No Sweat Cycling

Ginjafro

According to the February news letter of the Cyclescheme there is a sweat free method of cycling to work.
http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/home,februaryemployeenewsletterarticlesix.htm
Personally I found it to be gringing article and here is some snippets of pearls of wisdom:

"No Sweat Cycling: follow these guidelines and you’ll arrive at the office neither hot nor bothered!"

"there is a way to ride to work while staying smart and sweat-free at the same time: the no-sweat cycling method"

"A speedy approach may save journey time but add to recovery and image-repair time at the other end"

"resist the temptation to burn rubber when restarting from a stop"

"dismount a few minutes walk from the office to give yourself a bit more time to cool off"

"hit hills at a snails pace and reach the top without any need for unsightly wheezing"

"Normal everyday clothing is the uniform of the no-sweat cyclist"

"Men may wish to undo collars to allow heat to escape"

"the best no-sweat option is a set of panniers that prevents the common cycling complaint known as ‘sweaty back"

"Although the no-sweat way is not intended to get you fit, you will inevitably find that fitness levels do slowly increase"

Good advise or pretentious crap?



Boris practising the "No Sweat Method"

Moodyman

It's good advice if you don't have the option of a shower and change of clothing.

But, if like me, you do, then anything short of 95% effort is not acceptable.

The Rookie

I don't have the option to shower, I change in a meeting room or toilets, I pedal hard, but as long as you have fresh clothes and remove sweat before it gets 'stale' it's not an issue, I do dress 'cold' so will be quite chilly at the start of my journey, about right midway and then starting to get hot towards the end (unzipping as I go) but its about managing your body, dressing up is a sure fire way to trap the heat and get sweaty!

I'll put it in the pretentious crap category!

"Normal everyday clothing is the uniform of the no-sweat cyclist" - so make yourself overheat and sweat more than!

I note the mention of helmet hair, no mention of avoidance unless you look at the picture of the lady with no helmet on, arguments aside I think that shows a disregard for the logical safety action of wearing a helmet.

Simon

Valy

As far as wearing a " business uniform" while cycling, the top half should be okay, but trousers may develop a shiny behind after a while. I guess the material does depends I got some err, 100% polyester ones - crease resistant, but do get shiney.

The article has merit though. Instead of spending 10-20 minutes getting yourself into some kind of presentable state, you can just arrive a lot less sweaty and a few minutes later compared to going fast...


Though if you have anything other than quite short hair I think the helmut hair is had to fully avoid.

wgwarburton

The Beginner wrote:

...arguments aside I think that shows a disregard for the logical safety action of wearing a helmet.
Simon

*sigh* Here we go again... It's not a logical action, it's an emotional one. There's no hard evidence that wearing a helmet makes you safer. By all means wear one if it makes you or your friends and family feel better but your implicit assertion above is wrong.

Please don't perpetuate the myth. Thank you.

Cheers,
W.

The Rookie

WGWarburton wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

...arguments aside I think that shows a disregard for the logical safety action of wearing a helmet.
Simon

*sigh* Here we go again... It's not a logical action, it's an emotional one. There's no hard evidence that wearing a helmet makes you safer. By all means wear one if it makes you or your friends and family feel better but your implicit assertion above is wrong.

Please don't perpetuate the myth. Thank you.

Cheers,
W.

No Myth though is it, reducing the peak decelerations of the skull (given that there is next to no cushioning as standard so peak acclerations seen by the skull when impacting ground or a hard point on a car are very high - in the tens of G, even if the impulse duration is quite short) by cushioning it with 'anything' reduces the chances of a brain injury (concussion being a brain injury), I do realise statistics can be made to say almost anything you want, which is why i'll stick to engineering facts! In the absence of hard facts for OR AGAINST the benefits of wearing a helmet I'll stick with my engineering assessment.


Simon

wgwarburton

Hi,
I think you may be confusing performance in a lab with that in the real world. It's pretty clear that if you go around getting whacked on the head with a hammer a bike helmet may help... It also seems clear that wearing helmets doesn't make people safer.

Your "engineering assessment" is unsound since you don't have enough data to draw a conclusion.

Cheers,
W.

beegee

Please, no helmet discussion, it's nearly poet's day !

Back to the article, I thought it was okay. You are probably not its target, being already road-hardened cyclists. My feeling is that one of the turn offs for many people about cycling is the unprofessional image at the end of the journey and anything that addresses that problem must be good.

Ginjafro

Personally I don't give a toss about some spurious helmet argument which completely misses the point. The article in my opinion was complete nonsense and patronising (even if it did make me laugh to my self in an awkward sort of way), if it wasn't in the Cyclescheme Newsletter it would have made a great spoof!. Surely, if business types are that worried about their image and sweat they will continue to use other means of transport and avoid heatwaves.

iwearshorts

Ginjafro wrote:

Personally I don't give a toss about some spurious helmet argument which completely misses the point. The article in my opinion was complete nonsense and patronising (even if it did make me laugh to my self in an awkward sort of way), if it wasn't in the Cyclescheme Newsletter it would have made a great spoof!. Surely, if business types are that worried about their image and sweat they will continue to use other means of transport and avoid heatwaves.

Surely the article is factual in that if you follow the advice you won't break in to a sweat.

rolf_f

WGWarburton wrote:

*sigh* Here we go again... It's not a logical action, it's an emotional one. There's no hard evidence that wearing a helmet makes you safer. By all means wear one if it makes you or your friends and family feel better but your implicit assertion above is wrong.

I think you are getting a bit confused here. Irrespective of whether there is no hard evidence that wearing a helmet makes you safer (but if you don't think it does, by all means take your eggs out of the carton and leave them loose in the bag before you leave the supermarket!) that does not in itself mean that it isn't safer to wear a helmet. A lack of proof does not in itself disprove a theory so to suggest that wearing a helmet is purely an emotional action is misguided. After all, your reasoning works just as well to conclude that not wearing a helmet is a purely emotional action. Unproven (debatable) theories are not myths.

I was going to post the whole thing on the No Sweat Cycling. As far as I am concerned, irrespective of what gear I use, by the time I've got up the hill outside my house (ie under 3 minutes from the front door) my shirt and trousers won't be crisp enough anymore. Then there is the remaining 9 miles......

Besides - it sounds soooo boring! And surely this "Find a speed you can maintain without unduly raising your pulse and avoid all temptations to race other cyclists (or buses!) that overtake you." is simply against the rules

fossyant

My HR automatically revs up to over 90 bpm as soon I move the bike - just warming up.

unixnerd

I have a skin condition that makes sweating quite painful. It's OK in summer but in winter I have to wear an outer layer to keep warm. Finding a garment with sufficient zippable air vents helps to reduce sweating a lot. If I'm beginning to sweat I often have to hold back the power level when climbing long hills. All in all it sucks, but it's better than not cycling at all.

rolf_f

unixnerd wrote:

I have a skin condition that makes sweating quite painful. It's OK in summer but in winter I have to wear an outer layer to keep warm. Finding a garment with sufficient zippable air vents helps to reduce sweating a lot. If I'm beginning to sweat I often have to hold back the power level when climbing long hills. All in all it sucks, but it's better than not cycling at all.

Have you tried merino base layers? Not sure they do what you want but they certainly reduce the feeling of sweatiness to me. Might be worth a go (ie trying the non synthetic route) if you haven't already.

wgwarburton

Rolf F wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

*sigh* Here we go again... It's not a logical action, it's an emotional one. There's no hard evidence that wearing a helmet makes you safer. By all means wear one if it makes you or your friends and family feel better but your implicit assertion above is wrong.

I think you are getting a bit confused here. Irrespective of whether there is no hard evidence that wearing a helmet makes you safer (but if you don't think it does, by all means take your eggs out of the carton and leave them loose in the bag before you leave the supermarket!) that does not in itself mean that it isn't safer to wear a helmet. A lack of proof does not in itself disprove a theory so to suggest that wearing a helmet is purely an emotional action is misguided. After all, your reasoning works just as well to conclude that not wearing a helmet is a purely emotional action. Unproven (debatable) theories are not myths.

So- while I don't agree with you on this, I also do not want to restart a pointless debate.

What I would like is for people to refrain from asserting, explicitly or implicitly that helmets clearly make you safer. ("..the logical safety action of wearing a helmet..."), as that "meme" discourages cycling. Less cyclists= more risk to those that remain.

I was going to post the whole thing on the No Sweat Cycling. As far as I am concerned, irrespective of what gear I use, by the time I've got up the hill outside my house (ie under 3 minutes from the front door) my shirt and trousers won't be crisp enough anymore. Then there is the remaining 9 miles......

Besides - it sounds soooo boring! And surely this "Find a speed you can maintain without unduly raising your pulse and avoid all temptations to race other cyclists (or buses!) that overtake you." is simply against the rules

:-) Good idea to let people realise that you can use a bike to potter around without getting too hot & sticky. The current trend to see cycling as a sport marginalises cycling for transport... which is easier if you don't have to faff around at your destination in order to look presentable.
I wouldn't be surprised if this puts people off, too, so an article to higklight that you don't have to be a sweaty speed merchant to use a bike is good.
Not so much fun, but as a means of getting from A to B it still beats walking!!!

Cheers,
W.

The Rookie

WGWarburton wrote:

What I would like is for people to refrain from asserting, explicitly or implicitly that helmets clearly make you safer. ("..the logical safety action of wearing a helmet..."), as that "meme" discourages cycling. Less cyclists= more risk to those that remain.

I called it logical and have now described the logic for you, I note you've made no effort to counter the logic, if you disagree that its logical, then you have to counter the logic, anything else is waffle really.

Simon

wgwarburton

The Beginner wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

What I would like is for people to refrain from asserting, explicitly or implicitly that helmets clearly make you safer. ("..the logical safety action of wearing a helmet..."), as that "meme" discourages cycling. Less cyclists= more risk to those that remain.

I called it logical and have now described the logic for you, I note you've made no effort to counter the logic, if you disagree that its logical, then you have to counter the logic, anything else is waffle really.

You argument appeared to be that cushioning your head against an impact will reduce the risk of head injuries. Whilst that's intuitive, it isn't backed up by the evidence available... on the contrary the figures that suggest that serious injury rates are unaffected by such a common-sense measure imply that there may well be something else going on... hence the concern that helmets may make some injuries worse.

It also pre-supposes that cycling is sufficiently high-risk that wearing a helmet is necessary to mitigate the risk; again, something not supported by the evidence. If it's logical to wear a helemt for cycling then it would be logical to wear one for other everyday activities that carry a small risk of a head injury.

My contention was therefore that there isn't enough supporting evidence available for you to draw a logical engineering conclusion that helmets make you safer.

Cheers,
W.

rolf_f

WGWarburton wrote:

So- while I don't agree with you on this, I also do not want to restart a pointless debate.

WGWarburton wrote:

It also pre-supposes that cycling is sufficiently high-risk that wearing a helmet is necessary to mitigate the risk; again, something not supported by the evidence. If it's logical to wear a helemt for cycling then it would be logical to wear one for other everyday activities that carry a small risk of a head injury.

Just sayin'

Ginjafro

Big Clue, the title of the thread is "NO SWEAT CYCLING". So if anybody else wants to completely miss the point and drone on about helmets go away and find another thread or start your own!

Now, where were we, cycling so slowly that its propably not worth bothering?

The Rookie

WGWarburton wrote:

My contention was therefore that there isn't enough supporting evidence available for you to draw a logical engineering conclusion that helmets make you safer.

More waffle, helping you once every 10,000,000 miles would still be safer wouldn't it, it would not be enough of an increase in safety to justify it, but it is still safer. No-one knows what the statistics really show, so I use Logic, you can use Feng Shui holistics and a medium if you prefer that version of logic! :?

Back on topic, the other daft bit is coasting to a hill, personally for no sweat cycling it is more logical to maintain momentum and use the gears appropriately so you are 'slogging' up the hill as little as possible rather than being at low (colling air) speed for more of the climb.

Simon

Shark Sandwich

Moodyman wrote:

It's good advice if you don't have the option of a shower and change of clothing.

But, if like me, you do, then anything short of 95% effort is not acceptable.

Me too, but i think you typed 95% instead of a 100% right?

El Gordo

I like this. So much of what you see of cycling in the media suggests that the only way to ride a bike is to get dressed up in a daft lycra outfit and put an ugly helmet on your head.

It is entirely possible to ride a bike wearing normal office clothes, normal shoes, no silly hat, ride gently and saunter into the office looking fresh.

thelawnet

The Beginner wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

What I would like is for people to refrain from asserting, explicitly or implicitly that helmets clearly make you safer. ("..the logical safety action of wearing a helmet..."), as that "meme" discourages cycling. Less cyclists= more risk to those that remain.

I called it logical and have now described the logic for you, I note you've made no effort to counter the logic, if you disagree that its logical, then you have to counter the logic, anything else is waffle really

If you wear a helmet it makes your head bigger so you are more likely to hit it. A helmet is a few milimetres of polystyrene compared with say airbags and a metre of crumple zone and hundreds of kilos of protective equipment in a car. The amount of deceleration afforded by a helmet in comparison is utterly risible and not worth bothering with.

That's my logic, we can all come out with it, but anything short of proper scientific study, which you certainly haven't undertaken, is in your case most certainly waffle.

Valy

thelawnet wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

What I would like is for people to refrain from asserting, explicitly or implicitly that helmets clearly make you safer. ("..the logical safety action of wearing a helmet..."), as that "meme" discourages cycling. Less cyclists= more risk to those that remain.

I called it logical and have now described the logic for you, I note you've made no effort to counter the logic, if you disagree that its logical, then you have to counter the logic, anything else is waffle really

If you wear a helmet it makes your head bigger so you are more likely to hit it. A helmet is a few milimetres of polystyrene compared with say airbags and a metre of crumple zone and hundreds of kilos of protective equipment in a car. The amount of deceleration afforded by a helmet in comparison is utterly risible and not worth bothering with.

That's my logic, we can all come out with it, but anything short of proper scientific study, which you certainly haven't undertaken, is in your case most certainly waffle.

lol, I would like to hit your head off a wall with and without one

Initialised

WGWarburton wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

...arguments aside I think that shows a disregard for the logical safety action of wearing a helmet.
Simon

*sigh* Here we go again... It's not a logical action, it's an emotional one. There's no hard evidence that wearing a helmet makes you safer. By all means wear one if it makes you or your friends and family feel better but your implicit assertion above is wrong.

Please don't perpetuate the myth. Thank you.

Cheers,
W.

Last time I came off I landed on my helmeted head, if I wasn't wearing it I'd have a head injury, fractured skull, brain damage. You can't argue with the laws of physics and logic.

Back on topic, I think whether you can get away with a sweatless commute depends on your body's sweatiness. I can only do it on really cold days.

Ginjafro

....

davidmhodgey

Woah mentioning helmets on a cycling forum is like throwing a mouse into a room full of cats. Something like that.

I think with sweating, you can either be cold and not sweat too much or warm and sweaty. I wear my running top/shorts for cycling as they're tight fitting to wick away sweat. I wear baggies on top so I don't look like a fud

Red Rider

thelawnet wrote:

If you wear a helmet it makes your head bigger so you are more likely to hit it.

Can't argue with that. I've lost count of the number of times I've gone over the handlebars having hit a pothole and my (helmetless) bonce has magically hovered a helmets-width from the tarmac. Just imagine if I'd been wearing a helmet! The extra 200g would have counteracted my heads hovering ability and, in all likelihood, killed me. Fact.


Back on OP - things that make you sweat are far more interesting than things that dont. Sitting at work smelly after a hard ride is one of those things. It gives work that added "edge". Will I get fired today for not giving a sh*t? Do I care?

Blacktemplar

davidmhodgey wrote:

I wear baggies on top so I don't look like a fud

Haven't heard anyone use that word in absolutely ages! Chapeau

Oh, and on the facts/no facts or study/no study helmet debate, here's my 500ml of petrol;
http://www.fiab-onlus.it/andare/helm_gb.doc

Blacktemplar

And to complete the full litre of incendiaries....

Does it strike anyone else as odd that in our marvellous little iWorld where all things are possible (including putting a man on the moon and nanotechnology) that we still can't design a bike helmet that is (a) cool (b) functional and therefore (c) desirable ????

Clarion call for all you budding product designers out there.....