View Full Version : We're No. 2!



SpectralMourning
01-24-2009, 04:24 PM
We did it again, folks. We made the top 2! Now we're going to need to work a bit harder to get that no. 1 spot next year, but I think we can really do it.
Top 25 fittest and fattest cities in the U.S. - Healthy Living on Shine (http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/top-25-fittest-and-fattest-cities-in-the-u-s-351934/)

oknacreous
01-24-2009, 04:32 PM
What? Mick's "OKCmillion" publicity stunt didn't magically help us all lose weight? You could knock me over with a feather.

Over the last few years I've lost about 85 lbs with a lot of hard work, and I'm here to tell you that it's really hard to find high-quality, fresh, healthy food around here. On the other hand I see another chain rib joint has opened...

mecarr
01-24-2009, 05:52 PM
Peeps here like their fried food and don't like to walk more than 15 yards at a time.

oneforone
01-25-2009, 02:04 AM
Please.... OKC has just as many fat people as any other city in the US. These surveys are nothing more than tools to help push goods and services to the public, government and private sector.

Bostonfan
01-25-2009, 07:17 AM
We did it again, folks. We made the top 2! Now we're going to need to work a bit harder to get that no. 1 spot next year, but I think we can really do it.
Top 25 fittest and fattest cities in the U.S. - Healthy Living on Shine (http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/top-25-fittest-and-fattest-cities-in-the-u-s-351934/)

No shock here. If you have been out and about you'd see lazy slobs everywhere. Even though we all know it's important to eat right, it basically comes down to being LAZY. It takes a little effort away from the tv, video games, computer, kitchen, etc. Oh, but you always here, "I'm just too busy to eat right or to exercise". But hey, I bet we are #1 in the country when it comes to stomach staple surgery..

oknacreous
01-25-2009, 10:43 AM
Please.... OKC has just as many fat people as any other city in the US. These surveys are nothing more than tools to help push goods and services to the public, government and private sector.

Actually, if you read the Men's Fitness report...


According to the CDC, 29 percent of residents in the Oklahoma City area are clinically obese. The national average is 25.19 percent.

2009 Fattest Cities: #2 Oklahoma City, OK - Men's Fitness (http://www.mensfitness.com/lifestyle/205)

Pete
01-25-2009, 03:06 PM
Also from Men's Fitness:


Even recreational walking - about the easiest fitness activity anywhere - can't attract participants in Oklahoma City, where people are 14 percent less likely than average to go for a walk, the 4th lowest rate of any city in our survey.

This is the direct result of ridiculous sprawl, as even if you did want to walk somewhere where the heck would you go in most areas?

Plus, there are very few sidewalks and running/walking paths.

These are areas where the city could improve greatly through better planning and leadership.

MadMonk
01-25-2009, 03:12 PM
Well one thing we're #1 at here - pitiable self loathing.

Kerry
01-25-2009, 03:21 PM
Another piece of crap opinion being passed off as science. Here are the criteria used:

Fitness Centers & Sport Stores
Nutrition
Sports Participation
TV Viewing
Overweight/Sedentary
Junk Food
Air Quality
Geography
Commute
Parks & Open Space
City Rec Facilities
Access to Healthcare
Motivation
Mayor & City Initiatives
State Obesity Initiatives

Only one of these items is even justified in being in this survey and it is the one actually called Overweight/Sedentary. OKC still recieved an F in that but atleast it was an actual count related to the title of the study. In fact, it should have been the only criteria used. I also noticed OKC got an A- for Access to Healthcare but didn't we just get a low rating in healthcare last year from some other researcher? Did anyone else notice how many of the categories required government spending to raise the score?

Here is one of my favorites from the study:

Residents of Oklahoma City are 86 percent less likely than average to go snowboarding - the 3rd lowest rate in our survey. Even Miami residents snowboard more.

BPD
01-25-2009, 05:10 PM
Come on folks, lets not allow ourselves to be second in anything. Chow down!

okclee
01-25-2009, 07:27 PM
Kerry, why do you always want to discount any negative poll that has Okc as an unhealthy or fat city??

Just curious?

ddavidson8
01-25-2009, 07:44 PM
One thing I noticed when I moved to Houston (a very fat city) is the abundance of national health club chains. There are almost none in OKC. You'll find almost as many 24 Hour Fitness, LA Fitness and Bally's as you will Walgreens.

oneforone
01-26-2009, 12:36 AM
Honestly, I could really careless about what people think of OKC.

The only people who care are the people who desperately want OKC to be liked by the people who live on the east and west coast.

It is kind of like the kids we all new in high school who would sell their soul and shoot their parents if it meant they got to be a part of the in crowd.

Chicken In The Rough
01-26-2009, 05:59 AM
As Kerry pointed out, the methodology of these "studies" is usually dubious at best. I have not read this report, and I suspect none of the media who braodcast it nationwide have read it either. Who conducted the study? Who and how many did they question? Who paid for the study? Where can I read a list of questions? How did they quantify fat people? Did they come and count?

I try not to care about these types of reports. However, they are picked up and reported by the national media. I was in Grand Forks, ND yesterday and saw this on the local news. I think the media have the duty to report the news, but not a bogus story designed to promote an agenda.

Bostonfan
01-26-2009, 07:13 AM
Or maybe, just maybe the study is correct. Yea, this study might not be legit, but at the same time, we (OKC) are fat enough to be mentioned as #2. Whether people want to believe it or not, we are fat and lazy. There are many people around here who simply don't care about their health. They would rather smoke a pack a day instead of running a mile a day. Instead of eating light and healthy, they would rather go to the all you can eat places and not get cheated.

We can try to smooth it over by saying this study is flawed, there aren't many gyms in the metro, there aren't any parks to go to, etc.... but people can build the gyms and the city can build more parks, but alot of people won't get off their lazy, fat butt.... (unless it's to go eat)

Jesseda
01-26-2009, 08:30 AM
does anyone else fell like chinese food right now or is it just me?

mecarr
01-26-2009, 08:51 AM
Honestly, I could really careless about what people think of OKC.

The only people who care are the people who desperately want OKC to be liked by the people who live on the east and west coast.

It is kind of like the kids we all new in high school who would sell their soul and shoot their parents if it meant they got to be a part of the in crowd.

Ridiculous. The only people who care are people on the coasts? People in OKC hopefully care more about OKC than people who live on the coasts. Just because we live in the "heartland" does not mean we are immune from justified criticism.

oknacreous
01-26-2009, 08:55 AM
The main purpose of a study like this is to sell magazines and fill airtime on the news. Plus people have this bizarre obsession with top 10/bottom 10 lists. And of course the methods used by Men's Fitness aren't the best, but it's not exactly a scientific journal. The CDC obesity stat is the one I quoted because it's the best measure.

The other measures they use such as fast food joints and gym availability are reasonable secondary measures based on the law of supply and demand. That is, there wouldn't be such a high number of fast food joints per capita in OKC if the local demand wasn't so high. There would be more gyms opening up if demand was higher.

Having had the opportunity to travel to a wide variety of cities in the US and abroad as part of my job (and for fun), I think OKC is definitely fatter and lazier than the average US city. But other cities are just as bad from what I've observed, such as Miami, New Orleans, Memphis, Jackson MS, and Tulsa. The sad thing is that when I travel abroad it is shocking how much better shape people are in than just about ANY place in the United States. I think all this boils down to the US culture of using the car as the primary mode of transportation and making it extremely difficult for people to walk or bicycle to their destination. In this regard OKC is one of the worst cities in the world I've ever seen.

OKCMallen
01-26-2009, 09:35 AM
Well one thing we're #1 at here - pitiable self loathing.

Someday I dream of an OKC where people aren't constantly self-critical and are simply happy to be from OKC instead of flexing an inferiority complex.

bombermwc
01-26-2009, 09:39 AM
Spwarl - are you freaking kidding me? It doesn't have anything to do with that...at all. A person is no more likely to get off their couch if they live urban or suburban. You do find urbanits walking that can't afford a car, but they aren't going to be walking to Wal Mart.

OKC has the higest number of fast food places per person of anywhere in the U.S. Plus we're lazy as anything. People drive their car from one end of the mall to the other...seriously. And they even do that at strip malls. You tell me how sprawl has anything to do with a person being a fat lazy slob. It's called stop eating crap and eat healthy food and get off the couch and do some exercise.

As far as diet, it's SOOOOO easy to correct it. You don't have to go all Biggest Loser or anything either.

#1 - stop eating anything fried, switch to broiled or baked.
#2 - replace your side dishes with vegetables. No more rice mixes with all that salt and fat. Just use normal veggies like carrots, peas, green beans. But DO NOT pile mounds of butter and salt on them. Lightly season with some salt/pepper and a more healthy butter like Brummel and Brown or something.
#3 - Stop the snacking! If you're going to snack between meals, make it a healthy one. Again with the veggies! Dip some carrots in some humus! No Ranch Dressing!
#4 - Seriously, take a walk. How hard is it to walk around your neighborhood for 30 minutes a day? Build that up to a little jog and you'll burn WAY more calories.
#5 - Lay off the bread. Those heavy carbs will do you in. Moderation is key....and don't pile on the butter on the roll and corn bread either. It's like getting the diet coke with the big mac.

BDP
01-26-2009, 12:16 PM
OKC has just as many fat people as any other city in the US.

I don't know about this.

I can't vouch for the scientific validity of any of these studies, but to know that there is some truth to them all you have to do is get out a bit. Go to bricktown during dinner hours or go to a Thunder game or to a movie at Quail Springs. I know it's completely anecdotal, but sometimes it is hard to look around and not see a lot of fat people. Just to go anywhere in the city where a lot of people are congregating and you will notice a lot of fat people. Even the most common complaint about the Ford Center is seat size, and the arena's seats are at or above the average seat width of active arenas.

It does say something when on more than one occasion I have had out of town guests ask out of the blue if there are a lot of fat people in Oklahoma.

Sure, there are fat people everywhere, but I think it's pretty hard to look around and say it's not worse here than most places. I would actually be more likely to question a survey's validity that didn't come to that conclusion.

However, that does not mean that people here are less happy or less motivated than elsewhere. It just means we are less healthy and I don't see how anyone could argue against that.

Pete
01-26-2009, 12:29 PM
This is not anecdotal:


According to the CDC, 29 percent of residents in the Oklahoma City area are clinically obese. The national average is 25.19 percent.

Almost 30% clinically obese! Not, overweight but obese.

We can type on message boards all day long about how other people should eat and live, but the question is what can the community (and it's leaders) do about this?

The only thing that makes sense -- and what most cities do much better -- is to create more parks and running/walking/biking trails and make the developments themselves more compatible with walking.

All that contributes to a culture of being outside and active rather than always being in your car and going through the drive-thru. And if you think people in OKC walk as much as most other cities, you haven't traveled much.

okclee
01-26-2009, 12:54 PM
Very well said by the last two posts (BDP & Pete).

I am not sure why many on okctalk and citizens of Okc, get so defensive whenever Okc is listed as a fat city or similar lists in regards to being active. It is almost like many people think this is some sort of conspiracy or a Okc bias by the media because we are a "RED" state or something. Look around, it is not a bias or conspiracy people, Okc is a fat and unhealthy city and it is costing all of us in more ways than one.

Okc is one of the worst pedestrian citizens in comparision to size and population. We have limited sidewalks, limited bike lanes if any, and it is hard to think of an area in Okc that one could actually live, work, shop, etc., without the need of a car.

OUJAG
01-26-2009, 01:26 PM
Agree with most of the posts here. I've lived in a number of cities in the U.S. and abroad and people here are less active than I've seen - I moved here from Charlottesville, VA, and you always see people out and about walking, running, biking, etc. Again, there are lots of walking/biking paths in Charlottesville that OKC doesn't offer, but I'm not sure if people would take advantage of them even if we did have them here.

One example is that I work in downtown OKC and live nearby in Heritage Hills. It is just over 1 1/4 miles from my house to my office and I try to walk to/from work when I can - it takes me about 25-30 minutes. The people at my office think I am out of my mind for wasting 30 minutes (1 hour total) of my day walking to/from work, and they aren't afraid to tell me so. These are the same people who spend 45 minutes in their cars commuting from their homes in Edmond and/or Norman. And I'm the crazy one.

okcpulse
01-26-2009, 03:36 PM
For crying out loud, this pity crap was posted on another forum, only to see the thread meet its demise.

Mick began his campiagn.. what... a year ago? And for Oklahoma City's population, it is going to take a few years or more to change that kind of statistic. Oklahoma City's trail expansion is well underway.

And OUJAG, you can't tell me that people in OKC are not active when you're fighting for trailspace at Lake Hefner on a warm saturday afternoon. People in OKC are getting on board. It just takes time.

However, there will always be those that will never want to work out. There is nothing you can do about that.

Pete
01-26-2009, 06:34 PM
It's amazing to me that until 20 years ago, there were no trails and just a few softball diamonds around the entire perimeter of Lake Hefner. And one crappy (now improved) golf course.

Here you have a big lake right in the middle of the nicest part of town, and all around was nothing but dirt roads and weeds!

It's great to see the Hefner Trails and some of the more recent initiatives but OKC was way, way behind other cities to start and isn't doing enough to catch up IMO.

For most, you still have to get into your car and drive a good distance just to get to a place where you can get some real exercise. There are not only very few bike paths, there are almost zero bike lanes anywhere. Most cities do a much better job in these areas.

dismayed
01-26-2009, 07:50 PM
Not enough places to walk is definitively a problem, but that seems to be changing. Downtown seems to have more going on every day, and there are a lot more metro parks today than there were in the past.

Athletic/fitness clubs are a big problem here. There just aren't that many, and the ones we have either are bigger rip-offs than the average or are just kind of hokey ("automated fitness machines" anyone?). This area could use some improvement. I still can't believe we don't have a Bally here. I'd say this is a big problem.

Food is the other big problem. We may appear kind of Midwest or Western, but our diet is very southern. It is hard to find a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables at a lot of the chain supermarkets here, and of course some of the most popular restaurant food is deep fried. Heck even though we have tons of sushi places around town I'm almost positive that the most popular maki is the tempura (e.g. fried) roll. Some of this is cultural, but some of it is also not knowing how bad some things are for you. This reminds me of the person with diabetes I know who told me he routinely ate take-out at a Chinese restaurant because it was so healthy, even though he was loading his plate up with fried wontons, fried egg-rolls, egg-drop soup, kung po (fried) chicken, fried rice, and so on. Do the schools here teach a general nutrition class in high school or college? I really do think they should consider it.

Kerry
01-26-2009, 11:47 PM
Kerry, why do you always want to discount any negative poll that has Okc as an unhealthy or fat city??

Just curious?

My complaint is not that OKC did poorly; it is that these so-called studies are so flawed in their approach as to not even be funny. Do they even teach the scientific method in school anymore? The sad part is academic researchers that could not formulate and test a hypothesis if their life depended on it do many studies like this. These researchers would have flunked my 7th grade physical science class.

In addition, I find many of the criteria to be very subjective. Look at the indicator identified as Fitness Centers/Sports Stores. A comment was made that OKC has a small number of gyms because of supply and demand with the implication being that OKC residents are over-weight so they donít use gyms. That is not how supply and demand works. In fact, it is the exact opposite. An over-weight population would typically mean higher demand which would spur the development of gyms.

In 1875, two rival British shoe manufactures visited the small island of New Caledonia in the South Pacific hoping to expand their market. Upon arrival, they discovered that none of the natives wore shoes. The first salesman sent a correspondence back to London saying that this was not a good market because no one wore shoes. The second sent back a correspondence to London saying this is a great market because no one owns shoes. Today everyone on New Caledonia wears shoes.

oneforone
01-27-2009, 02:44 AM
I could really care less about what some magazine or anyone says about what I should eat or how I should live my life.

If I want to be 500 pounds I have a right to do that. At the same time I am not going to depend on the public nor should I count on them to take care of me because I choose to live my life as a disgusting fat body.

The biggest problem we have in this country are the busybodies of society trying to correct everyone else's problems. If we lived by the rule you made the mess, you clean it up. (IE: Doctors having the right to charge more if they advised someone to change their lifestyle and the patient blew them off.)If we we all held accountable for our own actions or lack of action all the busybodies could focus on solving their own problems instead of worrying about everyone else.

oknacreous
01-27-2009, 07:31 AM
My complaint is not that OKC did poorly; it is that these so-called studies are so flawed in their approach as to not even be funny. Do they even teach the scientific method in school anymore? The sad part is academic researchers that could not formulate and test a hypothesis if their life depended on it do many studies like this. These researchers would have flunked my 7th grade physical science class.

I think you're taking the article WAY too seriously. I miss the part of the article where they claim it is a scientific study! It looks like they call it a "survey" instead, which is fairly accurate. Plus, "Men's Fitness" is not viewed by any reasonable person as a scientific journal. That said, I disagree with you that the gym/health club availability statistic is irrelevant.


A comment was made that OKC has a small number of gyms because of supply and demand with the implication being that OKC residents are over-weight so they donít use gyms. That is not how supply and demand works. In fact, it is the exact opposite. An over-weight population would typically mean higher demand which would spur the development of gyms.

Your hypothesis is wrong if the local populace is generally fat and doesn't care, which is my hypothesis. Plus the laws of supply and demand certainly do apply here. How do gyms make money? Membership fees. If there is a line out the door and not enough room in the gym for all the clients, there will be other gyms to open up and pick up the demand, just like in every other city on the planet. If a gym is always desolate it won't last long.

We have a very low number of gyms per capita compared to other cities, which is hardly an irrelevant measure. I know every time I drive by the gym near my house it's pretty desolate, and I've seen many come and go in the neighborhood. The only time I see the local gym full is the first few weeks of January annually. It's clear the demand is simply not there, and it's not because all the locals stay fit anyway. It's because people are fat and don't care.

Your analogy about New Caledonia is interesting but irrelevant unless the locals have never heard of gyms and health clubs before, and we were just now trying to introduce them to the local ignorant populace, which does not remotely resemble the issue we're discussing.


From oneforone: I could really care less about what some magazine or anyone says about what I should eat or how I should live my life.

If I want to be 500 pounds I have a right to do that. At the same time I am not going to depend on the public nor should I count on them to take care of me because I choose to live my life as a disgusting fat body.

I agree completely! It's everyone's personal choice whether they want to pack on hundreds of pounds, live as a zombie addicted to toxic refined sugar, let their muscles atrophy, and die young of heart disease, and it's certainly none of my business! My only point of complaining is for those of us who choose to live a healthy life, and how difficult it is to find outdoor activities, parks for recreation, wide sidewalks to walk or bike on, bike lanes, stores and restaurants with healthy and nutritious food, etc. The meager efforts OKC and the suburbs have made the last few years to add a few sidewalks here and there still fall far short of what most cities would consider reasonable.

Bostonfan
01-27-2009, 07:52 AM
It's everyone's business........--- see Health Care System....

bombermwc
01-27-2009, 08:23 AM
AMEN - if you're a big tub of 500lbs, you are causing a drain on others as well. You become an "at risk" individual. That means you need more help from the doctor, he wans to get reimbursed, insurance has to pay, insurance has to raise rates because you eat up their profits. That means I, as a healthy person, pay for you being fat by having a higher premium. And if you're on Medicare/Medicaid, then it's a billion times worse because it's right out of my tax wallot.

True, it's you're right as a free individual to be a big fat tub of lard if you want to. But don't expect me to want to help if you refuse it. When you die young from your cholestorol and your family is left without you because you made a selfish choice, then you go ahead and talk about how it was your free choice to do so. Yeah, be proud of that.

Luke
01-27-2009, 12:21 PM
It's everyone's business........--- see Health Care System....

Not my business. I don't have health insurance.

TaoMaas
01-27-2009, 01:04 PM
AMEN - if you're a big tub of 500lbs, you are causing a drain on others as well. You become an "at risk" individual. That means you need more help from the doctor, he wans to get reimbursed, insurance has to pay, insurance has to raise rates because you eat up their profits. That means I, as a healthy person, pay for you being fat by having a higher premium. And if you're on Medicare/Medicaid, then it's a billion times worse because it's right out of my tax wallot.

So where do you want to stop that kind of thinking? Should we charge cell phone users more, given that excessive useage might cause brain tumors, or that they may be more likely to be involved in car accidents? Should we charge weekend athletes more since they're more likely to blow out a knee? What about folks who drive SUV's? If they hit something, they're going to do more damage than the average vehicle. Shouldn't they be charged significantly more? I'm not so sure we can make automatic judgements on some of this stuff. Maybe it's different in your workplace, but it's been my experience that it's the "germ-phobics" who seem to miss more work and spend more time at the doctor's office.

progressiveboy
01-27-2009, 01:22 PM
AMEN - if you're a big tub of 500lbs, you are causing a drain on others as well. You become an "at risk" individual. That means you need more help from the doctor, he wans to get reimbursed, insurance has to pay, insurance has to raise rates because you eat up their profits. That means I, as a healthy person, pay for you being fat by having a higher premium. And if you're on Medicare/Medicaid, then it's a billion times worse because it's right out of my tax wallot.

True, it's you're right as a free individual to be a big fat tub of lard if you want to. But don't expect me to want to help if you refuse it. When you die young from your cholestorol and your family is left without you because you made a selfish choice, then you go ahead and talk about how it was your free choice to do so. Yeah, be proud of that. Agree. Well said. What it boils down to is free will and personal choices that one makes with their individual lives. That said, if they want to choose to be a big fat tub of lard that individual has the free will to choose to be that way. This is very sad, but true. These individuals have developed the mindset and "will" that they want to live a life of gluttony and have no desire to change whatsoever. Even though they are "unhappy" inwardly, outwardly they choose to follow their carnal desires.

BDP
01-27-2009, 05:09 PM
So where do you want to stop that kind of thinking? Should we charge cell phone users more, given that excessive useage might cause brain tumors, or that they may be more likely to be involved in car accidents? Should we charge weekend athletes more since they're more likely to blow out a knee? What about folks who drive SUV's? If they hit something, they're going to do more damage than the average vehicle. Shouldn't they be charged significantly more?

Actually, this is exactly how it works. This is what actuaries ponder every day and, yes, they often do charge more based on these criteria. The point is that part of the costs associated with these risks are tied to the specific user and part is amortized across all users.

Basically, if you drive a car with the highest safety rating possible that has very low inexpensive repair costs it will still cost you more in premiums if everyone else drives high risk expensive cars than if they all drove the same car you had. Yes, you will probably pay less than they do, but it will still cost you more than if they didn't drive those cars. This is why the exact same person can pay more in insurance simply by changing zip codes.

In turn, if you live in an area where the community is uncharacteristically unhealthy, all other things being constant, and, therefore, it incurs on average a higher amount of claims, you will pay more even if you are healthy. Even worse, if you live in such a community, it is possible that your employer can not or chooses not to offer comprehensive health care because of the increased cost associated with higher premiums caused by higher than normal claims in the pool of potentially insured. Given that a large percentage of people get health insurance through work, many healthy people can be priced out of coverage at work and individually because of the higher than normal claims in their insurance pool.

The only way to "stop that kind of thinking" is to stop insurance companies from thinking they should make a profit.

bombermwc
01-28-2009, 08:50 AM
Couldn't have said it better BDP. Free choice has it's consequences. Remember we live in a market economy where profit drives business, not good will. So as long as health care is a profit industry, the fatties help drive up the costs. That's why premiums and deductibles continue to rise and benefits continue to fall.

My office went to a high deductible HSA last year because of this very kind of thing. The smaller portion of emplpoyees that were really living unhealthfully were draining our insurance funds. Everyone now has to pay the price by being in the HSA situation. With a 3K deductible on a single person, the HSA will eventually cover it once you build the account up. So if youre a healthy person, you end up making money in the long run because you can cash out when you leave. However, if youre not healthy, you pay the price by basically cutting your salary by at least 3K a year. Now how is that for motivation to lose weight? It's amazing that when a person's own money is directly involved instead of someone elses, the whole outlook changes. "oh you mean know I'm responsible for larding it up the last 20 years? Man, I better go get a gym membership". Plus, it's not unheard of for companies to give credits to employees that go to the gym....to help keep them healthy and avoid the health costs.

Kerry
01-28-2009, 09:39 PM
The problem with health insurance is that it is a 3rd party payer system. If we switched to personal health care insurance you would see a lot of people change their diet and excercise regiment. I have a friend who works for a larger insurance company and the word in his company is that private high deductable plans will be the future. The other problem with health insurance is that it pays for too much. I have car insurance but it doesn't pay for my oil change. However, my health insurance does pay for routine physicals.

BDP
01-29-2009, 09:40 AM
The other problem with health insurance is that it pays for too much. I have car insurance but it doesn't pay for my oil change. However, my health insurance does pay for routine physicals.

That because those types of insurance are completely different. You are not insuring the "health" of your car. In other words, if your car dies because you didn't change your oil, you don't get to file a claim with your insurance company. Maybe a warranty would cover it, but not your insurance. So, it doesn't factor into the actuary equation. If not changing your oil was a significant cause of car accidents, you would see an incentive, either in lower premiums for well maintained automobiles or discounted service.

On the other hand, routine check ups, like physicals, can save health insurance companies TONS of money by finding things that are wrong with you before they cause a serious hospital claim. For example, they would rather find a heart condition and get you on meds to keep you alive (and paying premiums) longer than pay out massive, that is 10s to 100s of thousands in claims from a heart attack. The actuaries sit around and figure out how much more it costs in heart attack claims than for physicals for all their clients, and then figure out how much they are willing to pay the doctors for those physicals and then go find doctors to agree to that price and that's how you get doctors within your "plan" and how physicals actually help the profit margins of insurance companies.

Also, physicals help establish preexisting conditions, so they know if they identify something and you let your insurance lapse, they don't have to cover it when you sign back up with them or another company. They like that too.

But you did touch on part of the problem and that is that many people have no stake in their health care. They either have no insurance or don't pay for what they do have. Many people go to the ER when they should be going to their primary care physician or a clinic. IMO, the deductibles should just be higher and there should be less copays, so that people will make more prudent decisions because they are fronting the initial money on their own. A visit to the ER shouldn't cost them a $20 co-pay, it should cost them their entire deductible, just so they won't do it unless it really is an emergency and then the deductible will be nothing compared to what it will really cost. Personally, I think that insurance's primary purpose should be to keep people out of bankruptcy if they have a serious health issue come up, not to enable people to spend $2000 of the group's money at the ER when they have a sore throat.


A comment was made that OKC has a small number of gyms because of supply and demand with the implication being that OKC residents are over-weight so they don’t use gyms. That is not how supply and demand works. In fact, it is the exact opposite. An over-weight population would typically mean higher demand which would spur the development of gyms.

Actually that's not how supply and demand works, either. Supply and demand does not work off of need, it works off of market willingness to pay for a product or service. Being fat in no way means that you demand, that is that you are willing to pay for, a gym. It just means that from a health perspective, you should be going to a gym. Someone may find that everyone should eat tofu. Establishing that need would not in itself create the demand. So, we have fat people that need to go to the gym, but they don't demand a gym membership. On the flip side, no one needs a jamocha almond fudge shake from Sonic. However, the demand is pretty solid for those things.

The relevance to the survey is that Oklahoma City has a low per capita demand for physical fitness services relative to the sample. Considering that there are little to no barriers to entry for a health club in Oklahoma City, it is a fairly prudent assumption that the supply would easily represent the demand. Again, that's demand, not need.

Your shoe example is good. Their need for shoes was irrelevant. Recognizing and creating demand for the shoes is what made the difference.

okclee
01-29-2009, 06:02 PM
What does it cost to drop 30 pounds? - MSN Money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/ConsumerActionGuide/WhatDoesItCostToDrop30Pounds.aspx)

I found this interesting, especially since Okc is #2 on the fat city list. According to this article it would cost nearly $1200.00 to lose 30lbs. That is if you were to join a weight loss club or diet plan.

Karried
01-29-2009, 06:28 PM
Wonder what it would cost if you didn't lose 30 lbs?

okclee
01-29-2009, 07:23 PM
^^ good point, it could cost your life.

Kerry
01-29-2009, 07:28 PM
You made some good points BDP.

Bostonfan
01-29-2009, 09:20 PM
This is what I don't understand. Why should it cost you $1200? Is throwing money to programs really the answer? I know it's corny, but what the Subway guy did is something 90% of obese people can do to lose weight. The other 10% have medical issues that may limit what they can do. Again, for the most part, we are talking about able bodied people who simply need to start eating right and get off their butts. In his latest commercial he said something that most people probably don't comprehend. After talking about eating, he simply said, "and I started walking"......

It is like anything, our bodies get used to things we do. Change is not easy, and while most obese people want to spend money on a "quick fix" program that seldom works in the long run, they are much better off at turning their bad habits to good habits.

Why this so difficult to understand is beyond me..

traxx
02-02-2009, 10:43 AM
Everybody gets too hung up on weight. If you're lifting weights, eating right and such, you're going to gain muscle which weighs more than fat. You should be concerned about having a healthy body, not dropping a certain poundage.

The CDC uses BMI which is a load of crap anyway. If you're six foot tall, you need to weigh 180 or less to be considered healthy according to the BMI. I don't know many six foot people that weigh that little. You'd look like a stick if you did.

We're all on here complaining about how fat Oklahoma is and we're mad at those fat, lazy idiots that are ruining it for the rest of us. So I'm guessing nobody on here is the problem. It's everyone else. Typical. It's never you. It's always the other guy.

Get up from your computer, go look in the mirror. There's your problem. Start solving it there before bagging on your fellow Oklahomans.

TaoMaas
02-02-2009, 11:19 AM
I read a story about a recent study that compared a group of women from Chicago to a group of women from an African village. The average weight of the women from Chicago was something like 165 lbs, while the average weight of the women from the African village was about 127 lbs. The researchers expected to find that the African women were slimmer because they were more active due to their more primitive lifestyle. But what they found was that the degree of activity among both groups was pretty much equal. The determining factor in their different average weights appeared to be the types of food the two groups were eating, not so much exercise or portion size.

TaoMaas
02-02-2009, 11:25 AM
Regarding risk factors for insurance purposes: I heard that they are now looking at where we use our credit cards as a means of determining risk. For example, if you do a lot of shopping at Wal Mart your rates may go up because obese people and/or people who default on loans are more likely to shop at Wal Mart than at Target. I read about another study which has found that kids with unusual names are more likely to get in trouble with the law. We're not talking terribly weird names, either. "Earnest" was on the list of being a high-risk name. Brings new meaning to "The Importance of Being Earnest". lol

BDP
02-02-2009, 04:39 PM
The CDC uses BMI which is a load of crap anyway.

It really is, especially on an individual basis. It is really only one factor in what is several for determining your overall health. However, it can work on a relative basis, that is, comparing the relative obesity from one group to another in a statistically valid sample.


I don't know many six foot people that weigh that little. You'd look like a stick if you did.

I think that's pretty much the point.

Kerry
02-02-2009, 07:53 PM
I am 6'3 and 215 lbs. According to the government I am fat. Funny, I look in the mirror and I look thin. Of course, the government also says I am not patriotic if I want lower taxes. I don't put much stock in what the government says.

Bostonfan
02-05-2009, 06:55 AM
It never fails. Watching the news this morning. Chick fil a is giving away free meals for an entire year. Well, wouldn't you know, they interview a lady who had to top 325. She said this wasn't her 1st time doing this, or her second. It's her 3rd and she said she was going to Tulsa to get her free meals when they open a new store up there.

This lady camped out all night for free food............. and was proud of it.

oneforone
02-12-2009, 03:59 AM
It never fails. Watching the news this morning. Chick fil a is giving away free meals for an entire year. Well, wouldn't you know, they interview a lady who had to top 325. She said this wasn't her 1st time doing this, or her second. It's her 3rd and she said she was going to Tulsa to get her free meals when they open a new store up there.

This lady camped out all night for free food............. and was proud of it.

Here is a thought..... Why don't you spend more time working on your own faults instead of pointing out what is wrong with all other people in the world.

There is nothing wrong with someone who just wants to have a little fun in their own weird way. If she finds joy in lining up for free food that is her thing why should it bother you.