'On yer bike' says Boris...

[labbby]

Being hostile to people will not change them, you have to encourage them and they have to want to live a healthier lifestyle.

If you think think that is hostile you best stay in doors.. I was simply asking a question

I have great interest in this type of topic because I used to be a very lazy overweight person until about 6 years ago..

Best lifestyle change I made

 

[AndyCr15]

I think the idea and research for HIIT is that as you are going to max HR (or nearer), and for shorter periods of time, your calorie burn rate is higher after you stop ie. you continue to burn more calories for a period after exercising

Hmm, yeah, I maybe remember reading that at one point.

I still think an hour would be more beneficial for fat burn... but that is totally a guess

 

[labbby]

But if 20 minutes HIIT is almsot the same 'effort' as 60 minutes low effort, for losing weight (not necessarily getting fit) the latter, is better, right? After all the fat burn zone is about 70% of you max?

But if 20 minutes HIIT is almsot the same 'effort' as 60 minutes low effort, for losing weight (not necessarily getting fit) the latter, is better, right? After all the fat burn zone is about 70% of you max?

If you are doing it for weight loss purposes go with what you enjoy the most. HIIT is great for getting into the higher heart rate zones

 

[Shadowness]

Plus if you are varying your HR more while exercising, the better.

If you take it casually for 60 mins, and do that regularly, you're body will get used to you ticking over. (not that I'm saying its worse than nothing!)

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Surely the better you get at running, the lighter you get and the less calories you burn per hour?



I weigh 210, but given 180 it would be 630 in 35 minutes. What did I say? 660? So my extra 30lbs, sounds about spot on? (I was running a 9:50 mile)

No because the better you get at running you run faster and further. Regardless of getting lighter you eventually hit an equilibrium.

It takes the same amount of calories to walk a mile as it does to run a mile.

Being lighter, faster and fitter means you run more miles in the same time as a fatter, slower and unhealthy person. So it's actually likley a similar calorie burn unless the person is 40 stone or something stupid.

 

[Dis86]

I don't understand this, are you saying doing 1000 calories worth of excercise isn't the same as eating 1000 less calories?

Gutted the voucher is shops only, I'm in need of a new rear tyre and chain.

The problem is it's very easy to eat 1k calories. It's very hard to burn it off.

Also gutted about it being shops only, wanted a pair of road tyres for my hardtail.

 

[UTmaniac]

I think the idea and research for HIIT is that as you are going to max HR (or nearer), and for shorter periods of time, your calorie burn rate is higher after you stop ie. you continue to burn more calories for a period after exercising, where as an hour low effort, you will return back to BMR relatively quickly.

I think.

As a comparison, I did a 1hr20min ride at 94% Intensity according to my 4iiii power meter the other day which allegedly burned 1214 Calories, while a 3hr55min ride at 75% Intensity burned 2845 Calories.

 

[Junglist]

As a comparison, I did a 1hr20min ride at 94% Intensity according to my 4iiii power meter the other day which allegedly burned 1214 Calories, while a 3hr55min ride at 75% Intensity burned 2845 Calories.

I want to work out what I'm doing wrong! On my 2:46 ride on the weekend I only burned 1195 active calories /1500 total calories! It wasn't a particulary intense cycle but I don't know how much harder I'd have to push to burn that many in almost half the time!

 

[jpaul]

If you are doing it for weight loss purposes go with what you enjoy the most. HIIT is great for getting into the higher heart rate zones

but the higher heart rate zones are aerobic and not 'fat burning' eg. https://munchercruncher.com/2010/03/mythbusters-fat-burning-zone/
you may burn energy faster with the HIT (hopefully not damaging anything too) but would be burning up, is it, glycogen resources, in the muscles and not as much fat.

I think this whole busy lives, I must do my exercise faster, paradigm has it's limitations, if the faster exercise is more efficient to meet your goals, no more injury prone, and (personally) does not detract from enjoyment, then fine.

[

It takes the same amount of calories to walk a mile as it does to run a mile.

not sure that's right ... eg if you do it faster there is more heat and less efficiency in the muscles
]

 

[Shadowness]

It's surprising how much less you burn when you drop the intensity.

I'd have to ride for 3 hours or so at very low intensity to achieve the same TSS (stress score) as a full on hour effort.

I did a 6 hour zone 1/2 indoor ride at the weekend (51% intensity factor), I ended up with the same TSS as a 3 hour club ride on the previous weekend (72% intensity factor)

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I want to work out what I'm doing wrong! On my 2:46 ride on the weekend I only burned 1195 active calories /1500 total calories! It wasn't a particulary intense cycle but I don't know how much harder I'd have to push to burn that many in almost half the time!

People's calculations will be way off. Doesn't matter if you use a heart rate monitor either as different people have different rates in different zones.

I had when I used to run every day a resting heart rate of 45 beats per minute.

That's apparently athlete territory and I wasn't exactly mo farah.

 

[AndyCr15]

Being lighter, faster and fitter means you run more miles in the same time as a fatter, slower and unhealthy person. So it's actually likley a similar calorie burn unless the person is 40 stone or something stupid.

The study you quoted seems to agree with me. Keep the same pace and you burn more when you're heavy per minute. I believe the gain in speed won't match the loss of weight. This is speaking from experience to. Even at a faster pace I have to cycle a lot further and for a lot longer to burn the same calories that I did when I was 302 lbs last year.

 

[Junglist]

People's calculations will be way off. Doesn't matter if you use a heart rate monitor either as different people have different rates in different zones.

I had when I used to run every day a resting heart rate of 45 beats per minute.

That's apparently athlete territory and I wasn't exactly mo farah.

I've got some work to do as I'm only ~53-55 for my resting rate. Though I use an AppleWatch S3 so not sure how accurate it is.

Seeing my BMI be higher than I expected has made me try and have some non snacking days. Shall see how that makes a difference after a few weeks

 

[robj20]

People's calculations will be way off. Doesn't matter if you use a heart rate monitor either as different people have different rates in different zones.

I had when I used to run every day a resting heart rate of 45 beats per minute.

That's apparently athlete territory and I wasn't exactly mo farah.

At my peak my resting rate was an average of 42, at the minute it's 49.
I'm far from lightweight but I go on my bike a few times a week and absolutely give it all.
Using Garmin I always aim for a 5+ on both the aerobic and anaerobic training effect. Always see my max heart rate at least a couple of times each ride.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I've got some work to do as I'm only ~53-55 for my resting rate. Though I use an AppleWatch S3 so not sure how accurate it is.

Seeing my BMI be higher than I expected has made me try and have some non snacking days. Shall see how that makes a difference after a few weeks

They are pretty much spot on.

Your resting heart rate may just be higher because of your body or genetics.

There are tribes out their that can lower their heart rates for deep see diving and genetically they are different from the rest of us as they have been doing it centuries. They can free dive much farther than others.

 

[robj20]

Watches are very accurate. When my son was on oxygen at home he had a full hospital HR and sats monitor so checked my Garmin Fenix and it was bang on.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

The study you quoted seems to agree with me. Keep the same pace and you burn more when you're heavy per minute. I believe the gain in speed won't match the loss of weight. This is speaking from experience to. Even at a faster pace I have to cycle a lot further and for a lot longer to burn the same calories that I did when I was 302 lbs last year.

Yeah fat people burn more as they have more weight to move at the same speed. That is physics.

Energy equals mass times acceleration.

As the mass gets lower acceleration needs to increase to equal it out.

The problem is people can have a lot of mass but its hard to get a lot of acceleration in terms of moving your whole body.

I'm willing to bet if Usain bolt could run a 5k at his 10 second pace you would see some phenomenal amount of calories being burned.

 

[AndyCr15]

Yeah, I'm sure, but he can't.

Looking back at Strava's stats, at 300lbs and 13mph I would burn around 1,050 cals an hour. Now at 210lbs and 18mph I burn about 900 cals an hour.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Yeah, I'm sure, but he can't.

Looking back at Strava's stats, at 300lbs and 13mph I would burn around 1,050 cals an hour. Now at 210lbs and 18mph I burn about 900 cals an hour.

What's that a 15% decrease in calorie burn?

You would need to increase your speed by 15% or so. But remember it's actually acceleration not speed need a physics expert for the proper calculations.

Also during that time have you changed bikes, what you wear, etc.

As in you started on a crap bike now ride a much more efficient bike for transfer of power. So less power is being lost and you have gotten more effecient at riding a bike so lose less energy through ineffeciencies.

 

[Dis86]

not sure that's right ... eg if you do it faster there is more heat and less efficiency in the muscles
]

It's broadly accurate. You're doing the same amount of work, i.e. the same mass is being moved the same distance. There are some losses of efficiency when running because you tend to have more vertical movement vs walking and as you say there's more heat which may require increased heart rate although that's of limited effect. That doesn't decrease efficiency in the muscles though.