Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Recreational & Family Ride just to ride? Have a family and want to get them into cycling? Drop in here to discuss recreational and family cycling issues.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-16-13, 03:49 PM   #1
wamdue_castle
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Bikes:
Posts: 11
will a smaller bike saddle help me loose on the bum and waist?

so part of my weight loss (about 6.5 stone in 11 months) has been due to bike riding, whilst I continue to slim in and out of tops like no body business, trousers are proving a pain, in that im not loosing as much on the waist, and my bum is larger than it should be.

I currently ride on this type of saddle, and when I first started cycling, I needed it. I do wonder however if im not loosing on the waist (bum) because of it.

Should I got back to my more regular sized saddle? would it help me loose more on the waist/bum?

something more like this
wamdue_castle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-13, 03:40 PM   #2
cyclist2000
Senior Member
 
cyclist2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Up
Bikes: Masi (retired), Giant TCR, Eisentraut, Jamis Aurora Elite, Zullo (trainer bike), Cannondale, 84 Stumpjumper, Waterford(N+1), Tern D8 (N+1), looking for a Ti frame
Posts: 3,021
I think that just continue to ride, losing weight from your waist and below will start happening. I don't think a saddle change will localize weight loss.

congratulations on the impressive weight loss.
cyclist2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-13, 03:49 PM   #3
wamdue_castle
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Bikes:
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclist2000 View Post
I think that just continue to ride, losing weight from your waist and below will start happening. I don't think a saddle change will localize weight loss.

congratulations on the impressive weight loss.
thanks for the advice.

Hoping to get to 7 stone, in 1 year mark.
wamdue_castle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-13, 07:09 PM   #4
VegasTriker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sin City, Nevada
Bikes: Catrike 700, Greenspeed GTO trike, , Linear LWB recumbent, Haluzak Horizon SWB recumbent, Balance 450 MTB, Cannondale SM800 Beast of the East
Posts: 1,194
6.5 stone. That's more than half my approximately 11 stone weight. It's an intriguing measuring system for someone not familiar with it (me). I agree that the pattern of weight loss has nothing to do with the type of saddle you use but my problem with wide saddles was chafing of the thighs on a long ride. The trade-off is less area to support your weight. Not a problem at all for me now that I ride a recumbent.
VegasTriker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-13, 06:18 AM   #5
wamdue_castle
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Bikes:
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegasTriker View Post
6.5 stone. That's more than half my approximately 11 stone weight. It's an intriguing measuring system for someone not familiar with it (me). I agree that the pattern of weight loss has nothing to do with the type of saddle you use but my problem with wide saddles was chafing of the thighs on a long ride. The trade-off is less area to support your weight. Not a problem at all for me now that I ride a recumbent.
well I was 22 stone, im thinking of stopping at 11 stone, certainly going to stop, take a good long look at my body, and see if I should or not.

Im quite short for a bloke, so 11 stone, may still be on the high side.

The 22 stone, is why I used the XL saddle, but im thinking its time I switched back down to a more normal size. Looked at recumbents, fear I may see it as a novelty thing, than a serious bike.

Meausing my weight in stone, is the only way I know how to do it, Pounds and Kg, is just as confusing to me, as stone is to you, however I think both are a bit small, as if you track on either, you may end up noting more weight increses than you would looking at stone, as they are small weights. I have been looking at my weight loss every 1/2 stone, and that has worked well for me. Obviously as I get down into the teens, I may look at something slighty differnt.
wamdue_castle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-13, 06:33 AM   #6
cyclist2000
Senior Member
 
cyclist2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Up
Bikes: Masi (retired), Giant TCR, Eisentraut, Jamis Aurora Elite, Zullo (trainer bike), Cannondale, 84 Stumpjumper, Waterford(N+1), Tern D8 (N+1), looking for a Ti frame
Posts: 3,021
Recumbents are not a passing fad or novelty. I don't own one but from what I understand, recumbents seats are an alternative for riders that cannot find comfortable saddle and tend to be more aerodynamic, the only drawback is the hill climbing.
cyclist2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-13, 07:17 AM   #7
cplager 
The Recumbent Quant
 
cplager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Norwalk, CT
Bikes: 2012 Cruzbike Sofrider, 2013 Cruzigami Mantis
Posts: 3,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclist2000 View Post
Recumbents are not a passing fad or novelty. I don't own one but from what I understand, recumbents seats are an alternative for riders that cannot find comfortable saddle and tend to be more aerodynamic, the only drawback is the hill climbing.
And with the right recumbent, hills aren't really any worse. I have a monster of a bike and climb hills poorly, but actually better on my recumbent than on my DF (diamond frame) because I'm much more practiced on my recumbent.
cplager is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:56 PM.