Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    HIIT vs. long rides at slower pace

    Talk to me about HIIT vs. long rides at slower pace.

    I am looking to lose 10.4% fat and gain 8.1% muscle.

  2. #2
    Travelling hopefully chasm54's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    6,271
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Do both?

    You won't gain a huge amount of muscle cycling. For that you'd be better off spending some of your time in the gym.

    If your primary objective is weight loss, I'd recommend the long, steady distance approach. Obviously HIIT will consume the same number of calories in a shorter time on the bike, but my experience has been that I find it easier to control my appetite if I go down the lower intensity route. my speculation is that this results from the fact that I'm burning less glycogen, and therefore feel less compelled to replace those glycogen stores.

    If you want to lose weight and get as fit as possible, then do both. Mostly long, steady distance but with an HIIT session once a week or so.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    4,652
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with everything chasm wrote but what is your objective beyond losing a very specific amount of fat? Are you planning to race? Get faster? Look better?

    If, for example, you were trying to improve your sprinting it is very difficult, if not impossible, to improve your short term power/weight simultaneously. You either lose weight or increase power.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
    I agree with everything chasm wrote but what is your objective beyond losing a very specific amount of fat? Are you planning to race? Get faster? Look better?

    If, for example, you were trying to improve your sprinting it is very difficult, if not impossible, to improve your short term power/weight simultaneously. You either lose weight or increase power.
    Well, I am ugly. So looking better probably will not happen. :-)

    Seriously, I don't plan on racing. I don't need to get faster or go further. This is all about getting fit.

    So far I have lost some weight and lowered my BP. But I have a long way to go. I don't want to have to build muscle because I lost it while losing weight.
    Last edited by RWBlue01; 07-29-12 at 05:19 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    St. Cloud, MN
    My Bikes
    Soma Double Cross DC, Salsa Vaya, Redline D440, '87 Schwinn Super Sport
    Posts
    578
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The age old question. There is no answer. Compromise is the key. I have spent many years trying to answer this question with no success. My OPINION is this... Weight loss is about diet, period. Excersize is about quality of life. It is a strange concept but the fact is if you excersize your body will burn fat, and then you will get hungry. Interestingly excersize will also make your body use calories more efficiently so theoretically the more you excersize the fewer calories you will burn at rest. Just saying....
    I do not claim to be a doctor, scientist, genie, bike magician, good looking, or qualified in any way. The contents of my post are opinions and should be taken as such.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by digger531 View Post
    My OPINION is this... Weight loss is about diet, period.
    The key here is, this isn't about weight loss. This is about fat loss.

    Weight is a horrible way to measure health. %fat and %muscle are much better ways to measure health.


    BTW, For those who have the fancy scales. I have figured out hydration plays a key role in my %scores. I went up 1% in fat last night. I have no idea if my scores are more accurate after I hydrate or when I am slightly dehydrated. I guess in the end it doesn't really matter.
    Last edited by RWBlue01; 07-29-12 at 10:13 AM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    4,652
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RWBlue01 View Post
    The key here is, this isn't about weight loss. This is about fat loss.

    Weight is a horrible way to measure health. %fat and %muscle are much better ways to measure health.


    BTW, For those who have the fancy scales. I have figured out hydration plays a key role in my %scores. I went up 1% in fat last night. I have no idea if my scores are more accurate after I hydrate or when I am slightly dehydrated. I guess in the end it doesn't really matter.
    Your fancy scales do not accurately measure fat %. Your fat % won't change 1% in a day. As far as losing muscle mass, it's quite likely you'll lose some mass on your legs if you plan on dropping a lot of weight. It's a natural by product of not lugging around extra weight.

    What exactly do you mean when you say you want to lose 10% fat? Do you mean you want to drop your fat % from 22 to 12 or reduce the total amount of fat by 10%? The latter being much easier than the former.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
    Your fancy scales do not accurately measure fat %. Your fat % won't change 1% in a day. As far as losing muscle mass, it's quite likely you'll lose some mass on your legs if you plan on dropping a lot of weight. It's a natural by product of not lugging around extra weight.

    What exactly do you mean when you say you want to lose 10% fat? Do you mean you want to drop your fat % from 22 to 12 or reduce the total amount of fat by 10%? The latter being much easier than the former.
    The fancy scale used impedance to approximate %fat and %muscle. On normal people it appears to be fairly accurate (within 2%). But because it uses impedance things like dehydration.......

    The I want to drop my fat% 10.4%. Yes, I have enough fat that that brings me down into the normal healthy range.
    Last edited by RWBlue01; 07-29-12 at 07:42 PM.

  9. #9
    Question Authority JoeMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Oregon USA
    My Bikes
    Rocky Mountain Solo 30, 2007 REI Novara Safari and Cannondale MTB
    Posts
    276
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A good but a bit technical read on this topic is: Cutting-Edge Cycling by Allen and Cheung (2012).

  10. #10
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    7,545
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chasm54 View Post
    Do both?

    You won't gain a huge amount of muscle cycling. For that you'd be better off spending some of your time in the gym.

    If your primary objective is weight loss, I'd recommend the long, steady distance approach. Obviously HIIT will consume the same number of calories in a shorter time on the bike, but my experience has been that I find it easier to control my appetite if I go down the lower intensity route. my speculation is that this results from the fact that I'm burning less glycogen, and therefore feel less compelled to replace those glycogen stores.

    If you want to lose weight and get as fit as possible, then do both. Mostly long, steady distance but with an HIIT session once a week or so.
    Yes, this is what works. I also believe this speculation is correct. I find the discipline to do this hard to come by - that's the only drawback for me. I just like to go hard too much, so then I have to ramp the glycogen back up, and there's always some slop to that which winds up replacing the lost fat. Eh. I have fun, anyway.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    NZ
    My Bikes
    More than 1, but, less than S-1
    Posts
    3,313
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If weight loss and general fitness are your goal I would consider focussing on rides of increasing duration before worrying about HIIT. Long moderate rides will burn more calories and still increase your metabolism. HIIT is largely focused on increasing strength and speed. While you certainly burn calories during HIIT, the work outs or at least the "high intensity" portions of them tend to be realatively short. HIIT also requires significant 'recovery" periods between workouts, where more moderate distance based training will allow more back to back days on the bike and subsequently calories burned.

    I agree with the others with regard to building muscle mass. You'll need to go to the gym for that.
    Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.

Posting Permissions

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