City cycling: health versus hazard

http://mosaicscience.com/story/city-cycling-health-versus-hazard

1_OPENER_City%20Cycling_london.jpg


Ledgaard Holm, a doctoral student, has modelled the health impacts of increased cycling. Accounting for physical activity, exposure to accidents and air pollution, she and colleagues found that the overall burden of disease – including heart disease, stroke, type II diabetes, breast cancer, colon cancer, cardiopulmonary disease and lung cancer – was reduced in people who cycled. The positive health effects of increased cycling were more than a third larger than the potential loss of health from bicycle accidents and air pollution.

Other studies investigating the health impacts of cycling have found similar positive benefits, although the magnitude varies. In a different study based in Copenhagen, researchers analysed data from over 13,000 women and 17,000 men to explore the impact of physical activity on mortality. Even after adjusting for other factors, such as physical activity in leisure time, they found that people who did not cycle to work experienced a 39 per cent higher mortality rate than those who did. In other words, cycling improved longevity.
 
OP
glenn forger

glenn forger

Guest
It is, in short, better for you to cycle than not cycle. It is more dangerous not to cycle than to cycle.
 
OP
glenn forger

glenn forger

Guest
Am I missing something, or do I take it that, since the maximum mortality is 100%, that up to 61% of cyclists were found to be immortal?
Over an average monitoring period of 14.5 years, 2,738 women and 4,672 men from the sample died. These deaths were correlated with each person's history of physical activity and whether they had cycled to work. In both sexes and in all age groups, there was a lower mortality in the physically active compared to the inactive. However, physical inactivity at work was only a benefit to women.
 

Turbo Rider

Just can't reMember
Am I missing something, or do I take it that, since the maximum mortality is 100%, that up to 61% of cyclists were found to be immortal?
Boringly enough, yes. Just means that cyclists are averaged to live 39% longer...which has the counter-effect of...if all cyclists joined an exclusive cyclists only pension scheme, we'd end up with less money as an annuity pay-out p/a in order to maintain the fund. Last one standing gets the lot though, minus any guarantee's, which is good news for Young Ed. Add medical underwriting into the fold though and things change a little. I'll stop there because I stand every chance of boring myself to sleep and I need to take the kids swimming, but when you come to retire, if you have a pension saved, please, please, please don't tick the box on the form that the pension scheme send to you...SERIOUS!!!

Edit - oh...and after not ticking the box, tell them you want a quote (some don't send one, they just rip you off instead) and type enhanced annuity into your search engine / see a financial adviser. Even if you have nothing wrong with you, you may qualify...ahem...zzzzz
 
Last edited:

400bhp

Guru
Boringly enough, yes. Just means that cyclists are averaged to live 39% longer...
Actually no it doesn't mean that. It means you have 39% less chance of dying in a particular year. When you do the maths it will mean on average you do live longer. At a rough guess maybe 5 years longer.

And the way the study will gave been conducted probably doesn't really mean a 39% mortality reduction in reality.

Sorry. Im not intending to be pedantic. This stuff is part of my job.

Anywayyyyy. Cycling in the city is good for you which we all know.
 

PK99

Legendary Member
Location
SW19
It is, in short, better for you to cycle than not cycle. It is more dangerous not to cycle than to cycle.
As the linked BMJ article points out there are "opposing effects from different outcomes but with the overall health effect being positive"

Alternative forms of exercise that have lower accident risk or pollution exposure than cycling but the same positive health/fitness effects, would have a greater net benefit therefore your statement "It is more dangerous not to cycle than to cycle" is incorrect
 

Turbo Rider

Just can't reMember
Actually no it doesn't mean that. It means you have 39% less chance of dying in a particular year. When you do the maths it will mean on average you do live longer. At a rough guess maybe 5 years longer.

And the way the study will gave been conducted probably doesn't really mean a 39% mortality reduction in reality.

Sorry. Im not intending to be pedantic. This stuff is part of my job.

Anywayyyyy. Cycling in the city is good for you which we all know.
Ha, ha, no worries. Can't make a proper snowball without shaving off the rough edges & picking the gravel out. :thumbsup:
 
Top Bottom