Obesity, It’s Everybody’s Baby

Childhood obesity will ultimately cost someone a significant amount of money; whether it be the parents, the institutions of learning that the kids attend; the kids themselves when they grow up; their employers; the airplane manufacturers who are required to provide wider seats; or the general public, in the form of taxes collected to alleviate medical conditions both congenital and acquired, for the betterment of society as a whole.

The harm generated by childhood obesity involves more than just the individual child’s health. Whether or not it is their fault, and whether or not others spitefully blame them, and regardless of whether it is fair — in one way or another, obese people constitute an expense to society.

On this blog, much attention has been focused on one very important facet of the societal impact of obesity, namely: It eventually touches everyone in some way. In many cases, this impact is physical, as the person joins the ranks of the overweight and obese. Still, hefty as those numbers are, direct physical participation in obesity is not universal. But financial participation is inevitable.

Big research

In 2018, much current information and many previous statistics were consolidated by Hugh Waters and Marlon Graf of the Milken Institute into a major report.

They looked into the costs that health conditions related to overweight and obesity were racking up, because these expenses would ultimately be paid for by “individuals and their households, employers, government, and society.” In other words, sooner or later, directly or indirectly, every person in the country would be liable for these costs. In some cases, it might be considered fair, because 60% of Americans (just over 180 million people) were either overweight and heading inexorably toward obesity, or had already arrived there.

Startling hindsight

Travel back in time for a moment, to 1962. In that year, a young teen could look around and observe an adult population in which only 13.4% of the men and women were obese. In 2016, that same person’s adolescent grandchild could look around and see 39.8% of the grownups in an obese condition. Where there used to be one obese person in a family, now there were three. Where there used to be 100 obese people in an auditorium, now there were 300.

To break it down another way, in that year about 100 million Americans were obese, and about 80 million were overweight, and these two combined statistics accounted for…. wait for it….

$480.7 billion in direct health care costs in the U.S., with an additional $1.24 trillion in indirect costs due to lost economic productivity.

If numbers like this do not cause people to sit up and take notice, nothing will. Just in case the message was not getting through, a mathematician did another calculation, which was announced at the same time:

The total cost of chronic diseases due to obesity and overweight was $1.72 trillion — equivalent to 9.3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).

Another formidable finding went like this:

Obesity as a risk factor is by far the greatest contributor to the burden of chronic diseases in the U.S., accounting for 47.1 percent of the total cost of chronic diseases nationwide.

“By far the greatest contributor…” Strong words, indeed. Where does the “risk factor” accusation come from? Apparently, obesity is implicated as a causative or exacerbating factor in a large assortment of diseases, from head (Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia) to toe (type 2 diabetes).

The report from the nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank notified the public about a major fact. Of all the factors that contribute to the continuing existence of chronic diseases, obesity is the undisputed champion because it “increases insulin resistance, blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides. Further, obesity lowers HDL cholesterol and places the body in a pro-inflammatory state.”

The authors explain how fat cells, even though they are distributed throughout the body, have perfected the technique of ganging up in a network to function as one discrete endocrine organ, and with ferocious effect. The report gives specific examples of how this works, and notes that together, “these multiple related pathways are referred to as metabolic syndrome.”

The report’s Table 8 is frightening, with its presentation of the direct and indirect cost per case (in 2016) of 23 serious conditions. (Two varieties of carcinoma come out on top.)

For the minutiae-minded, the report also offers over 100 source footnotes.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “America’s Obesity Crisis: The Health and Economic Costs of Excess Weight,” MilkenInstitute.org,” 10/26/18
Image by World Obesity Federation

The Importance of Hydration Recognized

We have mentioned that businesses are interested in learning how to discourage workers from “doing things on company time that will eventually cost the company many dollars.” One of those factors is the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, which have been shown to cause obesity. The particular methodology of this threat is that employees who become obese tend to bend the “bottom line” expensively.

Most people probably do not have a clue about all the history behind the availability (or not) of water in either public locales or in places of business. Over the years, many laws have been argued, passed, contested, and rewritten, over the issue of water in the workplace. Considering the enormous number of different kinds of workplaces that exist, keeping up with the whole field must be an exhausting responsibility. It is good to know that special attention has been paid to the importance of water in preventing obesity.

In the USA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires that potable water be available to workers, and that they should be encouraged to drink it, and cannot be asked to pay for it. The rule is not confined only to readily accessible water for the quenching of thirst, but encompasses every use for which potable (technically, safe to drink) water is utilized:

[…] for drinking, washing of the person, cooking, washing of foods, washing of cooking or eating utensils, washing of food preparation or processing premises, and personal service rooms.

Furthermore, “Each industry contains specific requirements tailored to the conditions of these fields,” including guidance on the provision of “reasonable opportunities” to hydrate. Of course, these considerations may be extended not just out of warm regard, but because companies have caught on to the fact that obesity costs them a considerable amount of money.

Perhaps the availability of good water might help to wean some workers off their habitual high-cal drink habits. Never mind that coffee with three spoons of sugar, and forget about sodas and juices, especially those with added sweetener.

In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention produced the multiply-authored and lengthily titled “Impact of Individual and Worksite Environmental Factors on Water and Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption Among Overweight Employees”. It was described as “the first extensive evaluation of the workplace environment and its influence on water and SSB consumption.”

After taking into consideration many reports, the researchers concluded that workplace factors definitely influence the behavior of overweight employees. They found that reduced access to vending machines could steer habits into healthier channels. Consultants also looked further into the roles played by water coolers, vending machines, and break frequency. Here is the bottom line from that study:

Future intervention trials are warranted to determine whether reducing SSB consumption and increasing water consumption could be an effective dietary strategy for worksite-based weight management interventions and whether individual and environmental intervention features mediate or moderate intervention effectiveness.

A few years ago, similar research scrutinized both “intensive-labor and static-type workplaces” and concluded that promoting the water consumption habit “may benefit employees,” which is pretty weak sauce, considering how the phraseology implies “… or it may not.” Well then, could the provision of both water and nudging reminders induce employees to drink lots of water in order to “diminish their tendency to gain weight”?

At the same time, this research project was looking for more than just how to encourage increased water consumption. Managerial and executive eyes were on a bigger prize, and WHPPs (Workplace Health Promotion Programs) were created to serve the need, and a sentence in the Conclusion affirmed the hope.

“If reminders about water intake can be sent to employees in a timely manner, and if they can be informed with the health benefits brought by drinking water regularly, combined with unforced health education, it may be possible to obtain other additional benefits in addition to enhancing employees’ water intake.”

Of course, businesses are not only concerned about employees’ health, and it would be silly to believe they are. But to discover a factor that can improve the lives of workers while at the same time reducing employer costs, well, that is something to write home about for sure.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Summary: OSHA Water Requirements,” ZTers.com, 09/09/24
Source: “Effectiveness of a Water Intake Program at the Workplace in Physical and Mental Health Outcomes,” NIH.gov, 2022
Image by Picsues/Pixabay

Childhood Obesity in Europe: Could GLP-1 Drugs Play a Role?

As we’ve been saying over and over, across many different subjects on this blog and stretching for years, childhood obesity is rising at an alarming rate (sadly, not exactly news anymore). And not only in the U.S. It’s also happening across Europe and Central Asia. The World Obesity Federation predicts that between 2020 and 2035, obesity among boys will climb by 61%, while rates among girls are expected to soar by 75%.

Faced with this surge, health experts are asking a difficult question: What is the best way to treat this chronic disease in children? Could GLP-1 medications play a role?

Again, on this blog, we’ve been covering them in terms of research and policymaking, whether they are safe for children to use (and if yes, from what age?), whether there are any promising, successfully used alternatives, and how those aren’t enough but must come as part of the package, combined with lifestyle changes and families working together.

All that said, our content is almost exclusively focused on the U.S. But what’s the approach to rising obesity rates in other parts of the globe, in Europe in particular?

Turns out, it’s pretty much on the same page, though perhaps with a more cautious attitude. And while this might not necessarily constitute earth-shattering news, it shows that we as a global community can work together, or at least try to, if not to eradicate childhood obesity altogether, then at least to alleviate the issue using the same tools.

And those include GLP-1 medications. Sophie Cousins, MIPH, a global health journalist who has reported from more than 20 countries, dives into the subject for Medscape.

The rise of GLP-1 medications

Over the past few years, GLP-1 receptor agonists have gained global attention as effective treatments for obesity. As has been established and backed by research, these drugs act on the brain and the gut to curb appetite, slow digestion, and increase feelings of fullness.

In parts of Europe, medications such as liraglutide (Saxenda), semaglutide (Wegovy), and orlistat (Xenical) are already approved for use in adolescents aged 12 and older. But change may be on the horizon. Novo Nordisk has applied for regulatory approval of liraglutide in children as young as six years old in both Europe and the United States.

Early trial results are promising but mixed. In a phase 3 study, children aged 6 to 12 years who received 3 mg liraglutide plus behavioral therapy for 56 weeks saw a 5.8% BMI reduction, compared with a 1.6% increase in the placebo group. However, 80% of the children on liraglutide experienced gastrointestinal side effects.

These results raise a pressing question: Should children be treated with powerful weight-loss drugs, or should medical professionals and society focus more heavily on prevention?

Concerns over safety and equity

Some experts remain skeptical. Malta, for instance, has one of Europe’s highest rates of childhood obesity, driven largely by poor diet, inactivity, and socioeconomic factors. Renald Blundell, Ph.D., of the University of Malta, is deeply concerned about long-term safety.

He worries about the effects of GLP-1 medications on “growth, puberty, fertility, mental health, and lifelong health.” He stresses the need to monitor for issues such as anxiety and depression.

Dr. Blundell said:

Drugs don’t fix the unhealthy food environment, car dependency, poverty, or school systems that drive obesity. If relied on as the main solution, they risk overlooking prevention.

Still, he acknowledged their potential for children already struggling with severe obesity:

For children already suffering from severe obesity and related illnesses, medication can be life-changing and may give them a better chance to engage with lifestyle changes.

Blundell does not, however, support widespread use in children under 12:

We don’t yet know their long-term safety in young children. There are ethical concerns about medicalizing children, and their high costs and limited access to specialist care could cause inequities.

His conclusion was clear:

The bottom line is that GLP-1 drugs may be appropriate as an adjunct treatment for some children with severe obesity, but their use in 6- to 11-year-olds should be limited, cautious, and tightly monitored. The bigger priority is to change the environment, policies, and support systems so fewer children develop obesity in the first place.

Food policy and the bigger picture

Christina Vogel, Ph.D., a nutritionist and professor of food policy at City St George’s, University of London, echoed similar concerns. She said:

I don’t believe we have sufficient evidence to be able to confidently say they are good to use among children. Children’s bodies are growing, and we don’t know the long-term physical effects.

Vogel emphasized the responsibility of both governments and the pharmaceutical industry to protect children:

We need to get the school food environment right. We need to protect them against heavy marketing of high in fat, sugar, and salt. And we need to promote the availability, accessibility, and appeal of fruit, vegetables, and whole grains.

She also questioned whether children on these drugs might still eat poorly:

Will children continue to eat unhealthy foods because marketing hasn’t disappeared? Could children on these drugs face a higher risk for malnutrition and have more vitamin deficiencies?

Support for cautious use

Some specialists see GLP-1 drugs as a breakthrough, if used carefully. Julian Gomahr, M.D., of Paracelsus Medical University in Salzburg, Austria, noted that treating obesity was “frustrating” before these medications. He said:

We finally have effective medications available that can truly make a difference in treatment — especially when metabolic comorbidities are already present early on and lifestyle interventions have been exhausted. It is crucial that children are treated by an experienced team, particularly during the initial phase of pharmacological therapy.

He also argued that these drugs could reduce long-term healthcare costs but stressed that access must be equitable. He urged policymakers to fund both medications and interdisciplinary obesity centers to ensure children receive the care they need.

No silver bullet

Other experts emphasize that medication is only part of the picture. Annemarie Bennett, Ph.D., of Trinity College Dublin, made it clear: “There is no silver bullet for weight management in childhood.”

If GLP-1 drugs are prescribed, she argued, they should be integrated into a broader plan, such as “food-based and exercise supports, therapies such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, and family therapy may be considered.” We agree!

She explained that overeating often stems from distress and difficult circumstances, such as “difficult relationships at home or in school, experiencing inappropriate methods of discipline, or bereavement.” Addressing these root causes remains critical. This is also something we’ve been discussing on Childhood Obesity News for years (and will continue to do so): displacement.

The road ahead

Regulatory decisions on expanding the use of GLP-1 medications to children under 12, as well as the arrival of daily weight-loss pills in the coming years, could reshape treatment.

But for now, the debate continues: how to balance access to promising new drugs with prevention, therapy, and long-term strategies to protect children’s health.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Should Children Be Prescribed Anti-Obesity Drugs?,” Medscape, 9/26/25
Source: “Liraglutide for Children 6 to <12 Years of Age with Obesity — A Randomized Trial,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 9/10/24
Image by Yan Krukau/Pexels

Our Jobs, Our Bodies, and Our Kids

Recent inquiries into the enormous cost that obesity imposes on society have covered a number of bases, but (no surprise here) plenty of angles remain to be explored. In observing places of employment, scholars have examined chronic stressors, acute stressors, and even the condition known as “turmoil in the workplace.” Many researchers are particularly interested in the relationship between those factors and the difficulty experienced by workers in maintaining a healthy body weight.

It seems odd that people — many of them lucky to be employed at all — will carelessly endanger their jobs and their health by allowing excessive weight to creep up on them. How can they be encouraged to remain well enough to perform the work adequately, and not take too many sick days? How can they be prevented from doing things on company time that will eventually cost the company many dollars?

It takes all kinds

Researchers looking for answers have created studies that concentrate specifically on middle-aged women. Grad students have scrutinized groups of men who do exhausting labor, and others whose pale shirt collars have never felt a drop of perspiration. They have probed the relationship between something called “job enrichment,” and abdominal obesity in particular, as those two factors may impact even “apparently healthy” individuals.

A typical news item, published near the end of 2017, confirmed what many corporate CEOs and small business owners had already figured out:

The increasingly high levels of overweight and obesity among the workforce are accompanied by a hidden cost burden due to losses in productivity.

That meta-study was called by its authors “a narrative synthesis of the reviewed studies [which] revealed substantial costs due to lost productivity among workers with obesity.” The information, derived from eight electronic databases, pointed out the extent of those indirect costs that might someday, somehow, be eliminated from the figures that populate the corporate budget. It was only one of a great number of academic papers that have explored these possibilities.

But what does this have to do with my kids?

Everything. No matter how much we love our children, and how wonderful we know them to be in every way, the opinion of the outside world may differ. Often, when that assessment is made plain, the results are not happy for anyone. Our kids are growing up in an environment where everyone is increasingly scrutinized from many angles, and information is retained forever.

They deserve our help

A few years from now, our daughters and sons might be secretly weighed every day they show up for work, and then be summarily fired for exceeding the decreed correct weight. These trends are capable of doing real damage, and we need to get a handle on them by understanding why it is probably a mistake to ignore the few extra pounds around a child’s middle. Without being hurtfully judgmental, we can still acknowledge that obesity has the power to mess up her, or his, entire future.

On another level, the situation could become even worse. Imagine this: Your child graduates high school, and the only available job is with a company that severely maintains strict weight standards. A year later, your excellent son is required to fire an employee who also happens to be his best friend since childhood. To both of them, it represents a betrayal, and your boy feels so lousy, he binge-eats to improve his mood, and winds up being fired himself, not long afterward.

Okay, maybe that scenario is a bit dramatic, but whether we like it or not, obesity seems determined to become a larger issue with every passing year. It is a challenge that a lot of kids just might face, if they don’t already. This is why we try to prevent childhood obesity, because people growing into adulthood have enough to contend with.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Productivity loss due to overweight and obesity: a systematic review of indirect costs,” NIH.gov, 10/05/17
Image by milaoktasafitri/Pixabay

Can You Multiply By 10?

The reason for the titular question is the existence of two random documents among many which all point to the same conclusion. The phenomenon known as “presenteeism” has grown immensely, and so has the societal expense associated with it.

Another branch of this knowledge tells us that since obesity is definitely associated with presenteeism, obesity is a problem here as in so many other areas of life. This is just one more of the multiple problems with which obese children who mature into obese adults will have to contend.

The first media production considered here, which appeared on YouTube about 14 years ago, is a very concise (2:27) explanation by Professor Cary Cooper of how presenteeism was at that time costing the American economy about $15 billion per year.

Exhibit #2 is an article published in 2020, a mere decade later, during which time the cost of presenteeism was said to have risen to a towering 150 billion per year. In other words, the annual toll of that phenomenon upon the economy of the USA had multiplied by a factor of 10. And you can bet your bottom dollar on this: In many instances when employees showed up in the workplace only to be unproductive and ineffective, that was, in one way or another, attributable to obesity.

Contemporaneously with the above-mentioned YouTube presentation, by the way, a very scholarly work authored by J. Borak was published by Oxford University Press.

“Obesity and the Workplace” referenced the “global tsunami” of obesity, which was predicted to “certainly demand increasing commitments from occupational health programmes in coming years.” Four obesity-related issues were listed:

1. Enormous negative societal impact
2. Huge financial costs
3. Decreased worker productivity and increased need for support services and disability management
4. Work environments that contribute to increased overweight and obesity

That report quoted a 2006 study whose results had indicated that “annual US obesity-related medical costs were about $86 billion, including $30.3 billion for full-time employed adults.” It also emphasized that obesity “is associated with substantially increased rates of absenteeism (i.e., more days out of work) and presenteeism (i.e., reduced productivity while at work).”

This is the job market our children are preparing to face. Success in employment, or even simply finding employment in which to succeed or fail, will not be solely about degrees or other official qualifications. It will increasingly depend on not being fat.

But… It takes two to tango

On the other hand, plenty of evidence exists to show that work conditions can contribute directly to obesity, so employers had better take some responsibility. Job stress, shift work, and long work hours are mentioned. Consequently, some employers…

[…] have adopted programmes to incentivize weight loss and the maintenance of recommended body weight, encourage exercise, and promote healthy diets.

The results of such interventions are described as encouraging, and deserving of wide support. The same article mentioned a concept of “libertarian paternalism”:

[…] the idea that private and public institutions can systematically (and legitimately) affect behaviour in order to ‘nudge’ people in directions that will make their lives go better, without eliminating freedom of choice. For example… occupational health professionals should encourage employers to make work sites ‘junk food free’, instead providing healthier alternatives in cafeterias and vending machines.

This tactic of benign psychological and circumstantial influence-wielding has certainly been, and today remains, a fertile field for behavioral studies.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!
Source: “Professor Cary Cooper explains presenteeism,” YouTube.com, undated
Source: “The Complete Guide on Presenteeism (w. Example Intervention),” AIHR.com, 2020
Source: “Obesity and the workplace,” DOI.org, 2011
Image by gugacurado/Pixabay

Mounjaro Shows Promise for Kids With Type 2 Diabetes, Study Finds

A new clinical trial has found that Mounjaro, a popular treatment already approved for adults, can significantly lower blood sugar and body weight in children as young as 10 living with Type 2 diabetes.

The findings could pave the way for wider access, as drugmaker Eli Lilly, which funded the study, works to expand the drug’s approval beyond adult patients. The study focused on tirzepatide, the active ingredient in both Mounjaro, used for Type 2 diabetes, and Zepbound, prescribed for weight management.

How the study worked

Researchers enrolled 99 participants between the ages of 10 and 17 who had obesity and poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes despite being on treatments like metformin or insulin. Over the course of 30 weeks, patients received either a weekly dose of 5 milligrams, or 10 mg of tirzepatide, or a placebo.

By the trial’s end, the differences were striking:

  • Blood sugar control: Patients taking tirzepatide saw their average A1C levels drop by 2.2%, compared with just 0.05% for those on placebo.
  • Reaching safe A1C levels: 71% of participants on 5 mg and 86% on 10 mg achieved an A1C of 6.5% or less, which is below the diabetes threshold. Only 28% of the placebo group did the same.
  • Body weight impact: Participants also saw major improvements in BMI. Those on 5 mg lost an average of 7.4% of their BMI, while those on 10 mg lost 11.2%, compared to just 0.4% in the placebo group.

 

Importantly, the benefits to blood sugar and BMI were sustained through 52 weeks with no signs of plateauing.

The study authors wrote:

Tirzepatide is the first drug used for Type 2 diabetes in this age group that has shown sustained clinically-meaningful, BMI-lowering effects.

Safety and side effects

The treatment’s safety profile looked similar to what’s been observed in adults. The most common issues were mild to moderate gastrointestinal side effects, which generally eased over time. Two patients in the 5 mg group stopped treatment due to side effects.

Why this matters

Dr. Tamara Hannon, director of the Clinical Diabetes Program at Indiana University and lead investigator on the trial, said:

Youth living with Type 2 diabetes often face a more aggressive disease course, and in many instances, first-line treatments like metformin and basal insulin fail to control their A1C adequately… These results offer a promising opportunity to help shift the long-term health trajectory for young people living with this complex condition.

What’s next?

Eli Lilly has submitted the trial results to regulators worldwide, seeking approval for use in younger patients. Currently, the FDA has approved three GLP-1 drugs for Type 2 diabetes in kids 10 and older, and two for obesity in adolescents ages 12-17.

If approved, Mounjaro could become another powerful option in the fight against childhood obesity and Type 2 diabetes, two conditions that are rising at alarming rates in young people.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Efficacy and safety of tirzepatide in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-PEDS)…,” The Lancet, 9/17/25
Source: “Drugs like Mounjaro can help kids as young as 10 lose weight and control blood sugar: new study,” New York Post, 9/19/25
Image by Pavel Danilyuk/Pexels

Obesity, Depression, and Costs

As we have seen, the opinion is widely held that research done so far on the relationship between employment and associated physical and mental disorders is insufficient. In some jobs and with some people, there may be a tendency to escape work whenever possible, on the thinnest of excuses. From the bosses’ side, there may be a tendency to take advantage of people who need jobs by making them do dangerous tasks and then blaming them if injury occurs. It would come as no surprise to learn of lawsuits and strikes related to these issues.

The history of labor has encompassed very complicated and conflict-prone areas. Hard-fought decisions have been made about who is entitled to compensation for being absent from work; as well as who is allowed to show up and underperform (presenteeism), which in the long run costs the company even more.

Obesity is one of the conditions that can influence worker productivity. If our kids are overweight or obese, it is likely they will grow up to be obese adults, and this relationship to work will be just one of the many problems they will be challenged to deal with.

Wider information, please

Archived studies on the subject have been recognized as excellent, but too narrow in scope. One example (published in 2020) focused on almost 3,000 Japanese office workers, of whom 70% were male. According to the researchers,

Ten health risk factors for presenteeism have been identified, including health-related behaviours such as smoking, lack of physical activity, high blood pressure, perception of health and stress. Studies have reported that workers with arthritis, allergies, fatigue, depressive symptoms, hypoglycaemia, overweight and obesity were at higher risk of presenteeism.

In the same paper, mention was made of such impactful organizational policies as sick pay, attendance management, and permanency of employment.

What about profit and loss?

Recently, Investopedia.com looked back at a 2016 study from Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, which showed that…

[…] presenteeism associated with depression costs $5,524 per person annually in the U.S., five to 10 times higher on average than costs associated with absenteeism.

And of course, there is an extensive connection between depression and obesity. A 2015 article said,

Human obesity has serious consequences on health, including increased risks for depression, noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, cancer, rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, hypertension, and heart disease. In addition, obesity has been found to reduce the quality of life for both men and women and markedly reduces life expectancy…

Those facts are quite depressing. Depression has been called the enemy of motivation, and one thing from which it can definitely demotivate a person is the desire to wake up, get spiffed up, and travel to a hated job.

And another thing…

It is possible that depression is being promoted for profit. This will not be gone into here, but the following quotation is worrisome in its implications, given all the ways through which obesity’s overall expense to society is likely to increase:

[M]any people who once called themselves alcoholics and drug addicts now say they are “dually diagnosed” with “major depressive disorder” and “bipolar disorder.”[…] Today, when alcoholics and drug addicts leave rehab, they are lifelong Pharma customers… For this lifelong, chronic and lucrative condition — resting on the now disproved chemical imbalance theory — they can remain on drugs like SSRIs for decades.

Whatever degree of legitimacy is represented there, it is bound to involve obesity in a large number of cases, and to be inimical to good employment relationships. Closer to home is a 2020 report from Sweden titled “Childhood obesity linked to higher risk of anxiety, depression and premature death.” Among other statements, we find:

Children with obesity have a three times higher risk of mortality in early adulthood compared with children in the general population and are more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression.

When these children grow up and become employed, their tendencies toward impaired physical health and depression are certain to impact their effectiveness at work, which in turn raises the employers’ costs to a greater or lesser extent in every business and in government jobs too, with the result that all these costs are passed on to customers and also eventually to every other facet of society.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Presenteeism among workers: health-related factors, work-related factors and health literacy,” Occupational Medicine, November 2020
Source: “Presenteeism: What It Is and How It Works,” Investopedia.com, 01/06/25
Source: “Obesity and Presenteeism: The Impact of Body Mass Index on Workplace Productivity,” Academia.edu, 2015
Source: “Drugmakers Continue to Profiteer on ‘Free’ Mental Health Programs,” Academia.edu, 11/04/24
Source: “Childhood obesity linked to higher risk of anxiety, depression and premature death,” News.ki.se, 03/18/20
Image by KarlToon/Pixabay

Obesity, Pain, and Presenteeism

Pain is an obesity issue, because “musculoskeletal or joint-related pain in the feet, knees, ankles, and back” can make certain maneuvers difficult or impossible. Obese people often cannot move very well because of arthritis, and, of course, the relative lack of mobility leads to increased obesity. Carpal tunnel syndrome also shows up more often among heavier workers.

It might seem that a very obese person would be more difficult to knock over, but other factors are involved. The authors suggest that, in heavy individuals, balance and coordination are compromised. Obesity is also connected with sleep apnea and heart disease, both of which cause shortness of breath and general weakness, two definite drawbacks in a work situation.

According to an Australian study of long-term health conditions and obesity released in 2020, the mechanisms of the phenomenon are still obscure to the point where “little is known.” That paper’s conclusion “implies that interventions to improve workers’ health and well-being will reduce the risk of presenteeism at work,” an observation that one reviewer with an attitude dryly states “does not actually qualify as helpful.”

A 2018 study, using data compiled around 10 years earlier, compared various occupations in terms of how, and how much, productivity is affected by weight. Not surprisingly, obesity had the most profound impact in the physically demanding field of construction. Arts and hospitality was the next most affected category, which seems like an odd pairing since the arts can include extremely strenuous physical activity like performative dance, while hospitality could encompass standing behind a counter giving out room keys in a hotel.

Perhaps in this context, hospitality only includes the personnel who clean the premises, change the bedsheets, and so forth. A surprising number of jobs might turn out to include repetitive motions, awkward body positioning, and other challenging requirements.

At any rate, the conclusion there was that “Obesity differentially impacted productivity and costs, depending upon occupation,” which could not have come as much of a surprise to anyone. Between 2004 and 2011, all American industries saw weight increases in their average workers. This much was definitely stated:

When examined by occupational group, the highest age-standardized obesity prevalence was found for US adults working in the Motor Vehicle Operator occupational category (39.2%), with the lowest prevalence for those working in the Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioner (15.4%) category.

These facts should also not be startling, because the drivers of trucks and buses are perpetually seated, while employees in the health field have a relatively high awareness level of the dangers of obesity. An interesting insight emerged from a large study in the Netherlands, which…

[…] reported that obesity was predictive of developing musculoskeletal symptoms, especially among workers whose jobs had low (vs high) physical workloads… Yet, the researchers acknowledged that their findings could alternatively be explained by individuals with musculoskeletal symptoms tending to self-select into occupations with fewer physical job demands.

In the field of manufacturing, when physically demanding tasks are involved, excess weight definitely impairs productivity, especially in terms of needing “additional time to complete physically demanding tasks.” In the realm of office workers, management and professional occupations tended to see higher costs “attributable to obesity-related absenteeism across a number of primarily office-based positions.”

Impairments in productivity and higher medical expenditures tend to characterize obese individuals with cardiometabolic risk factors like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and hypertension. During the time period encompassed by that study, it was found that almost two-thirds of the expenses incurred by businesses were attributable to morbidly obese employees.

The authors noted that such studies tend to focus on only one or perhaps a few occupations, so…

[T]here exists a dearth of empirical research investigating the impact of obesity across varying occupational groups. Such research is critical, as excess weight may be associated with differing degrees of burden depending on profession and job responsibilities.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity and Presenteeism: The Impact of Body Mass Index on Workplace Productivity,” Academia.edu, 2008
Source: “A longitudinal exploration of the relationship between obesity, and long term health condition with presenteeism in Australian workplaces, 2006-2018,” PLOS.org, 08/26/20
Source: “Impact of Obesity on Work Productivity in Different US Occupations: Analysis of the National Health and Wellness Survey 2014 to 2015,” NIH.gov, 2018
Image by RosZie/Pixabay

UNICEF Warns Childhood Obesity Has Surpassed Underweight Worldwide

Obesity has now overtaken underweight as the more common form of malnutrition among children, according to a new UNICEF report. The study, “Feeding Profit: How Food Environments are Failing Children,” reveals that 1 in 10 school-aged children and adolescents — about 188 million — are living with obesity, putting them at risk of serious, life-threatening diseases.

Pratik Pawar wrote for Yahoo:

Obesity in children isn’t just about size; it raises risks for Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and even certain cancers later in life. Starting so young makes the costs even higher. By 2035, being overweight and obesity are expected to drain more than $4 trillion a year globally — about 3 percent of the world’s GDP.

The report draws on data from more than 190 countries. Since 2000, underweight prevalence among children ages 5-19 has dropped from nearly 13% to 9.2%. At the same time, obesity has more than tripled, from 3% to 9.4%, and now exceeds underweight in every region except sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Alarming trends across regions

The findings highlight especially high rates of childhood obesity in several Pacific Island nations. In Niue, 38% of 5-19-year-olds live with obesity; in the Cook Islands, 37%; and in Nauru, 33%. These figures have more than doubled since 2000, largely due to a shift away from traditional diets toward cheap, energy-dense imported foods.

Wealthier nations are not immune. For instance, 27% of children and adolescents in Chile are obese, along with 21% in the United States and 21% in the United Arab Emirates.

UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell commented:

When we talk about malnutrition, we are no longer just talking about underweight children… Obesity is a growing concern that can impact the health and development of children. Ultra-processed food is increasingly replacing fruits, vegetables and protein at a time when nutrition plays a critical role in children’s growth, cognitive development and mental health.

The health and economic costs

While undernutrition such as wasting and stunting remains a problem for children under five in many low- and middle-income countries, the prevalence of obesity among older children is rising quickly. Globally, 391 million children and adolescents, which is 1 in 5, are now overweight, with a significant proportion classified as obese.

The report stresses that this crisis is not about individual choices but about environments saturated with unhealthy foods. Ultra-processed products (high in sugar, salt, refined starches, and unhealthy fats) are dominating children’s diets. Schools and shops are filled with them, while digital marketing gives food companies unparalleled access to young audiences.

A UNICEF U-Report poll of 64,000 young people aged 13-24 across 170 countries showed just how pervasive this influence is. Seventy-five percent of respondents recalled seeing ads for sugary drinks, snacks, or fast foods in the previous week, and 60% said the ads made them want the products more. Even in conflict zones, 68% of young people reported exposure to such marketing.

The long-term costs are staggering. In Peru alone, obesity-related health impacts could cost more than US$210 billion. By 2035, the global economic toll of overweight and obesity is projected to exceed US$4 trillion annually.

Policies that make a difference

Despite the bleak outlook, there are success stories. Mexico, where ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks make up 40% of children’s daily calories, has banned the sale and distribution of these items in public schools. This policy shift has improved food environments for more than 34 million children.

UNICEF is urging governments, civil society, and global partners to act quickly by:

  • Enforcing strong policies such as food labeling, marketing restrictions, and taxes or subsidies to shift demand toward healthier foods.
  • Supporting social and behavior change programs that empower families to demand better food options.
  • Banning junk food sales and sponsorship in schools.
  • Safeguarding policy-making processes from food industry interference.
  • Strengthening social protection measures so vulnerable families can afford nutritious diets.

 

Russell emphasized:

In many countries we are seeing the double burden of malnutrition — the existence of stunting and obesity. This requires targeted interventions… Nutritious and affordable food must be available to every child to support their growth and development. We urgently need policies that support parents and caretakers to access nutritious and healthy foods for their children.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity exceeds underweight for the first time among school-age children and adolescents globally — UNICEF,” UNICEF, 9/9/25
Source: “Child obesity level surpasses underweight cases worldwide for the first time, UNICEF warns,” UN.org, 9/9/25
Source: “For the first time, more kids are obese than underweight,” Yahoo.com, 9/15/25
Image by Porapak Apichodilok/Pexels

More About Absenteeism, Presenteeism, and Obesity

The authors of a 2008 meta-study described the obesity-related costs (that take such a toll on society as a whole) as “astounding.” “Obesity and Presenteeism: The Impact of Body Mass Index on Workplace Productivity” found that “the annual presenteeism cost for moderately or extremely obese workers was $1783.81, which is $506 higher than the cost for other workers.”

The study’s subject groups categorized as moderately and extremely obese experienced the highest absenteeism, averaging 91.08 absentee hours “for personal health reasons.” Financially, presenteeism is dreaded because…

[…] absences do not necessarily cost the employer the full value of the worker’s time to the extent that these are unpaid absences and that other workers are able to cover the missing shifts. Meanwhile, presenteeism is always a cost to employers because the worker is receiving a full paycheck despite reductions in productivity.

All in all, this accounts for a sizable chunk of the annual $900 billion that American employers pay for medical expenditures.

As numerous other studies have confirmed, the price paid by businesses for employee obesity is up there in the mega-bucks range. Unfortunately, much more work is needed on the minutiae of “Why?” When the cost derives from absenteeism and/or medical services rendered, this is easily understood.

What seems elusive is the exact process by which, when obese employees are involved, presenteeism (showing up for work but underperforming) is so wasteful. Is it just that they move more slowly when picking up a phone or straightening a stack of papers? Do they take longer lunch breaks, or spend more on-duty time moving back and forth to the snack machines? Do they fall asleep at their desks? What, exactly, is the issue?

Employees are on the job, but not functioning effectively because of medical or psychological conditions. But how does this manifest? We are told that the moderately and extremely obese workers experience the most limitations, as measured by the time needed to complete some tasks, and sheer inability to perform others.

In a broad sense, that tracks. If employed as a ballet dancer, a person with a BMI of over 35 would obviously fail. But how does the extra poundage inhibit or prohibit, for instance, a journalist? Presumably, the fingers on the keyboard would still be just as fast and accurate.

The particular questionnaire utilized in this study comprised 25 items falling into four categories:

The time scale addresses difficulties with meeting job expectations and scheduling demands. The physical scale focuses on workers’ ability to perform their normal job tasks as influenced by bodily strength, movement, endurance, coordination, and flexibility. The mental-interpersonal scale examines cognitive tasks, sensory input, and interactions with others. The output scale focuses on the quantity, quality, and timeliness of meeting job demands.

But the details involved in particular office tasks are not described. We know what the workers in a warehouse do. They move heavy physical objects from one location to another, which presumably requires an energy expenditure that helps prevent them from putting on weight. (Although, don’t count on it.) Still, a job in a plant or warehouse environment usually implies the ability to bend, stretch, squat, push, and walk.

But in an office setting, how heavy is a pencil or a file folder? Someone in the Information Technology department might need to lift a computer once in a while, but in general, what physical task is so daunting that a worker in the top obesity classification would be slowed down, stopped, or injured by its performance?

Okay, the IT person probably has to get under a desk now and then, to check on or reorganize some wiring. For a morbidly obese employee, this would be a struggle, costing time and possibly medical expenses.

It is easy to see why fitting beneath a desk, in the category of physical demands, could be problematic. However, seemingly, it would also qualify as a time issue, because the other employee who should be using that machine to complete work is unable to. Adding insult to injury, hashing out these procedural details adds to the time it takes to finish such studies.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity and Presenteeism: The Impact of Body Mass Index on Workplace Productivity,” Academia.edu, 2008
Image by Pexels/Pixabay

FAQs and Media Requests: Click here…

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Weight

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Obesity top bottom

The Book

OVERWEIGHT: What Kids Say explores the obesity problem from the often-overlooked perspective of children struggling with being overweight.

About Dr. Robert A. Pretlow

Dr. Robert A. Pretlow is a pediatrician and childhood obesity specialist. He has been researching and spreading awareness on the childhood obesity epidemic in the US for more than a decade.
You can contact Dr. Pretlow at:

Presentations

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the American Society of Animal Science 2020 Conference
What’s Causing Obesity in Companion Animals and What Can We Do About It

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the World Obesity Federation 2019 Conference:
Food/Eating Addiction and the Displacement Mechanism

Dr. Pretlow’s Multi-Center Clinical Trial Kick-off Speech 2018:
Obesity: Tackling the Root Cause

Dr. Pretlow’s 2017 Workshop on
Treatment of Obesity Using the Addiction Model

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation for
TEC and UNC 2016

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the 2015 Obesity Summit in London, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s invited keynote at the 2014 European Childhood Obesity Group Congress in Salzburg, Austria.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2013 European Congress on Obesity in Liverpool, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2011 International Conference on Childhood Obesity in Lisbon, Portugal.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2010 Uniting Against Childhood Obesity Conference in Houston, TX.