what is a food you have cut from your diet with some success?
Options
Replies
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I think it's weird that you seem to think that because I say I've cut out certain foods, I think I am virtuous or that I am focused on what I "can't" (your word, not mine) eat instead of on eating well. Actually, I CAN eat it, I just don't...because to eat those things would not be eating well for my needs.
It's actually not your posts that are striking me as smug in this thread. It's the longer and longer lists of perfectly innocuous foods (rice, potatoes, pasta) that people seem to be patting themselves on the back for "cutting out," whatever they mean by that. Maybe I'm misreading.
If I have any assumptions which I'm bringing to your posts it's from other threads in which you've equated cutting stuff out with eating in a healthy manner, but I saw my discussion with you here as somewhat different--really just an inquiring into why you consider it "cutting things out" when you say you simply don't eat certain foods very often. To me that was like claiming to "cut out" a food didn't care about or never ate in the first place (like fast food). Since you clarified that you were specifically talking about foods you used to eat in excess I understand it more, although I still think that simply usually choosing not to eat a particular food because others fit your needs better (which I assume all of us do, including those of us who claim that we don't cut things out) is not, in fact, "cutting it out."
I do think it's a little disingenuous to make a big point about how some foods are "bad" and some are "good" and you allegedly don't eat the "bad" ones and then to disclaim that you intend that to imply any virtue or superiority. If not, why defend so vigorously the idea that there are "bad" foods and that you have "cut them out," even though you also say you still might actually eat them sometimes?
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Say you've cut something from your diet and suddenly you are a moron that thinks the food you choose not eat will magically make you fat if you do eat it. Personal choice is not a valid reason to cut food apparently.
No, neither mamapeach nor I has ever said that.
The issue here is that people are claiming they "cut out foods" when they haven't, based on their own explanations. We were asking--given that--why it was significant to them to claim that they'd cut it out rather than that they simply rarely wanted to eat or rarely believed it fit in their day. It seems like some people are assuming you either "cut it out" or eat it on a regular basis, but clearly that's not so--something more is being said when you claim to "cut it out," and I'm genuinely curious what it means to people who seem to place so much importance on the concept. That people do is demonstrated by this thread and the very similar one that was going at the same time.0 -
For the record, this below is the post that started my exchange with Moi Aussi (we were actually agreeing more than not earlier in the thread, I think). As you can see, I wasn't saying anyone should eat anything they don't want to (I've never once said that), but asking about the purpose of framing it as "cutting it out." I wasn't being critical--I may have sounded so later when I was feeling jumped on, and if so that's my fault, but wasn't my intent. I am genuinely interested in why the frame is significant to so many people (as demonstrated again by this thread), and rather than getting an answer I got a rather aggressive "how dare you ask?!"--or at least such was my perception.lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I think anybody who has deliberately lost weight HAS grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures. Those that choose to eliminate certain foods have just decided that those foods don't fit their goals nearly as well as other available choices....and I suspect many of them like and enjoy the foods they do eat.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »emilyr0011 wrote: »What have I let go of? Late night snacking and eating past 6pm. Also fast food, chocolate (which is my weakness), sugars and anything fried. Bread, rice, pizza, and pasta are things I refuse to eat right now. So far its been 2 weeks of clean eating, and I'm already down 11 pounds. I am thinking I was having at least 3,000 calories a day before this.
I do have a cheat meal (controlling my portion) once a week.
what a sad, sad, world that must be...
Why is that a sad world? Apparently she's pleased with the choice of eating more nutrient dense foods instead of foods that don't provide nutrients, which is actually a good thing to some people. So she's happy with her choices and the progress she's made - good.
Why do you jump around these forums just smartazzing all over the place? I mean, really? Oh wait, it's a public forum so everyone has the right to. This is the thing - you probably really do have some really good information to share, but douchebaggery turns people's ears away and tunes you out.
Typically people that restrict certain foods, that they actually like, fail due to it not being sustainable over long periods of time. Especially if it's a long list.
To lose weight everyone needs to cut something. Whether you cut out a little of everything or all of a few things, you still are likely to regain the weight.
That something being caloric intake regardless of source. I would wager one would be less likely to regain the weight if they grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures instead of just eliminating foods they like and enjoy.
This is one reason why I don't think "I have eliminated X" is really necessary. If you set goals, you may end up never (or almost never) eating X, because you always prefer to eat Y, given the context.
To take one example brought up here, I NEVER drink juice. I just can't see any reason to do so, when I could eat the fruit instead, given my own preferences and priorities. But if one day I woke up dying for a glass of orange juice and eating an orange or drinking something else just wouldn't cut it, I'd probably go find some orange juice somewhere, because why not? And then I probably wouldn't have it again for another year.
Thus, I honestly don't understand the purpose of cutting out juice.
Edit: not picking on juice in particular or cutting things out, but just interested in what seems to be different preferred ways of thinking about this.
0 -
"I am genuinely interested in why the frame is significant to so many people (as demonstrated again by this thread), and rather than getting an answer I got a rather aggressive "how dare you ask?!"--or at least such was my perception."
Answer:MoiAussi93 wrote: »
To me there is no benefit to saying I've cut out X. But there is also no drawback associated with saying it that way. I say I've cut out sweets simply because that's how I think of it. Those are the words that come out when a friend asks about how I eat.
It's not that I ever made a decision to use those words. But saying "cut out" or "eliminated" are just the way that seems most natural to express that.
By the way, saying cut out doesn't cause me any stress. If looking at it that way made me feel deprived then perhaps I would try using different words. But it doesn't, so I don't have an issue with it. Different people react differently to these kinds of things. I have certainly had my share of issues with food...I mentioned this earlier...but the words I use or way I thought about it never really played a part in any of that...for me...somebody else could have a very different experience obviously.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I really can't understand why you have an issue with saying "cut out" or "eliminated" in this situation. It is effectively the same thing as "don't eat" which you used in your tuna example.
It's not at all the same thing. "Cut out" means "did eat but stopped" or "would eat if I didn't have a personal rule against it." I don't eat fast food (as I define it anyway) except maybe once a year on a car trip. But it would be a lie for me to say I've cut it out, since it's been years since I ate it any more regularly and it was just a result of my preferences, not some personal rule I created.
At this point, it has nothing to do with emotional reaction to a word--saying you cut out something you never ate or never think to eat just makes no sense.
Just because you didn't cut something out doesn't mean you eat it (in moderation or otherwise). I don't eat fast food in moderation--I don't really eat it. But that doesn't mean I cut it out. I'm a pretty adventurous eater and I like to try new things, but in reality I don't eat the vast majority of foods in the world. Clearly no one thinks I "cut out" all the foods I don't eat. When you say you cut something out, you mean more--that you otherwise would eat it. (For example, I cut out coffee and meats other than fish for Lent. I cut out added sugar in January. I have not cut out cold cereal, I just never eat it because I do not like it.)
Just read most of the other posts--people are talking about foods they ate until quite recently in most cases or else foods they think they would overeat if they didn't have a personal rule against eating them.
It might not make sense to you, but it makes perfect sense to me. Nobody I know, other than on this site, have ever taken issue with the phrase "cut out".
Anyone who sees me that hasn't since before I lost weight, or who saw me earlier in the process, will ask me about the diet...I explain the same things I've explained on this site and not one person has ever said "you shouldn't call it cut out....you should say you very rarely eat it because it doesn't fit your goals/there are better choices/it isn't healthy/it sets off cravings and binges, etc. but you reserve the right to eat it if you really want it but in reality that is extremely rare, like maybe once every few months."
Everything I have cut out I used to eat often...far too often, in fact. Not eating it isn't a "personal rule", it's just a "personal decision" I have made because I believe not eating it is in the best interest of my long term health. "Cut out" is the perfect description to me. If you prefer to say you "don't eat" something that is fine with me. Whatever floats your boat.
The point remains: You're playing word games. Cut out is simple, clear language that implies to most people with rational minds that you NEVER eat something.
The fact of the matter is that you still do eat those things, just very, very rarely.
There's no need to say you eat in moderation if you don't want to, but it's just plain dishonest to make the claim that you've cut them out when you haven't.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
It is weird. It's all "I cut out.... except for when".
At this point it's not even worth bothering any more, if someone wants to go around telling people they never do something when they do in fact still do it, that's their life.
It's like all the low carbers or paleo people or clean eaters who "cheat" but preach to the high heavens about the virtues of their "lifestyle".
If it helps you sleep at night, dear. I'm over the semantics game, unless they come into a thread with a confused new dieter and try to proselytize. Gloves off then.
And another case of someone talking about "virtue"!!! You are really reading way too much into my words. I have never said anything like that. Your interpretation is seriously off. I believe that has more to do with you than it does with anything I have written.
I eat the way I do because I believe it will keep me at a healthy weight and be supportive of long term good health (and because I actually do enjoy the foods I eat)...not because I think it makes me a better human being. You need to separate diet from character...they are two completely different things.
I'm not talking about the way you eat. I think everyone should find a way of eating that works best for them, and you've found yours. That's terrific, and I am glad that you have.
I'm talking about the way you TALK about the way you eat.
Well, I'm not you so it is a little unreasonable to expect me to talk the way that you would. I don't use profanity, I haven't engaged in name calling, and I have NEVER said my eating style is a virtue. I eat in a way that I find healthy. If you, or anybody else, disagrees on what is healthy, that is fine. I don't mind. Different people can come to different conclusions when looking at the same information depending on how they weigh various factors.
Eat whatever you like. Describe it however you like. But if the fact that my opinion differs from yours offends you, there is nothing I can do about that. I have just as much right to express my opinion as you do, and I will continue to do so...using whichever polite words I choose.
Completely missed my point. Nothing new.
I do not give a flying fig what you eat. I have no issue with your food choices.
Your word choice, that's all I've ever been talking about. It's dodgy and imprecise. I have been clear that all I've been talking about is your choice of words. You keep changing the subject.
I am, however, finished discussing your odd need to say you don't eat stuff when you still do. Whatever floats your boat.
Dodgy and imprecise? LOL! You're very funny...whether you are trying to be or not.
If you have any more questions about my diet, vocabulary, or my views on character and the definition of virtue, please do let me know. I try to be helpful whenever possible.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I think it's weird that you seem to think that because I say I've cut out certain foods, I think I am virtuous or that I am focused on what I "can't" (your word, not mine) eat instead of on eating well. Actually, I CAN eat it, I just don't...because to eat those things would not be eating well for my needs.
It's actually not your posts that are striking me as smug in this thread. It's the longer and longer lists of perfectly innocuous foods (rice, potatoes, pasta) that people seem to be patting themselves on the back for "cutting out," whatever they mean by that. Maybe I'm misreading.
If I have any assumptions which I'm bringing to your posts it's from other threads in which you've equated cutting stuff out with eating in a healthy manner, but I saw my discussion with you here as somewhat different--really just an inquiring into why you consider it "cutting things out" when you say you simply don't eat certain foods very often. To me that was like claiming to "cut out" a food didn't care about or never ate in the first place (like fast food). Since you clarified that you were specifically talking about foods you used to eat in excess I understand it more, although I still think that simply usually choosing not to eat a particular food because others fit your needs better (which I assume all of us do, including those of us who claim that we don't cut things out) is not, in fact, "cutting it out."
I do think it's a little disingenuous to make a big point about how some foods are "bad" and some are "good" and you allegedly don't eat the "bad" ones and then to disclaim that you intend that to imply any virtue or superiority. If not, why defend so vigorously the idea that there are "bad" foods and that you have "cut them out," even though you also say you still might actually eat them sometimes?
We just disagree about this. Regularly choosing to not eat something is cutting it out to me. When eating it is the exception, and not the rule...that fits my definition, but apparently not yours. I don't know what else to say. We just use it differently.although I still think that simply usually choosing not to eat a particular food because others fit your needs better (which I assume all of us do, including those of us who claim that we don't cut things out) is not, in fact, "cutting it out."I do think it's a little disingenuous to make a big point about how some foods are "bad" and some are "good" and you allegedly don't eat the "bad" ones and then to disclaim that you intend that to imply any virtue or superiority.
No, it's not. Just because I say something negative about a given food does not mean I am making a judgment about people who eat it. I thing durian are disgusting...they taste bad...but I don't think the millions of people in Asia who love durian are disgusting or bad. Perhaps you and some others just identify too closely with what you eat. If so, then I can kind of understand your upset over this issue. But that is not how I intend it and I have stated that many times.
Furthermore, you are assuming that the only way that "bad" can be used is to imply something about virtue. It is not. Bad is a word that can be used in many different ways, most of which have NOTHING to do with virtue. Check any dictionary you like, and you will see this is true.
You are focused on one narrow meaning...which is silly in the context of food. Bad can also mean (among MANY other things): harmful, unsuitable, spoiled (the milk is bad), etc. These can all be applied to food, and imply nothing about virtue.
So I think you are making a big mistake if you just assume somebody is using the definition you are AND that they are somehow extending that definition to you even though they never said anything of the sort.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I really can't understand why you have an issue with saying "cut out" or "eliminated" in this situation. It is effectively the same thing as "don't eat" which you used in your tuna example.
It's not at all the same thing. "Cut out" means "did eat but stopped" or "would eat if I didn't have a personal rule against it." I don't eat fast food (as I define it anyway) except maybe once a year on a car trip. But it would be a lie for me to say I've cut it out, since it's been years since I ate it any more regularly and it was just a result of my preferences, not some personal rule I created.
At this point, it has nothing to do with emotional reaction to a word--saying you cut out something you never ate or never think to eat just makes no sense.
Just because you didn't cut something out doesn't mean you eat it (in moderation or otherwise). I don't eat fast food in moderation--I don't really eat it. But that doesn't mean I cut it out. I'm a pretty adventurous eater and I like to try new things, but in reality I don't eat the vast majority of foods in the world. Clearly no one thinks I "cut out" all the foods I don't eat. When you say you cut something out, you mean more--that you otherwise would eat it. (For example, I cut out coffee and meats other than fish for Lent. I cut out added sugar in January. I have not cut out cold cereal, I just never eat it because I do not like it.)
Just read most of the other posts--people are talking about foods they ate until quite recently in most cases or else foods they think they would overeat if they didn't have a personal rule against eating them.
It might not make sense to you, but it makes perfect sense to me. Nobody I know, other than on this site, have ever taken issue with the phrase "cut out".
Anyone who sees me that hasn't since before I lost weight, or who saw me earlier in the process, will ask me about the diet...I explain the same things I've explained on this site and not one person has ever said "you shouldn't call it cut out....you should say you very rarely eat it because it doesn't fit your goals/there are better choices/it isn't healthy/it sets off cravings and binges, etc. but you reserve the right to eat it if you really want it but in reality that is extremely rare, like maybe once every few months."
Everything I have cut out I used to eat often...far too often, in fact. Not eating it isn't a "personal rule", it's just a "personal decision" I have made because I believe not eating it is in the best interest of my long term health. "Cut out" is the perfect description to me. If you prefer to say you "don't eat" something that is fine with me. Whatever floats your boat.
The point remains: You're playing word games. Cut out is simple, clear language that implies to most people with rational minds that you NEVER eat something.
The fact of the matter is that you still do eat those things, just very, very rarely.
There's no need to say you eat in moderation if you don't want to, but it's just plain dishonest to make the claim that you've cut them out when you haven't.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
This is from one of MoiAussi's posts-
"There is also no fear, or judgment of somebody else's diet, or feeling of being virtuous...at least for me. This is not an emotional description at all to me...purely practical and descriptive.
It just seems weird to me to be this focused on how somebody chooses to describe their way of eating. I think the mistake is to assume everybody else might have whatever emotional reaction to a word or phrase that you do."
I don't know why you keep seeing judgement in someone saying what they eat. I haven't cut out anything myself, but it doesn't bother me at all if someone has, nor do I take it personally when someone thinks anything about anything I eat. It's not a question of morality.
This seems to be a problem specific to MFP. I've never run into it on any other site specific to dieting or specific WOE/health issues. Anywhere else in the world, you can tell someone, "I swear, I'm addicted to Pringles, but I started being more careful about what I eat a few months ago and cut out junk food. Now I've lost 15 lbs." They will completely understand what was said, probably complement the weight loss, and everyone gets on with their day.
Make that same statement on MFP, you get one lecture for using the dictionary definition of "addicted" instead of the medical definition, one for saying you've cut out a food that there's a remote chance you may one day eat again before you die, and a third for inspiring eating disorders by describing Pringles as "junk."
Between the two situations, I know which one seems more indicative of having a disordered relationship with food. It's not normal to beobsessive over other people's word choices about food, anymore than it's normal to be obsessive over other people's choices about food.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »"I am genuinely interested in why the frame is significant to so many people (as demonstrated again by this thread), and rather than getting an answer I got a rather aggressive "how dare you ask?!"--or at least such was my perception."
Answer:MoiAussi93 wrote: »
To me there is no benefit to saying I've cut out X. But there is also no drawback associated with saying it that way. I say I've cut out sweets simply because that's how I think of it. Those are the words that come out when a friend asks about how I eat.
It's not that I ever made a decision to use those words. But saying "cut out" or "eliminated" are just the way that seems most natural to express that.
By the way, saying cut out doesn't cause me any stress. If looking at it that way made me feel deprived then perhaps I would try using different words. But it doesn't, so I don't have an issue with it. Different people react differently to these kinds of things. I have certainly had my share of issues with food...I mentioned this earlier...but the words I use or way I thought about it never really played a part in any of that...for me...somebody else could have a very different experience obviously.
Okay, fair enough. Mea culpa. I totally missed that post as the thread had basically finished and then when it got bumped by some entirely different post I only noticed the second response to mine. That is a response.
Saying "cut out" doesn't cause any stress to me either, for the record, but it just doesn't feel accurate for stuff like the juice example or for something like cake or Chicago style pizza, even though I almost never eat them. Because I didn't make a conscious decision not to eat them, it's just that my current goals and taste preferences and ideas about what a healthy diet involves for me on a day to day basis dictate that.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »We just disagree about this. Regularly choosing to not eat something is cutting it out to me.
Yeah, for me it's not unless you actually think about eating it, as durian (for one example that works) is certainly not something I've cut out of my diet.
Perhaps one difference is that you are talking about things that you ate lots of before deciding to change your diet for weight loss, though, so associate it with that. For me it's more similar to what was discussed earlier in the thread--not eating stupid stuff that you don't care about, not giving up things that were important parts of my diet.
But yeah, at this point it is semantic and the semantic element probably isn't that interesting.
On the other point I'm mostly referring to the comments along the lines of "why do you eat that crap!" (which is usually about stuff I don't even eat, so I don't think I'm overly identifying with my own food choices--nice try, though!), although I guess I did make up a hypothetical about homemade apple pie that got attacked in that manner. Also, comments (which I read as quite smug) along the lines of "people who won't admit foods are 'bad' just don't care about nutrition and want to justify their own disgusting food choices." However, it's not fair of me to attribute that to you as I don't recall you specifically making such comments.
Along similar lines, though, just as it's not fair for me to attribute to you comments that people who think similar in some ways (about "bad" foods), it's not fair and extremely tiresome that people keep claiming that I am bothered by people choosing not to eat specific foods when I've never said anything to suggest that that is true and have extremely often stood up for people choosing to avoid specific foods or go low carb or paleo or the like as a perfectly reasonable choice for those it works for (although it's not healthier than other forms of dieting IMO or a better choice for lots of us). It's especially funny since I'm quite open about the fact that I cutting out things temporarily (as in actually choosing not to eat things I would otherwise eat--what I consider "cutting out" to mean) has been something that has worked for me.
Anyway, back to your lists of "cut out" foods and the pleasure that people are apparently getting out of those, even if I don't understand it!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Hey Lemurcat, I know you don't. I should have said "it doesn't bother me at all if someone says they have." Even if they do on occasion, etc..., they've cut it out of their regular diet. It's not a thing to me.0 -
I cut out meat and most dairy products, but not because they are bad, but for ethical reasons. I'm a vegetarian an the occasional vegan btw. But ever since cutting out meat, i have lost a teeny bit of weight which is a big deal to my tiny frame. I'm not really here for weight loss, but other stuff you should consider is processed grains like white bread and white pasta. Sugars, and trans and saturated fats, basically stuff in junk food. Minimizing and paying attention to the oil you cook with is crucial as well
Also, try, try, try to not drink coffee. Google it, and you'll see why. If possible cut out cheese as well as milk. Milk is made to fatten up baby calves or goats or whatever, and contains hormones. It can make a baby animal grow like (dont quote me on this) 3x its original size in less than a year.0 -
Cut out the sodas and juices and bread and sugar...been drinking lemon water for 2months now no sodas or anything and I feel much better.0
-
I used to never drink water, only pop and juice! now I'm drinking water almost exclusively, (sometimes coffee and tea), and I drink 2 to 3 litre of water a day. I don't know if I was drinking that much pop a day, but holy moly what a scary thought. that was the biggest, easiest weight loss change for me.
next, I want to work on eliminating butter as anything but a cooking aid. seriously... buttering sandwiches is not necessary, self... quit it!0 -
Candy. I used to constantly eat whole bags of sour and gummy fruit type candy like the filled twizzlers, jelly beans, starburst, etc. But Its literally just flavored sugar. Why would I spend 200-300 calories on sugar. I could eat an entire meal for that. If I want sweet or sour I'll just eat fruit, yoghurt, or a frozen fruit popsicle. I honestly don't crave it or even want it anymore. I've got better things to eat.0
-
All fizzy drinks - can't remember the last time I had them! (probably summer last year).
Also, any drinks but water. I've had the occassional milkshake/latte but only about once a month. I just don't feel the need to drink my calories
I've also cut out chocolate ANYTHING for DECHOX (a charity). That ends 1st April though, so i'll probably eat some chocolate after that
0 -
Alcohol!!!! Weekends used to mean a few drinks, but since cutting alcohol out of my diet other than special occasions, I feel much better in myself for it. I have also cut right back on soft drinks other than water as well, which make me feel a lot less bloated.0
-
Soda and fast food. I've lost 10 pounds and feel alot better. Plus I have saved money 0
-
Alcohol, soda, and most candies.
Yuk ! Don't even want them anymore.0 -
Bread is the devil (pretty sure Arnold quoted that. Either way, I agree).0
-
I've cut many things but I still keep in my diet the odd chocolate, a good quality pub burger and fries now and then, beer and red wine the odd time too.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions