What's the best way to burn off fat on my commute?
Discussion
My commute is 15 miles each way, and I get to do it 3-4 days per week. It's basically flat, but has 81 sets of traffic lights, 70 of which are in one half of the journey. I've been doing it for the last 12 weeks, and have so far notched up just over 1,000 miles.
Question is, what's the best way to use it? My goals are to lose fat and gain fitness.
At the moment, I just try to ride as fast as I can, and aim to keep my cadence high. Does that make sense? Would I be better off doing intervals of some sort, and if so, what?
Given that it is after all my commute, there's no point doing something that will leave me so knackered that I can't ride the next leg, but other than that I'm happy to experiment. There's also no point trying to set myself targets against the clock for overall time, as the nature of the route into Central London and all those traffic lights is such that it's impossible to compare any two journeys.
I'll be getting a Garmin Edge 500 (or 800, if I can get away with it) for my birthday next month, so will be able to make use of accurate cadence & heart rate measurements from then, if that helps with recommendations.
Any suggestions welcome!
Question is, what's the best way to use it? My goals are to lose fat and gain fitness.
At the moment, I just try to ride as fast as I can, and aim to keep my cadence high. Does that make sense? Would I be better off doing intervals of some sort, and if so, what?
Given that it is after all my commute, there's no point doing something that will leave me so knackered that I can't ride the next leg, but other than that I'm happy to experiment. There's also no point trying to set myself targets against the clock for overall time, as the nature of the route into Central London and all those traffic lights is such that it's impossible to compare any two journeys.
I'll be getting a Garmin Edge 500 (or 800, if I can get away with it) for my birthday next month, so will be able to make use of accurate cadence & heart rate measurements from then, if that helps with recommendations.
Any suggestions welcome!
Harpo said:
81? Feck. That would really hack me off.
It's not so bad once you get used to it! I was speaking to another cyclist - whilst stopped at one of the sets one morning - who said he had 106 sets on his commute in to Moorgate!Obviously you don't get stopped at every set every time, and putting in enough of a burst of speed to get through a set which usually changes to red as you approach it is a really good counterbalance to the frustration they can cause.
The section with the lights obviously lends itself well to interval training, although I don't really know what would produce best results - try to hit maximum acceleration and speed between each set? Between every few sets?
The other half of the journey has much less in the way of stoppages, but has the inclines, such as they are.
To burn fat you need to keep your heart rate at a moderate level so that you're working aerobically. If you are tagging it then your body is using fuel anaerobically and won't burn anywhere near as much fat. Also with that many lights you could practice your track stands rather than stopping dead, that should burn a few more ounces.
nammynake said:
To burn fat you need to keep your heart rate at a moderate level so that you're working aerobically. If you are tagging it then your body is using fuel anaerobically and won't burn anywhere near as much fat. Also with that many lights you could practice your track stands rather than stopping dead, that should burn a few more ounces.
I have recently discovered that this seems to be something of a flawed view, which is partly what prompted me to post this thread. Whilst exercising at a moderate rate will indeed take a greater percentage of calories from fat, as you increase the intensity, so you increase the total number of calories used. Most of this increase comes from glycogen rather than fat, so the percentage burnt from fat drops, but not the actual amount of fat burnt.
Ultimately, as well, regardless of where the calories were burnt from, your body is still going to use food in to replenish then, no? So whilst calories in are going to replenish glucogen, they can't be laying down more fat.
The first bit I'm sure of. The second bit is a theory, which people are welcome to confirm or disprove if they could.
Kermit power said:
I have recently discovered that this seems to be something of a flawed view, which is partly what prompted me to post this thread.
Whilst exercising at a moderate rate will indeed take a greater percentage of calories from fat, as you increase the intensity, so you increase the total number of calories used. Most of this increase comes from glycogen rather than fat, so the percentage burnt from fat drops, but not the actual amount of fat burnt.
Ultimately, as well, regardless of where the calories were burnt from, your body is still going to use food in to replenish then, no? So whilst calories in are going to replenish glucogen, they can't be laying down more fat.
The first bit I'm sure of. The second bit is a theory, which people are welcome to confirm or disprove if they could.
Your explanation is needlessly complicated.Whilst exercising at a moderate rate will indeed take a greater percentage of calories from fat, as you increase the intensity, so you increase the total number of calories used. Most of this increase comes from glycogen rather than fat, so the percentage burnt from fat drops, but not the actual amount of fat burnt.
Ultimately, as well, regardless of where the calories were burnt from, your body is still going to use food in to replenish then, no? So whilst calories in are going to replenish glucogen, they can't be laying down more fat.
The first bit I'm sure of. The second bit is a theory, which people are welcome to confirm or disprove if they could.
If you eat more than you use, you gain fat.
If you use more than you eat, you lose fat.
You can focus on exercising more, or eating fewer calories. It doesn't really matter, except for large values of "using" and small values of "eating", where you deplete your all glycogen stores, bonk, and have to lie in a ditch motionless waiting for the pizza delivery.
30 miles a day, you are going to burn all the fat you could ever want to, regardless of how you do it.
Assuming Endomondo is roughly accurate with its calories burnt estimates (a big assumption, I know), you'll be using ~1750 calories per day. At that rate you can eat 50% more than your RDA each day and still loose weight.
Assuming Endomondo is roughly accurate with its calories burnt estimates (a big assumption, I know), you'll be using ~1750 calories per day. At that rate you can eat 50% more than your RDA each day and still loose weight.
swerni said:
nammynake said:
To burn fat you need to keep your heart rate at a moderate level so that you're working aerobically. If you are tagging it then your body is using fuel anaerobically and won't burn anywhere near as much fat. Also with that many lights you could practice your track stands rather than stopping dead, that should burn a few more ounces.
Are you a doctor or did you read that somewhere?Mr Will said:
30 miles a day, you are going to burn all the fat you could ever want to, regardless of how you do it.
Very true - I've been walking to work the last few weeks and even the hour of walking a day has made a pretty big difference. 30 miles on a bike every day will have you whippet thin in no time. swerni said:
goldblum said:
swerni said:
nammynake said:
To burn fat you need to keep your heart rate at a moderate level so that you're working aerobically. If you are tagging it then your body is using fuel anaerobically and won't burn anywhere near as much fat. Also with that many lights you could practice your track stands rather than stopping dead, that should burn a few more ounces.
Are you a doctor or did you read that somewhere?The body is more effective at burning fat within certain heart rate thresholds, that is pretty undeniable.
Yes if you go beyond that threshold you won't burn as much fat,
however
That is relative to the amount of energy you put in.
To be at a higher threshold you will be exerting much more energy thus burning both fat and more glycogen which pretty much negates the argument for going slower.
ride it like you stole it
'ride it like you stole it' will reap the most rewards.
Edited by goldblum on Saturday 23 July 14:34
Mr Will said:
30 miles a day, you are going to burn all the fat you could ever want to, regardless of how you do it.
Assuming Endomondo is roughly accurate with its calories burnt estimates (a big assumption, I know), you'll be using ~1750 calories per day. At that rate you can eat 50% more than your RDA each day and still loose weight.
if the cycling is on road, it's highly unlikely you'll burn through 1750 calories in just 30 miles, especially if it's a road bike (not known here). 30 flat miles on a road bike will less than 1000 calories, probably nearer 8-900 at the most. 1750kcals is what you'd get from running 17-18 miles, which is a hell of a lot more energy-consuming than cycling 30. Assuming Endomondo is roughly accurate with its calories burnt estimates (a big assumption, I know), you'll be using ~1750 calories per day. At that rate you can eat 50% more than your RDA each day and still loose weight.
E21_Ross said:
if the cycling is on road, it's highly unlikely you'll burn through 1750 calories in just 30 miles, especially if it's a road bike (not known here). 30 flat miles on a road bike will less than 1000 calories, probably nearer 8-900 at the most. 1750kcals is what you'd get from running 17-18 miles, which is a hell of a lot more energy-consuming than cycling 30.
Every calorie calculator I can find comes out at somewhere near that figure. The fact that there is 18 stone of me ups the count somewhat.If it was flat and uninterrupted, then I'd be more sceptical, but the stop/start nature of it pretty much ensures no coasting.
OneDs said:
The best way is to turn your 30mile round trip into a 40mile round trip by finding a route that has less stops. Given less stops you might even increase your av speed to more or less do the trip in a similar time.
It's a nice thought, but I'm commuting into Waterloo from Surrey, so I would be very surprised if a route with fewer stops actually exists!Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff