Are planners responsible for America's obesity epidemic? (largest, downtown, market)
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.
"Researchers from
the University of Tennessee and Rutgers University found
that, on average Europeans walk 237 miles (382
kilometers) a year."
That is not even a mile a day; you really think walking not even a mile a day is a large factor in someone's body fat percent? Do you even know how many calories walking burns? I googled and the first site I came to says around 110 calories total for one mile. Running v. Walking: How Many Calories Will You Burn? | Runner's World & Running Times
You really think this is a significant factor? not even 100 calories? That is two tablespoons of jam for example.
This is probably also including the calories your body would burn off naturally through the course of the 30 minutes or so it took you to walk a mile. As someone who is constantly trying to maintain / lose weight I can tell you walking does very little. As someone said, you would have to spend almost all day walking in order to offset a high calorie diet.
It is also silly to suggest that by cutting down your caloric intake that you would be depleting yourself of nutrients. God knows Pixie Stix and Gin and Tonics contain many vital nutrients for healthy living.
People put too much thought into this. If you eat more calories than you burn, your body stores it as fat. If you burn more calories than you eat, you lose fat.
People just eat out too much, and they eat too much at once.
People put too much thought into this. If you eat more calories than you burn, your body stores it as fat. If you burn more calories than you eat, you lose fat.
People just eat out too much, and they eat too much at once.
This is a good point - when eating out I don't think people realize how many calories are in these prepared meals. Even walking to the restaurant usually isn't enough to offset these calories.
Here is the post, for those who don't want to have to click:
Quote:
Environmental Health | Full text | Obesity, physical activity, and the urban environment: public health research needs
Given a built environment in many US inner cities and urban neighborhoods that includes sidewalks and mixed land uses; that offers parks, playgrounds and public transportation; and that has a traditional gridded street pattern (small blocks with streets at right angles to each other) which fosters connectivity, we might expect that rates of physical activity and trends in obesity would be more favorable in inner city neighborhoods. But there appears instead a paradox whereby obesity, physical inactivity and associated diseases of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, are more prevalent among inner-city residents than among suburbanites.
I think the rise in 2 income households and single income single parent households probably didn't help since it means families have less time for cooking and grocery shopping. That means they're probably eating cheap processed food and fast food (and most sit down restaurants aren't much better - esp with the huge portions) more often. It also means less time to be active with their kids or watch over them while they play or walk them to school. Video games and computers/internet are a huge temptation (more so than TV imo) that will draw kids and adults away from a healthier lifestyle and their rise corresponds much better to the rise in obesity than the rise of suburbia.
Here is the post, for those who don't want to have to click:
I would imagine one cause for inner-city obesity rates to be higher is the lack of quality grocery stores / food options in the area.
For example, South Los Angeles has very high obesity rates but is relatively dense and has commercial corridors within 1/2 mile of almost every residence. I would imagine that due to the poverty levels in the region of Los Angeles, most people walk or take transit for their daily chores and activities (for a region of a major American city, it has low car-ownership rates). But because major grocery retailers are hesitant to have locations in the area, the only real close-by food options are places like 7-Eleven, AM/PM, liquor stores / bodegas and fast food. It's a bit of a vicious cycle.
Overall, I think income level / education levels have more correlation with obesity rates than urban design.
I think the rise in 2 income households and single income single parent households probably didn't help since it means families have less time for cooking and grocery shopping. That means they're probably eating cheap processed food and fast food (and most sit down restaurants aren't much better - esp with the huge portions) more often. It also means less time to be active with their kids or watch over them while they play or walk them to school. Video games and computers/internet are a huge temptation (more so than TV imo) that will draw kids and adults away from a healthier lifestyle and their rise corresponds much better to the rise in obesity than the rise of suburbia.
See my post above. All of your post is speculative, and not for the most part borne out by research. Suburban kids here in the US tend to be very involved in sports from a young age.
See my post above. All of your post is speculative, and not for the most part borne out by research. Suburban kids here in the US tend to be very involved in sports from a young age.
Didn't seem like Memph's post was suburban-specific to me.
Didn't seem like Memph's post was suburban-specific to me.
Just trying to tie the post into the thread topic, "Evils of the suburbs, part 200". The preponderance of the research shows that kids in the inner city are less active.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 10-08-2013 at 01:37 PM..
Just trying to tie the post into the thread topic, "Evils of the suburbs, part 200". The preponderance of the research shows that kids in the inner city are less active.
Except memph wasn't suggesting anything kids in the inner city vs suburbs, just that eating habits and physical activity levels have changed, which part don't you think is true? Nor was he even agreeing that suburbia was a cause for increased obesity.
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.
