check_six Registered User
#16

Would it be fair to say that eating a bowl of hi-viz helmet foam flakes for your breakfast every day will have a superior beneficial effect than regular cycling? I have been led to believe that this is *definitively* the case by many people in authority (who should know better).

2 people have thanked this post
tomasrojo Registered User
#17

rollingscone said:
I came across some alternative methodological criticisms on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/854975752797908992?s=09

I suspect the authors of the study were paid a visit in the night by the black cargo bikes.

1 person has thanked this post
Chuchote Registered User
#18

jive said:
Exercise in cutting risk of disease shocker

In all seriousness though definitely the best way to travel to work if possible, clear head and less stress than the car


It's not just "exercise is good". Look at the chart: the figures for walking look good (though not nearly as good as for cycling), but according to the study, people who walk are less likely to get cancer, but more likely to die of it if they do

I wonder if the physical act of cycling - the combination of balancing and adjusting your balance as you fly along, and the leg work - has some specific effect on the body and the metabolism.

Undercover Elephant Registered User
#19

Just a footnote:

I've been told by a few oncologists that they love to see cyclists, because they recover better. Their blood values tend to hold up through chemo, which means less need to mess around with the treatment plan, delay cycles, extend the plan etc.

There doesn't seem to be a statistical survival advantage once you've been diagnosed, but an improvement in quality of life is a good thing.

2 people have thanked this post
ford2600 Registered User
#20

Chuchote said:

I wonder if the physical act of cycling - the combination of balancing and adjusting your balance as you fly along, and the leg work - has some specific effect on the body and the metabolism.


I really doubt it.

Commuting is unpaid work. People are stressed from work and maybe home also. 30 mins break twice a day is probably as beneficial as meditation/mindfulness or whatever the latest fad is.

Cycling, as authors point out, allows for an easy hugely beneficial and simple lifestyle change by swapping car for bike. With a bit of road craft the bike can transform city/suburb living.

Walking doesn't really cut it, maybe because cycling is often fun and involves an initial buy in which gets the initial commitment before the bug bites.

For your typical sedentary western commuter any regular exercise is going to be massively positive, cycling is just easier to sustain

DrWu Registered User
#21

scaryfairy said:
I have been following the near misses thread recently and with my own daily hectic commute started to wonder whether it is all worth it... definitely so according to a new paper:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39641122


Hopefully our city planners also read the bmj...



I'm inspired by this research. I'm going to arrange a demonstration in front of the dail. A mass gathering of people with spinal and brain injuries to celebrate that fact that we are not going to get cancer. If you cant join me in your wheelchairs, join me in spirit from the confines of your full body cast. Join me people!

magicbastarder Registered User
#22

ford2600 said:
Commuting is unpaid work. People are stressed from work and maybe home also. 30 mins break twice a day is probably as beneficial as meditation/mindfulness or whatever the latest fad is.

i went through a period of about six months of stress in work years ago and found my commute helped - not exactly a hill, but i used to cycle up through clonskeagh, from the dodder to kilmacud road and found i was able to take out some of the stress on it by going full bore for a few minutes. YMMV, i suppose.

rollingscone Registered User
#23

DrWu said:
I'm inspired by this research. I'm going to arrange a demonstration in front of the dail. A mass gathering of people with spinal and brain injuries to celebrate that fact that we are not going to get cancer. If you cant join me in your wheelchairs, join me in spirit from the confines of your full body cast. Join me people!



That's people involved in car accidents covered.

What about some cyclist representation?

1 person has thanked this post
Beasty Administrator
#24

rollingscone said:
That's people involved in car accidents covered.

What about some cyclist representation?

That post has been dealt with. Please do not respond to it

Thanks

1 person has thanked this post
tomasrojo Registered User
#25

Chuchote said:
according to the study, people who walk are less likely to get cancer, but more likely to die of it if they do


Strictly speaking, you'd say there's no evidence of a difference in outcomes between walking and inactive in the latter case. You have to take into account the error bars in the graph.

(It's a very big study too, so I don't think the error bars will get much smaller by adding a few hundred more respondents to a future study; so I'd take it that once you get cancer, a history of walking isn't any real help, but not a hindrance either.)

Chuchote Registered User
#26

tomasrojo said:
Strictly speaking, you'd say there's no evidence of a difference in outcomes between walking and inactive in the latter case. You have to take into account the error bars in the graph.

(It's a very big study too, so I don't think the error bars will get much smaller by adding a few hundred more respondents to a future study; so I'd take it that once you get cancer, a history of walking isn't any real help, but not a hindrance either.)


Or it might be that people who walk to work, who get cancer and are being treated, may stop walking, and people who cycle to work may continue to cycle while being treated. Purely theoretical, but I find walking when I'm sick a bit of a trudge, while I'd generally cycle unless too sick to leave the bed at all.

tomasrojo Registered User
#27

Chuchote said:
Or it might be that people who walk to work, who get cancer and are being treated, may stop walking, and people who cycle to work may continue to cycle while being treated.

I'll try to get time to read it. It looks like a terrific bit of work, and, if public policies were really evidence-based (spoiler: they're not), a game-changer.

1 person has thanked this post
Chuchote Registered User
#28

tomasrojo said:
I'll try to get time to read it. It looks like a terrific bit of work, and, if public policies were really evidence-based (spoiler: they're not), a game-changer.


If humans were to stop their mad plunge into self-destruction, it would inform public policy. If…

YFlyer Registered User
#29

ford2600 said:
I really doubt it.

Commuting is unpaid work. People are stressed from work and maybe home also. 30 mins break twice a day is probably as beneficial as meditation/mindfulness or whatever the latest fad is.




Meditation is around thousands of years and the benefits surpass normal rest.

1 person has thanked this post
magicbastarder Registered User
#30

so, cycling > meditation > 'normal' rest.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!