Discuss factors leading to overeating and obesity

Factors that lead to obesity are split into 2 main areas nature and nurture. Nature and nurture can be argued for almost everything that exists today: for example, our behaviour, actions, and appearance. Nurture can be seen as cognitive thoughts on dieting and society s views on our food preferences, while nature is the biological theory of breaking down overeating to neurons and chemicals in our body, as well as evolutionary theories that suggest obesity is due to our mal-adaptation of eating environments. Evolutionary factors suggest that obesity is the maladaptive product of changes that took place in the environment of evolutionary adaptation thousands of years ago. Food preferences and eating habits have developed so that we are advised to eat high fats, carbohydrates, sugars and so on, that contribute to our daily survival. But as these adaptive behaviours thousands of years ago meets the needs and society of today, the same mechanism becomes maladaptive and may lead to obesity. If this evolutionary explanation of eating behaviour is correct, then such behaviour is universal, present in young children before cultural or social learning takes place, which can be mirrored in the animal kingdom. A study that shows such preferences are universal is the Eskimo study by Bell (1973), in which sweet foods were introduced to an Alaskan community previously lacking them. Sweets were not rejected, and a preference was shown to be developed, proving that eating behaviour is not learnt, but innate. This supports the evolutionary theory because we have a built in system where we have a liking for sweet foods, and everyone around the world is the same, and culture does not affect our preferences for foods. The liking for calorie snacks seems to be innate and therefore passed down through genes from our ancestors. This is seen in the study by Birch and Deysher (1985) in which preschool children learn to eat smaller meals of a taste associated with a high calorie snack and larger meals of low calorie associated tastes. This study supports evolutionary explanations because preschool children (2-4yrs) are too young to understand nutrition, so the associations they have with high calorie and low calorie snacks must be inherited from our ancestors. Nature has given us preferences for different foods that may help us survive, as we can see in the Alaskan study, as well as the preschool children study. Preferences from our ancestors have also decided the amount of calories or sugar that we need to feel full. However, all these studies can be criticised because they do not take into account different cultures and environments. It also rejects the idea of free will, as we can choose what we want to eat normally, not just high sugar/fat foods. Furthermore the theory can be criticised in general because it is reductionist since it is based on adaptation and maladaptation, but has nothing to do with our social changes. It can also be deterministic because we can choose our diet, or can go against our diets, but does not take into account that we have a limited number of choices. Although there are some elements of our eating behaviour that may be due to adaptation, it does seem likely that there are other, more individualised, factors which explain why some people become obese

and others do not. This leads to the other naturalistic case of obesity caused by biological forms, such as different neurons, hormones and brain structures. Biological psychologists suggest that obesity is the product of different neurons and brain structures that make us who we are. They say that food preferences and eating habits developed to promote survival such as binge eating, as it is a basic survival instinct that we are born with. Hunger is activated by signals in our brain, such as homeostasis, in which mechanisms exist to detect imbalances in the equilibrium of our body, whether it is sugar levels, water, temperature etc. Studies done on rats led to discovery of the role of the hypothalamus in obesity. The neurotransmitter NPY was injected to the hypothalamus to trigger eating behaviours (Wickens 2000). The eating behaviour was shown even when the rats were full, but on the other hand, eating behaviour is also produced by abdominal fat (Yang et al 2008) creating a vicious circle effect, thus showing that eating behaviour is only partially down to the neurotransmitters in the brain. The role of leptin proteins has also been investigated in rats. Obese rats seem to have defective genes for producing leptin, which is responsible for weight loss. When injected with leptin, obese rats seem to lose weight rapidly. Ghrelin is another hormone that is produced under stress, which seems to boost appetite, hence the binge comfort eating that some people have. But both the hormones can be dismissed as partial theories that could be possible, as we can cognitively over ride these signals by dieting and choosing whether we want to eat or not. Brain areas involved in are the amygdala, and the inferior frontal cortex. The amygdala is involved in food selection which stops us from eating novel foods, thus avoiding the risk of obesity. Rolls & Rolls 1973 did an experiment where they removed the amygdala from rats, resulting in the rats eating anything that is given to them. The inferior frontal cortex gets messages from the olfactory system (smell) where if damaged, shows a reduction in eating behaviours (Kolb & Whishaw 2006). A study that showed the spatial awareness networks in our limbic system is the Krispy Kreme study (Mohanty et al, 2008). Participants were split into 2 groups, one fasted for 8 hours, the other ate as many doughnuts they could (up to 8). MRI scans were made while participants viewed images of doughnuts or screwdrivers (as far from food as possible). Eater s hunger centres did not activate on doughnut images, so they didn t show food seeking behaviours. This shows that the centres only activate when necessary, not automatically, suggesting that we do not eat every time we pass a bakery, even if it is attractive. This also explains why everything becomes a food cue when we re hungry, but ignored when we are full. This theory does not take into the account how evolution, learning and personal preference can have an effect on what we eat. It is a reductionist theory which suggests that our eating behaviours are down to neurons and hormones in our body. However, it offers a good explanation for why people seem to eat more when they are obese, and why we eat what smells nice or tastes good. Although there are some elements of our eating behaviour that may be due to neurons and hormones (biological causes), it does seem likely that there are other, more individualised, factors which explain why some people become obese and others do not.

Nature proves to be a good argument where obesity is concerned, but this can also be due to social and cognitive effects on us, such as dieting, and society s opinion of a perfect body. Cognitive dieting behaviours come in many different forms, such as the restraint theory, denial and paying more detail to what we re eating. Most of these theories have a negative side to it, leading to obesity when it is least expected. The restraint theory explains the causes and consequences of cognitive restriction of food, also known as deciding not to eat. Trying not to eat increases the probability of overeating, as we can see in Wardle & Beales study (1988). 27 obese women were split into 3 groups, diet, exercise or non-treatment group for 7 weeks. In weeks 4&6, participants were called into a lab and given a small snack (week 4) or a stressful task with food readily available to them (week6). In both weeks, the women in the diet group ate more of the offered food than others. Urbzat, Herman & Polivy (2002) proved that even planning to go on a diet resulted in eating more food, known as the last supper effect where we plan on eating as much as possible, as we know we are going to be on a diet, serving as a justification with the view of if I m not allowed to eat as much later, I might as well eat more now to store up my energy when I m on my diet! . These 2 studies may lead to the conclusion of not putting obese people on a diet, which therefore results in not eating as much as they would if they were on a diet. But this does not explain why anorexics restrict eating, but then don t overeat when given a chance to, thus not explaining why obesity occurs in the first place. In other ways, the denial theory which is aimed to suppress or deny a thought leads to the opposite effect. Wegner (1987) proved this when he created a study in which participants were told to not think of a white bear, but had to ring a bell when they did, or think about the bear. More bells were rung when participants were told not to think of the white bear. This is the same as Soetens study (2006) where dieters and non-dieter groups were asked not to think about food, resulting in the dieters thinking about food more. When paying more detail to what we eat (Redden 2008), we feel more satisfied by it. In the study, 135 participants were split into 2 groups, both with 22 jelly beans. They were asked to focus on the detail of how it tasted, felt and smelt, or not to focus on the jelly beans. The group that did not focus on the jelly beans got bored faster, and ate more than the group which paid attention to what they were eating. All of the above theories suggest how obese people stay obese, but not how they came to be obese in the first place. As these studies were all artificial, they cannot really replicate the actual motivations of real dieters, and they do not show any anecdotal evidence of thought processes and mood shifts during diets, which affect and reflect on the diet itself, whether it can work or not. They also lack focus on thin eating habits versus the amount of foods. Linking back to how nurture affects us in obesity, we cannot really tell from the cognitive factors that it is really what makes people obese. Social influences on eating behaviour, such as attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, intentions and behaviour are all linked together, in a way where people are anxious of what society thinks of them, and how they can give a more positive view for themselves. Research in this area has focused on predicting intentions to consume certain food groups, such as 5-a-day, organic, low fat or

low salt. Cox et al (1998) used Theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to identify barriers to higher fruit and vegetable eating in UK consumers. They found that there were positive attitudes based on health, cost and taste of food, but low intention to buy healthy foods due to low social pressures to actually eat them. In a longitudinal study (Armitage & Conner 1999) attitudes and intentions on low fat diets were assessed to see if the behaviour was changed. It was found that TPB accounted for 39% of the variance in actual behaviour after a month. Evaluating the social and cognitive influences on obesity, it does not particularly explain the factors leading to obesity, and assumes that we make rational, cognitive decisions, but does not really take into account how our subconscious may affect our decisions. It is not specific enough for our own eating behaviours and does not regard moral concerns such as vegetarianism, GM foods, religious foods etc. Also, results cannot be generalized for the larger population, as not all people think the same way or eat the same foods. All in all, the natural evolutionary aspects of obesity can prove why we prefer certain foods over others, and why we are subconsciously trained to eat foods with high fat and sugars as our energy source, while the biological aspects reduces it all down to the core hormones and neurotransmitters inside us, showing that it is based on our natural bodies to eat what we eat. Nurture can also prove why dieting doesn t really work, and why our attitudes and society influence what we eat. If we are asked or persuaded to eat something, we are much more likely to keep eating it of prompted regularly. Although both sides put up a good argument as factors leading to overeating and obesity, obesity due to nature has more evidence backing up the causes and preventions of overeating as well as ways to reduce symptoms of obesity, so therefore, must be the larger force in the fight against obesity.