I've borrowed the title of this post from Christopher Hitchens, who writes a column under that title for Slate.com. Mr. Hitchens writes on world events, politics, foreign policy, etc. and is a writer I greatly admire, so I hope he will forgive me - if by some chance he happens to catch the reference!
This relates to recent news coverage and Web chatter concerning obesity and air travel. All sorts of people have formed phalanxes firing at each other over the heads of people who just want to get from point A to point B in reasonable comfort, at a reasonable price. I'm going to launch my own little grenade.
Air travel is a low-margin business. It's really, really expensive to operate an air fleet. Air fleets have been squeezing more and more seats onto planes in an attempt to keep the average cost per ticket within the reach of the majority of the flying population, because the air fleets do not want to go back to the days of three carriers serving only the rich. Presumably, the flying population does not want to go back to those days, either. And there is only so much weight a given airplane can safely carry. That weight must be distributed in such a way as to not interfere with the safe operation of the plane.
It is simply not reasonable to expect, as some people seem to, air carriers to take out half the seats on the plane, install double-wide seats for all the double-wide people, and still charge passengers the same fares. It costs X dollars to fly the plane, and the current fares reflect X divided by the number of seats on the plane. If a person is a hundred pounds overweight, s/he is essentially carrying the weight, and taking up the space, of two people. If a person is two hundred pounds overweight, as a frightening number of people are, s/he is essentially carrying the weight, and taking up the space, of three people.
That person has to expect - for safety, if for nothing else - not to occupy a single, single-wide seat. For one thing, s/he really can't; and for another, it affects both the comfort and the safety of ALL the rest of the passengers - not just the ones immediately adjacent. Therefore, I think a policy of requiring double-wide passengers to purchase two seats is entirely reasonable. It has nothing to do with discrimination; it's just common sense.
Some of those crying "discrimination" are digging up studies done by obesity apologists that assert that obesity is genetic and there's nothing that can be done about it. One such apologist, Daniel Engbar, wrote recently (on Slate) that "instances of radical, lasting weight loss are exceedingly rare. Diet and exercise schemes tend to yield only minor effects over the long term."
Of course, this is true. But it is not true because suddenly, over the past thirty years, sixty percent of Americans have developed a mutation that makes them fat. It is true because over the past thirty years the availability of cheap, fattening food has skyrocketed while average daily activity has plummeted.
It's accurate to say that the human genome makes it very easy for us to gain weight. That's not the same as it being inevitable. There was a time when it was a distinct survival advantage, because access to food was unpredictable. Those people who could gain weight easily when calories were plentiful were in a position to survive famines much better than people who couldn't. It's the same principle at work in animals that hibernate: they eat voraciously during summer months to get as fat as possible, so that during the winter they can just curl up in a cave and sleep. And of course, those who survive are the ones that reproduce - meaning that adaptation, of gaining weight easily, gets passed on.
This does not absolve us. We are not bears, and we do not sleep through the winter. And I'd really like to hammer home the point that population-wide genetic mutations do not manifest in a single generation. The best evidence that obesity is not dictated by genetics is all around us in the world: countries where cheap calories are NOT plentifully available are the countries whose people are not fat.
The real reason why "diet and exercise schemes tend to yield only minor effects over the long term" is that, over the long term, people abandon the diet and stop exercising. Even bariatric procedures work only as long as people embrace the lifestyle changes required (and for a horrifying look at just what these procedures do, see a Feb. 25 "Explainer" on Slate). Stomach-stapling or banding only prevents you from eating very much at one time. They don't stop you from eating too much over the course of a day, or from eating exactly the wrong things.
The choice of what, and how much, goes in your mouth is ultimately going to make the difference between being fat and being not-fat. If you want to fit in a cross-country airline seat that only costs $300, you have the choice to stop buying snacks and sodas, stop eating from drive-throughs, stop eating in front of the TV. You have the choice to make a grocery list and shop from that once a week, to bring your lunch to the office, to eat breakfast every day, to keep no junk food in the house.
How do the apologists think all the not-fat people do it, anyway? Do they really think we're genetically gifted? I can tell you, most of us are not. It would be really easy for me to get fat. But I don't want to be fat, so I make the choice. I bring fruit to the office so I won't be as tempted by the cookies that inevitably land on the break-room counter. If I go out for coffee, it's a latte or an au lait, not a Frappucino. I don't routinely buy cookies or crackers or chips to keep at home. If the number on my tape measure is higher than I'd like, I cut out the wine with dinner. I cut out the dinner, sometimes!
All you have to do is watch cable TV for two hours or read any magazine to see, by the volume of weight-loss product advertising, how much people do not want to be fat. I don't believe the majority of overweight people really want to believe they are destined to be that way. But clearly, the majority of people are not making the choice to get with - and stick with - the program.
The brutal truth is this: if you want to be fit, trim, healthy, and comfortable on an airplane, there is a better than 50% chance that you are going to be hungry several times a day. You have to make the choice to not eat when you're a little bit hungry - or because you're bored, or because that's just what you do while you're watching TV. You don't need as many calories as your overstimulated digestive tract thinks you do.
If you really want to be not-fat, it's simple. Just eat three reasonable, well-balanced meals a day, drink plenty of water, and get some exercise. Cut out the snacking. Cut out any beverages that come in a bottle or can. That's all. Simple.
No, it's not easy. But it's possible. You are not destined to be fat.
