Boris Johnson's cycling revolution "a gross deception", says leading anti-obesity campaigner; "Don't ride safely, ride like a bit of a tw*t",says James May; Vigil for Deliveroo rider killed in hit-and-run; LTN conflicts continue + more on the live blog

LetsBePartOfTheSolution wrote:

for the purposes of delivering microwave ovens.

And, presumably, custom kitchens, refrigerators, and colour TVs?

Should have learned to play the guitar, if you ask me....

I agree .... for me there is a basal mileage of cycling which keeps my weight level, and there's an extended mileage that will affirmatively achieve mild weight-loss. I can make plans with complete certainty. For example I know that an upcoming 2-week holiday will lose me 2 kilos. This is due to having the time and enthusiasm to extend my daily mileage for that period. And I know in winter roughly what weight I will gain, due to lower mileage. My diet remains absolutely constant throughout - and is measured to be so. The only variable is the mileage.

Back in the days when I normally commuted via a combination of the train and an 9-mile each-way cycle, my weight would remain steady until accident or injury put me off the bike, when I'd put on a stone (6.5 kg, if you prefer) and that would be my new weight until the next interruption, when the process would repeat. The only time I've lost weight through cycling was one spring/summer when I regularly skipped the train and commuted the whole 25 miles, either one way or both ways. My weekly average mileage went from around 90 fairly-flat miles to around 200 undulating miles (into east Lancashire). But as with most forms of exercise-based weight loss, it is extremely difficult to sustain it for longer than a couple of years at most (and I speak here from repeated experience). So you can out-exercise a moderately-bad diet for a while, but not really long term.

MattieKempy wrote:

Everything about Boris Johnson is a gross deception. Why would a cycling policy with his name attached be any different?

It's just that the eternal optimists amongst us are hoping against hope that this time he's telling the truth.  OK, the evidence of the past thirty years tends to confound that hope, but there's always a first time.

Lukas wrote:

'Driving in London is becoming stressful. Half the backroads have been blocked off, half the main roads have been reduced to one lane to accommodate cyclists and then half the other roads are full of temp lights that change back to red after 3 seconds. It’s beyond annoying'

what a dumb tweet. It's not even true. 50% of roads have been reduced to 1 lane to accommodate cyclists? Where's that? Dumb comment. 

Driving in London has been stressful for all of the 30 years I've lived here. I've owned a car for about 20 of these, but only use it when I have to. I'd much rather be on two wheels.

kil0ran wrote:

That pavement parking consultation, like most transport-related consultations, heavily biased towards maintaining the status quo. The fact is that pavement parking is already an offence - "You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency" and they're consulting to, at most, enforce that law. They seem to think new law is required...

Yes, but the vital word in there is "drive".  It doesn't say you mustn't park.  Now you and I both know that a car parked on the pavement didn't just materialise there, it was driven there, but unless a police officer witnesses it being driven, there is no offence.

A few years ago I came across a PCSO doing her rounds in my neighbourhood, and pointed out that a car was blocking the pavement, and she agreed to have a word with the driver to ask them to move it.  If she had done so and then witnessed the car being driven over the pavement, she could have arrested the driver, and I'm not sure why the police don't adopt this tactic.

Because Mr Loophole - the friend of the little man - will appear and say "ah-ha!".

Pavement parking is a symptom of the pressure the roads are under from the excess car use we're now seeing. 

Dr Malhotra's comments seem mostly self-serving - he is in the business of pushing diets.

People can choose to eat what they will, but if they want/need to cycle anywhere they have little choice about the infrastructure.

So I'm with Boris on this one - to each as they are able; let the government look to the infrastructure whilst people look out for their own diets. Nanny can stay out of it.

There are a heap of other reasons other than weight loss to have more cycling and cycling infrastructure, but when positioned as a public health intervention (e.g. Prescribing cycling on the NHS), it's a pretty poor one.

One of the biggest risk factors for covid is obesity, if we want to do anything about that at a public health/nanny state level (delete as applicable to meet your political leaning), cycling is actually of limited impact for most people unless combined with major dietary changes.

There are a lot of studies showing that active commuting leads to long term weight loss.

There was also a recent study showing that cycle commuters almost halved their risk of cancer, stroke and heart disease compared to non active commuters.

If we could get more people cycle commuting (or cycling an equivalent ammount) the public health benefits would be enormous.

Cycling mortality study here:
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1456

I'm familiar with that study, but the issue is the selection bias that comes with measuring cycle commuting, never mind the data set used (which is actually acknowledged in the study).

In a covid context you're not really worried about those with maybe a few pounds to lose, it's those much further up the scale. Yes cycle commuting is awesome, should be encouraged, but those most likely to benefit significantly from the weight loss are those least likely to embrace it sufficiently to make a dent. For that cohort, diet and (at the top end) surgical interventions are what is required.

I totally agree.

Dietary changes make more difference to one's health than exercise.

Both are ideal.

You totally agree with FlyingPenguin and so do I, but I don't agree with you... To be healthy one should be a sensible weight but also have a reasonable level of cardiovascular fitness. I lost 25 kg through dietary changes and then got fit by cycling. Doing it the other way round or simultaneously would have been really difficult as the fat to muscle changes would have reduced the rate of weight loss and hence my motivation.

I must say as well, riding up the same hill before and after losing 25 kg is quite an eye-opener.

NZ Vegan Rider wrote:

I totally agree.

Dietary changes make more difference to one's health than exercise.

Both are ideal.

But I don't need Boris to tell me what to eat; I can fix my own diet. However I can't fix the cycling infrastructure, for that I do need Boris. It's not that I disagree necessarily with Malhotra on diet, although he seems to be more interested in the opportunity to make money out of it.

The extreme cohort aren't really going to benefit from anything other than surgery and we just don't have the capacity to meet even a fraction of the demand.

Active travel isn't a silver bullet for the obesity crisis, nothing is, but it does bring demonstrable benefits in terms of weight loss and disease prevention.

Changing the diet of the country en masse will be incredibly difficult, the potential benefits are, I agree, huge but it's questionable how achievable those benefits will be.

FlyingPenguin wrote:

There are a heap of other reasons other than weight loss to have more cycling and cycling infrastructure, but when positioned as a public health intervention (e.g. Prescribing cycling on the NHS), it's a pretty poor one. One of the biggest risk factors for covid is obesity, if we want to do anything about that at a public health/nanny state level (delete as applicable to meet your political leaning), cycling is actually of limited impact for most people unless combined with major dietary changes.

You are Dr Malhotra and ICMFP.

Thank you for comfirming my suspicions that he was a publicity seeking self serving shill.

I shan't waste any more of my precious typing time on him.

Losing weight is simply about using more energy  that you take in and exercise plus watching your calories is the best way of achieving that.  What you eat is essentially irrelevant for weight management.  Most diets only work because they help you limit your calorie loading, and they have to be relatively similar to your long term food choices if you aren't to backslide unless you are ferociously self disciplined.
Long term health management may be a different issue with some foods if you are eating deep fried mars bars every day...

Look at TCR and endurance riders.  They eat trash and none of them are lardies.

Not all of us have the time to train that Michael Phelps will have had while training for his Olympic medals, life sort of gets in the way, going to work, looking after the kids etc.

I've cycled all my life yet still managed to balloon to nearly 330lbs only a year ago, while now I am under 240lbs.

Have I managed to dramatically increase the distance and intensity of my cycling, or have I embraced a far healthier eating regime?

I don't think the Dr was specifically looking to undermine the benefits of cycling or any other physical activity, but if you don't focus on the calories in, then the exertion required to burn excess calories increases dramatically.

So no, the vast majority of us can't outrun a bad diet, especially as we get older, but a healthy diet combined with a liberal sprinkling of exercise can work wonders.

He was in good shape while doing all that training and eating that high calorie diet.

What we don't know is what that type of food was doing to his long term health.

Some foods are bad and should not be eaten.