Cycling to work is bad news for your lungs

[xxmimixx]

http://www.erscongress2011.org/medi...-risk-from-lung-injury-from-inhaled-soot.html

Are you surprised?
I expect this is directed to 'city' commuters, and in that respect I am not surprised since if you cycle in constant traffic you inevitably inhale more carbon particles than pedestrians.

So if we were all following the government / Boris big plan then who would pay for the increased NHS costs as a consequence?

Next, I 'll wait for a research on whether anti pollution masks really work or not!

 

[ianrauk]

This type of 'report' pops up now and again. And really it's bollocks. Other reports have car drivers & peds being worse off for pollution the cyclists.

 

[fossyant]

Pro's and cons. Weigh them up (if it could be backed up by hard evidence - which you'll find folk who exercise lots, even if it's in poor air quality, have much better health than those who don't exercise, and live in the same areas).

 

[400bhp]

:sigh:

I will buy a car again and drive to work. Has this reached the Daily Wail yet?

 

[thnurg]

Solution.

Are you my Mummy?

 

[ianrauk]

Solution.

Are you my Mummy?

Bring out the Gimp!

 

[thnurg]

Nah. Gimp masks have too much ventilation to be of any use.

Oh crap....

 

[Dan_h]

The article says that there is an increased risk of heart disease and decreased lung function, however it does not put any context around this. For example there is no mention of the fact that heart and lung function is likely to be generally improved by cycling.

Yet another meaningless report that some people will use to justify staying in their car IMHO

 

[Bicycle]

Certainly there are very rare days (June to August) when the air in London is not great, but there's never been a day when I'd rather not ride for that reason.

The introduction of CC has thinned the car traffic in the zone, which is a good thing. I haven't ridden in London on a Tube-Strike Day in the summer since CC was brought in. Those were the only really bad days and I imagine they are no more.

 

[xxmimixx]

I agree with you all, there is always a 'study' that can disprove another! Things are not always taken into context and not at all what they seem. If they have taken a group of people who cycles through Tokyo or London for 1 hour a day then eat McDonalds and watched telly all day then onviously that is far more damaging than the cycling or VS a Cyclist through Tokyo or London who eats well, does not lead a general sedentary life and is all around balanced individual!

 

[DCLane]

I'm in a city 3/4 of the time on my commute.

Maybe I'm also an example of why it doesn't affect you; I've got asthma and usually at this time of year am needing additional medication to keep going. This year? Nothing beyond normal. That's despite the damp and cold which usually makes things worse.

I'll treat it with the disdain it deserves. Why? Because they themselves have said it's a small sample. At best it's a pilot study and manages to get the headlines because it's a 'newsy topic'.

As an academic these small samples often throw up strange results. However, the conference will need headlines; I got onto the front page of the Times Higher Education Supplement because of such a paper with a small sample: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=179291&sectioncode=26

 

[MattHB]

I often wonder about this for inner city commuters, I feel very lucky that I don't have to touch a road on my commute. And even when I'm out and about I can usually avoid the traffic on our excellent cycle routes.

I suppose that's the advantage of living in a major tourist area, they've piled huge money into catering for cyclists, we even have our own automatic traffic lights on crossings

 

[StuartG]

What a load of tosh. Using your lungs for anywhere will cause harm, wear and tear.

The title is misleading because the action of heightened ventilation also has benefits as we all know well when asked to do some other aerobic intensive activity compared to thos who don't exercise. The study does not appear to try to balance out the benefit/disbenefit of cycling in a polluted city.

Its good evidence for rubbishing Boris, yet again, on his defiance of EU air quality rules in his quest to be the taxi driver's poster boy. It is of no help or hindrance for helping to decide whether to commute by bike, car or public transport. I assume the first remains the healthy option - even in London.

 

[palinurus]

Cycling to work may be bad for the lungs, driving to work is bad for the soul.

 

[gaz]

I'd rather cycle in polution that stand on a train breathing in other peoples germs.