Car Use Drives Up Weight, Study Finds

[Guest guest]

Not surprising.........

By Rob Stein

People who live in neighborhoods where they must drive to get anywhere are

significantly more likely to be obese than those who can easily walk to

their destinations, according to the first study to directly demonstrate

that long-suspected link.

The study of nearly 11,000 people in the Atlanta area found that people

living in highly residential areas tend to weigh significantly more than

those in places where homes and businesses are close together.

The effect appeared to be largely the result of the amount of time people

spend driving or walking. Each hour spent in a car was associated with a 6

percent increase in the likelihood of obesity and each half-mile walked per

day reduced those odds by nearly 5 percent, the researchers found.

" The kind of neighborhood where a person lives clearly has an effect on

their health, " said Lawrence D. , an associate professor of community

and regional planning at the University of British Columbia, who led the

study.

The findings have national implications because the neighborhoods studied

are representative of those across the country, said.

" These findings are clearly the strongest evidence to date that there's a

link between the built environment and obesity, " said. The findings

will be published in the June issue of the American Journal of Preventive

Medicine but were released yesterday in advance of a conference on obesity

later this week in burg.

As the number of people who are overweight and obese has reached epidemic

proportions in the United States, evidence has mounted that one of the main

causes may be suburban sprawl. Such neighborhoods make walking or other

exercise more difficult because they often lack sidewalks, road patterns

that encourage travel on foot, or shopping areas that are accessible without

cars.

Researchers showed last year for the first time that people who live in the

most sprawling counties are more likely to be overweight and obese. The new

study is the first to examine the issue on a neighborhood level and link the

specific characteristics of where people live to the amount of physical

activity they get and how much they weigh.

Other researchers said the findings provide strong new evidence linking

sprawl to obesity.

" Where you live clearly matters, " said Reid Ewing of the National Center

for Smart Growth at the University of land, who conducted last year's

county study. " If you live in a more sprawling place . . . where the

automobile is the only way to get around, that seems to have this negative

effect on people's health. "

Skeptics, however, questioned the relationship, saying that more sprawling

neighborhoods may simply attract less physically active people and vice

versa.

" It may well be that people who are in slimmer shape are the kind of people

who enjoy living in those neighborhoods and naturally gravitate to those

neighborhoods, " said R. Staley, president of the Buckeye Institute

for Public Policy Solutions, a think tank in Columbus, Ohio. " It's not at

all clear if you take those people and put them into a sprawling

neighborhood that they will become fat. "

More important, even if the link between sprawl and obesity were proved,

that would not justify restricting growth, Staley said.

" People should have the choice to live somewhere where they can be fat, "

Staley said. " That's one of the consequences of a free society. "

For the study, and his colleagues in 2001 and 2002 gathered detailed

information from 10,898 people, including their heights and weights, and

asked them to keep a diary for two days that recorded exactly how and where

they traveled, specifically how much time they spent walking and driving.

The researchers also conducted a detailed analysis of the neighborhoods

throughout the Atlanta region where the participants lived, including how

densely populated they were, whether they had sidewalks, whether the street

patterns were conducive to walking and whether commercial buildings were

located close to housing.

The researchers divided the communities into four categories based on how

residential they were, and found that the odds of being obese from one to

the next increased by 12.2 percent.

" Having shops and services near to where you live was the best predictor of

not being obese, " said.

Put another way, for residents, this meant that the relative risk of being

obese increased by 35 percent between the most mixed and least mixed areas.

Being overweight is defined as having a body mass index (BMI) -- a

measurement based on height and weight -- of 25 to 29. Anyone with a BMI

above 30 is considered obese.

An average 5-foot-10 white male living in the most residential

neighborhood, for example, weighed about 10 pounds more than a similar white

male in the least residential neighborhood, the researchers found. The

proportion of obese people in the least mixed neighborhoods was about 20

percent, while in the most mixed neighborhoods it was about 15 percent.

The findings held true even when the researchers took age, income and

education into consideration.

But said the amount of activity that people got did not completely

explain the findings. He speculated that in some neighborhoods it is easier

for people to eat a more healthful diet because there are grocery stores

instead of convenience stores and good-quality restaurants instead of

fast-food outlets.

" I think the food environment also plays an important role, " said.

Based on the findings, the researchers calculated that tripling the number

of shops and other businesses near homes could reduce the rate of obesity by

an amount equivalent to what it would be if the population were five years

younger. (Age is the leading cause of weight gain.)

People were less likely to drive and more likely to walk if they lived

close to businesses, but most of the people in the study walked very little,

regardless of where they lived. More than 90 percent said they did not walk

at all, and the average respondent spent more than one hour per day in a

car.

[Guest guest]

On Monday, May 31, 2004, at 12:48 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

> Not surprising.........

>

> By Rob Stein

>

> The effect appeared to be largely the result of the amount of time

> people

> spend driving or walking. Each hour spent in a car was associated with

> a 6

> percent increase in the likelihood of obesity and each half-mile

> walked per

> day reduced those odds by nearly 5 percent, the researchers found.

I'm surprised this made the front page of today's Washington Post.

Probability decreases of 5 to 6 percent seem rather dismal compared to

100% decreases (of likelihood of obesity) offered by watching calories.

This is the kind of thing that I view as a red herring to people simply

trying to lose weight. And I have trouble believing any city planner

will use this as a design factor in future projects.

Don

[Guest guest]

I lived in Berlin for a couple of years and after about a year found

myself skinny like the Germans. My food choices were about the same...

it wasn't hard to connect the dots and see that walking to the stores

and hauling groceries back on my back, living in a walk-up apartment,

walking/from to the train stations (and climbing the many sets of

stairs to get to the different tracks) added up. Or rather, subtracted

mass.

Living a typical surburban lifestyle, it is a constant fight to get in

the hour of walking a day that I got just by existing in Berlin. And my

waistline reflects it.

Probably if I hadn't lived this experience, I wouldn't believe how much

a difference it makes.

> This is the kind of thing that I view as a red herring to people

simply

> trying to lose weight. And I have trouble believing any city planner

> will use this as a design factor in future projects.

>

> Don

[Guest guest]

I have had a similar experience to Angie, except that I am in Ukraine

instead of Germany. When I first came here nearly four years ago I dropped

about 30 lbs in the first three months I was here all completely

unintentionally, simply through a change in circumstances. Partly it was

all the walking, partly it was a diet consisting of all natural unprocessed

food, partly subconscious peer pressure (everyone here is thin), but also

because it was just plain inconvenient to obtain food whenever the urge

struck. The prospect of walking thirty minutes to the marketplace and

lugging back whatever you buy tends to make you a less impulsive consumer.

When I had to go back to suburban So. California for a year to work, I

wanted to keep the weight from coming back so I invested in a bicycle and

bought a train pass in order to avoid car dependence. It was only so

effective, though, because the car was always there as an option. I would

have been good during the day with my biking, but in the evening, already

dark, it was just too much temptation sometimes not to take the car out for

some yummy carnitas or to the supermarket for some impulse shopping or to

the local coffee place for a high-calorie drink. Anyone who says there is

no correlation between weight gain and environment is just nutty.

(|-|ri5

>

>

> I lived in Berlin for a couple of years and after about a year found

> myself skinny like the Germans. My food choices were about the same...

> it wasn't hard to connect the dots and see that walking to the stores

> and hauling groceries back on my back, living in a walk-up apartment,

> walking/from to the train stations (and climbing the many sets of

> stairs to get to the different tracks) added up. Or rather, subtracted

> mass.

>

> Living a typical surburban lifestyle, it is a constant fight to get in

> the hour of walking a day that I got just by existing in Berlin. And my

> waistline reflects it.

>

> Probably if I hadn't lived this experience, I wouldn't believe how much

> a difference it makes.

>

> > This is the kind of thing that I view as a red herring to people

> simply

> > trying to lose weight. And I have trouble believing any city planner

> > will use this as a design factor in future projects.

> >

> > Don

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Very true, Don. Doesn't it seem like most things that are published are red

herrings? It seems that nutritionists and fitness people in general have

basically given up in trying to urge people to limit their food intake. It

seems like such a basic truth that never gets mentioned that if you eat less

you will lose weight. I wonder if they are afraid of people getting eating

disorders.

I was reading a column recently where people were writing in to complain

about overweight women who were wearing faddish, belly-baring clothes. The

columnist agreed that protruding fat rolls were unsightly. Apparently after

that a lot of people wrote in to chide him for " encouraging anorexia " by not

saying that everyone is beautiful no matter what size they are. Hmm, let's

compare the numbers of people dying of obesity-related health problems to

people dying of anorexia in the US every year....

On a related note, here in Ukraine nearly everyone is thin, but anorexia is

not an issue at all. Something tells me that there would be a lot fewer

eating disorders in the US if healthy, limited calorie intake were the rule

rather than the exception.

(|-|ri5

> I'm surprised this made the front page of today's Washington Post.

> Probability decreases of 5 to 6 percent seem rather dismal compared to

> 100% decreases (of likelihood of obesity) offered by watching calories.

>

> This is the kind of thing that I view as a red herring to people simply

> trying to lose weight. And I have trouble believing any city planner

> will use this as a design factor in future projects.

>

[Guest guest]

I appreciate reading the personal experiences on this issue. Our US

culture definitely requires discipline to manage nutrition and exercise.

chris wrote:

>When I had to go back to suburban So. California for a year to work, I wanted

to keep the weight from coming back so I invested in a bicycle and bought a

train pass in order to avoid car dependence. It was only so effective, though,

because the car was always there as an option. I would have been good during

the day with my biking, but in the evening, already dark, it was just too much

temptation sometimes not to take the car out for some yummy carnitas or to the

supermarket for some impulse shopping or to

>the local coffee place for a high-calorie drink. Anyone who says there is no

correlation between weight gain and environment is just nutty.

>

> (|-|ri5

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rob is the writer who wrote the excellent article on CRON starring

Francesca (and me) several weeks ago. He seems to get a front page

article every Tuesday in the Post. Last week the topic was something

discussed in the CRON list! So maybe we are giving him some ideas. I

personally find his articles well above average for science/health

reporting in newpapers.

> Not surprising.........

>

> By Rob Stein

>

> People who live in neighborhoods where they must drive to get

anywhere are

> significantly more likely to be obese than those who can easily

walk to

> their destinations, according to the first study to directly

demonstrate

> that long-suspected link.

>

> The study of nearly 11,000 people in the Atlanta area found that

people

> living in highly residential areas tend to weigh significantly more

than

> those in places where homes and businesses are close together.

>

> The effect appeared to be largely the result of the amount of time

people

> spend driving or walking. Each hour spent in a car was associated

with a 6

> percent increase in the likelihood of obesity and each half-mile

walked per

> day reduced those odds by nearly 5 percent, the researchers found.

>

> " The kind of neighborhood where a person lives clearly has an

effect on

> their health, " said Lawrence D. , an associate professor of

community

> and regional planning at the University of British Columbia, who

led the

> study.

>

> The findings have national implications because the neighborhoods

studied

> are representative of those across the country, said.

>

> " These findings are clearly the strongest evidence to date that

there's a

> link between the built environment and obesity, " said. The

findings

> will be published in the June issue of the American Journal of

Preventive

> Medicine but were released yesterday in advance of a conference on

obesity

> later this week in burg.

>

> As the number of people who are overweight and obese has reached

epidemic

> proportions in the United States, evidence has mounted that one of

the main

> causes may be suburban sprawl. Such neighborhoods make walking or

other

> exercise more difficult because they often lack sidewalks, road

patterns

> that encourage travel on foot, or shopping areas that are

accessible without

> cars.

>

> Researchers showed last year for the first time that people who

live in the

> most sprawling counties are more likely to be overweight and obese.

The new

> study is the first to examine the issue on a neighborhood level and

link the

> specific characteristics of where people live to the amount of

physical

> activity they get and how much they weigh.

>

> Other researchers said the findings provide strong new evidence

linking

> sprawl to obesity.

>

> " Where you live clearly matters, " said Reid Ewing of the National

Center

> for Smart Growth at the University of land, who conducted last

year's

> county study. " If you live in a more sprawling place . . . where the

> automobile is the only way to get around, that seems to have this

negative

> effect on people's health. "

>

> Skeptics, however, questioned the relationship, saying that more

sprawling

> neighborhoods may simply attract less physically active people and

vice

> versa.

>

> " It may well be that people who are in slimmer shape are the kind

of people

> who enjoy living in those neighborhoods and naturally gravitate to

those

> neighborhoods, " said R. Staley, president of the Buckeye

Institute

> for Public Policy Solutions, a think tank in Columbus, Ohio. " It's

not at

> all clear if you take those people and put them into a sprawling

> neighborhood that they will become fat. "

>

> More important, even if the link between sprawl and obesity were

proved,

> that would not justify restricting growth, Staley said.

>

> " People should have the choice to live somewhere where they can be

fat, "

> Staley said. " That's one of the consequences of a free society. "

>

> For the study, and his colleagues in 2001 and 2002 gathered

detailed

> information from 10,898 people, including their heights and

weights, and

> asked them to keep a diary for two days that recorded exactly how

and where

> they traveled, specifically how much time they spent walking and

driving.

>

> The researchers also conducted a detailed analysis of the

neighborhoods

> throughout the Atlanta region where the participants lived,

including how

> densely populated they were, whether they had sidewalks, whether

the street

> patterns were conducive to walking and whether commercial buildings

were

> located close to housing.

>

> The researchers divided the communities into four categories based

on how

> residential they were, and found that the odds of being obese from

one to

> the next increased by 12.2 percent.

>

> " Having shops and services near to where you live was the best

predictor of

> not being obese, " said.

>

> Put another way, for residents, this meant that the relative risk

of being

> obese increased by 35 percent between the most mixed and least

mixed areas.

>

> Being overweight is defined as having a body mass index (BMI) -- a

> measurement based on height and weight -- of 25 to 29. Anyone with

a BMI

> above 30 is considered obese.

>

> An average 5-foot-10 white male living in the most residential

> neighborhood, for example, weighed about 10 pounds more than a

similar white

> male in the least residential neighborhood, the researchers found.

The

> proportion of obese people in the least mixed neighborhoods was

about 20

> percent, while in the most mixed neighborhoods it was about 15

percent.

>

> The findings held true even when the researchers took age, income

and

> education into consideration.

>

> But said the amount of activity that people got did not

completely

> explain the findings. He speculated that in some neighborhoods it

is easier

> for people to eat a more healthful diet because there are grocery

stores

> instead of convenience stores and good-quality restaurants instead

of

> fast-food outlets.

>

> " I think the food environment also plays an important role, "

said.

>

> Based on the findings, the researchers calculated that tripling

the number

> of shops and other businesses near homes could reduce the rate of

obesity by

> an amount equivalent to what it would be if the population were

five years

> younger. (Age is the leading cause of weight gain.)

>

> People were less likely to drive and more likely to walk if they

lived

> close to businesses, but most of the people in the study walked

very little,

> regardless of where they lived. More than 90 percent said they did

not walk

> at all, and the average respondent spent more than one hour per day

in a

> car.