Old 10-07-21, 04:55 PM
  #167  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,850
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4620 Post(s)
Liked 5,160 Times in 3,189 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Perhaps you shouldn't resort to hyperbole when describing another person's opinion. Hopeless? Not if the goal in exercise is to burn calories, which for many it is.

The points between input and output are pedantic. You know what I mean. People often speak of putting out x watts as a measure of their performance ie. I try to maintain x watts. Without a watt meter some use HR, without a HR monitor they use speed. Without a speedo they use perceived effort.
But you still haven't said how you maintain the same level of input on machines of varying resistance if you don't alter a variable.

A disconnect in these discussions has been that between cycling for exercise or cycling for cycling sake, with many defending their stance based on the latter. Much of the benefits of a higher tier bike relates to improving a person's cycling ability, rather than exercise. It's why people who are into cycling generally buy more expensive bikes than those who are only seeking exercise. They (the exercise only) instinctively understand that buying a bike that maximizes performance for racing isn't needed for achieving the goal of exercise. They is no practical benefit.
Nobody as far as I am aware is suggesting that you NEED a faster bike to get more exercise.

The points between input and output are not pedantic when someone clearly doesn't understand their relationship.

Your efficiency in burning calories is not affected by the weight of your bike.

Perceived effort is almost as good as a power meter.

I have said several times how you maintain the same level of input power on machines of varying resistance i.e. GEARS!!!
PeteHski is online now  
Likes For PeteHski: