And before we get the inevitable comments whining about social engineering and the imposition of preferences, let me remind folks that we're already there: Mother Nature did not create the freeways. Gaea does not subsidize high fructose corn syrup. We are already imposing preferences through public policy, and though they have a certain set of advantages, they also tend to promote ill health. We could change that, if we wanted, and shape public policy such that it promoted health. We'd just have to decide to do so.

Damn right, and this is exactly the same argument that needs to be made in the related arena of clean energy. The social engineering (and in the case of climate change, geo-engineering) has been going on for decades and decades, so that argument from the libertarian, small government crowd needs to be put to bed once and for all.

I couldn't agree more (and I already live in NYC, where in fact I do exercise because I take the subway to work). In 1994, I visited a friend in Kiev who was working there due to Soros' largess and at that point Kiev had no working public transportation. We walked absolutely everywhere; I ended that trip more fit than I began.

The barriers to mixed use development are probably the biggest policy distortion in that mix in terms of every day exercize. There are plenty of push-pull factors in the urban/suburban choices people make, nicely discussed here in an article about the move back to the urban core. But the lack of corner shops in most suburbs is mostly a result of misguided planning theories.

for most of the people reading this blog,
taking better care of themselves is a choice.
wherever i have lived, there have always been places to walk to and fruits and vegetables for sale.
if we choose not to lead physically active lives and eat poorly, it is most often a personal choice about how we choose to live our lives.
no-one is generally twisting our arms in the grocery store, or tying us to the sofa.

Oh, and I can spell 'exercise,' I just choose not to.

Mother Nature did not create the freeways.
Does this imply that people living in Cities are thinner?
Should I cite examples of obese people in cities such as another blogger here?

On a four-day trip to San Francisco a couple of years ago, I ate pretty much everything I wanted & still lost a few pounds-- those hills are a workout by themselves. I would assume that living there would mean a bit less walking than I did as a tourist, because most of us fall into more efficient routines over time, but that was still pretty impressive.

That said, northern California has a much more comfortable temperature year-round than Tennessee does... from late May until mid-September are hot enough here that I have to plan my A/C access if I want to maintain any sort of decently-groomed appearance. I used to have much better tolerance for heat than I do now.

I agree with you for the most part, and where I live, I would be all for more public transit, walkable areas, etc. But I do think you overlook some health benefits of a suburban environment. I mowed my lawn yesterday...definitely exercise in 90+ degree heat. When I was a kid, I had a large back yard, and a park across the street, and spent a ton of time outside playing baseball and tennis. Those are examples of just a couple things I couldn't have done if I had grown up in a dense urban environment...

Actually, Paul, there are higher rates of obesity in rural areas than in urban areas. There are confounding factors (people in rural areas tend to be poorer, as well), but it's consistently been found to be the case across regions, countries, etc.

need a healthier lifestyle?
get a doggie!!

you will be discovering walks in your neighborhood that you never knew existed...and your life will be filled with friendship, weather and fun!

At a certain point I thought to myself "criminy, I just might live to 40 after all" which caused me to make some decisions regarding work that took me to a job with benefits like a pension and healthcare, located out in the suburbs. The kind of job you have to be at at the same time every morning...which lead me to move out of the city where lights blazed and people ran around doing fun things at all hours of the night. And after 10 years of this I had put on 30 pounds and lost my lean gym toned body and I felt like a slug with polyester pants on.

Going the other way is really really hard. When I lived in Europe we walked everywhere (or walked to the bus or tram). We carried food home, which meant we bought less. And food was kind of expensive so we didn't buy 10 lb slabs of meat or giant bottles of soda. But there's nowhere to walk in the burbs. In fact, I have been stopped by the cops ("where are you going? why are you walking?") So yeah, everything has to be conscious from counting the minutes on the treadmill to getting into the car and driving to a park to walk the dog. And after 10 hours in this corporate sweatshop sometimes all I want to do is eat a pint of Ben and Jerry's and lie on the couch.

But hey, I have health care coverage. I have a pension. I have a 401k. I can't afford to give those things up.

Regards.

It is my impression that people in the USA exercise more that Europeans, but I may be wrong. Does anyone have a link?

I do agree that the interstate was a big mistake and that local Gov. should make roads much more bike and pedestrian friendly.

Scott, I have no idea when you grew up, but in the present day activities such as "baseball" and "tennis" have indeed penetrated deep into the urban core.

Does this imply that people living in Cities are thinner?
Should I cite examples of obese people in cities such as another blogger here?

Yes, a sample size of one always guarantees a perfectly representational population.

In other news, the President, like all 23.9 million citizens of Texas, is a 31-year-old Korean-American software designer who is being hassled by her mother to settle down and have kids. In her spare time, the President enjoys World of Warcraft and is teaching herself how to brew her own beer.

Well, the standard schtick is either "If you're too fat you're dog isn't getting enough exercise" or "If your dog is too fat you're not getting enough exercise," but that said, there are a lot of people who can't afford a dog, don't want a dog, etc.

Democrats have to be incredibly careful when dashing around the country making lifestyle recommendations because it's too easy to reinforce the notion that they/we are a bunch of clueless elitists who don't understand what most people's lives are like. Both urban centers and rural regions have a problem with access to good food for sale. In far too many places, the only food sources within about 20 minutes (by walking, car, whatever) are convenience stores. Add to that economic pressures where people are just getting by (or worse, working two jobs and just getting by), lack of nutrition and cooking education in the schools, and 1) it's not surprising that most people eat badly and don't get enough exercise, and 2) it's really not appropriate to sit in judgment on people who eat badly and don't get enough exercise.

I think Ezra's basically right, although I tend to think it will be easier to influence food policy than to change the environment so that people are naturally getting more exercise.

Well, Melinda, it might be easier to change the environment so that people are naturally getting more exercise if you don't say that your changes will result in people getting more exercise.

Maybe better residential planning can be done by saying that it's necessary for people to have access to local amenities in the event of a disruptive terrorist attack.

clearly the answer is to create a large, immensely powerful sidewalk-manufacturing industry, which can then bribe congress into imposing mandatory sidewalks!

Tyro, I live in the boondocks. It was a huge deal when the town passed an ordinance banning more than two non-running cars on each property. People have access to "local amenities" (everybody's on a well and septic) but it's a lot harder to come by a lifestyle that can be changed much to accomodate more walking, more leisure activities, and so on. And an awful lot of the country is like this.

It seems to me that the first thing to do is change the economic environment so that people don't have to work two jobs, so they're not scrimping to get by, and so that they've got more leisure time.

Not sure what to think of "don't tell them they're going to get more exercise." Seems condescending to me, but maybe not.

Does this imply that people living in Cities are thinner?
Should I cite examples of obese people in cities such as another blogger here?

Cminus has already taken care of this 'for any variable, say, this one' logic, but I'd add: it's not cities, per se. Some cities are good for walking, in places (for example, Midwood, Brooklyn, where I live, is good for walking, but great swaths of Brooklyn are not so good). Some cities, at least in my experience, are terrible for walking: Atlanta; Chicago; Tacoma. Some small towns are good for walking: Northhampton MA, Cambridge UK.

What you need is not a lot of people; you need density, which is not quite the same thing.

Duh.

tps12, I could be wrong, but "all" I was saying was "that" I would imagine large "parks" and "open spaces" and "baseball fields" are more prominent in suburban areas, since, by "all" accounts, they are "less" dense. However it "is" hard to argue with "someone" clever enough to use "quotes" to make a "point".

Scott,

you shd check out denver, where literally every neighborhood in a few block radius has a park. there are city parks, that are really large w/ baseball fields, tennis courts, golf, etc. etc. and then there are your smaller neighborhood parks w/ playgrounds and a basketball court. when i first moved here i was stunned. i wd ride my bike around and every little neighborhood and some sort of green space that was just a few blocks to walk to. you can't go a few blocks w/out running smack into a public space to hang out.

Karl, Chicago's terrible for walking? What? Where'd you find difficult to walk around, and what was the problem?

As a resident of about 7 years who's gotten around to a number of the different residential neighborhoods, I've liked walking around Chicago way more than almost any other city I've been to.

I live in the boondocks.

Unlike most everyone else, including me. I work in a relatively dense area whose development patterns are inconducive to walking and whose development as been a huge mess.

an awful lot of the country is like this.

Perhaps, but few people live there.

Really, it's starting to get a bit tiresome where every discussion invovles, "what about my situation which is a very rare exception?" You're an exception. I really couldn't care less if the relatively small number of people who live in the boondocks aren't impacted at all by more intelligent planning policies. For those of us who live and work in traffic clogged areas with little opportunity to own homes in walkable neighborhoods, this is an important issue, particularly since our situation is the plight that many tens of millions of us find ourselves in.

Here's a good example of the problem. We live in the suburbs, more out of necessity than by choice. We live within walking distance of public transportation (which I use daily), and with enough sidewalks that I run our dog for my exercise. So, as suburbs go, it's not half bad.

We *still* can't practically walk much of anywhere, though, in spite of a mall and several grocery stores being less than a mile and a half away. It just isn't safe enough. I took the car to get fixed this morning, and then walked back to pick it up, less than a mile - I felt like I was taking my life in my hands.

The worst part is, this small example wouldn't be that hard to fix. Just add some decent sidewalks, maybe with a fence where appropriate, and a few crosswalks. That's it, and it would be a semi-walkable neighborhood.

Tyro, rural living is a minority lifestyle but by no means is it "very rare." I would argue that you're tending to reinforce the notion that liberals are out-of-touch, elitist, classist, and disrespect anybody who's not like them (as would "don't tell the rubes about the exercise!" suggestion).

How you want to live is your business, but if you want to win elections you're going to have to learn to at least pay lip service to building coalitions with people you may not like very much. Right now you're making precisely the arguments that the right predicts you'll make.

I tend to be repetitive on this stuff but it's because there's an election to win and too many self-styled "progressives" are doing everything they can to lose it. If you want to know why Obama's not doing better, take a look at what you've written.

(as would "don't tell the rubes about the exercise!" suggestion)

That was a tongue-in-cheek response to your comment that talking about the public health aspect would be a bad thing.

Melinda, no one is trying to tell people in the boondocks how to live. However, the huge numbers of us who live within 100 miles of a metro area and are facing development patterns that aren't good for traffic, good for our health, or good for energy consumption are going to start being concerned about these things. Just because your situation results in being "left out" of this issue doesn't mean you should take it personally.

I am really sorry that discussion of development patterns and walkability is not a policy that affects you and those in the boondocks and makes you feel left out. But it affects many, many, many more millions of us, and that's why it's an issue.

To reiterate what was said about Denver, in addition to the parks within the city limits, for the better part of a century the city has been focused on buying up mountain areas within an hour or so, meaning that there are a ton of nice alpine parks a short drive away. For example, you can climb to the top of a 14,000 foot peak at one such Denver mountain park (Echo Lake), or ski all day at another (Winter Park), or boat at another (Cherry Creek Reservoir).

There really is a very concerted effort to encourage an "active" lifestyle here -- perhaps this is why Colorado is significantly thinner than the rest of the country.

Matt's point is very true... When I moved to England, I lost 25 pounds in just 3 months - mostly due to walking and cycling for daily tasks rather than driving. Combined with the smaller average meal portions that are common in Europe it was a remarkably effective weight-loss program.

Upon returning to the US, I gained it all back and then some within a year.

"it's not appropriate to sit in judgement of people who eat badly and dont get enough exercise."

why not?
these are simple choices.
knowing what almost all of us know about the effects on our health of poor eating and lack of exercise, about what this does to our children especially, i think it becomes greatly about personal accountability and self-discipline.
excuses. excuses.
reach for an apple instead of a doughnut.
take a long walk and look at the moon.
what we choose to eat and how we care for ourselves individually, is a spiritual decision that eventually has consequences for our whole society.

"what we choose to eat and how we care for ourselves individually, is a spiritual decision that eventually has consequences for our whole society."

Thank you for simultaneously descending into crystal-gripping and sneering condescension in one sentence. Ezra is trying to discuss public policy here, not personal revelations. If simply berating people worked, this diet-obsessed nation would be in great shape.

On the other hand, if you recognize that foreigners may not in fact possess some awesome reserve of "personal accountability and self-discipline" but instead live in a society that makes healthy living easy (or easier), you've got the basis for some good ideas to help improve the health of our nation. And you don't get that nasty cramp from repeatedly patting you well-toned back.

kylroy....

i think that in most places in the united states, there is every opportunity for a person to maintain a healthy lifestyle if they choose to do so.
i think that making that choice depends more on the will of an individual than upon public policy...and i actually think that living in a healthier way generally begins with a "personal revelation."
there is a spiritual component to valuing yourself enough to take care of your body, which is holistic...if you consider that crystal-gripping, you can call it what you wish.
most people in this society, taking their lipitor, caduet, prilosec and a myridad of medications, know exactly what they need to do to take better care of themselves...they hear it ever single day from sanjay gupta, on oprah, on the news and from their doctor....and many choose not to.
many in this society would rather take medication to curb their cholesterol and high blood pressure, diabetes, colitis and a host of other frequently life-style related illnesses, than have the self-discipline to make major lifestyle changes.
in this collapsing economy, we can wait decades for bike trails and biking lanes, green belts, more pocket parks, sidewalks in suburbia, safer neighborhoods...but it is going to be a very long wait...which isnt to say those changes wouldnt be welcomed or necessary.
i think this is a society that is hellbent on self-gratification...
the way to build a healthier society is done one person at a time taking responsibility for themselves.
when more people do that, there will be a greater chance for policy changes.
you can have greenbelts and bike paths ribboning through your community, but it is the individual commitment to use them that makes all of the difference.
and thanks, i will pat myself on the back. and so should everyone else that tries hard to take better care of themselves. every person that at least tries to take better care of themselves helps in a small way to make our society healthier.

Maybe DC is different, but this excerpt doesn't apply to Denver:
"Many suburbs don't have sidewalks, so you can't walk. Few communities are mixed use, so there's nowhere to walk to anyway. The traffic laws and road infrastructure are constructed so as to speed cars along, and thus biking is unsafe and few people do it."

No sidewalks in the suburbs? That's just weird.