Forum home Road cycling forum Training, fitness and health

Losing Visceral fat

robbietrobbiet Posts: 10
Hi all
at 209lbs (5'10") I've let things go, health wise and heading for A&E in a few years time (i'm 44), but back on the bike, motivated and over the past 2 weeks I've done 100 miles and feel great. I have a few circuits of around 20-26 miles which I'm doing and logging them on garmin fit app for the phone with a couple of 40+ mile circuits with a few big climbs but not done these yet. The circuits have a few of climbs of around 1-2 miles long (anyone who knows the roads The Girvan RR road on will know what the roads are like, also visit the Ayrshire alps web site for all the climbs) if the road does not go up then its going down. To the point, I've amassed an impressive gut. I know its going to take some time to get rid of and I look amazing in lycra :oops: but is there anything else I can do to target the visceral fat. Diet wise I'm eating healthier, but what exercises can I do.
«13

Posts

  • JayKostaJayKosta Posts: 635
    Don't bother with any additional exercises as long as you keep cycling regularly.
    Doing some basic easy stretches would be fine.

    To lose weight you need to reduce the amount that you eat.
    Avoid 'rewarding' yourself with a high calorie 'pleasure meal'.

    Mentally, keep reminding yourself that being a little hungry is GOOD, that is when you are actually reducing body fat.

    The most important thing is to understand that losing weight will take a long time, so don't get discouraged after a few months. Just keep going with the plan of eating a little less day-by-day, and you'll get good results.

    Jay Kosta
    Endwell NY USA
  • phreakphreak Posts: 2,354
    Cycling more will probably be your best bet. You don't say how much time you have to devote to this, but if you can improve your fitness to the point where you're doing 100+ miles per week then I'm sure you'll start to lose weight easily enough.

    The weather is superb right now, so just ride as much as you can, then see how you're doing by the autumn.
  • robbietrobbiet Posts: 10
    I work a 2 week shift pattern of 12 hour days, working 4 days one week and 3 days the next. In a 3 day week I could get out probably 3 times and a couple of times on my 4 day week, more than this then I would really tire myself.
  • dee4life2005dee4life2005 Posts: 773
    When I started cycling around 18months ago I was around 200lbs and 5' 10'' ... so quite similar, although a little younger at 33yrs. Over the first couple of weeks I didn't change my diet at all, but I was doing around 100-120miles and found that I actually put on a few pounds. I stuck with it though and after a further couple of weeks the weight started to shift at the rate of a couple of pounds every week. A year later and I'd lost 3 stone (159lbs now) and the weight has held steady at that level now for around 6 months.

    I do still induldge in unhealthly stuff e.g. yorkies, pizza, burgers ... put the portion sizes are smaller than they used to be. Cutting out all the crisps - or switching to baked crisps - and cutting out the biscuits was what helped me, in addition to the cycling, to lose the weight and keep it off. It is a bit of a struggle at times to avoid having a binge feed as you do tend to get a serious hunger after rides from time to time, it's picking something healthy rather that reaching for the junk food that helps here.

    Good luck.
  • robbietrobbiet Posts: 10
    When I started cycling around 18months ago I was around 200lbs and 5' 10'' ... so quite similar, although a little younger at 33yrs. Over the first couple of weeks I didn't change my diet at all, but I was doing around 100-120miles and found that I actually put on a few pounds. I stuck with it though and after a further couple of weeks the weight started to shift at the rate of a couple of pounds every week. A year later and I'd lost 3 stone (159lbs now) and the weight has held steady at that level now for around 6 months.

    I do still induldge in unhealthly stuff e.g. yorkies, pizza, burgers ... put the portion sizes are smaller than they used to be. Cutting out all the crisps - or switching to baked crisps - and cutting out the biscuits was what helped me, in addition to the cycling, to lose the weight and keep it off. It is a bit of a struggle at times to avoid having a binge feed as you do tend to get a serious hunger after rides from time to time, it's picking something healthy rather that reaching for the junk food that helps here.

    Good luck.

    Cheers, though may need a new seat the perineum gets a bit numb after 20 miles
  • mididoctorsmididoctors Posts: 9,136
    Not really something I feel I can give that much advice on thou I have had periods of being uncomfortable with my bulk..A lance fanbois I know but shows what can be done http://39stonecyclist.com/tag/fat-cyclist-blogger-lose-weight/
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • alihisgreatalihisgreat Posts: 3,872
    The key to losing weight I found was the volume of exercise I was doing - ok so I was going from 78 to 73kg but if you're exercising daily then you can afford to keep eating a reasonable amount whilst still having a calorie deficit.

    Other than that, focus on high quality protein so you can recover and maintain muscle whilst still having a calorie deficit, and try to limit carbs to during and after exercise.

    eg. don't think "oh I'm cycling later, better have a big carb loaded breakfast/lunch" - just have an energy gel at the start of your ride, then 30-60g per hour during the ride.
  • zardozzardoz Posts: 251
    I have a similar story to yours, 5'10" 57 years old and started at 224 pounds but now down to 166 pounds over the course of a year. There is only one way to lose weight and that is to burn more than you consume. Eating more healthily is a good thing, but eating less will lose you the weight. 3,500 calories equates to about 1 pound, in terms of cycling that's around 5 hours on the bike assuming you eat nothing! What I did was first of all cut out all the censored , so biscuits, crisps, chocolate bars etc, cut out the Alchohol, eat less of higher quality food so leaner cuts of meat more fruit & veg, less potatoes, rice and bread. Drink water rather than sugary drinks. I didn't calorie count but I did become a lot more aware of what was in certain foods. My favourite biscuits had 125 calories per biscuit, 10 in a pack and I could easily eat a pack in a day!

    To burn more fat, try pre-breakfast fasted rides and LSD.....Long Slow Distance (what else?) so riding in Zone1/2 has been shown to burn more fat. There is also the Tabata workout which is best done on a turbo and is 4 minutes of sheer hell but is supposed to trick the body into continuing to burn fat after the workout. I can't vouch for this although I did try it - if you are not seeing flashing lights and feeling nauseous at the end of it though then you are not trying hard enough.....apparently!

    If you want to keep the weight off then it is much better to lose it gradually, 1-2 pounds a week max, I found there were some weeks where I lost nothing. Don't get put off by this and think the long game, it probably took you several years to gain the weight after all.
  • trekvettrekvet Posts: 220
    Some say "Target fat burning is impossible" but I went out walking with my HRM on the otherday with a view to staying within my 93-109 bpm fat burining zone , according to the chart on http://www.fitness-and-bodybuilding-workouts.com/heart-rate-fat-burning.html, and I found it quite a challenge staying within the zone up hill and down dale. Don't know the results yet but it sure made a fun 2hr.30min walk on a hot day (PS. I took 500x2 of water with electrolytes - just enough for me!!!).
    The Wife complained for months about the empty pot of bike oil on the hall stand; so I replaced it with a full one.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,256
    TrekVet wrote:
    Some say "Target fat burning is impossible" but I went out walking with my HRM on the otherday with a view to staying within my 93-109 bpm fat burining zone , according to the chart on http://www.fitness-and-bodybuilding-workouts.com/heart-rate-fat-burning.html, and I found it quite a challenge staying within the zone up hill and down dale. Don't know the results yet but it sure made a fun 2hr.30min walk on a hot day (PS. I took 500x2 of water with electrolytes - just enough for me!!!).

    No such thing as a 'fat burning zone'. That chart is hilarious.
  • dubcatdubcat Posts: 831
    I've lost over 4 stone in weight (225lbs to 165lbs). IMHO it's 75% diet and 25% training, and this is coming from someone who hit 12 hours a week of running and cycling at one point. My advice is to install the free app myfitnesspal on your phone and use it religiously.
    2010 Specialized Rockhopper
    2012 Bianchi Infinito
  • FlâneurFlâneur Posts: 3,080
    Mix up the exercise, it will keep the body guessing where it needs to work from therefor making it work harder. Try and do it constantly even if it is push ups and sit ups (Perhaps when you wake up and when you get home from work). May be worth seeing if there is a good a circuit class near by if you unsure of creating your own. Just try and keep up the intensity, For example on the bike, if you have a heart rate monitor then aim for just below your peak (for me I am between 150-170) and keep it up for 90/120 minutes, forget distance.

    Some exercises will help tone muscle (such as crunches) and do very little to help burn the body fat quickly unless you do lots and lots.

    Back yard exercises.
    Suicide sprints
    Push ups / sit ups / Russian Twists
    skipping
    core exercises (planks, discs)
    Stevo 666 wrote: Come on you Scousers! 20/12/2014
    Crudder
    CX
    Toy
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,256
    sa0u823e wrote:
    For example on the bike, if you have a heart rate monitor then aim for just below your peak (for me I am between 150-170) and keep it up for 90/120 minutes, forget distance.

    two hours at just below max HR ? :lol:
  • FlâneurFlâneur Posts: 3,080
    I deserved that for my use of language :)
    Stevo 666 wrote: Come on you Scousers! 20/12/2014
    Crudder
    CX
    Toy
  • twotyredtwotyred Posts: 822
    2 things:

    1: Target fat burning is impossible. If it were then I would have 0% fat on my legs and massive bingo wing arms and a flabby belly. Generally tthe first thing to shrink will be your gut but it's more of a general fat loss really.

    2: Calorie restriction is a very unhealthy and dangerous way to do it. You will have no energy, your cycling performance and speed will drop through the floor, your muscle mass will be depleted as well as fat, your endurance will suck, your willpower will be broken, you will binge on unhealthy foods, you will be unable to last a day at work without massive binges, you will immediately put on the weight you've lost after you stop restricting calories.

    Sounds harsh but that's the truth. The best thing you can do is get sufficient calories through healthy foods especially fruits and veg and keep it up long term. The reason obesity happens in the first place is getting excessive calories from the wrong food sources. Make sure that you ALWAYS have enough calories to ride and get you through the day. If you follow the guidelines of 2500 calories + however many you burn during your riding and get the calories from the right places you WILL lose weight and it will be sustainable for the rest of your life.

    Eating right can be tough, restricting calories is always fcuking impossible!

    This is nonsense.

    Calories in must be less than calories burned to achieve weight loss whatever you are eating i.e calorie restriction. There is no such thing as good calories or bad calories. Its perfectly possible to have a balanced diet with no junk and still p ut on weight. However I will concede that it would be harder than eating fatty highly processed calorie dense junk.
  • styxdstyxd Posts: 3,234
    I'd suggest going to the gym. I've heard about several folk who've managed to turn their fat into muscle at the gym.
  • keef66keef66 Posts: 13,123
    "Calories in must be less than calories burned to achieve weight loss whatever you are eating"

    Can't argue with that.

    I've always found that careful monitoring of my diet is much more effective in terms of weight loss than simply upping the amount / intensity of exercise and continuing to eat too much.

    I'd say 66% diet, 33% exercise.
  • ai_1ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    robbiet wrote:
    Hi all
    at 209lbs (5'10") I've let things go, health wise and heading for A&E in a few years time (i'm 44), but back on the bike, motivated and over the past 2 weeks I've done 100 miles and feel great. I have a few circuits of around 20-26 miles which I'm doing and logging them on garmin fit app for the phone with a couple of 40+ mile circuits with a few big climbs but not done these yet. The circuits have a few of climbs of around 1-2 miles long (anyone who knows the roads The Girvan RR road on will know what the roads are like, also visit the Ayrshire alps web site for all the climbs) if the road does not go up then its going down. To the point, I've amassed an impressive gut. I know its going to take some time to get rid of and I look amazing in lycra :oops: but is there anything else I can do to target the visceral fat. Diet wise I'm eating healthier, but what exercises can I do.
    To the best of my knowledge visceral fat is nearly always what goes first when you start losing weight, so if I'm remembering that correctly that's good news since visceral fat is also the most linked to health problems!
    As others have said - you can't do specific excercises to target specific fat deposits. That's a myth driven by the fad diet and work-out industries. Similarly it's not critical what intensity you use energy. If you do high intensity work that uses glycogen for energy then your glycogen stores will be replenished afterwards from food and/or fat stores so it's a similar end result to lower intensity exercise. I think there's a theory that higher intensity exercise increases your resting metabolism more but I don't know if that's true or important!

    Avoid highly processed food and avoid high glycemic index food (usually these go hand in hand). Less processed, low GI food should reduce spikes in blood glucose and reduce food cravings while keeping you adequately fuelled. Avoid "comfort eating" if you can and keep portions sensible. And cycle, run, swim or whatever takes your fancy. Just being physically active is more important than what the activity is. If you enjoy it you're more likely to keep it up so do what you enjoy and don't punish yourself (unless that's what you like!)
    Generally the advice is that 1kg every two weeks is a sustainable rate of weight loss if you're overweight. Faster than that and you're likely to bounce back. Still that's 24kg a year which should get you where you want to be in a reasonable period of time.

    Of course that's all much easier said than done!

    I'm the same height as you and dropped from about 98kg (216lbs) to about 88kg (194lbs) during my first year cycling and then plateaued. I wasn't making a concerted effort to lose weight, just enjoying cycling. I've just started making an effort to resume the weight loss. I think I'd perform, feel and look better at around 80kg which would put me at a fairly healthy body fat percentage so that's my target for the end of this summer. If I get to 80kg I can re-assess and decide if I'm happy or have more to lose.

    Best of luck!
  • The RDA of 2500 calories is based on a sedentary lifestyle and is a minimum based on an average body weight. Then you get people on forums like this one recommending strict calorie restriction of maybe 1800 calories per day for a 100kg bloke. This is NOT POSSIBLE. Performance will diminish to the point of not being able to excercise, you'll get depressed very quickly, binge eating will make it impossible etc. Even if it does work, eating that few calories is starvation, an absolute eating disorder.
    Such nonsense. It's quite possible for a person to consume fewer calories and to exercise. As for stating it will make you depressed and being an eating disorder, such utter pish.
  • ai_1ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    The RDA of 2500 calories is based on a sedentary lifestyle and is a minimum based on an average body weight. Then you get people on forums like this one recommending strict calorie restriction of maybe 1800 calories per day for a 100kg bloke. This is NOT POSSIBLE. Performance will diminish to the point of not being able to excercise, you'll get depressed very quickly, binge eating will make it impossible etc. Even if it does work, eating that few calories is starvation, an absolute eating disorder.
    Such nonsense. It's quite possible for a person to consume fewer calories and to exercise. As for stating it will make you depressed and being an eating disorder, such utter pish.
    It's possible to live on a calorie deficit, in fact you have to of you want to lose weight but if it's extreme it's counterproductive and will have the effects madasahatersley describes. However it's not important to know what the calorie numbers are if you just aim for a sensible rate of weight loss. If you're not losing weight reduce intake a little more. If you're losing it quicker than about 1kg per 2weeks or you're suffering the symptoms madasahatersley describes you may be overdoing it. Simple as that really.
  • styxd wrote:
    I'd suggest going to the gym. I've heard about several folk who've managed to turn their fat into muscle at the gym.
    This is funny. A magic, tissue changing transformation. You are joking, right?!
  • That sort of deficit would be unmanageable but 500 cals less is easy to maintain and will lead to steady weight loss. Most people's idea of exercise is not 5 hour training rides burning 1000's of calories.
  • Can I just chime in as I'm currently losing weight (See the Alpe D'HuZes thread) pretty successfully.

    I keep my carb intake low and only really at breakfast (porridge/banana) to kick-start my day.
    The remainder of the day I try to stick mostly on protein (lean chicken, eggs, fish etc) with some veg to keep it healthy.
    Between meals I snack on nuts. Drink LOTS of water. Substituting evening snacks with carbonated water is a trick that works for me.
    I occasionally treat myself especially if I have run myself into the ground on a training session. I'm losing 1kg a week (5kgs so far) which I did before (15kg in 15 weeks) which remained off.

    Whilst I'm focussing on weight-loss, I'm NOT focussing on training hard. To my mind it's too hard to get that balance right. If you're burning huge amounts of calories, it's difficult to trim it just enough to lose sensible weight and not drive yourself into the ground - especially if you aren't experienced in this or have any coaching/diet support. Calorie burning measurement is so inaccurate. As above, I firmly believe that the big lever is diet - especially for those who aren't dedicated athletes.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • TONY.MTONY.M Posts: 94
    The RDA of 2500 calories is based on a sedentary lifestyle and is a minimum based on an average body weight. Then you get people on forums like this one recommending strict calorie restriction of maybe 1800 calories per day for a 100kg bloke. This is NOT POSSIBLE. Performance will diminish to the point of not being able to excercise, you'll get depressed very quickly, binge eating will make it impossible etc. Even if it does work, eating that few calories is starvation, an absolute eating disorder.
    Such nonsense. It's quite possible for a person to consume fewer calories and to exercise. As for stating it will make you depressed and being an eating disorder, such utter pish.

    Go on then, try eating 1500 calories less than you need and let me know how many days before you crack?
    I don't think that anyone is suggesting consuming 1500 calories less than what is needed to sustain weight as that would be excessive and is likely going to cause you to "crack" as you correctly put it. What is probably being suggested is a calorie restriction of perhaps on average several hundred calories daily to lose weight as intended.

    It is interesting to note that I am not the only one who finds that eating less (within reason, ie not consuming 25% of what you normally would) actually tends to increase sustainable power - again this is calorie restriction within reason with the intent and result of losing weight.

    Professional cyclists just like other athletes will reduce calories in order to lose weight. This is often in combination with increasing exercise levels but it is the reduction in calories relative to exercise which is necessary. Athletes know very well not to eat more food to reduce bodyfat.

    I'm not wanting to blow my trumpet here but I have a good deal of experience gaining and losing weight keeping detailed food diaries as well as exercise and as a result of more than a decade of this I have a good understanding of what works well for losing and gaining weight. It is no surprise that I discovered that in the most basic of terms if you want to lose weight eat less and if you want to gain weight eat more. Exercise is a lot less relevant than food when it comes to losing weight and that I am very sure of.

    Tony
  • wandsworthwandsworth Posts: 354
    TONY.M wrote:
    Exercise is a lot less relevant than food when it comes to losing weight and that I am very sure of.

    I'm not sure that's entirely true. When I started cycling regularly about 18 months ago, it was a huge increase in exercise for me, but I didn't change my diet at all. And yet, I started losing weight. Now I'm cycling even more, but am also taking more care about my diet, and I'm losing more weight. About 15 kg in that 18 months. Of course, you could keep to the same activity level and just reduce your calorie intake and lose weight that way too, but I don't think it's right to say that exercise is a lot less relevant than food. The best, healthiest and most sustainable way to lose weight must surely be to take care of both exercise and food.
    Shut up, knees!

    Various Boardmans, a Focus, a Cannondale and an ancient Trek.
  • TONY.M wrote:
    The RDA of 2500 calories is based on a sedentary lifestyle and is a minimum based on an average body weight. Then you get people on forums like this one recommending strict calorie restriction of maybe 1800 calories per day for a 100kg bloke. This is NOT POSSIBLE. Performance will diminish to the point of not being able to excercise, you'll get depressed very quickly, binge eating will make it impossible etc. Even if it does work, eating that few calories is starvation, an absolute eating disorder.
    Such nonsense. It's quite possible for a person to consume fewer calories and to exercise. As for stating it will make you depressed and being an eating disorder, such utter pish.

    Go on then, try eating 1500 calories less than you need and let me know how many days before you crack?
    I don't think that anyone is suggesting consuming 1500 calories less than what is needed to sustain weight as that would be excessive and is likely going to cause you to "crack" as you correctly put it. What is probably being suggested is a calorie restriction of perhaps on average several hundred calories daily to lose weight as intended.

    It is interesting to note that I am not the only one who finds that eating less (within reason, ie not consuming 25% of what you normally would) actually tends to increase sustainable power - again this is calorie restriction within reason with the intent and result of losing weight.

    Professional cyclists just like other athletes will reduce calories in order to lose weight. This is often in combination with increasing exercise levels but it is the reduction in calories relative to exercise which is necessary. Athletes know very well not to eat more food to reduce bodyfat.

    I'm not wanting to blow my trumpet here but I have a good deal of experience gaining and losing weight keeping detailed food diaries as well as exercise and as a result of more than a decade of this I have a good understanding of what works well for losing and gaining weight. It is no surprise that I discovered that in the most basic of terms if you want to lose weight eat less and if you want to gain weight eat more. Exercise is a lot less relevant than food when it comes to losing weight and that I am very sure of.

    Tony
    Like you Tony I kept food diaries and also did a lot of preemptive work with my GP, a psychologist and researcher to identify what my potential for weight loss was as well as setting lots of goals such as a charts projecting weight loss and having lots of motivations such as the cost/benefits for my cycling from simply eating less.

    In total I lost 31 kilos in 24 weeks which a quick calculation suggests an average calorie defecit of 1420 kcalories per day. The exercise data shows an average of over 11 hours exercise per week with a peak of over 23 hours exercise in week 22 (must have been on holiday) with an increase in performance across the first five months plateauing in the sixth, possibly due to concentrating on distance rather than speed on the bike.

    I can't say I ever cracked despite the calorie defecit each day as I was always within my potential for weight loss and had clear focus on my projected aims although there were three distinct plateaus in weight loss, one due to my birthday celebrations and the other two due to being away at residential conferences where the lure of an all-you-can-eat full english breakfast can be hard to resist.
  • For me It was all about the supply side, cut out all fat wherever possible, cut out alcohol completely, replace with moderate amounts of nuts fish oil etc, dont eat ANY processed food, reduce your sugar content and follow a basic Low GI diet...... its real boring but it worked for me.

    Fat Burning Zones are fairly discredited now as Hi Intensity Training is widely believed to raise an individuals Thermic Rate (or after burner) however your ability to do this intense exercise will depend on your level of fitness, so in that respect a FAT burning zone may well allow the less fit athlete to train for longer.

    Weight training is also a great way of rasing your Thermic rate ...... like i said it worked for me!

    Good luck
  • Did anyone see the BBC Horizon Sugar v Fat documentary? The identical twin who maintained a diet high in fat for a month lost weight, but a significant proportion of the weight lost was muscle. The twin who maintained a high carb diet for the same period lost less weight overall but what he did lose was all fat. So the message from that was that it's not all about losing weight, its about losing fat.

    Plus the twin on the high carb and no fat diet trounced his brother going up box hill...

    And yes it was just a study of two twins, but their results seemed to confirm what the experts were expecting.
  • NeXXusNeXXus Posts: 854
    Did anyone see the BBC Horizon Sugar v Fat documentary? The identical twin who maintained a diet high in fat for a month lost weight, but a significant proportion of the weight lost was muscle. The twin who maintained a high carb diet for the same period lost less weight overall but what he did lose was all fat. So the message from that was that it's not all about losing weight, its about losing fat.

    Plus the twin on the high carb and no fat diet trounced his brother going up box hill...

    And yes it was just a study of two twins, but their results seemed to confirm what the experts were expecting.
    That carbs > fat. What a revelation
    And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.
  • Oh and they were eating as much fat or as much carbs as they wanted, but still lost weight.
Sign In or Register to comment.