Recreational & Family - Is biking enough for good health?

Hypothetical question: Is biking 30+ minutes a day all you need for good health, or are there more exercises that need to be done? (if so, which?)

Thanks

It's certainly enough for better health, better than most. I'd say it's enough, though others say an hour is best. Remember, a healthy diet is just as important as daily exercise. Eat your veggies!

For a balanced and good health program, include at least the following:

1. Flexibility (stretching, etc.)

2. Body composition (% fat vs muscle)

3. Muscular strength (particularly important as one ages)

4. Cardio vascular health and endurance

5. "Medical" health - diabetes, condition of heart and other organs, arthritis, hypoglycemia, etc.

6. Nutrition - what one puts in their body, necessary supplements, etc.

7. Regular physical checkups

Certainly bicycling can help with aspects of the above, but it is definitely not the total picture.

It's certainly enough for better health, better than most. I'd say it's enough, though others say an hour is best. Remember, a healthy diet is just as important as daily exercise. Eat your veggies!

One hour would be my advise.

Biking alone does little if anything for upper body strength, conditioning, and flexibility.

Biking alone does little if anything for upper body strength, conditioning, and flexibility.
+1

Biking 30 min a day is a great starty, but some sort of impact/weight-bearing exercise is also really needed, partly for muscle strength, but also for bone density.

One hour would be my advise.
If you have time for it, definitely.

It depends as well on the type of biking - short sharp speed races will build up muscle, while the longer more relaxed cycles help with endurance. Biking while awesome isn't a complete exercise regimen by itself though. Something like swimming is as close to that as you're likely to get.

For a balanced and good health program, include at least the following:

1. Flexibility (stretching, etc.)

2. Body composition (% fat vs muscle)

3. Muscular strength (particularly important as one ages)

4. Cardio vascular health and endurance

5. "Medical" health - diabetes, condition of heart and other organs, arthritis, hypoglycemia, etc.

6. Nutrition - what one puts in their body, necessary supplements, etc.

7. Regular physical checkups

Certainly bicycling can help with aspects of the above, but it is definitely not the total picture.

I'd make nutrition number one on the list. You can run a car, for example, on ethanol, but you won't get the best performance or efficiency as you would running gasoline. ;)

I'd make nutrition number one on the list. You can run a car, for example, on ethanol, but you won't get the best performance or efficiency as you would running gasoline. ;)

Is that ehtanol bit learned from personal experience? :)

Fittest I have ever been when I was cycling 60 km a day and spending my workday doing fairly intense physical labour... by itself the cycling does not provide enough load bearing exercise and does little to build muscle.

It all starts with good nutrition and maintaining good flexibility is important so stretching is an important aspect of any complete health regimen.

Is that ehtanol bit learned from personal experience? :)

yep :notamused:

I read once (it's been a few years and you know how these "facts" change over time) that you don't start burning fat until you've been riding a bike for 90 minutes (and I assume this means riding in the fat burning heart rate zone).

I will grant you that burning fat and being healthy are not the same thing, but it does tell me that you would need to be on your bike for a longer amount of time to get the same workout as a 30 minute jog. For most people, myself included, an hour a day of getting away from the house is a rare luxury, so a 30 minute jog in the morning is what I choose to do for exercise. I mostly commute with my bicycle (and when I do have the chance to go on a nice long bike ride, I don't think of it as exercise in the same vein as jogging).

If time constraints were not an issue, I'm not sure what would be a better workout, but certainly neither one of them on their own leads to good health. Like the other posters have said, good nutrition and using other muscle groups is required.

(and I assume this means riding in the fat burning heart rate zone).



There is no such thing as a fat burning heart rate zone. This is a fallacy promulgated by manufacturers of exercise equipment to have a nice thing to put on their charts. There is a place where one burns a higher percentage of fat a certain exercise rate, but it is negated at higher rates of exercise by the total increase in calories burned, which eventually comes from fat.

There are numerous web sites documenting this fallacy. I will try and find a couple. In the meantime do your own research.

http://epoch-archive.com/a1/en/us/nyc/2009/12-Dec/17/C5_EET_20091217_NY.pdf

http://www.divinecaroline.com/22176/72281-don-t-believe-health-hype-six

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/26674/99999999/1/1/

Since riding is a non-contact sport, it doesnt enhance skeleton strength. Should be combined with walking, running or similair strain.

checkout www.hundredpushups.com (http://www.hundredpushups.com) and his other programs (200 sit-ups etc etc )

checkout www.hundredpushups.com (http://www.hundredpushups.com) and his other programs (200 sit-ups etc etc )

Situps are no longer considered a safe exercise, use crunches instead.

For abs and core muscles add in planks - 60 to 90 seconds at a time. For hams (which get weakened by bicycling) use bridges. Do dips for triceps, along with pushups.

At age 71, I do 90-120 second planks, 66 pushups, lots of two and one-legged bridges using a fitness ball, dips (4 sets of 20-25).

Situps are no longer considered a safe exercise, use crunches instead.

They recommend the crunches on their web site . I will checkout planks . thanks.

There is no such thing as a fat burning heart rate zone. This is a fallacy promulgated by manufacturers of exercise equipment to have a nice thing to put on their charts. There is a place where one burns a higher percentage of fat a certain exercise rate, but it is negated at higher rates of exercise by the total increase in calories burned, which eventually comes from fat.

There are numerous web sites documenting this fallacy. I will try and find a couple. In the meantime do your own research.

http://epoch-archive.com/a1/en/us/nyc/2009/12-Dec/17/C5_EET_20091217_NY.pdf

http://www.divinecaroline.com/22176/72281-don-t-believe-health-hype-six

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/26674/99999999/1/1/

Comment retracted. And in the meantime, I don't pay attention to my heart rate unless it is non-existent.

Situps are no longer considered a safe exercise, use crunches instead.

For abs and core muscles add in planks - 60 to 90 seconds at a time. For hams (which get weakened by bicycling) use bridges. Do dips for triceps, along with pushups.

At age 71, I do 90-120 second planks, 66 pushups, lots of two and one-legged bridges using a fitness ball, dips (4 sets of 20-25).

That's a very nice exercise list.

I cycle about 100 miles a week but do no other exercise and my upper body strength does not compare well with my legs of steel.

I tried to touch my toes the other day and couldn't get within 6 inches of them.

Do you guys think boxing is sufficient for upper body exercise--specifically a combination of shadow boxing and heavy bag work?

I'd make nutrition number one on the list. You can run a car, for example, on ethanol, but you won't get the best performance or efficiency as you would running gasoline. ;)

A modern street car maybe. But with all due respect, that's a bad analogy. Ethanol is commonly known as a high octane racing fuel for race cars. Stick to bikes. I do, however, agree with your nutrition conclusion.

I went for my check up in May and told the doc i was riding again and he said biking was one of the best things i can do for health and exercise. Low impact and great for the heart. My blood work numbers were better also.

Biking is a good start, at least. Realize that it's an efficient form of human-powered transportation, though - which means that it doesn't require a lot of exertion, either, unless you're really cranking.

But, as has been said, make nutrition just as important. Even the exercise toys sold on TV say, in the fine print, to follow a good diet.

I've actually noticed improved upper-body and core muscle strength since I started biking. That's starting from a position of essentially zero conditioning, though!

For upper-body, I'd really like to start kayaking -- went a week ago, and it's incredibly fun. I have no interest in "working out" for the sake of working out; I like my exercise to come from something that's fun and rewarding, or useful -- and ideally both.

A modern street car maybe. But with all due respect, that's a bad analogy. Ethanol is commonly known as a high octane racing fuel for race cars. Stick to bikes. I do, however, agree with your nutrition conclusion.

Perhaps I should have said E85...which is weak sauce, overpriced and gets 20% fewer MPG.

But yeah, that could be due to having an engine that is made for gasoline and modified to eat corn.