Training & Nutrition - Losing pot belly - Faster or longer?

My Sports Tracker profile I started creating and using recently is here (http://www.sports-tracker.com/m/profile.php?username=hsunda3). I have been maintaining around 12-14mph, 30-35 minutes, ~8 ish mile bicycling runs.

Right now, I just want to lose my visible stomach. That's about it. I know the basics, calories spent should be more than calories taken in, can't spot reduce, etc etc.

So ..what do you guys recommend I do? Should I increase the distance / time I exercise? Or should I try to pedal faster and harder ?

Another note, it appears as if I am pushing my pedals as hard as I can ... is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Eat Less, belly shrinks.

If your sole focus at this point is weight loss, I would first increase total hours per week until you are at the limit of your schedule, then begin adding hard days as you gain fitness. As far as what constitutes a "hard" day and how fast - that is a whole 'nuther thing.

Regarding "pushing hard on pedals" - what is your cadence? Probably want to keep it above the mid 80's at a minimum on average, and work toward mid to upper 90's as you develop. Most beginners find themselves pedaling with a very slow cadence, which is not generally a good thing.

Ok, so increase total hours per week. I think I can try that. My curiosity was primarily the difference between attempting to go all out and riding 14 miles per hour but only doing that for 30 minutes before I tire out, and riding at 12.5 miles per hour but being able to pedal for an hour at the same rate.

The cadence part, I am pretty sure my cadence is not low and I have a decent understanding of gears, but the numbers, I have purchased a cadence computer and I will see what results I can get from that ..

I've slowed my cadence down because my nominal was 110-120. My heart rate was always exceedingly high, and I dropped from 155 to 143 in 2 weeks. Stopped there, but 3 months in I have a very slim tummy (lots of fat still!) and I'm stronger. I gained muscle, lost lots of fat. The quick drop was probably water weight from excreting excess sodium.

Ride more, eat less.

Riding longer but slower will burn more total calories than a short fast ride. So if you have the time, do it. If you don't have the time for a long ride, do a shorter faster one.

If you can build up to 3-4 hour long rides you'll burn a lot of calories. You will have to eat some to ride over 2 or so hours. But that's ok because you may eat 150 cal/hr but burn 500 cal/hr at an endurance pace. It adds up.

I would think of it in terms of miles. More miles = more calories. Speed can be deceiving because you may go harder but not as far. Time can be deceiving because you may go further but not harder.

*edit: that last sentence should probably be rephrased - you may go longer but not as hard.

The pros (and coaches, and amateur racers) do training in terms of time, not distance.

Riding longer but slower will burn more total calories than a short fast ride. So if you have the time, do it. If you can build up to 3-4 hour long rides you'll burn a lot of calories

I didn't know that! Thank you, I shall put in some more time .. that I can do.


You will have to eat some to ride over 2 or so hours.
Can I take that as a rule of thumb? I generally just carry water with me, and atleast on the weekdays I won't be doing more than an hour or 75 minutes of cycling .. is there any pre-cycling snack that might be worth it? (I generally have an apple)


I would think of it in terms of miles. More miles = more calories. Speed can be deceiving because you may go harder but not as far. Time can be deceiving because you may go further but not harder.

That makes sense. I am probably going to follow this ..

www.myfitnesspal.com (http://www.myfitnesspal.com)
I lost 60 lbs and I've kept it off. Eat less for weight loss. Ride more for fitness. I see many people fail to lose weight by focusing on the exercise component. Nutrition and calorie intake is the key to controlling weight. Riding the bike means you can eat more calories. You must still be in control of how many that is. A typical basket of chips and queso will cost you 30-40 miles on the bike. It is easy to ride the bike and gain weight if you eat too much. Picture is before and after. Time between photos is 9 months. Most of my riding has happened since the weight loss.

http://photos2.mfpassets.com/images/photos/638/501/1638501_1032.jpg
(http://photos2.mfpassets.com/images/photos/638/501/1638501_1032.jpg)

***WARNING***

The increase in mileage/distance is directly proportional to an increase in a passion for cycling and stress alleviation.

www.myfitnesspal.com (http://www.myfitnesspal.com)
I lost 60 lbs and I've kept it off. Eat less for weight loss. Ride more for fitness. I see many people fail to lose weight by focusing on the exercise component. Nutrition and calorie intake is the key to controlling weight. Riding the bike means you can eat more calories. You must still be in control of how many that is. A typical basket of chips and queso will cost you 30-40 miles on the bike. It is easy to ride the bike and gain weight if you eat too much. Picture is before and after. Time between photos is 9 months. Most of my riding has happened since the weight loss.

http://photos2.mfpassets.com/images/photos/638/501/1638501_1032.jpg
(http://photos2.mfpassets.com/images/photos/638/501/1638501_1032.jpg)

Solid work. I lost about the same amount of weight a few years ago and also have been keeping it off. You are 100% right about tracking everything you eat. People often 'reward' themselves with food after exercise and end up overdoing it and undoing their hard work.

Answer? It depends.

Try this on a treadmill so you can check out the difference for yourself:

Do one session where you perform hard interval runs for 45 minutes- do 2 minutes as hard as you can running with a 30 second- 1 minute rest. At the end of 45 minutes, note your total calorie output.

The next day, take a 75 minute easy run and note your total calorie output.

You're going to notice something- the caloric output will be pretty close. In some cases, if you're really efficient and in pretty fit shape, you'll find that the 45 minute interval run may even produce a higher caloric output.

So- if you're short on time, I always suggest intense interval training sessions. If you've got the time, go for the longer ride where you sustain an average speed. Both have their benefits.

The one thing that is true is that you do need to watch your eating- creating a deficit of 200 calories per day and training 5- 6 days a week will trim you down, no matter if you choose to go with longer workouts of a steady pace or a shorter workout at an intense, higher workout.

koffee

I don't see you losing weight by exercise alone. I figure it takes me at least 70 miles (and could be more) to burn a pound of fat. Also that fat burning figures that I am not eating any more as a consequence of riding 70 miles (and that will NEVER happen). Exercise can help weight gain but you will have to watch what you eat pretty carefully. It is very easy for a bunch of calories to hide out in one's diet. So many of our convenience and snack foods are incredibly calorie rich.

Another note, it appears as if I am pushing my pedals as hard as I can ... is that a good thing or a bad thing? Yes it is a bad thing - mostly because it is unlikely you will keep doing it - which will lead to quitting and more yo-yo dieting.

Focusing on you paunch or gut or whatever should be a secondary goal - that only comes in to play after you have reached your ideal body mass.

And again -it is the long term that counts in regaining a great body shape. The mechanisms surrounding different body fat tissue make it nearly impossible to lose quickly. If you are really vain - and have the money -then get to a doctor that likes to cut.

The only other "healthy" avenue is to introduce activities that "jar" the fat tissues. Sprinting, jumping rope or any exercise that invokes connective tissues of the torso will help "hide" fat tissue and generally improve what is known as a "good physique."

People are saying that exercise won't help you lose weight. I agree that you have to diet too, but exercising regularly (as you're doing) will increase your metabolism and you'll feel your body demanding more calories as your workouts get more advanced. Reward your hard work by eating HEALTHY and varied food until you are SATISFIED. Not binging nor starving.

As the others said, longer workouts burn more calories than short, intense workouts. If you can feel your heart beating, even if you're not going that fast, you're doing good. Keep pushing. But not too hard cause you'll get discouraged or injured.

I find that it's actually easier to work out every day rather than 3x a week (or whatever doctors are recommending) because a regular schedule becomes a routine part of my day and keeps me feeling healthy. This also allows me to vary the intensity of the workout without losing progress. If I'm not feeling it, I'll just go on a nice and easy ride, just to get out in the fresh air, move around, and then stretch. And if I skip a day or two it's no big deal. I congratulate myself if I've gone the same distance or more than the day before. And each time I feel I'm about to wear out, I try to push just a teensy bit harder. Then I coast down some fun hill and go home pleased.

My Sports Tracker profile I started creating and using recently is here (http://www.sports-tracker.com/m/profile.php?username=hsunda3). I have been maintaining around 12-14mph, 30-35 minutes, ~8 ish mile bicycling runs.

Right now, I just want to lose my visible stomach. That's about it. I know the basics, calories spent should be more than calories taken in, can't spot reduce, etc etc.

So ..what do you guys recommend I do? Should I increase the distance / time I exercise? Or should I try to pedal faster and harder ?

Another note, it appears as if I am pushing my pedals as hard as I can ... is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Do a little research. You want to be in a moderate exercise mode for a long duration to burn fat. Intensity workouts will put you in a high cardio zone, and that's not what you want. Back off, spin easy. If you can't carry on a conversation while biking your effort level is too high for what you're looking for. If you want to build strength and cardio, then start pushing it.

Thanks a lot for your responses guys.

Lessons learnt, watch what I eat and longer drives.

I have increased my distance from 8 miles to 10 miles, which allows me to cycle for around 40 minutes and a little more as opposed to my earlier 33. .. I will probably increase it a little more, and continue watching my diet (I am pretty sure that's the reason why I am not losing any weight)



***WARNING***

The increase in mileage/distance is directly proportional to an increase in a passion for cycling and stress alleviation.

This I agree with :)

So ..what do you guys recommend I do? Should I increase the distance / time I exercise? Or should I try to pedal faster and harder ?


Yes. Riding harder will increase the power you can sustain at lower intensity levels, but can't be done every day (you won't be fresh enough, and attempting to will leave you both slow and tired). A couple of hard days with 10 minute threshold intervals, some endurance riding, and some time off the bike are normal with every fourth week a rest week where you only ride at an endurance pace. Riding hard will increase your resting metabolic rate for hours and burn a few hundred more kilo calories. Easy rides won't do anything for you once you're off the bike.



Another note, it appears as if I am pushing my pedals as hard as I can ... is that a good thing or a bad thing?Bad. You'll fatigue much sooner at the same power / rate of energy consumption and risk knee problems.

I recomment longer slower, speed will happen when it wants to. Enjoy the work out so that you are more sure to be regular

Yep, that's what I am going to aim for . I am going to get a cheap heart rate monitor, try to be in the upper fat burning, lower cardio zone and try to go longer !

I've found that getting a rough idea of how many calories it takes to do a certain activity makes me focus on whether I really want that snack. Easy example - I reckon on burning about 40 calories per mile on my bike, and there are about 500 calories in a Snickers Duo. So it's an easy question to decide whether the Snickers is worth 12 miles on the bike. Or, put another way, if I ride 12 miles and then eat the Snickers I might as well not have bothered doing either, from a simplistic calorific point of view (OK, that ignores the enjoyment of the ride and any fitness benefits, but you get the picture)

It took me a while of fiddling with the calorie meter on the treadmill at the gym to figure what I could have deduced if I'd stopped to think about it, namely that if I cover a mile I burn a certain number of calories regardless of my speed. If I'm sprinting I burn more calories in a given time but it doesn't make much difference in terms of calories over a given distance. When cycling as your speed increases you get more of an issue with wind resistance and it takes ever-more effort to gain each successive mph on your speed (the same would apply to running outside rather than on a treadmill).

So on that basis if you're covering a set length and doing it faster and faster you'll gain a relatively small amount in terms of calories burned off. If you ride for a set time and cover longer and longer distances you'll be burning more and more calories. Don't forget that as you lose weight so it takes longer to burn calories, simply because you're moving less weight around.

As others have alluded to diet is most important to weight loss. You can't outrun a bad diet with exercise. The fact is you are consuming between 2000-3000 calories in food ( guess ) and burning maybe 400 riding.

You have to be careful here. High endurance cardio can be counter productive because you will naturally eat more in response, even if eating healthy you can easily over consume if you are not tracking you intake. Strength training and proper nutrition is important so that you end up losing the fat but retaining as much of the muscle mass as possible.

I went through this last year from a BMI of 32 down to 20 with calorie counting ( LoseIt! app ), biking, and rock climbing as the main parts.

http://ericwarnke.smugmug.com/photos/1088424657_JsBtk-M-1.jpghttp://ericwarnke.smugmug.com/photos/i-kWpt6W9/0/M/i-kWpt6W9-M.jpg

You can't outrun a bad diet with exercise.

:thumb:

I wish I had taken some proper before-and-after pictures starting in 2009. I was at my heaviest that I've ever been, and I was riding more than ever, too.

235 lbs in Oct 2009, nearly got below 200 a year later, popped up to 215 this past March, and over the past week I broke the 190 mark. I'm never going over 200 again if I can help it -- this just feels too good.

You know Lance's line, "It's not about the bike,"? When losing the pot belly, it's about the kitchen.

I agree that riding longer helps to keep the weight off.

What works for me even better, or better in combination, is running. Some sports, like running, have an appetite suppression effect (sometimes big sometimes small). Usually only for a run of more than 40minutes. If I do a high intensity workout, running, biking, or ball sports, my muscles get more sore and it's the opposite - extra hungry so I eat more.
But all this varies by the individual so use these responses as a guide to find your own path.
having said that, gotta run!

Yeah I am trying a combination of bicycling, jogging/walking and strength training with resistance bands at home .. But I guess diet is my biggest problem

As regards to your question or faster or longer, the more time in the saddle the better for weight loss. There is only marginal gain by going faster. With longer rides you will experience much more weight loss.

Is your only goal to lose weight? If so, a slow steady progression of weight loss will work best. Try only loosing around 1 pound a week and not much more. Track your caloric intake along with the calories burned from your workouts. Try to create a daily caloric deficit of around 500 calories per day. Over a period of months, your body composition will change. That is when you will notice a huge difference in your pot belly. Some people try to complicate this approach with protein, carbohydrate, etc. counting. If you can spend hours a day planning, preparing, and cooking your own food, then go for it. For most people, they need to keep it simple or they will loose site of the ultimate goal with is overall better health.

Do you want to cycle longer term while loosing weight? This will get very tricky. Go research "BONK". If your diet doesn't have enough fuel for the amount of effort you are producing you will bonk. I can tell you from experience that bonking is no fun. By creating a caloric deficit you will be risking the bonk.

Personally I think you should avoid the big calorie items in your diet and create cycling goals for yourself. Over the long term you will be more successful with your weight than any short term plan. I'm talking about a life style change. I highly recommend a book called "Eat This and Not That". It will help you avoid the caloric pitfalls without the sacrifice. Also set cycling goals for yourself like wanting to ride in a metric century in 3 months or a full century in 6. Maybe a goal could be to climb a mountain or make it as simple as riding a little faster and further every week while you build your base. Over six months you can easily loose 10% to 15% of you body weight, loose 5% to 10% body fat, and most importantly your pot belly will be done. You'll do this without having to starve yourself.

I followed the later approach and it has done wonders for me. In the last six months I've lost 27 lbs, lost approximately 10% body fat, dropped my cholesterol by 16 points, experience no more acid reflux, and look and feel 100% better. I've cut out the calorie killers, but have probably eaten more than before. I've climbed several mountain in my area, completed my first metric century (with a category 2 mountain climb in it) in 3 hours and 52 minutes, destroying other cyclist that were dragging me around months earlier, and training for my first full century. As I continue this life style change, I will continue to loose weight, body fat, etc. and have a great time doing it. Unless you have a medical issue there is no reason you can't do the same.

As regards to your question or faster or longer, the more time in the saddle the better for weight loss. There is only marginal gain by going faster. With longer rides you will experience much more weight loss.

Thank you ! That's what I plan on doing ..


Is your only goal to lose weight?
At this point, pretty much, yes. Lose pot belly, along with some of the negative effects that go with that, such as higher bad cholesterol, higher blood pressure and so on.



Over a period of months, your body composition will change. That is when you will notice a huge difference in your pot belly.
I just need to stick to it for "over a period of months" .. !


For most people, they need to keep it simple or they will loose site of the ultimate goal with is overall better health.
That's what I plan on doing. Change eating habits and do a mixture of jogging and bicycling.

Besides, if anything, I am only interested in road biking. Much as with cars, I have no interest in off road SUVs or mountain bikes, I prefer the speed ! Maybe, once I have lost the weight around my middle, I will think of training for centuries and what not.



Unless you have a medical issue there is no reason you can't do the same.
Thank you for the encouraging words :)

The pros (and coaches, and amateur racers) do training in terms of time, not distance.

Maybe, but they're training for competition, not to lose weight.

Have to be a contrarian here. While I generally eat pretty clean, I don't count calories. During the riding season (~April thru September around here) I'll generally drop 10-15 lbs (riding around 3,000 miles). Might not seem like a lot, but gets me down to 12-14 bf% and I pretty much eat as much as I want. I'll put it back on in the winter when my activities are downhill skiing, weight training and some elliptical, but it's a good cycle (no pun intended) for me.

Maybe, but they're training for competition, not to lose weight.

(being another contrarian ;))
When I was getting ready for boot camp (ran 6 days a week, lifted 3), I was told to do my runs for time instead of distance, too. The reasoning was that no matter what my speed was, it was the time spent that would help my aerobic capacity -- specifically, it wouldn't be until 20 minutes that my body would go into aerobic mode. So, I ran for 30 minutes at a time (eventually building up to 40). I ran a MUP and would just go out one directions, hit the halfway time, and come back. My speed increased, too, so each time, I was able to go a little farther.

That speed increase also meant that if I was sticking with the same distance, my time would start decreasing, and I'd get less of an aerobic workout -- which really wasn't the goal after all.

Honestly, I'm not sure how accurate that all is in the world of exercise science, but that's what I'm gonna stick with. :D

Talking with some friends earlier tonight about fitness got me to think of it as simply as possible:

Want strength? Lift weights.
Want endurance? Do aerobics.
Want to lose weight? Hit the kitchen.

You can do any of those three -- one, two, or all of them -- but to be the most well-rounded in terms of fitness, you MUST do all three. Hell, I did just the first two for years, but it wasn't until I paid close attention to what I ate that the weight started to come off.

I was told to do my runs for time instead of distance, too.

It’s a little bit of 6 of one or half dozen of the other. When pros and serious racers use time, they’re usually doing some kind of structured workout such as intervals. It’s the time spent at the desired power or HR zone that is important. Sounds like you are using perceived effort to make sure you’re getting the desired workout. But focusing on time only without factoring the effort won’t work.

A common exercise prescription is to walk for 30-60 minutes a day. If someone does that at a leisurely stroll and only covers 1-2 miles, they won’t get much benefit whereas if they cover 2-4 miles they will be doing a lot more for themselves.

For weight control you really have to make sure you’re doing enough to have a substantial caloric cost. This is mainly determined by distance covered. Work is defined by weight x distance. And the more work the more calories used. Speed doesn’t substantially add to the per mile caloric cost. Time doesn’t tell you how much work you’ve done; distance does.

So how do you go about this calorie counting thing? Are there methods to watching/tracking the amount of food you eat? I'm sure I sneak in many calories through snacks.

So how do you go about this calorie counting thing? Are there methods to watching/tracking the amount of food you eat? I'm sure I sneak in many calories through snacks.

"There's an app for that." ;) I used LoseIt!, which not only has literally hundreds of foods and restaurant menu items already in its database but also lets you assemble your own recipes and meals. People used to write down everything they ate in a notebook, take it home, consult a bigger book, and figure out how much they've eaten -- but having an app on my phone (it'll also work on an iPod Touch without an internet connection, which isn't true of all calorie-counting apps) means I can log my meal on the spot.

A lot of calories get sneaked in through snacks, too, along with drinks and seemingly innocent foods. A bottle of juice can be worth a sandwich (depending on the sandwich, of course); a Snickers and a package of cheese crackers give you as many calories as a big salad but nowhere near the nutritional value.

Which sounds better, a bag of Doritos, some Ho-Hos and a Coke, or a chicken cobb salad? If you count every calorie and read between the lines, you'll start figuring out what to eat so you can have a substantial meal instead of half a plate of crap.

Another note, it appears as if I am pushing my pedals as hard as I can ... is that a good thing or a bad thing?

depends...

cycling depends on things, power of the motor, efficiency of the motor

stomping the pedals does work the 'power' side of the motor and if you do this properly, the motor gets more powerful.

but
motor efficiency is also as important. the cadence (rotational rpms) helps develop that. The higher the cadence you can hold the more efficient your pedal stroke becomes - to a point.
Higher cadence, at any speed, pushes the load to more cardio-vascular demand
lower cadence - more pushing the pedals - pushes the 'load' to power demands on the muscles.
Ideally you want to balance the load, depending on the requirements.
some riders have great cardio and so favor a higher spin, others can sustain greater power.
working both creates overall improvement. hence 'training' programs will vary dependin on the emphasis.
without getting too strict on 'training', all cyclists can still bring up both levels with some basic structure to their rides.
it needn;t be restrictive, but can be worked into a 'recreational' program with some reading and advise from knowledgeable sources.

Which sounds better, a bag of Doritos, some Ho-Hos and a Coke, or a chicken cobb salad?

Yes, have some.

After dropping more than 70 pounds with LoseIt! I'm now trying to keep the weight *on* based on biking a few hundred miles a week at high intensity. Some morning it sucks getting up so early, but for the rest of the day I feel great and I'm a different person than I was 18 months ago.

Livestrong also has a web based calorie counter "My Plate" IIRC.

"There's an app for that." ;) I used LoseIt!, which not only has literally hundreds of foods and restaurant menu items already in its database but also lets you assemble your own recipes and meals. People used to write down everything they ate in a notebook, take it home, consult a bigger book, and figure out how much they've eaten -- but having an app on my phone (it'll also work on an iPod Touch without an internet connection, which isn't true of all calorie-counting apps) means I can log my meal on the spot.

A lot of calories get sneaked in through snacks, too, along with drinks and seemingly innocent foods. A bottle of juice can be worth a sandwich (depending on the sandwich, of course); a Snickers and a package of cheese crackers give you as many calories as a big salad but nowhere near the nutritional value.

Which sounds better, a bag of Doritos, some Ho-Hos and a Coke, or a chicken cobb salad? If you count every calorie and read between the lines, you'll start figuring out what to eat so you can have a substantial meal instead of half a plate of crap.

I don't do the app thing. All I have is a phone. Any other ways to make the calorie tracking thing easier for us technologically challenged types?

I don't do the app thing. All I have is a phone. Any other ways to make the calorie tracking thing easier for us technologically challenged types?

If you can navigate this site you can do the livestrong "my plate". http://www.livestrong.com/

Reward your hard work by eating HEALTHY and varied food until you are SATISFIED. Not binging nor starving.



Disagree strongly. Don't use food as a reward, ever.

If you need food, eat the food you need. If you need a reward, buy clothes or DVDs or bike accessories or whatever it is that suits your fancy and budget.

Conflating food with reward is a main factor in emotional eating that is shortening the lives of millions.