Riding a bike: Science or Natural Instinct?

I recently came across this article about scientist Matthew Cook working on a project to design a computer that could steer a bicycle.

I quote from the piece:

The problem is more difficult than you might think, we may be able to ride bicycles, but, as Cook notes, “We do not have great insight into how we ride a bicycle.”

Really! I will tell you. We do it instinctively, (With a little practice.)

The same instinct we use to walk and run.  When man stumbled upon the bicycle, he built a mechanical device that is a simple extension of the human body.

Scientists find it hard to accept “Instinct” as a reason, because they can’t prove it, either by demonstration or mathematically. How many times have I watched nature programs on TV and heard the quote, “Scientists do not know how the salmon or the turtle swims thousands of miles through the ocean to find its way back to its place of birth.”

Or how birds migrate huge distances with the change of seasons. How do they know it is time, and how do they find their way?” The answer of course is instinct. Some inbuilt intelligence passed on from generation to generation, throughout evolution.

I said earlier that man “Stumbled” upon the bicycle. He did just that, there was no single inventor.

The fore runner of the bicycle was the Hobby Horse, generally attributed to a German, but the French and English were building similar two-wheeled devices about the same time.

Even the Hobby Horse was not an original invention. For thousands of year’s children’s toys, models of animals, were made with wheels for feet.

Before the automobile the main form of transportation was the horse. It was natural children would play with pretend horses. The name “Hobby Horse,” is a clue. It was an adult size toy horse.

Later when cranks were attached to the front wheel, it became a bicycle. We no longer had a toy, but now a bona-fide form of transport, whereby people could travel under their own power. Moving greater distances, and with less effort than walking or running.

To explain my thinking that humankind rides a bike and balances instinctively, let me pose this question.

How does a running man change direction? He leans to the left or right.

Not only man, but every other animal on earth.

Try this simple experiment. Stand in one spot and lean to the left. When you reach the point when you are about to fall, you will instinctively step to the left, thus bringing your feet back directly under your body to bring it upright once more. This is how all animals turn while running at speed.  They lean to the left or right, causing them to step to the left of right.

Also Newton’s Law of Physics states an object moving in a straight line will continue to do so until forces from a different direction cause it the change direction. If a running man were to try to turn by stepping left or right without leaning he would probably trip over his own feet as the law of physics would be forcing his body to continue straight. The lean, and the pull of gravity as he falls that way counters the forces causing him to continue straight.

A bicycle becomes a mechanical extension of the human body because the wheels simply replace our feet on the ground.  If we fall to the left, we instinctively steer to the left to bring the wheels directly under our body mass, just as surely as if we were walking or running and fell to the left or right, we would instinctively step in the direction we were falling.

Furthermore, we instinctively lean in the direction we wish to turn, this time with the added bonus that a bicycle will steer itself in the direction of the lean. Actually three forces come into play:

1.)    A spinning wheel or disc will turn in the direction it leans. Roll a coin on a flat surface it will roll in ever decreasing circles until it falls, as it turns in the direction it is falling.

2.)    Because the steering axis is angled forward, and the front fork is raked or offset forward, there is  a greater portion of the wheel ahead of the steering axis. The wheel’s own weight will cause it to turn in the direction it leans.

3.)    On a racing bicycle, a handlebar stem or extension is used, placing the bars ahead of the steering axis. The weight of the handlebars will cause the front wheel to turn in the direction the bike leans. It will even do this if you lean a bike while stationary.

Riding a bicycle slowly is a simple balancing act as we constantly steer to the left and right to stay upright. No different in principal, than balancing a broom on the palm of our hand. The fact that we are slightly higher above the ground than we would be on our feet, works to our advantage. It is actually easier to balance a long handle broom with a heavy head, than a short handle lightweight broom.

As we gather speed and momentum, it becomes easier to balance and ride a straight line, as laws of physical motion take over. And when we wish to turn, we instinctively lean in that direction without thought, and with the same ease we would do so if we were running.

Finally, I leave you with these observations, and to me further proof that a cyclist leaning into a corner is an instinctive move. The cyclist will lean into a corner but keep his head vertical to the road surface. (See top picture.) Probably a vision thing to keep the eyes focused, and done instinctively. See also the picture of the Cheetah. The head is vertical, and the eyes horizontal, focused. 

Also the cyclist’s inside knee pointed out. Is this too instinctive as if the rider was stepping in that direction? Motorcyclsts do it to the point their knee almost touches the ground. And yet it would seem unnatural not to do it.

     To Share click "Share Article" below 

Exercising to lose weight

Back in September 2007 I wrote an article called Running vs. Cycling: Calories Burned. This one article is by far my most successful in terms of daily hits from search engines. It gets hundreds of hits every single day, from Google and others. It is obviously sought after information by people looking to burn calories by exercising in order to lose weight.

My attention was drawn to the article yesterday when a friend emailed me that he burned 650 calories in one hour on his stationary bike and asked how many miles he had traveled. I’m not sure if he was “Yanking my Chain,” or “Pulling my Plonker,” as we Brits sometimes say, but I told him he had traveled Zero miles as it was a stationary bike.

Returning to the article, it states that running burns 110 calories per mile at any speed. The reason being it is distance covered, not time taken to complete the distance. One man runs a mile in 6 minutes and he burns 110 calories in 6 minutes. Another takes 12 minutes to run the same mile and burns 55 calories in the first 6 minutes and another 55 calories in the second 6 minutes. Both runners burn the same 110 calories for the same distance.

It was agreed upon in the discussion that followed the article that 110 calories burned was for someone around 150lbs. anyone heavier would burn more calories, someone lighter would burn less. I have seen this figure of 110 calories quoted in articles over and over again, and even seen it stated that walking burns the same 110 calories per mile.

At first glance this seems logical. You are hauling the same 150 lb. body over the same mile, it just takes longer. Twenty minutes walking, burning 5.5 calories per minute, equals the same 110 calories for the mile. Or does it?

I recently read this article in Runners World, and I feel it contains information that is far more reliable. The article explains that any exercise burns 5 calories per Liter of Oxygen consumed. Obviously a person consumes far more oxygen when running than walking.  

The reason being, with each stride, the runner actually jumps into the air, overcoming gravity as well as driving himself forward. Then there is the impact of hitting the ground again with each stride, using energy to absorb the shock.

The average calorie burn (Per mile.) given in this article is 124 for a man running, and 88 calories walking. For a woman, because of the lighter weight, the average is 105 calories burned running, 74 walking.

However, the article makes a very important point when it states that when looking at exercise as a means to lose weight, one must take into account the Net Calories Burned (NCB) and not the above figures which are Total Calories Burned (TCB)

It is a little like a person saying he makes $50.000 or $100,000 per year as an income. This is his Total Income, his Net Income after taxes is less.

The “Tax” when it comes to burning calories, is a little thing called Resting Metabolic Rate. (RMR) This is the calories burned every single day if you do absolutely nothing, even if you lay in bed or sit on the sofa.

Some people talk of Basil Metabolic Rate, (BMR) which is a more accurate reading. Both are calculated, and RMR is close enough for most people. Here is a calculator.

Let’s say a person has a RMR of 1,500 calories. That means this person burns 1,500 calories every day doing absolutely nothing. Divide this by 24 hours. 1,500 divide by 24 equals 62.5 calories burned per hour. So if this same person walks 3 miles in one hour he burns 88 x 3 = 264 TCB. However, he must deduct the 62.5 calories he would have burned if he had stayed home and watched TV. His NCB is now 201.5.

Another man could run 6 miles in one hour and burn 124 x 6 = 774 TCB. Take away 62.5 for a total of 681.5 NCB. The runner has covered twice the distance and burned well over three times the calories in the same hour, over the man who walked. The more intense the exercise the more calories burned for the same amount of time.

This same principal applies to cycling, and explains why some cyclists who ride a lot of miles still carry extra weight.

Cycling does have an added bonus, in that the faster you ride the more calories you burn, because wind resistance comes into play.

The chart that was in my original article is as good as anything if come across since. (See above left)

Let’s say our same subject with the 1,500 RMR, rides his bike 100 miles at a leisurely 10mph. He burns 26 calories a mile for a TCB of 2,600. Minus 625 calories he would have burned if he had stayed home for the 10 hours. (62.5 x 10.) His NCB is 1,975.

Now let’s say the same man rides 60miles at 20mph, an intense 3 hour ride. His TCB is 2,280 (60m. x 38 calories per mile.) Minus 3hr. x 62.5 calories, for a NCB of 2,092.5. So the intense 60 mile ride burned more calories than the leisurely century.

As you search the Internet you will find calorie charts and metabolic calculators that vary immensely. However, used as comparison tools they will serve to determine which form of exercise will work best to lose weight. It is quite simple really, shorter, intense workouts and eat less.

 To Share click "Share Article" below 

Walking, running, cycling: Burning calories

In September of 2007 I wrote an article "Running vs. Cycling: Burning Calories." This one piece gets more hits per day than any other article; at least 150 hits per day, thanks to Google search.

It seems the article gets this many hits because it contains information that people seek out and are interested in. I used data that was gathered by fitness expert Dr. Edward Coyle; he stated that a person running one mile burned 110 calories.

It didn’t matter what speed you ran at, if you were an out of shape beginner, or a super fit athlete. This statement upset a lot of super fit and serious runners. I never intended to belittle the dedicated runner, but the fact is we were talking about distance covered, not speed.

Energy expended is measured in Horse Power, or Watts; both are the energy needed to lift a Weight, a certain Distance, in a certain time. Horse power is Foot/lbs per min, Watts is metric; Kilos/Meters per min.

Many could not grasp the concept that if a fit runner ran a mile in 6 minutes, he was using the same energy, burning the same amount of calories as an unfit runner running a 12 minute mile.

The reason is the slower runner is running at half the effort, but is running for twice as long; so the Wattage/Calories burned is the same.

If effort = y, then the faster athlete is running at (y) times 6 mins. While the slower runner’s output is (½ y) times 12minutes. Both are the same.

Today there is a wonderful website called Wolfram Alfra. You can type in “walking,” “running,” or “cycling.” You can then input time, speed, even gender and body weight, to calculate calories burned, and compare.

You can also add height, age, and resting heart rate, etc. if you want to get really precise.

According to what I found a fit male athlete weighing 150lbs. running one mile in 6 minutes. (Pace 6 mim/mi.) would burn 117 calories. Close to Dr. Coyle’s 110 calories quoted in the original article.

Here is where it gets interesting. Again not to belittle any dedicated runners, but a runner of the same weight and gender, running a mile in 12 minutes, would actually burn 124 calories. (Acording to this calculator.)

The only reason I can think of for the higher calorie burn for the slower runner is that during running or walking, a certain amount of energy is required just to support your body weight. It makes sense if you are on the road for twice as long; you are supporting your body weight twice as long.

The figures for walking also bring up a similar result. 150lb. man walking a mile in 15 minutes (4 mph.) burns 73 calories; a 150lb. man walking same mile in 30 minutes (2 mph.) burns 90 calories.

Also let’s say the unfit slower runner weighs 300lbs. double the fit runner’s weight. The 300lb. man would burn 248 calories. More than double the faster runner’s calorie burn at half the speed.

As pointed out in the original article, cycling is different because wind resistance comes into play, and the faster you ride the more calories burned for the same distance.

So a 150lb. male cyclist riding 10 miles in 30 minutes (20mph.) would burn 587 calories.

A 150lb. cyclist riding half the speed 10 miles in one hour (10 mph.) would burn 354 calories.

Considerably less even though the slower rider is on the road twice as long; however, the difference in wind resistance between 10mph and 20mph is huge.

Interestingly, an unfit 300lb. male cyclist riding 10 miles in 2 hours (only 5mph.) would burn 816 calories. That is more than the super fit cyclist riding 10 miles at 20mph.

It seems an unfit newcomer to walking, running or cycling can take some comfort in the knowledge that the extra weight they are carrying will initially cause them to burn more calories.

With running or walking, because wind resistance has little or no bearing on output, your calorie burn will drop as you lose weight. The only way to maintain the rate of calorie burn is to increase the distance, although not necessarily the speed. The only limitation will be the time available to you to walk or run.

However, with cycling as you lose weight and your fitness increases, so too will your speed increase, translating into more calories burned due to increased wind resistance.

More speed also means more distance covered in the same amount of time. The same is true for running of course, but with less effect on number of calories burned.

I feel the Wolfram Alpha program will be extremely useful for anyone starting an exercise regimen, or even a fit cyclist trying to figure out if a short fast ride is as beneficial as a longer ride at a slower pace. It will help an individual better manage the time available for exercise.  

                        

Running vs. Cycling: Burning Calories

Running requires the same amount of energy to run one mile at any speed; you burn 110 calories per mile. It doesn’t matter if you are a super fit athlete, or an out of shape beginner you will still burn the same number of calories per mile.

However, bike riding is affected by wind resistance so the faster you ride, the more energy you use, and the more calories you burn. You have to compare running and cycling at different cycling speeds.

This is according to fitness expert Dr. Edward Coyle of The University of Texas in Austin, who has worked with Lance Armstrong and other top athletes. He determined average values of oxygen consumption by cyclists to develop a table to estimate the approximate caloric equivalence between running and cycling.

He found that if you ride at 15 mph, you burn 31 calories per mile. This means if you ride 20 miles you burn 20 x 31 = 620 calories. Take the 620 calories and divide by 110 calories per mile for running and you get 5.63 miles of running to burn the same number of calories. Therefore, riding a bicycle 20 miles at an average 15 miles per hour is equal to running 5.6 miles at any speed.

Dr. Coyle’s conversion figures are for an average-size adult (approximately 155 pounds). A larger cyclist would divide by a slightly higher number, a smaller cyclist, by a slightly lower one. Wind and hills are not accounted for in the table; nor is drafting behind another rider, which can reduce your energy expenditure by up to one-third.

The number of miles ridden divided by the conversion factor for the speed of riding equals the number of miles running to use the same amount of energy and calories burned. Here is the conversion table:

Riding 20 miles at 10 miles per hour, divide 20 miles by the conversion factor of 4.2 to get 4.8 miles equivalent running. For riding at 20 miles at 20 miles per hour, divide 20 miles distance by 2.9 conversion factor to get 6.9 miles running.

Running will give you a more intense workout in less time. However, a person would need to be at a reasonable fitness level to run 4.8 miles without causing themselves distress. Whereas, it would be easier to ride 20 miles on a bicycle, at 10 mph, to burn the same amount of calories. There would also be far less stress on the body’s joints.

During the 1990s I was in pretty good shape and I could run 10 miles quite easily. My weight stayed steady. Ten years later, I could no longer manage that distance due to hip problems and had to cut back to 5 or 6 miles; the result was I gained weight, even with exercise. Eventually I had to give up running, and went back to cycling.

Now with the same level of fitness, it took me to run 5 or 6 miles, I can easily ride 50 miles at an average speed of 15 mph which equals 1,550 calories burned. I would have to run 14 miles to burn the same number of calories.

I am starting to loose weight again, and as my fitness level increases, my average speed increases, therefore, my calorie burning level increases. If I were still running, it would not matter what fitness level I attained, I would still only burn 110 calories per mile.

It seems to me that cycling is the best bet for anyone trying to burn calories and loose weight. There is far less stress on knee and hip joints, and the harder you push yourself the greater the reward in calories burned.

A person overweight by a considerable amount, who initially can only manage a few miles at say 10 mph, can also take heart that the extra weight they are carrying is in itself causing more calories to be burned.


Addendum June 16, 2008. Comments are closed.

This post gets more hits from searches than any other post on this blog. (Around 150 per day.) Many have found this to be a useful guide, but that is all it is, a guide. Take it for what it is, free advice.

I took figures by Dr. Edward Coyle, he is the expert not me. Walking is never mentioned in the piece, it has been established in the comments that a heavier runner would burn more calories than a lighter runner would. The 110 calories per mile is for an average 155 lb runner.

It is also quite possible that a very fit athlete running at top speed may burn more calories. Again, it is only a guide. Comments have been closed on this particular post as it becomes difficult to monitor comments on an older post.

A new updated article has been posted on April 30th 2015. Here is the link.

 

Running vs. Cycling

I’ve done both. In England during the 1970s I rode cyclo-cross October through to February. I trained by running 30 minutes each evening after work, and riding a cyclo-cross event at the weekend.

As a measure of cycling fitness level attained in this fashion, my cycling club always ran a 10 mile time trial the day after Christmas. (Boxing Day.) I would usually turn in a respectable 25 minute ride.

I always reckoned a one hour cyclo-cross race was the equivalent of 80 miles on the road. At least that was the effect it had on my legs when the event was over. The reason I chose running over cycling was mainly a time consideration. My framebuilding business took a great deal of my time, and I had a family to consider.

Thirty minutes of hard running was a pretty intense workout. To get out on the bike it would have taken me thirty minutes to get dressed and pump my tires up; then I would have to ride for an hour and a half or two hours. Plus, it was winter time; I could endure half an hour of running even if it was raining or snowing.

So running at that time suited my busy schedule. Years later when I left the bike business in 1993, I scaled down my lifestyle and moved into a tiny studio apartment. I sold off many of my possessions including my bike, and went back to running as my main form of exercise.

I kept this up until about three years ago when my hip started hurting and I realized I had to quit running. I switched to walking but that didn’t do it for me; I started to gain weight, even though I am not a person to overeat.

Last summer I started riding a bike again, and now I wonder why I didn’t start back sooner; now that time is not such an issue. Running was never a pleasure, it was a chore; something I would discipline myself to do.

Three hours of cycling is all pleasure, an hour of running would be purgatory. On a bike I can ride up a hill to the point of exhaustion, knowing that I will recover as I coast down the other side; running I had to constantly pace myself, and there is no such thing a coasting down hill.

Heat is less of a factor when cycling because you create your own cooling breeze as you ride, plus it is easy to carry two large bottles of water on a bike to keep hydrated.

Cycling for me started a love affair with the machine, with its looks and beauty. Once I started riding it became a love of being a part of the machine. At times, it is still an almost surreal experience and I marvel at how fast I can go, realizing that it is me alone driving the machine forward.

Out this weekend I rode over the Cooper River Bridge here in Charleston; on the bridge runners probably outnumbered bike riders by at least ten to one. This is what prompted me to write this piece.

Why is this? Is cycling so much of a well kept secret. Of course, there is the cost of equipment; a pair of running shoes is a lot cheaper than a bike, but I can’t believe that is the only factor. Maybe it is a time issue, as it was with me.

Physical fitness has always been important in my life; over the years, my level of fitness has varied but has never dropped below a certain level. If I start to feel discomfort in a simple act like putting on a pair of socks, it annoys me, and drives me back into an exercise regimen.

The older I get, the more important exercise is to me; the old adage of “You're gonna die anyway” is not the issue. It is about quality of life, having the energy to do all the other things I want to do, besides ride my bike.