Land-o-Lard

July 11, 2009

When the CDC released its new obesity statistics in July 2009, I immediately realized that the mainstream media was missing something. Of course a day rarely passes when I do not realize that the MSM is missing something, but this was a story they really bungled.

The mistake the MSM made in this case was simple. They failed to understand that obesity rates vary dramatically by racial and ethnic groups, and that the variation in state obesity rates is largely (though of course not completely) an artifact of the racial and ethnic composition of the various states.

Percentage of the U.S. population that is overweight or obese (BMI >= 25), by race and ethnicity.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data, 2008, available here

White	Black	Hispanic	Asian/Pacific Islander	American Indian/Alaska Native	Other
59.6%	69.9%	62.1%	38.7%	67.1%	59.5%

So if they had bothered to look at the data, the MSM writers would have seen that:

While the southern states generally have a higher rate of lardism than the northern states, the WHITE population in southern states has a rate of lardism on par with, or below, most midwestern states.
The large Black population in many southern states increases the overall lardism rate for southern states.
Similar effects can be noted in other states, with minority populations increasing or decreasing the lardism rate, depending on their characteristics.

This shows quite clearly that Locus Lardi for the White population is the region commonly called the heartland, not the south. Too bad the learned gentleman who wrote this article "Why are Southerners so Fat" for Time magazine didn't bother to look at some facts before he committed his irrelevant observations to print.

Now let's talk about causality. These are my own opinions, based on observations and some statistical data.

Why does the Black population have a higher rate of lardism than the White population?

Their food tastes great, but it's definitely lardific. Let me say here that one of the best meals I have eaten recently was at a Black fish-fry place in New Jersey. The seafood (catfish, shrimp, scallops) was expertly breaded and perfectly fried, the beans were excellent, and the greens, cooked with salt pork and bacon, were superb. In terms of culinary virtuosity, this meal was fully on par with the dinner I had the following evening before the opera at a fine restaurant in NYC. You can say that Black cuisine is fattening, but any intellectually honest person must admit that it tastes great.
To a greater degree than Whites, Blacks are unwilling to make themselves miserable in order to be thin. I am not sure this can be considered a character defect.

Why does the White population have a lower rate of lardism than the Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations?

With a few regional exceptions, their food sucks and they can't stand to eat much of it. Ever hear of a culinary tour of Colorado?
For many, vanity demands that they be thin. The wearisome glum ignorant pasty-faced posseurs who slither through the caliginous canyons of NYC and other stinking pits of degeneracy in the Northeast are prime examples of this. They will torture themselves to be thin.
In California, they are obsessed with life extension, though their lives are so useless and meaningless it is hard to understand why they bother.

The South Beach Dog Turd Diet
If a diet of nothing but dog turds would increase
your life expectancy by five years, would you adopt it?

What about fast food, soft drinks, and other such crap?

Don't blame food, you whining rotter. What do you think that farm hands and lumberjacks ate for breakfast 100 years ago? Granola with blueberries? Voyageurs were given rations of flour and suet. The moron who made that "Supersize Me" movie could have skipped McDonalds, eaten a similar quantity of food at the finest French restaurant he could find, and gained the same amount of weight. If you want to lose weight (for a worthy reason such as health, not an unworthy one such as vanity), eat less or exercise more, and don't blame your problem on the food industry. Nobody is forcing you to eat a Big Mac instead of a salad.

Do I need to lose weight?

Why are you asking me that? Ask your doctor. Words like "overweight" and "obese" may be defined by reference to BMI, but the cutoff points are arbitrary and do not take into account the wide variations in individual body habitus. And of course reducing your BMI from 25 (overweight) to 24.9 (Normal) is a very slight change and not likely to have much effect on your health or appearance. The ultimate question is whether the benefit you obtain from losing weight is worth the trouble of doing it, and that is a decision that only you and your doctor can make.

Will a slimmer population reduce overall medical costs?

Who knows. If we all end up living longer, and our medical geniuses find ways to keep us alive at huge expense in nutrient tanks, the answer of course is no. The notion that healthier habits that lead to a longer life will reduce overall medical costs is dubious, at best. And certainly pension and social security costs will increase if we all live longer. Of course you won't get a decent treatment of these questions from the nematodes in the MSM, nor from the tube worms in Congress.

Doesn't poverty cause obesity?

Of course not, you idiot. Are fruits and vegetables (canned especially), dried lentils, beans, and rice costly foods? Nope. Certain personality orientations correlated with poverty, such as an external locus of control (it's just the way I am, nothing I can do about it) and other correlates of poverty such as idleness (the leaven of lard) can provide an explanation, but saying that the poor cannot afford healthy food is utter nonsense.

I'm getting bored writing about this. Look at the data below and observe that the white residents of Minnesota (which fancies itself a svelte state, for no apparent reason) are in fact more lardoid than the white residents of Michigan, and only slightly less lardonic than the white residents of Alabama and Mississippi.

	Overweight and Obesity Rates (BMI >= 25) for Adults by Race/Ethnicity, 2008 (NSD = Not Sufficient Data)									Population breakdown by race and ethnicity
State	Overall Rank	Overall %	White Rank	White %	Black %	Hispanic %	Asian/Pacific Islander %	American Indian/Alaska Native %	Other %	White % of population	Black % of Population	Hispanic % of Population	American Indian/Alaska Native % of population	Asian/Pacific Islander % of population
Colorado	1	55.30%	1	51.60%	60.00%	59.10%	NSD	NSD	54.60%	89.73%	4.28%	20.19%	1.22%	2.81%
Hawaii	2	57.30%	2	53.20%	NSD	60.70%	51.60%	NSD	64.70%	29.67%	3.08%	8.72%	0.59%	48.37%
New Mexico	7	59.90%	3	53.70%	NSD	64.00%	NSD	63.80%	48.30%	84.00%	2.97%	44.90%	9.69%	1.55%
Massachusetts	3	58.00%	4	55.20%	63.20%	60.20%	37.10%	NSD	53.90%	86.20%	7.02%	8.57%	0.31%	5.03%
Utah	4	58.10%	5	55.80%	NSD	64.10%	NSD	NSD	NSD	92.92%	1.27%	12.03%	1.39%	2.74%
Florida	8	60.10%	6	56.00%	73.90%	55.20%	NSD	NSD	54.50%	79.81%	15.91%	20.98%	0.50%	2.37%
Connecticut	6	59.70%	7	56.50%	65.20%	65.90%	NSD	NSD	66.40%	84.28%	10.34%	11.98%	0.38%	3.54%
California	11	61.30%	8	56.90%	68.80%	63.90%	37.30%	NSD	60.10%	76.64%	6.67%	36.61%	1.21%	12.89%
New Jersey	16	62.00%	9	57.00%	69.90%	63.90%	36.10%	NSD	57.60%	76.03%	14.46%	16.34%	0.35%	7.74%
Arizona	10	61.10%	10	57.10%	NSD	59.10%	NSD	75.20%	NSD	86.51%	4.16%	30.09%	4.86%	2.70%
Rhode Island	7	59.90%	11	57.50%	69.40%	59.60%	NSD	NSD	NSD	88.48%	6.36%	11.63%	0.63%	2.89%
Vermont	5	58.40%	11	57.50%	NSD	NSD	NSD	37.30%	57.50%	96.41%	0.87%	1.38%	0.39%	1.17%
Nevada	18	62.60%	12	58.40%	NSD	63.90%	NSD	NSD	64.90%	80.89%	8.10%	25.71%	1.50%	6.75%
New York	9	60.20%	13	58.50%	63.90%	52.20%	NSD	NSD	59.60%	73.42%	17.25%	16.68%	0.57%	7.13%
Illinois	21	63.20%	14	58.70%	72.60%	68.70%	NSD	NSD	NSD	79.13%	14.88%	15.25%	0.35%	4.40%
Maryland	22	63.30%	14	58.70%	71.30%	60.40%	NSD	NSD	52.40%	63.40%	29.44%	6.67%	0.36%	5.16%
Louisiana	24	63.60%	15	59.40%	65.10%	NSD	NSD	NSD	62.90%	64.84%	31.98%	3.37%	0.64%	1.49%
Idaho	17	62.10%	16	59.50%	NSD	58.90%	NSD	NSD	NSD	94.60%	0.95%	10.23%	1.52%	1.28%
Oregon	12	61.50%	17	59.70%	NSD	60.30%	NSD	NSD	NSD	90.14%	2.01%	10.98%	1.44%	3.93%
Texas	34	66.10%	17	59.70%	68.50%	66.60%	NSD	NSD	60.60%	82.40%	11.91%	36.46%	0.76%	3.58%
Montana	13	61.60%	18	59.80%	NSD	NSD	NSD	73.20%	65.30%	90.47%	0.67%	2.98%	6.44%	0.70%
Washington	15	61.80%	18	59.80%	65.70%	58.60%	44.60%	71.80%	59.20%	84.29%	3.74%	9.83%	1.72%	7.17%
Wyoming	17	62.10%	18	59.80%	NSD	66.30%	NSD	NSD	55.60%	93.87%	1.29%	7.73%	2.54%	0.81%
Georgia	27	64.60%	19	60.00%	71.90%	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	65.39%	30.02%	8.02%	0.37%	2.94%
Maine	14	61.70%	20	60.30%	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	96.39%	1.03%	1.28%	0.60%	0.92%
Virginia	12	61.50%	20	60.30%	66.40%	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	73.03%	19.91%	6.84%	0.37%	4.96%
South Carolina	33	65.80%	21	60.50%	70.50%	72.00%	NSD	NSD	57.30%	68.75%	28.48%	4.11%	0.43%	1.28%
Delaware	24	63.60%	22	60.90%	72.00%	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	74.27%	20.95%	6.77%	0.42%	2.95%
New Hampshire	20	63.00%	22	60.90%	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	73.10%	95.49%	1.22%	2.64%	0.28%	1.95%
Pennsylvania	26	64.20%	23	61.00%	72.80%	61.70%	NSD	NSD	60.10%	85.42%	10.79%	4.77%	0.22%	2.49%
Ohio	22	63.30%	24	61.10%	67.60%	57.40%	NSD	NSD	59.70%	84.76%	12.04%	2.63%	0.26%	1.61%
North Carolina	32	65.70%	25	61.30%	72.30%	60.10%	NSD	67.90%	67.40%	73.94%	21.60%	7.43%	1.25%	1.99%
Wisconsin	23	63.50%	25	61.30%	62.10%	NSD	NSD	70.20%	56.00%	89.67%	6.07%	5.08%	0.99%	2.08%
Indiana	23	63.50%	26	61.40%	68.30%	67.50%	NSD	NSD	NSD	88.00%	9.07%	5.21%	0.32%	1.41%
Iowa	26	64.20%	27	61.50%	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	94.17%	2.68%	4.21%	0.42%	1.63%
Michigan	27	64.60%	28	61.90%	69.60%	59.20%	NSD	NSD	60.70%	81.18%	14.24%	4.14%	0.62%	2.41%
Minnesota	19	62.70%	29	62.00%	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	89.05%	4.57%	4.15%	1.24%	3.61%
Nebraska	25	64.10%	30	62.10%	NSD	59.20%	NSD	NSD	68.00%	91.37%	4.50%	7.88%	1.06%	1.78%
Alabama	39	67.90%	31	62.20%	75.80%	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	71.03%	26.38%	2.89%	0.53%	1.00%
Mississippi	38	67.40%	32	62.40%	71.30%	NSD	NSD	NSD	69.30%	60.60%	37.18%	2.24%	0.50%	0.84%
South Dakota	28	64.90%	33	62.50%	NSD	NSD	NSD	70.20%	NSD	88.19%	1.14%	2.61%	8.46%	0.79%
Arkansas	31	65.60%	34	62.60%	71.10%	57.10%	NSD	NSD	66.40%	80.78%	15.76%	5.59%	0.85%	1.17%
Kansas	30	65.50%	35	63.20%	74.20%	62.10%	NSD	NSD	62.30%	88.70%	6.15%	9.11%	1.03%	2.31%
Missouri	29	65.40%	36	63.30%	73.70%	NSD	NSD	NSD	62.30%	85.03%	11.49%	3.21%	0.51%	1.53%
Oklahoma	35	66.40%	36	63.30%	70.00%	57.30%	NSD	72.20%	69.50%	78.14%	7.96%	7.65%	8.00%	1.83%
Tennessee	39	67.90%	37	63.50%	73.20%	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	80.37%	16.78%	3.72%	0.33%	1.38%
Alaska	29	65.40%	38	63.60%	NSD	NSD	NSD	70.00%	53.90%	70.62%	4.27%	6.10%	15.30%	5.18%
North Dakota	37	67.30%	39	64.30%	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	91.39%	1.08%	2.06%	5.56%	0.79%
Kentucky	36	66.60%	40	64.70%	73.70%	48.70%	NSD	NSD	69.80%	89.90%	7.71%	2.39%	0.26%	1.04%
West Virginia	40	68.70%	41	66.60%	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	NSD	94.52%	3.58%	1.14%	0.23%	0.69%

Source for overweight/obesity percentages: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=91&cat=2&sub=26&yr=63&typ=2
Source for population percentages: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/SC-EST2008-04.html