turbo or road? which is best?

debeli

Neither is best; both are fine in context.

We all (I imagine) enjoy riding bicycles because in part of the thrill, the sensation of speed, the liberating feeling, the sights, the sounds and the smells of the outside world. All those advantages or desirable elements of the process of cycling can in some circumstances become disadvantages.

Winter can be one of those circumstances.

A good turbo session in a village hall with a local cycling club is an excellent and fun way to spend part of an autumn or winter evening. More fun in its way than a club ride. Not always but sometimes.

But a turbo session alone in the garage or a smelly upstairs room, staring at a clock or an HRM? It may help; it may make you faster, but is it fun?

A good blast out on hilly roads with loose chippings, the odd pothole, passing traffic, wildlife, wind, weather, sunshine and all those other variables is really the thing....

Unless it is very wet and cold.

Ultimately, we use a turbo from time to time to improve our performance on a bicycle. It is like a gym session or an ergo session for rowing. It does a job.

We do not go for a bike ride to improve our turbo performance. We go on a bike ride for the thrill, even when it is ostensibly a training ride.

Bicycles is best when they is ridden on something other than rollers and dynos.

All of the above is true. End of thread.

pblakeney

Debeli wrote:

We do not go for a bike ride to improve our turbo performance..

The most valuable point to date.

lee_d_m

Seeing as the few Pros I follow on Strava are out on the road pretty much all year round
(Luckily for them in warmer climes) I've concluded that there is no massive gain to be had from using the turbo, otherwise they'd all be using them, and therefore the only reason to use the turbo is because you can't get out on the road.

bobmcstuff

lee_d_m wrote:

Seeing as the few Pros I follow on Strava are out on the road pretty much all year round
(Luckily for them in warmer climes) I've concluded that there is no massive gain to be had from using the turbo, otherwise they'd all be using them, and therefore the only reason to use the turbo is because you can't get out on the road.

Its not just the weather, pros are also not very time constrained when it comes to bike riding either... Most of the rest of us are. I don't think anyone would dispute that if you had unlimited time to train then it would be better to actually be out on the bike, but when you don't you need to look for compromises.

If I had an hour free and just wanted the best workout possible in that time I'd probably go on the turbo.

nicklong

If you read Wiggins' book he spent a load of time training on the turbo over winter.

For me, the question isn't "is the turbo better than outdoors" but "is it easier to follow structured interval training on the turbo than on the road"? For me, the answer is a resounding yes.

markhewitt1978

Considering my choices this morning was an hour on Zwift or nothing at all, I think the turbo was the winner this morning

The only realistic time I have to train what with family and work is before work, the majority of the year it's cold and dark at 6am. During the summer I might think about going outside from time to time, but for now it's turbo on a morning.

Sundays of course are a different story, I try to get out then, doesn't always happen.

simon_masterson

lee_d_m wrote:

Seeing as the few Pros I follow on Strava are out on the road pretty much all year round
(Luckily for them in warmer climes) I've concluded that there is no massive gain to be had from using the turbo, otherwise they'd all be using them, and therefore the only reason to use the turbo is because you can't get out on the road.

I think you'll find that most of them will do time on the turbo - it's very effective for short targeted sessions for TTs, for example.

joe2008

bobmcstuff wrote:

Seeing as the few Pros I follow on Strava are out on the road pretty much all year round
(Luckily for them in warmer climes) I've concluded that there is no massive gain to be had from using the turbo, otherwise they'd all be using them, and therefore the only reason to use the turbo is because you can't get out on the road.

Perhaps they just don't feel the need to log everything to Strava. In reality I'm sure they do plenty of efforts on a turbo.

kingstonian

When the weather is as it was today, the only sensible option for me is turbo-time

rick_chasey

Kingstonian wrote:

When the weather is as it was today, the only sensible option for me is turbo-time

Ah it was fine.

Good practice.

bobmcstuff

joe2008 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Seeing as the few Pros I follow on Strava are out on the road pretty much all year round
(Luckily for them in warmer climes) I've concluded that there is no massive gain to be had from using the turbo, otherwise they'd all be using them, and therefore the only reason to use the turbo is because you can't get out on the road.

Perhaps they just don't feel the need to log everything to Strava. In reality I'm sure they do plenty of efforts on a turbo.

Hey watch your quotes

joe2008

bobmcstuff wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Seeing as the few Pros I follow on Strava are out on the road pretty much all year round
(Luckily for them in warmer climes) I've concluded that there is no massive gain to be had from using the turbo, otherwise they'd all be using them, and therefore the only reason to use the turbo is because you can't get out on the road.

Perhaps they just don't feel the need to log everything to Strava. In reality I'm sure they do plenty of efforts on a turbo.

Hey watch your quotes

Apologies! Quote was by lee_d_m

aberdeenal

I've been following a structured plan doing both since November which works well with work & family commitments - I'm assuming most others need to juggle this too.

My turbo is in the garage with my "summer bike" on it and I use my commuting / winter bike out on the road. After a turbo session I am absolutely drenched but I don't have a fan which would probably help. If I were to go out on the road I wouldn't get to that level of sweatiness, not through lack of effort but down to continual airflow.

You'll always get differing, and strong, opinions on the opening question but surely the answer should always be - do what you can.

robbo2011

I find I can maintain a higher HR on high intensity efforts (climbing) on the road rather than on the turbo. Could be due to the distractions and necessity to finish the climb on the road compared with the boredom on the turbo.

The turbo is a useful stop-gap during bad weather though.

neeb

AberdeenAl wrote:

My turbo is in the garage with my "summer bike" on it and I use my commuting / winter bike out on the road. After a turbo session I am absolutely drenched but I don't have a fan which would probably help. If I were to go out on the road I wouldn't get to that level of sweatiness, not through lack of effort but down to continual airflow.

I'd really, really prioritise investing in a fan if I was you.. It's the effort rather than the sweatiness that you benefit from. But forget the useless plastic things you find in B&Q etc, you need something like this:

http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/desk-portable-fans/7001439/?origin=PSF_438371|alt

You'll still get really sweaty but will be able to train harder/for longer.

deejaysee

Nothing beats being out on the road, absolutely no doubt about that but for greater fitness i say a turbo is better.
Perfectly controlled environment etc.
I burn way more calories on my trainer - in an hour, 800 on a turbo to 500 on the road

chris_bass

deejaysee wrote:

in an hour, 800 on a turbo to 500 on the road

that seems a bit optimistic!

markhewitt1978

Chris Bass wrote:

deejaysee wrote:

in an hour, 800 on a turbo to 500 on the road

that seems a bit optimistic!

Perhaps, it's almost impossible to say. Strava says an hour on the turbo is 500 calories for me, usually. So someone going harder than I can do might burn 800?

deejaysee

Chris Bass wrote:

deejaysee wrote:

in an hour, 800 on a turbo to 500 on the road

that seems a bit optimistic!

Look for yourself

https://www.strava.com/activities/489395420

856 to be precise

simon_masterson

deejaysee wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

deejaysee wrote:

in an hour, 800 on a turbo to 500 on the road

that seems a bit optimistic!

Look for yourself

https://www.strava.com/activities/489395420

856 to be precise

Do you have a second source for your estimation or are you going solely by the Strava calorie figure?

chris_bass

deejaysee wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

deejaysee wrote:

in an hour, 800 on a turbo to 500 on the road

that seems a bit optimistic!

Look for yourself

https://www.strava.com/activities/489395420

856 to be precise

won't let me look at it, either way the calories estimates are not exactly very accurate.

"Pro cyclists can burn up to 10-15 calories per minute during a hard training session or race." - so 600 to 900 an hour.

http://feedzonecookbook.com/2014/07/11/ ... ist-needs/

deejaysee

I must be pro then lol.
Btw this wasnt a flat ride by any means. Was a pyramid up to 5% grade

simon_masterson

The Strava calorie figure is a useless fudge number.

paul2718

Not if it's derived from a power recording. 768kJ is 183kcal of actual mechanical work. And if the body were 25% efficient then that would imply a 'burn' of 732 kcal from the energy stores. It's a plausible calculation that shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Paul

simon_masterson

Still of little real usefulness.

neeb

paul2718 wrote:

Not if it's derived from a power recording. 768kJ is 183kcal of actual mechanical work. And if the body were 25% efficient then that would imply a 'burn' of 732 kcal from the energy stores. It's a plausible calculation that shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Paul

It seems to be deliberately fudging it upwards though - why does Strava estimate 856kcal from 788kJ rather than 732kcal? Or is it an estimate of total energy burned over the period, i.e. including base metabolic rate and "wasted" mechanical work that doesn't go into turning the pedals?

The really daft thing though is that I have a power meter and Strava's figure for my total work appears to be derived from the weighted average power figure rather than actual average power, when the latter provides an exact figure for actual work done..

Bordersroadie

robbo2011 wrote:

I find I can maintain a higher HR on high intensity efforts (climbing) on the road rather than on the turbo. Could be due to the distractions and necessity to finish the climb on the road compared with the boredom on the turbo.

The turbo is a useful stop-gap during bad weather though.

+1.

Depends where you live too. I've got umpteen hilly backroads on my doorstep so I have any number of interval sessions at my disposal, day or night. I cycle to be fit and do TTs but primarily I cycle because I love the feeling I get from riding my bike hard on twisty, hilly roads. A turbo trainer gives you zero in this respect.

I'm sure that the fact that I did quite well in last season's hilly TTs is because I train hard actually riding a bike up and down hilly roads.

However, in the same way that a freezer is good for storing frozen food, a turbo provides a device to undertake good quality training if actually riding your bike is not an option and you have the motoivation to cope with the utterly soulless, mind-numbing experience.

nicklong

neeb wrote:

paul2718 wrote:

Not if it's derived from a power recording. 768kJ is 183kcal of actual mechanical work. And if the body were 25% efficient then that would imply a 'burn' of 732 kcal from the energy stores. It's a plausible calculation that shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Paul

It seems to be deliberately fudging it upwards though - why does Strava estimate 856kcal from 788kJ rather than 732kcal? Or is it an estimate of total energy burned over the period, i.e. including base metabolic rate and "wasted" mechanical work that doesn't go into turning the pedals?

The really daft thing though is that I have a power meter and Strava's figure for my total work appears to be derived from the weighted average power figure rather than actual average power, when the latter provides an exact figure for actual work done..

From the Froome power figures and Ross Tucker malarkey last summer, I seem to recall that an efficiency level of 25% was exceptional, and 22-23% more common.

Interesting point on the "base" metabolic energy burn though, how many calories would you have burnt just sitting around for an hour? (I'm in the odd position of having to avoid losing too much weight during this training block, plenty of gateau seems to be the answer)

markhewitt1978

That's the thing I think some calorie estimates include your basal metabolic rate, some don't. Including the calories you would have burned anyway without cycling is pretty useless really as you want to know how much defecit the activity has produced.

ugo.santalucia

Depends on your targets. If it's just fitness, then an hour on the turbo is safer... but if you want to target some event, then nothing can beat the real thing. Lots of people have fit legs but can't deal with wind or cold, as they spend too much time on the turbo.
In simple words, those who want to win the early spring classics, train in Belgium, not in Majorca