- Location
- Inside my skull
This is for a 69kg person, based on the additional calorie consimption over and above sedentary behaviour, and a food cost of £1.20/1000kcals, which is the average for my diet as of April 2022. (My food expenditure appears to be well below the figures I've seen bandied around at various times.)
View attachment 670257
Care to produce some evidence for that?
Suppose I drive my car 100 miles without stopping to fill the tank, does that prove it hasn't used any petrol? No, of course it doesn't.
Suppose I drive 10 miles on alternate days, and 90 miles on each day in between. If I stop and buy 50 miles-worth of petrol every day, does that prove the car will go 90 miles on the same amount of fuel it takes to travel 10 miles? No, of course it doesn't.
But that's exactly the same logic that you're applying to the bike. The point is if you stop driving 90 miles on alternate days, and drive 10 miles every day instead, your average daily mileage will have gone from 50m/day to 10m/day, and the amount of fuel you have to put in the tank will also have gone down accordingly.
Exactly.
And even if you are getting lighter, the journey is still being fuelled by fat that originally came from food, just like the car that's getting lighter if you don't stop for petrol.
I've given you the proof, you just choose to ignore it. The ACSM compendium is a peer reviewed data source that has been compiled from actual measurements of metabolic rate for over 800 everyday activities, specifically for the purpose of calculating the energy used. It's a standard reference that's been in use worldwide for nearly 30 years.
You've just admitted that you ARE using energy to get to Aldi, there.
Yes, you're absolutely right, and if you'd taken the trouble to calculate by how much, you'd see that it's trivial compared to the energy used by cycling. A 70 kg rider cycling 220 miles at 12mph (~6METs) will burn off about 1kg of fat (7800kcals), and in so doing will knock 14 kcals of his BMR. That 14 kcals is enough to take him 0.4 miles.
The cost of the bike/car/insurance/mot etc are only relevant if you're proposing to give one of them up altogether. Most people will want to own both and just be deciding which one to use, and which one to leave at home.
Either the fraction is 100%, or the cyclist will lose weight over the long term.
It's the emissions from agriculture you need to be looking at, they account for 26% of all greenhouse gases.
This. It's bleedin' obvious, innit.
Since my health put paid to exercise I'm eating less than 2000kcals/day, but when I was riding regularly it was about 3300, and on a 50m/day cycle tour 4500-5000. I've seen off as much as 7000 kcals in big day's ride.
You can multiply that cycling figure by several times over.
It can be, it depends what you're comparing with what:
View attachment 670258
If you go for a ride then fill up with a Big Mac on the way home, then your ride was powered by (mostly) beef, and your ride will have produced about the same emissions as a big 4x4.
The sedentary person simply puts on more weight, thus needing more calories to sustain themselves. The one who cycles stays in energy balance and eats less than the sedentary person.