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

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.

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

What's an 'O' level?

I think someone on this forum is underestimating the scientific literacy of the posters. If this paper was rigorous it wouldn't be so easy to criticise. After all the beauty of science is if it is correct it can't be proved wrong. Or perhaps someone is just a contrarian and wants the attention of getting replies and stirring the pot. It wouldn't b the first time.

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:

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!

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. 

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:

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:

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.

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Compared to Willo, you're a genius.

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.

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Hypothetical case, but if Willo needed brain surgery, would you be available?

burtthebike wrote:

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Hypothetical case, but if Willo needed brain surgery, would you be available?

I hear Ben Carson is available.

burtthebike wrote:

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Hypothetical case, but if Willo needed brain surgery, would you be available?

I've got my apron on and auger sharpened!

burtthebike wrote:

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Hypothetical case, but if Willo needed brain surgery, would you be available?

Presumably micro surgery?

burtthebike wrote:

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Hypothetical case, but if Willo needed brain surgery, would you be available?

Presumably micro surgery?

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.