Virtus

Thanks for all of the responses; I didn't expect this to get as much attention as it has ha.

Just for a little background, I recently got an Instep bike trailer from a neighbor which I've been pulling my kids around the neighborhood on my old mountain bike. I got tired of the mountain bike "slog" so bought a Trek FX hybrid. I don't have much experience with road cycling but have started taking some solo fitness rides (nothing over an hour yet) and have really enjoyed it.

Just got me thinking if transitioning to a true road bike at some point in the future would provide any benefits I couldn't get on the FX; other than the obvious of being able to go faster/farther for a given ride time. I've got decent baseline fitness (I play hockey, row, and lift) but I'm far from a cyclists build at 220lbs. Also, my FX is red so I've got that going for me

rumrunn6

very good ok. one could still change those variables of intensity & get a more converse or more linear result. but even if it's not 100% lb for lb, the comparison shows an approachable target within closer reach with effort. so maybe the catch phrase should change, but to what? walking a mile is like like running 1.5 miles? or vice a versa? the beer is kicking in

ClydeClydeson

If you are enjoying it and accomplishing your cycling goals then that's all you can ask for. A lighter and faster bike - like a road bike compared to your FX hybrid - will allow you to ride faster with the same effort and further in the same time, and this is a motivating factor for many that gets them out riding more often, and that is the primary hurdle to overcome. But when pulling a trailer with a youth on board, riding as fast as possible is not the goal, actually it is not desirable for safety reasons.

wolfchild

Who is fitter a roadie or a mountain biker ??....What's better for overall fitness, road riding or mountain biking ??...IMO I would say mountain biking is way more demanding.

spelger

think it was equivalent fitness results, not time.

3alarmer 

...the one advantage of switching to a road frame I can think of might be positioning. You can set up a road frame for positioning that doesn't hurt as much on longer rides, and probably helps to use youir major muscle groups more effectively. But arguably you can do that on almost anything, if you spend some money on different components.

Note that it doesn't need to be a recent road frame. There are plenty of older 20 pound road frames out there, made from crappy, old, rusty, Columbus and Reynolds steel, that were once considered their original owner's dream bike, that would sit next to him in the living room while he binged on Dorito's and watched the most recent stage highlights from the TdF on time delay, on a black and white TV. Or so I've heard.

ofajen

I ran the calculators referenced in that CrossFit ad at shapesense.com and got a bit over 130 calories either way. Bear in mind I’m walking a 12 minute pace which I had to estimate from the trend, as the walking calculator doesn’t want to give a walking number below a 13 minute pace. Also it doesn’t care what your running speed is, which is probably ok but not precise. Anyway, the walking pace apparently matters and at 5 mph/12 minute pace is about equal to running in calories per mile.

Otto

qwaalodge

If it makes you ride more, that's the ONLY benefit you can get from a lighter/faster bike - from a fitness perspective.

But if you are determined and disciplined enough to be physically fit, any bike would do as long as it's dialed to your fit.

livedarklions

Wrong. He's asking if you get different fitness results if you ride equivalent amounts of time at equivalent levels of effort on different bikes.

livedarklions

So? That's equalized by moving the other bikes a greater distance.

That is what is known as a trivial observation.

Vintage Schwinn

There was a famous old disco song that annoyingly went: How Do You Like It......More, More More


**** IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT BIKE, as long as you like it enough to Ride .... ****


You could ride any bicycle from 1917 and if you ride regularly, you certainly can attain a level of fitness.
The bike itself ain't gonna do it like something magic. You do have to get on it regularly enough and turn those pedals.

There isn't just one way to ride. I do understand that this forum caters predominantly to riders of lightweight road-bikes with drop bars.
This is simply to make a point that there is nothing wrong with riding whatever you like.
The important factor is that you continue with your regular program of riding.
As you know, there are no laws prohibiting you from owning multiple bicycles.
You can if you wish to, ride differing types of bicycles, whenever/wherever*/however* you like to ( * not exactly, okay you can't ride a beach cruiser in an IRONMAN event, etc.........and certain styles/types of bicycles may or may not be better suited to a particular type of riding that you might like to do............ )
For example if you wish to ride very fast (e.g. compete in a triathlon), then you'll want something super lightweight, carbon, with tri-bars in addition to regular drop bars and a purposely aerodynamic helmet that looks like something from a science fiction movie. For example if you wish to cruise between 8 mph and 15 mph, any bicycle made since 1898 will do fine, including the brand new, near $100 Huffy Cranbrook single speed, coaster brake beach cruiser that Wallyworld & Tar jay sell today.
HERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT PLENTY OF FOLKS DO ENJOY RIDING TRADITIONAL SIMPLE BICYCLES: (sure, they aren't going anywhere fast....still havin fun)
https://thecabe.com/forum/threads/ph...nix-az.202267/

https://thecabe.com/forum/threads/wh...1973/page-2272

https://thecabe.com/forum/threads/ol...-oc-ca.202439/




A 1972 VARSITY or any electroforged really heavy Schwinn "lightweight" model (e.g. VARSITY/CONTINENTAL/SUBURBAN/COLLEGIATE/BREEZE/SPEEDSTER,etc)
from the bike-boom era would be a great bicycle IF YOU WOULD ACTUALLY GET ON IT AND RIDE IT REGULARLY........10 speed, 5 speed, 3 speed, or 1 speed it does not matter.* * unless you have any slight hills or larger than that, then you'd definitely benefit from having at least 3 gears...



----So the answer to the question ("For Fitness Does The Bike Really Matter ?? " )
ANSWER: NO
..............................whatever you currently have in your garage, or inside your apartment, sitting there next to sofa, just like a piece of furniture that hasn't been moved in more than 238 days, is gonna be more than sufficient to do the job. You can't wish it.....you have to actually go outside (outdoors..out of the building...) with your bicycle and actually ride it in the sunshine....(or partly-cloudy.....or overcast......etc.... DEFINITELY NOT IN THE DARK unless you're lit up like a Xmas tree, and you've increased your life insurance policy)


**** Choose whatever you'd like to RIDE, and buy yourself a HELMET and wear the damn HELMET every time you get on any bike. Don't be the person that decides to ride a beach cruiser, or whatever new or old bike, thinking that you don't need a Helmet on that type of bike, or any bike that will be ridden very slowly...............the concrete doesn't care!.....................concrete is harder than human skull.....................................The protection for your head may Not be necessary UNTIL it actually is........ Picture a smashed watermelon and recall the story of Humpty Dumpty.


MOST IMPORTANTLY: You Need to ENJOY & HAVE FUN riding whatever bicycle that you pick!! Fitness will be the byproduct of that regular, enjoyable activity.

rumrunn6

yes! get a 3rd bike! but seriously, I have 3 myself. MTB for off road fun, hybrid for rides w/ the family & a road bike for the best performance I can muster. stretch your wings! justify the expense any way you can. wanna tell your self or financial partner it's for fitness? go for it

wolfchild

From fitness perspective there is no difference between riding a 15 pound bike and a 25 pound bike...A lighter bike isn't going to make you fitter.

63rickert

If you believe the above that would explain a lot of your commentary here.

At speeds being discussed aerodynamics are barely a factor. Rolling resistance differences are not that great unless truly wretched tires are chosen. Some of us who ride our bikes have done lots of miles on basic MTB at speeds one or two mph below what we would do on a road bike. In a paceline it almost makes no difference at all. Biggest difference would be that when taking pulls at front on an MTB it will be a shorter pull. Personally have done many pulls at front above 30mph on knobs. And others are faster than that. It is not that difficult and I am not that good. The bike is not a problem. The problem is in your mind.

sloppy12

Maybe a little more upper body work putting the 25lb one on a bike rack.

cyccommute 

At 10 mph, 50% of energy goes into overcoming wind resistance. Last time I checked, 12 mph faster than 10 mph. Wind resistance is discernible at 6 mph but rolling resistance is higher.


Knobbed mountain bike tires are pretty much the definition of “truly wretched tires” compared to road tires. I’m not sure how you define “differences” either. A Continental Grand Prix at 100 psi has a rolling resistance of 8.3W. A Continental Speed King mountain bike tire has a rolling resistance of 17W at 35 psi. A more aggressive mountain bike tire like a Continental Mountain King Sport has a rolling resistance of 30W at 35 psi. Those are pretty large differences.

Talk about being a legend in your own mind Pulling a paceline at 30 mph on knobs? Maybe on a long steep downhill. Even doing 30mph in a paceline is a stretch. That’s Tour de France speed and you say there are people faster than you?

Go ahead. Pull the other one.

pdlamb

Relativistically speaking, is that red coming or going?

cyccommute 

Yes, the energy output for the various scenarios is the same but in order for those to be equal, other factors can’t be equal. Power (watts) is a measure of work/time. Work is a measure of force/distance. Force is mass x acceleration. If the power is the same in each of the above scenarios but the distance is different, the force has to change. The slower, heavier bike has to have more force applied per unit distance to move it for the power of each system to be equal.

The question doesn’t have a simple “yes or no” or “everything is equivalent” answer. Fitness isn’t measured by just the number of watts of energy used. Effort…i.e. force needed…is another measure of fitness. Energy used is a better measure of cardio fitness while effort is a better measure of skeletal muscle fitness.

Virtus

For the purposes of the question let's assume I don't have access to EPO either...

asgelle

In this context, the distance is the distance the pedals travel, and the force is that generated by the rider. The question does have a simple answer.

livedarklions

Finally, you actually get to doing something else other than lecturing on the bloody obvious.

I agree that "fitness" is the tough part to define in the OP question, but you haven't made that point until how many posts exactly? There will be differences in which muscles are worked in what manner, and that might affect the "fitness" results, but I'll be damned if I think defining let alone quantifying the importance of those differences for any individual rider sight unseen is something anyone can realistically do. Frankly, I don't know whether the differences in the mix of resistances (e.g., air vs. ground) overcome actually affect the quality of the workout or how much, and there's obviously no objective way to define the "best workout" without knowing what type of fitness is desired.

tomato coupe

No, work = force * distance

Force per unit distance? That's a non-sensical unit. And, no, the force doesn't have to change, because the velocity is different.
Bikes have gears. If you are producing the same power, and you choose a gear that gives you the same cadence, then you are producing the same force at the pedals, regardless of how much the bike weighs.

WhyFi

You trolling, right? Or are you just not willing to assume that these bikes have suitable gearing for their intended use, so as to keep the riders in a realistic range of both cadence and force?

blacknbluebikes 

Now it's a "shifting" question...

livedarklions

I agree with that--the issue is that we really have the same basic technique for overcoming resistance--i.e., pedaling--so, at least theoretically, there's no reason that we can't use the mechanics of the bikes and the distance length of the ride to equalize the force applied.

I tend to think that the biggest variable in what muscles are being worked and how is your posture on the bike. The pedaling technique is somewhat different between upright on a flat bar vs. an in the drops posture