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.