Time on the bike

baggie said:

Hi all.
I come from a very mediocre running background, and since running a
marathon I've injured my leg, so now spending more time on the bike
until I get fit again, but I was thinking how much time would you have
to spend on the bike, to say run the equiv of 50kms a week?
Also is a long slow bike ride the best way to lose weight??
Many thanks!

Well, if you are carrying an injured leg that may govern how you ride,
but generally yeah - longer/easier is better for weight loss (but you
need to eat on longer rides to avoid the dreaded bonk! - and the post-
ride pigout). 'Drs' will no doubt mention the case for more total fat-
calories burned if riding harder but IMHO that's a great theory without
much day-in-day-out practicality (sorry Drs 🙄 )

Any idea what kind of wattage/energy expenditure/Heart-rate you go thru
on your 50k/week? that might be a good guide

--

flyingdutch, I've injured the lower front part of my leg, the front
tendon to be exact, so very painful when running, I'm thinking I won't
be running again for another 4-6 weeks at least. It happend post
marathon about 3 weeks ago.

So for the last 14 days, I've been doing 1-2 spin classes per day,
firstly trying to keep some kind of fitness but I want to lose weight.

When I was running I was doing a long run of upto 30k (3.5 hrs) each
weekend with 20-30k in the week, so I was getting through some calories
I think, although they were done at a moderate intensity, I've just
bought a HRM so could say what the levels there were.

I bought a roadie for my first tri a month or so ago, so I'm thinking
with my 7 or so spin classes mid week, I could knock out a 3-4 hour ride
on the weekend, and I should mantain the cardio fitness, plus if I
control what I eat more now, I will lose some weight (it is there to
lose) so when I hit the running again I'll be lighter hopefully.

what do you think?

--

"flyingdutch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

Well, if you are carrying an injured leg that may govern how you ride,
but generally yeah - longer/easier is better for weight loss (but you
need to eat on longer rides to avoid the dreaded bonk! - and the post-
ride pigout). 'Drs' will no doubt mention the case for more total fat-
calories burned if riding harder but IMHO that's a great theory
without much day-in-day-out practicality (sorry Drs 🙄 )

Say what? It's a fact. The harder you work the more calories you burn.
Taking it stupidly easy just to keep your heart rate below some arbitrary
number simply doesn't work you hard enough. You might as well stay in bed.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Drs said:

Say what? It's a fact. The harder you work the more calories you burn.
Taking it stupidly easy just to keep your heart rate below some
arbitrary number simply doesn't work you hard enough. You might as well
stay in bed.

I agree! Stuipdly easy isnt what i was selling. 'Moderate' would be more
appropriate. especially for a guy nursing an injury!

"Taking it stupidly easy just to keep your heart rate below some
arbitrary number simply doesn't work you hard enough. You might as well
stay in bed."

Yeah, what would all those Eurpoean Pro's know?😄 😄 😄

Take a look at Jan Ullrich's pre-season training regime (he is notorious
for huge weight fluctuations in off-season). 6-7hrs a day at 50-60% MHR

--

baggie said:

Hi all.

I come from a very mediocre running background, and since running a
marathon I've injured my leg, so now spending more time on the bike
until I get fit again, but I was thinking how much time would you have
to spend on the bike, to say run the equiv of 50kms a week?

Also is a long slow bike ride the best way to lose weight??

Many thanks!

I'm originally from a running background too, but mostly off-road. I started
doing a fair bit of cycling when I couldn't run because of injury (and now
I'm gradually switching back). I reckon a 300km week on the bike was about
the same as an 85-90km running week, in terms of how fit I felt. So maybe
150-180 km ?

Of course there is riding and there is riding, as with running. Your regular
8km blobby run wouldn't be as good for fitness/speed/stamina as a mix of
fast runs, speed-work and long-run. Similarly for running.

I've found that riding takes up much more time, but you don't feel as sore
afterwards. This does mean that you can build up to riding proportionally
further/longer faster than you can build up to running long distances (as
you've probably found out).

have fun,
Andy

baggie said:

Hi all.

I come from a very mediocre running background, and since running a
marathon I've injured my leg, so now spending more time on the bike until
I get fit again, but I was thinking how much time would you have to spend
on the bike, to say run the equiv of 50kms a week?

Also is a long slow bike ride the best way to lose weight??

Do a Google search on calories and exercise.
This one isn't too bad

http://www.caloriecontrol.org/exercalc.html

You have to ride a real lot more than running to burn off the same
calories

--
Owen

----------------------------------------------------------------
__0 http://www.pcug.org.au/~rcook/rr.html for rides
_ \<,_
(_)./(_) http://weather.smh.com.au/weather/canberra.html
---------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted message said:

Do a Google search on calories and exercise. This one isn't too bad
http://www.caloriecontrol.org/exercalc.htmlhttp://www.caloriecontrol.or-
g/exercalc.html
You have to ride a real lot more than running to burn off the
same calories
--
Owen

It would really depend on how efficiently you were at either of these
activities, and what intensity you were exercising at. Those calorie
calculators are worth 3/10ths of not very much.

--

well today I did a very hilly 85kms, when I got home I crashed and
am still knackered, it would have easily beaten me up as much as a
25-30k run.

The good thing about being injured and forcing you to hit the bike is,
that you see a LOT more of your country!

My [censored] is very sore, really should get som niks....

--

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Roadie" == Roadie scum <Roadie_scum> writes:

Roadie said:

Quoted message said:

Do a Google search on calories and exercise. This one isn't too
bad
http://www.caloriecontrol.org/exercalc.htmlhttp://www.caloriecontrol.or-
g/exercalc.html You have to ride a real lot more than running to
burn off the same calories -- Owen

Roadie> It would really depend on how efficiently you were at either
Roadie> of these activities, and what intensity you were exercising
Roadie> at. Those calorie calculators are worth 3/10ths of not very
Roadie> much.

I thought anyone with an ounce of common would be able to see that.
It's quite feasible to ride with you heart rate not exceeding 110. On
the other hand it's just as feasible to maintain a heart rate of 160.

Running, well you're generally up around about 130 unless you're taking
it really easy.
--
Regards
Euan

"baggie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

well today I did a very hilly 85kms, when I got home I crashed and
am still knackered, it would have easily beaten me up as much as a
25-30k run.

The good thing about being injured and forcing you to hit the bike is,
that you see a LOT more of your country!

My [censored] is very sore, really should get som niks....

--

yeah fitness can be very sport specific as you use different sets of muscles
differently for running as to cycling.
I'd take it easy at first and build your way up in cycling...ie. do some
flat rides and gradually increase distance, throw a few hill climbs in and
go from there....don't overdo it though.....got any mates who are cyclists
too? Talk to them and go with them on their rides, if not try the local bike
clubs...they have bunch rides that will have several knowledgable riders.

good luck