This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter! If you like what you are reading, please consider subscribing and/or sharing!

I received this question from reader J’Alice:

I recently heard somebody say that ob*sity* is an addiction just like alcohol or gambling, but that sounds wrong to me. Can you explain?

Thanks for the question J’Alice! You’re right, it’s wrong. Let’s dig into this a bit:

This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter! If you appreciate the content here, please consider supporting the newsletter by subscribing and/or sharing!

This is another in the series of research breakdowns I completed as part of a project with Weight Inclusive Nutrition and Dietetics (WIND) to create a comprehensive response to the horrible AAP guidelines.

The study is Association of pediatric ob*sity* treatment, including a dietary component, with change in depression and anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter! If you like what you are reading, please consider subscribing and/or sharing!

The idea that people can gain “clinically meaningful health benefits” by losing 5-10% of their body weight is ubiquitous and ridiculous. Sometimes it is recommended as a way to improve general health, to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors, or to improve a specific health condition. I wrote about this, and a study that tested it, here. Today I want to look at the sheer folly of the basic math and logic of this because this 5-10% weight loss idea doesn’t just defy research, it defies logic and math.

I received a request to write about an article titled “Graphic and grisly beverage warning labels stressing sugar content dangers could curb ob*sity*, study finds.”

The study found no such thing.

Our current medical view of weight and health is deeply muddied by weight loss industry involvement. I created this list of questions as a guide to interrogation. It can be used by or with healthcare practitioners, or by anyone who wants to take a critical look at our current weight and health paradigm.

I received this question from reader Jeremy: “I’m in healthcare and I was recently in a training that was talking about O-word as a chronic disease (eye-roll) and then they used the term lifelong relapsing remitting obesity but didn’t elaborate what it meant, can you help?”

Thanks for asking Jeremy, let's get into it!

I've written previously about the serious issues with the field of so-called “ob*sity* medicine.” Today I’d like to talk about what could be. What if there was a field of medicine dedicated to providing better care to fat* patients rather than dedicated to making us thin?

Thanks to everyone who sent me this article from Medical News Today and asked me to write about it! I’ll discuss the study, but I’m also going talk about the article because it’s a great demonstration of how even articles that appear to question weight stigma can still be deeply rooted in weight stigma.

Healthcare practitioners have a long history of blaming and shaming fat patients for the failure of intentional weight loss. While fat activists and weight-neutral healthcare practitioners have been talking about this for literally decades, we are starting to hear pushback against this from, what seems at the outset, an unlikely source – the weight loss industry.

Suddenly they seem to be falling all over themselves to admit the failure of intentional weight loss.

While that seems like a step in the right direction, it’s their next step that is so dangerous and insidious.

I have permission to share the story of a patient I advocate for. She is fat and has Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). Her latest A1C test was 7.1%. This is .1% over her goal and up from her previous test. Her doctor told her that she didn’t need to adjust meds but should “do her best to eat less sweets and carbohydrates.”

This is incredibly common advice (perhaps especially with fat patients for whom many healthcare practitioners seem to always be trying to find a reason to prescribe food restriction, but I hear it from thin patients as well.) Unfortunately, it is also problematic advice on a number of levels.