Wouldn't you get a better workout with a heavier bike ?
#151
Obsessed with Eddington
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Brussels (BE) 🇧🇪
Posts: 1,330
Bikes: '16 Spesh Diverge, '14 Spesh Fatboy, '18 Spesh Epic, '18 Spesh SL6, '21 Spesh SL7, '21 Spesh Diverge...and maybe n+1?
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 532 Post(s)
Liked 621 Times
in
368 Posts
#153
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
I can't believe that after this whole thread, you're still sticking with that nonsense.
You show us any evidence that people who ride lighter bikes actually engage in shorter duration workouts? Didn't think so.
Likes For livedarklions:
#154
Dirty Heathen
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: MC-778, 6250 fsw
Posts: 2,182
Bikes: 1997 Cannondale, 1976 Bridgestone, 1998 SoftRide, 1989 Klein, 1989 Black Lightning #0033
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 889 Post(s)
Liked 906 Times
in
534 Posts
I hate getting into these ‘magical thinking’ threads, but I’m bored, so here goes:
Physics: Once you’re up and rolling at a given speed, (bike) weight plays very little part in how much effort it takes to go down the road.
You can do things to make it harder, though: push a bigger gear, or only ride uphill. You can under-inflate your tires, and run a super -aggressive off-road knobby tire on pavement.
Fixed-gear bikes are an option, too since you can’t stop pedaling.
I think part of it also stems from the misconception that bicycles are some kind of resistance training. You can expend a lot of effort on a bike, but you have to do things like accelerating, climbing and sprinting.
Even then, how heavy of a bike are we talking about? 30 lbs? 40 lbs? You’re not going to find a 40 lbs road bike, unless it’s some vintage tank like a Schwinn Varsity. I have an old Bridgestone that checks in right around 30 lbs. it’s not any slower than my lighter, more modern bikes. It can be a little more work to ride, not because of the weight, but the 5-speed cluster and 42-t ring (instead of 39-t) that means you gotta push a little harder, and hold the gears longer before you can shift to the next one.
To really make a notable difference you have to add a lot of weight, like a trailer. 60-80 lbs of trailer and kids or cargo, and the 9-10 sq.ft of extra frontal area are way more noticeable than 10 lbs of bike.
Physics: Once you’re up and rolling at a given speed, (bike) weight plays very little part in how much effort it takes to go down the road.
You can do things to make it harder, though: push a bigger gear, or only ride uphill. You can under-inflate your tires, and run a super -aggressive off-road knobby tire on pavement.
Fixed-gear bikes are an option, too since you can’t stop pedaling.
I think part of it also stems from the misconception that bicycles are some kind of resistance training. You can expend a lot of effort on a bike, but you have to do things like accelerating, climbing and sprinting.
Even then, how heavy of a bike are we talking about? 30 lbs? 40 lbs? You’re not going to find a 40 lbs road bike, unless it’s some vintage tank like a Schwinn Varsity. I have an old Bridgestone that checks in right around 30 lbs. it’s not any slower than my lighter, more modern bikes. It can be a little more work to ride, not because of the weight, but the 5-speed cluster and 42-t ring (instead of 39-t) that means you gotta push a little harder, and hold the gears longer before you can shift to the next one.
To really make a notable difference you have to add a lot of weight, like a trailer. 60-80 lbs of trailer and kids or cargo, and the 9-10 sq.ft of extra frontal area are way more noticeable than 10 lbs of bike.
Likes For Ironfish653:
#155
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
Imagine a stationary bike for exercise (not training) at a gym that charges by the resistance level selected.
High resistance is cheap, cheap like a Walmart bike, but so hard to pedal for any length of time that it makes a workout unpleasant.
Moderate resistance levels are moderately priced, but provide a decent workout.
The least resistance, least effort settings are also the most expensive. You pay a premium for the machine to provide the easiest pedaling.
If the goal is exercise, not training to cycle better (a means to an end and not an end in itself) then the moderate resistance option may be the better choice according to HIIT and Resistance based exercise theory.
The only case where less resistance makes more sense is endurance or base training. Not usually the goal of those primarily interested in exercise, not sport specific training.
Some people seem to be saying you should pay more for the less resistance machine because you can work harder on it to match the output required for the more moderately priced machine to get the same workout...
High resistance is cheap, cheap like a Walmart bike, but so hard to pedal for any length of time that it makes a workout unpleasant.
Moderate resistance levels are moderately priced, but provide a decent workout.
The least resistance, least effort settings are also the most expensive. You pay a premium for the machine to provide the easiest pedaling.
If the goal is exercise, not training to cycle better (a means to an end and not an end in itself) then the moderate resistance option may be the better choice according to HIIT and Resistance based exercise theory.
The only case where less resistance makes more sense is endurance or base training. Not usually the goal of those primarily interested in exercise, not sport specific training.
Some people seem to be saying you should pay more for the less resistance machine because you can work harder on it to match the output required for the more moderately priced machine to get the same workout...
Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-12-21 at 12:59 AM.
#156
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
Other things being equal, lighter bikes are faster than heavier bikes; riding a bike faster means working against higher wind resistance (wind resistance increases as the square of speed and is the major resistance factor at speeds above about 15 mph); therefore, you get a better workout with a lighter bike.
Seriously, I've always found that my lighter bikes are more fun to ride and encourage me to ride faster and harder. I'm invariably more fatigued after riding my light bikes for a given duration. That is, unless I choose to maintain a specific power level during the ride. If I do, there is obviously no difference between the heavier bikes and the lighter bikes in how good the workout is.
And that last example is the real-world answer to the specious proposition that heavier bikes give a better workout. The majority of the time you're riding for a workout, you're maintaining a specific perceived level of effort. If you're on a heavier bike, you use a lower gear or slow your cadence to maintain that level of effort. An effort level of, say, 200 watts is the same regardless of the weight of the bike.
Seriously, I've always found that my lighter bikes are more fun to ride and encourage me to ride faster and harder. I'm invariably more fatigued after riding my light bikes for a given duration. That is, unless I choose to maintain a specific power level during the ride. If I do, there is obviously no difference between the heavier bikes and the lighter bikes in how good the workout is.
And that last example is the real-world answer to the specious proposition that heavier bikes give a better workout. The majority of the time you're riding for a workout, you're maintaining a specific perceived level of effort. If you're on a heavier bike, you use a lower gear or slow your cadence to maintain that level of effort. An effort level of, say, 200 watts is the same regardless of the weight of the bike.
Last edited by Trakhak; 05-12-21 at 03:09 AM.
Likes For Trakhak:
#157
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
I hate getting into these ‘magical thinking’ threads, but I’m bored, so here goes:
Physics: Once you’re up and rolling at a given speed, (bike) weight plays very little part in how much effort it takes to go down the road.
You can do things to make it harder, though: push a bigger gear, or only ride uphill. You can under-inflate your tires, and run a super -aggressive off-road knobby tire on pavement.
Fixed-gear bikes are an option, too since you can’t stop pedaling.
I think part of it also stems from the misconception that bicycles are some kind of resistance training. You can expend a lot of effort on a bike, but you have to do things like accelerating, climbing and sprinting.
Even then, how heavy of a bike are we talking about? 30 lbs? 40 lbs? You’re not going to find a 40 lbs road bike, unless it’s some vintage tank like a Schwinn Varsity. I have an old Bridgestone that checks in right around 30 lbs. it’s not any slower than my lighter, more modern bikes. It can be a little more work to ride, not because of the weight, but the 5-speed cluster and 42-t ring (instead of 39-t) that means you gotta push a little harder, and hold the gears longer before you can shift to the next one.
To really make a notable difference you have to add a lot of weight, like a trailer. 60-80 lbs of trailer and kids or cargo, and the 9-10 sq.ft of extra frontal area are way more noticeable than 10 lbs of bike.
Physics: Once you’re up and rolling at a given speed, (bike) weight plays very little part in how much effort it takes to go down the road.
You can do things to make it harder, though: push a bigger gear, or only ride uphill. You can under-inflate your tires, and run a super -aggressive off-road knobby tire on pavement.
Fixed-gear bikes are an option, too since you can’t stop pedaling.
I think part of it also stems from the misconception that bicycles are some kind of resistance training. You can expend a lot of effort on a bike, but you have to do things like accelerating, climbing and sprinting.
Even then, how heavy of a bike are we talking about? 30 lbs? 40 lbs? You’re not going to find a 40 lbs road bike, unless it’s some vintage tank like a Schwinn Varsity. I have an old Bridgestone that checks in right around 30 lbs. it’s not any slower than my lighter, more modern bikes. It can be a little more work to ride, not because of the weight, but the 5-speed cluster and 42-t ring (instead of 39-t) that means you gotta push a little harder, and hold the gears longer before you can shift to the next one.
To really make a notable difference you have to add a lot of weight, like a trailer. 60-80 lbs of trailer and kids or cargo, and the 9-10 sq.ft of extra frontal area are way more noticeable than 10 lbs of bike.
I pulled a kid trailer a couple decades ago. You definitely don't get a better workout because you really can't go fast at all. Handling the vehicle at speed is too risky.
I think all of the posts that postulate a benefit from weight forget entirely the effect of wind resistance, but more importantly, they forget the basic nature of the machine--a bicycle is designed to allow us to propel our own weight faster and with less effort than we can do on our own. Essentially, it's primary function is to negate the effects of weight-- rolling a heavy weight is much easier than propelling it by walking. So the effects of marginal differences in weight are going to be relatively tiny.
Heavy bikes are going slower on climbs and acceleration is more difficult. That's really about it. This doesn't translate to "better" workout, just different slightly.
I do think some of the featherweight riders won't like this argument either, btw, because it suggests very small speed gains for the relatively small and very expensive differences in weight at that level.
Likes For livedarklions:
#158
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
I've said several times that the original premise is specious. The comparison should not be between a huffy and a Tarmac, or a S works and a bike pulling a trailer. That's not really arguable. But I think between medium and top tier can be, considering the stated goals and additional cost for the bike that is designed to be easier to ride.
The top tier of road bikes are designed to give the competitive edge to racers (trickle down technology) by making it easier to ride. You are paying a lot more to do less.
I also think a lot of people are trying to justify owning a certain type of bike by claiming it does something more than it does by ascribing their own motivations to them. Bike hobbyists who participate on forums are probably not average jill or joes who just see bikes as a tool to get some exercise. Most people here, like me, are into the bikes themselves.
I own some nice bikes. I own them because I want a nice bike. That's it.
For exercise my 90's Allez or old Apollo FG gives me a really good workout. Buying a very light expensive bike would not increase that.
It might be better for riding, it might be better for competitive or amateur cycling, it might help me get more Strava segments (not really ) but beyond a certain tipping point, it won't get me better basic exercise. The proposition is for the average joe or jill, who wants some exercise, and isn't pursuing cycling for cycling's sake.
The basic premise of this thread is disingenuous from the start because it asks members of a bike forum to compare crappy bikes against decent bikes. Who, as a bike enthusiast, is going to champion a crappy bike. It's just an invitation to dogpile shade on the crappy bikes. Which has been done in fine Pavlovian fashion. For all the shade given to the OP he did exactly what he set out to do. My goal is simply to elevate the argument a bit beyond the reflexive by suggesting a more realistic comparison between functionally decent bikes and top tier bikes. In that comparison, considering the minor perceived benefits and far greater costs, the question becomes more interesting and less easy to objectively answer, aside from subjective biases and conventional thinking.
The top tier of road bikes are designed to give the competitive edge to racers (trickle down technology) by making it easier to ride. You are paying a lot more to do less.
I also think a lot of people are trying to justify owning a certain type of bike by claiming it does something more than it does by ascribing their own motivations to them. Bike hobbyists who participate on forums are probably not average jill or joes who just see bikes as a tool to get some exercise. Most people here, like me, are into the bikes themselves.
I own some nice bikes. I own them because I want a nice bike. That's it.
For exercise my 90's Allez or old Apollo FG gives me a really good workout. Buying a very light expensive bike would not increase that.
It might be better for riding, it might be better for competitive or amateur cycling, it might help me get more Strava segments (not really ) but beyond a certain tipping point, it won't get me better basic exercise. The proposition is for the average joe or jill, who wants some exercise, and isn't pursuing cycling for cycling's sake.
The basic premise of this thread is disingenuous from the start because it asks members of a bike forum to compare crappy bikes against decent bikes. Who, as a bike enthusiast, is going to champion a crappy bike. It's just an invitation to dogpile shade on the crappy bikes. Which has been done in fine Pavlovian fashion. For all the shade given to the OP he did exactly what he set out to do. My goal is simply to elevate the argument a bit beyond the reflexive by suggesting a more realistic comparison between functionally decent bikes and top tier bikes. In that comparison, considering the minor perceived benefits and far greater costs, the question becomes more interesting and less easy to objectively answer, aside from subjective biases and conventional thinking.
Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-12-21 at 08:57 AM.
Likes For Happy Feet:
#159
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Has anyone actually added wraparound weights on their ultra light carbon bikes?! 😆
#160
Banned
Thread Starter
Sure it does. On a light bike, if you fly right up a hill with less work, you've gotten a worse workout. A heavier bike will absolutely give you a better workout up all hills. For those who are not racing, this seems the desired goal. Exercise, not ease, otherwise, you'd just sit on the sofa!
Likes For CheGiantForLife:
#161
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
Sure it does. On a light bike, if you fly right up a hill with less work, you've gotten a worse workout. A heavier bike will absolutely give you a better workout up all hills. For those who are not racing, this seems the desired goal. Exercise, not ease, otherwise, you'd just sit on the sofa!
By the way: according to my calculations, you should soon be starting a thread on your startling discovery that paying more money for lighter equipment is stupid because losing weight off the body is free!
Last edited by Trakhak; 05-13-21 at 07:37 AM.
#162
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
Sure it does. On a light bike, if you fly right up a hill with less work, you've gotten a worse workout. A heavier bike will absolutely give you a better workout up all hills. For those who are not racing, this seems the desired goal. Exercise, not ease, otherwise, you'd just sit on the sofa!
A heavier bike, that one is still capable of riding completely up the hills, in good form, without strenuous cranking that could damage knees.
In weightlifting one could say using heavy dumbells to do curls will give you bigger biceps - but again, the same caveats would apply. If you can't lift them or maintain good form they won't.
And don't say absolutely. It isn't a proven hypothesis yet. I's just a claim.
Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-13-21 at 11:43 AM.
#163
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,398
Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked 941 Times
in
504 Posts
Probably not, but not because it wouldn't increase the workout. If they did it would surely void the warranty even if it didn't immediately result in a fiery asplosion. Yet many will still claim with a straight face that CF is "stronger" than steel. I vote that this be the topic of the OP's next thread.
#164
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
I've said several times that the original premise is specious. The comparison should not be between a huffy and a Tarmac, or a S works and a bike pulling a trailer. That's not really arguable. But I think between medium and top tier can be, considering the stated goals and additional cost for the bike that is designed to be easier to ride.
The top tier of road bikes are designed to give the competitive edge to racers (trickle down technology) by making it easier to ride. You are paying a lot more to do less.
I also think a lot of people are trying to justify owning a certain type of bike by claiming it does something more than it does by ascribing their own motivations to them. Bike hobbyists who participate on forums are probably not average jill or joes who just see bikes as a tool to get some exercise. Most people here, like me, are into the bikes themselves.
I own some nice bikes. I own them because I want a nice bike. That's it.
For exercise my 90's Allez or old Apollo FG gives me a really good workout. Buying a very light expensive bike would not increase that.
It might be better for riding, it might be better for competitive or amateur cycling, it might help me get more Strava segments (not really ) but beyond a certain tipping point, it won't get me better basic exercise. The proposition is for the average joe or jill, who wants some exercise, and isn't pursuing cycling for cycling's sake.
The basic premise of this thread is disingenuous from the start because it asks members of a bike forum to compare crappy bikes against decent bikes. Who, as a bike enthusiast, is going to champion a crappy bike. It's just an invitation to dogpile shade on the crappy bikes. Which has been done in fine Pavlovian fashion. For all the shade given to the OP he did exactly what he set out to do. My goal is simply to elevate the argument a bit beyond the reflexive by suggesting a more realistic comparison between functionally decent bikes and top tier bikes. In that comparison, considering the minor perceived benefits and far greater costs, the question becomes more interesting and less easy to objectively answer, aside from subjective biases and conventional thinking.
The top tier of road bikes are designed to give the competitive edge to racers (trickle down technology) by making it easier to ride. You are paying a lot more to do less.
I also think a lot of people are trying to justify owning a certain type of bike by claiming it does something more than it does by ascribing their own motivations to them. Bike hobbyists who participate on forums are probably not average jill or joes who just see bikes as a tool to get some exercise. Most people here, like me, are into the bikes themselves.
I own some nice bikes. I own them because I want a nice bike. That's it.
For exercise my 90's Allez or old Apollo FG gives me a really good workout. Buying a very light expensive bike would not increase that.
It might be better for riding, it might be better for competitive or amateur cycling, it might help me get more Strava segments (not really ) but beyond a certain tipping point, it won't get me better basic exercise. The proposition is for the average joe or jill, who wants some exercise, and isn't pursuing cycling for cycling's sake.
The basic premise of this thread is disingenuous from the start because it asks members of a bike forum to compare crappy bikes against decent bikes. Who, as a bike enthusiast, is going to champion a crappy bike. It's just an invitation to dogpile shade on the crappy bikes. Which has been done in fine Pavlovian fashion. For all the shade given to the OP he did exactly what he set out to do. My goal is simply to elevate the argument a bit beyond the reflexive by suggesting a more realistic comparison between functionally decent bikes and top tier bikes. In that comparison, considering the minor perceived benefits and far greater costs, the question becomes more interesting and less easy to objectively answer, aside from subjective biases and conventional thinking.
Likes For caloso:
#166
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
Err... yah.
Or you could explain what you object to in the bolded section of text.
Are you saying top tier road bikes do not emphasize greater efficiencies to achieve more performance for less input?
Or are you objecting to the notion of paying more to do less? My claim is that, all other things being equal, a top tier road bike requires less input to achieve the same speed as a medium grade road bike.
If the rider of the expensive bike chooses to ride harder that's a different story. The rider of the medium grade bike could also choose that.
However, comparing the two grades of bike, side by side, on the same course at the aame speed, the more expensive bike requires less effort. If the goal is only exercise, and not racing perse, that may work to cross purposes of the stated goal. Ie. Paying more to do less.
Or you could explain what you object to in the bolded section of text.
Are you saying top tier road bikes do not emphasize greater efficiencies to achieve more performance for less input?
Or are you objecting to the notion of paying more to do less? My claim is that, all other things being equal, a top tier road bike requires less input to achieve the same speed as a medium grade road bike.
If the rider of the expensive bike chooses to ride harder that's a different story. The rider of the medium grade bike could also choose that.
However, comparing the two grades of bike, side by side, on the same course at the aame speed, the more expensive bike requires less effort. If the goal is only exercise, and not racing perse, that may work to cross purposes of the stated goal. Ie. Paying more to do less.
Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-13-21 at 12:01 PM.
#167
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
A race bike emphasizes greater performances at all efforts, and especially at maximum effort. Bike racers do not train by putting out less effort than someone on a walmart bike. The point is that it never gets easier, you just go faster.
Likes For caloso:
#168
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
It never gets easier, you only go faster, is just a catchphrase that really makes no sense. According to basic exercise physiology it ignores the "plateau" effect.
It does get easier if you don't change the input. That's a rider decision, not a bicycle design feature.
Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-13-21 at 07:38 PM.
#170
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
#171
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
Likes For Trakhak:
#172
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
Which, of course, anyone can do just as easily on a light bike as on a heavy bike (and in my case, as I explained earlier in this thread, I find it easier to increase the load/work harder on my light bikes, a choice that, as you say, anyone can make).
#173
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
The issue of whether heavier bikes give a better workout than lighter bikes would make a good college application essay topic. (For those who assert that heavier bikes do give a better workout: there's absolutely nothing wrong with trade schools.)
Likes For Trakhak:
#174
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,975
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4941 Post(s)
Liked 8,081 Times
in
3,822 Posts
How is 250W on a light bike easier than 250W on a heavy bike? The human effort is the same.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Likes For Eric F:
#175
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,975
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4941 Post(s)
Liked 8,081 Times
in
3,822 Posts
The hypothesis regarding the plateau effect stipulates that repeated bouts of exercise at a given load result in diminishing improvements in fitness. "It never gets easier, you just go faster" is Greg LeMond's succinct account of the only way for an ambitious athlete to overcome the plateau effect: by increasing the load.
Which, of course, anyone can do just as easily on a light bike as on a heavy bike (and in my case, as I explained earlier in this thread, I find it easier to increase the load/work harder on my light bikes, a choice that, as you say, anyone can make).
Which, of course, anyone can do just as easily on a light bike as on a heavy bike (and in my case, as I explained earlier in this thread, I find it easier to increase the load/work harder on my light bikes, a choice that, as you say, anyone can make).
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Likes For Eric F: