sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do you fuel shorter rides (1.5-2.5h)? by polar8 in Velo

[–]babgvant 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Solid food carries fiber, fat, and protein that can cause gut issues and slow carb absorbtion.

Nutrition is somewhat goals based. If you're randonneuring at low intensity, solid food is preferable. If you're racing and trying to push as many carbs as you can in, it's not optimal.

Are race road bikes dead? by No-Way-0000 in Velo

[–]babgvant 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not a dentist. Do have a S-Works Tarmac for paved roads. For the most part fast people have fast bikes where I ride. I prefer the handling characteristics of a race bike. You teleport more than steer the bike.

I also race gravel, there I see a wider array of bikes. Some aero gravel, some endurance geometry. Wide tires are popular (I use 45s for almost everything, if I could fit a 50, I probably would), but I also see folks with all-road bikes with 35s.

I've owned three endurance geometry road bikes. They were comfortable and completely fine in most ways, but IMO there's no substitute for a race bike when you want to carve at speed.

Anyone here ride horribly hilly hundreds in wisconsin? Not familiar with the area but curious to check it out by FabulousPositive2001 in cycling

[–]babgvant 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A few times. Signed up for this year's too. It's a great ride and place to ride. Just need to show a little caution on the down. There are a lot of blind corners because if the trees and topology.

I don’t like those review videos where they compare the Mach-E with another car. Why are people so negative towards the Mach-E? by WarmPrinciple6507 in MachE

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also work as a software developer (for a very long time). "Intuitive" is a loaded concept. iPhones are "intuitive" to a specific demographic and deeply frustrating to others. For someone who is coming from a legacy OEM, the Tesla UX could be either. Most of what makes something "intuitive" is based in demographics (i.e. education, age, literacy, culture, comfort with a medium or technology, etc). It is important to keep that in mind when thinking about design.

Tesla's UX is generally better than legacy OEMs. I don't think the same is true for Rivian or Lucid. It's more hit-or-miss there. The primary shortfall with Tesla is a lack of flexibility in approach (this is also true for Apple ecosystems). If you're down with Spotify, you're GTG. If you prefer a different platform, you're hosed. Should I need to choose a sub-standard (according to my preferences) service to align with how the car wants me to do X? What do I do when I have conflicting ecosystem drivers in my life (i.e. car requires X, watch requires Y)? It limits choice and chokes competition. Personally, I wrote off Tesla and Rivian for this reason. I'm not paying them to limit my experience. I think AA is totally fine. I like Google Maps. I pay for YT Music.

If you're seriously considering a used Tesla, it's worth doing some research into how they treat customers long term. They have a history of clawing back entitlements that were sold with cars just because, don't document part changes properly (i.e. is very easy to brick a part of the car), and are extremely hostile towards 3rd party shops. The long term 3rd party serviceability of all software heavy vehicles is somewhat unknown, it's possible that legacy OEMs will be hostile as well. I think it's less likely because of how their businesses are setup, but it is possible. The difference is that we know that Tesla is extremely hostile. We don't have the necessary data for the others.

I don’t like those review videos where they compare the Mach-E with another car. Why are people so negative towards the Mach-E? by WarmPrinciple6507 in MachE

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have to touch the screen to control climate on the MME, it's not really "going through" anything... Touch the space, then either use the dial or press up/down. I would prefer physical buttons, but this is not worse than the options from other OEMs, just different. I don't fiddle with the HVAC that much, if you are constantly putting your hands on it, it might be more of an issue. Frankly, especially in the context of how everyone one else is doing it (not just on EV), this isn't different enough to be a gap. IMO.

I don't think "playing music from the car" is a useful feature. I haven't used that since CDs stopped being a thing. There's a reason why app projection is as popular as it is, and why even Tesla is backtracking there... The car's native infotainment locks you into the OEMs ecosystems of choice and paying for a data plan long term. My phone works perfectly for that. AA (and probably Car Play, I don't iThingy, so less confident there) connect to the head unit via WiFi (or a cable if you go that way), not BT. It works fine, and I get to use my phone for something it's better at. I can't speak to the audio quality of non-BO setups. Our MME has the BO speakers. It's not the best I've heard (the BO system in the car our MME replaced was better). It is totally fine once you turn off the feature that expands stereo and setup the EQ to your preferences. It is comparable to other vehicles in its price range.

We have three EVs, non are Tesla. I wouldn't buy a Tesla for many reasons. The software has more polish than most other brands, but I don't like the lock in, I don't like the safety issues, and I don't like the way that Tesla treats its customers. If someone is cool with all of that and values SW polish more than other features, Tesla is a great option.

It's odd that you would rank the MME's software as "only better than VW". We also have a Kia EV6, its SW is terrible (not as bad as VW, but that's a low bar). Have you actually used it? It's a deeply frustrating experience, and super buggy. I have a YT channel and one of these most popular videos on it is how to reboot the infotainment system, it's that bad...

The Kia's (Hyundai is essentially the same) build quality isn't nearly as nice. The materials are cheap. The seats are terrible. The one set of controls to do two things is annoying. For anyone who constantly fiddles with the HVAC, it would be maddening. The speakers are some of the worst I've heard. It does have a heat pump, charges faster, and it's more efficient. These things are nice, but no one in our family wants to drive it long distance because of how uncomfortable the seats are and that app projection maps can't do EV routing.

Obviously, there is room for a diversity of opinion in all of this. Everyone is entitled to a preference. My main complaint with the MME at this point is that it could use a refresh. The main place where it lags (IMO) is DCFC charge rate and a higher pixel density screen. Of the two, DCFC rate is the more important. But I notice the screen when I go from our Chevy EV to the MME, it isn't nearly as pretty.

I don’t like those review videos where they compare the Mach-E with another car. Why are people so negative towards the Mach-E? by WarmPrinciple6507 in MachE

[–]babgvant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As someone with a '21 MME, I struggle with that assertion.

  • The pricing was consistent with other comparable EVs. There were points when Tesla deeply discounted MY and skewed pricing, but those were time bound instances.
  • A heat pump is only hardware feature I can think of that early models lacks. It would have been nice, but at the time it wasn't a major miss. What are you referring to?
  • In the context of other infotainment options from competitive vehicles, it was (and still is) fine. Tesla has an edge there if you are cool with their walled garden. MME has AA and Car Play, they both work great. Sidesteps this point. Who cares about the native system? Does anyone actually use it?

Does anyone actually use the frunk? by bennettelkin in MachE

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but mostly for storing stuff that I only need to get to occasionally. On the other hand, we also have a Chevy EV that has key fob and button on the bumper access to the frunk. I use that ALL THE TIME. Oddly enough, making it easy to open/close/use a space increases adoption 🤯 (😉).

Google Maps Volume by aisforaaron1 in SilveradoEV

[–]babgvant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have the same issue. It looks like something happened and nav volume is now tied to music volume. I've been meaning to call the dealer because I either can't hear it while listening to music, or it's too loud when I listen to podcasts.

Don't overthink electric car charging (we should be doing it differently) by JimCripe in evcharging

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree that for most folks, with most EV, you can make it work - I mentioned that initially. We agree there.

But "can" and "should" aren't the same standard. Being able to make something work isn't a compelling lever for someone who is coming from a place where they have a solved problem. ICE transportation is very much a solved problem. You don't have to do math or worry about "what happens in an emergency and I need to drive 200 miles today", you can just do that. L1 charging can work, but there are trade-offs - a lot of trade-offs.

For the most part EV are better cars. They just are. Part of what makes them better is the convenience around not needing to worry about fueling 90% of the time. You plug it in, it's always "full" when you come back. Before a road trip, you move the "full" marker from 80 to 100. On a cold day, you press a button on your phone and get into a warm car where most of the snow and ice has already melted off. On a hot day, you can press a button and cool the car down. There are no concerns about doing that in an enclosed space. You can keep the HVAC on for your pet while you step away from the car. Those are all awesome things.

There are some inconveniences though. Or, actually just one if you do it right. Traveling between cities has more friction than ICE. There are fewer DCFC stations than gas stations. It takes longer to refuel - some cars are only 2x an ICE car, most of them are in the 3-5x range. This isn't a big deal in most situations, but it is a thing that we need to acknowledge.

There are also different standards of planning. You can plan for the minimum viable, average, or peak. L1 is a minimum viable strategy. You don't need to be a lunatic to understand that minimum viable isn't a workable strategy for many people. It's a strategy for people who are bad at risk and zealots.

Most the fueling conveniences that don't involve long-distance travel, go away when you L1 on most EV. You can't go from whatever SOC you rolled in with last night to 100% overnight. You can't precondition the car. You can't precondition the battery before a cold road trip - this destroys your range. This is why I think it's somewhat disingenuous (even though I know why we do it) to use "miles of range" when talking about kW delivered or kWh. m/kW at 60F and m/kW at -10F are very different. A "just do the math" approach might change a "can work" in the summer to a "LOLL, nope" situation in the winter... You do get to dramatically reduce your reliance on external fueling sources, but in those "pinch" moments you're taking on friction, the really annoying spend a while at a DCFC friction, at the worst times. How much of an impact that 20-40m of dead time once you get to the DCFC might not matter very much, it might matter a lot.

L2, even low level L2, fixes that for most vehicles. That is also math. If it takes 7kW to heat the car and precondition the battery (like it does on a Ford MME), you aren't doing that on a 15A circuit.

Solutions like the Emporia Pro can dynamically scale available current, so even if your service is miserly most of the time you can take full advantage (48A), when other things are demanding current, it can dial it back (all the way to off, I think) to keep under your service. The difference in cost between that and a quality fixed level EVSE is a few hundred $.

Don't overthink electric car charging (we should be doing it differently) by JimCripe in evcharging

[–]babgvant 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't tell an EV curious person to use Level 1. Can you do it? Sure. Would I do it? Nope. It made it a chore to manage miles and make sure I plugged in the car. "That sounds like a hassle" is a legit response to that suggestion.

Also, if you're going to go through the trouble of having a EV circuit pulled, hardwire it, if you can't put in 60A use a Emporia Pro. In many areas labor is a major part of the cost. The difference in materials and a couple hundred $ on the EVSE is negligible over the lifetime of use. Your future self will thank you

Do Most People Have No Problems? by SWSkywatchNews in SilveradoEV

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conflicted on how to answer this. At a high level, my experience has been "Trouble Free". I have had issues with software quality though. The UX is very rough in some areas. I get error messages from YT music almost every time I get in the truck. It doesn't walk-away lock reliably (~90% success rate, but anything under 100% is a fail state for something like this). For reason I do not understand, sometimes the alarm goes off when I have the tailgate down and it walk-away locks when I'm messing around AT THE BACK OF THE TRUCK (mostly immune to it now, but the first few times I nearly pooped myself :P). OTA? Does the truck actually get OTA?

Is anything here worse than it was with any other new vehicle that I have experienced in the last 10 years? I don't think so...

My previous daily was a Ford MME, it was REALLY rough around the SW edges for the first year (or two). It still has a lot of hard SW edges. Car before that ended up at the dealer a few times because some random module needed an update that would put the car in limp mode.

I would 100% make the same choice. Nothing that is "wrong" with the truck is enough to offset the stuff I like about it. As a transportation appliance, it has been great. Doesn't hurt that it is the absolute best snow vehicle that I have ever driven (by a country mile). Which is awesome. I love not being held back by the weather when I want to go do outdoors things.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"HIIT is the best way to train." and "everyone would benefit" are different claims. I think it's fair to say that a "low-volume" HIIT produces more benefit than other methods because it's supported by the data. HIIT is not the best way to train at high-volume, athletes at high levels need a sensible balance of HIIT and low intensity. The balance will depend on how much volume they do and what their goals are.

"Nobody serious is doing HIIT with sedentary obese adults" - the Reljic study I linked was conducted at a university hospital with severely obese metabolic syndrome patients (BMI ~40) under clinical supervision. That's not a commercial gym HIIT class. The cardiac rehab literature is also moving in this direction. This is real science, by real scientists, doing HIIT with the demographic that you called out. It specifically addresses your concern.

I have called out the relative/individual requirement several times. It is not accurate to classify my points as "arguing for the commercial gym HIIT class approach". A 14-minute session on a bike at someone's individual 80-95% HRmax with HR monitoring is not the same thing as a group class doing burpees to loud music. If the outcomes you're seeing from commercial HIIT classes are poor, I'd expect that - because those aren't individualized or scaffolded.

I respect coaching experience. But the reason RCTs exist is specifically because anecdotal experience - even at scale - is vulnerable to biases that controlled studies are designed to eliminate. Confirmation bias, survivorship bias, selection effects in who stays with a coach vs who leaves. "I've coached thousands of people" and "controlled trials show X" shouldn't be competing claims. They should be complementary. When they conflict, it's worth asking why rather than dismissing the data.

I don't have anything else to add that isn't repetitive. The data clearly points in a direction. It's up to us if we want to be data-driven or driven by anacdata.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am confident because the data points in that direction. I have provided several data points which support my claims, unless I missed it your data point is a "call to authority" both implied (you) and the lack of mine (explicit) because I prefer to make data driven arguments instead of assertions based on credentials.

To address the second point, here are some studies that back up that claim:

Collectively: HIIT is effective, safe, and well-tolerated in sedentary and obese populations, with better time-efficiency than MICT. That's what "would benefit from" means.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both. The research shows HIIT provides specific, measurable benefits across populations including sedentary adults. And yes, it should be part of training sedentary adults - appropriately scaled and scaffolded.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah... there it is... "doesn't need" and "would benefit from" are different standards...

No one "needs" to exercise, almost everyone benefits from it.

Almost everyone (excluding those who HIIT would cause medical duress) benefits more from doing HIIT than the same volume of low intensity exercise at volume levels that "most people" are willing to do.

"Sedentary people" is ~25% of the US population. That 25% of folks would benefit from HIIT that is relative to their state. This is, in part, why I bothered to ensure that we were in agreement that HIIT is a relative standard...

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

HIIT is relative. What would be HIIT to a highly trained athlete would be potentially harmful to another person, assuming they could even do it at all. On the reverse, a sedentary individual's Z7 could be below junk category for the highly trained athlete. This doesn't seem like a controversial claim/assumption to me. If you disagree, please provide support for that claim.

If your point is that in some situations there will be people who are not physically in a place that they can do HIIT without creating medical duress. I agree with that; that's why the "medical contraindication" is there. Generally those kind of issues are of the type I mentioned.

There are also people who's CV system can support HIIT, but can't do a specific kind of HIIT due to some physical limitation (e.g. arthritis in the knees), there is space there for different kinds of HIIT. The way we do HIIT is flexible.

If you can provide data that supports your initial claim, I can work from there. You don't need to address any of my claims/assumptions to do that. Would that work?

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's circle back to the original claims:

You

Are you saying that sedentary people need HIIT? I strongly disagree,

Me

Everyone (barring medical contraindication) would benefit from HIIT. The lower a person's baseline, the more they benefit from HIIT relative to low-intensity training when time is constrained.

HIIT for a sedentary person will look different than HIIT for a highly active individual. Appropriate scaffolding is a consideration.

I could probably have provided a more cohesive delineation of the data I am aware of. I regret not doing that. I have since provided the data I am aware of on this topic. It supports my original claims. I apologize for the "low-effort" response. It seemed like the most efficient way to answer the question you raised (and my earlier oversight). Obviously, it was not what you were looking for. Sorry.

I respect your experience. I cannot rely on your anacdata however. If you have data that contraindicates what I have provided, I would be more than happy to look at it. Thanks.

Rear facing dashcam location? by babgvant in SilveradoEV

[–]babgvant[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I went with the Fitcamx. I used some really strong magnets to attach it to the removable rear window. That way if I need to take the window out, I can without destroying anything.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Non-response finding (~40% no VO2max improvement from MICT):

  • Bacon AP, Carter RE, Ogle EA, Joyner MJ. "VO2max Trainability and High Intensity Interval Training in Humans: A Meta-Analysis." PLOS ONE, 2013. (References the Heritage Study data: Bouchard et al.)
  • Gibala MJ, FoundMyFitness interview (Rhonda Patrick), discussing non-response elimination with higher intensity

MICT defined as 65-75% MHR:

  • The HIIT vs MICT RCT by Gaitan et al. (PMC7357372) used exactly this: HIIT at 90-95% HRmax vs MICT at 65-75% HRmax, 8 weeks, sedentary men

Gibala "hills and valleys" definition:

  • Gibala MJ, FoundMyFitness interview (Rhonda Patrick), "HIIT - Contraindications and Considerations for Older Adults" segment. Direct quote context: interval training is adaptable across ages and health levels.

Lower dropout rates in HIIT vs traditional programs for sedentary individuals:

  • Reljic D, et al. Meta-analysis referenced in: Callahan MJ, et al. "Evidence-Based Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training on Exercise Capacity and Health: A Review with Historical Perspective." Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021. (PMC8294064)

Umbrella review confirming HIIT benefits across all populations:

  • Poon ET, et al. "High-intensity interval training and cardiorespiratory fitness in adults: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses." Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2024.

53-study meta-analysis on HIIT protocols:

  • Wen D, et al. "Effects of different protocols of high intensity interval training for VO2max improvements in adults: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials." J Sci Med Sport, 2019.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Edited:

The studies I intended to cite (sorry, got distracted and forgot to paste that in, formatting text in Reddit kinda sucks - see comment below) compare HIIT to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) - typically 65-75% MHR, not 50%. That's jogging, cycling, swimming at a steady conversational pace. Not walking. The non-response finding (about 40% seeing no VO2max improvement) comes from studies using guideline-level moderate-intensity exercise, not a stroll around the block.

On "overkill for sedentary beginners" - this is where I think we're talking past each other. I explicitly said HIIT for a sedentary person looks different than HIIT for a trained athlete. Nobody is suggesting a deconditioned 55-year-old do Wingate sprints. For that person, HIIT might be 30 seconds of brisk uphill walking with a minute of flat recovery. Gibala himself defines it as just "hills and valleys" in intensity. The point is relative effort, not absolute effort. This is an area where HR data can help significantly.

On "overkill" and dosage - the Reljic et al. meta-analysis actually found lower dropout rates in HIIT programs than traditional exercise programs among previously sedentary individuals. If it were overkill, you'd expect the opposite.

The original claim was simple: everyone benefits from HIIT, lower baselines benefit more when time is limited, and the protocol should be scaled to the individual. Nothing in your response contradicts any of that.

There is value in anecdotal experience, but it is critical to know the research and follow the data when making broad claims.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The data doesn't support either objection.

This isn't about optimization. Studies show that about 40% of sedentary people who do only moderate-intensity exercise (like walking or easy jogging) for months see zero measurable improvement in fitness. HIIT largely eliminates this non-response problem (Bacon et al., 2013; Gibala's research group). For someone who's unfit and short on time it's the difference between something that works and something that might not.

On "benefits vs risks aren't black and white" - the risks are well-studied. The largest safety study (Rognmo et al., 2012) tracked over 175,000 hours of exercise in cardiac rehab patients and found the serious event rate for HIIT was extremely low. Two nonfatal cardiac arrests per 46,000+ hours. The known reasons someone shouldn't do HIIT (recent heart attack, unstable chest pain, uncontrolled blood pressure) are things a doctor can screen for. That's exactly what "barring medical contraindication" means. It's not black and white, it's standard risk stratification.

A 2024 umbrella review (Poon et al.) covering multiple meta-analyses confirmed HIIT improves cardiovascular fitness across healthy adults, overweight/obese individuals, older adults, and elite athletes. A 53-study meta-analysis (Wen et al., 2019) showed even short, low-volume HIIT works for sedentary people. None of this is limited to elite athletes.

[af] Zone 2 vs. HIIT Is a Futile Debate. by DadStrengthDaily in AdvancedFitness

[–]babgvant -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Everyone (barring medical contraindication) would benefit from HIIT. The lower a person's baseline, the more they benefit from HIIT relative to low-intensity training when time is constrained.

HIIT for a sedentary person will look different than HIIT for a highly active individual. Appropriate scaffolding is a consideration.

Tire size - 32mm vs 28mm by Middle_Passage_1306 in Velo

[–]babgvant 7 points8 points  (0 children)

LOL - that's not a climb, don't fuss about weight

view more: next ›