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.
Cell phone impact on Health.
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »
My aunt insisted that anyone who did would become infertile.
Please don't tell my daughter.
To be fair, my aunt was a complete looney-tunes, but I think that was standard early 80s woo.
I won't tell your daughter she does not exist. I can see that that might upset her. ;-)1 -
Why are you asking for comments on an article about a study that hasn't even come out yet, on a website whose purpose seems to be microwave scaremongering?
"An analysis of data from NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program evaluated trends in cancer incidence in the United States. This analysis found no increase in the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1992 and 2006, despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during that time"
Source: http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet5 -
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
Well, for me, what's wrong with the article:
1. Most of the effect was due to an unusually low incidence of cancer in the control group, not an unusually high incidence of cancer in the experimental group.
2. The sample sizes were small, and even a single incidence more or less of cancer would drastically shift results.
3. The doses that the rats were exposed to were many hundreds if not thousands of times higher than typical human exposure. Even ionizing radiation, which we know is carcinogenic in high doses, is not carcinogenic in low doses. In fact at low doses, ionizing radiation actually protects against cancer. You can't extrapolate the response to a low dose of something from the response to an extremely high dose.
4. Rat studies are prone to overestimate cancer risk. Rats have a much higher incidence of cancer compared to humans, and many things are carcinogenic to them at levels that have no effect on humans.10 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
People take issue with this and other articles posted because you don't seem concerned at all about the lack of scientific rigor used in the studies and the way the information is presented. You find articles which support your view of the world and when challenged on them claim that science hasn't caught up to what you or the author knows to be true.
I'm very sorry to hear of your friend's cancer diagnosis but unfortunately cancer is a multi factorial disease which very likely does not have a single cause. Maybe spend some time helping research ways to help your friend during his battle with this disease (meals for the family, help around the house, etc) rather than looking for scary articles to post here to try to convince MFP users of the evils of cell phones.12 -
rankinsect wrote: »4. Rat studies are prone to overestimate cancer risk. Rats have a much higher incidence of cancer compared to humans, and many things are carcinogenic to them at levels that have no effect on humans.
Case in point: saccharin being labeled carcinogenic because massive doses caused bladder cancer in rats, a finding that it turns out does not apply to humans.5 -
Be sure to read the Vox article posted by WakkoW before making up your mind on this:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/11797924/cellphones-cancer-bad-reporting
Particularly the last paragraph:Note that this is how scientists tend to think about any new study. They take the results seriously, they point to questions that demand further investigation, but they remain skeptical that this is the last word. The press should strive to follow suit.4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
High dollar amounts do not equal unbiased studies.
While it is a shame that your friend has been afflicted with cancer, there is not one shred of evidence pointing to cell phone usage as the cause. How many other environmental or genetic influences could be the source? Countless.
I had never heard of the website in the OP until now, but after looking at it, it appears to be nothing more than a tin-foil hat, scare inducing, agenda driven piece of gutter journalism. I have stood in front of radiating cellular antennas for hours at a time, and have worked closely with others over the same time frame who are unaffected.
So I ask you this - why is it that tens of thousands of professionals (there are over 28,000 tower climbers in America alone) have not seen the same effects as the n=1 story of your friend?
The only person I have known who was diagnosed with cancer that may have been cellular related was a bench technician who opened a mislabeled repair port on an RF filter and was exposed to cadmium.
Funny how people who fall into the traps these studies set are the same who refuse to believe cellular radiation, aside from modulation schemes, is no different than TV, AM/FM, HAM radio, CB, infrared, GPS, WiFi, baby monitors, cordless home phones and garage door openers.
13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
High dollar amounts do not equal unbiased studies.
While it is a shame that your friend has been afflicted with cancer, there is not one shred of evidence pointing to cell phone usage as the cause. How many other environmental or genetic influences could be the source? Countless.
I had never heard of the website in the OP until now, but after looking at it, it appears to be nothing more than a tin-foil hat, scare inducing, agenda driven piece of gutter journalism. I have stood in front of radiating cellular antennas for hours at a time, and have worked closely with others over the same time frame who are unaffected.
So I ask you this - why is it that tens of thousands of professionals (there are over 28,000 tower climbers in America alone) have not seen the same effects as the n=1 story of your friend?
The only person I have known who was diagnosed with cancer that may have been cellular related was a bench technician who opened a mislabeled repair port on an RF filter and was exposed to cadmium.
Funny how people who fall into the traps these studies set are the same who refuse to believe cellular radiation, aside from modulation schemes, is no different than TV, AM/FM, HAM radio, CB, infrared, GPS, WiFi, baby monitors, cordless home phones and garage door openers.
Another great post!
Regarding your last paragraph, there are plenty of people who believe it's all bad. Some of them move to isolated places, even to small foreign countries, in order to live completely off the grid in a quest to live as extend their lives as long as possible.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »What's next Gale, an article from the Weekly World News?
Have you heard about The Pentaverate?
Edit:
This cover left me scarred for life:
Bates Boy bears an eerie resemblance to McCauley Culkin.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
High dollar amounts do not equal unbiased studies.
While it is a shame that your friend has been afflicted with cancer, there is not one shred of evidence pointing to cell phone usage as the cause. How many other environmental or genetic influences could be the source? Countless.
I had never heard of the website in the OP until now, but after looking at it, it appears to be nothing more than a tin-foil hat, scare inducing, agenda driven piece of gutter journalism. I have stood in front of radiating cellular antennas for hours at a time, and have worked closely with others over the same time frame who are unaffected.
So I ask you this - why is it that tens of thousands of professionals (there are over 28,000 tower climbers in America alone) have not seen the same effects as the n=1 story of your friend?
The only person I have known who was diagnosed with cancer that may have been cellular related was a bench technician who opened a mislabeled repair port on an RF filter and was exposed to cadmium.
Funny how people who fall into the traps these studies set are the same who refuse to believe cellular radiation, aside from modulation schemes, is no different than TV, AM/FM, HAM radio, CB, infrared, GPS, WiFi, baby monitors, cordless home phones and garage door openers.
Another great post!
Regarding your last paragraph, there are plenty of people who believe it's all bad. Some of them move to isolated places, even to small foreign countries, in order to live completely off the grid in a quest to live as extend their lives as long as possible.
I've considered going off the grid, but not for these reasons.3 -
Although there is no basis to their claims, at least they're being consistent and not cherry picking one out of the group.
Another great post!
Regarding your last paragraph, there are plenty of people who believe it's all bad. Some of them move to isolated places, even to small foreign countries, in order to live completely off the grid in a quest to live as extend their lives as long as possible.
One of the biggest obstacles we face when building networks is people who don't want that ugly cancer tower in their neighborhood, but are the first to complain when they have no service.
6 -
True story -
About 5 years ago I was contracted to troubleshoot RF interference at various sites in Chicago for one of the major carriers (think blue deathstar). One site was on the roof of a 6 story condo on the near west side. I went up and was looking at the equipment and anything in the direction of the antennas that may be causing the problem. Nothing.
I get the ol' spectrum analyzer out and start walking the hallways of the building and BAM! There it was. Unit 502. Sometimes we find people who have an appliance that is malfunctioning and emitting some stray EMF in the same frequency the site is transmitting. Ok, so I knock on the door. What happened next will never leave me.
A guy opens the door, just a crack, and asks for a password. Huh? Really? F this I say, and I started explaining the situation and how I'd just like to talk to him. Keep in mind I'm carrying an antenna wired to a backpack, looking all ghostbusters. Long story short this guy was bat *kitten* crazy. He had an old Sony TV, tube style, tuned into an unused station so only static was showing. He had tin foil covering his windows and wire coat hangers hung randomly in his unit. He told me he had to keep the coat hangers up to absorb the waves the government was sending into his apartment, and the TV was on static because that was the only way to keep the people inside. Keep the people inside. KEEP THE *kitten* PEOPLE INSIDE!!! He thought the people on the TV screen were real and would escape to take him to a government run concentration camp. I high tailed it out of there and called my customer to tell them.
Simple fix to these types of things is to pay for a replacement appliance in good working order, but this guy wasn't having it. We had to explain to him that a new TV would keep the people inside because it was so skinny they wouldn't have enough room to squeeze through any escape point. Dude got convinced, TV got replaced, interference stopped. I got paid and never returned to that street.18 -
True story -
About 5 years ago I was contracted to troubleshoot RF interference at various sites in Chicago for one of the major carriers (think blue deathstar). One site was on the roof of a 6 story condo on the near west side. I went up and was looking at the equipment and anything in the direction of the antennas that may be causing the problem. Nothing.
I get the ol' spectrum analyzer out and start walking the hallways of the building and BAM! There it was. Unit 502. Sometimes we find people who have an appliance that is malfunctioning and emitting some stray EMF in the same frequency the site is transmitting. Ok, so I knock on the door. What happened next will never leave me.
A guy opens the door, just a crack, and asks for a password. Huh? Really? F this I say, and I started explaining the situation and how I'd just like to talk to him. Keep in mind I'm carrying an antenna wired to a backpack, looking all ghostbusters. Long story short this guy was bat *kitten* crazy. He had an old Sony TV, tube style, tuned into an unused station so only static was showing. He had tin foil covering his windows and wire coat hangers hung randomly in his unit. He told me he had to keep the coat hangers up to absorb the waves the government was sending into his apartment, and the TV was on static because that was the only way to keep the people inside. Keep the people inside. KEEP THE *kitten* PEOPLE INSIDE!!! He thought the people on the TV screen were real and would escape to take him to a government run concentration camp. I high tailed it out of there and called my customer to tell them.
Simple fix to these types of things is to pay for a replacement appliance in good working order, but this guy wasn't having it. We had to explain to him that a new TV would keep the people inside because it was so skinny they wouldn't have enough room to squeeze through any escape point. Dude got convinced, TV got replaced, interference stopped. I got paid and never returned to that street.
Wowsas, I thought people like this only existed in whacked out movies!!3 -
I'm loving the illogical thought process there. He couldn't just get rid of the TV to be free of the "people", he had to keep it in his room showing only static.
Actually, now that I've typed that all out I feel so sorry for him.
3 -
Don't you love people that deny the radiation from cell phones UNTIL they themselves start feeling sick and are diagnosed... hmmm?0
-
I'm loving the illogical thought process there. He couldn't just get rid of the TV to be free of the "people", he had to keep it in his room showing only static.
Actually, now that I've typed that all out I feel so sorry for him.
I do, too. He sounds like a headline in the making.
0 -
SugarySweetheart wrote: »Don't you love people that deny the radiation from cell phones UNTIL they themselves start feeling sick and are diagnosed... hmmm?
Don't you love people that deny irrefutable science even when smashed over the face with it?10 -
SugarySweetheart wrote: »Don't you love people that deny the radiation from cell phones UNTIL they themselves start feeling sick and are diagnosed... hmmm?
Totally off topic--I think your avatar is beautiful.0 -
True story -
About 5 years ago I was contracted to troubleshoot RF interference at various sites in Chicago for one of the major carriers (think blue deathstar). One site was on the roof of a 6 story condo on the near west side. I went up and was looking at the equipment and anything in the direction of the antennas that may be causing the problem. Nothing.
I get the ol' spectrum analyzer out and start walking the hallways of the building and BAM! There it was. Unit 502. Sometimes we find people who have an appliance that is malfunctioning and emitting some stray EMF in the same frequency the site is transmitting. Ok, so I knock on the door. What happened next will never leave me.
A guy opens the door, just a crack, and asks for a password. Huh? Really? F this I say, and I started explaining the situation and how I'd just like to talk to him. Keep in mind I'm carrying an antenna wired to a backpack, looking all ghostbusters. Long story short this guy was bat *kitten* crazy. He had an old Sony TV, tube style, tuned into an unused station so only static was showing. He had tin foil covering his windows and wire coat hangers hung randomly in his unit. He told me he had to keep the coat hangers up to absorb the waves the government was sending into his apartment, and the TV was on static because that was the only way to keep the people inside. Keep the people inside. KEEP THE *kitten* PEOPLE INSIDE!!! He thought the people on the TV screen were real and would escape to take him to a government run concentration camp. I high tailed it out of there and called my customer to tell them.
Simple fix to these types of things is to pay for a replacement appliance in good working order, but this guy wasn't having it. We had to explain to him that a new TV would keep the people inside because it was so skinny they wouldn't have enough room to squeeze through any escape point. Dude got convinced, TV got replaced, interference stopped. I got paid and never returned to that street.
While this may seem scary from the outside, could you imagine living inside his head? Sounds like a terrifying world for him to be living in.7 -
True story -
About 5 years ago I was contracted to troubleshoot RF interference at various sites in Chicago for one of the major carriers (think blue deathstar). One site was on the roof of a 6 story condo on the near west side. I went up and was looking at the equipment and anything in the direction of the antennas that may be causing the problem. Nothing.
I get the ol' spectrum analyzer out and start walking the hallways of the building and BAM! There it was. Unit 502. Sometimes we find people who have an appliance that is malfunctioning and emitting some stray EMF in the same frequency the site is transmitting. Ok, so I knock on the door. What happened next will never leave me.
A guy opens the door, just a crack, and asks for a password. Huh? Really? F this I say, and I started explaining the situation and how I'd just like to talk to him. Keep in mind I'm carrying an antenna wired to a backpack, looking all ghostbusters. Long story short this guy was bat *kitten* crazy. He had an old Sony TV, tube style, tuned into an unused station so only static was showing. He had tin foil covering his windows and wire coat hangers hung randomly in his unit. He told me he had to keep the coat hangers up to absorb the waves the government was sending into his apartment, and the TV was on static because that was the only way to keep the people inside. Keep the people inside. KEEP THE *kitten* PEOPLE INSIDE!!! He thought the people on the TV screen were real and would escape to take him to a government run concentration camp. I high tailed it out of there and called my customer to tell them.
Simple fix to these types of things is to pay for a replacement appliance in good working order, but this guy wasn't having it. We had to explain to him that a new TV would keep the people inside because it was so skinny they wouldn't have enough room to squeeze through any escape point. Dude got convinced, TV got replaced, interference stopped. I got paid and never returned to that street.
Wow.
Since I'm in Chicago (although not the near west side), I'm dying to know the address, but won't ask.2 -
Such junk science. Breast cancer occurs in the out side of the breast because of that is where the majority of the mik ducts are. The number 2 spot is behind the nipple. Ductal cancer is the most common type of breast cancer. The 3 biggest things that raise your risk (not cause) is obesity, smoking and inactivity. This does not make the news however because it is not headline grabbing3
-
Had to laugh because I just got an email about this article this morning:
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/health/article/Do-cellphones-cause-cancer-Don-t-believe-the-hype-7949521.php?t=54e9afa411438d9cbb&cmpid=email-premium1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
High dollar amounts do not equal unbiased studies.
While it is a shame that your friend has been afflicted with cancer, there is not one shred of evidence pointing to cell phone usage as the cause. How many other environmental or genetic influences could be the source? Countless.
I had never heard of the website in the OP until now, but after looking at it, it appears to be nothing more than a tin-foil hat, scare inducing, agenda driven piece of gutter journalism. I have stood in front of radiating cellular antennas for hours at a time, and have worked closely with others over the same time frame who are unaffected.
So I ask you this - why is it that tens of thousands of professionals (there are over 28,000 tower climbers in America alone) have not seen the same effects as the n=1 story of your friend?
The only person I have known who was diagnosed with cancer that may have been cellular related was a bench technician who opened a mislabeled repair port on an RF filter and was exposed to cadmium.
Funny how people who fall into the traps these studies set are the same who refuse to believe cellular radiation, aside from modulation schemes, is no different than TV, AM/FM, HAM radio, CB, infrared, GPS, WiFi, baby monitors, cordless home phones and garage door openers.
Another great post!
Regarding your last paragraph, there are plenty of people who believe it's all bad. Some of them move to isolated places, even to small foreign countries, in order to live completely off the grid in a quest to live as extend their lives as long as possible.
Do they really Jane?
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
High dollar amounts do not equal unbiased studies.
While it is a shame that your friend has been afflicted with cancer, there is not one shred of evidence pointing to cell phone usage as the cause. How many other environmental or genetic influences could be the source? Countless.
I had never heard of the website in the OP until now, but after looking at it, it appears to be nothing more than a tin-foil hat, scare inducing, agenda driven piece of gutter journalism. I have stood in front of radiating cellular antennas for hours at a time, and have worked closely with others over the same time frame who are unaffected.
So I ask you this - why is it that tens of thousands of professionals (there are over 28,000 tower climbers in America alone) have not seen the same effects as the n=1 story of your friend?
The only person I have known who was diagnosed with cancer that may have been cellular related was a bench technician who opened a mislabeled repair port on an RF filter and was exposed to cadmium.
Funny how people who fall into the traps these studies set are the same who refuse to believe cellular radiation, aside from modulation schemes, is no different than TV, AM/FM, HAM radio, CB, infrared, GPS, WiFi, baby monitors, cordless home phones and garage door openers.
Another great post!
Regarding your last paragraph, there are plenty of people who believe it's all bad. Some of them move to isolated places, even to small foreign countries, in order to live completely off the grid in a quest to live as extend their lives as long as possible.
Do they really Jane?
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but where I live there's a small isolated town being overrun by them. So yes, they really do.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
People take issue with this and other articles posted because you don't seem concerned at all about the lack of scientific rigor used in the studies and the way the information is presented. You find articles which support your view of the world and when challenged on them claim that science hasn't caught up to what you or the author knows to be true.
I'm very sorry to hear of your friend's cancer diagnosis but unfortunately cancer is a multi factorial disease which very likely does not have a single cause. Maybe spend some time helping research ways to help your friend during his battle with this disease (meals for the family, help around the house, etc) rather than looking for scary articles to post here to try to convince MFP users of the evils of cell phones.
I expect this kind of research will continue as long as their grant writers get funded. Even today very little is understood about cancer and ever less about the human body in general. The articles in the press that I post have little to do with my views. Today there is no research that states cell phone will or will not cause cancer and there will be none in our lifetimes I expect. We all can live in the same environment yet have it to impact each of us differently. People were saying smoking increased health risk before the US government made it a "legal" fact.
When it comes to cell phone usage it is only going to increase i expect as all EMF sources increase.
niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions