Yet another crap article in the times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...758630,00.html

Don't they have a science editor?

...d

Exercising in a cycle of danger
by Dr Thomas Stuttaford
The health risks of competitive urban cycling

SINCE JULY 7, driving along Pall Mall in the morning rush hour has been
more like negotiating traffic in Copenhagen or Amsterdam than
London's West End. But there are differences between the London
cyclists, who weave in and out of the cars with little regard for the
rules of the road, and their European counterparts. The latter have
consideration for other road users and take to the streets for public
transport rather than as an extension of a private gym.
Although the recent influx of cyclists has coincided with the bomb
threats, the bicycle is reduced to being no more than another exercise
machine, but unfortunately one that the rest of us have to put up with.

Few health measures are accepted as being helpful as cycling, yet some
statistics cast doubt on this assumption. Cyclists are almost ten times
more likely to be killed on the road than drivers or car passengers. A
more difficult problem is to estimate the damage to health, other than
road accidents, that competitive urban cycling could inflict. Account
has to be taken of the mistaken belief that all exercise is good,
regardless of the atmosphere in which it is taken. Exercise should be
regular and steady. It should be similar to that of the Dutch cycling
to work, or the British striding to the office. Many commuters make do
with pavement walking, having left the Tube one or two stations away
from their workplace, or abandon the car at a more distant car park
than is necessary.

One of the problems of exercise with machinery, whether fixed in a gym
or mobile on a road, is the competitive spirit. This is one of the
hallmarks of the type A personality, the ambitious, striving
temperament that is associated with increased cardiovascular disease.
If every journey to work and back is turned into a race against other
road users, or the clock, it must be doubtful if the benefits of the
cycle ride outweigh its cardiovascular disadvantages.

Another reason for questioning the advantages of cycling in Central
London was advanced recently by Dr David Newby, of the Centre for
Cardiovascular Sciences at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. He showed that
the circulation of a cyclist could be damaged by the particulate matter
in a diesel-polluted atmosphere in two ways. These particles, inhaled
with every panting breath, damage the endothelial lining of the
coronary arteries, and this reduces their tone. The pollution also
diminishes the body 's ability to break down clots in the blood
vessels. These two changes are similar to those seen by people who
smoke cigarettes.

It could be that the more the cyclists strive to beat yesterday's
time, or shout at drivers, the more they will inhale toxic fumes, and
the more likely they will be to have a coronary. The British Heart
Foundation is supporting further research into this field. Conversely,
regular steady, but non-violent and non-aggressive exercise, is
associated with less obesity, a lower incidence of the metabolic
syndrome and a lesser likelihood of high blood pressure, left-sided
heart failure, diabetes, some malignancies, polycystic ovarian syndrome
and perhaps some forms of prostatic disease.

The importance of the relationship between a capacity to exercise and
exercise-tolerance - which must to an extent be determined by
someone's past life and the amount of exercise they have taken
previously - has been emphasised by research from the Department of
Preventive Medicine, Rush University, Chicago, and other medical units
in Chicago and elsewhere in the US.

Their research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine,
demonstrated that the exercise capacity of women, as well as men, is a
predictor of the risk of death and heart disease. The exercise capacity
has been defined as the oxygen uptake needed for a given workload.
Previous studies evaluated the relationship between the exercise
capacity of men only.

The US scientists studied the exercise capabilities of nearly 6,000
women without any symptoms of disease, as well as 4,500 who have had
symptoms of heart troubles. The apparently fit women, those without any
previous evidence of heart trouble, whose exercise capacity was less
than 85 per cent of that predicted for someone of their age, was twice
as likely to die. Similar results were found for those women who had
had heart disease. If their capacity for work was less than 85 per cent
of what was normal for their age group they were twice as likely to die
from heart disease.

The lesson to be derived from the research is that those who are still
fit should take regular, steady exercise. They, and those who have had
cardiovascular disease, whether coronary or arterial disease or high
blood pressure, should be aware of their exercise tolerance. Exercise
should be related to their capacity for it.

David Martin quoted:

It could be that the more the cyclists strive to beat yesterday's
time, or shout at drivers, the more they will inhale toxic fumes, and
the more likely they will be to have a coronary.

It is the, "...,or shout at drivers,..." that is the give away. I
suspect this is a vindictive article written by someone whose blood
boils at the thought of those cyclists making progress while he sits in
his tin can of jam.

Colin

Colin Blackburn wrote:
David Martin quoted:

It could be that the more the cyclists strive to beat yesterday's
time, or shout at drivers, the more they will inhale toxic fumes, and
the more likely they will be to have a coronary.

It is the, "...,or shout at drivers,..." that is the give away. I
suspect this is a vindictive article written by someone whose blood
boils at the thought of those cyclists making progress while he sits in
his tin can of jam.

It does sound that way.. I have written (scant hope of publication)
pointing out that it is no surprise that pollution in the air ends up
in the lungs, but that he as a motorist is exposed to far more than the
cyclists who pass him.

...d


Colin

Now, I'm a long way from being a "Type A" personality - frankly, I'd
rather have two years off work than own a £60k car but hey, I AM a bit
odd... however since I've started cycling I have seen the dark side of
human nature and it's not from observing other cyclists. People in cars
are at best lazy and unobservant - at worst they are homicidal maniacs.

It's nice to improve my time to work but I hardly take it seriously; if
I did then the vino and blue cheese would be out of the window! It's all
well and good going contra a montre with myself, harms no-one. I also
try and follow the rules and guidelines in the HC to the best of my
ability which is something a huge majority of other (motorised) road
users seem to struggle with.

All the doctors in the world could not convince me that cycle commuting
is anything but a huge improvement over any other form of getting into
the office.

So yes, the article is crap - what do you expect from the dirty digger?

bfn,

Tony B

Tony B wrote on Thu, 1 Sep 2005
All the doctors in the world could not convince me that cycle commuting
is anything but a huge improvement over any other form of getting into
the office.

Is there any regular cyclist in London who doesn't feel less stressed
cycling than when travelling on public transport? Especially, I'd have
thought, if you do happen to have a Type A personality.
--
Iain Archer To email, please use Reply-To address

"David Martin" wrote...


....Exercise should be regular and steady. It should be similar to
that of the Dutch cycling to work......

So we all start pootling along at 10mph like the dutch only to have complaints
that we are now holding up traffic unnecessarily.

Tony B wrote:
So yes, the article is crap - what do you expect from the dirty digger?
I love that dirty digger name - the digger can only see something when
covered in big gold dollars. :-)

On 1 Sep 2005 07:06:38 -0700, David Martin wrote:

Exercising in a cycle of danger
by Dr Thomas Stuttaford

Remember this is the columnist referred to by Private Eye as
Dr Utterfraud.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

David Martin wrote:

Don't they have a science editor?

Yeppers. A right pile of crap -- it reads like a whole bunch of excuses not
to get out there riding.

In article . com,
says...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...758630,00.html

...and their European counterparts. The latter have
consideration for other road users and take to the streets for public
transport rather than as an extension of a private gym.


Good grief.

Cyclists in Amsterdam have absolutely no consideration for *any* other
road users.
I have heard that Amsterdam has (or will have), timers on the lights for
cyclists so they can see how long they have to wait for a green light.

Apparently, this will cut down on the number of cyclists going through
red lights - instead of them thinking "30 seconds? I'm not waiting that
long, I'm off".

--
Mike