Riding to get fit and lose weight: any advice?

[Doesnotcompute]

Like many others I'm sure <fx: waves to doobrie> one of the reasons I've
finally got back in the saddle after 5 years, is to improve my
(currently poor) fitness and to lose some weight.

Of course I enjoy the cycling and therefore that enjoyment is a factor
as well, but I also enjoy sitting in front of the PC, so I'm not
convinced that it counts as a totally valid reason :)

Anyhow, Scouring the web, there's loads of info on preparing for an
endurance event, [1] and plenty of talk about cycling to lose
weight/exercise, but so far not a lot in the way of helpful suggestions.
It's probably all out there, but trudgin through the irrelevant is tedious.

So, for a lardass like me, working 40 hours a week, I'm currently
cycling to and from work. That's a good start right? conservative
estimate is 3 miles each way - mostly flat or low/long gradient [2]

What would be reasonable but not over the top to add to this?
One session of high mileage at relaxed pace (say canal towpath) [3] and
one session of short mileage at full tilt [4] with at least 1 day
between the two?

I'm sure whatever I do, as long as it's more it's better, taking into
account a rest day.

Should I find some upward gradients and use those? or is cycling on
relative flat sufficient?

[1] what constitues endurance by the way?
[2] I get home quicker and easier than I get to work ergo there must be
some gradient, but it's not easily visible.
[3] would that be relaxed for me, or relaxed by a fixed standard? mph or
hr for example? [5]
[4] again, is that full tilt for me, or by set standard? [5]
[5] and what consitutes long and short mileages?


eeeek long post, too many questions... I'll go now...

thanks in advance..

--
Dnc
Gary Fisher Joshua ZO

[Tony W]

"Doesnotcompute" > wrote in message
...
> Like many others I'm sure <fx: waves to doobrie> one of the reasons I've
> finally got back in the saddle after 5 years, is to improve my
> (currently poor) fitness and to lose some weight.

snip

30 miles a week is enough to get you brownie points with teh BMA.

Since you go faster on the flat than up hill you are likely to be expending
similar amounts of effort per minute (assuming you're geared right).
However, a hilly section does sap the strength more (in my experience) --
probably because its like interval training.

Basically, do more miles when it is comfortable. As your fitness improves
you will feel happy to do more miles.

Weight is food in minus energy out. 3500 cals is one pound but can be a
hundred or more mile on the bike. But the good news is you will build
muscle mass and be fitter -- even if you stay lardy and out of shape (as I
have).

You don't have to be skinny to be fit (but it helps).

T

[Succorso]

Doesnotcompute wrote:
> Like many others I'm sure <fx: waves to doobrie> one of the reasons I've
> finally got back in the saddle after 5 years, is to improve my
> (currently poor) fitness and to lose some weight.
>
> Of course I enjoy the cycling and therefore that enjoyment is a factor
> as well, but I also enjoy sitting in front of the PC, so I'm not
> convinced that it counts as a totally valid reason :)
>

This is a most excellent article which has helped me shed 35lbs after
gaining weight when I stopped smoking:-

http://www.hussman.org/fitness/index.htm

I've still got another stone or so to go, but I can do 30 miles on the
bike at a reasonable clip now. The trick (as explained in the article)
is to keep tweaking your workouts so that your body cannot adjust to
what you are doing and stop developing.

I thought at 43 I was on the slippery slope to larddom, but I have
completely changed shape in the last year; merely by working out
(including increasing amounts of cycling) and maintaining a calorie deficit.

HTH

--
Succorso

[MSA]

> I thought at 43 I was on the slippery slope to larddom,
> --
> Succorso
>

That's funny! LOL


--
Mark

"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear
bright until you hear them speak"

Doesnotcompute > wrote:
>Like many others I'm sure <fx: waves to doobrie> one of the reasons I've
>finally got back in the saddle after 5 years, is to improve my
>(currently poor) fitness and to lose some weight.
>
>Of course I enjoy the cycling and therefore that enjoyment is a factor
>as well, but I also enjoy sitting in front of the PC, so I'm not
>convinced that it counts as a totally valid reason :)
>
>Anyhow, Scouring the web, there's loads of info on preparing for an
>endurance event, [1] and plenty of talk about cycling to lose
>weight/exercise, but so far not a lot in the way of helpful suggestions.
>It's probably all out there, but trudgin through the irrelevant is tedious.
>
>So, for a lardass like me, working 40 hours a week, I'm currently
>cycling to and from work. That's a good start right?
thanks in advance.
I am 57 and an amputee rider who started riding just to lose weight and drop my blood pressure. I personally ride for about two hours at a speed that I can talk to others as I ride. I think it is called anareobic threshold. That is to lose weight only. I also ride for two hours on the alternative days at the same pace with intervals of (Here) two powerpole lengths, I think about a hundred yards at full tilt. then ten minutes at "Recovery(Puff) Pace.
I did hill work last year and found that I did not lose weight as it built up my muscle mass which is heavier than fat.
In conclusion I would not be too worried about weight loss, but concentrate more on getting fitter, this will lose you some weight but it will also build up your body stamina and you will feel great as your body changes shape with some muscles diminishing and some expanding.
To me weight is relative to body type as much as anything else.
I cannot catch my riding partner on the track and he really is short and bloody fat, unfortunately he is also strong as a bull ox.

Good riding
Hop

[W K]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Doesnotcompute at
> wrote on 19/7/2003 9:04 pm:
>
> > So, for a lardass like me, working 40 hours a week, I'm currently
> > cycling to and from work. That's a good start right? conservative
> > estimate is 3 miles each way - mostly flat or low/long gradient [2]
>
> Start taking the long way home sometimes :-)
>
> > What would be reasonable but not over the top to add to this?
>
> I try to average at least 100 miles per week in Summer, more if possible,
> which is 15 miles RT to work plus one ride of at least 25 miles on a

Which is great for being a better cyclist but has never done anything for my
weight.
I did lose nearly 2 stone BEFORE I started cycling a lot.

Cycling that much does allow you to stuff yourself and eat all sorts of
goodies.
But losing weight is still a battle against hunger - the difference being
that cycling makes you a hell of a lot hungrier.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

"W K" > wrote in message
...

> > I try to average at least 100 miles per week in Summer, more if
possible,
> > which is 15 miles RT to work plus one ride of at least 25 miles on a

> Which is great for being a better cyclist but has never done anything for
my
> weight.

Um, it is a weight-control thing for me, Bill, but as you say....

> I did lose nearly 2 stone BEFORE I started cycling a lot.

And so did I. So I also recommend the Following Easy System:

- join gym
- visit gym for at least one hour and preferably two per day for three
months
- while in gym, work flat out (circuits, cardio machines, keep the heart
rate up)
- watch lardy bits turn into Finely Honed Muscle (TM)
- ride bike

However...

Riding a bike is sufficient in itself, provided you eat sensibly. Replace
fat with fish and fowl and all that sort of stuff.

It is of course possible to ride many hundreds of miles and remain a fat
git, and also to ride six miles a week and be thin, because riding the bike
is not the only part of the equation.

> Cycling that much does allow you to stuff yourself and eat all sorts of
> goodies.

No wonder the cagers hate us :-D

> But losing weight is still a battle against hunger - the difference being
> that cycling makes you a hell of a lot hungrier.

Losing weight is always a matter of burning more than you eat. If you
embark on a regime which signficiantly increases the amount you burn, you
can fool your body by increasing what you eat only a bit. If the additional
input is in the form of low-fat stuff (and I am an Atkins sceptic here,
especially since he has said that his system is designed for those with a
sedentarty lifestyle, which I don't have), then weight loss is easy and
painless.

Except that you have to exercise more and eat less, which is essentially the
same as saying "stop sitting around and eating too much" and so doesn't
really qualify as a Revelation ;-)


--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

[W K]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...

> If you
> embark on a regime which signficiantly increases the amount you burn, you
> can fool your body by increasing what you eat only a bit.

Maybe you can!
My body is more keenly attuned to calorie loss than that.

[Taywood]

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
message
> ...

> > If you
> > embark on a regime which signficiantly increases the amount you
burn, you
> > can fool your body by increasing what you eat only a bit.
> Maybe you can!
> My body is more keenly attuned to calorie loss than that.

My mummy's advice was to take 3 times longer to eat that
mouthful of food.
By chewing and munching and holding it longer in the mouth
it was supposed to trick the brain into thinking you had eaten
more food.
Is this another urban myth?
Mike

[Dave Kahn]

"Taywood" > wrote in message >...

> My mummy's advice was to take 3 times longer to eat that
> mouthful of food.
> By chewing and munching and holding it longer in the mouth
> it was supposed to trick the brain into thinking you had eaten
> more food.
> Is this another urban myth?

Not really, but the correct explanation of why it works might be a
little different. It takes time for the processes that tell the brain
you've eaten enough to get going. By eating more slowly you're not so
much fooling the brain into thinking you've eaten more as letting it
realise you've eaten enough.

There is definitely a relationship between weight and eating style.
Compare obese and thin people eating and you'll see what I mean. To
eat thin avoid overloading your plate, savour each mouthful, put the
knife and fork down between each mouthful, and avoid cramming the
mouth to its capacity.

--
Dave...

[Paul Rudin]

>>>>> "Taywood" == Taywood > writes:

> My mummy's advice was to take 3 times longer to eat that
> mouthful of food.

Three time longer than what? And is that before or after you've
already taken that advice on board? :-)

It's a bit like Hofstadter's Law, which goes something like: "Things
always take longer than you anticipate; even after taking Hofstadter's
Law in account" :-)

[James Hodson]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:49:28 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>Losing weight is always a matter of burning more than you eat. If you
>embark on a regime which signficiantly increases the amount you burn, you
>can fool your body by increasing what you eat only a bit. If the additional
>input is in the form of low-fat stuff (and I am an Atkins sceptic here,
>especially since he has said that his system is designed for those with a
>sedentarty lifestyle, which I don't have), then weight loss is easy and
>painless.
>

Re Atkins: I'm a sceptic too, Guy. ISTM that pro-cyclists eat nothing
but rice and pasta - OK, not quite nothing. I haven't seen too many
fat cyclists on this years' TdF.

There were a couple of pages in your favourite <ahem!> right wing rag
today about the possible increased dangers of getting kidney stones
for those on the Atkins diet.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

>ive modified my diet now and am finding it much more difficult in losing
>weight but the gout has gone so on that count im fine and if it even
>takes another year or two to sort myself out then thats fine - its the
>long term trend im after sorting out - no short term fix and the relief
>from not having the gout is very real indeed
>

Gout can have serious complications long-term too. The uric acid crystals can
damage the joint quite seriously.

Cheers, helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[W K]

"doobrie" > wrote in message
. ..
> > Re Atkins: I'm a sceptic too, Guy. ISTM that pro-cyclists eat nothing
> > but rice and pasta - OK, not quite nothing. I haven't seen too many
> > fat cyclists on this years' TdF.
> >
> > There were a couple of pages in your favourite <ahem!> right wing rag
> > today about the possible increased dangers of getting kidney stones
> > for those on the Atkins diet.
> >
> > James
>
> atkins does work ... or rather my version of it did (i also ate lots of
> fruit and a baked potato every day and stayed fairly low fat too so not
> really atkins but loosely based on staying away from bread pasta & rice)

I don't like Atkins at all, but:
* It does seem to be some sort of metabolic trick on your body that might
just work - this does not mean its healthy, safe, "what the cavemen did" or
something you should do for more than short periods.

* Avoiding high sugar stuff is sensible - whether this really applies to
bread/pasta is another matter - but you could always have more wholemeal
etc.
Would be more sensible to just aim for less processed and farted about with
food.

[freddunn]

Tony W wrote:
> "W K" > wrote in message -
> om...
> >
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
> > message :bf gk08$799$1$-
> > ...
> >
> > > If you embark on a regime which signficiantly increases the amount
> > > you burn,
> you
> > > can fool your body by increasing what you eat only a bit.
> >
> > Maybe you can! My body is more keenly attuned to calorie loss
> > than that.
> >
> >
> The feedback mechanisms appear to be very sophisticated. In the west we
> are familiar with the 'eat the sweet and fatty foods now because times
> might be hard later' response -- but times are rarely hard later (in
> evolutionary terms). Hence we get fatter.
> If you take a fat (but fairly fit) body and make it work consistently
> over a period of time (e.g. go on a cycle tour) it seems you go into a
> mode that says something like '****, the good times are over, the work
> is hard, but this blubber is making it harder -- so within a week or two
> you lose inches (though perhaps not many pounds). I've found that,
> during this phase, my appetite is quite suppressed.
> [A fat and unfit body will need much longer in this phase as basic
> muscle tone will take longer to build up]
> If you continue to work hard the apatite returns and you start to
> stabilise (perhaps at 3 to 4 weeks
> in). From then on your body gives up its reserves much more
> cautiously. Its built (or rather retuned) enough muscle for the
> task in hand, it takes in about the right calories to sustain the
> output and you feel great.
> Keep going longer and the fat reserves continue to run down. From the
> body's point of view this is OK as its built up some muscle (which can
> be traded if times turn hard).
> Hence the perfect 'crash' diet is a 6 or 8 week cycling tour somewhere
> nice doing challenging distances 2 days in 3.
> Marketing it to the great unfit might be hard -- which is good 'cos I
> don't want them cluttering up my diet \\\\ roads.
> T



I'm 56 and 6'1" and untill 6 weeks ago I was 13 st. Have now reduced
this to 12 st and want to get to 11 st which I was for many years until
I started to put on weight some 6 years ago. I cycle 3 times a week 6-8
miles with a longish hill climb, and at the week end a 10-15 mile
pulling my grandson in a cycle trailor. I love every moment of cycling
rain or sunshine Fred



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Tony W]

"freddunn" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm 56 and 6'1" and untill 6 weeks ago I was 13 st. Have now reduced
> this to 12 st and want to get to 11 st which I was for many years until
> I started to put on weight some 6 years ago. I cycle 3 times a week 6-8
> miles with a longish hill climb, and at the week end a 10-15 mile
> pulling my grandson in a cycle trailor. I love every moment of cycling
> rain or sunshine Fred

I think the last sentence is the key. First & foremost, I cycle because I
enjoy it. I also cycle to get from A to B when it is convenient so to do.

The physical pleasure of cycling plus the opportunity to see and enjoy new
places or the change in old places over a period of time is enough.

I do not cycle to get fit, lose weight, stay fit or pick up women. If any
of these happens as a result of cycling I consider it a bonus. If the BMA
is right and I get to live longer that too is a bonus.

And I have low terms for people like you who are rake thin and still aim to
lose weight :(

T

[Dave Larrington]

Dave wrote:

> Ok, so just to change the thread slightly....
> What is everyone going to do with all the extra time they're earning
> towards the end of their lives by cycling now ?

Ride more?

"If I had all the money I'd spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink!" - Sir
Henry Rawlinson

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Arthur Clune]

Dave > wrote:
: Ok, so just to change the thread slightly....
: What is everyone going to do with all the extra time they're earning towards
: the end of their lives by cycling now ?

Sit in a rocking chair and drool.

Arthur

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

"Arthur Clune" > wrote in message
...
> Dave > wrote:

> : Ok, so just to change the thread slightly....
> : What is everyone going to do with all the extra time they're earning
towards
> : the end of their lives by cycling now ?

> Sit in a rocking chair and drool.

Or sit in a wheeled deckchair and grin :-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

[Arthur Clune]

Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:

: Or sit in a wheeled deckchair and grin :-)

....vacantly, while drooling.

[Dave]

"Arthur Clune" > wrote in message
...
> Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>
> : Or sit in a wheeled deckchair and grin :-)
>
> ...vacantly, while drooling.
>
I'm making a list of who, in 'the next generation' (descendants, not Star
Trek), is really p*ss*ng me off. Then I'm gonna make sure they are the ones
that end up wiping my bum when I've finally lost it ;-)...well, it's a
thought
Dave.
(of course I will be sitting there, grinning and drooling)