Content uploaded by Lindo Bacon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lindo Bacon on Aug 13, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH
Current Research
Size Acceptance and Intuitive Eating Improve
Health for Obese, Female Chronic Dieters
LINDA BACON, PhD; JUDITH S. STERN, ScD; MARTA D. VAN LOAN, PhD; NANCY L. KEIM, PhD
ABSTRACT
Objective Examine a model that encourages health at ev-
ery size as opposed to weight loss. The health at every
size concept supports homeostatic regulation and eating
intuitively (ie, in response to internal cues of hunger,
satiety, and appetite).
Design Six-month, randomized clinical trial; 2-year follow-
up.
Subjects White, obese, female chronic dieters, aged 30 to
45 years (N⫽78).
Setting Free-living, general community.
Interventions Six months of weekly group intervention
(health at every size program or diet program), followed
by 6 months of monthly aftercare group support.
Main outcome measures Anthropometry (weight, body mass
index), metabolic fitness (blood pressure, blood lipids), en-
ergy expenditure, eating behavior (restraint, eating disor-
der pathology), and psychology (self-esteem, depression,
body image). Attrition, attendance, and participant evalua-
tions of treatment helpfulness were also monitored.
Statistical analysis performed Analysis of variance.
Results Cognitive restraint decreased in the health at every
size group and increased in the diet group, indicating that
both groups implemented their programs. Attrition (6
months) was high in the diet group (41%), compared with
8% in the health at every size group. Fifty percent of both
groups returned for 2-year evaluation. Health at every size
group members maintained weight, improved in all out-
come variables, and sustained improvements. Diet group
participants lost weight and showed initial improvement in
many variables at 1 year; weight was regained and little
improvement was sustained.
Conclusions The health at every size approach enabled
participants to maintain long-term behavior change; the
diet approach did not. Encouraging size acceptance, re-
duction in dieting behavior, and heightened awareness
and response to body signals resulted in improved health
risk indicators for obese women.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:929-936.
Concern regarding obesity continues to mount among
government officials, health professionals, and the
general public. Obesity is associated with physical
health problems, and this fact is cited as the primary
reason for the public health recommendations encourag-
ing weight loss (1). That dieting and weight loss are
critical to improving one’s health is reinforced by a social
context that exerts enormous pressure on women to con-
form to a thin ideal. Public attention to weight and its
associated comorbidities continues to increase, and diet-
ing is now firmly ensconced in our cultural identity. The
majority of US women are now dieting: 57% stated in a
national telephone survey that they are currently engag-
ing in weight-control behaviors (2).
Despite heightened attentiveness to obesity and the in-
crease in dieting behavior (3), the incidence of obesity con-
tinues to rise (4). There are little data showing improved
long-term success for the majority of those engaged in
weight-loss behaviors (5). Some have challenged the ability
of diet programs to either achieve lasting weight loss or to
improve health, and question the ethics and value of en-
couraging dieting as an obesity intervention (5-9). Others
challenge the primacy of weight loss in addressing the as-
sociated health risks, regardless of method (10-12). They
suggest that while the epidemiologic research clearly indi-
cates an association between obesity and health risk, the
risks of obesity may be overstated, and the association
largely results from a sedentary lifestyle, poor nutrition,
weight cycling, and/or other lifestyle habits, as opposed to
solely reflecting adiposity itself.
Critics of the diet to improve health model suggest a
paradigm shift in treating weight-related concerns. They
recommend focusing on health behavior change as op-
posed to a primary focus on weight loss (6,13,14). Their
approach is supported by increasing evidence that dis-
eases associated with obesity can be reversed or mini-
mized through lifestyle change, even in the absence of
weight change, and that people can improve their health
while remaining obese (5,10,12,15).
L. Bacon is an associate nutritionist with the Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, University of California,
Davis, and a nutrition professor with the Biology De-
partment, City College of San Francisco, San Francisco,
CA. J. S. Stern is a distinguished professor with the De-
partment of Nutrition and the Division of Endocrinol-
ogy, Clinical Nutrition and Cardiovascular Medicine in
the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cali-
fornia, Davis. M. D. Van Loan is a research physiolo-
gist, and N. L. Keim is a research chemist with the US
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Ser-
vice, Western Human Nutrition Research Center, Davis,
CA.
Address correspondence to: Linda Bacon, PhD, Box
S-80, Biology Department, City College of San Fran-
cisco, 50 Phelan Ave, San Francisco, CA 94112. E-mail:
lbacon@ccsf.edu
Copyright © 2005 by the American Dietetic
Association.
0002-8223/05/10506-0001$30.00/0
doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2005.03.011
©2005 by the American Dietetic Association Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 929
An alternative obesity treatment model teaches people
to support homeostatic regulation and eating intuitively
(ie, in response to internal cues of hunger, satiety, and
appetite) instead of cognitively controlling food intake
through dieting (16). An essential component of some
intuitive eating programs is to encourage health at every
size (Figure 1) rather than weight loss as a necessary
precondition to improved health.
This study was undertaken to examine the effectiveness
of a health at every size approach in improving health. [In a
previous report (17), we referred to this as a nondiet inter-
vention. This has since been changed to “health at every
size” to reflect the changing terminology in the field.] Met-
abolic fitness (blood pressure and blood lipid levels), energy
expenditure, eating behavior (restraint and eating disorder
pathology), and psychology (self-esteem, depression, and
body image) were evaluated.
METHODS
Procedure
Applicants were recruited from the Davis, CA area, and
those meeting the following inclusion criteria were enrolled:
white; female; aged 30 to 45 years; body mass index (BMI)
ⱖ30; nonsmoker; not pregnant or lactating; Restraint Scale
(18) score ⬎15 (indicating a history of chronic dieting); and
no recent myocardial infarction, active neoplasms, type 1
diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or history of cardiovascular or
renal disease. The research protocol was approved by the
Institutional Review Board of the University of California,
Davis, and informed consent was obtained.
Enrolled participants (N⫽78) were divided into BMI
quartiles and high/low sets for dietary restraint (18),
degrees of flexible and rigid control of eating (19), age,
and self-reported activity level to ensure balance in the
treatment groups. Participants in these subgroups were
randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups.
Treatment Conditions
Two treatment conditions were investigated: a diet group
and a health at every size group. Both treatment groups
included 24 weekly sessions, each 90 minutes in length.
Following this, six monthly aftercare sessions were of-
fered, described as optional group support.
Diet Group
The focus of the diet group was similar to most behavior-
based weight-loss programs: eating behaviors and atti-
tudes, nutrition, social support, and exercise. Partici-
pants were taught to moderately restrict their energy and
fat intake, and to reinforce their diets by maintaining
food diaries and monitoring their weight. Exercise at an
intensity within the training heart range delineated in
the American College of Sports Medicine/Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention guidelines was encouraged.
Material was presented on topics including how to count
fat grams and exchanges, understanding food labels,
shopping for food, the benefits of exercise, and behavior
strategies for success. The program was taught by an
experienced registered dietitian and reinforced using the
LEARN Program for Weight Control manual (20).
Health at Every Size Group
There were five aspects to the health at every size treat-
ment program: body acceptance, eating behavior, nutrition,
activity, and social support. The initial focus was on enhanc-
ing body acceptance and self-acceptance, and participants
were supported in leading as full a life as possible, regard-
less of BMI. The goal was to first help participants disen-
tangle feelings of self-worth from their weight. The eating
behavior component supported participants in letting go of
restrictive eating behaviors and replacing them with inter-
nally regulated eating. Participants were educated in tech-
niques that allowed them to become more sensitized to
internal cues and to decrease their vulnerability to external
cues. The nutrition component educated participants about
standard nutrition information and the effects of food
choices on well-being, and supported them in tempering
their food choices with foods that honored good health (in
addition to their taste preferences). The activity component
helped participants identify and transform barriers to be-
coming active (eg, attitudes toward their bodies) and to find
activity habits that allowed them to enjoy their bodies. The
support group element was designed to help participants
see their common experiences in a culture that devalues
large women, and to gain support and learn strategies for
asserting themselves and effecting change. The program
was facilitated by a counselor who had conducted educa-
tional and psychotherapeutic workshops and groups and
had completed all of the coursework necessary to obtain a
doctorate in physiology with a focus on nutrition. It was
reinforced with a written manual that provided detailed
information and practical advice for implementing the
strategies (Bacon L. Hungry Nation: Why the All-American
Diet Will Never Satisfy Your Appetite, unpublished manu-
script).
Evaluation/Outcome Measures
Participants attended five testing sessions: baseline, 12
weeks (midtreatment), 26 weeks (posttreatment), 52
weeks (postaftercare), and 104 weeks (follow-up).
Anthropometric and Metabolic Fitness Measures
Participants reported to the laboratory in the morning,
having abstained from food, beverages, or vigorous activ-
●Accepting and respecting the diversity of body shapes and
sizes.
●Recognizing that health and well-being are multidimensional
and that they include physical, social, spiritual, occupational,
emotional, and intellectual aspects.
●Promoting eating in a manner which balances individual
nutritional needs, hunger, satiety, appetite, and pleasure.
●Promoting individually appropriate, enjoyable, life-enhancing
physical activity, rather than exercise that is focused on a goal
of weight loss.
●Promoting all aspects of health and well-being for people of all
sizes.
Figure 1. Basic guiding principles of the health at every size program.
As drafted by the Association for Size Diversity and Health (30).
930 June 2005 Volume 105 Number 6
ity for at least 12 hours. Weight was measured on an
electronic scale and height was measured using a wall-
mounted stadiometer. Blood pressure was assessed in
duplicate using the oscillometric technique. Fasting blood
samples were analyzed for blood lipids (total cholesterol,
low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol, and high-den-
sity lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol).
Energy Expenditure
The Stanford Seven-Day Physical Activity Recall (21) was
administered by interview to evaluate time spent in phys-
ical activity. A summary of energy expenditure was de-
rived by multiplying the average time of each activity by
the average intensity in metabolic equivalents. To mini-
mize interexaminer error and reduce variability, all in-
terviews were conducted by two examiners, who collabo-
rated to achieve consistent scoring.
Eating Behavior Measures
The Eating Inventory (22) consists of three subscales:
cognitive restraint, disinhibition, and hunger. The Eating
Disorder Inventory-2 (23) contains eight subscales: three
assess attitudes and behaviors toward weight, body
shape, and eating (drive for thinness, bulimia, and body
dissatisfaction); five measure more general psychological
characteristics that are clinically relevant to eating dis-
orders (ineffectiveness, perfectionism, interpersonal dis-
trust, interoceptive awareness, and maturity fears).
Psychological Measures
The Beck Depression Inventory (24) measures alterations
in mood and self-concept. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Mea-
sure (25) focuses on a self-evaluation of approval or disap-
proval. The Body Image Avoidance Questionnaire assesses
behaviors associated with negative body image (26).
Statistical Methods
Power analyses conducted on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Measure and Beck Depression Inventory from two health
at every size studies (27,28) determined that 20 partici-
pants per treatment group (n⫽40 total) were needed to
detect a difference of 0.75 standard deviations between
groups with 80% power. We attempted to recruit 80 par-
ticipants to allow for 50% attrition.
All analyses were conducted using Statistica (version
5.1, 1996, Statsoft, Inc, Tulsa, OK). Student’s ttest was
used to compare baseline characteristics between groups.
Repeated measures analysis of variance with a within-
subject factor of time (four levels: baseline, 26 weeks, 52
weeks, and 104 weeks) and a between-subject factor of
group (two levels: diet and health at every size) was run
to test differences in variables. Significance was set at
P⫽.05. A least significant difference post-hoc test was run
on any variable that indicated significant difference.
RESULTS
Unless otherwise specified, the reported results include
all participants for whom data were available at follow-
up: 19 participants from the health at every size group
and 19 participants from the diet group, or 50% of each
original sample. The 19 participants who returned for
follow-up testing in the health at every size group all
completed the 26-week program, whereas the 19 partici-
pants who returned for testing in the diet group included
Figure 2. Flow chart illustrating diet vs health at every size trial procedures.
a
Measurements taken at each time point.
b
HAES⫽health at every size.
June 2005 ●Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 931
16 program completers, and three participants who had
dropped out of the program (see Figure 2). The statistical
significance is not different when the dropouts are ex-
cluded from the analysis (although average values and
standard deviations are altered). Results of some aspects
were occasionally invalid or unavailable, resulting in
small variation in the number of participants reported on
for each measure.
Participants
Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the
reported subject population. There was no significant differ-
ence in age, initial weight, or BMI. The sociodemographic
profile of the completers and study dropouts was similar.
Attrition
Program attrition was previously reported (17). Almost
half of the diet group dropped out (42%) before the end of
treatment, whereas almost all (92%) of the health at
every size group completed the program.
Weight-Related Measures
As shown in Table 2, the health at every size group
members maintained weight and BMI throughout the
study and follow-up period. The diet group significantly
decreased their weight posttreatment (–5.2 kg⫾7.3 from
baseline), such that their weight loss was 5.2% of the
initial weight. They maintained the weight loss postafter-
care (–5.3 kg⫾6.7 from baseline), but regained some of
the weight such that weight was not significantly differ-
ent between baseline and follow-up (P⫽.068). There was
a parallel pattern to the change in BMI.
Blood Lipid Levels and Blood Pressure Measures
As indicated in Table 3, the health at every size group
members showed an initial increase in total cholesterol,
followed by a significant decrease from baseline at follow-
up. The diet group members showed no significant change
in total cholesterol at any time. Both groups showed a
significant decrease in LDL cholesterol levels postafter-
care: the health at every size group sustained this im-
provement at follow-up and LDL cholesterol levels in the
diet group were not significantly different between base-
line and follow-up. HDL cholesterol levels decreased in
both groups.
Both groups showed a significant lowering of systolic
blood pressure posttreatment and postaftercare. The
health at every size group sustained this improvement at
follow-up (P⫽.043), whereas the diet group did not quite
achieve significance in sustaining their improvement
(P⫽.051). There was no significant change in diastolic
blood pressure in either group at any time.
Activity Measures
The health at every size group demonstrated a significant
increase in daily energy expenditure posttreatment and
at follow-up. This was not significant at 52 weeks. There
was also an almost fourfold increase in moderate activity
at follow-up, which was the only of the individual activity
factors that was significantly different from baseline. The
sum of time spent in moderate, hard, and very hard
activity was also significantly increased for the health at
every size group at follow-up, such that it was slightly
more than double initial values. The diet group showed a
significant increase in some aspects of energy expendi-
ture postaftercare; however, none of these were sustained
at follow-up.
Eating Behavior Measures
Both groups started with relatively low cognitive re-
straint (restricted eating). This changed in opposite
directions in the two groups: it significantly decreased
in the health at every size group and significantly
increased in the diet group posttreatment and post-
aftercare (Table 4). The health at every size group
sustained this change at follow-up; the restraint scores
of the diet group were not significantly different be-
tween baseline and follow-up. Post-hoc analysis dem-
onstrated a significant between-group difference be-
tween baseline and follow-up. Both groups also
demonstrated significant improvement posttreatment
on the two other Eating Inventory subscales; that is,
hunger (susceptibility to hunger) and disinhibition
(loss of control that follows violation of self-imposed
rules). The health at every size group maintained these
improvements; the diet group maintained the improve-
ment in disinhibition, but not hunger.
Table 1. Characteristics of white, female chronic dieters partici-
pating in the health at every size program vs diet program weight-
loss trial
Characteristic
Health at
every size
group
(nⴝ19)
Diet group
(nⴝ19)
4mean⫾standard deviation 3
Age (y) 41.4⫾3.0 40.0⫾4.4
Weight (kg) 101.1⫾13.3 101.2⫾13.8
BMI
a
35.9⫾4.6 36.7⫾4.2
4™™™™™™™™ %™™™™™™™™3
Education
High school or less 5 16
Some college 42 21
College graduate 53 63
Employment status
Not employed 0 5
Employed 100 95
Job category
b
Professional 32 63
Clerical 26 21
Technical 11 11
Physical 0 0
Other 26 5
Relationship status
Married or domestic partnership 89.5 68
Single 10.5 32
a
BMI⫽body mass index; calculated as kg/m
2
.
b
Refers to those currently employed.
932 June 2005 Volume 105 Number 6
Table 2. Weight-related measures of white, female, chronic dieters by treatment condition over time
Measure
Mean ValuesⴞStandard Deviation
Baseline to Follow-up
Comparison (PValue)
Baseline
(Time 0)
(Diet
a
nⴝ19;
HAES
b
nⴝ19)
Posttreatment
(24 weeks)
(Diet nⴝ16;
HAES nⴝ19)
Postaftercare
(52 weeks)
(Diet nⴝ18;
HAES nⴝ18)
Follow-Up
(104 weeks)
Diet nⴝ19;
HAES nⴝ19)
Within-group
analysis
Between-group
analysis
Weight (kg)
Diet 101.2⫾13.8 96.8⫾14.2
d
95.4⫾11.9
d
98.0⫾14.3 .068 .116
HAES 101.1⫾13.3 101.8⫾13.4 101.4⫾13.6 101.5⫾16.3 .817
BMI
c
Diet 36.7⫾4.2 35.3⫾4.1
d
34.7⫾3.5
d
35.5⫾4.6 .068 .786
HAES 35.9⫾4.6 36.1⫾4.6 36.0⫾4.5 36.0⫾5.4 .868
Weight change
from baseline
Diet . . . ⫺5.2⫾7.3 ⫺5.3⫾6.7 ⫺3.2⫾7.2 .515 .116
HAES . . . 0.6⫾2.1
e
0.6⫾4.4
e
0.3⫾6.3 .841
a
Diet⫽diet group.
b
HAES⫽health at every size group.
c
BMI⫽body mass index; calculated as kg/m
2
.
d
Significant within-group difference from baseline.
e
Significant between-group difference.
Table 3. Blood lipid and blood pressure measures of white, female, chronic dieters by treatment condition over time
Measure
Mean ValuesⴞStandard Deviation
Baseline to Follow-up
Comparison (PValue)
Baseline
(Time 0)
Posttreatment
(24 weeks)
Postaftercare
(52 weeks)
Follow-up
(104 weeks)
Within-group
analysis
Between-group
analysis
Total cholesterol
(mmol/L)
a
Diet
b
(n⫽17) 4.50⫾0.74 4.96⫾0.94 4.20⫾0.79 4.24⫾0.72 .222 .364
HAES
c
(n⫽17) 4.61⫾0.80 5.35⫾0.77
d
4.32⫾0.75 4.07⫾0.77
d
.026
e
High-density lipoprotein
cholesterol (mmol/L)
Diet (n⫽17) 1.20⫾0.27 1.23⫾0.34 1.18⫾0.32 1.01⫾0.25
d
.009
e
.404
HAES (n⫽18) 1.29⫾0.29 1.23⫾0.21 1.14⫾0.23
d
1.03⫾0.16
d
.000
e
Low-density lipoprotein
cholesterol (mmol/L)
Diet (n⫽17) 2.99⫾0.95 3.01⫾0.79 2.31⫾0.48
d
2.63⫾0.57 .236 .572
HAES (n⫽18) 3.01⫾0.83 3.22⫾0.55 2.55⫾0.64
d
2.53⫾0.51
d
.038
e
Systolic blood pressure
(mm Hg)
Diet (n⫽18) 127.6⫾11.1 120.1⫾12.2
d
116.6⫾10.9
d
121.3⫾16.9 .051 .982
HAES (n⫽16) 125.8⫾14.2 119.9⫾12.9
d
119.9⫾15.4
d
119.5⫾11.7
d
.043
e
Diastolic blood
pressure (mm Hg)
Diet (n⫽18) 73.2⫾8.0 71.6⫾9.7 69.5⫾8.1 73.3⫾10.6 .938 .403
HAES (n⫽16) 70.3⫾9.0 67.8⫾7.1 69.7⫾8.4 68.3⫾8.0 .307
a
To convert mmol/L cholesterol to mg/dL, multiply mmol/L by 38.7. To convert mg/dL cholesterol to mmol/L, multiply mg/dL by 0.026. Cholesterol of 5.00 mmol/L⫽193 mg/dL.
b
Diet⫽diet group.
c
HAES⫽health at every size group.
d
Significant within-group difference from baseline.
e
Significant between-group difference.
June 2005 ●Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 933
The health at every size group demonstrated signifi-
cant improvement between baseline and follow-up in four
of the eight Eating Disorder Inventory-2 subscales: drive
for thinness, bulimia (binge eating behavior), body dis-
satisfaction, and interoceptive awareness (ability to rec-
ognize and respond to internal states such as emotions,
hunger, and satiety). The diet group showed an initial
improvement in three subscales (bulimia, body dissatis-
Table 4. Eating behavior/psychological measures of white, female, chronic dieters by treatment condition over time
Measure
Mean ValuesⴞStandard Deviation
Baseline to Follow-up
Comparison (PValue)
Baseline
(Time 0)
(Diet
a
nⴝ19;
HAES
b
nⴝ19)
Posttreatment
(6 months)
(Diet nⴝ16;
HAES nⴝ19)
Postaftercare
(12 months)
(Diet nⴝ18;
HAES nⴝ18)
Follow-up
(24 months)
(Diet nⴝ19;
HAES nⴝ19)
Within-group
analysis
Between-group
analysis
Eating inventory
Restraint
Diet 7.9⫾4.9 11.9⫾4.0
c
10.9⫾3.9
c
9.6⫾4.7 .076 .007
d
HAES 7.6⫾4.0 5.6⫾3.7
ce
5.2⫾3.1
ce
5.4⫾3.3
ce
.047
d
Hunger
Diet 8.1⫾3.5 5.6⫾4.2
c
6.3⫾3.6 7.1⫾3.9 .216 .268
HAES 8.4⫾2.9 4.4⫾3.1
c
5.2⫾3.3
c
6.1⫾4.0
c
.014
d
Disinhibition
Diet 12.2⫾2.1 8.4⫾2.8
c
9.7⫾3.0
c
10.3⫾3.1
c
.013
d
.070
HAES 12.1⫾2.5 7.6⫾4.2
c
7.2⫾4.3
c
8.2⫾3.9
c
.000
d
Eating disorders
inventory
f
Drive for
thinness
Diet 4.6⫾4.6 2.9⫾2.7 3.2⫾4.1 3.7⫾3.2 .354 .042
d
HAES 7.1⫾6.1 2.6⫾3.3
c
2.6⫾3.9
c
2.6⫾3.6
c
.004
d
Bulimia
Diet 4.6⫾4.0 1.3⫾2.1
c
1.1⫾1.4
c
2.7⫾3.7 .061 .464
HAES 3.8⫾3.4 1.1⫾1.5
c
0.8⫾1.9
c
1.1⫾1.4
c
.002
d
Body
dissatisfaction
Diet 17.5⫾5.9 15.1⫾6.2
c
17.0⫾7.7 16.8⫾8.0 .634 .023
d
HAES 17.9⫾4.5 12.8⫾7.5
c
13.6⫾8.3 11.9⫾6.6
ce
.002
d
Interoceptive
awareness
Diet 3.5⫾4.3 2.1⫾3.2 0.9⫾1.4
c
2.3⫾3.2 .123 .425
HAES 4.6⫾4.5 3.3⫾3.5 2.8⫾4.6 2.4⫾3.1
c
.038
d
Beck
Depression
Inventory
Diet 7.5⫾7.2 4.5⫾6.3
c
3.9⫾4.9
c
6.6⫾5.6 .134 .011
HAES 10.3⫾9.5 6.9⫾9.3
c
6.4⫾9.4
c
6.6⫾8.8
c
.001
d
Rosenberg Self-
Esteem
Inventory
Diet 31.2⫾5.5 32.5⫾5.5 32.2⫾4.8 29.1⫾5.8
c
.028
d
.000
d
HAES 30.9⫾3.8 32.1⫾5.8 32.4⫾5.6 33.7⫾4.5
ce
.001
d
Body image
avoidance
Diet 38.3⫾8.1 36.2⫾6.3 35.9⫾6.1 34.2⫾6.5 .059 .187
HAES 38.9⫾11.2 29.6⫾9.1
ce
28.4⫾9.9
ce
30.3⫾10.0
c
.003
d
a
Diet⫽diet group.
b
HAES⫽health at every size group.
c
Significant within-group difference from baseline.
d
Significant difference from baseline to follow-up.
e
Significant between-group difference.
f
Four Eating Disorder Index subscales did not change and are not reported (ineffectiveness, interpersonal distrust, maturity fears, perfectionism).
934 June 2005 Volume 105 Number 6
faction, and interoceptive awareness), although none of
these improvements were sustained at follow-up. (A de-
crease in interoceptive awareness score represents im-
provement, because elevated scores represent a defect in
perception.) Post-hoc analysis demonstrated a significant
between-group difference in the drive for thinness and
body dissatisfaction subscales between baseline and fol-
low-up.
Psychological Measures
Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in
depression posttreatment and postaftercare; the health
at every size group sustained this improvement at follow-
up, whereas the diet group did not (Table 4). The health
at every size group demonstrated a significant improve-
ment in self-esteem at follow-up; the diet group demon-
strated a significant worsening. Post-hoc analysis indi-
cated significant between-group difference. The health at
every size group also demonstrated significant improve-
ment in body image avoidance behavior (P⫽.003),
whereas improvement in the diet group was not statisti-
cally significant.
Participant Evaluations
There was a significant between-group difference in all
four participant evaluation questions (P⫽.000). In re-
sponse to the statement, “My involvement with the
Healthy Living Project (name of study) has helped me to
feel better about myself,” 100% of the health at every size
participants endorsed “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” com-
pared with 47% of the diet group participants. Ninety-five
percent of the health at every size group participants
endorsed “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” regarding the
statement, “I feel like I have failed in the program,”
whereas 53% of the diet group endorsed “Agree” or
“Strongly Agree.” One hundred percent of health at every
size participants were “hopeful that the Healthy Living
Project would have a positive life-long impact” on them,
compared with 37% of the diet group. Eighty-nine percent
of the health at every size group endorsed “Regularly” or
“Often” in response to the statement: “I currently imple-
ment some of the tools that I learned in the Healthy
Living Project,” compared with 11% of the diet group.
DISCUSSION
There are two aspects of the health at every size model that
differ from the traditional treatment approach and concern
health care practitioners. First, although dieters are en-
couraged to increase their cognitive restraint to decrease
energy intake, health at every size participants are encour-
aged to decrease their restraint, relying instead on intuitive
regulation. Second, the health at every size model supports
participants in accepting their size, whereas in the diet
model, reduction in size (weight loss) is emphasized. Many
health care practitioners fear that health at every size is
irresponsible and that these aspects will result in indiscrim-
inate eating and increased obesity (16). Our data at 2 years
indicate this concern is unfounded.
Both groups were implementing their encouraged re-
straint pattern at the conclusion of the intervention and the
aftercare program. The diet group did not sustain this im-
proved restraint at follow-up, which is consistent with the
literature. The health at every size group members, on the
other hand, were able to sustain their decrease in restraint
(and interoceptive awareness) at follow-up. In other words,
health at every size participants became sensitized to body
signals regulating food intake, increased their reliance on
these signals as regulators of intake, and were able to main-
tain this behavior change over the 104-week period.
Improvements in many of the health behaviors and
health risk markers paralleled the relative success that
each group had in maintaining their restraint habits. For
example, both groups showed initial improvements in de-
pression, in all of the other scales related to eating behavior
and attitudes toward weight and food, and in many aspects
of metabolic functioning and energy expenditure. The
health at every size group sustained their restraint habits
and all of these improvements at follow-up, whereas mem-
bers of the diet group returned to baseline in their restraint
habits and all but the disinhibition scale.
The health at every size group also demonstrated a par-
allel improvement in self-esteem, and 100% of participants
reported that their involvement in the program helped
them feel better about themselves (compared with 47% of
the diet group). The diet group, on the other hand, demon-
strated initial improvement followed by a significant wors-
ening of self-esteem at follow-up. This damage to self-es-
teem was reinforced in other of the self-evaluation
questions. For example, 53% of participants in the diet
group expressed feelings of failure (compared with 0% of
health at every size participants).
The diet group’s change in weight exhibited the same
pattern: There was a decrease in weight at the program
conclusion, then a gradual regain, such that the final weight
loss of 3.2 kg was not significant (P⫽.068). The health at
every size group members, on the other hand, maintained
weight throughout the study. The fact that the improve-
ments in health risk indicators occurred during relative
weight stability demonstrates that improvements in meta-
bolic functioning can occur through behavior change, inde-
pendent of a change in weight. Given the well-documented
difficulties in sustaining weight loss, this is a particularly
important result, and provides further support for redirect-
ing clients toward behavior change as opposed to a primary
focus on weight.
One limitation of the study was the small sample size
available at follow-up (50% of the original participants).
Considering that the diet group had high attrition (42%),
and that part of the attrition in diet programs is due to
participants’ dropping out when they are not successful (29),
it is likely that the results for the diet group may look more
favorable than was actually the case had all the partici-
pants been considered. Because program attrition in the
health at every size group was markedly lower (8%), this
inflation may be less pronounced in the results of the health
at every size group at program end.
It also should be noted that only 2-year follow-up was
conducted; longer follow-up (eg, 5 years) is suggested to
make more conclusive statements about long-term benefits.
CONCLUSIONS
Weight loss has been established as standard treatment
for obesity. Although often successful in the short term, it
has shown limited long-term success in mitigating obe-
June 2005 ●Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 935
sity and its associated health problems for the majority of
dieters. Findings in the diet group were consistent with
previous literature. There was high attrition (42%), and
postaftercare data (1 year after program initiation) for
program completers indicated weight loss and improve-
ment in health risk indicators, although neither of these
were sustained at follow-up (2 years after program initi-
ation). Diet group participants additionally experienced
an overall detrimental effect on self-esteem and other
self-evaluation measures.
In contrast to a diet program, the health at every size
approach encourages persons to accept their body weight,
and to rely on their body signals to support positive
health behaviors and help regulate their weight. Results
from this randomized clinical trial were remarkably pos-
itive, with health at every size group participants show-
ing sustained improvements in many health behaviors
and attitudes as well as many health risk indicators
associated with obesity (including total cholesterol, LDL
cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, depression, and self-
esteem, but not HDL cholesterol). The data suggest that
a health at every size approach enables participants to
maintain long-term (2 years) behavior change, whereas a
diet approach does not.
Encouraging size acceptance, a reduction in dieting,
and a heightened awareness of and response to body
signals appears to be effective in supporting improved
health risk indicators for obese, female chronic dieters.
This research was supported in part by National Insti-
tutes of Health grants Nos. DK57738 and DK35747, a
cooperative agreement with the Western Human Nutri-
tion Research Center, and a National Science Foundation
fellowship.
References
1. Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation,
and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults:
The Evidence Report. Bethesda, MD: National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute; 1998.
2. Neumark-Sztainer D, Rock CL, Thornquist MD,
Cheskin LJ, Neuhouser ML, Barnett MJ. Weight-
control behaviors among adults and adolescents: As-
sociations with dietary intake. Prev Med. 2000;30:
381-391.
3. Serdula MK, Mokdad AH, Williamson DF, Galuska J,
Mendlein M, Heath GW. Prevalence of attempting
weight loss and strategies for controlling weight.
JAMA. 1999;282:1353-1358.
4. Flegal K, Carroll M, Ogden C, Johnson C. Prevalence
and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2000.
JAMA. 2002;288:1723-1727.
5. Miller WC. How effective are traditional dietary and
exercise interventions for weight loss? Med Sci Sports
Exer. 1999;31:1129-1134.
6. Bacon L. Tales of mice and leptin: False promises and
new hope in weight control. Healthy Weight J. 2003;
17:24-27.
7. Position of The American Dietetic Association: Weight
management. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997;97:71-74.
8. Garner D, Wooley S. Confronting the failure of be-
havioral and dietary treatments for obesity. Clin Psy-
chol Rev. 1991;11:748-754.
9. Wooley SC, Garner DM. Obesity treatment: The high
cost of false hope. J Am Diet Assoc. 1991;91:1248-1251.
10. Ernsberger P, Koletsky RJ. Biomedical rationale for
a wellness approach to obesity: An alternative to a
focus on weight loss. J Soc Issues. 1999;55:221-260.
11. Gaesser G. Weight, weight loss, and health: A closer
look at the evidence. Healthy Weight J. 2003;17:8-11.
12. Gaesser G. Thinness and weight loss: Beneficial or
detrimental to longevity. Med Sci Sports Exer. 1999;
31:1118-1128.
13. Cogan JC, Ernsberger P. Dieting, weight, and health:
Reconceptualizing research and policy. J Soc Issues.
1999;55:187-205.
14. Robison J. Health at every size: Antidote for the
“obesity epidemic.” Healthy Weight J. 2003;17:4-7.
15. Miller WC. Fitness and fatness in relation to health:
Implications for a paradigm shift. J Soc Issues. 1999;
55:207-219.
16. Kratina K. Health at every size: Clinical applications.
Healthy Weight J. 2003;17:19-23.
17. Bacon L, Keim NL, Van Loan MD, Derricote M, Gale
B, Kazaks A, Stern JS. Evaluating a “non-diet” well-
ness intervention for improvement of metabolic fit-
ness, psychological well-being and eating and activity
behaviors. Int J Obes. 2002;26:854-865.
18. Polivy J, Herman CP, Howard KI. Restraint Scale:
Assessment of dieting. In: Hersen M, Bellack AS, eds.
Dictionary of Behavioral Assessment Techniques.
New York, NY: Pergamon; 1988:377-380.
19. Westenhoefer J, Stunkard AJ, Pudel V. Validation of
the flexible and rigid control dimensions of dietary
restraint. Int J Eat Disord. 1999;26:53-64.
20. Brownell KD. The LEARN program for weight con-
trol. 7th ed. Dallas, TX: American Health Publishing
Company; 1997.
21. Blair SN, Haskell WL, Ho P, Paffenbarger RS Jr,
Vranizan KM, Farquhar JW, Wood PD. Assessment
of habitual physical activity by a seven-day recall in
a community survey and controlled experiments.
Am J Epidemiol. 1985;122:794-804.
22. Stunkard AJ, Messick S. The Eating Inventory. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1988.
23. Garner DM. Eating Disorder Inventory-2 Manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc; 1991.
24. Beck AT, Rush AJ, Shaw BF, Emery G. Cognitive Ther-
apy for Depression. New York, NY: Guilford; 1979.
25. Rosenberg M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1965.
26. Rosen JC, Srebnik D, Saltzberg E, Wendt S. Devel-
opment of a body image avoidance questionnaire.
Psychol Assess. 1991;3:32-37.
27. Ciliska D. Evaluation of two nondieting interventions
for obese women. West J Nurs Res. 1998;20:119-135.
28. Tanco S, Linden W, Earle T. Well-being and morbid
obesity in women: A controlled therapy evaluation.
Int J Eat Disord. 1998;23:325-339.
29. Rothblum ED. Contradictions and confounds in cov-
erage of obesity: Psychological journals, textbooks,
and the media. J Soc Issues. 1999;55:355-369.
30. Association for Size Diversity and Health. Available at:
http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/sa/counseling/ASDAH.htm.
Accessed January 10, 2004.
936 June 2005 Volume 105 Number 6
