Cycling can contribute more to global warming than driving, argues Harvard researcher

wycombewheeler wrote:

Unless he can show that cyclists eat more meat tHan drivers this is questionable in the extreme. Also most people are not on the paleo diet, and most cars are not a prius. Pretty sure my meat consumption hasn't gone up since starting cycling, sugar yes, meat no.

Agreed. What sort of Venn diagram would you end up with?

If the researcher is going to use this kind of argument, then I'd have thought those that expend calories in a gym without gaining a yard in transportation would be a worse 'culprit' than a cyclist (only by using his logic and not any I subscribe to, in the world of the sane). Surely combining your exercise with transportation is the perfect, most efficient combination possible?

unconstituted wrote:

tonyleatham wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Who funds this shite. Some right-wing nutjob lobby no doubt.

Much more likely to be a left wing nut job

 

 

Really, how do you work that out?

Climate change is DEFINITELY a poster child of the left. I can't see any right wing organisation funding any kind of research into climate change, even if the intended outcome is to demonstrate that cars are more virtuous than bikes. They're much more likely to want to disparage the entire notion of AGW.

tonyleatham wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

tonyleatham wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Who funds this shite. Some right-wing nutjob lobby no doubt.

Much more likely to be a left wing nut job

 

 

Really, how do you work that out?

Climate change is DEFINITELY a poster child of the left. I can't see any right wing organisation funding any kind of research into climate change, even if the intended outcome is to demonstrate that cars are more virtuous than bikes. They're much more likely to want to disparage the entire notion of AGW.

Yeah I guess. 

If you've been living under a rock and missed the constant right wing lobby funded research papers that have been in the press constantly for years on end.

Be serious.

Leviathan wrote:

L.Willo and Ronnie Corbett wrote:

I know my place.

I look down upon you.

Doesn't everyone?

don simon wrote:

A major assumption being that car drivers don't eat...

Can't wait to see what facts the Daily Mail can get from this bullshit.

The French and Jeremy Corbyn ride bikes, pollute the planet so we have to leave the EU.

slow_going wrote:

To give a real-world example; when I shifted from driving to cycling to work, I was already recording my calorie intake. My calorie consumption did not increase to meet the additional energy requirements of cycling, because the excess calories I was already eating were sufficient to cover that. All that happened was that I burnt more of those calories off and slowly lost weight over a 6 month period until I reached a new equilibrium. This is just one example, not intended to refute the findings of this research, but rather to point out the limitation of basing measures of energy consumption on measures of energy requirements.

Great point.  And one born out by own measurements.

slow_going wrote:

Of course, this limitation of the research is obvious from reading it. But let's be honest, the methodological limitations are not what is going to be focused on, only the headline message that 'cycling emits more CO2 than driving'. It would have been nice if the author could have drawn more attention to the limited real-world applicability of his findings in the accompanying commentary.

I rather suspect that the author does not particularly care about the impact on cycling.  My suspicion is that this is part of the current wave of vegan propaganda. 

Ush wrote:

slow_going wrote:

To give a real-world example; when I shifted from driving to cycling to work, I was already recording my calorie intake. My calorie consumption did not increase to meet the additional energy requirements of cycling, because the excess calories I was already eating were sufficient to cover that. All that happened was that I burnt more of those calories off and slowly lost weight over a 6 month period until I reached a new equilibrium. This is just one example, not intended to refute the findings of this research, but rather to point out the limitation of basing measures of energy consumption on measures of energy requirements.

 

Great point.  And one born out by own measurements.

 

slow_going wrote:

Of course, this limitation of the research is obvious from reading it. But let's be honest, the methodological limitations are not what is going to be focused on, only the headline message that 'cycling emits more CO2 than driving'. It would have been nice if the author could have drawn more attention to the limited real-world applicability of his findings in the accompanying commentary.

 

I rather suspect that the author does not particularly care about the impact on cycling.  My suspicion is that this is part of the current wave of vegan propaganda. 

Nothing wrong with a vegan diet. The problem comes if this tosh is picked up by MSM, and spun as 'see, cycling's no better than driving'.

RMurphy195 wrote:

Isn't the vehicle emmision ADDITIONAL TO  that of its occupants, rather than instead of? Which nullifies the whole nonsensical theory!

In short, no.

The study looks at the additional calories that a cyclist would burn relative to a driver.

oldstrath wrote:

Nothing wrong with a vegan diet. The problem comes if this tosh is picked up by MSM, and spun as 'see, cycling's no better than driving'.

I never made any judgement on the "wrongness" or otherwise of vegan diets.  Merely speculated that the reason we're seeing this is as part of the uptick of promotion of veganism that seems to have been doing the rounds lately. 

L.Willo wrote:

There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. As has been alluded to before here and elsewhere, the reason for the reduction in obesity when moderate excercise regimes increase (such as walking and cycling) is that the existing excess calorific intake is being used to fuel the activity. There is no mandatory requirement for more energy input in general, and indeed the opposite may be true in some cases as excercise can promote less un-necessary snacking, better diets and a reduction in perceived hunger.

fukawitribe wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. As has been alluded to before here and elsewhere, the reason for the reduction in obesity when moderate excercise regimes increase (such as walking and cycling) is that the existing excess calorific intake is being used to fuel the activity. There is no mandatory requirement for more energy input in general, and indeed the opposite may be true in some cases as excercise can promote less un-necessary snacking, better diets and a reduction in perceived hunger.

That is a fair point as the relationship between food consumption and energy output is a complicated one. For sure examples like Michael Phelps eating 6000 calories per day while in training are not relevant to a massively obese person starting an exercise programme.

But I do still think that this sort of research adds to our collective pool of knowledge and might, perhaps should, influence the types of exercise that is promoted using public funds. Bodybuilding? Probably not.

L.Willo wrote:

Also, as mentioned previously and studiously ignored by the ostriches on here, there are huge implications for sport. There is a huge irony that Formula One has been carbon neutral since 1997 while the Tour de France continues to be an environmental catastrophe.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/tour-de-france-sust...

Even worse, the first line of that article turns out to be spectacularly wrong:

Cycling is as green as it gets. There are no emissions,.......

WRONG, Think again. Excellent research makes you do that. Assuming you have an open mind, admittedly a crazy assumption in these parts .....

I'd agree that excellent research can make you question previously held beliefs, but this is not an example of excellent research. This is an example of someone armed with a calculator and using lots of assumptions. He hasn't really performed any research as there wasn't any experiment performed - he just ran some numbers.

I'd be more interested if someone evaluated diet/lifestyle choices over a course of weeks/months/years to figure out the relative carbon footprints of different modes of transport (e.g. train, bus, car, cycle, scooter, walking). This particular "research" is just some cherry-picked numbers which might as well be a political statement for all the value that it has.

fukawitribe wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. As has been alluded to before here and elsewhere, the reason for the reduction in obesity when moderate excercise regimes increase (such as walking and cycling) is that the existing excess calorific intake is being used to fuel the activity. There is no mandatory requirement for more energy input in general, and indeed the opposite may be true in some cases as excercise can promote less un-necessary snacking, better diets and a reduction in perceived hunger.

Exactly as fukawitribe says. Me personally. I'm cycling roughly 200 miles a week. And that's base mileage. I don't eat any extra food to sustain this and my weight sits at a steady 65kg. The only time I bulk up is when I do a long weekend cycle followed by a juicy steak as my reward.  Oh I should add that I'm on my feet all day at work doing lots of lifting so I'm not sedentary at all  in fact I possibly walk around 10 miles a day (work and  out of work) 

The vast majority of people who are being encouraged to exercise are those who are overweight/obese and actually need to reduce their calorie intake to allow exercise to be effective in assisting weight loss. And in some cases a brisk walk unless supervised could be dangerous to their heart. As things balance out you will find that these same people will be able to continue to exercise and not increase their calorie intake once the unnecessary snacking and processed food is cut out. And unless you are going to be moving towards competitive sport only then will your diet change to facilitate this. 

L.Willo wrote:

Even by road.cc standards there is a spectacular level of thickery below the line.

For the hard of thinking, pay close attention to the following:

Store away all of your daft assumptions, it will stop you making a knee-jerk ass of yourself.

This research pure looks at the energy required to power a car and the energy required to power a bicycle and compares the emissions and land use required to do both. Last time I checked, driving (not for sports) is not considered to be exercise and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to ignore the emissions from an activity that barely impacts on the metabolism.

So compared with a vegan cyclist a Prius is more polluting. Compared with a meat and dairy hound, a Prius is less polluting. A Nissan Leaf powered by clean energy wipes the floor with both.

Yes the production, transport and distribution of cars and bicycles cause pollution, your fat mate in accounts might eat more than you even though he drives to work and someone in the US eats burgers, these facts are 100% irrelevant to the actual research. You have missed the point, ... spectacularly.

Why is this research important? There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more. Which means greater emissions if those extra calories are sourced from meat and dairy. Methane is worse than CO2 for the environment.

Also, as mentioned previously and studiously ignored by the ostriches on here, there are huge implications for sport. There is a huge irony that Formula One has been carbon neutral since 1997 while the Tour de France continues to be an environmental catastrophe.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/tour-de-france-sust...

Even worse, the first line of that article turns out to be spectacularly wrong:

Cycling is as green as it gets. There are no emissions,.......

WRONG, Think again. Excellent research makes you do that. Assuming you have an open mind, admittedly a crazy assumption in these parts .....

Well it appears that L Willo has now completed his correspondence course with Harvard that he signed up for yesterday, and now is able to lecture us from his far more superior understanding of environmental issues, sports nutrition, public health policies and the scientific method.

I for one, with my mere Diploma from University of Life have been put firmly in my place and will from now on defer to his superior intellect and reasoning.

giff77 wrote:

Exactly as fukawitribe says. Me personally. I'm cycling roughly 200 miles a week. And that's base mileage. I don't eat any extra food to sustain this and my weight sits at a steady 65kg.

Of course you do eat extra food to support your cycling otherwise your weight would be falling. The questions for you are:

• if you didn't cycle 200 miles per week, would you continue to eat the same volume of food and be happy to get fatter and fatter and eventually obese? No. Thought not. So your cycling lifestyle does influence the calorific value of the food that you eat.
   
• if you didn't cycle 200 miles per week and ate less to maintain a steady 65KG, and drove a Nissan Leaf, would your greenhouse gas emissions be lower or higher than those caused by your current cycling lifestyle?

That is a very interesting question, a complex one, but the answers do have implication for public planning.

L.Willo wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. As has been alluded to before here and elsewhere, the reason for the reduction in obesity when moderate excercise regimes increase (such as walking and cycling) is that the existing excess calorific intake is being used to fuel the activity. There is no mandatory requirement for more energy input in general, and indeed the opposite may be true in some cases as excercise can promote less un-necessary snacking, better diets and a reduction in perceived hunger.

That is a fair point as the relationship between food consumption and energy output is a complicated one. For sure examples like Michael Phelps eating 6000 calories per day while in training are not relevant to a massively obese person starting an exercise programme.

But I do still think that this sort of research adds to our collective pool of knowledge and might, perhaps should, influence the types of exercise that is promoted using public funds. Bodybuilding? Probably not.

This is the point that really concerns me about this, and about which I get very angry: "might, perhaps should, influence the types of exercise that is promoted using public funds. ".  I spend my professional life trying to get people to take aerobic exercise, and running studies on how best to get people to take aerobic exercise. Both experience and the trials suggest that getting people to incorporate walking or cycling into their daily activities is by far the best method, and 'research' that puts this at risk pisses me off thoroughly, particularly this sort of 'research' based on fantasy numbers andmeaningless comparisons.

Yes, aerobic exercise necessarily involves CO2 emission, both directly and from the food consumed. It is also, so far as we can tell, essential for healthy life, and giving it up in favour of a Nissan Leaf 'because of CO2' is bonkers. By all means, switch to a vegan diet, you may well reduce your impact on global warming, and may well be healthier. But that is a different argument from the one this 'research' will be used to support (indeed that you are perilously close to supporting).

The hyper-specialisation that allows Mr Thorpe to produce work focussed so narrowly on immediate climate change effects, with no thought for consequent effects, other pollutants, or human health is, of course, a familar hazard of academia. That doesn't excuse his, and your, deliberate blindness to likely consequences.

L.Willo wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. As has been alluded to before here and elsewhere, the reason for the reduction in obesity when moderate excercise regimes increase (such as walking and cycling) is that the existing excess calorific intake is being used to fuel the activity. There is no mandatory requirement for more energy input in general, and indeed the opposite may be true in some cases as excercise can promote less un-necessary snacking, better diets and a reduction in perceived hunger.

That is a fair point as the relationship between food consumption and energy output is a complicated one. For sure examples like Michael Phelps eating 6000 calories per day while in training are not relevant to a massively obese person starting an exercise programme.

But I do still think that this sort of research adds to our collective pool of knowledge and might, perhaps should, influence the types of exercise that is promoted using public funds. Bodybuilding? Probably not.

Shitting hell - 230 posts in and you have made a half decent one!

I only ride a couple of miles each day to work and certainly don't increase my intake for this, 60 to 100 miles on the weekend and I do have a few more carbs, pack a banana. You can certainly state that my travel to work routine is far better than any motorised transport and extropolated across 64m or so UK adults my research finds 100% of people should travel to work by bike.

As a counter argument, my weekend miles are pointless as they fall under enjoyment, let's extropolate again. All the Prius drivers are making essential trips to garden centres and Frankie and Benny's whilst moaning on Facebook about sitting in a jam or not finding a parking space. We should all be this person, and book a one way ticket to Swizerland!

L.Willo wrote:

giff77 wrote:

Exactly as fukawitribe says. Me personally. I'm cycling roughly 200 miles a week. And that's base mileage. I don't eat any extra food to sustain this and my weight sits at a steady 65kg.

Of course you do eat extra food to support your cycling otherwise your weight would be falling. The questions for you are:

• if you didn't cycle 200 miles per week, would you continue to eat the same volume of food and be happy to get fatter and fatter and eventually obese? No. Thought not. So your cycling lifestyle does influence the calorific value of the food that you eat.
   
• if you didn't cycle 200 miles per week and ate less to maintain a steady 65KG, and drove a Nissan Leaf, would your greenhouse gas emissions be lower or higher than those caused by your current cycling lifestyle?

That is a very interesting question, a complex one, but the answers do have implication for public planning.

Wow! What a huge assumption. That to maintain my weight I would be having to consume more because I cycle 200 miles per week. I'm speechless. I didn't realise you had access to my fridge and larder or sit and watch me having my various meals over the week.  My commutes which make up my base miles aren't mashed out. I go out. Enjoy myself. I smile if it's sunny and grumble about the wind and have a wry smile when it rains. My long rides are the same. I go and enjoy the countryside or the coast or wherever  I find myself.  There's absolutely no need to up my intake to 5000+ calories. 

To answer your questions: 

If I jacked in cycling and maintained my current diet. No I wouldn't loose weight. Because I'm eating a balanced diet and I'm not a desk jockey. And my cycling doesn't involve mashing out sweaty 6.7mile commutes. As I said  I only  load up with carbs for my long cycles.

if I reduced my intake I would actually start to loose weight especially if driving the Nissan Leaf. As for expending CO2 the levels would be negligible between my sitting on my arse behind a wheel and on a saddle. Meanwhile the emissions caused by having to charge up said vehicle would be pretty high compared to my bikes which are both over 10 years old and have paid for themselves.

giff77 wrote:

Wow! What a huge assumption. That to maintain my weight I would be having to consume more because I cycle 200 miles per week. I'm speechless. I didn't realise you had access to my fridge and larder or sit and watch me having my various meals over the week.  My commutes which make up my base miles aren't mashed out. I go out. Enjoy myself. I smile if it's sunny and grumble about the wind and have a wry smile when it rains. My long rides are the same. I go and enjoy the countryside or the coast or wherever  I find myself.  There's absolutely no need to up my intake to 5000+ calories.

So you manage to cycle 200 miles a week without consuming any extra calories?

Someone get thermodynamics on the phone.

vonhelmet wrote:

giff77 wrote:

Wow! What a huge assumption. That to maintain my weight I would be having to consume more because I cycle 200 miles per week. I'm speechless. I didn't realise you had access to my fridge and larder or sit and watch me having my various meals over the week.  My commutes which make up my base miles aren't mashed out. I go out. Enjoy myself. I smile if it's sunny and grumble about the wind and have a wry smile when it rains. My long rides are the same. I go and enjoy the countryside or the coast or wherever  I find myself.  There's absolutely no need to up my intake to 5000+ calories.

So you manage to cycle 200 miles a week without consuming any extra calories?

Someone get thermodynamics on the phone.

Yep, I am that machine 

But in all seriousness. Day to day cycling. The miles do add up. The commute, the shopping run, trip to the cinema.  And when you're not strava hunting, mashing a big gear or doing some serious training then you don't really need to up your calorie intake. As I said further up the thread it's only when I'm doing big rides I load up on carbs and even then not by much.

giff77 wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

giff77 wrote:

Wow! What a huge assumption. That to maintain my weight I would be having to consume more because I cycle 200 miles per week. I'm speechless. I didn't realise you had access to my fridge and larder or sit and watch me having my various meals over the week.  My commutes which make up my base miles aren't mashed out. I go out. Enjoy myself. I smile if it's sunny and grumble about the wind and have a wry smile when it rains. My long rides are the same. I go and enjoy the countryside or the coast or wherever  I find myself.  There's absolutely no need to up my intake to 5000+ calories.

So you manage to cycle 200 miles a week without consuming any extra calories?

Someone get thermodynamics on the phone.

Yep, I am that machine 

But in all seriousness. Day to day cycling. The miles do add up. The commute, the shopping run, trip to the cinema.  And when you're not strava hunting, mashing a big gear or doing some serious training then you don't really need to up your calorie intake. As I said further up the thread it's only when I'm doing big rides I load up on carbs and even then not by much.

Unless you're freewheeling downhill, then you are using more calories than you would be otherwise... That's just physics.

giff77 wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

giff77 wrote:

Wow! What a huge assumption. That to maintain my weight I would be having to consume more because I cycle 200 miles per week. I'm speechless. I didn't realise you had access to my fridge and larder or sit and watch me having my various meals over the week.  My commutes which make up my base miles aren't mashed out. I go out. Enjoy myself. I smile if it's sunny and grumble about the wind and have a wry smile when it rains. My long rides are the same. I go and enjoy the countryside or the coast or wherever  I find myself.  There's absolutely no need to up my intake to 5000+ calories.

So you manage to cycle 200 miles a week without consuming any extra calories?

Someone get thermodynamics on the phone.

Yep, I am that machine 

But in all seriousness. Day to day cycling. The miles do add up. The commute, the shopping run, trip to the cinema.  And when you're not strava hunting, mashing a big gear or doing some serious training then you don't really need to up your calorie intake. As I said further up the thread it's only when I'm doing big rides I load up on carbs and even then not by much.

 

 

But surely all that cycling irrespective of how fast or hard it maybe has to be fuelled in the same way that just existing has to be fuelled.  So the question is if you weren't doing 200 miles a week cycling (which for sake of argument less say burns 1000 calories) and ate the same amount food each week then surely you would put on weight because you are not using the 'extra' 1000 calories that the cycling used, unless of course you replaced the cycling with some other activity that burned the same 1000 calories.

L.Willo wrote:

I would not have the audacity to question someone so learned in his field without equivalent credentials. I know my place.

I do however look forward to observing the debates in the forum where you lot take these two Harvard / MIT educated shysters to task with your rules of thumb, back of a fag packet calculations and combined double digit IQ. 

Huh? If I've read this right, he's a grad-student, not a tenured professor. Even I've been a grad-student, as have huge numbers of people. I've known lots of grad students (including in this very field), they are ten-a-penny, particularly in the US as the US system very much depends on their cheap labour.

And the article was on a blog, not a peer-reviewed journal, so anyone can question it, no 'credentials' required. You need to get over your fawning towards the 'Harvard educated', (my Yale-educated friend would beg to differ on that one!).

if it isn't in a reputable peer-reviewed journal it's probably not intended to be taken entirely seriously.

Sounds like a, as you put it, 'back of a fag packet calculation', made for fun and publicity, given the weird assumptions about diet and calorie expenditures (how many cyclists follow 'paleo diets'? like 0.01% of them?) - though it might be partly about drawing attention to the valid point that meat-production is a significant producer of greenhouse gases.