Does This Study Really Show Diets Are *Good* for Disordered Eating?
Plus, the links: RFK Jr. and measles, a "functional" doctor goes full MAHA, unpacking the weight-cycling research, and more
Welcome to another installment of the Rethinking Wellness link roundup! Here I’m offering a small collection of links from around the internet that are relevant to the conversations we have here, along with some quick takes and occasional deeper dives for paid subscribers.
This time the take/dive is about a recent study that purports to show intentional weight loss doesn’t cause disordered eating and actually “improves” it—and what the science really says.
Links
Here are some pieces that got me thinking in the past few weeks. I found value in all of these, but links are not endorsements of every single detail in the piece or everything the writer ever wrote.
Every 100 Years America Produces a Robert Kennedy Jr (Jessica Grose / NYT)
Related: Measles cases are rising in the U.S. Do adults need a vaccine booster? (NPR)
Related: A Child Is Dead from Measles (
)Related: RFK Jr. moves to eliminate public comment on HHS decisions (STAT)
Related: With RFK Jr. in charge, supplement makers see chance to cash in (CNN)
What Is Will Cole Really Selling? The “functional” doctor goes full MAHA (
)New Yale Study on Post-COVID Vaccine Syndrome: Hold Your Horses! (
)Does This Study REALLY Prove There Is No Harm from Weight Cycling? Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 (
)Google Gives Up on Data Voids (
)Why Should We Trust Science? (
)In Case You Missed It
A Wellness Misinformationist Is In Charge of Health Policy. What Now?
Vitamin D and Health Outcomes, Part 2
Blood-Sugar Myths and Intuitive Eating for Diabetes with
Take/Dive: Does This Study Really Show Diets Are *Good* for Disordered Eating?
A recent Novo Nordisk–funded systematic review and meta-analysis purports to show that weight-loss interventions don’t increase the risk of disordered eating, and that if anything they somehow reduce that risk. But the study is deeply flawed and doesn’t justify this claim at all—despite what some science communicators have written recently.