Does riding a single-speed provide a more rounded workout?

Question

This question considers only short-ride (10-20 km) workouts.

After trying single-speed riding, I'm questioning the value of working out using a derailleur-equipped bicycle.

Having access to a derailleur makes me

• remain in almost exactly the same cadence (85-90),
• produce what is likely almost exactly the same power, and
• with little variation in my heartbeat (since on a short ride I go all out from beginning to end),
• plus my leg muscles remain in the same "stretch zone" (I am seated throughout).

On a single-speed

• my cadence changes from the minimal needed to remain balanced (40-60) to a furious 120 on descents.
• The pressure I put on pedals is either the most I can produce, or it's trivial.
• My heartbeat is either at my upper limit, or I am resting because I give up pedaling on downhills while I'm unable to keep up with the speed.
• My legs are either taking a break, or I have to stand to push hard enough on the climbs.

Something else makes single speed very attractive. Cycling is inherently a leg workout. I normally have to supplement it with some upper body workout. On a single speed I am wrestling with the handlebar and frame, and can subsequently feel the tension and improved tone.

Does riding a single-speed provide a superior workout?

The one factor that ultimately matters is the average speed. On my standard 10 to 20 km rides, my average speed using a single-speed is higher (not by much, just ~2 kph, but higher nevertheless) than when shifting, which I tend to do often. I am puzzled at this increase in average speed, and am still trying to figure out how to analyze rides to determine whether the rests I take downhills and the intensity I put on climbs is the cause (to quote the refrain: "races are won on the climbs").

If you've read all the way to here, plan to contribute an answer, and can suggest ways to achieve the same average speed using a derailleur-equipped bike (relax more on descents?; save the energy for the climbs?; ...?), please do.

Clarification (edit 1)

The "single-speed" is actually the same bike, and so the experiment is proper — same weight, same friction in the pulleys, etc. A real single speed would have at least one advantage: the chainring and the sprocket would be coplanar.

(It happened by accident. My RD cable was fraying, but I was determined to ride that day with that bike. That's how this single-speed simulation started.)

What makes one workout “superior” to another? (edit 2)

With a car we can reasonably say that one engine is superior to another if it leads to a higher average speed — with the same chassis, driver, and course.

Since on a bike the engine is the human, we can likewise say that the human is becoming a better machine if we set the conditions for a consistently higher average speed — on the same bike and over the same path. An additional point is whether a “better machine” means a “superior workout“. You’re more than welcome to refute this.

Related (edit 3; after reading the many fine answers)

The answer to another question

Why are responses to an attack in a cycling race immediate?

is becoming a lot clearer. If one racer has designed his speed over a stage’s harder climbs, his competitor cannot afford to slack off on any given tough climb. The race may ultimately be determined by whether he does. If he does need to relax at some point, he can choose to just coast on the descents.

Answer 1

No, you do not get a superior workout on a single speed, but it constrains you to do with what you have, and gives you a different workout.

If you go faster on a single speed bike, you are probably not using gears in the most efficient manner. More gears make it possible to smooth out the required effort while maximizing the average speed. Most humans are most efficient within a reasonable range of cadence, which is impossible to obtain with a single ratio if there are steeper sections on a ride. The body is also more efficient at a fairly constant effort instead of insane bursts with intermittent breaks (no record is run, swum or ridden the latter way that I know of).

Yes, spending a lot of energy downhill is wasteful as the drag is proportional to the velocity squared. So if you need some periods of lower intensity you should take them when you are going fast anyway (downhill). For a similar reason you want to limit the dip in speed when going uphill if you want to get a maximum average speed, as it is disproportionally (due to drag, and the kinetic energy) difficult to make up for spent time when the speed is higher (flats/downhill). There is not much more to it.

Perhaps your single speed has better tires/bearings etc, a lower position, or just a more enthusiastic rider? Anyway, just ride what you like the way you like it.

Answer 2

Modern training methodology is all about making your training as controlled as possible.

When your training program prescribes a 4 hour ride in zone 2, you ideally spend the full 4 hours in zone 2. With a geared bike you can get close to this ideal, even on a hilly route or on a windy day.

When your training program prescribes a 5 minute interval workout a geared bike allows you to pick just the right intensity.

With a single speed bike you lose all this control.

I think a single speed bike could have training benefits for people who actually don’t want to train and always use easy gears. With a single speed they would be forced to spend some effort, at least when accelerating or going uphill.

Answer 3

The assumptions on the "derailleur" are somehow flawed to me. The power you need to produce depends roughly on the apparent windspeed, the surface and the slope, as well as the speed you want to ride, the cadence and heart rate being dependent variables (the heart rate being also dependent of the cadence).

Gears give you the possibility to choose the cadence you find the most optimal for the current situation, but you'll need the same power regardless of the gear you're in if you target a given speed for given conditions. What changes when you don't have sufficient range (single gear being the most extreme form) is that when you reach the limit of what you drivetrain allows, you need to deliver more power to keep moving (there's a minimum cadence to be able to deliver power).

It's likely that the difference you noticed between single gear and derailleur have a psychological origin: a derailleur gives you the option to stay longer in your comfort zone, so you take the option. But if you were to ride as fast uphill as you did with your derailleur-equipped bike, you'll have an intense workout as well. I recently encountered this situation when riding with a friend recently, their min ratio was 1, mine 0.7: when hitting steep climbs, they were of course much faster than me because they had no choice (walking not being an option), but if I wanted to follow them, I also needed to deliver a higher power, but I could do it at a higher cadence (but I didn't want to, because I could).

Also, whether it provides a better workout depends on your objective, harder doesn't mean superior. If you want to train for endurance (Z2), that won't be the case for the example. If you train for a specific goal, structured training is probably the best option, and I doubt a single-gear bike will give you enough flexibility.

Answer 4

Assuming that you are not riding on flat terrain at a constant speed, a single speed can provide a different workout. If you have a geared bike you can use it to provide constant pressure, effort and cadence for variable speed by shifting gears. On a geared bike, going up hill is not actually more work than going on flat terrain; you just go slower for the same effort. The same is not true for a single speed bike. Your speed vs effort on a single speed is higher around your ideal cadence, but if going uphill (or against headwind) the power required to find your ideal cadence is of course going to be higher.

The end result of all this is that your power output will likely vary more across a ride if riding without shifting gears. On the flats you will likely have a lower speed than on a geared bike because you cannot maintain a high enough cadence, but you will likely find yourself gunning it up hills at maximum power because going slowly up a hill on a single speed bike is actually more work than doing it at high speed.

It seems likely to me that over a decent distance with some inclines, riding a single speed will be more like interval training, switching between max effort on inclines and relatively low effort on the flat segments.

On a geared bike, you can easily maintain a constant effort, which allow you to go much further distances at a higher average power, and achieve a different type of training.

Which is better depends on what you're after. And ultimately your body tends to get better at doing the thing you're doing. If you want to train yourself to maintain high constant power over long time periods, a geared bike will be better.

Answer 5

As training (for everything) depends on doing it, and doing it depends on liking it enough to keep doing it, riding a bike your like more will help you to train more.

At this time your single speed bike on your routes give you exercise you do not feel you get on your derailleur bikes, so keep using that bike at least part of the time.
But on the other hand, try to make your rides on the other bike(s) more varied, get up, standing on the pedals, do not always shift to the gear most suited to your standard cadans and try out as many variations as you can think up, so you become stronger on the better bike as well.

Answer 6

The main thing that comes to mind is a disadvantage of a single-speed bike: The large forces needed under certain conditions which can actually hurt your knees. When accelerating at slow speeds, riding uphill or riding against the wind: Whenever you would choose a lower gear if you had one, you are now forced to stay in a gear that is larger than you'd like and exert proportionally more force with your legs for the same result.

Whether this actually stresses your knees beyond acceptable limits depends, of course, on all kinds of factors: The terrain, your riding style, your age and your specific physical condition. But one thing is for sure: Knee pain is like back pain — there is a time before the first time and one after the first time, and between the two something happens, and it will never be again as it was before. So try to avoid over-stressing your knees like the plague.

Answer 7

While we can quibble over the meaning of "workout" I suggest that from your stats it's in many ways a less good one. A workout is training, and training should usually be hard. Quicker suggests it was easier unless you were pushing yourself harder - an impression I didn't get.

However your description suggests it might have worked rather like an interval session, and they can be quick overall as well as hard.

Since your edit I can provide a similar anomalous anecdote - I snapped the rear derailleur cable on the way to my campsite the night before a big ride, leaving me with just the 3 front gears and a middling sprocket. I got off to really rather a quick start (before detouring to a bike shop and fitting a new cable in their car park). Part of that was good riding conditions and setting off with a quick group.