Abstract
To the Editor:
Perez and Ball 1 thoughtfully and enlighteningly refract the topic of “obliviobesity” [sic] into an array of heretofore neglected nuance, and ramifications for policy, practice, and research.
They are quite correct in noting that awareness of childhood obesity, though almost certainly necessary for constructive responses, is not known to be sufficient. They further validate this concern by citing evidence that parents who do correctly classify the weight status of their children appear no more likely to respond constructively to it than those who don't. The relevance and salience of factors other than awareness is thus implied; the elucidation of those factors, and the means to influence them favorably, await the very studies this letter invites.
In my own commentary, 2 I made rather casual, and perhaps even glib, use of the term “denial.” Perez and Ball are far more fastidious, noting that denial, per se, is just one of several potential explanations for a divide between objective measures of weight status and subjective perceptions. They are right in doing so, and helpful in suggesting how these considerations pertain to the current imperatives for practice, and future studies to populate the gaps in our knowledge.
By citing the consistency of studies indicating the common discrepancies between the weight status of children and the perceptions of both parents and those children themselves, I had hoped, with the coining of the term oblivobesity, to initiate a dialogue that might lead to deeper understanding of causes, consequences, and constructive responses. The well-articulated reflections of Perez and Ball are a gratifying indication that the conversation has begun!