Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Paleo or Faileo?: The Bicycle


Before I get down to brass tacks, let's get people's sensitivities out of the way. Yes, the bicycle is the messiah of environmental restoration. Yes, the bicycle is the best invention since the wheel. Yes, biking is still a great way to go long distances. And yes, biking is a far better choice than driving.

Call me extreme, but I like to look at the facts before making up my mind. But sometimes, things are so ingrained into my day-to-day life that I don't even think about questioning it. Until I get a wakeup call. So it was with the bicycle when one nearly took me out of the gene pool.

I have heard plenty of horror stories about the bike throughout my life, always shrugging them off as freak occurrences or misinformation, things that could have happened whether or not the bike was involved. The story that should have opened my eyes was the one about my girlfriend's father. He took a big white work truck head-on at about 30 mph while going 15 mph himself rounding a blind turn on a quiet mountain road. He was nearly killed.

Even when Andrew at Evolvify recently broke his clavicle mountain biking I thought, "Terrible news, but it could've happened anywhere, anytime -- bike or no bike." I'm writing this post in admission of my previously faulty logic.

Every method of transportation has costs. The problem is that many of those costs are hard to measure, and some are hard to think of measuring in the first place. I believe strongly that risk of personal injury and the opportunity cost of bicycling are two of those things.

I'm not talking about erectile dysfunction or arterial iliac endofibrosis, which has been argued compellingly before; I'm talking broken bones, missing teeth or -- lord forbid -- a curb to the temple. Helmet or not, you're screwed. Most people don't even wear their helmet correctly to begin with.

The very first car-related death in our country's history was in 1896 when a car crashed into a bicyclist. And per mile, a bicyclist is 3 to 10x more likely to die at any given moment than a motorist. Under a thousand bicyclists die each year and 90% of them are men, which may imply speed and/or risk-taking as major factors. That's Lesson #1: Understand the real dangers.

But perhaps the most overlooked aspect of the bike debate is the opportunity cost, something that I didn't consider until I threw a disc with an avid cyclist. He was the pillar of youth and health: sun-kissed skin, powerful calves, a lean physique. I was a little nervous to display my rusty Frisbee-throwing skills ... until I saw him attempt to run and jump. It was a little bit like actual running and jumping, except he never left the ground with stride or hop, and he just looked old, like he was manipulating the skeleton of a decrepit elderly man. I'm not exaggerating. This guy ran with shoes on over grass like it was hot coals on his bare feet. It was shocking to see such lethargy from someone who looked so fit.

And then it hit me: If you spend all your exercise time on a bicycle, you are replacing time that could be spent moving naturally, developing useful and lasting strength and body coordination. You know, things like lifting, running, jumping, throwing, etc. Things that are paleo. So Lesson #2: Don't let bicycling replace real exercise.

I don't think die-hard fans of the bicycle should quit, but the dangers should be known and the alternatives should be flushed. Consider walking instead. Long walks are the base of the paleo exercise pyramid. The benefits are profound, the dangers are nil, and the opportunity cost is little. It's better for fat burning, too. But don't take my word for it.
"If the body be feeble, the mind will not be strong. The sovereign invigorator of the body is exercise, and of all the exercises walking is best. A horse (read: bicycle) gives but a kind of half exercise, and a carriage is no better than a cradle. No one knows, till he tries, how easily a habit of walking is acquired." - Thomas Jefferson

10 comments:

  1. I believe that it has been documented that competitive cyclists have issues with bone loss due to a lack of weight bearing exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awesome, David. I also forgot to touch on posture. If you see these guys biking around, many of them contort their lower and upper backs as well as necks and shoulders. Can't be good in the long run...

    ReplyDelete
  3. You offend my Jeffersonian leanings by equating his words on horses to bikes. On my new show, FOX News: The Atheist Patriot, you'll see me argue for a return to America's "true" past in which Hamilton and Jefferson toured the country spreading a message of Enlightenment reasoning and logical inquiry. The segment is sponsored by Trek, because everyone knows Jefferson and Madison didn't pedal any lesser bike.

    On a more serious note, I'm glad I wrote my "tools" post yesterday and thus don't feel a need to defend bikes outside of that context. An anecdote though... I spent the months of May to September with a nagging orthopedic hammy/tendon/strain injury. I couldn't sprint 100% for those months and any significant stride was painful. I tried weeks of rest, walking, stretching, weight training, et cetera; it just persisted. It finally healed right before I shattered my shoulder... after I quit running/walking for two weeks and trained exclusively by bike.

    I view habitual competitive distance cycling the same way I view habitual competitive distance running. We can argue about the negatives of saddle ass vs. repetitive ground-strike impact stress, but... they share the title of "bastions of oxidative stress".

    ReplyDelete
  4. YES! Not that any movement is better than no movement, but if you're going to go out an do something, why are we trying to SIT DOWN!? Haha, love it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I am not looking for what is tolerable. I'm looking for what is optimal." - Mat LaLonde

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I am not looking for what is optimal. I'm looking for what is fun. Homo economicus is dead" -Me (Homo ludens)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sounds like a lot of good excuses to avoid cycling. But why? Sure, I could walk to work. At 3.8 miles, it would only take me an hour. I can get there on my bike in less than 15 minutes. It takes me 12 in a car. Sure, we shouldn't spend all of our time bent over skinny little wheels with our shoulders hunched over our aerobars and our pointy helmets shedding the wind. No argument there. But as a supplement to all other types of movement, a bike is the ultimate transportation machine. I put about 3,000 miles a year on my various bikes (triathlon, town, and tandem with my kids), and I can run, jump, lift, row, and do advanced martial arts. The bike doesn't hurt any of that stuff, it's only cyclists who ignore other types of movement that are in trouble.

    As for safety, employing one's brain, the laws, some reflective gear and good lighting goes a long way toward increasing bike safety. The last cyclist killed in my city turned in front of a car and was not wearing a helmet. Sad, but hardly a "cycling fatality", more a lack of good judgement. I've been bike commuting for 25 years and have yet to have my bike meet a car.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Andrew, you might be the most quotable person in paleo. Never stop typing. And you're touching on a topic I was getting ready to tackle on my next post, in which I explore why it's important to marry paleo with life goals, which inevitably leads to fun (and divergence from the paleo model). You're absolutely right that fun should win over perfectionism.

    Robin, you're right on the money as well. Bike commuting is a great choice for people who live too far to walk or just don't have the time. If biking is just a sliver of your total exercise, then opportunity cost is minimal! And you're right about safety. That 90% male fatality statistic seems to be an indicator of risk-taking as a major cause of injury. Men are notorious risk-takers across a whole range of activities, so if bikers act with safety in mind, the risk of personal injury is likewise minimized.

    A Thanksgiving 'Thank You' to you both for completing the discussion so thoroughly!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cycling (and basic calisthenics) were my only real exercise for most of my teenage years. That said, it was often around 200 miles a week in hilly country on a beat-up old ten speed. I didn't even buy my first pair of lycra shorts until senior year of highschool.

    Thinking back, I am reminded of your frisbee story.

    I had great cardiovascular fitness and body composition, and it was awesome stress reduction as well. But my bone density was definitely a lot lower than it should have been and natural movement "skills" were underdeveloped in my body.

    But I don't think cycling has to be a "small portion" of one's exercise to avoid that. During that senior year I also started doing a lot of running around in general, playing sports with friends, scrambling around in gorges, climbing anything and everything I could grip, leaping between boulders on beaches, swimming in high surf and making mad dashes through forests. Paleo-style fitness came on hard, and I could certainly tell the difference. But I was still cycling 100+ miles a week in warm weather, because I had a social life that stretched across 3 different counties and no other transportation to get around. I didn't die of overtraining or even slow down, really. Being 18 probably helped, but still.

    I do think the current dogma of "pick a gear where you can pedal about 90 rpm and be working at a medium intensity" that seems prevalent in road riders is bunk. I did that for about a year (after graduating), and my riding got a lot slower and weaker, and I lost muscle mass. I've since gone back to the way I always did it before learning how you're "supposed" to do it: either I'm cruising easy stretches (most of the time) or I'm going full intensity up a hill, always maintaining the highest gear ratio that I can. And occasionally that has meant sprinting for 50 miles to go to lunch with a friend a few towns over. It's all just fun, good work until you start worrying about whether you're doing it "right."

    ReplyDelete

Your thoughts are welcome! What do you think?