Cycling to lose weight

[Rob3rt]

theres no link to effort - could be churning a 52/12 on resistance 5 and it would be still be the same.

There is a link to work done, and you would be doing more work in the same period of time if you increase effort. Further, the higher effort will stimulate further calorific burn beyond the power directly delivered to the pedals.

I can do a 10tt on the turbo in less than 15 minutes quite easily, I just do not have the tyre touching the roller

Sorry but TT on a turbo is meaningless unless used as a reference for next time you do the same, of course you will need to calibrate the turbo, to get the same reading.

If replying to Jowwy, he knows, as he sent me a message a few days ago about this and I told him the same thing. He is just using the 10 mile TT efforts as a benchmark.

If you get quicker on the turbo, then you will go quicker on the road. In general terms, without looking for smallprint

 

[jay clock]

sorry, looked again at my 12-1400 cals and see it is wrong. I was guessing. My comment also related to the full 22 mile round trip. I use this site and it says 1081 for me http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/4/4_1/94.shtml doing that distance. It may be on overestimate, so lets say 700. Still allows space for extra food and a deficit

 

[screenman]

If you get quicker on the turbo, then you will go quicker on the road. In general terms, without looking for smallprint [/quote]

I agree with that, the turbo calibration just stops you kidding yourself.

 

[ColinJ]

The 250lb cyclist would have to be phenomenally strong to ride uphill for an hour at a speed that would net him 1200 calories. Like pro level strong. Even 1000 cals/hour requires well above average level of fitness.

I just noticed that the calculator dropped the speed of the fat cyclist on the flat and the climb.

[I'm assuming that the calculator is coming up with sensible numbers. I have looked at some of the things that I have done in the past and the numbers look sensible.]

For both cyclists to do 17.7 mph for an hour on the flat, the thin cyclist would need to put out 150 W and burn 543 cals, and the fat cyclist 168 W and burn 609 cals so that is actually 66 cals more.

To do 17.7 mph on the 2% slope, thin guy would have to generate 276 W & burn 999 cals, and fat guy 369 W & burn 1335 cals .

I don't have a long enough hill to ride up for an hour, but the local Cragg Vale climb averages 3.3% for 5.5 miles and I did that in 23.5 mins in 2006 when I was between thin guy and fat guy in weight. I averaged 290 W and burned 390 cals. If I had a long enough hill and could have sustained the effort for an hour (which I think I could have at the time) I would have burned about 1,000 cals.

Yes, finding another 20% would have been difficult, but I wasn't at peak fitness so I think 20% more would have been doable with another year of hard training effort. Unfortunately, I had a crappy year, piled weight on and lost most of my fitness!

 

[VamP]

Let's put it this way, at the Vuelta Nibali stated (in a bit of a pointed attack on Horner) that he couldn't ride at 400w for 20 minutes. Not many can.

 

[Rob3rt]

Let's put it this way, at the Vuelta Nibali stated (in a bit of a pointed attack on Horner) that he couldn't ride at 400w for 20 minutes. Not many can.

Hmm not intending this to become a pissing contest but... I can do about 360-370W (at 75kg) for 20 minutes so 400W doesn't sound that outlandish (depending on body weight).

 

[VamP]

Hmm, I can do about 360-370W (at 75kg) for 20 minutes so 400W doesn't sound that outlandish.

Nibali is a bit smaller than you Robert and it was in the context of being tacked onto the end of a six hour stage.

Before we get too sidetracked by your awesomeness (good numbers BTW) the point was that not many 250 pound recreational cyclists will be fit enough to produce 369 watts for an hour.

 

[screenman]

Hmm not intending this to become a ****ing contest but... I can do about 360-370W (at 75kg) for 20 minutes so 400W doesn't sound that outlandish (depending on body weight).

Impressive, but then again so are your times.

 

[ColinJ]

Nibali is a bit smaller than you Robert and it was in the context of being tacked onto the end of a six hour stage.

Before we get too sidetracked by your awesomeness (good numbers BTW) the point was that not many 250 pound recreational cyclists will be fit enough to produce 369 watts for an hour.

I got a bit immersed in the numbers and forgot that I was actually making the same point as you!

I wasn't suggesting that 250 lb leisure cyclists are whizzing up hills at good speeds - I was saying that riding up hills quickly is hard work, which we all agree on!

 

[VamP]

I got a bit immersed in the numbers and forgot that I was actually making the same point as you!

I wasn't suggesting that 250 lb leisure cyclists are whizzing up hills at good speeds - I was saying that riding up hills quickly is hard work, which we all agree on!

Absolutely. And it puts into context anyone who trusts their HRM or whatever when it tells them that they are using up 1200 calories per hour of cycling. Regardless of weight or how hilly their rides are.

 

[screenman]

One thing out of all of this is that, cycling burns calories and hopefully makes you fitter and feel better.

Keep smiling

 

[Bodhbh]

12/1400 is way to high an estimate

Im 17st and i worked out after a lot of riding and anylisis that i burn approx 40calories per mile. Using that figure abd eating healthy helped me lose over 4stone last year. Then my partner became ill and 2stone went back on through not riding.

When counting calories I've always called it 50kcal/mile. I'm not saying one number is more accurate than the other, but that's what I've gone with. This is maily riding a MTB converted into a tourer/commuter with fat slicks and mudguards and generally a bit of luggage (bike + luggage 20kg+, me 80-100kg). I can't see it's far from the truth anyhow. With cycling as my main exercise, and when I've used calorie counting to loose weight and aimed to loose a kg a week - I've lost a kg a week - and over a sustained period of time. It may be I've overestimated the calories in what I'm eating, or underestimated how much I burn 'doing nothing' or workign in an office - but anyhow the 'balance sheet' seems about right.

 

[screenman]

Not forgetting to lower the calories as you lose weight, that is if you are calories counting, which I must say worked for me.

I am glad of the fact that you lot cannot see me here with a glass of bubbly, celebrating nothing apart from we got the cork out.

 

[uclown2002]

lose weight not loose weight

 

[jowwy]

TBH all i care about is what works for me - when i need advice or help with training etc theres a limited few on here that i ask advice off via a pm.

And i respect their help and advice. I'm also thankful of their personal time answering my questions.