Mileage theory

[pooks]

Is the health benefit/caloric burn determined by mileage or by time spent cycling/effort exerted?

When I was swimming for weight loss I read somewhere that it didn't matter how far you swam, just how long you swam (as long as you were really swimming). That a poor swimmer burned as many or more calories as an efficient one.

Does having a heavier bike that is more work to ride a better workout than a bike that rides smooth as silk?

[Veronica]

Effort exerted. Yes, you will expend more effort riding a heavier bike. That's why during last year's training I put rocks in my saddle bag.

I suppose the question is, will a lighter bike encourage you to ride more?

V.

[bmccasland]

I think its effort and time. Strolling for an hour doesn't burn as many calories as running for an hour. In swimming theres a certain amount of resistance in the water, and it's hard to swim slowly, you have to move a certain amount to keep afloat.

Depending on where you are in your fitness level - and I'm thinking of a poster that's in the exam room of my doctor's office. - the bottom level is to get out and move - go for a walk, slow bike ride, something 3-5 x per week. Then when you're comfortable with that start increasing your activity level. Pushing yourself harder.

Yes you'll work harder on a heavier bike, but on the lighter smooth as silk bike you could drive your harder to go fast.

Seems to me that whatever keeps you out there is what you should do. Which bike is more fun to ride?

[li10up]

My understanding is (lets take running as an example) that a person who runs fast but for a short duration burns the same calories as a person who runs slowly but for a longer duration. I'm not sure of the time frame involved here. I'm sure some calculations are involved. But I think the overall message is, if you can't go fast/hard then go longer (duration, not necessarily distance).

Anyone concur?

[pooks]

Well, if my bike fit, I don't think weight would bother me except when going uphill and we don't have that much of that around here. It doesn't fit, so that's an entirely new subject.

I'd prefer a lighter bike that fits. That's my goal. But this goes beyond that.

So, if I ride an hour now, and it's kind of hard -- and I get a bike that's easier to ride --

Is the advantage that it will be easier to ride longer/farther?

Are you saying that riding an easier bike an hour might not give me the same benefit as riding my current bike?

Or that I'd end up working just as hard, but it wouldn't feel as hard?

[Veronica]

Will you be riding with the same heart rate? Calorie expenditure is based on how hard you work.

For example nearly the same route, same bike:

Ride 1: average HR 148, calories burned 1174, ride time 1:41, distance 23.2, average speed 14.9

Ride 2: average HR 166, calories burned 1256, ride time 1:29, distance 22.8, average speed 15.9

If I had stayed out for the same amount of time and kept working at the same rate, I'd have burned even more calories.

It's really about you and how hard you work, not the bike.

A more comfortable, smoother ride may keep you on the bike longer, which would translate to more calories.

V.

PS The first ride was with other people. The second ride was by myself.

[Pedal Wench]

Another way of looking at it:

With a heavier bike, you might go 12mph, so, for one hour, you've gone 12 miles at a certain level of perceived effort.

The next day, on a lighter ('easier') bike, you can go 15 mph, because it's lighter. So, for one hour, you've gone 15 mph, but it will be with the same level of perceived effort.

[Veronica]

Or that I'd end up working just as hard, but it wouldn't feel as hard?

Greg Lemond said, "It never gets easier, you just go faster."


V.

[Veronica]

Go back to the original question

Is the health benefit/caloric burn determined by mileage or by time spent cycling/effort exerted?

Does having a heavier bike that is more work to ride a better workout than a bike that rides smooth as silk?

The health benefit comes from time and effort. If she spends less time and less effort, what's the point of a new bike? (except better fit, which is a big issue.)

I think Pooks has to decide, will a new bike make her get out longer and more often? That's what will aid her in burning calories.


V.

[mimitabby]

Bottom line, if it's more fun, she's going to ride more and harder and have fun
zooming around. The more you ride, the more calories you burn the more muscles you build. if a bike is frustrating and ponderous, you're going to leave it parked.
I get a great delight out of jumping on my Bianchi and making those tires spine!

[fikustree]

Have you tried using a Heart Rate Monitor? That makes all the difference for me. You can even see a guesstimate of calories burned.

The "rule" that I learned from running is that you would burn the same amount of calories going for a half hour run as an hour walk.

With more resistance (heavier bike, more hills, harder gears) you will build muscle and adding muscle increases your calorie burning capacity because muscles need fuel to work.

So in the end you could ride all day somewhere flat or you could go for a tough hilly ride at a fast pace and get a better workout because you will burn calories for a while afterwards.

In the end, it is best to do both long slower rides and shorter tough rides because your body will probably respond best to changing things up.

[pooks]

I probably should get a HRM. It just looks like it would drive me crazy, fastened around me like that.

There's no doubt in my mind that I need a new bike. I'm just weighing all sorts of things, and I've gotten mixed messages on the benefits of an easier ride, that's all. It just seems logical that working harder will burn more calories. I won't intentionally be buying a heavy bike, mind you, just to burn more!

[Pedal Wench]

I probably should get a HRM. It just looks like it would drive me crazy, fastened around me like that.

There's no doubt in my mind that I need a new bike. I'm just weighing all sorts of things, and I've gotten mixed messages on the benefits of an easier ride, that's all. It just seems logical that working harder will burn more calories. I won't intentionally be buying a heavy bike, mind you, just to burn more!

As I said, you'll probably use the same amount of energy. If you maintained a speed, say 12 mph on the heavy bike, you are correct - you'll use less calories on the lighter bike to maintain that speed - it will be easier. But, if you're used to a certain amount of effort, the new bike, at that same effort, will go faster. Given the same output of energy, you'll just go faster on the new bike. So, you can burn the same, if not more calories on the new bike, because you'll go faster!

[SadieKate]

I probably should get a HRM.

You know, lots of people over the eons have managed to get fitter and faster without a HRM. I think I read somewhere that Tom Boonen doesn't use a HRM. To each his own, but somehow I think at this state of your cycling life you just need to find a bike that fits you, makes you happy and you have fun riding.

A friend of mine would have said "buying a Ferrari to squish grapes." Right now, you're squishing grapes. If you decide later that you want to make wine, you'll know whether you need fancy techno-gradgets to do it or if the simple joy of riding and knowlege of your body is enough.

[Veronica]

Is the health benefit/caloric burn determined by mileage or by time spent cycling/effort exerted?

Does having a heavier bike that is more work to ride a better workout than a bike that rides smooth as silk?

I was answering this question with specific data to back up my answer.

I don't really care whether she buys a new bike or not. I wanted to answer the question she asked not give anecedotal evidence about whether or not a new bike would help her achieve her goals.

V.