Cyclist burn more calories
So does jogging, swimming, dancing, and…sex? Anything that isn’t sedentary lifestyle gonna burn more calories. But OOP doesn’t need to worry about any of those.
NO WAY!!! We better cancel all sports!!!1!1!11!1one
No more sex!
Mike Pence rubbing his hands together
I can’t remember the name of the philosopher that pretty much said that because existing is so toxic to our environment, we should stop existing (i.e. stop having children, not commit genocide to be clear).
I can’t fault him for being right.
Anything that lives creates things that are toxic to itself. It’s a waste product. Or shit.
The problem isn’t our existing, not even just the scale at which we do, but the methods we choose to use to do it. I’m pretty sure we could have 8 billion people sustainably and comfortably living here, maybe even many more, but we do it by investing in solar and wind, maybe nuclear, maybe whatever isn’t burning coal and gas. And we, as a society, are simply choosing not to.
Besides, life will go on for a while without us, at least a few billion years probably. Even if some of us survive, I wonder what the trajectory is for human intelligence during a mass extinction event. Will we still be interested in the stars? Or maybe a more good natured intelligence evolves here from like octopuses or something and decides to look up. It’d be cool if a descendent of Earth could survive the Sun dying, anyway
If you drive in a 25 miles per gallon vehicle (pretty standard) you will burn the equivalent of 1100 calories per mile. Assuming an active person who rides their bike a lot eats around 2500 calories a day, and they ride to work every day, and they live 5 miles away. In the car you would burn about 11,000 calories a day, in the bike you would never burn more than 2,500 and that ignores the fact that actually most of those calories have nothing to do with the biking.
Also, one year of an average American driving (around 14,000 miles) would have the equivalent calories of giving 16,000 people a proper meal.
Being that stupid isn’t natural. You know they do the opposite of reading a book and putsome efforts to lower their IQ that much.
The human brain uses a lot of calories; maybe he’s so concerned about this that he turns it off before going online
It’s even worse than that! The calories burned show up in the atmosphere as additional CO2! We need to urgently strap everybody to a chair or bed so they stop burning all those calories!!! /s
Speak for yourself. My main greenhouse emission is methane. Lactose intolerance is a huge deal.
/s
We will all die in a fireball at the ice cream parlor in the summer!
oh man this type of thing annoys the hell out of me. Someone will take the calories of a person cycling per day and say its not great environmentally without taking into account subtracting out the calories required for someone to exist period.
Yeah let’s say there was a global calorie daily limit - I suspect the truckers will feel it harder than the bikers
And yet cyclists still consume less per day than that 400 lb dude in an F150.
You don’t get it, a healthy menu consumes much more volume of food that needs to be transported, per capita. Imagine if everyone ordered a head of lettuce instead of a sneakers bar. How many lettuce trucks we’d need??? It’s just not sustainable.
Now imagine what this guy would eat if he was cyclist. Checkmate again. You libtards are so easy to burn.
Sounds like a boon for that fat guy’s local economy
he’s right, we all know that exploring, extracting, refining, distilling, and distributing petroleum and its derivatives doesn’t cost anything
we are already overproducing food and throwing it away, so even if there was logic in the idea, it would not actually require additional farming, manufacuring, transportation, etc
First thought is this is sublime shithousery.
So, who’s gonna tell them the human body burns about the same amount of calories every day, regardless of exertion?
Basal metabolic rate is different than active metabolic rate. You absolutely burn more energy when you’re active. You probably want to read up on human nutrition if you believe otherwise.
Oh buddy, if there’s anyone that needs to “read up” on anything, it’s not me.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-exercise-paradox/
The human body burns a set amount of calories every day. Your average man burns 2600 kcal a day, your average woman 1900. You exercised and burnt an extra 300 kcal? Great, your body will slow down in the evening to make up for it, or decrease its energy expenditure on random inflammations. Granted, if you’re not active, and active in this sense is a very very low bar, you do burn less calories, about 200 less. So if you want to catch me on a technicality, go ahead.
Not OP but I’ll bite, the absurdly long and wordy article you linked vaguely summarizes some studies, then actually cites a study of 300 people that wore a fitbit for a week. It says nothing about how they calculated the calories burnt other than what a fitbit estimates. If you burn an extra 200 calories a day with exercise you are not going to make that up by sleeping harder or whatever unexplained mechanism the author fails to produce, you will either lose weight or consume more calories.
Well, the “vaguely summarised studies” were the answer to the exact issue you are raising. If that article was too long, then here’s the paper itself:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040503
As it is even longer and even less approachable than the article, I will condense it even further: A group of Hanza, who are hunter-gatherers, had their metabolism measured. Under the commonly held assumption, group of people who spend their whole day travelling on foot, foraging and hunting, would consume more calories.
However, the study found they used and consumed the same amount of calories as any other group. They weren’t more “efficient”, they burned the same amount of energy walking as any other group. Even through the average distance the men travelled daily was 11km.
So yes, they do burn hundreds of calories every day walking, with a total daily calorie expenditure no different than somebody in the western world that has a 30 minute jog in the morning.
I also think you can get to a similar conclusion by a totally different route. The conclusion being “more exercise is not a weight loss plan”.
This is a chart of calories burned in an hour for a given activity: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p4/p40109.pdf
Some of the highest are things like “biking, >20mph” (1380 calories burned if you weigh 190lbs) or “rowing, >6 mph” (1035 burned). You have to be in good shape already to sustain that rate for an hour.
More likely, you’re going to be doing activities closer to 300-500 calories an hour. How much does that translate on the intake side? Roughly a 20oz bottle of Mountain Dew or two. So if you’re drinking a lot of soda, simply cutting it out will do more for you than exercise. (Well, in terms of weight loss, anyway. Lots of other reasons to exercise.)
This seemed obvious to me years ago just by looking at the numbers. The Exercise Paradox paper makes an even stronger conclusion by another route. Not only is the calorie input/output comparison impractical for any reasonable level of exercise, your body doesn’t even work that way.
Which also suggests to me that weight loss drugs are the only path for the majority of the population. No amount of lifestyle changes in adulthood are going to do it unless they’re very drastic.
Oh yes, absolutely, that’s another conclusion to draw from this paper. Exercise is still good for you, but it’s not a means of losing weight.
Power analyses indicated that sample sizes were sufficient to detect a 4.2% difference in mean TEE (Hadza vs. Western, α = 0.05) in comparisons among women (power 97%) and 7.6% difference among men (power 93%).
So the Hanza people used more energy than westerners but I guess if you can just say 7.6% more energy is not significant then I guess it isn’t.
The paper you linked is literally saying the people that move more burn more calories.
And this is why I linked the article first instead of the paper.
The line you’re quoting is the authors explaining they have a large enough sample size to detect differences. They could detect a 4.2% difference in their sampling of women with 97% confidence, at a 5% significance threshold. They are saying they are extremely confident they would be able to detect a difference, but didn’t.
You will burn more but not that much more.
Yeah, the amount of extra calories consumed is not that great and does not require that much extra food.
Just did a quick calculation for me, biking 30 min to work would have me burning an extra 170 kcal. I could add 1 and half tablespoons of butter to a meal and cover it easily.
One of the most disheartening things is using one of those exercise machines that tells you how much calories you burned and then how exhausting it is to burn one snickers bar.
Yeah, caloric intake plays a much larger role on weight loss than moving more.
I am guessing this person was being facetious, but you can never tell with absolute certainty nowadays.
I’ve straight up had people ask me “[citation needed]” for a car coming from the factory with a higher CO2 production cost than a bike. So, so much bad faith and poor thinking around this.
I’d like to see his diet and shape, but already have an idea about it
Well one of those is very likely “well rounded”
You mean he is optimized, because there are no corners to cut?
“I’m in shape. Round is a shape too.”
If this is true, then support a carbon tax without exceptions. All the extra food cyclists use will be taxed extra.
No one tell them how many calories are in a tank of gas
I read a carbrain article a while ago that tried to argue that cyclists create more CO2 than a car.
So to compare that they assumed that
- The cyclist eats exactly as much calories as required, so that extra exercise directly requires an increase of caloric intake. They did the same for the driver.
- The cyclist exclusively covers the added caloric intake via imported japanese Kobe beef steak cooked on a wood grill.
- The car was the lowest-consumption electic car they could find.
And with that setup the cyclist actually created more CO2.
The author seriously booked that as a win for the car, claiming that cycling is not always better for the environment than driving.
Wow that feels like an exercise in the absurd
lol that’s so dumb. If you want an actually good breakdown then I’d recommend this video to share with people!
