4 ms·

Is their an equivalent benefit from cycling? Anybody knows?

by frans 4y ago

nradov 4y ago
Cycling certainly has health benefits, but the general recommendation is to combine it with other forms of aerobic and resistance training rather than making it your sole form of exercise. Cycling only works a limited set of muscles, and doesn't generate the impacts or strains necessary to maintain high bone mineral density.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  I read somewhere that you gotta bike twice as long as jogging to get the same benefit. Also, stationary bikes are about half as effective as road biking. It seems that the necessity to maintain balance improves the results. The same with weight machines. Lifting with barbells is more effective, and dumbbells even more so. This is because these require your muscle stabilizers to be engaged, while the machine stabilizes the weight for you. Weight machines are an expensive waste of time.
  - Fricken 4y ago
    Because I commute by bicycle it's a non-expendable part of my day, that's the main benefit. There's no slacking off; rain or shine I bike.
  - nradov 4y ago
    That really depends on what type of benefits you're targeting. Do you want to get stronger? Increase aerobic fitness? Lose weight? Win a race? Running and cycling (or most any other endurance sport) produce similar benefits for your energy systems as long as you hit the same heart rate zones. Most casual athletes find that for a given level of perceived exertion, running causes a slightly higher heart rate due to engaging more different muscles. But cycling is lower impact, so it's easier to sustain a target level for longer training sessions. Thus for general long-term health and fitness purposes it's better to cross train a mix of different sports. Stationary bikes are as effective as road bikes for pure exercise purposes. It's just a matter of hitting the right power output and heart rate. Some pro triathletes now do the majority of their bike training indoors for safety and convenience. It's difficult to follow a structured workout on a road bike while navigating, dodging cars, and stopping at intersections. But with modern smart bike trainers it's easy to hit the exact target at each step and optimize physiological benefits. Some Zwift Academy participants have even scored pro cycling team contacts based on stationary bike workouts. https://www.velonews.com/news/riders-get-pro-contracts-with-canyon-sram-and-alpecin-fenix-through-zwift-academy/ https://www.velonews.com/news/riders-get-pro-contracts-with-... You can buy roller trainers or rocker plates if you want to work on balance but it makes little difference in the training benefits.
thicknavyrain 4y ago
On average, yes, substantially, even _when_ you account for possible risks from accidents and potential pollution exposure: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.0901747 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.0901747
- frans 4y ago
  Very interesting link. Thanks!
jerlam 4y ago
Most assuredly - the article is only comparing "walking" to "no walking", not any other activity. Any exercise is better than no exercise, and harder forms of exercise are better (up to a point which casual people won't reach). These results shouldn't be surprising. Given that cycling usually involves higher heart rates, a larger range of resistance, a larger range of joint movement, more balancing skills, and increased attention requirements, for the same period of time I would expect cycling to be better. And in most American cities, you can actually cycle from your home to another destination, whereas walking will not. Of course, cycling involves greater costs and danger.
- frans 4y ago
  > Of course, cycling involves greater costs and danger. Very true. I considered that too. My solution: - bought a secondhand citybike iso race bike - always helmet & reflective vest - longer but safer route alternative
decafninja 4y ago
Totally unscientific experiment, but for me, walking or cycling I barely break a sweat for short to moderate distances/times. Only if we're talking about longer distances/times do I start to feel even a small amount of exertion. In contrast, even a short run (say, 2 miles, or 20 minutes) I am out of breath, sweating like crazy, and totally exhausted. In other words, unless I am spending a lot of time walking or cycling, I don't feel like I've exercised at all. Whereas even a short run is hard. So if I have a limited time window to exercise, I feel running is a more efficient use of that time?

Is their an equivalent benefit from cycling? Anybody knows?

by frans 4y ago

Is their an equivalent benefit from cycling? Anybody knows?

Cycling certainly has health benefits, but the general recommendation is to combine it with other forms of aerobic and resistance training rather than making it your sole form of exercise. Cycling only works a limited set of muscles, and doesn't generate the impacts or strains necessary to maintain high bone mineral density.

WalterBright 4y ago
I read somewhere that you gotta bike twice as long as jogging to get the same benefit. Also, stationary bikes are about half as effective as road biking. It seems that the necessity to maintain balance improves the results. The same with weight machines. Lifting with barbells is more effective, and dumbbells even more so. This is because these require your muscle stabilizers to be engaged, while the machine stabilizes the weight for you. Weight machines are an expensive waste of time.
- Fricken 4y ago
  Because I commute by bicycle it's a non-expendable part of my day, that's the main benefit. There's no slacking off; rain or shine I bike.
- nradov 4y ago
  That really depends on what type of benefits you're targeting. Do you want to get stronger? Increase aerobic fitness? Lose weight? Win a race? Running and cycling (or most any other endurance sport) produce similar benefits for your energy systems as long as you hit the same heart rate zones. Most casual athletes find that for a given level of perceived exertion, running causes a slightly higher heart rate due to engaging more different muscles. But cycling is lower impact, so it's easier to sustain a target level for longer training sessions. Thus for general long-term health and fitness purposes it's better to cross train a mix of different sports. Stationary bikes are as effective as road bikes for pure exercise purposes. It's just a matter of hitting the right power output and heart rate. Some pro triathletes now do the majority of their bike training indoors for safety and convenience. It's difficult to follow a structured workout on a road bike while navigating, dodging cars, and stopping at intersections. But with modern smart bike trainers it's easy to hit the exact target at each step and optimize physiological benefits. Some Zwift Academy participants have even scored pro cycling team contacts based on stationary bike workouts. https://www.velonews.com/news/riders-get-pro-contracts-with-canyon-sram-and-alpecin-fenix-through-zwift-academy/ https://www.velonews.com/news/riders-get-pro-contracts-with-... You can buy roller trainers or rocker plates if you want to work on balance but it makes little difference in the training benefits.

thicknavyrain 4y ago

On average, yes, substantially, even _when_ you account for possible risks from accidents and potential pollution exposure: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.0901747 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.0901747

frans 4y ago
Very interesting link. Thanks!

jerlam 4y ago

Most assuredly - the article is only comparing "walking" to "no walking", not any other activity. Any exercise is better than no exercise, and harder forms of exercise are better (up to a point which casual people won't reach). These results shouldn't be surprising. Given that cycling usually involves higher heart rates, a larger range of resistance, a larger range of joint movement, more balancing skills, and increased attention requirements, for the same period of time I would expect cycling to be better. And in most American cities, you can actually cycle from your home to another destination, whereas walking will not. Of course, cycling involves greater costs and danger.

frans 4y ago
> Of course, cycling involves greater costs and danger. Very true. I considered that too. My solution: - bought a secondhand citybike iso race bike - always helmet & reflective vest - longer but safer route alternative

decafninja 4y ago

Totally unscientific experiment, but for me, walking or cycling I barely break a sweat for short to moderate distances/times. Only if we're talking about longer distances/times do I start to feel even a small amount of exertion. In contrast, even a short run (say, 2 miles, or 20 minutes) I am out of breath, sweating like crazy, and totally exhausted. In other words, unless I am spending a lot of time walking or cycling, I don't feel like I've exercised at all. Whereas even a short run is hard. So if I have a limited time window to exercise, I feel running is a more efficient use of that time?