755
Every little bit counts (thelemmy.club)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
94 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 5 months ago (13 children)

If you are trying to lose weight, you should be using the worst, heaviest bike possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago

    Well, not if you still want to have some fun while doing so.

    But I agree, that a regular bike should suffice and you don't need to worry about optimizing gear weight if you're not competing for anything and just ride it for your own well-being.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Well, not necessarily. A bike that's got a full carbon frame also absorbs shock and vibration from the road better. This means you can ride longer distances without getting fatigued in places like your wrists or ass. Longer rides = more exercise.

    But once you have a carbon frame, chasing grams on other components gets to be a bit silly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I've yet to ride a carbon frame for any amount of real distance, so idk how good they actually are.

    But having a less harsh ride can also be archived by not using the thinnest pizza cutter tires at 10 bar. Especially if we care about time ridden and not avg. speed.

    And it's going to be slightly harder to get the same speed out of comfy tires, so that's also more exercise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    It was really funny about a decade back watching the entire bike industry all at once acknowledge friction coefficients, and suddenly the tires all went from 24mm/90psi to 38mm/40psi. All because the roadies started riding on gravel.

    You could argue that TPI tubes / tubeless made larger road tires practical. But we all secretly know it was because people at the time just thought thin tires looked cooler and "more aero".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    You could also just walk whenever possible, burns more kcals/distance

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (3 children)

    That's less efficient time-wise though, since it takes significantly longer to walk the same distance compared to riding.

    Ie, riding 2 hours burns FAR more calories than walking for 2 hours.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    I enjoy walking and don't mind walking even for 40 minutes in the morning. Not every day, but if it fits in the schedule it gives me more movement in practice than a bike (also due to some local circumstances).

    The point was more generally that walking is a great alternative. Everyone hypes bicycles, walking has no lobby and is one of the healthiest things to add to your day.

    Also, if the goal is to lose weight, cardio is fine but only supportive at best. It's way more effective to eat less calorie dense food than trying to run/bike it off. The difference between an hour walking and biking is negligible for most people compared to dietary changes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    The difference between an hour walking and biking is easily 10+ miles, not exactly negligible if you have somewhere to go.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    What kind of madman is gonna argue against walking? 😅 Get some sleep bro

    But honestly: you looking for a hobby? Go cycling all you want. You looking to get somewhere? The place will not change position at random. You know where you want to go. In my reality bike or foot rarely matter if I'm going to the supermarket or wherever. Just leave 10 minutes earlier and you're good. In this kind of situation, your choice is between losing a few more kcals by walking or saving a few minutes by taking the bike. Both are good options, neither is going to make you fat or thin. If that's your goal, eat less calorie dense food.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    Steel is real. The road feel difference between carbon and steel is negligible, steel is usually way cheaper, survives a whole lot longer, is more often built to widely compatible standards, is fully recyclable, and in my humble opinion just straight up feels better under you on a ride. As for weight, unless one is a pro race cyclist there is never any reason to chase gram shavings, you will almost always lose more weight and go faster by working out your own body. But FWIW my default steel rig is 19 pounds and competes on weight with most carbon builds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    There's a bell curve. If you burn out too quick you're not gonna get nearly as much cardio, and the torque required to move a real clunker is extra stress on your joints. Plus it's just not as much fun, cycling is a sustainable exercise largely because it's fun. But it's very true that a decent workout bike can be had for $100 if you look. My two workout bikes were both built in the 90s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent