What scenario is best for fat loss

mr_eddy

So I am getting married in May and I really need to lose some weight - Apart from anything I don't want to splash out on a new suit when I have a nice albeit a bit smaller designer suit in the wardrobe.

I need/want to drop 7kg from my current 82kg bulk.

I have been upping my game recently specifically I have changed my diet (within reason) so my food is pretty good, I have also been experimenting with burning up the calories by doing more miles on the commute. I don't have any monitors etc to work this stuff out so just wondering what would be more beneficial in terms of boosting my metabolism and therefore weight/fast loss:

Scenario A:
Ride the normal 8 miles to work then ride 15-20 miles on the way home
Scenario B:
Ride 13-15 miles on the way to work and the same on the way back

The end mileage is roughly the same but I was wondering if doing more exercise first thing in the morning (40% more mileage than normal) is going to be better for me - Bear in mind I have a sedate office job so after I get to work I spend essentially 8 hours sat down.

I am also thinking that 2 x 13 miles at a higher average speed is better with regards to weight loss than 20 odd miles in the afternoon when I am usually tired and as such have a lower average speed.

I know these distances are not massive but I am on a single speed and to be honest whilst I love cycling at the moment I simply cannot commit to more than a couple of hours a day max - Weekends are fully booked with DIY projects.

Thoughts ?

mrfpb

The usual mantra here is "exercise for fitness, diet for weight loss." The cycling you're describing won't consume many calories, and if you don't controlt the calories in and out, you are likely to overcompensate post ride. Look at the silly commuting weight loss thread for fellow commuting "fatties" advice.

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12827852

You and I seem to have similar aims. I am using the intermittent fast diet - 16:8 (or 18:6) where you pack your eating into a shorter period of the day (6 to 8 hours) and only drink water based drinks in between. I don't actually count caloires, but the restricted period means I eat a lot less (no late night snacking). Progress is slow but steady. I think you've got plenty of time to do acheive what you want to do.

imposter2.0

Most efficient way to fat loss = eating less fat

Most efficient way to calorie loss on a bike = go out and ride as hard as you can tolerate, for the duration of the time you have available.

grenw

I lost around twice that 3 years ago and have kept it off ever since. 13 stone at my heaviest, just over 10 stone now.

Pretty much lost it all through diet. No special diet, just smaller portions and cutting out the higher calorie foods and snacking. I was using the MyFitnessPal (cos I'm a data geek) to track my calorie intake and it was working out at between 1,200 and 1,500 a day. At that rate I was losing a couple of pounds a week.

Once I lost the weight, I upped the exercise (adding road biking to my mountain biking routine) and 'mostly' stayed away from the crappier foods. My stomach had also got used to the smaller portions too which helped.

singleton

There's all kinds of stuff in the media about "highest percentage fat loss zones" etc and whilst the statements may be true in and of themselves, they are not the whole truth.

E.g.
If I exercise at a low intensity I may burn 100 calories of which 50 are from fat - 50% fat burning
If I exercise at a higher intensity for the same time, I may burn 150 calories of which 60 are from fat - 40% fat burning.

So option 1 is heralded as better for fat loss since it burns a higher percentage of fat.
For 95% of us, 95% of the time, option 2 is better. If you were training for long endurance events (6 hours plus) then you would benefit from training your body to burn fat as fuel. You can encourage this by training while fasting - or doing more in the monring before breakfast.

Main goal is simply to create a daily calorie defecit.

keef66

My recent experience has taught me that losing weight by eating less is far more effective than doing it by exercising more (but both is best).
However, I never manage to stick to watching what I eat 24-7. There's always something that tempts me at some point, and I'm a greedy bugger if there's free food at work.
What works for me is the 5:2 way of eating (I've stopped calling it a diet; I've been doing it for 3 years now)
Monday and Thursday I eat nothing till evening, then just have a 600 cal meal. The rest of the time, and crucially Fri / Sat / Sun, I eat and drink what I like.

3 years ago despite doing lots of cycling my weight had crept up to nearly 72kg. Which doesn't sound too bad, but I'm also only 5'6", so I was looking a little rotund. Think Captain Mainwaring in lycra; not a good look.

In 4 months of 5:2 I lost over 8kg, over 10% of my bodyweight, and I found it really easy to do. Maybe more importantly my blood lipid profile improved so much that the doc was no longer threatening me with medication.

Give it a go, it may suit you. Pun intended

mr_eddy

ok so the general thought then seems to be that the time when you ride is not really important but more work on the diet, can probably improve my diet a bit more.

i will probably go fr option 2 anyway as i tend to be able to ride harder in the morning sō makes sense to do more thne.

thanks

fat daddy

exercise as soon as you get the opportunity .... so I would do as many miles as you can in the morning before you are worn out and cant be arsed ... that way at the end of the day if you are feeling weak/lethargic or would normally have an excuse to mist on the ride, it doesnt matter because you have already done it

gethinceri

Imposter wrote:

Most efficient way to fat loss = eating less fat

Not for me, i lost 7kg in 6 weeks on a high fat/protein diet.

bobmcstuff

As above it's diet that's more important, given an hour of steady cycling might be 400 or so calories, a difference of a few minutes between the described scenarios isn't going to make that much odds. Personally I would just do whichever was most fun/worked best for my schedule.

I have found the easiest way for me to lose weight is to log calories in and out and pursue a 1000cal nominal deficit (accepting that there is a decent amount of error on both sides of the calculation). This does mean I would get some extra calories burnt through cycling (just logged through Garmin) but it's always less than you hope!

This type of approach works for me because I like having targets and numbers to track my progress.

Having said all that I did hear on the trainerroad podcast that there is some benefit to doing endurance (=cycling) in the morning and strength in the evening, but I think that was from a hormones and physiological adaptations perspective rather than any difference in calories burnt.

One advantage to doing extra mileage in the morning is that when it gets to evening and you're late leaving work, you're tired, or you've got something else to get to, then you've already got the miles under your belt. I guess depending on your job and social life that might not be too much of an issue, but worth thinking about.

simon_e

Imposter wrote:

Most efficient way to fat loss = eating less junk

FTFY.

More raw fruit and veg, less processed crap. Demonising fat without qualifying what you mean is not helpful.

Training your stomach (which really means training your mind) requires some discipline but is entirely doable and a very good thing. I think that intermittent fasting like 5:2 works for lots of people because, while some discipline is required, you're not calorie-counting every mouthful.

Riding for 1-2 hours, not too hard, first thing in the morning on just water, or a pre-ride coffee if you like, is a good way to burn fat instead of glycogen. It's not a magic solution but doing this is better than shoving down 500 kcal before you even start. It helps to plan what you'll eat when you get to work to avoid scoffing everything in sight. After a while you'll find you can ride for longer without any food and get back without yearning for a huge meal.

As for route choice, I'd keep it flexible. Some days you may feel tired in the morning so go for scenario A. Good weather and a good night's sleep might mean you could do B easily.

imposter2.0

Simon E wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Most efficient way to fat loss = eating less junk

FTFY.

More raw fruit and veg, less processed crap. Demonising fat without qualifying what you mean is not helpful.

Replacing one vague term ('fat') with another vague term ('junk') doesn't really move things on, IMO. But the point is valid either way.

keef66

I like the fact that scientific opinion is constantly evolving. An increasing number of studies show that a low carb diet can be more effective than a low fat diet in terms of weight loss and management of type 2 diabetes.

Not the extreme Atkins type of thing with all the pseudoscience and talk of ketosis, but a serious reduction in carbohydrate (and as a consequence more fat and protein).

In studies where the two diets have been matched in terms of calories, those on the low carb lost more than those on low fat.

Unfortunately the food industry supertanker is taking a long time to change course, and the shelves are still full of low / no fat and carbohydrate based sugar laden stuff. Have you tried to find full fat yoghurt? It's an endangered species.

fat daddy

keef66 wrote:

Have you tried to find full fat yoghurt? It's an endangered species.

Fage Total Greek yogurt, sold in every supermarket.

200g pot gives you 10g Fat 8g Carb and 18g protein ..... the perfect meal

guy.spartacus

Imposter wrote:

Simon E wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Most efficient way to fat loss = eating less junk

FTFY.

More raw fruit and veg, less processed crap. Demonising fat without qualifying what you mean is not helpful.

Replacing one vague term ('fat') with another vague term ('junk') doesn't really move things on, IMO. But the point is valid either way.

'Fat' isn't a vague term though - its a macronutrient.

I think there needs to be a directive to change what overweight people (currently 'fat') are called. Excess adipose tissue is not caused by consumption of fat.

keef66

Unfortunately such a large proportion of the population is now overweight, it's almost becoming the norm. The perjorative description of fat people has been replaced by medical sounding terms like obesity, which suggest that it's something that just happens to people rather than it being something they do to themselves.

More money for research and more money for education has to be better than spending increasingly stretched NHS budgets on bariatric ambulances and gastric surgery, and the consequences of type 2 diabetes.

Ben6899

If you drink a lot, cut down. If you just drink, cut it out.

keef66

Ben6899 wrote:

If you drink a lot, cut down. If you just drink, cut it out.

+1 ^ I was in Germany for 2 days / nights last week and was eating sensibly, but the beer did for me. I was on target till then, now I'm 2 pounds adrift!

bobmcstuff

Beer's delicious though.

When I am cutting I try to cut out the midweek beers entirely, but since I'm well within the healthy weight range and any further weight loss is just for cycling speed/vanity purposes I'm not about to give up one of my favourite things.

Ben6899

bobmcstuff wrote:

Beer's delicious though.

When I am cutting I try to cut out the midweek beers entirely, but since I'm well within the healthy weight range and any further weight loss is just for cycling speed/vanity purposes I'm not about to give up one of my favourite things.

I love beer. Love it. I don't drink heavily (far from it in fact), but I do enjoy the odd glass of quality stuff.

I'm currently halfway through having 8weeks off drink all together and - at this point - I'm not really bothered. At first I missed the actual taste (the hops, the malt) and also in the first week I had a few personal issues which I might have had a drink to help face (that's not great, I know), but after that week I'm not really bothered. It's totally off the radar.

More pertinent to this thread though... I'm looking lean as fook.

daniel_b

Interesting topic for me which I will try and contribute to, and watch with interest.

I'm 40 now, and can get away with less and less!

What I term my correct weight is 67kg, and at the beginning of this year, due to being a lazy sod for the last 4 months of last year, and feasting on cr@p, I was a whopping (for me) 74kg.

I have altered my eating, bar the very odd slip up, so no chocolate, I don't drink much anyway, and never during the week, less sugary things, and more fruit and veg (I know there is plenty of sugar in fruit, but I mean more less stuff like honey nut cornflakes, cereal bars, scones, cakes etc etc)

I am combining this with my first sustanied effort at Trainerroad, and although I had a marginal gain in weight last week (I assume as it was week 6 which is a light intensity week of TR) up to 70.8kg.
It's not quite as fast as I had hoped, but it seems to be going in the right direction, and now after my first proper FTP (I crashed and burned on the one at the beginning of the year) my workouts are now propery hard, so I am hoping to see more calories burned as a result, and hopefully more weight dropping off, but we shall see.
I turbo for 2.5 hours early on a Saturday, and have now stopped getting up early to have a smoothie before the session, to hopefully use that to burn off some of the fat.

My target weight by July is 65kg, or possibly even 63kg, but I'll see what I feel like when I get there.

I realise sugar is addictive, so my plan is, partially through willpower, to try and train myself to desire savoury things instead of sweet, such as nice cheeses, but in moderation - not difficult, as I love cheese anyway.

benws1

Although my current weight loss is not at a rate the OP is after, I'm losing it and personally think I'm doing ok.

I'm 6ft 4in tall and in June 2016 decided to get back on the bike. I have prolapsed discs in my lower back and a wonderful (now 2 1/2 year old) daughter who keeps me on my toes. I also noticed a video of myself last year walking onto out driveway with our daughter and thought, cripes, you look fat!

I got back on the bike, cut out the extra food (only eat fruit around mealtimes now and don't have extras such as puds), but didn't need to change my drinking habits as I only drink a bit of single malt whisky now and again. Since then, I've lost nearly two stone.

I put a bit back on when depression hit me from September to December last year and I didn't ride for three months. However, since getting back on the bike on new year's eve, I've dumped the half a stone I put back and more and am now under 16 stone (around 101kg).

I'm taking the weight loss in increments and am aiming for 15 1/2 stone next. Just taking it steady and riding at least four times a week to keep everything going.

In terms of my weight loss, I think I've done more than just lose mass. My legs are stronger now and I must have put some muscle on, so may actually weigh less in terms of fat. My clothes are beginning to hang off me a bit and I'm having issues with trouser belts as I'm getting slightly thinner.

My back seems to have thanked me too. I still have aches and pains, but these have gone from regular grumbles to things few and far between. I also have more energy for my daughter as she really takes it out of you.

Finally, I've also noted that when I'm tired now, it's a different sort of tiredness to pre June 2016. I used to be tired and lethargic and struggled to do things. Now, when I feel tired I am tired, but I still have energy to do things (like get up at 7am on a weekend to be with my daughter).

bompington

Simon E wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Most efficient way to fat loss = eating less junk

FTFY.

Most efficient way to fat loss = eating less. Full stop.

That's it properly fixed for you all.

It amazes me the voodoo that people believe about weight loss.

If you use 1000 calories more than you eat, you will lose 1000 calories worth of fat, which is about 100g.

This equation does not change with the composition of the calories: to do so would simply break the laws of physics.

Of course it is true that the composition of your diet matters for general health, fitness and all the rest.

But really, every diet is just a way of making sure that you eat less.

FTR I find that 5:2 works for me: commute on tue, thu, fri, fast on mon and wed - it just fits. Recently started it again after a few months where self-discipline alone wasn't really sufficient: instant gratification of 2k off in a week. Let's see how that holds up...

bobmcstuff

benws1 wrote:

I put a bit back on when depression hit me from September to December last year and I didn't ride for three months. However, since getting back on the bike on new year's eve, I've dumped the half a stone I put back and more and am now under 16 stone (around 101kg).

I find cycling really helps with that.

simon_e

bompington wrote:

It amazes me the voodoo that people believe about weight loss.

If you use 1000 calories more than you eat, you will lose 1000 calories worth of fat, which is about 100g.

This equation does not change with the composition of the calories: to do so would simply break the laws of physics.

I disagree. It seems that it's not quite that simple.

You could start by reading
http://optimumnutrition4sport.co.uk/201 ... of-health/
and
https://authoritynutrition.com/debunkin ... orie-myth/

mrfpb

bompington wrote:

It amazes me the voodoo that people believe about weight loss.

If you use 1000 calories more than you eat, you will lose 1000 calories worth of fat, which is about 100g.

This equation does not change with the composition of the calories: to do so would simply break the laws of physics.

The equation changes as your body reacts to the diet, for example by slowing the base metabolic rate in response to weight loss or "starvation" dieting. The body is not a simple mechanism where in/out calorie balance is the whole story.

keef66

Simon E wrote:

bompington wrote:

It amazes me the voodoo that people believe about weight loss.

If you use 1000 calories more than you eat, you will lose 1000 calories worth of fat, which is about 100g.

This equation does not change with the composition of the calories: to do so would simply break the laws of physics.

I disagree. It seems that it's not quite that simple.

You could start by reading
http://optimumnutrition4sport.co.uk/201 ... of-health/
and
https://authoritynutrition.com/debunkin ... orie-myth/

That's why I find the whole issue fascinating. It's at the same time simple and complex. There's no denying that if you consume fewer calories than you burn, you'll lose weight, but even that's not a simple linear relationship. And the psychology of why we eat, what, how often and when is also intriguing. In late middle age I've found that intermittent fasting is the only way I'm able to keep my weight in check, and I'm now interested in trying to reduce carbs and increase protein and fat in my diet. It's going to be difficult; we've been told for so long that fat is bad and carbs are good, a lot of the food choices we make have become habits. And there's so much carb based food that I really like; I'm having trouble imagining a world with little or no bread, pasta, rice, potato or cereals.

mrfpb

keef66 wrote:

That's why I find the whole issue fascinating. It's at the same time simple and complex. There's no denying that if you consume fewer calories than you burn, you'll lose weight, but even that's not a simple linear relationship. And the psychology of why we eat, what, how often and when is also intriguing. In late middle age I've found that intermittent fasting is the only way I'm able to keep my weight in check, and I'm now interested in trying to reduce carbs and increase protein and fat in my diet. It's going to be difficult; we've been told for so long that fat is bad and carbs are good, a lot of the food choices we make have become habits. And there's so much carb based food that I really like; I'm having trouble imagining a world with little or no bread, pasta, rice, potato or cereals.

I read a good quote from a sports nutritionist a few years ago - "There are several essential fatty acids [that we must consume], there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate." I've just started intermittent fasting, and it seems to be working well and I naturally want to eat less carbs. The desire for crisps and half pound bags of sweets reduces over time -but then stress leads to the munchies and will power often doesn't cut it.

It's also worth considering that there are two kinds of people posting on weight loss threads. People like me who are cycling/dieting to be generally fitter, and those who are dieting and following fitnes programs to be better, more competitive cyclists. The goals are different and specific goals require specific apporoaches.

keef66

mrfpb wrote:

keef66 wrote:

That's why I find the whole issue fascinating. It's at the same time simple and complex. There's no denying that if you consume fewer calories than you burn, you'll lose weight, but even that's not a simple linear relationship. And the psychology of why we eat, what, how often and when is also intriguing. In late middle age I've found that intermittent fasting is the only way I'm able to keep my weight in check, and I'm now interested in trying to reduce carbs and increase protein and fat in my diet. It's going to be difficult; we've been told for so long that fat is bad and carbs are good, a lot of the food choices we make have become habits. And there's so much carb based food that I really like; I'm having trouble imagining a world with little or no bread, pasta, rice, potato or cereals.

I read a good quote from a sports nutritionist a few years ago - "There are several essential fatty acids [that we must consume], there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate." I've just started intermittent fasting, and it seems to be working well and I naturally want to eat less carbs. The desire for crisps and half pound bags of sweets reduces over time -but then stress leads to the munchies and will power often doesn't cut it.

It's also worth considering that there are two kinds of people posting on weight loss threads. People like me who are cycling/dieting to be generally fitter, and those who are dieting and following fitnes programs to be better, more competitive cyclists. The goals are different and specific goals require specific apporoaches.

Well I'm in the same camp as you then. I ride a bike because I enjoy it and it maintains some level of cardiovascular fitness. My knackered joints allow me to do very little else now. And I've found repeatedly that I can out-eat any amount of exercise, and that I lack the self control to stick to calorie counting 24-7. IF seems to work for me, and it's improved my blood lipids too. Now I'm interested in reducing carbs, but I can see it's only going to work if my wife will also give it a go. And she loves bread and potatoes even more than I do!

diy

The body turns some foods in to stored energy more easily than others. Some foods are more energy dense per kg than others. The best way to drop weight is have a calorie deficit equal to the amount of weight you want to lose over the period you want to lose it.

1lb of human fat is approx 2,300kcal. So work out your TDEE http://tdeecalculator.net/ then working on 2lb per week as a rough guide deduct 4,600kcal from your weekly tdee. Eat that and you'll hit the target. If you want to drop more than 2lb a week then you'll need to manage your protein intake and increase your strength training.

mrfpb

diy wrote:

The body turns some foods in to stored energy more easily than others. Some foods are more energy dense per kg than others. The best way to drop weight is have a calorie deficit equal to the amount of weight you want to lose over the period you want to lose it.

1lb of human fat is approx 2,300kcal. So work out your TDEE http://tdeecalculator.net/ then working on 2lb per week as a rough guide deduct 4,600kcal from your weekly tdee. Eat that and you'll hit the target. If you want to drop more than 2lb a week then you'll need to manage your protein intake and increase your strength training.

But as I said above, it is well established that after the body loses a certain amount of weight it responds by lowering the BMR (base metabolic rate) and TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) so the 4,600 calorie defict no longer has the same effect. This is one cause of people giving up diets because they are doing "more of what works" but it stops working.

The second link posted by Simon E above goes into the issue in detail.

Sticking to the calories in/out mantra is like the people in hill climbing/wheel weight threads insisting think Newton's laws of motion is the only science you need.