Civic Planning for Thinner People

Densely populated urban neighborhoods designed to be walkable have thinner people than the car-oriented suburbs. Adam Hinterthuer reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

 

Apparently all of the gyms in the suburbs can't compensate for a good old walk. At least that's the story told by a report in the September issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. According to the study, people lower their risk of obesity when they live in densely populated, urban neighborhoods.

University of Utah researchers looked at census data from half a million state residents and found that, along with bigger cars and houses, the suburbs have bigger people as well. On average, a male suburbanite weighed 10 pounds more than his city-dwelling counterpart. Women had a weight difference of six pounds. The trend towards slimmer waistlines was especially pronounced in urban neighborhoods that were developed before the 1950's. These neighborhoods were built before our car culture took over, and they boast plenty of parks, restaurants and shops worth walking to, and the sidewalks needed to get people there.

The researchers say their study shows how America's civic planners can help fight the obesity epidemic. By designing new neighborhoods with pedestrians in mind, they can promote slimmer lifestyles and cut down on this new kind of suburban sprawl.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


—Adam Hinterthuer

60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes 

 

 

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe