It might also be interesting to look at the price of the neighborhood.

Are people living in $500,000 homes more affluent and less likely to be active or are people living in $100,000 homes more likely to be less affluent and less likely to take care of themselves?

Another misleading headline -

My weight is determined mostly by me.

I can't blame my neighbors, nor the age or price of my house.

Even if everyone else around me is obese, I can step out my door and walk, or for faster results, I can do push-aways (from the table).

This may be true and reasonable assumption. The new homes have no yards or land to utilize for personal enjoyment. The strip homes built in high density force the owners to leave them to be outdoors. There is no privacy, only independent apartment complexes with minimal space between them. The value of a home has nothing to do with it, being able to enjoy it is what counts. Older neighborhoods have reasonable space between homes and larger yards that can actively be used. The newer sand box castles can't have any outdoor activities, even for their kids, so every thing is done indoors sitting on the couch or floor. It's sardine housing and who feels comfortable in a sardine can? You end up hating where you live and disliking the neighborhood. In 20 years these newer homes will be the slum areas with dense populations because of their undesireable developement. People are in them only because they didn't need to have any money or resources to move in. The apartment walls have just been spaced out farther with dead airspace between them. Now that money is required to enter (buy) these homes they will become a blight area.

Confusing comments. I think the newer areas the author refers to are the Rivertons, Herrimans, South Jordans on the west side and the Drapers, Sandys on the east side but many 60's neighborhood suffer the same problem: the only way to get to any business is to get in your car. Those residential areas often have sizable backyards but that doesn't mean they're utilized for exercise. I don't know too many adults who run or work out in their large backyard.

What the researchers are saying is that certain types of neighborhoods are conducive to getting out and burning calories just to accomplish what other neighborhoods require a car to do.

Recently, I invited my husband to join me to go to the grocery store 5 1/2 blocks away. He headed for the car; I told him we only needed two items and could walk. You should have seen the shock on his face. This is a safe walk, with sidewalks all the way. I often bike it as well. By the way, it's a steep walk back up to our house.

This is a classical case of "correlation is not necessarily causation." While there may be an association between a person's BMI and where they live, there are many many factors that determine a person's health, like, say, what a person eats, what job they do, if they are athletic, etc. etc. Walkability may have a tiny effect on a person's BMI, but I doubt that these findings are worth noting. Of course if you walk more you might have a lower BMI, but the structure of your neighborhood likely has little to do with it compared with other factors. I'm sure the researchers controlled for various factors, but this sounds like another study that isn't worth paying much attention to.

I agree with "a Walker" and think the other posters are missing the point.

The neighborhood in which I currently live is very walkable. My family and I can walk to school, the store, the library, several parks, church, restaurants, theaters and other entertainment venues.

I have also lived in a neighborhood in which none of these destinations were in practical walking distance.

With gas prices skyrocketing, more people are looking for alternative ways to get where they are going. Those in walkable communities have walking as an option. Those in non-walkable communities do not. People who walk more are more likely to have a healthier weight. It makes sense that statistically they are found in higher concentrations in neighborhoods that are walkable.

Bob, I think higher density housing, in general, increases the walkability of neighborhoods. I think it is the cul-de-sac mentality that significantly reduces the practicality of walking and even mass-transit.

I've walked a few neighborhoods in Salt Lake County myself and my personal experience is that the lovely, established neighborhoods are the ones I want to go walking in. If everyone paid a little more attention to making all neighborhoods more walker friendly, everyone would benefit and be healthier and happier.

I live in West Jordan and have a large back yard as do many of my neighbors. I am one of those adults who "work out" in my back yard almost every day. Most everyone with a large yard has a lot of work to keep up with it, even if it is just taking care of horses.

This is really important and timely research and I hope it finds a place in future planning and redevelopment.