Why do smart people get hooked on wellness trends? Personality traits may play a role

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

If you’ve spent time on social media recently you have probably been exposed to questionablewellness” content. You may have been instructed to dip your toes in icy water or let the sun shine where it usually doesn’t.

Wellness trends such as drinking “loaded” water or taking ice baths may be benign for most people, while others such as drinking raw milk, eating raw organ meats, or taping your mouth while you sleep carry real risks.

The online spaces where they circulate can also be harmful, serving as breeding grounds for conspiracy theories, anti-vaccination sentiment, and misuse of appearance- and performance-enhancing drugs.

It’s easy to dismiss followers of extreme wellness trends as gullible or misinformed. But research suggests personality traits may help explain why some educated, well-intentioned people sometimes reject conventional medicine in favour of fringe practices.

The big five personality traits

Psychologists have shown that many aspects of human personality can be described via five fundamental dimensions, of which we all have varying levels.

Two of these “big five” traits – openness and agreeableness – are particularly relevant to people’s interest in alternative health practices. (The remaining three traits are conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticism.)

People high in openness are curious, imaginative and adventurous. They question tradition and are attracted to novelty and unconventional ideas. As a result, they are more likely to try new and unorthodox diets or treatments.

Highly agreeable people are trusting, cooperative and empathetic. They are very receptive to emotional messages, especially when they appeal to ideas of caring for others and benefiting the community.

These personality traits also influence how people search for and evaluate online information. People higher in openness tend to adopt an exploratory search strategy, preferring to seek novel or unconventional sources rather than relying on established information channels.

Because they value harmony, trust and maintaining relationships, highly agreeable people tend to give greater weight to information that comes from familiar or socially endorsed sources. They do so even when this information has not been critically evaluated.

Personality and persuasive influence

In the online wellness ecosystem, high levels of openness and agreeableness can make people susceptible to persuasion.

Influencers have a powerful advantage. They can position themselves as both novel and trustworthy. Open people can be seduced by original, eye-catching content, and agreeable people by community-focused narratives.

Influencers cultivate one-sided “parasocial” relationships in which followers feel an intimate connection with someone they have never met. These close bonds, coupled with the open personality’s attraction to unconventional ideas, can draw people into extreme, untested and unsafe health practices.

Openness to new experiences and being interpersonally agreeable are usually seen as strengths. However, in the buzzing, emotionally charged environment of online wellness culture they can become vulnerabilities.

From ice baths to anti-vax

Not all wellness practices peddled by online influencers are harmful. But some relatively innocuous trends can be a gateway to more extreme practices.

Someone might start taking ice baths for a mood boost, move on to restrictive raw diets for “clean eating”, and eventually arrive at anti-vaccine beliefs grounded in deep mistrust of health authorities.

Gateway effects can occur if a trusted influencer makes increasingly extreme recommendations. If the influencer pivots to more dangerous ideas, many followers will follow.

Over time, exposure to fringe wellness narratives can erode trust in mainstream institutions. What began as curiosity and warmth may, through repeated exposure to extreme content, shift towards cynicism and institutional mistrust.

How can public health messages adapt?

Public health campaigns sometimes assume people reject mainstream health advice because they lack knowledge or have low “health literacy”.

But if personality traits influence receptiveness to alternative wellness claims, simply giving people more information may not produce positive change.

Public health campaigns should consider personality traits for more effective preventive interventions. They can target people high in openness, for example, by presenting health science as dynamic and evolving, not just a set of rules and prescriptions. They can reach highly agreeable people with health messages that emphasise empathy and community.

To be effective for all of us, public health communication needs to be as engaging as the messages emanating from influencers. It must use eye-catching visuals, personal stories, and moral hooks while remaining truthful.

People who engage in extreme or unusual wellness practices aren’t merely misinformed. Often, they’re driven by the same urge to explore, connect, and live well as everyone else. The challenge we face is to steer that drive toward health, not harm.

Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney and Nick Haslam, Professor of Psychology, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Diet, Drugs, and Dopamine – by Dr. David Kessler

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Dr. Kessler takes the position that [junk] food addiction is not only real, but also overwhelmingly prevalent in industrialized nations in general, and the US in particular—the latter getting hit extra hard in large part because of much more relaxed regulations when it comes to both food production, and advertising, compared to most industrialized nations. Which results, he explains, in a man-made epidemic of addiction. Just like nicotine (an example he discusses at length, as a parallel), the hooking of the people did not occur by accident; it was calculated and built around the idea of leveraging addiction to secure more sales.

    What then, of personal responsibility? He argues that it is not the individual who is at fault at all. Speaking for himself and his lifelong battle with weight, he says:

    ❝I have two advanced degrees. I attended my third year of medical school and my third year of law school at the same time. I have been dean of two medical schools. I’ve run the FDA. No one would ever accuse me of not having discipline and determination. and yet, throughout my life, I have perpetually taken the path back to [overeating], despite how miserable I know I will be when I get there.❞

    As such, he does indeed make the case that it’s not an matter of willpower or intelligence or anything like that, and is much more a factor of biology—the details of which discusses in great depth over many chapters.

    The style is very engaging pop-science, easy to read and yet still with 10 pages of bibliography. He tells a lot of stories, and name-drops more often than Tahani Al-Jamil, often at a rate of 3–4 doctors per page, but unlike a lot of authors who seem keen to glamorize their connections, this one (not too surprising, given his own background) treats them for what they are in this context: resources to refer to.

    To this end, he even extensively quotes critics of his ideas, even in cases where he does not have an adequate response, and he seems quite self-aware of this, in the sense of: he does not require the ego-prop of always being right or always having all the answers, and is genuinely pleased that the topic is being engaged with in earnest, and he simply hopes that between them they can find the best way forwards.

    As for solutions? He considers it a matter of four main pillars: diet, exercise, psychology, and medicine.

    In the latter category, he hails GLP-1 receptor agonists as wonderdrugs, while still noting their downsides, and also recommends that, in order to be beneficial in the broadest scope, they need to be used in conjunction with the other things, such that one can take advantage of the cravings-lowering effect of the drugs, in order to change one’s habits in life.

    Bottom line: if you’re looking for a quick fix, a “three-week program” or such, this isn’t it. If, however, you’d like to better understand the physiology of food cravings, how this situation was largely engineered by food giants and how to fight back, then this is an excellent book.

    Click here to check out Diet, Drugs, & Dopamine, and learn all about it!

    Share This Post

  • Is black mould really as bad for us as we think? A toxicologist explains

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Mould in houses is unsightly and may cause unpleasant odours. More important though, mould has been linked to a range of health effects – especially triggering asthma.

    However, is mould exposure linked to a serious lung disease in children, unrelated to asthma? As we’ll see, this link may not be real, or if it is, it’s so rare to not be a meaningful risk. Yet we still hear mould in damp homes described as “toxic”.

    Indeed, mouldy homes can harm people’s health, but not necessarily how you might think.

    Peeradontax/Shutterstock

    What is mould?

    Mould is the general term for a variety of fungi. The mould that people have focused on in damp homes is “black mould”. This forms unsightly black patches on walls and other parts of damp-affected buildings.

    Black mould is not a single fungus. But when people talk about black mould, they generally mean the fungus Stachybotrys chartarum or S. chartarum for short. It’s one of experts’ top ten feared fungi.

    The focus on this species comes from a report in the 1990s on cases of haemorrhagic lung disease in a number of infants. This is a rare disease where blood leaks into the lungs, and can be fatal. The report suggested chemicals known as mycotoxins associated with this species of fungus were responsible for the outbreak.

    What are mycotoxins?

    A variety of fungi produce mycotoxins to defend themselves, among other reasons.

    Hundreds of different chemicals are listed as myocytoxins. These include ones in poisonous mushrooms, and ones associated with the soil fungi Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus.

    The fungus typically associated with black mould S. chartarum can produce several mycotoxins. These include roridin, which inhibits protein synthesis in humans and animals, and satratoxins, which have numerous toxic effects including bleeding in the lungs.

    While the satratoxins, in particular, were mentioned in the report from the 90s in children, there are some problems when we look at the evidence.

    The amount of mycotoxins S. chartarum makes can vary considerably. Even if significant amounts of mycotoxin are present, getting them into the body in the required amount to cause damage is another thing.

    Inhaling spores in contaminated (mouldy) homes is the most probable way mycotoxins enter the body. For instance, we know mycotoxins can be found in S. chartarum spores. We also know direct injection of high concentrations of mycotoxin-bearing spores directly in the noses of mice can cause some lung bleeding.

    Stachybotrys chartarum mould
    Stachybotrys chartarum mycotoxins have been blamed for lung issues after exposure to black mould. Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock

    But just because inhaling spores is the probable route of contamination doesn’t mean this is very likely.

    That’s because S. chartarum doesn’t release a lot of spores. Its spores are typically embedded in a slimy mass and it rarely produces the spore densities needed to replicate the animal studies.

    The original reports suggesting the US infants who were diagnosed with haemorrhagic lung disease were exposed to toxic levels of mycotoxins were also flawed.

    Among other issues, the concentrations of mould spores was calculated incorrectly. Subsequent correction for these issues resulted in the association between S. chartarum and this disease cluster basically disappearing.

    The American Academy of Asthma Allergy and Immunology states while there is a clear, well-established relationship between damp indoor spaces and detrimental health effects, there is no good evidence black mould mycotoxins are involved.

    But mould can cause allergies

    Moulds can affect human health in ways unrelated to mycotoxins, typically through allergic reactions. Moulds including black moulds can trigger or worsen asthma attacks in people with mould allergies.

    Some rarer but severe reactions can include allergic fungal sinusitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis and rarer still, hypersensitivity pneumonitis.

    These can typically be controlled by removing the mould (or removing the person from the source of mould).

    People with impaired immune systems (such as people taking immune-suppressant medications) may also be prone to mould infections.

    In a nutshell

    There is sufficient evidence that household mould is associated with respiratory issues attributable to their allergic effects.

    However, there is no strong evidence mycotoxins from household mould – and in particular black mould – are associated with substantial health issues.

    Ian Musgrave, Senior lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • Hope For Cancer – by Dr. Antonio Jimenez

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    We’ll not keep the 7 principles a mystery; they are:

    1. Non-toxic cancer therapies
    2. Immunomodulation
    3. Full spectrum nutrition
    4. Detoxification
    5. Oxygenation
    6. Restore the microbiome
    7. Spiritual and emotional healing

    When it comes to how these are covered in the book, they are often spread over chapters, often with testimonials, and you may notice that some chapters are not like others, for example:

    • The chapter “Tools that empower your immune system” is followed by a chapter on “Nutrition based on the Garden of Eden
    • The chapter “Lifestyle tools for healing” is followed by a chapter on “Jesus, the Resurrection, the Life, and the Great Physician

    …and so forth.

    Indeed, the first chapter alone, “Healing the whole person”, has many more Bible references than it has scientific references. So, all this to say, there is a lot of science in here, but there is also a remarkable amount of Christianity considering the lack of mentioning such (or even so much as hinting at it) in the title or subtitle or even anywhere in the current blurb on Amazon.

    As such, if you are a Christian, you’ll probably get a lot more out of this book than otherwise. For non-Christians, the book could have been half the size without losing any scientifically relevant content.

    As for the science side of things, most of the lifestyle advice is good, integrative cancer therapies are great, the detoxification angle is perhaps a little overemphasized, and the oxygenation chapter is on shaky ground.

    Bottom line: this book wasn’t quite what we signed up for. Now, we have nothing against books about Christianity (this reviewer can recommend some excellent ones), but when we pick up a book about cancer, we ideally want to hear more from doctors and less from apostles. Nevertheless! If you are a Christian, you might find more value in this one.

    Click here to check out Hope For Cancer, and do not, of course, hope for cancer!

    Share This Post

  • Dr. Suzanne Steinbaum’s Heart Book – by Dr. Suzanne Steinbaum

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The book is divided into three parts:

    1. What you should know
    2. What you should do
    3. All about you

    This is a very useful format, since it lays out all the foundational knowledge, before offering practical advice and “how to” explanations, before finally wrapping up with personalizing things.

    The latter is important, because while our basic risk factors can be assembled in a few lines of data (age, sex, race, genes, diet, exercise habits, etc) there’s a lot more to us than that, and oftentimes the data that doesn’t make the cut, makes the difference. Hormones on high on this list; we can say that a person is a 65-year-old woman and make a guess, but that’s all it is: a guess. Very few of us are the “average person” that statistical models represent accurately. And nor are social and psychological factors irrelevant; in fact often they are deciding factors!

    So, it’s important to be able to look at ourselves as the whole persons we are, or else we’ll get a heart-healthy protocol that works on paper but actually falls flat in application, because the mathematical model didn’t take into account that lately we have been very stressed about such-and-such a thing, and deeply anxious about so-and-so, and a hopefully short-term respiratory infection has reduced blood oxygen levels, and all these kinds of things need to be taken into account too, for an overall plan to work.

    The greatest strength of this book is that it attends to that.

    The style of the book is a little like a long sales pitch (when all that’s being sold, by the way, is the ideas the book is offering; she wants you to take her advice with enthusiasm), but there’s plenty of very good information all the way through, making it quite worth the read.

    Bottom line: if you’re a woman and/or love at least one woman, then you can benefit from this important book for understanding heart health that’s not the default.

    Click here to check out Dr. Suzanne Steinbaum’s Heart Book, and enjoy a heart-healthy life!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Cucumber vs Eggplant – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing cucumber to eggplant, we picked the eggplant.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, eggplant has 6x the fiber, as well as slightly more carbs and protein, making it the clear winner in this category.

    In the category of vitamins, cucumber has more of vitamins A, C, and K, while eggplant has more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, E, and choline; an easy win for eggplant here.

    When it comes to minerals, cucumber has more calcium, iron, and zinc, while eggplant has more copper, magnesium, manganese, and potassium; a marginal win for eggplant this time.

    Looking at phytochemicals, the two vegetables are about equal here, with nothing especially noteworthy in their polyphenol profiles to set one ahead of the other. So, a tie.

    Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for eggplant, but by all means enjoy either or both, as diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Some Surprising Truths About Hunger And Satiety ← our main feature in which we examine the science of volumetrics, including a study that shows how water incorporated into a food (but not served with a food) decreases caloric intake. So, cucumbers are great for this.

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • How weight bias in health care can harm patients with obesity: Research

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Patients who weigh more than what medical authorities generally consider healthy often avoid seeing doctors for fear of being judged, insulted or misdiagnosed, decades of research find. Meanwhile, academic studies consistently show many health care professionals discriminate against heavier patients and that weight bias can drive people with obesity to gain weight.

    Weight bias refers to negative attitudes, stereotypes and discrimination aimed at individuals with excess body fat. When scholars reviewed 41 studies about weight bias in health care, published from 1989 to 2021, they found it comes in many forms: contemptuous language, inappropriate gestures, expressing a preference for thinner patients, avoiding physical touch and eye contact, and attributing all of a person’s health issues to their weight.

    “Weight bias has been reported in physicians, nurses, dietitians, physiotherapists, and psychologists, as well as nutritionists and exercise professionals, and it is as pervasive among medical professionals as it is within the general population,” write the authors of the research review, published in 2021 in the journal Obesity.

    That’s a problem considering an estimated 4 out of 10 U.S. adults aged 20 years and older have obesity, a complex and often misunderstood illness that the American Medical Association voted in 2013 to recognize as a disease. By 2030, half of U.S. adults will have obesity, researchers project in a 2020 paper in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

    Worldwide, the obesity rate among adults aged 18 and older was 13% in 2016, according to the World Health Organization. If current trends continue, the World Obesity Federation projects that, by 2035, 51% of the global population will be living with overweight or obesity.

    The harms of weight bias

    Weight stigma — the societal devaluation of people perceived to be carrying excess weight — drives weight bias. It’s so physically and emotionally damaging that a panel of 36 international experts issued a consensus statement in 2020 to raise awareness about and condemn it. Dozens of medical and academic organizations, including 15 scholarly journals, endorsed the document, published in Nature Medicine.

    The release of a consensus statement is a significant event in research, considering it represents the collective position that experts in a particular field have taken on an issue, based on an analysis of all the available evidence.

    Research to date indicates heavier individuals who experience weight bias and stigma often:

    • Avoid doctors and other health care professionals, skipping routine screenings as well as needed treatments.
    • Change doctors frequently.
    • Are at a higher risk for depression, anxiety, mood disorders and other mental health problems.
    • Avoid or put off exercise.
    • Consume more food and calories.
    • Gain weight.
    • Have disrupted sleep.

    The consensus statement notes that educating health care providers, journalists, policymakers and others about obesity is key to changing the narrative around the disease.

    “Weight stigma is reinforced by misconceived ideas about body-weight regulation and lack of awareness of current scientific evidence,” write the experts, led by Francesco Rubino, the chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at Kings College London.

    “Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, the prevailing view in society is that obesity is a choice that can be reversed by voluntary decisions to eat less and exercise more. These assumptions mislead public health policies, confuse messages in popular media, undermine access to evidence-based treatments, and compromise advances in research.”

    Weight bias and stigma appear to stimulate the secretion of the stress hormone cortisol and promote weight gain, researchers write in a 2016 paper published in Obesity.

    A. Janet Tomiyama, a psychology professor at UCLA who directs the university’s Dieting, Stress, and Health research lab, describes weight stigma as “a ‘vicious cycle’ — a positive feedback loop wherein weight stigma begets weight gain.”

    “This happens through increased eating behavior and increased cortisol secretion governed by behavioral, emotional, and physiological mechanisms, which are theorized to ultimately result in weight gain and difficulty of weight loss,” Tomiyama writes in her 2014 paper, “Weight Stigma is Stressful. A Review of Evidence for the Cyclic Obesity/Weight-Based Stigma Model.”

    The consensus statement spotlights 13 recommendations for eliminating weight bias and stigma, some of which are specifically aimed at health care providers, the media, researchers or policymakers. One of the recommendations for the health care community: “[Health care providers] specialized in treating obesity should provide evidence of stigma-free practice skills. Professional bodies should encourage, facilitate, and develop methods to certify knowledge of stigma and its effects, along with stigma-free skills and practices.”

    The one recommendation for the media: “We call on the media to produce fair, accurate, and non-stigmatizing portrayals of obesity. A commitment from the media is needed to shift the narrative around obesity.”

    Why obesity is a complicated disease

    It’s important to point out that having excess body fat does not, by itself, mean an individual is unhealthy, researchers explain in a 2017 article in The Conversation, which publishes research-based news articles and essays. But it is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, including stroke, as well as diabetes, some types of cancer, and musculoskeletal disorders such as osteoarthritis.

    Doctors often look at patients’ body mass index — a number that represents their weight in relation to their height — to gauge the amount of fat on their bodies. A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is ideal, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A BMI of 25.0 to 29.9, indicates excess body fat, or “overweight,” while a BMI of 30 and above indicates obesity.

    In June, the American Medical Association announced a new policy clarifying how BMI can be used to diagnose obesity. Because it’s an imperfect measure for body fat, the organization suggests BMI be used in conjunction with other measures such as a patient’s waist circumference and skin fold thickness.

    Two specialists who have been working for years to dispel myths and misconceptions about obesity are Fatima Cody Stanford, an obesity physician and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, and Rebecca Puhl, the deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut.

    Cody Stanford has called obesity “a brain disease” because the brain tells the body how much to eat and what to do with the food consumed. One pathway in the brain directs the body to eat less and store less fat, she explains in a February 2023 podcast produced by the American Medical Association.

    “For people that signal really great down this pathway, they tend to be very lean, not struggle with their weight in the same way that people that have excess weight do,” she says during the podcast, adding that people with obesity receive signals from an alternate pathway that “tells us to eat more and store more.”

    Academic studies demonstrate that a wide variety of factors can affect weight regulation, including sleep quality and duration, gut health, genetics, medication, access to healthy foods and even early life experiences.

    For example, a 2020 paper in the journal JAMA Network Open suggests female infants born by cesarean delivery have a higher risk of obesity during adulthood than female infants born by vaginal delivery. The study of 33,226 U.S. women born between 1946 and 1964 found that a cesarean delivery is associated with an 11% higher risk of developing obesity and a 46% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

    Scholars have also found that traumatic childhood experiences such as abuse and neglect are linked to adult obesity, according to a research review published in 2020.

    Income inequality seems to play a role as well. When researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health studied the link between income inequality and obesity for a sample of 36,665 U.S. adults, they discovered women with lower incomes are more likely to have obesity than women with higher incomes.

    Their analysis indicates the opposite is true for men, whose odds of obesity rise with their income, the researchers write in a 2021 paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

    Weight bias among doctor trainees

    While scholars have learned a lot about obesity and weight bias in recent decades, the information might not be reaching people training to become doctors. A study published in October finds that some resident physicians believe obesity to be the result of poor choices and weak willpower.

    Researchers asked 3,267 resident physicians who graduated from a total of 49 U.S. medical schools a series of questions to gauge their knowledge of obesity and attitudes toward heavier patients. What they learned: Nearly 40% of resident physicians agreed with the statement, “Fat people tend to be fat pretty much through their own fault.” Almost half agreed with the statement, “Some people are fat because they have no willpower.”

    The study also reveals that about one-third of participants said they “feel more irritated when treating an obese patient than a non-obese patient.”

    “Notably, more than a quarter of residents expressed slight-to-strong agreement with the item ‘I dislike treating obese patients,’” the researchers write.

    Another takeaway from the paper: Resident physicians specializing in orthopedic surgery, anesthesiology and urology expressed the highest levels of dislike of heavier patients. Of the 16 medical specialties represented, residents in family medicine, psychiatry and pediatrics reported the lowest levels of dislike.

    Kimberly Gudzune, medical director of the American Board of Obesity Medicine, asserts that doctors and medical students need to be educated about obesity. The topic “is grossly neglected” in medical schools and medical training programs worldwide, research has found.

    Many physicians don’t understand obesity, Gudzune explains in a July 2023 interview on the internal medicine podcast “The Curbsiders.”

    “I think back to when I was a medical student, when I was a resident, I really didn’t learn much about obesity and how to treat it, yet it’s a problem that affects the majority of our patients,” she tells podcast listeners. “I think there’s a lot of evidence out there showing that primary care physicians don’t really know where to start.”

    In 2011, the American Board of Obesity Medicine established a program through which doctors could become certified in obesity medicine. Since then, a total of 6,729 U.S. doctors have earned certification, the vast majority of whom specialize in family and internal medicine.

    What health care providers think

    The experts who created the consensus statement on weight bias and stigma noted health care providers’ shortcomings in the document. They write that the common themes they discovered in the research include “contemptuous, patronizing, and disrespectful treatment” of patients, a lack of training, poor communication and assumptions about weight gain.

    Puhl, the deputy director of the Rudd Center at the University of Connecticut, is a pioneer in weight bias research and one of the experts who wrote the consensus statement. During an episode of “The Leading Voices in Food,” a podcast created by Duke University’s World Food Policy Center, she shares details about what she has learned over the years.

    “[Health care providers’] views that patients with obesity are lazy or lacking control, are to blame for their weight or noncompliant with treatment,” she says during the interview. “We know, for example, that some physicians spend less time in their appointments with patients [who] have a larger body size. They give them less education about health. They’re more reluctant to perform certain screenings. They talk about treating patients with obesity as being a greater waste of their time than providing care to thinner patients. And we know that patients seem to be aware of these biases from providers and that can really contribute to patients avoiding health care because they just don’t want to repeat those negative experiences of bias.”

    To set the record straight, the experts who wrote the the consensus statement listed the following five common assumptions as being “at odds with a definitive body of biological and clinical evidence.”

    1. Body weight = calories in – calories out.

    This equation oversimplifies the relationship between body weight and energy consumed and used, the experts write. “Both variables of the equation depend on factors additional to just eating and exercising. For instance, energy intake depends on the amount of food consumed, but also on the amount of food-derived energy absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract, which in turn is influenced by multiple factors, such as digestive enzymes, bile acids, microbiota, gut hormones, and neural signals, none of which are under voluntary control.”

    2. Obesity is primarily caused by voluntary overeating and a sedentary lifestyle.

    According to the experts, overeating and forgoing exercise might be symptoms of obesity rather than the root causes. There are many possible causes and contributors “including geneticand epigenetic factors, foodborne factors, sleep deprivation and circadian dysrhythmia, psychological stress, endocrine disruptors, medications, and intrauterine and intergenerational effects. These factors do not require overeating or physical inactivity to explain excess weight.” they write.

    3. Obesity is a lifestyle choice.

    “People with obesity typically recognize obesity as a serious health problem, rather than a conscious choice,” the experts write. “Given the negative effects of obesity on quality of life, the well-known risks of serious complications and reduced life expectancy associated with it, it is a misconception to define obesity as a choice.”

    4. Obesity is a condition, not a disease.

    The criteria generally used to determine disease status “are clearly fulfilled in many individuals with obesity as commonly defined, albeit not all,” the experts explain. “These criteria include specific signs or symptoms (such as increased adiposity), reduced quality of life, and/or increased risk of further illness, complications, and deviation from normal physiology — or well-characterized pathophysiology (for example, inflammation, insulin resistance, and alterations of hormonal signals regulating satiety and appetite).”

    5. Severe obesity is usually reversible by voluntarily eating less and exercising more.

    “A large body of clinical evidence has shown that voluntary attempts to eat less and exercise more render only modest effects on body weight in most individuals with severe obesity,” the experts write. “When fat mass decreases, the body responds with reduced resting energy expenditure and changes in signals that increase hunger and reduce satiety (for example, leptin, ghrelin). These compensatory metabolic and biologic adaptations promote weight regain and persist for as long as persons are in the reduced-energy state, even if they gain some weight back.”

    Health care facility improvements

    The expert panel also determined that many health care facilities aren’t equipped to treat people with obesity. Examination gowns, blood pressure cuffs, chairs and examination tables often are too small, patients have reported.

    When researchers from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Mayo Clinic studied the quality of care that patients with obesity receive, they learned that a clinic’s physical environment can have a big effect on a patient’s experience.

    They write in a 2015 study published in Obesity Reviews: “Waiting room chairs with armrests can be uncomfortable or too small. Equipment such as scales, blood pressure cuffs, examination gowns and pelvic examination instruments are often designed for use with smaller patients. When larger alternatives are not available, or are stored in a place that suggests infrequent use, it can signal to patients that their size is unusual and that they do not belong. These experiences, which are not delivered with malicious intent, can be humiliating.”

    When medical equipment is the wrong size, it may not work correctly. For instance, chances are high that a blood pressure reading will be inaccurate if a health care professional uses a blood pressure cuff that’s too small on a patient with obesity, a 2022 paper finds.

    To create a comfortable environment for patients with high body weights, the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity recommends that health care facilities provide, among other things, extra-large exam gowns, chairs that can support more than 300 pounds and do not have arms, and wide exam tables that are bolted to the floor so they don’t move.

    The consensus statement also recommends improvements to health care facilities.

    “Given the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases,” the 36 international experts write, “appropriate infrastructure for the care and management of people with obesity, including severe obesity, must be standard requirement for accreditation of medical facilities and hospitals.”

    Source list:

    Weight Bias Among Health Care Professionals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Blake J. Lawrence; et al. Obesity, November 2021.

    Joint International Consensus Statement for Ending Stigma of Obesity
    Francesco Rubino, et al. Nature Medicine, March 2020.

    Perceived Weight Discrimination and Chronic Biochemical Stress: A Population-Based Study Using Cortisol in Scalp Hair
    Sarah E. Jackson, Clemens Kirschbaum and Andrew Steptoe. Obesity, December 2016.

    Weight Stigma is Stressful. A Review of Evidence for the Cyclic Obesity/Weight-Based Stigma Model
    A. Janet Tomiyama. Appetite, November 2014.

    Association of Birth by Cesarean Delivery with Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Among Adult Women
    Jorge E. Chavarro. JAMA Network Open, April 2020.

    Adverse Childhood Experiences and Adult Obesity: A Systematic Review of Plausible Mechanisms and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Sectional Studies
    David A. Wiss and Timothy D. Brewerton. Physiology & Behavior, September 2020.

    Income Inequality and Obesity among U.S. Adults 1999–2016: Does Sex Matter?
    Hossein Zare, Danielle D. Gaskin and Roland J. Thorpe Jr. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 2021.

    Comparisons of Explicit Weight Bias Across Common Clinical Specialties of U.S. Resident Physicians
    Samantha R. Philip, Sherecce A. Fields, Michelle Van Ryn and Sean M. Phelan. Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2023.

    Impact of Weight Bias and Stigma on Quality of Care and Outcomes for Patients with Obesity
    S.M. Phelan; et al. Obesity Reviews, April 2015.

    One Size Does Not Fit All: Impact of Using A Regular Cuff For All Blood Pressure Measurements
    Tammy. M. Brady; et al. Circulation, April 2022.

    This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: