Obesity and Airline Travel...

Obesity is a problem that extends beyond just the health implications. It can be a factor in many matters from employment to travel. In this case, travel.

A Canadian woman has been given a full refund for having to endure a 1 hour and 45 minute flight from Halifax to Ottawa in Canada. The woman, Janet Ogilvie, was forced to squeeze into about 25cm of seat space after the obese woman sitting in the seat next to her also took up half of her seat as well. The plane was fully-booked and Ogilvie decided that she did not have any choice but to endure the very cramped and uncomfortable conditions. In fact, to her credit Ogilvie did this without complaining to the woman sitting almost on top of her in order not to embarrass the obese woman.

Nevertheless, Ogilvie did complain on getting off the Porter Airlines flight. But, in essence she was told to suck it up, get over it, and there was no chance of a refund. Great customer service skills there Porter Airlines. You know what they say, "A happy customer tells five others of their experience, an unhappy customer tells more than twenty people about their experience".

Airlines in Canada have to supply a second seat at no extra cost to passengers with disabilities. Obesity is a disability. However, this does not mean that passengers with disabilities can front up at the airport and just get on the plane. The way the regulations are written require that passengers with disabilities notify the airline of that disability so that appropriate measures can be taken to facilitate the comfort of all passengers on the flight. Technically, it is my understanding, where an obese passenger fronts and check in without having notified the airline of their requirements for an additional seat, the airline can refuse to board that passenger.

Ogilvie received her refund and a more extensive apology of sorts from the CEO of Porter Airlines.

Obesity vs. Tobacco -- The Biggest Killer Is ...

Tobacco!

However, recent research and the expert opinions of some medical practitioners suggest that this might not be the case for too much longer. It seems that obesity is set to take over as the leading cause of premature death and illness in Australia. In a completely anecdotal sense this is pretty easy to accept. Just take a walk around the streets of Sydney on any day of the week and, if you are so inclined, you will notice that Australia is certainly becoming a much heavier nation.

Personally, I could just look in the mirror to see the proof of an enlarged Australia in comparison to my parents generation. I am guessing this is not what Kevin Rudd had in mind when he was talking about a big Australia. I am also guessing that Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are not referring to obesity when they state that they are not aiming for a big Australia!

This has led for calls for the government to go after obesity in the same aggressive manner it has done with tobacco. In the big scheme of things it makes sense to spend a little bit more now to avoid the big health spending costs down the track. Although, the government will probably argue that weight, and specifically weight control, is an individual matter. However, a small policy change with a little amended legislation could up the ante on rebates and the like for those who join gyms and other health-related organisations.

It is thought that spending on weight-related health care has already ballooned to in excess of AUD 60 billion a year. This figure leaves the spending on tobacco-related problems for dead (no pun intended).

Now, the really scary part in this article are the numbers. It is stated that more than 60% of the adult population is overweight or obese. Simply, when you stand around with 4 of your mates, 3 of you, at least statistically, are considered to be what is affectionately known as porkers! Or if you are with me and my mates, then just 'fat bastards'.

Ho hum...

No apologies for the lack of political correctness. If you are offended by terms like 'fat bastards' or 'porkers' then get over it. This is a serious problem and sometimes the direct and blunt approach might be more effective in the long run.

Obesity Discrimination?

Sooner or later airlines were undoubtedly going to require obese people to purchase two seats if they wanted to fly to their destination. Air France and KLM will charge obese passengers 75% of the cost of a second seat. Essentially, this is the cost of the seat without the taxes thrown in.

Air France and KLM are claiming that the obese passenger two-seat policy is for safety reasons. The key safety reason being that the obese person cannot be safely buckled into one seat. The policy is one that applies to fully booked flights only at this stage (for tickets booked after 1 February 2010 and for flights after 1 April 2010 - April Fool's Day joke?). According to Air France and KLM, where a flight is not fully booked, the obese passenger will be given a refund on the purchase price of their second seat.

The dimensions of aircraft seats range between 43cms and 44cms wide, and this seems to be the key safety measurement if the two-seat policy is going to work.

Nevertheless, the question is how is the policy going to be enforced? Do travel agents have to make a determination at the time a ticket is booked and paid for as to whether the prospective passenger is obese? Or will it be a requirement for all Air France and KLM flights that when booking a ticket a passenger must supply a doctors certificate stating their weight, Body Mass Index (BMI), and perhaps critical measurements when sitting (will they fit comfortably in a 43cm or 44 cm seat)? Or are the airlines going to not only weigh one's checked in baggage but require the passenger to jump on the scales as well?

The mind boggles.

My guess is that not all airline passengers are going to be concerned about this development. In fact, I am guessing that there will be plenty who fully endorse the move and wonder why it has not happened sooner.

Too Fat To Be Executed?

This is not necessarily a story I have been following closely, but it is a story that has some interesting legal implications. I have written about this particular case here.

Richard Cooey is a convicted rapist and murderer. These are charges that he has not denied. He was convicted of raping and murdering two young women in 1986. However, as he was waiting on death row in Ohio he also gained a considerable amount of weight. I guess sitting around 23 hours a day doing nothing much in one's cell could lead to a weight problem. Perhaps prisons need to work out how to give death row inmates more time for physical exercise. He weighed in at an impressive 125kgs.

Cooey had claimed that his obesity would mean that a lethal injection was tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment and as such prohibited by the provisions of the US Constitution. The other claim that Cooey's lawyers were arguing was that Cooey was taking a medication that would adversely impact on the effectiveness of the lethal injection drugs and cause him to suffer unnecessarily.

The appeal to the Supreme Court was denied by Justice Stevens. Justice Stevens is one of the more liberal justices of the current Supreme Court.

Simply, executing overweight or obese people is no less constitutional than executing death row inmates living within the "healthy" range, at least, as it relates to weight.

Manorexia

I have always wondered why the fellas never seemed to suffer from anorexia. Body image issues perhaps are not as important to men as they are for women.

However, I did not matter whether you were a boy or a girl when you were at school the overweight kids always got plenty of stick for being fat. I was a fat kid and I am a fat adult.

So, I can speak with relative authority about getting plenty of stick at school for being overweight.

I was also pretty sporty and played lots of sports. So, I guess this kept the weight in check a little.

That said, I wonder whether I go to the gym now because I have body issues or just because I want to keep a little fit so that I can live long enough to see the Kid grow into a man. I think it is because I wanna see the Kid grow into a man. If it was a body issue thing then I would be eating to a different pattern. I eat fairly clean.

Anyways, I was scanning through the Sydney Morning Herald the other day and came across this article on "manorexia" which is a term coined to describe anorexia in men. It is estimated that more than 7 million Australians are overweight or obese. Yes, this is somewhere around one-third of the population is heavier than it should be according to current guidelines.

In NSW it is estimated that 1 in 10 adults and 1 in 4 children that are suffering from anorexia are male. This means that the vast majority of those suffering from anorexia remain women, at least in cases that are being reported. Apparently, photos like the one above encourage eating disorders in boys as they strive to look like a male model.

Postscript:

This post has been modified slightly from the original post. The figures regarding anorexia in the original post were mistyped. This has been rectified.

Air Travel -- Budget No More?

The rapidly rising fuel costs are ensuring that budget travel is not so budget anymore. Most airlines have already started to slug customers with a fuel surcharge in order to cover costs. The cynical among us might say that the reason is to ensure high profits. But perhaps those profit-oriented business types will say that companies have an obligation to shareholders and investors to provide a return on that investment.

I priced a ticket on Air Asia the other day. The ticket was cheap but the fuel surcharge doubled the price. I am not sure whether this works for all airlines but for Air Asia the simple math is to double whatever the published fare is and then you will have what you will have to pay.

The other income generator that is being implemented supposedly to offset rising fuel costs is one where passengers are slugged with a check-in baggage fee. This would seem to be a captive market considering most people travel for more than a few days and you cannot take liquids, gels and other sprays on board (they must be checked in). This will mean that most people will buy the liquids such as perfume, toothpaste, and deodorants on arrival. It will also mean that people will try and cram everything but the kitchen sink into their carry-on bag.

If you have ever been on an Indonesian airline you will know that people try and carry-on bags that only just fit into the overhead storage racks and clearly exceed the permissible carry-on size. This is worthy of another post because this is not the only insanity that flight attendants and ground staff seem to allow.

Anyway, it seems that Virgin Blue (photo) and Pacific Blue will be slugging passengers with a AUD 20 fee to check-in baggage from 1 September 2008. However, if you book and pay online for your check-in baggage then the fee is a mere AUD 8. You do, however, get to check-in up to 23 kilos. But, if you front up at the airport you will be hit with the flat AUD 20 fee. The excess baggage fee is AUD 8 per kilo.

I am looking forward to the "pay for weight" program being applied to people. The idea being that the fare you pay is based on how much you weigh. Now, this on face value would seem to be discriminatory against overweight and obese passengers. Yet, when you think about it the physics of the matter is that it presumably takes more fuel to move the heavier people from the ground and into the air. So, I guess, the question, "is if you are being charged based on how much it costs to move you, are you being discriminated against?"

What does this mean for budget travelers, shop around. There are still deals to be had even in these times of high fuel prices. When it is all said and done there is still more than one airline to choose from.

Obesity and Lethal Injections

There is a simple question being posed by a death row inmate in a federal lawsuit that has been lodged in Ohio and that question is, "can you be too fat to be put to death by lethal injection?" By now most of my regular readers know that I am anti-death penalty and have stated my reasons for such opposition elsewhere on my blog.

The inmate, Richard Cooey, argues that because of his obesity the executioners would not be able to find suitable veins for the needle and that the drugs would have diminished effect because of his weight. The diminished effect of the drugs would seem to be the primary argument because this would conceivably render the execution cruel and unusual. A person has a lot of veins, so if one was not readily available in the inmates arms, then the executioners move to his hands, legs, and feet in search of a suitable vein. My guess is that they would find one even in a fat person. Cooey is 5'7" tall and weighs a hefty 267 pounds.

The debate about whether Cooey should die for his crime, the rape and murder of two University of Akron students back in 1986, is not the point of this post. What is the point is whether the execution of fat people by lethal injection constitutes a breach of fat people's rights to be executed in a humane way. How stupid does that sound? Is there any humane way to be executed? And should we distinguish between humane ways of execution for fat people and people whose weight falls within a recognized standard.

Although, the obesity arguments are not the only arguments being run by the Public Defender assisting Cooey. It is also alleged that the migraine medication Cooey is taking will effect the lethal injection process as Topamax, the drug Cooey is taking, is likely to block Thiopental which is the drug that knocks you out before the lethal drugs are injected.

This, according to an expert, is likely to increase the risk that Cooey is not properly anesthetized and therefore he would be getting the full enjoyment of the lethal drugs that will kill him as they are pumped into his body. I figure that perhaps the surviving members of his victims' families might not be too concerned with the idea that Cooey suffers a little excruciating pain. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth might not be such a bad thing in the thoughts of those who have suffered since 1986 with the pain of losing loved ones.

The Federal Appeals Courts have generally not found in favor of these arguments. Therefore, the likely outcome is that the appeal will fail.

Cooey is scheduled to meet his maker on 14 October 2008.

Beer and Alzheimer's

Moderate beer drinking might prevent Alzheimer's disease. It is reported in Food Chemical Toxicology, 46: 49-56, 2008, that Spanish researchers have identified that the silicone contained in beer might bind to the aluminium in your body and prevent the uptake of the aluminium by the brain. Most researchers believe that the cause of Alzheimer's is an accumulation of aluminium in the brain.

Aside from the benefits that might be derived with relation to Alzheimer's, it is also noted that drinking two beers a day reduces the risk of stroke, heart attack, and blood vessel disease. Another bonus of beer is that it serves to increase levels of HDL which is the good cholesterol. The good news just keeps on coming because the two beers that you get to drink also include polyphenols which are the antioxidants that prevent the free radicals from doing their damage. However, to get the same amount of polyphenols of a glass of red wine you would need to drink a pint of beer. The moral of this story would be to alternate your beer and wine days. After all variety is the spice of life!

Yet, we all know that excesses of anything have their down sides. In this case too much beer will lead to health issues such as obesity becoming more prevalent. However, it is the other effects of alcohol such as violence, bad behaviour, stupidity, accidents, and the like which demand that moderation be the key to your drinking.

Time for a beer!

Testosterone and Depression

An Australian study has highlighted that low levels of free testosterone are linked to increases in the likelihood of depression, heart disease, type-2 diabetes, muscle and bone loss, and decreased sexual performance. Those most at risk are older men, those who are obese, smokers, and anyone in poor health.

In fact the study showed that those with low naturally occurring levels of free testosterone were 271 percent more likely to show signs of depression.

For me this is the perfect example of a loophole in the laws against steroid use. Doctors can prescribe testosterone products to those with a medical need. Therefore, anyone looking to get a happy boost might want to pay a trip to their local doctor.

The report can be found in Archive General Psychiatry, 65: 283-289, 2008.