How to cycle for weight loss - Page 2 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-05-2004, 01:30 PM

Daniel Crispin <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward
> weight loss. I could buy a HRM but I have already spent 600$ on my
> bike this month and would like to stop spending for a while.

How about free? And probably less biased than most, because it's not
selling anything:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

> Any trick that can tell me I am using the right effort for weight
> loss? Someone told me that if I cannot speak without feeling a little
> out of breath that is the right zone... is that true?

Not necessarily. Ride. Recover. Ride more.

> Also I am been trying to pedal faster. I used to pedal slow and hard
> but after reading some books I now understand it's a really bad way to
> do it.

As long as the pressure on your knees is low, I don't think it really
matters how fast you spin.

> Last thing... what should I eat before and during training? I love
> pasta. I know they contain a lot of calories but that is the food I
> like. On the other hand they give lots of carbs so that can't be bad
> while training right? Should I eat something different the days I
> train?

Read the book above. If you want to lose fat, you need to eat fewer
calories than you burn. In that book, cycling is rated at about 300
calories per hour. The good news is that is probably for what most
people think of as cycling--slow, easy rides on a bike path. Most of
the readers of this newsgroup will burn more.

> How about during training? I normal bring a Nutribar which is an meal
> replacement designed for weight loss.
> I has a balance of carbs, fats and proteins. Should I use something with
> more carbs?

How about something less manufactured and more grown? Bananas are good.
So are apples. So are fig bars, for that matter. (I have mixed
feelings about the current low-carb fad.)

--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

06-05-2004, 02:24 PM

I generally read about 35 calories burned per mile for modest biking, dependent
upon degree of effort, wieght of biker, etc. But, it is a good figure to start
with.

Cadence. Look at your watch while pedaling, when it gets to a "0", start
counting full revolutions until it gets to the next "0". I.e., 20-30, 0-10,
etc. Multiply the revolutions you counted by 6.

While not absolutely accurate, it will give you a good diea.

Over the past 6 years of riding (starting at age 58) my cadence has gone from
about 60-70 to 90-110, and I can get cadences up to 140-150 if I want.

It just takes time and practice.

Use the Zone Diet, or the Body for Life eating plan - they are pretty
comparable, and the BFL is really easy to implement. It takes exercise AND
good eating habits to lose weight.

I bike pretty intensely, getting my heart rate up to about 155 BPM on hills and
acceleration, which is pretty high for someone age 64.

Good luck!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(Colorado rental condo)

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(Family Web Page)

06-05-2004, 02:24 PM

I generally read about 35 calories burned per mile for modest biking, dependent
upon degree of effort, wieght of biker, etc. But, it is a good figure to start
with.

Cadence. Look at your watch while pedaling, when it gets to a "0", start
counting full revolutions until it gets to the next "0". I.e., 20-30, 0-10,
etc. Multiply the revolutions you counted by 6.

While not absolutely accurate, it will give you a good diea.

Over the past 6 years of riding (starting at age 58) my cadence has gone from
about 60-70 to 90-110, and I can get cadences up to 140-150 if I want.

It just takes time and practice.

Use the Zone Diet, or the Body for Life eating plan - they are pretty
comparable, and the BFL is really easy to implement. It takes exercise AND
good eating habits to lose weight.

I bike pretty intensely, getting my heart rate up to about 155 BPM on hills and
acceleration, which is pretty high for someone age 64.

Good luck!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(Colorado rental condo)

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(Family Web Page)

06-05-2004, 02:24 PM

I generally read about 35 calories burned per mile for modest biking, dependent
upon degree of effort, wieght of biker, etc. But, it is a good figure to start
with.

Cadence. Look at your watch while pedaling, when it gets to a "0", start
counting full revolutions until it gets to the next "0". I.e., 20-30, 0-10,
etc. Multiply the revolutions you counted by 6.

While not absolutely accurate, it will give you a good diea.

Over the past 6 years of riding (starting at age 58) my cadence has gone from
about 60-70 to 90-110, and I can get cadences up to 140-150 if I want.

It just takes time and practice.

Use the Zone Diet, or the Body for Life eating plan - they are pretty
comparable, and the BFL is really easy to implement. It takes exercise AND
good eating habits to lose weight.

I bike pretty intensely, getting my heart rate up to about 155 BPM on hills and
acceleration, which is pretty high for someone age 64.

Good luck!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(Colorado rental condo)

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(Family Web Page)

06-05-2004, 02:24 PM

I generally read about 35 calories burned per mile for modest biking, dependent
upon degree of effort, wieght of biker, etc. But, it is a good figure to start
with.

Cadence. Look at your watch while pedaling, when it gets to a "0", start
counting full revolutions until it gets to the next "0". I.e., 20-30, 0-10,
etc. Multiply the revolutions you counted by 6.

While not absolutely accurate, it will give you a good diea.

Over the past 6 years of riding (starting at age 58) my cadence has gone from
about 60-70 to 90-110, and I can get cadences up to 140-150 if I want.

It just takes time and practice.

Use the Zone Diet, or the Body for Life eating plan - they are pretty
comparable, and the BFL is really easy to implement. It takes exercise AND
good eating habits to lose weight.

I bike pretty intensely, getting my heart rate up to about 155 BPM on hills and
acceleration, which is pretty high for someone age 64.

Good luck!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(Colorado rental condo)

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(Family Web Page)

06-05-2004, 02:24 PM

I generally read about 35 calories burned per mile for modest biking, dependent
upon degree of effort, wieght of biker, etc. But, it is a good figure to start
with.

Cadence. Look at your watch while pedaling, when it gets to a "0", start
counting full revolutions until it gets to the next "0". I.e., 20-30, 0-10,
etc. Multiply the revolutions you counted by 6.

While not absolutely accurate, it will give you a good diea.

Over the past 6 years of riding (starting at age 58) my cadence has gone from
about 60-70 to 90-110, and I can get cadences up to 140-150 if I want.

It just takes time and practice.

Use the Zone Diet, or the Body for Life eating plan - they are pretty
comparable, and the BFL is really easy to implement. It takes exercise AND
good eating habits to lose weight.

I bike pretty intensely, getting my heart rate up to about 155 BPM on hills and
acceleration, which is pretty high for someone age 64.

Good luck!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(Colorado rental condo)

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(Family Web Page)

06-05-2004, 04:43 PM

"psycholist" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:c9t7vt$4k91$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
>> Daniel,
>
> I see lots of folks who take up cycling for weight loss and never lose
> weight. Frankly, it's not exactly the best choice for weight loss because
> it's a non-weight-bearing activity and most folks who have real jobs can't
> do enough of it, or won't work hard enough at it, to get much benefit.

I agree that most people can't devote racer-like hours to training, and that
many people do not possess the intensity to burn lots of calories cycling.
However, weight-bearing has little effect, I think. The reason people don't
lose weight when they cycle is because they are consuming more calories than
they burn. Didn't we have a 100+ thread about this very subject not long
ago?

> What I've read and what I believe based on years of observing various
> riders, reading tons of stuff, etc. is that you absolutely will not lose
> weight if you don't ride with some intensity ... at least a couple of
times
> a week. There was a long time when the popular theory was that, if you
> spent all your time training in a certain, relatively easy, heart rate
zone,
> you were using fat as your fuel source instead of sugar. Therefore,
staying
> in that range all the time would make you lose fat. Great theory, but I
> never EVER saw that work for anyone.

Because they ate too much. It's easy to do---Powerbars, Gatorade, pre-ride
pasta gorge, post-ride beers and pizza. If they ate at maintenance level
calories and rode like you say, they will lose weight.

> If you want to lose weight on the bike, you have to work HARD on the bike.
> Lots of mile, lots of intervals of intensity, etc.

Long slow distance seems to be the rule. Of course, some Poliquin-type
interval training helps, too. But calories are the key. As bodybuilders say,
"great abs are made in the kitchen".

> I don't have a "real" job. I'm self-employed and have a farm. I have a
> flexible schedule and can ride alot. I get in 250 to 300 miles per week
> pretty much all year round. I don't race, but I do centuries with the
racer
> folks and turn in sub-5 hour rides regularly. That's intensity for this
48
> year old body. I say all that to say this ... even with all those miles
and
> near-race intensity, if I don't eat right, I gain weight. Carbs like
pasta
> can be great fuel before a big ride, but most of the time, if you want to
> lose, you've gotta discipline your diet. I recommend you look at the Zone
> diet and learn its principles. It's not really one of the fad diets. I'm
> not a dietician, but the Zone principles seem to make sense ... balancing
> your fat, protein and carbohydrate intake to keep your blood sugar at
> optimum levels. It's really worked for me.

Good for you. But tricks aside, you cannot escape The Law of Thermodynamics.
If anyone consumes fewer calories than burned, weight loss will occur. The
key is burning fat and not excessive amounts of muscle.

> One last thing. Crosstraining. Bicycling is great, but I find it really
> helps to add a second activity when I want to lose weight. For me, it's
> just walking. As I said, I live on a farm and I simply walk the property
> each morning. It takes about 20 minutes and gets the motor going. For
some
> reason, the addition of a second activity like this really pushes things
> into higher gear for me and I lose weight quickly.

Weight lifting would be ideal. Growing muscle helps to burn fat. Everybody
should strength train, if for no other reason than to maintain bone density.
I don't want to end up a stick-armed old man with great cardio ability. I
want to end up a strong old man with great cardio ability! :-)

06-05-2004, 04:43 PM

"psycholist" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:c9t7vt$4k91$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
>> Daniel,
>
> I see lots of folks who take up cycling for weight loss and never lose
> weight. Frankly, it's not exactly the best choice for weight loss because
> it's a non-weight-bearing activity and most folks who have real jobs can't
> do enough of it, or won't work hard enough at it, to get much benefit.

I agree that most people can't devote racer-like hours to training, and that
many people do not possess the intensity to burn lots of calories cycling.
However, weight-bearing has little effect, I think. The reason people don't
lose weight when they cycle is because they are consuming more calories than
they burn. Didn't we have a 100+ thread about this very subject not long
ago?

> What I've read and what I believe based on years of observing various
> riders, reading tons of stuff, etc. is that you absolutely will not lose
> weight if you don't ride with some intensity ... at least a couple of
times
> a week. There was a long time when the popular theory was that, if you
> spent all your time training in a certain, relatively easy, heart rate
zone,
> you were using fat as your fuel source instead of sugar. Therefore,
staying
> in that range all the time would make you lose fat. Great theory, but I
> never EVER saw that work for anyone.

Because they ate too much. It's easy to do---Powerbars, Gatorade, pre-ride
pasta gorge, post-ride beers and pizza. If they ate at maintenance level
calories and rode like you say, they will lose weight.

> If you want to lose weight on the bike, you have to work HARD on the bike.
> Lots of mile, lots of intervals of intensity, etc.

Long slow distance seems to be the rule. Of course, some Poliquin-type
interval training helps, too. But calories are the key. As bodybuilders say,
"great abs are made in the kitchen".

> I don't have a "real" job. I'm self-employed and have a farm. I have a
> flexible schedule and can ride alot. I get in 250 to 300 miles per week
> pretty much all year round. I don't race, but I do centuries with the
racer
> folks and turn in sub-5 hour rides regularly. That's intensity for this
48
> year old body. I say all that to say this ... even with all those miles
and
> near-race intensity, if I don't eat right, I gain weight. Carbs like
pasta
> can be great fuel before a big ride, but most of the time, if you want to
> lose, you've gotta discipline your diet. I recommend you look at the Zone
> diet and learn its principles. It's not really one of the fad diets. I'm
> not a dietician, but the Zone principles seem to make sense ... balancing
> your fat, protein and carbohydrate intake to keep your blood sugar at
> optimum levels. It's really worked for me.

Good for you. But tricks aside, you cannot escape The Law of Thermodynamics.
If anyone consumes fewer calories than burned, weight loss will occur. The
key is burning fat and not excessive amounts of muscle.

> One last thing. Crosstraining. Bicycling is great, but I find it really
> helps to add a second activity when I want to lose weight. For me, it's
> just walking. As I said, I live on a farm and I simply walk the property
> each morning. It takes about 20 minutes and gets the motor going. For
some
> reason, the addition of a second activity like this really pushes things
> into higher gear for me and I lose weight quickly.

Weight lifting would be ideal. Growing muscle helps to burn fat. Everybody
should strength train, if for no other reason than to maintain bone density.
I don't want to end up a stick-armed old man with great cardio ability. I
want to end up a strong old man with great cardio ability! :-)

06-05-2004, 04:43 PM

"psycholist" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:c9t7vt$4k91$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
>> Daniel,
>
> I see lots of folks who take up cycling for weight loss and never lose
> weight. Frankly, it's not exactly the best choice for weight loss because
> it's a non-weight-bearing activity and most folks who have real jobs can't
> do enough of it, or won't work hard enough at it, to get much benefit.

I agree that most people can't devote racer-like hours to training, and that
many people do not possess the intensity to burn lots of calories cycling.
However, weight-bearing has little effect, I think. The reason people don't
lose weight when they cycle is because they are consuming more calories than
they burn. Didn't we have a 100+ thread about this very subject not long
ago?

> What I've read and what I believe based on years of observing various
> riders, reading tons of stuff, etc. is that you absolutely will not lose
> weight if you don't ride with some intensity ... at least a couple of
times
> a week. There was a long time when the popular theory was that, if you
> spent all your time training in a certain, relatively easy, heart rate
zone,
> you were using fat as your fuel source instead of sugar. Therefore,
staying
> in that range all the time would make you lose fat. Great theory, but I
> never EVER saw that work for anyone.

Because they ate too much. It's easy to do---Powerbars, Gatorade, pre-ride
pasta gorge, post-ride beers and pizza. If they ate at maintenance level
calories and rode like you say, they will lose weight.

> If you want to lose weight on the bike, you have to work HARD on the bike.
> Lots of mile, lots of intervals of intensity, etc.

Long slow distance seems to be the rule. Of course, some Poliquin-type
interval training helps, too. But calories are the key. As bodybuilders say,
"great abs are made in the kitchen".

> I don't have a "real" job. I'm self-employed and have a farm. I have a
> flexible schedule and can ride alot. I get in 250 to 300 miles per week
> pretty much all year round. I don't race, but I do centuries with the
racer
> folks and turn in sub-5 hour rides regularly. That's intensity for this
48
> year old body. I say all that to say this ... even with all those miles
and
> near-race intensity, if I don't eat right, I gain weight. Carbs like
pasta
> can be great fuel before a big ride, but most of the time, if you want to
> lose, you've gotta discipline your diet. I recommend you look at the Zone
> diet and learn its principles. It's not really one of the fad diets. I'm
> not a dietician, but the Zone principles seem to make sense ... balancing
> your fat, protein and carbohydrate intake to keep your blood sugar at
> optimum levels. It's really worked for me.

Good for you. But tricks aside, you cannot escape The Law of Thermodynamics.
If anyone consumes fewer calories than burned, weight loss will occur. The
key is burning fat and not excessive amounts of muscle.

> One last thing. Crosstraining. Bicycling is great, but I find it really
> helps to add a second activity when I want to lose weight. For me, it's
> just walking. As I said, I live on a farm and I simply walk the property
> each morning. It takes about 20 minutes and gets the motor going. For
some
> reason, the addition of a second activity like this really pushes things
> into higher gear for me and I lose weight quickly.

Weight lifting would be ideal. Growing muscle helps to burn fat. Everybody
should strength train, if for no other reason than to maintain bone density.
I don't want to end up a stick-armed old man with great cardio ability. I
want to end up a strong old man with great cardio ability! :-)

06-05-2004, 04:43 PM

"psycholist" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:c9t7vt$4k91$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
>> Daniel,
>
> I see lots of folks who take up cycling for weight loss and never lose
> weight. Frankly, it's not exactly the best choice for weight loss because
> it's a non-weight-bearing activity and most folks who have real jobs can't
> do enough of it, or won't work hard enough at it, to get much benefit.

I agree that most people can't devote racer-like hours to training, and that
many people do not possess the intensity to burn lots of calories cycling.
However, weight-bearing has little effect, I think. The reason people don't
lose weight when they cycle is because they are consuming more calories than
they burn. Didn't we have a 100+ thread about this very subject not long
ago?

> What I've read and what I believe based on years of observing various
> riders, reading tons of stuff, etc. is that you absolutely will not lose
> weight if you don't ride with some intensity ... at least a couple of
times
> a week. There was a long time when the popular theory was that, if you
> spent all your time training in a certain, relatively easy, heart rate
zone,
> you were using fat as your fuel source instead of sugar. Therefore,
staying
> in that range all the time would make you lose fat. Great theory, but I
> never EVER saw that work for anyone.

Because they ate too much. It's easy to do---Powerbars, Gatorade, pre-ride
pasta gorge, post-ride beers and pizza. If they ate at maintenance level
calories and rode like you say, they will lose weight.

> If you want to lose weight on the bike, you have to work HARD on the bike.
> Lots of mile, lots of intervals of intensity, etc.

Long slow distance seems to be the rule. Of course, some Poliquin-type
interval training helps, too. But calories are the key. As bodybuilders say,
"great abs are made in the kitchen".

> I don't have a "real" job. I'm self-employed and have a farm. I have a
> flexible schedule and can ride alot. I get in 250 to 300 miles per week
> pretty much all year round. I don't race, but I do centuries with the
racer
> folks and turn in sub-5 hour rides regularly. That's intensity for this
48
> year old body. I say all that to say this ... even with all those miles
and
> near-race intensity, if I don't eat right, I gain weight. Carbs like
pasta
> can be great fuel before a big ride, but most of the time, if you want to
> lose, you've gotta discipline your diet. I recommend you look at the Zone
> diet and learn its principles. It's not really one of the fad diets. I'm
> not a dietician, but the Zone principles seem to make sense ... balancing
> your fat, protein and carbohydrate intake to keep your blood sugar at
> optimum levels. It's really worked for me.

Good for you. But tricks aside, you cannot escape The Law of Thermodynamics.
If anyone consumes fewer calories than burned, weight loss will occur. The
key is burning fat and not excessive amounts of muscle.

> One last thing. Crosstraining. Bicycling is great, but I find it really
> helps to add a second activity when I want to lose weight. For me, it's
> just walking. As I said, I live on a farm and I simply walk the property
> each morning. It takes about 20 minutes and gets the motor going. For
some
> reason, the addition of a second activity like this really pushes things
> into higher gear for me and I lose weight quickly.

Weight lifting would be ideal. Growing muscle helps to burn fat. Everybody
should strength train, if for no other reason than to maintain bone density.
I don't want to end up a stick-armed old man with great cardio ability. I
want to end up a strong old man with great cardio ability! :-)