"Cycling as a form of exercise" Topic

The time has come for me to give up the lard and actually get off my e and exercise.

My question is this, as an unfiot person how likely am I to do damage to myself cycling. Is there something better I could do?

As I'm sure you've been told with any exercise plan start slow and work up to it don't try and do 20 miles your first day.

Mrs Gungnir just took up cycling again, and she is being treated for a dangerously high blood pressure. Her cardiologist warned her not to overdo things at first. Cycle so relaxed that you don't break into a sweat for the time being, slowly build it up from that.

If you are seeking cycling as a form of exercise for fitness, just take it easy to start with, as you will be using a lot of muscles you don't normally.

If you are doing it to lose weight – don't. The point about cycling is how very efficient it is – the average recreational cyclist, doing normal sorts of rates, is using only 150 Calories an hour more than normal. That compares to 600 for running.

Pat

Very little damage beyond the aches and pains associated with getting back in shape. Cycling is, IMHO, one of the best ways for one to get back in the groove because it improves the cardio without the impact and stress on the joints that running, lifting, and other sports can bring. It burns calories and tones the legs, which can be a great start to any fitness resurgence…….

The only way you can hurt yourself is gettting an achy butt.

Or, if you are clutsy and fall.

Otherwise, I think is much easier to get into better shape biking than running, since it is les stress on our knees, ankles, etc. Also, biking allows you to excercise longer, since you can "rest" while you are still moving. Whenever I tried to run, I would give up after about a half mile.

I did about 5 years of cycling in my late 30's and early 40's
Ive been away from it for several years but still get complinebts on how muscular my legs are =P
now if i could just lose the spare tire….

Actually, depending on how intensely you end up riding, make sure the pedals are at the correct hight, or you can reallly mess up your knees.

I have been a regular cyclist for thirty years. It is certainly good for general fitness levels but I wouldn't treat it as a rapid weight reduction method as it is so much more efficient than walking or running. It is quite a gentle form of exercise, rather like swimming, as long as you don't overdo it. As mentioned above, you will ache in places you never knew existed at first, so take it easy.

If you want to lose weight in a controlled manner then you'll need to couple it with some sort of diet programme. I find calorie counting works for me, but doesn't suit everyone. Eating less and taking more exercise is a sure fire formula for weight reduction, but is hard to keep up unless you build these things into a regular routine.

I can't say I've come across anyone with knee problems as a result of cycling with their saddle at the wrong height, although it can make it much harder work. Neck and back problems are more common, but if you go for a sit up type bike rather than hunching over a road racer you'll be fine.

Biking is great for those who can work it into a regular routine. I commuted 26 miles per day, round trip, for most of my 29 years on the job. I still bike around town whenever I have somewhere to go that doesn't require carrying anything I can't strap to the bike and (or) my body. Depending on where you live, road conditions can be anything from "user friendly" to lethal: that will affect your determination to hazard travel by bike.

I concure with the observations that biking is not a good weight losing proposition. It won't produce any significant calorie burn if you are eating enough to maintain your current weight. You just need to be generally as physically active as you can manage, and cut down on the calorie intake until you are at your desired weight, then keep the weight off in the first place.

Here's a little-known aspect about exercise and losing weight: if you have a slowed metabolism, as most over-weight people do, then your body is in something akin to "starvation mode": it is storing fat by slowing down your metabolism. Any increased activity signals to the body that physical demands are now being added to the stress of trying to store fat for future use, and thus increased exercise on a slow metabolism actually makes the body try and store more fat! So before you launch into any exercise program to lose weight, get your metabolism jump-started first: and that is primarily a function of the foods you eat, both type and amount. Never over-eat, of course, but also higher metabolism is the result of foods high in water and fiber: minimize the oils, processed (fast) sugars and salts, and increase natural foods that are high in water and fiber. While losing weight, eat fewer calories than your burn, of course, and eat mainly to increase your metabolism. This can take a while: my daughter who had a slow metabolism from not eating properly, while also under-eating due to being a long-distance runner with an eating disorder!, only got her metabolism fired back up by being in the middle of four professionals every day -- a training psychologist, her running trainer, her coach and a nutritionist -- and it took over three months: but when her metabolism kicked in, she couldn't get enough to eat and chowed down like a horse.

As an avid cyclist, and someone who was an amateur, I can tell you that you can burn a LOT of calories on a bike. You can also burn less than walking. What's great about cycling is that you can choose your fitness style and it is much easier on the joints than most sports, walking included. My brief notes (as I'm on vacation):

Be sure you're properly fitted to your bike.

A heart rate monitor is very good at telling you how hard your working. Sometimes you might have a high/low energy day and you are working higher/lower than normal.

Make sure you're in the right gear going uphill. You can damage your knees if you are pushing too much weight.

You certainly don't want to overdue it early, but you can burn a lot of calories cycling. I burn over 1000 calories in my 45 minute sessions. I can also work anaerobically when I cycle. However, you will likely burn around 450 calories per hour in your early rides.

On the topic of knees and pedaling: always shift down to maintain 60 to 90 revolutions per minute and you will both save your knees and get farther in a given amount of time: pedaling fast is more efficient than pushing hard and slow.

I agree with Steve and others.
Specifically, if you want to, you CAN burn a crapload of calories on a bike.

That said, your average recreational cyclist probably doesn't ride fast enough (or casts too often) to burn a significant amount of calories.

I've seen many more "serious" riders consume enough gatoraid and GU during a ride to offset any benefit of calorie burn.

There is a "happy" medium in between the different types…

I agree with Steve and others.
Specifically, if you want to, you CAN burn a crapload of calories on a bike.

That said, your average recreational cyclist probably doesn't ride fast enough (or coasts too often) to burn a significant amount of calories.

I've seen many more "serious" riders consume enough gatoraid and GU during a ride to offset any benefit of calorie burn.

There is a "happy" medium in between the different types…

Walking is the best way to start out. Start out by going only a few blocks and work up your distance from there. When I first started, I walked around 2 complete blocks. Now I can walk 5 miles in 75-80 minutes. Be sure to buy good walking shoes, your feet will thank you.

"Make sure you're in the right gear going uphill. You can damage your knees if you are pushing too much weight."

Yes, to echo the comments above, you can knacker your knees if you use the wrong gears. Rule of thumb is to aim for a minimum of one pedal revolution a second (60 per minute), I usually do around 80 or 90. Essentially it should hardly feel like you are pushing on the pedals.

You can indeed burn a lot of calories if you do long distances and/or high speeds but that probably isn't a great idea if starting out. Caveats re metabolic responses as above.

The main thing with any sort of exercise is to do something which you enjoy, which doesn't physically injure you(!) and most important, you can do regularly without it being a big deal. Lots of people join gyms, only a few keep it up as it requires special gear, a trip out etc etc.

Anyway cycling is great, it is relaxing and fun and the world rolls by at a manageable pace. Once you've built up a bit I would strongly recommend cycling tour holidays, a great way to see anywhere. The ones where you get your luggage transported from site to site by the organisers are best….

Having lost a lot of weight a change of work shifted me to back to using the train rather than walking as I had another train journey to go and not walking the 4 miles or so in to town and again back saved me an hour and a half of walking through town traffic.

Add to that high availablity of stress and snaks and weight came back.

So I have two options. I can walk and accept the extra hour and a bit travel a day (totalying 3 hours a day) or I can get a bike and shave a bit of time off.

I can already do the walking thing. To lose weight am I better sticking with that or get the bike for the commute?

One thing though, the road into town is lethal, and that is just as a pedestrian. Cyclists have to fight buses and the on/off traffic for the motorway

Walking eight miles a day is pretty impressive, and depending on your weight and height is going to burn around 600 calories a day. Cycling the same distance will burn around 550 but will obviously be a lot quicker, save you at least an hour a day if not a lot more.

To lose weight at around 1lb a week you need to burn around 500 calories a day over your daily maintenance needs.

Snacks are a disaster though, a chocolate digestive is 87 calories, a creme egg is 173 and 50g of crisps are 250. Pies and cakes are even worse, 100g of Victoria Sponge (so no icing or anything) is 400 cal.

Try and replace your snacks with fruit or something. Dried apricots are nice, or I keep mints in my desk for those more stressful days rather than going out and buying an extra large size frozen Mars Bar (well, I do that sometimes;)

Cycling in heavy traffic is OK (in fact it is sometimes easier than light but fast traffic). I used to like cycling in London as the traffic was mostly stationary so posed no threat at all or it is just streaming along on major commuter routes, no problem. Cycling in Sheffield is just lethal though – too many students driving around not sure where they are going.

All

Thanks for all your comments / advice, this was just the sort of helpful stuff I was after.

I am relatively lucky in that there are a number of 'proper' cycle tracks around my area, so don't envisage mixing it with traffic.

Martin – I am resigned to the fact I will have to attend Pie Eaters Anonymous and have alerted Greggs so they can work up why their profits have fallen.

Cheers

Cheers MArtin

When I was losing weight, and I lost a lot, I was on 1500 cals a day and yes, my snacks were fruit and factored into that. Just being able to hold to that would be good.

The 4 miles is a round trip, having said that I managed 7 yesterday with lunchtime and so forth and I was averaging 7.5 miles a day with two trips to the gym a week.

Of course today people have brought in cakes, biscuits and cookies

I preferred it four years ago when we were an antisocial bunch and never bought anything for anyone.

Thanks for your words. The bike looks a goer I have to say

I also find that an additional advantage og the bicycle commute, is that you can take the "scenic" route if you are feeling good that day, and get a bit more excercise squezed into your day, without otherwise disrupting the rest of your routine…

Nike ordered thanks guys

And scenic, quieter route mapped

In the same boat dude. Now to get a bike that is right for me at a good price, hence, my other post.

I find 3 real benefits of cycling over other similar eercises (Jogging and walking).

Cycling is a relatively smooth action, and causes me less grief to knees than jogging (and occasionally walking).

The rate of travel is higher (12-16mph) Vs 7-8 and 3-4.
This provides a reasonable rate of change of scenery when you're cycling in the countryside, and cuts down the monotony I find with jogging.

Once you've established a rhythm, it's possible for even relative beginners to continue for 60 – 90 minutes, wheras joggers will start to fail around the 15-20 minute mark.
most literature seems to identify 20 – 30 minutes as the beginning of aerobic benefit, and 30 minutes as the absolute minimum for fat burning.

So for me it's less injury prone and easier to maintain.