Can a city make you fat?

darkangel8603

New Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
1,433
Reaction score
0
New York City—At the south-east corner of Thompson and West 3rd in Greenwich Village, Andrew Rundle stops and turns around.

"Look," he says, pointing in all directions. "There's a grocery store on every corner."

Small corner groceries packed tight with food squat at each corner of the intersection, their bright awnings protecting rows of fresh fruit and vegetables neatly arranged on sidewalk racks.

The busy intersection also boasts a handful of restaurants, several shops, a laundromat and a drab-looking cantina. People are bustling along the sidewalks and weaving in and out of doorways, ignoring the grey afternoon drizzle.

This is the kind of neighbourhood Rundle likes to see in New York City. An assistant professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, Rundle is studying the links between the urban environment and body size. He wants to know whether neighbourhood amenities, such as corner stores, parks, decent sidewalks, and access to public transit, affect a person's diet and activity levels.

In other words, does your environment make you fat?

During a one-hour walking tour of a small section of New York City — by Gramercy Park, across Union Square and through Greenwich Village — Rundle points out different environmental features that may influence obesity.

A farmer's market in Union Square that sells fresh greens and organic meats three days a week is likely a positive feature in this neighbourhood; it may encourage people to make healthy food choices.

A park with a large, safe jungle gym may get families off of the couch and outside to play, increasing their daily quota of physical activity.

A desolate stretch of New York University faculty housing along West 3rd St. has no street-level shops or restaurants. Residents are not likely to go out for an afternoon walk, says Rundle.

"This space is a dis-amenity," he says, gesturing towards the grey block building. "It's a boring street to walk down. Look, there's no one out."

Right now, many of Rundle's hypotheses are untested. But four years from now, he expects to have a large base of evidence linking the built environment to body size. And the implications of his findings, he says, will have wide-reaching applications.

Rundle and his research team are one of 14 groups across the United States to receive funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to study the links between body size and the built environment. Rundle's work is also supported by a philanthropic organization called the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

This is a new field of study in obesity research, says Allen Dearry, associate director for research co-ordination, planning and translation at NIEHS.

Much of the last 30 years of obesity research has focused on ways to change individual behaviour and to educate people about diet, exercise and the importance of leading a healthy lifestyle, says Dearry.

But many of these approaches have met with little success in the real world, he says, pointing out the obesity rates in North America continue to climb.

That's why researchers are now turning their efforts to studying how the built environment might contribute to the etiology — the cause or origins — of obesity and how environment-based interventions might be effective in reducing it.

Until recently, there has been no formal push to fund these kinds of studies in Canada. Instead, researchers have been extrapolating data from U.S. studies and fitting them into a Canadian context.

While this methodology is adequate, it's hardly ideal, says Stephen Samis, director of health policy at the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

There are significant differences between major cities in Canada and the U.S., he says.

Major metropolitan areas in Canada have, for example, fewer segregated neighbourhoods, less neighbourhood fragmentation and better inner-city health than in the U.S., says Samis.

`The more mixed an area, the skinnier people are.'

Andrew Rundle,

New York City epidemiologist

To address these research gaps, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, in partnership with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), led a think tank in Toronto last fall to help focus obesity research efforts in Canada. They determined that studying the links between obesity and the built environment should be a priority.

The two groups plan to fund research in this area as soon as this spring. Next week, in fact, a group of experts will meet in Vancouver to develop the basis for requests for proposals.

"The ball is starting to roll in Canada," says Samis, as it should. Almost 60 per cent of Canadians are overweight or obese.

"We need to try and curb the obesity epidemic," says Samis. "It's responsible for serious health issues, including hypertension, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, in Canada."

Rising rates of obesity across North America drive Rundle and his research team. And they're tackling the problem on a massive scale.

The research area comprises New York City — more than 700 square kilometres of cramped streets, highrises and bustling neighbourhoods. The research variables are smaller in scale, but no less difficult to compile.

Rundle is collecting what he calls exquisite data. Working with various city departments, he and his research team are gathering data sets on neighbourhood features such as land use, density of bus and subway stops, the location and quality of parks and recreation facilities — even the number of trees on a street and the number of buildings with elevators.

"We've mapped, for example, every single farmer's market, grocery store, bodega, Korean supermarket, fast food joint and restaurant in this city and sorted them by zip codes," he says. "One of the things we want to get is a measure of helpful and less helpful food options throughout the city."

All of these data on the built environment will then be linked to health data for three different groups: 14,000 men and women; 4,000 women (half black, half white) and 500 children (aged 4,5 and six). Rundle knows each of the participant's height and weight, demographics and general location within a neighbourhood.

Keeping track of this vast amount of data — much of which is still streaming in and will be for the next four years — is a monumental task. But Rundle has already crunched some of the numbers.

He's found that people who live in neighbourhoods that are about 50 per cent residential and about 50 per cent commercial have lower levels of obesity than people who live in neighbourhoods that are closer to being 100 per cent residential.

"The more mixed an area, the skinnier people are," he says. "Mixing supports walking, it supports incidental activity and it makes you independent of an automobile."

Rundle has also shown that as the density of bus and subway stops increases in a neighbourhood, the body size of residents goes down.

"None of this is, like, rocket science," laughs Rundle. "None of this is, like, some grand esoteric formula. A lot of it has a `that-kind-of-makes-sense' quality to it. But nobody has looked at these (kinds of) data and nobody has analyzed these (kinds of) data to see if it's true."

At the close of his four-year study, Rundle hopes his research findings will bring a discussion of health to urban planning decisions in New York City — and across North America.

"If we can influence zoning so that neighbourhoods are not 100 per cent residential so you can walk to a corner store — because you have a corner store — that's huge, that has real public health significance," he says.

Rundle believes that subtle changes in lifestyle, such as walking to the corner store for a litre of milk, repeated over and over can have a tremendous influence on a person's body size.

North Americans have been in the grip of an obesity epidemic since 1975.

If our environment shapes our behaviour, says Rundle, then perhaps understanding the built environment will provide the plan to fight the epidemic.

"The epidemic of obesity is like an epidemic of a thousand paper cuts," he says.

"There are all these subtle little pokes and prods and they all accumulate toward us getting fat."

There is no magic bullet that will curb the rise in obesity. And that, says Rundle, is why it's so hard to fight the epidemic. You don't have one target to hit, you've got one thousand targets to strike to win.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1138315818839&call_pageid=968332188492

what u think?
 
A City cannot make you fat.But McDONALDS CAN! Thats why i want the Cheeseburger law repealed so we can sue them because were fat or with Diabetes or with other diseases.
 
Buckdodgers said:
A City cannot make you fat.But McDONALDS CAN! Thats why i want the Cheeseburger law repealed so we can sue them because were fat or with Diabetes or with other diseases.

That's real stupid.

People already know full well that McD's is not healthy and very fattening. Yet they go there anyway and eat the stuff and then they get very fat and get diabetes and heart disease. And when that happens, they sue McD's and blame McD's. That is stupid...they should be blaming themselves, not McD's because the solution is VERY simple...if you don't want to get fat, then don't eat at McD's.

I'm overweight. Do I blame McD's because I eat there? No. I blame myself for making the bad decision to eat at McD's and for not exercising.

That is the same as smoking...people know full well that smoking causes lung cancer but smoke anyway. Then they get lung cancer and they sue the cigarette companies. That is stupid. It is their own fault, not the cigarette companies' fault...because they made the decision to smoke even though they know full well what the risks were and do it anyway. You don't want lung cancer...DON'T SMOKE!
 
LuciaDisturbed said:
That's real stupid.

People already know full well that McD's is not healthy and very fattening. Yet they go there anyway and eat the stuff and then they get very fat and get diabetes and heart disease. And when that happens, they sue McD's and blame McD's. That is stupid...they should be blaming themselves, not McD's because the solution is VERY simple...if you don't want to get fat, then don't eat at McD's.

I'm overweight. Do I blame McD's because I eat there? No. I blame myself for making the bad decision to eat at McD's and for not exercising.

That is the same as smoking...people know full well that smoking causes lung cancer but smoke anyway. Then they get lung cancer and they sue the cigarette companies. That is stupid. It is their own fault, not the cigarette companies' fault...because they made the decision to smoke even though they know full well what the risks were and do it anyway. You don't want lung cancer...DON'T SMOKE!

that right.. suing companies that you decided to use to destroy your own health is just hippocrip (sp?)
 
darkangel8603 said:
that right.. suing companies that you decided to use to destroy your own health is just hippocrip (sp?)

Yep.

And FYI, it's spelled hypocritical. :)
 
No, it is more in where you shop for example if I know that store sells really healthy 100 % chemical free food or even better organic food ( no drugs or chemicals or additives or preservatives in food, it is homegrown or home fed ) then I buy from there. It is alittle expensive but it is 10,000 x more healthier and saves you money in the long run. Why ? because of the hospital bills plus excersiicing to stay physically fit is free too. You can excersice for free or go to a health club for $30-$60. and they monitor your heart rate and everything some health clubs even measure how much water you have in your body and then you drink more water which is awesome and the water lubes your muscles and your bones, not to mention you are more mentally alert with water and healthy food. Yes, the food culture here in America needs to be one that of an European food culture with healthy food and red wine, plenty of outdoor activities and excersice. :angel:
 
when i move out, or go to gallaudet, i am going to start eating organic food only.. that is my goal, to stop eating those junky food that had been chemically imbalanced with poison to our bodies.
 
Heath said:
No, it is more in where you shop for example if I know that store sells really healthy 100 % chemical free food or even better organic food ( no drugs or chemicals or additives or preservatives in food, it is homegrown or home fed ) then I buy from there. It is alittle expensive but it is 10,000 x more healthier and saves you money in the long run. Why ? because of the hospital bills plus excersiicing to stay physically fit is free too. You can excersice for free or go to a health club for $30-$60. and they monitor your heart rate and everything some health clubs even measure how much water you have in your body and then you drink more water which is awesome and the water lubes your muscles and your bones, not to mention you are more mentally alert with water and healthy food. Yes, the food culture here in America needs to be one that of an European food culture with healthy food and red wine, plenty of outdoor activities and excersice. :angel:

Good post, Heath! Yes, there are quite a few unhealthy things in the American diet, and it bothers me to see people suffer the effects from it. Public education about proper eating definitely could benefit from a boost.

On top of that, it also affects the economy. People in poorer health are less productive. Additionally, we spend tremendous amounts of money in repairing the symptoms of poor health when that money could be invested in growing our national infrastructure or helping people of lower economic status gain access to education.

It's important to realize that we shouldn't really blame people for their health. A lot of times problems are genetic or caused by external factors (a drunk driver crashes into you, for example). Plus, all that pessimism gets us nowhere. It's much better if we educate them to accept responsibility for what they can do about their well-being.

We should definitely continue to promote health awareness. It still amazes me how many people don't know to check the nutrition facts for unhealthy content in their food, don't realize how amazingly prevalent Human Papilloma Virus is (a sexually transmitted infection that fortunately is not anywhere near as bad as some STIs are), and do not realize just how critical exercise is to good health.
 
LuciaDisturbed said:
That is the same as smoking...people know full well that smoking causes lung cancer but smoke anyway. Then they get lung cancer and they sue the cigarette companies. That is stupid. It is their own fault, not the cigarette companies' fault...because they made the decision to smoke even though they know full well what the risks were and do it anyway. You don't want lung cancer...DON'T SMOKE!

Then Why are victims winning muli million dollar judgement awards by suing the tabbaco companies?As soon the doctor tells them they got lung cancer they exit the doctors office and run to their lawyers.
 
Buckdodgers said:
Then Why are victims winning muli million dollar judgement awards by suing the tabbaco companies?As soon the doctor tells them they got lung cancer they exit the doctors office and run to their lawyers.

Cause that's how lawyers make their money. Duh. And some judges are idiots.
 
Fast food in general make you fat. There isn't many fast food restaurants in downtown seattle and majority of the stores are starbucks and coffee shops. There isn't a major grocery store in downtown, most are small stores like walgreens, etc. There is going to be the first major health food store in downtown under construction along with three towers on top of it. Its going to be whole foods.

Also, don't forget that downtown seattle got the hills which is a lot of work huff and puff. They are hard on overweight people so they get used to it afterwards.
There's also a lot of 24 hour fitness centers, too.

The conclusion is that it depends on the people and the city. The more fast food it has the more people will go there. They just need to be sure to have as few fast food restaurants possible so they won't go drooling. Altho, in the suburbs that's a bigger problem. Its part of the community decision, anyhow.
 
sequoias said:
Fast food in general make you fat. There isn't many fast food restaurants in downtown seattle and majority of the stores are starbucks and coffee shops. There isn't a major grocery store in downtown, most are small stores like walgreens, etc. There is going to be the first major health food store in downtown under construction along with three towers on top of it. Its going to be whole foods.

Also, don't forget that downtown seattle got the hills which is a lot of work huff and puff. They are hard on overweight people so they get used to it afterwards.
There's also a lot of 24 hour fitness centers, too.

The conclusion is that it depends on the people and the city. The more fast food it has the more people will go there. They just need to be sure to have as few fast food restaurants possible so they won't go drooling. Altho, in the suburbs that's a bigger problem. Its part of the community decision, anyhow.

You got great point :thumb:

Both of Seattle and LA are different because there's alot of fast foods and grocery stores in LA area, also majority of them are different as well.
 
sequoias said:
Fast food in general make you fat. There isn't many fast food restaurants in downtown seattle and majority of the stores are starbucks and coffee shops. There isn't a major grocery store in downtown, most are small stores like walgreens, etc. There is going to be the first major health food store in downtown under construction along with three towers on top of it. Its going to be whole foods.

Also, don't forget that downtown seattle got the hills which is a lot of work huff and puff. They are hard on overweight people so they get used to it afterwards.
There's also a lot of 24 hour fitness centers, too.

The conclusion is that it depends on the people and the city. The more fast food it has the more people will go there. They just need to be sure to have as few fast food restaurants possible so they won't go drooling. Altho, in the suburbs that's a bigger problem. Its part of the community decision, anyhow.

I agreed with Sequoias about this.

But, my opinion that the city doesn't make people to be fat and they choose to eat at anywhere they want to- McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Carl Jr, blah that you can name plus Food Store. Use brain to not eating there if you don't want to be "fat". I made the miskate, I don't blame on fast food, restuarnts, food store and etc because I'm overweight, I just wanted to go there to eating that's it, it's not their fault.
 
When I lived in Milwaukee in Brady St./Farwell area (lower east side) I noticed I was always out and about because there were plenty of great funky shops and little grocery stores around, and lots of coffeehouses and some bars and some bagel places. Always something to do in that area, never bored. I would only be home at night because of that. I don't remember ever staying at home and sitting on my ass all day. So it is true....we get more exercise in those kinds of area. I was always walking.

I don't live in that kind of neighborhood so I don't really bother to go walking everywhere because only the gas station, supermarket, library, family dollar, walgreens, and the like are around here...I don't care that much about those...this is mostly houses and apartments here....anything funky and fun I have to take the bus to get there.
 
Sweetheart said:
I agreed with Sequoias about this.

But, my opinion that the city doesn't make people to be fat and they choose to eat at anywhere they want to- McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Carl Jr, blah that you can name plus Food Store. Use brain to not eating there if you don't want to be "fat". I made the miskate, I don't blame on fast food, restuarnts, food store and etc because I'm overweight, I just wanted to go there to eating that's it, it's not their fault.

I'm overweight too, my weight is now about 209 lbs. but I lost about several pounds because I just exercise every night, that all. It was up from around 150 lbs. in 2001.

Some fast food are introduce new diet food but I dunno about organic food.
 
Lawyers and Clients both make money off lawsuits.You realize the guy who sued ford motor company is now a millionare because his ford pinto blew up and he suffered second degree burns? And the Parents of the boy who sued their doctor because he was born with down sydrome and they got a judgement award of 10 million dollars and the boy is now 25 years old he lives in his own house. So Lawsuits do work and McDonalds is a Multi Billion dollar company and they should reduce super sized meals and Cook Fries Baked and Burgers flamed not grilled with Less Fat Rolls.Instead of Using Special Sauce use Miracle Whip on Big Macs.So they do make people fat and cause diabetes so people who are diabetic should run to their lawyers and sue.I tried but when i ran to my lawyer i tried to sue McDonalds but my lawyer said congress passed the cheeseburger law and george bush signed it means you cant sue any fast food chain just because your overweight or with diabetes.Then I tried to sue my HMO because i was inproper care at the hospital and again my lawyer said i cant sue my HMO on the grounds inproper care because the supreme court declared it was unconsitutional.So in order to have a sucessful lawsuit you gotta get the right kind of lawyer who will gladly take your case.
 
Gosh, if USA get screw up then I will relocate to Canada.

It's not gonna be happen because all fast food are still have fat food though and you can't sue on fast food.

Where's link that man sue on Ford? :deal:
 
I'm reluctant to make broad, rash generalizations about the correlation of living in a city to obesity. A correlation does not necessarily imply a causation. In the case of urban, fast-paced living, there are multiple factors to take into consideration and they can point you to different directions. But the emergence of research about the effect of an environment on public health sounds fascinating.

This reminds me of Berkeley and Oakland.

They're both cities located east of San Francisco. Berkeley is home to University of California with an immortalized reputation of the freedom of speech movement and the old California School for the Deaf (before it relocated to Fremont). Oakland is home to a smattering of commercial zones, Oakland A's, the Raiders and a private women's college, Mills. The latter's population is at least three times of Berkeley's as well as more considerably diverse in ethnicity. There's no contest about which city is bigger, too.

Yet Berkeley appears to host more well-known health food stores than Oakland does. Berkeley has the famous Berkeley Bowl, Whole Foods, Andronico's, Berkeley Natural Grocery, Wild Oats and the Farmer's Market. The list excludes any smaller, neighborhood-like food stores. Oakland, in paltry comparison, has some health food stores mostly concentrated in the vicinity of the hills, but the stores are scarce in the flatlands. The hills hosts a more affluent, upper-middle class community, whereas the flatlands are associated with the working-class. (This is changing though, due to the recent gentrification which is shifting the landscape of sharp class divisions.)

Berkeley has a median family income of $70,434, whereas Oakland's amounts to a staggering $44,384. This is a striking disparity you cannot ignore. Nor can you overlook the differences in the racial and ethnic make-ups of both cities. 60% of Berkeley's population is of Caucasian descent while African-Americans are the leading ethnic group in Oakland, closely followed by Caucasians, with Latinos comprising one-fifth of the total population, so on.

I have an old college friend of mine who grew up in Oakland's flatlands but attended Berkeley schools for most of her life. She has commented that there are a dearth of health food stores in her area, but hardly a shortage of fast-food restaurants, grocery liquor stores and supermarkets. If she wants to go shop at a health food store, she has to drive to Berkeley. She interprets this reality as racist and classist because she believes most health food stores have a mentality about how poor, colored people will not buy their foods, and thus have a lack of accessibility and exposure to them. (Of course, there is also the issue of organic, local foods being more pricey.) It was only several years ago that the Farmer's Market opened up in the Lake Merritt area.

Living in the city may make you fat. But it also depends on the availability and accessibility of health food stores, the designed set-up of the city (do the residents have to drive to get to Point A from Point B, even if they are only several miles apart? this especially applies to the suburbia), the living income of an individual/a family, the list never stops growing.

Food for thought!


:gets off soapbox:
 
volcomskatz said:
Gosh, if USA get screw up then I will relocate to Canada.

It's not gonna be happen because all fast food are still have fat food though and you can't sue on fast food.

Where's link that man sue on Ford? :deal:
In February of 1978, a California jury created a nationwide sensation when it awarded the record-breaking sum of $128 million in a lawsuit stemming from a into accident (Weinberger Romeo, 45). This one lawsuit was three times what Ford executives and engineers had estimated their final cost would be.

HERE YOU GO READ IT AND WEEP GO DOWN 20 PARGRAPHS

That Man is a Very Wealthy Man because of that Lawyer Alan Dershowitz
200px-Dershowitz_Alan.jpg

This man made poor people become Millionares.
 
Back
Top