100,000 American deaths could be prevented annually by 10 minutes of exercise

[mindless1]

Not really - the most effective way to get the population in general to be more phyiscally active is to design the environment such that they incorporate it into everyday life, i.e. in getting from one place to another.

No. That is merely ONE way, not the most effective unless your only goal is crippling society, that you are placing forced exercise from walking, above all the far more important things. The simple fact is that it is unsustainable.

The most effective way is what we've already worked out. People exercise if they want to and use the most effective form of transportation that they want to.

If people have to make a special effort to be active - e.g. pay for and go to a gym - they mostly won't do it.

If they don't want to, that is a choice, a freedom to choose. Walk yourself to a communist country where fewer freedoms and more forced labor is a warped concept of "good".

Besides, here in the city it's much quicker to walk most places than to drive - or to use public transport. People drive for weird ideological reasons, not practical ones. It's a sort of political 'statement' for some, they feel more dominant when behind the wheel, for some weird reason.

That's not a besides, you're essentially trying to pretend that the entire world lives in a similar microcausm. The majority of people don't, and don't want to, live in this tiny a densely packed jungle where they can only see the same boring things every day because they don't travel beyond walking distance.

Your claim about ideological reasons is absurd. Most people drive because they'd never get anything done if they had to walk everywhere, have real lives, and then there's weather, or the frail not being able to withstand the outdoor elements, or those with handicaps, among other reasons.

You have no concept of reality. It is mind boggling that you can't appreciate that the entire world around you only exists because of the greater productivity from having better transit than walking. These internet posts you're making? They would not be possible without the productivity of people using more efficient transportation. This is true for almost everything in your life, right down to the materials that make the buildings you walk to, the workers who built them, everything inside those buildings, the power to the buildings, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. The entire infrastructure you depend upon counts on it, and you'd be living in a mud hut in the woods without others being less of a leech and more of a contributor to society.

 

[pmv]

No. That is merely ONE way, not the most effective unless your only goal is crippling society, that you are placing forced exercise from walking, above all the far more important things. The simple fact is that it is unsustainable.

The most effective way is what we've already worked out. People exercise if they want to and use the most effective form of transportation that they want to.



If they don't want to, that is a choice, a freedom to choose. Walk yourself to a communist country where fewer freedoms and more forced labor is a warped concept of "good".



That's not a besides, you're essentially trying to pretend that the entire world lives in a similar microcausm. The majority of people don't, and don't want to, live in this tiny a densely packed jungle where they can only see the same boring things every day because they don't travel beyond walking distance.

Your claim about ideological reasons is absurd. Most people drive because they'd never get anything done if they had to walk everywhere, have real lives, and then there's weather, or the frail not being able to withstand the outdoor elements, or those with handicaps, among other reasons.

You have no concept of reality. It is mind boggling that you can't appreciate that the entire world around you only exists because of the greater productivity from having better transit than walking. These internet posts you're making? They would not be possible without the productivity of people using more efficient transportation. This is true for almost everything in your life, right down to the materials that make the buildings you walk to, the workers who built them, everything inside those buildings, the power to the buildings, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. The entire infrastructure you depend upon counts on it, and you'd be living in a mud hut in the woods without others being less of a leech and more of a contributor to society.

What a torrent of irrelevant nonsense. I guess you are one of those weird types who go into a blind panic at any suggestion that the car should not be king.

"Forced labour" "communism" - you seem to be a bit of a nutcase.

Just gob-smacked at the sheer lunacy of your comment here. How did you get so crazy?

 

[pmv]

It's odd though - why is that? Why are so many petrolheads so demented at any suggestion that the car should not be worshipped like a God? It's a strange phenomenon.

 

[mindless1]

Who stated they should be worshipped like a God? You have Quite the imagination.

I similarly think it is madness to do without clothes washing machines, to walk down to the local creek to wash your clothes, and madness to grow your own cotton to make those clothes yourself, raise your own cattle to harvest leather to make the shoes to walk everywhere. Society only advanced so much because of a buildup of infrastructure and transportation is a HUGE part of that infrastructure.

Wait. How did you get the computer you are using to post? Did you walk to china, only finding Mud Huts, because they too, can't get anything made without efficient transportation?

Yes, wanting to force everyone to walk everywhere, this forced labor when mankind solved this thousands of years ago (horses before automobiles) is fair to consider a communist idea.

 

[sandorski]

The current Bike Pathing trend is revolutionizing City life. Cities that do it well are going to reap the benefits as they become the preferred places to raise a family. Well planned Cities minimize the need for an Automobile, giving a person multiple Choices in travel and short Distances for needed Supplies/Services.

 

[mindless1]

^ Completely disagree. Bicycling everywhere is more of a novel concept for young, single people. I'd even consider it child abuse to force such a handicapped lifestyle upon children, causing them to fall behind their peers without such handicaps. It may not be illegal, but what a terrible parent someone would be to impose that their children have to live in a modern society but don't get the benefits back from it too.

Certainly it's fine to bicycle places, when it's safe, when the weather is good, when in good health, etc. That's far different than interfering with infrastructure by screwing up transportation for everyone else. It cannot scale, if it takes 4X as long to go from point A to B, then there are 4X as many people on roads/paths/etc. It only seems to work when there is a small minority cycling or in very unproductive areas that depend on outside support, a burden on the rest of society.

The revolution in city life from cycling everywhere is only for a small % of occupants of a city, is not scalable and sustainable outside the limited model. Trying to plan for short distance supplies/services is only going to cause more problems because it is very inefficient (and expensive, among other problems) to have this amount of redundancy, and MOST residents do not want businesses near their homes, do not want the extra traffic even if cyclists instead of automobiles, for several reasons. Put everything close to me is more of what impoverished areas want because they can't afford personal, automotive transportation. Show me the average millionaire who wants a 7-Eleven next door!

Bicycles are not some new invention. Trying to pretend they are a solution, is ignoring over a century of evidence to the contrary. At the same time, once we get the battery tech worked out, I'm in favor of society moving towards smaller, enclosed, EVs.

If some nut wants to get exercise while driving one, they can put bicycle pedals in it with a dummy load (or even a generator if they want to make the token gesture feel important) and pedal their little hearts out, lol.

 

[sandorski]

Well, that's just dumb.

 

[Torn Mind]

Cities accommodating bikes merely indicates it’s a packed city of rich people.

Try biking in rough Baltimore.

 

[sandorski]

Cities accommodating bikes merely indicates it’s a packed city of rich people.

Try biking in rough Baltimore.

No, it just requires sufficient revenue streams and good planning.

 

[mindless1]

^ Except "good" planning is in the eye of the beholder. Many cities were planned with consideration of the needs of the potential citizens at the time, so "good" planning was not to waste money and real estate on liability infrastructure that posed more detraction than benefit for the vast majority of inhabitants. I hate to break it to you, but MOST people do have somewhere they can ride a bicycle but don't WANT to, beyond doing so for short recreational purposes, which does not require an array of bike paths, just residential areas or parks planned with allowance for cyclists, no need to frequently intersect the cyclist paths with commuting automobiles (legally) traveling at a rate over ~25MPH.

There needs to be a certain density of cyclists to make cycling (as means of transportation) reasonable and if a select few cities want to be a mecca for these residents, that works out best for everyone, to not devote similar resources elsewhere, where the density of potential users is quite low.

It is very much about trying to attract affluent people to an area rather than those too poor to own an automobile. The "sufficient revenue stream" is a cost above that of not having these superfluous amenities, while registered/licensed, taxed (in both vehicle value and gasoline) automobiles are a revenue asset opposed to the infrastructure liability that is bike paths.

 

[Ackmed]

Of course being fat is the highest cause of death for Americans. But if you bring that up, the "body positive" crew gets all upset about facts. Neither do covid lovers.

People should do better for themselves and their families. But thats not the easy way.

 

[MrSquished]

This moron is obsessed that cars are the only way, worships them to a fault, and has zero ability to think that cities and dense suburbs can function better when there are more options, which still includes the car, but God forbid you get bikes and mass transit involved. It's sacrilege to his automobile religion.

He thinks only poor people move to dense areas where the car is not always the most efficient means of transport. I guess he has never heard of the highest priced real estate in the world generally being in dense city areas, where there are lots of amenities from food to entertainment, and walking and other transit options gets lots of shit done in the least amount of time.

He really is so unevolved and incapable of any critical thinking skills. Typical of a religious fanatic.

I have a car, two bikes, a bike share account, a card for the subway, Uber and Lyft accounts, and an app to buy bus tickets on and my two legs. I use them all and see the benefits of all. That loon is in a cult to cars because he is, well, mindless.

We will never plan cities and development better with fools like him blocking the integration and evolution of getting people around. All he can promote is more boring sprawl and traffic. It's all he knows. There are two reasons many American cities are in transit hell, single family zoning, often born from racism, and a worship of the car at the expense of all other options, like this jackwagon.

 

[sandorski]

^ Except "good" planning is in the eye of the beholder. Many cities were planned with consideration of the needs of the potential citizens at the time, so "good" planning was not to waste money and real estate on liability infrastructure that posed more detraction than benefit for the vast majority of inhabitants. I hate to break it to you, but MOST people do have somewhere they can ride a bicycle but don't WANT to, beyond doing so for short recreational purposes, which does not require an array of bike paths, just residential areas or parks planned with allowance for cyclists, no need to frequently intersect the cyclist paths with commuting automobiles (legally) traveling at a rate over ~25MPH.

There needs to be a certain density of cyclists to make cycling (as means of transportation) reasonable and if a select few cities want to be a mecca for these residents, that works out best for everyone, to not devote similar resources elsewhere, where the density of potential users is quite low.

It is very much about trying to attract affluent people to an area rather than those too poor to own an automobile. The "sufficient revenue stream" is a cost above that of not having these superfluous amenities, while registered/licensed, taxed (in both vehicle value and gasoline) automobiles are a revenue asset opposed to the infrastructure liability that is bike paths.

Whatever dude, I disagree.

 

[pmv]

Who stated they should be worshipped like a God? You have Quite the imagination.

I similarly think it is madness to do without clothes washing machines, to walk down to the local creek to wash your clothes, and madness to grow your own cotton to make those clothes yourself, raise your own cattle to harvest leather to make the shoes to walk everywhere. Society only advanced so much because of a buildup of infrastructure and transportation is a HUGE part of that infrastructure.

Wait. How did you get the computer you are using to post? Did you walk to china, only finding Mud Huts, because they too, can't get anything made without efficient transportation?

Yes, wanting to force everyone to walk everywhere, this forced labor when mankind solved this thousands of years ago (horses before automobiles) is fair to consider a communist idea.

Utterly, utterly mad. I keep forgetting how totally insane American conservatives are.

"Public health is communism" " providing safe and convenient walking and cycling routes for people is one step away from the Gulag".

 

[pmv]

It is very much about trying to attract affluent people to an area rather than those too poor to own an automobile. The "sufficient revenue stream" is a cost above that of not having these superfluous amenities, while registered/licensed, taxed (in both vehicle value and gasoline) automobiles are a revenue asset opposed to the infrastructure liability that is bike paths.

OK, that last point is almost rational. It has struck me that in the US there is a sense in which cities compete to attract a certain demographic, which creates a pressure to have cycle lanes. That doesn't happen here in the UK becuase London is, in reality, the only real city, there is no competition of that nature.

The class-connotation of cycling is pretty complicated, and has changed over time. Cars came to be seen as an aspirational status-symbol, and then, with all such symbols, it became the more educated and affluent who decided that rejecting it would be a kind of inverse symbol. Personally I took to cycling because I could no longer afford the London Underground (the cost of which has risen constantly for decades) and because buses are just unusable due to congestion caused by cars.

Automobiles are, though, in no sense a 'revenue asset'. What gave you that idea?

They are a vast drain on the public purse, because they are subsidised in a vast number of ways. From the wear they cause to roads (road wear is proportional to the mass of the vehicle, bikes and pedestrians cause almost none), the external costs of RTAs (the sheer number of smashed-in walls and knocked-over traffic lights I see around here - all caused by motorists who pay very little of the cost of repairing it), the cost of policing the roads, the "opportunity cost" of all that extremely valuable urban land being used for cars, including the storage thereof (cars being the only large bulky personal possessions that it's considered normal to store on public land), and the costs of providing health care to those injured in RTAS who who develop health problems due to traffic pollution (particularly bad with diesel vehicles), and the cost of disposing of all the abandoned vehicles and tyres every year. And finally the costs due to the congestion they cause by being too damn large for urban streets.

The small amount paid by motorists in fuel taxes goes nowhere near paying for all those costs.

 

[mindless1]

^ Okay, like sandorski, I've grown tired of this topic. However the roads are absolutely necessary for goods transportation as well as traveling more than short distances, so not as though we can pretend the fuel taxes don't help pay - when it is the trucks that do the most damage.

 

[MrSquished]

Pedestrian-friendly cities have lower rates of diabetes and obesity

A review of 170 studies finds consistent evidence that people are less likely to be obese or have diabetes if they live in cities where walking and cycling is safe and convenient

www.newscientist.com

Study confirms what people with an ability to critically think already know

 

[Mai72]

A lazy walk around the block won't do it. But sadly, this is what most people think. You have to put some effort into your workouts. Play some basketball. Jog for a bit. Walk fast. Bike. I still think lifting weights is the ultimate anti aging thing we have today, but most people don't like to lift weights.

 

[BurnItDwn]

i used to do 10 minutes of annual exersize and i think it probably wasnt enough.
Im now doing approx 365x as much exersize this year, and, it seems to help a lot.


EDIT: i got a low end rowing machine and put 10-15 mins every day. My back hurt like hell for first week, but its better now

 

[ch33zw1z]

A lazy walk around the block won't do it. But sadly, this is what most people think. You have to put some effort into your workouts. Play some basketball. Jog for a bit. Walk fast. Bike. I still think lifting weights is the ultimate anti aging thing we have today, but most people don't like to lift weights.

Sure, a combination is a great thing. But the bigger point is that when people can be lazy, they will tend to be. You gotta keep moving, and making population centers more people traffic friendly is a great start.

Also, as we age, there can be physical ailments that contribute to a less active lifestyle, so a variety of options like your saying is a key piece to keep in mind. Lots of walking may not be an option for some people, but biking can be instead, vise versa as well.

 

[Commodus]

A lazy walk around the block won't do it. But sadly, this is what most people think. You have to put some effort into your workouts. Play some basketball. Jog for a bit. Walk fast. Bike. I still think lifting weights is the ultimate anti aging thing we have today, but most people don't like to lift weights.

I've heard that 150-180 minutes of moderate to intense exercise per week is the ideal, whatever that involves. I'd say walks around the block help, but they should be during your rest days, not replacements for high-impact workouts.

 

[nakedfrog]

^ I state this as someone who has unquestionably, benefited from automobiles rather than walking and cycling everywhere, and you have too by proxy of the goods and services you depend upon, even if you don't want to admit it. Automotive transportation built the world around you, rather than your walking or riding a horse along a dirt path.

If you want to feel special walking everywhere, you'll have a lot of time while walking to do so unless you're a shut-in. I have far better things to do with my time.

That has no bearing on whether an automobile-centric society has inherent value, at all.

 

[nakedfrog]

I've heard that 150-180 minutes of moderate to intense exercise per week is the ideal, whatever that involves. I'd say walks around the block help, but they should be during your rest days, not replacements for high-impact workouts.

The default setting for "intensity minutes" on the fitness tracker I got in December was 150 minutes per week. It counts "vigorous" activity at 2x the rate of moderate activity. So that probably aligns with what you've heard.

 

[mindless1]

That has no bearing on whether an automobile-centric society has inherent value, at all.

Except it potentially does. If you decrease the volume of traffic that the roads can carry by overprovisioning for more bike paths and related concessions than the population really needs (will regularly use enough to significantly decrease # of automobiles on the roads), then there is more traffic, longer commute times with more fuel wasted ( = more pollution).

There's no question that cycling, among many other activites can contribute to better health, but the quest for better health does not "require" cycling, and should not impose on the majority even if the minority believes it's for a good reason.

 

[nakedfrog]

Except it potentially does. If you decrease the volume of traffic that the roads can carry by overprovisioning for more bike paths and related concessions than the population really needs (will regularly use enough to significantly decrease # of automobiles on the roads), then there is more traffic, longer commute times with more fuel wasted ( = more pollution).

There's no question that cycling, among many other activites can contribute to better health, but the quest for better health does not "require" cycling, and should not impose on the majority even if the minority believes it's for a good reason.

It's unfortunate that you lack the ability to envision things as any way other than they are.