Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The stuff I have read in professional journals generally concludes that the inner cities have the highest obesity rates.
Interesting studies. I subscribe to the "you use it or you lose it" theory. There are different types of people in all settings. I have friends that live in the burbs and cycle 20 miles a day...obviously they're not obese. I have friends in the city that drive everywhere and dont' exercise, and they are obese.
I think that when someone lives in an environment that encourages some form of exercise just from doing your daily activities, that you're less likely to be overweight. I believe that socio-economic status is the second largest issue, because a meal at McDonald's is cheaper than buying groceries at Whole Foods and cooking at home. Many of the poor are also uneducated and not conscious of good eating. These people may walk all day, but the calories (bad calories) they eat fully exceed any exercise they get. They are also not likely to have expensive gym memberships or private gyms at home to help off-set this.
Sure there are other factors: diet (types of/how much food you eat), metabolism/health factors, etc. However, I think the two above are the reasons that can be associated with an urban/suburban setting.
Interesting studies. I subscribe to the "you use it or you lose it" theory. There are different types of people in all settings. I have friends that live in the burbs and cycle 20 miles a day...obviously they're not obese. I have friends in the city that drive everywhere and dont' exercise, and they are obese.
I think that when someone lives in an environment that encourages some form of exercise just from doing your daily activities, that you're less likely to be overweight. I believe that socio-economic status is the second largest issue, because a meal at McDonald's is cheaper than buying groceries at Whole Foods and cooking at home. Many of the poor are also uneducated and not conscious of good eating. These people may walk all day, but the calories (bad calories) they eat fully exceed any exercise they get. They are also not likely to have expensive gym memberships or private gyms at home to help off-set this.
Sure there are other factors: diet (types of/how much food you eat), metabolism/health factors, etc. However, I think the two above are the reasons that can be associated with an urban/suburban setting.
I'm not trying to be snide here (really!), but it doesn't matter what you think or what I think; it matters what the research says. Virtually all the professional research I read says that for children, at any rate, the "obesity epidemic" and I put that in quotes b/c it's not called that medically, is concentrated in the inner city areas. SES is the most important issue. Even with adults, obesity is inversely related to income.
I don't really know if it's cheaper to buy a meal at Mac's than it is to cook at home. It's not necessary to grocery shop at Whole Foods to get a balanced diet. It's certainly cheaper by far to buy soda in 2 liter bottles (often about $1 a bottle) than it is to buy it at a restaurant where it may be $2 a glass.
I'm not trying to be snide here (really!), but it doesn't matter what you think or what I think; it matters what the research says. Virtually all the professional research I read says that for children, at any rate, the "obesity epidemic" and I put that in quotes b/c it's not called that medically, is concentrated in the inner city areas. SES is the most important issue. Even with adults, obesity is inversely related to income.
I don't really know if it's cheaper to buy a meal at Mac's than it is to cook at home. It's not necessary to grocery shop at Whole Foods to get a balanced diet. It's certainly cheaper by far to buy soda in 2 liter bottles (often about $1 a bottle) than it is to buy it at a restaurant where it may be $2 a glass.
I hear you, but that's part of what I'm saying. It's largely about SES (I'll get to the other part in a second). Some research I've read points to the fact that most poor people have a low level of education compared to the wealthy. This, combined with having no money, leads people to eat cheap and convenient food. And what does cheap food have in it? Unhealthy fats and fillers like HFCS and Hydrogenated Oils that basically turn into fat when consumed. Mass-produced food (which is filled with cheap corn products) is very cheap to produce and that's why "complete" meals at a fast food restaurant are more feasible for the typical poor family than food purchased and then cooked at home (which takes more effort). This is even more attractive when the large syrup-filled soda comes with the "meal deal".
My point about in-line exercise comes from just straight-up logic. Those who walk more regularly burn more calories more regularly. Because my wife is a researcher who writes grants for a major university, I know that research can be more linear than it seems. That's why there are always these research papers coming out that contend with one another. As a someone with a personal trainer cert, I know that far too many people sit all day and then sit at home. Sitting in the car between the two only exacerbates the problem. I can also say that not everyone in the city eats healthy, walks (vs taking a cab) or has the health to stay thin.
So, I agree, the conclusion is that there is not a big difference on a general level. However, I argue that the pure nature of city-life calls for more in-line exercise. If the city had fewer people that were lower on the socio-economic scale, the numbers may look different. It only makes sense that people are thinner if they are walking all the time...or at least thinner than they would be if they were in a car more frequently.
I hear you, but that's part of what I'm saying. It's largely about SES (I'll get to the other part in a second). Some research I've read points to the fact that most poor people have a low level of education compared to the wealthy. This, combined with having no money, leads people to eat cheap and convenient food. And what does cheap food have in it? Unhealthy fats and fillers like HFCS and Hydrogenated Oils that basically turn into fat when consumed. Mass-produced food (which is filled with cheap corn products) is very cheap to produce and that's why "complete" meals at a fast food restaurant are more feasible for the typical poor family than food purchased and then cooked at home (which takes more effort). This is even more attractive when the large syrup-filled soda comes with the "meal deal".
My point about in-line exercise comes from just straight-up logic. Those who walk more regularly burn more calories more regularly. Because my wife is a researcher who writes grants for a major university, I know that research can be more linear than it seems. That's why there are always these research papers coming out that contend with one another. As a someone with a personal trainer cert, I know that far too many people sit all day and then sit at home. Sitting in the car between the two only exacerbates the problem. I can also say that not everyone in the city eats healthy, walks (vs taking a cab) or has the health to stay thin.
So, I agree, the conclusion is that there is not a big difference on a general level. However, I argue that the pure nature of city-life calls for more in-line exercise. If the city had fewer people that were lower on the socio-economic scale, the numbers may look different. It only makes sense that people are thinner if they are walking all the time...or at least thinner than they would be if they were in a car more frequently.
Only excess calories makes any food "turn into fat".
I do agree that cities have a diverse population. That's why I emphasized that the highest obesity rates are in the inner-city.
I understand from the links you posted and elswewhere that SES is the most important factor. But, the link I posted said if you control for SES factors, then someone living in a walkable neighborhood is somewhat thinner than someone who isn't.
I do agree that cities have a diverse population. That's why I emphasized that the highest obesity rates are in the inner-city.
A bit of a tangent. I assumed you mean inner city to mean "poor areas near or in the centers of cities not "neighborhoods of the city in or near the center". The first usage seems to typical usage, but kinda implies the city centers are filled with mostly poor people.
A bit of a tangent. I assumed you mean inner city to mean "poor areas near or in the centers of cities not "neighborhoods of the city in or near the center". The first usage seems to typical usage, but kinda implies the city centers are filled with mostly poor people.
The stuff I have read in the American Journal of Public Health generally refers to people living in the "inner city". These articles are quite pedantic, but generally also factor in income and education.
Only excess calories makes any food "turn into fat".
You're correct, I took a shortcut with what I was saying and it didn't come out right. I meant that they're filler products that act to suppress the boundaries of a person's appetite which leads to over-eating. They're also commonly in foods that have a lower fat percentage, leading people to believe that the food is healthier (when in fact they're eating a processed ingredient that's an artificial sweetner...which is also arguably worse than eating suger itself).
And then people argued whether it was city or suburb. I'd say the most accurate description is it was suburb in the early 1900s now it is city. Out of curiousity, I checked on google streetview to see what it looked like today:
A bit different. The neighborhood that Tennis is (or was) in is called Victorian Flatbush. It was built around 1900. At the time, the railroad passing through was connected with subways going into Manhattan, and devolopers thought the area would be good place to build large homes for people who wanted more quiet and green and still be a quick train ride away to the center city. It was a subway suburb instead of a streetcar suburb. At the time, Brooklyn's population was much lower and Victorian Flatbush was near the edge of the city and part of Brooklyn was countryside. The area attracted the city's elite and upper middle class who wanted a more suburban lifestyle, building ornate, large homes even for today's standards.
Today, the elite of the metro area who do not want an urban lifestyle in the center city of New York live in places much further away like Greenwich or some places in Westchester (and live about a 45 min to 1 hr 10min commuter rail ride to Manhattan). Single family homes on what was the edge of the city are now in the middle of the city; and parts of Victorian Flatbush have been demolished for apartment buildings, which are a more efficient use of space. But Victorian Flatbush was still higher density, more walkable and had better mass transit than the current "elite suburbs".
The parts of Victorian Flatbush that have survived are doing quite well and some homes are quite expensive. The trains are now part of a subway line and the stations are still there. Supposed to have a nice sense of community. Here a couple of interesting looking houses:
The stuff I have read in professional journals generally concludes that the inner cities have the highest obesity rates.
What is the definition of "urban" in these studies? By the US census standards of what is considered urban the term does not mean much.
I noticed one of those studies references Chicago, and I can tell you that much of Chicago is not all that walkable and is poor. The parts that are the most walkable within the city tend to be higher income with healthier food options. Since obesity is also linked to income it makes this comparison hard to quantify.
In reality there are many factors that go into obesity, however, with all other things equal I don't see how living in a walkable neighborhood would not lead to a healthier lifestyle. It's common sense that if you live in an environment that is more conducive to walking that you are going to burn more calories on a daily basis just by walking more. By that logic American would be thinner if it were more walkable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I'm not trying to be snide here (really!), but it doesn't matter what you think or what I think; it matters what the research says. Virtually all the professional research I read says that for children, at any rate, the "obesity epidemic" and I put that in quotes b/c it's not called that medically, is concentrated in the inner city areas. SES is the most important issue. Even with adults, obesity is inversely related to income.
Most kids in inner city American these days are also poor. Why? Because our inner city school systems suck and nobody who is middle class or higher wants to send their kids to inner city public schools. Since poor socioeconomic status is linked to obesity it will skew the obesity rates of urban children since a very high percentage of them are poor and come from uneducated parents.
Last edited by 5Lakes; 02-08-2011 at 10:46 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The neighborhood that Tennis is (or was) in is called Victorian Flatbush. It was built around 1900. At the time, the railroad passing through was connected with subways going into Manhattan, and devolopers thought the area would be good place to build large homes for people who wanted more quiet and green and still be a quick train ride away to the center city. It was a subway suburb instead of a streetcar suburb. At the time, Brooklyn's population was much lower and Victorian Flatbush was near the edge of the city and part of Brooklyn was countryside. The area attracted the city's elite and upper middle class who wanted a more suburban lifestyle, building ornate, large homes even for today's standards.
