5 ms·

"Carlin Robinson, 12, walks from her grandmother's car to the school bus in Manchester, Ky. Her house can be seen in the background. A study published in 2010,

"Carlin Robinson, 12, walks from her grandmother's car to the school bus in Manchester, Ky. Her house can be seen in the background. A study published in 2010, investigating high obesity rates in the town found that residents used cars to minimize walking distance, to the detriment of their health." Association != causation. While the picture this caption is from is indeed ridiculous (grandmother driving her daughter essentially to the end of her driveway for the school bus), the implication seems to be that Americans walking less somehow has a causative effect in skyrocketing obesity rates. This seems entirely wimpy and facile. Here's an alternative: there exists an underlying metabolic disorder that develops in a large proportion of the population, in response to something new in our environment ( new compared to pre 1950's ). A major effect that this disorder has is to partition a large part of our calorie intake towards fat storage. Now we have less energy available for expenditure, and as a consequence we either eat more or behave more sedentarily. Sedentary behavior will be a compensatory effect, that will indeed associate with obesity ( as measured by observational studies, like the one mentioned). A good candidate for such malady would be insulin resistance [1] (and more generally, metabolic syndrome); Gary Taubes makes a very compelling case [2] that this is indeed the case, and that the primary change(s) in our environment to cause these problems is our marked increase in sugar and refined carbohydrate consumption [3][4]. The same hypotheses also seem a good explanation for rising type II diabetes rates. Now this is still a controversial topic [5], but my point this kind of explanation seems much stronger and more on-the-mark, than such flaccid ideas like 'americans are getting fat because they don't walk to school anymore'. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_resistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_resistance [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Calories,_Bad_Calories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Calories,_Bad_Calories [3] http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Cleave/cleave_ch2.html http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Cleave/cleave_ch2.h... [4] http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/02/by-2606-us-diet-will-be-100-percent.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/02/by-2606-us-die... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_resistance#Causes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_resistance#Causes

dhimes 15y ago
Exactly. The organized sports for kids is insane in its breadth and depth. We used to play one, maybe two sports. Now normal kids are playing something most seasons. Not only are they playing, but they are going to special coaching sessions, camps, and so on. This is much more prevalent today than when I was a kid. We had football practice twice a week (at 12 yo) with a game on Saturday. She got a ride to the end of the driveway? Probably because she has a double-header soccer match that night. A soccer match at which some parents will get into a fistfight- but that's for another thread.
- Goronmon 15y ago
  She got a ride to the end of the driveway? Probably because she has a double-header soccer match that night. Someone athletic enough to play in a double-header soccer match wouldn't bat an eye at walking 100 feet down a driveway. As someone who played many sports in my earlier years, this line of reasoning seems completely off the mark.
  - dhimes 15y ago
    I see it, though. Not quite to that exaggerated level, but not entirely hyperbolic either. It's not a matter of "they cant't do it," but "they don't have to do it." Not if an alternative is offered (and they like being with grandma anyway).
  - DanBC 15y ago
    I see people who drive to the gym. They park their cars as close as possible to the gym door. This is not in poor weather. (not making any comment about the article.)
    - dhimes 15y ago
      My point is that I'm not convinced that the kids are getting less exercise than previous generations. If I had to guess, I would guess they are getting more. Are they watching more TV? You bet. What they don't spend time on so much anymore are hobbies. Sports are the main hobbies of a lot of these kids. Not for every kid, to be sure. But for a helluva lot of them.
BadCookie 15y ago
One striking thing to me, as someone who spends half my time in San Francisco and half elsewhere, is how much thinner San Franciscans are than most other Americans. Now, it could be because San Franciscans eat less sugar (perhaps because they are wealthier and eat better on the whole). But the Bay Area in general is pretty wealthy, and I think you still see a lot more large people on the peninsula than in SF. The peninsula is much more car dependent. I don't think it's a coincidence, but I can't prove it either.
Goronmon 15y ago
Now this is still a controversial topic [5], but my point this kind of explanation seems much stronger and more on-the-mark, than such flaccid ideas like 'americans are getting fat because they don't walk to school anymore'. I interpreted the article's point is that people avoid any form of physical activity at all cost. One example being driving a child to the end of a driveway instead of letting them walk. If physical activity is essential to maintaining one's health, it seems this sort of decision making would be detrimental to one's health. I don't see why this is such an awful stance to take.
- backprojection 15y ago
  It's not awful, it just seems off-the-mark. My point is that it seems avoiding physical activity at all costs is better viewed as a consequence of such a metabolic disorder, less so than a cause. I completely agree that exercise is very important in maintaining health (exercise, especially weight-training is know to increase insulin sensitivity to some degree, for instance), I just think its role in weight-loss, for most people, is greatly exaggerated compared to fixing a diet which actively promotes fat storage (going beyond a caloric excess). We've been telling overweight people to exercise more and eat less (esp. fat) for 40 years, it simply doesn't' seem to work [1]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-...
  - Goronmon 14y ago
    Well, the main point of that article seems to be that once someone has been overweight for an extended period of time, it becomes really hard to get to and stay at a lower weight. So, yes, it suggests that an increase in physical activity isn't an "easy" solution. However, I don't think it affects the point the article is making. People don't wake up to find themselves obese one day. It takes some time and effort to get there. And I would argue one of the biggest impacts on gaining weight is a lack of physical activity. Not to mention that from my experience, avoiding physical activity has a self-enforcing effect. The more you avoid moving around, the more you want to avoid moving around.
HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
ridiculous (grandmother driving her daughter essentially to the end of her driveway for the school bus) I drive my son about half a mile to the school bus every morning. One of my neighbors drives their children from the house, down the driveway to the street to the same school bus. Their driveway is just under half a mile long! We're not encouraging laziness: the reason I (and I suspect the neighbor also) do it is because if we just let him walk, he'd screw around and not make it to the bus on time. Eleven year-olds do stuff like that. He walks home from the bus because it doesn't matter if it takes him a few extra minutes to get home.
snowwrestler 15y ago
I think you probably don't have a good sense of just how much energy walking and other continuous small movements burn. There have several studies that showed that even different amounts of fidgeting can result in significant differences in energy usage, which correlated closely with levels of obesity. "Overweight people have a tendency to sit, while lean ones have trouble holding still and spend two hours more a day on their feet, pacing around and fidgeting, researchers are reporting in findings published today. "The difference translates into about 350 calories a day, enough to produce a weight loss of 30 to 40 pounds in one year without trips to the gym - if only heavy people could act more restless, like thin ones." .... "The director of the study, Dr. James Levine, an endocrinologist and nutritionist at the Mayo Clinic, said the findings offered hope to overweight people, suggesting that relatively simple and painless changes in their daily behavior, like making an effort to walk more and ride less, could help control weight." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/health/28weight.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/health/28weight.html I picked this one because it's the NY Times and Science, but there are numerous other sources available via Google.
- backprojection 15y ago
  "Overweight people have a tendency to sit, while lean ones have trouble holding still and spend two hours more a day on their feet, pacing around and fidgeting, researchers are reporting in findings published today." That's exactly what I'm talking about. Most of us eat plentifully. If your metabolism is up to shape, you'll spend the extra calories fidgeting. That's what a lean person is. In this paradigm, a fat person is one who partitions off calories towards fat, regardless of physical activity. He then has to match expenditure to what's left.
- DanBC 15y ago
  Yes. A number of studies have shown that overweight people can make a difference just by walking around their home a bit more, and doing things in a more active way. For example, instead of sitting down to watch TV they could stand and do some ironing while watching tv. And then, when standing and ironing they can bounce a bit. Many of these seemingly trivial actions build into more exercise and better weight loss.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
...the implication seems to be that Americans walking less somehow has a causative effect in skyrocketing obesity rates. This seems entirely wimpy and facile. The fact that exercise causes weight loss has been borne out by numerous controlled experiments. Something I found via a quick search: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duke.cardiologydomain.com%2Fimages%2Fuploaded%2Fdukeh%2F2_Slentz_BodyCompWt_STRRIDE_2004.pdf https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duke.car... Also, Taubes' insulin nonsense has been debunked. Lets move on. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h... As for your hypothetical environmental cause, it must be extremely selective. For example, consider mixed income American neighborhoods (e.g., Harlem, Jersey City). This alleged environmental cause seems to primarily affect the lower income people. How does that happen? Are the yuppies with gym memberships and hipsters with their organic vegan raw paleo diets somehow immune?
- backprojection 15y ago
  > Are the yuppies with gym memberships and hipsters with their organic vegan raw paleo diets somehow immune? Well, yes. As a paleo dieter, I can tell you I can't be eating more sugar than someone from the 1850s. My guess is that anyone conscious enough to be on a raw-vegan diet, doesn't either. > This alleged environmental cause seems to primarily affect the lower income people. My understanding is that refined carbohydrates and vegetable oils are cheap. Who was it that said that if you have $1.5 to spend on food, you're better off (calorically) buying potato chips than broccoli. > Also, Taubes' insulin nonsense has been debunked. Lets move on. I do suspect that it's simplistic. It's much better than the popular notion of calories-in/calories-out, though. That's why I said that it's controversial, but that it's the kind of thing, that's more on-the-mark than simply blaming sedentarity as a primary cause in obesity. > The fact that exercise causes weight loss has been borne out by numerous controlled experiments. Something I found via a quick search: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duke.car.. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duke.car.... OTOH, exercise makes you hungry. What's more interesting is whether exercise is effective long-term to cure obesity. I'd suspect not alone, but that it certainly helps. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914974,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914974,00....

dhimes 15y ago

Exactly. The organized sports for kids is insane in its breadth and depth. We used to play one, maybe two sports. Now normal kids are playing something most seasons. Not only are they playing, but they are going to special coaching sessions, camps, and so on. This is much more prevalent today than when I was a kid. We had football practice twice a week (at 12 yo) with a game on Saturday. She got a ride to the end of the driveway? Probably because she has a double-header soccer match that night. A soccer match at which some parents will get into a fistfight- but that's for another thread.

Goronmon 15y ago
She got a ride to the end of the driveway? Probably because she has a double-header soccer match that night. Someone athletic enough to play in a double-header soccer match wouldn't bat an eye at walking 100 feet down a driveway. As someone who played many sports in my earlier years, this line of reasoning seems completely off the mark.
- dhimes 15y ago
  I see it, though. Not quite to that exaggerated level, but not entirely hyperbolic either. It's not a matter of "they cant't do it," but "they don't have to do it." Not if an alternative is offered (and they like being with grandma anyway).
- DanBC 15y ago
  I see people who drive to the gym. They park their cars as close as possible to the gym door. This is not in poor weather. (not making any comment about the article.)
  - dhimes 15y ago
    My point is that I'm not convinced that the kids are getting less exercise than previous generations. If I had to guess, I would guess they are getting more. Are they watching more TV? You bet. What they don't spend time on so much anymore are hobbies. Sports are the main hobbies of a lot of these kids. Not for every kid, to be sure. But for a helluva lot of them.

BadCookie 15y ago

One striking thing to me, as someone who spends half my time in San Francisco and half elsewhere, is how much thinner San Franciscans are than most other Americans. Now, it could be because San Franciscans eat less sugar (perhaps because they are wealthier and eat better on the whole). But the Bay Area in general is pretty wealthy, and I think you still see a lot more large people on the peninsula than in SF. The peninsula is much more car dependent. I don't think it's a coincidence, but I can't prove it either.

Goronmon 15y ago

Now this is still a controversial topic [5], but my point this kind of explanation seems much stronger and more on-the-mark, than such flaccid ideas like 'americans are getting fat because they don't walk to school anymore'. I interpreted the article's point is that people avoid any form of physical activity at all cost. One example being driving a child to the end of a driveway instead of letting them walk. If physical activity is essential to maintaining one's health, it seems this sort of decision making would be detrimental to one's health. I don't see why this is such an awful stance to take.

backprojection 15y ago
It's not awful, it just seems off-the-mark. My point is that it seems avoiding physical activity at all costs is better viewed as a consequence of such a metabolic disorder, less so than a cause. I completely agree that exercise is very important in maintaining health (exercise, especially weight-training is know to increase insulin sensitivity to some degree, for instance), I just think its role in weight-loss, for most people, is greatly exaggerated compared to fixing a diet which actively promotes fat storage (going beyond a caloric excess). We've been telling overweight people to exercise more and eat less (esp. fat) for 40 years, it simply doesn't' seem to work [1]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-...
- Goronmon 14y ago
  Well, the main point of that article seems to be that once someone has been overweight for an extended period of time, it becomes really hard to get to and stay at a lower weight. So, yes, it suggests that an increase in physical activity isn't an "easy" solution. However, I don't think it affects the point the article is making. People don't wake up to find themselves obese one day. It takes some time and effort to get there. And I would argue one of the biggest impacts on gaining weight is a lack of physical activity. Not to mention that from my experience, avoiding physical activity has a self-enforcing effect. The more you avoid moving around, the more you want to avoid moving around.

HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago

ridiculous (grandmother driving her daughter essentially to the end of her driveway for the school bus) I drive my son about half a mile to the school bus every morning. One of my neighbors drives their children from the house, down the driveway to the street to the same school bus. Their driveway is just under half a mile long! We're not encouraging laziness: the reason I (and I suspect the neighbor also) do it is because if we just let him walk, he'd screw around and not make it to the bus on time. Eleven year-olds do stuff like that. He walks home from the bus because it doesn't matter if it takes him a few extra minutes to get home.

snowwrestler 15y ago

I think you probably don't have a good sense of just how much energy walking and other continuous small movements burn. There have several studies that showed that even different amounts of fidgeting can result in significant differences in energy usage, which correlated closely with levels of obesity. "Overweight people have a tendency to sit, while lean ones have trouble holding still and spend two hours more a day on their feet, pacing around and fidgeting, researchers are reporting in findings published today. "The difference translates into about 350 calories a day, enough to produce a weight loss of 30 to 40 pounds in one year without trips to the gym - if only heavy people could act more restless, like thin ones." .... "The director of the study, Dr. James Levine, an endocrinologist and nutritionist at the Mayo Clinic, said the findings offered hope to overweight people, suggesting that relatively simple and painless changes in their daily behavior, like making an effort to walk more and ride less, could help control weight." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/health/28weight.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/health/28weight.html I picked this one because it's the NY Times and Science, but there are numerous other sources available via Google.

backprojection 15y ago
"Overweight people have a tendency to sit, while lean ones have trouble holding still and spend two hours more a day on their feet, pacing around and fidgeting, researchers are reporting in findings published today." That's exactly what I'm talking about. Most of us eat plentifully. If your metabolism is up to shape, you'll spend the extra calories fidgeting. That's what a lean person is. In this paradigm, a fat person is one who partitions off calories towards fat, regardless of physical activity. He then has to match expenditure to what's left.
DanBC 15y ago
Yes. A number of studies have shown that overweight people can make a difference just by walking around their home a bit more, and doing things in a more active way. For example, instead of sitting down to watch TV they could stand and do some ironing while watching tv. And then, when standing and ironing they can bounce a bit. Many of these seemingly trivial actions build into more exercise and better weight loss.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

...the implication seems to be that Americans walking less somehow has a causative effect in skyrocketing obesity rates. This seems entirely wimpy and facile. The fact that exercise causes weight loss has been borne out by numerous controlled experiments. Something I found via a quick search: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duke.cardiologydomain.com%2Fimages%2Fuploaded%2Fdukeh%2F2_Slentz_BodyCompWt_STRRIDE_2004.pdf https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duke.car... Also, Taubes' insulin nonsense has been debunked. Lets move on. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h... As for your hypothetical environmental cause, it must be extremely selective. For example, consider mixed income American neighborhoods (e.g., Harlem, Jersey City). This alleged environmental cause seems to primarily affect the lower income people. How does that happen? Are the yuppies with gym memberships and hipsters with their organic vegan raw paleo diets somehow immune?

backprojection 15y ago
> Are the yuppies with gym memberships and hipsters with their organic vegan raw paleo diets somehow immune? Well, yes. As a paleo dieter, I can tell you I can't be eating more sugar than someone from the 1850s. My guess is that anyone conscious enough to be on a raw-vegan diet, doesn't either. > This alleged environmental cause seems to primarily affect the lower income people. My understanding is that refined carbohydrates and vegetable oils are cheap. Who was it that said that if you have $1.5 to spend on food, you're better off (calorically) buying potato chips than broccoli. > Also, Taubes' insulin nonsense has been debunked. Lets move on. I do suspect that it's simplistic. It's much better than the popular notion of calories-in/calories-out, though. That's why I said that it's controversial, but that it's the kind of thing, that's more on-the-mark than simply blaming sedentarity as a primary cause in obesity. > The fact that exercise causes weight loss has been borne out by numerous controlled experiments. Something I found via a quick search: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duke.car.. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duke.car.... OTOH, exercise makes you hungry. What's more interesting is whether exercise is effective long-term to cure obesity. I'd suspect not alone, but that it certainly helps. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914974,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914974,00....