Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Senior Member xfimpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Weight Loss: Flats or Hills?

    What is more advantageous for losing weight: flats or hills?

    Your thoughts...

  2. #2
    Senior Member Garfield Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA
    My Bikes
    Cervelo Prodigy
    Posts
    4,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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. #3
    Senior Member garysol1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Avon , Ohio
    Posts
    9,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Richard Cranium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Deep in the Shawnee Forest
    My Bikes
    LeMond - Gunnar
    Posts
    2,786
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My thoughts are a mix of both
    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."

  5. #5
    Senior Member ericm979's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Santa Cruz Mountains
    Posts
    6,170
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member xfimpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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%.
    Last edited by xfimpg; 08-02-09 at 04:55 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    My Bikes
    Diamondback entry level.
    Posts
    263
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Roanoke, VA
    Posts
    554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've always been told that long, slower rides are the keys to losing weight. It has worked for me.

  9. #9
    Banned. ModoVincere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,626
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  10. #10
    Still Believes In Joy Joe_Mo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Flagstaff
    My Bikes
    Specialized Crosstrail, GT Force
    Posts
    151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    pop in the granny gear and climb!

  11. #11
    Senior Member xfimpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe_Mo View Post
    pop in the granny gear and climb!

  12. #12
    pedo viejo
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Northern Colorado
    My Bikes
    Specialized Allez, Salsa Pistola
    Posts
    538
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hills give you more motivation...

  13. #13
    Senior Member Richard Cranium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Deep in the Shawnee Forest
    My Bikes
    LeMond - Gunnar
    Posts
    2,786
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  14. #14
    Bad Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ewing, NJ
    My Bikes
    Raleigh Detour 4.0 [beautiful cobalt blue]
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  15. #15
    Surf Bum
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pacifica, CA
    My Bikes
    Vintage Trek, Vintage Diamond Back Mountain Bike, Bianchi Axis CrossBike
    Posts
    2,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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. #16
    Banned. ModoVincere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,626
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
    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."
    Quote Originally Posted by ModoVincere View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
    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.
    umm....check again.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ericm979 View 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.
    Wait so you're saying if I want to lose fat then I SHOULD NOT eat carbohydrates after the ride and it will burn more fat?

    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. #18
    Still Believes In Joy Joe_Mo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Flagstaff
    My Bikes
    Specialized Crosstrail, GT Force
    Posts
    151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    14 pounds in 4 weeks? jesus christ.

    be patient it'll go away. you've burned quite a lot.

  19. #19
    Senior Member xfimpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe_Mo View Post
    14 pounds in 4 weeks? jesus christ.

    be patient it'll go away. you've burned quite a lot.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •