Well, not if you still want to have some fun while doing so.
But I agree, that a regular bike should suffice and you don’t need to worry about optimizing gear weight if you’re not competing for anything and just ride it for your own well-being.
Well, not necessarily. A bike that’s got a full carbon frame also absorbs shock and vibration from the road better. This means you can ride longer distances without getting fatigued in places like your wrists or ass. Longer rides = more exercise.
But once you have a carbon frame, chasing grams on other components gets to be a bit silly.
I’ve yet to ride a carbon frame for any amount of real distance, so idk how good they actually are.
But having a less harsh ride can also be archived by not using the thinnest pizza cutter tires at 10 bar. Especially if we care about time ridden and not avg. speed.
And it’s going to be slightly harder to get the same speed out of comfy tires, so that’s also more exercise.
I enjoy walking and don’t mind walking even for 40 minutes in the morning. Not every day, but if it fits in the schedule it gives me more movement in practice than a bike (also due to some local circumstances).
The point was more generally that walking is a great alternative. Everyone hypes bicycles, walking has no lobby and is one of the healthiest things to add to your day.
Also, if the goal is to lose weight, cardio is fine but only supportive at best. It’s way more effective to eat less calorie dense food than trying to run/bike it off. The difference between an hour walking and biking is negligible for most people compared to dietary changes.
What kind of madman is gonna argue against walking? 😅 Get some sleep bro
But honestly: you looking for a hobby? Go cycling all you want. You looking to get somewhere? The place will not change position at random. You know where you want to go. In my reality bike or foot rarely matter if I’m going to the supermarket or wherever. Just leave 10 minutes earlier and you’re good. In this kind of situation, your choice is between losing a few more kcals by walking or saving a few minutes by taking the bike. Both are good options, neither is going to make you fat or thin. If that’s your goal, eat less calorie dense food.
Well, it’s also fun to go places you know. If a shitty bike can only get you 20mi / 30km but a on a good one you feel confident doing a 30mi / 45km ride then the purchase makes sense.
It’s always hillarious to me to see boomers on expensive bikes that aim to save every gram while they could save 20kg on themselves.
Perhaps that’s why they are on a bike?
If the point is to burn calories, then shaving weight off your equipment is counterproductive.
But if it makes you want to ride more, then great!
Or skinny dudes with enormous ballsacks wearing tight Spandex on 15 pound carbon fiber bikes, but a 20 pound motorcycle lock.
If you are trying to lose weight, you should be using the worst, heaviest bike possible.
Well, not if you still want to have some fun while doing so.
But I agree, that a regular bike should suffice and you don’t need to worry about optimizing gear weight if you’re not competing for anything and just ride it for your own well-being.
Well, not necessarily. A bike that’s got a full carbon frame also absorbs shock and vibration from the road better. This means you can ride longer distances without getting fatigued in places like your wrists or ass. Longer rides = more exercise.
But once you have a carbon frame, chasing grams on other components gets to be a bit silly.
I’ve yet to ride a carbon frame for any amount of real distance, so idk how good they actually are.
But having a less harsh ride can also be archived by not using the thinnest pizza cutter tires at 10 bar. Especially if we care about time ridden and not avg. speed.
And it’s going to be slightly harder to get the same speed out of comfy tires, so that’s also more exercise.
You could also just walk whenever possible, burns more kcals/distance
That’s less efficient time-wise though, since it takes significantly longer to walk the same distance compared to riding.
Ie, riding 2 hours burns FAR more calories than walking for 2 hours.
I enjoy walking and don’t mind walking even for 40 minutes in the morning. Not every day, but if it fits in the schedule it gives me more movement in practice than a bike (also due to some local circumstances).
The point was more generally that walking is a great alternative. Everyone hypes bicycles, walking has no lobby and is one of the healthiest things to add to your day.
Also, if the goal is to lose weight, cardio is fine but only supportive at best. It’s way more effective to eat less calorie dense food than trying to run/bike it off. The difference between an hour walking and biking is negligible for most people compared to dietary changes.
The difference between an hour walking and biking is easily 10+ miles, not exactly negligible if you have somewhere to go.
What kind of madman is gonna argue against walking? 😅 Get some sleep bro
But honestly: you looking for a hobby? Go cycling all you want. You looking to get somewhere? The place will not change position at random. You know where you want to go. In my reality bike or foot rarely matter if I’m going to the supermarket or wherever. Just leave 10 minutes earlier and you’re good. In this kind of situation, your choice is between losing a few more kcals by walking or saving a few minutes by taking the bike. Both are good options, neither is going to make you fat or thin. If that’s your goal, eat less calorie dense food.
So using fewer calories.
That’s a stationary bike
deleted by creator
Well, it’s also fun to go places you know. If a shitty bike can only get you 20mi / 30km but a on a good one you feel confident doing a 30mi / 45km ride then the purchase makes sense.