Distance vs Length(Time) of Cycle

busyliving

Hey all,

I've been cycling a bit of late, with my main aim to lose weight...

But I have a big question, is it better to do a 32k at an average speed of 24km/hr...Or would I be better doing a longer trip at 22km/hr an hour?

If I'm going at a slower speed will I last longer thus be able to cover more ground, thus leading to a longer trip and better results? Also will the longer trip(in terms of time) be better for me building up stamina?

Beasty

To start off with build your distance - increased speed will come over time. However don't try and do too much too quickly - There's little point in cycling 50km and then taking a week to recover. Ideally increase distance by 5-10% per week, and reduce the time between spins. You'll find you will quickly build up stamina and speed will come with it

Edit - moved from training logs sub-forum

Lumen

Do whatever is more fun. If it's fun you'll do it more often.

serendip

My 2c ... Don't worry too much. Just make sure you're active and enjoying yourself.

seamus

busyliving wrote: »

But I have a big question, is it better to do a 32k at an average speed of 24km/hr...Or would I be better doing a longer trip at 22km/hr an hour?

If your aim is to lose weight, then in general it's better to exercise longer than exercise harder. Exercising harder obviously burns more calories, but you're fncked more quickly and therefore stop earlier.

There's a middle ground, where you're tipping along, not too fast to kill you, but not so slow as to be waste of time.

In non-cycling terms, think of comparing 20 minutes of sprints against 2 hours of walking. The optimal calorie burner is something in between - like an hour of jogging.

As Beasty says, at your level forget about the speed and time, instead just aim for mileage for now. No matter what kind of riding you do, you will naturally get faster and stronger. Once you get up to doing 100km rides without dying, then you can look at mixing it up.

And oh yes, as Lumen says, whatever you do, enjoy it. If you find a 2-hour spin more boring than a 1-hour spin, then go for the 1-hour spin.

kuro_man

1. As others have said, do what you like and you'll do it more often. Mountain biking is a great alternative workout

2. Improve you fitness first, don't worry too much about weight loss

3. When fitness improves, look at your diet. If you doing a lot of exercise eat more protein but keep calories at reasonable level

4. Sign up for a sportive or 2 and train for that - gives the cycling a point and focus. Ring of Kerry is a good one because its long - 190k - but not as savage as say the wicklow 200.

5. When fitness/stamina plateau's its time to look into sprints, hiit etc. but only do it if you want to and you like it.

blorg

It is very important to look at your diet. The cycling will help, but the easiest way to lose weight is to eat less calories. You have to do a hell of a lot of cycling to actually lose weight, and many riders compensate by eating more after the exercise. A single Mars Bar might be half an hour or more of reasonably vigorous pedalling. As Lumen says, the most important thing is that whatever you do you enjoy it, or at least dislike it little enough that you can sustain it.

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

Satanta

By the looks of your ticker you have lost almost a stone already so well done. The number one way to improve weight loss is to address your diet. After that adding exercise to the mix is great. If you head over to the Health and Fitness forum and ask for diet advice you will get a wealth of stuff there.

As for duration of exercise where the target is weight loss, moderate exercise for time is the best way to go. I'd say target HR of 150 average over your cycle, or always cycle at an intensity where you can hold a conversation. With targeted HR training you can maximise the percentage of calories taken from fat out of those expended during the exercise.

Personally I control my weight by my diet, and I cycle as a fun way of getting/keeping fit. So that's my 2c... look to your diet for your weight loss and cycle whichever way is the most enjoyable for you to help that goal and also improve your fitness.

Rofo

I was reading an old article on this subject yesterday on Cycling Tips that said intense activity gave the best results for weight-loss. The methods described are probably for more advanced riders. I just started back cycling earlier this year and would have to agree that, to begin with, getting out regularly and getting miles into the legs is key. Don't worry too much about whether it's twenty-whatever kms an hour etc. You need a base fitness before trying this kind of approach:

"If you are trying to lose weight and burn off excess fat, then you actually need to train more in zone 4 and 5 in order to stimulate your fat burning metabolism. There is a myth out there that staying in the fat burning zone helps you to lose weight. Actually, it just makes sure that you don’t burn carbohydrates as fuel and the intensity stays low. If you want to lose excess body fat, then you have to ’stoke’ the fire so to speak and that means exercising very intensely. By exercising in Zone 4 and 5, then you burn off all your carbohydrates and then in the 4 hours after your workout, you burn a ton of fat as fuel. That’s the key to really losing some excess weight."

...sounds painful! :eek:

pikefisher

what the hell is zone 4 and 5

seamus

It's to do with heart-rate based training.

Worrying about HR zones is for people with very specific training requirements and health quacks who want to convince people that you can quickly lose substantial amounts of weight through exercise alone.

If you're overweight and your aim is to lose it, then every calorie is equal and worrying about HR zones just makes training more complicated and therefore more likely to fail.

Satanta

Rofo wrote: »

"If you are trying to lose weight and burn off excess fat, then you actually need to train more in zone 4 and 5 in order to stimulate your fat burning metabolism.

Misleading... You do not need to train in zones 4 and 5 to burn off excess fat. You need to create a calorie deficit so that your body is using more calories than you are ingesting.

Rofo wrote: »

There is a myth out there that staying in the fat burning zone helps you to lose weight. Actually, it just makes sure that you don’t burn carbohydrates as fuel and the intensity stays low. If you want to lose excess body fat, then you have to ’stoke’ the fire so to speak and that means exercising very intensely. By exercising in Zone 4 and 5, then you burn off all your carbohydrates and then in the 4 hours after your workout, you burn a ton of fat as fuel. That’s the key to really losing some excess weight."[/I]

Also misleading. Training in the "fat burning zone" will mean that you maximize the percentage of the calories you burn that are taken from fat stores. As you are training at a lower intensity you will obviously burn less calories over a given time. But you should be able to train longer. However, as correctly pointed out the EPOC effects would be greater after higher intensity exercise. However you dont have to do this to loose weight.

As someone else on this thread said exercising, no matter how intensely, can be undone by a bad diet. By undone I mean if your goal is weight loss the energy expended during and after exercise can be cancelled out by eating a calorie excess. Obviously the beneficial effects on your fitness level wont be undone. You would be pushing hard to work off a couple of mars bars or a muffin. Therefore for weight loss purposed the diet should be the first port of call, and not examining the intensity of the exercise. It is very easy to eat 500 cals over your daily output but not so easy to burn it off by exercise.

A simple formula
if (BMR + additional calories used during exercise < daily calorie consumption) then you will loose weight

otherwise you will gain weight or stay the same.