# Not Much Improvement?



## beancounter (26 Nov 2008)

It's exactly one year since I took up cycling again after a gap of several years.

I started off doing regular half hour sessions on an old turbo trainer, then I started going out on the road but on my old mountain bike, then I bought a new road bike, then I got a commuting bike. In all I've done about 3,500 miles in the year.

On the plus side, I've lost a stone and a half in weight (down to 12 stone), my resting pulse has dropped by about 10% (now low 50's) and my blood pressure has dropped a little to 120/80 (about normal, I think).

Slightly disappointingly, my longest ride has been about 60 miles and I just don't seem able to get beyond that. Also, my turbo trainer sessions indicate I'm only about 10% fitter than when I started (measured by how far I go in a half hour session for a given effort i.e. average heart rate).

I expected better. Was i wrong to do that? Perhaps I'm now just too old to see a marked improvement (obviously I'm sticking at it, though).

Any ideas or guidance would be appreciated.

bc


----------



## jay clock (26 Nov 2008)

> my longest ride has been about 60 miles and I just don't seem able to get beyond that.


 is that a physical thing? are you so knackered at 60 miles that you cannot go on? sounds more mental than physical to me. Do an organised ride? Arrange to cycle to a pub 35 miles away and then cycle back after a nice lunch?


----------



## beancounter (26 Nov 2008)

jay clock said:


> is that a physical thing? are you so knackered at 60 miles that you cannot go on? sounds more mental than physical to me.



No, it's a physical thing - I'd ride all day if I was able to!

My initial intention was to "force" my body to use as much fat as possible during a ride. So I was doing 3 and 4 hour rides without eating anything before or during the ride. This is how I lost the weight/fat. I got very tired but didn't actually "bonk" - I do know what bonking feels like!

Now I'm eating something during a ride but the least I can get away with.

bc


----------



## jay clock (26 Nov 2008)

eat more. I weigh about 88kg and am trying to shift another 10 kg (was 105 at peak)! If I cycle 60 miles, that is about 3300 cals for me (see here http://www.bikejournal.com/calories_calc.asp )

In terms of weight loss, each pound of weight lost requires a NET reduction of 3500 cals. So assuming you are male and weigh about what I do, eating the recommended 2500 cals per day and cycling 60 miles(thus burning 3300 cals) you would lose a pound.

There is more to it than that, and I would suggest not massively decreasing your intake. If you keep the NET consumption at 2000 cals that is 500 a day deficit and a pound a week weight loss. That would mean that on a 60 mile day you could an extra 2800 cals over your base 2500 and still lose weight

Do eat little and often, and don;t underdo it! Also on days when I do a long ride, or when touring, I find the hunger stays for the next day or more (or perhaps I just get into the habit of eating and want to repeat it.

In summary on a 60 mile ride with little or nothing extra to eat I would bonk quite readily.....


----------



## jay clock (26 Nov 2008)

Just to add that if I log every calorie I consume, and keep it about 2200, I do something every day which burns about 700 cals and lose weight consistently. I swim 3 times a week (about 2km each time), run 2-3 time (running for me is 100cals per km, and I typically run 7-8km) and I cycle about 22km 2-3 times a week. On Saturdays I often do a 45km round trip to swimming and make sure to eat plenty to catch up.


----------



## beancounter (26 Nov 2008)

Yep good advice, and I do understand the calculations around calories in/out.

I'd like to lose another half stone or a stone, but will need to address my eating habits again!

The major disappointment was the level of fitness, though - only 10% improvement? I really expected better.

bc


----------



## cheadle hulme (26 Nov 2008)

I did 62 miles yesterday, longest ride for a while, and felt tired all day and was constantly yawning. I struggle to do these distances on my own.
If riding with others though, I can easily reach over 100, so the distance thing is purely in my head.
Have you tried entering an event or something so you HAVE to go the distance?


----------



## tyred (26 Nov 2008)

I must admit that I'm disappointed with the weight loss from my cycling. I bought my cycle computer in July and have apparently covered 900 odd miles since then but have only lost about 2 lb. My diet is pretty much the same as before I started. But I do feel so much fitter than before I started which I suppose is the important thing


----------



## beancounter (26 Nov 2008)

cheadle hulme said:


> Have you tried entering an event or something so you HAVE to go the distance?



No I haven't, but I'll tell you what else I do - my rides tend to be a basic 40 mile loop with other 5 or 10 mile loops tacked on, depending on how I feel on the day. That means I can cop out pretty much any time.

I must force myself to do 40 miles out, then I'm obliged to do 40 miles back - hey presto, 80 mile ride.

bc


----------



## jay clock (26 Nov 2008)

> only 10% improvement? I really expected better.



I think if you have lost 1.5 stone, reduced your RHR to low 50s and can cycle 60 miles on few (prob too few) calories, that is a massive improvement.


----------



## cheadle hulme (26 Nov 2008)

beancounter said:


> my rides tend to be a basic 40 mile loop with other 5 or 10 mile loops tacked on,
> 
> bc



Accountants eh? always thinking about the figures!

Cheadle Hulme ACMA


----------



## jimboalee (26 Nov 2008)

Beancounter.

What you were doing was "Fasted Lipolysis" or 'running on fat'. 

This is only good for TWO hours if you are keeping Randonneur pace.
At a slower Populaire pace, you will get through 100km without need for food, but you WILL feel knackered. Knackered enough for eating to be uncomfortable.

This is how I lose 1lb of fat weight in an afternoon.

I have developed a distance - kCals curve where short rides don't need food, to long rides which require 100% energy replacement.
100km requires approx. 50% of the theoretical kCals demand. So if the books say 2500 kCals, I eat 1250..


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (26 Nov 2008)

tyred said:


> I must admit that I'm disappointed with the weight loss from my cycling. I bought my cycle computer in July and have apparently covered 900 odd miles since then but have only lost about 2 lb. My diet is pretty much the same as before I started. But I do feel so much fitter than before I started which I suppose is the important thing


There's a lot of variables involved, I guess .. how heavy / fit you were before you started, how good / bad your normal diet is and so on.

For example, I've lost around 10lb this year (covered a little under 2000 miles having taken up commuting in March), which isn't really much. But, I _do_ eat a lot and I think I was building up quite a bit of muscle in my legs in the earlier weeks which offset the loss of fat to some extent ... I think this because much of the weight loss has come in the last few months, whereas I have been losing my waistline during the whole period. I'm now 3-4 inches less around the middle than I was a year ago.

And I feel much fitter, too. Many of my colleagues tell me I walk too fast now. And that's despite little short-ass legs.


----------



## Ravenz (26 Nov 2008)

The improvements are there and are real.. but there is a danger here of getting despondent and demotivated.. so plan of action... can you get yourself a formal fitness assessment from somewhere.. a good PT at a local gym .. you need to set a few baselines and on that foundation perhaps a new training/weightloss plan, so that you continue to lose weight and encourage stamina.
Don't rely on technological gizmos to state how 'fit' you are .. a fitness professional has a wealth of fitness assessments he or she can carry out to give you a truer picture and also help with correct nutrition.

You have cracked 1 massive hurdle - give yourself a prize and don't allow any transitory disappointment to spoil the party!


----------



## beancounter (26 Nov 2008)

Ravenz said:


> The improvements are there and are real.. but there is a danger here of getting despondent and demotivated.. so plan of action... can you get yourself a formal fitness assessment from somewhere.. a good PT at a local gym .. you need to set a few baselines and on that foundation perhaps a new training/weightloss plan, so that you continue to lose weight and encourage stamina.
> Don't rely on technological gizmos to state how 'fit' you are .. a fitness professional has a wealth of fitness assessments he or she can carry out to give you a truer picture and also help with correct nutrition.
> 
> You have cracked 1 massive hurdle - give yourself a prize and don't allow any transitory disappointment to spoil the party!



Take your point but...

I have quite a chronic lower back problem which means that cycling is all I can do, and I'm damn lucky to be able to do that at all, never mind for hours at a time. So gym work / weights / running etc. are all out.

I just need to persevere with the cycling and reassess my eating habits which have slipped back a little (and christmas approaches!)

bc


----------



## jimboalee (26 Nov 2008)

Using cycling as a fat loss exercise is a precarious balance between eating enough to satisfy the cycling, forcing the body to synthesize adipose and building muscle mass to get more powerful.
I have previously said I eat a proportion of 'theory' dependent upon the duration of the ride. This is Carbs. The remaining calories, and my BMR is protein, with the fat that comes with it.
Our physiology and metabolism has a 'hierarchy' of where it gets its nutrition. Simple High GI carbs in the blood stream first, other lower GI carbs and then adipose tissue. Only swallowing the bare minimum amount of carbs exhausts the blood and liver to a point where metabolism of adipose occurs. It is easier to draw immediately on adipose than wait for all that protein to be digested. ( Dr Atkins, I presume ).

The human being is basically a carnivore. Protein and lots of it. Some carbs from leaf veg', nuts, fruit and berries, but mostly meat and fish. ( Fred Flintstone, I presume ).

Grass was never on the Homo Sapien menu. So all wheat products, barley, corn and maize is a very modern gut filler for an expanding population, and obesity developed alongside the agricultural revolution.

I don't eat bread. I eat my meat wrapped in lettuce leaves, the Chinese way. Next time you go to the Chinese takeaway, notice how slender the girls are. The slimmest San Franciscans are in Chinatown. I learned a good lesson there – No bread.


I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (26 Nov 2008)

beancounter said:


> Take your point but...
> 
> I have quite a chronic lower back problem which means that cycling is all I can do, and I'm damn lucky to be able to do that at all, never mind for hours at a time. So gym work / weights / running etc. are all out.
> 
> ...


and there's the rub !!

If I can maintain what I've done this year over Christmas, I'll be a happy bunny. Then next year I will concentrate on going further, faster and hopefully see some further gains.


----------



## Stig-OT-Dump (26 Nov 2008)

I'm with JC - 10% is actually quite a big amount, even though I am unclear about how you calculated it. Thinking of it in running terms, say you did a half marathon in 1hr 50 (a respectable time) and took 10% off that (11 minutes) you'd be down to 1hr 39. However the real "zero point" isn't going to be zero, but would be an elite time of around an hour, and let's face it, you'd have to do intense training, have some genetic gifts and be a few years younger to get even close to that. So your real improvement in this example would be closer to 20% and that's pretty immense. Maybe you've done better than you've realised.

Plus, if you are wanting to achieve specific goals, you'd need to get a little bit scientific about your training for those goals. If you want an improvement on your "turbo time trials" you need to get base miles in at a low heart rate and then do interval training to get more speed for a given level of exertion. 

This summer I was covering 75 miles with a tag-along in a day, but it was at a work rate that was much less tiring than my 2 hour sessions for race preparation and was very enjoyable plodding with the stiglets.

Maybe you just need to change your yardstick to get a better idea of your real improvement. I reckon that for a year you've done a pretty good job


----------



## Fab Foodie (26 Nov 2008)

jimboalee said:


> Using cycling as a fat loss exercise is a precarious balance between eating enough to satisfy the cycling, forcing the body to synthesize adipose and building muscle mass to get more powerful.
> I have previously said I eat a proportion of 'theory' dependent upon the duration of the ride. This is Carbs. The remaining calories, and my BMR is protein, with the fat that comes with it.
> Our physiology and metabolism has a 'hierarchy' of where it gets its nutrition. Simple High GI carbs in the blood stream first, other lower GI carbs and then adipose tissue. Only swallowing the bare minimum amount of carbs exhausts the blood and liver to a point where metabolism of adipose occurs. It is easier to draw immediately on adipose than wait for all that protein to be digested. ( Dr Atkins, I presume ).
> 
> ...



I'm sorry Jimbo, but I have to question you again where you get your 'expertise' from? I mean this in the nicest way, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I am very careful in what I say on the subject of nutrition for similar reasons, and I have a pretty good background in the subject. I'm not sure whether you make this stuff up for abstract fun or you really believe it? 
Sorry.


----------



## Fab Foodie (26 Nov 2008)

beancounter said:


> It's exactly one year since I took up cycling again after a gap of several years.
> 
> I started off doing regular half hour sessions on an old turbo trainer, then I started going out on the road but on my old mountain bike, then I bought a new road bike, then I got a commuting bike. In all I've done about 3,500 miles in the year.
> 
> ...



You've done great! You're obviously fitter and healthier than you were. Great acievement!
Going further is about getting your ride fuelling right so that you eat enough cals for the effort you're doing. You will burn plenty fat during a long ride, as well as carbs at the same time. If at the end of the day you only replace the amount of carbs you lost then you'll have lost some fat, if you mega-munch then you may end-up putting fat back as well as replacing your carbs.
'Bonking' is the worst situation because you tend overcompensate on the cals in desparation and the body cannot deal with the onslaught without generating some fat to store all the energy ingested.

Regarding the Turbo, there is a limit to how much extra performance you can get for a given average heart rate. You're talking about your efficiency and a 10% improvement in output for the same HR I would reckon is pretty damn good (anybody have data on this?).

The easy way to really improve fitness and performance is to ride with others, to push you harder, to vary your regime, to take you around different circuits, it's 
very easy to ride the same way all the time and not really push yourself as hard as you could, group ridingor riding with a buddy does this.


----------



## beancounter (27 Nov 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> Regarding the Turbo, there is a limit to how much extra performance you can get for a given average heart rate. You're talking about your efficiency and a 10% improvement in output for the same HR I would reckon is pretty damn good (anybody have data on this?).



I didn't expect there to be a limit, although I did expect diminishing returns, and if there is a limit I didn't expect it to be as low as 10%! But experience is now telling me this is true, unless I switch to intervals on the turbo, which may help.



Fab Foodie said:


> The easy way to really improve fitness and performance is to ride with others, to push you harder, to vary your regime, to take you around different circuits, it's very easy to ride the same way all the time and not really push yourself as hard as you could, group ridingor riding with a buddy does this.



I used to ride in a group but I'm not sure I'm quite ready for it yet. I can only manage 14 to 15 mph for a long ride over undulating roads. I'm not looking to get faster - I just want to go further - and I very much stick to the same circuits currently.

What I'm taking from this is, having achieved some initial weight loss, I now need to fuel properly for the rides I'm trying to achieve.

Thanks for all the good advice on this thread, I really appreciate it.

bc


----------



## jimboalee (27 Nov 2008)

I shall keep my gob shut now as regards to fuelling properly for rides.

What works for me prob' won't work for anyone else.

After forty years riding a bike, cycling 100 mile outings eating not much more than a couple of bananas and a can of peach slices, this might be WRONG advice for a beginner.


----------



## tyred (27 Nov 2008)

Lazy-Commuter said:


> There's a lot of variables involved, I guess .. how heavy / fit you were before you started, how good / bad your normal diet is and so on.
> 
> For example, I've lost around 10lb this year (covered a little under 2000 miles having taken up commuting in March), which isn't really much. But, I _do_ eat a lot and I think I was building up quite a bit of muscle in my legs in the earlier weeks which offset the loss of fat to some extent ... I think this because much of the weight loss has come in the last few months, whereas I have been losing my waistline during the whole period. I'm now 3-4 inches less around the middle than I was a year ago.
> 
> And I feel much fitter, too. Many of my colleagues tell me I walk too fast now. And that's despite little short-ass legs.



My diet mightn't be perfect but it's much better than it used to be. I'm about 13 stone 8 and am 5'11" in height. I am broad shouldered and have big bones as they say. Lots of people have told me if I lose anymore weight I'd be too thin. My doctor told me I should be 10.5 Stone. Personally I would settle for losing another stone. I used to be 18 stone before making diet changes and doing a lot of walking. I had got bored with walking and decided to start cycling. When I started cycling, I was 13 stone 10. I was expecting a bigger change than that. On the plus side, I've lost about 2 inches of my waistline so maybe it's just a question of building muscles on my legs keeping my weight up. But either way, I feel so much healthier, I've found a form of exercise I enjoy and I should be thankful for that.


----------



## jimboalee (27 Nov 2008)

The Royal College of Nursing have a clever little equation which allows you do determine your ideal weight based upon you height, Radial length and wrist circumference.
Here is the quick calculator
www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/framesize1.asp

BTW. RCN is where I got my 'expertise'. I have known a few nurses in my life, and none have criticised my nutritional regime.


----------



## jimboalee (27 Nov 2008)

Incidentally, coupled with the 'total immersion' fat percentage method, my Nursey friend got my Ideal weight 2 stones heavier than the 'Doctor's Surgery' BMI poster.

So if your Quack said 10st 7lb, it might be closer to 12st 7lb for a mediocre ( that's me ) Athlete.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (27 Nov 2008)

tyred said:


> My diet mightn't be perfect but it's much better than it used to be. I'm about 13 stone 8 and am 5'11" in height. I am broad shouldered and have big bones as they say. Lots of people have told me if I lose anymore weight I'd be too thin. My doctor told me I should be 10.5 Stone. Personally I would settle for losing another stone. I used to be 18 stone before making diet changes and doing a lot of walking. I had got bored with walking and decided to start cycling. When I started cycling, I was 13 stone 10. I was expecting a bigger change than that. On the plus side, I've lost about 2 inches of my waistline so maybe it's just a question of building muscles on my legs keeping my weight up. But either way, I feel so much healthier, I've found a form of exercise I enjoy and I should be thankful for that.


Your situation sounds a lot like mine, apart from being a fair bit taller than me!! 

My diet's not bad - plenty of fresh fruit and veg, good balance of other stuff - but not the best: I do like beer. And pies. Are you in the same boat?

You'd already lost a lot of weight with the diet change and walking (congratulations, by the way) so you're probably into the area of diminishing returns. Also, the inches off your stomach sounds like me, as does the limited weight loss .. I put that down to more muscle in my legs; after all, I've clearly lost fat off my gut but not lost loads of weight. Unless my bone marrow is turning to lead something else has to make up the difference. 

But I feel much like you: I've found an exercise I enjoy - love, actually - and which fits into my day really easy, I feel fitter, my resting heart rate is down and I am losing weight - albeit slowly. It all sounds good to me.


----------



## tyred (27 Nov 2008)

My dietry weakness is fresh sausage rolls from the bakery down the street from my work....


----------



## peanut (27 Nov 2008)

beancounter said:


> Yep good advice, and I do understand the calculations around calories in/out.
> 
> I'd like to lose another half stone or a stone, but will need to address my eating habits again!
> 
> ...




You might find it helps to try some longer rides with some friends . Try riding out with a local club on Sundays. You'll soon team up with others who want to do some longer rides. 
I remember doing my first 100 miles round the Somerset century. Brilliant route with loads of little villages to retain interest. 4-5 mates to cycle with .We made an early start and got back at dusk completely wasted but what a sense of accomplishment. It really helped to be in a group and keep each other motivated,just like Audaxes


----------

