Power meter for weight loss ?
Comments
-
So we've gone from "how can I lose weight" to "look how fast I am"....0
-
Imposter wrote:So we've gone from "how can I lose weight" to "look how fast I am"....
No, not at all, you classic wind up merchant. Hardly fast, just evidence, anecdotal, context etc etc. Re-read it - it is egoless typing. Nothing more nothing less, but you win,
Blimey. What is one supposed to do....are you leading a desperately unhappy life as all you do is attack people on here ? Ex pro, seasoned roadie ? Fast legs ? Never known a poster like it. Crazy really. You are having an effect on me, forum based personality and all. Trolling at is best / worst.
Really. Cannot.be.bothered. But, again, thanks.0 -
bristolpete wrote:Imposter wrote:So we've gone from "how can I lose weight" to "look how fast I am"....
No, not at all, you classic wind up merchant. Hardly fast, just evidence, anecdotal, context etc etc. Re-read it - it is egoless typing. Nothing more nothing less, but you win,
Blimey. What is one supposed to do....are you leading a desperately unhappy life as all you do is attack people on here ? Ex pro, seasoned roadie ? Fast legs ? Never known a poster like it. Crazy really. You are having an effect on me, forum based personality and all. Trolling at is best / worst.
Really. Cannot.be.bothered. But, again, thanks.
Well, this escalated quickly. I haven't attacked anyone, although you do seem very melodramatic for some reason and now seem to be attacking me. There's irony. Anyway, good luck with the diet.0 -
Imposter wrote:bristolpete wrote:Imposter wrote:So we've gone from "how can I lose weight" to "look how fast I am"....
No, not at all, you classic wind up merchant. Hardly fast, just evidence, anecdotal, context etc etc. Re-read it - it is egoless typing. Nothing more nothing less, but you win,
Blimey. What is one supposed to do....are you leading a desperately unhappy life as all you do is attack people on here ? Ex pro, seasoned roadie ? Fast legs ? Never known a poster like it. Crazy really. You are having an effect on me, forum based personality and all. Trolling at is best / worst.
Really. Cannot.be.bothered. But, again, thanks.
Well, this escalated quickly. I haven't attacked anyone, although you do seem very melodramatic for some reason and now seem to be attacking me. There's irony. Anyway, good luck with the diet.
It's cool, personally, to me you have been rude on the whole on here and that is a shame. But, again, many thanks. I will endeavour to get there and will tap into advice off the forum for a better insight and understanding of HR and PM's. Thanks.0 -
Poster asks for advice. Gets advice he doesn't like and goes off in search of the answer he wants?
You're fast and you can do century plus rides.
You're also heavier than you want to be.
So why aren't you listening to the advice on diet and going down the PM and HR route?0 -
bristolpete wrote:
It's cool, personally, to me you have been rude on the whole on here and that is a shame. But, again, many thanks. I will endeavour to get there and will tap into advice off the forum for a better insight and understanding of HR and PM's. Thanks.
Seriously what? I haven't been rude to you at all. Exasperated maybe, but not rude. Christ, if you think that's rude, you definitely need to get out more. (yes, that was probably rude)...0 -
cougie wrote:Poster asks for advice. Gets advice he doesn't like and goes off in search of the answer he wants?
You're fast and you can do century plus rides.
You're also heavier than you want to be.
So why aren't you listening to the advice on diet and going down the PM and HR route?
Not the case really, the caveat here is that some people have levelled stuff that is actually inaccurate, and hyperbole at best regarding me, me diet and my eating habits as well as ignoring what I said that in my own admittance, I am a heavy rider. I have scales at home, I thought they were out. I went to the Doctor and said, random question, can you weigh me on your machine. Yes, she does, and again, she looks at me, looks at the scales and advises rather odd you in now way look 15 stone. I reply I know, tell me about it. But I cant say anymore than that aside from being called a liar etc and not admitting or 'fessing up to being a fat boy on a bike, which I am not. Never professed to be being fast, simply wondered if a PM would help get down some mass or weight or what ever it needs to be called, but I am going to speak to people off forum who wont judge on ambiguous text or if they see me in the flesh can see what I look like on a bike. Does this make sense as don't want to upset people, just trying to rationalise what I see, read and feel has occurred here. And lets face it, we are all average to crap bike riders, hence being on here. Thanks.0 -
So, you are 5ft9, you weigh 15st and your doctor doesn't think you have a weight problem. Either your biology is unique, to the point where you may be a new species, or you are indeed carrying excess weight somewhere. But you don't know where. You can see why this is getting hard to follow, no?0
-
Imposter wrote:meursault wrote:Check this out
http://www.cptips.com/toc.htm#table
A heart rate monitor will help you. High cadence, low intensity over longer rides (more than two hours) will target body fat in the zone 2 range.
If you don't have time for longer rides then intervals will be a good substitute.
I don't see how that will help. Higher cadence just means you will probably fatigue quicker than if you just rode at your 'normal' cadence. And there is no magical zone for 'fat burning'. Although it is reasonable to suggest that higher intensity exercise will 'burn' more calories than lower intensity, diet is still where the answer is.
It's not just high cadence. I said high cadence low intensity, It's all explained in the (scientific) link I posted. Disclaimer: I am not necessarily advocating the scientific method.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
wongataa wrote:
Zone 2 isn't the best "fat burning" zone. While in that zone a higher percentage of the energy consumed comes from fat. At higher exertion rates you use more energy and although the percentage of energy from fat is lower the total amount of energy used from fat is higher due to the overall higher energy use.bristolpete wrote:I have however gone back to basics and I am currently riding 2 x 30~60 miles a week recreational geared rides + 80 miles a week commuting on the single speed and have started using zone 2 HR to try and burn some fat and really enjoying the economical / structured riding.
A power meter will let you now how much energy you burn while riding pretty accurately. To lose weight you just have to consume less energy than you expend.
I beg to differ
We have studied eight endurance-trained women at rest and during exercise at 25, 65, and 85% of maximal oxygen uptake. The rate of appearance (R(a)) of free fatty acids (FFA) was determined by infusion of [(2)H(2)]palmitate, and fat oxidation rates were determined by indirect calorimetry. Glucose kinetics were assessed with [6,6-(2)H(2)]glucose. Glucose R(a) increased in relation to exercise intensity. In contrast, whereas FFA R(a) was significantly increased to the same extent in low- and moderate-intensity exercise, during high-intensity exercise, FFA R(a) was reduced compared with the other exercise values. Carbohydrate oxidation increased progressively with exercise intensity, whereas the highest rate of fat oxidation was during exercise at 65% of maximal oxygen uptake. After correction for differences in lean body mass, there were no differences between these results and previously reported data in endurance-trained men studied under the same conditions, except for slight differences in glucose metabolism during low-intensity exercise (Romijn JA, Coyle EF, Sidossis LS, Gastaldelli A, Horowitz JF, Endert E, and Wolfe RR. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 265: E380-E391, 1993). We conclude that the patterns of changes in substrate kinetics during moderate- and high-intensity exercise are similar in trained men and women.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
meursault wrote:
It's not just high cadence. I said high cadence low intensity, It's all explained in the (scientific) link I posted. Disclaimer: I am not necessarily advocating the scientific method.
I don't see how high cadence and low intensity are compatible. Sustained high cadence demands higher effort than sustained low cadence, and higher effort inevitably means higher intensity. Also, there's a lot of very dodgy info on that website, so I don't see that as being a particularly credible reference.0 -
That amount of calories burned by riding is chickenfeed to the weight you can put on just by eating too much. Even "good" food.
Power meters are interesting and if you use them and train properly you'll get fitter. I doubt you'll lose much weight.
You've completely dismissed any thoughts of looking at your diet.
If you're truly bothered about the weight look at what you eat. If you just want a Power Meter - go get one.
It won't make you lighter apart from in the wallet.0 -
Imposter wrote:meursault wrote:
It's not just high cadence. I said high cadence low intensity, It's all explained in the (scientific) link I posted. Disclaimer: I am not necessarily advocating the scientific method.
I don't see how high cadence and low intensity are compatible. Sustained high cadence demands higher effort than sustained low cadence, and higher effort inevitably means higher intensity. Also, there's a lot of very dodgy info on that website, so I don't see that as being a particularly credible reference.
If I have a cadence of 90 rpm in my lowest gear, that must be lower intensity than in higher gears. I know this by the feel of it and the lower speed. So you don't need the science to back it up.
I don't know what info you have read in the link you don't like, and I don't really have the energy to debate it.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
bristolpete wrote:... but carrying weight at 15 stone, but not a naturally thin guy, solid build blah blah blah.
But, the question I have is can or will a power meter expedite matters reference weight loss....?
FWIW I think you've been given some pretty good answers to your question and also people have suggested what might be the easiest way to lose weight too - to look at your diet properly. Nobody is suggesting your diet isn't full of good things, the question is how many calories are you consuming? You don't appear to know that or have tried to count calories for a few days, which is a very obvious first step for anyone keen to lose weight.
You seem to be defending the fact that you are very heavy and saying "that's just the way it is" and (I paraphrase) "but I'm a really strong cyclist so I haven't got anything to worry about with my weight" while your initial question was clearly about losing weight. This seems rather inconsistent.
Appearances can be very deceptive and not all body fat is subcutaneous. Some people have a lot of visceral fat. You might also perhaps have a lot of muscle. So you might not look fat or especially heavy. But that is not the matter you raised, so it is a digression from your original question.
You asked about using a powermeter to lose weight and Maryka gave a great answer about that. Several others have suggested looking at your diet as an effective and free means of losing weight. Over to you.
Best of luck with shedding the pounds.
Ruth0 -
meursault wrote:Imposter wrote:meursault wrote:
It's not just high cadence. I said high cadence low intensity, It's all explained in the (scientific) link I posted. Disclaimer: I am not necessarily advocating the scientific method.
I don't see how high cadence and low intensity are compatible. Sustained high cadence demands higher effort than sustained low cadence, and higher effort inevitably means higher intensity. Also, there's a lot of very dodgy info on that website, so I don't see that as being a particularly credible reference.
If I have a cadence of 90 rpm in my lowest gear, that must be lower intensity than in higher gears. I know this by the feel of it and the lower speed. So you don't need the science to back it up.
I don't know what info you have read in the link you don't like, and I don't really have the energy to debate it.
So you have an intensity target, why is cadence relevant?0 -
Because higher cadence for the same power primarily works heart/lungs while lower cadence is more muscular, is my guess?
Anecdotally, I have a generally highish preferred cadence at all wattages (90-100) but when I have a chest cold coming on, my natural cadence drops ~10 especially at z1/2 power, I think because my lungs aren't as strong as usual and my legs have to make up for it. Same thing happened when I was pregnant, my cadence dropped and dropped and dropped as my lung capacity got smaller.
I'm not a sports scientist (yet) but I think a "higher" cadence in low zones is better at fat burning just through having a lighter load in terms of watts per pedal stroke, but more repetitions?
Fwiw I don't understand the reasoning behind high cadence fatiguing the muscles more quickly... surely it's the power produced or sheer time spent riding, not the cadence, that causes fatigue? Unless of course you're riding at a ridiculously high cadence (I'm assuming cadence in this context means 90-110 rather than the lowish 70-80).0 -
cougie wrote:That amount of calories burned by riding is chickenfeed to the weight you can put on just by eating too much. Even "good" food.
Power meters are interesting and if you use them and train properly you'll get fitter. I doubt you'll lose much weight.
Conversely, if he isn't training properly and wants to, a powermeter will help maximise time and likely burn more calories. Anecdotally, without changing my diet but changing how I spend my time riding, I've lost over 2kg in 4 months.0 -
maryka wrote:Because higher cadence for the same power primarily works heart/lungs while lower cadence is more muscular, is my guess?
Anecdotally, I have a generally highish preferred cadence at all wattages (90-100) but when I have a chest cold coming on, my natural cadence drops ~10 especially at z1/2 power, I think because my lungs aren't as strong as usual and my legs have to make up for it. Same thing happened when I was pregnant, my cadence dropped and dropped and dropped as my lung capacity got smaller.
I'm not a sports scientist (yet) but I think a "higher" cadence in low zones is better at fat burning just through having a lighter load in terms of watts per pedal stroke, but more repetitions?
Fwiw I don't understand the reasoning behind high cadence fatiguing the muscles more quickly... surely it's the power produced or sheer time spent riding, not the cadence, that causes fatigue? Unless of course you're riding at a ridiculously high cadence (I'm assuming cadence in this context means 90-110 rather than the lowish 70-80).
Higher cadences inevitably have a higher metabolic demand than lower cadences. Which is why your CV systems works harder when you pedal faster. Cadence for a given intensity is not particularly relevant and doesn't have an impact on 'fat burning', if such a thing even existed in isolation. You are right though - what matters is the power produced, regardless of cadence.0 -
That's very interesting iPete - how did you change your riding ?
I've lost 7KG on the 5-2 and I wouldn't have thought I'd that much to lose to be honest. Easiest thing I've ever done.0 -
Fenix wrote:That's very interesting iPete - how did you change your riding ?
I've lost 7KG on the 5-2 and I wouldn't have thought I'd that much to lose to be honest. Easiest thing I've ever done.
Boring story but I was doing a 20 mile commute each way but it reduced to a more start/stop 16 earlier this year and my fitness fell away.
Essentially I was riding pretty much at FTP back and forth every day.
I now ride a more structured week with more specificity for racing.
An average week looks a bit like; sweet spot on Monday, recovery commute Tuesday, intervals / hill sprints Wednesday, recovery commute Thursday and sweet spot on Friday. Then something long at the weekend if time allows. I keep an eye on my Fitness and Freshness charts to make sure the hard rides are hard and the easy ones are just that.0 -
BeaconRuth wrote:bristolpete wrote:... but carrying weight at 15 stone, but not a naturally thin guy, solid build blah blah blah.
But, the question I have is can or will a power meter expedite matters reference weight loss....?
FWIW I think you've been given some pretty good answers to your question and also people have suggested what might be the easiest way to lose weight too - to look at your diet properly. Nobody is suggesting your diet isn't full of good things, the question is how many calories are you consuming? You don't appear to know that or have tried to count calories for a few days, which is a very obvious first step for anyone keen to lose weight.
ac
You seem to be defending the fact that you are very heavy and saying "that's just the way it is" and (I paraphrase) "but I'm a really strong cyclist so I haven't got anything to worry about with my weight" while your initial question was clearly about losing weight. This seems rather inconsistent.
Appearances can be very deceptive and not all body fat is subcutaneous. Some people have a lot of visceral fat. You might also perhaps have a lot of muscle. So you might not look fat or especially heavy. But that is not the matter you raised, so it is a digression from your original question.
You asked about using a powermeter to lose weight and Maryka gave a great answer about that. Several others have suggested looking at your diet as an effective and free means of losing weight. Over to you.
Best of luck with shedding the pounds.
Ruth
I took on board the positives for sure, but there were assumptions made and advice given, but your retort is valid as I understand you are an experienced coach. It felt like people zoned in on my diet, made assumptions that I eat lots of crap and over eat 'good food' as we have been calling it. The paradox may even be that I under eat, but I do not have the knowledge to understand it and many here do not either. I worded it as a 'heavy rider' as I am, I am not fat, not lardy, not in bad shape, just heavy. But my question was will a PM help me understand and shift weight which may be hidden in other ways, wether it be fat, muscle or water, by riding at a certain speed, power, HR. I have ridden years which is no barometer for sure, but for some reason, by hook or by crook, my body gravitates to a weight of 15 stone.
But again, many thanks all, and I will take things on board and work from there and in the least re examine my calorie intake as well as output. Cheers.0 -
If you really believe you're not eating too many calories (even high quality, low-density food) and you can show it by logging your calorie intake over a few weeks, along with an estimate of calories burned, then you should revisit that doctor. She's already on your side apparently not believing your weight is possible based on how you look, so there may be an underlying medical issue playing a role here. I have no idea what, as I'm not a doctor, but some malfunctioning hormonal thing would be my guess.0
-
Cheers iPete - very interesting. I do know some riders who blast every ride and that just seems silly to me. Your findings tally with mine.0
-
Fenix wrote:That's very interesting iPete - how did you change your riding ?
I've lost 7KG on the 5-2 and I wouldn't have thought I'd that much to lose to be honest. Easiest thing I've ever done.
Me too; 8kg, which came as quite a surprise to me. I'd clearly built up quite a lot of visceral fat, proving that it's perfectly possible to put on excess weight while doing a lot of exercise. Need to wear a belt now to stop my jeans falling down
0 -
This is a light-hearted article from Cyclist Magazine, which goes some way to explaining how to lose weight riding a bike. It's not as simple as it seems - http://www.cyclist.co.uk/tutorials/161/ ... 1kg-of-fat
My weight loss (from 85kg to 70kg - I'm 6' tall) was a combination of diet change and structured training. I've managed to stay at 70kg for the past two years now. FWIW I use a power meter and used properly, by that I also mean understanding the huge amount of data it churns out, was a considerable help.0 -
johnny25 wrote:This is a light-hearted article from Cyclist Magazine, which goes some way to explaining how to lose weight riding a bike. It's not as simple as it seems - http://www.cyclist.co.uk/tutorials/161/ ... 1kg-of-fat
My weight loss (from 85kg to 70kg - I'm 6' tall) was a combination of diet change and structured training. I've managed to stay at 70kg for the past two years now. FWIW I use a power meter and used properly, by that I also mean understanding the huge amount of data it churns out, was a considerable help.
A great read and actually, covers everything. Thanks for your input.0 -
Imposter wrote:maryka wrote:Because higher cadence for the same power primarily works heart/lungs while lower cadence is more muscular, is my guess?
Anecdotally, I have a generally highish preferred cadence at all wattages (90-100) but when I have a chest cold coming on, my natural cadence drops ~10 especially at z1/2 power, I think because my lungs aren't as strong as usual and my legs have to make up for it. Same thing happened when I was pregnant, my cadence dropped and dropped and dropped as my lung capacity got smaller.
I'm not a sports scientist (yet) but I think a "higher" cadence in low zones is better at fat burning just through having a lighter load in terms of watts per pedal stroke, but more repetitions?
Fwiw I don't understand the reasoning behind high cadence fatiguing the muscles more quickly... surely it's the power produced or sheer time spent riding, not the cadence, that causes fatigue? Unless of course you're riding at a ridiculously high cadence (I'm assuming cadence in this context means 90-110 rather than the lowish 70-80).
Higher cadences inevitably have a higher metabolic demand than lower cadences. Which is why your CV systems works harder when you pedal faster. Cadence for a given intensity is not particularly relevant and doesn't have an impact on 'fat burning', if such a thing even existed in isolation. You are right though - what matters is the power produced, regardless of cadence.
Regardless of cadence doesn't make any sense.
If I peddle at 1 rpm in a gear, is the same as 90-100 rpm?
If in doubt watch the tour and pro's up a mountain. What is the most efficient (and in their case, fastest, but ignore that for now) cadence? Its in the 90-100 rpm range.
It's the combination of spinning the legs at low intensity is the whole point.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
Right no more messing around - post a picture of yourself. Haha. You must be some unit as you are smaller than Mike Tyson but roughly weigh the same as he did in his ripped monster like prime.0
-
meursault wrote:
Regardless of cadence doesn't make any sense.
If I peddle at 1 rpm in a gear, is the same as 90-100 rpm?
I know we're off topic, but I think you've lost sight of your argument. My point is that maintaining a high cadence is not really compatible with having a 'low intensity' target. A normal or low cadence would obviously be more appropriate. Maintaining an artificially high cadence adds nothing to that equation and would simply increase your metabolic demand - and increasing your metabolic demand means it would become harder to remain at a low intensity.meursault wrote:If in doubt watch the tour and pro's up a mountain. What is the most efficient (and in their case, fastest, but ignore that for now) cadence? Its in the 90-100 rpm range.
You will probably find that most trained/experienced cyclists pedal within that cadence range. Not sure what your point is. They certainly aren't riding at 'low intensity' though.meursault wrote:It's the combination of spinning the legs at low intensity is the whole point.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is here. If your target is low intensity, then your cadence doesn't need to be anything other than your 'normal' cadence, as the metabolic cost of a high cadence would mean that you would not be able to maintain that 'low intensity' for very long. But I've already said that.
Either way, cadence itself has no relevance to how the OP should tackle his weight loss.0 -
You guys need to define high, normal, and low cadence before you continue with this conversation, it's getting a bit confusing.0
