New data: Over 20% obesity in every single state in the U.S.
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »it doesn't make sense to me that food companies peddling Fruit roll ups or Gushers or Lucky Charms or Chuck E. Cheese should be banned from advertising their food product to kids because some of whom eat way too much food in general.
Like I said, I really haven't given this enough thought and don't actually feel strongly about it, but my issue isn't that food makers (or toy makers) are monstrous. It's more that there's something a little off about advertising to kids, who aren't doing the buying and who don't yet have the mental capacity to approach the ad with the same, er, healthy skepticism, although they probably get there sooner and sooner. If you want parents to buy it, convince the parents. Don't try to work through kids getting excited and whining/begging, etc.
Yeah, I get that, and I don't think you believe food or toy makers are monstrous (esp given many of your posts responding to people who like to scapegoat foods and the food industry for their problems). I'm not really arguing with you either, just kind of adding to the conversation about banning ads and the trade-offs I see.
0 -
The article I linked has an error. Overweight was redefined to 1998 from BMI 27.5 to 25. Instantly, 10% of the population became overweight. Because obesity was defined in a standard decoration previously, that also was lowered.
The following article goes into some detail about the history and logic as well as problems with definitions of overweight and obesity. Most importantly :
1. Lowest mortality is observed in the "overweight" group
2. The definition of BMI = 25 as overweight places 50% of European populations historically as overweight because it is the population mean and has been for a very long time. You can see from a reference that using the 25/30 standard in Great Britain, the percentage of the population in 1981 of "healthy weight" was nearly identical to that today there and in the USA.
3. The same definition does not accurately represent risk for Asian populations as the mean natural weight is lower.
4. Body fat percentage and distribution at more important in correlation to disease than weight below the highest grade of obesity.
http://mobile.journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/_layouts/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2015&issue=05000&article=00005#ath0 -
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/Teaching health and nutrition in school is well and good, but the kids aren't the ones doing the grocery shopping. Even if they do shop with Mom or Dad, it's still unlikely that they'll nag parents for good cuts f meat or more veggies. I just don't think they have the impulse control for it. (Personal opinion)
I hate to say it, since I'm politially a right winged conservative, but I think government needs to get involved to help educate everyone, sort of like they did with cigarettes. Not many smoke in my city anymore. There are some, and it is typically the less educated, but it is nothing like it was 20-40 years ago.
The problem with government is that they are still pushing their own interests. "Healthy" grains are still on the bottom of the food pyramid and it shouldn't be (IMO). There is no NEED for grains in our diet. Yes, about half of all North Americans appear to do just fine with grains, but a very large minority do not. Grains aren't needed so they shouldn't be pushed.
IMHO, Grains are just a convenience food; it can sit on a shelf for a long time. To me it appears that most prepared packaged foods are based on grains; same goes for fast food. Convenience again. Grains don't need to take up 1/4, 1/2 or more of peoples' plates. I believe almost half of all people would be healthier by cutting grains, and that doesn't fit with most political agendas and lobby groups. Kellogs and General Mills wouldn't stand for it.
Yes, I am coming from a LCHF agenda, and I do believe clos to half of the population would be healthier if they cut their carb levels (from grains and sugars) although most of those people do not need to be as extreme as I am. Lower carbs can help make that minority healthier and may help them lose weight with greater ease.
A current commercial for a juice company and it's breakfast program drives me nuts. It's "Tommy" asking the pretty, slim lunchroom lady for breakfast and she lovingly gives him a "healthy" breakfast of juice, cereal with skim milk and a banana.... Sugar, sugar and sugar. Uh-huh. Those kids will tank after a couple of hours when their glucose levels come down. No protein. No fat, unless you count the 1% in the ilk on the cereal. Not helpful.
Maybe government could outlaw advertising of highly processed foods, pseudo-foods, and fast foods like they did for cigarettes up here. Imagine the $$$ kick back to the government if they did that. Ha!
It would probably be helpful if people went back to the basics and prepared their own food from largely from scratch (I think we can safely exclude dairy from this caveat). If you want bread that bad, bake it. If you want meatloaf, make it. If you want lasagne, make it. Want pizza, make it.... I know, I know. It's not going to happen.
It's not going to change for generations. I bet it will get worse before it gets better. It IS getting worse in Canada. Our obesity rates are rising and not far behind the States now. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2011001/article/11411-eng.htm
^ there is no food pyramid. It is now healthy plate, and if you look, the vegetables are the biggest region, and fruits and vegetables occupy about half the plate.
That's American. We don't use the plate thing, but you are right. Canada uses a food rainbow! LOL
http://nutrition.uwo.ca/pdf/foodguide.pdf
It it IS grain heavy and encourages too many calories be eaten. That's what I was getting at with the pyramid. Plus, just because it is the old food guide, it doesn't mean it is not the one people remember or use.
They are telling people to eat MARGARINE!
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Toy advertising wouldn't be touched, though there could be regulations about toys doing tie-ins with food products. There is the tangential issue of some toys that people feel project bad body image that might fall under the umbrella.
She was responding to my post, which was broader. I did think at least in passing that there's no real need to have ads aimed at kids at all, and most parents would likely prefer we not. But like I said, not well-thought-through at this point, so I'm fine with limiting the proposal to food ads.
Right. I'm not a parent either but I admittedly watch some kids programming (Spongebob Squarepants is one example of a kids show that is still in production that I like). Banning food advertisers just concerns me that it could come at the cost of the quality or even prevalence of kids programming. Take a demographic off the table for major advertisers, why would any talent put good energy into creating content for that demographic?
But even with the obesity epidemic, and even with food advertising targeted at kids being effective (which is the point of any targeted advertising) I'm still not convinced the ends justify the means. I'm personally not ready to lump food companies in with big tobacco and pornographers just yet... it doesn't make sense to me that food companies peddling Fruit roll ups or Gushers or Lucky Charms or Chuck E. Cheese should be banned from advertising their food product to kids because some of whom eat way too much food in general.
@senecarr toys, like cartoons, look increasingly odd/disorienting the more similar their likeness is to real physiques and features. The creepiest-looking toys and cartoons I can think of are the one's where characters look almost exactly like the things they look like. But that's another conversation.
It's an interesting thing, the whole advertising to children thing. Yes, it's effective, but at the same time, they don't have any money. So, on that front, I think it is on the parents. I'm sure it's extremely difficult to say no when they see it all the time, but the parents going out and buying it is what makes it effective.
It may be on the parents when it comes to meal prep and snacks at home, but between-meal snacks and snacks at school are often a different beast, because a lot of kids do have at least some money. Chips or candy bars or sodas are cheap. Part of the problem seems to be advertising -> kid stopping at corner store on the way to or from school and buying junk and/or -> kid buying junk out of vending machines at school at lunchtime - or in the case of older kids, leaving school grounds at lunchtime and hitting local fast food joints or the corner stores.
I will admit that that was never my experience, so definitely going off my life, but I'm sure it does happen. We never had vending machines at school, nor at the ones I recently subbed at until middle school. There was a soda machine on campus in middle school for me, but again, that was at 11. It gets too hot here during the summer to have wanted to walk to the store or the like for snacks and we have no public transit to speak of here. The ice cream truck was awesome, though. I guess my point is that the damage has likely been done by then and needs serious intervention that I'm not sure banning advertising would fix?
I think this thread has shown, though, that trying to teach better nutrition in schools would be met with resistance since no one can agree on what that should look like.
0 -
Just teach the science. We already manage to do that in a number of areas where certain people have beliefs that go against scientific fact. I'm fine with science making the ignorant upset.Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Toy advertising wouldn't be touched, though there could be regulations about toys doing tie-ins with food products. There is the tangential issue of some toys that people feel project bad body image that might fall under the umbrella.
She was responding to my post, which was broader. I did think at least in passing that there's no real need to have ads aimed at kids at all, and most parents would likely prefer we not. But like I said, not well-thought-through at this point, so I'm fine with limiting the proposal to food ads.
Right. I'm not a parent either but I admittedly watch some kids programming (Spongebob Squarepants is one example of a kids show that is still in production that I like). Banning food advertisers just concerns me that it could come at the cost of the quality or even prevalence of kids programming. Take a demographic off the table for major advertisers, why would any talent put good energy into creating content for that demographic?
But even with the obesity epidemic, and even with food advertising targeted at kids being effective (which is the point of any targeted advertising) I'm still not convinced the ends justify the means. I'm personally not ready to lump food companies in with big tobacco and pornographers just yet... it doesn't make sense to me that food companies peddling Fruit roll ups or Gushers or Lucky Charms or Chuck E. Cheese should be banned from advertising their food product to kids because some of whom eat way too much food in general.
@senecarr toys, like cartoons, look increasingly odd/disorienting the more similar their likeness is to real physiques and features. The creepiest-looking toys and cartoons I can think of are the one's where characters look almost exactly like the things they look like. But that's another conversation.
It's an interesting thing, the whole advertising to children thing. Yes, it's effective, but at the same time, they don't have any money. So, on that front, I think it is on the parents. I'm sure it's extremely difficult to say no when they see it all the time, but the parents going out and buying it is what makes it effective.
It may be on the parents when it comes to meal prep and snacks at home, but between-meal snacks and snacks at school are often a different beast, because a lot of kids do have at least some money. Chips or candy bars or sodas are cheap. Part of the problem seems to be advertising -> kid stopping at corner store on the way to or from school and buying junk and/or -> kid buying junk out of vending machines at school at lunchtime - or in the case of older kids, leaving school grounds at lunchtime and hitting local fast food joints or the corner stores.
I will admit that that was never my experience, so definitely going off my life, but I'm sure it does happen. We never had vending machines at school, nor at the ones I recently subbed at until middle school. There was a soda machine on campus in middle school for me, but again, that was at 11. It gets too hot here during the summer to have wanted to walk to the store or the like for snacks and we have no public transit to speak of here. The ice cream truck was awesome, though. I guess my point is that the damage has likely been done by then and needs serious intervention that I'm not sure banning advertising would fix?
I think this thread has shown, though, that trying to teach better nutrition in schools would be met with resistance since no one can agree on what that should look like.
0 -
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/Teaching health and nutrition in school is well and good, but the kids aren't the ones doing the grocery shopping. Even if they do shop with Mom or Dad, it's still unlikely that they'll nag parents for good cuts f meat or more veggies. I just don't think they have the impulse control for it. (Personal opinion)
I hate to say it, since I'm politially a right winged conservative, but I think government needs to get involved to help educate everyone, sort of like they did with cigarettes. Not many smoke in my city anymore. There are some, and it is typically the less educated, but it is nothing like it was 20-40 years ago.
The problem with government is that they are still pushing their own interests. "Healthy" grains are still on the bottom of the food pyramid and it shouldn't be (IMO). There is no NEED for grains in our diet. Yes, about half of all North Americans appear to do just fine with grains, but a very large minority do not. Grains aren't needed so they shouldn't be pushed.
IMHO, Grains are just a convenience food; it can sit on a shelf for a long time. To me it appears that most prepared packaged foods are based on grains; same goes for fast food. Convenience again. Grains don't need to take up 1/4, 1/2 or more of peoples' plates. I believe almost half of all people would be healthier by cutting grains, and that doesn't fit with most political agendas and lobby groups. Kellogs and General Mills wouldn't stand for it.
Yes, I am coming from a LCHF agenda, and I do believe clos to half of the population would be healthier if they cut their carb levels (from grains and sugars) although most of those people do not need to be as extreme as I am. Lower carbs can help make that minority healthier and may help them lose weight with greater ease.
A current commercial for a juice company and it's breakfast program drives me nuts. It's "Tommy" asking the pretty, slim lunchroom lady for breakfast and she lovingly gives him a "healthy" breakfast of juice, cereal with skim milk and a banana.... Sugar, sugar and sugar. Uh-huh. Those kids will tank after a couple of hours when their glucose levels come down. No protein. No fat, unless you count the 1% in the ilk on the cereal. Not helpful.
Maybe government could outlaw advertising of highly processed foods, pseudo-foods, and fast foods like they did for cigarettes up here. Imagine the $$$ kick back to the government if they did that. Ha!
It would probably be helpful if people went back to the basics and prepared their own food from largely from scratch (I think we can safely exclude dairy from this caveat). If you want bread that bad, bake it. If you want meatloaf, make it. If you want lasagne, make it. Want pizza, make it.... I know, I know. It's not going to happen.
It's not going to change for generations. I bet it will get worse before it gets better. It IS getting worse in Canada. Our obesity rates are rising and not far behind the States now. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2011001/article/11411-eng.htm
^ there is no food pyramid. It is now healthy plate, and if you look, the vegetables are the biggest region, and fruits and vegetables occupy about half the plate.
That's American. We don't use the plate thing, but you are right. Canada uses a food rainbow! LOL
http://nutrition.uwo.ca/pdf/foodguide.pdf
It it IS grain heavy and encourages too many calories be eaten. That's what I was getting at with the pyramid. Plus, just because it is the old food guide, it doesn't mean it is not the one people remember or use.
They are telling people to eat MARGARINE!
I know! Very helpful, eh? LOL0 -
Just teach the science. We already manage to do that in a number of areas where certain people have beliefs that go against scientific fact. I'm fine with science making the ignorant upset.Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Toy advertising wouldn't be touched, though there could be regulations about toys doing tie-ins with food products. There is the tangential issue of some toys that people feel project bad body image that might fall under the umbrella.
She was responding to my post, which was broader. I did think at least in passing that there's no real need to have ads aimed at kids at all, and most parents would likely prefer we not. But like I said, not well-thought-through at this point, so I'm fine with limiting the proposal to food ads.
Right. I'm not a parent either but I admittedly watch some kids programming (Spongebob Squarepants is one example of a kids show that is still in production that I like). Banning food advertisers just concerns me that it could come at the cost of the quality or even prevalence of kids programming. Take a demographic off the table for major advertisers, why would any talent put good energy into creating content for that demographic?
But even with the obesity epidemic, and even with food advertising targeted at kids being effective (which is the point of any targeted advertising) I'm still not convinced the ends justify the means. I'm personally not ready to lump food companies in with big tobacco and pornographers just yet... it doesn't make sense to me that food companies peddling Fruit roll ups or Gushers or Lucky Charms or Chuck E. Cheese should be banned from advertising their food product to kids because some of whom eat way too much food in general.
@senecarr toys, like cartoons, look increasingly odd/disorienting the more similar their likeness is to real physiques and features. The creepiest-looking toys and cartoons I can think of are the one's where characters look almost exactly like the things they look like. But that's another conversation.
It's an interesting thing, the whole advertising to children thing. Yes, it's effective, but at the same time, they don't have any money. So, on that front, I think it is on the parents. I'm sure it's extremely difficult to say no when they see it all the time, but the parents going out and buying it is what makes it effective.
It may be on the parents when it comes to meal prep and snacks at home, but between-meal snacks and snacks at school are often a different beast, because a lot of kids do have at least some money. Chips or candy bars or sodas are cheap. Part of the problem seems to be advertising -> kid stopping at corner store on the way to or from school and buying junk and/or -> kid buying junk out of vending machines at school at lunchtime - or in the case of older kids, leaving school grounds at lunchtime and hitting local fast food joints or the corner stores.
I will admit that that was never my experience, so definitely going off my life, but I'm sure it does happen. We never had vending machines at school, nor at the ones I recently subbed at until middle school. There was a soda machine on campus in middle school for me, but again, that was at 11. It gets too hot here during the summer to have wanted to walk to the store or the like for snacks and we have no public transit to speak of here. The ice cream truck was awesome, though. I guess my point is that the damage has likely been done by then and needs serious intervention that I'm not sure banning advertising would fix?
I think this thread has shown, though, that trying to teach better nutrition in schools would be met with resistance since no one can agree on what that should look like.
And those who will ignore it will continue to do so anyway. I think you're right on that.
0 -
You know what I think the ugly truth is? The only way to decrease the obesity rate is to prevent people from becoming obese in the first place. All the money and programs and education and intentions in the world aren't making us adult fat people permanently thin. People can argue in threads all they want about statistics being wrong and being special snowflakes. It's just not happening. I do believe that many of us can lose enough weight to improve our health, and it's still a worthwhile effort, but most of us will never maintain at a normal BMI and will remain part of the statistics. I'm okay with settling for being significantly less obese if that is where I end up comfortably maintaining. I'm okay if that's not okay with other people.
It seems pretty clear that fat kids who remain fat overwhelmingly become fat adults. The question then becomes: why are our kids becoming obese? And how do we stop that? I don't think the answers are as black and white as people like to think. Not all fat kids come from fat parents. Not all fat kids hate fruits and vegetables. Thin kids are equally addicted to screens nowadays. The amount of money and time and people with PH.D.'s working on this is an entire universe compared to MFP.0 -
-
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/Teaching health and nutrition in school is well and good, but the kids aren't the ones doing the grocery shopping. Even if they do shop with Mom or Dad, it's still unlikely that they'll nag parents for good cuts f meat or more veggies. I just don't think they have the impulse control for it. (Personal opinion)
I hate to say it, since I'm politially a right winged conservative, but I think government needs to get involved to help educate everyone, sort of like they did with cigarettes. Not many smoke in my city anymore. There are some, and it is typically the less educated, but it is nothing like it was 20-40 years ago.
The problem with government is that they are still pushing their own interests. "Healthy" grains are still on the bottom of the food pyramid and it shouldn't be (IMO). There is no NEED for grains in our diet. Yes, about half of all North Americans appear to do just fine with grains, but a very large minority do not. Grains aren't needed so they shouldn't be pushed.
IMHO, Grains are just a convenience food; it can sit on a shelf for a long time. To me it appears that most prepared packaged foods are based on grains; same goes for fast food. Convenience again. Grains don't need to take up 1/4, 1/2 or more of peoples' plates. I believe almost half of all people would be healthier by cutting grains, and that doesn't fit with most political agendas and lobby groups. Kellogs and General Mills wouldn't stand for it.
Yes, I am coming from a LCHF agenda, and I do believe clos to half of the population would be healthier if they cut their carb levels (from grains and sugars) although most of those people do not need to be as extreme as I am. Lower carbs can help make that minority healthier and may help them lose weight with greater ease.
A current commercial for a juice company and it's breakfast program drives me nuts. It's "Tommy" asking the pretty, slim lunchroom lady for breakfast and she lovingly gives him a "healthy" breakfast of juice, cereal with skim milk and a banana.... Sugar, sugar and sugar. Uh-huh. Those kids will tank after a couple of hours when their glucose levels come down. No protein. No fat, unless you count the 1% in the ilk on the cereal. Not helpful.
Maybe government could outlaw advertising of highly processed foods, pseudo-foods, and fast foods like they did for cigarettes up here. Imagine the $$$ kick back to the government if they did that. Ha!
It would probably be helpful if people went back to the basics and prepared their own food from largely from scratch (I think we can safely exclude dairy from this caveat). If you want bread that bad, bake it. If you want meatloaf, make it. If you want lasagne, make it. Want pizza, make it.... I know, I know. It's not going to happen.
It's not going to change for generations. I bet it will get worse before it gets better. It IS getting worse in Canada. Our obesity rates are rising and not far behind the States now. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2011001/article/11411-eng.htm
^ there is no food pyramid. It is now healthy plate, and if you look, the vegetables are the biggest region, and fruits and vegetables occupy about half the plate.
That's American. We don't use the plate thing, but you are right. Canada uses a food rainbow! LOL
http://nutrition.uwo.ca/pdf/foodguide.pdf
It it IS grain heavy and encourages too many calories be eaten. That's what I was getting at with the pyramid. Plus, just because it is the old food guide, it doesn't mean it is not the one people remember or use.
They are telling people to eat MARGARINE!
I know! Very helpful, eh? LOL
At least most of the transfats are gone...only 40-some years after they first suspected they might be a problem!0 -
Other than brands that contain transfat (which health Canada does say not to use transfat margarine), I don't see what is wrong with recommending margarine. The Heart Foundation gives their hearty endorsement to margarine over butter because it will increase the unsaturated fat content of a person's diet, which is statistically associated with better heart health.
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/Teaching health and nutrition in school is well and good, but the kids aren't the ones doing the grocery shopping. Even if they do shop with Mom or Dad, it's still unlikely that they'll nag parents for good cuts f meat or more veggies. I just don't think they have the impulse control for it. (Personal opinion)
I hate to say it, since I'm politially a right winged conservative, but I think government needs to get involved to help educate everyone, sort of like they did with cigarettes. Not many smoke in my city anymore. There are some, and it is typically the less educated, but it is nothing like it was 20-40 years ago.
The problem with government is that they are still pushing their own interests. "Healthy" grains are still on the bottom of the food pyramid and it shouldn't be (IMO). There is no NEED for grains in our diet. Yes, about half of all North Americans appear to do just fine with grains, but a very large minority do not. Grains aren't needed so they shouldn't be pushed.
IMHO, Grains are just a convenience food; it can sit on a shelf for a long time. To me it appears that most prepared packaged foods are based on grains; same goes for fast food. Convenience again. Grains don't need to take up 1/4, 1/2 or more of peoples' plates. I believe almost half of all people would be healthier by cutting grains, and that doesn't fit with most political agendas and lobby groups. Kellogs and General Mills wouldn't stand for it.
Yes, I am coming from a LCHF agenda, and I do believe clos to half of the population would be healthier if they cut their carb levels (from grains and sugars) although most of those people do not need to be as extreme as I am. Lower carbs can help make that minority healthier and may help them lose weight with greater ease.
A current commercial for a juice company and it's breakfast program drives me nuts. It's "Tommy" asking the pretty, slim lunchroom lady for breakfast and she lovingly gives him a "healthy" breakfast of juice, cereal with skim milk and a banana.... Sugar, sugar and sugar. Uh-huh. Those kids will tank after a couple of hours when their glucose levels come down. No protein. No fat, unless you count the 1% in the ilk on the cereal. Not helpful.
Maybe government could outlaw advertising of highly processed foods, pseudo-foods, and fast foods like they did for cigarettes up here. Imagine the $$$ kick back to the government if they did that. Ha!
It would probably be helpful if people went back to the basics and prepared their own food from largely from scratch (I think we can safely exclude dairy from this caveat). If you want bread that bad, bake it. If you want meatloaf, make it. If you want lasagne, make it. Want pizza, make it.... I know, I know. It's not going to happen.
It's not going to change for generations. I bet it will get worse before it gets better. It IS getting worse in Canada. Our obesity rates are rising and not far behind the States now. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2011001/article/11411-eng.htm
^ there is no food pyramid. It is now healthy plate, and if you look, the vegetables are the biggest region, and fruits and vegetables occupy about half the plate.
That's American. We don't use the plate thing, but you are right. Canada uses a food rainbow! LOL
http://nutrition.uwo.ca/pdf/foodguide.pdf
It it IS grain heavy and encourages too many calories be eaten. That's what I was getting at with the pyramid. Plus, just because it is the old food guide, it doesn't mean it is not the one people remember or use.
They are telling people to eat MARGARINE!0 -
IMO, canola oil (margarine) is a less healthy fat than butter. It is less stable and creates free radicals in a way that butter or lard will not. I'll take mono or saturated fats over polyunsaturated fats any day.
Others may disagree. Health Canada does.0 -
IMO, canola oil (margarine) is a less healthy fat than butter. It is less stable and creates free radicals in a way that butter or lard will not. I'll take mono or saturated fats over polyunsaturated fats any day.
Others may disagree. Health Canada does.
The saturation in saturated fat refers to the number of hydrogen molecules on the ends. The increase in hydrogen molecules means they're less tightly bound and their becoming loose turns them directly into a free radical.
The simple chemistry supports the idea that polyunsaturated fats are the less likely to generate free radicals.
Any actual epidemiological links to polyunsaturated fats in terms of free radicals is no greater than saturated fats.
Where there is not an actual wash in evidence is heart health. Replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated is pretty strongly associated with improved cardiovascular health, though saying it is saturated fat itself that makes CVD worse, or favoring it over polyunsaturated that does it, is still unclear.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions