Why riding bikes is a better way to lose weight than jogging.



B

Blair P. Houghton

Guest
Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>|| So yes. 50-65% MRH (or about 50% VO2max) is a very good
>|| and relaxing place to be if you are exercising to reduce
>|| your fat without the pain that high carbohydrate-burning
>|| activity can cause.
>
>if you ride for 4+ hours, you can spend a decent about of time above 85% and
>a good bit of time below 85%. On a bike you can rest/recover while riding.
>
>That's a major advantage of cycling. imo.


You can do that running, too.

It's just slower and harder on your feet and knees, and
may involve slowing to a walk to recover.

If you stay below your switchover point (from high
fat burning to high carb burning) you can essentially ride
until you run out of fat. For a 160 lb rider at 20 mph
with 10% bodyfat, that's about 2 days and nights.

--Blair
"You'll have to learn to pee from
your bike, though..."
 
P

Peter Cole

Guest
"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Chris Neary wrote:
>
> > Note that the table on page 176 places stationery cycling in the same
> > category as swimming (The table does not categorize "real" cycling, but

I
> > can't think of any reason why it's effect on bone health should be
> > significantly better than stationery cycling).

>
> Cycling on the road, as opposed to a stationary bike, induces
> vibration, and vibration increases bone density:
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_343550.htm


If that's true, then mountain biking should be even better.
 
D

dgk

Guest
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:56:45 -0700, Terry Morse <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> "Terry Morse" wrote:
>> >
>> > Cycling on the road, as opposed to a stationary bike, induces
>> > vibration, and vibration increases bone density:
>> >
>> > http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_343550.htm

>>
>> If that's true, then mountain biking should be even better.

>
>I suspect that you're right. Mountain biking is much rougher -- even
>on a full suspension.


I've noticed that mountain biking tends to break bones. Of course, I
wasn't very good at it.
 
P

Peter Cole

Guest
"dgk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:56:45 -0700, Terry Morse <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Peter Cole wrote:
> >
> >> "Terry Morse" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Cycling on the road, as opposed to a stationary bike, induces
> >> > vibration, and vibration increases bone density:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_343550.htm
> >>
> >> If that's true, then mountain biking should be even better.

> >
> >I suspect that you're right. Mountain biking is much rougher -- even
> >on a full suspension.

>
> I've noticed that mountain biking tends to break bones. Of course, I
> wasn't very good at it.


No, not true! Well, not after the learning curve period, anyway. I've only
broken ribs twice in 7-8 years. Of course there have been many cuts and
bruises, and a few bad cases of poison ivy, but I'm not worried about
osteoporosis! Seriously, I know as many people who have broken bones on the
road as on the trail. I also think trail skills make you a much better
(safer) road rider.
 
R

Robert Haston

Guest
1. There is no annoying gap between walk and jog speed.

2. Most of your energy is spent blowing wind over you. Jogging in Florida
(particularly downwind) is torture. I've cycled in the most miserable
afternoons, and it only hurts when I stop.
 
G

gds

Guest
[email protected] (Rush) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> The science of fat metabolism. why biking burns fat better than
> jogging.
> Fat burning occurs when you are at 65 percent heart rate. 85% is
> cardio training, and your body cannot metabolize fat at a fast enough
> rate to supply energy at this level of exertion, it therefor
> metabolized carbohydrate and not fat, uses up glycogen stores in the
> liver.


Is this true?
I've always understood it a bit different. It isn't that you don't
burn fat at higher levels of exertion; what I've understood is that in
fact you burn fat even faster at 85% than at 65%. But if you are
measuring fat burning per distance covered then the greater work level
results in faster speed so that you cover the distance in less time.
Or, put another way if you are covering a fixed distance you will
cover it much faster.
So, even if your fat burning increases by 5%, and if your speed
increases by 10% then the calories of fat burned per unit of distance
goes down.
But, if you measure fat consumption per unit of time the higher effort
would result in a higher figure.
Can't quote any research but it makes sense at the gut level.
 
H

HardwareLust

Guest
HardwareLust wrote:
> Rush wrote:
>> People
>> usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable
>> cutting through someone's yard.

>
> Don't feel comfortable tresspassing on someone else's property? I
> certainly would hope so, but that's not a terribly realistic
> statement.
>


Gotta keep reminding myself, "Do not post when in a bad mood".

My apologies to all.

Regards,
H.
 
T

Terry Morse

Guest
(gds) wrote:

> It isn't that you don't burn fat at higher levels of exertion;
> what I've understood is that in fact you burn fat even faster at
> 85% than at 65%.


I've read that absolute fat metabolic rate peaks at around 65-70%
VO2max, then decreases after that. Here's an excerpt from an article
in Velonews:

"At about 25 percent VO2 max, an intensity comparable to walking.
Eighty percent of the energy is supplied by fat in your blood, and a
bit from blood glucose. When your intensity increases to 65 percent
VO2 max (a slow ride or run), fat burning is at it's peak, but only
50 percent of the fuel is supplied by fat, and 50 percent from
glycogen. About half of the total fat fuel comes from muscle fat.
When training increases to 85 percent VO2 max, total fat burning
decreases slightly because fat cannot be utilized quickly enough to
meet energy needs. Only about 25 percent of this energy comes from
fat, mostly from muscle fat. However, highly trained athletes may
actually obtain 75 percent of their energy needs from fat when
training at 70 percent VO2 max. Endurance athletes are better fat
burners ."
http://www.velonews.com/train/articles/3543.0.html

For those who want to improve their performance on long rides/races,
maximizing fat burning is essential to spare glycogen stores. That's
supposed to be one of the reasons for doing all the "zone 2" (66-72%
of max. heart rate) training in the early season.
 
G

gds

Guest
Terry Morse <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> I've read that absolute fat metabolic rate peaks at around 65-70%
> VO2max, then decreases after that. Here's an excerpt from an article
> in Velonews:
>
> "At about 25 percent VO2 max, an intensity comparable to walking.
> Eighty percent of the energy is supplied by fat in your blood, and a
> bit from blood glucose. When your intensity increases to 65 percent
> VO2 max (a slow ride or run), fat burning is at it's peak, but only
> 50 percent of the fuel is supplied by fat, and 50 percent from
> glycogen. About half of the total fat fuel comes from muscle fat.
> When training increases to 85 percent VO2 max, total fat burning
> decreases slightly because fat cannot be utilized quickly enough to
> meet energy needs. Only about 25 percent of this energy comes from
> fat, mostly from muscle fat. However, highly trained athletes may
> actually obtain 75 percent of their energy needs from fat when
> training at 70 percent VO2 max. Endurance athletes are better fat
> burners ."
> http://www.velonews.com/train/articles/3543.0.html
>
> For those who want to improve their performance on long rides/races,
> maximizing fat burning is essential to spare glycogen stores. That's
> supposed to be one of the reasons for doing all the "zone 2" (66-72%
> of max. heart rate) training in the early season.


OK, but this isn't inconsistent with my point-- I think.
The article you quote talks about percentages of total burned
attributed to fat. But one still needs to calcualte the absolute
amount. So, hypothetically you can burn a smaller percentage from fat
but still burn more fat if your total energy consumptuion is higher by
enough. I don't have the data at my hands but the algebra certainly
works over a large range of values.

Anecdotally folks who ride a lot at the cardio level seem to be leaner
than folks who train mostly at the fat burning level. A riders tend
to be leaner than B who are leaner than C riders etc. So those who are
working harder seem to also be able to burn fat pretty well.(Of course
total training plays a role here as well as intensity)
 
T

the black rose

Guest
gds wrote:
> The article you quote talks about percentages of total burned
> attributed to fat. But one still needs to calcualte the absolute
> amount. So, hypothetically you can burn a smaller percentage from fat
> but still burn more fat if your total energy consumptuion is higher by
> enough. I don't have the data at my hands but the algebra certainly
> works over a large range of values.


I've seen the same sort of figures, somewhere, I can't remember where.
The thing that sticks out in my mind goes something like: at 65% vo2max,
you're burning a higher percentage of fat, but at 75% vo2max, you're
burning a lower percentage but a higher total amount of fat and a lot
more energy. And IIRC, your energy consumption isn't a linear
progression as your percentage of vo2max goes up.

> Anecdotally folks who ride a lot at the cardio level seem to be leaner
> than folks who train mostly at the fat burning level. A riders tend
> to be leaner than B who are leaner than C riders etc. So those who are
> working harder seem to also be able to burn fat pretty well.(Of course
> total training plays a role here as well as intensity)


Funny how that works, ain't it? *grin*

-km

--
Only cowards fight kids -- unidentified Moscow protester

http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
proud to be owned by a yorkie