Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Impossible Whopper: Your thoughts on plant-based burgers?
Options
Replies
-
I live right smack in the middle of corn and cow country. Sorry - I don't want to eat a fake burger -not even to try it. give me my beef and call it good. Now I'm not opposed to making a burger outta something else (turkey, ground chicken) - but call it what it is - a turkey burger or veggie burger - but I don't dress it up the same or try to pass it off as something it isnt. Personally, I haven't found a 'fake' version that I liked - even when I tried to tell myself it was just something else.
I'm not exactly sure what the labeling concerns are? Burger is not inherently a beef based thing. There are dozens of things that a burger can get made out of. Nobody here is trying to trick anyone into thinking these are actually beef burgers. That would defeat the whole point of them. They are very clear that it made of plant products and not beef. So as long as someone knows what they are getting, what is the issue?7 -
Why is a burger made from plants "faker" than one made from meat that isn't beef?
I'm not aware of anyone selling the Impossible Burger as something it isn't. The plant-based status of the burger has been made quite clear in all the marketing material that I've seen.
So if one isn't opposed to eating a chicken burger or a turkey burger, why is the plant burger the only one that is dismissed as "fake" and not even to be considered as a potential meal?
I get objections based on taste. I get objections based on dietary restrictions (no soy, etc). I don't get the blanket objection to something that is "fake," especially when a turkey burger is considered to be acceptable.
8 -
I live right smack in the middle of corn and cow country. Sorry - I don't want to eat a fake burger -not even to try it. give me my beef and call it good. Now I'm not opposed to making a burger outta something else (turkey, ground chicken) - but call it what it is - a turkey burger or veggie burger - but I don't dress it up the same or try to pass it off as something it isnt. Personally, I haven't found a 'fake' version that I liked - even when I tried to tell myself it was just something else.
That is funny because I have never met a poultry burger replacement that I have ever liked or would want to eat again. I have zero interest in ever trying one again. I feel the same amount poultry meatballs and meatloaf. I much prefer a veggie burger to a turkey or chicken version.
That doesn't make me right and you wrong. These are just personal preferences. There are a lot of shows on TV that I hate that others must love or they wouldn't still be on the air.
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Why is a burger made from plants "faker" than one made from meat that isn't beef?
I'm not aware of anyone selling the Impossible Burger as something it isn't. The plant-based status of the burger has been made quite clear in all the marketing material that I've seen.
So if one isn't opposed to eating a chicken burger or a turkey burger, why is the plant burger the only one that is dismissed as "fake" and not even to be considered as a potential meal?
I get objections based on taste. I get objections based on dietary restrictions (no soy, etc). I don't get the blanket objection to something that is "fake," especially when a turkey burger is considered to be acceptable.
I do wonder how many people who think it is "fake" and could never taste like the real thing, if they would actually be able to notice the difference in a blind taste test? I think if people go in thinking what they are eating is "fake" or bad, then they will naturally have sort of a placebo affect to thinking the taste is different. But if they ate a real whopper and an impossible whopper, how many could correctly predict which is the real whopper?2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Why is a burger made from plants "faker" than one made from meat that isn't beef?
Perception.
4 -
CaptainPicaro wrote: »I'm a lady. I mostly get mistaken for a man. I believe I may be a transexual because I frequently get mistaken for a man. I have a masucline face and body. Fine steak is a delightful part of life. Fast food isn't healthy.
Your ladyhood is also safe from Burger King's decision to sell a different type of burger alongside their regular offerings.
10 -
I live right smack in the middle of corn and cow country. Sorry - I don't want to eat a fake burger -not even to try it. give me my beef and call it good. Now I'm not opposed to making a burger outta something else (turkey, ground chicken) - but call it what it is - a turkey burger or veggie burger - but I don't dress it up the same or try to pass it off as something it isnt. Personally, I haven't found a 'fake' version that I liked - even when I tried to tell myself it was just something else.
That is funny because I have never met a poultry burger replacement that I have ever liked or would want to eat again. I have zero interest in ever trying one again. I feel the same amount poultry meatballs and meatloaf. I much prefer a veggie burger to a turkey or chicken version.
That doesn't make me right and you wrong. These are just personal preferences. There are a lot of shows on TV that I hate that others must love or they wouldn't still be on the air.
The grossest and least convincing burger I've had in my 40ish years on this planet was actually a turkey burger.
Not saying there are not good ones out there, but the one I had was certainly not it.1 -
CaptainPicaro wrote: »Not aware of BK selling a steak, let alone one worth eating.
Some folks think vegetarianism should be mandated so the issue isn't patties vs. steak, it's beef. Different folks have different dietary needs. The smoked out hippies that want to eliminate omnivore eating habits are a bit radical.
You're right. The radicals at Burger King cannot be trusted. This is just part of their extremely long-term and cunning plot to make beef illegal.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I live right smack in the middle of corn and cow country. Sorry - I don't want to eat a fake burger -not even to try it. give me my beef and call it good. Now I'm not opposed to making a burger outta something else (turkey, ground chicken) - but call it what it is - a turkey burger or veggie burger - but I don't dress it up the same or try to pass it off as something it isnt. Personally, I haven't found a 'fake' version that I liked - even when I tried to tell myself it was just something else.
That is funny because I have never met a poultry burger replacement that I have ever liked or would want to eat again. I have zero interest in ever trying one again. I feel the same amount poultry meatballs and meatloaf. I much prefer a veggie burger to a turkey or chicken version.
That doesn't make me right and you wrong. These are just personal preferences. There are a lot of shows on TV that I hate that others must love or they wouldn't still be on the air.
The grossest and least convincing burger I've had in my 40ish years on this planet was actually a turkey burger.
Not saying there are not good ones out there, but the one I had was certainly not it.
That is how I feel about them. I have tried to like them but I can't and isn't important enough to me to try anymore.
0 -
CaptainPicaro wrote: »Not aware of BK selling a steak, let alone one worth eating.
Some folks think vegetarianism should be mandated so the issue isn't patties vs. steak, it's beef. Different folks have different dietary needs. The smoked out hippies that want to eliminate omnivore eating habits are a bit radical.
That statement was a bit radical so you have that in common with the "smoked out hippies."6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Why is a burger made from plants "faker" than one made from meat that isn't beef?
I'm not aware of anyone selling the Impossible Burger as something it isn't. The plant-based status of the burger has been made quite clear in all the marketing material that I've seen.
So if one isn't opposed to eating a chicken burger or a turkey burger, why is the plant burger the only one that is dismissed as "fake" and not even to be considered as a potential meal?
I get objections based on taste. I get objections based on dietary restrictions (no soy, etc). I don't get the blanket objection to something that is "fake," especially when a turkey burger is considered to be acceptable.
I know you weren't asking me, but someone else with different views, but:
I think of the Impossible Burger as "fake" because they seem to be explicitly trying to imitate beef, and they even took steps to make it "bleed".
A turkey burger isn't fake, a black bean burger isn't fake . . . but a product that explicitly tries to imitate beef in look and taste . . . is fake beef.
In my world, "fake" in this context is not a value judgement, I don't object to it existing or to people eating it, but calling something like this "fake" just seems like recognizing it for what it is.
While deception can be part of the definition of "fake", most sources don't seem to consider it a required part.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I wouldn't eat it. I have no reason to eat a replacement food when I can eat the real thing. IMO, replacement foods are not generally up to the same nutritional level as the real food.
I like the option of it for those vegetarians who enjoyed meat but gave it up for some other reason, and for those who cant eat fast food because they are halal.
I would stick to meat for a few reasons:
Gluten- as a celiac, it would not be safe, not that fast food is often safe.
Nutrition - meat is generally more nutritious than plant proteins.
Limiting seed PUFASs - I'd rather eat saturated fats that we've eaten safely (badically) forever.
Environmental reasons- fewer animals die for beef than monocrops; pastured animals improve the soil and water retention; grasslands help with carbon sinks.
Meat is cheaper - fake is less nutrition for more money.
I am all for offering it as an option though. It will work for some. As long as they dont force it on me with a meat tax or something, I say to each their own.
Nutrition: Speaking of the general when this thread is about a specific product isn't necessarily that useful. The Impossible Burger is specifically designed to be similar to beef nutritionally. For this specific product, is there a nutritional concern compared to a ground beef patty?
Keep in mind that the person choosing a Whopper made from an Impossible Burger is likely eating it instead of an equivalent fast food meal made with meat, so the nutritional differences should be considered in that context instead of compared to completely different meals.
Environmental: The typical fast food burger is made from cows being fed soy and corn. If monocrops are a concern, then eliminating beef makes more sense as it takes many pounds of feed to produce just a pound of beef. Eating the soy ourselves is the more rational choice for those with this environmental concern, as it reduces the overall demand. Comparing the environmental impact to a pastured animal makes sense only if the majority of fast food burgers are coming from pastured animals. Are they?
Nutritionally, if someone is eating fast food once in a while, it probably makes little to no difference what burger they chose because other foods will fill in for deficiencies. My point was just that they are probably not equal, and that meat us probably more complete. Not a big deal unless it is an everyday thing.
Most beef only spend a very short time on feedlots. The vast majority of their time is on a pasture, so no, they are not mono cropped. At least not in my country. And when they do go to a feedlot, they tend to get the waste crops that we cant or dont eat as well.
Instead of saying they "probably" aren't equal, can you tell me what you'd expect to get in a burger that isn't in the Impossible Burger?
In my country, pollution from feedlots is a major issue and cows are fed soy and corn, even when they are pastured for part of their lives. So choosing a beef burger due to concern about pollution or monocrops wouldn't make sense.
Real beef. Fake beef will not be real beef. It will not be the same. It may be similar but I doubt its proteins are the same or complete. I am guessing the vitamins and minerals differ. I am guessing there are more pufas and less saturated fats.
As a human, I am designed to eat meat. I am probably not designed to eat vegan burgers. I am not saying they are bad. I am saying they are less than ideal for me. Ymmv
"Fake" versus "real" isn't an objective nutritional difference. That's more of an emotionally driven assessment.
You're guessing a lot here. The nutritional information is available for this product. You don't have to guess, yet you keep doing so.
For the average person ordering a Impossible Whopper instead of a regular Whopper, is the difference in nutritional impact worth noting? I still haven't seen a compelling reason to think that there is.
"It's not real" isn't an objection that is based in an actual assessment of the differences.
I do not believe that I was "designed" to eat anything. This is an argument that is absolutely not based in any evidence, it's completely emotional. You're free, of course, to reject foods based on religious grounds. But in the context of a debate, it doesn't really move us forward.
So it's not "real," it's not ideal, it's not what you're meant to eat. These are all emotional responses.
I dont think that saying I am not evolved to eat vegan burgers us emotional. That's factual.
Just like humans are not evolved to drink baby formula. They are meant to drink breast milk. If formula bad? No. Is it as good as breast milk? No. It is fake, or imitation, breast milk.
I feel you are defending the fake/imitation beef patty emotionally. So what if it is not as nutritious as beef would be? As I said, i doubt it will make much difference in peoples' lives unless they eat it daily.
I am saying guess because I dont want to research nutritional differences that exist between meat and vegan alternatives.
I say designed in evolutionary terms. Not religious. Humans are meat eaters. I see no reason to replace it with soy and corn proteins if I am not being forced to. I dont see where we evolved (were designed) to rely on plant proteins, yeast and added vitamins and minerals for our nutritional needs. We can get by on it, sure, but is it ideally suited to the human body? Doubtful. Will eating imitation burger once in a while hurt? Also doubtful. But I am all for people having that option if they want it.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Why is a burger made from plants "faker" than one made from meat that isn't beef?
I'm not aware of anyone selling the Impossible Burger as something it isn't. The plant-based status of the burger has been made quite clear in all the marketing material that I've seen.
So if one isn't opposed to eating a chicken burger or a turkey burger, why is the plant burger the only one that is dismissed as "fake" and not even to be considered as a potential meal?
I get objections based on taste. I get objections based on dietary restrictions (no soy, etc). I don't get the blanket objection to something that is "fake," especially when a turkey burger is considered to be acceptable.
I know you weren't asking me, but someone else with different views, but:
I think of the Impossible Burger as "fake" because they seem to be explicitly trying to imitate beef, and they even took steps to make it "bleed".
A turkey burger isn't fake, a black bean burger isn't fake . . . but a product that explicitly tries to imitate beef in look and taste . . . is fake beef.
In my world, "fake" in this context is not a value judgement, I don't object to it existing or to people eating it, but calling something like this "fake" just seems like recognizing it for what it is.
While deception can be part of the definition of "fake", most sources don't seem to consider it a required part.
It's a fair enough take and I can understand the distinction.
I don't understand using it as a value judgment (rejecting the "fake" solely for that reason).
I personally see it less as fakery and more of an attempt to identify what people really enjoy about burgers and deliver it in other formats while eliminating characteristics certain consumers see as undesirable (similar to diet soda or electric cars or phalate free shampoo . . . none of which I would call "fake," just different).1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I wouldn't eat it. I have no reason to eat a replacement food when I can eat the real thing. IMO, replacement foods are not generally up to the same nutritional level as the real food.
I like the option of it for those vegetarians who enjoyed meat but gave it up for some other reason, and for those who cant eat fast food because they are halal.
I would stick to meat for a few reasons:
Gluten- as a celiac, it would not be safe, not that fast food is often safe.
Nutrition - meat is generally more nutritious than plant proteins.
Limiting seed PUFASs - I'd rather eat saturated fats that we've eaten safely (badically) forever.
Environmental reasons- fewer animals die for beef than monocrops; pastured animals improve the soil and water retention; grasslands help with carbon sinks.
Meat is cheaper - fake is less nutrition for more money.
I am all for offering it as an option though. It will work for some. As long as they dont force it on me with a meat tax or something, I say to each their own.
Nutrition: Speaking of the general when this thread is about a specific product isn't necessarily that useful. The Impossible Burger is specifically designed to be similar to beef nutritionally. For this specific product, is there a nutritional concern compared to a ground beef patty?
Keep in mind that the person choosing a Whopper made from an Impossible Burger is likely eating it instead of an equivalent fast food meal made with meat, so the nutritional differences should be considered in that context instead of compared to completely different meals.
Environmental: The typical fast food burger is made from cows being fed soy and corn. If monocrops are a concern, then eliminating beef makes more sense as it takes many pounds of feed to produce just a pound of beef. Eating the soy ourselves is the more rational choice for those with this environmental concern, as it reduces the overall demand. Comparing the environmental impact to a pastured animal makes sense only if the majority of fast food burgers are coming from pastured animals. Are they?
Nutritionally, if someone is eating fast food once in a while, it probably makes little to no difference what burger they chose because other foods will fill in for deficiencies. My point was just that they are probably not equal, and that meat us probably more complete. Not a big deal unless it is an everyday thing.
Most beef only spend a very short time on feedlots. The vast majority of their time is on a pasture, so no, they are not mono cropped. At least not in my country. And when they do go to a feedlot, they tend to get the waste crops that we cant or dont eat as well.
Instead of saying they "probably" aren't equal, can you tell me what you'd expect to get in a burger that isn't in the Impossible Burger?
In my country, pollution from feedlots is a major issue and cows are fed soy and corn, even when they are pastured for part of their lives. So choosing a beef burger due to concern about pollution or monocrops wouldn't make sense.
Real beef. Fake beef will not be real beef. It will not be the same. It may be similar but I doubt its proteins are the same or complete. I am guessing the vitamins and minerals differ. I am guessing there are more pufas and less saturated fats.
As a human, I am designed to eat meat. I am probably not designed to eat vegan burgers. I am not saying they are bad. I am saying they are less than ideal for me. Ymmv
"Fake" versus "real" isn't an objective nutritional difference. That's more of an emotionally driven assessment.
You're guessing a lot here. The nutritional information is available for this product. You don't have to guess, yet you keep doing so.
For the average person ordering a Impossible Whopper instead of a regular Whopper, is the difference in nutritional impact worth noting? I still haven't seen a compelling reason to think that there is.
"It's not real" isn't an objection that is based in an actual assessment of the differences.
I do not believe that I was "designed" to eat anything. This is an argument that is absolutely not based in any evidence, it's completely emotional. You're free, of course, to reject foods based on religious grounds. But in the context of a debate, it doesn't really move us forward.
So it's not "real," it's not ideal, it's not what you're meant to eat. These are all emotional responses.
I dont think that saying I am not evolved to eat vegan burgers us emotional. That's factual.
Just like humans are not evolved to drink baby formula. They are meant to drink breast milk. If formula bad? No. Is it as good as breast milk? No. It is fake, or imitation, breast milk.
I feel you are defending the fake/imitation beef patty emotionally. So what if it is not as nutritious as beef would be? As I said, i doubt it will make much difference in peoples' lives unless they eat it daily.
I am saying guess because I dont want to research nutritional differences that exist between meat and vegan alternatives.
I say designed in evolutionary terms. Not religious. Humans are meat eaters. I see no reason to replace it with soy and corn proteins if I am not being forced to. I dont see where we evolved (were designed) to rely on plant proteins, yeast and added vitamins and minerals for our nutritional needs. We can get by on it, sure, but is it ideally suited to the human body? Doubtful. Will eating imitation burger once in a while hurt? Also doubtful. But I am all for people having that option if they want it.
You wrote "designed." If you meant "evolved," that's a different statement.
Do you think you evolved to eat Burger King Whoppers? Go through a drive-thru? Exchange currency for a paper bag full of food?
Why is the plant burger where the line is drawn?
If we're looking what humans have evolved to do and limiting ourselves to activities with a long prehistorical/historical record, then Burger King as a whole is probably out. Restaurants of all kinds are out.
Should we be limiting ourselves only to activities for which there is a well-established history over long periods of human evolution?
It's fine not to want to research the differences between the Impossible Burger and the regular Whopper, but I do think if you refuse to educate yourself on it then it doesn't really make sense for you to offer opinions on the nutritional differences.
This isn't an emotional defense for me, it's just intellectually hard for me to understand the exact nature of some of these objections especially when you're sharing that you haven't even bothered to learn anything about the nutritional specifics of the product in question.
13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I wouldn't eat it. I have no reason to eat a replacement food when I can eat the real thing. IMO, replacement foods are not generally up to the same nutritional level as the real food.
I like the option of it for those vegetarians who enjoyed meat but gave it up for some other reason, and for those who cant eat fast food because they are halal.
I would stick to meat for a few reasons:
Gluten- as a celiac, it would not be safe, not that fast food is often safe.
Nutrition - meat is generally more nutritious than plant proteins.
Limiting seed PUFASs - I'd rather eat saturated fats that we've eaten safely (badically) forever.
Environmental reasons- fewer animals die for beef than monocrops; pastured animals improve the soil and water retention; grasslands help with carbon sinks.
Meat is cheaper - fake is less nutrition for more money.
I am all for offering it as an option though. It will work for some. As long as they dont force it on me with a meat tax or something, I say to each their own.
Nutrition: Speaking of the general when this thread is about a specific product isn't necessarily that useful. The Impossible Burger is specifically designed to be similar to beef nutritionally. For this specific product, is there a nutritional concern compared to a ground beef patty?
Keep in mind that the person choosing a Whopper made from an Impossible Burger is likely eating it instead of an equivalent fast food meal made with meat, so the nutritional differences should be considered in that context instead of compared to completely different meals.
Environmental: The typical fast food burger is made from cows being fed soy and corn. If monocrops are a concern, then eliminating beef makes more sense as it takes many pounds of feed to produce just a pound of beef. Eating the soy ourselves is the more rational choice for those with this environmental concern, as it reduces the overall demand. Comparing the environmental impact to a pastured animal makes sense only if the majority of fast food burgers are coming from pastured animals. Are they?
Nutritionally, if someone is eating fast food once in a while, it probably makes little to no difference what burger they chose because other foods will fill in for deficiencies. My point was just that they are probably not equal, and that meat us probably more complete. Not a big deal unless it is an everyday thing.
Most beef only spend a very short time on feedlots. The vast majority of their time is on a pasture, so no, they are not mono cropped. At least not in my country. And when they do go to a feedlot, they tend to get the waste crops that we cant or dont eat as well.
Instead of saying they "probably" aren't equal, can you tell me what you'd expect to get in a burger that isn't in the Impossible Burger?
In my country, pollution from feedlots is a major issue and cows are fed soy and corn, even when they are pastured for part of their lives. So choosing a beef burger due to concern about pollution or monocrops wouldn't make sense.
Real beef. Fake beef will not be real beef. It will not be the same. It may be similar but I doubt its proteins are the same or complete. I am guessing the vitamins and minerals differ. I am guessing there are more pufas and less saturated fats.
As a human, I am designed to eat meat. I am probably not designed to eat vegan burgers. I am not saying they are bad. I am saying they are less than ideal for me. Ymmv
"Fake" versus "real" isn't an objective nutritional difference. That's more of an emotionally driven assessment.
You're guessing a lot here. The nutritional information is available for this product. You don't have to guess, yet you keep doing so.
For the average person ordering a Impossible Whopper instead of a regular Whopper, is the difference in nutritional impact worth noting? I still haven't seen a compelling reason to think that there is.
"It's not real" isn't an objection that is based in an actual assessment of the differences.
I do not believe that I was "designed" to eat anything. This is an argument that is absolutely not based in any evidence, it's completely emotional. You're free, of course, to reject foods based on religious grounds. But in the context of a debate, it doesn't really move us forward.
So it's not "real," it's not ideal, it's not what you're meant to eat. These are all emotional responses.
I dont think that saying I am not evolved to eat vegan burgers us emotional. That's factual.
Just like humans are not evolved to drink baby formula. They are meant to drink breast milk. If formula bad? No. Is it as good as breast milk? No. It is fake, or imitation, breast milk.
I feel you are defending the fake/imitation beef patty emotionally. So what if it is not as nutritious as beef would be? As I said, i doubt it will make much difference in peoples' lives unless they eat it daily.
I am saying guess because I dont want to research nutritional differences that exist between meat and vegan alternatives.
I say designed in evolutionary terms. Not religious. Humans are meat eaters. I see no reason to replace it with soy and corn proteins if I am not being forced to. I dont see where we evolved (were designed) to rely on plant proteins, yeast and added vitamins and minerals for our nutritional needs. We can get by on it, sure, but is it ideally suited to the human body? Doubtful. Will eating imitation burger once in a while hurt? Also doubtful. But I am all for people having that option if they want it.
Adaptation is part of the human design. That is how you are on the internet right now balking at something you have no interest in eating like you are afraid of it.10 -
My friend's A&W franchise can barely keep up with the demand for the beyond burger. Many customers mention they like that no animals had to suffer to make it. As far as nutrition goes they are almost the same as the beef burger. I've BBQ'd them They're good and I couldn't really tell the difference. My friend says he's had customers complain that the their order was not beyond "meat" because they couldn't tell the difference either. As a poster above mentioned... It's just another individual choice like regular or diet soda ect.4
-
I live right smack in the middle of corn and cow country. Sorry - I don't want to eat a fake burger -not even to try it. give me my beef and call it good. Now I'm not opposed to making a burger outta something else (turkey, ground chicken) - but call it what it is - a turkey burger or veggie burger - but I don't dress it up the same or try to pass it off as something it isnt. Personally, I haven't found a 'fake' version that I liked - even when I tried to tell myself it was just something else.
That is funny because I have never met a poultry burger replacement that I have ever liked or would want to eat again. I have zero interest in ever trying one again. I feel the same amount poultry meatballs and meatloaf. I much prefer a veggie burger to a turkey or chicken version.
That doesn't make me right and you wrong. These are just personal preferences. There are a lot of shows on TV that I hate that others must love or they wouldn't still be on the air.
I agree again, including that this is just personal taste. I do like lamb burgers and think poultry meatballs can be tolerable if they include the right other ingredients.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CaptainPicaro wrote: »Not aware of BK selling a steak, let alone one worth eating.
Some folks think vegetarianism should be mandated so the issue isn't patties vs. steak, it's beef. Different folks have different dietary needs. The smoked out hippies that want to eliminate omnivore eating habits are a bit radical.
You're right. The radicals at Burger King cannot be trusted. This is just part of their extremely long-term and cunning plot to make beef illegal.
LOL!0 -
I suspect it will. And that it won't be sold at BK!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions