Originally Posted by
KraneXL
It isn't about reasoning, it about preference. Running for example is a great aerobic activity but its not for everyone even though you could argue it burns more calories per unit time than cycling.
Just because someone chooses one aerobic activity over another doesn't make them wrong even if one has additional advantages the other does not.
On the other hand, cycling is a lower impact activity. So each has advantages (and disadvantages) the other does not. Its up to the individual to decide what works best for them and what they prefer.
Your argument is the equivalent to a 400 pound person touting all the potential hazards and negatives of running to someone that has the ability to run very effectively. Its obvious why this individual would be against running.
no, it would be like someone saying running cures diabetes and giving one anecdote, and the rest of us saying no it doesn't but there are still lots of good things running can do for you, but not the only exercise that can get you the same results.