Forum home Road cycling forum Training, fitness and health

Power meter for weight loss ?

13»

Posts

  • fat daddyfat daddy Posts: 2,605
    Low cadence - your legs hurt a lot
    High cadence - your lungs hurt a lot
    Normal cadence - they both hurt a bit

    Oooh first post :wave:
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,194
    maryka wrote:
    You guys need to define high, normal, and low cadence before you continue with this conversation, it's getting a bit confusing.

    Well yeah - but nobody who ever talks about 'high' cadence ever does..
  • meursaultmeursault Posts: 1,433
    It could be we are talking cross purposes, but I didn't say anything about 'artificially high' cadence.

    If I usually peddle 60 rpm in gear x, but then peddle 90 rpm in lower gear x, speed could remain the same, but the intensity load would lessen. When I was peddling 60 rpm the intensity load would be greater. That is what gears do. I don't understand all the science involved, but I'm guessing it's to do with higher aerobic versus lower muscular load. This is what targets the stored fat in the body.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    I really think we are getting lost in the details.

    There may be a difference depending on your pedalling rate but the difference will be minimal.

    Look at the diet.
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    I really think we are getting lost in the details.

    There may be a difference depending on your pedalling rate but the difference will be minimal.

    Look at the diet.
  • BeaconRuthBeaconRuth Posts: 2,086
    meursault wrote:
    It could be we are talking cross purposes, but I didn't say anything about 'artificially high' cadence.

    If I usually peddle 60 rpm in gear x, but then peddle 90 rpm in lower gear x, speed could remain the same, but the intensity load would lessen. When I was peddling 60 rpm the intensity load would be greater. That is what gears do. I don't understand all the science involved, but I'm guessing it's to do with higher aerobic versus lower muscular load. This is what targets the stored fat in the body.
    Sorry to say, meursault, but you're definitely right about one thing - you don't seem to understand all the science involved; I think you're getting a bit confused. A term like 'intensity load' doesn't make any sense in basic physics or mechanics. I think you must mean 'force' because you would have to put more force on the pedals to generate the same power/speed at a lower cadence.

    There may well be some differences in how carbs and fat are metabolised depending on cadence but I think most of us are agreed that trying to manipulate the proportions of fat/carbs that are used by altering cadence is much more sophisticated than is necessary for the OP. As many people have now said, diet is the thing to look carefully at first.

    Two other things to tidy up though, meursault:

    1) Gears just change how far the bike moves forwards for each pedal-revolution. They don't 'do' anything.
    2) It would be really really good if you could learn to spell "pedal":
    - We pedal our bikes.
    - Tinkers peddle their wares.

    :-)
  • meursaultmeursault Posts: 1,433
    BeaconRuth wrote:
    meursault wrote:
    It could be we are talking cross purposes, but I didn't say anything about 'artificially high' cadence.

    If I usually peddle 60 rpm in gear x, but then peddle 90 rpm in lower gear x, speed could remain the same, but the intensity load would lessen. When I was peddling 60 rpm the intensity load would be greater. That is what gears do. I don't understand all the science involved, but I'm guessing it's to do with higher aerobic versus lower muscular load. This is what targets the stored fat in the body.
    Sorry to say, meursault, but you're definitely right about one thing - you don't seem to understand all the science involved; I think you're getting a bit confused. A term like 'intensity load' doesn't make any sense in basic physics or mechanics. I think you must mean 'force' because you would have to put more force on the pedals to generate the same power/speed at a lower cadence.

    There may well be some differences in how carbs and fat are metabolised depending on cadence but I think most of us are agreed that trying to manipulate the proportions of fat/carbs that are used by altering cadence is much more sophisticated than is necessary for the OP. As many people have now said, diet is the thing to look carefully at first.

    Two other things to tidy up though, meursault:

    1) Gears just change how far the bike moves forwards for each pedal-revolution. They don't 'do' anything.
    2) It would be really really good if you could learn to spell "pedal":
    - We pedal our bikes.
    - Tinkers peddle their wares.

    :-)

    I'm struggling to understand why this so difficult to explain.

    I don't want to get into a physics debate about the meaning of intensity, force, inertia, mass or other words.

    I'll try one more time.

    Case A. Cyclist turns the cranks at 60 rpm in gear x = a force required in the body or legs we can call 100 intensities for something to name it. travels at 10 somethings per hour.

    Case B. Cyclist turns the cranks at 90 rpm in a lower gear than A. to travel at 10 somethings per hour. Are we seriously suggesting the intensity or whatever you call it is THE SAME as A?

    It isn't, it's less muscular intensity and higher aerobic intensity.

    I have been riding in zone 2 for my last few rides and can tell you the intensity is less than my normal ride, given higher cadence and lower gears.

    PS censored the spelling pedants :shock: :o
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • meursaultmeursault Posts: 1,433
    BeaconRuth wrote:
    meursault wrote:
    It could be we are talking cross purposes, but I didn't say anything about 'artificially high' cadence.

    If I usually peddle 60 rpm in gear x, but then peddle 90 rpm in lower gear x, speed could remain the same, but the intensity load would lessen. When I was peddling 60 rpm the intensity load would be greater. That is what gears do. I don't understand all the science involved, but I'm guessing it's to do with higher aerobic versus lower muscular load. This is what targets the stored fat in the body.
    Sorry to say, meursault, but you're definitely right about one thing - you don't seem to understand all the science involved; I think you're getting a bit confused. A term like 'intensity load' doesn't make any sense in basic physics or mechanics. I think you must mean 'force' because you would have to put more force on the pedals to generate the same power/speed at a lower cadence.

    There may well be some differences in how carbs and fat are metabolised depending on cadence but I think most of us are agreed that trying to manipulate the proportions of fat/carbs that are used by altering cadence is much more sophisticated than is necessary for the OP. As many people have now said, diet is the thing to look carefully at first.

    Two other things to tidy up though, meursault:

    1) Gears just change how far the bike moves forwards for each pedal-revolution. They don't 'do' anything.
    2) It would be really really good if you could learn to spell "pedal":
    - We pedal our bikes.
    - Tinkers peddle their wares.

    :-)


    I'm struggling to understand why this so difficult to explain.

    I don't want to get into a physics debate about the meaning of intensity, force, inertia, mass or other words.

    I'll try one more time.

    Case A. Cyclist turns the cranks at 60 rpm in gear x = a force required in the body or legs we can call 100 intensities for something to name it. travels at 10 somethings per hour.

    Case B. Cyclist turns the cranks at 90 rpm in a lower gear than A. to travel at 10 somethings per hour. Are we seriously suggesting the intensity or whatever you call it is THE SAME as A?

    It isn't, it's less muscular intensity and higher aerobic intensity.

    I have been riding in zone 2 for my last few rides and can tell you the intensity is less than my normal ride, given higher cadence and lower gears.

    P.S. Thanks for the spelling lesson.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,194
    meursault wrote:
    I'm struggling to understand why this so difficult to explain.

    It could be because you don't seem to understand what you are talking about. As evidenced by your use of words like 'somethings' and 'intensities' - which I would suggest replacing with the word 'power'.

    In that sense, power is the only relevant metric worth talking about. Cadence has very little influence on on it, other than the requirement to ride at an optimum cadence for whatever gear and whatever intensity you need to ride at - and that will vary between individuals depending on their ability, preferences and their own personal biology. Like I said before, if we could drop the whole 'cadence' thing it would be useful, as it has very little to do with this thread.
  • meursaultmeursault Posts: 1,433
    Imposter wrote:
    meursault wrote:
    I'm struggling to understand why this so difficult to explain.

    It could be because you don't seem to understand what you are talking about. As evidenced by your use of words like 'somethings' and 'intensities' - which I would suggest replacing with the word 'power'.

    In that sense, power is the only relevant metric worth talking about. Cadence has very little influence on on it, other than the requirement to ride at an optimum cadence for whatever gear and whatever intensity you need to ride at - and that will vary between individuals depending on their ability, preferences and their own personal biology. Like I said before, if we could drop the whole 'cadence' thing it would be useful, as it has very little to do with this thread.

    Sighs, I give up.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • BeaconRuthBeaconRuth Posts: 2,086
    meursault wrote:
    I'm struggling to understand why this so difficult to explain.

    I don't want to get into a physics debate about the meaning of intensity, force, inertia, mass or other words.
    But I think this is your very problem - you're not using words like 'force' and 'power' and 'speed' in a way that everyone else does. To 'talk science' you have to have a common language and everyone has to understand exactly the same thing by each term used. Otherwise you find you can't explain yourself clearly, as you are finding out.
    It isn't, it's less muscular intensity and higher aerobic intensity.
    'Intensity' doesn't have a precise definition in physics but it seems to me that you're trying to say that generating the same power at low cadence makes more demands on the muscles than generating that same power at high cadence, which places more demand on the cardio-vascular system. Is that correct? If so I agree with you. But I still think the point is not the most important one for the OP.
    I have been riding in zone 2 for my last few rides and can tell you the intensity is less than my normal ride, given higher cadence and lower gears.
    ??? This is a really very unclear statement. Is "zone 2" a HR zone? Is it a lower HR zone than your "normal ride"? If so, then whatever gears/cadence you were using, wouldn't we expect it to be 'less intense'?
    P.S. Thanks for the spelling lesson.
    You're welcome. I didn't let my pupils get away with poor English when I taught physics either.
  • bristolpetebristolpete Posts: 2,255
    Anyway, this is my thread about being fat :lol::lol::lol::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjkkKO5Gsno
  • bristolpetebristolpete Posts: 2,255
    Actually, as an aside, back in 2013, I was doing 13 miles each way commute on my single speed ( 48 x 16 ) 5 days a week and did it for three months before putting my geared bike back on the road. What occurred was to get power to translate into speed I needed cadence and in turn this had a huge impact on my power first and cadence second on the geared bike and of course I had to reassess my gearing as was simply a better rider in terms of both cadence and power so they compliment each other to my mind.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,194
    Actually, as an aside, back in 2013, I was doing 13 miles each way commute on my single speed ( 48 x 16 ) 5 days a week and did it for three months before putting my geared bike back on the road. What occurred was to get power to translate into speed I needed cadence and in turn this had a huge impact on my power first and cadence second on the geared bike and of course I had to reassess my gearing as was simply a better rider in terms of both cadence and power so they compliment each other to my mind.

    In other words, riding 26 miles every day improved your CV fitness. There's nothing unusual about that, especially if there was scope for such improvement.
  • meursaultmeursault Posts: 1,433
    If so I agree with you

    Huzzah! Just goes to show, with a little persistence, and a spell checker, you can even get through to English teachers.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • BeaconRuthBeaconRuth Posts: 2,086
    meursault wrote:
    If so I agree with you

    Huzzah! Just goes to show, with a little persistence, and a spell checker, you can even get through to English teachers.
    :lol:

    Ruth
  • bristolpetebristolpete Posts: 2,255
    OK so weigh day today.

    Lost 4 kg since last Monday but effectively eating the same, but measured a couple of portions and made sure I analyzed what I eat and also factored in basal metabolic rate to fuel the body.

    Rode 125 miles Tues through to Sunday ( 2 x 30 and the rest each way commutes ) and rode with intent of zone 2 as best I could. So it seems it is working and I am pleased to bits.
  • iPeteiPete Posts: 6,076
    4kg is impressive but I'd check you are not dehydrated, for me any sudden weight loss following hard riding is mostly water.
    I would also get into the habit of a daily weigh in, taking a weekly average.

    Now think of all those free seconds you've gained in a week. :D
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW47gb01FeA
  • bristolpetebristolpete Posts: 2,255
    iPete wrote:
    4kg is impressive but I'd check you are not dehydrated, for me any sudden weight loss following hard riding is mostly water.
    I would also get into the habit of a daily weigh in, taking a weekly average.

    Now think of all those free seconds you've gained in a week. :D
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW47gb01FeA


    Sorry, over excited typo. Meant 4lb ! Doing the conversion and simply typed the wrong data. Very happy though.
  • bristolpetebristolpete Posts: 2,255
    iPete wrote:
    4kg is impressive but I'd check you are not dehydrated, for me any sudden weight loss following hard riding is mostly water.
    I would also get into the habit of a daily weigh in, taking a weekly average.

    Now think of all those free seconds you've gained in a week. :D
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW47gb01FeA

    Yeah we were talking about at work. For a recreational rider not racing anyone, including the clock, just about feeling better within myself. And yes, of course, if it makes going up marginally easier than that is fine too. Just working my way back to where I was before the break from riding injury and other issues withstanding. My Daughter goes to ''big school' in September so I can think about long, zone 2 rides then too as been a time crunched cyclist for sometime now.
  • marykamaryka Posts: 746
    +1 to the daily weigh-in and using something to graph it as you go. Uber-geek that I am, I currently have a Withings smart scale that pushes data to Garmin Connect and Sport Tracks for me. Saves having to write it down and it's a neat gadget that graphs the data over time and gives you trend lines etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.