This editorial, published in the American Journal of Health Promotion (2020, Vol.34(4)) by Paul E. Terry, the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, delves into the contentious discourse surrounding traditional wellness in the realm of worksite health promotion, a term that lacks a universally agreed definition but is widely practiced and often met with unwarranted disdain in the professional sphere. In the workplace context, traditional wellness is broadly understood as health promotion programs anchored in health assessments and screenings, followed by targeted educational initiatives focused primarily on physical health domains—such as tobacco cessation, fitness, and nutrition.

Notably, this model is the dominant practice among 83% of large U.S. corporations, yet it is frequently criticized for its perceived shortcomings in addressing mental health, building individual resilience, fostering social support, and cultivating an organizational culture of health. Beyond defining the term, the editorial contextualizes it within the broader evolution of the health promotion profession, which has undergone a profound shift toward gentler, more inclusive, and simplified guidance for consumers over the decades.

In fitness education, the field has moved from rigid, prescriptive exercise regimens—such as age-adjusted heart rate goals for fixed durations and frequencies—to a far more accessible mantra of “just do it,” encouraging any form of enjoyable physical activity over no activity at all. Nutrition education has followed a similar trajectory: abandoning restrictive forbidden food lists, arduous calorie-counting, and polarizing debates over fats versus carbs, it now embraces Michael Pollan’s widely accepted simple advice: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Attitudes toward obesity have also evolved significantly, with the profession increasingly rejecting fat-shaming as an unacceptable byproduct of health advocacy, even as tensions persist between the body acceptance movement (exemplified by public figures like Lizzo) and those emphasizing the chronic disease risks of obesity (such as fitness trainer Jillian Michaels). This cultural shift has also led to greater tolerance for diverse nutritional approaches, with nondiet frameworks like intuitive eating coexisting alongside traditional carbohydrate-focused guidance without the acrimony of the past.

A central paradox the editorial addresses is that while the health promotion profession has grown gentler in its engagement with the public, its internal discourse on worksite wellness—what works and what does not—remains divisive and often dismissive. The term “traditional wellness” is frequently uttered with thinly veiled contempt or outright disdain by some professionals, despite its widespread adoption in corporate America. To unpack this tension, Terry identifies five key causes of misunderstanding that shape divergent approaches to worksite health promotion. First, vague definitions plague the field, with “traditional wellness” and “comprehensive wellness programs” often conflated; true comprehensive programs should be rooted in a socioecological model, designed for whole-population benefit, yet many studies mislabel traditional screening/education initiatives as “comprehensive,” leading to flawed evaluations and misinformed criticism. Second, there is a disregard for HR professionals’ practical constraints: HR teams face chronic understaffing and an ever-expanding workload of core responsibilities (e.g., recruitment, compliance, talent management), making traditional wellness a feasible, priority-driven choice—yet their efforts are often denigrated rather than acknowledged. Third, the use of the term reflects ignorance of quality improvement (QI) principles: “traditional” is misperceived as static, but QI and continuous process improvement are foundational to all organizational and professional growth, applicable equally to worksite wellness as to manufacturing or healthcare delivery. Fourth, undisclosed conflicts of interest undermine the credibility of many critics of traditional wellness; many vocal detractors lack a track record of peer-reviewed research, while reputable organizations uphold strict disclosure standards (e.g., HERO’s non-commercialism pledge) to ensure transparency. Fifth, the field’s divisiveness is a microcosm of broader national post-fact discourse, where social media-fueled punditry and shaming tactics have replaced evidence-based consensus-building, with incivility becoming a common feature of debates over wellness approaches.

To bridge these divides and foster a more constructive approach to traditional wellness, Terry outlines five actionable strategies to “make peace” with the model while advancing the field of worksite health promotion. First, clarify core definitions to distinguish targeted traditional wellness programs (e.g., screenings, single-topic education) from comprehensive socioecological initiatives; research should evaluate each model on its own merits, rather than applying broad conclusions about limited-reach programs to whole-population health goals. Second, empathize with HR constraints and validate the value of traditional wellness in practice: well-executed health screenings are an irreplaceable tool for chronic disease prevention (catching undiagnosed illnesses early), and HR teams should be encouraged to build incrementally—adding coaching or mental health support as resources allow—rather than scolded for their practical choices. Third, center QI and evidence-based innovation in all wellness practice; professionals should learn to distinguish between process improvement (DMAIC) and process redesign (DMADV), and the field should prioritize innovating on existing, evidence-based practices over untested “disruptive” ideas that HR leaders are rightfully hesitant to implement. Fourth, scrutinize credentials and disclose conflicts of interest when evaluating criticism of traditional wellness; assessments of expert claims should prioritize peer-reviewed research (e.g., PubMed citations) and reputable organizational affiliations (e.g., NCQA/URAC accreditation), while dismissing disinformation and trolls that pollute social media discourse. Fifth, uphold civility and reject shaming in all professional dialogue: just as fat-shaming undermines individual behavior change, disparaging companies or HR teams for using traditional wellness counteracts organizational change. This aligns with Halbert Dunn’s original definition of wellness—as maintaining personal dignity, dynamic equilibrium, and the ability to fully engage with life—an ethos the health promotion profession should model for the public.

The editorial further explores broader cultural and professional touchpoints that mirror the tensions around traditional wellness, from the public debate between James Corden (a vocal critic of fat-shaming) and Bill Maher to Joseph Campbell’s philosophy of seeking an “experience of being alive” over a narrow quest for life’s meaning. These references underscore a central truth: wellness—both individual and organizational—is as much about phenomenology and lived experience as it is about disease prevention. Terry also introduces the journal’s new section Knowing Well, Being Well (replacing The Art and Science of Health Promotion), which will focus on how deep, evidence-based knowledge of wellness translates to meaningful attitudes and actions, and how consensus-building can bridge the gap between “knowing” and “doing” in health promotion practice. He also highlights the future of the field: Precision Health Promotion, a personalized approach that designs health experiences for individuals within the context of their families, organizations, and communities—rooted in the phenomenological principles embodied by public figures like Lizzo, who champions self-acceptance and “being you”.

Conclusion

This editorial serves as a pivotal call for reflection, civility, and evidence-based progress in the field of worksite health promotion. It makes clear that traditional wellness, while limited in scope, is not a failed model but a valuable, widely practiced foundation for corporate health initiatives—one that has played a modest but important role in improving the employee experience and preventing chronic disease. The unwarranted contempt directed at traditional wellness is rooted in avoidable misunderstandings: vague definitions, disregard for practical HR constraints, ignorance of quality improvement principles, undisclosed biases, and the spillover of national divisiveness into professional discourse. Rejecting acrimony and shaming in favor of inclusive dialogue is not just a matter of professional courtesy; it is essential to advancing the field, as incivility directly undermines the individual and organizational behavior change that health promotion seeks to foster.

The future of worksite health promotion lies not in discarding traditional wellness, but in building incrementally upon it—through clear definitions, centering quality improvement, empathizing with on-the-ground practitioners, and upholding transparency and evidence. It also lies in embracing Precision Health Promotion and the goal of cultivating organizational cultures of health, which extend beyond physical health to address mental well-being, resilience, and personal purpose.

Ultimately, the field’s greatest potential is to model the wellness it preaches: to maintain dignity in dialogue, build consensus through evidence, and balance the science of disease prevention with the human experience of well-being. As Terry emphasizes, the health promotion profession’s mission is not just to improve physical health metrics, but to help individuals and organizations find the “rapture of being alive”—a goal that can only be achieved through collaboration, compassion, and a commitment to continuous, inclusive improvement.