A quick way to figure out your ideal weight!
Replies
-
This link will calculate your lean body mass and tell you what your ideal lean weight should be...
www.healthstatus.com/calculate/lean-body-mass
"According to your measurements - weight of 182 pounds and height of 5' 2", your lean body mass is estimated to be 105.00 . Since the ideal body fat percentage for women is 22%, your ideal lean body weight is 86.07 pounds. Remember these are guidelines; your physician should help you determine the ideal weight and body fat for you."
That says my ideal body weight is 86.07 lbs. I do NOT trust that calculator. lol
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Hi,
I run the website at HealthStatus.com. I'm sorry you don't trust the calculator, but I am not sure you are getting what it is telling you. The Lean Body Mass calculator is telling you how much of your weight should be made up of bone and muscle, so in your case, 86 pounds, then an appropriate amount of fat% for your age and sex should be added to that as well. The HealthStatus.com website has an Ideal Healthy Weight calculator as well, I won't post a link as I don't want to be spammy here on my first post, but click the calculator option on the left side menu to see our list of calculators. There are also 5 different body fat calculators that you can put your numbers into and get an estimate of your body fat %.
Another poster mentioned that frame size has a lot to do with lean body mass, that is not really correct. If you ever see medical skeletons, you don't go "wow that sure is a big boned one!", for the same heights, skeletal mass won't deviate more than 2-3 pounds.
Also there is some disrespect of the BMI calculation and that it doesn't apply to "athletic" individuals. To a degree that is correct, but you can also look at the number of athletes that suffer heart attacks at a young age. The heart still has to pump blood through all that mass and while your lungs probably process oxygen better and get it into the blood stream, the heart still has to move it around. Additionally, you are one injury away from being "not athletic".
Let me know if you have any questions on our tools and I will try to answer them. Good luck to each of you in your efforts!
Greg White - HealthStatus.com
How are you determining my LBM based off of gender, height and weight alone?
According to your calculator I have 154lbs of LBM, when in reality I have 165lbs of LBM (an 11lb difference, that is pretty significant). Further, you suggest that my “ideal” LBM is 141lbs at 15% body fat, which comes out to a body weight of 165lbs. So what your calculator is saying is that I should lose 24lbs of LBM to reach my ideal LBM and weight? Thanks but no thanks.0 -
I am also 5' 2" and I used the same site to calculate my Lean Body Mass (100.82), then I multiplied it by .8 as she explained on her formula and it gave me 125lbs, which is pretty accurate. Actually, I used to weight less than 125 when I started gaining the weight.0
-
Per this calculator, my lean body mass is 124. I used the livestrong.com to figure out my body fat. If I did everything correctly, it spit out 13 %. I'm amazed to have that much body fat. I sure though, I had under 10 %. Boooohooo... No figure competition for me any time soon... If I lose any more weight, I'd be considered undeweight (BMI), ( I already am, if one considers, I am a large frame).0
-
Figure comps discourage BF% under 15% now though. Or am I wrong here?Per this calculator, my lean body mass is 124. I used the livestrong.com to figure out my body fat. If I did everything correctly, it spit out 13 %. I'm amazed to have that much body fat. I sure though, I had under 10 %. Boooohooo... No figure competition for me any time soon... If I lose any more weight, I'd be considered undeweight (BMI), ( I already am, if one considers, I am a large frame).0 -
Calculator didn't work for me. I know I have 122 pounds of lean body mass based on a body fat analysis I had done. But the calculator gives me something like 100. I'm short though, so I'm wondering if that's what throws the calculators off. Most height/weight calculators don't want me to weigh more than 122 to begin with. Which is frustrating because I don't think it's possible (?) to weigh less than 122 if that's what I already weigh with no fat?
ETA that I only looked at the first link, so I'll have to try some of the other formulas mentioned previously. I'm 5'2" but was a gymnast for many years, so I have more lean muscle mass than it seems like I should. I always get height/weight scales that want to put me at an ideal weight of 105 or something, but when I had my body fat analysis done (calipers), it listed a healthy maximum weight of 155. The only thing that is confusing to me about all of this is what target weight to shoot for.
My scale does do body fat analysis (don't know how to use it), but I have no idea how accurate home scales are for that sort of thing. 0 -
I just looked it up, I saw on bodybuilding.com that figure competitors aim for 9-15 %. I'm not competing (too lean) right now, but I guess, I'm good. That's probably why doc told me to not lose any more weight.. Thanks tho. Will have some dessert this week, haha
Figure comps discourage BF% under 15% now though. Or am I wrong here?Per this calculator, my lean body mass is 124. I used the livestrong.com to figure out my body fat. If I did everything correctly, it spit out 13 %. I'm amazed to have that much body fat. I sure though, I had under 10 %. Boooohooo... No figure competition for me any time soon... If I lose any more weight, I'd be considered undeweight (BMI), ( I already am, if one considers, I am a large frame).0 -
This link will calculate your lean body mass and tell you what your ideal lean weight should be...
www.healthstatus.com/calculate/lean-body-mass
"According to your measurements - weight of 182 pounds and height of 5' 2", your lean body mass is estimated to be 105.00 . Since the ideal body fat percentage for women is 22%, your ideal lean body weight is 86.07 pounds. Remember these are guidelines; your physician should help you determine the ideal weight and body fat for you."
That says my ideal body weight is 86.07 lbs. I do NOT trust that calculator. lol
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Yeah, I did that one too. It said I should weigh 101 at 5'6"..:laugh: I have a sister that is 4 inches shorter than me that weighs that & people tell HER to gain- I could only imagine me at the weight
yea, I went there too. At 5'6", it says my lean body mass is 108. Ideal body weight 101.
I haven't weighed 101 since 4th grade
so then I went back and did the body fat calculator at the same site...and guess what, I'm fat!0 -
bump0
-
Okay the ONLY thing you need to know is your LEAN BODY MASS. Once you know that then you can figure out what you should approximately weigh.
Men-15% to 20% ideal
Women- 20% to 25% ideal
Pick a percentage of what you want to weigh. For example let's just say 20%. You would then take your LEAN BODY MASS and divide it by (1-20%) to get your ideal body weight. You put a . in front of the percentage. 20% is .20. 15% is .15 etc.
EX.
Lean body mass- 150
Desired percentage- 20%
150 divided by .8 = 187.5lbs
You get .8 from subtracting .20 from 1
Again the only thing you need to know is your LEAN BODY MASS. Have fun!
According to your measurements - weight of 170 pounds and height of 5' 3", your lean body mass is estimated to be 106.07 . Since the ideal body fat percentage for women is 22%, your ideal lean body weight is 90.03 pounds.
My lean mass is 106.07. I want to be 25% for my fat. that means 1 -.25 = .75. Then I take the 106.07 divided by .75 = 141.42.... that is what the BMI charts say.
But according to the most recent Body Composition I had at work, I am at a 127.8 lean weight and that would mean that I am at my "happy weight" at 170.4. If I go to my "ultimate goal" of 160 then I would be at the 20% body fat so I guess that we will see
0 -
Okay so I found a fairly accurate link to determine BODY FAT percentage.
http://www.healthyforms.com/helpful-tools/body-fat-percentage.php
Once you find your your BF% then take that percentage and multiply it with your current weight.
This will tell you how many pounds of fat you are.
Then subtract that poundage from your current weight to find out your LEAN BODY MASS.
Then plug in the formula I gave you and it should give you a fairly accurate weight that you desire based on the % you want to be.
Using this one and a few others gives me about 48% bf. Then there is the other ones that all give me around 66%. At 301 lbs 48% bf is 156 lbs of lean body mass vs 66% bf is 102 lbs of lean body mass. I have a hard time seeing the 156 just as much as the 102. Not sure which one is even close to being correct. All these calculators make me go :huh:0 -
bump0
-
This is spot on for me I'm 5'4, 22% BF - LBM is 44kg (97 pounds). So 97/.8 = 121. I have weight less and more than that but 120ish is pretty much my happy and maintainable goal weight! 0
-
According to your measurements - weight of 163 pounds and height of 5' 5", your lean body mass is estimated to be 108.92 . Since the ideal body fat percentage for [wo]men is 22%, your ideal lean body weight is 97.93 pounds.
That's me at about 108 lbs on the vodka and sunflower seed diet. People told me I looked like death; I can only imagine what I'd look like ten pounds thinner.0 -
Don't know where it went wrong, but the goal weight when using the formula is 123lbsAccording to your measurements - weight of 163 pounds and height of 5' 5", your lean body mass is estimated to be 108.92 . Since the ideal body fat percentage for [wo]men is 22%, your ideal lean body weight is 97.93 pounds.
That's me at about 108 lbs on the vodka and sunflower seed diet. People told me I looked like death; I can only imagine what I'd look like ten pounds thinner.
108.92 divided by .88 (1 minus .22 or 22%) equals 123.77
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
My ideal would be 136. I can see this as accurate. When my husband and I started remodeling our house, I was doing some pretty extensive labor, and dropped down to 137. I was very well toned throughout my entire body. I don't think I looked sick at all, I looked incredibly healthy! My goal is to get down to that again...0
-
According to Martin Berkhan formula, a MUSCULAR lean body weight can be somewhat accurately determined by one's height.
All you do is take your height in centimeters, subtract 100 and the difference is the kilograms you should weigh lean and muscular at 5% bodyfat.
You can still apply the formula I posted but account for the 5% bodyfat in your calculation.
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 -
According to Martin Berkhan formula, a MUSCULAR lean body weight can be somewhat accurately determined by one's height.
All you do is take your height in centimeters, subtract 100 and the difference is the kilograms you should weigh lean and muscular at 5% bodyfat.
You can still apply the formula I posted but account for the 5% bodyfat in your calculation.
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[/quote. ]
Hmmm, that wouldn’t work for me. I’m 161cm and weigh 55kg. I’d need to pack on more than 6kg of lean mass to hit that (as I’m carrying a healthy amount of fat), and it took me 1 year to put on 1 kg of mostly muscle!0 -
According to the BF% calculator, I'm sitting at about 14% BF. Given my current weight of 191, that means I have 27# BF and 164# LBM.
If my goal is to reach 12% BF, my target should be 164/(100-12%) = 186
If my goal is to reach 10% BF, my target should be 164/(100-10%) = 182
While I think my days of single-digit BF% are a couple decades in my past, losing 5 more pounds to get a visible six-pack should be doable.0 -
I'm 5'5", 128 pounds this morning, age 66.
Using all the calculators I found linked in this thread, I got BF% estimates ranging from obese (35%) to something one site describes as "fitness" (24.3%). Most were in the 24%-25% range. My BIA scale (set on it's "more active" setting) estimated 23.8%. Visually, I suspect something just around/under 25% is probably right: My upper body is thin-looking (teens, maybe, even), lower body below ribcage is where the remaining fat still hangs out (high 20s % kind of appearance, at least). IMO, I'm at an OK weight, don't know or care about ideal. (FWIW, that's the actual me in my profile photo.) My doctors are fine with my weight, health-wise (yes, I ask).
The one BF calculator that asked for age was the one that estimated 35%. Since muscle loss with aging is an average (common) thing to happen, maybe the other calculators skew lower than realistic for average older people? Or maybe there are just low expectations of older people? (Statistically speaking, those last two sentences are somewhat equivalent.)
The BMICalculator.net site had an "ideal weight" estimator (link in details below) that applies various research-based estimates. Those produced a range of recommendations from 122 to 132 pounds. Normal BMI range for me would be 111 to just under 150 pounds.
Here's the thing (and I know it's a minority report): If we're not anywhere near our ideal weight, it doesn't much matter what our ideal weight is. What mostly matters is the needed direction of change.
Weight gain or loss doesn't rely on knowing goal weight. (Yeah, weight loss rate may matter somewhat based on target weight, because we should lose slower when getting close, but it's fine to be approximate.
Ditto for using ideal/goal weight to estimate things like protein needs: The difference of being off a few pounds of bodyweight is arithmetically trivial to the end result for nearly all of us.)
Once we get near our ideal weight, assuming we don't have serious body dysmorphia, we probably will be able to tell what our subjective ideal weight will be, or pretty close guess.
At around that same point, it might make sense to talk with our doctor(s) and ask where s/he thinks our healthy weight range is, given our personal health history and body configuration (among other things). Ask the question of the doctor when we're materially over/underweight, s/he will quite probably parrot the normal BMI range, because it's hard to tell what's ideal when it isn't even close.
The reason that frame size matters to healthy weight, BTW, isn't the weight of the skeleton, as a PP suggested. Yes, skeletal weight doesn't vary hugely between similar-height humans of the same sex/gender. What matters is this: Someone who is lightly built - narrow hips, narrow shoulders, small head/hands/fingers, etc. - requires geometrically less skin, healthy small fat layers, etc., to wrap around that smaller frame, as compared with someone who has wide hips, wide shoulders, big head/hands/shoulders, etc. Geometrically more skin and fat and connective tissue (etc.) requires meaningful extra bodyweight.
That's without even getting into the effect of breast size in women. Even as a very non-large-breasted woman (even while obese), IIRC mine weighed around 4 pounds according to the post mastectomy pathology report. A large-breasted woman will carry a meaningful amount of weight in her breasts, even at a healthy weight, and that, too, has a meaningful effect on ideal body weight. None of these calculators asked about that, which oughta give some notion of how male-centric these calculators are, even when they ask about sex/gender.
Details of the calculator results for me are in the spoiler, if anyone wants a reason to eye-roll.
Calculators:
https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/lean-body-mass/
LBM: 96.57 pounds
Ideal LBM at 22% BF: 97.93 pounds
Current BF%: 24.6%
https://www.healthyforms.com/helpful-tools/body-fat-percentage.php
LBM: 83.2 pounds
Ideal LBM: 96 to 102.4 (based on 20-25% LBM recommendation)
Current BF%: 35%
(Hint at difference: This one asked my age, which is 66.)
https://www.bizcalcs.com/lean-body-mass/
LBM: 97 pounds
Ideal LBM: Not estimated
Current BF%: 24%
https://www.bmi-calculator.net/body-fat-calculator/
LBM: 95.2
Ideal LBM: Not estimated
Current BF%: 25.62%
Same site's ideal weight calculator, which has multiple formulas, at:
https://www.bmi-calculator.net/ideal-weight-calculator/
Range of 122-132.21 from the research-based formulas
Range of 111.17-150.23 based on BMI range
Navy calculator at https://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
LBM: 96.8 pounds
Ideal LBM: Not estimated
Current BF%: 24.3%
My BIA scale, this morning (set on the "more active" setting, BTW):
LBM: 97.536 pounds
Ideal LBM: Not estimated
Current BF%: 23.8%
It's possible that I have some numerical typos in there someplace, because gosh that's a lot of numbers. Close enough.1 -
Thanks more insight Ann!I'm 5'5", 128 pounds this morning, age 66.
Using all the calculators I found linked in this thread, I got BF% estimates ranging from obese (35%) to something one site describes as "fitness" (24.3%). Most were in the 24%-25% range. My BIA scale (set on it's "more active" setting) estimated 23.8%. Visually, I suspect something just around/under 25% is probably right: My upper body is thin-looking (teens, maybe, even), lower body below ribcage is where the remaining fat still hangs out (high 20s % kind of appearance, at least). IMO, I'm at an OK weight, don't know or care about ideal. (FWIW, that's the actual me in my profile photo.) My doctors are fine with my weight, health-wise (yes, I ask).
The one BF calculator that asked for age was the one that estimated 35%. Since muscle loss with aging is an average (common) thing to happen, maybe the other calculators skew lower than realistic for average older people? Or maybe there are just low expectations of older people? (Statistically speaking, those last two sentences are somewhat equivalent.)
The BMICalculator.net site had an "ideal weight" estimator (link in details below) that applies various research-based estimates. Those produced a range of recommendations from 122 to 132 pounds. Normal BMI range for me would be 111 to just under 150 pounds.
Here's the thing (and I know it's a minority report): If we're not anywhere near our ideal weight, it doesn't much matter what our ideal weight is. What mostly matters is the needed direction of change.
Weight gain or loss doesn't rely on knowing goal weight. (Yeah, weight loss rate may matter somewhat based on target weight, because we should lose slower when getting close, but it's fine to be approximate.
Ditto for using ideal/goal weight to estimate things like protein needs: The difference of being off a few pounds of bodyweight is arithmetically trivial to the end result for nearly all of us.)
Once we get near our ideal weight, assuming we don't have serious body dysmorphia, we probably will be able to tell what our subjective ideal weight will be, or pretty close guess.
At around that same point, it might make sense to talk with our doctor(s) and ask where s/he thinks our healthy weight range is, given our personal health history and body configuration (among other things). Ask the question of the doctor when we're materially over/underweight, s/he will quite probably parrot the normal BMI range, because it's hard to tell what's ideal when it isn't even close.
The reason that frame size matters to healthy weight, BTW, isn't the weight of the skeleton, as a PP suggested. Yes, skeletal weight doesn't vary hugely between similar-height humans of the same sex/gender. What matters is this: Someone who is lightly built - narrow hips, narrow shoulders, small head/hands/fingers, etc. - requires geometrically less skin, healthy small fat layers, etc., to wrap around that smaller frame, as compared with someone who has wide hips, wide shoulders, big head/hands/shoulders, etc. Geometrically more skin and fat and connective tissue (etc.) requires meaningful extra bodyweight.
That's without even getting into the effect of breast size in women. Even as a very non-large-breasted woman (even while obese), IIRC mine weighed around 4 pounds according to the post mastectomy pathology report. A large-breasted woman will carry a meaningful amount of weight in her breasts, even at a healthy weight, and that, too, has a meaningful effect on ideal body weight. None of these calculators asked about that, which oughta give some notion of how male-centric these calculators are, even when they ask about sex/gender.
Details of the calculator results for me are in the spoiler, if anyone wants a reason to eye-roll.
Calculators:
https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/lean-body-mass/
LBM: 96.57 pounds
Ideal LBM at 22% BF: 97.93 pounds
Current BF%: 24.6%
https://www.healthyforms.com/helpful-tools/body-fat-percentage.php
LBM: 83.2 pounds
Ideal LBM: 96 to 102.4 (based on 20-25% LBM recommendation)
Current BF%: 35%
(Hint at difference: This one asked my age, which is 66.)
https://www.bizcalcs.com/lean-body-mass/
LBM: 97 pounds
Ideal LBM: Not estimated
Current BF%: 24%
https://www.bmi-calculator.net/body-fat-calculator/
LBM: 95.2
Ideal LBM: Not estimated
Current BF%: 25.62%
Same site's ideal weight calculator, which has multiple formulas, at:
https://www.bmi-calculator.net/ideal-weight-calculator/
Range of 122-132.21 from the research-based formulas
Range of 111.17-150.23 based on BMI range
Navy calculator at https://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html
LBM: 96.8 pounds
Ideal LBM: Not estimated
Current BF%: 24.3%
My BIA scale, this morning (set on the "more active" setting, BTW):
LBM: 97.536 pounds
Ideal LBM: Not estimated
Current BF%: 23.8%
It's possible that I have some numerical typos in there someplace, because gosh that's a lot of numbers. Close enough.
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
2 -
if your lean body mass is 95 and you want to be 20%, then:Well I used a lean body mass calculator (Google)...and it said my lean body mass was 95lbs 95 x 1.2 is 114lbs....I've been 114 before, and it did not look good (sickly) I'm 5'4"...So unless there is some other way to calculate your lean body mass....This doesn't work for me..
95 divided by .80 =118.75lbs
So one of 2 things:
Either you have low muscle mass, or you want to have more body fat. At 25% bodyfat you'd weigh 126.6lbs
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
This is really helpful thank you for bumping this.
Also, for those ladies that are at odds with the number, remember you can go up to 25% BF, no shame in it. You know what feels the best and what you’re comfortable with. I personally feel like my lean muscle mass is low and this helped me create another mini goal outside of my ideal weight. Tools are what we make of them.1 -
This is really helpful thank you for bumping this.
Also, for those ladies that are at odds with the number, remember you can go up to 25% BF, no shame in it. You know what feels the best and what you’re comfortable with. I personally feel like my lean muscle mass is low and this helped me create another mini goal outside of my ideal weight. Tools are what we make of them.
I don't think there's any shame above 25%, personally. Quite a few fairly mainstream sources suggest that the "ideal" body fat percent increases as we age, besides . . . some suggesting (unlike niner) that around 23-24% is the lower-fat end of ideal for women 35+ or 40+ y/o. Individuals can be consulting with their medical team about what's healthy for them (given personal health history), and aesthetics are absolutely personal.
As best as I can determine short of DEXA, I'm around 25% BF (at age 67). For sure, the way I look is thinner than many women would prefer aesthetically, especially in the upper body - I've been told so outright here . . . and I probably have more muscle mass than average for my demographic (way short of bodybuilder status, though!). Yes, I've consulted my medical team; they think my current weight is fine health-wise.
2 -
This is really helpful thank you for bumping this.
Also, for those ladies that are at odds with the number, remember you can go up to 25% BF, no shame in it. You know what feels the best and what you’re comfortable with. I personally feel like my lean muscle mass is low and this helped me create another mini goal outside of my ideal weight. Tools are what we make of them.
I don't think there's any shame above 25%, personally. Quite a few fairly mainstream sources suggest that the "ideal" body fat percent increases as we age, besides . . . some suggesting (unlike niner) that around 23-24% is the lower-fat end of ideal for women 35+ or 40+ y/o. Individuals can be consulting with their medical team about what's healthy for them (given personal health history), and aesthetics are absolutely personal.
As best as I can determine short of DEXA, I'm around 25% BF (at age 67). For sure, the way I look is thinner than many women would prefer aesthetically, especially in the upper body - I've been told so outright here . . . and I probably have more muscle mass than average for my demographic (way short of bodybuilder status, though!). Yes, I've consulted my medical team; they think my current weight is fine health-wise.
Oh I didn’t realize that! I was just going off the 20-25 that was written. Thanks for letting me know, and I agree there’s no shame in it whatsoever. I’ve been all over the map myself and I’m still the same person no matter what.
I’m the opposite of you, I look much heavier than I am. Just genetics and the way I carry it I suppose. I even had cellulite as an 11 year old. I’m just now coming to terms with this and wearing shorts. I gotta say, it’s pretty liberating not giving a *kitten* 😆 I really love my 40’s.2 -
The formula works for me: At 153 lbs and height 5ft 2 inches, the calculator says lean body mass is 108 lbs. So for 20% fat, I divide 108 by .8 which equals 135 lbs. For 25% fat, 108 divided by .75 is 144 lbs, and i agree I should weigh between those numbers1
-
It works for any body type, athlete, frame, etc. That's why I like this formula. I learned it years and years ago when I first started as a trainer.joandumas42 wrote: »The formula works for me: At 153 lbs and height 5ft 2 inches, the calculator says lean body mass is 108 lbs. So for 20% fat, I divide 108 by .8 which equals 135 lbs. For 25% fat, 108 divided by .75 is 144 lbs, and i agree I should weigh between those numbers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
It seems like a lean body mass calculator ignores muscles. You can weigh a lot from muscles and still have low body fat, right?0
-
Yes.chadsmitheast wrote: »It seems like a lean body mass calculator ignores muscles. You can weigh a lot from muscles and still have low body fat, right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Bump 😊0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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