1. Krupa 1
Mariel Krupa
Dr. Heinsohn
English 1120-029
5 December 2013
Obesity: The History, Mystery, and Unfortunate Reality
“Because I hated myself so much for my fatness, I always looked for other fat
people, and especially for fatter people, to judge as harshly as the world seemed to be
judging me,” Dan Pearce’s reflection is echoed by millions of individuals currently
struggling with obesity worldwide, who are not the first to experience stigmatization by
society. Throughout history, weight has served various purposes: A symbol of stature, as
depicted by the plump, affluent royalty of Ancient Greece, a definition of beauty set
standard by celebrities and socialites, and also a justification for weight-based prejudice,
traceable back to the earliest documentation of overweight individuals. For reasons still
not fully understood, excess weight evokes negative feelings and perceptions in people,
particularly if the observed person is noticeably overweight, or obese. Investigating the
origin of this stigma is a new subject of research, stemming from its increasing severity
and concurring negative psychological effects on current obese populations. As obesity’s
prevalence in society continues to increase, the stigma held against obese people has
similarly progressed into a more harsh, powerful, and detrimental bias with long-term
effects on its vulnerable victims.
Whether or not aware of it, stigmatization of obese people is omnipresent,
progressing over time alongside obesity rates. Arising in the Paleolithic Age with the
sculpting of Venus figurines, evidence of corpulence dates back to humankind’s earliest
documentation. Visible in the image below, these voluptuous women were carved out of

2. Krupa 2
Mammoth Ivory and appear fully exposed: naked, with exaggerated details in their
shoulders, breast, and buttocks, all representing a woman’s extraordinary gift of fertility
(Maugh). Disputes over these early sculptures’ significance in art’s intrinsic world still
occur today, caused by disagreements about their origin and what they reveal about body
ideals. Incidentally, they serve as evidence for scholars as they delve into the chronicle of
obesity, revealing that the disease is not strictly a modern inconvenience. Fascinated
researchers have taken interest in Paleolithic sculptures because of their depiction of
society’s accepted, perhaps even worshipped, corpulent body type. However, desirable
body image dithers from culture to culture, illustrated by many societies, including
Ancient Romans who praised their elite class by erecting sculptures of their toned, fit,
athletic bodies (Kelly 18). Roman physician Galen divided obese people into types,
classifying them with either moderate obesity or immoderate obesity. He viewed
moderate obesity as an indicator of wealth, passing it as sociably acceptable. The latter he
constituted a character flaw, resulting from a life of overindulgence and lust. Obese
people as targets for prejudice and inequity frequently arise further along in history as
well, portraying weight ideals of each specific era. As the Rococo period approached in
the 18th
century, paintings represented slender body types, creating a desire in women to
imitate their thin-wasted counterparts. Malcolm Flemyng, a 18th
century Dutch physician
famous for his paper, Discourse on the Nature, Causes, and Cures of Corpulency,
understood obesity as an undesired ailment and suggested that some fat people inherit an
uncontrollable predisposition for their condition, relating its origin to biology. Instead of
recommending diet and exercise, he encouraged his overweight patients to drink one-
quarter ounce of castile soap daily, amounting to little success (Kelly 21). Negative

3. Krupa 3
connotations of excess weight have not perished alongside the primeval cultures from
which they stem; yet instead continue evolving over time into a more severe prejudice,
attributable to a more overweight population.
Obesity’s complexity arises from its many causes, encompassing possible genetic,
environmental, behavioral and psychological factors, all perceived as predecessors to the
disease. As represented in the above graph, obesity prevalence has raised 50% since
1700, revealing a positive correlation between obesity and sugar consumption since
around 1900. An anthropological theory serves as the paramount for uncovering obesity,
apropos of its history, impact, and global causes, determining skyrocketing obesity rates
are due to the availability of an abundance of food, after our ancestors were subjected to
food scarcities for centuries. Theorists proclaim that humans today are genetically
“wired” for survival in a world of feast and famine, which is “programmed” in-utero, and
ultimately contribute to obesity later in life (Saryee, Lende). Researchers seeking more

4. Krupa 4
concrete explanations about obesity’s upward trend have proposed theories ranging from
technology’s role in creating a sedentary population to present consumption rates, which
indicate obese people are more inclined to overconsume than their average weight
counterparts.
A less active, unhealthier, population has been facilitated by technological
advances, which is brilliantly depicted by Professor Kelly in Obesity, “If the people of the
1800s could be transported to today, they would be shocked to see automobiles whizzing
by and planes flying overhead,” Her visualization continues, “In the gym they would see
both men and women lifting heavy plates of steel and looking miserable, as if they were
being punished for bad behavior” (Kelly 63). Machinery has proved to be a “double-
edged sword,” because while efficiently expediting work processes, technology has
subsequently turned physical labor into a moot point, resulting in noticeable weight gain
during the 19th
century’s Industrial Revolution. More recently, researchers have attempted
to explain obese individuals’ tendency to overeat by identifying consumption patterns in
regards to environmental factors, including the eating environment and “food
environment.” Package size, lighting, socializing, variety of food, and a meal’s
presentation are few of many environmental factors that influence consumption volumes
of food far more people realize (Wansink 455). A study conducted by Kim B. Wansink in
2004 proved that packaging even increases consumption of unfavorable foods, “When
moviegoers in a Philadelphia suburb were given either medium-size or large-size buckets
of stale, 14-day-old popcorn, they ate 33.6% more popcorn from the larger buckets
despite the poor taste of the popcorn” (Wansink 464-467). Though research regarding the
causation of escalating obesity rates are still in preliminary stages, a distinguished

5. Krupa 5
consistency among all researchers is obesity’s stigmas pervasiveness, which continues to
progress similarly alongside the disease itself.
As the saying goes, “Kids say the darndest things.” Young and impressionable,
children are among the first group of individuals exposed to weight prejudices. Whether

6. Krupa 6
overweight themselves, or in the presence of obese company, they quickly observe their
parents’ negative views. In addition to vocalizing their negative stereotypes about excess
weight, parents of obese children are reported to provide less financial support for college
than parents of thin children. Indications of the effect such negativity has on its young
audience are portrayed by children developing their own negative views towards obese
people, arising as young as three years of age (Puhl, Brownell.) In one study, a group of
children between three to six years old described obese people as, “likely to be dumb,
lazy, and stupid” (Kelly 46). An experiment conducted by Richardson and colleagues
observed school children ranking classmates in order of whom they would most like to
have as a friend. Obese children were ranked last among other kids with crutches, in
wheelchairs, with an amputated hand, and with a facial disfigurement. A half-century
after Richardson’s study, obesity’s prevalence among has risen, with concrete
implications that its accompanying stigma’s severity has increased as well. Obese
individuals face a number of social stigmas across a wide range of life activities, ranging
from relationships to employment. Astounding statistics indicate that approximately half
of employers intentionally hire thin applicants over obese, if given the choice, and one
study concluded that 16 percent of employers would never hire an obese contender (Puhl,
Brownell.) Thus fore, being overweight directly affects a person’s standards of living by
contributing to a vicious cycle of low wages, few education opportunities, and
subsequently a life stuck in low socioeconomic standings. Convincing evidence, available
only years after interest in this topic was sparked and research began, proves that the
current global obesity crisis is more complicated and destructive than originally
conceived. Obesity’s stigma present throughout history is evolving into a more severe,

7. Krupa 7
dangerous form of discrimination with effects ranging beyond the realm of physical
appearance and crossing into mental health.
Evidence of weight discrimination dates back long before public interest and
research on the topic commenced, arising in ancient times with prejudices against
overweight individuals commonly in the form of public mockeries. Hippocrates,
renowned as a Greek physician, implemented that obese people eat only once a day, take
no baths, sleep on a hard bed, and walk naked as long as possible, until successfully
shedding necessary weight. Though humiliating, his primary focus was on the “health” of
the overweight citizen, with intentions of reconciling the issue and making further
embarrassment unnecessary. Centuries later, harassment shifted from physical to
psychological, revealing cruel public displays of ridicule, particularly within the
workforce during the late 1800’s. Weight standards were implemented for police officer
applicants, as well as numerous other physically demanding government occupations,
including the United States Army. In 1907, Philadelphia Record newspaper reported that
employment agencies within the city declared that it was nearly impossible for fat men to
obtain a job, “Rules were imposed, in the form of public service commissions, and a no

8. Krupa 8
obesity rule found its way into some civic employment. For the first time being obese
could officially bar a person from a job” (Segrave 43). Moreover, a rise in new words
and expressions defining obese people accompanied this nation-wide weight gain,
accelerating the stigma’s progression. “Stout” and “fat” changed from having
complimentary meanings in the 18th
century to holding ugly meanings, along with new
slang words such as, “dumpy,” “pudgy,” “tubby,” “porky,” and “butterball,” all
describing heavyset individuals (Kelly 25). Several different weight based discrimination
approaches have been observed throughout history, evolving alongside mankind itself,
and setting the stage for a forceful, detrimental, and primarily psychological stigma faced
by overweight people of all ages today.
Recent advancements in science and medicine provide explanations regarding the
complexity of obesity as a physical and mental disease, yet a lack of information hinders
knowledge of its official origin, psychological effects, and an understanding of
humanity’s inclination to disprove of excess weight. Stigmatized obese people who begin
experiencing discrimination at an early age and continue facing prejudices are subject to
psychological pain unknown to average weight individuals. Research on obesity’s effects
on interpersonal relationships and its concurring psychological damage has generated
alarming findings, further proving obesity’s stigma’s intensity. Overweight people
experience far less success than their thin counterparts at establishing, and maintaining
relationships, independent of its nature. Studies on intra-family relationships reveal 72%
of obese individuals admit they feel the greatest stigmatization by their family members.
Among others guilty of vocalizing their bias are friends, who were reported by 60% of
participants, and spouses, reported by 47%. Surveys on various college campuses

9. Krupa 9
concluded that overweight women are far less likely to be involved in romantic
relationships than men, uncovering a gender factor in obesity’s stigma. Additional studies
indicate that overweight females, but not males, receive less family support for education
than “normal” weight females (Puhl, Heuer). Alarmingly, a correlation has recently been
discovered between obesity and depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts,
which is not surprising given the pervasiveness of negative attitudes. Understanding the
social and psychological origin of weight biases is imperative because of its strength and
apparent resistance to change, in addition to obesity’s prevalence and therefore the
number of people subject to prejudice, discrimination, and its destructive effects (Puhl,
Brownell).
Reiterated by Larry McCleary, a brain surgeon interested in the “belly-brain
connection,” “A9d9u9l9t9 9o9b9e9s9i9t9y9 9a9n9d9 9o9v9e9r9w9e9i9g9h9t9
9s9t9a9t9i9s9t9i9c9s9 9h9a9v9e9 9i9n9c9r9e9a9s9e9d9 9b9y9 9a9b9o9u9t9 95909
9p9e9r9c9e9n9t9 9s9i9n9c9e9 9t9h9e9 9D9i9e9t9a9r9y9 9G9o9a9l9s9 9w9e9r9e9
9a9n9n9o9u9n9c9e9d. 9T9h9a9t9 9b9e9a9r9s9 9r9e9p9e9a9t9i9n9g9:9 9a9 95909
9p9e9r9c9e9n9t9 9i9n9c9r9e9a9s9e9 9i9n9 9o9b9e9s9i9t9y9/9o9v9e9r9w9e9i9g9h9t9
9c9o9r9r9e9l9a9t9e9d9 9w9i9t9h9 9a9 91909 9p9e9r9c9e9n9t9 9d9e9c9r9e9a9s9e9
9i9n9 9f9a9t9 9c9o9n9t9e9n9t9 9i9n9 9t9h9e9 9d9i9e9t99,” Overconsumption and an
abundance of food have paved the way for a global crisis: obesity. Modernly defined as a
person with a BMI (Body Mass Index) of 30 or more, or “the condition of being grossly
fat or overweight,” obesity’s presence in history remained steady until recent decades,
when rates of obese people skyrocketed at the turn of the 21st
century. Spanning beyond
physical impairments, obesity has proven detrimental to its victims’ mental health and

10. Krupa 10
personal lives because of its related stigma, which has been traced back thousands of
years alongside ancient civilizations’ documentation of corpulence. As more people are
diagnosed “obese,” tendency to discriminate against them rises as well, which has aided
progression of the stigma over time into a more powerful, dangerous, and resistant bias.
Researchers are currently endeavoring to understand obesity’s complicated social,
behavioral, cultural, physiological, and genetic factors, which have been effecting
society’s perception of body weight for centuries. Attempting to understand mankind’s
inclination to disprove, and discriminate, against heavier-than-desired individuals has
resulted in many theories, ranging from anthropological views to overconsumption
causes. Though research on the topic is currently in its preliminary stages with no
concrete conclusion regarding its origin, available information allows curious individuals
and researches to begin unraveling the mystery of the obesity stigma for themselves,
becoming one step closer to fully understanding society’s historical obsession with
weight and body image.