I eat lots, I combat this by a fairly intense running session of 5k run/5k cross train or 10k run no cross train.
I'm hoping to start cycling to and from work, roughly 12 miles round trip mainly flat tarmac.
Will this commute burn enough calories for me to stop the running but continue the eating?
The best way to work it out (because it's slightly different for everyone) is to work it out using an HRM. Having said all that, I found that I was surprised by the amount of calories I burned in say, doing a lap of Cwm Carn compared to the same time spent running - quite frightening how much more I burned on the cycle.
Then there's the paradox of when I'm running regularly I'm just that bit slimmer than when I'm cycling regularly.
Who knows?
Whats the frequency of the run/ cross train currently? Daily? And will the commute be daily?
I was led to believe that it wasn't so much the calories burnt during exercise that counted, but, the raise in your metabolic rate for the 24 hours after the exercise that really burnt the calories.
Chris
Whats the frequency of the run/ cross train currently? Daily? And will the commute be daily?
Monday to Friday with the odd extra day thrown in, commute would be the same.
Thats a good idea darcy I have a HRM, essentially I would like the commute to be equal to the running so I maintain my current weight.
But did you run around Cwm carn to compare? If you're road running surely it isn't really comparable even though you did specify time as the comparitive measure. For example I did a 70 min ride on my SS this afternoon. Mainly towpath with some other track and rest road. My HRM says that I used about 670 calories. I couldn't jog that route, nowhere near fit enough and don't run/jog. But I reckon that if I did a walk/jog of that route as quick as I could manage, which is what my ride was, I reckon I'd be up nearer to 1000cal.
Generally speaking running should be more calorie intensive as you are supporting all of your body weight and you don't get any "free" travel as you do on a bike on descents. Obviously climbing on a bike means that you are having to lift the bikes weight too but you have the mechanical advantage of gearing.
12miles on an mtb with slicks is probably in the 50 to 70 minute bracket depending how fit you are, tyre choice and route.
My feeling is that you would be close on calorific consumption, maybe slightly under. You can always find a couple extra miles when nights get lighter/weather improves on your way home for very little extra time cost. An extra 10 mins an evening. maybe one evening try to add an extra 30mins to make sure.
Ok, in that case....the bike will burn more....the variations given to by hills and resistance will vary the heart rate between a fat burn rate & followed by a cardio fitness rate (which is optimum fat burn as it helps the metabolic rate after the exercise has finished). Ideally you need to keep your heart rate in the fat burning zone, but with a some cardio heart rate zone, which will maintain the fitness - so to this end a HRM would be great! This optimum fat burn zone will depend on your current rest rate & your current higher rate? But if you get that right on the bike, more calories & probably fitness benefits will show!
Cycling is waaaaay more energy efficient than running. Therefore, you'll burn more calories running than cycling over the same distance.
No shit
I read in Mens Health that (on average)...
60 mins cycling = 30 mins running = 10 mins skipping
Cheers guys, it sounds like it will be similar which is good I shall use the HRM to judge though as don't want to become to fat on the build up to summer.
It really does depend.....10k on treadmill running, will be less resistance than a 12k ride on the road with hills etc....therefore less calories.
EDIT: talls - the above isn't in response to your post above, its in relation to the previous two posts.
60 mins cycling = 30 mins running = 10 mins skipping
I'd say thats load of rubbish if your good at skipping you barely even leave the ground.
Cycling is waaaaay more energy efficient than running. Therefore, you'll burn more calories running than cycling over the same distance.
ltheisinger - yeah I'm aware of that, I just want equal to my current work out, plus or minus 150kcal
Just saying what I read.
I skip when I train, 3 x 3 mins...and it does knacker me.
10 mins skipping
I'd be **** lucky if I managed 10 skips, let alone 10 minutes doing it. 
But did you run around Cwm carn to compare?
Funnily enough, no, I didn't. I must do sometime though, sounds like a grand idea, I'm sure the bikers won't mind 
No worries mate - you'll surely achieve that! So go for it! The fact you're on STW probs means you prefer to ride anyway!! 
Funnily enough, no, I didn't. I must do sometime though, sounds like a grand idea, I'm sure the bikers won't mind
take your dog!
take your dog!
I'll borrow one, and make sure to tie a plastic bag of shit on the apex of a switchback 
I skip when I train, 3 x 3 mins...and it does knacker me.
What are you doing in the intervals, I can't knacker myself skipping, good fun though and the ideal tool to pack in your holiday bag.
What are you doing in the intervals, I can't knacker myself skipping, good fun though and the ideal tool to pack in your holiday bag.
We do it to warm up before kickboxing, intervals are usually push-ups/crunches/leg raises/star jumps/squat thrusts
Even without the stuff in the middle, I just don't think I'm good enough at skipping. My concentration wanders after a couple of minutes..
I don't agree - surely physics say you can't get something for nothing. Riding a bike means carrying an extra 30 lbs or so - the energy has to come from somewhere surely?
Go ride 60 miles, then try running it.
Ideally you need to keep your heart rate in the fat burning zone, but with a some cardio heart rate zone, which will maintain the fitness
Cycling is waaaaay more energy efficient than running. Therefore, you'll burn more calories running than cycling over the same distance.Of course it is - I don't think that was the question though. Of course one way is to use an HRM and aim for the same calories burned. The crucial thing everybody is missing which means running burns relatively more calories than cycling for the same "calorie burned" indication on the HRM. That's because the HRM only knows about what your heart is doing during exercise, not what's happening to your legs. In fact you burn a substantial amount of calories in the 24 hours after exercising, and it's here the difference lies - all the impact from running results in more micro-damage to the muscles which has to be repaired, using more energy than recovering from cycling.
What worries me though, is the only objective of the running/cross training or commuting by bike really weight control? Not convince I could keep up an exercise regime with solely that aim (though I suppose lots of women seem to manage it).
Running requires the same amount of energy to run one mile at any speed; you burn 110 calories per mile. It doesn’t matter if you are a super fit athlete, or an out of shape beginner you will still burn the same number of calories per mile.
However, bike riding is affected by wind resistance so the faster you ride, the more energy you use, and the more calories you burn. You have to compare running and cycling at different cycling speeds.
This is according to fitness expert Dr. Edward Coyle of The University of Texas in Austin, who has worked with Lance Armstrong and other top athletes. He determined average values of oxygen consumption by cyclists to develop a table to estimate the approximate caloric equivalence between running and cycling.
He found that if you ride at 15 mph, you burn 31 calories per mile. This means if you ride 20 miles you burn 20 x 31 = 620 calories. Take the 620 calories and divide by 110 calories per mile for running and you get 5.63 miles of running to burn the same number of calories. Therefore, riding a bicycle 20 miles at an average 15 miles per hour is equal to running 5.6 miles at any speed.
from: [url]
http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/running-vs-cycling-burning-calories.html/url
aracer - MemberIdeally you need to keep your heart rate in the fat burning zone, but with a some cardio heart rate zone, which will maintain the fitness
The good old "fat burning zone" raises its ugly head yet again. You do know that the "fat burning zone" is really not a particularly useful thing at all if you're after losing (or maintaining) weight?
I am fully aware of that, but thanks for pointing it out....its a means to monitor the heart rate at a level in which the "text books" say will burn more calories, but of course this is a very subjective topic anyway, as it varies for everyone at what rate they will burn calories, but I just think 'talls' was looking for a 'close enough' comparison and whether he could continue to burn calories through cycling - which he will of course....any exercise is better than none, eh?
PS: I was 18 stone and now 13.5 - so I have burnt a few calories myself over the past 18mths, through mainly cycling...
No, it won't.
I have no idea of the science but I am always hungrier after commuting 12miles each way than I am after I do a 12k run at 4 min/km
What worries me though, is the only objective of the running/cross training or commuting by bike really weight control? Not convince I could keep up an exercise regime with solely that aim (though I suppose lots of women seem to manage it).
ohhh you make it sound so negative, I get to eat bacon rolls and huge caesar salads and fish and chips and no nom nom.
Running and cycling burn roughly the same calories for the same time period if you cycle three times faster than you run i.e If I run 8 miles in an hour and ride 24 miles in another hour I will burn roughly the same calories. I disagree that if you run at any speed you burn the same ammount of calories, dispite it coming from a fitness expert, the physics don't add up. I assume what the blog is hinting at is that your drag is neglidgable at 10mph and that people don't run more than that speed on average. The drag of a person running is simmilar to that of a person on a bike so Increasing your speed from 10mph to 15 mph running would have an increase in calories burnt if you are running or on a bike.
Iain
I am fully aware of that, but thanks for pointing it out....its a means to monitor the heart rate at a level in which the "text books" say will burn more calories
I disagree that if you run at any speed you burn the same ammount of calories
Over the same distance, same route - yes, same calories. Regardless of speed.
Over the same distance, same route - yes, same calories. Regardless of speed.
Well my basic O-level physics taught me
Work = Force x Distance.
It has nothing to do with speed.
So maybe my physics is rubbish - but until you can prove otherwise ....
Yes, but force depends on speed (eg. drag depends on speed^2). Your efficiency of running and cycling will also depend on speed (and also varies greatly between people). Don't believe the calories on your HRM - it doesn't have enough information and is just guessing!
Well my basic O-level physics taught me
Work = Force x Distance.
There's also some biology involved here
What? You mean like frog dissection?
pmsl.
Its all very complex and most ways of measuring calories burnt are little better than guesses.
Logic would say that if you exercise hard for an hour you burn the same amount of calories no matter if you're swimming cycling or running. Its the intensity x the time thats the crucial thing - not the distance or the speed. Of course measuring the intensity is also somewhat problematic.
Riding a bike means carrying an extra 30 lbs or so - the energy has to come from somewhere surely?
But you are not carrying it. Unlike running where your body is propelling your body forward and at least supporting its weight at all times.
Several factors determine calorie burning whilst running, terrain and speed being two. If you run faster you will burn more calories than if you run more slowly.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
