5 ms·

Much of the academic research I have read (Check out Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes) shows the exact opposite to be true. Our diets accounts for dr

Much of the academic research I have read (Check out Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes) shows the exact opposite to be true. Our diets accounts for dramatically much higher cause of obesity than our environment and specifically cars.

awjr 10y ago
I'm just going to point at the Netherlands their obesity rate of 10%. They have designed in an hour or more of exercise per day into just getting around. In the UK some cities have stats where people are known to just do 20 minutes of walking exercise per year.
- dpark 10y ago
  > In the UK some cities have stats where people are known to just do 20 minutes of walking exercise per year. No way that's correct unless the U.K. has cities full of bedridden people. 20 minutes of walking is 3.3 seconds per day. You need a catheter or a wheelchair to walk that little.
  - awjr 10y ago
    I did qualify it as exercise. In other words, somebody deliberately 'going for a walk to exercise'. It would be interesting to know how many people do no form of exercise.
    - dpark 10y ago
      You also claim that the Dutch "have designed in an hour or more of exercise per day into just getting around." You're using two entirely different measures so your comparison is useless. If only "deliberate" walking exercise counts, then there are probably lots of Dutch getting no exercise.
ceras 10y ago
Diet definitely has a bigger impact than exercise, but isn't there still a correlation between more urban areas and lower obesity even when controlling for poverty? There may be other factors to urban, non-car-based living besides the extra physical activity that encourages lower weight. It's maybe as simple as without a car you can't go to Costco and stock up on huge sacks of unhealthy foods in one go -- beats me, I'd be interested to learn more.
- akiselev 10y ago
  On my phone so I can't find the right metastudy but yes, there is an inverse correlation between urban lifestyles and obesity rates but it's a tenuous one. In cities like Atlanta, St. Louis, Montgomery, and San Antonio the difference in obesity rates from rural and suburban areas in the same state is almost nonexistent but Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York see much lower rates in obesity. (within city limits, their metropolitan areas are a while different animal). I have a feeling that it's mostly due to a hybrid peer pressure/economic effect. When you're in a group of friends and the majority want to go to a healthier restaurant or everyone in your neighborhood goes to the local mom and pop grocery store instead of Safeway, it becomes a self reinforcing pressure to eat healthy. More healthy restaurants will open and more small grocery stores will be built to serve individual neighborhoods while market share is slowly taken from unhealthy restaurants and chain groceries. Eventually, a significant portion of people who would otherwise have trouble controlling their weight stick with the healthier diet out of inertia or convenience. I also saw a study (although not a very conclusive one) that suggested that discrimination could play a part. A higher cost of living in cities means that a lot more jobs that can support the lifestyle have a physical appearance component to them. Salespeople in high end boutiques, consultants, etc are economically more viable in denser areas and if clients or employers discriminate based on looks, there will be fewer job opportunities for the obese, making it harder for them to live in urban areas.
  - moyix 10y ago
    Do you know if there's a study that breaks this down by population density instead? My intuition (having lived for 6 years without a car in Atlanta) is that obesity levels aren't going to be significantly different in a sprawling, low-density city like Atlanta, where everyone drives, but in a dense, walkable, and public-transit friendly city like NYC you will see a difference.
miketery 10y ago
Agreed in simple terms - cutting on high calorie food specifically sugar is better than exercising for body weight. However what if the environment (one conducive to riding bikes) causes us to make better dietary decision. In this case the focus should be on the environment.
DeBraid 10y ago
This is correct in absolute terms. OP refers to relative rates of obesity based on variable cultural/jurisdictional attitudes towards cycling vs. cars.

awjr 10y ago

I'm just going to point at the Netherlands their obesity rate of 10%. They have designed in an hour or more of exercise per day into just getting around. In the UK some cities have stats where people are known to just do 20 minutes of walking exercise per year.

dpark 10y ago
> In the UK some cities have stats where people are known to just do 20 minutes of walking exercise per year. No way that's correct unless the U.K. has cities full of bedridden people. 20 minutes of walking is 3.3 seconds per day. You need a catheter or a wheelchair to walk that little.
- awjr 10y ago
  I did qualify it as exercise. In other words, somebody deliberately 'going for a walk to exercise'. It would be interesting to know how many people do no form of exercise.
  - dpark 10y ago
    You also claim that the Dutch "have designed in an hour or more of exercise per day into just getting around." You're using two entirely different measures so your comparison is useless. If only "deliberate" walking exercise counts, then there are probably lots of Dutch getting no exercise.

ceras 10y ago

Diet definitely has a bigger impact than exercise, but isn't there still a correlation between more urban areas and lower obesity even when controlling for poverty? There may be other factors to urban, non-car-based living besides the extra physical activity that encourages lower weight. It's maybe as simple as without a car you can't go to Costco and stock up on huge sacks of unhealthy foods in one go -- beats me, I'd be interested to learn more.

akiselev 10y ago
On my phone so I can't find the right metastudy but yes, there is an inverse correlation between urban lifestyles and obesity rates but it's a tenuous one. In cities like Atlanta, St. Louis, Montgomery, and San Antonio the difference in obesity rates from rural and suburban areas in the same state is almost nonexistent but Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York see much lower rates in obesity. (within city limits, their metropolitan areas are a while different animal). I have a feeling that it's mostly due to a hybrid peer pressure/economic effect. When you're in a group of friends and the majority want to go to a healthier restaurant or everyone in your neighborhood goes to the local mom and pop grocery store instead of Safeway, it becomes a self reinforcing pressure to eat healthy. More healthy restaurants will open and more small grocery stores will be built to serve individual neighborhoods while market share is slowly taken from unhealthy restaurants and chain groceries. Eventually, a significant portion of people who would otherwise have trouble controlling their weight stick with the healthier diet out of inertia or convenience. I also saw a study (although not a very conclusive one) that suggested that discrimination could play a part. A higher cost of living in cities means that a lot more jobs that can support the lifestyle have a physical appearance component to them. Salespeople in high end boutiques, consultants, etc are economically more viable in denser areas and if clients or employers discriminate based on looks, there will be fewer job opportunities for the obese, making it harder for them to live in urban areas.
- moyix 10y ago
  Do you know if there's a study that breaks this down by population density instead? My intuition (having lived for 6 years without a car in Atlanta) is that obesity levels aren't going to be significantly different in a sprawling, low-density city like Atlanta, where everyone drives, but in a dense, walkable, and public-transit friendly city like NYC you will see a difference.

miketery 10y ago

Agreed in simple terms - cutting on high calorie food specifically sugar is better than exercising for body weight. However what if the environment (one conducive to riding bikes) causes us to make better dietary decision. In this case the focus should be on the environment.

DeBraid 10y ago

This is correct in absolute terms. OP refers to relative rates of obesity based on variable cultural/jurisdictional attitudes towards cycling vs. cars.