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.
Should junk food be taxed?
Replies
-
Yep, these taxes would be used for offsetting health care costs. Just like all the lottery money goes to education. Just like all the money in the Social Security fund is used to pay Social Security benefits. <sarcasm>
The difference is that people don't have to play the lottery. People have to eat. If you throw ridiculous taxes on what is already barely affordable for the poor, you put them in an even worse position, where they are chasing ever cheaper food. This creates a market distortion, possibly creating/increasing demand for things even poor people wouldn't consider eating right now.
Oh wait, you were being sarcastic.
Well, I'll leave the point there anyway, so others may read it. 
2 -
Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.4
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I am 100% in favor of taxing soda but I doubt the government could come up with criteria for junk food that would make sense. They'd likely tie it to saturated fat, sugar and salt content which would just lead to food companies cutting these things and replacing with something worse to avoid the tax.
The government has come up with items the qualify for purchase in the WIC program so not impossible to develop a list.0 -
But taxes to some are like sugar to others. More is better. For some reason man is just hell bent on controlling other men.5
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »But taxes to some are like sugar to others. More is better. For some reason man is just hell bent on controlling other men.
Mmhmm. We used to use swords and thumbscrews. Now it's taxes, tariffs, and the occasional high explosives.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Yes, i'd certainly like to see some kind of "sugar" tax, but not to the extent that we would create "prohibition" conditions.
This isn't something to be taken lightly but otoh neither is a 30% obesity rate.
Not enough is being done to help people control their weight, overeating is a hugely popular hobby.
why in the world do you want the government trying to regulate weight?????? And there is absolutely nothing wrong with sugar when consumed in moderation...
Because the government pays over 50% of healthcare costs and that percentage is rising. Obesity ialong with smoking ate the biggest controllable health risks.
Agree nothing wrong with sugar in modreatiom, just like nothing wrong with booze in moderation and there is tax on that above.the typical sales tax.
not sure how the flawed/unconstitutional right for the government to pay for healthcare costs somehow turns into a right for the government to regulate everyone's weight..
that is a ridiculous argument.7 -
Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
not to mention unconstitutional...5 -
I knew this would be a hot topic when I saw the title. We're straying dangerously close to a political discussion in this thread.
I will never advocate for additional taxes. As a single, childless person who makes above average income, I already feel like I'm overtaxed, and the US government doesn't have a very good track record of wisely spending the money they take from my paychecks. That said, I'd be all for additional education about healthy food choices, calories, reading nutrition labels, etc., as I believe that would be much more effective at reducing our obesity problem. There's enough glut in the US government to fund that already - no need for more taxes.
As a single, childfree (i.e. childless plus) person who makes above average income, I am ok with some higher taxes and advocate for many tax changes that are beyond the scope of this thread. Nothing government does will be approved by everyone.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Yes, i'd certainly like to see some kind of "sugar" tax, but not to the extent that we would create "prohibition" conditions.
This isn't something to be taken lightly but otoh neither is a 30% obesity rate.
Not enough is being done to help people control their weight, overeating is a hugely popular hobby.
why in the world do you want the government trying to regulate weight?????? And there is absolutely nothing wrong with sugar when consumed in moderation...
Because the government pays over 50% of healthcare costs and that percentage is rising. Obesity ialong with smoking ate the biggest controllable health risks.
Agree nothing wrong with sugar in modreatiom, just like nothing wrong with booze in moderation and there is tax on that above.the typical sales tax.
not sure how the flawed/unconstitutional right for the government to pay for healthcare costs somehow turns into a right for the government to regulate everyone's weight..
that is a ridiculous argument.
Don't think the government paying for health care has been declared unconstitutional. MedI care and Medicaid have been around for years.
0 -
kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Yes, i'd certainly like to see some kind of "sugar" tax, but not to the extent that we would create "prohibition" conditions.
This isn't something to be taken lightly but otoh neither is a 30% obesity rate.
Not enough is being done to help people control their weight, overeating is a hugely popular hobby.
why in the world do you want the government trying to regulate weight?????? And there is absolutely nothing wrong with sugar when consumed in moderation...
Because the government pays over 50% of healthcare costs and that percentage is rising. Obesity ialong with smoking ate the biggest controllable health risks.
Agree nothing wrong with sugar in modreatiom, just like nothing wrong with booze in moderation and there is tax on that above.the typical sales tax.
not sure how the flawed/unconstitutional right for the government to pay for healthcare costs somehow turns into a right for the government to regulate everyone's weight..
that is a ridiculous argument.
Don't think the government paying for health care has been declared unconstitutional. MedI care and Medicaid have been around for years.
please tell me what section of the constitution provides the government the authority to pay for healthcare costs?6 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
I used to hit up Chipotle for a bowl, steak, no rice, fajita vegetables, lettuce and cheese. Came out to be right at 6g net carbs, and could be reduced a bit more by subbing in chicken for the steak. Granted, that's about the only thing I would ever consider eating from there.1 -
Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages states to make a certain decision.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages states to make a certain decision.
I don't think it's a question of "do they?" More like "should they?"1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
I used to hit up Chipotle for a bowl, steak, no rice, fajita vegetables, lettuce and cheese. Came out to be right at 6g net carbs, and could be reduced a bit more by subbing in chicken for the steak. Granted, that's about the only thing I would ever consider eating from there.
And I ate a salad at Chipotle last weekend that was low carb... but a burrito?! Let's not pretend it is the same.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
I used to hit up Chipotle for a bowl, steak, no rice, fajita vegetables, lettuce and cheese. Came out to be right at 6g net carbs, and could be reduced a bit more by subbing in chicken for the steak. Granted, that's about the only thing I would ever consider eating from there.
And I ate a salad at Chipotle last weekend that was low carb... but a burrito?! Let's not pretend it is the same.
Haha, oh no, not at all. Just the tortilla has more calories and carbs than my entire bowl. xD0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages states to make a certain decision.
I don't think it's a question of "do they?" More like "should they?"
This is something else that some would disagree about... I would say they should while I'm sure some would disagree.
But I don't think the question was either "do they?" or "should they?" It was "may they?" I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is that they may.
ETA: Evidence that they may is that they do and haven't been forced by the supreme court to stop.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »I knew this would be a hot topic when I saw the title. We're straying dangerously close to a political discussion in this thread.
I will never advocate for additional taxes. As a single, childless person who makes above average income, I already feel like I'm overtaxed, and the US government doesn't have a very good track record of wisely spending the money they take from my paychecks. That said, I'd be all for additional education about healthy food choices, calories, reading nutrition labels, etc., as I believe that would be much more effective at reducing our obesity problem. There's enough glut in the US government to fund that already - no need for more taxes.
As a single, childfree (i.e. childless plus) person who makes above average income, I am ok with some higher taxes and advocate for many tax changes that are beyond the scope of this thread. Nothing government does will be approved by everyone.
Which is why a debate like this will never really go anywhere. There's no way to prove one way or the other whether increasing taxes on certain food items will assist either with the obesity crisis or with healthcare costs. Education seems like it would be best choice, since the highest rates of obesity in the US are in groups with the lowest levels of education (and the lowest income levels as well).2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »I knew this would be a hot topic when I saw the title. We're straying dangerously close to a political discussion in this thread.
I will never advocate for additional taxes. As a single, childless person who makes above average income, I already feel like I'm overtaxed, and the US government doesn't have a very good track record of wisely spending the money they take from my paychecks. That said, I'd be all for additional education about healthy food choices, calories, reading nutrition labels, etc., as I believe that would be much more effective at reducing our obesity problem. There's enough glut in the US government to fund that already - no need for more taxes.
As a single, childfree (i.e. childless plus) person who makes above average income, I am ok with some higher taxes and advocate for many tax changes that are beyond the scope of this thread. Nothing government does will be approved by everyone.
Which is why a debate like this will never really go anywhere. There's no way to prove one way or the other whether increasing taxes on certain food items will assist either with the obesity crisis or with healthcare costs. Education seems like it would be best choice, since the highest rates of obesity in the US are in groups with the lowest levels of education (and the lowest income levels as well).
It can be proven or dis-proven by trying it. Until it is attempted, you are right that there is no way to prove the effectiveness of the policy.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I knew this would be a hot topic when I saw the title. We're straying dangerously close to a political discussion in this thread.
I will never advocate for additional taxes. As a single, childless person who makes above average income, I already feel like I'm overtaxed, and the US government doesn't have a very good track record of wisely spending the money they take from my paychecks. That said, I'd be all for additional education about healthy food choices, calories, reading nutrition labels, etc., as I believe that would be much more effective at reducing our obesity problem. There's enough glut in the US government to fund that already - no need for more taxes.
As a single, childfree (i.e. childless plus) person who makes above average income, I am ok with some higher taxes and advocate for many tax changes that are beyond the scope of this thread. Nothing government does will be approved by everyone.
Which is why a debate like this will never really go anywhere. There's no way to prove one way or the other whether increasing taxes on certain food items will assist either with the obesity crisis or with healthcare costs. Education seems like it would be best choice, since the highest rates of obesity in the US are in groups with the lowest levels of education (and the lowest income levels as well).
It can be proven or dis-proven by trying it. Until it is attempted, you are right that there is no way to prove the effectiveness of the policy.
And in the meantime, millions of taxpayers shell out even more money that may or may not do what it's supposed to do, if the taxes are even applied where they were supposed to be. No thanks.5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages states to make a certain decision.
I don't think it's a question of "do they?" More like "should they?"
This is something else that some would disagree about... I would say they should while I'm sure some would disagree.
But I don't think the question was either "do they?" or "should they?" It was "may they?" I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is that they may.
ETA: Evidence that they may is that they do and haven't been forced by the supreme court to stop.
Oh, absolutely. The commerce clause has been interpreted to allow this very thing, many times over, even from back in the John Marshall days. It's taxation powers granted under Clause 1 also allow for the very thing we are discussing here, and if there were any question of that, one need only look at 2012's PPACA ruling for verification.
However, as I said, most of this is already handled at the state level. Throwing another Federal tax on top of it would just be cruel to those in the worst of circumstances. Again, I live in "the hood". I promise you, 2.5-5% would hurt these people far more than it could possibly help, given the notoriously inefficient budgeting of the federal government.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I knew this would be a hot topic when I saw the title. We're straying dangerously close to a political discussion in this thread.
I will never advocate for additional taxes. As a single, childless person who makes above average income, I already feel like I'm overtaxed, and the US government doesn't have a very good track record of wisely spending the money they take from my paychecks. That said, I'd be all for additional education about healthy food choices, calories, reading nutrition labels, etc., as I believe that would be much more effective at reducing our obesity problem. There's enough glut in the US government to fund that already - no need for more taxes.
As a single, childfree (i.e. childless plus) person who makes above average income, I am ok with some higher taxes and advocate for many tax changes that are beyond the scope of this thread. Nothing government does will be approved by everyone.
Which is why a debate like this will never really go anywhere. There's no way to prove one way or the other whether increasing taxes on certain food items will assist either with the obesity crisis or with healthcare costs. Education seems like it would be best choice, since the highest rates of obesity in the US are in groups with the lowest levels of education (and the lowest income levels as well).
It can be proven or dis-proven by trying it. Until it is attempted, you are right that there is no way to prove the effectiveness of the policy.
And in the meantime, millions of taxpayers shell out even more money that may or may not do what it's supposed to do, if the taxes are even applied where they were supposed to be. No thanks.
It doesn't need to be millions. Experimentally, it could be done in a smaller area as long as the possibility of going across the street and buying outside that area isn't a reasonable possibility that would skew the results. We already have different tax laws from city to city, county to county, and state to state. Put this in a single area and keep track of the results in a central location within that area.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages coerces states to make a certain decision.
FIFY - You know this exceeds the boundaries of the federalist model, no?2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Sugar should be taxed if you are on a universal health care system. Since the US isn't, then you're just taxing yourself later when you become diabetic or overweight and have complications.
If not then there should be penalties or restrictions for companies who are adding too much sugar into our food. Do we really need high fructose corn syrup in almost every loaf of bread?
You know sugar doesn't cause diabetes, right?
You know that sugar of some form is needed for the yeast to do its job on bread, right?
If not sugar then what foods do cause diabetes?
None of them.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages states to make a certain decision.
I don't think it's a question of "do they?" More like "should they?"
This is something else that some would disagree about... I would say they should while I'm sure some would disagree.
But I don't think the question was either "do they?" or "should they?" It was "may they?" I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is that they may.
ETA: Evidence that they may is that they do and haven't been forced by the supreme court to stop.
the supreme court does not have an enforcement arm, which would be the most likely reason. The states are not going to challenge because they get bribed by the federal government in the form of welfare payments/reimbursements back to the states.1 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages coerces states to make a certain decision.
FIFY - You know this exceeds the boundaries of the federalist model, no?
we blew out the federalist model when Lincoln went to war with the south over state's rights..just saying...3 -
It already is.
ETA: Also from Canada. "Junk" (i.e. not fresh) is taxed. Fresh is not.
I can't remember if frozen fruit and vegetables are taxed. Frozen meat is not taxed.
Not sure about canned stuff. Hmm.
In the end if I want it I buy it so meh!1 -
-
Have not read the thread at all. Just jumping in. Am I to assume that the agreement is that beets should be taxed? Because... Blechhhh. Just assuming this is the way this went, no?4
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I knew this would be a hot topic when I saw the title. We're straying dangerously close to a political discussion in this thread.
I will never advocate for additional taxes. As a single, childless person who makes above average income, I already feel like I'm overtaxed, and the US government doesn't have a very good track record of wisely spending the money they take from my paychecks. That said, I'd be all for additional education about healthy food choices, calories, reading nutrition labels, etc., as I believe that would be much more effective at reducing our obesity problem. There's enough glut in the US government to fund that already - no need for more taxes.
As a single, childfree (i.e. childless plus) person who makes above average income, I am ok with some higher taxes and advocate for many tax changes that are beyond the scope of this thread. Nothing government does will be approved by everyone.
Which is why a debate like this will never really go anywhere. There's no way to prove one way or the other whether increasing taxes on certain food items will assist either with the obesity crisis or with healthcare costs. Education seems like it would be best choice, since the highest rates of obesity in the US are in groups with the lowest levels of education (and the lowest income levels as well).
It can be proven or dis-proven by trying it. Until it is attempted, you are right that there is no way to prove the effectiveness of the policy.
And in the meantime, millions of taxpayers shell out even more money that may or may not do what it's supposed to do, if the taxes are even applied where they were supposed to be. No thanks.
It doesn't need to be millions. Experimentally, it could be done in a smaller area as long as the possibility of going across the street and buying outside that area isn't a reasonable possibility that would skew the results. We already have different tax laws from city to city, county to county, and state to state. Put this in a single area and keep track of the results in a central location within that area.
There are already a couple cities that impose special taxes on soda and even more have plans to implement them if passed by voters. Since sugar-laden drinks have long been touted as one of the contributing factors to the rise of obesity, we should maybe first assess what those taxes have done before we try the same thing over again with the next demonized food group.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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