Weekly Distances. What is the most one would do?

[lgbran]

Averaging 350 ks a week over the last 3 months after lenghy layoff. Average speed has increased from 24 - 26 kph. All cycling done on my own. Longest distance 105 ks average 27kph. After cracking the ton the other day, rode 60 ks next day and 105 the following day. will try and do 100 ks per day whenever possible with the view of burning off as much weight as I can. Is this wise. Training for a 140 km ride in early March next year and any other social rides over the summer period. Wish to maintain cycling/excercise 5-6 days a week, get weight down to 78-82 kgs after ballooning to 106 ks in early June. I'm now down to 92k kgs. What would be the maximum weekly distance one would do?

[zozza]

Jump on BJ and have a look

[sogood]

Sky is the limit.

Your 350km week is most respectable and demonstrates good endurance. Most people don't have more than 10-15 hours a week devoted to cycling at 30km/h average.

To lose more calories, ride harder and faster!

[JV911]

quality, not quantity

[RobRollin]

I am averaging around 140ks a week, sometimes I push into 160kms a week depends largely on weather (Tassie has had a really wet and windy Winter). All my kms are logged and part of my training program.

It's hard to find more hours in the week.

[sogood]

quality, not quantity

But at some point, volume matters.

[m@]

Be wary of increasing your Km too fast though, otherwise you risk over-training and injury.

[DanielS]

There is no hard limit as to how many weekly kms you should/can do. I would suggest being careful not to increase your distance too rapidly - there is a rule of thumb that says no more than a 10% increase in either distance or duration each week. Although you need to take into account intensity as well - 350 kms per week at 'endurance' pace may be a lot less taxing than 200 kms per week with hills, intervals, racing, etc.

What sort of distances have you been doing before this?

[Grant W]

100k's per day is a lot.
Loosing the weight is your priority, make sure you are eating enough though to sustain this training.
I burn between 1500- 1700cal every 50k ride, that would be 3000cal for over 100ks

I eat like a horse and am still loosing weight, not aiming too.

[lgbran]

recommenced mid june.. Average 150 ks per weekavearge speed 23.246
July Average 101ks per week 23.251
Aug 241 ks per week 24.361
6 weeks leave
Ample cycling time
late August Sep 400 ks per week 25.773

Since Saturday 104.31 Sun rest Mon 103.9 Tue 62.93 Wed 111.51.. Average speed 25.728

I know I'll be unable to do these distances once I return to work but still want to belt out a long one of 100 ks + once a week. Must admit I'm sore. Have found cycling in all sorts of weather ( very windy down south Vic past month) has strenghenned me no end. Also swim once a week to do something else

[tripstobaltimore]

quality, not quantity

+1

[grosry]

quality, not quantity

also enjoyment i think

[toolonglegs]

What are your aims?...you are riding long and slow at the moment.If that is your aim then carry on.If you want to get faster and stronger then you need some quality.I can gaurantee you are not getting quality doing 400km's a week if you have only been back on the bike a few months.
Quality over quantity any day!!!...sometimes quality will come from some quantity but certainly not day in day out.

[lgbran]

I'd like to get quicker.. Aim is to eventually join the local group ride on weekends
and be able to keep up. ( they average 30 kph). I hear what everyone is saying.
last thing I want is training to become a grind. Am working on getting to a decent weight and basically cycle to keep fit. However wish to get faster.
Suppose best course of action down the track is to have alook at a good cycling program.

[wombatK]

quality, not quantity

But at some point, volume matters.

Volume balance matters even more. Weight loss = energy in - energy out. Igbran has made some remarkable weight loss gains to date, but eventually will need to transition to a long-term sustainable weight/fitness management plan. He is spending maybe 12 to 15 hours a week on his bike. Can he find that amount of time, for the rest of his life ?

Quality not quantity

+1. There are better ways of stripping off weight than just logging up km. Interval training has been shown to do better. See for example Less Exercise for Less Weight, Best Fat Burning Exercise, Myth of the Fat Burning Zone. It will also make you quicker, whereas straight endurance cycling may not.

Logging up km's can put you in the over-use/over-training area where you could be risking muscle damage, and there is some research that this could include cardio damage for some people. I've heard (from a cardiologist) that the latter occurs in the people who typically train hard every day and don't manage rest/recovery days in their training.

Very hard to say how many km's per week results in over-use. If you look at BJ, there's some pretty heavy-hitters - but if you track it for a while, you'll notice some of them having injury or other health troubles. Why test where the boundary is, if a better quality training plan with less brute enduro work can achieve effective and safer results ?

[sogood]

Long endurance rides at moderate pace is good for your return to cycling as it'll build a solid base for you to extend on. But at some point, you'll need to ramp up the intensity and start to make good use of your base.

[Wino]

Ok dumb question; by 'ramping up intensity' is that what is meant by quality over quantity? Should you be aiming for a higher HR, etc.

[sogood]

Ok dumb question; by 'ramping up intensity' is that what is meant by quality over quantity? Should you be aiming for a higher HR, etc.

Quality does not necessarily equate with intensity.

Quality means focus ie. Targeted training that fits one's training objective. For example, if one is aiming to improve one's 200m sprint time, then there's less value with daily 4-5hr rides. Similarly, if one is aiming for audax rides, then there's not much point in regular track sprint training.

[wombatK]

Ok dumb question; by 'ramping up intensity' is that what is meant by quality over quantity? Should you be aiming for a higher HR, etc.

Kind of. If you do interval training, and most elite athletes do, it involves alternating periods of going flat-out sprinting (i.e. VO2 max) with periods of rest/recovery. Don't think you need a HRM to know when you're going flat-out or hard as you can.

IIRC, the fat-burning research used exercise bikes with something like a 2 minute flat-out period alternated with 1 minute recovery. Do that for 20 minutes, and the word "intense" will leap into your mind. Don't try this at home kiddies if you're not already super-fit - usually have to work up to this level of intensity by using longer rest periods initially, and maybe even shorter flat-out periods. You have to "ramp-up" the intensity gradually.

So "ramping up the intensity" is really a reference to easing into the quality training, rather than a reference to quality over quantity.

[sogood]

Logging up km's can put you in the over-use/over-training area where you could be risking muscle damage, and there is some research that this could include cardio damage for some people. I've heard (from a cardiologist) that the latter occurs in the people who typically train hard every day and don't manage rest/recovery days in their training.

High intensity interval (L6/7)/acute stress is what's more likely to induce an adverse cardiac event. That's also the reason why there should always be resuscitation equipments and medical personnels available during a treadmill stress tests. Long rides at moderate pace depends on endurance of the muscles and energy pathways with limited stress on the heart.

The whole issue of weight loss is a simple carlorie balance exercise. At the end of the day, it's a question of how much you burn off vs intake. High intensity interval may be able to burn off more calories per unit time, but typically can't be sustained for extended time, therefore limiting the total amount of calories burnt for the day.

[lgbran]

thanks for the advice folks. A few years ago I visited a nutritionist who put me on a lifestyle change eating plan. Cycled throughout ( by the i'd been on the bike for 8 years). Distances varied and cycled with the aim of doin a 140 k event 5 months after visiting nutritionist. Weight went down from 94 - 76kgs over 4 months. I will do it again and I remember distinctly the message it doesn't matter how much you cycle excercise if you consume more calories then what you burn you will put on weight. I'm going to go for a light swim today rather then go for a cycle and will be re-evaulating training distances /intensty. People have referred to BJ during this discussion. What's that. I'll get down to my goal weight of 80kg's sensibly and include some quality training rather then cranking out the miles. Used to have the same issues whn running marathons years ago when a lot younger and no issues with athritic knees and hips. Thanks again

[nimm]

BJ = http://www.bikejournal.com/ and join the Bicycles Network Australia club.

good luck on the weight loss!

[Argon18]

What product you guys using to track how many calories you have lost? Garmin? Polar?

[lgbran]

tried some swimming yesterday(learning to swim) and cycling specific stretches

.. did 51.38 ks at a average speed of 29.2. geez was huffing and puffing a bit.. felt good to do something, short and sharp. It's the quickest I've gone at that distance. Will watch calorie intake. The local group does rides from 60-90 ks ataverge 30KPH. I assume it's easier riding with a bunch at maintaining that speed

[sogood]

What product you guys using to track how many calories you have lost? Garmin? Polar?

It doesn't matter. Just watch your bathroom scale and feel your stomach. Doesn't matter what those calorie counters say, if the scale says your weight isn't coming down, then you are either not burning enough or eating too much.