Interval training Running with Cycling dangers and benefits?

I'm not a runner but there's loads of cycling plans, I used a British Heart Foundation one for example.
Not seeing why shift work and following a plan wouldn't work? Surely that gives you more daylight training opportunities?

Have you looked at duathlon training plans? (I see BHF again have beginner training plans.)

hypocacculus wrote: »

Assuming you really need to lose a stone, trying to lose weight merely by exercising more is very hard. You are better off coming up with a combined exercise and diet plan. MFP has tools to help you plan your diet based on your activity. Take it steady though, or you will be poleaxed by fatigue.

Building muscle and getting fitter is an anabolic activity. Losing weight is a catabolic activity. The two processes are antagonistic and you should be planning to do one or the other, not both at the same time. Basically, a rule of thumb (for mortals) is don't do HIIT if you are on a diet, it will immensely stress your body. Stick to steady exercise within your current capabilities.

Having said that, most seem to agree that shaking up your exercise routine is no bad thing as your muscles get accustomed to doing things a certain way. It will always use more energy if you start to do something unfamilar because you are less efficient. Any triathlete will tell you that running immediately after getting off a bike is tough (I certainly found it so; my legs were like wet celery), probably because of the way your muscles tighten up when cycling, and they train to get over the transition. I've never tried it the other way around.

Absolutely agree that it's easier to effect weight change from the eating side of the equation, and that it's unrealistic to expect changes just from exercise if one doesn't at least hold eating steady (via calorie counting or very careful portion control). I was obese for over a decade while very active, even competing as a masters athlete. It was easy to out-eat the exercise, and for many of us (not all), appetite increases with exercise.

I agree with PPs that intensity (be it steady high-intensity workouts, or intervals) is not the most effective if one's most important goal is weight loss. Intensity is more taxing on the body. This has two consequences: We can tolerate only shorter workouts; and it can bleed calories out of our daily life activity (because intensity increases fatigue, and fatigue makes us do less and rest more, putting it simplistically). Furthermore, the EPOC effect of intensity is over-rated (do the math with real cases; you'll see what I mean).

Don't get me wrong: Some intense exercise is a valid, useful, even necessary part of achieving many fitness goals, after a certain base level of fitness is in place. But that's fitness, not weight loss.

I disagree, though, that there's a meaningful difference in energy expenditure through efficiency changes between trained and untrained activities (for most common activities, and certainly for cycling and running). A fit/trained runner or cyclist will burn roughly the same calories as an unfit/untrained person of the same size, over the same course, with the same equipment, at the same speed, for the same amount of time.

We tend to believe otherwise because it feels so much harder to the untrained/unfit person, and because heart rate monitors may (falsely) give a higher calorie estimate to the untrained/unfit person because their heart is beating out of their chest while the trained person is barely breaking a sweat. But the work is the same, so the energy requirement to do the work is the same, and efficiency is a small factor in these activities, so generates only a small difference at most. (P.S. This is why METS-based estimates of energy expenditure are a standard.)

OP, overdoing is not your friend, whether your goal is weight loss or fitness. Sijomial has given you very good advice (as he usually does). If your goal is actually fitness, then a duathlon plan sounds like a good idea.

"Shocking the body" is not a thing, it won't help you burn extra calories, and (in itself) it won't keep you from achieving weight loss. Since you've worked up, it should be fine to do something more intense once a week, but it will necessarily be a shorter workout, and it may be counterproductive to your weight loss goal (you appear to have the training time available, and you'll get the best calorie burn doing long/steady work at an intensity you can sustain without carrying fatigue into the rest of daily life).

I honestly don't know whether your alternating biking and running on your intense day is better or worse than doing intervals on one, then the other . . . but a duathlon plan should answer that quite clearly.

Just chiming in to 2nd @AnnPT77's advice... I can run a mile in 6 minutes and I can run a mile in 8 minutes. The calories burned are nearly identical. The difference is I can run a marathon doing 8 minutes miles while I'm completely wasted after only 3 miles when running at 6 min pace. If you want to burn more, slow down!

Of course once you start getting the miles high your body demands more fuel which is one reason why you can't count on exercise to lose weight.

SweatsOnSunday wrote: »

You're doing a duathlon. Get some pool time in, and you're doing a tri. And people do it every weekend, all the time. Enjoy using your body!

^^This. Also called a brick, bike run ick.

There's no such thing as shocking your body into calorie burning.

Seconding the recommendation to follow either a Duathlon training plan or you could use a Triathlon training plan and just not do the swim sessions, you could choose to follow a half-Ironman plan which trains you for a 56mile ride to be followed by a 13.1 mile run. There’s so many free versions online to choose from, you can find one that you like the look of most.

bunterc wrote: »

Thanks for all the input, some really interesting points made. I am currently eating around 2100 cals a day so I'm in deficit all the time, not relying on the exercise to burn fat at all. My goal is to be running 10 miles and cycling 20 once a week because I've already been at a stage in my life where I could run ten+ miles three times a week if I wanted but I was neglecting the cycling which I probably prefer. Its just that it takes up so much more time which ive not got nowadays. Will check out duathlon training plans, i'm sure there must be something out there that suits.
It was the extension/flexion change that I was wondering about being damaging or beneficial. I really enjoy the feeling of switching from one to another which is another reason I wanted to give it a try.

Why only cycling 20 miles?

Last summer, I was training for a 10K (kilometres, of course), so I would run 7 km and then cycle 40 km. The next day I might cycle anywhere from 60 to 100 km. Then some shorter runs and rides during the week. The next weekend, I'd do 8 km and then go out and cycle a hilly 30 km. The next day I might cycle somewhere between 60 and 100 km. The next weekend, I might do a 9 km run, cycle a hilly 40 km, then cycle 125 km the next day, and so on.

But I don't think I'd like switching back and forth between the two very much. Too much time changing clothes.

dewd2 wrote: »

Of course once you start getting the miles high your body demands more fuel which is one reason why you can't count on exercise to lose weight.

idk so far so good. and in the past, i have also not found this to be the case.