human909 wrote:simonn wrote:Because they are not cycling injuries. You do not get sick from not cycling. You get sick through not exercising. There are plenty of ways of exercising that do not involve cycling, not least the default method of human locomotion... walking.
This is a tired and nonsensical argument. The same argument could be used to say that running, swimming or any specific exercise is a not a net benefit to your health. Of course increase in one activity has a substitution effect for all individuals and that will vary depending on each individual .
No it's not. Defining health problems as cycling injuries, as per Xplora's post I quote again below, when the victim(?) does not normally cycle is nonsensical.
Xplora wrote:the poor health outcomes from inactivity are ignored because they don't present as cyclist injuries
Again, that is because they are not the same. Inactivity != cycling injury. Cycling is a mere subset of Activity.
human909 wrote:But assuming that increasing cycling participation would have no effect on total exercise is plainly absurd.
I do not believe you are addressing my argument.