Training & Nutrition - Estimating benefit of weight loss

After 10 years as an avid 235lb cyclist , over the summer I crested for the first time the 240lb level (242 actually). Time to loose some weight says me. So in August, I gave up alcohol (sigh) , decreased my calorie intake a bit (tries to stay aroun 2000 a day -- wasn't that hard, actually), and increased my weekly miles from an average 80 to 110 -- with the additional 30 miles being comprised mostly of hills (so I added distance and intensity). What a surprise, I seemed to have discovered the magic formula of weight loss after all these years -- burn more, consume less.

So, as of August 9th, I am down around 40 lbs (38 to be exact). As my weight has gone down, I have not suprisingly noticed an increase in my fitness and performance on the bike. What is surprising me is the extent of that increase. For example, I had hoped to be able to keep up a bit better with some of the stronger guys in my group but am now dropping guys who used to drop me like a sack of wheat (even though at 204 lbs I still out weigh them by a fare bit).

So now that I have finished bragging, here is the point of my post. Is there a thumbnail method for estimating in a power-to weight-ratio kind a way how my weight loss has affected my power output. I have never used a power meter so have no baseline to go on before the weight loss but was wondering if there is a general approach along lines of: on average a 230lb cyclist will gain xx in power for every yy lbs he drops. I am really just curious so no plans to invest in power meters but additional data to add to my bragging would be nice.

My understanding was that weight loss and power gain are independent. Though you are gaining more fitness by doing more working out, so in this case they may not be.

This is a good thread. 2 reasons. I am a veteran here. Some things will get a veteran blasted if he/she makes the wrong post but I am in this exact situation. I weighed in a 222 in 2004 or so and started cycling. You can follow my whole weight loss fiasco on this website if you do some searching.

As for the post, Im know 188-190 depending and was a low of 172 in 2006. I never rode with anyone back then, just me. Well, now I have 2 regular riding buddies. One is a it ex Baseball star from Kansas and the other is a 39 year old 6'5" 250 pounder that aint fat.

That said, they both have been riding less that 3 months. When they first started, for the first month I waited and waited on them patiently. I always wait because I have been waited on and its the right thing to do.

Welp, I rode with the big guy yesterday and decided to see if I could drop him up long but no to steep lung/leg burner. I did but it was maybe by 30 feet. When got to the stop sign at the top, I was at Max HR and was DONE!

He was too but I let him pull for the next 2 miles on some rollers and I had a hard time keeping on his wheel.

The Ex baseball player is already a little faster than me. I have very small legs on 190 pound frame and Im getting smoked by new riders. Its very frustrating. Sunday, the wifes uncle came up and literally murdered me but hes seasoned and in supershape and thats another story.

So, heres my thinking...... Keeping my level of fitness, If I lost 30 more pounds, what would happen? At 160 pounds, wouldnt I be better? Wouldnt the power to weight ratio be alot different? Wouldnt my chicken like legs be more efficient not having to carry the extra 30 pounds up these hills?

Just wonderin......It sucks when they ask how long have you been riding and you say since 04 and they keep right up with you on the hills. From a cadiovascular standpoint, I think I am ok, I get winded but my MAX HR is 192 (im 36) and I feel like Im in pretty good shape. I just think that given the size of my legs versus what Iam asking them to do is pretty hard. I rambling.

Addendum:

While Im sitting here proof reading my post. Im thinking. Yes,they just started, so what, we are all kinda equal as far as speed. One can climb better but thats all. So, with that said and after reading what I just typed, if I was 160 pounds, they wouldnt have a freakin chance to catch me. heheheheheh.

Addendum:

While Im sitting here proof reading my post. Im thinking. Yes,they just started, so what, we are all kinda equal as far as speed. One can climb better but thats all. So, with that said and after reading what I just typed, if I was 160 pounds, they would have a freakin chance to catch me. heheheheheh.

Post a pic of your skinny legs.
What gearing did the faster rider have for the hills?

Congrats on the weight loss.
As a general rule, the power of an organism has a direct relationship with its mass.
More muscle = more power. Bears are more powerful than mice.
A more relevant measure, especially for predicting climbing ability is VO2 (ml oxygen consumed/kg body weight/minute). Decrease kg for a given oxygen consumption, and the number goes up.

In truth, you've likely dropped fat, improved muscle vascularity, learned better technique etc. Too many variables changing to be adequately described in a single equation.

I doubt there is a meaningful weight/power measurement.
Obviously larger muscles are more powerful.
However I suspect that most TdF riders are in the 70-80kg range (154-176 lbs).

You mention a big increase in performance.

If you had lost only weight, I do not think that you would notice a big performance benefit.

If you have stayed in the same condition, your lower weight should help you 2 ways. You should climb about 20% faster and you should accelerate 20% faster. You would not increase your cruising speed at all. However, accelerating faster might get you up to speed with less effort so you might go a tad faster on your cruising speed.

But you increased your miles. I suspect that you also increased your intensity. So I would believe that you are now a stronger rider on the flats with considerably better climbing and accelerating abilities. Losing 38 lbs and getting a performance boost sounds great.

Now I have recently lost about 20 lbs (about 10%). I do not notice any benefit in my cycling. The roads near me are all flat so I don't have a fix on climbing. I will be doing some hills in a couple of weeks and that should be fun.

Post a pic of your skinny legs.
What gearing did the faster rider have for the hills?

We climbed the mountain. 3.5 miles avg was 9% grade with one 16% area. Takes me 35 minutes, took him 25. I was on a compact crank 28 in the rear, he was on a standard 39 crank and 25 in the rear. Yes, hes going to be faster but I wouldnt be able to turn those gears, tried it.

Oh, yea, sorry to hijack the thread but its on the same note and heres my chicken sticks back in 06' they look the same today, lol...



http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i167/C_Heath/Picture15489.jpg

In truth, you've likely dropped fat, improved muscle vascularity, learned better technique etc. Too many variables changing to be adequately described in a single equation.

This is what I was assuming to say it was independent and that you had gained via exercise. If you lost muscle...

don't forget the negative side - it plays with your head