Note For Cyclists
-
Studies that have compared indigenous tribes of hunter-gatherers in northern Tanzania – who walk an average of 19,000 steps a day – with sedentary populations in Europe and the US have found that their total number of calories burned is largely the same.
Some scientists believe that this is because the body is programmed to keep its average daily energy expenditure within a defined range. To explain the theory, Pontzer gives the example of a keen amateur cyclist who takes part in 100km bike rides at weekends.
Overall, that individual still won’t burn more calories on average than a sedentary person, but their average energy expenditure will be skewed towards providing fuel for the muscles. The sedentary person will burn a similar number of calories, but on background bodily functions which we do not notice, including less healthy outlets such as producing inflammation and stress.For more interesting stuff on metabolism: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/oct/30/burn-baby-burn-the-new-science-of-metabolism?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Isn't it funny how so few cyclists doing 100km rides are obese?
What an amazing coincidence!
-
Isn't it funny how so few cyclists doing 100km rides are obese?
What an amazing coincidence!
-
@doctor-phibes Maybe you have to be unobese to do it in the first place . . . ?
@catseye3 said in Note For Cyclists:
@doctor-phibes Maybe you have to be unobese to do it in the first place . . . ?
Just some helpful advice, Cats: next time, try riding a bike instead of sharing articles from the Guardian about cyclists. You'll feel the wind in your hair, the smell of the outdoors, and your neighborhood in a new light. You can also put these theories of yours into practice. I honestly think it'd do wonders for you. Give it a try!
Please love yourself.
-
@catseye3 said in Note For Cyclists:
@doctor-phibes Maybe you have to be unobese to do it in the first place . . . ?
Just some helpful advice, Cats: next time, try riding a bike instead of sharing articles from the Guardian about cyclists. You'll feel the wind in your hair, the smell of the outdoors, and your neighborhood in a new light. You can also put these theories of yours into practice. I honestly think it'd do wonders for you. Give it a try!
@aqua-letifer And this advice is helpful why?
And why do you believe the OP article is critical of cyclists? It isn't. It doesn't even have that much to do with cyclists.
Here's my helpful advice, Aqua: Don't be so sensitive.
-
@aqua-letifer And this advice is helpful why?
And why do you believe the OP article is critical of cyclists? It isn't. It doesn't even have that much to do with cyclists.
Here's my helpful advice, Aqua: Don't be so sensitive.
@catseye3 said in Note For Cyclists:
@aqua-letifer And this advice is helpful why?
And why do you believe the OP article is critical of cyclists? It isn't. It doesn't even have that much to do with cyclists.
Here's my helpful advice, Aqua: Don't be so sensitive.
Thank you for proving @Horace 's point.
-
@catseye3 said in Note For Cyclists:
@doctor-phibes Maybe you have to be unobese to do it in the first place . . . ?
Just some helpful advice, Cats: next time, try riding a bike instead of sharing articles from the Guardian about cyclists. You'll feel the wind in your hair, the smell of the outdoors, and your neighborhood in a new light. You can also put these theories of yours into practice. I honestly think it'd do wonders for you. Give it a try!
@aqua-letifer said in Note For Cyclists:
You'll feel the wind in your hair
To be fair, you can also feel the wind in your hair with background bodily functions which we do not notice.
-
I'm only n=1, but I personally cannot confirm that study. When I don't ride my bike or do any other form of activity for a few weeks, I gain weight.
One thing that I did notice, which is somewhat related to the
about 90% of people who lose significant amounts of weight, whether through diets, structured programmes or even drastic steps such as gastric surgery, ultimately regain just about all of it.
point of the article: Compared to when my weight was 65 pounds more, I'll gain weight at ridiculously low daily calorie levels. That difference is much higher than what can be explained by the difference in body weight and the base rate difference resulting from it. I'm pretty sure that I ate more than 4000 calories a day back then, and gained maybe 1kg per year or so - almost constant. These days, I need to be below 2500 kcal/day, even while including 100km rides on the weekend. It's scary how easy it would be to gain that weight back.
-
It's scary how easy it would be to gain that weight back.
Same for me, but throughout daily activities, I can't eat like that anymore. Hiking or biking all day, sure, but otherwise it's easy for me not to go too high on caloric intake—my body can't deal with it anymore.
-
I dont know. There is something to metabolism. That is why it is so hard to lose weight - the first kgs are easy, but it gets harder and harder, even if you keep cutting calories or increasing calories burned.
-
I dont know. There is something to metabolism. That is why it is so hard to lose weight - the first kgs are easy, but it gets harder and harder, even if you keep cutting calories or increasing calories burned.
@taiwan_girl said in Note For Cyclists:
I dont know. There is something to metabolism. That is why it is so hard to lose weight - the first kgs are easy, but it gets harder and harder, even if you keep cutting calories or increasing calories burned.
Metabolism, type of food consumed (plus when and how frequently), gut flora, type of exercise, plus its duration, frequency, and intensity all contribute.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Note For Cyclists:
I dont know. There is something to metabolism. That is why it is so hard to lose weight - the first kgs are easy, but it gets harder and harder, even if you keep cutting calories or increasing calories burned.
Metabolism, type of food consumed (plus when and how frequently), gut flora, type of exercise, plus its duration, frequency, and intensity all contribute.
@aqua-letifer Agree. There are alot of debates on weight loss and wether or not that is important.
One side says that calories in < calories out will result in weight loss
One side says no, it does not matter. Types of calories you eat are more important and how much calories you eat is not a big deal
Probably a combination of the two.
-
@aqua-letifer Agree. There are alot of debates on weight loss and wether or not that is important.
One side says that calories in < calories out will result in weight loss
One side says no, it does not matter. Types of calories you eat are more important and how much calories you eat is not a big deal
Probably a combination of the two.
@taiwan_girl said in Note For Cyclists:
@aqua-letifer Agree. There are alot of debates on weight loss and wether or not that is important.
One side says that calories in < calories out will result in weight loss
One side says no, it does not matter. Types of calories you eat are more important and how much calories you eat is not a big deal
Probably a combination of the two.
It's also pretty obvious that genetics plays a role.
I have my father's thighs.
