Detroit Food Policy Council

bookmark_borderWeight neural approaches to health and why we need them

By Contributing Member, Dr. Alyssa Beavers, PhD, RD

Weight neutral approaches to health such as Health at Every Size, Intuitive Eating, and many others have exploded in popularity over recent years.   While each of these approaches has unique characteristics, there are common threads among them.  Most notably, they share the stance that focusing on weight as a marker of health, and weight loss as a way to improve health, is ineffective and even harmful.  While weight neutral approaches to health have not yet become widely accepted, there is mounting evidence to support them. 

Why is focusing on weight and weight loss ineffective?

The most commonly used metric to determine if someone is at a supposedly “normal” weight is the Body Mass Index (BMI), a calculation that takes into account a person’s height and weight to classify them as “underweight,” “normal weight,” “overweight,” or “obese.”  Using BMI as a measure of health has been harshly criticized for not accurately measuring whether someone is healthy.  For example, one study found that 30% of people with a “normal” BMI were actually metabolically unhealthy (they had conditions such as high blood pressure, cholesterol, or blood sugar), and 50% of those with “overweight” BMI’s were metabolically healthy.  Therefore, relying on BMI as the sole measure of health did not accurately measure the health of a large share of the participants.

Focusing on weight loss as a health goal also has major problems.  Diets simply don’t work at achieving lasting weight loss.  In 2020, researchers compiled data from 121 studies that examined how much weight was lost on a variety of popular diets.  Overall, these studies included nearly 22,000 participants.  They found that after 6 months, the amount of weight lost in most diets was between 5 and 15 pounds, but much of this lost weight was regained at 12 months. 

The inability to maintain weight loss is not due to a lack of willpower, not trying hard enough, or any other personal failure.  It is hardwired into our biology.  When we eat less than our bodies need to maintain our weight, our metabolism slows down.  That means you would have to eat even less than you previously did to maintain your body weight.  Losing weight also has powerful effects on the brain.  It results in being unable to stop thinking about food, and even makes food smell and taste better.  The slowed metabolism and preoccupation with food that come with weight loss have thousands of years of evolution behind them.  Reducing metabolism to conserve energy and increasing motivation to find food functioned to prevent starvation when food was not plentiful. 

Why is focusing on weight harmful?

Even more concerning is the harm that focusing on weight or weight loss can inflict.  Many people who attempt to lose weight will end up in a cycle of weight loss and weight regain, known as weight cycling, which is associated with a wide variety of negative health outcomes.  There are also negative mental health impacts of individuals focusing on their weight, including body dissatisfaction and disordered eating.  Focusing on weight has also become a massive problem at a societal level in the US and beyond.  People with larger bodies are stereotyped, and experience unfair treatment and teasing or bullying, which is referred to as weight bias or weight stigma.  Weight stigma or teasing does not serve as a motivator to lose weight.  In fact, it leads to less healthy eating behaviors and less physical activity.  This may explain why experiencing weight bias or stigma is associated with negative health outcomes (such as high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes).  Unfortunately, weight stigma frequently comes from doctors. People who experience weight stigma from their doctor go to the doctor less frequently, another way in which weight stigma may damage health. 

What weight neutral approaches to health DO focus on

Weight neutral approaches often emphasize uncoupling health behaviors from their effects on body weight, such as being active and eating fruits and vegetables because you enjoy them and they are good for your health as opposed to helping maintain or lose weight.  Many of these approaches acknowledge that health is not just about personal choices; health is influenced by a variety of systemic inequities in things that promote and hinder health, such as access to healthy food and healthcare.  They honor mental wellbeing just as much as physical wellbeing, with a heavy focus on improving body image and body acceptance, working to undo internalized weight stigma. 

bookmark_borderIf it’s essential, why do we not place a higher value on it?

By Contributing Member, Chef Kevin Frank

As the events of the last year have shown, the food industry is a critical part of the nation’s infrastructure.  Be it commercial or non-profit, this nation could not function without the dedicated foodservice workers bravely going to work day in and day out.  This industry literally feeds the nation.  Specifically referring to school foodservice, an average of 21 million lunches and 11.5 million breakfasts were served to students daily in FY 2020.  One would think that the industry that nourishes our nation’s most vulnerable population would receive unilateral support and be allotted ample resources.  Why then are so many school foodservice programs struggling financially?  Why is the overarching public sentiment that school food is substandard and unappealing?  Why, if school foodservice is essential, is it not valued more?

Is it REALLY essential?

               According to Edunacationdata.org, there were 50.8 million students enrolled in public schools for the 2019-2020 school year.  The 21 million students who ate school lunch daily in that year represent 41.3% of the total enrollment in public schools.  The 11.5 million breakfasts represent 22.6% of the nation’s students receiving one or more of their daily meals at school.  According to nokidhungry.org, approximately 1 in 6, or 13 million children in the United States live in food insecure homes. Given these staggering numbers, it can easily be stated that the school breakfast program (SBP) and National school lunch program (NSLP) provide services that are essential for the overall well-being of our nation’s children.

Ok…It may be essential, but what’s it worth?

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) food plan for April of 2021, the “thrifty” average cost to feed a male child between the ages of 9 to 11 years is $38.20/ week. At 3 meals a day, for 7 days a week, this equates to $1.82 per meal.  It is important to mention that the thrifty meal plan is designed to “Offer a more realistic reflection of the time available for food preparation, especially with increased expectations for work in assistance programs. Hence, it allows more prepared foods and requires somewhat fewer preparations from scratch.” (USDA.gov, 2007) This plan essentially encourages highly processed quick foods with very little scratch preparation.  Conversely, The Moderate food plan for the same child is $65.90 per week, which equates to $3.13 per meal.  While this is much better, even this plan relies on more processed food and minimal scratch preparation at home. Even the Liberal Food plan, which incorporates the most scratch cooking, still relies heavily on processed foods. This plan comes to $3.61 per meal for the male child between the ages of 9-11 years. 

                According to a meta-analysis conducted by the Harvard school of Public Health, it costs on average $1.50 more per meal to eat a “healthy” diet. (Dwyer, 2013) For the purposes of the study, healthy was defined as “diets rich in fruits, vegetables, fish, and nuts” while the unhealthy diets were considered “rich in processed foods, meats, and refined grains” (Dwyer, 2013).  The reason that this information is important is because the current regulations surrounding school meals require fresh fruits, whole grains, fresh vegetables, with minimal fat and sodium, and have very strict calorie ranges.  These regulations need to be met in order for school foodservice programs to be reimbursed for the meals.  The current reimbursement rate is $3.56 for lunch and $2.26 for breakfast per meal in high need (over 60% free or reduced meal) programs.  Specifically for lunch, the reimbursement is 5 cent less than the average meal cost for a liberal meal plan that still relies on many highly processed foods and minimal scratch preparation.  The regulations however call for the opposite.  How then are programs supposed to meet the regulations when only being given enough money to purchase food that is highly processed?

Moreover, this calculation does not take into account labor, variable costs and other expenses associated with running a foodservice program.  The USDA meal plans are based on home cooking and feeding where labor, equipment, and infrastructure are assumed to be other parts of the household budget. With school meals however, the reimbursement per meal is supposed to cover all expenses.  According to the School Nutrition Association (SNA) on average, school meal programs spend 44.7% of their revenue ($1.59) on the cost of food, 44.5% on labor and benefits, 9.5% on direct costs like supplies and equipment, and 1.3% on indirect costs (costs paid to the school district for admin fees, building maintenance etc.).  These numbers show that many school meal programs are relegated to spending less per meal than the USDA thrifty meal plan allots for a diet that is highly processed with minimal scratch cooked foods, or to equate it to the Harvard meta-analysis, unhealthy.  How then are programs supposed to meet the regulations or foster a paradigm shift without the financial resources to do it?

What can be done to help?

The National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program are both federal programs designed for social welfare.  If there are changes to be made, it requires unilateral support from not only the government, but the public as well.  Change starts at home.  Reaching out to local, state, and federal representatives is the first step toward change.  There are hungry children who cannot be adequately cared for with the current model. They deserve better. It takes a village.

Scroll Up