In the Time.com column If You Must Know, Claire Suddath answers the musical question, "Why are Southerners so fat?" I only saw it because I look at CNN.com everyday and the headline "Time: Why does Blubber Belt wrap the South?" couldn't help but catch my eye. I just knew we'd be featured as a part of the Blubber Belt, and we all know West Virginia really needed another flattering label to add to her laurel crown. With a first paragraph like this, how could I not be sucked in:
People from Mississippi are fat. With an adult obesity rate of 33%, Mississippi has gobbled its way to the "chubbiest state" crown for the fifth year in a row, according to a new joint report by Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Alabama, West Virginia and Tennessee aren't far behind, with obesity rates over 30%. In fact, eight of the 10 fattest states are in the South. The region famous for its biscuits, barbecue and pecan pies has been struggling with its weight for years — but then again, so has the rest of the country. Wisconsin loves cheese, New Yorkers scarf pizza, and New Englanders have been known to enjoy a crab cake or two. So why is the South so portly?
No need to worry about any sugarcoating in that article! When the first sentence is "People from Mississippi are fat," you just know things aren't going toward a happy place.
First off, my condolences to you in Mississippi who are not part of the above-average rate of obesity for this country. Apparently, you do not exist to Time, because "people from Mississippie are fat," so if you're not fat how could you be from Mississippi?
You see name-calling, label-sticking, or even coining a new phrase to isolate a wide geographic swath and label everyone in that area as belonging to one type of group or another (like, say, hillbilly, toothless, poor...oh, I'm getting ahead of myself because the poor thing is what follows), requires a reader to suspend logic in a way. "Mississippi has had the highest percentage of obesity (33%) of any state in the past five years as recorded by..." would be a true statement. Any blanket statement would be a false one by the very nature of its blanketness. "People from Mississippi are fat" is a statement that can only be true for some, as there is no state with a 100% obesity rate. Matter of fact, by their own calculations that must mean that 67% of the people in Mississippi are not obese and, therefore, deserving of the label because 33% of their fellow Mississippians are obese and have some work to do (assuming they are not obese as a result of other medical or genetic problems).
And, yes, there we are (un)proudly plunked in the plop pool right in the second sentence along with Alabama and Tennessee. Don't you feel special?
I know I do. I hope Alabama and Tennessee does, too.
Hell, I can go off my diet now because I'm just plain old overweight. I've not achieved the obesity that is expected of the Blubber Belt staters. Matter of fact, I might stop typing right now to gobble up some fudge.
So, besides average weights, why does Time think we're fat. That's right. I know I already spoiled it. It's because we're all poor, too.
The article says Mississippi is the poorest state and that West Virginia and Alabama are tied for fifth poorest state. There was a time when moving up to fifth poorest after a long time in the poorest slot would have been a cause for celebration. Damn me and my logical need to know if we're all fat and getting fatter as well as poor and getting poorer, or are there some variations from year to year that show improvement or worsening of these conditions? Isn't that the story? No. This is the information age and shock or surprise bring clicks and logic is much harder to make pithy than name-calling will ever be.
Then after deciding that poverty may not be the problem since poverty in some places leads to decreased weight (wouldn't that be malnutrition in some cases?), they land on culture as the culprit. Though, it is puzzling that the only part of culture they mention is a tendency to like fried foods, and before the paragraph is over they negate the common argument for why the poor are fat.
Instead, they purport that lack of exercise is the reason behind our big behinds, because we tend to drive most places because we lack public transportation to walk to and from, lack of sidewalks for easy jogging/biking in rural areas, and lack of desire to go outside and work in the heat. I'm sorry. Did I miss the part where they isolated the in-state Blubbers for each of the Blubber Belt states to mainly the rural areas?
Then the article ends by blaming a conflagration of all of the above and notes where some states are gaining ground by having programs in the state to raise nutritional awareness. Yet, they make no mention of the healthier school food programs that West Virginia native Morgan Spurlock's FX series "30 Days" showed in West Virginia on his television series in one of the earlier seasons.
Worse still, they make no mention of awards, accolades, and headway to a reduction in obesity in West Virginia that came from WVPEIA's Pathways to Wellness ads a few years back. You remember the billboards that said things like "Biggie Size = Biggie Thighs" and such? I could find no pics, so if anyone has a link that would be nice so other folks could enjoy that great ad campaign. You know, it wasn't that long ago that we were the fattest state. Now, we're just down to having the fattest city (which I think came from skewed results because they didn't just use Huntington for the fattest city deal...they used Ashland, Ironton, and the surrounding area, too, didn't they?) as chronicled here in my post called "Huntington's Butt...", and they did use a five-county metro area to gather data which they applied to a singular city. Just don't quite seem like fair research parameters to me. At least not for that label. If they had said "Huntington Metro Area" as opposed to "Huntington, the Fattest City," I would see it differently.
Let's just hope no one changes the welcome signs for West Virginia again to proudly include that we're a part of the Blubber Belt.
Thoughts? Or, are you, like me, grabbing for the box of Hostess Donettes because you've got some eating to do to catch up with our new glamorous image?
5 comments:
I'm confused. Am I fat because I live in WV or do I live in WV because I'm fat? Does the same go for being poor? If I lived in one of the states not mentioned would I still be fat, poor, have no access to sidewalks, prefer fried foods and be inclined not to exercise?
Damn. I hate those articles. When I woke up this morning I felt pretty good about myself. I was also reasonably sure about most things. Now I'm pretty sure I live in WV, I'm just not sure why...is it because I'm fat...poor...stupid, did they say stupid? Damn.
I read a comment on another blog yesterday - the topic was salting watermelon (I'm from the South and we always have). The person commented that it must be a hick thing because WV is all hicks. I had to blink rapidly at that for a bit, and I did respond, nicely, that we weren't ALL hicks.
Although, apparently, we are blubbery and poor. Grrrrr.
People in New Jersey are thin. Yep, every last one of them. I don't know a single fat person. Not one. We are also all intelligent, and we all have straight teeth. Now doesn't that make you wish you lived in New Jersey? Me neither.
Here is MA were are 49th Fattest . .
Malach is 6' 2" and 220 down from about 245, so I can keep up with my fellow Massholes.
Sheesh. Hey, here's an idea: consult a dietitian. Oh wait, that would involve actual research, so forget that. Much easier to say that we're fat because we're lazy and come from a defective culture.
OK. Here's the explanation that I heard. I'll type slow cause I know the folks from Time can't read fast.
YES, severe poverty leads to starvation and malnutrition. The bloated-belly babies we see on TV along with pleas for money? Yes, that's starvation. But we're talking poverty, not third-world starvation. Here's the deal.
In Appalachia and the South, we have poverty but not the dirt-eating extent. So we must choose food that is a) filling and b) inexpensive. That means a lot of white bread with mayonnaise, mac and cheese, rice and beans, and the like. Also, this food tends to be very processed and unhealthy. But it's CHEAP. Trust me. I was a poor grad student for years and this was what I ate.
Now take a look at the Atkins Diet, the South Beach Diet, or any other low-carb diet. Notice the verboten foods. That's right: it's a perfect match for the list above. When you have limited funds, which are you going to choose: a head of arugula or five packs of generic mac and cheese? I know which one I'd pick, especially if I had to feed a family. One meal versus five? No contest.
Another problem here is the issue of rural poverty. You notice the folks who come to Wal-Mart or the grocery store once a month? That's because gas is high and they can only afford to drive down (or bum a ride down) once a month. Again, what will you buy? A month's worth of rice or a month's worth of fresh fruits and veggies? Personally, I'd buy the one that won't spoil within a week. Call me crazy.
I used to be a journalism major because I wanted to understand things and explain them to the broader public. I changed majors when I realized what they were teaching: i.e., proper punctuation that I had learned in junior high. Investigative journalism? Not a bit.
Post a Comment