Road or Mountain Biking. What is a harder CV workout ?

tobh

I'm kinda newly back on the bike. I'm an injured runner, who has been doing some mountain biking whilst my leg gets better.

I've come to love the MTB and have been riding regularly and with some success (20 miles black run at Thetford in an hour hour 50 mins). I then fell off the MTB and broke a finger. The DR has ordered me to stay off the MTB till the finger is fixed. So... I acquired an old Peugeot road bike been doing some road biking. I've come to love both.

Now, I have a Garmin Forerunner 302 GPS and heart rate monitor. On Sunday I rode 20 miles on the road in appx 1 hour 20 mins. My average hear rate is in zone 4.2. According to the Garmin I burnt appx 1400 cals.

Yesterday, I ride the MTB for 10 miles in appx 1 hour 20 mins, 90% off road in the mud. Although I stopped a few times I put as much effort in as I did on Sunday. But my average heart rate was in zone 3.6.. And according to the Garmin I burnt only 400 cals.

So.. how come my perceived effort is the same on thge MTB but the road biking, using the calorie burning as a measure, is somehow harder on the cardio than the MTB ?

How is road biking 'harder' than the MTB ?

Obviously the Garmin does not take into account the workout my arms and back get on the MTB. But still.. Can it be harder ?

Or.. am I reading too much into the Garmin.

Any thoughts please.

T

www.strengthofstrings.blogspot.com

ut_och_cykla

What does the GArmin base its kCal calculations on - distance or heartbeat or both in some way?
There will always be a discrepency between fields of activity.

I would guestimate that Mr/Mrs Average burns about 500kCal an hour working fairly hard & consistently on bike or running.

A brisk walk on evenish terrain burns mebbe 350kCal, Mr/Mrs Whizz might get up to 1000 kCal an hour but you'd have to be fairly fast and fit to manage it. Top notch riders might burn twice as much.

I think the road bike ride result was too high & the MTB too low - but why is a whole science - no doubt someone will be along to sell a Watt meter to you soon

Alex_Simmons/RST

tobh wrote:

Or.. am I reading too much into the Garmin.

Yes.

The search function is your friend.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12556586

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12543906

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12559689

tobh

Ok. Thanks. Those threads look interesting re the calories. But what are your opinions ?

Is an hour of road biking harder than an hour MTBing ? (based on the perceived effort being the same).

Is one discipline more inherently harder for your CV than the other ?

T

www.strengthofstrings.blogspot.com

onabike

Well I dont know for sure the answer as to which is the hardest, but I do alot of road and mountain biking and I reckon that if your pushing 100% the road will be harder, simply because there is no opportunity to rest. During a mountain bike ride you will regularly encounter a technical descent or a tight turn or whatever that forces you to slow down and allow you to grab a breather, even a few seconds count as a rest in my book, and often you will be able to take a "cardio-rest" for upto several minutes if it's a long descent. Whereas doing a 10-mile time trial on the road there is simply no let up.
I find my HR rate to be more variable during a mountain bike ride as compared to a road ride with the peak efforts equivalent to "zone5"/ anaerobic, but on average the HR is actually quite a bit lower.
I'm a demon on my mountain bike, but very average on my road bike. The mountain biking has helped me become a good climber on the road though, and also I think MBiking gives you a smooth pedalling technique.

ColinJ

I agree with what onabike wrote. In terms of a CV workout, it's almost impossible to keep a steady effort offroad.

As far as 'harder' goes, that's a different matter. About the tiredest that I've ever been was after doing the Rossendale Mountain Bike Challenge a few years back. I did 12 miles onroad over a big hill to get to the event and 12 miles back afterwards. The event itself was about 45 miles, most of which was offroad over relentless South Pennine hills. I took such an all over battering that I could hardly hold the handlebars on the way home. The climb out of Bacup on the way back to Todmorden is not exactly a leg-breaker, averaging about 6% with a max of about 10%, but I had to rest 3 times in 2.5km even using my 22/32 bottom gear. I was knackered.

My longest road ride was about 140 miles and very hilly for about 90 of them but it felt easy compared to the RMBC. I could still walk at the end of it AND I could pick my bike up to take it through the house!

Titanium

Like they say, a road ride should be harder, as you can just keep a constant load on the legs. This is why indoor trainer is even better, you just sit there and pedal, no junctions or traffic.

MTB riding can feel more tiring as you have to push yourself harder on steep hills and the bike is harder to accelerate.

Both activities complement each other nicely.

hambones

A mile off-road is worth 2 on the road

3leggeddog

Neither is harder, the turbo wins hands down, no freewheeling there

tobh

and what about running ?

when I run I consider a 5 mile run (appx 45 mnins) being equivalent to a 3 hour bike ride, in terms of a cv workout.. Running is harder than biking, I would say ?

T

andrewgturnbull

tobh wrote:

Running is harder than biking, I would say ?

T

Only if you're a cyclist!

Alex_Simmons/RST

tobh wrote:

Ok. Thanks. Those threads look interesting re the calories. But what are your opinions ?

Is an hour of road biking harder than an hour MTBing ? (based on the perceived effort being the same).

The rides are as hard as you think they are.

Things that might impact PE v avg power (and kJ):

- frequency of mode training (i.e. if you ride the MTB lots but not the road bike, then the roadie might seem harder for same power). Roadies experience a similar thing when they jump on their TT bike once every so often where they find they can't produce the same power as on their road bike.

- the different neuromuscular demands of each type of ride. You may naturally suit (or have trained for) one type of neuromuscular demand and don't suit (or haven't trained for) another. I suggest reading up on Quadrant Analysis to gain some understanding of what I'm referring to:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/quad.asp

- While the overall average power of one ride might be lower than another, in terms of physiological stress, a spikier power ride may place a greater physiological stress on our bodies. It really depends on how long those power spikes were for. Very short anaerobic efforts are relatively easier to recover from than similar efforts that start to go 30 seconds and longer. This is where the concept of Normalised Power helps:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/pow ... efined.asp

Here's an example of two races with different average power but just as hard in PE terms as each other (see the comments about Nomalised Power):
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2006/10/ ... e-day.html

tobh wrote:

Is one discipline more inherently harder for your CV than the other ?

I doubt the modality difference is sufficient to detect VO2 differences between cycling disciplines than say across aerobic endurance sports such as XC skiing, running, cycling and rowing.

They are as hard as you make them.

It really just comes down to the type of ride and how you rode it. With power file data it would be easier to provide a sensible assessment.

Mettan

tobh wrote:

and what about running ?

when I run I consider a 5 mile run (appx 45 mnins) being equivalent to a 3 hour bike ride, in terms of a cv workout.. Running is harder than biking, I would say ?

T

Running can be made "easy/easier" though - if you jog slowly and efficiently on the flat with relatively little leg lift you can jog for mile after mile without it taxing your HR or breathing too much - at a slow pace, distance running becomes quite "do-able" - contrast that with a fast jog for a couple of miles and it becomes very taxing. How difficult a Run or Ride becomes is largely dependant on how fast you are going, how much ascent and descent, surface conditions, weather etc etc etc.......... one thing's for sure, Cycling uphill a 15-20 % gradient for "a while" can be quite hell-ish - certainly gives you a good CV workout. One would imagine, Cycling uphill could be close to on a par with pretty much anything Cardiovascular-wise in terms of getting a good CV workout - again dependant on Speed, Gradient etc etc etc......... (obviously, like for like though, a 5 flat run is harder than a 5 flat ride).

Alex_Simmons/RST

The more overall muscle mass is involved in a repetitive motion to do work, then the greater the CV stimulus. Hence elite Nordic skiers have some of the highest VO2 Max's recorded.

I wouldn't classify using shoulders/arms etc on an MTB in that category.

Mike Willcox

In this context of comparing the CV workouts of different sports you are assuming that one has an impact on another in terms of training . IOW doing one leads to an improvement in the other; but we all know that the best way to improve in any one of them is to specifically train in that one sport.

What is of more interest to me is the mental demands of the different sports. With skiing, cycling, rowing and swimming the body weight is supported so the physical effort can be maintained for longer than in running, therefore IMO for a given level of effort this places a greater demand on the mental capacity to keep it going.

tobh

Mike Willcox wrote:

What is of more interest to me is the mental demands of the different sports. With skiing, cycling, rowing and swimming the body weight is supported so the physical effort can be maintained for longer than in running, therefore IMO for a given level of effort this places a greater demand on the mental capacity to keep it going.

Indeed,the mental aspects of our chosen sports, is something I find interesting also. As a runner primarily, I would say the mental fortitude one needs, particularly on long runs, is somewhat more taxing than I have needed on long bike rides. Miles from home with only your legs as a means on transport where every jolt and twist and ache from within you could leave you stranded is a more sobering experience. Which may explain why I initially took to longer distance MTB - miles from home in the forest, with a map etc, ahead of road biking.

I do know that as a 40 year old male who has only taken to a more active lifestyle in the last year or so I now have the 'mental gumption' to do some of the things I enjoy doing. I have done runs and rides with younger, more 'athletic' people, and left them miles behind; they simply give up. I on the other hand, given my age, wont stop cos 1) with a family every chance to get out I have to make the best of it and 2) I have something to prove to myself and like beating the more 'athletic', but mostly cos 3) I love it. After years of sitting round eating cake I now hit the road, or trail and through the act of physical exertion I feel somehow 'reinvented'..

I am somewhat evangelical about this new life; you will have to excuse me. George Sheehan the doctor, writer and runner spoke about 'through the act of sport you being born again. One returns to a child like state of innocence and thus happiness".

(go here for more George Sheehan - http://www.georgesheehan.com/essays/).

So, for me I am chasing happiness.

T

www.strengthofstrings.blogspot.com

Alex_Simmons/RST

Mike Willcox wrote:

In this context of comparing the CV workouts of different sports you are assuming that one has an impact on another in terms of training . IOW doing one leads to an improvement in the other; ...

I didn't say that but maybe you're referring to someone else?

Mike Willcox wrote:

...but we all know that the best way to improve in any one of them is to specifically train in that one sport.

These indicators of fitness are quite modality specific, as you say.