Well , there you go ....

[ozboz]

According to Cambridge Boffins. ,
as seen on The Wright Stuff ,
an hours cycling puts an an hour on your life , ..... mmmm

 

[Slick]

I think they're going to need a better calculator.

Do they still use the same theory for each cigarette you smoke?

 

[Cycleops]

I wonder if @Smokin Joe is going forward or backward?

 

[3narf]

I haven't been able to cycle for over a week now, with a back injury. I feel about 100 years old.

 

[Spiderweb]

So if you smoke 20 a day but cycle a lot then they should cancel each other out. Healthy smoking, well I never!

 

[pawl]

According to Cambridge Boffins. ,
as seen on The Wright Stuff ,
an hours cycling puts an an hour on your life , ..... mmmm

If that’s correct I should reach at least 150,think I had better order a couple of new bikes.Cancelled my Co Op funeral plan.

 

[hoopdriver]

I wonder if @Smokin Joe is going forward or backward?

Neither. I am guessing he has probably stopped time, achieved immortality and agelessness.

 

[jefmcg]

If your aim is to maximise life expectancy per hour of exercise, switch to running. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/...running-may-add-seven-hours-to-your-life.html

 

[Alan O]

According to Cambridge Boffins. ,
as seen on The Wright Stuff ,
an hours cycling puts an an hour on your life , ..... mmmm

So if you never stop pedaling, you'll never die?

 

[winjim]

According to Cambridge Boffins. ,
as seen on The Wright Stuff ,
an hours cycling puts an an hour on your life , ..... mmmm

Two hours. One now, one in the bank.

 

[Vapin' Joe]

Neither. I am guessing he has probably stopped time, achieved immortality and agelessness.

^^This^^

 

[Deleted member 1258]

By that calculation I should be an immortal.

 

[ColinJ]

If your aim is to maximise life expectancy per hour of exercise, switch to running. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/...running-may-add-seven-hours-to-your-life.html

With a typical maximum life extension of 3 years ...

That article suggests that cycling has about 3/4 of the health benefits without explaining the difference. I would suggest that the difference could be that running is load-bearing and general cycling isn't and that has an important knock-on effect on bone health. Calcium not helping the body build stronger bones is potentially helping the body build life-threatening arterial plaque instead.

So, if you are not going to run as well as cycle, do some other form of load-bearing exercise, and make sure that you get enough vitamins K2, D3, A (etc) to help put the calcium where it should be.

 

[jefmcg]

That article suggests that cycling has about 3/4 of the health benefits without explaining the difference

How did you get that. I saw that running "dropped a person’s risk of premature death by almost 40 percent", while cycling "typically dropped the risk of premature death by about 12 percent" which seems like 1/3, not 3/4. But I only skimmed the article.

I would suggest that the difference could be that running is load-bearing and general cycling isn't and that has an important knock-on effect on bone health.

Apparently that's not actually the case - a good bit of news for cyclists.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/health/exercise-is-not-the-path-to-strong-bones.html

(NY Times again, it's a link I'd found previously)

 

[bpsmith]

There’s no way to cheat fate.