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.
Ha, ha! I see no one looked at my links. If they had, they would have found that one of them from about.com was the wrong link. It should have been this: What Is a Moderate Intensity Exercise? I just discovered this when I went to look at it again.
Anyway, according to the link within the link: Perceived Exertion Scale - Exercise for walking to qualify as "brisk" you should be "just above comfortable, (are) sweating more and can still talk easily"; sweating more meaning more than in the previous level. So unless you're sweating pretty hard, and are a little uncomfortable, it's not "brisk" walking.
The quote from this link: How Fast is a Brisk Walking Pace? might also help: "Brisk walking actually refers to your exertion. For your walking pace to be brisk, you need to be breathing harder than usual."
So some of you fit young guys may have to pick up the pace to get some benefit from your walking. Here is another quote from the "Brisk Walking" link:
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that brisk walking is at a pace of three miles per hour or more (but not racewalking) or roughly 20 minutes per mile. That equates to about five kilometers per hour or 12 minutes per kilometer.
However, fitter people still will not be in a moderately intense exercise zone at that pace. A pace of 15 minutes per mile, or four miles per hour, is more likely to put fitter people into a moderately intense exercise zone. That equates to 9 minutes, 15 seconds per kilometer or 6.5 kilometers per hour."
I have done a lot of walking in my life, and frankly, I never "power-walked" to the bus stop, to work, across campus, or whatever unless I was running late.
I have clarified just how hard you have to be walking. The real test of it is your heart rate, which is discussed in one of the links.
I'm not fit, so I guess it's good to know that I really am exercising when I walk to work. (takes about 30 minutes, and, according to Google, it's about 1.5 miles)
It seems like we're losing sight of why the fitness aspect of walking was brought up to begin with. If one is fit, then they don't need walking to count as exercise. If they aren't fit, but choose to live in a walkable neighborhood, they are likely going to walk more than they would in an auto-centric neighborhood. And, any exercise is better than no exercise, even if it's not as much exercise as that unfit person needs.
I'm not fit, so I guess it's good to know that I really am exercising when I walk to work. (takes about 30 minutes, and, according to Google, it's about 1.5 miles)
It seems like we're losing sight of why the fitness aspect of walking was brought up to begin with. If one is fit, then they don't need walking to count as exercise. If they aren't fit, but choose to live in a walkable neighborhood, they are likely going to walk more than they would in an auto-centric neighborhood. And, any exercise is better than no exercise, even if it's not as much exercise as that unfit person needs.
Ha, ha! I see no one looked at my links. If they had, they would have found that one of them from about.com was the wrong link.
No, I haven't had much internet time, I saw it defined as 20 minutes.
Quote:
I have done a lot of walking in my life, and frankly, I never "power-walked" to the bus stop, to work, across campus, or whatever unless I was running late.
I won't normally either, though I do walk around a pace of 20 minutes, and know many others (including a rather overweight friend) who has a similar pace. But I wouldn't call that "power walking", but no it doesn't really count as brisk walking for myself.
I do a light jog to the bus stop half the time, but am I running late half the time for the bus. Why not run late? I can procrastinate and get exercise at the same time.
Not in anywhere congested. Not even for me, where my bike ride is through semi-rural areas. 30 min bike ride = 7.5 mi (reasonable for anyone biking regularly). You'd an average of 45 mph to get that in 10 minutes, unlikely with lights. 5 minutes is rather impossible.
Not saying it's the norm, but my commute to university took around the same amount of time riding a bike or driving a car when traffic was normal (around 15-20 minutes for a bit less than 4 miles). In case of heavy traffic, bike was faster, thanks to bus lanes and a couple bike-only shortcuts. In the middle of the night, car would be faster.
I'm not fit, so I guess it's good to know that I really am exercising when I walk to work. (takes about 30 minutes, and, according to Google, it's about 1.5 miles)
It seems like we're losing sight of why the fitness aspect of walking was brought up to begin with. If one is fit, then they don't need walking to count as exercise. If they aren't fit, but choose to live in a walkable neighborhood, they are likely going to walk more than they would in an auto-centric neighborhood. And, any exercise is better than no exercise, even if it's not as much exercise as that unfit person needs.
And yet, the highest rates of obesity (and one might add by inference, unfitness) are in the walkable neighborhoods of the inner cities.
And yet, the highest rates of obesity (and one might add by inference, unfitness) are in the walkable neighborhoods of the inner cities.
Actually the highest rates of obesity are in very poor urban neighborhoods. That has more to do with economics and less to do with the walkability of a neighborhood. I did read that report you posted....guess you didn't.
Actually the highest rates of obesity are in very poor urban neighborhoods. That has more to do with economics and less to do with the walkability of a neighborhood. I did read that report you posted....guess you didn't.
Exactly. The infrastructure for walkability is there, but it's often in poor repair, and there is little to walk to. Often, in my experience, the establishments one can expect to find in these neighborhoods are: corner stores, (that specialize in beer, wine, soda, and chips) dive bars, (think Moe's Tavern, from The Simpsons) used car lots, maybe a Chinese takeout place in an old Dairy Queen, and lots of empty storefronts.
Actually the highest rates of obesity are in very poor urban neighborhoods. That has more to do with economics and less to do with the walkability of a neighborhood. I did read that report you posted....guess you didn't.
I don't remember just which report you're talking about. The link I posted about walkablility in Phoenix did note that despite everything the urban planners tell us is necessary for walkablility in the low income neighborhoods, e.g. parks, grid system, etc, people there had high rates of obesity. It would seem to me that's an indictment of "Urban Planning 101" principals. Surprise, there's more to it than that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C
Exactly. The infrastructure for walkability is there, but it's often in poor repair, and there is little to walk to. Often, in my experience, the establishments one can expect to find in these neighborhoods are: corner stores, (that specialize in beer, wine, soda, and chips) dive bars, (think Moe's Tavern, from The Simpsons) used car lots, maybe a Chinese takeout place in an old Dairy Queen, and lots of empty storefronts.
Actually, the link I posted said there were parks and I believe shopping in these urban 'hoods. The study was done in Phoenix; not as much decay there as in the rust belt.
You know, I'm really glad I put you on ignore. The only time I see your posts is when someone else quotes them, or when I'm feeling particularly masochistic. When I clicked on your quote in JR_C's post, it took me back to the post I quoted above.
I don't remember just which report you're talking about. The link I posted about walkablility in Phoenix did note that despite everything the urban planners tell us is necessary for walkablility in the low income neighborhoods, e.g. parks, grid system, etc, people there had high rates of obesity. It would seem to me that's an indictment of "Urban Planning 101" principals. Surprise, there's more to it than that!
Actually, the link I posted said there were parks and I believe shopping in these urban 'hoods. The study was done in Phoenix; not as much decay there as in the rust belt.
I posted that? Hmm. Well, the conclusion is that research has focused on the suburbs, and needs to be done in the city.
**Recent research on the health impacts of the built environment has led to a better understanding of how contemporary land use planning may influence physical activity, obesity and related chronic diseases. Much of the focus of this research has been on suburban development design and form. Comparable research on the relationship of the built environment and health is needed for urban, especially inner city, neighborhoods.**
Also:
**Street trees, along with other pedestrian amenities, have been found to be a promoting factor in physical activity [40]. In many urban areas, street canopies are disappearing as disease, age, and lack of maintenance of new trees, slowly reduce the number of trees. When cities suffer fiscal constraints, the budgets of parks and recreation departments are generally the first to be cut; and replacement of urban street becomes a low priority. Further, evidence suggests that trees are more likely to be replaced in higher income communities than in neighborhoods with more poor households and people of color [41].**
I'll look for the article I was referring to. I know I've posted it here on Urban Planning at least twice.
ETA: Here's the abstract. IIRC, it touched off a firestorm on this forum. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19751959
**We find that, counter to predictions, subpopulations generally considered vulnerable to obesity (and environmental injustices more generally) are more likely to live in walkable neighborhoods and have better walking access to neighborhood parks than other groups in Phoenix.**
Last edited by nei; 10-14-2014 at 12:47 AM..
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.
