Body size

Introduction

This section of the guide discusses body size for inclusive science communication and journalism. Inclusive language around bodies is in alignment with the American Chemical Society’s core values of inclusion and belonging. We recognize that not all individuals or institutions share the same perspectives, and some professional or government settings may have specific language requirements for definitions, terms, and phrases used. These recommendations draw on guidelines from multiple organizations, institutions, and advocacy groups, with examples primarily from ACS sources. 

This guide does not prescribe legal or institutional policy – it is designed to offer inclusive options to inform communication choices. Users should consult their organization’s policies when preparing materials for official contexts.

This section uses “obesity” and “overweight” when discussing language to avoid, describing some research, and quoting people who use those terms. When the word “fat” is used, it is used as a neutral descriptor.

Every person has a different body, with different characteristics. The human body comes up in science and science communication frequently, and inclusive language can help invite a broader audience to trust the results, participate in studies, and participate in the discovery process. 

For example, the topic of weight management has become nearly inextricably linked to glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP 1) receptor agonists. Some applications of these drugs help regulate glucose metabolism and the release of insulin from the pancreas. Originally developed to manage Type 2 diabetes, their side effect of weight loss has quickly propelled their popularity, leading to the development and FDA approval of versions intended explicitly for weight loss.

During these periods of rapid discovery and learning, scientists and science communicators have an opportunity to use language inclusive of people at all body sizes, regardless of whether they desire weight loss or have no interest in pursuing it.

When to mention body size

Background:

Mention body size when it’s directly relevant to a scientific study, or when it plays an important and direct role in content. Otherwise, making mention of body size when it’s not relevant can contribute to discrimination and incorrectly conflate topics that should be treated separately, like weight and health.  

In the context of eating disorders, unnecessary mentions of body size can negatively affect people with those illnesses and impede recovery. In “Tips for Responsible Media Coverage,” the US National Eating Disorders Association recommends not mentioning a person’s current or past weight. 

Inclusive options:

• Mention body size only when it’s relevant to your content. Discussing someone’s health does not necessarily mean body size needs to be discussed. 
• Consider including warnings before mentioning topics such as eating disorders in articles or podcasts, particularly if it is not mentioned in the title. 
  

Example:

How to mention height

Background:

Similar to body size, mention height only when directly relevant or plays an important and direct role in content. Use neutral language to describe height.

Little People of America defines “dwarfism” as “a medical or genetic condition that usually results in an adult height of 4'10" or shorter.” Appropriate descriptors include:

• “person with dwarfism” 
• “little person” 
• “person of short stature”
• “short-statured person” 

Individuals’ preferences are highly variable. While some people use the term “dwarf,” it is not universally accepted, and the National Center on Disability and Journalism’s Disability Language Style Guide recommends using the term only when referring to a medical diagnosis or quoting someone. The word “midget” is considered a slur and should not be used. Euphemisms like “vertically challenged” may be perceived as infantilizing.

Inclusive options:

• Whenever possible, ask people how they want to be described, and use that language (see also, "Self-descriptions"). 
• Use neutral language when describing height; avoid framing a specific range as desirable or favorable.
• If it’s not possible to ask, generally use “little people,” “people of short stature,” or “short-statured people.” 
• Use “dwarf” only in reference to a medical diagnosis. 
• Do not use the term “midget” or euphemisms like “vertically challenged.”

How to mention weight

Background:

There are various opinions on when and how to use the terms "obese" and "overweight" to describe people at higher weights, or whether to use the terms at all. Methods of use fall into several categories, but we'll focus on two approaches that highlight inclusivity as an aim:

• Rejection of "obese" and "overweight": An increased number of medical and health care providers (such as the Association for Size Diversity and Health and the Association for Weight and Size Inclusive Medicine) and fat activists reject those terms as pathologizing and medicalizing. These words treat higher weight as a disease that needs to be prevented and cured; the term “overweight” assumes there is a natural or correct weight and that people above it are aberrations. See also "Framing and context for body size" and "How to describe size biases."
• Use of "obese" and "overweight" in medical and health-related contexts only: Some organizations and medical professionals that focus on “obesity treatment or prevention” (including the NIH, for example) view these as neutral medical terms that should only be used in scientific and clinical contexts. When using the terms, people-first (or person-first) language is presented as a more neutral, less stigmatizing option than "obese person." When writing outside of health-related contexts (e.g., press releases, feature articles), the NIH recommends terms such as "person with a higher weight" and "person with a larger body."

As a note, many fat activists reject people-first language and wording that tries to dissociate fatness from one’s identity in such phrases as “you aren’t fat; you have fat.” They say separating the person from the weight reinforces the notion that fatness is shameful.

Nevertheless, because some researchers use these terms in studies, people reporting on those results may also have to use them. To indicate that these terms are disputed, some writers:

• use asterisks in place of the “e,” 
• place the terms in quotation marks (scare quotes), 
• precede them with “so-called” or “alleged,” or 
• Include a content warning or note on terminology.

Many fat activists have reclaimed the word “fat” and believe that a refusal to respectfully use “fat” maintains its power to harm. Others find “fat” stigmatizing and prefer terms that use comparatives, such as “people at higher weights” and “people at lower weights.”

Some people use euphemisms like “big boned” and “chubby” to avoid saying “fat,” but these words may be considered condescending and perpetuate the idea that fatness is something to be avoided or ashamed of rather than a natural body size.

Inclusive options:

• Whenever possible, ask individuals how they want their weight to be described, and use that language. 
• When it’s not possible and you need to talk about larger-bodied people, follow the lead of fat activists rather than organizations that pathologize weight, but tailor your language to your audience and content. For most general audiences, use neutral terms. Examples for larger people include: 
  • “higher-weight people,” 
  • “people with higher weights,” 
  • “larger-bodied people,” 
  • “people in larger bodies,” 
  • “people with more weight,” 
  • “larger-size people,” and 
  • “people of size.” 
• Examples for thinner people include:
  • “lower-weight people,” 
  • “people with lower weights,”
  • “smaller-bodied people,” 
  • “people in smaller bodies,” 
  • “people with less weight,” and 
  • “straight-size people” (note that this term refers to clothing sizes, so only use when relevant to that context). 
• Avoid the terms “obesity,” “obese,” “morbidly obese,” and “overweight” unless you’re reporting on a study that uses those specific categories. If using those terms, define them. Consider using quotation marks or another indication that the terms can be harmful.
• The terms “plus size,” “straight size,” and “full size” are often used in the fashion industry; in other contexts, they may be seen as euphemisms and should be avoided.
• If you’re using “fat” as a neutral descriptor and your audience is receptive to that term, or if you’re discussing fat activism or fat acceptance, use it as a way of dissociating the word “fat” from its negative connotations, and explain why you’re using it. 
• Depending on the type of content and audience, consider including a note to explain your reasons for choosing certain terminology. For example, you can note that you’re using “fat” as a neutral descriptor in keeping with organizations such as the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. 
• Avoid euphemisms such as “big boned,” “curvy,” “fluffy,” “heavy,” “plump,” and “fit” unless the person you’re describing uses those terms. 
• Use caution with the term “average." If your intended meaning is “lower weight”, say that instead. 
• Do not use “normal,” “healthy,” “abnormal,” or “unhealthy” to describe body size or weight, and do not insist on people-first language. 
• See also "Self-descriptions."

Examples:

How to describe size biases

Background:

Several terms describe prejudice related to body size, including “sizeism” and “weight stigma.” These terms can mask the fact that higher-weight people are disproportionately mistreated. Naming the group that faces the most harm—for example, using terms like “anti-fat bias” and “anti-fat discrimination”—is clearer (note that either “anti-fat” or “antifat” can be used). Some people view “weight stigma” as too neutral a term, disregarding the serious and targeted nature of the outcomes of that stigma. People also face bias, prejudiced attitudes about weight, and discrimination (prejudiced actions based on size). 

The term “skinny shaming” describes bias toward people with smaller bodies, typically demonstrated as negative comments about thin people’s bodies and behavior. This behavior impacts all genders, including men. Sizeism can affect thin people with language that overly scrutinizes or diminishes how a body looks or treats lower weight people as inferior or less desirable. While this practice perpetuates harmful stereotypes and can lead to stigma, it is also not analogous with anti-fat discrimination because it is not systemic exclusion.

Anti-fat bias and discrimination lead to many negative outcomes, including lower salaries and poorer health outcomes.  

Inclusive options:

• Name fat people as the most-affected group when discussing weight-based stigma and discrimination with careful word choice. For example, use “anti-fatness,” or “fat stigma,” instead of “weight bias” and “weight stigma” unless you are reporting the results of studies with those terms or you’re discussing stigma against both lower-weight and higher-weight people. When using “sizeism,” terms paired with the word “weight,” and “body shaming,” add the context that fat people face the most oppression. 
• Avoid treating negative comments to thin people as comparable to anti-fat hatred.
• Avoid language that sets a body size as a standard that others must attain.
• Avoid the term “fatphobia,” in favor of more specific terms such as weight stigma or anti-fat bias. See also “Disability-related terms: Metaphors, hyperbole, and specificity.”

Framing and context for body size

Background:

Although many measures of weight, including body mass index (BMI), are framed as neutral, they can have origins in debunked science. BMI, for instance, isn’t predictive of health for individuals, and some researchers and clinicians have started to question the usefulness of BMI in comparison to other health factors.  Phrases such as “the obesity epidemic” and “the war on obesity” frame higher-weight people as being costly to society or at fault for a lack of appropriately sized medical equipment. They can also contribute to fat stigma and anti-fat attitudes, shame about body size, and a fear of fatness. In contrast, language that puts the burden of providing accessibility on health-care providers is more inclusive.

Membership in overlapping social groups can exacerbate stigma for higher-weight people. For example, a higher weight person who is also disabled may face increased challenges to accessing healthcare. Naming the different characteristics that people identify with can ensure that when groups of people are compared, they are not framed as discrete groups but ones that can overlap.

Some people blame higher weight on an individual’s actions or inaction—failing to eat the right foods or exercise the right way, for example. Others point to the obesogenic environment — an environment that creates more higher-weight people because it encourages eating high-caloric foods and being sedentary. These approaches frame higher weight as something unnatural and in need of a solution. The obesogenic argument can also focus on top-down solutions or hyper-surveillance for people of lower socioeconomic status and people of color (through state health programs) and can create inaccessible spaces for people with disabilities. 

Inclusive options:

• Avoid framing higher weight or higher-weight people as a burden, source of blame, or problem in need of a solution or explanation. For example, avoid “battle,” “fight,” “struggle,” or “suffer” in relation to higher weight. Avoid alarmist language such as “the obesity epidemic,” “the war on obesity,” “the threat of obesity,” and “the obesity crisis.”
• When comparing groups of people, ensure that your language makes room for people who are part of multiple groups. 
• Be aware that looking for “solutions” to a rise in the rate of higher-weight people can fuel stigma. In addition, a focus on personal responsibility feeds an inaccurate view that weight can be easily controlled, and a focus on the environment can seem to blame groups of low socioeconomic status.
• When discussing the change in the number of higher-weight people, provide historical context about the change in definitions over time.

Conflating weight and health

Background:

Conflating body size and health runs contrary to growing scientific evidence. People at all weights can be healthy or unhealthy, yet the relationship between higher weight and health is still not fully understood (see also “Framing and context for body size”).

Studies have failed to find a causal link between high weight and poor health (for example, J. Obes. 2014, DOI: 10.1155/2014/983495; Nutr. J. 2011, DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-10-9). 

Additionally, lower weight is not the same as healthfulness, and communication that implies a value to lower weight or that assumes weight loss is always good can overlook the nuances of an individuals’ experience. For example, some people lose weight due to an illness or condition. Equating thinness with health risks harms for lower-weight people, especially since there are no illnesses that solely impact people at higher weights. 

Studies have shown that shifting medical practice away from weight outcomes to other overall health goals and increasing health access has better outcomes and avoids stigma that has been associated with weight cycling and other adverse health impacts. Many physicians point to evidence that weight stigma contributes to chronic conditions and drives weight gain in society. 

Even though health and weight are not the same, it’s important to note that health as it relates to weight is not a moral imperative. Health is frequently a function of multiple factors, including access to care and the environment. Healthism – viewing higher-weight people as acceptable only when they are “healthy” or perform health-promoting behaviors, for example – overlooks the fact that health isn’t a precondition for people to be treated fairly. Defining health too narrowly also overlooks the mental health impacts of disenfranchisement and discrimination.

Inclusive options:

• Avoid equating higher weight with disease, and thinness with good health.
• Avoid comparing being higher weight with risky behaviors such as smoking. 
• Use caution when discussing body mass index (BMI) categories, as they poorly predict health, have roots in prejudiced science, and contribute to fat stigma. If you need to mention BMI, provide context about what it is (weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) and its history. 
• Also use care with the words “treatment,” “prevention,” and “cure,” which frame higher-weight people as problems that need to be eradicated.

Examples:

Body size evidence and sources

Background:

In content on body size, the decision about what studies to report or stories to tell, how to tell them, whom to treat as experts, and even what websites to link to can affect how inclusive the content is. Often, unexamined cultural biases influence body size representation without a solid foundation in fact. Additionally, many organizations and doctors consider higher weight a disease and are focused on promoting weight loss instead of ending discrimination. Occasionally, these organizations may oppose weight stigma, but if their solution to that stigma is eliminating higher-weight people (for example, by pushing people to lose weight), then it’s worth examining their motivation and whether they are operating with a conflict of interest. 

Pay special attention to sources that have something to gain from stigmatizing higher weights, including companies promoting weight loss products. Some things to look for in weight science, according to researcher Ragen Chastain, include uncritically using the terms “obese” and “overweight” (medicalized terms for higher weight), calling higher weight a disease or chronic health issue, promoting weight loss as a “solution” to higher weight, saying that the primary reason weight stigma or diets are harmful is because they cause weight gain, being funded by diet companies, and linking higher weight to health issues without mentioning that fat stigma, weight cycling, and health-care inequity could instead be the causes.

In addition, fat studies scholars, activists, and critical obesity studies researchers have pointed out flaws in obesity research including the conflation of correlation and causation, conflicts of interest, a lack of long-term studies, a lack of controlling for confounding factors, high dropout rates that aren’t explained and poor citation practices. If content creators uncritically repeat the claims of people focused on higher weight as a disease, they can perpetuate inaccurate beliefs that lead to harm and contribute to anti-fat prejudice.

The lived experiences of higher-weight people should receive consideration in coverage of weight-related research. 

Inclusive options:

• In content about body size, critically assess what stories to cover, how to cover them, whom to treat as experts, whether those experts have financial interests in the diet industry—such as being funded by pharmaceutical companies—and whether the results of studies truly show what the authors claim. 
• Recognize when people or organizations coopt language about reducing stigma while still treating higher-weight people as in need of treatment regardless of their health status.
• Provide the necessary context for readers to understand in concrete terms what a study showed and why. For example, avoid using “success,” “clinically proven,” “promising,” “reasonable,” and “long term” without defining what those terms mean, and do not conflate “statistically significant” with a “significant amount” (e.g., of weight) 
• Ensure any statements about weight, health, and weight loss can be backed by high-quality science—for example, studies that account for confounding factors like anti-fat bias, use strong sampling methods, and don’t conflate correlation and causation. 
• If your content is about weight loss, explain the harms of pursuing weight loss—such as developing eating disorders and weight cycling (which has negative health consequences)—and be realistic about weight-loss strategies’ failure rates and side effects.
• Question assumptions about weight and health, such as the “calories in, calories out” myth—the belief that losing weight is simply a matter of consuming fewer calories than are burned.
• When deciding whom to quote or treat as experts, center higher-weight people. Aim for a diverse set of higher-weight voices, including people of color, LGBTQ+ people, disabled people, and people at the highest end of the weight spectrum, as their opinions are the most often marginalized. Ensure you credit higher-weight people for their ideas and cite them appropriately. 
• Reveal any conflicts of interest and recognize how the websites you link to may legitimize organizations predicated on the medicalization of higher-weight people.

Examples:

Resources on inclusive language for body size

• Chastain, R.; “Inclusive Language for Higher Weight People.” Weight and Healthcare, Nov. 3, 2021. (accessed January 12, 2026).
• Chastain, R.; “What to Call Fat People—Person First Language and Fat People.” Dances with Fat, March 7, 2016. (accessed January 12, 2026).
• Cooper, C.; Fat Activist Vernacular. Charlotte Cooper: London, 2019.
• Gordon, A.; [Your Fat Friend, pseud.] “I’m a Fat Activist. I Don’t Use the Word Fatphobia. Here’s Why.” Self, March 29, 2021.
• Gordon, A.; [Your Fat Friend, pseud.] “The Bizarre and Racist History of the BMI.” Medium, Oct. 15, 2019. (accessed January 12, 2026).
• Harrison, D. L.; Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti Fatness as Anti Blackness. North Atlantic Books, 2021.
• Hart, L. M.; Ferreira, K. B.; Ambwani, S.; Gibson, E. B.; Austin, S. B.; A Roadmap for Addressing Weight Stigma in Public Health Research, Policy & Practice: An Expert Consensus Statement Developed Using the Delphi Method (PDF). STRIPED: Boston, MA, 2020.
• Kinavey, H.; Cool, C.; “The Broken Lens: How Anti fat Bias in Psychotherapy Is Harming Our Clients and What to Do about It.” (PDF) Women Ther. 2019, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2018.1524070.
• Kylstra, C.; “How Should a Health Brand Talk about Weight?” Self, June 25, 2018.
• Little People of America; “Frequently Asked Questions.” (accessed January 12, 2026).
• Little People of America; “LPA Issues Statement to Abolish the ‘M’ Word.” Sept. 2015. (accessed January 12, 2026).
• Meadows, A.; Daníelsdóttir, S.; “What's in a Word? On Weight Stigma and Terminology.” Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1527. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01527.
• Mercedes, M.; “No Health, No Care: The Big Fat Loophole in the Hippocratic Oath.” Pipe Wrench, Spring 2022.
• Montgomery, A.; “Addressing Weight Stigma and Fatphobia in Public Health.” University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health, Oct. 28, 2021. (accessed January 12, 2026).
• National Eating Disorders Association; “Tips for Responsible Media Coverage.” (accessed January 12, 2026).
• O’Hara, L.; Taylor, J.; “What’s Wrong With the ‘War on Obesity’? A Narrative Review of the Weight Centered Health Paradigm and Development of the 3C Framework to Build Critical Competency for a Paradigm Shift.” SAGE Open, 2018, 8 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018772888.
• Pausé, C.; Taylor, S. R., Eds.; The Routledge International Handbook of Fat Studies. Routledge: New York, 2021.
• Rich, E.; Evans, J.; “‘Fat Ethics’—the Obesity Discourse and Body Politics.” Soc. Theory Health, 2005, 3, 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.sth.8700057.
• Saguy, A. C.; “Frames’ Effects.” In What’s Wrong with Fat? The War on Obesity and Its Collateral Damage; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2013; Chapter 5. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199857081.003.0005.
• Shelley, C.; “The Language of Food and Bodies.” Rabbit with a Red Pen, Feb. 15, 2021. (accessed January 12, 2026).
• Wann, M.; “Foreword: Fat Studies: An Invitation to Revolution.” In The Fat Studies Reader; Rothblum, E.; Solovay, S., Eds.; New York University Press: New York, 2009; pp ix–XXV. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814777435.003.0003.