Dollars to Doughnuts

A tidy little study from Hoover debunking the "we all pay for obesity in the end" thesis and undermining the push to treat obesity as a public health problem. The Homer Simpson example is brought into play, and so the paper is (sorta)cleverly titled "Dollars to Doughnuts":

Obese workers earn less per hour than their thinner colleagues—a finding that is surprisingly robust and does not appear to be explained by differences in education, age, or training. This obesity wage gap is greater for female workers, but it is also true for men. Most often, economists attribute the gap to discrimination against the obese. Occasionally, economists argue that in some jobs (think of supermodels), thinner workers are more productive than obese ones.

My colleague Kate Bundorf and I have developed evidence that favors a different explanation. We think an important reason for the obesity wage gap is that the costs of health insurance are passed through to obese workers. This would be consistent with the theory of wage pass-through, because expected medical expenditures and hence the value of health insurance are greater for obese workers than for thin workers.

In our research, we examined the wage path over a decade for a nationally representative cohort of 12,686 people ages 24 to 31 years old in 1989. For our study, we focused on full-time workers but excluded pregnant women. We separated the workers into two groups: one with health insurance provided by their employer and one without.

We first looked at the wage paths for the group with health insurance (see figure above). As expected, given the discussion so far, obese workers earn less than thinner workers and the gap grows as the cohort ages and becomes more likely to use medical care. By 2000, obese workers were earning nearly $4.60 an hour less than thinner workers. This wage gap is at least as big as the expected difference in medical expenditures between obese and thin workers.

We then looked at wage paths for the group without health insurance (see directly above). For this group, the obesity wage gap never develops—thin and obese workers earned about the same, on average, exactly what one would expect to find under the theory of wage pass-through.

Our evidence has important implications for pooling in health insurance between thin and obese workers. Because wages are lower for obese workers only at jobs where health insurance is provided, the obesity wage gap would seem to undo whatever nominal pooling there is of health insurance premiums. If there is no real pooling, Carl and Lenny do not pay for Homer’s body weight decisions and there is no public health crisis.

For the systematic treatment of the obesity-as-public-health issue, check out Jacob Sullum's May cover story on the "An Epidemic of Meddling."

Comments

sage | July 13, 2007, 5:13pm | #

Hey, there are no fatties in Cuba, right?

Jonathan Hohensee | July 13, 2007, 5:16pm | #

Katherine Mangu-Ward is a shill for Big Mac

Pinette | July 13, 2007, 5:22pm | #

this is going to sound very offensive to some people. Also, i have no evidence to back it up.
I think, maybe, that obese people tend to be less intelligent than thin people, on average, which would explain them making less money. They certainly seem to not be smart enough to stop eating.
If I'm wrong, i have another suggestion. Obese people have less ability to control their impulses (their obesity being a product of that, not the cause of that) This might lead to a lower average wage because they are less productive, not being able to concentrate as hard at work.

stoneymonster | July 13, 2007, 5:32pm | #

obese people tend to be less intelligent than thin people

This would seem to go against the stereotype of the overweight computer geek.

Pinette | July 13, 2007, 5:38pm | #

Stoneymonster,
I don't buy that stereotype.
The computer geeks I know are all thin.
Plus, what about the stereotype of the skinny nerd in glasses?

stoneymonster | July 13, 2007, 5:41pm | #

My anecdotes are better than your anecdotes. I went to engineering school with many brilliant people, overweight and thin.

Pinette | July 13, 2007, 5:46pm | #

I went to community college with many stupid people, mostly overweight.

Stevo Darkly | July 13, 2007, 5:48pm | #

Wait a minute, what is "wage pass-through" and how does it work?

I see that the difference in wages basically makes up for the difference in health insurance costs, but how does that work? At performance review time, do managers say to themselves, "This fat guy is costing us more in health care coverage, so he isn't going to get as big a raise?"

If this was explained in the linked study, I missed it, and so far Google isn't yielding a compact explanation of "wage pass-through" either.

Or I might just be too chunky too understand. ;)

Pinette: Speaking anecdotally myself, you are probably being too broad in connecting poor-impulse control (insofar as that is a factor in obesity, and I think it is an important factor most of the time) to intelligence as applied on the job. I know plenty of pudgy but very smart IT people (also lots of skinny IT people). Some doctors too, even.

On the other hand, most of the business types I've know who are really driven workaholics also tend to be thin people who exercise regularly, so you may possibly be onto something there, although it probably has more to do with focus (or even compulsiveness) than with intelligence per se.

Although, come to think of it, compulsiveness itself might be considered a form of poor impulse control -- just one that, in the case of the business-compulsive, happens to be linked positively with income.

crimethink | July 13, 2007, 5:51pm | #

One other possibility is that people who don't have as much money have to buy cheaper foods, which in our society tend to be more fattening ones. In other words, it's possible that people get obese because they earn less, not the other way around.

Also, even in the non-insured sample, 5 of the 7 data points show lower wages for obese people. While this difference is much smaller, that also may be because the overall wages are much lower for non-insured (the non-obese non-insured have wages at or below $10/hr throughout, while the obese insured made above $10/hr throughtout).

D.A. Ridgely | July 13, 2007, 5:58pm | #

Occasionally, economists argue that in some jobs (think of supermodels), thinner workers are more productive than obese ones.

On the other had, if you think of Sumo Wrestlers ...

Ventifact | July 13, 2007, 6:06pm | #

It has I believe been demonstrated that people will rate a person better at a job if the person is more physically attractive, regardless of the job (don't think of supermodels), similar to those studies in which identical resumes for Hans Smith and Jamikwa Omal are not shown the same interest by employers. This subconscious bias could explain the wage gap for obese folks.

Pinette | July 13, 2007, 6:09pm | #

don't know why they used supermodels as an example there; just like Sumo wrestlers, they are too small a segment to make a difference.
I would say people in better shape are more productive in ANY job that involves physical movement, which is a lot of jobs.

Me | July 13, 2007, 6:18pm | #

To Pinhead who said obese people are less intelligent. I think you're right. The same goes for niggers and spics. Just like women are too sensitive to be in the workplace and thats why they earn less. Oh one more thing, you're an idiot.

Me | July 13, 2007, 6:19pm | #

Pinhead - you went to a community college. That sums everything up. Now shut the fuck up.

Pinette | July 13, 2007, 6:21pm | #

Aw, come on. I was just making a suggestion and I even made it clear that I didn't know this to be fact. Don't be so fucking PC.
10 bucks says you're fat.

Cesar | July 13, 2007, 6:22pm | #

If fat people are stupid, that would make the Europeans right. Americans really would be illiterate imbeciles.

Me | July 13, 2007, 6:23pm | #

One more thing to pinhead - there have been studies trying to link general impulse control to obesity (yes, this theory has already been thought about, researched, and debunked by people with doctorates degrees). Anyhow, I'll let you work them community college skillz and look up the studies if you're so interested in edumacatin urself.

Me | July 13, 2007, 6:26pm | #

I may be fat, but I can go to a gym. You'll always be a dumb-ass from the community college. By the way, I had my IQ tested when I was in high school, and it's 135. I was chubby then too.

Pinette | July 13, 2007, 6:33pm | #

wow this guy is pissed.
Ok ok, I'm sorry I made the suggestion. certainly didn't mean that all fat people are stupid; of course there are lots of very intelligent fat people, just like there are lots of stupid skinny people.
I think your suggestion that I am stupid because I went to community college is a little worse.
fwiw, I like crimethink's theory much better than my own.

Grand Chalupa | July 13, 2007, 6:38pm | #

One other possibility is that people who don't have as much money have to buy cheaper foods, which in our society tend to be more fattening ones. In other words, it's possible that people get obese because they earn less, not the other way around.

I remember this debate on the Tucker Carlson show. Some congressman had decided to make a point by living on food stamps. Carlson brings up you're more likeley to be fat as a poor person and the congressman made your argument.

I personally find it a silly argument and the perfect example of how bizare the liberal view of human nature is. Being able to delay gratifaction and having self control are two important factors in how financially successful one will be in life. Those same qualities it takes to keep your weight under control.

OF COURSE fat people are going to be poorer. The main causes of the two are exactly the same personal qualities.

In the liberal universe, there are people out there too lazy or stupid to find decent work but at the same time willing to count calories and regularly go to the gym.

Leif | July 13, 2007, 6:43pm | #

I think the study should have done something to address crimethink's first point, since, according to the graphs, those people surveyed with EPI had significantly (stats wise) higher wages, fat or not. So the problem with determining a causal direction here (if people are poor cause theyre fat or fat cause theyre poor) is that people with jobs that have EPI tend to get paid more (in general) than those without EPI. You could take a sample and see what the percentage of fat non-API-ers vs the percentage of fat API-ers, and that might reinforce or discredit, along with a survey of the subjects' diet, the hypothesis that lower wages could mean worse diets and health. If you can get some strong results from that, then the conclusions from studies like the one above would tell you more.

Also, the earnings gap between the two groups (those w/ EPI and those without) is even greater than shown, since the cost of EPI is more or less 'taken out' of what your salary would have otherwise been.

bigbigslacker | July 13, 2007, 6:43pm | #

I'm 6'0" and weigh 200 Lbs. I probably should weigh about 185 Lbs for my build. I'm overweight because I take in more calories than I burn. And I'm a moron. Point proven. Fat people are dumber. Next topic please.

Pinette | July 13, 2007, 6:45pm | #

Careful, Grand Chalupa, there's a fat, super-intelligent genius in here who went to a private school. He might shoot you...
with MIND BULLETS!

Leif | July 13, 2007, 6:52pm | #

sorry, quick fix in my above post 'non-API-ers' should be 'non-EPI-ers' and 'API-ers' should be 'EPI-ers'

crimethink | July 13, 2007, 7:02pm | #

Grand Chalupa,

No, YOUR argument is silly! NAH!

Seriously, there might be some merit for relative poverty and obesity being correlated to the same character traits, but I doubt it explains the whole thing. A more rigorous study is needed.

The same, obviously, is true of my off-the-cuff idea for how poverty could cause obesity.

pigwiggle | July 13, 2007, 7:13pm | #

My theory goes that fat people are isolated and lonely, so they run off angry at the mouth on internet web logs. So far I have a sample of one.

Grand Chalupa | July 13, 2007, 7:18pm | #

Crimethink,

I just think its self evident that people who lack control in one area of life will lack control in other areas.

The guy who wakes up at 7 AM, goes to the job interview, and then shows up five days a week and gets a promotion is more likeley going to choose the salad over the donut then the guy who gets drunk every night and sleeps till the afternoon. How could it possibly be otherwise?

My other main problem with this is that it reeks of never eding liberal crusades. If poor people are undernourished they will blaim poverty. If poor people are fat they blame poverty. No matter what the evidence is government control will always be the answer for these people. If poor people got more welfare benefits they would become fatter and the answer would just be more government spending to raise awareness about healthy eating. The possibility that some people make bad choices and lack self control must never be taken seriously.

Can you imagine a liberal democrat going "people made their decisions, they didn't act wisely or in their best interest, that's life"? Nope, their eyes light up as they look over every little detail of our personal behavior, rubbing their hands together and intellectually masturbating at the thought of how they can improve us.

Not saying this is you, just ranting now.

jb | July 13, 2007, 7:32pm | #

I live in a poor neighborhood (Hyde Park, near the University of Chicago). There are 2 supermarkets serving the whole neighborhood.

My dad, back in NYC, lives in a gentrified neighborhood. There are 5 supermarkets within 2 blocks of his apartment.

That's no accident--grocery stores have razor-thin margins, so they either buy out neighbors, become monopolistic, and charge higher prices, or go high-end Whole Foods-style. The result, poor neighborhoods have nowhere to buy tomatoes.

I agree with Crimethink that poverty leads to poor eating habits leads to being fat. The answer, however, is not government handouts. At least in Chicago, the answer is repeal of the stupid anti-big box law, so Walmart can build stores in the South Side, expand into groceries, and use its economy of scale to provide lots of cheap produce. Oh, and so some of the 3,000 people who lined up for the 300 jobs at the Walmart that opened just outside the city limits can have jobs with nicer commutes, or jobs at all.

I don't know what's going on in other inner cities, but that's my theory for Chicago.

Cesar | July 13, 2007, 8:00pm | #

What region one lives in also seems to play a big role in obesity. People in the non-Atlantic South, and for some weird reason Michigan have the highest rates of obesity. People are least likely to be fat if they live in the interior west or New England. See it here

I guess New Englanders and Rocky Mountain Westerners have the best intellect and self-control. Who knew?

Cesar | July 13, 2007, 8:09pm | #

I agree with Crimethink that poverty leads to poor eating habits leads to being fat. The answer, however, is not government handouts. At least in Chicago, the answer is repeal of the stupid anti-big box law, so Walmart can build stores in the South Side, expand into groceries, and use its economy of scale to provide lots of cheap produce. Oh, and so some of the 3,000 people who lined up for the 300 jobs at the Walmart that opened just outside the city limits can have jobs with nicer commutes, or jobs at all.

Thats a great idea. And while we are at it, lets repeal the Big Agribusiness subsidies that artificially lower the price of high-carbohydrate foods, and repeal the tariffs that artificially inflate the price of fruits and vegetables. Not only will it make the countries to the south wealthier--and more pro-American--but also improve our eating habits.

Oh, and as an added bonus--there will be Brazilian sugar in our sodas instead of Iowa corn-sludge.

crimethink | July 13, 2007, 8:18pm | #

Iowa corn-sludge? Spare me your euphemisms, Cesar. We know the bane of which you speak.

D.A. Ridgely | July 13, 2007, 8:37pm | #

In the liberal universe, there are people out there too lazy or stupid to find decent work but at the same time willing to count calories and regularly go to the gym.

And we call them politicians.

libertreee | July 13, 2007, 9:05pm | #

That's no accident--grocery stores have razor-thin margins, so they either buy out neighbors, become monopolistic, and charge higher prices, or go high-end Whole Foods-style. The result, poor neighborhoods have nowhere to buy tomatoes.
I am old enough to vaguely remember horse drawn carts peddling fruits and vegetables in Brooklyn.
I guess property tax issues, licenses etc would keep a modern equivalent from operating in poor neighborhoods in Chicago today.

pigwiggle | July 13, 2007, 9:53pm | #

The result, poor neighborhoods have nowhere to buy tomatoes.

So, let's say these poor folks consume just enough calories (of shitty food) to maintain a "not fat" weight. Do you suppose they would be malnourished? If not, then so what?

Comic Book Guy | July 13, 2007, 10:38pm | #

Pinette & Grand Chalupa-

Worst explanations EVER!

cirmethink | July 13, 2007, 11:14pm | #

pigwiggle,

You can be obese and malnourished at the same time, if the food you eat contains tons of calories but little in the way of vitamins and minerals. So it's not simply a matter of eating less shitty food.

Also, it's quite possible that a lack of nutrients increases the urge to eat more, even when the body has plenty of calories stored up. Remember, our metabolisms evolved at a time when calories were just as hard to get as vitamins, so it's not like we have different hungers for calories and for vitamins. Thus, a steady diet of high-calorie, low-nutrient foods may well cause people to eat more than a person who gets the right amount of calories and the right amounts of other nutrients.

Edward | July 14, 2007, 12:54am | #

Alas, lots of people have also bought into the myth that taking megadoses of vitamins can make up for a poor diet. Gullibility is both the downside and upside of a market economy.

TallDave | July 14, 2007, 2:14am | #

I don't buy their claim that this data proves what they're saying it does.

Jobs with healthcare benefits generally pay more. This study might only mean obesity has a bigger effect on income for someone making $50 - 100,000/yr than someonme making $15 - 20,000/yr, which stands to reason, given that we already know height affects financial success.

There could also be some self-selection there; with all due respect to Homer's decalaration that "Now I'm a big fat dynamo!" people with obesity may be less ambitious, or more insecure, and seek less pay.

You can't just wish away the fact that unhealthy people raise the premiums for everyone else.

Marcvs | July 14, 2007, 9:20am | #

One note about tall people receiving higher pay: at least one study found that this could be because taller people are, on average, more intelligent:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/02/02/cb.tall.people/index.html

DADIODADDY | July 14, 2007, 9:20am | #

hey it's a glandular condition or a slow metabolism or 72,367 big mac's (w/ fries & a shake)

Russ R | July 14, 2007, 9:43am | #

One needs to be careful when looking at averages alone, without regard to distributions.

To say that obese people earn less on average than the "non-obese" leads most people to the erroneous conclusion that any obese person earns less than a similarly qualified non-obese person. This is a serious oversimplification, because it ignores the variance and skewness of income distribution.

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the income distribution of the non-obese is significantly greater, and that it is sharply skewed to the upside.

As a thought exercise, make a mental list of all the people you can think of who earn more than $150,000 per year, and count the number of people on the list who are obese. (Don't even bother including professional athletes or entertainment media celebrities, they'll just skew the sample even more.) My bet is that the obesity ratio on your list is far lower than the rate of obesity in the general population.

In my firm (a management consultancy, though I'm confident the situation is the same in most industries), among the professionals the pay is high (starts at ~$150,000) and the obesity ratio is extremely low (close to zero).

Among the non-professionals, the pay is lower (maybe 60% to 75% lower), and the obesity ratio is definitely higher, but the obese folks earn the same as their non-obese counterparts.

Maybe the high-income people got to where they were because they are skinny and get shown favouritism, but a low BMI alone doesn't get you an MBA.

My take is that while body shape and career trajectory are definitely correlated, it isn't due to a direct cause-effect relationship, rather the two are both results of other personal characteristics.

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 10:05am | #

Everyone,

It is not Grand Chalupa...

It is Grande Cabron. Keep it straight.

Grand Chalupa | July 14, 2007, 11:05am | #

Jelousy is such an ugly thing. You took that low IQ stuff personally, huh?

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 11:24am | #

Jelousy: noun meaning runny jello? Jello with carrots?

Grand Chalupa | July 14, 2007, 11:27am | #

Ha, you truly are smart. Remind yourself of your superior spelling next time you feel like a victim because the white man makes more than you.

Cesar | July 14, 2007, 11:37am | #

Hey Chaulpa, whats your ethnic background (i.e., Irish Catholic? Italian?) Because I can find another ethnic group that has a higher I.Q. and makes more than you (on average)!

Cesar | July 14, 2007, 11:38am | #

Also, what state do you live in? That way I can look at that obesity-by-state map and figure out how smart you are. If you don't live in New England or Colorado, you are inferior.

Grand Chalupa | July 14, 2007, 11:53am | #

I live in Colorado, so that proves my greatness.

My beef isn't with the inferior. Its people who are inferior but develop an ugly jelousy towards those better than them and liberals who encourage this ugly side of their nature by preaching equality.

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 11:55am | #

Grande Cabron,

Remind yourself of your superior spelling next time you feel like a victim because the white man makes more than you.

Yo soy un gringo.

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 12:04pm | #

Grande Cabron,

Its people who are inferior but develop an ugly jelousy towards those better than them

In your case the sublime chalupa is your superior... so your attempt to improve other's opinion of you by association SHALL NOT STAND!

A Chalupa is a kind of tostada platter in Mexican cuisine. It is a specialty of south-central regions of Mexico, such as the states of Guerrero and Oaxaca. It is made by pressing a thin layer of masa dough around the outside of a small mold and then deep frying it to produce a crisp shallow corn cup. It is typically filled with shredded pork meat, a slice of onion, and a piece of chipotle pepper.

Better yet with real New Mexican chile.
Best place to try a real chalupa
http://www.roadfood.com/Reviews/Overview.aspx?RefID=4041

Cesar | July 14, 2007, 12:09pm | #

Chalupa-

If your entire life is determined by genetics, why don't we just go back to having a legal aristocracy?

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 12:19pm | #

If your entire life is determined by genetics

Wouldn't that put the Spanish back in charge of Colorado? What was the genetic distinction between Caucasian descendants of the English and the Caucasian descendants of the Spanish again?

Grand Chalupa | July 14, 2007, 12:25pm | #

Cesar,

I prefer capitalism. Either is better than social democracy.

Wouldn't that put the Spanish back in charge of Colorado? What was the genetic distinction between Caucasian descendants of the English and the Caucasian descendants of the Spanish again?

Not much, but the English were smart and lucky enough to eleminate the new worlders before they brought down the gene pool. I'm sure the success of Canada, America and Australia and the faliures of Latin America are all just 25 seperate coincidences.

Cesar | July 14, 2007, 12:36pm | #

Chalupa, do you think this would be a better country if only those with IQ over 110 were allowed to vote, and only those with IQ over 120 were allowed to hold office?

What about if there were laws barring higher IQ people from marrying lower IQ people? Do you think that would make the United States a better place?

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Cabron,

the English were smart and lucky enough to eleminate the new worlders before they brought down the gene pool.

So wait. You are saying that interbreeding between Caucasians and the genetically Asian new worlders lowered the IQ of the Latin Americans somehow. The genetic explanation would predict an improvement in IQ with that mix. Can't you keep your story straight?

John | July 14, 2007, 12:41pm | #

Thank God we don't have socialized medicing. Regardless of the evidence you will never convince the liberal puritans that fat people don't cost money. Getting the government to pay for your healthcare is like living at home with your parents. Yeah, they pay the bills but you live by their rules and they have a right to object to your habbits that cost them money. Once the government starts paying for healthcare they then will assume, with some justification, that they have the right to control how you live and keep you from doing things getting fat and drinking. Say good bye to choosing your own lifestyle. The government will choose your lifestyle for you and punish you by withholding healthcare if you don't follow it.

Cesar | July 14, 2007, 12:45pm | #

Not much, but the English were smart and lucky enough to eleminate the new worlders before they brought down the gene pool. I'm sure the success of Canada, America and Australia and the faliures of Latin America are all just 25 seperate coincidences.

Not a coincidence at all. The way the British administered their colonies was completely different from the way the Spanish did. The Spanish governed with a heavy hand and imposed a backward feudal system on their colonies.

The English practiced "salutary neglect" until 1765, allowing their colonies to arrange their own affairs and develop a capitalist system. It wasn't a difference of races, it was capitalism laying future success for a society and feudalism laying down future failures.

Cesar | July 14, 2007, 12:51pm | #

Oh, and btw Chalupa perhaps within your lifetime and definitely within mine (barring a major catastrophe) countries like Brazil and Mexico will fully industrialize, and their standards of living will rise to European and America levels.

Mexico lags behind the United States, sure, but its a far, far better place than it was 50 years ago. And it wasn't because more white people came--its because of industrialization. Nothing, nothing in the genetic picture changed, but wealth has increased.

Vernon Dozier | July 14, 2007, 1:07pm | #

NM says:

"If your entire life is determined by genetics

Wouldn't that put the Spanish back in charge of Colorado? What was the genetic distinction between Caucasian descendants of the English and the Caucasian descendants of the Spanish again?"

The US Caucasians are largely derived from Viking Blood who know how to farm and build shit.

The Mexican Caucasians are derived from Arab Invaders of Spain who whine and complain about how the Vikings always humiliate them.

Take a look at Jeffe Fox, he could be Saddam's half brother.

The obese are largely Viking poor white trash and the blue collar scrapple eaters. The second generation Mexifornians are growing a nice crop of obese kids while we speak.

Obviously, moron parents generally set the stage. Sloth and gluttony meet unlimited opportunity in the wealthiest of all nations.

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 1:14pm | #

Vernon,

Does that mean that Iceland should have a higher IQ than England since they have purer viking blood? And Denmark and Norway too, of course. And what of those Italians? Portuguese? How finely to we need to chop up the genetic pie to make it fit the model?

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 1:16pm | #

And Vernon,

How did the putatively inferior Arab genetic stock conquer the superior Spanish again?

Cesar | July 14, 2007, 1:17pm | #

Neu Mejican--

I'd also like the white supr--er, "racial realists" to explain why the (very white) upland south is one of the poorest region in the countries, despite almost everyone there being of British descent. West Virginia should be the wealthiest state in the Union!

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 1:41pm | #

Cesar,

"racial realists" don't look to counter examples, only confirmatory ones.

Mo | July 14, 2007, 1:41pm | #

The CNN article is pretty opaque as to what the study says. Their summary says that tall people select into higher paying jobs, without support of height correlated to applications. Most studies I've read show it linked to a confidence factor not height.

If risk of obesity is linked to stupidity, why were the rich traditionally fat and the poor skinny. If those that were likely to obese were dumb, than the term "rich fat cats" would have never entered our language. Obesity is linked to a lot of other factors, and likely not intelligence.*

Also, keep in mind, wealthier individuals have more time and money to lose weight. Gym memberships and working out costs lots of green and time, something the wealthy have over the poor.

* If anything, obesity risk is a positive genetic factor. Being able to store fat on the savanna is a valuable trait.

Grand Chalupa | July 14, 2007, 3:01pm | #

Chalupa, do you think this would be a better country if only those with IQ over 110 were allowed to vote, and only those with IQ over 120 were allowed to hold office?

What about if there were laws barring higher IQ people from marrying lower IQ people? Do you think that would make the United States a better place?

If it was doable, yes, obviously. But its not, government is evil and inefficient and corrupt.

I'd prefer that we stop giving welfare, limit non-white and non-Asian immigration and stop paying our parasites to breed. I once heard the idea of paying low IQ women to let themselves be sterilized, which to me sounds doable and humane. Of course liberals will never go for it, because they dream of the destruction of human inovation and intelligence.


I'd also like the white supr--er, "racial realists" to explain why the (very white) upland south is one of the poorest region in the countries, despite almost everyone there being of British descent. West Virginia should be the wealthiest state in the Union!

One theory is that rural areas have suffered a "brain drain" with those with higher IQs moving to cities. Of course historical accidents and culture matter, and there are some causes we can't put our fingers on with our limited knowledge. Saying that I believe everything is 100% racial or genetic is a strawman.


Mexico lags behind the United States, sure, but its a far, far better place than it was 50 years ago. And it wasn't because more white people came--its because of industrialization. Nothing, nothing in the genetic picture changed, but wealth has increased.

Every part of the world is better off than it was 50 years ago. That's because Africans and others, who would've never been able to invent modern technology and medicine, are able to use them. That's not a mystery at all. Now if Mexico or Brazil see a jump in their economy like South Korea or Japan has in the last 50 years, then I would rethink my position. But it won't happen, and the idea that Mexico or Brazil will ever catch up to the United States is based on wishful thinking.

Cesar | July 14, 2007, 3:17pm | #

Every part of the world is better off than it was 50 years ago. That's because Africans and others, who would've never been able to invent modern technology and medicine, are able to use them.

Africans aren't better off than they were 50 years ago, mostly because of socialism and AIDS.

Technology, for the last 2,000 years at least, has developed in a crescent stretching from western Europe, through the Middle East and India, to East Asia. Is it because Europeans, Arabs, East Indians, and Asians are smarter than everyone else? No, its because all these places are along major trade routes. With trade comes an exchange of ideas, which helps everyone develop better technology.

Europeans didn't invent the Caravel ship, which allowed them to sail to America. They didn't invent Arabic numerals, which allowed higher mathematics. They didn't invent gunpowder, which gave them the best weapons technology. All those things were done by the Arabs, Indians, and Chinese respectively.

Take away the Caravel ship, gunpowder, and Arabic numerals, and theres no Age of Exploration, and no European domination of the world. Theres also no higher mathematics, no physics, etc, etc. Europeans didn't develop these things in isolation as you would have everyone believe.

If Europe had been as isolated as Australia or the Western Hemisphere, its doubtful they would have ever figured out those things on their own.

You don't believe me? When Spain explored the Canary islands in the 1500s, they found a race of white, light-eyed people living in paleolithic age. Since the islands were isolated, they were never able to trade, never able to exchange ideas, and never able to advance. But the genetic difference between them and Western Europe was nil.

But it won't happen, and the idea that Mexico or Brazil will ever catch up to the United States is based on wishful thinking.

You would have said the same thing about China in 1900. "Those inferior Asians, they will never develop, they don't have the right blood", like so many "Racial realists" did then.

Vernon Dozier | July 14, 2007, 4:22pm | #

NMEX:

"Does that mean that Iceland should have a higher IQ than England since they have purer viking blood? And Denmark and Norway too, of course. And what of those Italians? Portuguese? How finely to we need to chop up the genetic pie to make it fit the model?"

Super-high IQ does not equate to outcomes. I think that England and the US are more successful from an economic standpoint due to common sense rather than IQ.

Also, you must remember, the most successful Vikings are the ones who left inbred Scandinavia for better lands, more opportunity and genetic diversity.

Models are for pukes who can't handle reality. Obese people are inferior to normal weight people and have lower incomes. Mexican economic culture is inferior to US economic culture and have lower incomes.

There are no superior races, just superior cultures. Race is just a temporary mask for the cultural traits (good and bad) passed down.

Cesar makes my point quite well. Asians did not advance recently until they began to adopt the economic culture of the US. They will not advance beyond a second-hander industrial automaton until they adopt our political and social culture.

Once the Chinese have an obesity problem, we will know they turned the corner.

robc | July 14, 2007, 4:30pm | #

Stevo,

At performance review time, do managers say to themselves, "This fat guy is costing us more in health care coverage, so he isn't going to get as big a raise?"

Pretty much. I did it with one of my employees (he wasnt overweight). When hired, his wife had a good job with good insurance, one of our benefits to him was his insurance. During his first year, his wife had a kid and quit her job - we started covering them as one of his benefits, which cost about $300/month. At his 1 yr anniversary, he got a raise of about $3600/year. His "gross pay" didnt change at all.

Vernon Dozier | July 14, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Cesar makes an excellent point about the poor white trash, but they are Scots-Irish, not British. In any event, their economic culture is inferior to other parts of the US. They are hardly poor since Mexicans and Central Americans continue to flood in and take over the chicken gutting jobs so Billy Bob and Sallie Sue can avoid repetitive motion injuries, watch NASCAR from the sofa and grow their lard butt family.

Their sons are the idiots over in eyerack killing terraiststs by the dumpload so you can be free to sip latte's and stroke your big IQ.

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 4:36pm | #

Cabron,

Saying that I believe everything is 100% racial or genetic is a strawman.

So what is your estimate of the contribution of genetics to IQ? Is it strong enough to explain the differences between performance across regions/countries once "historical accidents and culture" are taken into account? (Jensen puts it at 14% contribution...tops, fwiw).

I would still like to hear how the contribution of the genetically Asian new worlders to Mestizo populations can be described as bringing down the gene pool (particularly in terms of IQ potential). Remember, Asians do better on average than whites. Native Americans are genetically Asian according to the typical genes-race analysis models. The genes-predict-IQ hypothesis would predict that an Asian-Caucasian mix group would score higher than a pure Caucasian group on IQ. Mestizo populations, therefore, should have higher IQ making them "superior" to Gringo populations.

Does this mean that when you say you have a problem with "people who are inferior but develop an ugly jelousy towards those better than them" that you are talking about Caucasians that support limiting immigration from Mexico?

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 4:42pm | #

Vernon,

Race is just a temporary mask for the cultural traits (good and bad) passed down.

We are close to agreement on this point, although I would frame it much differently than you do.

anna k | July 14, 2007, 5:43pm | #

The idiot commenting above is stupid enough to be a victim of buying into the stereotype - that obese people are obviously not smart enough to stop eating. There are obese people with eating disorders, but there are also highly intelligent obese people who have genetic or endocrine disorders that can't easily be treated, who diet all their lives and don't have the ability to lose weight. There are also medications that provoke unresonable weight gain, and all the smarts in the world don't resolve that.

Also sad but true, it costs money to diet. The less money you have, the less likely to afford the best foods to use for dieting. There's a reason why poor people are often obese.

HMOs pressure firms to keep their health costs down. At the company where I was working before, there was a lot of pressure from the health plan - to the point where it encourages HR people to encourage hiring of workers who won't add to this pressure. And yes, the increased costs are put on the worker.

swillfredo pareto | July 14, 2007, 5:49pm | #

The CNN article is pretty opaque as to what the study says. Their summary says that tall people select into higher paying jobs, without support of height correlated to applications. Most studies I've read show it linked to a confidence factor not height.

I find the height/adolescence theories interesting. It has been my observation that early-onset of puberty was positively correlated with a lower IQ rather than later success. The girls wearing bras at 11 and the guys shaving in middle-school did not seem to be proportionately represented on the honor role. Also I would argue that the early-blooming thing works against girls anyway.

As far as poor people having no options but to eat fatty foods that is just bullshit. I don’t recall too many pictures of children in the poorer parts of the world sporting a spare tire. I was seriously poor from the time I started college until my mid 20's and I accommodated by eating less, not by eating crap. The lack of a car forced me to walk or ride a bike almost exclusively. Ramen noodles are perfectly nutritious and a lot cheaper than fried chicken. The argument that fast food is the most affordable food neglects to mention that eating out should not be fairly infrequent when on a budget. Finally, one can buy an extremely nutritious array of foods on food stamps inner-city or otherwise. The fact that certain people choose not to does not make them victims.

Charlie (Colorado) | July 14, 2007, 6:11pm | #

this is going to sound very offensive to some people. Also, i have no evidence to back it up.

Sure --- why let having no evidence slow you down?

I think, maybe, that obese people tend to be less intelligent than thin people, on average, which would explain them making less money. They certainly seem to not be smart enough to stop eating.

"...When adjusted for education, the association between intelligence score and BMI changes and development of obesity vanished, ...." (Intelligence Test Score and Educational Level in Relation to BMI Changes and Obesity, Halkjær, Holst, and Sørensen.)

Next damn fool?

(Actually, the medical evidence is very strong that whatever the root cause(s) of obesity, they're rarely as simple as impulse control issues. Google, for example "Pima indians and obesity".)

Grand Chalupa | July 14, 2007, 6:48pm | #

New Mexican,

You are a stupid prick who doesn't even take the time to understand the other side's argument. You are also so intellectually cowardly that you can't stand to consider any thought that may not be part of the politically correct orthodoxy. Native Americans came from Asia but don't score as high as Chinese, Koreans or Japanese on IQ tests. Stuff happens in tens of thousands of years.

Please don't respond to me anymore.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater | July 14, 2007, 6:53pm | #

Methinks this is a lot of correlation masquerading as causality. But then I'm 6'5" and 350lbs.

Grand Chalupa | July 14, 2007, 6:54pm | #

Cesar,

I've never heard a scientist or anthropoligst say East Asians were inferior. In fact, all evidence points to them having the highest intelligence on the planet.

And Arabs and Indians are pretty close genetically to white people. The differences in races is only much more obvious when you look at people like black africans and indigenous Australians. China and Europe may take turns in leading the world, but Africans or Pacific Islanders simply never will.

And once again, OF COURSE stuff like geography and culture matters. But we are biological creatures, that evolved some major visible differences between races. Its silly to think that these differences only exist on the outside and evolution made sure all our brains took the same path.

morecarlthanhomer | July 14, 2007, 6:57pm | #

OK,

Now that all the political correct naziism has been properly applied to everyone who notes that morbidly obese people are not as smart as other people ... let's reexamine that issue.

Can a smart person become morbidly obese? The answer is yes, depending on how you define "smart." If you merely define "smart" as having a high IQ, then of course, there cannot be a correlation between weight and "smart."

Are morbidly obese people "intelligent?" I think a prima facia case can be made that they cannot be. "Intelligent" people know that there is a direct correlation between caloric intake and caloric output, and intelligent people thus choose not to become morbidly obese because of both the adverse health and financial effects.

Financial effects? Quite. Have you ever gone grocery shopping with a morbidly obese person? I bet you haven't. Let me just note for the record that the average grocery bill for a morbidly obese person is three to four times what it is for people with normal appetites.

Many studies have also shown that people in the South, who are demonstrably poorer and have a higher-fat diet, are significantly less likely to be morbidly obese than people in the Northeast ... so the argument that income, geolocation or high-fat diet has something to do with obesity is settled science. We shouldn't even be discussing it.

People become morbidly obese because they eat more calories than they expend, and because there are not enough disincentives to discouage it.

We should tax obese people, charge them more for insurance and discriminate against them in employment and pay. We do that out of love for them; to show them the error of their ways. And hopefully they'll become non-obese ... thus, extending their useful lives considerably.

To pat the morbidly obese on the noggin and suggest that somehow "you're a person too," thus excusing the abuse they put their bodies through would be to condemn them to a crappy life and a certain untimely death.

Fat man | July 14, 2007, 7:05pm | #

People who have health insurance work for medium to large companies or the government. The employees are grouped so individual, by law, characteristics are not considered for insurance but are for promotion.
Impulse control may have something to do with it but, I have challenged a skinny, NOT athletic, coworker to eat the same diet as I did for three weeks..low carb 1500 calories a day. Exercise optional for both. We both lost wieght but both gained it back in two weeks..
Here is the joke he gained more wieght than I did afterwards and has NEVER been able to lose it.
Uninsured have their income and insurance due to their own efforts. Until they are successful enough to afford to pay for it themselves they may go without. This further distorts the results.

M. Simon | July 14, 2007, 7:22pm | #

There was a time when poor people were thin.

In America the poor people are fat.

This is considered a problem. I'd call it a feature.

M. Simon | July 14, 2007, 7:30pm | #

Grand Chalupa | July 14, 2007, 6:54pm | #

Actually the Jews are tops in IQ when it comes to an identifiable group.

East Asians are a close second. Jews are .2% of the world's population and get 30% of the Nobel prizes. Do the math.

Jewish Genius

Cesar | July 14, 2007, 7:39pm | #

M. Simon-

1)Its only if you consider Jews a separate "Race"

and

2) This only applies to Ashkenazi Jews.

M. Simon | July 14, 2007, 7:44pm | #

Neu Mejican July 14, 2007, 4:42pm ,

Race can be identified by genetic markers.

Inequality

No matter what the pomo people tell you race is not a social construct.

Cesar | July 14, 2007, 7:45pm | #

Someone who has a higher I.Q. isn't more intellegent than someone with a lower I.Q. They just have more I.Q. poitns, not more intellegence.

I have a very good mechanic who works on my car. The man could probably build a working car engine from scratch if you have him the right parts.

Hes also a high school dropout, and I bet if you gave him an I.Q. test he would be somewhere around 80-90.

I, on the other hand, have an I.Q. of 130 on a good day, a college degree, and am a graduate student. There is no way on earth I could do what he does with cars, I don't have that kind of mechanical skill. In fact, I'm a complete klutz.

So, who is more intelligent? Me, or the mechanic?

accountant lady | July 14, 2007, 7:46pm | #

As a manager I have a budget for compensation which includes the cost of benefits. If a particular employee had higher health care costs - whether because they want to cover a spouse or children or because of their health condition, it leaves less money for wages.

M. Simon | July 14, 2007, 7:56pm | #

Cesar,

According to genetic markers Ashkenazi Jews could be considered a separate race.

In a way the neo-Nazis are right. Jews are a separate race.

BTW I have you AND your mechanic beat. I'm an aerospace engineer. I can take apart and rebuild an engine and design fusion reactors.

IEC Fusion Technology

I do have a few points on you. So maybe that is the difference. LOL.

Actually it has to do with visio-spacial intelligence. Which Jews are relatively average at. Which makes me an outlier.

dagny | July 14, 2007, 7:57pm | #

Pinhead - you went to a community college. That sums everything up. Now shut the fuck up.

Aww look, someone's mommy and daddy paid thousands of dollars so you can feel superior to other people on the internet. How cute. Here, have a Twinkie.

Wakka Wakka Wakka | July 14, 2007, 8:58pm | #

This is very obviously the work of Negroes.

moonrage | July 14, 2007, 9:12pm | #

"This would seem to go against the stereotype of the overweight computer geek."

If this is a stereotype, it's a very unpopular one; one that people didn't know was a steretype and therefore defeats the very purpose of a stereotype. Regardless of the merits of the article above, the stereotypical computer geek is not fat; it's the reverse.

asg | July 14, 2007, 9:13pm | #

I think your suggestion that I am stupid because I went to community college is a little worse.

Amazing how it's a little worse to be called stupid than to call other people stupid, huh?

Petert | July 14, 2007, 9:37pm | #

Well, some obese people I know are very smart, some obese people I know are very stupid, same for those skinny people. The smart money is on obese people during the next cold one, the one with no food, no water, and no shelter. They will have the storage to make it. Them skinny ones will just be cold. This is Dawin, plan and simple, survival, being fat is a big plus for staying alive in times of trouble. Its genitics, not will power, it's genes.... Intellegence and IQ are just along for the ride. Don't believe me, go see a bear in fall, and again in spring. Same bear, different weight.
Thanks for your time.
Peter

bill | July 14, 2007, 9:59pm | #

The study referred to obese people. Not chunky, not overweight, but obese. Obese people are unpleasant to look at. Correlate the wages study with a study on attractiveness+wages and you'll find a high correlation.

At large corporations, managers have no knowlege of the cost of health care and benefits as it results to a particular employee. I'm sure a large corp. would NOT want the info let out, lest their be charges of "discrimination". At a former employer (a mega corporation), managers had formal formulas, with salary bands, average and target salaries for a grade and performance level. Heck, there were managers of compensation, who set the rules for managers to follow. There could be no discrimination based on weight, unless it was unconscious, or the mgr. buried it in a performance review.

I expect that obesity has a real effect of compensation. I also expect a conservative to get worse salary treatment that an over-pierce liberal at Google. But it is everybody that is an "outsider", that pays.

Croak | July 14, 2007, 10:01pm | #

Stereotyping makes for great blog comments, but it's not something you should rely on.

I'm 5'11", 275 lbs, 44 years old, with a high proportion of Hispanic and Native American DNA on one side of my familiy, the other side is Sicilian.

I earn $175k+ a year in a tech industry, and I've been around this weight for most of my adult life, earning a good income during that time as well. (Excepting 5 years in the Marine Corps, where I was neither fat *or* well paid.)

I grew up poor, by the way, put myself through college (and the Marines didn't help much there, back in my day college money from the military would pay for about 9 months tuition, less if you wanted to attend a *good* university).

But what do I know? I'm underpaid, overweight, my lack of control and poor eating habits carry over to my ability to succeed at a career, my funny non-Anglo name has been holding me back, and I'm just plain stupid according to the logic in this thread.

Oh, and I smoke too.

ex-fat | July 14, 2007, 10:23pm | #

Overweight people are less intelligent? What rubbish! What about black people? Are they stupid too? Jerkoff!

gberke | July 14, 2007, 10:45pm | #

IF it were true that obese people make less than non obese people, that would be consistent with taller people making more, nice looking people making more, etc.
There were times when fat was better than thin, when fat meant wealth. Not so any more: fat means poor, underexercised, lazy, unhealthy: I would think that, in general, pretty much nobody finds fat to be sexy.
There's a lot of stuff about helping fat people feel better about themselves. I don't know that that is going to help them: being fat is just not good for you.

Neu Mejican | July 14, 2007, 11:28pm | #

Grande Cabron,

New Mexican,

You are a stupid prick who doesn't even take the time to understand the other side's argument. You are also so intellectually cowardly that you can't stand to consider any thought that may not be part of the politically correct orthodoxy. Native Americans came from Asia but don't score as high as Chinese, Koreans or Japanese on IQ tests. Stuff happens in tens of thousands of years.

Please don't respond to me anymore.

I am pretty sure, grande, that I have taken the time to understand your side of the argument. I have mostly just asked questions to try and get you to elaborate your side of the argument.

To continue asking questions so that I can understand where you are coming from and what evidence you have to support your statements...so you are saying that because of genetic isolation the New Worlders are a different race than the east Asians (with genetic variation explaining the difference in IQ test scores- that is, I assume what you mean by "stuff happens").

Can you explain to me the genetic drift that has occurred in the 20 or so thousand years since they were separated. What evolutionary pressures were the likely cause of greater selection for high IQ in east Asia compared to the new world? How does the Asian to New World drift compare to the drift between other groups? When looking at mitochondrial DNA as a measure of genetic drift, there is very little between Native Americans and East Asians. Interestingly, the degree of mitochondrial drift within the "race" you are defining as "Black Africans" defines the drift for the whole species. In other words the genetic similarities between all races and "Black Africans" is greater than the similarities between the two ends of the "Black African" spectrum. So what genetic invariance within this highly variable group is responsible for the race-IQ link you posit? And I will ask again, what is the contribution of the genetic component to the IQ test results of the population? Do you agree with Jensen that it is 14% or less? Do you have reason to believe it explains a bigger proportion of the variance?

In my world intellectual cowardice does not involve engaging in discussions with those who disagree with me. You are accurate on one point. I am a prick who will continue to respond to you. Sorry if that is scary for you.

M. Simon,
As intimidated as we all are by your rocket scientist brain, I would think it could marshal some evidence in defense of its positions. Murray has been widely and rightly criticized for his lack of talent with statistics. You may want to look into using some better authorities to cite.

A more informed discussion of the reality of race debate can be found here.

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/

It will provide you with some good arguments on the race-is-real and the race-is-not-real sides of the debate.

Cesar | July 15, 2007, 12:01am | #

Neu Mejican-

Since you provided me with some real New Mexican cuisine, I feel I am obliged to provide you with some real Virginia cooking. If you are ever in southern Virginia, be sure to stop by there.

Grand Chalupa | July 15, 2007, 12:13am | #

In my world intellectual cowardice does not involve engaging in discussions with those who disagree with me. You are accurate on one point. I am a prick who will continue to respond to you. Sorry if that is scary for you.

If you called me "Grand Cabron" in person you would get smacked, I doubt that you would, and doing it from behind a computer screen is what makes you a coward above all.

anonymous | July 15, 2007, 1:51am | #

Overweight people are less intelligent? What rubbish! What about black people?

In case you weren't aware, black Americans consistently score significantly lower on average than other races on intelligence tests. The average black IQ is about a full standard deviation (15 pts) below that of the white American population.

See for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28test_data%29

[sarcasm] Obviously, the IQ tests must be biased, because people couldn't possibly have different cognitive capabilities. [/sarcasm]

Barry Krakow, MD | July 15, 2007, 3:52am | #

A parsimonious theory that might explain some part of the findings is that obese people suffer a high rate of sleep-disordered breathing, a condition in which irregular breathing patterns (e.g. apneas, hypopneas, flow limitation events) lead to excessive EEG arousal activity, that is, the brain keeps waking up during sleep, producing a state of sleep fragmentation that mimics many of the effects of sleep deprivation. Bottom line, anyone who experiences too much sleep fragmentation from sleep breathing problems eventually develops some degree of cognitive impairment, usually in the form of difficulties with attention, memory or concentration. Such impairment is often not trivial and over time could easily affect productivity in the workplace. Thus, the physiological effects of this sleep disorder might explain how obese patients end up earning less money.

joel | July 15, 2007, 7:00am | #

It would be interesting to see this data broken down by sex.

It has been my observation over time that good looking women get better offers, both professionally and personally.

This is not a new observation.

Our female janitorial staff is almost uniformly way overweight, whereas the male janitorial staff is not. Also, the night cleaning crew tends to be a lot heavier than the daytime crew.

The female professional staff is more of a mixed bag, some being quite thin, others being obese.

This data should also be broken down by race. What if blacks, who earn less than whites, are either more or less obese than whites?

There is no doubt that obesity is determined in part by culture and genes. Years ago there was an attempt made to look at the effect of obesity on highblood pressure. They wanted to use railroad workers, who had 20 or 30 years of consistent health records, in Norway and Italy so as to have an international study.

They had to give up. They couldn't find enough fat Norwegians.

Looks like the Norwegians are still fairly thin.

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1046/Weighty_problem.html

About poverty and obesity. I guess you guys don't live in a diverse neighborhood like me. When I am on the checkout line, I am always amazed at what poorer people buy for food. Just crap. Imagine buying potato chips and soda with your "Freedom" card.

One more thing:

Since being fat is usually a social negative, fat people are saying they just don't care what you think about them. "Screw you, I like to eat."

What if this "screw you" attitude spills over into their professional life? That might impact their pay scale. I have seen this happen at my job.

On the other hand, keeping thin makes the statement that you care about what others think about you. That might result in higher wages.

badgersdaughter | July 15, 2007, 9:19am | #

intelligent people thus choose not to become morbidly obese because of both the adverse health and financial effects

I was already overweight when I had major surgery nine months ago. The weight gained during the lengthy period of enforced immobility tipped me over the line to "morbidly obese." My doctor and I have been working on my weight for six months, and I have managed to lose about 12 percent of my body weight (an average of seven pounds a month), but in the past month I have not been able to lose even one pound since then. We are examining other options.

I do work in IT, as third level tech support, and I have a tested IQ of 165. I solve problems that engineers can't solve for a living. I don't actually make less than my colleagues at the equivalent pay level, and my last three annual reviews were great (I got the maximum raise each time). Sexiness doesn't enter into it. I don't go to work to have sex. There's a word for people who do go to work to have sex. And "whore" is not part of my job description, last I checked.

Bottom line, anyone who experiences too much sleep fragmentation from sleep breathing problems eventually develops some degree of cognitive impairment, usually in the form of difficulties with attention, memory or concentration.

Dr. Krakow is precisely on the money about sleep apnea (thank you!!). My mother had narcolepsy her entire adult life, so my daytime sleepiness was misdiagnosed as that for a while until I finally figured it out. (Imagine a bright, sarcastic chick answering complaint calls from clueless users while hopped up on Ritalin. Yeah, comedy gold. It's a good thing I LOVE my userbase or I'd have been the department terror.) Now that I take precautions to keep from waking up a hundred times a night, I sleep better, think better, and work better.

We should tax obese people, charge them more for insurance and discriminate against them in employment and pay. We do that out of love for them; to show them the error of their ways. And hopefully they'll become non-obese...

I shudder to think how you discipline (pardon me, "show your love for") your children, if you have any, and I sincerely, fervently, passionately hope you don't.

Grace | July 15, 2007, 9:23am | #

During WW2 there was rationing of many goods, gasoline, shoes but among the many items were sugar, butter, meat and other food products but NOT fruits and veggies. There was no epidemic of obesity that i can recall at that time among the civilians. I am not askng for a recall of rationing, just something to think about.

badgersdaughter | July 15, 2007, 9:37am | #

Grace, I am a vegan (I did not mention it above because I knew the trolls would get distracted...). I credit it for helping me lose the weight I did lose, but it didn't help me keep the weight from getting packed on while I was housebound and needed help just to move from room to room.

It's not a bad thought, though. Dr. Neal Barnard has recently published a plan to reverse diabetes that is effective and vegetarian. I haven't had any trouble with my blood sugar since I became a vegan, despite my weight, and my family does run to such things.

Wonky blood sugar is certainly a contributor to weight and even cognitive problems. So you aren't off base. It's just that even the most effective single option can't tell the whole story or solve the whole problem.

Cesar | July 15, 2007, 11:43am | #

Dave, please go read Dying to Win by Robert Pape. It discusses the reasons why various groups engage in suicide bombing, be they Muslim or not.

Cesar | July 15, 2007, 11:44am | #

Whoops, the post above is on the wrong thread.

J sub D | July 15, 2007, 12:43pm | #

I may be fat, but I can go to a gym. You'll always be a dumb-ass from the community college. By the way, I had my IQ tested when I was in high school, and it's 135. I was chubby then too.

Me: I didn't go to a community college. I didn't go to any college. Your IQ is below mine (as if IQs are actually a measure of intelligence). Maybe Pinette should have have gone to a four yeay university like Dan (potatoe) Quayle and George W. (nucular) Bush.

Me, you're an idiot. An elitist, inconsiderate, and FAT idiot. Any questions?

J sub D | July 15, 2007, 12:51pm | #

BTW, there are differenceces between:

a) Theory
b) Hypothesis
c) Speculation

Some of the posters here are getting awfully upset over Pinettes initial SPECULATION that was obviously indicated as such. IOW, Don't get your tits in aflutter over this.

Neu Mejican | July 15, 2007, 12:58pm | #

Grande Cabron,

If you called me "Grand Cabron" in person you would get smacked, I doubt that you would, and doing it from behind a computer screen is what makes you a coward above all.

You don't know me very well, obviously.
If you were in the room making clearly misguided assertions about the superiority of your race, I would very likely call you out on it to your face to see if you had the intellectual chops to defend your position. Sarcasm, name calling and general mockery is an appropriate reaction to the kinds of idiocy you engage in whenever the topic of race comes up. You don't even understand the details of your own position well enough to know its implications or explanatory limits. That lack of self-awareness coupled to undeserved arrogance leads to good natured name calling in my circle. How you react is a good way to gauge how much respect you deserve.

It is nice to know that your reaction would be violence...("get smacked," ha, that's a statement that is easy to make across the interwebs 8^)

Where I come from people who react to a verbal ribbing with violence don't last very long.

Sticks and stones cabron, sticks and stones.

J sub D | July 15, 2007, 1:04pm | #

An open plea to H&R posters -

Any responses to the ignorant, bigoted idiot known as Grand Chalupa just encourages the scumbucket. I propose that ignoring the aforementioned individual is in order.

Neu Mejican | July 15, 2007, 1:04pm | #

Cesar,

Thanks for the recipes.

Neu Mejican | July 15, 2007, 1:07pm | #

J sub D,

Sometimes the idiots need to be called to the floor, but I sympathize with your position.

BTW, please refer to him/her as "Grande Cabron"... s/he has shown a lack of respect that should not be associated with the noble chalupa, a food dish of superior lineage.

Neu Mejican | July 15, 2007, 1:44pm | #

Cesar,

I mean, um er, restaurant tip.

Joe | July 15, 2007, 1:53pm | #

First, the term obesity has been hijacked to define anyone who is overweight by some arbitrary standard that nobody can quite figure out. I assume it's simply anyone who weighs more than I think they should.

Second, repeated studies have found that, in fact, the overweight have a lower mortality rate and sickness rate than the underweight. The claim that the obese (and overweight) are at greater risk of disease and death is based almost purely on emotion, not fact.

Cesar | July 15, 2007, 2:06pm | #

Lets all remember the difference between overweight and obese.

I'm 5'9 and 168 pounds. According to the BMI I am on the borderline between ideal weight and overweight.

In order to be obese, I'd have to be around 205 pounds. Which I cannot even imagine doing even if i tried. Obeseity is much more serious than being merely overweight.

crimethink | July 15, 2007, 7:46pm | #

repeated studies have found that, in fact, the overweight have a lower mortality rate and sickness rate than the underweight.

I don't know about any studies of sickness rates, but the mortality rate studies I've heard of could be confounded by the fact that many fatal diseases cause people to lose lots of weight. So it's quite possible that a person who died underweight was actually overweight before getting sick.

Jennifer | July 15, 2007, 8:14pm | #

"Ramen noodles are perfectly nutritious"

Ramen noodles are not the least bit nutritious-they are fried flour cooked in salt. Ramen noodles are one of the many cheap, nutritionless foods that contribute to obesity in the poor, along with white bread, macaroni and cheese, ground chuck, artificial fruit drinks, etc. The cheaper choices are almost invariably the worst nutritional choices.



" and a lot cheaper than fried chicken. The argument that fast food is the most affordable food "

I don't think anyone's making that argument- there is plenty of rock-bottom cheap food available that is high in calorie and low in nutriotional density.

It should be kept in mind, however, that in many of the poorer neighborhoods, there are no grocery stores, so those without reliable transportation are forced to rely on fast food and convenience store offerings, which are evn worse.

Vernon Dozier | July 15, 2007, 9:05pm | #

Some dumb not fat chick said:
"It should be kept in mind, however, that in many of the poorer neighborhoods, there are no grocery stores, so those without reliable transportation are forced to rely on fast food and convenience store offerings, which are evn worse."

There is also plenty of low cal, high nutritional foods available if one can look past the end of their nose.

If a human being cannot locate cheap, nutritious food anywhere in the US, they are severely mentally handicapped.

Economic blight and poor neighborhoods in the richest country in the world proves that we can never be free of the pathetically lazy and stupid, the folks who enable them and the ones that allow themselves to be brought down by them.

Since there is a "safety net" we get Darwinian devolution in the survival and thrival of the helpless. The culling is more drawn out than in the wild, but someone has to have the job of absorbing the TV radiation. They keep breeding, but thanks to all of those white liberal women who are happy to abort the millions of babies of color before they are brought into the mess.

No one need feel guilt over this unfortunate situation, we do live in the physical universe of entropy.

Grand Chalupa | July 15, 2007, 9:35pm | #

Vernon,

Thank you sir. You get it.

Mr. F. Le Mur | July 16, 2007, 12:43am | #

Pinette: Also, i have no evidence to back it up.

Just google "obesity intelligence" and you'll get plenty of evidence for the negative correlation between intelligence (and education) and obesity (but not necessarily 'overweight').

I think, maybe, that obese people tend to be less intelligent than thin people, on average, which would explain them making less money.

It's quite likely that that's part of the explanation, at least.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater | July 16, 2007, 10:58am | #

Just google "obesity intelligence" and you'll get plenty of evidence for the negative correlation between intelligence (and education) and obesity (but not necessarily 'overweight').

Well, given what passes for "edumacation" in US colleges these days (at least outside the hard sciences and math-based curricula) I'm more and more suspicious of the 'educated' that are coming out of the cloisters.. And some of the dumbest socialist pachouli junkies I know are skinny as rails.

PS: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor (NOT an ad I promise!!)

daniel k | July 16, 2007, 11:54am | #

when they came for the mobidly obese, I said nothing because I wasn't morbidly obese. When they came for the grossly overweight, I said nothing because I wasn't grossly overweight. When they came for the pleasingly plump, I said nothing because I wasn't pleasing plump. When they came for the people who weigh more than the current CDC guidelines on BMI (body mass index), there was no one left to speak for me.
AND, they can have my donut when they pry it out of my cold, dead, greasy fingers.

dagny | July 16, 2007, 3:18pm | #

There is also plenty of low cal, high nutritional foods available if one can look past the end of their nose.

The vast majority of people don't have much of an excuse. However, if you look at somewhere like the city of Detroit... those people are fucked.

There was an article in one of the Detroit papers the other day that the last chain grocery in the city is closing. The locally-owned shops repeatedly fail health inspections but another one will just pop up. When your choice is between some packaged food of questionable nutritional value and meat and vegetables with questionable food safety standards, then you're looking at the real problem for the poorest Americans.

Just because you have easy & inexpensive access to healthy food staples does not mean that this is true for all Americans.