Author: dlende

Culture and Inequality in the Obesity Debate

So far in the posts I’ve done on obesity, I have been focused on the biology behind obesity.  Part of that is due to my class and what this particular section of the course covered—showing them a biological approach to a health problem.  But as I have been going over research on obesity, I’ve collected a number of links and articles on culture, social class, and obesity.  So I am going to share those here. 

Culture 

Let me say one thing.  In biomedicine and particularly in epidemiology, there is an overarching orientation towards the individual.  It is how treatment is planned, how data is collected and analysis proceeds.  This approach misses out on the central insight of culture theory—that aspects of our environment get bundled together due to accumulating human action and our cultural systems of meaning making.  Epidemiology, by separating out factors, has little recourse to understand the dynamics of these larger patterns.  At least in epidemiology, one alternative might be Nancy Krieger’s ecosocial framework (pdf), complemented by James Trostle’s Epidemiology and Culture and Carol Worthman and Brandon Kohrt’s Biocultural Approaches to Public Health Paradoxes. 

In any case, some cultural anthropology and obesity.  First, check out Gina Kolata’s article Chubby Gets a Second Look, including quotes from Emory anthropologists Peter Brown and George Armelagos, teachers of mine when I was in graduate school.  “Being thin really isn’t about health, anyway, but about social class and control.  When food was scarce and expensive, they say, only the rich could afford to be fat…  Those notions of fashion gradually gave way to a more streamlined physique… The body mass indexes of Miss America winners, according to a 2000 study, have been steadily decreasing since 1922, so much so that for most winners in the last three decades their indexes would cause them to be considered underweight.” 

Continue reading “Culture and Inequality in the Obesity Debate”

Utilitarianism and the Brain

Guy Kahane has a discussion of Utilitarianism and the Brain over at Ethics Etc.  In particular, he is discussing Joshua Green’s fMRI studies of moral judgments that have claimed to distinguish between utilitarian and non-utilitarian thinking (and the latter claimed as more rational, the former more emotional and hence not quite as good).  Kahane in particular pays attention to the methods used to generate the evidence and claims, and finds it wanting—the experimental scenarios themselves don’t clearly distinguish between the two types.

The debate has taken place in Nature, and here is a link to the actual text of the Nature critique by Guy Kahane and Nicholas Schackel as well as the response by Michael Koenig and colleagues.

Hat Tip: Natural Rationality

On the Causes of Obesity: Common Sense or Interacting Systems

When you examine the data, most likely you will come to the sorts of conclusions that common sense indicated in the beginning: biology matters—some people can eat and not get heavy, others struggle with weight; what you eat matters, say fatty food versus fruits and vegetables; and how physically active you are matters.  One of the few curves thrown in might be obesity is shaped by lower socioeconomic status, but even that is not too surprising.

So, the question is not really what but why?  And that is a much harder question.

Let me first give you a laundry list of factors linked to obesity, based on my impressions of going over the research these past weeks.  They are more-or-less in order of importance: genetics, socioeconomic status, activity levels, early weight (at birth, by age seven), weight gain in early adulthood, restrictive/binge style of eating, calorie/fat dense vs. fiber/micronutrient dense foods, and social network/cognitive associations of eating and weight.  Other factors could certainly be added to this list, some perhaps shifted around, but it more or less represents an expansion on the common-sense model.

So, why?  Here are some ideas: 

-Weight gain canalizes (once you gain it, it is hard to lose it, especially for predisposed individuals)
-Activity moderates (but does not prevent—it pushes back against a tendency to gain weight)
-Early acquired eating patterns are hard to change: family and social environments affect diet habits, whether these environments favor higher calorie and fat dense foods or foods that have more fiber and micronutrients
-Food insecurity heightens excessive calorie intake and favors lower energy expenditure, especially in food-rich environments.  Food insecurity includes: restriction during gestation and abundance afterwards; restrictive/binging pattern; not having access to food, especially desired food; not eating breakfast.

Right now I am playing around with a three-systems approach to weight regulation: (1) a body-brain system that regulates energy expenditure and storage; (2) an appetite system, largely mediated by the brain but with direct influences from the body and environment; and (3) a cultural biology system, mediating things like eating patterns, body image, and expected exercise.

Continue reading “On the Causes of Obesity: Common Sense or Interacting Systems”

Good Sexual Intercourse Lasts Minutes, Not Hours, Therapists Say

That’s the title of a report over at Science Daily.  A survey of 34 sex therapists found: “The average therapists’ responses defined the ranges of intercourse activity times: ‘adequate,’ from 3-7 minutes; ‘desirable,’ from 7-13 minutes; ‘too short’ from 1-2 minutes; and ‘too long’ from 10-30 minutes.”  The researchers Eric Corty and Jenay Guardiani conclude, “Unfortunately, today’s popular culture has reinforced stereotypes about sexual activity. Many men and women seem to believe the fantasy model of large penises, rock-hard erections and all-night-long intercourse.”

For a much funnier take on the same phenomenon, here’s a YouTube music video, “Ooh Girl” – An Honest R & B Song. You can also check out our comprehensive sex round up, including the very funny Business Time video, and Greg’s in-depth post, What do those enigmatic women want?

Wednesday Round Up #5

Food, Drink and Exercise 

Eric Asimov, Can Sips at Home Prevent Binges?
Good discussion of families, teenagers and learning to drink responsibly at home

Nicholas Bakalar, Skipping Cereal and Eggs, and Packing on the Pounds
Breakfast helps keep most adolescents thin (or perhaps less hefty…?)

Ginger Campbell/John Ratey, Exercise and the Brain
Podcast discussion of Ratey’s book, Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain, and how exercise helps the brain

UPenn Press Release, Images of Desire: Food and Drug Cravings….
Cravings, habits and memories…

UFlorida Press Release, Imaging Disorders of Desire: Opiates, Brownies, Sex and Cocaine
Interview with Anna Rose Childress

Race 

Adam Geller, Where Should Conversation on Race Start?
In our mixed reactions to Obama’s speech, and much more

Eduardo Porter, Race and the Social Contract
Diversity and investment in public infrastructure

Mireya Navarro, Who Are We? New Dialogue on Mixed Race
Navigating the tight space between racial divides

General 

Sue Sheridan, Random Bytes
Sue has her own round-up, including make-up wearing Neanderthals and the evolution of complexity

Continue reading “Wednesday Round Up #5”

Human Biology and Models for Obesity

In reviewing the research and public debates, I have come away startled by the depths of politics and misappraisal about the problem, and the need for human biology to counter this mix of science and morality.  So tonight I’ll write about three problematic things I outlined to my class today, and then show how human biology can provide a useful counter. 

Mind/body and nature/nurture dichotomies run rampant in both public and scholarly discussions of debate.  If it’s not willpower, then it is a biological deficiency.  Genetics causes obesity, or super-size-me environments.  These dichotomies are based on philosophical distinctions that are now centuries old.  They do not match up well with how our bodies, minds, and environments actually work. 

The moralization of fat and the politics of diet produce a tremendous incentive for bias, whether explicit or implicit.  Rhetorical arguments are never really rhetorical in the domain of obesity.  Results are tinged by claims of good and bad, of what’s ideal and what needs to be done.  Since thin-is-in, obesity must be bad, no matter the data; finding that miracle cure, whether it is a diet or surgery or drug, promises huge financial gains, so convenient theories are propped up. 

Suspect science results from both old dichotomies and from the moral politics of obesity.  The moral politics is heightened by the uses of science in establishing authority over a problem, whether it is the government, a medical association, restaurant businesses or soda companies. 

Continue reading “Human Biology and Models for Obesity”