Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cycling To Work Can Cut Cancer and Heart Disease (bbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the faster-than-the-bus dept.

randomErr quotes a report from BBC: Want to live longer? Reduce your risk of cancer? And heart disease? Then cycle to work, say scientists. The five-year study of 250,000 UK commuters also showed walking had some benefits over sitting on public transport or taking the car. Published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) today, the University of Glasgow study compared those who had an "active" commute with those who were mostly stationary. Overall, 2,430 of those studied died, 3,748 were diagnosed with cancer and 1,110 had heart problems. But, during the course of the study, regular cycling cut the risk of death from any cause by 41%, the incidence of cancer by 45% and heart disease by 46%. The cyclists clocked an average of 30 miles per week, but the further they cycled the greater the health boon. However, the effect was still there even after adjusting the statistics to remove the effects of other potential explanations like smoking, diet or how heavy people are.

24 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. who knew by Osgeld · · Score: 5, Funny

    news at 11, exercise leads to better health

    now take your bike and shove it up your ass, my work is 30 miles away, its fucking hot in my part of the world and there are a lot of hills

    1. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It does however increase the risk of being hit by a car and getting a horrible head injury so maybe not perfect.

  2. cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ANY?

    1. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      ANY?

      Yup, Any.

      Basically some dedicated bicyclists never die.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by PPH · · Score: 2

      outweigh any of the additional risks

      If that includes getting run over by a transit bus, the benefits must be truly remarkable.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by clovis · · Score: 2

      I had the same reaction ... ANY?
      Here's the actual study: http://www.bmj.com/content/357...

      I'm having some difficulty pulling out the raw numbers from the actual study, so I'll make up some nearly correct number to show the example.
      What they mean is that during the study period of the 250,000 participants, 2,500 died which is 1% risk of death during the study period.
      Of that 250,000 people, 10,000 commuted to work on bicycles. Of the 10,000 cyclists, 59 died for a 41% reduction in risk of death during the study period.

      If we had used two groups, 100,000 people of the general population, about 1,000 would have died during the study period.
      Of a group of 100,000 cyclists, about 590 would have died during the period.

    4. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      outweigh any of the additional risks

      If that includes getting run over by a transit bus, the benefits must be truly remarkable.

      You ought to look up "risk" -- few cyclists will be run over by a transit bus. And it's not like a car commute is free of risk.

  3. Interesting... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    regular cycling cut the risk of death from any cause by 41%

    I would have thought it would increase your risk of death by being hit by a car.

    In all seriousness though, people are not really designed for the type of lifestyle we live today in the modern world. We weren't meant to sit all day long and stare at a monitor. It would be interesting to know what cycling to and from work does in regards to stress relief too.

  4. It would be... by 101percent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would be a lot easier if cagers weren't so fucking stupid and inconsiderate assholes. It's friday, so just go to youtube and you can see a million examples of what I'm talking about.

    1. Re:It would be... by dfghjk · · Score: 2

      Only the intellect of an Anonymous Coward could come up with this. Roads were made for cars and trucks? I suppose that means there were no roads before cars and trucks.

    2. Re:It would be... by 101percent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also clearly ignorant American who has never traveled to another country where bikes are functional and ubiquitous and safe.

    3. Re: It would be... by 101percent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly you don't bicycle. I contest that sans "steel protection" you are an idiot if your senses aren't heightened. From this behavior you will quickly learn most drivers are the ones who don't understand how to drive. I've seen it all and it is thoroughly documented. Go Pro mounted cyclists have revealed much in the past few years.

    4. Re:It would be... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Many places, it's illegal to bike on the sidewalk. Cyclists endanger pedestrians.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:It would be... by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Look, roads were made for cars and trucks. If you ride a motorcycle or bicycle on the road, anything that happens to you is your fault. A smart person surrounds himself in steel to protect him from stupid assholes on the road. Only retards think that they don't need it.

      Actually, roads were originally made for (and paid by) cyclists:

      https://www.theguardian.com/en...

      Surrounding yourself in steel doesn't seem to make drivers very safe when 35,000 people a year are killed in car crashes.

    6. Re:It would be... by hawguy · · Score: 2

      When I was growing up, we were taught to ride out bikes on the sidewalk since it was safer.

      Cycling on the sidewalk is much less safe -- most cyclists are hit in intersections, and on a sidewalk every driveway is an intersection, worse, many drivers don't even look before backing out into the sidewalk. Even as a runner I've had many more close calls on the sidewalk with cars pulling out across the sidewalk without looking that when running on the road.

  5. Cost of telling her to go screw herself by tepples · · Score: 2

    I understand you think Elkim Roa might be hen-pecked. But if he* tells his wife to go screw herself, and she takes that as a hint to discover vibrating massagers, he might not get any for a while.

    * More likely

  6. Correlation is not causality by markdavis · · Score: 5, Informative

    >"Cycling To Work Can Cut Cancer and Heart Disease"

    Nope, that is not the article. Look at the title of the paper:

    "Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study"

    *ASSOCIATION*, which is another way of saying correlation. It is not a study of causality. This proves nothing. Perhaps people who bike to work also eat better. Perhaps they have more income. Perhaps the other parts of their life have lower stress. They can't possibly eliminate ALL other possibilities by "adjusting for" because those are just assumptions.

    Of course, it is common sense that exercising regularly will cut your chance of heart disease and possibly cancer. But the title of the posting implies there is causality where that is not proven in the article.

    By the way, I bicycle to work almost every day.... but it is only like 2/3 of a mile round trip :)

  7. who are cyclists? by Goldsmith · · Score: 2

    People who cycle to work are people who:
    1) Don't need to personally take care of their children in an emergency
    2) Live close to work
    3) Have flexible working hours and standards
    4) Have a nice enough job to support an office and a place to put a bike

    In short, cyclists have a lower stress life. I would argue very strongly that cycling to work is the result of a lower stress life, not the cause. It is not a lifestyle that most of us can afford for reasons that have nothing to do with cycling.

    1. Re:who are cyclists? by Goldsmith · · Score: 2

      Yeah, you clearly have a different way of life than I do, and you obviously have made great choices for you regarding where you live and what you do.

      The idea that work is one place, where you're not asked to go to other places during the day, or help shuttle people around, is quite a nice thing. Maybe "flexible working hours" is not the right phrase, but something more like "flexible work requirements." I run my own business, which is great for me, but not for biking. It's not ok for me to put off going to a client to swap out hardware, or to not go meet a potential investor who's across town and is available to meet on short notice. My car carries spare work hardware, kid's snacks and toys, and a backup suit. It all gets used pretty regularly.

      I have biked to work at a previous job, It was absolutely wonderful, and I loved it. My personal and professional ambitions grew, and I chose to sacrifice an ability to be car-free. My point is simply that the lack of biking is not what generates stress in life, it's the stress of life that prevents biking.

    2. Re:who are cyclists? by rune2 · · Score: 2

      Yes cars are basically a requirement for some jobs and lifestyles depending on one's circumstances but some people don't even bother to consider that it could be an good alternative mode of transportation for them and which can also be a good form of exercise. What better way to exercise regularly then to make it part of your routine and your lifestyle. It's fairly low impact. As you say not everyone is in a position to do that but as the article says for those who can do it it can have a positive impact on their overall health. Lack of exercise may just be contributing to that stress you speak of. How many health conditions are directly caused by a sedentary lifestyle? It's a slow and quiet killer.... Choosing to drive instead of cycling can be a sacrifice too. More time driving can sometimes mean more time commuting (when stuck in traffic etc or in the case of a longer commute distance), with less free personal time, less time to exercise etc. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. You don't have to give up driving entirely in order to cycle once in a while etc. Many people choose to either cycle or drive depending on their schedule and what their needs are that particular day etc.

      I don't think that commuting by bike is completely stress-free (depending on where you bike of course). In urban areas it can be quite stressful at times in fact. Especially in areas where there has been little to no consideration for cyclists in the overall traffic plan. That can put cyclists in dangerous or unsafe conditions which certainly is stressful. It's not perfect....Things like extreme weather can be a bit unpleasant when cycling too (although I see plenty of people cycling in all kinds of weather... rain or snow etc).

      Sometimes I think cycling can actually be a great last-mile commuting solution for some people in certain areas. i.e. For someone working downtown in a heavily congested area instead of fighting traffic and fighting for street parking (or paying for expensive parking) a folding bike could be used to allow you to park the car in a less-congested area with better/cheaper parking options (for example) and then to bike the last couple of miles etc. (or it could be used when getting off a bus or train in an area with poor transit coverage). I did that myself for a job one time. At the time the last 10 percent of my commute was a total pain in the ass to get to by transit so I got a folding bike. I took one bus like 90 percent of the way to work and while I rode the bike I stuck the folding bike under the seat. Then I cycled the last 10 percent of the way. Some cities have bike-sharing networks which can be used for short trips like that and they can be faster than walking and far more convenient than either transit or driving for that kind of trip.

  8. Re:On-site service; cargo by hawguy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Moving closer doesn't help if it is part of your job description to visit clients' land or haul more work equipment than will fit in a reasonable bike trailer.

    The major downside: if you don't ride your bike, the public will miss getting to see you in the tight black spandex that all bikers seem to feel a compulsion to wear. The gay community in particular will be disappointed. In the name of tolerance you should not disappoint the gay community. Therefore car travel is a bigoted idea and supports hatred of LGBT people. So you see, you must bike, for the good of the society!

    It's lycra, not spandex, and few commuters wear full-on bike gear. Most people wear the same clothes they wear at work. It's the recreational riders that are more likely to wear bike gear... and there's a good reason for it -- similar to why few people wear jeans to lift weights at the gym.

  9. Re: Selection bias by hawguy · · Score: 2

    This was the comment I was waiting on. Heart failure and cancer aren't really "let's bike to work god I feel alive just now!"style diseases.

    They are god let's stay home and have someone drive us to anywhere we need to go diseases...

    My doctor recommended that my father ride a bike for exercise after his heart surgery after his second heart attack. And he did. He was no racer, but managed to ride a few miles around the neighborhood most days. I'm regular cyclist and older than my dad was after his first heart attack, and so far, I'm showing no signs of similar heart disease (though my diet is much better, so I can't attribute it to exercise alone)

    So it's not true that heart disease and cycling don't go together.

  10. Re:I live in a major metropolitian by hawguy · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure the lungfuls of car exhaust will counteract that benefit. Hell, I knew a truck driver who had his chest cracked open looking for problems only to find it was just the build up of decades of soot from sitting in traffic so much.

    That's not true in most cities:

    https://www.theguardian.com/en...

    “Even in Delhi, one of the most polluted cities in the world – with pollution levels ten times those in London – people would need to cycle over five hours per week before the pollution risks outweigh the health benefits.

  11. Re:On-site service; cargo by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, but few strength training exercises require sticking your ass up in the air and waving it back and forth like that.

    Straight leg dead lift. bent rows, and back hyperextension off the top of my head. And while we're on the subject of distracting and embarrassing, there's always leg abduction.

    Anyhow, people are jerks toward anyone who gets serious about anything, whether it's biking, power lifting, or building electronics. You're supposed to be normal, not exceptional. That makes it easy to be a sanctimonious prig toward people who like things you don't have what it takes to try.

    Ever go to a gym where there's rules about making too much noise because you'll scare the casuals? It's stupid. There's a woman in my gym, an ex-marine, who can dead lift over 2 1/2 her body weight, which for a woman puts her in the elite range. When I walk into the gym and she's doing it, I have to walk out because she sounds like a harpy ripping the head off a dragon. But it's my problem, not hers. That's what it takes for her to do her thing, and I'm not going to make her feel bad about it because it's awesome. Literally.

    Celebrate people who dare to look, sound, or even be ridiculous. Even if it bothers you, that's not the same thing as harming you. The people who do harm are the self-appointed conformity police. The ones who automatically go after anyone who doesn't appear normal. "Normal" is must another word for "mediocre".

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.