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).
I suspect the authors of the study were paid a visit in the night by the black cargo bikes.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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…
Meditation is around thousands of years and the benefits surpass normal rest.
so, cycling > meditation > 'normal' rest.