Training & Nutrition - So, you want to lose weight eh? Look here

Disclaimer: There is no magic bullet that will work for weight loss; For some just diet will work, for others just exercise, this thread is not about what worked per individual, but what will work in general for those people who are looking for generalized advise on weight loss. If your looking for something that works for you specifically and are deluded into thinking total strangers on the web can give you personalized advise, your looking in the wrong forum. The proper one is to find a nutritionist through one of the many online yellow pages or to seek advise from your physician. Once again, this is very generalized simply because nobody could cover every single facet for you no matter how much we would love to

There are a plethora of threads regarding this topic, obviously, here and I thought I'd try to start one single, dedicated thread to the topic. This would help keep down the traffic, simplify using the search function (could potentially be stickied to make it even simpler) and offer a venue to those people new to the forums to read through with ease, instead of asking the same question - causing the cycle of repetitive information.

So, without further ado, my contribution to this thread:

I've lost a lot of weight, probably not in a healthy time frame, but a lot of it had to do with genetics and what I was willing to change.

Some simple rules I've learned from here on this board, others and through trial and error.
Just cycling will not make you lose weight.
Just running will not make you lose weight.
Just unbalancing your diet on the whim of the most recent 'research' will not do anything but make you upset in a month when the weight comes back.
Changing your eating habits combined with a dedicated exercise plan is the only 100% guaranteed way to get off excess fat, increase your health, and make you happy in the long run. Period. EOM. There is no alternative route to this.

Now, there are some other realities:

You can't half ass weight loss and expect results. Its my very unprofessional, non-degree in anything related to physical fitness or nutrition based opinion, but I think of health in today's age as a steep roof, and your the roofer with sandals shingling it - its steep, and if you slide - you get the picture. Its not to say you can't indulge yourself, its just to say that such indulgence has a cost, as all things do.

I recently read an article that said that running fast burned more calories than walking slow, but that walking fast (aka speed walking) actually burned more calories than running when you take into consideration Net Calorie Burn, not Gross Calorie Burn. Conclusively, the average rider, riding under 15MPH on anything shy of Pike's Peek is probably going to burn fewer calories than running. While I will not attempt to throw out any hard facts, considering I have zero empirical evidence - I can tell you that answers to the question will always be speculation from those of us on this board, and very few of us are working on Graduate research projects in this area. Bottom line: There is no set answer to the question, sorry

[edited because what I can do, and where I am going is not important in this thread]
Nothing was ment to be mean, condecending or insulting in this post, and I truly hope that nothing was. Please feel free to IM me and I can remove/adjust anything that is, and I apologize here and now, just to be on the safe side.

The premise is sound: Eat less (and better); exercise more. That's really all there is to it.

I would add to be patient and realistic.

Set goals which are obtainable. Don't say that you're going to lose all of your excess weight in a couple of months. A pound or two a week is making progress. By the same token, you might not depend on your scale as the tell all of your movement toward your goal. If you're increasing your muscle mass, you could be losing inches faster than you're losing actual poundage.

There have been weeks where my weight has increased on the scale. If I've been following my plan, I don't get discouraged. I know it's probably water weight.

Quiet all of you, the diet product industry has killed may a people for revealing the eat less/ excersize more diet plan. My new plan is an all liquid diet consisting of peanut butter smoothies and milk shakes, think it will work?

Cycling will not make you lose weight-well you could have fooled me, done it twice in my life.

[edited=Sorry for my own derail and making light of your achievement Oldspark.]

Removed my own trash.

Here is another one that should be included...

The math is simple - Calories in - Calories out = - value = weight loss, + values = weight gain.

You will loose weight cycling if you eat sensibly and cycle alot. Also you will burn far more calories than you take in while riding, even when eating.

Say you ride 3 hours burning 3000 calories (17 MPH average for a 200 pound person, 50 miles) which for a flat course is about normal. You consume 500 calories pre ride, and a 240 calorie powerbar each hour and a half and a bar post ride, that is 240 *3 + 500 = 1220 calories, say 1500 for rounding sake. That means you have a negative calorie intake and you will loose weight. If you basal matabolism is 2500 calories and you are eating 2000 calories + cycling you will be at

2000 + 1220 = 3220 in - 2500 + 3000 = 5500 out 3220 - 5000 = - 1780

Lets say it is really 1500, and you do it 4 times a week you will be negative 6000 calories for the week and loose 1.7 pounds per week.

It really does not matter how you loose the calories as long as you actually loose them. That said it is just as important to determine what goes into your mouth compared to what you should be eating.

That said I have lost 30+ pound this year cycling and I will loose 25 more by the time I am done.

Er, if you did it twice, then it didn't work, eh?


Cycling [by itself without anything else to supplement it, i.e. cutting back a 40K calorie intake daily] will not make you lose weight.


Guess I fooled ya!

<---Newspark, and I jest, sorry.

Wellll, losing weight and keeping it off can be two totally separate things, ya know?

My58vw,

Something interesting I read followed that premise even further; the comment about Gross Calorie Burn vs. Net Calorie Burn.

I'll have to bring the article in from work, but what it appeared to break down is
A=Metoblic rate
B=caloric intake
C=Burn
D=result

So it went something like B-A(C)=D

it's not just cutting calories, it what kind of calories you cut.

If you only eat 800 calories a day, and 600 of them are M&M's, you're not going to lose anything.

Fat in foods doesn't make you fat, it lubricates your joints, feeds your brain, and keeps your skin soft. Excess fat is disposed as poo.

Sugar is converted to stored fat for use later. Unfortunately for most fat Americans, later never comes.

If you drink diet sodas, follow it up with 8oz of water. Diet sodas contain a lot of sodium, and your body needs the extra water to flush it out. Or, just avoid them, since it seems they inhibit weight loss. (or, it could be the Big Mac and large fries that you picked up with the Diet Coke...LOL)

I'd like
4 quarter pounders, with cheese
2 Big Macs
1 McRib
3 Apple Pies

and because I'm feeling sensible...

Give me the 'light' mayonaise, 2 small fries and a Super-Dooper-Jumbo-Sized Diet Pepsi.

Please.

"Just cycling will not make you lose weight.
Just running will not make you lose weight."

I would argue with you on this issue. Loosing weight is about creating a deficit. If you eat the same and burn off 700 a day cycling or running then you have created a deficit but maybe not enough to loose weight. If you were eating a 700 calorie surplus then you are at even.

Bottom line - Create a health negative deficit, preferably through a combination of exercise and diet but not manditory to have both.

Anyway good post.

I quit cycling in my 30's because of family issues, started cycling again a year and 1/2 ago hence the two times. If you ride enough you do not have to change your diet, seems to be a no brainer to me. More calories burned than consumed-why do some people have a problem with such a simple solution?

Yeah that makes sense, except:
Your body is genetically programmed to avoid weight loss. No matter how much extra fat you have hanging on your bones, you're still going to get hungry. Your body struggles to maintain weight when you exercise more. So more exercise means more calories burned which leads to more hunger.

So, if you satiate this hunger by filling your belly with calorie dense foods then your going to blow away any calorie deficit for that day. Ergo sum, you need to watch what you eat, not just exercise more.

I'm truly amazed by how much I'm able to keep weight on despite lots of physical activity. It's just so freaking easy to over do it with the calories.

I quit cycling in my 30's because of family issues, started cycling again a year and 1/2 ago hence the two times.

Like I said, it wasn't funny and I do apologize.


If you ride enough you do not have to change your diet, seems to be a no brainer to me.

Except for the fact that it only takes half-a-brain to realize that a person who weighs enough to limit their riding is not going to be riding 'enough to change their weight' through calories burned vs. consumption regardless of how much they 'should' be able to.


More calories burned than consumed-why do some people have a problem with such a simple solution?

Refer to above, the average person asking typically can not burn more than they're consuming currently.

You can't ask a 300 lb. person to break down and eat 1,500 calories instantly. There is a need to step down caloric consumption and increase energy expenditure in a concave pattern, not just "pop" go ride enough to burn the typical 4,000 calorie diet (it was mine anyhow) of fast food, soda, etc.

BTW, you realize that based off your premise - when I was obese, I would have needed to run 40 miles a day, or cycle 89 to burn off that amount, right?

...such a simple solution really, I must have been ****in lazy then I suppose.

I found that I lost a little weight commuting/riding 150 miles a week and then stopped losing for a year. When I then began to do two super intense races a week combined with the commuting and one 40 mile intense and hilly ride once a week (on a fixed) I lost almost 30 pounds in 10 weeks and I've never felt better. Intensity definitely plays in there importantly -- maybe in helping create a deficit that is not satisfied?

In my experience, for me, carbs are ok. Fat is ok, Carbs and fat in very small quantities is ok, carbs and fat in normal to large portions is very bad. And, in my case I have always had my best sucess losing weight with masive exercise. My biggest challenge is driving that desk. I wish I could be happy with a skinless boneless chicken brest and 2oz of green beans twice a day. If I eat that everyday I would not only lose weight, but my wife, kids and job because I would be intolorable.

Santaria-I assumed we were talking about somewhat of a "normal" eating pattern not one where there is a large intake of useless calories, that is not what I was talking about. I can eat myself fat if I tried, as you get older you put on weight without eating more so you can offset that by cycling or running or whatever. Genetics come into play also but the facts remain the same and some people will have an easier time than others. Not saying any one is lazy just pointing out the obivious that so many ignore, other wise we would not have so many "magic bullets" out there.

I actually think that diet control is much more import than exercising for losing weight. Like Santaria said, its easy to have an extremely high calorie intake that would take hours of exercise to burn off each day. High calorie foods are SO prevalent, and they tend to be very tasty, too.

Whether you are exercising or not, to lose weight you need to watch your diet.

On a slightly different note. I think that, time-wise, running is much more efficient than cycling at burning calories.

I actually think that diet control is much more import than exercising for losing weight. Like Santaria said, its easy to have an extremely high calorie intake that would take hours of exercise to burn off each day. High calorie foods are SO prevalent, and they tend to be very tasty, too.

Whether you are exercising or not, to lose weight you need to watch your diet.

On a slightly different note. I think that, time-wise, running is much more efficient than cycling at burning calories. Once again some people do not have that bad of a diet so exercise is what is needed for their life style, seems like there is a fore gone conclusion everyone is eating abusively. I have talked to several peope who tried to lose weight with just a diet and it did not work very well in most cases but too many variables and unknowns to arrive at a decisive deduction in every case. IMHO time spent at a certain heart rate is time spent a certain heart rate no matter what you are doing to get it there, some cyclists ride too slowly to get the benefits needed. I love my HRM to keep me honest.

On a slightly different note. I think that, time-wise, running is much more efficient than cycling at burning calories.

I agree with this in a limited sense, however I personally feel it is much easier to burn more calories riding, in that I can ride many more mile per week than I can run. So while I would burn more calories running for an hour a day, I could only do it three days a week. Biking on the other hand, I can ride an hour a day seven days a week leading to more calories used overall.


Once again some people do not have that bad of a diet so exercise is what is needed for their life style, seems like there is a fore gone conclusion everyone is eating abusively. I have talked to several peope who tried to lose weight with just a diet and it did not work very well in most cases

Oldspark, you and Santaria appear to be saying the exact same thing. Santeria is assuming the person in question has an unhealthy diet, and you assume they have a healthy diet. Yes, if the diet is healthy they just need to excersise. On the otherhand, if the diet is crap, they need to modify that before any real gains will be seen from excercise

I agree with this in a limited sense, however I personally feel it is much easier to burn more calories riding, in that I can ride many more mile per week than I can run. So while I would burn more calories running for an hour a day, I could only do it three days a week. Biking on the other hand, I can ride an hour a day seven days a week leading to more calories used overall.



Oldspark, you and Santaria appear to be saying the exact same thing. Santeria is assuming the person in question has an unhealthy diet, and you assume they have a healthy diet. Yes, if the diet is healthy they just need to excersise. On the otherhand, if the diet is crap, they need to modify that before any real gains will be seen from excercise Look at his orginal post and see what was stated.

I agree with the "deficit" approach, however you get there.

The critical thing that I don't think has been mentioned is the idea of patience. When I was younger I know I would go out and work my tail off doing whatever (sports, physical labor, etc.) and be disappointed that I didn't lose any weight after working so hard. Of course, I would be so wasted after a marathon session that I probably ate more to "reward" myself than I ever burned.

I think of it as being like positive cash flow. If you have a small calorie deficit every day (like having a small cash savings every day), you won't see a change from one day to the next, but over time, it is guaranteed! But it takes enough discipline, staying power, or whatever you want to call it to keep it going.

Look at his orginal post and see what was stated.

I see what was stated. What is your point? When I weighed 250lbs and was busy drinking two twelve packs of beer a week, eating a whole large pizza, and following it up w/ a huge bowl of ice cream, just cycling would not have helped me loose weight.

You are both right, you have just assumed different starting points.

A well put post. When people ask me how I lost weight (75 lbs) I simply say: eat less, eat what you want (within reason) and exercise more.




Conclusively, the average rider, riding under 15MPH on anything shy of Pike's Peek is probably going to burn fewer calories than running.


I'd steer clear of generalizations based on running vs. cycling. In an average workout duration the calories burned are probably closer than one thinks. The runner may go out for a 30 min run but the cyclist is out there for maybe over an hour. A close friend of mine is a marathon runner... he trains a lot less hours than I would as a cyclist to reach the same level (he's top 10 in his age group). Combine this with the fact that we cyclists get a free ride on decents while runners suffer and it's really tricky to compare the two.

I see what was stated. What is your point? When I weighed 250lbs and was busy drinking two twelve packs of beer a week, eating a whole large pizza, and following it up w/ a huge bowl of ice cream, just cycling would not have helped me loose weight.

You are both right, you have just assumed different starting points. One last post-the first post stated that you will not lose weight by cycling or running by itself, all I did was point out the fact that a blanket statement is not correct for this subject. If you choose to eat more than you burn up in calories so be it but don't assume everyone eats the same way. Goannaman-congrats on chosing a healthier lifestyle, drinking two twelve packs of beer a week, eating a whole large pizza, and following it up with a huge bowl of ice cream can't be good for any one no matter how much you exercise. ;)

I've been thinking 'bout all this a lot lately as I've dropped about 40 lbs in two years. As stated above, blanket statements always have holes in them, including the one I just made!!! But I do believe that a weight-loss program based only on cycling or only on running is not the best plan. As others have stated, weight loss is very simple. More calories go out than come in, you lose weight. I would assume that everyone trying to lose weight knows this equation. Of course, what makes weight loss difficult is actually following through with habits that will make the equation work for the individual.

In my opinion, the most important thing I did to lose weight was become an active person. Sounds simple, but what I mean by that is become active beyond my workouts. A lot of times people (I;ve done it myself) will start a weight loss program where they work incredibly hard for an hour or two, then lounge around and eat the other 22 hours! Then a few days come up where they can't get the workout in, and boom they quit. That didn't happen to me because when I missed a day I knew I had overall daily activity to fall back on.

Workout, but also follow the age-old suggestions of walking a lot in a day. Take the stairs, park further away, walk distances under a mile instead of drive etc. By doing so you eventually find you can step up workouts faster, and you're thinking like an active person all day.

Too many people just crunch numbers and they end up quitting.

Poo -- that's funny.

I still contribute failed diets and weight problems with being dishonest with yourself. Everyone will remember the hour a day ride they put in but love to forget the box of girl scout cookies they were snacking on when they try to figure out why they aren't loosing any weight. Just my 2 cents as a member of the belly-off club(90lb in 14 months) and former supersized#1 with a diet coke eater

Oldspark,

You are right, generalization is not the solution, my generalizations are based off:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=127962
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=127407

I could go on and on linking thread after thread, the point wasn't to start a war, but to give a home to all these questions.

Let me ad a disclaimer to the original post that might clear all these misconceptions up fast.