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

[[email protected]]

I think enthusiasm counts for a lot. I have been a keen cyclist since
I was 11 and a few years ago decided to give running a try instead. I
found it hard to get the enthusiasm to go out every day in the rain
and wind to run. I also got shin splints and a sore knee within a few
months (like to think me legs are too heavy for running!). Anyway, now
I'm back on the bike and out in all weathers. I get very grumpy when I
can't ride, even when it's horrid.

Upshot is, I think any sport is healthy as long as you love it enough
to do it a heck of a lot!

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> 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>

> Pretty difficult to swim to the shops,

ISTR about five years ago, people were having to swim round the Circle Line
due to flooding. Free towels at Kings Cross ;-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

 

[Paul Rudin]

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> writes:

> In news:[email protected],
> bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> 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!

"pretty unique" is nothing. I once listened to a salesman claim that
the product he was punting was "almost totally unique" :/

 

[Sofa - Spud]

On 28 Feb, 14:35, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote on 28/02/2007 14:26 +0100:
>
> > Same as the topic really. I prefer cycling to running anyhoo.
>
> I know of very few runners who don't get joint problems as they get
> older whereas I know cyclists whose joint problems have improved with
> cycling.
>

Not so - I ran a 10 mile race - The Trentham 10 , and it was also an
area veterans championship. I felt like a youngster at 41 . Those
gnarly vets wiped the floor with me and I managed 1:23 over the
shattering hilly course .

 

[Roger Thorpe]

pppeterrr wrote:
> "Roger Thorpe" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Dennis Davis wrote:
>>
>>>In the referenced article, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
>>>writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>naked_draughtsman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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
>
>
Indeed, it was only after scarfing two plain chocolate kitkats on my
last weekend run that I noticed the energy content printed on the wrapper.
Oh dear!

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

 

[Mary Ann]

On 28 Feb, 14:26, [email protected] wrote:
> Same as the topic really. I prefer cycling to running anyhoo.
>
> Thanks.


You ask "what gets you...." implying that you're interesting in
becoming healthier rather than maintaining health.

I think it would be pretty hard to measure as you'd have to find
someone who enjoyed both activities to the same degree, didn't already
have a condition which prevented them doing either actitivity to the
same degree, then measure their basal health level (however you might
define that), have them do cycling at a certain level (however you
might define that), then measure their health level again, wait until
it gets back to what it was before starting the cycling regime, then
do it again with a running regime. You'd have to make sure they ate
the same during each exercise period, got the same sleep etc, had the
same stresses etc. Pretty hard to do.

In general, I'd say the sport you prefer to do is going to keep you
healthier. It's not just about physical health, but emotional health
aswell.

I'm a runner by the way...sneaked over from rec.running

Mary Ann

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
bugbear
bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim says...
>
> I prefer cycling because it's a form of exercise
> that's a form of transport.
>
> Pretty unique in that regard.
>
> Pretty difficult to swim to the shops,
>
I could walk to the end of my street then paddle to Sainsbury on the
other side of town (if I had a kayak).

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

pppeterrr wrote:
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> 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.
>
> Like walking...?

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

Cycling can be done at whatever intensity you want, which is nice.

A

 

[Tony Raven]

iarocu wrote on 28/02/2007 16:19 +0100:
>
> Depends on the distance to work I suppose. I'm currently a 5 miles
> each way commute. Too short for a good workout on a bike but a good
> distance to run (now and again not every day). The bike is certainly
> far more flexible with regard to what distances are feasible to
> commute.
> Iain
>

I have a colleague who runs the five miles each way every day

--
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]

Paul Rudin wrote on 28/02/2007 19:26 +0100:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> 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/..._uids=16368218&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=1553455
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1439399&dopt=Citation

--
Tony

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

 

[Mark Thompson]

> 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).

 

[Paul Rudin]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:

> Paul Rudin wrote on 28/02/2007 19:26 +0100:
>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> 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/..._uids=16368218&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=1553455
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1439399&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.

 

[Tony Raven]

Paul Rudin wrote on 01/03/2007 15:13 +0100:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Paul Rudin wrote on 28/02/2007 19:26 +0100:
>>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> 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/..._uids=16368218&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=1553455
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1439399&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

 

[Paul Rudin]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:

> Paul Rudin wrote on 01/03/2007 15:13 +0100:
>> Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Paul Rudin wrote on 28/02/2007 19:26 +0100:
>>>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> 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/..._uids=16368218&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=1553455
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1439399&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.

 

[wafflycat]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

;-)

 

[DavidR]

"naked_draughtsman" <[email protected]> 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?

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:

> In news:[email protected],
> bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> 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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

naked_draughtsman <[email protected]> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <1hud5qi.n2nrf23mg7zgN%[email protected]>,
Ekul Namsob ('[email protected]') wrote:

> naked_draughtsman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > 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.

--
[email protected] (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]