Talk:Management of obesity

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Health and fitness Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The result was no consensus to merge. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger Proposal

This article has been proposed for a merge. I Oppose based on the AFD. The AFD did not result in merge, redirect, or keep. Further, there is a difference between Weight Management, Management of obesity, and Weight loss.--v/r - T P 19:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose The article on weight management needs to be referenced to review articles rather than primary research. If this was to occur I might reconsider.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Let's not succumb to WP:UNDUE here. Management of the state of being underweight is probably not even an industry and is relatively easier to fix for most scholars. Research on genetics, pharmacology and so forth is 99% devoted to the management of obesity. Why should a fringe or minority viewpoint allow a bad particle to persist? If the article on weight management needs to be referenced to review articles rather than primary research, I suggest we simply merge in only the parts of the article that can be saved and discard the rest. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, none of the articles currently discuss their relationship with each other, and seem to be written as though the others don't exist. This is unacceptable. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I havent read the articles, but the terms hold different meaning for me:

Weight Management to me doesn't neccessarily even have anything to do with obesity. It could be maintaining current weight or even gaining weight (for example, to qualify for the military or a certain weight group in wrestling).
Management of obesity Has to do with losing weight for the most obese. This could include surgury, dieting, and may not even have to do with weight loss. It could be with issues related to obesity such as diabetes and heart disease.
Weight Loss has to do with how it sounds. But you don't necessarily have to be obese to try to lose weight. The difference between weight loss and Management of Obesity is that weight loss likely doesn't include surgery or other health issues. Weight loss could also include unhealthy weight loss techniques such as beleamia (sp?) and anorexia.

This is why I think these need to be separate articles.--v/r - T P 21:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo of exercise is required

Photo of exercise is required here. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NICE recommendations

Here is a new reference that would be good to use: [1]. --Signimu (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done although the recommendation could be expanded further. --Signimu (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]