2010 Target Weight

Captain Havoc

Beasty wrote: »

You're spending too much time messing about on the computer, and not enough on the bike and that new turbo:p

Yeah you're right and I won't be on it 'til at least Saturday either.

Ryaner

Marchandire wrote: »

Apologies if I'm going off topic a bit here, but do people find that their fitness improves considerably as they lose weight, or do they find themselves cycling the same number of miles and at the same average speeds despite losing lbs?

I'm 6'3" and 82kg, so I don't necessarily want to lose any more weight, but I'm finding it difficult to increase my fitness levels without a solid target like losing 'x' amount of kg. I've been pushing my miles cycled upward gradually, but find that my average speed hovers at the same level most days. Any advice from people who've already hit their weight targets?

Pushing the miles up and maintaining the same average speed is good and shows improvement. You fatigue as you spend longer on the bike so having an average of 25 over 2 hours shows you are fitter than an average over 1 hour. Obviously this needs to be over similar courses. I maintain almost 30km/h on the first hour of some courses, but my 80km round trip to sally gap and back has my average below 20km/h most times.

blorg

Marchandire wrote: »

Apologies if I'm going off topic a bit here, but do people find that their fitness improves considerably as they lose weight, or do they find themselves cycling the same number of miles and at the same average speeds despite losing lbs?

I'm 6'3" and 82kg, so I don't necessarily want to lose any more weight, but I'm finding it difficult to increase my fitness levels without a solid target like losing 'x' amount of kg. I've been pushing my miles cycled upward gradually, but find that my average speed hovers at the same level most days. Any advice from people who've already hit their weight targets?

As Raam suggested, you are going to get speed from training rather than weight loss (given that your weight seems perfectly normal for your height.) Further weight loss can of course be a side-effect of training (and racing if you wanted to give that a go.)

jwshooter

im 6.1" well built and at the end of the season i was 13st just under 14 how.

my plan is off the drink well little to none for the new year ,no late meals ,it was 9.30 and i eating a Chinese last with 3 beers.

like a poisoned puppy today.

and bed a bit earlier, that with a slightly better diet should get me down to 12.5 stone by the mount leinster challenge.

Rusty Cogs 08

I got down to 70kg @ 188cm two weeks ago. Dodgy milkshake, 4kg lost between midnight and 4am.

biker_joe

Just an FYI for those of you trying to lose weight on the bike, you need to be riding in your "fat burning zone" 60-70% of your Max Heart Rate, going slower is the key to burning fat, although some would think that going fast does it !!

Some HR monitors will give you the calories used with a % fat ..... Eg when I ride a TT my percentage is 15% at 190 bpm and when I do a FAT burn spin at 120 -140 bpm HR the percentage is around 55% .... so more than half the calories used is FAT ....

Anyways .. weight now is 78.9 Kg .( just 6ft ).... below 76 Kg will do for March, help chase those climbers up the hills ....

Biker Joe

ROK ON

My new jeans bought 6wks ago are now too big. I am on 5th belt notch from the 3rd.
There are positives to having a chest infection and not being able to eat.
Looking fwd to weigh in in the morning.

godihatethehils

biker_joe wrote: »

Just an FYI for those of you trying to lose weight on the bike, you need to be riding in your "fat burning zone" 60-70% of your Max Heart Rate, going slower is the key to burning fat, although some would think that going fast does it !!

Some HR monitors will give you the calories used with a % fat ..... Eg when I ride a TT my percentage is 15% at 190 bpm and when I do a FAT burn spin at 120 -140 bpm HR the percentage is around 55% .... so more than half the calories used is FAT ....

Isn't there an argument that if you exercise in the fat burning zone then as soon as you stop exercising you immediately stop burning fat. On the other hand if you exercise in a higher zone your metabolism is boosted for up to 72 hours after you stop exercising and at the end of the day you burn a lot more...

niceonetom

biker_joe wrote: »

fat burning

It's a tricky one.

I have done the lsd fat burning stuff, but these days I'm much less concerned with staying in a zone. I can burn anywhere between 550 and 1000 (polar) calories in an hour on the turbo. Sure, at a lower intensity more of the calories burned come from fatn but 50% of 550 isn't that much more than 20% of a thousand and the higher intensity has the added benefit of being less boring, and if done well, building form.

It's always best to mix things up but weight loss is about burning calories, and the harder you work the more calories you burn. It may not come from fat while cycling but those calories have to come from somewhere if you don't replace them later in the day. Going to bed with a 500kcal debt will reduce your body fat regardless of how that debt was created.

I think high intensity stuff stimulates hormonal production to increase metabolism too (HGH and testosterone) but that's complicated as well.

mloc123

calorie in < calorie out = fat loss

anything else is making it complicated.

niceonetom

mloc123 wrote: »

calorie in < calorie out = fat loss

anything else is making it complicated.

Unfortunately uncomplicated =/= true.

It's quite possible to starve yourself and be totally sedentary and end up have a higher body fat percentage (even if you've lost weight).

blorg

There is worth to the point that lower exercise intensity increases the calories you get from fat. If you are overweight and primarily looking to shed weight you should IMHO be exercising at a lower intensity. If you exercise at a higher intensity you will (a) not be able to do as much of it due to recovery/motivation and (b) will have to consume calories to avoid bonking.

If not overweight I don't think it matters so much, you will shed weight racing and training for racing all right.

mloc123

niceonetom wrote: »

Unfortunately uncomplicated =/= true.

It's quite possible to starve yourself and be totally sedentary and end up have a higher body fat percentage (even if you've lost weight).

True enough, I read in Friels book about a study... 2 groups: 1 group consumed less calories, one group used more calories training... the group that consumed less lost more weight but a higher percentage of it was muscle.

But in general, work on a calorie defecit of 20% based on a combination of eating less(but better quality) and training more and it really is that simple.. imo and in my experience.

biker_joe

The start of my post reads "if you are looking to lose weight" so it was meant for those who are not race training ..... Not sure about 72 hour thingy never heard of that ... it ain't complicated either .... eat less / ride in the 60% zone = lose weight !!!!

Biker Joe

elduggo

biker_joe wrote: »

Just an FYI for those of you trying to lose weight on the bike, you need to be riding in your "fat burning zone" 60-70% of your Max Heart Rate, going slower is the key to burning fat, although some would think that going fast does it !!

Some HR monitors will give you the calories used with a % fat ..... Eg when I ride a TT my percentage is 15% at 190 bpm and when I do a FAT burn spin at 120 -140 bpm HR the percentage is around 55% .... so more than half the calories used is FAT ....

Anyways .. weight now is 78.9 Kg .( just 6ft ).... below 76 Kg will do for March, help chase those climbers up the hills ....

Biker Joe

spare a thought for the poor saps (ie: me) that have to chase you up the hill

biker_joe

This Hill ?

irishmotorist

I'm about 86kg and 182cm. Realistically, I want to drop about 6kg. More would be great, but I don't think I have the willpower to get beyond that. The less fatass that I have to haul, the easier it will be for me this year!

godihatethehils

mloc123 wrote: »

calorie in < calorie out = fat loss

anything else is making it complicated.

I'm not disputing that. I was concerned more with how to increase the 'calorie out' side of your equation.

niceonetom

Where's that biker_joe?

Chips Lovell

niceonetom wrote: »

Where's that biker_joe?

I believe they use it in the Swords league.

LastGasp

must... stop... eating... cream cakes...chocolates... etc etc. Bloody Christmas !

Raam

niceonetom wrote: »

Where's that biker_joe?

el tonto wrote: »

I believe they use it in the Swords league.

It was our hill climb TT.

biker_joe

Thats the about half way up the climb from Mogan to Presa de las Ninas in Gran Canaria.... I'll be there 1st week in Feb .....


Biker_joe

jwshooter

biker_joe wrote: »

Thats the about half way up the climb from Mogan to Presa de las Ninas in Gran Canaria.... I'll be there 1st week in Feb .....


Biker_joe

i was there ,but for a camel ride .

scoobydoo22

I am 5ft 10.5"

I currently weigh 85kg.
I am quite happy with my weight as I have a stocky build and enjoy gym,punchbag,yoga and football as well as cycling!
Maybe I could lose 1/2 kg;but then I look very gaunt!

I cycled Alpe d'Huez x2 and Col de Galibierx1 in August and was okay.
I think I had to put on a bit of weight after a week cycling in the Alps!

blorg

scoobydoo22 wrote: »

I am 5ft 10.5"

I currently weigh 85kg.
I am quite happy with my weight as I have a stocky build and enjoy gym,punchbag,yoga and football as well as cycling!
Maybe I could lose 1/2 kg;but then I look very gaunt!

I cycled Alpe d'Huez x2 and Col de Galibierx1 in August and was okay.
I think I had to put on a bit of weight after a week cycling in the Alps!

You could easily lose 15-20kg. That is 2-3x entire bikes. Depends on your priorities!

Diarmuid

blorg wrote: »

You could easily lose 15-20kg. That is 2-3x entire bikes. Depends on your priorities!

ouch. Tough love ! It's true though...

ROK ON

I think it is slightly unfair to suggest that Scooby could lose 20k. There are many many sports where an adult male weighing 65kg would be at a serious disadvantage. Football which he mentions (depending on the level played at) would be one.
Rugby, hurling, soccer all require a certain muscle mass these days.
It really is only endurance sports that call for lower weights.
My goal is 80kg sustainably. However if I played a physical ball sport for example then my weight currently is about right but my gat content is way way too high.
Horses for courses IMHO.

Caroline_ie

I am looking to lose 8kg for the marmotte if I can, there will be very little of me left. I have lost more than that before, I know it's doable.

mloc123

ROK ON wrote: »

I think it is slightly unfair to suggest that Scooby could lose 20k. There are many many sports where an adult male weighing 65kg would be at a serious disadvantage. Football which he mentions (depending on the level played at) would be one.
Rugby, hurling, soccer all require a certain muscle mass these days.
It really is only endurance sports that call for lower weights.
My goal is 80kg sustainably. However if I played a physical ball sport for example then my weight currently is about right but my gat content is way way too high.
Horses for courses IMHO.

I really think people over estimate the weight of muscle... and use it as an excuse. Yes its heavier than fat but 15-20kg of muscle is ALOT. Find pictures of somebody 5'10", 85kg and under 10% bf... thats bb territory.