Healthier planet, healthier people

One thing I go on about on this blog is how in many ways we benefit rather than sacrifice when we change our lifestyles and public policies in order to treat the planet more kindly (see here and here, for example). Because very often, making the planet more healthy makes the people more healthy, too.

My little family and I have found this, for example, in eating unpackaged, local, seasonal and vegetarian (you can read why this helps the environment here). The result of altering out diet for the sake of the planet is that we eat no processed food and a lot more fresh fruit and vegetables. Our eating is much healthier than it used to be.

This graphic, provided by Transportation Alternatives, shows that similar benefits come from biking, walking and using public transportation. What it shows is that when we use our cars less--one of the most important things we can do to help the planet-- and other modes of transport more, we end up skinnier and healthier.

Go figure. What's good for the planet is good for us, too.

Comments

[Lee]

All very true. Unfortunately the design of many suburbs in the USA makes it difficult to got places without a car, it's much easier to go car free in the inner cities.

[Deb G]

Yep, I've lost about 25 pounds since I sold my car and started walking/busing. Now if I could just give up baked goods wrapped in plastic from the co-op...at least they are organic.

And I agree, suburbs are more challenging to navigate without a car. They really weren't designed for walkers at all, certainly reflective of the transportation choices that were valued at the time they were built. I also find most mall areas difficult. Good thing I'm working on my consumption habits and only have to run errands in that area about once a year!

[Sean]

While this is a neat correlation, one can not infer any causation solely on the basis of this data as you suggest here. Those other countries may have greater adoption of public transit but they also have different diets, public health systems, and attitudes towards life and health in general. All of these factors play a role in public health; it would be a mistake to try and associate any one variable with negative health outcomes.

[angorian]

While there are a lot of personal reasons to be vegetarian, I'm more and more frequently hearing people tout the environmental benefits. But I've always thought that the arguments for it sound a bit too reductionist. Sure, an animal requires a bunch of land, but a mono-culture of soy is hardly environmentally sound either. I've not seen much in the traditional news media about it, but this recent article caught my eye: To go green, eat your greens - and meat, too.

[the opoponax]

Angorian, who said that all vegetarians survive merely on soy monoculture? I'm a vegetarian, and I consciously eat soy maybe once a week, via tofu, which doesn't depend in any way on soy monoculture. Most of the industrial monoculture going on in the US is corn and soy for food additives, the chemical industry, and livestock feed. Only a tiny minority of the soy grown in this country makes it to our plates in unprocessed foods like edamame or tofu. And I know very few vegetarians past college age who subsist on those processed soy fake meats.

The best way to avoid supporting industrial agriculture is by not eating industrially produced meat and avoiding processed foods (i.e. anything with an ingredient list longer than your arm, full of polysyllabic words you can't pronounce -- all that stuff mainly comes from soy, corn, and petroleum products).

There's a lot more info about all this in the very, very good book The Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollan.

[Val]

I have been eating more and more vegetarian and organic and local these past few months and my bodily instincts seem to rejoice at this food, there's no bad aftertaste of guilt and regret at eating something processed and non-nutritious. Re: obesity and transportation, suburbs may not be planned for walking, etc, but things can change - and yes, there most like is a link between the focus of our infrastructure and our attitudes and everything else - question is, which comes first - seems like a holistic thing and therefore important on all levels, not just health, planet, peace, fulfillment. Basically, we know instinctually what is good for us (et al.) and what is not good for us. It's time to follow those instincts.

['Stute Fish]

Maybe you can help me figure out a way around this - I am just *petrified* to bike to work. My best route has no bike lanes and follows/crosses some very busy streets. Cars scare the crap out of me. I never had a problem bike commuting in PDX (there are bike lanes) or Tianjin (there were fewer cars than bikes) but in the Bay Area it freaks me right out. Especially since I'd need to do at least part of it with my toddler in a bike seat of some sort, so it's not just me I'd be worried for. How do you handle the fact that most drivers are not aware of bicycles and most cities are not set up for bicycle safety? I'd LOVE to bike to work, but I just can't make myself brave it.

[CB]

Stute Fish, I live in the Bay Area, too, and there isn't any place near where I live that is shared with cars where I feel safe to bike. If you don't feel safe biking to work, don't do it. Even in a city with lots of bike lanes, such as Palo Alto, I was always very careful. Too many people got hit by drivers who weren't used to cars on the road and the one-way streets since P.A.'s workforce comes from outside of the city. The absurd housing prices have been inflated for so long and the city gets tax revenue from a lot of businesses whose employees don't make enough to live there. What makes Palo Alto and other remaining cities desireable is that they kept their downtowns. Cities such as Sunnyvale bulldozed theirs in the early 70s to put up a mall surrounded by a parking lagoon. The one block that remains (Murphy St.) is the center of the "town" now.

I've been able to work at home (praise electronic communication) and when I go into an office for a meeting, I combine it with errands, which is how I've been able to reduce my carbon footprint. Maybe you can telecommute one day a week, or share a ride with someone.

I personally am always slimmer when I live in a place in which I don't need a car to run errands, such as when I lived in S.F. and Paris. I'd love to walk or bike everywhere I need to go.

[Sibylle]

I agree of course, but it's interesting to note that Britain's obesity rate is higher than Canada's, but they use less cars... Also, Germany's obesity rate seems higher than it's neighbor's although they also use less cars than some of the neighbors. Obviously there are many factors and car use is a big one but not the only one (and I don't think NIM implied that it's the only one). For kids, I believe staying indoors all the time, video games, TV, etc. are important factors as well. And what kind of food you eat (it must be all that yummy bread and baked treats in Germany!). Also, I know that in Switzerland being heavy is still extremely stigmatized (it can be a bit nasty at times) so people are very motivated to stay slim and portions are very small compared to here.
I totally hear you, 'Stute Fish! Maybe you should first lobby your local government to add bike lanes etc.?!
Suburbs: I wonder how hard it would be to change urban planning around existing suburbs... Has anyone tried? My dream would be to have a pilot project of taking one suburb and changing it into an environmentally viable community. And that could be a model for other communities who want to follow suit. BUT, I'm a musician, not an urban planner... (-:

[ianiux]

I think all you are doing is great in many ways, especially raising awareness.
I came from Mexico two years ago and will return next year, but I was truly amazed in so many ways by your beautiful country, most of them very nice, one of them not so: I thought coming to a first world country would mean a lot more environmental education and more recycling and was shocked to see it isn't so.
I can now see a tight correlation between the economy and the environmental point of view.
First of all, when you have enough (or MORE than enough) money you don't think of reusing things. All kinds of containers, clothes, toys, even food can be reused! There is also a lot of repairing to do before something goes into the trash, here people would rather buy a new appliance or pair of shoes than repairing anything.
With a more scarce economy (and better mass transport) people walk a whole lot more than when it's almost imperative to have a car. Just think of places like China, Europe, South America where this is true.
Also, consumers here are very demanding thus driving the producers to get "perfect" looking fruits by manipulating its dna and using all kinds of conservatives and hormones, or packaging in ready-made, easy and fast boxes.
I can also see how hard many of these changes can be, but we can all start with baby steps. I already started a glass recycling project in my community and though it's slow, it's also growing. I'm encouraging those neighbors who are not separating their paper and plastic (that is picked up in front of our house) to do so. Not much, but every little thing counts.

[the opoponax]

Sibylle, the first thing I can think of to "convert" suburban landscapes would be to add separate bike lanes along all the major thoroughfares, so that people can go about their local business without a car. And then rebuild commuter trains to get people into work in the cities without the level of car insanity that's currently involved.

Of course, part of the problem is that the suburban lifestyle itself is built around the car. At this point, a lot of it is a cultural revulsion against non-car transportation.

[Nige from Newcastle (UK)]

I am pretty lucky as I live in San Francisco and bike to work everyday. I have lived here for 2 1/2yrs and have noticed the small changes over this period. The SF Bike coalition has fought for bike lanes during this time and although it is not perfect, things are starting to change.
One thing I could suggest to the people who are scared to commute to work is to see if there are any bike coalitions or riding groups in your area. Also maybe ask around to see if other people are cycling to work, they may be a little more experienced and could ride with you. This happens in the city, I have volunteered to ride with new commuters and after a few days the confidence grows and the traffic awareness gets better.
You should also look out for local district hearings and voice your opinions about cycling networks to these politicians.
I know it is really difficult & I admire everyone who at least tries once to ride their bikes.
Happy riding :)

[GP]

Fortunately here in Montana... some of my transportation is by horse :) Hoorraa

GP in montana

[Ryan Young]

This is great information and I wholey support using public transportation. I also generally believe the trends you showed in the graph. However, we have to very careful when drawing conclusions from data. You'll hear a lot of statisticians say "correlation doesn't equal causation", meaning that just because two things move together/or opposite each other, doesn't mean that one is caused by the other. In this case, I do think that public transit use is ONE of the causes, however there could be MANY other, some of which may have a big impact as well. For example, perhaps "Time Spent at the Office" is a cause (of obesity) as well.

[the opoponax: lurker from now on]

To all the "correlation is not causation" folks -- while that's undoubtedly true, one thing I've noticed that is good evidence in my mind that correlation is at least partial causation in this case is that I live in New York, and, well, even though it's still the US, and we still are a part of American culture, the ethnic mix is the same, eating habits are largely the same, etc. etc. etc. people are just plain thinner in public transportation dominant NYC than they are in car-bound parts of the US. I can usually spot a tourist on the subway by the fact that they look 30 lbs heavier than everyone else.

[Heather from New Zealand]

Interesting thought, Ryan. Americans work *way* more hours than the Europeans (and don't seem to be either happier or more productive for it, either). I worked in Switzerland for a year, and I got relatively standard vacation of 23 days paid leave, 11 days of public holidays. In addition, my firm gave us 4 extra half days as compensation that we lived in a part of the country that had fewer public holidays than some other parts they also had employees in. That makes 36 full days of paid vacation, or just over 7 weeks!!!! And it would have got more as my longevity with the compnay increased. We also worked a nominal 40 hour week, but that included a very leisurely one hour long morning tea every Friday, and plenty of tea breaks. Almost everyone (including the bosses) biked or caught the train to work, and on vacation people went hiking or cycling or skiing.

[kelley]

can we hear from michelle again? does she feel the same way about the ongoing effects of the noimpactlifestyle on her well-being?

[wellroundedtype2]

Very pretty chart.
There may be associations that may be underlying it, though. Like the fact that those countries that have less obesity also invest more in their citizens overall (not just in public transport). The gap between rich and poor is much smaller in those countries. There's a better safety net. As Heather mentioned, less hours at work (although productivity may be better) and more vacation time. All things that roll up to a "better quality of life," better health, and less stress, especially among the poor. Google "population health forum" for more info -- this is a site hosted by the University of Washington.
There are plenty of reasons to adopt a lower-impact-on-the-earth lifestyle, including the potential health benefits for the adopters, but please let's not bash people who carry extra weight. You cannot tell by looking at someone what the genesis of the weight was, nor can you assume that by walking more and driving less, or being vegetarian, would cause them to lose all or even some of that weight. Your Mileage May Vary (is there an abbreviation for that? -- probably -- I'm such a dork). Weight is very "sticky" and I think that compassionate, intelligent people are coming to the conclusion that weight gained may not come off but that access to safe (and rewarding) physical activity and access to affordable good food are good for everyone, regardless of size.
Not to start singing "I believe the children are the future" or anything, but the tree-huggers and socialist democrats have more in common than usually gets play in the U.S.

[wellroundedtype2]

One last comment here - sometimes people who aren't fat are impatient/critical of people who are fat. Were we talking about something other than fatness, most people would recognize it as discrimination. And if you might say, well, if you don't want to be discriminated against stop being fat. Okay. Sub "poor" for fat and see if you would still say the same thing. You may find you have many allies in the heavier among us. We are shopping at farmer's markets, donating to good causes, voting, reading, blogging. Many are vegetarian or nearly so. Again, you really can't tell much about someone by their weight, except that if they are carrying what you think is extra weight, they have probably been made to feel very bad about it for no good reason.

[mike]

No good reason? I beg your pardon, but moral considerations aside, fat people consume more and have a higher likelihood of illness. That illness comes out of my health insurance premiums, and the additional consumption, not only of food but of fuel, is bad overall. The difference between fat and poor is that being fat is the result of personal choices made and kept up over a period of time.

[the opoponax]

wellrounded type 2 --

if you read my above post, you'll see counters to almost everything you said.

In New York, workplace practices are the same, access to healthcare is the same, vacation time is the same, class divides are the same, etc. etc. etc. There's one significant variable that is different: preferred mode of transportation. In NYC, people walk a lot more, drive a lot less, and often have to stand on subways, run to catch buses, etc. And whaddya know, people are thinner, overall.

Yes, obviously some people are still overweight, and you do sometimes see people who are obese. You can tell, looking at New Yorkers, that YM-really does-v (public transit doesn't automatically make everyone thin). But there is dramatically less obesity in New York than there is in car-fixated parts of the US. Because people are forced to walk, and even the motorized transit isn't completely sedentary.

[wellroundedtype2]

Not everyone in New York earns the same salary (or a salary at all), has the same vacation, etc. Perhaps you didn't see this NYT series on disparities in who is impacted by diabetes, with
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/nyregion/nyregionspecial5/10diabetes.html
According to this article, the Upper East Side had an estimated 6.2% living in poverty, with a 7% obesity rate, while East Harlem had an estimated 38.2% living in poverty and a 31% obesity rate.
I really agree with you that we need more opportunities to walk. That's a great thing about New York that I wish existed elsewhere. I just don't agree that obesity would "go away" with the increase in walking -- some folks wouldn't slim down.
I admire what you do and I'm curious about it, and I'm really glad I discovered your site. I'm just hoping you will consider that there is more going on in the graph you posted than simply the public transit.

[wellroundedtype2]

Well, mike, tall people consume more than short people. And some people are born with differences that can mean higher healthcare costs, or were exposed to experiences in their lives that can cost more to fix later. This is what prevention is about. But hatered and bad treatment haven't worked at all to make people thinner.
There are certainly people out there who would claim that being poor is a result of "personal choices made and kept up over a certain period of time.
You probably think of yourself as having a very good reason for your dislike of fat people, but I hope you'll consider that maybe it's not as grounded in fact as you believe it is.

[mike]

wrt2 -
"tall people consume more than short people"

But habitual overeating and lack of exercise, say, do not make you tall. Nor do they make you short.

"some people are born with differences that can mean higher healthcare costs"

Yes. And, in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases, if you're fat you weren't born that way.

"were exposed to experiences in their lives that can cost more to fix later"

If it was inadvertent or outside of their control, then yeah, I'd say that it wasn't their fault. But if someone wipes out on a motorcycle hot-dogging without a helmet, and needs thousand-dollar-a-day care for the rest of their lives, driving my health insurance up? That's absolutely their fault.

who would claim that being poor is a result of "personal choices...

And if it is, then again - it's their fault. If someone grows up without opportunities, has a real hard-knock life, and ends up poor, that's one thing. If they drop out of high school to get stoned, or figure that dealing drugs to buy CDs is a good idea, etc. and wind up poor then - again - it's absolutely their fault.

a very good reason for your dislike of fat people

Yeah, several. Health care costs, for me personally, not to mention increased airline fares and so on. On a more principled level, as examples of excess consumption when others are starving, lack of self-control, etc.

[wellroundedtype2]

mike, I think we aren't going to agree on this, but I recommend you peruse (from your library or bookstore) NY Times journalist Gina Kolata's book "Rethinking Thin."

And if a person chooses to engage in extra physical activity (say, biking) above and beyond what is needed for transportation, and as a result, consumes extra calories to support this effort, is that not also wasteful?

I exercise, I don't habitually overeat, and my BMI is 40. I also do a large number of things that are generally considered "good." The sum total of my life isn't my weight. For periods of time in my life I have overeaten, just as there are people out there who smoked cigarettes or drank to excess or yelled at their spouses or smoked pot or rode a motorcycle without a helmet or had unsafe sex or habitually didn't used sunscreen or didn't see a doctor regularly or didn't see a dentist regularly and all of these things drive up health care costs too. The number of people who have always done "safe" things is pretty few. And had I not eaten more than I needed during those times I might have done something much more health damaging in both the short and long term. I don't like excess consumption, either, and I do my best to avoid it in every area of my life. I hope you hold people who consume excess gasoline and purchase unnecessary consumer items to the same contempt as you do fat people. Only you can't tell by looking at them if they aren't behind the wheel of their gas guzzler or you aren't seeing what they put in their Wal Mart shopping cart.