# ...is it better to ride shorter and more frequently or longer and less frequently?



## Bigtallfatbloke (21 Sep 2007)

currently I am doing 35km and 20 km loops on alternate days and riding everyday of the week. I am finding it pretty easy going but I am not losing any weight anymore...should I increase the loop sizes or ride say one 100km a week and a smaller ride....does it make any difference?


----------



## Panter (21 Sep 2007)

Apparently, and please understand that I know bugger all about it personally, you should do moderate intensity 2 times a Week as a minimum for less than 2 hours but once a Week or fortnight do a substained ride of over 2 Hours.

This was told to me by someone training for a personal trainer type qualification thingy. Its all to do with how the body utilises carbohydrates, and can only efficiently use carbs for up to 2 Hours. After this time, you start to burn fat.

Like I say though, its just what I was told 

Cheers

Chris


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (21 Sep 2007)

Thanks Chris...that makes sense to me...I reckon I'll start doing x1 100km a week and x4shorter rides from now on


----------



## Panter (21 Sep 2007)

Good luck 

I'm having real trouble shifting the weight at the moment. It fell off quite quickly to start with and now I seem to have hit a bit of a plateau. The trouble seems to be finding the time to do the long ride at the Weekends, what with having a family at home.

I'm going to start going out early morning at the weekends, should be able to get up, out and back before the family wake, hopefully. 

Cheers

Chris


----------



## stevenb (21 Sep 2007)

I tdepends on what you want to gain from it BTFB.
Slower and longer distances will increase your stamina no end...
Short powerful blasts will build muscle more so.
As you have said though...a blend of the two will get you fit pretty sharpish.

I found that including hills to climb into distance rides helped to as as soon as got to the top I'd monitor how long it would take to regain a normal breathing pattern. the quicker you recover the fitter you are.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (21 Sep 2007)

...actually i reckon I am getting pretty fit on the leg department...I can get up hills round here that used to kill me and not be out of breath at the top...but i still need to shift a lot of fat from my belly and chest areas...so it is fat burning I want this winter....I am also going to start swimming...well that is th eplan.


----------



## stevenb (23 Sep 2007)

Nice one.
It's hard to lose around the belly...I had that issue. When I joined the Police I was 13st 9lbs and I'm 5'9". B the time I left I was 1st 4lbs and an awful lot fitter...although I was on a high protein diet....I had to balance it out with increased carbs as I was starting to get quite ill.
Anyway, the best thing you can do is swimming and cycling.
Do you drink beer? If so, cut it out....entirely....for a month and see the results. Don't snack between meals if poss and if you must then eat a banana or an apple.
You'll get there in time....don't force yourself into it at once...I've done that a few times before both ways....lost weight and gained weight quickly...and it made me ill every time.


----------



## Membrane (23 Sep 2007)

Bigtallfatbloke said:


> currently I am doing 35km and 20 km loops on alternate days and riding everyday of the week. I am finding it pretty easy going but I am not losing any weight anymore...should I increase the loop sizes or ride say one 100km a week and a smaller ride....does it make any difference?



With regard to burning off fat, afaik it is mainly about how much time you spend on the bike (in total). It is commonly accepted that when staying below 70% of your maximum heart rate, fat is burned preferentially (shifting to carbs being burned preferentially above that). So if burning off fat is your main aim, it suggests that you should be taking it fairly easy (avoid strenuous climbing). This isn't a balanced exercise regime though, I'd suggest that you do one ride per week where you push yourself.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (23 Sep 2007)

so if I understand you correctly I should be doing longer, less strenuous but steady pace rides?


----------



## Mortiroloboy (23 Sep 2007)

stevenb said:


> Nice one.
> It's hard to lose around the belly...I had that issue. When I joined the Police I was 13st 9lbs and I'm 5'9". B the time I left I was 1st 4lbs and an awful lot fitter...although I was on a high protein diet....I had to balance it out with increased carbs as I was starting to get quite ill.
> Anyway, the best thing you can do is swimming and cycling.
> Do you drink beer? If so, cut it out....entirely....for a month and see the results. Don't snack between meals if poss and if you must then eat a banana or an apple.
> You'll get there in time....don't force yourself into it at once...I've done that a few times before both ways....lost weight and gained weight quickly...and it made me ill every time.



Were you the Dunstable Constable? Sorry just couldn't resist that


----------



## Panter (23 Sep 2007)

Apparently, the 2 hour plus thing is fairly critical. I don't understand why as you need to consume some carbs on a long ride which was explained to me by "if you don't eat the carbs you can't burn the fat" 

Clear as mud really.


If its of interest, I can pm you the info that was given to me. I'd feel a bit akward posting it on a public forum without permission from the sender.


----------



## Blonde (24 Sep 2007)

Just in terms of losing weight - all that matters is calorie expenditure. So there's no difference - you need to work out approximate KCals burned per short session, add them up and compare that total to the total KCals burned in your single longer session. If however you're training for something specific: Long rides are good for endurance and a general increase in fitness (in terms of resting HR, Max HR etc and also in terms of body adaptation to cycling. This type of fitness is slowly built up though - think years, not months). It is not good for increasing speed or strength particularly - although of course the more you cycle the more these will naturally increase anyway within reason. However, you are more likely to wear yourself down and get ill riding long distances (especially if not built up very gradually) in all weathers. Speed/strength work does exactly that but wont increase your base fitness beyond a certain point. All types will burn KCals which is what you want to lose weight. I suggest that you need to do both types for a healthy balance. Most people use steadier base miles to keep fitness ticking over through winter than training for something specific in spring using strength/speed work or more specific training for their chosen event(s).

You say you have reached a plateau in terms of weight loss. This is common and means (assuming you haven't started eating more KCals than previously) that your body has adapted to the training you are doing so needs fewer calories to do it (ie. you have become fitter - which is a good thing). Therefore you are going to have to up your training levels in order to loose more weight. This can be done either way - more short sessions than you currently do, or, longer rides. You may also want to look at your diet and see if there is any excess KCal input that you could cut out.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (24 Sep 2007)

Many thanks for that

...My diet is pretty good, although I do tend to eat a lot of bread still...I fill up on carbs befre the ride and protien after the ride. I dont really think I can cut back much more on food and still feel ok to ride like this. I no longer drink alcohol and my only liquid intake is water and herbal teas in large amounts!

My intention is to build in some swimming as well as riding...we'll see how that goes as the local pool isnt so great. Another idea I had was to gradually introduce am and pm rides...so that i would do say 20km in the morning then have a long break and then head out again in the evening for another 20km....then gradually increase each ride until I am capable of riding all day non stop day after day.....ok it's a pipe dream and possible excessive, but It's something to aim for so that i can do my tour next year.

Just one other question....how does the use of energy drinks affect weight loss? I would typically not drink any on a shorter (35km) ride but would drink one or even two on a 90km ride at the moment.


----------



## Blonde (24 Sep 2007)

Energy Drinks contain KCals so obviously you are putting back some of what you are burning off. However, if you need them to avoid the bonk, don't stop using them altogether on longer rides. You may be able to use less though. I find I only need them on very hilly/intense effort rides these days or when it is very cold (when you use more KCals just being alive and staying warm). I do use electrolytes drink in hot weather. You can get drinks that do not contain sugar or KCals/energy, but only the electrolyte salts found in most energy drinks. One brand of these is Called Nuun but there are other brands as well if you want to stop taking in as many KCals but still want the hydration benefits of the electrolytes.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (24 Sep 2007)

That is interesting..I didnt know that. I hav ebeen drinking lucoszade sports isotonic as I go around, but I am as you say finging that I need it less and less and only on the longer rides or like today...into a serious headwind.


----------



## bof (25 Sep 2007)

I'm not sure it will help weight loss per se, but I felt it has better helped me cope with long rides living largely off fat, is what is called 'bonk training'. The idea is that you go for a 90 minute ride after you get up having consumed no calories (ie just water/black coffee or whatever) and it is supposed to make the body cope better without carbs. 

The name is misleading because you should not bonk - stopping after 90 minutes should ensure this. The only time I did was because I was up a couple of hours first and doing stuff round the house before I set off - so bonked after quite a short time.

Incidentally I only consume water on any normal ride up to around 2 hours. I just take a snack in case. You may find it makes no difference to your pace swapping to water for your shorter rides.


----------



## Blonde (26 Sep 2007)

BTW - by 'long' rides. I was actually thinking of those of 100 miles plus (so, say 6 hours plus) rather than those of two hours. 

I cycle to work (about 42 mins/13 miles both ways) usually at a moderate to high intensity (sprinting between lights etc) so I guess those could be used as 'shorter intense' rides - 5 times a week, plus a longer ride of about four to eight hours at weekends.

I don't seem to need energy drinks even on 100 milers any more, as long as I eat proper meals at my usual meal times - so I stop for lunch etc. I prefer to eat 'normal' meals anyway, rather than substitute real meals with energy drinks. I use energy bars for topping up with, if needed. I used to get low blood sugar (whether on or off the bike) and, when cycling, needed to eat a half bar or piece of malt loaf every 20 to 30 miles! I discovered that this was due to my high GI (high sugar - in my case, mostly fructose in fresh and dried fruit) diet and to a Candida infection in the gut and since addressing this (by following an anti-Candida diet for two months and now eating mostly low GI food and rationing my fruit intake to one or two pieces a day) I don't get low blood sugar at all any more, so don't actually need to eat at all between meals now, whether on or off the bike. I get through less than half the amount of energy bars on a ride that I used to - maybe just one or two maximum, on a 200km ride and using plain water, with no energy drink added.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (26 Sep 2007)

wow...it must be great to be that fit

I will keep on keeping on and one day will get that fit as well.


----------



## stevenb (26 Sep 2007)

All good advice here. 
You have to find the best training method to suit your needs...once you try out a few things over a period of time then see what works best for you.


----------



## greenmark (30 Sep 2007)

Basically, the higher the intensity then more of your calories are burned from your glucogen (a complex carbohydrate) stores because its the fuel that is used for anaerobic energy release.

For lower intensity you'll be burning mostly fat. There is a limit to how fast you can metabolise fat - if you use too much power then you'll you hit that limit and for any extra energy you'll be burning glucogen. Actually after a certain intensity you start reducing your fat burn in favour of glucogen.

Every person has about a two hour store of glucogen for higher intensities. When you run out of it, you don't start burning fat - you'll experience the bonk and then simply stop.

So in order to burn fat - you're best bet is low intensity because you can keep burning the fat for longer before getting tired.

You can replenish your glucogen stores by eating carbohydrates - but once you've replenished them beyong what you're able to store then any further carbohydrate you eat gets converted to fat. The best time to maximise conversion of carbos to glucogen is to eat them immediately after exercise or even during exercise - so the energy drinks you consume aren't going to be converted to fat. 

If you want to get fitter rather than trying to lose fat then you'd want to try going at high intensity. Your body then tries to compensate to try to burn fat for any future high intensity episodes - by increasing the rate at which oxygen can reach your muscles with bigger lungs, more powerful heart, increases blood supply to the required muscles.

If you eat fat it never gets converted to glucogen. It just remains as fat. So a diet high in carbos will maximise the chance that the calories won't get converted to fat. Strength training will also mean increase in muscle mass which use up more energy when you're resting.


----------



## stuart (19 Oct 2007)

although new thinking says that given a fixed amount of time, you are better off going as hard as possible during that time - if your only goal is to lose weight - as the overall increase in the body's metabolism will burn more calories when you are not exercising


----------



## bonj2 (19 Oct 2007)

greenmark - I think you mean gl*y*cogen, not glucogen


----------

