[yabudemada]

Clever idea and implementation! I think from a health standpoint, though, this is a false positive and it is probably better to go for an old fashioned _walk_; or to drop to the floor and do some yoga.

For instance, sitting down too much is in itself detrimental to ones health (whether pedaling or not). E.g. prostate health, posture, etc.

In contrast, a stationary bike or road bike, the rider can stand up and pedal fast, etc. There's a much broader range of motion which make the activity healthy!

[impendia]

I bought an under-desk bike near the beginning of lockdown and have run the odometer into the four figures. I highly recommend it to anyone.

I definitely agree with you that it is no replacement for walking, yoga, or other active forms of exercise. But I have found it a great substitute for just sitting while using a computer.

[yabudemada]

What about men's testicular/prostate health though? Bike seats are specially designed for cycling ergonomics; desk chairs are design for sitting upright in an ergonomic _stationary_ position.

I say this because I had some prostate bruising (I recovered from that quickly doing yoga), but I attribute it to sitting too long; I don't even want to think what a pedaling motion in my chair would do down there! Granted, I have never pedaled in my chair so I accept that maybe it is fine—I'm just not willing to take the risk.

Personally, I'd go more for a walking desk or something where the motion is natural, but the desired cardio effect is the same.

[impendia]

I haven't experienced, nor done anything to avoid, any sort of pain or injury like this. Maybe I'm just lucky?

[amelius]

> it is probably better to go for an old fashioned _walk_

For cardiofitness you need to get your heartrate over a certain threshold. A walk won't do that.

[dundarious]

For longevity, AFAIK you don't need that degree of cardiofitness, and walking is sufficient. It's possible to reduce longevity through running too fast, for example. Cultures that have noted longevity are not known for having an exercise culture either, rather they are moderately active throughout/several times a day.

Unfortunately I can't find my sources right now, so take that as just something some guy said on the Internet.

[randcraw]

Two guys. I've seen a lot of confirmation from medical researchers that moderate rate walking (easy to converse meanwhile) does provide some aerobic benefit as well as improve strength and balance. Faster walking (difficult to converse) delivers more aerobic benefit still, to the extent that for folks over 55, it's suggested that fast walking is sufficient to get aerobic benefits.

And if that's not enough, you can always speedwalk.

[novok]

Walking up hills is the gentle-to-the-body challenge increaser, and makes sense since even tribesmen of 50k years ago needed to walk up hills and mountains regularly.

[ska]

>A walk won't do that.

It can if you choose it, for reasonable levels of cardio.

If you are only going to do one thing (not advocating that!) you aren't going to be able to beat walking, especially on varying terrain.