Social Causes of the Obesity "Epidemic"-Becker

Obesity is defined usually as a body-mass index of 30 or greater, where the body-mass index adjusts weight for height by dividing weight in kilograms by the square of height in meters. Obesity defined in any reasonable way has increased rapidly since 1980 in the United States, and to a lesser extent In Europe and Japan. About 30 per cent of all Americans have a body mass index of over 30, and about twice that number are considered to be merely overweight. While all economic levels, ages, racial groups, and both genders became heavier, obesity is much more common among the less educated, lower income persons, women, African-Americans, and Hispanics. Several factors explain why the average weight of Americans (and those in other developed countries) increased a lot more rapidly after 1980 than it had before. The effective price of fatty foods began to decline rapidly at that time, in part due to the growth of fast food chains, like McDonald's. Also important, especially for teenagers, is the attraction of sedentary activities resulting from computers, email and instant messaging, and video games that replaced time at sports and other more physically challenging activities. (Television viewing by Americans did not increase, and may have declined, during the past 25 years.) The development of many drugs that combat high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, and other ill health caused by being greatly overweight, and a reasonable expectation of further medical progress in the future, also contributed to the declining concern about being greatly overweight. Social networks that influence eating and leisure activities has been recently suggested as a further factor in the spread of obesity. An article in the July 26 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine ("The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network Over 32 Years") analyzed the famous Framingham Heart Study for any evidence of social influences on obesity. This Study has followed about 5000 individuals and their children and grandchildren since 1948, with questionnaires on health, weight, friends, marital status, and many other variables. The recent exploration of these data between 1971-2003 for obesity social influences finds that a person becomes fatter when his or her friends, spouse, or siblings become fatter. The authors are aware that this does not necessarily mean causation from weight gain by friends and family to weight gain by this person. They probe further by adjusting for past weight, by looking at the timing of weight increases, by seeing if weight changes of neighbors are correlated (they are not), and develop a few other tests. The results withstand all these tests, so they conclude that social influences of friends and family are important in the obesity "epidemic" of the past 25 years. Yet it is impossible with data of the kind in the Framingham Study to be sure that social influences rather than common changes in variables unobserved by the analyst explain why weight changes move together among friends or other social groups. To isolate the effects on behavior of group influences rather than the effects of changes in common forces, one needs evidence like what happened to their weights after college students are randomly assigned to each other as roommates (there is a study of the behavior of students who were so assigned), or evidence from other situations where one can more fully rule out friendships due to common interests and backgrounds. Still, it is plausible that eating habits and leisure and work activities are significantly influenced by what peers and family are doing. Indeed, considerable circumstantial evidence strongly suggests powerful social influences over many kinds of human behavior. Nevertheless, however important is the impact of social influences on weight gains, they cannot explain why the trend toward obesity accelerated during the past several decades. For what social influences do is magnify, not start, the responses of groups to changes in prices, incomes, jobs, technologies available for games and communication, and other factors common to most members. For example, if a friend starts eating fast foods more frequently for whatever reasons, and I am influenced by his eating habits, then I would more frequently eat more fast foods as well. If he is also influenced by my eating habits, he eats even more of these foods than he did initially. But then I would eat still more as a result of his reaction to my eating. The end result could be a large increase in the fast food consumed by both of us, which could cause significant increases in our weights. In effect, there is a multiplier response to any initial weight gains due to the presence of social interactions. To illustrate this "social multiplier" on weight changes, assume that if each time my peers gain a pound of weight, I gain 0.6 of a pound because I alter my behavior to correspond to theirs. If I influence their behavior to the same extent, then the social multiplier would be 2.5=1/1-0.6, which is the infinite sum of the series of back and forth interactions on weight changes among these peers. This means that if each member of a group on their own would gain 10 pounds as a result of say a decline in the price of fat, than each would end up gaining much more, 25 pounds, because of the social interactions among them. This example shows how a sizable social multiplier on weight would transform moderate gains in weight when individuals are considered in isolation into possible epidemics after accounting for the interactions among members of a social network. The social multiplier on weight gains can be utilized to make it easier to lose weight. Individuals unhappy with being overweight can recognize that their chances of losing weight are greater if they acquire friends who are thin or who want to lose weight too. They could try to find such friends by attending exercise classes, or by joining online and other weight losing groups. A company may want employees to lose weight in order to reduce absenteeism, and to save money on employee health insurance. It would be able to utilize the fact that employees' beliefs about their appropriate weights are influenced by how heavy their fellow employees are, especially when employees of the same firm are also friends. The company could heavily subsidize healthy meals, or offer bonuses to employees who lose weight, recognizing that these benefits might cause big reductions in weight because of the social multiplier. Governments may try to reduce the incidence of obesity because of paternalism, or a desire to reduce public spending on ill health (I am skeptical about the value of such policies-see my blog post on October 8, 2006). It could take advantage of the social multiplier on weight by recognizing that even modest taxes on the fat in food or on fast food outlets would have large effects on the consumption of fat, and indirectly on weight loss, because of the social multiplier in eating patterns among friends, family, and others.

Comments

[DESTINEE]

have you reviewed http://www.zooped.com social network yet?

[div]

Great Blog . I have also created my lens on medifast recipes. Here's quick intro. :) Medifast recipes are surging in popularity due to the amazing Medifast success stories and the special Medifast coupon codes that are offering customers one or even two weeks free when ordered online. For more info http://www.squidoo.com/MedifastRecipes/

[Dan C]

Rather then ask why do the obese have obese friends, ask why thin people have thin friends.

Perhaps people who enjoy physical activity tend to have friends who enjoy physical activity. Perhaps this more physically active subset of the population is shrinking and the result is a general population that is increasingly obese.

I would also look at time spent in cars (or even commute times in general) for different populations (even other countries) and see how this affects obesity levels. The assumption being that more time in transit leaves less time for physical activity.

Next I would look at the increase in air conditioning which makes being out of shape less of a burden.

Also 3,500 calories equals about one pound (close enough) so a slight change in activity and diet can have a large impact even over a one year period. Once the weight gain occurs reversing direction is more difficult.

[RTS]

Rather than "modest taxes," redesigning the infamous farm bill seems like a more modest solution:

NY Times "You Are What You Grow"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?ex=1186632000&en=e34a39b798cd9bec&ei=5070

[ABC]

Rather than "modest" taxes, a redesign of the Farm Bill seems warranted:

NY Times, You Are What You Grow

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?ex=1186632000&en=e34a39b798cd9bec&ei=5070

[Paul N]

I am disturbed by Becker's tacit acceptance of the oft-cited but never-proven argument that fatty food is a contributing factor to increasing U.S. obesity.

I actually believe that the faulty principle that "eating fat makes you fat", and the corresponding increased tendency to eat low fat, high carb food in the past 30 years, is the biggest reason obesity has been rising so rapidly in the U.S.

[Jeff Yates]

Re the obesity epidemic, two words: corn syrup --

This is discussed in detail in a good read, The Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollan.

[jeff Carter]

I am surprised at the portion sizes. You go to a restaurant and order some pasta and it's enough for three, let alone two. A scientist at the University of Illinois has done research on eating, and has found that if there is food in front of you, you will eat it. Your eye is a poor judge of potion size etc.

Restaurants are under pressure to offer as much as they can at the lowest cost, so it is no surprise that they have increased portion sizes.

This, along with the fact that people are not preparing food at home, and a lot of times if they do it's easy to make processed food, increases obesity. People are more sedentary too. We used to go out and play basketball on a court every day, not on a video screen.

[Andrew]

I'll start by noting the rather paradoxical problem we seem to have here in America:
Our poor people are too fat. (It seems that literally letting them "eat cake" may not have been such a good idea after all...)

My suggested solutions:

1. Reform health education in High School.

When I was in High School, approximately 99% of our physical education class was focused on playing sports--something most people stop doing after their mid-twenties. Also, our "Health Class" was focused on eating right to avoid things like cancer and diabetes, conditions that teenagers know won't affect them for quite some time. Instead, I think High School Health Education should capitalize on teenagers' obsession with their looks and show them ways to eat right and excercise in a way that makes them both healthier and, more importantly, better looking.

2. Subsidize Healthy Food. (Perhaps through some kind of joint effort with our current farm subsidies.)

3. Research and develop food supplements.

Personally, I drink alot of protein and meal replacement shakes because they are healthy, taste good, and are fast and convieniant. Unfortunatly, they are also very expensive. If someone invented a cheap effective meal replacement shake, it would be a formidable weapon in the battle against obesity.

[ABC]

At least part of the reason portion sizes are big is because the price of labor is so high. If a restaurant has the choice of increasing food portions or increasing service and the marginal cost of portions is lower than the marginal cost of labor, the portions will get bigger.

[Foobarista]

Let 'em smoke. Anyone notice/study how the rise in obesity worldwide correlates with the decline in smoking? I don't smoke and don't like cigarette smoke, but I do wonder if we've traded one unhealthy habit for another. France is about to implement fairly draconian smoking restrictions, so I expect to see stories about the French obesity epidemic within a few years.

As for restaurants, 95% of their costs are involved with getting customers in the door, preparation, rent, utilities, etc. Food costs are trivial in comparison, so they can make a killing by offering 2x the food at 1.2x the price.

[Dan C]

Possible sources for obese children

School based meals teach bad habits.

Working moms mean more kids eating fast food.

More working moms means the cost of a balanced home cooked meal has increased

Large high schools mean less athletic participation i.e. Larger high schools field better teams and more elite players because of increased competition, but a few smaller schools would have more players. This winner take all competition discourages marginal would be athletes. Superstars and spuds.

More options for boredom then physical activity.

With increased sexual activity in teens even the heavy kids are getting action. Boys feel less pressure to be physically attractive (athletic) to gain sexual conquest. Girls don't need to be very attractive to gain boys attention, they can substitute sex. Implies the cost, in physical terms, for sexual activity has declined.

Kids getting too much homework leaves less time for physical activity.

Parents are older and spend less active time with children.

Smaller families means less time spent beating on siblings.

Who knows? For some reason people enjoy physical activity less, choose to eat more, and do not feel the need to change

[Margot Critchfield]

Is there any research on the effect on obesity of offering high calorie foods in a social situation like a conference, workshop, or business meeting where food is not necessary? This seems to be a taken for granted social custom.

[Anonymous]

مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

بنت الزلفي

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
شات صوتي

[Anonymous]

5Dapkt

[Anonymous]

thanksss
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™ ŸÖÿµÿ±
--
دردشة مصرية

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone. Art is science made clear.
I am from Niger and bad know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Without renters insurance, you would be out of luck."

Regards ;-) Field.

[Anonymous]

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

دردشه

[Anonymous]

Great site. Keep doing.

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

[Anonymous]

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

[Anonymous]

thanks to tell me that,i think thats ao usefully----
tiffanys
links of london