Is this group active ?

Is anyone out there ?

Am new to MountainBiking and looking for information.

This group seems to have only postings about MTB accidents !

Should I go elsewhere ?

Regards,

Matt.

On 5/28/2012 1:02 PM, Blackblade wrote:
Is anyone out there ?

Am new to MountainBiking and looking for information.

This group seems to have only postings about MTB accidents !

Should I go elsewhere ?

Regards,

Matt.

Yes, all the mountain bikers left due to the general decline in Usenet.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On May 28, 11:48*am, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 5/28/2012 1:02 PM, Blackblade wrote:

Is anyone out there ?

Am new to MountainBiking and looking for information.

This group seems to have only postings about MTB accidents !

Should I go elsewhere ?

Regards,

Matt.

Yes, all the mountain bikers left due to the general decline in Usenet.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

No, they left because they can't defend their selfish, destructive
sport in a forum where free speech is practiced. They moved to site
that they own and can censor.

By the way, you SHOULD learn about mountain biking accidents, unless
you want to become another statistic.

On May 28, 11:02*am, Blackblade wrote:
Is anyone out there ?

Am new to MountainBiking and looking for information.

This group seems to have only postings about MTB accidents !

Should I go elsewhere ?

Regards,

Matt.

The only HONEST information about mountain bikng is on my website:
http://mjvande.nfshost.com.

On Monday, 28 May 2012 22:03:23 UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On May 28, 11:48*am, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 5/28/2012 1:02 PM, Blackblade wrote:

Is anyone out there ?

Am new to MountainBiking and looking for information.

This group seems to have only postings about MTB accidents !

Should I go elsewhere ?

Regards,

Matt.

Yes, all the mountain bikers left due to the general decline in Usenet.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

No, they left because they can't defend their selfish, destructive
sport in a forum where free speech is practiced. They moved to site
that they own and can censor.

By the way, you SHOULD learn about mountain biking accidents, unless
you want to become another statistic.

Well, everyone is entitled to make their point; but not to do so continually or it destroys the conversation. I would imagine that being labelled selfish and destructive is not conducive to a positive interaction. Particularly if, after due thought and consideration, you don't believe it to be the case. At some point, surely, you have to agree to disagree and move on ?

As I used to race motorbikes, on a circuit, I'm very familiar with the inherent instability of two wheels and the effect of impacting the ground at speeed :-). My view is that being active, with only a few exceptions, carries the risk of injury. Being inactive carries the risk of obesity and heart disease. The former is the far better way to live.

Cheers,

Matt.

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:35:40 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
On Monday, 28 May 2012 22:03:23 UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On May 28, 11:48*am, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 5/28/2012 1:02 PM, Blackblade wrote:

Is anyone out there ?

Am new to MountainBiking and looking for information.

This group seems to have only postings about MTB accidents !

Should I go elsewhere ?

Regards,

Matt.

Yes, all the mountain bikers left due to the general decline in Usenet.

A 200lb male will expend roughly 800 calories per hour mountain biking but only 650 hiking - so is working harder riding than walking. Also, whilst the risk of injury due to impact is higher on a bike there is less regular cartilage and ligament attrition than from walking. So, make your own choice. Personally, I hike and bike - but bike much more regularly now.

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:14:24 PM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
A 200lb male will expend roughly 800 calories per hour mountain biking but only 650 hiking - so is working harder riding than walking. Also, whilst the risk of injury due to impact is higher on a bike there is less regular cartilage and ligament attrition than from walking. So, make your own choice. Personally, I hike and bike - but bike much more regularly now.

BS. Every bike trip is 1/2 uphill & 1/2 downhill. The downhill portion takes about ZERO calories, so the AVERAGE is 400 calories per hour. A Scientific American article from many years ago said that the bicycle is the most energy-efficient form of transportation in the world, so it uses LESS energy than walking. That's exactly why mountain bikers like it: they are LAZY!

On Thursday, 31 May 2012 14:56:59 UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:14:24 PM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
A 200lb male will expend roughly 800 calories per hour mountain biking but only 650 hiking - so is working harder riding than walking. Also, whilst the risk of injury due to impact is higher on a bike there is less regular cartilage and ligament attrition than from walking. So, make your own choice. Personally, I hike and bike - but bike much more regularly now.

BS. Every bike trip is 1/2 uphill & 1/2 downhill. The downhill portion takes about ZERO calories, so the AVERAGE is 400 calories per hour. A Scientific American article from many years ago said that the bicycle is the most energy-efficient form of transportation in the world, so it uses LESS energy than walking. That's exactly why mountain bikers like it: they are LAZY!

Very funny.

Firstly, the figures didn't come from me and they are already AVERAGED.

Secondly, I also took the lower figure for MTBing (many have it at 1,000) and a higher figure for hiking (assuming a 40lb pack and an average gradient of 20%). Gentler hiking would be around half that figure.

Thirdly, there is a logical error in your proposition. Whilst the metres climbed and descended on a circuit is, of course, equal you DON'T spend the same amount of time doing it. You travel much faster downhill than up and therefore spend a lot more time, and therefore energy, climbing. Downhill speeds on a X-Country bike will be around 20mph whereas climbing will be around the 5mph figure. If one assumes equal gradient up and down (not a given I know) then you would spend 80% of your time climbing.

Last, but not least, why the emotional baggage ? Calling people names just detracts from your argument.

On Thursday, 31 May 2012 14:56:59 UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:14:24 PM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
A 200lb male will expend roughly 800 calories per hour mountain biking but only 650 hiking - so is working harder riding than walking. Also, whilst the risk of injury due to impact is higher on a bike there is less regular cartilage and ligament attrition than from walking. So, make your own choice. Personally, I hike and bike - but bike much more regularly now.

BS. Every bike trip is 1/2 uphill & 1/2 downhill. The downhill portion takes about ZERO calories, so the AVERAGE is 400 calories per hour. A Scientific American article from many years ago said that the bicycle is the most energy-efficient form of transportation in the world, so it uses LESS energy than walking. That's exactly why mountain bikers like it: they are LAZY!

Further to my last post, of course those figures are open to debate since they are averages and weight, speed, gradient and duration are all factors. However, using a Garmin GPS tracker and Endomondo to calculate actual gradients, speeds and rider weight we get a much more accurate (and personal) result. From my last ride;

Distance 26.43 miles
Time 2h 53m 46s
Avg Speed 9.1 mph
Max Speed 28.9mph
Energy 2368kcal

That is therefore an AVERAGE of 817.65 calories per hour