So cycling indoors in warmth and comfort is the same as cycling outdoors ?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Moodyman

Legendary Member
Whilst cycling outdoors may be more enjoyable, it doesn't compare to cycling indoors for pure fitness.

There are too many external factors - traffic, road surface, weather, wind, etc. On an indoor bike, you crank up the resistance, hunch over the bars and put your legs and lungs through turmoil. There are no distractions. Not even the steepest outdoor hill comes close.
 
I suppose it is still cycling, it's just different. Apart from the very obvious difference, there are other things to consider. For instance, if I go on a long and challenging bike ride outdoors, I would have to pace myself to make sure I returned back to base. If I were to do a long and challenging bike ride indoors, I should be able to go much further (assuming I dealt with the boredom of it) as I could run myself until the tank was empty and I could collapse alongside the stationary bike.

One of the differences I've found with static training compared to 'real world' is that no matter how hard I think I've pushed myself on a static bike, in the real world, due to hills and winds, I've reached that point, and then had to go further to get back.

Point being, and it's perhaps just me, but I don't believe I push myself as hard as I'd like to believe when I'm on a static machine and can simply get off and stop when my legs jelly.
 
Location
Essex
One of the differences I've found with static training compared to 'real world' is that no matter how hard I think I've pushed myself on a static bike, in the real world, due to hills and winds, I've reached that point, and then had to go further to get back.

Point being, and it's perhaps just me, but I don't believe I push myself as hard as I'd like to believe when I'm on a static machine and can simply get off and stop when my legs jelly.
Interesting - I think there may be two different versions of 'pushing oneself' at play here.

Personally, I've never pushed myself so hard outdoors that I've thrown up, but that's certainly happened on the turbo. In that context, an "effort" would be anything from a sprint up to an hour absolutely flat out (like the Alpe d'Zwift or Ven-Top, for example). I can push past the jelly indoors.

OTOH I find the the sort of effort where hills and wind force you to dig even deeper to get back on the road are tests of endurance and by definition take longer than an hour (otherwise you'd only be half-an-hour away from home which isn't very daunting unless you live in Alpe d'Huez ^_^)
 
Interesting - I think there may be two different versions of 'pushing oneself' at play here.

Personally, I've never pushed myself so hard outdoors that I've thrown up, but that's certainly happened on the turbo. In that context, an "effort" would be anything from a sprint up to an hour absolutely flat out (like the Alpe d'Zwift or Ven-Top, for example). I can push past the jelly indoors.

OTOH I find the the sort of effort where hills and wind force you to dig even deeper to get back on the road are tests of endurance and by definition take longer than an hour (otherwise you'd only be half-an-hour away from home which isn't very daunting unless you live in Alpe d'Huez ^_^)

Fair point, I guess I am referring to the endurance element.

As for the question in the OP, there are plenty of variations on the theme of cycling, and the lady in question has opted for one that fits her lifestyle and that she enjoys, so fair play to her in my book. Who knows, someone could be wary of cycling on the roads, and feel inspired to try indoor cycling as a result of reading her story, which could just prompt them to try outdoors.
 
Many years ago, when Chris Boardman and Peter Keen surfaced, they came up with the theory that all training could be done on a machine.
Chris turned pro and went to Europe. He tried his static training - but not for long. Soon he was put every day building up the miles and conditioning for the races he was in.
 

Cycleops

Legendary Member
Location
Accra, Ghana
Any kind of stationary indoor cycling is like having sex with a blowup doll - no matter what fancy features the manufacturers add to make things more realistic, it's still a spiritually empty experience.
I wonder if you get as many punctures.
 

bridgy

Legendary Member
Location
Cheddar
Many years ago, when Chris Boardman and Peter Keen surfaced, they came up with the theory that all training could be done on a machine.
Chris turned pro and went to Europe. He tried his static training - but not for long. Soon he was put every day building up the miles and conditioning for the races he was in.
For many (possibly most) pro cyclists, riding on a turbo trainer is a very important part of their training - and has been for many years. Matt Stephens who raced in the 80s and 90s talks about this in one of his recent podcasts, but points out the boredom of training on a turbo in the days before smart trainers and Zwift etc.

I find it funny that some people are mocking or belittling riding done on a trainer vs real world riding. Just do what you enjoy and works for you - why be negative about what other people choose to do and enjoy??

Personally I do both, and riding on Zwift is a big part of the cycling I do for various reasons. One is convenience but also there are different fitness/training benefits you can get from indoor training (which is why pros do it). And as for it being "spiritually empty" - it's different but not always inferior as an experience. Racing in Zwift can be very immersive and very sociable - and at times far more "spritually fulfilling" than a solo ride in miserable weather or dangerous traffic. Outdoor rides can also be fantastic of course - I've experienced plenty of both.

On a properly calibrated smart trainer and using software like Zwift I see no problem in measuring your activity in (virtual) miles or kms, just as you probably would on a modern running treadmill of rowing machine. The whole point of these machines is to replicate the effort needed
 
OP
OP
Landsurfer

Landsurfer

Veteran
But that wouldn't take into account effort levels. So you could make it a Joules challenge.
But that wouldn't take into account smaller, lighter, riders putting out lower power. So you could use some kind of algorithm to account for the effect of the power on the mass.
And you'd be back to a mileage challenge! :smile:

Or just say “"Cycling only no exercise bikes ... bit like the motorcycle challenge i’m taking part in ... lots of places to visit and proof with pictures ...
 
Location
Essex
Would you pay full price for a new motorbike with 50,000 miles on the clock if you were told they were all done on a rolling road with realistic resistance, but indoors so they don't really count? ^_^
 

Ming the Merciless

There is no mercy
Location
Inside my skull
Whilst cycling outdoors may be more enjoyable, it doesn't compare to cycling indoors for pure fitness.

There are too many external factors - traffic, road surface, weather, wind, etc. On an indoor bike, you crank up the resistance, hunch over the bars and put your legs and lungs through turmoil. There are no distractions. Not even the steepest outdoor hill comes close.

Beg to differ I’ve hit my highest heart rates outdoors, closest indoors have got is around 97%
 

Ming the Merciless

There is no mercy
Location
Inside my skull
Nice idea. Although probably want to replace that with a personalised zone or something (just to make it more fiddly to calculate). But tbh it's probably simplest to just do distance as that's what the Zwift platform provides.

On a more general point It's worth noting that this challenge is a Zwift-only thing. All distances in the challenge are virtual, so the suggestion that there is some kind of implied equivalence between on road riding and virtual training is wrong.

Here's the link for anyone who wants to read further than the headline. How Catherine Allen hit 5,000 miles by March 9 - Cycling Weekly

or how she didn’t go anywhere outside by 9th March 😂
 
Top Bottom