Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Seems kind of silly to do that if you enjoy eating. It would be similar to fussing about the "cost" from more frequent calorie burning sexual activity.
No.
The CO2 footprint of food is quite large.
Also, one must eat more if they aren't losing weight. Meaning, that I'm slender (6'2" and 165 when in great shape) so I don't have spare calories to burn, meaning that I must need to eat more. At a certain point, a calorie-deficient diet is detrimental resulting in situations like comprimised immune systems ... so I think it's quite fair to consider food as a cost especially when insurance, maintenance, taxes, and even depreciation are considered when owning a car.
Petrol/diesel counts for the car, why shouldn't food count for cyclists. In fact, one really should consider reduced insurance premiums when considering the benefits of cycling, but I live in a place where everyone pays the same percentage (10% in UK, 8.8 in Germany and just in the tax in Sweden in Denmark), so it doesn't count for me.
It's not a "fuss", it's an interesting social experiment because I think that bike commuters overestimate their cost savings.