We're all big and fat

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-26 11:25pm

Howedar wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Do small towns not have increasinly larger dress sizes?
In my very limited experience, no. That's why I said "possibly" instead of saying that the study is flat-out wrong.

I would have to see some kind of evidence for small-town people being thinner than city dwellers across the board before accepting it as evidence that there's something wrong with the study's methodology, which was obviously designed to get the largest number of test subjects for the least cost by going to centres of high population density.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-26 11:28pm

*sigh*

It's like you didn't even read the second sentance. I don't know if the results would be different. I don't profess to have anything more than personal experience on this topic. That's why my first post said "I'd be curious to see the results from a more even population sample" instead of "OMG this survey is teh wrong!!!!11one".

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-26 11:30pm

The most obese part of America is actually the South, from Virginia to East Texas (Texas as a whole comes out pretty well, though). What could be the reason for this?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-26 11:30pm

God, what isn't loathesome about the South?

That's it, maybe I DO need to try to get into UMich.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-26 11:32pm

Howedar wrote:*sigh*

It's like you didn't even read the second sentance. I don't know if the results would be different. I don't profess to have anything more than personal experience on this topic. That's why my first post said "I'd be curious to see the results from a more even population sample" instead of "OMG this survey is teh wrong!!!!11one".

By arguing that the population sample is uneven, you have already asserted that the survey is wrong, that the methodology is flawed, and that city dwellers should be considered significantly different than rural populations for the purpose of weight surveys. By pointedly commenting that no one took notice of what should be considered an insignificant nitpick unless evidence is presented, you made it appear as if you think people are somehow being negligent for not treating it otherwise. So back it up or give it up.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-26 11:39pm

Joe wrote:The most obese part of America is actually the South, from Virginia to East Texas (Texas as a whole comes out pretty well, though). What could be the reason for this?

The South is lower-educated on average, and there is a statistical correlation between education level and obesity for some reason. I'm tempted to say that poor health education is the cause, but that seems like a stretch; it's not as if university education is necessary in order to know that obesity is bad.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-26 11:40pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:God, what isn't loathesome about the South?

That's it, maybe I DO need to try to get into UMich.

You could get in with your grades. It'd be rough on the purse, though, unless you could get some good scholarships.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2004-07-26 11:40pm

Howedar wrote:My comment regarding the possible poor sample was, as far as I can tell, completely ignored.

So you think that if the sample included rural populations, the average would go down.

Unfortunately, the SizeUSA Website doesn't list which thirteen cities participated, or if it is counting individual cities rather than metropolitan areas (for example, would samples collected in both St. Petersburg, FL and Clearwater, FL be counted as two cities or one?)
Even if they only consulted the thirteen largest cities, not including metro areas (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Antonio, Dallas, Detroit, San Jose, Indianapolis, and San Francisco as of most recent US Census data), that's not that bad of a sample, since each city can be accepted to represent the populace of its surrounding area.
But anyways, just because they use the word "city" doesn't mean they're looking for the biggest cities. How do you know they didn't include Tuscaloosa or Corvallis?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-26 11:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:The South is lower-educated on average, and there is a statistical correlation between education level and obesity for some reason. I'm tempted to say that poor health education is the cause, but that seems like a stretch; it's not as if university education is necessary in order to know that obesity is bad.

Intrinsically more intelligent people tend to seek more levels of education, and are more likely to appreciate long-term cause-effect relations and the threat and solution to obesity.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-26 11:42pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Joe wrote:The most obese part of America is actually the South, from Virginia to East Texas (Texas as a whole comes out pretty well, though). What could be the reason for this?
The South is lower-educated on average, and there is a statistical correlation between education level and obesity for some reason. I'm tempted to say that poor health education is the cause, but that seems like a stretch; it's not as if university education is necessary in order to know that obesity is bad.

There's also a statistical correlation between poverty and obesity (at least in America); 1/4 Americans below the poverty line are obese, and as you get more wealthy you're less likely to be obese.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-07-26 11:44pm

jmac wrote:I don't know if it's just me, but it seems the weight distribution of the general population looks like an inverted bell-curve; people are either fat & overweight or they're anorexic-looking, not that many people appear "normal". This is just based on casual observation of the people around me so it's not statistically valid or anything, but I am wondering if anyone else has noticed this?

I've noticed that to an extent but my personal observations are that people are either normal or fat. Girls tend to be on the anorexic side but not guys. Again this is all anecdotal. Totally shaped by my personality. Meaning I notice lots of Asian girls who tend to thin.

Anyway, while Im in poor shape cardio and muscle wise, Im still thin.
5"11" and 160 lbs. I can look down and see my toes, my weenie, and my waist.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-26 11:48pm

That reminds me of one of the most annoying problems I had in Las Vegas when navigating through the casinos: getting stuck behind a bunch of gargantuan land slugs who oozed slowly through the aisles and consequently held up pedestrian traffic. This did not happen all the time, but when it did happen, it was infuriating. It's like being stuck behind someone doing 30 in the passing lane, and who's so wide that he takes up the right-hand lane too so you can't get around him.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-26 11:50pm

Ah, that's right, you went to Las Vegas a few weeks ago. I bet you saw dozens of fat slobs stuffing their faces at those cheap buffets, didn't you?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-26 11:52pm

Joe wrote:Ah, that's right, you went to Las Vegas a few weeks ago. I bet you saw dozens of fat slobs stuffing their faces at those cheap buffets, didn't you?

I saw some beautiful people in Las Vegas, but I also saw some people so big that they should have their own zip code.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-27 12:00am

Darth Wong wrote:By arguing that the population sample is uneven,

It is. They are all from a certain demographic: city-dwellers. My question was whether or not that affected this particular facet of life.

you have already asserted that the survey is wrong, that the methodology is flawed, and that city dwellers should be considered significantly different than rural populations for the purpose of weight surveys.

Please do not put words into my mouth, Mike. I did not state (or did not intend to suggest) that urban people are definately different than rural ones in terms of weight problems. Knowing that the urban lifestyle is not the same as the rural one, I asked whether or not this might show as a difference in obesity rates.

By pointedly commenting that no one took notice of what should be considered an insignificant nitpick unless evidence is presented, you made it appear as if you think people are somehow being negligent for not treating it otherwise.

I was unaware that focusing entirely on one demographic in a survey is considered an "insignificant nitpick".

So back it up or give it up.

And it was done.
BBC: People in rural areas more likely to be overweight than those in urban areas

Some funky Canadian PDF: rural more overweight than urban

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-27 12:06am

Howedar wrote:I was unaware that focusing entirely on one demographic in a survey is considered an "insignificant nitpick".

It is when you don't bother to present any evidence that it is significant and then you get upset that nobody else takes any interest.

So back it up or give it up.
And it was done.
BBC: People in rural areas more likely to be overweight than those in urban areas

Some funky Canadian PDF: rural more overweight than urban

So the problem may be even worse? Wonderful.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2004-07-27 12:20am

I should stress that without purchasing the information from SizeUSA, we don't currently know which cities were included, so we can't assume that it focuses on so-called "city-dwellers". We don't know what they mean by "city", so to just assign some kind of population limit on that doesn't work.

Besides, according to the 2000 Census, roughly 79% of Americans live in metropolitan areas (I rounded to the nearest 100,000 when calculating), and about 25% of Americans live in a city whose population is greater than 100,000. So even if there was a distinct urban bias, it wouldn't be too much of a travesty.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-07-27 12:39am

Those averages are kinda scary. Especially the denial part

At least I'm trying to lose weight. I know I'm overweight (fortunately I'm not ugly fat, most people are surprised to learn I'm more then 15 lbs overweight. The joys of a small beer belly and otherwise normal build)

Here's hoping I drop the 6 inches from my waist I want to

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-07-27 12:43am

Darth Wong wrote:
Joe wrote:Ah, that's right, you went to Las Vegas a few weeks ago. I bet you saw dozens of fat slobs stuffing their faces at those cheap buffets, didn't you?
I saw some beautiful people in Las Vegas, but I also saw some people so big that they should have their own zip code.

That is what I experienced. When we rode the bus into the strip from the airport there was a lady in front of me eating a bad of Chex mix. Not a small zip lock bag, but a whole fucking bag by the handfuls.

We say so many "fei pohs" that it was amazing. On the other hand there were so many good looking people its fun just to be there.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-07-27 12:46am

Darth Wong wrote:
Joe wrote:The most obese part of America is actually the South, from Virginia to East Texas (Texas as a whole comes out pretty well, though). What could be the reason for this?
The South is lower-educated on average, and there is a statistical correlation between education level and obesity for some reason. I'm tempted to say that poor health education is the cause, but that seems like a stretch; it's not as if university education is necessary in order to know that obesity is bad.

I think it is more related to income levels. Lower levels of education tend to mean less income earning potential. People who make less money often do not eat right because they go for the cheapest food available. If you made minumum wage it is cheaper to hit McDonalds for lunch than to go to Whole Foods.

You'd expect then that poor people would just eat out less or cook better but that does not seem to be the case.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-27 12:48am

Healthy food really isn't that expensive. It's just a pain in the ass to spend time preparing it, especially when fast food is both quick and cheap.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2004-07-27 12:55am

Joe wrote:Healthy food really isn't that expensive. It's just a pain in the ass to spend time preparing it, especially when fast food is both quick and cheap.

And tasty. One might think that it's not too much to ask people to suffer through some vegetables every now and then, but then you remember that people are too dumb not to smoke; why would they bother eating healthy?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-27 12:56am

Solauren wrote:Those averages are kinda scary. Especially the denial part

Indeed. Think of the kind of self-delusional willpower it takes to be unable to see your waist over your drooping belly and still convince yourself that you don't have a weight problem.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2004-07-27 01:04am

Darth Wong wrote:
Solauren wrote:Those averages are kinda scary. Especially the denial part
Indeed. Think of the kind of self-delusional willpower it takes to be unable to see your waist over your drooping belly and still convince yourself that you don't have a weight problem.

It's a matter of misapplied standards. It's not that the fatasses think they're skinny, it's that they don't think they should be. They honestly think that being tubby is ok, or even preferential to being a healthy weight.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-07-27 01:04am

Joe wrote:Healthy food really isn't that expensive. It's just a pain in the ass to spend time preparing it, especially when fast food is both quick and cheap.

Exactly. Lower-income groups are most likely to frequent fast-food restaurants and other none-too-healthy eateries. Meanwhile, even middle-class families tend to eat much larger proportions of fruit and vegetables, and often substitute the healthier sea-food for burgers and fried-chicken.

Also, for whatever reason, the southern states seem to have developed a palate based almost solely around fats and oils. Country-fried steak? What the hell is that? Especially since it's usually served with gravy. Many of their other regional dishes also involve lard and a deep-fryer.