>>1411150>The arms take basically no weight at all.It's not about taking weight, it's about having a pivot point.
>You can't assume that because the vibrations in a car that goes far faster than a bicycle can be bad for your back the bicycle must be too.I'm going to pretend this is coherent and respond to the point being made. The harm vibrations cause is not purely a function of the speed perpendicular to the impulse. In fact, sometimes going faster on the same surface can cause vibrations to be reduced.
>That's like saying eating salt is bad for you because eating too much of it will kill you.You know how much compressive vibration is good for your back? None. None whatsoever. There is no healthy amount of vertebrae compression.
>Yes, we are. We are talking about the specific instance of riding an upright bicycle.I'll refer you to:
>>1411131"What you're trying to do is to frame the argument as narrowly as possible in the hopes that I can't find evidence for the specific instance."
>The amount and intensity of vibrations between that and a car is completely different.Most of the studies into driver back pain are actually referring to truck drivers, who have hydraulic seats which travel as much as half a foot. The vibrations they experience will actually be far less harsh than someone riding a bike with a similar posture.
>I guess any fucking vibrations no matter how intense will break my spine.Anything which causes vertebral compression does damage the spine. You seem to be assuming that because we walk upright, that must mean our spines are adapted to do so, the reality is they're not. The structure which changed to facilitate our current posture was actually our hips, our vertebrae are virtually identical to quadrupeds, an evolutionary relic.
2/3 people will experience a debilitating spinal impingement in their lifetime, that's how big the problem is.
>Comfort.Lol, OK. Not because without them 2 minutes on a washboard road would prove me right?
