I mean, anecdata, but after staring at a monitor from a chair all day, it really does my heart and brain good to go for a walk outside in my local preserve. I notice a big difference when I can't go for whatever reason (usually weather related). The preserve is quiet and peaceful in ways the local street is not.
But moving to within some distance doesn't mean they went walking there. I'm not sure how valid this study is. I think we've already done studies regarding sunlight exposure and just getting outside being good for you (assuming your environment is not bad). So was it just being outside made them feel better, and having the paths and whatnot made it more likely that they would go for a walk? Or even maybe just more likely that they take breaks? I know I'm terrible at taking breaks.
There's a strange contradiction in the findings, even just those in the abstract. When they look across individuals and try to predict antidepressant use based on exposure to woodlands, they find higher use among those who live closer to woodlands. It's only when they look at individual trajectories that they see reduced antidepressant use lining up with periods where they lived closer to woodlands.
It's almost like the same type of people who use antidepressants also like to live near woodlands. And they get depressed when they don't live near woodlands.
In the abstract they argue that this is because the woodland improvement program located woods in socioeconomically deprived areas. But in general they shouldn't be making any causal claims with observational data like this. It's a frequent problem that popular press takes a study and reframes an association as causation for their story.
With the property values in Palo Alto, I almost expect a dude funded this study, just to boost a property value by a few million. Eg, one near Standford Hills or whatever.
This is not a snipe, please go outside. Take some deep breaths, be around some flora, and fauna. This kind of cynical non-sequitur tells me you're looking for something to be frustrated at.
I mean, anecdata, but after staring at a monitor from a chair all day, it really does my heart and brain good to go for a walk outside in my local preserve. I notice a big difference when I can't go for whatever reason (usually weather related). The preserve is quiet and peaceful in ways the local street is not.
But moving to within some distance doesn't mean they went walking there. I'm not sure how valid this study is. I think we've already done studies regarding sunlight exposure and just getting outside being good for you (assuming your environment is not bad). So was it just being outside made them feel better, and having the paths and whatnot made it more likely that they would go for a walk? Or even maybe just more likely that they take breaks? I know I'm terrible at taking breaks.
My catchprase as of late: Everything is pulmonary.
Apropos of nothing.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/01.res.50.3.325
There's a strange contradiction in the findings, even just those in the abstract. When they look across individuals and try to predict antidepressant use based on exposure to woodlands, they find higher use among those who live closer to woodlands. It's only when they look at individual trajectories that they see reduced antidepressant use lining up with periods where they lived closer to woodlands.
It's almost like the same type of people who use antidepressants also like to live near woodlands. And they get depressed when they don't live near woodlands.
In the abstract they argue that this is because the woodland improvement program located woods in socioeconomically deprived areas. But in general they shouldn't be making any causal claims with observational data like this. It's a frequent problem that popular press takes a study and reframes an association as causation for their story.
With the property values in Palo Alto, I almost expect a dude funded this study, just to boost a property value by a few million. Eg, one near Standford Hills or whatever.
(it does feel nice to walk in nature though)
> A study from Scotland
This is not a snipe, please go outside. Take some deep breaths, be around some flora, and fauna. This kind of cynical non-sequitur tells me you're looking for something to be frustrated at.