[mattlondon]

Is this impact above and beyond just the same amount of physical exercise? E.g. jogging?

I think at this stage it is well understood that physical exercise has all these positives, so it would be interesting to know if anyone knows if bicycling is even better, or if it's just more of the same?

Is cycling special I guess .... Like, I dunno using a pogo stick might have the same benefit as cycling, since it's all just physical activity at the end of the day?

[chickensong]

Cycling is special IMHO. It can be strenuous exercise like running, or a casual cruise that's even easier than walking. The speed is highly adjustable and easy to get in the sweet spot for that moment. It's not too slow to get bored, and not too fast to miss out on your environment.

Bikes are also a wonderful expression of physics, and the effect of centrifugal force is a key reason why cycling is special. The property of increasing stability with speed is amazing. Leaning not steering is also wonderful. The flow state you can achieve on a bicycle is unreal. Mind, body, and your physical environment in unison.

There's a mechanical beauty as well, that's easy to understand, but with plenty of depth to dig into and enjoy. Wheels and gear ratios are some of humanity's greatest achievements, and you get to pair that with interesting geometry and materials that have a direct impact on your experience. The difference between riding a junker that's not right for your body and a nice/fitted bike, is like the difference between wearing a burlap sack and a tailored suit.

Physical exercise is good, but bikes are much more than just a means to stay fit and produce endorphins. I wish everyone would bike more. Truly one of life's great joys.

[thewebguyd]

> Bikes are also a wonderful expression of physics

And efficiency! A human on a bicycle is more efficient than any other vehicle or animal. If we ran on gasoline, a cyclist would get the equivalent of roughly 1,000 miles per gallon. A well maintained bike drivetrain can reach 98% efficiency. Compare that to an ICE car which loses up to 70% of its energy to heat and friction.

[pandaman]

Where did you get this? Humans, like all mammals, are not very efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical work, definitely less efficient than ICE at 30% COP (aerobic process gives about 20-25% COP and anaerobic is horrible 5-10).

[thewebguyd]

Humans are not metabolically efficient, yes, but on a bicycle the total transport efficiency is more efficient than anything else, and 30% for an ICE car is in ideal, optimal conditions. Real world stop and go driving is likely closer to 15%.

A human on a bicycle is efficient because of mass and that the bicycle itself is a very efficient machine. A cyclist will burn around 30cal/mile of riding. If a gallon of gas has about 31.5k kcal of energy, then that's about 1,000MPGe for a human on a bike. A 200lb person + 20lb bike requires very little energy to overcome rolling resistance compared to a 2000+ lb ICE vehicle that spends the majority of its energy just to move its own mass.

[pandaman]

I don't know what "total transport efficiency" is or how is it measured, I just noticed you mentioned 70% of energy wasted by ICE as if humans waste less than that. As for more efficient than anything else in terms of MPG, you might want to check the current MPG record, it's in range of 15K MPG on some hydrogen powered car if memory serves.

[lumiukko]

Here's a source for that. I also remembered it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-human-on-a-bicy...

[pandaman]

Did you read it? Humans aren’t very efficient movers—until you put us on a bicycle, when we become some of the most energy-efficient land travelers in the animal kingdom. right at the start. It talks about animals only.

[hackingonempty]

The Aerovelo Eta, used to set the human powered speed record, has an MPGe of 9544.

https://www.aerovelo.com/eta-speedbike

[thewebguyd]

There's a few things unique/special to cycling. Injury prevention is a big one, especially vs. running. Cycling is non-weight bearing and avoids repetitive loading and joint impact. (runners average 11 injuries per 1,000 hours vs. cycling's 6 injuries per 1,000 hours).

Because of that though you can ride for much longer durations comfortably than any other high-impact activity so cycling lets you have a much higher total volume of work and greater calorie expenditure without overtraining.

[cschep]

this also means that more cafes are easily within reach of a cycle, where a jog can't quite get you there. plus cycling after a huge sandwich and a coffee is a lot easier than running :)

[mmooss]

> runners average 11 injuries per 1,000 hours vs. cycling's 6 injuries per 1,000 hours

Do you remember the source(s)? I'm hoping to read more about those and other activities.

> Cycling is non-weight bearing and avoids repetitive loading and joint impact.

Sure. I've also seen at least one study [0] that says the lack of weight-bearing means cyclists don't build bone strength and are more prone to fractures. I wonder if just riding in higher gears addresses that.

> Because of that though you can ride for much longer durations comfortably than any other high-impact activity so cycling lets you have a much higher total volume of work and greater calorie expenditure without overtraining.

Doesn't that also make it less efficient? Running seems to provide more exercise/hour. Again, maybe higher gears would solve that problem.

[0] Sorry, I don't remember the source but I discovered it while looking for something else on, I think, PubMed.

[thewebguyd]

Running injuries: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1439399/

The studies were sport specific, so I'm not sure where to find specifics on other activities too but I'm sure there's data out there for other sports.

> that says the lack of weight-bearing means cyclists don't build bone strength and are more prone to fractures

This is true, especially as you get older, and riding in harder gears don't really help either. There is more torque being applied, but its still a smooth, continuous force there's no impact traveling through to stimulate bone density. You need high magnitude, short duration forces (3x+ body weight) to stimulate that.

By far the most effective way is weightlifting/strength training, which IMO everyone should do, at least 1x or 2x/week. Even runners will benefit from strength training, it's necessary for injury prevention.

> Doesn't that also make it less efficient? Running seems to provide more exercise/hour. Again, maybe higher gears would solve that problem.

Running will get you a higher total energy expenditure, yes. A 45 minute run will be more strain than a 45 minute casual bike ride.

The big difference is total weekly volume. With running, because its such high impact, you have a limit on the weekly volume you can hit before you get an injury or start overtraining. About 5 to 10 hours/week for recreational runners.

A cyclist can sustain 15-20+ hours/week of training volume before you run into the same overtraining or overuse risks.

Cycling is technically less time-efficient on an hour by hour basis, but it does allow for significantly more total weekly volume and absolute calorie burn without overtraining stress or injury.

Gearing doesn't really change the formula at all. Gearing changes which system is being used cardio vs. muscular fatigue. If you shift into a harder gear, but your cadence drops proportionally, your power output remains identical. But mashing (a lower cadence) a harder gear changes from using your slow-twitch muscle fibers to fast-twitch fibers. You'll fatigue faster, and burn out well before you hit the time needed for good cardiovascular stimulus. Gearing isn't used to make the ride harder or easier, it's used to maintain your cadence in a specific power band (e.g., 85rpm @ 200W) like the transmission in a car.

[mmooss]

That's an awesome response; thank you.

[ervine]

Not scientific but I enjoy actually going somewhere. Jogging you can get to places in your neighborhood, but cycling I can get to places in my region.

That’s why I get on the bike, you’re moving through areas slowly enough to enjoy them but quickly enough to really take in a lot.

[scott_w]

> Not scientific but I enjoy actually going somewhere. Jogging you can get to places in your neighborhood, but cycling I can get to places in my region.

You just reminded me of my holiday to Biarritz in April where my wife received a text: "Should be back in about an hour or so, I'm just riding back from Spain."

[t_mahmood]

Addition to what others have said, it's also therapeutic. Like exploring new places, the feeling/sounds. It's not detached from the environment, like it is in the car, nor it is too loud like it is on the motorbikes. It's not too fast, nor to slow to enjoy the surroundings. And, the sound of the hubs, wheels can feel peaceful even.

In my case, my city is disgustingly depressing. But after I started riding, I realized the city had so much greenery around it. And no car or motorbike could access it. Riding down the village roads, between the trees, that you can not access by a motor vehicle, or walking, is an amazing experience. And, it does not damage the environment, nor ruins the peace with loud noise.

[mattlondon]

FWIW I have found cyclists to often ruin the experience if you are walking or running through said greenery.

They go fast down the lanes, are often shouting and roaring at walkers to "stand back" or "get out of the way" (...at the polite end of the spectrum...) as they approach from behind at 20-30mph etc (assuming they warn you at all and don't whizz by with just a few cm/inches gap), if it is a soil track they will often leave tramlines in the mud that gets baked in and so on. And let's not even start on what they are like in urban environments (tl;Dr - habitually ignore all the rules including red lights etc)

IME cyclists are entitled, arrogant, and selfish. Maybe you are nice and respectful, but in my lived experience in and around London as a pedestrian and runner 90% of cyclists are total arseholes.

And it's not just me - arrogant selfish cyclists who don't give a crap about anyone else are causing issues across London, e.g. two random articles of many: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c150n02d10po https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62lp6xzzd0o

[lumiukko]

I do not believe the 90% is anywhere an accurate number. Those arseholes exist, no question, but I believe the number is much lower. Even if I am quite pedantic about people cycling on the wrong side of the road and would even add those to that number.

In my personal experience, as an avid hobby cyclist and commuter, those people are not like that because they are cyclists. They just happen to be like that - and cycle.

[Ylpertnodi]

The question i always ask is: when she's riding a bike, is my doctor a doctor or a cyclist? Quite a few people get angry at the question.

[t_mahmood]

What is the source for the 90%?

But of course, there are always 2 sides of the coin. So, shitty people exists, but does not represent the whole group.

How many pedestrian, cyclists or runners are killed by drivers? Where did the term rolling coal comes from? How many people gets killed by drunk drivers?

Just some examples.

I've many time faced drivers who thinks they own the road. Coming from the wrong side trying to push me. And, I would be an asshole to them, because, I stood my ground.

[hawaiianbrah]

Tramlines in the soil! Say it ain’t so.