Help! Are there health benefits to unicycling?

joemarshall;1127608 wrote:
That's not right. I think, if you go a mile at 26 mph on a bike, you use
way more energy per mile than doing a mile at 15 mph on a unicycle. So,
if you go out and do a 10 mile ride on a bike, you can potentially tire
yourself out more than a 10 mile ride on a unicycle. It's because energy
used vs speed is not a linear relationship, thanks to air & rolling
resistance.

You're only right if you ride at the same speed on the bike and the
unicycle. I think as you get to high speeds on the bike, the
inefficiency due to air resistance and rolling resistance become high
enough that you're less efficient per mile than the unicycle.

On my commute, I find I can make myself way more tired by hammering it
on the bike than hammering it on the unicycle, because I can ride so
much harder on the bike. And that's a fixed distance.

Joe



Once you get into a measure based on how you "tire yourself out" rather
than energy used we're into more mushy territory. I base my conclusions
above on measured energy expenditure as a function of heart rate that
does not address how "tired" one feels. Without getting into extreme
speeds where factors such as air resistance become increasingly
important factors, the energy expenditure per mile stays pretty constant
regardless of the energy expenditure per unit time.

What you describe, outside of the extremes where air resistance becomes
increasingly important, is more a function of what metabolism we are
emphasizing at different rates of energy expenditure. It is very
difficult to maintain a speed on a unicycle that emphasizes an anaerobic
metabolism. Instead distance unicycling emphasizes aerobic metabolism
almost exclusively, with a higher heart rate only achieved on hills and
unsustainable bursts. Aerobic activity can be maintained for as long as
you can keep a stream of carbohydrates coming into the system to keep
burning fat stores for energy. I've maintained aerobic activity for
over 30 hours without being too tired to stop. Anaerobic activity is
physically bounded in how long it can be sustained. You burn almost
exclusively carbohydrates in your muscle and liver in the form of
glycogen, cannot replenish those carbohydrate sources during the
exertion, and build up lactic acid faster than it can be processed
resulting in more rapid muscle fatigue. All this without notably
different rates of energy expenditure mile per mile.

When you "hammer it" on a bike you tire out faster than the equivalent
distance on a unicycle because you are exhausting a bounded anaerobic
source of energy more quickly than the unbounded source of aerobic
energy used on a unicycle.

All without violating my previous observations, until you reach a speed
where air resistance significantly alters the physics involved.


--
boisei
------------------------------------------------------------------------
boisei's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/16116
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/73064


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

boisei;1127633 wrote:
Once you get into a measure based on how you "tire yourself out" rather
than energy used we're into more mushy territory. I base my conclusions
above on measured energy expenditure as a function of heart rate that
does not address how "tired" one feels. Without getting into extreme
speeds where factors such as air resistance become increasingly
important factors, the energy expenditure per mile stays pretty constant
regardless of the energy expenditure per unit time.




But those resistance effects start to make a difference at something
like 15mph. Which isn't very fast on a bike - all fast riders can
average over that for long distances (like 100 miles or so). That's in
still air. If there's any head wind, which there usually is, it
obviously can make a difference at slower speeds as the relative
windspeed will be higher.

For a good road unicyclist, the extra energy used to balance is
minimal, so the bike only needs to be going a little bit faster to lose
efficiency due to drag.

Personally I think on anything other than a geared 36, for a relatively
fit rider, who runs out of spinning ability before they go anaerobic,
they could probably work hard enough extra on a bike to be less
efficient and use more calories per mile. On a geared 36 it's closer -
as the speeds are getting so close to bike speeds (and the high up /
poor aerodynamics at those speeds probably make them inefficient at
those speeds).

Joe


--
joemarshall

' old pics' (http://tinyurl.com/56yl2f) 'new zealand pics'
(http://s119.photobucket.com/albums/o...rshall_photos/) 'new pics'
(http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/joemarshall.org.uk)
'Where have I been riding? (GPS) ' (http://tinyurl.com/6fxw5x)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
joemarshall's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/1545
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/73064


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

OK, without spinning off into a lot of different points (at least not
without resolving the initial set) I will say I overstated the degree to
which calorie burn per distance remains constant with respect to speed,
but note that I also allowed a relatively wide range of burn rates in
the numbers I stated.

That said, it still seems difficult to have the calories per mile on a
bicycle exceed that on a unicycle. The following link does a nice job I
think of demonstrating the bicycle numbers:

http://www.cptips.com/gphener.htm

Note that the numbers it gives at its highest velocity of 30mph only
just reaches beyond the high end of 70 cal/mile I stated, reaching
approximately 77cal/mile and just reaching the bottom end of the range
that I've observed in unicycling.

The increase in energy requirements as speed increases beyond 15mph on
a bicycle cannot be ignored, but don't seem to result in burning more
per mile than a unicycle. Exhausting to ride with an intensity to
achieve 30mph? Definitely. But you're still on a much more efficient
ride than a unicycle.

I look forward to getting my taint onto a geared 36r to see how that
changes the numbers!

Cheers,
Z


--
boisei
------------------------------------------------------------------------
boisei's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/16116
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/73064


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Builds good balance, strong abdominal muscles, its a good leg work out,
and its super fun.


--
uninorcal

"Don't judge me monkey"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
uninorcal's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/18292
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/73064


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

boisei;1127713 wrote:

That said, it still seems difficult to have the calories per mile on a
bicycle exceed that on a unicycle. The following link does a nice job I
think of demonstrating the bicycle numbers:

http://www.cptips.com/gphener.htm

Note that the numbers it gives at its highest velocity of 30mph only
just reaches beyond the high end of 70 cal/mile I stated, reaching
approximately 77cal/mile and just reaching the bottom end of the range
that I've observed in unicycling.




You're taking numbers that you worked out from some magic number device
(probably a heart rate monitor/gps or something), which, whilst they may
be good relative to each other, probably won't relate in any way to real
numbers, and comparing them to a set of calculated numbers on the
internet. That doesn't say much, as those HRM calculated things are only
good relative to other things calculated for the same person with the
same device.

What the web site you posted does show, is that by going at 20mph, you
burn 37.1 calories / mile, whereas at 10 mph, you burn 13.3 calories per
mile. That's a massive difference, almost 3 times as much energy per
mile at the higher speed.

If both a unicycle and a bike are going at 10mph, there is no way that
a unicycle is 2.8 times harder to ride than the bike, as long as the
unicyclist is a smooth rider. So, if we up the bike speed to 20mph, the
bike is going to be way less efficient than the unicycle, mile for mile.


Joe


--
joemarshall

' old pics' (http://tinyurl.com/56yl2f) 'new zealand pics'
(http://s119.photobucket.com/albums/o...rshall_photos/) 'new pics'
(http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/joemarshall.org.uk)
'Where have I been riding? (GPS) ' (http://tinyurl.com/6fxw5x)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
joemarshall's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/1545
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/73064


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

It seems we'll have to agree to disagree. I've been observing these
things in myself for a good while and have never seen a bicycle approach
the number of calories per mile required on a unicycle in anything
resembling common circumstances. If you've measured such an occurrence
I'd be thrilled to hear more about it.

My attempt to use multiple lines of evidence was not to make them
perfectly agree with each other but to try and use the evidence
available to demonstrate to you, across the pond, what I have observed
myself here.

Cheers,
Z


--
boisei
------------------------------------------------------------------------
boisei's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/16116
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/73064


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Unicycling is definitely the most fun way for me to keep in shape.

Due to back surgery several years ago I was no longer able to cycle,
which had been a passion all my life. It's funny how the wheel turns as
I'd always wanted to learn to unicycle.

Unicycling has been insanely beneficial to my lower back, and I can't
recall ever being as fit overall from cycling. Uni is also surprisingly
low impact compared to a lot of other sports.

Plus there's obviously more to health than just aerobic fitness. The
'zen zone' is so much more intense/pure when unicycling vs cycling, imo
anyway.

Can't comment too much on road unicycling as I don't do much of it,
apart from that it seems to take significantly less effort than off
road, which is what I enjoy most.

I'm off for a uni ride!


--
lunicycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
lunicycle's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/16926
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/73064


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

lunicycle;1127783 wrote:
Unicycling is definitely the most fun way for me to keep in shape.

Unicycling has been insanely beneficial to my lower back, and I can't
recall ever being as fit overall from cycling. Uni is also surprisingly
low impact compared to a lot of other sports.





I agree that unicycling is very good for core muscles--much better than
biking--which basically mess up my back.

I find that unicycling is also a low impact sport, except for the UPDs.



--
scott ttocs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
scott ttocs's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/18076
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/73064


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

This has been beat to death both in this thread and others, but I just
found it funny that we're not talking about "extreme speeds where air
resistance becomes significant." On any good road bike, air resistance
is pretty much all there IS! (I'm assuming you're on a smooth road with
tires up in the 120 PSI range.) And on a geared 36, just bending down
over the handlebar will easily turn your 17mph into 19.5mph with the
same effort.

and @Joe, regarding your 2.8-times-the-power-for-double-the-speed
point: it's also possible that it's more than 2.8 times as hard to ride
the -unicycle- at 20mph than 10mph, which would keep the unicycle less
efficient than the bicycle, even with the bike's loss.

But Joe is definitely right; if you go out and crank a mile at 32mph on
your bike, you WILL burn more energy than spinning out that mile at
15mph on a uni. 26mph... maybe, maybe not, but there IS definitely a
line that the bike can cross where, beyond it, you're burning more mile
per mile. In most cases, though, you're not riding at that level; you'd
be doing 17-19mph on the uni and 22-24mph on the bike, or something,
burning less energy per mile on the bike than on the uni, as boisei
says.

I think this all boils down to "it depends on how you ride." :-)


--
chuckaeronut

Uni to work to eat to live to uni to work to...!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
chuckaeronut's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/14677
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/73064


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Isn't energy burning a very narrow definition of "health benefits" which
was the original topic of this thread?


--
goldenchickenIV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
goldenchickenIV's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/16391
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/73064


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com