About bike shops for big people?

[reohn2]

No it's not a moral failing but it is a change through willpower.

Abstinence programmes simply don't work. There is decades of data proving this to be the case.
You are correct in saying you have to stop consuming so many calories. But before you do that you have to change the mindset that makes you want to consume them. That's the challenge. New types of physical activity give a sense of accomplishment and help people feel better about themselves generally. That's the value of giving a bike to someone who hasn't done exercise before.

Abstenence has to work,energy in,not enough energy out means surplus energy stored,the body stores such energy as fat.
I too think "programs" don't work,mindfulness ie; conscious awareness,can work but ultimately the person has to want to reduce their weight or whatever it is that's not healthy for them,the horse can be led to the water but it only drinks when it wants too.
I agree that physical activity leads to a more positive mindset,but the problem can be for soemone used to overeating is that they see food as the reward for the activity.This is the vicious circle that needs breaking from the outset and to get a person to see that the physical activity is the reward is the trick.

[random37]

This is the vicious circle that needs breaking from the outset and to get a person to see that the physical activity is the reward is the trick.

So you see why I think people shouldn't wait until they reach a lower weight before they get to ride a bike?

[reohn2]

This is the vicious circle that needs breaking from the outset and to get a person to see that the physical activity is the reward is the trick.

So you see why I think people shouldn't wait until they reach a lower weight before they get to ride a bike?

I see it but don't necessarily agree,IMO it depends on the individual and their size.

[random37]

So, at what point is a person not supposed to ride a bike? Should my partner not be allowed to go on the Monsall Trail on her Elephant bike, as she is over 110kg? What would make her fit to ride a bike? What about the nice 115kg lady who posted asking about a new bike last week? Or the 175kg man who asked at the weekend?

[pwa]

Yep, alloy components whittled down to next to nothing to save weight are a concern for me, and I am just a bit overweight. Personally, I don't trust the integrity of a lot of mainstream bikes with my own weight. And if a relatively conservative and sensible outfit like Thorn are stating a maximum rider weight whatever it is for their own bikes, I wonder how the wheels of a hybrid bought from Halfords might cope with an extremely heavy rider. Surely a Halfords hybrid will have weaker wheels. If I were setting up a bike for a very heavy friend I would work through every load bearing part, from the saddle and bars all the way down to the tyres to make sure it were as strong as it needed to be.

It is very much to be hoped that people wanting to cycle get to do just that, whatever their weight. If they can find a reliable bike to do that on immediately, great. I'd imagine someone in the 115kg sort of area would find a suitable bike if they looked carefully and avoided stupidly light bikes, but someone of 175kg might find it easier to stick to walking until they get some weight off, unless they are relaxed about ignoring stated weight limits for bikes.

[531colin]

Somebody mentioned the fifties earlier. Born in 1947, I remember a bit about the fifties. We had sugar, we had fat. Fish and chips were cooked in lard, so were your roast potatoes and Yorkshire pudding. We ate bread and dripping, or "mucky fat" if you're from West Yorkshire. Milk was just that, milk; pasteurised (in the towns, at least) but proper milk where you got a couple of inches of cream in the neck of the bottle. If you were posh you could get "gold top" Jersey milk, which had more cream. I suppose there must have been skimmed milk, because we had cream, but I don't remember people using it, maybe it went into factory-produced food, or the pigs got it. There was mayonnaise if you were posh, or salad cream for the rest of us.
What you couldn't do was pick up the phone and order a double-monsterburger with bacon and extra cheese on your credit card for delivery.
Several reasons for that; you didn't have a phone, or a credit card. The double-monsterburger hadn't hit these benighted shores from The Land of the Fat, and cars were the plaything of the well-to-do, not somebody looking for a bit of a cash-in-hand sideline delivering pizza.
And I think that's the major difference between the fifties and now. In the fifties, it wasn't mainstream for person with a sedentary lifestyle to eat at one sitting enough food to feed a family of four. Now it is mainstream to do more or less that. I can't tell you why, but its mainstream all right. Stuff like pizza, burgers, Chinese takeaway are all sold in staggeringly large "portion" sizes. Maybe its a way of the customer "getting his money's worth" or have I been in Yorkshire too long? But its just a "normal" thing to do. You can call it an "addiction" if you like, just as I can call it gluttony if I like, but neither of these is helping anybody. And it certainly isn't my fault if somebody wants to eat themselves into an early grave, although I have no doubt that the taxpayer will be expected to fund ever stranger "treatments" while a working man has to wait months for a hernia repair.
Social change causing odd dietary blips isn't new. The Temperance Movement caused widespread energy malnutrition in agricultural labourers. At a time when farm work was heavy manual labour and the pay and therefore diet wasn't good, the energy in beer was needed to balance input and output, and substituting tea robbed the workers of essential calories.
Long ago I heard a talk given by a man who had coined the term "muesli-belt malnutrition" . This described malnutrition in young children of educated, well-meaning people who applied their own low-fat, low-energy diet to their kids.

It seems to me that eating in the human specie is pretty far removed from providing our bodies with what the body needs; but balancing input and output isn't hard, is it?

[random37]

It is very much to be hoped that people wanting to cycle get to do just that, whatever their weight. If they can find a reliable bike to do that on immediately, great. I'd imagine someone in the 115kg sort of area would find a suitable bike if they looked carefully and avoided stupidly light bikes, but someone of 175kg might find it easier to stick to walking until they get some weight off, unless they are relaxed about ignoring stated weight limits for bikes.

You're putting the chicken before the egg. Access to the bike, swimming, and lots of other activities help you to lead a better life, which leads to more positive choices, one of which is eating better. People shouldn't be denied access to a beneficial sport because they are above a certain weight. We shouldn't try to put off people who want to do things to improve their lives.

When I started riding again after my hiatus from cycling, I was 140kg. I built wheels myself for a Rudge Biframe. A folding bike! They're still fine, I have never needed to true them. DRC ST19s on Nexave hubs in case you're wondering. Strong, but there are stronger rims. Without wishing to sound arrogant I am a better wheelbuilder than the machine that builds wheels for Halfords bikes. If my wheel was built by machine, would it have coped with my weight?

[pwa]

I built wheels myself for a Rudge Biframe. A folding bike! They're still fine, I have never needed to true them. DRC ST19s on Nexave hubs in case you're wondering. Strong, but there are stronger rims. Without wishing to sound arrogant I am a better wheelbuilder than the machine that builds wheels for Halfords bikes. If my wheel was built by machine, would it have coped with my weight?

That is kind of the point I was making about Halfords, who I introduced as the prime example of where most people would go to get a bike. And the wheels in particular would be of dubious strength.

[Cyril Haearn]

Perhaps people could quote their height and BMI as well as their weight
I am a wimp (well I mostly pedal smoothly) so I am quite easy on equipment, BMI maybe 26

[pwa]

I should add that while I worry that some parts of off-the-peg mainstream bikes may not be ideal for very heavy people, I do not think there is anything about heavy people that makes them unworthy of enjoying what the rest of us enjoy. A few of my friends have been significantly overweight, and they are not stupid or reckless people, they just have a particular problem in that one area. Every one of us has some sort of weakness, but very obese people are cursed with a very visible weakness, which in turn can make that weakness worse. See the person, not the weight.

[Oldjohnw]

It cannot be denied that, overall, these are truths:

1. Portion sizes are larger;
2. People are larger;
3. People exercise less.

[reohn2]

So, at what point is a person not supposed to ride a bike? Should my partner not be allowed to go on the Monsall Trail on her Elephant bike, as she is over 110kg? What would make her fit to ride a bike? What about the nice 115kg lady who posted asking about a new bike last week? Or the 175kg man who asked at the weekend?

Their size isn't the only factor,if someone is 120kg and a couch potato the shock alone could give them a heart attack,that's why I said it depends on the individual and why I agree mostly with PWA,for a totally sedentary person walking is the first step.
Someone who is 175kg needs to be very careful initially until the body is used to exercise and their weight is reducing.

EDIT:- equally so someone who's 120kg can be very fit indeed.

[reohn2]

It cannot be denied that, overall, these are truths:

1. Portion sizes are larger;
2. People are larger;
3. People exercise less.

And less people do less manual work,but eat more than previous generations did.

[random37]

And it certainly isn't my fault if somebody wants to eat themselves into an early grave, although I have no doubt that the taxpayer will be expected to fund ever stranger "treatments" while a working man has to wait months for a hernia repair.

The thing about the NHS is it is chronically underfunded, with the decisions made by people who will never need to worry about going private. It serves no-one to blame groups of its users, and if it is cheaper to have new treatments that work to prevent ill health rather than let people live half-lives and require massively expensive interventions in the future, that's a good thing. If you do want to blame a group of users, the vast majority of NHS spending is on the elderly. As a baby boomer, you could reflect on that.

It cannot be denied that, overall, these are truths:
1. Portion sizes are larger;
2. People are larger;
3. People exercise less.

Since I was born, food has become much, much cheaper. We loaded our food with fat and sugar to do this. And our public health programmes suggested we eat it! Remember "Bread should be the basis of every meal?". At every other point in human evolution fat and sugar were incredibly difficult for humans to get.
Is it any wonder some people have trouble regulating their intake?

[Oldjohnw]

And it certainly isn't my fault if somebody wants to eat themselves into an early grave, although I have no doubt that the taxpayer will be expected to fund ever stranger "treatments" while a working man has to wait months for a hernia repair.

The thing about the NHS is it is chronically underfunded, with the decisions made by people who will never need to worry about going private. It serves no-one to blame groups of its users, and if it is cheaper to have new treatments that work to prevent ill health rather than let people live half-lives and require massively expensive interventions in the future, that's a good thing. If you do want to blame a group of users, the vast majority of NHS spending is on the elderly. As a baby boomer, you could reflect on that.

It cannot be denied that, overall, these are truths:
1. Portion sizes are larger;
2. People are larger;
3. People exercise less.

Since I was born, food has become much, much cheaper. We loaded our food with fat and sugar to do this. And our public health programmes suggested we eat it! Remember "Bread should be the basis of every meal?". At every other point in human evolution fat and sugar were incredibly difficult for humans to get.
Is it any wonder some people have trouble regulating their intake?

We are, rightly IMV, advised to have meat less. Back to the 1950s. Meat was a treat.