[moonhorse]

I exercise a lot. But I do it mostly for the intrinsic fun part.

I doubt it has a big impact on our health and longevity. Once a research says regular medium intensity exercise could potentially prolong our lives by 3 to 5 years. But that is it. If you exercise for 50 years, 3 times a week, and 1 hour per session plus 30 minutes preparation, that is actually 12150 hours in total and translates into about 2 years of productive life.

So its ROI from a longevity perspective is really not as high as some of us think.

[baroffoos]

Rather than thinking purely about lifespan it would be better to think about healthspan. What if exercise means the years you are living are much more enjoyable and pain free.

[btrettel]

The ROI argument is one reason why I commute by bike. 7 days a week no problem, no real preparation time. Takes up time I would otherwise be wasting sitting in a car or public transit.

Last week according to my log I rode for 213 minutes. That's a bit more than 30 minutes per day.

[koyote]

I have done the same and it's great.

The main issue is that I used to spend the commute reading books. So I have basically exchanged "mental" excericse with physical excercise. I feel that listening to an audiobook while cycling is a bit too dangerous for an urban commute like mine.

[padraic7a]

I really sympathise with this. I changed job about two yeas ago and switched from an hour long train ride to a 30 minute cycyle. The shorter commute is great, and the in built exercise is great, but man I really miss that chance to read, or just relax.

[Freak_NL]

Why not get into the habit of reading in bed for a while before sleep? It helps the brain wind down, and is easy to maintain as a habit.

[Doctor_Fegg]

I have all my best ideas while riding my bike. It’s mental exercise of a different sort.

[Franciscouzo]

You have to take into account that riding a bike is way more risky than using a car.

[dredmorbius]

Citation requested.

I've been looking for information on risk, overall, by passenger miles travelled, by trips, and by time-in-mode (which adjusts for typical trip length).

Only partially successful, though I find:

30,690 overall auto fatalities.

- 6,067 cycling & edestrial fatalities, combined.

- "More than 90% of pedestrian fatalities occurred when the victims were hit by automobiles and light trucks."

- "A related study on risk factors for on-road cycling commuters indicated that prior to car-bicycle accidents, 89% of cyclists were traveled in a safe and legal manner. In addition, vehicle drivers were at fault in 87% of the events."

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transpor...

The risk externalities of motorised vs nonmotorised transport appear far greater.

[statguy]

The parent didn't mean to say whether cyclists or drivers were more or less at fault, but for every minute/mile spent on a cycle instead of a car, the likelihood of injury is probably higher.

[dredmorbius]

Understood. However it's interesting to note that motor vehicles are the major source of cycling risk, all the same.

[btrettel]

The risk of cycling depends on many different factors and is not simply described as "way more risky than using a car".

Per distance, the average cyclist has more risk than the average driver. However, that's just the base rate, and is not destiny. Combine that with the fact that cyclists tend to travel much shorter distances than drivers. So much shorter that based on distance alone I've seen some cyclists argue, with statistics for average cyclists no less, that they actually face less risk on the road than many drivers. You don't see drivers with long commutes getting warned about the danger, but if people treated driving the same as cycling you would.

There are many things cyclists can do to reduce their risk per mile. As I recall, the majority of cyclist deaths involve riding after midnight or riding when drunk. If you don't do either then your risk is a lot lower. I've been riding for over a decade now and recognize the importance of where you live, infrastructure, defensive cycling, visibility gear (lights, vest, reflectors, etc.), and even a simple air horn.

Also recognize that cycling gets safer every year on average, even in the US. At some point I looked at the data and recognized that the cyclist mortality rate in the US is decreasing roughly linearly. If the linear trend continues then there will be roughly zero cyclist fatalities in 2050. Of course, it's more likely to taper off. But I never see the fact that cycling is becoming safer every year mentioned by its detractors.

Brief discussion of the data here:

https://predictionbook.com/predictions/133189

With all of this being said, yes, I do believe that cycling is more risky than I'd like. The reason why appears to be that the majority of road users (mostly drivers) do not take safety seriously. In my experience the road users who take safety the most seriously tend to be either cyclists or motorcyclists. No surprise why.

[fstephany]

It probably depends on where you live and the (lack of) appropriate infrastructure.

[Freak_NL]

As a Dutchman I can safely say riding a bicycle is just as safe/dangerous as riding a car — statistically speaking that is.

[sundvor]

How do you measure risk? Done consistently over a long period, driving a car instead of riding a bike if possible will make you fat and age quicker.

I swapped jobs so that I could ditch the car and am slowly reversing the damage.

[bacon_waffle]

And also more fun, better for the planet, far less expensive...

[lm28469]

> I doubt it has a big impact on our health and longevity

It definitely has an impact on your quality of life and helps you attain your genetic potential. If you're body is prone to cancer or alzheimer you will still get them, but until then you'll be in top physical condition.

When you're 40 and start packing up weight, can't run nor climb 3 flights of stairs without panting, can't lift your kids, can't help your friends move to a new flat, &c. fast forward 20 years and you can't get out of bed without pain, walking is a chore, stairs are your nemesis, your back pain is a constant reminder of your unwillingness to exercise.

> translates into about 2 years of productive life.

I don't think making a distinction between "productivity time" and "staying in shape time" is a good thing to do. You better shave off time by working part time than shave off time by skipping physical exercise. Life doesn't have to be all about productivity.

[Swizec]

I exercise every day for at least an hour. Screw longevity, I do it to help me think. It’s a great way to step away from work and life for a while, focus on something fun, and the ability run a marathon will come handy in the next zombie apocalypse.

Or during any sort of emergency really. Being fit has many practical uses.

[moonhorse]

Being fit helps project a certain image. And that is one reason I do it.

[pb82]

I decided to run every day at the beginning of the year. Previously I would go for a lackluster jog every couple of weeks. That was not enough exercise and I went cold-turkey, no excuses. I mostly succeeded aside from a few days where it was not possible due to circumstances. I do not feel that it improved me mentally but physically it's a whole different story. Endurance improved dramatically, I do no longer feel exhausted after physical activity.

At first it was a struggle but now I look forward to the daily run. I do not want the effects to wane and that alone motivates me.

I'm aware that running is hard on the joints. Not sure about my long term plans but I will dedicate at least this year to it.

I guess my point is: no matter if it's running, walking or another activity: just continue doing it and eventually you'll enjoy it.

[nradov]

Running with proper form is really not hard on the joints. That's an old myth.

https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/does-running...

[agumonkey]

jogging makes my day 3x brighter

even if it only gives me 1 absolute year more alive, it will yield 50 years of chilly smooth days.