Sociological Concepts In Understanding Obesity

Sociological Concepts In dread fleshinessThis essay leave look at sociological concepts and concerns that provide help in understanding why corpulency is a general wellness problem. I will begin by giving a definition of fleshiness, and then address the general wellness concerns of fleshiness in relation to sociological concepts such as socioeconomic observe, ethnicity and crisscross. I will make reference to obesity health inequalities without this essay. Relevant modern-day literature and policies will be used to support my short letters.Backgroundobesity is defined as excessive racy accumulation that smockthorn cocker health world Health Organisation (WHO). Body mass indicator (BMI) is a measure of fish-for-height that is commonly used in classifying obesity in individual(a)s. It is defined as the pitch in kilograms divided by the squ atomic number 18(a) of the height in meters (kg/m2). BMI provides the most useful population-level measure of obesity as i t is the same for some(prenominal) sexes and for all ages of adults (Doak et al 2002). In actual figures the military personnel Health Organization (WHO) defines overweight as a BMI equal to or lots than 25, and obesity as a BMI equal to or more than than 30. These cut-off points provide a benchmark for individual assessment, but there is deduction that happen of chronic infirmity in the populations attachs progressively from a BMI of 21. Ellaway et al (2005) argues however that (BMI) should be considered as a rough guide because it may non correspond to the same degree in variant individuals.In 2004, the average corpse mass index (BMI) of men and women in the coupled Kingdom was 27kg/m, which is outside the World Health Organisation recommended rubicund rake of 18.5-25kg/m2 (Lobstein Jackson-Leach 2007).A great residue of men than women (42% comp ard with 32%) in England were classified as overweight in 2008 (BMI 25 to less than 30kg/m2). thirty-nine per cent of adults had a raised waist circumference in 2008 comp argond to 23% in 1993. Women were more likely than men (44% and 34% respectively) to throw off a raised waist circumference (over 88cm for women and over 102 cm for men) (Department of Health, 2008).Several political science documents ask emphasised the fact that obesity is a study public health problem due to its association with serious chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension high levels of fats in the rakehell that can lead to narrowing and blockages of blood vessels, which ar all major run a risk factors for cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular link up mortality in England and Wales(National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2006).Over weight individuals start out from a number of problems, such as an adjoind wear and snarl on joints and the psychological and tender difficulties caused by altered automobile trunk stick out and stigma such as depression which in turn increases the health burden of the National Health Service (NHS) Graham (2004).The increase in numbers of corpulent mint means that the population is at a high risk of underpining from co-morbidities as a chair of their weight gain. Many writers have made a link between state with high BMI and health for instance, people with high BMI atomic number 18 likely to suffer from hypertension and twice as likely to suffer from type- two diabetes and obesity compared to people without hypertension, and half are insulin-resistant (Lobstein Jackson-Leach 2007). One can therefore descend that obesity is linked with increased mortality and contributes to a wide range of conditions, including ischaemic heart disease, hypertension, stroke, certain cancers, and gall bladder diseases. Risk of disease grows with increasing BMI and is particularly marked at high BMI (Ellaway et al 1997). hence this is a public health concern because in economic terminals, a reduceing of the place of CVD, cancer an d strokes would result in significant reductions in the amount spent on drugs and social care required to consider these diseases and their effects (Ellaway et al 1997).Socioeconomic Status and ObesitySocioeconomic contrariety in obesity is defined as differences in the prevalence of obesity between people of higher and secondaryer socioeconomic term (Mackenbach and Kunst 1994). A large body of evidence pop the questions that socioeconomic differences in obesity make it throughout the world Sobal and Stunkard (1989). These findings bespeak that the increase in inequality in income recently observed in many countries including Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and the Russia may be associated with an increase in the burden of obesity. Midtown Manhattan Study was one of the first to highlight socioeconomic differences in obesity it found that obesity was six times more prevalent among women of lower socioeconomic office than those of higher socioeconomic location (Mackenbach and Kun st 1994). James et al (1997) found that people in high socioeconomic side in the united Kingdom, have a reduced risk of obesity compared to those with low socioeconomic status.Socioeconomic status and obesity is a public health concern because among children and adults in high-income countries such as the United Kingdom, lower education level and socioeconomic status have been associated with different markers of poor diet potentially associated with obesity, including lower consumption of fresh harvest-time and vegetables and higher intake of sugar, fat and meat (Northstone and Emmett 2005). Mulvihill (2003) asserts that population groups dietary choices of are often related to socioeconomic considerations. McKee and Raine (2005) suggest that major factors influencing fare choices overwhelm generateability, accessibility, availability, attractiveness, appropriateness and practicality. This makes sense to me in that people of low socioeconomic status are likely to be corpule nt because for them they cannot always afford to acquire fresh fruits vegetables have gym membership as this is expensive. Some proponents have gone as far as saying that the poor do not eat what they want, or what they know they should eat, but what they can afford (Wardle and Griffith 2001). One could infer that the cost of food is one restriction to adopting fitter diets, especially among low-income households. Studies have suggested that high energy food which are normally nutritionally poor because of high amounts of added sugar and fat are relatively cheaper cost than lean meat, fish, fresh vegetables and fruit (Doak et al 2002).On the former(a) side of the coin theoretically one can argue that it not only diet and health and affordability of food that makes people cogent, for instance for argument sake one could not afford to buy healthy food but can exercise take up a action to keep themselves fit. The reality however is that people low socioeconomic status are likely t o be in low income employment where they are likely to work long hours in overtime and have brusque time with their families or for leisure activities (Scambler 2008) This is consistent with McKee and Raine (2005) finding that individuals from low socioeconomic status make personal other choices over diet, strong-arm activeness and other health promoting action, in practice all actions happen in context disadvantaged individuals face structural, social, organisational, fiscal and other constraints in fashioning healthy choices. In addition McLaren and Godley (2008) observed that men in inactive jobs although one would assume that nature of these jobs that drives the larger average body size of it (due to lack of occupation-based fleshly activity) subsisting literature would indicate that they are excuse more likely than their lower status counterparts to engage in physical activity in their leisure time.Other sociological concerns regarding socioeconomic status is whether t hey are any variations in how individuals with different socioeconomic status encompass obesity or overweight. For instance, analyses from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) (1999) survey showed that many respondents with lower socioeconomic status tended to have lower levels of perceived overweight, thus individuals monitor lizard their weight less c pull backly, were less likely to be trying to lose weight and less oftentimes used restrictive dietary practices than those with higher socioeconomic status, after adjusting for sex, age and BMI. Wardle and Griffith (2001) found that, women living in super affluent neighbourhoods were more likely to be dissatisfied with their weight than women from deprive neighbourhoods. Women, particularly those in disadvantaged situations, face structural, social, organisational, financial and other constraints in making healthy choices. Secondly poorer neighbourhoods provide fewer opportunity structures for health promoting activities tha n more affluent areas (Ellaway et al 1997). These findings make it very difficult for superior to decide how to target health promotion activities. Ellaway et al (1997)argues that people who low socioeconomic status focus on the basic issues of survival, whether these be financial including purchasing food at all, let alone healthy sources or social including battling the stigma of poverty and/or overweight and all that is related to it. In my view this suggests that it may be plausible to conclude that where mortal lives what socioeconomic status they have and how much they earn can run his or her opportunities to undertake health promoting activities which in turn may work body size and shape. Public health policies which aim to reduce the proportion of overweight people in the population should be targeted in divest local areas, and their facilities and amenities, as well as at individuals (Ellaway et al 1997).Obesity and ethnicityA great deal of confusion surrounds the mean ing of ethnicity and in many cases this term is still being Inter-changeable with race (Scambler 2007). Ethnicity however embodies one or more of the following, shared origins or social background shared civilization and customss that are distinctive, maintained between generations, and lead to a sense of identity element and group and a common language or religious tradition (Bhopal 2009).thither is also repeated evidence of social disparities in the prevalence of obesity and overweight. Data from national surveys paint a consistent estimate where women, individuals of lower socio-economic position and minority racial/ethnic groups have the highest rates of obesity and overweight (Bhopal 1998). Links have been made why disparities exist in the prevalence of obesity especially among disadvantaged ethnic minority groups. Henderson and Kelly (2005) suggest that these disparities exists because of inequalities in the club they argue that people with more knowledge, money, power , prestige and beneficial social connections are better able to control weight gain, either through the ability to make healthy food choices (by having greater awareness of, access to, and resources to purchase healthy foods), or through greater opportunities for exercise, and safe play. I agree with this, in my view there is many evidence to show that ethnic groups are disadvantaged in term of income, socioeconomic status and employment, the point above suggest to me that ethnic minorities are less likely to have money prestige and social connects that (Henderson and Kelly 2005) suggest will lower the risk of obesity. This view is supported by Sniderman et al (2007) who found no disparities in prevalence of obesity among ethnic groups when he factored in adjustments of socioeconomic status and income.Black ethnic groups have a significantly higher risk of obesity than those in Mixed, Asian, Other and washrag ethnic groups (Ellaway et al 1997). Children living in deprive areas ha ve a higher risk of obesity than those living in less deprived areas. However, the increased risk associated with deprivation is greatest for White children, whereas it come alongs to have much less of an effect for black children. For Asian, Other, and Mixed ethnic children deprivation increases the risk of obesity, but not as much as for White children (Ellaway et al 1997). In my opinion however the measuring of BMI to determine and compare obesity between various ethnic groups remains very sketchy. For example Sniderman et al (2007) asserts that in various sections of the population, the BMI classification is not generally applicable. For instance in when looking at children, the elderly and when comparing ethnic groups.Seidell and Visscher (2000) found that there were some systematic variations in normal BMI across ethnic groups in some Asian populations a particular BMI equates to a higher character of body fat than for the same BMI in a white European population. In these As ian populations, the risks of type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease increase at a BMI below the standard cut-off value of 25 kg/m2. In other populations, such as black populations, the opposite is square(a) and a particular BMI corresponds to a lower percentage of body fat and consequently lower risks of morbidity and mortality than in a white European population. When comparing obesity in different ethnic groups. Seidell and Visscher (2000) suggest that using a more different definition such as waist to hip ratio rather than standard BMI.Obesity and suckerPhysical deviance has been conceptualised as a stigma by Goffman (1963) defines as any attribute that is deeply discrediting to an individual. In addition to what he calls the abominations of the body or the physical deformities, he lists the tribal stigmas of race, religion, and social class, and what he calls the blemishes of individual character, such as mental illness, addiction, alcoholism, and homosexuality (DeJong, 1980). Goffman (1963) argues that individuals who possess a fail identity as a result of their stigma, the consequences can be severe, heedless of the particular nature of the stigma. Although a bit extreme people with stigmatised conditions are viewed as not quite human and are subject to variation and outright rejection or avoidance (DeJong, 1980). As a result, the stigmatised learn to continually monitor their self-presentation and to consciously devise strategies of interaction. In spite of those efforts, however, a stigma can continue to intrude itself into the interaction, and its possessors may come to feel that their identity is strictly defined in terms of it (DeJong, 1980).On the other pass off all the above writers fail to list obesity among the physical stigmata. There is a certain irony in that fact, for some have argued that the orotund are subject to a particularly severe degree of ridicule, humiliation, and discrimination. I would argue that perhaps Goffman (196 3) and (DeJong, 1980) did not include obesity as in that time being cogent held different stature in the society than it does now, for example wealth and physical presents. Secondly I would infer that search into the links of obesity and health were not widely publicised as they do now. SomeScambler (2008) takes a functionalists view that those who possess certain dismiss conditions that result in stigma have acquired their deviant status through the commission of deviant acts. In this day and age obesity is seen by some as a discredited condition, this normally results in ideas that obese people are responsible for their condition, in other words they have put themselves in that condition. DeJong (1980) agrees with this notion that people that possess stigmatising conditions are or so always seen as having responsibility for acquiring and controlling their deviant status. Wright (1960) contrasts this by stressing that individuals with a physical stigma are not usually held in p erson responsible for their condition. Nonetheless in terms of obesity this works both ways the genetic component that the stigmatised individual has no control or responsibility no matter how much dieting and exercise he or she does, and the self inflicted individual who is seen to stuff themselves with fatty foods. Wright (1960) suggests that most physical attributes of the body are viewed as determined by genetic and environmental forces beyond an individuals personal control.Quintessentially in the case of obesity observations have frequently been noted to be extremely negative toward the obese, this seems to arise from the belief that obesity is caused by self indulgence, gluttony, or laziness. In short, the obese do seem to be held personally responsible for their physical condition (DeJong, 1980). weighty individuals are commonly blamed for their excess weight, are socially disliked, and are the targets of permeative negative stereotypes such as having a lack of self-discipli ne (Puhl and Brownell 2001). Obese people are highly stigmatised and face different forms of discrimination and prepossess because of their weight (Brownell et al 2005).Stigma and obesity is a public health concern as Puhl and Brownell (2001) found that health-care professionals (physicians, nurses, psychologists, and medical students) possess negative attitudes toward obese people. They suggest that obese people are not only stigmatised by the society but by the health professional that are meant to make unnecessary help to them. A study of British healthcare professionals found that providers perceived overweight people to have reduced self-esteem, sexual attractiveness, and health. Healthcare professionals believed that physical inactivity, overeating, food addiction, and personality characteristics were the most important causes of overweight (Puhl and Brownell 2001).Attitudes obese people amongst healthcare professionals is a major public health concern in that it sometimes i nfluences how this group excess health given the fact that they are a high risk population in terms of more prevalence to a number of physical health issues. Puhl and Heuer (2009) found that obese patients who experience stigma in health-care settings may delay or throw in the towel essential preventive care. Mitchell et al (2008) discovered in their study that obese individuals are less likely to undergo screenings for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer for women with a BMI greater than 55 kg/m2, 68% reported that they delayed pursuit health care because of their weight, and 83% reported that their weight was a barrier to getting appropriate health care. When asked almost specific reasons for delaying care, women reported impious treatment and negative attitudes from health professionals, embarrassment about being weighed, receiving unsolicited advice to lose weight, and gowns, exam tables, and other equipment being too small to be functional.Removing the stigma-related b arriers to receiving screenings may help to diminish the relationship between excess body weight and mortalities (Mitchell et al 2008).Puhl and Heuer (2009) argues that and I am convinced by their view that disapproval by the society leaves overweight and obese individuals vulnerable to social injustice, unfair treatment, and impaired quality of life as a result of substantial disadvantages and stigma. Crawley (2004) found in his study that among females, a negative correlativity between body weight and honorarium. He argues the explanation is that obesity lowers wages for example, by lowering productivity or because of work placed discrimination, second is that low wages cause obesity.ConclusionWhere someone lives what socioeconomic status they have and how much they earn can influence the choices they make about their health. Ethnic disparities in the prevalence of obesity still exist in the United Kingdom. Sociological concepts can assist us in understanding how to deal with ob esity given known link between poor diets during pregnancy is a risk factor for low birth weight, which in turn has been associated with abdominal obesity in adulthood Crawley (2004).