# Question to people who cycle for fitness



## Thursday guy (17 Jan 2016)

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.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Jan 2016)

I don't ride at a given speed, I ride at a certain level of exertion so it doesn't matter what I wear or ride, I am always making the same effort.

I enjoy riding better bikes and feel more comfortable wearing cycling kit, so that's what I do. 

So, my advice is to do what you want to do, and to try as hard as you want to!


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Jan 2016)

The rider determines how much they get out of their exercise by how much effort they put in.

Changing clothes or machine wouldn't automatically make the rider try harder.


----------



## HarryTheDog (17 Jan 2016)

Your theory only works if you were doing the same distance and course on 2 very different bikes, if you are excercising for the same time the effort needed is no different. On the lighter more aerodynamic bike with more aerodynamic clothing you will just go further and faster. When I change from my MTB with 2.3 inch wide tyres ands then jump on my carbon road bike with skinny tyres I dont go " oh well I can take it easy now".


----------



## nickyboy (17 Jan 2016)

Lighter bike, better gear means I can try as hard as I would with a heavy bike etc but I go faster and I go further which is a nice thing

Regarding selling your commuter, I wouldn't. I'm sure it's fine for your day to day commute and it's almost certainly fine for leisure/training rides


----------



## Drago (17 Jan 2016)

No matter what bike we have we tend to hammer them as fast as we can anyway.


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2016)

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.


----------



## tallliman (17 Jan 2016)

Going further and faster for my energy is a big plus for me. It also makes commuting 20miles each way a little quicker.


----------



## Cubist (17 Jan 2016)

This bloke will win next year's Tour, mark my words


----------



## Citius (17 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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?



Flawed logic. And flawed physics.


----------



## Specialeyes (17 Jan 2016)

As well as the go-further-for-a-given-amount-of-exertion factor, there's also rider comfort to consider in relation to clothing. I'm much less inclined to ride for long periods in civvies than I am in a wicking fabric and lycra...


----------



## vickster (17 Jan 2016)

Surely people can ride what they want, when they want, how they want, wearing whatever they want regardless of the reason for doing so. Cycling is a broad church


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (17 Jan 2016)

Ride a heavy bike in uncomfortable clothes. Get knackered or injured. Give up.
Great philosophy.

Why not just get out and have fun when you can?
Sod fitness, thats a handy by-product.


----------



## Thursday guy (17 Jan 2016)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Ride a heavy bike in uncomfortable clothes. Get knackered or injured. Give up.
> Great philosophy.
> 
> Why not just get out and have fun when you can?
> Sod fitness, thats a handy by-product.



T shirts and shorts are uncomfortable?


----------



## Thursday guy (17 Jan 2016)

Citius said:


> Flawed logic. And flawed physics.



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?


----------



## 400bhp (17 Jan 2016)

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 (17 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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 (17 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> 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 (17 Jan 2016)

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 (17 Jan 2016)

400bhp said:


> 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 (17 Jan 2016)

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 (17 Jan 2016)

Saluki said:


> 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 (17 Jan 2016)

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


----------



## slowmotion (17 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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 (17 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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 (17 Jan 2016)

Saluki said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

blazed said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

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 (18 Jan 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

blazed said:


> 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..


----------



## Thursday guy (18 Jan 2016)

blazed said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

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 (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

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 (18 Jan 2016)

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


----------



## rugby bloke (18 Jan 2016)

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 (18 Jan 2016)

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 (18 Jan 2016)

Citius said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


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



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


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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.



blazed said:


> 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.



Nigel-YZ1 said:


> 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...



Globalti said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Citius said:


> 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.


----------



## Citius (18 Jan 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> 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.



Accy cyclist said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

blazed said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

User said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> *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 (18 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

Fab Foodie said:


> 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 (18 Jan 2016)

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 (18 Jan 2016)

Citius said:


> 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?


----------



## Markymark (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


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


Making the work out more enjoyable as you can travel further.Also, it is differnt training. A heavier bike on shorter rides will be a different trainging sessions to a longer ride on a better bike.


----------



## Thursday guy (18 Jan 2016)

Citius said:


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



Fair enough, maybe I should change to 'physical' training, covering anything


----------



## Thursday guy (18 Jan 2016)

bancrobba said:


> Keep a mental checklist mate of things not to ask:
> Lights at night
> Helmets
> Hi-viz
> ...


 
haha, noted


----------



## Milkfloat (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


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



In fitness terms only, I would suspect that the aero bike will improve your core significantly more than the commuter. Other than that, it is all down the effort you put in and how long you can last on each bike.


----------



## Citius (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


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



There are no 'benefits' to riding a heavier bike. Regardless of the weight of the bike, the rider will pedal it at an optimum rate according to their fitness level.


----------



## Thursday guy (18 Jan 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> In fitness terms only, *I would suspect that the aero bike will improve your core significantly more than the commuter.* Other than that, it is all down the effort you put in and how long you can last on each bike.



What's the reason for that do you think?


----------



## Citius (18 Jan 2016)

User3094 said:


> Assuming the rider rides as fast they can, 100% of the time.



No. I said 'optimum' not 'maximum'. People generally ride at optimum power outputs, not maximum, unless it is absolutely necessary..


----------



## Citius (18 Jan 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> I would suspect that the aero bike will improve your core significantly more than the commuter



A drop bar bike will stress different areas of your core than a more upright bike. That's about it.


----------



## Milkfloat (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> What's the reason for that do you think?



The position you need to be able to get into and then hold. An aero bike will have you much lower requiring you to either improve your core or take the weight on your hands (not a great idea).


----------



## Citius (18 Jan 2016)

User3094 said:


> People in groups of varying abilities?



If people have differing fitness levels, then they have differing fitness levels. If one rider needs to ride at full CV in order to stay with another rider riding significantly sub threshold, then that is never going to end well. Not sure what you are asking?


----------



## Ajax Bay (18 Jan 2016)

The quote "It never gets easier, you just go _faster_." (Greg LeMond) could be applied to this (lighter/aero frame versus 'heavier commuter' - but he was referring to being fitter, I think). (To which one could add 'or _further_'.)
And might I add to @Citius 's one liner above: ". . . according to their fitness level _and inclination." _I guess you will get some people who enjoy a nice heavy bike and work harder as a result. Also if going out in a group which they think is likely to be on average of lower fitness than they believe themselves to be, a rider might select her/his heavier bike as she/he'll get a good ride (ie plenty of effort) while staying with the group (as opposed to getting cold waiting at the top of each climb).


----------



## Citius (18 Jan 2016)

User3094 said:


> Highlighting just one reason why a heavier bike would be of no benefit.



Define 'heavier'. Unless the bike is several times the weight of the 'lighter' bike, there will be practically no difference on the flat (thanks to Newton's laws of motion and the conservation of momentum), and only minor, largely undetectable differences when climbing.


----------



## Ajax Bay (18 Jan 2016)

Joining in with your defining spirit, define:


Citius said:


> minor, largely undetectable differences


A bike 2kg heavier would be 2% (ish - please forgive me for not re-examining the formula) harder (power at the same speed) to cycle up a hill.
I reckon if I'd had 2% more on the critical climb yesterday morning (club run), I wouldn't have been dropped. (NB I did not 'choose' to ride my heavier bike, btw.)


----------



## Ajax Bay (18 Jan 2016)

User3094 said:


> Then why the TT bike?


Applaud your bevity @User3094 , but again, what's the question? TT bikes (aero design and aero rider position) are for going as fast as possible on. Full stop.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> 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.


No, not because they're heavier bikes (and I never said it was) but it is good for fitness because even the mighty Vos thinks she'd struggle to keep motivated plugging away with the same bike all year long: "each has different variations of training, different races and different people, so I don’t get bored by doing the same thing. Mixing my disciplines helps me to stay focused the whole year and they help me to become a more complete rider." in a road.cc interview



Ajax Bay said:


> I guess you will get some people who enjoy a nice heavy bike and work harder as a result


Except in high winds, you don't enjoy the weight as such, but more that you're not sat on a razor blade exposed to the water, mud and oil due to no mudguards or chainguard and that heavy bikes can have all mod cons like better navigation aids, food and drink set out in front of you, a sound system, hot coffee, heated gloves and overshoes, perpetual lights, a sofa... (and yes, I've seen all those and more... although the sofacycle is getting up there with the pub bike as specialist kit, really).


----------



## Citius (18 Jan 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Joining in with your defining spirit, define:



In other words, differences that the majority would not notice, or experience in any meaningful sense. I would be surprised if a 2kg weight penalty would make any difference at all in the real world. A couple of 750ml bottles and a tool kit?


----------



## Reefcat (18 Jan 2016)

When I'm not competing, all my major segments are between coffee & cake shops. A lighter bike allows me to pass & sometimes stop for a cake recharge. There should be a strava like app that allows you to calculate the net fitness benefit of distance versus cake consumption. I could take the heavier bike out but eat less cake, or squeeze out a number two & take the light bike in order go further & eat more cake.

It gets a bit complex because not all cake is equal, temperature, humidity even air pressure can affect the results. In fact when trying to accurately assess the pros & cons of bike weight vs cake it gets a bit quantum.


----------



## Venod (18 Jan 2016)

Go out with a group @ 20mph on your best bike everybody working to keep a nice even pace, next time same group same pace but heavier bike, bigger tyres, you will have to work a bit harder to keep up, this will increase your fitness if done correctly.


----------



## Spinney (18 Jan 2016)

*Mod note*:
The thread was descending into argument and a few posters sniping at each other - I have removed a number of posts.This thread is a serious discussion about ways of getting fitter - please stick to the topic.
Any further off-topic posts will be deleted.


----------



## Citius (18 Jan 2016)

Afnug said:


> Go out with a group @ 20mph on your best bike everybody working to keep a nice even pace, next time same group same pace but heavier bike, bigger tyres, you will have to work a bit harder to keep up, this will increase your fitness if done correctly.



Working harder regularly will always increase your fitness. You would need to be on an MTB in a road group for this to have any meaningful benefit. It does work, but the difference is working harder, not riding a heavier bike. You can work harder on any bike if you choose to.


----------



## Dogtrousers (18 Jan 2016)

Citius said:


> In other words, differences that the majority would not notice, or experience in any meaningful sense. I would be surprised if a 2kg weight penalty would make any difference at all in the real world. A couple of 750ml bottles and a tool kit?


The design of the bike - your body position - is probably more significant than its weight, if it's windy. 

(Unscientific anecdote coming up) My heavy old steel bike and my Brompton are probably similar weights. They are ridden in very different circumstances (short commute vs long recreation), so I can't really compare my speeds on them but one very obvious difference is that on a windy day a strong gust can almost bring me to a standstill given my very upright position on the Brommie, whereas it would just find it very annoying riding in the drops on the other bike..

The tyres also may be pretty important too. But I won't pollute the thread with more rubbishy anecdata about Marathon Plus vs Durano Plus ... but you can guess what I'm about to say.


----------



## Citius (18 Jan 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> The design of the bike - your body position - is probably more significant than its weight, if it's windy.



Agreed - even if it isn't windy.


----------



## Venod (18 Jan 2016)

Citius said:


> You can work harder on any bike if you choose to.



Agreed, but if you work harder with the bike you normaly use with the group, you will be leaving them, if you have a heavier bike, doesn't have to be a MTB you will have to work harder to keep up. might not make much difference on the flat but hit a few hills and it becomes harder.


----------



## tyred (18 Jan 2016)

Just ride the damn bike, have fun and stop obsessing over trifles.


----------



## Tin Pot (18 Jan 2016)

Thursday guy said:


> 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.



Man, you got beaten up here didn't you? 

I do, and started on a 16Kg Trax TFS.1 full suspension (if you can call it that) mountain bike and yes, Biggin Hill is a different story on a 9kg road bike 

Cargo shorts are OK for a 30min blast around the woods, but you'll hurt yourself on a 3hr road ride. Appropriate bike wear for the ride is the mantra.

My buddy asked me the same question; surely Id get fitter heaving The Tank up and down the hill?

Well going uphill it is harder work, but you have to think about the whole ride, and the total rider+kit weight, and soon a few kilos here and there aren't such a big deal. Being heavier I come downhill a bit faster, but on the flat once you're rolling, it's really neither here nor there.

Then you have to understand exercise, particularly endurance fitness over strength and sprint speed. The short story is that you need to exercise in such a way that your heart is under a relatively low stress over a long period of time - usually referred to as Zone 2 training. Huffing and puffing red faced is Zone 5 and is of little use long term.

Now you could do either of these on any bike if you pick the right terrain and speed...so it should be clear to you now why he heavy bike doesn't make you fitter quicker.

The last part of the question is, why get the lighter bike? Well, the answer should be "Don't." BUT. If you feel like a nicer, better looking, better handling bike and/or with more durable components and reliable shifting and braking, that is set up for leisure rather than loaded down for commuting...then get one


----------



## Citius (18 Jan 2016)

Afnug said:


> Agreed, but if you work harder with the bike you normaly use with the group, you will be leaving them



Let's not over-state the difference it makes.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> Cargo shorts are OK for a 30min blast around the woods, but you'll hurt yourself on a 3hr road ride. Appropriate bike wear for the ride is the mantra.


 I'm assured that there are some comfortable cargo shorts around. Appropriate _clothing_ for the ride is the mantra... some bike wear is spectactularly unsuitable and may well be regarded in future much as we regard tweed rides now. Heh, I wonder when "Lycra Rides" will become a historical event 



Tin Pot said:


> nicer, better looking, better handling bike and/or with more durable components and reliable shifting and braking


I'm with you on some of it but :roflmao: at the "more durable" and 35mm-pad caliper brakes come as a nasty surprise to people who are used to 70mm-pad V brakes or hub braking!


----------



## Ajax Bay (18 Jan 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> you need to exercise in such a way that your heart is under a relatively low stress over a long period of time - usually referred to as Zone 2 training. Huffing and puffing red faced is Zone 5 and is of little use long term.



'Fraid whilst I agree in part with the first element of the quote above, I can't agree with the second sentence. You need to exercise at multiple levels of effort for optimal training effect (and rest in between). Going very hard (eg your 'Zone 5') for intervals should be an element of one's rides if long term fitness is a goal, and the same goes for longer rides in Zone 2 - the former pushes across to the strength aspect (ie getting up the hills). Thankfully, unless one lives in flat and windless lands, the Zone 2 rides will have a bit of 3 or even 4 thrown in for free. All good; and all can be done on a heavy or a light bike.


----------



## Tin Pot (18 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> I'm assured that there are some comfortable cargo shorts around. Appropriate _clothing_ for the ride is the mantra... some bike wear is spectactularly unsuitable and may well be regarded in future much as we regard tweed rides now. Heh, I wonder when "Lycra Rides" will become a historical event
> 
> 
> I'm with you on some of it but :roflmao: at the "more durable" and 35mm-pad caliper brakes come as a nasty surprise to people who are used to 70mm-pad V brakes or hub braking!




Re: durable. Compare the wheels on my BSO to my miche reflex...I took the BSO (FS MTB) back for wheel truing after three days road riding. Miche reflex, still true after two and a half years 

But yes, my roadie is constantly breaking (see my many, many posts/threads on the subject!).


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> Re: durable. Compare the wheels on my BSO to my miche reflex...I took the BSO (FS MTB) back for wheel truing after three days road riding. Miche reflex, still true after two and a half years


Well yes, but I'm sure someone can find you a road BSO if you want a fairer comparison


----------



## HLaB (18 Jan 2016)

Folk generally cycle light bikes and wear lycra because its more rewarding and comfortable, which makes a lot of people (me included) want to harder and further. Whereas a heavier bike and less comfortable clothing feels like a chore and a lot of people doing that give up!


----------

