As someone who works out regularly but never cycles, this seems difficult to believe. Surely the cardiovascular benefits outweigh any negatives from "muscle shortening" (first I've heard of this) compared to no activity.
Unless your point is "some types of exercise are better than cycling" in which case, sure.
Fact - cycling creates short leg muscles, hamstrings in particular. For those of us who have tight hamstrings, which is most males (according to my subjective, biased observations), this is not good. Creates back problems later on.
I agree that some cycling is better than no activity. But I would say that going to a hooker every night is also better for you health wise than staying in and watching tv, as long as you wear at least 2 condoms.
As someone who has put in tens of thousands of km's on bicycles over the years, I'm wondering when these alleged downsides are supposed to kick in. According to my own subjective, self-observations, it has done nothing but good for me.
Cycling is health in so far as it is more exercise and fresh air than a majority of the population gets ever. Cycling too much has its side effect as does just about everything in life.
Right, but in other activities if you practice safely and under professional supervision you can usually minimize the risk. Here the movement is short and repetitive which in turn builds short muscles. It's a "feature", not a corner case "bug".
Majority of health benefits? It is a midly stressing cardio vascular activity and given the circumstances (delivery) it is probably nothing better than jumping up a few times and letting gravity get hold of you.
I am not saying it is worthless but some people praise this as the second coming of Sparta its legion training sets.
