Weight loss

Badger1

Über Member
Location
Bristol
From a weight loss or fitness point of view is it better to do 3x 1hr rides or 1x 3hr ride. Assuming the same average speed.

I guess I'm asking whether 'binge' cycling is good for you!!

Cheers

Pete
 
It's a good question, I've wondered the same. To narrow it down a bit more, I wondered a whole back if two fifteen mile rides (one on Saturday, one on Sunday) would be the equivalent of a single 30 mile ride on one of the days.

Calorie wise the (very rough estimate) various sites seem to suggest they would be the same overall calorie count, but part of me thnks surely the thirty mile is higher, so surely it burns more to keep going. Or does the more 'balanced' side of things having exercise each day cancel it out? I couldn't find an answer, not that I looked too hard.

One thing is certain - if you are trying to build up to do greater distances, then two shorter rides definitely don't compare to one longer one.
 

PedAntics

Regular
I've attached a link to an article and programme shown earlier in the year, The Truth About Exercise.They suggested short but intensive training helps the body to better break down the glycogen stores in the musles, that's if I've understood it correctly! May not fully answer your question but hope it's of use anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251
 
From a weight loss or fitness point of view is it better to do 3x 1hr rides or 1x 3hr ride. Assuming the same average speed.

I guess I'm asking whether 'binge' cycling is good for you!!

Cheers

Pete
depends entirely on what fitness goal you are trying to achieve. If your goal is to never be able to ride for longer than an hour, then stick to 1hr rides. If your goal is to be able to ride long distances, then 3hr rides are a good (if not slightly ambitious) place to start. Most ride a combination of long/short each week. If your goal is weight loss, then you will only achieve that by a calorie deficit, which usually means eating less, as well as cycling.
 

Pauluk

Senior Member
Location
Leicester
I would think that 3 X 1 hr rides would be better for me as over a shorter distance I would be able to work harder. This may reduce the amount of fat getting into my blood more effectively than one "easier" but longer ride.

However, as you said the same average speed, then I guess the shorter rides would be easier than the longer ride. This is because I suspect my average speed would be naturally lower over a longer ride so I would take it easier on the shorter ride to keep my average the same.

In terms of fitness I would think that vigorous 3 X 1 hour rides over 3 days may be better than 1 X 3 hour ride over the same 3 days but I'm not sure.

In terms of weight loss, it won't make much of a noticeable difference as exercise doesn't result in much weight loss, if any at all.
 

MrJamie

Oaf on a Bike
Id expect separate rides to raise your heart rate more, but i doubt it would make much difference to calories burnt let alone weight loss.

Ultra-marathoners training for big distances sometimes train by doing a long very run one day and a long run the next day before their muscles have recovered rather than going out and running the full distance one day, so i guess it still builds endurance too.
 

boydj

Guru
Location
Paisley
From my marathon-running days when I did a bit of research on food and exercise the main point I remember is that it generally takes about 30 minutes of exercise for your fat-burning metabolism to kick in. Up to that point you are primarily using the glycogen stored in your muscles to fuel the exercise. Endurance training is all about improving your fat-burning capability in order to preserve glycogen reserves. The glycogen is generally replenished within a day.

I'd guess that a 3-hour run would burn a lot more fat than 3 1-hour runs, since your fat-burning would be running for 2.5 hours - and also give you a longer afterburn.
 
Fat burning is a bit of a misconception. I'm burning both fat and carbs as I type this, and you are all burning both fat and carbs as you are reading it. There is no point after which fat burning occurs, because you are doing it all the time. Low level exercise will burn a higher proportion of fat to carbs though. High intensity exercise will 'burn' the most amount of calories though, regardless of duration.
 
Location
Bucks
What B&Y just said is true^
I would try and do as much as you can, as fast as you can, for as long as you can for the most burn. Of course, it's good to mix it up and do long but steady and short intense rides or even long intense rides! Try it out and see how you get on :smile:
 

captainhastings

Über Member
Location
West Wales
I think for weight loss you need to do what ever for an hour and more. Once you get over the hour it starts too eat fat. No real idea what I am talking about just what I have read. But I do know when I started running for more than an hour at a time the weight really dropped off me. I guess it would be similar for cycling but maybe slightly less.
Nice little article there
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/health-how-to-burn-fat-better-1065/

pretty much what boydj said
 

lulubel

Über Member
Location
Malaga, Spain
Weight loss happens as a result of being in a calorie deficit, not from exercise, so from that point of view, there's no difference.

If you're eating the same amount, the 3 separate rides would probably mean a (fairly minimal) increase in the calorie deficit because you can work harder for 1 hour at a time than you can for 3, but it is minimal, and I wouldn't use it as the basis for a decision one way or the other.

However, if you're trying to use all the calories you burn doing exercise to create a calorie deficit, the 3 separate rides are much more effective because of the size of deficit you can create. If you burn 500 calories per hour, and you ride for one hour, it's fairly easy to undereat by that amount of calories in a day. If you burn 500 calories per hour, but ride for 3 hours, you'll find it hard to undereat by 1,500 calories in a single day, so you'll end up eating some of the extra calories you burned through cycling, and this will slow your weight loss.
 

MarkF

Legendary Member
Location
Yorkshire
Binge is good. I cycle maybe 2 hours a day, Mon-Fri, maybe 4 or 5 hours over the weekend, my weight remains static. I recently cycled 5-6 hours a day for 2 weeks, ate like a pig and lost 6kg.
 

Pauluk

Senior Member
Location
Leicester
lulubel said:
Weight loss happens as a result of being in a calorie deficit, not from exercise, so from that point of view, there's no difference.
+1 :thumbsup:

It takes a lot of exercise (see MarkF post above) to take weight off. By burning calories and then not putting them back in (or all of them) you create a calorie deficiency. The body is quite smart though. When you use calories it will expect them back so often you can feel hungry after a calorie burn. Some people will just put the calories they have used straight back for this reason.
 

defy-one

Guest
Longer periods in the saddle should mean less time with your nose in the fridge :smile:
Also the afterburn will be higher the next day.
Binge cycling is good imo
 
Top Bottom