losing weight commuting

TRADESIZE

Hi,

Does anyone know of a good book or good link they could point me in the driection of, of how to optimise weight lose through cycling/commuting.

I am doing a 20 mile round trip, and have lost at least a stone, but want to work out what steps I can take to do this most effectively.

Try to search on the forums but cant find anything

thanks

greg66_tri_v2.0

To lose weight, rather than hold a weight, the only thing that works for me is (a) eat so little that I'm really hungry all the time; (b) ride at threshold (ie balls out) all the time; (c) try not to get a cold/flu/man-flu/death in the process.

Someone will come along with a proper explanation in a bit, but that's the nuts & bolts of it, I'm pretty certain.

Bear in mind that it is supposed to be the case that eveyone has a "natural" weight towards which they will gravitate, which broadly mirrors the amount of body fat they had at puberty. Except that when you get over 40 your metabolism starts to slow, and I think then the tendency to gravitate towards that weight falls away.

Life sucks. Getting old sucks hoop.

biondino

Balls out riding won't help you lose weight. Riding moderately-paced for a long time will.

Greg T

biondino wrote:

Balls out riding won't help you lose weight. Riding moderately-paced for a long time will.

Ah the intensity versus duration debate......

If you exercise for equal lengths of time you will expend more calories at higher intensities. This is an average so if you maintain your normal cruising speed and stick some bursts in you'll up your cal expenditure.

Shorter exercise sessions of higher intensit burn more cals than longer lower intensity - it's a maths thing and obviously there's a tipping point - google execise intensity duration and weight loss and you'll be overwhelmed.

I'm with other Greg.

The only way I lose weight is to really drop my intake down to 1,500 cals or so and then I'm only dropping a pound a week - I'm 14 stone and have plenty to lose - I ride 30 miles a day.

I have to eat nothing and be hungry a lot to get it off.

There is no way I need 2,500 cals a day to maintain my body weight.

Greg T

biondino wrote:

Balls out riding won't help you lose weight. Riding moderately-paced for a long time will.

Ah the intensity versus duration debate......

If you exercise for equal lengths of time you will expend more calories at higher intensities. This is an average so if you maintain your normal cruising speed and stick some bursts in you'll up your cal expenditure.

Shorter exercise sessions of higher intensit burn more cals than longer lower intensity - it's a maths thing and obviously there's a tipping point - google execise intensity duration and weight loss and you'll be overwhelmed.

I'm with other Greg.

The only way I lose weight is to really drop my intake down to 1,500 cals or so and then I'm only dropping a pound a week - I'm 14 stone and have plenty to lose - I ride 30 miles a day.

I have to eat nothing and be hungry a lot to get it off.

There is no way I need 2,500 cals a day to maintain my body weight.

greg66_tri_v2.0

biondino wrote:

Balls out riding won't help you lose weight. Riding moderately-paced for a long time will.

That can work as well - although you probably need to step it up above a moderate pace (think about how much - or little - weight you'd lose going for a long walk every day vs a jog vs a run).

But the OP's talking about how to lose weight on a 10m e/w commute, where the long time/moderate pace isn't really an option. I reckon over that distance you've got to treat it as a succession of high intensity intervals to get a weight lose.

Or he could saw an arm off. That works too.

GregT wrote:

I'm 14 stone

Blimey. We heard you the first time.

Have you spoken to a doctor about whether or not you should be riding? :twisted:

Greg T

Greg66 wrote:

GregT wrote:

I'm 14 stone

Blimey. We heard you the first time.

Have you spoken to a doctor about whether or not you should be riding? :twisted:

He said it would add 5 years to my life! That is brilliant as that means you'll be dead for 10 years before I cork it.

A full decade!

Also you need a big hammer to drive a long nail.

Apologies for the poor pun, your wife told it me and we all know burds are rubbish at jokes.

biondino

The difference is the way that lower intensity work actually starts using fat from your fat reserves as energy while you exercise, albeit after a certain amount of time has elapsed. High intensity work doesn't (or does but at a much lower rate, I forget).

msw

Article on fat-burning here: http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/fitn ... etter-1065

Suggests eating breakfast when you get to work, basically. You always use energy from carbohydrates first, but after a certain period (about 20 minutes I think I read elsewhere) your fat-burning energy system starts to contribute more of the energy you use. I have a feeling the argument against going really really hard is that you can't do it for long enough for the fatburners to kick in.

cheers
M

greg66_tri_v2.0

Greg T wrote:

Apologies for the poor pun, your wife told it me and we all know burds are rubbish at jokes.

Oh, I don't know. Yours has you convinced that Bianchi is yours, so she can't be that rubbish.

Greg T

Greg66 wrote:

Oh, I don't know. Yours has you convinced that Bianchi is yours, so she can't be that rubbish.

That is a very good point, I only console myself that I know that none of her genetic inheritance is yours as she has the right number of heads/eyes, doesn't have webbed feet and craps out of her bumhole rather than leaching her waste through her skin.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Greg T wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Oh, I don't know. Yours has you convinced that Bianchi is yours, so she can't be that rubbish.

That is a very good point, I only console myself that I know that none of her genetic inheritance is yours as she has the right number of heads/eyes, doesn't have webbed feet and craps out of her bumhole rather than leaching her waste through her skin.

Yet.

Wait til the teen years. Big changes. :twisted:

Clever Pun

go to the gym as well as commuting by bike and bam the weight flys off

tailwindhome

Fat Ar5e on sofa for oh a decade or so !

Weight prior to starting back on the bike - 84.8kg

Cycle 158 miles over 4 weeks - 98 miles last week(56 commute 42 civilian)

Weight yesterday - 85.7kg

Can't figure it out, no discernable increase in food intake- though it is possible

Had expected to lose weight quickly to start with and maybe plateau at about 80kg

Though weightloss is not the objective (overall sense of wellbeing and fitness is) it would be nice to get back to pre slob weight of 12 stone (75kg)


Any thoughts??

il_principe

Push harder for longer more often...?

linsen

Eat fewer pies

Do more exercise

I have not lost any weight since I started balls-out (or in my case no-balls-out) cycling to work regularly. I also walk the dog every day, wind the church clock, cycle everywhere else too, go to the gym etc etc

I have however changed shape and clothes fit me better (or in the case of my favourite jeans, fall down)

And I'm much much fitter. That works for me

Greg T

linsen wrote:

wind the church clock

Is that an euphemism?

linsen

Greg T wrote:

linsen wrote:

wind the church clock

Is that an euphemism?

Actually no. I wind the church clock

tailwindhome

linsen wrote:

Eat fewer pies

Do more exercise

I have not lost any weight since I started balls-out (or in my case no-balls-out) cycling to work regularly. I also walk the dog every day, wind the church clock, cycle everywhere else too, go to the gym etc etc

I have however changed shape and clothes fit me better (or in the case of my favourite jeans, fall down)

And I'm much much fitter. That works for me

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Pies

always_tyred

biondino wrote:

The difference is the way that lower intensity work actually starts using fat from your fat reserves as energy while you exercise, albeit after a certain amount of time has elapsed. High intensity work doesn't (or does but at a much lower rate, I forget).

I think this is overstated. I had an exuberant rowing coach who was into this stuff (not that, in hindsight, I'm convinced he understood it). The argument is that the "fat-burning zone" encourages your body to metabolise fat into the blood stream during excersise at a higher rate compared to its use of the sugars already present.

However, we were told that this doesn't really start to kick in until the 45-60 minute mark and even then is a moderate effect, because the process is so slow. Hence, no matter how hard you try, you will eventually "bonk" on a long ride even though you are aparrently as much of a fat bastard as when you set off.

By far the greater effect will be the increased energy usage (requiring your body to get the energy from your fat reserves at its leisure) due to generally increased metabolism. Your metabolism increases generally if you are fitter, and in particular is elevated for a period following excersise. Hence the 10:30 munchies if you cycle to work.

And Don_Don, if you say anything about "bonking" I swear I'm going to cycle to Cheltenham and kick you square in the nuts.

gb155

for me its all about Cals Out >Cals In

I fuel my body before I leave in the morning and before I head home at night, Eat between 700-1000 cals aday and and cycled 14 miles a day, 7 each way, As you can see from my Sig it worked and is still working for me.

Keep your Fat intake low too.

Jen J

gb155 wrote:

for me its all about Cals Out >Cals In

I fuel my body before I leave in the morning and before I head home at night, Eat between 700-1000 cals aday and and cycled 14 miles a day, 7 each way, As you can see from my Sig it worked and is still working for me.

Keep your Fat intake low too.

700-1000 calories a day??? Sorry but that sounds shockingly low. Especially combined with exercise. I've always been under the general impression that you you should lose weight slowly and so not have a deficit of more than about 500 cals a day. If you're cycling 14 miles (approx 500 cals?) and need 2500 just to function, then you'd be burning approx 3000 a day, so should be eating 2500 a day.

That said, you're the one that's successfully lost weight, so what do I know... :?

pneumatic

msw wrote:

Article on fat-burning here: http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/fitn ... etter-1065

Suggests eating breakfast when you get to work, basically. You always use energy from carbohydrates first, but after a certain period (about 20 minutes I think I read elsewhere) your fat-burning energy system starts to contribute more of the energy you use. I have a feeling the argument against going really really hard is that you can't do it for long enough for the fatburners to kick in.

cheers
M

When I commuted, I used to do this (eat breakfast when I got to work). It started because I was always in a hurry to get out, but I noticed that riding 9 miles on empty first thing seemed to make a big difference, so I carried on.

Clever Pun

I eat and drink what I want

if I stop cycling I'm done for

linsen

Clever Pun wrote:

I eat and drink what I want

if I stop cycling I'm done for

I'd agree with that!

sc999cs

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Fat Ar5e on sofa for oh a decade or so !

Weight prior to starting back on the bike - 84.8kg

Cycle 158 miles over 4 weeks - 98 miles last week(56 commute 42 civilian)

Weight yesterday - 85.7kg

Can't figure it out, no discernable increase in food intake- though it is possible

Had expected to lose weight quickly to start with and maybe plateau at about 80kg

Though weightloss is not the objective (overall sense of wellbeing and fitness is) it would be nice to get back to pre slob weight of 12 stone (75kg)


Any thoughts??

Muscle weighs more than fat and you have probably built up more powerful leg muscle. Go for the trouser belt test instead. That'll give a better indication.

gb155

Jen J wrote:

gb155 wrote:

for me its all about Cals Out >Cals In

I fuel my body before I leave in the morning and before I head home at night, Eat between 700-1000 cals aday and and cycled 14 miles a day, 7 each way, As you can see from my Sig it worked and is still working for me.

Keep your Fat intake low too.

700-1000 calories a day??? Sorry but that sounds shockingly low. Especially combined with exercise. I've always been under the general impression that you you should lose weight slowly and so not have a deficit of more than about 500 cals a day. If you're cycling 14 miles (approx 500 cals?) and need 2500 just to function, then you'd be burning approx 3000 a day, so should be eating 2500 a day.

That said, you're the one that's successfully lost weight, so what do I know... :?

Your right it is too low, However I have been taking in that number of Cals since Nov last year and my body is now used to it so its no issue, At the weekends I may take in a little more and only cycle one day to ensure im ready for Monday morning.

always_tyred

gb155 wrote:

Jen J wrote:

gb155 wrote:

for me its all about Cals Out >Cals In

I fuel my body before I leave in the morning and before I head home at night, Eat between 700-1000 cals aday and and cycled 14 miles a day, 7 each way, As you can see from my Sig it worked and is still working for me.

Keep your Fat intake low too.

700-1000 calories a day??? Sorry but that sounds shockingly low. Especially combined with exercise. I've always been under the general impression that you you should lose weight slowly and so not have a deficit of more than about 500 cals a day. If you're cycling 14 miles (approx 500 cals?) and need 2500 just to function, then you'd be burning approx 3000 a day, so should be eating 2500 a day.

That said, you're the one that's successfully lost weight, so what do I know... :?

Your right it is too low, However I have been taking in that number of Cals since Nov last year and my body is now used to it so its no issue, At the weekends I may take in a little more and only cycle one day to ensure im ready for Monday morning.

Either your calculations are out, or (and no offence) "it isn't big and it isn't clever".

I don't think your strategy is good for you in the long term and I would suggest that you take some expert advice.

1500 cals per day was a concentration camp ration.

markybhoy67

Back in June I was nearly 17 stone l@rd @rse

Just weighed my self after just cycling home from work (10 miles)

Now 15 stone 2 lbs

I used to do a lot of running but kept getting to many niggly injuries so done nothing for about the last two years. In June I got off ma fat @rse and decided to get a bike, best thing I have done in a long time :P

Hope to get back under 14 stone but for the moment I will just keep enjoying getting out on the bike, also I still drink and eat what I want as I haven't cut anything out of my diet.

gb155

Always Tyred wrote:

gb155 wrote:

Jen J wrote:

gb155 wrote:

for me its all about Cals Out >Cals In

I fuel my body before I leave in the morning and before I head home at night, Eat between 700-1000 cals aday and and cycled 14 miles a day, 7 each way, As you can see from my Sig it worked and is still working for me.

Keep your Fat intake low too.

700-1000 calories a day??? Sorry but that sounds shockingly low. Especially combined with exercise. I've always been under the general impression that you you should lose weight slowly and so not have a deficit of more than about 500 cals a day. If you're cycling 14 miles (approx 500 cals?) and need 2500 just to function, then you'd be burning approx 3000 a day, so should be eating 2500 a day.

That said, you're the one that's successfully lost weight, so what do I know... :?

Your right it is too low, However I have been taking in that number of Cals since Nov last year and my body is now used to it so its no issue, At the weekends I may take in a little more and only cycle one day to ensure im ready for Monday morning.

Either your calculations are out, or (and no offence) "it isn't big and it isn't clever".

I don't think your strategy is good for you in the long term and I would suggest that you take some expert advice.

1500 cals per day was a concentration camp ration.

I keep a food diary and my calculations are 100% spot on, Im not trying to be big, well im trying to be small lol, or clever its just what I have been doing for 11 months,

No ill effects, I have lost a lot of weight, still have lots to loose, I havn't had a single day off sick where as I spent a LARGE % off sick last year, I have only had a cold this year and even that didnt stop me, Im a new person,

My doc has seen my food diary along with what cycling I do and I seem him every 2 weeks, He has said although yes its low as long as im in good health he is happy for me to carry on so long as I see him every 2 weeks, I do admit a few medical peeps have said I need more cals but im in the best heath I have been in for years.

always_tyred

Even if you are managing, your GP might be of the view that this is better than being 20 stone overweight, so why rock the boat. It doesn't mean that this is the best way.

What do I know. Just might be useful for you to hear some slightly alarmed responses.