Here's a real shocker -- several recent studies now say that if you live in a suburban community which relies on cars and SUVs you're likely to weigh more and die earlier than those who reside in cities where people walk more frequently.

The general idea seems to be that when you locate schools, shopping and other facilities far apart, people would rather ride than walk. That many suburban communities lack sidewalks is taken as evidence that we are evolving into a nation of non-walkers and over-eaters with all the health penalties one would expect from a lack of exercise and a surplus of dining.

The notion that we are becoming heavier is hardly news. But saying that urban sprawl is a major cause of the obesity problem is like arguing that ambulances should be banned because they're loud.

There's little doubt that obesity is a serious issue. Millions diet and more than 350,000 people have fat removal operations each year.

Government figures show that "31 percent of adults 20 years of age and over -- nearly 59 million people -- have a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 30 or greater, compared to 23 percent in 1994."

In plain terms, a lot of us are bigger than we should be.

But it's not community planning or suburban sprawl which stops us from eating less or exercising more. It's not a lack of information -- every publication and TV show seems to feature a new diet. It's also not money. As a certain well-muscled candidate for the California governorship has pointed out, it doesn't cost a penny to do a sit-up or a push-up.

Obesity is also blamed on too much television, fast food, huge portions, candy, soda and changing government definitions of what does or does not constitute too much weight. It's plain that community planning by itself will not solve the nation's obesity problem.

Whether community planning can impact the obesity problem at all is an open question: Bike paths and sidewalks are nice, but we cannot force people to use them.

"Physical inactivity contributes to 300,000 preventable deaths a year in the United States," says the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "Some 40 percent of deaths in the United States are caused by behavior patterns that could be modified. A sedentary lifestyle is a major risk factor across the spectrum of preventable diseases that lower the quality of life and kill Americans."

For all the complaints about suburban sprawl, the suburbs do seem to offer some benefits when compared with core metro areas -- more open space, larger lots, more parks, newer facilities, and affordable housing.

As well, creating suburbs is no longer an option. Our population is growing and people tend to cluster around desirable areas. It follows that the definition of metro areas and their surrounding suburbs must change over time as more people move in. Thus suburban sprawl is predestined -- more people equals a greater need for space.

There's no reason why suburbs can't have bike paths, parks and exercise areas -- and they do. Travel anywhere and you see joggers, bikers and walkers. You see people buying dogs in some measure because dogs and owners can then walk each day, something good for both of them.

You can be certain that coming to a town near you will be new "smart growth" proposals, now "justified" but the nation's bulging bellies. It's the same old stuff, centralized planning with more bureaucrats, more costs and more restrictions on property use.

But before we create a Presidential Council on Fitness and Zoning, what should we think of past efforts to zone and regulate every square inch of suburbia? If today's community planning got us into the obesity mess, why will more zoning and more bureaucrats get us out?

It's something to think about the next time you skip dessert.

For more articles by Peter G. Miller, please press here.