Slashdot Mirror


'Forest Bathing' Considered Healthful

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that although allergies and the promise of air-conditioning tend to drive people indoors at this time of year, when people spend time in more natural surroundings — forests, parks, and other places with plenty of trees — they experience increased immune function. A study of 280 healthy people in Japan, where visiting nature parks for therapeutic effect has become a popular practice called 'Shinrin-yoku,' or 'forest bathing,' found that being among plants produced 'lower concentrations of cortisol, lower pulse rate, and lower blood pressure,' among other things. Another study in 2007 showed that men who took two-hour walks in a forest over two days had a 50-percent spike in levels of natural killer cells, and a third study found an increase in white blood cells that lasted for a week in women exposed to phytoncides in forest air."

26 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Am I the only one? by Polarina · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only one that read the title as "'Forest Bathing' Considered Harmful"?

    1. Re:Am I the only one? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Funny

      I must admit that the title immediately got me thinking about opalescent pools of water surrounded by trees and then wondering if it would be so healthy if said pool contained an overly territorial venomous water snake or an alligator having a bad day...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Am I the only one? by Hodapp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No. I even re-read the summary about 10 times in a row, trying to figure out what exactly was harmful about forest bathing.

    3. Re:Am I the only one? by Spazztastic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Am I the only one that read the title as "'Forest Bathing' Considered Harmful"?

      It's a kdawson article, what do you expect? The moron decided to change the title from the original submission of "'Forest Bathing' is Good for Your Health" that pickens submitted it as to this garbage.

      Also, I read it as the same thing.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    4. Re:Am I the only one? by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Informative

      No you're not, and in my case that's because "healthful" isn't a word I recognise as being (UK) English, so my brain obviously substituted a similar real world.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Am I the only one? by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bathing forest dyslexia cures?

    6. Re:Am I the only one? by edittard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps it was too long to fit in the headline? Still retarded though, since there's already a perfectly cromulent (and shorter) word: healthy.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    7. Re:Am I the only one? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Funny

      As long as it's not a candirú fish.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  2. Breaking news by NekSnappa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People who get off their ass and go outside are healthier than those who don't.

    --
    I want to shoot the messenger!
    1. Re:Breaking news by CraftyJack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That seems obvious, but wait until you see the rest of the comments.

    2. Re:Breaking news by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also helps allergies:

      I've read several studies in Science News that show exposing allergic bodies to the outdoors "trains" the immune system to ignore things like pollen, dust, and so on as simply part of the natural environment.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:Breaking news by Spazztastic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also helps allergies:

      I've read several studies in Science News that show exposing allergic bodies to the outdoors "trains" the immune system to ignore things like pollen, dust, and so on as simply part of the natural environment.

      I've also read studies that picking your nose and eating your boogers increases your immune system. Seems plausible since your nose filters out pollen, dust, and other things your body shouldn't be absorbing.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    4. Re:Breaking news by Hodapp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Both groups "got off their ass" and "went outside". The comparison was between walking in a city area, and walking in a forest.
      Did you even open the article?

    5. Re:Breaking news by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you even read the summary? It's not just taking a walk outside, it's walking through the woods. This study has nothing to do with exersize or being sedentary, it's about breathing woodland air. AFAIK exersize has never been shown to boost the immune system (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

      I read about another study that showed that children who live in spotlessly clean homes are more prone to allergies and athsma than kids whose moms are slobs. This may be related somehow, I don't know.

    6. Re:Breaking news by augi01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In conjunction with this rather astonishing remark, it may also be the case that walking in the forest removes one from an environment associated with many stressful things, i.e. work, school, etc, thereby decreasing their overall stress level. A healthy mind is just as important as a healthy body.

      --
      No yesterday, no tomorrow, and no today.
  3. Duh by jridley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I grew up on a farm, and the only people who had air conditioning were living in town. I didn't even know what allergies were; none of my friends or anyone in their family had them, until I started making friends with people who lived in town and had air conditioning and super clean houses. THEY had allergies.

    1. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly! One theory is that the prevalence of allergies in modern times is a result of our "super clean" environments around us. The body's immune system has nothing to fight off, so instead it starts attacking even the most benign invaders -- any little bit of pollen or something it hasn't encountered before. The result of this is allergic reactions to nearly anything and everything out there. And those reactions are only getting worse as time goes on (i.e., the preponderance of peanut allergies in children).

    2. Re:Duh by Gulthek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My wife grew up surrounded by animals and has extremely bad allergies. She didn't know what it was like to breathe normally until she moved into her first apartment that had always been animal-free.

      Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

  4. Different types of forests by Rooked_One · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the Midwest, our forests are just plain nasty... I would be surprised if the Japanese have anything close to ragweed. My family is originally from up north, so we are all allergic to this, but correlation does not blah blah blah

    .I wonder if they have to worry about ticks, with all the fun stuff they carry, as well over there on that island. I'm thinking the plant life just might be different. I grew up playing in a greenbelt full of poison ivy and ragweed, along with scrub trees that put off that layer of pollen that will cover your car, so after RTA, I can't say which side of the coin I prefer I'm afraid.

  5. Good news by goontz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've actually been planning a backpacking/primitive camping trip with a buddy of mine for a while now, which was prompted in part by a random feeling of being tired of all the comforts we take for granted, as well as realizing how out of touch the majority of people are (myself included) with nature and the associated skills that come with it (the ones that many of our Dads may have taught us, and we've since forgotten). I'm glad to know that the trip will have these other benefits too.

  6. What this article really says.... by rainmouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What this article really seems to be saying is that living in towns and cities is harmful and that hanging out in parks and forests temporarily alleviates the symptoms.

  7. Bullshit by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I grew up on a farm, and the only people who had air conditioning were living in town. I didn't even know what allergies were; none of my friends or anyone in their family had them, until I started making friends with people who lived in town and had air conditioning and super clean houses. THEY had allergies.

    Your unscientific anecdote is negated by my own equally unscientific anecdote:

    I grew up in a small farming village, a tiny population in a state with one of the lowest levels of air pollution, with no air conditioning whatsoever. I had absolutely terrible allergies, up to and including asthma, eyes glued shut due to "sleep" (secretions), and the need for serious medicine that didn't really help much.

    The best thing I ever did was move to a city, get air conditioning, and stay the fuck away from the grass, trees, and other foliage that made my life a living hell. I didn't get allergies from living in the city as you so erroneously imply, I got them from being exposed to pollen in the first place, and short of paving the planet, a large city with relatively little green space is in my experience an ideal environment for those who suffer from Hay Fever, pollution notwithstanding.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  8. Re:Bullshit by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seems that your allergies are making your posting finger twitchy - or there's a glitch in Slashdot.

    My great-grandmother grew up in a farming village. There was a group of people who would always get colds around harvest-time; they were widely suspected of being malingerers, but she realized much later that they just had seasonal allergies.

  9. What about the downsides? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    This article assumes of course, that one does not become subject to a bear attack.

    --
    Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    1. Re:What about the downsides? by archangel9 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I grew up in a small bear-farming village, a tiny population in a state with one of the lowest levels of bears, with no bear repellent whatsoever. I had absolutely terrible bear attacks, up to and including death, eyes glued shut due to "blood" (secretions), and the need for serious surgery that didn't really help much.

      The best thing I ever did was move to a city, get bear repellent, and stay the fuck away from the bears, bears, and other bears that made my life a living hell. I didn't get bear attacks from living in the city as you so erroneously imply, I got them from being exposed to bears in the first place, and short of paving the planet, a large city with relatively few bears is in my experience an ideal environment for those who suffer from bear attacks, Manbearpig notwithstanding.

  10. Re:Increasing exposure leads to stronger immune sy by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All this article affirms is that reducing chronic stress makes people healthier.

    Stress evolved to be an acute reaction to a specific stimuli. When your stress reaction becomes chronic your health suffers.

    Ergo anything that reduces your stress response will improve your health.

    I expect that people who had some type of forest phobia would not receive the same benefit.