Access to Urban Woodlands Linked with Lower Use of Antidepressants

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

The study, linked to from the article.

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.

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)