John Doe <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:"A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly
the reduction in the number of deaths due to heart attack
in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy
each week in identified physical activity
(Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."
Quoted message said:: Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
: have come to difference conclusions on that question.
Quoted message said:: And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.
Quoted message said:References?
Go and find them for yourself.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:The reason I went looking was because I heard the
results of a study about 6 months ago that indicated
the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer.
Quoted message said:: Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.
Quoted message said:References?
Go and find them for yourself.
Quoted message said:: If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
: journal, it would be easy enough to find. Bet it didnt.
Quoted message said:It did
Easy to claim.
Quoted message said:and you obviously have not done that much post
graduate research to say that it would be easy to find.
Guess which silly prat just got egg all over its silly little face.
Quoted message said:Do you realise how many PhD's are completed each
year in the world at respected univeristies which are
peer reviewed and defended as a matter of course.
Yep. And there might just be a reason why I do.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able
to grasp that that doesnt qualify as a PROPER
PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, even
if you are so stupid that you cant manage to grasp
the difference on the easy of finding with those.
Quoted message said:Not to mention post doctoral published works.
See above.
Quoted message said:Obviously you are quite learned. Can you tell me
the easy way to find published reviewed works?
Never even commented on those,
you pathetic excuse for a [censored] artist.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:However, I could not find in this study this sort of metric. On the
other hand it makes no mistake that it does make a difference.
Quoted message said:: What matters is how much of a difference it makes,
: particularly when that particular activity involves a higher
: risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.
Quoted message said:References?
Even a terminal cretin such as yourself should be able
to work out that there is an increased risk of getting
run over when cycling on public roads without needing
any references on something that obvious.
Quoted message said:: Thats always been the problem with team sports for example.
: They certainly do have some health benefits BUT they also
: have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.
Quoted message said:References?
That one you cited says that, [censored].
Quoted message said:: Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one
: obvious alternative to bike commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.
Quoted message said:Actually according to this study and others walking has been
disputed as having that much of a benefit except power walking.
I just used the word energetic instead of power, [censored].
Quoted message said:: Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.
Quoted message said:: Utterly bogus.
Quoted message said:References?
Record's stuck, [censored].
Quoted message said:: > One of their other stats distinguished
: > between arterial vs. non arterial road.
Quoted message said:: Should also include dedicated bikeways.
Quoted message said:We are talking about roads not bikeways
What that article is discussing is risks with cycling, cretin.
Quoted message said:and they were talking about roads.
Irrelevant if you have decided that cycling produces
worthwhile health benefits and are considering ways
of cycling which dont increase the risk to your health
from getting run over etc.
Quoted message said:: > Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot
: > more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
: > (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).
Quoted message said:: Then its stupidly superficial.
Quoted message said:Well actually it sways more for your argument.
Doesnt alter the fact that its stupidly superficial.
An accident that doesnt require hospital treatment and
just requires say repair of the bike isnt relevant to the
question being considered, health benefits of cycling.
Quoted message said:: Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
: whether there is a substantial increased risk of significant
: injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.
Quoted message said:You are always going to be right. Do you actually have any qualifications
at all or do you sit in some room somewhere with the blinds shut all day.
Even you should be able to [censored] your way out of
your predicament better that that pathetic effort, [censored].
Try again.
