http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/when-fitness-means-life-or-death/
That’s the premise of a new reality show from Discovery Health that premieres tonight [1/11/08]. Called “Fit to Live,” it’s based on Dr. Pamela Peeke’s book of the same name and raises the question of whether you have the strength, endurance and agility to escape a natural disaster, flee a burning building or pull your family from a wrecked car.
Fitness isn’t about working out at the gym or running a marathon, notes Dr. Peeke, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Maryland and chief medical correspondent for Discovery Health Television. Fitness is important for coping with life’s emergencies, big and small, whether it’s running to make an airport connection or fleeing a burning building.
What an intriguing perspective on health and fitness. Its not really a secret to those that know me my feelings toward the weight related state of most Americans. That being said, I do try and avoid getting into those sticky discussions (or excuses) people have for why we are so garrulously overweight. What I think I like about this perspective that its casts unhealthy living in a more of a selfish light. Why is it that we don’t see the fitness related health of others as a source of concern for the longevity of our own existence? If I can’t count on you to save my life, or worse yet you hamper my ability to save my life because you get winded going down a flight of stairs, shouldn’t I be motivated to speak up against you eating an entire pizza?
I was watching a television show a couple years back when (20/20 or something like that) where they were pointing out the how obesity is socially acceptable whereas smoking is not. Where people would volunteer advice to someone they saw smoking that they should quit. Restating to the smoker what they had surely heard a hundred times before; how bad smoking is for them, all the repercussions of smoking. All while their other obese friend to their left continued gorging themselves. What was interesting about that was the way people justified their lack of active social concern for the health of the obese person over a smoker. The primary motivator for individuals saying something to a smoker seemed to be second hand smoke. So the concern for others really seemed to be ones concern for their self. People didn’t see how someone else overeating would negatively affect them. Of course most people aren’t economists (at heart or profession). Food and nutrition being resources of finite amounts, individuals consuming excessively certainly does affect others. In fact the Wall Street Journal published an article about How Much Water Goes Into a Burger [and accompanying blog entry].
A fast-food quarter-pounder costs $3, and 1,300 gallons of water. That’s how much it takes, per burger, to hydrate the cow, grow its food and process its carcass, according to the Web sites of the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey and a bottled-water trade group. By contrast, a loaf of bread uses up 150 gallons, and milk requires just 65.
Certainly this statistic is probably intended to fuel the “green” discussion, but I think it also helps qualify what we all give up so that someone can eat more than their “share”. If we saw that the fast-food burger was more than $3 that someone pays for it, would we be more socially outraged bearing witness to people eating a half-dozen at a time.
If we [socially] weren’t willing the say something based on the economic costs (resource scarcity) or the financial costs (increased health care costs) is there hope on we’d say anything because of potential survival costs?
I guess that will somewhat depend on what the viewership is for the show…
