Obesity

Obesity

by Samuel Dafydd Rigby -
Number of replies: 5

Obesity, as we all know is on the rise at an astounding rate. A lot of the implications of obesity on the physical health of the population are now quite obvious.

A big question however is why this is happening and how are we responding to obesity?

Having read some of the articles in the reading list, it appears thatthe functionalist approach has been used to curtail the trend of obesity. With the stimulation of stigma against those who cannot control their weight. Is it appropriate to stigmatise these people when it is known that a significant proportion of obesity is due to overeating associated with psychological distress?

Additionally, since the development of fertiliser and GM crops such as corn, obesity is now economically viable, in fact financially beneficial to the US (and many other countries) hence the astounding amount of research funded by the government in to the utilisation of these energy dense food stuffs. (see ‘Food Inc.’ A fascinating documentary). Henceforth, is there an incentive clash behind how to respond to the forces underpinning modern obesity?

Finally what do obese people represent? The historically unique conquering of scarcity of nutritional resources? Or the greed of humanity? And if they do in fact represent either of these, is it significant for how obesity is considered and responded to in society as a health issue? (Japanese sumo, American Lardo?)

In reply to Samuel Dafydd Rigby

Re: Obesity

by Yasin Fatine -

Ah, same topic as me! I hadn't thought about this, but what I also forgot to take into account is different cultures' views on 'being large', because some men view larger women as more attractive; being able to successfully reproduce (thinking in subliminal terms).

Following today's seminar discussions on health policies, and the pursuing of 'universal access/cover' only having economic incentives on part of governments, I don't see how being obese could be financially profitable when we think about the co-morbidities obesity brings, not to mention time off work etc. So whilst there is already a great amount of stigma surrounding fat people, I don't think it would be in society's general interest to change and see them in particularly favourable light, obviously without discriminating.

Just thinking about this all, if the stigma surrounding obesity did not exist, would people still be motivated enough to lose weight? Surely our 'image', whether we like it or not, is decided by others in a way.

In reply to Yasin Fatine

Re: Obesity

by Samuel Dafydd Rigby -

maybe, but i feel trying to work against stigma is a much more challenging and apparently unsuccessful task than striving towards something such as fitness. It feels like more focus is on not being fat than being fit.

 

Yea i agree on a macro level its not viable, but in a free market those who sell and promote these foods have nothing to lose by people being obese and with minimal limitations in the market they are able to continue. allowing for money to circulate among the rich. as companies such as nestle, kraft etc have huge investments in other markets too.

In reply to Yasin Fatine

Re: Obesity

by Deleted user -

It's interesting that, until a little recently, weight was a used as a measure of 'affluence' where i'm from. Rich people eat enough, hence they are fat. Poor people eat too little, that's why they are skinny. A slim man couldn't command a lot of respect, because people would weigh him on perceived physical strength and therefore wave him off. Of course, a skinny woman would cost too much to feed.

 

But, yes Yasin. i don't see how one can talk about discrimination without asking the question: is it okay to be fat? (then again, what 'fat' is seems to be changing. Size 12 is probably fat now. Before, it might have been the ideal for woman). If someone was fat, but somehow managed not to have those illness associated to the state, would it be okay?

 

Also, couldn't something be done about the manufacturers of the food products. Say: this is the allowable quantity of saturated fat/refined sugar you can use. Or say, make healthy food cheaper so it wouldn't be something only a class of people can afford.

In reply to Deleted user

Re: Obesity

by Sara Shaw -

This is an interesting thread on obesity and a good example from Samuel. It STARTS to link to sociological theory - but Samuel, can you say more about what a functionalist approach is and how/why it has been employed in the context of obesity? It also BEGINS to link to wider structural and economic factors (e.g. food production, regulation of manufacturers) and touches on how these shape the way we live our lives. And there is also a drawing out of cultural and historical differences about how weight is perceived in society. This could take us back to theory and this week's reading materials as it suggests that the category of 'obesity' - also others,  such as 'fat' and 'fitness' - may be socially constructued. What do you think?

In reply to Samuel Dafydd Rigby

Re: Obesity

by Deleted user -

I think the problem is that we just don't know a person's background or what's actually causing a person to gain weight - most of the time we probably don't care. As you said, it could be due to psychological reasons, it could be due to financial reasons (fruit and vegetables tend to get more and more expensive), education or the lack thereof, medication, comorbidities,... the list goes on and on. The only thing we know and see is the common result: obesity.

Our economy - especially certain food chains - might not necessarily have a great interest in making people fat, but they certainly are partially responsible. On the other hand, the pharmaceutical industry tries to stigmatize overweight people because it makes it easier to sell them their diet drugs. In general, overweight people are just unluckily caught between two fronts.