FAT LOSS: THE MICRO ENVIRONMENT
Friday, May 8th, 2009The micro environment refers to those aspects of the environment that are closer to the individual. Again, these can be classed as either physical or socio-cultural. Because they are more personal, however, they are much more amenable to change and represent opportunities for those working at the clinical or individual level. Many potential micro-environmental changes, either within the home, workplace or social environment, are often considered within a behaviour therapy approach to obesity management.
The socio-cultural micro environment. Partner support has been shown to be particularly important to the success of fat loss programs in the home environment. It’s often presupposed that family nutrition practices are influenced mostly by the female in the household, although one study done with spouses of men in a male ‘waist loss’ program in Australia has shown that there is a greater influence on the household environment when the man of the house decides to make a change to reduce fatness. It also seems that females are more likely to provide support for their male partner to lose fat than vice versa.
There are regular eating and exercise patterns within families, workplaces and other social settings which may have counter-productive effects on fat loss programs. A recent survey of eating patterns, for example, showed that dietary patterns close to that regarded as healthy (such as eating breakfast and eating low-fat and high-fibre foods with limited alcohol consumption) are most common on Monday mornings. After that, the dietary pattern declines to Sunday nights with the worst consumption patterns occurring from Friday to Sunday, Work and social pressures over the course of the week no doubt help cause this effect, which also occurs in a yearly cycle from early in the New Year until the end of the year. The implications of this are that fat loss programs designed to lead to lifestyle changes are less likely to be effective if introduced at those times (i.e. late in the week or year) when the social environment is least supportive.
With children, the influence of the family is most significant. Recent research by Dr Len Epstein, a psychologist working in childhood obesity in the US, has shown that reducing inactivity by rewarding children for not watching TV or carrying out other sedentary activities such as video games is a more effective fat loss technique than directly rewarding their involvement in exercise or sport. More importantly, many children who are encouraged to reduce inactivity actually end up liking exercise, and even vigorous exercise, more than those who are put into a regimented exercise program.
Peer and close support group attitudes are also a significant part of the socio-cultural micro environment. For men in particular it’s thought that only exercise that is vigorous and exhaustive has value for improving health and reducing body fatness. Exercise such as that required to walk to the shop, walk up stairs, mow the lawn, or carry out chores is seen purely as a nuisance, or inconvenience. A major initiative here is to change the mental orientation to regarding all forms of activity as an ‘opportunity’ rather than an ‘inconvenience’. By refraining the issue in the minds of the subject, the significance of the external environment is, at least, partly nullified. Currently, this is not aided by social attitudes which regard someone as being successful once they possess all the leisure saving devices possible: while these remain a sign of economic affluence, they are undoubtedly facilitators of physical inactivity.
*174\186\4*