This map is for obesity only, not including those who are overweight but not obese. So the actual percentage of people who are fat is definitely closer to or in excess of 50%.
SD reporting in yup everyone's fat the problem here is cheap dry goods and a sedentary culture the biggest city has a 6 mile diameter so its walkable but everyone drives for no reason
destroying all your cities so cars can have space
nobody walks anywhere because it's too far because automobile industries lobbied for car-centric development
They're just retards. Individual transportation allows suburbs and rural areas to exist at all. Given that 97+% of US land mass is rural or wilderness you need your own transportation to get anywhere. You can't walk across an entire state to get to your destination, and you can't connect every single home with public transportation. It's often 20 or more miles from people in rural areas to get to the grocery store. How in the world can you make a railway within a reasonable walking distance from every single farm in the country? Sometimes just someone walking off their own land is a trek, I've got a friend in South Carolina who has to drive to his mailbox because walking from his home, down his land, to the street is a good 10 minutes. How many dozen miles would you have to walk to get to a train that served a rural community? Assuming people were willing to walk that far, how long do you think it would take just to pick up the people there? How many stops are along the way? How long do you think that commute would be? And how many passengers would you actually serve with this 10 billion dollar project? Could that community even afford to publicly fund it? Could a private company ever profit from that rail line? Even trains in china take billions of dollars of losses ever year and that's with CITIES comprising 30 million people. Texas has 30 million people.
>hey we should make our cities better since most people live there >zomfg there's literally no way every single house in the country could be connected by rail
uh k
1 year ago
Anonymous
1 year ago
Anonymous
>hEy wE sHoUlD mAkE oUr CiTiEs BeTtEr sInCe MoSt PeOpLe LiVe ThErE >*le dumb conservative retort*
not him, but I'm Russian and I live in your "utopia" that "just werks". we live in commieblocks, but still have insane housing prices, crazy traffic, and overcrowded public transport.
reason? everyone wants to live in the city, because living in rural areas is barely possible. and our cities were built with no cars in mind (at its peak, around 30 in 1,000 people in USSR had a car). precisely because of your "walking distance" rule, everything had to be jam packed together—hospitals, department stores, restaurants, schools, kindergartens, sports facilities, etc. so instead of spreading the population across the land, and letting people settle comfortably in bumfuck nowhere where housing prices are low, we need to densely pack them in cities where every square meter is worth a fortune.
the only reason to hate American cities is if you're a seething socialist who thinks cars are le bad, oil companies are bad, private property is bad and everything should only be owned by the state.
1 year ago
Anonymous
this thread is about obesity
but if everyone is driving no one is going anywhere and therefore walking is the only option.
>no one is going anywhere
what makes you say this?
1 year ago
Anonymous
because of the fact that traffic in most cities is statistically impossible to navigate in a timely manner. Therefore walkable cities must exist. Else all production ceases entirely.
If everyone is driving, literally every single person. There would be so much traffic it would take literal hours to drive through a single city.
So alternative routes must exist.
Such as walking, which means cities are in fact walkable.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>because of the fact that traffic in most cities is statistically impossible to navigate in a timely manner
what makes you say this?
1 year ago
Anonymous
So what you're saying is you've never been to a city?
1 year ago
Anonymous
why not answer the question you were asked about the claims you're making?
1 year ago
Anonymous
I did answer the question, you're the one dodging now.
Have you seriously never been to a city?
I have been to many and I see people walking daily. Walking everywhere. They have to walk.
Because otherwise traffic would only increase in an already saturated road.
So either cities are walkable and you're coping or traffic only intensifies more than it already is which means effectively doubling commute, potentially tripling commute.
I'm sorry you're wrong Anon, but you're the one who said cities aren't walkable.
Did you forget I can easily go to google maps and see sidewalks?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>I did answer the question
howso? you said the FACT yet never provided said facts.
until you do that, you're just dodging and not worth reading.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Anon, it's time for you to stop posting.
I understand you're upset and you really really wanted to defend your position, but you aren't going to prove to me that sidewalks don't exist.
Do we seriously need to have a conversation on how long sidewalks have existed in human society?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>still no facts
anon it's simple, just provide the facts you're referencing. simple as.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Well okay here we go.
2000 B.C. Anatolia, the first side walk that we have historical evidence of existed.
Since this point humans have regularly used sidewalks.
In fact many many sidewalks exist Anon, all over the world. I know this info scares you, but I bet right now if you go outside and walk a few feet outside your mother's house you'll even find a sidewalk. This sidewalk more than likely follows a road. That road probably goes into a town!
So you keep following and you get to the town and there will be a stop light, you wait there at the stop light and when there is no traffic or you're given a signal by a device, or following the rules of your local city you can cross the street to another sidewalk.
I don't want to presume, but I bet if you keep following that sidewalk you'll end up at a business somewhere in that town.
I really didn't think we had to have this conversation, but yes that is how sidewalks and cities work.
This map is for obesity only, not including those who are overweight but not obese. So the actual percentage of people who are fat is definitely closer to or in excess of 50%.
correct, don't forget some doctors have also started changing their definition of "obesity" and "overweight" in reference to body fat when you account for more liberal cities. So a lot of that information is inaccurate also.
We are probably reaching levels closer to 60% at this point.
1 year ago
Anonymous
anon you said
because of the fact that traffic in most cities is statistically impossible to navigate in a timely manner. Therefore walkable cities must exist. Else all production ceases entirely.
If everyone is driving, literally every single person. There would be so much traffic it would take literal hours to drive through a single city.
So alternative routes must exist.
Such as walking, which means cities are in fact walkable.
>the fact that traffic in most cities is statistically impossible to navigate in a timely manner
nobody is denying that sidewalks exists
1 year ago
Anonymous
Anon do I really need to repeat myself on the subject of sidewalks?
Are you really going to need me to take a picture of a sidewalk for you to see that they exist?
Either you accept that sidewalks exist and therefore cities can in-fact be walked in/around/through or i'll accept you're retarded.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Anon do I really need to repeat myself on the subject of sidewalks? >Are you really going to need me to take a picture of a sidewalk for you to see that they exist?
nope, just need you to prove that cities are impossible to get across by car.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Idk what you two are talking about but I'll chime in anyway. Going from Queens to Brooklyn in NYC takes you *around* the city via highways at a crawling pace. Going *through* the city would take an extremely unreasonable amount of time.
What's more, it would take you 6 hours to walk this. That's going in basically a straight line through the city and cuts down the distance by 8 miles.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Anon do I really need to repeat myself on the subject of sidewalks? >Are you really going to need me to take a picture of a sidewalk for you to see that they exist?
nope, just need you to prove that cities are impossible to get across by car.
Another probably real life example. Going from wall street to 5th avenue where a well-off trader or banker might actually live takes 21 minutes by car going *around* the city. Walking through it is a straight line and takes 2 hours at 5.5 miles. New York is the densest, most populated city in the US. You directly pass by thousands of residences (apartments) and businesses on your route. It is *the* walkable city in the US. The common phrase "you don't need a car in New York" reflects that. Is a 2 hour commute acceptable to you for walkable standard?
1 year ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/mmkQjra.jpg
[...]
Another probably real life example. Going from wall street to 5th avenue where a well-off trader or banker might actually live takes 21 minutes by car going *around* the city. Walking through it is a straight line and takes 2 hours at 5.5 miles. New York is the densest, most populated city in the US. You directly pass by thousands of residences (apartments) and businesses on your route. It is *the* walkable city in the US. The common phrase "you don't need a car in New York" reflects that. Is a 2 hour commute acceptable to you for walkable standard?
I don't necessarily disagree with your point but you're using Saturday morning traffic (it may not matter in NYC). Try using the departure/arrival time options.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Bro go to Austin or Los Angeles in your car
1 year ago
Anonymous
i know right? walkable city anon is coping hardcore.
pretty much every city i've ever been to you walk everywhere and i've been to pretty much every major city in USA.
no one drives other than commuting to work in LA. that shit takes hours to go anywhere. everyone just walks in the meantime to go to stores.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>walkable cities
Not calling you out specifically, but this requires higher density, which “walkable cities” people tend to oppose in reality. >muh views, muh environment, muh obnoxiously high standards on new construction that aren’t required to be adopted gradually on existing construction.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It depends on your opinion of walkable. Most cunts won't walk ten minutes.
A mix of walking and better public transport would improve cities immeasurably. Banning cars is a dumb ass idea though because sometimes you need your car if your collecting something too heavy/big to take on public transport. Commercial vehicles also require access to businesses.
I've travelled a lot and the best cities I have visited have had a good blend of public transport, vehicle access and walking/cycling
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Commercial vehicles also require access to businesses.
This is it right here, when I worked in transportation planning and some fuckface brought up carfree cities or banning trucks from downtown areas I always suggested having the trucks drop off pallets of food at the edge of the city and having delivery people bike out to bring it into their urban Targets one bike trailer load at a time
The sad part was that half the idiots you would say this to eagerly agreed with the notion because they had zero sense of scale and how many trips it would take to move 60,000 lbs of food in one truck
Leftists simply live on a detached plane of non-reality
1 year ago
Anonymous
>It depends on your opinion of walkable
That's just it isn't it? It means nothing. That's the point. Densest most compact city in America still could take hours to walk just to work. All they really want is to ban cars. They say they don't, that they just want more options, but that's clearly not their angle. They want their US cities to look like the conglomerated metropolitan areas of the netherlands. Where the whole world is just one big outdoor shopping mall. It's ridiculous, and even if you tried it couldn't be done in the US because it's so much more both economical and desirable to not live like that. What's more, think about what it is they're actually suggesting. What is their biggest offenses? Single family properties and parking lots, those come up a lot. They hate them. Large parking lots in cities could go, sure. Replace them with other businesses and apartments and everyone can just park on the street like in New York City. Then going back to the beginning here, what is the opinion of "walkable?" Is New York City not walkable?
>oh my god ARE YOU SERIOUSLY IMPLYING I HAVE TO DRIVE?? why can't you just put hospitals, department stores, restaurants, schools, universities and my workplace in a circle around my house so that I could just walk there in 5 minutes!! >this is why America i so obese, people drive to a place instead of walking for 30 minutes a day and burning 100 extra calories!!!
>everybody is walking >smog still blankets the landscape
do pajeets really?
1 year ago
Anonymous
It's not just pajeets
1 year ago
Anonymous
> london > not pajeets
anon?
1 year ago
Anonymous
There is something off about this picture. Why is it 100% taxis?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Congestion pricing in London (something advocated by leftist urban planners in America as a tool to solve the car problem) exempt taxis, among some other vehicles.
1 year ago
Anonymous
it's because it's a london taxi convention type thing. the cars are parked, people go around and check out each other's cars, socialize. either the anon is retarded or baiting, maybe both.
American cities used to be very much like this until a certain racial demographic moved in and a certain religious group came here from Europe.
>like this
No your pic of detroit is not at all like that. The other pic is a shopping center and there are 0 automobiles. Detroit there is a busy street filled to the brim with automobiles.
>beautiful buildings
Looks like brick and stone. Most major cities in the US have stuff like this. From New York to Los Angeles. Pic related, a portion of the riverwalk in San Antonio at the heart of the city.
1 year ago
Anonymous
There are still some, but they're not nearly as prevalent as they once were. My city has a few comfy old neighborhoods and some nice stone buildings. A lot of these buildings had thought and care put into the design beyond what is the most economically efficient. Places like the San Antonio river walk are few and far between, however. We just largely cannot go back to how our cities used to be before WW2 given the demographic structure. I'm optimistic about the future, but it's going to take at least a few generations for things to improve.
1 year ago
Anonymous
where are the homeless naggers shooting up heroin in the street and collapsing in a pile of their own shit?
>beautiful buildings
Looks like brick and stone. Most major cities in the US have stuff like this. From New York to Los Angeles. Pic related, a portion of the riverwalk in San Antonio at the heart of the city.
You also have to think about the architecture. It's not going to be the same as Europe in the same way it's not going to be the same as Asia. America is not Europe. Why would cattle ranchers and gold miners in Texas and California quarry stone to build 500 year old european things? Many of these buildings in europe were already established long ago along with their cities, while in the US people kept pushing west. Even cities in the US were always pretty small because there just wasn't that many people in one location when everyone is spread across the continent. Then you should look at the history of steel. During America's prime industrialization time Andrew Carnegie had found a way to mass produce steel, making it cheap and abundant, and because of that buildings could be larger and America invented the skyscraper. Much of our industrialization was built on steel, and our older buildings were much smaller. San Antonio example again, just streetview. This is in front of the Majestic theater, I've been there before a long time ago (saw Wicked). Most of these buildings are very old and retrofitted with plumbing and electricity and AC and such. This theater was built in 1929.
1 year ago
Anonymous
There are still some, but they're not nearly as prevalent as they once were. My city has a few comfy old neighborhoods and some nice stone buildings. A lot of these buildings had thought and care put into the design beyond what is the most economically efficient. Places like the San Antonio river walk are few and far between, however. We just largely cannot go back to how our cities used to be before WW2 given the demographic structure. I'm optimistic about the future, but it's going to take at least a few generations for things to improve.
Oh and you see that building in front of the theater, says Frost on it? That was built in 1935, it was a bank. Frost HQ is this now.
>people either own land or live in the highly urbanized cities >if you wanted to get into town you rode a horse >Ford makes cars affordable to the masses >suddenly people can get around from place to place or just going from their land to their home >an in-between started becoming popular called "suburban" >people like the idea of living away from the city on their own land but close enough to drive there easily >people want more roadways for their cars and easier transit >thanks to Germany the American Highway System is spawned and expands exponentially connecting all parts of the country which otherwise is impossible given the vast distances of empty space between even small towns much less actual cities >"hurr durr the CAR LOBBYISTS MADE YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A HOME AWAY FROM THE CITY!!!!!!!!"
>an in-between started becoming popular called "suburban" >people like the idea of living away from the city on their own land but close enough to drive there easily
This had more to do with the industrialization of farming causing all the antique farming equipment to move to the cities. People in the cities didn't like putting up with all the farming equipment so they started moving far enough away to not deal with it but not so far that it was too inconvenient to work in the city.
Cars made suburbs possible of course, but dense cities and affordable cars were a thing before suburbs started popping up.
Yes I'm sure the average American just needs to burn an extra 40 calories walking to mcdonalds that will solve the obesity epidemic that's why Europe where walking is actually viable is aproaching US levels of obesity
>cities aren't walkable
so people are just flying across cities?
you're coping anon.
Cities aren't drivable. No one drives in major cities. It takes multiple hours to get across DC for reference.
Everyone walks.
Same for every other major city in the country.
>mr goldstein will fire me if i'm late >spend 4 hours in traffic >be late
So... what you''re saying is people don't drive?
They don't care about walkable anything. They just hate cars and hate people owning things because they hate people. Whenever you see stuff like this, whether it's this or veganism or whatever, they only do this out of hatred for people. They're misanthropes. If you lived in an open bay where rent was half your pay and all that was available to you was the tofu and soilent store, they would be fine with that because you have to walk to the store and you can never leave that area.
all commies will hang
1 year ago
Anonymous
>spend 4 hours in traffic
i thought you said nobody drove
1 year ago
Anonymous
i thought you said cities weren't walkable?
1 year ago
Anonymous
they aren't, that's why there's so much traffic, everyone is driving.
1 year ago
Anonymous
but if everyone is driving no one is going anywhere and therefore walking is the only option.
They don't care about walkable anything. They just hate cars and hate people owning things because they hate people. Whenever you see stuff like this, whether it's this or veganism or whatever, they only do this out of hatred for people. They're misanthropes. If you lived in an open bay where rent was half your pay and all that was available to you was the tofu and soilent store, they would be fine with that because you have to walk to the store and you can never leave that area.
>wanting more options than just cars bad >only cars good
1 year ago
Anonymous
Thanks for adding to my point. See these fags say this, that it's just "adding to your options." That's about as honest as "you can keep your current provider and your rates wont go up!" when obamacare came out. It's a lie, they don't want to "add options" they want to destroy your way of life because they hate you, plain and simple. They're not complicated. When you think about their position for 2 seconds you understand it doesn't make any sense in the US. Major cities are relatively low in population compared to the rest of the world, they're not dense at all not because of some evil lobbying but because of individual choices. New York City has every transit option available to you including walking, but anyone with money leaves as soon as possible especially when they want to raise families. Doesn't seem like they care at all about walking distances. Then look at the cost of living. Because the city is very dense land is at a premium. You simply cannot afford to live in the good parts of the city if you are not rich. You have to live in the outskirts where it's shit, but hey at least you can walk to the habib and pajeet store to buy cigarettes. As the land costs become more prohibitive people continually move further and further away from the city anyway. Think about all the people who live in New Jersey who commute to NYC every day.
In other words the only way to make this function is to forcibly move people into these areas where they otherwise would not choose to be, which due to COL would make most of them poor. The walkfags would rather have you poor in the dirty city than rich with land and a car in the suburbs just outside of it.
1 year ago
Anonymous
THIS. people in the cities wanna destroy them for all the people who don't go to the cities.
the cities are FINE as they are. we don't need to do anything to them, they're perfect as is.
1 year ago
Anonymous
it's so funny seeing the burbcucks whine about cities. >cities suck that's why i live near one and visit weekly >cities are great which is why i don't think anything needs to be done to them
1 year ago
Anonymous
it's so funny seeing the burbcucks whine about cities. >cities suck that's why i live near one and visit weekly >cities are great which is why i don't think anything needs to be done to them
>t. didn't read and still seething
1 year ago
Anonymous
no i agree. cities are just fine, we can keep them as they are since nothing can be done to improve them.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>forcing people into denser and more expensive areas is the same as improving a city >t. retard
1 year ago
Anonymous
THIS
we need more parking lots, spread everyone out and build more highways.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>forcing
kek, don't like high density? don't live there.
you weren't forced to buy your current home, were you? i know i wasn't, had plenty of choices. coulda picked a high rise condo, coulda picked a farm, coulda picked a cardboard castle.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>nooooooo you can't just choose to live in the heckin suburbarinos and drive into the city whenever you please!!!!
1 year ago
Anonymous
you said you were being forced to move
1 year ago
Anonymous
nta but I live 25 miles out of the city and commute for work and whenever we are doing something for recreation we can't do otherwise
I'm moving further out though because I can still be at work on the Interstate in 35-40 minutes from my new place and I'd like to be as far away from the city as possible when the inevitable social and economic collapse happens
I'm also conspiring with the other department heads at my office to move it out to the suburbs when our lease is up so we can move out even farther
The truth is unless you live in a coastal shithole or Atlanta or Chicago you can live in the suburbs or further out and drive downtown into any city in a reasonable amount of time every day if you choose
It turns out that when you allow people to choose to live and work and play where they want they choose suburbs and commuting over living downtown in a walkable city
1 year ago
Anonymous
That's not me. No I didn't say that. What makes a city walkable? Places have to be in walking distance right? What's reasonable? How about the longest average driving commute, which is Long Island at 33 minutes. At a moderate pace that's 2-3 miles, at a fast pace maybe 4 miles walking. So everything you need should be within 4 miles if you want cities to be so heckin walkable. That means wherever you are within a city, your grocery store, furniture store, place of work, department stores, law offices, clinics etc etc should be approximately 4 miles away. How do you make everything you need 4 miles away? Well for starters you need lots and lots of people. Your income alone can not support the salary and overhead of lawyers in a law office, of grocers, of doctors, you need lots of people regularly using their services so you all have to be packed in pretty tight. This means many large apartment buildings because if everyone owns a plot of land with a house on it you would not be able to fit very many people in that area, making it sparse when we're going for density. Because of that density land is scarce meaning it will cost a premium, so that apartment unit will be very expensive, and you can forget about actually owning a place of your own unless your filthy rich. You will be renting probably forever. So what if people want to move out? What if they want to go elsewhere that is less expensive and they can own land? How do they get to work when their new home is too far to walk?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>kek, don't like high density? don't live there. >people: *doesn't live there* >(You): REEEEEEEE WHY AREN'T WE PACKED LIKE SARDINES SO MY CONVENIENCE STORE IS CLOSER TO ME!!!!
THIS
we need more parking lots, spread everyone out and build more highways.
Don't forget the naggerloving element. Most of these commies despise cars precisely because of how vital they were to the development of suburbia and helping White people escape wanton violence like this.
These statements are both true in New York City. The vast majority of new yorkers do not drive regularly, and in Manhattan about 1 in 5 people even own a car. That is what happens when you have a highly dense city. The cost of living is high so many people can not afford cars, and there is not enough space for everyone to have a car. So for the people who do drive traffic is terrible. It would be worse if you added to it. Reminder that only 25% of New Yorkers even have a driver's license.
Yeah moved back, choose a rail and public based transit system like the US and Europe both used to have. Look at all the tram lines american cities used to have. I'm just saying they shoulda innovated on that concept. Instead of tearing it all up to focus on Cars. Also big roads take the fun outta driving anyway, so you specialized in that form of transport and made it boring. Great job
Cities in general be shitty places to live when comparing it to countryside and suburbs
I mean education is lacking when you look at inner cities because that's where poor and low income families put their kids at and the pay rate ain't even good. Most inner city schools have worse education than those in the suburbs
Inner cities in general aren't great places to live whether they're walkable or strictly for cars.
I agree. Inner cities tend to be smoggy, fast food ridden junk
What are your thoughts on Daryl Davis stating that one of the reasons black children perform worse in school than white children is due to most black kids being in the inner cities where the education is much worse there?
SwoleShack isn't going to solve this problem chatting about it on a chinky-chinky-chinese-patty-cake board. The list is long: >sugar >microplastics in water >"muh service-based economy" >physical leisure activity replaced by passive goyslop entertainment >feminization of culture >absence of homemakers cooking healthy meals >israelites, probably
>What causes this?
highly processed foods, pesticides, industrial poisoning, genetic engineering, etc.
And how do we fix it?
education mostly and habit building that begins in childhood with more raw/organic/ripe foods. change can only happen when the individual assumes responsibility for their actions. so, self-care and parenting. none of which anyone in the world wants to take part in if it doesn't appease their vanity.
>this thing we've eaten for thousands of years without issue caused obesity
man no carbs are so fucking retarded its insane, low carb has some argument, but god damn dude.
The only thing that has seriously changed is oil consumption.
At no point in our history were we meant to ingest 8k% of our daily vegetable oil multiple times daily.
It literally takes multiple pounds of a vegetable to make one cup of vegetable oil.
that shit is insane and anything less is fucking cope.
But obesity was never an issue to anyone until vegetable oil became the mainstream in the average household.
It only increased as more people added more cooking oil to their houses and foods.
before that obesity almost didn't exist.
sugar plantation workers would exhibit huge obesity during harvest despite burning 5-10k cals a day. this was back in the 1800s iirc so no modern seed oils to speak of.
>usa 36% or above obesity rate >south korea 5% >china 6% >india 4% >russia 23% >japan 4% >germany 22% >uk 28% >france 21.5%
do you live in some fantasy world retard?
don't get me wrong anon, but… it is. it is THAT fat.
https://i.imgur.com/L1Hql8v.jpg
what? kek. are you fucking retarded?
>usa 36% or above obesity rate >south korea 5% >china 6% >india 4% >russia 23% >japan 4% >germany 22% >uk 28% >france 21.5%
do you live in some fantasy world retard?
is right. in the West, you're the fattest country, period. you guys were saying "not my problem, take that starving socialists", until you reached near 40% obesity rates.
you're still in denial because "muh blacks / latinos". they don't skew the statistic that much, white obesity is still over 30%.
the only reason why they don't call it emergency is because people like you will get offended.
Walkfags are just another flavor of r-strategists who have no ability to conceptualize scarce resources >bro let's just ban cars and make all our cities walkable! >bro let's just ban fossil fuels and use green energy for all our needs! >bro let's just bring all the poor people into rich nations, then everyone will be rich!
>1 hour of walking >200-300 calories
Wow so all people need to do to not be obese is decrease their caloric intake as of now by 300 calories? Well golly gee looks like you can still have 2 mcdoubles, 2 soda refills, a large fry, and a cookie, but those apple slices have got to go buddy. Hooray we solved obesity.
Not that guy, but the ABILITY to walk to work is probably the more important part rather than the 1 hour of walking itself.
If you get to walk to work, then you would maintain your ability to walk to work. You wouldn't want to be huffing and puffing from a walk you do every day.
The single biggest reason for the increase in obesity is that people are simply eating more food. The single biggest increase in food consumption over the last few decades has been from added oils, followed by grains. People eat out a lot more often, and are getting more fried foods.
there doesn't exist a larger concentration of vain, shallow individuals than california thus physical appearance is a constant pressure. also, there are lots of asians there and that helps bring the number down.
Grew up fat on a council estate, eating takeaways a lot. Now make 90th percentile household income and got fit.
It's education, which leads to both better diet and income, but it's a slightly dubious link.
I don't think lower-income people either know or care how badly their diet fucks them up physically and mentally. Easier to go to the GP for setraline.
Damn I was born in Denmark in 1990 and truly it was rare to see fat and especially megafat people. So the rate has doubled from that. I would still say we are a very healthy and fit people in general. Except for our lovely middle eastern immigrants who eat shit food and don't exercise.
Raised in Mississippi. You can not break southern food culture, but the best bet would be to raise certain areas of the state out of poverty so they're less reliant on unhealthy food. Good luck with that.
AND WE FANCY LIKE APPLEBEES ON A DATE NIGHT
States with higher percentages of sheboons are going to have higher percentages of obesity. You know what to do.
whites in Alabama still have 35% obesity rate.
West Virginia is 90% white and the fattest state in the union
low IQ blacks
>Only DC is below 25%
We're doomed.
Oh and colorado but who the fuck cares
Eh... Colorado? isn't that Colorado (I'm no burger)
and Hawaii is 24,9
>Colorado mogging every state once again
Not for long man. Have you walked outside lately? More and more Hispanics by the day.
I love Colorado so much bros
It'd be terrible if the rest of us rocky mountain chads had to deal with the insufferability you guys keep contained
God I love The Boys
Colorado sucks.
theres no way those numbers are still that low. i live in ct and i swear like 50% of the people i see on a daily basis are fucking fat
It's actually like 42%
wouldnt surprise me at all, its probably even worse in the south, im guessing at least 80% of the population down there are fat
This map is for obesity only, not including those who are overweight but not obese. So the actual percentage of people who are fat is definitely closer to or in excess of 50%.
SD reporting in yup everyone's fat the problem here is cheap dry goods and a sedentary culture the biggest city has a 6 mile diameter so its walkable but everyone drives for no reason
Holy shit what the fuck is up with Mississippi and West Virginia?
Mississippi is black people
West Virginia is white trash
the rest of the south is some combination of those two
Ahh ok. I live in Nebraska and its not that bad. Only in Lincoln is where its bad but most people here are decent weight
Nebraska seems cool. Do you live near a lot of Indian reservations?
destroying all your cities so cars can have space
nobody walks anywhere because it's too far because automobile industries lobbied for car-centric development
meds
he's right though, people used to walk a decent amount on a daily basis, now they walk to their car, into the store, and back, maybe 1k steps.
combined with poisonous addictive sugar in food ofc
>CORPORASHUNS DID THIS TO US
>WE NEED MUH WALKABLE CITIES
>you WILL live in the cardboard box
>you WILL subscribe to your car
>you WILL eat the HFCS
>you WILL be happy
this is what people who want walkable cities say
because meanie bully cars oppress mother nature and you shouldn't own an evil metal box
They're just retards. Individual transportation allows suburbs and rural areas to exist at all. Given that 97+% of US land mass is rural or wilderness you need your own transportation to get anywhere. You can't walk across an entire state to get to your destination, and you can't connect every single home with public transportation. It's often 20 or more miles from people in rural areas to get to the grocery store. How in the world can you make a railway within a reasonable walking distance from every single farm in the country? Sometimes just someone walking off their own land is a trek, I've got a friend in South Carolina who has to drive to his mailbox because walking from his home, down his land, to the street is a good 10 minutes. How many dozen miles would you have to walk to get to a train that served a rural community? Assuming people were willing to walk that far, how long do you think it would take just to pick up the people there? How many stops are along the way? How long do you think that commute would be? And how many passengers would you actually serve with this 10 billion dollar project? Could that community even afford to publicly fund it? Could a private company ever profit from that rail line? Even trains in china take billions of dollars of losses ever year and that's with CITIES comprising 30 million people. Texas has 30 million people.
>hey we should make our cities better since most people live there
>zomfg there's literally no way every single house in the country could be connected by rail
uh k
>hEy wE sHoUlD mAkE oUr CiTiEs BeTtEr sInCe MoSt PeOpLe LiVe ThErE
>*le dumb conservative retort*
not him, but I'm Russian and I live in your "utopia" that "just werks". we live in commieblocks, but still have insane housing prices, crazy traffic, and overcrowded public transport.
reason? everyone wants to live in the city, because living in rural areas is barely possible. and our cities were built with no cars in mind (at its peak, around 30 in 1,000 people in USSR had a car). precisely because of your "walking distance" rule, everything had to be jam packed together—hospitals, department stores, restaurants, schools, kindergartens, sports facilities, etc. so instead of spreading the population across the land, and letting people settle comfortably in bumfuck nowhere where housing prices are low, we need to densely pack them in cities where every square meter is worth a fortune.
the only reason to hate American cities is if you're a seething socialist who thinks cars are le bad, oil companies are bad, private property is bad and everything should only be owned by the state.
this thread is about obesity
>no one is going anywhere
what makes you say this?
because of the fact that traffic in most cities is statistically impossible to navigate in a timely manner. Therefore walkable cities must exist. Else all production ceases entirely.
If everyone is driving, literally every single person. There would be so much traffic it would take literal hours to drive through a single city.
So alternative routes must exist.
Such as walking, which means cities are in fact walkable.
>because of the fact that traffic in most cities is statistically impossible to navigate in a timely manner
what makes you say this?
So what you're saying is you've never been to a city?
why not answer the question you were asked about the claims you're making?
I did answer the question, you're the one dodging now.
Have you seriously never been to a city?
I have been to many and I see people walking daily. Walking everywhere. They have to walk.
Because otherwise traffic would only increase in an already saturated road.
So either cities are walkable and you're coping or traffic only intensifies more than it already is which means effectively doubling commute, potentially tripling commute.
I'm sorry you're wrong Anon, but you're the one who said cities aren't walkable.
Did you forget I can easily go to google maps and see sidewalks?
>I did answer the question
howso? you said the FACT yet never provided said facts.
until you do that, you're just dodging and not worth reading.
Anon, it's time for you to stop posting.
I understand you're upset and you really really wanted to defend your position, but you aren't going to prove to me that sidewalks don't exist.
Do we seriously need to have a conversation on how long sidewalks have existed in human society?
>still no facts
anon it's simple, just provide the facts you're referencing. simple as.
Well okay here we go.
2000 B.C. Anatolia, the first side walk that we have historical evidence of existed.
Since this point humans have regularly used sidewalks.
In fact many many sidewalks exist Anon, all over the world. I know this info scares you, but I bet right now if you go outside and walk a few feet outside your mother's house you'll even find a sidewalk. This sidewalk more than likely follows a road. That road probably goes into a town!
So you keep following and you get to the town and there will be a stop light, you wait there at the stop light and when there is no traffic or you're given a signal by a device, or following the rules of your local city you can cross the street to another sidewalk.
I don't want to presume, but I bet if you keep following that sidewalk you'll end up at a business somewhere in that town.
I really didn't think we had to have this conversation, but yes that is how sidewalks and cities work.
correct, don't forget some doctors have also started changing their definition of "obesity" and "overweight" in reference to body fat when you account for more liberal cities. So a lot of that information is inaccurate also.
We are probably reaching levels closer to 60% at this point.
anon you said
>the fact that traffic in most cities is statistically impossible to navigate in a timely manner
nobody is denying that sidewalks exists
Anon do I really need to repeat myself on the subject of sidewalks?
Are you really going to need me to take a picture of a sidewalk for you to see that they exist?
Either you accept that sidewalks exist and therefore cities can in-fact be walked in/around/through or i'll accept you're retarded.
>Anon do I really need to repeat myself on the subject of sidewalks?
>Are you really going to need me to take a picture of a sidewalk for you to see that they exist?
nope, just need you to prove that cities are impossible to get across by car.
Idk what you two are talking about but I'll chime in anyway. Going from Queens to Brooklyn in NYC takes you *around* the city via highways at a crawling pace. Going *through* the city would take an extremely unreasonable amount of time.
What's more, it would take you 6 hours to walk this. That's going in basically a straight line through the city and cuts down the distance by 8 miles.
Another probably real life example. Going from wall street to 5th avenue where a well-off trader or banker might actually live takes 21 minutes by car going *around* the city. Walking through it is a straight line and takes 2 hours at 5.5 miles. New York is the densest, most populated city in the US. You directly pass by thousands of residences (apartments) and businesses on your route. It is *the* walkable city in the US. The common phrase "you don't need a car in New York" reflects that. Is a 2 hour commute acceptable to you for walkable standard?
I don't necessarily disagree with your point but you're using Saturday morning traffic (it may not matter in NYC). Try using the departure/arrival time options.
Bro go to Austin or Los Angeles in your car
i know right? walkable city anon is coping hardcore.
pretty much every city i've ever been to you walk everywhere and i've been to pretty much every major city in USA.
no one drives other than commuting to work in LA. that shit takes hours to go anywhere. everyone just walks in the meantime to go to stores.
>walkable cities
Not calling you out specifically, but this requires higher density, which “walkable cities” people tend to oppose in reality.
>muh views, muh environment, muh obnoxiously high standards on new construction that aren’t required to be adopted gradually on existing construction.
It depends on your opinion of walkable. Most cunts won't walk ten minutes.
A mix of walking and better public transport would improve cities immeasurably. Banning cars is a dumb ass idea though because sometimes you need your car if your collecting something too heavy/big to take on public transport. Commercial vehicles also require access to businesses.
I've travelled a lot and the best cities I have visited have had a good blend of public transport, vehicle access and walking/cycling
>Commercial vehicles also require access to businesses.
This is it right here, when I worked in transportation planning and some fuckface brought up carfree cities or banning trucks from downtown areas I always suggested having the trucks drop off pallets of food at the edge of the city and having delivery people bike out to bring it into their urban Targets one bike trailer load at a time
The sad part was that half the idiots you would say this to eagerly agreed with the notion because they had zero sense of scale and how many trips it would take to move 60,000 lbs of food in one truck
Leftists simply live on a detached plane of non-reality
>It depends on your opinion of walkable
That's just it isn't it? It means nothing. That's the point. Densest most compact city in America still could take hours to walk just to work. All they really want is to ban cars. They say they don't, that they just want more options, but that's clearly not their angle. They want their US cities to look like the conglomerated metropolitan areas of the netherlands. Where the whole world is just one big outdoor shopping mall. It's ridiculous, and even if you tried it couldn't be done in the US because it's so much more both economical and desirable to not live like that. What's more, think about what it is they're actually suggesting. What is their biggest offenses? Single family properties and parking lots, those come up a lot. They hate them. Large parking lots in cities could go, sure. Replace them with other businesses and apartments and everyone can just park on the street like in New York City. Then going back to the beginning here, what is the opinion of "walkable?" Is New York City not walkable?
this lol
look how horrific this looks
ahhhh much better
>oh my god ARE YOU SERIOUSLY IMPLYING I HAVE TO DRIVE?? why can't you just put hospitals, department stores, restaurants, schools, universities and my workplace in a circle around my house so that I could just walk there in 5 minutes!!
>this is why America i so obese, people drive to a place instead of walking for 30 minutes a day and burning 100 extra calories!!!
>everybody is walking
>smog still blankets the landscape
do pajeets really?
It's not just pajeets
> london
> not pajeets
anon?
There is something off about this picture. Why is it 100% taxis?
Congestion pricing in London (something advocated by leftist urban planners in America as a tool to solve the car problem) exempt taxis, among some other vehicles.
it's because it's a london taxi convention type thing. the cars are parked, people go around and check out each other's cars, socialize. either the anon is retarded or baiting, maybe both.
American cities used to be very much like this until a certain racial demographic moved in and a certain religious group came here from Europe.
>like this
No your pic of detroit is not at all like that. The other pic is a shopping center and there are 0 automobiles. Detroit there is a busy street filled to the brim with automobiles.
like this != the same
Notice the beautiful buildings, the public square, the large amount of foot traffic
>beautiful buildings
Looks like brick and stone. Most major cities in the US have stuff like this. From New York to Los Angeles. Pic related, a portion of the riverwalk in San Antonio at the heart of the city.
There are still some, but they're not nearly as prevalent as they once were. My city has a few comfy old neighborhoods and some nice stone buildings. A lot of these buildings had thought and care put into the design beyond what is the most economically efficient. Places like the San Antonio river walk are few and far between, however. We just largely cannot go back to how our cities used to be before WW2 given the demographic structure. I'm optimistic about the future, but it's going to take at least a few generations for things to improve.
where are the homeless naggers shooting up heroin in the street and collapsing in a pile of their own shit?
You also have to think about the architecture. It's not going to be the same as Europe in the same way it's not going to be the same as Asia. America is not Europe. Why would cattle ranchers and gold miners in Texas and California quarry stone to build 500 year old european things? Many of these buildings in europe were already established long ago along with their cities, while in the US people kept pushing west. Even cities in the US were always pretty small because there just wasn't that many people in one location when everyone is spread across the continent. Then you should look at the history of steel. During America's prime industrialization time Andrew Carnegie had found a way to mass produce steel, making it cheap and abundant, and because of that buildings could be larger and America invented the skyscraper. Much of our industrialization was built on steel, and our older buildings were much smaller. San Antonio example again, just streetview. This is in front of the Majestic theater, I've been there before a long time ago (saw Wicked). Most of these buildings are very old and retrofitted with plumbing and electricity and AC and such. This theater was built in 1929.
Oh and you see that building in front of the theater, says Frost on it? That was built in 1935, it was a bank. Frost HQ is this now.
>this busy public square is unacceptable because cars are present
Can you just point to where the cars touched you anon?
>t. illiterate
>people either own land or live in the highly urbanized cities
>if you wanted to get into town you rode a horse
>Ford makes cars affordable to the masses
>suddenly people can get around from place to place or just going from their land to their home
>an in-between started becoming popular called "suburban"
>people like the idea of living away from the city on their own land but close enough to drive there easily
>people want more roadways for their cars and easier transit
>thanks to Germany the American Highway System is spawned and expands exponentially connecting all parts of the country which otherwise is impossible given the vast distances of empty space between even small towns much less actual cities
>"hurr durr the CAR LOBBYISTS MADE YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A HOME AWAY FROM THE CITY!!!!!!!!"
>an in-between started becoming popular called "suburban"
>people like the idea of living away from the city on their own land but close enough to drive there easily
This had more to do with the industrialization of farming causing all the antique farming equipment to move to the cities. People in the cities didn't like putting up with all the farming equipment so they started moving far enough away to not deal with it but not so far that it was too inconvenient to work in the city.
Cars made suburbs possible of course, but dense cities and affordable cars were a thing before suburbs started popping up.
Yes I'm sure the average American just needs to burn an extra 40 calories walking to mcdonalds that will solve the obesity epidemic that's why Europe where walking is actually viable is aproaching US levels of obesity
if that was true why are city fags always so fucking fat?
only skinny people i see are country people.
because cities aren't walkable you moron.
denser cities would create more space for rural areas actually
>cities aren't walkable
so people are just flying across cities?
you're coping anon.
Cities aren't drivable. No one drives in major cities. It takes multiple hours to get across DC for reference.
Everyone walks.
Same for every other major city in the country.
>so people are just flying across cities?
no????????? they're driving.
>mr goldstein will fire me if i'm late
>spend 4 hours in traffic
>be late
So... what you''re saying is people don't drive?
all commies will hang
>spend 4 hours in traffic
i thought you said nobody drove
i thought you said cities weren't walkable?
they aren't, that's why there's so much traffic, everyone is driving.
but if everyone is driving no one is going anywhere and therefore walking is the only option.
They don't care about walkable anything. They just hate cars and hate people owning things because they hate people. Whenever you see stuff like this, whether it's this or veganism or whatever, they only do this out of hatred for people. They're misanthropes. If you lived in an open bay where rent was half your pay and all that was available to you was the tofu and soilent store, they would be fine with that because you have to walk to the store and you can never leave that area.
>wanting more options than just cars bad
>only cars good
Thanks for adding to my point. See these fags say this, that it's just "adding to your options." That's about as honest as "you can keep your current provider and your rates wont go up!" when obamacare came out. It's a lie, they don't want to "add options" they want to destroy your way of life because they hate you, plain and simple. They're not complicated. When you think about their position for 2 seconds you understand it doesn't make any sense in the US. Major cities are relatively low in population compared to the rest of the world, they're not dense at all not because of some evil lobbying but because of individual choices. New York City has every transit option available to you including walking, but anyone with money leaves as soon as possible especially when they want to raise families. Doesn't seem like they care at all about walking distances. Then look at the cost of living. Because the city is very dense land is at a premium. You simply cannot afford to live in the good parts of the city if you are not rich. You have to live in the outskirts where it's shit, but hey at least you can walk to the habib and pajeet store to buy cigarettes. As the land costs become more prohibitive people continually move further and further away from the city anyway. Think about all the people who live in New Jersey who commute to NYC every day.
In other words the only way to make this function is to forcibly move people into these areas where they otherwise would not choose to be, which due to COL would make most of them poor. The walkfags would rather have you poor in the dirty city than rich with land and a car in the suburbs just outside of it.
THIS. people in the cities wanna destroy them for all the people who don't go to the cities.
the cities are FINE as they are. we don't need to do anything to them, they're perfect as is.
it's so funny seeing the burbcucks whine about cities.
>cities suck that's why i live near one and visit weekly
>cities are great which is why i don't think anything needs to be done to them
>t. didn't read and still seething
no i agree. cities are just fine, we can keep them as they are since nothing can be done to improve them.
>forcing people into denser and more expensive areas is the same as improving a city
>t. retard
THIS
we need more parking lots, spread everyone out and build more highways.
>forcing
kek, don't like high density? don't live there.
you weren't forced to buy your current home, were you? i know i wasn't, had plenty of choices. coulda picked a high rise condo, coulda picked a farm, coulda picked a cardboard castle.
>nooooooo you can't just choose to live in the heckin suburbarinos and drive into the city whenever you please!!!!
you said you were being forced to move
nta but I live 25 miles out of the city and commute for work and whenever we are doing something for recreation we can't do otherwise
I'm moving further out though because I can still be at work on the Interstate in 35-40 minutes from my new place and I'd like to be as far away from the city as possible when the inevitable social and economic collapse happens
I'm also conspiring with the other department heads at my office to move it out to the suburbs when our lease is up so we can move out even farther
The truth is unless you live in a coastal shithole or Atlanta or Chicago you can live in the suburbs or further out and drive downtown into any city in a reasonable amount of time every day if you choose
It turns out that when you allow people to choose to live and work and play where they want they choose suburbs and commuting over living downtown in a walkable city
That's not me. No I didn't say that. What makes a city walkable? Places have to be in walking distance right? What's reasonable? How about the longest average driving commute, which is Long Island at 33 minutes. At a moderate pace that's 2-3 miles, at a fast pace maybe 4 miles walking. So everything you need should be within 4 miles if you want cities to be so heckin walkable. That means wherever you are within a city, your grocery store, furniture store, place of work, department stores, law offices, clinics etc etc should be approximately 4 miles away. How do you make everything you need 4 miles away? Well for starters you need lots and lots of people. Your income alone can not support the salary and overhead of lawyers in a law office, of grocers, of doctors, you need lots of people regularly using their services so you all have to be packed in pretty tight. This means many large apartment buildings because if everyone owns a plot of land with a house on it you would not be able to fit very many people in that area, making it sparse when we're going for density. Because of that density land is scarce meaning it will cost a premium, so that apartment unit will be very expensive, and you can forget about actually owning a place of your own unless your filthy rich. You will be renting probably forever. So what if people want to move out? What if they want to go elsewhere that is less expensive and they can own land? How do they get to work when their new home is too far to walk?
>kek, don't like high density? don't live there.
>people: *doesn't live there*
>(You): REEEEEEEE WHY AREN'T WE PACKED LIKE SARDINES SO MY CONVENIENCE STORE IS CLOSER TO ME!!!!
pic
Don't forget the naggerloving element. Most of these commies despise cars precisely because of how vital they were to the development of suburbia and helping White people escape wanton violence like this.
>people don't drive
>there's too much traffic to make it practical
These statements are both true in New York City. The vast majority of new yorkers do not drive regularly, and in Manhattan about 1 in 5 people even own a car. That is what happens when you have a highly dense city. The cost of living is high so many people can not afford cars, and there is not enough space for everyone to have a car. So for the people who do drive traffic is terrible. It would be worse if you added to it. Reminder that only 25% of New Yorkers even have a driver's license.
>be USA
>3000mi across
>97% of land is rural
yeah it's is the lobbyists fault for incorporating cars into cities
Yeah not like there was something efficient at crossing vast distances before cars...
goalpost: moved
Yeah moved back, choose a rail and public based transit system like the US and Europe both used to have. Look at all the tram lines american cities used to have. I'm just saying they shoulda innovated on that concept. Instead of tearing it all up to focus on Cars. Also big roads take the fun outta driving anyway, so you specialized in that form of transport and made it boring. Great job
Hmmmmmmm
1000000%?
Cities in general be shitty places to live when comparing it to countryside and suburbs
I mean education is lacking when you look at inner cities because that's where poor and low income families put their kids at and the pay rate ain't even good. Most inner city schools have worse education than those in the suburbs
Inner cities in general aren't great places to live whether they're walkable or strictly for cars.
I agree. Inner cities tend to be smoggy, fast food ridden junk
What are your thoughts on Daryl Davis stating that one of the reasons black children perform worse in school than white children is due to most black kids being in the inner cities where the education is much worse there?
SwoleShack isn't going to solve this problem chatting about it on a chinky-chinky-chinese-patty-cake board. The list is long:
>sugar
>microplastics in water
>"muh service-based economy"
>physical leisure activity replaced by passive goyslop entertainment
>feminization of culture
>absence of homemakers cooking healthy meals
>israelites, probably
>rhetoric points to the idea that he's a conservative american
>conservative americans are the fatties
kys to help the country with this fat plague.
vegetable oil, anything less is cope.
directly lowers metabolic rate.
>What causes this?
highly processed foods, pesticides, industrial poisoning, genetic engineering, etc.
And how do we fix it?
education mostly and habit building that begins in childhood with more raw/organic/ripe foods. change can only happen when the individual assumes responsibility for their actions. so, self-care and parenting. none of which anyone in the world wants to take part in if it doesn't appease their vanity.
stop eating so much fucking corn deepfried in grease
>Alabama native here
And he wants to be free.
>what causes this?
carbs
>how do we fix it?
nocarb
>this thing we've eaten for thousands of years without issue caused obesity
man no carbs are so fucking retarded its insane, low carb has some argument, but god damn dude.
The only thing that has seriously changed is oil consumption.
At no point in our history were we meant to ingest 8k% of our daily vegetable oil multiple times daily.
It literally takes multiple pounds of a vegetable to make one cup of vegetable oil.
that shit is insane and anything less is fucking cope.
It became immediately obvious that carbs cause obesity when humans switched from hunting to agriculture.
Carbs have always been fattening cattle feed.
But obesity was never an issue to anyone until vegetable oil became the mainstream in the average household.
It only increased as more people added more cooking oil to their houses and foods.
before that obesity almost didn't exist.
sugar plantation workers would exhibit huge obesity during harvest despite burning 5-10k cals a day. this was back in the 1800s iirc so no modern seed oils to speak of.
>People eat more calories
>Get fatter
WTF KETO IS THE ANSWER
Bros you are looking for a leftist containment board to spout your communist urban planner bullshit
I suggest >>>/n/
this. america isn't nearly as fat as europe or asia
what? kek. are you fucking retarded?
>usa 36% or above obesity rate
>south korea 5%
>china 6%
>india 4%
>russia 23%
>japan 4%
>germany 22%
>uk 28%
>france 21.5%
do you live in some fantasy world retard?
Fatassy world
but those places are communist podholes
how can they be thinner than us?
Poor shitholes that can't even afford food KWAB
😀 hello
don't get me wrong anon, but… it is. it is THAT fat.
is right. in the West, you're the fattest country, period. you guys were saying "not my problem, take that starving socialists", until you reached near 40% obesity rates.
you're still in denial because "muh blacks / latinos". they don't skew the statistic that much, white obesity is still over 30%.
the only reason why they don't call it emergency is because people like you will get offended.
No idea witch one Alabama is. But I'm miring the straight borders.
Alabama is 36.2% obese
Note: this is only obesity prevalence. Overweight individuals add another 40-50% to this, though overweight is messier to define by BMI alone.
Walkfags are just another flavor of r-strategists who have no ability to conceptualize scarce resources
>bro let's just ban cars and make all our cities walkable!
>bro let's just ban fossil fuels and use green energy for all our needs!
>bro let's just bring all the poor people into rich nations, then everyone will be rich!
>i think people walking way less than they used to has made people fat
>REEEEEEEEE MUH CARS
kek
>1 hour of walking
>200-300 calories
Wow so all people need to do to not be obese is decrease their caloric intake as of now by 300 calories? Well golly gee looks like you can still have 2 mcdoubles, 2 soda refills, a large fry, and a cookie, but those apple slices have got to go buddy. Hooray we solved obesity.
I think walking 1 hour a day would seriously cut that shit down for everyone
Not that guy, but the ABILITY to walk to work is probably the more important part rather than the 1 hour of walking itself.
If you get to walk to work, then you would maintain your ability to walk to work. You wouldn't want to be huffing and puffing from a walk you do every day.
Which region of America has the best tasting food?
The single biggest reason for the increase in obesity is that people are simply eating more food. The single biggest increase in food consumption over the last few decades has been from added oils, followed by grains. People eat out a lot more often, and are getting more fried foods.
Hispanics and black people have absolutely terrible diets. Poor whites also love to eat junk food and chug soda.
>how do we fix it
You don’t. I love walking outside and being in better shape than 90% of the population
I love the South because the gyms play rock music and no edm or rap
how is california so thin
there doesn't exist a larger concentration of vain, shallow individuals than california thus physical appearance is a constant pressure. also, there are lots of asians there and that helps bring the number down.
California is full of soi latte drinking bugmen
For the millionth time, it's economic factors and access.
much like the UK
damn that difference in UK. True class society
WHAT THE FUCK BONGLAND??
So basically, If you see a thin girl in the UK, she's from a rich family
Quite literally, yes.
Grew up fat on a council estate, eating takeaways a lot. Now make 90th percentile household income and got fit.
It's education, which leads to both better diet and income, but it's a slightly dubious link.
I don't think lower-income people either know or care how badly their diet fucks them up physically and mentally. Easier to go to the GP for setraline.
Because poor people are secretly rich and can buy lots of food? Or does poverty improve the bodies metabolism to such a degree it defies physics?
It's more that poor people are retarded, which is why they're poor in the first place. And retarded people are fat.
WE GOTTA PUMP EM UP!!!!!!!!!! THOSE ARE ROOKIE NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn I was born in Denmark in 1990 and truly it was rare to see fat and especially megafat people. So the rate has doubled from that. I would still say we are a very healthy and fit people in general. Except for our lovely middle eastern immigrants who eat shit food and don't exercise.
>mfw WV native and current resident
are other states really noticeably less fat? there are a lot of fat fuckers here I guess just more gains for me.
You americans fucked your own country, deserved.
Sweet tea will getcha
Conservatives are tubs of shit.
>There are people currently living in cramped slave quarters itt trying to brag about their lives to Americans.
Raised in Mississippi. You can not break southern food culture, but the best bet would be to raise certain areas of the state out of poverty so they're less reliant on unhealthy food. Good luck with that.