Continuing weight loss

paulcrate

Hi,

I have been cycle noe for two years... started on my mountain bike and, in August moved to a road bike (Specialized Allez Comp 2010). Loving my new road bike..

Anyway - since I started cycling to work and changing my diet I have lost about 4 stone in the two years - I am 6 foot 1 and have dropped from 18 stone 4 to 14 stone 3.

I still have some weight to loose but I am really struggling. I have increased the time on my bike but its not really had much affect. I have tried monitoring my heart rate closer to keep in the Fat Burning zone but I am not sure thats helping either - apart from making me cycle slower which makes me feel like I haven't tried that much..

I cycle to and from work every day and vary my routes, between 6 and 12 miles to work and then 8 - 12 home. I sometimes go out for longer rides at the weekend as well.

What advice to continue the weight loss? Or just continue what I am doing

danowat

Try doing some HIIT workouts, that should get the ball rolling again.

Either that or eat less.

paulcrate

not sure I really want to be eating less... I don't really eat that much as it is!

Will maybe try some HIT

danowat

Maybe its not how much you are eating, maybe its what you are eating?.

Losing weight is (IMO) pretty much diet driven, as its much, much easier to eat cals than burn them.

paulcrate

I _think_ I have a fairly healthy diet, that helped me loose the 4 stone I have already lost... just got a bit more to go and I seem to be stuck at this weight...

danowat

Plateauing is normal, I've been there, I went from from 24stone to 14stone, plateau'd and could lose anymore,HIIT worked and moved a bit, in the end I pretty much resigned myself to the fact that at 6ft 3, 14 stone isn't too bad, sure I could afford to lose some more but meh.....

amaferanga

If you're not losing weight then calories in are not less than calories out. Simple as that. So either you're not burning as many calories as you think from cycling (are you estimating how many calories you burn cycling somehow?) or you're consuming more calories than you think.

Pokerface

I dropped from 18 stone to 13 stone in a very short period of time, and have pretty much been stuck there for years, despite cycling on a daily basis. I tend to think it's my body deciding it's reached its natural weight.

In order to lose more weight I would have to alter my diet (less cals in) but it's hard due to the nature of my training - need most of my calories to fuel the engine.

Looking at revising WHAT I eat rather than how much to aid in losing the last few pounds.


P.S. The fat burning zone is a myth.

dodgy

Pokerface wrote:

P.S. The fat burning zone is a myth.

Glad to see that posted

Yes, Pokerface is right. Whilst the ratio of fat burned is higher while in the 'fat burning zone', you still burn more fat (in total) at higher intensities.

This is the most perpetuated myth that I can think of, it's spouted ad nauseaum amongst gym goers the world over and seldom challenged. The reason? Because overweight people suddenly have an 'easy' way to lose weight

paulcrate

amaferanga wrote:

If you're not losing weight then calories in are not less than calories out. Simple as that. So either you're not burning as many calories as you think from cycling (are you estimating how many calories you burn cycling somehow?) or you're consuming more calories than you think.

I am not sure how acurate it is but I use a garmin forerunner 305 with an HRM and that calculates the calories based on my weight/age/HR... as I said, not sure how acurate it is..

paulcrate

dodgy wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

P.S. The fat burning zone is a myth.

Glad to see that posted

Yes, Pokerface is right. Whilst the ratio of fat burned is higher while in the 'fat burning zone', you still burn more fat (in total) at higher intensities.

This is the most perpetuated myth that I can think of, it's spouted ad nauseaum amongst gym goers the world over and seldom challenged. The reason? Because overweight people suddenly have an 'easy' way to lose weight

I did think that, but wasn't sure... I thought that anything that gets your heart rat up would burn fat....

Infact there is an article on this site about it, thats what got me thinking...

ut_och_cykla

Some ideas:

Mix up the exercise a bit - try running or swimming - or cycling harder/ more often/ longer ? Reduce food calories very slightly.
Cycling calories up & down around your comfort level can kid your body that its getting enough and shed a few more pounds.
Get some pro body fat measurements done - perhaps what you have left is healthy anyway?
Whilst the fat burning zone is a myth I've read that the devlopment of fat burning(carb sparing) ability, capillary and mitochondria density , and increase of some exercise enzymes can be hampered hampered by training too hard too often. Stress raises cortisol levels and can keep on a few extra pounds. Get plenty of rest as well as exercise & Perhaps try to slow down a bit on some longer rides, but up teh level of effort on shorter rides/intervals?

dodgy

Not sure if you're a drinker (I am, I enjoy a pint) but consider dropping booze on weekdays. I have no trouble adjusting my weight, I allow it to go up slightly at the end of summer and start working at bringing it down so that I'm at my fighting weight by summer (I go to the Alps every July and need all the help I can get).

I find that cutting out beer midweek allows me to lose easily 1lb a week with no other changes (admittedly I like peanuts with beer ). So I can fine tune my weight to within a 1/2lb or so of my target weight just by adjusting alcohol intake.

Just a thought.

amaferanga

paulcrate wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

If you're not losing weight then calories in are not less than calories out. Simple as that. So either you're not burning as many calories as you think from cycling (are you estimating how many calories you burn cycling somehow?) or you're consuming more calories than you think.

I am not sure how acurate it is but I use a garmin forerunner 305 with an HRM and that calculates the calories based on my weight/age/HR... as I said, not sure how acurate it is..

Not very accurate. It seems to vary from Garmin-to-Garmin - some overestimate hugely while others underestimate significantly (EDIT: think the 305 is one of those that massively overestimates calories for a lot of people). How many calories is the 305 telling you you've burned after say a hard 60min riding?

danowat

My Garmin recons I burn 2000cals EACH WAY to work, that, combined with my weekend rides would mean I am burning upwards of 12000cals a week :roll:

If that were true, I'd be a freaking skelington

meanredspider

paulcrate wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

If you're not losing weight then calories in are not less than calories out. Simple as that. So either you're not burning as many calories as you think from cycling (are you estimating how many calories you burn cycling somehow?) or you're consuming more calories than you think.

I am not sure how acurate it is but I use a garmin forerunner 305 with an HRM and that calculates the calories based on my weight/age/HR... as I said, not sure how acurate it is..

Not very. Even Garmin recognise that - hence the Forerunner 410 that includes HR in the calculation - even then I don't think it's very accurate.

I'm a +1 for getting your fat measured (properly) - I'm amazed at how powerful body dismorphia (sp?) is.

I too hit a plateau after losing 2.5 st - it seems very common. It can't be as simple as cals in vs cals out at this point otherwise the same method that delivered the initial loss would continue to work. There must be some adaptation going on that means you need to further reduce your calorie intake to take into account extra "fitness". I've also heard that (IIRC) "grey" fat which middle-aged men accummulate is harder to shift (less accessible to the body) than the standard stuff (might be guff but it was from a reliable source).

mattshrops

Have you tried switching to 5 or 6 meals a day? no you cant eat more- spread out the same amount over the extra. the theory is eating more regularly stimulates the metabolism and burns more fat. this did actually work for me when i hit a plateau. theory also goes if your body doesnt get food at regular intervals (4 hrs-ish) then it will store up fat rather than burn it. it seems our biological make up is still back in hunter gatherer mode. do not eat too little this will not work. do not skip meals this will not work. have you tried using one of the calorie counting sites? one which gives you a breakdown of fats carbs etc is best so that you can tweak what you are eating as well as how much.
dont give up, setting short term goals is good too, make them hittable then move on to the next one. success breeds success.

paulcrate

dodgy wrote:

Not sure if you're a drinker (I am, I enjoy a pint) but consider dropping booze on weekdays. I have no trouble adjusting my weight, I allow it to go up slightly at the end of summer and start working at bringing it down so that I'm at my fighting weight by summer (I go to the Alps every July and need all the help I can get).

I find that cutting out beer midweek allows me to lose easily 1lb a week with no other changes (admittedly I like peanuts with beer ). So I can fine tune my weight to within a 1/2lb or so of my target weight just by adjusting alcohol intake.

Just a thought.

Not really a drinker now... I used to be but I stopped drinking through the week ages ago - somtimes have the odd pint through th weekbut not often... I do generally have a few pints or some wine at the weekends

Having said that - I just returned from a Friday lunch at the pub.......

paulcrate

amaferanga wrote:

paulcrate wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

If you're not losing weight then calories in are not less than calories out. Simple as that. So either you're not burning as many calories as you think from cycling (are you estimating how many calories you burn cycling somehow?) or you're consuming more calories than you think.

I am not sure how acurate it is but I use a garmin forerunner 305 with an HRM and that calculates the calories based on my weight/age/HR... as I said, not sure how acurate it is..

Not very accurate. It seems to vary from Garmin-to-Garmin - some overestimate hugely while others underestimate significantly (EDIT: think the 305 is one of those that massively overestimates calories for a lot of people). How many calories is the 305 telling you you've burned after say a hard 60min riding?

Just looked on my Garmin. Not had it that long so not much history on it, a cycle to work a couple of mornings ago had me at 790 Cals for 11.5 miles average speed 17.1 and a time of 40 mins

P_Tucker

paulcrate wrote:

dodgy wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

P.S. The fat burning zone is a myth.

Glad to see that posted

Yes, Pokerface is right. Whilst the ratio of fat burned is higher while in the 'fat burning zone', you still burn more fat (in total) at higher intensities.

This is the most perpetuated myth that I can think of, it's spouted ad nauseaum amongst gym goers the world over and seldom challenged. The reason? Because overweight people suddenly have an 'easy' way to lose weight

I did think that, but wasn't sure... I thought that anything that gets your heart rat up would burn fat....

Infact there is an article on this site about it, thats what got me thinking...

Your heart rate rising is an effect of doing exercise; it doesn't cause calories to be burned - your legs do that. And the more work you make your legs do, the more calories you'll burn. It's simple when you think about it.