Yup, Americans are fat, all right

Never been to Mississippi, but I can't imagine a state where close to 1/3 of the residents aren't just overweight, but actually obese.

The study probably even undercounted obese people:


(Article from the LA Times)

...

And the 'leanest' states were Colorado, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island - well, most of the New England states were at the bottom - meaning the most lean - BUT still fat!

Hm, I wonder how this compares to the UK. And the increasing levels of obesity here.

Well, the UK seems to follow the states in everything.
24/7 Shopping - Fastfood and now even obesity !!

Funny that, wonder what the link is

You are what you eat.

Fat.

In that case i must be one of these then

Perhaps this is the solution?

yea, yea, yea. americans are overweight. tell me something I don't already know.

The thing is, Chicago, it's gone way beyond overweight. 30% of the residents of Mississippi are obese! I suppose they all have glandular malfunctions or something, but still.

My sister said a friend of hers (in Alabama) wanted to have stomach-stapling surgery, but her health insurance wouldn't pay for it because she wasn't fat enough. So her goal was to gain 50 pounds so she could have the surgery.

Is it so hard to just stop eating so much and move around a little? So instead you want to have a surgery that will seriously interfere with your enjoyment of food for the rest of your life?

Let's take the nationality out of it. That's one of the poorest states. Washington Post article about the link between poverty and obesity.


If nearly 20% are below the povety level, it is reasonable to assume a sizeable percentage just above that level. Child poverty is at 26.6%.
It isn't that these obese people are American, it is because they are poor.
BBC article

Correction: It's because they are poor in a 1st world country.

That's true. I was thinking how to phrase that, but you've done it for me.
Was playing with "weight extremes" but then thought of Tom Wolfe's "social x-rays" so rejected that idea. Thanks.

if they are poor, how do they afford all the junk food? Surely it must cost a fortune to get obese? (not counting genetic predisposition and other medical conditions)

It's counterintuitive but that's not really how it works. I think you'll also find that smoking is negatively correlated with income.

If I were to theorise why, I'd guess it has something to do with the lower your quality of life the less you are concerned about things like health that don't immediately impact your life. If you're hungry, you're going to want whatever is quick and filling before healthy and moneywise.

I'm sure there are better theories out there.

I have a few more theories too.

- If you are poor, you may be working long hours just to try and make ends meet. You don't have time to cook, so you buy prepackaged meals.
- Prepackaged meals aren't expensive. They are made from low-quality ingredients, made in bulk and are filled out with filler material. So something that is sweet will be made with a cheap version of corn syrup, not with organic raw sugar. Something with a creamy sauce will have a cheap transfat in it to make taste good, not cream and butter.
- What ER said, it's not a major concern. It's easier to open a can of mushroom soup than it is to buy fresh mushrooms and cook it.
- When everyone around you is fat, that's what normality is. And so you don't worry about it the way you might otherwise.

very astute.

He/she who works 80 hours a week often eats drive through... thats the only time available...

and sorry... but the salads menu from mcdonalds doesnt lend itself to be eaten whilst you have one hand on the wheel

It's not just the US and the UK, China is also having an "epidemic":



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5261946.stm



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3737162.stm

I blame lack of exercise and eating processed food (if you can still call it food ;-)

There are many reasons why low-income families have less access to affordable healthy foods. Those reasons may involve food pricing and marketing, school and work schedules, or even transportation and access to the nearest grocery store.
If you're worried about how you are going to keep a roof over your head, you probably don't really have the time to prepare vegetables, especially if they aren't available or are expensive.
Starch, sugar and fat are the cheapest options or the most available.
Exercise is also an issue, there is the stereotype of an inner-city dweller who won't leave the house much due to a crime risk. Sounds far-fetched, but looking at comparative incomes in outdoorsy states such as Colorado, home of the Rocky Mountains, obesity rates fall (as do reported crimes).
So cheap, unhealthy yet convenient food as a staple diet, exercise sorely limited, now wonder the people are fatter.
Emotional reactions to the stress of knowing where the rent is coming from can also encourage comfort eating and smoking.
Of course, it is possible to eat well and cheaply.
But the information about how isn't reaching the people concerned it seems.

Oh the message is reaching them alright. I'm sure most know that eating lots of vegetables and fruit is better than eating peanut butter on processed white bread. But who do you think has the bigger marketing budget - the dopes in nutrition or the slicks at Kraft, General Mills, Hersheys etc?

This is also true - bigger budget and better lobbyists.
Something I noticed in the UK was the current Salt.gov.uk campaign trying to encourage people to cut their salt intake.
As a side note, it always shocks me how much salt is used on German cookery shows, but I've been indoctrinated by the salt police.
But how involved should the State become?
Shouldn't people be able to make their own choices? Even if that choice is uninformed?
Or can the State get involved as it costs the State?

Well, I think a lot more money spent on teaching people about nutrition and how to cook quick and easy meals from decent starting ingredients would probably save even more money in the medical system in the long run.

I don't know, fast food much like smoking. I doubt anyone thinks french fries are healthy, they just don't care, they have other priorities.

EDIT: I should add that regardless nutrition education is never a bad thing. Learning the basics is always important.

I don't get this 'too little time to cook nutritional food' thing so let's stuff our faces with processed convenience food. People seem to have enough time to watch TV or surf the internet. How long does it take and how much does it cost to throw some dried pasta into a pan of boiling water, heat up some tomatoes and maybe chopped garlic (and a teaspoon of Marmite!), serve with a handful of basil or parsley thrown on and a drizzle of olive oil? Surely that's more nutritious and energy supplying, and is cheaper, than a Big Mac? Cheap and easily prepared dishes like this got me through my impoverished student years in a condemned squat with only a Primus camping stove and no heating, and I think I was a lot healthier nutrition-wise then (nowadays I'm having nervous digestion problems, but that's another unconnected topic entirely).

I think it has to do with like others have mentioned - education and availability of those foods. Now if you take a small town in Mississippi, is the corner grocer going to stock lots of fresh veggies and fruit that he loses money if they are not purchased in a few days or shelves of quick meals and packages of sugar cereals that he can store for a long time?

I know in parts of Northern Canada they have problems too especially in the remote areas and Indian revervations. Its cheaper to fly in 2L coke than get fresh milk sent up. High levels of dental caries, diabeties and obesity.

It's also a question of getting to the grocery store, having enough money to buy ingredients and being able to carry all that home. Let's say you are poor. You don't have a car, and it takes 15 minutes by bus to get to the grocery store. That's at least an hour for the whole process. Let's say you have a 10 bill in your pocket. How much will that buy? And you'll probably have to do this every few days, as you have very little cash and can only carry so much on the bus.


15-20 minutes. It takes 5 minutes in the drive thru. And you don't have any dishes to wash. And the fast food place is on your way home. And you can eat it on your way home, or while going to your second (or third) job.

When you were a student you had plenty of time to cook. When you are working 3 part-time jobs and have 3 kids to feed, you don't have time. Also, the public transportation system in the US is no where near as extensive as it is in Europe. I'm not saying laziness is not part of it, but there are other factors as well.

I also feel sorry for the kids. Not only are they getting junk on a regular basis, but no one is teaching them how to cook for themselves, so the cycle repeats itself.

I saw this, and had a butchers at a few salt levels on packets of stuff. 1 bag of salt n vinegar crisps down the pub, and half a can of baked beans and you are pretty much maxed out on salt for the day. I was quite surprised to see how much salt n sugar things contain. I have noticed kids getting fatter in England too man. When I was at school, we had a token fat bloke in my year, but that was it.

Here's the poverty & obesity article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition mentioned above.
Interesting stuff there, especially regarding "foods eaten away from home".
How many people can cook at work? Or take packed/bagged lunches? Or can go home to eat?

thanks for all the answers to my question. Whilst I know that there is a correlation between income and healthy diets, what ireally meant was that to get THAT obese purely due to diet must require an absolute fortune to sustain the level of obesity you see in some people.

I spend quite a bit on food, some of it junk. I know how much all the snacks cost and how much you can easily spend on McDs and pizza etc but in order to convert my ample frame into a mega obese one would require a doubling of my current food bill. I simply couldn't afford it. SO how come so many people on low incomes etc CAN afford to spend so much on junk?

Owain, you could get fat for the same amount of money. Stop playing rugby. Stop walking anywhere. Don't do any exercise. Don't eat anything that isn't processed. This doesn't mean you have to buy PizzaHut pizza every day, it means eat a sugary cereal, eat a prepared sandwich made from white bread. Eat only canned goods or "just add water" meals for dinner. Don't go out for dinner unless it's somwhere that you order from a counter and can walk out with it.

It will take some time, as you already have muscle, and muscle consumes more energy than fat. But slowly the fat will take over, transforming your body into a great storage machine and you too can be obese!

Results may vary. Consult your doctor before following this or any other training plan.

Exactly. Getting twice as fat doesn't mean consuming twice as many calories. All you need to do is consume more calories than you burn. Even if it's only 200 calories extra per day (which isn't really much) you will keep adding pounds.

There is no way any poor people could sustain my beer gut, I can easily do a 2 week giro in 5 hours down the pub!

People need to force themselves to put down the bag of chips and eat an apple or two. And stop snacking between meals. While it may be easier for a poor person to get fat due to time constraints, it's Americans' eating habits that seem to cause them to be fatter than other countries. Eat some raw fruits and vegetables instead of a candy bar or big mac.
vern

That is alot easier said than done. That is the point. I think most people have the basic knowlegde of healthy eating, but it takes longer to hit the grocer buy some carrots, wash and clean them than to get a choc bar from the machine or corner shop.

I thought you were supposed to snack between meals? That having 6 small meals spread throughout the day was much healthier than 3 big meals. I'm just asking as you seem so well informed.

Thank you, Dr. Phil. Can someone please send this post to all the obese people? We'll have it all cleared up in a few months time now.

JJ, but at least Vern has a nice flag in his profile.

Perhaps we can get him on Oprah.

I for one dont buy: people are fat because they are poor since you will find different levels of consumption of Junk food or style of eating in the various poor communities depending on cultural backgrounds etc. For instance I bet you don't find many poor British Indians or British Pakistani eating the same kind of crap their white counterparts do...

I lived in Italy with the poor working class and can tell you they eat just as good as the middle class here (here UK). So I'd say it's food culture that matters...just look at the shit food and diet that we have in the UK. Are we (UK) any poorer than the French, Spanish or Italians...or even Germans for that matter?

The incidence of obesity is raising across Europe* but just faster in countries that had a shit food culture to begin with!!!

* modern diets inc. more proccessed food are the culprit

I'm not Dr. Phil.
May seem obvious, but that's what seems to be the problem, plain and simple.
@ER - oh, not sure about the 6 small meals, i just meant no snacking between your three big meals.
vern

Aha. You're on to something, vern. People should stop thinking of it as three "big" meals, plus snacks.

As ER says, it would be healthier for most people to eat about 6 smaller meals and forget about the breakfast-lunch-dinner thing entirely.

According to most sports magazine and weight training guides...more meals i.e. 6 is better as it stops 1. your body going into starve mode (i.e. retaining fat) 2. means you do not pig out when you do eat as you are not starving...

just take up smoking and start doing copious amounts of speed, you will have that keira knightley look in no time

Yup, as long as the 6 meals are not bigger in calories and essential vitamins&minerals,etc than the 3 meals approach.

What people really miss these days is exercise. Far fewer people now do heavy manual work (or it's modern equivalent 'exercising') than our forebears.

btw: Is it true that sidewalks and doorways in the US are built much wider than in Europe?

Yes, the roads are a lot wider as well. Clearly this is related to the rates of obesity in America.

Don't forget the supermarket aisles. They're a LOT wider than here!

But seriously, Adi, US public buildings and businesses must adhere to building codes. For example, a wheelchair user must be able to get through a door.

I suppose the width of sidewalks depends on the size of the town/city and the kind of foot traffic the planners expected to have. Nothing to do with the size of the people on the sidewalks. If anything, it seems to me that wider sidewalks would contribute to lessening the obesity problem, since they'd be more pleasant and encourage people to walk more.

Nope, that is because so many of these obese people drive round in fucking stupid, massive, gas guzzling SUVs.