How good is bike cycling for MMA endurance?

Alternative to running? My joints take a beating running.

I do weight lifting but wanted higher endurance, how about bike cycling? And should it be steady state, intervals, etc.?

Thank you.

 

Bikes are really good i use them at my gym all the time doing sprints so i don't blow my knees out by the time im 30.

 

I can't tell by the context, but are you saying you spring on bikes? How is your conditioning and endurance in combat sports?

 

I feel that a bicycle can also have resistance levels by merely changing the gears to a higher gear.

 

I like using a stationary bike for HIIT. road biking too would be good.

 

thank you. anyone else?

 

While biking is good, it ain't great. Biking is not a weight bearing excercise, thus you burn about 1/5 the calories of jogging. Anything is better than nothing, but biking is probally close to the bottom on the list of cardio work.

Benifits of biking is no impact which is mostly the reason anyone will chose biking for cardio.

 

Cycling, or any kind of cardio can be good. What's important is whether the intensity of the activity fits with your goals. For example, when I run, the limiting factor is my cardiovascular system, or for shorter distances my anaerobic energy systems. So the intensity can be as high as I want it to be. But if someone's not used to cycling, and they don't have the muscular endurance, than that's the limiting factor, so the intensity is lower, and the energy systems aren't challenged enough. Similarly, if someone want to swim for conditioning, but isn't a strong swimmer, then it's their swimming ability that's challenged, not their energy systems.

The point is, cycling can be good, but you may have to spend sometime getting used to it first. Whether you do steady state or intervals depends on your goals. Although if conditioning is a priority, than a combination of the two would be good.

LOL at this. How many calories are burned are dependent on exercise intensity, and time.

 

Just cause you spout a bunch of junk about challenging you abilities don't change the fact that if you substitute cycling for running will cost you time and distance trying to burn the same calories.

Are you really saying that sitting on a seat and taking all of your body weight off of your legs will work your cardio better running when you legs are pumping your entire body weight with every step?

You talk a good game but I'm sure you can't be that stupid.

 

I think he's saying that if you push yourself to the max on both, they'd have similar results.

Running a mile would burn more calories than biking a mile, but what if you biked 4 miles in that hour and had high intensity? Along those lines I believe.

 

The limiting factor in how many calories you burn will be the cardiovascular system. It doesn't matter whether you're running, or cycling or swimming, or whatever. I.e. if I exercise for 30 minutes at an average heart rate of 160 BPM, the amount of calories burned very similar regardless of the exercise.

Besides which, if you want to compare movements, running is far more biomechanically efficient than cycling is. The range of motion in distance running is small, and the stretch reflex reduces the amount of force and energy needed.

 

So basically, you are saying he is right cause IF YOU BIKE MORE INTENSE THAN YOU RUN, YOU GET SIMILAR RESULTS??? Does this hold true if you have high intensity on both??? No, of course not, stop it. When you are on the treadmill and get tired, how do you get extra distance out of you routine........grab the handles and take some of the weight off of your legs. Amazine how that works right. The less weight on your legs, the longer you can go time wise.

Intensity is a key factor, but when compairing two different things, you have to keep everything a constant. Same time, same intensity, running will yield better results in calorie burn and cardio improvements.

 

Does your cardiovascular system (or either anaerobic system for that matter) magically become able to support a greater expenditure of energy because you are running instead of cycling? Of course not.

And your hypothetical situation is stupid. So you reduce the intensity by holding onto the the sides, so you can run longer, which doesn't contradict anything I've said. Furthermore, if the weight placed on your legs somehow was the defining factor of calories burned, then that would mean that swimming expended zero calories, which is obviously impossible.

I'm not going to debate this any further since (1) you've obviously never seriously used an exercycle or bicycle for cardiovascular exercise, and are drawing conclusions from a vast wealth of ignorance, and, more importantly (2) you're pretty dumb.

 

I'm in the same boat at the moment, ankles are a bit rooted after running for the first time in ages so I head down to the gym and use the rowers, bikes and ellipticals there. definitely finding that running is the most time-efficient of the 4, but rowing is a bloody good substitute.

 

I think it woudl be fair to say that the energy system may very well be challenged when a weak swimmer is using it for conditioning. They will be expending a higher amount of energy to perform the same work an experianced swimmer will untill they develope the skillset needed to swim efficently. Would be the same as running in sand as far as wasted energy.

I do agree with your point on cycling, the main purpose of conditioning is to improve the performance of an energy system, the tool used to do it has little importance provided it can get you to the intensity level you need.

 

You realize that 'cardio' is measured mainly by heart rate, and so whether you're skipping rope, swimming, riding a bike, or...running, whatever type of energy system you're trying to develop will be determined by your effort (as measured by your heart rate) and not by the type of activity. With a bike you can get very much the same intensity and challenge as running simply by changing gears, riding up hill, or even just putting more effort into riding faster. As Standard said, provided you can reach the intensity level necessary to challenge your target energy system, the tool isn't so important.

Using your example, putting a 200lb sack on your back and trying to run would be better than running with no extra weight. but that completely ignores having a goal - in other words, having a target energy system. Not to forget, it also ignores the original question, which was how to improve conditioning without stressing the knees.

 

Define intensity. In terms of aerobic and anaerobic training you use your heart rate to define intensity so doing 60 minutes of exercise with your heart rate in the 140-150 BPM range is the same intensity if you do it by running or cycling. Your heart doesn't know the difference.

 

you have got to be fucking retarded. seriously.

 

Rob Black should go back to the heavyweights or do some FAQ reading before continuing to post here.

 

I think the mistake you are making is looking at a general activity and asking if it is good for endurance.

You need to figure out which areas you need improvement in and use a specific activity under the correct duration/intensity to improve that quality.

For example you can using running to:

- Improve Aerobic capacity
- Improve your AnT
- Improve your Anaerobic capacity
- Improve your Aerobic recovery
- The list goes on.

It isnt the exercise itself, its how you use it. You should figure out what you need to improve and research how to improve it. Atleast become familiar with the terminology before asking more specific questions. The goal is to understand how and why it works so you can tweak things along the way to support your specific needs as an athlete.