Boulder – Fittest or Fattest Take II

Obesity and being overweight are serious problems, particularly among young kids. Fitness and diet are ways to partially address the challenge.

The Boulder Daily Camera (Around the County – Local section, March 8, 2012) reported that Boulder was the thinnest city in the country. The poll by Gallup-Healthways reported that Boulder had an obesity rate of 12.1%. The city with the highest rate of obesity was McAllen, Texas – they rolled in at 38.8%. West Virginia led all states with a rate of 34%.

The article stated that this study polled 350,000 Americans in metropolitan areas during 2011. Participants were asked to give their height and weight, which was then used to estimate a body mass index. BMI’s greater than 30 were considered obese. The national average was 26.1%. Colorado was the least obese state with a 20% obesity rate.

If you recall, on February 19th, the Boulder Daily Camera reported that a survey of city employees showed that 57% of the City of Boulder workforce was overweight. The report went on to say that 19% of men and 16% of women were obese.

About a year ago, USA Today reported that the Society of Actuaries had determined that the economic cost of people being overweight and obese to the U.S. and Canada was about $300 billion in 2009. Costs were about $72 billion for overweight and $198 billion for obesity. According to SOA, a BMI of 25 to 29.9 is overweight, with anything 30 or higher being obese.

The article stated, “The $300 billion total cost in the United States and Canada is the result of: increased need for medical care ($127 billion); loss of worker productivity due to higher rates of death ($49 billion); loss of productivity due to disability of active workers ($43 billion); and loss of productivity due to total disability ($72 billion)”.

The point of mentioning the above articles is to encourage increased awareness about obesity AND being overweight in hopes that the level of both can be reduced. Focusing strictly on obesity does not fully address the challenges in this area.

 

Boulder – Fittest or Fattest?

On June 29, 2010, The Denver Business Journal reported that Colorado had the lowest rate of adult obesity of any state in the nation (“F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America’s Future 2010”). Colorado’s adult obesity rate was 19.1% and 38 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia had obesity rates over 25%.

America’s top 20 healthiest cities were listed in the September 13, 2001 issue of Forbes. Denver was ranked fifth because 61% of residents were in excellent or good physical health, cardiovascular disease rates were lower than average and residents were less likely to be obese, diabetic, have asthma, or die of heart disease. The study was conducted by the American College of Sports Medicine.

In February 2011 four of Colorado’s major cities placed in TIME‘s Top 15 Fittest Cities of the United States list. Boulder was at the top of the list as the fittest city in the United States, followed by Arvada (6th), Denver (11th) and Aurora (15th).

As part of its economic development strategy the City of Boulder has included natural products and the outdoor recreation industry as part of its lifestyle clusters to support.

Colorado and Boulder are arguably a Mecca for health and fitness, along with Salt Lake, Austin, and Portland.

With this backdrop, it came as a surprise to read the headlines of the Sunday February 19, 2012 Boulder Daily Camera, “Survey: Weight a Staff Issue.” The article discussed a survey of city employees that showed 57% of the City of Boulder workforce was overweight.

Key findings from the report (published in the Camera) follow:
• 57% are over their recommended weight.
• 47% have low fitness levels.
• 43% have high cholesterol.
• 41% are at a high risk of cancer.
• 40% are at high risk of heart disease.
• 32% have poor nutritional intake.
• 26% have high blood-sugar levels.
• 19% of men were obese.
• 16% of women were obese.
• 13% reported having high stress levels.
• 10% drank alcohol excessively.
• 9% have high blood pressure.
• 5% are smokers.
Most likely some of these factors are understated because it can be difficult to get people to admit to their vices, particularly in surveys conducted for or by their employers.

On a positive note, 61% of the city’s workforce is rated as having good health ((BMI scores, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and blood sugar.)

The article stated that the city’s Wellness Works program has been offered to about 1,200 employees at a cost of $144 per employee, plus incentives given to the employees for achieving certain goals. This is a significant cost to taxpayers (at least $175,000 per year); however, it is reportedly offset by lower insurance premiums and increased productivity.

This seems to be a reasonable and well-thought out investment.

City officials also indicated that previous reports were used for targeting areas where the collective group of employees needed assistance.

Another well-thought out strategy.

The article dealt with a sensitive issue and the reporter covered it in a positive manner; however, the topic deserves additional consideration.
• If the city employees are representative of the health of the healthiest city in the U.S., what does that say about the health and fitness of the U.S.?
• How valuable are the rankings and polls that ranked Boulder as the fittest in the U.S.? Are their broad criteria for developing health and fitness rankings so general that the results are virtually useless? Does it really matter if Boulder is more fit than Montgomery, Alabama?
• How many other employers in Boulder are proactive in addressing the health and fitness of their employees? How do the health and fitness of their workers compare to the city employees?
• Is it appropriate to provide incentives for wellness or should that be part of the employee’s performance reviews?

There is a lot to consider.

Having said that, the article quoted a city spokesperson as saying, “Now that we know that, we are actually encouraging supervisors that if they’re going to have food at meetings…they’re trying to have healthier options.”

Hopefully the spokesperson was misquoted or quoted out of context.

Mandating carrot sticks, broccoli spears, or bagels without cream cheese at meetings will not improve the health of the city of Boulder workers.

Health and fitness are lifestyle decisions. Effective employer health and fitness programs will do more than lower insurance programs, they will alter the way people live their lives at home and work.

 

Participant Sports in a Community – Boulder Cycling Study

Thursday January 26 was a slow news day in Boulder.

The headlines on page 1 of the Daily Camera read, “A BIKE BIZ HUB – Survey finds $52 million impact from Boulder’s cycling-related sector”. Underneath the headline article was, “JFK hearse arrives in Longmont.” The other articles were of similar significance. Truly a slow day at the Camera.

The value of this article is that it illustrates the role of sporting activities in the economy. More importantly it shows that there are many different occupations and each makes a different contribution to our lifestyle and economic well-being. Every job is important, particularly in a down economy.

As well as being a great sport, cycling has a positive impact on the health of cyclists, unless they end up on the wrong end of a confrontation with citizens who don’t appreciate spandex wearing two-wheelers. In addition, the sport is part of Boulder’s outdoor recreation and life-style clusters.

Forty-one companies, 330 employees, and $52 million in sales. Based on its sales, the Boulder bike-biz hub is equivalent about 20 Hooters restaurants or one medium sized small business. Based on the survey results, the industry accounts for about 0.2% of the county’s employment and about 0.3% of the county’s Real GDP.

The stated impact of $52M is questionable. Sales and impact, or economic activity, measure different things. In some cases, the sales figures appear to be inflated.
• 214 rental repair employees generate $24.4 million in sales or $114,019 per worker. (This is reasonable).
• 13 manufacturing workers generate $10.4 million in sales or $800,000 per employee. (Either employment is understated or sales are overstated).
• 48 education and advocacy employees generated $7.9 million in sales or $164,583 per person. (It is surprising that education and advocacy groups would generate that amount in revenue).
• 55 miscellaneous workers brought in $9.5 million in sales or $172,727 per employee. (Without knowing the types of businesses, this seems high).
The average revenue generated per person was $158,182. Based on the above comment this seems high.

Economic activity is typically measured by wages, local purchases, and the multiplier effect. Most of the jobs associated with the cluster are lower than the average annual wages for the county. If average annual wages are $40,000 then the total is about $13 million.

Local purchases would be a subset of the sales total. If local purchases are about 1/4 of total sales then they would be about $13 million. The impact of the multiplier effect would be negligible.

This quick and dirty analysis estimates that the economic activity, or impact, of the bike-biz hub is in the range of $25-$30 million or about half of what the article stated.

The real message of the study is not in the numbers. Boulder would be an ideal hub for the cycling industry. It would be great to see more clothing, equipment, and accessory manufacturers headquartered in the county. As well, cycling events might have a positive economic impact if they attracted visitors from out of town to stay in hotels, eat in local restaurants, and buy from local stores.

If a fiscal impact analysis of the cycling industry was conducted it would likely uncover results that do not favor the sport. Sales tax revenues attributable to the cluster probably would be less than the expenses associated with the cyclist’s share of the cost to build the roads, sidewalks, and bike paths that they ride on.

Impact studies are not easy – even the best ones are subject to scrutiny. Hats off to the biz-bike hub folks for giving it their best shot. Weaknesses in the report distract from the good news in this story. Unfortunately, the report is not front page news, not even on a slow day.