Trying to lose weight-distance or speed?

neilr4

Hi,

I've recently climbed back onto the bike after a 9 year absence. The problem is that I'm now 15kg heavier than i was back then............

I've been cycling now for 2 weeks and get out every 2nd day for between 20 and 30 miles averaging approx. 15mph, I recover relatively well (not too stiff the day after) and watch what I eat but so far have only dropped 1lb in weight!

In the past 'weight' was not an issue for me but realistically at what rate can I expect to shed 'the belly' :roll: and would I be better concentrating on increasing distance at a slower pace than increasing intensity!!

Any advice gratefully appreciated!

emx

you will shift more weight through changing your diet, although in principle the harder you ride, the more calories you will burn. IME, low intensity 'fat burning' rides are largely a myth, although I expect someone will be along to disagree shortly....

danowat

emx wrote:

you will shift more weight through changing your diet, although in principle the harder you ride, the more calories you will burn. IME, low intensity 'fat burning' rides are largely a myth, although I expect someone will be along to disagree shortly....

+1

overgeared

to lose weight you need to live with a calorie defecit, that's a certainty regardless of whether you ride long and slow or short and fast.
a calorie defecit means that some of your daily energy requirements have to come from stored body fat, and this is where the issue is.
because the body cant burn fat at the same rate as carbohydrates you are theoretically forced to ride slower. there are some possible ways to mitigate this based on timing of food intake (you eat carbs just before or during training, consume them, and then force your body to live off fats the rest of the day) but in general a period of focussed weight reduction fits best with riding long and slow such as throughout the winter.

getprg

My understanding is that riding at "fat burning" pace is a training technique (generally in HR zone 2 ie 65 to 75% of max HR) used to improve the efficiency with which your body can use fat stores on long rides when it has burnt all the "pre ride" and "during ride" carbs you have taken on.

This fat burning process is important because in endurance sports the body relies on carbs for energy but burns them faster than fat. During a long event you cannot replace and digest carbs as fast as your body burns them - so in long events the point comes where the body burns and relies more and more on body fat in place of depleted carbs.

So it is not a weight loss technique per se - just a means to improve performance in endurance sports. I believe you can force this training effect by riding "fasted".

IMO the basic rule applies that weight loss results from burning more calories than you take on. You can burn them fast or slow it really doesn't matter.

Perhaps someone will correct me if I have this wrong.

meanredspider

To lose the 15kg, eat less.

As for the cycling, whichever version burns the most calories is best. Normally time is the most important factor for calorie burn but go as fast as you can manage in the time you have available.

AidanR

80% of weight loss is diet, 20% is exercise (and 73.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot!).

Concentrating on the exercise, your best bet seems to be (from my internet browsings) a combination of:

Long, slow rides, and;
High intensity intervals

Long slow rides as opposed to shorter, faster ones have two advantages:
1) You burn a greater percentage of calories as fat at a lower intensity
2) You burn more relatively more fat the longer you exercise

High intensity intervals are very good at burning fat post-exercise. Think short repeated hill climbs here, or a series of sprint-rest-sprint-rest etc. They are by far the most time-efficient exercise for losing fat.

Stuff between these two extremes seems less effective. This is because it doesn't have the metabolic effect of the latter, and burns up many calories from glycogen as opposed to fat stores, so that the extra calories burned tend to be offset by eating too much afterwards as it makes you much hungrier!

Usual caveats apply - I may not know what the hell I'm talking about.

Zoomer37

If its just about weight loss id include some running into your week. Yes sod all to with cycling, but if you want to drop the weight it will definately help along side the miles your doing on the bike.

ut_och_cykla

Don't just watch what you eat - log it all - every last nibble for a week or two - on the web if you like (livestrong for example) and be careful not to over estimate what you 'burn' cycling or underestimate what you eat. A deficit needs to be created to lose weight and doing it by eating less (usullay cutting out rubbish is enough - you don't need to starve!) and exercising regularly (regardless of hard & fast or long & slow - keep as active as you can (& mix it up a bit too if you can - run/swim/walk etc) should work.

acidstrato

ride uphill as much as you can. + dont replace calories burnt beyond recommended daily limit

and drink plenty of water...

period

neilr4

Great advice and some very useful tips

Herbsman

High intensity work will metabolize very little to body fat during the exercise. As your effort increases the proportion of fat metabolized will decrease compared to carbohydrate (glycogen stored in your muscles and liver). Lots of long rides at medium intensity is your best bet.


(pinched from The Biochemical Basis of Sports Performance by Ron Maughan & Micheal Gleeson)


Don't just eat less but eat better. Eat the most nutritious food possible to make sure your diet isn't lacking any vitamins or minerals. I think it really helps to go for quality over quantity.

Brommers76

Hmmm, all those overweight cyclists from my local club doing 80 miles on a Sunday at some rediculously easy pace would seem to suggest that long rides are not the answer. IME cycling can be a poor weight loss exercise unless you ride often and at times hard and restrict food intake.

Running is far better as you can't eat on the go and generally the intensity is higher.

Garz

Running is fine except you cannot control your 'zones' as easily and you are stressing your potentially overweight joints to the extreme. For an overweight person this would not be the sport of choice till I was at a sensible weight.

Cycling is good as it is so low-impact and easier to break into for someone who is out of shape.

Herbsman

Looking at that graph, it seems that to burn the most fat possible during the exercise you'd want to be riding at the point with the highest possible energy cost that has the highest possible proportion of fat metabolism ... about 60% VO2max? Impossible to measure while you're actually riding though...

Herbsman

Is exercising before bedtime a good idea for losing weight? I'd be less likely to eat a big meal after a training session if I was going to bed not long afterwards

neilr4

Garz wrote:

Running is fine except you cannot control your 'zones' as easily and you are stressing your potentially overweight joints to the extreme. For an overweight person this would not be the sport of choice till I was at a sensible weight.

Cycling is good as it is so low-impact and easier to break into for someone who is out of shape.

At the moment I'm riding approx 30 miles every 2nd day, running will be fine during the winter when hopefully i'll be alot lighter too

At the moment I'm concentrating mainly on my diet (as advised) the advice I have recieved from people on this forum has been very helpful.

Thanks lads

SBezza

Forget about the fat burning zone etc, but the longer you can ride the more calories you will use.

Don't do a 2 hour ride at a low level, if all you can spare is 2 hours, do this hard as you can. If you can ride for longer, then mix this in with shorter higher intensity rides. A mixture of intensities is going to be better for you, it keeps the body guessing.

For 30 mile rides, do these very hard, and just eat a well balanced diet with as little processed food as possible.

For the record I lost 6 stone in weight by diet and cycling so it is quite easy to lose the weight by cycling as a form of exercise. Just be realistic of what you think you burn whilst cycling, it isn't that high.

SBezza

Brommers76 wrote:

Hmmm, all those overweight cyclists from my local club doing 80 miles on a Sunday at some rediculously easy pace would seem to suggest that long rides are not the answer. IME cycling can be a poor weight loss exercise unless you ride often and at times hard and restrict food intake.

Ever thought it might be because they do one ride a week, and pig out on crap for the remainder of the time. That easy pace might not be so easy for them

neilr4

SBezza wrote:

Forget about the fat burning zone etc, but the longer you can ride the more calories you will use.

Don't do a 2 hour ride at a low level, if all you can spare is 2 hours, do this hard as you can. If you can ride for longer, then mix this in with shorter higher intensity rides. A mixture of intensities is going to be better for you, it keeps the body guessing.

For 30 mile rides, do these very hard, and just eat a well balanced diet with as little processed food as possible.

Have cut out all processed food and concentrating on foods with high GI index and NO sugar at all. Doing 30 mile rides at average 80% of max HR, no dropping gears and staying seated when riding up short hills and resting on descent until HR returns to same bpm as before the hill. Taking carb/electro drink during ride but no food, porridge and black coffee for breakfast 1 hr before ride.

SBezza

For 30 miles I would just use water, the food you eat 1 hour before is enough energy for that sort of distance.

With the food, don't cut out all sugar, you need sugars to fuel you, just cut out refined sugar. I eat loads of fruit and veg, all which contain sugar, and don't put on weight. The diet needs to be totally balanced with protein, carbs and fats for optimal fueling and recovery.

Garz

It's easier to do on the long steady miles watching your calorie intake, permitting you have the time to spend on the bike.

piquet

Garz wrote:

Running is fine except you cannot control your 'zones' as easily and you are stressing your potentially overweight joints to the extreme. For an overweight person this would not be the sport of choice till I was at a sensible weight.

Cycling is good as it is so low-impact and easier to break into for someone who is out of shape.

+1, at 6'2" & 100kg, running is a quick route to knackered knees for me

neilr4

SBezza wrote:

With the food, don't cut out all sugar, you need sugars to fuel you, just cut out refined sugar.

Refined sugar is what I meant :oops:

Alex_Simmons/RST

Folks - don't get caught up with the mix of fuel substrates used during exercise. It's largely irrelevant.

What's matters for losing excess body fat is maintaining a sustainable calorie deficit over the period of desired weight loss.

Train to improve power. Eat to get lean.

neilr4

Tell me something Alex. If I consume a meal of patatoes, veg and lean chicken breast, how am I to measure how many calories I consume?

night_porter

There are plenty of resources on the web to tell you how many calories you are consuming, weigh the food and use the calculators.

I have found that reducing your intake of carbs forces your body to use it's fuel reserves (stored fat) and as a diabetic this has helped me lose weight and now I am not dependant on any medication to control my diabetes. I will point out that this was acheived under guidance from my doctor and a diabetes dietician.

Carbs are the body's fuel and if they are not burned they get stored as fat.

To lose 1lb in weight we need to burn 3,500 calories more than we need or reduce our food intake by 3,500 calories. So reducing what you eat by 500 calories a day will work out to 1lb a week, if you want to lose more then cut out more calories. Eating 1200 calories per day is a safe minimum according to the dietician.

Using sugary/carb replacement drinks is adding calories and negating the exercise so just drink water as has been previously suggested. Ride at the pace that you enjoy and you will ride more often, losing weight will up your speed anyway win/win.

Pokerface

neilr4 wrote:

Tell me something Alex. If I consume a meal of patatoes, veg and lean chicken breast, how am I to measure how many calories I consume?

http://www.livestrong.com/myplate/


You can track virtually EVERY last thing you eat and get a pretty good idea of calories being consumed.

Also carb, fat, protein content, etc.


Either that or learn to read food labels - pretty much everything you buy tells you what's in it.

Herbsman

I just read in a biochemistry book that the mechanism involved during fructose metabolism leads to greater fat synthesis than metabolism of other sugars does.

Not to say 'fructose makes you fatter than other sugars does' or 'reducing fructose consumption will help you lose body fat' but it's a point you might want to look further into.

StillGoing

Don't forget that your weight may not change, but you may be becoming leaner. 15lb of muscle doesn't take up the same space as 15lb of fat, but they both weigh the same. In effect your scales may not budge making you think your training regime and diet isn't working so always best to take some measurements too.

Herbsman

One recent study showed that
cyclists who incorporated fast intervals into
their training burned three-and-a-half times
more body fat than those who cycled
constantly but at a slower pace.

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... =BRGENHOME

Now I don't doubt that they're telling the truth and I would love to read this study in the hope of gaining a better understanding of exercise and metabolism. The problem is that they don't link to the study so how can we be sure what study they're talking about, or if it even exists? So annoying!