Commuting by bike cuts cancer risks..

scaryfairy

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...

tomasrojo

I posted a few bits about it in the Jan and Klodi thread, starting here.

jive

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

tomasrojo

jive wrote: »

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 very striking how much lower the incidences of cancer and cardiovascular disease are, as well as the mortality rates.


https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/854986518905180160

I suppose there may be some confounding, in that people who decide to cycle are unlikely to be people with underlying health problems, but it's a BIG difference between people who commute by bike and people who use non-active modes. Even walking does nowhere near as well.

jive

tomasrojo wrote: »

I suppose there may be some confounding, in that people who decide to cycle are unlikely to be people with underlying health problems, but it's a BIG difference between people who commute by bike and people who use non-active modes. Even walking does nowhere near as well.

Yeah it's the same with all these types of studies re exercise and nutrition, you can't get away from the confounding factors but they are what they are. The numbers are still great.

D!armu!d

scaryfairy wrote: »

Hopefully our city planners also read the bmj...

Hopefully the helmet & hi-vis brigade will too, and then take note of what happened in the other country that tried out their notion!
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia%27s-helmet-law-disaster

tomasrojo

Totally agree. The differences are so big that confounding can't explain very much of it.

tomasrojo

D!armu!d wrote: »

Hopefully the helmet & hi-vis brigade will too, and then take note of what happened in the other country that tried out their notion!
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia%27s-helmet-law-disaster

That's just it. The balance of evidence is that habitual cycling is extremely good for you. Like, as good for you as giving up smoking (should you do it in the first place!). The balance of evidence is that cycling isn't all that dangerous and that attempts to make people take up certain safety strategies drop the number of people cycling, and have negligible effect on collision rates and outcomes.

But people just can't believe it.

Annie get your Run

tomasrojo wrote: »

But people just can't believe it.

Or don't want to!

I was just thinking the other day as I whizzed past a long line of cars in the PP, how many of those people were going to drive to a gym to do their workout when they could just get on a bike, get home quicker and exercise done for the day

tomasrojo

Someone on Twitter tells me that they did control for comorbidities (underlying health problems). Think I'll give it a read later.

slideshow bob

Direct link to the paper here:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1456

Article currently on open access.

Editorial comment in BMJ here compares with Copenhagen experience:
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1740

This has resulted in cycling rates increasing by 30% in Copenhagen over the past two decades. Most other larger cities around the world and in the UK have experienced decreases in cycling rates over the same period. Cycling related traffic incidents in Copenhagen have decreased by roughly two thirds, probably because the new infrastructure has improved safety. Around 40% of all commuter trips in Copenhagen are now by bike. It will take decades to change commuter culture in the UK, but it is possible, and changes in commuter behaviour can occur quickly when active travel is seen as both safe and convenient.

Lusk_Doyle

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Or don't want to!

I was just thinking the other day as I whizzed past a long line of cars in the PP, how many of those people were going to drive to a gym to do their workout when they could just get on a bike, get home quicker and exercise done for the day

Probably very few in reality.

DanDublin1982

My cycles to and from work are the best parts of my day. Its the bit in between I'm not so keen on.

seamus

tomasrojo wrote: »

But people just can't believe it.

I did actually put the link up on facebook and one of the first responses was, "That's all well and good, but if you haven't cycled in years, getting on a bike and going into the city is really dangerous!"

Sometimes people are genuinely concerned. But I'm thinking that in the majority of cases it's just making excuses for not getting off your hole.

rollingscone

tomasrojo wrote: »

Someone on Twitter tells me that they did control for comorbidities (underlying health problems). Think I'll give it a read later.

I came across some alternative methodological criticisms on Twitter:

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

check_six

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).

tomasrojo

rollingscone wrote: »

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.

Chuchote

jive wrote: »

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 :eek:

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

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.

ford2600

Chuchote wrote: »

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

scaryfairy wrote: »

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

ford2600 wrote: »

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

DrWu wrote: »

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?

Beasty

rollingscone wrote: »

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

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

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

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

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

Chuchote wrote: »

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.

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

ford2600 wrote: »

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.

magicbastarder

so, cycling > meditation > 'normal' rest.

Anesthetize

Does smoking a cigarette while cycling to work cancel each other out?

Chuchote

Anesthetize wrote: »

Does smoking a cigarette while cycling to work cancel each other out?

Apparently not, according to the study - or not, to the extent that smoking is taken into account in its figures. Though anyone who's stupid enough to enrich the corporations that make tobacco products… I'll stop there…

V-man

Chuchote wrote: »

Apparently not, according to the study - or not, to the extent that smoking is taken into account in its figures. Though anyone who's stupid enough to enrich the corporations that make tobacco products… I'll stop there…

Most people probably won't know but smoking affects their breathing pattern. Hypoventilation which is the opposite of hyperventilation. Cycling can be very beneficial as a therapy and is great to cleanup your lungs during the quitting process. I broke the spell, cold turkey, and see it as one of my bigger achievements.

(Though anyone who's stupid enough to enrich the corporations that make diesel cars)

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

Just look at the chart if you don't have time to read it:

CramCycle

meeeeh

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Or don't want to!

I was just thinking the other day as I whizzed past a long line of cars in the PP, how many of those people were going to drive to a gym to do their workout when they could just get on a bike, get home quicker and exercise done for the day

Well if they will be using treadmill it will be superior mode of exercise.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/24/is-running-best-exercise-reduce-risk-heart-disease

tomasrojo

There's a really good article in the most recent edition of Significance about the uses and misuses of p-values. David Spiegelhalter says he likes them.

I just had to tell someone.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Just look at the chart if you don't have time to read it:

Oh yeah, saw that. All my comments on the study are basically about that graph. But I do want to read the paper this week or next. The devil's in the details.

seanin4711

Yes but,increases your chance of death by impatient drivers.

slideshow bob

seanin4711 wrote: »

Yes but,increases your chance of death by impatient drivers.

Actually, that's where the "all cause" mortality helps. You're at far higher risk of death by self sitting in your own car / on your own sofa than suffering at the wheels of another driver (P 0.002, which could even satisfy tomasrojo). Not to say that any on-road fatality is anything but tragic and serious.

Wouldn't it be great if we transformed the health of the nation by making cycling and walking feel much safer to our citizens?

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

There's a really good article in the most recent edition of Significance about the uses and misuses of p-values. David Spiegelhalter says he likes them.

I just had to tell someone.

Haven't read it but I presume it relates to P Hacking. Something that is unfortunately rife in some places. The desperation to get a noted result leads researchers to forget they were not asking that question therefore it is unlikely they have the data to answer it despite what they think.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

Haven't read it but I presume it relates to P Hacking. Something that is unfortunately rife in some places. The desperation to get a noted result leads researchers to forget they were not asking that question therefore it is unlikely they have the data to answer it despite what they think.

Yeah, it was about that and a few other things. Was pretty interesting. Think this excerpt sort of sums it up:

In short, p-values give a convoluted answer to a question of very restricted interest – so restricted, in fact, that it is easy to be tricked into thinking they must mean something more significant than they do.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2017.01021.x/full?hootPostID=b7eab0e3e07103ba7551e338d97963ef

I find that I read up what they actually do represent, understand it, and then five minutes later I've forgotten again.

This is a good quote too:

the problem lies not so much with p-values in themselves as with the willingness of researchers to lurch casually from descriptions of data taken from poorly designed studies, to confident generalisable inferences.

DrWu

Anyway, I got a yellow card for posting that cycling might not be the mortality dodger that everyone thinks it is.

Don't apologize all at once. No really, it's ok...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/cycling-scary-and-hazardous-particularly-for-young-men-1.3110533

CramCycle

DrWu wrote: »

Anyway, I got a yellow card for posting that cycling might not be the mortality dodger that everyone thinks it is.

Don't apologize all at once. No really, it's ok...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/cycling-scary-and-hazardous-particularly-for-young-men-1.3110533

MOD VOICE: You got a yellow card for trolling. I recommend you read the report and not the times article. i also recommend that you then also read the times article again. If you have an issue with a card, please PM me, do not discuss in thread and also read the forum charter and site rules.

Nate--IRL--

seanin4711 wrote: »

Yes but,increases your chance of death by impatient drivers.

Pretty much why I stopped.

Nate

magicbastarder

the lowest claimed benefit to health/risk ratio i've seen stated in other papers is 20 to 1 i think. and iirc, they would have bigger sample groups.
which would imply that - if we're to take the above as accurate - that young irish males are 20 times more at risk - at least - than other cyclists.
anyway, i'm not going to take all that much from an article about a paper which fails to provide a link to the paper.