Time on the bike

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by baggie
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.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 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.

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

caloriecontrol.orgexercalc.htmlOpen ↗

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

--
Owen

------------------------------------------------------
----------
__0 pcug.org.aurr.htmlOpen ↗ for rides _
\<,_ (_)./(_)
weather.smh.com.aucanberra.htmlOpen ↗
------------------------------------------------------------
---

Quoted post said:

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

caloriecontrol.orgexercalc.htmlOpen ↗

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 badontrol.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
Roadie> were at either of these activities, and what
Roadie> intensity you were exercising at. Those calorie
Roadie> calculators are worth 3/10ths of not very 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