Cycling to work slashes risk of heart disease and cancer, major study finds

Rich_cb wrote:

The findings of this study are actually pretty incredible.

If all the non active commuters studied had switched to cycle commuting there would have been 565 fewer deaths over the 5 year study period.

So, over a 5 year period, for every 330 people who switch to cycle commuting from driving you will save one life.

That would also work in reverse I assume.

So, in countries which have introduced laws that have reduced the cycling rate we can now reasonably quantify how many of their citizens have died as a result.

Exactly this: it's a big drum to be banged in Australia etc, in addition to the UK, and its findings are black and white for anyone concerned with national or local health.

Beyond that, it was fairly widely publicised. It's great news - it's got a really clear message for individuals: cycling will likely allay some of the really nasty and prevalent causes of death. Just as we head into summer we get a preachable headline that might appeal to selfish bastards who would drive to their desk if they could: you can live longer, or maybe not go the same way you saw your dad or aunt go, or maybe give your fat kids a fair crack even if you can't drag yourself to the garage and your bike that is never used.

We're in thrall to the death machines: might be mindless optimism, but I really hope this study is regularly wheeled-out this summer.

davel wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

wellsprop wrote:

 "compared to people who commuted by car or on public transport, regular commuter cyclists were 41 per cent less likely to die from any cause"

I'm often dubious of statistics, more so the way they are worded when trying to prove a point, what exactly does "any" mean?

I'm fairly certain regular commuter cyclists are more likely to die in a bicycle crash than those who commute in motor vehicles.

Vice versa, I'm pretty certain bus passengers are more likely to die in a bus crash than someone who cycles to work.

Well, the BMA report "Cycling Towards Health and Safety" by Mayer Hillman published about thirty years ago, found that regular cyclists lived on average two years longer, and suffered less from all forms of illness.

Which bit of "any" didn't you understand?

I'm not sure that you've got such a great grasp of 'any' yourself. You appear to have equated 'all forms of illness' with 'all forms of death'.

You see, it is possible to die of other causes: a piano falling from a hoist during removal, or over-extension of one's neck due to not appreciating when to wind it in, say.

I think the disagreement is because 'less likely to die from any cause' is an intrinsically ambiguous phrase. The English language isn't as precise as maths, I guess.

Does it mean every cause of death is individually less likely, or that the total likelihood of death (summed over all causes) is less? The two would be expressed differently in maths but come out the same in English.

It obviously is intended to mean the latter but a pedant could could interpret it as the former.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

davel wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

wellsprop wrote:

 "compared to people who commuted by car or on public transport, regular commuter cyclists were 41 per cent less likely to die from any cause"

I'm often dubious of statistics, more so the way they are worded when trying to prove a point, what exactly does "any" mean?

I'm fairly certain regular commuter cyclists are more likely to die in a bicycle crash than those who commute in motor vehicles.

Vice versa, I'm pretty certain bus passengers are more likely to die in a bus crash than someone who cycles to work.

Well, the BMA report "Cycling Towards Health and Safety" by Mayer Hillman published about thirty years ago, found that regular cyclists lived on average two years longer, and suffered less from all forms of illness.

Which bit of "any" didn't you understand?

I'm not sure that you've got such a great grasp of 'any' yourself. You appear to have equated 'all forms of illness' with 'all forms of death'. You see, it is possible to die of other causes: a piano falling from a hoist during removal, or over-extension of one's neck due to not appreciating when to wind it in, say.

I think the disagreement is because 'less likely to die from any cause' is an intrinsically ambiguous phrase. The English language isn't as precise as maths, I guess. Does it mean every cause of death is individually less likely, or that the total likelihood of death (summed over all causes) is less? The two would be expressed differently in maths but come out the same in English. It obviously is intended to mean the latter but a pedant could could interpret it as the former.

Fluffy know's what I'm on about 

alansmurphy wrote:

Paul - that's easy "erratic cyclist not wearing helmet causes bus to crash"...

Or....."erotic cyclist not wearing helmet causes bus to crash"...

Rich_cb wrote:

The findings of this study are actually pretty incredible. If all the non active commuters studied had switched to cycle commuting there would have been 565 fewer deaths over the 5 year study period. So, over a 5 year period, for every 330 people who switch to cycle commuting from driving you will save one life. That would also work in reverse I assume. So, in countries which have introduced laws that have reduced the cycling rate we can now reasonably quantify how many of their citizens have died as a result.

Actually the findings of this report are extremely credible, given that there have been many such reports over the past fifty years, all saying the same thing: regular exercise is vital for good health and longevity.

There have also been studies into the costs of increased ill health in Australia and New Zealand, which show that the helmet laws have been a disaster in public health terms, not reducing the death rate of cyclists, but significantly increasing it for the general population.

unconstituted wrote:

@davel this summer's f**ked. Snap election, then the July-Sept recess. Khan and Grayling about to get a free pass for doing sweet FA for cycling and road safety. 

I'm sure that's depressingly accurate! Accurately depressing? Both probably.

BudgieBike wrote:

Help!!  I work from home so difficult to ride bike down stairs to desk, Office when I do visit is 50 miles away in Central London.  But do 75 to 100k on bike  weekly just for kicks 

Where do I fit in ? Will I die 37% or 23% earlier   

Do you hold the handrail while walking down the stairs?

Deeferdonk wrote:

Cyclists are more likely to be healthy ....

or ....

Healthy people are more likely to be cyclists....

-probably a bit of both.

The study claims to have corrected for pre-existing health conditions.

Probably not possible to correct for all of them though. I mean, someone might have an undiagnosed condition which deters them from active commuting (without even consciously realising it). E.g. too knackered to walk - later turns out it's due to undiagnosed diabetes.

But, still, seems as if it's more down to active commuters being healthier than the reverse.

PaulBox wrote:

BudgieBike wrote:

Help!!  I work from home so difficult to ride bike down stairs to desk, Office when I do visit is 50 miles away in Central London.  But do 75 to 100k on bike  weekly just for kicks 

Where do I fit in ? Will I die 37% or 23% earlier   

Do you hold the handrail while walking down the stairs?

And do you wear a helmet when doing so? (High viz _probably_ not necessary)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

PaulBox wrote:

BudgieBike wrote:

Help!!  I work from home so difficult to ride bike down stairs to desk, Office when I do visit is 50 miles away in Central London.  But do 75 to 100k on bike  weekly just for kicks 

Where do I fit in ? Will I die 37% or 23% earlier   

Do you hold the handrail while walking down the stairs?

And do you wear a helmet when doing so? (High viz _probably_ not necessary)

high viz definitely necessary if you have 4 YOs in the house. 

davel wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Well, the BMA report "Cycling Towards Health and Safety" by Mayer Hillman published about thirty years ago, found that regular cyclists lived on average two years longer, and suffered less from all forms of illness.

Which bit of "any" didn't you understand?

I'm not sure that you've got such a great grasp of 'any' yourself. You appear to have equated 'all forms of illness' with 'all forms of death'. You see, it is possible to die of other causes: a piano falling from a hoist during removal, or over-extension of one's neck due to not appreciating when to wind it in, say.

Seems perfectly clear to me: regular cyclists live two years longer than average, that's one proven fact.  Another proven fact is that they suffer less from all forms of illness.  I haven't equated the two which are quite discrete and different.  Nowhere did I mention "all forms of death" you invented it.

I hope your neck gets better soon.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Do you hold the handrail while walking down the stairs?

And do you wear a helmet when doing so? (High viz _probably_ not necessary)[/quote]

Whilst wearing cycling shoes?,absoflippinlutely, can glide down staircases in 4inch heels no problem,put on cycling shoes with cleats on and I'm like Bambi on ice down stairs

And yes I was wearing a helmet,but I'd actually recommend paying more attention to increased padding for the back & posterior