Using Commuting as Training

project4cycling

For the last few months I've been following a training plan entirely based around commuting. I write about it at http://www.project4cycling.com. The blog tries to show how commuting can help you achieve your potential as a cyclist.

I'd love to know anyone else who has tried something similar. Or if you are thinking about it, what do you think of the blog?

Keiron Curtis

I've just discovered your blog and have signed up.
I've been commuting 40 mile roundtrip for 5 years now, started at 17 stone 10 lbs, dropped to 16 stone and stuck. I'm 5' 7" so according to statistics am about 4 stone overweight, but I feel really good in myserlf. The problem I have is that, though, I love my commute, I've got into a rut, and don't push myself. If I tried your project I might kickstart losing some weight, and also eat sensibly. So keep the project going and I'll have a go as well. Cheers.

project4cycling

Hi Kieron, I really appreciate your feedback.You are exactly the sort of person I hoped would read this because you are just like me. I'm a normal guy who loves to ride, but I'm not, well an A-group rider. Yet.

I'm a bit taller than you, but I was 17+ stone. Now I'm just under 14. However, I also got stuck at just under 15 before I started doing this. I've very gradually lost weight since then, but more to the point I'm a lot thinner, but stronger at the same time. I also have less niggles in knees, back and so on.

My email address is on the About me page on the blog. Drop me a line and I'll send you a rough spreadsheet with my training plan in it. Or you can wait a couple of weeks and I'll publish a how to guide on the blog (given work and everything else it might not be two weeks, but hey, it'll be there soon).

Please send the link to anyone else you think might like it too (you can share it on Facebook by clicking the button at the bottom of any post). I can't tell you how nice it is to know I'm not the only one out there. I'm getting more than 1000 visits a month (so people must be interested), but a lot of flack too (from people a bit more Jock than me). I think that they are missing the point. You clearly are not.

Thank you. Ride safe.

Keiron Curtis

Cheers mate, I'll spread the news.

beverick

I'm currently into my third stint of commuting as a training aid. I have a 400 mile charity ride in mid June and training started in February.

My training is usually for distance rather than speed. The general approach is to extend the commute, usually starting by extending the commute into the office, then the number of commutes per week and then, finally, the commute home. I do this as it tends to be easier to get up earlier than leave late.

The shortest distance door-to-door is just over 9 miles. I did 18.5 on the way in this morning (so I'll be just short of 28 miles for the day). By the end of April I expect to be on 30 miles on the way in and 18 on the way home.

The key, as far as I'm concerned, is to have a series of different routes across different terrains. I'm quite lucky as the roads around Leeds allow me to select a mixture of relatively flat, relatively high speed routes against more arduous hilly routes. I also alternate between MTB and road bike (largely to maintain interest!).

Although cycling is the main form of exercise (especuially with the current weather conditions!) I also think it's important not to get transfixed on cycling alone. I try to mix gym and swimming sessions into the plan. I also try to do a single non-stop route roughly 30% further than my daily average once over the weekend.

The weekly regime is usually
Sunday - single ride 30% longer than total daily total for the previous week (up to 3.5 hour or 60 miles whichever is the longer)
Monday - initally 9 miles morning and evening extending to 30 miles am and 18 pm.
Tuesday - initally rest day then 9 miles am and pm extending to 30 miles am and 18 pm.
Wednesday - 1000 to 1600m swim or 1 hour gym
Thursday - rest or initally 9 miles morning and evening extending to 18 miles am and 18 pm.
Friday - rest or initally 9 miles morning and evening extending to 9 miles am and 45 pm.
Saturday - single ride 30% longer than total daily total (up to 2 hour or 40 mile ride) or 1.5 hour gym

I do this up to the point when I can do 80% of my expected daily total on the event. I then aim to do the event's daily distance on the Friday two weeks before the event. I need to be able to do 100 miles in one day by 10 June.

I then revert to 9 mile commutes and occasional swims for the two weeks up to the event itself.

Bob

Keiron Curtis

You seem to have it sussed, and looks like a totally winning plan. Godd luck.

ugo.santalucia

If you have a good commute, it's excellent training...

this morning I did my 10.5 miles with a 50 mt vertical climb in the middle in 33 minutes and 21 seconds at 18.6 average... and a 5 Kg pannier, pretty pleased... and pretty knackered!

snig

I always thought a given distance will result in the same calories lost no matter the speed taken to cover it? killing yourself on a ride may knock 1 min of your time, 1 min extra effort is hardly going to increase weight loss.

Headhuunter

snig wrote:

I always thought a given distance will result in the same calories lost no matter the speed taken to cover it? killing yourself on a ride my knock 1 min of your time, 1 min extra effort is hardly going to increase weight loss.

I've heard that before but it sounds like rubbish. I did a 115 mile sportive at a almost 18mph with a lot of climbing the other weekend and I was destroyed for the next 2 days. When I've done similar length sportives over a longer time I've felt far more energetic at the end...

beverick

snig wrote:

I always thought a given distance will result in the same calories lost no matter the speed taken to cover it? killing yourself on a ride my knock 1 min of your time, 1 min extra effort is hardly going to increase weight loss.

There clearly will be a difference as there would be riding the same distance in different weather conditions (ie headwind v tailwind). What is perhaps true is that, unless you're riding TdeF like distances, the difference is unlikley to be either substantial or, in fact, measurable.

You've also got to remember that weight loss, at least when measured over a short period of time, is influenced almost wholly by fluid retention and hydration, rather than any change in total body mass.

If you cycle a set distance in vigorously in warm weather you'll more than likley lose more weight than if you cycled the same distance gently in cooler conditions. In both cases, your weight would return to its pre-ride measurement once you'd rehydrated.

Similarly, the extent to which you dehydrated, and subsequently rehydrated, will affect how you feel in the period after your exercise as much, if not more, than the physical impact on your body.

Bob

snig

Headhuunter wrote:

snig wrote:

I always thought a given distance will result in the same calories lost no matter the speed taken to cover it? killing yourself on a ride my knock 1 min of your time, 1 min extra effort is hardly going to increase weight loss.

I've heard that before but it sounds like rubbish. I did a 115 mile sportive at a almost 18mph with a lot of climbing the other weekend and I was destroyed for the next 2 days. When I've done similar length sportives over a longer time I've felt far more energetic at the end...

I wasn't saying the fitness benefit would be the same,only the calories used.

Putting more effort in, will have an effect on fitness no doubt about that,infact going slower if anything will result in a bigger % fat loss but still the same total calories.

meanredspider

snig wrote:

I wasn't saying the fitness benefit would be the same,only the calories used.

Putting more effort in, will have an effect on fitness no doubt about that,infact going slower if anything will result in a bigger % fat loss but still the same total calories.

Neither are true in reality.

The faster you go, the more energy (calories) is used as the air resistance is higher and that need to be overcome (same as your car if you drive faster uses more fuel).

Going slower might result in more fat beng burned at that moment (and might help adaptations to burn fat if you go very slowly) BUT weight loss is more simply calories in = calories out. The best thing is just to burn more calories and, mostly, eat less to lose weight.

snig

meanredspider wrote:

snig wrote:

I wasn't saying the fitness benefit would be the same,only the calories used.

Putting more effort in, will have an effect on fitness no doubt about that,infact going slower if anything will result in a bigger % fat loss but still the same total calories.

Neither are true in reality.

The faster you go, the more energy (calories) is used as the air resistance is higher and that need to be overcome (same as your car if you drive faster uses more fuel).

Going slower might result in more fat beng burned at that moment (and might help adaptations to burn fat if you go very slowly) BUT weight loss is more simply calories in = calories out. The best thing is just to burn more calories and, mostly, eat less to lose weight.

not so sure I'm wrong on both or even one,it's on running but I'm sure works for riding too

http://walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/ ... alkrun.htm

urban_winter

You are certainly wrong on the first.

Wind resistance increases as the square of speed. Therefore the power required (power is calories per second) is also proportional to the square of speed. If the relationship were linear then it would be true that only distance determined total calories and that different speeds had no effect - but that's not the case. See http://www.blog.ultracycle.net/2010/05/ ... lculations

When people state that calories burned by runners are independent of speed they are assuming that wind resistance is not the dominant factor (largely true because runners are much slower than cyclists). However, I bet it's not really true if you look at the extremes - i.e. comparing a runner at 12 minutes miles with another at 5 minute miles.

You are kind of wrong on the second too. A greater proportion of calories is derived from fat at lower intensities of exercise. However, this effect is transient (and irrelevant to weight loss) because the body constantly balances its energy stores and will replace the lost fat immediately it has the glucose to do so. It's just energy in vs energy out - that's all that matters.

U.

project4cycling

I started this thread and since then I've had a flood of emails asking for more information about a training plan based around commuting. I've replied to most of them and incuded a training plan. It has prompted me to write a couple more posts describing some training concepts (training load is first) in really simple terms. See www.project4cycling.com for more information.

Thanks to everyone who have commented and left ideas so far. Ride safe. Ride fast.

snig

urban_winter wrote:

You are certainly wrong on the first.

Wind resistance increases as the square of speed. Therefore the power required (power is calories per second) is also proportional to the square of speed. If the relationship were linear then it would be true that only distance determined total calories and that different speeds had no effect - but that's not the case. See http://www.blog.ultracycle.net/2010/05/ ... lculations

When people state that calories burned by runners are independent of speed they are assuming that wind resistance is not the dominant factor (largely true because runners are much slower than cyclists). However, I bet it's not really true if you look at the extremes - i.e. comparing a runner at 12 minutes miles with another at 5 minute miles.

You are kind of wrong on the second too. A greater proportion of calories is derived from fat at lower intensities of exercise. However, this effect is transient (and irrelevant to weight loss) because the body constantly balances its energy stores and will replace the lost fat immediately it has the glucose to do so. It's just energy in vs energy out - that's all that matters.

U.

the body will only replace fat if an excess of calories are consumed, weight loss for most people is about loosing fat not colories.
the truth is there is a lot written on this and the jury is still out, which leads me to conclude the difference either way is marginal.