Opinion | TikTok’s anti-diet dietitians, who can you trust?

As a UCLA professor and researcher who has contributed to the science behind the anti-diet movement, I feel the need to weigh in. My research finds 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 for weight loss” with “eat whatever you want.”

These are not the same, but I don’t think the solution is to cycle right back around to 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 the focus should actually be on health, not as measured by Body Mass Index but on true health markers such as blood pressure and triglycerides. Health professionals can and should shift the focus to healthy behaviors such as exercise, eating more fruits and veggies, reducing stress, and getting great sleep. When you focus on weight, then fat shaming ensues. When you focus either on downstream health or upstream behaviors, health can improve no matter the number on the scale.

A. Janet Tomiyama, Los Angeles

The writer is director of the Dieting, Stress, and Health Laboratory at University of California at Los Angeles.

I applaud The Post and the Examination for their article bringing attention to influencer dietitians who are misleading the public with messaging suggesting that all foods are equal and that attempting to address excess body weight is wrongheaded. I also agree with the article’s criticism of alliances between dietitians and the food industry. Dietitians’ code of ethics makes clear that nutrition and dietetics practitioners should “refrain from accepting gifts or services which potentially influence or which may give the appearance of influencing professional judgment.” It sickens me that many influencer dietitians are violating their own code of ethics, and I believe these violations should 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 over 112,000 registered dietitians in the United States. It’s worth acknowledging that the majority of dietitians work in clinical settings and are quite conscientious.

Secondly, using one individual’s anecdotal experience, that of Jaye Rochon, to suggest that an anti-dieting approach is always wrong does not adequately address the complexities of and nuances behind why some dietitians seek to help their clients get off the yo-yo dieting treadmill, to mix metaphors. I have counseled thousands of clients about weight management in the past 27 years, and it is clear to me that there is no single efficacious approach to weight management. Some clients do need to abandon “dieting,” but that messaging should be individualized and presented in a measured way.

Mark Glen, St. Joseph, Minn.

The writer is a visiting professor in the nutrition department at the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University.

There are a lot of things that made me uncomfortable about The Post’s April 5 article on dietitians and the food industry. Let’s start with the headline. Calling processed food companies “Big Food” seems to rhyme uncomfortably with “Big Pharma.” People who cannot afford to buy organic bok choy and hand-churned chèvre from a goat with a first, middle and last name don’t need to be made to feel bad about it. And there’s a difference between dietitians including convenient processed foods as part of someone’s eating plan and the unscrupulous pharmaceutical salespeople who fueled the opioid free for all.

Then there’s the way the article paints dietitians with a broad brush. Leading with an image of dietitians “in line to climb a giant yellow General Mills cereal box and slide into a bowl of plushie Cheerios” seems to undermine the profession, encourage readers to doubt sound food advice and to confirm their worst fears.

That worst fear? It’s fatness. Being fat was scary to me for many years of my life. I would have loved this article during the time when I ate 1,000 calories daily and exercised excessively while gobbling up Michael Pollan books. But luckily, I am not that sad girl anymore. I am 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 over the carpet or you could spend decades of your life destroying your mental and physical health trying to attain an “ideal” body weight. You could miss out on Costco samples because you do not want to be the fat kid eating in public. You could skip birthdays because you do not know how to tell your friends you cannot eat the cake. You could develop any of several serious medical issues from disordered eating.

I promised myself that after losing 15 years to hating myself, dieting would not get any more of my time. Fat people do not owe anyone health. They do not owe anyone a body that someone else deems acceptable. And they sure do not owe you any more time missing out on the beautiful moments in life because they can only worry about being thin.

Hannah Landers Organ, Samarkand, Uzbekistan

The Post’s front-page article about influencer dietitians who have teamed up with food companies made my blood boil. What General Mills — and the unethical dietitians supporting their disinformation campaign — are doing is scurrilous. To tell consumers that they should eat processed food in excess is more than a disservice. It’s dangerous.

Consider that diabetes and heart disease are two of the leading causes of death in the developing country of Ecuador. The Ministry of Health there responded with a “red light” food labeling system to tell consumers which foods are highest in sugar, fats or salt. When I visit and shop there, I find the Ecuadorian food labeling system very helpful. 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 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and the Food and Drug Administration will prevail and help us navigate beyond Big Food’s deceptive practices.

Caren Madsen, Silver Spring

Send Mr. Will to the principal’s office!

Regarding George F. Will’s April 4 op-ed “School choice thrives in Arizona. Let’s hope it lasts.”:

As an unabashed liberal, I have, nevertheless, usually found George F. Will 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 charges against public education. I won’t argue his avocation of school choice. What I will fight strongly is his contention that, during the pandemic, “Children consigned to ‘remote learning’ opened their laptops at home, and parents heard indoctrination served up as learning.”

This is an irresponsible statement to make 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 a senior honors class or purchasing “And Tango Makes Three” for my elementary school library, I have never tried to “indoctrinate” any student or group of students. Nor have I ever witnessed a colleague doing so.

Beyond making sure that every student, at whatever grade level, has a solid foundation in the basics, the goal of teaching is not to tell young people what to think. The goal of public education is to teach young people how to think for themselves. And that often means presenting ideas from across a wide spectrum. In his column, Mr. Will never tells us what ideas he feels these children with their open laptops were being force-fed. What nefarious 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 is the kind of rhetoric that gives teachers-in-training second thoughts about pursuing a career in education. His decision to quote an unnamed music educator — speaking about music conservatories rather than public schools — who says “Mediocrity is like carbon monoxide: You can’t see it or smell it, but one day, you’re 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 Montgomery County elementary school substitute teacher. I am confused by George F. Will’s reference to the mystique of teachers in his recent school choice column. What have I missed? In my 35 years of substituting in grades K-5, I’ve felt, at times, like a sympathizer, empathizer, cheerleader, nurturer, health aide, and oh, yes, importantly, an educator. Never have I felt powerful or mysterious. I think that mystique is a myth.