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.
It is amazing that some people fail to see the connection between our built environment and obesity.
It's amazing that so many people in this forum believe they should determine how everyone else needs to live to under the pretext of "health" based upon such weak causal analysis. The objective was obvious and the veil was poorly manufactured.
It's amazing that so many people in this forum believe they should determine how everyone else needs to live to under the pretext of "health" based upon such weak causal analysis. The objective was obvious and the veil was poorly manufactured.
Actually it is important to be concerned about your health. Are you one of those who has no interest in your own physical health? You know belly fat is some of the most dangerous fat to have.
Also, walkable communities doesn't mean you have to stop driving. If you want to drive, no one is stopping you.
They can afford to go to gym if they choose to do so. Just because there isn't an convenience store at the corner or a outdoor cafe, it does not mean you are unable to walk there. I can't explain what goes through the head of people who cross six lanes of traffic mid-block but that doesn't mean it is not possible to walk in that environment.
They can afford to go to gym if they choose to do so. Just because there isn't an convenience store at the corner or a outdoor cafe, it does not mean you are unable to walk there. I can't explain what goes through the head of people who cross six lanes of traffic mid-block but that doesn't mean it is not possible to walk in that environment.
That is usually the sign of a car dependent community.
Sure, one can work out at a gym, there are gyms in walkable communities as well. What seems ironic is driving to the gym to workout because it is too hard to walk to the gym because there are too many dangerous areas for a pedestrian in a car dependent community.
Of course there are people like me, it is much easier to get me to ride my bike for my commute 13 miles a day than it is to get me into a gym to workout.
It is amazing that some people fail to see the connection between our built environment and obesity.
Yes, the highest rates of obesity are in the inner-cities. People do seem to not see that connection. Suburbanites have the best health of all the residential categories. Obesity, physical activity, and the urban environment: public health research needs
**Persistent trends in overweight and obesity have resulted in a rapid research effort focused on built environment, physical activity, and overweight. Much of the focus of this research has been on the design and form of suburbs. It suggests that several features of the suburban built environment such as low densities, poor street connectivity and the lack of sidewalks are associated with decreased physical activity and an increased risk of being overweight. But compared to suburban residents, inner city populations have higher rates of obesity and inactivity despite living in neighborhoods that are dense, have excellent street connectivity and who's streets are almost universally lined with sidewalks.**
City vs. Country: Who Is Healthier? - WSJ
**In many measures, residents of suburban areas are the best off. They generally rate their own health the highest and have the fewest premature deaths than either their urban or rural counterparts. Suburbanites also have the fewest low-birth-weight babies, homicides and sexually transmitted diseases.
"Suburbs rule!" says CHR deputy director Bridget Booske, a senior scientist at the University of Wisconsin's Population Health Institute, which produces the rankings with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.**
Yes, the highest rates of obesity are in the inner-cities. People do seem to not see that connection. Suburbanites have the best health of all the residential categories. Obesity, physical activity, and the urban environment: public health research needs
**Persistent trends in overweight and obesity have resulted in a rapid research effort focused on built environment, physical activity, and overweight. Much of the focus of this research has been on the design and form of suburbs. It suggests that several features of the suburban built environment such as low densities, poor street connectivity and the lack of sidewalks are associated with decreased physical activity and an increased risk of being overweight. But compared to suburban residents, inner city populations have higher rates of obesity and inactivity despite living in neighborhoods that are dense, have excellent street connectivity and who's streets are almost universally lined with sidewalks.**
City vs. Country: Who Is Healthier? - WSJ
**In many measures, residents of suburban areas are the best off. They generally rate their own health the highest and have the fewest premature deaths than either their urban or rural counterparts. Suburbanites also have the fewest low-birth-weight babies, homicides and sexually transmitted diseases.
"Suburbs rule!" says CHR deputy director Bridget Booske, a senior scientist at the University of Wisconsin's Population Health Institute, which produces the rankings with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.**
Yes, indeedy, people are missing the point!
From your own link.
"One consequence of this mismatch is that fewer inner city residents can walk or take local public transportation to work. They have long commutes, particularly the significant numbers that do not own cars, which ultimately could leave them little free time to be physically active or to socialize with their neighbors"
This means we have destabilized a number of our inner cities by forcing them to be car dependent in order to get to jobs.
Your link has nothing to do with suburban vs urban, it is about the issues we have with the damages that have been done to low income groups in cities as we have basically destroyed so many walkable communities in inner city neighborhoods.
36777010]It's amazing that so many people in this forum believe they should determine how everyone else needs to live[/u] to under the pretext of "health" based upon such weak causal analysis. The objective was obvious and the veil was poorly manufactured.
Speaking for myself here, I don't give a dam how you live. But since the cities we build today will serve the needs of myself, my children and my grandchildren, I want to give them the most OPTIONS possible. We have spent the last 100 years building a mostly car centric environment. Do you really believe that single occupancy, fossil fuel burning cars will be the majority of personal transportation in 50 years?
Talk about something that adds nothing to the conversation! We don't need this "dump on America" stuff any more than we need the "my unhappy childhood is a fault of the suburbs" compost.
Perhaps the environment Americans live in contributes to the fact that 65% of them are overweight or obese.
That is usually the sign of a car dependent community.
Sure, one can work out at a gym, there are gyms in walkable communities as well. What seems ironic is driving to the gym to workout because it is too hard to walk to the gym because there are too many dangerous areas for a pedestrian in a car dependent community.
Of course there are people like me, it is much easier to get me to ride my bike for my commute 13 miles a day than it is to get me into a gym to workout.
The location of the gym wasn't the point. They don't need what you define as a "walkable" environment to lose weight. Back to walking, If people make poor choice in walking, they put themselves at risk anywhere. What determines a good place to walk as well as attractiveness is subjective.
If riding your bike is easier, that's great but there are people who prefer to go to the gym. How they get there is not important and was never the focus. Whether you think walking is too hard in a certain environment is your problem. Whether people want to lose weight is their problem.
The location of the gym wasn't the point. They don't need what you define as a "walkable" environment to lose weight. Back to walking, If people make poor choice in walking, they put themselves at risk anywhere. What determines a good place to walk as well as attractiveness is subjective.
If riding your bike is easier, that's great but there are people who prefer to go to the gym. How they get there is not important and was never the focus. Whether you think walking is too hard in a certain environment is your problem. Whether people want to lose weight is their problem.
That is all we are saying with wanting walkable neighborhoods. Do you know why I bike to work? Because it is easy for me to bike to work. When I lived in a car dependent community, I would have been killed trying to ride my bike to work. That wasn't even a real option.
All we are saying is that communities should be able to offer options to people besides just commuting by car.
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.
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.
