Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2006
Studies Link Urban Sprawl and Obesity ?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
jbuch - 28 Feb 2006 14:20 GMT http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060228085228.htm
Source: Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health
Posted: February 28, 2006 Can Urban Design Make You Fat? Researchers Studying Link Between Obesity And The Urban Environment
Researchers at the Mailman School of Public Health are studying the link between the urban environment and how it might contribute to the cause or origins of obesity. In a study that will have wide-reaching applications, the Mailman School is one of 14 groups across the United States to receive funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to study the association between body size and the built environment.
Up until now, obesity research has focused on ways to change individual behavior but with obesity rates continuing to climb, researchers are now turning their efforts to the built environment and the interventions that might be effective in fighting the epidemic. Working with various city departments, Andrew Rundle, DrPH, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the Mailman School, and his research team, are gathering data on neighborhood features such as land use, density of bus and subway stops, availability of nutritious food, the location and quality of parks and recreation facilities -- even the number of trees on a street and the number of buildings with elevators -- that affect a person's diet and activity levels. Upon completion of the research, Dr. Rundle expects to have a large base of evidence linking the built environment to body size.
In some preliminary results, Dr. Rundle found that people who live in neighborhoods that have a mixture of residential and commercial uses have lower levels of obesity than people who live in neighborhoods that are closer to being 100 percent residential. "The more mixed an area, the skinnier people are," according to Dr. Rundle. "Mixing supports walking, it supports incidental activity and it makes you independent of an automobile." The data also indicates that as the density of bus and subway stops increases in a neighborhood, the body size of residents goes down. Again, it is thought that public transit allows residents to be private automobile independent and promotes walking.
,,,,,,,,,<SNIP>
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050909220354.htm
Source: Oregon State University
Posted: September 10, 2005 Study Links Obesity, Urban Sprawl
CORVALLIS - Is suburban life making people overweight? Or could it be that overweight people tend to choose the suburban life?
In a study recently published in the Journal of Regional Science, researchers from Oregon State University found that the relationship between obesity and urban sprawl may be a two-way street.
Economists Andrew Plantinga from OSU's Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Stephanie Bernell from OSU's Department of Public Health expanded previous studies that showed that people living in areas of urban sprawl tend to have higher body mass indices. Their analysis suggests that the relationship between obesity and urban sprawl may be due to personal preferences when choosing a home location rather than to direct impacts of the suburban environment on physical activity and weight. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, <SNIP>
 Signature 1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
Joe the Aroma - 28 Feb 2006 15:03 GMT Well from around here I know that that article is total nonsense. It's the very poor who live in "mixed use" urban slums who are the most prone to obesity. Linking sprawl to obesity is just another political essay disguised as a scientific one. I can tell you that in wealthy Connecticut, in the most secluded, car-oriented exurbs, obesity is practically non-existant. If you go to the cities, obesity is extremely noticable. You cannot link obesity with poverty, who tend to live in tight mixed-use urban neighborhoods, and then turn around and say that it's also linked with wealthy suburbs.
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060228085228.htm > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > <SNIP> Joe the Aroma - 28 Feb 2006 15:11 GMT If you go to New York and drive around Westchester County or Fairfield County you will see very little obesity and very many sprawl communities. Venture into Yonkers or the Bronx and you will notice much more obesity. This article is nonsense
> Well from around here I know that that article is total nonsense. It's the > very poor who live in "mixed use" urban slums who are the most prone to [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, >> <SNIP> jbuch - 28 Feb 2006 16:43 GMT > If you go to New York and drive around Westchester County or Fairfield > County you will see very little obesity and very many sprawl communities. > Venture into Yonkers or the Bronx and you will notice much more obesity. > This article is nonsense I spent part of an evening near two local restaurants. One was "Boar's Lair" which was a slightly high toned BBQ and Rib place. The other was a very high priced Italian place.
A lot of "ordinary" people, with ordinary clothes and small, medium, large and obese waists went into the "Boar's Lair" -
The high priced Italian joint had mostly well dressed folks who drove pretty nice cars - no pickups - and in a half hour of watching both places nobody obese went into the high priced Italian place.
>>Well from around here I know that that article is total nonsense. Very intersting generalization to the whole USA. I would not make the generalization, but I am handicapped by having studied statistics and having found out how easily my own assumption and generalizations can go wrong.
>> It's the >>very poor who live in "mixed use" urban slums who are the most prone to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>urban neighborhoods, and then turn around and say that it's also linked >>with wealthy suburbs. The article didn't say it was linked with WEALTHY suburbs. You made that up.
The article only argued that there are statistical tendencies, but the press release ignores that kind of boring detail.
My niece lived in a Wealthy neighborhood and weighted more than 400 pounds before she had her insides rearranged. However, this doesn't prove that Wealth breeds obesity. One could easily overgeneralize, and be wrong.
I have an obese friend who moved to Madison WI, and lives in a mixed-use neighborhood. Mostly he drives almost everywhere, and has done so all of his life. Some of his neighbors evidently walk a lot.
I live in a nixed-use neighborhood. I have an obese next door neighbor and she drives everywhere, even to the Dollar General store two blocks away. I walk.
I know that a mixed-use neighborhood doesn't magically prevent or cure obesity, and neither does a wealthy neighborhood.
>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060228085228.htm >>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >>>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, >>><SNIP>
 Signature 1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
Opinicus - 28 Feb 2006 19:15 GMT > Well from around here I know that that article is total nonsense. It's the > very poor who live in "mixed use" urban slums who are the most prone to > obesity. My own observations support this (even, alas, now in Turkey). But it poses a question:
If obesity is a consequence of excessive caloric intake then how are the very poor able to afford the excess calories needed to make them obese?
 Signature Bob http://www.kanyak.com
tunderbar@hotmail.com - 28 Feb 2006 20:56 GMT Cheep grains, sugars and HFCS in everything.
TC
> > Well from around here I know that that article is total nonsense. It's the > > very poor who live in "mixed use" urban slums who are the most prone to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If obesity is a consequence of excessive caloric intake then how are the > very poor able to afford the excess calories needed to make them obese? Doug Freyburger - 28 Feb 2006 22:50 GMT > If obesity is a consequence of excessive caloric intake then how are the > very poor able to afford the excess calories needed to make them obese? The word "poor" means very different things in different parts of the world.
In some parts of the world the word poor still means someone who can't afford any source of calories enough to get fat.
In other parts of the world the word poor means there are amount unlimited quantities of food available but it is of very low quality and thus leads towards obesity.
Aaron Baugher - 01 Mar 2006 06:42 GMT > If obesity is a consequence of excessive caloric intake then how are > the very poor able to afford the excess calories needed to make them > obese? The most fattening, least healthy foods are the cheapest, for those not growing their own. This paragraph comes from a very good article by John Ross:
Remember the tedious Little House series of books you read in grade school by Laura Ingalls Wilder, that were later made into an equally tedious TV series with Michael Landon? One thing that always struck me as a kid was how much time and effort people in those days spent doing things like tapping trees to get the sap to make a little bit of maple syrup. Contrast that with our current situation: A person with no special skills can knock on doors in my neighborhood and make $8 an hour doing basic yardwork. In 90 minutes, he will have enough money to go down to the local Sam's Club or Costco and buy fifty pounds of refined white sugar. Refined flour is even less. With modern production methods, that's how cheap the stuff has become.
Read the whole thing here: <http://www.john-ross.net/atkins.htm> All his essays are good, and he did a followup on his low-carb success a few months later.
 Signature Aaron -- aaron_baugher@yahoo.com -- 285/245/200 http://360.yahoo.com/aaron_baugher
Joe the Aroma - 01 Mar 2006 15:24 GMT >> Well from around here I know that that article is total nonsense. It's >> the very poor who live in "mixed use" urban slums who are the most prone [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If obesity is a consequence of excessive caloric intake then how are the > very poor able to afford the excess calories needed to make them obese? Poor is relative isn't it? The poor in the US and Western Societies are different than the poor in "3rd World" countries. Whereas the 3rd world poor cannot even afford enough food to get fat in the first place, in Western Societies the poor can afford plenty of low quality food to get fat. As 3rd world countries are developing, their incidence of obesity is skyrocketing.
tunderbar@hotmail.com - 28 Feb 2006 15:27 GMT Could it be that rural folk have easier and more access to real unprocessed whole foods. And urban folks have easier amnd more access to grocery stores full of refined and processed foods, especially carbs?
TC
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060228085228.htm > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > book > 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) catskills@monmouth.com - 01 Mar 2006 00:42 GMT Doug hit it one he head!!!!
GaryG - 01 Mar 2006 02:51 GMT > Could it be that rural folk have easier and more access to real > unprocessed whole foods. And urban folks have easier amnd more access > to grocery stores full of refined and processed foods, especially > carbs? > > TC Have you ever been to rural Mississippi? It's one of the fattest places in America.
GG
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060228085228.htm > > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > book > > 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) tunderbar@hotmail.com - 01 Mar 2006 04:55 GMT > > Could it be that rural folk have easier and more access to real > > unprocessed whole foods. And urban folks have easier amnd more access [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > GG More and more, rural folk have easy access to cheap grain based crap carb foods. And Coca-Cola.
TC
|
|
|