4 ms·
Short distances on a bicycle are actually healthier than longer distances. Long distance cyclists tend to have issues with losing bone and muscle density.
by lj3 9y ago
Short distances on a bicycle are actually healthier than longer distances. Long distance cyclists tend to have issues with losing bone and muscle density.
- thinkMOAR 9y agoand don't forget, sitting for long periods are known to lead to prostatitis; specially if you have a poor saddle on your bicycle
- neves 9y agoWhat is a good/bad saddle?
- QuotedForTruth 9y agoOne that fits your butt. Basically you want to have your weight on the sit bones, not the tissue in between. Seats come in different widths and shapes to accommodate different shaped butts.
- two2two 9y agoCustom ones can be made after they scan your pelvic region. Essentially, there's a depressed, or cutout section in the middle with two pads in parallel which should support your bones as the other poster mentioned.
- thinkMOAR 9y agoi don't know, i know i have a bad one, as after 15+ mins of cycling, when i get off the bicycle... can't describe it differently.. my balls sleep... and i can describe that that is not a pleasant feeling. e.g. 10 fold worse then a sleeping foot or leg.
- NegativeLatency 9y agoYou could always get a recumbent
- booleandilemma 9y agoDoes the same apply to walking?
- inopinatus 9y agoSpeaking as a sometime ultra endurance participant I have to say this is misleading. Bone density loss only significantly affects those who practically live on their bikes, such as professional road racers. And even then it is easily attenuated by visiting the gym.