Posted By John Webster
"This morning on Breakfast News they stated that there are concerns that obesity is going to kill more people than smoking". Well I've got news for Kelvin, and them. Life is going to kill more than both put together. Cut the cr*p - we've all got to have something written on the death certificate, avoid one cause and we just add to a different statistic.
So where do we as H&S practitioners, come into this? Our job is to minimise those statistics caused by a work activity or factors within a workplace. No more, no less.
This bears no comparison with the workplace smoking debate, based on the presence of environmental tobacco smoke. Obese people bring no harmful substance into the workplace.
I doubt if anyone has compiled statistics, but it would not surprise me if obese people have fewer accidents than their fellow perfect examples of human health. Because we are big, there is just this irrational belief that we are clumsy. Bow Locks. We tend to be more aware of the space around us - or lack of it - and more cautious about the load bearing capacity of seating, ladders, platforms etc. We know when we fall or strike something it hurts more. Try walking into a door with the inertia of 8 stones, now do it with 22 stones! We know we are already carrying a weight, so take more care when lifting. But when we wait for help to share a load, or go get a barrow instead of carrying it, when we take time to assess a task, and find the easiest, safest way of doing it instead of rushing at it, we are accused of being lazy fat b'stards.
We may be more prone to diabetes and arthritis, but we are less likely to suffer a broken leg from playing football or skiing. Less likely to need a helicopter off the mountain. Less likely to be flattened whilst riding our bikes. And probably less prone to malignant melanoma and drowning.
As for Kevin's "tackle the root cause of their problem ie being fat" statement, that's offensive and shows a complete lack of understanding and, may I say, demonstrates pejudice. Surely he would not use the same statement with "being skinny" about an anorexic person, "being crippled" about a wheelchair user or "being a queer" about a homosexual? Or would he?
We come in all shapes and sizes. Our physical dimensions roughly follow a normal distribution. There are those in the tails of the distribution who are naturally there. There is nothing they can, or should do about it. Its just the way they are. I don't hear calls for the government to insist on the nutritional value of food being reduced to halt the explosion of tall people. Yet one day building standards, and those for furniture, will have to be changed to accommodate a population where 6'6" is unexeptional. Do I hear calls for banning them from work because of the risk of injury from door frames and low ceilings? No siree, that would be discriminatory. But its their own fault for eating such nutritious food as a child. Maybe if we starve them they will shrink again. Laughable. So why do the Kelvins of this world seem to think that is always the answer to obesity?
Then there are those who just enjoy good food and drink and would rather be sitting at a convivial table than suffering the stink of sweat, socks and linament at the gym. Theirs is a lifestyle choice. It gives them pleasure which jogging definitely does not. Only the first heart attack is likely to make a ha'p'th of difference. Yet is what they are doing any more dangerous than the dangerous sports with which the virtuous indulge themselves?
What about metabolic disorders? Your body thinks it is at its "ideal" weight, so is stable, its just got the numbers wrong. Dieting automatically leads to tiredness and lethargy to reduce the body's need of food. Exercising pushes up the desire for food to compensate.
Many obese people have deep phsychological problems. We now treat anorexia and bullimia as a form of mental illness centered around self image and self worth issues and often associated with depression, stress, anxiety etc. We no longer seek to stuff an anorexic with food, and enforced rest. Yet many overweight people have just the same problems and only gradually is even the medical profession beginning to recognise this and treat accordingly rather than handing out diet sheets. We never hear of the phsychological problems of the obsessive exerciser, hooked on endorphine and adrenaline or with an adonis complex, heading for burnout but terrified to stop in case they put on an ounce of weight.
And of course there are a few who really are just lasy slobs, and they are probably the only ones for whom education campaigns and lower price healthy food could make a difference.
So there are no easy answers, and most obese adults will remain that way, see-sawing between the hopeless diet and the depressingly tight belt, the butt of endless jokes, snide remarks and uninformed comment by those who think themselves somehow superior because they have been blessed with the "right" BMI.
Yes, we need to get back to proper food in schools, but we also need to get physical activity back, doing things that every child can enjoy - the old enforced cross country run was enough to put anyone off running for life.
We also need a more enlightened, holistic approach from the medical profession.
We should assess workplace factors which affect health in all ways, but when it comes to assessing employees as fit for work, all must be treated equally. I can think of very few tasks for which obesity per se would disqualify. Some mention the increased risk of heart attack. Well lets get this in perspective. Firstly its just that, an increased risk. Second, the risk is even higher amongst stressed out, skinny, hypertensive senior managers, thirdly obesity is but one indicator. For example I am obese but my blood pressure and cholesterol levels are normal and there is little history of heart disease in the family.
Whilst currently excluded from the Disability Discrimination Act, once mobility is affected, obesity could easily fit the official definition of a disability. Then instead of sacking train drivers, we would have to make reasonable adjustments to the controls. I bet they would do something for a short driver who had difficulty seeing over the console.
Jeremy Clarkson has been mentioned in this forum. His pet hate - apart from H&S - is car manufacturers who don't make seats adjust far enough for his legs and put the roof to low for his head. His grouse is seen as reasonable by most people. So why does nobody care that the seats in Macdonalds are screwed so close to the tables that it is impossible some to get in?
The BMI requirement for offshore workers was really brought in to both reduce the payload on helicopters and as a means of filtering out those who might not easily fit through the rear escape hatch of a Super Puma (I always sat by the door). It is not a measure of fitness, and is deeply flawed. Remember Rhino, one of the Gladiators. At 5'10" and close on 20 stone he would be classed as "morbidly obese". A joke or what?
Of course, the Government needs whipping boys, especially when it's popularity is sliding. With NHS high on the list of public concerns, firstly smokers were to blame for sapping its resources, now its the obese. Naturally the Government has to be seen to be doing something to allay that concern, so we have a few quid thrown at health education campaigns. Of course, smokers pay a lot of extra duty to the exchequer, so they don't want to stop it altogether. And if the obese tend to have shorter lifespans, so much the better. There will be problems paying all those state pensions to long lasting old people, and remember how many fat cats are also in public service with their superannuation to be paid out.
So get off our case - we are really doing you a favour!