Health Aspects of Living Areas

Silhouettes and waist circumferences represent...

Daily actions or exercise?

To really remedy obesity, rather than this complicated expensive restructuring or urbanism: For the statists to control behavior and appearance, how about a physical/health test to get a driver’s license? Actually, if health deform passes, there will be many more controls on eating and such. Looking at avg weight is insufficient for any conclusions. Analyzing deciles can reveal more. But it needs to be compared with many other variables. Bodyfat data is better.
If gov takes over more health payments, then it will pass more laws on behavior to increase health in order to reduce expenses.

The big missing part of the equation in the claim of low sprawl leads to density is: “What actions in high density lead to health?” Walking is the supposed answer, but that does not burn fat. Even high strenuous exercise of lifting weights does not burn much fat. The heart needs to beat at a certain level for over 1/2 an hour. Lower density, especially residential at 6 DU/acre or less, provides much more opportunity for jogging and bicycling.

The slightly higher weight is not significant enough. That could even be attributed to higher heights and higher muscle mass. Your claim is that people who like exercise do not like cars? That really does not need to be deconstructed to realize how ridiculous that is. The reverse can even be true, because they know walking is minimal calorie expenditure and prefer real exercise and rest otherwise. I’ve been to many health clubs in low densities, and there are parking lots, with many cars. When <4% are regular transit users, not much can be surmised, except that their average income is lower and they live in higher density (1/3 chance of NYC area).

The real question is about rich fat asses? Sure, show me the dataset for those demographics and what it means. Why are you even thinking about this if you are not taking this seriously. Hey, humor is great, but… Values and care you say its’ about. How profound. And totally worthless. So, people in higher density care ~2% about their BMI value?

Preference to jogging and biking? That has nothing to do with it. Let me elaborate. Lower densities have streets and sidewalks with much less traffic and intersections, therefore there will be less stopping and fewer obstacles. Do you understand now. I should probably be more lengthy more often, because many readers do not understand my points. Yep, there are many blanks who cannot process all the info and logic.

If you want to walk, choose your place where you can access things. Many of you have probably seen that site.
I noticed the location where I grew up, Marina Towers, Chicago (just north of LOOP and river) has a very high score. Which would be expected. But there are many drawbacks: high retail prices and no supermarket for miles. A few small groceries, but limited selection and expensive).

Money and many other factors, over-ride density and fat correlation.Poor fats people own choice for being fat?
Opposite of what poor usually are–hungry and emaciated. Opposite of other characterizations–fat cat.
What is the current food system failure?
That could be ethanol, causing problems in the food supply.
Could be gov subsidies to ag.
You are really blaming food for obesity?
Frickin companies making deliciousness.
Where’s the middle ages gruel?

  • 1.Many fat people live in all densities.
    2.Walking alone is not sufficient for being healthy.
    3.Food intake is primary for bodyfat.
    4.Many people in high density don’t necessarily walk a lot; many drive.
    5.The studies are way too general, but even within that, VMT could be looked at.
    6.There are many other lifestyle difs and choices.
    7.There are actually more tools and better conditions available to lead a healthier lifestyle in lower density.
    8.Correlation does not prove causation.

What’s this preoccupation w/”Rich white fat asses”? Please show me the demographics on them and the relevance. You seem to make a claim on healthier people liking density and not cars, based upon a slight dif in mean weight. Then when I bring up many facts that counter that, you claim that it’s not all encompassing scientific and deny your previous position.

It’s pretty simple to realize that when there a traffic light, at about every 400′, is an impediment to jogging, biking and even walking (driving too). Why do statists have hard time with reality? Parks and similar, is another issue, which do provide exercise and hiking. However, those can exist blocks or miles away. It should have been obvious that I’m referring to the neighborhood, outside the door.

Spelled out differently, again: Low density residential areas offer more opportunity for uninterrupted jogging and biking, compared to high density. The initial reason for pointing that out, was, drawing attention to the fact, that even people might walk more in high density, walking does not come close to burning enough calories for fat loss. Higher calorie expenditure, outside, is more available in lower density. One could also consider outside activities/sports in nearby yards. And to look at what Bennett threw in, there are many parks in low density residential areas, most likely more/area, but I have not seen stats. Of course it varies.

All areas have health clubs, so that is irrelevant. Access and expense, could be relevant, but that’s another issue. bennett, you seem to have forgotten what you typed, or what its meaning entails, about people who exercise, avoiding cars. “Healthy people often CHOOSE to live in places where they are not dependent on cars.” You are splitting hairs to avoid being tied to your semantics. Choosing non-cars–>avoiding cars–>not liking cars. I choose to NOT eat pickles because I don’t like their taste. Excuse me if you don’t mean what you say.

Regardless of your twisting meaning or pretending to be precise, it’s a ridiculous assertion that more fit people, trend towards choosing higher density living, because of a preference for non-car transportation. There is not a statistical enough difference for fat people to choose low density and fit people to choose dense areas. The weight dif would be considerably more than. It’s almost like you are shooting darts to make up your own reason for slight correlation.

Freedom, but seem to want to dictate to people to be healthy and seem to be nosy in figuring out their actions and motivations. I’ll bet that high wealth and good health are directly correlated. We know the opposite is true: lower incomes and more over-weight.

What is this need to “quantify everything into a data set”? What’s the quote? “Sometimes a _____ is just a _______.”
Stats do have randomness and many influential factors. Well, for proper analysis and causation determination to be accomplished, as we’ve both mentioned, more variables need to be collected. Well, for obesity and density, I’ve though of Ockham’s razor, not exactly, but to create a simple solution. In order for people to be ~3% less heavy, everybody needs to live closer together, so….

If big gov really wants health, then certain physical requirements should be met to obtain a drivers license and maybe other things. That will become more real w/the gov taking more health responsibilities. Actually, what is basically being done is to take more money from the top ~3% of earners and pay for others. It’s not reform. It’s not lowering costs; it is lowering price, for some. It will reduce quality and service.


About Randall
A contrarian, not for conflict, but because many decisions are made, without considering the full impact & consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: