SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Commuting to work via private transport is linked with having a higher bmi and body fat, compared to "active commuting" (walking or cycling), as would be expected, but public transport use when commuting had a similar effect to active commuting.
A key finding from this study is that the effects observed for public transport were very similar in size and significance to those for walking or cycling to work. This finding may have important implications for transport and health policy, as over the past decade the proportion of commuters who walk or cycle to work has remained stubbornly low outside major cities in the UK. Greater emphasis on encouraging a shift from private to public transport modes may plausibly have significant population health benefits and may be more acceptable to commuters. Such a strategy could also yield large environmental benefits, and could be an important structural intervention to combat obesity.
The magnitude of effects observed in this study were clinically meaningful. The observed effect size for men of around 1 (0.97 to 1.1) BMI point suggests that, for the average man in the sample (43 years old, 176 cm tall, weight 86 kg, and BMI 27.8), this would equate to a difference in weight of 3 kg (almost half a stone). For the average woman in the sample (43 years old, 163 cm tall, weight 72.8 kg, BMI 27.4), an effect size of around 0.7 (0.66 to 0.72) BMI points would correspond to a difference in weight of approximately 2.5 kg (5.5 lb). These differences are larger than the effect sizes seen in most individually focused interventions based on diet and physical activity to prevent overweight and obesity.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday August 28 2014, @01:33PM
Cities in the southern US in particular score among the lowest for walking. Suburbs are terrible. The South has had the most growth in recent decades, all the years of the rise of the automobile, and city planners were actively hostile towards pedestrians. Some felt that foot travel is a sign of poverty which lowers property values of the neighborhood. They may also have been influenced by marketing from automobile companies.
It's exasperating to see something that would be a short, easy walk away, if only there wasn't a major, traffic congested road in between, with no crossing. Lot of bridges built in past decades spare no room whatsoever for pedestrian traffic, not even a space with a painted line to mark a shoulder, let alone a curb. I have tried walking the shoulder of a bridge that did have a painted line and a little space. Was nearly taken out by an old driver, the kind of old boy who doesn't slow down enough for curves and ends up cutting across the line without realizing it. He went so far across the line that his car almost brushed the railing on the inside of the curve that I was only a few feet from and walking towards. After that, I ran to get off that bridge as fast as possible.
Attitudes are changing again. In the late 1990's, the fact that a new automobile bridge was pedestrian friendly was newsworthy, hailed as progress instead of doubted as a potential for increasing crime. Everyone still knows that people who can't afford cars are trash, more likely to commit crimes, but now admit that sometimes walking is best. Pedestrian friendly is becoming normal, and I hope it stays that way.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @01:49PM
this this this!
Most 'newer' cities that are planed have sidewalks and some even have bike lanes.
In the 'south' you are lucky if the road does not have a 4 inch drop off into gravel.
I could get to the store or work in under 20 mins walking. I wouldnt dare do it for fear of being splattered by a car. The bridge I have to cross was built in the 40s. There is no where to walk on it and I cant run at 50MPH.
Well my job is taking care of it. They told me to move to a heavily urban area. Where I can have a 2 hour commute. But at least they have bike lanes there... Which I will never get to use because I will be too busy commuting in my car.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:30PM
Specifically, there are areas of most cities in the US that do their best to avoid both foot traffic and public transit access for fear of enabling "those people" to get to those neighborhoods. The idea is to create an economic barrier of having enough for a decent car before you can be in a particular place, while the police come up with pretexts to ensure that those who could drive to an area that the town doesn't want around are pulled over and harassed.
I've used my local transit system (in a fairly major US city) enough to know that the vast majority of the folks using it are people going to and from work and school. Some poor people are trash, but a lot of poor people are not only not trash but work harder than I've ever managed to. And a lot of people with cars are trash too, so I'm not clear why "everyone still knows" something that isn't true.
Another way of putting it: I feel a lot more at risk of losing everything when I'm in a meeting with a banker than I felt walking through the worst neighborhood of my city at 2 AM on a Saturday (a train route shut down at the wrong time). That's because if I'm mugged on the street, I'll probably just lose what's in my pockets if I cooperate (worth maybe $200), but if I'm robbed by the bank I could well lose everything I have and more (worth closer to $250,000).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.