"Weight-bearing" and "resistance" are two different things.
Cycling in the saddle, and doing upper-body work in a weight machine, are non-weight bearing, because you're not bearing your weight. Simple as that. Your weight is supported by a seat. But they're both resistance exercises, because you're using your extremities to push more than their own weight (excepting of course motorpacing and downhill intervals). The amount of resistance while cycling can be very small (spinning on the flats) or larger (pushing big gears up hill and/or into the wind) - maybe one of the engineers here can explain how to calculate the amount of torque we apply to the pedals.
Push-ups I suppose are technically weight-bearing because you're supporting your own weight. But I'm not sure why you're asking?? (i.e. what difference it makes) Because I've always heard the phase "weight-bearing" applied to activities where your weight is borne naturally through your spine, pelvis and legs. I would guess that push-ups would help strengthen the arm and wrist bones - since they're supporting considerably more weight than they do in a standing position - and so, help protect against arm and wrist fractures in a fall.
Pull-ups are not weight-bearing, because the bar, not your body, is supporting your weight against gravity. Neither of them are resistance exercises, because you're not adding anything to your body weight (unless you're Yellow or somebody like that who does pull-ups with weights attached and push-ups with someone sitting on your back). Just because they're body weight exercises doesn't mean they have to be easy!
Weight lifting in a weight-bearing position does build bone by the simple fact that it compresses and stresses the bones. That's why heavy people are at very low risk for osteoporosis. But you've got to be lifting enough weight, and supporting it through the spine, to significantly compress and stress the bones. A million reps of 5# lateral raises won't do your spine much good. 50# squats definitely will, either on the Smith machine (safer), in a squat rack (both safer and more natural) or with free weights (please use spotters!).

Originally Posted by
Over50Newbie
Bicycling up a hill will help build muscle strength, but not help increase bone density.
True.

Originally Posted by
Over50Newbie
But having strong muscles will help protect my bones, help my balance, and will help against bone breakage in a fall.
False! Balance exercises are a whole 'nother category - definitely low speed drills on the bicycle are good for your balance, but to protect against falls from a standing/walking position, you should do balance drills on one foot, because the proprioceptive muscles involved in balancing on a bicycle - and the ones that you use to correct your position when you're out of balance - are largely different from the ones you use standing/walking. And muscle strength alone won't do anything to prevent bones from breaking when they're subjected to an impact.

Originally Posted by
Over50Newbie
I need to make sure that if I have strong quadriceps, I also need to balance that out by building strength in my hamstrings.
True - and that's not just true for those muscles, but for all the opposing muscle groups in your body. Biceps/triceps; calves/shins; chest/uper back; abs/low back; dorsal forearms/ventral forearms. It's also true within muscle groups - the quadriceps obviously is a group of four muscles; the hamstrings is technically known as the biceps femoris, a two-headed muscle; and it's important to avoid muscle imbalances within those muscle groups by doing a variety of exercises. Imbalances within the quadriceps often go hand in hand with knee trouble. I remember someone on here (Mr. Silver?) was having shoulder trouble because of imbalances in the deltoids. For examples.
HTH .... now, you want to get into open vs. closed chain exercises? And which category of those cycling falls into, and when?
Last edited by OakLeaf; 10-15-2008 at 02:56 AM.
Speed comes from what you put behind you. - Judi Ketteler