Posted on 08/14/2014 4:01:39 AM PDT by CW_Conservative
People in dense cities are thinner and have healthier hearts than people in sprawling subdivisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
I don’t get it, I have seen San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Naples, Barcelona, Genoa etc. and I can understand the attraction for some young people who want excitement and all that but why anyone over thirty or so would prefer to live in a big city rather than in the suburbs or better yet out in the country is beyond me. Living in a small town is different, you can quickly get out into the open if even the small town seems too crowded for you but living in the “concrete jungle” is just beyond my understanding and I certainly cannot grasp the attraction of a high-rise apartment building where you cannot even step out the door without a long elevator ride or many, many flights of stairs. It seems too much like prison.
I like being able to step out my door and pick grapes, figs, or blueberries when they are in season, watch the squirrels in the Hickory trees, take a stroll without leaving my own place, smell the Sweet Bay blossoms, look at an acre of Royal Ferns growing wild, Dogwood, American Beauty Berry, Azaleas etc, go down to the creek and fish from the bank or go canoeing, plant a garden in the spring if I feel inclined, pick a watermelon or cantaloupe or blackeyed peas from my garden or build a fire outside in the fall and winter and just sit by the open fire. The city holds no attractions for me. I have all this within a ten minute drive of a major medical center, within a bike ride of the primary care clinic, ten minutes from a large shopping mall. Why on Earth would I want to live in the city?
But liberals love to warehouse people in cities simply because it is much easier to control their lives that way.
Self-driving automobiles will soon enable the middle class to live farther from the dirty noisy city work hubs, and families will jump at the chance. And safe/reliable self-flying small airplanes will be available soon after that, enabling double that distance. American big cities are draining out of Americans, and only treading water population-wise because of a constant stream of third world imports, desperately needed to keep the city government worker pension plans from going bankrupt.
Yep...what you said...I am 25 years older than you and in best shape of my life..
And can probably win any sprint with “normal” 20+ year old women...You are what you eat.
“You don’t begin to know what you’re talking about.”
I knew you’d say that. Liberals always think no one gets them or understands them, especially on topics such as cities. They are arrogant enough to think their simpleton minds see things no one else sees. The fact is, liberals are morons that are the blind.
Dang, now I want an HFCS laden granola bar...
(sigh)
I’m just starting my journey back to (I hope) better health. Two days of salads and I’m about ready to crawl on my hands and knees to Five Guys and get a cheeseburger.
There's your mistake. If you think losing weight and becoming healthy comes from starving yourself on salads and denying yourself cheese and hamburgers, you're mistaken. Go eat that beef and cheese; just skip the bun and sugary ketchup. You need protein and fat in your diet.
Actually, there is causation.
City dwellers walk more than suburb dwellers, and are thus in better condition. Of course, once upon a time, the opposite was the case. Studies done by the army in WWI showed that country dwellers were in much better shape physically than city dwellers (farm work builds muscle!).
So if you REALLY want to get in shape, live in the country, and adopt the lifestyle of a farmer from 1900.
Where is there hard data to support that thesis?
Not WWII era but anything recent.
In the USA other than Manhattan and San Francisco I don’t even see anecdotal evidence that is correct.
Since it seems that most cities are concentrated pools of liberalism, and the desire to make more people liberal probably underlies all of the pipe-dreams about forcing people to live in cities, I speculate whether the absence of meaningful interaction with the natural world is a factor in people remaining liberal. Many liberals call themselves "environmentalists" (although their "environmentalism" is based more on mysticism than science), but their living environment isolates them from nature or living things.
There is nothing natural about those huge cities where miles of pavement are broken by the occasional tree planted in a hole in the sidewalk, and a few parks provide a semblance of nature. People need to be surrounded by natural living things and to observe the cycle of nature--otherwise, their thoughts can become unrooted and meander off in the weird directions that we call liberalism.
Using just "recent" data would probably show zip, as the changes are over generational time. But "cause and effect" are obvious.......lifestyles that promote more total exercise are in better shape overall.
As to where the data is, I don't know and don't much care....this is historical information I read about years ago...maybe even as far back as when I was in college (late 1960's, early 1970's). In those days, it would have been on paper. But it was quoting government data, so it can probably be found online.
"In the USA other than Manhattan and San Francisco I don’t even see anecdotal evidence that is correct."
Perhaps because you haven't looked. But I'm certainly not going to do homework for you, as the subject is of minimal interest to me. I was simply sharing info that I knew about.
Sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.