ARTICLE II

March 1995, Volume 1 No. 1

Mal J Nutr 1:11-19, 1995.
http://nutriweb.org.my/publications/mjn001/mjn1n1_002.pdf

Perception of bodyweight status among office workers in two gorvernment departments in Kuala Lumpur
Fatimah A1, Md Idris MN2, Romzi MA1 and Faizah H1

  1. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
  2. Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

ABSTRACT    (Full Article)
The objective of this paper is to assess the perception of bodyweight status among the office workers in two government departments in Kuala Lumpur. A total of 385 Malay workers aged between 18 to 55 years were randomly selected from the Prime Minister’s Department and the Ministry of National Unity and Community Development. The weights and heights of all subjects were measured and their Body Mass Index (BMI) determined. In this study, obesity is defined as individuals having³ 25 kg/m2. A questionnaire was prepared to obtained information on socioeconomic status, health aspects, dietary intakes, activity levels and perception on bodyweight status. The study revealed a high prevalence of obesity (38.1 %) and among the obese subjects, 21.7 % perceived themselves as having normal weight. The normal weight and underweight subjects perceived themselves as obese (33.5 % and 6.3 % respectively). A small percentage (5.7 %) of the obese individuals who perceived themselves as obese did not wish to Lose weight. In contrast, 9.7 % of the normal weight subjects who perceived themselves as having normal weight wanted to lose weight. A third person’s perception on the subjects’ bodyweight status is significantly associated with the subjects’ bodyweight status (P<0.05). Among the obese subjects, more men (32.3 %) perceived themselves as having normal weights as compared to the women (12.3 %). This implies that women are more aware of their bodyweight status as compared to the men.

 

March 1995, Vol1 No.1
September 1995, Vol1 No.2
March 1996, Vol2 No.1
September 1996, Vol2 No.2
March 1997, Vol3 No.1
September 1997, Vol3 No.2
December 1998, Vol4 No.1&2
December 1999, Vol5 No.1&2
March 2000, Vol6 No.1
September 2000, Vol6 No.2
Mar/Sept 2001, Vol7 No.1&2
March 2002, Vol8, No.1
September 2002, Vol8, No.2
March 2003, Vol9 No.1
September 2003, Vol9 No.2
March 2004, Vol10 No.1
September 2004, Vol10 No. 2
2005, Vol 11 No.1
2005, Vo l11 No.2
2006, Vol 12 No.1
2006, Vol 12 No.2
2007, Vol 13 No.1
2007, Vol 13 No.2
March 2008, Vol 14 No.1
2008, Vol 14 No.2
2009, Vol 15 No.1
2009, Vol 15 No.2
2010, Vol 16(1)

2010, Vol 16(2)

2010, Vol 16(3)

2011, Vol 17(1)

2011, Vol 17(2)