[Kinda Off-Topic] What gets your healthier? Cycling or Running?

Tony Raven writes:

Paul Rudin wrote on 28/02/2007 19:26 +0100:
Simon Brooke writes:


Also, of course, the impacts in running will eventually do for your
hips and knees.

AFAIK there's no credible evidence that this is so. Do you have an
authoritative source for this claim?


For starters just a handful of papers picked at random.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=1553455
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

The second two are about getting injured through running. We know this
can happen; and most sports people sustain injuries as a result of
their sporting activities from time to time. It doesn't show that
running will "do for your hips and knees".

The first one is suggestive, but hardly conclusive.

Paul Rudin wrote on 01/03/2007 15:13 +0100:
Tony Raven writes:

Paul Rudin wrote on 28/02/2007 19:26 +0100:
Simon Brooke writes:


Also, of course, the impacts in running will eventually do for
your hips and knees.
AFAIK there's no credible evidence that this is so. Do you have
an authoritative source for this claim?

For starters just a handful of papers picked at random.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=1553455

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation


The second two are about getting injured through running. We know
this can happen; and most sports people sustain injuries as a result
of their sporting activities from time to time. It doesn't show that
running will "do for your hips and knees".

The first one is suggestive, but hardly conclusive.

Those were picked at random. Try
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67854-3 from the Lancet.

"A risk ratio of 2–3 for degenerative arthritis of the hip or knee is
associated with those most heavily involved in sports and fitness
activities before age 25 years. Thus, participation itself carries with
it some appreciable risk."

"Thus, the 40-year-old man with X-ray evidence of tibial-femoral
degenerative arthritis is usually cautioned to take up cycling in place
of running and to consider golf rather than single's tennis."

There is plenty more out there if you want to look

Tony




--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Tony Raven writes:

Paul Rudin wrote on 01/03/2007 15:13 +0100:
Tony Raven writes:

Paul Rudin wrote on 28/02/2007 19:26 +0100:
Simon Brooke writes:


Also, of course, the impacts in running will eventually do for
your hips and knees.
AFAIK there's no credible evidence that this is so. Do you have
an authoritative source for this claim?

For starters just a handful of papers picked at
random. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=1553455
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation


The second two are about getting injured through running. We know
this can happen; and most sports people sustain injuries as a result
of their sporting activities from time to time. It doesn't show that
running will "do for your hips and knees".

The first one is suggestive, but hardly conclusive.

Those were picked at random. Try
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67854-3 from the Lancet.

Only available with a paid subscription, which I'm not about to cough
up for the sake of this argument - maybe I'll read it next time I'm in
the UL, if I remember.


"A risk ratio of 2–3 for degenerative arthritis of the hip or knee is
associated with those most heavily involved in sports and fitness
activities before age 25 years. Thus, participation itself carries
with it some appreciable risk."


"involved in sports and fitness activities", so presumably applies
just as much to sailing and lawn bowls as it does running?

"Thus, the 40-year-old man with X-ray evidence of tibial-femoral
degenerative arthritis is usually cautioned to take up cycling in
place of running and to consider golf rather than single's tennis."



Advice to people already with a given condition is a quite different
thing from claiming a particular activity might *cause* the
condition.


I'm not being deliberately obtuse, but there's nothing that you've
shown us that really supports the original contention in a convincing
fashion.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Same as the topic really. I prefer cycling to running anyhoo.

Thanks.


At a personal level: cycling.

I avoid running. I have chesticles which, if I run, are in danger of
bruising my eyes and my knees.

;-)

"naked_draughtsman" wrote

I think it depends what you mean by healthier. People always say cycling
is excellent for burning calories but at the local gym the readouts on
the machines say that cycling burns the least calories per hour! (Rowing
~ 700 cal/hr, running ~ 800 cal/hr?, cycling ~ 300 cal/hr).

800Cal/hr = 933W
300Cal/hr = 350W

Both look rather optimistic. Isn't the energy the muscles can burn related
to bloodflow, ie, heartrate?

Mark Thompson wrote:
Walking's not exercise, it's just a process where you move your legs a
bit at a fixed and low intensity.

You've obviously been fit for far too long. I can still pop into town at a
brisk walk and know I've done some exercise (not a lot, I grant you).

I took a slice of my own medicine yesterday. I was walking for an hour
and was definitely tired at the end of it.

On the other hand, it was very enjoyable. Even if I could have got the
train from the usual spot. It was just such a nice day.

A

Dave Larrington wrote:

In ,
bugbear tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

I prefer cycling because it's a form of exercise
that's a form of transport.

Pretty unique in that regard.

It's either unique or it isn't. Grr!
/retired_colonel_writing_stroppy_letter_to_BBC

Your XML lacks an opening tag.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

naked_draughtsman wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Same as the topic really. I prefer cycling to running anyhoo.

I think it depends what you mean by healthier. People always say cycling is
excellent for burning calories but at the local gym the readouts on the
machines say that cycling burns the least calories per hour! (Rowing ~ 700
cal/hr, running ~ 800 cal/hr?, cycling ~ 300 cal/hr).

If you've ever tried rowing for an hour, you'll know quite how
exhausting it is. Do you remember how Steve Redgrave looked after six
minutes of rowing in 1996?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

in message 1hud5qi.n2nrf23mg7zgN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@w ronghead.com,
Ekul Namsob ') wrote:

naked_draughtsman wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Same as the topic really. I prefer cycling to running anyhoo.

I think it depends what you mean by healthier. People always say
cycling is excellent for burning calories but at the local gym the
readouts on the machines say that cycling burns the least calories per
hour! (Rowing ~ 700 cal/hr, running ~ 800 cal/hr?, cycling ~ 300
cal/hr).

If you've ever tried rowing for an hour, you'll know quite how
exhausting it is. Do you remember how Steve Redgrave looked after six
minutes of rowing in 1996?

Different intensity. I can row for a couple of hours and not feel the least
tired, but I won't break any records. It's like cycling - you can go a
long way without getting tired, providing you're not trying to go too
fast.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

((DoctorWho)ChristopherEccleston).act();
uk.co.bbc.TypecastException: actor does not want to be typecast.
[adapted from autofile on /., 31/03/05]

On Mar 1, 3:33 am, "pppeterrr" wrote:
"Roger Thorpe" ld.co.uk
wrote in ...



Dennis Davis wrote:
In the referenced article, bugbear
writes:

naked_draughtsman wrote:

wrote in message
legroups.com...

Same as the topic really. I prefer cycling to running anyhoo.

I think it depends what you mean by healthier. People always say
cycling is excellent for burning calories but at the local gym
the readouts on the machines say that cycling burns the least
calories per hour! (Rowing ~ 700 cal/hr, running ~ 800 cal/hr?,
cycling ~ 300 cal/hr).

I prefer cycling because it's a form of exercise
that's a form of transport.

Pretty unique in that regard.

Quite. To quote one of the contributers to this forum:

Cycling is unique in the way it can incidentally provide good
exercise while being justified by its quotidian utility.
-- Chris Malcolm
And the pleasure,
The sensual thrill of speed, of being out in the weather, in the
countryside, with a well fitting, well adjusted machine..
When people offer you a lift out of pity they really have no idea of how
satisfying riding through rain or hail can be.

There's nothing like walking into the office and casually mentioning that I
did a 100 mile ride on the Sunday. However, I usually neglect to tell people
that it may of included a fry up for breakfast, sunday lunch, afternoon tea
and sometimes a pint at the end of it. So whilst it's a lot of healthy
exercise, I'm not sure it's healthier!
Peter

Definately healthier than doing all that consuming without the
cycling.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada