The fastest female runners are running at 18kph. That's Olympic standard. The average female marathon runner runs at about 9.3kph.
Only competitive male runners would be capable of beating that pace.
Edit: Disclosure - female, and I run a half marathon in two hours That's 10 minutes faster than the average woman and around about average for the entire field. To achieve that time I play an active sport, and train for longer running events (I'm the fastest long distance runner in my sports club). In kph I manage a bit less than 11, which is a long way off 14kph.
What distance is that 9mph over? My running ability has jumped from "can't even face 2km" to "5km in less than 23 minutes most of the time" (PB:21m53s) in about six months due to a new found attitude to health+fitness, but that is still less than 9mph so that sort of rate is going to be a short distance sprint. My 10Km pace (PB:46m21s though minutes or two more than that us more usual) is below 8mph. While I'm sure most average people could match or better my achievements here, I doubt most would want to bother!
What about recovery afterwards? When I run into the office there is a cool down period (basically walking about or lounging until I stop actively sweating) followed by a shower and getting dressed. They don't want me in the office caked in sweat and smelling as you'd expect from that! If I take the 10KM-ish route that makes the whole affair more like 75 minutes than then the less-than-50 I'm running and for my 5KM-ish route the recovery and shower time is longer than the running time so effectively halving my pace without even considering any warm-up time before I hit the pavement with a vengeance.
Also running every day is not recommended unless you are only doing a short distance, unless you are trying to wreck your joints, no matter how good your shoes are. Of course you could switch "run+recover+shower" for just walking the distance both ways every day and use up about the same amount of time, and for many people that might beat the car or public transport based commute if they gave it a try.
Cycling (including the public cycles that exist in London, depending how the hire costs compare to the op-front and running costs of your own kit) are probably a better idea than running though some of the above would count for many people there too.
> The supreme court has ordered the government to make plans for tackling the UK’s air pollution problem, which has been in breach of EU limits for years and is linked to thousands of premature deaths each year.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/29/supreme-c...
> You expect all the health improvements of exercise to be negated by poor air quality?
Yes, in this level of pollution there are considerable risks that need to be balanced against benefits of exercise.
Is not the same as:
>Yes, in this level of pollution there are considerable risks that need to be balanced against benefits of exercise.
I dispute the former, not the latter. Unless you show me some evidence that exercising in a polluted city is somehow worse than living-but-not-exercising in said city, I'm going to continue to dispute that.
Encouraging people to avoid exercise is incredibly reckless.
Nothing about "Don't jog to work at times when pollution is highest in places where pollution is highest" says "avoid exercise" and it's a perverse interpretation to suggest otherwise.
I think you'll find that the benefits outweigh the negatives[1]
Also, how does one commute to work in central London without exposure to air pollution? I'm curious what your alternative suggestion is.
[1] https://intranet2.bham.ac.uk/collaboration/cycling/documents...
> You didn't; you flat out suggested exercising in London was a Bad Idea
I've attempted to clarify any confusion. This conversation is going to be fucking tedious if you continue to refuse to accept that.
I'm struggling to see the relevance of your cycling document. It doesn't mention air pollution as a risk (perhaps I missed it?) to cyclists; it's about cycling; so it has no relevance to a discussion about the risk of running in London pollution. (As an aside: It also strongly over emphasises the benefits of exercise on mental health. That's something I know a bit about and the document getting that wrong makes it feel less truthy).
> Also, how does one commute to work in central London without exposure to air pollution?
When you exercise you breath differently. You take more air into the lungs; you take that air deeper into the lung. This means that you take a greater quantity of particulates into the lung and that you take them deeper into the lungs.
I'm really not sure why you think "don't jog through London rush hour" is such an outrageous suggestion. It's the advice given by public health officials. Here are three news reports giving pretty much the same advice (avoid the worst streets; avoid the worst times; avoid strenuous exercise)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-to-stay-s...
(This article recommends not going out at rush hour, let alone doing exercise)
>> You’ll massively increase your exposure if you do strenuous physical exercise outside. It might be a good idea to skip your run today, especially if you have asthma. Indoor exercise like going to the gym or swimming at an indoor pool might make a nice change.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/05/air-poll...
>> On high-pollution days, the advice for older people and those with lung problems is to reduce strenuous physical exercise. But even healthy people can experience discomfort such as sore eyes, a cough or sore throat, and are warned to consider decreasing outdoor exercise if they do. On days with very high levels of pollution – such as we experienced last month – everyone is advised to cut down their physical exertions.
http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-06-05/pollution-warning-...
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2014/aug/12/lon...