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] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

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.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

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:

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...

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 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] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

--

Following on from Wild Wind's message. . .

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.

_My_ definition is "the ability to do exercise/work"[1]

That is, in this ng, from scratch, each 10mile ride and each slog up the
hill (and each rest day) makes the next one easier.

Quoted message said:

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.

(By this I take it that you don't keep getting fitter and fitter and
fitter even if you do more miles) Of course not - else the TdF would be
over in a nanosecond. But you make a point well worth making: For up
to 100mile per week cyclist without athletic ambitions - after say a
month that's about as fit as you'll be. (But technique and attention to
detail could make improvements - for which you need somebody with a bit
of coaching experience.)

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.

[Arghh I forget the details] A study of 10 men was done into the
effectiveness of regular exercise in old age. One was a cyclist the
others joggers.[USA!] When they were put on an exercise bike the cyclist
was streets ahead [good] in oxygen consumption or Cardio-vascular (or
some jargon) measurement. But my guess is that the joggers would have
done as well on a _treadmill_, it was just that the cyclist was on home
ground using familiar muscles. This may be relevant to your assertion
that a fit cyclist may not be /as fit/ when asked to do different work.
But then that might apply to all sorts of things.

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?

_Mentally_ yes. A lot of fitness is knowing *YOU CAN DO IT* rather than
getting in the car as a cop out. Last week I persuaded 3 chaps to join
me on a warm evening cycle ride - "8 miles! [on the flat] That'll kill
me". They were self-defeated before they started.[2]

Age and gender is an important variable. Teenagers (the ignorant, smug,
[censored]) are, if 'sporty', able to work surprisingly hard with precious
little preparation, but can lack the stamina of veterans. My personal
opinion is that if you have to work at something _where you know what to
expect_ you're better able to put your resources where they matter and
put up with the grief 'cos you know it will be over in a few moments, or
conversely not to go flat out at the start of the 400 mile race.

[1] My contribution to the FAQ:
Losing weight by cycling:-
You will soon find cycling becomes much easier as your muscles get used
to the work. Now you have a good set of muscles capable of some
sustained effort you can use them to burn off some calories without much
pain and a lot of pleasure. Don't over do it but don't be afraid of a
couple of minutes of 150% effort either.

[2] Poor buggers: The Monday-club ride next week is 17 miles and 3 or 4
pubs before we get back to the Dolphin. - Should I make an advance
booking with air-sea-rescue?

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bridge building business collapsed
[email hidden]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

"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