Gas Poor

So yesterday, I blogged about the fact that nothing short of a catastrophic crisis is likely to reverse the obesity epidemic any time soon. I used the example of $4/litre gas prices.

Today, I heard a term for the first time that kind of addresses this issue: "gas poor".

I've previously heard of "house poor" and "divorce poor" but "gas poor" - to me that was a new one.

So how is being gas poor going to affect obesity?

Here are some scenarios:

1) You decide to continue driving your truck or SUV no matter what - and save on foods - i.e. no more expensive fruits and veggies - more cheap junk food.

2) You decide to switch to the rather ineffective public transportation - your commute to work is now twice as long - you have even less time to exercise or prepare a healthy meal.

3) You decide to work from home - your risk for boredom, loneliness, snacking and even less physcial activity goes up.

4) You decide to walk or ride a bike to work (if you're lucky enough to live close enough) and you get fitter and healthier (even if you don't lose weight).

But seriously, how many of us actually have option 4?

There may be other options like car pooling, moving closer to work, getting a smaller car or Vespa, no idea how those will impact your health.

Interestingly, this week truck drivers in Spain went on strike against the high gas prices resulting in a nation-wide shortage of fresh fish, meat, fruits and vegetables - my guess is people are turning to conserves, chips and (salt-laden) frozen meals.

Perhaps even hope in a "catastrophic" event like astronomic gas prices to prevent and reduce obesity may be futile after all.

AMS
Edmonton, Alberta

June is Bike Month

I've always liked biking. Back in med school, I biked straight across Berlin (Neukoelln to Dahlem) and back every day and on certain days all the way from Neukoelln to Dahlem to Wedding and back to Neukoelln (probably around 70 Km or so). The funny thing was, I thought nothing about it - it was simply the easiest and quickest way to get around.

That's the kind of "exercise" I like - physical activity that you have to do to actually do something - very different from "non-utilitarian/recreational-type" stuff that most people seem to be into (honestly, I can think of a million things I'd rather do in the little free time I have than to exercise simply for the sake of exercising).

So of course, now that Summer is almost here (yes, there actually is a Summer in Edmonton), I've gone out and bought a bike and ride it to work everyday (at least I did all of last week - so far, so good). It's only 25 mins one way - faster than ETS and not much slower than by car at rush hour (hey and parking's free!).

All of this just in time for Bike Month in Edmonton. As the "City of Festivals", it should be no surprise that there actually is a Bikeology Festival here. Tons of cool events like ride to work challenges, bikey breakfasts, ride-in outdoor movies, bike salons, guided tours and even a "make your own jewelry out of bicycle trash" class.

Not sure I'll be taking part in all of this but I sure will be out there riding my bike to work and back.

Living within walking distance to work - luxury!

Living within biking distance to work - bliss!

AMS
Edmonton, Alberta

Image by Paul Turnbull

Don't Shoot the Messenger

Here is an interesting Editorial in the Globe and Mail on not being judgmental about people with obesity. The author is Irving Gold, Chairman of the Canadian Obesity Network's Board of Directors.

The editorial speaks for itself and there is little point in repeating it here.

The reason for my post is mainly to point out the interesting discussion with 100s of comments that were provoked by this Editorial. The range of comments very much reflects the nature of the current discussion on obesity by the general public and nicely shows how emotional people can get when discussing this subject (both on the pro and con side).

To me, the increase in obesity has always been just a symptom of living in an obesogenic environment.

The fact that this environment affects some people more than others is not different from other situations, where for the same level of exposure some suffer the consequences while others get home free.

Not every smoker gets a heart attack, not everyone who eats a ton of salt gets a stroke and not everyone who breathes in polluted air gets an asthma attack. But yes, more smoking means more heart attacks, more salt means more strokes, more pollution means more asthma.

Similarly, not everyone who indulges in junk food or lies on the couch becomes severely obese. In fact, we all know people (I call them the mutants), who can eat ridiculous amounts of food and never seem to gain a gram of fat. In fact, there is a whole "weight-gain" industry out there catering to young men who are tired of having sand kicked in their face by the jocks.

Obviously, the people likely to be affected most by our obesogenic environment are those that have familial, emotional, sociocultural or medical reasons for eating too much and not moving enough - the same people, who would have been the largest even 100 years ago. They are the magnifying glass through which we fully realise the profound impact of our environment on population weight.

The fact that we have more people with obesity is sending us a clear message: let's clean up our act and address the issues that are causing our obesogenic enviroment and provide help to those who are struggling the most.

Don't shoot the messenger!

AMS

Walk or Wait?

Many of you may know that since moving to Edmonton and living downtown, I now try to rely on the Edmonton Transit System for getting around town (i.e. when I cannot hitch a ride with someone).

So obviously the issue of whether to wait for the next bus (when I don't see one coming) or to try and walk to the next stop (so I don't have to stand still in the cold) is a big one.

Gratefully, I am not alone with this dilemma. As commented on recently in the Globe and Mail, US mathematicians have come up with the formula that allows you to calculate the odds of missing the next bus (by being caught between two stops as it whizzes by you) - the math is complex (taking into account distance to be travelled, distance between stops, frequency and speed of the bus, your own walking speed), but the bottom line is that unless you are traveling less than a Kilometer and the buses are around an hour apart, it is mathematically better to wait.

What the formula does not take into account is freezing your butt off by standing still. It also does not take into account any health benefits to be derived from walking to try and make it to the next stop and then breaking into a short run when you see the bus coming (my kind of exercise!).

Anyway, why even bring this up? Well, partly because I m a big believer in public transportation for its health benefits (and stress relief).

In a recent analysis by Edwards from City University of New York, Taking public transit is associated with walking 8.3 more minutes per day on average, or an additional 25.7-39.0 kcal. Based on the estimate that an increase in net expenditure of 100 kcal/day can stop the increase in obesity in 90% of the population. Additional walking associated with public transit could save $5500 per person in present value by reducing obesity-related medical costs (US). Savings in quality-adjusted life years could be even higher.

Similarly new studies from Sweden and Australia show that using public transportation or riding a bike to work is significantly associated with lower weight and better health. Oddly, in both studies the benefits were evident only in men.

I, for now, will of course continue using the ETS and sneaking a run to next base when I don't see a bus coming. I may be late for meetings but at least I'll be a little healthier.

AMS