Originally Posted by
Telly
.... When I confronted a friend who's a dietitian, she stated that my actual weight loss was much greater since I hadn't taken into account that I had developed muscle tissue in place of the fat that I had lost.
This is a point I've been making for years. There's too much focus on weight, and not enough on what that weight is. Common sense tells you that a 200# athlete is fitter than a 170# person of the same height who can't run a block to catch a bus.
While riding will eventually shave pounds, early on there's also a process of muscle building which offsets that, and there may be zero net weight change. But belt size is a good indicator, as are other indicators, such as how you feel after climbing a hill or X flights of stairs.
One of my favorite indicators of condition is density. Fat floats, bone and muscle sink, so high high you float in water is an indicator of the ratio of fat to muscle.
So folks who take up cycling to lose weight may be discouraged by what the scale shows, but should be happy to change fat at the belly to muscle in their legs even if they don't lose an ounce.