So does anyone know of a study that looked at obesity and population density as correlating factors? I dug up some data state-by-state that seems to weakly support the hypothesis that there's a correlation1, but frankly I don't feel like digging out my books and doing the math to see if the trend rises to significance or not, and I think that in most states there's too much variation between counties for the state's conglomerate value (in either obesity or population density) to have too much significance.
So anyway, just curious if anyone has seen such a study before.
My theory
Having traveled in some larger cities, it seems that especially in ones where parking is particularly difficult you see a lot more people walking because they have no choice. They park their car as close to where they need to be as they can, and then end up walking a few city blocks anyway. Or they forgo driving all together and use mass transit.
Whereas in smaller towns/cities you see a lot more driving to exactly where you want to go and then barely walking any further.
So I figure that, by dint of parking and walking, that people in densely populated areas might actually get more exercise then people in less dense areas.
Now, as good as that sounds, you also have the argument that while people in more "rural" areas might not be required to walk as much, the people that choose to live there are more likely to be active. Not an argument I find much weight (haha, I made a punny) in, but it was suggested by a co-worker when we were talking about the idea over lunch.
Another, more believable, alternate explanation was that it correlates with culture, which is definitely something you can group the New England, the South, the Mid-West and the West by.
Whereas in smaller towns/cities you see a lot more driving to exactly where you want to go and then barely walking any further.
So I figure that, by dint of parking and walking, that people in densely populated areas might actually get more exercise then people in less dense areas.
Now, as good as that sounds, you also have the argument that while people in more "rural" areas might not be required to walk as much, the people that choose to live there are more likely to be active. Not an argument I find much weight (haha, I made a punny) in, but it was suggested by a co-worker when we were talking about the idea over lunch.
Another, more believable, alternate explanation was that it correlates with culture, which is definitely something you can group the New England, the South, the Mid-West and the West by.
I might suggest comparing statistics for obesity to statistics for socioeconomic class.
It does, I've seen that one.
I might suggest comparing statistics for obesity to statistics for socioeconomic class.
It does, I've seen that one.
Doesn't it correlate to less money=more obesity? I was thinking it was something that people blamed on McDonalds.
As for Population Density:Obesity, let me propose a meaningless anecdote. I live on a dirt road, my nearest neighbor is about a 1/2 mile away, and I weigh 120 lbs. :p
So does anyone know of a study that looked at obesity and population density as correlating factors? I dug up some data state-by-state that seems to weakly support the hypothesis that there's a correlation1, but frankly I don't feel like digging out my books and doing the math to see if the trend rises to significance or not, and I think that in most states there's too much variation between counties for the state's conglomerate value (in either obesity or population density) to have too much significance.
So anyway, just curious if anyone has seen such a study before.My theoryHaving traveled in some larger cities, it seems that especially in ones where parking is particularly difficult you see a lot more people walking because they have no choice. They park their car as close to where they need to be as they can, and then end up walking a few city blocks anyway. Or they forgo driving all together and use mass transit.
Whereas in smaller towns/cities you see a lot more driving to exactly where you want to go and then barely walking any further.
So I figure that, by dint of parking and walking, that people in densely populated areas might actually get more exercise then people in less dense areas.
Now, as good as that sounds, you also have the argument that while people in more "rural" areas might not be required to walk as much, the people that choose to live there are more likely to be active. Not an argument I find much weight (haha, I made a punny) in, but it was suggested by a co-worker when we were talking about the idea over lunch.
Another, more believable, alternate explanation was that it correlates with culture, which is definitely something you can group the New England, the South, the Mid-West and the West by.
My theoryHaving traveled in some larger cities, it seems that especially in ones where parking is particularly difficult you see a lot more people walking because they have no choice. They park their car as close to where they need to be as they can, and then end up walking a few city blocks anyway. Or they forgo driving all together and use mass transit.
Whereas in smaller towns/cities you see a lot more driving to exactly where you want to go and then barely walking any further.
So I figure that, by dint of parking and walking, that people in densely populated areas might actually get more exercise then people in less dense areas.
Now, as good as that sounds, you also have the argument that while people in more "rural" areas might not be required to walk as much, the people that choose to live there are more likely to be active. Not an argument I find much weight (haha, I made a punny) in, but it was suggested by a co-worker when we were talking about the idea over lunch.
Another, more believable, alternate explanation was that it correlates with culture, which is definitely something you can group the New England, the South, the Mid-West and the West by.
I don't think that'd change much.
You'd have to get to very sparse levels of population before you won't be able to find a burger joint at walking distance. Not to mention that these days fast food can also be delivered to your doorstep.
I don't think that'd change much.
What's 'walking distance', though? Honestly curious. Like, where I live now I can walk to a McD's, Arby's, Wendy's and Burger King and it'd only be about a half mile to a mile. If I wanted Taco Bell, I'd have to walk like two or three miles. The two places I lived before, though, were about three to four miles at the closest to a fast food joint. That's obviously within walking distance, but it's also a fair hike. So, curious as to whether you'd consider that 'walking distance' or not. I mean, just cuz you can walk somewhere does not mean it is convenient to do so. And, when it isn't, it could well be enough exercise to offset most of what garbage you just ate.
But 2 miles... was this inside a city? If so the build up must be quite different from what I'm used to. We have a fast food joint on almost every streetcorner it seems sometimes. In my previous house in downtown the Hague I had 3 fast food places within a 5 minute walk, and some restaurants for slightly better food. 2 of those where literally on the streetcorner.
) but overall I believe people are becoming more city dwellers than not. So we'll probably be closer to what you're used to soon-ish. But yeah, in the 'burbs you're typically not too close to any sort of stores. 'Course you can be but most aren't. In my neighborhood, for example, the average yard size is slightly over half an acre. The yards alone make the distances much greater than they are in a city setting. We like to be spread out in America. But this may be in part due to most "suburbs" once having been actual self-contained villages that were swallowed up whole by cities, rather then actually being designed to be a large area of housing only.
The take-away you should have from this: Americans are too lazy to walk, so it's safe to have fast food restaurants far away because they'll just drive anyway.
Doesn't happen much in this country.
It's fun to hear that fast food places are far remove from houses though, and wonder whether it's because they know people will drive. Down here, only very few would actually bother to take a car to a fast food joint because it's pretty much always easier to walk/bike to one.
I wonder if it'd work to open a joint in the middle of a suburb in the US. See if people would bother to walk two blocks, or would still drive somewhere.
It probably helps to have near infinite space. But concentrated suburbs is nothing something we have much of, and even if we do they're still sprinkled with fast food joins and small supermarkets.
But this may be in part due to most "suburbs" once having been actual self-contained villages that were swallowed up whole by cities, rather then actually being designed to be a large area of housing only.
I read an article about that a while back. It basically explained how european cities and towns were generally designed differently. They had things like supermarkets closer to where people live. In the U.S., not so much. So it is more convinient to go out to a fast food place and eat than it is to walk to a supermarket, buy food, and walk home carrying your stuff. Heck, even if you have a bike, it isn't very convinient. While there may be a few cities and towns here where one could go on a bike ride in relative safety, a lot of places in the U.S. were not designed with bikes in mind. When I worked as a dispatcher for the firte department, I had to send out rescue units to accidents that involved a motorcycle or bicycle at least 3 times per week. They were usually fatalities.
So people here are more likely to go out in their car and get their groceries.
Yeah, we've still got that 'new country smell' over here. And tons of room, too. I like it ... cuz I don't like people. ;)
Except their brains. Although I'm guessing with the quality of brains you come into contact, you might be a bit malnutritioned
It's even pretty common to have a busy shopping street that has shops on the bottom floor and then people living directly above them on the second and third floor of the building, especially with student buildings.
I can imagine how people would consider it crowded or ruining the view. But it makes it far easier to just walk or bike places, everything's closeby.
There's no way the 'burb folks would let a fast food joint in their 'hood. Honest to god - they'd be immediately complaining about how it ruined the view or brought too much traffic or other stuff like that. To tell the truth, I'd be one of 'em complainin'. Part of why I like where I live is that it isn't within viewing distance of a store. Part of the charm, you see.
Also, the home owner's association would probably bankrupt the fast food place owner within a week... if they even allowed it to be opened.
Also, the home owner's association would probably bankrupt the fast food place owner within a week... if they even allowed it to be opened.
Very true. I'm glad where I live is an old enough neighborhood to not have a HOA. My brother and my parents both do. Hell, my friend's mom owns a HOA management company. I just can't imagine paying all that for a house only to live the same way as if you were in an apartment. Like, I wanted to build a big enclosed garden. And so I did. If you're part of an HOA, that may get you a fine and you may be required to take it down or face more fines. It's just so lame.
Yeah, many cities here were designed for a time in which bikes did not yet exist and people had to walk everywhere by neccesity. While most people do get groceries by car (mostly due to weight) the supermarkets are usually close by (I currently live across from a shopping mall and the other house had one around the corner) and shops and restaurants are simply placed between the houses.
It's even pretty common to have a busy shopping street that has shops on the bottom floor and then people living directly above them on the second and third floor of the building, especially with student buildings.
I can imagine how people would consider it crowded or ruining the view. But it makes it far easier to just walk or bike places, everything's closeby.
Yeah, that would be more convinient. People wouldn't be so fat because they would be walking or biking to places instead of driving. Why spend the gas to drive down the street when you can just take 5 minutes and walk there?
Where I live, there are 3 fast food places about 2 blocks away. The supermarket is about a mile down the road. It is one of the older towns, and it likes to think itself as "special" and "historical." I'm not sure why. In any case, I would love to ride my bike to the supermarket, but it is a horrible place to ride a bike. In fact, the day before yesterday I was at a start bucks near the supermarket. There is this roundabout at the center of the area with all the restaurants and supermarket. Some guy in a bike got hit by some girl in a BMW. Fortunately she was going slow (speed limit is 20), but the guy was still a bit bruised. The road leading to the roundabout from my apartment isn't any safer. The sidewalk sucks. People have big houses with BS gardens. A bunch of foilage protruding from the property over the sidewals. Some of these people think its nice to have rose bushes near the sidewalk. While they may lok pretty, raking your face with the thorns isn't much fun.
Also, the home owner's association would probably bankrupt the fast food place owner within a week... if they even allowed it to be opened.
Very true. I'm glad where I live is an old enough neighborhood to not have a HOA. My brother and my parents both do. Hell, my friend's mom owns a HOA management company. I just can't imagine paying all that for a house only to live the same way as if you were in an apartment. Like, I wanted to build a big enclosed garden. And so I did. If you're part of an HOA, that may get you a fine and you may be required to take it down or face more fines. It's just so lame.
I have a friend that bough his first house in an area that had a HOA. It was this little lake side townhouse. He decided to build a roof for his patio. After it was built, he got a letter from the HOA telling him he had 2 days to have it removed or they would start fining him $500/day until it was removed.
If you enjoy the outdoors, Dutch cities are not for you. You'd need to go the villages away from the cities, especially in the north. They have some forests there. Mostly planted by people, though.
(Which, ironically, is referred to as "het platteland", which means as much as "the flat land", which technically the entire country is)
I totally agree about HOAs. I don't think I would ever want to live in a place that had one.
You know what sucks? Around here if you live in an unincorporated area, you don't have to worry about HOAs. But there are areas that decide they want to encorporate and become their own little cities or towns within the county. Once they do, they get all these HOA companies to start biding and then you are forced to be part of the HOA.
I totally agree about HOAs. I don't think I would ever want to live in a place that had one.
You know what sucks? Around here if you live in an unincorporated area, you don't have to worry about HOAs. But there are areas that decide they want to encorporate and become their own little cities or towns within the county. Once they do, they get all these HOA companies to start biding and then you are forced to be part of the HOA.
Wouldn't you still have to sign a contract in order for that to be legal? On the other hand, you could threaten to sell your house to a **** before you'd ever join the HOA.
But I shouldn't really have to worry about a HOA. I'm likely going to stay in the general vicinity of where I am, which means living in a village of <500 people or between at least 2 corn/soybean fields.
I have a friend that bough his first house in an area that had a HOA. It was this little lake side townhouse. He decided to build a roof for his patio. After it was built, he got a letter from the HOA telling him he had 2 days to have it removed or they would start fining him $500/day until it was removed.
From what I know from my friend, they have way, way too much say in what you can do and they have the power to back it, too. Not a good combination. They can literally fine you into foreclosure and they have the right to put a lien on your place if you don't pay up. It's insane.
"Lots of green" in the Netherlands is like 10 trees and a patch of grass barely big enough to play soccer with your kids. Which happens to be more or less all the green I have around my apartment.
If you enjoy the outdoors, Dutch cities are not for you. You'd need to go the villages away from the cities, especially in the north. They have some forests there. Mostly planted by people, though.
(Which, ironically, is referred to as "het platteland", which means as much as "the flat land", which technically the entire country is)
Heh, I have 10 trees in my yard (front and back and not counting two that I will have to remove) and my back yard is over 200' deep from my back door. The one neighbor's lot is half untended so it's got a ton of trees in it. Makes for tough leaf rakin' come fall, but it looks pretty.
(Which, ironically, is referred to as "het platteland", which means as much as "the flat land", which technically the entire country is)
I've only passed through Netherlands once and I distinctly remember the flatness.