Transferable fitness

"Wild Wind" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So perhaps anyone in the group could put me straight on
all these issues? Specifically, do you find that having
taken up cycling, you are able to do other everyday tasks
a lot better? If so, which tasks in particular do you find
that cycling has improved your ability to do? Has cycling
improved your ability to do other *strenuous* tasks?

Cycling gives me the cardiovascular fitness I use in other
activities (normally hillwalking, some XC skiing this
year). I spend much more time on the bike than doing these
other things, so I think it's reasonable to ascribe my
fitness to that.

Difficult to answer your exact question as I've never
not cycled.

cheers, clive

Wild Wind said:

Quite often, increased fitness is cited as a reason for
taking up cycling.

However, I am in some doubt about this, primarily because
I am not even *sure* what the defintion of 'fitness' is.
Is 'fitness' the ability to do everyday tasks without much
exertion? If so, then I don't think that you gain much
extra fitness after taking up cycling for a while.

In fact, I'm beginning to think that regular cycling just
makes you a better cyclist, and not, for example, a better
jogger or oarsman.

So perhaps anyone in the group could put me straight on
all these issues? Specifically, do you find that having
taken up cycling, you are able to do other everyday tasks
a lot better? If so, which tasks in particular do you find
that cycling has improved your ability to do? Has cycling
improved your ability to do other *strenuous* tasks?

You might be right to some extent, because I think although
it improves general fitness if you're unfit to start with,
if you use different muscles to those you use while cycling,
they won't have built up the sheer strength.

However.

Walking helped with cycling, and cycling's definitely
helped with walking. I can run up stairs without getting
horrible complaining muscles (think about the angle of the
legs and what you're doing climbing stairs and cycling,
it's very similar).

Cycling's definitely increased my base fitness levels, I
can do more before getting out of breath. I'm curious about
how well I'd do on a mile swim (which 8 months ago I could
do 3 times a week easily) - I've not swum since then, and
suspect the swimming muscles, which haven't been used,
would complain at a mile, even though I've done some
cycling of late.

Yes, everyday tasks are easier, because my base fitness is
better - I found that with swimming, too. It makes lugging a
laptop and tools around between parked car somewhere in
london, and client site (often involving a fair old walk,
and the laptop/tools ain't light!) much easier.

The thing is though, cycling will only make you a better
oarsman if you're using the same muscles for that, and ditto
for running (and I believe certainly running uses different
muscles, or at least uses the muscles differently) - using
it to strengthen muscle groups is entirely different to
using cycling to build your stamina.

--

Velvet

Wild Wind said:

However, I am in some doubt about this, primarily because
I am not even *sure* what the definition of 'fitness' is.
Is 'fitness' the ability to do everyday tasks without much
exertion?

I would say the above is a fairish definition. Effectively
"they" mean better general cardiovascular efficacy, I'd say.

Quoted message said:

If so, then I don't think that you gain much extra fitness
after taking up cycling for a while.

I'd disagree with that. Most of my fitness comes from
regular utility cycling, and though I'm not exactly Mr.
Apollo I'm widely active in a range of pursuits needing
basic fitness and I manage well at them all. Utility cycling
has been my only truly regular physical activity since I was
old enough to vote.

Quoted message said:

In fact, I'm beginning to think that regular cycling just
makes you a better cyclist, and not, for example, a better
jogger or oarsman.

Depends what level you're looking at. If you mean specific
muscle groups then cycling might even make you /worse/ at
some sports, but if you're at the basic level then better
basic cardiovascular fitness is something you need for
anything requiring exertion. Two otherwise identical folk
taking up running, the cyclist will fare better than the
couch potato because they won't get out of breath so fast.
The muscles they've developed won't necessarily help much,
but their lungs and heart working better will help a /lot/.

Quoted message said:

So perhaps anyone in the group could put me straight on
all these issues? Specifically, do you find that having
taken up cycling, you are able to do other everyday tasks
a lot better? If so, which tasks in particular do you find
that cycling has improved your ability to do?

Everyday tasks don't generally stretch my cardiovascular
system, so I doubt it makes much difference there. OTOH it
depends how you define "everyday". I think nothing of
walking a couple of miles or climbing 5 flights of stairs, I
know people who are seriously wheezing after less than 100m
or climbing a few steps, so that sort of "everyday" is
"everyday" to me but not to the seriously unfit.

Quoted message said:

Has cycling improved your ability to do other
*strenuous* tasks?

Spending a day doing hard manual labour, be it for utility,
business or pleasure. Absolutely. My fitness is primarily
based upon it, and even someone like me who isn't into
cycling as a hard work sport is considerably fitter than the
average and considered "sporty" by many friends and
colleagues.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111
ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382
640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Wild Wind said:

do you find that having taken up cycling, you are able to
do other everyday tasks a lot better? If so, which tasks
in particular do you find that cycling has improved your
ability to do?

DIY. Much easier now I no longer have that gut getting in
the way all the time :-)

Everything is easier when you don't get out of breath just
getting up from the sofa, of course. Cycling won't make you
a better rower, unless you buy a rowbike, for simple and
obvious reasons, but it makes walking down the road to the
shops feel less like a trek across the Himlalayas.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Wild Wind said:

Quite often, increased fitness is cited as a reason for
taking up cycling.

However, I am in some doubt about this, primarily because
I am not even *sure* what the defintion of 'fitness' is.
Is 'fitness' the ability to do everyday tasks without much
exertion? If so, then I don't think that you gain much
extra fitness after taking up cycling for a while.

In fact, I'm beginning to think that regular cycling just
makes you a better cyclist, and not, for example, a better
jogger or oarsman.

So perhaps anyone in the group could put me straight on
all these issues? Specifically, do you find that having
taken up cycling, you are able to do other everyday tasks
a lot better? If so, which tasks in particular do you find
that cycling has improved your ability to do? Has cycling
improved your ability to do other *strenuous* tasks?

What Clive said. You work your heart and lungs, so you can
get more oxygen into your blood and get it round quicker.
Which will help with all exercise, though obviously you
need to build up some muscles for whatever you're doing. If
you do no exercise at all, your cardiovascular fitness
drops off very quickly. I can certainly run faster for
longer since I took up cycling, but I don't run for sport.
Just when I'm in a rush...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Just zis Guy said:

the sofa, of course. Cycling won't make you a better
rower, unless you buy a rowbike, for simple and obvious
reasons, but it makes walking down the

Well, it depends on if your limits in doing X are aerobic
or X-specific muscles. That's going to vary from person
to person.

ian

Wild Wind said:

So perhaps anyone in the group could put me straight on
all these issues? Specifically, do you find that having
taken up cycling, you are able to do other everyday tasks
a lot better? If so, which tasks in particular do you find
that cycling has improved your ability to do? Has cycling
improved your ability to do other *strenuous* tasks?

I couldn't even walk down my short road without getting
tired and out-of-breath before I did much regular cycling.
Now I find it hard not to break into a spontaneous jog
whenever I do need to walk. It's that easy! There's no doubt
that cycling improves cardio vascular fitness, amongst other
things. However, I'm often so knackered from a bike ride
that I can't do anything else physical at all that day. :-)
And it's true that cycling uses different muscles or the
muscles in different ways to some other activities, so there
can be some incompatibilty in that way.

~PB

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wild Wind said:

However, I am in some doubt about this, primarily
because I am not even *sure* what the definition of
'fitness' is. Is 'fitness' the ability to do everyday
tasks without much exertion?

I would say the above is a fairish definition.
Effectively "they" mean better general cardiovascular
efficacy, I'd say.

In other words, your heart becomes better at pumping blood
round the body, and this is a good thing because it means
more oxygen to your muscles.

But this means of course that your muscles should be in a
fit state to take advantage of the extra oxygen. I suppose
for everyday tasks, we can assume this will be the case.

Just curious - is it lack of oxygen to the muscles that
causes people to feel 'out of breath', then?

And is there an objective measurement of fitness like a
'fitness index' that you can use to rate your fitness?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If so, then I don't think that you gain much extra
fitness after taking up cycling for a while.

I'd disagree with that. Most of my fitness comes from
regular utility cycling, and though I'm not exactly Mr.
Apollo I'm widely active in a range of pursuits needing
basic fitness and I manage well at them all. Utility
cycling has been my only truly regular physical activity
since I was old enough to vote.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear here. What I meant was
that if you were unfit to begin with, you rapidly gain a lot
of fitness, then after a while, the rate of gain tapers off
to a point where it's negligible.

"Wild Wind" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quite often, increased fitness is cited as a reason for
taking up cycling.

However, I am in some doubt about this, primarily because
I am not even *sure* what the defintion of 'fitness' is.
Is 'fitness' the ability to do everyday tasks without much
exertion? If so, then I don't think that you gain much
extra fitness after taking up cycling for a while.

Cycling certainly improves your overall cardio-vascular
fitness, and therefore your ability to do almost any
physical activity.

At the Bristol Car Show (I skipped Bristol's Biggest Bike
Ride for the first time in ten years) there was a pulse
checker. My pulse was 67, everyone else's tested whilst I
watched was over 90, with 110 the max. The only exercise I
do is to ride my bike every day: no gym, no jogging,
nuffink. Now my base level of fitness may not be due to
cycling, and everyone else tested may have been idle slobs,
but it certainly makes you think.

cheers

Rich

Wild Wind said:

And is there an objective measurement of fitness like a
'fitness index' that you can use to rate your fitness?

You'd have to define fitness rather less nebulously if you
want to measure it. But it will really mean different
things for different activities once you get past a very
general level.

Quoted message said:

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear here. What I meant was
that if you were unfit to begin with, you rapidly gain a
lot of fitness, then after a while, the rate of gain
tapers off to a point where it's negligible.

Well, yes. If you're a good marathon runner then taking up
cycling on top will probably do zip for your overall fitness
level. But most people aren't good marathon runners. Most
people get tired if they climb more than one or two flights
of stairs, and I think that is the general level of people
who are being told they will improve their fitness if they
take up cycling. The average UK adult is a pretty shocking
specimen when it comes to fitness, to be honest.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111
ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382
640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Clive George said:

Cycling gives me the cardiovascular fitness I use in other
activities (normally hillwalking, some XC skiing this
year). I spend much more time on the bike than doing these
other things, so I think it's reasonable to ascribe my
fitness to that.

Cycling keeps us fit enough to be pretty quick up hills when
walking. However there is a bit of a problem with
descending...if we don't go walking regularly enough, we get
very stiff thighs afterwards.

James

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

Cycling gives me the cardiovascular fitness I use in
other activities (normally hillwalking, some XC skiing
this year). I spend much more time

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the bike than doing these other things, so I think it's
reasonable to ascribe my fitness to that.

Cycling keeps us fit enough to be pretty quick up hills
when walking. However there is a bit of a problem with
descending...if we don't go walking regularly enough, we
get very stiff thighs afterwards.

heh - that is IMO the really irritating thing about
hillwalking, the descending being worse than going up,
throwing away all that lovely PE I worked so hard for!

We found we could still cycle with stiff legs from walking -
last time we were in the alps, we had a great bike day
including the Col des Aravis when walking was still a bit of
an issue after our one day on foot.

(Hmm - now the question wrt stiff legs is, is it cycling
making things worse directly, indirectly or at all?
Indirectly would be it giving you the ability to go up more
than your body is able to descend, directly would be
actually making your body worse at descending).

cheers, clive

Wild Wind said:

Quite often, increased fitness is cited as a reason for
taking up cycling.

However, I am in some doubt about this, primarily because
I am not even *sure* what the defintion of 'fitness' is.
Is 'fitness' the ability to do everyday tasks without much
exertion? If so, then I don't think that you gain much
extra fitness after taking up cycling for a while.

In fact, I'm beginning to think that regular cycling just
makes you a better cyclist, and not, for example, a better
jogger or oarsman.

So perhaps anyone in the group could put me straight on
all these issues? Specifically, do you find that having
taken up cycling, you are able to do other everyday tasks
a lot better? If so, which tasks in particular do you find
that cycling has improved your ability to do? Has cycling
improved your ability to do other *strenuous* tasks?

It's a bit of both. Most aerobic exercise invloving big
muscle groups will improve cardiovascular fitness. Your
lungs will get better at oxygenating your blood and your
heart will get better at pumping blood round your body.

But different forms of exercise work different muscles, and
part of the reason you improve is that you build up specific
muscles and the blood supply thereto, and doing other forms
of exercise won't help much with that.

Clive George said:

(Hmm - now the question wrt stiff legs is, is it cycling
making things worse directly, indirectly or at all?
Indirectly would be it giving you the ability to go up
more than your body is able to descend, directly would be
actually making your body worse at descending).

I think it's only indirectly. It's quite a well-known effect
that eccentric exercise causes stiffness in muscles that are
unaccustomed to it (to do with fibres tearing or something)
and of course cycling is purely concentric (I don't mean
eccentric in _that_ sense!).

Descending fast down a steep ~1500m descent (of which there
are plenty round here) is certainly quite a shock to the
system. I'm sure that cycling gives us the cardio fitness to
bite off quite a lot more than we would otherwise do.

James

Quoted message said:

However, I am in some doubt about this, primarily because
I am not even *sure* what the defintion of 'fitness' is.
Is 'fitness' the ability to do everyday tasks without much
exertion? If so, then I don't think that you gain much
extra fitness after taking up cycling for a while.

Fitness = cardiovascular health = living longer with higher
quality of life.

Also, with cycling, fitness = gorgeous legs.

--
Callas

Akin:

Quoted message said:

Specifically, do you find that having taken up

cycling, you are able to do other everyday tasks a lot better?

Six months ago, running 100yds for a bus would leave me on the verge of a heart attack. Now I can do it without even breaking sweat. I put this purely down to cycling, since it's the only exercise I do (apart from running for buses).

d.

Callas said:

Fitness = cardiovascular health = living longer with higher
quality of life.

Yes, being able to do all sorts of things with less effort
makes life more enjoyable. And I have found that even though
fitness in one activity doesn't translate directly into
fitness for another activity, it does help make the
transition shorter. When I start doing something new (like
Xcountry skiing earlier this year) it takes just a couple of
days to adapt, while it takes much longer if you're starting
from scratch.

Quoted message said:

Also, with cycling, fitness = gorgeous legs.

Dunno - mine are currently covered in bruises as well as
sunburnt...

Roos

"Wild Wind" <[email hidden]> writed in news:2j5fdkFscnb5U1@uni-
berlin.de:

Quoted message said:

Quite often, increased fitness is cited as a reason for
taking up cycling.

snip

Quoted message said:

In fact, I'm beginning to think that regular cycling just
makes you a better cyclist, and not, for example, a better
jogger or oarsman.

snip

I thought I was an 'average fit' cyclist - then I tried
fencing (that's foil / eppee/ sabre - not creosote) and by
golly did I find muscles I didn't know I had! OK, so fencing
is a pretty wierd, lop-sided sort of caper, but it does go
to prove your point, that there is fitness & fitness. Also I
think there is a definite difference between strength and
endurance. The strong cyclist eats mountains for breakfast,
the endurance cyclist will do 200km before breakfast. (The
real audax enthusiast does both!). I felt when I was doing
audax rides regularly that I had the endurance, but not the
strength (ie [censored] on hills). I suspect a good measure of
overall fitness is your resting pulse rate.

Mike - Leicester

"Wild Wind" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<2j5fdkFscnb5U1@uni-
berlin.de>... snip

Quoted message said:

So perhaps anyone in the group could put me straight on
all these issues? Specifically, do you find that having
taken up cycling, you are able to do other everyday tasks
a lot better? If so, which tasks in particular do you find
that cycling has improved your ability to do? Has cycling
improved your ability to do other *strenuous* tasks?

About five years ago I ruptured the miniscus in my knee
playing football. I was told to stop playing after key-hole
surgery 'discovered' oncoming arthuritis and I took up
cycling. After about a year of cycling I discovered that the
muscles surrounding my knee were much much stronger and I
started playing football again. This was totally unexpected
and I am very pleased with this consequence of cycling. For
the past few years I have not missed a game through injury.
My resting pulse has also gone down from about 70bpm to
dipping under 50bpm.

I think if ever needed to run away in a Holy Grail kinda way
I would be more successfull at this task than before I
cycled. Sean.