What causes this?

And how do we fix it?
Alabama native here and I'm certainly concerned for my state

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    AND WE FANCY LIKE APPLEBEES ON A DATE NIGHT

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    States with higher percentages of sheboons are going to have higher percentages of obesity. You know what to do.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      whites in Alabama still have 35% obesity rate.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      West Virginia is 90% white and the fattest state in the union

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    low IQ blacks

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Only DC is below 25%
    We're doomed.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oh and colorado but who the fuck cares

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Eh... Colorado? isn't that Colorado (I'm no burger)
      and Hawaii is 24,9

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Colorado mogging every state once again

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not for long man. Have you walked outside lately? More and more Hispanics by the day.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I love Colorado so much bros
      It'd be terrible if the rest of us rocky mountain chads had to deal with the insufferability you guys keep contained

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      God I love The Boys

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Colorado sucks.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    theres no way those numbers are still that low. i live in ct and i swear like 50% of the people i see on a daily basis are fucking fat

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's actually like 42%

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        wouldnt surprise me at all, its probably even worse in the south, im guessing at least 80% of the population down there are fat

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This map is for obesity only, not including those who are overweight but not obese. So the actual percentage of people who are fat is definitely closer to or in excess of 50%.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      SD reporting in yup everyone's fat the problem here is cheap dry goods and a sedentary culture the biggest city has a 6 mile diameter so its walkable but everyone drives for no reason

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Holy shit what the fuck is up with Mississippi and West Virginia?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Mississippi is black people
      West Virginia is white trash
      the rest of the south is some combination of those two

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ahh ok. I live in Nebraska and its not that bad. Only in Lincoln is where its bad but most people here are decent weight

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nebraska seems cool. Do you live near a lot of Indian reservations?

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    destroying all your cities so cars can have space
    nobody walks anywhere because it's too far because automobile industries lobbied for car-centric development

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      meds

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        he's right though, people used to walk a decent amount on a daily basis, now they walk to their car, into the store, and back, maybe 1k steps.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      combined with poisonous addictive sugar in food ofc

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >CORPORASHUNS DID THIS TO US
      >WE NEED MUH WALKABLE CITIES

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        meds

        >you WILL live in the cardboard box
        >you WILL subscribe to your car
        >you WILL eat the HFCS
        >you WILL be happy

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          this is what people who want walkable cities say
          because meanie bully cars oppress mother nature and you shouldn't own an evil metal box

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They're just retards. Individual transportation allows suburbs and rural areas to exist at all. Given that 97+% of US land mass is rural or wilderness you need your own transportation to get anywhere. You can't walk across an entire state to get to your destination, and you can't connect every single home with public transportation. It's often 20 or more miles from people in rural areas to get to the grocery store. How in the world can you make a railway within a reasonable walking distance from every single farm in the country? Sometimes just someone walking off their own land is a trek, I've got a friend in South Carolina who has to drive to his mailbox because walking from his home, down his land, to the street is a good 10 minutes. How many dozen miles would you have to walk to get to a train that served a rural community? Assuming people were willing to walk that far, how long do you think it would take just to pick up the people there? How many stops are along the way? How long do you think that commute would be? And how many passengers would you actually serve with this 10 billion dollar project? Could that community even afford to publicly fund it? Could a private company ever profit from that rail line? Even trains in china take billions of dollars of losses ever year and that's with CITIES comprising 30 million people. Texas has 30 million people.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >hey we should make our cities better since most people live there
              >zomfg there's literally no way every single house in the country could be connected by rail
              uh k

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >hEy wE sHoUlD mAkE oUr CiTiEs BeTtEr sInCe MoSt PeOpLe LiVe ThErE
                >*le dumb conservative retort*
                not him, but I'm Russian and I live in your "utopia" that "just werks". we live in commieblocks, but still have insane housing prices, crazy traffic, and overcrowded public transport.
                reason? everyone wants to live in the city, because living in rural areas is barely possible. and our cities were built with no cars in mind (at its peak, around 30 in 1,000 people in USSR had a car). precisely because of your "walking distance" rule, everything had to be jam packed together—hospitals, department stores, restaurants, schools, kindergartens, sports facilities, etc. so instead of spreading the population across the land, and letting people settle comfortably in bumfuck nowhere where housing prices are low, we need to densely pack them in cities where every square meter is worth a fortune.
                the only reason to hate American cities is if you're a seething socialist who thinks cars are le bad, oil companies are bad, private property is bad and everything should only be owned by the state.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                this thread is about obesity

                but if everyone is driving no one is going anywhere and therefore walking is the only option.

                >no one is going anywhere
                what makes you say this?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                because of the fact that traffic in most cities is statistically impossible to navigate in a timely manner. Therefore walkable cities must exist. Else all production ceases entirely.

                If everyone is driving, literally every single person. There would be so much traffic it would take literal hours to drive through a single city.
                So alternative routes must exist.
                Such as walking, which means cities are in fact walkable.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >because of the fact that traffic in most cities is statistically impossible to navigate in a timely manner
                what makes you say this?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So what you're saying is you've never been to a city?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                why not answer the question you were asked about the claims you're making?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I did answer the question, you're the one dodging now.

                Have you seriously never been to a city?
                I have been to many and I see people walking daily. Walking everywhere. They have to walk.
                Because otherwise traffic would only increase in an already saturated road.
                So either cities are walkable and you're coping or traffic only intensifies more than it already is which means effectively doubling commute, potentially tripling commute.

                I'm sorry you're wrong Anon, but you're the one who said cities aren't walkable.
                Did you forget I can easily go to google maps and see sidewalks?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I did answer the question
                howso? you said the FACT yet never provided said facts.
                until you do that, you're just dodging and not worth reading.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, it's time for you to stop posting.
                I understand you're upset and you really really wanted to defend your position, but you aren't going to prove to me that sidewalks don't exist.

                Do we seriously need to have a conversation on how long sidewalks have existed in human society?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >still no facts
                anon it's simple, just provide the facts you're referencing. simple as.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well okay here we go.
                2000 B.C. Anatolia, the first side walk that we have historical evidence of existed.
                Since this point humans have regularly used sidewalks.

                In fact many many sidewalks exist Anon, all over the world. I know this info scares you, but I bet right now if you go outside and walk a few feet outside your mother's house you'll even find a sidewalk. This sidewalk more than likely follows a road. That road probably goes into a town!
                So you keep following and you get to the town and there will be a stop light, you wait there at the stop light and when there is no traffic or you're given a signal by a device, or following the rules of your local city you can cross the street to another sidewalk.
                I don't want to presume, but I bet if you keep following that sidewalk you'll end up at a business somewhere in that town.

                I really didn't think we had to have this conversation, but yes that is how sidewalks and cities work.

                This map is for obesity only, not including those who are overweight but not obese. So the actual percentage of people who are fat is definitely closer to or in excess of 50%.

                correct, don't forget some doctors have also started changing their definition of "obesity" and "overweight" in reference to body fat when you account for more liberal cities. So a lot of that information is inaccurate also.
                We are probably reaching levels closer to 60% at this point.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                anon you said

                because of the fact that traffic in most cities is statistically impossible to navigate in a timely manner. Therefore walkable cities must exist. Else all production ceases entirely.

                If everyone is driving, literally every single person. There would be so much traffic it would take literal hours to drive through a single city.
                So alternative routes must exist.
                Such as walking, which means cities are in fact walkable.

                >the fact that traffic in most cities is statistically impossible to navigate in a timely manner

                nobody is denying that sidewalks exists

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anon do I really need to repeat myself on the subject of sidewalks?
                Are you really going to need me to take a picture of a sidewalk for you to see that they exist?

                Either you accept that sidewalks exist and therefore cities can in-fact be walked in/around/through or i'll accept you're retarded.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Anon do I really need to repeat myself on the subject of sidewalks?
                >Are you really going to need me to take a picture of a sidewalk for you to see that they exist?
                nope, just need you to prove that cities are impossible to get across by car.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Idk what you two are talking about but I'll chime in anyway. Going from Queens to Brooklyn in NYC takes you *around* the city via highways at a crawling pace. Going *through* the city would take an extremely unreasonable amount of time.

                What's more, it would take you 6 hours to walk this. That's going in basically a straight line through the city and cuts down the distance by 8 miles.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Anon do I really need to repeat myself on the subject of sidewalks?
                >Are you really going to need me to take a picture of a sidewalk for you to see that they exist?
                nope, just need you to prove that cities are impossible to get across by car.

                Another probably real life example. Going from wall street to 5th avenue where a well-off trader or banker might actually live takes 21 minutes by car going *around* the city. Walking through it is a straight line and takes 2 hours at 5.5 miles. New York is the densest, most populated city in the US. You directly pass by thousands of residences (apartments) and businesses on your route. It is *the* walkable city in the US. The common phrase "you don't need a car in New York" reflects that. Is a 2 hour commute acceptable to you for walkable standard?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/mmkQjra.jpg

                [...]
                Another probably real life example. Going from wall street to 5th avenue where a well-off trader or banker might actually live takes 21 minutes by car going *around* the city. Walking through it is a straight line and takes 2 hours at 5.5 miles. New York is the densest, most populated city in the US. You directly pass by thousands of residences (apartments) and businesses on your route. It is *the* walkable city in the US. The common phrase "you don't need a car in New York" reflects that. Is a 2 hour commute acceptable to you for walkable standard?

                I don't necessarily disagree with your point but you're using Saturday morning traffic (it may not matter in NYC). Try using the departure/arrival time options.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bro go to Austin or Los Angeles in your car

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i know right? walkable city anon is coping hardcore.
                pretty much every city i've ever been to you walk everywhere and i've been to pretty much every major city in USA.
                no one drives other than commuting to work in LA. that shit takes hours to go anywhere. everyone just walks in the meantime to go to stores.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >walkable cities
                Not calling you out specifically, but this requires higher density, which “walkable cities” people tend to oppose in reality.
                >muh views, muh environment, muh obnoxiously high standards on new construction that aren’t required to be adopted gradually on existing construction.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It depends on your opinion of walkable. Most cunts won't walk ten minutes.

                A mix of walking and better public transport would improve cities immeasurably. Banning cars is a dumb ass idea though because sometimes you need your car if your collecting something too heavy/big to take on public transport. Commercial vehicles also require access to businesses.

                I've travelled a lot and the best cities I have visited have had a good blend of public transport, vehicle access and walking/cycling

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Commercial vehicles also require access to businesses.
                This is it right here, when I worked in transportation planning and some fuckface brought up carfree cities or banning trucks from downtown areas I always suggested having the trucks drop off pallets of food at the edge of the city and having delivery people bike out to bring it into their urban Targets one bike trailer load at a time
                The sad part was that half the idiots you would say this to eagerly agreed with the notion because they had zero sense of scale and how many trips it would take to move 60,000 lbs of food in one truck
                Leftists simply live on a detached plane of non-reality

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It depends on your opinion of walkable
                That's just it isn't it? It means nothing. That's the point. Densest most compact city in America still could take hours to walk just to work. All they really want is to ban cars. They say they don't, that they just want more options, but that's clearly not their angle. They want their US cities to look like the conglomerated metropolitan areas of the netherlands. Where the whole world is just one big outdoor shopping mall. It's ridiculous, and even if you tried it couldn't be done in the US because it's so much more both economical and desirable to not live like that. What's more, think about what it is they're actually suggesting. What is their biggest offenses? Single family properties and parking lots, those come up a lot. They hate them. Large parking lots in cities could go, sure. Replace them with other businesses and apartments and everyone can just park on the street like in New York City. Then going back to the beginning here, what is the opinion of "walkable?" Is New York City not walkable?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        this lol
        look how horrific this looks

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          ahhhh much better

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >oh my god ARE YOU SERIOUSLY IMPLYING I HAVE TO DRIVE?? why can't you just put hospitals, department stores, restaurants, schools, universities and my workplace in a circle around my house so that I could just walk there in 5 minutes!!
            >this is why America i so obese, people drive to a place instead of walking for 30 minutes a day and burning 100 extra calories!!!

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >everybody is walking
              >smog still blankets the landscape
              do pajeets really?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not just pajeets

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > london
                > not pajeets
                anon?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There is something off about this picture. Why is it 100% taxis?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Congestion pricing in London (something advocated by leftist urban planners in America as a tool to solve the car problem) exempt taxis, among some other vehicles.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                it's because it's a london taxi convention type thing. the cars are parked, people go around and check out each other's cars, socialize. either the anon is retarded or baiting, maybe both.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          American cities used to be very much like this until a certain racial demographic moved in and a certain religious group came here from Europe.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/hMn82Jm.jpg

          American cities used to be very much like this until a certain racial demographic moved in and a certain religious group came here from Europe.

          >like this
          No your pic of detroit is not at all like that. The other pic is a shopping center and there are 0 automobiles. Detroit there is a busy street filled to the brim with automobiles.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            like this != the same
            Notice the beautiful buildings, the public square, the large amount of foot traffic

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >beautiful buildings
              Looks like brick and stone. Most major cities in the US have stuff like this. From New York to Los Angeles. Pic related, a portion of the riverwalk in San Antonio at the heart of the city.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There are still some, but they're not nearly as prevalent as they once were. My city has a few comfy old neighborhoods and some nice stone buildings. A lot of these buildings had thought and care put into the design beyond what is the most economically efficient. Places like the San Antonio river walk are few and far between, however. We just largely cannot go back to how our cities used to be before WW2 given the demographic structure. I'm optimistic about the future, but it's going to take at least a few generations for things to improve.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                where are the homeless morons shooting up heroin in the street and collapsing in a pile of their own shit?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/YJnObOk.jpg

              >beautiful buildings
              Looks like brick and stone. Most major cities in the US have stuff like this. From New York to Los Angeles. Pic related, a portion of the riverwalk in San Antonio at the heart of the city.

              You also have to think about the architecture. It's not going to be the same as Europe in the same way it's not going to be the same as Asia. America is not Europe. Why would cattle ranchers and gold miners in Texas and California quarry stone to build 500 year old european things? Many of these buildings in europe were already established long ago along with their cities, while in the US people kept pushing west. Even cities in the US were always pretty small because there just wasn't that many people in one location when everyone is spread across the continent. Then you should look at the history of steel. During America's prime industrialization time Andrew Carnegie had found a way to mass produce steel, making it cheap and abundant, and because of that buildings could be larger and America invented the skyscraper. Much of our industrialization was built on steel, and our older buildings were much smaller. San Antonio example again, just streetview. This is in front of the Majestic theater, I've been there before a long time ago (saw Wicked). Most of these buildings are very old and retrofitted with plumbing and electricity and AC and such. This theater was built in 1929.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There are still some, but they're not nearly as prevalent as they once were. My city has a few comfy old neighborhoods and some nice stone buildings. A lot of these buildings had thought and care put into the design beyond what is the most economically efficient. Places like the San Antonio river walk are few and far between, however. We just largely cannot go back to how our cities used to be before WW2 given the demographic structure. I'm optimistic about the future, but it's going to take at least a few generations for things to improve.

                Oh and you see that building in front of the theater, says Frost on it? That was built in 1935, it was a bank. Frost HQ is this now.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this busy public square is unacceptable because cars are present
            Can you just point to where the cars touched you anon?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >t. illiterate

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >people either own land or live in the highly urbanized cities
      >if you wanted to get into town you rode a horse
      >Ford makes cars affordable to the masses
      >suddenly people can get around from place to place or just going from their land to their home
      >an in-between started becoming popular called "suburban"
      >people like the idea of living away from the city on their own land but close enough to drive there easily
      >people want more roadways for their cars and easier transit
      >thanks to Germany the American Highway System is spawned and expands exponentially connecting all parts of the country which otherwise is impossible given the vast distances of empty space between even small towns much less actual cities
      >"hurr durr the CAR LOBBYISTS MADE YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A HOME AWAY FROM THE CITY!!!!!!!!"

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >an in-between started becoming popular called "suburban"
        >people like the idea of living away from the city on their own land but close enough to drive there easily
        This had more to do with the industrialization of farming causing all the antique farming equipment to move to the cities. People in the cities didn't like putting up with all the farming equipment so they started moving far enough away to not deal with it but not so far that it was too inconvenient to work in the city.
        Cars made suburbs possible of course, but dense cities and affordable cars were a thing before suburbs started popping up.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes I'm sure the average American just needs to burn an extra 40 calories walking to mcdonalds that will solve the obesity epidemic that's why Europe where walking is actually viable is aproaching US levels of obesity

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      if that was true why are city fags always so fucking fat?
      only skinny people i see are country people.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        because cities aren't walkable you moron.

        https://i.imgur.com/5wwyEJX.jpg

        denser cities would create more space for rural areas actually

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >cities aren't walkable
          so people are just flying across cities?
          you're coping anon.
          Cities aren't drivable. No one drives in major cities. It takes multiple hours to get across DC for reference.
          Everyone walks.
          Same for every other major city in the country.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >so people are just flying across cities?
            no????????? they're driving.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >mr goldstein will fire me if i'm late
              >spend 4 hours in traffic
              >be late
              So... what you''re saying is people don't drive?

              They don't care about walkable anything. They just hate cars and hate people owning things because they hate people. Whenever you see stuff like this, whether it's this or veganism or whatever, they only do this out of hatred for people. They're misanthropes. If you lived in an open bay where rent was half your pay and all that was available to you was the tofu and soilent store, they would be fine with that because you have to walk to the store and you can never leave that area.

              all commies will hang

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >spend 4 hours in traffic
                i thought you said nobody drove

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i thought you said cities weren't walkable?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                they aren't, that's why there's so much traffic, everyone is driving.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                but if everyone is driving no one is going anywhere and therefore walking is the only option.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They don't care about walkable anything. They just hate cars and hate people owning things because they hate people. Whenever you see stuff like this, whether it's this or veganism or whatever, they only do this out of hatred for people. They're misanthropes. If you lived in an open bay where rent was half your pay and all that was available to you was the tofu and soilent store, they would be fine with that because you have to walk to the store and you can never leave that area.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >wanting more options than just cars bad
              >only cars good

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for adding to my point. See these fags say this, that it's just "adding to your options." That's about as honest as "you can keep your current provider and your rates wont go up!" when obamacare came out. It's a lie, they don't want to "add options" they want to destroy your way of life because they hate you, plain and simple. They're not complicated. When you think about their position for 2 seconds you understand it doesn't make any sense in the US. Major cities are relatively low in population compared to the rest of the world, they're not dense at all not because of some evil lobbying but because of individual choices. New York City has every transit option available to you including walking, but anyone with money leaves as soon as possible especially when they want to raise families. Doesn't seem like they care at all about walking distances. Then look at the cost of living. Because the city is very dense land is at a premium. You simply cannot afford to live in the good parts of the city if you are not rich. You have to live in the outskirts where it's shit, but hey at least you can walk to the habib and pajeet store to buy cigarettes. As the land costs become more prohibitive people continually move further and further away from the city anyway. Think about all the people who live in New Jersey who commute to NYC every day.

                In other words the only way to make this function is to forcibly move people into these areas where they otherwise would not choose to be, which due to COL would make most of them poor. The walkfags would rather have you poor in the dirty city than rich with land and a car in the suburbs just outside of it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                THIS. people in the cities wanna destroy them for all the people who don't go to the cities.
                the cities are FINE as they are. we don't need to do anything to them, they're perfect as is.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                it's so funny seeing the burbcucks whine about cities.
                >cities suck that's why i live near one and visit weekly
                >cities are great which is why i don't think anything needs to be done to them

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                it's so funny seeing the burbcucks whine about cities.
                >cities suck that's why i live near one and visit weekly
                >cities are great which is why i don't think anything needs to be done to them

                >t. didn't read and still seething

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no i agree. cities are just fine, we can keep them as they are since nothing can be done to improve them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >forcing people into denser and more expensive areas is the same as improving a city
                >t. retard

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                THIS
                we need more parking lots, spread everyone out and build more highways.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >forcing
                kek, don't like high density? don't live there.
                you weren't forced to buy your current home, were you? i know i wasn't, had plenty of choices. coulda picked a high rise condo, coulda picked a farm, coulda picked a cardboard castle.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >nooooooo you can't just choose to live in the heckin suburbarinos and drive into the city whenever you please!!!!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you said you were being forced to move

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                nta but I live 25 miles out of the city and commute for work and whenever we are doing something for recreation we can't do otherwise
                I'm moving further out though because I can still be at work on the Interstate in 35-40 minutes from my new place and I'd like to be as far away from the city as possible when the inevitable social and economic collapse happens
                I'm also conspiring with the other department heads at my office to move it out to the suburbs when our lease is up so we can move out even farther
                The truth is unless you live in a coastal shithole or Atlanta or Chicago you can live in the suburbs or further out and drive downtown into any city in a reasonable amount of time every day if you choose
                It turns out that when you allow people to choose to live and work and play where they want they choose suburbs and commuting over living downtown in a walkable city

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's not me. No I didn't say that. What makes a city walkable? Places have to be in walking distance right? What's reasonable? How about the longest average driving commute, which is Long Island at 33 minutes. At a moderate pace that's 2-3 miles, at a fast pace maybe 4 miles walking. So everything you need should be within 4 miles if you want cities to be so heckin walkable. That means wherever you are within a city, your grocery store, furniture store, place of work, department stores, law offices, clinics etc etc should be approximately 4 miles away. How do you make everything you need 4 miles away? Well for starters you need lots and lots of people. Your income alone can not support the salary and overhead of lawyers in a law office, of grocers, of doctors, you need lots of people regularly using their services so you all have to be packed in pretty tight. This means many large apartment buildings because if everyone owns a plot of land with a house on it you would not be able to fit very many people in that area, making it sparse when we're going for density. Because of that density land is scarce meaning it will cost a premium, so that apartment unit will be very expensive, and you can forget about actually owning a place of your own unless your filthy rich. You will be renting probably forever. So what if people want to move out? What if they want to go elsewhere that is less expensive and they can own land? How do they get to work when their new home is too far to walk?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >kek, don't like high density? don't live there.
                >people: *doesn't live there*
                >(You): REEEEEEEE WHY AREN'T WE PACKED LIKE SARDINES SO MY CONVENIENCE STORE IS CLOSER TO ME!!!!

                THIS
                we need more parking lots, spread everyone out and build more highways.

                pic

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Don't forget the moronloving element. Most of these commies despise cars precisely because of how vital they were to the development of suburbia and helping White people escape wanton violence like this.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >people don't drive
            >there's too much traffic to make it practical

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              These statements are both true in New York City. The vast majority of new yorkers do not drive regularly, and in Manhattan about 1 in 5 people even own a car. That is what happens when you have a highly dense city. The cost of living is high so many people can not afford cars, and there is not enough space for everyone to have a car. So for the people who do drive traffic is terrible. It would be worse if you added to it. Reminder that only 25% of New Yorkers even have a driver's license.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >be USA
      >3000mi across
      >97% of land is rural
      yeah it's is the lobbyists fault for incorporating cars into cities

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah not like there was something efficient at crossing vast distances before cars...

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          goalpost: moved

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah moved back, choose a rail and public based transit system like the US and Europe both used to have. Look at all the tram lines american cities used to have. I'm just saying they shoulda innovated on that concept. Instead of tearing it all up to focus on Cars. Also big roads take the fun outta driving anyway, so you specialized in that form of transport and made it boring. Great job

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hmmmmmmm

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      1000000%?

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cities in general be shitty places to live when comparing it to countryside and suburbs
    I mean education is lacking when you look at inner cities because that's where poor and low income families put their kids at and the pay rate ain't even good. Most inner city schools have worse education than those in the suburbs
    Inner cities in general aren't great places to live whether they're walkable or strictly for cars.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I agree. Inner cities tend to be smoggy, fast food ridden junk
      What are your thoughts on Daryl Davis stating that one of the reasons black children perform worse in school than white children is due to most black kids being in the inner cities where the education is much worse there?

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    IST isn't going to solve this problem chatting about it on a chinky-chinky-chinese-patty-cake board. The list is long:
    >sugar
    >microplastics in water
    >"muh service-based economy"
    >physical leisure activity replaced by passive goyslop entertainment
    >feminization of culture
    >absence of homemakers cooking healthy meals
    >garden gnomes, probably

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >rhetoric points to the idea that he's a conservative american
      >conservative americans are the fatties
      kys to help the country with this fat plague.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    vegetable oil, anything less is cope.
    directly lowers metabolic rate.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What causes this?
    highly processed foods, pesticides, industrial poisoning, genetic engineering, etc.
    And how do we fix it?
    education mostly and habit building that begins in childhood with more raw/organic/ripe foods. change can only happen when the individual assumes responsibility for their actions. so, self-care and parenting. none of which anyone in the world wants to take part in if it doesn't appease their vanity.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    stop eating so much fucking corn deepfried in grease

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Alabama native here
    And he wants to be free.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >what causes this?
    carbs
    >how do we fix it?
    nocarb

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >this thing we've eaten for thousands of years without issue caused obesity
      man no carbs are so fucking retarded its insane, low carb has some argument, but god damn dude.

      The only thing that has seriously changed is oil consumption.
      At no point in our history were we meant to ingest 8k% of our daily vegetable oil multiple times daily.
      It literally takes multiple pounds of a vegetable to make one cup of vegetable oil.
      that shit is insane and anything less is fucking cope.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It became immediately obvious that carbs cause obesity when humans switched from hunting to agriculture.

        Carbs have always been fattening cattle feed.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          But obesity was never an issue to anyone until vegetable oil became the mainstream in the average household.
          It only increased as more people added more cooking oil to their houses and foods.
          before that obesity almost didn't exist.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            sugar plantation workers would exhibit huge obesity during harvest despite burning 5-10k cals a day. this was back in the 1800s iirc so no modern seed oils to speak of.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >People eat more calories
      >Get fatter
      WTF KETO IS THE ANSWER

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bros you are looking for a leftist containment board to spout your communist urban planner bullshit
    I suggest >>>/n/

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      this. america isn't nearly as fat as europe or asia

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        what? kek. are you fucking retarded?

        >usa 36% or above obesity rate
        >south korea 5%
        >china 6%
        >india 4%
        >russia 23%
        >japan 4%
        >germany 22%
        >uk 28%
        >france 21.5%
        do you live in some fantasy world retard?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Fatassy world

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          but those places are communist podholes
          how can they be thinner than us?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Poor shitholes that can't even afford food KWAB

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        😀 hello

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        don't get me wrong anon, but… it is. it is THAT fat.

        https://i.imgur.com/L1Hql8v.jpg

        what? kek. are you fucking retarded?

        >usa 36% or above obesity rate
        >south korea 5%
        >china 6%
        >india 4%
        >russia 23%
        >japan 4%
        >germany 22%
        >uk 28%
        >france 21.5%
        do you live in some fantasy world retard?

        is right. in the West, you're the fattest country, period. you guys were saying "not my problem, take that starving socialists", until you reached near 40% obesity rates.
        you're still in denial because "muh blacks / latinos". they don't skew the statistic that much, white obesity is still over 30%.
        the only reason why they don't call it emergency is because people like you will get offended.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No idea witch one Alabama is. But I'm miring the straight borders.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Alabama is 36.2% obese

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Note: this is only obesity prevalence. Overweight individuals add another 40-50% to this, though overweight is messier to define by BMI alone.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Walkfags are just another flavor of r-strategists who have no ability to conceptualize scarce resources
    >bro let's just ban cars and make all our cities walkable!
    >bro let's just ban fossil fuels and use green energy for all our needs!
    >bro let's just bring all the poor people into rich nations, then everyone will be rich!

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >i think people walking way less than they used to has made people fat
    >REEEEEEEEE MUH CARS
    kek

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >1 hour of walking
      >200-300 calories
      Wow so all people need to do to not be obese is decrease their caloric intake as of now by 300 calories? Well golly gee looks like you can still have 2 mcdoubles, 2 soda refills, a large fry, and a cookie, but those apple slices have got to go buddy. Hooray we solved obesity.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think walking 1 hour a day would seriously cut that shit down for everyone

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not that guy, but the ABILITY to walk to work is probably the more important part rather than the 1 hour of walking itself.
        If you get to walk to work, then you would maintain your ability to walk to work. You wouldn't want to be huffing and puffing from a walk you do every day.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Which region of America has the best tasting food?

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The single biggest reason for the increase in obesity is that people are simply eating more food. The single biggest increase in food consumption over the last few decades has been from added oils, followed by grains. People eat out a lot more often, and are getting more fried foods.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hispanics and black people have absolutely terrible diets. Poor whites also love to eat junk food and chug soda.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >how do we fix it
    You don’t. I love walking outside and being in better shape than 90% of the population

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I love the South because the gyms play rock music and no edm or rap

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    how is california so thin

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      there doesn't exist a larger concentration of vain, shallow individuals than california thus physical appearance is a constant pressure. also, there are lots of asians there and that helps bring the number down.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        California is full of soi latte drinking bugmen

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    For the millionth time, it's economic factors and access.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      much like the UK

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        damn that difference in UK. True class society

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        WHAT THE FUCK BONGLAND??

        So basically, If you see a thin girl in the UK, she's from a rich family

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Quite literally, yes.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Grew up fat on a council estate, eating takeaways a lot. Now make 90th percentile household income and got fit.
        It's education, which leads to both better diet and income, but it's a slightly dubious link.

        I don't think lower-income people either know or care how badly their diet fucks them up physically and mentally. Easier to go to the GP for setraline.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because poor people are secretly rich and can buy lots of food? Or does poverty improve the bodies metabolism to such a degree it defies physics?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's more that poor people are retarded, which is why they're poor in the first place. And retarded people are fat.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    WE GOTTA PUMP EM UP!!!!!!!!!! THOSE ARE ROOKIE NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Damn I was born in Denmark in 1990 and truly it was rare to see fat and especially megafat people. So the rate has doubled from that. I would still say we are a very healthy and fit people in general. Except for our lovely middle eastern immigrants who eat shit food and don't exercise.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >mfw WV native and current resident
    are other states really noticeably less fat? there are a lot of fat fuckers here I guess just more gains for me.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You americans fucked your own country, deserved.

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sweet tea will getcha

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Conservatives are tubs of shit.

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >There are people currently living in cramped slave quarters itt trying to brag about their lives to Americans.

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Raised in Mississippi. You can not break southern food culture, but the best bet would be to raise certain areas of the state out of poverty so they're less reliant on unhealthy food. Good luck with that.

Your email address will not be published.