livedarklions

I didn't bother to respond to your last bit of nonsense because you weren't responding at all to the same point I've made again and again--you have no argument and aren't really saying anything. Your nitpicky stupid distraction style is cute, but the definition of a 500 pound bike is not something meriting discussion.

So what you initially said was you can't get the same workout on a light bike that you can on
a 15 pound heavier bike. When it was pointed out repeatedly that there are several ways to adjust the light bike to provide the rider with the same resistance as the heavy, you changed that argument to that there's always going to be some difference because of error in the gear ratios or something.

You've conceded that you have no idea how large that difference is likely to be, you obviously can't tell what direction (too much or too little resistance in the lighter bike) or what effects slight differences will have on the muscles being worked. You also can't state with any precision the impact on the workout of pedaling the lighter bike to a faster speed without adjusting the gears, keeping in mind that wind resistance increases dramatically with increases in speed. I don't need to go to extreme examples to prove that differences in speed create far larger differences in the wattage needed than weight. Just keep the weight constant and adjust your speed from 18 to 20 miles an hour on a drag calculator, then keep your speed constant and increase your weight by 15 pounds. Unless you plug in a positive grade, you'll find the weight is insignificant and the drag difference is quite large (about a 40% increase in watts required to maintain the speed for the 2 mph change in speed as compared to approximately 0% for a 15 pound increase when speed is constant).

Let's see what you've actually argued -- there will be some unquantifiable difference between workouts on the two bikes, you can't say what that difference is or if it is of any significance in terms of its effects on your muscle development, whether it's better or worse, or even which bike will actually produce the higher resistance workout. My basic question is why anyone should care about that since it has absolutely no practical application. Unless you have a reasonable answer to that question, you should definitely stop posting on this subject because basically all you've done in this thread is expose that you don't know anything about the physics of bicycling or much about working out, for that matter.

And speaking of not understanding things, I can't help but point out you committed yet another howler in your too dumb post--you indicated that by my logic, the weight of the lifter should be factored into the naming of weightlifting events because I pointed out that the main work you were doing on a bicycle is propelling your own weight. Obviously, that's a non sequitur because identifying differences in work requirements for the individual participants has nothing to do with naming the event, but it's also the wrong weightlifting analogy. By your logic, where we didn't include the weight of the cyclist in calculating work, the work required to perform a pullup or a chin up is zero. That's big news, you should win the Nobel.

So, I know your trolling style enough by this point to know exactly what you are going to post now--you'll ignore my very basic "why should anyone care about a non-predicting prediction" and instead nitpick some word or phrase in this post and say some nonsense about me conceding something. At this point, we all have you pegged as a person who's done very little bike riding and some weightlifting and that you can't grasp those two things are very different.

Here's your chance to prove us wrong --tell us some practical application for a bicycle workout of your trite insight that two things are never identical. Otherwise, quit making a fool of yourself.

livedarklions

The fact that you're riding a bicycle gives you a hell of a lot of information about what muscles are being worked and how.

livedarklions

Anyone else notice that these newby-led arguments always focus on weight, which is about the least important of the significant sources of resistance? You never see anyone coming in here arguing the qualities or merits of working out on TT bikes vs. hybrids, for example. I think that's because people unfamiliar with biking don't experience drag as a force in any other physical activity, but weightlifters can't get their minds around the fact that weight doesn't matter much in cycling.

terrymorse 

Force and weight most definitely are not interchangeable in the work formula. Your sources are wrong, or you have extracted the quotes out of context.

Update: I googled your source: it's a math homework problem! Not physics or engineering, in which no instructor would make such a glaring error.

Consider this problem: a cable winch pulling a car. The work performed is the cable tension (force) times the distance the car is moved (displacement). Calling the cable tension "weight" is absurdly wrong.

MaximRecoil

No, I didn't. I compared sit-ups to dead lifts, pointing out that they work different muscles, yet can have the same power output. This illustrates that power output tells you nothing about which muscles are being worked, or how they're being worked, and that's true for any activity (which includes riding a bike), obviously.

More comical irony from the guy who not only first decided to discuss the definition of a 500-pound bike, but suggested that it matters whether the bike weighs 500 pounds by itself or in combination with cargo. Also, remember when you said that no human could accelerate a 500-pound bike?

Except you can't. And in some cases you will have less resistance with the heavier bike, because it has more momentum. So how exactly are you going to use gears or anything else to increase the momentum of the lighter bike?

I didn't change my argument at all. The heavier bike results inevitably results in a different workout effect.

False. How large the difference is isn't relevant to my point, which is only that there's a difference.

Those things aren't relevant to the point either.

Whether anyone cares or not isn't relevant to the point either.

So says the guy who thinks that no human can accelerate a 500-pound bike. In any case, this, along with the next part of your sentence ("or much about working out, for that matter.") is a non sequitur.

You pointed out the obvious while missing the obvious, i.e., that the context was weight of the bike itself and how far it moved. There was a guy like that named "Broph", and when arguing with him you had to do what became known as "Broph-proofing" your statements. So a Broph-proofed version for you would start out something like this, "The portion of the total work required to move just the bike..."

Again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the context or where the focus is when discussing something. With weight lifting, the focus is the weights, and the body weight goes without saying. With exercises that only involve lifting your own body weight, then obviously the focus is body weight.

This is a yet another non sequitur from you, and your tacit request to redefine the term "trolling" is denied.

Again, it isn't relevant. Also, why do you keep arguing with something you've already conceded to multiple times?

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, Comical Irony Alert: Part XXIX

Not enough information, obviously. Otherwise, everyone who has ever ridden a bike has worked the exact same muscles in the exact same way every single time, which obviously isn't true.

Yes, they are.

So? I would have linked to it to begin with but I didn't have 10 posts yet.

You haven't established that it's an error at all, let alone a glaring one.

The force is / can be expressed in units of mass/weight, such as kilograms of force (kgf) or pounds of force (lbf), which is why the two terms can be, and often are, used interchangeably when stating the formula for work.

LarrySellerz

Isn't training on a heavier bike is a time honored technique, similar to running with a parachute or rock lee in naruto using leg weights. When I was getting destroyed on the hills my first training plan was to take my old bike with a basket, load it up with groceries, and tackle a big hill. A hill that normally takes me 33 minutes took me 43 minutes. If you want the same workout on a faster bike, you just have to go faster, but you can sandbag to avoid that with a slower bike.

BTW your argument and talks of 500 lb bikes and adding weight to a light bike makes no sense at all.

also maxim I applaud you for calling someone else a troll when trolling this hard.

genejockey 

Yeah, I've noticed it. I'm amazed at how long the arguments go on, too, as well as how stupid and pointless they get. Living in a place that generally has strong afternoon winds always from the same direction, it's easy to grasp the importance of aerodynamic drag - just ride the same road in opposite directions.

Interestingly, one never sees the 'Heavier bike gives a better workout" folks advocating for loose, billowy clothes, or putting big knobby tires on your road bike, or running the bearings in your hub without lubrication - maybe add some sand, that'll increase resistance!

WhyFi

Man, bf gonna bf.

wolfchild

Training on a very heavy bike is useless, just like training boxing movements while holding weights in your hands is useless. Using extra weight is just going to slow you down. I don't see sprinters strapping extra weights to their bodies while doing sprint training.

badger1

terrymorse 

I did establish that force is not the same as weight by explaining the definitions of both, but clearly you didn't follow the explanation.

This is another error. Mass is not the same as weight, and the two cannot be used interchangeably. This is true, no matter which units you choose.

genejockey 

The problem is, and the flaw in the discussion that Maxim What'shisname is attempting to exploit is that we're using the WRONG TERM. "Weight" is a measure of force, specifically mass x gravity. What we're REALLY talking about is the MASS of a bicycle, but humans are stupid so we incorrectly use "weight" when we mean "mass". Doubling the mass of a bike only doubles the work if you're lifting the bike. If you're riding, especially on the flat, doubling the mass of the bike leads to a very small increase in work required to achieve the same average speed. If this weren't true, then small, thin cyclists would dominate time trials, since the mass of the rider is much, much greater than the bike.

genejockey 

Forget it, Jake WhyFi. It's Chinatown Bike Forums.

UniChris

And even then, doubling the mass of the bike is really only a 10-15% increase given that most of the mass being raised is rider.

genejockey 

I was actually talking about lifting it as in lifting weights, or carrying up the stairs. Curiously, it occurred to me that training for cyclocross is one place where training with a heavier bike might be advantageous, because you DO lift and carry the bike.

UniChris

If you're doing reps with the bike instead of freeweights, yes.

But the work done in holding the bike off the ground is hard to figure - fatigue yes and there is clearly metabolic action in muscles, but as far as the bike is concerned no work is done as there is no distance.

Then propel this system up the stairs and most of the work is the person raising their own body. The hastle is worse than an equivalent 20 lb weight in a backpack but the productive work done is not.

This thread needs a cycle crank powered elevator to play with.

genejockey 

Good point, on the stairs, but I specified LIFTING, not holding. Holding it doesn't do work, because work = force x distance. Impulse? That = force x time. You have to exert a force equal to the weight (mass x gravity) for as long as you hold it up (time).

So much of discussions like this revolves around using common words interchangeably with terms in Physics, which have a specific definition. Like weight vs mass.

UniChris

Lifting vs holding is specifically why I mentioned "doing reps"

livedarklions

Broph proof nonsense first-- what you obviously don't get is that in terms of defining the workout, the weight of the bike is such a small fraction of the total work, no one has any reason to care about variations in that "portion of the total work". You've already conceded that your argument has no relevance, thanks, that's been my only point all along. You confidently made and repeated the ludicrous statement that doubling the weight of the bike doubled the work per mile required to ride the bike, and you've now spent several posts trying to explain away why you'd say anything that stupid.

The point about the heavier bike having more momentum is ludicrous. I can confidently say that is totally irrelevant to the workout. All that means is the heavier bike will be going downhill faster, and the likelihood is that is going to occur when the rider will either not be pedaling at all or pedalling against very little resistance. In that situation, I don't need to do anything to the lighter bike to duplicate the workout effects of that, I just won't go the exact same speed as I would on a heavier bike. My level of effort going downhill is likely to be very low on either bike. The same muscles will be doing little to no work when gravity is the main driver of the bike.

Look, you came in here telling everyone they're wrong, and you've now admitted it's not about anything anyone should care about. In other words, you've just picked a completely meaningless fight solely for the sake of arguing. I don't need to redefine trolling --that's the textbook definition of it.

You're a pointless troll and I dismiss you.

livedarklions

Let's go hog wild and discuss the energy needed to control a 500 pound yo-yo.

shelbyfv

Gonna have to add another troll to the iggy list if y'all can't keep him occupied here.

terrymorse 

It's pretty clear from watching races that small, thin cyclists dominate hilly time trials; while taller, heavier cyclists dominate flat time trials.

The reason for this is simple:

The bulk of work going uphill is lifting mass against gravity, so a higher power-to-body mass ratio will go faster, and small riders tend to have higher power-to-body mass ratios.

The bulk of work on a flat course is pushing though air, so a higher power-to-frontal area will go faster, and bigger riders have higher power-to-frontal areas.

genejockey 

Exactly. We don't ride in a vacuum.

And if we did, we'd die.

livedarklions

Leg weights aren't analogous to a heavier bike for the simple reason that a runner must support and lift the leg weights with every step. The bike is actually supporting its own weight, and you never lift it while riding except, in a sense, when you ride it uphill. If you have a multigear bike, however, it's not necessary to load the bike with weight to increase resistance on a hill, you can just shift to higher gears. I once rode a bike up a pretty big hill in 53x11 just because someone on BF said it was impossible. I don't recommend it. I've never tried riding with a parachute, but I suspect that wouldn't end well!

philbob57

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain