View Single Post
Old 02-04-19, 06:11 AM
  #21  
zjrog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,753

Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1991 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo, 1992 Trek 1400, 1997 Cannondale CAD2 R300, 1998 Cannondale CAD2 R200, 2002 Marin San Rafael, 2006 Cannondale CAAD8 R1000, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked 385 Times in 207 Posts
@YankeeRider, I gave a lot of consideration to a recumbent. There is a lot of merit to the form factor. I may still get one, but for my wife. She can't step across even women's frame bicycles anymore. I use one (True brand) at my cardiologist mandated cardiac rehab gym. I also use one (Life Fitness brand). I find the effort required for the same amount of time between the two, is more difficult on a real bicycle on the trainer. I measure that in how long before the neuropathy (non diabetic) in my feet becomes a factor, or my palms cramping on the handlebars. But primarily, the work my body puts into it. On the recumbent, I just don't seem to get as "sweaty". I feel the bike on the trainer gives me a better shot to improve more than just my legs for riding outdoors. Legs, rear end, hands, and posture.

The recumbent was instrumental in my knee replacement recovery. And in my thoracic fusion surgery. And to a large degree, my cardiac recovery. Prior to surgery, my resting heart rate was 105 or so. Currently in the upper 60s low 70s. And medicated, my BP was still around 145/80... In the cardiac gym, they routinely are recording 100/68 at the finish of my gym time... Unmedicated...

I will always use a recumbent at the gym.
zjrog is offline