Stamina vs Weight

fieldmouse35 said:

I have been road cycling for approx. 9 mos. Being a bit overweight for my height, it is hard to maintain a good stamina/pace with a group for a long time. I have seen some weight loss results from general riding (minor). I feel it is because in changing fat to muscle I am not drastically losing weight. I would like to know other training which will help shed pounds a little bit quicker. I ride est. 150-200 miles/week and would like to lose weight and build up a good pace standard which I can maintain for duration of certain club rides.

Diet...I have lost over 81 pounds thus far with my combination of Atkins and cycling. Just make sure that if you are going to diet like that to be intune with you doctor so he/she can help you adjust...The pounds will fly off

fieldmouse35 said:

I have been road cycling for approx. 9 mos. Being a bit overweight for my height, it is hard to maintain a good stamina/pace with a group for a long time. I have seen some weight loss results from general riding (minor). I feel it is because in changing fat to muscle I am not drastically losing weight. I would like to know other training which will help shed pounds a little bit quicker. I ride est. 150-200 miles/week and would like to lose weight and build up a good pace standard which I can maintain for duration of certain club rides.

Fat doesn't turn to muscle. You lose fat and build muscle, just wanted to point that out.

"Your muscles may have atrophied, but they haven't turned to fat. "Muscle and fat are two separate and distinct types of tissue," says Cedric X. Bryant, Ph.D., chief exercise physiologist for the American Council on Exercise. "Muscle can't turn into fat any more than wood can turn into metal. But as muscles shrink because of inactivity, fat can fill the space where the muscles used to be, giving the mistaken impression that the muscles have turned to fat."

A good diet, a good routine, and add some motivational friends and you'll be golden.

Good luck!

fieldmouse35 said:

I have been road cycling for approx. 9 mos. Being a bit overweight for my height, it is hard to maintain a good stamina/pace with a group for a long time. I have seen some weight loss results from general riding (minor). I feel it is because in changing fat to muscle I am not drastically losing weight. I would like to know other training which will help shed pounds a little bit quicker. I ride est. 150-200 miles/week and would like to lose weight and build up a good pace standard which I can maintain for duration of certain club rides.

Cycling can be as effective as any modality for weight loss. What's more important than (eg) the few extra calories per minute you *may* use running, is that you are doing something that you will stick with for the long term. Unfortunately, unless you are training more hrs/week than most of us have available, it's not too hard to put back in all the calories you used during riding/working out. IOW, you must control the amount of calories that are going in, in addition to all of the calories going out on your rides.
I DO NOT recommend something akin to the Atkins diet for someone engaged in regular aerobic exercise. Some people do experience greater feelings of satiation with increased amounts of protein in their diet, and that's fine to a certain extent. However, the best way to remove calories (which is all weight loss is about, whatever macronutrient you choose to omit or restrict) from your diet is to restrict fat intake, and since you are active, I recommend keeping a significant amount of complex carbohydrate in your diet (this is what predominately fuels exercise and will allow you to maintain productivity in your training).

Smartt/RST said:

Cycling can be as effective as any modality for weight loss. What's more important than (eg) the few extra calories per minute you *may* use running, is that you are doing something that you will stick with for the long term.

Michael, do you have any links to any articles or studies that show that cycling is an equal to running as far as exercise, calories, training, aerobic fitness, etc. It seems that there are frequent threads that pop up here (and elsewhere) where most of the posters state if they only have 30 to 45 minutes to workout, they will run instead of ride as it produces a better results. Most of these statements seem to be conjecture rather than any hard science. Reasons stated will be that more muscles are used or that you have to support your own bodyweight while running where you're seated when cycling. I suppose a person could stand out of the saddle and hammer down but that never seems to come up.

I have a hard time believing that running is superior to cycling, whether the duration is 30 minutes, 45 minutes or 3 hours. Logic tells me that if a person wants to have a 30 minute bike session that produces the same results (aerobic fitness) as a 30 minute run, then they have to pedal harder and that they may, in fact, be taking it easier than they do when they run making their cycling sessions more akin to a light jog.

Got any links? I have Googled and can't find anything but more conjecture and a few suspicious studies where the test subjects are suspect at best.

Quoted post said:

I DO NOT recommend something akin to the Atkins diet for someone engaged in regular aerobic exercise. Some people do experience greater feelings of satiation with increased amounts of protein in their diet, and that's fine to a certain extent. However...

And fat. The Atkin's diet includes fat which has certain characteristics that leave most people feeling sated after a meal.

Doctor Morbius said:

Michael, do you have any links to any articles or studies that show that cycling is an equal to running as far as exercise, calories, training, aerobic fitness, etc. It seems that there are frequent threads that pop up here (and elsewhere) where most of the posters state if they only have 30 to 45 minutes to workout, they will run instead of ride as it produces a better results. Most of these statements seem to be conjecture rather than any hard science. Reasons stated will be that more muscles are used or that you have to support your own bodyweight while running where you're seated when cycling. I suppose a person could stand out of the saddle and hammer down but that never seems to come up.

I have a hard time believing that running is superior to cycling, whether the duration is 30 minutes, 45 minutes or 3 hours. Logic tells me that if a person wants to have a 30 minute bike session that produces the same results (aerobic fitness) as a 30 minute run, then they have to pedal harder and that they may, in fact, be taking it easier than they do when they run making their cycling sessions more akin to a light jog.

Got any links? I have Googled and can't find anything but more conjecture and a few suspicious studies where the test subjects are suspect at best.

And fat. The Atkin's diet includes fat which has certain characteristics that leave most people feeling sated after a meal.

I don't have any good links for you that would tell the story by themselves. The problem is that there are several confounding factors when making a comparison between different modalities of exercise...
The main one is the training status of the individual - in my case, having been a cyclist for about 14yrs with very little running experience, there is no way I could use as many calories running as I could on the bike; I would just get injured from all of the running if starting tomorrow I tried to maintain the same kJs/week that I achieve cycling; of course, with some time to adapt, the situation could be reversed...but I don't like running, and thus my previous comment on long term participation in whatever modality you choose. NOTE: long term adherence to exercise and low fat diets are the two main factors in successful weight loss...period.
Another is that someone new to exercise may or may not be able to run at all, as the lowest running intensity is higher than (eg) cycling on flat roads. Conversely, someone new to cycling might not have the developed leg musculature to support anything but low intensities
However, given the points that you made (running is weight bearing and is a whole body exercise), and assuming no orthopedic concerns, most people just looking to loose weight will find it easier to use more calories in a shorter amount of time running than cycling.
Comparing "aerobic fitness" is not possible, as it is specific to each modality.

You people always spout the same [censored] about the Atkins diet and what you think it really is. The diet is about not consuming the mega millions of carbs on a daily basis that most obese people in this country do. If all you do is take the carbs out of your diet and substitute more veggies you are not increasing more fat. I HATE this misnomer...Our ancesters did not grow up eatting potato chips and drinking cokes, they grew up eating predominately meats and veggies with the occasional potatos and corns. Do you think the Indians, with their physical strengths and predominately meat based diets worried about their fat intake? Give me a break.

As long as you give your body what it needs and nothing more you will be able to create lean, strong muscle and shave off the fat. Do what you will and be as you may....

jaguar75 said:

You people always spout the same [censored] about the Atkins diet and what you think it really is. The diet is about not consuming the mega millions of carbs on a daily basis that most obese people in this country do. If all you do is take the carbs out of your diet and substitute more veggies you are not increasing more fat. I HATE this misnomer...Our ancesters did not grow up eatting potato chips and drinking cokes, they grew up eating predominately meats and veggies with the occasional potatos and corns. Do you think the Indians, with their physical strengths and predominately meat based diets worried about their fat intake? Give me a break.

As long as you give your body what it needs and nothing more you will be able to create lean, strong muscle and shave off the fat. Do what you will and be as you may....

Well, it's not [censored] and everyone knows well and good what the Atkins diet is. Furthermore, I'm not speculating about cultures of the past or the cause of obesity in this country and I explicitly said that reducing calories is what weight loss is all about (which presumably is what you attained by removing carbs from your diet).
Regardless, the original post was about maintaining stamina while cycling/doing club rides and lossing weight - carbohydrate is the body's first choice for fueling exercise and the only macronutrient that is a proven ergogenic aid; there is factual, long term research showing that long term weight loss is associated with low fat diets and consistent exercise (quite the opposite for fad diets, whatever they may be); there are mountains of evidence showing the benefits of complex carbohydrates (no one is advocating potato chips - mostly fat! - and soda) and there are questions about the long term health issues surrounding the meat that is available to most people in this day and age.

Smartt/RST said:

Well, it's not [censored] and everyone knows well and good what the Atkins diet is. Furthermore, I'm not speculating about cultures of the past or the cause of obesity in this country and I explicitly said that reducing calories is what weight loss is all about (which presumably is what you attained by removing carbs from your diet).
Regardless, the original post was about maintaining stamina while cycling/doing club rides and lossing weight - carbohydrate is the body's first choice for fueling exercise and the only macronutrient that is a proven ergogenic aid; there is factual, long term research showing that long term weight loss is associated with low fat diets and consistent exercise (quite the opposite for fad diets, whatever they may be); there are mountains of evidence showing the benefits of complex carbohydrates (no one is advocating potato chips - mostly fat! - and soda) and there are questions about the long term health issues surrounding the meat that is available to most people in this day and age.

Yes...you are correct there coach...but you are talking about a person that has a body fat % below 10 and the only thing for that persons body to consume is the Carbs that you give it....A person that weighs 270 pounds can not fill their body with carbs and expect to loose weight becasue the exercise that that person is doing wil consume all of the carbs that you consume and you will not have forced the muscles to burn the fat. Heavy exercise, low or no carbs = fat reduction. When said person reaches their target weight and body fat then you can switch gears and re-introduce the carbs for fuel. You can not make a regular car a race car with racing fuel without first converting the engine.

And another thing about the fat...as long as you are eating meats/veggies that don't have a lot of the Saturated fats you are ok.

An all of this evidence that you speak of attacking the fad diets and the meat industry blah blah blah...there is just as much evidence to your contrary...The health world is torn on the topic and the best advice you can give anyone is to start somewhere and see how your body reacts.

jaguar75 said:

And another thing about the fat...as long as you are eating meats/veggies that don't have a lot of the Saturated fats you are ok.

My brother started weight watchers and they have him taking in a couple of ounces a day in oils (i.e. liquid fat). He's taking in Olive Oil (not Popey's girlfriend 😉 ) and fish oils.

Quoted post said:

An all of this evidence that you speak of attacking the fad diets and the meat industry blah blah blah...there is just as much evidence to your contrary...The health world is torn on the topic and the best advice you can give anyone is to start somewhere and see how your body reacts.

I would wonder who is funding some of the reasearch on this. If the farmers and agricultural industry are funding the research, then it is suspect. Although one may be able to lose weight (and lose it rapidly) on the Atkin's diet, there is nothing healthy in the long term about ingesting large amounts of animal fats from red meats. Fat from fish would be a different story as the American Eskimo diets are laden with fat yet they have the lowest cholesterol of any ethnic group in the States.

Quoted post said:

Our ancesters did not grow up eatting potato chips and drinking cokes, they grew up eating predominately meats and veggies with the occasional potatos and corns. Do you think the Indians, with their physical strengths and predominately meat based diets worried about their fat intake? Give me a break.

I agree with you to a point... but back then if someone lived to see 50 they were a novelty.