Question to people who cycle for fitness

[Thursday guy]

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?

No need to get into a fit of rage. Who said anything about aerobic?

I referred to fitness training, encompassing anything physical you want to improve upon, could be leg strength as Accy cylist said, etc. Any way, you could achieve a higher heart rate with a lighter 'easier to ride' bike, but you have to go faster, possibly. Depending on where you ride, it may be preferable to ride slower, for safety reasons as an example, and if you want to achieve the same heart rate and exertion, then a heavier bike and/or uphill seem more suitable.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

T shirts and shorts are uncomfortable?

If you have a seam up your crotch, then most definitely.
Come here to advocate suffering? Why not ride with a cillice?

 

[phil-b]

I see quite a few of these people on weekend mornings. I do wonder, if they're cycling for fitness, why don't they use heavier, less top-of-the-range aerodynamic bikes? By riding a bike which is requires more energy input to maintain speed, would you not get more out of your exercise for the same amount of time?

This also applies to lycras as well. Wearing normal t-shirt and shorts would be less aerodynamic, but it would surely force you to increase your energy output. I'm think of taking up cycling as an regular exercise, and I wonder whether I would be wiser to use my commuter bike which is on the heavier side at 14kg instead of selling it and investing in a proper sporty road bike.

if you are asking can you get fitter with the bike you already own without having to spend hundreds of pounds on a new road bike the answer is YES you can

 

[Citius]

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

Running and cycling are both aerobic sports. Increasing strength is of no benefit.

 

[Katherine]

Try riding your commuter bike for fitness / leisure at weekends. If you find that you enjoy the extra miles and are getting benefit from it, carry on. If you find that you're being overtaken by speedsters on sporty bikes and want to go faster because it's more fun and you can afford another bike, then that's the time to get one.

 

[blazed]

No need to get into a fit of rage. Who said anything about aerobic?

I referred to fitness training, encompassing anything physical you want to improve upon, could be leg strength as Accy cylist said, etc. Any way, you could achieve a higher heart rate with a lighter 'easier to ride' bike, but you have to go faster, possibly. Depending on where you ride, it may be preferable to ride slower, for safety reasons as an example, and if you want to achieve the same heart rate and exertion, then a heavier bike and/or uphill seem more suitable.

Why would anyone cycle to increase leg strength? It is not a good activity for that, take a look at the tour they have stick thin legs, they are not strong. The only cyclists with strong legs lift weights.

Even if that was the reason you are not going to increase your leg strength anything much with a heavy bike, you need to overload your muscle with weight to increase strength and then continually add more weight. This is not practical cycling, hence a body builder will be in the squat rack not cycling around with a fridge on his back.

In summary, cycling with added weight will not make you a faster cyclist, nor runner. As soon as you remove the weight your ability is still the same as before. I can't think of anyone who runs with weighted vest other than military, I've never seen a single professional cyclist or runner with a weighted vest. If it was beneficial, they would ALL be wearing them.

 

[Arrowfoot]

No need to get into a fit of rage. Who said anything about aerobic?

I referred to fitness training, encompassing anything physical you want to improve upon, could be leg strength as Accy cylist said, etc. Any way, you could achieve a higher heart rate with a lighter 'easier to ride' bike, but you have to go faster, possibly. Depending on where you ride, it may be preferable to ride slower, for safety reasons as an example, and if you want to achieve the same heart rate and exertion, then a heavier bike and/or uphill seem more suitable.

Yes its for fitness. There is also the need to measure progress and achievement milestones and no better than distance travelled. After a while you will have to do it with a proper and lighter road bike. Step up to Lycra and proper gear to shave off the little bit more to meet the next milestone. This is where science behind these equipment and methds come in. You then decide if you like long distances or sprints and both require lighter bikes but the training regimes are different.

Like me I guess most people started off with a heavier mountain bike. You are perfectly right that you can achieve considerable fitness with a heavier bike but you can also achieve tremendous fitness on a threadmill and or in the confines of a gym.

I think your bigger challenge is not heavier or lighter bikes or wearing lycra, its understanding basic science.

 

[Dogtrousers]

You are only limited by your own determination and the limits of your own body.

Ride whatever bike you like. Look at the stupendous achievements of the riders in the early Tours and Giros, all done without the benefits of Lycra, lightweight materials, gears or even brakes that were particularly effective.

Fixed wheel, carbon with zillions of electronic gears, MTB, butcher's bike, folder, recumbent, retro steelie. Lycra racing gear, shorts and tee or street clothes. Speed, endurance, distance, fitness, sightseeing, relaxation, utility. There's no one right way. There's no one correct objective. There's no one proper kind of bike. Don't let anyone tell you there is.

But equally, don't try claiming that your way is better.

And don't mention leg strength or the thread will die a prolonged and tedious death.

 

[bancrobba]

I often go swimming with bricks in me trunks and I'm really fit.

 

[rugby bloke]

I think its horses for courses. When I started training for RideLondon last year I was classic MTB, t shirt and shorts, which was fine for rides up to 50 miles. Once I started going beyond these distances the bike was getting hard work and the clothes uncomfortable. A road bike and lycra definitely made the difference for longer rides.

 

[Globalti]

Go and buy yourself a decent bike, one which you will enjoy riding. That will encourage you to get out more often and give you lots of pleasure. As it happens I've got the perfect bike on sale right now, see classifieds.

Then go and buy some proper cycle clothing; cotton is a bad idea because it gets damp and clammy whereas moisture passes right through synthetic fabrics. Tight lycra may make you feel silly but at road bike speeds flapping clothing is annoying and causes unnecessary drag.

 

[Accy cyclist]

Running and cycling are both aerobic sports. Increasing strength is of no benefit.

So why's this fellow pumped his legs up so much?

 

[Citius]

So why's this fellow pumped his legs up so much?

Because he's a track sprinter. Study up, mate...

 

[mjr]

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?

How far you go is sort of irrelevant to the immediate direct point, but the fitness benefit of a greater variety of scenery and increased range is that it encourages most people to ride more.

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.

Because they're contractually required to? Plus it makes sense to train with what you're actually going to use. You do see some top cyclists NOT using their lightweights, like Vos and PFP switching to CX and MTB and probably other stuff outside the road racing season.

If you have a seam up your crotch, then most definitely.
Come here to advocate suffering? Why not ride with a cillice?

You can get shorts without seams in bad places, as well as cycling shorts with seams in bad places... even leg seams irritate me after a few days riding, so I've various shorts with different seam positions so I can vary it... and anyway, a seam across your dick is a hell of a lot worse and plenty of "cycling" shorts have that! Which reminds me...

Tight lycra may make you feel silly but at road bike speeds flapping clothing is annoying and causes unnecessary drag.

They'll make you feel more than silly if you're one of the debatably-sized minority that's sensitive to lycra/elastane! Plus it makes you LOOK silly. No-one on the road or in a cafe wants to see that... or rather, I don't want to show them mine!

 

[Accy cyclist]

Because he's a track sprinter. Study up, mate...

Yes i know he is, but you said cyclists didn't need muscles. How about the sprinters we see mainly during the first week of the TdF? You don't see many sprinters with skinny legs or bodies do you? I'm not trying to be picky here. I've developed my leg muscles over the years through various exercises. Although i'm 20 years older than when i started cycling again, i'd say i was able to go further and climb better because of leg muscle development. Hell no way are they like the bloke in my picture, but a bit of muscle is beneficial to any form of cycling i'd say.