heavier bike + saddle time

[sundial]

As I was noodling around on my freight train bike, I was pondering the benefits of riding a heavier bike + less saddle time vs. a lighter bike + longer saddle time.

If my heavier bike is twice the weight of my lighter bike and I go half the distance of my lighter bike ride, am I still getting the same cardio benefit?

[Irulan]

As I was noodling around on my freight train bike, I was pondering the benefits of riding a heavier bike + less saddle time vs. a lighter bike + longer saddle time.

If my heavier bike is twice the weight of my lighter bike and I go half the distance of my lighter bike ride, am I still getting the same cardio benefit?

I think not. If you are only going five miles, and riding slower because the the bike is heavier, it's not nearly the benefit of riding ten miles at higher pace on a lighter bike. I seriously doubt that anyone rides twice as fast/hard on a heavy bike, the tendency is to slow down because the bike is a pig.

[sundial]

Well fiddle. I was thinking if I upped my intensity (heavier bike) it would make up for the change in duration (lighter bike) but equal frequency (daily).
My heart rate is up on the heavier bike, too.

[Eden]

I would guess this probably correlates - I read a study once of weight bands for aerobic exercise (running, aerobics etc)- those velcro things you can put on your wrists and ankles. The study found the weight users didn't work any harder than the non weight users, but rather tended to decrease their effort and/or time spent exercising to compensate. The weight users also had a greater number of injuries than the non-weight users.

[Biciclista]

My husband loves to pile on stuff for his commute home rides. He then deliberately tackles hills. Then when he's on a real ride, on a bike 30-50 pounds lighter, he FLIES up hills.

He's a believer in using a heavier bike to train and a lighter bike for the important rides.

[sundial]

Eden, that's interesting. I'll have to ponder this awhile. :)

Mimi, this bike weighs 34 lbs and is heavier than my FS mtb. :p I was thinking today--if I can tackle hills with this bike, imagine how speedy I'll be on the other bikes. :D

It's taking me about a week to get acclimated to the weight and climbing. When I'm through with my ride, I feel like I've had a REAL workout. :o

[Becky]

I don't know if there's any cardio correlation, but I sure feel like I build more muscle schlepping the commuter around. It makes me feel faster and stronger when I'm on the road bike, but I couldn't say whether that's perceived or quantified.

[GLC1968]

I would think that if you try to tackle the same challenges you'd normally do on your lighter bike but with the heavier one...then yes, it would make a huge difference. If you can maintain the same speeds (particularly up hills) then you'll get a better cardio workout. And of course, the more weight you pull, the stronger you'll get...that's the point of resistance training (in all forms).

But definitely, make sure that riding the heavier bike doesn't give you an excuse to slack off.

[Eden]

It should feel different and you should be faster on a lighter bike - its all about power to weight. If you are lugging around a heavier bike, your power to weight ratio will be down. When you switch to that lighter bike you haven't changed the amount of power you are putting out, but because you weigh less you will go faster. It is a great psychological lift even if it doesn't have other benefits (I don't claim to know for sure that it doesn't, but I suspect it probably does not have a functional advantage)

So I can do the same workout on my rain/commuter bike, with a full messenger bag and I will be moving slower for the same power output/hr than would happen with my race bike. It doesn't mean the workout is any different, just the speed. Now if I need to say do slow cadence work (sort of a bike variation of weight training) that may be easier to do on my heavier bike because I wouldn't need to gear up as much to maintain a low cadence, but as far as I can figure there isn't any other advantage.

[Irulan]

What stood out to me was

"half the distance" on the heavier bike.


I can see that 10 miles on the pig bike might be a light more work than the light bike, but I just don't see that 5 miles on a heavy bike would equal 10 on the other.

[sundial]

So I can do the same workout on my rain/commuter bike, with a full messenger bag and I will be moving slower for the same power output/hr than would happen with my race bike. It doesn't mean the workout is any different, just the speed.

Ok, here's what I'm thinking. Sometime back I read Covert Bailey's Fit or Fat book and he made an interesting illustration. He gave the example of he and his aunt walking the same distance but using different levels of effort. He placed a 5 lb backpack on his aunt while he walked without the backpack. They both covered the same distance but because she exerted more effort, she experienced more work and thus an aerobic benefit unlike his. Granted they both covered the same distance, but she worked harder to get there, thus burned more calories.

That's what has me questioning the heavy bike/distance/cardio correlation.

[GLC1968]

Sundial - that's very true. This is why heavier riders who lose a bunch of weight often have a strength advantage - they are used to carrying around so much more weight. You often see it in body transformation photos too - heavier people end up having well muscled legs once they shed the fat layer because they had to get stronger to carry the extra weight (to a point, of course...then you start having joint issues, etc).

I doubt that it's a straight line correlation though. Yes, you could get a good workout in less time, but it'll be a different workout. Beneficial? Yes. The exact same...probably not.

I do know a lot of strong experienced riders that purposely take their knobby, heavy mountain bikes on road rides when they are leading beginner groups so that they still get *some* workout on the shorter, slower rides.

[ZenSojourner]

It's not about speed or weight.

It's about heart rate and duration.

If you're getting your heart rate up into the range where you're getting a cardiac benefit (and I'm not going to give you a number because it's an individual thing based on age and level of training), AND you're riding for the same amount of time up in that effective range, then you're getting "enough" of a workout.

However, if you're cutting out early (timewise, distance can go poo for these purposes) or dropping below the effective range for heart rate, then you're NOT getting as good a workout.

Generally you're looking at something like 70% to 80% of your max heart rate (based on age and condition). How long you stay up there to get an effective workout varies, but if you're staying up there as long or longer on the heavier bike then you're set.

The heavier bike likely will get you into your training range quicker than your lighter bike (which may shorten your total amount of time spent on the bike), but how long do you STAY there? That's what matters, not how much the bike weighs.

[Eden]

I think that only works if they are completely equal in all other ways except for weight and they did the walk in the same amount of time. If she does the walk slower she will be getting less of a cardio workout and actually burning fewer calories.

I ran it through a calculator - numbers are round and low to keep it easy..
I'm assuming Bailey and his aunt weighed each 100 lbs, he put a 5 lb backpack on her and they walk the same distance.
if they walk the same speed she will obviously burn more calories. But if she goes slower she burns fewer calories even over the same distance

Him 100 lbs runs at 5.2 mph for 26 min, burns 187 calories and gets a higher level cardio workout, her 105 lbs walks at 3.5 mph for 38 min burns 128 calories. Both have covered the same distance, but he gets the better workout even though she has the extra weight.

Now the other way - say you are going he same speed, but doing less time - more low numbers for ease of use.
Assuming you weigh 100 lbs and your light bike weighs 20 lbs and you ride for 1/2 hour you would burn 230 calories if we assume the heavier bike is really twice as heavy for a total of 140 lbs and ride for 15 min you only burn 134 calories. The lighter bike with the longer workout still probably comes out to the better workout unless you up the amount of time you are spending on the heavier one.

How exactly the second example relates to cardio, I'm not entirely sure - you likely are getting a slightly better cardio workout for the time you are on the heavier bike (you'd have to monitor your hr to really find out), but because you are doing it much less the overall effect is probably diminished???

[GLC1968]

For the example Sundial gave, I assumed that Baily and his aunt were walking together (over the same distance) and therefore were going the same speed. His aunt put forth more effort because she was carrying more weight.

If you have limited time for your workout, taking the heavier bike and riding it the same speed (for example: a 15 mile loop on your lunch hour), would give you a better workout.

[sundial]

Picking arbitrary numbers, here's an illustration:

17 lb bike + 123 HR + 15 mph over 20 miles

34 lb. bike + 145 HR + 11 mph over 10 miles

So in thinking what ZenSo, Irulan and GLC has suggested, I may not get equal cardio benefit but I will increase strength to power ratio? :confused:

I keep thinking of all those fitness equipment commercials where they advertise quicker fitness in less time by doing more work in less time (i.e. heavier weights, less repetitions). If my heart is challenged more over a shorter period, I'm wondering if I can equal or gain cardio benefit in return.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, I'm just perplexed. Any physiologists are welcome to chime in. :)

[Eden]

For the example Sundial gave, I assumed that Baily and his aunt were walking together (over the same distance) and therefore were going the same speed. His aunt put forth more effort because she was carrying more weight.

If you have limited time for your workout, taking the heavier bike and riding it the same speed (for example: a 15 mile loop on your lunch hour), would give you a better workout.

Indeed - if all other factors are equal, then heavier will be a better workout, but the original question was about wether a heavier bike for less time was equal or better to a lighter bike for twice the amount of time. To keep everything else equal, I think you would have to do a great deal of monitoring. It's very easy to just slow down when you are carrying more weight....

[sundial]

Sorry Eden, I didn't see your calculation on the first page. :) That makes sense.

So I'm still better off riding longer with a lower heart rate than riding shorter with a higher heart rate. Right? :)

[GLC1968]

Sundial - what you are looking with those numbers are essentially two different types of workouts. One is more intense and shorter, the other is less intense and longer. Both have benefits and should be part of a comprehensive plan. Is one better than the other? That depends on your goals.

For most people, the best results come from variety - so both would be better than one or the other. Yay, more excuse to ride! ;)

By the way, there are volumes written on the most effective form of cardio for weight loss, calorie burning, CV improvement, etc. Even the experts don't agree. Honestly, the best answer is that the BEST workout is the one you will do most consistently.

[canonsue]

I would strap on a heart monitor and try your experiment and report back. It would be interesting just to see what the results would be. I would try it, but I only have one bike.

-Sue

[Eden]

Still wrapping my head all the way around this one. So it does sound like you are working harder on the heavier bike and that is good. If the time you spend on the bike is the same, its just the distance that changes and you are seeing your hr higher then you are likely getting a better workout.

In the end it doesn't have as much to do with the bike as it does with good monitoring and adjusting your workout.... I can get the same workout with any of my bikes, the only variation will be the distance covered. The gearing is a bit lower on my heavier bike, so I'm probably not getting any more workout in that respect.

If you have a reason to go less distance, but want a harder workout use the heavier bike. For example I can get a good workout on my commute, which is a set distance by using a heavier bike. If I were to use a lighter bike then I'd have to find extra distance to make up the time (my workouts are all set by time) - With the heavier bike I can still do the workout, but since its slower it takes the requisite amount of time. If you are doing a lot of stop and go, then the heavier bike may be the best choice. For me at least, with the lighter bike it takes longer to get up to the amount of effort I need. If its stop and go, I may not be able to get in enough hard efforts on the lighter bike.

[RoadRaven]

Well fiddle. I was thinking if I upped my intensity (heavier bike) it would make up for the change in duration (lighter bike) but equal frequency (daily).
My heart rate is up on the heavier bike, too.


If your heart rate is up, you are getting a good workout, and as long as you are in that "heavy breathing but can still talk" stage, and you ride for about 40 minutes you are in the aerobic/fat-burning zone.

Churning a heavier bike along will make you stronger, but as Eden said, it is easy to slow down when things are heavier/harder. She has explained the maths well and it really depends what your ultimate goal is from riding in different ways on different bikes.

My training bike is about the same weight as my time trial bike, but much heavier than my carbon racing bike. I intend to always keep it that way because training with more weight one the bike (I always put two full bottles on the bike too, even though I alot of my training rides are only 60-90 minutes and I only consume about one bottle, if that) because training with more weight on hills translates to be faster on hills on my lighter race set-up.

[RoadRaven]

Hi Eden
:)
We're posting at the same time!


In the end it doesn't have as much to do with the bike as it does with good monitoring and adjusting your workout.... I can get the same workout with any of my bikes, the only variation will be the distance covered. The gearing is a bit lower on my heavier bike, so I'm probably not getting any more workout in that respect.

If you have a reason to go less distance, but want a harder workout use the heavier bike.


Yup, what I was trying to say. Heavier kit = harder workout (as long as you push yourself in the same way and don't just tootle. You have to monitor how you feel/ how your body responds)

LOL... when I started riding I thought you just hopped on your bike and rode - turns out it's quite scientific and mathematical!

[smilingcat]

Interesting point about slowing down to compensate for the extra load. So you don't get the benefit of all that extra weight. The extra weight is definitly putting more stress on your body.

Years ago my father made an interesting comment to me. Had to do with bike racing in the early years of Olympic. He said, "When they still had rickshaws, bike pedalling kind (talking about 1910ish...) and the modern Olympic was still in infancy, Japan sent a team of these riders. They figured because they were pulling two or more people on these "bikes" they should really fly with just themselves. Needless to say, it didn't work out that way."

When you are pulling the heavier load, I think your body mechanic is different than if you were "pulling" a lighter load. So not sure except for Bicilista's comment and her husband.

I've wondered about training on a "heavy bike" with fat tires with big knobbies to increase the rolling resistance. But all the annecdotal comments points to "we adjust our workout to compensate for the extra load. Thus you don't see any benefits"

Can someone buy me a Ti frame bike that weighs less than 15 pounds :D :D :D ? pretty please wih sugar on top :D :D

[RoadRaven]

But all the annecdotal comments points to "we adjust our workout to compensate for the extra load. Thus you don't see any benefits"


Ignores plee for new bike... cause if anyones offering, I want it! :p

Hey there Cat
I think you will always get a benefit, because your muscles are working under greater resistence/effort.
Its just, is it the same similar workout on a heavier bike? And if the object of the workout is to be in zone 3 or 4, then you might have to try to spin those legs a bit faster rather than grind the gears more slowly.
I think thats it...

Ah well, I like the "sound" of my own voice... and I just wanted to say "Hi Cat!!" too :)

[sundial]

If you have a reason to go less distance, but want a harder workout use the heavier bike. For example I can get a good workout on my commute, which is a set distance by using a heavier bike. If I were to use a lighter bike then I'd have to find extra distance to make up the time (my workouts are all set by time) - With the heavier bike I can still do the workout, but since its slower it takes the requisite amount of time.

See, that's what I'm doing. :) I'm using the heavy commuter bike to squeeze in a good workout in less time. I use the lighter bike for longer, faster rides.

And I did notice that when I rode the mtb often, I didn't see that much of a change in strength or endurance on the road bike. The speed was the only thing that changed.

This is an interesting discussion and thank you for sharing your thoughts. :)

[Heifzilla]

Mimi, this bike weighs 34 lbs and is heavier than my FS mtb. :p I was thinking today--if I can tackle hills with this bike, imagine how speedy I'll be on the other bikes. :D



I worked on hills today, too, and I was thinking *exactly* this. I mean, if I can haul my butt and my 34+ pound bike up hills and get to the point where it doesn't cause me to collapse at the top :D I think that if I ever got on a lighter bike I'd be able to whip up those hills like nothing. This just makes sense to me.

And, I think I work pretty hard on my bike. I've never ridden a lighter bike, so I have no comparison and don't mentally go around thinking that my bike is heavier so I can't work as hard on it. Know what I mean?

[TxDoc]

He's a believer in using a heavier bike to train and a lighter bike for the important rides.

I sort of agree with his strategy, as long as the setup and geometry of both bikes is the same. :)

[Zen]

I don't know if this will help or just add to the confusion but what the hey. Might as well toss it in the pot :rolleyes:
http://www.workoutsforyou.com/article_fitt.htm

[sundial]

I've never ridden a lighter bike, so I have no comparison and don't mentally go around thinking that my bike is heavier....

Lol, when I weighed my bikes and I got dese numbers stuck in mah head. :p FS=30 lbs (with rack and shin eater pedals) and comooter bike=34 lbs. Funny thing is until I got my Globe I was doing daily noodle rides on my mtb, not the light bike. I'm a glutton for punishment. :rolleyes:

[indysteel]

I would strap on a heart monitor and try your experiment and report back. It would be interesting just to see what the results would be. I would try it, but I only have one bike.

-Sue

Granted, I'm no expert on any of this, but it seems to me that heartrate only tells part of the story. Wattage, along with heartrate, would tell a fuller story.

Just because you're riding a lighter bike doesn't mean you're using less energy/strength. Doesn't it depend on what gear you're using--assuming you're on a relatively flat road?

It takes less energy to ride a lighter bike than a heavier bike at the same speed but that doesn't prevent you from working harder on the lighter bike. Just up your speed, lower year gear and/or increase your cadence. By the same token, riding a heavy bike does not--in itself--guarantee a tougher workout or one that uses significantly more strength. You still have to push yourself.

[ZenSojourner]

Try this and see if it helps. It gives you estimates (mind you these are ESTIMATES) for where your max heart rate probably is.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4736

There's a fairly good explanation of what all this means as well.

So, again, you measure cardiovascular benefit by monitoring heart rate and duration.

If you can get your heart rate into the Zone and then MAINTAIN that level of exercise, you're getting a cardiac workout. It doesn't matter how much your bike weighs, it doesn't matter how fast or slow you are going- the cardiac workout is the same for the same heart rate and duration.

If you are doing cardio training, you should be aiming for a certain percentage of your MHR (Maximum Heart Rate) for a set duration. ALL the formulae available are rules of thumb for determining your MHR. The only way to determine your true MHR is to have a cardiac stress test. But that's ok, as long as you use some common sense when you're trying to estimate your MHR and the Target Heart Rate (THR) you are going to use while training. THR can range from 50% to 85% of your MHR.

Basically, if you're out of shape, use more conservative estimates of your Maximum Heart Rate. Start at the low end of the scale (50%) for your Target Heart Rate

If you have health problems of any sort CONSULT A DOCTOR before trying to determine your MHR and THR

If you are significantly over or even slightly underweight, be conservative in estimating your MHR/THR (again, consult a doctor before starting)

Work up slowly from lower to higher target heart rates. Start at 50%, then when this is comfortable after a few weeks, increase it slightly, work at that rate until you're comfortable there, etc. In a stepwise fashion. DO NOT compare your target HR to anyone else's: if you've got a friend who works comfortably at 80% of his/her MHR, and you're ready to drop after 10 minutes at 60%, you need to BACK DOWN, not up. Current level of fitness is part of this too.

Here is a "MHR calculator" that uses several of the different equations to determine an estimate of your MHR:

http://www.stevenscreek.com/goodies/hr.shtml

Start with the most conservative estimate at the lowest range and work your way up from there.

Again, CONSULT A DOCTOR if there is the least concern about your health. Age, a sedentary lifestyle, weight (under as well as over), and any known medical conditions (not just heart conditions but even something like diabetes or arthritis or joint problems) are all reasons to consult a doctor before beginning an exercise regime. Also if you're on any medication.

Again, regardless of how heavy your bike is or is not, IF you are interested in a cardio workout, you should be aiming for a particular THR of a particular duration. It doesn't matter which bike you're riding, for cardio training you should end up with the same THR and the same duration. It's likely you will achieve this THR more quickly and at a lower top speed on a heavier bike, but you get NO ADVANTAGE whatsoever as far as cardiac conditioning is concerned.

As for duration, research has shown that there is no cardiac benefit to be had for working your heart at it's target rate for more than about 20 minutes. Your total time on the bike will be longer than 20 minutes because you will need to ramp up to your THR, and then cool back down. You don't want to cramp up by just hopping off the bike after 20 minutes at your THR! Plus it's good cardio care to let your heart "cool down" too before you quit.

However, there are additional training considerations when we're talking about cycling. These involve developing stamina, endurance, and strength.

A complete training program includes sprints, hill climbing, interval training, etc etc etc. It's these aspects of training where the heavier/lighter bike becomes more significant.

If you're REALLY interested in training, you need to get a good book on training for cycling.

If all you're interested in is cardio training, you still ought to get a good book on cardio training.

In either case, you need to stretch before and after and work up to and back down from your THR. Don't measure fitness by time on the bike, but by time at your THR.