Training & Nutrition - One serious question...

I have poked my nose in a few threads about "Why we are Fat" etc and besides being moderately insulted by the inference I am "a tangle of ... psychological problems" and being told the problem is (pictures of) big greasy burgers. Believe me, this sort of thing is really, really counterproductive.

I am 53, 5'9" and I weighed in this a.m. at 245# -- five pounds heavier than I weighed thirteen weeks ago when I started cycling to work. I have been averaging 18 miles a day of vigorous riding; I built up to it ever the course of the first five or six weeks and I now ride 25 miles/ day. I have seen _no_ weight loss. I have kept the same breakfast -- two slices of whole wheat toast and some peanut butter -- have halved my lunch portions of soup or sandwich (again whole wheat bread); remove 80% of the "white carbs" from my diet; seriously reduced snacks, almost eliminating them.

Here's the question: I understand muscle tissue is more dense than fat, but for crying out loud, how can I not be losing some weight after this much exercise? Is my weight going to be stable until my legs look like Charles Atlas and there's no more muscle left to build and _then_ see some weight loss?

I live in the Pac NW, and jeez, the season to reasonable cycle to work and pile on the miles is limited. It gets wet and dark here for a long time, and it's not too far off... I was hoping to drop at least 20 pounds this summer. I guess that was a futile dream.

So... if a nutritionist or physiologist can help me understand how much more "muscle replacing fat" folderol I have to go through before I see results, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks in Advance,

Dave, it's not muscle weight that is your problem. The math works like this: less calories in than burned creates a deficit and causes weight loss. No other way. You're burning them great with your daily riding, but how many a day are you consuming? And if you're not counting calories, start. Let me know if you need links to good calorie counter sites.

Dude, I'm 53 and I psychotherapist....I'm not a nutritionist. I do know a lot about nutrition and exercise. My question to you is what exactly are you worried about? I you can ride a bike that far every day you are healthy man. If health is your goal you did it. Good for you. Who cares how much you weigh. I'll bet you....like me....look at the belly bulge and feel guilty. At 53 we will never see those ripples again. So what. I'll let you in on a little secret. The bare skin on top of my head is not baldness. It's a solar collector for a sex machine. The bulge in my middle.....that's the battery man. Do like I do. Get bigger shirts. And enjoy being 53. Young people don't know ****. I'd rather be this age than any other one I've been so far. Don't forget....there's an advantage in every disadvantage. More weight at the top of a hill is stored energy. I like to plan my routes to take advantage of this. I even like the really big ones that Lance Armstrong couldn't ride up. I just get off and walk up. Takes two minutes to get enough energy to roll me all the way downtown.

The older we get the more efficient our bodies get about storing fat/fuel. In primitive times we ate by hunting and gathering. Young people can't store calories like we do so they had to hunt every day. By evolution...old people who couldn't store calories never made it to old. You see....we are the winners.

Don't worry about the numbers. You already beat the thing.

Dave, it's not muscle weight that is your problem. The math works like this: less calories in than burned creates a deficit and causes weight loss. No other way. You're burning them great with your daily riding, but how many a day are you consuming? And if you're not counting calories, start. Let me know if you need links to good calorie counter sites.

i fully agree. start counting calories. every single one that goes into your body. no if, ands, or buts about it. later.

Dude, I'm 53 and I psychotherapist....I'm not a nutritionist. I do know a lot about nutrition and exercise. My question to you is what exactly are you worried about? I you can ride a bike that far every day you are healthy man. If health is your goal you did it. Good for you. Who cares how much you weigh. I'll bet you....like me....look at the belly bulge and feel guilty. At 53 we will never see those ripples again. So what. I'll let you in on a little secret. The bare skin on top of my head is not baldness. It's a solar collector for a sex machine. The bulge in my middle.....that's the battery man. Do like I do. Get bigger shirts. And enjoy being 53. Young people don't know ****. I'd rather be this age than any other one I've been so far. Don't forget....there's an advantage in every disadvantage. More weight at the top of a hill is stored energy. I like to plan my routes to take advantage of this. I even like the really big ones that Lance Armstrong couldn't ride up. I just get off and walk up. Takes two minutes to get enough energy to roll me all the way downtown.

The older we get the more efficient our bodies get about storing fat/fuel. In primitive times we ate by hunting and gathering. Young people can't store calories like we do so they had to hunt every day. By evolution...old people who couldn't store calories never made it to old. You see....we are the winners.

Don't worry about the numbers. You already beat the thing.

5-9, 245 is NOT healthy. Back to reality. - TF

I have poked my nose in a few threads about "Why we are Fat" etc and besides being moderately insulted by the inference I am "a tangle of ... psychological problems" and being told the problem is (pictures of) big greasy burgers. Believe me, this sort of thing is really, really counterproductive.

I am 53, 5'9" and I weighed in this a.m. at 245# -- five pounds heavier than I weighed thirteen weeks ago when I started cycling to work. I have been averaging 18 miles a day of vigorous riding; I built up to it ever the course of the first five or six weeks and I now ride 25 miles/ day. I have seen _no_ weight loss. I have kept the same breakfast -- two slices of whole wheat toast and some peanut butter -- have halved my lunch portions of soup or sandwich (again whole wheat bread); remove 80% of the "white carbs" from my diet; seriously reduced snacks, almost eliminating them.

Here's the question: I understand muscle tissue is more dense than fat, but for crying out loud, how can I not be losing some weight after this much exercise? Is my weight going to be stable until my legs look like Charles Atlas and there's no more muscle left to build and _then_ see some weight loss?

I live in the Pac NW, and jeez, the season to reasonable cycle to work and pile on the miles is limited. It gets wet and dark here for a long time, and it's not too far off... I was hoping to drop at least 20 pounds this summer. I guess that was a futile dream.

So... if a nutritionist or physiologist can help me understand how much more "muscle replacing fat" folderol I have to go through before I see results, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks in Advance,


As others have said, it's calories. You start off with about a 600 Cal breakfast and burn about the same on a 25 mile ride. You're even. The rest of the day you're going to burn about 14 Cal/lb= ~3400 Cal. To lose 2 lb/week, you have to eat about 1000 Cal/ day less than you burn, so you get 2400 Cal for the rest of the day. A turkey, bacon & swiss at the UNO Chicago Grill is 620 Cal, over a third of what you have left. The non-"white carbs" may be 'healthier', but they still have the same amount of Calories (often more - 2 slices of Wonder Bread= 100 Cal, 2 slices of Natural Ovens Whole Grain= 200 Cal).

TF

Its my belief that biking is not the most efficient way to loose weight, its a great way to stay active and stop from gaining weight, but you should try adding a run to your daily workout. Just start out with a walk/run of whatever you can do. I don't think biking gets your heart rate high enough to really loose weight unless you're really motoring or doing a lot of hill climbs.

Go to fitday.com and buy the desktop version of their software. Put in your current weight and you goal. Log your daily activities and the foods you eat. You want to burn more calories than you eat.

The problem is you have no idea how many calories you are eating. My guess is you have some serious holes in your diet that need to be plug. The only way you can do that is to get realistic and track your calories.

Start with a 300 calorie deficit. If that does not work, drop another 300 calories. Do this until you start losing weight.

Really it's not hard.

And muscle does not replace fat. It is very difficult for someone to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. Focus on getting rid of the fat.

Dude, I'm 53 and I psychotherapist....I'm not a nutritionist. I do know a lot about nutrition and exercise. My question to you is what exactly are you worried about? I you can ride a bike that far every day you are healthy man. If health is your goal you did it. Good for you. Who cares how much you weigh. I'll bet you....like me....look at the belly bulge and feel guilty. At 53 we will never see those ripples again. So what. I'll let you in on a little secret. The bare skin on top of my head is not baldness. It's a solar collector for a sex machine. The bulge in my middle.....that's the battery man. Do like I do. Get bigger shirts. And enjoy being 53. Young people don't know ****. I'd rather be this age than any other one I've been so far. Don't forget....there's an advantage in every disadvantage. More weight at the top of a hill is stored energy. I like to plan my routes to take advantage of this. I even like the really big ones that Lance Armstrong couldn't ride up. I just get off and walk up. Takes two minutes to get enough energy to roll me all the way downtown.

The older we get the more efficient our bodies get about storing fat/fuel. In primitive times we ate by hunting and gathering. Young people can't store calories like we do so they had to hunt every day. By evolution...old people who couldn't store calories never made it to old. You see....we are the winners.

Don't worry about the numbers. You already beat the thing.

Joe, I think in your zeal you've completely checked out here. Your bald spot is not a solar generator, it's a bald spot, and a man 60 lbs overweight is not healthy or evolutionarily advantaged. You can understand his weight problem by understanding what evolution of our species has given us as traits, but to say getting fat as hell is a success is, in the least, terrible advice. This "state of mind" pop psychology is trash. If you call a fat belly "a glowing reactor of sexual power", you're still fat and likely to die early. Saying a middle aged man will never see a flat stomach is also bullsh1t. Calories in -vs- calories out, simple as that.


Its my belief that biking is not the most efficient way to loose weight, 700+ calories/hr is not good enough for you? I'm sorry, everything in your post is incorrect, with the exception that running is also good fat burner.

Dave, count calories, and stay on the right side of the in/out formula. All the successes boil down to that, as do all the failures.

700+ calories/hr is not good enough for you? I'm sorry, everything in your post is incorrect, with the exception that running is also good fat burner.


for one, you should vary your workouts if you want to loose fat and gain muscle quickly. Your body gets very efficient at doing the same motions over and over again, that's why interval training is so great. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that cycling burns more calories quicker then running. Running is one of the easiest ways to get your heart rate up and start buring calories quickly. The 700 calories/hr is an average over multiple hours, if I ride for 15 minutes there is no way that I burn 175 calories, but if I run for 15 minutes I have easily burned over 200 calories.

While watching "Biggest Loser" on TV I was always amazed at how long and hard those people would work out. I thought if you were as heavy as they were, you would surely drop dead if you pushed your body that hard. I guess not. Two other things they all did was count every single calorie and lose weight.

i lost 70 lbs via counting calories and cycling. in one year. pretty efficient dont ya think. :) later.

i lost 70 lbs via counting calories and cycling. in one year. pretty efficient dont ya think. :) later.

I'm not saying that cycling isn't a good way to loose weight, I'm just saying that there are other ways that are better and should be combined with cycling.

I see a lot of overweight cyclist but never see any overweight runners or swimmers. Triathlons came along for a reason, out of cross training, I'm just saying to add more variety to your workouts.

I'm not saying that cycling isn't a good way to loose weight, I'm just saying that there are other ways that are better and should be combined with cycling.

I see a lot of overweight cyclist but never see any overweight runners or swimmers. Triathlons came along for a reason, out of cross training, I'm just saying to add more variety to your workouts.

Actually it is what you said, but that's alright. ;) Everybody means well, even the psychotherapist who wants people to imagine their bald spots are photo voltaic cells.

The guy's getting aerobic exercise every day, is trimming the trash out of his diet, and almost has it all going right. It's the calorie count that will complete the picture for him.

Dave: http://www.calorie-count.com is a great site for tracking your nutrition, and I like how they letter-grade common foods for a quick reference to judge the actual quality of your meals.

Good luck, kick ass!

And muscle does not replace fat. It is very difficult for someone to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. Focus on getting rid of the fat.

For an inactive, obese person who is beginning to exercise, I doubt that this is true. For an already active person, this is generally true, which is why people go through bulking and cutting phases.

Dave, did you lose weight before you started cycling and if you did, how did you do it?

I have poked my nose in a few threads about "Why we are Fat" etc and besides being moderately insulted by the inference I am "a tangle of ... psychological problems" and being told the problem is (pictures of) big greasy burgers. Believe me, this sort of thing is really, really counterproductive.

I am 53, 5'9" and I weighed in this a.m. at 245# -- five pounds heavier than I weighed thirteen weeks ago when I started cycling to work. I have been averaging 18 miles a day of vigorous riding; I built up to it ever the course of the first five or six weeks and I now ride 25 miles/ day. I have seen _no_ weight loss. I have kept the same breakfast -- two slices of whole wheat toast and some peanut butter -- have halved my lunch portions of soup or sandwich (again whole wheat bread); remove 80% of the "white carbs" from my diet; seriously reduced snacks, almost eliminating them.

Here's the question: I understand muscle tissue is more dense than fat, but for crying out loud, how can I not be losing some weight after this much exercise? Is my weight going to be stable until my legs look like Charles Atlas and there's no more muscle left to build and _then_ see some weight loss?

I live in the Pac NW, and jeez, the season to reasonable cycle to work and pile on the miles is limited. It gets wet and dark here for a long time, and it's not too far off... I was hoping to drop at least 20 pounds this summer. I guess that was a futile dream.

So... if a nutritionist or physiologist can help me understand how much more "muscle replacing fat" folderol I have to go through before I see results, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks in Advance,

Dave,

A few thoughts...

1) I'd suggest tracking your measurements (typical is right arm, right thigh, waist, and a couple others I forget) and look at those over time. If those are going down, you are losing fat. It's not uncommon for people to stay weight neutral for a while, but I wouldn't expect it to continue for very long.

2) Lots of people have good luck with food logs. It may be that you are eating too much. It could also be that you are eating too little. If you were approximately weight-neutral (not gaining, not losing) before you started cycling, cutting your lunch portions in half and adding in cycling may make your body want to hold onto the fat.

3) The vigorous riding that you are doing may be too fast for the best weight loss. You want to be training your body to be better at burning fat (and not carbs) on your rides, but if you work out too hard you are burning lots of carbs and not that much fat. When you're done, you're low on carbs and it's hard not to eat.

4) There are physical conditions that can make weight loss hard. Have you asked your physician about that?

5) It would be helpful to know what you are eating during a day, and how many calories you think it is.

I'm not saying that cycling isn't a good way to loose weight, I'm just saying that there are other ways that are better and should be combined with cycling.

I see a lot of overweight cyclist but never see any overweight runners or swimmers. Triathlons came along for a reason, out of cross training, I'm just saying to add more variety to your workouts.

really. i have done several large running races and there are plenty of overweight "looking" runners. plenty! later.

Here's the question: I understand muscle tissue is more dense than fat, but for crying out loud, how can I not be losing some weight after this much exercise?QUOTE]

Dave, you posted this question and have been given some very good and very moronic advice. Concerning the latter, I recommend that you completely disregard all that the quack pseudo-psychotherapist wrote.

Now on to the good. You must keep a computer based food/exercise diary, if for only a week. I guarantee you that after 3 days of correct use, your problem will become apparent and you will not want to be without this strong diet/exercise tool, ever.

I have used the free version of FitDay (http://www.fitday.com) for about 6 months and I love it. I prefer the web-based system because I can enter data from any computer anywhere; home, work, travel (and of course it is free). I have no experience with any of the others.

I do not see any reason for you to increase your exercise as your cycling should be enough for your goals. I believe your problem rests solely with your diet. As stated in an earlier post

[QUOTE=mccook;7092477]The problem is you have no idea how many calories you are eating. My guess is you have some serious holes in your diet that need to be plugged. The only way you can do that is to get realistic and track your calories.

Really it's not hard.

And McCook is right, it isn't that hard, if you want it bad enough.

really. i have done several large running races and there are plenty of overweight "looking" runners. plenty! later.

Yep, they have good cardiovascular fitness. I think it's great! A lot of them are faster than me too.

But... it's still better to be of lower weight. The strain that extra weight puts on our bodies just wears us down a little faster.

I want to thank one and all for the replies regarding my question, and to apologize for the spelling and other typos in my initial post: I was hurriedly typing five minutes before leaving for work... .

First off, thanks for the strong advice re: calorie counting. That is indeed a piece that is missing from my plan. I do not relish (pardon the food pun) the idea of doing it, but as someone pointed out after even a week of doing it, the problem areas will become glaringly obvious. I will visit the links provided to get some software and see what happens.

The reason I have been perplexed about not losing more weight cycling is that I have lost a good bit of weight in the past -- I dropped over fifty pounds over about six to seven months swimming alone about four years ago. When my work schedule changed drastically, I had no more time slot available to get into the pool, and over the past three and a half years regained 40 pounds.

I am not looking for rippling abs. I never had those in the first place. I wouldn't be a fat adult (probably) if I had not been a fat child (which I was). But (again as one poster wrote) 5'9" - 245# is NOT healthy, and even though I have absolutely no problem cycling 25 miles a day, I want to finish out my fifties and enter my sixties at a healthy, normal weight. As far as furnaces for sex-machines, and solar panel bald-spots, I leave that to others. I don't care about hair loss, and I have no complaints about my sex life. I just don't want to be 70 pounds overweight, diabetic, a candidate for bypass surgery, etc., etc..

OK -- thanks again to everyone who took the time from their day to reply. I think I'll head out for a ride....

One more thing... my wife has said I _do_ look trimmer. So even if I don't tape measure myself, I know the fat is going. My belt must be worn tighter, too, which is standard when I am in a weight-loss phase.
Thanks again. Off to ride.

Just keep at it. You have received a lot of good advice here--keep a food diary. People are surprised with what they eat when they aren't paying attention. I lost 65 lbs cycling two years ago (235 to 170). I found I lost weight in periods. I'd go for the longest time without losing anything, then bam! I'd lose 10 lbs relatively quickly.

You may want to throw in a longer ride on the weekends too.

May your clothes get bigger and your belt longer.

One more thing... my wife has said I _do_ look trimmer.

That reminds me of something I read a long time back.

Jack laLane, in a Playboy interview in the 70's said something like "If you've got a 6 inch tool and a 50 inch waist, it doesn't look very big does it..."

That reminds me of something I read a long time back.

Jack laLane, in a Playboy interview in the 70's said something like "If you've got a 6 inch tool and a 50 inch waist, it doesn't look very big does it..."

Oh... I thought that was what those spandex pants were all about...:lol:

I totally ottsville as I cut and bulk. However, I intentionally skipped that point because 1) it gives people that are big an excuse to "bulk" before they diet 2) it concusses noobs.

That reminds me of something I read a long time back.

Jack laLane, in a Playboy interview in the 70's said something like "If you've got a 6 inch tool and a 50 inch waist, it doesn't look very big does it..."

So THAT'S what she meant. She was just being polite. :D

Three months is not a sufficient enough period to affect a major life change. Just keep riding, keep reducing the bad food, and it will happen.

Last April I weighed somewhere around 30 lbs more than I do now -- I say "somewhere around" because I was too afraid to weigh myself. I started riding 15, then 30, then 50-70 miles per week, thinking that the bike alone would cut my waistline. I became faster and better-able to ride long distances, but my clothes were still the same fat clothes. Then I started cutting back on "bad" foods of all kinds, and again, thought that I would see instant results. It didn't seem to help. Then some time in August, I put on my 8.5 wide shoes to go to work and found that the shoes slipped right off my feet. I was confounded. My wife (who knows a thing or two about weight loss) said, "oh, that's the fat from your feet going away." I didn't even know I had fat stored in my feet, but whatever was there was no longer there.

I finally had the courage to get on the scale in early August, and between then and late September I lost 20 lbs doing exactly what I was doing in April and May. Every piece of clothing I owned last spring is too big now. It took six months before anyone noticed, but then everyone noticed - family, friends, co-workers, etc.

Sometimes weight loss just happens quickly, and other times it doesn't. Provided that you're being honest about your diet (which is why everyone here is promoting calorie counting -- not because what you say you're eating is bad, just because we so often don't eat just what we say we eat), just keep doing what you're doing. Don't get discouraged.

for one, you should vary your workouts... You're going to have a hard time convincing me that cycling burns more calories quicker then running. Running is one of the easiest ways to get your heart rate up and start buring calories quickly.

First off, good on ya for trying to lose weight!:thumb:

I do agree that crosstraining is a good idea, at the very least it keeps exercise interesting and lets some muscles rest while you work different muscles. I was first a runner so I do have some experience with weight loss using both running and cycling. True, my HR is usually higher while running. HOWEVER, I can ride for much longer (measured in time not distance) than I can run. So, for me, biking burns more calories per workout just because I can work out longer. Also, I think some people equate higher HRs with more fat loss. I just don't know if that's true or not, perhaps some studies would clarify that for me.

One thought I had for you was, how active are you when you're not working out? I have to think that there are many out there who are struggling to lose weight even though they exercise but then they come home and sit on their duffs the rest of the day. NOTE, I'm not implying that that's your problem, I was just giving a general thought.

Most important thing: enjoy your workouts but don't go easy on yourself. The human body is an amazing machine with an incredible capacity for work.

This is actually pretty common, gaining a little weight when we start working out. When someone overweight starts an exercise program, especially a cardio one, the calorie defecit from the working out can send the body into a "starvation mode" where the body really starts trying to conserve calories so maybe your metabolism slows down more when you are sedentary that it would slow down before, things like that. It takes time for your body to find its new equilibrium, to be used to the working out. It may take longer since you are older. Its just an evolutionary safeguard. Back in the day, if we started getting alot more activity, and not more calories to account for it, more than likely something unsettling was happening like the cave bears were harrassing us or we were having to go farther to hunt mastadons, etc. The body wants to conserve whenever it kind of "sees something bad coming". There is a popular thought among anthropologists that people who are predisposed towards gaining weight are, genetically, the ones who were at the biggest advantage back in the old hunter gatherer days.
So don't worry, keep up what you are doing and the weight will start coming off, as long as you are not eating more than you were before, once your body gets used to it.
Or I could just be an idiot.

And muscle does not replace fat. It is very difficult for someone to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. Focus on getting rid of the fat.

A very interesting piece of advice. I am not an expert in diet, exercise, training etc, just an ordinary cyclist. So, in the context of cycling, what sort of cycling builds muscle and, in contrast, what sort of cycling gets rid of fat (assuming in both cases that calories are being monitored carefully)?

A very interesting piece of advice. I am not an expert in diet, exercise, training etc, just an ordinary cyclist. So, in the context of cycling, what sort of cycling builds muscle and, in contrast, what sort of cycling gets rid of fat (assuming in both cases that calories are being monitored carefully)?

All of it burns fat except for super high intensity. The longer you ride, the more fat you burn, and your goal is to stay at a low intensity for hours and days on end. :D

As for building muscle, I'd say forget it. Use the weight room.

Yeah most elite cyclists spend a day a week just doing squats and quad extentions. You won't get a big chest just doing pushups, and likewise, wont get big thighs just from cycling. To really build that fat burning muscle, resistance training is the way to go.

Yeah most elite cyclists spend a day a week just doing squats and quad extentions.

Most of the training books I've read lean towards off the bike strength work in the off season...NOT during the season.


You won't get a big chest just doing pushups, and likewise, wont get big thighs just from cycling.

For most of us, that's true but it really depends on the gear you are pushing, incline, wind, what type of workouts you are doing and how/what you eat.


To really build that fat burning muscle, resistance training is the way to go.

Yes. Building an all-around base of strength with multi-joint lifts or quality body weight exercises will definitely jump start your metabolism and help you to become fit.

A very interesting piece of advice. I am not an expert in diet, exercise, training etc, just an ordinary cyclist. So, in the context of cycling, what sort of cycling builds muscle and, in contrast, what sort of cycling gets rid of fat (assuming in both cases that calories are being monitored carefully)?

Here's some generalizations...

Lower intensity rides with low resistance(ie spinning at >60% max HR) will burn fat. However, rides of higher intensity will burn more total calories for the same duration(obviously) and may burn more cals from fat even though the percentage of cals burnt that come from fat is less than at lower intensity. Search around, there's some recent threads about this.

For building strength, you want to feel resistance in your pedals. Higher gears, hills, and headwind are some examples. Stomps and low cadence intervals and hill repeats will build strength. IMO, for the "ordinary cyclist" the problems that high resistance on-bike workouts can create(knee pain, etc) really lessen the value of them.

A key factor for both weight loss and building strength is not only what you eat, but when you eat it. There's tons of advice out there on nutrition. Get yourself a decent book with info related to your goals and study it.

Thanks to all of you for your advice. It confirms what I have learnt previously. Now I need to learn more about diet etc.

Dave,
Get your body fat percentage calculated, any trainer can do this for you and they might not even charge. Once you kow where you start, you can see the improvement vs just the numbers on the scale. Also, break out a tape measure once a week, you'll see the results with these numbers.

No reason to get a trainer to do it. Do it yourself using the Navy Method. http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/diet.html It's fairly accurate and a good base line. Most trainers don't have a clue how to measure bodyfat.

All of it burns fat except for super high intensity. The longer you ride, the more fat you burn, and your goal is to stay at a low intensity for hours and days on end. :D

As for building muscle, I'd say forget it. Use the weight room.

this is complete and utter poppycock.

I don't want to just haul of an be insulting, so hear me out....

There is a very common misconception that high intensity riding, like sprinting or certain types of intervals does not burn fat. Then in the same breath, you will hear that it all comes down to calories in vs. calories out.

There is a disconnect there. Higher intensity burns more calories.

It is true that the percentage of your energy produced from burning fat is less in higher intenstity work, but the overall amount of energy produced is so much greater that you are still burning more fat.

Argue all you want, but riding hard will get the fat off you. I go through this every spring getting ready to race. I'm sure alot of people would like to hear that we can get more fat off by tooling around at 12 or 14 mph, but that just isn't the case.

Also remember that your body will get efficient at certain energy outputs. That is exactly why interval training will shake the fat off your your carcass. you will be using all of your energy systems.

As for building muscle, the bicycle is a fantastic fitness machine. you just need to find steep hills. I have 27" thighs and 18" calves from cycling. I also live in the mountains. All I do for my legs is ride mountains. That's all there is to ride around here anyway. But you can build your legs by using the terrain and your cadence and gearing. But not all people are genetically predisposed to building muscle mass. I have a friend who is a wirey country boy and he can't gain weight to save God or Country. But if you have the genes, you can build your legs with a bike

Dave
I was searching for something else and started reading the posts regarding your story and I'm wondering if form is better one way than another. I have just gotten back into cycling after 30 yrs. the muscle tone in my legs has come back very quickly. and Since I'm a little guy, people will say what are you worried about but all my middle age weight hangs at my belt. I literally look like a "bump on a log". Is there a certain technique we should be focusing on? I'm path riding on a Hybrid (upright bars). would road bars be better to focus the training on my stomach? I know that gear chioce for weight loss should be lower and muscle tone should be higher but I've been seaching the posts and haven't found anything on this.
I do somewhat agree though, if you can ride 20 plus a day, that is deserved of some recognition, so Congratulations!!! All is not bad!

Kevin

What is a handbasket and how do you go anywhere in one? Can I get to work in one?

I have not seen this mentioned and if it has been I apogize for the repeat

the really cool thing about interval training is that the benefits do not come so much while you are doing the intervals the benefits come after the intervals....(heres the cool part) and into the next day because it boost your metabolism and you continue to burn more calories while doing nothing. A person that does a long not so aggressive workout at the end of the day will not have burned as many calories as the person that does a shorter interval workout.