Current theory says that a city's walkability promotes health and will impact the fight against obesity. The claim is that America's weight problem can be helped by making cities more pedestrian-friendly. It should follow, then, that our most dense and walkable cities are where the skinny people are, right? Well, not really.
Check out Web sites like Walk Score and you'll see a familiar list of boutique cities listed as having the most walkable neighborhoods: San Francisco, New York, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, Portland, Washington, D.C. The car-dependent suburbs tend to make Americas fat and sedentary. Good urban design promotes fitness. Right?
Not so fast. A list of U.S. counties compiled by Money magazine ranks regions by body mass index. The list reveals something different. America's skinniest counties don't appear to be urban but rather rural and suburban. They include places in rural Oregon (Bend), Montana (Bozeman, Missoula), and Tennessee. But many of the most populous counties encompass affluent suburbs famed for their office parks and hot tubs.
Of the big, walkable cities, only San Francisco County, which consists primarily of the city of San Francisco, made No. 2 on the list. But No. 1 was the upscale, granola-munching Bay Area suburb of Marin County. Among the other skinniest counties were Boulder County, Colo.; San Mateo and Santa Clara counties in the middle of the Silicon Valley burbs; Washington, D.C., suburbs like Montgomery County, Md., and Fairfax County, Va.; and wealthy arts enclave Santa Fe County, N.M. The issues of obesity are complex, involving behavior, genetics, diet, social class, race, and many other factors. But the Money list suggests that affluent suburban living doesn't necessarily produce chubby couch potatoes, and walkable cities don't guarantee herds of lithe citizens.
In fact, according to the American Heart Association, a body mass index of more than 25 means a person is overweight. By that measure, only five counties on Money's top 25 list have populations with body mass index numbers that indicate their residents are not overweight. Residents of Marin County weigh in with an index of 24.48. (San Francisco County, Williamson and Maury counties in Tennessee, and Boulder County round out the top five that are not overweight.) Every other county has a number over 25 that shows "increased risk for heart and blood vessel disease."
It may be galling to urban planners to realize that some SUV drivers are in better shape than the folks who inhabit urban villages. But being realistic suggests that tackling the obesity "epidemic" is complicated and won't be solved by simply turning cities into jungle gyms for fatties.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email





Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jul 31, 8:24 a.m. Inappropriate
uh: You've presented no good evidence. Much better studies have been done.
First, counties aren't a good judge. Most have a mix of land uses. They're blunt objects.
Second, your list of thinnest counties is also heavily weighted toward high incomes and high achievement, groups that tend to eat better and probably exercise more. Also these counties generally have some density, regardless of your impressions.
I'm surprised that you're treating one half-assed analysis as strong evidence that a bunch of far more precise and comprehensive studies are wrong.
Walking and walkability aren't panaceas for health. Too bad for me. But they've been shown to have an effect.
Posted Thu, Jul 31, 8:28 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: uh: PS, the more detailed studies control for things like income. So they're comparing weight (or whatever metric) among people who have similar demographic characteristics but simply live in different types of places.
Posted Thu, Jul 31, 9:05 a.m. Inappropriate
Walkability? Bring it on!: I'm really looking forward to the day my Seattle neighborhood becomes "walkable". Hopefully Starbucks will still be around so that I can take the elevator down to the street from my "affordable" apartment in the newly densified up-scale zone and walk over to have my favorite beverage, a Double Chocolaty Chip Frappuccino® Blended Crème - whip. I'll need all 510 calories to counter the exertion of that serious walk trip.
Posted Thu, Jul 31, 9:39 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: uh: And, so far uh has presented precisely no evidence -- good or bad -- to refute Knute's argument. Knute cites specific studies. Uh says there are better studies: OK, tell us what they are. One can't just make a claim that such and such evidence exists, yet not produce it, and think that constitutes a rebuttal. Knute's point stands: the supposed direct correlation between "walkability" in one's neighborhood environment and healthy weight has not been proven. As he says: walkability is nice, but it's not "the answer" to obesity.
Posted Thu, Jul 31, 11:26 a.m. Inappropriate
the fat of the land: I ditched my car 18 months ago because my Seattle rent was too all-consuming. In that time, I've gained weight! What up? Well, I love to walk the mile from my house to Roy's BBQ in Columbia City for a BBQ pulled-pork sandwich. Not to mention the scrumptious taco truck on Rainier ... So much for "walkability" ... I guess you actually have to give up delicious food, too, if you want to become a svelte, green Seattlite. Methinks not. I'll just pretend I still livein Chicago, where people don't honestly care if you've got a potbelly, and Old Style in in style... not to mention the roasted-corn vendors. Mmmm...
Posted Thu, Jul 31, 1:38 p.m. Inappropriate
one minute of research: Anyone who reads newspapers knows that many studies have shown walkability is a factor in weight trends. I googled a couple words, and found several on the first couple pages. I limited this list to one about a major study released this week, and added a few others.
(this POS website won't allow multiple links in a row apparently no matter what I do, so I'll post them separately...)
Link 1.
www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=91435
Posted Thu, Jul 31, 1:39 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: one minute of research: Maybe it's the http. Not that it says that. Just "no more than 60 characters per word".
seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/211737_condor14.html
clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00608036?recr=open&cond;=
(connect the parts) %22Recreation%22&rank;=4
uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=30482
Posted Sat, Aug 2, 1:53 p.m. Inappropriate
Better references needed.: The references mhays posted that supposedly prove walkability reduces obesity lack credibility. Only the first comes close, but it hasn't yet been published. It is actually for a news article that doesn't indicate whether the study controlled for other likely causual factors such as income. The second is for a study that is yet to begin. The third and fourth could not be found because the URLs didn't work.
So here's one, a recently published local study, that might be more reliable. Done by researchers at the UW Center for Obesity Research, it found that the more affluent the neighborhood, the lower the obesity rate. According to the lead researcher Adam Drewnowski, "Our research shows that geography, social class and economic standing all play huge roles in the obesity problem."
For the article go to Social Science and Medicine online at http://www.elsevier.com