More About Offices, Desks, and Obesity

Note: This post will definitely make more sense if considered in context with its predecessor.

Journalist Rodney Wagner poses other pertinent questions and makes several points about desk dining. It can certainly get a person fed “without sacrificing productivity,” because the diner is still able to concentrate on the work being accomplished at the desk, while chewing and swallowing.

On the other hand, we might add, many authorities believe that a person’s full attention and conscious participation ought to be directed toward eating. Otherwise, they have not fully experienced the intake of nutrition, and are apt to overeat in compensation for that lack, and become obese.

At any rate, according to this authority, snacking at work can allegedly help to maintain mental energy and improve alertness (though it seems the same might be said of periodic exercise breaks, or inhaling a hit of oxygen). However, admittedly, there are also “numerous downsides to eating at your desk.”

The person’s attention may be distracted from the work at hand (especially, we presume, if eating involves consulting a menu and placing an order.) Worse yet, the average worker’s meal often tends to involve items purchased from snack vending machines, the contents of which are universally acknowledged to be unhealthful and fat-promoting.

At any rate, the availability of food and water to those who need them is a factor that a manager can affect. While many people do not care for the nanny-state implications, it is probably on the whole a good thing, when those in charge bear some degree of responsibility for the well-being of the workers.

Strength in motion

For the well-being of employees who like to burn calories by walking between the floors of a building, the security of stairwells should be assured. Overall, the important thing is to cultivate an awareness of how extensively employee health affects productivity, morale, and healthcare costs. Basic amenities like breathable air count for a lot. So really, the biggest error an executive can make is to assume that she or he might not be able to affect the situation positively.

Understandably, one of the myths that Dr. Lee identified is the fallacy of ineffectualness. An employer should never buy into the idea that little can be done to shrink obesity in the workplace. There is a cliche that fits the case very neatly: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

The boss can make a difference

Often, there is a belief that not even the most well-intentioned business can do much to prevent obesity, which by extension implies there is nothing they can do to stem the rising costs of obesity that adversely affect the company’s bottom line. Dr. Lee resists this defeatist notion because the reach of the job may in fact be extensive:

Your workplace can affect your commuting, sleep patterns, relationships with family and friends, available food at home, energy to exercise, overall stress levels and many other aspects of your life… No matter how you prioritize work-life balance, your workplace does have an impact on the rest of your life […] and in turn obesity.

Of course, obviously, the job affects the weight class of the worker’s entire family, because if the pay is not sufficient to feed them well, the consequences will show up. Which brings the topic back to the cost of a health plan, if indeed such an amenity exists at all. A company with common sense ought to recognize that it is cheaper to pay for obesity prevention than for bariatric surgery.

At the same time, corporate leadership must have the sensitivity to prevent its caring approach from coming across as criticism or worse yet, as a threat. In some times and places, rules are in effect to shield workers from various types of discrimination — even from what might appear as fat-shaming.

Dr. Lee’s last word to the bosses is,

In the end, the heart of a business is its employees. Having employees who are overweight and unhealthy is akin to a football team trying to compete with chronically injured players. If you view obesity as a completely separate issue from your business, you do so at your peril. To make a real difference, you need to have real substantial change in the culture and operations of a workplace.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Source: “Is It Good to Eat While Working? Uncovering the Truth,” MeatChefTools.com, 02/03/25
Source: “Obesity Is Everyone’s Business,” Forbes.com, 09/01/15
Image by Pexels/Pixabay

Offices, Desks, and Obesity

We are in the midst of examining a very detailed, decade-old Forbes.com article. Authored by Bruce Y. Lee, M.D., it explored some myths about the extent to which companies are able to influence the amount of obesity experienced within the ranks of their employees. At the time, contemporary Duke University research showed that obesity-related issues cost American businesses, overall, just short of $75 billion each year.

More specificity was found in this quotation:

Another study measured that while normal-weight employees cost on average $3,838 per year in healthcare costs, overweight to morbidly obese employees cost between $4,252 and $8,067. Each additional body mass index (BMI) point above normal weight costs $194-$222 per year per employee.

Significantly, bosses at every level were reminded that weight-related issues tend to sneak up and may not become obvious until after some real damage has already been done. Consequently, it is always wise to have a finger on the pulse of industry-wide trends and interventions.

High employee turnover is never a good sign, and obesity-related issues can influence employee behavior to a very great extent, so the smart executive keeps an eye on that area. Advice in this area can be just as true today as when businesses began to track such matters. Overall, the author urges bosses to remember that substantial change might be needed, and that…

[…] in the end, the heart of a business is its employees. Having employees who are overweight and unhealthy is akin to a football team trying to compete with chronically injured players. If you view obesity as a completely separate issue from your business, you do so at your peril.

But once the people in charge become aware of the potential undesirable impacts of obesity, relative to the big picture, they should not be discouraged by all the possible negative outcomes. As always, “fore-warned is fore-armed,” and it would be a mistake, according to Dr. Lee, for employers to think there was not much they could do.

In some work environments, for instance, it might help to offer the alternative of a standing desk. A slogan that was heard in this context was, “Sitting is the new smoking” — in other words, a harmful yet totally avoidable habit. Of course, many job descriptions preclude sitting and require constant standing. But in circumstances where sitting has always been considered the normal state for workers, to forbid it might be construed as gratuitous cruelty, and the basis for a legal challenge. Still, in many situations and workplaces, leeway could be built in.

While some things are simply not done — like a bank teller eating while taking care of customers at the window — in many situations company policy allows leeway for habits and preferences. Choosing a couple of articles at random brings to light some of the current thinking in this area. A website for professional chefs asks, “Is it good to eat while working?“:

A survey found that over 60% of employees regularly eat at their desks, indicating that this trend is not just common but almost normalized.

Amongst people who work seated at desks, perhaps. What about lifeguards? Firefighters? Heart surgeons? Okay, the author probably meant that, among the sub-population of office-bound, sedentary workers, more than half are accustomed to eating at their desks. (Leaving aside matters related to obesity, their habits might directly impact the company’s pest control budget.)

(To be continued…)

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity Is Everyone’s Business,” Forbes.com, 09/01/15
Source: “Is It Good to Eat While Working? Uncovering the Truth.,” MeatChefTools.com, 02/03/25
Image by StockSnap/Pixabay

Let’s Not Kid Ourselves

At this point, many of us are posing the rhetorical query, “How much does obesity cost the overall economy, anyway?” This sounds like a trick question, one posed not to extract a factual answer, but to take an indirect route toward confrontation with a really unpopular conclusion. It sounds this way because it is.

One reason the question is virtually unanswerable is, the price of each separate factor involved in bariatric medicine continues to rise. Another reason is that even with modern lightning-speed communication, it is still pretty difficult to guarantee that a pile of information about anything is the latest and greatest.

In many cases, multiple factors change too quickly to be meticulously tracked and compensated for. Sometimes, even experts review their work or the work of others and conclude that “Oops! Those numbers are on the wacky side.” We can take a snapshot that captures a moment in time and compare it to another snapshot in a later or earlier time frame, or in the same moment but in a different place.

A considerable fraction

Back in 2015, the management consulting firm McKinsey Global Institute announced that almost one-third of Earth’s population, or 2.1 billion people, were overweight or obese. In developed economies, “about 15 percent of health care costs […] are driven by [obesity].” Moneyweb.co.za noted that “healthcare costs are more than 40% higher for obese patients than normal-weight patients.”

The investment advice website added that the global impact of obesity was estimated to be “on a par with the impacts of smoking or armed violence, war and terrorism.” Expressed numerically, this figure amounted to around $2 trillion, or 2.8% of the global Gross Domestic Product. As the saying goes, “no matter how you slice it,” this was a real wake-up call. To put the icing on the cake, McKinsey issued the understatement of the century, namely, that “global disagreement on how to move forward is hurting progress.”

Some widespread misunderstandings

In the same year, a mere decade ago, Dr. Bruce Y. Lee compiled a list of seven myths that conspired to convince employers that they could safely ignore the encroaching threat of obesity — the first one being that obesity did not exist in their particular line of work. But in truth, few businesses were found to be exempt. While relatively few responsible authorities were paying attention, obesity had snuck into “nearly every country, income level, race, ethnicity and age group.”

Rising obesity rates were not random accidents, but established facts of life. Even if one particular corner of a commercial field had not yet been invaded, suppliers, subsidiaries, and other connected areas would be affected. And to simply hire skinny people was no solution, because the possibility that they could balloon up was always lurking.

The second prevalent myth was that obesity invariably sprang from each employee’s individual lifestyle choices. But the author pointed out how mistaken a boss would be to assume that anyone who put on pounds was simply lazy or lacking in self-control. To assume that everyone just needed to eat less and exercise more would be a serious error in judgment. People in positions of authority were urged to remember that behavior is governed by “a number of social, environmental, cultural, and financial factors,” which will be looked at in the next installment.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “A fat investment opportunity, Moneyweb.co.za, 04/16/15
Source: “Obesity is Everyone’s Business,” Forbes.com, 09/01/15
Images by fabioeliasp1 and miosyn/Pixabay

The Devil Is in the Details

The most recent installment of this series focusing on the cost of obesity mentioned smart beds that can track patients’ vital signs, weight, and other factors.

It also mentioned a complex issue with which hospitals never cease to struggle: guaranteeing the correct amount of any medication to precisely fulfill the requirements of the patient’s body and condition. This obviously is of crucial importance not only to the clinically obese patient but to each and every patient. Meticulousness in this area is necessary for everyone from the pre-born infant to the geriatric patient who (where legal) opts for an assisted demise.

In the domain of medication, so much can go wrong. It must be the right medication, untainted, and within its use-by date. For numerous reasons, including public safety and legal liability, all the documentation has to be correct, and strictly accounted for. Substances need to be shipped and stored correctly. All communication regarding administration must be clear, accurate, timely, and easily accessible.

And of course, as already emphasized, the necessary factors include…

[…] a current, accurate weight instead of relying on a historical, stated, or estimated weight; and obtaining, documenting, and communicating patient weights in metric units only (i.e., grams or kilograms). Key patient information used to guide appropriate medication therapy includes age, weight, height, allergies, diagnoses, laboratory values, and vital signs…

The very explicit Pennsylvania Patient Safety Advisory is a good example of the thorough inclusion of multiple factors involved in risk reduction, like equipment cost, and its upkeep and repair cost, and the expense of training people to use it correctly. It comes as no surprise to see accurate weighing equipment at the top of the list, as always. As we have mentioned, such hardware includes “floor scales, stretchers and beds with built-in scales, and standing, chair, and wheelchair scales.”

The personnel who employ these devices are expected to be familiar with the manufacturers’ recommendations for keeping them accurately calibrated, lubricated, titrated, or whatever. And despite the USA’s stubborn refusal to join the world in using the metric system for general purposes, it must be employed in the realm of weights and measures having to do with humans and medications.

One important factor discussed by this document is that of organizational expectations. Specifically, the best practice is to specify and assume that…

[…] obtaining the patient’s actual weight is part of the mandatory nursing assessment and reweighing of the patient occurs as warranted, based on patient’s clinical condition. Consider requiring reassessment of a patient’s weight when initiating or changing the dose of weight-based medications, clinical situations in which weight fluctuations are expected, or situations in which a weight variation may impact the course of care.

In other words, stay on top of this factor. Even in situations where it may not seem very important, documentation creates reality. As more attention is paid to the phenomenon of weight fluctuation in patients, more factual information will accumulate and reveal its significance, for the good of future patients.

It is also recommended to pay meticulous attention to this factor, other than in the midst of an emergency, of course. And for goodness’ sake, be sure all pertinent weight stats are recorded clearly, and in a quickly findable location, in the patient records. The document contains even more suggestions about the administration and implementation of weight-related policies, and about sketching out contingency plans in advance.

Weight is one of the easiest variables to keep track of in a clinical setting, especially with the newest specially developed or adapted equipment. The weight factor’s ubiquity and banality place it in danger of being overlooked and undervalued, but excellent arguments can be made for paying meticulous attention to this issue.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Update on Medication Errors Associated with Incorrect Patient Weights,” PA.gov, June 2016
Image by geralt/Pixabay

Smart Beds — for Bariatric and Other Reasons

In the field of bariatrics, it seems obvious that heavy people face physical challenges and restrictions that can require some pretty elaborate equipment. It is also apparent that ever more complicated hardware must and will inexorably raise the total cost of healthcare. But obese people should not be assigned the whole blame. Increasingly, medical equipment related to weight is for everyone.

We spoke of the transfer safety factor, with an uncomfortable number of mishaps, resulting in what are somewhat euphemistically called “delays in care.” Moreover, for hospital inpatients of many sorts, continuous weight monitoring is increasingly seen as essential.

A company called SonderCare explains why:

A bed equipped with load sensors provides real-time information that derives from, and in turn affects, the patient. Treatment options can change minute-by-minute, rather [than] according to orders tied to an 8-hour shift.

Despite the best intentions of staff members, the big danger point connected with patient injuries is movement from place to place. If the patient can just stay right there in bed and be weighed, so much the better, because a potential cause of injury has been eliminated.

In this style of bed, load sensors convert the pressure they feel into electrical signals for crucial weight monitoring, while other technology includes keeping track of the patient’s vital signs. A sudden weight change, either up or down, may indicate a problem with the heart or kidneys, and can be quickly investigated.

In some conditions, fluid buildup may be detected before it causes serious damage. Overall, continuous weight monitoring, without the need for actual transfer of the body, greatly reduces injuries.

According to SonderCare,

Advances in bed technology include vital signs monitoring and alerts to prevent pressure ulcers, increasing safety and comfort for patients. Future innovations will incorporate smart fabrics and touch-sensitive sensors that offer real-time health updates directly into electronic medical records.

But wait, there is more…

Another entire area in which very large people can be particularly vulnerable is medication dosage. We are accustomed to the idea of child-size doses, to ensure that the young and vulnerable don’t get too much. But we think less often about the need for accurate measurement in the ratio of medication to body weight, in the case of an extremely large adult.

Both insufficient dosage and overdosage would be problematic. GoodRx.com says,

Some medication dosages are weight-based because your body weight or body composition could affect their absorption, distribution, metabolism, or elimination. These four factors predict how a medication will behave in your body. Drug toxicity can also play a role.

Changing any one of these factors can potentially make a medication more or less active in your body. In turn, this can lead to unwanted side effects or a less effective treatment.

Another paper points out that “the weight effect may be minimal or dosage can be affected only when weight is combined with other factors. Findings of sporadic studies in recent years indicated that fixed dosing was more advantageous than weight-based dosing in some cases…” It stresses that the medical facility needs to establish good processes for both weighing and documentation, and to ensure “sufficient and convenient availability of appropriate and properly functioning equipment for patient weighing and medication delivery.”

Insulin, antibiotics, and anesthetics are some of the drug types that need very careful consideration when prescribed. In the overall cost of obesity, this factor is not very large. Although considering it over and over again in each case certainly takes time, which adds up. But just one case that goes to court because a patient was under-treated or died from an overdose can become very expensive.

Any reader of this piece who treats lightly the matter of dosage calculation might take a look at this website, “How To Calculate Drug Dosage By Weight | Essential Guide.” This excerpt is just a tiny sample:

\[
\text{Required Volume} = \frac{\text{Total Dose}}{\text{Available Concentration}} = \frac{700 \text{ mg}}{250 \text{ mg/mL}} = 2.8 \text{ mL}
\]

Got that? This is why medical school is so expensive, and why physicians are so well-compensated. The matters discussed here are relevant not only to the status of obese children as they exist now. The whole area of concern involves viewing children not just as young people per se, but as precursors of the adults they will grow into.

We strive to avoid these very costly problems, both for the sake of each individual child and for the sake of the economy, as they will grow up to impact with their ever-increasing number of expensive obesity-related issues.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Do Hospital Beds Weigh You?,” SonderCare.com, 06/27/24
Source: “Weight-Based Dosing: What to Know About Medication Dosages and Body Weight,” GoodRx.com, 02/09/23
Source: “Weight-based dosing in medication use: what should we know?,” NIH.gov, April 2016
Source: “How To Calculate Drug Dosage By Weight | Essential Guide,” Wellwisp.com, undated
Image by [name not given]/Pixabay

Bariatric Hardware By the Numbers

In this series concerning the costs of obesity, today’s post is about equipment. We mention some specifics of why the issue is an ongoing and ever-growing problem for patients, family members, and/or caregivers, medical professionals, other hospital personnel, insurers, and basically the American public at large.

“Bariatric” is a term that refers not only to weight reduction surgery but to the entire field of obesity treatment. Let us confront the issue of equipment — first, by looking at some available devices. Several sources were consulted for bits and pieces of information; a typical website of this genre describes items designed for patients in their everyday lives at home and out in public.

Crutches can be found for people who weigh up to 650 pounds and maybe even heavier. There are canes guaranteed to support 500 pounds. Specialized companies make extra-wide, super-strong walkers. A combination walker and seat called a rollator will support up to 500 pounds and run you $800 or more.

An extra-wide wheelchair that supports up to 850 pounds can be had for just under $1,000, while a less sturdy model might go for half that price. And who would have guessed that a “transport chair” is a whole different category of item?

Other locales

For the home, a furniture company has designed a super-strong lounge chair that can be had for around $2,500, and a scooter available for approximately $3,750. A special bed for home use can serve a person of up to 450 pounds (or even heavier), but the basic horizontal structure itself is only the beginning. The side rails, for instance, may represent a separate, additional expense.

A home bed may cost around $3,000, but quite possibly might add up to more. In a hospital, a high-tech, specialized bariatric care bed could run for 10 times as much. A mattress particularly designed for very obese individuals is composed of different materials from the standard hospital mattress, and may cost as much as $4,000.

In either case, the patient will probably need a trapeze (around $1,000) to lift himself or herself off the bed’s surface and change the body position. For patients who need help when in physical therapy recapturing their ability to walk, there are ceiling lifts.

Similar devices are able to lift a very large person from the floor onto an exam table or bed. Although modern hospitals are designed from scratch with such contingencies in mind, the structure of a typical home might need some expensive refurbishment to handle a suspended load of this kind.

Different strokes for different folks

For more intimate needs in the individual’s bedroom and/or bathroom, there are transfer benches to help get a person on the toilet; bedside commodes (starting at around $200), shower chairs, raised toilet seats, toilet safety rails, and other beefed-up versions of standard items, and they all cost more if a lot of poundage is involved.

Equipment that will probably be found only inside a medical institution includes an extra-sturdy exam table that sells for around $2,000. For the use of the bariatric surgeon, special stapling equipment is available in the $4,000 – $5,000 range. But this begins to impinge on a whole different, related area.

Let’s take a moment to scope out an article about patient safety, with a long and explicatory title: “How Safety Is Compromised When Hospital Equipment Is a Poor Fit for Patients Who Are Obese.”

This assessment is five years old, but not much has changed since then:

Event reports […] indicate that some healthcare facilities do not have the necessary equipment to monitor and care for some individuals in this patient population, leading to embarrassment for patients, delays in care, and injuries to patients.

The most frequent problem situations involve imaging equipment, “especially MRI and CT scanners,” or at least events in the imaging department. Stretchers and wheelchairs are statistically implicated to a startling degree. Almost 75% of patient safety mishaps result in what is euphemistically called “a delay in care,” with most of the delays consisting not only of pausing to assess the damage, but in treating the resulting damage. Nobody wants this.

A huge field of knowledge is involved here, which mainly concerns adult patients rather than children. But this is the point we make again and again: The odds of an obese child growing into an obese adult are daunting. No parent wants to peer into the future and see this kind of picture. And looking at a bit of specialized bariatric equipment, and the associated prices, hopefully will cause some degree of a “scared straight” effect.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Bariatric durable medical equipment product guide,” Medline.com, undated
Source: “Bariatric and Heavy Duty Patient Lifts and Slings,” AdaptiveSpecialties.com, undated
Source: “How Safety Is Compromised When Hospital Equipment Is a Poor Fit for Patients Who Are Obese,” PatientSafety.pa.gov, March 2020
Image by dmchannelsng/Pixabay

The Growing Realization of Horror

Following along in this retrospective look at the alarming cost of obesity in the U.S. and the world, we note that a 2010 article in The Lancet had already proclaimed obesity to be, globally, a larger health problem than hunger. Soon afterward, the head of England’s National Health Service sounded an alarm, stating that “we are sleepwalking into the worst public health emergency for at least three decades.”

The World Economic Forum followed up on this shocking turn of events in 2015 (in an article which has vanished from the web), by stating that almost one-third of the Earth’s human inhabitants — in other words, 2.1 billion people — were overweight or obese. Why was this characterized as a more significant problem than hunger? Because…

That is nearly two and a half times the number of adults and children who are undernourished.

At that moment in time, obesity was deemed to be responsible for approximately 5% of the total deaths taking place among the world’s population. But well-being was not the only area of concern. The entire global economy was taking a beating:

This crisis is not just a pressing health concern; it is also a threat to the global economy. The total economic impact of obesity is about $2 trillion a year, or 2.8% of world GDP…

As World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Margaret Chan has noted, “Not one single country has managed to turn around its obesity epidemic in all age groups.”

To make matters worse, this crisis did not, as might be reasonably expected, affect only impoverished countries — because well over half of the world’s obese people were located in developing countries, in which many people enjoyed more prosperity than they had ever been accustomed to. In places like China and India, thanks to new economic opportunities, the inhabitants of cities were ballooning up.

When previously hungry people suddenly find that food is available and that they are able to afford it, that is what they go for. Here is a painful example:

In the mid-twentieth century, for example, a boom in phosphate mining transformed the Micronesian island state of Nauru from a land of food shortages and starvation to the world’s leader in obesity and type-2 diabetes. In 2005, according to the WHO, 94% of men and 93% of women in Nauru were overweight, and more than 70% of the population was obese.

The combination of money and availability made people sent people around the bend, and who can really blame them? But casting blame was never an issue. For the authorities in charge of public health, the only issue at hand was what to do about the situation. The crisis could not even be characterized as unforeseen, because statisticians and the entire medical profession had been noticing it all along.

One unfortunate circumstance was that countries where people suddenly could afford more food than they needed did not necessarily also have the funds to provide health services that they also desperately needed. Increased disposable income perversely led to obesity that “can lock in poverty and perpetuate inequality.”

To address the crisis, the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) identified 74 potential interventions and classified 44 of them as possessing sufficient data “to be able to measure potential impact if scaled up to a national level.” These tantalizing alleviating actions included subsidized school meals, better nutritional labeling on food products, and built environments that encouraged walking and other types of exercise.

One element in particular would prove to be increasingly crucial but also increasingly impervious to any resistance: the advertising of high-calorie food and drink. Still, undaunted by ever more alarming reality, the MGI went ahead with projections of what might, in a better world, come to pass:

If the United Kingdom, for example, were to deploy all 44 interventions, it could rein in obesity rates and help roughly 20% of its overweight and obese population return to a healthy weight within 5-10 years… Over the long term, savings from reduced health-care spending and gains from higher productivity could outweigh the investment needed to deliver interventions… In the UK, reversing obesity trends could save the National Health Service about $1.2 billion a year.

Dream on, MGI! When there are fortunes to be made selling sugar-saturated fizzy drinks to everyone from infants to geriatric patients, nobody wants to hear about interventions and alleviation and better health and blah-blah-blah. The voices of earnest experts who tried to warn of impending doom were drowned out by ever more obnoxious advertising. Throwing money at the problem did not help — because almost nobody cared to listen. The article ended by stating a dismal fact:

Today, investment in obesity research worldwide amounts to some $4 billion a year — just 0.2% of the estimated social costs of obesity.

Source: “What’s the best way of tackling obesity?,” WeForum.org, 12/15/14
Source: “Why Obesity Threatens the Global Economy,” WeForum.org, 04/07/15
Image by marlenemgm (modified)/Pixabay

A Painful Paradox

What has been the total financial cost extracted by childhood obesity — which almost inevitably proceeds to become the adult kind — throughout the world, throughout history, or even for a short time period? Nobody knows, but it is instructive to sample various news articles from sundry times and places, which Childhood Obesity News is in the midst of doing.

To continue by going back a little over 10 years, we look at a widely discussed report on the subject, from the Associated Press. That $2 trillion figure cited in the headline was a momentous amount, and not just because of its awesome size. The number was also identified as “nearly as much as smoking or the combined impact of armed violence, war and terrorism.” Smoking, okay, we get it — awareness of the cost of that habit was increasing day by day, and awareness of its destructiveness was spreading widely.

An eye-opening statistic

But to cost more per year than war, terrorism, and other armed violence? Who could wrap their head around a statement like that? A lot of people sat up and took notice. Just in case anyone missed the point, the figure was also identified as “2.8 percent of global gross domestic product.” A consulting firm, the McKinsey Global Institute, had done the math and brought out some other numbers, too:

The company says 2.1 billion people — about 30 percent of the global population — are overweight or obese and that about 15 percent of health care costs in developed economies are driven by it.

Sadly, the enormous amount of obesity was found to correlate with prosperity. Entire countries would rise out of abject poverty, and their people would react by piling on the pounds. Of course, no one is in favor of starvation. But it seemed like such a cruel joke, to see a higher living standard translate to a larger number of people whose obesity would cost them, and everyone else, a fortune. Folks who had never had enough to eat became folks who reacted to their improved circumstances by creating another problem — inability to fit into their clothes or to pay the medical bills that accrued as obesity caused ever more health problems.

One step forward, two steps back

Experts predicted that if things kept going in the same direction, by 2030, half the world’s adults would be overweight or obese. Nobody knew what to do, partly because, as the McKinsey organization reported, “global disagreement on how to move forward is hurting progress.”

By the time 2015 started, obesity awareness in the U.S. had notably increased, and the number of affected citizens had grown. More than one-third of adult Americans, and approximately one-fifth of the nation’s teens, were classified as obese. Kids from low-income families were heavily affected, apparently because their parents lacked the educational background to recognize the importance of avoiding extra weight, and also, obviously, because the food they could afford tended to be less costly and more calorie-laden.

In short, both prosperity and poverty are perfectly capable of contributing to the problem. What a messed-up situation.

Problems multiply

Awareness of such terms as “food desert” rose, as realization grew that many families lacked not only money, but transportation to go where fresh vegetables and fruits were available. They tended to live in areas where opportunities for healthy exercise did not exist, and where going outside more than necessary was too dangerous. For many Americans, something like a gym membership was as unaffordable as a vacation in Paris.

But the relationship between wealth and weight was also perceived as a two-way street. For a number of reasons, people (especially women) carrying extra pounds tended to earn less money. The cause was not as simple as weight bias. The Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization (aka “think tank”), among others, became very interested in how both excess weight and insufficient income are transmitted from one generation to the next, and “higher body weight predicts lower wages” became a recognized truism.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Report: Global obesity costs hits $2 trillion,” APNews.com, 11/20/14
Source: “Weight and social mobility: Taking the long view on childhood obesity,” Brookings.edu, 01/08/15
Image by vocablitz/Pixabay

A Crucial Cost of Obesity

The theme of “obesity versus military readiness” did not fade from public consciousness. A 2013 headline stated the case: “Food a ‘national security issue’ for America.” A message can’t get much plainer than that. Despite the exemplary phrasing, an essay penned by Jason Miks has vanished from the web, though it is referenced on social media.

In it, Anthony Bourdain is quoted:

We are eating ourselves to death. We are largely an unhealthy and increasingly obese and increasingly diabetic country. One can well make the argument that it is eroding our military readiness! And I say that only half in jest.

We are not alone

This was far from being an exclusively American problem. Studying the records of 150,000 Swedish males in their 18th year, and then comparing later information, showed that obese males earned on average (over their lifetimes) 16% less than their normal-weight counterparts.

In terms of disadvantage, this is roughly equivalent to missing out on three years of college. Obviously, many of these Scandinavian hunks would not be accepted by any self-respecting military leadership.

In the same year, financial analysis techniques were also being applied in other areas. Are we ready to explore more costs of obesity that wind up being paid by everyone, regardless of whether they signed up for it? Probably not, but that doesn’t change a thing. Those expenses are woven into the fabric of society.

A multiverse of size

In 2013, a multi-author study (presented to the Tenth International Society of Sports Nutrition Conference) compared four popular weight loss programs in terms of their cost-effectiveness. The researchers started with 129 women of sedentary habits and randomized them into five groups: the Curves Complete 90-Day Challenge; Weight Watchers Points Plus; Jenny Craig; Nutrisystem Advance Select, or no program (the control group).

During the experiment, they averaged the program costs and the food purchase costs for each group. Each participant’s weight, waist circumference, hip circumference, bone mineral content, fat mass, fat-free mass, and peak oxygen uptake were analyzed. With no further suspense, here is the conclusion:

The WW group tended to lose a lot of weight and fat mass per dollar spent, but also lost more fat-free mass resulting in a lower change in body fat percentage. The CC group tended to improve peak oxygen uptake and lose more weight and fat mass while preserving fat-free mass resulting in the greatest change in body fat percentage per dollar spent. This analysis suggests diet plus exercise is more beneficial to health and weight loss than diet alone.

In the same timeframe, a substance called Bisphenol A (commonly known as BPA) was recognized as major-league bad news. In 2014, more than a decade ago, a study conducted by Health Affairs was the first to attach a dollar value to the damage done by BPA, as follows:

Author Leo Trasande found that $2.98 billion in annual costs are attributable to BPA-associated childhood obesity and adult coronary heart disease. Of the $2.98 billion, the study identified $1.49 billion in childhood obesity costs, the first environmentally attributable costs of child obesity to be documented.

The conclusion derived from this information at the time was that the FDA should insist that manufacturers find something else to put in their products instead.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Food a ‘national security issue’ for America,” CNN.com 09/13/13
Source: “Being obese can cost you as much as missing three years of college ” DailyMail.co.uk, 10/09/14
Source: “Analysis of efficacy and cost effectiveness of popular weight loss and fitness programs,” JISSN.com, 12/06/13
Source: “Health Affairs Web First: First-Ever Quantitative Data About The Toll Of BPA Exposure,” HealthAffairs.org, 01/22/14
Image by anaterate/Pixabay

The Right to Be Obese

It is actually pretty amazing how many times the alarms have sounded, just because some mathematicians practiced their trade and said, “Hey! What’s going on here?” Time and time again, experts have tried to get people to open their eyes and check their pocketbooks to see if what these highly educated individuals were saying made any sense. Why? Because the experts were saying things like, “Americans are doomed.”

Experts with advanced degrees and extensive experience in several fields, employed by universities and think tanks and medical institutions, and the government, to mention a few, have done their darnedest to try and make the public listen. Obesity is a very, very expensive condition, and the more assiduously the logisticians examine the problem, the more frightening it becomes… to anyone who is paying attention, anyway — which seems to be a vanishingly small number of folks.

Easy to ignore

Many Americans dismiss these warnings as “much ado about nothing,” but even into their resistant minds, it seems like some shards of light ought to have penetrated by now. Quite understandably, many patriots who love and praise the ideal of individual freedom have suggested that people should be left alone to pursue happiness in their own preferred manner, even if and when this includes a self-destructive lifestyle that also costs society a pretty penny.

This mindset does make a certain amount of sense, in a way. Of course an American should be allowed to eat whatever she or he prefers. On the other hand, we have rejected total acceptance of the doctrine that anyone should be allowed to drink whatever they want, whenever they want. Most jurisdictions within the United States have set age limits on who can buy, possess, and legally consume alcohol. So there actually is a rough consensus, in most states and cities, to the effect that rights are not without limits.

In fact, the law goes further, and is perfectly willing and able to prosecute people whose alcohol use brings harm to other Americans, or even just to themselves. Of course, many people experience inner conflict about this. Returning to the destruction that can be caused by careless, unheeding consumption of food — millions of Americans, whether volunteers or draftees, have fought and died for the cherished ideal of freedom.

Wakeup call?

But then, at a certain point, officials spoke up to say, “Attention! It appears that because of an epidemic of obesity, not enough Americans are fit enough to qualify to belong to the same military that is in charge of preserving our freedom.” What a paradox. What a debacle.

These are only two of the many strands that weave the tapestry of body weight disaster in our country… and nobody has finished talking about the subject. Earlier this week, Newsweek.com published ” ‘Extremely Severe’ Obesity on the Rise in US Children — Study” by Hollie Silverman. The journalist reports that…

Extremely severe obesity among American children has increased more than threefold over the past 15 years, with new research published on the JAMA Network, highlighting disturbing trends in prevalence and related health complications.

People between the ages 2 and 18 (in other words, the entirety of America’s youth) are busily increasing their obesity rates more efficiently than any other demographic. Analysis of 15 years worth of research has revealed a dismal picture. The study’s four authors use the expression “public health emergency” and also the phrase “urgent need for public health interventions against pediatric obesity.”

Silverman writes,

The sharp upswing in extremely severe obesity among children raises the risk of developing serious medical conditions — including type 2 diabetes, steatotic liver disease, also known as fatty liver disease (MASLD), metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease.

And what have we been saying? Exactly — that the urgent need for public health intervention, caused by the aforementioned sharp upswing, comes at an enormous cost. Putting aside the drastically traumatic effects on the children and youth involved… and leaving aside the frustration and rejection and numerous other negative emotions experienced by these kids… and ignoring for a moment the immense physical suffering experienced by victims of the above-named diseases… all of this is horrendously expensive in sheer financial terms.

Okay, let’s get back to talking dollars:

In 2024, the CDC estimated the annual medical cost of childhood obesity at $1.3 billion…

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “’Extremely Severe’ Obesity on the Rise in US Children—Study,” Newsweek.com, 07/20/25
Images by FotoshopTofs, sedatgunduz/Pixabay

FAQs and Media Requests: Click here…

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Weight

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Obesity top bottom

The Book

OVERWEIGHT: What Kids Say explores the obesity problem from the often-overlooked perspective of children struggling with being overweight.

About Dr. Robert A. Pretlow

Dr. Robert A. Pretlow is a pediatrician and childhood obesity specialist. He has been researching and spreading awareness on the childhood obesity epidemic in the US for more than a decade.
You can contact Dr. Pretlow at:

Presentations

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the American Society of Animal Science 2020 Conference
What’s Causing Obesity in Companion Animals and What Can We Do About It

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the World Obesity Federation 2019 Conference:
Food/Eating Addiction and the Displacement Mechanism

Dr. Pretlow’s Multi-Center Clinical Trial Kick-off Speech 2018:
Obesity: Tackling the Root Cause

Dr. Pretlow’s 2017 Workshop on
Treatment of Obesity Using the Addiction Model

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation for
TEC and UNC 2016

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the 2015 Obesity Summit in London, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s invited keynote at the 2014 European Childhood Obesity Group Congress in Salzburg, Austria.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2013 European Congress on Obesity in Liverpool, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2011 International Conference on Childhood Obesity in Lisbon, Portugal.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2010 Uniting Against Childhood Obesity Conference in Houston, TX.

Food & Health Resources