Question to people who cycle for fitness

[400bhp]

I can put the same effort in (per hour) on a static trainer, an aero bike or a heavy tourer.

The weight, aerodynamics or anything else makes no different.

 

[400bhp]

Heavier bike requires greater physical exertion from the legs, resulting in a more intensive exercise per unit length ridden. What part about that is flawed?

No. You just go slower.

 

[Thursday guy]

There are two good reasons: to go further for the same time or effort; and to be more comfortable.

Bad but common reasons are fashion, to look the part, posing and to comply with petty club rules.

I get feeling comfortable, but for fitness training I don't think the point is to cut down on the amount of effort and how far you go is irrelevant?

 

[Saluki]

I had a heavier bike once. I hated it. Loathed it with a passion. I only rode as I knew I would be getting fitter than I was while I saved up for a proper bike. I despised every single second of riding that heavy pile of poo, it was awful, hideous, horrible and knackered me. I had had good bikes in the past so knew that I liked riding.
Sure, I might have got fitter riding that hateful pile of crap bike but the experience was terrible and I had to force myself out of the door to get on the dratted thing. Now, with my super lightweight bikes (Both from Planet X, 1 roadie, 1 CX bike) I look forward to riding and mostly love every minute. Sure I have pants days but I don't have to force my backside out of the door.

Heavy bikes might make for more intensive exercise but what's the point if you hate it. Might as well go to the gym, if you are going to do something you hate, or do maths or something.

 

[Thursday guy]

No. You just go slower.

Well yeah, but speed is irrelevant for fitness training. A person's speed on a treadmill is literally zero. What matters is physical exertion.

 

[blazed]

Let's say you ride the heavy bike moderate effort gives you an average heart rate of 150bpm. You then ride the modern bike moderate effort, guess what? You also have an avg heart rate 150bpm, the effort is exactly the same you just go faster on the modern bike.

If you were right, all the pro cyclists would be riding around with heavy weighted vests.

 

[Thursday guy]

I had a heavier bike once. I hated it. Loathed it with a passion. I only rode as I knew I would be getting fitter than I was while I saved up for a proper bike. I despised every single second of riding that heavy pile of poo, it was awful, hideous, horrible and knackered me. I had had good bikes in the past so knew that I liked riding.
Sure, I might have got fitter riding that hateful pile of crap bike but the experience was terrible and I had to force myself out of the door to get on the dratted thing. Now, with my super lightweight bikes (Both from Planet X, 1 roadie, 1 CX bike) I look forward to riding and mostly love every minute. Sure I have pants days but I don't have to force my backside out of the door.

Heavy bikes might make for more intensive exercise but what's the point if you hate it. Might as well go to the gym, if you are going to do something you hate, or do maths or something.

Fair point. It's your personal preference. I'm just curious about the benefits of a heavier less aerodynamic bike vs a lighter faster bike for a purely fitness training point of view. I get that cycling is a lot more than just that for the vast majority of people, including me as well.

 

[Citius]

Once you realise that endurance cycling is predominantly aerobic in nature, you'll drop all this weight nonsense..

 

[slowmotion]

Well yeah, but speed is irrelevant for fitness training. A person's speed on a treadmill is literally zero. What matters is physical exertion.

If you are obsessed about training and fitness you could always drag an anchor behind you and set up the brakes so they rub on the wheels. I'm not interested in becoming some kind of super-athlete. I just want to enjoy riding my bike and do a little bit of exercise. A nice bike is just more fun to ride than a clunker. Non-cycling specific clothes are fine for shorter rides but not so great for long ones. Especially round your bum.

 

[Saluki]

Fair point. It's your personal preference. I'm just curious about the benefits of a heavier less aerodynamic bike vs a lighter faster bike for a purely fitness training point of view. I get that cycling is a lot more than just that for the vast majority of people, including me as well.

If something is fun, I'll do it, if it's a chore and too much like hard work, I won't.
A heavier bike might mean that I only have to ride an hour to get the same benefit as 90 minutes on a lighter bike. But, on that same lighter bike, I'll ride for 4 hours or go out all day. No way would I do that on some heavy old lump

 

[blazed]

If something is fun, I'll do it, if it's a chore and too much like hard work, I won't.
A heavier bike might mean that I only have to ride an hour to get the same benefit as 90 minutes on a lighter bike. But, on that same lighter bike, I'll ride for 4 hours or go out all day. No way would I do that on some heavy old lump

But it doesn't, there is no benefit. Common sense people, why do the greatest cyclists in the world, myself included, do all their training on super expensive high end light/aero bikes, with cycling clothing.

 

[Thursday guy]

But it doesn't, there is no benefit. Common sense people, why do the greatest cyclists in the world, myself included, do all their training on super expensive high end light/aero bikes, with cycling clothing.

Why is there no benefit though?

The difference between the bikes is physical exertion, similar to the difference between riding up hill and on flat roads. Would you say there are no benefits to riding on inclines for physical training?

 

[Accy cyclist]

The OP has a point. Yes use a lightweight bike to make your ride easier but if you want to make it harder add some weight in the form of a heavier bike. If weight doesn't make a difference in aerobic exercise why do we see some runners using weighted ruck sacks? I used to go hill climbing with a back pack around 2 stone in weight. My heart rate was far higher than without a weight.

 

[blazed]

The OP has a point. Yes use a lightweight bike to make your ride easier but if you want to make it harder add some weight in the form of a heavier bike. If weight doesn't make a difference in aerobic exercise why do we see some runners using weighted ruck sacks? I used to go hill climbing with a back pack around 2 stone in weight. My heart rate was far higher than without a weight.

Its irrelevant. They are aerobic activities, all that matters is effort level. You can vary effort level regardless of the weight you are carrying. So your heart rate was higher with a ruksack, are you saying you couldn't achieve that same heart rate without a ruksack?

 

[Accy cyclist]

Jesus Christ. Its irrelevant. They are aerobic activities, all that matters is effort level. You can vary effort level regardless of the weight you are carrying. So your heart rate was higher with a ruksack, are you saying you couldn't achieve that same heart rate without a ruksack?

I forgot to mention. I used the weights to build my leg strength/muscles up, not just for the aerobic aspect..