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

"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..

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 ,
(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


"Science, freedom, beauty, adventu what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

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."

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."

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."

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."

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