🚀 go-pugleaf

> it still seems that there is a large potential environmental
> cost of providing fuel for the bike rider and of disposing
> of the wastes.  If we require a higher caloric output from
> people, what is the marginal effect on the environment of
> this extra energy output?

=o= I suspect you think that increased aerobic activity will
yield an increase in food consumed.  I believe that what it
typically does, actually, is prompt cyclists to supplant some
foods with others.

=o= The best fuel for aerobic activities are foods high in
carbohydrates.  If you'd consult books and periodicals about
bicycling (and other aerobic activities), you'd notice an
emphasis on such foods:  fruits and grains, mostly.  You'd
also find that many cyclists report a craving for such foods.

=o= This doesn't mean that cyclists would scarf down some pasta
as a between-meal snack.  High-carbohydrate foods tend to be
bulky.  What I suspect happens, instead, is that a cyclist will
have a meal centered on foods high in carbohydrates, rather than
a "normal" meal (which, in America, tends to be centered on some
type of meat).

=o= When talking about the effect on the environment, the type
of food involved is of primary importance.  In particular, plant
foods have far, far less environmental impact than animal foods.
And, as it happens, high-carbohydrate foods generally come from
the plant kingdom.

=o= It follows, then, that engaging in aerobic activities may
actually prompt people to have meals that are *better* for the
environment.  Surprise!
    <_Jym_>