Is this group active ?

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:36:54 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
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

Not scientific. You'd have to hike the same path and measure calories used. I guarantee it would be greater. But this question was answered decades ago in the Scientific American. You lose. The reason people ride bikes is precisely because it's easier than walking. That's also why people mountain bike: they are too LAZY to walk. DUH!

See the chart ...

http://www.mycaloriesburned.com/calories-burned-chart/

Note lines 49 for hiking with a heavy backpack at 651 calories per hour and line 32 for Mountainbiking at 791 (both for a 200lb male).

Or, fine, go for a hike using Endomondo on your Garmin or mobile phone and post the results.

Efficiency is not the same as energy output. Sure, on the flat or downhill a bike is mechanically advantageous but, as you state on your site many many times, mountain bikers travel much further and faster than hikers. Hence, the energy expenditure is typically higher despite the mechanical efficiency.

So, you are a PHD yes ? Either accept the data (sourced as the page says from the American Sports Medicine and Science Journal) or provide your own using a reasonable methodology. I recommend Endomondo as it takes heartrate data into account and that is a key factor.

Or, are you just interested in ad hominem attacks and trying to state flawed conclusions unsupported by data ? That's a pretty shabby way for a scientist to behave.

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:24:10 PM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
See the chart ...

http://www.mycaloriesburned.com/calories-burned-chart/

Note lines 49 for hiking with a heavy backpack at 651 calories per hour and line 32 for Mountainbiking at 791 (both for a 200lb male).

Or, fine, go for a hike using Endomondo on your Garmin or mobile phone and post the results.

Efficiency is not the same as energy output. Sure, on the flat or downhill a bike is mechanically advantageous but, as you state on your site many many times, mountain bikers travel much further and faster than hikers. Hence, the energy expenditure is typically higher despite the mechanical efficiency.

So, you are a PHD yes ? Either accept the data (sourced as the page says from the American Sports Medicine and Science Journal) or provide your own using a reasonable methodology. I recommend Endomondo as it takes heartrate data into account and that is a key factor.

Or, are you just interested in ad hominem attacks and trying to state flawed conclusions unsupported by data ? That's a pretty shabby way for a scientist to behave.

In order to compare them, you have to compare apples to apples, not apples & oranges. The hiker would have to travel the same trail at the same speed, to compare energy consumption. The biker would obviously use less energy, for the reasons I already gave. For example, compare walking 1 mile at 2 MPH on flat ground. The biker would use FAR less energy than the walker. You are just trying to prove what pleases you, not what is true. Mountain bikers are dishonest to the core. There's no other way to say it. And too LAZY to walk. They think speed is everything. Ever ballroom dance? Speed isn't the goal. DUH! The same with sex. My high school girlfriend meets rodeo cowboys. She says "They think 8 seconds is a long ride". Just like a mountain biker. Can't do ANYTHING right....

On Saturday, 2 June 2012 01:37:48 UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:24:10 PM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
See the chart ...

http://www.mycaloriesburned.com/calories-burned-chart/

Note lines 49 for hiking with a heavy backpack at 651 calories per hour and line 32 for Mountainbiking at 791 (both for a 200lb male).

Or, fine, go for a hike using Endomondo on your Garmin or mobile phone and post the results.

Efficiency is not the same as energy output. Sure, on the flat or downhill a bike is mechanically advantageous but, as you state on your site many many times, mountain bikers travel much further and faster than hikers. Hence, the energy expenditure is typically higher despite the mechanical efficiency.

So, you are a PHD yes ? Either accept the data (sourced as the page says from the American Sports Medicine and Science Journal) or provide your own using a reasonable methodology. I recommend Endomondo as it takes heartrate data into account and that is a key factor.

Or, are you just interested in ad hominem attacks and trying to state flawed conclusions unsupported by data ? That's a pretty shabby way for a scientist to behave.

In order to compare them, you have to compare apples to apples, not apples & oranges. The hiker would have to travel the same trail at the same speed, to compare energy consumption. The biker would obviously use less energy, for the reasons I already gave. For example, compare walking 1 mile at 2 MPH on flat ground. The biker would use FAR less energy than the walker. You are just trying to prove what pleases you, not what is true. Mountain bikers are dishonest to the core. There's no other way to say it. And too LAZY to walk. They think speed is everything. Ever ballroom dance? Speed isn't the goal. DUH! The same with sex. My high school girlfriend meets rodeo cowboys. She says "They think 8 seconds is a long ride". Just like a mountain biker. Can't do ANYTHING right....

Oh for goodness sake. This is either idiocy or trolling.

We ARE comparing Apples with Oranges; Hiking with Mountain Biking.

Your proposition was that "Mountain Bikers are LAZY". I refuted that by pointing out that Mountain Bikers, on average, expend MORE energy than hikers.. I have backed that up with published and experimental data. You have responded with ad hominem attacks but nothing substantive at all.

You are now trying to weasel out of it by pointing out the mechanical advantage enjoyed by a bike over a walker; whilst leaving out one of your own stated positions on biking with is that mountain bikers go further and faster than a walker. Hence, the energy consuption for a given distance at a certain speed is entirely meaningless since hikers and bikers DON'T travel the same speed and distance.

You then follow it with completely irrelevant, and insulting, drivel.

I won't be responding to you again unless you can post some FACTS to support your position. And, by facts, I mean OBJECTIVE DATA not commentary, opinion, hearsay or the like.

Right now, I am left to conclude that those three letters you proudly quote in your correspondence stand for either ...

PH Duh
or
PH Dishonest

On Friday, June 1, 2012 11:07:15 PM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
On Saturday, 2 June 2012 01:37:48 UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:24:10 PM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
See the chart ...

http://www.mycaloriesburned.com/calories-burned-chart/

Note lines 49 for hiking with a heavy backpack at 651 calories per hour and line 32 for Mountainbiking at 791 (both for a 200lb male).

Or, fine, go for a hike using Endomondo on your Garmin or mobile phone and post the results.

Efficiency is not the same as energy output. Sure, on the flat or downhill a bike is mechanically advantageous but, as you state on your site many many times, mountain bikers travel much further and faster than hikers. Hence, the energy expenditure is typically higher despite the mechanical efficiency.

So, you are a PHD yes ? Either accept the data (sourced as the page says from the American Sports Medicine and Science Journal) or provide your own using a reasonable methodology. I recommend Endomondo as it takes heartrate data into account and that is a key factor.

Or, are you just interested in ad hominem attacks and trying to state flawed conclusions unsupported by data ? That's a pretty shabby way for a scientist to behave.

In order to compare them, you have to compare apples to apples, not apples & oranges. The hiker would have to travel the same trail at the same speed, to compare energy consumption. The biker would obviously use less energy, for the reasons I already gave. For example, compare walking 1 mile at 2 MPH on flat ground. The biker would use FAR less energy than the walker. You are just trying to prove what pleases you, not what is true. Mountain bikers are dishonest to the core. There's no other way to say it. And too LAZY to walk. They think speed is everything. Ever ballroom dance? Speed isn't the goal. DUH! The same with sex. My high school girlfriend meets rodeo cowboys. She says "They think 8 seconds is a long ride". Just like a mountain biker. Can't do ANYTHING right....

Oh for goodness sake. This is either idiocy or trolling.

We ARE comparing Apples with Oranges; Hiking with Mountain Biking.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Mountain bikers use less energy than a hiker, FOR THE SAME TRIP (speed + distance). That;s the proper way to compare them. That's why they are lazy. It's supported by the Scientific American, an impeccable source.

Your proposition was that "Mountain Bikers are LAZY". I refuted that by pointing out that Mountain Bikers, on average, expend MORE energy than hikers. I have backed that up with published and experimental data. You have responded with ad hominem attacks but nothing substantive at all.

You are now trying to weasel out of it by pointing out the mechanical advantage enjoyed by a bike over a walker; whilst leaving out one of your own stated positions on biking with is that mountain bikers go further and faster than a walker. Hence, the energy consuption for a given distance at a certain speed is entirely meaningless since hikers and bikers DON'T travel the same speed and distance.

You are an idiot. A scientific comparison must be over the same speed & distance, or it's irrelevent.

You then follow it with completely irrelevant, and insulting, drivel.

I won't be responding to you again unless you can post some FACTS to support your position. And, by facts, I mean OBJECTIVE DATA not commentary, opinion, hearsay or the like.

I already did, several times. You are just too stupid or dishonest (or BOTH) to admit it.

Right now, I am left to conclude that those three letters you proudly quote in your correspondence stand for either ...

PH Duh
or
PH Dishonest

That's the level of your discourse: kindergarten. The same as ALL mountain bikers. They are allergic to telling the truth. If they ever told the truth, no one would allow them on the trails! DUH!

"Mountain biking is such a contentious issue that there is a great temptation to slant the results to support one's preferred management policy." Michael J Vandeman

"You also made the same error that all other researchers have made: ignoring distance travelled. If (let's suppose) hikers and mountain bikers caused the same erosion PER FOOT (which is what you measured), you have to multiply by typical distances travelled, to get the total per-user impact. Mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers, and thus have several times the impact." Michael J Vandeman

So, Mr Vandeman, when it suits your argument you include speed and distance travelled it would appear ? Is this unscientific as you claimed in your last post ?

So, which are we (Moutainbikers) ? Hard charging thrill seekers travelling long distances, quite fast and therefore expending more energy than hikers.. Or, lazy slobs travelling the same distance as hikers on our more efficient bikes and thereby using much less energy and impacting the enironment almost identically to hikers. You can't have it both ways.

Let the equivocation and misdirection commence ...

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 3:08:43 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
"Mountain biking is such a contentious issue that there is a great temptation to slant the results to support one's preferred management policy." Michael J Vandeman

"You also made the same error that all other researchers have made: ignoring distance travelled. If (let's suppose) hikers and mountain bikers caused the same erosion PER FOOT (which is what you measured), you have to multiply by typical distances travelled, to get the total per-user impact. Mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers, and thus have several times the impact." Michael J Vandeman

So, Mr Vandeman, when it suits your argument you include speed and distance travelled it would appear ? Is this unscientific as you claimed in your last post ?

So, which are we (Moutainbikers) ? Hard charging thrill seekers travelling long distances, quite fast and therefore expending more energy than hikers. Or, lazy slobs travelling the same distance as hikers on our more efficient bikes and thereby using much less energy and impacting the enironment almost identically to hikers. You can't have it both ways.

Let the equivocation and misdirection commence ...

You are all too lazy to walk, which is why you insist on riding bike where bikes don't belong. There's no other possible explanation.

Now you see why Mike tends to be the only poster here.

On 6/5/2012 4:08 AM, Blackblade wrote:
"Mountain biking is such a contentious issue that there is a great temptation to slant the results to support one's preferred management policy." Michael J Vandeman

"You also made the same error that all other researchers have made: ignoring distance travelled. If (let's suppose) hikers and mountain bikers caused the same erosion PER FOOT (which is what you measured), you have to multiply by typical distances travelled, to get the total per-user impact. Mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers, and thus have several times the impact." Michael J Vandeman

So, Mr Vandeman, when it suits your argument you include speed and distance travelled it would appear ? Is this unscientific as you claimed in your last post ?

So, which are we (Moutainbikers) ? Hard charging thrill seekers travelling long distances, quite fast and therefore expending more energy than hikers. Or, lazy slobs travelling the same distance as hikers on our more efficient bikes and thereby using much less energy and impacting the enironment almost identically to hikers. You can't have it both ways.

Let the equivocation and misdirection commence ...

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:41:28 AM UTC-7, Trevor wrote:
Now you see why Mike tends to be the only poster here.

Yes, mountain bikers can't stand a forum where their opponents can exercise their freedom of speech. They instituted censorship in rec.bicycles.off-road, whereupon it immediately DIED! My posts were obviously the only ones worth reading.

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:16:55 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:41:28 AM UTC-7, Trevor wrote:
Now you see why Mike tends to be the only poster here.

Yes, I do.

A somewhat frustrating exchange to be sure. As an intelligent individual I have to conclude that, presented with valid facts, his complete unwillingness to address the substantive issues raised is simply because he doesn't wish to ... not that he genuinely doesn't understand.

I started out with no prior history on him but then googled his name and .... my goodness ! Seems I've been conversing with a genuinely notorious individual :-)