A vehicle full of groceries every week is more efficient than going two or three times a week. More time efficient, and requires less resources/power. I live walking distance to a grocery store and still go once a week or less. I bring a pull wagon that I park in front of the store, fill it up, and walk it back home.
The problem is, a lot of our cities are fundamentally hostile to pedestrians. Even if you're actually close enough to walk to a grocery store (most are not), you may be afraid to cross streets with numerous lanes of speeding cars without dedicated crosswalks. In my city, it's common to hear stories of bicyclists in hit-and-runs; it doesn't exactly make people comfortable with walking and biking around their city.
This is because Americans, by and large, do not demand better infrastructure from their leaders, don't vote for it, and don't actively move to places that are better for walking/cycling. Americans are perfectly happy to move to some far-out subdivision that's not walkable to anyplace, just because the house price is a bit lower; then they sit around and make complaints like yours. Put your money where your mouth is.
With the pandemic, we saw lots of Americans move from these walkable places to completely un-walkable places in Florida because they were working from home now, and could afford a bigger house there.
American cities are the way they are because that's what Americans want, and that's what they buy. If Americans really wanted to live in walkable places, they'd refuse to move to or buy homes in places that aren't walkable. That's just not what we see.
This comes across as out of touch. The house differences are not just "a bit lower" - for many it can mean the difference between being able to purchase a house at all.
>A vehicle full of groceries means you don't have fresh groceries for most of the time.
Luckily we invented refrigerators so this is not an issue. Things can stay fresh and just as healthy for weeks.
>More resources? If you're walking to the store, this shouldn't be an issue, and in fact is a negative. Avoiding walking is why Americans are so fat.
As in, buying in bulk saves money and resources versus buying in small amounts. Indeed Americans are fat, but adding a few walks here and there isn't going to fix that. American diet is absolute garbage and the portions are insane.
>Try keeping sushi in a fridge for a few weeks and then eating it, and see what happens to you. Many vegetables don't do well in a fridge either, and wilt after a few days.
Luckily we've invented these things called freezers, and most refrigerators come with them. Veggies will last weeks in there, if not longer.
I wish society learned that exercise is not how you combat obesity.
While I agree that movement is the secret to a healthier life, the obesity epidemic is due to increasing levels of sugars and carbs in the diet, and having been convinced that fats are bad by medical crooks and the food industry.
In fact everybody is looking forward to hyper-processed fake meat which takes us further and further away from the plain, natural food our bodies thrive on.
Movement increases your caloric expenditure by relatively small amounts. It is great if you tend to eat close to your daily expenditure, but if you eat a lot of non-satiating, calorie-dense foods like sweets or refined carbs, good luck walking them off.
For reference, 1 hour walk is ~300 kcal. That's 3 slices of white bread, or a little more than a half-litre bottle of Coke. How many people overeat by that amount, and how many walk at least one hour every day?
Countries where people move more also eat less. Because we are a complex chemical machine, not a dumb furnace.
Eat too much -> metabolic syndrome -> exercise becomes more difficult and tiring -> psychological/satiety issues -> overeat -> GOTO 10. We now know how obesity works, but it doesn't fit on a slogan short enough to write on a cereal box or in a doctor's office poster, so they just tell people to walk more and skip red meat, even though it completely misses the point.
