[awjr]

I think we focus on diet over environment too much. It isn't just what you eat but how you get around that is vital to tackling the cardiovascular epidemic.

The only evidence that I currently have available is the Netherlands. The only western country to have a reducing obesity index, by 2030, predicted to be 8.5% down from 10%. Their diet is a very typical western diet.

However their transport system and their urban planning is hugely focused on prioritising walking and cycling with good provision of local amenities within easy cycling distances. Yes, you build higher density urban environments, but this is a good thing.

[_0w8t]

In Netherlands it is common to have rather cold temperatures in houses even if people can afford to pay for warmth. And cold requires body to spend much more energy that is coming directly from burning body fat unless one shivering from cold.

In fact if one wants to loose like 10 kilos quickly, just climb to Everest. Most of that weight will be spent on body heating, not muscular work.

That also explains why butter does not harm people in Tibet. It is not stored as body fat and goes directly into body heat.

[vram22]

Interesting. Is that on purpose, to help lose fat, or to get the body used naturally handling a wider range of temperatures (I've read yoga prescribes that to some extent), or something else?

[mrfusion]

Do you have any references on that? I was under the impression being cold didn't really burn that many more calories. I'll stop wearing a jacket if I can burn hundreds of calories.

[_0w8t]

Just read hypothermics.com . Its author, Ray Cronise, has done a lot of measurements using proper equipment.

And anecdotaly I have a co-worker who was into serious climbing. Before a high climb like over 6km he on purpose typically gained like 5 kilos of weight and still came back learner from the trip. And he knows for sure that that was due to coldness as on much more physically demanding trips at warmer altitudes weight loss was much smaller.

[rjsw]

My understanding is that you also burn more energy at altitude.

This has been given as one of the problems that Scott faced when man-hauling sledges on the Antarctic plateau at 3000m.

[bmelton]

"Being cold" does not have any particular caloric advantage until and unless you are cold enough to shiver. Shivering, as it happens, is a fantastic way to burn calories, and 15 minutes of shivering is equivalent to approximately an hour's worth of exercise.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/317620-how-many-calories-a...

[JoeAltmaier]

That link contradicts that?

"even mild cold that doesn't cause you to shiver starts to burn through those brown fat stores, jumpstarting your caloric burn rate."

Famously, Inuit team drivers for Arctic expeditions would eat all the butter out of the food supplies first.

[bmelton]

Indeed. Thanks for the correction. The science, as I understand it, is that just being cold, but not to the point of shivering, will help boost your metabolism if you're performing exercise, while just being cold while idle will burn a basically insignificant amount of calories.

[Retric]

Sitting in a cold room burns an extra 50+ calories an hour if you are not dressed for it. That does add up, but is also unpleasant.

[awjr]

That's an interesting one I had not considered. Culturally living in a cold environment and not wrapping up warm will have an effect on calorie burn.

[Xdafjgneoiwe]

You are right that being active is also very important for cardiovascular health. However, you cannot underestimate the importance of diet as it too is a daily reoccurent factor for health.

[awjr]

Agreed but when you look at the Dutch diet, it really is not good. I mean sprinkles on toast really is not food. However the assumption is that, you as a child, will get to school by walking or cycling and you will get around for most of your childhood independently by bicycle.

The Dutch are unusually active in general, and this may well be down to their environment encouraging being active from birth.

I'm not saying diet is not a factor (1 in 10 are obese), but, the UK is currently at 27% (1 in 4), the worst in Europe heading for 35% (1 in 3) obese by 2030 with a similar diet profile to the Dutch, indicating about 25% of obesity will be down to environment. The US is even worse. Both the US and UK have an extremely car dependent design philosophy. One that the US is rapidly tackling through road diets. However planning is still a step behind at the moment.

I'm not disputing diet is vital, but if you have to get into a car to do a 0-5 mile journey because the "roads are too dangerous to cycle" or you won't let your kids walk/cycle to school 2 miles away you end up with an obesity problem no matter how good the population's diet.