5 ms·

I find that car-driven, suburban culture makes this difficult to achieve. I have lived in many different environments: cities, villages, suburbs, even farms. On

by magpi3 5y ago

I find that car-driven, suburban culture makes this difficult to achieve. I have lived in many different environments: cities, villages, suburbs, even farms. Only in the suburbs was walking actually disincentivized. A comfortable house with a big TV and urban sprawl that made it impossible to walk anywhere useful just leads to a lot of sitting either on the couch or in the car. The ability to walk places whether it be your job or the supermarket makes such a huge, huge difference for a person's health.

lupire 5y ago
You can walk around your block with your dog, from the back of the parking lot to the shop, and around your big house. TV doesn't make walking impossible.
- 1270018080 5y ago
  Obviously not. But needed/not needing to walk are different. It's a lot easier to get 7000 steps in when you need to.
- markstos 5y ago
  The mention of TV doesn't matter here, it's that you are forced to drive to accomplish basic tasks. Yes, you can walk in the neighborhood when you get home, although a lack of sidewalks may discourage even that in some places. But you have less time due to driving your errands and exercise is not built into your day as it would be walking or biking was the transportation. Parking at the back of parking lot is a good idea if your best option is driving to the store.
- runevault 5y ago
  and if you still need entertainment just listen to a podcast or audiobook while you walk.
- ShakataGaNai 5y ago
  They didn't say walking was "impossible" just "disincentivized" which I'd have to agree with. A majority of the housing developments I've seen go up in the Bay Area put you several miles, at least, from any shopping. Your friends probably live way farther away than that. So you've got nowhere to "walk to", for a purpose. Sure it's probably walkable in so far as their are slow streets and sidewalks - but you have to walk for the sake of walking vs walking for destination hence "disincentivized". I go for a 30mn walk everyday in my neighborhood in the 'Burbs. It totally can be done, but just in the modern "go go go" society. Most people want walking to at least be a means to an end. And yes, I mean a directly "right here, right now" end, not "being health".
- brimble 5y ago
  "Possible" and "what you'll in fact see across a population in two different environments, all else being equal" are different things. Living some places means you'd have to struggle to stay under 5k steps per day. Living others means you have to go out of your way to break 5k steps.
markstos 5y ago
You are right. Obesity maps look like the inverse of walkability maps.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  That seems strange to me, obesity is most common amongst Blacks and Hispanics, with Whites (and especially Asians) less likely to be obese. Blacks are far more likely to live in major cities than Whites.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    The relationship might be different in urban areas.
agumonkey 5y ago
How far are the usual shops ? I cope with biking. I walk at times but the time required is prohibitive.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
numlock86 5y ago
> made it impossible to walk anywhere useful You can literally go anywhere if you want to, just for the sake of walking ... and without it being useful in a sense that you go to your workplace or shopping groceries. I hear the phrase "to take a walk" used fairly often to describe this weird phenomenon.
- graeme 5y ago
  This is true, but you end up walking for about an hour and fifteen minutes a day to walk 7,000-10,000 steps. If you do this on top of drives to the store/work that’s a lot of your day. Whereas if your errands or commute involve walking then you only need to take a short walk to walk enough.
  - numlock86 5y ago
    The premise of the original comment was that not having a useful place to walk to "just leads to a lot of sitting on the couch" which isn't really helping with getting errands done either, as you imply. Instead of sitting a lot ... just walk a lot. My comment about taking a walk being a "weird phenomenon" was intended to be some sort of joke, but I start to understand where your mindset is coming from ...
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      Why misquote when it's easy to copy/paste what they actually wrote: > just leads to a lot of sitting either on the couch or in the car You left out "either" and "or in the car" which changes the sense quite a bit.
      - numlock86 5y ago
        I was not misquoting. I simply quoted what was relevant within context, which is common practice. But yeah, I guess your insinuation is easier to formulate than to justify how sitting on the couch gets your errands done or why exactly it would keep you from doing a walk, which was the original statement.

by magpi3 5y ago

lupire 5y ago

You can walk around your block with your dog, from the back of the parking lot to the shop, and around your big house. TV doesn't make walking impossible.

1270018080 5y ago
Obviously not. But needed/not needing to walk are different. It's a lot easier to get 7000 steps in when you need to.
markstos 5y ago
The mention of TV doesn't matter here, it's that you are forced to drive to accomplish basic tasks. Yes, you can walk in the neighborhood when you get home, although a lack of sidewalks may discourage even that in some places. But you have less time due to driving your errands and exercise is not built into your day as it would be walking or biking was the transportation. Parking at the back of parking lot is a good idea if your best option is driving to the store.
runevault 5y ago
and if you still need entertainment just listen to a podcast or audiobook while you walk.
ShakataGaNai 5y ago
They didn't say walking was "impossible" just "disincentivized" which I'd have to agree with. A majority of the housing developments I've seen go up in the Bay Area put you several miles, at least, from any shopping. Your friends probably live way farther away than that. So you've got nowhere to "walk to", for a purpose. Sure it's probably walkable in so far as their are slow streets and sidewalks - but you have to walk for the sake of walking vs walking for destination hence "disincentivized". I go for a 30mn walk everyday in my neighborhood in the 'Burbs. It totally can be done, but just in the modern "go go go" society. Most people want walking to at least be a means to an end. And yes, I mean a directly "right here, right now" end, not "being health".
brimble 5y ago
"Possible" and "what you'll in fact see across a population in two different environments, all else being equal" are different things. Living some places means you'd have to struggle to stay under 5k steps per day. Living others means you have to go out of your way to break 5k steps.

markstos 5y ago

You are right. Obesity maps look like the inverse of walkability maps.

HideousKojima 5y ago
That seems strange to me, obesity is most common amongst Blacks and Hispanics, with Whites (and especially Asians) less likely to be obese. Blacks are far more likely to live in major cities than Whites.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  The relationship might be different in urban areas.

agumonkey 5y ago

How far are the usual shops ? I cope with biking. I walk at times but the time required is prohibitive.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

numlock86 5y ago

> made it impossible to walk anywhere useful You can literally go anywhere if you want to, just for the sake of walking ... and without it being useful in a sense that you go to your workplace or shopping groceries. I hear the phrase "to take a walk" used fairly often to describe this weird phenomenon.

graeme 5y ago
This is true, but you end up walking for about an hour and fifteen minutes a day to walk 7,000-10,000 steps. If you do this on top of drives to the store/work that’s a lot of your day. Whereas if your errands or commute involve walking then you only need to take a short walk to walk enough.
- numlock86 5y ago
  The premise of the original comment was that not having a useful place to walk to "just leads to a lot of sitting on the couch" which isn't really helping with getting errands done either, as you imply. Instead of sitting a lot ... just walk a lot. My comment about taking a walk being a "weird phenomenon" was intended to be some sort of joke, but I start to understand where your mindset is coming from ...
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    Why misquote when it's easy to copy/paste what they actually wrote: > just leads to a lot of sitting either on the couch or in the car You left out "either" and "or in the car" which changes the sense quite a bit.
    - numlock86 5y ago
      I was not misquoting. I simply quoted what was relevant within context, which is common practice. But yeah, I guess your insinuation is easier to formulate than to justify how sitting on the couch gets your errands done or why exactly it would keep you from doing a walk, which was the original statement.