>most people in rural areas don't operate...really any farm machinery"
Which would be consistent with that damn actual data showing that rural folk are more sedentary than urban folk, in aggregate or on average.
You're the one slinging data-defying stereotypes around. Believe it or not, "working in the trades" is something lotsa urban folk get up to, as with hunting and fishing, and boy howdy do urbanites love some huge lawns in their green spaces. Do you think urban grass just mows itself? No, cities hire urbanites for such jobs.
And, real talk. You made haybaling sound tough; I'll grant you that for lack of experience, but I've ridden a damn lawnmower and it's no great workout. And if my rural family is at all typical, mowing a lawn is a net positive in calories because riding a mower is occasion for a beer or six.
But the data says y'all are more sedentary and more obese on average than city dwellers. Now, I'm inclined to blame DDT exposure for the latter statistic, and reliance on cars for the former, but if you want to make some weird judgements about how folks are spending their time, that's on you.
This was effectively the claim made in the top-level comment; I responded to somebody countering that with weird claims about baling as if that's a typical activity for rural residents to engage in. But it's not, according to you and according to the data. What problem do you think this is showcasing?
> without having a good understanding of the situation
does seem problematic.
This is exactly the problem with some of these rural vs. urban debates. The pro-rural people will make claims about how important farmers are, etc., and seem to have some kind of romantic idea about what rural life is like, but the reality is that the vast majority of rural dwellers are not farmers, do not live any kind of "outdoorsy" life, and basically are people who are too poor or too anti-city to live in or closer to a city, and generally have a very sedentary and car-based lifestyle.