Does Sprawl Make Us Fat? 659
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.'"
Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter (Score:3, Insightful)
The human race has come from lean mean hunting machines(?) to the slobs we are. The more technology we have, the more we turn into slobs.
Re:Yes and no and yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Short and sweet.. YES.. cars = fat. (Score:2, Insightful)
you use cars and you move less with your body.. you get fat..
one solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Sprawl? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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:We're missing the obvious. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter (Score:3, Insightful)
Note to moderators: it's insightful the first time, it's redundant the millionth time.
Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Four words to weight loss: (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter (Score:5, Insightful)
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:one solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Four words to weight loss: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Sprawl is a choice we have made (Score:2, Insightful)
It's no my fault ! (Score:2, Insightful)
Weight loosing is simple, (but not easy)
1. Do not fatty food. No fries!
2. Stop eating any sweets and avoid sugar.
3. Use every opportunity to move. Use stairs instead elevator etc.
4. Do not eat anything "stomach full". Eat on only to kill the hunger. This does not strech the stomach. It will shrink in time and you'll feel full after smaller lunch.
5. When hungry, drink first two glasses of water.
You don't need magic diets or pills. All it takes is self-discipline.
Master planning vs mixed and public spaces (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not so here (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Exercise is far more important than diet. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I blame zoning laws (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simply against the law.
Land of the free, my ass.
Laziness Makes the US Fat! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you do live in a community that lacks parks, trails, or sidewalks/roads you can safely jog on, you don't even need a stairmaster or stationary bike to stay fit. All you need is the discipline to do basic resistance exercises every day. Just a quick intense workout when you wake up in the morning, and you will find it hard to get fat. Pushups, situps/crunches, dips, squats, etc. without weights but done in an explosive fashion will burn a lot of calories very fast and keep your muscles toned as well. You don't need to run 10 miles or do aerobics for an hour to burn a lot of calories if you are know that anaerobic exercise is about 8 times less efficient in calorie usage as aerobic exercise. What this essentially means is that anaerobic exercise will burn calories 8 times faster than aerobic exercise.
Of course, you could just lift weights for 10-15 minutes a day like I do, but if you don't have the space or the money to afford free weights, do the next best thing and do the basics to keep fit. It doesn't take a lot of time, just the discipline to make it part of your daily routine as if it was as core to your day as brushing your teeth.
Re:Only two words needed to fix obesity. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:I wouldn't walk either (Score:2, Insightful)
Or getting an unwelcome encounter:
(From the book "Divorce Your Car!" by Katie Alvord, p.53)
- RG>
Re:Yes and no and yes and no (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed! Almost everywhere where there is a functional mass transit system, it is heavily subsidized by the government. For example, the cost of laying rails, mainting trains and digging tunnels are much greater than the direct revenue a metro system ever could produce. The indirect revenues on the other hand; less traffic congestion, less pollution, easier access for people and a more attractive place to live is greater than the costs. A store pays tax to the government. The government builds cheap mass transit. The store gains back more than it payed in taxes because with the cheap mass transit it can attract more customers. Everyone wins.
Fear makes us fat (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter (Score:5, Insightful)
drive everywhere and never carry anything exposes you
to far more ridicule than carrying a bag around does.
Re:Master planning vs mixed and public spaces (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter (Score:5, Insightful)
Be sure to get some good health insurance for the time being. Life will get expensive then. No offense.
Re:Not so here (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Not so here (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't, however, ever seen anyone riding a bike to/from that Wal-Mart.
I guess the point is: even the Wal-Mart crowd needs, and probably wants, mass transit and walking paths. The downside is that much like kids riding bicycles, the moment the people who currently need mass transit make enough money they'll be buying SUV's they can hardly afford so they can drive to Wal-Mart, because the appearance of affluence is much more alluring than actually having money. It takes a whole different mindset about social order and quality-of-life to aspire to walking, bike-riding, and mass transit rather than using them as a stopgap until you can afford a car.
Re:Sprawl DOES makes you fatter (Score:3, Insightful)
I do believe that excercise plays a bigger role in practice than diet. Even there, the science needs to catch up with the reality. The science will get you heavily muscled individuals with low fat content or trim ladies with hot bodies but those individuals don't live longer than the rest of us with a small gut and no ribs poking out. There is not just fit and obese. 'Healthy' greens, atheletics, bodybuilders, farmers and ranchers, the average joe with a small gut and no ribs poking out, John Candy, and the gargantuan woman hauling herself around with the motorized cart at Wal-mart are all completely different physical conditions. John Candy and Walmart woman have extremely short lives; farmers and ranchhands typically have long lives; the rest live about the same length of time in practice.
Farmers who work 16hrs a day/7 days a week eat diets filled with bacon, sausage, eggs, and corn. All of it cooked in real animal lard. They live long lives. They are usually physically powerful individuals without any substantial physical definition. Even changes in cholesterol theory don't explain this. The kind of excercise we get in a gym doesn't replicate the results. Just ask all the bodybuilders and runners dying at 65. What is the difference? Hell if I know but it certainly seems to be there.
Also, looking at nature I haven't found animals watching their diets. Other animals don't have any magic diet regulator switch instinct built in that the human animal does not. The natural habitat of most animals is certainly pretty sprawling. lol. I know of some predators that seem to dine almost exclusively on red meat and are quite healthy. The diets of animals in nature are diverse but they seem to have a few things in common. They all get quite a bit of natural, varied, excercise. Animals in nature are capable of storing fat (even if the vegetarians) for winter but otherwise aren't obese.