Eating at restaurants used to be fun, now it's kind of stressful.
Options
Replies
-
PikaKnight wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
And something like a five year roll out would make that easier.goddessofawesome wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »this whole thread just makes me sad...
Definitely this.
First the doesn't need to be any more rules/laws demanding restaurants to put nutritional information. These changes would put many of my favorite mom & pop places out of business.
Second, when I'm going out to eat depending on my goals at the time I pick based on what I've learned and make an educated choice. So if for one week I stall my weight loss it's not a big deal in the long term.
Also, if I'm going out I'm going for the full experience and I don't make every decision on my life based on calories / weight loss.
You know there already are these laws right? And mom and pop places are currently exempt. I doubt doing some counting would put them out of business.
It depends on how much it costs to make up all new menus with the calorie counts. Then if they have their menu online they have to pay their web developer to redo the site to show the calorie counts there too. Restaurant margins run pretty thin so yeah, if it's a really small place it could put a huge cramp in their finances.
Everyone eating at chains is going to hurt their bottom line more.
Sorry that you go to restaurants that offer the same stuff for 5 years straight
No not everyone eats at chains, some of us also love the smaller restaurants that change frequently and offer a wide variety. Because I don't need the government, the restaurant or anyone else to tell me what I should or shouldn't eat.
Also comparing restaurant food to mass produced packaged food is very different, it's not constantly changing
But since all you ever like to do is argue and take no personal responsibility this discussion is probably useless
Wow. Best of luck on your continued journey.
Again it has nothing to do with luck
I agree. It's a bit mind boggling that you keep getting wished lucked when you've said (and proven) that it's not about luck but accountability and knowledge. It's rather demeaning to keep insinuating that the only way to succeed and to maintain that success is by the roll of the dice rather than taking responsibility for what you do.
Getting nutritional information on a recipe literally takes minutes, as does printing it off.
http://caloriecount.about.com/cc/recipe_analysis.php
A five year rollout would allow for time to get used to the new process, it would not be necessary to actually come up with the information. Having info on calorie counts actually assists people in their own decision making and accountability (personal responsibility). Like logging, a proved method that helps with weight loss and maintenance, it increases awareness of how much we are actually eating.
As for being wished luck, it is a wish for good things in the life of the previous poster (who sounds like they need a little more..). It is not as insulting than some of the other things that have been posted here, and a lot more positive than the comment it was in response to. Luck may not be necessary, but it is nice to have...and luck affects a lot more than we would like (cancer, the mood of the next person in traffic, the mood of the teacher marking your essay question, the personality of the next customer, etc, etc). It is just a way to end a post on a positive note, to show any disagreement is not personal.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »We are lucky in Ontario Canada that law requires chains with more than15 or 20 restaurants to publish their nutritional information.
The downside is after reading what I am eating I don't at most of them any more. The upside is you find a few gems.
This is basically what will be the situation in the U.S. Soon. Knowledge and information. Always a good thing to have access to. Cheers
Yaaaaaaay unnecessary, government mandated costs, thrust upon business? For things that have already been shown to not change consumer behavior? This is something you encourage?
Yes. Ordering off a menu without calorie information is like ordering off a menu with no prices given. It costs them money to set, publish, and stick to a fixed price for their menu, but we expect that. And we wouldn't expect people to be able to stay out of debt and live within their means if nothing had a price tag on it just by following advice like "buy products that look cheap" or "buy half as much".
Having calorie estimates available for restaurant meals does change my behavior substantially. I think it should be published on menus, not just "available" e.g. on the web site or if you ask for it.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
And something like a five year roll out would make that easier.goddessofawesome wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »this whole thread just makes me sad...
Definitely this.
First the doesn't need to be any more rules/laws demanding restaurants to put nutritional information. These changes would put many of my favorite mom & pop places out of business.
Second, when I'm going out to eat depending on my goals at the time I pick based on what I've learned and make an educated choice. So if for one week I stall my weight loss it's not a big deal in the long term.
Also, if I'm going out I'm going for the full experience and I don't make every decision on my life based on calories / weight loss.
You know there already are these laws right? And mom and pop places are currently exempt. I doubt doing some counting would put them out of business.
It depends on how much it costs to make up all new menus with the calorie counts. Then if they have their menu online they have to pay their web developer to redo the site to show the calorie counts there too. Restaurant margins run pretty thin so yeah, if it's a really small place it could put a huge cramp in their finances.
Everyone eating at chains is going to hurt their bottom line more.
Sorry that you go to restaurants that offer the same stuff for 5 years straight
No not everyone eats at chains, some of us also love the smaller restaurants that change frequently and offer a wide variety. Because I don't need the government, the restaurant or anyone else to tell me what I should or shouldn't eat.
Also comparing restaurant food to mass produced packaged food is very different, it's not constantly changing
But since all you ever like to do is argue and take no personal responsibility this discussion is probably useless
Wow. Best of luck on your continued journey.
Again it has nothing to do with luck
I agree. It's a bit mind boggling that you keep getting wished lucked when you've said (and proven) that it's not about luck but accountability and knowledge. It's rather demeaning to keep insinuating that the only way to succeed and to maintain that success is by the roll of the dice rather than taking responsibility for what you do.
Getting nutritional information on a recipe literally takes minutes, as does printing it off.
http://caloriecount.about.com/cc/recipe_analysis.php
A five year rollout would allow for time to get used to the new process, it would not be necessary to actually come up with the information. Having info on calorie counts actually assists people in their own decision making and accountability (personal responsibility). Like logging, a proved method that helps with weight loss and maintenance, it increases awareness of how much we are actually eating.
As for being wished luck, it is a wish for good things in the life of the previous poster (who sounds like they need a little more..). It is not as insulting than some of the other things that have been posted here, and a lot more positive than the comment it was in response to. Luck may not be necessary, but it is nice to have...and luck affects a lot more than we would like (cancer, the mood of the next person in traffic, the mood of the teacher marking your essay question, the personality of the next customer, etc, etc). It is just a way to end a post on a positive note, to show any disagreement is not personal.
You can't be that ignorant. Cal counts are done in a lab not by website, it is quite expensive to do so.0 -
WHAT???
They make delicious food.
If they make crappy food- it doesn't sell.
its' not "unhealthy" just because it's high calorie- it's just high calorie.
re-evaluate my friend. Time to re-evaluate.
Delicious does not equate with healthy food. Really, it doesn't. I didn't say anything about high calorie fare. I said that some place bump up the taste of their food by adding as much extra fat and sugar as they can get away with because that combo is a cheaper way of making some food tastier. So, just because restaurant A has an item on it's menu that's a certain amount of calories, it doesn't mean that the same dish from restaurant B is even going to be in the same ball park as it's ingredients and measurements could be vastly different. It makes it harder to make educated guesses.
but you're already setting out with a piss poor attitude that some how because it's chalk full of delicious fat- it's unhealthy.... and you are negative to start "they decide how unhealthy they are going to make it? what does that even mean?? They aren't making healthy or unhealthy food- they are making food to sell- and hopefully it's delicious.
So you're saying unhealthy food is not delicious?
I just don't understand your fussiness with claiming it's "unhealthy" because it's got fat and sugar in it? or it's high calorie- or whatever it is that you're claiming unhealthy is (which can we narrow that definition down for me since you seem vague on that).
Of course they aren't going to be the same- no one said- but you pick one that's an average- and guess high.
And go on about your merry way.
^Agreed. Seriously, if you are just going to end up thinking restaurants are, in a sense, "out to get you" to the point you are comparing it to Russian Roulette and assuming if it is delicious it must be unhealthy - then don't ever eat out again.
It's not a healthy mindset but if it comes down to stressing yourself this much over it, then just don't eat out again. Don't eat out at restaurants, don't have dinner anywhere where you can't control what goes into the meal. Because honestly, how can you have fun or how can anyone with you at a restaurant have fun if you are going to end up this stressed and feeling guilty?0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
And something like a five year roll out would make that easier.goddessofawesome wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »this whole thread just makes me sad...
Definitely this.
First the doesn't need to be any more rules/laws demanding restaurants to put nutritional information. These changes would put many of my favorite mom & pop places out of business.
Second, when I'm going out to eat depending on my goals at the time I pick based on what I've learned and make an educated choice. So if for one week I stall my weight loss it's not a big deal in the long term.
Also, if I'm going out I'm going for the full experience and I don't make every decision on my life based on calories / weight loss.
You know there already are these laws right? And mom and pop places are currently exempt. I doubt doing some counting would put them out of business.
It depends on how much it costs to make up all new menus with the calorie counts. Then if they have their menu online they have to pay their web developer to redo the site to show the calorie counts there too. Restaurant margins run pretty thin so yeah, if it's a really small place it could put a huge cramp in their finances.
Everyone eating at chains is going to hurt their bottom line more.
Sorry that you go to restaurants that offer the same stuff for 5 years straight
No not everyone eats at chains, some of us also love the smaller restaurants that change frequently and offer a wide variety. Because I don't need the government, the restaurant or anyone else to tell me what I should or shouldn't eat.
Also comparing restaurant food to mass produced packaged food is very different, it's not constantly changing
But since all you ever like to do is argue and take no personal responsibility this discussion is probably useless
Love mom and pop type restaurants. Here in Florida, right on the coast, I can get FRESH seafood!!
Same up here in Maine.
it!
One of my favorite places is a mom and pop in kittery.
That's south of me but I Kittery too lol
I don't think I could leave coastal New England.
Touch further north, another I like, duck fat.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
So a five year roll out should be pretty feasible as it would be primarily new restaurants. Heck even a grandfathering.NoelFigart1 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »What's the five year turn over of restaurants I wonder.
50% of all restaurants that open fail in the first five years.
Last I read, that was one-two years, not five. Then the remainder are closed in general before their 4th anniversary.
Potentially, but then we have more licensing, more government checks, and more obstacles in place for new restaurants.
That's ignoring the fact that the numbers will be inaccurate from day 0.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
And something like a five year roll out would make that easier.goddessofawesome wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »this whole thread just makes me sad...
Definitely this.
First the doesn't need to be any more rules/laws demanding restaurants to put nutritional information. These changes would put many of my favorite mom & pop places out of business.
Second, when I'm going out to eat depending on my goals at the time I pick based on what I've learned and make an educated choice. So if for one week I stall my weight loss it's not a big deal in the long term.
Also, if I'm going out I'm going for the full experience and I don't make every decision on my life based on calories / weight loss.
You know there already are these laws right? And mom and pop places are currently exempt. I doubt doing some counting would put them out of business.
It depends on how much it costs to make up all new menus with the calorie counts. Then if they have their menu online they have to pay their web developer to redo the site to show the calorie counts there too. Restaurant margins run pretty thin so yeah, if it's a really small place it could put a huge cramp in their finances.
Everyone eating at chains is going to hurt their bottom line more.
Sorry that you go to restaurants that offer the same stuff for 5 years straight
No not everyone eats at chains, some of us also love the smaller restaurants that change frequently and offer a wide variety. Because I don't need the government, the restaurant or anyone else to tell me what I should or shouldn't eat.
Also comparing restaurant food to mass produced packaged food is very different, it's not constantly changing
But since all you ever like to do is argue and take no personal responsibility this discussion is probably useless
Wow. Best of luck on your continued journey.
Again it has nothing to do with luck
I agree. It's a bit mind boggling that you keep getting wished lucked when you've said (and proven) that it's not about luck but accountability and knowledge. It's rather demeaning to keep insinuating that the only way to succeed and to maintain that success is by the roll of the dice rather than taking responsibility for what you do.
Getting nutritional information on a recipe literally takes minutes, as does printing it off.
http://caloriecount.about.com/cc/recipe_analysis.php
A five year rollout would allow for time to get used to the new process, it would not be necessary to actually come up with the information. Having info on calorie counts actually assists people in their own decision making and accountability (personal responsibility). Like logging, a proved method that helps with weight loss and maintenance, it increases awareness of how much we are actually eating.
As for being wished luck, it is a wish for good things in the life of the previous poster (who sounds like they need a little more..). It is not as insulting than some of the other things that have been posted here, and a lot more positive than the comment it was in response to. Luck may not be necessary, but it is nice to have...and luck affects a lot more than we would like (cancer, the mood of the next person in traffic, the mood of the teacher marking your essay question, the personality of the next customer, etc, etc). It is just a way to end a post on a positive note, to show any disagreement is not personal.
It is not as simple as putting a recipe in and giving a calorie count... as ACG already stated this is done in a lab .. so if smaller restaurants were forced to do this not only will their menus suffer, the costs will be pushed on to the consumer. So you should learn more on how this is done before you think it's so easy to provide.
As for being wished luck, it can be very condescending as it was here, also not positive at all again in the context it was delivered.0 -
What a sad, pathetic mindset some have. I go to restaurants a fair amount, they never ever have nutrition information, yet somehow I am able to lose weight when I need to.
Lol at only chicken or salmon are "safe"
In terms of sticking to a 1200 calorie budget at restaurants where the calories aren't available, for people who eat out often, yeah, I think it's sound. Restaurants make their money in butter. I love butter, and I make room for it, personally, but I might resent it if I were trying to stick to 1200 cals.
It's extremely hard to choose restaurant meals (meals) that are less than 700-1000 cals. For the people trying to do that.0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
And something like a five year roll out would make that easier.goddessofawesome wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »this whole thread just makes me sad...
Definitely this.
First the doesn't need to be any more rules/laws demanding restaurants to put nutritional information. These changes would put many of my favorite mom & pop places out of business.
Second, when I'm going out to eat depending on my goals at the time I pick based on what I've learned and make an educated choice. So if for one week I stall my weight loss it's not a big deal in the long term.
Also, if I'm going out I'm going for the full experience and I don't make every decision on my life based on calories / weight loss.
You know there already are these laws right? And mom and pop places are currently exempt. I doubt doing some counting would put them out of business.
It depends on how much it costs to make up all new menus with the calorie counts. Then if they have their menu online they have to pay their web developer to redo the site to show the calorie counts there too. Restaurant margins run pretty thin so yeah, if it's a really small place it could put a huge cramp in their finances.
Everyone eating at chains is going to hurt their bottom line more.
Sorry that you go to restaurants that offer the same stuff for 5 years straight
No not everyone eats at chains, some of us also love the smaller restaurants that change frequently and offer a wide variety. Because I don't need the government, the restaurant or anyone else to tell me what I should or shouldn't eat.
Also comparing restaurant food to mass produced packaged food is very different, it's not constantly changing
But since all you ever like to do is argue and take no personal responsibility this discussion is probably useless
Wow. Best of luck on your continued journey.
Again it has nothing to do with luck
I agree. It's a bit mind boggling that you keep getting wished lucked when you've said (and proven) that it's not about luck but accountability and knowledge. It's rather demeaning to keep insinuating that the only way to succeed and to maintain that success is by the roll of the dice rather than taking responsibility for what you do.
Exactly. But look at the source ....
If I had relied on luck I would have been in lots of trouble.. cause only luck I have is bad. Now personal responsibility, dedication and time that I have lots of. I'll leave the luck to people ruining C3PO for me
Somewhere along the way I apparently did something to upset you. Apologies. For whatever that was. Apparently it stuck with you.
Not upset at all, and no apologies are needed well maybe for ruining c3po for me...
Well then carry on with your reindeer games. Happy holidays.0 -
Well, if one eats high amounts of fat often and doesn't realize the high fat content they are consuming, yes it can be downright unhealthy for them.that some how because it's chalk full of delicious fat- it's unhealthy
They decide the quality and quantity of ingredients is what it means."they decide how unhealthy they are going to make it? what does that even mean??They aren't making healthy or unhealthy food- they are making food to sell- and hopefully it's delicious.
No, I am saying 'delicious' is not relevant to healthy or unhealthy food in the context in which I was discussing it. There is plenty of delicious things on both sides of the coin.So you're saying unhealthy food is not delicious?I just don't understand your fussiness with claiming it's "unhealthy" because it's got fat and sugar in it? or it's high calorie- or whatever it is that you're claiming unhealthy is (which can we narrow that definition down for me since you seem vague on that).
No, I never said high calorie equals unhealthy but that some dishes contain lots of hidden calories, fats, and sugars that the consumers would not be aware of, much like the macaroni salad of the the woman in this video who makes it with an entire jar of mayo, sweetened condensed milk and a heaping cup of sugar, which ends up being over 7000 calories and that *is* unhealthy, any way you slice it.0 -
dawn, why do you think restaurants and food manufacturers load things up with fat, carbs and sugar? because it's tasty and sells, that's why. it's about their bottom line.0
-
-
PikaKnight wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
And something like a five year roll out would make that easier.goddessofawesome wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »this whole thread just makes me sad...
Definitely this.
First the doesn't need to be any more rules/laws demanding restaurants to put nutritional information. These changes would put many of my favorite mom & pop places out of business.
Second, when I'm going out to eat depending on my goals at the time I pick based on what I've learned and make an educated choice. So if for one week I stall my weight loss it's not a big deal in the long term.
Also, if I'm going out I'm going for the full experience and I don't make every decision on my life based on calories / weight loss.
You know there already are these laws right? And mom and pop places are currently exempt. I doubt doing some counting would put them out of business.
It depends on how much it costs to make up all new menus with the calorie counts. Then if they have their menu online they have to pay their web developer to redo the site to show the calorie counts there too. Restaurant margins run pretty thin so yeah, if it's a really small place it could put a huge cramp in their finances.
Everyone eating at chains is going to hurt their bottom line more.
Sorry that you go to restaurants that offer the same stuff for 5 years straight
No not everyone eats at chains, some of us also love the smaller restaurants that change frequently and offer a wide variety. Because I don't need the government, the restaurant or anyone else to tell me what I should or shouldn't eat.
Also comparing restaurant food to mass produced packaged food is very different, it's not constantly changing
But since all you ever like to do is argue and take no personal responsibility this discussion is probably useless
Wow. Best of luck on your continued journey.
Again it has nothing to do with luck
I agree. It's a bit mind boggling that you keep getting wished lucked when you've said (and proven) that it's not about luck but accountability and knowledge. It's rather demeaning to keep insinuating that the only way to succeed and to maintain that success is by the roll of the dice rather than taking responsibility for what you do.
Getting nutritional information on a recipe literally takes minutes, as does printing it off.
http://caloriecount.about.com/cc/recipe_analysis.php
A five year rollout would allow for time to get used to the new process, it would not be necessary to actually come up with the information. Having info on calorie counts actually assists people in their own decision making and accountability (personal responsibility). Like logging, a proved method that helps with weight loss and maintenance, it increases awareness of how much we are actually eating.
As for being wished luck, it is a wish for good things in the life of the previous poster (who sounds like they need a little more..). It is not as insulting than some of the other things that have been posted here, and a lot more positive than the comment it was in response to. Luck may not be necessary, but it is nice to have...and luck affects a lot more than we would like (cancer, the mood of the next person in traffic, the mood of the teacher marking your essay question, the personality of the next customer, etc, etc). It is just a way to end a post on a positive note, to show any disagreement is not personal.
This place does nutrition testing starting at $250. Doesn't sound too expensive...
http://www.nutridata.com/feeschedule.asp
Do you have a link to the legislation stating the nutritional information needs to come from a lab?
There is no legislation requiring the mom and pop places to publish their nutritional information, but it would be showing personal responsibility (and really not take all that much time) to pop the info into a nutrition calculator so it is available for customers 0 -
I agree with you, restaurants should label. But there just aren't going to be a lot of the options you want out there.0 -
It's your responsibility to gather as much information as you can, so you're not a completely uninformed consumer. Know that things like macaroni salad aren't ever going to be low-calorie. Ask your server how things are prepared -- if you can get things cooked without oil or added butter, or if you can have the dressing on the side. If it's a new restaurant, go to Yelp beforehand and look at pictures of their dishes, so you can see beforehand if something you think might be healthy is going to be covered in cheese. Order a green salad without dressing before your meal so you're not starving and can only eat 1/2 of it (and take the rest home). There are tons of things you can do to control your intake that don't involve passing legislation that would put small restaurants that other people enjoy out of business.
Or just stick to chain restaurants and leave the mom-and-pop places for other people.0 -
It's your responsibility to gather as much information as you can, so you're not a completely uninformed consumer. Know that things like macaroni salad aren't ever going to be low-calorie. Ask your server how things are prepared -- if you can get things cooked without oil or added butter, or if you can have the dressing on the side. If it's a new restaurant, go to Yelp beforehand and look at pictures of their dishes, so you can see beforehand if something you think might be healthy is going to be covered in cheese. Order a green salad without dressing before your meal so you're not starving and can only eat 1/2 of it (and take the rest home). There are tons of things you can do to control your intake that don't involve passing legislation that would put small restaurants that other people enjoy out of business.
Or just stick to chain restaurants and leave the mom-and-pop places for other people.
I wonder if there's been any research comparing chains to similarly themed mom-pop restaurants. calorie wise. My instinct says the smaller restaurants might be better for us (calorie and nutrition wise, GENERALLY SPEAKING), but without nutrition information it's a gamble.0 -
It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.0
-
What a sad, pathetic mindset some have. I go to restaurants a fair amount, they never ever have nutrition information, yet somehow I am able to lose weight when I need to.
Lol at only chicken or salmon are "safe"
Says the 32yo male whose goal is apparently 2300 calories net.
Moving on...0 -
Well, if one eats high amounts of fat often and doesn't realize the high fat content they are consuming, yes it can be downright unhealthy for them.that some how because it's chalk full of delicious fat- it's unhealthy
They decide the quality and quantity of ingredients is what it means."they decide how unhealthy they are going to make it? what does that even mean??They aren't making healthy or unhealthy food- they are making food to sell- and hopefully it's delicious.
No, I am saying 'delicious' is not relevant to healthy or unhealthy food in the context in which I was discussing it. There is plenty of delicious things on both sides of the coin.So you're saying unhealthy food is not delicious?I just don't understand your fussiness with claiming it's "unhealthy" because it's got fat and sugar in it? or it's high calorie- or whatever it is that you're claiming unhealthy is (which can we narrow that definition down for me since you seem vague on that).
No, I never said high calorie equals unhealthy but that some dishes contain lots of hidden calories, fats, and sugars that the consumers would not be aware of, much like the macaroni salad of the the woman in this video who makes it with an entire jar of mayo, sweetened condensed milk and a heaping cup of sugar, which ends up being over 7000 calories and that *is* unhealthy, any way you slice it.
I agree with you on all counts. Sorry but a 1300+ calories dish is not 'healthy' in my book.0 -
What a sad, pathetic mindset some have. I go to restaurants a fair amount, they never ever have nutrition information, yet somehow I am able to lose weight when I need to.
Lol at only chicken or salmon are "safe"
Says the 32yo male whose goal is apparently 2300 calories net.
Moving on...
How do you know that's not a short term weight loss goal? Some bodybuilders will drop calories in order to prep for a show for a month or two.
ETA: And he hasn't logged in a long while. So why are you judging his intake when you don't have a clue if that's really his goal?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions