How good is cycling???

[stevek3lly]

I have just bought a bike to start cycling. Want to build up to some big charity thing, but I haven’t exercised for over 4 years now and didn't do that much before that either. How fit can just cycling get me?

[Prediction...Pain]

I have just bought a bike to start cycling. Want to build up to some big charity thing, but I haven’t exercised for over 4 years now and didn't do that much before that either. How fit can just cycling get me?

It can get you in better shape but I'm always seeing loads of fatties furiously pedaling around the city, so I am unsure on how great of a workout it really is on its own. I would definitely incorporate at least a bit of weight training and other forms of cardio (swimming, running, boxing) if you are serious about getting in better shape.

[boxbible]

Long distance cycling is an excellent form of cardio training. And doing short bursts or cycling uphill is a good form of anaerobic training as well...

The difference with running though, as mentioned above, is that jogging is a weight-bearing exercise where each step is countering the accelerating force of gravity. But cycling is simply pushing against a steady resistance.

In jogging, the acceleration generated by the weight of your body dropping with each step causes a massive pre-stretch in the muscles which allows the legs to contract more violently as you push yourself upward and forward against the force of gravity.

It makes the body work harder relative to cycling. But, that doesn't mean cycling is no good... it has its benefits too.

[stevek3lly]

Cheers Guys. I am starting out cycling to work to build up a base fitness. Going to build up to there and back each day which is 20 miles.

Good points about the running though, think I need to add some of that as well.

[Josh1111]

Cheers Guys. I am starting out cycling to work to build up a base fitness. Going to build up to there and back each day which is 20 miles.

Good points about the running though, think I need to add some of that as well.

How you coping with that hill near your house Steve?

[m1kee50]

IMO cycling is good as it is low impact, especially if like me you are a big fella. No substitute for running though as the man said above - when running you are lugging your own fat arse around. Not the same when biking

[Deserter]

cycling isn't completely without merit, but it's important to note that fitness comprises many different elements. For example, if you look at Tour de France competitors, they're held up as being of elite fitness level, but while they've got phenomenal 'engines', their strength is far below average, as is their flexiblity and agility. Essentially, they're fundamentally imbalanced from a holistic fitness perspective.
I'd never use cycling in isolation as a fitness regime - it has its place, but you should balance it with other activities e.g. weight-training, pilates.

[Deserter]

cycling isn't completely without merit, but it's important to note that fitness comprises many different elements. For example, if you look at Tour de France competitors, they're held up as being of elite fitness level, but while they've got phenomenal 'engines', their strength is far below average, as is their flexiblity and agility. Essentially, they're fundamentally imbalanced from a holistic fitness perspective.
I'd never use cycling in isolation as a fitness regime - it has its place, but you should balance it with other activities e.g. weight-training, pilates.

Agree and disagree. However, I don't know how old you are and how much free time you have but weight training running cycling all take time. So if you have a choice you do the ones that do the most. I think the OP should start with cycling, then integrate some short running at a low pace. With time he can increase the running intensity and distance (when he is in better shape). After a few months perhaps even a year of two he can drop cycling and just run and integrate some weights.

Very few individuals have the time to do the perfect holistic type of training.

It's almost invariably not a question of time, it's a question of commitment. And what's the rationale behind the somewhat laughable notion that weights should only be integrated after months or even years

[Deserter]

Most people I know do fine with biking and running since if you do 45 minutes to 1 hour of running at a mid to high pace (this is after you can in shape OP so you don't need to worry about going at a high pace first) 3 to 4 times a week you will be in GREAT shape. I know 40 year old individuals that run half marathons and even full marathons after 2 years of practice. They are all lean, excellent cardio, perfect body weight, well defined (have biceps, trimmed core (ok they don't have super six packs but who cares, etc) and they do not touch a weight since they have arthritis, back issues, or simply don't feel like going to the gym lifting iron with 21 year old kids and wasting 1 hour to 1 hour and 30 minutes and simply getting muscle benefits without almost any noticeable cardiovascular benefit.
Running and biking combined are perfect for most people that lack time. Combined you have a weight bearing exercise, cardiovascular exercise, and muscle endurance. Thus if you don't have the time you can really skip the weights and still be in better shape than 80% of adults.
As for weight being integrated later I simply stated it that way since the aim of the OP is to get in shape not become MR. Muscle. You can easily become in a very good shape even muscularly without the need of weights. Thus since his aim is not muscle mass or toning but rather just getting in shape for a charity event and simply feeling better weights are by no means necessary for that. Biking and running 3 to 4 times a week with a reasonable diet can easily get you there without the need of iron barbells.
And yes it is always a question of time. Because if you work 60 hours, drive 50 km to get to work, have 2 kids under 8. You want an exercise that has the most benefits and takes the least time. If your aim is better health (losing weight) and being in good shape running combined with biking is the best choice. If you aim is muscle toning and strength then yeah you need weight for sure, especially if you want more than slight toning and muscle mass increase.

So before you answer with cute emoticons just realize that I did not say this was the BEST choice for all. For people in the OP's position I think weights are truly not necessary, especially for his aims. I do not know his schedule but if he said that he did not do much in the last years then who knows maybe the OP is busy? Maybe life got in the way. I doubt he is purely lazy or "does not have the commitment".

Owl, to be frank, you lack of detailed knowledge about the subject matter means you're akin to the blind man in a room stumbling for a light switch. I haven't got the time or the energy to drive my truck through the gaping holes in your post, but suffice to say if you think running is sufficient to develop 'well-defined' muscles you should really start choosing to engage in debates where you at least have an elementary understanding of the subject matter.

As for your time argument, I've heard it over and over again, yet ironically it's almost invariably from those who managed to watch a couple of hours of TV at night, who find time to go to the boozer or who spend their weekend pursuing alternative hobbies. I've no problem with any of that as it's individual choice, but don't pretend it's a lack of time. I've known parents of both sexes who've managed to fit in the type of training routines required to take part in Iron Man triathlons, I've known guys who work long hours in finance who still train as fighters etc, etc - those who are committed enough develop a routine that allows them to find the time. Apart from a very tiny minority, it's simply an argument that doesn't hold water - you can do a decent interval sprints session pre- or post-work in 20 minutes; you can work on stretching while watching a soap opera; you can screw on a pull-up bar in the house so you can knock out daily reps in a few minutes etc, etc, etc.

[Deserter]

Owl, I could weep with despair at your posts at times. However, I'll indulge you in a bid to clear this up once and for all. I'm 39-years-old and have been training in some way, shape or form since I was 11. I've been a national champion in Tae Kwon Do (ITF-style) and a regional champion in amateur boxing (ABA Novices). I've trained in gyms regularly since the age of 18 and continue to do so.
I've had a succession of jobs with long hours and have a step-daughter. At times where I've had a commute of three-hours plus a day (round trip), I've used the gym at lunch times where work permits, trained after work on occasion and utilised my time effectively at weekends e.g. by going on a mountain-bike ride on a Sunday morning.
In addition to this, my work in publishing has meant that in the past I've been fortunate enough to get exposure to a number of leading sportspeople, including road and off-road cyclists and triathletes.
The primary difference between us is that you appear to base your advice on casual observations, mine is based on years and years of practice, trial and error, data crunching of my own performance and huge amounts of reading (you can see a list of my online resources on this very forum) and listening, whether that's to the aforementioned athletes or to personal trainers etc.
Bizarrely, because I advocate the role of weight-training, your own lack of knowledge about how to use weights effectively seems to lead to you stereotyping me as a 'muscle neck', despite me never having been involved in body-building and me having nothing but disdain for the steroid junkies who spend their time in the gym checking their reflection (not to mention never having taken a supplement in my life apart from multi-vitamins on occasion). I'm a massive believer in 'functional fitness' and weights are of huge benefit in this regard - ask some of the world-class mountain-bikers who swear by the weights routines they use to improve their performance.
You also seem to labour under the illusion that weights and CV are two separate things, when in fact there are numerous weights circuits that will provide far more cardio-vascular benefit than a steady-state run. The notion that running 'leans you out' is also fatally simplistic and doesn't address issues such as the different types of running, the importance of calorific deficit etc, not to mention the fact that for those who are 'time poor' there is plenty of scientific evidence that HIIT is far more effective in terms of weight loss/'leaning out' than an activity such as steady state running or cycling.
I don't want this to descend into a cock-waving exercise, but you have to understand that when you come on here trying to lecture me about an area where with the greatest respect I clearly know more than you, it's going to antagonise me. I see threads on here where the posters have superior knowledge than me regarding particular subjects and I love to learn from them - what I don't do is try to take issue with them when I'm clearly out of my depth. As much as I have a good understanding of health and fitness, for example, Machoman and Scrap are two examples of posters whose knowledge is superior to mine in certain fields - I soak up what they've got to say as I want to retain an open mind and never stop learning.

[Prediction...Pain]

Deserter is a legend. Owl is a huge pussy. That is all.

[Deserter]

Nothing I have said regarding the information in my posts is wrong.

Weights provide a very small increase in CV compared to running.

Yet again, simplistic and wrong.

Simply because for his goals he does not need weights. Just like for most people you don't need weight to be or get in shape. Even more so if you aim is weight loss and endurance that can easily be achieved without iron. That is fact. I mean there are countless experts who say this.

Again, you completely miss my point - it's all about efficiency - ESPECIALLY if you have limited time. If your goal is weight loss and endurance, a programme that incorporates weights in the right manner will achieve those goals far quicker than a programme of cycling and running in isolation AND leave you in better shape overall. To coin your own phrase, there are countless experts who say this.

Sure in a better life we are all jedi like Deserter and perform everything perfectly... but yeah we are not all that perfect. Again for the purposes of this post and 80% of adults... you don't need weights. If you have the time and want to have the perfect workout sure ideally weight should be in there, but it does not mean that if you do not integrate weights that you will have by any means an incomplete workout. .

The irony here is that you previously criticised my use of emoticons and yet when I simply state my background as per your request you're the one who feels obliged to resort to sarcasm. I'm no jedi, I'm an ordinary guy who has peaks and troughs like anyone else e.g. eating correctly is a constant struggle for me as I'm no fan of vegetables, so even though I know all the correct theory, I frequently fail. The difference is, I've learnt not to blame it on factors beyond my control and accept it's a commitment issue on my part, just like those who choose not to use their spare time to train. There are people who are faster than me, there are people that are stronger than me, there are people that train harder than me. I'm cool with that as I'm not trying to compare to others or be a jedi, I'm just trying to learn and improve - my own training has evolved through the years as I've learnt from those who know more than me - I look back now at some of the things we used to do in Tae Kwon Do and they were really detrimental to the body, for example. I also used to labour under the misapprehension that steady state running was the best way to lose weight, until I learned more, adapted my training and saw the superior results.

But it is hard in this time and age to have an opinion because so many experts roam the net.

Again, why the resort to sarcasm Owl? It's not hard to have an opinion on the net - in fact, it's never been easier. What's hard is having an informed opinion. I took issue with you simply because you were handing out advice when you clearly didn't know enough about the subject matter. Your opinion, while honestly stated, was wrong in terms of a programme of cycling and running representing the best way for the OP to get in shape (the ones that "do the most" as you termed it). It's one of the more inefficient methods of delivering those goals. That, I'm afraid, is fact.

[Prediction...Pain]

Owl is so soft but too tough for emoticons.

[stevek3lly]

Cheers Guys. I am starting out cycling to work to build up a base fitness. Going to build up to there and back each day which is 20 miles.

Good points about the running though, think I need to add some of that as well.

How you coping with that hill near your house Steve?

Still trying to get up it, its a killer

[Old bones Ian]

50 miles cycled today in 4.5 hours, I'm no Lance Armstrong. Was on the Isle of Wight though, and you always seem to be cycling uphill here.

[housesecond]

Getting back on subject if you're cycling to a reasonable standard the benefits would be huge. I would never just cycle, as I do loads of other stuff too but as an example I'd never run a sub 45 minute 10k until I started cycling. Now I've done loads of em. I came withing touching distance of a 90 minute half marathon which I'd never got near before I was cycling.
It's good, it works, but it isn't everything.

[jturrentine]

It could ve very good. Sergio Martinez did it for years and I have heard cycling and soccer/football be given credit for his abilities in the ring.

[stevek3lly]

I have made a start on the bike. It is harder than I expected it to be, but considering I have done no exercise for about 4 years then cannot complain.

My problem is I lack commitment so I have got a bike to get to work and back, this way I am getting some exercise and also getting to work and back for free. Fingers crossed it gets easier for me and I start to see some benefit.

I am intending to get back to playing footie as well and start back at five a side next week so will get some more exercise in each week. I will be skinny in no time.

[ushnikov]

As a racing cyclist thought I would chip in on this debate.

I would recommend cycling to anyone who wanted to improve their fitness and lose weight.
3 hour rides on Sunday burn a large amount of calories and are not to difficult to build up to as long as you can spare the time.

If you can join up with some other riders of similar ability you can really push yourselves racing up hills, nothing better than dropping a mate of the back off the group!

Only reservations are that yes it does hurt your arse and after you finish your 3 hour ride make sure you don't eat the contents of your fridge.

I am about to attempt to cut out the carbs and eat more protein after reading advice on here so let's see if that helps my racing weight!

As Greg Lemond said "it never gets easier you just get faster"

Cheers

[addi]

cycling is good when you first start out as it's easier on the body.

[Old bones Ian]

I'm off from London to Portsmouth on Sunday, about 70 miles.
thats gonna hurt my backside

[King Tubby]

I'm off from London to Portsmouth on Sunday, about 70 miles.
thats gonna hurt my backside

How did you get on Ian? I done London to Brighton last year, but didn't train for it, took ages, would have done it in half the time if I'd trained.

[Deserter]

I'm off from London to Portsmouth on Sunday, about 70 miles.
thats gonna hurt my backside

How did you get on Ian? I done London to Brighton last year, but didn't train for it, took ages, would have done it in half the time if I'd trained.

Judging by the silence I think he must still be on it

[Old bones Ian]

I'm off from London to Portsmouth on Sunday, about 70 miles.
thats gonna hurt my backside

How did you get on Ian? I done London to Brighton last year, but didn't train for it, took ages, would have done it in half the time if I'd trained.

Judging by the silence I think he must still be on it

did it in 6 and a 1/4 hours, with a couple of stops, i was happy with that. My bike is a 5 year old Giant mountain bike 4.5 xtc, so its no high performance bike.
worth about 250-300 quid. In all the mileage was 74 miles as i took a wrong turning coming into Pompey and ended up coming in the main route to the city, not that much fun. But i was alot fresher after than i thought i would be, there were alot of riders on bikes worth a couple of grand that finished behind me.

I usually cycle alone, so didn't have a clue if i'm any good compared to other riders. But my hills went really well. I was quite surprised that i'm not a bad bike rider.

[King Tubby]

You done better than me, . That's about the time I took to Brighton which isn't as far. I'd really like to get into it but the weather holds me back a bit (cop out, I suppose).