So it’s Spring. And gosh there are a ton of bikes on the road.
So far, so good. We must be avoiding putting a ton of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We’re virtuous.
But another benefit was supposed to be health.
For all the increase in cycling to work, and cycling and walking replacing cars, is there any epidemiological evidence that the population is either healthier, or fitter or less obese? It would be a positive sign if the catastrophic rise in the incidence of diabetes and the proportion of obese people in the populace for example, were somehow reversed.
That's a little much to ask of cycling in general, never mind a dozen km of bike lanes in less than a few years don't ya think?
Even when cycling, hopefully, becomes a much more available and attractive option to tens of thousands more people, you're not going to get everyone who is already challenged by their weight/fitness to
instantly run out and get a bike.
Some would find the physical challenge daunting, while others may be impeded by money or lack of secure storage space for a bike, at home or near work etc.
If one looked only at those in a much tighter radius, where cycling facilties are already more robust, I would really only expect to see a marginal difference in those who are currently
in their teens or twenties.
To make a difference that's larger, requires, time first of all. Its role modelling, its ease of use, including shower facilities at work places, secure bike parking at work, school and home and so on.
Its also going to require work on diets. I don't mean that to impugn anyone. Rather, the calorie consumption levels we quietly build into the background of every day life are really predicated more on an active teenage boy/young man than on even a moderately well exercised adult male.
Think not only about fast food meals, or movie theatre snacks, but something as simple as the way pop and potato chips are sold.
Its not unreasonable for people to want a snack at some point in the day. But wander by your area grocer and good luck finding a 'personal' size package of chips. If you're lucky they have a 150 gram size of organic something at twice the price of the regular brand, but otherwise, you're probably look at a 200 gram bag of chips. A bag which itself likely has 1/2 the daily calorie count and more than that in fat required of quite a fit person.
Its equally likely that the smallest pop you'll find wouldn't be a can, but a 591ml size which is another 250 calories on top.
I'm not speaking here of the need to deprive people of such choices (though much like drive-throughs, there is merit to the notion).
Rather, just having modest portion sizes more widely available.
Just consider this impact.
1 591 ml Coke per day, plus 1/2 bag of 200 grams of chips. 250+ 575 calories = 825 calories per day
1 284 ml Coke per day, plus 1 full bag of 55 grams of chips 115 +295 calories = 410 calories per day (sizes of my childhood for a can and a personal bag of chips)
Difference - 415 calories per day
Grossly over simplified that difference could equal a pound of body weight for an average person over 8-12 days. Or a difference on the order 20-30lbs per year.
Once we address, both healthy eating (what we eat and how much) and we address base fitness level we can crack most (not all) of the obesity issue (some has linkages to natural causes/disease having no relationship to lifestyle) .
To change base level fitness is not merely to make cycling an easier choice (though that's an excellent start), its to make walking a more practical choice, and stairs, and to give people who feel time pressured enough time to allow for a commute that's 30m longer or a grocery trip that takes an hour round trip instead of 20 minutes.
There's a long road to addressing obesity/healthy issues and a few bike lanes is unlikely to register significant change, on a societal level, on their own.
