A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bicycling & health benefits of?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old October 16th 17, 10:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,507
Default Bicycling & health benefits of?

On 2017-10-16 14:11, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per John B.:
The feet are self healing and will grow to
accommodate even black top pavement.


But will my living room carpet grow to accommodate those feet?


Or your wife when she sees the results on the carpet. Old Southern
saying "If momma ain't gonna be happy, ain't nobody gonna be happy".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #32  
Old October 17th 17, 02:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default Bicycling & health benefits of?

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 4:08:32 AM UTC-4, wrote:


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.


I think there's no doubt that bike trails get more people on bikes... on the
bike trails. They function as linear parks, and they're popular that way. As
I've said, I enjoy well-designed bike trails, except when they're crowded.
The random motions of pedestrians and novice cyclists can be scary.

Well-designed, well maintained Bike trails generally a good thing, but there are
a few detriments. One is that they are frequently promoted and funded as
"transportation" facilities. They really should be paid for out of park funds,
because in almost all cases, 99% of their use is recreation, not transportation.
That would allow their rather high cost to be applied to real bike
transportation problems.

They're also promoted (e.g. by Joerg) as facilities that will cause great
surges in bike mode share. But that almost never happens, mostly because most
of them use abandoned rail line routes that don't connect enough traffic
generators. So boosting mode share is a false sales pitch.

Another problem is the idea that if bike trails exist, cyclists should not ride
on roads. This idea is in the mind of some motorists, like those that have
yelled "get on the bike trail" when I was on a quiet country road nowhere near
a trail.

But that mentality also exists among some cyclists. The major long-distance
bike trail in our area has a gap of a few miles where the owners of the
right-of-way don't want to sell. It's no problem, because it's parallel to a
very quiet country road. But some riders complain that they can't ride beyond
the gap because they'd have to ride on (gasp!) a road. In one online discussion
where I pointed out how peaceful the road is, I was told "Some of us just don't
want to ride on roads."

So, while I'm OK with building bike trails, I'd like them to be promoted and
financed more honestly. And I think we need to do plenty of education, plus
enough legal work, to ensure that we aren't forced off the roads onto the
trails.

- Frank Krygowski


One thing that I've always wondered about in the "bike paths"
discussion is does the presence or absence of bike paths (by whatever
name) actually contribute to the long term use of bicycles by the
general public?

For example there were 20.9 million bicycles sold in 2000 and 14.9
million sold in 2009.

Another thing, it seems to me that number of "cyclists" are sometimes
based on some pretty loose values. One report I read counted cyclists
as "has ridden a bicycle at least once in the last year".

Another, "THE U.S. BICYCLE MARKET, A Trend Overview, Author: Brad
Edmondson" (study period 2000 - 2010)
counted anyone that has ridden 6 times in the last year, in one
portion of the report and as anyone that has ridden 110 days in the
past 12 months in another.

Comparing the two statistics it appears that the 6 times a year
numbers decreased over the study period from ~15% of the population to
~13% of the population. The 110 day riders remained basically flat
from 8.7% of the population in 2000 to 8.1% in 2010.

Based on those numbers it appears that among the (can we say
dedicated) cyclists that bike paths may not be a major factor.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #33  
Old October 17th 17, 02:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default Bicycling & health benefits of?

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:52:51 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-10-16 04:16, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:02:00 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-10-09 21:09, Tim McNamara wrote:


[...]

And a walk is inexpensive.


Not really when seen per mile. I walk about two miles every day so
that's around 700mi/year. A pair of $30 sports shoes wears out within a
year so 4c/mile. I get more than that out of a road bike rear tire.
Sandals don't wear out that fast for whatever reason but can't be used
much in winter.


Get rid of the shoes. The feet are self healing and will grow to
accommodate even black top pavement.

I would add, before you start you say it is impossible, that Zola Budd
set the world 5,000 metre record running barefoot. Her mile best of
4:17.57 in 1985, still stands as the British record. Barefooted.


Oh, I could, since I already walk and bicycle with sandals all summer
long. Problem is, without any shoes one carries the dirt into the house
because you can't switch feet at the entrance door, and that will make
the missus grumpy (rightfully so). Especially when coming back from a
dirt trail.


How primitive. The Thais, who were essentially shoeless in years gone
by solved the problem by placed a tub of water outside the door and
washed their feet before going in the house.

P.S. We did the same thing working in the Jungle where one's boots
tended to be covered with mud.

As for blacktop that is risky because it can get so hot in summer that
it even burns up the most impressive calluses.


[...]

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #34  
Old October 17th 17, 03:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default Bicycling & health benefits of?

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:11:53 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per John B.:
The feet are self healing and will grow to
accommodate even black top pavement.


But will my living room carpet grow to accommodate those feet?


As I told Joerg, just wash your feet :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #35  
Old October 17th 17, 06:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,349
Default Bicycling & health benefits of?

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 8:45:13 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 4:08:32 AM UTC-4, wrote:


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.


I think there's no doubt that bike trails get more people on bikes... on the
bike trails. They function as linear parks, and they're popular that way.. As
I've said, I enjoy well-designed bike trails, except when they're crowded.
The random motions of pedestrians and novice cyclists can be scary.

Well-designed, well maintained Bike trails generally a good thing, but there are
a few detriments. One is that they are frequently promoted and funded as
"transportation" facilities. They really should be paid for out of park funds,
because in almost all cases, 99% of their use is recreation, not transportation.
That would allow their rather high cost to be applied to real bike
transportation problems.

They're also promoted (e.g. by Joerg) as facilities that will cause great
surges in bike mode share. But that almost never happens, mostly because most
of them use abandoned rail line routes that don't connect enough traffic
generators. So boosting mode share is a false sales pitch.

Another problem is the idea that if bike trails exist, cyclists should not ride
on roads. This idea is in the mind of some motorists, like those that have
yelled "get on the bike trail" when I was on a quiet country road nowhere near
a trail.

But that mentality also exists among some cyclists. The major long-distance
bike trail in our area has a gap of a few miles where the owners of the
right-of-way don't want to sell. It's no problem, because it's parallel to a
very quiet country road. But some riders complain that they can't ride beyond
the gap because they'd have to ride on (gasp!) a road. In one online discussion
where I pointed out how peaceful the road is, I was told "Some of us just don't
want to ride on roads."

So, while I'm OK with building bike trails, I'd like them to be promoted and
financed more honestly. And I think we need to do plenty of education, plus
enough legal work, to ensure that we aren't forced off the roads onto the
trails.

- Frank Krygowski


One thing that I've always wondered about in the "bike paths"
discussion is does the presence or absence of bike paths (by whatever
name) actually contribute to the long term use of bicycles by the
general public?

For example there were 20.9 million bicycles sold in 2000 and 14.9
million sold in 2009.


2009? Comparing year 2000 to year 2009 is very dubious. 2009 was in the middle of the recent financial crisis. So your numbers are foolish. Even if they are true. I would guess that the number of cars sold in 2000 was also higher than the number of cars sold in 2009.



Another thing, it seems to me that number of "cyclists" are sometimes
based on some pretty loose values. One report I read counted cyclists
as "has ridden a bicycle at least once in the last year".

Another, "THE U.S. BICYCLE MARKET, A Trend Overview, Author: Brad
Edmondson" (study period 2000 - 2010)
counted anyone that has ridden 6 times in the last year, in one
portion of the report and as anyone that has ridden 110 days in the
past 12 months in another.

Comparing the two statistics it appears that the 6 times a year
numbers decreased over the study period from ~15% of the population to
~13% of the population. The 110 day riders remained basically flat
from 8.7% of the population in 2000 to 8.1% in 2010.


I am pretty sure I qualify as a serious, dedicated cyclist. But I don't know if I cycle 110 days per year. That is pretty much every three days. Little bit more than twice per week. Where I live I cycle 2 times in Dec-Jan-Feb months. And other weeks where I am lucky to cycle once per week.



Based on those numbers it appears that among the (can we say
dedicated) cyclists that bike paths may not be a major factor.


True. I started cycling fairly seriously before bike trails were even invented. Bike trails, bike lanes, bike rental sharing, other bike infrastructure did not exist when I started cycling.


--
Cheers,

John B.


  #36  
Old October 17th 17, 06:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,349
Default Bicycling & health benefits of?

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 8:45:13 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:


Another thing, it seems to me that number of "cyclists" are sometimes
based on some pretty loose values. One report I read counted cyclists
as "has ridden a bicycle at least once in the last year".

Another, "THE U.S. BICYCLE MARKET, A Trend Overview, Author: Brad
Edmondson" (study period 2000 - 2010)
counted anyone that has ridden 6 times in the last year, in one
portion of the report and as anyone that has ridden 110 days in the
past 12 months in another.

Comparing the two statistics it appears that the 6 times a year
numbers decreased over the study period from ~15% of the population to
~13% of the population. The 110 day riders remained basically flat
from 8.7% of the population in 2000 to 8.1% in 2010.


I am pretty sure I qualify as a serious, dedicated cyclist. But I don't know if I cycle 110 days per year. That is pretty much every three days. Little bit more than twice per week. Where I live I cycle 2 times in Dec-Jan-Feb months. And other weeks where I am lucky to cycle once per week.



I should say I definitely cycled more than 110 days a year when I commuted to work. I cycled 250 days a year when I commuted to work. Less cycling days now that I don't commute or work.
  #37  
Old October 17th 17, 01:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,734
Default Bicycling & health benefits of?

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 10:10:38 PM UTC+1, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
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.


Loose talk from Joerg, loose talk from them. 75 minutes of tennis would kill me but, presumably, not Joerg. Certainly those who are old or already have cardiac condition would, if permitted at all, be allowed such strenuous exercise only under supervision.

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


This is more precise but see what I say below about choosing a place (percentage) on the scale.

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.


Maybe for you. My cardiologist is a cyclist, and my pedalpal is my general physician. My other main pedalpal is a nurse. After heart surgery I was shortly permitted cycle, if I took it easy, warmed up beforehand, and "warmed-down" afterwards. I looked at the man strangely: he was assuming that I was a roadracer.

The physiotherapists in the cardiac rehab unit, where you need a certificate from your cardiologist to be admitted, set a figure that worked out at 70 percent of my theoretical max heart rate and stuck there -- and I'm a very persuasive person. That's just too low even for a casual cyclist like me, especially if one lives among hills. Finally I got my cardiologist's registrar to agree, after consulting the great man, that I could go up to 75 percent as a routine thing.

I have a very simple bike computer because I find it more trustworthy than the more complicated models and my requirements are few. But I carry my iPhone on the handlebars to report my heart rate from an Polar H7 belt via Bluetooth. I regulate the electric motor's input by my heart rate. But just before a stop, I run my heart rate up to 80 per cent so I can check how soon it recovers.

It seems to me, after reading widely on the subject and talking to people at sports medicine departments at various universities, that the best test is not how high you can run you respiration rate, but how soon your heart rate recovers from your chosen peak exertion.

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


I'm not surprised. I'm amazed that he hasn't struck you off his patient list for fear of being held responsible when you kill yourself with a rate of exercise intended to turn a young man into a sprinter.

This is worth special attention:
I am taking "Vigorous" to me 85-90 percent of
(220 - my age) until somebody in the know corrects me.


There's a narrow band somewhere between 80-90 of max heart rate exertion that is not beneficial at all, and in fact harmful because there acids are released into the system. I'm in a hurry so I don't have a link, but for most people it is somewhere about 83-87 percent, if I remember correctly. The upshot is that it is better to exercise at 80 or 90 percent than anywhere in between.

Above that barrier you build capability for sprinting, below it you build big lungs for endurance. I imagine your cardiologist wants you to build endurance rather than sprint capability.

A good test is whether everyone in the party can pedal and talk at the same time. If someone can't talk, everyone should slow down.

Andre Jute
It comes to all of us
  #38  
Old October 17th 17, 02:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Bicycling & health benefits of?

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 2:10:38 PM UTC-7, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
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.


You ought to see the looks on doctors' faces when I come stumbling in because of the effects of the drugs and they take my blood pressure and it's 120 over 80.
  #39  
Old October 17th 17, 02:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Bicycling & health benefits of?

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:45:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 4:08:32 AM UTC-4, wrote:


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.


I think there's no doubt that bike trails get more people on bikes... on the
bike trails. They function as linear parks, and they're popular that way.. As
I've said, I enjoy well-designed bike trails, except when they're crowded.
The random motions of pedestrians and novice cyclists can be scary.

Well-designed, well maintained Bike trails generally a good thing, but there are
a few detriments. One is that they are frequently promoted and funded as
"transportation" facilities. They really should be paid for out of park funds,
because in almost all cases, 99% of their use is recreation, not transportation.
That would allow their rather high cost to be applied to real bike
transportation problems.

They're also promoted (e.g. by Joerg) as facilities that will cause great
surges in bike mode share. But that almost never happens, mostly because most
of them use abandoned rail line routes that don't connect enough traffic
generators. So boosting mode share is a false sales pitch.

Another problem is the idea that if bike trails exist, cyclists should not ride
on roads. This idea is in the mind of some motorists, like those that have
yelled "get on the bike trail" when I was on a quiet country road nowhere near
a trail.

But that mentality also exists among some cyclists. The major long-distance
bike trail in our area has a gap of a few miles where the owners of the
right-of-way don't want to sell. It's no problem, because it's parallel to a
very quiet country road. But some riders complain that they can't ride beyond
the gap because they'd have to ride on (gasp!) a road. In one online discussion
where I pointed out how peaceful the road is, I was told "Some of us just don't
want to ride on roads."

So, while I'm OK with building bike trails, I'd like them to be promoted and
financed more honestly. And I think we need to do plenty of education, plus
enough legal work, to ensure that we aren't forced off the roads onto the
trails.

- Frank Krygowski


One thing that I've always wondered about in the "bike paths"
discussion is does the presence or absence of bike paths (by whatever
name) actually contribute to the long term use of bicycles by the
general public?

For example there were 20.9 million bicycles sold in 2000 and 14.9
million sold in 2009.

Another thing, it seems to me that number of "cyclists" are sometimes
based on some pretty loose values. One report I read counted cyclists
as "has ridden a bicycle at least once in the last year".

Another, "THE U.S. BICYCLE MARKET, A Trend Overview, Author: Brad
Edmondson" (study period 2000 - 2010)
counted anyone that has ridden 6 times in the last year, in one
portion of the report and as anyone that has ridden 110 days in the
past 12 months in another.

Comparing the two statistics it appears that the 6 times a year
numbers decreased over the study period from ~15% of the population to
~13% of the population. The 110 day riders remained basically flat
from 8.7% of the population in 2000 to 8.1% in 2010.

Based on those numbers it appears that among the (can we say
dedicated) cyclists that bike paths may not be a major factor.


Statistics on bike sales are extremely misleading. This is because there aren't an equal number of "age X" people coming into the marketplace.

The human race is built around generations so as each generation matures the expensive sport bike market will burgeon. And between it is fed only by people buying replacements or buying up.

The millennials are presently just over the buying hump.
  #40  
Old October 17th 17, 03:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,507
Default Bicycling & health benefits of?

On 2017-10-16 22:38, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 8:45:13 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:


Another thing, it seems to me that number of "cyclists" are
sometimes based on some pretty loose values. One report I read
counted cyclists as "has ridden a bicycle at least once in the
last year".


As for the usefulness of cycling infrastructure only the other regular
riders can say. The main reason being that there rarely is sufficient
funding for any serious traffic counting when it comes to cyclists.

I have seen it time and again. Long road with fast traffic, hardly any
cyclists. Then they build a bike lane or bike path and the number
increases substantially. Unfortunately also including folks like the
dude yesterday who was traveling in the bike lane on a 50mph road in
total darkness without any lights, and in dark clothing.


Another, "THE U.S. BICYCLE MARKET, A Trend Overview, Author:
Brad Edmondson" (study period 2000 - 2010) counted anyone that
has ridden 6 times in the last year, in one portion of the report
and as anyone that has ridden 110 days in the past 12 months in
another.

Comparing the two statistics it appears that the 6 times a year
numbers decreased over the study period from ~15% of the
population to ~13% of the population. The 110 day riders remained
basically flat from 8.7% of the population in 2000 to 8.1% in
2010.


I am pretty sure I qualify as a serious, dedicated cyclist. But I
don't know if I cycle 110 days per year. That is pretty much every
three days. Little bit more than twice per week. Where I live I
cycle 2 times in Dec-Jan-Feb months. And other weeks where I am
lucky to cycle once per week.



I should say I definitely cycled more than 110 days a year when I
commuted to work. I cycled 250 days a year when I commuted to work.
Less cycling days now that I don't commute or work.


That is a serious bicycle user's profile. Same here and due to
self-employment I also do not commute. Bicycle use is 4000mi/year, car
use for tax year 2016 was a whopping 757 miles. One has to be willing to
cycle 40 miles if that's required to get that spare part for a broken
plumbing assembly. Where the usual temptation is to hop into the car.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can air pollution negate the health benefits of cycling and walking? colwyn[_2_] UK 2 June 27th 16 06:25 PM
Cycling - health benefits Bod[_5_] UK 11 May 29th 16 05:06 PM
More evidence of the health benefits of cycling Señor Chris UK 1 February 26th 09 09:37 PM
Help! Are there health benefits to unicycling? Fazel Unicycling 42 January 11th 09 04:28 AM
Health benefits of riding. Bill Baka General 23 October 3rd 04 04:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.