Faster cyclists are more attractive, study says

edds
edds Posts: 156
edited February 2014 in Commuting chat
Glad there are finally studies to prove what we already knew:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26034659
edd
--
FCN 4-5; Giant SRC 3; formally known as edduddiee

Comments

  • talius
    talius Posts: 282
    Damn right.
    Merckx EMX 5
    Ribble 7005 Audax / Campag Centaur

    RIP - Scott Speedster S10
  • edds wrote:
    Glad there are finally studies to prove what we already knew:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26034659

    and that's relevant to anyone here, how? :wink:
    Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
    2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
    2011 Trek Madone 4.5
    2012 Felt F65X
    Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter
  • Um that's more power/money which is a attractive to a point.

    Certainly for men, the shape road tends to shape one ie thin with little upper body build is not in it's self attractive, your mtber track etc guys tend to be heavier built which tics more box's.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,551
    I'm not especially fast, but I did have to point out to one of my colleagues that I'm faster than him.
  • secretsam
    secretsam Posts: 5,117
    Faster at what? Cycling or, err, other things?

    I'm pug ugly either way, BTW :(

    It's just a hill. Get over it.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    The problem with the way that the results have been reported by the BBC (which is probably hopelessly badly) is that they have lined up a collection of cyclists who are all extremely good. You are comparing very good with ever so slightly even better.

    I'm more inclined to Rogers angle - the 'faster' cyclists do not look better for physical reasons - just that they are at the top of their profession and that probably shows. If I'd done this study, I would have also subsetted the 'slower' riders and then brought in a group of riders from the top of the second tier to compare them against. That way you may get an angle on what effect being top of division two rather than bottom of division one has.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • fat_tail
    fat_tail Posts: 786
    EPO has facial enhancing effects as well ?
    Ridley Fenix SL
  • MrSweary
    MrSweary Posts: 1,699
    Ahh but did you know that attractive cyclists are also faster..?
    Kinesis Racelite 4s disc
    Kona Paddy Wagon
    Canyon Roadlite Al 7.0 - reborn as single speed!
    Felt Z85 - mangled by taxi.
  • SCR thread must be full of stunners.
  • majormantra
    majormantra Posts: 2,094
    Seems to me that using stage race results is a rather flawed way of determining who is "faster" in any case. Granted, they said they compared TT performance as well (although it's not clear how they related the two), but the Tour isn't a test of who is the fastest cyclist, it's a test of who is best at winning the Tour. (Which is down to a great many variables.)
  • majormantra
    majormantra Posts: 2,094
    Although in fairness, some of this is addressed in his methods section:

    http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 6supp1.pdf
  • Although in fairness, some of this is addressed in his methods section:

    http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 6supp1.pdf

    It's a narrow selection ie only riders in the TDF done with a web survey does rather sound in danger of being self selecting. Looks like rather poor science.

    Healthy looking guys/gals I suspect would score rather better even if they would drop out of the TDF rapidly. As a whole TDF riders while there riding is impressive, they don't tend to look like fit healthy folks, unlike say chris hoy/Victoria P and so on.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    As a whole TDF riders while there riding is impressive, they don't tend to look like fit healthy folks, unlike say chris hoy/Victoria P and so on.

    It doesn't actually matter. As long as there is a consistency in the sample set then what counts is relatives rather than absoiutes 'Faster cyclists more attractive". The study could be repeated for track cyclists and it would be interesting if there was a difference but, the point is, is that the study is not about which type of cyclist across the board is the best looking.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • MrSweary
    MrSweary Posts: 1,699
    ManiaMuse wrote:
    SCR thread must be full of stunners.

    Well, I wouldn't call myself a stunner - devilishly handsome, yes. 8)
    Kinesis Racelite 4s disc
    Kona Paddy Wagon
    Canyon Roadlite Al 7.0 - reborn as single speed!
    Felt Z85 - mangled by taxi.
  • ManiaMuse wrote:
    SCR thread must be full of stunners.

    why thank you 8)
    I ride with God on my mind and power in my thighs....WOE betide you!
    I know I'm not the fastest rider on earth BUT I KNOW I AM NOT the slowest!!!
    If you Jump Red Lights in order to stay ahead you are a DISGRACE!!
  • Faster = winner. Surely it is the fact that success is more attractive?
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • andyb78
    andyb78 Posts: 156
    Rolf F wrote:
    The problem with the way that the results have been reported by the BBC (which is probably hopelessly badly) is that they have lined up a collection of cyclists who are all extremely good. You are comparing very good with ever so slightly even better.

    I'm more inclined to Rogers angle - the 'faster' cyclists do not look better for physical reasons - just that they are at the top of their profession and that probably shows. If I'd done this study, I would have also subsetted the 'slower' riders and then brought in a group of riders from the top of the second tier to compare them against. That way you may get an angle on what effect being top of division two rather than bottom of division one has.


    This - the results from such a limited sample are bobbins - they'll give you an idea of the perceptions of a group on a very small, elite group of people where the differentiation is tiny. Whilst the methodology might be "correct", what it actually tells us is very little.
    Road bike FCN 6

    Hardtail Commuter FCN 11 (Apparently, but that may be due to the new beard...)
  • kieranb
    kieranb Posts: 1,674
    I think the study was conducted pretty well, if anything they handicapped themselves with restricting themselves to pros who did the tour, thus the difference between athletes is very small, yet they still found a large and significant effect.
  • goonz
    goonz Posts: 3,106
    Knew there was a reaon I was such a babe magnet.
    Scott Speedster S20 Roadie for Speed
    Specialized Hardrock MTB for Lumps
    Specialized Langster SS for Ease
    Cinelli Mash Bolt Fixed for Pain
    n+1 is well and truly on track
    Strava http://app.strava.com/athletes/1608875
  • Initialised
    Initialised Posts: 3,047
    Most attractive = Best genes = Best performance

    Makes sense if you're familiar with the "Good Genes" hypothesis of attractiveness as expressed in human faces.
    I used to just ride my bike to work but now I find myself going out looking for bigger and bigger hills.
  • Agent57
    Agent57 Posts: 2,300
    Great news!

    Oh, wait... faster... Arse.
    MTB commuter / 531c commuter / CR1 Team 2009 / RockHopper Pro Disc / 10 mile PB: 25:52 (Jun 2014)