Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper Review

 *For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology

Summary

The Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper is a cloth-backed budget adult diaper. It comes at a very cheap unit price point, but is very stripped down compared to more premium diapers with waistbands and inner leak guards. It appears this diaper brand was started through a healthcare accelerator program and it certainly could be useful in institutions for inactive wearers when frequent changes can be ensured. For a regular active wearer I wouldn’t recommend these unless you have very modest leakage and are having an inactive day, since they are likely to leak on a full wetting. As a side note, these diapers are “very” similar to the FitRight line of products, just less absorbent/featureful.

Key Features:

• Cloth-like (non-woven backsheet)
• Repositionable tapes

Pros:

• Comfortable when dry
• Very cheap unit price
• Discreet appearance/little backsheet noise
  

Cons:

• Surface dampness
• No inner leak guards
• Poor absorbency
• Not very durable
  

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:

Packaging

Brand: Healthy Spirit
Manufacturer: K2 Health
Origin: USA
Units Per Bag: 25
Cost Per Unit: $
Dimensions (L x W x H): 33 cm (15") x 17 cm (6.7") x 25 cm (9.8")
Weight: 1.8 kg (4 lbs)
Available Sizes: S,M, L,LL
Advertised Absorbency: Super

1.1 Health Spirit Adult Diapers Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Cloth-like (non-woven)
Wetness Indicator: Yes (parallel yellow dashes down middle, turn blue/fade when wet)
Standing Inner Leak Guards: No
Leg Gathers: Yes
Product Style: Tab-Style Brief
Refastenable Tabs: Yes
Number of Tapes: 2
Repositionable Tabs: Yes
Outer Color: White
Inner Color: White
Front Waistband: No
Rear Waistband: No
Folded Thickness: 1.5 cm (0.59")
Folded Length: 26 cm (10.2")
Dry Weight: 75 g (2.65 oz)
Fragrance: None
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 85.5 cm (33.7") x 67 cm (26.4") x 32 cm (12.6") x 68 cm (26.8")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 63 cm (24.8") x 23 cm (9.1") x 16 cm (6.3") x 25 cm (9.8")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 3.5 cm (1.4") x 11 cm (4.3") x 4.5 cm (1.8") x 19 cm (7.5")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1256 cm² (195 in²)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 4.5 cm (1.8") x 16.5 cm (6.5")
Tape (W x L): 2.5 cm (1") x 5 cm (2")

1.2 Healthy Spirit Diaper

Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 490 ml (17.2 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 500 ml (17.6 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (68 s, 62 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 2.5 cm (1")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 72%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.39 ml / cm² (0.09 oz / in²)
Press Out Volume: 10 ml (0.35 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 2
The Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper showed a substantial amount of surface dampness from the very first wetting during the lab testing. It was a little better during real world testing, but that’s not saying too much given how little it absorbed. I found that surface dampness tended to be at its worst near the rear of the diaper, while the front of the diaper did a better job at holding it back.

2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test

2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test

"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests

Standing-Sitting

Total Absorbed Volume: 500 ml (17.6 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 1 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 63%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.40 ml / cm² (0.09 oz / in²)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 2
The Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper performed about as expected during the standing-sitting test. The first wetting was absorbed without leaks, but the diaper still felt a little damp afterwards. It didn’t leak upon sitting. On the second wetting the diaper quickly saturated and there was substantial leakage from the leg gathers around the diaper’s crotch. Your mileage will likely vary with this diaper, a very heavy wetter may see leakage after only a single wetting, particularly when sitting shortly afterwards.

Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 400 ml (14.1 oz)
Total Wettings: 1
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 76%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.32 ml / cm² (0.07 oz / in²)

Lying Down Rating: 1
There’s not much to write here. The Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper had moderate leakage through the back leg gathers on the very first wetting. The back of the diaper was completely saturated and felt damp, though there was still quite a bit of unused padding at the front. It may be fine for those with modest leaks, but this diaper won’t handle a full wetting when lying down.

2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)

Daily Wear and Bedwetting

I have to say, the Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper wasn’t the most exciting to review, particularly after reviewing the FitRight Ultra not that long ago. I found it to be comparable to what you might find from generic cloth-backed store brand diapers. I will say, this diaper is very comfortable when dry (at least initially) and it comes at a very low unit cost. Yet it has some obvious downsides including poor absorbency and ineffective wicking. It’s also quite prone to leak through the leg gathers. In terms of overnight wear, I’d say this diaper is a no-go unless you only have light wettings/dribbles through the night. Otherwise, there just isn’t enough absorbency to guarantee it won’t leak on even the first wetting. In terms of daily wear, I found the padding deteriorates relatively quickly and that reduces its level of dry comfort. The lack of absorbency also will be an issue in daily wear and I wouldn’t count on it not leaking if sitting after the first wetting. It might be alright for those with light-moderate incontinence who can change fairly frequently. It does have benefits in being very discreet in profile and backsheet noise, but regardless of the usage I found it can take a single wetting at the most.

Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 2

I can’t recommend the Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper for those with bowel incontinence unless the wearer is bedridden and the carer is a pro at changes. The lack of leak guards and tendency to come loose would be a major problem in this regard. It’s also highly likely to omit odors with its cloth-like backsheet.

Wear & Tear Tests

Fitting

The Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper features two repositionable hook & loop tapes per side. The tapes also have some sticky adhesive at their inner side and are very similar to those of the FitRight Ultra; in fact they’re labelled with FitRight. I’ve had some issues with adhesiveness over time and find the diaper tends to come a bit loose and the tapes don’t stick as well after several refastenings.

3.1 Healthy Spirit Fastener

 

Ease-of-Use Rating: 5

I put this diaper at a similar spot as the FitRight Ultra when it comes to ease-of-use, though I’ve gone one point lower as the lack of leak guards really hurts this diaper’s ability to prevent leaks. Moreover, that’s likely to be an even bigger problem for those dealing with bowel incontinence, even in a care giver environment where changes happen frequently.

3.2 Healthy Spirit Diaper Fit

 

Comfort

Comfort Rating (dry): 6
The Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper was reasonably comfortable when dry, very similar to the FitRight Ultra as expected. However, I found the bottom tape was more likely to come loose and rub against the legs than the FitRight diaper. Its tendency to come loose and relatively poor ability to disperse heat resulted in a slightly lower rating. I generally expect cloth-backed diapers to perform better in this regard.

Comfort Rating (wet): 5
You certainly wouldn’t wear this diaper for long as it can often only take a single wetting, if even. I’ve rated it lower than the FitRight Ultra in this regard, not because it’s less comfortable but it quickly saturates and the easy leakage adds to the discomfort. Otherwise, it remains similar to its dry state and is fairly breathable. It also suffers from a substantial degree of padding, clumping, sagging and tearing, like the FitRight Ultra.

3.3 Healthy Spirit Adult Diapers Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 33% (topsheet), 31% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 6 shakes to deterioration

Durability Rating (dry): 4
Once more, the Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper mimicked the performance of the FitRight Ultra when it came to durability, but was a bit worse. In its dry state it suffered the same clumping and tearing issues. The tapes also tended to come loose/lose adhesiveness over time leading to sagging. The wetness indicator was also quite sensitive to sweat/lighter dribbles. This diaper feels better suited to a caregiver setting than something an active wearer would use.

Durability Rating (wet): 4
The Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper again ranks below the FitRight Ultra when it comes to wet durability. It’s wet durability is about the same as its dry durability, in both cases the diaper suffers the same degree of padding, clumping and tearing. It also has the same tendency to come loose or sag as you’d find in the FitRight diaper.

3.4 Healthy Spirit Adult Diapers Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests

Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 7.0 cm (2.8"), 8.0 cm (3.2")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 10.0 cm (3.9"), 9.0 cm (3.5")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 6.0 cm (2.4"), 7.0 cm (2.8")

Profile Discretion Rating: 8
The Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper was effectively the same as the FitRight Ultra when it came to profile discretion; however, this diaper felt thinner than the FitRight Ultra. It still leaves a slight bulge at its rear and rises pretty high above the waistline. Though one must keep in mind that this diaper’s discretion advantage will completely be lost if it leaks in only a single wetting (a big risk with this diaper).

4.1 Healthy Spirit Adult Diapers Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Healthy Spirit Adult Diapers Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

 

Noise

Noise Rating: 9
Once again, the Healthy Spirit Adult Diaper is almost identical to the FitRight Ultra when it came to noisiness. This diaper is almost as quiet as can be, the most detectable sound is typically the tapes pulling against the surface with movement or a very light crinkling of the backsheet. I’m not sure I’d rank this at the top in terms of noise, compared with the Medline Extended Wear or Seni Quatro, but it’s pretty high up there.

4.3 Healthy Spirit Adult Diapers Noise Profile

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 4
This diaper fares poorly when it comes to odor reduction. Not only does it suffer from many of the issues seen in the FitRight Ultra, but it also doesn’t have inner leak guards. The absence of such, makes it all the easier for odors to escape the padding, not to mention moisture pooling on the inner side of the backsheet.

Want to give the Healthy Spirit Adult Diapers a try?

Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Healthy Spirit Small, Healthy Spirit Medium, Healthy Spirit Large, Healthy Spirit X-Large or Healthy Spirit XX-Large affiliate link. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.

Forsite AM/PM Adult Diaper Review

 *For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology

Summary

The Forsite AM/PM diaper is a premium full featured diaper imported by the Canadian company Forsite Health Inc. It comes in 3 different styles including plain white, grey with stripes and purple with stars. For what it's worth, this diaper is made in China, though appears to be made of wood pulp originating in the USA and seems to be FDA approved. This differentiates it from the Forsite Under The Sea or Mary Jane Max diapers as well as those of other ABDL/premium importers from China like Rearz or Bambino where there’s little-to-no info on material sourcing or FDA status (as of the current time).
 

This diaper comes with the most expensive unit price of those tested thus far, though it is still a little cheaper than other Chinese imports by ABDL-focused companies. In testing, it demonstrated an amazing amount of absorbency with a soft comfortable padding. The main downsides had to do with its tendency for surface dampness and bunch of padding between the legs due to its width. As a Canadian company I wish they made this in Canada, I’m not a fan of the “made in China” tag on something that could just as easily be made locally like many of our local Tena products. In terms of pricing it tends to run more expensive than BetterDry/Crinklz and in terms of performance I generally would recommend that diaper over this one, but it may be worth a try if you can get a good deal.

Key Features:

• Plastic backsheet
• Repositionable tapes
  
• Dual waistbands
• High grade USA fluff core
• Standing inner leak barriers

Pros:

• Highly absorbent
• Soft padding
• Good odor reduction
  
• Snug fit
  

Cons:

• Surface dampness
• Very expensive unit price
• Noisy backsheet
  

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized Forsite AM/PM Adult Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:

Packaging

Brand: Forsite AM/PM (by Forsite Health Inc.)
Manufacturer: Weifang Mimosa Personalcare Technology
Origin: China
Units Per Bag: 12
Cost Per Unit: $$$
Dimensions (L x W x H): 38 cm (15") x 19 cm (7.5") x 25 cm (9.8")
Weight: 2.53 kg (5.57 lbs)
Available Sizes: M, L
Advertised Absorbency: Maximum (5000 ml)

1.1 Forsite AM/PM Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Plastic (Poly)
Wetness Indicator: Yes (yellow line down middle, blue/faded when wet)
Standing Inner Leak Guards: Yes
Leg Gathers: Yes
Product Style: Tab-Style Brief
Refastenable Tabs: Yes
Number of Tapes: 2
Repositionable Tabs: Yes
Outer Color: White
Inner Color: White (blue rectangle in middle padding)
Front Waistband: Yes
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 3 cm (1.2")
Folded Length: 24 cm (9.5")
Dry Weight: 208 g (7.34 oz)
Fragrance: None
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 78 cm (30.7") x 62 cm (24.4") x 31 cm (12.2") x 60 cm (23.6")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 66.5 cm (26.2") x 29 cm (11.4") x 20 cm (7.9") x 39 cm (15.4")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 4.5 cm (1.8") x 13 cm (5.1") x 9.5 cm (3.7") x 19 cm (7.5")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1808 cm² (280 in²)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 3 cm (1.2") x 12 cm (4.7")
Tape (W x L): 4 cm (1.6") x 4 cm (1.6")

1.2 Forsite AM/PM Diaper

Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 1867 ml (65.9 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 1942 ml (68.5 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (50 s, 44 s, 53 s, 66 s, 57 s, 59 s, 77 s, 69 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 6 cm (2.4")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 71%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 1.03 ml / cm² (0.23 oz / in²)
Press Out Volume: 75 ml (2.7 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 4
The Forsite AM/PM diaper had disappointing performance when it came to surface dampness. There was noticeable dampness after the first wetting. By the second wetting it had the dampness resembling saturation. I found it similar to the Abena M4 in this regard. In real world testing the dampness was still noticeable but it wasn’t among the worst performers in this regard.

2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test

2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test

"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests

Standing-Sitting

Total Absorbed Volume: 1442 ml (50.9 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 3 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 72%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.80 ml / cm² (0.18 oz / in²)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 9
The Forsite AM/PM diaper was among the top performers when it came to the standing sitting test. The first wetting while standing was easily absorbed, though with a brief period of noticeable dampness. There were no signs of leakage upon sitting. The second wetting was again easily absorbed while seated. The dampness lasted slightly longer on this wetting but it didn’t take away much from the comfort of this diaper. There was considerably more dampness on the third wetting, though the diaper remained fairly comfortable. On the 4th wetting there was a significant leak through the rear leg gather and I called the test at that. The diaper felt very damp and clammy at that point, but it was mostly up the front and mid-section. There was a large area of unused padding at the rear of the diaper. I feel it would be hard to use this diaper up to its full capacity because of the tendency to leak with large sections of unused padding. It should be able to hold 3~4 wettings during daily wear but any more than that may be pushing it. This puts it far off the BetterDry/Crinklz diaper in this respect, but similar to the Confidry 24/7, albeit with a bit more surface dampness.

Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 1517 ml (53.5 oz)
Total Wettings: 5
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 72%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.84 ml / cm² (0.19 oz / in²)

Lying Down Rating: 9
The Forsite AM/PM diaper performed very well when tested while lying down. The first two wettings were absorbed quickly without any sign of leakage. The diaper felt a little damp after the second wetting but mostly in the mid-section. The third wetting was also easily absorbed although the dampness increased slightly. The fourth wetting again showed no signs of leakage and I was seriously wondering how much more it could take. Finally on the fifth wetting there was a small amount of leakage through the rear leg gathers. It seems the plastic-backed design was very helpful in containing leakage much like the BetterDry/Crinklz diaper, which also strongly resists leaks. The diaper felt very saturated in the midsection on the fifth wetting, but surprisingly there was still a fair amount of unused padding at the front/rear. Overall, I feel this diaper could comfortably take 3~4 wettings while lying down before leakage would become a concern.

2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)

Daily Wear and Bedwetting

The Forsite AM/PM diaper was among the top performers for daily and overnight wear absorbency. It wasn’t among the most comfortable diapers on the market but its padding is very soft and there’s not much to complain about in that regard. It does feature a very wide design, which can cause it to bunch inward or cause a diaper bulge between the legs. This can be a bit of a problem when it comes to absorbency because moisture may be redirected outwards and cause leaks well before the diaper hits capacity. This happened several times when testing during bedwetting episodes with moisture making it out of the rear well before saturation. I also found the padding wasn’t particularly effective when it came to wicking, at least not compared to the BetterDry/Crinkz or ConfiDry 24/7 diapers. In most cases there were still large areas of unused padding before leakage occurred. This diaper was also similar to the Abena M4 in that it absorbed a lot but also had a lot of surface dampness from early wettings onward. Even so, I didn’t find it to be very prone to skin irritation or odors. Even with its flaws, during overnight wear I found it could consistently take 2~3 wettings before leakage might be a concern, or up to 4 if you have the padding bunched outwards. In terms of daily wear this diaper was a little more consistent at 3~4 wettings as it was easier to catch when the padding was poorly adjusted. However, because this diaper is so wide it can be difficult to walk and I wouldn’t recommend it for activities requiring a lot of movement. It can also be quite loud, which may make daily wear difficult. Yet, changes would be easy with the wide landing strip design.

Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 10

The Forsite AM/PM is a full featured diaper with front/rear waistbands to reduce odors and strong tapes. This diaper features high inner leak guards and has a lot of space to contain bowel movements. It also has a large area of rear padding coverage. I can’t find any significant faults in this diaper in this regard other than it could possibly suffer due to its surface dampness issues.

Wear & Tear Tests

Fitting

The Forsite AM/PM is similar to most Asian manufactured diapers with a plastic landing zone and refastenable tapes. This diaper features two large tapes per side with a strong grip. It also has a front and rear waistband to assist with the fitting.

3.1 Forsite AM/PM Fastener

Ease-of-Use Rating: 9

The Forsite AM/PM diaper is easy to attach / re-attach with its repositionable tapes. Its wetness indicator is a bit low, which could be an issue for some but I didn’t weigh that against it. The trickiest part is getting a fit that doesn’t feel too loose because this diaper is very wide at its mid-section. Removing this diaper is also a breeze, this puts it up there with similar diapers featuring a landing zone for ease-of-use, with it being very similar to the Carnation Adult Diaper in that regard.

3.2 Forsite AM/PM Diaper Fit

Comfort

Comfort Rating (dry): 8
The Forsite AM/PM is quite comfortable when dry with both front and rear waistbands, though I had trouble getting as snug a fit as with the BetterDry diaper. The padding is soft, as is the inside of the backsheet. The outer backsheet is fairly soft, though not as much as the Attends Slip Regular Plus or Tena Slip Active Fit Maxi. One of the main downsides of this diaper is that it runs very wide between the legs which can impair walking or make sitting in certain positions uncomfortable. I find it can also feel a bit loose at the rear, even with the waistband. In that respect, this diaper may be most comfortable for overnight wear.

Comfort Rating (wet): 7
I rank the Forsite AM/PM diaper similar to the Abena M4 when it comes to comfort when wet. Both suffer in terms of surface dampness but still provide a reasonable level of comfort when wet. This diaper does have a tendency to sag a bit because it is so wide, but the tapes hold well and it won’t come off easily. It also produced little in the way of clumping or tearing of the padding.

3.3 Forsite AM/PM Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 7.8% (topsheet), 4.7% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 2 shakes to deterioration

Durability Rating (dry): 9
The Forsite AM/PM diaper was very durable during the dry durability test when worn for over 10 hours. At the end of the test there were no signs of significant padding clumping or tearing and the wetness indicator was barely affected. The only considerable area of deterioration was the collapsing of padding at the diapers med-section. Yet, due to its very wide size this was pretty much unavoidable. Other than that its tapes held out perfectly and didn’t lose much stickiness with multiple re-attachments.

Durability Rating (wet): 9
The Forsite AM/PM didn’t perform particularly well on the wet diaper shake test; however, in real world use it held up remarkably well. The diaper did tend to sag when wet but the tapes did a great job at holding it in place. The padding stayed strong through testing with no obvious clumping or tearing and it ended up very similar to its dry state, with a slight collapsing of padding between the legs. With that in mind this diaper is not well suited for active wear as it is very large and will inhibit some types of movement.

3.4 Forsite AM/PM Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests

Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 3.0 cm (1.2"), 4.0 cm (1.6")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 5.0 cm (2"), 4 cm (1.6")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4.0 cm (1.6"), 4.0 cm (1.6")

Profile Discretion Rating: 4
The Forsite AM/PM diaper was similar to the Confidry 24/7 in terms of profile discretion. It’s a very bulky diaper and will stand out under most clothes but it has a relatively low rise above the pant line. The width of the diaper causes it to bulge a bit more around the crotch where it can fold inwards.

4.1 Forsite AM/PM Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Forsite AM/PM Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

Noise

Noise Rating: 5
The Forsite AM/PM diaper produces a substantial amount of noise as a result of the thick plastic landing zone. The backsheet itself only produces a slight crinkling noise similar to diapers like the Northshore Supreme or Drylife SlipSuper, so if it weren’t for the landing zone it would be a lot quieter. This is not a diaper that will be easy to conceal.

4.3 Forsite AM/PM Noise Profile

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 8
The Forsite AM/PM diaper does a good job at neutralizing odors in spite of its apparent surface dampness issues. I rarely noticed any odors from this diaper during testing. The padding seems quite odor resistant but it may also benefit from the waistbands, though the rear waistband can sometimes feel a bit loose.

Want to give the Forsite AM PM a try?

Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Forsite AM PM Medium or Forsite AM PM Large affiliate link. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.