food

RECENT POSTS

Study: Kids Are Dumping Fruits And Veggies Offered At School — But Don’t Give Up Yet

A study found that students put more fruits and vegetables on their trays, as required, but consumed fewer of them and increased waste by approximately 56 percent. (Courtesy of Sally McCay/UVM Photography)

A study found that students put more fruits and vegetables on their trays, as required, but consumed fewer of them and increased waste by approximately 56 percent. (Courtesy of Sally McCay/UVM Photography)

File this one under: You can lead a horse to water…

Researchers at the University of Vermont report what they characterize as a “heartbreaking” finding: Many schoolkids are trashing the fruits and vegetables they are now served as part of a federal law that was supposed to nudge the kids toward healthier food choices.

The study, published online in the journal Public Health, concludes that kids are putting more fruits and vegetables on their trays, as required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (which took effect in 2012 and was championed by First Lady Michelle Obama). However, the children ate fewer of these items after the law took effect and often dumped the produce straight into the trash.

“It was heartbreaking to see so many students toss fruits and vegetables into the trash right after exiting the lunch line,” Sarah Amin, Ph.D, a UVM researcher in nutrition and food sciences and the study’s lead author, said in an interview.

For the study, researchers captured before-and-after images of school lunches. (Courtesy)

For the study, researchers captured before-and-after images of school lunches. (Courtesy)

As part of the study, researchers captured images of kids’ school lunches before they ate and then again right before they dumped uneaten foods into the trash. So, for instance, the child might choose a school lunch (pictured on the left) of chicken nuggets, mac and cheese, green beans and milk. But, when the child is done eating, it’s clear the greens beens remain untouched.

The study concludes:

Children consumed fewer (fruits and vegetables) FVs and wasted more FVs during the school year immediately following implementation of the USDA rule that required them to take one fruit or vegetable at lunch. Average waste increased from one-quarter cup to more than one-third of a cup/tray, with about one-eighth cup/tray more FVs discarded, or a total of about 56 cups/day/school (based on an average of 400 lunches served/day).

Researcher Amin, who will soon begin a post doctorate fellowship at Tufts, said that while the initial findings might seem disheartening and show some unintended consequences of the federal law, it’s worth remaining hopeful.

She pointed out that “this was the first update to these regulations in 15 years and kids were really acclimated to how the environment was before,” and not used to choosing either one fruit or one vegetable with lunch.

“Maybe you can’t just put these foods in front of them and expect them to eat,” she said. “But it may just be too soon.”

For younger kids entering kindergarten, for example, “this may work,” Amin said, because it’s all the children know. “But for older kids used to the old system, this may rock their world because they’re just not used to it.

“I still think the guidelines [which are up for reauthorization next month] are necessary,” she said. “We have a childhood obesity epidemic and the guidelines were put in place to address it. … A little bit of waste at the get go may be a sacrifice we have to make for the health and well being of children in the long term.” Continue reading

Related:

‘Dietland': A Fat Heroine, And The Politics Of Weight

By Jean Fain

The heroine is the news in “Dietland,” the new novel by Sarai Walker. That’s because she’s got the rarest of qualities in a female protagonist: She’s fat.

Also, she has next to no sense of self, and expects to remain selfless until she can afford weight-loss surgery and find her true self as a thin person. In the meantime, Plum Kettle, our heroine, works as a ghostwriter for the slender, glamorous and self-absorbed editor of a teen magazine called Daisy Chain. In short, Plum’s got no life of her own.

Plum’s transformation from fat girl to full-bodied rebel with a cause is the narrative arc of Walker’s provocative and insightful book. Like “Alice in Wonderland,” Plum’s sense of self gets turned on its head by a cast of oddball characters, from the daughter of a famous diet guru and her feminist cohort to a murderous terrorist cell of women avenging crimes against women. When the daughter of the diet guru offers Plum $20,000 to postpone her surgery and confront the real costs of beauty, the plot and subplot blend and thicken.

dietlandDespite the rave reviews from my inner circle and the world at large, I didn’t expect to be drawn in by the writing. But, truth be told, it’s fresh, playful and sometimes hilarious: The parody of the diet industry is spot on. I also didn’t expect to be touched by the rejection and humiliation the 300+ pound Plum encounters along the way to finding herself.

Most unexpected of all: I kind of looked forward to spending my evenings with a fictional someone desperately seeking weight loss. Generally, if I’m desperate for anything at the end of the day with clients (I’m a therapist specializing in eating disorders and food issues), it’s non-diet-related downtime.

I can’t say I always loved reading “Dietland.” Violence, even when served as Walker serves it — with sarcasm and panache — isn’t my cup of tea. I also had trouble swallowing the meanness of the male characters, and the complete self-acceptance of the female ones. And yet, my curiosity kept me turning all 307 pages. I wanted to know if Plum would live more happily ever after. Plus, I wanted to discuss the book with members of my mindful eating support group. (“Dietland” is the group’s first unofficial book club selection.)

At the same time, I kept reading between the lines to learn the author’s story. From the book-jacket flap, I knew Walker writes from professional experience. Before she did her doctoral research on the feminist issue that is fat, she wrote about body image for “Our Bodies, Ourselves,” the feminist classic by the Boston Women’s Health Collective.

From the author photo, I also knew Walker is a fat woman. And yet, combing through the reviews and interviews, I could find very little about Walker’s personal experience with food and body image issues.

The therapist in me really wanted to know if Walker, like Plum, had tried and failed to lose weight over and again? If she’d been a victim of fat shaming and stigma? If she’d been discriminated against because of her appearance? What was Walker’s story?

My curiosity moved me to set up a Skype interview with the NYC-based author. What follows are questions and answers from that recent interview with Sarai (pronounced SUH-ray) Walker.

JF: You seem to know a lot about food and body image issues even though you’re not a medical person or scientist. What can you tell me about your personal experience in this arena?

SW: Well, I’m a fat woman, and so I think one of the reasons I wanted to write “Dietland” is I wanted to explore what it’s like to be a fat woman in our contemporary society because I think, while there are some novels with fat heroines, I feel like there aren’t any novels that explore the issue in a serious way. Continue reading

The Checkup: How To Feed Your Muffin Top, And Other Weight Loss Wisdom

If you’ve ever hated your weight or wished to trade in a specific body part, or yearned to step off the debilitating dieting roller-coaster, you are so not alone. Indeed, you are us.

So here, we vent about our personal challenges — how to finally lose that last 10 pounds, escaping from our self-imposed food prisons — and explore some new strategies for relief. It’s all in the latest installment of our podcast, The Checkup, a joint venture between WBUR and Slate. We call this episode “Muffin Top,” Download it here before your next meal.

•First, we explore Motivational Interviewing, an increasingly popular technique that can spur you toward making changes in your eating and other behaviors. Included: A new book with the subtitle: “How the Power of Motivational Interviewing Can Reveal What You Want and Help You Get There.”

•We ask an eating disorders expert about why diets don’t work and whether we’ve entered a post-Weight Watchers era.

•And we also also get intimate about the psychic costs of actually achieving your goal weight and trying, desperately, to maintain it.

In case you missed other recent episodes: “Teenage Zombies,” explored the curious minds of adolescents, with segments on sleep, porn and impulsive choices; “Power to the Patient” looked at ways we can all feel in more control of our health care; “High Anxiety” included reports on hormones, parenting and fear of flying; and “Sexual Reality Checks” examined penis size, female desire and aging.

Better yet, don’t miss a single episode and just subscribe now.

Each week, The Checkup features a different topic — previous episodes focused on college mental health, sex problems, the Insanity workout and vaccine issues.

If you listen and like it, won’t you please let our podcasting partner, Slate, know? You can email them at podcasts@slate.com.

A Weight Watching Life, And (Maybe) A Post-Diet Era

The diets in my life have come and gone: the grapefruit diet, no-fat diet, juice cleanses and Atkins. But through it all, there’s always been Weight Watchers. With its point system and lo-cal dinners, weigh-ins and group therapy vibe, Weight Watchers offered an all-encompassing road map to controlled eating. I tried it, Betty Draper of “Mad Men” tried it, you probably know someone who’s been there. It was a diet, yes, but also more: a structure to control the chaos of disordered eating.

Sadly, as many of us know, no single “diet” really works. Without a wholesale lifestyle shift, and replacing old, destructive patterns with healthier habits — a much slower and sometimes painstaking process — one failed diet begets another and another.

Reading the obituary of Jean Nidetch, a founder of Weight Watchers who died this week at 91, made me realize, yet again, the obsessive and punishing ways we compel ourselves to diet, and how, deep down, food and weight are as much about emotion as physiology. The New York Times described Nidetch as “pumpkin-shaped all her young life” and “raised in a family that ate as a consolation for disappointment.” Here’s more:

She was born Jean Evelyn Slutsky in Brooklyn on Oct. 12, 1923, the daughter of David and Mae Rodin Slutsky. Her father was a cabdriver and her mother a manicurist. Her compulsive eating habits began as a child, she recalled in a memoir…

“I don’t really remember, but I’m positive that whenever I cried, my mother gave me something to eat,” she wrote. “I’m sure that whenever I had a fight with the little girl next door, or it was raining and I couldn’t go out, or I wasn’t invited to a birthday party, my mother gave me a piece of candy to make me feel better.”

And that launched a life of binge eating and yo-yo dieting. Eventually, though, it pushed Nidetch to seek an escape: through tough-love control and, well, vigilant weight watching.

But we’re not in Brooklyn with the Slutskys anymore. Diets have evolved. Lifestyle Medicine is all the rage, and a far more holistic, Pollan-esque approach to food is taking hold. (“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”) Also, it turns out, not all calories are alike.

Are we then, at long last, in a post-diet era? Can we all just agree that diets do not work in the long term? I asked Jean Fain, a Harvard Medical School-affiliated psychotherapist and the author of “The Self-Compassion Diet” for her thoughts on the passing of a diet icon and where Weight Watchers stands today. Here’s what she wrote:

As the embodiment of Weight Watchers, Jean Nidetch did a lot of good. Her success (she lost 72 pounds and kept it off) inspired waist watchers to stop looking to medical professionals to solve their eating issues and to start finding inspiration, strength and direction from those who understand the problem far better – other successful dieters.

With a little support from fellow Weight Watchers, members not only learn that yes, they can lose weight, they find out they can have a lot more fun as group, rather than try to go it alone.

Inadvertently, Nidetch also did real harm with her eating system and the conditional support that goes with it. (Members get applause and other positive reinforcements for losing weight, for instance, but little or nothing for gaining weight.)

While Weight Watchers insiders claim their program is more successful than other diets, studies that compare various diets to each other do not support that. Whether or not the international slimming organization actually has a 16% success rate, (a number quoted in the book “Secrets from the Eating Lab” by Traci Mann) truth be told, the overwhelming majority regain what they lose and sometimes more. Diets like the one the organization promotes can exacerbate the very eating problems they were hoping to resolve. When that happens, those who most need support are least likely to get it because they’re too ashamed to go to meetings, let alone get weighed in.

More than a Weight Watchers ice cream bar, a lo-cal recipe or the conditional support of a group that fails to acknowledge the shame that members carry, what waist watchers need more than anything is a heaping helping of self-compassion.

Compassion for yourself is the missing ingredient, the antidote to this and most other weight-loss programs because most plans revolve around self-discipline, deprivation and neglect. You’re supposed to stick to the plan no matter what. If you’re starving, keep eating tiny portions. If you’re exhausted, keep moving – no pain, no gain. Going on vacation? Keep counting points, calories or carbs. It’s not a very compassionate (or realistic) approach; it’s not very effective. And it’s no fun. Continue reading

One Doc’s Oreos-And-Batman Perspective: TV Doesn’t (Necessarily) Make Kids Fat

(Donnie Ray Jones/Flickr)

(Donnie Ray Jones/Flickr)

By Steve Schlozman, MD

Here are three recent headlines that got me thinking about kids and fat:

“Watching one hour of TV per day increases risk for obesity by 50%”

“Watching TV for Just an Hour a Day Can Make Children Obese”

“Study makes surprising link between TV time and childhood obesity”

Oversimplifications? Um, yes. Each of these headlines greatly simplifies (dare I say, incorrectly simplifies) a critical social and health issue. Personally, I don’t think TV is the sole evil culprit here. It’s far more complicated.

The medical community has long known that the amount of TV that a child watches correlates with obesity. We can even make some leaps from these data towards implicating causality. Unless your little ones happen to be doing aerobic exercises while they tune in to their cartoons, it’s easy to see how passive watching can equal active weight gain.

However, be wary of oversimplification and especially of the “one-size-fits-all” policy statements that these headlines often generate. The study authors here do, in fact, suggest further limiting TV exposure based on the existing American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for young children as a means of controlling the rate of obesity in this country. (Currently, the AAP recommends limiting screen time to one to two hours or less for children over the age of 2, and discouraging screen time altogether for those who are younger.)

So, here’s the big question: Is the recommendation that TV time be further limited an entirely appropriate conclusion?

Beyond The Headlines

The answer, like many answers to social policy questions, is both yes and no.

What we know for certain is that we can’t really discern from the headlines what we ought to do, though there is ample reason to believe that most American rarely go beyond the headlines. Thus, we run the risk of jumping to more draconian conclusions than might be appropriate simply because we don’t have or take sufficient time to examine the flood of information.

How do we guard against this leap to oversimplification?

Here are a few key questions:

•Was there a large and diverse population studied?

There have been solid links between lower socioeconomic groups and some ethnic minorities and increased television time, as well as between lower socioeconomic groups and obesity.

The causes for both of these issues are of course multi-factorial. Fatty foods and higher calorie foods are cheaper. TV can function as a babysitter in households where parents are busy working and living paycheck to paycheck. However, the study in the headlines above, conducted by the Department of Education in conjunction with physicians at the University of Virginia, was indeed both large and diverse.

Over 12,000 children starting kindergarten were enrolled in the investigation, and a year later follow-up data was available for more than 10,000 of these children. These data included height and weight, as well as statistical analyses to account for differences in race, gender and socioeconomic effects. In other words, the numbers here are sufficiently large and diverse for us to feel comfortable drawing at least preliminary conclusions.

Causality, Really?

But beware, always beware, of flashy headlines. A Google search yielded all of the headlines above with equal weight, and yet one of the headlines clearly implicates causality. “Watching TV for just an hour a day can make a child obese.” (My italics.)

However, this study does not in any way suggest causality. There are a number of potentially unrelated factors that also happen everyday that might be associated with obesity, but not function as a cause of obesity. These could include behaviors like longer baths to cool down. We don’t know until we do the study whether longer baths would be associated with obesity. In other words, always be wary of blanket statements of causality with regard to the complexity of human behavior.

•What about the ample availability of screen-based material on demand? Perhaps the fact that children can often watch both what they want and when they want it affects their activity patterns in negative ways. We could ponder the fact that TV content, even for kids, has arguably (though not in all spheres) gotten better and of higher quality. There is even evidence that TV watching can improve behavior among kids, and this evidence also comes from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Does that mean we ought to make a policy statement advocating that TV should be less compelling?

Confessing My Bias

Things get even messier when we take the necessary step of examining our own personal biases. In my case, that examination includes a shameless confession regarding the ways my own penchants might complicate my interpretation of these data. Continue reading

Forbidden Fruit: Pesticide-Laden Produce Linked To Lower Semen Quality, Study Finds

(Robert S. Donovon/Flickr)

(Robert S. Donovon/Flickr)

That apple a day? Consider choosing it wisely: If it’s laden with pesticide residues, it could mess with your sperm.

That’s the analysis from researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health in a study published online this week in the journal Human Reproduction.

The study found that men who ate a range of fruits and vegetables, including strawberries, peppers, spinach and apples, with higher levels of pesticide residues had a lower sperm count and a lower percentage of normally-shaped sperm compared to men who ate produce with less pesticide residue. (This finding was true even after fruit was washed before eating.) Researchers said it’s the first study to examine exposure to pesticides and semen quality.

Senior study author Jorge Chavarro, assistant professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said the research doesn’t mean people should eliminate fruits and vegetables from their diet — on the contrary; rather consumers should simply choose more carefully. In an email, he wrote:

I think there are two main takeaways from this work. The first one is that, as interesting and potentially alarming these findings may be, this is the first time that pesticide residues in foods have been linked to an adverse reproductive health outcome in humans. It is therefore very important that these results are replicated in other studies, and ideally in randomized trials, before firm conclusions can be made one way or the other.

On the more practical end, the other important point is that our results point to a very specific role of high pesticide residue produce, rather than to intake of fruits and vegetables in general which means that strategies specifically aimed at avoiding high residue produces, such as consuming organic produce if budget allows or selecting fruits and vegetables known to have low levels of pesticide residues may be the preferred way to address this issue…

Chavarro said the easiest way to determine produce safety is to check the dirty dozen/clean fifteen list that the Environmental Working Group releases each year. Continue reading

The Buffet Phenomenon: Researchers Find More Food Choices Linked To Fatter Mice

(Alpha/Flickr)

(Alpha/Flickr)

This is why I hate buffets: Too many food choices make my head spin. For weight control, I prefer the out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach — keep the oversized muffins and pepperoni pizzas out of the house altogether. Call me rigid, but it seems to work.

Apparently, mice have similar issues, according to a study published in the journal Endocrinology.

The study tried to tease out the relative importance of genetics vs. environment when it comes to obesity risk. So, baby mice born to mothers with a defined high-fat or low-fat diet were randomly assigned to one of three diet groups: either a high-fat diet, a low-fat diet or to an “eat what you want” diet in which they got to pick and choose among the various options.

Researchers from Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine report that:  “Offspring displayed negative outcomes of increased body weight, body fat, serum leptin, and blood glucose levels when given the choice diet compared with offspring on the [low-fat diet].”

This begs the question whether a child’s environment can indeed trump genetics when it comes to obesity.

The Virginia Tech news release quotes one of the study authors who wraps up the findings simply:

“We like variety,” said Deborah Good, an associate professor of human nutrition, foods, and exercise at Virginia Tech. “But when there is a choice, we eat more than when there is not any variety.”

Though the study was done using mice, it can help inform researchers of how human’s natural environment can affect food choices and ultimately a person’s weight. In a country where one-third of adults and 17 percent of children are obese, understanding the root causes of the problem is imperative.

One apparent upside found among mice in the choice group, according to the report: they had “improved energy expenditure” compared to the low-or high-fat diet groups. “Essentially,” the news release says, “the mice burned more energy as they wandered around and evaluated which food they were going to eat.”

This recalls the food and environment research of Brian Wansink, a professor of consumer behavior at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. A recent Psychology Today article on how we eat (and overeat) called, “Why Out of Sight is Really Out Of Mind,” discusses how we can slip into mindless eating in a world where food is everywhere. But there are ways to eat smarter, if you think about what you’re doing:

Wansink found that slim people approach an “all you can eat” buffet by “scouting out” what is available — “getting the lay of the land,” as it were — before they grab their plates and pile on food. They are also more likely to sit facing away from, and to choose a table farther away from a buffet; more likely to choose small plates; and, if eating Chinese food, eat with chopsticks.

Jean Fain, a Harvard Medical School-affiliated psychotherapist who runs “mindful eating” training sessions, has offered some tips on how to curb excessive eating, particularly during the holidays, when tables are brimming with tempting sweets and heavy dishes loaded with nostalgia. In a December post, she wrote:

If you find yourself automatically reaching for another piece of pumpkin cheesecake, step back from the dessert table and ask yourself: “How do I feel? What do I need? Do I really want another piece of cheesecake?” If you do, by all means, enjoy. But if you feel full, better to interrupt the automatic urge for more. It’ll taste better when you’re hungry. What’s more, a short interruption can give you back control.

Embrace The Eggnog, And Other Tips To Curb Holiday Eating (And Guilt)

(Theen Moy/Flickr)

(Theen Moy/Flickr)

It’s peak season for overeating — and then beating yourself up for doing it.

Clearly, you’re not the only one treating yourself to pumpkin and pecan pie, egg nog and, yes, fruitcake. Yet it’s no comfort that everyone else and their Weight Watchers’ leader is also riddled with guilt and enduring a personal thrashing for the extra calories and potential weight gain. While this self-flagellation goes on, you’re missing out on enjoying the holidays.

If only there were a better approach to holiday eating, maybe then you’d be able to stop beating yourself up, enjoy eating what you love and savor everything else you really do love about this season.

Happily, you don’t need an emergency gastric bypass to stop the vicious cycle: putting an end to both overeating and self-criticism might be easier than you think. It might be as easy as reviewing some research-based strategies honed from a group training I lead for people with eating issues. It revolves around practicing a variety of mindful eating and self-compassion meditations.

Here are five proven tips for happier, healthier holiday eating:

1. Redefine Holiday Eating

You’ll need a better working definition of “normal holiday eating” if your definition sounds anything like my esteemed colleague and family eating expert Ellyn Satter’s:

Most people get caught up in what they should and shouldn’t eat. They’re anxious and ambivalent about eating. They might try to resist at holiday parties, but the table is laden with ‘forbidden food,’ and they throw away all control and overdo it. Many times they’re over-hungry because they’re trying to restrict themselves and lose weight. So the standard definition of holiday eating becomes eating way too much.

If you’d prefer to take fewer bites and ease the anxiety and ambivalence, now’s the time to do the exact the opposite, starting with eating regular meals and snacks. Then, come party-time, permit yourself to eat the foods you enjoy. You’re probably going to eat them anyway, so you might as well as enjoy them, without the guilt and other uncomfortable emotions that predictably fuel emotional eating.

2. Go Easier On Yourself

If, like most dieters, you’re hoping that feeding yourself a steady diet of self-criticism will inspire you to rein in your eating, think again. You’ve actually got it backward. Self-criticism — calling yourself fat, disgusting and other mean, nasty names — is really a recipe for emotional overeating and holiday weight gain. Continue reading

The Politics Of Gluten

LaShawn Wiltz/flickr

LaShawn Wiltz/flickr

A close kid relative of mine can die if he eats gluten. Actually, this child is so allergic to gluten that you can’t even cook pasta if he’s in the room or he’ll break out in a rash, or worse. He’s been to emergency rooms, both in the U.S. and abroad, due to his allergies, and it usually happens when someone hands him a so-called “gluten-free” cookie or snack that actually wasn’t.

So gluten is a hot topic in our family. Recently, though, skepticism has been rising about the very notion of gluten allergies, or sensitivities. Exhibit A in this arena is Michael Specter’s latest New Yorker story on the current gluten-free craze, which has enraged more than a few parents whose kids have real and scary reactions to gluten. Specter writes:

While there are no scientific data to demonstrate that millions of people have become allergic or intolerant to gluten (or to other wheat proteins), there is convincing and repeated evidence that dietary self-diagnoses are almost always wrong, particularly when the diagnosis extends to most of society. We still feel more comfortable relying on anecdotes and intuition than on statistics or data.

Speaking on Here & Now yesterday, Specter reiterated the article’s takeaway that the national gluten-free obsession is mostly just the latest fad diet.

Maybe. But here’s some reaction from a parent who thinks Specter should have taken a broader view:

“My son has gone into anaphylaxis from accidentally ingesting gluten four different times over the course of his life.  Each time we had to administer an emergency Epipen injection and rush him to the ER.  I don’t think he was reacting to a fad…

It is fine to debate the merits of going gluten free as a diet or lifestyle choice for some. But for others it is a clear medical issue, with the most serious consequences. The number of Americans suffering from celiac or severe gluten allergy seems to be growing fast, and that merits substantial funding and research to figure out why and find cures. It would be a mistake if that fact were to be lost amid the current efforts at “de-bunking” the risks of eating gluten for some.”

Fat Stigma Fading? Fewer See Obesity As Problem Of Bad Personal Choices, Survey Says

Are public perceptions and stereotypes around obesity beginning to shift?

Maybe.

New research presented this week in Boston suggests that the general public and health care providers are starting to view obesity more as a “community problem of shared risks” as opposed to a personal problem stemming from “bad choices.”

These findings were presented as part of The Obesity Society’s Annual Meeting.

Americans’ view on fat has been evolving for some time, spurred by a robust “fat acceptance movement” and a decision last year by the American Medical Association to officially recognize obesity as a disease.  Also, a wave of media and advocacy revolving around healthier eating and lifestyles, from Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign to the film Fed Up, has focused the national attention on the nitty gritty of food and weight.

The Obesity Society

The Obesity Society

The latest research shows that bias against fat people may also be evolving.

Here’s more from the Obesity Society news release:

…For adults in the United States, perception has moved away from seeing obesity as a personal problem resulting from bad choices. Healthcare professionals were already less likely than the public to view obesity as a personal problem of bad choices.

“Despite the high prevalence of obesity in the U.S. and worldwide, weight bias and stigma continue to complicate clinical and policy approaches to obesity treatment,” said study author Ted Kyle, RPh, MBA, of ConscienHealth in Pittsburgh, PA. “The goal of our study was to measure any shifts that might affect or result from public policy changes.” Continue reading