24 ms·

Cycling to work can cut cancer and heart disease, says study

172 points by jgrahamc 10y ago

isomorph 10y ago
That's cool. Anyone know if in London your average risk of death goes up or down if you cycle to work? I'm scared of pollution (which has already started making me ill as a pedestrian) and traffic incidents.
- nrki 10y ago
  I recall reading a couple of articles on this subject about cities in general [1, 2]. London was called out as OK: "Our model indicates that in London health benefits of active travel always outweigh the risk from pollution. [1]" What I'd like to know is, given an accident rate, pollution level, and other factors, what is the "safety factor" of walking/cycling vs. tube/rail/bus/car/taxi? Edit: These graphs are great: https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/assets/pollution-london-large.png https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/assets/pollution-londo... https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/assets/pollution-world-large.png https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/assets/pollution-world... Interesting stats: - In 1% of cities worldwide, pollution levels are high enough that "active travel" is dangerous past 30mins of activity. - ~40,000 people in the UK die earlier every year due to air pollution. 1: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/walking-and-cycling-good-for-health-even-in-cities-with-higher-levels-of-air-pollution http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/walking-and-cycling-good-... 2: https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/ https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/
  - jbergens 10y ago
    London is probably ok except during december 1952. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
- quicklime 10y ago
  I'm not sure about London, but this has been studied before in other cities and it's been found that the benefits significantly outweigh the risks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ Unless London is significantly (>~20x) more dangerous than the Netherlands, I'd expect the result to hold there too.
- andygates 10y ago
  Very much down. Everyone gets pollution, but cyclists' air intakes are further above vehicle exhaust that passengers and pedestrians. London's black snot is your filters working! As for incidents, the risk is offset by health benefits. Last time I checked it was approx 1 serious incident per 100,000 miles ridden (which is much more than the lifetime of most riders).
  - lostboys67 10y ago
    and as 90% of fatalities are caused by undertaking HGV's not undertaking traffic and not riding in the gutter reduces that risk considerabley
- awjr 10y ago
  As somebody that has cycled in London, cycling from Paddington to Holborn enabled me to avoid busy roads. Yes the route was slightly longer but on a bike that really isn't an issue. I only ever did Oxford Road once. Never again. Getting to work via Hyde Park, Soho, or past Buckingham Palace is just pure joy. I found walking meant you were mostly on busy roads as these were the most direct routes.
- Theodores 10y ago
  Which part of London? I used to commute through the fumes to Soho, by bike, taking approximately an hour each way. There have been other commutes, e.g. around the North Circular or straight up the A5 to Stanmore, however, I nowadays avoid central London due to the air quality. It is as simple as that, the air is not good. There is no way to effectively avoid this if you do need to actually get somewhere central. I believe that the traffic is manageable and not a problem so long as you like hi-viz and ride as per the Highway Code. If you do have to commute to central London then don't - get another job a bit further out and get your life back, and your health. Nowadays I get trains places once or twice a month but otherwise just cycle the river ('Thames') and other low pollution areas, e.g. Richmond Park. Also winds are prevailing one way due to how the earth spins, so make sure you live in the West of London and not the East. Outer London good, inner London = move!!!
- xiphias 10y ago
  Just move away from London while it's not late. I also was scared, but not scared enough... now I'm totally allergic to cars and people don't understand me. It's not worth for the money either: rents go up a lot if you have to live at places with no cars, but still in modern places close to good work/social life.
  - isomorph 10y ago
    Where did you go?
    - xiphias 10y ago
      I'm in Zurich...not as fun as London, but air quality (and salary) is much better.
- ciaranm 10y ago
  Last I checked, Walking, Bus or Tube all registered as worse r.e. pollution. The article suggested it was mostly about duration of exposure, of which cycling was the lowest. As for traffic incidents - I don't think they're massively different in London compared to the rest of the UK. The study in the article indicates that risk of death _by any method_ goes down by 41%, though admittedly it's not based on London data. -edit- Not the article I mentioned above, but similar results: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35717927 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35717927 (cycling & walking perform better than public transport r.e. pollution intake.)
  - sonthonax 10y ago
    While one may be more exposed to pollution taking public transport, you breathe a lot more running or cycling.
- jeff_vader 10y ago
  I'm cycle daily from Dalston to Holborn. And my daily commute was more or less similar for past 7 years. Most of the time I take main roads and I feel safe. I know all the sections well, know the sketchy bits where it's better to stay behind the traffic, etc. If you're not bothered to add +10min to every 30min of your commute, you can take smaller side roads which are usually very quiet and most importantly free from large vehicles. No accidents so far. Can't comment on effects of pollution though, I have no idea.
- kspaans 10y ago
  I biked in London for almost 2 years (Whitechapel to Farringdon, then Deptford Bridge to Farringdon). What I found helped a lot was to avoid roundabouts as much as possible, and be extra cautious when overtaking on the left near stops. Assume everyone is going to turn left in front of you, 50% of the time you'll be right. ;)
senectus1 10y ago
yeah unfortunately in my City (Perth, WA) your chances of being maimed or dying from a angry cyclist hating driver goes up exponentially. Not sure what makes this city think that the roads belong to cars only...
- nrki 10y ago
  As a former Perthian, I hope this will change. It's an amazing city for riding. It requires action by the government [1] and less of an ego from ALL road users. I think the latter will be the hardest sell. A clever & sustained advertising campaign (IMO, led by the same people that did the Melbourne Metro's "Dumb Ways To Die" [2]) would be awesome. More education in school about not being a dickwad on the road would be good, too. 1: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-drivers-facing-new-law-to-leave-metre-for-cyclists-20140320-354wr.html http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-drivers-facing-new-l... 2: http://www.dumbwaystodie.com/ http://www.dumbwaystodie.com/
  - bruce_one 10y ago
    "We're coming to Denver" (Dumb Ways to Die campaign) -- I really enjoyed that campaign, and heaps of my friends discussed it (so that alone means it was at least somewhat successful, imo), so it's cool to see the concept spreading :-)
- fian 10y ago
  Perth drivers are way better than they used to be. 20-25 years ago I had food or drink thrown or squirted at me while cycling on a monthly basis. Most drivers would not look for bikes and many assumed they always had right of way over bikes. The last time I can recall something being thrown at me from a car was about 12 years ago. Most drivers now are more alert for bikes more of the time and many drivers now give way to me when I'm riding - even when they have right of way. Previously the stuff being thrown at cyclists wasn't usually down in a rage - it was more of a mischievous lark for the car occupants. As you stated - the problem now is the rage some drivers get into when something breaks them out of autopilot/daydream mode. There are many factors for why this is happening more. One is that Perth is so sprawled out that and many people are driving for over an hour each way to work and back. On the freeways and highways they lapse into autopilot mode then when something unexpected happens they get a flight/fight response. Since you can't reasonably flee from a car moving at speed - the adrenaline is channeled into the fight response. Another factor is the relatively high (compared to other states in Australia and other countries) level of ice (methamphetamine) use. When the users are high or suffering withdrawal they can lose it over trivial things. Not sure what makes this city think that the roads belong to cars only... This goes back to the vast majority of people that must rely on a car to get around due to the coastal suburban sprawl in and lack of decent public transport options in Perth. Five years ago I spent a few months working in France. I spent a fair bit of time cycling around Paris and was expecting the worst since Parisian drivers had a reputation for being crazy. Indeed I witnessed the driving on the footpath thing a few times and there was a lot of horn honking and gesturing. However, in general I felt much safer riding on the roads in Paris than I do in Perth. The drivers in Paris are conditioned to having cyclists of all types on the road (lycra is much rarer for a start - not fashionable enough maybe?). They are much more attentive to what is happening around them, I guess because they don't have an opportunity to lapse into autopilot as traffic is rarely light. The driving on the footpath thing seemed to be a careful maneuver aimed at improving lane efficiency during peak hour (ie to get around a temporary block into free lane space up the road). So I guess being accustomed to cyclists is a factor in setting drivers attitudes. As I stated earlier, in my experience Perth drivers have improved in this regard and hopefully will continue to do so.
madengr 10y ago
The part about making it part of your daily routine is spot-on. I cycled to work for 15 years, and felt much healthier with lower stress. Then my employer moved from 6 miles away to 12, and have two kids in elementary school. Now I feel like shit, overweight, and guess I'll die younger.
- petertodd 10y ago
  Daily routine is so important. I had one year in particular where I was both cycling to work every day (10km round trip) and cycling to school 2-3x a week (50km round trip). I lost ~30lb in about six months. In fact, as I wasn't trying to lose weight, I didn't even realize I'd been losing so much weight for a few months, and mentally doing that wasn't hard at all - just felt like a normal routine (certainly helped that cycling was often my fastest way to get to both work and school, and almost always a close second).
- tzakrajs 10y ago
  But just imagine where you might be without those 15 years. When the kids are older you can maybe switch stuff up? For their sake?
- leonhandreke 10y ago
  I'm sorry that you're feeling this way - having to compromise on health for a job is never fun :(. I don't know anything about your specific circumstances, but depending on what your daily route to work looks like, you might be able to make it work with a special bike. There are fast cargo bikes which fit two children and could even be outfitted with an electric motor (e.g. http://www.larryvsharry.com/ http://www.larryvsharry.com/). Or the obvious solution, road bike + trailer.
- rbg246 10y ago
  Sorry to ask a silly question, is it possible to say drive halfway then cycle the rest? Bit of setup issues like bike rack etc but will mean you can still cycle to work and feel good.
  - arethuza 10y ago
salesguy222 10y ago
I love riding my bike, but the stats are quite grim for road deaths AND injuries https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cyclist_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cyclist_deaths_in_U.... 49,000 people in the US are injured on the road every year- You may say its a false equivalency, but there are 33,000 gun deaths (suicides/homicides) in the US every year
- misja111 10y ago
  But you are comparing injuries to deaths. There are 'only' around 750 deadly bike accidents per year. Compare this to motor vehicle deaths: there are 35,000 of those per year in the USA .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The more interesting stats for cycling would be deaths per mile for several different types of riding. A commuter can design a low risk route and manage their own behavior, both things that have an impact on safety.
    - blarghh 10y ago
      Yeah, how many delivery salmon are injured every year? Like, they're riding basically a motorcycle, usually without lights, against traffic.
  - salesguy222 10y ago
    The reason I chose cycling injuries is because a cycling injury is usually quite serious and debilitating- aka, it might as well be a death, because you will not be able to live life quite the same after. Furthermore, 49,000 cycling injuries is very high when you consider that only a few percent of the US commute by bike (a few million people), but hundreds of millions of people drive by car!
    - 10y ago
spodek 10y ago
Saying that cycling lowers disease normalizes not exercising. I prefer to think of exercise as normal and sitting around as the disease-causing deviation. I would say: Not cycling to work can increase cancer and heart disease or Sitting around when you could get your heart pumping can increase cancer and heart disease
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- revelation 10y ago
  The implication is "cycling to work => lower cancer and heart disease rate". You can't deduce "not cycling to work increases cancer and heart disease" from that, and that makes practical sense if you consider that the actual underlying factor is exercise.
  - ebfd 10y ago
    You shifted units by dropping the word "rate" in the second formulation. "Not cycling to work increases cancer and heart disease rate" is true.
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    The two statements are equivalent - it's just framing between "Exercising is good" and "Not exercising is bad". Oppositely, you could say equally that "smoking causes lung cancer" or that "Not smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer". But mandated warning labels read the former, because "smoking causes cancer" assumes that the default state of a person is to be not smoking, and that smoking is a choice they make. To someone who habitually smokes in a culture of smokers, this is a different way of thinking. It's an unusual state for people to be so sedentary. We sleep in a bed, sit in a car and drive to work, sit at a desk in an office, sit in the car again, go home and lay on the couch and watch TV or browse the Internet, and repeat. To not get exercise is weird. And yes, to these people, they should be informed that exercising is good for them. But this message, conveyed instead as "not exercising is bad", implies that not exercising should be considered abnormal behavior and that daily exercise is the default.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
norswap 10y ago
Correlation is not causation. But yeah, exercising is healthy. Who knew?
- DanBC 10y ago
  In the UK context people cycle in cities. London, in particular, has a serious problem of pollution. This research answers questions about whether benefits from cycling outweigh harms from pollution (yes) or harms from road traffic accidents (yes).
  - Noos 10y ago
    they don't really. Keep in mind this is only for constant cycling...mixed cycling and commutes is actually worse than constant walking for cardio vascular incidence and mortality, and only is better overall for cancer incidence. You're actually more at risk to die if you constantly walk than if you are sedentary (1.03 to 1.0) and more likely to die from cancer if so (1.10 to 1.0). If you only occasionally walk though, you are less likely to die of cancer than if you always walk. I think honestly there are issues here. And why would cycling affect cancer of all things, and only constant cycling?
    - DanBC 10y ago
      > why would cycling affect cancer of all things Obesity is linked to about 20% of cancer cases. People who cycle tend not to be obese.
Accacin 10y ago
I don't cycle, but I recently moved much more close to work and now I'm able to walk instead of driving. It's 5km a day and I generally go for a nice walk on my lunch break so I think I walk about 7km to 10km a day. I'm definitely feeling better although I haven't lost much weight (maybe 2kgs or so). They do say in the article the benefits of walking only start to kick in over 6miles a week so I guess I'm good!
amelius 10y ago
Anybody with good tips for an all-weather cycling outfit, which you can also comfortably wear at work?
- Thlom 10y ago
  Doesn't exist. Get a a good rain coat and pullover rain pants. Alternatively there's some good cycling specific ponchos. Bike should have chain guard and long fenders to keep your ass and back dry and with mud flaps to keep your feet dry(ish). Might be a good idea to use rain boots and keep shoes in a bag if it's raining.
  - edabobojr 10y ago
    I use a cycling poncho, fenders, and chain guard. I only ride about 3 miles, but even in the worst weather I only get wet from about mid-shin down, and even then only enough to be bothersome in the worst weather.
  - shurane 10y ago
    Any thoughts on soft shell pants? http://snarkynomad.com/soft-shell-jeans-the-worlds-greatest-invention/ http://snarkynomad.com/soft-shell-jeans-the-worlds-greatest-... I definitely miss not having chain guard and fenders with Seattle weather, but have switched over to a raincoat and boots for biking. Waterproofing the commute is totally worth it.
    - Thlom 10y ago
      In my experience soft shell is neither very breathable nor very water resistant. It's both, but as with GoreTex it's a compromise. Nothing that is 100% water resistant can be breathable and vice versa. GoreTex is very water resistant but not very breathable. soft shell is pretty breathable but less water resistant. Technology might have improved since I bought my last soft shell pant, though.
- brlewis 10y ago
  Depends on your work, your weather, and the length of your ride. In Boston I could wear whatever I wanted for my 1-mile ride from North Station. With longer rides and hotter places it's harder not to break a sweat. This past year I've been walking instead of cycling since it's more exercise.
rcarmo 10y ago
I'm rather more partial to walking. The thing is, cities and office parks are increasingly built with the assumption you'll drive there to do business, and "walkable" business districts tend to be premium real estate - which only reinforces the former by encouraging people to toss up office parks out in the wilderness, typically outside the range of any form of civilised public transportation...
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  > "The thing is, cities and office parks are increasingly built with the assumption you'll drive there to do business" Not in EU they aren't. At most they are being now built assuming you should go there by public transportation, but certainly not that you drive there.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I live in a region that is geographically about the same size as the Netherlands (give or take a few percent). The population of the region is about 300,000. Much of the US has population densities like this, below 50 people per square mile. People generally live at much higher densities than that, but it still doesn't justify much in the way of public transport. Which isn't to say that the US does a good job with public transport, but a significant part of the difference is the affordability and utilization of given levels of service. In many higher density areas, public transport tends to be okay.
    - ced 10y ago
      In many higher density areas, public transport tends to be okay. Apart from NY and SF (?), what other areas are you thinking of?
      - criddell 10y ago
        I lived in Portland for a few years and mostly used bus and light rail.
      - 10y ago
skdotdan 10y ago
I have to commute by train and bus (1h) and I hate it. I would prefer to spend 1h walking, or cycling, but it's just not possible.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  No idea where you are, but could a bike replace the bus bit? I find that city buses are slower than bikes for most trips. If the train doesn't permit a full size bike, a folding one like a Brompton, Bike Friday, or Dahon could be worth investigating.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
Tips from a dancer on how to deal if you don't have a shower at work to clean up after your ride: - By far the most important, make sure you shower before you ride if you won't have a chance afterwards. IIRC, a shower will get rid of 99.9% of sweat eating odour causing bacteria, and that bacteria has a doubling period of about 20 minutes when well fed, so a shower gives you 3-4 hours stink free even if covered in sweat; much longer if you have a chance to change & dry off before those 3-4 hours are up. - wear cotton. It might feel icky after you sweat, but it won't stink like technical fabrics will. Wool is a good compromise -- the smell of wet sheep is preferable to locker room. - change your clothes and dry off when you get to work.
- bmj 10y ago
  - wear cotton. It might feel icky after you sweat, but it won't stink like technical fabrics will. Wool is a good compromise -- the smell of wet sheep is preferable to locker room. This. The other nice thing about wool is that you can go days between washing those pieces.
  - jiehong 10y ago
    The downside is that wool a bit tricky to wash (mostly hand-wash, or washed separately in a specific wool cycle). Or is there any methods you recommend to easily wash wool garments?
    - pdexter 10y ago
      Put it in the freezer or outdoors (if you live in a cold environment). Not sure if this is actually a thing or just some old urban myth, but it's what I do. Maybe I smell though.
      - cmurf 10y ago
        Even just outdoors in the sun: reduced moisture and UV will kill a huge portion of the population. Freezer kills because it's dehydrating, but for wool it'll also kill moth eggs.
dghughes 10y ago
I'd like to bike to work but I live in a small town and northern climate making it very car friendly. Small roads and limited funds mean no bike paths other than painted lines with a bike symbol or as I call it the "there ya go" lanes. In the last few years I see bikes sold here in Canada with giant tires 15cm (six inch) wide tires. Driving is hard enough I can't really see biking in winter in -20C then add the windchill making it feel like -40C. No room to bike on the road either and sidewalks are never plowed until hours later.
caub 10y ago
A bike is the most important thing any human should have
dominotw 10y ago
I would rather take my chances with heart disease than get mowed over by a drunk driver. Cities in USA are not designed for bikers, you are putting your life at great danger by 'biking to work'. Three of my coworkers got killed in 2015, and I seen so many roadside 'memorials' all over chicago to people who died on bike on that spot. One attempt to circumvent a pothole ( plenty in chicago) and next thing you know you head is under a truck tire. No thanks, I'll go the gym instead.
- red_hairing 10y ago
  drunk drivers need not be involved in order for urban cycling to be dangerous...it is just dangerous, period. It's chaos....and gravity and physics mean that sooner or later the cyclist will have an accident.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    Yes agreed. people who are downvoting my comment haven't tried making a simple yield left turn on busy street on a bike.
    - fian 10y ago
      I mostly ride to work across the CBD in my city (Perth, Western Australia). Three times I have been knocked off my bike by cars, with many more near misses. Luckily the worst outcome was one day off work and a couple of weeks off the bike. Perth has a car culture and urban sprawl similar in some ways to Los Angeles. Most people drive to work if they can. The majority of cars on the road during peak hour have only the driver inside (ie single occupant). Traffic congestion on the major arteries is a problem. Encouraging more people to ride bikes to work is one way to lessen traffic and parking problems. It also reduces environmental impact and as the article states - has health benefits. The state government here also encourages cycling and other car alternatives for commuting for these reasons. My regular year-round cycle commuting has inspired a some of my colleagues to try it over driving and/or public transport (note this is not through any pro-active evangelizing on my behalf). A few of them have converted to semi-regular cycle commuters. Other colleagues who can't convert to cycle commuting due to distance, time or family constraints have been inspired to restart recreational cycling. So while I am painfully aware of the risks of cycle commuting I also believe that leading by example is a powerful thing. The more cyclists on the road, the more accustomed car drivers become to their presence which should lead to safer driving behaviors. However, if no one is willing to take the risk of cycling on the road, how will it ever get wider adoption and acceptance?
shrimp_emoji 10y ago
Cyclists are the scum of the Earth: slow, fragile liabilities when you're driving, fast, dangerous obstacles when you're walking. And, to top it all off, they come into work sweaty!
- rhinoceraptor 10y ago
  Maybe you would chill out a little if you went outside for a bike ride.
- tjr225 10y ago
  I'm not sure if this is just a low effort troll or not. Cycling is good for you, the environment, it's cheaper to cycle than to drive, and to many people is very enjoyable. If you really think people who cycle are scum you should consider the irony of your statement.
tryitnow 10y ago
Does cycling cut cancer and heart disease risk? Or are people who are at relatively low risk of those diseases more likely to cycle? Or both? The way the headline reads, many people will be led to believe "Oh, if I start cycling, then I'll cut my risk of cancer and heart disease." This study does not lead to that conclusion. All we can say is that there is a correlation between cycle and lower cancer/heart disease risk - even when accounting for a few other factors. Given that there are other ways of concluding that regular aerobic exercise cuts cancer and heart disease risk - and indeed the preponderance of the evidence suggest that it does. But I doubt the effect is really to almost halve the risk of those diseases.
- agumonkey 10y ago
  heart I can understand but cancer it seems improbable.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    There is some evidence that cancer is linked with obesity: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/obesity-fact-sheet#q3 https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/o... It makes sense that obese people are less likely to bike to work, and also that people who bike to work are less likely to become obese.
    - agumonkey 10y ago
      I still disagree in essence. I know that obesity increases risks but I don't remember how much, it seems a complicated situation with a small effect, compared to say... smoking.
  - andygates 10y ago
    General fitness is cancer-preventative; this is just a specific study with some nice numbers showing that.
- barking 10y ago
  That's what drives me crazy about 'findings' like these that we're being presented with, every day. For example when comparing mortality rates of drinkers and non-drinkers, the fact that a lot of non-drinkers are former alcoholics with significant health issues is often ignored.
prodtorok 10y ago
Any issue with using the sidewalk as opposed to the "Bike Lane" to avoid risk of being hit by a car? Location: a commuter city, sidewalks rarely used in AM, not much usage in PM. My commute is 80% private paths, and 20% on a road in the city. I've seen a lot of cars crossing the bike lane and I've only been biking for 2 weeks.
- shoguning 10y ago
  Sidewalks can be dangerous too. Go slow and watch out for pedestrians, doors opening, driveways and crosswalks. I prefer to stick to the road when possible.
- JBReefer 10y ago
  You really shouldn't, mostly because cars that are pulling out of garages/lots/driveways don't expect you to be there, so they'll pull forward to get a view of where you should be - the street. That said, the missing component in this discussion is that there are some cities - like Tampa - that are so horrible for biking and walking that the risk of riding on the sidewalk is lower, and there aren't any pedestrians anyway.
  - prodtorok 10y ago
    You were spot on, this literally just happened today: http://imgur.com/a/2ktXP http://imgur.com/a/2ktXP
- HillaryBriss 10y ago
  pedestrian here. please don't ride bikes on the sidewalks. i've experienced hundreds of dangerous near collisions with high speed bicyclists as a pedestrian in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities. it's possible to do serious damage by colliding with a pedestrian, particularly if that person is elderly. for such a person, a fall can result in a major bone fracture -- not something easy to recover from. please keep in mind that pedestrians have no other option but sidewalks. if bicyclists use sidewalks heavily enough, they will take away everyone's ability to engage in a very low-pollution form of transportation. also, some people have no other choice but to be pedestrians, so bicyclists on sidewalks literally eliminate the primary transportation option for some members of society. finally, i'll point out that most mass transit riders are pedestrians for part of their journey. so bicyclists on sidewalks make mass transit participation more risky and thus raise its economic cost.
bitwize 10y ago
"I ride 70 miles to work every day. Both HERE and HERE are as red as a fire engine."
- t0mk 10y ago
  and another relevant piece of popular culture is this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgCqz3l33kU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgCqz3l33kU
H1Supreme 10y ago
Unless you live in a walkable city (the vast minority of cities) in the US (I realize this is a UK article), cycling to work is nearly impossible. I only live 10 miles from work, but the whole stretch is 0% cycling friendly.
- 0xcafecafe 10y ago
  I live 2 miles away and it is still not feasible for me to cycle due to no cycle friendliness. Neither are there dedicated bike lanes nor are the motorists conditioned to drive being mindful of bikes.
  - Fricken 10y ago
    I've been cycling since I was a kid, I would never consider moving to a cyclist-hostile area in the first place. On an average day my morning commute is the best part of my day, I would sacrifice a lot of things before I sacrifice that.
    - slizard 10y ago
      While I have not been lucky enough to grow up "on the cycle", just a few years of commuting by bike all year around, I very much feel the same! On the shittiest day at work, or the most stressful situation at home, there's been nothing better than getting on the bike and just taking a ride wherever I have to be or going for a spin without strong purpose. It allows me to clear my mind, forget about everything else, even if just for a half an hour. Feeling the spring breeze or even the frosty winter air's bite on my face while pedaling down the street often puts a big smile on my face even at times where otherwise I'd surely not be smiling.
    - cowardlydragon 10y ago
      In car-obsessed America, everywhere is cyclist-hostile. It's just a matter of degrees.
  - closeparen 10y ago
    Where does this belief come from, that you can't ride without a dedicated bike lane? All you need is a surface your tires have traction with :) I've lived in car-oriented suburbs all my life, and was raised to just go for it. It's not a big deal to get passed by the occasional car on suburban streets. The main roads on the city grid are intimidating, sure, but there are usually much quieter streets running parallel a block or two over (cars avoid them due to frequent stop signs, which bikes can generally roll through with impunity). Grab the Google cycling directions - it's decent at finding those quieter roads - and just try it sometime. It's not that scary. (I find that it's miserable due to physical exertion if there's even a slight incline, but that's another conversation). The biggest danger on two wheels is a car not seeing you at an intersection. A bike lane isn't going to help much there anyway. Lights, a helmet, bright colors, using the correct lanes in bigger intersections, and general defensive riding will go far.
brettcvz 10y ago
I have a strong suspicion that this is a spurious conclusion, for the same reason that the "moderate drinking improves health" correlation was debunked: http://theconversation.com/maybe-moderate-drinking-isnt-so-good-for-you-after-all-72266 http://theconversation.com/maybe-moderate-drinking-isnt-so-g... The study doesn't appear to control for differences in wealth. I would suspect that the population of people who bike to work skews wealthier (higher rents close to work centers, less likely to have to go from job to job). I'm curious how many of these types of longitudinal studies are at their core just confirming the correlation between wealth and health.
- sbierwagen 10y ago
  I would suspect that the population of people who bike to work skews wealthier Incorrect. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-25.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio... page 12 1.5% of people with household income less than $10,000 bike to work, 0.4% of people with household income $75,000 to $99,999 do.
awjr 10y ago
The article is discussing this study "Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study" http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456 http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456 Abstract Objective To investigate the association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, and all cause mortality. Design Prospective population based study. Setting UK Biobank. Participants 263 450 participants (106 674 (52%) women; mean age 52.6), recruited from 22 sites across the UK. The exposure variable was the mode of transport used (walking, cycling, mixed mode v non-active (car or public transport)) to commute to and from work on a typical day. Main outcome measures Incident (fatal and non-fatal) CVD and cancer, and deaths from CVD, cancer, or any causes. Results 2430 participants died (496 were related to CVD and 1126 to cancer) over a median of 5.0 years (interquartile range 4.3-5.5) follow-up. There were 3748 cancer and 1110 CVD events. In maximally adjusted models, commuting by cycle and by mixed mode including cycling were associated with lower risk of all cause mortality (cycling hazard ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.83, P=0.002; mixed mode cycling 0.76, 0.58 to 1.00, P<0.05), cancer incidence (cycling 0.55, 0.44 to 0.69, P<0.001; mixed mode cycling 0.64, 0.45 to 0.91, P=0.01), and cancer mortality (cycling 0.60, 0.40 to 0.90, P=0.01; mixed mode cycling 0.68, 0.57 to 0.81, P<0.001). Commuting by cycling and walking were associated with a lower risk of CVD incidence (cycling 0.54, 0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01; walking 0.73, 0.54 to 0.99, P=0.04) and CVD mortality (cycling 0.48, 0.25 to 0.92, P=0.03; walking 0.64, 0.45 to 0.91, P=0.01). No statistically significant associations were observed for walking commuting and all cause mortality or cancer outcomes. Mixed mode commuting including walking was not noticeably associated with any of the measured outcomes. Conclusions Cycle commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD, cancer, and all cause mortality. Walking commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD independent of major measured confounding factors. Initiatives to encourage and support active commuting could reduce risk of death and the burden of important chronic conditions.
- awjr 10y ago
  Further analysis looking at population level, and using the UK vs Netherlands http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-health-review/united-kingdom-vs-netherlands http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-health-review/unite... Deaths through CVD in the UK are at 17%, Netherlands at 10%. Note you do have to die from something at some point, so having 7% of your population dying early from CVD should reduce your incidence of other deaths within the population. ;)
rgejman 10y ago
I've been biking to work every day in Manhattan for about 2 years (~3.5mi each way). I go from 14th to 70th in about 15-18 minutes. I feel healthier and stronger and it has made a difference in every aspect of my life. There are two reasonable hills on my way to work (and I'm a sweaty guy) so I've had to learn to deal with the inevitability of sweating. The NUMBER ONE most important change I made was getting a rack and an Arkel saddle bag. Not carrying my backpack on my back cut down my sweating a TON. During the winter I wear regular clothing with uniqlo v-neck airsim undershirts. I will sweat a little but generally I shed layers as I get hot. I've switched from cotton shirts and blue jeans to mostly flannel shirts and mostly black jeans -- both of which help to cover any incidental sweat spots. I've also switched to more breathable sneakers for daily use. I'll bring a change of shoes clothes if I need to be dressed fancier. During the summer, with Manhattan heat and humidity, there's no avoiding getting sweaty. I bring a change of clothes, cool off for 5m after parking my bike and then change and walk into work. Not ideal, but the health and exercise benefits significantly outweigh the downsides.
- tmatt 10y ago
  Very similar experience (in terms of results), except going from east village to flatiron. Also... its way faster to get almost anywhere in manhattan on a bike. In regards to sweating in summer, I just wear a t-shirt and change my shirt once I arrive, and have never had too many issues. Worst case I hit the deoderant I keep in my desk.
- patrick-dd 10y ago
  I'm BedStuy to East Harlem daily. I wear bike gear whilst riding because it's a one hour commute and bike gear is super comfortable. > The NUMBER ONE most important change I made was getting a rack and an Arkel saddle bag This + baby wipes. I just wish they'd change the turn left slip lanes on First Ave. They're not very safe.
  - rgejman 10y ago
    Agreed and that's my dream commute. I would love bike every morning for an hour.
t0mbstone 10y ago
It also drastically increases your chances of death or injury due to being hit by a car or having an accident.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  Fair, but if you abuse the the CDC's age-adjusted cause of mortality statistics a little, decreasing the likelihood of CVD/stroke/cancer/diabetes by 2.3% would result in more lives saved than eliminating all motor-vehicle related deaths. (560 / 100k vs. 13 / 100k) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2015/017.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2015/017.pdf
sireat 10y ago
Cycling 8km to work and back is my daily exercise. Hard to say about cancer and heart disease but it definitely has cut about 20 lbs off my weight and kept it steady for over 5 years. I live in a not very bike friendly city so had to design my own route. I can't imagine biking in a city such as London(very strict rules on where you can bike and seems quite dangerous).
- jhpankow 10y ago
  That's about the perfect distance to make it a good worthwhile workout for someone who is not a serious cyclist. That was my commute when I first started cycling. My current commute is over 14km each way and I cannot do it daily due to time restrictions (and overall fitness).
- rconti 10y ago
  My old bike commute was 3km which was frankly too short. My current one is 13km which is fine, but I can never do it for more than a month or so at a time, with any regularity. And I definitely don't drop an ounce from that distance over a month.
  - Fezzik 10y ago
    I have a daily 4km bike ride to/from work and my solution was to buy a 22kg beach cruiser with wide tires that makes for a great workout - if I were to ride my dedicated road bike the ride would be no workout at all. I find when I bike commute regularly, even with this short route, it makes a massive difference in my stamina for other activities I do far less frequently, namely road biking, skiing, and climbing. When there's a will there's a way! * edited for slightly more clarity.
    - rconti 10y ago
      I am looking to buy more of an upright commuter style bike which I hope will bring my pace down just slightly.
justifier 10y ago
Can anyone speak to the effects of increased activity on metastasis?
prodtorok 10y ago
So here's an insane coincidence... Look for the initial comment posted by myself on this thread, then come back to this. Biking home I still felt uncomfortable with using the roads, so I opted for the sidewalks again and came across this: http://imgur.com/a/2ktXP http://imgur.com/a/2ktXP Shoutout to the commenters who were spot on with their advise.
cymbalrush 10y ago
I'll get hit by a bus in San Francisco before cancer or heart disease ever has a chance. I tried commuting and gave up after two weeks of endless close-calls and frustrations. Pedestrians wandering into the lane were the worst, then Muni whose drivers never look, then other cyclists and finally other cars.
notadoc 10y ago
Physical activity is good for health? Wow, that is amazing. It's almost as if we evolved to be physically active, and not sedentary.
itchyouch 10y ago
Sounds like regular exercise cuts the risk of cancer and heart disease. There was just an article here a couple days ago about the health benefits of aerobic exercise and how gene expression changes with exercise. Combine that with burning several extra calories and improving blood flow/circulation, getting the heart moving is really important for longevity.

172 points by jgrahamc 10y ago

That's cool. Anyone know if in London your average risk of death goes up or down if you cycle to work? I'm scared of pollution (which has already started making me ill as a pedestrian) and traffic incidents.

nrki 10y ago
I recall reading a couple of articles on this subject about cities in general [1, 2]. London was called out as OK: "Our model indicates that in London health benefits of active travel always outweigh the risk from pollution. [1]" What I'd like to know is, given an accident rate, pollution level, and other factors, what is the "safety factor" of walking/cycling vs. tube/rail/bus/car/taxi? Edit: These graphs are great: https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/assets/pollution-london-large.png https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/assets/pollution-londo... https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/assets/pollution-world-large.png https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/assets/pollution-world... Interesting stats: - In 1% of cities worldwide, pollution levels are high enough that "active travel" is dangerous past 30mins of activity. - ~40,000 people in the UK die earlier every year due to air pollution. 1: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/walking-and-cycling-good-for-health-even-in-cities-with-higher-levels-of-air-pollution http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/walking-and-cycling-good-... 2: https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/ https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/
- jbergens 10y ago
  London is probably ok except during december 1952. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
quicklime 10y ago
I'm not sure about London, but this has been studied before in other cities and it's been found that the benefits significantly outweigh the risks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ Unless London is significantly (>~20x) more dangerous than the Netherlands, I'd expect the result to hold there too.
andygates 10y ago
Very much down. Everyone gets pollution, but cyclists' air intakes are further above vehicle exhaust that passengers and pedestrians. London's black snot is your filters working! As for incidents, the risk is offset by health benefits. Last time I checked it was approx 1 serious incident per 100,000 miles ridden (which is much more than the lifetime of most riders).
- lostboys67 10y ago
  and as 90% of fatalities are caused by undertaking HGV's not undertaking traffic and not riding in the gutter reduces that risk considerabley
awjr 10y ago
As somebody that has cycled in London, cycling from Paddington to Holborn enabled me to avoid busy roads. Yes the route was slightly longer but on a bike that really isn't an issue. I only ever did Oxford Road once. Never again. Getting to work via Hyde Park, Soho, or past Buckingham Palace is just pure joy. I found walking meant you were mostly on busy roads as these were the most direct routes.
Theodores 10y ago
Which part of London? I used to commute through the fumes to Soho, by bike, taking approximately an hour each way. There have been other commutes, e.g. around the North Circular or straight up the A5 to Stanmore, however, I nowadays avoid central London due to the air quality. It is as simple as that, the air is not good. There is no way to effectively avoid this if you do need to actually get somewhere central. I believe that the traffic is manageable and not a problem so long as you like hi-viz and ride as per the Highway Code. If you do have to commute to central London then don't - get another job a bit further out and get your life back, and your health. Nowadays I get trains places once or twice a month but otherwise just cycle the river ('Thames') and other low pollution areas, e.g. Richmond Park. Also winds are prevailing one way due to how the earth spins, so make sure you live in the West of London and not the East. Outer London good, inner London = move!!!
xiphias 10y ago
Just move away from London while it's not late. I also was scared, but not scared enough... now I'm totally allergic to cars and people don't understand me. It's not worth for the money either: rents go up a lot if you have to live at places with no cars, but still in modern places close to good work/social life.
- isomorph 10y ago
  Where did you go?
  - xiphias 10y ago
    I'm in Zurich...not as fun as London, but air quality (and salary) is much better.
ciaranm 10y ago
Last I checked, Walking, Bus or Tube all registered as worse r.e. pollution. The article suggested it was mostly about duration of exposure, of which cycling was the lowest. As for traffic incidents - I don't think they're massively different in London compared to the rest of the UK. The study in the article indicates that risk of death _by any method_ goes down by 41%, though admittedly it's not based on London data. -edit- Not the article I mentioned above, but similar results: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35717927 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35717927 (cycling & walking perform better than public transport r.e. pollution intake.)
- sonthonax 10y ago
  While one may be more exposed to pollution taking public transport, you breathe a lot more running or cycling.
jeff_vader 10y ago
I'm cycle daily from Dalston to Holborn. And my daily commute was more or less similar for past 7 years. Most of the time I take main roads and I feel safe. I know all the sections well, know the sketchy bits where it's better to stay behind the traffic, etc. If you're not bothered to add +10min to every 30min of your commute, you can take smaller side roads which are usually very quiet and most importantly free from large vehicles. No accidents so far. Can't comment on effects of pollution though, I have no idea.
kspaans 10y ago
I biked in London for almost 2 years (Whitechapel to Farringdon, then Deptford Bridge to Farringdon). What I found helped a lot was to avoid roundabouts as much as possible, and be extra cautious when overtaking on the left near stops. Assume everyone is going to turn left in front of you, 50% of the time you'll be right. ;)

senectus1 10y ago

yeah unfortunately in my City (Perth, WA) your chances of being maimed or dying from a angry cyclist hating driver goes up exponentially. Not sure what makes this city think that the roads belong to cars only...

nrki 10y ago
As a former Perthian, I hope this will change. It's an amazing city for riding. It requires action by the government [1] and less of an ego from ALL road users. I think the latter will be the hardest sell. A clever & sustained advertising campaign (IMO, led by the same people that did the Melbourne Metro's "Dumb Ways To Die" [2]) would be awesome. More education in school about not being a dickwad on the road would be good, too. 1: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-drivers-facing-new-law-to-leave-metre-for-cyclists-20140320-354wr.html http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-drivers-facing-new-l... 2: http://www.dumbwaystodie.com/ http://www.dumbwaystodie.com/
- bruce_one 10y ago
  "We're coming to Denver" (Dumb Ways to Die campaign) -- I really enjoyed that campaign, and heaps of my friends discussed it (so that alone means it was at least somewhat successful, imo), so it's cool to see the concept spreading :-)
fian 10y ago
Perth drivers are way better than they used to be. 20-25 years ago I had food or drink thrown or squirted at me while cycling on a monthly basis. Most drivers would not look for bikes and many assumed they always had right of way over bikes. The last time I can recall something being thrown at me from a car was about 12 years ago. Most drivers now are more alert for bikes more of the time and many drivers now give way to me when I'm riding - even when they have right of way. Previously the stuff being thrown at cyclists wasn't usually down in a rage - it was more of a mischievous lark for the car occupants. As you stated - the problem now is the rage some drivers get into when something breaks them out of autopilot/daydream mode. There are many factors for why this is happening more. One is that Perth is so sprawled out that and many people are driving for over an hour each way to work and back. On the freeways and highways they lapse into autopilot mode then when something unexpected happens they get a flight/fight response. Since you can't reasonably flee from a car moving at speed - the adrenaline is channeled into the fight response. Another factor is the relatively high (compared to other states in Australia and other countries) level of ice (methamphetamine) use. When the users are high or suffering withdrawal they can lose it over trivial things. Not sure what makes this city think that the roads belong to cars only... This goes back to the vast majority of people that must rely on a car to get around due to the coastal suburban sprawl in and lack of decent public transport options in Perth. Five years ago I spent a few months working in France. I spent a fair bit of time cycling around Paris and was expecting the worst since Parisian drivers had a reputation for being crazy. Indeed I witnessed the driving on the footpath thing a few times and there was a lot of horn honking and gesturing. However, in general I felt much safer riding on the roads in Paris than I do in Perth. The drivers in Paris are conditioned to having cyclists of all types on the road (lycra is much rarer for a start - not fashionable enough maybe?). They are much more attentive to what is happening around them, I guess because they don't have an opportunity to lapse into autopilot as traffic is rarely light. The driving on the footpath thing seemed to be a careful maneuver aimed at improving lane efficiency during peak hour (ie to get around a temporary block into free lane space up the road). So I guess being accustomed to cyclists is a factor in setting drivers attitudes. As I stated earlier, in my experience Perth drivers have improved in this regard and hopefully will continue to do so.

madengr 10y ago

The part about making it part of your daily routine is spot-on. I cycled to work for 15 years, and felt much healthier with lower stress. Then my employer moved from 6 miles away to 12, and have two kids in elementary school. Now I feel like shit, overweight, and guess I'll die younger.

petertodd 10y ago
Daily routine is so important. I had one year in particular where I was both cycling to work every day (10km round trip) and cycling to school 2-3x a week (50km round trip). I lost ~30lb in about six months. In fact, as I wasn't trying to lose weight, I didn't even realize I'd been losing so much weight for a few months, and mentally doing that wasn't hard at all - just felt like a normal routine (certainly helped that cycling was often my fastest way to get to both work and school, and almost always a close second).
tzakrajs 10y ago
But just imagine where you might be without those 15 years. When the kids are older you can maybe switch stuff up? For their sake?
leonhandreke 10y ago
I'm sorry that you're feeling this way - having to compromise on health for a job is never fun :(. I don't know anything about your specific circumstances, but depending on what your daily route to work looks like, you might be able to make it work with a special bike. There are fast cargo bikes which fit two children and could even be outfitted with an electric motor (e.g. http://www.larryvsharry.com/ http://www.larryvsharry.com/). Or the obvious solution, road bike + trailer.
rbg246 10y ago
Sorry to ask a silly question, is it possible to say drive halfway then cycle the rest? Bit of setup issues like bike rack etc but will mean you can still cycle to work and feel good.
- arethuza 10y ago

salesguy222 10y ago

I love riding my bike, but the stats are quite grim for road deaths AND injuries https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cyclist_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cyclist_deaths_in_U.... 49,000 people in the US are injured on the road every year- You may say its a false equivalency, but there are 33,000 gun deaths (suicides/homicides) in the US every year

misja111 10y ago
But you are comparing injuries to deaths. There are 'only' around 750 deadly bike accidents per year. Compare this to motor vehicle deaths: there are 35,000 of those per year in the USA .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The more interesting stats for cycling would be deaths per mile for several different types of riding. A commuter can design a low risk route and manage their own behavior, both things that have an impact on safety.
  - blarghh 10y ago
    Yeah, how many delivery salmon are injured every year? Like, they're riding basically a motorcycle, usually without lights, against traffic.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  The reason I chose cycling injuries is because a cycling injury is usually quite serious and debilitating- aka, it might as well be a death, because you will not be able to live life quite the same after. Furthermore, 49,000 cycling injuries is very high when you consider that only a few percent of the US commute by bike (a few million people), but hundreds of millions of people drive by car!
  - 10y ago

spodek 10y ago

Saying that cycling lowers disease normalizes not exercising. I prefer to think of exercise as normal and sitting around as the disease-causing deviation. I would say: Not cycling to work can increase cancer and heart disease or Sitting around when you could get your heart pumping can increase cancer and heart disease

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
revelation 10y ago
The implication is "cycling to work => lower cancer and heart disease rate". You can't deduce "not cycling to work increases cancer and heart disease" from that, and that makes practical sense if you consider that the actual underlying factor is exercise.
- ebfd 10y ago
  You shifted units by dropping the word "rate" in the second formulation. "Not cycling to work increases cancer and heart disease rate" is true.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  The two statements are equivalent - it's just framing between "Exercising is good" and "Not exercising is bad". Oppositely, you could say equally that "smoking causes lung cancer" or that "Not smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer". But mandated warning labels read the former, because "smoking causes cancer" assumes that the default state of a person is to be not smoking, and that smoking is a choice they make. To someone who habitually smokes in a culture of smokers, this is a different way of thinking. It's an unusual state for people to be so sedentary. We sleep in a bed, sit in a car and drive to work, sit at a desk in an office, sit in the car again, go home and lay on the couch and watch TV or browse the Internet, and repeat. To not get exercise is weird. And yes, to these people, they should be informed that exercising is good for them. But this message, conveyed instead as "not exercising is bad", implies that not exercising should be considered abnormal behavior and that daily exercise is the default.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

norswap 10y ago

Correlation is not causation. But yeah, exercising is healthy. Who knew?

DanBC 10y ago
In the UK context people cycle in cities. London, in particular, has a serious problem of pollution. This research answers questions about whether benefits from cycling outweigh harms from pollution (yes) or harms from road traffic accidents (yes).
- Noos 10y ago
  they don't really. Keep in mind this is only for constant cycling...mixed cycling and commutes is actually worse than constant walking for cardio vascular incidence and mortality, and only is better overall for cancer incidence. You're actually more at risk to die if you constantly walk than if you are sedentary (1.03 to 1.0) and more likely to die from cancer if so (1.10 to 1.0). If you only occasionally walk though, you are less likely to die of cancer than if you always walk. I think honestly there are issues here. And why would cycling affect cancer of all things, and only constant cycling?
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > why would cycling affect cancer of all things Obesity is linked to about 20% of cancer cases. People who cycle tend not to be obese.

Accacin 10y ago

I don't cycle, but I recently moved much more close to work and now I'm able to walk instead of driving. It's 5km a day and I generally go for a nice walk on my lunch break so I think I walk about 7km to 10km a day. I'm definitely feeling better although I haven't lost much weight (maybe 2kgs or so). They do say in the article the benefits of walking only start to kick in over 6miles a week so I guess I'm good!

amelius 10y ago

Anybody with good tips for an all-weather cycling outfit, which you can also comfortably wear at work?

Thlom 10y ago
Doesn't exist. Get a a good rain coat and pullover rain pants. Alternatively there's some good cycling specific ponchos. Bike should have chain guard and long fenders to keep your ass and back dry and with mud flaps to keep your feet dry(ish). Might be a good idea to use rain boots and keep shoes in a bag if it's raining.
- edabobojr 10y ago
  I use a cycling poncho, fenders, and chain guard. I only ride about 3 miles, but even in the worst weather I only get wet from about mid-shin down, and even then only enough to be bothersome in the worst weather.
- shurane 10y ago
  Any thoughts on soft shell pants? http://snarkynomad.com/soft-shell-jeans-the-worlds-greatest-invention/ http://snarkynomad.com/soft-shell-jeans-the-worlds-greatest-... I definitely miss not having chain guard and fenders with Seattle weather, but have switched over to a raincoat and boots for biking. Waterproofing the commute is totally worth it.
  - Thlom 10y ago
    In my experience soft shell is neither very breathable nor very water resistant. It's both, but as with GoreTex it's a compromise. Nothing that is 100% water resistant can be breathable and vice versa. GoreTex is very water resistant but not very breathable. soft shell is pretty breathable but less water resistant. Technology might have improved since I bought my last soft shell pant, though.
brlewis 10y ago
Depends on your work, your weather, and the length of your ride. In Boston I could wear whatever I wanted for my 1-mile ride from North Station. With longer rides and hotter places it's harder not to break a sweat. This past year I've been walking instead of cycling since it's more exercise.

rcarmo 10y ago

I'm rather more partial to walking. The thing is, cities and office parks are increasingly built with the assumption you'll drive there to do business, and "walkable" business districts tend to be premium real estate - which only reinforces the former by encouraging people to toss up office parks out in the wilderness, typically outside the range of any form of civilised public transportation...

jbmorgado 10y ago
> "The thing is, cities and office parks are increasingly built with the assumption you'll drive there to do business" Not in EU they aren't. At most they are being now built assuming you should go there by public transportation, but certainly not that you drive there.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I live in a region that is geographically about the same size as the Netherlands (give or take a few percent). The population of the region is about 300,000. Much of the US has population densities like this, below 50 people per square mile. People generally live at much higher densities than that, but it still doesn't justify much in the way of public transport. Which isn't to say that the US does a good job with public transport, but a significant part of the difference is the affordability and utilization of given levels of service. In many higher density areas, public transport tends to be okay.
  - ced 10y ago
    In many higher density areas, public transport tends to be okay. Apart from NY and SF (?), what other areas are you thinking of?
    - criddell 10y ago
      I lived in Portland for a few years and mostly used bus and light rail.
    - 10y ago

skdotdan 10y ago

I have to commute by train and bus (1h) and I hate it. I would prefer to spend 1h walking, or cycling, but it's just not possible.

CalRobert 10y ago
No idea where you are, but could a bike replace the bus bit? I find that city buses are slower than bikes for most trips. If the train doesn't permit a full size bike, a folding one like a Brompton, Bike Friday, or Dahon could be worth investigating.

bryanlarsen 10y ago

Tips from a dancer on how to deal if you don't have a shower at work to clean up after your ride: - By far the most important, make sure you shower before you ride if you won't have a chance afterwards. IIRC, a shower will get rid of 99.9% of sweat eating odour causing bacteria, and that bacteria has a doubling period of about 20 minutes when well fed, so a shower gives you 3-4 hours stink free even if covered in sweat; much longer if you have a chance to change & dry off before those 3-4 hours are up. - wear cotton. It might feel icky after you sweat, but it won't stink like technical fabrics will. Wool is a good compromise -- the smell of wet sheep is preferable to locker room. - change your clothes and dry off when you get to work.

bmj 10y ago
- wear cotton. It might feel icky after you sweat, but it won't stink like technical fabrics will. Wool is a good compromise -- the smell of wet sheep is preferable to locker room. This. The other nice thing about wool is that you can go days between washing those pieces.
- jiehong 10y ago
  The downside is that wool a bit tricky to wash (mostly hand-wash, or washed separately in a specific wool cycle). Or is there any methods you recommend to easily wash wool garments?
  - pdexter 10y ago
    Put it in the freezer or outdoors (if you live in a cold environment). Not sure if this is actually a thing or just some old urban myth, but it's what I do. Maybe I smell though.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      Even just outdoors in the sun: reduced moisture and UV will kill a huge portion of the population. Freezer kills because it's dehydrating, but for wool it'll also kill moth eggs.

dghughes 10y ago

I'd like to bike to work but I live in a small town and northern climate making it very car friendly. Small roads and limited funds mean no bike paths other than painted lines with a bike symbol or as I call it the "there ya go" lanes. In the last few years I see bikes sold here in Canada with giant tires 15cm (six inch) wide tires. Driving is hard enough I can't really see biking in winter in -20C then add the windchill making it feel like -40C. No room to bike on the road either and sidewalks are never plowed until hours later.

caub 10y ago

A bike is the most important thing any human should have

dominotw 10y ago

I would rather take my chances with heart disease than get mowed over by a drunk driver. Cities in USA are not designed for bikers, you are putting your life at great danger by 'biking to work'. Three of my coworkers got killed in 2015, and I seen so many roadside 'memorials' all over chicago to people who died on bike on that spot. One attempt to circumvent a pothole ( plenty in chicago) and next thing you know you head is under a truck tire. No thanks, I'll go the gym instead.

red_hairing 10y ago
drunk drivers need not be involved in order for urban cycling to be dangerous...it is just dangerous, period. It's chaos....and gravity and physics mean that sooner or later the cyclist will have an accident.
- dominotw 10y ago
  Yes agreed. people who are downvoting my comment haven't tried making a simple yield left turn on busy street on a bike.
  - fian 10y ago
    I mostly ride to work across the CBD in my city (Perth, Western Australia). Three times I have been knocked off my bike by cars, with many more near misses. Luckily the worst outcome was one day off work and a couple of weeks off the bike. Perth has a car culture and urban sprawl similar in some ways to Los Angeles. Most people drive to work if they can. The majority of cars on the road during peak hour have only the driver inside (ie single occupant). Traffic congestion on the major arteries is a problem. Encouraging more people to ride bikes to work is one way to lessen traffic and parking problems. It also reduces environmental impact and as the article states - has health benefits. The state government here also encourages cycling and other car alternatives for commuting for these reasons. My regular year-round cycle commuting has inspired a some of my colleagues to try it over driving and/or public transport (note this is not through any pro-active evangelizing on my behalf). A few of them have converted to semi-regular cycle commuters. Other colleagues who can't convert to cycle commuting due to distance, time or family constraints have been inspired to restart recreational cycling. So while I am painfully aware of the risks of cycle commuting I also believe that leading by example is a powerful thing. The more cyclists on the road, the more accustomed car drivers become to their presence which should lead to safer driving behaviors. However, if no one is willing to take the risk of cycling on the road, how will it ever get wider adoption and acceptance?

shrimp_emoji 10y ago

Cyclists are the scum of the Earth: slow, fragile liabilities when you're driving, fast, dangerous obstacles when you're walking. And, to top it all off, they come into work sweaty!

rhinoceraptor 10y ago
Maybe you would chill out a little if you went outside for a bike ride.
tjr225 10y ago
I'm not sure if this is just a low effort troll or not. Cycling is good for you, the environment, it's cheaper to cycle than to drive, and to many people is very enjoyable. If you really think people who cycle are scum you should consider the irony of your statement.

tryitnow 10y ago

Does cycling cut cancer and heart disease risk? Or are people who are at relatively low risk of those diseases more likely to cycle? Or both? The way the headline reads, many people will be led to believe "Oh, if I start cycling, then I'll cut my risk of cancer and heart disease." This study does not lead to that conclusion. All we can say is that there is a correlation between cycle and lower cancer/heart disease risk - even when accounting for a few other factors. Given that there are other ways of concluding that regular aerobic exercise cuts cancer and heart disease risk - and indeed the preponderance of the evidence suggest that it does. But I doubt the effect is really to almost halve the risk of those diseases.

agumonkey 10y ago
heart I can understand but cancer it seems improbable.
- freehunter 10y ago
  There is some evidence that cancer is linked with obesity: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/obesity-fact-sheet#q3 https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/o... It makes sense that obese people are less likely to bike to work, and also that people who bike to work are less likely to become obese.
  - agumonkey 10y ago
    I still disagree in essence. I know that obesity increases risks but I don't remember how much, it seems a complicated situation with a small effect, compared to say... smoking.
- andygates 10y ago
  General fitness is cancer-preventative; this is just a specific study with some nice numbers showing that.
barking 10y ago
That's what drives me crazy about 'findings' like these that we're being presented with, every day. For example when comparing mortality rates of drinkers and non-drinkers, the fact that a lot of non-drinkers are former alcoholics with significant health issues is often ignored.

prodtorok 10y ago

Any issue with using the sidewalk as opposed to the "Bike Lane" to avoid risk of being hit by a car? Location: a commuter city, sidewalks rarely used in AM, not much usage in PM. My commute is 80% private paths, and 20% on a road in the city. I've seen a lot of cars crossing the bike lane and I've only been biking for 2 weeks.

shoguning 10y ago
Sidewalks can be dangerous too. Go slow and watch out for pedestrians, doors opening, driveways and crosswalks. I prefer to stick to the road when possible.
JBReefer 10y ago
You really shouldn't, mostly because cars that are pulling out of garages/lots/driveways don't expect you to be there, so they'll pull forward to get a view of where you should be - the street. That said, the missing component in this discussion is that there are some cities - like Tampa - that are so horrible for biking and walking that the risk of riding on the sidewalk is lower, and there aren't any pedestrians anyway.
- prodtorok 10y ago
  You were spot on, this literally just happened today: http://imgur.com/a/2ktXP http://imgur.com/a/2ktXP
HillaryBriss 10y ago
pedestrian here. please don't ride bikes on the sidewalks. i've experienced hundreds of dangerous near collisions with high speed bicyclists as a pedestrian in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities. it's possible to do serious damage by colliding with a pedestrian, particularly if that person is elderly. for such a person, a fall can result in a major bone fracture -- not something easy to recover from. please keep in mind that pedestrians have no other option but sidewalks. if bicyclists use sidewalks heavily enough, they will take away everyone's ability to engage in a very low-pollution form of transportation. also, some people have no other choice but to be pedestrians, so bicyclists on sidewalks literally eliminate the primary transportation option for some members of society. finally, i'll point out that most mass transit riders are pedestrians for part of their journey. so bicyclists on sidewalks make mass transit participation more risky and thus raise its economic cost.

bitwize 10y ago

"I ride 70 miles to work every day. Both HERE and HERE are as red as a fire engine."

t0mk 10y ago
and another relevant piece of popular culture is this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgCqz3l33kU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgCqz3l33kU

H1Supreme 10y ago

Unless you live in a walkable city (the vast minority of cities) in the US (I realize this is a UK article), cycling to work is nearly impossible. I only live 10 miles from work, but the whole stretch is 0% cycling friendly.

0xcafecafe 10y ago
I live 2 miles away and it is still not feasible for me to cycle due to no cycle friendliness. Neither are there dedicated bike lanes nor are the motorists conditioned to drive being mindful of bikes.
- Fricken 10y ago
  I've been cycling since I was a kid, I would never consider moving to a cyclist-hostile area in the first place. On an average day my morning commute is the best part of my day, I would sacrifice a lot of things before I sacrifice that.
  - slizard 10y ago
    While I have not been lucky enough to grow up "on the cycle", just a few years of commuting by bike all year around, I very much feel the same! On the shittiest day at work, or the most stressful situation at home, there's been nothing better than getting on the bike and just taking a ride wherever I have to be or going for a spin without strong purpose. It allows me to clear my mind, forget about everything else, even if just for a half an hour. Feeling the spring breeze or even the frosty winter air's bite on my face while pedaling down the street often puts a big smile on my face even at times where otherwise I'd surely not be smiling.
  - cowardlydragon 10y ago
    In car-obsessed America, everywhere is cyclist-hostile. It's just a matter of degrees.
- closeparen 10y ago
  Where does this belief come from, that you can't ride without a dedicated bike lane? All you need is a surface your tires have traction with :) I've lived in car-oriented suburbs all my life, and was raised to just go for it. It's not a big deal to get passed by the occasional car on suburban streets. The main roads on the city grid are intimidating, sure, but there are usually much quieter streets running parallel a block or two over (cars avoid them due to frequent stop signs, which bikes can generally roll through with impunity). Grab the Google cycling directions - it's decent at finding those quieter roads - and just try it sometime. It's not that scary. (I find that it's miserable due to physical exertion if there's even a slight incline, but that's another conversation). The biggest danger on two wheels is a car not seeing you at an intersection. A bike lane isn't going to help much there anyway. Lights, a helmet, bright colors, using the correct lanes in bigger intersections, and general defensive riding will go far.

brettcvz 10y ago

I have a strong suspicion that this is a spurious conclusion, for the same reason that the "moderate drinking improves health" correlation was debunked: http://theconversation.com/maybe-moderate-drinking-isnt-so-good-for-you-after-all-72266 http://theconversation.com/maybe-moderate-drinking-isnt-so-g... The study doesn't appear to control for differences in wealth. I would suspect that the population of people who bike to work skews wealthier (higher rents close to work centers, less likely to have to go from job to job). I'm curious how many of these types of longitudinal studies are at their core just confirming the correlation between wealth and health.

sbierwagen 10y ago
I would suspect that the population of people who bike to work skews wealthier Incorrect. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-25.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio... page 12 1.5% of people with household income less than $10,000 bike to work, 0.4% of people with household income $75,000 to $99,999 do.

awjr 10y ago

The article is discussing this study "Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study" http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456 http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456 Abstract Objective To investigate the association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, and all cause mortality. Design Prospective population based study. Setting UK Biobank. Participants 263 450 participants (106 674 (52%) women; mean age 52.6), recruited from 22 sites across the UK. The exposure variable was the mode of transport used (walking, cycling, mixed mode v non-active (car or public transport)) to commute to and from work on a typical day. Main outcome measures Incident (fatal and non-fatal) CVD and cancer, and deaths from CVD, cancer, or any causes. Results 2430 participants died (496 were related to CVD and 1126 to cancer) over a median of 5.0 years (interquartile range 4.3-5.5) follow-up. There were 3748 cancer and 1110 CVD events. In maximally adjusted models, commuting by cycle and by mixed mode including cycling were associated with lower risk of all cause mortality (cycling hazard ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.83, P=0.002; mixed mode cycling 0.76, 0.58 to 1.00, P<0.05), cancer incidence (cycling 0.55, 0.44 to 0.69, P<0.001; mixed mode cycling 0.64, 0.45 to 0.91, P=0.01), and cancer mortality (cycling 0.60, 0.40 to 0.90, P=0.01; mixed mode cycling 0.68, 0.57 to 0.81, P<0.001). Commuting by cycling and walking were associated with a lower risk of CVD incidence (cycling 0.54, 0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01; walking 0.73, 0.54 to 0.99, P=0.04) and CVD mortality (cycling 0.48, 0.25 to 0.92, P=0.03; walking 0.64, 0.45 to 0.91, P=0.01). No statistically significant associations were observed for walking commuting and all cause mortality or cancer outcomes. Mixed mode commuting including walking was not noticeably associated with any of the measured outcomes. Conclusions Cycle commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD, cancer, and all cause mortality. Walking commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD independent of major measured confounding factors. Initiatives to encourage and support active commuting could reduce risk of death and the burden of important chronic conditions.

awjr 10y ago
Further analysis looking at population level, and using the UK vs Netherlands http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-health-review/united-kingdom-vs-netherlands http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-health-review/unite... Deaths through CVD in the UK are at 17%, Netherlands at 10%. Note you do have to die from something at some point, so having 7% of your population dying early from CVD should reduce your incidence of other deaths within the population. ;)

rgejman 10y ago

I've been biking to work every day in Manhattan for about 2 years (~3.5mi each way). I go from 14th to 70th in about 15-18 minutes. I feel healthier and stronger and it has made a difference in every aspect of my life. There are two reasonable hills on my way to work (and I'm a sweaty guy) so I've had to learn to deal with the inevitability of sweating. The NUMBER ONE most important change I made was getting a rack and an Arkel saddle bag. Not carrying my backpack on my back cut down my sweating a TON. During the winter I wear regular clothing with uniqlo v-neck airsim undershirts. I will sweat a little but generally I shed layers as I get hot. I've switched from cotton shirts and blue jeans to mostly flannel shirts and mostly black jeans -- both of which help to cover any incidental sweat spots. I've also switched to more breathable sneakers for daily use. I'll bring a change of shoes clothes if I need to be dressed fancier. During the summer, with Manhattan heat and humidity, there's no avoiding getting sweaty. I bring a change of clothes, cool off for 5m after parking my bike and then change and walk into work. Not ideal, but the health and exercise benefits significantly outweigh the downsides.

tmatt 10y ago
Very similar experience (in terms of results), except going from east village to flatiron. Also... its way faster to get almost anywhere in manhattan on a bike. In regards to sweating in summer, I just wear a t-shirt and change my shirt once I arrive, and have never had too many issues. Worst case I hit the deoderant I keep in my desk.
patrick-dd 10y ago
I'm BedStuy to East Harlem daily. I wear bike gear whilst riding because it's a one hour commute and bike gear is super comfortable. > The NUMBER ONE most important change I made was getting a rack and an Arkel saddle bag This + baby wipes. I just wish they'd change the turn left slip lanes on First Ave. They're not very safe.
- rgejman 10y ago
  Agreed and that's my dream commute. I would love bike every morning for an hour.

t0mbstone 10y ago

It also drastically increases your chances of death or injury due to being hit by a car or having an accident.

mikeyouse 10y ago
Fair, but if you abuse the the CDC's age-adjusted cause of mortality statistics a little, decreasing the likelihood of CVD/stroke/cancer/diabetes by 2.3% would result in more lives saved than eliminating all motor-vehicle related deaths. (560 / 100k vs. 13 / 100k) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2015/017.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2015/017.pdf

sireat 10y ago

Cycling 8km to work and back is my daily exercise. Hard to say about cancer and heart disease but it definitely has cut about 20 lbs off my weight and kept it steady for over 5 years. I live in a not very bike friendly city so had to design my own route. I can't imagine biking in a city such as London(very strict rules on where you can bike and seems quite dangerous).

jhpankow 10y ago
That's about the perfect distance to make it a good worthwhile workout for someone who is not a serious cyclist. That was my commute when I first started cycling. My current commute is over 14km each way and I cannot do it daily due to time restrictions (and overall fitness).
rconti 10y ago
My old bike commute was 3km which was frankly too short. My current one is 13km which is fine, but I can never do it for more than a month or so at a time, with any regularity. And I definitely don't drop an ounce from that distance over a month.
- Fezzik 10y ago
  I have a daily 4km bike ride to/from work and my solution was to buy a 22kg beach cruiser with wide tires that makes for a great workout - if I were to ride my dedicated road bike the ride would be no workout at all. I find when I bike commute regularly, even with this short route, it makes a massive difference in my stamina for other activities I do far less frequently, namely road biking, skiing, and climbing. When there's a will there's a way! * edited for slightly more clarity.
  - rconti 10y ago
    I am looking to buy more of an upright commuter style bike which I hope will bring my pace down just slightly.

justifier 10y ago

Can anyone speak to the effects of increased activity on metastasis?

prodtorok 10y ago

So here's an insane coincidence... Look for the initial comment posted by myself on this thread, then come back to this. Biking home I still felt uncomfortable with using the roads, so I opted for the sidewalks again and came across this: http://imgur.com/a/2ktXP http://imgur.com/a/2ktXP Shoutout to the commenters who were spot on with their advise.

cymbalrush 10y ago

I'll get hit by a bus in San Francisco before cancer or heart disease ever has a chance. I tried commuting and gave up after two weeks of endless close-calls and frustrations. Pedestrians wandering into the lane were the worst, then Muni whose drivers never look, then other cyclists and finally other cars.

notadoc 10y ago

Physical activity is good for health? Wow, that is amazing. It's almost as if we evolved to be physically active, and not sedentary.

itchyouch 10y ago

Sounds like regular exercise cuts the risk of cancer and heart disease. There was just an article here a couple days ago about the health benefits of aerobic exercise and how gene expression changes with exercise. Combine that with burning several extra calories and improving blood flow/circulation, getting the heart moving is really important for longevity.