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.
Adoption - Should Fat People Be Allowed to Adopt?
Replies
-
and god forbid what if someone significantly obese wanted to adopt to have a child to wait on them? (see my 600 lb life they all have people waiting on them)
This shows a shocking amount of anti-obesity bias in my opinion. Your assumption is simply because someone is overweight they are trying to adopt the help? Perhaps you shouldn't let "reality" TV guide your opinions of real life.
There are abusive parents (adoptive or biological) out there who do horrible things to their children, regardless of what weight they are. Singling out obese people as if they are going to be predisposed to being child abusers is ridiculous.6 -
I would stress again we are not talking about adoption "laws" in the US. The woman in question was trying to adopt a child from a foreign country and is classified as morbidly obese (she also failed other requirements). Many of these adoption services are not adopting out orphans - they are go betweens for mothers who have decided to give up their children and want them to live in a place with more opportunity.
If I were to get pregnant and decided I wanted to give the baby up to someone who would give them a better life than I could, you're darn tootin' I would have a long list of possibly unfair requirements.
Obviously orphans and children in foster care are an entirely different story, and as far as I know there are generally no laws against obese people adopting in the US at least.12 -
It seems some of the arguments being presented assume that there’s a line of rejected just barely obese people clamoring to adopt children who have or are currently facing years in the foster system.
As @kimny72 mentioned, this question was posed in response to a morbidly obese (the “extreme obesity” section of the chart a few posts up-the level of obesity where WLS is encouraged because the risks of remaining that obese exceed the risks of surgery) woman, trying to adopt a baby.
While I don’t have any evidence or statistics to support one way or another, based on some posts up thread it seems the demand for adoptable babies far exceeds supply (and agencies can set whatever guidelines they choose as exclusionary as due to demand, they have the luxury of choosing whoever they deem to be the best possible parents) and supply of adoptable children older than babies vastly exceeds demand (and some requirements seem waived to allow these adoptions to take place-at least sometimes).
I could be very wrong. I have no proof of anything.3 -
Some places write adoption laws as if there's an overwhelming amount of people willing to adopt just a few kids in need of homes, when in reality it is the opposite. Everywhere in the world has way more children that need homes than those who are willing to provide them. Unless someone has health conditions (and being obese ain't it) that would greatly interfere with their ability to adequately raise the child, they should be encouraged, not denied.
There are people in the world who want to adopt but shouldn't be allowed to. Places doing adoptions have a responsibility to the child first and foremost. I'm not saying where the line should be drawn, but there has to be a line.6 -
There’s a glut of couples wanting a baby for adoption.
There’s a glut of children in the foster care system who would love a chance in a loving adoptive home.
My first thought was that an obese parent would have a tough time chasing after a toddler. Or taking them to the park.
So for baby adoption I figure the screeners can make the criteria as tough as they want.
For older children, be generous. Loving parents can work around their disabilities and/or health issues.
I advised my mentally ill son that I want a clean, pampered, doted-on grandchild like I have already. If he can provide all that, then all power to him. Painfully, gradually, he set aside the dream to father his own child. For the sake of his wife and the dream of a child who could have been. Now that’s love. That’s sacrifice.7 -
There’s a glut of couples wanting a baby for adoption.
There’s a glut of children in the foster care system who would love a chance in a loving adoptive home.
My first thought was that an obese parent would have a tough time chasing after a toddler. Or taking them to the park.
So for baby adoption I figure the screeners can make the criteria as tough as they want.
For older children, be generous. Loving parents can work around their disabilities and/or health issues.
I advised my mentally ill son that I want a clean, pampered, doted-on grandchild like I have already. If he can provide all that, then all power to him. Painfully, gradually, he set aside the dream to father his own child. For the sake of his wife and the dream of a child who could have been. Now that’s love. That’s sacrifice.
Though even then, there are plenty of people with mental illnesses who are responsible parents. I know multiple people who fall into that box, including some who have adopted their children.
Of course there are also people with mental illnesses who one could easily predict would be a bad parent and others who flat out are poor parents in part because of their mental health issues. Your son is apparently one of those people (note - I am not trying to invalidate your son's decision). At the end of the day that's part of why this isn't black and white.
edit: and by "responsible parents", I mean what you would expect from a parent good. Not just a "well they're keeping the kid alive..." sort of situation.0 -
There’s a glut of couples wanting a baby for adoption.
There’s a glut of children in the foster care system who would love a chance in a loving adoptive home.
Former foster parent here... Not all children in the foster care system are available for adoption. In fact, most of them aren't. Hence, families look to other agencies.6 -
I think it's a crazy way to decide if a couple can adopt. I would think it would be better for a child to be in a home of love then in the foster system. We have many kids that never get adopted and age out of the foster system with no one.
Honestly I don't think weight says everything about what kid of parent you will be. I think if you can pass a background check, psych email, parenting classes, and you are financially responsible and have many great references. Then you should be allowed to adopt. That's more than most kids are born into....
It breaks my heart that there are so many kids in this world that are alone and are left to feel unwanted.5 -
I have no problem with somebody who's morbidly obese being refused, especially for young children. I'm also ok with them being forced to go to parenting and nutrition classes if they've had biological kids.
Bad eating habits are often passed on through nurture (both sides of my family are examples of that). I struggle to keep up with my 1+7 year old nephew/niece. If I don't keep up with the weight loss, I may be dead before my nephew is an adult, I'll definitely have severe health issues. I was obese before I started school, personally, and morbidly obese as a teen. I know I was over 140lbs while still in primary school (age 11), I think quite a lot over actually. IIRC I hit 13 stones (182lbs) at around 11-12. My mum (border of obese-morbidly most of my life) was a great parent in every other way, but her chronically over feeding us was a form of abuse. Not a purposeful one, not one she really understood the damage she was doing with it. I don't hate her for it, but I wish she'd not passed her issues on. I refuse to have kids until I've got my own issues under control for that reason.
I also lost my Mum as a teenager (not due to weight), putting a child in a position where that's quite likely, is unfair. And once people are morbidly obese, well it's called that for a reason. Especially if they may have had a traumatic childhood (more the case for kids removed later on I assume, but there's relatively few given up at birth).
If they're trying to adopt or foster teenagers it may be different, and even for short term fostering of younger kids it may be ok. I'm definitely not saying it should be the case for people who are overweight or on the lower end of obese. But there needs to be a line at which we consider if those people are going to endanger a child's health by causing obesity. Undoing those patterns as an adult is extremely difficult. Morbidly obese seems a fairly sensible place to put that line.9 -
For the love of Pete, no child is guaranteed parents who will live into old age. I had two young, loving, slender (just saying), hardworking, family centered parents who were devoted to each other and their three children. Then my dad randomly got cancer and died, leaving behind a 42-year-old widow and three teenaged kids--and no one saw it coming. I'm not sure whether the idea of denying obese but otherwise capable, loving, eager people the opportunity to provide homes for children in need is more thick-headed or hard-hearted. It does not serve children waiting in foster care, and guarantees nothing in the long run.8
-
Again, no one is denying obese people the opportunity to adopt foster children. The show involved a morbidly obese woman who is single trying to adopt a baby being given up by its mother from a foreign country.8
-
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
But that's not BMI. I don't know what the heck it is, but for the heights that I'm familiar with, those "ideal" weights would be classified underweight by BMI.
For a 5'7" female, it's smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range. It's my current target (gotta start somewhere).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
0 -
So would I, because at 5'2, weighing 110lbs, we'd have a BMI of 20.1, which is very low. The problem isn't BMI, the problem is this chart is broken.ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
Speaking for myself only, I have a medium frame so that low in the range wouldn't work for me. The 18.5-20 zone is there for people who have petite frames.
2 -
I weighed 300 pounds when I adopted three beautiful girls. My weight is steading coming off and the girls are growing up like weeds.13
-
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
But that's not BMI. I don't know what the heck it is, but for the heights that I'm familiar with, those "ideal" weights would be classified underweight by BMI.
For a 5'7" female, it's smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range. It's my current target (gotta start somewhere).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
3 -
jseams1234 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
But that's not BMI. I don't know what the heck it is, but for the heights that I'm familiar with, those "ideal" weights would be classified underweight by BMI.
For a 5'7" female, it's smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range. It's my current target (gotta start somewhere).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
Typo. That should be 4 foot 10.
P.S. the 18.5-25 range for women 4 foot 11 tall is 94 to 123 lbs. As you can see, that piece of nonsense says they should all ideally weigh 95lbs. Gah.1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
But that's not BMI. I don't know what the heck it is, but for the heights that I'm familiar with, those "ideal" weights would be classified underweight by BMI.
For a 5'7" female, it's smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range. It's my current target (gotta start somewhere).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
Typo. That should be 4 foot 10.
P.S. the 18.5-25 range for women 4 foot 11 tall is 94 to 123 lbs. As you can see, that piece of nonsense says they should all ideally weigh 95lbs. Gah.
It seems the chart could be trying to correct for BMI having an issue with using a squared measurement, but people are kind of 3 dimensional - not that a BMI based on cubing height would scale right either.
The chart also puts a 6'3" at 24.5 BMI, just at the edge of overweight, which would go with using a not perfectly squared height approached.0 -
There was recently a 29 year old who passed away...he was the star of my 600 lb life. What if he had adopted a baby a few years earlier? Or similarly, would he have been able to get up and even care for the baby? I don’t know, it depends on how “fat” the person is. I feel like people who are in the 200 lb range are plenty capable of caring for a child. But in that case it’s more of a concern about life span and heart attacks and what kind of example you set. But do you really want to make someone grow up in an orphanage just because you are afraid they may have a “fat” parent? I think not. 600 lbs is too much. But if you can walk and carry and get on the floor with your child, it is perfectly fine.1
-
Laura48593 wrote: »There was recently a 29 year old who passed away...he was the star of my 600 lb life. What if he had adopted a baby a few years earlier? Or similarly, would he have been able to get up and even care for the baby? I don’t know, it depends on how “fat” the person is. I feel like people who are in the 200 lb range are plenty capable of caring for a child. But in that case it’s more of a concern about life span and heart attacks and what kind of example you set. But do you really want to make someone grow up in an orphanage just because you are afraid they may have a “fat” parent? I think not. 600 lbs is too much. But if you can walk and carry and get on the floor with your child, it is perfectly fine.
Did this person want to adopt a child? I don't know if we have to worry that people are lining up to adopt when they can't even physically care for children without knowing that this problem actually exists.4 -
Edit - delete, cannot read tables today, DOH!
1 -
I don't think the designer is doing anything that sophisticated. Notice how it's 5lbs per inch for women, and 6lbs per inch for men. There is a particular 'rule' that floats around that women's ideal weight can be calculated by allowing 100 pounds for the first 5 feet of height and then adding 5 pounds for every additional inch. There's a version for men, and I'd guess that's it on the left. As covered, the model breaks down severely when you try and extend to women under 5 foot, and the creator is a complete muppet to not have double-checked before subtracting 5lbs per inch for heights under 5 foot.magnusthenerd wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
But that's not BMI. I don't know what the heck it is, but for the heights that I'm familiar with, those "ideal" weights would be classified underweight by BMI.
For a 5'7" female, it's smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range. It's my current target (gotta start somewhere).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
Typo. That should be 4 foot 10.
P.S. the 18.5-25 range for women 4 foot 11 tall is 94 to 123 lbs. As you can see, that piece of nonsense says they should all ideally weigh 95lbs. Gah.
It seems the chart could be trying to correct for BMI having an issue with using a squared measurement, but people are kind of 3 dimensional - not that a BMI based on cubing height would scale right either.
The chart also puts a 6'3" at 24.5 BMI, just at the edge of overweight, which would go with using a not perfectly squared height approached.
If you're interested in seeing BMI calculations aimed to adjust for humans being 3-dimensional, go to ---> https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/does-my-bmi-look-big
3 -
Laura48593 wrote: »There was recently a 29 year old who passed away...he was the star of my 600 lb life. What if he had adopted a baby a few years earlier? Or similarly, would he have been able to get up and even care for the baby? I don’t know, it depends on how “fat” the person is. I feel like people who are in the 200 lb range are plenty capable of caring for a child. But in that case it’s more of a concern about life span and heart attacks and what kind of example you set. But do you really want to make someone grow up in an orphanage just because you are afraid they may have a “fat” parent? I think not. 600 lbs is too much. But if you can walk and carry and get on the floor with your child, it is perfectly fine.
On the other hand if you were responsible for placing a child for adoption and had a choice of potential parents wouldn't you choose the parents with the better chance of a long and healthy life? The needs of the child are more important than the wants of the parents.
Often the reality of adoption is that the number of potential adopters is far greater than the number of children available for adoption.
(Not the case for harder to place children though - sadly.)
The "orphanage" part isn't quite accurate either, neither of my adopted children were orphans. The reasons for children needing to be adopted are many and varied.8 -
Laura48593 wrote: »There was recently a 29 year old who passed away...he was the star of my 600 lb life. What if he had adopted a baby a few years earlier? Or similarly, would he have been able to get up and even care for the baby? I don’t know, it depends on how “fat” the person is. I feel like people who are in the 200 lb range are plenty capable of caring for a child. But in that case it’s more of a concern about life span and heart attacks and what kind of example you set. But do you really want to make someone grow up in an orphanage just because you are afraid they may have a “fat” parent? I think not. 600 lbs is too much. But if you can walk and carry and get on the floor with your child, it is perfectly fine.
On the other hand if you were responsible for placing a child for adoption and had a choice of potential parents wouldn't you choose the parents with the better chance of a long and healthy life? The needs of the child are more important than the wants of the parents.
Often the reality of adoption is that the number of potential adopters is far greater than the number of children available for adoption.
(Not the case for harder to place children though - sadly.)
The "orphanage" part isn't quite accurate either, neither of my adopted children were orphans. The reasons for children needing to be adopted are many and varied.
I think it's that the number of *babies* is much lower than the number of potential adopters. For older children or children with special needs, I frequently see outreach campaigns encouraging people to consider adopting them. Same for children who may not be up for adoption but may need long term foster care.
0 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
I don't think the designer is doing anything that sophisticated. Notice how it's 5lbs per inch for women, and 6lbs per inch for men. There is a particular 'rule' that floats around that women's ideal weight can be calculated by allowing 100 pounds for the first 5 feet of height and then adding 5 pounds for every additional inch. There's a version for men, and I'd guess that's it on the left. As covered, the model breaks down severely when you try and extend to women under 5 foot, and the creator is a complete muppet to not have double-checked before subtracting 5lbs per inch for heights under 5 foot.magnusthenerd wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
But that's not BMI. I don't know what the heck it is, but for the heights that I'm familiar with, those "ideal" weights would be classified underweight by BMI.
For a 5'7" female, it's smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range. It's my current target (gotta start somewhere).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
Typo. That should be 4 foot 10.
P.S. the 18.5-25 range for women 4 foot 11 tall is 94 to 123 lbs. As you can see, that piece of nonsense says they should all ideally weigh 95lbs. Gah.
It seems the chart could be trying to correct for BMI having an issue with using a squared measurement, but people are kind of 3 dimensional - not that a BMI based on cubing height would scale right either.
The chart also puts a 6'3" at 24.5 BMI, just at the edge of overweight, which would go with using a not perfectly squared height approached.
If you're interested in seeing BMI calculations aimed to adjust for humans being 3-dimensional, go to ---> https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/does-my-bmi-look-big
Sorry, didn't look over the whole chart. Yeah, +5 and +6 per inch seems to be the rule of thumb used.
The first calculator seems odd in that it doesn't really document what it does, but looking at the javascript, what it does is amounts to normal BMI calculation *1.3/(height/100)^(1/2).
It does put a height of 5' at a weight range of 90.96 to 121.6,
4'11" at 86.25 to 116.6
4'10" at 82.65 to 111.7.
So by the new BMI calc, the weights shown wouldn't be ridiculous.1 -
Yeah, I'm afraid you have to look elsewhere for an explanation behind the calculator. This is the reasoning for it, including the letter that was the initial impetus for it. http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.htmlmagnusthenerd wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
I don't think the designer is doing anything that sophisticated. Notice how it's 5lbs per inch for women, and 6lbs per inch for men. There is a particular 'rule' that floats around that women's ideal weight can be calculated by allowing 100 pounds for the first 5 feet of height and then adding 5 pounds for every additional inch. There's a version for men, and I'd guess that's it on the left. As covered, the model breaks down severely when you try and extend to women under 5 foot, and the creator is a complete muppet to not have double-checked before subtracting 5lbs per inch for heights under 5 foot.magnusthenerd wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
But that's not BMI. I don't know what the heck it is, but for the heights that I'm familiar with, those "ideal" weights would be classified underweight by BMI.
For a 5'7" female, it's smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range. It's my current target (gotta start somewhere).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
Typo. That should be 4 foot 10.
P.S. the 18.5-25 range for women 4 foot 11 tall is 94 to 123 lbs. As you can see, that piece of nonsense says they should all ideally weigh 95lbs. Gah.
It seems the chart could be trying to correct for BMI having an issue with using a squared measurement, but people are kind of 3 dimensional - not that a BMI based on cubing height would scale right either.
The chart also puts a 6'3" at 24.5 BMI, just at the edge of overweight, which would go with using a not perfectly squared height approached.
If you're interested in seeing BMI calculations aimed to adjust for humans being 3-dimensional, go to ---> https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/does-my-bmi-look-big
Sorry, didn't look over the whole chart. Yeah, +5 and +6 per inch seems to be the rule of thumb used.
The first calculator seems odd in that it doesn't really document what it does, but looking at the javascript, what it does is amounts to normal BMI calculation *1.3/(height/100)^(1/2).
It does put a height of 5' at a weight range of 90.96 to 121.6,
4'11" at 86.25 to 116.6
4'10" at 82.65 to 111.7.
So by the new BMI calc, the weights shown wouldn't be ridiculous.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Laura48593 wrote: »There was recently a 29 year old who passed away...he was the star of my 600 lb life. What if he had adopted a baby a few years earlier? Or similarly, would he have been able to get up and even care for the baby? I don’t know, it depends on how “fat” the person is. I feel like people who are in the 200 lb range are plenty capable of caring for a child. But in that case it’s more of a concern about life span and heart attacks and what kind of example you set. But do you really want to make someone grow up in an orphanage just because you are afraid they may have a “fat” parent? I think not. 600 lbs is too much. But if you can walk and carry and get on the floor with your child, it is perfectly fine.
On the other hand if you were responsible for placing a child for adoption and had a choice of potential parents wouldn't you choose the parents with the better chance of a long and healthy life? The needs of the child are more important than the wants of the parents.
Often the reality of adoption is that the number of potential adopters is far greater than the number of children available for adoption.
(Not the case for harder to place children though - sadly.)
The "orphanage" part isn't quite accurate either, neither of my adopted children were orphans. The reasons for children needing to be adopted are many and varied.
I think it's that the number of *babies* is much lower than the number of potential adopters. For older children or children with special needs, I frequently see outreach campaigns encouraging people to consider adopting them. Same for children who may not be up for adoption but may need long term foster care.
Indeed.
It's why the simplistic "should fat people be allowed to adopt" isn't a great question or one that can have a universal answer.
1 -
When we adopted our son 7 years ago, I wore a size 4 pants and my husband was a healthy 25 year old. Now I wear a size 20 (and am working very hard to lose it!) and my husband is nearly disabled from adult onset scoliosis. Life happens! Our three sons are all healthy weights. I may struggle but I make sure they understand nutrition and make mostly healthy decisions! My son’s birth parents were addicted to heroin and put his life in danger. I’m sorry, but I’d rather have any of my kids raised by people who are obese and lioving and smart and kind, than have some other challenges.9
-
The only thing I can think about is an episode of my 600lb life where a little boy had to take care of his mother. He was barely as tall as the washer and dryer and he was the one doing the cleaning and cooking... I was afraid he'd hurt himself getting stuck in the washing machine. He was so small.4
-
The only thing I can think about is an episode of my 600lb life where a little boy had to take care of his mother. He was barely as tall as the washer and dryer and he was the one doing the cleaning and cooking... I was afraid he'd hurt himself getting stuck in the washing machine. He was so small.
It should be understood that one needn't be 600 lbs or an overly lazy, selfish person to be overweight or even obese.7 -
No7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions