EJ123
05-28-07, 10:02 PM
How much better is it an all to ride in the morning, preferably some short time after I wake up, and bike >5 miles around..in regards to losing weight-fat I should say- rather than sometime in the afternoon?
Training & Nutrition - Biking early in the morning.
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.View Full Version : Biking early in the morning.
Machka
05-28-07, 10:14 PM
Whenever you ride, are you riding ONLY 5 miles? If so, and if you want to lose weight, you've got to increase that amount. 5 miles is hardly worth getting out of bed for!!
How about getting up early in the morning ... and riding all the way through to the late afternoon? Start doing that a couple times a week, in addition to all your other activity, and you might see some weight loss.
How about getting up early in the morning ... and riding all the way through to the late afternoon? Start doing that a couple times a week, in addition to all your other activity, and you might see some weight loss.
Ginny
05-28-07, 10:28 PM
I ride on a trainer in the AM before breakfast so that I'm burning fat for fuel instead of using blood sugar. I wouldn't do this out on the roads though, it can get rough on the system and if you pass out from lack of blood sugar it could get dangerous.
Just so you know, a 150 pound person biking at 14-16mph for 30 minutes burns around 300 calories. That's not even a Quarter Pounder w/Cheese (which is 510, BTW).
For calorie counting, go by time, not by miles. 30 minutes at least each day.
Plus riding in the AM will jump start your metabolism for the whole day. You will burn more calories over the day, with diminishing returns over the hours.
Just so you know, a 150 pound person biking at 14-16mph for 30 minutes burns around 300 calories. That's not even a Quarter Pounder w/Cheese (which is 510, BTW).
For calorie counting, go by time, not by miles. 30 minutes at least each day.
Plus riding in the AM will jump start your metabolism for the whole day. You will burn more calories over the day, with diminishing returns over the hours.
EJ123
05-28-07, 10:41 PM
I've lost 30 pounds since last July, and I can't seem for the life of me to get below 220. Maybe Ill lower calories to 1800. I usually go 10 miles on my Fuel, but I meant the 5 miles in case I get lazy:p.
Alright Ginny, I'll start early, well, somewhat early that is,heh.
But now, this is some hefty aerobics. I think it's better to weight train before aerobics. Hm, then protein shake it up.
Alright Ginny, I'll start early, well, somewhat early that is,heh.
But now, this is some hefty aerobics. I think it's better to weight train before aerobics. Hm, then protein shake it up.
Machka
05-28-07, 10:56 PM
Even 10 miles isn't much. Think about it ... in an hour on the bicycle you probably only burn about 500 calories. 10 miles is only about 40-45 minutes ... that's like maybe 350 calories. The smallest bags of potato chips are about that.
You've plateaued now so you've got to shake things up a bit. Try doubling the distance you ride in a week. You might start seeing results again.
You've plateaued now so you've got to shake things up a bit. Try doubling the distance you ride in a week. You might start seeing results again.
Al.canoe
05-29-07, 04:03 AM
[QUOTE=Ginny]I ride on a trainer in the AM before breakfast so that I'm burning fat for fuel instead of using blood sugar. QUOTE]
You might consider getting a copy of Monique Ryan's Sports Nutrition for Endurance Athletes. The title not withstanding, it's a excellent book for everybody. She dispels that old myth about fat vs sugar burning. She uses the example of those who take long bike rides with out eating in order to supposedly lose fat. That just results in poor training.
Loosing weight is simply burning more calories than you consume, nothing more and certainly nothing less. The only advantages for exercising in the morning is getting it out of the way to make the rest of the day easier schedule wise and for some people, it results in better sleep at night than exercise in the afternoon. It also avoids the summer heat, but you freeze in the winter.
It would be wise for some to get some fast-burning sugar into your system to support the energy expenditure to perform better and feel better the rest of the morning.
I got up at 4:30 for decades for those reasons as I had to be at work before 7:00. Until I started eating a little jam before jogging or weight training, I would some times feel low on energy until after lunch though I always had a good breakfast after exercising.
I was jogging three or four miles three times a week and weight training often to 60,000 lbs per week.
I still get up before 5:00, but now that I'm retired, I'll bike or jog in the earlier a.m. only to avoid the summer heat.
Al
You might consider getting a copy of Monique Ryan's Sports Nutrition for Endurance Athletes. The title not withstanding, it's a excellent book for everybody. She dispels that old myth about fat vs sugar burning. She uses the example of those who take long bike rides with out eating in order to supposedly lose fat. That just results in poor training.
Loosing weight is simply burning more calories than you consume, nothing more and certainly nothing less. The only advantages for exercising in the morning is getting it out of the way to make the rest of the day easier schedule wise and for some people, it results in better sleep at night than exercise in the afternoon. It also avoids the summer heat, but you freeze in the winter.
It would be wise for some to get some fast-burning sugar into your system to support the energy expenditure to perform better and feel better the rest of the morning.
I got up at 4:30 for decades for those reasons as I had to be at work before 7:00. Until I started eating a little jam before jogging or weight training, I would some times feel low on energy until after lunch though I always had a good breakfast after exercising.
I was jogging three or four miles three times a week and weight training often to 60,000 lbs per week.
I still get up before 5:00, but now that I'm retired, I'll bike or jog in the earlier a.m. only to avoid the summer heat.
Al
babydee
05-29-07, 04:17 AM
I've lost 30 pounds since last July, and I can't seem for the life of me to get below 220. Maybe Ill lower calories to 1800. I usually go 10 miles on my Fuel, but I meant the 5 miles in case I get lazy:p.
Alright Ginny, I'll start early, well, somewhat early that is,heh.
But now, this is some hefty aerobics. I think it's better to weight train before aerobics. Hm, then protein shake it up.
Don't lower your calories, this is the classic mistake weight loss seekers make. You have to eat, and *burn* more calories by vigorous, lengthier exercise sessions. This is the only way your body will tolerate a calorie deficit without lowering metabolism. Weights really help a lot, especially if you can get lots of protein in you, as it gives your body more to do when you're not biking (i.e. repair muscle tissue), and the muscle burns calories while you do your daily activities. Weights also help build bone density.
good food/small meals + vigorous exercise + weight training = weight loss
Alright Ginny, I'll start early, well, somewhat early that is,heh.
But now, this is some hefty aerobics. I think it's better to weight train before aerobics. Hm, then protein shake it up.
Don't lower your calories, this is the classic mistake weight loss seekers make. You have to eat, and *burn* more calories by vigorous, lengthier exercise sessions. This is the only way your body will tolerate a calorie deficit without lowering metabolism. Weights really help a lot, especially if you can get lots of protein in you, as it gives your body more to do when you're not biking (i.e. repair muscle tissue), and the muscle burns calories while you do your daily activities. Weights also help build bone density.
good food/small meals + vigorous exercise + weight training = weight loss
kimmer99
05-29-07, 04:54 AM
Forgetting the entire weight loss issue (have been losing weight for over 2 years now, slow and steady), I find I can do shorter rides 75 minutes or less first thing in the morning without breakfast first; longer than that and I have to eat something before I ride. I also find my overall speed is a bit slower on morning rides than afternoon rides, which makes sense, I need time to wake up and warm-up more. From a psychological point of view, I prefer exercising early in the morning b/c I "get it out of the way" and have the rest of the day free. From a comfort point of view, in the summer, I prefer it before the midday heat, in the early spring and late fall, I wait until later in the day, when the sun has had a chance to warm the air.
Now 5 miles a day isn't a lot, but when I first started, I could barely do 8 miles and it took me 90 minutes to do it. Don't get discouraged keep at it; so if 5 miles is what you can do, do it, it's better than nothing. Then next week, try to increase some of your days to 5.5 miles and so on. If 5 miles is all you have time for, and you don't mind a slow weight loss (like 2 pounds a month assuming you don't increase your calorie intake), then do it. Heck, in a year, you'll be almost 25 pounds lighter and that's significant.
As others have said before it's math - calories in less than calories out and you lose weight. At this point, time of day won't affect that formula significantly.
Now 5 miles a day isn't a lot, but when I first started, I could barely do 8 miles and it took me 90 minutes to do it. Don't get discouraged keep at it; so if 5 miles is what you can do, do it, it's better than nothing. Then next week, try to increase some of your days to 5.5 miles and so on. If 5 miles is all you have time for, and you don't mind a slow weight loss (like 2 pounds a month assuming you don't increase your calorie intake), then do it. Heck, in a year, you'll be almost 25 pounds lighter and that's significant.
As others have said before it's math - calories in less than calories out and you lose weight. At this point, time of day won't affect that formula significantly.
EJ123
05-29-07, 09:10 AM
Don't lower your calories, this is the classic mistake weight loss seekers make. You have to eat, and *burn* more calories by vigorous, lengthier exercise sessions. This is the only way your body will tolerate a calorie deficit without lowering metabolism. Weights really help a lot, especially if you can get lots of protein in you, as it gives your body more to do when you're not biking (i.e. repair muscle tissue), and the muscle burns calories while you do your daily activities. Weights also help build bone density.
good food/small meals + vigorous exercise + weight training = weight loss
Well hold on a second. I was 250 and limited myself to a 2000-2200 diet. But now that I am 30 pounds lighter, I don't think I can still lose as much, since my body mass has decreased just a bit.
good food/small meals + vigorous exercise + weight training = weight loss
Well hold on a second. I was 250 and limited myself to a 2000-2200 diet. But now that I am 30 pounds lighter, I don't think I can still lose as much, since my body mass has decreased just a bit.
lechwe
05-29-07, 09:57 AM
Forgetting the entire weight loss issue (have been losing weight for over 2 years now, slow and steady), I find I can do shorter rides 75 minutes or less first thing in the morning without breakfast first; longer than that and I have to eat something before I ride. I also find my overall speed is a bit slower on morning rides than afternoon rides, which makes sense, I need time to wake up and warm-up more. From a psychological point of view, I prefer exercising early in the morning b/c I "get it out of the way" and have the rest of the day free. From a comfort point of view, in the summer, I prefer it before the midday heat, in the early spring and late fall, I wait until later in the day, when the sun has had a chance to warm the air.
Now 5 miles a day isn't a lot, but when I first started, I could barely do 8 miles and it took me 90 minutes to do it. Don't get discouraged keep at it; so if 5 miles is what you can do, do it, it's better than nothing. Then next week, try to increase some of your days to 5.5 miles and so on. If 5 miles is all you have time for, and you don't mind a slow weight loss (like 2 pounds a month assuming you don't increase your calorie intake), then do it. Heck, in a year, you'll be almost 25 pounds lighter and that's significant.
As others have said before it's math - calories in less than calories out and you lose weight. At this point, time of day won't affect that formula significantly.
It's nice to see someone finally has an understanding that not everyone here is a top athlete. I respect and appreciate those that are I'm just not one of them. While 5 miles might not be huge it is hardly a waste of time and you can loose weight riding that distance. Granted you are not going to drop pounds and pounds but you will move in the right direction assuming your eating habits are good. Obviously 10 is better than 5 but you super athletes really need to put things in perspective and not tell others they are wasting their time if they are only doing a certain amount. We all have different goals and not all of us want to compete with Lance. Some of us just want to be healthier and feel better.
Now 5 miles a day isn't a lot, but when I first started, I could barely do 8 miles and it took me 90 minutes to do it. Don't get discouraged keep at it; so if 5 miles is what you can do, do it, it's better than nothing. Then next week, try to increase some of your days to 5.5 miles and so on. If 5 miles is all you have time for, and you don't mind a slow weight loss (like 2 pounds a month assuming you don't increase your calorie intake), then do it. Heck, in a year, you'll be almost 25 pounds lighter and that's significant.
As others have said before it's math - calories in less than calories out and you lose weight. At this point, time of day won't affect that formula significantly.
It's nice to see someone finally has an understanding that not everyone here is a top athlete. I respect and appreciate those that are I'm just not one of them. While 5 miles might not be huge it is hardly a waste of time and you can loose weight riding that distance. Granted you are not going to drop pounds and pounds but you will move in the right direction assuming your eating habits are good. Obviously 10 is better than 5 but you super athletes really need to put things in perspective and not tell others they are wasting their time if they are only doing a certain amount. We all have different goals and not all of us want to compete with Lance. Some of us just want to be healthier and feel better.
Az B
05-29-07, 10:45 AM
Think of it less in miles and more in time. This way folks of different abilities can more closely compare workout intensity.
An hour is good. 90 minutes is a lot better. 2 hours is ideal, but if you can ride longer it will get you faster results in fitness and weight loss. If you can only ride 30 minutes, then that's what you ride. But at least try to work up to a longer period.
Everyone's body is different, but I find that when I don't eat my energy level drops and I can't ride as long or as fast. It's also less enjoyable. I always eat something before any ride, and plan to have something directly after.
Az
An hour is good. 90 minutes is a lot better. 2 hours is ideal, but if you can ride longer it will get you faster results in fitness and weight loss. If you can only ride 30 minutes, then that's what you ride. But at least try to work up to a longer period.
Everyone's body is different, but I find that when I don't eat my energy level drops and I can't ride as long or as fast. It's also less enjoyable. I always eat something before any ride, and plan to have something directly after.
Az
EJ123
05-29-07, 10:49 AM
Well I didn't mean 5 miles is all I can do. My normal route I take frequently is 10 miles, and I am not on a road bike here.
I read something that while you sleep you release this growth hormone so it is better to exercise in the morning.
I read something that while you sleep you release this growth hormone so it is better to exercise in the morning.
babydee
05-29-07, 12:18 PM
Well hold on a second. I was 250 and limited myself to a 2000-2200 diet. But now that I am 30 pounds lighter, I don't think I can still lose as much, since my body mass has decreased just a bit.
I guess I didn't put that the right way. You've done great, but a common mistake is to go overboard and lower the calories too much instead of upping the exercise length and intensity. Luckily, you've already made so much progress, and you have room to go further with the biking.
I guess I didn't put that the right way. You've done great, but a common mistake is to go overboard and lower the calories too much instead of upping the exercise length and intensity. Luckily, you've already made so much progress, and you have room to go further with the biking.
Machka
05-29-07, 05:33 PM
It's nice to see someone finally has an understanding that not everyone here is a top athlete. I respect and appreciate those that are I'm just not one of them. While 5 miles might not be huge it is hardly a waste of time and you can loose weight riding that distance. Granted you are not going to drop pounds and pounds but you will move in the right direction assuming your eating habits are good. Obviously 10 is better than 5 but you super athletes really need to put things in perspective and not tell others they are wasting their time if they are only doing a certain amount. We all have different goals and not all of us want to compete with Lance. Some of us just want to be healthier and feel better.
Speaking as one who is definitely not a "top athlete" or "super athlete" ... when I started cycling "seriously" 17 years ago, I rode 2 miles, and had to take a break after the first mile because I was too tired. I knew that I was seriously out of shape, so I started gradually increasing my mileage. By the end of that first summer (4 months later) I did a 50 mile ride. It's not difficult to build up mileage!!
In my post above, I suggested that the OP double the amount he is riding each week. If he is currently riding 10 miles a day, 5 days a week, that's 50 miles a week. If he gradually increased the amount he rides each day, within a few months he could quite easily be riding 30 miles a day, each day of the weekend, and then 13-14 miles a day for 3 days during the week. That's not an overwhelming amount of cycling, but would likely shake things up to allow him to start losing weight again.
And BTW - the new daily recommended amount of exercise is 60-90 minutes PER DAY, 7 days a week in order to lose weight. North Americans (in particular, but probably many other countries as well) are far too sedentary.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6816952/
Speaking as one who is definitely not a "top athlete" or "super athlete" ... when I started cycling "seriously" 17 years ago, I rode 2 miles, and had to take a break after the first mile because I was too tired. I knew that I was seriously out of shape, so I started gradually increasing my mileage. By the end of that first summer (4 months later) I did a 50 mile ride. It's not difficult to build up mileage!!
In my post above, I suggested that the OP double the amount he is riding each week. If he is currently riding 10 miles a day, 5 days a week, that's 50 miles a week. If he gradually increased the amount he rides each day, within a few months he could quite easily be riding 30 miles a day, each day of the weekend, and then 13-14 miles a day for 3 days during the week. That's not an overwhelming amount of cycling, but would likely shake things up to allow him to start losing weight again.
And BTW - the new daily recommended amount of exercise is 60-90 minutes PER DAY, 7 days a week in order to lose weight. North Americans (in particular, but probably many other countries as well) are far too sedentary.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6816952/
EJ123
05-29-07, 06:52 PM
30 miles on a mountain bike is not as easy as 30 miles on a 20something pound road bike lol.
Machka
05-29-07, 06:58 PM
30 miles on a mountain bike is not as easy as 30 miles on a 20something pound road bike lol.
It'll give you a good workout then ..... just like when I ride my 27 lb road bicycle with approx. 15 lbs of bags on it. :)
And incidentally, I've done MANY centuries and a 200 km brevet with my 40 lb Mongoose mtn bike ... so riding long distances is possible on ANY type of bicycle. You've just got to work up to it.
Just think how fit you'll be!!! :D
It'll give you a good workout then ..... just like when I ride my 27 lb road bicycle with approx. 15 lbs of bags on it. :)
And incidentally, I've done MANY centuries and a 200 km brevet with my 40 lb Mongoose mtn bike ... so riding long distances is possible on ANY type of bicycle. You've just got to work up to it.
Just think how fit you'll be!!! :D
urban rider
05-31-07, 07:45 PM
How much better is it an all to ride in the morning, preferably some short time after I wake up, and bike >5 miles around..in regards to losing weight-fat I should say- rather than sometime in the afternoon?
When you ride in the morning you start your metabilism to run at a slightly higher rate for the rest of the day. In the summer when the temps reach in the 80's or above you have the opportunity to avoid the heat and get a good ride out of the way. By riding in the morning you have an opportunity to avoid the traffic and congestion. Do you need anymore reasons for riding in the morning? It would help a great deal more if you did more miles.
Gas, the price of a can of beans
When you ride in the morning you start your metabilism to run at a slightly higher rate for the rest of the day. In the summer when the temps reach in the 80's or above you have the opportunity to avoid the heat and get a good ride out of the way. By riding in the morning you have an opportunity to avoid the traffic and congestion. Do you need anymore reasons for riding in the morning? It would help a great deal more if you did more miles.
Gas, the price of a can of beans
EJ123
05-31-07, 08:06 PM
When you ride in the morning you start your metabilism to run at a slightly higher rate for the rest of the day. In the summer when the temps reach in the 80's or above you have the opportunity to avoid the heat and get a good ride out of the way. By riding in the morning you have an opportunity to avoid the traffic and congestion. Do you need anymore reasons for riding in the morning? It would help a great deal more if you did more miles.
Gas, the price of a can of beans
Yeah true. I just dislike riding the same area over and over. When I can't go to the trails via vehicle, well I stay in this triangle, probably about 11sq miles, since this triangle is surrounded by uncrossable 5 lane streets:eek: When I do cross them, one in particular..trailpalooza:) I guess I should up the milage, maybe do my route twice for 20 miles, hm.
Gas, the price of a can of beans
Yeah true. I just dislike riding the same area over and over. When I can't go to the trails via vehicle, well I stay in this triangle, probably about 11sq miles, since this triangle is surrounded by uncrossable 5 lane streets:eek: When I do cross them, one in particular..trailpalooza:) I guess I should up the milage, maybe do my route twice for 20 miles, hm.
Liz
06-01-07, 11:58 AM
I'm sure it varies from person to person, but when some of you talk about going for 50 mile rides and so on, how long does it take you? What kind of bike are you riding, and are you on a trail or on the road? Is the path that you are on usually relatively flat when you go for long rides like this?
Unfortunately, where I live the only road with minute stretches of flat land is a 90k/h highway where the shoulder is about 1 foot wide - cars on one side, forest on the other. It's not unusual for bikers here to get hit by cars on this road because of this. All the other residential roads and such are insanely hilly. Other than that, we have old logging roads which are also hilly, and are occupied by dirtbikers... Not too easy here to find a place where you can safely bike for any further than 3km in any direction (and there are only two directions to go – north or south) without worrying about being hit by a car, run over by a dirtbike, or eaten by a cougar. *sigh*
Unfortunately, where I live the only road with minute stretches of flat land is a 90k/h highway where the shoulder is about 1 foot wide - cars on one side, forest on the other. It's not unusual for bikers here to get hit by cars on this road because of this. All the other residential roads and such are insanely hilly. Other than that, we have old logging roads which are also hilly, and are occupied by dirtbikers... Not too easy here to find a place where you can safely bike for any further than 3km in any direction (and there are only two directions to go – north or south) without worrying about being hit by a car, run over by a dirtbike, or eaten by a cougar. *sigh*
Al.canoe
06-01-07, 04:11 PM
I'm sure it varies from person to person, but when some of you talk about going for 50 mile rides and so on, how long does it take you? What kind of bike are you riding, and are you on a trail or on the road? Is the path that you are on usually relatively flat when you go for long rides like this?
*
I ride out of town to the hills. I like hills and gear my bikes to aid in climbing. Lately I've been focusing on just mountain biking, but generally I'd do a 60 to 70 mile ride once a week and an 18 mile trail ride on my atb once a week. I was using a 34 lb touring bike. Now I'm using a much lighter bike which I built up on a Titanium cyclocross frame. It's about 22 lbs with a rear rack, lights and removable fenders. The lights are ultra bright LED flashers to make me more visible during daylight. I also use a helmet mounted rear-view mirror.
I'd take probably around 5 hours for a 65 mile ride including breaks.
I've tried riding on paved trails made from converted rail beds. There are some within 100 miles. Really boring.
Al
*
I ride out of town to the hills. I like hills and gear my bikes to aid in climbing. Lately I've been focusing on just mountain biking, but generally I'd do a 60 to 70 mile ride once a week and an 18 mile trail ride on my atb once a week. I was using a 34 lb touring bike. Now I'm using a much lighter bike which I built up on a Titanium cyclocross frame. It's about 22 lbs with a rear rack, lights and removable fenders. The lights are ultra bright LED flashers to make me more visible during daylight. I also use a helmet mounted rear-view mirror.
I'd take probably around 5 hours for a 65 mile ride including breaks.
I've tried riding on paved trails made from converted rail beds. There are some within 100 miles. Really boring.
Al
EJ123
06-01-07, 04:17 PM
I ride out of town to the hills. I like hills and gear my bikes to aid in climbing. Lately I've been focusing on just mountain biking, but generally I'd do a 60 to 70 mile ride once a week and an 18 mile trail ride on my atb once a week. I was using a 34 lb touring bike. Now I'm using a much lighter bike which I built up on a Titanium cyclocross frame. It's about 22 lbs with a rear rack, lights and removable fenders. The lights are ultra bright LED flashers to make me more visible during daylight. I also use a helmet mounted rear-view mirror.
I'd take probably around 5 hours for a 65 mile ride including breaks.
I've tried riding on paved trails made from converted rail beds. There are some within 100 miles. Really boring.
Al
You're an interesting member on here. Informative, have friendly posts, very knowledgable, and mysterious with no avatar, orginal custom user title, and discreet profile...and you're a special early 2003 member. Heh.:)
I'd take probably around 5 hours for a 65 mile ride including breaks.
I've tried riding on paved trails made from converted rail beds. There are some within 100 miles. Really boring.
Al
You're an interesting member on here. Informative, have friendly posts, very knowledgable, and mysterious with no avatar, orginal custom user title, and discreet profile...and you're a special early 2003 member. Heh.:)
Al.canoe
06-01-07, 05:02 PM
You're an interesting member on here. Informative, have friendly posts, very knowledgable, and mysterious with no avatar, orginal custom user title, and discreet profile...and you're a special early 2003 member. Heh.:)
Thank you ----- I think. First I have to look-up "avatar".
Al
Thank you ----- I think. First I have to look-up "avatar".
Al
Machka
06-01-07, 05:53 PM
I'm sure it varies from person to person, but when some of you talk about going for 50 mile rides and so on, how long does it take you? What kind of bike are you riding, and are you on a trail or on the road? Is the path that you are on usually relatively flat when you go for long rides like this?
A 50 mile ride takes me 3-4 hours depending on weather and terrain. I ride a road bicycle and I ride on the road. I refuse to ride trails. The roads I ride on vary from very flat in Manitoba, to quite hilly in places like Vermont, Wales, England, France, Vancouver Island, and the Rocky Mountains of Alberta.
From about March-ish to October-ish I do a long ride or two on the weekends (preferably 100 kms+), and then shorter rides during the week. My shorter rides might be anything from a 15 km recovery ride to a 65 km round trip commute to and from work.
It took me a few years of cycling to build up to this, but now it seems very natural. If you've only been cycling a few months, I wouldn't recommend rushing out and doing a schedule like mine, but you can build up to it ... and more.
BTW - where do you live? Vancouver?
A 50 mile ride takes me 3-4 hours depending on weather and terrain. I ride a road bicycle and I ride on the road. I refuse to ride trails. The roads I ride on vary from very flat in Manitoba, to quite hilly in places like Vermont, Wales, England, France, Vancouver Island, and the Rocky Mountains of Alberta.
From about March-ish to October-ish I do a long ride or two on the weekends (preferably 100 kms+), and then shorter rides during the week. My shorter rides might be anything from a 15 km recovery ride to a 65 km round trip commute to and from work.
It took me a few years of cycling to build up to this, but now it seems very natural. If you've only been cycling a few months, I wouldn't recommend rushing out and doing a schedule like mine, but you can build up to it ... and more.
BTW - where do you live? Vancouver?
Bolo Grubb
06-04-07, 05:00 PM
try commuting to work or school on your bike. By riding twice a day you can boost your metabolism twice in the same day. and continue to watch what you eat.
Liz
06-07-07, 01:55 PM
BTW - where do you live? Vancouver?
I live on the Sunshine Coast - no logging roads or cougars in Vancouver :P
I live on the Sunshine Coast - no logging roads or cougars in Vancouver :P
Ropopompom
06-12-07, 08:32 AM
riding in the late afternoon / early evening may be better for you than riding in the morning. at that time of day, your body contains a lower amount of stress hormones than in the morning (according to Cycling Weekly's Health & Fitness supplement).
pedalada
06-13-07, 06:08 PM
Even 10 miles isn't much. Think about it ... in an hour on the bicycle you probably only burn about 500 calories. 10 miles is only about 40-45 minutes ... that's like maybe 350 calories. The smallest bags of potato chips are about that.
You've plateaued now so you've got to shake things up a bit. Try doubling the distance you ride in a week. You might start seeing results again.
500 calories an hor? It really depends on the person and the pace and the terrain. 1 hard hour in climbing terrain and a person could easily burn twice that if they push hard enough.
You've plateaued now so you've got to shake things up a bit. Try doubling the distance you ride in a week. You might start seeing results again.
500 calories an hor? It really depends on the person and the pace and the terrain. 1 hard hour in climbing terrain and a person could easily burn twice that if they push hard enough.
Machka
06-13-07, 07:44 PM
500 calories an hor? It really depends on the person and the pace and the terrain. 1 hard hour in climbing terrain and a person could easily burn twice that if they push hard enough.
I have my doubts. Keep in mind, that a 1 hour ride in climbing terrain is only 1/2 an hour climbing, and 1/2 hour relaxing on downhills.
I think a lot of people seriously over-estimate the amount of calories they burn when they exercise. Some of the numbers I've heard in casual conversation are incredible!! :lol:
It is better to under-estimate ... if you under-estimate, you will either exercise more or eat less to compensate ... and you'll lose weight. Another thing to keep in mind is this ... if you are basing the number of calories you burn on your current weight, you'll have a much more difficult time losing weight than if you base the number of calories you burn on your goal weight.
I have my doubts. Keep in mind, that a 1 hour ride in climbing terrain is only 1/2 an hour climbing, and 1/2 hour relaxing on downhills.
I think a lot of people seriously over-estimate the amount of calories they burn when they exercise. Some of the numbers I've heard in casual conversation are incredible!! :lol:
It is better to under-estimate ... if you under-estimate, you will either exercise more or eat less to compensate ... and you'll lose weight. Another thing to keep in mind is this ... if you are basing the number of calories you burn on your current weight, you'll have a much more difficult time losing weight than if you base the number of calories you burn on your goal weight.
NomadVW
06-13-07, 07:52 PM
500 calories an hor? It really depends on the person and the pace and the terrain. 1 hard hour in climbing terrain and a person could easily burn twice that if they push hard enough.
500 calories an hour is actually pretty reasonable. 1000 calories per hour (double the 500 for the math hindered) requires an average of 300 watts for that hour. Your average cyclist is not putting out that kind of power. Regardless of what your HR monitor is telling you. The best way I've seen for folks to estimate their calorie output is to assume about 40 calories per mile and go with it. This nullifies many of the factors required to come up with a correct calorie count.
Yeah true. I just dislike riding the same area over and over. When I can't go to the trails via vehicle, well I stay in this triangle, probably about 11sq miles, since this triangle is surrounded by uncrossable 5 lane streets:eek: When I do cross them, one in particular..trailpalooza:) I guess I should up the milage, maybe do my route twice for 20 miles, hm.
Good luck for you EJ123. I was 220 lbs in Dec 98 when I started to need to lose weight. I rode 4.7 miles each way back and forth to work 4-5 days per week. By the end of the spring I was still only doing at most 13 miles in any one day (4.7 to work, 8-9 miles home by adding some extra distance) - all of this on a old hardtail mountain bike. I too lost about 30 lbs and was a much leaner 190 lbs by spring of 99. The trick for me was to ride as hard as I could possibly go any time I was on the bike. I couldn't afford on that little bit of time to "tool around."
I've since taken up racing and ride 500+ km per week on a lighter road bike and love doing all these miles. Weight is still an issue for me for racing and I watch my diet, intake and calorie expenditure very carefully. Trying to beat the system by time of day, types of foods, and all that is great. But for me... it is simply - calories in - calories out. When I'm eating less, I make sure to spread out my meals so I don't get really hungry between meals. When I'm eating more, I eat pretty much what I want, but make sure to "get full" on lower calorie foods, like fruits and vegetables. I would take a box of cookies to make me full @ a cost of 1500 calories, or a very large bowl of salad to get full at 300-400 calories.
Good luck on your continued weight loss. It'll happen!
500 calories an hour is actually pretty reasonable. 1000 calories per hour (double the 500 for the math hindered) requires an average of 300 watts for that hour. Your average cyclist is not putting out that kind of power. Regardless of what your HR monitor is telling you. The best way I've seen for folks to estimate their calorie output is to assume about 40 calories per mile and go with it. This nullifies many of the factors required to come up with a correct calorie count.
Yeah true. I just dislike riding the same area over and over. When I can't go to the trails via vehicle, well I stay in this triangle, probably about 11sq miles, since this triangle is surrounded by uncrossable 5 lane streets:eek: When I do cross them, one in particular..trailpalooza:) I guess I should up the milage, maybe do my route twice for 20 miles, hm.
Good luck for you EJ123. I was 220 lbs in Dec 98 when I started to need to lose weight. I rode 4.7 miles each way back and forth to work 4-5 days per week. By the end of the spring I was still only doing at most 13 miles in any one day (4.7 to work, 8-9 miles home by adding some extra distance) - all of this on a old hardtail mountain bike. I too lost about 30 lbs and was a much leaner 190 lbs by spring of 99. The trick for me was to ride as hard as I could possibly go any time I was on the bike. I couldn't afford on that little bit of time to "tool around."
I've since taken up racing and ride 500+ km per week on a lighter road bike and love doing all these miles. Weight is still an issue for me for racing and I watch my diet, intake and calorie expenditure very carefully. Trying to beat the system by time of day, types of foods, and all that is great. But for me... it is simply - calories in - calories out. When I'm eating less, I make sure to spread out my meals so I don't get really hungry between meals. When I'm eating more, I eat pretty much what I want, but make sure to "get full" on lower calorie foods, like fruits and vegetables. I would take a box of cookies to make me full @ a cost of 1500 calories, or a very large bowl of salad to get full at 300-400 calories.
Good luck on your continued weight loss. It'll happen!
bpohl
06-13-07, 08:56 PM
WHen I was in college, I used to do all of my rides in the early morning. Now, I just do them when I get home from the office. I don't really prefer either one, as I really like riding in the heat and baking. I get too cold on the bike when it's under 75 degrees. I never noticed any differentiating weight loss between the two. Forty miles at 5 am is the same as 40 miles at 5 pm. Maybe slight differences for air density in the morning, but I usually have at least a couple pounds of food in my stomach by the evening hours, so I believe it to be a wash.
pedalada
06-13-07, 11:12 PM
I have my doubts. Keep in mind, that a 1 hour ride in climbing terrain is only 1/2 an hour climbing, and 1/2 hour relaxing on downhills.
Maybe you should try not relaxing on the downhills.
Maybe you should try not relaxing on the downhills.
NomadVW
06-13-07, 11:38 PM
Maybe you should try not relaxing on the downhills.
Your "average" cyclist still won't burn 1000 calories per hour.
Your "average" cyclist still won't burn 1000 calories per hour.
Machka
06-13-07, 11:39 PM
Maybe you should try not relaxing on the downhills.
Oh believe me ... I'm not relaxed on downhills. I don't like them. They make me tense.
But even if you keep pedalling all the way down (which isn't easy on some downhills), you are still not putting much effort in.
I always get a bit of a chuckle about people who talk about elevation gain on their rides. If you start and end at the same location, you have not made any elevation gain ... you've climbed as much as you've descended.
Now if you were talking about an hour ride into headwinds the whole way, where you actually have to work the entire time, you might burn a teensy-tiny bit more.
Oh believe me ... I'm not relaxed on downhills. I don't like them. They make me tense.
But even if you keep pedalling all the way down (which isn't easy on some downhills), you are still not putting much effort in.
I always get a bit of a chuckle about people who talk about elevation gain on their rides. If you start and end at the same location, you have not made any elevation gain ... you've climbed as much as you've descended.
Now if you were talking about an hour ride into headwinds the whole way, where you actually have to work the entire time, you might burn a teensy-tiny bit more.
pedalada
06-14-07, 01:20 PM
I didn't say they would, I said they could.
Oh, so evidently you have all the data on what is "average".:roflmao:
Oh, so evidently you have all the data on what is "average".:roflmao:
NomadVW
06-14-07, 02:57 PM
From your original post:
could easily
Let's make an assumption and assume your "average" cyclist is 200 lbs. That's pretty heavy, but we can play the game. To "easily" burn 1000 calories in an hour, we're talking an average of 291 watts of power produced for one hour.
Coggan's chart here:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/images/powerprofile_v4.gif
Indication that 3.19 w/kg would be a mid Cat 4 racer - and that's if they do the effort "all out" for the entire hour. If however your 'easily' assertion is right, and it's not an all out effort, then you would have to place the rider in a higher slot than that which quickly removes the person from the 'average cyclist' category.
The prominent power calculators would indicate our OP on this thread should be doing around 20 mph on the flats on his mountain bike if he is putting out 291 watts. From experience I think you'll find that the average cyclist isn't capable of holding 20 mph on the flats, solo. 17. 18 mebbe.
Likewise, I'm not saying one can't do 1000 calories per hour. But it's not what I would advertise as something the OP should "easily" be doing.
could easily
Let's make an assumption and assume your "average" cyclist is 200 lbs. That's pretty heavy, but we can play the game. To "easily" burn 1000 calories in an hour, we're talking an average of 291 watts of power produced for one hour.
Coggan's chart here:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/images/powerprofile_v4.gif
Indication that 3.19 w/kg would be a mid Cat 4 racer - and that's if they do the effort "all out" for the entire hour. If however your 'easily' assertion is right, and it's not an all out effort, then you would have to place the rider in a higher slot than that which quickly removes the person from the 'average cyclist' category.
The prominent power calculators would indicate our OP on this thread should be doing around 20 mph on the flats on his mountain bike if he is putting out 291 watts. From experience I think you'll find that the average cyclist isn't capable of holding 20 mph on the flats, solo. 17. 18 mebbe.
Likewise, I'm not saying one can't do 1000 calories per hour. But it's not what I would advertise as something the OP should "easily" be doing.
pedalada
06-14-07, 04:45 PM
From your original post:
Let's make an assumption and assume your "average" cyclist is 200 lbs. That's pretty heavy, but we can play the game. To "easily" burn 1000 calories in an hour, we're talking an average of 291 watts of power produced for one hour.
Coggan's chart here:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/images/powerprofile_v4.gif
Indication that 3.19 w/kg would be a mid Cat 4 racer - and that's if they do the effort "all out" for the entire hour. If however your 'easily' assertion is right, and it's not an all out effort, then you would have to place the rider in a higher slot than that which quickly removes the person from the 'average cyclist' category.
The prominent power calculators would indicate our OP on this thread should be doing around 20 mph on the flats on his mountain bike if he is putting out 291 watts. From experience I think you'll find that the average cyclist isn't capable of holding 20 mph on the flats, solo. 17. 18 mebbe.
Likewise, I'm not saying one can't do 1000 calories per hour. But it's not what I would advertise as something the OP should "easily" be doing.
I was responding to Machka's post that pegged an hour on the bike at 500 calories, which may be true for her and a lot of other cyclists. I use all the same calculators and even a 1 or 2% average grade makes a huge difference. There are some places in the world that may be dead-flat for 20 miles but real world conditions include hills and wind, often at the same time. In my location I can't ride in any direction for 40 miles without doing at least 3000 ft. of climbing. Effort is cumulative and for someone trying to achieve some fitness lets try these numbers:
rider weight: 220lb
bike weight: 28lbs
mtb tires
average grade: 1%
headwind: 2mph
elevation: 500ft
distance:15 miles
average speed: 13mph
I sure don't get 500 calories in any of the calculators I use.
More to Machka's point; you don't erase calories burned just because you have negative slope after a positive one, most bike computers record "distance climbed" for a reason.
Let's make an assumption and assume your "average" cyclist is 200 lbs. That's pretty heavy, but we can play the game. To "easily" burn 1000 calories in an hour, we're talking an average of 291 watts of power produced for one hour.
Coggan's chart here:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/images/powerprofile_v4.gif
Indication that 3.19 w/kg would be a mid Cat 4 racer - and that's if they do the effort "all out" for the entire hour. If however your 'easily' assertion is right, and it's not an all out effort, then you would have to place the rider in a higher slot than that which quickly removes the person from the 'average cyclist' category.
The prominent power calculators would indicate our OP on this thread should be doing around 20 mph on the flats on his mountain bike if he is putting out 291 watts. From experience I think you'll find that the average cyclist isn't capable of holding 20 mph on the flats, solo. 17. 18 mebbe.
Likewise, I'm not saying one can't do 1000 calories per hour. But it's not what I would advertise as something the OP should "easily" be doing.
I was responding to Machka's post that pegged an hour on the bike at 500 calories, which may be true for her and a lot of other cyclists. I use all the same calculators and even a 1 or 2% average grade makes a huge difference. There are some places in the world that may be dead-flat for 20 miles but real world conditions include hills and wind, often at the same time. In my location I can't ride in any direction for 40 miles without doing at least 3000 ft. of climbing. Effort is cumulative and for someone trying to achieve some fitness lets try these numbers:
rider weight: 220lb
bike weight: 28lbs
mtb tires
average grade: 1%
headwind: 2mph
elevation: 500ft
distance:15 miles
average speed: 13mph
I sure don't get 500 calories in any of the calculators I use.
More to Machka's point; you don't erase calories burned just because you have negative slope after a positive one, most bike computers record "distance climbed" for a reason.
Machka
06-14-07, 07:51 PM
Just keep in mind that most of those calculators are not very accurate. I think they like to appeal to people's inherent laziness ... in other words, they tell people what they want to hear, that they burned a whole bunch of calories with very little effort. And if you are using online software like bikely or mapmyride to calculate overall climbing (not "elevation gain"), they are definitely not accurate.
If you aren't trying to lose weight, who cares what the calorie calculators say. But if you are trying to lose weight, if you assume they exaggerate, you'll likely have much more accurate numbers to deal with.
If you aren't trying to lose weight, who cares what the calorie calculators say. But if you are trying to lose weight, if you assume they exaggerate, you'll likely have much more accurate numbers to deal with.
pedalada
06-14-07, 09:22 PM
Just keep in mind that most of those calculators are not very accurate. I think they like to appeal to people's inherent laziness ... in other words, they tell people what they want to hear, that they burned a whole bunch of calories with very little effort. And if you are using online software like bikely or mapmyride to calculate overall climbing (not "elevation gain"), they are definitely not accurate.
If you aren't trying to lose weight, who cares what the calorie calculators say. But if you are trying to lose weight, if you assume they exaggerate, you'll likely have much more accurate numbers to deal with.
It sort of sounds like everyone's calculations and data are inaccurate except yours because they are all inherently lazy.
I've never even heard of "bikely" or "mapmyride" I use a Garmin edge 305 which is quite accurate checked against the GIS mapping applications that I use at work and I've been tracking my training statistics for several years so I'm confident in the calorie calculations I arrive at.
5 years ago I weighed 220, I lost 50 lbs in one year, I didn't do it riding 500 calories per hour and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
If you aren't trying to lose weight, who cares what the calorie calculators say. But if you are trying to lose weight, if you assume they exaggerate, you'll likely have much more accurate numbers to deal with.
It sort of sounds like everyone's calculations and data are inaccurate except yours because they are all inherently lazy.
I've never even heard of "bikely" or "mapmyride" I use a Garmin edge 305 which is quite accurate checked against the GIS mapping applications that I use at work and I've been tracking my training statistics for several years so I'm confident in the calorie calculations I arrive at.
5 years ago I weighed 220, I lost 50 lbs in one year, I didn't do it riding 500 calories per hour and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Machka
06-14-07, 09:35 PM
My 500 calories per hour is a guess, just like everyone else's numbers. It might be little a bit of a low guess sometimes, but that's a good thing.
Anyway, you believe what you want to believe. :)
Anyway, you believe what you want to believe. :)