Cycling & the Health of the Nation Article

[Psamathe]

The 'miracle pill': how cycling could save the NHS
Cycling can make people healthy and live longer, and cut public health costs, so why can’t it be prescribed to the nation?
...
Imagine if a team of scientists devised a drug which massively reduced people’s chances of developing cancer or heart disease, cutting their overall likelihood of dying early by 40%. This would be front page news worldwide, a Nobel prize as good as in the post.

I'm sure the content is more than familiar to most here, but interesting that the article is included in the Guardian's main news feed (i.e. not hidden away in some cycling section).

(I have done a search on the link & text and cannot see the article posted anywhere - so if I'm duplicating and already posted article then please do delete this thread).

Ian

[old_windbag]

I have always thought there is a subtle hidden effect of exercise in general and that is in lifting mood. As much as exercise( obviously cycling referenced in link ) is good in fat loss and improvement in circulation/lung function etc it has benefits in mental health too. It could save a fortune in anti-depressants and the like as it lifts mood and can also be part of a social activity reducing loneliness for many in the community. Quite often some of our physiological illnesses( anxiety, hypertension, bowel conditions ) stem from the subconcious mental problems we may have. Doctors who participate in activities such as hiking, cycling, climbing, may well suggest such over pills but those who don't may just prescribe drugs.

[Psamathe]

I find some days get up and feel lazy and tired and wonder if I have the energy to go out for a ride and decide I will and 30 miles later get home full of energy, and launch into getting on with loads of jobs.

I would guess similar effects for people cycling to work. Those in cars arrive half asleep, needing several coffees whilst those cycling in arrive alert, full of endorphins, ready for the day.

I recently had to stop cycling for 2 weeks (as discussed in another thread) and it was dreadful. As an example, I'd minor strained a lower back muscle day before the 2 weeks "abstinence" and knew that all I needed was a few rides and it would be fine. But "abstaining" from cycling and the muscle was dreadful, painful, would not free-up. Back to cycling and within 2 days it's virtually back to normal. I often find that muscle issues linger when you rest and they can respond far better to a bit of activity.

Ian

[old_windbag]

I often find that muscle issues linger when you rest and they can respond far better to a bit of activity.

I also think that when cycling activity is curtailed, due to say the bad winter of 2010 for example, then the lack of muscle strengthening exercise seems to create little niggles. Sore joints, shoulder or neck/back pain all of which I apportion to things being pulled out of allignment internally due to the reduced use. Nothing old age related simply non-use related and imbalance. May be all in my mind but thats how I perceive it.

[djnotts]

Attack on smoking was a bad enough public policy disaster in economic terms. Abandoning cars for cycles would be truly calamitous.

[drossall]

I find some days get up and feel lazy and tired and wonder if I have the energy to go out for a ride and decide I will and 30 miles later get home full of energy, and launch into getting on with loads of jobs.

Someone pointed out, once, that we tend to talk as though cycling (or other exercise) will mean that we don't have enough energy left over for the regular demands of daily life. However, it's not really like that. Those regular demands are pretty fixed - the energy it takes to do your job, or get to the shops and back, or whatever routine activities you have.

It's your energy that is variable. Regular exercise will raise your capacity, meaning that daily life demands a diminishing fraction of that capacity, and should get easier.

In theory. I think

[mjr]

Attack on smoking was a bad enough public policy disaster in economic terms. Abandoning cars for cycles would be truly calamitous.

How do you calculate that and would it only be short-term?

With each of the 1700ish annual direct within-30-days road collision fatalities costing an estimated average £2m, it'd need to cost the economy at least £3.4bn to even wipe out that saving, plus then you'd have to add on the costs of injuries and impacts of things like air pollution... I'd be surprised if it added up. The entire UK automotive sector is only £72bn turnover (according to SMMT) and a fair chunk of that is non-car (427k commercial vehicles registered against 2.6m cars but I suspect commercial vehicles have a higher average price) and profit is going to be a small fraction of the car sector turnover and most profit now will be exported to the places that actually own "our" motor manufacturers... I'd be really surprised if it added up.

[Psamathe]

Attack on smoking was a bad enough public policy disaster in economic terms. Abandoning cars for cycles would be truly calamitous.

How do you calculate that and would it only be short-term?

With each of the 1700ish annual direct within-30-days road collision fatalities costing an estimated average £2m, it'd need to cost the economy at least £3.4bn to even wipe out that saving, plus then you'd have to add on the costs of injuries and impacts of things like air pollution... I'd be surprised if it added up. The entire UK automotive sector is only £72bn turnover (according to SMMT) and a fair chunk of that is non-car (427k commercial vehicles registered against 2.6m cars but I suspect commercial vehicles have a higher average price) and profit is going to be a small fraction of the car sector turnover and most profit now will be exported to the places that actually own "our" motor manufacturers... I'd be really surprised if it added up.

I would assume there are a lot of unaccounted financial aspects, hidden because of the way we budget and monitor. e.g. Cancers are often expensive to treat and anything that reduced those can save significant amounts. Diabetes costs us a fair amount to treat so reducing that can provide savings. Dementia costs society a lot and exercising is said to reduce the risk (e.g. Vascular Dementia?). But those savings are made in the NHS or Social Care and are thus only seen in a reduction in the overspend, though in practice because of increased demand elsewhere are quickly swallowed up and never appreciated.

Ian

[djnotts]

Thinking more of the costs of increased (non productive) longevity. Couple of months of terminal e.g cancer a whole lot cheaper than 20 years of pension and social care with dementia almost inevitable if live long enough.

[Psamathe]

Thinking more of the costs of increased (non productive) longevity. Couple of months of terminal e.g cancer a whole lot cheaper than 20 years of pension and social care with dementia almost inevitable if live long enough.

Maybe adjust the retirement age? Not all medical conditions that can be reduced by exercise are a couple of month treatment. etc.

Ian