U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-02-2011, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,056 posts, read 30,529,289 times
Reputation: 10490

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe View Post
Are we all going to jump on the bandwagon and bash the south or should we point out how everywhere across the country obesity rates are rising???
Of course not! All it takes is a quick, simple observation that, apparently, the Union wasted a lot of time and effort fighting the Civil War. All they really needed to do was promote fat-laden foods in the South, and biology would have taken care of everything.

We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion about obesity by county.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2011, 12:30 PM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
15,504 posts, read 17,735,931 times
Reputation: 30796
Good ol' boys and rez folks are fat. I coulda told you that without a map.

:-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2011, 12:57 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,567,618 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
It is also interesting to see the populated NE corrider easy to spot along with the Piedmont corrider of more populated and educated regions along the Eastern seaboard
Richer florida areas and counties are easy to spot. As are select college towns across the u.s. if you know where they are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2011, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge
2,423 posts, read 3,141,893 times
Reputation: 2486
Most of California looks healthy. Nevada is overweight. Must be all of the inexpensive buffets at the casinos.

-Cheers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2011, 08:38 AM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,579,421 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict View Post
Good ol' boys and rez folks are fat. I coulda told you that without a map.

:-)
Can you be a little more clear with what you mean by that comment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2011, 08:39 AM
 
Location: 30-40N 90-100W
13,856 posts, read 22,964,539 times
Reputation: 6679
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe View Post
Are we all going to jump on the bandwagon and bash the south or should we point out how everywhere across the country obesity rates are rising???
Were people bashing the South much? In the map Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio look to have several highly obese counties with maybe most of their counties a bit high.

The link itself I think has the highest states as Southern, but they put Georgia's obesity rate as at least slightly below that of Kansas (about equal really), Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota. While Virginia's looks to be below that of Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Going by Gallup's "obesities in metros" deal their "fattest cities" are majority Southern but include

Reading, Pennsylvania
Harrisburg-Carlisle, Pennsylvania
Cedar Rapids, Iowa

More Than 1 in 5 Adults Obese in Metro Areas Nationwide
U.S. City Wellbeing Tracking

The five most obese "large metros" they list are

San Antonio, Texas
Louisville, Kentucky
Rochester, New York
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport-News, Virginia
Columbus, Ohio

So majority Southern, but not all Southern. Large/Largish Southern cities they list as being below-average in obesity include

Austin-Round-Rock, Texas (I think it's the lowest they list in the South of large cities)
Atlanta-Sandy-Springs, Georgia
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, Louisiana (What the?)
Birmingham, Alabama
Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina
Dallas-Ft.-Worth-Arlington, Texas

Going by all sizes of metro Durham, North Carolina looked to be their "least obese in the South." Asheville, North Carolina was a close second for the South. Both looked to have less obesity than NYC or San Diego. Knoxville, Tennessee also looked fairly low on obesity being placed as having a lower rate, by them, than Portland, Oregon or Seattle, Washington.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2011, 08:57 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,136 posts, read 9,905,553 times
Reputation: 6423
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Ugh the South, Appalachia and parts of Delmarva
Actually, Appalachia looks better then other parts of the South.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2011, 09:02 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,136 posts, read 9,905,553 times
Reputation: 6423
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock_chalk View Post
Missouri has pretty clear boundaries, doesn't it?
Good catch. You can also see Kansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska. In contrast, look how well Colorado does!

In fact, while Texas, Illinois and Wisconsin are not perfect, note how much better they are than some of the surrounding states

For instance, you can actually see a difference between Wisconsin and the dark blue of the UP of Michigan. Can any one from that area explain the reason why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2011, 10:30 AM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,579,421 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Actually, Appalachia looks better then other parts of the South.
Yes, Appalachia, outside Kentucky and West Virginia, as well as the Piedmont.

There's several reasons for this.

1) Appalachia, by and large, is over ninety percent white. If you look at obesity by race, you'll see that whites, by and large, have the lowest obesity rates, in terms of groups that have large populations. Since Appalachia is over ninety percent white, the region will look less obese than regions where there are fewer whites as a percentage, such as the coastal plain areas of the south, which are only minimally more white than black.

Kentucky and West Virginia seem to be exceptions. This largely has to do with the high abject poverty in the area. Those in poverty tend to not be able to afford food as nutritious as those who are more fortunate. As a result, meals often have more fat. Keep in mind that people who are in poverty often have fewer ways to entertain themselves, and so food, which in some ways is a kind of entertainment (it tastes good), is seen as more of a social/stress release than it is for those who have more options. This lifestyle lends to more obese bodies.

2) The Piedmont, from North Carolina down to Georgia, has been home to rapid growth. With greater growth comes greater capital investment and higher salaries. With greater income one is able to eat better, have more free time (as opposed to working two minimum wage jobs and being exhausted), exercise more often, and enjoy life more often, not necessarily always being centering around food.

The only reason all of the Piedmont is not white (color of county) is because the Piedmont also tends to have more blacks than southern Appalachia (a group that has higher rates of obesity), and because pockets of poverty exists within the major cities.



For those of you who have called the south's obesity into question, note that amongst each racial group, there isn't as much a difference. In fact, some southern states and regions have lower rates of obesity, when viewed at the group level. However, since the south has higher numbers of blacks (numbers much higher than other regions; not even a contest), a group that has the highest rates of obesity, then the overall obesity rate per state will reflect these demographic realities.

I should also add that, sure, southern cooking, which is heavily based on the fried side does likely play a minimal role.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2011, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,676,316 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
Wonder how well correlated this map is to rates of car usage and availability of public transportation.
The L.A. region (AKA: car city) seems to be doing fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top