Posted on 08/30/2007 4:38:04 PM PDT by blam
Source: University of Washington
Date: August 30, 2007
ZIP Codes And Property Values Predict Obesity Rates
Science Daily — Neighborhood property values predict local obesity rates better than education or incomes, according to a study from the University of Washington being published online recently by the journal Social Science and Medicine. For each additional $100,000 in the median price of homes, UW researchers found, obesity rates in a given ZIP code dropped by 2 percent.
The study, based on analyses of responses to a telephone survey conducted in King County by the local health department and the federal Centers for Disease Control, found six-fold disparities in obesity rates across the Seattle metropolitan area. Obesity rates reached 30 percent in the most deprived areas but were only around 5 percent in the most affluent ZIP codes.
"Obesity is an economic issue," said Dr. Adam Drewnowski, director of the UW Center for Obesity Research and leader of the study. "Knowing more about the geography of obesity will allow us to identify the most vulnerable neighborhoods."
Working with the local health agency, Public Health-Seattle & King County, the researchers aggregated multiple-year data from Washington state's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to analyze data for more than 8,000 respondents. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention use the same data to map rising obesity rates in the United States at the state level. However, unlike most states, Washington codes the BRFSS data by the respondents' ZIP code, which permits more detailed analyses of local obesity rates at a finer geographic scale. Other information about the ZIP code areas was provided by data from the U.S. Census.
Residential property values were used as a proxy measure of ZIP code socioeconomic status. "Incomes are not the same as assets and wealth," said Drewnowski. "The chief financial asset for most Americans is their home."
Area prosperity can also be a good predictor of access to healthy foods, or opportunities for exercise.
The UW study was the first to examine obesity rates by area-based indexes of poverty and wealth across a metropolitan area. Previous studies have found higher obesity rates among racial and ethnic minorities and groups of lower education and incomes. Analyses of the same BRFSS data for King County showed that obesity rates were higher for African-Americans (26 percent) than for whites (16 percent), and were higher for people with annual incomes below $15,000 (20 percent) than for those with incomes above $50,000 (15 percent), all consistent with national trends. These disparities were much lower than those dependent on ZIP codes and geographic location. The study concluded that social and economic disparities were more important in predicting obesity than previously thought.
Well-known maps of rising obesity rates in the United States, also based on BRFSS data, showed only small differences among the poorest and the richest states.
"Those maps were used to support that argument that the obesity epidemic did not discriminate," said Drewnowski. "Our research shows that geography, social class, and economic standing all play huge roles in the obesity problem. Some of the most disadvantaged areas -- those hardest hit by low income, low education, and low property values -- are also the ones most affected by the obesity epidemic."
The study co-authors were Dr. David Solet, Epidemiology Unit, Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, and Colin Rehm, epidemiologist, Snohomish Health District, Snohomish County, Wash. The research was supported by the Roadmap grant from the National Institutes of Health, through the UW Center for Obesity Research.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Washington.
Interesting relataionships here. But, are they causal relationships; i.e., does having a lower income cause obesity?
Could intelligence be the causal factor for just about all of these things?
Sitting on your butt all day eating free food is bound to do something bad.
How does the left reconcile obesity with their line that poor people are starving?
Is it related to lacking the ambition to get your kiester off the couch and do something?
The can’t and they don’t. They just keep telling the same lie until they blur the truth. That’s their MO.
>> How does the left reconcile obesity with their line that poor people are starving?
They don’t. Attempting to reconcile their “feelings” with truth & logic would make their heads explode.
True.
Not entirely. To be honest (and as conservatives, WE should be honest truthseekers rather than Leftist dreamers), it has more to do with depression. The poor are, for any number of reasons, suffering from some form of depression. This results in all sorts of negative behavior, overeating and zoning out being two of the more benign results. Hardcore drug use being the most malignant.
Poverty is more than a number on an index. It is a lifestyle. Generally, people who are poor make poor decisions in nearly every aspect of their lives. Whether it is spending $250 a month on cigarettes or $500 a month on fast food.
For about the cost of one meal for a family of five at Burger King, you could buy a rice steamer (a one time purchase), 5 lbs of rice, 5 lbs of chicken and frozen vegetables and eat healthy for days. Poor people don't think like this. Burger King is just much more convenient.
Tax the rich and give it to the poor so the lower income people can start eating better.
What I can’t get from this article is, is 2% statistically relevant?
Or does obesity causes lower income?
There is nothing more to it than that.
Studies like these begin with drunken and offensive notions proposed at a bar, and then brought into the laboratory the very next day.
bump
No, obsesity is a behavioral issue.
*sigh*
Pizza boxes, HO-HO boxes, chocolate milk jugs, all pre-prepared foods, compliments of y’all
It certainly contributes. Poorer neighborhoods have crappy grocery stores with a limited selection, and folks working two jobs don't have time to cook. I'm not surprised that there's a stronger correlation to home values than to household income -- healthy eating doesn't cost more money than junk food. It takes time, knowledge and access to good ingredients.
There are plenty of middle-class and up couch potatoes, and eating right and getting some exercise are conscious decisions. But folks in more affluent neighborhoods have safer places to walk, jog or ride a bike, and better supermarkets, not to mention farmer's markets and specialty stores like Whole Foods or Trader Joe's. Folks in less affluent neighborhoods have to try harder.
I've said many times before that in my judgment, the war on poverty is over, and we won it. Of course, solving one set of problems creates new ones; the old programs don't address the new needs.
What the inner city needs is community kitchens -- start with at least seven families, one for each night of the week. Someone from one family cooks a nutritious, tasty dinner for everyone participating. The program could even expand to prepare pre-packed lunches for kids to take to school. Or invest in one of those vacuum-sealer machines, and have ready-made meals in a plastic bag ready to reheat. If you have an able-bodied adult in the house, you participate on the work or you don't partake in the meals.
Get help from a nutritionist, maybe even an occasional visit from chefs at local restaurants -- soul food, Mexican, Asian, maybe even more fancy fare every now and then. Get the chefs to offer simple, fast and easy recipes, compile them into a cookbook, and sell it as a fundraiser.
Churches are the obvious folks to coordinate the effort -- they have room, roots in the community, volunteer labor, and some sot of vehicle that can bring in ingredients not available at the corner bodega. Maybe their own resources, maybe block grants or corporate donations. Wheel in a van from the nearest Publix, Kroger, Safeway or Super Wal-Mart once a week.
When the New Deal and Great Society programs were created to combat poverty, the problems were malnutrition, substandard housing, disease, and substandard , often segregated schools.
Today, the problem is broken families a poverty of values, not a lack of material goods. Public housing projects were an improvement over shanty towns, but now their time has come and gone. There are no role models, because by definition success means getting out. So we dump kids in a "community" where the only folks who have anything like material success are the pimps and drug dealers who stay in the 'hood because that's where their "business" is. The role models are either running a fraud, running a crime, or in the case of folks with real character and ethics, working themselves half to death.
The challenge facing the poor today is not the lack of a roof, but the lack of a real community. Housing projects are nothing more than a warehouse for hopeless people. Tear them down, or if you have good structures in a good location, auction them off as apartments or condos. as part of a real neighborhood. Offer tax credits -- enterprise zones are one of the best programs of the last 20 years -- to being needed businesses and services into the neighborhood.
There are real people facing real obstacles not of their making. The way to help those people, and to help them all fend for themselves and achieve success so we're not forever supporting or incarcerating generation after generation, is to get smarter and more adaptive to specific local needs. Grants to local groups, including religious groups, that are immersed in the community and responsive to local needs are far more effective than a one-size-fits-all monolithic federal plan.
“Community kitchens” - great post!
Two percent in a one-on-one variation is a rounding error. But that's not what this article about. it's 2% per $100K in median home value. If the sample size is reasonably large and the trend is fairly consistent, it's worth noting.
Furthermore, I suspect there's a distinction that most MSM reporters mess up and most readers can't quite follow, either -- the difference between percent and percentage points.
Suppose, for example, that 25% of the people in one ZIP code are obese. Next ZIP over, it's 20 percent lower. 25 - (25 x .20) = 25 - 5 = 20%.
But fif the next zip is twenty percentage points lower, 25 - 20 = 5%.
A difference of two percent doesn't' mean much. A consistent difference of two percentage points, when the range is from 5% to 30%, is significant.
It may mean that people who earn less are less disciplined ... care less.
Thanks. I hate to fall back on the cliché, but it's past time to work smarter, not harder -- to specifically target the need and tailor programs to fit. And the effectiveness is measured by the successes achieved, not by the amount of money spent.
I naively thought, once, that "compassionate conservatism" meant something like that. Turns out it just meant more deeply feathering different beds.
I was in Whole Foods yesterday, they were selling heirloom tomatoes for $5.99/lb that I grow in my backyard FOR FREE. (Well, not for free free, the seedlings cost $2.99 at Home Depot)
My zip code was changed last year. What impact will that have on my weight? :0)
The US is the only country in the world where poor people are fat.
Pardon me, but there are no “benign” results of negative behavior, unless maybe hitting rock bottom leads one to WAKE UP.
There is nothing benign about depression, whether it’s manifested in overeating, or drug use (zoning out).
IMO obesity is pretty darn malignant ~ and 100% curable.
That's one of those places where you have to weigh the relative value of your time, effort and skill. I have a brown thumb and a yard made mostly of red clay, and we're in the middle of a drought. For me to try to grow 'maters would most likely be futile, not at all fun, and pretty costly.
That said, the same tomatoes are probably at the DeKalb Farmer's Market for half the price. Not so well screened to be pretty, so you have to take more be more selective, but that's another trade-off. Either way, from Whole Foods (or Whole Paycheck, as it's sometimes called) or the farmer's market, or your own garden, better something with real flavor than the rubbery things on the supermarket aisles.
I admit I'm not a big tomato fan -- where this really struck me is in apples. Not to be blunt, but supermarket apples suck. Red Delicious and Golden Delicious apples are the most misnamed produce ever. Granny Smiths have a little more tartness, a little bit of flavor, but the same Turtle Wax feel and the texture of sawdust.
The bottled "apple juice" on the shelf is little more than wee-colored sugar water. Oh, it's sweet and it's nutritious, and it's fine for kindergartners, but come one. I want some flavor, already.
But when you find a roadside stand in the Smokies or the Blue Ridge, in North Georgia, the Carolinas, or Tennessee, just damn. Apples no bigger than a tennis ball. Their color is all freckled and mottled. You'll want to feel them over and look for bruises or worm holes. But when you take a bite, WOW. This is what an apple tastes like. An apple that wasn't bred to survive two weeks in a box car to look pretty on a store shelf. This was something bred to be eaten.
While I'm at that stand, I'll almost always pick up a gallon (at least) of the murky, cloudy cider, a jar of Vidalia onion relish, and a bag of boiled peanuts. I can't turn down the boiled peanuts. And they're so easy to make, every stand has them.
>There are real people facing real obstacles not of their making.<
I am not sure I have ever met anyone who was forced to eat a lousy diet. Most of the stories and times I can recall are about eggplant, broccili or some other healthy food.
I planted tomatoes this year for the first time. I did not have a CLUE what I was doing. I bought seven different seedlings at Home Depot and stuck 'em in the ground.
The results have been amazing, and delicious.
Women children and minorities hardest hit !
In a striking irony, I would bet that certain zip codes and property values could predict annorexia and bulemia.
The study co-authors were Dr. David Solet, Epidemiology Unit, Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, and Colin Rehm, epidemiologist, Snohomish Health District, Snohomish County, Wash. The research was supported by the Roadmap grant from the National Institutes of Health, through the UW Center for Obesity Research.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Washington.
-------------------------
You bet it is an economic issue. Our taxes!
Ever heard of a crockpot? Toss the ingredients in, let it simmer while you are at work.
You can cook rice in a ricecooker with about 2 minutes of work.
Add the contents of the former with the latter, and you'll have a cheap, tasty meal in less time than it takes to stand in line at BK.
Chicken or the egg? Do poor people have problems because they lack community spirit, or does their lack of community spirit (and self-reliance) make them poor?
Possibly. I'd guess that along with obesity, you'll see higher rates of smoking, and possible higher rates of alcoholism.
Nevertheless, Whole Foods deserves kudos for labeling where their meat, seafood and produce come from and for carrying LOCAL produce in season. They are, for example, the only national chain that has gulf shrimp on a regular basis. The same can't be said for the larger chains, which seem to only carry "dirty water" shrimp from 'nam and Indonesia.
It boils down to money and social status. The more money and the higher the social status, the more people care about their appearance. In most instances, this correlates into a greater appreciation for health and fitness, along with the disposable income to make it happen.
Good point.
Now you've introduced two appliances -- cheap ones, to be sure -- an element of skill, and prep time before work instead of after. I'm not saying that it's impossible, or even all that difficult, but it's something that needs to be taught, rather than just handing over a voucher or an EBT card.
If it would help bring people in, pitch it as cultural history and community pride, not as charity -- red beans and rice, gumbo, chili, black beans, menudo -- these are all rich in history as well as nutrition.
As an ER physician of more then 20 years, with experience all over the country I can state that it has been my observation that the poor are in fact more likely to be obese and engage in other bad health habits ( smoking, drug use, drinking to excess ) then the well to do.
For what it’s worth.
I have no gripe with Whole Foods. They offer premium goods at premium prices. You can get as good or better at farmer's markets for far less money, but it takes more time and effort. One of the trade-offs you have to make in life.
Whole Foods is at one end of the scale -- maximum money, minimum time. At the opposite end of the scale is growing your own, on your own land (if you're in the country), in your yard (suburbs) or in a community garden (city).
A friend of mine owns an organic farm in East Tennessee. The first time I had dinner at her house, I was amazed -- the veggies positively exploded with flavor. A far cry from homogenized supermarket fareor veggies that had the life canned or frozen out of them.
Some of both, of course. The thing about a chicken/egg problem is that the classic question is "which came first?" but the inherent understanding is that it's a self-perpetuating cycle.
The New Deal/Great Society model to fight poverty substituted government programs, great in strength and resources but without a heart and soul, in place of church and community programs that were all heart but not sufficient to the task. Noble goals, good intentions, and even good results -- in the initial phases. But big bureaucracies don't adapt well to changing needs. So they continue to offer the same answers to new questions,
Public housing projects were a good solution then to the problems that existed then. People lived in shanties that had rats and flies, leaky roofs, garbage and sewage running along the streets and spreading disease. Challenge met and mastered.
But the projects were more like cattle pens than communities. The poor lived behind fences in isolated compounds -- they no longer counted the cops, shopkeepers, teachers and postmen who worked in the neighborhood among their neighbors. The approach should have changed at least twenty years ago, probably more like 30. But a big government bureaucracy is harder to steer than a train.
At least it's finally happening now. Cabrini Green, one of the great epic failures, is gone, blasted to the ground. Here in Atlanta, Techwood and East Lake Meadows -- an Orwellian name, if ever there was one, as there was nothing like a meadow about it -- is gone. Both neighborhoods are thriving.
Look, I'm pretty fat and pretty lazy. I'm not judging anyone. There are going to be enormously fat couch potatoes in every class and place; the folks who just don't try. I've seen 500-pound men in bib overalls and in tailored suits.
But among those who do try, it's easier for some folks than for others. That's the margin. That's the difference. For me, taking a walk around the block or a bike ride is a simple matter of getting off my flabby butt (and navigating the not-inconsiderable hills around here). For someone in a bad urban neighborhood, it's a matter of dodging muggers, gang-bangers, buses and cabs -- after they get off their flabby butts.
How much more difficult is it -- 10% harder? 20%? 30%? That would more than account for the observed differences. And you'd certainly expect the working poor to be more trim than the desk-bound middle class; Physical labor pays less than mental. When you spend your working day hauling drywall or roof shingles or timber up a 20-foot ladder, you don't worry too much about which gym to join so you can go get a workout after you leave the job.
The urban working poor, often, have the worst of both worlds. They're working a grill, busing tables, washing dishes. They have neither hard physical labor nor good pay. After a long day, they just want to drop.
Obesity is exacerbated more by EATING TOO MUCH than by lack of exercise.
It takes discipline to stay hungry and relish smaller meals.
Sorry. I'm not gonna take that blank assertion for granted. A sedentary lifestyle leads to a slower metabolic rate. More muscle mass burns more calories, even at rest, even while asleep. Lance Armstrong consumes more calories in a day than I do. And his left leg burns more of them in an hour than my whole body does in a day.
Wow, a telephone survey! Why that makes it almost as valid as an internet poll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.