The ‘weight’ of socio-economic differences
Think tank analyses relationship between lifestyle and obesity
Socio-economic differences in lifestyle are clearly linked to the problem of obesity, which is becoming increasingly acute. A working group of Metaforum Leuven has proposed possible measures.
“If you have a Body Mass Index of 25 or more, you may be struggling with overweight, while a BMI of 30 and above indicates obesity,” Professor of Biomedical Kinesiology Johan Lefevre explains. “In 2008, 47 percent of Flemings suffered from overweight and this percentage is even higher today. The figures for children and young people are especially alarming. More than 16 percent of young people between two and seventeen years old are currently overweight. Metaforum Leuven, a think-tank that supports interdisciplinary working groups, aims to indicate the relationship between socio-economic differences, lifestyle and overweight.”
“Our choice of food is determined by what we consider tasty, by health reasons, by price and by availability,” Professor of Health Psychology Omer Van den Bergh summarises. “Economic and cultural trends also impact this choice. People have less time to cook themselves, they eat out more often and/or buy ready-cooked meals. Unhealthy food is cheaper and consequently, people in lower economic classes buy and eat more of it. Thus, the lower classes learn to enjoy eating unhealthy food. The upper classes are better informed about healthy food, have more money to invest in it and feel more pressured to stay thin.”
“Moreover, we move far too little,” Professor Lefevre says. “Continually increasing technological advances and a greater need for mobility ensure that we spend a lot of time just sitting in our cars. Sports clubs are primarily geared towards people who are good at sports – achievement is considered very important. Those who are really obese are no longer able to participate in sports because they need to lose weight first. Socio-economic factors also have an influence in this area – sports equipment and memberships to sports clubs cost money.”
“The possible consequences of overweight cannot be underestimated,” Professor Lefevre warns. “They include diseases such as diabetes type 2 and increased risk of heart and vascular disease, stress problems in the knees, back and hips and psychological conditions such as depression and negative self-image. Moreover, overweight probably also has an effect on areas such as performance at school, choice of partner and success in the job market. That is why prevention is very important. This requires behavioural change, which is not easy.”
“Too often, we mistakenly overemphasise the importance of knowledge,” Professor Van den Bergh tells us. “It does not follow, however, that I will enjoy eating a steak béarnaise any less just because I know how many calories it contains. Currently, we often focus on this knowledge and self-control, which causes feelings of guilt. The way we work, shop, travel and produce food in today’s society makes it easier, cheaper and more evident to eat unhealthy food and to take less physical exercise. Overweight is often thought to be an individual problem, but it is probably far more of a social problem, the causes of which are also to be found in society.”
“The problem affects every layer of the population. We must search for a balance between taking measures that address the various population groups, but also reduce socioeconomic inequality at the same time. The Metaforum working group has provided suggestions for possible interventions, though it is very difficult to conduct social engineering. In any case, young people are a very important group. Indeed, the habits we acquire as children continue to play a very significant role. For example, removing soft drink machines from schools or imposing restraints on advertising may certainly help.”
“Schools can teach children that sport is primarily about having fun, not about competition and achievement,” Professor Lefevre emphasises. “Sports clubs can also devote more attention to recreational sports. The infrastructure of local communities, especially around schools, could invite people to move more. For example, people might go jogging together, primarily for the company and the fun of it. But they would also be getting some exercise.”
Metaforum strengthens participation in social debate
Metaforum Leuven was established in 2009. The interdisciplinary think tank aims to strengthen K.U.Leuven’s participation in social debate. To this end, Metaforum Leuven supports interdisciplinary working groups that discuss topical social issues. Professor Erik Schokkaert of the Department of Economics chairs the Metaforum Leuven Steering Committee. He emphasises that the university distinguishes itself from other think tanks: “As scientists, we are able to examine these issues independently and with a degree of critical distance. We are also multidisciplinary. Participation in social debate is usually associated with the humanities, but our working groups also include scientists from the Biomedical and the Science, Engineering and Technology Groups.”
Metaforum Leuven has already treated various topics: the increasing use of psychiatric medication, biodiversity as a basic product or luxury commodity and socio-economic differences in overweight. When the working groups have concluded their discussions about a particular issue, a symposium is organised at which a position paper is presented. Amongst others, the following themes will be discussed by Metaforum in the future: quality assurance and regulation, mobility in Flanders, diversity in Congolese society and the criteria for a sound immigration policy in Belgium. Metaforum also organises debates on the international position of a Catholic university and the role of a Catholic university in a multicultural society. Finally, it also co-ordinates multidisciplinary lectures at the university.
The working groups’ position papers are available online
Tine Bergen & Ilse Frederickx
