Regarding the April 5 front-page article "Big Food and Dietitians Push 'Anti-Diet' Advice":
Companies like General Mills could embrace the cultural anti-diet movement. But what's clear from The Post's article is that Big Food and the influencers they sponsor are adopting an extremely important and potentially revolutionary anti-diet message to make more money selling sugary cereals and processed foods. This is not only underhanded, but also harmful to public health.
As a professor and researcher at UCLA who contributed to the science behind the anti-diet movement, I feel the need to weigh in. My research shows that restrictive weight loss diets are not effective for long-term weight loss. However, I think the problem comes when people equate "don't diet to lose weight" with "eat whatever you want."
These are not the same, but I don't think the solution is to immediately cycle around again and warn: "So you better watch what you eat!" I think how we got to this point is that everyone is laser focused on weight and obesity, when really the focus should be on health, not as measured by the Body Mass Index, but on real health markers like blood pressure and triglycerides. Health professionals can and should shift the focus to healthy behaviors such as exercise, eating more fruits and vegetables, reducing stress and sleeping well. When you focus on weight, fat shaming occurs. When you focus on health further down the chain or on behaviors upstream, health can improve regardless of the number on the scale.
A. Janet Tomiyama, Los Angeles
The writer is director of the Dieting, Stress, and Health Laboratory at the University of California, Los Angeles.I applaud The Post and the Examination for their article calling attention to influencer dietitians who mislead the public with messages suggesting that all foods are equal and that efforts to address obesity are misguided. I also agree with the article's criticism of alliances between dietitians and the food industry. The Dietitian Code of Ethics makes it clear that nutrition and dietetics practitioners "should refrain from accepting gifts or services that have the potential to influence, or appear to influence, professional judgment." It sickens me that many influencer dietitians are violating their own code of ethics, and I believe these violations need to be addressed.
At the same time, I wish the article had drawn a sharper line between influencer dietitians and the majority of practitioners. Influencer dietitians make up a small percentage of the more than 112,000 registered dietitians in the United States. It's worth recognizing that the majority of dietitians work in a clinical environment and are quite conscientious.
Second, using the anecdotal experience of one individual, that of Jaye Rochon, to suggest that an anti-dieting approach is always wrong does not adequately address the complexities and nuances behind why some dietitians try to help get rid of the yo-yo diet treadmill. , to mix metaphors. I have counseled thousands of clients on weight management over the past 27 years, and it is clear to me that there is no single effective approach to weight management. Some clients need to stop 'dieting', but that message needs to be individualized and presented in a measured way.
Mark Glen, St. Joseph, Minnesota.
The writer is a visiting professor in the nutrition department at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University.There are many things that made me uncomfortable with The Post's April 5 article about dietitians and the food industry. Let's start with the headline. Calling processed food companies "Big Food" seems to sit uncomfortably with "Big Pharma." People who can't afford to buy organic bok choy and hand-churned chèvre from a goat with a first, middle and last name shouldn't feel bad about it. And there is a difference between dietitians who readily include processed foods as part of one's eating plan and the unscrupulous pharmaceutical marketers who provide everyone with the opioids for free.
Then there's the way the article paints dietitians with a broad brush. Leading with an image of dietitians "lining up to climb into a giant yellow General Mills cereal box and sliding into a bowl of cuddly Cheerios" seems to undermine the profession, encouraging readers to seek sound nutritional advice to doubt and confirm their worst fears.
That worst fear? It's fatness. Being fat was scary for me for years. I would have loved this article back when I was eating 1000 calories a day and exercising excessively while devouring Michael Pollan's books. But luckily I'm not that sad girl anymore. I'm a fat woman who is also successful, fulfilled and, well, full.
There are many things worse than looking like me: you could be a dictator, you could clip your toenails on the carpet, or you could spend decades of your life destroying your mental and physical health in an attempt to to achieve 'ideal' body weight. You might miss Costco samples because you don't want to be the fat kid who eats in public. You might skip birthdays because you don't know how to tell your friends that you can't eat the cake. You can develop a number of serious medical problems from disordered eating.
I promised myself that after losing fifteen years of hating myself, I wouldn't spend any more time on diets. Fat people don't owe anyone health. They don't owe anyone a body that anyone else deems acceptable. And they certainly don't owe you any more time to miss the beautiful moments in life because all they can worry about is their thinness.
Hannah Landers organSamarkand, UzbekistanThe Post's front-page article about influencer dietitians collaborating with food companies made my blood boil. What General Mills - and the unethical dietitians who support their disinformation campaign - are doing is shameful. Telling consumers to eat too much processed food is more than a disservice. It's dangerous.
Remember that diabetes and heart disease are two of the leading causes of death in the developing country of Ecuador. The Ministry of Health responded there with a "red light" food labeling system to tell consumers which foods contain the highest levels of sugar, fat or salt. When I visit and shop there, I find the Ecuadorian food labeling system very useful. The United States should continue to label foods more prominently, especially when it comes to exceeding daily recommendations for added sugar and salt consumption. I hope that Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and the Food and Drug Administration will prevail and help us navigate past Big Food's deceptive practices.
Caren Madsen, Silver spring
Send Mr. Will to the principal's office!
About George F. Will's April 4 op-ed: "School choice thrives in Arizona. Let's hope it stays that way.":
As an unapologetic liberal, however, I have generally found George F. Will to be a conservative whose reasoned and reasonable arguments often deserve consideration. So I was disappointed to see him join the ranks of those who have made inflammatory accusations against public education. I won't dispute his case for school choice. What I will vigorously challenge is his claim that during the pandemic, "children assigned to 'remote learning' opened their laptops at home and parents heard indoctrination serve as teaching."
This is an irresponsible statement without evidence. I taught in Maryland's public schools for 44 years. My wife had a second career as a special educator. Whether it was presenting "The Wizard of Earthsea" in the middle school classroom, "Beloved" in an upper honors class, or purchasing "And Tango Makes Three" for my elementary school library, I have never tried to teach a student or group to 'indoctrinate'. of students. I've never seen a colleague do that either.
The purpose of teaching is not just to ensure that every student, at whatever level, has a solid foundation not to tell young people What think. The purpose of public education is to educate young people How to think for yourself. And that often means presenting ideas from a broad spectrum. In his column, Mr. Will never mentions what ideas he believes were imposed on these children with their open laptops. What evil ideas did their parents hear and fear?
The kind of language Mr. Will uses in this editorial is the kind of language that has fueled unnecessary conflict in school districts across the country. It's the kind of rhetoric that makes student teachers doubtful about pursuing a career in education. His decision to quote an unnamed music educator - speaking of music conservatories rather than public schools - as saying, "Mediocrity is like carbon monoxide: you can't see it or smell it, but one day you'll be dead" is both misleading and risky. Why would Mr. Will invite his conservative readership to rise up against teachers when he could encourage them to help rebuild the public school system?
Richard Parker, Clarksburg, MD.
I am a substitute teacher at an elementary school in Montgomery County. I'm confused by George F. Will's reference to the mystique of teachers in his recent column on school choice. What have I missed? In my 35 years as a substitute teacher in grades K-5, I have at times felt like a sympathizer, an empathizer, a cheerleader, a caregiver, a health aide, and oh, yes, most importantly, an educator. I have never felt powerful or mysterious. I think mysticism is a myth.
