cycling to lose weight

[ColinJ]

Does the speed one covers the distance in effect the amount of weight loss. All other things being equal will one lose moer doing 30 miles in 2 hours than 30 miles in 3 hours. Obviously doing it in 2 hours is more strenuous but it doesn't last as long? What's the deal?

I don't think it makes a lot of difference for a range of slow to moderate speeds. If you were to try and go flat out for as long as possible, however, you would be burning mainly glycogen rather than fat. You only carry about 2 hours worth of that in your body which is why you often used to see marathon runners collapsing in the last few miles of a race. To avoid that happening to you when riding, you'd have to be constantly refuelling on the bike. It seems to me that that isn't the best way to lose weight, especially since you could end up so knackered that you don't ride again for a few days while you recover. You'd have had to have replaced most of the energy you used or you would have bonked (hit the wall).

I think you'd be better riding at a good moderate pace and only eat and drink the minimum that you need to complete your ride, and then only eat and drink normally afterwards.

 

[NeilEB]

Also consider gym instructors. To lose weight you have to excercise at a lower intensity for a longer period - strain too hard and you end up working the cardiovascular system, rather then fat burning.

Or something like that anyway

 

[lulubel]

Also consider gym instructors. To lose weight you have to excercise at a lower intensity for a longer period - strain too hard and you end up working the cardiovascular system, rather then fat burning.

It doesn't matter what you're burning, as long as it isn't muscle, and as long as you're exercising (ie cycling) you won't be burning muscle. Maintaining your weight is a simple formula of calories in = calories out. To lose weight, calories in must be less than calories out.

If your only goal is to lose fat while maintaining the muscle you have, the best way to achieve that is short sessions (around 20 minutes at a time) of high intensity interval training, along with sessions of resistance/weight training. But since we're cyclists here, that probably isn't what most of us have in mind.

The myth that you won't burn fat if you exercise at higher intensities is just that - a myth. It doesn't matter what intensity you exercise at. As long as you are taking in less calories than your body needs to function, it will turn to your fat stores to make up the shortfall. Training at higher intensities for shorter periods is actually more effective for fat loss because your body continues to burn more calories than usual for up to several hours after you finish the exercise session.

This doesn't mean all your rides should be flat out (unless that's what you enjoy, of course). A mixture of longer, steady rides with shorter, faster ones, along with a sensible diet and not too much alcohol - a big source of calories - is what will work best for most people.

As for refueling during the ride, once you get over a certain duration, you will need to. For me, that duration tends to be about 1.5-2 hours. For others, it will vary. Once you get past that point, the rewards in calorie burn become less because you're taking in energy to replace the energy you're using.

 

[NeilEB]

I stand corrected then!

 

[Seigi]

That's one of the thing that really irritates me with alcohol is that it usually doesn't have nutrition information anywhere to be found regarding it, they also normally don't list the ingredients, both of which I'd like to see.

But lulubel has it right, so long as your calories are lower than your calories you're burning throughout the entire day, you'll be doing fine, I use this http://www.freedieti..._calculator.htm as a rough guide, for my statistics, (6ft4, 121kg, 19, exercise at least 5 times a week), it says that my maintenance caloric count is 3.4k (A LOT), weight loss is 2.7k (Still quite a bit) and extreme weight loss (2.1k), I normally aim for no more than 2.5k, so I'm on a deficit of around 900 calories per day, 6,300 per week, which works out at around burning 0.8kg per week.

I've kept this sorta thing up since March time (And only start cycling proper in May) and have lost 25kg.

 

[kedab]

thank you lulubel for indirectly answering questions i've been mulling over for the last day or so

 

[lulubel]

I stand corrected then!

It's an incredibly popular myth, so I'm not surprised so many people believe it.

I think it came about for the "gym bunnies" who like to spend hours on the cross trainer reading a book, not even breaking a sweat, and thinking it counts as exercise

 

[madpensioner]

I WAS JUST WONDERING - HOW LONG DID YOU TAKE TO DO THE 31 MILES?

2hr-2mins

 

[NeilEB]

It's an incredibly popular myth, so I'm not surprised so many people believe it.

I think it came about for the "gym bunnies" who like to spend hours on the cross trainer reading a book, not even breaking a sweat, and thinking it counts as exercise

But machines even have a 'fat burning' setting.......

Ahh well, if I cycle but keep my eating the same I should lose more weight......I think

 

[Friz]

But machines even have a 'fat burning' setting.......

Ahh well, if I cycle but keep my eating the same I should lose more weight......I think

That's how it worked for me. I do between 20 and 50 miles a day. Almost every day. The weight has literally fallen off me. The only downside is that none of my clothes fit me anymore. And I'm too busy buying bits for the bike to get new clothes. So I'm adopting the slightly rumpled look hoping the trend catches on....

 

[zexel]

It's an incredibly popular myth, so I'm not surprised so many people believe it.

I think it came about for the "gym bunnies" who like to spend hours on the cross trainer reading a book, not even breaking a sweat, and thinking it counts as exercise

Awww lulubel, you're like a breath of fresh crisp mountain air.

 

[madpensioner]

I thank you for all your usefull advice - ive only been cycling for a period of 3 and 1/2 years after 45 years of marothon running - and long distance walking - when i started cycling my average was 12.5 mph and i am over the last month achieving 14.8 mph - during the winter - with the help of weight training in my gym and the use of my turbo trainer - i should be able to average 16 mph next year - but if i dont - i will most certainly enjoy trying

cheers - LEIGH

 

[madpensioner]

Ive just been out again - 26th july - 56 miles at 13.9 mph - stoppage time of 50 mins to mend a puncture - I used 1/2 the strength of carbs I would normally use - felt ok - things are looking up - however - did have 2 pints of bitter whilst attending the puncture - cheers - LEIGH



PS - the 50 mins was on top of total cycle time of 4hrs 2mins

 

[madpensioner]

Does the speed one covers the distance in effect the amount of weight loss. All other things being equal will one lose moer doing 30 miles in 2 hours than 30 miles in 3 hours. Obviously doing it in 2 hours is more strenuous but it doesn't last as long? What's the deal?

Actually - looking at the chart for my weight - 2hrs = 1680 cals - 3hrs = 1260

 

[brockers]

- however - did have 2 pints of bitter whilst attending the puncture - cheers - LEIGH

I like your style!