17 ms·

Rising rural BMI is the main driver of the global obesity epidemic in adults

118 points by tokai 7y ago

jp555 7y ago
We need a study to tell us that increasing average body mass drives obesity averages more than urbanization? In related news, eating too much too often is more a cause of weight gain than how much screen time you get.
- 5trokerac3 7y ago
  It specifically locates where most of the body mass increase is coming from.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  The very second sentence of the link: > This has led to a widely reported view that urbanization is one of the most important drivers of the global rise in obesity The study's findings are that the rise in overall weight is attributed primarily to rural areas, contrary to the current consensus that it's driven by urbanization. Let alone not reading the link before commenting, it seems you didn't even read the full title of the post.
- hindsightbias 7y ago
  Some thought Once Upon A Time In Hollywood (Tarantinos homage to the 60s) was unrealistic because everyone was skinny. I was like, no - that’s what everyone looked like.
shadowtree 7y ago
As the article states, once automation hits a rural area, people there spend less energy than in cities. Very much observable in the US, where rural and suburban population never WALKS. You need to supply artificial sources of movement (aka sports) to make up for the delta. In cities, you walk more by default - your baseline energy expenditure is higher. Take the stairs to the subway, walk to work, get out for lunch ... all of that counts. Driving around in your F150 and have everything as a drive through? You're the slob from the movie "Up".
- human20190310 7y ago
  City dwellers are increasingly working from home and getting everything (including weed) delivered, so the "slob" characterization might not be as strongly associated with F150s as time wears on.
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    Yeah exactly this. I have cousins that still live in rural America and yes they drive F150s and yes they are considerably more active than the average city dweller. There’s just more (manual) work to do on a farm. Hence the pickup.
  - magashna 7y ago
    But you can just as easily have pretty good produce delivered. It's no excuse
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >You're the slob from the movie "Up". Which character are you talking about?
  - anchpop 7y ago
    I bet they mean Wall-E
    - shadowtree 7y ago
      Yes! Got my Pixar movies mixed up - thanks for the correction!
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        Was wondering why you were picking on poor Russell.
- privateSFacct 7y ago
  There is a tough spot especially in light suburban where it is very very hard to walk. Nothing is setup for it. So you'd have to be kinda crazy to walk (sidewalks nonexistent, road crossings not really available etc). Once you get really rural - you can go hiking more easily unless its hunting etc season
dfsegoat 7y ago
"Data on how BMI in rural and urban populations is changing are needed to plan interventions that address underweight and overweight." Specifically in the U.S., isn't it true that the population landscape is rapidly shifting from Rural => Urban? I intend to read more to see how this may/may not be a confounder in this type of temporal analysis. Tldr: If the rural population is decreasing, then your denominator is smaller and estimates of disease proportion would increase over time. These confounders are commonly addressed in systematic reviews - just haven't found it specifically in this one.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  > Tldr: If the rural population is decreasing, then your denominator is smaller and estimates of disease proportion would increase over time. This wouldn't happen from the denominator decreasing per se, but from the emigrants being skewed healthy. Which is pretty plausible, given that you'd expect emigrants to skew eg younger.
  - derefr 7y ago
    You would expect emigrants to be people who are productive enough to afford the increased costs-of-living of a city, which usually (but not always) implies health—at least insofar as severe unhealthy usually restricts productivity.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Yes and no. The Census Bureau defines "urban area" as contiguous census blocks with a density above 1000 people per square mile. That means many places that we'd call "suburban" or "exurban" are counted as "urban." During the 20th century, you saw two trends: movement from rural areas to urban areas, but simultaneous movement from cities to suburbs: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percentage-of-US-metropolitan-area-population-in-suburbs-1900-to-2000-by_fig1_258198169 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percentage-of-US-metropo.... Since 1920, we went from 35% of metro area residents living in suburbs to 70% in 2000. At the same time, the percentage of people living in "urban" areas went from 50% to 80%. A little back-of-the-napkin math suggest that what we think of as the "urban" population (people living in cities) shrank from ~35% in 1920 to 25% in 2000.
CalRobert 7y ago
I just moved from the middle of a walkable city to the country and indeed I've put on some weight. Key factors: * I used to walk and cycle as my only means of transport (well, 99% of it at least). * This is kind of a desert for decent food. The local shops have candy, chips, cakes, beer, and some almost-rotten bananas and apples. * .. well actually that's about it. Though everyone else being heavier probably hasn't helped on a subconscious level.
- tootie 7y ago
  I think when everyone is heavier, it sets a lower bar for attracting a partner. That's a big factor.
mbritton72 7y ago
It keeps being said: you must eat only what is needed to fuel your body for the activity you are doing in an average day. By the time someone acquires the maturity to accept this, their lifestyle has been too deeply established for change to be possible.
pcdoodle 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4sRsb0a30Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4sRsb0a30Y The hacking of the american mind.
droithomme 7y ago
The food in those areas is also insanely sugar and fat oriented. It made sense back when people were doing hard farming work 15 hours a day and needed the calories. But the cuisine didn't change, if anything it got sweeter. When I'm traveling, I run into difficulty finding low calorie dishes when passing through rural areas and now basically simply don't eat there. It's infectious: the asian cuisines found in rural areas has nothing to do with actual asian food. Expect deep fried chicken drenched in actual sugar syrup in most dishes. Because nothing else will sell so the restaurant owners adapt. It's not surprising to look around and see so many people that are waddling around, driving around stores little electric cart things, with pasty acne riddled skin, thin hair falling out in clumps, and generally looking like they are at death's door despite being under 40.

118 points by tokai 7y ago

We need a study to tell us that increasing average body mass drives obesity averages more than urbanization? In related news, eating too much too often is more a cause of weight gain than how much screen time you get.

5trokerac3 7y ago
It specifically locates where most of the body mass increase is coming from.
wutbrodo 7y ago
The very second sentence of the link: > This has led to a widely reported view that urbanization is one of the most important drivers of the global rise in obesity The study's findings are that the rise in overall weight is attributed primarily to rural areas, contrary to the current consensus that it's driven by urbanization. Let alone not reading the link before commenting, it seems you didn't even read the full title of the post.
hindsightbias 7y ago
Some thought Once Upon A Time In Hollywood (Tarantinos homage to the 60s) was unrealistic because everyone was skinny. I was like, no - that’s what everyone looked like.

shadowtree 7y ago

As the article states, once automation hits a rural area, people there spend less energy than in cities. Very much observable in the US, where rural and suburban population never WALKS. You need to supply artificial sources of movement (aka sports) to make up for the delta. In cities, you walk more by default - your baseline energy expenditure is higher. Take the stairs to the subway, walk to work, get out for lunch ... all of that counts. Driving around in your F150 and have everything as a drive through? You're the slob from the movie "Up".

human20190310 7y ago
City dwellers are increasingly working from home and getting everything (including weed) delivered, so the "slob" characterization might not be as strongly associated with F150s as time wears on.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  Yeah exactly this. I have cousins that still live in rural America and yes they drive F150s and yes they are considerably more active than the average city dweller. There’s just more (manual) work to do on a farm. Hence the pickup.
- magashna 7y ago
  But you can just as easily have pretty good produce delivered. It's no excuse
whatshisface 7y ago
>You're the slob from the movie "Up". Which character are you talking about?
- anchpop 7y ago
  I bet they mean Wall-E
  - shadowtree 7y ago
    Yes! Got my Pixar movies mixed up - thanks for the correction!
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      Was wondering why you were picking on poor Russell.
privateSFacct 7y ago
There is a tough spot especially in light suburban where it is very very hard to walk. Nothing is setup for it. So you'd have to be kinda crazy to walk (sidewalks nonexistent, road crossings not really available etc). Once you get really rural - you can go hiking more easily unless its hunting etc season

dfsegoat 7y ago

"Data on how BMI in rural and urban populations is changing are needed to plan interventions that address underweight and overweight." Specifically in the U.S., isn't it true that the population landscape is rapidly shifting from Rural => Urban? I intend to read more to see how this may/may not be a confounder in this type of temporal analysis. Tldr: If the rural population is decreasing, then your denominator is smaller and estimates of disease proportion would increase over time. These confounders are commonly addressed in systematic reviews - just haven't found it specifically in this one.

wutbrodo 7y ago
> Tldr: If the rural population is decreasing, then your denominator is smaller and estimates of disease proportion would increase over time. This wouldn't happen from the denominator decreasing per se, but from the emigrants being skewed healthy. Which is pretty plausible, given that you'd expect emigrants to skew eg younger.
- derefr 7y ago
  You would expect emigrants to be people who are productive enough to afford the increased costs-of-living of a city, which usually (but not always) implies health—at least insofar as severe unhealthy usually restricts productivity.
rayiner 7y ago
Yes and no. The Census Bureau defines "urban area" as contiguous census blocks with a density above 1000 people per square mile. That means many places that we'd call "suburban" or "exurban" are counted as "urban." During the 20th century, you saw two trends: movement from rural areas to urban areas, but simultaneous movement from cities to suburbs: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percentage-of-US-metropolitan-area-population-in-suburbs-1900-to-2000-by_fig1_258198169 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percentage-of-US-metropo.... Since 1920, we went from 35% of metro area residents living in suburbs to 70% in 2000. At the same time, the percentage of people living in "urban" areas went from 50% to 80%. A little back-of-the-napkin math suggest that what we think of as the "urban" population (people living in cities) shrank from ~35% in 1920 to 25% in 2000.

CalRobert 7y ago

I just moved from the middle of a walkable city to the country and indeed I've put on some weight. Key factors: * I used to walk and cycle as my only means of transport (well, 99% of it at least). * This is kind of a desert for decent food. The local shops have candy, chips, cakes, beer, and some almost-rotten bananas and apples. * .. well actually that's about it. Though everyone else being heavier probably hasn't helped on a subconscious level.

tootie 7y ago
I think when everyone is heavier, it sets a lower bar for attracting a partner. That's a big factor.

mbritton72 7y ago

It keeps being said: you must eat only what is needed to fuel your body for the activity you are doing in an average day. By the time someone acquires the maturity to accept this, their lifestyle has been too deeply established for change to be possible.

pcdoodle 7y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4sRsb0a30Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4sRsb0a30Y The hacking of the american mind.

droithomme 7y ago

The food in those areas is also insanely sugar and fat oriented. It made sense back when people were doing hard farming work 15 hours a day and needed the calories. But the cuisine didn't change, if anything it got sweeter. When I'm traveling, I run into difficulty finding low calorie dishes when passing through rural areas and now basically simply don't eat there. It's infectious: the asian cuisines found in rural areas has nothing to do with actual asian food. Expect deep fried chicken drenched in actual sugar syrup in most dishes. Because nothing else will sell so the restaurant owners adapt. It's not surprising to look around and see so many people that are waddling around, driving around stores little electric cart things, with pasty acne riddled skin, thin hair falling out in clumps, and generally looking like they are at death's door despite being under 40.