These mesmerizing maps of where people jog reveal something telling about major U.S. cities:
But as the Washington Post alleges, these aren’t just maps of the best places to go jogging. They’re also maps which clearly match up very closely with the neighborhoods of rich and poor people in those cities.
Note, for example, there aren’t many people using Runkeeper in London south of the Thames, or in Boston’s South Side, or anywhere in New York but the financial district, the richest parts of Brooklyn, and the Upper East Side (exception: some people do appear to be crossing through the South Bronx to use the bridges there). Scenic D.C. is rich with routes; southeastern D.C. less so. The farther you get away from rich coastal San Francisco, the less people are jogging. It goes on and on.
As “Know More” notes, the correlation isn’t unexpected: Richer people tend to prefer living near parks and rivers, which are also the best jogging spots. And the poor are less likely to spend their money on “rich people” things like expensive smartphones or fitness apps. (I’d also argue that fitness tracking of this manner tends to be a bourgeois affectation.) But what’s clear is that fitness and class status tend to be correlated.
A more in-depth article in The Atlantic argues that while the link between poverty and obesity is poorly understood, we can take away some major points.
“… Poverty might make some people obese, but obesity definitely makes many people poorer, through two broad channels: (a) it reduces take-home pay, particularly for women; and (b) it’s related to health conditions that reduce discretionary income, too.” Black women in particular are victims of this trend.”
Clearly the best explanation is that the poor are less likely to spend their money on “rich people” things like expensive smartphones or fitness apps.
Funny how no one mentions one of the more obvious reasons, the likelihood of being robbed.
Or… the people with the intelligence and drive to acquire the skills that lead to higher-paid employment that leads to wealth accumulation also have the drive to make the effort to stay fit.
Poor young people actually own smartphones at rates near or higher to poor old people, but your point stands.
To strip away all irony for clarity, poor people today often own smartphones; that is not the constraint keeping them from jogging.
In an age where the rich mimic the dress of the poor, status is signaled through thinness. This is why skinny jeans and otherwise fitted clothing is in. Thinness signals discretionary income for good diet and leisure time for exercise. It also signals future time orientation in a time where the poor and lower middle class are aggressively signalling otherwise with tattoos and motorcycles, YOLO shirts, etc. I would imagine that jogging might lead to some social consequences among certain groups where it might be seen as signaling class aspirations above your neighbors.