First of all: I was amazed at the difference between department store bikes and those sold by bike shops, especially those who cater to afficianados and competitive cyclists. After riding their offerings I'm convinced the latter offer a more refined and fun product.
Absolutely! That is why I said you made a VERY good investment. The bikes you'll find at the bike shops are definitely high end specialized tools. An equivalent would be the mask, snorkel, and fins one finds packaged in nets at department stores, and the mask, snorkel and fins one finds at the dive shop.
I wish you lots of fun with your new toy.
I say cycling is directly transferrable because the leg motion used for proper cycling is very analagous to that used in the flutter and modified flutter kicks.
Let's not confuse motion with resisted motion. The mechanical aspects of resistance is what dictates what the outcome will be in the form of motor unit recruitment, demands on the systems, and ultimately, transferability.
Let's take for instance the motion for the overhead press. Whenever I make the motion and ask people what the motion works, 9 out of 10 will say "The shoulders". My answer to them is "
Not necessarily". You see, the motion will use the shoulders as primary movers ONLY if the direction of the resistance is inferiorly directed (going towards the floor) as is the case with gravity and traditional weight training.
If the resistance is superiorly directed (going towards the ceiling) I can oppose it using the same motion, but because of the direction of the resistance, this time my upper-back muscles would be the primary movers.
Even more, if the resistance is posteriorly directed (towards the back) opposing it with the same motion would use the chest muscles as primary movers. What about with the resistance anteriorly directed (towards the front). Opposing it with the same motion would target a huge deal of middle and posterior deltoid, along with significant rotator cuff involvement (supraspinatus and infraspinatus to be more specific). And just like that, just by changing the direction of the resistance, we can generate an infinite number of motor patterns that emphasize some areas more than the other, while still using the same motion.
My point?
Motion alone does not determine the productivity of an exercise or activity. Swimming takes place in an environment where the demands of gravity are not as crucial, and that is far denser than the atmosphere. Eccentric phases of muscular action are virtually non-existent. If we were to accept that the motion of pedaling is directly transferable to those who flutter kick, shouldn't then we tell all those who prefer the frog kick to stay away from cycling? If something is not transferable, then by default it becomes disruptive, and real life has shown us that this is not the case.
Plus, the mental discipline is the same.
Mental discipline is more a function of sports psychology rather than motor learning, which is what transferability is all about. Mental discipline can be obtained in pretty much ANY activity that demands focus and problem solving strategies.
Plus, the areas that give pain are, in my experience, the same.
What the body recruits as a response to a resistance and to what degree has a lot more to do with your particular structure rather than the activity itself. Shape of femoral necks and heads, length of femur vs. length of tibia vs. length of trunk, compensations and many other factors will dictate how you will respond to a particular level of resistance.
Plus, the cardiovascular effect is extremely similar.
Similar to what? Scuba Diving? Scuba diving is a recreational activity in which the user shows mastery by showing how much he or she can be relaxed underwater. Are you saying that scuba diving incites a significant cardiovascular response similar to cycling?
Is it "identical"? No. But it is directly transferrable.
Based on the direction of resistance, environment, and neuromuscular recruitment, I still do not see how there could be a
DIRECT transfer.
While I have respect for correct usage of the english language sometimes a person can get twisted about the axle with a distinction without a difference. Such is the question that was raised about this subject.
It was not the use of the language, but the claims of direct transferability that prompted me to post. Those claims were reiterated here again, and once again, I provided with the mechanical analysis of both to conclude whether those claims held ground or not.
Please keep in mind that I speak PURELY from analyzing the physics of the motion, and I always pay attention to the overlooked aspects. My analysis are never meant to be taken as a personal attack, but rather, as an invitation to look beyond the obvious.
I have a tremendous level of respect for your accomplishments and I truly wish you the best. Looking forward to your response.
Take care