Living Car Free - How healthy is bicycling really?

It was, surprisingly, sunny and almost warm today, so I went on a 40-mile bike ride just for the heck of it. 12 miles of the ride was with friends who are novice riders; they drove their bikes to the MUP in a pickup, because they don't feel comfortable riding in traffic, and we rode maybe 10-12 mph for that section of the ride. Over lunch, my friends asked me how many calories we'd burned, and I honestly couldn't tell them (though I'm pretty sure it was a lot less than the lunch we'd just consumed). So much depends on terrain, the weight you're carrying, the wind, and how fast you're riding. Is there a reliable rule of thumb that you can use to estimate calories used while bicycling? I suspect riding 10-12 mph on a flat MUP is a lot different than doing 17-18, simply because of air resistance, or riding on more difficult terrain.

Estimate roughly 500 to 600 calories per hour ... depending.

"how healthy is bicycling?"
calories burned?
bikes in a car?

I'd say the most significant factor of our Health is our Environment.
therefore, I'd say, the fact of being in a car, dealing with petrochemical exhaust, etc...
i'd say that is the worst case scenario
or worse yet, blunt trauma

however as to Environment vs Exercises vs Calories
i'd have to suggest to look at what we commonly refer to as The Natural World
perhaps as if in an Aboriginal context
where "Exercise" is simply a Western measure of the simply act of movement thru the Natural Environ.

what I'm getting at
is that I believe Cycling to be very healthy
given the proficiency of handling the bicycle itself, and skill moving thru time and space
just as using a Woomera

the very Real threat to our health is our Industrialized Environment
everything from Physiological concerns to Spiritual and Psychological effects.

the frustration of living the "Wage Slave" life
the frustration of "Globalization" or as many are quick to point out "Cultural Genocide"

vs

the opportunity to actually get to work or go get the groceries
on something that develops balance, effort, and lets your body and mind sync thru the breath.
(yoga tangent)

but Health vs Bicycle?

I'd have to stick to my opinion that mostly its Environmental.
if a person lives lives in a cesspool of industry, surrounded by cars, breathing exhaust, with little to no legal rights as a bicyclist, compared to living in a Health, Eco, "green" oriented community, the differences are obvious.

everything on the in between is a matter of balance.

:-)

It was, surprisingly, sunny and almost warm today, so I went on a 40-mile bike ride just for the heck of it. 12 miles of the ride was with friends who are novice riders; they drove their bikes to the MUP in a pickup, because they don't feel comfortable riding in traffic, and we rode maybe 10-12 mph for that section of the ride. Over lunch, my friends asked me how many calories we'd burned, and I honestly couldn't tell them (though I'm pretty sure it was a lot less than the lunch we'd just consumed). So much depends on terrain, the weight you're carrying, the wind, and how fast you're riding. Is there a reliable rule of thumb that you can use to estimate calories used while bicycling? I suspect riding 10-12 mph on a flat MUP is a lot different than doing 17-18, simply because of air resistance, or riding on more difficult terrain.

Try this site.
http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/calories-burned-by.php?search=cycling

I dont know about cycling but I do know that you burn almost as many calories quickly walking for an hour as you do running an hour. The difference in distance and speed is not nearly as significant as time, thats if I remember freshman Health Ed from 5 years ago!

I dont know about cycling but I do know that you burn almost as many calories quickly walking for an hour as you do running an hour. The difference in distance and speed is not nearly as significant as time, thats if I remember freshman Health Ed from 5 years ago!

Not true.

quick and dirty rule of thumb for bike riding on a flat mup....35Kcals/ mile. So a 10 mile ride would be around 350Kcals.
Running/walking look for about 100Kcals/mile.

Not true.

Might be true. You don't have enough information. Biomechanically awkward walking at 4.6 mph might burn almost as many calories as a slow easy jog.

quick and dirty rule of thumb for bike riding on a flat mup....35Kcals/ mile. So a 10 mile ride would be around 350Kcals.
Running/walking look for about 100Kcals/mile.

Roody posted 40 per mile as a rule of thumb.

As far as what is "gentler" on the body I can only share what my orthopedic surgeon told me after I had both knees totally replaced......."NO running, normal (not fast) walking ok, and bicycling is the very best and most gentle form of execise for normal humans. If more people cycled I'd have less business."

Roody posted 40 per mile as a rule of thumb.

I've always heard 35, but I would be interested in knowing how that changes based on rider's weight and terran, etc. I suppose it all really comes down to heart rate, but I don't wear a monitor, so meh.


As far as what is "gentler" on the body I can only share what my orthopedic surgeon told me after I had both knees totally replaced......."NO running, normal (not fast) walking ok, and bicycling is the very best and most gentle form of execise for normal humans. If more people cycled I'd have less business."

The low impact-ness of cycling is both a blessing and a curse it would seem. I read an article not too long ago about a 28 year old avid cyclist taking a not especially nasty spill and breaking his pelvic bone. Apparently this is a big problem with cyclists as those who do not partake in some kind of high impact exercise tend to have weaker bones and are prone to these kind of injuries that would otherwise be unusual for an individual in their age and fitness group. I'm not a doctor, I just play one on the internet, YMMV, void where prohibited, etc.

As far as what is "gentler" on the body I can only share what my orthopedic surgeon told me after I had both knees totally replaced......."NO running, normal (not fast) walking ok, and bicycling is the very best and most gentle form of execise for normal humans. If more people cycled I'd have less business."

+1. Given a choice between running for half an hour and riding for half an hour, I'd rather ride. Much less jarring.

I dont know about cycling but I do know that you burn almost as many calories quickly walking for an hour as you do running an hour. The difference in distance and speed is not nearly as significant as time, thats if I remember freshman Health Ed from 5 years ago!

You don't rememebr your freshman health well. You burn almost as many calories walking a mile as you do running a mile. It's the distance that cause equity, not time.

Assuming a small person at moderate walking and running paces, you burn roughly 100 calories per mile. If you walked at 15 min/mile, you burn 400 calories in an hour. If you ran at 7.5 mim/mile, you burn 800 calories in an hour.

I've always heard 35, but I would be interested in knowing how that changes based on rider's weight and terran, etc. I suppose it all really comes down to heart rate, but I don't wear a monitor, so meh.



If you're planning to lose weight, estimate low ... so go with 35 calories per mile.

Now, I ride slowly ... I do about 20 km/h when I ride ... that's about 12.4 mph *35 calories = 435 calories per hour. That sounds about right for the pace I do.

not true.

great post!!!! Really goood info!!!!! Great contribution to the discussion!!!!!

great post!!!! Really goood info!!!!! Great contribution to the discussion!!!!!

:lol:

calories burned = Health?
???

low impact?
i can understand not wanting to get hurt, etc...
too many sodas?
too much sitting around, maybe in traffic?
osteoporosis?
bone density, load bearing, etc...


low impact, cal/hr ?
swimming?

calories burned = Health?
???

low impact?
i can understand not wanting to get hurt, etc...
too many sodas?
too much sitting around, maybe in traffic?
osteoporosis?
bone density, load bearing, etc...


low impact, cal/hr ?
swimming?
I'm not sure what you're getting at with these phrases but a couple of the words relate to what I was thinking. In another thread someone brought up that cyclists might gain good cardiovascular health but have bone density problems.

Another thing is the mental health aspect of living car-free. Several of the people I know who have given up cars have remarked on their improved outlook on life. When they talk about it they switch from sounding rational to sounding all new-agey. They say things like "When I drove I got all aggressive and angry at nothing, when I bike I feel light and free. When I get to my destination I have positive energy but I remember driving filled me with negative energy." I don't really get the negative energy positive energy talk but among my co-workers, on average, the car-free seem happier. There are exceptions, one of the most car-dependent is one of the pleasantest people and I might be the most dour car-free person- less pleasant to work around than the pleasantest car-dependent. My problem is my reaction to incompetence and hubris. I'm pretty sure if a fly on the wall ranked the people in my workplace by happiness and then ranked them by percent of transport mileage in a private car you'd get a strong negative correlation between happiness and car mileage.

I've seen a couple of threads here on cycling and bone density concluding that higher impact exercises are necessary to keep bones strong. These include walking, running, weight lifting, racket sports, (yes) swimming.

Also, I find if I cycle but don't walk, I lose flexibility in my legs and back.

I dont know about cycling but I do know that you burn almost as many calories quickly walking for an hour as you do running an hour. The difference in distance and speed is not nearly as significant as time, thats if I remember freshman Health Ed from 5 years ago!

I'm assuming you failed that class.

I've seen a couple of threads here on cycling and bone density concluding that higher impact exercises are necessary to keep bones strong. These include walking, running, weight lifting, racket sports, (yes) swimming.

Also, I find if I cycle but don't walk, I lose flexibility in my legs and back.

yep.....one needs a balanced regimen in order to be healthy. too much of any one form of exercise can lead to imbalances in muscles, can lead to unhealthy bones, and can lead to overuse injuries.

The running burns the same amount of calories as walking myth is explained here:



Our argument began when I told Swain that both walking and running burn the same number of calories per mile. I was absolutely certain of this fact for two unassailable reasons: (1) I had read it a billion times; and (2) I had repeated it a billion times. Most runners have heard that running burns about 100 calories a mile. And since walking a mile requires you to move the same body weight over the same distance, walking should also burn about 100 calories a mile. Sir Isaac Newton said so.

Swain was unimpressed by my junior-high physics. "When you perform a continuous exercise, you burn five calories for every liter of oxygen you consume," he said. "And running in general consumes a lot more oxygen than walking."
What the Numbers Show

I was still gathering my resources for a retort when a new article crossed my desk, and changed my cosmos. In "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," published last December in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men and 12 women while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and just 88 while walking; the women burned 105 and 74. (The men burned more than the women because they weighed more.)http://tinyurl.com/y4kkf4

As a previous poster mentioned the assumption that walking burns the same amount of calories as running is wrong/

I'm not a doctor, I just play one on the internet, YMMV, void where prohibited, etc.

Noted. :innocent:

calories burned = Health?
???

low impact?
i can understand not wanting to get hurt, etc...
too many sodas?
too much sitting around, maybe in traffic?
osteoporosis?
bone density, load bearing, etc...


low impact, cal/hr ?
swimming?

what i was getting at is:

how is "Calories burned" a measure of Health?
i can assume or foreshadow in context of obesity, hence diet, and exercise.
perhaps "calories burned" is a significant factor to overweight person's Health.

however, in my personal life, "Calories Burned" is most often not a concern, as I simply do not own a car, and I'm active all day long. Calories Burned is simply a measure of energy use.

i.e. last saturday was the solvang double, a gross calculation was over 7,000 calories. 18mph avg speed, headwind, etc... "calories burned" for me, is just a gross measure.

as to Health, there is much more to it than just burning calories. Of course hygiene, varying exercise, etc...

on the tangent of the term "Exercise". its just a word used to define activity that required physical effort.

in the aboriginal context...
in the context of the Natural World, range and motion, physical effort, calories burned, all of that, is simply "Being".

I'm always amazed how much we use the term "Exercise", which immediately indicates that a person's vantage point (more than likely) comes from a sedentary Lifestyle.

for instance:
young children do not exercise. they Play.
yet today, there is a whole lot of buzz about "muscle confusion".

i know its a subtle shift of mind
but at some point, i suppose that is really what Peter Pan was getting at, at some point we grow up and forget how to Play.

if we'd just go out and play for 4hrs a day, we'd be a whole lot Healthier.

as we age, of course, we typically loose skills, and perhaps the Sport Recreational Activity of Choice is substantially dangerous.
i.e. riding a bicycle, and we lack the appropriate skills.
just as if we were out hunting in the outback with a Woomera.

i can go on about this kind of stuff...
but its time for my 3:30pm nap!

rest

peace...d

As a previous poster mentioned the assumption that walking burns the same amount of calories as running is wrong/

I'd have to agree. Walking is a great form of exercise; it's way better than sitting in a car, it's a lot less intimidating than most other forms of exercise, and it's also very relaxing, but it's not as good for fitness as running or bicycling (if you bicycle aggressively). I used to run 5 mi/day, and I was in great shape, but I had to mostly give it up when I went car-free, because my legs are too tired from all the walking and riding. I occasionally go through periods when I do a lot of walking, and almost no riding, and I've noticed that when I do this, I gain a bit of weight, and I also get my butt kicked when I get back on the bike.

IMO, the best exercise is bicycling, if you have hills, are willing to ride at or above 16 mph on flat stretches, and have a lot of time. If I use a previous poster's 35 kcal/mi rule of thumb, a 40 mile ride will burn about 1400 Kcal. You'd almost have to run a half-marathon to burn that many calories. Given the time, I could do 40 mile rides on a bike every day without hurting myself, but I couldn't begin to run a half-marathon every day. If you don't have a lot of time, running is the way to go, though; you burn a lot of calories in a hurry, you build muscular endurance and lung capacity, and it promotes bone strength.

You don't rememebr your freshman health well. You burn almost as many calories walking a mile as you do running a mile. It's the distance that cause equity, not time.

Assuming a small person at moderate walking and running paces, you burn roughly 100 calories per mile. If you walked at 15 min/mile, you burn 400 calories in an hour. If you ran at 7.5 mim/mile, you burn 800 calories in an hour.

Ahh thats right. I stand corrected, as I said... long time ago!

Ride for life.

I'd have to agree. Walking is a great form of exercise; it's way better than sitting in a car, it's a lot less intimidating than most other forms of exercise, and it's also very relaxing, but it's not as good for fitness as running or bicycling (if you bicycle aggressively). I used to run 5 mi/day, and I was in great shape, but I had to mostly give it up when I went car-free, because my legs are too tired from all the walking and riding. I occasionally go through periods when I do a lot of walking, and almost no riding, and I've noticed that when I do this, I gain a bit of weight, and I also get my butt kicked when I get back on the bike.

IMO, the best exercise is bicycling, if you have hills, are willing to ride at or above 16 mph on flat stretches, and have a lot of time. If I use a previous poster's 35 kcal/mi rule of thumb, a 40 mile ride will burn about 1400 Kcal. You'd almost have to run a half-marathon to burn that many calories. Given the time, I could do 40 mile rides on a bike every day without hurting myself, but I couldn't begin to run a half-marathon every day. If you don't have a lot of time, running is the way to go, though; you burn a lot of calories in a hurry, you build muscular endurance and lung capacity, and it promotes bone strength.

i forget where i read it
but somewhere, i read that its estimated that Humans traveled about 30 miles every day when migrating around the ice age.

i was in the Army 87 thru 91
my buddy was a Oglala Sioux from Pine Ridge.
we were part of the 7th I.D. Light...
uhh... 13 miles a day?
uhh... walking is the primary movement the human body has evolved to do.

I'm not even a runner
but i can ride 200 miles in a day, and run 6 miles afterwards.
not that this is a contest over whom can do what..
30hrs a week on the bike? not out of this world for sure.

i used to work in a Hospital, the guys in transport, the staff whom transports patients around the hospital, they'd easily walk 12 miles a day... at work.

albeit, a person does need to take care of themselves.
i sit around around massage my legs a bunch.

the human body is an amazing thing.

and it does like to be cared for.

yoga, massage, and nutrition.

and take naps! if you can.

I'd have to agree. Walking is a great form of exercise; it's way better than sitting in a car, it's a lot less intimidating than most other forms of exercise, and it's also very relaxing, but it's not as good for fitness as running or bicycling (if you bicycle aggressively). I used to run 5 mi/day, and I was in great shape, but I had to mostly give it up when I went car-free, because my legs are too tired from all the walking and riding. I occasionally go through periods when I do a lot of walking, and almost no riding, and I've noticed that when I do this, I gain a bit of weight, and I also get my butt kicked when I get back on the bike.

IMO, the best exercise is bicycling, if you have hills, are willing to ride at or above 16 mph on flat stretches, and have a lot of time. If I use a previous poster's 35 kcal/mi rule of thumb, a 40 mile ride will burn about 1400 Kcal. You'd almost have to run a half-marathon to burn that many calories. Given the time, I could do 40 mile rides on a bike every day without hurting myself, but I couldn't begin to run a half-marathon every day. If you don't have a lot of time, running is the way to go, though; you burn a lot of calories in a hurry, you build muscular endurance and lung capacity, and it promotes bone strength.

I think it's a little simplistic to speculate about the "best" form of exercise.

Any exercise is better than none, so from that POV the "best" exercise is the one that the person will actually perform. This is one big advantage of things like transportation cycling and walking--if you have to get somewhere, you will get your exercise.


There are also many aspects of fitness: strength, stamina, power, speed, balance, flexibility, health of organ systems like skeleton and cardiovascular, motor skill. There are many more, but yopu get the idea. From this POV, there is no one "best" form of exercise. You need a variety. At a minimum, I would say we need

cardio such as cycling, running and walking
strength, such as weight lifting, calisthenics or Pilates
flexibility, such as stretching, yoga, etc.
balance and motor skills, such as dancing, cycling, skating, gymnastics, martial arts

^ good post Roody.

Jack LaLanne: You have to take care of your 640 muscles, and the number one thing is exercise. You can eat perfectly but if you don't exercise, you cannot get by. There are so many health food nuts out there that eat nothing but natural foods but they don't exercise and they look terrible. Then there are other people who exercise like a son-of-a-gun but eat a lot of junk. They look pretty good because the exercise is king. Nutrition is queen. Put them together and you've got a kingdom!


Jack knows exercise.

I think it's a little simplistic to speculate about the "best" form of exercise.

I wasn't speaking in absolutes, just sharing my own opinion; for me, cycling and running seem to provide more fitness benefits, even though I walk regularly and enjoy every minute of it. (To be honest, even though I love cycling, I'd much rather walk than ride in heavy traffic.)



Any exercise is better than none, so from that POV the "best" exercise is the one that the person will actually perform. This is one big advantage of things like transportation cycling and walking--if you have to get somewhere, you will get your exercise.



+1.

I have often wondered how many miles most car free people do in a year? I never have been a runner, don't care for the stress on the knees. But I know how far I walk and how far my wife walks. I know how far I cycle and being car light I know how it compares to how far I drive.

I think it's a little simplistic to speculate about the "best" form of exercise.

Any exercise is better than none, so from that POV the "best" exercise is the one that the person will actually perform. This is one big advantage of things like transportation cycling and walking--if you have to get somewhere, you will get your exercise.


There are also many aspects of fitness: strength, stamina, power, speed, balance, flexibility, health of organ systems like skeleton and cardiovascular, motor skill. There are many more, but yopu get the idea. From this POV, there is no one "best" form of exercise. You need a variety. At a minimum, I would say we need

cardio such as cycling, running and walking
strength, such as weight lifting, calisthenics or Pilates
flexibility, such as stretching, yoga, etc.
balance and motor skills, such as dancing, cycling, skating, gymnastics, martial arts

In terms of priorities, if I recall my phys ed. your list seems to be in order. I took phys ed. when heart attacks were a big killer so the professor said cardio was the most important. So I always thought my car-free living takes car of the most important without effortlessly and thoughtlessly. The others take planning and effort. So if I were going to take on the second most important one would it be strength? Should I be buying weights or can I just heave my heavy city bike around the apartment? There must be someplace on the web describing a weightlifting routine using your bike. My understanding is that you need to gradually increase the weight so using a bike would be good for that, just add water bottles or put bricks in the panniers to increase the weight.

i forget where i read it
but somewhere, i read that its estimated that Humans traveled about 30 miles every day when migrating around the ice age.

i was in the Army 87 thru 91
my buddy was a Oglala Sioux from Pine Ridge.
we were part of the 7th I.D. Light...
uhh... 13 miles a day?
uhh... walking is the primary movement the human body has evolved to do.

I'm not even a runner
but i can ride 200 miles in a day, and run 6 miles afterwards.
not that this is a contest over whom can do what..
30hrs a week on the bike? not out of this world for sure.

i used to work in a Hospital, the guys in transport, the staff whom transports patients around the hospital, they'd easily walk 12 miles a day... at work.

albeit, a person does need to take care of themselves.
i sit around around massage my legs a bunch.

the human body is an amazing thing.

and it does like to be cared for.

yoga, massage, and nutrition.

and take naps! if you can.

I have to take exception with the comment that stone age people were able to walk 30 miles a day.
I believe what I read was that people migrated thirty miles a year as humans spread across the earth. I think you would be hard pressed to travel that distance over un-paved terrain with women and children and carrying everything you owned on your back.

As far as my experience goes I skated street for 16 years and skating is much better excercise than biking because you use more muscles and develope balance with a little impact for bone density. I only used my bikes for transport in those days, now my brain writes checks my body can't cash so I don't really skate anymore. Sucks getting old.

I have often wondered how many miles most car free people do in a year? I never have been a runner, don't care for the stress on the knees. But I know how far I walk and how far my wife walks. I know how far I cycle and being car light I know how it compares to how far I drive.

Every Year in December and January this forum has a thread that invites people to post their mileage. These threads should be pretty easy to find, at least back to the time of the Great Bikeforums Data Crash.

Every Year in December and January this forum has a thread that invites people to post their mileage. These threads should be pretty easy to find, at least back to the time of the Great Bikeforums Data Crash.

Next time one of those threads appears, I hope posters also include their daily calorie count. My problem is that I do over 4,000 miles a year, but I also eat like a horse. Currently, I don't calorie count because it would take too much time from my favorite activity... which seems to be eating!

I think cycling just increases appetite exponentially.

I have to take exception with the comment that stone age people were able to walk 30 miles a day.
I believe what I read was that people migrated thirty miles a year as humans spread across the earth. I think you would be hard pressed to travel that distance over un-paved terrain with women and children and carrying everything you owned on your back.

As far as my experience goes I skated street for 16 years and skating is much better excercise than biking because you use more muscles and develope balance with a little impact for bone density. I only used my bikes for transport in those days, now my brain writes checks my body can't cash so I don't really skate anymore. Sucks getting old.

ya i know, it blows my mind.
i forgot where i read that
plus they had to adapt to their envrion along the way.
its a crazy "quote" or mis-quote.

I have often wondered how many miles most car free people do in a year? I never have been a runner, don't care for the stress on the knees. But I know how far I walk and how far my wife walks. I know how far I cycle and being car light I know how it compares to how far I drive.

Depends on the person and their specific situation. But when I was car free ~5200 miles a year was my average. I suspect it will be between 3500-6000 or so.

Aaron:)

Depends on the person and their specific situation. But when I was car free ~5200 miles a year was my average. I suspect it will be between 3500-6000 or so.

Aaron:)

This (5200 miles/yr) is about my bike milage too. Unfortunately, I also do about an equal amount on interurban buses every year. That brings my total travel milage up to more that 10,000 miles per year--in the same range as the average car dependant person.

This (5200 miles/yr) is about my bike milage too. Unfortunately, I also do about an equal amount on interurban buses every year. That brings my total travel milage up to more that 10,000 miles per year--in the same range as the average car dependant person.

I didn't include any bus, taxi, rental car or bummed rides mileage in that number. But I would guess it was another 2k or so a year. FWIW last year I drove my truck around 22,000 miles but only about 1700 of that was for personal use. I am guessing I did about 1500 or so on my bike. Big turn around from my "misspent" youth:o

Aaron:)