Over the last few years, real estate made a lot of people rich. And, according to some researchers, it may have also made many Americans fat.

Last week, this column expounded on the public relations techniques of anti-development activists, who have convinced the masses that urban sprawl is eating up the United States countryside. To the contrary, recently revised government statistics now say only 6.6 percent of U.S. land is considered developed.

But another government agency is providing Americans with yet another reason to hate so-called urban sprawl. Researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control contend that the design of modern suburbs has caused a sharp uptick in obesity among Americans.

"There are fewer opportunities in daily life to burn calories," says the CDC. "Children watch more television daily; many schools have done away with or cut back on physical education; many neighborhoods lack sidewalks for safe walking; the workplace has become increasingly automated; household chores are assisted by labor-saving machinery; and walking and cycling have been replaced by automobile travel for all but the shortest distances."

"Urban policymakers," says the CDC, "must provide more sidewalks, bike paths, and other alternatives to cars."

Well, maybe. CDC researchers also found that we eat more -- studies show that over a 20-year period daily food intake for men rose 215 calories per day while women consumed an additional 112 calories. Given that one pound equals 3,600 calories, 100 additional calories per day can produce an extra 10 pounds of weight per year if not worked off.

Americans may not want bulging waistlines, but most desire bulging wallets. And according to a review by Lend Lease Real Estate Investments, investors in real estate have scored big compared to the rest of the market over the last three years.

“Core” real estate investments -- including a lot of properties in allegedly fat-producing suburbs -- have significantly outperformed all major asset classes on a risk-adjusted basis, Lend Lease said in a recent report. What’s more, with a slowing economy moving the real estate markets toward equilibrium, Lend Lease expects “superior relative performance” to continue in the near future.

So what is “core” real estate investing? Simply put, this strategy minimizes risk both in individual assets and the investment portfolio as a whole. For example, individual assets with minimal risk include high-quality office, industrial, retail and multi-family properties that are substantially rented and carry 25 percent debt or less. In other words, we’re not talking about building on spec here.

A portfolio with minimal risk includes a mix of at least three of the above property types spread across broad geography. Like the old saying, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

The Lend Lease survey compared the Down Jones Utility Average, the S&P 500 and the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries Property Index from the third quarter of 1997 through the third quarter of 2000. This revealed an interesting, counter-intuitive truth. The big money was to be had in standard market indices, but the sure money could be found in real estate.

For the three-year time period, the Dow Utilities saw an average annual return of nearly 19 percent, while the S&P 500 gained almost 15 percent annually. The real estate index, meanwhile, earned a respectable 13.6 percent annually.

But once these numbers are adjusted for risk, the real estate index provided the safest strong return.

For more articles by Lesley Hensell, please press here.