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.
Amusement park in the south discriminating obese? How can they be more fair?
Replies
-
@janejellyroll The thing I like about your answer is that clearly you've drawn a line as well.. It's just slightly over a bit from mine.0
-
The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.5 -
explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.3 -
One of the most terrifying moments of my life was when I was placed next to an obese 'solo rider' on a ride with one lap restraint because I was in an odd number group. When they pushed down the restraint he said to me 'sorry I have a bit of a belly' There was about 4 inches between me and the restraint! The ride wasn't an overly dangerous one but I was sliding around all over the place and clinging on for dear life.
The comfort and safety of all passengers need to be considered.8 -
This is another example of trying to justify that too many people are obese and make companies cater to it cause its “the average population”
IMO, the question shouldn’t be how the park needs to be more fair but how can we can change the average population?5 -
explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
If the ride has limitations beyond weight, those should be posted separately. Many rides have height restrictions that are in addition to any weight restrictions. If the issue is torso or hip circumference that's not the same as weight. As a six-one woman I would be irritated if I wasn't allowed to ride at 200 lbs and my same-height husband was.3 -
@janejellyroll The thing I like about your answer is that clearly you've drawn a line as well.. It's just slightly over a bit from mine.
I don't think I've drawn a line -- we may have had a miscommunication.
I was pointing out that even if one argues that heroin addiction is a disability, they'd still have to connect to why they were requesting specific accomodations. Being disabled doesn't entitle one to every single accomodation made for people with disabilities, it entitles one (if one is entitled at all, this will depend on local laws and/or customs) to accomodations that are related to the specific disability.
So if I did argue that heroin addiction was a disability, it wouldn't follow that I was necessarily arguing for access to handicapped parking or reduced entry fees for amusement parks.1 -
clicketykeys wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
If the ride has limitations beyond weight, those should be posted separately. Many rides have height restrictions that are in addition to any weight restrictions. If the issue is torso or hip circumference that's not the same as weight. As a six-one woman I would be irritated if I wasn't allowed to ride at 200 lbs and my same-height husband was.
and I agree that there are exceptions to the rules...butOne of the most terrifying moments of my life was when I was placed next to an obese 'solo rider' on a ride with one lap restraint because I was in an odd number group. When they pushed down the restraint he said to me 'sorry I have a bit of a belly' There was about 4 inches between me and the restraint! The ride wasn't an overly dangerous one but I was sliding around all over the place and clinging on for dear life.
The comfort and safety of all passengers need to be considered.
read the above...this woman was actually probably in some danger...so a 200lb "averaged height" woman would do the same to a smaller man/woman/child...
unacceptable.1 -
clicketykeys wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
If the ride has limitations beyond weight, those should be posted separately. Many rides have height restrictions that are in addition to any weight restrictions. If the issue is torso or hip circumference that's not the same as weight. As a six-one woman I would be irritated if I wasn't allowed to ride at 200 lbs and my same-height husband was.
and I agree that there are exceptions to the rules...butOne of the most terrifying moments of my life was when I was placed next to an obese 'solo rider' on a ride with one lap restraint because I was in an odd number group. When they pushed down the restraint he said to me 'sorry I have a bit of a belly' There was about 4 inches between me and the restraint! The ride wasn't an overly dangerous one but I was sliding around all over the place and clinging on for dear life.
The comfort and safety of all passengers need to be considered.
read the above...this woman was actually probably in some danger...so a 200lb "averaged height" woman would do the same to a smaller man/woman/child...
unacceptable.
And yet... the example given is of a male rider. Not that it can't happen for a female rider, but my point is that if the park chooses to exclude riders based on gender rather than on what the actual physical limitations are, it's sexist and they're risking a lawsuit.0 -
clicketykeys wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
If the ride has limitations beyond weight, those should be posted separately. Many rides have height restrictions that are in addition to any weight restrictions. If the issue is torso or hip circumference that's not the same as weight. As a six-one woman I would be irritated if I wasn't allowed to ride at 200 lbs and my same-height husband was.
and I agree that there are exceptions to the rules...butOne of the most terrifying moments of my life was when I was placed next to an obese 'solo rider' on a ride with one lap restraint because I was in an odd number group. When they pushed down the restraint he said to me 'sorry I have a bit of a belly' There was about 4 inches between me and the restraint! The ride wasn't an overly dangerous one but I was sliding around all over the place and clinging on for dear life.
The comfort and safety of all passengers need to be considered.
read the above...this woman was actually probably in some danger...so a 200lb "averaged height" woman would do the same to a smaller man/woman/child...
unacceptable.
And yet... the example given is of a male rider. Not that it can't happen for a female rider, but my point is that if the park chooses to exclude riders based on gender rather than on what the actual physical limitations are, it's sexist and they're risking a lawsuit.
so what if the example had a male.
My example is still valid. A 200lb woman who is of average height will present the same danger. And you missed the part where it also said size 18 and up...so it's not just weight it is size based...
I also suspect that the people excluded look like they will cause a dangerous situation.
For example when I was 200lbs...no one knew it...most thought I was about 160-170...
I am taller as well.
There will be no lawsuit unless they soften the rule and a smaller person/child gets hurt do to the lackness of the rules.0 -
So... the danger is acceptable if the rider is male, but unacceptable if the rider is female?? How is that the least bit reasonable?0
-
clicketykeys wrote: »So... the danger is acceptable if the rider is male, but unacceptable if the rider is female?? How is that the least bit reasonable?
no where in my post did I say that...wow...I can't even begin to get where you came up with that from what I posted?
me thinks you can't see the forest for the trees and looking to hard to disagree.
0 -
clicketykeys wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
If the ride has limitations beyond weight, those should be posted separately. Many rides have height restrictions that are in addition to any weight restrictions. If the issue is torso or hip circumference that's not the same as weight. As a six-one woman I would be irritated if I wasn't allowed to ride at 200 lbs and my same-height husband was.
and I agree that there are exceptions to the rules...butOne of the most terrifying moments of my life was when I was placed next to an obese 'solo rider' on a ride with one lap restraint because I was in an odd number group. When they pushed down the restraint he said to me 'sorry I have a bit of a belly' There was about 4 inches between me and the restraint! The ride wasn't an overly dangerous one but I was sliding around all over the place and clinging on for dear life.
The comfort and safety of all passengers need to be considered.
read the above...this woman was actually probably in some danger...so a 200lb "averaged height" woman would do the same to a smaller man/woman/child...
unacceptable.
And yet... the example given is of a male rider. Not that it can't happen for a female rider, but my point is that if the park chooses to exclude riders based on gender rather than on what the actual physical limitations are, it's sexist and they're risking a lawsuit.
so what if the example had a male.
My example is still valid. A 200lb woman who is of average height will present the same danger. And you missed the part where it also said size 18 and up...so it's not just weight it is size based...
I also suspect that the people excluded look like they will cause a dangerous situation.
For example when I was 200lbs...no one knew it...most thought I was about 160-170...
I am taller as well.
There will be no lawsuit unless they soften the rule and a smaller person/child gets hurt do to the lackness of the rules.
This is the part I was referencing. If the danger is the same, what difference does it make whether the rider is male or female?0 -
explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?1 -
clicketykeys wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
If the ride has limitations beyond weight, those should be posted separately. Many rides have height restrictions that are in addition to any weight restrictions. If the issue is torso or hip circumference that's not the same as weight. As a six-one woman I would be irritated if I wasn't allowed to ride at 200 lbs and my same-height husband was.
and I agree that there are exceptions to the rules...butOne of the most terrifying moments of my life was when I was placed next to an obese 'solo rider' on a ride with one lap restraint because I was in an odd number group. When they pushed down the restraint he said to me 'sorry I have a bit of a belly' There was about 4 inches between me and the restraint! The ride wasn't an overly dangerous one but I was sliding around all over the place and clinging on for dear life.
The comfort and safety of all passengers need to be considered.
read the above...this woman was actually probably in some danger...so a 200lb "averaged height" woman would do the same to a smaller man/woman/child...
unacceptable.
And yet... the example given is of a male rider. Not that it can't happen for a female rider, but my point is that if the park chooses to exclude riders based on gender rather than on what the actual physical limitations are, it's sexist and they're risking a lawsuit.
so what if the example had a male.
My example is still valid. A 200lb woman who is of average height will present the same danger. And you missed the part where it also said size 18 and up...so it's not just weight it is size based...
I also suspect that the people excluded look like they will cause a dangerous situation.
For example when I was 200lbs...no one knew it...most thought I was about 160-170...
I am taller as well.
There will be no lawsuit unless they soften the rule and a smaller person/child gets hurt do to the lackness of the rules.
This is the part I was referencing. If the danger is the same, what difference does it make whether the rider is male or female?
lol seriously...
you made a reference to my quote being about a man causing danger to a slim woman...and my response was so...a fat woman can cause they same danger to a slim man...no where did I say it was okay for a woman to be in danger...wowsers...again I think you are trying to find fault.
and again...the law says 200lbs or size 18 and up.
and if you clicked the link you would have seen the following as well:
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
0 -
magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.1 -
magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of story0 -
By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.2 -
From the theme park brochure in question:Guests Of Larger Size
All passenger restraint systems, including lap
bars, shoulder harnesses and seatbelts, must be
positioned and fastened properly to allow guests
to ride.
Due to rider restraint system requirements, guests
of larger size may not be accommodated on some
of our rides. This may apply, but not be limited
to, guests who exceed 6'2" or those who exceed
225 pounds, have a 40" waistline or 52" chest or
females who exceed 200 pounds or wear a size
18 or larger.
Our larger guests may experience difficulty
on Blue Streak, Corkscrew, GateKeeper,
Lake Erie Eagles, Maverick, maXair, Millennium Force,
Mine Ride, Pipe Scream, Power Tower, Raptor,
Rougarou, Skyhawk, SlingShot, Top Thrill Dragster,
Wave Swinger, Valravn and Wicked Twister.
Maximum recommended weight limits are posted
at Camp Snoopy™ rides, Lake Erie Eagles, Monster,
Scrambler, Sky Ride, SlingShot, Super Himalaya,
Troika, Wave Swinger, WindSeeker, Planet Snoopy™
rides, Professor Delbert's Frontier Fling and
most Soak City attractions.
You may enter the ride via the exit to ensure the
restraints function properly prior to waiting in line.
Test seats are located at the queue entrance of
GateKeeper, Maverick, maXair, Millennium Force,
Raptor, Rougarou, Skyhawk, Top Thrill Dragster,
Valravn and Wicked Twister
They don't say women over 200 lbs can't ride, just that guests need to be able to fit in the restraints..and say this "may apply" to this list of people. The added wording IMO provides some convenience for those people in question by alerting them that they need to try out the test seats before waiting in a long line and not being able to ride (or possibly saving them a long drive to get to the park in the first place if it's likely they may not fit on the rides they want to go on).3 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions