What are some of your unpopular opinions about food?
Replies
-
CarvedTones wrote: »I once accidentally used pepper jelly in a PB&J. The jelly was home made/canned and used a variety of peppers; the color made me think berry. It was surprisingly good.
I should make one of those for my husband with his jalapeno bacon jam! He'd probably love that!3 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Hot dogs - take a questionable meat source, grind it down into a liquid-like emulsion, and then pack it in a cellulose casing of unknown material - and yet people seem to really love them.
Cellulose...
Was the last hot dog you had wrapped in a cellulose casing made out of cotton linters or wood pulp?
Just to add to the hot dog yuck factor: https://www.naturalnews.com/034917_sausages_casings_cowhides.html#
0 -
Beet greens are the very tastiest greens. Red amaranth second.
I don't know whether those are unpopular opinions or not: IRL I hardly ever meet anyone who eats them.4 -
CarvedTones wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »A substantiated opinion - the case against using GMO products is complete woo. Every major health organization around the world (CDC, WHO, EUPHA, etc) endorses them as safe. Purposefully avoiding GMO products is pretty much anti-science. A lot of common products avoid them because of public perception so we end up avoiding them without trying. There are reasons to hate Monsanto's business practices with respect to GMO crops. It's a real shame; GMO crops have more yield per acre, reducing the amount of farmland that needs to be cleared. They are more tolerant of drought, increasing the food supply in some areas that need it most. They are more bug resistant, decreasing the need for pesticides that often pollute water supplies.CarvedTones wrote: »A substantiated opinion - the case against using GMO products is complete woo. Every major health organization around the world (CDC, WHO, EUPHA, etc) endorses them as safe. Purposefully avoiding GMO products is pretty much anti-science. A lot of common products avoid them because of public perception so we end up avoiding them without trying. There are reasons to hate Monsanto's business practices with respect to GMO crops. It's a real shame; GMO crops have more yield per acre, reducing the amount of farmland that needs to be cleared. They are more tolerant of drought, increasing the food supply in some areas that need it most. They are more bug resistant, decreasing the need for pesticides that often pollute water supplies.
Agreed. I have zero issue with GMOs.
There is no more rational basis for having a blanket opinion about all GMOs than there is for having a blanket opinion about all possible non GMO organisms. Some will be generally safe for all people, with a very low incidence of allergies. Some will be toxic. And there will be foods that fall somewhere between those extremes.
The process of genetically modifying something doesn't make it automatically safe to eat, anymore than the fact that something isn't genetically modified (by humans through gene manipulation) makes it safe to eat.
Please identify an example of a food that wasn't toxic before modification and is afterwards.
The CDC, WHO, EUPHA and all the other major health organizations are making evidence based scientific conclusions. IMO, trusting science is more rational than dismissing it because I don't like blanket conclusions. There is no rational basis for assuming that modification makes something unsafe to eat when there is no evidence to support that. Science rarely if ever claims 100% certainty of anything only because it is logistically impossible to ever be 100% certain. That doesn't put an unproven hypothesis that isn't based on any evidence on equal footing.
EDIT - Also, they don't just create some new GMO variant and start selling it as food without extensive testing. Mostly they are making sure there is a benefit to the modification, but they do test to make sure the food is acceptable (taste, texture and doesn't kill anyone) as well as achieving their objective (better, yield, more nutrition, higher tolerance to adverse conditions, world peace, etc).
Each GMO food is its own individual case, so having "zero issues" with GMOs is like having "zero issues" with all potential foods There is nothing magical about the GMO process that guarantees that all foods will be safe for all people. I'm perfectly happy to eat GMOs if they have been well-vetted AND if I am allowed access to information about what the modification is. I'm about basing judgments on as much information as possible, so don't try to insinuate that I'm anti-science or anti-evidence. If the evidence is there, there shouldn't be any objection to letting consumers have access to it in each case.
What if they've inserted protein-generating sequences from wheat into a tomato, and I have celiac disease?
I forget the details, but there was a GMO fish that was being brought to market, and they had subbed some gene sequences from a fish that reaches adult weight more quickly than the original fish they were modifying. I would not eat that UNTIL I was able to obtain further information about the fish they were getting the fast-growth genes from. It was a fish that was also commonly eaten by humans, so for me, it was not a concern.
Given the number of drugs that have been approved and brought to market with horrific consequences during my lifetime, due to inadequate vetting, I reserve the right to make my own judgment about each instance of something new that has been "extensively tested" (in the case of GMOs, these extensive tests appear to be on the order of a year or two, which is hardly enough to judge long-term effects).
Long winded way of saying that no, you can't identify a single instance of the issue that you are worried about. But since I can't prove the sky isn't falling I guess you might as well wear the tin foil hat for protection in case it is.
You are taking the very unscientific position that if something is produced by a particular process, it must be healthful, regardless of what ingredients were used to produce it. I think you better check your own headgear.
And the headgear of the CDC, WHO, EUPHA and other major health organization scientists, who I trust more than other internet posters and that should be trusted more than me. They all endorse GMO. Many GMO crops would allow us to feed more people using less resources. But the fear of them is too widespread, and even though that fear isn't based on hard science (it actually discredits hard science), farmers and merchants are reluctant to use them. Less people would die if it weren't for the irrational fear of GMO crops.
No, they endorse individual GMO foods/crops, or they endorse GMO as a useful way to quickly develop crops that grow better than conventional crops under certain adverse conditions or have a higher yield. There is no scientific basis for saying that because GMO Foods (1 to X) are safe, than then all GMO Foods (x+1 to infinity) will be safe. You really seem to be missing the point.
Edited to fix typo.4 -
I don't get drinking chocolate milk with a meal, which was mostly what I saw as a kid -- other kids buying chocolate milk with their lunches, or friends having chocolate milk with lunch or dinner at home. The idea of drinking something chocolatey and sweet to wash down your meatloaf or tuna casserole was just absolutely gross to me. And if it's not as part of a meal, there are so many tastier treats than chocolate milk.
But you're so wrong on Oreos. Of course, they should be dunked in coffee.3 -
There is no need to put butter on pancakes. No need. Yuck.
I dont like PB&J. Peanut butter on bread or jelly on bread is good, but not together.
I agree with not putting butter on pancakes.
I used to agree with you about the PB&J as well, but we always got it with grape jelly as kids and I hated that. Since trying it with strawberry jam, I like them now.
0 -
PaperDoll_ wrote: »There is no need to put butter on pancakes. No need. Yuck.
I dont like PB&J. Peanut butter on bread or jelly on bread is good, but not together.
I agree with not putting butter on pancakes.
I used to agree with you about the PB&J as well, but we always got it with grape jelly as kids and I hated that. Since trying it with strawberry jam, I like them now.
No butter needed on corn bread or biscuits either. Or even a good roll. I do like it on toast or homemade bread.0 -
pancakerunner wrote: »cottage cheese > skyr > greek yogurt
(picky about my cottage cheese brands tho)
Lol, that's like half my diet...but cottage cheese > skyr ~/= greek yogurt
Only cottage cheeses I prefer = Breakstone 4% (small or large curd) & Friendship 4% (seems like a regional brand; never had this in southern US states)...often store brands are noticeably more "gummy" with the arabic gum, carrageenan, xanthan gum, & other thickeners1 -
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
I don't get drinking chocolate milk with a meal, which was mostly what I saw as a kid -- other kids buying chocolate milk with their lunches, or friends having chocolate milk with lunch or dinner at home. The idea of drinking something chocolatey and sweet to wash down your meatloaf or tuna casserole was just absolutely gross to me. And if it's not as part of a meal, there are so many tastier treats than chocolate milk.
As a kid, I always got chocolate milk in the school cafeteria because the regular milk was a different brand and smelled smoky to me (?) Anyway I would eat my lunch with no beverage and then drink the chocolate milk afterward like a dessert...for that very reason. It was (is) so gross eating pizza or chicken/noodles and vegetables with chocolate milk as the beverage.
3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »A substantiated opinion - the case against using GMO products is complete woo. Every major health organization around the world (CDC, WHO, EUPHA, etc) endorses them as safe. Purposefully avoiding GMO products is pretty much anti-science. A lot of common products avoid them because of public perception so we end up avoiding them without trying. There are reasons to hate Monsanto's business practices with respect to GMO crops. It's a real shame; GMO crops have more yield per acre, reducing the amount of farmland that needs to be cleared. They are more tolerant of drought, increasing the food supply in some areas that need it most. They are more bug resistant, decreasing the need for pesticides that often pollute water supplies.CarvedTones wrote: »A substantiated opinion - the case against using GMO products is complete woo. Every major health organization around the world (CDC, WHO, EUPHA, etc) endorses them as safe. Purposefully avoiding GMO products is pretty much anti-science. A lot of common products avoid them because of public perception so we end up avoiding them without trying. There are reasons to hate Monsanto's business practices with respect to GMO crops. It's a real shame; GMO crops have more yield per acre, reducing the amount of farmland that needs to be cleared. They are more tolerant of drought, increasing the food supply in some areas that need it most. They are more bug resistant, decreasing the need for pesticides that often pollute water supplies.
Agreed. I have zero issue with GMOs.
There is no more rational basis for having a blanket opinion about all GMOs than there is for having a blanket opinion about all possible non GMO organisms. Some will be generally safe for all people, with a very low incidence of allergies. Some will be toxic. And there will be foods that fall somewhere between those extremes.
The process of genetically modifying something doesn't make it automatically safe to eat, anymore than the fact that something isn't genetically modified (by humans through gene manipulation) makes it safe to eat.
Please identify an example of a food that wasn't toxic before modification and is afterwards.
The CDC, WHO, EUPHA and all the other major health organizations are making evidence based scientific conclusions. IMO, trusting science is more rational than dismissing it because I don't like blanket conclusions. There is no rational basis for assuming that modification makes something unsafe to eat when there is no evidence to support that. Science rarely if ever claims 100% certainty of anything only because it is logistically impossible to ever be 100% certain. That doesn't put an unproven hypothesis that isn't based on any evidence on equal footing.
EDIT - Also, they don't just create some new GMO variant and start selling it as food without extensive testing. Mostly they are making sure there is a benefit to the modification, but they do test to make sure the food is acceptable (taste, texture and doesn't kill anyone) as well as achieving their objective (better, yield, more nutrition, higher tolerance to adverse conditions, world peace, etc).
Each GMO food is its own individual case, so having "zero issues" with GMOs is like having "zero issues" with all potential foods There is nothing magical about the GMO process that guarantees that all foods will be safe for all people. I'm perfectly happy to eat GMOs if they have been well-vetted AND if I am allowed access to information about what the modification is. I'm about basing judgments on as much information as possible, so don't try to insinuate that I'm anti-science or anti-evidence. If the evidence is there, there shouldn't be any objection to letting consumers have access to it in each case.
What if they've inserted protein-generating sequences from wheat into a tomato, and I have celiac disease?
I forget the details, but there was a GMO fish that was being brought to market, and they had subbed some gene sequences from a fish that reaches adult weight more quickly than the original fish they were modifying. I would not eat that UNTIL I was able to obtain further information about the fish they were getting the fast-growth genes from. It was a fish that was also commonly eaten by humans, so for me, it was not a concern.
Given the number of drugs that have been approved and brought to market with horrific consequences during my lifetime, due to inadequate vetting, I reserve the right to make my own judgment about each instance of something new that has been "extensively tested" (in the case of GMOs, these extensive tests appear to be on the order of a year or two, which is hardly enough to judge long-term effects).
Long winded way of saying that no, you can't identify a single instance of the issue that you are worried about. But since I can't prove the sky isn't falling I guess you might as well wear the tin foil hat for protection in case it is.
You are taking the very unscientific position that if something is produced by a particular process, it must be healthful, regardless of what ingredients were used to produce it. I think you better check your own headgear.
And the headgear of the CDC, WHO, EUPHA and other major health organization scientists, who I trust more than other internet posters and that should be trusted more than me. They all endorse GMO. Many GMO crops would allow us to feed more people using less resources. But the fear of them is too widespread, and even though that fear isn't based on hard science (it actually discredits hard science), farmers and merchants are reluctant to use them. Less people would die if it weren't for the irrational fear of GMO crops.
No, they endorse individual GMO foods/crops, or they endorse GMO as a useful way to quickly develop crops that grow better than conventional crops under certain adverse conditions or have a higher yield. There is no scientific basis for saying that because GMO Foods (1 to X) are safe, than then all GMO Foods (x+1 to infinity) will be safe. You really seem to be missing the point.
Edited to fix typo.
Yes, there is scientific basis to say that the odds of GMO introducing an unsafe variant are not higher than natural mutations or cross breeding without GMO which are not as carefully monitored as GMO. There is unfounded fear in the face of science; this is nothing new. I am not missing your point at all; it just isn't based on anything meaningful. A little more education and understanding would help you get past your fear.
7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
I don't get drinking chocolate milk with a meal, which was mostly what I saw as a kid -- other kids buying chocolate milk with their lunches, or friends having chocolate milk with lunch or dinner at home. The idea of drinking something chocolatey and sweet to wash down your meatloaf or tuna casserole was just absolutely gross to me. And if it's not as part of a meal, there are so many tastier treats than chocolate milk.
But you're so wrong on Oreos. Of course, they should be dunked in coffee.
I was an oddball as a child. Other kids bought chocolate milk or fruit juice during recess, and I bought tomato juice. I suspect the reason they kept selling it is because I kept buying it haha. I didn't like chocolate milk and still don't (it tastes kind of grainy and heavy). If I had to get flavored milk it was strawberry milk.3 -
Traditional American Thanksgiving dinner is over rated. When’s the last time you went out to a nice dinner and ordered turkey?
On the other hand in left over sandwich form it’s delicious.8 -
Turkey is my favorite meat and the thing I missed most as a vegetarian.
Skinless lean chicken breast is a close second.1 -
Haggis is food of the gods4
-
MaryContrary1972 wrote: »Haggis is food of the gods
Score one for atheism!
Makes me glad to be a mere mortal also, so I don't have to eat that.3 -
PaperDoll_ wrote: »There is no need to put butter on pancakes. No need. Yuck.
I dont like PB&J. Peanut butter on bread or jelly on bread is good, but not together.
I agree with not putting butter on pancakes.
I used to agree with you about the PB&J as well, but we always got it with grape jelly as kids and I hated that. Since trying it with strawberry jam, I like them now.
I used to put butter on pancakes since I hated maple syrup. Not sure why I disliked it? I can eat foods with maple now, but not sure how I'd feel about maple syrup on pancakes. My niece put cookie butter on her pancakes a few times & seemed to enjoy it.
As a kid I hated baked beans (think it's the sauce) & also found Spaghetti-O's revolting (again think it's the sauce).
I loved the Chef Boyardee Spaghetti With Meatballs.0 -
Traditional American Thanksgiving dinner is over rated. When’s the last time you went out to a nice dinner and ordered turkey?
On the other hand in left over sandwich form it’s delicious.
Definitely! If offered both turkey & ham during Thanksgiving I'll go for the ham & maybe eat a little bit of turkey.
Stuffing is my favorite!
This might sound mean, but my grandma's pumpkin pie is seriously one of the most disgusting, revolting things ever made. My mom said before that she takes a can of pumpkin pie & basically adds no spices. I remember one Thanksgiving or Christmas my sister & I argued over who had to take it. I ended up tripping out of the suburban that year & the pie broke my fall. So in the end no one had to take it.2 -
kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »Traditional American Thanksgiving dinner is over rated. When’s the last time you went out to a nice dinner and ordered turkey?
On the other hand in left over sandwich form it’s delicious.
Definitely! If offered both turkey & ham during Thanksgiving I'll go for the ham & maybe eat a little bit of turkey.
Stuffing is my favorite!
This might sound mean, but my grandma's pumpkin pie is seriously one of the most disgusting, revolting things ever made. My mom said before that she takes a can of pumpkin pie & basically adds no spices. I remember one Thanksgiving or Christmas my sister & I argued over who had to take it. I ended up tripping out of the suburban that year & the pie broke my fall. So in the end no one had to take it.
How can anyone mess up pumpkin pie? (No spices, I guess!
) It's the easiest thing. Dump, stir, bake. I know there are fancy schmanchy recipes out there, but the one on the Libby's can has never failed me (I don't add the whole can of evaporated milk, though). 2 -
kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »Traditional American Thanksgiving dinner is over rated. When’s the last time you went out to a nice dinner and ordered turkey?
On the other hand in left over sandwich form it’s delicious.
Definitely! If offered both turkey & ham during Thanksgiving I'll go for the ham & maybe eat a little bit of turkey.
Stuffing is my favorite!
This might sound mean, but my grandma's pumpkin pie is seriously one of the most disgusting, revolting things ever made. My mom said before that she takes a can of pumpkin pie & basically adds no spices. I remember one Thanksgiving or Christmas my sister & I argued over who had to take it. I ended up tripping out of the suburban that year & the pie broke my fall. So in the end no one had to take it.
How can anyone mess up pumpkin pie? (No spices, I guess! ) It's the easiest thing. Dump, stir, bake. I know there are fancy schmanchy recipes out there, but the one on the Libby's can has never failed me (I don't add the whole can of evaporated milk, though).
There is a lot of nostalgia tied up in recipes passed down for generations, but...
Six of 10 people preferred the pie made with a can. Just three people preferred the pie made with fresh pumpkin.
This is one of those cases where the opinion is unpopular, even though studies back it up.1 -
CarvedTones wrote: »kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »Traditional American Thanksgiving dinner is over rated. When’s the last time you went out to a nice dinner and ordered turkey?
On the other hand in left over sandwich form it’s delicious.
Definitely! If offered both turkey & ham during Thanksgiving I'll go for the ham & maybe eat a little bit of turkey.
Stuffing is my favorite!
This might sound mean, but my grandma's pumpkin pie is seriously one of the most disgusting, revolting things ever made. My mom said before that she takes a can of pumpkin pie & basically adds no spices. I remember one Thanksgiving or Christmas my sister & I argued over who had to take it. I ended up tripping out of the suburban that year & the pie broke my fall. So in the end no one had to take it.
How can anyone mess up pumpkin pie? (No spices, I guess! ) It's the easiest thing. Dump, stir, bake. I know there are fancy schmanchy recipes out there, but the one on the Libby's can has never failed me (I don't add the whole can of evaporated milk, though).
There is a lot of nostalgia tied up in recipes passed down for generations, but...
Six of 10 people preferred the pie made with a can. Just three people preferred the pie made with fresh pumpkin.
This is one of those cases where the opinion is unpopular, even if studies back it up.
Fresh pumpkin is a pain in the kitten and not worth the effort. I've done it before. Won't bother again.5 -
CarvedTones wrote: »kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »Traditional American Thanksgiving dinner is over rated. When’s the last time you went out to a nice dinner and ordered turkey?
On the other hand in left over sandwich form it’s delicious.
Definitely! If offered both turkey & ham during Thanksgiving I'll go for the ham & maybe eat a little bit of turkey.
Stuffing is my favorite!
This might sound mean, but my grandma's pumpkin pie is seriously one of the most disgusting, revolting things ever made. My mom said before that she takes a can of pumpkin pie & basically adds no spices. I remember one Thanksgiving or Christmas my sister & I argued over who had to take it. I ended up tripping out of the suburban that year & the pie broke my fall. So in the end no one had to take it.
How can anyone mess up pumpkin pie? (No spices, I guess! ) It's the easiest thing. Dump, stir, bake. I know there are fancy schmanchy recipes out there, but the one on the Libby's can has never failed me (I don't add the whole can of evaporated milk, though).
There is a lot of nostalgia tied up in recipes passed down for generations, but...
Six of 10 people preferred the pie made with a can. Just three people preferred the pie made with fresh pumpkin.
This is one of those cases where the opinion is unpopular, even if studies back it up.
Fresh pumpkin is a pain in the kitten and not worth the effort. I've done it before. Won't bother again.
Another general opinion people don't like to believe - in large batch factory operations, they get products they are cooking up to exactly the desired temperature and use mechanical stirring to ensure it is evenly heated. It is kept at the desired temperature for exactly the desired time. All the spices are measured with extreme accuracy. It is packaged in a hermetically sealed container that makes break down from exposure very slow. It is very difficult to match this in a consumer kitchen. When you actually go head to head, it's hard to beat factory produced food in taste tests. Comparing completely different recipes for something that just has the same general name is different.3 -
(Assuming we're still talking about pumpkin pie here) I've never used the canned pumpkin pie mix (presweetened and spiced). Just the canned pumpkin. Texture isn't an issue here because you want a smooth puree, but I would say many factory-prepared items lose out against home cooked for texture issues (canned soup, for example).4
-
CarvedTones wrote: »kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »Traditional American Thanksgiving dinner is over rated. When’s the last time you went out to a nice dinner and ordered turkey?
On the other hand in left over sandwich form it’s delicious.
Definitely! If offered both turkey & ham during Thanksgiving I'll go for the ham & maybe eat a little bit of turkey.
Stuffing is my favorite!
This might sound mean, but my grandma's pumpkin pie is seriously one of the most disgusting, revolting things ever made. My mom said before that she takes a can of pumpkin pie & basically adds no spices. I remember one Thanksgiving or Christmas my sister & I argued over who had to take it. I ended up tripping out of the suburban that year & the pie broke my fall. So in the end no one had to take it.
How can anyone mess up pumpkin pie? (No spices, I guess! ) It's the easiest thing. Dump, stir, bake. I know there are fancy schmanchy recipes out there, but the one on the Libby's can has never failed me (I don't add the whole can of evaporated milk, though).
There is a lot of nostalgia tied up in recipes passed down for generations, but...
Six of 10 people preferred the pie made with a can. Just three people preferred the pie made with fresh pumpkin.
This is one of those cases where the opinion is unpopular, even if studies back it up.
Fresh pumpkin is a pain in the kitten and not worth the effort. I've done it before. Won't bother again.
Same here, and I agree.
I don't care about pumpkin pie, though -- always prefer apple this time of year, and so that's what I make.
For pumpkin's required appearance, my sister is doing a pumpkin cheesecake.2 -
(Assuming we're still talking about pumpkin pie here) I've never used the canned pumpkin pie mix (presweetened and spiced). Just the canned pumpkin. Texture isn't an issue here because you want a smooth puree, but I would say many factory-prepared items lose out against home cooked for texture issues (canned soup, for example).
Agree with this too.
Remember that factory-produced (if we are talking pies and cakes packaged and sold in stores) also have to be more shelf-stable and tend to use cheaper ingredients, often. I always prefer homemade to any packaged bakery items (and am sure I could tell the difference in a blind taste test -- I really don't even have much of an attraction at all for packaged sweet stuff from the grocery.
Bakery items from an actual bakery or made at a good restaurant, however, are often better than I can do at home.
Sometimes a dish is beloved because it is how you've always had it, so a different version just never tastes right.4 -
(Assuming we're still talking about pumpkin pie here) I've never used the canned pumpkin pie mix (presweetened and spiced). Just the canned pumpkin. Texture isn't an issue here because you want a smooth puree, but I would say many factory-prepared items lose out against home cooked for texture issues (canned soup, for example).
True, but my problem with using fresh vs. canned pumpkin for pie was exactly the opposite: The texture of the fresh pumpkin is hard to get right, not just from a pureeing standpoint, but also moisture content.4 -
"Cauliflower rice" is the least pleasurable way to eat cauliflower. I totally don't see the point. (But I can take or leave rice, so don't need a sub - maybe that's the problem.)9
-
(Assuming we're still talking about pumpkin pie here) I've never used the canned pumpkin pie mix (presweetened and spiced). Just the canned pumpkin. Texture isn't an issue here because you want a smooth puree, but I would say many factory-prepared items lose out against home cooked for texture issues (canned soup, for example).
Soup can be an example of where my head to head caveat applies; often the comparison is between very different recipes. But the texture is something factory made products often don't do as well. And with some soups, there is an ingredient or two that you don't want to put in until very near the end. There are exceptions, but a whole lot of our preferences don't hold up to blind taste testing. HFCS sweetened Coke crushes cane sugar by more than a 2 to 1 margin in blind taste tests, for example, but if you ask people their preference it goes the other way. We get some Indian food in stand up pouches that you microwave maybe a minute. Pour it over Minute jasmine rice and you will be hard pressed to beat it in a blind test with the same dish from a good restaurant. I am sure that's an unpopular opinion.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions