverty is not an excuse for being overweight or eating unhealthily if anything it should make them less likely. Fruit and veg are all cheaper than chocolates, biscuits, fast food etc. If you are that poor then you should be seeking out the cheaper options and staying away from expensive convenience options. Even the cost of cooking need not be restrictive as there are plenty of foods that can be eaten without the need of cooking.20
-
TavistockToad wrote: »To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
what about people who don't get paid monthly?
How ever you get paid, you still budget for a month, week, fortnight whatever. It's not difficult and this was just an example.7 -
To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.6 -
I'm sorry but poverty is not an excuse for being overweight or eating unhealthily if anything it should make them less likely. Fruit and veg are all cheaper than chocolates, biscuits, fast food etc. If you are that poor then you should be seeking out the cheaper options and staying away from expensive convenience options. Even the cost of cooking need not be restrictive as there are plenty of foods that can be eaten without the need of cooking.
Hundreds of thousands have to take whatever they’re given by food banks. When people are literally starving, they’ve a right not be too fussy about any food they can get their hands on.
13 -
To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.
I get my shop at Asda for £1 on an evening and it's an hour delivery slot and £25 minimum spend. You can book a delivery slot weeks in advance too. You see there's always a way if people are willing to put in the effort, but a lot of people come up with silly excuses as to why they can't eat healthy, when in fact they just don't want to.8 -
To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.
I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.4 -
I'm sorry but poverty is not an excuse for being overweight or eating unhealthily if anything it should make them less likely. Fruit and veg are all cheaper than chocolates, biscuits, fast food etc. If you are that poor then you should be seeking out the cheaper options and staying away from expensive convenience options. Even the cost of cooking need not be restrictive as there are plenty of foods that can be eaten without the need of cooking.
No poverty is not an excuse but it does contribute to being overly fat in many cases.
Unless you have been on welfare (I was, and in foster care as well) then your opinion is just that: an uninformed opinion.
My brother and I were both on federal aid for all of our childhoods.
But we were NOT overweight. Want to know why?
Because some days the only meal we had was school-provided lunch.
When you have next to nothing but food seems to be plentiful you will often eat and horde it as a matter of survival.
The "quality" of the food does not matter. Many people in those circumstances are conditioned to eat everything in sight because they do not know when the next meal might be.
Yes, they might be eating "junk" foods but most restrictions on the SNAP program etc means they cannot buy most of that with federal aid.
Besides, it is not just poor kids that are fat.
Higher income kids are also fat, but by your logic they should all be in fighting shape, fit enough to enlist.
Those families could easily afford healthier food choices more often.
Bag of potato chips: $0.99
1 lb of chicken breasts: $3.00
Guess what seems like a better deal when you are nearly starving?
Guess which one is "ready to eat" when you need to run to your second part-time job so the electricity or phone isn't turned off?
Yes, carrots are also about $1 per pound, but carrots are not even close to chips when it comes to calorie density.
The desire to take in high density calories is about as instinctive as hording food.
Again, it is a function of survival. Until people think differently about food then the problems will continue.
Dozens of adults on these forums are overly fat.
Even though they have been on MFP for months or years, with access to all of the information, advice and experience provided free of charge, they still are not making significant progress.
Why is that? Simply because people make choices, both good and bad.
They commonly lack the discipline and resolve to make the better choice because the "bad" choice is easier for any number of reasons.
Kids don't usually have that much going for them yet.
No, this initiative in the UK will not fix the problem.
I wish it were that simple.20 -
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants.
This is often over-stated. If you look at how food deserts are defined and where they are, I don't think this is a big factor in obesity. I've specifically looked at the food desert areas of my own city, as I have some knowledge about them (and particularly transportation). Public transportation is not inherently difficult, also.Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
I think this is more of a factor. Other factors: possible inadequate kitchen/appliances, being mentally exhausted and overwhelmed and so finding convenience food a huge plus over fresh cooked (someone who works long hours but is better off may have an easier time seeing cooking as relaxation), perhaps having a job that is physically exhausting (standing all day), quite likely a long and exhausting commute that would be made more difficult by stopping for groceries (the most long and exhausting commutes for someone more middle class would be more likely to be by car, not bus).
Even more compelling points I've seen made are that when you are poor, self-indulgent food is something that feels like a treat you can afford, and especially when it comes to giving kids something that will make them happy, and that both lower income and higher income people score similarly on what they think they should be eating, but lower income people have less tolerance (understandably) for buying food that their kids won't initially eat (and that in many cases they themselves have not developed a taste for) -- meaning largely vegetables.
I think it's a mistake to make it all about "they do not have access to healthy foods" because that's usually not really true, and also healthy foods includes cheap stables like rice and beans that are generally available. It's more complicated, although I think understandable.
Also, it's hardly like the obesity problem is limited to those of lower income.14 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.
I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.
Does the pass cost money?
Here the option I am most familiar with is $5.99 for 2 hour delivery (that's the cheapest) or free delivery for orders over $35 IF (and only if) you have a membership, which costs, AND it's not in all locations.5 -
I'm sorry but poverty is not an excuse for being overweight or eating unhealthily if anything it should make them less likely. Fruit and veg are all cheaper than chocolates, biscuits, fast food etc. If you are that poor then you should be seeking out the cheaper options and staying away from expensive convenience options. Even the cost of cooking need not be restrictive as there are plenty of foods that can be eaten without the need of cooking.
Hundreds of thousands have to take whatever they’re given by food banks. When people are literally starving, they’ve a right not be too fussy about any food they can get their hands on.
If in poverty then the scarcity of food should make eating to excess less likely...........At end of the day it's not what you eat that makes you overweight it's how much of it you eat. Eating rubbish food will obviously have an impact on health but that is another matter.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.
I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.
Does the pass cost money?
Here the option I am most familiar with is $5.99 for 2 hour delivery (that's the cheapest) or free delivery for orders over $35 IF (and only if) you have a membership, which costs, AND it's not in all locations.
Asda do a £1 delivery on an evening or £2 through day. Minimum cost £25 so you could get a weekly, fortnightly or monthly shop then top up if needed.
This is just an example though for a comment saying not everyone can get out to a big supermarket so go to a takeaway instead.1
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
- 232.5K 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