Road Cycling to Burn Fat and Get Fit
Comments
-
dont try to overcomplicate it to start with.
just ride as much as you can, try to improve your diet, keep your eye on how much you eat. dont forget to rest.
once youre regularly doing 50 miles then maybe get more scientific if you want to.Death or Glory- Just another Story0 -
Jonny_Trousers wrote:Very hard to lose weight through exercise alone, but it's an excellent aid to a carefully considered diet. Interval training seems to be a particularly efficient way to train where weight loss is the goal. Good luck!
Last year I had a cycling commute of 45 miles per day. I was working in a scaffolding yard for 6-8 hours. I struggled to eat 5000+ cals a day and I was still losing weight, it wasn't very hard but it would be now considering my time constraints. Too much work to do.
From what I know about fat burning. You only really start to burn fat after about 30 minutes of working out. The "Fat burning" zone I agree with OP is likely myth and presented to people who fear their own sweat.0 -
Did a fifty miler on Sunday and my tracker calculates that I burned over 5000 calories.
So I had two pizzas.
Purveyor of "up"
0 -
Peddle Up! wrote:Did a fifty miler on Sunday and my tracker calculates that I burned over 5000 calories.
So I had two pizzas.
LOL sometimes I think I only ride so I can eat like a pig!0 -
Peddle Up! wrote:Did a fifty miler on Sunday and my tracker calculates that I burned over 5000 calories.:
Thats quite some over estimation!!0 -
danowat wrote:Peddle Up! wrote:Did a fifty miler on Sunday and my tracker calculates that I burned over 5000 calories.:
Thats quite some over estimation!!
Probably, but the pizzas were good. Purveyor of "up"0 -
It's a good incentive, X Pints + Y Pizza = Z Miles0
-
No need for fancy formulas and gadgets. The key is to get out there and JFDI.
Big H
May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind always be at your back.0 -
Mmmm... Jfdi... sounds like indian food!!!
0 -
derosa wrote:No need for fancy formulas and gadgets. The key is to get out there and JFDI.
It does help to have some sense of what you've burned versus what you've eaten in case there's a big mismatch one way or the other. Doesn't need to be complicated though - +/- 10 kcals a minute or something similar for pushing would workROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
I agree with just about everything that has been said!
You might also want to take a look at a web-site/phone app called MyFitnessPal [http://www.myfitnesspal.com/] (iPhone, Blackberry & Android) and a Smart Phone App called Cyclemeter (£2.99 on iPhone) both are brill (IMHO!)
They're helping me loads with weight loss and training!0 -
:oops: went out the other day with "our lass" - 2hr. ride & her cal. counter showed 2000 cals. burnt ( the revs. were up & there were a few climbs). I find the food consumption starts next day, eat what we like & you can't nail weight to us. It may work for others, hope it does.0
-
freddiegrubb wrote::oops: went out the other day with "our lass" - 2hr. ride & her cal. counter showed 2000 cals. burnt ( the revs. were up & there were a few climbs). I find the food consumption starts next day, eat what we like & you can't nail weight to us. It may work for others, hope it does.
2000 kcals - I doubt it. How fast did you ride? For a rolling route you'd probably need to be averaging >22mph to burn that many calories.More problems but still living....0 -
I reckon on 700 kCal/hr when averaging 17mph. Fierce spin classes in the gym may be 900-1000.
Cyclemeter was awful when I tried it. Hopelessly inaccurate on all fronts due to very poor polling of the GPS chip eg, it gave me my speed to precise 2 decimal places, but only refreshed every 3 seconds (oh the irony). If a refresh failed, huge speed spikes would entail. Save your £2.99 and use one the free ones.Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:I reckon on 700 kCal/hr when averaging 17mph. Fierce spin classes in the gym may be 900-1000.
Cyclemeter was awful when I tried it. Hopelessly inaccurate on all fronts due to very poor polling of the GPS chip eg, it gave me my speed to precise 2 decimal places, but only refreshed every 3 seconds (oh the irony). If a refresh failed, huge speed spikes would entail. Save your £2.99 and use one the free ones.
That'd be about 195 Watts for the 700 kcal/hr and 275 Watts for 1000 kcal/hr. You may be able to maintain these Wattages, but most recreational cyclists probably couldn't (275 Watts for an hour would comfortably see you through a 3rd/4th Cat road race).More problems but still living....0 -
If I did 700cals an hour, I'd be as skinny as a rake, I am not!!!!0
-
Weight (for inclines) & size (frontal area) must have a reasonable impact - though speed is key.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
I stumbled across this article a few days ago.. not sure how accurate it is but was an interesting read nonetheless.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/13543 ... -one-mile/
"Moderate Cycling
Bicycling 12 to 13.9 mph is a "moderate effort," according to the Wisconsin Department of Health. Your heart rate should be 45 percent to 80 percent of your maximum heart rate--220 beats per minute minus your age--when you exercise moderately, according to Dr. Dean Ornish in his book "Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease." When you bicycle 12 to 13.9 mph, you burn 50 to 58 calories per mile if you weigh 190 pounds, 41 to 47 calories per mile if you're 155 pounds and 34 to 39 calories per mile if you're 130 pounds.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/13543 ... z1JVtCHFGa"0 -
"Bicycling 16 or more miles per hour is considered "racing" by the Wisconsin Department of Health "
Woo Hoo! Purveyor of "up"0 -
I'd say 50 cals a mile is a reasonable guestimate.0
-
evening all i cannot say what calories i have burnt off i can only go by my weight and belly size going down i have cycled and walked and changed my eating habits .I found that by not eating after 18-00 helped not only with weight loss but in my sleeping better no food in the stomach.But i always have a very big breakfast which see me through to lunchtime only when cycling do i have something in between.Not very scientific but it as worked for me but we are all different and others might need other ways.Never trust anyone who says trust me0
-
sub55 wrote:aripallaris wrote:heart rate monitor here would be handy. try to maintain a heart rate of 140 - 160 to stay in fat burning zones
that's a complete misnomer at best and complete crap at worst
actually its not. when your heart rate is at much higher levels it seeks the fastest source of energy. unfortunately its faster to burn muscle than it is to burn fat. keeping your heart rate at a constant level, approx 50-60% of your max heart rate, will promote the utilisation of stored body fats to be broken down and used as energy.0 -
It does appear to be true that in the "fat burning zone" you utilise fatty acids as a greater proportion of the fuel you're using as compared to higher heart rates.aripallaris wrote:sub55 wrote:aripallaris wrote:heart rate monitor here would be handy. try to maintain a heart rate of 140 - 160 to stay in fat burning zones
that's a complete misnomer at best and complete crap at worst
actually its not. when your heart rate is at much higher levels it seeks the fastest source of energy. unfortunately its faster to burn muscle than it is to burn fat. keeping your heart rate at a constant level, approx 50-60% of your max heart rate, will promote the utilisation of stored body fats to be broken down and used as energy.
However, this does not equate to greater weight loss as you utilise less energy overall due to not working as hard, and it is creation of an energy deficit from which weight loss stems; not the direct oxidation of fatty acids. Larger energy deficit -> larger weight loss.
It really is as simple as "eat less, move more"...0 -
yup no substitute for nutrition (30% training / 70 % diet when it comes to fat burning) most the problems with weight loss is that people become concerned with scales. unfortunately, thats the wrong approach. take a before picture (at the start) and every month or two weeks take another in that exact position. keeping doing so for a period of time, a few months etc. then compare your before and afters. great motivator too and you'll physically see fat beginning to strip off. also make sure your eating enough protein rich foods.
well it doesnt equate to greater weight loss you are absolutely right, because weight by scales is a false judgement. what it does however equate too, is greater fat reduction and less muscle wastage. remember muscle weighs more than fat!
importance of water: generally when your overweight your body stores a lot of water content. you need to ensure your constantly hydrated. Now heres why.
when the body doesnt have enough water it will hold onto it. its a survival mechanism (same principle as food, eat too much the body will store it as fat. again its a survival mechanism that can be called upon in time of hardship. unfortunately its very easy to overdo it with food.) to combat water retention in fat, you actually need to drink more water, on a regular basis. 2litres min a day if your not that active and increase that amount if you are. by doing so your body eventually rehydrates properly. It learns that theres plenty of water about and as such will begin to release excess water you've been holding.
if only that last principle applied for food as well lol. if only!0 -
danowat wrote:I'd say 50 cals a mile is a reasonable guestimate.
Yup - but not at 12mph.
I've just looked at the article which suggests over 1000kcals per hour at over 16mph. There's no way I burn 2000kcals on my daily commute or anything close (that's the sort of number my Garmin comes up with). Even 750 each way seems a bit high - I reckon on around 600kcals for 15 miles at somewhere between 16 & 18mph depending upon what the wind's doing (it's almost always doing something).ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Saw someone mentioning apps, I've been using EndoMondo which is free for all phones,inc symbian. Not quite sure how accurate it is with it's calculations but the route tracking is 100%. I used mapblast to measure a route and EM was within a few hundred meters0
-
most calorie calculators will be wrong because everyone's basal metabolic rate is different. some people burn calories faster than others. generally i find most units massively over estimate the calories burnt.0
-
While #1 is true, #2 is another myth and would make #1 is ineffective.meanredspider wrote:aripallaris wrote:heart rate monitor here would be handy. try to maintain a heart rate of 140 - 160 to stay in fat burning zones
I agree with the other on this that the fat-burning zone is a myth. There are, however, a couplev of grains of truth behind the concept
1. Going at a steadier pace allows you to exercise for much longer and therefore has the POTENTIAL to allow you to burn more calories versus going balls-out for 20 minutes.
2. Exercising at <70%MHR conditions your body to increase the efficiency of the fat burning systems which will allow you to draw on fat reserves more effectively at higher intensities.
Firstly the efficiency of the biochemical reactions going on when converting fats to energy isn't changed through training.
Secondly, the physiological changes induced by training that enable us to sustain a higher power output for the same ratio of fuel substrate utilisation (i.e. same % of fat usage) come about from higher intensity efforts which develop our aerobic energy systems.
That's called improving fitness and is highly desirable since it enables us both to ride more and at a higher intensity, thereby increasing our overall weekly calorie usage.
Tooling about at low intensities (i.e. <70% MHR) is a most ineffective means to induce these positive adaptations (such as increased mitochondrial density, increased capillarisation, reduced diffusion distances for and faster rates of exchange of gases and key metabolites, increase in VO2max etc).
So for #1 to be the case, steady riding still needs to be of quality effort, at minimum >70% MHR and preferably >75% MHR. And better still once you have a month or two in your legs, to include regular efforts >85% of MHR.
Weight loss for someone with an excess of body fat is, as other have noted, simply a matter of a maintaining sustainable medium term calorie deficit (and has very little to do with the mix of fuel substrates used when exercising).
A deficit of up to 500 Cal per day is about right for most in this scenario.
A good way to do that is through tracking what you eat and what exercise you perform. Measuring things tends to modify behavior.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
While #1 is true, #2 is another myth and would make #1 is ineffective.meanredspider wrote:2. Exercising at <70%MHR conditions your body to increase the efficiency of the fat burning systems which will allow you to draw on fat reserves more effectively at higher intensities.
I'll quote the reference, Alex, but I'd be interested to see the counter-reference(s). I have no axe to grind on this but it's the entire basis of a highly-rated HR training book I have.
I should add that #2 isn't the whole story - it's combined with alternate days of exercising above 85%MHR and long-distance training at 75% - the idea being that you can maintain these alternate levels of exercise (especially for long-distance runners) for much longer than you can higher-intensity exercise whilst ALSO improving the adaptations to burn fat.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Cycling definitely helps you tone up and lose weight. See here http://theamazing39stonecyclist.wordpress.com/
An inspiration to me.
I am toned to buggery just through cycling. Legs and arse are about as tight as can be, have lost my moobs and am getting near a six pack and am not embarrassed to get my top off.
I do nothing but cycle.0
