Rolls eyes…

People who cycle, walk or catch the train or bus to work keep more weight off than commuters who travel by car, a large UK study has found.

And for both cycling and walking, greater travelling distances were associated with greater reductions in percentage body fat.

Who’d have thunk it – car users are more overweight than cyclists and walkers…and the further you cycle or walk, the more weight you shed….

I wonder what the car fuel usage was, compared to distance driven? I hypothesise “the further a car travels, the more fuel it uses”.

DrP

Well, you’re the Doctor!

Generally yes. However I drive to work every day but am not overweight and far fitter than a teammate who cycles to work (who is overweight)

Guess I wasn’t in the data…

It’s obvious with the evidence to support it now though?

medical question for medical people

How does cycling come under Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ?

Some of these ‘obvious’ studies are due to them getting funding for them and also the dumbed down way the media tell us about science.

Still, some of these studies are daft.

Sounds like a daft study, but hopefully it might nudge those who need the bleedin’ obvious shown to them, into finding a way into work that doesn’t involve driving.

Probably not though.

It’s obvious with the evidence to support it now though?

+1 could be valuable ammunition for cycling advocacy

Does this mean I can claim a new bike as a medical device on my free prescription card?

Does this mean I can claim a new bike as a medical device on my free prescription card?

You don’t want the bikes you can buy in Boots.

How does cycling come under Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ?

If I forget to wash my bib shorts between commutes then there’s definitely potential for cycling to come under the remit of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

By quantifying the benefits of commuting by bike etc it makes it easier to push for more cycle friendly infrastructure, based on savings to the NHS

I think its a brilliant paper!

better summary here
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/tl-tld031516.php

I did find this on the Lancet webpage tho 🙂

The Lancet
Volume 145, Issue 3731, 2 March 1895, Pages 540–542
Originally published as Volume 1, Issue 3731
Cover image
ON CYCLING AS A CAUSE OF HEART DISEASE.

THE chief danger of cycling, or rather the reason why it
may become more injurious than some other forms of
exercise, is the fact that a cyclist takes much more exercise
than he is aware of, and is very frequently tempted to overtax
his powers. He starts off in the morning for a ride fresh
and vigorous, having previously mapped out his course ; but I ,
when the time arrives for his midday meal he may have
some few miles yet to go. He has perhaps over-rated his
capacity ; or the condition of the roads renders it impossible
to travel at the rate upon which he had based his calculations.
But he is hungry, and so he redoubles his efforts to reach his
destination and when he arrives there he is utterly fagged
out and has lost his appetite.
As an example of the facility with which one may be lead into taking more exercise than one has counted upon I may relate a case which came under my notice a few weeks ago. A gentleman who had not ridden for some time started out one morning for a run in the morning, neglecting to take any lamp.
When he arrived at his destination it came on to rain, and the friends whom
he was visiting prevailed upon him to stay until late in the
evening. At half-past seven he found himself still fifteen
miles from home, and on that particular evening police
regulations compelled the lamps to be lighted at a quarter
past eight. It was now a race against time, but he succeeded
in reaching home only a few minutes after that hour. I saw
him at nine o’clock. His pulse was then 125, and he complained
of thirst, restlessness, and a feeling of oppression at
the chest. At 9.15 his pulse was 120. At ten it was 110.
At eleven o’clock it had sunk to 100. He then retired to bed,
but passed a sleepless night. On rising in the morning his
pulse was 90, and it did not reach the normal 68 until the
day after. The commonest way, however, in which the
cyclist injures himself is in climbing hills. He is nearing the
top of the hill, and the heart is dilated with the strain put upon
it by the increased arterial tension. If the rider were now
to stop and recover himself no harm would be done. But in
too many cases he sees that only a few more revolutions of
the wheel will be required to carry hin to the top. So he
redoubles his exertions, putting further strain upon a heart
already taxed to the utmost limit of its capacity, and in those
few moments damage has been done to the heart from which
it perhaps cannot recover.
I believe that it is usual at the commencement of a club run for the riders to agree that they will adapt their pace to
the slowest member. That is all very well in theory, but what
really takes place is that after a time one of the faster riders
unconsciously quickens his pace. The rest of the club follow
suit, and before very long they are all travelling at a rate which
is far beyond the capacity of a certain proportion of the set. To
be unable to keep up with the rest of the club is a confession
of effeminacy, and it would be morally impossible to get off
your machine and walk up a hill which your friends are
riding up. Another circumstance which increases the deadliness
of the modern cycle is the fact that it is nowadays considered a point of honour, especially among novices, to
ride with as high a gear as possible. It is, I am sure, no
, exaggeration to say that 90 per cent. of all riders are usittg a
: gear much too high for their strength. For the benefit
: of those who are not practical cyclists I will here
: explain what is meant by “gear.” In the early days of . cycling the pedals were attached directly to the axis of the
driving wheel. The effect of this was that the largest wheel
: which could be used was determined by the length of the
legs of the rider. And since the distance which a machine . would travel with one revolution of the pedals depended upon B the size of the wheel, tall men were at a great advantage over short ones when it came to racing. So every one rode
as large a wheel as he could, and strictured urethra from
perineal pressure was common. The introduction of geared machines altered all this. The pedals, instead of being
attached to the hub of the driving wheel, communicate
motion to a cog-wheel, and this in its turn, by means of a
chain or other mechanical device, rotates another wheel
rigidly fastened to the hub of the driving wheel. By
varying the sizes of the respective wheels the driving wheel
can be caused to rotate a greater number of times than the
pedals. If, therefore, a driving wheel of thirty inches in
diameter were caused to rotate twice for every once that the
pedals went round, you would be securing all the advantage
of a sixty-inch wheel as regards speed with half the weight. Of course the more a machine is geared up the harder work
it is to push it. That is what is meant by a high gear.
Machines for racing are geared up to seventy inches or more.
Boys of fifteen or sixteen years of age boast that they ride
machines geared up to sixty-three inches, whereas a fifty-six inch gear would be much more suitable for them.
The subject-matter of this paper is intended to apply to
the thousands of every-day cyclists. I am not taking into
consideration the path and road racers. These men are
deliberately sacrificing their future health for the sake of
winning a few prizes. What shall we say to 460 miles
ridden in twenty-four hours at Herne Hill last year? At
this race some of the men rode until they dropped off
their machines. Another very reprehensible thing is what is
known as a “hill-climbing contest.” Everything that I
have said with regard to riding up hills applies here with
double force. Hills of the steepest gradient are purposel,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673602055629

Who’d have thunk it – car users are more overweight than cyclists and walkers…and the further you cycle or walk, the more weight you shed….

Sometimes, the results of studies are counter-intuitive. It’s axiomatic therefore that a lot of the time, results of studies will confirm what we suspect to be true.

Still bleeding obvious though.

Still bleeding obvious though.

It’s also “obvious” that the seat belt law reduces road deaths…

Surely most studies confirm what the author suspected? Or at least that’s the plan?

I’m not a scientist but I thought that was now it worked?

Great stuff Kimbers, will read that in full later – if I survive my afternoon ride.

Never underestimate the frequency with which “obvious” things are wrong: beware anyone using “common sense” as a justification for anything, because it’s shorthand for “I haven’t applied critical thought or bothered looking for evidence”.

Where it’s an important matter, such the health of a population which has global-scale implications on wellbeing and economics, it’s absolutely right to rigorously test the seemingly obvious.

“Physical inactivity is one of the leading causes of ill-health and premature mortality. In England, two thirds of adults do not meet recommended levels of physical activity. Encouraging public transport and active commuting, especially for those in mid-life when obesity becomes an increasing problem, could be an important part of the global policy response to population-level obesity prevention.”

Evidence is needed to convince policymakers to effect change. This is particularly important with the ‘cycling is dangerous’ brigade. ‘Obvious’ is just a statement of opinion and opinions differ.

Where it’s an important matter, such the health of a population which has global-scale implications on wellbeing and economics, it’s absolutely right to rigorously test the seemingly obvious.

Also, it tells us what we don’t know: how much effect, for whom, and how far they need to travel.

Indeed: even if a basic correlation of some sort is obvious, the mathematical modelling of the actual relationship isn’t.

If it was obvious to the masses then the masses wouldn’t be so massive!

“But he is hungry, and so he redoubles his efforts to reach his
destination and when he arrives there he is utterly fagged
out and has lost his appetite”. 😯

Like Kimbers said, it’s not that cycle commuting is linked to fitness, it’s exactly how much that counts.

If we can predict that a new cycle path will cause N people to switch to cycling for their daily commute, and that cyclists are healthier and require £x less from the NHS per year, then the path saves the NHS £Nx (plus or minus some pretty big error bars) and that justifies spending money on it.

(I work on predicting N).

I posted that ^ up yesterday link here where i got suitably chastised for stating the obvious

I still think it’s obvious but then again i am blessed with common sense, if it helps push for more spending on cycling then go for it, more studies please as long as they don’t cost a fortune

I think someone up there mentioned it, but a large part of “obvious” studies is quantifying the link.

Someone might want to know, for instance, how much money the NHS might save if we coax x% of car users out of their car. Those sort of questions can’t be answered without quantitative data.

That’s what the report seems to have done, because one of the conclusions is:

“For the average man in the sample (age 53 years; height 176.7cm; weight 85.9kg), cycling to work rather than driving was associated with a weight difference of 5kg”

Of course, that’s not a very concise headline.

“For the average man in the sample (age 53 years; height 176.7cm; weight 85.9kg), cycling to work rather than driving was associated with a weight difference of 5kg”

Problem is that the sort of person who can be bothered to cycle to work may be generally more active/less lazy and be 5kg lighter whether cycling to work or not, i.e. it may not be the cycling to work that made the difference.

And if the cycle to work is 2 miles and the rider rides at 10mph then there won’t be any benefit over someone who has to walk a fair way in from where they have parked their car.

maybe they took that into account?

I’m more worried about the correlation between the BBC and absolutely appalling English.