this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
630 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

19521 readers
1583 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 10 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

If you are trying to lose weight, you should be using the worst, heaviest bike possible.

[–] SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 18 points 12 hours ago

Well, not if you still want to have some fun while doing so.

But I agree, that a regular bike should suffice and you don't need to worry about optimizing gear weight if you're not competing for anything and just ride it for your own well-being.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Well, not necessarily. A bike that's got a full carbon frame also absorbs shock and vibration from the road better. This means you can ride longer distances without getting fatigued in places like your wrists or ass. Longer rides = more exercise.

But once you have a carbon frame, chasing grams on other components gets to be a bit silly.

[–] autriyo@feddit.org 2 points 6 hours ago

I've yet to ride a carbon frame for any amount of real distance, so idk how good they actually are.

But having a less harsh ride can also be archived by not using the thinnest pizza cutter tires at 10 bar. Especially if we care about time ridden and not avg. speed.

And it's going to be slightly harder to get the same speed out of comfy tires, so that's also more exercise.

[–] jeffep@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You could also just walk whenever possible, burns more kcals/distance

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

That's less efficient time-wise though, since it takes significantly longer to walk the same distance compared to riding.

Ie, riding 2 hours burns FAR more calories than walking for 2 hours.

[–] jeffep@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

I enjoy walking and don't mind walking even for 40 minutes in the morning. Not every day, but if it fits in the schedule it gives me more movement in practice than a bike (also due to some local circumstances).

The point was more generally that walking is a great alternative. Everyone hypes bicycles, walking has no lobby and is one of the healthiest things to add to your day.

Also, if the goal is to lose weight, cardio is fine but only supportive at best. It's way more effective to eat less calorie dense food than trying to run/bike it off. The difference between an hour walking and biking is negligible for most people compared to dietary changes.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

That's a stationary bike