« By Request: Rails and Propositions | Main | McCain and Birth Control » Where The Fat's At08 Jul 2008 03:22 pm
Interesting map showing that the highest concentration of overweight Americans is in the south and to a lesser extent the Midwest, while New England and a "backward L" from Montana to California that doesn't comport all that well with conventional regionalization are slender. Like James Poulos I want to know more -- a county level map, perhaps, or some kind of demographic controls. Comments (72)
I'd settle for a graphic with a color scheme that made some sort of sense. 
If they had a county level map, you could overlay it with Hillary's vote percentage. Mississippi and SC went Obama, but WVa, Ky, Tenn, Ark, Okla were her base. Tonight on Hardball, we examine whether Barack Obama can win over the regular people, fat people, that he needs to win this election...
Mmmmmm, mmmmm. Southern cookin'. In a land that reveres bacon grease, pork fat, fat back, and butter, you can probably expect to see a few extra pounds. As to more regional coverage, I'd be willing to bet that the Pennsylvania Dutch areas would rank up there. Food in that region (not too far from me) is still consumed like you were working every day on a farm.
Religion makes you fat? More likely it's poverty and lack of info about nutrition. It's expensive to eat all those organic fruits and veggies. And think about southern cookin'--all that fried and fatty food. Ever watch that woman on the Food Network Paula Deen? Mashed potatoes for 4 with a cube of butter plus cream cheese (or was it sour cream)? I know Alton Brown is from Atlanta and many of the grillers are southern but----
I'm surprised at how poorly the Pacific Northwest ranks. I had already known Colorado was the leanest state, and I figured it was because of the culture of outdoorsiness there. I assumed that other "outdoorsy" states would also do well. Utah and Montana are looking skinny and Wyoming does OK, but Washington, Oregon and Idaho are mediocre. What gives?
If only we could fuel our SUVs with fat drained out of American lardasses.
As much as it pains me to defend the south, the chart uses the Body Mass index which alwasy struck me as a really crappy system for measuring obesity. Maybe folks in the South are just really muscular.
Actually one of the most striking aspects of this display is how little difference there is between states. An additional 10% of the population is obese in the fattest states over the thinest states. That's notable, but hardly earth-shatering.
Also make note, this is a measurement of Obesity. IE huge Fatties. It's not measuring those that are simply overweight....
More likely it's poverty and lack of info about nutrition. Not to downplay the importance of poverty, I think the lack of info (about nutrition and exercise) is a bigger problem than most people realize. I come from a well-educated middle class family, and while I'm very health conscious now, I went off to college knowing absolutely NOTHING about how to feed myself. I remember eating a meal in the campus cafeteria and having someone explain to me that mayonnaise contained fat...and this was news to me. I made what I thought were real attempts to eat well and did what I thought was a decent workout regimen in the campus gym, but I knew jack squat about both--and it's hard to try when you don't know how to try. Over the course of my college career, I gained 50 or 60 pounds before I finally figured out how to turn it around. And I'm STILL working to get off the last of that weight today--to essentially repair the damage that I did to myself through ignorance.
I was just about to say the same thing, JK. Out of 100 people, Texas only has 4 more fat people than California? That's nothing.
10 percentage points is a big difference when you're talking a relatively low baseline. Plus, the percentage of people who are overweight but not obese tends to run pretty closely, so the difference in percentage of overweight people is larger.
This probably all comes down to diet and exercise. As in they have a healthy diet in the west, more exercise in the northeast, and the south gets neither diet nor exercise. I mean I've been to some of these fat places. All they eat is carbs, and you literally cannot get from point A to point B without driving. A recipe for fat. Montana is surprising, though.
I don't know about that, FattyFatFat. I don't think 'obesity' is as fat as you think it is. I think something like 75 % of NFL playes are considered obese. I know that doesn't mean much, but I'm just saying...
BMI is a crappy way to measure individual health, but it's a perfectly fine population-wide measurement (especially when you're comparing relative BMI ratios like here).
Coincidentally, I happened to be looking at a similar map a few days ago, on the CDC web site. It lets you play an animation of the changes in obesity rates across the U.S. between 1985 and 2006. The amount of change over that period is striking, even if the general geographical pattern isn't surprising.
I had already known Colorado was the leanest state, and I figured it was because of the culture of outdoorsiness there. I suspect it does have something to do with the outdoorsy lifestyle, but, in addition to income and poverty, I'd guess simple age is a huge predictive factor. Colorado is a magnet for young people starting out, and young people tend to be thinner than old people. But I'm a tad surprised, too, at the relatively high rates of obesity in both Washington and Oregon. I'd guess a higher-than average Native American % has something to do with it, at least in Washington State. I also wonder whether perhaps a surge in the cost of living in those places over the last decade or so has made them less attractive destinations for young adults. Those two states also suffer from some fairly dreary weather in the non-summer (mild yes, but rainy and cloudy), and this, too, influences obesity. Yes, I'm both rambling and engaging in speculation.
I'm wondering of there is any correlation to fast food outlets or sales per capita. In some regions with a wide variety of restaurant types and cuisines (i.e., choices) the obesity level may be less than other areas with fewer restaurant choices other than fast food.
I'd be curious to see a similar map showing per-capita alcohol consumption.
It would be interesting to regress this against education, age and real per capita income. I bet those three factors would explain virtually all of the relative rankings. Of course a quick correlation against the number of Wal Marts' would probably also generate some very strong results.
BMI is a crappy way to measure individual health The problem is that many obese people use the "But Michael Jordan would be obese" argument and don't mention that professional athletes are literally freaks of nature. When you start exercising 8-10 hours a day, I doubt you'll need a BMI scale to tell you if you're obese or not. In general if the BMI scale doesn't work for you, it's visually obvious you're not obese.
A 5'7'' man weighing 192 is obese.
Wow...all the pointless speculation in the comments...has anyone here actually BEEN to the states mentioned? Or even better, spent a good amount of time there (that wasn't spent sampling microbrews in a large city like Seattle or recreating in a place like Park City)? There are two perfect case studies here: One is the obesity rate of two georgraphical neighbors that have different obesity rates, and the second is two groups of people that live in the same are but have different rates of obesity. The first involves Montana vs. Idaho. Both are western, "outdoorsy" states - at least in the minds of Easterners who visit to kayak and ski and hike. But Idaho is primarily a manufacturing and farming state (small manual labor input) while Montana is a ranching and resource industry (lumber, mining, etc) state - high manual labor input. The second involes the Pa Dutch, as someone above pointed out. The Pa Dutch themselves actually have a much lower obesity rate than their neighbors, though their diet is pretty much the same. The difference is the amount of manual labor expended on a day-to-day basis. The Pa Dutch as simply burning off more calories than their sedentary neighbors. And so it is with the rest of the county. NYC is a fairly fit place because the cummulative labor that people do - i.e. walking on a daily basis instead of driving - is much, much higher than it is in Indianapolis, though the diets are probably similar in terms of the total number of calories.
More likely it's poverty and lack of info about nutrition. It's expensive to eat all those organic fruits and veggies. And think about southern cookin'--all that fried and fatty food. Ever watch that woman on the Food Network Paula Deen? Mashed potatoes for 4 with a cube of butter plus cream cheese (or was it sour cream)? I know Alton Brown is from Atlanta and many of the grillers are southern but----
Obesity is not the result of a lack of veggies. It is simply people consuming too many calories for too long. Plenty of people who are deficient in their vegetable intake are not obese, albeit not necessarily very healthy either. And really, people eating traditional Southern cooking need to be told that it is unhealthy? I have a hard time believing that people who think a diet heavy in deep fried, fatty foods with loads of butter in everything is healthy actually exist. The big culprit, nutrition wise, for this and many of our other national health problems is the enormous percentage of calories people get from carbohydrates at the expense of protein and the myth that fat makes you fat. Blame the old food pyramid if you like, with its outrageous 6-11 servings of grains/starches. The RDA for protein is absurdly low.
I think something like 75 % of NFL playes are considered obese. Steve, from what I understand, many of the NFL linemen ARE obese, and intentionally so. I'm no football fan, but I was told by those that are fans that because players need mass to compete, they put on large amounts of fat. (Look at some of the guys on the field. They're FAT.) Apparently the NFL has instituted a program to help these guys get to a healthy weight and lifestyle after they retire.
This is so dominated by race/ethnicity and age factors as to be useless in comparing states. How about obesity rates for whites aged 35-44, or some other common metric.
The problem is that many obese people use the "But Michael Jordan would be obese" argument and don't mention that professional athletes are literally freaks of nature. When you start exercising 8-10 hours a day, I doubt you'll need a BMI scale to tell you if you're obese or not. In general if the BMI scale doesn't work for you, it's visually obvious you're not obese. Ok this is just dumb. While Micheal Jordan is a freak of nature, he was never freakishly muscular. Plenty of guys are just as muscular as he is. Basically, if you can bench press 300 pounds, your BMI will almost certainly put you in the overweight range no matter how low your body fat. Just taking a quick look at my local highschool football team, there are tons of guys on the team who're in the 6 foot 190 pound range that would be condsidered overweight by BMI standards and non of these guys are "freaks of nature". At the very least, an index that uses only height and weight and doesn't even account for gender is increadibly stupid.
Coincidentally, I happened to be looking at a similar map a few days ago, on the CDC web site. It lets you play an animation of the changes in obesity rates across the U.S. between 1985 and 2006. The amount of change over that period is striking, even if the general geographical pattern isn't surprising. Posted by RSA | July 8, 2008 4:16 PM
"in 1990 there was no state in America over 15% obese, and by 2002 there was no place in America that was under 15% obese" Yup. Americans eat a silly amount of calories. If you look at the sugar intake of the average American, it has gone up quite a bit over the last 30 years. Compare that with the amount of exercise, which has gone down, and the fat isn't so surprising. I find that a large portion of Americans are simply waiting for doctors to invent a pill to make them thin.
Yeah, LFC, the linemen are definitely obese. But I'm talking about linebackers, some running backs, tight ends, and quarterbacks. Some of these guys are so muscular that their BMI is very high. I'm just saying obese doesnt' mean the same thing to all people. Actually, I'm just being defensive because I'm 6'2" and weigh 235 pounds. I lift nearly every day, but I don't think anybody I know would look at me and call me obese. Although I could probably stand to lose a few!
I think ignorance does play a role, even in good old southern home cooking. People know that a big piece of meat has a lot of calories. But how many of them know that that delicious bun is loaded with extra calories b/c it's full of butter? Or that spicy sauce is throwing on another couple hundred calories b/c it's also loaded with sugar? I found people are very ignorant about where their calories actually come from. Frequently, flavor and taste come with the addition of many calories, transforming a 500-800 calorie meal into a 1500-2000 calorie meal.
BMI 30 ("Obese") doesn't mean "you look morbidly obese like Hugo from Lost." It's a weight category which is statistically correlated with some health problems. People whose livelihoods depend on freaking you out about the "obesity epidemic," conflate BMI 30 with morbid obesity. Unfortunately, the result is that people discard BMI, a useful metric, because they look at someone who's BMI 32 or so, and say, "Well, that guy doesn't look obese." I find also that people tend to say, "I weigh X lbs, and BMI says I'm overweight, and, okay, I've got some love handles. But if I lost 10 lbs, I'd look great, but BMI would still say I'm overweight. Thus, BMI must be ridiculous." In general, those people are wrong in thinking that losing 10 lbs would make big difference in their appearance.
Sorry, Michael, but it IS true in some cases. Typically with people with a lot of muscle mass. Some of those people don't need to lose any weight to look good.
IOW, the fattest state in 1990 was thinner than the thinnest state today
Posted by WillieStyle | July 8, 2008 5:03 PM - At the very least, an index that uses only height and weight and doesn't even account for gender is increadibly stupid. BMI is based on morbity/mortality. According to morbidity/mortality studies there is no difference between the healthy weight range for men vs women. It is not stupid. It is just counter intuitive because we live in a society that values muscular men and thin women.
Mmmm, pecan pie and jello with marshmallows!
Larry,
Oh, Harold. That is just SO WRONG this close to dinner time. SO WRONG! And cruel.
Americans are disgustingly fat and disgustingly wasteful... That has nothing to do with the fact that the BMI is crap, especially for men. My BMI tells me that I'm probably 60lbs overweight. I probably am about 40lbs overweight, because I have some... large attributes. A friend of mine is only an inch shorter than I am but she doesn't have my broad Celtic build. I'm healthiest at about 140. She looks lumpy at 125. My husband's BMI suggests that he's very overweight. He's 6' and it suggests that he should be 190lbs. He has huge hands and broad shoulders and a big head. He's sturdy stuff. He's built like a barbarian rather than a necromancer (lol). He also has low cholesterol and triglycerides and perfect bloodwork. Now, my brother is also 6' and he actually weighs about 180lbs. He has a little love handleness going on. He had to fight to stay above 140 in high school. He's technically underweight. Why? He's lanky as all get out. My husband and my brother shouldn't weight within 30lbs of each other in any universe. I have two guy friends who are both 6'4". One is skinny and lanky and about 180lbs and the other is broad and sturdy and weighs about 260. He might could lose 20lbs, but he'd still be "overweight." They built all these things, the BMI and the food pyramid based on runners. They didn't take body type into account, and they didn't consider that runners are horribly underweight. It's not an excuse to say I'm not fat. It's the reality of unreal expectations. Of course, people in this country don't know that corn isn't a vegetable, so the complaint that no one would know that southern food isn't healthy is stupid. Southern food is plenty healthy... if you're actually consuming the amount of it appropriate to your activity.
"a 'backward L' from Montana to California that doesn't comport all that well with conventional regionalization are slender." If only we had some way of referring to the vast majority of states on the left 1/3 of the US map. Maybe "the West" or something like that. In any event, also color me confused over WA, OR and ID. Given the relative youth of western WA and OR and the similarities between eastern WA and OR and ID, I suspect there is something regional going on there. What it is, I don't know. A good friend is from Spokane -- I'll ask her. As for Colorado, it's a combination of a relatively young population, a lifestyle that attracts migrants who enjoy outdoor activities, phenomenal weather (really, if you like seasons, this is the best place in the world to live -- you get winter but only for a few days at a time, the low humidity makes summer reasonably bearable, fall and spring aren't too wet, and it's sunny like 300 days a year), and a relative small African-American population.
According to morbidity/mortality studies there is no difference between the healthy weight range for men vs women. Do you happen to have a link to these studies?
"they didn't consider that runners are horribly underweight." Or they did consider that runners generally are in excellent shape, and based healthy definitions accordingly. Also, 6'/180 is not "underweight" according to BMI standards. It's decidedly in the middle of "normal." Sincerely, A "disgustingly fat" American who is 5'9"/155 pounds and runs sub-3:00 marathons (though at a little lower training weight).
I might be misremembering, but aren't the weight / height / frame numbers just averages, and real BMI actually comes from individual measurements of fat taken from multiple places on the body? I may end up being corrected about this, but I thought that's how real BMI measurements work. I think people might taking general guidelines and confusing them with what is actually a very detailed and accurate system.
There definitely are good arguments regarding BMI and it's inaccuracy gauging overweighted-ness, but this map has nothing to do with overweighted-ness; it's showing obesity rates. BMI does a decent job of that. To wit: with BMI, an average heighted man, 5'9'' or 5'10'' , would have to weigh around 195-200 lbs. to be considered "obese." Now, there are runningbacks and sprinters and gymnasts who are in that range and exercise roughly 8 times as much per day as the average American. For everyone outside the NFL and not training for the Olympics, that weight/height range would likely be at least portly.
Well Matt's not entirely off, I think his "backwards L" is everything besides the Pacific Northwest. Everything from "the west outside of the pacific northwest" to "the mountain west plus California" would work. Despite what people seem to think, us westerners do have subregions beyond just "the west". What I'd be really interested in, though, are the error bars on their measurements. Something like +/- 3% sounds reasonable to me. But then California could reasonably called somewhere between Montana and Georgia level - hardly very accurate.
Well Matt's not entirely off, I think his "backwards L" is everything besides the Pacific Northwest. Everything from "the west outside of the pacific northwest" to "the mountain west plus California" would work. Despite what people seem to think, us westerners do have subregions beyond just "the west". What I'd be really interested in, though, are the error bars on their measurements. Something like +/- 3% sounds reasonable to me. But then California could reasonably called somewhere between Montana and Georgia level - hardly very accurate.
I dunno about this "backwards L" thing you're talking about--23.6 in Nevada or 23.3 in Arizona does not seem all that much different from 24.6 in Idaho. Jake H. had it right complaining about the color scheme.
Looks like a product of one's environment because the plains area is where the starch food is grown, like wheat, corn - various grains. Also looks like the states with the highest records of poverty have the worse rates of obesity.
The specific numbers are not as important here as the trends. (The CDC data is self-reported, and it has been shown that people consistently overstate their height and understate their weight. The numbers are almost certainly worse.). The trends show that Americans have become much fatter just over the past 20 years: And the rest of the world is catching up: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aD1hgKQESbCc&refer=home This is a major public health issue that many people do not take seriously enough.
I saw Elvis Presley walk out of a 7-11 Chocolate Cake, Crowded House
The 'south' has been getting fat for generations due to the great disproportionate share they get of federal money sent to the states - for which they return the favor by being obstinate/reactionary to any sense of rational decision making that leads to economic, social or political change. Their logic has sunk way below the neckline and settled in the sofa-contact portion of the body (grin). Harley Barbour is the perfect fat-ass representative of MS.
"Actually one of the most striking aspects of this display is how little difference there is between states." I think the difference between 20% and 30% actually is pretty big. We're talking about a single country, with roughly the same economic conditions and eating culture and same diet (95% of the stuff in Wal-mart in Utah and Mississippi is the same), on top of the fact that the society is highly mobile and a lot of people don't live their lives in a single state. There's something about Colorado that clearly shows up in data, despite all the commonness and intermixing that goes on in the U.S. What Jake H. said above is right. In some places I know of, hot dogs, bacon and bologna are staples. Everything has either butter, mayonnaise, icing or grease on it. But in the affluent suburb where I grew up you're taught a revulsion to fats and even many meats. Alton Brown did a show on soul food (not to ignore the white Southern menu, which is at least as fatty), and he and another cook remarked very seriously, "It's not greasy at all". Compared to what, pure lard? The food is wonderful to eat, a true American treasure, but for heaven's sakes they have fried greens and mac and cheese as their main "vegetables".
An article in MacLean's last week said that the obesity rate in Canada is 18% compared to 32% in the U.S.
I'd very much like to see a by-county map. Even better would be a fine-grained map that correlated BMI with average wealth or income. Isn't it reasonably widely seen in the US today that it's the rich who are thin?
Sanderson: I see that my various edits of that post before writing it wiped out my disclaimer. Yes, you're right, some people BMI just doesn't work for. People who are really, really, really muscular will show up as "overweight" or "obese" when they have low fat. Also, I'm told that it doesn't work well for people outside of fairly average height ranges. But, when you press the people who are claiming it's useless, it turns out that damn few of them bench 300 lbs or are 6'7". They're mostly like Brenna, who says that she's 40 lbs overweight, not 60 lbs overweight. With all due respect to Brenna, it's more likely that she's just overestimating the appearance/health related changes of making a smaller drop in weight. She might be right, of course, but the odds are, she's wrong.
A "backward L" running from New England to the San Francisco Bay Area pops up in a lot of maps of demographic characteristics. These are typically areas originally settled by the descendants of New England Puritans. See David Hackett Fischer's "Albion's Seed" for details.
Wow. The CDC maps show that in 1990 there was no state in America over 15% obese, and by 2002 there was no place in America that was under 15% obese. Today, most states have double the obesity than 18 years ago. And white male life expectancy went from 46.6 in lean and mostly cigarette-free 1900 to 78.6 years in 2007. Black male life expectancy went from 32.8 years in 1900 to 69.4 years in 2007. In 1990, 18 years ago, Fly claims obesity doubled since them. Life expectancy was 71.4 years for while males, 64.5 for black males. The only serious threat I see is young little black, hispanic, and native american porkers getting so fat on free government food they are getting early diabetes. And their Mommas are dumbly following FDA guidance to cram as much possible into their pieholes of AFDA food stamp and WIC bought "nutritious" starch and high fructose fruits and "healthy apple juice boxes" by the case. Their logic has sunk way below the neckline and settled in the sofa-contact portion of the body (grin). Harley Barbour is the perfect fat-ass representative of MS. Yes! And Richardson is the perfect fatass hispanic representative of New Mexico, Jerry Nadler is the perfact fatass NYC Jewish Congressman, and Shiela Jackson Lee is the perfect black Beulah of the Texas delegation, with an ass as wide across as she is tall.
The "obese" category is definitely correlated with worse health outcomes, but I don't think the "overweight" category is. Actually, I believe some evidence indicates that "overweight" people are healthier than people in the "normal" range.
BMI is just mass in kilograms divided by height in meters squared: kg/m². It's a pretty decent approximation as crude approximations go. Some authorities prefer waist size, as in "If your pants are size 38 or above, get a diabetes check." The average American gains about 2 pounds a year, which means that if you're normal at adolescence you'll be overweight at middle age and obese at retirement. It's common to gain 5-10 lb. just over Thanksgiving and Christmas. It does seem to be related to increased sugar consumption, most likely in soft drinks. There's also a strong correlation with commuting distance.
California varies a lot by region. You'll see very few fat people in west LA, lots in east.
I expect you could explain an overwhelming amount of variation based on two variables...weather and mass transit usage (as a proxy for urbanization not based around cars). Perhaps further subtle differences might take into account composition of labor or demographics (which would incorporate nutritional education and dietary habits to a large extent), but they are likely secondary.
Re: An article in MacLean's last week said that the obesity rate in Canada is 18% compared to 32% in the U.S. I wonder how that would be so given that the diet is identical, fast food abounds north of the border, Canadians are just as addicted to driving everywhere as we are, and of course there's all that good beer.
"I wonder how that would be so given that the diet is identical, fast food abounds north of the border, Canadians are just as addicted to driving everywhere as we are, and of course there's all that good beer." Without looking at the numbers, I suspect it is due to a much smaller minority population. Also, if you look at the states that border Canada, they are relatively thin compared the the US as a whole.
Altitude. Colorado, Montana, Utah, you need more calories at altitude. If you take a glutton's diet from the Bayou, move the person to Colorado and they don't raise their calorie intake, they'll lose weight. "Whatever your reason, if you're participating in sport at altitude, beware. There's a real risk of malnutrition - living and exercising at altitude can lead to loss of body weight and muscle. This effect is more marked the higher you go, and the longer you spend in the reduced-oxygen environment. For example, there have been reports of weight losses of 3 per cent in eight days at 4300m and up to 15 per cent after three months at 5300 to 8000m. Also, there are short-term problems of acclimatisation to tackle. You need to know how to adjust your diet to minimise these problems. The key requirements are an increased calorie and fluid intake, and eating foods with a high carbohydrate content (Nutrition and Energetics of Exercise at Altitude. Sports Medicine vol 17, pp309-323)."
Some international comparisons would be informative. http://www.heartstats.org/datapage.asp?id=1015 Not directly comparable since according to their chart the US has an obesity rate of 35% (much higher than in Matt's chart). It does inddicate however that we are fatter than any LA country, so the % of Latinos does not appear to be the causative factor. At least we aren't the _fattest_ country in the world though. We are beat by Samoa (45% obese), Micronesia (68%), Tonga (67%) and Nauru with an unbelievable 80% of their population obese. Kuwait also seems to have us beat with only 30% of men but a whopping 50% of women obese.
"Altitude. Colorado, Montana, Utah, you need more calories at altitude. If you take a glutton's diet from the Bayou, move the person to Colorado and they don't raise their calorie intake, they'll lose weight." Studies show that baseline metabolism almost returns to normal at altitude -- though there is a marked increase for several days when an unacclimated individual travels high up. Probably related to increased breathing rates. The article you cite talks about altitudes that are really only inhabited at two places in the world -- the Altiplano in the Andes, and the Himalayan plateau in south central Asia. Typical inhabited altitudes in Colorado and Utah are 1500m-2000m (Colorado Front Range) and 1000m-1500m (the area around SLC and Provo). I'm not sure about Montana. But in any event, the 3% weight loss at 4300m? That's about 14,000 feet, or the summits of the taller Rockies.
In case anyone is interested in seeing what some BMI categories actually look like, check out:
several people have questioned what is going on with washington & oregon - why are the averages so high in those 2 states. it's really very simple: high poverty rates. both states have metropolitan yuppie areas (seattle and portland/willamette valley) where people are relatively well off, and there you will find plenty of thin athletic middle-class types. but the overall average income for oregon (for example) is lower than the national average. outside of the yuppie corridors, there is a lot of poverty. and hence: a lot of overweight people.
several people have questioned what is going on with washington & oregon - why are the averages so high in those 2 states. it's really very simple: high poverty rates. both states have metropolitan yuppie areas (seattle and portland/willamette valley) where people are relatively well off, and there you will find plenty of thin athletic middle-class types. but the overall average income for oregon (for example) is lower than the national average. outside of the yuppie corridors, there is a lot of poverty. and hence: a lot of overweight people.
Where's the fat at? Behind the at on Preposition Street. Couldn't resist.
a friend of mine did a similar map of canada and put it next to the one of the us. quite striking. http://eaves.ca/2008/07/08/fatness-index-canada-vs-united-states/
Comments closed July 22, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
If they had a county level map, you could overlay it with Hillary's vote percentage. Mississippi and SC went Obama, but WVa, Ky, Tenn, Ark, Okla were her base.
Posted by SP | July 8, 2008 3:42 PM