U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-09-2014, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,657,858 times
Reputation: 4508

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius View Post
From your link



That is a personal problem and has nothing to do with the environment itself.

Just because a sidewalk or a paved path isn't available, it does not mean you are incapable of walking, exercising or biking. Every road isn't design like an interstate. If hot water isn't available, are you not going to shower? Some of you put "walkable" in the category of convenience and aesthetics. A walking environment does not encourage walking if the person choose not to do so. That has been my point the whole time. Anyone can make use of any environment however they see fit if they have the mindset to do so, something that was lacking from the people in that study.

If you want convenience, that's fine but some people don't need that. There is a connection from obesity to our environment but it has nothing to do this topic. Obesity was only brought up another poster as a guilt trip. Sorry, I'm not falling for it.

Go ahead and bring up the studies. They're only as good as the person who design them. All I got from that study is that because people underestimated their time, desire, and money. it's a waste. That does not convince me that the walking environment is better for exercising. If they don't make time to go to the gym, then they won't make time to go out and walk.
I hate exercise for the sake of exercise. You couldn't pay me to join a gym. Living in a walkable community lets me run at least some of my daily errands on foot. When I lived in a community that wasn't walkable, (no sidewalks, half-hour walk to the nearest store, etc.) I walked much less, and wouldn't have walked at all, if I could drive.

Of course one can still drive, if they live in a walkable community. But, if walking is as convenient and pleasant, or even more convenient and pleasant than driving, more people are likely to walk. So, for someone like me, who has no interest in exercise, a little activity is better than no activity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2014, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I hate exercise for the sake of exercise. You couldn't pay me to join a gym. Living in a walkable community lets me run at least some of my daily errands on foot. When I lived in a community that wasn't walkable, (no sidewalks, half-hour walk to the nearest store, etc.) I walked much less, and wouldn't have walked at all, if I could drive.

Of course one can still drive, if they live in a walkable community. But, if walking is as convenient and pleasant, or even more convenient and pleasant than driving, more people are likely to walk. So, for someone like me, who has no interest in exercise, a little activity is better than no activity.
So you're point is everyone should have to live in a walkable community because you're too lazy to exercise? Walking isn't really exercise anyway. I can walk all day long at 3-4 miles per hour and never get any even moderate exercise. It just won't elevate my heart rate enough to constitute moderate activity, and I'm hardly in excellent shape. It also does nothing for the resistance training you should also be doing.

So while it's great that living somewhere forces you to lead a marginally less sedentary lifestyle, what does that have to do with someone who is less lazy? I actually like walking for the sake of walking. Typically take my dogs on a walk or a jog once or twice a day. I don't have any interest in living somewhere where it's more convenient to walk than drive. I work in a nine-county area, and those areas frankly suck to drive in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2014, 05:30 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,563,164 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
So you're point is everyone should have to live in a walkable community because you're too lazy to exercise?
No, their point is that they like to live in a walkable community because they're too lazy to exercise. "I like to do X" is not the same as "Everyone should be forced to do X."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
So while it's great that living somewhere forces you to lead a marginally less sedentary lifestyle, what does that have to do with someone who is less lazy?
Someone who is marginally less lazy would be just as happy in a walkable neighborhood, because they could exercise their own preference for more active exercise. My own walkable neighborhood is filled with joggers and people walking their dogs, people doing yoga and tai chi or playing sportsball in neighborhood parks, cyclists riding their bikes down the street, and otherwise engaging in more strenuous physical activity alongside those of us walking at a leisurely pace--or driving our cars down the street. None of this behavior is forced--just personal preference meeting the marketplace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2014, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Someone who is marginally less lazy would be just as happy in a walkable neighborhood, because they could exercise their own preference for more active exercise. My own walkable neighborhood is filled with joggers and people walking their dogs, people doing yoga and tai chi or playing sportsball in neighborhood parks, cyclists riding their bikes down the street, and otherwise engaging in more strenuous physical activity alongside those of us walking at a leisurely pace--or driving our cars down the street. None of this behavior is forced--just personal preference meeting the marketplace.
Cool

So is my non-walkable neighborhood. Of course, if you listen to many of the posters since I live in a suburb I just drive home from work on watch TV all day

But at the end of the day, I'm sure that you're right about where other people would rather live and they'd all be just as happy (or more likely happier) living in Midtown with lousy schools, high crime, very high real estate prices relative to the surroundings, more noise, parking issues. Nobody actually would prefer to live somewhere where drunk people didn't go hollering down the streets, remembering to move your car you don't drive to avoid the street cleaning ticket, etc, etc, are just part of life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2014, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,519,126 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
So you're point is everyone should have to live in a walkable community because you're too lazy to exercise? Walking isn't really exercise anyway. I can walk all day long at 3-4 miles per hour and never get any even moderate exercise. It just won't elevate my heart rate enough to constitute moderate activity, and I'm hardly in excellent shape. It also does nothing for the resistance training you should also be doing.

So while it's great that living somewhere forces you to lead a marginally less sedentary lifestyle, what does that have to do with someone who is less lazy? I actually like walking for the sake of walking. Typically take my dogs on a walk or a jog once or twice a day. I don't have any interest in living somewhere where it's more convenient to walk than drive. I work in a nine-county area, and those areas frankly suck to drive in.
It sounds like walking does have some actual exercise value to it.

Top 10 health benefits of walking every day
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2014, 05:48 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,265,973 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
So you're point is everyone should have to live in a walkable community because you're too lazy to exercise? Walking isn't really exercise anyway. I can walk all day long at 3-4 miles per hour and never get any even moderate exercise. It just won't elevate my heart rate enough to constitute moderate activity, and I'm hardly in excellent shape. It also does nothing for the resistance training you should also be doing.

This is a big misconception. Walking has countless health benefits that have been scientifically proven. It's probably the best form of exercise there is. And if you want to burn calories quicker then just walk faster or jog. Resistance training is for building muscle. It isn't required for good health, but walking is absolutely essential.


Walking Benefits - Dr. Oz & Dr. Roizen on Benefits of Walking - Walking - Sharecare

Walking: Trim your waistline, improve your health - Mayo Clinic

American Heart Association - The Benefits of Walking

8 Astonishing Benefits of Walking | Rodale News

Mental Benefits of Walking | Emotional Benefits of Exercise | Arthritis Today Magazine
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2014, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,519,126 times
Reputation: 7830
Then of course there is biking, something that is much easier to do in a walkable community than it is in a car centric community. That will really burn calories and help with muscle building.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2014, 06:10 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,827,437 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Then of course there is biking, something that is much easier to do in a walkable community than it is in a car centric community. That will really burn calories and help with muscle building.
Tell me again how easy it is to bike in Manhattan...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2014, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,519,126 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Tell me again how easy it is to bike in Manhattan...
It depends on where you want to bike in Manhattan, but then again Manhattan isn't the best example because it is such a unique city for this country. It is hard to walk, bike, or drive a car in Manhattan because there are actually too many people in such a small amount of space.

Now Brooklyn on the other hand is a much easier place to get around on bike because of how that Borough is structured.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2014, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
This is a big misconception. Walking has countless health benefits that have been scientifically proven. It's probably the best form of exercise there is. And if you want to burn calories quicker then just walk faster or jog. Resistance training is for building muscle. It isn't required for good health, but walking is absolutely essential.


Walking Benefits - Dr. Oz & Dr. Roizen on Benefits of Walking - Walking - Sharecare

Walking: Trim your waistline, improve your health - Mayo Clinic

American Heart Association - The Benefits of Walking

8 Astonishing Benefits of Walking | Rodale News

Mental Benefits of Walking | Emotional Benefits of Exercise | Arthritis Today Magazine

Yes, if you're 80 and have arthritis it might be. I'm not 80.

And you're completely wrong by the way.
Physical Activity for Everyone: Guidelines: Adults | DNPAO | CDC
150 minutes of moderate-intensity cardio AND two full-body resistance training workouts per week. We're not talking about bench pressing 300 lbs here like some gym rat. The CDC levels are extremely minimal.

Moderate-intensity cardio is defined as 50-70% of maximum heart heart. My maximum heart rate is 198 beats per minute, so I'd need at a minimum to get it up to 98 beats per minute. Just hopped on my treadmill that sits under my desk and cranked it up to 4 mph. Heart rate? 92. No dice, not getting any real exercise. Of course, if you're totally sedentary and even fatter than I am maybe you'd get your heart pumping.

Not saying it's not good. I use a treadmill desk and walk 4 hours a day way slower than that (try typing at 4 mph, can't do.) Way better than sitting those 4 hours a day, but it's not exercise. And if you're someone that actually exercises, you don't waste time at <70% of maximum heart rate very often. There's no results down there. Back when I used to do double centuries (~10 hours or more since there were usually done in mountainous areas), I'd spend 10-14 hours closer to 80% of maximum heart rate.

That's not what I am talking about. I'm talking about the extremely minimal levels the CDC recommends for general health.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top