Conference noted::bicycle

     You'd really have to consult an MD for suggestions/opinions on
    the benefits or risks of cycling with injuries. However, I've read
    that it is recommended regularly/consistently for arthritis. But,
    the rest of the questions go like this:
    
    WHAT DOES IT DO FOR YOU? A lot! It is an outstanding cardio-vascular
    workout! It is extremely low impact. It will give you every bit
    a workout in this area as any other sport. Remember, you control
    the intensity. It is also touted as one of the best exercises to
    lower your "set point".
    
    WHICH MUSCLES DOES IT INVOLVE? Pretty much everything, but some
    to a greater degree than others. It is a killer on calves, quads
    and the rest of the leg muscle groups. Depending on your riding,
    it will involve traps, lats, obliques, tri's, bi's and forearms.
    These are to a lesser degree, but become more involved if we're
    talking ATB riding.
    
    WILL IT CAUSE INJURIES? Absolutely not! (Well be careful of
    automobiles) If you are properly fitted on the bike, the opposite
    effects will be what happens. It will strengthen weaknesses, not
    cause problems. I'm sure everyone who'll read this will emphasize
    the point of proper fit being THE single most important aspect of
    the sport.
    
    Of course, being in love with sport, I'm going to offer a biased
    and tainted opinion. I would recommend the sport to anyone. I've
    tried just about everything, and this has really got me addicted.
    
    It can be fun, recreational, semi-serious, competitive, whatever!
    You won't go wrong if you do it right!
    
    Chip

    Except for a couple of extreme forms (track and crit events), cycling
    is an excellent aerobic sport.  You must learn to shift properly,
    and keep a proper cadence (RPM) to get maximum benefit, however.
    [Many recreational riders don't!]
    
    A couple of small drawbacks are that it:
    
    1) Does not encourage flexibility.  You should complement cycling
       with stretching exercises.
    
    2) Does not work stomach muscles.  Do sit-ups to compensate, and
       to avoid back problems.
    
    3) Does not build the upper body much.  This is mostly a cosmetic
       thing, however.

    RE .1:
    
    True, this is a low impact sport and therefore I've found that I
    can ride "hard" almost every day with little or no physical problems.
    I used to run a little and my joints got stiff if I ran two days in
    a row.
    
    The only impact to deal with is you hitting the pavement or a car.
    It is quite common to crash every once in a while.
    
    Phil

>    3) Does not build the upper body much.  This is mostly a cosmetic
>       thing, however.

Although biking doesn't do much for your upper body, upper body 
exercises (from other sports) do seem to help your biking. A few years 
back I did quite a bit of climbing, and found that having a much 
stronger upper body helped out with bike control and general comfort on 
longer rides.

As for the question in .0, it's a great sport, as well as a viable 
alternative to driving a car in a lot of circumstances.
                           ken

    I'm surprised to hear that it doesn't work the stomach muscles. I'm not
    talking about a recreational ride, mind you. I thought when I'm
    climbing a hill and standing up on the pedals that I'm working my
    stomach muscles pretty well. Granted, it's not for the whole ride, but
    for those 1 or 2 minute bursts, it seems to be a gut buster to me. Am
    I wrong?
    
    If you are curious about biking's caloric expense, see below:
    
    (All figures are approximate (minus the approx. 95/cal. expending while 
     resting), measured on flat terrain w/ no wind, & are based on a 150 lb. 
     individual.)
    
     MPH		K/Min 		K/Hour		     K/mile
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
    | 13.0               7.0             420                  32.0   |
    |________________________________________________________________|
    | 14.0               8.0             480                  33.5   |
    |________________________________________________________________|
    | 15.0               8.4             504                  34.0   |
    |________________________________________________________________|
    | 16.0               9.2             552                  35.0   |
    |________________________________________________________________|
    | 17.0              10.1             636                  41.0   | 
    |________________________________________________________________|
    
                                                      

    The chart in .5 is non-linear in wierd ways.  The difference
    required in output between going 13 mph and 14 mph is 1 calorie
    per minute, but that between 14 and 15 is only 0.4.  Then it
    requires 0.9 additional calories per minute to maintain 16!
    I'd say something's wrong with the figures.
    

    If someone has more accurate figures, please print them. These figures
    are supposed to be non-linear at the higher speeds. I'm not clear as to
    why the lower end has the non-linearity at that point, unless gearing
    has something to do with it? 
    
    Anyone have more accurate figures?
    
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
         {previous disclaimer in reply #1298.5 applies}
    
    
      MPH		K/Min 		K/Hour		     K/mile
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
    | 13.0               7.0             420                  32.3   |
    |________________________________________________________________|
    | 14.0               8.2             492                  35.1   |
    |________________________________________________________________|
    | 15.0               9.4             564                  37.6   |
    |________________________________________________________________|
    | 16.0              10.5             630                  39.4   |
    |________________________________________________________________|
    | 17.0              12.6             756                  45.3   | 
    |________________________________________________________________|
    
                                                      

    Getting back to the stomach, it does too! It certainly does not
    give you a workout that inverted sit-up would, but it does. Even
    more so when you're toolin' hard through brush on the 'ole stump
    jumper.

    First, welcome to cycling.  It is very good exercise for the heart and
    lungs.  Will also build up some of the muscles in your legs.  It will,
    however, also cause leg problems if you do not do other exercises and
    stretch.  Most notible of these is that it will tend to make your
    hamstring very tight and you will not be able to bend over and touch
    your toes.
    	The pedaling also exercises the lower abdominal muscles (leg lifts)
    but does not work the upper abdominals (sit-ups).  It also does not,
    in general, work the rest of the upper body.  (Cycling is a weight to
    power exercise which places a premium on small upper body size.)  While
    cycling will help you lose fat from the upper body through high calorie
    burn it will not provide increased muscle development or toning.
    Ric

    
    Thanks for the replies. I really appreciate hearing (? seeing) your
    opinions. 
    
    What about the BACK? It seems that your position while riding
    is semi-crouched (correct me if I'm wrong). Any problems there?
    
    	regards,
    		
    		Stuart.

    	When you start, you may ask about cycling for fitness, but once
    you get going, you will only be interested in cycling for cycling.
    Fitness serves to improve your cycling, and not the other way around.
    (The message here is that it is a good time.)
    
    	You shouldn't have any injuries if your bike fits right and, as 
    someone said earlier, you keep your cadence up.  [Prejudiced Editorial
    Comment: Inexpensive equipment that fits well is WORTH much, much more 
    than a "bargain" on top-drawer stuff.]