It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obesity - party and socio economics

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Hmmmmmmm, very interesting...

Obesity by state




State - 2008 election




State - income





posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
The problem with these numbers is that you can't go by absolutes. The cost of living in the South is much lower than the Northeast, so the numbers are deceiving. I can make 10 bucks an hour in SC and do very well for myself, whereas 10 bucks an hour is practically minimum wage in many places.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
The problem with these numbers is that you can't go by absolutes. The cost of living in the South is much lower than the Northeast, so the numbers are deceiving. I can make 10 bucks an hour in SC and do very well for myself, whereas 10 bucks an hour is practically minimum wage in many places.



So then if it is not socio economics that contribute obesity, is it then education? I threw in the state party to see if dem vs repub states - thus more or less liberal agenda's played a part.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pityocamptes
 


I think that the main contributing factor is culture. The South has a culture of heavier eating in general, which used to be fine because most people either worked in agriculture or manufacturing. It also comes from a very thick cultural identity that is resistant to change. This can be good sometimes, but it also creates a culture where ignorance is glorified in areas where change is needed.

You can't assume the entire South lives in poverty, but where real poverty exists, the poverty is extreme. People are very "by the bootstraps" here, so people living in poverty would pretty much be left to starve if not for federal regulations.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Define obesity. While obesity means too much body fat it is often measured by BMI which uses a persons height and weight to estimate body fat. Specifically you multiply your weight by 703, divide that by your height in inches and divide that by your height in inches again. I am 6' tall and I weigh 225 pounds. 225*703=158175 158175/72=2196.875 30.51 A BMI of 30-39.9 is classified as obese. It doesn't matter if I'm fit with a muscular build. Although, I admit I do eat a lot.

Anyways, yes there does seem to be a bit more people who have a bit too much fat then their ought to be. To counter your point though, I think its actually a sign of success. The problem is people are taking in too many calories and having no apparent need to physically exert themselves. To be able to stuff yourself and laze around you have to have most of your needs successfully covered. Although, some people don't get fat because of that. Genetics and health problems can contribute. Hmm...



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ariess
Define obesity. While obesity means too much body fat it is often measured by BMI which uses a persons height and weight to estimate body fat. Specifically you multiply your weight by 703, divide that by your height in inches and divide that by your height in inches again. I am 6' tall and I weigh 225 pounds. 225*703=158175 158175/72=2196.875 30.51 A BMI of 30-39.9 is classified as obese. It doesn't matter if I'm fit with a muscular build. Although, I admit I do eat a lot.

Anyways, yes there does seem to be a bit more people who have a bit too much fat then their ought to be. To counter your point though, I think its actually a sign of success. The problem is people are taking in too many calories and having no apparent need to physically exert themselves. To be able to stuff yourself and laze around you have to have most of your needs successfully covered. Although, some people don't get fat because of that. Genetics and health problems can contribute. Hmm...



Actually I see a sign of success as being fit and trim. I know in ancient times being fat was a sign of success while most starved, now it seems to be the reverse.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pityocamptes
 


Well I don't see how being slim and fit is a sign of success. There are plenty of fat rich people, and not very many fat homeless. But I think you're partially right. Its more of a sign of sour success of our society as a whole that less is needed to provide enough food and luxury to get yourself fat.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join