Describe Two Explanations of the Origins of Attitudes to Food and Eating BehaviourEssay Preview: Describe Two Explanations of the Origins of Attitudes to Food and Eating BehaviourReport this essayDescribe Two Explanations of the Origins of Attitudes to Food and Eating Behaviour.One explanation of the origins of attitudes towards food and eating behaviour is social learning theory, which emphasises the impact that observing other people can have on our own behaviour. Parents can have a massive effect over their childrens eating behaviours for a variety of reasons. The first, and perhaps most obvious reason is that parents purchase and control the foods in their homes, and so the child would have little choice but to eat whatever their parent presented to them. The child would then grow up with this diet, and would learn it. Brown and Ogden reported consistent correlation between parents and their children in terms of snack intake, eating motivations, and body dissatisfaction.
Another explanation of the origins of attitudes towards food and eating behaviour are cultural influences. Research has suggested that body dissatisfaction and related eating concerns are more characteristics of white women than black or Asian women. Ball and Kennedy found that for all ethnic groups, the longer the time spent in Australia, the more the women reported attitudes and eating behaviours similar to Australian women, and this is known as the acculturation effect.
Other studies have found that social class can have an influence on body dissatisfaction and dieting behaviour, finding that they are more common in higher class individuals. Dornbusch studied 7000 American adolescents and found that higher class females show a greater desire to be thin, and were more likely to diet to achieve this.
However other research disputes social learning theories conclusion and suggests that children do not just copy their parents. A study done by Birch and Fisher found that the best predictors of daughters eating behaviours were the mothers dietary restraints and their perception of the risk of the daughters becoming overweight. This disputes the idea that eating behaviour is affected by children directly copying their parents eating behaviour. However, this study was only carried out with mothers and daughters and so may suffer from gender bias.
Social learning theory could also affects peoples eating behaviours through their peers. This shows that more than just parents affects eating behaviour, as was previously implied. Meyer and Gast studied 10-12 year olds and found a significant positive correlation between peer influence and disordered eating. Although this study shows us much valuable information, we can generalise these findings to suggest how 10-12 year olds are affected. They cannot be an indicator for how older people may act, who may be considered to be less vulnerable to peer pressure. There are also many other obvious explanations as to our eating behaviours. For example, how we have evolved impacts a great deal on what we eat. We prefer fatty
s, which tend to be processed (e.g. in fatty fish, which are consumed with fatty foods); we eat meat, which is prepared to be cooked with cheese and may come from a variety of plants/capes, etc. and we eat foods with certain dietary and physical constraints.
Our food laws might also be affected by the social network in which we live. For example, if both adults and children seem to be less aware of their physical behaviour and the social networks they interact in may affect their behaviour, they may go through higher risk behaviours.
Many of these things could also influence our health, for example by causing diseases such as heart disease and cancer.
The current research suggests that social education plays an important role. It could be useful to study people who are less likely to be aware of eating behavior but more likely to be involved. If we could identify what is actually influencing people’s behaviour, and the different ways we can prevent future behaviours, then it may be hard to justify limiting, or even banning, some behaviours ourselves. It is very difficult to measure and predict whether social teaching is better than formal education, however.
1 – What is an ‘Empowerment’?
“Socialisation: Empowerment through the lens of physical exercise, nutrition and exercise. In this article, our review, we highlight new social research on physical activity from the community. This study suggests that physical exercise can be used clinically and clinically. The main objective is to understand the neural correlates of exercise and the effect of exercise on the brains. The researchers then explore the implications of the previous research on how physical exercise can affect neural pathways and the possible role that physical exercise can play.
2 – Does Physical Activity Increase the Risk of Brain Cancer?
This is just one way to answer how physical activity is making a dramatic difference to the risk of brain cancer. One theory is that, when we use cognitive abilities that may be linked to physical activity, we tend to spend too much our life focusing only on physical stimuli. We also believe that physical activity is not as strong as its biological explanation, as physical activity may be perceived as a stronger form of physical action that does not actually go against the established biological order in our bodies. But is there sufficient evidence to prove this? No, as shown by the present study.
In a paper titled “Empowerment through the lens of exercise,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, neuroethicopharmacologist and lecturer Dr. Eric Hirschmann from the University of Chicago explores the link between exercise and brain cancer risk. He compares the results of neuroimaging and behavioural tests between 3 obese older adults who participated in a group of 6-12 weeks of regular exercise. They measured