Eric F 

A light bike means I can go faster and farther than I can with the same effort and time on a heavy bike? Those sound like excellent benefits. I'm in!

unterhausen

How did something so simple become so contentious?

There are very limited cases where a heavier bike forces you to work harder. For example, when you are riding up a steep hill and run out of gears. Otherwise it would only cause you to work harder if you were trying to keep up with someone who didn't buy a heavy bike in order to cause work for themselves. This really isn't about the bike, it's how you chose to pace yourself. One of my bikes is pretty heavy, I just go slower on it. But not much, weight isn't all that important most of the time. If you want to work harder and don't want to buy a new, heavier bike, just adjust your brakes so they rub.

Happy Feet

As I was saying about ad hominen attacks...
This says more about your position than mine.

I agree with what you first wrote. Then you went on to strenuously defend a lighter bike. Don't paint my consistent positioning aa bizarre in comparison.

There is a reason I am being pedantic in my basic assertions. When debating against others who wish to turn an argument by attacking the messenger instead of the message, or attack the message by obscurating, the best defense is to keep the messaging simple, consistent and don't get sidetracked down the personal rabbitholes from which there is no right or wrong.

If you disagree with one of my premises I'm all for an objective argument against. If it's valid I'll agree, if not I'll point out why I don't think that is.

I won't attack the messenger, I'll debate the reasoning.

And here I thought we had all just agreed that weight did not matter. If the goal is exercise, why is going further or faster a benefit? It sounds like the bike dictates you need to do more to get the same effect (one of my premises).

From an exercise perspective, what benefit is derived from needing to do more (go further or faster) to gain the same net effect?

wolfchild

Whenever i cook bacon I save the grease and use that as my chain lube.

livedarklions

Basically, this whole thread has been an absurd attempt to describe a feature as a bug.
​

Happy Feet

No, it's been an attempt to challenge conventional wisdom with objective reasoning, that has been met with a fervent attempt by some to preserve the status quo by various means as if questioning itself were some sort of personal challenge.

Look, it's just a question I find interesting. The fact that some would think a bike designed for easier pedaling would give a better workout. It doesn't pass the sniff test objectively, for the reasons I've stated.

It's a question on a discussion forum. I took an unpopular stance that I think is correct. You can agree or disagree with those premises but my defense of them is not absurd.

Ad hominen attacks on a discussion forum when one could easily just click to the next thread could be construed as"absurd". But not by me. I'm just sticking to the facts.

Eric F 

Why? Because the human/emotional factors matter. This is part of the equation which you are ignoring - possibly intentionally. Enjoyment of the exercise encourages one to do it longer, harder, and/or more often.

tomato coupe

No, it was just simple curiosity. I was also wondering, do you have TREK and Specialized stores on your planet, or are all bike shops independently owned?

Happy Feet

I am aware of those factors but they are subjective and vary between users, so making an objective statement based on them would be hard to do.

Like the fact that people can choose to apply more effort regardless of which bike is being used. That is objectively true. To say a lighter bike makes one want to apply more effort is subjective. It may apply to you but not universally. Some people, given an easier bike to pedal, may just slack off a bit and still be able to keep.up to the group.

I am sticking to objective facts because they are universal. A bike with lower rolling resistance and weight is easier to pedal. That's a fact I hope wouldn't be argued here.

If the goal in exercise in general is to work against resistance, then buying a bike that reduces resistance runs contrary to that goal. To be exact, in this debate, I would not go as far as to say that is a "fact" because it is being challenged. it is a premise I am arguing as fact. People are free to disagree but it should be objectively, not subjectively.

Subjectively, I would concede that every person's subjective truth is true, for them.

The downside to that is then we have to concede that for the OP, a workout on a crappy heavy bike is just as good or better than on a light racing bike. Objectively false but subjectively true, for him.

I don't buy that argument but do think, in a more reasonable comparison, there is some truth to the underlying premise.

Happy Feet

Not interested. I saw that Monty Python skit already.

livedarklions

The thing is you are arguing with "conventional wisdom" that doesn't exist. There's a reason they sell a lot more midrange price bicycles than they do the high-end stuff.. The high-end stuff is basically a niche market in the big scheme of things. Also, I have never heard anyone saying the reason for buying an ultralight bike is to give them a better workout. They're certainly not marketed that way, they're pitched as being faster and for how long people can ride them.

Point is that a heavier bike has no capabilities to give a better workout that can't be compensated for on a lighter. bike, but that a heavier bike can't be magically be made lighter at times you want the bike to be lighter.

You're cherry-picking your facts to "prove" to people who like ultralight bikes that they shouldn't. It's an absurd exercise, but your silliness here is somewhat entertaining.

TL/DR: If you think "you should pay $5000 for a bike" is conventional wisdom, you're spending wayyyyy too much time on bf.

livedarklions

What you prove there is if you start with a bad premise, you get a silly conclusion. The goal in exercise is not to work against resistance. You've confused a method with a goal. And the logical conclusion from your incorrect premise would be that a bicycle of any kind is contrary to that goal-- the whole point of the machine is to allow the human body to move through the world with less resistance than that encountered walking or running.

So, using your own reasoning, you should discard your bicycle.

And if you really want to increase resistance on the road, push a car with its engine off.

Sy Reene

This is a good summation overall. Though I don't think it's limited as much as implied. For that hill example (as a small portion of perhaps the overall ride you chose to ride) -- you don't have to run out of gears, you just need to realize that the heavier bike will just take (a very tiny bit) longer (duration) to crest the top of the hill than it would have on a somewhat lighter bike. It's not really about working harder, but having to work longer.

A lot of the agita in this thread is over the concept of 'training' and 'workout'. Many riders don't follow a structured and timed training regimen. They may look at some simple numeric app metric such as TSS (Garmin) or Relative Effort (Strava), or just the simple "Work" number. Duration of effort is typically a part of any of these measurements, and a heavier bike simply means that for whatever ride/course you chose to ride, it took a bit longer. This is where the discussion usually gets animated, so it's perhaps helpful to put some context on this "bit longer".

A 150lb rider, doing a 50mile ride, outputting 175 average watts on a 22lb bike, will spend only a couple minutes longer on that (~3hr) ride than if they were on a 17lb bike and burn maybe an extra 20-30 calories. In other words, as you said, it isn't really that important, but a difference does exist. For those kinds of differences, I find the arguments that people would adjust their riding plans to accommodate a bit suspect. I don't think anyone is going to extend or shrink their planned ride route by 1/2 mile, or alternatively think to themselves that once they get home they'll ride around the block once or twice extra because of their lighter bike. Sure you *could* do any of these things as suggested by a few posters, but would you really?

terrymorse 

You can get the same workout on a top-tier road bike or a big box store mountain bike.

The bike that will give you a better workout is the one that you enjoy riding more.

njkayaker

You are not putting much thought into what you are writing.

People with heavy bikes aren't all "riding harder". Many of them might put the same effort (or even less!) and go slower.

Also, it's easy to "work against resistance" with a lighter bike.

A bike that is heavy enough be unpleasant to use might discourage people from riding.

njkayaker

No, nobody is going to extend their ride that way. No one is really suggesting they would.

People with a lighter bike will tend to ride a bit faster. If they are riding for a particular (the same) amount of time, they are extending their ride automatically.

Sy Reene

Correct. Though I would argue that it's less common by far, for people to decide eg. they're going for a 182 minute ride instead of a 180 minute ride based on bike weight impacts.

Happy Feet

Nice attempt at misconscruing my words but I'm not biting.

I've said several times that there are many valid reasons to buy an expensive bike... but... objectively, that they give a better workout isn't one of them. That's it. Period.

I also said I don't care what other people do nor am I trying to convince them of anything. I'm just debating a premise in a discussion forum.

I can't be responsible for the fact that you have an emotional reaction to that and see it as a darker motive.

Absurd.. silliness.. ad hominen etal.

If I'm spending way to much time on this topic what does that say about you repetitive attempts to tell me that? Why so desperate to shut me down? Discussion forum...

Eric F 

How do you define "better"?

Happy Feet

The goal in exercise is not to work against resistance???

That's a new one.

And then you cap off an attempt to call my ideas silly by posting a silly example yourself.

njkayaker

They don't do that either.

They are much more likely to say (for example) "I have 3 hours to ride".

In the realm of normal road bikes, the small differences in weight is mostly irrelevant.

I expecting the OP was talking about bikes being much heavier. Some people might be thinking about road bikes of reasonable weights.

If less weight made things easier, it's still very easy to ride harder (to compensate).

Eric F 

Exactly. 200W for 60min equals 200W for 60 min, regardless of the bike you're riding. How that effort gets translated to speed and distance varies with a lot of factors. One of them being the weight of the bike.

Happy Feet

I am putting thought into what I'm writing. It's ok to disagree with what I'm saying but I'm not resorting to ridiculous examples like some.

Again, we agree on most things. The amount of effort applied is subjective, from the rider, not the bike.

Referencing that, I disagree that a lighter bike is easier to work against resistance with.

What I say is the heavier bike already had some resistance built into it. By design the lighter bike has removed that resistance which the rider then has to compensate for by working harder. From a purely objective, exercise pov, it would be better to use the heavier bike - considering the cost and fragility of the lighter one.

I've said throughout that the comparison between bikes must be reasonable (mid range decent bike with good components) as a too heavy bike (as suggested by the OP) would be unpleasant to exercise with (a discouragement). Again, we agree.

AlmostTrick

The nice thing about a lighter bike is you'll get home sooner, so you'll have more time to jump on BF and argue how you got a better workout than the guy who's still out there riding. I couldn't post this sooner because I rode my heavy bike today and just got back. But I figure that was a small price to pay for a better workout!

njkayaker

What you are saying doesn't show that. Don't keep blaming other people.

??? Who is saying this (whatever it means)?

Maybe, you aren't really familiar with bicycling.

The difference in weight between good road bike and a "top tier" bike doesn't really matter. The good road bike isn't really "heavier" in any meaningful way.