Charts, maps and infographics

Daily chart

Global obesity

An expanding world

Feb 7th 2011, 13:14 by The Economist online

How mens' waistlines have grown since 1980

RISING levels of obesity are bad news for people and health-care budgets, but they also correlate with good things such as rising economic wealth. The three maps below, which are drawn from a new global study led by Professor Majid Ezzati of Imperial College, London, and published in the Lancet, show that, Polynesia aside, obesity was a rich-world phenomenon in 1980. By 2008 the rich world had itself expanded, bringing obesity to groups within countries that were previously considered poor, such as Brazil and South Africa. During that period, the prevalence rate of obesity among men doubled to nearly 10%. One country has stubbornly resisted this trend. For all its dynamism since India opened up its economy in 1990, its men have on average become even thinner. The study suggests that Congo is the thinnest country in the world, and Nauru the fattest. Imperial College's own map is here.

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please login or sign up for a free account.
1-20 of 44
Hugo Penteado wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 2:00 GMT

Very interesting to see how economic analysis is uncorrelated with health, social well-being, a stable and balanced planet... What is good for economics, is bad for the future. Maybe this is related to a huge mistake embedded in all economic fields: the mecanicist sin that make everyone to believe that the economic system is totally separated from the planet and Nature and that the planet and Nature is inexhaustible. Clearly, countries territories are finite, we should start with this obvious evidence...

nschomer wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 2:41 GMT

@Hugo
That's rather too simple an analysis. Rich countries also have zero or close to zero population growth, so simply sampling how many are obese is not a measure of change in total caloric intake in a country, or how sustainable its population's habits are as a whole.

GornBR wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 2:44 GMT

It is worth to remember that more important than eating enough is eating with quality. This is certainly the problem that the young generation seems not to consider.

ellietsom wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 2:47 GMT

Hang McDonald and all the likes of it! Don't blame it on our will power when you engineer food to the point that there are no less than 20 ingredients in a piece of a burger pattie! Food engieering is the new drug!

And I'm only keeping slim because there is benefit of status symbol to reap from slimness. Obesity is the disease of the poor and those short of self-restraint(alas, 20 years ago it was said to belong to the executive class?)

But seriously, who can resist blueberry muffin? For long, I mean? And the sinfully moreish cheese burger? Now wash them all down with Coke...Make that diet coke, just so you could get to feel less guilty?

....and where is my gym gear?

skatkins wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 3:09 GMT

I assume when the article states, "rising obesity rates... correlate with economic wealth" it is only referencing a generic GDP. I think that a stronger causal relationship exists between obesity and personal economic wealth. In the US at least it seems that a disproportionate amount of our obese are in at or below the poverty line. I wouldn't call this good news at all. I would call it a lack of exercise, dependence on high calorie food and overall poor diet.

Obesity has taken over smoking as the leading preventable cause of death in the US. It truly is an epidemic.

see
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html (sorry you will have to cut and past the link)

ellietsom wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 3:15 GMT

@GornBR - I always have this paranoa when it comes to quality in food.

Here's the popular food labels - "no sugar added", "no fat", "no added salt"....and guess what's next: "No taste"!

Iamsopure wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 4:01 GMT

Well we should say that obesity rate is correlated to economic wealth in some specific aspect but I think that nowadays the rich are eating healthier, while in some developing countries people are crazy in junk food with high calorie.

David-M wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 4:07 GMT

Hey, I thought Argentina had got bust & yet it is among the fattest.

ajpadovani wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 4:30 GMT

It is interesting to follow the link provided in the article and check out the two other variables measured by Dr. Ezzati's study - Cholesterol and Systolic Blood Pressure. The U.S. is in the middle in terms of cholesterol (it is on a sharp downward trend too) and almost has the lowest systolic blood pressure of all (it's 2nd or 3rd lowest in the world). While we may have high BMIs, that doesn't necessarily make us unhealthy.

A substantial amount of recent health studies have found that a high BMI doesn't imply adverse health. In fact, in rich countries, people who are overweight are often healthier overall (this is not true for obesity, of course).

dsBEufit5f wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 4:46 GMT

@ajpadovani: yeah, I've always wondered why they use BMI. It's a very bad indicator of the health of a country or even whether or not an individual is overweight.

BMI = weight/ height squared

For my height and weight, personally, I am listed as overweight according to the BMI calculations. However, seeing as I have 8% body fat, I tend to disregard BMI as an accurate measurement of overall health.

It does not put into consideration the amount of lean muscle mass in the body. This is easier to obtain in richer countries due to the availability of better fitness equipment and nutrition.

bradshsi wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 4:48 GMT

I'd expand a little on the point made by ajpadovani.

BMI is just one measure among several that can be considered when looking at overall health. For example the article states that men in India have got thinner on average. However it failed to note that the incidence rates for type 2 diabetes in India are increasing rapidly.

Increases in type 2 diabetes are normally correlated (to some extent) with increases in BMI. However it appears (unfortunately), that people in India are more predisposed genetically to the disease, and together with changes in diet, this has caused the increase.

TheGrimReaper wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 5:23 GMT

Obesity is a social scourge which is hardly possible to quash and subside today.
Yet many publicity gimmicks and gigantic campaigns were launched within countries where the obesity rate is mounting apace and do not show signs of slowing down. As to warn folks over the health dangers and physical stigmatization obese persons would routinely endure, advertising agencies were urged to scroll down warnings and advise amid food ads, like McDonalds or Burger King.

I live in France and for a couple of years now, watching food ads has become a repetitive and ceaseless propaganda unleashed purposefully to warn us that that "5 vegetables and fruits are required every day".

Personnaly, I deem this publicity initiative as a purely vain experiment and wide heap of scrap. On the one hand, warning messages are written in teeny-weeny letters down the screen where nobody use to staring at while eargerly waiting for the sequel of your favorite TV show. Battling against obesity through medias is to date as inefficient as remaining atone and sat down waiting a prophet to tackle this issue.

I do believe that the sole answer to vanquish obesity, more urgingly helping persons considered as "morbidly obese", is to gather enough momentum steming from States and municipalities to unleash a huge campaign aiming at learning how to cook miscellaneous and balanced dishes instead of grease and fat food that spur any child on eating increasingly fatty food and also drink more sodas.

I'm not a specialist nor a nutritionist, though I genuinely think that if we succeed in shifting our daily practices and starting to eat "less fat" and "more reasonably and healthy", then the current upward trend of obesity will certainly plummet down to more acceptable and less concerning levels. Eradicating obesity altogether would seem completely idealistic and quixotic because this remains a disease encompassing some different degrees, different rungs of gravity. Though workable answers to fight it back could be implemented instead of observing helplessly the relentless worsening of the problem. Diagnosing an abnormality that keeps on rotting the system is far easier than pondering intelligent ideas and blueprints to dampen it down on a scale of a nation as well as worldwide.

ClarkeMartin wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 5:38 GMT

I would say, based on the majority of the above comments, that the Economist is appealing to an ever lower common denominator. It's a pity really, though not unexpected given the editorial take on many recent issues.

jack.lucky3 wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 5:48 GMT

For anyone interested to see all 28 years average BMI data in an interactive map.
Click here to see: http://chartsbin.com/view/577

Data is taken from: The Global Burden of Metabolic Risk Factors of Chronic Diseases Collaborating Group

Spectacularj1 wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 6:36 GMT

Can we see the US broken down by state?

skatkins wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 6:43 GMT

@Spectacularj1

here you go...

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html

shaun39 wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 6:48 GMT

Forget India: the clear outlier from this depressing trend is Japan. Japan proves that wealth, prosperity and decadence are entirely compatible with a nutritious food culture and good health.

There are public policy lessons for the rest of the developed world to learn; there are cultural changes (regarding food & lifestyle) which are urgently needed in the west.

The other thing that stands out is the high obesity rates in Italy. We already knew that Italians were heavy smokers; now we know that they are among the fattest too. This makes it all the more remarkable that they have among the very highest of human life expectancies. The Italians must be getting something right - I wonder what?

CalvinBama wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 7:01 GMT

It comes down to culture. In the US a large and growing number of people never cook their own meals, NEVER! This leads to eating out all the time, and the only semi-affordable way to do this every meal is to eat fast food. Fast food is industrially manufactured down to the lowest common denominator which is taste. Things that are bad for us generally taste good. Also, many people see sodas as a necessity. Instead of drinking water all the time they drink soda. Sadly, many of these problems fall disproportionately on the poor and ignorant in the US. The only way to change this is through education, but I tend to agree with TheGrimReaper that it is more of a local issue rather than a national one. I'm proudly from Alabama, the second fattest state if I'm not mistaken. It sickens me to see obese people, but I try to disconnect myself from their problems because they are self-inflicted

Zambino wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 7:06 GMT

Tax the fat! As a former smoker and a continuous drinker, my vices filled and continue to fill the state coffers. Britain recently had to refurb a whole lot of ambulances just so that they could carry obese people, who are more likely to need an ambulance anyway. Whilst the regressive tax argument is a big one (poorer households eat more cheaper, processed, fatty foods), we could subsidise vegetables and lentils for the poor.

J. Kemp wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 7:15 GMT

Here is a simple explanation:

1. Human stress levels in have risen very considerably in the increasingly wealthy nations of the world.

2. Carbohydrates are known to reduce stress in many people -- a cheap anti-anxiety drug for many.

3. People are drugging up on carbohydrates with predictable impacts on their waistlines.

Wealth is increased faster in higher-stress economies, thus increased wealth may be occurring most rapidly in countries which put their people under the most stress. When these same countries have very inexpensive carbohydrates available, people consume these to self-medicate.

In the U.S. during the 1980s was the first time when personal economic stress surged on a large scale against a backdrop of super-abundant, super-cheap food. Corporate layoffs after LBOs made the "secure company job" a thing of the past, industrial agriculture made over-eating an increasingly popular form of self-medication.

Think about it.

Some Americans will absurdly blame obesity on fast food companies and "supersizing" of portions. Companies are supersizing portions to meet market demand. Once some companies did, and those who did not lost market share, the need for all to do so became very clear. No surprise that someone who is hooked on the quick stress-reduction of carbohydrates (and fats) would find their quickest fix in a drive-through restaurant.

Americans are obese because they are stressed and using food to self-medicate. Americans' use of fast food outlets to get quick fixes makes perfect sense and is the result of their plight, not the cause of it.

Maybe if the U.S. government took a bit better care of its people, like protecting them from (i) 30% credit card interest rates, (ii) predatory sub-prime lending, (iii) short-notice layoffs, (iv) the horrid consequences for families which are virtually guaranteed by their "family" (sic) courts for those more than 50% of couples who divorce in America, and (v) the profoundly cruel consequences of America's "war on drugs" which is responsible for about 2.5 million people in jail and many more ruined families and children's lives, the maybe America wouldn't have an obesity problem?

Yes, but Washington so loves to enable and encourage items (i) through (v) above, and has so many private business interests and private money-making practitioners who are so fully "aligned" with its citizen-destroying programs, how with Washington ever put a stop to these and similar new innovative ways to stress Americans?

Answer: it won't. And neither will America's state governments who are making as much or more hay through these.

1-20 of 44

About Daily chart

On this blog we publish a new chart or map every working day, highlight our interactive-data features and provide links to interesting sources of data around the web.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Look at that
From Babbage - 50 mins ago
Will the prime minister be next?
From Asia view - 2 hrs 56 mins ago
Either a borrower or a lender be
From Babbage - March 6th, 22:31
Back to the bush
From Baobab - March 6th, 22:16
Weekend link exchange
From Free exchange - March 6th, 20:01
The airlines' Qaddafi problem
From Gulliver - March 6th, 17:43
Et tu, Zagreb?
From Eastern approaches - March 6th, 15:39
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.


Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter


See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.

Advertisement