How does cycling compare with other sports?
ben@31
Posts: 2,327
I was thinking, Is cycling a good leg workout compared to swimming, running and gym exercises ? How effective is cycling compared to the others ?
I'm talking about a brisk pace and hills for an hour +. Enough to get the heart rate going and feeling it in the legs. Climbing out the saddle etc etc.
I'm talking about a brisk pace and hills for an hour +. Enough to get the heart rate going and feeling it in the legs. Climbing out the saddle etc etc.
"The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby
0
Comments
-
eh?0
-
That depends a lot on how you interpret the question and what you're trying to achieve.
Running is certainly more demanding, in general, than cycling and probably more demanding than swimming where the legs are concerned. Running is normally a higher intensity activity overall compared with cycling, although you could push yourself to similar levels on the bike in terms of cardio effort (especially hill climbing out of the saddle for example). Unlike cycling and swimming, running is an impact activity, so it can take more of a toll but has the benefit of promoting good bone density. Gym exercises can be easier/harder, more/less intense, more strength or endurance based depending entirely on what you do.0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong but pro cyclists spend vast amounts of time workingout on a bike (on the road or turbo). However they also use weights in a gym. That says it in my view, cycling is good but not enough for them. They need to work their legs in a different way to get the best when racing on the bike.
Applying that to you depends on what your aims are. However it is always good to train all areas of your body to prevent imbalances that can cause problems later on. That is assuming you are not making sacrifices for performance reasons like a pro cyclist does. If it is about health and the ability to ride easy on a group ride for example then I would cross train.
For me it's no longer an issue. I'm a lazy middle aged man who is happy with being able to commute to work in 30 minutes and able to keep ahead of my partner when on a bike. Since she is sloooowwwwwwww I'm covered there and the 30 minutes is only hard if I have been overworked or had too little sleep. I used to work out and train to try and perform to my optimum years ago and that meant as much of the main activity as possible but I also worked at the gym 5 days a week at my peak. Upper body, lower body, mostly Cardio, easy long session and one where I tried to trash myself until I felt sick. Not sure if that worked for me but it had its addictions at the time. I did find things easier to do but when I packed the gym in a bit to 2 sessions i actually got fitter.0 -
You're wrong.
OP what measure do you want to use to compare different types of training? Cycling/running/swimming performance? Strength gains? the answer should be obvious.0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but pro cyclists spend vast amounts of time workingout on a bike (on the road or turbo). However they also use weights in a gym. That says it in my view, cycling is good but not enough for them. They need to work their legs in a different way to get the best when racing on the bike.
Did you make that up..?0 -
Yeah of course. Is it obvious?
Remember reading something on here about Wiggins using gym so guess I made that bit up. I guess I haven't seen road teams training on TV programmes before now, or interviews where a pro mentioned miles he'd done pre-season so guess I made that up too. Is it the last bit? Well I just took it that if they go into the gym it is because there is an advantage to it that is not met by being out on the bike.
Is that wrong? I am happy to be corrected if a pro cyclist doesn't use or need a gym to achieve in their sport with an explanation would be nice. Just a question is just a put down and not constructive. Perhaps help the OP with some pearls of wisdom, I know you can manage it, I've read good advice from you on here before.0 -
Wiggins definitely uses the gym at his house so you are right there. 0
-
None of us really know how the pros train. There will be some gym work for most but I would be very surprised if much of it involved working the legs with weights.0
-
Plenty of pros hit the gym, no doubt - there are pictures and anecdotes all over the internet. But, as far as I can tell, they hit the gym mainly for injury rehab or specific conditioning - not for any overall performance gain. I think Wiggins did a lot of gym work on his shoulder a couple of years back.0
-
Tom Dean wrote:OP what measure do you want to use to compare different types of training? Cycling/running/swimming performance? Strength gains? the answer should be obvious.
Can cycling up hills be comparable to a beginners gym workout for legs, core and glutes? How does it compare to running for cardio vascular ?"The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
I think the point that everyone is trying to make is that none of these things are really comparable in any meaningful sense. If you want to 'work' your leg muscles - you're better off in a gym. Cycling does not put enough load on the legs to allow any significant adaptions to take place.0
-
Imposter wrote:I think the point that everyone is trying to make is that none of these things are really comparable in any meaningful sense. If you want to 'work' your leg muscles - you're better off in a gym. Cycling does not put enough load on the legs to allow any significant adaptions to take place.
Ah okay. So cycling hill sets won't provide the same gains as a gym workout."The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
You seem to be looking for quick, easy, specific answers to arbitrary, ill defined questions that simply don't have such an answer. No-one can honestly respond to such vague questions with the sort of yes/no answers you seem to expect. Over simplify and it's meaningless.ben@31 wrote:Imposter wrote:I think the point that everyone is trying to make is that none of these things are really comparable in any meaningful sense. If you want to 'work' your leg muscles - you're better off in a gym. Cycling does not put enough load on the legs to allow any significant adaptions to take place.
Ah okay. So cycling hill sets won't provide the same gains as a gym workout.0 -
ben@31 wrote:Imposter wrote:I think the point that everyone is trying to make is that none of these things are really comparable in any meaningful sense. If you want to 'work' your leg muscles - you're better off in a gym. Cycling does not put enough load on the legs to allow any significant adaptions to take place.
Ah okay. So cycling hill sets won't provide the same gains as a gym workout.
Gains for what purpose?? If you want legs like Forstermann, go to the gym. If you want to get better at riding up hills, then ride up some hills.0 -
For most of us its not leg strength that lets us down - more our cardio system. Only the big sprinters have huge leg muscles - most cyclists are wiry dudes.
If you want big legs - do bodybuilding - but dont expect it to help your cycling.
The best training for cycling is cycling.0 -
You don't seem to be answering the question of what you want to achieve? There's no such thing as a 'gain' in general terms as you seem to be applying. Even in the gym you'll be doing specific workouts to work towards a specific goal.
The best way to get better at cycling up hills is to cycle up hills a lot - nothing else will do.0 -
I'm glad so many of these outlandish claims are properly backed up with empirical data.....
How on earth can people say what effect lifting weights has on cycling ability? I suspect most people here have never actually done any real strength work!0 -
white91 wrote:How on earth can people say what effect lifting weights has on cycling ability? I suspect most people here have never actually done any real strength work!
Well, it is a cycling forum, not a weights forum.....0 -
white91 wrote:I'm glad so many of these outlandish claims are properly backed up with empirical data.....
How on earth can people say what effect lifting weights has on cycling ability? I suspect most people here have never actually done any real strength work!
Cycling ability is such a vague term that you cant answer your badly phrased question.
the demands of a flying 500 vs a 250k stage race in the mountains are so different.0 -
The main pro purely from pov of exercise is that cycling is a "safe" and convenient form of exercise.
It's safe because (unless you crash or have a terrible bike setup) you can't injure yourself just by doing it. Other sports e.g. running cause impact injuries, just due to the effect of gravity. These can cause injury and lead to problems.
It's convenient because you can just get on a bike and ride, even incorporate it a normal days schedule by commuting. The same cant be said for other low impact forms of exercise like swimming.
However cycling is not perfect primarily because it only really works out the legs and cv system.
Other sports that use the entire body:
- Burn up more calories per hour
- Make you look better (seriously, while you may want to ride like Chris Froome would you really like to have his body shape?)
The other issue with just cycling is that as you get older your bone density lessens. To counteract this you need to put your bones under load so that they adapt by strengthening. Cycling does not do this so its worth doing gym work or some other sport like running for this reason.
Overall imo is that if you just want to exercise to get fit,loose weight and look good then the best single option is a Concept 2. 10 years ago when these were my prime goals I nearly did. Luckily I measured the room it was destined for and it was 6" too small. So I bought an exercise bike instead and the rest is history.
Glad I did because there is far more to cycling than the exercise it provides. No other sport that I'm aware of would allow you to see so much of the wonderful places in the world, allow you to get so close to the pros for free and let you test yourself in the exact same conditions that the best compete in.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
The main benefit from cycling is that you don't have to go to the gym 0
-
One other thing I'd add is that even aside from the appearance issue you mentioned, posture does not benefit from cycling meaning potential for weak core etc.bahzob wrote:The main pro purely from pov of exercise is that cycling is a "safe" and convenient form of exercise.
It's safe because (unless you crash or have a terrible bike setup) you can't injure yourself just by doing it. Other sports e.g. running cause impact injuries, just due to the effect of gravity. These can cause injury and lead to problems.
It's convenient because you can just get on a bike and ride, even incorporate it a normal days schedule by commuting. The same cant be said for other low impact forms of exercise like swimming.
However cycling is not perfect primarily because it only really works out the legs and cv system.
Other sports that use the entire body:
- Burn up more calories per hour
- Make you look better (seriously, while you may want to ride like Chris Froome would you really like to have his body shape?)
The other issue with just cycling is that as you get older your bone density lessens. To counteract this you need to put your bones under load so that they adapt by strengthening. Cycling does not do this so its worth doing gym work or some other sport like running for this reason.
Overall imo is that if you just want to exercise to get fit,loose weight and look good then the best single option is a Concept 2. 10 years ago when these were my prime goals I nearly did. Luckily I measured the room it was destined for and it was 6" too small. So I bought an exercise bike instead and the rest is history.
Glad I did because there is far more to cycling than the exercise it provides. No other sport that I'm aware of would allow you to see so much of the wonderful places in the world, allow you to get so close to the pros for free and let you test yourself in the exact same conditions that the best compete in.
While cycling + gym work could address this, gyms are IMO boring. So my new solution is Triathlon :shock:
Cycling has all the benefits you listed and I agree entirely. Running gives you the impact benefits (and risks) and also requires you sort out your posture and core strength. Another advantage to running is that it's more convenient than cycling and is less affected by bad weather. So in winter or when time is short you can substitute a run for a cycle if you want to get some CV work in where a cycle isn't practical and you don't have or don't like a turbo. I've gotten to quite enjoy running.
Swimming on the other hand requires very little gear but you do really need access to a swimming pool. I only started to re-learn swimming recently and it's going pretty well so far. Swimming is great for core strength and upper body fitness.
I know it's popular among cyclists to ridicule triathlon but I think/hope it's just meant in jest. If you want good all round fitness it should get you there with the incentive of a coherent goal (your next race) which is missing from gym work. Also worth noting is with regards the following comments from bazhob:
I agree cycling is great in this respect but I think triathlon is as good or even better.....there is far more to cycling than the exercise it provides. No other sport that I'm aware of would allow you to see so much of the wonderful places in the world, allow you to get so close to the pros for free and let you test yourself in the exact same conditions that the best compete in.
In long course triathlon for example you may start in a later wave half an hour behind them but you compete in the very same race and on the same course as the pros. In Ironman and half-Ironman anyone can qualify for the world champs purely dependent on where they finished for their sex, age group and the number of spots on offer. Somewhat like a mass participation marathon, the elite guys/pros start up front just ahead of the main field. They compete for places, much of the rest of the field are competing against themselves for target times and others are just trying to finish.
Okay, that's my bit. If general fitness and athleticism is your goal I think triathlon training, for any distance, is ideal. If you don't like swimming you can do duathlon or adventure races instead. I've done several and always enjoyed them.0 -
Surely the main benefit of cycling is the eating of the cake at the cafe stop ? That just doesnt work the same in running. :-)0
-
cougie wrote:Surely the main benefit of cycling is the eating of the cake at the cafe stop ? That just doesnt work the same in running. :-)
Certainly doesn't work while swimming.. 0 -
Yeah swimming certainly lacks a bit on sociability. Hard to have a conversation while swimming freestyle!Imposter wrote:cougie wrote:Surely the main benefit of cycling is the eating of the cake at the cafe stop ? That just doesnt work the same in running. :-)
Certainly doesn't work while swimming..
I've been known to have a coffee and snack after a Saturday morning run in the local forest park but no, you wouldn't normally stop mid run for a snack. Still, I only ever stop off at a cafe on long weekend rides and my Sunday long ride isn't going anywhere just because I run too.0
