Yesterday's headline was that Boulder, Colorado ranked #1 in the nation for bicycle commuting. In other words, more people, per capita, bike to work/school in Boulder than anywhere else in the United States. I am sure that has something to do with the great network of trails, such as the
Boulder Creek Path, found within Boulder.
Today's headline in another publication was that Colorado is still the state that consistently has the lowest obesity rate in the nation? And Boulder County has the lowest obesity rate in Colorado.
So that gets me thinking; hum, the lowest obesity rate, the highest bicycle commuting rate, an extensive trail system? Could there be a relationship between the amount of trails in an area and the obesity rate?
Ya think?
No, I know. There is a definite relationship between fitness and the availability of trails. That's a no-brainer.
 |
By the way, Washington D.C. has the third to the lowest
obesity rate and it has an incredible trail system. (-: |
But what about other benefits of trails. Let's take a look at some of those. Access to trails promotes:
- better fitness
- less pollution
- less traffic problems
- fewer fossil fuels burned, therefore...
- improved environment
- cheaper individual transportation
- cheaper community transportation per mile
- family togetherness
- more exposure to the great outdoors
- positive experiences for our children
- less time in front of the t.v. & computers
So the next time you hear a politician or company (such as
AAA's recent statement) try to convince you that trails are a waste of money, please don't let them get away with it. Trails are probably the best and wisest use of money that we have going.
Obesity rate directly related to trail access?
