
Activity inequality - mgalka
http://activityinequality.stanford.edu
======
cbanek
I don't disagree that people aren't getting all the steps they need, but it
seems like there's a pattern where hotter areas have less 'activity' (step
count).

Central America, Northern South America, Northern Africa, and the Middle East
seem particularly bad.

Looking at the "walkability" graph, you see that a lot of the cities listed as
the worst (Arlington, Forth Worth, San Antonio) are in Texas, where it's
pretty hot.

Living in Las Vegas, I totally get this. You just don't go outside in the day
time, which can put a crimp on activity.

On the flip side, in the winter it's very nice, and is the perfect time to go
outside and get some exercise.

~~~
aklemm
I live in a hot, humid area, and there are many people who don't go outside
because of the discomfort. That said, I also have young kids, so my cohort
actually is outside for hours per day year-round, and it's really not that bad
when you get acclimated. The cities you list in TX, I think, are very car-
friendly and developed recently (maybe not San Antonio), which is such a huge
part of the problem. Commercial developments aren't made for walking and
residential developments are segregated and often lack sidewalks. It's
terrible.

~~~
amorphid
I walk more when I am in San Francisco (where I live) partially because I find
the walks interesting. The same was true when I lived in DC. When I am in an
area where the walks lack flavor, I have to consciously get myself to move.

~~~
wutbrodo
I had tried running over the years, mostly on treadmills, and never really
done more than six miles: I decided I far preferred weightlifting (and
sports).

When I left my job and was gymless for a short period, I started running along
the water in San Francisco after not having run for several years. Within two
weeks, I was doing about ten miles. It's really hard to overestimate how much
easier and more pleasant beautiful surroundings make walking and running.
(Temperate weather 365 days a year doesn't hurt either).

~~~
eru
Running on a treadmill is extremely boring. Weight lifting is fun.

Running barefoot outside---if you can either find a good place for it or the
courage to declare your current place good enough, is a thing of joy.

(My current home, London, basically has temperate weather all year round. It
doesn't really get cold here.)

------
tabeth
1\. Demographics are not controlled for

2\. Temperature variations are not accounted for.

3\. "The cost to exercise" (e.g. cost to live in walkable areas, average cost
of gyms, etc.) is not accounted for.

Furthermore, the website (haven't read the paper yet) implies walkability is
always good. Walking around during the summer time in a hot climate like Texas
will get you killed [1]

The analysis is obviously good, however it basically says what's already
obvious, rich people exercise more (in the case of United States). Is there
something inherent in the areas that make people more or less likely to
exercise or is it the demographics? Most of the evidence points to the latter.
This raises the question: since you inherently can't change your demographic,
what difference does it make?

[1] This happened just a couple weeks ago:

[http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/06/23/texas-boy-scout-
die...](http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/06/23/texas-boy-scout-dies-
heatstroke-during-backpacking-trip.html)

~~~
eplanit
"Inequality" is a bizarre concept to apply here -- and it seems it's used to
signal social justice virtue: it's unfair that people in more successful
economies have time for exercise and recreation, and/or that their cultural
norms includes the concept of "healthy lifestyle".

~~~
Govindae
Inequality is not just being used colloquially here.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient)

------
tomxor
Looks more like a map of smartphone + fitness tracker equality.

