Prev
Next

Fat tax useless if overweight is the new average

Sadhbh Warren

by Sadhbh Warren

02 Feb 05:30am

Must Reads

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future… - this is a caption

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

57

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips” - this is a caption

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

43

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou - this is a caption

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

174

Filed under: Fitness, Health, Obesity, Society, Travel

32 comments

Think you’re a normal weight? So did I, until I got stuck in lift at 2am.

Picture: Sandra Priestly.

A big group of us piled in and it promptly broke.

After the shock of screaming to a halt between floors, we were indignant. The lift said it could hold 12 people. There were only 11 of us.

But a closer look at the lift safety sign revealed the truth. 13 people - at 780kg total. That’s 65kgs a person, and none of us weighed that. Not that any of us thought we were fat, just normal. The average Australian weight is 71kg for women, and 85kg for men.

What was this, a lift for gnomes? Sick gnomes on a diet? How could they expect real people to fit?

The simple answer is they don’t. On average, most Australians are too big.

Too heavy for lifts, too large-breasted for one-size-fits-all tops, and too big for airline seats. 

Although Australian airlines have said no, some of the Australian public is saying a big yes to increasing fares for obese passengers.

According to poll on news.com.au, 85% of respondents would support a “fat tax”, and the comments are full of frustration at encroaching beer guts and “stolen” arm rests.

That’s a lot of normal people being annoyed by the evil that is fat people on a plane.

Or is it? According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 54% of Australian adults are overweight or obese.

But 63% of men and 59% of women believe that they are an acceptable weight. How many people calling for “fat tax” should be looking at their weight and waistband instead?

And that estimate of 54% of the population being overweight is the cheerful picture. The actual amount may well higher, as people tend to over estimate height and under estimate weight.

Just as most people rate themselves an “above average” driver, most people think they are lighter and in better shape than they are. These days, it’s average to be overweight.

Overweight is the new normal, and the airlines don’t design for that. The seats aren’t made accommodate the average person. They are designed to pack in people and they use a study from the 1950s to do so.

The recommendation is that seats should be 18 inches wide, but Qantas and Virgin offer 17 inches on many of their aircraft.

We’ve got bigger, the seats have got smaller. No wonder we’re feeling a bit cramped and uncomfortable.

The most uncomfortable flight I ever spent was 4 hours wedged between two rugby players. Their vast shoulders forced me into a forward crouch and their huge legs took up most of my leg room.

These were seven-foot-tall muscle men who routinely tape their ears to their head and then charge into each other. Should I have demanded that they pay a fat tax? A tall tax? A fit tax? A “being healthier than average” tax?

What tax would work?

A fat tax won’t work and is an insultingly simple take on a complex issue that affects a lot of Australians. It is a discriminatory knee-jerk solution that picks on a group with a lot of bad press – the overweight.

And many Australians don’t realise when people talk about fatties, they’re talking about them, the average, the normal – the overweight. Let he who is without wobbly bits cast the first stone.

If you think you’re average, well, don’t ask for whom the fat tax tolls, because it could well toll for thee.

Most commented

342Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
303It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed
214Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
201The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus
174The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou
163Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone
153What happens to us if we collide with GFC 2.0?

32 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Nola James says:

      08:40am | 02/02/10

      Hmm. I might start taking the stairs.

      Reply

    • Exorcise says:

      09:12am | 02/02/10

      “Average” sis simply total/number. Therefore a large total will give a higher average than a smaller total.

      The fact remains that people are already fat and getting fatter. This puts enormous strains on the health system, also the extra consumption in food that fatties consume (because they are hungry and want a snack) must be sourced from somewhere and you’ll find that this will increase the depletion of the limited resources we have.

      A fat tax on unhealthy groceries will be a good idea. A user-pays system similar to taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will further fill the government coffers so they can spend it on something (health, schools, public transport etc). A few people may divert their expenditure to more healthy items but the lazy and stupid won’t.

      The healthier people will cost us less and the fatties will earn us more. Everyone wins!

      Reply

    • Exorcise says:

      12:10pm | 02/02/10

      (10+10)/2 = 10 (average)
      (5+5)/2 = 5 (average)

      Higher total (ie 20) gives a higher average (being 10) than the lower total (ie 10) giving an average of 5.

      This is clearly what I stated.

      Perhaps you should sue your English teacher, Doc.

    • DocBud says:

      12:38pm | 02/02/10

      That may be what you said, Exorcise, but, in the context of the article, it is meaningless twaddle. What point are you trying to make?

    • DocBud says:

      09:55am | 02/02/10

      More people being overweight is great news as being overweight, according to a major US study involving over 30000 people, is associated with less deaths than being “normal”:

      http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/15/1861

      The study is a classic example of politically correct science. Political correctness declares being overweight (BMI 25-30) is bad so they have to play down the significance of their findings that you are best off being overweight. Hence:

      we estimated that 111 909 excess deaths in 2000 were associated with obesity (BMI ?30). Of the excess deaths associated with obesity, the majority (82 066 deaths) occurred in individuals with BMI 35 or greater. Overweight was associated with a slight reduction in mortality (–86 094 deaths).

      If 86094 deaths is a slight reduction. what must the 29843 excess deaths associated with being moderately obese (BMI 30 to 35) be described as? A very slight increase? But, as I said, the conclusions have to be PC so they perform the incredibly dishonest trick of adding the overweight and obese figures together to get:

      “for overweight and obesity combined (BMI ?25), our estimate was 25 814 excess deaths”

      And elsewhere note:

      “we did not find overweight (BMI 25 to <30) to be associated with increased mortality in any of the 3 surveys.”

      Unbelievable, their studied clearly indicate a benefit in being overweight but they just can’t say so.

      So if you are fit and portly, revel in it, you will most likely live longer than those who are “normal” and unfit.

      Reply

    • Craig Lambie says:

      10:49am | 02/02/10

      I have to agreed with @Exorcise, taxing fatty foods is the best way to give people motivation to eat healthy foods.

      Education and cooking classes maybe (where the money could go).  The joy of making your own food, fresh ingredients, taking some time out of your “busy day” to look after yourself.
      I am starting to sound like a Hippie, but I am far from it. 

      A fat tax is a great idea, considering the population of Australia is now the “biggest” in the world (http://bit.ly/1rvGy3, http://bit.ly/ds5nP7), add to that and the fact that 50% of our GDP will be required for health care by 2050 (http://bit.ly/a42Zlg) we might as well start aiming at the ones that will be causing the strain now, so that in 40 years time there will be less of them, and maybe we won’t need 50% of GDP for healthcare.

      As far as travel goes, I am all for Airlines charging for overall Weight.  eg. If you book a seat, you get 150Kg of allowance.  If you weigh 50Kg, you can take 100Kg of luggage, and vice a versa.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      11:34am | 02/02/10

      How are you going to define “fatty” foods.
      Olive oil is a “fatty” food, yet can be extremely good for you.
      Taxes like this are plain stupidity. If people want to eat themselves to death then that is their personal choice.
      And as for your fact that 50% of GDP might be required for health care in 2050, you do realise that the majority of this is because people will be living longer?
      If more people died earlier, health care costs would actually go down overall because you don’t have to look after people into old age.
      Eat on Fatties, Eat on.

    • Rafe says:

      11:40am | 02/02/10

      Craig Lambie says: 10:49am | 02/02/10

      Re: Airlines & Weight allowance.
      This is only going to work if you take into account height as well.
      I’m 6’2” and weigh 105kg, I also run 5-10km a day, so to call me overweight would be wrong. And using the BMI to measure me doesn’t work. However if you try and use this for any individual you’ll find it doesn’t work, as this is a tool used for analysing populations not individuals.

      /end rant

    • Sadhbh Warren says:

      11:46am | 02/02/10

      One problem with an overall weight limit is that airlines do not design for the “average” person but to a smaller specification. So, that allowance is more likely to be 80kg than 150kg, and that will effectively discriminate against the tall, men in general, and disabled people, among others.
      As I said, I think this issue needs far more thought than just slapping a price on it.

    • Craig Lambie says:

      11:53am | 02/02/10

      @Tim “fatty” foods could be defined by a set of standards that a group of community and experts would create.
      As you say, Olive Oil would not be taxed in this way, so maybe McDonalds would start cooking their fries in it… which is kinda the point!
      Yes… it is due to living longer.  However, my baby boomer father who has been a fit and health person all his life, will not be a strain on the system until he is well into his 70s or even 80s, unless he gets hit by a bus.  The point being that those that are obese, smoke and drink a lot will be in hospital with heart problems, liver issues, lung issues, etc etc long before someone that treated their body with respect.

      Why should “we”, society pay for their healthcare?  Society is living longer.  Maybe by your suggestion, and a thought I have had for a long time, we should introduce voluntary euthanasia to anyone that is retired.
      That would certainly bring down the costs of healthcare.
      So fat people can keep consuming truckloads of food, we can just kill off a bunch of 65+‘r’s. What do you think @Tim?

    • David C says:

      12:03pm | 02/02/10

      Craig the “we” you mention includes overweight people that pay taxes as well.

    • Tim says:

      12:42pm | 02/02/10

      Great ideas Craig.
      And you know what, we can go further.
      I don’t have children. Why should “We” have to pay for other people’s children?
      I’m not old and poor. Why should “We” have to pay for old age pensions?
      I don’t use the national highways. Why should “We” have to pay for them?
      Yeah, user pays for everything….

    • DocBud says:

      01:00pm | 02/02/10

      @Craig Lambie “fatty” foods could be defined by a set of standards that a group of community and experts would create.

      Oh great, more public service jobs funded by the taxpayer to come up with nonesense:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-426083/TV-ban-adverts-cheese-latest-junk-food.html

      “The point being that those that are obese, smoke and drink a lot will be in hospital with heart problems, liver issues, lung issues, etc etc long before someone that treated their body with respect.”

      Even if we accept the shonky science (see my comment above on the Flegal et al study), we are talking relative risk, not certainty. In fact, however, you’d have the overweight penalised based on received wisdom rather than actual facts. The overweight will likely require less health care than those who are normal and less still than those who are underweight. Follow David C’s links and form an opinion on the facts, not perception. Tax fatty food and then how are we going to fatten up all those skinnies who will die prematurely if we don’t get their weight up.

    • Ree says:

      06:44pm | 02/02/10

      @ RAFE my boyfriend is 6’3” and weighs 108kg, he plays competitive sport 3 nights a week.
      I am 5’7” and weigh 75kg and I like you run everyday.
      How do those random mix of numbers prove that you are fit, healthy or that BMI doesn’t apply to you.
      I can comfortably say that my partner and I could both stand to lose a few kilos.
      So unless you want an Airline to start charging you per cubic foot of space you take up including empty air surrounding you because of your awkward shape preventing them from filing that space pipe down (this is exactly how Airlines charge in the cargo space so it is a short leap from Jetstar to the cargo hold)

    • stealthpooch says:

      11:32am | 02/02/10

      A fat tax is not targeting people who are merely overweight, rather those who are morbidly obese.  A couple of years ago I sat next to a morbidly obese woman, whose belly was so large, that it could not fit within the seat, and spilled onto the armrests and beyond into ‘my’ space.  The airline brought her a seatbelt extension because the normal seatbelt wouldn’t fit her.  It was an uncomfortable flight (especially as I knew it was more trouble than it was worth to ask her to move to let me go to the bathroom), but at least it was only domestic.  I couldn’t imagine a long-haul flight with fat rolls encroaching into my already limited space the whole time.

      The woman was incredibly uncomfortable, and it would’ve been kinder to have let her buy a second seat at a reduced price, which is what Air France is proposing. 

      This personal experience is why I would support a ‘fat tax’ if not just for the people forced to sit next to the morbidly obese, but also for the comfort of those with such body mass.

      Reply

    • marrog says:

      10:29pm | 02/02/10

      I don’t like sitting next to people who smell. I have a very sensitive sense of smell, and folk with BO, too much perfume, who haven’t showered or who’ve eaten garlic/curry etc is very unpleasant for me. I doubt very much that I’m alone in this.

      Can we make smelly people buy another seat in planes too?

      Actually, while we’re on the topic, I don’t like people who watch television on transatlantic flights when I’m trying to sleep, could we make them buy an extra seat?

      Oh! And people who choose the really disgusting meat option on flights leaving the US where the food is terrible. It makes me feel ill. Could we make them buy an extra seat? And drunk people?

      And people who’re tall, or broad. I sat next to this really buff guy on a plane once. He was also wearing too much aftershave and had clearly drunk a lot of beer, triple threat. They should probably have made him buy an extra seat.

      Oh, and people who just *spread out* when they get into plane seats - you know the type, arm on your armrest, legs in your legwell, elbowing you while they type (well, back when we could actually use laptops on flights). I think they should be made to buy an extra seat.

    • Lisa M. Janda says:

      11:57am | 02/02/10

      I am a big believer in personal responsibility; if you’re too fat, you have a choice to do something about it or suffer (let’s not bandy semantics about people who may or may not have a genetic disposition towards being obese).  Everyone can put their fork down and walk.  Or run.  Or lift weights, do yoga, anything to get moving.  I don’t like the idea of a fat tax (it’s often talked about here in the States) because people will just pay the tax and no real change will be made.  I don’t believe for one minute that it will encourage anybody to lose weight.  We have astronomical taxes on cigarettes and a carton is easily a week’s groceries but people still smoke.  Alcohol is taxed and still there are alcoholics.  If government wants to raise taxes, fine, do so.  But don’t hide behind people who don’t care.

      I live in the States; right now, they want to tax everything.  grin

      Reply

    • Once a porker says:

      12:01pm | 02/02/10

      I’m 5’10” and lost 35kgs over five years and I have been around 63kgs for the last ten years. My friends now tell me I am too thin! My doctor tells me I am within a normal, healthy range.

      Reply

    • Pleasantly Plump says:

      03:26pm | 02/02/10

      Your friends are jealous that you are thinner and most likely look better than they do.  You may have to ask yourself whether they are really your friends.  Do they try to “sabotage” you by offering only greasy foods, or alcohol, or fill your plate with a second serve even though you’ve said “no”?

      If you feel OK, and your bloodwork says everything is within normal limits, then don’t worry about friends, your doctor would be the one to listen to.

      Congratulations on your weight loss.  I wish I were enough diciplined to continue my journey….I sabotage myself!  I came down from 73 t0 63kg, but have been around 66kg for the past year or so; I am 5’2”.  According to the “calculations”, I should be 53kg….

    • Scott Glennon says:

      12:57pm | 02/02/10

      @Sadhbh, the purpose of a fat tax is not to have people pay more for seats on flights for the comfort of everyone else. A fat tax would be similar to taxation of tobacco, booze and fuel. These items are taxed as there are health, safety and environmental problems which outcome from the consumption of them. The government receives this tax to reduce the outlay of those that don’t smoke, drink booze or consume huge amounts of fuel.
      As you’ve said, Australia is overweight… Future health concerns for the average Australian should be of concern and fat tax should apply.
      You want to eat maccas, ice cream, grab a popcorn from the movies, a bag of corn chips instead of a healthy balanced diet… You deserve to pay a premium price for it of which includes a fat tax to reduce the cost to those who have chosen the healthy option.
      What’s scary is that often the cost of fatty foods is less then the healthy choice, there needs to be a shift and I think a tax of some form would kick it home for fatties.

      Reply

    • David C says:

      01:09pm | 02/02/10

      Scott please can you show me any facts that say if I eat McDonalds once a year I will do damage to my health and thus cause a strain on the system? But yet under your system I have to pay a “premium” for this?

    • I lost 80kg's says:

      08:44pm | 02/02/10

      I agree, tax junk food like we tax cigarettes, etc. Yes, you should pay a higher price for junk food just like we do for alcohol, cigarettes. They are bad for us. However, I believe all tax revenue coming from junk food should go back into healthy initiatives, subsidising healthy options, better and more exercise programs for kids and more education etc. It’s expensive to get a gym membership, see a dietitian etc. This should all be subsidised in an effort to actually help fat people, rather than just sit and criticism.

    • Sadhbh Warren says:

      04:01pm | 02/02/10

      @Rafe
      I hear your pain on the BMI. As a runner and rock-climber who also happens to be built like an ox, it fraustrates me when people use BMI to assess my fitness as it makes me look like a sedentary mammoth. I get my own back on them by taking them rock-climbing. :D
      @DocBud
      Thanks for the links, some interesting reading there!

      Reply

    • MadMan says:

      04:15pm | 02/02/10

      Arrh the fatties tax, a issue that always seems to rise to the public’s attention again and again. The problem with a ‘fat tax’ is that it is inherently a regressive step and will hit the lower social economic class harder compared to the rest of the community. Any half decent obesity study worth its grant monies, will find that a higher than average percentage of obese people come from lower social economic group due to a variety of factors including education, availability of fresh food, time poor etc. So the fat tax will be a new poor tax-which is never a good concept. As for the plane seats, make the fatties buy a place in the cargo hold, it a win win concept. More room for the fatties to graze and more room for the so called ‘normal sized people’ in the community to sit in peace.

      Reply

    • Rafe says:

      04:38pm | 02/02/10

      @DocBud
      Interesting articles and a good read, however I’d take the figures she is quoting with a pinch of salt. Re-quoted and watered down, good for a bar room argument but really not to be taken at face value. I’m not saying her argument is invalid, just that it is a bit skewed…

      Reply

    • DocBud says:

      06:43pm | 02/02/10

      Rafe,

      The Journal of the American Medical Journal is a peer reviewed journal. I don’t think there is any reason to question the underlying statistical analysis, particularly because it yielded a result that the authors did not expect.. That result clearly shows that statistically, in a study of well over 30000 people, you are better off being overweight than normal. What is bizarre is the way the authors tried to hide and ignore this major finding of their study precisely because it was at odds with their preconceived idea that being overweight is less healthy than being normal.

      There was a time when a BMI of 28 for men and 27 for women was considered normal, but a simple change to 25 made millions fat overnight without putting an ounce on.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/guideposts/fitness/optimal.htm

    • DL says:

      05:20pm | 02/02/10

      I think median is a better indicator than average:

      E.g.: given a total of 20 random female weights:  65,66,68,70,75,75,75,76,78,78,78,78,81,84,91,97,99,120,130,135.

      The Average is: 86
      The Median is: 78

      A clear difference.  Which indicates that if (for example) greater than 85 is considered overweight than there are a total of 6 overweight people in the sample (30%).  However, the impression that you would get from seeing an average weight ot 86kgs is that more than 50% of the sample is overweight…

      I imagine that statistical error would definetly account for some of these ever increasing weight statistics.. ESPECIALLY given how much easier it is to have large outliers in the obese category, but not to have similar outliers in the skinny category.. due to there being a lower limit on weight..

      However i’m sure it’s easier for the media to scream a headline:  AUSSIES GETTING FATTER BY THE SECOND!! FAT TAX NOW!

      Reply

    • Louise says:

      09:08am | 03/02/10

      Did anyone stop to think that being overweight is also directly linked to ones socio- economic background? Ie: if you are poor, its more likely you are fat.  To tax these people is to in effect not only keep them poor(er) but also fat(ter).
      I don’t know anyone who is obese that enjoys the fact.  To discriminate and talk to derogatively about their condition is really quite cruel.  Having been there, (I was 149kg and now thanks to a lapband am 70kg and enjoying every second) the hunger, the medical problems made losing weight a losing battle.  I never stopped trying but all my efforts became less and less effective over the years.  I never asked to be ridiculed or penalised, I got that every time I looked in a mirror.

      Reply

    • Rebecca says:

      10:04am | 03/02/10

      I am a 29 years old 6’1 and 100kg and if you go by the BMI chart i am obese as my BMI is over 31 but the strange thing is that i dont have an ounce of fat om me, if i follow BMI the only way that i would be in a healthy BMI range is if i am between 70-75kg im sorry but my husband would book me into a clinic is i weight 70-75kg as i look sick when i get to 85kg

      Having a so called fat tax is not going to stop people eating junk food and fiying cattle class…though i do agree that a tax on ‘unhealthy’ food is a really good idea, but the only way it is going to work is if healthy food prices are lowered.

      I think that education and lower pricing of healthy food is the first step to take in this battle of the ever expanding waist line because lets face it for lower income families its so much cheaper to go down the to the burger joint and feed the family that it is to buy meat, veg and salad every week, but in saying that eating crap food is a choice and people do have to take responsibilty for what they stick into their own gobs, its just a shame that parents choose crap food and shove it down their childrens necks….

      Though I have never understood the battle for twigness… what’s going to happen when we are all like twigs a campain to get people fatter maybe…will this battle for twigness ever end?????

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

tory_maguire

_Tors 09 Feb 12 09:34PM

What sort of people are watching your show @PMOnAir dying laughing at the ads for fungal toe nail treatment! #pmlive

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 09 Feb 12 09:02PM

@NehaMadhok services eg gym, excellent kebab store?

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 09 Feb 12 06:08PM

More gay marriage legislation than you can point a straight stick at. http://t.co/k2SC4xNp

Paul Colgan

Colgo 09 Feb 12 05:48PM

@c41 yes it is.

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

by Tory Shepherd

57

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit, an irregular regular column on calumny and codswallop.…

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

by Anthony Sharwood

43

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

The yips. It’s an old golf term which refers to golfers who lose the ability to putt. They stand…

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

by Tory Shepherd

174

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

In I Spit On Your Grave, a young woman is gang raped in a remote woodland. She is beaten and tortured…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

151 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed