I get Men's Health, and came across this article...it says how the pollution on city streets actually poisons cyclists/runners because of the large volume of air (when exercising) they breathe in as well as the deeper it goes in their lungs....

https://www.menshealth.com/cda/articl...00cee793cd____

"By all means, keep running," Dr. Gong says.

Better not to do any exercise at all, then all that naughty pollution won't get you! In addition, if you eat as much red meat as possible, like a manly man should, soon enough you'll master the fine art of not breathing, and be totally immune to the effects of airborne pollutants.

Sitting on your couch eating doritos will kill you also. I have even heard that no matter how healthy you live you might die no matter what.

The pollution level inside a car is worse than outside.

+1 to that.

Especially if you're not on a 'bent, the added height of your nose and mouth puts you above most of the nastiest stuff.

But to be honest, I'd rather be happy and athletic with lung cancer than fat and lazy with coronary disease.

It's generally accepted in the scientific community that the negatives of breathing polluted air are outweighed by the positives of exercise while commuting, unless we're talking about "fires of Kuwait" or Mexico City or something uber-nasty like that.

Maybe so, but while the guy sitting in the car is inhaling 6 litres/minute of air, the guy outside running is inhaling 60 litres of air...which is worse?

Wow chill out, I was just posting what I thought was an interesting article, no need for the sarcastic comments. Did I somehow imply this in my first post, that we should never exercise? I am merely saying that its something to think about, and perhaps you might want to try and find a route that is maybe on a paved trail through a park, rather then on the road.

The hypoventilating, under-exercised guy sitting in the car is considerably worse off.

Uh-huh. So cycle commuters should confine themselves to paved parks and MUPs in order to avoid the big scary pollution out there. Isn't that convenient? But hey, you're forgetting about the poor people in cars! What to do... oh, I know! They should try and find a route that is maybe on a paved trail through a park, rather than on the road. Sure, the chances of it taking them where they need to go are miniscule, but who cares? They'll be preserving their health. Oh, and best of all, the roads will be available for all those cyclists to get to work or play... pollution-free!

Tell me, what exactly is your agenda here? Because it doesn't sound like innocent concern for the health of commuting cyclists, to me.

Dude, you're seriously getting into troll territory here.

He was posting an article that he quite reasonably expected might be of interest to other bicycle commuters. While his thread title was perhaps a tad alarmist, he never said he was advocating not cycling.

And he never said you should "confine" yourself to parks, although perhaps a little confinement could be good for certain people <cough> <cough>... However if given the option, I think MOST cyclocommuters would prefer a path through a park over a highway... not just for the cleaner air, but it is quieter, more scenic, and generally more pleasant.

Yes, that reply was pretty grumpy, wasn't it? I prefer riding on paths and through parks when it is convenient. Air pollution on the road would never be a factor in my choosing a different, less convenient route. I don't think that I'm all that worse off in traffic. When I do choose to go out of my way to avoid roads, it has more to do with traffic and stress then it does with the air quality.

Thank you Eggplant

Don't forget to add "drive the biggest truck/SUV/etc that you can get. The more black smoke coming out the tailpipe and noise from the engine, the better.

This is part of the essential definition of "manly".

If you can gun said engine while passing lean, fit, little girly man cyclist, you have effectively proven that you are the bigger man.

I live in an area rated fairly high for air quality.
My only issues tend to be at the end of a long ride, climbing a tall hill, towing a trailer with my 3 year old in it, 90F+, and in the high ozone part of the day.

I can tell when my lungs are having issues since I have problems trying to breathe.

All in all I would say the positives far outweigh the negatives. As a side note, I have to exercise outside. I find it utterly unexciting to workout indoors.

You are assuming he is reacting, directing his remark at you rather than the article you posted. Maybe you should be the one to chill out. There is nothing wrong with his reaction to the article.

I disagree, I infered from that reply that he was reacting towards me, as the one to bring this article to attention. Whether or not he implied that is debatable perhaps for you. Secondly, I simply told him there was no need for sacrastic remarks in this thread, I like to keep the comments intelligent and constructive, thats the most efficient way of learning. I think my reply was completely correct. He even admitted his reply was grumpy:

Don't drink, don't smoke, don't eat meat.. die anyway.

A fair post and something to consider. I think about the amount of exhaust I'm inhaling, especially as I cross the 14th St. bridge within feet of commuter traffic. Does it keep me off of the bike? No way, I know the benefits far outweigh the risks.

A good analogy is the current debate in Alexandria regarding the Mirant Power plant. It's a coal buring electric supplier to DC that many are trying to shut down. Even though they burn the top 99% cleanest coal and have EPA regulated cleansers and emissions safeguards, many who live nearby, claim to have respiratory problems, soot on their cars, and are at increased risk of sickness. I, however, could claim just the opposite. I live directly across the street from this plant (and ride past it daily) but my proximity to it, one could argue, has allowed for a more active lifestyle and increased physical fitness and overall health. The fact that I'm close enough to work to ride everday is a more significant health factor than the plant's negligable emissions. A sedintary person, for example, who lives in the pollution free country, it may be argued, may be less healthy than an active person in the city. The fact that I'm near this power plant is largely incidental as it pertains to my health-the bigger factor is the accessability to the bike path and work. Recent pulminary function tests came back at "over 100%" in every catagory-contradicting the idea that this behemoth is killing everyone in its path. The greater likliehood is that, while coal emissions most likely aren't good for one's health, other factors such as: age, activity level, diet, etc are bigger contributors to one's health.

So, in a very long winded, convoluted, and admittadly circuitous kind of way, what I'm trying to say is that it is far better to be an active, health-concious person who lives near a city than a sedintary person who lives in the country. I guess the ideal situation would be an active person who lives and works in the country and doesn't have to work-allowing him/her to ride their bike at their leisure. Huhhhhhhhh......

You can work, there's nothing that says the person doesn't have to work. Their work just has to be nearby so they don't have to ride through smog to get there. Organic (and maybe Amish?) farmers are the example that jumps to my mind.

Live on/near the farm, work on the farm, no significant exposure to pollutants (REGULAR farm workers have high exposure to chemical pesticides and fertilizers)

Unfortunately, an agrarian society can't support the population levels we have at the moment so unless some of you fine folks'd like to volunteer to die in the name of me being able to live a better life, I guess we'll just have to do the best we can.

My point exactly. Let's all become farmers.

"When I see people running or bicycling along a busy street in the middle of the day, I want to tackle them and scream at them to stop," says Rachel Langford, coordinator of the Clean Air Project for the American Lung Association in Oregon.

--
Anybody see the problem with this statement. This lady works for the American Lung Assoc, and is more interested in getting us off the street to save ourselves than reducing the number of cagers to try to help EVERYBODY's lungs.

C'mon Rachel, look at the forest, not the trees...

Let's sue some cagers for second hand pollution. I choose not to drive a car, so I shouldn't have to suffer from your choice to drive one. Is there a dissease (like emphesima for tobacco, or mesothelioma for asbestos) that I can point to as having been caused by the dirty commuters assualting me?

So what, our only choices then are exercise and breathe too much pollution, drive cars and produce more pollution, or go live on a farm in Amish country?

C'mon you guys. Ride a bike, create less pollution, work to get more people to choose less-polluting alternatives and eventually maybe things can improve.

Or just sit around here working up a good foam over the silliest excuses. Whatever.

Life WILL kill you. You determine how you want to live it.

Or - you can live where I do - I assure you - the only exhaust I deal with is what comes out from behind cows... (deadly to be sure) Okay, also diesel trucks - but I can pass them...

I really liked one quote I read "It is going to be really sad when the health freaks eventually die of nothing."