Adds to the list of reasons why not to cycle which includes erectile dysfunction from pinched pudendal nerve, and traffic accidents where you die and the car may not even notice.
Shermer's Neck is a condition that impacts a very small percentage of cyclists, and only those who choose to participate in the most extreme of events like Race Across America or Paris-Brest-Paris.
Cycling feels like free energy, way more flowy, and far more engaging, like it's a videogame, in the sense that I'm constantly making micro-inputs for debris, cracks, choosing clean lines, scanning what's around me, etc.
Only dimension where cycling feels way more intense than walking and running are on the hill climbs, but I oddly like the pain that comes with it. Couldn't say the same for intense running efforts (of the half-marathon threshold to VO2 max variety).
Walking feels like it just takes forever. But in new cities, it's a nice way to get a feel of the various pockets and districts. And on hikes in national parks and such, you don't really have much of a choice.
CYCLING BABY, YEAH.
And even hill climbs can be made relatively easy with the right gear ratio. My endurance bike has a 33T chain ring in the front, and a 36T gear in the back - so less than one to one ratio. I can get over just about any climb in my area without much exertion. It’s definitely slow going, though!
Need to eat 3,000 kcal? Beef and vegetables would be more natural than a Big Mac. Need to go somewhere 3 km away? Waking or jogging would be more natural than cycling or using the car.
In all seriousness though, it’s good to keep in mind human history and what’s natural, but unless you’re walking around barefoot on dirt paths, fasting for days at a time, and drinking unfiltered water from mountain streams, it seems kinda silly to arbitrarily draw the line there. There are plenty of modern things that work really well for humans, that may not have been natural 10,000 years ago
It’s just one study. And GCN is not the best source for science news, and is certainly going to be biased in favor of cycling. But I think at the very least the risk of erectile dysfunction from cycling is vastly overstated in general.
Traffic accidents sure are bad but you can identify safe routes. For example I avoid arterials and opt for those 25mph residential roads that run parallel, and those are extremely safe. The number of cyclists that have died last year in my city of some 4 million people is also about a dozen people, and its not clear whether confounding factors were involved (e.g. alcohol or drugs or lack of helmet or nonddevensive/lack of awareness biking given the not so small homeless population that rides bikes in varying states of sobriety in my city).
As a cyclist I see car traffic as like a constant source of death, like a rushing river leading into a waterfall, or a big grizzly bear. It must be treated with care, but with sufficient knowledge it can be made to be nearly totally safe. When I see statistics like 10 deaths a year in a city of 4 million, of course I will assume that a lot of that has to do with the fact that most bike riders have zero education on using the road with a bike and there was probably some recklessness involved with where they were choosing to ride a bike, and that the cases e.g. of people getting killed while riding in a bike lane or on a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph are so exceedingly rare in comparison that I may as well not worry about them personally ever happening to me, much like I ignore the low scale risk of death with just about anything one does in life.
i don't have much else to say other than that you're wrong and also in a morally compromised position. knowledge can't save you from the rushing river of 2 ton deathmobiles, traffic engineering (ie dutch cycling infrastructure) can.