Every single person is different and the latest research shows that 90%+ of people who lose weight by a calorie controlled diet alone will have gained more weight than they initially lost by dieting within 5 years,

Indeed, but I think the problem is the term “going on a diet”. If you go on a diet, your not going to change anything. It’s like ‘going on a holiday’ 90%+ come back. If you want to stay there you need to emigrate, which is a whole different state of mind.

I have a feeling that people lose at lot of weight in the first week by maybe just depleting their carb stores a fair bit. As I understand they require a fair bit of water, so if depleted your weight loss mostly consists of water loss.
Once that’s done your down to more typical body fat loss and that rate of loss will be small compared to your natural variability in weight.

Just create 50 new segments covering the 100 metre long sections where you didn’t stop for a breather.

The 3 min test is supposed to give you your Max HR though.

Do you mean this?
https://wattbike.com/uk/guide/cycling_tests/3_minute_aerobic_test

That doesn’t give you your maximum HR.
It gives you the maximum HR that you attained during those three minutes of exercise.

My gut reaction would be that you probably haven’t recorded your max HR. I can’t reach mine outside the final 10 metres of a race.
Given that it’s so hard to reach it with any accuracy, it might be better to base training around your approximate lactate threshold HR, which is roughly your average HR for 30 minutes flat out.
Also note that your max HR on a bike is not the same as your max HR running. Typically running will be 5-10 bpm higher.

That’s a very clear line in terms of who was in the wrong – the driver broke the law, the cyclist was mainly misjudging the situation.

Again, the cyclist is 100% breaking the law.

I don’t think anyone here is absolving the lorry driver of fault, but this is not the video to use to highlight the appalling driving standards the cyclists have to deal with.

Me too. Clicked on the link and got instant gratification.

None of the passengers waved though.
Probably roadies, or Swiss, or Swiss roadies.

I ride drops for all my road riding. Last year I did 5k miles and not knocked off once. I think you’ll find it’s the lousy law-breaking driving of the lorry and failure of the cyclist to ride according to the risk presented to him from the law-breaking lorry driver that are more at fault here.

Make no mistake, the man on the bicycle is breaking the law.
Had he simply obeyed the law, irrespective of his crap riding ability he wouldn’t have hit the lorry.
29 years of cycling every day to work and not knocked off once. Probably cursed myself now. :)

Great effort!! It’s got to be a terrible mental struggle when you can see the record slipping out of reach.

Never really liked their music at the time – I guess I was just too young. But this documentary made me realise how great they were.

I’m not sure there’s sufficient information to give an answer. The amount it will vary will depend on both the amount of training you do, the amount you’d done in the previous say decade, and the difference in intensity between your on and off season.
This simplest answer is go out a do an hour as hard as possible (so preferably on a road route where you don’t have to slow down) with a HR monitor and use that value.

Needs to learn to cover the brakes too.

Hopefully a wake up call for that cyclist, cos he isn’t going to last long with that level of observation.

Mark Rylance’s eyebrows, and Claire Foy’s heaving bosom made it for me.

So; right then; well; now; ok; and many others. The French would go, “alors…”

So, I was just about to mention that the Italians use Allora for pretty much everything, when I saw your post. So I guess the word must have some common ancestry.

What aP says.
Also a bit more thought needs to go into your choice of words. It’s not worth changing on the survey, but as an example –

“Presence never known Presence rarely known Unsure Presence sometimes known Presence always known”

You’ve got two absolutes there – “Presence never known” and “Presence always known”, neither of these will ever be true, so probably shouldn’t be options. Certainly be cautious of putting any absolute statements in your project report.

Toby Jones seems to be in everything at the moment!

Everybody’s zwifting[/url] now.

Same as wilburt and sputnik.

I’m beginning to see where dailymash are coming from.

Bin.

“Apples have cores, cyclists don’t”

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/insightzone/features/article/izn20130617-Busting-The-Core-Myth-0

Well of course I’m familiar with a bicycle lane.

I’d say 2-3 years time max for Ultegra. The electronics costs peanuts, and shimano are far better placed to absorb R&D costs than any existing power meter maker. There’s a similar level of technology in an ultegra DI2 mech as a power meter, and they knock them out for not much more than £100 quid now.

Crap :( Hadn’t realised he’d had a second attack.

Cool!
Not a great picture, but I made a widget to hold a DI2 control box.

It pops into a spare cable hole and can just be pivoted out of the way to get at the forks.

Kenny, she only did that because the paperwork for transfer is less than exit+recruitment :)

That HR is an abbreviation of Human Remains says enough.

I think one of the things with cycling is the exponential increase in drag from wind-resistance, masks a lot of difference in performance. I.e rider A could be putting out 10% more power than rider B and you’d notice very little difference in speed on the flat compared to two runners with the same power difference. Obviously hills expose differences more.

I think a lot of you are exaggerating the dificulty of a 3h marathon a bit,

I think that’s along the lines of the fallacy of the self made millionaire. I.e. the assumption that they got where there are by hard work, and thus other people could do the same if they work hard.
A sub 3h marathon is relatively easy if you are on the right side of the physiological performance distribution curve for doing a sub 3h marathon. If you’re on the wrong side, it’s very difficult, or just plain impossible. I’d guess from marathon results that most people are on the wrong side.

Even the editorial in the journal it was published in thinks it was bollocks.
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=2108913

The double standards baffles me

That’ll be down to your crassness.

A decoration for unloved hedges.

Is 78kg actually healthy

Yes, 78Kg is actually healthy.

I’m no good with parrot fashion learning,

But I imagine you can do 4 * 128 without much thought :)

How much slack would you cut someone who ducked under the tape at an MTB race to win?

The spirit of enduro init.

I’m so stoked by this that I’ve just kung-fu kicked the house down!!

I’ll wait to read the paper and if his p value is 0.06 or something I’ll let him off. Heck I’d accept a 90% confidence for this type of study. But to say that the results are not scientifically significant then try to claim some kind of “practical” significance and to talk about differences of 12sec as if that was absolute (with no mention of errors) bugs me.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of the compromise wheel size and these results suit me just fine. But I don’t think they do much to improve the public understanding of science.

Yup, I agree entirely.
BTW I recognised one of those researchers in that video. I think he might still be an STW member, so you there’s an outside possibility that you might get an answer straight from the horse’s mouth :)

‘m really quite annoyed by that. As a scientist you don’t state that the results are not statistically significant then spend ten minutes talking as if they were. That’s just misleading. This study wasn’t sufficiently powered to produce a significant result. So go do another study that is. Anything else is just bad science.

Not really no.
Statistical significance is an artifice, and without knowing what threshold has been set you’re not in a position to comment on the validity of the results. Let’s say they’ve set a 5% level threshold and their dataset comes of with a 5.5% probability of being incorrect – whilst not then meeting the required significance, it’s still pretty likely to hold true. And of course had they set a threshold of 6% then their results would count as statistically significant.
Sport science is one of those areas where the results are rarely statistically significant to typically used significance levels because the datasets are typically too small. That doesn’t mean the results are invalid though.
The problem is not with the science, or scientists, but with people not understanding what statistically significant means.
Bit like when people say evolution is only a theory.

She tells me how she used to visit the previous owner who died of cancer and used to stay bedridden in that room…

Did she mention if the person had a tendency to knick tools ?