Weight Loss: Flats or Hills?
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 7,085
Bikes: Cervelo Prodigy
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 87 Times
in
67 Posts
I thought weight loss has more to do with the heart rate zone and the time spent in that zone. At a higher intensity workout, the body uses its most immediate store of fuel and at lower intensity the stored fat is used but has to be over an extended period of time. Lower intensity of workout over a longer period of time. This rules out any kind of interval workout.
#3
Senior Member
My thoughts are a mix of both. Doing nothing but hills while you are heavy will quickly get old and I would bet that you would ride less. Intensity is important but so is saddle time. Ride lots....eat less.
__________________
BMC Roadmachine
Kona Jake the Snake
BMC Roadmachine
Kona Jake the Snake
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Posts: 3,013
Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 44 Times
in
35 Posts
My thoughts are a mix of both
Hills, ridden with tempo, and flats ridden with long steady efforts will develop different characteristics of muscles and organs in a way that neither of them can by themselves. There's no single food, or exercise, that is somehow the "best."
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 6,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
The more riding you do, the more calories you will burn. It doesn't make a difference if it's on hills or not.
Do not, however, trundle along in the "fat burning zone" for short rides. You don't burn more fat at lower intensities, you burn less glycogen. At say 600 cal/hr you may be using 400 cal/hr from fat and 200 from stored glycogen. At 800 cal/hr you would be using 400 cal/hr fat and 400 stored glycogen (numbers are for illustration only, they will differ from person to person). When you deplete your glycogen, it has to be replenished from somwhere. If you don't eat a bunch of carbohydrates after the ride, it gets replenished from stored fat.
The "fat burning zone" is good for burning calories because you can ride for a long time at that level of effort, and that will burn a lot of calories total.
Do not, however, trundle along in the "fat burning zone" for short rides. You don't burn more fat at lower intensities, you burn less glycogen. At say 600 cal/hr you may be using 400 cal/hr from fat and 200 from stored glycogen. At 800 cal/hr you would be using 400 cal/hr fat and 400 stored glycogen (numbers are for illustration only, they will differ from person to person). When you deplete your glycogen, it has to be replenished from somwhere. If you don't eat a bunch of carbohydrates after the ride, it gets replenished from stored fat.
The "fat burning zone" is good for burning calories because you can ride for a long time at that level of effort, and that will burn a lot of calories total.
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,137
Bikes: RichardZEP
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Thanks for your insights. I was also under the impression that calorie expenditure, fat or carb, was based on aerobic effort, ie. up to 85% or so is fat, and higher the glycogen kicks in.
EDIT: I should add more context... I've noticed myself losing more weight after hilly/mountainous rides versus flat/rolling terrain. What's stumped me is that my average heart rate has been pretty much the same, steady at 75-80%.
EDIT: I should add more context... I've noticed myself losing more weight after hilly/mountainous rides versus flat/rolling terrain. What's stumped me is that my average heart rate has been pretty much the same, steady at 75-80%.
Last edited by xfimpg; 08-02-09 at 04:55 PM.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 263
Bikes: Diamondback entry level.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's more of a proportion, along the lines of what Ericm979 just said. the absolute number of calories burned from fat is likely to be more with the higher intensity. The heart rate is a rough guide to intensity of exertion, but I have learned that for me, the ambient temperature is a major variable. When I run in hotter temperatures or higher humidity the heart rate is way up to about 90% of predicted max, and I don't feel like I'm killing myself.
#9
Riding Heaven's Highways on the grand tour
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,675
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Its about time in the saddle.
Hills = more calories/minute of riding, but most people tend to burn out pretty quickly on hills.
Flats = less calories/minute, but people can ride for much longer time on flats.
To get in the best shape, you need hills, sprints, intervals, and long steady distance rides.
hills help develop power.
sprints help develop power and anaerobic systems
Intervals help develop power and aerobic systems
Long Steady Distance helps develop the aerobic system and train the muscles to use free fatty acids for energy.
Hills = more calories/minute of riding, but most people tend to burn out pretty quickly on hills.
Flats = less calories/minute, but people can ride for much longer time on flats.
To get in the best shape, you need hills, sprints, intervals, and long steady distance rides.
hills help develop power.
sprints help develop power and anaerobic systems
Intervals help develop power and aerobic systems
Long Steady Distance helps develop the aerobic system and train the muscles to use free fatty acids for energy.
__________________
1 bronze, 0 silver, 1 gold
1 bronze, 0 silver, 1 gold
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Posts: 3,013
Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 44 Times
in
35 Posts
If you ride so slowly as to "utilize fat" only - then you fail to increase your ability to deliver energy to muscles from other metabolites.
My answer was the only one that is totally correct for long term weight loss. Building all energy delivery system is most easily accomplished by changing the intensity and type of exercise.
All the other comments are mostly useless half-thought-out attempts to act smart. And that's too bad.
My answer was the only one that is totally correct for long term weight loss. Building all energy delivery system is most easily accomplished by changing the intensity and type of exercise.
All the other comments are mostly useless half-thought-out attempts to act smart. And that's too bad.
#14
Bad Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ewing, NJ
Posts: 89
Bikes: Raleigh Detour 4.0 [beautiful cobalt blue]
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#15
Surf Bum
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
3 Posts
Yes. Which would you rather do? Go slowly in the "fat burning zone" and burn 500 calories of which 300 are from fat, or ride faster and burn 800 calories of which 400 are from fat?
#16
Riding Heaven's Highways on the grand tour
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,675
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Correct, there is seldom one type of activity that is somehow "superior" to another. With regard to long-term health, diversity in exercise is considered superior to a single repetitive routine.
Hills, ridden with tempo, and flats ridden with long steady efforts will develop different characteristics of muscles and organs in a way that neither of them can by themselves. There's no single food, or exercise, that is somehow the "best."
Hills, ridden with tempo, and flats ridden with long steady efforts will develop different characteristics of muscles and organs in a way that neither of them can by themselves. There's no single food, or exercise, that is somehow the "best."
Its about time in the saddle.
Hills = more calories/minute of riding, but most people tend to burn out pretty quickly on hills.
Flats = less calories/minute, but people can ride for much longer time on flats.
To get in the best shape, you need hills, sprints, intervals, and long steady distance rides.
hills help develop power.
sprints help develop power and anaerobic systems
Intervals help develop power and aerobic systems
Long Steady Distance helps develop the aerobic system and train the muscles to use free fatty acids for energy.
Hills = more calories/minute of riding, but most people tend to burn out pretty quickly on hills.
Flats = less calories/minute, but people can ride for much longer time on flats.
To get in the best shape, you need hills, sprints, intervals, and long steady distance rides.
hills help develop power.
sprints help develop power and anaerobic systems
Intervals help develop power and aerobic systems
Long Steady Distance helps develop the aerobic system and train the muscles to use free fatty acids for energy.
If you ride so slowly as to "utilize fat" only - then you fail to increase your ability to deliver energy to muscles from other metabolites.
My answer was the only one that is totally correct for long term weight loss. Building all energy delivery system is most easily accomplished by changing the intensity and type of exercise.
All the other comments are mostly useless half-thought-out attempts to act smart. And that's too bad.
My answer was the only one that is totally correct for long term weight loss. Building all energy delivery system is most easily accomplished by changing the intensity and type of exercise.
All the other comments are mostly useless half-thought-out attempts to act smart. And that's too bad.
__________________
1 bronze, 0 silver, 1 gold
1 bronze, 0 silver, 1 gold
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 90
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The more riding you do, the more calories you will burn. It doesn't make a difference if it's on hills or not.
Do not, however, trundle along in the "fat burning zone" for short rides. You don't burn more fat at lower intensities, you burn less glycogen. At say 600 cal/hr you may be using 400 cal/hr from fat and 200 from stored glycogen. At 800 cal/hr you would be using 400 cal/hr fat and 400 stored glycogen (numbers are for illustration only, they will differ from person to person). When you deplete your glycogen, it has to be replenished from somwhere. If you don't eat a bunch of carbohydrates after the ride, it gets replenished from stored fat.
The "fat burning zone" is good for burning calories because you can ride for a long time at that level of effort, and that will burn a lot of calories total.
Do not, however, trundle along in the "fat burning zone" for short rides. You don't burn more fat at lower intensities, you burn less glycogen. At say 600 cal/hr you may be using 400 cal/hr from fat and 200 from stored glycogen. At 800 cal/hr you would be using 400 cal/hr fat and 400 stored glycogen (numbers are for illustration only, they will differ from person to person). When you deplete your glycogen, it has to be replenished from somwhere. If you don't eat a bunch of carbohydrates after the ride, it gets replenished from stored fat.
The "fat burning zone" is good for burning calories because you can ride for a long time at that level of effort, and that will burn a lot of calories total.
You see I've been riding for 4 weeks, averaging 100 miles a week, and lost 14lbs, went from 155 to 141, and been stable at 141 for 5 days now. I usually do 50 miles on weekdays (flats, average 85 rpm, average 158 bpm) and another 50 big one on a weekend day (usually 5-7% climbs, average 40 rpm on big gear, average 162 bpm). Just this past week I started taking post-ride recovery supplements (i.e., Accelerade). I noticed that I haven't lost any weight since then. I still see a lot of fat in my stomach and I want to reach 130lbs. To achieve that should I just stop taking post-ride recovery supplements?
#18
Still Believes In Joy
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Flagstaff
Posts: 150
Bikes: Specialized Crosstrail, GT Force
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
14 pounds in 4 weeks? jesus christ.
be patient it'll go away. you've burned quite a lot.
be patient it'll go away. you've burned quite a lot.
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,137
Bikes: RichardZEP
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
As I tend to put weight on in the winter and lose it in the summer, it gets harder if I only do one sport. It's as if my body "adjusts" to the same sport/movement and weight loss gets more difficult every spring/summer. I think this is just normal and most likely why cross-training is so important, other than muscle distribution build.