R
Again Mikey you shift the debate. This whole thread started because you
noted someone who was an avid cyclist (both road and mt.) died in his home
from a heart attack and from that you incorrectly surmised that mt. biking
had no net health benefit. Thus, my comments were specific to your spurious
claim. The small number of the 8.2 million mt. bikers (1 million plus
hardcore riders) that die each year (I said less than 20 but actually it is
less than 10) directly due to mt. biking (dying in your house from a heart
attack is not dying from mt. biking - only you would make such a claim). I
provided ample evidence from medical science that points out the health
benefits from improving ones mental acuity, psychological, improving cardiac
fitness, lowering the bad cholesterol while raising the good and so and so
on. The loss of less than 10 individuals a year some of whom would have
died from other causes anyway (car crashes, cancer, aids, etc. - check the
actuarial tables before you make some insane comment) in no way detracts
from the net health benefit of mt. biking. Almost all mt. bikers who suffer
some injury (in my case a bruised elbow and a few bruises and finished the
ride and was riding the next day after each incident) were riding within a
few days of their injury. Those that suffered more serious injuries such as
broken bones (the most common brake for a cyclist is the collarbone then
wrist, or in some cases a fractured hip) are up and riding and gaining
fitness within a few weeks of the break - in many cases I am aware within 2
weeks. I had one friend 10 years ago get hit by a car, break his hip, and 6
weeks later completed a 200 mile rode ride (Tour of Two Forest out of
Lancaster). Cyclist (and people in general) are resilient. The only people
who never get back on the bike are those handful of individuals that
suffered very serious and crippling injuries - like those that die this is a
very small number. So in the end, the injury simply results in some forced
rest and the cyclist is back on the back as soon as they can balance the
bike gaining fitness once again. So your assertion that their is no net
health benefit from mt. biking is so stupid it is laughable - btw an
exercise physiologist (Ph.D.) was at my house last night and when I showed
him your email he spit beer (a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale - very good
this year) through his nose he laughed so hard.
Get the discussion right - this was strictly about net health benefit, your
attempt to shift this into your spurious claims regarding ecological affects
is another debate that is pointless to engage in a dialogue with you as you
act as blindly and as much on faith as George W. Bush (btw how much of your
writings on the subject have found their way into peered reviewed journals -
let me help you - zero) . So you can try and shift the debate again which is
your standard ploy when you realize that you have exceedee even the normal
level of stupidness for you - why don't you take on a cause that is having
true serious affects on bio-diversity - namely the level of development that
continues to eat up and fragment habitat?
I will think about how laughable you are on my 25 mile fast pace lunch time
road ride where I will have a 12.5 times greater likelihood of dying than if
I choose to do a equally long (time wise) MT. bike ride.
Toodles moron.
noted someone who was an avid cyclist (both road and mt.) died in his home
from a heart attack and from that you incorrectly surmised that mt. biking
had no net health benefit. Thus, my comments were specific to your spurious
claim. The small number of the 8.2 million mt. bikers (1 million plus
hardcore riders) that die each year (I said less than 20 but actually it is
less than 10) directly due to mt. biking (dying in your house from a heart
attack is not dying from mt. biking - only you would make such a claim). I
provided ample evidence from medical science that points out the health
benefits from improving ones mental acuity, psychological, improving cardiac
fitness, lowering the bad cholesterol while raising the good and so and so
on. The loss of less than 10 individuals a year some of whom would have
died from other causes anyway (car crashes, cancer, aids, etc. - check the
actuarial tables before you make some insane comment) in no way detracts
from the net health benefit of mt. biking. Almost all mt. bikers who suffer
some injury (in my case a bruised elbow and a few bruises and finished the
ride and was riding the next day after each incident) were riding within a
few days of their injury. Those that suffered more serious injuries such as
broken bones (the most common brake for a cyclist is the collarbone then
wrist, or in some cases a fractured hip) are up and riding and gaining
fitness within a few weeks of the break - in many cases I am aware within 2
weeks. I had one friend 10 years ago get hit by a car, break his hip, and 6
weeks later completed a 200 mile rode ride (Tour of Two Forest out of
Lancaster). Cyclist (and people in general) are resilient. The only people
who never get back on the bike are those handful of individuals that
suffered very serious and crippling injuries - like those that die this is a
very small number. So in the end, the injury simply results in some forced
rest and the cyclist is back on the back as soon as they can balance the
bike gaining fitness once again. So your assertion that their is no net
health benefit from mt. biking is so stupid it is laughable - btw an
exercise physiologist (Ph.D.) was at my house last night and when I showed
him your email he spit beer (a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale - very good
this year) through his nose he laughed so hard.
Get the discussion right - this was strictly about net health benefit, your
attempt to shift this into your spurious claims regarding ecological affects
is another debate that is pointless to engage in a dialogue with you as you
act as blindly and as much on faith as George W. Bush (btw how much of your
writings on the subject have found their way into peered reviewed journals -
let me help you - zero) . So you can try and shift the debate again which is
your standard ploy when you realize that you have exceedee even the normal
level of stupidness for you - why don't you take on a cause that is having
true serious affects on bio-diversity - namely the level of development that
continues to eat up and fragment habitat?
I will think about how laughable you are on my 25 mile fast pace lunch time
road ride where I will have a 12.5 times greater likelihood of dying than if
I choose to do a equally long (time wise) MT. bike ride.
Toodles moron.