Japan- "the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches"

rubadub · 12-07-2008 09:08PM #1

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html

government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women

Strange that women are allowed be higher. It also says the average Japanese man's waist is 32.8 and women 28.0, while US are 39-men, 36.5-women

Racing Flat · 12-07-2008 09:14PM

rubadub wrote: »

while US are 39-men, 36.5-women

That's massive! Would I be right in thinking Irish male average would be 34-36 (going by friends jean sizes!!)

Cato · 12-07-2008 09:25PM

im 32-34 and i thought i was scrawny! :eek:

challengemaster · 12-07-2008 09:28PM

heh.. I'm just about filling a 30" at times!

Interesting.. wonder if it would work in the US too...

rubadub · 12-07-2008 10:10PM

Racing Flat wrote: »

That's massive! Would I be right in thinking Irish male average would be 34-36 (going by friends jean sizes!!)

I would have guessed more.

i.e. there is more of a lower limit than higher limit. A guy who is very underweight might have a waist of 26", a guy who is very overweight might be 50", so you end up with an average of 38".

im 32-34 and i thought i was scrawny!

Well it is japan, smaller average height and waist would be expected overall.

Also I wonder if they have rules against sucking in your gut.

pvt.joker · 12-07-2008 10:18PM

"while US are 39-men, 36.5-women"

That is pretty shocking statistic, although I really think we're heading that way ourselves. Probably 36-37 at the minute id imagine

BossArky · 13-07-2008 12:37AM

Great idea Japan.

Hanley · 13-07-2008 12:44AM

Sumo man says: What the fcuk do I do now???

Anyone else think that it's ironic that a country who inveneted and still celebrate a sport where one of the most important things is that you're a fat cnut, are now trying to impose waist measurement limits on the average citizen?

BossArky · 13-07-2008 01:07AM

lol, great pic

Japan is pretty smart to take such a preemptive strike against potential obesity probs that the likes of the USA & various other countries are experiencing.

The article mentions that employers may be fined if their employees are still over the prescribed waistline limit following a retest. There will probably be much legal wrangling about civil rights and the distinction between work and personal life... but at least it is a step (or belt notch?) in the right direction.

rubadub · 13-07-2008 01:34AM

Hanley wrote: »

Sumo man says: What the fcuk do I do now???

I have seen some normal sized sumos before too. Some interesting things here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo

Rikishi (Sumos) are not normally allowed to eat breakfast and are expected to have a form of siesta after a large lunch. The most common type of lunch served is the traditional "sumo meal" of chankonabe which consists of a simmering stew cooked at table which contains various fish, meat, and vegetables. It is usually eaten with rice and washed down with beer. This regimen of no breakfast and a large lunch followed by a sleep helps rikishi put on weight so as to compete more effectively

A lot of Irish men I know follow that same sumo regime religiously, no breakfast, then a feed of chicken curry & fried rice washed down with beer just before bedtime, seems to do wonders for developing the gut.

Al_Fernz · 13-07-2008 12:57PM

BossArky wrote: »

...but at least it is a step (or belt notch?) in the right direction.

Have to disagree with you there. IMO this article scares me because its another example of nanny state-ism and an infringement on personal choice. What gives the state the right to try dictate what size people choose to be.

If somebody wants to be fat let them. I don't see why an employer should care as long as they are performing their duties as specified. What's next telescreens and Big Brother? :eek:

celestial · 13-07-2008 01:24PM

BossArky wrote: »

lol, great pic

Japan is pretty smart to take such a preemptive strike against potential obesity probs that the likes of the USA & various other countries are experiencing.

The article mentions that employers may be fined if their employees are still over the prescribed waistline limit following a retest. There will probably be much legal wrangling about civil rights and the distinction between work and personal life... but at least it is a step (or belt notch?) in the right direction.

You have GOT to be kidding me! Is this article for real?!! If we didn't know better we'd say it was a piss-take?!!

If this article had come out years ago we'd all laugh and say 'yeah, could you imagine if things went that far?!' It's '1984' territory. Police state stuff and just another example of mass tyranny being imposed by governments across the world.

Watch out for a quota on the number of pints of beer you can have in any given week, coming soon from the Irish government. And I wish I was joking that something like that could ever happen.

Hanley · 13-07-2008 03:45PM

celestial wrote: »

You have GOT to be kidding me! Is this article for real?!! If we didn't know better we'd say it was a piss-take?!!

If this article had come out years ago we'd all laugh and say 'yeah, could you imagine if things went that far?!' It's '1984' territory. Police state stuff and just another example of mass tyranny being imposed by governments across the world.

Watch out for a quota on the number of pints of beer you can have in any given week, coming soon from the Irish government. And I wish I was joking that something like that could ever happen.

It's not tyranny. It's a very valid school of thought. It's all about an economic term called "Externalities". Basically the choices you make will have an impact on someone else, either positive or negative. If fat people are over-burdening the health service due to their gluttony then society as a whole suffers, so it makes sense to prevent the selfish miniority from having a negative impact on the majority of the population.

Al_Fernz · 13-07-2008 04:35PM

Hanley wrote: »

It's not tyranny. It's a very valid school of thought. It's all about an economic term called "Externalities". Basically the choices you make will have an impact on someone else, either positive or negative. If fat people are over-burdening the health service due to their gluttony then society as a whole suffers, so it makes sense to prevent the selfish miniority from having a negative impact on the majority of the population.

Damn that selfish minority! How dare they purposely sabotage their health in order to maximize their use of public health care treatments.

Where do you draw the line with allowing people access to public health care? Whats next - not allowing people who spent too long in the sun treatment for skin cancer? Or people who have work stresses treatment for a heart attacks etc etc....

Also, given that there is a negative correlation between weight/BMI/bodyfat and life expectancy you could argue that when individuals choose to be overweight they produce a positive externalities for society. Their lower life expectancy requires less of a state pension and they also incur fewer of the medical expenses associated with old age.

Its a perfect example of nanny-state-ism and an infringement on personal choice.

Wibbs · 13-07-2008 05:50PM

Al_Fernz wrote: »

Where do you draw the line with allowing people access to public health care? Whats next - not allowing people who spent too long in the sun treatment for skin cancer? Or people who have work stresses treatment for a heart attacks etc etc....

Well people already pillory smokers for the same reasons, so why not the very overweight? The second hand smoke is largely a blind alley argument wise on that one.

Al_Fernz · 13-07-2008 06:40PM

I do kickboxing training. It is my personal choice. Last year I broke my hand training and received treatment in a public hospital. My personal choice led to a negative externality for society. Should contact sports be banned too?

Wibbs · 13-07-2008 06:58PM

Nope, because you weren't spending years knowingly hurting yourself to end up a chronic health case. Bit of a diff there.

Don't get me wrong, healthcare should be for all, regardless of what people do or don't do to themselves. To suggest otherwise would be sailing too close to godwins law for comfort.

I also think penalties for being fat are a bit of a step too far joking aside. Yea go the Japanese etc.

I think educating people to face up to the fact that in 90% of cases it's not their "big bones", homones, metabolism, genetics or any of the other excuses always trotted out by many is a must though.

celestial · 13-07-2008 07:07PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, because you weren't spending years knowingly hurting yourself to end up a chronic health case. Bit of a diff there.

Don't get me wrong, healthcare should be for all, regardless of what people do or don't do to themselves. To suggest otherwise would be sailing too close to godwins law for comfort.

I also think penalties for being fat are a bit of a step too far joking aside. Yea go the Japanese etc.

I think educating people to face up to the fact that in 90% of cases it's not their "big bones", homones, metabolism, genetics or any of the other excuses always trotted out by many is a must though.

Yes, but there is a MASSIVE difference between education and actually forcing people to lose weight. One is helpful advice, the other is state sponsored fascism.

The externalities argument is fine as an argument in the same way as Communism and Fascism are fine as theories. In the real world we want to live as free citizens and this Japanese thing is the thin end of the wedge in terms of the state intruding on the life of the individual. It's scary stuff whether you know it or not.

Those in support of this - where do we draw the line? If you think about it, shouldn't we limit the amount people can drink in one sitting? Given that alcohol is one of the leading killers and plagues of society today (car crashes, suicide, depression, murder, anti-social behaviour, the list is endless) it would seem like a logical and fair step no? Or has a shiver just run down your spine?!

Wibbs · 13-07-2008 07:46PM

celestial wrote: »

Yes, but there is a MASSIVE difference between education and actually forcing people to lose weight. One is helpful advice, the other is state sponsored fascism.

Yep that's what I said.

celestial · 13-07-2008 08:11PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep that's what I said.

I was actually meant to quote Hanley's post above there.

BossArky · 13-07-2008 08:55PM

celestial wrote: »

Those in support of this - where do we draw the line? If you think about it, shouldn't we limit the amount people can drink in one sitting?

This is (in theory) the case in pubs nowadays. Bartenders should not serve those already on their ear.

Taking the article at face value and leaving the Orwellesque sentiments aside, this is a move for the good of the people.

celestial · 13-07-2008 09:37PM

BossArky wrote: »

This is (in theory) the case in pubs nowadays. Bartenders should not serve those already on their ear.

Ah now it isn't, not in the way I'm describing. There's a big leap from that to what I'm saying.

Taking the article at face value and leaving the Orwellesque sentiments aside, this is a move for the good of the people.[/QUOTE]

It's a great move if gross state intrusion into the private lives of citizens is for the good of the people. I can hardly believe it isn't a piss-take tbh - that's what makes it so bloody frightening.

Al_Fernz · 13-07-2008 10:21PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, because you weren't spending years knowingly hurting yourself to end up a chronic health case. Bit of a diff there.

There is always the potential risk of both long and short term injuries in contact sports. I KNOW these risks. However, given my individual preferences I choose to participate. I like the fact that I have the personal choice to do this.

BossArky · 14-07-2008 02:00PM

celestial wrote: »

It's a great move if gross state intrusion into the private lives of citizens is for the good of the people.

I don't see anyone complaining about mandatory education. That sure intruded on the extra hours I could have spent making kit kats from mud as a child.

heyjude · 14-07-2008 02:16PM

Well done Japan, they've seen a major problem developing and are trying to do something about it. It may not be PC, but if the experience of the US and other western countries is any guide, simply encouraging people through advertising and leaflets to lead healthier lives doesn't work, as the proportion of overweight and obese people continues to rise.

It also isn't PC in the west, to express concern about the cost of potentially having the treat millions of people suffering from weight related diseases, but the Japanese may have grasped the fact that while it may not be PC, it may be the right thing to do. And if the carrot of gentle encouragement doesn't work, then some stick may be needed.

Roper · 14-07-2008 02:48PM

It's amazing what people will and will not complain about.

Public services being sold off to private concerns, health service being auctioned off to the highest private bidder with no return for the average citizen, democratic rights being slowly rolled back... no complaints, as long as we can eat drink and buy what we want then that's "freedom" enough for us.

Take away our right to eat and drink as much as we want- uproar!

LegacyUser · 14-07-2008 02:57PM

"All the good things in life are immoral, illegal, or bad for your health." - Oscar Wilde

It won't work.

rubadub · 14-07-2008 03:05PM

Al_Fernz wrote: »

Its a perfect example of nanny-state-ism and an infringement on personal choice.

And there are many more examples, eductation as mentioned, drugs being illegal or prescription only, drink-driving, public order offences. It is not like they bring out laws etc just to piss peope off.

It says they will fine companies and local governments, not sure if everybody would be tested so. They talk of education about weight loss, then if you lose it you "pass" and there is no fine, so in a way you could say you get a bonus if you do "pass" if they just phrased it differently. Many companies would give a pay increase if employees pass courses. I see some government advertised jobs insisting people have the leaving cert, if they can freely discriminate about intellect, why not body size too, I expect some jobs already might, like ballerinas, models etc.

People get all upset & PC about weight issues. I would like to see more incentives or savings where savings are due, e.g. paying for plane tickets per kg, just like you do with airmail. I would like to see health insurers offering more fitness tests etc, so you can prove you are fit and should be charged accordingly, just like the car insurance market is blatantly discriminatory, age, sex, job, marital status etc, but oh no, we wouldn't dream of asking somebody what weight they are, even though being 40stone will most likely affect driving ability and hence the claims.

Cato · 14-07-2008 03:12PM

rubadub wrote: »

And there are many more examples, eductation as mentioned, drugs being illegal or prescription only, drink-driving, public order offences. It is not like they bring out laws etc just to piss peope off.

It says they will fine companies and local governments, not sure if everybody would be tested so. They talk of education about weight loss, then if you lose it you "pass" and there is no fine, so in a way you could say you get a bonus if you do "pass" if they just phrased it differently. Many companies would give a pay increase if employees pass courses. I see some government advertised jobs insisting people have the leaving cert, if they can freely discriminate about intellect, why not body size too, I expect some jobs already might, like ballerinas, models etc.

People get all upset & PC about weight issues. I would like to see more incentives or savings where savings are due, e.g. paying for plane tickets per kg, just like you do with airmail. I would like to see health insurers offering more fitness tests etc, so you can prove you are fit and should be charged accordingly, just like the car insurance market is blatantly discriminatory, age, sex, job, marital status etc, but oh no, we wouldn't dream of asking somebody what weight they are, even though being 40stone will most likely affect driving ability and hence the claims.

good idea, but controversial don't see it happening, people are to sensitive to let this type of legislation pass... god forbid anyone mentions someone weight. :rolleyes:

Roper · 14-07-2008 03:18PM

rubadub wrote: »

People get all upset & PC about weight issues. I would like to see more incentives or savings where savings are due, e.g. paying for plane tickets per kg, just like you do with airmail. I would like to see health insurers offering more fitness tests etc, so you can prove you are fit and should be charged accordingly, just like the car insurance market is blatantly discriminatory, age, sex, job, marital status etc, but oh no, we wouldn't dream of asking somebody what weight they are, even though being 40stone will most likely affect driving ability and hence the claims.

I don't disagree with the Japanese idea, but now I think you're skirting the ridiculous. I'm 84kgs, should I pay more for my plane ticket than a skinny guy next to me? Also, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that obese people are any more likely to have a car accident.

Also, in a small step back towards my earlier comment on privitisation- health insurers are extremely discriminatory in other countries and life insurance here is the same. Though the legislation has remained stringent over here regarding peoples right to private health insurance, family history can exclude you elsewhere, and genetic testing for insurance is not far off if they can get government to agree. Already you can be denied a mortgage based upon your parent's medical history in Ireland, or be forced to pay a huge premium on account of a history of a genetic illness in your family for example.

But like I said, people don't really care about things like that, what we care about is our right to Burger King yeah! I ain't lettin The Man measure my waist!

celestial · 14-07-2008 03:25PM

rubadub wrote: »

I see some government advertised jobs insisting people have the leaving cert, if they can freely discriminate about intellect, why not body size too, I expect some jobs already might, like ballerinas, models etc.

You're not comparing like with like there though really. There's a difference between satisfying the minimum requirements for a job versus invading a person's private life to check their waist size in the name of some notion of 'reducing the burden of obesity/being fat on society'.

It's also worth mentioning that there are fat people out there who are miles healthier than those with lean waists. Yes, shock horror!!!

rubadub wrote: »

People get all upset & PC about weight issues. I would like to see more incentives or savings where savings are due, e.g. paying for plane tickets per kg, just like you do with airmail. I would like to see health insurers offering more fitness tests etc, so you can prove you are fit and should be charged accordingly, just like the car insurance market is blatantly discriminatory, age, sex, job, marital status etc, but oh no, we wouldn't dream of asking somebody what weight they are, even though being 40stone will most likely affect driving ability and hence the claims.

This is not about PC-ness. It's about dehumanising people and enforcing state control. What's next? Where do you draw the line? Why don't we measure all of a person's attributes against the effect of said attributes on society? It's borderline Nazism!!

You say you drink 25+ pints a week Rubadub - would you be happy to face sanctions because of the potential effects on your health and the corresponding effects on funding the health service? Wouldn't that be fair enough like, considering we're doing something similar with 'fatties' in Japan? I'm not picking on you like but just using it as an example as in my previous post on alcohol. How about restricting car journeys to help with global warming, etc etc...

Japan- "the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches"

Comments