I see a tiny and therefore lets face it rather preliminary at best study validates what it calls a more weight acceptance approach-well it's better than the tedious misnomer of "obesity acceptance." As they say, softly, softly catchee monkey. Because we've been wound up into such as tizzy over fatness and weight, we're in the wrong mode altogether to deal with the health of fat people productively.
It seems amazing that not harming fat people as a precursor to oh, anything, or just apropos of nothing, needs validation of any kind. It's dieting that's the unnatural and dysfunctional pathology. And remember also that harming fat people as a preamble to dieting is a sleight-of-hand. You lift the self hatred/hatred as you perform diet behaviours, manipulating your sense of well being in order to link that to your dieting.
The trouble with seeking evidence for the obvious-hurting people is bad for them-is it tends toward underlining the erroneous normalization of the accepted dysfunction, by default. Make no mistake is abnormal to disassociate from your own body, insult, degrade and dehumanize it and claim that is the interests of health.
We are repeatedly informed that discomfort triggers compensatory hunger, so it's hardly surprising that the group which eschewed discomforting of people, felt more in balance when it came to eating. That's a given, which is why there's always been a big question mark over the insistence of discomforting fat people-to lose weight.
So, level of "social support" can affect the demands being made on a person's hunger?
Even if it did make it healthier, that wouldn't justify that approach. If anything can be achieved negatively, it can be achieved positively. If people are seen as valuable enough, which clearly they are not. The real deal with HAES for me is that it starts from there regardless of others who require 'evidence'.
Like others, the evidence of our lives is clear enough for many of us.