View Single Post
Old 06-08-14, 05:48 AM
  #12293  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,498

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 511 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7345 Post(s)
Liked 2,452 Times in 1,430 Posts
Originally Posted by FBinNY
Yes, cycle comuting doesn't always result in weight loss. But it doesn't hurt. It's even possible to gain weight while riding an hour a day.

OTOH- cycling even that little, or at low effort levels, generally replace some body fat with muscle, so even at the same weight, you're still healthier.

Weight is a poor indicator of condition, and over emphasized because there's not an easier index, but I'll venture that a 250# football player is likely fitter than most people with very favorable BMIs. Proponents of the BMI even had to come up with a category -- the fit fat -- to get around the statistical issues with the system.

IMO, those Clydesdales who take up biking should focus less on the scale, and more on their belt size. This will usually show more progress and be less discouraging than the scale.
Tell me more (or point me to what to read) about how BMI is not a good indicator. Seems like a better one than weight. I also gained weight after bike commuting, while my waist size shrank.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline