Is cycling effective for weight loss..?

Fender76

I know that running for example is much more beneficial for weight loss..
I've seens a fair few rotund individuals at sportifs who can kick ass on a bike but they have big beer belly's etc.
So can you be fit but fat...?

TinyExplosions

Fender76 wrote: »

So can you be fit but fat...?

Yes. See


It can be pretty good for keeping weight off, but only combined with a decent diet etc etc

seamus

This is something of a running joke at tri events in Ireland according to people I know who've gone to watch a few.
The foreigners who arrive to compete are slender and trim, but many of the Irish lads are ample-framed and carrying a little extra yet appear to be unhindered by it and are well able to keep up with the foreign guys.

Canis Lupus

I've done a few sprint triathlons and due to eating so much during training I was usually a bit porky and yet at the fittest, in cardio terms, than I've ever been.

The problem I have with weight loss and cycling is you have to do heaps of it and go for miles whereas it's much easier to stay close to home with running and you can easily vary the type of running you do (sprints, fartleks, fast and slow runs). Oh, and you just need decent runners rather than a bike and all that figure hugging lycra

(still you'd never get me off my bike for commuting to work)

mloc123

As I am now...

At a 'sportif' I would be quite skinny
At a tri I would be well within the average
At a road race (running) I'd be a fat bastard.

Wanna lose weight, run IMO

Lumen

Fender76 wrote: »

So can you be fit but fat...?

To answer that question you must first define "fit".

godihatedehills

mloc123 wrote: »

As I am now...

At a 'sportif' I would be quite skinny
At a tri I would be well within the average
At a road race (running) I'd be a fat bastard.

Wanna lose weight, run IMO

but cycling is a lot more fun.....

Fender76

To answer that question you must first define "fit".

Well I guess in this instance what I mean by 'fit' is being able to ride a 100k sportif comfortably.....

RobFowl

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Yes. See


It can be pretty good for keeping weight off, but only combined with a decent diet etc etc

+ 1........(and a bit)

Lumen

Fender76 wrote: »

Well I guess in this instance what I mean by 'fit' is being able to ride a 100k sportif comfortably.....

Being fat will only make that slightly harder.

TinyExplosions

Fender76 wrote: »

Well I guess in this instance what I mean by 'fit' is being able to ride a 100k sportif comfortably.....

Then hell yeah you can... I'm a bloater, yet could do a 100k sportif alright (maybe not right now, but certainly when I was fitter yet still this weight)

smacl

mloc123 wrote: »

Wanna lose weight, run IMO

But if you're carrying weight, watch your knees, tendons, etc... I agree that running is very effective for weight loss, but personally I find cycling much easier on the body. This means I can go longer, and progress more smoothly without being set back by injury. I find with running, I'm much more prone to achilles strains, and sore knees, which in turn interfere with my training and hence weight loss. These days I mix it up a fair bit, cycling, running, gym, swimming, etc... although as things get warmer cycling will dominate.

Fender76

I mean I saw a guy at a sportif last year and he was a BIG guy.. not just carrying a few extra pounds, this guy was pretty fat... and he had a sweet carbon bike/wheels too, anyway I was half expecting to see him wheezing by the side of the road after a few k's but he actually tore ahead and finished well ahead of me... I was surprised to say the least.. I guess he just didn't look fit... looks can be deceiving....

andy69

It's great for weight loss, provided ur doing it right. I assume you mean 'fat loss', and that's achieved quite easily by training just below your lactic threshold for min of 2hrs to make a significant impact. Hard part is to determine the lactic threshold but a performance test will get that for ye.
I wouldn't run to save my life, but i imagine the heart rate would be well above latic threshold, and in that case ur burning carbs, not fat. Percieved weight loss might just be fluid loss, but I don't run so I might be wrong about it being above latic threshold?

Lumen

andy69 wrote: »

that's achieved quite easily by training just below your lactic threshold for min of 2hrs

:eek:

andy69

Hehe! Yeah, incredably dull, but it works!

mloc123

andy69 wrote: »

I wouldn't run to save my life, but i imagine the heart rate would be well above latic threshold, and in that case ur burning carbs, not fat. Percieved weight loss might just be fluid loss, but I don't run so I might be wrong about it being above latic threshold?

Oh lord....

The fat burning zone stuff is non sense for a start. As for running being above LTHR.. I rarely run above it apart from intervals and short races.

Undercover Elephant

mloc123 wrote: »

Wanna lose weight, run IMO

I've found the opposite - the weight doesn't want to stay attached when I cycle.

BUT - that may be because I could never be arsed to run more than 2-3 times a week, even when supposedly training for marathons, whereas Mr Bicycle demands my attention pretty much every day.

mloc123

The best way to lose weight is more cals out than in. So run/cycle/swim whatever you enjoy most I guess. Don't fool yourself with how many calories you burn tho, it will be much lower than you think.

austinbyrne21

mloc123 wrote: »

...Don't fool yourself with how many calories you burn tho, it will be much lower than you think.

Just a quick question on this. I've seen comments like this quite a bit. From your experience what should I be using as a basis to calculate a more accurate reflection of a workout. For example, should I divide what my Polar/Suunto tell me by, say, 2 or something? Is there any clear rule? Thanks in advance.

C3PO

mloc123 wrote: »

The best way to lose weight is more cals out than in. So run/cycle/swim whatever you enjoy most I guess.

Yep it's that simple (in theory!). Personally I've lost over 3 stone since I started cycling two and a half years ago without making any radical changes to my diet. Even only cycling 2-3 times a week for a couple of hours it's relatively easy to burn 3500 calories which equates to approximately a pound in weight (assuming your calorie intake remains the same). One of the great things about cycling is that it's low impact when compared to running, especially if your carrying some excess weight!
Having said that I'm finding it increasingly difficult to lose more weight despite riding 3-4 times a week for approximately 8 hours in total .... have to give up the sweets and biscuits!!

mloc123

austinbyrne21 wrote: »

Just a quick question on this. I've seen comments like this quite a bit. From your experience what should I be using as a basis to calculate a more accurate reflection of a workout. For example, should I divide what my Polar/Suunto tell me by, say, 2 or something? Is there any clear rule? Thanks in advance.

It depends on what HRM you use... polar is quite good at estimating calories if you have the correct weight, height etc.. setup. I am not sure what algorithm suunto use. I know the old Garmins were terrible, anything newer than a forerunner 410c or 310xt use the same algorithm as polar.

austinbyrne21

Thanks. I must Google Suunto's calculation and see how it compares to Polar. Cheers for shedding some light on that.

C3PO

mloc123 wrote: »

I know the old Garmins were terrible, anything newer than a forerunner 410c or 310xt use the same algorithm as polar.

Ahh ..... that explains why my new Garmin 500 is proving to be such a dissapointment to me! It seems to give me a "calories burned" number that's well below my old 305! :rolleyes:

kennyb3

Im with Undercover Elephant on this i lose far more weight cycling than running - which to me seems natural as i use significantly more cals cycling (due to more hours at it with it being non impact).

As said the key is diet, I think alot of cyclists think they can eat what they want because they cycle. Its easy to come home for a 3 hour spin and eat for half the day as you really do feel more wrecked than an hour or hour and a half run.

And dont forget to take account of the calories taken in via gels, sports drinks etc when working out what you ve burned

Cookie_Monster

yes, it does help you loose weight.
In three months I've gone from 89 to about 86/87 and noticeably lost weight around my mid section. and that's with also putting a noticeable amount of muscle on the legs too.

maybe it will make less difference the more I do it but certainly starting off its made a huge difference both weight and visually to me.

Beasty

I lost around 35kg over a couple of years, mainly as a result of cycling

Sunnyisland

My main fitness/exercise is cycling,roughly 20km x 5 days,also watch calorie intake.I find it much better for me for losing weight & much more enjoyable.

Original_Sin

Ive managed to drop from 89kg to 80kg in 3 months by cycling the 12km to and from work every day, have also severly changed my diet to not include all the rubbish i was eating tho...

Cape Clear

Beasty wrote: »

I lost around 35kg over a couple of years, mainly as a result of cycling

Well done ! How is your diet? When I first started cycling about 8 years ago I fell into the trap of eating too much and the wrong type of foods and drinking too many pints. In the last few years I have cut out the pints and improved my diet and can loose 2 to 3 lbs on an intense and little hilly 100k spin.

Beasty

Cape Clear wrote: »

Well done ! How is your diet? When I first started cycling about 8 years ago I fell into the trap of eating too much and the wrong type of foods and drinking too many pints. In the last few years I have cut out the pints and improved my diet and can loose 2 to 3 lbs on an intense and little hilly 100k spin.

I did it a couple of years ago - diet has not changed much, but as I'm averaging 200km or so a week, I've given myself getting on for 1,000 calories per day "head-room" compared to my previous lifestyle