In the US, if no one were fat, a saving of USD $487 billion per year (3.5% of GDP) would be made to the economy. This seems like a huge sum, but is a culmination of all the savings that would be made from:
Gas ($5b): an overweight driver uses 68 more liters of petrol a year. This is also in support of a longtime argument regarding excess luggage on flights. Why should a 60kg lady have to pay for 5kg excess luggage when the person next to her on the plane is a 120kg man with only 6kg less luggage (but 54kg more weight)? It makes no sense. The potential negative consequences of people fasting before they go on flights could be one negative, but I still think it would be a policy worth exploring. I suspect the airlines already have, and have decided it is not a good idea as many of their frequent fliers are overweight. But surely this is something a new/small carrier could introduce? Put a 100kg limit on every passenger I say.
Food (equivalent to 81b loss in sales for McDonalds): eating excess calories.
Clothing ($10b): more material is needed for large sizes.
Health related costs ($140b): Heart Disease, Diabetes, Stroke, Insurance etc.
Productivity at the workplace ($257b): days/time lost to sickness, feeling unwell.
Farmers Sales (20m).
Fat Loss industry ($55b): diet books, supplements, fat loss clinics etc.
And remember this is just the US, and so you can only imagine the cost worldwide…
Admittedly this does not seem to account for the negative consequences of having out of work Tailors, McDonald’s workers, Farmers, Jenny Craig support people etc, but is interesting none the less.
I took a Sporting Injuries paper at School and in one lecture we were showed a video of a bunch of serious sporting injuries. A dart in the eye, finger tips being involuntarily amputated and left in basketball hoop nettings (don’t wear rings when playing Basketball), and American Football players being left disabled.
There is one sporting injury that really sticks with me though. Watch the video below only if you don’t have a weak stomach.
I was happy to see the news that unhealthy food adverts would be restricted during ‘school aged children’s’ tv times. Much like the school tuck shop policy discussed recently, I agree with the policy.
But it does bring up an interesting question: Just how much should the government be involved in this sort of thing? If they are really interested why don’t they just make these unhealthy foods illegal?
Compare it to cigarette smoking – the government and the health system lose a lot of money each year because of tobacco smoking. Why not just ban it? Is it because they also make a lot of money out of it? There’s a conspiracy theory.
I think most people would agree banning smoking would be a little extreme, but if some intervention is ok, then why not a little more… And a little more…?
Have we really found the optimum balance between intervention and legislation when it comes to food and beverages in our country? On one hand we are intervening, on the other we are saying people should be free to choose.
Is eating McDonald’s for breakfast, fish’n'chips for lunch, KFC for dinner, and a tub of ice cream for dessert really that different to wearing a seatbelt – something that is made law to help save individual lives?
I think people do not want to have the government dictate to them what they can and can’t do, but on the other hand there are some things that will drastically improve from government intervention – road speed limits, and having to wear a seatbelt when driving being two examples. Perhaps it is time we admit we do not really have a handle on what is going in young (and old?) mouths and so the government should do something about it.
If your main priority for training is aesthetics (and it is for more of you than would like to admit) then you could do far worse than emulating the training of athletes in a sport whose body shapes you desire.
The thing you have to consider, that many people do not, is the volume, variety, intensity, and duration of the training these people do, and not just thinking of the event they compete in. Just because you desire a 100m runners body shape does not mean you should do lots of 100m sprints, as their training program is significantly different than this.
I believe a personal desire to achieve something – anything – will provide better motivation over the long term though, and so it is this I advise you ask yourself: Is there an event/race I have always wanted to do? Whether it is to walk ATB or run across Africa, swim 500m or the Cook Straight having a goal and a coach (and the training squad that the coach provides) will give you more motivation than wanting to look like Ian Thorpe or Amanda Beard I think.
There have been a couple of examples I have come across recently that have illustrated to me how important two factors are that are not often on the top of lists when it comes to fat loss recommendations: Support & Motivation.
Support can obviously come in different forms, but the kind I am talking about is the day to day suppport from friends and family that is in accordance with that persons goals. Mike Roussell recently recounted watching a episode of “The Biggest Loser” where the contestants were sent home. One contestant went home and got support from thier families and friends,
“while another family spent a couple hours saying how proud they were of the contestant because of all the weight he had lost and then decided to take him to an all you can eat wing bar!”
The ironic thing about this family is that this is probably how they have always rewarded family members – at an all you can eat bar. Why not a holiday, massage or movie voucher? So not only must you have support, but that support must be appropriate.
When it comes to motivation I believe internal is the best – a genuine desire to be a healthy (and attractive?) weight, however there is no doubt external motivation can help also. When I was personal training the most motivated client I had was part of a betting syndicate. They were 10 or so friends that had bet each other they could lose a particular amount of weight. While I was not too happy about it at the time (as it tended to lead to more acute measures to lose weight), there was no doubt the client exercised and ate a reasonable diet.
There have also been a few examples coming out in recent years of places that have extended this idea. One of my ideas I had at University was based around two teams competing against each other. The team that achieves their goal would get their money for taking part in the program returned (or put towards a prize).
Maybe one day I will get round to actually trying that one.
Fundamentally I am against banning certain ‘bad’ foods, as I think in most instances individuals should be able to make their own choice. Although improved public health would certainly result if the government outlawed smoking and foods high in saturated fat, that by itself does not make it a good thing.
However, with children (when habits are being set for life) perhaps freedom of choice is not such a good idea. I say this because kids are influenced by their peers, and because they are less educated, and more dependent. As much as they would not like to admit it, when you are young you are not capable of making rational decisions. Whatever the reason, I think school tuck shops should restrict certain items.
A recent year-long study on this very topic suggest a ‘fruit tuck shop’ works, especially when the kids are not allowed to bring ‘bad’ items to school either. So it seems the parents have an important role to play too… Surprise, surprise…
I am sure someone could argue that this will cause a negative rebound when the kids grow up and do have access to ‘bad’ foods. It would be interesting to follow up on the kids in this study in 10, 20, 50 years and see how they are doing. I would bet significantly better than their peers.
Yesterday Kimberley Smith ran 30.35 for 10km in California, surely making her our best track athlete currently. It is a shame her performance has not been reported with the enthusiasm and importance it deserves here in New Zealand.
Her time ranks as the #24 fastest 10km by a woman all time. The equivalent time on the male all time list is 26.52. I put this here not to devalue her time but to put in perspective for people not familiar with female distance times. It surely gives us a reason to get excited about the track competition in Beijing.
Another little New Zealand track tidbit regarding (arguably) our best track athlete currently – Nick Willis – helps demonstrate how much the times internationally have come down in recent decades:
Nick Willis has a personal best of 3.32 for the 1500m. Compare this to the 1976 Olympic Champion, and World Record Holder for 1500m, 2000m and the mile, first man under 3.50 for the mile and first man to run 100 sub 4-minute miles – John Walker – who had a best time in the 1500m of about the same (actually slightly slower than Willis).
As much as I would like to see it, I think it is unlikely Willis will feature down the home straight of the 1500m final in Beijing – if indeed he even makes the final.
So is Willis a benefactor of the better nutritional, training, and recovery techniques we have these days, or was he just born in the wrong decade?
I would argue the former, but he is undoubtedly a talent worth watching. Bring on Beijing!
Often I hear that supplements are a type of ‘safe-guard’ against deficiency.
There are two easy ways to counter this argument.
1. It is a lot more costly to buy supplements, rather than get them in foods (in foods you are also likely to get other additionally beneficial ingredients).
2. You could be putting yourself at risk of toxicity by having too much. Yes, you can have too much. Just as there are unsafe lower limits in micronutrient intake, there are also unsafe upper limits. You are not going to get too much of a micronutrient by eating a varied diet.
After many years of resistance, I have slowly been resigning to supplements being not such a bad thing for some people in some instances. However, recently some studies have been getting a lot of publicity that showed the increase incidence of death from taking certain supplements. Here is a link to a report about the study.
The argument from pro-supplement people has always been that it is better to be safe than sorry. It is better to take supplements as a safeguard – just in case you need them, as they won’t do any harm. While this still may be the case for many supplements the recent studies clearly show this is not the case for some too.
Consult your doctor before following any of the exercise or nutritional advice posted on this site.
If you feel pain, shortness of breath, dizziness, or faintness at any time stop the activity and/or eating prescription immediately.
KitchenPT.com and Bradley Simpson take no responsibility to any injury or loss incurred from following advice posted on this site.
