|
If you
overindulged in turkey last Thursday, you’re not alone.
Research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has
found that, on average, people gain about a pound during
the period between Thanksgiving and late February. Most
of the increase occurs between Thanksgiving and New
Year’s. When participants in the study were checked
again a year later, they had gained another 1.4 pounds.
While
those increases may seem small, a slender 25-year-old
who picks up a pound a year for 50 years will become an
obese 75-year-old. Data from the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey suggest that more and more
Americans are following such a path.
American
males in their 20s who weighed, on average, 163.9 pounds
in 1960 were found to weigh 191.5 pounds 40 years later
as they entered their 60s and 70s. Females in their 20s
weighed on average 127.7 pounds in 1960, but ballooned
to 164.7 pounds 40 years later.
The
extent to which
America
is growing fat is mind-boggling. One common measure of
obesity is the body mass index, or BMI. According to the
NIH, a normal BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9. You’re
overweight if your BMI is between 25 and 29.9; if it’s
above 30, you are obese.
In 1960,
20-year-old males on average in the US had a BMI of
24.3, putting them in the normal range. Today, they have
an average BMI of 28.6, well into the overweight range.
Females
fared worse. The 20-somethings of 1960 had a BMI of
22.2. By 2000, the average for this same group, now aged
60 to about 70, was 29.2.
Tom
Brady obese?
Granted,
BMI is an imperfect measurement of obesity, since overly
muscled individuals often fall into the overweight, or
even obese, range. New England Patriots quarterback Tom
Brady’s BMI, for instance, would place him solidly in
the overweight range. However, the average American is
hardly Tom Brady, who is 6-foot, 4-inches tall and
weighs 225 pounds.
These
numbers can be hard to fathom, so a couple of simple
examples will help put them in perspective. According to
the National Institutes’ BMI calculator, a 5-foot,
4-inch-tall woman would have to weigh about 170 pounds
to match the most recent body-mass averages. A typical
man of 5-foot, 10 would have to weigh about 200 pounds.
This
skyrocketing obesity is a serious problem. It has been
statistically linked to numerous health problems,
including heart disease and diabetes.
Fiscal
burden, too
These
health problems also create an enormous fiscal burden.
Annual medical costs for obese individuals are
approximately $1,000 more than for people with normal
weight. A 2004 study by the Research Triangle Institute
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found
that almost half of all obesity-related health-care
costs are paid for by Medicare and Medicaid. In 2002,
obese enrollees in Medicare accounted for a quarter of
total spending, up from 9 percent in 1987.
This
health burden is paid for by everyone. Society is
engaging in a large transfer of resources from
individuals who exercise and watch what they eat to
those who, in many cases, do not.
The
obesity epidemic is different from many other diseases
in that the decisions of each individual can influence
the outcome. Many forms of cancer are just bad luck,
since they can strike anybody. While there is surely a
medical or genetic component to obesity, there’s no way
the biological makeup of Americans has changed that much
in a half-century. Much of the increase in the nation’s
weight must be attributed to ordinary folks who lack the
self-control to pursue a healthy lifestyle.
A ‘fat’ tax?
So what
should we do? In many ways, this problem is a classic
“externality.” People who don’t control their weight
impose a cost on those who do. Economists have long
preached that a tax should be imposed in such
circumstances. If carbon emissions cause global warming,
government should impose a carbon tax. If overweight
individuals impose costs on everyone else, then the
government should tax fat.
While
such a tax brings forth nightmarish visions of April 15
weigh-ins, many governments have already begun to pursue
a tax-related strategy to combat obesity. Seventeen
states and
Washington,
D.C., have laws imposing special taxes on junk food.
A fat
tax, and junk-food taxes, are probably bad ideas,
however. First, once one allows government to
micromanage our lives with special taxes, who is to say
where it would stop? Wine consumption in moderation is
now supposed to be healthful; why not subsidize wine
consumption and pay for it with a tax on red meat?
Twinkies
vs Chicken
Second,
the NIH holiday study suggests that a junk-food tax
would be poorly targeted. It seems unlikely that junk
food explains the holiday weight gain. It’s far more
probable that the massive holiday feasts do. And why
should an individual who wants to eat a Twinkie in June
be taxed for that choice, while an individual who eats a
whole barbecued chicken is not?
The
beauty of the NIH holiday study is that it suggests a
simple solution that might be better than a tax. Most
Americans don’t want to gain weight, but do anyway. They
probably don’t understand that most of the weight they
gain each year comes during the holidays. NIH
researchers found that individuals who exercise even
moderately during that period saw much smaller weight
gains.
That
means there’s an easy way out. If you want to stay slim,
you don’t have to start the Atkins diet or join a health
club and slog away on the treadmill 12 months a year.
All you need to do is exercise more between Thanksgiving
and New Year’s. If every American vowed to do that, the
obesity epidemic could be contained. Spread the news.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at
the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News
columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John
McCain of Arizona in his bid for the 2008 presidential
nomination. The opinions expressed are his own.) |
