cyclezen

1st, I believe my 'edits' of your post retain your intent... And, what you choose to do with your bikes and your position is totally your case. I and others will read what you have to say and make decisions based on what we know, have experience with and, in that light, give your comments consideration or not. Would be true for anything I might post, which is as expected.
I've hilighted & numbered some of your comments/points, for discussion.
1. I'm not sure how, in any way, any bicycle (e-bikes aside) 'encourage' any one to stay fat. What ever health people are in, is always promoted to some betterment by ALL bikes. There certainly are dangers to the act of riding. But the consequence, health wise, of riding a bike of any kind is a major plus for most all aspects of human Physio - exceptions being specific conditions, ailments which might be exaggerated by some forms of riding.
Points 2 and 3 just continue the fallacy of your first statement. Obesity is not due to ANY bike. Certainly not to any road bike, whether some racing oriented or any other variant.

PRO racers are often used for illustration, often because what they do has been proven, and showing an image of something done can only be easily done because there are many images of pros. Pros are not infallible, and often also have poor habits or modify according to their own needs. Sometimes I'm successful in finding a good image of a very 'nomral' rec rider, for an idea. I always prefer to use those.
Point 4 Yes the bike industry uses marketing and people are affected by marketing, certainly. Some people may buy bikes which may not be optimum for them, But that's not 'Life Threatening'.
Point 5 'Save a Life' ??? Please, lets not put this at the level of you being The Buddha, Jesus or even Mother Teresa...
Point 6 Not sure 'what kind of amateur you see', but all I see (and that's a large amount with great variety) seem well served by the bikes they choose to ride.
Contrary to your statement - 'race bikes' are NOT the major segment of road bikes. There was a time, up to and thru the early 2000s, when 'race' geometry was quite prevalent. But consumer demand brought on a much more general and 'relaxed' road bike type - now called 'endurance' and also 'Comfort/hybrid). Even many 'race bikes' are showing a leaning towards the geometry of the 'endurance' geo.
The bikes you have and the way you have them set up are clearly NOT intended for the general rider. Many could never do even a short distance/time riding in the position your setup would demand. You like to think you're setup is efficient and 'speedy'. Maybe it is for you. I would be doubtful that many of the average cyclists I see, would be able to do even a small distance/short time on your bike.
7. Again, The Pros... Compare what many pros do for their setup - to your setup - and I'd easily say Pro setup is much more rider friendly than yours.
Not an attack, just a unbiased view...
Riding a bike - 'Health' has absolutely no connect and nothing to do with 'Speed', nor Position (other than to not create injury), Distance or Watts. All happen to be inter-related in a complicated matrix of 'doing'.
Everyone here determines their own usage and reasons for how they approach, do and relate to cycling - some just like the bike as an object - that's ok also.
Discussing WHAT, in the lastest offerings, is worth the money and consideration of anyone, is a worthy discussion. But evangelizing this as some sort of 'Cycling Crisis' is not even close to reality.
THERE IS WAY, FAR MORE CHOICE in bikes, associated aftermarket, clothing, accessories, safety devices, anything ... than in your golden age of Y2K or any time prior. And a large percentage of this stuff is as good or better made than the old crappage.
I think you need to clarify your platform. But please, prefer not rehash the same stuff already hashed before...
Ride On
Yuri

rsbob 

You appear to operating under the misconception, which incidentally is not promoted by bicycle manufacturers, that cycling alone, without change to diet will result it weight loss. Exercise combined with a healthy diet will alone result in weight management. The caveat is that if you ride at an aerobic level for sustained periods, say 30 mins to an hour many days a week, and not just ride around at 5-10 MPH, and don’t compensate by eating and drinking (alcohol) more because you worked out, the chances are good you will be able to lose some weight. The proven way to do it is follow the Mediterranean diet, greatly reduce alcohol intake and get plenty of exercise.

terrymorse 

More specifically, the recommended diet for health is:

[P]rimarily a plant-based diet with lots of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, beans, nuts and other seeds. Your main drink should be water; avoid fluids with calories, including fruit juices and adding sugar or cream to coffee or tea. I recommend that you avoid mammal meat, processed meats, fried foods and sugar-added foods. Restrict refined carbohydrates, particularly if weight control is an issue for you. That means everything that is made from flour or other refined grains such as bread, pretzels, bagels, spaghetti, macaroni, white rice, most cold breakfast cereals, and so forth.

—Dr. Gabe Mirkin

Paul Laghlin

Really enjoyed this post!

smd4

Sounds delicious!

timtak

I am bringing this to the top because it is the most important.

Yes. non-competitive riders should be riding in more aero positions than professionals because professionals (on road bikes) are riding in teams, in a large peloton that reduces wind resistances by about up to 95%! Even riding at the FRONT of the peloton the wind resistances is reduced by about 15% which is like riding with a gale force tailwind.
https://flowingdata.com/2018/07/27/c...cling-peloton/

On the other hand, when professionals are riding on their own like most amateurs, they ride very impractical time trial bikes that would be dangerous on roads with other road users (and even without other road users - please Google Chris Froome's comments on whether time trials should use time-trial bikes or road bikes).

Therefore, amateurs 'should,' if they want to ride fast, be using some sort of hybrid, some sort of "time trial bike like road bike," and not either the road bike, nor the time trial bike of the pros. Bike shops want to sell us the bikes of the Pros but they are inappropriate.

There are various compromise (not pro road bike not time trial bike) options. John Cobb's advice to Robbie is the best. I tried converting my road bike to a time trial bike.

sssss
I agree with your and Dr. Mirkin's recommendations, but I also see some recommend eating quite a lot of carbs. I eat only vegetables, fruits and low fat protein (fish and tofu mainly ) but I am an alcoholic so I also consume quite a lot of carbs. I manage to stay at about my university weight due to all the cycling I do.

:-) I agree about the cycling manufacturers, but I find that I can control my weight by cycling about three hours a day (one hour before breakfast, and one each way on an extended commute).


Thank you. I am still wearing 'strange' lenses but now they are bolted to the inside of my helmet visor. I think Tomato's post highlights an important point: to avoid becoming the object of "amusement," for example wearing glasses of the style I use, some cyclists would rather ride upright chest parachute bikes, than move to a "bad" (?) aerodynamic position. I think that the same can be said of appraisals my earlier attempts to make my road bike into a trial bike. It looks weird so people don't want to do it. Come on folks, don't be sheeple. We can be fast, thin, happy cyclist if you we goodbye to our fear of being made an object of "amusement."

That said, I confess, I am no, no, NO saint. I find myself to be exactly as low as Tomato, because I feel a similar sort of derision towards him as he does to me. He trashes people, or at least me, and I feel derision towards that, his negative, arrogant, nasty attitude. I am nasty too. I need to do something about this. I need to show the other cheek, and love and respect my detractors. Hail fellow Tomato. I am you. XXX

It's okay. Its all in jest. It is all in jest, but I am serious about the health issues.

I agree with your last phrase, to an extent. If I were a fat 41 year-old again I would get a Trek 5200 (racing set up) and a riser stem and enjoy lowering the stem slowly as my belly retracted (as opposed to getting a more "comfort" bike and lowering it).

The "entry road bike" that is sold for about 1000 USD (or more) tends to be made of aluminium and to have a tall head tube. I got a carbon version, thank God, but it took me a long time (in the face of negative comments here) to put a 22cm negative angle stem on it and get thin and fast.

Many people care about not being an "amusement." So selling these "looks-like-a-pro-bike" pieces of ****, it seems to me allows people to take up cycling but not enjoy it, and give up. My local BS sold me a horrible bike. I was about to give up..

I disagree. I have not researched it but I disagree.
1) There is a research to show that people find meaninglessness very demotivating. When asked to make lego figures, those that were allowed to make an army of figures were significantly more motivated than those whose figures where taken apart as they make them. People don't like to put in effort without efficacy. Very un aerodynamic bikes (and bike setups) use more calories than those are aerodynamic, but when you can fly along at 40kmh feeling the wind on your back, because it it parallel to the ground, it is so much more motivating than using your chest as a parachute at 30 kmh, though it uses the same calories, in my humble experience.
2) Many people get "entry level" road bikes (with their horrible geometry and horrible frame material) and quit. I think that this is partly because of the geometry. Young thin people are being sold this **expletive**.

Any bike is better than no bike. But selling a parachute to someone who would enjoy going fast is likely to lead to some dropouts, some giving up on cycling and some death. Please repent.



Please see my response to Kap above.

Please see my response to Kap at the top above. Pros ride in the peloton (with vastly reduced drag, like they are riding with a gail force tailwind, and taking it in turns) or in even more aerodynamic positions than a normal road would allow using time trial bikes. In other words, Pros ride in very different circumstances to me, you and the rest of the bike buying public.

That does not mean however, that I have ignored their data/model. I saw time trial bikes, that the pros ride, and since I only ride time trials, I emulated the time trial bike with my road bike.



Hmm. If one out of every 100, or 10, would be cyclists (I put it at more like 50%) give up cyling because they are sold a **** aluminium CHEST TO THE WIND, CHEST PARACHUTE bike then perhaps 1 out of every 10 of those persons will die, yes, DIE, because some local BS shop wants to make some money out of selling "bikes that pros ride." We are talking about death here. Come on! This is no joke fellas. I keep getting jokey myself but then I remember. There is a reason why Americans are obese. And one of them is that bike shops are selling lies. Even in Japan, my thin students have purchased road bikes (in partial emulation of me their prof) made of unyeilding junk, in a geometry pushing their CHEST TO THE WIND, and stopped using those horrible road bikes, and (I think) got fat. I find this is very objectionable.

If you sell people stuff that 'looks like the pros use", seems to be good but is in fact demotivating, then when you do that to 100 people, you kill people. Please don't take that to your death with you.


This is good. I agree. When I took up cycling I was fat and I would not have been able to do even a small distance on the bikes I am now recommending. I hope that bike shops recommend low bikes with lower-able stems.

I am not sure.
I think it would work to get a Specialised Tar Muck (as Robbie is riding), or Future Shock Specialized BS bike and then put a downwards pointing adjustable stem on it.
I recommend getting an older steel bike or an unbranded carbon bike instead because all the aero technology of the branded bikes is a drop in the ocean compared to the effect of lowering your chest out of the wind.

I sometimes wonder whether the obvious things that I am saying here are obvious to those that are objecting. I wonder whether most of these posters are lying through their teeth. But then I think about how, for instance, a few weeks ago, Mark Cavendish at age 37 became the fastest rider in the UK riding in an aerodynamic way when most (all) of the those riding with him were not. The realisation that long and low is fast is, and this is amazing to me, being forgotten.

Please try it. Get so low that you feel the wind on your back.

Tim

WhyFi

Stopped reading there. If this was the most important point, I can only imagine how asinine the rest of the post was.

Koyote

Selling road racing bikes causes obesity?

I'm learning sooo much in this thread!

big john

You missed the "best" part.

WhyFi

Darn.

burnthesheep

With 105 moving to di2 only, I say it is a definitive win for folks NOT pushing a competitive advantage. Why? An enduring royal pain is mech shift cables, replacement, adjustment.

Di2 and AXS both are set up new and forget. If it won't shift, you either need to clean your drivetrain or replace a bent hanger. That's it. No more frayed shifter cables in the shifter, no more re running housings and cables. Done.

It gets rid of a #1 maintenance and adjustment nightmare. Now owning two bikes, one with AXS and one with Di2 I despise my mechanical shifting bikes. Not from a performance standpoint, but a reliability standpoint.

I'd rather charge something once in a while than have to re-run cables and adjust a RD.

terrymorse 

I wouldn’t call replacing cables and housing every 2,000 hours or so a nightmare.

And adjustment is basically set once, unless the housing caps haven’t “bedded in”. Then it’s just a twist of the adjuster, and you’re good until the next maintenance.

Kapusta

It did not disappoint

mschwett 

not a nightmare, but not a walk in the park for the inexperienced. and my experience with mechanical drivetrains has been that they require pretty frequent (+/- every 2 months) tweaking, and a twist of the barrel never really did it. di2 has been hugely, hugely better for me.

smd4

I much prefer something mechanical that I can work on myself, then be at the whim of finicky electronics and microchips. I guarantee one will prove to be more reliable and longer-lasting than the other.

mschwett 

you seem to actually care about people getting healthy and riding bikes, so i’ll just say it one more time. the position you’re advocating is NOT comfortable or practical for most aspiring, recreational or even slightly serious cyclists. you are doing FAR more harm than good advocating this **** than the minimal effect a bit of drag has on the enjoyment of someone taking up cycling. there is a reason bikes for beginners or long distance riding are MORE upright. not less. if your bizarre advice spread to the real world, it would prevent the majority of people from even trying to ride a bike.

mschwett 

i agree! things with fewer moving parts always last longer 😂😂😂

big john

This reminds me I'm almost out of Chips Ahoy cookies.

Koyote

On my 11sp Shimano 105 bike, the RD cable usually breaks after about 200 hours.

I'll take the electronic drivetrain every day of the week.

base2 

Tim's perspective come from the idea that all new &/or aspiring cyclists only want to go as fast as is possible for as little money as possible. It's like the P90x interval workout, but on a bicycle. If P90x were "fun" people would still be doing it.

Yeah, anybody can flip a stem & slam it & do a 1 mile TT & get their heart rate up. But what is the fitness benefit of 3:30 of exercise? Can a new cyclist even do 20mph for a mile? It's rubbish. It does not promote time engaged in activity which is where the benefits of exercise are to be found. The prospective cycle person is going to quit & let the bicycle wast away in the garage just like that treadmill they bought but don't use is now a shirt hanger in the back room.

All this trash about favoring glutes or quad engagement is just that; Trash. Good technique uses all your leg muscles.

He says he doesn't eat carbs. He only eats vegetables. News flash: root vegetables are carbs. Fruits are carbs. Drinking carbs is carbs. The purpose of the digestive system is to convert raw materials & make carbs. Glucose sugar is what feeds muscles & powers the human body. He's healthy because he rides that ridiculous bike 3 hours/day, not because of what he put in to his body.

His concern people are fat because they eat white bread is unfounded. People are fat because they eat like endurance athletes but don't do endurance athletic activities. For which a comfortable bike at a moderate effort & speed is ideal.

His concern "Big Bike" is pushing race bikes is unfounded. It is a rare customer that goes into a shop looking for a race bike. It's difficult to get most people to even look at them. Flat bars, comfortable, capable, utilitarian. That is what people actually buy.

It's feeling "moist" in here. I think there's a list I need to update.

Kapusta

Then I suggest you research it. Like, just talk to anyone who has started off cycling and was set up with an overly aggressive "aero" setup. Or people who actually fit bikes for a living. Or shop owners who have seen what kind of bikes new riders will stick with.

What is so mind boggling is that you actually think that the problem with racing setups is that they are not aero enough for beginners. That is utter rubbish. The problem with them is that they are TOO aero for beginners. They are very uncomfortable for people not experienced and with the proper flexibility and core strength. If you did any research beyond your own navel gazing you would know this. The reason people keep bringing up the fact that not even pro road racers run such aero setups is because pro racers are more physically able to hold an aero position and are even more concerned with speed, and yet even THEY don't ride so hunched over. Your explanation of why they do not need to be aero is complete nonsense, one could write paragraphs as to all the reasons why.

Time trail bikes are a specific design for a specific RACING format. They make sacrifices on both comfort and safety in the name of speed for competitive purposes. So what do you think these people ride when not competing in time trail races? Here is Lawson Craddock when not competing in a time trail:



So the question is whether you are actually going to try to understand why cramming amateur riders on super aero setups is a terrible idea (and why no self-respecting shop or fitter would do so) or you can keep giving out this terrible advice that will almost certainly turn any new rider (and even most experienced riders) off of cycling.

tomato coupe

People don't avoid bikes setup like yours because they look ridiculous, they avoid them because they are functionally ridiculous.

Koyote

Here are a couple choice nuggets for you. My fave passages are in bold font.

livedarklions

I don't know why the statement you quoted was attributed to me, I think it was rsbob 's statement.. I don't believe any "diet" is proven to do much of anything for most people, but that's a hell of a complex issue I don't want to go into the weeds for.

livedarklions

My reaction to his stuff at this point is an expansion of my ignore list. There's only so much crank post I can handle and he's way too long-winded for his bonkers ramblings to even be funny.