[other one]

Which is better for fat loss, exercise-biking for 60 mins in one go or 30 mins am, 30mins pm during any one day?

Kcal burned would be roughly the same, a bit higher in the latter case as I'd be less tired overall.

I am female, 58kilos, 26years old. I do weightlifting every other day. I want to lose 1 or 2 kilos of body fat, seeing how light I am, it is v difficult to limit kcal further and I doubt weight lifting is as efficient for weight loss as cardio, that only really works in the long-term for a girl.

I am certainly tired of waiting around for another 3 months to lose the flab around my middle. (all the excess fat I hate is around my middle!) so determined to hit the exercise bike. I can watch great films on my laptop while biking so there is a form of cardio where I am not bored out of my mind! result! any tips on how to eat before and after cardio, whether 30 mins or 60 mins would be most appreciated too.

[Todd]

Not really got any tips on the excersize as I'm fairly new to all that myself, but as for eating - you say the flab is around your middle, which I believe is fat caused by sugary foods (it's people with high levels of fat in that area most at risk of developing diabetes, I was told to watch this because I ahve a family history.)
SOO try and cut out as much sugar from your diet as you can. I'm doing this, it's reallyy tough (I'm currently in a hosue with a whole new batch of flapjack, rice krispie cakes, ice cream and smarties cookies and can't have ANY because I'm already at my daily sugar allowance -_-) but you will see better results. And watch out for hidden sugar - it's in SO much I never realised. Milk and fruit have pretty high levels of sugar, which are better sugars for you than the processed stuff but still have the same basic effect, so it all needs to be limited.

[other one]

(Original post by Todd)
Not really got any tips on the excersize as I'm fairly new to all that myself, but as for eating - you say the flab is around your middle, which I believe is fat caused by sugary foods (it's people with high levels of fat in that area most at risk of developing diabetes, I was told to watch this because I ahve a family history.)
SOO try and cut out as much sugar from your diet as you can. I'm doing this, it's reallyy tough (I'm currently in a hosue with a whole new batch of flapjack, rice krispie cakes, ice cream and smarties cookies and can't have ANY because I'm already at my daily sugar allowance -_-) but you will see better results. And watch out for hidden sugar - it's in SO much I never realised. Milk and fruit have pretty high levels of sugar, which are better sugars for you than the processed stuff but still have the same basic effect, so it all needs to be limited.

thanks but...
I can't eat wheat and I eat zero sugar. I have fat around my middle as my body type as a female is 'figure 8'. I am not apple shaped, I have fat on lower abs and as love handles.

http://www.insideoutstyleblog.com/20...-shapes-8.html

[silent ninja]

High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) is better than Continuous training. 60 minutes a day is a massive commitment. With HIIT you can be done in 20 minutes AND lose more fat overall.

The stationary bike is a really good way to do it in the gym. Also running in the park (not treadmill). It really depends on your fitness level but the idea is to have high intensity bursts followed by a relative period of rest. For example, if running, jog for 90 seconds followed by an all out sprint for 15 seconds (even if you're Usain Bolt, going all out for 15 seconds will wipe you out). Do this 5-6 times. The rest period and intensity period can be varied (Google for beginner programmes) depending on the exercise and level of fitness. It is not necessary to sprint but it IS necessary to give a 9 or 10 effort out of 10. For some, jogging is intense whilst walking can be the rest period.
On the bike I do 30 second sprints (you can do longer than a run) followed by 2 minutes steady pace at around 50% effort.

Google the benefits of HIIT. It's excellent for fat loss in a short period of time. It is very intense though so eat properly before and I wouldn't recommend doing it immediately after weights because you simply won't be able to exert yourself.

Keep doing the weight lifting. Coupled with cardio your fat will shed off and it will ensure you don't lose muscle mass (yes, even girls have muscles). The most important thing is to work intensely whether doing weights or HIIT-- intensity beats longevity every time! There's no point doodling in the gym. IMO you want to spend the least amount of time there or else it becomes too much of a commitment.

P.S. always warm up!!

[other one]

(Original post by silent ninja)
High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) is better than Continuous training. 60 minutes a day is a massive commitment. With HIIT you can be done in 20 minutes AND lose more fat overall.

The stationary bike is a really good way to do it in the gym. Also running in the park (not treadmill). It really depends on your fitness level but the idea is to have high intensity bursts followed by a relative period of rest. For example, if running, jog for 90 seconds followed by an all out sprint for 15 seconds (even if you're Usain Bolt, going all out for 15 seconds will wipe you out). Do this 5-6 times. The rest period and intensity period can be varied (Google for beginner programmes) depending on the exercise and level of fitness. It is not necessary to sprint but it IS necessary to give a 9 or 10 effort out of 10. For some, jogging is intense whilst walking can be the rest period.
On the bike I do 30 second sprints (you can do longer than a run) followed by 2 minutes steady pace at around 50% effort.

Google the benefits of HIIT. It's excellent for fat loss in a short period of time. It is very intense though so eat properly before and I wouldn't recommend doing it immediately after weights because you simply won't be able to exert yourself.

Keep doing the weight lifting. Coupled with cardio your fat will shed off and it will ensure you don't lose muscle mass (yes, even girls have muscles). The most important thing is to work intensely whether doing weights or HIIT-- intensity beats longevity every time! There's no point doodling in the gym. IMO you want to spend the least amount of time there or else it becomes too much of a commitment.

P.S. always warm up!!

thanks, and this is what I think you should do if you want to maintain weight and keep fit etc. for fat/weight loss esp if it's bikini time, 3 months is too long. kcal in and kcal out is what matters for weight loss and you can simply burn more kcal cycling steady pace for 60 mins than doing HIIT for 20 mins. HIIT also means you need to recover. you can't HIIT cycle every single day as far as I know.

I am a female whose BMR is 1400kcal, maintenance 1600kcal, HIIT cardio/weight lifting for 20 mins no matter how strenuous will not burn 600kcal (maximum 200kcal I imagine). cycling for 60mins at a steady pace will burn 600kcal. HIIT is fantastic but it will not burn another 400kcal during the rest of the day, surely...

[Scoobiedoobiedo]

(Original post by silent ninja)
High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) is better than Continuous training. 60 minutes a day is a massive commitment. With HIIT you can be done in 20 minutes AND lose more fat overall.

60minutes a day isn't really a 'massive commitment' - We can all find an extra 60minutes a day if we really want to.

Also, HIIT is extremely overrated. You can't do proper HIIT on a diet, it's far too demanding on the body.

HIIT is good at getting a solid cardio/conditioning workout in in a short period of time, speed endurance and the like. If your ultimate aim is fat loss and maximising calories burned, steady state is ideal, a 60minute run burns far more than 20minutes of 'HIIT'. - Obviously though there is a big difference between a steady state continuous RUN trying to set a PB 5/10K time etc, and simply plodding along at 1mph like some people do.

Using myself as an example: When I run for 60minutes(ish) 10ks and the like, I burn about 800calories + I can run 10k pretty much everyday + I can do it while on a fairly low calorie diet + I can still function during the day.

Even a fairly advanced HIIT workout with a 1:1 ratio only involves about 10minutes of intense exercise, you aren't going to burn 800 calories in 10minutes, sure you burn some, but ultimately all you will do is completely exhaust yourself.

Having said all that, I still think sprinting is a great workout, but for conditioning and athletic performance more than anything. It has the added benefit of improving your steady state, meaning you can run faster/longer = more calories burned.

[other one]

(Original post by Scoobiedoobiedo)
60minutes a day isn't really a 'massive commitment' - We can all find an extra 60minutes a day if we really want to.

Also, HIIT is extremely overrated. You can't do proper HIIT on a diet, it's far too demanding on the body.

HIIT is good at getting a solid cardio/conditioning workout in in a short period of time, speed endurance and the like. If your ultimate aim is fat loss and maximising calories burned, steady state is ideal, a 60minute run burns far more than 20minutes of 'HIIT'. - Obviously though there is a big difference between a steady state continuous RUN trying to set a PB 5/10K time etc, and simply plodding along at 1mph like some people do.

Using myself as an example: When I run for 60minutes(ish) 10ks and the like, I burn about 800calories + I can run 10k pretty much everyday + I can do it while on a fairly low calorie diet + I can still function during the day.

Even a fairly advanced HIIT workout with a 1:1 ratio only involves about 10minutes of intense exercise, you aren't going to burn 800 calories in 10minutes, sure you burn some, but ultimately all you will do is completely exhaust yourself.

Having said all that, I still think sprinting is a great workout, but for conditioning and athletic performance more than anything. It has the added benefit of improving your steady state, meaning you can run faster/longer = more calories burned.

thank you, well said, you seem v knowledgeable. now please be so kind to answer my question too, if you could.

[silent ninja]

(Original post by Scoobiedoobiedo)
60minutes a day isn't really a 'massive commitment' - We can all find an extra 60minutes a day if we really want to.

Also, HIIT is extremely overrated. You can't do proper HIIT on a diet, it's far too demanding on the body.

HIIT is good at getting a solid cardio/conditioning workout in in a short period of time, speed endurance and the like. If your ultimate aim is fat loss and maximising calories burned, steady state is ideal, a 60minute run burns far more than 20minutes of 'HIIT'. - Obviously though there is a big difference between a steady state continuous RUN trying to set a PB 5/10K time etc, and simply plodding along at 1mph like some people do.

Using myself as an example: When I run for 60minutes(ish) 10ks and the like, I burn about 800calories + I can run 10k pretty much everyday + I can do it while on a fairly low calorie diet + I can still function during the day.

Even a fairly advanced HIIT workout with a 1:1 ratio only involves about 10minutes of intense exercise, you aren't going to burn 800 calories in 10minutes, sure you burn some, but ultimately all you will do is completely exhaust yourself.

Having said all that, I still think sprinting is a great workout, but for conditioning and athletic performance more than anything. It has the added benefit of improving your steady state, meaning you can run faster/longer = more calories burned.

I don't think a 60 minute LOW INTENSITY steady state exercise (less than 65% of your maximum heart rate) is more beneficial than 20 minutes of HIIT. The studies seem to be well in favour of HIIT vs Low Intensity exercise which is what the OP was referring to ("I can watch great films on my laptop while biking"). As a general rule, you know it's low intensity when you can talk while you're doing it. On the whole the studies are in favour of HIIT for fat burning loss at this level (it's a hot topic so there are many articles and references online if you google it, eg THIS).

Medium distance running at a medium pace is a different matter. I'm sure you burn more calories then and you can also compete against your time etc So yeah that's pretty awesome but it's quite different to plodding away on a bike or doing a light jog on the treadmill at low intensity for a long time.

No you can't do HIIT more than 3 times a week realistically. I do it twice and play football at least once and that works for me, and I also manage to do at least one leg workout a week (squats, deadlifts etc that need a hell of a lot of energy). I wouldn't say I'm that fit either so it's possible with good diet and LOTS OF SLEEP.

[other one]

(Original post by silent ninja)
I don't think a 60 minute LOW INTENSITY steady state exercise (less than 65% of your maximum heart rate) is more beneficial than 20 minutes of HIIT. The studies seem to be well in favour of HIIT vs Low Intensity exercise which is what the OP was referring to ("I can watch great films on my laptop while biking"). As a general rule, you know it's low intensity when you can talk while you're doing it. On the whole the studies are in favour of HIIT for fat burning loss at this level (it's a hot topic so there are many articles and references online if you google it, eg THIS).

Medium distance running at a medium pace is a different matter. I'm sure you burn more calories then and you can also compete against your time etc So yeah that's pretty awesome but it's quite different to plodding away on a bike or doing a light jog on the treadmill at low intensity for a long time.

No you can't do HIIT more than 3 times a week realistically. I do it twice and play football at least once and that works for me, and I also manage to do at least one leg workout a week (squats, deadlifts etc that need a hell of a lot of energy). I wouldn't say I'm that fit either so it's possible with good diet and LOTS OF SLEEP.

listen, do the maths, as a light female, how long do you think it'll take me to do HIIT and weight lifting and actually lose 2 pounds of body fat when my body needs to recover after HIIT and weight lifting?

plodding away on an exercise bike? it burns 600kcal and I am drenched in sweat by the end of it and no it wouldn't be nice to talk so it's not as if I don't feel the exercise. but I can still watch films. doesn't exactly require a great deal of concentration.

kcal in and out is what matters. as a light female what do you think is gonna burn me more kcal running for half an hour or walking for 6 hours. walking will not tire me out as much, I certainly would burn more kcal after HIIT but not that much more. walking for a long time at a slow steady pace will burn more kcal overall. maths. HIIT will not burn 100kcal every hour after you've stopped, that's already been debunked.

your advice is great when you wanna keep fit but not optimal for weight loss, esp for a light female.

[Scoobiedoobiedo]

(Original post by other one)
thank you, well said, you seem v knowledgeable. now please be so kind to answer my question too, if you could.

I would do 60minutes rather than 2 X 30minutes, saves time having to warm up/cool down a second time. Plus it will greater improve your overall fitness and endurance.

Wanting to split it in half simply reads 'I want to make it easier' - which isn't the attitude to have. I could be wrong, however that's how I took it.

There may be some benefit to splitting it in half if the reason is so you can work twice as hard in each session, thus resulting in an overall greater intensity. However I doubt that is the case to be fair, considering you want to watch a film. Something for you to ponder never the less.

(Original post by other one)
listen, do the maths, as a light female, how long do you think it'll take me to do HIIT and weight lifting and actually lose 2 pounds of body fat when my body needs to recover after HIIT and weight lifting?

plodding away on an exercise bike? it burns 600kcal and I am drenched in sweat by the end of it and no it wouldn't be nice to talk so it's not as if I don't feel the exercise. but I can still watch films. doesn't exactly require a great deal of concentration.

I think you greatly over estimate the amount of calories you will burn 'plodding away' while watching a film, see my picture below.



I'm much bigger than you, and if I burn just under 900 on a 75 minute fairly intense hilly run, there is no way you burn 600 plodding along for an hour. Exercise machines don't give accurate readings of calories burned.

(Original post by silent ninja)
I don't think a 60 minute LOW INTENSITY steady state exercise (less than 65% of your maximum heart rate) is more beneficial than 20 minutes of HIIT. The studies seem to be well in favour of HIIT vs Low Intensity exercise which is what the OP was referring to ("I can watch great films on my laptop while biking"). As a general rule, you know it's low intensity when you can talk while you're doing it. On the whole the studies are in favour of HIIT for fat burning loss at this level (it's a hot topic so there are many articles and references online if you google it, eg THIS).

Medium distance running at a medium pace is a different matter. I'm sure you burn more calories then and you can also compete against your time etc So yeah that's pretty awesome but it's quite different to plodding away on a bike or doing a light jog on the treadmill at low intensity for a long time.

No you can't do HIIT more than 3 times a week realistically. I do it twice and play football at least once and that works for me, and I also manage to do at least one leg workout a week (squats, deadlifts etc that need a hell of a lot of energy). I wouldn't say I'm that fit either so it's possible with good diet and LOTS OF SLEEP.

Agreed, somewhat.

It depends on the intensity somewhat, and I was excluding the people who meander on cardio machines while reading a magazine, as they fail and don't count. By steady state I meant actual jogging/running, 70%+ maximum heart rate. So given the OP and how things are going my post may a little redundant, never the less..

60minutes LOW INTENSITY, a walk for example, probably does burn as much/less than 20minutes extremely high intensity exercise, you could say therefore you get more 'bang for your buck' calorie wise, which is true to an extent. However most articles I've seen on HIIT only compare calories burned in an equivalent time period, such as calories burned through 20minutes HIIT VS a 20minute light jog. They never seem to look at the whole picture, things such as: how demanding it is, the impact on recovery and the CNS, the fact you can do less of it less often, the extra calories it requires before hand to perform properly.

You could say therefore why walk for 60minutes or jog for 40minutes when you can do some HIIT for 20, but if you burn the same calories HIITing for 20mins as walking for 60 or jogging for 40, but you can only HIIT 3 times a week but walk/jog 7 days a week, over the course of a week you burn more through walking/jogging. - The numbers are just an example, but you can see my point.

Like I said though, I'm not anti-sprinting, just if the aim is to burn as many calories throughout the week/month as possible, hammer the steady state(at a reasonable and challenging intensity, 70%+) in conjunction with resistence training and some sprinting - Everything has it's pros so why not just do everything ey.

[other one]

(Original post by Scoobiedoobiedo)
I would do 60minutes rather than 2 X 30minutes, saves time having to warm up/cool down a second time. Plus it will greater improve your overall fitness and endurance.

Wanting to split it in half simply reads 'I want to make it easier' - which isn't the attitude to have. I could be wrong, however that's how I took it.

There may be some benefit to splitting it in half if the reason is so you can work twice as hard in each session, thus resulting in an overall greater intensity. However I doubt that is the case to be fair, considering you want to watch a film. Something for you to ponder never the less.




I think you greatly over estimate the amount of calories you will burn 'plodding away' while watching a film, see my picture below.



I'm much bigger than you, and if I burn just under 900 on a 75 minute fairly intense hilly run, there is no way you burn 600 plodding along for an hour. Exercise machines don't give accurate readings of calories burned.



Agreed, somewhat.

It depends on the intensity somewhat, and I was excluding the people who meander on cardio machines while reading a magazine, as they fail and don't count. By steady state I meant actual jogging/running, 70%+ maximum heart rate. So given the OP and how things are going my post may a little redundant, never the less..

60minutes LOW INTENSITY, a walk for example, probably does burn as much/less than 20minutes extremely high intensity exercise, you could say therefore you get more 'bang for your buck' calorie wise, which is true to an extent. However most articles I've seen on HIIT only compare calories burned in an equivalent time period, such as calories burned through 20minutes HIIT VS a 20minute light jog. They never seem to look at the whole picture, things such as: how demanding it is, the impact on recovery and the CNS, the fact you can do less of it less often, the extra calories it requires before hand to perform properly.

You could say therefore why walk for 60minutes or jog for 40minutes when you can do some HIIT for 20, but if you burn the same calories HIITing for 20mins as walking for 60 or jogging for 40, but you can only HIIT 3 times a week but walk/jog 7 days a week, over the course of a week you burn more through walking/jogging. - The numbers are just an example, but you can see my point.

Like I said though, I'm not anti-sprinting, just if the aim is to burn as many calories throughout the week/month as possible, hammer the steady state(at a reasonable and challenging intensity, 70%+) in conjunction with resistence training and some sprinting - Everything has it's pros so why not just do everything ey.

Right now, all I care about is weight (fat) loss, bikini time v soon you see...

I could certainly work harder if I split it in half, but not twice as hard. I looked at what the machine said but also use www.mapmyride.com to measure, for indoor biking when I entered the stats - me 57kilos, 1 hour, 26kms (that's what my exercise bike said) that's roughly 600kcal. how much do you think I burn?

I am not sure whether the bike measures my heart rate properly, but it's around 130-140. I am rather unfit when it comes to cardio, I do watch a film but I am sweating profusely after around 15mins and I do feel exhausted by the end of it with a real lull after around 40 mins.

According to Lyle Macdonald:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...plication.html

[other one]

(Original post by silent ninja)
High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) is better than Continuous training. 60 minutes a day is a massive commitment. With HIIT you can be done in 20 minutes AND lose more fat overall.

The stationary bike is a really good way to do it in the gym. Also running in the park (not treadmill). It really depends on your fitness level but the idea is to have high intensity bursts followed by a relative period of rest. For example, if running, jog for 90 seconds followed by an all out sprint for 15 seconds (even if you're Usain Bolt, going all out for 15 seconds will wipe you out). Do this 5-6 times. The rest period and intensity period can be varied (Google for beginner programmes) depending on the exercise and level of fitness. It is not necessary to sprint but it IS necessary to give a 9 or 10 effort out of 10. For some, jogging is intense whilst walking can be the rest period.
On the bike I do 30 second sprints (you can do longer than a run) followed by 2 minutes steady pace at around 50% effort.

Google the benefits of HIIT. It's excellent for fat loss in a short period of time. It is very intense though so eat properly before and I wouldn't recommend doing it immediately after weights because you simply won't be able to exert yourself.

Keep doing the weight lifting. Coupled with cardio your fat will shed off and it will ensure you don't lose muscle mass (yes, even girls have muscles). The most important thing is to work intensely whether doing weights or HIIT-- intensity beats longevity every time! There's no point doodling in the gym. IMO you want to spend the least amount of time there or else it becomes too much of a commitment.

P.S. always warm up!!

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...plication.html

[Scoobiedoobiedo]

(Original post by other one)
Right now, all I care about is weight (fat) loss, bikini time v soon you see...

I could certainly work harder if I split it in half, but not twice as hard. I looked at what the machine said but also use www.mapmyride.com to measure, for indoor biking when I entered the stats - me 57kilos, 1 hour, 26kms (that's what my exercise bike said) that's roughly 600kcal. how much do you think I burn?

I am not sure whether the bike measures my heart rate properly, but it's around 130-140. I am rather unfit when it comes to cardio, I do watch a film but I am sweating profusely after around 15mins and I do feel exhausted by the end of it with a real lull after around 40 mins.

According to Lyle Macdonald:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...plication.html

Are you sure you aren't confusing KJ for Kcal?

The calories burned calculator on mapmyride gives KJ burned not Kcal, I filled it out with your info and it came to just over 600 KJ, which is around the 140-150Kcal mark... Which sounds about right.

[other one]

(Original post by Scoobiedoobiedo)
Are you sure you aren't confusing KJ for Kcal?

The calories burned calculator on mapmyride gives KJ burned not Kcal, I filled it out with your info and it came to just over 600 KJ, which is around the 140-150Kcal mark... Which sounds about right.

WHAT?

I almost died of a heart attack there.

but no, mapmyride.com: indoor biking 26.01km 63 mins for 57kilos female 26years old it is 614 KCAL.

how come yours gives it in KJ anyhow, who cares about KJ?

btw exercise bike itself gives a little less, 580kcal for a workout like that.

[Scoobiedoobiedo]

(Original post by other one)
WHAT?

I almost died of a heart attack there.

but no, mapmyride.com: indoor biking 26.01km 63 mins for 57kilos female 26years old it is 614 KCAL.

how come yours gives it in KJ anyhow, who cares about KJ?

btw exercise bike itself gives a little less, 580kcal for a workout like that.

That calculator seems pretty glitchy, you get completely different totals depending on whether you use the US or metric(with converted values). Also it doesn't take your heart rate into account, or any form of resistance.

[other one]

(Original post by Scoobiedoobiedo)
That calculator seems pretty glitchy, you get completely different totals depending on whether you use the US or metric(with converted values). Also it doesn't take your heart rate into account, or any form of resistance.

well, still I am on the verge of tears here that you think I'd be burning 150kcal only, what is that compared to 3500kcal? Frankly I'd rather starve myself. After a bike ride like that I'm a lot more hungry too. It's a bitch trying to lose weight as a girl.

[Ronove]

Apparently treadmills are dreadful at measuring distance and overestimate it, maybe the bikes do too? I have no idea. Just a thought. So maybe you're not travelling as far as you think you are and thus not burning that many kcals? And 130-140 bpm is very low effort.

Edit: Also I sweat like a pig after 10 mins relatively hard work on the bike (talking 145-160 bpm). I manage a lot better running. So I wouldn't be so sure the sweat is a good indicator.

[other one]

(Original post by Scoobiedoobiedo)
That calculator seems pretty glitchy, you get completely different totals depending on whether you use the US or metric(with converted values). Also it doesn't take your heart rate into account, or any form of resistance.

Yeah I know. But 600kcal and 150kcal are not even close.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newswe...activities.htm

If I'm walking for half an hour at 3.5mph, I can really easily talk, don't even feel that I'm doing anything strenuous yet I burn 120kcal but you think I burn only a little more by sweating on the bike for an hour, like a pig and collapsing on the floor when it's at last over?

You've got to be joking.

[other one]

(Original post by Ronove)
Apparently treadmills are dreadful at measuring distance and overestimate it, maybe the bikes do too? I have no idea. Just a thought. So maybe you're not travelling as far as you think you are and thus not burning that many kcals? And 130-140 bpm is very low effort.

Edit: Also I sweat like a pig after 10 mins relatively hard work on the bike (talking 145-160 bpm). I manage a lot better running. So I wouldn't be so sure the sweat is a good indicator.

I know. I am almost sure the bike is not trustworthy on that front.

As for distance, at least when I speed up it seems to speed up, when I slow down, the kms also slow down so that's not as inaccurate as it could be I hope.

[other one]

(Original post by Scoobiedoobiedo)
Are you sure you aren't confusing KJ for Kcal?

The calories burned calculator on mapmyride gives KJ burned not Kcal, I filled it out with your info and it came to just over 600 KJ, which is around the 140-150Kcal mark... Which sounds about right.

btw look at cycling,
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newswe...activities.htm

26kmph is around 16mph
so unless my bike grossly underestimates distance travelled, your calculation is hugely inaccurate. I hope so anyway. I know you probably didn't mean it, but you saying that 140-150kcal is plausible is not only upsetting but a bit insulting.

Just because I can watch a film doesn't mean that I don't effing feel that awful bike ride. I hate fat. It's official.