Cycling 10k 3 times a day same as 30k once?

Question

Hi, will my body get the same effects if i cycle 10km three times a day as opposed to 30km once?

Thanks.

Answer 1

You'll get different effects.

I mostly agree with the others that longer rides will have more benefit, but it depends on your reasons for riding and on the intensity that you ride while out there.

Riding 3 times a day, even for really short distances like 10k, might help boost your metabolism much faster and help you to gain fitness a bit quicker if you're a beginning or physically unfit rider.  This would be good for losing weight and prepping your body for more riding in the future.

A single ride at a longer distance will give you a better cardio workout, but if your body isn't ready for the work then you'll have longer recovery periods and might suffer from a sore butt until you get used to it.  It will also help your body learn to use stored energy better than shorter rides.....this ends up feeling really good in the long run, and you get to work out residual stresses in your body and mind.

Honestly, you'd have to be pretty out of shape to be limited to a 10k distance.....but if that's the case, just work up to longer distances and enjoy the rides while you're at it!   :o)

If I were concerned about fitness or losing weight, and those were my only two choices.....I'd break the rules and add a third choice.   lol.   Try riding 15k or 20k twice a day and make sure you stay hydrated and get good nutrition in your body.  This will keep your metabolism going and give you plenty of time to rest and recover.   (Actually, if your goals are weight loss and fitness, the *best* thing to do is get with a trainer or read some books and develop a personal regimen for your own level of fitness and time you have to ride.  You'll get faster, easier results that way and feel better while doing it.)

Hope this helps.   :o)

EDIT:  agb90spruce....interesting links, thanks for sharing them!  Apparently this subject is as controversial as it's always been and there's still no definitive answer.  The first link admits that there are serious flaws in the study, and it was very limited and had troubles from the beginning of the 12 week study.....and they admitted to being "perplexed" that none of their 40 subjects lost any weight by the end of the study.  :o)   Weird.   The second article doesn't even apply to this discussion, but I thought it was interesting as far as the blood vessel information.....only 12 subjects, though, so it can hardly be conclusive.  The third article confirms the lack of definitive conclusion set forth in the first article.   It's interesting to think about all of this.   Initial weight loss and cardio benefits are obvious, and the bottom line is still calories in vs. calories out, along with basic body exercise.....the finer part of it that is hugely impossible to measure is the boost in metabolism that frequent short-duration exercise gives to the body....and that boosted metabolism goes a long way toward losing weight and changing the way the body and mind react to diet and cravings, etc.   Anyway.....I just find this stuff interesting and chewy food for thought.  Thanks again for the links!   :o)

Answer 2

That would depend on what you mean by "effects".    

Calories burned would probably be similar.  

Laundry would be much more since you're changing clothes 2 more times.

Water bill would be higher, since you're taking 2 more showers.

I would find it annoying,  as it takes me close to 10k to get warmed up properly, and rarely go for a ride if I don't intend to ride more than 30k.    Bike commuting is excepted, of course, because that is fulfilling several functions at once, and is to be admired.

Answer 3

No, but there are several aspects to exercise, what exactly are you refering to?

In general, the cardio workout will be superior riding 30K at one time. 10k or 6 miles is a short ride. Many cyclists will do that in about 20 min. or so. That's 1/2 as much as the min. you should do cardio - I like to ride 1 hr. min. I believe that's a cardio sweet spot - lots of bang for the buck.

Answer 4

it isn't the same. with spacing the kms out over 3 rides, you're allowing your body some recovery time. you're still getting a workout, but it's not the same as riding all 30km together. I can't say which workout would be better for you, you'll need to talk to a fitness coach for that..

Answer 5

Nope, not the same at all. I'm pretty out of shape. Upwards of 280, and I just bought a bike to get into shape. I love it! But 6 miles for me is nothing. Barely could call it exercise. I went for a 22 mile the other day, I thought my legs were going to catch fire and my heart was gonna pop out of my chest. THAT is exercise. Okay, I'm over enphazising. Either way, go for as long as you can, then go a little farther. Reach your limit, go past it. That is how you build up your muscles, heart and lung strength.

Answer 6

I disagree with the previous responses.

The caloric and aerobic fitness advantages of one long or several short aerobic exercise periods -- totalling the same time as the long period, and conducted at the same intensity level -- are virtually identical.

There may be slight differences in total coloric expenditure, but the fitness benefits (e.g. effect on weight loss, muscle development, VO2 max changes, etc would be virtually identical).

On the other hand there can be advantages to short/higher intensity rides vs longer lower intensity rides. Each contribute to different benefits --- which is why cycling for fitness is best approached with a mix of three types of rides: moderate level long rides (endurance); hilly rides (power) and shorter high intensity rides incorporating sprints /intervals (power, speed). So ... if I'd suggest varying the rides to get the maximum range of benefit.

See the articles at the links for some scientific support.