More than just unhealthy

Tony Raven wrote:

> Bad news for the cagers -its not just the lack of exercise that's
> killing them.
>
> Tony
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3761012.stm
>
> Traffic jams are not only bad for your mood - they may actually kill,
> research suggests.
> A German study has found people caught in traffic are three times more
> likely to have a heart attack within the hour than those who are not
> stuck in a jam.

I think it said something about cyclists being more likely to have a heart attack
which must have been a mistake?

Adrian Boliston wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>
>>Bad news for the cagers -its not just the lack of exercise that's
>>killing them.
>>
>>Tony
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3761012.stm
>>
>>Traffic jams are not only bad for your mood - they may actually kill,
>>research suggests.
>>A German study has found people caught in traffic are three times more
>>likely to have a heart attack within the hour than those who are not
>>stuck in a jam.
>
>
> I think it said something about cyclists being more likely to have a heart attack
> which must have been a mistake?

Not at all:

- cyclists might be more exposed to pollution in those circumstances

- cyclists may have a lower base risk, but be equally at risk from
short-term pollution risk

- the study was of survivors of heart attacks. cyclists may be more
likely to survive in such circumstances, due to being fitter.

Tony Raven wrote:
> Bad news for the cagers -its not just the lack of exercise that's
> killing them.
>
> Tony
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3761012.stm
>
> Traffic jams are not only bad for your mood - they may actually kill,
> research suggests.
> A German study has found people caught in traffic are three times more
> likely to have a heart attack within the hour than those who are not
> stuck in a jam.
>
> Scientists, who studied hundreds of heart attacks, concluded nearly
> one in 12 was linked to traffic. Women and the over-60s were
> particularly at risk.
>
> The research is published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Mmm!

Glad I'm not one of those who gets stressed whilst stuck in a traffic
jam (no, I really don't!). I don't think I'd be able to do my job if I
did, to be honest (lots of driving).

Judging from the behaviour I see from others occasionally I can quite
believe the results of the study, though I'd have to say it may be that
those susceptible have managed to accrue the effects of long-term stress
in other parts of their life, and stress whilst in traffic is merely the
last straw, as it were.

I wonder if there's any research into how stressed women are when
driving and not in a jam, and likewise the over-60's, vs men, etc.

--


Velvet

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:12:15 GMT, Simon Proven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> I think it said something about cyclists being more likely to have a heart attack
>> which must have been a mistake?
>
>Not at all:
>
>- cyclists might be more exposed to pollution in those circumstances

Possibly - compared to an otherwise clear road. Less exposed to
pollution than motorists by virtue of being higher than their cars'
air intakes, and of course spending less time on the road.

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bad news for the cagers -its not just the lack of exercise that's
> killing them.

Sometimes I wonder if it's worth my while campaigning for cycle friendly
facilities at my place of work. All the rejections I get after simply asking
for Sheffield stands makes me feel like saying "bugger them", let them have
heart attacks (as two already have in their 40s), but I wouldn't wish that
on my worst enemy. Stupid thing is, they'll spend loads of time going on
about their pensions and shares, but a lot of them won't live to see them
mature.
--
Simon M.

Simon Mason wrote:

> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Bad news for the cagers -its not just the lack of exercise that's
>>killing them.
>
>
> Sometimes I wonder if it's worth my while campaigning for cycle friendly
> facilities at my place of work. All the rejections I get after simply asking
> for Sheffield stands makes me feel like saying "bugger them", let them have
> heart attacks (as two already have in their 40s), but I wouldn't wish that
> on my worst enemy. Stupid thing is, they'll spend loads of time going on
> about their pensions and shares, but a lot of them won't live to see them
> mature.

40s? An ex-colleague of mine had a stroke at age 34. Two years
older than I am now. He was what i think they call "morbidly
obese". After the stroke, he managed to lose enough weight that
he was merely "obese". I've not seen him for a few years so I
don't know how he's getting on since, though at the time he seemed
to have made a full recovery from the stroke itself - certainly
there was no adverse effect that I could detect. It makes you
think, though.

--
Simon

"Simon Proven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:GSRdd.108$
>
> 40s? An ex-colleague of mine had a stroke at age 34. Two years
> older than I am now. He was what i think they call "morbidly
> obese". After the stroke, he managed to lose enough weight that
> he was merely "obese". I've not seen him for a few years so I
> don't know how he's getting on since, though at the time he seemed
> to have made a full recovery from the stroke itself - certainly
> there was no adverse effect that I could detect. It makes you
> think, though.


I had forgotten about my colleague and friend who had a stroke at age 32 who
died a few years ago. We have a charity football match every year in his
memory. The two heart attack sufferers now look very well and have lost a
lot of weight and watch what they eat and take regular exercise. It's a pity
that they had to be shocked into it.

I haven't visited our canteen for many years after I found myself with a
wobbling belly as I jumped up and down during football training in 1987.
When my heart attack colleague who now has to watch his diet asked why there
was so much pies, chips and puddings on the menu he was told that if they
proved healthy options no one would eat them!

--
Simon M.

"Simon Proven" <[email protected]> wrote

> - cyclists might be more exposed to pollution in those circumstances
>
> - cyclists may have a lower base risk, but be equally at risk from
> short-term pollution risk
>
> - the study was of survivors of heart attacks. cyclists may be more
> likely to survive in such circumstances, due to being fitter.

There was an article in New Scientist a few years ago about the San
Fransisco earthquake. Heart attacks had a blip. But afterwards heart
attacks fell back for a while. The assumption was that the quake only
brought attacks forward but did not introduce new ones.

Could be something like this going on here. That is someone that is going
to have an attack is more likely to have it in a car/bus/bike than
elsewhere.

Simon Mason wrote:

> I haven't visited our canteen for many years after I found myself with a
> wobbling belly as I jumped up and down during football training in 1987.
> When my heart attack colleague who now has to watch his diet asked why there
> was so much pies, chips and puddings on the menu he was told that if they
> proved healthy options no one would eat them!

The thing that made me realise I needed to get back on the bike (I never
stopped cycling entirely, but I was doing under 1000 miles a year), was
when I had my body fat measured as 18%. The first time I had it
measured, when I was a few years younger, it was about 11%. A photo of
me from about that time (when it was 18%) looked flabby around the
waist and chest, to me. The thing is, I'm 6ft tall and have never
weighed more than about 11st6. I'm 10st10 now. Yet there are people
who weigh considerably more who carry a lot less fat, IMO.

--
Simon

"Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:12:15 GMT, Simon Proven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I think it said something about cyclists being more likely to have a
heart attack
> >> which must have been a mistake?
> >
> >Not at all:
> >
> >- cyclists might be more exposed to pollution in those circumstances
>
> Possibly - compared to an otherwise clear road. Less exposed to
> pollution than motorists by virtue of being higher than their cars'
> air intakes, and of course spending less time on the road.
>

But maybe also likely to be breathing heavier while exposed to the
pollution?

Al C-F wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:12:15 GMT, Simon Proven
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Possibly - compared to an otherwise clear road. Less exposed to
> pollution than motorists by virtue of being higher than their cars'
> air intakes, and of course spending less time on the road.

Ummm..

Some cars have filters which block particulates and pollen and other ****.
Unless you're wearing a mask, no way are you going to be exposed to less
pollutants.

Also, you're exerting yourself - breathing much more heavily and deeply than
most car users.

So I think you might want to revisit that theory - from a pollution POV I
would imagine cyclists are far more at risk than the average car occupant.

In article <[email protected]>,
"dwb" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Some cars have filters which block particulates and pollen and other ****.
> Unless you're wearing a mask, no way are you going to be exposed to less
> pollutants.
>
> Also, you're exerting yourself - breathing much more heavily and deeply than
> most car users.
>
> So I think you might want to revisit that theory - from a pollution POV I
> would imagine cyclists are far more at risk than the average car occupant.

Sorry, no. There's been lots of research on this - I can provide
references if anybody cares enough to look it up. The finding that
cyclists are exposed to less pollution than motorists has been
demonstrated again and again.

Ian
--
My email address is invalid to prevent spam.
Real contact details are on my website at http://www.drianwalker.com

Ian Walker wrote:
>
> Sorry, no. There's been lots of research on this - I can provide
> references if anybody cares enough to look it up.

Yes please.

In article <[email protected]>,
"dwb" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ian Walker wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, no. There's been lots of research on this - I can provide
> > references if anybody cares enough to look it up.
>
> Yes please.

Exposure to carbon monoxide in the Athens urban area during commuting
Duci A, Chaloulakou A, Spyrellis N
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 309 (1-3): 47-58 JUN 20 2003:

"The findings showed that the mean CO level over trips of 30 min was
21.4 ppm for private car against 10.4, 9.6, 4 and 11.5 ppm for bus,
trolley, electric train and pedestrians, respectively."


Assessment of road users' elemental carbon personal exposure levels,
London, UK
Adams HS, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Colvile RN, Older MJ, Kendall M
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT 36 (34): 5335-5342 NOV 2002:

"In this first EC personal exposure study of transport users geometric
mean exposure levels in the summer field campaign were 11.2 mug m(-3)
(GSD=2.7) for cyclists, 13.6 mug m(-3) (GSD = 1.9) for bus passengers
and 21.6 mug m(-3) (GSD = 2. 1) for car drivers; corresponding exposure
levels in the winter ;were 16.4 mug m(-3) (GSD= 1.8), 18.6 mug m(-3)
(GSD=2.3) and 27.3 mug m(-3) (GSD=2.0), respectively."


Differences in cyclists and car drivers exposure to air pollution from
traffic in the city of Copenhagen
Rank J, Folke J, Jespersen PH
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 279 (1-3): 131-136 NOV 12 2001:

"It has frequently been claimed that cycling in heavy traffic is
unhealthy, more so than driving a car. To test this hypothesis, teams of
two cyclists and two car drivers in two cars were equipped with personal
air samplers while driving for 4 h on 2 different days in the morning
traffic of Copenhagen. The air sample charcoal tubes were analysed for
their benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) content and the
air filters for particles (total dust). The concentrations of particles
and BTEX in the cabin of the cars were 2-4 times greater than in the
cyclists' breathing zone, the greatest difference being for BTEX.
Therefore, even after taking the increased respiration rate of cyclists
into consideration, car drivers seem to be more exposed to airborne
pollution than cyclists."


Assessment of exposure to traffic-related fumes during the journey to
work
Kingham S, Meaton J, Sheard A, Lawrenson O
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT 3 (4): 271-274
JUL 1998:

"The project monitored for benzene and inhalable particulates in
September and October 1996. The car driver's exposure was on all
occasions the highest for benzene and the first or second highest for
particulates compared to the other modes. The cyclists on the cycle path
had in most cases the lowest or second lowest exposure to both
pollutants. The road modes of transport always had the highest exposures
to benzene. The cyclists on the road were exposed to significantly
greater levels of both benzene and particulates than the cyclists on the
path."


There are more. To be fair, there are also a couple of other studies by
Adams, which were not quite so clear-cut. These found (a) very little
difference between motorists and cyclists in London in sumer (but that
the Tube was MUCH worse than both), (b) cyclists received less pollution
than motorists in winter, and (c) wind has quite an effect on how much
pollution people are exposed to.

Overall, though, the evidence definitely points to cyclists getting less
pollution than motorists. You have to remember that when particulates
get into a car, there isn't really anything to get them out again; car
air intakes are closer to the level of exhausts too.

Ian
--
My email address is invalid to prevent spam.
Real contact details are on my website at http://www.drianwalker.com

Ian Walker wrote:
[snip]
>
> Differences in cyclists and car drivers exposure to air pollution from
> traffic in the city of Copenhagen
> Rank J, Folke J, Jespersen PH
> SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 279 (1-3): 131-136 NOV 12 2001:
>
> "It has frequently been claimed that cycling in heavy traffic is
> unhealthy, more so than driving a car. To test this hypothesis, teams of
> two cyclists and two car drivers in two cars were equipped with personal
> air samplers while driving for 4 h on 2 different days in the morning
> traffic of Copenhagen. The air sample charcoal tubes were analysed for
> their benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) content and the
> air filters for particles (total dust). The concentrations of particles
> and BTEX in the cabin of the cars were 2-4 times greater than in the
> cyclists' breathing zone, the greatest difference being for BTEX.
> Therefore, even after taking the increased respiration rate of cyclists
> into consideration, car drivers seem to be more exposed to airborne
> pollution than cyclists."
[snip]

This one is interesting because it compares 4 hours of cycling with 4
hours of driving. Since bikes are generally much faster than cars,
especially when congestion and thus pollution are at their highest, then
lower cyclist exposure is even more marked.

Peter

Ian Walker <[email protected]> writes:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "dwb" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Some cars have filters which block particulates and pollen and other ****.
>> Unless you're wearing a mask, no way are you going to be exposed to less
>> pollutants.
>>
>> Also, you're exerting yourself - breathing much more heavily and deeply than
>> most car users.
>>
>> So I think you might want to revisit that theory - from a pollution POV I
>> would imagine cyclists are far more at risk than the average car occupant.

>Sorry, no. There's been lots of research on this - I can provide
>references if anybody cares enough to look it up. The finding that
>cyclists are exposed to less pollution than motorists has been
>demonstrated again and again.

Not quite -- they measure the levels in the blood. So it's possible
that cylists are exposed to more pollution, but either don't absorb as
much, or throw it off faster due to breathing more heavily. Nobody
knows. But the well established fact is that a cyclist absorbs less
pollution than a motorist.

What makes this surprising is the fact that the cyclist *smells* far
more pollution than the motorist does, but that's because in the open
cyclists are exposed to sharper smell gradients than folk in cars, and
what our noses are tuned to detect is not smells per se, but smell
gradient changes.

Another example of the usefulness of science in contradicting the
errors of "obvious" common sense.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Chris Malcolm) wrote:

> Ian Walker <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > "dwb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Some cars have filters which block particulates and pollen and other ****.
> >> Unless you're wearing a mask, no way are you going to be exposed to less
> >> pollutants.
> >>
> >> Also, you're exerting yourself - breathing much more heavily and deeply
> >> than
> >> most car users.
> >>
> >> So I think you might want to revisit that theory - from a pollution POV I
> >> would imagine cyclists are far more at risk than the average car occupant.
>
> >Sorry, no. There's been lots of research on this - I can provide
> >references if anybody cares enough to look it up. The finding that
> >cyclists are exposed to less pollution than motorists has been
> >demonstrated again and again.
>
> Not quite -- they measure the levels in the blood. So it's possible
> that cylists are exposed to more pollution, but either don't absorb as
> much, or throw it off faster due to breathing more heavily. Nobody
> knows. But the well established fact is that a cyclist absorbs less
> pollution than a motorist.
>

Well, maybe, but if you look at the articles I posted these all measured
exposure, not blood levels.

> What makes this surprising is the fact that the cyclist *smells* far
> more pollution than the motorist does, but that's because in the open
> cyclists are exposed to sharper smell gradients than folk in cars, and
> what our noses are tuned to detect is not smells per se, but smell
> gradient changes.

And the influence of Magic Trees, and Feu Orange!

>
> Another example of the usefulness of science in contradicting the
> errors of "obvious" common sense.

Oh yes.

> --
> Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Ian
--
My email address is invalid to prevent spam.
Real contact details are on my website at http://www.drianwalker.com