Cycling Training · Public discussion

Weight Loss?

Started by noonievut · · Last activity · 9 posts · 1,568 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Training
Published
11 January 2006
Last activity
11 January 2006
Original author
noonievut
Posts
9
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,568
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–9 of 9
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. In 2004 I took up mountain biking, mainly on single/double track for an 1 hour a time, 2-3 times a week with the odd road ride thrown in. In 2005 I converted to road, and from May to November put about 2,500km on the road bike.

    Last year I dropped 5-10 pounds total, in early 2005 (by end of June) I dropped another 5 pounds, but recently (at the time of putting the bike away for the winter and riding the exercise bike...say 3 x 30 minute rides a week max) I've lost additional weight (say 10 pounds since August).

    So I'm not sure why I lose only 5 pounds when I'm riding a lot, and about 10 when barely riding? Any thoughts? Maybe the effect takes a while and the loss is because of all the summer riding...

  2. noonievut said:

    In 2004 I took up mountain biking, mainly on single/double track for an 1 hour a time, 2-3 times a week with the odd road ride thrown in. In 2005 I converted to road, and from May to November put about 2,500km on the road bike.

    Last year I dropped 5-10 pounds total, in early 2005 (by end of June) I dropped another 5 pounds, but recently (at the time of putting the bike away for the winter and riding the exercise bike...say 3 x 30 minute rides a week max) I've lost additional weight (say 10 pounds since August).

    So I'm not sure why I lose only 5 pounds when I'm riding a lot, and about 10 when barely riding? Any thoughts? Maybe the effect takes a while and the loss is because of all the summer riding...


    For what it's worth, I have approximately the same pattern. I stay stable or gain during periods of heavy training, and tend to lose weight during a couple of recent forced periods off the bike (one due to injury, a couple due to travel). I've noticed that training hard is much more difficult when I'm in a substantial caloric deficit. However, we might be comparing apples and oranges; I'm training 10-14 hours/wk when "on", and even when "off" am training around 8 hours per week.

    I wouldn't worry too much about it, though. Metabolism is complicated. If the weight loss is positive (i.e., you can stand to lose it), it's all going in the right direction, so be happy that whatever you're doing is working.

  3. noonievut said:

    In 2004 I took up mountain biking, mainly on single/double track for an 1 hour a time, 2-3 times a week with the odd road ride thrown in. In 2005 I converted to road, and from May to November put about 2,500km on the road bike.

    Last year I dropped 5-10 pounds total, in early 2005 (by end of June) I dropped another 5 pounds, but recently (at the time of putting the bike away for the winter and riding the exercise bike...say 3 x 30 minute rides a week max) I've lost additional weight (say 10 pounds since August).

    So I'm not sure why I lose only 5 pounds when I'm riding a lot, and about 10 when barely riding? Any thoughts? Maybe the effect takes a while and the loss is because of all the summer riding...

    I can't say for sure as I don't know all of the gory details but if you've lost weight since you have stopped riding it is probably due to atrophy of the muscles in your legs. Quads and hamstrings are very large muscles and when you cut way back on your training they will adapt to their new lowered work load.

    Also, your appetite and food intake may not be what it was when you were training harder. Exercise can invoke a pretty hearty appetite response. If you were eating more carbs during hard training you will also store glycogen and likely more water weight.

  4. Doctor Morbius said:

    I can't say for sure as I don't know all of the gory details but if you've lost weight since you have stopped riding it is probably due to atrophy of the muscles in your legs. Quads and hamstrings are very large muscles and when you cut way back on your training they will adapt to their new lowered work load.

    Also, your appetite and food intake may not be what it was when you were training harder. Exercise can invoke a pretty hearty appetite response. If you were eating more carbs during hard training you will also store glycogen and likely more water weight.

    Interesting and obvious now that I think of it. When I would ride for 2-3 hours at a time in the summer I would pack in the carbs, but now I'm only riding 30-45 minutes in the exercise bike so my diet isn't the same.

  5. noonievut said:

    Interesting and obvious now that I think of it. When I would ride for 2-3 hours at a time in the summer I would pack in the carbs, but now I'm only riding 30-45 minutes in the exercise bike so my diet isn't the same.

    Yeah, those long rides really can stimulate the hunger drive. It's been a while since I've done any but I would crave platefulls of spaghetti and bowls of cereal. Most people lose weight when they take up cycling. Not me. Having come from a sedentary office lifestyle I lost some subcutaneous fat but gained muscle in my legs. Prior to a couple of years ago the only leg work I was getting was going up and down in an elevator. :o

  6. Metbolism and weight gain/loss are very complicated issues. When you train hard (70% to 80% of maximum heart rate), the body cannot convert fat to energy fast enough, so you use up your glucose and glycogen stores until you bonk. As soon as you stop and eat, you replace the glucose and glycogen stores, and there is little net change in weight.

    When you exercise at a lighter level (50% to 60% of maximum heart rate), the body can burn fat instead of depleting glycogen stores, so you lose weight faster (assuming you have excess fat), and you can exercise longer.

    Another factor is that not all fat is the same. Gut fat is bad, and butt fat is good (or at least not bad) as far as overall health is concerned. Gut fat (i.e., peritoneal fat) is more metabolically active than butt fat (which actually incompasses all subcutaneous fat). When fat is stored, the gut fat accumulates first, and when fat is used for energy, it is the gut fat that is used. Typically, the first ten pounds lost is gut fat. Once the gut fat is gone, it takes the body time to redistribute subcutaneous fat to gut fat, and the body cannot utilize subcutaneous fat quickly enough to use it as an energy source during exercise. Periods of inactivity between exercise allows for the remaining fat to be redistributed so that when exercise resumes, the gut fat can be burned.

    That also explains, in part, why weight loss tends to go in in steps. You lose 10 pounds fairly easily, and then you hit a plateau. After a while, you go through another period of rapid weight loss, and then hit another plateau.

    The good news is that when you are losing weight, no matter how overweight you are, the biggest improvement in health comes from losing the first ten pounds. The bad news is that when you are gaining weight, regardless of how close to your ideal weight you might be, the biggest hit to your overall health comes from the first ten pounds gained.

  7. RickF said:

    When you exercise at a lighter level (50% to 60% of maximum heart rate), the body can burn fat instead of depleting glycogen stores, so you lose weight faster (assuming you have excess fat), and you can exercise longer.

    I belive the "lose weight faster" aspect has been disproven. Here are a couple of links (courtesy of Biker-Linz) from previous threads that have dealt with this topic. Besides, exercising at 50% to 60% MaxHR is too boring! 😉

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=11319629

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=8028502

  8. Doctor Morbius said:

    I belive the "lose weight faster" aspect has been disproven. Here are a couple of links (courtesy of Biker-Linz) from previous threads that have dealt with this topic. Besides, exercising at 50% to 60% MaxHR is too boring! 😉

    ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgi

    ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgi

    Excellent studies (I had seen those before), but I am not sure they disprove what I said. The first study just proved that people who exercise more weigh less than those who do not exercise, and the second study showed that intermittant exercise produced more weight loss than sustained exercise. Quoting from the second citation:

    Quoted post said:

    The mean estimated total energy cost of the ET program was 120.4 MJ, whereas the corresponding value for the HIIT program was 57.9 MJ. Despite its lower energy cost, the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity compared with the ET program.

    This study supports what noonievut had observed himself.

  9. Thanks for the information.

    I'm wondering though what I can expect from 2006; will I drop or maintain weight as I begin to increase duration and intensity of my rides in the spring?

    Just wondering what size pants I should buy 😉

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.