Reposting CDC stats because EVERYONE should see them
Options
cynthiaj777
Posts: 787 Member
My original topic got locked...honestly for no reason. There were some very intelligent and eye opening comments coming through. And I want everyone to see the stats on obesity. I knew obesity was a problem, but just look through the graphic. VERY disturbing.
This makes me sad. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
If you click through the graphics, you can tell that in 1994, when we finally had data on all state obesity rates, all states were medium blue or dark blue, which indicates that nation as having between 10-19% obesity rate. Within two years, in 1996, over 50% of states had an obesity rate in the dark blue of 15-19%. By the following year, in 1997, states begin to turn beige indicating an obesity rate of 20-25%! Two years later, by 1999, all of the south and much of the midwest are beige, which is 20-25% obesity rate. More alarming, in 2001, only another two years, southern states turn bright orange indicating an obesity rate of 25-29%, and, by 2003, all but a handful of states had an obesity rate of 20% or higher. Two years later, in 2005, the horrible red states start appearing, and within five years, in 2010, all but a handful of states are orange, which is 25-29% obesity and the majority of the south is deep red, which is 30% or higher.
I know that obesity is a huge epidemic in this nation, but I had no idea the degree and magnitude of how it has changed within 25 years. We aren't talking generational changes, which can be explained by higher incomes, better access to food, smaller family sizes....this is WITHIN ONE GENERATION. This is extremely disheartening.
This makes me sad. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
If you click through the graphics, you can tell that in 1994, when we finally had data on all state obesity rates, all states were medium blue or dark blue, which indicates that nation as having between 10-19% obesity rate. Within two years, in 1996, over 50% of states had an obesity rate in the dark blue of 15-19%. By the following year, in 1997, states begin to turn beige indicating an obesity rate of 20-25%! Two years later, by 1999, all of the south and much of the midwest are beige, which is 20-25% obesity rate. More alarming, in 2001, only another two years, southern states turn bright orange indicating an obesity rate of 25-29%, and, by 2003, all but a handful of states had an obesity rate of 20% or higher. Two years later, in 2005, the horrible red states start appearing, and within five years, in 2010, all but a handful of states are orange, which is 25-29% obesity and the majority of the south is deep red, which is 30% or higher.
I know that obesity is a huge epidemic in this nation, but I had no idea the degree and magnitude of how it has changed within 25 years. We aren't talking generational changes, which can be explained by higher incomes, better access to food, smaller family sizes....this is WITHIN ONE GENERATION. This is extremely disheartening.
0
Replies
-
I briefly read the first page of the other thread...but did anyone ever determine if they took into account the fact that BMI standards were changed in the 90's? I know at one point there were a lot of people that went from "healthy" to "overweight" or "obese" without gaining an ounce.0
-
I briefly read the first page of the other thread...but did anyone ever determine if they took into account the fact that BMI standards were changed in the 90's? I know at one point there were a lot of people that went from "healthy" to "overweight" or "obese" without gaining an ounce.
I believe we have come to the conclusion that, if/when, the standards changed, the previous years were calibrated to reflect the new definitions in order to maintain scientific integrity. And one person made a very good argument....whether they were considered normal, overweight or obese, from year to year, the weight didn't change...just what category they were place in, so it still represents overall "health" when the new definitions were applied.
So, the argument of...went to being overweight without gaining an ounce is true, but the person was STILL overweight regardless, so once the definitions changed, it would have reflected a truer obesity rate than before....so the jump is irrelevant, pretty much.
Does that make sense?0 -
MERRR, here we go again with not being able to delete a post I didn't mean to put on the thread!0
-
And one person made a very good argument....whether they were considered normal, overweight or obese, from year to year, the weight didn't change...just what category they were place in, so it still represents overall "health."
Does that make sense?
No...
Because the definition of "overall health" is changing then. If a study says that there has been a _____% increase in obesity over the last 20 years...but halfway through they changed the standard and _______% more people were then moved to the obese category then it doesn't mean anything other than we changed our standards. There are just less people considered healthy and more people being told that they need to lose weight (even though many of them are in great shape).0 -
So, the argument of...went to being overweight without gaining an ounce is true, but the person was STILL overweight regardless
But many of them weren't. That's the point. Since BMI doesn't take into account muscle mass, body fat, etc. it doesn't make sense. If someone is 5'8'' and 190 lbs and super muscular they are still considered overweight even though they are obviously not.0 -
So, the argument of...went to being overweight without gaining an ounce is true, but the person was STILL overweight regardless
But many of them weren't. That's the point. Since BMI doesn't take into account muscle mass, body fat, etc. it doesn't make sense. If someone is 5'8'' and 190 lbs and super muscular they are still considered overweight even though they are obviously not.
It isn't based off of BMI.0 -
Think about the reverse...
If we had a 20% obesity rate in the 80's...and then in the 90's they lowered the standards and all of the sudden our obesity rate dropped to 10%....would that make anyone less fat? The numbers still mean nothing.
I'm not saying there aren't more fat people now...convenience foods, larger portions, laziness, etc has all contributed to a rise in americas weight. But these statistics were so skewed to begin with that they just aren't worth paying attention to because they aren't even close to accurate.0 -
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System is what is used to track health. It consists of a plethora of variable and questions that people are accessed by or answer.0
-
So, the argument of...went to being overweight without gaining an ounce is true, but the person was STILL overweight regardless
But many of them weren't. That's the point. Since BMI doesn't take into account muscle mass, body fat, etc. it doesn't make sense. If someone is 5'8'' and 190 lbs and super muscular they are still considered overweight even though they are obviously not.
It isn't based off of BMI.
Yes it is. It's based on data submitted to their system but then compared to the BMI..."Obesity" is referring to those people in the "Obese" category.0 -
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System is what is used to track health. It consists of a plethora of variable and questions that people are accessed by or answer.
This is the system that took the information. The information was verified against the BMI. If you click on the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and then choose your state and narrow it down to see obesity it says "Overweight & Obesity (BMI)"0 -
Think about the reverse...
If we had a 20% obesity rate in the 80's...and then in the 90's they lowered the standards and all of the sudden our obesity rate dropped to 10%....would that make anyone less fat? The numbers still mean nothing.
I'm not saying there aren't more fat people now...convenience foods, larger portions, laziness, etc has all contributed to a rise in americas weight. But these statistics were so skewed to begin with that they just aren't worth paying attention to because they aren't even close to accurate.
What motive does the CDC have to lie or fudge obesity rates? They don't get more money if the nation is fatter. They don't get praise for highlighting it.0 -
Think about the reverse...
If we had a 20% obesity rate in the 80's...and then in the 90's they lowered the standards and all of the sudden our obesity rate dropped to 10%....would that make anyone less fat? The numbers still mean nothing.
I'm not saying there aren't more fat people now...convenience foods, larger portions, laziness, etc has all contributed to a rise in americas weight. But these statistics were so skewed to begin with that they just aren't worth paying attention to because they aren't even close to accurate.
What motive does the CDC have to lie or fudge obesity rates? They don't get more money if the nation is fatter. They don't get praise for highlighting it.
I never said they were lying or fudging. I said their standards were unreleastic. They base BMI off of height and weight only. They determined what they think a "healthy" person should be without giving any additional guidelines (like body fat percentage for example).0 -
Glad I saw this! Gonna be honest, I blame the food industry. When legislators push to have a tablespoon of tomato paste count as a serving of vegetables, and the corn farmers' association advertising that HFCS is just like any other sugar, I know who's convincing America to just shut up and eat. >[0
-
Edited it to work as a gif on this thread, it's pretty shocking!
1 in every 4 is obese... A quarter of the WHOLE country....0 -
Edited it to work as a gif on this thread, it's pretty shocking!
1 in every 4 is obese... A quarter of the WHOLE country....
It doesn't seem strange to you at all that if you look around you won't see 1 out of every 4 people looking disgustingly fat? I weight 203 and I'm considered Obese.0 -
according to my BMI I am over weight. :laugh:0
-
Bump to read later.0
-
Glad I saw this! Gonna be honest, I blame the food industry. When legislators push to have a tablespoon of tomato paste count as a serving of vegetables, and the corn farmers' association advertising that HFCS is just like any other sugar, I know who's convincing America to just shut up and eat. >[
^^^ I love this!!
Thanks for reposting the link when the thread was locked, OP.0 -
According to my height and weight I'm "obese" and I don't look or feel "obese".....
BMI is such bull because as other ppl say it doesnt account for the weight of muscle factors....0 -
according to my BMI I am over weight. :laugh:
Exactly. The idea behind BMI is fine but without more information beyond height and weight you'll end up with ludicrous results as in your case.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions