Exercise is good, everyone knows. The problem is advising people to exercise doesn't work and doesn't scale. Gyms are for people who have plenty of intrinsic motivation and money and time.
To improve physical activity at the population scale and over a lifetime, it literally has to be built into the design of the cities, so people get enough exercise while walking to work or grabbing groceries.
We lack basic education in fitness, really, we do! They don't teach it in schools, but really just walking your 8-10k steps a day + simple own-weight exercises at home do wonders! Gym is fine for those who like it and can afford it (time, money), but by far not the only solution. We need to educate ourselves better. Plus, better cities, I am with you on that one.
No, listen to what OP said. People know that exercise is good. Everything else is standing in the way.
The solution to everything is not education. That’s just what people who have been filtered through the system with good grades and a high education think. Their good habits are more correlated with their income than with their informedness.
Education is not the problem. People know sugar is bad, people know cigarettes are bad, people know alcohol is bad, still millions use these substances every day.
What works best is to find some form of exercise that you really enjoy. I will get up at 5 in the morning, skip diner, skip appointments when i get a change to exercise, just because i enjoy it so much.
In addition, what also helps is to ensure normal activities require excercise. I will walk to the shop every day for groceries, walk the dog every day, cycle into town, best if you can cycle to work.
I dont understand your response? I'm replying to a message that literally states: "We lack basic education in fitness ... We need to educate ourselves better". Sounds to me he's stating that education IS the problem?
It's a tough sell after decades of propaganda. According to the CDC, over 75% of Americans are seriously out of shape[1], and 40% are obese[2]. They typically spend an hour a day commuting by car, which robs them of an easy opportunity to get a little exercise (and which is also physically dangerous in an immediate sense and a form of long-term psychological torture as evidenced by driving behavior at rush hour).
There are a ton of ways to exercise that are fun, people just fail to see that. Hiking (free), rucking (only requires a backpack), climbing/bouldering (free outside, money in a gym), sports (free minus ball cost), kayaking, canoeing, walking your dog, etc.
I have found stair walking a good, zero-cost, easily accessible and fast-to-execute means of exercise in urban areas. You can also scale-up/scale-down intensity and duration to your heart's content.
You don't even need to reinvent a walkable city, just look at any medieval historical town that is say ~500 years old, almost untouched, and has restricted traffic today (possibly with no public transport whatsoever). These towns are a pure joy to live in, they are walkable with no other options, quiet, pleasant and overall healthy to live in in all respects.
We keep rediscovering that we're happier and more fulfilled when we live in ways that are more like how we've been living for most of the last million years. Also we are disgusted by our ancestors and look down upon them.
Yeah, during covid and little bit after I was in amazing shape because I was able to go on nice long bike rides a few times a week. It got me thinking what would our society feel like if everyone was able to exercise?
I'm all for walkable/bikeable cities, but that doesn't solve the intrinsic motivation problem either.
I live in an area that has a lot of walkable and bikeable things nearby. There are a lot of people who drive anyway. Some because they're older, others because they have kids, others because they have busy schedules, and some are just lazy.
So while I'm in favor of better city layout, I don't think this would be a magic solution.
> Gyms are for people who have plenty of intrinsic motivation and money and time.
There are a lot of ways to work out without a gym. You can go for a walk or run around your neighborhood or even do a lot of workout programs at home. There are many easy workout systems that don't even take a lot of time and are easy to get started if you're not in shape.
> I live in an area that has a lot of walkable and bikeable things nearby. There are a lot of people who drive anyway.
The less warm and fuzzy part of this urban-design approach is that it can't just be about making things easier to walk to, it also has to be about making them harder to drive to. For instance, by making parking limited and/or expensive. People tend not to like that idea, although I think there's a good likelihood they'd actually be happy with it if not for the meta-awareness of having "lost" parking.
People don't like that idea because it's highly exclusionary.
It only sounds good to younger people who don't have any disabilities, kids, grandparents who want to come along, or any number of other valid reasons to walk.
It's also highly indicative of the weather where you're from. Forcing people to bike and walk everywhere sounds a lot better if you're in a moderate climate where bad weather means you need to pack a light jacket and wait for the light rain to stop. Move somewhere with harsh winters and the moralizing about people driving places stops making sense quickly.
> People don't like that idea because it's highly exclusionary.
I disagree with you here- you have it backwards. It's cars that are exclusionary. Kids can't be around car traffic unsupervised, because car traffic is very dangerous. Old people become fat and frail only because they're robbed of exercise by a car-centric lifestyle. Blind people can't drive. Kids can't drive. Old people can't drive. By shaping cities around cars we doom the vast majority for the sake of a very small number of people, and many of them would probably be healthier and safer getting a little exercise and enjoying the excellent public transport that results from shifting a massive budget for car infrastructure to public transport.
What you've just said is a common refrain, if you haven't already seen it please take a look at these two videos that attempt to address part of what you're saying. I found them very interesting when I came across them years ago and it changed my view of what's possible or even good!
So Canadians bike less in winter than some Finns (not all, as the author of the video himself mentions that Oulu stands out among Finnish cities in this regard) yet those Finns make only 12% of winter trips by bike. That means the vast majority of winter trips they make (88%) are not by bike. In a small town, which is 12x6 miles judging by google maps yet has 590 miles of bike paths. If anything this proves cycling in winter is not an option for the vast majority of population.
And yes, the Dutch have their bike paths and bike without helmets, we all know that. The secret is the lack of elevation and living in crumped cities: on average a Dutch person bikes 3km per day [1].
It's utterly fascinating you wrote that and yet could not make the right conclusion.
"In a small town, which is 12x6 miles judging by google maps yet has 590 miles of bike paths."
+
"not all, as the author of the video himself mentions that Oulu stands out among Finnish cities in this regard"
The right conclusion here is that infrastructure and its maintenance is clearly the defining factor. This really shouldn't be surprising.
Consider this: how many trains do you think passed through the areas rail tracks are at before the tracks were built? Or: how many trains need to pass through an area before we can justify the cost of building train tracks there?
You simply can't point to just any winter cycling stats without first making sure the infrastructure is there. "Cycling in winter just ain't working out!" — no, you literally are not putting in the minimum of effort — "we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas" vibes.
And here's the kicker: You assumed these statistics are from a city that's a cycling paradise, but I'm willing to bet Oulu is a car-infested shithole, just like all of the Netherlands is. No, I'm not kidding in the slightest. And it's pretty much confirmed in the video the parent linked: [1].
Sure, those areas are as good as it gets at this time, but they're nothing to what things should look like, so since your conclusions are based on faulty assumptions, they are automatically invalid.
What these cycling-friendly areas are doing is slowly grinding away at the overbearing behemoth that is the already existing car infrastructure with the eventual goal of getting to at least parity. But they're still decades of work away.
The simplest example is free parking. You expect to get to take up 2m x 5m of public space with your private property for free and forever, almost anywhere in every city in the world. If anyone so much as touches it, they're strictly legally liable. That's normal though, right? Yeah...
Another, literally the snow plowing mentioned in the video: [2]. Imagine you woke up one day, got in your car to drive to work and... uh oh! There's 20cm of snow on the road! Can you imagine the uproar?
I sure can't, because 20cm of snow is normal on cycle paths in 99.9% of the world. And you're comparing those two realities with each other. So "not a lot of people cycle in winter" is actually "not a lot of people cycle through 20cm of snow". No shit.
Overall, the amount of information in the very video the parent linked you just straight up ignored makes me think you either didn't watch it, or didn't want to pay attention to a lot of the points made, like the one on population density: [3].
> yet those Finns make only 12% of winter trips by bike
Yeah, during Finnish winters. How many countries do you think this directly applies to? If 12% of Finns during their harsh winters can cycle just fine in -20C weather conditions then what does that say about the cycling stats of e.g. California?
> The secret is the lack of elevation...
I like to quip that bikes have gears for a reason and it's worth learning to use them, but these days the existence of e-bikes and e-scooters nullifies this argument entirely.
> ...and living in crumped cities: on average a Dutch person bikes 3km per day.
Yes, we're talking about cities here. So, the purpose of pointing out that biking over long distances in say, rural areas, is not viable is what exactly? We can pivot to talking about trains instead if you'd like...
Is this an AI slop or you just don't understand English?
I pointed out that a city with tons of infrastructure still has the vast majority of winter trips (and other trips too, but bike ridership drops in winter) not done on bikes and you are insisting that there is no infrastructure...
This might sound reasonable, but it's a solved problem in Europe. They have plenty of old/disabled people and harsh winters there too. Many parts are de-emphasizing cars.
I think you're confusing a walkable city with a nonwalkable city in which people are forced to walk anyway. As other commenters mentioned, in many ways making a city more walkable benefits the groups you describe.
When I was in SF, the coworkers who drove in were those who lived outside of the city who were trying to save money and raise family. Buying a home in the city is impossible for these people (and me). Mostly less prestigious jobs, like cleaners, technicians, office managers. Not the App guys making 300k living in the Marina.
It's often an unintended tax on the poor.
IDK maybe there's some middle ground where we beef up public transport while beefing up parking at stations.
That's a problem of not building enough walkable areas relative to how many people want to live in walkable areas, leading to them being expensive because of many people competing for scarce resources.
Car-centric infrastructure is incredibly expensive, so there's no inherent reason for walkable areas to be more expensive.
Calling everything but cars exclusionary is mildly hilarious.
First of all, you're simply forgetting about public transport. That's needed too and pretty much covers all your concerns.
However...
1. The disabled? How many of those do you think are disabled in just the right ways to still be able to drive? You know "disabled" doesn't just mean "missing a limb", right?
So uh, if the only option is to drive and someone's disabled and therefore can't drive, what do they... do?
Anyhow: [1]
2. Kids? How many kids do you see driving cars around?
You know 10+ year olds can just... bike on their own, right? Like, to school, etc.? [2] [3] [4]
Below that age, just bike them around? [5] ;)
> Forcing
You know nobody's forcing you to do anything, right? Like, you can still own and use your car, there are some very valid use cases best served by them.
For example, around half of the Dutch own a car. They just don't use them as much for really dumb purposes, like driving 5km to a grocery store, because the nearest one is within walking or cycling distance.
The problem is that driving has been so heavily subsidized, that we've come to take it for granted and are now truly shocked when asked to pay more to even somewhat offset the real costs. And I'm afraid there's no viable path forward that doesn't involve eventually paying in full.
> Forcing people to bike and walk everywhere sounds a lot better if you're in a moderate climate where bad weather means you need to pack a light jacket and wait for the light rain to stop.
Yeah, the Netherlands is quite known for its good weather...
> Move somewhere with harsh winters and the moralizing about people driving places stops making sense quickly.
I'm there. And? Literally the only issue is that the pedestrian/cycling infrastructure just does not get snow plowed either at all or at 1% of the priority the roadway gets. Seriously, the asphalt in winter looks basically the same as during summer but the sidewalks and cycle ways are full of snow, often literally pushed there from the roadway!
So yeah, you won't see many cyclists cycling around in 15+ cm of snow, since it's literally impossible. Cycling on ice is quite risky too. But, as evidenced by snowprints, some people cycle regardless!
99.9% of exercise can be done outside of a gym. Walk, hike, run, cycle, swim, ski, paddle, play soccer, basketball, skate, play tennis, hockey, archery... The idea that exercise equals paying a subscription is so American.
Absolutely true. I lost a belt notch when I visited Japan for two weeks and walked everywhere. That being said redesigning cities is hard. It's a lot easier to meet people where they are: in front of the TV. Kettlebells, dumbbells, resistance bands, treadmills, and bike trainers are all great for doing whilst one marathons the latest season of "Real Housewives of Transylvania" or "Star Trek Impulsivity" or whatever.
Affordability is a real question as a lot of this gear is costly for the average consumer - I wonder whether a government health stipend would help with this.
It's not that hard, it's just time-consuming. Takes ~30 years. Roads/buildings/etc break down eventually, you just need to incrementally design for the better new version instead of rebuilding the older version. Plenty of those European countries are doing it.
RTO is also a factor for some... when I was working full remote I had the time and energy to attend an HIIT class 4 days a week. I was in the best shape of my life.
Since starting a position that requires me in the office for 3 or more days a week, I no longer have the energy (or schedule) to attend since I spend ~120-160m in traffic. Between that and the lack of proximity to my own kitchen affecting my dietary choices, I've gained almost 40lbs in 2 years.
All of this is of course avoidable with self-discipline, but self-discipline wanes as you get more exhausted from your day.
where you can get a job dictates what city you live near, how much you are paid determines how close you can live to that city, and how much distance you want to keep from your neighbors sets the density you can stand.
Moving to a smaller city changes your job, which changes how much you are paid, which changes how close you can live to the city, and your neighbors may still suck. It's likely that you'll end up in the same soul-sucking commute life that you just left.
> If you build a walkable/bikeable city, you raise the exercise floor for everyone.
That requires intrinsic motivation for people to want to leave their house. I'm not kidding, if jobs are going to go away we're all gonna become super fat. Thank god for Ozempic I guess.
What does “there are ripped men in prison” have to do with anything? Those men have intrinsic motivation for working out, but not everyone does, that’s kind of my whole point here.
>> how do you make someone do a thing they don’t want to do?
You make it part of the fabric of daily life. If it’s easier to walk than it is to take a car, more people will walk. Of course there will be those who cannot or refuse to, and that’s okay, but systemic changes can lift everyone up on average.
> How do you make some one do a thing, they don't want to do?
You assume what you feel you want to do is intrinsic and not based on your environment. You are a product of your environment. If we change the environment, you will change with it.
By "you" I of course mean large populations over the course of decades.
How does that change anything? Walk to the shops and buy a donut and you'll still be at a net negative. Most people who are overweight are eating far to much and a bit of walking each day isnt going to beat their diet. The reason people recommend gyms and good diets is because its very time efficient. 45mins in the gym beats out hours of light walking.
I would love to learn why some people can self-motivate to exercise while others would need coercive interventions. Such as to build cities in a way that some exercise is inevitable.
Or put differently: is there really nothing that can be done to shift people into being self-motivated?
I think you have the coercion direction reversed. If there was a choice - if people could easily walk places - they probably wouldn’t buy expensive cars.
To improve physical activity at the population scale and over a lifetime, it literally has to be built into the design of the cities, so people get enough exercise while walking to work or grabbing groceries.
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/activity-inequality...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPUlgSRn6e0&ab_channel=NotJu...