
People who live in older, walkable neighborhoods have better health - ksvs
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/this-old-healthy-house/
======
gtufano
I don't know about US. But, here in Europe, this is so true to not being a
notice. If you live in "Suburbia" you walk less, if you live nearer to the
center you walk more. Who walks more is healthier... As an added bonus, in the
center of european city there are no (or very few) cars... believe me or not,
this also help to be healthier... The notice, for me, is that that earns a NYT
article and a front page in HN...

~~~
tokenadult
It has been the same in east Asia (everywhere) for most of my lifetime. People
walk more and stay slimmer and more healthy. Today in Taiwan there is much use
of motor scooters or motorcycles (which are ubiquitous) and considerable use
of cars, even for short trips, so many young people now are flabby and obese.

The neighborhood I live in in a United States outer-ring suburb has a city
trail system. We use the trail to walk to the library (about a 2.6 mile round
trip), shopping (similar distance in a slightly different direction), and to
soccer practices (a bit farther). We don't like to burn gasoline, and use a
handcart to move groceries on foot.

~~~
whacked_new
There is a negative feedback loop in crowded cities. It is polluted outside so
walking is actually bad for your health, and then, you want to spend as little
time as possible outside so you use whatever is fastest.

Thought experiment: suppose you are dictator, what would you do?

I might first propose a walk-only zones in certain times of week (a la
hokousha tengoku).

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I'd like to see a study exploring the net health effect of exercising outside
in a polluted city.

Also, if it's polluted outside, isn't it polluted inside too? Do these cities
all have buildings with air purifiers?

~~~
whacked_new
Physically I would say yes (air purifiers). Central AC that is. Not sure the
efficacy.

Also, particulate matter is much more volatile outdoors, because it's
outdoors.

And, the downmods, two in a row, make zero sense. Else, explain it please.

------
tjic
There may be more to the methodology than presented, but from what I read, it
stinks. They merely looked at height, weight, and location without controlling
for income.

Wealthier people are in better shape and weigh less (for the first time in
history we live in a society in which poor people still earn enough money to
become obese!).

More walkable areas may be more desirable, and may therefore have higher
prices, and may therefore only be available to wealthier (and thinner) people.

The article doesn't establish causality _at all_.

~~~
stephenjudkins
The study is linked to in the second paragraph. It appeared in what seems to
be a reputable, peer-reviewed journal and controls for socioeconomic status.

I see this all the time online: a study is published, and a chorus of
commenters echo "correlation isn't causation" without actually reading the
study and seeing that these other factors have been accounted for.

There are plenty of things wrong with science reporting, but when many readers
are apparently too lazy to exert the minimal effort to verify that their
misgivings were indeed addressed by the researchers, one can't exclusively
fault the media.

~~~
lacker
I have to disagree with both of you. The original criticism was incorrect,
because this study does control for income and other socioeconomic stuff. But
"correlation isn't causation" is still a valid criticism of this study. To
prove causation you would have to have some random effect controlling where
people live.

Just because it's peer-reviewed doesn't mean the article proves what it claims
to. Unless you have a natural experiment it's hard to prove causation in
situations like these. So you get a lot of published research that just proves
correlation.

------
quizbiz
I may be mistaken but I am pretty sure that according to The Millionaire's
Mind, they also tend to be wealthier.

------
jimboyoungblood
Somewhat related: <http://www.walkscore.com/rankings/>

The data is sorta flawed- it ranks SF #1 since their methodology doesn't take
into account steepness of terrain- but nevertheless, pretty interesting.

~~~
carbon8
Yeah, I want to like that since I'm a fan of the idea, but there are other
problems, such as not including major surrounding cities/suburbs that are more
walkable than the main cities themselves and not accounting for crime.

