842
"As a cyclist, you claim to care about the environment, yet you consume food. Checkmate libs!"
(i.postimg.cc)
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
842 points (98.3% liked)
Fuck Cars
13783 readers
577 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not OP but I'll bite, the absurdly long and wordy article you linked vaguely summarizes some studies, then actually cites a study of 300 people that wore a fitbit for a week. It says nothing about how they calculated the calories burnt other than what a fitbit estimates. If you burn an extra 200 calories a day with exercise you are not going to make that up by sleeping harder or whatever unexplained mechanism the author fails to produce, you will either lose weight or consume more calories.
Well, the "vaguely summarised studies" were the answer to the exact issue you are raising. If that article was too long, then here's the paper itself:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040503
As it is even longer and even less approachable than the article, I will condense it even further: A group of Hanza, who are hunter-gatherers, had their metabolism measured. Under the commonly held assumption, group of people who spend their whole day travelling on foot, foraging and hunting, would consume more calories.
However, the study found they used and consumed the same amount of calories as any other group. They weren't more "efficient", they burned the same amount of energy walking as any other group. Even through the average distance the men travelled daily was 11km.
So yes, they do burn hundreds of calories every day walking, with a total daily calorie expenditure no different than somebody in the western world that has a 30 minute jog in the morning.
So the Hanza people used more energy than westerners but I guess if you can just say 7.6% more energy is not significant then I guess it isn't.
The paper you linked is literally saying the people that move more burn more calories.
And this is why I linked the article first instead of the paper.
The line you're quoting is the authors explaining they have a large enough sample size to detect differences. They could detect a 4.2% difference in their sampling of women with 97% confidence, at a 5% significance threshold. They are saying they are extremely confident they would be able to detect a difference, but didn't.