Bicycling & health benefits of?

We hear a lot about bicycling having health benefits forthe one doing the bicycling. Yet a lot of CASUAL bicyclists are not all that healthy.

So, in order to gain NOTICEABLE health benefits from bicycling:

1a. How long in time does each ride need to be?
1b. What intensity does the bicyclist need to reach?

Cheers

On 10/1/2017 9:56 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
We hear a lot about bicycling having health benefits forthe one doing the bicycling. Yet a lot of CASUAL bicyclists are not all that healthy.

So, in order to gain NOTICEABLE health benefits from bicycling:

1a. How long in time does each ride need to be?
1b. What intensity does the bicyclist need to reach?

Well, there's this:
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/P....aspx#moderate

They say "at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity such as
cycling or brisk walking every week" or "75 minutes of vigorous aerobic
activity, such as running or a game of singles tennis every week" plus
strength exercises. Following links from that page tells you that flat
riding is "moderate," fast or hilly riding is "vigorous."

So 10 to 20 minutes per day does it, depending how fast you are. And I
suspect most of us here would be considered fast, even though most of us
are probably slow by our "used to be" standards.

"The older I get, the faster I was."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/1/2017 9:56 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
We hear a lot about bicycling having health benefits forthe one doing the bicycling. Yet a lot of CASUAL bicyclists are not all that healthy.

So, in order to gain NOTICEABLE health benefits from bicycling:

1a. How long in time does each ride need to be?
1b. What intensity does the bicyclist need to reach?

Well, there's this:
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/P....aspx#moderate

They say "at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity such as
cycling or brisk walking every week" or "75 minutes of vigorous aerobic
activity, such as running or a game of singles tennis every week" plus
strength exercises. Following links from that page tells you that flat
riding is "moderate," fast or hilly riding is "vigorous."

So 10 to 20 minutes per day does it, depending how fast you are. And I
suspect most of us here would be considered fast, even though most of us
are probably slow by our "used to be" standards.

"The older I get, the faster I was."

--
- Frank Krygowski

I wonder if they built the facilities that Joerg states are mandatory to get non-bicyclists onto bicycles if those new bicyclists would ride that hard for that long?

I've tried to get some people in my building interested in bicycling; even to the point of offering them the use of one of my spare bicycles. I got told that theweather was too hot, too cold, too wet and so on. In other words those people had no intention of riding a bicycle even though we have roads with bike lanes on them or very quiet roads that go 2 miles to a 50 miles long rail-trail.

People who will ride a bicycle will ride; those who won't ride won't ride. No matter how much bicycling infrastructure you build for them they'll have some excuse to not ride.

Cheers

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 13:41:12 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/1/2017 9:56 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
We hear a lot about bicycling having health benefits forthe one doing the bicycling. Yet a lot of CASUAL bicyclists are not all that healthy.

So, in order to gain NOTICEABLE health benefits from bicycling:

1a. How long in time does each ride need to be?
1b. What intensity does the bicyclist need to reach?

Well, there's this:
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/P....aspx#moderate

They say "at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity such as
cycling or brisk walking every week" or "75 minutes of vigorous aerobic
activity, such as running or a game of singles tennis every week" plus
strength exercises. Following links from that page tells you that flat
riding is "moderate," fast or hilly riding is "vigorous."

So 10 to 20 minutes per day does it, depending how fast you are. And I
suspect most of us here would be considered fast, even though most of us
are probably slow by our "used to be" standards.

"The older I get, the faster I was."

--
- Frank Krygowski

I wonder if they built the facilities that Joerg states are mandatory to get non-bicyclists onto bicycles if those new bicyclists would ride that hard for that long?

I've tried to get some people in my building interested in bicycling; even to the point of offering them the use of one of my spare bicycles. I got told that theweather was too hot, too cold, too wet and so on. In other words those people had no intention of riding a bicycle even though we have roads with bike lanes on them or very quiet roads that go 2 miles to a 50 miles long rail-trail.

People who will ride a bicycle will ride; those who won't ride won't ride. No matter how much bicycling infrastructure you build for them they'll have some excuse to not ride.

Cheers

I think that you've hit the nail directly on the head.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/1/2017 9:56 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
We hear a lot about bicycling having health benefits forthe one doing the bicycling. Yet a lot of CASUAL bicyclists are not all that healthy.

So, in order to gain NOTICEABLE health benefits from bicycling:

1a. How long in time does each ride need to be?
1b. What intensity does the bicyclist need to reach?

Well, there's this:
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/P....aspx#moderate

They say "at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity such as
cycling or brisk walking every week" or "75 minutes of vigorous aerobic
activity, such as running or a game of singles tennis every week" plus
strength exercises. Following links from that page tells you that flat
riding is "moderate," fast or hilly riding is "vigorous."

So 10 to 20 minutes per day does it, depending how fast you are. And I
suspect most of us here would be considered fast, even though most of us
are probably slow by our "used to be" standards.

"The older I get, the faster I was."

--
- Frank Krygowski

I wonder if they built the facilities that Joerg states are mandatory to get non-bicyclists onto bicycles if those new bicyclists would ride that hard for that long?

I've tried to get some people in my building interested in bicycling; even to the point of offering them the use of one of my spare bicycles. I got told that theweather was too hot, too cold, too wet and so on. In other words those people had no intention of riding a bicycle even though we have roads with bike lanes on them or very quiet roads that go 2 miles to a 50 miles long rail-trail.

People who will ride a bicycle will ride; those who won't ride won't ride.. No matter how much bicycling infrastructure you build for them they'll have some excuse to not ride.

But there is that small subset of people that if you have rails to trails so that they feel relatively isolated from asshole drivers WILL take up cycling and gradually grow in confidence. Especially with the help of bike clubs.

On 2017-10-02 08:43, wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/1/2017 9:56 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
We hear a lot about bicycling having health benefits forthe one
doing the bicycling. Yet a lot of CASUAL bicyclists are not all
that healthy.

So, in order to gain NOTICEABLE health benefits from
bicycling:

1a. How long in time does each ride need to be? 1b. What
intensity does the bicyclist need to reach?

Well, there's this:
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/P....aspx#moderate



They say "at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity such as
cycling or brisk walking every week" or "75 minutes of vigorous
aerobic activity, such as running or a game of singles tennis
every week" plus strength exercises. Following links from that
page tells you that flat riding is "moderate," fast or hilly
riding is "vigorous."

So 10 to 20 minutes per day does it, depending how fast you are.


The last five words are key. It doesn't matter whether you go uphill or
not, what matters is how much your heart rate goes up and is kept there.
That can be achieved either by long climbs or by shifting up and
stepping on it. I prefer the latter.

At my last check-up at Kaiser the questionaire had check boxes for
vigorous activity per week. The highest one was 60-120mins. So I added a
120-240min box by hand and checked that ...


And I suspect most of us here would be considered fast, even
though most of us are probably slow by our "used to be"
standards.

"The older I get, the faster I was."

-- - Frank Krygowski

I wonder if they built the facilities that Joerg states are
mandatory to get non-bicyclists onto bicycles if those new
bicyclists would ride that hard for that long?

I've tried to get some people in my building interested in
bicycling; even to the point of offering them the use of one of my
spare bicycles. I got told that theweather was too hot, too cold,
too wet and so on. In other words those people had no intention of
riding a bicycle even though we have roads with bike lanes on them
or very quiet roads that go 2 miles to a 50 miles long rail-trail.

People who will ride a bicycle will ride; those who won't ride
won't ride. No matter how much bicycling infrastructure you build
for them they'll have some excuse to not ride.

But there is that small subset of people that if you have rails to
trails so that they feel relatively isolated from asshole drivers
WILL take up cycling and gradually grow in confidence. Especially
with the help of bike clubs.


There are a lot of those people, it is not a small sub-set. I'd venture
to say the majority of riders in our area. This is clearly evidenced by
the number of riders who cart their bikes to the bike path, unload and
then start their sports ride or mixed-mode commute.

Further evidence on a regular basis is when I ask neighbors "Want to
come along?" ... "You mean we have to use Green Valley Road? No! How
about we truck the bikes to Folsom?" ... to which I sometimes grudgingly
agree.

So yes, they do ride and they actually ride a lot. But not on roads.
When we ride together they are certainly no slowpokes either.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 5:58:02 PM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:

But there is that small subset of people that if you have rails to
trails so that they feel relatively isolated from asshole drivers
WILL take up cycling and gradually grow in confidence. Especially
with the help of bike clubs.


There are a lot of those people, it is not a small sub-set. I'd venture
to say the majority of riders in our area. This is clearly evidenced by
the number of riders who cart their bikes to the bike path, unload and
then start their sports ride or mixed-mode commute.



Thankfully I live in a city that has miles and miles of bike trails in town and out of town. Several hundred miles in total trails. It definitely helps get people on bicycles. There is a bar/town about 10 miles down one trail. In the summer there are several hundred people riding to the bar and back several evenings a week. I don't really care if the net benefit is a detriment to them or not. Or whether they are healthy or not. As long as they are riding a bike, its good. The trails see a lot of activity. I don't know if these people would bicycle without trails or not. Some would not. Some would.

Per Joerg:
They say "at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity such as
cycling or brisk walking every week" or "75 minutes of vigorous
aerobic activity, such as running or a game of singles tennis
every week" plus strength exercises. Following links from that
page tells you that flat riding is "moderate," fast or hilly
riding is "vigorous."

I see the same sort of pronouncements from supposedly-knowledgeable
people in other fields.

Heaven forbid they should express activity in concrete terms like "heart
rate at 85-95 percent of (220 - The Person's Age).

But nobody seems to, so I am taking "Vigorous" to me 85-90 percent of
(220 - my age) until somebody in the know corrects me.

But my cardiologist looks at me funny when I start talking like that....
so go figure.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 6:56:32 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
We hear a lot about bicycling having health benefits forthe one doing the bicycling. Yet a lot of CASUAL bicyclists are not all that healthy.

So, in order to gain NOTICEABLE health benefits from bicycling:

1a. How long in time does each ride need to be?
1b. What intensity does the bicyclist need to reach?

There might also be mentioned that most people exercise and fail to see any immediate responses and cease. The Saturday group I ride with are all 70+ and one, who just had his attention taken away by a close call with a car hit a 2x4 and went down on his face, is 85 now. He spent a couple of days in the hospital and is presently staying with his sister.

One of the things that urks me is that these people's children generally don't have anything to do with them unless they are getting things in return. My older brother hasn't seen any of his four or five kids from two of his four wives. Of course he doesn't really encourage them either. My younger brother only sees his kids often because he initiates it.

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 6:56:32 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
We hear a lot about bicycling having health benefits forthe one doing the bicycling. Yet a lot of CASUAL bicyclists are not all that healthy.

So, in order to gain NOTICEABLE health benefits from bicycling:

1a. How long in time does each ride need to be?
1b. What intensity does the bicyclist need to reach?

Cheers

https://www.google.com/search?source...2..Yobd_7fwPL8

intervals and nutritional prep.., stretching ex before n after

verus strain on pudendum and upper torso organ cramping

https://www.google.com/search?source...97.VU6RciRaFMI