Most assuredly - the article is only comparing "walking" to "no walking", not any other activity. Any exercise is better than no exercise, and harder forms of exercise are better (up to a point which casual people won't reach). These results shouldn't be surprising.
Given that cycling usually involves higher heart rates, a larger range of resistance, a larger range of joint movement, more balancing skills, and increased attention requirements, for the same period of time I would expect cycling to be better. And in most American cities, you can actually cycle from your home to another destination, whereas walking will not. Of course, cycling involves greater costs and danger.
Given that cycling usually involves higher heart rates, a larger range of resistance, a larger range of joint movement, more balancing skills, and increased attention requirements, for the same period of time I would expect cycling to be better. And in most American cities, you can actually cycle from your home to another destination, whereas walking will not. Of course, cycling involves greater costs and danger.