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.
I am going to say it is pure guessing on their part. It's not like you are going to go right across the border from Wisconsin to the UP and everyone is going to be 40 pounds heavier. You probably won't even notice a difference unless you are truly picking out the overweight people. Now I notice a difference when I head down to the South.
It is true if you look at the explanations for the map colors, that there is only a small difference, roughly 5%, between the light counties and the dark ones. So they may not be as a big difference as we realize.
Still, congrats to Hawaii and Colorado for having all lighter "thinner" counties!
Something I notice wrong with this map what you see at the Colorado/Kansas border and Colorado/Nebraska border. The populations and lifestyles of these counties are virtually the same.They are high plains farm and ranch counties. They are right next to each other yet we are to believe they have different rates of obesity? Doesn't ring true.
The South (good ol' boys) and areas with a high Native American population (rez folks) have high obesity rates as shown by the map in the OP. Having lived in or in close proximity to both the South and areas with a lot of Native Americans, I have noticed that obesity is rampant in both populations as compared with other parts of the country.
It's really a case of by area in the South. Much of the midwest has high rates of obesity, too. Much of the South's high obesity rates has to do with having a much higher black population. Of course, Kentucky and West Virginia excluded, per my analysis given earlier.
It's really a case of by area in the South. Much of the midwest has high rates of obesity, too. Much of the South's high obesity rates has to do with having a much higher black population. Of course, Kentucky and West Virginia excluded, per my analysis given earlier.
Those who have Scottish or Scots-Irish ancestry tend to be more issues with obesity. could be a genetic component.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,094,873 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Kentucky and West Virginia have low black populations. Most of eastern Kentucky as well as West Virginia have higher obesity issues, likely the result of high poverty.
Missouri is "fatter" than Georgia, Florida, and Virginia.
Fatter than Georgia, huh? Did you happen to look at the map and realize how many more counties Georgia has with a greater than 30% obesity rating than Missouri? And the highly obese counties encompass the urban ones as well. As far as Virginia goes, the heavily obese areas are in pretty populated areas of the state too. Richmond, Portsmouth, Hampton Roads, etc. If you look, you'll notice that St. Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield, where the majority of the state's population resides, all have fairly low obesity rates. The simple fact that Virginia and Georgia have high obesity rates in counties that are heavily urban to me states that these states largely pride themselves on eating fattening food, and that it's not just a poverty issue.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,094,873 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater
Most of Missouri is fairly high in poverty outside of the metros.
Yes, but high poverty is to be expected with high amounts of fat intake. What you see in the Southern states is different...this high obesity extends into the metro areas...in Georgia and Virginia for example, both Atlanta and Richmond have over 30% obesity ratings. Louisville is also a grossly obese metro area. And you can't attribute that to poverty. Same with Kentucky. Also, what you don't have in Missouri are these clusters of counties with poverty ratings greater than 30% like you see in most of the southern states (Florida I can understand not having it...I can't understand East Texas unless the hispanic population throws it off). Where the black counties do occur, it's in counties with very low populations. St. Louis, KC, and Springfield all have fairly low obesity rates. In any case, whoever said that Missouri, Indiana, and Ohio don't care as much about their weight as Illinois, I could understand why...on average, I think Illinois is richer, and Illinois doesn't have as many southern influences in most parts as these other states.
I pointed this out earlier, but the white counties have rates less than 26%, which is still considered overweight. What if the majority of those counties fall in the 24-26% range?
What's the big difference between 26% and 28% which moves up TWO shades of blue?
You can skew any information on a map to make it look better or worse than what it really is.
Yes, but high poverty is to be expected with high amounts of fat intake. What you see in the Southern states is different...this high obesity extends into the metro areas...in Georgia and Virginia for example, both Atlanta and Richmond have over 30% obesity ratings. Louisville is also a grossly obese metro area. And you can't attribute that to poverty. Same with Kentucky. Also, what you don't have in Missouri are these clusters of counties with poverty ratings greater than 30% like you see in most of the southern states (Florida I can understand not having it...I can't understand East Texas unless the hispanic population throws it off). Where the black counties do occur, it's in counties with very low populations. St. Louis, KC, and Springfield all have fairly low obesity rates. In any case, whoever said that Missouri, Indiana, and Ohio don't care as much about their weight as Illinois, I could understand why...on average, I think Illinois is richer, and Illinois doesn't have as many southern influences in most parts as these other states.
MO has rural pockets of many counties where the poverty rate is near or around 30% according to the census bureau. Most of the higher numbers are along and southeast of I-44.
Obviously the perceptions of extensive Texas obesity were wrong, which I already knew. Take that, Men's Fitness rubbish!
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.
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.
