As Cyclists Are We Kidding Ourselves?

DaveRCF

I am beginning to think that longer rides (3-4 hours) at moderate intensity (no problem conversing while riding sort of intensity), while the norm for many cyclists, don't provide as much aerobic benefit as a shorter (1-1.5 hours) ride at high intensity (make it stop, this hurts!).

Thoughts?

Azdak

Cycling is one of those activities where it is possible to be "on the bike" but not actually doing much, given that the bike keeps rolling even if you stop working.

The range of cycling intensities can range from the recreational to the all out. In that way, it's not that much different from the range of strolling in a shopping mall to an all-out sprint.

So, the idea of "kidding yourself" by mistaking casual recreational activity for fitness activity is true, but it is certainly not restricted to cycling.

From a weight loss standpoint, it's like anything else--all activity burns calories (albeit often at a very low rate), but not all activity improves fitness.

No matter what your exercise, you have to match the intensity, frequency, and duration to your current ability and goals.

One of my friends once said that "real" cyclists were the ones who pedaled just as hard going downhill.