This is a qualitative study that examines low-income, food insecure mothers and fathers’ attitudes and lived experiences related to their own weight status. I find the results very interesting and important to report on, however, I would like to see a change in the structure of the presentation of the results and the discussion. I think the article would benefit from a few changes. Abstract: Information on the program used to analyse the data should be included in the abstract. I would like to see the emerging themes mentioned at least partially in the results section.

Materials and methods: You mention: “Participants were recruited from sites that served as proxies for income including Head Start and food pantries”. It might be important to describe in more detail what you refer to by Head Start and food pantries, for more international audiences who are unfamiliar with these systems, that imply food insecure participants for your study. How many researchers carried out the interviews? Where the authors among the interviewers? If so, could you initial them. You mention: The interviews lasted 60-90 minutes. Either here or in the results section, could you mention the average interview time. You talk about videotapes, but the use of this methodology is not specified in the methods. Could you be more specific, did you video record the interviews? With consent? Later you talk about body language coding. This is also missing here.

Results and discussion: My greatest concern about this article, is the fact that you joined the results and the discussion section. I think it is important to separate these sections and present the results with the corresponding themes, backed up by specific comments by participants. This should include the use of a table, containing the 3 themes (and any subthemes that could have arisen within them), with examples set by participants for each theme. Following the results section, then the emerging themes should be discussed. There is a clear distinction between the results and the discussion, and these should be separated. In this combined section, you also talk about body language coding, which is not discussed in the methods section. Was this obtained from the videotaping? How was this work carried out? Also, you might want to expand your limitations section.