What does it mean if most of the world’s excess body fat is in the U.S.?
June 21st, 2012
05:00 PM ET

What does it mean if most of the world’s excess body fat is in the U.S.?

By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Most of the world's extra body fat is attached to bodies living right here in the U.S.

New data from the UN and the World Health Organization shows that the entire adult global population is nearly 17 million tons overweight.

And researchers in London found that while the average global body weight is 137 pounds, the average weight in North America is 178 pounds.

In other words we are 41 pounds heavier on average than the rest of the world.

Not shocking since 2/3 of the U.S. is either overweight or obese. But wait, there's more:

While North America has only 6% of the world's population, it makes up a third of the world's weight due to obesity.

Compare that to Asia which has 61% of the world's population but only 13% of its weight due to obesity.

One researcher tells the BBC that if every country had the same fatness we have in the U.S. it would be like an extra billion people of average weight.

And scientists say this global fatness is a real concern. It's straining the world's food supply and environmental resources. Fatter people need more energy - and they eat more.

This means the competition for environmental resources isn't always about population growth, "when it comes down to it, it's not how many mouths there are to feed, it is how much flesh there is on the planet." And we've got plenty of flesh to spare here.

Experts suggest the best way to fight global fatness is programs that encourage more physical activity - like walking and cycling.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if most of the world’s excess body fat is in the U.S.?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Posted by
Filed under: Health • Health care • Longevity • On Jack's radar
Why is Obama-Romney sooo boring?
June 21st, 2012
04:00 PM ET

Why is Obama-Romney sooo boring?

By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

If the 2008 presidential race was an election on steroids, the 2012 presidential race might be on Quaaludes.

Let's face it: The Obama-Romney face-off is shaping up to be a real snooze.

To be fair, it's hard to compete with the excitement of 2008: the fight to the death between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the historic nature of Obama's matchup with John McCain and the added wild card that was Sarah Palin.

This time around we had Mitt Romney battling a series of candidates who were hard to take seriously such as Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. And now Romney seems poised to pick a vanilla vice president.

As for Obama, much of the hope and change has drained out of him after 3 1/2 years. Joe Biden's about the only interesting thing going for the Democratic ticket.

Critics slam both Obama and Romney for being elitists, aloof and out of touch with ordinary Americans. That's because they are.

Obama often comes off as an Ivy League professor and Romney as a rich businessman. All this makes it increasingly difficult for the public to gin up much enthusiasm for this contest.

Roger Simon has a hilarious piece in Politico about this boring race. He asks: Where's the fun?

"Where is the sheer heart-pounding, loin-stirring, thrill-going-up-the-leg tingle that is the hallmark of a U.S. presidential race?"

Simon points out that U.S. politics has always been entertaining - going back to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

He suggests some off-the-wall tickets that could bring excitement back to this race.

Like Hillary Clinton/Bill Clinton, Barack Obama/Michelle Obama and last but not least - John Edwards/Roger Clemens.

Simon writes the latter are both survivors who know how to win and how to game the system. The potential slogan: "You think we're liars? Takes one to know one."

Here’s my question to you: Why is Obama-Romney sooo boring?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?