Does Sprawl Make Us Fat?

Ant writes "A Science News article talks about the relationship between city design and health. New cross-disciplinary research is exploring whether urban sprawl makes us soft, or whether people who don't like to exercise move to the sprawling suburbs, or some combination of both." From the article: "So far, the dozen strong studies that have probed the relationships among the urban environment, people's activity, and obesity have all agreed, says Ewing. 'Sprawling places have heavier people... There is evidence of an association between the built environment and obesity.' ... However, University of Toronto economist Matthew Turner charges that 'a lot of people out there don't like urban sprawl, and those people are trying to hijack the obesity epidemic to further the smart-growth agenda [and] change how cities look.' ... 'We're the only ones that have tried to distinguish between causation and sorting... and we find that it's sorting,' [says Turner]. 'The available facts do not support the conclusion that sprawling neighborhoods cause weight gain.'"

Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

The objections quoted in TFS are debunked quite well in the linked science article. Additionally, research earlier this year shows teenagers living in sprawling suburbs were more than twice as likely to be overweight as teens in more compact urban areas [prorev.com]

These kids have never moved, never had a choice about where they live and are still much fatter.

It's a no brainer really. Less walking opportunities = less energy expenditure = more stored energy (as well as eating crap on those long, boring car journeys to work/school to save on cooking time at home so you can sit in front of the idiot box).

Anyway, the failure of town planners is going to work out by itself in the end. As oil prices skyrocket & people in the suburbs grow fatter, the solution become obvious. Liposuction clinics combined with gas stations ;-)

Re:

The comforts we have in our lives make us fat. We can order food online, change channels with a remote, we don't even really have to use pens anymore.

The human race has come from lean mean hunting machines(?) to the slobs we are. The more technology we

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

Until we have so much technology that we can reshape ourselves at will!

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

We can already reshape ourselves at will. Want to be thinner? Eat less, excercise more. The technologies of diet and physical fitness are more than advanced enough to give you pretty much whatever body shape you desire (though we can't do much about bone structure yet). I think when you say 'at will' you really mean 'without having to change your lifestyle'.

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

When I say "at will" I mean "without effort".. which is pretty much the standard definition of "at will".

For example, my employment contract is "at will". If they don't wanna pay me anymore they tell me and stop paying me. If they had to "change their lifestyle" to stop paying me, that wouldn't be "at will".

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

"At will" means at your own discretion, not "easily" or "without effort".

Kind of like how back in the day infantrymen were sometimes ordered to "fire at will" - this means they could choose their own targets and choose when to fire, not that the guns didn't have stiff triggers.

Tsk.

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

Reasonable choice you're making between fat and happy or thin and unhappy, but let's talk again 10 years later when your joints never stop hurting, your diabetes kicks in and your heart becomes unwilling to pump blood through all that mass all day long, i.e., when fat suddenly doesn't equate happy any longer.

Be sure to get some good health insurance for the time being. Life will get expensive then. No offense. ;)

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

Seriously, I always believed that _how_ one chooses to live contributes to their health more than where.

Right, but the point of the article is that a suburban environment encourages unhealthy choices (e.g. by making it impractical to walk anywhere) while an urban environment encourages healthy ones (e.g. by making it impractical to drive anywhere).

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A DOCTOR, OR AN AUTHORITY IN THIS FIELD. I SPEAK ONLY FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU SEEK A DOCTOR'S HELP IF YOU ARE SERIOUS ABOUT LOSING WEIGHT
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but just saying that I tried to choose what I said as carefully as possible. No matter how fast, or slow your metabolism is if you are gaining weight it's because you are eating to much. just because there's a guy out there that can eat 4,500 calories a day sit on his but and not gain an ounce, doesn't mean that a 310lb. and climbing guy that consumes 2,200 calories a day isn't over eating. Yes they obviously have different metabolisms, yes one guy can eat more than the other without gaining weight, but that doesn't mean that the guy that's consuming fewer calories isn't over eating, he's just consuming fewer calories than someone with a different "body chemistry" than himself.

I kept talk of metabolism out of my post because the simple fact is regardless of your metabolism if you're overweight, genuinely overweight you are consuming too many calories. It's a simple proven fact:

If you want to loose weight cut calories.

Call it whatever you want use what ever excuses you wish to justify some one gaining weight, but the simple fact is if they're gaining weight they're over eating. Regardless of how much they eat in comparison to someone else.

All of that isn't even taking into account that a lot of the CO(chronically obese of which I am still one of) do things like hide their eating from other people they consume less in public, and then eat more in secret. So while they say they eat X the really ate X+whatever they ate after they got home, and locked the door. There are few people with hyper-metabolisms out there just like there are few people with hypo-metabolisms. by definition the average person has an average metabolism. This included myself even when I was close to 400lbs. My problem wasn't a slow metabolism it was overeating. I could have sat on my ass and said "woe is me I eat as much as Bob and I gain weight while he stays thin." Or I could come to grips with the fact that the amount of food Bob ate, and the amount of food I needed were totally unrelated.

Stop worrying about the quantity of the food you consume comparatively and worry more about how much you need to consume actually. Like I said most people with a healthy weight aren't so because they exercise, hell most people with a healthy weight aren't so because they have faster metabolisms. They're of a healthy weight because they consume as many calories as they need and no more. A good portion of the population bulks-up around the holiday season regardless of how they look the rest of the year, because they consume a lot more calories during the holiday season. Again regardless of how fast their metabolism is. It happens to fat, and thin people alike.

"There are differences in metabolisms which can impact the effectiveness of weight loss attempts"

To the extent that one person will need to consume fewer calories than another to loose weight yes of course. But if you're not losing weight at a fast enough pace for you satisfaction then consume fewer calories(within reason). We all know that if your body needs extra energy, and it's not getting it from food it will have to get it from its own stores.

Read labels add it up figure out how many calories you consume a day let's say you consume 3000 calories/day and weigh 300 lbs.
Week one cut that down to 2500 what happened gain/lose/constant? Gained 302
Week two cut that down to 2200 what happened gain/lose/constant? Gained 303
Week two cut that down to 2000 what happened gain/lose/constant? Constant 303
Week two cut that down to 1800 what happened gain/lose/constant? Lost 302

So now you have a baseline for where you are in terms of intake. If you're not losing weight fast enough cut calories(within reason) I've done a lot of personal experimentation on myself I've go

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

I just moved out of the suburbs into a community that is a 30 minute walk from my workplace downtown. I also sold my car (partly so I could afford to live down there). My quality of life has improved tenfold. I have more spending money, more free time after/before work, and I've lost about 10 lbs. walking.

Life is good.

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

I don't know if all the US is like this, but every spawling area that I've been to in the US is insanely pedestrian unfriendly. There are very few crosswalks on major roads, forcing people to dash across, typically to an offramp that has "no pedestrians" signs on it, even though there is no pedestrian access ways nearby. I've never seen a foot bridge over a major road, nor a tunnel. In fact, I've been to parts of the US which don't provide ANY pedestrian access to a mall. I guess they figure that if you don't drive a car then you don't have enough money to shop in their store.

Compare this to Australia and Europe, where there is as much urban sprawl as the worst parts of the US but every road has a sidewalk, every set of lights has a crosswalk, and foot bridges and tunnels are commonplace. This results in two things: getting in your car to go get milk and bread is considered lazy and, as a result, there's lots of small "corner stores" to get milk and bread almost everywhere people live. Kids walk to school, and/or catch public transport. And seeing as there are lots of people on the streets, street crime is virtually unheard of - it's a lot easier to mug someone if the only people nearby are in cars with their windows rolled up because they're afraid of street crime.

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

Very well put. And behind this study is similar reasoning to what you provide; mixed-use communities provide more opportunities to walk someplace.

On a personal note, I gained a lot of weight after moving to the burbs. Living in NYC and walking up 3 flights of stairs kept me more active. Even in an elevator building, I did a lot of walking around with groceries.

Unfortunately in America, "sprawl" is a term that has been continuously co-opted, in many parts of America, to mean "let's have large lot sizes to retain our rural character" which of course *creates* sprawl. Other parts of the country, e.g. California, which have huge amounts of building purely residential developments on empty hills, have other problems. Namely, gated-community-type shit, which dictate all houses have to look alike and no commercial development. This demands that you drive a few miles to a strip mall just to buy milk.

Americans need to rethink development in a very serious way.

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

Well the good news is that development is starting to be rethought in a very serious way. Many people are sick of/not impressed by the homogeneous golf course dormitories. Upscale communities are now being built around a "New Urban" concept which has closer together residences interspersed with shops and services. It's either a scaled down small town or a scaled up vacation resort depending on how you think about it.

The irony is that it's the same snobs who brought us sprawling gated communities that are pushing the move to more walkable residential areas.

Master planning vs mixed and public spaces

New urbanism is probably a step in the right direction, but it appears to be missing critical elements of successful older neighborhoods. Jane Jacobs emphasizes the need for buildings of various ages (and which can be repurposed as the community changes): the book shops in old houses, funky music stores, arty cafes and so on that make for a hip urban environment often can't afford the rent of flashy new buildings. It strikes me as strange that a society which so strongly rejected the idea (if not always the practice) of central planning during the Cold War prides itself in its "master planned" communities."

Furthermore, a vibrant community requires more than just residential and commercial uses. The plans I have seen often look attractive, but on closer examination bear a striking resemblance to malls turned inside out and mixed with housing. They may have greenspace or plazas, but like the landscaping around so many highrises these are often private or effectively gated. The real test of urban spaces is whether they are used. Once built, the pretty designs of planners are often lonely places. On the other hand, sometimes the least attractive spaces are great successes (think of skate parks).

So I don't really think it's ironic the planners of gated communities are building new urban spaces which can also be privatized and desolate; they're simply taking their old approach of centralization and control and dressing it up in new clothes.

On the other hand, it's not all their fault. Developers who do want to take a risk often run into senseless rules regulating every detail of their communities, such as requirements for streets big enough for fire trucks to turn around in to minimum parking spaces, wide streets, huge setbacks in front of buildings, low densities, and so forth. Sprawl has been institutionalized in North America, and bureaucracy has been slow to change. (And I suspect rather than releasing their grip they're probably just making up new rules.)

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

Where I come from being a huge lard ass because you
drive everywhere and never carry anything exposes you
to far more ridicule than carrying a bag around does.

Re:Not so here

You are comparing apples and oranges. There are places in Colorado which are way more advanced the UK as far as pedestrianisation and cycling facilities.

Boulder and surrounding areas is a prime example - you can get on foot from anywhere to anywhere (there are others as well). Most of the city center is a huge no-car zone which is something that I did not expect to find outside Europe. Once you get outside the no-car area you still have cycling lanes on every road as well as cycle paths which combine into a huge cycling network that spans at least several miles out and penetrates into the neighbouring suburbia and business parks. All buses carry cycle racks and the driver is happy to pick up your cycle and drop it off.

After suffering from the half hearted assinine approach to cycling in Cambridge which is supposed to be the "greenest" and "cycliest" UK city, I felt like I have died and went to heaven. It simply felt unreal. No deliberate obstructions on the cycle paths with bollards. Sufficient and properly positioned car parking so that people are not forced to park on top of cycle lanes. All cycle paths are maintained and have proper visibility. Compared to that in Cambridge the average visibility on most cycle paths drops to under 10m in mid-summer due to the city council not giving a flying fuck about cutting any branches and doing any maintenance.

USA is not a sprawl all over and some portions of the sprawl are built in a healthier and more cycling/pedestrian friendly manner than anything in the UK and possibly most of EU. When looking at Boulder, the only comparison I can think of are the richer neighbourhoods in Finland (like Espoo). And even Espoo does not have a sky-run/cycle network all over like Boulder. It is confined to the center and the area where it connects to the mainland.

Re:Not so here

Boulder is also a small, extremely wealthy community. This is not to discount what they've accomplsihed there. Attitude does make a difference in remaking a landscape, but not as much as wealth.

In a way, it reminds me of the John Christopher novel The Guardians. Most people are shovelled into sprawling "conurbs", where everything is engineered around efficiently supporting vast number of powerless people. The elite live in the "Country", using their wealth to live, superficially, as if they were in the nineteenth century. They helicopter from their jobs as adminstrators and professionals in the conurbs to hidden landing pads, then ride their horses back home.

What Christopher was writing about back in 1970 was overpopulation, but it also was about what we'd call today "urban sprawl". The logical end point of sprawl is to divide people into two classes, those who must live with it, and those who can evade its consequences by creating artificial enviornments where the logical consequences of sprawl are externalized.

So, in poor communities, you drive to the WalMart to buy things. In wealthy communities, we build replicas of the old village square or high street.

Re:

Correlation != causation

Thank you for your insight.

However, I also gave a reason as well as noting the correlation: Less walking opportunities = less energy expenditure = more stored energy

Re:

Spawl != Less walking opportunities. That's your social conditioning talking. You think Spawl -> pedestrian unfriendliness and pedestrian unfriendliness == people afraid to walk. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

Spawl != Less walking opportunities. That's your social conditioning talking. You think Spawl -> pedestrian unfriendliness and pedestrian unfriendliness == people afraid to walk.

Nope, I'm not thinking that at all. You're thinking I'm American, but I'm not.

Compare say the sprawled Australian city of Sydney and the non-sprawled European city of Amsterdam. Both are pedestrian friendly and people would not be afraid to walk in either.

In Sydney, the majority of people drive to work, drive to the Supermarket once a week, drive to their local shopping center for entertainment, etc. In Amsterdam however, there is much less sprawl and much better public transport. People are forced to walk to the tram/train before going to work, entertainment, etc.

Have you ever lived in a non-sprawled city? I've lived in both and believe me, it's not about pedestrian unfriendliness, but about easy accessability to work / entertainment / shops (beyond your local expensive milk-bar) / schools / etc by pedestrians.

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

I'm not the person you're responding to, but I've lived in Sydney without a car as well, I never found it a hassle. Actually it seemed liberating when I heard the tales of some of the car owners.

When I lived in the CBD (George St, next to Hoyt's, $80pw for a three bedroom rooftop flat if that helps you date it, alas the building is gone now) it was of course very easy. Woolies across the road and great train/bus connections at Town Hall. The office was a 2 minute walk.

But also, way out in Randwick, where the only tall building in sight was the UNSW library off in the distance, it was easy. Again, ample bus service (buses to town every 10 minutes most of the time), multiple supermarkets within reasonable walking distance.

There is really nothing greater than going to work under your own power every morning. It's incredibly relaxing, it's "free" exercise (no trip to the gym or special efforts), and it's often faster than driving (particularly if you're cycling). You also save heaps of money.

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

It's not just that sprawl makes pedestrian unfriendly environments. Sprawl, by its nature, consumes more land per person and creates wider distances between people and the places they need to be. Often, these distances are way too great to make walking even an option. Example: When I lived in the 'burbs, in order for me to go to the post office, I had to drive (unless I like walking for hours). Now that I live in downtown, the post office is a couple blocks in walking distance. That is an option I frequently take advantage of.

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

As the great Edward Tufte put it: "correlation is not causation, but it sure is a hint" :-).

Re:

Correlation != causation

Note to moderators: it's insightful the first time, it's redundant the millionth time.

Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter

"Note to moderators: it's insightful the first time, it's redundant the millionth time."

I, for one, welcome our redundant overlords!

(Pls don't mark me as foe, I'm just testing your theory.)

Yes and no and yes and no

Let me try to sort this out:

YES, not having to walk around very much will make it more likely you won't get the exercise necessary not to be fat.

NO, it does not "cause" it (in the sense they want you to take it); you can still make the choice to exercise on your own, irrespective of how much you need to walk in a day for other purposes.

YES, there's probably a correlation between "how much people in this city have to walk" and "how fat they generally are" that persists after the appropriate controls.

NO, that's a bad, ad-hoc reason to fix urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is bad because it leads to time-wasting congestion and forces people to have to use cars, which sucks for anyone who can't or doesn't like to drive, and exposes people to the risk of energy price fluctuations unnecessarily. It also contributes to pollution. There, I just made a strong case why sprawl is bad, without resorting to being a health Nazi.

I'd like to plug my latest joural entry, which describes a way cities could transition gradually to less sprawl, without tedious regulation, government-run services, and invasive control over people's lives. In short: put up tolls heavy enough to clear congestion. This creates the financial incentives necessary for market-driven mass transit, which in turn makes denser development more economical and desirable to live in.

Re:Yes and no and yes and no

There, I just made a strong case why sprawl is bad, without resorting to being a health Nazi.

Obesity in suburbanites is just an additional reason why sprawl is bad, not the reason.

In short: put up tolls heavy enough to clear congestion. This creates the financial incentives necessary for market-driven mass transit

Market driven mass transit has been successful nowhere. Transport infrastucture is (or should be) a government problem.

Re:Yes and no and yes and no

Market driven mass transit has been successful nowhere.

That's not necessarily true. Before WWII, there was quite a lot of successful privately run and funded mass transit. The Key System [wikipedia.org] in the Bay Area comes to mind. Unfortunately, at this point it's financially infeasible for any private company to make the investments in infrastructure necessary to run a profitable system like this.

Sprawl? No.

Sprawl didn't make me fat. Eating more calories than I burn made me fat.

Re:Sprawl? No.

I used to live in Lexington, KY. While you wouldn't call it urban, it isn't sprawling either. I'm an avid cyclist, and I lived a couple blocks from downtown in the Chevy Chase area. Lovely. Great location. Why? Because I could be on my bike, out the driveway, and into the countryside in under five miles. I walked a mile to work. As of April of last year, I was down 10 lbs. from my regular weight, and I wasn't even trying. It was every day life that afforded me the ability to burn those calories.

Now, I live in the Northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati area. Talk about sprawl. There's no riding out my driveway and out into the countryside without a trunk rack and a minimum 10-minute drive away from the 'burbs. I'm just off KY18, a freeway of certain death for a cyclist. I'd sooner enter a competitive eating contest than venture out onto KY18 and get aced. I'm 10 lbs. overweight now: a 20 lbs. swing in the last nine months.

Point is, in the 'burbs, everyday life no longer suits a fit lifestyle.

I wouldn't walk either

In many sprawling communities, walking past the driveway/subdivision is asking to die.

That's not hyperbole, but a basic consequence of planning that is downright hostile to anyone who isn't behind the wheel of a car. I don't believe cars should be eliminated, but car-dependance is a truly awful thing that I'm glad that I've been able to break free of...but I don't know for how long. The attitude of the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority isn't friendly to mass transit. In the words of their last General Manager "the automobile won" and light rail is obsolete. Buses are the future, apparently. In the last few decades, automobile registrations in Boston have tripled as rail lines have been shut down or cut back dramatically in favor of surprise bustitution that suddenly becomes permanent.

It's depressing enough to see a new cookie-cutter car-dependant community rise up where a forest used to be, but it's even worse when a city with an excellent transit system that encourages people to ride the train then walk decides that it wants to be just like PinePointeAutumnPreserveRegistryReserveGrove Habitation Area #49485776893-B and compel people to pick up the bad habits of the suburbs.

Yes indeed it does,

that and civic design. Here in Houston I challenge you to ride a bike from point A to point B. There are no sidewalks, no back roads that go through, no bike lanes, what bike lanes that do exist are right next to fast moving over sized commercial loads that reguard that as a "vehicle sprawl" lane. Figure in unstable buisness environments that virtually guarantee that if you move close enough to work to walk/bike you will lose your job and be forced to work forty miles away.

When I lived in Phoenix, I rode my bike everywhere. Now that I live in Houston (one of the most sprawled cities in existance) I have gained massive amounts of weight, and regularly commuted 3+ hours a day.

Four words to weight loss:

Losing weight is incredibly simple. The entire topic can be covered in 4 words: Eat less, exercise more.

Not surprisingly people become ugly fat porkers because they don't follow that simple four word formula.

(This isn't self-righteous spew -- I need to lose about 20kg to be at my optimal weight. At least I know the only person I have to blame is myself.)

Re:Four words to weight loss:

Well, of course it is. But it's a lot easier to do that if you live in a place where you can walk to work or the grocery store in 15 min, as opposed to living in a place where you have to drive an hour to work and an hour back every day - not only do you lose that half hour of walking you would have gotten in the city, that's also two hours less you have available for cooking a healthy meal and exercising. It's a lot easier to get enough exercise if you can do it *on the way* to other things you have to do, rather than having to put time aside for it.

So, yes, eating less and exercising more is how you lose weight. It's just that that's often a lot easier in the city than the suburbs.

Oh for crying out loud!

We all generally EAT TOO MUCH! Our guts are too big and so our hunger satisfaction signal is delayed. Working out and being active is good and all, but that's not the biggest part of what's wrong. It's WHAT we eat and how much of it we eat. That's why these stomach stapling operations are so remarkably effective. It's clearly not that these people have been working out too little, but that they have been eating too much. The solution is most simple and direct.

EAT LESS.

I'm kind of over-weight myself... I'm working on it... sorta. I never claimed the answer would be easy... I'm just identifying the problem for what it really is. Working out and being more active to "compensate" for the enormous amount of food we take in doesn't leave much time with family, friends or work. It's nearly impossible to work out enough to compensate for the diets most of us indulge in... just eat less.

Exercise is far more important than diet.

"We all generally EAT TOO MUCH! Our guts are too big and so our hunger satisfaction signal is delayed. Working out and being active is good and all, but that's not the biggest part of what's wrong. It's WHAT we eat and how much of it we eat."

Actually, any doctor, physiologist or nutritionist will tell you that the problem has two parts: we don't exercise enough, and we eat too much. Both problems are equally important, and it's actually a far better idea to increase your activity than to drastically cut your caloric intake (if you're forced to choose). It's best to do both.

If you live a sedentary lifestyle but drastically cut calories, your body will eventually "decide" that you are starving, and will slow your metabolic rate to compensate (amongst other changes, such as the increase in serum cortisol levels, and the activation of lipid storage enzymes -- which essentially means that you'll begin to destroy muscle, in favor of preserving fat). This is why conventional diets do not work -- most people simply lose muscle mass (and/or water weight), eventually tire of starving themselves, and baloon back up to their pre-diet weight, with a lower lean body mass as a reward.

So, while the Big Mac culture is certainly a problem in the US, the only way to battle obesity in the long term is to encourage exercise. Dietary changes alone will not work.

No wonder people don't walk!

I come from Denmark but am staying in Minneapolis for a year. In Denmark you can walk to a nearby mall or at least a well-stocked convenience store pretty much no-matter where you live if you do not live too far from the central city. Where I live in Denmark I can *walk* to *everything* I need to do on a regular basis, and everything else is within convinient biking or bus distance. I don't have a car and I would have a use for a driver's license maybe once a year (when living in Denmark, that is).

Now, in Minneapolis, practically nothing is within walking distance no matter where you live and the bus system is an absolute pain to figure out even using their online planner. Not having a car around here is a serious social handicap, and it makes shopping a taxing experience, because everything is spread out within a huge area. I can't help but conclude that people around here actually *enjoy* spending alot of time in their cars, so that distance is an advantage to them.

Other than that, this is a very nice place, but for people who live here permanently, not having a car is simply not a workable option.

Does sprawl make us fat? It depends...

Does sprawl make us fat?

I guess it depends on how much sprawl you eat.

A better question: If part of my body sprawls, am I fat?

I blame zoning laws

In the US, local commerce is rigidly controlled through zoning laws. It would be nice to have a neighborhood store, or set of shops, etc, but most local governments don't allow mixing commercial areas with residential.

It's simply against the law.

Land of the free, my ass.

Venice

I live in a city that can be defined as the opposite of sprawl: Venice (Venezia), Italy. Buildings here are closer one to another than any place I know of. Some "calli" (pedestrian passages) are as narrow as half meter. Cars just don't enter the city beyond the parkings at the end of the bridge that connects it to the mainland, and even bikes are not allowed. You just walk. Every time your way intersects a canal, you have to go up and down the steps of a bridge. Because of the high density, the time spent moving from place to place in everyday business is not different from that in car-only cities. Remove the time spent looking for a parking place (a big problem in most Italian cities) and you have a net time advantage. You don't see many obese people in Venice and even elders citizens tend to be healthier than in other places. People meet and talk in the streets. Goods travel almost exclusively on water, on a network that is completely separate from that of persons. One of the downsides is a very uncomfortable environment for disabled people: wheelchairs weren't an option when the city was built!

Fear makes us fat

In the U.S. at least. We're afraid of crime and/or minorities and so we move further out to be away from them. We're afraid our kids will be abducted or abused so we drive them to the bus stop so that they can go to school, even though the bus stop is just a few blocks from our home. We then sit there with the engine running and the doors locked until the kids board the bus, and drive back home. Kids can't be allowed to play on their own, we have to constantly watch them if they want to go to the park. But thanks to our commute back and forth to work we don't have time to actually supervise them. So we forbid them to go out after school and leave them at home in front of the television or with their game consoles. Not to mention their sugary snacks and processed foods. Commuting parents often don't have time to actually prepare food from scratch.

Fear is the driving force behind sprawl, and fear sets the pattern for our sedentary lifestyles. It's our fears that make us fat.

As a culture we need to get over it.

the future is now

Fat, yes. Not to mention stupid. I know some very intelligent, down-to-earth city folk, but I swear most of them live just outside the realm of reality.

Yeah, well, not all of us were able to get into Costco law school like you and your elite friends.

Re:

Uhmm Sprawl and Automobile have a self perpetuating cause and effect relationship. More of one cases more of the other with our current mindset.

Re:

I'm 260 lbs

I eat 1 burrito for breakfast, not huge, but small, low grease - chicken no beef, cheese and some garlic on a spinache tortilla.

For lunch I drink a bottle of mineral water and a V8.

For dinner I have a noodle bowl.

My weight is maintained and slow

Re:Only two words needed to fix obesity.

"I eat complete shit, but he eats more shit than me, so I'm better!"

If you seriously eat what you listed then not only do you need to develope tastebuds but you also need to learn what good healthy food is. Cheese and chicken, water and noodles isn't good for you. You need a balanced diet where vegetables arn't dried and devoid of flavour.

Do yourself a favour and try cooking a proper meat and two veg meal daily, the crap you're eating is too much junk for anyone to ever be proud of eating.

Re:

So what exactly would be the purpose of eating? If you had to burn every calorie you consumed right after you consumed it, you would die sooner than later. The purpose of eating is calorie intake.

Re:Obvious

Yeah, fat genes. Good one. There is no such thing. If there were such a thing, we could breed a race of superfat humans who can exercise constantly and still gain weight. Second law, eat your heart out!

The kids are fat because their parents are fat and the whole household eats chicken fried steak and gravy on a bed of iceberg lettuce covered with Kraft Singles and ranch dressing. And the little lard buckets take a car to school and back and play Nofreindo when they are at home.

Humans are incredible walking machines. We have a higher endurance than any other land mammal. We are built to walk and walk and walk some more. When a human doesn't walk, they get fat. It's a pretty simple system.

I'm sorry to hear that you hate real cities. I know that culture and the arts can be a pain in the ass and are best eradicated. And I hate having to see all those interesting people all over the place. Man, I wish I could move back to Midwest City so I could drive everywhere and never interact with anybody.

Re:Obvious

chicken fried steak and gravy on a bed of iceberg lettuce covered with Kraft Singles and ranch dressing.

I am intrigued by your recipe and would like to subscribe to your cookbook.

Re:Obvious

The disorders you linked to have an overall incidence on the order of 1 in 100000 people. The rate of being fat (in the USA) is 2 in 5. You do the math.

Re:Being fat versus getting jacked at gunpoint...

Strangely enough, it is only in America that inner-cities are more dangerous than suburbs. In Australia and Europe, inner cities are seen as desirable places to live compared to the suburbs.

Maybe the original idea was to escape factories, but now the US has far less manufacturing capacity, so that isn't it anymore... what is it? Low gas prices (compared to the rest of the world) keep suburbs cheap, and black people tend to live in cities so it's undesirable to whites?