Sussex areas with the highest rates of obesity revealed
New figures have revealed which areas in Sussex have the highest rates of obesity.
The data, published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, lays out the levels of adult obesity in each local authority in the county.
The figures are based on data collected in the year leading up to March 2024.
Crawley has the highest percentage of adults living with obesity at 33.5 per cent, placing it among the highest in the country.
The full Sussex figures can be seen in the graph below.
Chichester follows with 30 per cent, and Arun with 29 per cent.
Hastings has an obesity rate of 28.9 per cent, with Lewes at 25.4 per cent and Horsham at 24.2 per cent.
Mid Sussex has an obesity rate of 23.6 per cent, Rother has 23.3 per cent, and Worthing has 22.7 per cent.
Eastbourne has an obesity rate of 21.5 per cent, Adur has 20.4 per cent, and Wealden has 20.3 per cent.
Brighton and Hove has the lowest percentage of adults living with obesity at 20.1 per cent.
This means there is a difference of more than 13 per cent between the area with the lowest obesity rate, Brighton and Hove, and the highest, Crawley.
The figures form part of a wider national picture of increasing obesity.
The data estimates that 44 local authorities across the England have at least 33.3 per cent of adults living with obesity.
NHS England national medical director, Professor Sir Stephen Powis, said: "Obesity remains one of the biggest public health issues we face as a society, and these figures show a small but concerning rise in the number of overweight and obese people."
READ NEXT: Number of people in Brighton living in temporary accommodation revealed
A spokesperson for the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities said: "Obesity is a global and complex public health concern.
"It is associated with reduced life expectancy and is a risk factor for a range of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, liver, and respiratory disease.
"It can also impact on mental health.
'Regular physical activity is associated with a reduced risk of diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis, colon and breast cancer, and improved mental health.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Two UK Cardiology Trials Struggle to Recruit Patients
MANCHESTER — Two ongoing cardiology trials in the UK are facing substantial recruitment challenges, researchers reported at the British Cardiovascular Society (BCS) Annual Conference 2025. The BRITISH study has enrolled fewer than one-third of its targeted 2504 patients over 2 years. Meanwhile, CRAAFT-HF has recruited just 22 of its 1200-patient goal since launching in December 2024. 'We are running behind schedule,' said Andrew Flett, a consultant cardiologist at University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust and principal investigator for BRITISH. 'We're running at about 50% of where we should be, and we're putting in every effort to try and improve that.' CRAAFT-HF's chief investigator Pier Lambiase, professor of cardiology at University College London, said that the trial's eligibility criteria were 'evolving' and being adjusted to boost recruitment. Entry Criteria Adjustments for CRAAFT-HF CRAAFT-HF is comparing surgical versus medical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in people with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (EF) of 50%. The trial is still in its vanguard phase, with 14 centres open for an average of 4.5 months. The aim was to have at least 120-215 patients recruited across 10 sites within the first year. Professor Pier Lambiase Despite a large potential pool of patients with heart failure and AF seen in clinics, 'only about 5% are referred for ablation', Lambiase said. To improve recruitment, proposed changes include: Broadening the definition of AF to include paroxysmal and persistent types (up to 3 years' duration), confirmed by ECG, Holter monitoring, or cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Relaxing inclusion thresholds for New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and LVEF thresholds. Removing NT-proBNP and medication optimisation criteria for trial eligibility. 'We've learned very quickly that this is threatening the trial,' Lambiase said. 'It's a lot of work to get the patient recruited, start optimal therapy, repeat the [echocardiogram], make sure they're still in the trial.' He estimated the revised criteria could have added 62 patients – tripling current enrolment. Lambiase remains optimistic, citing remote follow-up protocols and international collaboration plans with centres in Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Spain. Expanding the pool of associate principal investigators to include nurses and pharmacists may also help accelerate recruitment. The BRITISH Study The BRITISH study, active since 2023, is running at 46 of its planned 50 UK sites and actively recruiting. Ongoing since 2023, 46 out of the planned 50 sites are actively recruiting patients into the BRITISH study. It aims to determine whether scarring detected via cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is associated with reduced mortality in patients with nonischaemic cardiomyopathy and severe systolic heart failure (LVEF ≤35%) who receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Andrew Flett Flett reported that of the 390 patients enrolled so far: Half were recruited within one year of diagnosis. Just under 20% were recruited within 6 months. Almost two-thirds had NYHA Class II heart failure. 38% had AF. Flett said this is 'the best-treated heart failure population in a heart failure trial that I'm aware of', noting high rates of evidence-based therapy: 93% on beta-blockers. 97% on antihypertensives. 92% on sodium-glucose cotransport 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. 88% on mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The median age is 66 years. Most participants are White (93%) and male (80%). Addressing Gender Disparities in Trial Recruitment The under-representation of women — just 20% of the current cohort — is 'a major source of concern', Flett told Medscape News UK . The BCS and the British Heart Foundation Clinical Research Collaborative have previously highlighted the need to include more women in clinical trials. A consensus paper in the journal Heart , published at the start of the BCS annual conference, outlined strategies to improve female participation. However, Flett noted that nonischaemic cardiomyopathy is more common in men. 'We're going to recruit the patients that are there, and most of them are men,' he said. If we had 'the luxury of plenty of patients, we could obviously hold back on male recruitment', he added. Efforts are also underway to increase the number of female principal investigators (PIs). Currently, just 6 of the 46 site PIs are women. Recruitment could take another 2-3 years at the current pace. Plans are being considered to open additional sites in Australia and to remind UK centres of the importance of balanced gender recruitment. The BRITISH and CRAAFT-HF studies are funded by the British Heart Foundation. Flett and Lambiase had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
NIH scientists have been angry for months. Now some are rebelling.
More than 90 staffers at the National Institutes of Health signed their names to a letter of dissent to Director Jay Bhattacharya in a rare sign of open resistance by career government employees. The letter warns that Trump administration policies such as terminating peer-reviewed grants, interrupting global collaborations and firing essential staff are wasting public resources, undermining the NIH's mission and harming the health of people in the United States and beyond. 'The life-and-death nature of our work demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted. We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the letter says. 'Many of us have raised these concerns to NIH leadership, yet they remain unaddressed, and we are pressured to implement harmful measures.' Officials who administer grant portfolios, early-career scientists and longtime staffers are among those who signed, calling the document the 'Bethesda declaration' for the city in Maryland where the NIH is headquartered. The letter is modeled after the Great Barrington declaration, Bhattacharya's dissent to the government's covid policies in 2020, which was written in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, and helped catapult him to prominence. 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration,' Bhattacharya said in a statement. 'Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' The Trump administration has described its actions as eliminating red tape, increasing accountability of science and removing ideological influence. It has said that a new policy for grants that include subawards to researchers in foreign countries increases accountability. Another target has been funding that includes diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives aimed at broadening participation in science. Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science Technology and Policy, said in a speech in May that 'political biases are displacing the vital search for truth,' adding that efforts to make science more inclusive 'degrade our scientific enterprise. DEI represents an existential threat to the real diversity of thought that forms the foundation of the scientific community.' Some NIH employees — a number of whom have participated in protests and walked out of a town hall featuring Bhattacharya — say the Trump administration's action's have raised existential questions about the state of science in America. Since the inauguration, dozens of employees who work at the National Institutes of Health have spoken with The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. They described a climate of fear and anxiety and an inability to perform routine tasks due to the administration's disruptions. The letter represents a new level of concern from people within the agency, with some now willing to be identified: It was signed by 92 people by name and 250 additional people anonymously. Jenna Norton, an NIH program director who said she was speaking as a private citizen, said the fear of being punished for signing the letter was outweighed by the fear of not saying anything. 'We wanted a way to speak up together, to make it clear to ourselves and our colleagues that this isn't who NIH is,' said Norton, who oversees grants, with a focus on research to address health disparities in kidney and urological diseases. 'We aren't here to harm people. We're here to help people — and we aren't being heard when we raise concerns in more traditional ways.' Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral researcher focused on combating antimicrobial resistance who also said he is speaking as a private citizen, has been at the NIH off and on for nearly 15 years, starting with a summer internship. Morgan said he sees the document as a letter of hope that the course can be corrected. 'I feel like if I put my head down and I didn't say anything, my research would be somewhat unobjectionable to the current administration and I could get by — but where would that leave the world around me,' Morgan said. The letter argues that the administration has politicized research by canceling $9.5 billion of peer-reviewed grants and $2.6 billion in contracts. It says the administration is abandoning the process that ensures the most meritorious science is funded, citing the decision to fund an 'unvetted' flu vaccine project led by two of the institute's leaders. It opposes administration policies such as capping the funding that supports the administrative and facilities costs of doing science, and the firing of essential staff. 'What I would like the public to know is that these were carefully vetted projects. Just because they have some buzzwords in them, please look a little bit deeper. These went through peer review, panels of experts who read every word carefully,' said Benjamin Feldman, an NIH scientist who uses CRISPR gene-editing technology in zebra fish. The letter also details a widespread fear that the massive slowdown in NIH spending over the past five months could mean the agency will not be able to use all its funding this year — which could be used to justify the budget cuts proposed by the Trump administration. A group of biomedical advocacy organizations met with Bhattacharya in late May to express concern that the NIH's current budget might not be spent. Bhattacharya said he would spend all the money allocated to the NIH, according to a letter those agencies sent to him last week. 'We are deeply grateful to you and your staff for taking the time to meet with us on Thursday, May 29. Most importantly, we appreciate your commitment that NIH will fully obligate all FY25 funds by the end of the fiscal year,' the advocacy groups wrote to Bhattacharya. An accompanying letter signed by prominent scientists, including multiple Nobel laureates, argues that the Make America Healthy Again initiative refers to an 'undefined time in the past.' The letter cites massive gains against heart disease, childhood leukemia and measles since 1960. 'Certainly, much work remains to better treat disease and improve the health of Americans, such as addressing increased rates of obesity, diabetes, and opioid dependency. But, glamorizing a mythical past, while ignoring important progress made through biomedical research, does not enhance the health of American people,' the outside scientists wrote.
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
The Ultimate Visual Guide to Protein: Here's How Much You Should Eat A Day
You aren't the only one scratching your head, wondering whether you're getting enough protein in your daily meals. Countless Reddit threads are filled with people asking the same thing: Does it matter how much protein I eat if I'm not trying to bulk up? The answer is yes. Protein is not only necessary for gym buffs and bodybuilders -- it's essential for everyone. In addition to building muscle, protein helps with weight loss, energy levels, balancing hormones and much more. Your protein needs will vary based on factors like body weight and activity level. A general guideline from the recommended dietary allowance for protein is 0.36 grams per pound of body weight per day. You can use the US Department of Agriculture's calculator for a more tailored estimate. If you have fitness goals and need help visualizing how much protein you need, this guide is your blueprint for 100 grams of protein across different diets. The protein amounts below are estimates based on specific products and their nutrition labels, so your figures may vary depending on the brand or preparation method. Each picture contains 100 grams of protein combined, not 100 grams per item. If you want to get better at hitting your daily protein goals, this visual guide can help. What 100 grams of protein looks like for omnivores Amanda Capritto/CNET Eating 100 grams of protein per day should be pretty easy if you don't have any dietary restrictions. Here's what that would look like: Two eggs (12 grams) Snack cheese (5 grams) Greek yogurt (15 grams) Beef sausage (14 grams) One can of tuna (27 grams) ½ cup of rolled oats (5 grams) 2 ounces of deli ham (10 grams) 1 ounce of mixed nuts (5 grams) Two slices of rye bread (10 grams) Everything pictured above comes to 103 grams, which puts you slightly over your daily target. What 100 grams of animal protein looks like for carnivores Amanda Capritto/CNET As you can see, getting 100 grams of protein from animal products doesn't take much: Four eggs (24 grams) One can of tuna (27 grams) Three beef meatballs (15 grams) 2 ounces of turkey bacon (10 grams) 3 ounces of turkey breast (24 grams) This amounts to a perfect 100 grams of protein. If you ate all of this in a day, plus bread and other nonanimal products, you would surpass 100 grams of protein in a day. What 100 grams of protein looks like for vegetarians Amanda Capritto/CNET For vegetarians, 100 grams of protein might look like this: Four eggs (24 grams) ½ cup of rolled oats (5 grams) Two snack cheeses (10 grams) ¼ cup of protein granola (10 grams) A single-serve Greek yogurt (15 grams) One tablespoon of hemp seeds (4 grams) Two tablespoons of peanut butter (7 grams) One scoop of plant-based protein powder (20 grams) This comes out to 99 grams of protein, which is pretty close. What 100 grams of protein looks like for vegans Amanda Capritto/CNET What you see isn't totally what you get with the amount of protein here: 1 ounce of nuts (5 grams) ½ cup of rolled oats (5 grams) A protein granola bar (8 grams) Two slices of rye bread (10 grams) ¼ cup of protein granola (10 grams) One tablespoon of hemp seeds (4 grams) Two tablespoons of chia seeds (10 grams) Two tablespoons of peanut butter (7 grams) One scoop of plant-based protein powder (20 grams) This amounts to 79 grams of protein. If we double up on the mixed nuts, chia seeds and hemp seeds, this brings us to 93 grams of protein. You could add an extra tablespoon of peanut butter or eat a full cup of oats, instead of half a cup, to come closer to 100 grams. This plate also excludes high-protein vegan meat substitutes, such as tofu, tempeh or plant-based meats like the Impossible Burger. Those food sources can make it easier to get 100 grams of protein for someone who eats a vegan diet.
