To enter the debate between my colleagues Lindsay and Paul, I think it's important to distinguish between the content of the program itself and certain characterizations of its objectives. I think that we all agree that increasing physical activity and healthy diets are good things, for people of all ages and body types. For this reason, the initiatives in the Let's Move! program are salutary, and if the program incidentally reduces child obesity, I agree with Lindsay that this isn't in any way problematic or discriminatory.
But given the well-documented benefits of exercise and well-balanced diets irrespective of body type, I do think Paul raises an important question: Why should these things be portrayed as a means to the end of reducing obesity rather than as ends in themselves? I think there are very good reasons for Let's Move! not to be framed as an obesity-reduction program per se. First of all, doing so implies that if increased physical activity and better diets don't lead to sustained weight loss, then they're pointless, which is incorrect. Secondly, it implies that being sedentary and eating a poor diet is OK as long as it doesn't make you overweight (hardly uncommon for younger people), although this is also the wrong message. And, finally, stigmatizing overweight people can lead to things such as yo-yo dieting and eating disorders that have seriously negative health consequences.
Programs that encourage children to exercise more and eat better diets are good things in themselves. I think it would be best for any number of reasons if we promote them on their own merits without bringing obesity into it.
--Scott Lemieux
