Vermont women #1 healthy eaters; NY ranks #13

A new health survey shows women in New York eat pretty healthy compared with women in many other states.

A recent analysis by, a NBC Universal Company, ranks women in the Empire State #13 for eating five daily servings of fruits and vegetables.

But we've got nothing on neighboring Vermont, where women are ranked #1 for eating their greens.

The survey, called “State of Women: How Healthy are Women in America”, looks at a variety of  categories,  including rates of diabetes, obesity, smoking, heart disease and cancer screenings and many others.

It finds that New York women rank high in longevity (#4), and are among the least likely to die of a gunshot wound. (#3).  On the downside, they have higher levels of diabetes(#39) and cholesterol(#41).   iVillage says nearly 40-percent of New York women have cholesterol levels that are too high, which puts them at risk for heart disease.

In addition to eating healthy, Vermont women are among the most physically active(#3).  But women there have some of the highest rates of depression (#46), skin cancer(#49), and asthma(#50).

The Burlington Free Press looked behind the Vermont numbers a little.  When it comes to asthma, they found that Vermont women "have extraordinary access to health care," and so, may be diagnosed more than women in other states.  Plus, "Cold air also aggravates asthma."

Amy Gendron is president of Vermont Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics told the Free Press that the survey provides reason to celebrate.  Eating healthy helps keep diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and high cholesterol low in Vermont.

But she says "The science is less clear on the relationship between what a person eats and the diseases that Vermont does have high incidence of like lung disease, depression, alcoholism, and breast cancer.”

Tags: , , ,


  1. Hmmm. Gosh, I must say, I'm confused by the numbers. Being #1 at eating vegetables sounds good. But being #49 in skin cancer or #50 for asthma sounds very good too…at least to me it does. Clearly the numbers can be mis-interpreted. So the question is…by who? Is it just me who's thick? Has Julie got it right? Did the folks at mangle the facts into uselessness after some very scientific types did all the hard work, compiled it just so, and punctuated it all so carefully?
    Maybe it's just me….. #1 at confusion.

  2. Rather than just shoot off my mouth (or fingers in this case) I looked at the pages to see if I could make sense of the numbers. The idea of elegant presentation if information has eluded these folks so completely that the information has become useless. One would have to go all the way back to whoever compiled the data to figure out what any of it means.