I'm a slob, and have had enough of it.



A

Alex

Guest
I've always enjoyed cycling and have now finally moved somewhere I can
cycle all year round. From years of sedentary lifestyle I find myself
at 31 weighing 112kg at 1.83m tall, quite obviously a lot too much.

So now I cycle to work, it's 17km and takes me 25 to 28min there and
32 to 35 back (more uphill) depending on traffic, which I make about
20mph avg. I seem to be pretty much at the top speed of my bike most
of the time though, it's a 21speed raleigh mountain bike with
seemingly small chainrings.

Question is, obviously I could replace the chainrings with larger
variants, but is this actually beneficial? Am I as well to pedal like
a fool and make relatively slow progress as I am to pedal more slowly
but have to bear down harder on the pedals?

As a side issue, I'm not ready to give up entirely on my slob-like
approach, and still like to smoke, and drink far too much beer, but
it'd be interesting to know just how far a bloke has to pedal to
absolve himself of the calorific value of a pint - anyone any ideas?
Are well used lungs any less likely to suffer serious smoke damage
than those of a person that doesn't exercise?

Thanks,
Alex
 
[email protected] (Alex) writes:

> I've always enjoyed cycling and have now finally moved somewhere I can
> cycle all year round. From years of sedentary lifestyle I find myself
> at 31 weighing 112kg at 1.83m tall, quite obviously a lot too much.
>
> So now I cycle to work, it's 17km and takes me 25 to 28min there and
> 32 to 35 back (more uphill) depending on traffic, which I make about
> 20mph avg. I seem to be pretty much at the top speed of my bike most
> of the time though, it's a 21speed raleigh mountain bike with
> seemingly small chainrings.

That's a pretty good average speed through traffic on an MTB. (In fact
so good that I'm a little sceptical - maybe you've made a mistake with
the distance? )


> Question is, obviously I could replace the chainrings with larger
> variants, but is this actually beneficial? Am I as well to pedal like
> a fool and make relatively slow progress as I am to pedal more slowly
> but have to bear down harder on the pedals?

If you're normally in the top gear then it could be that you could do
with a bigger gear.

>
> As a side issue, I'm not ready to give up entirely on my slob-like
> approach, and still like to smoke, and drink far too much beer, but
> it'd be interesting to know just how far a bloke has to pedal to
> absolve himself of the calorific value of a pint - anyone any ideas?

A pint of beer is maybe 200 calories (depending on how strong it
is). Vigorous cycling is probably going to burn something like 1000
calories in an hour.

>
> Are well used lungs any less likely to suffer serious smoke damage
> than those of a person that doesn't exercise?
>

Dunno, but I dout it.
 
"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> Are well used lungs any less likely to suffer serious smoke damage
> than those of a person that doesn't exercise?
>

I would suspect they might suffer more damage, in that you would pull the
smoke particulates even deeper into the lungs, and into a higher perecentage
of alveoli, than an 'unfit slob'. AFAIK its the contact of smoke particles
with the lungs, and the chemicals within the smoke, that cause cells to
mutate and become cancerous. So the more cells you expose the more the
chances of a dangerous mutation occurring.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
 
Alex wrote:
> I've always enjoyed cycling and have now finally moved somewhere I can
> cycle all year round. From years of sedentary lifestyle I find myself
> at 31 weighing 112kg at 1.83m tall, quite obviously a lot too much.
>
> So now I cycle to work, it's 17km and takes me 25 to 28min there and
> 32 to 35 back (more uphill) depending on traffic, which I make about
> 20mph avg. I seem to be pretty much at the top speed of my bike most
> of the time though, it's a 21speed raleigh mountain bike with
> seemingly small chainrings.
>

I'm the same height as you, but a little older and less heavy - there's
no way I can match that kind of pace; it takes me 40/45 mins to get to
the supermarket which is 17km away!

> Question is, obviously I could replace the chainrings with larger
> variants, but is this actually beneficial? Am I as well to pedal like
> a fool and make relatively slow progress as I am to pedal more slowly
> but have to bear down harder on the pedals?
>

A higer cadence (pedalling like a fool) will be easier on your knees -
especially when you are working that 112Kg up a hill ;)

> As a side issue, I'm not ready to give up entirely on my slob-like
> approach, and still like to smoke, and drink far too much beer, but
> it'd be interesting to know just how far a bloke has to pedal to
> absolve himself of the calorific value of a pint - anyone any ideas?
> Are well used lungs any less likely to suffer serious smoke damage
> than those of a person that doesn't exercise?
>

Erm... not sure how many calories are in a pint - probably a lot; but
(for me) an hours "moderate" cycling uses about 400 calories.

Nothing repairs the damage smoking does to your lungs, except time not
smoking. If my lungs could talk, they would thank me every day for
stopping smoking - it was the biggest single transformation in lifestyle
I have ever done; and it's fantastic!

However, smoking and sedentaryness are simbiants - they do more damage
when done together because toxins from the smoke hang around longer in
the languid circulation found in sedentary people, so I would fix one of
the "problems" at least - get out on that bike as much as you can!

--
Chris
 
Well, thanks, I guess. I take no notice of traffic signals and ride on the
pavement or whatever to maintain my pace - it's not frowned upon here. I'm
absolutley f***ed when I arrive at my destination, but seeming to be less so
each day - on my return journey I choose longer routes each couple or three
days (carefully avoiding hills). I have my computer set to 2075mm wheel
circumference, which was as close as I could measure from 'number of a4
sheets at 297mm each'.

Cheers,
Alex
"Paul Rudin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Alex) writes:
>
>> I've always enjoyed cycling and have now finally moved somewhere I can
>> cycle all year round. From years of sedentary lifestyle I find myself
>> at 31 weighing 112kg at 1.83m tall, quite obviously a lot too much.
>>
>> So now I cycle to work, it's 17km and takes me 25 to 28min there and
>> 32 to 35 back (more uphill) depending on traffic, which I make about
>> 20mph avg. I seem to be pretty much at the top speed of my bike most
>> of the time though, it's a 21speed raleigh mountain bike with
>> seemingly small chainrings.
>
> That's a pretty good average speed through traffic on an MTB. (In fact
> so good that I'm a little sceptical - maybe you've made a mistake with
> the distance? )
>
>
>> Question is, obviously I could replace the chainrings with larger
>> variants, but is this actually beneficial? Am I as well to pedal like
>> a fool and make relatively slow progress as I am to pedal more slowly
>> but have to bear down harder on the pedals?
>
> If you're normally in the top gear then it could be that you could do
> with a bigger gear.
>
>>
>> As a side issue, I'm not ready to give up entirely on my slob-like
>> approach, and still like to smoke, and drink far too much beer, but
>> it'd be interesting to know just how far a bloke has to pedal to
>> absolve himself of the calorific value of a pint - anyone any ideas?
>
> A pint of beer is maybe 200 calories (depending on how strong it
> is). Vigorous cycling is probably going to burn something like 1000
> calories in an hour.
>
>>
>> Are well used lungs any less likely to suffer serious smoke damage
>> than those of a person that doesn't exercise?
>>
>
> Dunno, but I dout it.
>
 
**** that's bad news, alomst enough to make me pack in cycling.... Turth is
though I'm getting kind of keen on this exercise thing, and thinking of
swimming before work too. Having thought about it, I enjoy the cyclin, and I
like swimming - but I also like smoking. If I die early from that I wont
feel I've wasted my time.
"Tumbleweed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Are well used lungs any less likely to suffer serious smoke damage
>> than those of a person that doesn't exercise?
>>
>
> I would suspect they might suffer more damage, in that you would pull the
> smoke particulates even deeper into the lungs, and into a higher
> perecentage of alveoli, than an 'unfit slob'. AFAIK its the contact of
> smoke particles with the lungs, and the chemicals within the smoke, that
> cause cells to mutate and become cancerous. So the more cells you expose
> the more the chances of a dangerous mutation occurring.
>
> --
> Tumbleweed
>
> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
>
 
Alex wrote:
> I've always enjoyed cycling and have now finally moved somewhere I can
> cycle all year round. From years of sedentary lifestyle I find myself
> at 31 weighing 112kg at 1.83m tall, quite obviously a lot too much.
>
> So now I cycle to work, it's 17km and takes me 25 to 28min there and
> 32 to 35 back (more uphill) depending on traffic, which I make about
> 20mph avg. I seem to be pretty much at the top speed of my bike most
> of the time though, it's a 21speed raleigh mountain bike with
> seemingly small chainrings.
>
> Question is, obviously I could replace the chainrings with larger
> variants, but is this actually beneficial? Am I as well to pedal like
> a fool and make relatively slow progress as I am to pedal more slowly
> but have to bear down harder on the pedals?
>
> As a side issue, I'm not ready to give up entirely on my slob-like
> approach, and still like to smoke, and drink far too much beer, but
> it'd be interesting to know just how far a bloke has to pedal to
> absolve himself of the calorific value of a pint - anyone any ideas?
> Are well used lungs any less likely to suffer serious smoke damage
> than those of a person that doesn't exercise?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex


I'd say you must be pretty strong and fit - I'm about the same height
and 35kg lighter. After 10 years of urban commuting 10km (on and off)
my *best* average is 18mph one way, and I don't hang about (relative to
other cyclists). Are you sure about those distances?!

Similarly, if you're 'bottoming out' with the gearing you've got, you
need lower gears. Just change the block - easy for your LBS (might be
chain as well) - 40UKP all in I'd have thought. MTBs I've ridden go to
about 30mph before I start to pedal like a top. If you 'push' beyond
that, again, you must be pretty strong by anyone's standards.

Rob
 
Wish I met more people like you on my way to work! I'm aboout the slowest in
this image concious society, and constantly suffer the down-the-nose looks
of lycra clad twats demeaning my meagre effort. Not fussed about that
though, I might be breathing like an ageing steam train, and close to
unconcious when I arrive, but I'm likely burning more calories than them on
their road bikes.

By no means am I denigrating riders of road bikes for covering distance,
however I have a fixed distance and my front sprung ATB seems to absorb a
good deal of calories morning and eve !

I am thoroughly encouraged by the general concenusus that my pace may not be
as I claim, as I think I have conservatively estimated the same with no
prior knowledge of cycling. Hope I've got it right!!

"Succorso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alex wrote:
>> I've always enjoyed cycling and have now finally moved somewhere I can
>> cycle all year round. From years of sedentary lifestyle I find myself
>> at 31 weighing 112kg at 1.83m tall, quite obviously a lot too much.
>>
>> So now I cycle to work, it's 17km and takes me 25 to 28min there and
>> 32 to 35 back (more uphill) depending on traffic, which I make about
>> 20mph avg. I seem to be pretty much at the top speed of my bike most
>> of the time though, it's a 21speed raleigh mountain bike with
>> seemingly small chainrings.
>>
>
> I'm the same height as you, but a little older and less heavy - there's no
> way I can match that kind of pace; it takes me 40/45 mins to get to the
> supermarket which is 17km away!
>
>> Question is, obviously I could replace the chainrings with larger
>> variants, but is this actually beneficial? Am I as well to pedal like
>> a fool and make relatively slow progress as I am to pedal more slowly
>> but have to bear down harder on the pedals?
>>
>
> A higer cadence (pedalling like a fool) will be easier on your knees -
> especially when you are working that 112Kg up a hill ;)
>
>> As a side issue, I'm not ready to give up entirely on my slob-like
>> approach, and still like to smoke, and drink far too much beer, but
>> it'd be interesting to know just how far a bloke has to pedal to
>> absolve himself of the calorific value of a pint - anyone any ideas?
>> Are well used lungs any less likely to suffer serious smoke damage
>> than those of a person that doesn't exercise?
>>
>
> Erm... not sure how many calories are in a pint - probably a lot; but (for
> me) an hours "moderate" cycling uses about 400 calories.
>
> Nothing repairs the damage smoking does to your lungs, except time not
> smoking. If my lungs could talk, they would thank me every day for
> stopping smoking - it was the biggest single transformation in lifestyle I
> have ever done; and it's fantastic!
>
> However, smoking and sedentaryness are simbiants - they do more damage
> when done together because toxins from the smoke hang around longer in the
> languid circulation found in sedentary people, so I would fix one of the
> "problems" at least - get out on that bike as much as you can!
>
> --
> Chris
 
Thanks for the reply Rob. I wouldn't consider myself fit as yet, but not
drastically unfit having spent the last six months trekking around Asia. You
must have a more difficult commute than me though, I find it easy to hold
30-32km/h on the speedo, if I hold my nerve, bunny hop the central
reservation (it's only 6" high here) and take the bends as a pedestrian. As
I said, cyclists are welcomed in this part of the world, even walkers step
aside and give a nod to let us though, as they know it's stupidly dangerous
to ride on the roads at rush hour here!

"Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alex wrote:
>> I've always enjoyed cycling and have now finally moved somewhere I can
>> cycle all year round. From years of sedentary lifestyle I find myself
>> at 31 weighing 112kg at 1.83m tall, quite obviously a lot too much.
>>
>> So now I cycle to work, it's 17km and takes me 25 to 28min there and
>> 32 to 35 back (more uphill) depending on traffic, which I make about
>> 20mph avg. I seem to be pretty much at the top speed of my bike most
>> of the time though, it's a 21speed raleigh mountain bike with
>> seemingly small chainrings.
>>
>> Question is, obviously I could replace the chainrings with larger
>> variants, but is this actually beneficial? Am I as well to pedal like
>> a fool and make relatively slow progress as I am to pedal more slowly
>> but have to bear down harder on the pedals?
>>
>> As a side issue, I'm not ready to give up entirely on my slob-like
>> approach, and still like to smoke, and drink far too much beer, but
>> it'd be interesting to know just how far a bloke has to pedal to
>> absolve himself of the calorific value of a pint - anyone any ideas?
>> Are well used lungs any less likely to suffer serious smoke damage
>> than those of a person that doesn't exercise?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>
>
> I'd say you must be pretty strong and fit - I'm about the same height and
> 35kg lighter. After 10 years of urban commuting 10km (on and off) my
> *best* average is 18mph one way, and I don't hang about (relative to other
> cyclists). Are you sure about those distances?!
>
> Similarly, if you're 'bottoming out' with the gearing you've got, you need
> lower gears. Just change the block - easy for your LBS (might be chain as
> well) - 40UKP all in I'd have thought. MTBs I've ridden go to about 30mph
> before I start to pedal like a top. If you 'push' beyond that, again, you
> must be pretty strong by anyone's standards.
>
> Rob
 
"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, thanks, I guess. I take no notice of traffic signals and ride on the
> pavement or whatever to maintain my pace - it's not frowned upon here.

Where's 'here'?

cheers,
clive
 
"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> **** that's bad news, alomst enough to make me pack in cycling.... Turth
> is though I'm getting kind of keen on this exercise thing, and thinking of
> swimming before work too. Having thought about it, I enjoy the cyclin, and
> I like swimming - but I also like smoking. If I die early from that I wont
> feel I've wasted my time.

I'm a smoker and a cyclist. However, I just smoke when I drink (trying to
pretend it's social smoking). Still, I can get through a few on a Saturday
night.

Have to say that after having a few too many beers and lots of fags, my bike
becomes the vomit comet. I never get good speeds or enjoy it as much when
I've smoked 20 the night before. A horrible biley puke appears as I try and
clear my throat after a heavy climb. Horrible feeling.

I've not really attempted to give up, but did buy an Allen Carr book. In
there I did learn that "No, I don't *enjoy* smoking." You can believe you
enjoy smoking, but you really don't (according to his book, which I agreed
with). I suggest buying his book, not to give up, but to get a different
point of view.

I'm 32, 6ft and 100kg, and haven't lost any weight since cycling 20 miles a
day. My body is happier for it though. And I now do more exercise, more
regularly. Just joined a gym to help allow me train in the winter hours. I
find I sweat a lot more in a gym in the winter, so heopfully will lose more
weight. However, the seats are really uncomfortable. They are wide seats,
and I can't stand them!
 
Alex wrote:
> I disagree. Sorry, I'll continue to top-post

You disagree that it is common courtesy? How long have you been reading
this newsgroup? You can, of course, continue to post how you wish but
whether your posts continue to be read is another thing.

[Post unedited to illustrate the problem with top-posting---just in case
it's revelatory.]

Colin

> "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Sydney suburbs
>>
>>Alex, it's common courtesy to not top-post. Best put your reply at the
>>bottom of previous.
>>Regards
>>Nick
>>
>
>
>
 
"Alex" <[email protected]> writes:


> I have my computer set to 2075mm wheel circumference, which was as
> close as I could measure from 'number of a4 sheets at 297mm each'.

A better way to measure it is to put a small dab of paint on the tyre,
ride a little bit, then measure the distance between the resulting
marks on the road with a tape measure.

Part of the thing is that at higher speeds most of your energy is
going to overcome air resistance, and air resistance goes up with the
square of your speed. If you're 10% out on your distance then you
might be averaging 18 mph which is much more likely than
20. Maintaining 20mph requires an awful lot higher power output than
maintaining 18 mph. (20^2 / 18^2) = 1.234, so say 23% more power.
 
Exactly that. It used to be common courtesy many years back when we plodded
through usenet with ancient clients, however now it's outdated and we can
all easily see what was said before. I won't hang on tradition.

"Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alex wrote:
>> I disagree. Sorry, I'll continue to top-post
>
> You disagree that it is common courtesy? How long have you been reading
> this newsgroup? You can, of course, continue to post how you wish but
> whether your posts continue to be read is another thing.
>
> [Post unedited to illustrate the problem with top-posting---just in case
> it's revelatory.]
>
> Colin
>
>> "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>Sydney suburbs
>>>
>>>Alex, it's common courtesy to not top-post. Best put your reply at the
>>>bottom of previous.
>>>Regards
>>>Nick
>>>
>>
>>
 
Alex wrote:
> Exactly that. It used to be common courtesy many years back

[...]

It *is* common courtesy in *this* newsgroup.

> when we plodded
> through usenet with ancient clients, however now it's outdated and we can
> all easily see what was said before. I won't hang on tradition.

You have some newfangled client that re-orders the text in the posts for
you?

Colin
 
Alex wrote:

> Wish I met more people like you on my way to work!

Like who? Oh, you've top-posted so I have to do more work to find out.

I know you claim that it's an outdated tradition, but it really does
make things much easier for everyone if you trim appropriately and reply
underneath pertinent parts of parent posts.

I'm glad you're not a script writer: your scripts would be hell to read,
with the ending first and all the other lines in reverse order underneath.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
 
"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Sydney suburbs
> >
> > Alex, it's common courtesy to not top-post. Best put your reply at the
> > bottom of previous.
> > Regards
> > Nick
>
> I disagree. Sorry, I'll continue to top-post

Have a look at how everybody else posts here. It _is_ common courtesy to not
top-post. Please don't do it.

clive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
I'm a slob, and have had enough of it.
Replies
246
Views
5K
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
K
Lance Armstrong will not become a "fat slob" after retirement.
Replies
0
Views
279
Road Cycling
Kerry
K
K
Lance Armstrong will not become a "fat slob" after retirement.
Replies
0
Views
235
Road Cycling
Kerry
K
K
Lance Armstrong will not become a "fat slob" after retirement.
Replies
0
Views
243
Road Cycling
Kerry
K
K
Lance Armstrong will not become a "fat slob" after retirement.
Replies
0
Views
275
Road Cycling
Kerry
K
K
Lance Armstrong will not become a "fat slob" after retirement.
Replies
0
Views
238
Road Cycling
Kerry
K
K
Lance Armstrong will not become a "fat slob" after retirement.
Replies
0
Views
259
Road Cycling
Kerry
K
K
Lance Armstrong will not become a "fat slob" after retirement.
Replies
0
Views
269
UK and Europe
Kerry
K
K
Lance Armstrong will not become a "fat slob" after retirement.
Replies
14
Views
414
Road Cycling
Brian Wakem
B
K
Lance Armstrong will not become a "fat slob" after retirement.
Replies
15
Views
760
UK and Europe
Peewiglet
P
Top Bottom Back