Happy Feet

Or...

Why people try so hard to cancel discussions they are not interested in.

Real life application:

guy walks into a bike shop looking for a bike to "exercise" with.

Sales person shows him mid grade bikes, well made and decent components.

also shows him more expensive, race oriented bikes; very lightweight, high end components.

The second series of bikes, while "nicer" comes with a couple of caveats:

More expensive
More fragile
More expensive to repair

The shopper is looking for a bike only for exercise and is not interested in getting into cycling as a sport.

Would we say the salesperson is being forthright if they said, in that case, the customer could get just as good a workout from the mid range bike - or - would we support pushing the customer towards the more expensive option with claims it will give them "a better workout".

Does that ever happen in real life? Having been involved in several equipment intensive outdoor pursuits for many years I would say yes. Thus my perspective in this discussion.

CheGiantForLife

Really? It is so obviously TRUE to me that I never considered anyone would refute it.
Imagine putting pedals on your car. Now, pedal that thing up a hill.
You're telling me that's the same amount of work (exercise) as your bike?
Heavier bike so obviously requires more work.

indyfabz

But does not necessarily give you a better workout.

I have pedaled this up many mountain passes out west. But I have a 24x34 low gear, and I’m rarely pushing myself to the limit heart rate-wise, like someone who is climbing those same passes training for racing.

Get it now, or are you being intentionally obtuse?

70sSanO

I guess you didn’t watch the video.

You don’t get out much, do you?

John

Edit added: You don’t need a heavier bike, you just need to eat more little chocolate donuts. That is where the weight and strength comes from.

70sSanO

I don’t mean to rant, but that is what is wrong with so many people, including the OP, they just want to take the easy route. Just buy a heavier bike.

Some people who are stuck with lighter bikes just can’t buy their way to a better workout. They have to finish off that bag of chips, have another beer, hit the fridge at 1:00am. It takes hard work, but it is worth it.

Watch a 140lb rider going up a hill, and then a 200lb rider. The 200lb rider is sweating profusely, his heart is pounding out of his chest, and he is gasping as if it is his last breath. You just can’t get to that level by buying a heavier bike.

Sorry for the rant.

John

jzink0883

I think the OP’s point is well taken.
Would it be a lesser or a worse workout on a heavier bike?
Would it be more or a better workout on a lighter bike?

tomato coupe

If you thought it was so obvious and no one would refute it, why did you start a thread about it?

70sSanO

Would it be a lesser or a worse workout if you gained 40lbs?

John

BlazingPedals

Exactly. Said another way, you're going to ride as hard as you're going to ride. If you ride harder on the heavier bike, then you'll get a better workout. If you're already riding as hard as you can, the heavy bike will slow you down. The heavier, slower bike might cause you to ride longer, but then again you could always have ridden the lighter bike further/longer to make it up. No matter how you look at it, the difference in workouts is YOU not the bike.

CAT7RDR

I think the OP needs to formally scientifically define "workout" as a dependent variable Then, formally measure and define his independent variables before we can have a rational discussion..

So OP, what exactly are you trying to measure?

Is this strictly your own psychological ploy to a better workout that heavier = harder?

Trakhak

I just finished a 4 1/2-hour ride on my 19-pound track bike (48/18 gearing) in Baltimore County and Carroll County (very hilly terrain). I'm thoroughly wiped out. Last month, I did the same ride on my 34-pound hybrid bike (triple chainrings, 7 sprockets). Much, much easier ride.

Just reinforcing the point made above by BlazingPedals:

"No matter how you look at it, the difference in workouts is YOU not the bike."

Ironfish653

200lb rider going up a hill on a 30lb bike; Yeah, this guy looks like he’s done for

livedarklions

This may be absolutely the stupidest thing I have ever read. If I attempt to pedal power my car up a hill, I will not be able to do it, give up attempting to turn the pedals and get no workout at all.

You want a great workout? Go lift a locomotive. Obviously, that would require more energy than bench pressing 85 pounds.

And for the umpteenth plus one time, you can ride the lighter bike further or in a higher gear and thereby equalize or increase the amount of work as compared to the heavier bike.

Are you actually an adult?

gregf83 

If you use time and effort/power as your measure of workout effectiveness then the weight of your bike really makes no difference. With a lighter bike you'll go a little farther but as others have said it makes no difference to the quality of your workout. Having a heavier bike will slightly extend the amount of time you spend on a given hill but the effect is small and could be easily compensated for by repeating all or a portion of the hill. On flat sections the extra weight makes no difference.

If you train for 10 hrs a week it makes no difference what kind of bike you're riding - MTB, cyclocross, lightweight race bike or heavy bike, it's all good.

Ironfish653

Does the car have the same gear as the bike?

The real question of this thread is; “Is riding a bicycle resistance training?” I would posit that it is not (at least not a wheeled bike, on the road). Now, there’s things you can do, like riding up hills in big gears, or riding heavily treaded, under-inflated tires that make a bike harder to ride, but that doesn’t really ‘improve’ the workout.
Like in the spin-vs-mash thread; high effort, low RPM riding has a higher peak effort, that you can’t sustain as long.

In weightlifting terms, since that’s straight up isolated resistance ; What’s the better workout: 5x5 at 150# or 3x12 at 100#?

livedarklions

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here, bicycling can and often is resistance training, and the degree to which it is is largely in control of the rider. There's wind, there's hills, there's riding in dirt, there's gear choices. I also disagree that mashing isn't as sustainable as ow gear/high cadence riding. The amount of energy "wasted" moving one's legs at high cadence is something people don't account for when they make statements like that. Mashing is actually much more efficient from a cardiovascular standpoint, and I'm able to do it for 150 mile plus rides. Slow twitch muscles can be trained to produce high torque over very long rides.

As many people have pointed out, op fails to grasp that the quality of a workout is not an objective judgment, you have to define "better for what?" But on any measure there is nothing that a heavy bike can do for increasing resistance that can't be compensated for on a lighter bike.

And again, the weight thing is runner's logic misapplied to cycling. Weights make a big difference in running because each step is actually a lift of the entire weight of the runner and gear. On a bike, the bike is supporting all of the weight, and the rider is just providing propulsion by lifting and putting down her legs. Nothing on a bicycle is being lifted except legs.

Happy Feet

The weight thing, or I would say, resistance thing, does make a difference in cycling.

The runner moves by propelling weight through space by stepping forward. The cyclist moves by propelling weight through space by pushing the leading pedal forward.A bicycle provides some mechanical advantage but the physics remain the same and... The more resistance in the pedal, the harder one pushes. This is easily noted when shifting up or down gears or riding up and down hills.

If resistance did not matter, competitive cyclists would not seek out low rolling resistance tires or hubs that roll with less resistance (to name two common examples). A lighter bike also creates less resistance. Again, if it didn't, competitive cyclists would not obsess so much about it and drillium would never have been invented. Weight effects inertial resistance and the effort required to pedal.

The resistance in the pedal, a result of many factors, including weight, is what gives the cyclist a workout.

On the road, if you increase resistance (ride up a hill) you increase intensity. Ride in a higher gear, increase intensity. Ride a bike with higher rolling resistance tires, increase intensity. Ride a bike with more resistance in it's bearings, increase intensity. Ride a heavier bike, increase intensity.

To say weight makes no difference in the effort of cycling flies in the face of every thread ever started where some road cyclist seeks to reduce it, at great expense, by even a few grams.

Weight matters in the scheme of things. It is ultimately translated into resistance at the pedal that the rider has to push with effort.

Either the rider can travel farther/faster for the same effort that would be put into a heavier bike.
Equal workout.

or...

A lighter bike requires less effort to travel the same distance/speed being covered when using a heavier bike.
Less workout.

People arguing this is not so are flying in the face of the whole concept of weight reduction in cycling.

The OPS premise is flawed however, as somone else recently noted, because too heavy a bike is not suitable for exercise and will not be ridden. There needs to be a threshold of performance that makes the bike suitable to the task.

That is why I suggested a more reasonable comparison between a medium grade bike and a top tier bike. I think mid grade probably meets the bar for the average rider just seeking exercise from cycling.

If somone were seeking to progress beyond that (cycling for cycling sake as a sport) or to become competitive, the bar might be higher and a better bike might be more suitable. But... that's a separate discussion.

Some people are saying that the few pounds difference between a top tier bike and mid grade bike doesn't make a difference when compared to the riders overall weight. I agree. All the more reason why spending a lot more for a bike that provides marginal gains in weight, solely for exercise, is not necessarily a better scenario.

Or tldr: would anyone suggest an expensive carbon fiber bottle cage for a bike designed solely for exercise.

njkayaker

This doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Group rides are often offered at different levels.

Most people plan exercise/rides based on time.

That is, people can just ride harder at a higher speed for the time they have rather than riding slower on a heavy bike.

Happy Feet

It does make sense but you are also correct.

If people want a more intense workout, they can opt into a difference group. But within that group, whatever level it is, most people are doing the same distance at the same speed.

People do base exercise mainly on time and thus select pre recognized routes that fit within that time. This is so they arrive back where they started from when that time is up (or at a meeting place). This becomes habitual.

Right now I am getting ready to go for a ride. Based on how much time I plan to ride for, I'll select the appropriate route. I have several options, from short hill climb routes, meandering canal routes or longer rural routes. I know them all ahead of time as I suspect others who exercise regularly do.

If a friend decides to join me we will ride the same distance at the same speed. If he has a race oriented bike he will revieve less of a workout than I will on my heavier, more rolling resistance, mid level bike.

njkayaker

What is wrong with you?

No one is arguing this!

You missing the option of riding harder to get a harder workout.

You don’t need a heavier bike to do that.

caloso

Not to mention that even in the same group ride, you have a lot of control of how much and what kind of work you do. Working on threshold? Go to the front and take longer/more frequent pulls. Working on VO2max? Attack, get caught, recover, repeat. Working on tempo/endurance? Sit in.

Happy Feet

Actually lots of people are arguing that.

The notion that, if you have a better bike you can work harder to make up the difference is true. However, my point is there is no point spending a lot more to do this if the goal is only exercise.

Again if the goal was only exercise and not cycling for cycling sake, would you suggest an expensive carbon fiber bottle Holder? If not, why an expensive carbon fiber frame or carbon fiber wheels? Seat post, crankset, handlebars...

njkayaker

You aren’t making much sense here either. And you are going on about things most people here already know.

It you want (it’s a choice) to make a particular group ride harder, you can choose to use a heavier bike.

That’s kind of an unusual situation. You should have mentioned it before rather than in an attempt to “win” an argument you lost a few times already.

You don’t need a heavier bike to get a harder workout.

Happy Feet

This is someone describing cycling training to improve cycling ability- cycling for cycling sake. It's not general exercise by the average person.

I can imagine the comments one would receive if they showed up to a recreational ride in full kit on a top tier bike and started telling people to do that.

Now, imagine the comments I would receive at that same recreational ride if I said you didn't need that expensive top tier bike, that you could get just as good a workout with a mid grade bike.

njkayaker

More nonsense.

This thread isn’t about any of that.

Anyway, people don’t have unlimited money to pursue small differences in weight.

The performance difference between a 16 lb bike and a 18 on one is small. And the difference in price can be huge.

The small performance difference might be worth it if it allows you to win a race. But for most people, it isn’t worth it for a few extra minutes.

If you have oodles of cash, no one cares how you spend it.