I have lived in each of the regions that they divided the US into. For all of it's research and verbiage, I am surprised that the article fails to directly ment

I have lived in each of the regions that they divided the US into. For all of it's research and verbiage, I am surprised that the article fails to directly mention two common sense factors: 1. Regional and cultural diet habits: >“There’s a reason why the Southeastern portion of this country is called the Stroke Belt: It’s because the rates of stroke per capita are substantially higher there and mirrored by rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity and other risk factors.” Well isn't a major causality of these risk factors the fact that the common diet of this region consists of every protein source being either deep fried or extremely fatty pork cuts? All of the deep fried foods are breaded (adding carbs) and all the fatty pork cuts are slathered in sugary sauce. Thus all of the common foods give you a terrible ratio of macro nutrients. 2. Access and tolerability of outdoor spaces: The prevalence of biting insects and extreme humidity make it extremely uncomfortable to do any serious outdoor exercise in many of the poor health regions. Paths and trail accessibility is abysmal in many of these poor health regions as well. Both of these factors effect the native born locals and keep the healthier people out.