Happy Feet

To bring it back to the OP. This argument is similar to saying you get the same workout from running flat track as you do from running hills. The rationale being that on the flats you can run harder to match the intensity of hills.

Technically true. But few people actually approach running like that. If you run hills, you are trying to up intensity.

tomato coupe

Oh man, you are one confused puppy.

Happy Feet

Not really. I'm a physical rehab assistant. Exercise theory is what I do.
Five days a week I use an exercise bike with variable resistance.

tomato coupe

Okay, you're one confused physical rehab assistant.

Happy Feet

Sure man, when you have nothing...

Ad hominen is soooooo boring. It does not inspire confidence in your position when you have to resort to it.

PeteHski

You are getting totally confused between resistance and effort. I can ride my 13kg mtb at an "effort" of 200W or ride my 8kg road bike at the same 200W effort. The resistance is higher on the mtb, but the effort is exactly the same. You just go slower in a lower gear on the mtb. Both cadence and power are identical. This is why most bikes have multiple gears. So you can modulate your effort level accordingly.

BTW the part I've highlighted in bold above is nonsensical! An effort is a particular power output e.g. 200W. A resistance is a particular force acting against you. There is no requirement for any "consistent increase in effort throughout the exercise time". With all due respect, I can see from this statement that you simply don't understand the physics.

guachi

You are wrong. Very wrong. And it doesn't inspire confidence that a rehab assistant is so wrong.

10 min @ 200W @ 90 RPM is exactly the same effort no matter how much the bike weighs and how much I weigh. I'll just go faster or slower. Just like if I have a 20 mph headwind/tailwind. I'll just go slower/faster.

PeteHski

Another non-sensical statement. If you ride at x Watts on both, then the bike with less resistance just goes faster. You only have to put more effort into riding the bike with more resistance if you want to match the speed of the lower resistance bike.

Happy Feet

Sigh... this is what happened last time.

Yes, effort at a set wattage is the same but unless you have a power meter (most people don't) you don't think in terms of watts. Thats an abstract concept. You think in terms of perceived effort. That's why people are commenting that running is harder than cycling. Because the advantage afforded by efficiency leads to a perceived (and usually practical) decrease in effort. People generally don't work as hard cycling as they do running because they don't have to.

To the point of riding a high or lower resistance bike at the same watts requiring the same effort. Yes but you have to pedal faster or harder. This is like saying you get as good a workout using a machine set at five than at ten, if you go faster. True, but people practically don't use exercise equipment that way. Generally they increase resistance to increase the effect of exercise.. They also add more weight to the barbell. This is the basis of resistance training.

PeteHski

No you don't have to pedal faster or harder to produce the same wattage. That's a ridiculous thing to state. Your analogy with a machine set at 10 and 5 is really like comparing a high vs a low gear. They would correspond to different power levels.

Perceived effort correlates very well with power output too. Seriously you are digging yourself into a hole with this and I'm not at all surprised the same thing happened in previous discussions.

Yes, you pay a premium to decrease resistance of your bike, but you don't have to increase tempo to compensate for it. You just go a bit faster at the same tempo. You might be one gear higher, that's all.

Happy Feet

What?

Pray tell. With two machines of varying resistance, be they bicycles or exercise equipment, how do you burn the same wattage without varying input.

Start digging.

Another analogy.

You have a gas guzzler and a fuel efficient car. The goal is to burn gas. You argue you can burn just as much gas with the fuel efficient car - if you put your foot into it.

True. But why pay more for a fuel efficient car that you have to put your foot into, if the goal is burning gas.

This really comes down to whether the goal is exercise or going faster. More efficient means going faster but that doesn't always equate to more exercise.

PeteHski

Wattage IS the input. The output is how fast you go, which depends on the resistance. So my input power can be say 200W on whatever bike you give me as long as it has a sensible set of gears for its purpose.

At some point maybe you will eventually understand this or maybe not.

Your analogy with gas guzzler vs fuel efficient car is hopeless on all sorts of levels. Fuel efficiency has literally nothing to do with this argument about light vs heavy bikes.

PeteHski

They are not mutually exclusive goals.

PeteHski

Just to answer this directly. You just ride in a lower gear with the bike that has more "resistance". For example that's why mountain bikes conveniently come with much lower gears than road bikes. It's also why you ride in a lower gear against a headwind or up a hill. Your wattage can remain the same, while your speed varies with the resistance.

Happy Feet

Perhaps you shouldn't resort to hyperbole when describing another person's opinion. Hopeless? Not if the goal in exercise is to burn calories, which for many it is.

The points between input and output are pedantic. You know what I mean. People often speak of putting out x watts as a measure of their performance ie. I try to maintain x watts. Without a watt meter some use HR, without a HR monitor they use speed. Without a speedo they use perceived effort.
But you still haven't said how you maintain the same level of input on machines of varying resistance if you don't alter a variable.

A disconnect in these discussions has been that between cycling for exercise or cycling for cycling sake, with many defending their stance based on the latter. Much of the benefits of a higher tier bike relates to improving a person's cycling ability, rather than exercise. It's why people who are into cycling generally buy more expensive bikes than those who are only seeking exercise. They (the exercise only) instinctively understand that buying a bike that maximizes performance for racing isn't needed for achieving the goal of exercise. They is no practical benefit.

Happy Feet

Ok. But it Isn't put in the form of a question.

However, some posts ago I said I own three types of bike (well more but three for this discussion). A fixed gear, a single speed, and a geared bike.

In terms of workout, the FG provides the hardest, for a given time or distance. The SS second, and the geared bike third. This is because each level of gearing becomes more efficient. Yes, theoretically, each could be ridden harder/faster to equal the first but in practical terms that doesnt happen. People tend to take breaks if they can.

Now if each successively geared bike costs more, at what point do you justify spending more for a bike you need to.ride in a harder fashion (disregarding efficiency) to match the first. IF exercise is the primary goal?

PeteHski

Nobody as far as I am aware is suggesting that you NEED a faster bike to get more exercise.

The points between input and output are not pedantic when someone clearly doesn't understand their relationship.

Your efficiency in burning calories is not affected by the weight of your bike.

Perceived effort is almost as good as a power meter.

I have said several times how you maintain the same level of input power on machines of varying resistance i.e. GEARS!!!

PeteHski

All you are really saying here is that your FG forces you to ride harder. You can ride just as hard on your geared bike if you choose to. The only reason that doesn't happen is because YOU choose not to.

If exercise is the only goal, then of course it doesn't matter what bike you ride. If your goal is exercise AND performance then it does matter. But in no way does the faster bike compromise your exercise goal.

Happy Feet

This thread is about exercise and not cycling for cycling sake. A more efficient bike (better term than faster) doesn't compromise your goal but it doesn't aid it. At best, you can pedal faster or in a lower gear to equal the effort required for a less efficient bike but you pay a premium to do that.

What I am saying is that practically speaking, yes the FG is harder to ride. Theoretically you can ramp up your output to overcome all sorts of efficiencies in design but, practically, people don't.
If I want an easy ride I'll probably choose my geared bike on a flattish route. If I want a harder ride I'll go FG. If I want a harder workout I'll hill climb or uphill mountain bike. If I want a harder work out I'll run and if I want the hardest workout I'll trail run up and down hillsides. Theoretically, I could match a hillside run riding a geared bike on the flats but practically, that's not how it works. Those who come closest to that level of intensity are not cyclists seeking exercise but cyclists seeking peak performance in cycling for its own sake.

I do all of those activities. I'm not committed to one form only and theoretically extrapolating what I think could happen with the others. You can say it's just me but it also jibes with what others have said in terms of recognizing what gives a more intense workout. People find running a harder workout than cycling. Theoretically you can make a cycling workout just as hard, but people generally don't. It's also why a FG bike is perceived as a harder workout. There is no place to take a break or adjust gearing.

One problem with thinking cycling can be made "just as hard" is that, after a certain point, high cadence becomes a skills problem for the average cyclist. You can run a very high cadence on an efficient bike to increase your output to try to match less efficient forms but beyond a certain point that takes some training. People begin to train in cycling to cycle better, not to exercise harder. Similarly, you can put it in a lower gear and mash to get a more difficult workout but the people who choose cycling over running because of bad knees etc.. also won't want to mash.

There is a difference between the theoretical and practical, between what people could do, and what they usually do. People tend to use the efficiencies in bikes to reduce the workload which in exercise terms, results in a lesser workout.

Happy Feet

Missed this point.

Of course it's relevant. Gas guzzling or fuel efficiency directly relates to burning calories. This is probably the single greatest reason for lay people to exercise (not those engaged in conditioning for a sport); weight loss via burnt calories. Many people want the form of exercise that burns the most which is why many also see running as superior (in that regard) to cycling. You lose more weight running than cycling. Equally, a bicycle that is more efficient requires less energy to perform a set task. In racing that efficiency is used to go faster than the opponent. If the goal is exercise and not performance one may not want to spend a lot buying a bike that requires less energy output to perform a similar task to a less expensive (efficient) model. Can you pedal a more efficient model more to burn just as many calories - sure.. by why buy efficiency on one end and compensate for it on the other.

tomato coupe

Actually, very, very, very wrong.

mschwett 

it hurts my head how complicated some people are making this.

cycling is more efficient than running:
if you cycle a mile on flat ground, you’ll burn less calories than running a mile, especially if you ride slowly.

some bikes are more efficient than others:
if you cycle a mile at low speed on flat ground on the drops on a crabon überbike with super low RR and excellent components, you’ll burn less calories than sitting upright on a heavy old beater with a rusty chain.

…. but when you’re cycling or running for exercise sake, you could fairly easily use the appropriate amount of effort / power (whatever your body is capable of) to burn the same amount of calories per unit of time. you’d just be going a hell of a lot further and faster on the bike. the reality is that most people don’t push a bike quite that hard - they coast, they get scared at speed, whatever, so on average i’m sure the calories burned per hour cycling by enthusiasts is somewhat less than by runners. but it doesn’t have to be.

guachi

200W (even if I don't know it's 200W) at 90 RPM is the same perceived effort whether my bike is 15 lbs or 35 lbs. As it turns out, 200W is just about my cruising power (I did a century a few weeks ago at 195W average). I can tell when I'm going about 200W whether it's my first 22lb road bike, the 17lb road bike with fancy wheels, or the 35 lb hybrid slaved to my smart trainer. It all feels the same. I've done one century on all three and the watts were shockingly similar. The latter two were within one watt of each other over five hours. My legs didn't know the difference. They told me "I can do this pace, but no more" each time.

wolfchild

I don't exercise and workout for the purpose of burning calories, I don't even count calories. I don't need to loose weight...The main reason why I exercise is to maintain fitness.

Happy Feet

Yes. Exactly. It's just a common sense observation. If you have a bike that's easier to pedal... it's easier to pedal. If the goal is exercise then "easier to pedal" beyond a certain point and price range might not be the goal (especially when easier to pedal comes with an expensive price tag). It's why we set the resistance on exercise machines higher for a harder workout. It's why we run inclines instead of flats. Of course there are many ways to work around the situation but that doesn't change that basic fact.

Another factor missing in a theoretical debate about bikes is the actual cost of choosing a position. I'm always trying to encourage people to exercise but cost is a real world practical consideration. When one says they can get just as good a workout with a top tier bike what is missing is the real world, out of pocket cost of that bike. People pay thousands more for that efficiency. If the goal is only exercise, you don't need to pay thousands more to do the same work a less expensive (efficient) bike will provide. If I say the cost of a bike to exercise is $5000, many people I know will balk. If I say, actually you can get the same workout for $1000, that's more agreeable. And it's true.

And, if people want to argue the premise I am all for it. I enjoy a spirited debate. But to make ad hominem attacks in an attempt to say "you're wrong" isn't debating. It's just showing one doesn't know how to present an argument in an intelligent manner.

As do I. Part of staying fit is maintaining a certain weight however, and for many the primary goal is losing weight. If you are a North American that doesn't have to worry about gaining weight you are fortunate. Statistically that isn't the case.

As it is with anything, an individual's scenario may agree or disagree with the premise but that doesn't change the premise. This is why someone may argue they can get just as intense a workout on their bike as one can get running. Perhaps they can, if they work hard enough, but that isn't the case in general.