weight loss

paul said:

Now I've bought my road bike, and I can ride it uphills without
falling off, I want to do some serious training. Not for competition,
but to lose sopme weight. I've tried dieting, and I realise that I
will need to eat properly is I put some miles in, but I want to try
and rescue my heart before it becomes too cloged up, and doing it byu
food alone hasn't worked for me in the past. Are there any online
guides for this sort of thing, or good books that people have tried.
Any guidlines would be helpful (like 'do I need a HRM?'😉

Riding your bike a bit more and eating a bit less should do it. IME, it's
better to eat something different rather than less. All I've done to lose
weight steadily is buy stuff that's got less fat in it, rather than
specifically low fat, avoiding all the stuff that tastes like terror. And
avoided eating lots of biscuits / having lots of sugar in my tea. I just
look at whatever the fat is per / 100g and try and keep it low - stuff like
curry sauces often vary between 20% and 3 or 4%, which is a pretty big
difference.

paul said:

Now I've bought my road bike, and I can ride it uphills without falling
off, I want to do some serious training. Not for competition, but to
lose sopme weight. I've tried dieting, and I realise that I will need to
eat properly is I put some miles in, but I want to try and rescue my
heart before it becomes too cloged up, and doing it byu food alone
hasn't worked for me in the past. Are there any online guides for this
sort of thing, or good books that people have tried. Any guidlines would
be helpful (like 'do I need a HRM?'😉

TiA

I found a HRM an excellent investment, along with a copy of "The heart
rate monitor for Cyclists" (isbn 1-931382-04-2) by Sally Reed and Sally
Edwards. Comes with 30 day trial of software for use with appropriate
HRM (that can do download/programming to a PC). Gave me a structure to
work to, incentive to keep at it, and resulted in successfully cycling
58 miles in a day over hillier terrain than I'd done before, and
reaching home being tired but not on my last legs, despite it being the
most I'd ever cycled and definitely the hilliest 50 miles!

I'm fitter, MUCH faster (except up hills), and feel great :-)

The book is split into several chapters, and while there is some overlap
between them, one of them addresses cycling for weight management, which
is useful. Some excellent tips in the book, good info on how to avoid
overtraining (I nearly fell prey to this a couple of weeks ago I think
and wouldn't have realised).

Of course, the simple and cheap way is just to get out there and ride
ride and ride some more - but it depends if you're happy doing it like
that or not. Temptation is to eat more when cycling lots, my weight's
not moved downwards at all, but I AM slowly getting thinner, though the
muscles are getting bigger too, so I'm changing shape more than anything
LOL - and I just can't cycle for hours on end without a regular intake
of food.

Even if you don't lose weight, if you cycle regularly and spend plenty
of time in the aerobic side of things (ie, not all your time pushing so
hard your muscles are burning up!) your heart (and body) will get fitter
fast. That's where the HRM comes into it's own, I think - it allows you
to pace yourself a bit better, and keep a rough idea of if you're riding
hard enough but not too hard to get the beneficial effects.

--

Velvet

paul said:

Now I've bought my road bike, and I can ride it uphills without falling
off, I want to do some serious training. Not for competition, but to
lose sopme weight. I've tried dieting, and I realise that I will need to
eat properly is I put some miles in, but I want to try and rescue my
heart before it becomes too cloged up, and doing it byu food alone
hasn't worked for me in the past. Are there any online guides for this
sort of thing, or good books that people have tried. Any guidlines would
be helpful (like 'do I need a HRM?'😉

TiA

Ride a bit more, and eat a bit less each week. You will, after a few
weeks, reach a point where you are losing weight at a healthy rate (no
more than 1Kg a week). Then, as you approach the point you are getting
"lean" (ie, little spare lard) start increasing the eats a little each
week until your weight stabilises.

Don't target an absolute weight. Weight is a pretty poor metric really -
%age body fat is a better indicator, and you want as little as possible 😉

Avoid sugar, saturated fat, hydrogenated fat and pretty much anything
that comes out of a factory or fast "food" joint; we humans work best
when powered by stuff that's been grown, not manufactured. Wine is ok as
long as it's red; beer has way too many superfluous calories/carbs. Eat
oily fish at least twice a week (Salmon, Tuna etc) and a handful of nuts
a day (Almonds, Hazels, Cashews - and even Peanuts if you are not "Low
Carbing"😉. Fruit (esp berries) is/are excellent, and of course Veggies -
but then you knew that already, I bet!

Drink LOTS of water (I have at least 3 ltrs a day, more when doing long
rides) and supplement Vitamin C and Vitamin E (help to repair Oxidative
damage you get from exercise). Oh and eat Marmite - it contains lots of
B complex Vitamins which are essential in repairing stressed muscles.

Repeat this until you die - which will probably be when you are very
very very old :-)

--
Chris

paul said:

Now I've bought my road bike, and I can ride it uphills without
falling off, I want to do some serious training. Not for competition,
but to lose sopme weight. I've tried dieting, and I realise that I
will need to eat properly is I put some miles in, but I want to try
and rescue my heart before it becomes too cloged up, and doing it byu
food alone hasn't worked for me in the past. Are there any online
guides for this sort of thing, or good books that people have tried.
Any guidlines would be helpful (like 'do I need a HRM?'😉

TiA

As the other replies said, eat low fat food, the diet books say less than 4%
fat is good. A HRM is useful at the start to show you what your heart is
doing but IMHO you soon learn what your body is doing and don't need it. A
Training with a HRM book will show you the zones in which your body uses
different source of fuel for the effort. One of the sources is fat so the
goal is to ride within your fat burning zone and of course your HRM will
tell you this. You may be surprised, you do not need to ride hard and get
totally knackered to get some benefit.

I have done all of this over the years but I have found that simply riding
at a comfortable pace for long distances (>60 miles) in varying terrain
coupled with a healthy but not extreme diet has allowed me to lose three
stones in the last 19 months. BTW Fast weight loss is not healthy. I don't
call my training serious, totally unstructured but committed.

paul said:

Now I've bought my road bike, and I can ride it uphills without falling
off, I want to do some serious training. Not for competition, but to
lose sopme weight. I've tried dieting, and I realise that I will need to
eat properly is I put some miles in, but I want to try and rescue my
heart before it becomes too cloged up, and doing it byu food alone
hasn't worked for me in the past. Are there any online guides for this
sort of thing, or good books that people have tried. Any guidlines would
be helpful (like 'do I need a HRM?'😉

To reinforce Velvet's last point - don't forget to ride
aerobically. Many beginner cyclists push hard against
high gears (anaerobic), which will give you big leg muscles
but do less for your overall fitness. Ride by spinning
the pedals faster in lower gears, and you'll get a good
cardiovascular workout.

Don't wait to read a fitness guide, go out this evening for
a few miles and enjoy yourself!

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

I have been cycling for about two years after previously doing very little exercise in adult life.
I have lost just over 2 stone.
I don't diet but I try to eat sensibly - I have mainly cut down on sugar, butter , beer and fatty foods.
My weight started to go up again recently and I started doing more uphills and I have lost a stone and a half since easter.
I am not a big build and although I hardly drink beer now, my gut was built over many years drinking bitter on a daily basis, and my gut has absolutely refused to go, though it has gone down a lot. I have just started sit ups but that doesn't seem to be doing much either. I traded beer for white wine, though after what an earlier poster said, I might trade down to red wine - the thought isn't doing much for me though.
I have never thought about a hrm. Would it be worth it. I cycle about 12 hours a commuting to work via roundabout routes and try to do a 50 mile run every weekend.

"Skunk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have been cycling for about two years after previously doing very
little exercise in adult life.
I have lost just over 2 stone.
I don't diet but I try to eat sensibly - I have mainly cut down on
sugar, butter , beer and fatty foods.
My weight started to go up again recently and I started doing more
uphills and I have lost a stone and a half since easter.
I am not a big build and although I hardly drink beer now, my gut was
built over many years drinking bitter on a daily basis, and my gut has
absolutely refused to go, though it has gone down a lot. I have just
started sit ups but that doesn't seem to be doing much either. I traded
beer for white wine, though after what an earlier poster said, I might
trade down to red wine - the thought isn't doing much for me though.
I have never thought about a hrm. Would it be worth it. I cycle about
12 hours a commuting to work via roundabout routes and try to do a 50
mile run every weekend.

--
Skunk

Don't have exactly the same problem as you (i.e. 'gut'😉 but seem to have
'plateaued' in terms of weight loss. Got an HRM with an HR Max of 185 and a
RHR of 63 and am perenially confused as to whether my training zones should
be at 50 - 60% or 60 - 70% of max hr and also whether I should use the Heart
Rate Reserve (Karvonen) method or the 220 - age formula.

Each give different results and 'target zones' within which to work:

Karvonen (185 HR Max)

50 - 60% = 123 - 134 bpm
60 - 70% = 135 - 146 bpm

Age Related (220 - age = 182 HR Max)

50 - 60% = 91 - 109 bpm
60 - 70% = 109 - 127 bpm

I suspect that the age related formula, even on the lower % zone for fat
burning/longer duration, is flawed as raising my RHR by less than 30 bpm is
not really gonna do the job - I can do that walking upstairs.

If I could pinpoint the more accurate way, with some clear definition over
what exactly the correct 'weight loss' zone is, then I may have more success
with the HRM.

On the other hand maybe I'm just a classic endomorph! ;-)

S

Skunk said:

I have been cycling for about two years after previously doing very
little exercise in adult life.
I have lost just over 2 stone.
I don't diet but I try to eat sensibly - I have mainly cut down on
sugar, butter , beer and fatty foods.
My weight started to go up again recently and I started doing more
uphills and I have lost a stone and a half since easter.
I am not a big build and although I hardly drink beer now, my gut was
built over many years drinking bitter on a daily basis, and my gut has
absolutely refused to go, though it has gone down a lot. I have just
started sit ups but that doesn't seem to be doing much either. I traded
beer for white wine, though after what an earlier poster said, I might
trade down to red wine - the thought isn't doing much for me though.
I have never thought about a hrm. Would it be worth it. I cycle about
12 hours a commuting to work via roundabout routes and try to do a 50
mile run every weekend.

Yeah, I have exactly the same "gut" issues - main reason I don't wear Lycra!

However, the good news is the gut *is* disappearing; I guess it was
quite a few years in the making, so is likely to take more than a couple
of weeks to disappear. It has diminished from 42" to 35" though 😄

--
Chris

Martin 'MSeries' Newstead said:

As the other replies said, eat low fat food, the diet books say less than 4%
fat is good. A HRM is useful at the start to show you what your heart is
doing but IMHO you soon learn what your body is doing and don't need it. A
Training with a HRM book will show you the zones in which your body uses
different source of fuel for the effort. One of the sources is fat so the
goal is to ride within your fat burning zone and of course your HRM will
tell you this. You may be surprised, you do not need to ride hard and get
totally knackered to get some benefit.

This is what I had read in a HRM book too, but I have also seen long and
apparently learned articles and threads which say (summarised as far as
I understand them...) that the 'fat burning zones' idea does not quite
tell the full story. (It doesn't contradict what you're saying about the
benefits to be gained of even low intensity exercise, just the concept
of 'fat burning zones'😉.

As far as I understand it (and please correct me if you know better...)

* exercising in the zone burns more fat as a percentage of the fuel
sources being used; BUT

* exercising at higher rates burns more calories in total and it is the
number of calories used (not the source of the calories) which really
counts in weight loss.

Therefore while it's easy to do too much and 'burn out', you don't need
to worry too much about staying in the range of the 'fat burning zone'.

Or to quote from one page I found:

"It is the final balance between total Calories burned (from ANY source
- carbohydrates, fats, or protein) and those eaten (i.e. the NET
NEGATIVE CALORIC BALANCE) that determines whether weight is gained or
lost. The advantage of riding more slowly is that it may make the ride a
more enjoyable experience for the novice rider, and the pace can be
maintained for hours. If you have only a limited amount of time to ride,
the faster your average speed, the more Calories you will burn and the
more weight you will shed."

http://www.cptips.com/weight.htm

It appears to make sense, but then I don't do enough exercise to test
the theory... ;-)

David

in message <[email hidden]>, paul

(') said:

Now I've bought my road bike, and I can ride it uphills without
falling off, I want to do some serious training. Not for competition,
but to lose sopme weight. I've tried dieting, and I realise that I
will need to eat properly is I put some miles in, but I want to try
and rescue my heart before it becomes too cloged up, and doing it byu
food alone hasn't worked for me in the past. Are there any online
guides for this sort of thing, or good books that people have tried.
Any guidlines would be helpful (like 'do I need a HRM?'😉

To my surprise I seem to have lost about three or four pounds over
Saturday's audax (as in, it's stayed off, so it wasn't just dehydration
or anything). Normal riding doesn't help me lose weight, although it
does help me lose flab. I've heard other people say that sustained
exercise, rather than short periods of exercise, is good for losing
weight

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does
not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected
to lead. He is quite simply a liberal"
-- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, paul

(') said:

Now I've bought my road bike, and I can ride it uphills without
falling off, I want to do some serious training. Not for competition,
but to lose sopme weight. I've tried dieting, and I realise that I
will need to eat properly is I put some miles in, but I want to try
and rescue my heart before it becomes too cloged up, and doing it byu
food alone hasn't worked for me in the past. Are there any online
guides for this sort of thing, or good books that people have tried.
Any guidlines would be helpful (like 'do I need a HRM?'😉

To my surprise I seem to have lost about three or four pounds over
Saturday's audax (as in, it's stayed off, so it wasn't just
dehydration or anything). Normal riding doesn't help me lose weight,
although it does help me lose flab. I've heard other people say that
sustained exercise, rather than short periods of exercise, is good
for losing weight

and by sustained they mean several hours of bike riding instead of 1 hour in
the gym ? I think it'll be due to using the fat burning zone more during the
longer exercise periods. Whereas during short, tough workouts, energy will
be taken from muscle glycogen stores and not fat. See my other reply about a
heart rate book or STFW.

Succorso said:

Ride a bit more, and eat a bit less each week. You will, after a few

Listening to your excellent advice...
Up until this point -

Quoted message said:

damage you get from exercise). Oh and eat Marmite - it contains lots of
B complex Vitamins which are essential in repairing stressed muscles.

Eeeoowwwww...
I'll take my chances with the Grim Reaper, thankyou very much.

ps. Did anyone see the programme earlier on diet with the couple from
Birmingham?
I felt not a little smug as I caught it near the end, just having done
two hours out on the bike, and settled in front of the TV with a
healthy(ish) meal. Pride comes before a fall and all that of course,
as I'm not half as fit as I should be.

David Bertenshaw said:

This is what I had read in a HRM book too, but I have also seen long
and apparently learned articles and threads which say (summarised as
far as
I understand them...) that the 'fat burning zones' idea does not quite
tell the full story. (It doesn't contradict what you're saying about
the benefits to be gained of even low intensity exercise, just the
concept
of 'fat burning zones'😉.

I have read similar articles too I think it must be new findings, my Ed
Burke book is quite old. I ride alone at a pace that is comfortable for me.
I don't avoid hills and where I ride there are some long and steep ones. I
generally do 3 - 11 hour rides at my comfortable pace which will use all
zones. I have lost three stones in the last 19 months without really trying.
Long rides work for me ! I have mentioned my pace because like your paper
says its what makes the exercise enjoyable, if I tried to flog myself I'd
not enjoy it and probably do less.

Saint said:

"Skunk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have been cycling for about two years after previously doing very
little exercise in adult life.
I have lost just over 2 stone.
I don't diet but I try to eat sensibly - I have mainly cut down on
sugar, butter , beer and fatty foods.
My weight started to go up again recently and I started doing more
uphills and I have lost a stone and a half since easter.
I am not a big build and although I hardly drink beer now, my gut was
built over many years drinking bitter on a daily basis, and my gut has
absolutely refused to go, though it has gone down a lot. I have just
started sit ups but that doesn't seem to be doing much either. I traded
beer for white wine, though after what an earlier poster said, I might
trade down to red wine - the thought isn't doing much for me though.
I have never thought about a hrm. Would it be worth it. I cycle about
12 hours a commuting to work via roundabout routes and try to do a 50
mile run every weekend.

--
Skunk

Don't have exactly the same problem as you (i.e. 'gut'😉 but seem to have
'plateaued' in terms of weight loss. Got an HRM with an HR Max of 185 and a
RHR of 63 and am perenially confused as to whether my training zones should
be at 50 - 60% or 60 - 70% of max hr and also whether I should use the Heart
Rate Reserve (Karvonen) method or the 220 - age formula.

Each give different results and 'target zones' within which to work:

Karvonen (185 HR Max)

50 - 60% = 123 - 134 bpm
60 - 70% = 135 - 146 bpm

Age Related (220 - age = 182 HR Max)

50 - 60% = 91 - 109 bpm
60 - 70% = 109 - 127 bpm

I suspect that the age related formula, even on the lower % zone for fat
burning/longer duration, is flawed as raising my RHR by less than 30 bpm is
not really gonna do the job - I can do that walking upstairs.

If I could pinpoint the more accurate way, with some clear definition over
what exactly the correct 'weight loss' zone is, then I may have more success
with the HRM.

On the other hand maybe I'm just a classic endomorph! ;-)

S

This book I have (that I mentioned in the earlier post) gives about 4
different ways to determine your max hr - one of which is the age-based
version, but also by doing specific rides (indoor or out) to determine
it, or extrapolating by judging what is roughly 85% of max, or by the
max you've ever seen whilst out riding, and also a formula based on age
but also weight, etc.

It also sets out all the zones as percentages of your max hr, in bands
of 10% starting at 50%, and the sort they are (healthy heart, aerobic,
threshold, anerobic, all out max etc etc) and some info on the apparent
differences in fat vs glycogen? burning at each zone, but also balances
that with the fact that working in higher zones burns less % fat, but
more of it cos the total calories burned is that much higher.

But the main thing is that it does explain why you don't get as much
benefit out of training hard up at your anaerobic threshold as you would
if you did a lot of that time in the aerobic intead.

Really do recommend it if you're thinking of getting a HRM or doing some
semi-serious training and want some background on it, but if anyone
wants the formula stuff, I'll dig it out and post it on request.

--

Velvet

David Bertenshaw said:

This is what I had read in a HRM book too, but I have also seen long and
apparently learned articles and threads which say (summarised as far as
I understand them...) that the 'fat burning zones' idea does not quite
tell the full story. (It doesn't contradict what you're saying about the
benefits to be gained of even low intensity exercise, just the concept
of 'fat burning zones'😉.

As far as I understand it (and please correct me if you know better...)

* exercising in the zone burns more fat as a percentage of the fuel
sources being used; BUT

* exercising at higher rates burns more calories in total and it is the
number of calories used (not the source of the calories) which really
counts in weight loss.

Therefore while it's easy to do too much and 'burn out', you don't need
to worry too much about staying in the range of the 'fat burning zone'.

Yep, this is how I understand it to work too - but the thing is you can
sustain exercise at the aerobic levels for a LOT LOT longer than you can
at the higher zones - I can do hours and hours of the former and burn
2600 calories (sunday's ride!) but can only manage brief forays into the
anaerobic zone (or close to it) of maybe a few minutes each time, which
won't burn nearly as much in total, simply cos of the reduced time I can
do it for.

--

Velvet

John Hearns said:

Quoted message said:

damage you get from exercise). Oh and eat Marmite - it contains lots of
B complex Vitamins which are essential in repairing stressed muscles.

Eeeoowwwww...
I'll take my chances with the Grim Reaper, thankyou very much.

Ah, you fall into that camp... same as my eldest Son who calls Marmite
"Sandwich Tar".

Well, you can always use a B supplement I suppose - but I always found
those pills enormous - harder to swallow than a nice Cheese and Marmite
sarnie 😉

--
Chris

Succorso <[email hidden]> wrote in news:ce7eqa$1sp$1$8302bc10
@news.demon.co.uk:

Quoted message said:

Well, you can always use a B supplement I suppose - but I always found
those pills enormous - harder to swallow than a nice Cheese and Marmite
sarnie 😉

I can't stand the stuff either, but strangely the mention of a cheese and
marmite sandwich has started off a strange desire to have one. I'll be
stuck with using Vegemite over here though (equally noxious).

Graeme

"Velvet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Saint said:

"Skunk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have been cycling for about two years after previously doing very
little exercise in adult life.
I have lost just over 2 stone.
I don't diet but I try to eat sensibly - I have mainly cut down on
sugar, butter , beer and fatty foods.
My weight started to go up again recently and I started doing more
uphills and I have lost a stone and a half since easter.
I am not a big build and although I hardly drink beer now, my gut was
built over many years drinking bitter on a daily basis, and my gut has
absolutely refused to go, though it has gone down a lot. I have just
started sit ups but that doesn't seem to be doing much either. I traded
beer for white wine, though after what an earlier poster said, I might
trade down to red wine - the thought isn't doing much for me though.
I have never thought about a hrm. Would it be worth it. I cycle about
12 hours a commuting to work via roundabout routes and try to do a 50
mile run every weekend.

--
Skunk

Don't have exactly the same problem as you (i.e. 'gut'😉 but seem to have
'plateaued' in terms of weight loss. Got an HRM with an HR Max of 185

and a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

RHR of 63 and am perenially confused as to whether my training zones

should

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be at 50 - 60% or 60 - 70% of max hr and also whether I should use the

Heart

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rate Reserve (Karvonen) method or the 220 - age formula.

Each give different results and 'target zones' within which to work:

Karvonen (185 HR Max)

50 - 60% = 123 - 134 bpm
60 - 70% = 135 - 146 bpm

Age Related (220 - age = 182 HR Max)

50 - 60% = 91 - 109 bpm
60 - 70% = 109 - 127 bpm

I suspect that the age related formula, even on the lower % zone for fat
burning/longer duration, is flawed as raising my RHR by less than 30 bpm

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not really gonna do the job - I can do that walking upstairs.

If I could pinpoint the more accurate way, with some clear definition

over

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what exactly the correct 'weight loss' zone is, then I may have more

success

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with the HRM.

On the other hand maybe I'm just a classic endomorph! ;-)

S

This book I have (that I mentioned in the earlier post) gives about 4
different ways to determine your max hr - one of which is the age-based
version, but also by doing specific rides (indoor or out) to determine
it, or extrapolating by judging what is roughly 85% of max, or by the
max you've ever seen whilst out riding, and also a formula based on age
but also weight, etc.

It also sets out all the zones as percentages of your max hr, in bands
of 10% starting at 50%, and the sort they are (healthy heart, aerobic,
threshold, anerobic, all out max etc etc) and some info on the apparent
differences in fat vs glycogen? burning at each zone, but also balances
that with the fact that working in higher zones burns less % fat, but
more of it cos the total calories burned is that much higher.

But the main thing is that it does explain why you don't get as much
benefit out of training hard up at your anaerobic threshold as you would
if you did a lot of that time in the aerobic intead.

Really do recommend it if you're thinking of getting a HRM or doing some
semi-serious training and want some background on it, but if anyone
wants the formula stuff, I'll dig it out and post it on request.

--

Velvet

Many thanks for that - it's very useful. It would be great if you couuld
post some of the stuff on zones/formulas as it would give me a brief insight
into whether I should go ahead and learn more/get the book you mention.

Thanks again - much appreciated.

S

On 27/7/04 9:35 pm, in article
[email hidden], "Simon Brooke"

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, paul

(') said:

Now I've bought my road bike, and I can ride it uphills without
falling off, I want to do some serious training. Not for competition,
but to lose sopme weight. I've tried dieting, and I realise that I
will need to eat properly is I put some miles in, but I want to try
and rescue my heart before it becomes too cloged up, and doing it byu
food alone hasn't worked for me in the past. Are there any online
guides for this sort of thing, or good books that people have tried.
Any guidlines would be helpful (like 'do I need a HRM?'😉

To my surprise I seem to have lost about three or four pounds over
Saturday's audax (as in, it's stayed off, so it wasn't just dehydration
or anything). Normal riding doesn't help me lose weight, although it
does help me lose flab. I've heard other people say that sustained
exercise, rather than short periods of exercise, is good for losing
weight

I find an HRM really helps. I know from experience (throw the formula away)
what my aerobic limit is (about 170-175). For long distance I'll do 120-145
bpm. For shorter rides (up to a couple of hours) I try to keep the HR over
140.

The thing noone has mentioned is intervals. I find that my recovery period
has dramatically shortened since I started trying interval training.

And re weight/waist loss: 16kg in the last year (most in the first six
months) and more than 8 inches off the waist.

The other thing if you want to keep weight off is to not eat within an hour
after exercise as this is when the body does its best at laying down
reserves. This obviously has a performance hit in terms of ability to
recover from exercise.

...d