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.
So what's worse: being a smoker or being overweight/obese?
Replies
-
Smoking is worse from an actuarial and inetensivist perspective.1
-
zachbonner_ wrote: »
Because it will impede your ability to heal and will increase the likelihood of ulcers post op. Patients who smoke are usually required to quit a minimum of 3 months pre op1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »Instead of smoking, switch to vaping
Hubby and I switched 2 years ago and haven't had a cigarette since. The health gains have been amazing, we both have the lung function of non-smokers now and don't wheeze when we do physical exercise anymore. Nor have we had a cold in 2 years. Vaping is also fully endorsed by 2 surgeons we've spoken to and our GP. Honestly, easiest thing we've ever done.
No self respecting medical professional would endorse vaping, unless as a very poor alternative to actually smoking cigs. Vaping carries with it health risks: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/health-risks-e-cigarettes-emerge
Lol, that's not science. That's a pretty ignorant article. Have a look at some actual research from the UK before you comment on something you don't understand. I, on the other hand, have chosen to educate myself over the last 2 years - not just do a quick google. But good on you for trying.
So you don't think vaping has any negative impact on health?
Not only do I think, but reputable scientific studies prove, that vaping is 95% safer than smoking. It doesn't contain any harmful chemicals (other than the few that can be present when burning coils dry or at too high a heat). Nicotine on it's own is no more harmful than caffeine. Vaping has had nothing but a positive effect on our health. My lung function has returned to normal (after 25 years of smoking) my health is better than it's ever been. My doctor put me down as a "non-smoker" when I told him I switched to vaping. My surgeon, my partners surgeon, and my girlfriend's surgeon (when she lost her leg in an accident) - all different, unrelated, educated medical professionals - fully support vaping. I know it's saved our lives. And as a nice aside, I have not had a cold in the two years since I started, and I used to have several a year. There is some evidence to suggest this is thanks to the propolene glycol in the eliquid (also used for asthma puffers).
In fact the only people who are against vaping fall into two categories 1) those who know not what they're talking about and saw an inflammatory post on Facebook and take it as gospel - or a picture of someone who's battery exploded (which is far more likely to happen with your iPhone but geee it looks scary right?), and 2) Government/Big Pharma/Tobacco companies who are not one bit interested in anyone's health and stand to lose billions.1 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »CarShelley wrote: »Smoking smoking smoking - is orse, I wasn't overweight at all and quite fit but a smoker.... after few years I started to have some serious health issues due to my smoking ... I stopped it and became soooo healthier and happier (and richer and you smell nicer too) ... I have been smoke free for 7 years and I d rather put on weight than smoking again...
That guy is cocky and if he does not watched out he might learnt the hard way....
Has anyone disputed that smoking is worse than not smoking or that obesity is worse than maintaining a healthy BMI? The question is whether smoking is the same, better or worse than obesity; you have not addressed that at all in your comment. You suppose it is worse to smoke than to be obese and likely receive a fair bit of reinforcement in your environment for this position because smoking is so demonized that many believe there is utterly no benefit to it whatsoever but there's no way you can really be certain based on your anecdotal experience, having never been obese. Who's to say how your health would have compared if you had been obese instead of a smoker or, worst case scenario, obese and a smoker? This discussion was intended to be based on science not feelings, opinions and suppositions.
Good for you for quitting smoking though. It's not my intent to diminish that in any way and you are most certainly better off for having done so
That's just your opinion, and I shared mine. Whether you like it or not it's part of the discussion so I suggest you to move on.
0 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »
Because it will impede your ability to heal and will increase the likelihood of ulcers post op. Patients who smoke are usually required to quit a minimum of 3 months pre op
Not to mention, an obese person who smokes is a far great anaesthetic risk from a respiratory perspective and much more likely to need ICU care in the post operative period.
1 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »ever seen a 90 year old that weighs 500 pounds?
You don't have to be 500 lbs to be obese though. I would be obese at <200 lbs.
How many 90 year old 3 pack a day smokers have you seen?2 -
Well According to European Association for the study of Obesity:
"Overweight and obesity are the fifth leading risk for global deaths. At least 2.8 million adults die each year as a result of being overweight or obese."
According to WHO:
"Tobacco kills around 6 million people each year. More than 5 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke."
But most lists Tobacco higher. So I would say being a smoker is worse. Thats like comparing which ship sinks faster while drilling a bigger hole at the bottom though.3 -
Perhaps we should ask a pallbearer.3
-
But that's not comparing world population to obesity. What's the percentage of people who are obese in the world? According to WHO, 6 million were obese in 2014.subcounter wrote: »Well According to European Association for the study of Obesity:
"Overweight and obesity are the fifth leading risk for global deaths. At least 2.8 million adults die each year as a result of being overweight or obese."
According to WHO:
"Tobacco kills around 6 million people each year. More than 5 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke."
But most lists Tobacco higher. So I would say being a smoker is worse. Thats like comparing which ship sinks faster while drilling a bigger hole at the bottom though.
WHO estimates 1 billion people smoke around the world in 2014.
So, .6% of smokers die direct result from tobacco. Whereas 46% of obese population die from direct result of obesity.
So yes while tobacco kills more people overall, obesity by percentage kills at a higher rate based on percentage. And the trend for both are going in opposite directions in population. Less people are smoking and more people are getting obese.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
But that's not comparing world population to obesity. What's the percentage of people who are obese in the world? According to WHO, 6 million were obese in 2014.subcounter wrote: »Well According to European Association for the study of Obesity:
"Overweight and obesity are the fifth leading risk for global deaths. At least 2.8 million adults die each year as a result of being overweight or obese."
According to WHO:
"Tobacco kills around 6 million people each year. More than 5 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke."
But most lists Tobacco higher. So I would say being a smoker is worse. Thats like comparing which ship sinks faster while drilling a bigger hole at the bottom though.
WHO estimates 1 billion people smoke around the world in 2014.
So, .6% of smokers die direct result from tobacco. Whereas 46% of obese population die from direct result of obesity.
So yes while tobacco kills more people overall, obesity by percentage kills at a higher rate based on percentage. And the trend for both are going in opposite directions in population. Less people are smoking and more people are getting obese.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 million people are obese in the world?
"In 2014, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 600 million were obese."
In 2010, obesity and overweight were estimated to have caused 3.4 million deaths
So tobacco use and obese population aren't that far apart as you imagine them to be. Hell even some states in US would have bigger obese population than 6 million.
Also it is hard to distinguish say smoke 2 pack a day kind of person, or a few cigarettes a day person. Same with overweight & obese population. I still think smoking is worse.
I mean if you wanna add basic math in to it:
3.4/600 (obese death) = 0.0056 = 5.6%
6/1000 (smoke death) = 0.006 = 6%
4 -
This content has been removed.
-
My bad, it was 600 million. Then yes, the numbers aren't far off. Still the trend is staggering on obesity. We're talking about 30 years uptrend, whereas smoking has been around for centuries killing about the same percentage each year.subcounter wrote: »
But that's not comparing world population to obesity. What's the percentage of people who are obese in the world? According to WHO, 6 million were obese in 2014.subcounter wrote: »Well According to European Association for the study of Obesity:
"Overweight and obesity are the fifth leading risk for global deaths. At least 2.8 million adults die each year as a result of being overweight or obese."
According to WHO:
"Tobacco kills around 6 million people each year. More than 5 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke."
But most lists Tobacco higher. So I would say being a smoker is worse. Thats like comparing which ship sinks faster while drilling a bigger hole at the bottom though.
WHO estimates 1 billion people smoke around the world in 2014.
So, .6% of smokers die direct result from tobacco. Whereas 46% of obese population die from direct result of obesity.
So yes while tobacco kills more people overall, obesity by percentage kills at a higher rate based on percentage. And the trend for both are going in opposite directions in population. Less people are smoking and more people are getting obese.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 million people are obese in the world?
"In 2014, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 600 million were obese."
In 2010, obesity and overweight were estimated to have caused 3.4 million deaths
So tobacco use and obese population aren't that far apart as you imagine them to be. Hell even some states in US would have bigger obese population than 6 million.
Also it is hard to distinguish say smoke 2 pack a day kind of person, or a few cigarettes a day person. Same with overweight & obese population. I still think smoking is worse.
I mean if you wanna add basic math in to it:
3.4/600 (obese death) = 0.0056 = 5.6%
6/1000 (smoke death) = 0.006 = 6%
Also, it doesn't say age relation to death. It's been mentioned, but I've never known from my work, any one obese past the age of 70. That's anecdotal. I've met lots of people who smoke into their late 80's and 90's. Again anecdotal.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Well there also could have been other causes for lung cancer. Asbestos (from really old buildings) and just air pollution alone are contributors even if a person doesn't smoke._missdarcy_ wrote: »I wonder how many of the nonsmoker lung cancer cases that someone posted about earlier are on the rise is due to their parents smoking when they were children. Therefore that lung cancer of a nonsmoker is still attributed to smokers, and might not have anything to do with obescity. Or if these children have grown up surrounded by smokers as many did in those days and have become overweight now, is their health problems really just because of being obesce or also because of the effects of all the smoking around them from growing up.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
My bad, it was 600 million. Then yes, the numbers aren't far off. Still the trend is staggering on obesity. We're talking about 30 years uptrend, whereas smoking has been around for centuries killing about the same percentage each year.subcounter wrote: »
But that's not comparing world population to obesity. What's the percentage of people who are obese in the world? According to WHO, 6 million were obese in 2014.subcounter wrote: »Well According to European Association for the study of Obesity:
"Overweight and obesity are the fifth leading risk for global deaths. At least 2.8 million adults die each year as a result of being overweight or obese."
According to WHO:
"Tobacco kills around 6 million people each year. More than 5 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke."
But most lists Tobacco higher. So I would say being a smoker is worse. Thats like comparing which ship sinks faster while drilling a bigger hole at the bottom though.
WHO estimates 1 billion people smoke around the world in 2014.
So, .6% of smokers die direct result from tobacco. Whereas 46% of obese population die from direct result of obesity.
So yes while tobacco kills more people overall, obesity by percentage kills at a higher rate based on percentage. And the trend for both are going in opposite directions in population. Less people are smoking and more people are getting obese.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 million people are obese in the world?
"In 2014, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 600 million were obese."
In 2010, obesity and overweight were estimated to have caused 3.4 million deaths
So tobacco use and obese population aren't that far apart as you imagine them to be. Hell even some states in US would have bigger obese population than 6 million.
Also it is hard to distinguish say smoke 2 pack a day kind of person, or a few cigarettes a day person. Same with overweight & obese population. I still think smoking is worse.
I mean if you wanna add basic math in to it:
3.4/600 (obese death) = 0.0056 = 5.6%
6/1000 (smoke death) = 0.006 = 6%
Also, it doesn't say age relation to death. It's been mentioned, but I've never known from my work, any one obese past the age of 70. That's anecdotal. I've met lots of people who smoke into their late 80's and 90's. Again anecdotal.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The trends aren't surprising. We've been fighting the battle on smoking a lot longer. Mass obesity is still fairly new. And you aren't likely to see eating and drinking banned in public buildings any time soon.0 -
Smoking is worse from an actuarial and inetensivist perspective.
This is the answer. Ask a life insurance actuary, or just look at the life insurance rates for a fit smoker versus an obese non-smoker. They have all of the data and crunch it so that they make the most money. If they charge smokers more it's because they are more likely to die younger. Rely on large amounts of data like that, not on "I know more old smokers than old obese people" arguments.
I got a quick online quote for a $750K 10 year term policy for a 50 year old in my state. 5' 9" and 160 lbs and current smoker (excellent health) gave a cheapest quote of $3,125, next best of $3,600. 5' 9" and 240 lbs and never smoked (average health) gave a best quote of $1,530 and next best of $2,222. Life insurance companies have all of the data available and they say it is twice as bad to be a fit smoker than a obese person who is only of average fitness.
The experts have spoken. Smoking is WAAAAAAY worse.3 -
mburgess458 wrote: »Smoking is worse from an actuarial and inetensivist perspective.
This is the answer. Ask a life insurance actuary, or just look at the life insurance rates for a fit smoker versus an obese non-smoker. They have all of the data and crunch it so that they make the most money. If they charge smokers more it's because they are more likely to die younger. Rely on large amounts of data like that, not on "I know more old smokers than old obese people" arguments.
I got a quick online quote for a $750K 10 year term policy for a 50 year old in my state. 5' 9" and 160 lbs and current smoker (excellent health) gave a cheapest quote of $3,125, next best of $3,600. 5' 9" and 240 lbs and never smoked (average health) gave a best quote of $1,530 and next best of $2,222. Life insurance companies have all of the data available and they say it is twice as bad to be a fit smoker than a obese person who is only of average fitness.
The experts have spoken. Smoking is WAAAAAAY worse.
Honestly, it probably has more to do with reversibility of damage. Taking an obese person to a healthy weight generally will return all health markers to proper levels. For smokers, some of the damage will never heal completely.0 -
Early, slow painful death either way. Dead is dead.0
-
Wrong question. The real question is how do I get the most fun and enjoyment out of my life, the length of which none of us can predict. The answer is quit smoking, lose some weight, get active, surround yourself with good people. Much easier to focus on those than the negative rationalizations
3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Early, slow painful death either way. Dead is dead.
This isn't necessarily true. There are a number of drugs and medical procedures that can keep us alive for decades despite our best efforts to destroy ourselves.
The real difference often comes down to quality of life. Are you active and sharp, or are you toting around an oxygen tank or having your chest cracked open to replace arteries. Are you playing with your grandkids in the yard or are they pushing your wheelchair. Are you walking on your legs or have you lost your legs.2 -
_missdarcy_ wrote: »I wonder how many of the nonsmoker lung cancer cases that someone posted about earlier are on the rise is due to their parents smoking when they were children. Therefore that lung cancer of a nonsmoker is still attributed to smokers, and might not have anything to do with obescity. Or if these children have grown up surrounded by smokers as many did in those days and have become overweight now, is their health problems really just because of being obesce or also because of the effects of all the smoking around them from growing up.
Reportedly, it's a genetically distinct cancer. Still small cell, but the mutations are not the same typically seen in those exposed to first or second hand smoke. It is not an issue with obesity either - didn't mean to imply that it was.
Anecdotally, the friend's wife I mentioned never smoked, her parents were non-smokers and so is her former husband. None of her kids smoke either, though she didn't live long enough for that to be an issue. The whole family was very fit, too. None were even overweight.1 -
I wouldn't bank my money on that. People are also determined by BMI. So a thin person who does no exercise and doesn't eat within nutritional values needed, versus a fit muscular person who exercises regularly and eats nutritionally, but is well past the BMI for their height and weight, will PAY MORE even if they aren't a higher risk for health issues.mburgess458 wrote: »Smoking is worse from an actuarial and inetensivist perspective.
This is the answer. Ask a life insurance actuary, or just look at the life insurance rates for a fit smoker versus an obese non-smoker. They have all of the data and crunch it so that they make the most money. If they charge smokers more it's because they are more likely to die younger. Rely on large amounts of data like that, not on "I know more old smokers than old obese people" arguments.
I got a quick online quote for a $750K 10 year term policy for a 50 year old in my state. 5' 9" and 160 lbs and current smoker (excellent health) gave a cheapest quote of $3,125, next best of $3,600. 5' 9" and 240 lbs and never smoked (average health) gave a best quote of $1,530 and next best of $2,222. Life insurance companies have all of the data available and they say it is twice as bad to be a fit smoker than a obese person who is only of average fitness.
The experts have spoken. Smoking is WAAAAAAY worse.
Insurance companies aren't "experts". They just look for the most "cost effective" way to limit their losses.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
It's a debate. Of course neither is desirable. Kinda like the candidates for this past presidential election.Wrong question. The real question is how do I get the most fun and enjoyment out of my life, the length of which none of us can predict. The answer is quit smoking, lose some weight, get active, surround yourself with good people. Much easier to focus on those than the negative rationalizations
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Umm I'm going to say both are not good. The smoker who smokes before and after working out (Who in the world does that??) Is at risk for many of the same issues as the overweight one. In fact when you look up many health issues like heart disease, heart attack, stroke, high blood pressure, cancer...both are often risk factors. I'd say that they are locked in a lose-lose battle. Thin people are not always more healthy, and overweight people are not always unhealthy, but this is a crazy debate that they were even entertaining...0
-
People have been lumping overweight, obese, and morbidly obese together or just saying "obesity" (perhaps because studies lump them together), and I think the distinction probably matters. If they were compared separately, in general, I would say smoking is worse than being overweight, about equal to being obese, and being morbidly obese is worse than smoking.
If we're comparing anecdotes, two of my husband's grandparents are overweight or obese. They are in their 80s and they don't smoke. I also have two grandparents no longer with us who were overweight, did not smoke, and lived into their 80s and 90s. I have one living grandma, likely obese and non-smoker, who is turning 91 this year. They were all fairly mobile throughout their 80s too.0 -
I don't think either are good, but I have family members who have beat the odds. Husband's grandmother is bone thin and has smoked a pack a day every day for over 70 yrs. She's now 90 and her dr says other than her mild emphysema, she's healthy as can be. My grandmother lived to be 97. She was from the south, cooked with lard, was obese her entire life and still made it to almost 100 yrs old.0
-
I haven't read all of the comments but I don't think it's really comparable. In order to actually know, all the other factors in their lives would have to be the same. They would need to have the same blood work, the same genetics, the same environmental factors, etc. This isn't really controllable so you can't have an accurate study.
For instance, what about obese/overweight people who have good blood work, who are active, but who just eat a lot? What if they eat varied, nutritionally sound food? Since that isn't the case for most people, obesity is only one factor in the possibility of poor health (poor diet, lack of activity, etc. would be other factors). It's a symptom, rather than a cause in this case where the cause is a sedentary lifestyle with little exercise, overeating, and possibly a poor diet. However, smoking might be the only factor affecting poor health. That would severely skew the data on whether or not obesity - on its own - or smoking - on its own - correlates with more health risks.
Basically, you're missing lifestyle, and genetic factors that mess with data.0 -
I did it for almost 20 years. Except for endurance issues (and I still taught a cardio class), I continued to be very fit with no health issues.The smoker who smokes before and after working out (Who in the world does that??)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I wouldn't bank my money on that. People are also determined by BMI. So a thin person who does no exercise and doesn't eat within nutritional values needed, versus a fit muscular person who exercises regularly and eats nutritionally, but is well past the BMI for their height and weight, will PAY MORE even if they aren't a higher risk for health issues.mburgess458 wrote: »Smoking is worse from an actuarial and inetensivist perspective.
This is the answer. Ask a life insurance actuary, or just look at the life insurance rates for a fit smoker versus an obese non-smoker. They have all of the data and crunch it so that they make the most money. If they charge smokers more it's because they are more likely to die younger. Rely on large amounts of data like that, not on "I know more old smokers than old obese people" arguments.
I got a quick online quote for a $750K 10 year term policy for a 50 year old in my state. 5' 9" and 160 lbs and current smoker (excellent health) gave a cheapest quote of $3,125, next best of $3,600. 5' 9" and 240 lbs and never smoked (average health) gave a best quote of $1,530 and next best of $2,222. Life insurance companies have all of the data available and they say it is twice as bad to be a fit smoker than a obese person who is only of average fitness.
The experts have spoken. Smoking is WAAAAAAY worse.
Insurance companies aren't "experts". They just look for the most "cost effective" way to limit their losses.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Your argument makes no sense at all. So weight isn't perfectly accounted for by life insurance rating. So what? Smoking doubles your cost whether you weigh more or not. They have the data from thousands and thousands of people's lives and deaths and they know that smoking makes you twice as expensive from a life insurance perspective.
The argument here isn't whether it makes sense to charge more for a heavier person. The question of this thread was smoking versus fat. Smoking is worse, much worse. The data proves that. If it didn't some insurance company would offer cheaper insurance for smokers and make money.
The way life insurance companies sort of take into account your "BMI is stupid" type of argument (which I agree with by the way) is by testing your blood/blood pressure... in general the heavier but fitter guy will have better blood test results. Also, the life insurance pricing isn't that sensitive to weight. It is very sensitive to smoking versus not.2 -
indigoblue9572 wrote: »I don't think either are good, but I have family members who have beat the odds. Husband's grandmother is bone thin and has smoked a pack a day every day for over 70 yrs. She's now 90 and her dr says other than her mild emphysema, she's healthy as can be. My grandmother lived to be 97. She was from the south, cooked with lard, was obese her entire life and still made it to almost 100 yrs old.
The bolded seems an odd statement. Other than your chronic progressive lung disease, you are quite healthy??3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »indigoblue9572 wrote: »I don't think either are good, but I have family members who have beat the odds. Husband's grandmother is bone thin and has smoked a pack a day every day for over 70 yrs. She's now 90 and her dr says other than her mild emphysema, she's healthy as can be. My grandmother lived to be 97. She was from the south, cooked with lard, was obese her entire life and still made it to almost 100 yrs old.
The bolded seems an odd statement. Other than your chronic progressive lung disease, you are quite healthy??
Yes, she is quite healthy. She has a chronic, progressive lung disease but she's also NINETY years old and has nothing else wrong with her. She doesn't cough, doesn't have the "smoker's voice" and still smokes a pack a day. I'm not advocating that type of lifestyle, trust me, I HATE cigarette smoke and how inconsiderate some smokers can be, but well, she's 90 yrs old and her emphysema is mild and doesn't cause her much trouble at all.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
- 232.5K 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