OVERSIZE CLOTHING UK -

It’s been a disappointing spring for those determined to pin the rise in obesity on something other than personal choice and habit. And while the search for outside culprits will go on — there is too much funding spurring the hunt — three prominent suspects may have been cleared.

First, large numbers of overweight poor Americans do not live in “food deserts” where they have little choice but to load up on chips and soda at a convenience store.

Second, proximity to fast-food or convenience shops does not promote obesity.

And third, Americans do not stuff themselves on fatty processed foods because they’re cheaper than healthy options.

These claims have garnered a lot of attention in recent years and even a gloss of academic support. But they’ve been gravely undermined by recent studies and will be difficult to revive.

The least plausible of the three was always the idea that healthy food was pricier than junk alternatives. If you’re wondering how anyone who actually buys groceries could make such a claim, it’s because the comparison was based, conveniently, on price per calorie. Yet most of us buy food based on how much we expect to eat. So when Department of Agriculture researchers compared food high in saturated fat and processed sugars with fruits, vegetables, grains and dairy products based on portion size and edible weight, they found the good stuff was cheaper.

As for food deserts, that theory is a basic staple for anti-obesity activists. Yet two recent studies — one by the RAND Corp. and the other published in the journal Social Science & Medicine — found no evidence for the claim after taking a close look at national data.

Yes, poor neighborhoods generally have “greater access to fast-food restaurants and convenience stores” than other neighborhoods, writes Helen Lee in Social Science & Medicine, but “they also have access to large-scale grocery stores and full-service restaurants … there are no significant differences across neighborhoods.”

Just as significant, she found “children who experience greater exposure to fast-food or convenience food establishments … are no more likely to gain excess weight than their counterparts who experience less exposure.”

The Colorado Health Foundation features several reports on its website promoting the idea that Colorado is in dire need of more grocery stores. One by the Food Trust identifies West Central Denver and Northeast Denver as food deserts, and demands “significant public investment” to rectify matters.

Yet the report’s own color-coded maps offer ambiguous evidence for this contention and are based not on actual availability of nutritious food, but on weekly supermarket sales volume. Is East Colfax really grocery deprived, for example? I can think of five or six grocery stores (the sixth I’ve not been in) well stocked with healthy food within four blocks of Colfax between downtown and Fitzsimons.

This is not to say some neighborhoods aren’t farther from grocery stores than others, or that the home-bound or those without cars don’t face challenges, or that it shouldn’t break your heart to see the growing number of fat kids.

But as Lee writes, “These findings … underscore the importance of familiar and home environments in explaining obesity risk among young children.”

Carson C. Chow, a scientist with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, was quoted in The New York Times last week saying we are growing fatter because the price of food in recent decades has “plummeted, while the number of calories available to the average American grew by about 1,000 a day. Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it!”

Who’s to blame for growing waistlines? Let’s look in the mirror.

E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.

It’s been a disappointing spring for those determined to pin the rise in obesity on something other than personal choice and habit. And while the search for outside culprits will go on — there is too much funding spurring the hunt — three prominent suspects may have been cleared.

First, large numbers of overweight poor Americans do not live in “food deserts” where they have little choice but to load up on chips and soda at a convenience store.

Second, proximity to fast-food or convenience shops does not promote obesity.

And third, Americans do not stuff themselves on fatty processed foods because they’re cheaper than healthy options.

These claims have garnered a lot of attention in recent years and even a gloss of academic support. But they’ve been gravely undermined by recent studies and will be difficult to revive.

The least plausible of the three was always the idea that healthy food was pricier than junk alternatives. If you’re wondering how anyone who actually buys groceries could make such a claim, it’s because the comparison was based, conveniently, on price per calorie. Yet most of us buy food based on how much we expect to eat. So when Department of Agriculture researchers compared food high in saturated fat and processed sugars with fruits, vegetables, grains and dairy products based on portion size and edible weight, they found the good stuff was cheaper.

As for food deserts, that theory is a basic staple for anti-obesity activists. Yet two recent studies — one by the RAND Corp. and the other published in the journal Social Science & Medicine — found no evidence for the claim after taking a close look at national data.

Yes, poor neighborhoods generally have “greater access to fast-food restaurants and convenience stores” than other neighborhoods, writes Helen Lee in Social Science & Medicine, but “they also have access to large-scale grocery stores and full-service restaurants … there are no significant differences across neighborhoods.”

Just as significant, she found “children who experience greater exposure to fast-food or convenience food establishments … are no more likely to gain excess weight than their counterparts who experience less exposure.”

The Colorado Health Foundation features several reports on its website promoting the idea that Colorado is in dire need of more grocery stores. One by the Food Trust identifies West Central Denver and Northeast Denver as food deserts, and demands “significant public investment” to rectify matters.

Yet the report’s own color-coded maps offer ambiguous evidence for this contention and are based not on actual availability of nutritious food, but on weekly supermarket sales volume. Is East Colfax really grocery deprived, for example? I can think of five or six grocery stores (the sixth I’ve not been in) well stocked with healthy food within four blocks of Colfax between downtown and Fitzsimons.

This is not to say some neighborhoods aren’t farther from grocery stores than others, or that the home-bound or those without cars don’t face challenges, or that it shouldn’t break your heart to see the growing number of fat kids.

But as Lee writes, “These findings … underscore the importance of familiar and home environments in explaining obesity risk among young children.”

Carson C. Chow, a scientist with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, was quoted in The New York Times last week saying we are growing fatter because the price of food in recent decades has “plummeted, while the number of calories available to the average American grew by about 1,000 a day. Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it!”

Who’s to blame for growing waistlines? Let’s look in the mirror.

E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.

It’s been a disappointing spring for those determined to pin the rise in obesity on something other than personal choice and habit. And while the search for outside culprits will go on — there is too much funding spurring the hunt — three prominent suspects may have been cleared.

First, large numbers of overweight poor Americans do not live in “food deserts” where they have little choice but to load up on chips and soda at a convenience store.

Second, proximity to fast-food or convenience shops does not promote obesity.

And third, Americans do not stuff themselves on fatty processed foods because they’re cheaper than healthy options.

These claims have garnered a lot of attention in recent years and even a gloss of academic support. But they’ve been gravely undermined by recent studies and will be difficult to revive.

The least plausible of the three was always the idea that healthy food was pricier than junk alternatives. If you’re wondering how anyone who actually buys groceries could make such a claim, it’s because the comparison was based, conveniently, on price per calorie. Yet most of us buy food based on how much we expect to eat. So when Department of Agriculture researchers compared food high in saturated fat and processed sugars with fruits, vegetables, grains and dairy products based on portion size and edible weight, they found the good stuff was cheaper.

As for food deserts, that theory is a basic staple for anti-obesity activists. Yet two recent studies — one by the RAND Corp. and the other published in the journal Social Science & Medicine — found no evidence for the claim after taking a close look at national data.

Yes, poor neighborhoods generally have “greater access to fast-food restaurants and convenience stores” than other neighborhoods, writes Helen Lee in Social Science & Medicine, but “they also have access to large-scale grocery stores and full-service restaurants … there are no significant differences across neighborhoods.”

Just as significant, she found “children who experience greater exposure to fast-food or convenience food establishments … are no more likely to gain excess weight than their counterparts who experience less exposure.”

The Colorado Health Foundation features several reports on its website promoting the idea that Colorado is in dire need of more grocery stores. One by the Food Trust identifies West Central Denver and Northeast Denver as food deserts, and demands “significant public investment” to rectify matters.

Yet the report’s own color-coded maps offer ambiguous evidence for this contention and are based not on actual availability of nutritious food, but on weekly supermarket sales volume. Is East Colfax really grocery deprived, for example? I can think of five or six grocery stores (the sixth I’ve not been in) well stocked with healthy food within four blocks of Colfax between downtown and Fitzsimons.

This is not to say some neighborhoods aren’t farther from grocery stores than others, or that the home-bound or those without cars don’t face challenges, or that it shouldn’t break your heart to see the growing number of fat kids.

But as Lee writes, “These findings … underscore the importance of familiar and home environments in explaining obesity risk among young children.”

Carson C. Chow, a scientist with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, was quoted in The New York Times last week saying we are growing fatter because the price of food in recent decades has “plummeted, while the number of calories available to the average American grew by about 1,000 a day. Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it!”

Who’s to blame for growing waistlines? Let’s look in the mirror.

E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.

It’s been a disappointing spring for those determined to pin the rise in obesity on something other than personal choice and habit. And while the search for outside culprits will go on — there is too much funding spurring the hunt — three prominent suspects may have been cleared.

First, large numbers of overweight poor Americans do not live in “food deserts” where they have little choice but to load up on chips and soda at a convenience store.

Second, proximity to fast-food or convenience shops does not promote obesity.

And third, Americans do not stuff themselves on fatty processed foods because they’re cheaper than healthy options.

These claims have garnered a lot of attention in recent years and even a gloss of academic support. But they’ve been gravely undermined by recent studies and will be difficult to revive.

The least plausible of the three was always the idea that healthy food was pricier than junk alternatives. If you’re wondering how anyone who actually buys groceries could make such a claim, it’s because the comparison was based, conveniently, on price per calorie. Yet most of us buy food based on how much we expect to eat. So when Department of Agriculture researchers compared food high in saturated fat and processed sugars with fruits, vegetables, grains and dairy products based on portion size and edible weight, they found the good stuff was cheaper.

As for food deserts, that theory is a basic staple for anti-obesity activists. Yet two recent studies — one by the RAND Corp. and the other published in the journal Social Science & Medicine — found no evidence for the claim after taking a close look at national data.

Yes, poor neighborhoods generally have “greater access to fast-food restaurants and convenience stores” than other neighborhoods, writes Helen Lee in Social Science & Medicine, but “they also have access to large-scale grocery stores and full-service restaurants … there are no significant differences across neighborhoods.”

Just as significant, she found “children who experience greater exposure to fast-food or convenience food establishments … are no more likely to gain excess weight than their counterparts who experience less exposure.”

The Colorado Health Foundation features several reports on its website promoting the idea that Colorado is in dire need of more grocery stores. One by the Food Trust identifies West Central Denver and Northeast Denver as food deserts, and demands “significant public investment” to rectify matters.

Yet the report’s own color-coded maps offer ambiguous evidence for this contention and are based not on actual availability of nutritious food, but on weekly supermarket sales volume. Is East Colfax really grocery deprived, for example? I can think of five or six grocery stores (the sixth I’ve not been in) well stocked with healthy food within four blocks of Colfax between downtown and Fitzsimons.

This is not to say some neighborhoods aren’t farther from grocery stores than others, or that the home-bound or those without cars don’t face challenges, or that it shouldn’t break your heart to see the growing number of fat kids.

But as Lee writes, “These findings … underscore the importance of familiar and home environments in explaining obesity risk among young children.”

Carson C. Chow, a scientist with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, was quoted in The New York Times last week saying we are growing fatter because the price of food in recent decades has “plummeted, while the number of calories available to the average American grew by about 1,000 a day. Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it!”

Who’s to blame for growing waistlines? Let’s look in the mirror.

E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.