Comment 79643

By moylek (registered) - website | Posted August 09, 2012 at 21:35:24 in reply to Comment 79635

At a glance, that obesity list almost directly correlates to wealth.

Bingo: I think that the correlation between income+education and weight is pretty well documented (we're talking averages and trends here, of course).

One even sees the same trend amongst staff at McMaster, where _everyone_ makes at least a decent wage, can afford good food and has plenty of leisure time: hourly workers and clerical staff are heavier on average than professional staff (who generally have bachelor's or master's degrees and are paid more) who are heavier on average than faculty (with Ph.Ds and yet larger salaries).

Which is to say that it's not just that poor people can't afford veggies and bikes and so they get fatter than do middle class people, with their veggies and bikes, who in turn are fatter than the rich, who can afford the most veggies and the best bikes.

Hamilton's relative obesity is not directly related to Hamilton or its services or facilities: it's primarily a reflection of the demographics. Within those bounds, there's only so much tweaking to be done on a municipal scale.

Edit:

The correlation between education and obesity is much stronger in women than men, according to one study (see http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/fitness...

Though my own observation within the broadly-defined "middle class" is that it holds for men, too. The stereotype of the skinny shirtless punk and his chubby girlfriend notwithstanding (see King & James on any warm day).

Comment edited by moylek on 2012-08-09 22:10:20

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds