I editorialised the title as the original was clickbait, but the video itself is quite good. Interestingly, e-bikes are claimed to have lower emissions than acoustic bikes, although it likely depends on diet (the author didn’t specifically compare a vegan diet between the two types but did indicate that vegan + electric is the most carbon efficient form).

  • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Diet is a huge component of most people’s footprint. If you start biking 12 hours more a week (how much I would need to if I wanted to switch from my ebike to my acoustic for commuting*), you are going to eat a lot more. If a significant amount of those calories is coming from the standard beef you’d get at a US supermarket, its no surprise you’d be better off using a coal-charged ebike at similar speeds**. So much fossil fuels go into producing that. Tomatoes are worse than chicken apparently though.

    *I’m not in good enough to bike at work in under 1.25 hours multiple days in a row and still be in good enough condition to do my job, especially if there are headwinds.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      That is just patently false. You will eat slightly more. The majority of everyones calories goes toward keeping your heart beating and existing. It takes an extreme amount of working out to shift that needle and two hours of cycling won’t do that. If you have access to a public gym with the equipment that can track calorie burn go see how much it takes to burn 100 calories. Body builders with extreme workouts can double their calorie intake but that is way more than some extra hours cycling. This is why when I did the napkin math I found the standing desk with relaxing over lunch will burn more calories than sitting and walking vigorously during my lunch.

      • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        According to my HR monitor, I typically burn about 750-1000 calories/hr when doing cardio exercise for 1 hour. Like, a 3 hour session, I might burn 2400 calories. My basal metabolism when sitting and standing is about 120 calories/hr.

        Even with an electric bike, I sometimes burn like 500 calories/hr. During actual bike rides, its more like 700 calories each way.

        • HubertManne@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Dude man. I think your monitor is off. Burning 1000 extra calories a day is killer. Also intense cardio is way more of a workout than commuting cycling which is more on the level of a brisk walk if that. EDITED - I have been thinking about it and you may be. I will tell you that the typical person will not usual do more than an hour of cardio so you likely may do a killer workout and those are people who work out. Riding a bike on a per mile basis will brun less than a leasurely walk but will burn more on a per time basis. My wife with her ski machine thing burns 100 calories in 20 minutes and that would be with excertion way beyond commute cycling. Likely a person using an e-bike compared to sitting in a climate controled electric car will burn more calories additionally than what they burn on an e-bike compared to a non electric bike just do to temperature, sitting more actively and upright, and exposure to the elements.

          • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I’ve used two different brand chest strap monitors (actually, 3, but one was in college spin class many years ago and I don’t have any of the data for that, but I used to average zone-4 heart rates with peaks over 210 bps basically every class, so it gives some comparison). With my current one, it seems responsive to everything from sedentary activity to intense cardio. That said, my average heart rate during exercise is above 150 (my most recent 1hr session, my HR rarely dropped below 160bps after the warmup), so the linear relationship between calories and HR no longer holds. So I agree I should take it with a grain of salt, but at least this calculator says at my weight I should be burning over 900 calories if my HR is 150 for 1 hour of exercise. My RHR is like 50, so its not like my HR is just always high either. Still HR-> calories still isn’t an exact conversion. A power meter or an O2 exhalation lab would give better info.

            Anyways, I agree intense cardio workouts are a lot more than cycling, which was mentioned in my above comment (I only burn about 700 calories/hr commuting vs 750-1000 getting exercise).

            The numbers I get from my HR apps are also lower than online calculators for equivalent workouts: they estimate my commute should be 900-1200 calories for my weight and pace (I’m 200lbs/90kgs), not 700 calories. I get to ride on lots of trails, so if not many people are out walking, I don’t have as much slowing down/speeding up as someone commuting by roads, and its on a carbon road bike, so that might contribute.

            Also, given the length of the commute, I’m not going to go slower than normal recreational bike rides: I just try to avoid doing all-out sprints on the way to work and then the ride on the way home I regularly did all-out sprints during some segments. And even if I went at a more casual pace, the total calories actually wouldn’t change that much (maybe 10-15%?). It would of course spread the remaining calories over more time, so the burn rate would be lower.

            Burning 1000 extra calories a day is killer.

            Which is why I stopped acoustic biking to work and switched to ebike. I would be tired during my shift even after just biking one way. I don’t know if I ever biked to work two days in a row: I don’t think I could have done my job if I tried that.

          • Baŝto@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Do you even talk about the same units? Sometimes kilocalories get colloquially called calories, but there is a difference of factor 1000.

            Here in Germany Coca Cola has on their nutrition list 180kJ or 42kcal per 100ml. That’s 42000 calories for a fifth of a small bottle coke (500ml).

            0.5kcal really isn’t much.

            • HubertManne@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              yeah that could be it. Im really not sure when it comes to what these devices throw out. I think its the came calories as what a candybar like lists or that like the average person consume 2000 of them per day for my numbers.

        • Baŝto@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Reading through some sites, 0.5kcal/h seems to be average that when biking leisurely on a normal bike.

          700cal/h would mean that you could cycle for 300h with 500ml of coca cola.

          • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            USA uses cal and kcal interchangeably because being confusing with units is our specialty. Guess I should say “Cal” instead of “cal”, but no one but chemists care about the difference here. My mistr.