Embodied Experiences Associated with Obesity and the Management of Bodyweight. Gender and Social Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many affluent Western societies the less educated are at higher risk of developing obesity. Within a conceptual framework of sociology of embodiment, this study analyzed the embodied experiences associated with obesity and the management of body weight among women and men with different social backgrounds. Qualitative in depth interviews were conducted with 20 Danish middle-aged men and women who were categorized as clinically obese in a national dietary survey. The study found a devastating impact of obesity in the lives of highly educated women related to motherhood, career and wifehood which interrelated with persistent efforts to lose weight and repeated involvement in a great variety of weight-loss activities. In contrast, body weight among the less educated interviewees was a concern only in specific situations of everyday life, and it was a health-related concern especially for those men who had experienced weight-related disease, which interrelated with less commitment to, and variation in, weight-loss activities. These findings may help to explain why obesity is least prevalent among highly educated women in Danish society as well as other western societies. A marked difference between men and women was that only few men followed dietary regimes which involved a focus on cooking or changing eating habits on their own initiative. In addition they did not participate in commercial weight-loss programs. We discuss how the social and gendered differences found relate to wider societal contexts and how the findings may both challenge and inform public health promotion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".