It appears that having a large backyard to romp around in the early years has lifelong health benefits. So, a larger 'footprint' in the way of low density living works out to a smaller 'footprint' all the rest of your days in terms of how much it will take to support your appetite.
"Preliminary data from the Flinders University Achieving a Healthy Home Environment study, which surveyed the homes and lifestyles of 280 southern suburbs families, found the size and set-up of homes contributed largely to how fit and healthy young children were."
Thanks to Peter Gordon
Comments
Gee Peter (err Wendell) is that what the article really said??
"SOUTH Australian children with big backyards are less likely to be overweight and inactive than those with small courtyards, a study has found."
Funny I don't see anywhere where it mentions urban vs. suburban. Indeed it only compares housing types - those with a large backyard to those with a small or minimal backyard, not whether they're urban or suburban. Which of course begs the question, what about the other variables such a pedestrian friendliness, neighborhood schools that kids can actually walk to, and the quality and proximity of public space??
Considering that for decades now in the United States average lot sizes have been shrinking due to market forces (and the average house size increasing) I'm not really sure how this applies to our particular obesity epidemic. A transitive fallacy on your part perhaps Mr. Gordon?