5 ms·

I don't think its so geographically aligned like that. Plenty of rich areas in Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix etc.

• kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
  While that is true, I think that some of these things are tied to local culture too, which is why the Coastal distinction does have some merit. If you generally are in the Bay Area or LA you rarely see the level of obesity you see in say Houston despite the fact that both areas despite being rich have their fair share of the poor too. Similarly for smoking. It's exceedingly rare to see public smoking in the Bay Area. Similarly for diets. When traveling in the South I was amazed at just how ridiculously unhealthy the average food eaten by the average person there was. Everything deep fried, laden with calories, consumed along with sugary drinks.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • Apocryphon 6y ago
    It's still regional rather than simply everyone vs. coastal. Not sure if it's fair to lump in the wealthier Rocky Mountain states like Colorado or Utah in with say the butter and cornfed Midwest.
• lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Data is 5 to 6 years old: County level: https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-by-county https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-by-c... State and county level: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/life-expectancy/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/life-expectancy/...
  • geogra4 6y ago
    At the county level I dont think it neatly lines up to coasts vs interior. There's definitely a serious problem of the interior southeast though