A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 15th 04, 06:27 AM
Rush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why riding bikes is a better way to lose weight than jogging.

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
cardio training, and your body cannot metabolize fat at a fast enough
rate to supply energy at this level of exertion, it therefor
metabolized carbohydrate and not fat, uses up glycogen stores in the
liver. This results in an increase in appetite for carbohydrates to
restore glycogen stores, and in the meanwhile, not as much fat is
lost. Of course, running uses more energy per hour, but it is much
easier I think to ride your bike for an hour than to jog for 1/2 hour,
and you will burn as much calories on a hard bike ride as jogging
lazily. YOu burn half the calories as jogging if you are just riding
very comfortably, at 13 mph, which is barely making an effort, that's
just relaxing, cruising speed.

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. 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. People
usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable
cutting through someone's yard. I don't see why there is no
consideration for pedestrians who want to walk from point a to b, or
bike from point a to b, in a efficient manner, and not have to follow
a maze of roads for 6 miles to get to a point 30 yards away.
Ads
  #2  
Old October 15th 04, 07:29 AM
Bill Sornson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
cardio training, and your body cannot metabolize fat at a fast enough
rate to supply energy at this level of exertion, it therefor
metabolized carbohydrate and not fat, uses up glycogen stores in the
liver. This results in an increase in appetite for carbohydrates to
restore glycogen stores, and in the meanwhile, not as much fat is
lost. Of course, running uses more energy per hour, but it is much
easier I think to ride your bike for an hour than to jog for 1/2 hour,
and you will burn as much calories on a hard bike ride as jogging
lazily. YOu burn half the calories as jogging if you are just riding
very comfortably, at 13 mph, which is barely making an effort, that's
just relaxing, cruising speed.

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. 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. People
usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable
cutting through someone's yard. I don't see why there is no
consideration for pedestrians who want to walk from point a to b, or
bike from point a to b, in a efficient manner, and not have to follow
a maze of roads for 6 miles to get to a point 30 yards away.


Laudable cause, but entirely false premise.

Bill "running burns WAY more" S.


  #3  
Old October 15th 04, 07:30 AM
Chris Neary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OTOH, weight bearing exercises like jogging help prevent bone loss, while
cycling does not.

Now the $60K question: Why does it have to be bike riding vs. jogging?

Getting more folks to be more active in *any* manner would pay a myriad of
dividends.


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
  #4  
Old October 15th 04, 12:08 PM
Mark Weaver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

For me, biking is the better way 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. The only real
limit on my biking is time. I am conscious, though, that riding isn't
weight bearing excercize, so I do mix in at least some activity that
involves running (softball, basketball, the occasion 2-3 mile run).

But, unfortunately, as the weather gets colder and wetter, I'll be running
more and biking less. I just can't make myself do any significant distance
on a exercize bike or trainer--yuck.

Mark


  #5  
Old October 15th 04, 01:07 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

Not true!

85% is
:: cardio training, and your body cannot metabolize fat at a fast enough
:: rate to supply energy at this level of exertion, it therefor
:: metabolized carbohydrate and not fat, uses up glycogen stores in the
:: liver. This results in an increase in appetite for carbohydrates to
:: restore glycogen stores, and in the meanwhile, not as much fat is
:: lost.

:: Of course, running uses more energy per hour,

Why?

but it is much
:: easier I think to ride your bike for an hour than to jog for 1/2
:: hour,

That depends.

and you will burn as much calories on a hard bike ride as
:: jogging lazily.

YOu burn half the calories as jogging if you are
:: just riding very comfortably, at 13 mph, which is barely making an
:: effort, that's just relaxing, cruising speed.

Says who?

::
:: 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.

I support that, but running is good too.

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. People
:: usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable
:: cutting through someone's yard. I don't see why there is no
:: consideration for pedestrians who want to walk from point a to b, or
:: bike from point a to b, in a efficient manner, and not have to follow
:: a maze of roads for 6 miles to get to a point 30 yards away.

You can do better than that, can't you?


  #6  
Old October 15th 04, 02:37 PM
the black rose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
cardio training, and your body cannot metabolize fat at a fast enough
rate to supply energy at this level of exertion, it therefor
metabolized carbohydrate and not fat, uses up glycogen stores in the
liver. This results in an increase in appetite for carbohydrates to
restore glycogen stores, and in the meanwhile, not as much fat is
lost. Of course, running uses more energy per hour, but it is much
easier I think to ride your bike for an hour than to jog for 1/2 hour,
and you will burn as much calories on a hard bike ride as jogging
lazily. YOu burn half the calories as jogging if you are just riding
very comfortably, at 13 mph, which is barely making an effort, that's
just relaxing, cruising speed.

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. 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. People
usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable
cutting through someone's yard. I don't see why there is no
consideration for pedestrians who want to walk from point a to b, or
bike from point a to b, in a efficient manner, and not have to follow
a maze of roads for 6 miles to get to a point 30 yards away.


Mmm, I give it a C-.

-km

--
Only cowards fight kids -- unidentified Moscow protester

http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
proud to be owned by a yorkie
  #7  
Old October 15th 04, 06:12 PM
C A III A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jogging has more negative effects in the long run as compared to cycling.
More pressure on the joints where the impact as 2+ times your weight. In
cycling the major consideration is the knees and even they get less strain
than joggers'.
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.


"Chris Neary" wrote in message
...
OTOH, weight bearing exercises like jogging help prevent bone loss, while
cycling does not.

Now the $60K question: Why does it have to be bike riding vs. jogging?

Getting more folks to be more active in *any* manner would pay a myriad of
dividends.


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



  #8  
Old October 15th 04, 07:37 PM
HardwareLust
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rush wrote:
People
usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable
cutting through someone's yard.


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
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. When I had my
Great Danes (2 big ol' brindles...they are a joy!) sleeping on my porch, no
one came within 50 yards of my house without getting a stern warning from
one or the other. 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.

Regards,
H.


  #9  
Old October 15th 04, 08:35 PM
Chris Neary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #10  
Old October 16th 04, 03:56 AM
C A III A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



 




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
Why riding bikes is a better way to lose weight than jogging. Rush General 50 October 20th 04 08:41 PM
First road bike: braking? Alan Hoyle General 47 September 28th 03 11:40 PM
FAQ Just zis Guy, you know? UK 27 September 5th 03 10:58 PM
Riding to get fit and lose weight: any advice? Doesnotcompute UK 20 July 25th 03 10:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.