Mountain Biking FAQ Updated Again (see # 13)

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
March 5, 2004

snip

11. Can't mountain biking help get our overweight kids off the couch?
Hiking can
already do that,

with so many overweight kids in our society, I'd say every possible way to
get them off the couch is a good thing. It doesnt seem that any one activity
alone is doing the job very efectively. If anything we need to come up with
and support more ways to get kids off the couch

without causing extra harm to wildlife and people.
Mountain biking downhill provides zero exercise benefit.

just the act of being on a bike and maintaining balance provides some
exercise benifit. It may not be a lot but it's certainly more than sitting
on a couch

Mountain biking on level ground
provides minimal exercise benefit, much less than walking.

I never find my heartrate substantialy elevated from walking, but mountain
biking always gets the ticker going whether it be downhill, uphill or on
level ground.

Since it's impossible
to pay any attention to your surroundings while mountain biking (or you
will
crash),

Hmm, that's interesting, I've never had a problem paying attention to my
surroundings while mountain biking

there's no reason to promote mountain biking.

If it's another way to get kids of the couch there sure is. hiking alone
doesnt seem to be doing the trick, even mountain biking, skatebording,
hakeysack and countless other activities alone arent doing the trick. the
more things that could potentialy get them out there the better.

It benefits only those who
stand to make money off of it, such as bike manufacturers, retailers, and
tour
companies.

Lets not forget the benefit to the people who participate in the sport and
use it as way of keeping in shape. It also benifits the kids who arent
teribly motivited to get of the couch and go hiking, but have a great time
going out on their mountain bikes. different strokes....

Jason

On Mon, 9 May 2005 14:02:54 -0400, "slartibartfast" wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
.. Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
.. Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
.. March 5, 2004
..
..snip
..
.. 11. Can't mountain biking help get our overweight kids off the couch?
..Hiking can
.. already do that,
..
..with so many overweight kids in our society, I'd say every possible way to
..get them off the couch is a good thing.

Not if it does other harm, like harming wildlife!

It doesnt seem that any one activity
..alone is doing the job very efectively. If anything we need to come up with
..and support more ways to get kids off the couch

Then come up with an idea that isn't harmful to the environment.

.. without causing extra harm to wildlife and people.
.. Mountain biking downhill provides zero exercise benefit.
..
..just the act of being on a bike and maintaining balance provides some
..exercise benifit. It may not be a lot but it's certainly more than sitting
..on a couch

Then they don't need to mountain bike. They can do that on the street.

..Mountain biking on level ground
.. provides minimal exercise benefit, much less than walking.
..
..I never find my heartrate substantialy elevated from walking, but mountain
..biking always gets the ticker going whether it be downhill, uphill or on
..level ground.

Try walking uphill.

.. Since it's impossible
.. to pay any attention to your surroundings while mountain biking (or you
..will
.. crash),
..
..Hmm, that's interesting, I've never had a problem paying attention to my
..surroundings while mountain biking

See any of the videos at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbvideo.htm.

.. there's no reason to promote mountain biking.
..
..If it's another way to get kids of the couch there sure is. hiking alone
..doesnt seem to be doing the trick, even mountain biking, skatebording,
..hakeysack and countless other activities alone arent doing the trick. the
..more things that could potentialy get them out there the better.

Then how about gang fights? Idiot.

.. It benefits only those who
.. stand to make money off of it, such as bike manufacturers, retailers, and
..tour
.. companies.
..
..Lets not forget the benefit to the people who participate in the sport and
..use it as way of keeping in shape. It also benifits the kids who arent
..teribly motivited to get of the couch and go hiking, but have a great time
..going out on their mountain bikes. different strokes....

It's quite expensive, compared to hiking. I'm not willing to sacrifice wildlife,
just to titillate lazy kids.

..Jason
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 May 2005 14:02:54 -0400, "slartibartfast"
wrote:

.
.If it's another way to get kids of the couch there sure is. hiking alone
.doesnt seem to be doing the trick, even mountain biking, skatebording,
.hakeysack and countless other activities alone arent doing the trick. the
.more things that could potentialy get them out there the better.

Then how about gang fights? Idiot.

Thanks Mikey, for proving just how unreasonable you are.

Jason

On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:53:13 -0400, "slartibartfast"
wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
.. On Mon, 9 May 2005 14:02:54 -0400, "slartibartfast"
..wrote:
..
.. .
.. .If it's another way to get kids of the couch there sure is. hiking alone
.. .doesnt seem to be doing the trick, even mountain biking, skatebording,
.. .hakeysack and countless other activities alone arent doing the trick. the
.. .more things that could potentialy get them out there the better.
..
.. Then how about gang fights? Idiot.
..
..Thanks Mikey, for proving just how unreasonable you are.

No, YOU said that: "the more things that could potentialy get them out there the
better"! Liar.

..Jason
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:53:13 -0400, "slartibartfast"
wrote:

.
."Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
. On Mon, 9 May 2005 14:02:54 -0400, "slartibartfast"

.wrote:
.
. .
. .If it's another way to get kids of the couch there sure is. hiking
alone
. .doesnt seem to be doing the trick, even mountain biking, skatebording,
. .hakeysack and countless other activities alone arent doing the trick.
the
. .more things that could potentialy get them out there the better.
.
. Then how about gang fights? Idiot.
.
.Thanks Mikey, for proving just how unreasonable you are.

No, YOU said that: "the more things that could potentialy get them out
there the
better"! Liar.

But a reasonable person would have infered that I was talking about
constructive activities, sory I was not specific enough for you. A
reasonable person would also not resort to name calling. so twice you have
proved just how unreasonable you are. Thanks

.Jason
.

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:20:35 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2005 19:32:55 -0700, "GaryG" wrote:

.Bull****. Over similar terrain, cycling takes more effort, and burns more
.calories than walking. If you have references that say otherwise, please
.post them. Otherwise, please refrain from posting more of your fantasies.

This was covered in a FERY FAMOUS article in "Scientific American" decades ago:
the bicycle is the most energy-efficient form of transportation in the world.
Even WALKING takes more energy. But that's OBVIOUS to everyone but a lying
mountain biker. A typical mountain bike trip is, for example, 25 miles. Try
WALKING that far! Idiots.

The Scientific American article was referring to road biking on a hard
surface. It came out many, many years before off-road riding and
mountain biking were even popularized. It was referring to commuting
in an urban/suburban environment.

It does not take being the world's foremost authority to think that
there are differences in the physics of riding a road bike on pavement
vs. riding mountain bike on dirt. If that article were written today
and not "decades ago", it would likely include mountain bikes as
another category.

Having led many, many group bicycle trips on paved roads of many
types, I can assure you that road bikes and mountain bikes vary quite
a bit in their efficiency. Sports cars vs Jeeps, they do different
things well. But you think that riding on the road mean wobbling
around to annoy car traffic.

Just a hint: there is a possibility that science, and human knowledge,
have advanced and changed a bit in the last few decades. Surely
someone who has reviewed ALL OF THE LITERATURE would be keeping up on
newer studies, but you keep rehashing the same old ones, or point to
your own articles on your own website as demonstrating proof of
something. All you are proving is that you are an intellectual bully
who is too lazy to actually work for his cause, other than by annoying
people who think you are a joke.

A typical mountain bike ride may not be 25 miles, but quite possibly
less. Since you know everything about everything, I guess you want us
to accept every little factoid you make up. Before this factoid is
acceptable to rational people, you need to demonstrate actual proof
from an outside source.

BTW, most of the world's foremost authorities know how to spell the
word "VERY" with a "V" not an "F". Guess you are so lazy you do not
proofread what you write, and/or do not care if anyone takes you
seriously. Since you believe you are better than everyone else, you
should be able to hold to at least the same standards as you expect of
others.

You have amused me enough for today.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:22:31 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2005 06:21:50 -0300, Jason wrote:

.Plane as the nose on your face Mike, if you'd read it you'd see the
.lies.

Your inability to quote any lies prove you are LYING. DUH!

Your inability to prove anything you say, without referencing your own
articles as "proof", proves that you are lying.

BTW, in this context, you should have used the word "proves", not
"prove" for proper grammar.

Surely the world's foremost authority should know better, or maybe you
are too lazy to care.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

Gary S. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:20:35 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2005 19:32:55 -0700, "GaryG"
wrote:

.Bull****. Over similar terrain, cycling takes more effort, and
burns more
.calories than walking. If you have references that say otherwise,
please
.post them. Otherwise, please refrain from posting more of your
fantasies.

This was covered in a FERY FAMOUS article in "Scientific American"
decades ago:
the bicycle is the most energy-efficient form of transportation in
the world.
Even WALKING takes more energy. But that's OBVIOUS to everyone but a
lying
mountain biker. A typical mountain bike trip is, for example, 25
miles. Try
WALKING that far! Idiots.

The Scientific American article was referring to road biking on a
hard
surface. It came out many, many years before off-road riding and
mountain biking were even popularized. It was referring to commuting
in an urban/suburban environment.

Like all junk-scientists, Mike only presents the data that supports his
position. I am enjoying Guy's heavy application of the cognitive
dissonance stick to Mike's screed.

Now, if Mike would only being with the helmet argument...

E.P.

On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:10:31 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

wrote:
BarryNL wrote:

In a pedantic way, Mike is right. Dead plants and animals cannot
recover from damage. This assumes, of course, that MTBing actually
kills any significant amount of plants or animals. (Mike often says
that the so-called deaths are significant to the creatures involved,
but of course, this is merely a rhethorical device.)

P.S. None of this is defense of Mike's trolling in a.m-b. But, just
as a broken clock is right twice a day, every now and again, Mike
actually tells the truth.

Except Mikey ignores the fact that /responsible/ mountain bikers are the
biggest protectors of fragile areas. Near Fruita, for example, there are
miles and miles of extremely narrow trails through cryptobiotic soil areas,
and the riders go to great lengths to keep their tires on the worn-in tract
and OFF the soft surrounding dirt. All it takes is a pair of hikers to
trash a wide swath, however; or even worse horse riders or ORV-ers. Happens
all the time, unfortunately.

Real mountain bikers stay ON the trail.

What Mikey accomplishes in fact is to antagonize those outdoor
recreationalists who DO care about the environment (the vast majority
to some degree) and to stifle discussions of the topic in relevant
newsgroups and forums.

Just because some of what he says is true does not support either his
overall position, or any of the other things he states as truth.

He is a religious zealot, trying to win followers for a cult centered
around him.

But his poor social and critical thinking skills are working against
him, as well as his ego and arrogance.

He has already been involved in one organization which many consider a
cult, specifically Synanon. Many of the repetitious and badgering
techniques he uses are straight from a cult-style brainwashing
program.

It worked on him with one set of ideas, now he is inflicting it on the
world with another set of ideas. But his basic assumption is that he
knows and cares more than everyone else, and that we should just
accept everything he says as absolute truth.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

On 10 May 2005 13:29:48 -0700, wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:

P.S. None of this is defense of Mike's trolling in a.m-b. But,
just
as a broken clock is right twice a day, every now and again, Mike
actually tells the truth.

Except Mikey ignores the fact that /responsible/ mountain bikers are
the
biggest protectors of fragile areas.

Silly Bill - you should know by now that Mike considers "responsible
mountain bikers" to be the ultimate oxymoron.

Mixed in with all his hate, there are a few nuggets of truth, which is
part of what makes his shtick ever-lasting. Not *everything* he types
is unadulterated bull****, even though the vast majority is exactly
that. One of my favorite lies is the "25-mile/day" typical mountain
bike ride. But that's not the point. The point is that he throws out
real *facts* every now and again.

Yes, which is what makes it so sad. There is no way for any of those
issues to be discussed by recreational users, because Mikey has
poisoned the well on those topics.

Mr. Chapman is giving Mike the ass-kicking he needs, and I applaud
that. And, like your Fruita example, the same thing happens here.

Mikey ultimately wants all recreational use of wilderness to stop. He
has merely chose to start with what he believes to be the largest
threat.

He is not capable of rational thoughts in these matters, perhaps any
matters. Anyone who does not agree with him, he wants to see harmed.

He has also posted about wanting all humans, as an invasive species,
to leave the North and South American continents, and how there are
too many humans in the world, creating the need to have radical
reductions in numbers.

Of course, some of the best trails around here are constructed on
timber company land, with the express permission of said company. They
are for hiking/biking only, no horses (thank goodness.) Mike's worried
about the damage from the bikes, on land dominated by second-growth,
land that will be harvested in about 5-10 year's time. Gosh, I wonder
if all that logging equipment will have any effect on the ecosystem...

He has tunnel vision. He ignores every other possible cause of
environmental damage, no matter how absurd he looks.

He has no room in his worldview for reailty to get involved.

Part of it is that he desperately needs to be perceived as an
environmental leader with a cause, but all of the real causes already
have people leading, and his monomanical, megalomaniacal ego will not
allow him to share the glory or spotlight.

But some find him useful for amusement.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom