|
||||||||||||||||||
    
|
|
 Whenever I visit California, I always find myself thinking, "Man, I would lose SOOO much weight if I lived here." And I wholeheartedly believe that, because even with all of the vodka drinks and cha siu baau buns, I still find myself walking much more and opting for the vegetarian fare and delicious, perfectly ripe fruit over fatty and carby options. When I get home, my jeans are loose. But the simple fact is that in California, it's just much easier to find excruciatingly healthy food as you go through your day than it is if you're living in Wisconsin (particularly in the non-summer months), when the only place you're going to find edible vegetation is at one of the grocery stores in the suburbs. A group of scientists at the California Center of Public Health Advocacy have quantified my own observation and put it into a measurable statistic. God, I love those folks in the white coats! Check it: they calculated the proportion of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores near each adult's home compared to grocery stores and produce vendors. From our bffs at Slashfood: Based on their analysis of 40,000 people, the study's authors determined that the average California neighborhood has an RFEI of 4.5. According to their data, adults who live in an area with an RFEI of 5 or higher have a 23% higher chance of developing diabetes and a 20% higher chance of being obese than those who live in an area with an RFEI of 3 or less.
So, basically, if you have a bunch of Taco Bells
and Sonics in your neighborhood, you're more likely to be overweight
than if you are surrounded by farmer's markets and fruit carts.
Although really, remember, correlation is not the same as causation:
after all, these places are businesses. If everyone said "No way" to
Big Macs, McDonald's
would respond by changing their business strategy or they would go out
of business. If the big money was in the fruit vending business, all
the hot dog carts would start slinging bananas
and carrots. It's easy to point fingers at the big baddie fast food
guys, and we are clearly making the decisions, but there is something
to be said about the fact that modern life can make it very difficult
to eat healthy when you have ten minutes to run out and grab lunch and
there are fast food joints as far as the eye can see.
9 CommentsLeave a comment |
|
![[Self's Reach Your Goal ad]](http://elasticwaist.com/ads/slf_goals08_275x225.gif)
Send your queries to us at
info@elasticwaist.com Check out Elastic Waist on MySpace.com. Follow Weetabix on Twitter |
||||||||||||||
FEED ME
Interesting analysis and it's not that surprising. People tend to go with what's easiest or quickest.
It really depends on personality, too. I always bring my lunch to work, but on the off chance I forgot or something, I'm the kind of eater who will go out of my way to find a deli with a salad bar or scope out online where the closest Subway is; someone else will see the Golden Arches on the corner and eat there.
You're right too, correlation isn't causation.
I gained more than 10 pounds when I moved to CA. There are a host of reasons why, but chief among them is the car culture: I have to drive practically everywhere (work, shopping, the gym, whatever). Meanwhile, I walked and played tennis and ate well and was really active when I was visiting a friend in Minnesota. Maybe I should move to the Midwest.
It really depends where in California you are. California is a huge state with many different types of areas. It's pretty easy to get a lot of exercise in San Francisco, with an excellent public transit system and lots of hills and healthy food. Plus in San Francisco it's just plain entertaining to walk around. If you are living in say, suburban San Diego where you have to drive everywhere it's a lot harder.
In the Middle of Los Angeles, you would think it would be easy to stay on the vegetarian/healthy mode, but in reality, there are so many *jewlry box* cafes that serve up a tub of grease on your egg whites and costs twice as much as an egg mcmuffin. Also the cost of living here (hollywood) costs so much my husband and I, eat cheaply ie. fast food. It does help that there are gyms on every corner, but public transportation and alleys arent exactly friendly after dark.
If you make a conscious effort to stay healthy and fit, you will do so regardless of where you live.
Fast food restaurants are killing people!
Wow. So CA is the healthiest, and it itself is just barely under the RFEI cut-off?
You've got 10 minutes to eat lunch? How much time does getting out of the office, waiting in line, allowing the food to be heated up, take?
Me, I make 5 sandwiches of cold cuts and wheat bread on Sunday night, then throw it together in a sack each morning with fruit, and a few other whatnots. Saves a lot of money, and is better tasting, besides being better for me, over 'restaurants.'
"Poor pitiful me, I have diabetes, because I am too lazy to stop watching TV and make some cheap food." Maybe you could afford that wide screen if you quit eating junk someone else made.
If you want to be healthy and eat well, you can do it no matter where you live; it is a matter of what you want to do, if you want to be healthy you will do what you have to do no matter where you live, if you want to eat junk every day, you are going to do that no matter where you live. Mind over matter. That's it!
Lively article. I agree that our environment has an absolute effect on our choices.
I have opportunity to frequent the West Coast, L.A./ West Hollywood, as well as the Mid-West,although currently have residence on the East Coast.
Similair to the adage in Real Estate development... Location... Location..appears to be one element that determines the physical attributes and healthy life style choices.
Lets face it, when the sun is shining and there is little threat of wind, rain or snow, less clothing to wear, most people- male or female will consider what they pop in their stomachs when clothing is optional and they want to be attrative! C J
I'm a 6 ft tall male. In 1990 I weighed 650 lbs. At the time I lived in New Orleans. On Jan 1st 1990 I decided to become a vegetarian. Over that first year, I lost 200 lbs.
When I started working out in 1994, my body changed dramatically. My resting heart rate was 45 bpm with low cholesterol and low BP. By 1999 I was 210 lbs of solid rock. Also in 1999, I moved to Los Angeles.
The lifestyle here is so much more hectic, that I worked out less and less, and at some point even started eating meat again and gained back 50 lbs over the last 9 years.
After a major car crash and a divorce last year, I decided to get back in shape, and I can tell you, it's always better to feel like you are doing everything you can to maintain good health versus having to go through the revolving cycles of doing it right and doing it wrong. In most cases, your degree of health is a personal choice. It does not take determination or anything like that. Losing 400 lbs for me was a lifestyle change, or paradigm shift versus any idea that i just needed to lose weight.
And yes, it does not matter where you live...california has a lot of fat people here too...it's all up to the individual.
Best of luck to all.