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

My point is that women (aftermenapausal) will lose more bone if they were an
ex-jogger. Cycling in general would cause less bone growth. But if compared
to an ex-jogger, ex-cyclist will lose less bone. The percentage loss will be
more of a problem, since body will not know what is going on and will more
likely to be damaged.

"Chris Neary" wrote in message
...
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'

and:

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20041014.html




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

"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..

Laudable cause, but entirely false premise.

Bill "running burns WAY more" S.

Probably true, but the the effective reality is that you cannot get me
off my bike, but will not get me to jog.

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.

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."

Fx199 wrote:
ubject: Why riding bikes is a better way to lose weight than jogging.
From: "Mark Weaver"
Date: 10/15/2004 6:08

because when I run consistently, sooner or
later I get some nagging injury that forces me to take time off (sore knee,
sore hip, something). But that never happens with biking.

You're not riding hard enough ;-)

Riding can only increase the stress on your skeleton compared
with sitting in the drive-thru at McDonald's.

And not so much that you end up getting artificial parts
when you get older.

--Blair
"I suspect we've been invaded by
orthopedic surgeons who want
nicer bikes..."