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



R

Rush

Guest
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
cardio training, and your body cannot metabolize fat at a fast enough
rate to supply energy at this level of exertion, it therefor
metabolized carbohydrate and not fat, uses up glycogen stores in the
liver. This results in an increase in appetite for carbohydrates to
restore glycogen stores, and in the meanwhile, not as much fat is
lost. Of course, running uses more energy per hour, but it is much
easier I think to ride your bike for an hour than to jog for 1/2 hour,
and you will burn as much calories on a hard bike ride as jogging
lazily. YOu burn half the calories as jogging if you are just riding
very comfortably, at 13 mph, which is barely making an effort, that's
just relaxing, cruising speed.

I post this because I believe the more people who take up biking,
the more support will gather for designing communities that take into
account bike accessability. We have these suburban labyrinths and
there's no connecting paths from one section to the other, you'd have
to either go through someone's yard, or go 3 miles around out the
suburb and come back in, to get to a point 50 yards away. People
usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable
cutting through someone's yard. I don't see why there is no
consideration for pedestrians who want to walk from point a to b, or
bike from point a to b, in a efficient manner, and not have to follow
a maze of roads for 6 miles to get to a point 30 yards away.
 
Rush 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
> cardio training, and your body cannot metabolize fat at a fast enough
> rate to supply energy at this level of exertion, it therefor
> metabolized carbohydrate and not fat, uses up glycogen stores in the
> liver. This results in an increase in appetite for carbohydrates to
> restore glycogen stores, and in the meanwhile, not as much fat is
> lost. Of course, running uses more energy per hour, but it is much
> easier I think to ride your bike for an hour than to jog for 1/2 hour,
> and you will burn as much calories on a hard bike ride as jogging
> lazily. YOu burn half the calories as jogging if you are just riding
> very comfortably, at 13 mph, which is barely making an effort, that's
> just relaxing, cruising speed.
>
> I post this because I believe the more people who take up biking,
> the more support will gather for designing communities that take into
> account bike accessability. We have these suburban labyrinths and
> there's no connecting paths from one section to the other, you'd have
> to either go through someone's yard, or go 3 miles around out the
> suburb and come back in, to get to a point 50 yards away. People
> usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable
> cutting through someone's yard. I don't see why there is no
> consideration for pedestrians who want to walk from point a to b, or
> bike from point a to b, in a efficient manner, and not have to follow
> a maze of roads for 6 miles to get to a point 30 yards away.

Laudable cause, but entirely false premise.

Bill "running burns WAY more" S.
 
OTOH, weight bearing exercises like jogging help prevent bone loss, while
cycling does not.

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.


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
 
For me, biking is the better way because when I run consistently, sooner or
later I get some nagging injury that forces me to take time off (sore knee,
sore hip, something). But that never happens with biking. The only real
limit on my biking is time. I am conscious, though, that riding isn't
weight bearing excercize, so I do mix in at least some activity that
involves running (softball, basketball, the occasion 2-3 mile run).

But, unfortunately, as the weather gets colder and wetter, I'll be running
more and biking less. I just can't make myself do any significant distance
on a exercize bike or trainer--yuck.

Mark
 
Rush wrote:
:: The science of fat metabolism. why biking burns fat better than
:: jogging.
:: Fat burning occurs when you are at 65 percent heart rate.

Not true!

85% is
:: cardio training, and your body cannot metabolize fat at a fast enough
:: rate to supply energy at this level of exertion, it therefor
:: metabolized carbohydrate and not fat, uses up glycogen stores in the
:: liver. This results in an increase in appetite for carbohydrates to
:: restore glycogen stores, and in the meanwhile, not as much fat is
:: lost.

:: Of course, running uses more energy per hour,

Why?

but it is much
:: easier I think to ride your bike for an hour than to jog for 1/2
:: hour,

That depends.

and you will burn as much calories on a hard bike ride as
:: jogging lazily.

YOu burn half the calories as jogging if you are
:: just riding very comfortably, at 13 mph, which is barely making an
:: effort, that's just relaxing, cruising speed.

Says who?

::
:: I post this because I believe the more people who take up biking,
:: the more support will gather for designing communities that take into
:: account bike accessability.

I support that, but running is good too.

We have these suburban labyrinths and
:: there's no connecting paths from one section to the other, you'd have
:: to either go through someone's yard, or go 3 miles around out the
:: suburb and come back in, to get to a point 50 yards away. People
:: usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable
:: cutting through someone's yard. I don't see why there is no
:: consideration for pedestrians who want to walk from point a to b, or
:: bike from point a to b, in a efficient manner, and not have to follow
:: a maze of roads for 6 miles to get to a point 30 yards away.

You can do better than that, can't you?
 
Rush 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
> cardio training, and your body cannot metabolize fat at a fast enough
> rate to supply energy at this level of exertion, it therefor
> metabolized carbohydrate and not fat, uses up glycogen stores in the
> liver. This results in an increase in appetite for carbohydrates to
> restore glycogen stores, and in the meanwhile, not as much fat is
> lost. Of course, running uses more energy per hour, but it is much
> easier I think to ride your bike for an hour than to jog for 1/2 hour,
> and you will burn as much calories on a hard bike ride as jogging
> lazily. YOu burn half the calories as jogging if you are just riding
> very comfortably, at 13 mph, which is barely making an effort, that's
> just relaxing, cruising speed.
>
> I post this because I believe the more people who take up biking,
> the more support will gather for designing communities that take into
> account bike accessability. We have these suburban labyrinths and
> there's no connecting paths from one section to the other, you'd have
> to either go through someone's yard, or go 3 miles around out the
> suburb and come back in, to get to a point 50 yards away. People
> usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable
> cutting through someone's yard. I don't see why there is no
> consideration for pedestrians who want to walk from point a to b, or
> bike from point a to b, in a efficient manner, and not have to follow
> a maze of roads for 6 miles to get to a point 30 yards away.

Mmm, I give it a C-.

-km

--
Only cowards fight kids -- unidentified Moscow protester

http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
proud to be owned by a yorkie
 
Jogging has more negative effects in the long run as compared to cycling.
More pressure on the joints where the impact as 2+ times your weight. In
cycling the major consideration is the knees and even they get less strain
than joggers'.
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.


"Chris Neary" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OTOH, weight bearing exercises like jogging help prevent bone loss, while
> cycling does not.
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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
 
Rush wrote:
> People
> usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable
> cutting through someone's yard.

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
devices, both powered and unpowered, on a daily basis. There is a complete
and utter lack of respect for other people's property in this backwards ass
hick town I live in.

Apparently enough, there are damn few people who "don't feel comfortable
cutting through someone's yard". I wish I had dogs again. When I had my
Great Danes (2 big ol' brindles...they are a joy!) sleeping on my porch, no
one came within 50 yards of my house without getting a stern warning from
one or the other. 120+ pounds of mean-ass snarling dog tends to instill
respect in the otherwise lawless populace.

Mebbe it's time to get some new doggies. I think that's a fine idea.

Regards,
H.
 
>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'

and:

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




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
 
My point is that women (aftermenapausal) will lose more bone if they were an
ex-jogger. Cycling in general would cause less bone growth. But if compared
to an ex-jogger, ex-cyclist will lose less bone. The percentage loss will be
more of a problem, since body will not know what is going on and will more
likely to be damaged.

"Chris Neary" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >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'
>
> and:
>
> http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20041014.html
>
>
>
>
> 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
 
"HardwareLust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:YNUbd.702$n81.283@trnddc08...
>
> 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
> devices, both powered and unpowered, on a daily basis. There is a
complete
> and utter lack of respect for other people's property in this backwards
ass
> hick town I live in.
>
> Apparently enough, there are damn few people who "don't feel comfortable
> cutting through someone's yard". I wish I had dogs again. ... 120+
pounds of mean-ass snarling dog tends to instill
> respect in the otherwise lawless populace.
>
> Mebbe it's time to get some new doggies. I think that's a fine idea.

Free advice: you would probably be happier if you didn't live on a corner
lot..
 
i think most of us who are very active find that all this exercise
stuff helps us maintain our weight but without a cut in calories not
much weight loss.i think we all tend to just eat more the more active
we are.i think we can eat more and not gain weight but the jury is
still out on the weight loss part..again this is without some sort of
calorie restriction in your exercise plan.
 
matty j wrote:
> i think most of us who are very active find that all this exercise
> stuff helps us maintain our weight but without a cut in calories not
> much weight loss.i think we all tend to just eat more the more active
> we are.i think we can eat more and not gain weight but the jury is
> still out on the weight loss part..again this is without some sort of
> calorie restriction in your exercise plan.

This isn't exactly true. You can lose weight by diet, or exercise,
alone, if the conditions are correct. Keeping the weight off is another
issue. Americans (I can't speak for the rest of the world) tend to eat
considerably more calories than they need. A couple of hours of exercise
(for most of us) results in 2 hours where no high-caloric foods are
consumed (locking some folks into a room might have the same effect).
The actual number of Kcalories burned in exercise is surprisingly low
because the biomechanical system is way too efficient.

Moderate exercise reduces caloric intake according to a number of
physiological studies. However, caloric intake increases in an
individual if exercise exceeds some threshold (this depends upon
individual metabolism, muscle mass, etc.), but generally, not to the
point where weight gain is a factor. Halting exercise, however, does
result in weight gain in these individuals if they do not reduce caloric
intake as a result (the body still needs to feed the muscle mass, even
though the exercise isn't maintaining those muscles).

So, cycling, which can be done for several hours at a time, will, in
most, produce significanly more weight loss than running simply because
most of us can sustain the exercise for a longer period of time. Cycling
is also less damaging to the skeleton, though knee injuries, especially
doing hill work, are not uncommon.

Bone mass can be maintined, if that is a concern, with a moderate
resistance training program done a few times a week. Those who continue
to exercise lose less bone mass than those who don't. As for runners, or
anyone, who stops their exercise program, loss of bone mass is a
concern. The benefits of running in this area are that you will regain
bone mass (or reduce loss) more quickly because the body needs a strong
skeleton to perform the exercise and will seek to protect itself from
damage. Weight training can reverse bone mass loss, however, and should
be part of your program, even if you are cycling.

Rick
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Rush) writes:

> I post this because I believe the more people who take up biking,
> the more support will gather for designing communities that take into
> account bike accessability.

The health/fitness line is only one of several that can be used
to promote cycling. There's also money and time savings, although
a lot of people seem to be more reluctant to confess they cycle
for economy, than for fitness. And then there's the environmental
thing, less stress/more convenience than driving, and the best one
of all -- riding is simply a pleasure.

As for "designing communities that take into account bike
accessability": pedestrian accessibility (including accessibility
for physically disabled people) goes hand-in-hand with that.
Areas that are more pedestrian accessible tend to also be more
bike accessible, and vice versa. So really, if one is to be
promoted, so should the other. That way you can get more people
on-side -- people who might not necessarily want to ride from A
to B, but wouldn't mind being able to walk from A to B.

> We have these suburban labyrinths and
> there's no connecting paths from one section to the other, you'd have
> to either go through someone's yard, or go 3 miles around out the
> suburb and come back in, to get to a point 50 yards away.

Maybe what's really needed is to get real estate developers
hooked on riding. Or persuade them that developments with
human-powered transportation facilities would be more lucrative
for them than the usual cul-de-sac hell. But I think that
endeavour wouldn't even have a snowball's hope in a urinal;
those developers want to keep it 'affordable' for the buyers
while maximizing their own returns. They do that by avoiding
facilities, not by putting them in.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
>Maybe what's really needed is to get real estate developers
>hooked on riding. Or persuade them that developments with
>human-powered transportation facilities would be more lucrative
>for them than the usual cul-de-sac hell. But I think that
>endeavour wouldn't even have a snowball's hope in a urinal;
>those developers want to keep it 'affordable' for the buyers
>while maximizing their own returns. They do that by avoiding
>facilities, not by putting them in.

The SF Bay Area is finally grasping the fact that the $$$'s don't exist for
all the road infrastructure necessary for the typical housing developments,
so a number of cities of buying into the concept of "Transit Villages",
which higher density developments built around BART stations and similar
locations. Such developments are inherently walking and cycling friendly.


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
 
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.

And if it's comfortable, you may ride for an hour instead
of half an hour, and that will certainly improve your
calorie output.

--Blair
"If you aren't breathing hard you're
going too slow; but if you can't carry
on a conversation, you're going too fast."
 
Chris Neary <[email protected] > wrote:
>OTOH, weight bearing exercises like jogging help prevent bone loss, while
>cycling does not.

What kind of swimming pool do you cycle in?

--Blair
"My bones hurt."
 
Chris Neary <[email protected] > wrote:
>>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'

Password protected binary text...

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

Says nothing about cycling.

--Blair
"Differ better."
 
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]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back