Ride lengths

wine9555

Is it useful to ride once a week or regularly for a solid steady 4-5 hours.I have heard it is much more effective in reducing body fat that an all out fast 2-3 hour session.

BeaconRuth

Longer, steadier rides will do a better job of teaching your body to metabolise fat. If you ride hard then the immediate energy source is not predominantly fat, but rather stored glycogen.

(But you need to weigh up your objective(s) with the time you have available. Just long, steady rides might not be the best solution if you are short of time or if you also want to go fast on a bike.)

Ruth

Ric_Stern/RST

BeaconRuth wrote:

Longer, steadier rides will do a better job of teaching your body to metabolise fat. If you ride hard then the immediate energy source is not predominantly fat, but rather stored glycogen.

(But you need to weigh up your objective(s) with the time you have available. Just long, steady rides might not be the best solution if you are short of time or if you also want to go fast on a bike.)

Ruth

For weight management, more energy is expended simply by riding harder rather than easier for any given time period. As weight management is reliant on this

weight loss = energy expended is > than energy input

It matters little what the energy substrate is, so long as more energy is expended than taken in. Weight loss best occurs when you train as hard as you can in the time frame you have and can recover for the frequency of training that is specific to you.

While *relatively* as a % of total energy expenditure more fat oxidation occurs at low intensity, we rely on total energy expenditure for weight loss.

Similarly, i'm not aware of any data showing that it's better to expend energy at low intensity to do a better job of metabolising fat. For e.g., mitochondrial density is best trained at ~ zone 4 (TTpower). Increasing fitness (aerobic power) results in a greater fat oxidation at a given power output compared to a lower fitness level.

Ric

nferrar

But if you expend the same total amount of energy (in a 2 hour vs a 4 hour ride) you're better off doing the 4 hour lower intensity ride as you'll be burning more fat no?

Ric_Stern/RST

nferrar wrote:

But if you expend the same total amount of energy (in a 2 hour vs a 4 hour ride) you're better off doing the 4 hour lower intensity ride as you'll be burning more fat no?

You'd probably be better off doing the shorter ride, as you'd have more time for recovery = better adaptation for training in the future.

Or if you had a choice of riding for 2 or 4 hrs then riding the 4 hrs harder (than in your original scenario so that you expend more energy still).

nickcuk

Energywise, there's a reasonably good calculator on the following page:

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/ ... pplet.html

It also strips out the 'normal' metabolic calories you'd be burning anyway so here are some snapshot results for the calories burned purely down to the cycling, 180lb person and cross/headwind, 10% of the time climbing:

2hrs at 12.5 mph = 622 kCal

2hrs at 15 mph = 836 kCal
2hrs at 20 mph = 1455 kCal
2hrs at 25 mph = 2431 kCal

4hrs at 15 mph = 1673 kCal
4hrs at 20 mph = 2910 kCal

BeaconRuth

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

Similarly, i'm not aware of any data showing that it's better to expend energy at low intensity to do a better job of metabolising fat. For e.g., mitochondrial density is best trained at ~ zone 4 (TTpower). Increasing fitness (aerobic power) results in a greater fat oxidation at a given power output compared to a lower fitness level.

You may not know of any data, Ric, but sometimes I feel there's a place for a bit of plain common sense.

Instinctively, from experience and from all basic training advice, we know that longer, steadier training rides help the body to learn how to metabolise fat more efficiently.

This might not be important for weight management (there are sometimes more efficient ways to lose weight) and metabolising fat may not be an important aspect of fitness for some cyclists (eg. short-distance specialists with little time available), but for some cyclists, with certain goals, the very efficient use of energy at lower intensities is an extremely important aspect of their physiology.

Ruth

Ric_Stern/RST

BeaconRuth wrote:

You may not know of any data, Ric, but sometimes I feel there's a place for a bit of plain common sense.

i've never said there isn't.

Instinctively, from experience and from all basic training advice, we know that longer, steadier training rides help the body to learn how to metabolise fat more efficiently.

Do we know?

This might not be important for weight management (there are sometimes more efficient ways to lose weight) and metabolising fat may not be an important aspect of fitness for some cyclists (eg. short-distance specialists with little time available), but for some cyclists, with certain goals, the very efficient use of energy at lower intensities is an extremely important aspect of their physiology.

Ruth

oxidising fat is extremely important for all cyclists, as it would be glycogen sparing. However, riding steady for lots of long miles doesn't do it. (that's not to say that long rides aren't important though for some cyclists).

Ric

BeaconRuth

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

oxidising fat is extremely important for all cyclists, as it would be glycogen sparing. However, riding steady for lots of long miles doesn't do it. (that's not to say that long rides aren't important though for some cyclists).

Ric

Great, thanks for bringing clarity to that subject, Ric!

Ruth

SteveR_100Milers

I'm puzzled then as to why when I compare my "training" in the last 12 months to years ago. Even allowing for age difference, I lost weight dramatically years ago, mainly as I was on the bike all day at weekends. I didn't race as much, and most of the rides were semi touring. I would lose nearly a stone in 6-8 weeks at the start fo the season.
Years later, I dont have the time to ride all day, so have done far more shorter high intensity rides, and I have not managed to significantly reduce fat during the season. Even riding a few 50's a 100, an aborted 12 hasn't helped, as they were at such an intensity that most of the energy I was using was coming from the gulps of PSP22 and gobar I was stuffing down my face.

mea00csf

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

nferrar wrote:

But if you expend the same total amount of energy (in a 2 hour vs a 4 hour ride) you're better off doing the 4 hour lower intensity ride as you'll be burning more fat no?

You'd probably be better off doing the shorter ride, as you'd have more time for recovery = better adaptation for training in the future.

Or if you had a choice of riding for 2 or 4 hrs then riding the 4 hrs harder (than in your original scenario so that you expend more energy still).

I'd have thought you're better off doing the long slow ride if you're concerned about recovery time. Short faster rides hurt my muscles and i feel achey for longer, maybe a day or two, if i push myself, Long steady rides i can get up the next day and feel just fine

Ric_Stern/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm puzzled then as to why when I compare my "training" in the last 12 months to years ago. Even allowing for age difference, I lost weight dramatically years ago, mainly as I was on the bike all day at weekends. I didn't race as much, and most of the rides were semi touring. I would lose nearly a stone in 6-8 weeks at the start fo the season.
Years later, I dont have the time to ride all day, so have done far more shorter high intensity rides, and I have not managed to significantly reduce fat during the season. Even riding a few 50's a 100, an aborted 12 hasn't helped, as they were at such an intensity that most of the energy I was using was coming from the gulps of PSP22 and gobar I was stuffing down my face.

Just because you ride at a higher intensity doesn't mean you'll expend the same energy as riding easy for a long period of time. Obviously, you expended more energy years ago with your longer rides or you ate significantly less energy.

Ric

oldwelshman

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm puzzled then as to why when I compare my "training" in the last 12 months to years ago. Even allowing for age difference, I lost weight dramatically years ago, mainly as I was on the bike all day at weekends. I didn't race as much, and most of the rides were semi touring. I would lose nearly a stone in 6-8 weeks at the start fo the season.
Years later, I dont have the time to ride all day, so have done far more shorter high intensity rides, and I have not managed to significantly reduce fat during the season. Even riding a few 50's a 100, an aborted 12 hasn't helped, as they were at such an intensity that most of the energy I was using was coming from the gulps of PSP22 and gobar I was stuffing down my face.

It is because your getting to be an old man and your metabolism is slowing

Chris5150

So how accurate is the Garmin Edge calory counter?...It seems to tell me I have burnt far more calories than the above does.
I am 43 220lb, 87 miles at weekend climbing 4800 ft took me 5.21 which is 16 mph...Garmin tells me I used 7,070 calories
It also tells me I burn 1600 calories when I go out on a 1hr 45 min mountain bike ride ( 20 miles ), which again sounds too high, when I compare it to whats above

SteveR_100Milers

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm puzzled then as to why when I compare my "training" in the last 12 months to years ago. Even allowing for age difference, I lost weight dramatically years ago, mainly as I was on the bike all day at weekends. I didn't race as much, and most of the rides were semi touring. I would lose nearly a stone in 6-8 weeks at the start fo the season.
Years later, I dont have the time to ride all day, so have done far more shorter high intensity rides, and I have not managed to significantly reduce fat during the season. Even riding a few 50's a 100, an aborted 12 hasn't helped, as they were at such an intensity that most of the energy I was using was coming from the gulps of PSP22 and gobar I was stuffing down my face.

Just because you ride at a higher intensity doesn't mean you'll expend the same energy as riding easy for a long period of time. Obviously, you expended more energy years ago with your longer rides or you ate significantly less energy.

Ric

I ate considerably less, and drank considerably more (alcohol).

"Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

oxidising fat is extremely important for all cyclists, as it would be glycogen sparing. However, riding steady for lots of long miles doesn't do it. (that's not to say that long rides aren't important though for some cyclists).

I'm confused now! Either long & steady does or doesnt burn fat? Whai I do I know from my own experience that long and steady (fast touring) burnt off body fat far quicker than shorter intensive rides.

oldwelshman

Exercising at 60% mhr is more efficent at burning off fat, any exercise not just cycling.
exercising at higher hr burns of more fat but less efficiently.
It is also dependent on time of day eg early morning rides etc etc
These facts can be found on dozens of sites.

Ric_Stern/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm confused now! Either long & steady does or doesnt burn fat? Whai I do I know from my own experience that long and steady (fast touring) burnt off body fat far quicker than shorter intensive rides.

What i originally said was that exercising at higher rather than lower intensity expends more energy per given time. In other words if you have (e.g.) two hours to exercise, riding at higher intensity for that 2 hrs will expend more energy (and thus be better for weight loss) than if you rode at low intensity for 2 hrs.

However, i also, said that at lower rather than higher intensity you would expend more of your energy from fat oxidation (rather than carbohydrate).

Under the above rules it's better to exercise at a higher (rather than lower) intensity for weight loss.

However, you then altered the time variable and suddenly mentioned that in previous years your weight was less while exercising for long periods of time. This still fits in with the above 'rules' i quoted above.

As an example, let's pretend that for high intensity exercise you can expend 1000 Kcal/hr for a maximum of 2 hrs. So, in a 2-hr ride you expend 2000 Kcal.

At low intensity you expend 500 Kcal per hour and ride for 2-hrs; you expend 1000 Kcal.

However, you then mentioned riding for 6 hrs (i think that's what you said). So, now you're expending 6 x 500 Kcal = 3000 Kcal, which is obviously greater than the 2000 Kcal.

Does that make more sense now?

Ric

Ric_Stern/RST

oldwelshman wrote:

Exercising at 60% mhr is more efficent at burning off fat, any exercise not just cycling.
exercising at higher hr burns of more fat but less efficiently.
It is also dependent on time of day eg early morning rides etc etc
These facts can be found on dozens of sites.

None of which makes the blindest bit of difference. All that matters is that you expend more energy than you consume (if weight loss is your goal)

Ric

SteveR_100Milers

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm confused now! Either long & steady does or doesnt burn fat? Whai I do I know from my own experience that long and steady (fast touring) burnt off body fat far quicker than shorter intensive rides.

What i originally said was that exercising at higher rather than lower intensity expends more energy per given time. In other words if you have (e.g.) two hours to exercise, riding at higher intensity for that 2 hrs will expend more energy (and thus be better for weight loss) than if you rode at low intensity for 2 hrs.

However, i also, said that at lower rather than higher intensity you would expend more of your energy from fat oxidation (rather than carbohydrate).

Under the above rules it's better to exercise at a higher (rather than lower) intensity for weight loss.

However, you then altered the time variable and suddenly mentioned that in previous years your weight was less while exercising for long periods of time. This still fits in with the above 'rules' i quoted above.

As an example, let's pretend that for high intensity exercise you can expend 1000 Kcal/hr for a maximum of 2 hrs. So, in a 2-hr ride you expend 2000 Kcal.

At low intensity you expend 500 Kcal per hour and ride for 2-hrs; you expend 1000 Kcal.

However, you then mentioned riding for 6 hrs (i think that's what you said). So, now you're expending 6 x 500 Kcal = 3000 Kcal, which is obviously greater than the 2000 Kcal.

Does that make more sense now?
Ric

I think we are in violent agreement on this...

Most definitely. The bit I missed in your OP was your assumption of fixed time.