Question to people who cycle for fitness

[Citius]

Yes i know he is, but you said cyclists didn't need muscles

I actually never said anything remotely like that. Everyone needs muscles, or they wouldn't be able to function. The question is whether your legs need to be stronger than they already are.

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.

Endurance cycling places very low strength demands on the legs, to the point that almost anyone can (and does) ride a bike. The limiters to cycling performance are not strength-related, they are related to your ability to repeatedly apply relatively low levels of strength repeatedly over a period of time. What you see as 'leg muscle development' is almost certainly more likely to be improvements in your CV and aerobic fitness.

 

[Dogtrousers]

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.!

A good point. I believe that some racing/performance types revert to riding (steel) fixies for their winter miles, which is a kind of regression away from the uber lightweight high-tech approach.

 

[Citius]

believe that some racing/performance types revert to riding (steel) fixies for their winter miles,

If anyone still does this, they will be the exceptions rather than the rule. Lots of competition riders use 'fixies' in winter, but these are called track bikes, which get used in SQTs and track leagues out of the road season.

 

[Saluki]

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.

Might! I said 'Might'. I may not have been entirely serious. Maybe even trying to be polite.

I know that you are the greatest sportsman who ever lived and know absolutely everything about anything but you are not the only person on this site who has competed in sports professionally you know.

 

[Thursday guy]

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

I'm not advocating anything. I'm only asking a question as someone who is relatively new to cycling as fitness training. Why do people like you have to be so confrontational? It's just an internet forum, take it easy.

 

[Citius]

I'm only asking a question as someone who is relatively new to cycling as fitness trainin

The first mistake you are making is confusing fitness training with strength training. Cycling is about fitness, not strength.

 

[bancrobba]

I'm not advocating anything. I'm only asking a question as someone who is relatively new to cycling as fitness training. Why do people like you have to be so confrontational? It's just an internet forum, take it easy.

Keep a mental checklist mate of things not to ask:
Lights at night
Helmets
Hi-viz
and now.....
Heavy bikes and leg muscles!

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

I'm not advocating anything. I'm only asking a question as someone who is relatively new to cycling as fitness training. Why do people like you have to be so confrontational? It's just an internet forum, take it easy.

Not meant in that spirit. But please judge away

 

[Fab Foodie]

A good point. I believe that some racing/performance types revert to riding (steel) fixies for their winter miles, which is a kind of regression away from the uber lightweight high-tech approach.

The likes of Rourke make custom steel 853 winter training bikes for the likes of the GB team and others with guards etc:

 

[mcshroom]

Isn't that what a certain Audax UK member is planning as his ride and outfit for the next PBP?

Bit modern for Drew isn't it?

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

I think the problem with you and a few others here is a basic reading comprehension. I did not say this is about fitness training specific for improving yourself as a cyclist to compete in a race - that I would understand and it's already been pointed out.

Talking of confrontational?

Anyhoo. I just believe that the fitness is a product of something more. I'm in it for social purposes, definitely for going places and seeing things, and the fun of going down the hills too.
For just getting out and getting some exercise anything will do. But I wouldn't go for heavier kit in the belief it will make the rides have a greater impact. In the end your own body weight and the gearing is doing that job more than the weight differential of the bike.


And there's a smiley to show I'm not talking nasty. There no tone of voice on the internet.

 

[Ajax Bay]

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.

And that's not because they necessarily think that heavier bikes are better for their 'fitness' it's because they are both (Ferrand-Prévot and Vos) superb XC and MTB champions and have enjoyed success in those disciplines since youth. So I imagine they enjoy it; certainly they must enjoy beating others, and it'll make a nice change (is as good as a rest) from beasting the roads. The bikes they use to race XC and MTB will be as light as the conditions allow and if they use different bikes for training it will be for durability reasons.

I guess Sagan (with a comparable junior pedigree) would like to do XC and MTB for part of the winter but the road season and preparation therefor is so full on for men (and so lucrative for him in particular) that he can't.

 

[Citius]

The likes of Rourke make custom steel 853 winter training bikes for the likes of the GB team and others with guards etc:

I doubt this would have been a GB team order - most likely a private purchase.

 

[Markymark]

Because people rarely (if ever) do something for just one purpose. There will be a primary and multiple other reasons. If someone's sole reason is fitness, then they wouldn't cycle. It is more dangerous than a turbo or running machine. Clearly the act of cycling is something else (enjoyment, transport, trying to emulate me).

Thus having a lighter, more aerodynamic bike will allow the cyclist to travel further, most likely making rides more enjoyable. Now, the more enjoyable an excersize the easier it is to push yourself more and the more likely it is to keep up the training.

You might find there's some purists who have bought a heavy crappy bike to 'maximise' the fitness regime but probably not many of them around as they got bored quickly and give up.

 

[Thursday guy]

Maybe you could clarify what your question is?

For general fitness training, what are the pros and cons of a heavier commuter bike vs lightweight more aerodynamic bike?