CDC Obesity Map

Post by **reinhard** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:43 pm

This is shocking. I know BMI isn't a perfect metric, but a proliferation of Arnold Schwarzeneggers this ain't.

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/

Scroll through the powerpoint slides for full effect. It shows state by state obesity rates from 1985-2004.

I took the (probably illegal) liberty of converting the relevant powerpoint slides to HTML here:

http://nosdiet.com/obesitymap/obesityma ... mage0.html

(keep clicking "next" to scroll though)

Reinhard

Azathoth · Post by **Azathoth** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:51 pm

This is relatively interesting... I do not hold much stock in BMI in general, but I agree that there isn't much hope that this increase in overall BMI nationwide is the result of the population as a whole bulking up in a muscular sense.

It would be interesting to overlay these plots with others showing the spread of certain fast food chains, the increase in home internet availability, the increase of quality and low-cost availability of cable (and digital cable) options, the increase of automobile sales, the decrease of physical fitness programs in various school systems, etc, etc, etc.

Although I am a computer engineer, and although I think the internet is one of the greatest inventions of all time for providing a means of communication and global access to information for the public at large, I'd have to speculate that the increasing availability (particularly in the home) of the internet, high quality video games and television programs, and other forms of entertainment over the past 20 years (during which time this steady increase of BMI is noticed) has played a large factor in the overall inactivity of our population as a whole. I think it is sad that while we live in a period of time that produces more technological advances every year than could be accomplished in HUGE slices of our history combined we cannot help but let these advances take up so much of our time and prevent us from so much of our usual activity that we would let ourselves physically fall to pieces nationwide.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and I may be spinning this way out of proportion, but I think people should appreciate the technology of our time while still remembering that it is also important to keep and maintain a state of physical fitness so they can live long enough to enjoy it a little bit.

Interesting article Reinhard, thanks for posting it! Sorry for rambling on with my speculations, the topic suddenly interested me.

peetie · Post by **peetie** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:59 pm

I think the exercise portion is DEFINITELY a factor. I remember when I'd come home from school and went out to play...it included bike riding, roller skating and just plain running around. Today kids come IN to play, meaning sit on their butts for entertainment.

Peetie

ClickBeetle · Post by **ClickBeetle** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:40 pm

It doesn't help that 98% of all new development in the last 30 years has taken the form of oil-dependent sprawl, in which an individual automobile is a virtual necessity for living on a day-to-day basis, and walking is either impossible or so unpleasant (along major thoroughfares) as to be nearly undoable.

The isolation of suburban housing pods from normal everyday commercial uses also prevents people from doing errands on foot, and necessitates that we bring a 3000-pound vehicle along with us in order to get a 16-oz loaf of bread.

Some people are fortunate enough or deliberate enough to have made other arrangements (like living in mixed-use, urban neighborhoods) but this comes with a cost not everyone is willing, or able, to bear.

As one researcher put it, "We have engineered movement out of our daily lives."

Post by **reinhard** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:59 pm

The thing that's shocking is how fast this happened. 1985 was not that long ago. Even 1991 (the year I graduated high school) was not that bad. But keep scrolling and they start having to come up with new colors to represent higher and higher obesity rates. The highest rates from the early years become less than the lowest of recent ones.

It would be interesting to see comparable maps with other statistics: average daily commute time, etc.

I think it does have a lot to do with commuting. Commuting is a profound trend. Moms and dads do it nowadays, and they do it over longer distances. More and more of us trade time for space and live in commuter exurbs. The obvious problem with commuting by car is that it doesn't burn a whole lot of calories. The less obvious problem is the kinds of food and the eating patterns it encourages. Quick, convenient, solitary road food instead of family meals at home. Even individuals who don't have long driving commutes themselves start to eat like those who do because who are you going to have a family meal with if there's no one else around?

McDonalds didn't invent suburban sprawl -- suburban sprawl invented McDonalds. And I don't think we're going to get rid of suburban sprawl any time soon. I think the trick is how to replicate our old good eating and moving habits as best we can in new conditions.

Reinhard

ClickBeetle · Post by **ClickBeetle** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:14 am

It would be interesting to see comparable maps with other statistics: average daily commute time, etc.

You'll be interested to know there was just a massive study on that coordinated through the School of Public Health at UNC-Chapel Hill. The name of the project under which it was conducted was "Active Living by Design," or something like that. I'll try to find a link. There was a slight correlation between some indicators of sprawl and measures of overweight. I don't recall the details.

~reneew · Post by **~reneew** » Tue May 26, 2009 7:45 pm

I thought this was worth bringing to the top.

Kodama · Post by **Kodama** » Tue May 26, 2009 10:33 pm

wow, it's been updated through 2007, and it just keeps getting worse!

I guess obesity rates really are an indicator of a national health crisis.