Commuting - Commuting and the "Curse of Fitness"

Okay, it was shocking.

I bought a Polar M61 (I think) HRM last winter to tune up my trainer sessions in the garage, and a few weeks ago I tossed it on during a commute to work.

Complete disaster: my "zone" is 128-158 bmp (relatively low), and during my regular 45 minute ride to work I was "in zone" all of about 8 mintues. I couldn't believe that I had got so used to the commute that most of my ride my heartrate was around 116 bmp. My calories burned were less than 400.

So much for the great aerobic workout and the massive calorie burn I was expecting. At that rate, I might as well take a bus.

Over the last few weeks I've done almost all of my riding with the HRM on, and it's my new speedometer. I don't go for high BPM, but just the "zone." On my 45 minute ride in yesterday, I tagged 25 minutes in zone and about 500 calories burned. On the way home I managed 38 minutes and 700 calories burned (on a 53 minute ride). My recovery time is really suprising: I can drop from the 150s to the 110s in very little time (like coasting down a hill).

This morning, in the big ring most of the time, I managed 37 mintues in zone and 600 calories burned. That's more like it.

Downside: I'm getting maybe too agressive on the speed and rolling stop signs. Safety precautions could be better. Also, it now feels like the gearing is ridiculously low (Trek 6700 with 1.25 Kevlar slicks), and I max out my high end all the time.

Upside: much better workouts. The way I was, my heart wasn't getting much improvement, and the ride to work was getting to be a bit boring and slow. Now, I have a new riding partner who is much more demanding than the speedometer.

I am pretty sure that I wouldn't like to turn my commute into a training ride, for just the reason you mentioned; I would rather concentrate on the traffic than the monitor; but you have inspired me to dust off my own HRM, just to get an idea for where I am now. It has been a long time since I strapped one on.

Dan

Personally, I avoid all the bmp stuff when riding my bike--- it sucks all the joy out of it for me. I don't touch scales or any body fat measurements as well. I'm a little chubby but the wife doesn't care and I can still ride my bike anywhere I'd like to go, so what does it matter?

Healthwise, I'm pretty sure most diets and controlled workouts (including cycling) fail with in a couple of years. I've seen so many people get into cycling, train for races/long organized rides, lose lots of weight, get fit and get pretty damn good on the bike, then end up burning out and not riding at all. All the weight comes back and your more unhealthy than before your little bike adventure. Same with weights, running, yoga, whatever. So, I avoid all the hype and keep my cycling restricted to transportation and fun. At least I'm sorta fit. ;)

If you are a more aggressive racer/club rider type (and there is nothing wrong with that) I'd advise some non-training fun rides like commuting. Then if you give up the cycling club and century rides becuase of family needs or burn out, you still have the totally fun commuting rides. The importaint thing is to keep riding for the rest of your life.

I rarely wear my HRM on the commute. I usually treat them as easy spins. But whatever you do, have fun and get there in one piece.

I find this topic interesting. It's the classic commuter conundrum: is my commute a real workout? In a place like SF, one can generally count on the hills and wind to make even a casual commute a bit of a challenge. But then, you wonder if the commute is long enough. Sometimes I'll ride to work in 19 minutes, which is much too short, so I'll add a little something during lunch and after work. But I haven't had a BC in years, and I've never had a HRM, so the riding is just pedaling and breathing.
HRM's and BC's seem to focus the attention more on the process, which might be helpful if one is intent on improving one's performance. I think that I'd might do that if I was riding like 20 miles each way on longer, uninterrupted roads. Too distracting at this point in my commute, however.
When I did have a speedo, I spent alot of time checking my speed and miles, seconds and cadence. Then my magnet fell off and I never replaced it and eventually just took the speedo off. My enjoyment seemed to increase from there, but it's all good, however one rides. As long as you ride.

Best,
El Cabron

I am pretty sure that I wouldn't like to turn my commute into a training ride, for just the reason you mentioned; I would rather concentrate on the traffic than the monitor; but you have inspired me to dust off my own HRM, just to get an idea for where I am now. It has been a long time since I strapped one on.

That is a big factor in my own avoidance of using a HRM for my commute. The other factor is that not every day is going to be the best day of your life. I know that Monday morning, for example, I wanted to keep the tempo nice and easy because my legs (note, my legs and not my heart) were feeling the effect of 250km on the bike the previous day. To be honest I just ride on the basis of how I feel. If I feel strong, I'll floor it, if not, I'll take it easy. If I'm too concerned about performance (rare on my commute because I focus more on my other rides), I can always check my average speed after I get into the ride and get an idea of how I'm feeling.

I know that when I commute, I dont have a speedo or a HRM even, but I push myself as hard as I can and make sure I arrive panting and sweaty! It seems to work... my avg. speed increases through the year and I get in better shape.

I enjoy using my commute as training. I don't worry about heart rate or anyhting like that, just speed. If I see my average speed went up, I know to congratulate myself for becoming a stronger rider. I let any calorie burn take care of itself, since I'm pushing so hard, I can only assume my calorie burn has to be rather high.

Once I find a speedo that will work with my odd wheel spacing, I'll once again find out what my speed is....it's been a week now, and I already miss the little computer :(

I let any calorie burn take care of itself, since I'm pushing so hard, I can only assume my calorie burn has to be rather high.


Unless I'm mistaken, this is sort of a myth. From what I understand, pushing too hard only burns sugar and not fat. It seems that you have to be at a certain heart rate to have maximum fat burn. I know that you say calories and not fat, but I think they go hand in hand? Hopefully someone will come by and elaborate this better :D

Unless I'm mistaken, this is sort of a myth. From what I understand, pushing too hard only burns sugar and not fat. It seems that you have to be at a certain heart rate to have maximum fat burn. I know that you say calories and not fat, but I think they go hand in hand? Hopefully someone will come by and elaborate this better :D


I think Koffee could clarify this. My HRM shows a "Fat %" of calories burned, and that percentage goes down with a higher average BPM for the ride (even if more cals are burned). Of course, after seeing Koffee's comments yesterday about calorie counters on Polar HRMs (response to Bush article), I'm almost embarrased to own one... :)

I like the responses to this post, and I think everyone is right. One thing I like about cycling is that it can successfully mean so many different things to different people.

For me, commuting rides HAVE to be training rides, at least a couple of times a week. On the weekends, I like 40-65 mile club rides on my road bike, and next week I'm cycling in Glacier National Park on my touring bike. I need some of the 4-5 commuting rides each week to help me prepare for more strenuous efforts.

The HRM, to me, is better than average speed, because my commuting route is really "chopped up." What that means is that I have downhills of 35 mph with a stop sign at the bottom, and lots of little streets to carve around with stops, and the idea of paying attention to average speed seems silly because there isn't enough uninterrupted cruising to make it make sense. The HRM pushes me out of the saddle after stops, encourages a tighter gear on the short runs, makes me more agressive on climbs (but not over the zone). I could stretch out the downhill momentum for a higher average speed, but I've noticed that my bpm drops to 80 on these runs.

That said, I don't think I could do 80 minutes a day "in zone" five days a week. Monday and Tuesday of this week I was over 70 minutes a day, but this morning I slacked off for an easy 32 minute spin in, with only 8 minutes in zone and only 256 cals estimated. No reason to over do it before the serious riding next week, and I was feeling pretty drained last night and this morning.

I think I've been influenced by a younger colleague who also cycles to work. I've "ripped off" aspects of his approach, which include light, thin tires on the mtb, Vaude backpack instead of panniers and rack, and an overall agressive riding style to get more of a workout. I've commuted for many years in relaxed mode, and I like this change. I can always go slower again this winter in the wet, cold rain.

uh. just go faster, man.

Something that I've fallen in love with is my Single Speed, add my HRM and I'm cooking. I know I've enjoyed the benefits of fixed gear, but this SS that I've built has taken my cycling to a new level, tons more agressive, larger chain inch and better over all time to work, I've carved a usual 1:40 one way to 1:20.

uh. just go faster, man. :D :D :D

I let any calorie burn take care of itself, since I'm pushing so hard, I can only assume my calorie burn has to be rather high.



Unless I'm mistaken, this is sort of a myth.

The myth is that just going fast will make you lose weight. What's not a myth is that going really fast burns calories.

I'm skinny as heck but for the purpose of trying to build muscle, "just going fast" works fine for me.


From what I understand, pushing too hard only burns sugar and not fat. It seems that you have to be at a certain heart rate to have maximum fat burn.

that's true.



I know that you say calories and not fat, but I think they go hand in hand?

not really. Alcohol sugar, carbohydrates, and protein all contain calories. I get most of my calories from sources other than fat, as do most people.

That said, I think a heart rate monitor would be a perfectly good way for a thin person like me to work on keeping my level of exertion more steady and not too low, which would help raise my average speed.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is sort of a myth. From what I understand, pushing too hard only burns sugar and not fat. It seems that you have to be at a certain heart rate to have maximum fat burn. I know that you say calories and not fat, but I think they go hand in hand? Hopefully someone will come by and elaborate this better :D

Wrong. While it is true that the harder you work, the more sugars you burn, you still burn plenty of fat. At some point you max out on the fat burning, but you are still burning lots of it. Besides, there's nothing wrong with burning sugars. That just leaves less to be converted into fat later on.

There is a cool two pager in Wired (July Magazine) that discusses the technology that Armstrong used during the Tour de France. It also discusses a bit of his fitness levels (heart rate, power output, etc) You can find it on pages 148-149.