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

[Rush]

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.

[Bill Sornson]

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.

[Chris Neary]

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


"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

[Mark Weaver]

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

[Roger Zoul]

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?

[the black rose]

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

[C A III A]

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" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>
> "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]

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.

[Chris Neary]

>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


"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 A III A]

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" > wrote in message
...
> >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
>
>
> "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

[Mike Kruger]

"HardwareLust" > 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..

[matty j]

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.

[Rick]

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

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(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

[Chris Neary]

>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


"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

[Blair P. Houghton]

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

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."

[Blair P. Houghton]

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?

--Blair
"My bones hurt."

[Blair P. Houghton]

Chris Neary > 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."

[Blair P. Houghton]

HardwareLust > 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."

[[email protected]]

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

[Alan Acock]

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

[Roger Zoul]

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
|| 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
||
|| 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.

[Chris Neary]

>>>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


"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

[Chris Neary]

>>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


Chris Neary


"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

[Peter]

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.

[Chris Neary]

>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


"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

[Peter]

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.

[Chris Neary]

>> 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


"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

[Terry Morse]

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/

[Roger Zoul]

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
||
||
|| "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

[Claire Petersky]

"Terry Morse" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:43:52 -0700, Peter >
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".

[Chris Neary]

>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


"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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:01:07 GMT, Chris Neary
> wrote in message >:

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

Thanks for that, interesting reading.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Mike Kruger]

"Zippy the Pinhead" > 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.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:01:07 GMT, Chris Neary
> 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?

[Chris Neary]

>>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


"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

[Chris B.]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:31:11 -0500, Zippy the Pinhead
> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:01:07 GMT, Chris Neary
>> 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.

[Blair P. Houghton]

Roger Zoul > wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>|| 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.

You can do that running, too.

It's just slower and harder on your feet and knees, and
may involve slowing to a walk to recover.

If you stay below your switchover point (from high
fat burning to high carb burning) you can essentially ride
until you run out of fat. For a 160 lb rider at 20 mph
with 10% bodyfat, that's about 2 days and nights.

--Blair
"You'll have to learn to pee from
your bike, though..."

[Peter Cole]

"Terry Morse" > wrote in message
...
> 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

If that's true, then mountain biking should be even better.

[Terry Morse]

Peter Cole wrote:

> "Terry Morse" wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> If that's true, then mountain biking should be even better.

I suspect that you're right. Mountain biking is much rougher -- even
on a full suspension.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[dgk]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:56:45 -0700, Terry Morse >
wrote:

>Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> "Terry Morse" wrote:
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>> If that's true, then mountain biking should be even better.
>
>I suspect that you're right. Mountain biking is much rougher -- even
>on a full suspension.

I've noticed that mountain biking tends to break bones. Of course, I
wasn't very good at it.

[Peter Cole]

"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:56:45 -0700, Terry Morse >
> wrote:
>
> >Peter Cole wrote:
> >
> >> "Terry Morse" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >>
> >> If that's true, then mountain biking should be even better.
> >
> >I suspect that you're right. Mountain biking is much rougher -- even
> >on a full suspension.
>
> I've noticed that mountain biking tends to break bones. Of course, I
> wasn't very good at it.

No, not true! Well, not after the learning curve period, anyway. I've only
broken ribs twice in 7-8 years. Of course there have been many cuts and
bruises, and a few bad cases of poison ivy, but I'm not worried about
osteoporosis! Seriously, I know as many people who have broken bones on the
road as on the trail. I also think trail skills make you a much better
(safer) road rider.

[Robert Haston]

1. There is no annoying gap between walk and jog speed.

2. Most of your energy is spent blowing wind over you. Jogging in Florida
(particularly downwind) is torture. I've cycled in the most miserable
afternoons, and it only hurts when I stop.

[gds]

(Rush) wrote in message >...
> 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.

Is this true?
I've always understood it a bit different. It isn't that you don't
burn fat at higher levels of exertion; what I've understood is that in
fact you burn fat even faster at 85% than at 65%. But if you are
measuring fat burning per distance covered then the greater work level
results in faster speed so that you cover the distance in less time.
Or, put another way if you are covering a fixed distance you will
cover it much faster.
So, even if your fat burning increases by 5%, and if your speed
increases by 10% then the calories of fat burned per unit of distance
goes down.
But, if you measure fat consumption per unit of time the higher effort
would result in a higher figure.
Can't quote any research but it makes sense at the gut level.

[HardwareLust]

HardwareLust wrote:
> 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.
>

Gotta keep reminding myself, "Do not post when in a bad mood".

My apologies to all.

Regards,
H.

[Terry Morse]

(gds) wrote:

> It isn't that you don't burn fat at higher levels of exertion;
> what I've understood is that in fact you burn fat even faster at
> 85% than at 65%.

I've read that absolute fat metabolic rate peaks at around 65-70%
VO2max, then decreases after that. Here's an excerpt from an article
in Velonews:

"At about 25 percent VO2 max, an intensity comparable to walking.
Eighty percent of the energy is supplied by fat in your blood, and a
bit from blood glucose. When your intensity increases to 65 percent
VO2 max (a slow ride or run), fat burning is at it's peak, but only
50 percent of the fuel is supplied by fat, and 50 percent from
glycogen. About half of the total fat fuel comes from muscle fat.
When training increases to 85 percent VO2 max, total fat burning
decreases slightly because fat cannot be utilized quickly enough to
meet energy needs. Only about 25 percent of this energy comes from
fat, mostly from muscle fat. However, highly trained athletes may
actually obtain 75 percent of their energy needs from fat when
training at 70 percent VO2 max. Endurance athletes are better fat
burners ."
http://www.velonews.com/train/articles/3543.0.html

For those who want to improve their performance on long rides/races,
maximizing fat burning is essential to spare glycogen stores. That's
supposed to be one of the reasons for doing all the "zone 2" (66-72%
of max. heart rate) training in the early season.

[gds]

Terry Morse > wrote in message >...
>
> I've read that absolute fat metabolic rate peaks at around 65-70%
> VO2max, then decreases after that. Here's an excerpt from an article
> in Velonews:
>
> "At about 25 percent VO2 max, an intensity comparable to walking.
> Eighty percent of the energy is supplied by fat in your blood, and a
> bit from blood glucose. When your intensity increases to 65 percent
> VO2 max (a slow ride or run), fat burning is at it's peak, but only
> 50 percent of the fuel is supplied by fat, and 50 percent from
> glycogen. About half of the total fat fuel comes from muscle fat.
> When training increases to 85 percent VO2 max, total fat burning
> decreases slightly because fat cannot be utilized quickly enough to
> meet energy needs. Only about 25 percent of this energy comes from
> fat, mostly from muscle fat. However, highly trained athletes may
> actually obtain 75 percent of their energy needs from fat when
> training at 70 percent VO2 max. Endurance athletes are better fat
> burners ."
> http://www.velonews.com/train/articles/3543.0.html
>
> For those who want to improve their performance on long rides/races,
> maximizing fat burning is essential to spare glycogen stores. That's
> supposed to be one of the reasons for doing all the "zone 2" (66-72%
> of max. heart rate) training in the early season.

OK, but this isn't inconsistent with my point-- I think.
The article you quote talks about percentages of total burned
attributed to fat. But one still needs to calcualte the absolute
amount. So, hypothetically you can burn a smaller percentage from fat
but still burn more fat if your total energy consumptuion is higher by
enough. I don't have the data at my hands but the algebra certainly
works over a large range of values.

Anecdotally folks who ride a lot at the cardio level seem to be leaner
than folks who train mostly at the fat burning level. A riders tend
to be leaner than B who are leaner than C riders etc. So those who are
working harder seem to also be able to burn fat pretty well.(Of course
total training plays a role here as well as intensity)

[the black rose]

gds wrote:
> The article you quote talks about percentages of total burned
> attributed to fat. But one still needs to calcualte the absolute
> amount. So, hypothetically you can burn a smaller percentage from fat
> but still burn more fat if your total energy consumptuion is higher by
> enough. I don't have the data at my hands but the algebra certainly
> works over a large range of values.

I've seen the same sort of figures, somewhere, I can't remember where.
The thing that sticks out in my mind goes something like: at 65% vo2max,
you're burning a higher percentage of fat, but at 75% vo2max, you're
burning a lower percentage but a higher total amount of fat and a lot
more energy. And IIRC, your energy consumption isn't a linear
progression as your percentage of vo2max goes up.

> Anecdotally folks who ride a lot at the cardio level seem to be leaner
> than folks who train mostly at the fat burning level. A riders tend
> to be leaner than B who are leaner than C riders etc. So those who are
> working harder seem to also be able to burn fat pretty well.(Of course
> total training plays a role here as well as intensity)

Funny how that works, ain't it? *grin*

-km

--
Only cowards fight kids -- unidentified Moscow protester

http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
proud to be owned by a yorkie