Is There Any Difference Health-wise Between What You Ride or How Far You Ride ?

[Illaveago]

It is something which I often think about , especially when I am overtaken by a cyclist all dressed up in lycra and riding a carbon fibre aerodynamic cycle . I am too old to fall for that trick ! I know that once they are out of sight around the next corner they will nip over a hedge and hide ! Yes I am a cynic!
What I am wondering is are what are the differences health wise ? The other rider will be more aerodynamic due to his bike and clothing , I am on an old steel racing bike wearing jeans and cycling jacket . He will have more gears , close ratio whereas I may only have 12 widely spaced . He or she may ride a lot further and faster whereas I may do 12 to 20 miles averaging 12 mph . They may also consume a lot more food than I do, just a bowl of porridge to start the day with .
What I am wondering is that with all their advantages will they have to ride further and faster in order to expend the same amount of energy ?
What I do find is that when it comes to climbing small hills I tend to catch them up !

 

[si_c]

Health and fitness-wise, no there is no difference. You, in your jeans and jacket will put out 100w and travel at 12mph, You as the "sportier" cyclist will put out 100w and travel say 15mph (arbitrary numbers). If both of "you" put in the same effort the energy expenditure and fitness benefit are the same.

Of course "sportier" you may feel the need to put in more effort to justify the lycra and carbon fibre bike but that's unquantifiable.

 

[MichaelW2]

As far as the power plant is concerned, watts are watts and it makes no difference to the workload, how fast those watts propel the bike.
As long as you output the same watts for the same time, you have done the same amount of work no matter how far you ride.

 

[Twilkes]

Not sure what trick you're too old to fall for.

What I tend to find is when I'm all dressed up in lycra and riding a carbon fibre aerodynamic cycle I will be putting more effort in/power into the pedals, because it feels great, so getting more of a workout, generally averaging about 16-19mph depending on climbs. If I was on an old bike and wearing jeans I would be much less comfortable and would get sweatier much more quickly so likely wouldn't want to ride as quickly or nearly as far, or probably as often, so wouldn't be as healthy.

 

[T4tomo]

"wearing jeans" can't see how that is comfortable for any length of time?

 

[MichaelW2]

"wearing jeans" can't see how that is comfortable for any length of time?

I used to ride in jeans...back in 1970's

 

[yello]

Yep, lycra and carbon fibre has its place and can add to the pleasure of riding, if that's what you're into (and I don't have a carbon fibre bike)

That's the thing innit? What you enjoy and what you're in to. You can enjoy the trees, and birds, and hedgerow, steel bikes and jeans, whatever - and/or the watts, the metres climbed, the stats.... ain't no rules. Whatever turns your wheels.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

It’s actually healthier to ride most of the time at an easier pace. If someone is always pushing hard that’s not healthy at all. There’s also a J shaped curve for the relationship between volume of exercise and health. The one below is respiratory but you can find similar ones for other illnesses.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I’d dispute that “watts is watts”

It matters how they are produced. If you are working at 90% of your max HR to produce those watts, it will have a markedly different impact on you than if you can produce the same watts at say 65% of your max HR. The metabolic impact is vastly different.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

As for health and what you ride. It really depends on whether the bike fits well enough for what you do. A poorly fitting bike ridden over many hours repeatedly may lead to biomechanical issues in the future.

 

[Twilkes]

Thing is, most of the people on road bikes going fairly quickly are going at a moderate pace most of the time anyway, that's how they can manage to sustain it for 2-3 hours or more. For a 16-19mph ride as above, my heart rate is generally around 160bpm for most of it. On a climb it might get up to 175bpm, and in an all-out sprint it tops out at about 192bpm.

And that graph is very very simplified if it puts 'amount' and 'intensity' of exercise on the same axis, although 'overexert yourself and you'll lower your immune system' is pretty common sense, just that overexertion means different things to different bodies. Most training cyclists will do 3-4 longer moderate rides a week, and one or two shorter intense rides a week. You can't maintain high intensity exercise for long, and you need to rest well after it.

I honestly don't get why people who don't want to wear snug fitting clothes and ride swiftly talk about those that do so much - they hardly talk about you at all!

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I will also put this here. This is the heart rate distribution of one of my easy rides. The green is below my VT1 which is the point at which my breathing rate changes and begins to rise above resting rate. In other words I keep it conversational the entire time even on uphills. Do I worry about riders passing me, during these rides, absolutely not!

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I honestly don't get why people who don't want to wear snug fitting clothes and ride swiftly talk about those that do so much - they hardly talk about you at all!

I don’t think the OP does. I think they are just pondering health and fitness.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

And that graph is very very simplified if it puts 'amount' and 'intensity' of exercise on the same axis,

Which is exactly what the training load CTL and ATL, TSB, TSS, IF and TRIMP metrics etc aim to do. Provide a load / effort metric that is a combination of intensity and duration. Ride too far too often or ride too hard too often and your health will suffer more than average.

 

[Twilkes]

I don’t think the OP does. I think they are just pondering health and fitness.

The subtext in their post betrays them.