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

Science Memes

19521 readers
1494 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
[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago (3 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.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Steel is real. The road feel difference between carbon and steel is negligible, steel is usually way cheaper, survives a whole lot longer, is more often built to widely compatible standards, is fully recyclable, and in my humble opinion just straight up feels better under you on a ride. As for weight, unless one is a pro race cyclist there is never any reason to chase gram shavings, you will almost always lose more weight and go faster by working out your own body. But FWIW my default steel rig is 19 pounds and competes on weight with most carbon builds.

[–] autriyo@feddit.org 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

It was really funny about a decade back watching the entire bike industry all at once acknowledge friction coefficients, and suddenly the tires all went from 24mm/90psi to 38mm/40psi. All because the roadies started riding on gravel.

You could argue that TPI tubes / tubeless made larger road tires practical. But we all secretly know it was because people at the time just thought thin tires looked cooler and "more aero".

[–] jeffep@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 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 12 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.