20 minute cycle

from_atozinc

Hi,

Like most people, I dont have much time in my day with children, work etc.

I am wondering from a weight loss point of view, which would achieve the best results:

1) a 20 minute cycle
2) a 20 minute run

Both of these to be executed at a fast pace, i.e not just sauntering along but going fairly hard etc.

I know diet is the key thing, but high level, which of the above is best to lose the gut.

I am thinking that the answer is running.............as essentially, you are not sitting down like you are on a bike for the most part.

Amirani

Running at a fast pace would be far more beneficial from a weight loss perspective.

TallGlass

Running would be higher than cycling, but even higher is weight lifting / training.

As for loosing the gut, it would be cutting back on fats/sugary foods as your body fat would be higher than normal. Don't cut out fat completely as you need a % to function! But you can't target fat so you have to reduce your overall body percentage fat. I should really start myself!

drdeadlift

If you have the time figure out which benefits you better,you might prefer one of the two either running or cycling.
Get the calories in check and your away!

from_atozinc

drdeadlift wrote: »

If you have the time figure out which benefits you better,you might prefer one of the two either running or cycling.
Get the calories in check and your away!

To be honest, I prefer cycling
But want to do the one that gets better results. Which from the answers is running.

NoFace

Have you looked into High Intensity Interval Training? You can cut the time down to 10 minutes and you can do routines for either cycling or running and burn pretty much the same amount of calories, so you could go with cycling if that's what you'd prefer!

from_atozinc

NoFace wrote: »

Have you looked into High Intensity Interval Training? You can cut the time down to 10 minutes and you can do routines for either cycling or running and burn pretty much the same amount of calories, so you could go with cycling if that's what you'd prefer!

Thanks.

Is HIIT doable on a bike on public roads though ?

NoFace

from_atozinc wrote: »

Thanks.

Is HIIT doable on a bike on public roads though ?

It would depend on the route you take since traffic lights/road crossings would be a factor, but I've done it on public roads and found them better for it since the road levels are constantly changing, you just have to try come up with the quietest route near you

from_atozinc

NoFace wrote: »

It would depend on the route you take since traffic lights/road crossings would be a factor, but I've done it on public roads and found them better for it since the road levels are constantly changing, you just have to try come up with the quietest route near you

Yep.

And what's your high level HIIT routine on the bike?

1 minute fast. 30 seconds easy etc ?

NoFace

from_atozinc wrote: »

Yep.

And what's your high level HIIT routine on the bike?

1 minute fast. 30 seconds easy etc ?

My routine was a little over 10 mins, though you can add more cycles if you wish:

2 min warmup of easy cycling
30s faster than I thought I could manage
2 min recovery of easy cycling
30s faster than I thought I could manage
2 min recovery of easy cycling
30s faster than I thought I could manage
3 min cool down of easy cycling

MrStuffins

from_atozinc wrote: »

To be honest, I prefer cycling
But want to do the one that gets better results. Which from the answers is running.

Then the answer is cycling. Because, if you prefer cycling you are much more likely to want to get out and do it.

The real question is, if cycling is will burn 50% less calories than running, will you be 50% more likely to to cycling than running on a regular basis?

jameshayes

For me a 20 minute run burns 255 calories, a 20 minute cycle burns 175 calories.. (based on HR so its pretty accurate)

But 255 calories of a run is only a little more than a snickers bar (250 kcals) so diet is more important than exercise

Mellor

Amirani wrote: »

Running at a fast pace would be far more beneficial from a weight loss perspective.

What's that based on?

TallGlass wrote: »

Running would be higher than cycling, but even higher is weight lifting / training.

The calories burned by running or cycling depend on a few variables. But weights would burn significantly less than both.
Weight training ha benefits outside of calories burned

from_atozinc

NoFace wrote: »

My routine was a little over 10 mins, though you can add more cycles if you wish:

2 min warmup of easy cycling
30s faster than I thought I could manage
2 min recovery of easy cycling
30s faster than I thought I could manage
2 min recovery of easy cycling
30s faster than I thought I could manage
3 min cool down of easy cycling

Thank you.

What do others makes of this HIIT routine?

Macy0161

The run will give bigger bang for your time buck. It's all about diet though - 20 minutes of anything isn't going to be significant imo.

Also, running is, give or take, putting on runners. I find it takes me longer to get the bike out, gear on etc for a cycle.

Zillah

Mellor wrote: »

What's that based on?


The calories burned by running or cycling depend on a few variables. But weights would burn significantly less than both.
Weight training ha benefits outside of calories burned

It's a little more complicated than that, though. Resistance training has been shown to keep the metabolism running at a higher rate for much longer after cessation of exertion than cardio exercise. Resistance training will also lead to muscle gain, and muscles will burn extra calories every day for the foreseeable future.

Everyone should do both, really.

LeinsterDub

Which ever one you're most likely to stick too. You prefer cycling so cycle. Diet is the most important factor anyway

Mellor

Zillah wrote: »

It's a little more complicated than that, though. Resistance training has been shown to keep the metabolism running at a higher rate for much longer after cessation of exertion than cardio exercise. Resistance training will also lead to muscle gain, and muscles will burn extra calories every day for the foreseeable future.

Everyone should do both, really.

I'm aware of both of those aspects. They are amount of energy they add it quite low afaik.

Resistance does have a longer EPOC (afterburn), due to muscle repair aspect. But burning for longer doesn't mean burning more over all.
From memory it's like 100-200 calories over the next 24 hours. On top of 200-300 burned while at the gym. When you discount "couch calories", the net burn from a weights session is maybe 250-400.
An hour of cardio could burn up to 1000 cals.
If you do HIIT, it's suppose to have an EPOC similar to weightlifting.


Adding lean mass will raise your BMR. The amount is quite small. Maybe 20cals per kilo. To add that kilo you'd need to be in surplus rather than trying to burn as much as possible.


As I said, the benefits to resistance training outside of calories burned. Personally I do mostly resistance training with the off cardio session. But in terms of pure energy expenditure, I think hard cardio burns at the highest rate overall.

jive

Macy0161 wrote: »

The run will give bigger bang for your time buck. It's all about diet though - 20 minutes of anything isn't going to be significant imo.

Also, running is, give or take, putting on runners. I find it takes me longer to get the bike out, gear on etc for a cycle.

20 mins daily is nearly 2 and a half hours of activity a week, it all adds up.

You won't need gear for a 20min cycle either, just a bike and helmet (optional!). Depends if you're in the routine of it or not for the longer cycles, some people take an age to get ready for a cycle I just slap on bib shorts and a jersey and go.

mrcheez

OP, can you cycle to work?

You get the daily cycle benefit and can then run after if you have time.

I do this every day rain/snow/shine ... lost about 5-10kg, and dropped from 38 waist to 34 waist and had to buy entire new wardrobe

Tombo2001

from_atozinc wrote: »

To be honest, I prefer cycling
But want to do the one that gets better results. Which from the answers is running.

Well its easier.....because it requires less energy......hence it burns less calories.....

If you are going up the hill of Howth for 20 minutes FAST then I'd say fair enough.

Otherwise, I wouldn't see a 20 minute cycle as being much different to a 20 minute walk.

Tombo2001

NoFace wrote: »

Have you looked into High Intensity Interval Training? You can cut the time down to 10 minutes and you can do routines for either cycling or running and burn pretty much the same amount of calories, so you could go with cycling if that's what you'd prefer!

You cant do a high intensity run unless you do a 10 minute warm up run, which kind of contradicts the point.

Plus, you wont do a high intensity run for 10 minutes.

You do one minute on, one minute off.....even that would be hard.

Alf Veedersane

Tombo2001 wrote: »

You cant do a high intensity run unless you do a 10 minute warm up run, which kind of contradicts the point.

Plus, you wont do a high intensity run for 10 minutes.

You do one minute on, one minute off.....even that would be hard.

You don't need a 10 minute warm up. 5 is plenty. And you certainly can do interval runs for more than 10 minutes.

AllForIt

Is there a correlation between how much one sweats and how much calories one burns?

For me running would cause me to sweat profusely, cycling - moderately and resistance training not much, more if super setting.

Cookie_Monster

AllForIt wrote: »

Is there a correlation between how much one sweats and how much calories one burns?

I'm sure you burn slightly more energy trying to keep cool by sweating. The benefit on the bike is the greater airflow due to speed thats make it easier to keep cool.

Mellor

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Well its easier.....because it requires less energy......hence it burns less calories.....

If you are going up the hill of Howth for 20 minutes FAST then I'd say fair enough.

Otherwise, I wouldn't see a 20 minute cycle as being much different to a 20 minute walk.

It's only easier if you are going easier.

Calories burned are proportional to intensity. Cycling hard will burn at a higher rate than moderate running, and visa versa.

AllForIt

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'm sure you burn slightly more energy trying to keep cool by sweating. The benefit on the bike is the greater airflow due to speed thats make it easier to keep cool.

Yeah I get that. Also one would sweat more in a hot gym lifting weights in comparison to a air conditioned one. But all other things being equal I wonder if it's an indicator.

Brian?

from_atozinc wrote: »

Thank you.

What do others makes of this HIIT routine?

It's not really HIIT. It's intervals and best done on an indoor trainer.

from_atozinc

Brian? wrote: »

It's not really HIIT. It's intervals and best done on an indoor trainer.

Can you suggest a HIIT routine?

Brian?

from_atozinc wrote: »

Can you suggest a HIIT routine?

For indoor training?

Alf Veedersane

from_atozinc wrote: »

Can you suggest a HIIT routine?

You're basically looking at intervals of all out and rest so you can manipulate those two variables.

For example, you could do 60s hard, then 90s rest. Repeat x 8

If you tried that and found it too hard, shorten the sprint time or lengthen the rest time (or both).

As it gets easier, make sprint longer or shorten rest (or both).

There is no exact formula but you ideally want to be increasing the 'sprint' time you do in your 20 mins.

Tombo2001

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You don't need a 10 minute warm up. 5 is plenty. And you certainly can do interval runs for more than 10 minutes.

5 minute warm up is not plenty.

Second, of course you can do an interval run for more than ten minutes, but it wont be high intensity.

Macy0161

jive wrote: »

20 mins daily is nearly 2 and a half hours of activity a week, it all adds up.

It adds up, but it's not going to fix a bad diet. Weight loss appears to be the goal, I don't see this making a significant difference to that goal tbh.

Alf Veedersane

Tombo2001 wrote: »

5 minute warm up is not plenty.

Why?

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Second, of course you can do an interval run for more than ten minutes, but it wont be high intensity

Why?

Tombo2001

Mellor wrote: »

It's only easier if you are going easier.

Calories burned are proportional to intensity. Cycling hard will burn at a higher rate than moderate running, and visa versa.

I suppose my point is, you can be cycling fast and not cycling hard.....on a good surface, with a tailwind for example.

That's not the case with running.

As such, I'd really only see cycling being high intensity if you are on a decent uphill. Otherwise, its difficult.

Tombo2001

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Why?

quote="Tombo2001;104147478"]Second, of course you can do an interval run for more than ten minutes, but it wont be high intensity

Why?[/QUOTE]

Because by definition, high intensity cant be sustained for a long time.

The program you outlined is 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds break.

I agree, this is high intensity.

15 minutes, break, 15 minutes, break is not high intensity. Its tempo.

Transform

We do not do any more than one higher intensity session per week with our clients

I feel its very abused, misapplied and id far prefer training and coaching a man or woman to be capable of performing push ups, pull ups, squats, lunges etc well than encouraging the idea that sweating = progress.

Almost All the clients we initially work with have come from trainers that were kicking the stuffing out of them all the time and ended up making very little progress physically, were constantly tired and were carrying injuries from being encouraged to perform movements far too quickly with terrible form.

IMO the best use of 20-30mins is -

I feel good on the day = 5-10mins mobility work, 10mins - strength work, remaining time = conditioning at high(er) intensity

Im defo not 100% = 5-10mins mobility work, 10mins strength work, remaining time = low intensity conditioning or more mobility work

Mobility work = this

Strength work = to be performed every 2mins x 5 - pick one day

Day 1 - Squats + one arm rows
Day 2 - Single leg deadlifts or deadlifts + push ups
Day 3 - Step ups or Lunges + chin ups or ring rows or band pull apart
Day 4 - Leg curls on Swiss ball or single leg hip lifts off a bench + seated dumbbell overhead press

Reps would depend on load being used but generally more than 4 or more reps and no more than 10reps

Conditioning can be performed on a single piece of equipment or using a variety of movements such as box jumps, kettlebell swings, burpees, skipping, rowing, running etc it just depends on whats programmed that day.

some things to consider

Alf Veedersane

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Because by definition, high intensity cant be sustained for a long time.

The program you outlined is 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds break.

I agree, this is high intensity.

15 minutes, break, 15 minutes, break is not high intensity. Its tempo.

No one suggested 15 minutes though. You can manipulate the sprint and rest periods so that you're operating at high intensity for 20 minutes.

There was a loop I used to run that would take 20/21 minutes. Started with a 3-min warm up and then started into it. It was high intensity.

Depending on your fitness, you need to adjust sprint and rest times to your level to maintain high intensity.

Transform

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You're basically looking at intervals of all out and rest so you can manipulate those two variables.

For example, you could do 60s hard, then 90s rest. Repeat x 8

If you tried that and found it too hard, shorten the sprint time or lengthen the rest time (or both).

As it gets easier, make sprint longer or shorten rest (or both).

There is no exact formula but you ideally want to be increasing the 'sprint' time you do in your 20 mins.

which is ok if the person in question has an existing decent aerobic base but its a terrible idea for the average person starting out as it wont develop the aerobic base

Alf Veedersane

Transform wrote: »

which is ok if the person in question has an existing decent aerobic base but its a terrible idea for the average person starting out as it wont develop the aerobic base

Not disagreeing but the OP didn't suggest they had no aerobic base so just suggested a routine.

Edit: looking back at OP, I wouldn't be doing it repeatedly all week.

Transform

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Not disagreeing but the OP didn't suggest they had no aerobic base so just suggested a routine.

Edit: looking back at OP, I wouldn't be doing it repeatedly all week.

Id just like to see a heart rate reading first, its what we do as we find most cant perform simple work at a modest heart rate so higher intensity stuff aint going to help but yes i know you're just answering the question

Alf Veedersane

Transform wrote: »

Id just like to see a heart rate reading first, its what we do as we find most cant perform simple work at a modest heart rate so higher intensity stuff aint going to help but yes i know you're just answering the question

Agreed and probably should have added the caveat.

Mars Bar

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Because by definition, high intensity cant be sustained for a long time.

The program you outlined is 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds break.

I agree, this is high intensity.

15 minutes, break, 15 minutes, break is not high intensity. Its tempo.

You didn't answer why a 5 minute warm up isn't plenty?

Tombo2001

Mars Bar wrote: »

You didn't answer why a 5 minute warm up isn't plenty?

http://running.competitor.com/2015/08/training/the-perfect-warmup-for-speed-workouts_132831

Tombo2001

Mars Bar wrote: »

You didn't answer why a 5 minute warm up isn't plenty?

Because your muscles will still be cold and you would be prone to injury.

Minimum warm imho for the session outlined above is 2k run followed by 3-4 minutes of strides.

That's minimum. If it was me, I would do 2 miles rather than 2k.

Its my opinion. Obviously you could do no warm up if you want.

Mellor

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I suppose my point is, you can be cycling fast and not cycling hard.....on a good surface, with a tailwind for example.

That's not the case with running.

How do you figure that?
Of course you can run without running hard. Somebody running at 10km/h is burning less cals than someone running at 15kk/h.

As such, I'd really only see cycling being high intensity if you are on a decent uphill. Otherwise, its difficult.

That makes no sense either. Going uphill makes a given speed harder (as with running). But there's no reason you can't put that same intensity into a sprint on the flat.
Look at lads in the velodrome. Much harder intensity than the Tour de France for example.
Same deal with running. Marathon intensity vrs 5km.

Tombo2001

Mellor wrote: »

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I suppose my point is, you can be cycling fast and not cycling hard.....on a good surface, with a tailwind for example.

That's not the case with running.

How do you figure that?
Of course you can run without running hard. Somebody running at 10km/h is burning less cals than someone running at 15kk/h.


That makes no sense either. Going uphill makes a given speed harder (as with running). But there's no reason you can't put that same intensity into a sprint on the flat.
Look at lads in the velodrome. Much harder intensity than the Tour de France for example.
Same deal with running. Marathon intensity vrs 5km.

Well the most obvious reason is that you need a stretch of good quality road with not many people or cars on it.

I'm speaking from personal experience to be honest. I've done a lot of interval training in running. I've never worked as hard in a cycling work out as I have in running work outs; however particularly not cycling on the flat.

Mellor

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Well the most obvious reason is that you need a stretch of good quality road with not many people or cars on it.

The higher the intensity, the shorter distance you'll be able to go. You're also moving the goalposts quite a bit there.

FWIW, if somebody wanted to go balls out. I'd say an airdyne type bike is best for obvious reasons.

I'm speaking from personal experience to be honest. I've done a lot of interval training in running. I've never worked as hard in a cycling work out as I have in running work outs; however particularly not cycling on the flat.

Are you possibly letting your own training history influence what you think is possible. I'd imagine that an avid cyclist has had more intense sessions on the bike.
Personally, I rather run hard and fast for a short distance. No intervals. Go until you stop.

Tombo2001

Mellor wrote: »

The higher the intensity, the shorter distance you'll be able to go. You're also moving the goalposts quite a bit there.

FWIW, if somebody wanted to go balls out. I'd say an airdyne type bike is best for obvious reasons.


Are you possibly letting your own training history influence what you think is possible. I'd imagine that an avid cyclist has had more intense sessions on the bike.
Personally, I rather run hard and fast for a short distance. No intervals. Go until you stop.

No I am not.

You can do high intensity running....400m running say.....on the footpath, or on the grass in a park....

An equivalent distance on a bike at really high speed is more like a kilometer.....so you need a kilometer of flat road, good quality surface, no traffic lights, don't need to be worrying about traffic getting in your way or other cyclists.... I think that's valid. I have a road bike, I use it a lot. However I'm not in a cycling club, but I've never heard from a cyclist about doing a high intensity work out......pls share if you have.....

ford2600

Tombo2001 wrote: »

No I am not.

You can do high intensity running....400m running say.....on the footpath, or on the grass in a park....

An equivalent distance on a bike at really high speed is more like a kilometer.....so you need a kilometer of flat road, good quality surface, no traffic lights, don't need to be worrying about traffic getting in your way or other cyclists.... I think that's valid. I have a road bike, I use it a lot. However I'm not in a cycling club, but I've never heard from a cyclist about doing a high intensity work out......pls share if you have.....

When doing HIIT on bike I use a steep/very steep quite road for two reasons
*it's easy to get intensity up
*if I do fall over in a heap I'll do so slowly without having to worry about traffic.

I wouldn't consider doing HIIT on a flat road and certainly not one with any regular traffic, street furniture.

The intensity of track riders would be on a par with a GT sprint finish or the finish of this stage
http://www.letour.fr/le-tour/2017/us/stage-12.html

That's Bardet on ground I don't think he had much more in him with that lovely ramp to finish

meeeeh

I have no interest going into technical stuff because I do exercise just to wake up and do it the way I like it or is convenient. Just under 22 min of running outside, distance 4.2 km uses 285 calories according to Garmin. 10km (I had to pick a distance) cycle on room bike in just under 21 min uses 275 kcal according to same Garmin.

I have no idea how accurate calorie counting is in Garmin but for me it's much of a muchness what you pick.