2006-11-19 19:52:36 · 12 answers · asked by princess 2 in Sports ➔ Cycling
I am going to say totally YES! Your question is a bit open...better than what? But check this out...I used to be a competitive cyclist in my younger days. Graduated college, got off the bike, went to work and by 2003, I was 101 kg. Yeah, but I am only 171cm. Not good at all. I got back on the bike, slowly at first. By New Year's 2005, I was back down to 70 kg. Later this year, I'm going to return to competition in a Christmas Eve race.
Cycling saved my life - there's very little exaggeration to that. It is an excellent way to exercise.
2006-11-20 01:26:36 · answer #1 · answered by insomniac_abroad 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nobody knows for sure, there are only speculations that pro cycling is less healthy for the heart. It's said that the heart tends to lag the amount of stress that you put to your body by cycling.
Running is considered a healthyer alternative because it's the body's natural disposition of being mobile, wether you're running fast or slow. The heart would therefore be more in sync with the varying amount of physical stress....
I wouldn't be to concearned however, nothing has been proved . If it was that bad we would know by now... I do have to mention a few rare cases of heart rythm disorders...but the reason are not clear, some think certain supplements or forbidden drugs have something to do with it.
Running compared to cycling does burn more calories. The average is 1000 calories per hour for running and 500 calories per hour for non-stationary cycling.
2006-11-20 04:18:04 · answer #2 · answered by Bitstorm 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on what you're comparing it with, and your particular goals for a fitness program.
Fast cycling can burn as much energy, leading to weight loss, as running, without the impact shock and wear-and-tear to the body. But cycling is of course primarily a lower body exercise, although shoulders, arms and lower back do get some work, being necessary for supporting your weight over the handlebars.
For total fitness though, I believe you can't beat Nordic (cross-country) skiing and sculling (rowing). Cyclists need to do extra calesthenics or weight-training to really build upper-body strength, as compared to rowers or X-C skiers. The latter can be done on good indoor equipment incidentally, if you don't have access to snow, or a rowing shell and water.
2006-11-20 04:05:21 · answer #3 · answered by bikelife 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Better than what?
Cycling is good for you health
2006-11-20 04:01:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Than running, you mean? Cycling is non-weight bearing, so if you have problems with your knees and ankles, it might be better for you. But because running is weight-bearing, it will help maintain bone density better than cycling. Either exercise is better than none; a combination of the two might be optimal.
2006-11-20 03:53:53 · answer #5 · answered by Rusting 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As opposed to what? But yes cycling is very benificial to your health
2006-11-20 03:55:43 · answer #6 · answered by johnnyBgood 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes,but u can get the same results from a stationary bike in your home. Ive seen too many accidents & close calls from bicycle bravado on the roads.
2006-11-20 04:08:33 · answer #7 · answered by chris s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actuall statistically speaking it is bad for you because of posature;However, if you prefer to ride a bike for toning up I wouls say no more than 30 minutes to an hour.
Jogging is also bad for you.
Breisk walking is much better.
and finally sex always burns the calories great
2006-11-20 03:55:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes its good for health and all exercises are good for health when u do regularly
2006-11-20 12:42:06 · answer #9 · answered by vijay 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Better that not doing anything else.
2006-11-20 03:55:42 · answer #10 · answered by Dr Dee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋