Also, any explanation for the coasts vs inland, or is it just “richer people are less obese”?
D.C. is oddly fit as well…
If you’ll accept second hand info, I’ve been told that it’s a combination of elevation of the bigger population centers, and the proclivity of the populace to enjoying the outdoors at a higher rate than most states
I can’t back that up, and it isn’t my claim, but I figure it’s a decent starting point.
Seems like a good starting point indeed. Do you know why the outdoor culture is not that prevalent in the neighboring states?
Colorado is having a population boom iirc and my theory is that it mainly attracts rich outdoorsy types.
Unfortunately it also attracts shitty ugly cookie cutter duplexes. They’re everywhere in boulder.
Everyone I know in Colorado is nuts about hiking, hunting, fishing, camping. It’s just deeply ingrained into the culture there in a way I don’t usually hear about for entire states.
I’ve heard it said that the weather is a big part of it because, most of the year, it stays well inside the ranges of temperature where you can day hike/ride in regular clothing. No need for cold weather gear. Since there’s supposedly also a ton of wild space that’s pretty compared to neighboring states, it adds up.
Again, this is all second or third hand
I’m not saying correlation is causation, but here’s a map of college education by state:
It’s all wrapped up in having the knowledge, motivation, and access to eat healthy and exercise.
This question has come up before with this map, and I answered it under my (since banned) lemmy world account.
I believe it has to do with elevation and physical activity. Somebody in the prior near identical thread posted a county level map and it seemed to correlate with mountains and cities. Mountains have elevation and cities involve more walking.
