Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
Worth the Weight
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
February 17, 2007; WSJ
America is fighting a pitched battle with obesity, and obesity appears to be winning. According to the Trust for America's Health, the percentage of Americans who are overweight rose by 19 percentage points from 1976 to 2004, to 66% from 47% of adults. About half of these adults are technically "obese." This is a significant public-health problem, because excessive body weight has been linked to high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, respiratory problems and so forth. The trend has entered the policy debate, and may become an issue in the presidential campaign: One Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, advocates weight "report cards" for kids, and instituted them in his state while governor.
One's proper shape is generally measured with the Body Mass Index (BMI), which takes both weight and height into account. The basic formula for BMI is one's weight (in kilograms) divided by one's squared height (in meters). People with a BMI under 18.5 are "underweight"; 18.5-25 is "normal"; 25-30 is "overweight"; and beyond that is "obese." This standard might strike you as distressingly stringent when translated back into pounds and inches. For instance, a 6-foot-tall man who weighs more than 184 pounds is technically overweight.
But before this ruins your morning doughnut, there is a side to America's weightiness that, while not generally discussed, is worth considering: Moderately overweight people tend to be happier than lighter folks. Indeed, according to data from the University of Michigan and Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, people in the overweight category in 2001 were 11% less likely than those in the normal range to say they felt inconsolable over the past month. They were also 18% less likely to have felt worthless, or to say that "everything was an effort."
As we all know, happiness tends to be reflected in the way we treat others. Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, overweight people are more likely to behave charitably than people in the normal BMI range. This is particularly true for men. For example, while 68% of men in the overweight category gave money to charities in 2001, only 62% of men in the normal range gave (although giving falls back considerably when we move into obesity). Overweight men were also the most likely to volunteer their time for various causes and charities.
Not only are they more likely to give, overweight men also give away more dollars each year than men in the normal range do -- in total, as well as to most individual types of causes, from religion to poverty relief. This is not entirely due to the fact that overweight men earn more money (although that is also true). Imagine two men who are identical with respect to income, education, age, race, family status and religious affiliation. The only difference is that the first has a BMI of 23, while the second is a portly but still-respectable 27. On average, the heavier man will give about 5% more money away than the thinner man each year. Your optimal BMI may be between 18.5 and 25 for doctors, but not for fundraisers; in fact, the top average giving level occurs at a BMI of about 28.5. For a six-foot man, this translates into a gentlemanly 211 pounds. Perhaps a new term should enter the nonprofit lexicon: the "philanthropist's paunch."
It is obvious after only a moment's reflection that BMI does not stimulate happiness -- and even less, charity. What is striking, though, is how well it predicts the latter. Since BMI per se cannot be the cause of happiness or giving differences between people, how can we explain these curious patterns?
There are at least two possibilities. First, it is self-evidently untrue that a BMI below 25 is "normal," when only a minority of adults come in under this number (in some communities, virtually nobody does). There is no disputing that thinner is healthier, but between cheap food, long work hours, supersized restaurant portions and a ban on the delights of nicotine, thin is simply no longer how most "normal," well-adjusted people look. The bright side is that in America (unlike many other countries), a normal life also involves foursquare virtues like charity and a good deal of happiness.
Second, we all know that it's harder and harder to stay thin in America. The growing effort required to do so might be emblematic, in some cases, of a tradeoff between focusing on oneself and thinking of others. In the "Devil's Dictionary," Ambrose Bierce defines an abstainer as "a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure." When it comes to dessert, today's abstainer may tend to be the person who denies the rest of us a smile or donation.
Does any of this mean you shouldn't go on a diet? Of course you should, if you need to. But if you do, don't forget your favorite charity.
Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, 2006).
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
February 17, 2007; WSJ
America is fighting a pitched battle with obesity, and obesity appears to be winning. According to the Trust for America's Health, the percentage of Americans who are overweight rose by 19 percentage points from 1976 to 2004, to 66% from 47% of adults. About half of these adults are technically "obese." This is a significant public-health problem, because excessive body weight has been linked to high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, respiratory problems and so forth. The trend has entered the policy debate, and may become an issue in the presidential campaign: One Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, advocates weight "report cards" for kids, and instituted them in his state while governor.
One's proper shape is generally measured with the Body Mass Index (BMI), which takes both weight and height into account. The basic formula for BMI is one's weight (in kilograms) divided by one's squared height (in meters). People with a BMI under 18.5 are "underweight"; 18.5-25 is "normal"; 25-30 is "overweight"; and beyond that is "obese." This standard might strike you as distressingly stringent when translated back into pounds and inches. For instance, a 6-foot-tall man who weighs more than 184 pounds is technically overweight.
But before this ruins your morning doughnut, there is a side to America's weightiness that, while not generally discussed, is worth considering: Moderately overweight people tend to be happier than lighter folks. Indeed, according to data from the University of Michigan and Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, people in the overweight category in 2001 were 11% less likely than those in the normal range to say they felt inconsolable over the past month. They were also 18% less likely to have felt worthless, or to say that "everything was an effort."
As we all know, happiness tends to be reflected in the way we treat others. Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, overweight people are more likely to behave charitably than people in the normal BMI range. This is particularly true for men. For example, while 68% of men in the overweight category gave money to charities in 2001, only 62% of men in the normal range gave (although giving falls back considerably when we move into obesity). Overweight men were also the most likely to volunteer their time for various causes and charities.
Not only are they more likely to give, overweight men also give away more dollars each year than men in the normal range do -- in total, as well as to most individual types of causes, from religion to poverty relief. This is not entirely due to the fact that overweight men earn more money (although that is also true). Imagine two men who are identical with respect to income, education, age, race, family status and religious affiliation. The only difference is that the first has a BMI of 23, while the second is a portly but still-respectable 27. On average, the heavier man will give about 5% more money away than the thinner man each year. Your optimal BMI may be between 18.5 and 25 for doctors, but not for fundraisers; in fact, the top average giving level occurs at a BMI of about 28.5. For a six-foot man, this translates into a gentlemanly 211 pounds. Perhaps a new term should enter the nonprofit lexicon: the "philanthropist's paunch."
It is obvious after only a moment's reflection that BMI does not stimulate happiness -- and even less, charity. What is striking, though, is how well it predicts the latter. Since BMI per se cannot be the cause of happiness or giving differences between people, how can we explain these curious patterns?
There are at least two possibilities. First, it is self-evidently untrue that a BMI below 25 is "normal," when only a minority of adults come in under this number (in some communities, virtually nobody does). There is no disputing that thinner is healthier, but between cheap food, long work hours, supersized restaurant portions and a ban on the delights of nicotine, thin is simply no longer how most "normal," well-adjusted people look. The bright side is that in America (unlike many other countries), a normal life also involves foursquare virtues like charity and a good deal of happiness.
Second, we all know that it's harder and harder to stay thin in America. The growing effort required to do so might be emblematic, in some cases, of a tradeoff between focusing on oneself and thinking of others. In the "Devil's Dictionary," Ambrose Bierce defines an abstainer as "a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure." When it comes to dessert, today's abstainer may tend to be the person who denies the rest of us a smile or donation.
Does any of this mean you shouldn't go on a diet? Of course you should, if you need to. But if you do, don't forget your favorite charity.
Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, 2006).
