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. I was thinking today--if I can tackle hills with this bike, imagine how speedy I'll be on the other bikes.

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.

[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.