The Suburbs Made Us Fat

[llamaorama]

so Texas is actualy very fit?

To me the fact that it's a uniformly lighter shade than it's neighbors, and that Illinois is showing the same phenomena, sort of indicates that the method of data collection may have been different in each state

[Dale]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Of course every person is different - I obviously wasn't trying to make it sounds as if they aren't. But living in a suburb doesn't make people fat...eating to much along with lack of exercise is generally what does it. There are exceptions and there are various body types.

While there may be health implications for too little activity, it is a myth that people gain weight by eating too much. Beyond stuffing yourself at a given meal, there is really no such thing as eating too much as the homeostatic hunger complex is pegged to caloric intake and not perceptions of satiety.

The reason people become heavier is because they starve themselves (AKA: diet). Weight gain is a natural adaptation to the perception of starvation.

[Jasonhouse]

[austlar1]

I live in supposedly "fit" Austin. It is true that large numbers of people are in good shape here and outdoor sports and exercise play a huge role in that. On the other hand, there are PLENTY of ginormous fat people to be found in the area. I live in SW Austin and regularly shop at a large HEB grocery at William Cannon and Brodie. Probably a third ot the customers pushing carts down the aisles at this store could be described as "overweight" and many of them are just plain fat and nasty. I can't believe how they manage to pour themselves into too tight clothing and waddle down the aisles. I sometimes just gasp and shake my head in wonder when I find myself pushing a cart behind the behind of one of these behemoths. I think the Texas map has got to be wrong. This is what I experience in Travis County (Austin). I promise you it is worse by far in exurban and rural counties.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

My own hypothesis is that people with higher education levels are more into a "deferred gratification" mode of thinking. Going to college is, in itself, a form of deferred gratification - you spend at least 4 years doing stuff with no immediate benefit, usually spending a ton of money in the meantime and often going into debt big-time, all in order for a big payoff in the long run.

Poorer people and people with less education seem to be the opposite: For whatever reason, things that don't pay off until years, and possibly even decades, into the future either aren't considered, or are impractical.

This kind of thinking would also translate into diet. Let's face it: Diets that are more healthy for you aren't as gratifying/satisfying as ones that are less healthy (think: cake vs. celery). The person who thinks in deferred gratification mode knows that eating lots of cake is going to be bad news in the long run, so he/she eats less of it and more celery instead (which will be good in the long run). The other person, to whom deferred gratification is a difficult concept to understand, wants the yummy, tasty cake NOW.

That is my hypothesis.

I agree with everything you've said in this thread.

The premise of the article from which this thread is based, trying to link a cause-effect relationship between cities' pedestrian orientation and obesity rates, is just so poorly contrived that it's laughable.

Completely wrong and silly.

It's like saying that higher income people live in San Francisco, therefore, if you move to San Francisco the city will make you a higher income person.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Dale

While there may be health implications for too little activity, it is a myth that people gain weight by eating too much. Beyond stuffing yourself at a given meal, there is really no such thing as eating too much as the homeostatic hunger complex is pegged to caloric intake and not perceptions of satiety.

The reason people become heavier is because they starve themselves (AKA: diet). Weight gain is a natural adaptation to the perception of starvation.

Insofar as I have observed over the years, there is no basis for anything you have ever said on these forums when it comes to things medical or scientific. You invent your own ideas a priori and spout it like rubbish to everyone here. I still can't get over how you once tried to argue, almost as some form of rationalization, that there are no health consequences of obesity.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Insofar as I have observed over the years, there is no basis for anything you have ever said on these forums when it comes to things medical or scientific. You invent your own ideas a priori and spout it like rubbish to everyone here. I still can't get over how you once tried to argue, almost as some form of rationalization, that there are no health consequences of obesity.

The things I say are threatening to your beliefs. For starters, it has to be galling, the revelation that correlation is not causation. You may be a man of science, but you're in a morass concerning weight. With respect to weight, yours is manifestly not an evidence-based approach.

Imagine prescribing a treatment for cancer which boasted of a 2-5% success rate with overwhelming odds that it would just make the cancer worse. They'd sue your ass off and disbar you, as well they should. Yet, that's exactly what you do running around panicking about adiposity, scaring people about their health and imagining that they can lose weight and keep it off. It's nothing less than cruel, really.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Dale

The reason people become heavier is because they starve themselves (AKA: diet). Weight gain is a natural adaptation to the perception of starvation.

And the perception of starvation can change depending on what your eating and other living habits are.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

And the perception of starvation can change depending on what your eating and other living habits are.

I'm not talking about our perception of starvation. I'm talking about our body's perception of starvation.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Dale

I'm not talking about our perception of starvation. I'm talking about our body's perception of starvation.

And the body's perception of starvation or feeling hungry changes depending on what our various habits are.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

And the body's perception of starvation or feeling hungry changes depending on what our various habits are.

Not really, the body knows better than we do what it wants to weigh ... and it will maintain the weight.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Dale obviously knows basically nothing about human metabolism. According to his logic, all the starving people in India and Africa are overweight, fat slobs.

But anyway this is off-topic.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Dale obviously knows basically nothing about human metabolism. According to his logic, all the starving people in India and Africa are overweight, fat slobs.

But anyway this is off-topic.

What is Bond babbling about ? Dale knows that if food is not available you will lose weight. And then when food becomes available you will eat it and rapidly regain weight (and likely then some).


It is decidedly not off-topic to point out that all this running around and hand-wringing about weight-gain is rather silly and rooted less in science and more in base cultural attitudes.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I think the Texas map has got to be wrong. This is what I experience in Travis County (Austin). I promise you it is worse by far in exurban and rural counties.

Yes, fully agree, a few of us pointed out already that the data HAS to be not-apples-to-apples for Texas, Illinois, and a few others.

I guarantee that most of eastern and central Texas should be the same hue and color as Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, and that most of rural Illinois should be the same hue and color as rural Indiana and rural Iowa.

The perfectly-borders-matching huge gaps in obesity levels can't be real. They have to be produced by some flaw(s) in the method. Data that isn't apples-to-apples (older vs newer, for example) or something like that.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Dale

Dale knows that if food is not available you will lose weight. And then when food becomes available you will eat it and rapidly regain weight (and likely then some).

Nope. Obesity actually has little or nothing to do with how much you eat - it has everything to do with what you eat.

If you want to discuss this in the Skybar, go ahead.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Nope. Obesity actually has little or nothing to do with how much you eat - it has everything to do with what you eat.

If you want to discuss this in the Skybar, go ahead.

Last time I rose to challenge the sort of psuedoscience you and others here are purporting *in skybar* ... I got called down.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Coward. If you are right and can back your claim with facts and links, you should have no problem defending yourself.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Dale

Not really, the body knows better than we do what it wants to weigh ... and it will maintain the weight.

How does the body know? What influences what the body "thinks"?

[Dale]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Coward. If you are right and can back your claim with facts and links, you should have no problem defending yourself.

Rich, the guy who castigates me in the third person and then cordones off the thread to any rejoinder calling me a coward.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Dale is now doing everything he can to avoid meeting the challenge.