Front shocks a problem?
11-23-14, 01:22 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Brunswick, GA
Posts: 7
Bikes: Raleigh Mountain Sport M20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Front shocks a problem?
I am riding an entry level mountain bike that I bought for my son in college and reclaimed 
when he no longer needed it. It has front shocks and street tires. Since I am riding for exercise (very pleasurable), does it make any difference that I am losing speed and energy efficiency from having shocks? Most of my riding is on paved roads. Everything I read refers to the energy that is expended but not realized in speed due to the shocks, but if I am primarily interested in the cardiovascular benefit and the overall exercise that is obtained from cycling, does it really matter if I have shocks? I have been riding for a year, am 67 years old, have dropped 47 lbs and am averaging 8-10 miles per day. I believe I will probably upgrade to a better bike at some point but will probably stay with a mountain bike or get a hybrid because I want the ability to use my bike on trails in our area. This is all such an educational experience and I appreciate any comments, particularly regarding the issue of shocks in my riding situation.
when he no longer needed it. It has front shocks and street tires. Since I am riding for exercise (very pleasurable), does it make any difference that I am losing speed and energy efficiency from having shocks? Most of my riding is on paved roads. Everything I read refers to the energy that is expended but not realized in speed due to the shocks, but if I am primarily interested in the cardiovascular benefit and the overall exercise that is obtained from cycling, does it really matter if I have shocks? I have been riding for a year, am 67 years old, have dropped 47 lbs and am averaging 8-10 miles per day. I believe I will probably upgrade to a better bike at some point but will probably stay with a mountain bike or get a hybrid because I want the ability to use my bike on trails in our area. This is all such an educational experience and I appreciate any comments, particularly regarding the issue of shocks in my riding situation.
11-23-14, 01:31 PM
#2
Senior Member
What do you mean by does it matter and to whom? You answered your own question. The shocks reduce your efficiency therefore not all of your effort translate into speed. However you're still working the same heart rate.
A stiffer, more efficient road bike will make you go faster and cover more distance on any given time, it's also easier to maintain a steady speed.
You burn calories the same based on your heart rate and length of time you spend on a bike.
A stiffer, more efficient road bike will make you go faster and cover more distance on any given time, it's also easier to maintain a steady speed.
You burn calories the same based on your heart rate and length of time you spend on a bike.
11-23-14, 01:37 PM
#3
Senior Member
11-23-14, 01:48 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: West Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,773
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked 104 Times
in
87 Posts
Getting back to the question, for the distances you are traveling, would keep the shock, as it won't be making that much difference in the speed you are going. You haven't mentioned comfort, depending on your local road conditions, a shock could be useful.
11-23-14, 02:09 PM
#9
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Brunswick, GA
Posts: 7
Bikes: Raleigh Mountain Sport M20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't know a thing about heart rate and energy expenditure, but I guess now I will learn....lol. I really could not care less about a somewhat reduced speed, so in the interest of having at least some off-road capability and comfort with rough roads, I probably will stick with the type of bike I have. I appreciate the comments.
11-23-14, 02:10 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,968
Bikes: '09 Trek 2.1 * '75 Sekine * 2010 Raleigh Talus 8.0 * '90 Giant Mtb * Raleigh M20 * Fuji Nevada mtb
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Welcome to Bikeforums. Enjoy the ride.
__________________
FB4K - Every October we wrench on donated bikes. Every December, a few thousand kids get bikes for Christmas. For many, it is their first bike, ever. Every bike, new and used, was donated, built, cleaned and repaired. Check us out on FaceBook: FB4K.
Disclaimer: 99% of what I know about cycling I learned on BF. That would make, ummm, 1% experience. And a lot of posts.
FB4K - Every October we wrench on donated bikes. Every December, a few thousand kids get bikes for Christmas. For many, it is their first bike, ever. Every bike, new and used, was donated, built, cleaned and repaired. Check us out on FaceBook: FB4K.
Disclaimer: 99% of what I know about cycling I learned on BF. That would make, ummm, 1% experience. And a lot of posts.
11-23-14, 03:54 PM
#13
Senior Member
BS. Just because the relationship is not 1:1 and not linear does not mean there is no correlation. Come on now. You know better than this.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
11-23-14, 04:07 PM
#14
Senior Member
Ride a trainer at a fixed power indoors without additional cooling. Over time, my heart rate creeps up, Am I burning more calories?
11-23-14, 04:32 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Boone, North Carolina
Posts: 5,094
Bikes: 2009 Cannondale CAAD9-6 2014 Trek Domaine 5.9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
ride with the brakes on, you'll get a better workout!!
11-23-14, 04:47 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
Ride along on a gentle slope at a moderate effort. Shift to an easier gear maintaining the same speed; heart rate goes up. Now shift down to a harder gear than you started with still maintaining the same speed; heart rate will drop. Which of those efforts burned the most calories?
Ride a trainer at a fixed power indoors without additional cooling. Over time, my heart rate creeps up, Am I burning more calories?
Ride a trainer at a fixed power indoors without additional cooling. Over time, my heart rate creeps up, Am I burning more calories?
You've discovered that heart rate is variable!
OH!!!! MY!!!! GOD!!!!
YOU'RE GOING TO WIN THE NOBEL PRIZE IN MEDICINE!!!
You've also demonstrated you have no ****ing idea what "correlated" means.
This should help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence
11-23-14, 05:00 PM
#17
Senior Member
^^^1+
You seem awfully sure of yourself.
1) your body has energy overheads for movement. It is extremely probable that moving your legs fast with little force takes more energy than moving slower and higher force.
2) your body expends energy to cool itself. It is extremely probable that overheating forces your body to use more energy rejecting heat.
Just because that energy doesn't find it's way to the road doesn't mean it isn't used. Might it be possible that for aerobic efforts, heart rate might actually correlate better than power-to-the-road measurement for measuring the overall energy use state of the human body?
To put it another way, a kcal (the unit used to measure food energy, AKA "Calorie") is equal to about 4kJ of energy. The body only converts about 25% of each kcal to the road when you are riding. Where does the rest go? These are the overheads for running the body's systems. Your heartrate is going to be taking into account your total body oxygen needs which is a proxy for total energy used (since oxygen is used in the chemical reactions to produce chemical energy). Why isn't this a better measure of total energy expenditure than a power measurement that only counts 25% of the body's energy usage? Of course, 25% efficiency is an average; this average will fluctuate depending on the other processes going about in the body.
Don't confusing "training stress" with "total energy expended". It is probable that training stress is better correlated with energy-to-the-road than heartrate. It is equally probable that heartrate is better correlated with total energy expenditure. In other words, if you are looking to get fast, follow power. If you are looking to burn calories, follow heartrate. These are not the same things.
Ride along on a gentle slope at a moderate effort. Shift to an easier gear maintaining the same speed; heart rate goes up. Now shift down to a harder gear than you started with still maintaining the same speed; heart rate will drop. Which of those efforts burned the most calories?
Ride a trainer at a fixed power indoors without additional cooling. Over time, my heart rate creeps up, Am I burning more calories?
Ride a trainer at a fixed power indoors without additional cooling. Over time, my heart rate creeps up, Am I burning more calories?
1) your body has energy overheads for movement. It is extremely probable that moving your legs fast with little force takes more energy than moving slower and higher force.
2) your body expends energy to cool itself. It is extremely probable that overheating forces your body to use more energy rejecting heat.
Just because that energy doesn't find it's way to the road doesn't mean it isn't used. Might it be possible that for aerobic efforts, heart rate might actually correlate better than power-to-the-road measurement for measuring the overall energy use state of the human body?
To put it another way, a kcal (the unit used to measure food energy, AKA "Calorie") is equal to about 4kJ of energy. The body only converts about 25% of each kcal to the road when you are riding. Where does the rest go? These are the overheads for running the body's systems. Your heartrate is going to be taking into account your total body oxygen needs which is a proxy for total energy used (since oxygen is used in the chemical reactions to produce chemical energy). Why isn't this a better measure of total energy expenditure than a power measurement that only counts 25% of the body's energy usage? Of course, 25% efficiency is an average; this average will fluctuate depending on the other processes going about in the body.
Don't confusing "training stress" with "total energy expended". It is probable that training stress is better correlated with energy-to-the-road than heartrate. It is equally probable that heartrate is better correlated with total energy expenditure. In other words, if you are looking to get fast, follow power. If you are looking to burn calories, follow heartrate. These are not the same things.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
11-23-14, 06:17 PM
#18
Senior Member
^^^^ This.
Let's dumb it down a bit.
Sit on a couch for 3 hours watching tv , if you don't move much you'll be at your resting heart rate. Do that 7 days a week for years and you'll see what happens.
Now go for a gentle walk for 3 hours, your hear rate will go up a bit, still think you're burning the same amount of calories??
What about training hard for 2-3 hours with a very elevated heart rate. See your logic going out of the window?
Please don't argue what you know nothing about.
Let's dumb it down a bit.
Sit on a couch for 3 hours watching tv , if you don't move much you'll be at your resting heart rate. Do that 7 days a week for years and you'll see what happens.
Now go for a gentle walk for 3 hours, your hear rate will go up a bit, still think you're burning the same amount of calories??
What about training hard for 2-3 hours with a very elevated heart rate. See your logic going out of the window?
Please don't argue what you know nothing about.
11-23-14, 06:22 PM
#19
Senior Member
What if I drink a cup of coffee?
Last edited by asgelle; 11-23-14 at 06:37 PM.
11-23-14, 07:06 PM
#22
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Brunswick, GA
Posts: 7
Bikes: Raleigh Mountain Sport M20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks, Road Tire. Had no intention of starting such a technical discussion with my first post, but since I am so new to biking, I was interested to know if there were other issues involved that might be beneficial to know about. And your comments about speed, performance, longer rides, etc. may become factors in the future. Actually, it is kind of interesting to think about all the dynamics involved in riding and what combination of riding activities might produce the most benefit from a calorie-burning and/or cardiovascular perspective. Thanks for the welcome.
11-23-14, 07:08 PM
#23
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Brunswick, GA
Posts: 7
Bikes: Raleigh Mountain Sport M20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
11-23-14, 07:08 PM
#24
Senior Member
11-23-14, 07:10 PM
#25
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Brunswick, GA
Posts: 7
Bikes: Raleigh Mountain Sport M20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts