In praise of the bicycle

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

The most efficient form of land transportation is the bicycle, where there are good roads and streets.

The bicycle was invented in the 18 th century as a two wheeled foot powered vehicle. By the middle of the 19 th century it had evolved into the "high wheeler" also known as the "penny farthing" or "ordinary". This bicycle was fraught with danger. A common form of accident was pitching forward and landing upside down on one's head. This was fatal in a significant percentage of cases.

The bicycle as we know it was invented by John Staley in 1884. This is the two wheel bike powered by pedals connected to a rear sprocket by a chain. Stayley's "safety bike" (safe compared to the Penny Farthing) featured rubber pneumatic tires. The shape of bicycles has changed very little since then.

There have been many improvements since then in the materials of the bike, but the shape has remained pretty much the same. Frames are made of lighter stronger material. Ditto for the rims. Bearings have improved reducing rolling friction and the deraileur gear provides an efficient way of matching load to power over variable terrain.

What makes the bicycle the most efficient form of land transportation where there are decent roads is the matter of dead weight. When a 200 lb person drives a 3000 lb automobile he is moving 3200 lbs in order to transport 200 lb. That is a ratio of 18 to 1 total weight:payload. A bicycle weighs maybe 25 to 30 lb and very expensive bicycles are even lighter than that. That is a ratio of 30:230 total weight: payload.

It requires about 35 calories to move 200 lb for a mile at 12-15 mph. That means you get about ten miles to the cookie or thereabout. How much does a cookie cost. At current prices maybe 30 to 35 cents. So it costs about $1.05 to go 30 miles. Compare that to paying $3.75 at current gasoline prices assuming 30 mpg. It costs even more to move an SUV or an inefficient high performance car.

For travel in city traffic, the bicycle is faster on average than automobile. In cities like New York, small parcels are dispatched by bicycle messengers who can beat the cars easily for speed and time. And there is no parking problem. All needs is a lamp post and a chain with lock.

In addition to all of the above is the benefit of wholesome exercise. A healthy person can do 12-15 mph on a bike which is adequate for short distance travel in terms of time, when you factor in stops at traffic lights and parking. The bike is just about as speedy as an auto for travel in streets with restrictive speed limits and jams during high peak hours. It gets even better where there are bike paths.

Obviously bicycles cannot compete for long distance trips or trips in foul weather. I figure it would take me about forty days to cross the United States on a bicycle under the best circumstances and more likely 50 to 60 days. With an auto one can cross the country in about 4 to 5 days, using the Interstate highways.

I am able to use my bike all year (dressing properly for cold weather) and I can ride just about any day it is not raining or the street covered with ice, snow or sleet (very dangerous for two wheel vehicles).

When you buy a gallon of gasoline a dime of the price eventually ends up in the hands of Muslim terrorists and even more for their State sponsors. With a bike none of what you spend on cookies funds our enemies.

So let us praise the bike which has reached a state of technological perfection and efficiency.

I get ten miles to the cookie. What's in yer wallet?

ruveyn

[Capitalism Forever 0]

While the bicycle may be the cheapest way of traveling, it is certainly not the most comfortable. That's why I make money: so that I can afford to travel comfortably and don't have to go with the cheapest option.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

While the bicycle may be the cheapest way of traveling, it is certainly not the most comfortable. That's why I make money: so that I can afford to travel comfortably and don't have to go with the cheapest option.

Bicycles are also more energy efficient. Fewer calories per pound (payload) per mile. Yes indeed, traveling in an auto makes more sense for long trips on high speed roads. However using autos does not produce the exercise benefits.

For shorter rides on local roads, I use my bike to run shopping errands. When I mount paniers and basket I can carry forty pounds of groceries and I make better time to and from the store than automobiles. No parking problems, no crowded parking lots.

On the other hand if I had a business comute for more than twenty miles I, too, would use a car. In my prime I could do a twenty mile commute in just about an hour on 35 and 40 mph roads. A car could do the commute in about 45 minutes (counting parking and traffic congestion). So the time difference was trivial, plus the exercise. Doing 40 miles a day burns about 1200 calories, very handy for staying slim and trim.

I am an old guy now and I do 20 miles spins every day through the retirement community where I live. I ride in circles for excercise and pleasure. It now takes me about an hour and a half to do the distance, but the exercise benefits are well worth (to me, anyway) the trouble.

There is no doubt, automobiles are best for long commutes on high speed roads. Riding a car in a city like New York sucks lemons. The average speed of automobiles given the traffic lights, congestion♠ and dodging pedestrians is about 9 mph. A bicycle rider can do better than this, which is why couriers deliver their parcels in places like New York, Chicago and Boston, by bicycle.

ruveyn

[Kitty Hawk 0]

Two of my favorite people were bicycle mechanics and salesmen: the Wright Brothers. At the time of this photo, they were on to their next project.

[RayK 0]

And, a great project it was.

[Arnold 0]

I love bicycles, and still have four from my younger days. (Two "antique" Cinelli's, a Peugeot PX10, and a Rocky Mountain Bike. As a point of interest, the Penny Farthing's gearing depended on your leg length, because leg length determined the size of the wheel. Thus a 50" inch diameter wheel was a lower gear than a 55" wheel. One can see that there was a practical limit to gear size. With the invention of today's "safety bicycle" the gearing is determined by the ratio of teeth in the sprockets at the back, to the chain-wheel you turn with your pedals. The result is still measured in inches as if you are on a huge wheel. A normal gear is about 70" but powerful riders push well over 100.

I don't think most people grasp the power of the Tour de France riders. The power required goes up the cube of the speed, so to increase from 15 to 30 mph takes eight times the power. You have to be pretty fit to maintain 15 mph, but doubling you efforts will only add 4 mph.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I love bicycles, and still have four from my younger days. (Two "antique" Cinelli's, a Peugeot PX10, and a Rocky Mountain Bike. As a point of interest, the Penny Farthing's gearing depended on your leg length, because leg length determined the size of the wheel. Thus a 50" inch diameter wheel was a lower gear than a 55" wheel. One can see that there was a practical limit to gear size. With the invention of today's "safety bicycle" the gearing is determined by the ratio of teeth in the sprockets at the back, to the chain-wheel you turn with your pedals. The result is still measured in inches as if you are on a huge wheel. A normal gear is about 70" but powerful riders push well over 100.

I don't think most people grasp the power of the Tour de France riders. The power required goes up the cube of the speed, so to increase from 15 to 30 mph takes eight times the power. You have to be pretty fit to maintain 15 mph, but doubling you efforts will only add 4 mph.

Very nice posting.

Here is an article on bicycle power and efficiency for interested readers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance

In terms of efficiency and automobile can not get even close to a bike.

The modern bicycle with lightweight materials and means of cutting drag (drop handle bars or recumbent configuration) is the ultimate perfection of the machine. Interestingly, the overall form or bauplan of the bike has not changed since 1884. The materials have improved quite a bit though.

ruveyn

ruveyn

[System Builder 0]

The most efficient form of land transportation is the bicycle, where there are good roads and streets.

[...]

Obviously bicycles cannot compete for long distance trips or trips in foul weather. I figure it would take me about forty days to cross the United States on a bicycle under the best circumstances and more likely 50 to 60 days. With an auto one can cross the country in about 4 to 5 days, using the Interstate highways.

I am able to use my bike all year (dressing properly for cold weather) and I can ride just about any day it is not raining or the street covered with ice, snow or sleet (very dangerous for two wheel vehicles).

[From a subsequent posting by ruveyn:]

On the other hand if I had a business comute for more than twenty miles I, too, would use a car. In my prime I could do a twenty mile commute in just about an hour on 35 and 40 mph roads. A car could do the commute in about 45 minutes (counting parking and traffic congestion). So the time difference was trivial, plus the exercise. Doing 40 miles a day burns about 1200 calories, very handy for staying slim and trim.

I prefer mountain bikes myself (as bicycles go). I find mine unbeatable for the ease and speed with which it can take me to places without roads, where cars and even jeeps can't go, where the only other way to get there would be on foot (terribly slow) or horseback (fraught with its own problems of cost, pollution, etc.) For all the reasons that ruveyn clearly itemizes, I would never consider a bicycle for my daily commute to work or shopping, etc., given that I live in a suburban area free of the crowding issues that arise in major metropolitan cities like San Francisco or New York.

Ruveyn's praise for bicycles also reminds me of something Ayn Rand once wrote:

By "philosophically objective," I mean a value estimated from the standpoint of the best possible to man, i.e., by the criterion of the most rational mind possessing the greatest knowledge, in a given category, in a given period, and in a defined context (nothing can be estimated in an undefined context). For instance, it can be rationally proved that the airplane is objectively of immeasurably greater value to man (to man at his best) than the bicycle....

Of course, Ayn Rand's statement differs from ruveyn's praise in that ruveyn evidently is primarily concerned, not with philosophically objective value, but only with "efficiency" (as measured by cost per mile or total energy expended per mile from all sources, without much regard for the value that many would place on their time and energy available for other, possibly more interesting and productive tasks, as well as the carrying capacity of motor vehicles).

But again, I think mountain biking is great! Of course, it's recreation, not productive work.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

In terms of efficiency and automobile can not get even close to a bike.

Out of curiousity, why do you keep mentioning this? Why is per-calorie efficiency a value? I can understand valuing per-dollar efficiency, but what is the point of comparing calories in your food with the energy stored in gasoline? After all, it doesn't cost me more than a couple of calories to lift the pump and fill up my car!

[Capitalism Forever 0]

(I mean lift the nozzle of the pump of course!)

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

In terms of efficiency and automobile can not get even close to a bike.

Out of curiousity, why do you keep mentioning this? Why is per-calorie efficiency a value? I can understand valuing per-dollar efficiency, but what is the point of comparing calories in your food with the energy stored in gasoline? After all, it doesn't cost me more than a couple of calories to lift the pump and fill up my car!

Consider the dollar cost. At current fuel prices, most cars cost over 12 cents a mile just for fuel (not counting wear/tear and decrease in resale value). A bike rider can fuel himself with oatmeal at a cost of 2 cents a mile. Candy bars and cookies cost more. Also the initial cost of a bike is much lower than that of an auto.

Don't get me wrong, please. I am not advocating giving up one's automobile. I have a car, my lovely, absurdly ugly Scion XB which looks like a brick on wheels. I use that for longer trips, schlepping cargo and travelling in foul weather. Automobiles are very useful transportation tools and it is one of the glories of our economy that everyone can afford a car, even if it is pre-owned.

My praise of the bicycle is mostly based on its perfection a a machine. It is a lovely piece of engineering that has reached such a high state of perfection that it is hard to improve. It also has exercise benefits that can be readily combined with its pure utilitarian virtues. One can both run errands (shopping or dropping off the mail, for example) with wholesome excercise. Also getting a feel for one's own body and moving the bones can be (for some, anyway) a source of enjoyment.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

In terms of efficiency and automobile can not get even close to a bike.

Out of curiousity, why do you keep mentioning this? Why is per-calorie efficiency a value? I can understand valuing per-dollar efficiency, but what is the point of comparing calories in your food with the energy stored in gasoline? After all, it doesn't cost me more than a couple of calories to lift the pump and fill up my car!

Consider the dollar cost. At current fuel prices, most cars cost over 12 cents a mile just for fuel (not counting wear/tear and decrease in resale value). A bike rider can fuel himself with oatmeal at a cost of 2 cents a mile. Candy bars and cookies cost more. Also the initial cost of a bike is much lower than that of an auto.

Don't get me wrong, please. I am not advocating giving up one's automobile. I have a car, my lovely, absurdly ugly Scion XB which looks like a brick on wheels. I use that for longer trips, schlepping cargo and travelling in foul weather. Automobiles are very useful transportation tools and it is one of the glories of our economy that everyone can afford a car, even if it is pre-owned.

My praise of the bicycle is mostly based on its perfection a a machine. It is a lovely piece of engineering that has reached such a high state of perfection that it is hard to improve. It also has exercise benefits that can be readily combined with its pure utilitarian virtues. One can both run errands (shopping or dropping off the mail, for example) with wholesome excercise. Also getting a feel for one's own body and moving the bones can be (for some, anyway) a source of enjoyment.

ruveyn

Do you think there is no "wear and tear" put on the body when you are doing activities? The human body is under constant stress whether you are conscious of it or not.

Do not get me wrong, it is nice to see someone that enjoys doing an activity with such passion. But, under different circumstances, such as the person that has to wear a suit to work or the person who is at work at 5am and does not head home until 7pm, the value is just not there. Also, some people's goals are not to conserve their wealth, but to increase it so that they can pruchase other more valuable items.

If we are going to talk about efficiency, the motorcycle would be a better comparison than the car, to the bicycle. I used to have a Kawasaki Ninja that could go between 45 and 50 miles to the gallon. The bike weighed 375 pounds and I could maneuver it in and out of traffic, left to right and around curves with a good amount of physical expertise. The up-keep was not that costly, a couple hundred dollars for a yearly check-up/tune-up. Compare that to a high-end bicycle of which the pedals alone cost 40$ a piece just to replace. Of course you do not need to get a high-end bicycle to enjoy some of the pleasures of bicycling, but we are taking about efficiency.

I also do not think bicycling is actually a good form of exercise, instead I think it is a form of enjoyful recreation. Exercise is defined as a training to keep physically fit. I think this is not limited enough and hence why people think that standing in line at a grocery store and raising up on their toes is considered exercise. Almost any physical activity of a certain duration causes the release of chemicals within the body that actually slow down your metabolism and cause the conservation of one's fat storage. When a person does steady state activity, they are actually not (initially) using fat for their efforts, instead they are using glucose, glycogen, protein/muscle/amino acids as energy. The body does not go to the fat cell until you either turn up the intensity (which will shorten the duration) or until a person goes hours into the activity and depletes or almost depletes these other resources. This has been shown to take 2-3 hours worth of activity. The average lethargic person loses 1/2 a pound of lean body tissue per year after maturation, the average runner loses 1.5 pounds of lean body tissue per year after maturation. So if your goal is to become or remain physically fit, steady state activities are not the best choice and could possibly be part of the reason your times have dropped instead of improved or remained the same. Also, the primary reason to do exercise is to stimulate a positive adapation, not to burn calories, of which those calories do not primarily come from fat when doing steady state activity.

Now, back to the subject of bicycles and enjoyment. I hope you enjoy your recreational bicycle rides as much as I sometimes do myself.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

. So if your goal is to become or remain physically fit, steady state activities are not the best choice and could possibly be part of the reason your times have dropped instead of improved or remained the same. Also, the primary reason to do exercise is to stimulate a positive adapation, not to burn calories, of which those calories do not primarily come from fat when doing steady state activity.

I am 75 years old. I think that is why my time has increased. When I was 40 (or yornger) I could do 16 to 20 mph on bike for trips 20 miles long. I used to commute by bike. Prior to the age of 50 I completed 12 centuries, that is rides over 100 miles long at speeds averaging over 14 mph. That is between 7 and 7.5 hours to do the hundred. Not bad at any age for someone who is not a professional bicyclist.

Even so, my resting pulse is 55 beats per minute and my blood pressure is 115 over 65. Not bad for an old fellow. I recently had a cathaterization which revealed not a bit of blockage in my old heart. I have collateral circulation up the ying yang since I have ridden bikes since I was 4 years old.

I also do some weight work just to firm up the parts.

Look at Lance Armstrong, who is a super cyclist. I think he is a magnificent physical specimen and weights are not his thing. Riding a bike is. The difference between Lance and me is that he can do 30 to 35 mph uphill in the Alps. He does not seem any the worse for wear. He has won the Tour so many times they call it the Tour de Lance.

But all this is beside the point.

My love of bicycles has to do with the purity of its mechanical essence. It is the best of 19th century mechanical technology (that along with steam engines) and has achieved the acme of its -form-. The materials are improving and the 21 st century bike will look like the Staley model of 1894 but will be made of carbon composite material for ultra light weight. The bike as we know it is a near perfect melding for form and function. The book -looks- the way it does because of what it -is- and what it is designed to -do-. That to me is loveliness.

ruveyn

[PhilO 0]

Out of curiosity, when did you first read Ayn Rand, Ruveyn? Also, if you can/want to say, are your HDL cholesterol levels considered unusually high?

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Out of curiosity, when did you first read Ayn Rand, Ruveyn? Also, if you can/want to say, are your HDL cholesterol levels considered unusually high?

Rather low. About 140. I have no problems with my circulatory system and I am glad of it.

ruveyn

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Out of curiosity, when did you first read Ayn Rand, Ruveyn? Also, if you can/want to say, are your HDL cholesterol levels considered unusually high?

Back around 1957 or 1958. I read Atlas Shrugged as an alternate time line novel, more than as a philosophical work. Alternate time line stories are my favorite genre. I do like the big What If.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

Ruveyn, whether you want to recognize it or not, exercise has no direct cause effect relationship with one's health. People that exercise are healthy and unhealthy. People that do not exercise are healthy and unhealthy. A person might be able to increase their functional capacity through exercise but this has nothing to do with their health. The real reason to exercise is because the body begins to deterioate after maturation. So, if we are going to keep our functional capacity we need to stimulate the body to retain it's muscle or gain new muscle. But, being able to ride a bike for miles does not prove that you are healthy, it only proves that your body has made specific adaptations to implied demands or what some people call, the "training effect."

"Most of the improvement in functional capacity due to exercise is not even directly related to the heart. It is due to an effect on the peripheral muscle cells whereby they more efficiently extract and use oxygen from the blood. Dr. George Sheehan, the "guru" of running, has said, "You might suspect from the emphasis on cardiopulmonary fitness that the major effect of training is on the heart and lungs, Guess again. Exericse does nothing for the lungs; that has been amply proved....Nor does it especially benefit your heart. Running, no matter what you have been told, primarly trains and conditions the msucles."" [Henry A. Solomon, MD, The Heart of the Matter, The Exercise Myth, p. 22]

"As far as primary prevention goes, there is no good evidence that relates physical activity or the lack of it in early life to the development of coronary atherosclerosis. Autopsies of young American soldiers killed in the Korean and Veitnam wars have shown a surprisingly and disquietingly high incidence of early atherosclerosis. Yet surely most soldiers, tested, trained and forced by circumstance to maintain strenuous levels of exertion, are physically active youths. Judging by arteries alone, however, there was no clue that such a life had any inhibiting effect on the early stages of coronary disease. Going back even further, to activity levels during childhood, Dr. G. R. Osborn, a British pathologist at the University of Sheffield, has studied the coronary arteries of infants and young children killed by traumatic and other noncardiac causes. After years of painstaking and meticulous work on the arteries of over 1,000 subjects (some adult), Dr. Osborn has identified microscopic injuries to the artery wall in infancy that he believes to be the origins of atherosclerotic disease. These injuries have nothing to do with the levels of physical activity of infants and children." [Henry A. Solomon, MD, The Inside Evidence, The Exercise Myth, p. 62]

In 1984 a study was published called Lipid Research Clinic's Coronary Primary Prevention Trial. The study included middle-aged men betwen 34 and 50 years of age with high colesterol levels. All the men were put on a so called "cholesterol-lowering diet" which after months only reduced their cholesterol an average of 10 points from 290 to 280. The researchers then split the men into two groups, the drug taking group of 1906 men and the placebo group of 1900 men and this is what they found.

Out of the 1900 taking the placebo and with an initial cholesterol level of 280 they were able to reduce it after 7 years to 277 for a total decrease of 1%. In the drug (cholestyranimne) group the 1906 men with an initial cholesterol level of 280 were able to reduce it after 7 years to 257 an 8.5% derease. All the men were free of heart disease at the start of the study. After the seven years of the study the men in the placebo group had 187 heart attacks out of 1900 men. The drug group had 155 heart attacks during the seven year period. Other aspects to look at are the total amount of people that died during the study. In the placebo group had 71 men died, in the drug group 68 men died during the study. Those that died of heard attacks were 44 in the placebo group and 32 in the drug group. In the placebo group there were 15 that died of cancer and in the drug group 16 died of cancer. In the placebo group 4 died of accidents and violence (this group is defined to include suicide) and the drug group had 11 die. In the placebo group 8 died of "other causes" and in the drug group 9 died of "other causes." One of the reasons that was speculated upon as why the "accidents and violence" (which inclueds suicide) rates being higher in the drug group was the lowering of their production or formation of cholesterol to such a low degree that the liver did not have the resources to produce the much needed psychological hormones for the brain. [This information in a condensed version from my notes on Dr. Bruce D. Charash's book Heart Myths; Comomn Fallacies About Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment]

And, the difference between you and Lance Armstrong (and almost everyone else) is that he is a genetic freak (which in this context is not a bad thing). And he is worse for the wear, or did you forget that his overtraining lead to his cancer.

But, this thread is about praising the bicycle so I will turn it back over to that subject.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

And, the difference between you and Lance Armstrong (and almost everyone else) is that he is a genetic freak (which in this context is not a bad thing). And he is worse for the wear, or did you forget that his overtraining lead to his cancer.

But, this thread is about praising the bicycle so I will turn it back over to that subject.

I will discuss health with you on a later occasion. Perhaps on my 80-th birthday.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

And, the difference between you and Lance Armstrong (and almost everyone else) is that he is a genetic freak (which in this context is not a bad thing). And he is worse for the wear, or did you forget that his overtraining lead to his cancer.

But, this thread is about praising the bicycle so I will turn it back over to that subject.

I will discuss health with you on a later occasion. Perhaps on my 80-th birthday.

ruveyn

Until that time I will let you contemplate on the following information. I am going to be 40 in just a few months (I do recognize the age difference) and my stats are as follows, 100/60 blood pressure, 48-50 pulse rate, blood sugar level of 80 and a total cholesterol of 146. And I accomplish all of this by exercising 5 minutes a week, that translates into 260 minutes or 4.3 hours per year. Now if extreme lengths of exercise were needed to be healthy, why am I and almost all of my clients doing so well? One more example for you, I have a 38 year old client that has been training with me for 8 months, just one workout per week. She also follows my three fundamentals of a proper diet and in the months since she began she has been able to lower her cholesterol from 220 to 188, that is a drop of 32 points, with similar amounts of exercise. Who is the one really working toward becoming more efficient?

[Arnold 0]

I think what is being missed is the efficiency of the bike to harness human power and allow one to cover far more distance, even 'sitting down on the job'. It gives one both the satisfaction of driving a beautiful machine, and the enjoyment of using one's body to do it.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I think what is being missed is the efficiency of the bike to harness human power and allow one to cover far more distance, even 'sitting down on the job'. It gives one both the satisfaction of driving a beautiful machine, and the enjoyment of using one's body to do it.

Precisely! We have muscles, joints, and bones. It is a joy to move them! What good is a body if it is not a source of enjoyment?

I live in a gated retirement community. I see some of my neighbors barely getting about in walkers or wheel chairs. I am determined not to get to that point if I can help it so I keep on moving. I am not all that sure I would want to live if I were immobile or nearly so. It is hard to say, but I sure do not want to end up on a crutch, a cane , a walker or in a wheel chair. I believe pedalling about is one way to put that outcome off a bit.

Many of my neighbors are not bicyclists but they do get out on the golf course and some of them even play tennis. It is quite a sight to see a pair of 80 year old folks out on the court volleying the ball over the net. Bless'em I say, and more power to them. Hell, even shuffleboard and bocce is better than immobility. The latest kick, where i live is the Wii machine, a t.v. simulator for some sports such as tennis, baseball and bowling. I tried it out. One gets a rather good workout even with a simulator. That is my foul weather substitute for bicyling.

My motto: move or die.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

I think what is being missed is the efficiency of the bike to harness human power and allow one to cover far more distance, even 'sitting down on the job'. It gives one both the satisfaction of driving a beautiful machine, and the enjoyment of using one's body to do it.

No, I am not missing the point and I also enjoy riding a bike, climbing mountains, walking through the forest and many other recreational activities. What I have problems with is when people try and claim that some form of activity is the cause of their longevity which is wrong and has been shown many times through multiple studies. I am also for enjoying an active life as what is the sense of living longer if we can not keep achieving values. But, longevity has nothing to do with how active we are and sometimes the activity can be detrimental to our lifes. Biological aging is a fact of life and even though some researchers think we have the capacity to live to be over 100 the average person only lives to be around 80. A person cannot out run their genetic capacity, no amount of exercise, no so called "good eating," or keeping active will allow us to get over that pre-set genetic limit.

Some studies on longevity show different attributes of people that live longer such as one's social class. Twice as many people from the lowest social class die faster than those from the highest social class. Men with less than eight years of schooling have a 50% higher death rate than those with one or more years of college. In other studies those people with the following variables seem to be influenced by them and live longer; high income, occupational status, work satisfaction, social activity and life satisfaction. And one more point, studies seem to show those people with the most social interaction live longer and those that isolate themselves die younger.

So, I am all for a enjoyful bicycle ride. But, when people try and claim that it is the pancea that is extending or going to extend their life, I must disagree.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

.

So, I am all for a enjoyful bicycle ride. But, when people try and claim that it is the pancea that is extending or going to extend their life, I must disagree.

I agree with your disagreement. However if a take a ten to twenty mill bike ride every day for the next twenty years I will live to be 95.

Our maximum lifespen is probably more a matter of genetics than lifestyle. A bad lifestyle (bad eating habits, smoking, booze, stress and not enough excercise) can shorten our lives. This is little we can do to lengthen them with perhaps the exception of going on a restricted calorie diet. People who keep their calorie input just above their baseline colorie burn but live otherwise healthy lives tend to live a bit longer than those who eat their fill.

ruveyn

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Every hour I spend riding a bkie or walking is not subtracted from my life. There is something about being in contact with the earth that boosts the spirit.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

Every hour I spend riding a bkie or walking is not subtracted from my life. There is something about being in contact with the earth that boosts the spirit.

ruveyn

In a certain context your statment is wrong. Every breath we take, every piece of food we put in our mouths, every action we take subtracts from our bodies ability to adapt to the stressors of life. But, we as humans should be objectiviely focused on the values one is attempting to achieve and weighing whether or not the cost is worth the reward.

Though I can understand your last sentence as even today there has been little that brings as much enjoyment as riding a horse through an open pasture with no one in sight. I think the enjoyment comes from me thinking that I am on the edge of the frontier and without hesitation I am willing to push on into that new area. For me, on a certain level, waking up and knowing I have another day to chase and achieve values is enough to boost my spirit.