Speed gain from weight loss

markos1963

Ok so I'm a 5'11" tall 48yo male who is 13st 12lb. Realistically I could put my mind to it and lose 1.5-2st. How much if any time could I shave off my 10TT with this loss? At the moment it stands at 25.20 on a flattish course. I know the hillier the circuit the more I'd gain but just wondering if there is anything to gain on the flat.

Eyorerox

No real idea but this link might steer you in the right direction, clearly hill climbing would be easier provided you did not lose any power with your weight reduction.
http://www.analyticcycling.com/

danowat

Realistically?, in TT'ing?, not a huge amount, TT'ing is about raw power, as most of the courses are pretty flat, I do have a excel spreadsheet floating about at home that wlil show you have much power affect losing a certain amount of weight will give.

Your biggest improvement in time will come from training and pacing, I'd work on them first, and weight a secondary goal, if you want, I can lend you my powertap wheel, and you can bash out a CP20 to give you some idea of where you are with your current power level, have a chat about it sunday if you want (I think you are doing the EDCA champs?)

BeaconRuth

markos1963 wrote:

Ok so I'm a 5'11" tall 48yo male who is 13st 12lb. Realistically I could put my mind to it and lose 1.5-2st.

If you lost 2 stones you would feel like an entirely new rider. Every little rise (even in Norfolk!) would feel so much easier and I suspect you'd feel tons better in yourself generally - so I'd suggest losing the weight. If it helps your time trialling (and I suspect it would to some extent) then that would be a great bonus too.

Ruth

markos1963

Alas Danowat I can't make it due to work commitments(finishing at 2am isn't the best prep!) but hoping to make it for the EACC one on June 14th so will be in touch.

I guess that just the process of getting fitter to lose the weight will improve my times by default anyway and the obvious health benefit. I always feel that the slightest incline drags me back so even if I don't make much power I could overcome it with being lighter.

I might even stand a chance of a decent time at next years Little Mountain TT Ruth if I can shed that weight! My poor performance at this years has made me think long and hard about my weight.

danowat

Losing 2 stone is easier said than done, I've lost 10 stone, so I know from experiance, I've also known people to lose weight and go slower, as they've lost power too, so its only part of the equation IMO

SBezza

Lets not forget with weight loss comes a smaller profile for the wind to hit, and as TTing is about power to cda. A smaller profile whilst not losing power (it is quite easy to do), will bring you a faster time even if completely flat.

I have only come across 1 totally flat course, but that suffers from being very windy, again here a smaller profile is a big benefit. Most TT courses across the country have inclines and as Ruth has mentioned every extra kilo will slow you down.

singleton

danowat wrote:

Losing 2 stone is easier said than done, I've lost 10 stone, so I know from experiance, I've also known people to lose weight and go slower, as they've lost power too, so its only part of the equation IMO

There is an 'ideal' weight for each one of us - the balance between being as light as possible while maintaining the power.

SBezza

danowat wrote:

Losing 2 stone is easier said than done, I've lost 10 stone, so I know from experiance, I've also known people to lose weight and go slower, as they've lost power too, so its only part of the equation IMO

That can be true, but it is possible to lose the weight without a loss of power, just don't starve yourself. Funny thing is people spend thousands to lose a few grams off a wheel weight, but could get better results by losing the weight off the body, it has a far greater impact than a wheel/frame/aero bars etc can ever give you.

It is difficult, especially when it is the last couple of kilos etc, but no doubt at 5'11" and near on 14 stone, a stone of that would come off relatively easily with no loss of power at all, just by diet change or more cycling (most ideally a combination of both).

markos1963

I think the problem for me was I had a history of racing as a junior and when I came back to cycling I was quite fast for a beginner and didn't need to lose weight to be able to keep up. Now I need to move on to the next level I feel that weight must be the next thing to be improved as at my age I'm not going to be able to gain much more power(probably in the process now of losing it?)

Dan you're certainly an inspiration, from when I first saw you riding a couple of years ago to the other week the change has been startling and so has your times.

Now off to throw all the cakes in the bin

BeaconRuth

markos1963 wrote:

I think the problem for me was I had a history of racing as a junior and when I came back to cycling I was quite fast for a beginner and didn't need to lose weight to be able to keep up. Now I need to move on to the next level I feel that weight must be the next thing to be improved as at my age I'm not going to be able to gain much more power(probably in the process now of losing it?)

Nooooo! Don't start using your age as an excuse - you're only 48! If you were an elite rider at the top of your game then declining power might be an issue, but unless you're training to your absolute maximum how can you possibly know that you can't increase your power? I coach lots of riders older than you who are improving all the time.

Ruth

P_Tucker

danowat wrote:

Losing 2 stone is easier said than done, I've lost 10 stone, so I know from experiance, I've also known people to lose weight and go slower, as they've lost power too, so its only part of the equation IMO

By what mechanism would a rider's power reduce because he'd lost fat? Other than a short term temporary effect.

Eyorerox

By what mechanism would a rider's power reduce because he'd lost fat? Other than a short term temporary effect.[/quote]

Provided you only lost fat you would not lose power.

markos1963

BeaconRuth wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

I think the problem for me was I had a history of racing as a junior and when I came back to cycling I was quite fast for a beginner and didn't need to lose weight to be able to keep up. Now I need to move on to the next level I feel that weight must be the next thing to be improved as at my age I'm not going to be able to gain much more power(probably in the process now of losing it?)

Nooooo! Don't start using your age as an excuse - you're only 48! If you were an elite rider at the top of your game then declining power might be an issue, but unless you're training to your absolute maximum how can you possibly know that you can't increase your power? I coach lots of riders older than you who are improving all the time.

Ruth

I was under the impression that power is the first thing to go as you got older? Perhaps I have vast reserves of watts waiting to be unlocked?!

P_Tucker

Eyorerox wrote:

Provided you only lost fat you would not lose power.

Egg-bloody-zactly. FFS

David Henderson

Aerodynamics generally trumps weight. The obvious exception is that this is not true going slow up step hills. Weight has a much lower effect while cruising on flat terrain than aerodynamics that are largely influenced by riding position.

To see precisely how the many different variables that effect speed on the bike, please check out and use the bike calculator: http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html

There other factors that determine speed, such as wind, temperature, elevation, mechanical efficient, even type of tire. These are all considered with the bike calculator.

Cheers,
David Henderson

dw300

Get some bodyfat calipers and record you weight in order to calculate your lean mass and bodyfat so that you can adjust your training and diet to loose weight without sacrificing lean body mass.

Pross

BeaconRuth wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

Ok so I'm a 5'11" tall 48yo male who is 13st 12lb. Realistically I could put my mind to it and lose 1.5-2st.

If you lost 2 stones you would feel like an entirely new rider. Every little rise (even in Norfolk!) would feel so much easier and I suspect you'd feel tons better in yourself generally - so I'd suggest losing the weight. If it helps your time trialling (and I suspect it would to some extent) then that would be a great bonus too.

Ruth

I'd agree with this. I've lost about that weight earlier this year. In the three 10 mile TTs I have ridden this season my time has improved by 2 minutes on the best ride I have managed since re-starting cycling 3 years ago (which was also my final ride of last season). A large part of this is that the weight loss came mainly through increased exercise rather than the loss of the weight itself. However, I feel that the weight loss has allowed me to train harder so the two are linked, I now manage to stay with others for the full length of a club run and can push myself on the hills that I used to just ride aiming to get to the top.

markos1963

So what does, 'lose weight without losing muscle' actually mean?

t.m.h.n.e.t

markos1963 wrote:

So what does, 'lose weight without losing muscle' actually mean?

When you heavily restrict calories your bodies natural response is to slow your metabolism to match the intake. If the BMR(base metabolic rate which equates to lying in bed all day) of a 25yo man is 3000per day then it's generally acceptable that 2500-2600 is a sensible deficit to lose weight. The problem arises when the same man consumes only 1000 per day. Weight loss will occur abeit quickly and when there simply isn't any more fat cells to get rid of the body metabolises muscle fibre. The trouble for a lot of dieters here is they eat too little,lose weight then begin to eat normally again and put on weight +some extra as the body is expecting famine again soon.

Unlike fat, muscle is metabolically active(muscle burns calories) so is directly affected when you don't eat enough. ie: spend 2 hours in the gym and not eating enough = little to zero muscle gains. It's uh use it or lose it really.

markos1963

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

So what does, 'lose weight without losing muscle' actually mean?

When you heavily restrict calories your bodies natural response is to slow your metabolism to match the intake. If the BMR(base metabolic rate which equates to lying in bed all day) of a 25yo man is 3000per day then it's generally acceptable that 2500-2600 is a sensible deficit to lose weight. The problem arises when the same man consumes only 1000 per day. Weight loss will occur abeit quickly and when there simply isn't any more fat cells to get rid of the body metabolises muscle fibre. The trouble for a lot of dieters here is they eat too little,lose weight then begin to eat normally again and put on weight +some extra as the body is expecting famine again soon.

Unlike fat, muscle is metabolically active(muscle burns calories) so is directly affected when you don't eat enough. ie: spend 2 hours in the gym and not eating enough = little to zero muscle gains. It's uh use it or lose it really.

So basically keep exercise levels constant or increased with diet?

t.m.h.n.e.t

markos1963 wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

So what does, 'lose weight without losing muscle' actually mean?

When you heavily restrict calories your bodies natural response is to slow your metabolism to match the intake. If the BMR(base metabolic rate which equates to lying in bed all day) of a 25yo man is 3000per day then it's generally acceptable that 2500-2600 is a sensible deficit to lose weight. The problem arises when the same man consumes only 1000 per day. Weight loss will occur abeit quickly and when there simply isn't any more fat cells to get rid of the body metabolises muscle fibre. The trouble for a lot of dieters here is they eat too little,lose weight then begin to eat normally again and put on weight +some extra as the body is expecting famine again soon.

Unlike fat, muscle is metabolically active(muscle burns calories) so is directly affected when you don't eat enough. ie: spend 2 hours in the gym and not eating enough = little to zero muscle gains. It's uh use it or lose it really.

So basically keep exercise levels constant or increased with diet?

Yep.

carrock

BeaconRuth wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

Ok so I'm a 5'11" tall 48yo male who is 13st 12lb. Realistically I could put my mind to it and lose 1.5-2st.

If you lost 2 stones you would feel like an entirely new rider. Every little rise (even in Norfolk!) would feel so much easier and I suspect you'd feel tons better in yourself generally - so I'd suggest losing the weight. If it helps your time trialling (and I suspect it would to some extent) then that would be a great bonus too.

Ruth

I agree with this- I know that I put out more power on a bike than my wife as I squat with more weight in the gym than she does- about 50% more.

I can also leave her behind on fast sprints on a bike

BUT- she is 11 stone to my 16 1/2 and thus tends to be a bit quicker up the hills than I- especially mountain passes like Honister and Newlands. When she was 10 stone she absolutely mullered me up crawleyside bank

Losing significant excess bodyfat, I'd say, is the single biggest factor in improving performance on a bike given a reasonable pre existing fitness level- all those people looking to change components and save grams may be better to lose a few kilos first.

If I was my optimum weight of 13 stone or less, I would hope to be much quicker, esp. up hills

Agreed easier said than done though.

The guy who dropped 10 stone- sir, you have my respect and admiration

carrock

markos1963 wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

I think the problem for me was I had a history of racing as a junior and when I came back to cycling I was quite fast for a beginner and didn't need to lose weight to be able to keep up. Now I need to move on to the next level I feel that weight must be the next thing to be improved as at my age I'm not going to be able to gain much more power(probably in the process now of losing it?)

Nooooo! Don't start using your age as an excuse - you're only 48! If you were an elite rider at the top of your game then declining power might be an issue, but unless you're training to your absolute maximum how can you possibly know that you can't increase your power? I coach lots of riders older than you who are improving all the time.

Ruth

I was under the impression that power is the first thing to go as you got older? Perhaps I have vast reserves of watts waiting to be unlocked?!

I am interested in effects of age on vo2 max as I am starting to take cycling seriously at age 45

The study below is interesting - whilst vo2 max can decrease significantly in older people, much of this is due to older athletes adopting a more sedentary lifestyle- furthermore, inactive people can and do lose 10% of aerobic capacity per decade

Athletes who maintain steady training lose only 5% vo2 max per decade-or 0.5% per year

Thus an athlete at age 48 who only achieves 70% of his vo2 max potential of, say, 70, will have a reading of 49- the same individual at age 58 who achieves 85% of his maximum v02 of 66 will have a score of 56......

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/vo2-max ... pacity-281

Tom Dean

carrock wrote:

I agree with this- I know that I put out more power on a bike than my wife as I squat with more weight in the gym than she does- about 50% more.

Your aerobic power on the bike has nothing to do with how much you can squat.

carrock

Tom Dean wrote:

carrock wrote:

I agree with this- I know that I put out more power on a bike than my wife as I squat with more weight in the gym than she does- about 50% more.

Your aerobic power on the bike has nothing to do with how much you can squat.

Didn't say aerobic power

Power = strength x speed.
If leg speed is equal then the only other variable is force, which is driven by leg strength.
You can work on increasing your cadence, but there is a ceiling on how fast you can pedal, so your main power improvement from increased cadence is limited.
The more force you can continuously generate, the more power you can put out.
Strength => force. The upward limit of strength is much more open ended than leg speed.

I'm not a betting man, but I'd wager that Sir Chris Hoy, for example, is no stranger to a squat machine

Tom Dean

carrock wrote:

If leg speed is equal then the only other variable is force, which is driven by leg strength.

Assuming we're not talking about track sprinting here (even though you brought up Chris Hoy), no, it isn't.

celbianchi

carrock wrote:

I agree with this- I know that I put out more power on a bike than my wife as I squat with more weight in the gym than she does- about 50% more.

Given you state you are 16+ stone I'll wager you can squat more than most of pro cycling's GC contenders.
The amount you can squat has zero relevance to your ability to ride a bike quickly.

carrock

I'd agree that vo2 max is a primary factor- but leg strength can't be dismissed as wholly irrelevant

http://www.cyclesportcoaching.com/Files ... aining.pdf

Tom Dean

carrock wrote:

I'd agree that vo2 max is a primary factor- but leg strength can't be dismissed as wholly irrelevant

http://www.cyclesportcoaching.com/Files ... aining.pdf

First line of linked article

There are a lot of theories on strength training for cycling out there, and unfortunately not a lot of science
to back them up. Therefore, the following strength training recommendations below are based on my
reading of a lot of literature, books and articles on this topic.

No references provided.

Presumably since there is not a lot of science to back up his ideas, the author has based the article on his reading of a lot of other people's uninformed opinions.

Tom Dean

Sorry for taking this OT

carrock this subject has been done ad nauseam on here and every other cycling forum. Do a search and have a read - it should become obvious which side of the argument is backed up by the evidence.