Why riding bikes is a better way to lose weight than jogging.



B

Blair P. Houghton

Guest
HardwareLust <[email protected]> wrote:
>Don't feel comfortable tresspassing on someone else's property? I certainly
>would hope so, but that's not a terribly realistic statement.
>
>Having purchased a very nice new home on a 'corner lot' two years ago, I
>have come to the realization that unless (or until) I install a chain link
>fence topped with razor wire, sirens, and searchlights, that every punk kid
>under the age of 40 cuts through my yard, on a variety of 2, 3 and 4 wheel


Land mine.

--Blair
"It only takes one."
 
Chris Neary writes:

>> As far as bone loss. After quitting jogging there are more chances
>> of As far as bone loss. After quitting jogging there are more
>> chances of osteoporosis (mainly in women) due to defense mechanisms
>> and adaptation. In cycling I do not know for sure, but should not
>> have such a profound effect.


> I beg to differ.


> A couple of references:


http://www.bicycling.com/qanda/0,3257,s1-89,00.html?category_id=363&article_type_id='qa'

In that reference (an add for supplements) we see:

# Are cyclists at risk for osteoporosis?
# By Selene Yeager

# Q. I've read that cyclists--even men--can be at risk for
# osteoporosis. Is that true? Can taking calcium supplements help
# prevent it? A. If the only time you move your body is when it's
# clipped into a pair of SPDs, you could be raising your risk for this
# bone-thinning disease. Cycling is a non-weight-bearing activity,
# which means your bones don't have to support your own (or any
# outside) weight to do it. That's good news for your joints, because
# they're spared the stress, but it can be bad news for your bones
# because they need stress to build. Without it, the body keeps
# taking the calcium it needs from your skeleton without putting any
# fresh bone back, and you lose bone density.

What sort of riding does this writer do, apparently never climbing
hills where pedal force is substantial and standing pedaling is
anything but "a non-weight-bearing activity"?

# The best thing for your bones--and the rest of your body--is to
# throw in some cross-training. Weight training is particularly good
# for building bones. Doing a full-body strength-training routine
# three days a week strengthens your skeleton as well as your
# muscles. Adding running into your routine a couple times a week (or
# more in the off season) can strengthen bones as well.

I take it this writer is not a bicyclist except around the block at
home and not more than 10mph. But that doesn't matter because we've
got to get to the pitch:

# As for calcium supplements: They're great added protection. The
# National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends getting 1,000-1,300
# milligrams of calcium a day. That's about three glasses of
# calcium-fortified milk a day. If you don't eat much dairy,
# definitely supplement.

There's the punch line: "calcium supplements"

# KEEP YOUR SKELETON STRONG

# DON'T SMOKE: Human chimneys lose bone twice as quickly as
# nonsmokers. (And, Einstein, sucking cigs doesn't help you ride.)
# DITCH THE COLA: Carbonated drinks, especially colas, are high in
# phosphorous, which blocks calcium absorption. Plus they're a big
# zero in the nutritional category. Drink water, juice or tea
# instead.
# MODERATE BOOZE: Too much alcohol inhibits calcium absorption and
# bone formation. Stick to no more than a drink or two a day.

Well that make it all OK. These are unassailable "truths" so the
supplements promo, by association, is also unassailable.

# From November 2000 Bicycling magazine

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20041014.html

This link has nothing to do with bicycling.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]
 
A

Alan Acock

Guest
[email protected] wrote in news:dRhcd.17505$54.295436
@typhoon.sonic.net:

> http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20041014.html


I asked a colleague who runs a university physical activity program about
the reports that elite cyclist lose bone density on competitive rides such
as the Tour de France. I don't have the actual study, but she said it was
based on a very small sample and had lots of problems. If somebody has a
link to a real study on this topic, it would be important to the bicycle
community.

Alan Acock
 
R

Roger Zoul

Guest
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
|| Rush <[email protected]> wrote:
||| The science of fat metabolism. why biking burns fat better than
||| jogging.
||| Fat burning occurs when you are at 65 percent heart rate. 85% is
||
|| Fat burning peaks around 50-85% MRH (pretty big range, isn't it?).
||
|| Above that range, you may find a range where you actually
|| burn less fat as you go up in total calorie expenditure,
|| but eventually the calorie expenditure will increase so
|| high that even the inefficient fat burning uses more fat
|| than your 50-85% peak.
||
|| But you don't want to ride for an hour at those exertion
|| levels. It's a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic (no course
|| is perfectly flat) activity that slowly saps your carbo
|| stores and your will to exercise just for fun and fitness.
||
|| So yes. 50-65% MRH (or about 50% VO2max) is a very good
|| and relaxing place to be if you are exercising to reduce
|| your fat without the pain that high carbohydrate-burning
|| activity can cause.
||

if you ride for 4+ hours, you can spend a decent about of time above 85% and
a good bit of time below 85%. On a bike you can rest/recover while riding.

That's a major advantage of cycling. imo.
 
C

Chris Neary

Guest

>>>As far as bone loss. After quitting jogging there are more chances of
>>>As far as bone loss. After quitting jogging there are more chances of
>>>osteoporosis (mainly in women) due to defense mechanisms and adaptation. In
>>>cycling I do not know for sure, but should not have such a profound effect.

>>
>>I beg to differ.


>>http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20041014.html

>
>Says nothing about cycling.


Follow the internal link to the full report (especially Chapter 7) and you
will find many references to cycling, including ranking its potential
benefit for prevention of bone loss vs. other activities.




Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
 
P

Peter

Guest
Chris Neary wrote:

>>>OTOH, weight bearing exercises like jogging help prevent bone loss, while
>>>cycling does not.

>>
>>What kind of swimming pool do you cycle in?

>
>
> The Surgeon General begs to differ:
>
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/bonehealth/docs/Chapter_7.pdf


One quote from the above site:
"The best activities work all muscle groups. Examples
include gymnastics, basketball, volleyball, bicycling,
and soccer. Swimming, while highly beneficial to many
aspects of health, is not a weight-bearing activity
and thus does not contribute to increased bone mass."

Cycling is lower impact and less weight-bearing than
some other forms of exercise, but I didn't see any
indication in the above report that it wouldn't still
be of some benefit in avoiding bone loss. And cycling
in our area with numerous opportunities for significant
hill climbing is presumably more weight-bearing than
moderate cycling in flatter regions.
 
C

Chris Neary

Guest
>One quote from the above site:
>"The best activities work all muscle groups. Examples
>include gymnastics, basketball, volleyball, bicycling,
>and soccer. Swimming, while highly beneficial to many
>aspects of health, is not a weight-bearing activity
>and thus does not contribute to increased bone mass."
>
>Cycling is lower impact and less weight-bearing than
>some other forms of exercise, but I didn't see any
>indication in the above report that it wouldn't still
>be of some benefit in avoiding bone loss. And cycling
>in our area with numerous opportunities for significant
>hill climbing is presumably more weight-bearing than
>moderate cycling in flatter regions.


Note that the table on page 176 places stationery cycling in the same
category as swimming (The table does not categorize "real" cycling, but I
can't think of any reason why it's effect on bone health should be
significantly better than stationery cycling).

The same characteristics which make swimming and cycling recommended
alternatives to running for avoiding overuse-type injuries also make them
poor choices for improving bone health.

I would say under the most demanding circumstances cycling might be moved up
to the next classification "Weight-bearing, non-impact activities", making
it the equivalent of *walking* for improving bone health.

Cycling inherently does not contain the impact characteristics necessary for
it to be considered under the most beneficial classification.

From a bone health perspective, is cycling better than doing nothing? YES.

Is it the best choice for improving bone health? NO.

Probably the best approach is to avoid over-specialization in any one
exercise, instead participating in a range of activities for best overall
health.


Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
 
P

Peter

Guest
Chris Neary wrote:

>>One quote from the above site:
>>"The best activities work all muscle groups. Examples
>>include gymnastics, basketball, volleyball, bicycling,
>>and soccer. Swimming, while highly beneficial to many
>>aspects of health, is not a weight-bearing activity
>>and thus does not contribute to increased bone mass."
>>
>>Cycling is lower impact and less weight-bearing than
>>some other forms of exercise, but I didn't see any
>>indication in the above report that it wouldn't still
>>be of some benefit in avoiding bone loss. And cycling
>>in our area with numerous opportunities for significant
>>hill climbing is presumably more weight-bearing than
>>moderate cycling in flatter regions.

>
>
> Note that the table on page 176 places stationery cycling in the same
> category as swimming (The table does not categorize "real" cycling, but I
> can't think of any reason why it's effect on bone health should be
> significantly better than stationery cycling).


I'd guess that most stationary cycling is done at a rather low force
level at uniform pace. That's quite different from regular cycling
where terrain, wind, traffic signals, etc. result in much more varied
exertion levels and increased weight-bearing when starting from stops,
climbing hills, accelerating, etc. Sure, stationary cycling can include
such variations, but it comes naturally with regular cycling, and
especially in hilly regions like the SF bay area.

The quote at the top which I took from the report makes it clear that
regular bicycling is considered to be in a different category than
swimming from the standpoint of weight-bearing.
>
> The same characteristics which make swimming and cycling recommended
> alternatives to running for avoiding overuse-type injuries also make them
> poor choices for improving bone health.
>
> I would say under the most demanding circumstances cycling might be moved up
> to the next classification "Weight-bearing, non-impact activities", making
> it the equivalent of *walking* for improving bone health.


Of course walking is repeatedly cited in the Surgeon General's report as
a very beneficial activity. I don't see that having cycling be the
equivalent of walking for this purpose should be viewed as a negative.
>
> Cycling inherently does not contain the impact characteristics necessary for
> it to be considered under the most beneficial classification.
>
> From a bone health perspective, is cycling better than doing nothing? YES.
>
> Is it the best choice for improving bone health? NO.


I agree but note that your statement above is quite different from that
in your previous post:
"OTOH, weight bearing exercises like jogging help prevent bone loss,
while cycling does not."
>
> Probably the best approach is to avoid over-specialization in any one
> exercise, instead participating in a range of activities for best overall
> health.


Actually I think you said it best before:
"Now the $60K question: Why does it have to be bike riding vs. jogging?
Getting more folks to be more active in *any* manner would pay a myriad
of dividends."

When I look at the list of activities that might be the *best* for
retaining bone mass they all tend to be ones that I'd hate doing and
which from my past experience lead to joint injuries which then restrict
me from other forms of exercise, like bicycling, hiking, kayaking, which
I do enjoy.
Since I don't have a family history of bone-loss issues I'm not going
to be overly concerned that my main activities aren't right up at the
top of the list for avoiding such problems.
 
C

Chris Neary

Guest
>> Note that the table on page 176 places stationery cycling in the same
>> category as swimming (The table does not categorize "real" cycling, but I
>> can't think of any reason why it's effect on bone health should be
>> significantly better than stationery cycling).

>
>I'd guess that most stationary cycling is done at a rather low force
>level at uniform pace. That's quite different from regular cycling
>where terrain, wind, traffic signals, etc. result in much more varied
>exertion levels and increased weight-bearing when starting from stops,
>climbing hills, accelerating, etc. Sure, stationary cycling can include
>such variations, but it comes naturally with regular cycling, and
>especially in hilly regions like the SF bay area.


The report is silent as to what they specifically mean by "stationary
cycling". If they mean plunking someone down on a stationary bike and
grinding away for a set period of time I'd say you're correct. OTOH, if they
mean a well-run spin class, my experience is the quality of the workout is
right up there with the most strenous training rides.

>When I look at the list of activities that might be the *best* for
>retaining bone mass they all tend to be ones that I'd hate doing and
>which from my past experience lead to joint injuries which then restrict
>me from other forms of exercise, like bicycling, hiking, kayaking, which
>I do enjoy.


Hiking is on the "Best" list, so you're covered. But I agree, if the choice
is between not being active and engaging in in an activity which is not the
best for preventing bone loss, it's an easy choice.

>Since I don't have a family history of bone-loss issues I'm not going
>to be overly concerned that my main activities aren't right up at the
>top of the list for avoiding such problems.


A number of "mature" women in our cycling club *are* at risk, and they are
riding less but doing other activities (hiking, running, and weight lifting)
as a result.


Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
 
T

Terry Morse

Guest
Chris Neary wrote:

> Note that the table on page 176 places stationery cycling in the same
> category as swimming (The table does not categorize "real" cycling, but I
> can't think of any reason why it's effect on bone health should be
> significantly better than stationery cycling).


Cycling on the road, as opposed to a stationary bike, induces
vibration, and vibration increases bone density:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_343550.htm

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/
 
R

Roger Zoul

Guest
Chris Neary wrote:
||| One quote from the above site:
||| "The best activities work all muscle groups. Examples
||| include gymnastics, basketball, volleyball, bicycling,
||| and soccer. Swimming, while highly beneficial to many
||| aspects of health, is not a weight-bearing activity
||| and thus does not contribute to increased bone mass."
|||
||| Cycling is lower impact and less weight-bearing than
||| some other forms of exercise, but I didn't see any
||| indication in the above report that it wouldn't still
||| be of some benefit in avoiding bone loss. And cycling
||| in our area with numerous opportunities for significant
||| hill climbing is presumably more weight-bearing than
||| moderate cycling in flatter regions.
||
|| Note that the table on page 176 places stationery cycling in the same
|| category as swimming (The table does not categorize "real" cycling,
|| but I can't think of any reason why it's effect on bone health
|| should be significantly better than stationery cycling).
||
|| The same characteristics which make swimming and cycling recommended
|| alternatives to running for avoiding overuse-type injuries also make
|| them poor choices for improving bone health.
||
|| I would say under the most demanding circumstances cycling might be
|| moved up to the next classification "Weight-bearing, non-impact
|| activities", making it the equivalent of *walking* for improving
|| bone health.
||
|| Cycling inherently does not contain the impact characteristics
|| necessary for it to be considered under the most beneficial
|| classification.

I can't get the report for some reason. What are "impact characteristics"?
I regulary lift weights and I don't suffer any impact from doing so, even
though the activity is weight bearing.

||
|| From a bone health perspective, is cycling better than doing
|| nothing? YES.
||
|| Is it the best choice for improving bone health? NO.
||
|| Probably the best approach is to avoid over-specialization in any one
|| exercise, instead participating in a range of activities for best
|| overall health.

Of course. Cycling is great, but it should not be the only exercise people
get.

||
||
|| Chris Neary
|| [email protected]t
||
|| "Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
|| you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
|| loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
 
C

Claire Petersky

Guest
"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Chris Neary wrote:
>
> > Note that the table on page 176 places stationery cycling in the same
> > category as swimming (The table does not categorize "real" cycling, but

I
> > can't think of any reason why it's effect on bone health should be
> > significantly better than stationery cycling).

>
> Cycling on the road, as opposed to a stationary bike, induces
> vibration, and vibration increases bone density:
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_343550.htm


When you ride, you get more than simple vibration -- at least around here.
Many road are concrete slabs, most notably downtown, and just crossing from
one slab to the other is a minor jolt -- a major one when one of the slabs
has been forced up a little by weather over the years. In a completely
different environment from downtown: when you ride the I-90 trail through
the Mercer Slough wetland, the trail is very rough. You come off the slough
bridge with a stoke-breaking kerthunk, then go rang-a-dang-a-dang-a through
the swamp.

Also, the last time we discussed this topic, I mentioned that if you're in
good enough shape for cycling, you're more like to walk places and use the
stairs, where other people might choose motorized means to get where they're
going.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
Z

Zippy the Pinhead

Guest
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:43:52 -0700, Peter <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Of course walking is repeatedly cited in the Surgeon General's report as
>a very beneficial activity. I don't see that having cycling be the
>equivalent of walking for this purpose should be viewed as a negative.


You've just made me feel a great deal better about my usual approach
to hills.

From now on, I'll just call it "weight-bearing cross-training".
 
C

Chris Neary

Guest
>Cycling on the road, as opposed to a stationary bike, induces
>vibration, and vibration increases bone density:
>
>http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_343550.htm


The author's papers on the subject are available here:
http://www.bme.sunysb.edu/bme/people/faculty/c_rubin.html#pub

They are rather tough sledding unless one is really up on their statistical
analysis (I don't claim to be) but I did glean that a number of variables
are involved and only certain sets of frequency and compliance give the
desired results.

Without knowing more about the typical vibration loadings riders experience
I'd be hesitant at this time to use this research as an endorsement for
cycling.



Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
M

Mike Kruger

Guest
"Zippy the Pinhead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >Of course walking is repeatedly cited in the Surgeon General's report as
> >a very beneficial activity. I don't see that having cycling be the
> >equivalent of walking for this purpose should be viewed as a negative.

>
> You've just made me feel a great deal better about my usual approach
> to hills.
>
> From now on, I'll just call it "weight-bearing cross-training".


I would wager that sometime soon in Bicycling magazine will be a list of 10
reasons why you should go up hills in higher gears. Just like they followed
up their "bike seats can cause impotence" story in 1997 with (a retraction 6
months later and) a later list of reasons why cycling is good for your sex
life.
 
Z

Zippy the Pinhead

Guest
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:01:07 GMT, Chris Neary <[email protected]
> wrote:


>Without knowing more about the typical vibration loadings riders experience
>I'd be hesitant at this time to use this research as an endorsement for
>cycling.


Well, OK, then. Would you endorse vibrators?
 
C

Chris Neary

Guest
>>Without knowing more about the typical vibration loadings riders experience
>>I'd be hesitant at this time to use this research as an endorsement for
>>cycling.

>
>Well, OK, then. Would you endorse vibrators?


Weird trivia: When you enter the search terms ' "bone loss" + vibration '
into the search function for the Nature Magazine site, the first result is a
paper titled:

"Does vibration offer any advantage over visual stimulation studies (VSS)
in the assessment of erectile capacity?"


Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the
same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on
a bicycle" - Helen Keller
 
C

Chris B.

Guest
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:31:11 -0500, Zippy the Pinhead
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:01:07 GMT, Chris Neary <[email protected]
>> wrote:

>
>>Without knowing more about the typical vibration loadings riders experience
>>I'd be hesitant at this time to use this research as an endorsement for
>>cycling.

>
>Well, OK, then. Would you endorse vibrators?


Only the no-spin kind.
 

Similar threads

C
Replies
10
Views
289
Cycling Equipment
David L. Johnson
D
P
Replies
11
Views
400
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J