My New Year’s resolution for 2018 was to do a piece of trackable activity everyday. I normally don’t go for such resolutions but having had serious injuries in the previous two years and with my fitness declining and my weight ballooning out to the heaviest I’ve ever been meant I had to take action. I will write a series of posts reflecting on this experience, most likely over the holiday break when I have more time.
It was worth a post today however as November 30, 2017, was when I weighed myself and I was shocked to see I weighed 134kg. So using body mass as a crude measure, a year later where am I? 117.5kg.
The below graph is an edited version of the one available via MyFitnessPal (Android app). It is possible to see how the different periods of the year impact my weight. I’ve highlighted two periods.
The big decline in the first half the year was managed by gradually increasing my activity levels. I began by commuting on our e-bike and gradually stepped up the daily activity. I was sensible and did not try to do too much at once. I compared the rate of weight loss to the level of activity in previous years to get a better sense of what was sustainable.
The red box is when I had a week of conferences in New Zealand followed by a month of sickness in my household. Plus it is in the depths of Canberra’s winter. This is when doing exercise was hard and I managed to do at least 20 minutes on the stationary bike everyday.
The green box largely coincides with second semester (at university where I work). Work was extremely busy this semester, more so than last year when I went for promotion!
For Q3 I worked towards riding in Fitz’s Challenge (tough 105km sportive), which was at the end of October. Since the end of October I’ve stepped up the intensity again. I’ve started erging again (indoor rowing, on the Concept 2) almost every morning as well as commuting and tracking everything I eat through MyFitnessPal. When I hurt my back in 2014 it was from doing too much on the ergt, so I wanted to wait until I had completed Fitz’s. In November I’ve working on around losing 1-1.5kg per week.
My first goal is 109kg. ([cough] The maximum weight for the carbon wheels I want [cough].) I’d like to get there my Big Canberra Bike Ride in March. My ultimate goal is sub-100kg, so I have at last another few months of work to go. My 2019 New Year’s resolution is primarily erg-related and aiming to do a marathon distance and a sub-6:30 2km, while doing a piece of trackable activity each day.
I’m going to delve into my Strava data at the end of the year in part 2 of this post.
Sianne Ngai’s concept of minor aesthetic categories was developed to think about “aesthetic experiences grounded in equivocal affects”. I worked to think through the concept of ‘meta’ as it circulates in popular culture as a similar minor aesthetic category. Like Ngai’s three examples — the cute, the zany, and the interesting — ‘meta’ is characterised by an inherent affective contradiction of both embracing facts or information as providing answers while at the same time multiplying the conditions of possibility for asking questions. ‘Meta’ does not describe objects or qualities of objects, but the distinct modalities of aesthetic engagement with para-texts and relations of engagement themselves. At stake is the logistics of culture and the circulation of discourse.
The cultural industry has fully embraced this mode of participation. Their role is to facilitate the production of centers of fixation or ‘lures’ around which fans organise. Of critical importance here is the excess of information or content, as David Turner argues in a piece on the transformation of music fandom, “With a surplus of music available, the “community” itself, or rather the sense of oneself as participant, is increasingly the point”.
The market effects of the blockbuster can be repeated, but only via the orchestration of fans from the bottom up. Saturation marketing does not work. Manipulating hype cycles without substantial pay off in the form of participatory listening also does not work. Repeating the distinction in Bennet and Segerberg’s work between collective and connective action, there is meta-detective work operating on a connective level, rather than collective level. To return to Turner:
The connection that fans in decades past built through purchasing music is now better observed through YouTube or even Instagram comments — fan engagement is connected to how much time one is willing to spend hunting for leaks or standing in line for a pop-up shop. The ideal fan doesn’t pay for a singular release, but instead spreads memes and creates enough online noise to keep their favorite artist trending: Recently the indie rock artist Mitski reposted memes in the run-up to her latest album, Be The Cowboy, to Instagram; fans returned the favor, throwing the hashtag #BeTheCowboy across social media. As the industry has monetized fan dynamics, moving toward participation as product, the perceived value of music has changed: it’s less about the artist, or even the artist’s relationship to their fans, than “engagement” itself.
‘Conversations’ are one way to examine interactions on social media. We looked at conversations as the unit of analysis in our Turnbull paper due out in MIA I think in a few months (based on our ANZCA paper). A simple point to make is that the ‘public conversation’ is not the same thing as ‘conversations on Twitter’ or even ‘Twitter publics’. Sure, there are conversations that happen entirely on Twitter (say a Trump tweet and reaction and cross talk), but these are not very useful as the basis of assessing public conversations. How Twitter users produce openings on other spaces, so that the circulation of discourse is necessarily cross-platform. The philosophy behind Cortico’s general approach looks interesting, but Twitter and Cortico will need to partner with other platforms.
There are broadly two ways to map the circulation of discourse. The first is derived from Bourdieu and maps a ‘field’ based on the social interactions between actors and the analytical construction of what is valued in the field (doxa). I think this is inherently flawed because of the reliance on a notion of faith (as in good or bad faith). Bourdieu’s Manet lectures are clear on this. The second is derived from Foucault and maps the discursive regularities between statements and the analytical construction is regarding the conditions of possibility based on ‘authority’ and composition of power relations (dispositif). What Foucault broadly called ‘eventalization’ (only ever in interviews, so the method has to be reverse engineered across a range of works). Interestingly, network graphing techniques seem to be aligned with ‘eventalization’ until you realise that they mostly rely on the providence of digital objects and platform-based network relations between them. There have been few attempts to map networks of discourse in spite of the platforms as this multiplies the work exponentially.
Analysing discourse in terms of the ‘health’ of conversations assumes a normative dimension that I think smuggles in assumptions about the good faith of actors. There are two problems here. First, analytics are unlikely to indicate how a particular user is ‘blinkered’, and therefore has an extremely constrained degree of freedom (in the systems theory sense), what Guattari called a low co-efficient of transversality or Warner might talk about in terms of the character of reflexivity. They will instead show how such blinkered users belong to tribes, because of the discursive coherency and affective congruence of discourse. So what? Second, Twitter does not appear to want to operate upon the good or bad faith of actors, and therefore take obvious steps to reduce the weaponised use of the platform (such as reduced functionality for new accounts until thresholds of participation are passed, such as number of followers or interactions). Getting over the normative assumptions about the good faith of users is an important first step.
In terms of balancing convenience with healthy lifestyles and environmentally conscious modes of mobility, e-bikes are at the top of many lists. Here is a good account of the benefits of e-bikes in Slate. The main problem for consumers is that most quality e-bikes are $2000 or more and often in the $3500-4000 price range. The alternative is to use an e-bike kit consisting of a motor unit and a battery and modify a bike into an e-bike. Extremely cheap e-bikes in the $800-1100 range should be avoided. This post outlines the process I went through in building an e-bike. It is a series of reflections on the key moments in the process of deciding on the elements of the project and then an evaluation of its success.
There was a specific goal for the build, but this existed in a much broader range of reasons for the project. The specific goal was to encourage my non-cycling wife to commute by bike. The other major reason, but which is more contextual and formless in scope, was that I also wanted to her to experience Canberra from the saddle. Canberra is a great cycling city and even through commuting on cycle paths alongside major arterial roads it is possible to see a side of the city that is otherwise hidden. Suburban and urban Canberra is framed by bush land and waterways that give a texture to cycle commuting that can be repeated in different ways in most other major cities.
There are a series of decisions about the design of e-bike as there are different ways of adding an electric motor to the cycling system. There are basically two major designs for electric motor location, either hub-based (‘in’ the wheel) or mid-mount (replaces the crank). Similarly there two major locations for the battery, either integrated into or alongside one of the major structural elements of the frame (normally the downtube, the part of the frame from the head tube — what the fork and handlerbars are attached to — to the bottom bracket — what the crank is mounted) or sitting on a rear rack. The cheapest systems replace a wheel with a hub-mounted motor and locate the batter in a rear rack. All high-quality factory e-bikes replace the bottom bracket with a mid-mount design and locate the battery in or mounted to the downtube. The other major design decision is whether you want a pedelec system, which is torque-activated by pushing down on the pedal, or cadence or speed operated, which is activated by motion by the cranks or the wheels.
After a process of researching many different combinations I chose the Tongsheng TDSZ2 mid-mount motor and a downtube-mounted battery. Endless Sphere is a very useful resource for researching previous builds and other people’s experience with different combinations. This is a good thread on the TDSZ2. It is currently the only mid-mount motor that has torque activated assist. A year ago there was only a 250-350w version, but now there are 500w and 750w versions. This was purchased via Ali Express. The major alternative to the Tongsheng TDSZ2 is the Bafang mid-mount series. The Bafang kits have a very strong following amongst those who want extremely high powered applications (1kw+). Bafang make a torque-activated system but it is designed for special frames. The TDSZ2 can be fitted to and replaces the crank in pretty much any modern bike. In Australia, e-bikes need to be 250w max to be legal.
The battery decision was slightly easier as the commute was 25-28km in total (12.5 to 14km each way depending on the exact route), there was not any need for a very large battery. I chose a smallish battery of 10ah that came with a charger, purchased from eBay. At the highest assist level with my riding and my daughter’s trailer attached, this provides about 45km of range.
Lastly, I took advantage of a “20% off” e-Bay code to buy a new Reid Urban X3. The Reid Urban range is basically a hardtail and rigid (ie no-suspension) mountain bike setup as a flatbar road bike. It is far from the lightest bike, but it is designed to be more robust than lightweight road bikes. They seem to be out of stock of this model. I ordered ‘large’ size to suit Anne’s height. The basic requirements for a base bike for this build were:
At least a 10 speed gear system. The Urban X3 comes with a Shimano Deore rear derailleur and cassette.
Hydraulic disc brakes for improved braking. it could handle the power of the electric system.
Robust design. Basically a heavy duty frame, probably based on a mountain bike or a commuter bike. A current alternative for those doing cycle path or road-based commuting could be a ‘gravel’ bike.
As well as the parts that came with the motor kit, battery and bike, I needed a suitable plug to connect the motor kit to the battery and I purchased some black heatshrink to cover-up the cabling from the battery to the motor. During the build I discovered the 11 speed quick links I already owned would not work, so I also bought some 10 speed quick links. I built and tuned the bike with an old 11 speed chain on it.
The mechanical work was relatively straightforward. Removing the factory crank was straightforward (there are youtube videos to assist this step if need be, like this) and the TDSZ2 comes with instructions for installation (here is a good youtube video). The battery mount bolts to the downtube. The two most time consuming aspects of the build involved, first, cutting down the wiring and fitting the plug between battery and motor, and, second, cutting down the left-hand grip (with a hacksaw) to fit the XH18 display (seen below, the ‘grip’ part adjusts the level of assist or in the menu mode can select different options).
I already have a pretty comprehensive set of home bike mechanic tools from building my other bike. A bike stand is extremely handy as is a set of specialist bike tools. Aldi had both as ‘special buys’ in late 2016 and they have been invaluable ever since.
$600 for bike with 20% off code (normally $749)
$400 for motor kit with Ali Express vouchers (normally $420, now it seems it is $450)
$349 for battery.
$15 total for plug, quick link for a 10 speed, and heatshrink.
Additional but not necessary: Toolkit was around $50 and stand was I think $60, but I already owned these.
Total around $1365.
Use and Further Design Changes
The e-bike project was extremely successful in its primary goal of providing the basis through which my wife could explore or not cycling as a commuting mode. Anne has since changed employment and I instead use the e-bike with further modifications to tow our daughter in a bike trailer.
I broke a spoke in the rear wheel after two weeks riding it 3 or 4 times per week and did not trust the wheelset to handle my bulk. The wheelset has been replaced with a set of 40 spoke 29er wheels.
Shimano e6000 175mm cranks. I have longer legs and the motor kit’s cranks are only 170mm.
46T mainring. Kit comes with a 42T. I can sit on much higher speeds when on the flat.
I fitted a longer stem (110mm over 100mm) that I had laying around and have also ordered wider riser handle bars. These would likely not have been necessary if it was an extra large size frame origainally.
The first point made in the key findings of the report is about how young people receive news from family and friends, including teachers (from the infographic). Trust is extremely high.
My problem with the reporting in the Conversation is focuses on ‘fake news’. ‘Fake news’ has tabloid ‘outrage’ news value among an educated audience, but it is not actually that interesting from a research perspective.
After being part of three Digital News Reports (2015, 2016 and 2017) the key critical question for me is, how do children and young people develop news literacy and their own sources of news as they mature? If they are accessing news via their family and friends, does this mean this is how they also develop news literacy? By imitating the critical relationships based on cultural values and social norms of their parents? In our research low levels of trust in mainstream news have been interpreted as relatively high levels of critical news literacy. How does this work in the context of young people developing their own news literacy if they have extremely high levels of trust in their primary sources of news?
Critical News Literacies?
What is the relationship between perceptions of bias (key finding 3) and the capacity to spot ‘fake news’ (key finding 4)? Arguably ‘fake news’ is irrelevant compared to the ideological framing of most of the mainstream news. The key development of 8-12 to 13-16 year olds seems to be the radical reduction in the percentage share of those responding to the survey who don’t know about various measures of bias (Figures 18-20). That is, there is roughly half the number of young people who responded ‘I don’t know’ to questions 13-16 year olds compared to 8-12 year olds. Rightly or wrongly having a view on the bias of news representations demonstrates critical or discerning engagement and this increases.