# Body Image and Attitude toward Obesity: RESULTS

There were 96 male students [mean age 20.2 ± (SD) 2.7 years] and 95 female students [mean age 20.2 ± (SD) 1.4 years]. Of these 191 students, 45 were freshman, 48 sophomores, 50 juniors and 48 seniors.

**Table l(a,b,c). BMI Measurements by Sex**

BMI measurement |
(kg/m2) |
Men (n=96) | Women (n= | 95) | ||

Mean | 26.026 | 24.660 | ||||

Standard error | 0.5943 | 0.5159 | ||||

Upper 95% CI | 27.206 | 25.685 | ||||

Lower 95% CI | 24.846 | 23.636 | ||||

Range | 16.133-48.817 | 17.473-39.931 | ||||

Table lb. BMI Measurements by Grade Level | ||||||

BMI measurement |
(kg/m2) |
Freshman (n=45) |
Sophomore (n=48) | Junior (n=50) | Senior (n=48) | |

Mean |
25.265 |
25.510 | 25.218 | 25.395 | ||

Standard error |
0.7469 |
0.9084 | 0.8064 | 0.7062 | ||

Upper 95% CI |
26.771 |
27.338 | 26.838 | 26.815 | ||

Lower 95% CI |
23.760 |
23.683 | 23.597 | 23.974 | ||

Range |
18.024-41.367 |
16.133-48.817 | 17.473-43.451 | 17.( | P44-36.978 | |

Table 1c. BMI Category by Sex | ||||||

Sex | <25 kg/m2 | >25 kg/m2 | Total | |||

Men |
48 |
48 | 96 | |||

Women |
60 |
35 | 95 |

The BMI determinations for the 96 male students was 26.0 ± [SEM] 0.6 kg/m^{2} and for the 95 female students 24.7 ± [SEM] 0.5 kg/m^{2} (Table la). By grade level, BMI measurements were freshman 25.3 ± 0.7 kg/m^{2} (n=45); sophomores 25.5 ± 0.9 kg/m^{2 }(n=48); juniors 25.2 ± 0.8 kg/m^{2} (n=50); and seniors 25.4 ± 0.7 kg/m^{2} (n=48) (Table lb). There were no significant differences in mean BMI measurements by sex or grade level (ANOVA). rimonabant weight loss

*MALE student responses to silhouettes in Appendix A Question 1: Which body number best shows who you ARE now? Table 2.1.1a*

Figure | BMI <25 | BMI >25 | Total |

1 | 2 |
0 |
2 |

2 | 8 |
0 |
8 |

со | 30 |
9 |
39 |

4 | 8 |
21 |
29 |

5 | 0 |
12 |
12 |

6 | 0 |
2 |
2 |

7 | 0 |
4 |
4 |

Pearson’s chi square value | = 45.135, df = 6, p value O.OOl |

*Table 2.1.1b*

Figure | Frequency | Mean Standard Error |
Lower 95% |
Upper 95% | |

1 | 2 | 21.5608 | 2.5007 |
16.592 |
26.530 |

2 | 8 | 20.9558 | 1.2503 |
18.471 |
23.440 |

3 | 39 | 23.2053 | 0.5663 |
22.080 |
24.330 |

4 | 29 | 26.4490 | 0.6567 |
25.144 |
27.754 |

5 | 12 | 31.2077 | 1.0209 |
29.179 |
33.236 |

6 | 2 | 37.7368 | 2.5007 |
32.768 |
42.706 |

7 | 4 | 41.4440 | 1.7683 |
37.931 |
44.958 |

Standard error uses a pooled estimate of error variance; The ANOVA shows an F(0.95; 6, 89) = 28.0960, with a P-value O.0001, and | |||||

Power of 1.00. | |||||

Comparison for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD | |||||

Abs(Dif)-LSD | 7 | 6 5 | 4 |
3 1 |
2 |

7 | -7.5442 | -5.5325 4.0765 | 9.3045 |
12.6373 10.6435 |
13.9548 |

6 | -5.5325 | -10.6691 -1.6195 | 3.4879 |
6.7964 5.5070 |
8.3464 |

5 | 4.0765 | -1.6195 -4.3556 | 1.0966 |
4.4804 1.4982 |
5.3821 |

4 | 9.3045 | 3.4879 1.0966 | -2.8018 |
0.6276 -2.9118 |
1.2324 |

CO | 12.6373 | 6.7964 4.4804 | 0.6276 |
-2.4161 -6.0907 |
-1.8915 |

1 | 10.6435 | 5.5070 1.4982 | -2.9118 |
-6.0907 -10.6691 |
-7.8297 |

2 | 13.9548 | 8.3464 5.3821 | 1.2324 |
-1.8915 -7.8297 |
-5.3345 |

Positive values show pairs of means that are significantly different. | |||||

Comparison of mean BMI for all pairs using the Tukey-Kramer HSD procedure shows figures 6 and 7 were not different from each other | |||||

but both were significantly different from figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. Figure 7 was also significantly difference from figure 5. Figures 1,2, and 3, | |||||

were not different from each other. The mean BMI for figure 5 was significantly different from the mean BMI values for figures 1, 2, 3, | |||||

and 4, but not with Figure 6. |

In separating BMI category (normal weight and overweight) by sex (Table lc), the men were evenly divided between these two groupings (n=48 for those men with BMI <25.0 kg/m^{2} and for those men with BMI >25.0 kg/m^{2}). Most women (63.2%) had BMI measurements <25 kg/m^{2} (normal weight). cheap phentrimine

*FEMALE students responses to silhouettes in Appendix A Question 1: Which body number best shows who you ARE now? Table 2.11.1a.*

Figure | BMI <25 | BMI >25 | Total |

10 | 5 |
0 |
5 |

11 | 14 |
0 |
14 |

12 | 33 | CO |
36 |

13 | CO |
9 |
17 |

14 | 0 |
14 |
14 |

15 | 0 | CO |
8 |

16 | 0 |
1 |
1 |

Pearson’s Chi-squared value=64.980, df=6, p value O.OOl |

*Table 2.11.1b*

Figure | Number | Mean |
Standard Error |
Lower 95% | Upper 95% | |

10 | 5 | 18.4884 |
1.0610 |
16.380 | 20.597 | |

11 | 14 | 20.1721 |
0.6340 |
18.912 | 21.432 | |

12 | 36 | 22.6447 |
0.3954 |
21.859 | 23.430 | |

13 | 17 | 24.9797 |
0.5754 |
23.836 | 26.123 | |

14 | 14 | 29.8582 |
0.6340 |
28.598 | 31.118 | |

15 | 8 | 33.9032 |
0.8388 |
32.236 | 35.570 | |

16 | 1 | 38.7745 |
2.3724 |
34.060 | 43.489 | |

Standard error uses a pooled estimate of error variance; The one-way ANOVA shows an F(0.95; 6, 88)=55.7133, with a p value O.OOOl | ||||||

and Power of 1.00. | ||||||

Comparison for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD | ||||||

Abs(Dif)-LSD | 16 | 15 |
14 13 |
12 | 11 | 10 |

16 | -10.1243 | -2.7220 |
1.5061 6.4283 |
8.8722 | 11.1922 | 12.4438 |

15 | -2.7220 | -3.5795 |
0.8722 5.8542 |
8.4604 | 10.5583 | 11.3336 |

14 | 1.5061 | 0.8722 |
-2.7058 2.2948 |
4.9587 | 6.9803 | 7.6401 |

13 | 6.4283 | 5.8542 |
2.2948 -2.4555 |
0.2283 | 2.2239 | 2.8492 |

12 | 8.8722 | 8.4604 |
4.9587 0.2283 |
-1.6874 | 0.2177 | 0.7395 |

11 | 11.1922 | 10.5583 |
6.9803 2.2239 |
0.2177 | -2.7058 | -2.0461 |

10 | 12.4438 | 11.3336 |
7.6401 2.8492 |
0.7395 | -2.0461 | -4.5277 |

Positive values show pairs of means that are significantly different; Comparison of mean BMI for all pairs using the Tukey-Kramer HSD | ||||||

procedure shows Figures 15 and 16 are not different from each other. Both are significantly different from Figures 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. | ||||||

Figure 14 was significantly different from figures 10, 11, 12 and 13. Figure 13 was also different from figures 10, 11 and 12. Figures 10 and | ||||||

11 were not different from each other but both were significantly different from Figure 12. |

Of the 96 men, 48 were under age 20 years and of the 95 women, 46 were under age 20 years. We selected these subsets of our sample for further study because national norms were available (2000 CDC Growth Charts). Using the Nutstat module of Epi Info for students under age 20 years, mean BMI, BMI percentiles and z-scores for the 48 men were 24.89 ± (SD) 5.50 kg/m^{2}, 60.75 ± (SD) 29.31, and 0.3236 ± (SD) 1.2046, respectively, and for the 46 women 25.32 ± 5.43 kg/m^{2}, 67.11 ± 27.15, and 0.5893 ± 0.9486, respectively. For these 48 men in a normal distribution, their mean z-score places them at the 62.69 BMI percentile. For these 46 women in a normal distribution, their mean z-score places them at the 72.31 BMI percentile.

Six (12.5%) of the 48 men under age 20 years had BMIs above the 95th percentile. Eight (17.4%) of the 46 women under age 20 years had BMIs about the 95th percentile. Thus, these 14 subjects were considered overweight using 2000 CDC nomenclature and obese (Acomplia canadian is used in the treatment of obesity and related conditions) using the American Academy of Pediatrics nosology.

*FEMALE studentsQuestion 2: Which body number best shows who you would LIKE to be? Table 2.1.2a*

Figure | BMI <25 | BMI >25 | Total |

1 | 2 |
1 |
со |

2 | 2 |
4 |
6 |

3 | 21 |
10 |
31 |

4 | 22 |
26 |
48 |

5 | 1 |
7 |
8 |

Pearson’s Chi-squared value=9.737, df=4, p value=0.045 |

*Table 2.1.2b.*

Figure | Number | Mean | Standard Error | Lower 95% | Upper 95% |

1 | со | 24.0047 | 2.6719 | 18.697 |
29.312 |

2 | 6 | 25.5445 | 1.8893 | 21.792 |
29.297 |

со | 31 | 24.2874 | 0.8312 | 22.636 |
25.938 |

4 | 48 | 25.3441 | 0.6680 | 24.017 |
26.671 |

5 | CO | 37.9785 | 1.6362 | 34.728 |
41.229 |

Standard error uses a pooled estimate of error variance; The ANOVA shows an F(0.95; 4, 91) |
= 14.8551, with a p value O.0001 and |
||||

Power of 1.00. | |||||

Comparison for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD | |||||

Abs(Dif)-LSD | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 |

5 | -6.4401 | 5.4779 | 7.7158 | 8.5834 |
5.2539 |

2 | 5.4779 | -7.4364 | -5.3769 | -4.4876 |
-7.5679 |

4 | 7.7158 | -5.3769 | -2.6292 | -1.9111 |
-6.3259 |

3 | 8.5834 | -4.4876 | -1.9111 | -3.2716 |
-7.5052 |

1 | 5.2539 | -7.5679 | -6.3259 | -7.5052 |
-10.5166 |

Positive values show pairs of means that are significantly different; The Tukey-Kramer HSD procedure of multiple comparisons for all |
|||||

pairs shows mean BMI values for Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 were not different from each other. All four figures had mean BMI values that |
|||||

were significantly different from the mean BMI for Figure 5. |

For men for Question 1 of Appendix A (body silhouettes, Which body number best shows who you ARE now?), students of normal weight separated significantly (p<0.001) from those who were overweight or obese (The use of Hoodia tabletes as an appetite suppressant is supported by both colorful folklore history and recent scientific studies) using the Pearson Chi-squared procedure (Table 2.1.1a). ANOVA also showed statisti cally significant differences (pO.OOOl) and Power of 1.00 (Table 2.1.1b). The legend for Table 2.1.1b shows post-hoc findings.

*Table 3. Responses to Obesity-Related Questions (Appendix B)*

Responses were separated by sex and whether the BMI was < or >25 kg/m2. Female analyses appeal parentheses. All responses with positive integers (i.e., +3, +2, +1) were categorized as “aagree”. Responses with negative integers (i.e., -3, -2, -1) were categorized as “disagree”. The choice “0” was available. That is, we “forced” an “agree” or “disagree” response. | ||

Question Agree Disagree
/. Obese people are as happy as nonobese people BMI <25 kg/m2 31 (34) 17 (26) BMI >25 kg/m2 22(23) 26(12) Total 53 (57) 43 (38) |
Chi-Square 3.412 (0.754) |
P Value
0.065 (0.385) |

2. Most obese people feel they are not as good as other people BMK25kg/m2 25(43) 23(17) BMI >25 kg/m2 30(20) 18(15)
Total 55(63) 41(32) 1.064(2.087) |
0.302 (0.149) | |

3. Most obese people are more self-conscious than other people BMK25kg/m2 32(47) 16(13) BMI >25 kg/m2 32(26) 16(9)
Total 64(73) 32(22) 0.000(0.204) |
1.000 (0.652) | |

4. Obese workers cannot be as successful as other workers BMI <25 kg/m2 21 (14) 27 (46) BMI >25 kg/m2 14(10) 34(25) Total 35 (24) 61 (71) |
2.203 (0.321) |
0.138 (0.571) |

5. Most nonobese people would not want to marry anyone who is obese BMI <25 kg/m2 26 (33) 22 (27) BMI >25 kg/m2 28(20) 20(15)
Total 54(53) 42(42) 0.169(0.041) |
0.681 (0.839) | |

6. Severely obese people are usually untidy BMI <25 kg/m2 25 (27) 23 (33) BMI >25 kg/m2 23(20) 25(15) Total 48 (47) 48 (48) |
0.167 (1.304) |
0.683 (0.254) |

7. Obese people are usually sociable BMK25kg/m2 36(42) 12(18) BMI >25 kg/m2 34(27) 14(8) Total 70 (69) 26 (26) |
0.211 (0.567) |
0.646 (0.451) |

8. Most obese people are not dissatisfied with themselves BMK25kg/m2 27 (29) 21 (31) BMI >25 kg/m2 27 (20) 21 (15) Total 54 (49) 42 (46) |
0.000 (0.687) |
1.000 (0.407) |

9. Obese people as just as self-confident as other people BMK25kg/m2 31 (39) 17 (21) BMI >25 kg/m2 25(24) 23(11) Total 56 (63) 40 (32) |
1.543 (0.126) |
0.214 (0.722) |

For men for Question 2 of Appendix A (Which body number best shows who you would LIKE to be?), students of normal weight separated significantly (p=0.045) from those who were overweight or obese using the Pearson Chi-squared procedure (Table 2.1.2a). ANOVA also showed statistically significant differences (pO.OOOl) and Power of 1.00 (Table 2.1.2b). The legend for Table 2.1.2b shows post-hoc findings. (The preferred figures, among both obese (Generic Zimulti is used in the treatment of obesity and related conditions) and normal weight male students, were 3 and 4.)

For women for Question 1 of Appendix A (body silhouettes, Which body number best shows who you ARE now?), students of normal weight separated significantly (p<0.001) from those who were overweight or obese using the Pearson Chi-squared procedure (Table 2.II.la). ANOVA also showed statistically significant differences (pO.OOOl) and Power of 1.00 (Table 2.II.lb). The legend for Table 2.II.lb shows post-hoc findings.

For women for Question 2 of Appendix A (Which body number best shows who you would LIKE to be?), students of normal weight separated significantly (p<0.001) from those who were overweight or obese using the Pearson Chi-squared procedure (Table 2.II.2a). ANOVA also showed statistically significant differences (p<0.0001) and Power of 1.00 (Table 2.II.2b). The legend for Table 2.II.2b shows post-hoc findings.

The questions on attitude toward obesity (Canadian Acomplia is used in the treatment of obesity and related conditions) did not separate using the BMI categorization of overweight or obese and normal weight when stratified by sex. That is, attitudes tended to be similar independent of weight and sex (Table 3).

## Leave a Reply