Riding with headphones ?

mr_eddy

So in an effort to drop a bit of weight I have been upping my mileage quite a bit on the road bike - I could reduce my calorie intake instead but that ain't gonna happen - I like my food too much.

Anyway after about 90 mins I get bored so I have started listening to audio books (never music) whilst out on the bike. My missus does not like the idea of it as she thinks its unsafe and I suppose she has a point, I have tried to compromise by giving myself some simple rules:

1. I use only bluetooth headphones (no cables that can wrap around my neck!)
2. I only have the left earpiece in (as this is typically the ear that faces the curb/pavement so seems the 'safe' ear)
3. Have the volume in that ear just enough to hear the narrator of my chosen audiobook - I can still easily hear approaching traffic, sirens etc.
4. Pause/mute when riding on busier road / major roads or very uneven/wet roads
5. As a bonus my left earpiece also has the microphone so I can easily tell if someone is trying to call me - Before I would not know of any missed calls until I stopped at least now I know someone is calling and if its a quiet road I can take the call and if not I can at least pull over and call back. Helpful if I am needed urgently.

I never listen to music as I tend to find that this takes away the stress relieving element of cycling for me, The audiobooks seem to actually chill me out more and make the ride more enjoyable. As I am cycling only for pleasure and fitness I don't feel the need for high energy music / intervals etc.

Using the above system I think I can negate 90% of a any inherent safety issues however would be interested to know if anyone else has any other ideas ? Do you guys use headphones ?

imposter2.0

Is the question about headphones or weight loss? If it’s headphones, there are already multiple threads on this in other, more relevant forums.

What I will say is that upping mileage is no guarantee of weight loss- calorie intake is a far more logical control, but you seem to have dismissed that..

fenix

Personally I don't use headphones but if it works for you - and it sounds like you're being sensible with the one ear thing - then go for it.

You'd also do well to look at your calorie intake. You can out eat any amount of exercise unless you're a full time pro.

I'd think something like 5-600 calories an hour is doing ok on a bike. A pack of Pringles is like two hours of cycling.

Killerclown

Personally I wouldn’t use anything whilst riding that reduces any of my primary senses efficacy. If you must, bone conduction headphones ( or a lid that has a bone conduction headphone integrated ) if that floats your boat, would be preferable to headphones in your ears.

https://kitradar.com/products/coros-ope ... r-cyclists

Here is the lid I mentioned.

As for riding more miles, it’s dependant on the effort of the ride, rather than distance, regarding weight loss effect. LISS riding ( low intensity steady state ) riding is thought to be more effective at fat burning than HIIT ( high intensity interval training ). So going long, and keeping your heart rate / power in a lower zone, is believed to have more effect on weight loss, than going short, with a high heart rate / power, due to the way the body fuels itself.

imposter2.0

Fat burning is basically a myth, despite what the clown says. Energy consumption is key at any intensity, and you will burn fat and other energy stores at more or less the same rate, regardless. Perhaps fractionally more fat at lower levels, but nothing significant..

Maglia_Rosa

I think if it allows you to cycle for longer by not becoming bored as you mention then as long as your doing it sensibly which it sounds like you are then it can only be a good thing in your case so crack on. And if you decide to look at other ways to lose some weight in the future you could start to reduce some calories intake just gradually until you are satisfied with your weight and daily diet.

dodgy

I've been using bone conducting headphones for years, no problems. I only listen to podcasts and french language lessons, though, and only then on quieter routes as I don't have the volume up high and don't want to have to compete with traffic noise.

sniper68

I find running is better for weight loss if you don’t want to cut calories but even then you’ll plateau after a point.
Re headphones I don’t use them at all.

ollie_cr80

Headphones - personally i dont like riding with them, but i do wear them when swimming (also due to boredom) so i get your pain.
Scooting around london you do see a fair few people with headphones.
Your set up sounds pretty safe, so i would say that if its not distracting you in any way then go for it.

Otherwise, if you want to cycle further get a turbo trainer?

chris_bass

Sniper68 wrote:

I find running is better for weight loss if you don’t want to cut calories but even then you’ll plateau after a point.
Re headphones I don’t use them at all.

If you didn't you'd disappear!

Killerclown

Imposter wrote:

Fat burning is basically a myth, despite what the clown says. Energy consumption is key at any intensity, and you will burn fat and other energy stores at more or less the same rate, regardless. Perhaps fractionally more fat at lower levels, but nothing significant..

Nonsense.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vogu ... t-loss/amp

http://novintarjome.com/wp-content/uplo ... f45455.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657417/

Tony Rymer

If the question is about safety then I agree with not reducing your ability to hear what is going on around you whilst cycling. There are enough hazards on the road already

Killerclown

Tony Rymer wrote:

If the question is about safety then I agree with not reducing your ability to hear what is going on around you whilst cycling. There are enough hazards on the road already

Absolutely. Making the route a bit more involving / interesting is a better option for alleviation of boredom.

imposter2.0

Killerclown wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Fat burning is basically a myth, despite what the clown says. Energy consumption is key at any intensity, and you will burn fat and other energy stores at more or less the same rate, regardless. Perhaps fractionally more fat at lower levels, but nothing significant..

Nonsense.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vogu ... t-loss/amp

http://novintarjome.com/wp-content/uplo ... f45455.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657417/

I can only assume you are trolling, yet again, clown. Your first article is from vogue, ffs. The other two offer no specific info on comparative fat burning. There is no level at which you will only burn ‘fat’. You are obviously so desperate for credibility that you’ll link to anything

N0bodyOfTheGoat

I thought that low intensity (low heart rate) rides get a greater percentage of the energy requirements from your fat reserves, while high intensity get a greater percentage of energy from carbohydrate. Riding the same route, with everything else bar the intensity being as good as equal, you will burn more overall Calories before and after a high intensity ride.

~60min HIIT rides helped me drop from ~85Kg to ~75Kg on the Voodoo in early 2017, but when I bought the Cube in May 2017 and increased the distance and climbing, I had to reduce the intensity and I struggled to drop to ~73Kg by August. My major carb cravings kicked in during winter and I've been ~77Kg since last November, the willpower to avoid snacking has been nowhere near as ruthless in the last ~11 months, but at least riding is keeping my weight in check.

imposter2.0

NitrousOxide wrote:

I thought that low intensity (low heart rate) rides get a greater percentage of the energy requirements from your fat reserves

Correct, but the percentage is so marginal as to be almost irrelevant. You tend to use energy from all sources in more or less equal measure, regardless of intensity. There is no specific ‘fat burning’ zone, which is what the clown was getting wrong.

OnTheRopes

Imposter wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

I thought that low intensity (low heart rate) rides get a greater percentage of the energy requirements from your fat reserves

Correct, but the percentage is so marginal as to be almost irrelevant. You tend to use energy from all sources in more or less equal measure, regardless of intensity. There is no specific ‘fat burning’ zone, which is what the clown was getting wrong.

Well, the "Fat burning zone" is the one that gets the job done most efficiently, i.e. most fat for least energy, so it is a relevant term. So if your purpose is to ride just to lose fat then not much point in riding around in Zones 4 or 5

shortfall

I don't know enough about the science involved here, but I remember when I was a regular in the gym and the staff used to put lots of the women on these low intensity, low heart rate training regimes. They would spend literally hours on rowers or cross trainers and the like without breaking sweat, remembering their personal trainers advice to stay in the critical fat burning zone.
They all stayed fat. YMMV.

imposter2.0

OnTheRopes wrote:

Imposter wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

I thought that low intensity (low heart rate) rides get a greater percentage of the energy requirements from your fat reserves

Correct, but the percentage is so marginal as to be almost irrelevant. You tend to use energy from all sources in more or less equal measure, regardless of intensity. There is no specific ‘fat burning’ zone, which is what the clown was getting wrong.

Well, the "Fat burning zone" is the one that gets the job done most efficiently, i.e. most fat for least energy, so it is a relevant term. So if your purpose is to ride just to lose fat then not much point in riding around in Zones 4 or 5

Not sure if you misunderstood or just didn’t read what I said - there is no such thing in reality as the ‘fat burning’ zone. It’s a myth perpetuated by personal trainers and others on forums like this. You might burn marginally more fat at lower levels, but you will burn a far higher amount of all energy sources at higher intensity. The science is pretty conclusive.

OnTheRopes

Imposter wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Imposter wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

I thought that low intensity (low heart rate) rides get a greater percentage of the energy requirements from your fat reserves

Correct, but the percentage is so marginal as to be almost irrelevant. You tend to use energy from all sources in more or less equal measure, regardless of intensity. There is no specific ‘fat burning’ zone, which is what the clown was getting wrong.

Well, the "Fat burning zone" is the one that gets the job done most efficiently, i.e. most fat for least energy, so it is a relevant term. So if your purpose is to ride just to lose fat then not much point in riding around in Zones 4 or 5

Not sure if you misunderstood or just didn’t read what I said - there is no such thing in reality as the ‘fat burning’ zone. It’s a myth perpetuated by personal trainers and others on forums like this. The science is pretty conclusive.

If you use energy from all sources in more or less equal measure regardless of intensity, then therefore it is easier to use this energy at a lower intensity, therefore is more efficient if your purpose is solely to lose weight.

imposter2.0

OnTheRopes wrote:

Imposter wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Imposter wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

I thought that low intensity (low heart rate) rides get a greater percentage of the energy requirements from your fat reserves

Correct, but the percentage is so marginal as to be almost irrelevant. You tend to use energy from all sources in more or less equal measure, regardless of intensity. There is no specific ‘fat burning’ zone, which is what the clown was getting wrong.

Well, the "Fat burning zone" is the one that gets the job done most efficiently, i.e. most fat for least energy, so it is a relevant term. So if your purpose is to ride just to lose fat then not much point in riding around in Zones 4 or 5

Not sure if you misunderstood or just didn’t read what I said - there is no such thing in reality as the ‘fat burning’ zone. It’s a myth perpetuated by personal trainers and others on forums like this. The science is pretty conclusive.

If you use energy from all sources in more or less equal measure regardless of intensity, then therefore it is easier to use this energy at a lower intensity, therefore is more efficient if your purpose is solely to lose weight.

Depends what you mean by ‘efficient’ - it may take several hours of riding at low intensity to use the same overall amount of energy as a 1hr ride at high intensity. As ever, there is no single answer, just like there is no single ‘fat burning’ zone.

DeVlaeminck

To burn fat it's best to train for relatively long durations as the maximum energy from fat rises as exercise duration increases - so if you wanted to burn fat a long steady ride makes sense - a long harder ride makes sense too in isolation except that will leave you fatigued which may impact on training going forwards. Of course your steady ride still has to be hard enough to be using what energy the body can provide from fats - ie not riding at 5mph with a tail wind.

Training fasted also helps because insulin suppresses fat oxidisation - so there is some science behind doing a ride first thing before breakfast.

Whether fat burning makes sense as an aim of course is another matter.

OnTheRopes

DeVlaeminck wrote:

To burn fat it's best to train for relatively long durations as the maximum energy from fat rises as exercise duration increases - so if you wanted to burn fat a long steady ride makes sense - a long harder ride makes sense too in isolation except that will leave you fatigued which may impact on training going forwards. Of course your steady ride still has to be hard enough to be using what energy the body can provide from fats - ie not riding at 5mph with a tail wind.

Training fasted also helps because insulin suppresses fat oxidisation - so there is some science behind doing a ride first thing before breakfast.

Whether fat burning makes sense as an aim of course is another matter.

This i think was the point I was trying to make or partly, its all down to the hours so riding 3 hours zone 4 may well burn more fat than 3 hours of zone 2 but being able to ride 3 hours at zone 2 6 days a week will burn more fat than only riding 3 days a week because your knackered.
The reason I put "Fat burning zone " in commas is because I accept there is no actual fat burning "zone" but there is certainly an intensity level that gets it done more efficiently by riding LSD

imposter2.0

OnTheRopes wrote:

The reason I put "Fat burning zone " in commas is because I accept there is no actual fat burning "zone" but there is certainly an intensity level that gets it done more efficiently by riding LSD

I’ll just refer you again to my answer above. ‘Efficiency’ has many interpretations and if you don’t have a spare 3-4 hours, then clearly lsd rides are not going to be the most efficient.

Either way, if the primary objective is weight loss, then cycling is probably not the answer..

OnTheRopes

I'll just refer you to what Dave Brailsford said in a very recent interview

"My low intensity is just riding at a relatively easy effort level, the reason being that the lower the intensity the higher the level of fat utilisation as a fuel — the higher the intensity or harder you go the more the body relies on glycogen for its fuel. By eating very little carbs and running low glycogen stores and doing rides which predominantly burn fat, I’m trying to reduce my body fat. Just riding round slowly will lead to a loss of the ability to go hard so I need to rebuild that in due course."

But what does he know?

imposter2.0

OnTheRopes wrote:

I'll just refer you to what Dave Brailsford said in a very recent interview

"My low intensity is just riding at a relatively easy effort level, the reason being that the lower the intensity the higher the level of fat utilisation as a fuel — the higher the intensity or harder you go the more the body relies on glycogen for its fuel. By eating very little carbs and running low glycogen stores and doing rides which predominantly burn fat, I’m trying to reduce my body fat. Just riding round slowly will lead to a loss of the ability to go hard so I need to rebuild that in due course."

But what does he know?

Quoting someone’s opinion doesn’t change the science though. Either way, I don’t see how Sir Dave’s words add anything to this discussion as they seem more or less in line with what I said earlier, which is that you might use marginally more fat at lower intensity, but what actually matters is overall calorie/energy usage in whatever time you have available..

OnTheRopes

The issue of time available is relevant of course but that alone is not an argument. If you wish to burn fat quickly the most efficient way is to ride LSD for lots of hours week after week. If I ride 500kms a week in Z2 or Z3 i will lose weight more quickly than if I ride an hour 3 times a week at a very high intensity for the same calorie intake so bringing available time into it skews the discussion. Of course if you only have 3 hours a week then I agree a higher intensity is going to be more efficient.

DeVlaeminck

I'm more interested in the debate Imposter alludes to - why would we want to utilise fat rather than glycogen (or vice versa) in training.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'm more interested in the debate Imposter alludes to - why would we want to utilise fat rather than glycogen (or vice versa) in training.

Most of us non-elite riders have far more energy reserves stored as fat than glycogen, so unless you re-fuel on a hard effort ride that is of ~90min+ duration with something like Jelly Babies or gels, you risk experiencing "the bonk" because you will use up your glycogen stores.

At a less hard effort, you will encourage your body to use fat, IIRC 1Kg of body fat contains ~3000 Calories... Which would keep me going for ~6 hours, going on my gentle paced ride at the end of September https://www.strava.com/activities/1873113641

While a ride like https://www.strava.com/activities/1758990655 will be eating into my glycogen stores, especially up those cat4 hills, half the distance of the other ride but approx two thirds of energy expenditure. Plenty of Jelly Baby eating inbetween those hills!

stueys

There's a strong rumour that the fat burning zone was created by the makers of gym equipment who worked out that lots of people didn't want to work too hard but wanted to get a sense of accomplishment.

You burn a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities, your body switches to burning more carbs as the intensities increase. But you're burning more calories as you work harder, so the percentage of fat may be smaller but the absolute fat burnt at higher intensities is probably higher due to the higher workload.

There is something in riding fasted to help your body make more use of fat stores that is useful part of a weight reduction programme.

DeVlaeminck

NitrousOxide wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'm more interested in the debate Imposter alludes to - why would we want to utilise fat rather than glycogen (or vice versa) in training.

Most of us non-elite riders have far more energy reserves stored as fat than glycogen, so unless you re-fuel on a hard effort ride that is of ~90min+ duration with something like Jelly Babies or gels, you risk experiencing "the bonk" because you will use up your glycogen stores.

ink:

Yes I meant more as a training strategy. Is there an advantage in doing 2 hours fasted and trying to burn more fat rather than a harder 90 minute ride after a good breakfast. Can we train our ability to burn fat so we are relying more on that during a race and unless we are racing very long is that even an advantage - stuff like that.