For centuries, artistic representations of power, status and beauty often featured individuals whose physical characteristics would today be associated with higher body mass indexes, according to physician and researcher Dr. Hutan Yafi.

The observation reflects a broader debate among scholars and medical experts over how changing perceptions of health and attractiveness have influenced the interpretation of historical artworks.Yafi argues that throughout much of recorded history, larger body size frequently functioned as a visual indicator of wealth, authority and social standing.

In artistic depictions, rulers, religious figures, members of royal households and other influential individuals were commonly portrayed with fuller physiques. Similar characteristics were often associated with idealized representations of women, particularly in portraiture and other forms of figurative art.

According to Yafi, these portrayals reflected prevailing social and economic realities. In many societies, access to abundant food and resources was unevenly distributed, making larger body size a visible marker of prosperity and privilege.

As a result, artistic representations frequently reinforced social hierarchies by associating physical abundance with power, influence and desirability.“Strong men, leaders, royal families, religious people, high people in the society were portrayed with high BMI,” Yafi said. “Beautiful women and models were also portrayed with high BMI.”

The relationship between body size and cultural ideals remained relatively stable for long periods, Yafi said, before undergoing significant changes during the 20th century. He linked that shift to developments in medical research, particularly growing scientific understanding of nutrition and cardiovascular health.

According to Yafi, perceptions began to evolve during the second half of the 20th century as researchers increasingly examined the role of saturated fats and trans fats in metabolic disorders and cardiovascular disease. Public health discussions around diet and weight gained prominence, influencing both medical guidance and broader social attitudes.

As scientific research expanded, body image standards in popular culture and visual media also changed, Yafi said. He argued that thinner body types increasingly became associated with attractiveness and health, while obesity became more likely to be viewed negatively.

“This led to images of thin, often unrealistically thin, men and women being glorified and obesity being stigmatised,” Yafi said. “Suddenly, thin people became beautiful and the women who inspired artists for centuries were no longer considered attractive.”The evolution of beauty standards has attracted attention from researchers examining the intersection of medicine, culture and visual representation.

Some have sought to analyze historical artworks through a modern medical lens, looking for physical features that may suggest underlying health conditions. Such efforts remain controversial because they rely on interpretations of artistic representations rather than direct clinical evidence.

One of the most frequently discussed examples involves the Mona Lisa, the iconic portrait painted by Leonardo da Vinci during the Renaissance. The painting has long been the subject of academic inquiry across disciplines ranging from art history and conservation science to medicine and psychology.

Yafi noted that some scientists have proposed retrospective medical interpretations of the portrait’s subject. Among the hypotheses advanced in academic discussions are suggestions that features visible in the painting could indicate elevated cholesterol levels, issues related to body mass or endocrine disorders such as hypothyroidism.

“Some scientists believe Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa was very unhealthy and that she had a problem with her BMI, cholesterol and severe hypothyroidism,” Yafi said.At the same time, Yafi acknowledged the limitations inherent in such analyses. Because the subject lived centuries ago and no direct medical examination is possible, any conclusions remain speculative and dependent on visual interpretation.

“We don’t know because we cannot go back and make a diagnosis, we are just analysing her features,” Yafi added.The debate highlights a broader challenge faced by researchers attempting to apply modern medical frameworks to historical figures.

While advances in medical science provide new tools for interpreting visual evidence, artworks were not created as clinical records. Portraits often incorporate symbolism, stylistic conventions and artistic choices that can complicate efforts to draw conclusions about physical health.Art historian Bendor Grosvenor has cautioned against treating artistic depictions as reliable diagnostic evidence.

He argues that portraiture operates within artistic and cultural contexts that extend beyond physical resemblance.“Poor Mona Lisa, she’s always being diagnosed with something she almost certainly never had,” Grosvenor said.His comments reflect concerns shared by many art historians who view retrospective medical diagnoses as inherently uncertain.

According to Grosvenor, visual characteristics in a painting cannot be separated from the artistic intentions of the painter or the conventions of the period in which the work was produced.“If a doctor today diagnosed someone only on the basis of how their face looked, we wouldn’t take them seriously,” he said.Grosvenor emphasized that portraiture often serves purposes beyond recording physical appearance.

Artists may alter proportions, emphasize particular features or incorporate symbolic elements intended to communicate status, personality or cultural values rather than provide an exact representation of the subject.“Art is art, and a portrait – even one by Leonardo – is usually about so much more than likeness, let alone health,” Grosvenor said.

His remarks underscore a longstanding tension between medical interpretation and art historical analysis. While physicians may view visual details as potential indicators of health conditions, historians generally stress the importance of understanding artworks within their original social, cultural and artistic contexts.

The discussion surrounding the Mona Lisa also reflects broader questions about how contemporary societies interpret historical images. Standards of beauty, health and physical appearance have shifted significantly across different eras, often influenced by changing economic conditions, scientific knowledge and cultural values. As a result, characteristics that were once celebrated or considered desirable may later be viewed differently.

Yafi’s observations suggest that modern assumptions about body size and attractiveness cannot always be applied to earlier periods without considering historical context. Artistic depictions of rulers, aristocrats and celebrated women often reflected the ideals of their time rather than contemporary expectations.

Grosvenor, meanwhile, argues that efforts to diagnose historical figures based on portraits risk oversimplifying works of art whose significance extends beyond physical appearance. For historians, paintings remain cultural artifacts shaped by creative decisions, social conventions and symbolic meanings that cannot be reduced to questions of medical status alone.

“This is as likely for the art of the future as the art of the past,” Grosvenor said. “Art is art, and a portrait is usually about much more than health.”

Researchers and clinicians are increasingly examining oral health as a significant factor in wider systemic disease, with emerging evidence linking gum disease and chronic oral infections to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, stroke, arthritis and cognitive decline.

The growing body of research is also challenging the longstanding separation between dentistry and mainstream medicine, a divide rooted in the historical development of dentistry as a trade distinct from clinical medicine.

While dentists and physicians continue to train and operate through separate professional systems in many countries, including the United Kingdom, scientists say the biological relationship between oral health and the rest of the body is becoming more difficult to ignore.Steve Kerrigan, professor of precision therapeutics at RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences in Dublin, said the mouth functions as a direct pathway into the body’s circulatory and respiratory systems.

The human mouth hosts roughly 700 bacterial species, many of which are harmless under normal conditions but can become problematic when oral hygiene deteriorates.Gum disease remains one of the most common chronic inflammatory conditions globally. In the UK, around half of adults are estimated to experience some form of the disease.

Gingivitis, the early and reversible stage, is typically identified through bleeding during brushing or flossing. Periodontitis, a more advanced form, involves inflammation severe enough to detach teeth from the gums and is considered irreversible.“Gum disease is now classed as a chronic inflammatory condition in its own right,” Kerrigan said, comparing it to illnesses such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and Crohn’s disease.

Research into cardiovascular complications has become one of the most developed areas in the field of oral-systemic health. According to Kerrigan, several studies have shown that a large proportion of patients with cardiovascular disease also exhibit gum disease, although scientists continue to investigate whether oral disease directly causes cardiovascular conditions or acts alongside broader health factors.

One major focus is atherosclerosis, a condition in which cholesterol, fat and calcium accumulate on artery walls and restrict blood flow. Researchers have identified oral bacteria within atherosclerotic plaques, raising questions about whether bacteria from diseased gums contribute directly to plaque formation or become embedded after arterial damage has already occurred.

Scientists have also examined the role of oral bacteria in clot formation. Kerrigan said bacteria entering the bloodstream through bleeding gums or untreated dental infections can interact with platelets, the blood components responsible for clotting. That interaction may trigger the formation of clots capable of obstructing blood vessels.

“When these bacteria bind to platelets, it causes them to stick together the exact same way as when you cut yourself,” Kerrigan said. He added that clots reaching vessels in the brain may contribute to transient ischemic attacks or strokes, while clots affecting coronary circulation can increase heart attack risks.The same bacterial mechanisms have also been associated with infective endocarditis, a potentially serious condition involving inflammation of the heart’s inner lining and valves.

Patients with replacement heart valves have long received preventative antibiotics before invasive dental procedures because oral infections are already recognised as a source of bloodstream infection.Diabetes has emerged as another area where oral health appears closely connected to wider metabolic function.

Researchers increasingly describe the relationship as bidirectional. Chronic gum inflammation may interfere with blood sugar regulation, while persistently elevated glucose levels in diabetic patients can increase vulnerability to gum disease.A 2025 study cited by researchers found that patients undergoing root canal treatment experienced reductions in blood sugar, cholesterol and fatty acid levels after infected dental pulp was removed and sealed.

The findings suggested that treatment of severe dental infection could have broader metabolic benefits beyond preserving teeth.Kerrigan said mortality risks are significantly higher among patients who experience both diabetes and advanced gum disease compared with diabetic patients without severe periodontal problems.

Researchers are also investigating potential links between oral inflammation and degenerative or inflammatory conditions affecting other parts of the body. Studies referenced by Professor Kang found statistical associations between gum disease and worsening arthritis symptoms, particularly among patients with arthritic knees.

Kang said poor oral health can also affect psychological wellbeing and social behaviour. Pain, visible dental deterioration and chronic inflammation may reduce confidence and increase social withdrawal, while medications used to manage broader health conditions can reduce saliva production and further damage oral health.“Everything is interlinked,” Kang said.Researchers caution, however, that many findings remain based on population-level statistical analysis rather than direct prediction for individuals.

Experts stress that the existence of associations between oral disease and other illnesses does not mean isolated symptoms necessarily indicate severe future illness.“It does not apply to individuals,” Kang said, adding that occasional bleeding while brushing should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of future dementia or major disease.

The debate over oral health is unfolding amid mounting concerns over access to dental care, particularly in the UK’s National Health Service system. The government’s most recent oral health survey, published in 2021, found that around one-quarter of adults with natural teeth reported damaged, cracked or broken teeth, fillings or crowns.

At the same time, shortages of NHS dental appointments have led to reports of patients delaying treatment, self-medicating or attempting to remove damaged teeth themselves.Researchers say tooth loss may also alter the mouth’s microbiome, potentially affecting digestion and wider biological processes.

Kerrigan noted that oral bacteria play a role in the early stages of digestion, making long-term disruption to the oral environment a broader health concern.Dental specialists continue to emphasise basic preventive measures as the most effective strategy for reducing risks associated with oral disease.

Regular brushing, flossing and limiting sugar intake remain central recommendations.Kerrigan said electric toothbrushes with rotating heads may improve plaque removal compared with manual brushing. He also warned that frequent snacking on sugary foods can increase bacterial growth and accelerate gum and tooth damage.

Scientists say oral health should be viewed as part of broader preventive healthcare rather than as an isolated cosmetic issue.

Researchers note that individuals maintaining strong overall health habits often also demonstrate better oral hygiene practices, reflecting what they describe as an increasingly interconnected understanding of human health.

Your body is your lifelong home—nourish it, move it, respect it.

Obesity is often spoken of in the language of personal failure—poor discipline, unhealthy choices, or sedentary habits. This narrative, repeated in popular discourse and media commentary, places the burden squarely on individuals while ignoring the larger forces at play. Such framing is not only incomplete but deeply misleading. It simplifies a complex health condition into a matter of willpower, obscuring the structural realities that make healthy living increasingly difficult for large sections of society.

Obesity is not merely an individual concern; it is a silent epidemic shaped by modern lifestyles, economic systems, cultural shifts, and policy neglect. The environments in which people live today are engineered for convenience rather than well-being—characterised by ultra-processed foods, relentless marketing, sedentary work patterns, and shrinking spaces for physical activity. When unhealthy choices become the easiest, cheapest, and most accessible options, personal responsibility alone cannot carry the weight of prevention.

Treating obesity as a moral shortcoming has had serious consequences. It has fostered stigma, discouraged individuals from seeking medical or psychological support, and diverted attention from the need for systemic reform. Worse, it has allowed governments, industries, and institutions to evade accountability while the health burden continues to grow. By reducing obesity to a question of individual failure, societies have overlooked its profound implications for public health, healthcare systems, and economic productivity.

To address obesity meaningfully, it must be recognised not as a personal flaw but as a collective challenge—one that reflects how modern societies organise food, work, education, and urban life. Only by shifting the conversation from blame to understanding, and from judgement to shared responsibility, can obesity be confronted as the public health crisis it truly is.

A Growing Burden of Non-Communicable Disease

At its core, obesity is a chronic medical condition characterised by the accumulation of excessive body fat to a degree that impairs health and reduces quality of life. It is not merely a cosmetic concern or a matter of appearance; it fundamentally alters metabolic, hormonal, and inflammatory processes within the body. This disruption significantly increases the risk of non-communicable diseases, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disorders, hypertension, musculoskeletal degeneration, respiratory complications, and certain forms of cancer.

The consequences of obesity extend beyond physical illness. Individuals living with obesity are more likely to experience reduced mobility, chronic pain, fatigue, and psychological distress, including depression and anxiety. Over time, these health challenges can limit productivity, strain healthcare systems, and diminish overall life expectancy. What makes obesity particularly dangerous is its gradual progression—often developing silently over years before manifesting as serious disease.

The World Health Organization has long recognised obesity as a major global health risk and a key driver of the worldwide rise in non-communicable diseases. Alarmingly, its prevalence has increased sharply across both developed and developing nations, cutting across age groups and socioeconomic boundaries. Once associated primarily with affluence, obesity now coexists with undernutrition in many countries, creating a dual burden that complicates public health responses.

This global rise reflects profound changes in diet, physical activity, and living conditions rather than sudden shifts in individual behaviour. As obesity becomes increasingly widespread, it poses not only a medical challenge but a societal one—demanding coordinated action in healthcare, education, urban planning, and policy. Recognising obesity as a serious, multifaceted health condition is the first step toward addressing its long-term consequences effectively and ethically.

How Modern Lifestyles Fuel Obesity

Contemporary life has fundamentally altered how people eat, move, and rest, creating conditions that make obesity increasingly common. The food environment today is dominated by highly processed, calorie-dense options that are not only cheap and widely available but also aggressively marketed, particularly to children and young adults. Sugary drinks, snack foods, fast-food chains, and ready-to-eat meals are positioned as convenient, desirable, and even aspirational, while fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grains often remain relatively expensive, less accessible, or inconvenient for those with demanding schedules.

At the same time, physical activity has been systematically reduced in daily life. Urban design prioritises cars over pedestrians, schools and workplaces emphasise desk-bound tasks over movement, and recreational options are increasingly digital rather than active. Mechanised transport, elevators, escalators, and household conveniences reduce opportunities for natural physical exertion, while screen-based entertainment—television, computers, and smartphones—occupies ever more leisure time. Even recreational sports and outdoor play have declined due to shrinking green spaces and parental concerns about safety.

The combination of high-calorie intake and minimal energy expenditure creates an environment in which obesity is not merely a matter of personal choice but a predictable outcome. People live within systems that encourage overconsumption and inactivity, often without realising the cumulative impact on health. Modern lifestyles, designed for efficiency and convenience, have unintentionally engineered obesity into everyday life, making it a systemic rather than individual problem.

Cultural Shifts and the Normalisation of Obesity

Beyond structural and lifestyle factors, cultural perceptions of body weight have evolved in ways that complicate the obesity crisis. On one hand, individuals living with obesity are often subjected to stigma and social judgement, labelled as lazy, undisciplined, or lacking self-control. This moralising narrative not only causes psychological stress but also discourages people from seeking medical guidance, nutrition counselling, or physical activity support. The shame associated with obesity can exacerbate unhealthy behaviours, creating a vicious cycle that public health messaging alone struggles to break.

On the other hand, there is a growing tendency in some societies to normalise obesity, framing it as an acceptable variation of body type without adequately addressing its serious health implications. While body-positivity movements have rightly challenged unrealistic beauty standards and promoted self-acceptance, the message can sometimes blur the line between embracing diversity and ignoring the medical risks associated with excessive weight.

This duality—stigmatisation on one side, normalisation on the other—creates a confusing social landscape. Individuals are left to navigate contradictory messages: they are shamed for being overweight, yet encouraged to accept it without intervention. Effective solutions must strike a balance—promoting empathy and dignity while clearly communicating the health consequences associated with obesity.

Ultimately, addressing obesity is not only about personal choice or discipline; it is about reshaping cultural norms, promoting informed awareness, and creating environments where healthy eating, regular movement, and preventive care are supported, respected, and accessible.

Beyond Personal Responsibility: Systemic Solutions for Obesity

Obesity is not just a personal or cultural issue; it carries significant economic and systemic consequences. Rising rates of obesity contribute to an increasing burden of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and certain cancers. This translates into escalating healthcare costs, long-term medical treatments, and reduced workforce productivity, affecting societies at both micro- and macroeconomic levels.

Yet, despite its scale, obesity often receives fragmented or inadequate policy attention. Governments have historically focused more on undernutrition, infectious diseases, or acute healthcare needs, leaving obesity prevention and management under-resourced. Preventive healthcare systems, nutrition education, regulation of food marketing—especially to children—and urban planning that encourages physical activity remain patchy or unevenly implemented.

The food industry plays a major role in shaping dietary behaviour. Highly processed, energy-dense foods are aggressively marketed and widely accessible, while healthier options remain less profitable, more expensive, or harder to distribute. Without regulatory oversight, profit incentives often outweigh public health considerations. Subsidies for sugar-rich crops, minimal labelling requirements, and the omnipresence of fast-food chains create a structural environment in which obesity becomes an almost predictable outcome.

Ultimately, obesity is not a problem that can be solved solely at the level of personal responsibility. It is a public health and economic challenge that demands systemic solutions, spanning regulation, education, urban planning, and healthcare policy. Only by addressing these structural and economic dimensions can societies hope to reverse the silent epidemic of obesity.

Confronting the Silent Epidemic

Obesity is not merely a matter of individual choice or willpower; it is the product of modern lifestyles, cultural shifts, and systemic gaps in policy and infrastructure. It thrives in environments where high-calorie, processed foods are cheap and accessible, physical activity is minimised, and social narratives vacillate between stigmatisation and normalisation. When left unaddressed, obesity burdens not only individual health but also societies through rising medical costs, reduced productivity, and escalating rates of chronic disease.

Addressing this silent epidemic requires a holistic approach. Urban planning must promote active living; schools must instil nutrition literacy and physical fitness; governments must regulate food marketing and ensure healthier options are affordable; and media campaigns must empower rather than shame. Only by tackling obesity at these structural, cultural, and economic levels can societies hope to reverse its steady rise.

Ultimately, the fight against obesity is not just a health intervention—it is a test of societal priorities. By creating environments that support healthy choices and treating obesity as a collective challenge rather than a personal failing, we can move toward a future in which well-being is accessible to all.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.