Ranking by state


Note: 1 = Highest rate of adult obesity, 51 = lowest.


Rankings are based on combining three years of data (2004-2006) from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Surveillance System to “stabilize” data for comparison purposes. States with statistically significant (p<0.05) increases for one year are noted with an asterisk (*), states with statistically significant increases for two years in a row are noted with two asterisks (**).

Individuals with a body mass index (BMI) (a calculation based on weight and height ratios) of 30 or higher are considered obese.

Obesity rates in adults starting with highest rate


1: Mississippi**
2: West Virginia*
3: Alabama
4: Louisiana
5 (tie): South Carolina** Tennessee*
7: Kentucky**
8: Arkansas
9 (tie): Indiana, Michigan* Oklahoma**
12 (tie): Missouri**, Texas
14: Georgia; 15: Ohio**
16: Alaska
17: North Carolina**
18: Nebraska**;
19: North Dakota
20 (tie): Iowa, South Dakota**
22: Wisconsin**
23 (tie): Pennsylvania, Virginia*
25 (tie): Illinois, Maryland**
27: Kansas*
28: Minnesota
29: Delaware**
30: Oregon**
31 (tie): Idaho, Washington**
33: Maine*
34: Florida**
35: Wyoming**
36: California
37: Nevada*
38 (tie): New Hampshire**, New York
40 (tie): D.C., New Jersey**;
42: New Mexico**
43: Arizona
44: Utah
45: Montana
46: Rhode Island**
47 (tie): Connecticut**, Hawaii*
49: Vermont
50: Massachusetts**
51: Colorado*

Wow, look how many states show an increase two years in a row! At least California, where I live, is in the bottom half. Maybe just by living here I can lose a few pounds.

On CA: I noticed a huge difference in obesity rates between the coastal band -- i.e., from the coast to about 30 miles inland -- and the interior, defined as everything else. Same is probably true of Oregon and Washington, although I'd guess the differences aren't as extreme.

As for a causal effect ... I supposed it depends on whether you believe the recent Christakis et al study on network effects on obesity, aka, "fat friends can make you fat."

There are also huge differences across education and income levels in obesity rates. These don't seem to get quite as much press as geographic differences, even though the education and income effects are much bigger (and account for a huge chunk of the cross-state disparities).

Kim

Perhaps the fact that California is home to many movie stars and wannabbe-types (notorious for being underweight) helps to account for the low rate?

I don't have similar statistics for Canada, but I do remember reading that the more rural and the more economically depressed, an area is, the less weight conscious (or perhaps we could call it weight-obsessed) the population. Would think this is also true in the U.S.

I'm sure not surprised that Ohio is so high on the list!!!!!

But I'm working to change my own little fat world

Trish

I agree with this but I think it also may be because people living on a tight budget can not always afford the healthier foods. It's a shame that milk costs more than coke, sugar-filled juice costs more than natural juice, etc.

Although I love it here in Mississippi it became clear to us last year when we moved here that food is the core of all entertainment here in Northern Mississippi. I think the current numbers are 1 out of 3 are obese! The people are friendly, you can't go a city block without stumbling across at least 2 if not 4 tempting places to stop & eat. We're still actively trying to find good/low crime places to dance and it's a challenge! Finding a hiking or bike trail is tough. Thankfully the YMCA is very active & supportive of those who want to persue fitness.

If a repairman comes to work on your house it's not uncommon to offer him some sweet tea & a piece of cake. It seems like all social interactions here have food as the main event.

Pray for me!