CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 40 min 45 sec ago

Re: Four 4x4's on a forty mile ride

24 August 2014 - 6:53pm
Beware confirmation bias OP

Re: Four 4x4's on a forty mile ride

24 August 2014 - 5:01pm
On a recent foray into france I played guess the nationality of cars approaching from behind. The best by far were the French who gave me loads of room, the worse were the Brits followed by the Dutch. I think the Dutch weren't used to seeing cars on the road given their excellent cycle network. It's a cultural thing, when driving in France I find most drivers to be less tolerant of others than British ones, but they have a much better approach to pedestrians and cyclists.

Re: Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

24 August 2014 - 4:55pm
Garry, I get hungry at mealtimes which is normal I think. My wife and I enjoy our present diet which includes a bit of everything.

Yesterdays breakfast, Muesli, milk, frozen berries and banana, lunch a single cheese roll with watercress and a tomato. Evening meal, homemade low calorie soup, steak chips peas, fried onions and mushrooms, strawberries merangue and ice cream. Glass of red wine.

Todays breakfast, fried egg, 1 slice of bacon, tinned tomatoes, banana, orange juice, lunch, ham salad with watercress, onion, tomato, cucumber, radish, small beetroot cold baked beans, low calorie dressing, evening meal, low calorie homemade soup poached salmon fillets, new potatoes, carrots, runner beans, melon stawberries and ice cream, glass of white wine.
Throughout the day, coffee in the morning, tea afternoon and evening and a 35ml glass of laphroig with ice.

We did a 2 hour walk around the Reading Rock Festival site yesterday soaking up the atmosphere and I did a 12 mile ride this morning.

Todays calories 1475, exercise, 600. Nett calories 875.
I dont think anyone would be hungry on what we eat, but we do carefully control the quantity of everything. The steaks are lean sirlions 6 oz and 100 g low fat chips. We dont snack, but if we do fancy something there is massive fruit bowl filled with apples and pears from our trees.

We are still both steadily loosing weight despite several holidays, many restaurant meals and dinners out where we just eat whatever we fancy.

You dont need to give up anything at all to loose weight, just eat less and cut out the cr* * and you dont need to feel hungry all the time. Feeling hungry is a normal feeling, its called having an appetite! I am looking forward to that dinner..

All the best.

Al

Re: Four 4x4's on a forty mile ride

24 August 2014 - 4:32pm
I drive one of these.
http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/asx/?g ... gLPJvD_BwE Mine is a 4x4 version

Before that, I had a series of s/h Merc C classes. The ASX is actually 2" wider than the Merc, its shorter but that 2" extra width makes is substantially more difficult to park. I love the driving position, its the most comfortable car I have ever owned. That extra 2" is no excuse for close passing cyclists. I stick to the French rules, 1 metre up to 30mph and 1.5m above that and never cut in ahead close. The highway codes 1 cars width rule is often unachievable IMO.
I ride a lot on quiet narrow country lanes. I find the vast majority of motorists, van drivers and lorry drivers careful and courteous. I always acknowledge their caution with a smile and friendly wave.
The worst drivers are undoubtably the ladies. They seem to have no idea that 2 tons of steel hurtling straight at a cyclist is frightening and intimidating. I think they are often scared to slow down. I havent noticed a particular problem with SUVs, they will often keep well over driving partially on a gravel verge to pass. But, in Lancashire things are obviously different. I am never concious of what car I am driving has some sort of impact on other people but I have been on the motorway, some people do move over for Mercs.

Al

Re: Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

24 August 2014 - 4:32pm
al_yrpal wrote:Dead easy to work out calories, carbs, and everything. Use this http://www.myfitnesspal.com it has a database of 3 million items, and you can scan the barcode on practically anything and it gives you a complete breakdown and calorie value. It seems to default to a diet recommendation of 50% of calories from carbs, 20% from protein and 30% from fat.
If you accurately put into it what you eat each day and what exercise you did it subtracts the calories from the exercise from the calories from the food giving you a nett value, you daily total. Worked perfectly for me, and over 8 months it has been pretty accurate in that the weight loss exactly matched what it predicted. Thats why I believe calorie counting is an accurate and effective way to loose and maintain weight.

Al

How hungry are you?

Re: Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

24 August 2014 - 3:34pm
Dead easy to work out calories, carbs, and everything. Use this http://www.myfitnesspal.com it has a database of 3 million items, and you can scan the barcode on practically anything and it gives you a complete breakdown and calorie value. It seems to default to a diet recommendation of 50% of calories from carbs, 20% from protein and 30% from fat.
If you accurately put into it what you eat each day and what exercise you did it subtracts the calories from the exercise from the calories from the food giving you a nett value, you daily total. Worked perfectly for me, and over 8 months it has been pretty accurate in that the weight loss exactly matched what it predicted. Thats why I believe calorie counting is an accurate and effective way to loose and maintain weight.

Al

Re: Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

24 August 2014 - 2:29pm
Gearoidmuar wrote:TonyR wrote:beardy wrote:The term carbohydrates is too imprecise.

There must be some very awful high carbohydrate diets out there and if you concentrate on them in comparison to a more natural fat laden, sugar free diet then it may be an improvement.


Most subsistence and near subsistence diets are all carbohydrate. Protein is a luxury that is neither affordable nor very available. That you don't get fat on them tends to indicate its calories not carbohydrates that are the problem.

It's true about subsistence diet but poor people worldwide who live on high carb diet are much fatter than their fellow citizens who don't, by and large. Look at the "poor white trash" in America for instance. Look at the British working class who've got hugely obese in the last 10 years.. They are drinking Coke and eating chips.
And that's the problem with Garray Tube's theory. High carb diets are also in most cases high in calories. How do you work out which is which?

Re: Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

24 August 2014 - 1:50pm
Gearoidmuar wrote: ............ drinking Coke and eating chips. ......... and from an early age too. Plus crisps.

Crisps, and packeted crisp-like things, are marketed as "snacks" these days. You see 3yo children in push-chairs with a bag of rubbish to eat whilst they are pushed round the town.

A snack, to me, is a sandwich or a prepared plate of food and a cup of tea or coffee, not a packet of scampi fries and a sweet fizzy drink. No wonder the people are fat, their children are fat, and the dentists are doing a roaring trade.

Re: Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

24 August 2014 - 1:38pm
TonyR wrote:beardy wrote:The term carbohydrates is too imprecise.

There must be some very awful high carbohydrate diets out there and if you concentrate on them in comparison to a more natural fat laden, sugar free diet then it may be an improvement.


Most subsistence and near subsistence diets are all carbohydrate. Protein is a luxury that is neither affordable nor very available. That you don't get fat on them tends to indicate its calories not carbohydrates that are the problem.

It's true about subsistence diet but poor people worldwide who live on high carb diet are much fatter than their fellow citizens who don't, by and large. Look at the "poor white trash" in America for instance. Look at the British working class who've got hugely obese in the last 10 years.. They are drinking Coke and eating chips.

Re: Four 4x4's on a forty mile ride

24 August 2014 - 1:37pm
Hi,
I owned a Subaru Sumo micro van, triple piston rear facing engine, its was a 1200 cc so 4WD, but the 1000 cc version was not 4WD.
Subaru Justy was the car going version with permanent FWD and selectable RWD, the Sumo van was permanent RWD and selectable FWD.

Without a doubt the best Micro van you could buy, Jap so ultra reliable, Twin side loading doors, selectable 4WD, but not diff front to back so best not use 4WD on the tarmac, but the button was mounted on the end of the gear lever so one click to select Whilst moving of course, no pulling levers (trying to select but not selecting whilst stationary )
Sumo 4WD was optional in other countries I believe on the 1200 cc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_Sumo

I still own a 4X4 but its a car type one, the last driver who tried to use his vehicle on me was a Discovery..............

Re: Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

24 August 2014 - 1:08pm
beardy wrote:The term carbohydrates is too imprecise.

There must be some very awful high carbohydrate diets out there and if you concentrate on them in comparison to a more natural fat laden, sugar free diet then it may be an improvement.


Most subsistence and near subsistence diets are all carbohydrate. Protein is a luxury that is neither affordable nor very available. That you don't get fat on them tends to indicate its calories not carbohydrates that are the problem.

Re: Four 4x4's on a forty mile ride

24 August 2014 - 12:54pm
tatanab wrote:reohn2 wrote:*by 4x4's I don't mean Fiat Pandas but the usual car-on-steroids vehicleSo provided the dirty great Jeep Cherokee has only 2WD that's OK? I imagine that the Nissan Qashquas that you commented on were 2WD as well, very few are 4WD. The perception that SUV equates to 4x4 (on forums, in the press etc) is a bit frustrating and I often want to respond when people complain about 4x4.
I take your point and was unaware that many of what I call 4x4 are infact 2wd,so it's more of a vehicle type than an actual 4x4.
There are of course many many ordinary looking cars that are 4x4 (Vauxhall Cavalier, Ford Sierra, Peugeot 504, Subaru Impreza, Skoda Octavia etc). In this case I am just being a bit evil minded but I really think your gripe is with inappropriate SUVs rather than 4x4.
Yes SUV's would perhaps a better description,though I suspect most people would know what I meant I've had a couple of problems with a local Jeep owner,it's a Jeep that looks like a proper jeep,brown hood green body with ' fenders' and headlights close together like old Landy's had,he's at the last chance saloon .

BTW you forgot to mention that Subaru's AFAIK are all 'All Wheel Drive'

Re: Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

24 August 2014 - 12:47pm
beardy wrote:I think eggs and bacon probably makes a better breakfast than "whiteflour-sugar" flakes but neither compares to porridge (even with fullfat milk).Now you're talking.
Porridge? I don't like it, and even if I eat it, I'm hungry too soon. Too much stodge.

Give me a good protein breakfast. Two or three rashers of bacon and a fried egg or two - plus bread and butter suits me just fine and sets me up for day.
Porridge? I wouldn't give it house room.

Re: Four 4x4's on a forty mile ride

24 August 2014 - 12:33pm
reohn2 wrote:*by 4x4's I don't mean Fiat Pandas but the usual car-on-steroids vehicleSo provided the dirty great Jeep Cherokee has only 2WD that's OK? I imagine that the Nissan Qashquas that you commented on were 2WD as well, very few are 4WD. The perception that SUV equates to 4x4 (on forums, in the press etc) is a bit frustrating and I often want to respond when people complain about 4x4. There are of course many many ordinary looking cars that are 4x4 (Vauxhall Cavalier, Ford Sierra, Peugeot 504, Subaru Impreza, Skoda Octavia etc). In this case I am just being a bit evil minded but I really think your gripe is with inappropriate SUVs rather than 4x4.

Re: Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

24 August 2014 - 12:23pm
The term carbohydrates is too imprecise.

There must be some very awful high carbohydrate diets out there and if you concentrate on them in comparison to a more natural fat laden, sugar free diet then it may be an improvement.

White processed sugar is a carbohydrate as is wholemeal bread or oats.

I think eggs and bacon probably makes a better breakfast than "whiteflour-sugar" flakes but neither compares to porridge (even with fullfat milk).

Re: Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

24 August 2014 - 11:50am
This is all getting a bit heated. The Gary Torus chappie, or whatever he is called, claims it is carbohydrates not calories which make people fat, see my link above for a description of his argument. I don't agree with it but if you do then saying too many calories or too many carbohydrates ("wrong diet") are different arguments. They are not the same thing.

Re: Four 4x4's on a forty mile ride

24 August 2014 - 11:50am
reohn2 wrote:Conclusions.
Proportionally IMHO more goons,idiots and social climbers,drive 4x4's than other vehicles,(with mid range German prestige vehicles coming in second),

My own conclusions exactly.

Re: Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

24 August 2014 - 11:45am
Gearoidmuar wrote:TonyR wrote:Do you have any references to this in the scientific literature or is it a pet theory?

Yes. If you read Gary Taubes monumental book, Good Calories Bad Calories, or The Diet Delusion in the Uk, it is referenced completely in the last chapter or two of it. He spent years researching the literature for all of this. The problem with many academics is that they don't read widely. I worked with a chap in London who at the time was a consultant and became a very widely respected Professor and researcher. He told me ... "I read no journals. I hear it all at meetings". This is true for many, and, unfortunately, what it not comfortable for the sponsors of the meetings to hear (food companies etc), tends to get suppressed. That is why many researchers are quite ignorant of many areas which they should research.

As I thought, the pet theories of another fad book by a journalist cashing in on dietary fashions, not peer reviewed research publications. Yes he references research but, as analysed in a Washington Post article of the time, very selectively to ignore anything that disagrees with his hypothesis or by misrepresenting it.

And yes, as a leading researcher you typically hear all the latest developments at the conferences, not in the journals. Why? Because there's typically an 18-24 month delay between the results and them being published so all the latest developments are transferred in conference talks or one to one and group discussions at conferences and other venues. Even something as important as the Higgs Boson was announced by CERN at an event three months before it was published - and the journal involved moved heaven and earth to get it into the next issue, not one in 18 months because of its importance to science.

Re: Hand signals on bike

24 August 2014 - 11:14am
If I deem that lifting my hand off the bar long enough for a following road user to see/understand is detrimental to me then it's just better all round to adopt a clear road position earlier, if I'm able to signal just before the turn to reiterate my intention I will, but only if I feel it might be beneficial.

For left turns, mostly I do when in traffic if beneficial, adopting the process of hands on bars and road position is better than signalling if need be. I always move to a wider centre of road position which in itself often slows following vehicles down, it also means I have a much better view into the turn especially if there are parked cars or other hazards that may hinder sight lines. This often means a faster/smoother transistion as well.
IMO there's nothing worse than a gutter hugger that turns in too early & too close to the kerb and then has to deviate wildly/take avoiding action/scrub off speed because they haven't seen something/someone a few metres into the lane.

In some situations when turning right (poor road surface/very inclement weather or just very dark/poorly lit roads where a hand signal may well be next to useless) I'd rather just move across in plenty of time and hold that right of lane position, that in itself makes my intention fairly understandable purely by my positioning.
I can't say I've ever had any instance of someone beeping me or giving me a hard time.
I'm also aware of how far over I'll move taking into account how I feel with regard to following vehicles and them passing me on the inside if I have to wait to turn right. This might be dictated by the speed limit on that section, width of the road, what oncoming (& indeed following) vehicles there are as well as any camber/bend in the road itself.

Additionally, I think a good solid look back in lieu of a hand signal can make a difference too.

I reckon ALL motorvehicle drivers should be taught to 'advanced' level as a matter of course BEFORE they are allowed on the road, they might actually grasp a lot more & undertsand about regulating speed/positiong and a whole host of other nuances that you're average driver just seems to fail to understand..

Four 4x4's on a forty mile ride

24 August 2014 - 10:57am
Yesterday four close passes(within 60cm one within 40cm)by four 4x4*'s(two Qashqua's one Audi Q5/7(?),one older LR Discovery)no other vehicles gave me problems,three out of those four were on wide road with no oncoming traffic of any kind,the fourth had an oncoming vehicle(another car,so nothing large)but had lots of space to the 4x4's offside .
It's not in isolation,I find proportionally I get more hassle in the form of close passes and other bully boy tactics from 4x4's than any other vehicles,this is an observation of a period of years,so I'm making no knee jerk reactions.

I got to thinking(yet again)yesterday if it was the width of the vehicle their drivers can't judge properly
By pure chance we have a Ford Kuga parked on our drive over the week end(youngest daughter's car(bloody young executives,as uncle Mort would have said for those familiar with Peter Tinniswood's work )this ain't no small family HB,but the regular overblown 4x4 vehicle size.
Imagine my surprise when I parked our Cmax next to it,the Kuga is about 10cm longer,and exactly the same width,though looks on the face of it,huge by comparison and the driving position is higher than the Cmax,which isn't low by any one's standards.
I owned Transits for 25 years or more,the Kuga's driving position isn't too far off in height and I always found the elevated driving position was great for driving and manoeuvring giving a much clearer view of the road than a standard car's driving position.
Proportionally I have very little problems with Cmax drivers,and I notice them more because we own one,the same goes for other similar type/sized vehicles by proportion.
I do get the odd small HB(Corsa,Saxo,etc) problem,but proportionally it's miniscule by comparison to the amount of those type of vehicle on the roads

Conclusions.
Proportionally IMHO more goons,idiots and social climbers,drive 4x4's than other vehicles,(with mid range German prestige vehicles coming in second),and if I get to see the drivers they tend to be 'normal' looking people usually in the 30's to 40's age range.
These are my observations and experiences,your's of course may differ,I'm by no means condemning all 4x4 drivers but there seems to be more of an ''I'm big and important and you're small and insignificant'' thought process and social hierachy problem going on ie; higher driving position,higher in the social standing stakes,psychological thing going on.
All IMO of course,but the problem is a real one IME

Worth a discussion?

*by 4x4's I don't mean Fiat Pandas but the usual car-on-steroids vehicle

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

 

Terms and Conditions