4 ms·
This all seems like bad advice stemming from some naturalistic fallacy. >a pragmatic daily fitness (for example commuting with a bike) instead of a more 'artif
by Tenoke 5y ago
This all seems like bad advice stemming from some naturalistic fallacy.
>a pragmatic daily fitness (for example commuting with a bike) instead of a more 'artificial' fitness
For example this just seems random. Driving a bike is not even more natural (were there bikes in the EEA) and if anything will just expose you to more polluted air, and increase your risk of dying by a car crash compared to gym alternatives. This doesn't mean biking is bad compared to not doing anything but that's not the claim here.
- 11235813213455 5y ago"expose you to more polluted air" It's actually quite wrong, compared to cars for example https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/cyclists-exposed-to-less-air-pollution-than-drivers-on-congested-routes-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/cyclists...
- Tenoke 5y agoYou were comparing to working out indoors not working out in a car initially.
- 11235813213455 5y agosure, but most people would use cars for commuting to different places, including their indoor gym, and the other idea is practical working out (commuting is your working out)