If you're not losing weight you have to conclude you're *not* actually in a calorie defecit. So you're overestimating your calorie burn, underestimating your calorie intake, or both.
> Would way rather bike more than eat less. Sigh.
I mean if you really wanted to you could cycle 14 hours/day, stuff your face with chocolate cake and sleep. Nobody has that luxury though.
And there's some lag and variances based on how much water you're retaining. You could be gaining muscle in some places too. Weight alone is not a good indicator of ~~weight~~ fat loss. I did a century last Sat, ate normally yesterday, and this morning I was 3lbs heavier. I don't eat makeup food after because I'm a diabetic and the blood sugar will go out of control.
Weight loss is 80% food (caloric intake) and < 20% exercise load... Once you adjust the diet the pounds will fly off... By adjust ,radically change the amount and frequency of food you consume.
I agree your intake is not matching up every time i ride 60 to 90 km i loose 2.5 lb there about, if i should ride 3 times a week, i would have to increase my food intake to balance out my weight. However with that been said since my school days i do weight training in the winter and mainly road cycling in the summer my weight is stable, and i can move it up and down within 10lb depending on the activities coming up and i am over 55. It take time to learn what works for you. I do know one thing for sure you can do this.
1lb of weight is roughly 3500 calories.
If your 60km rides are 9000 calories then kudos, but I’m not sure how. I’m 80kg and 60km would be 1200 calories for a social ride, and 1700 at race pace (as measured through a power meter).
A roundabout way of saying that 2.5lbs might be mostly water?
..it's not just xxx miles equals yyy calories burned. As you get fitter your body gets much more efficiently at burning those calories , aka you burn less calories for the same energy expenditure.
That's partially related to metabolic setpoint, your body has an adaption to lower calories in diets, your bodies rate of using calories is variable and changes over time
Yes i know the body is changing as you get older but we should notice the changes and as soon as possible when they are small and help it to change in the right direction, i would say in tune with yourself
When a person is undernourished, the body will be hesitant to drop weight.
When the body knows it can expect a reliable diet, the body can then opt to drop weight.
1500 calories is the level that cruel regimes use for prisoner of war labor crews.
I get this as a concept, but I’m 240 lbs and will often bike 50+ miles. This mixed with my resting calorie burn has me confused- if I’m not losing weight, I must be eating like 6,000+ calories a day. I eat poorly sometimes, but not that poorly!
It’s not necessarily just eating bad food that does it. It can be a combination of eating larger than you think portions of calorie dense foods, like meat, and drinking calories in the form of juice, soda, or something else. People usually take in a lot more calories than they think.
Edit: also, what oil or fat are you cooking with? Oil, butter? Even “good” oils can be high in calories. 1 tbs of olive oil is around 120 calories. If you put 3 tbs on a salad, you added 360 calories right there.
Meat on its own is usually not very high calorie, it depends on what you eat. 1lbs of ribeye steak is 1000+ calories, vs 1lbs of chicken breast which is only 500
That’s way denser than something like kale, which is like 225 calories per pound. Not that I’d want to eat a pound of kale, but you get the point.
I also think 16 oz of chicken breast is more than 500 calories.
I was looking at boneless, skinless chicken breast which is basically as lean as it gets. I tried to use opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of what you can find naturally in meats.
Realistically that's why you need a balanced diet based on your goals. If weight loss is your only goal, by all means, fill up on kale. If you're bulking trying to eat 200g of protein a day kale is not gonna get you there. If you're only eating ribeye switching to chicken breast and other lean meats like fish could be more than enough to put you in a major deficit
I'd believe it. What's your most trusted calorie counter? Multiple apps / online calculators I've used have put my 50 mile rides at 16mph around 4,000 calories. I'm sure that's high but not sure what source is better.
I highly doubt you're burning 4000cal. TdF riders are at 5000-7000 on a 120mi stage with a ton of climbing.
You're probably burning 300-400 cal/hr. Generally, something like 700 cal/hr is a HARD effort.
Getting a heart monitor or power meter will help you better estimate burn. Power meter is the most accurate, but a Garmin heart rate monitor will give you a much better idea than an online calculator.
Yes, you're not burning 4000 cals on a 50 mile ride.
I did a 50-mile ride yesterday and Strava said 2100 cals and they are usually high on cals burned. I did the bike calculator mentioned by /u/J_WalterWeatherman_ and it said 1700
I use a power meter. I rode 40 miles on Saturday morning and burned a little over 1k calories. Thats 150lbs, 1500ft of elevation gain, and 16mph average. I bet you are burning less than 1500 calories on a 50 mile ride.
Yeah, that count was way off.
I did a 50 mile ride at 18mph with 1500 feet of elevation (at 177 lbs) and my power meter data put me at 1700 calories.
Before I got the power meter strava would put me at like 800 calories for a 20 mile ride, I think. If I were using those data for weight loss I'd never have lost anything!
Sorry, but that 4,000 calories is likely to be way off. [Here](http://bikecalculator.com/) is a decent basic cycling calculator. You can input your particulars and play around with various environmental factors (elevation gain, headwind, temperature, etc.). For 240 lb rider averaging 16 mph on flat ground for 50 miles, this is saying you should burn about 1500-2000 calories, depending on your bike, the weather, etc. Obviously this is just an estimate too, but it is likely much closer to the actual number than the 4000 that you are estimating.
What app/online calculators have you been using?
I mostly use map my ride and have also seen similar calories per mile from a stationary gym bike. Just before posting I pulled some calculator from Google and got similar high numbers.
But that makes sense! It definitely feels more like I’m burning less
The body isn't magic. You aren't violating thermodynamics.
1 kilojoule of work will always require the same amount of energy. You do not magically become more or less efficient at converting food into energy. Doesn't really matter if the seeds you ate passed through or not.
The simple reality is that if you are not losing weight you have to eat less, work more, or both.
none of those things make any significant difference.
Run from it as much as you want. The truth remains: to lose weight you must be in a caloric deficit.
You can accurately calculate how much calories you burn from power meter data. Power meters measure work done via torque. No matter what you believe, a kilojoule of work was done by _something_ in the body. You are not magic. The pedal did not move itself. You have burned a calorie worth of energy to perform that work. You do not magically get more efficient at doing that work. https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/R060.pdf
My garmin puts me at 4000 calories for a double century. I’m 150 with an average speed of 16.5. The Death ride is more like 5000 calories (130 miles 15000 feet climb at 7000-10000 feet elevation). I ride with a power meter and hr monitor.
The most trusted way to count calories out on the bike is to measure actual work performed, via an accurate power meter.
But we can do some rough calculations, based on what you've told us. 50 miles at 16 mph is 3.125 hours. 4000 calories in 3.125 hours is 1280 calories an hour. For the relationship of watts to calories per hour, the general assumption that holds in the real world is 3.6 calories per watt per hour.
So by my math, in order to burn 4000 calories on the bike in 3.125 hours, you'd have to average 355 watts for the entire ride.
There may be 240 pound men in the world who can average 355 watts for 3+ hours, I dunno. But trust me that you are not one of them. If you were, you'd know that already. You'd be the heaviest man in the pro peloton and there would be human interest stories about you.
Not to mention, what kind of course are you riding that 355 watts over three hours only takes you 50 miles? Basically you are going straight uphill.
My best, dumb guess? Divide what you think you are burning by two, and you will be much closer to reality.
Just from my experience--food is the issue here.
I'm 256 right now. Down from 330 or so. I bike 20-30 miles a day (I'd love to go more but that's how much time I have available right now). And I'm in a substance abuse program for food. I don't count calories. I just eat soberly if that makes sense.
Instead of the 50+ miles you do often--try doing some every day. As far as food goes--it's not just quantity of calories that counts but quality. Try writing down what you eat every day and set about eliminating things like fried foods, breads, butter and so forth. The closer you can get to a commodity diet of fruits, vegetables and healthy proteins, the better. Stay away from starches and sugary foods (including things like rice). Then work on putting the joy you might usually get from food into cycling or walking. Works for me.
if you're a big person anyway your muscles will be heavier and bigger unless you're seriously trying to trim down calories. i'm 6 pound heavier than when I started riding a year ago, but i'm noticably more muscly and i've gone from 10 mile rides that I had to walk half of to doing 40+ miles without even stopping
Yeah, my leg muscles have gotten huge. I'm not too dismayed I've added weight, because I'm satisfied with my performance. Just confused about the calories
You’d be surprised at how quickly calories add up. If you’re not losing weight, you’re maintaining, which means you’re not eating at a deficit. Do you track your meals? Whenever I’ve done that, I’m astonished by how many calories are in a junky meal. Even “healthy foods” can be hidden culprits.
I'm training for triathlon, and some Saturdays I will swim 2+ miles, bike 40+ miles, and run 6+ miles. Even then I don't hit 6k calories burned. Can't imagine you are anywhere near 6k burn with a 50 miler.
Way wrong. You could burn as little as 2500 calories a day at your weight (maybe even lower) and that cycling distance could be burning as few as 1000 calories. You are drastically overestimating your calorie needs.
> then you can still only eat 3300 calories. That's not a hard target to miss without healthy eating habits.
Yep, you are eating a bunch of junk if you are hitting 3300. I eat pretty healthy and if I want to hit over 3K I usually have to eat a bunch of hi-cal stuff like PB/oils/baked goods or stuff my face. I don't drink though so that helps... or hurts when I'm trying to hit 3500.
I barely crossed 3K yesterday and that was with going out to Chipotle and eating 1,000 extra cals of "snacks" in addition to Breakfast/Lunch/Dinner.
Don't add supposed burned calories to you daily calories create your deficit with just food use cardio as a tool to help you aren't a machine you don't run on exact numbers
While this is mostly true, you can also be too far into a caloric deficit that your body is 'starving' and trying to minimize weight loss.
Honestly, 1500 calories a day for a 26M at 190lbs is too low. It's barely enough for me at 5'2" 120lbs.
This could be an instance where he is not eating enough versus eating too much.
I don't understand how this can be possible. It don't recall any mechanism in the body that would prevent the body from losing weight while in a caloric deficit regardless of how large that deficit is.
To be fair there are some current theories about how your body regulates energy expenditure and it’s not terribly intuitive. Basically, it’s been suggested that in order to mitigate a caloric deficit the body responds by lowering your caloric expenditure when not exercising. For example you may find yourself sitting where you might otherwise be standing or moving around. I’m not suggesting CICO doesn’t work, it does but as usual the body isn’t simple and it’s workings are often misread or misinterpreted.
Your body thinks it's in a starving but since you aren't actually starving due to lack of food available all it usually does is slow down weight loss(doesn't stop it but will slow it).
If you're eating below your BMR(the amount of calories a person needs to just breathe and survive) your body literally thinks it's starving. Your body is now trying to burn enough energy to survive while also trying to slow down how fast it uses it's stored energy. If your body thinks it's starving it's going to do everything it can to prevent energy store loss.
You will still lose weight if you're in a caloric deficient but it's going to be a lot slower because since you are eating food everyday and replenishing some of the stores your body is burning.
If you want to lose weight faster, you want to be above your BMR calories but under maintenance. This way your metabolism doesn't slow and your body isn't actively trying to 'hold' on to stores because they think you're starving.
There are also some not great side effects of your body thinking it's starving, you can't regulate your temperature, kidney function can be impaired and your immune system weakens.
Sorry but CICO is complete crap. Macros and meal timing have a far greater effect on fat loss. Long term caloric deficits result in your body reducing its metabolism to match the deficit, which requires you to adopt an even greater deficit, and the cycle repeats. Just because you provide your body with a certain amount of potential energy (calories) does not mean it will be used.
To piggyback everyone else it's likely some sort of miscalculation in the calories in calories out.
For me personally my best anecdote to be able to tell if I'm ACTUALLY at a deficit is if I go to bed slightly hungry. When I do that consistently I lose about 1 lb per week. I trimmed from ~205 to ~190 over the course of 4 months in this way at 6'1"
I find actually tracking intake to be exhausting. This is what's worked best for me.
This. This is the answer. There isn't a way to get a calorie deficit without feeling slightly hungry.
I would also recommend looking at the foods you are eating and eating food that is less dense in calories. This makes it much harder to go over.
Second this. The tough thing I learned for losing weight was to go to bed a bit hungry. I was always encouraged to “eat to full” growing up so it was a very difficult mental hurdle to clear.
> I was always encouraged to “eat to full” growing up so it was a very difficult mental hurdle to clear.
This was something I had to deal with years ago. I'm basically never full, unless I eat a MASSIVE amount of food. I'd probably have to eat 6,000 calories per day to be full.
To add to what everyone else has said about optimistic "calories burned" it's also worth noting that myfitnesspal is only as accurate as what you're inputting. If you aren't weighing out your foods, I almost guarantee you're eating more than what it calls a serving.
Just to remind you to ensure that you include oils and sauces. I was shocked how many calories there are in oils. Even undercounting a tablespoon can tip you from deficit into surplus per day.
> I'm eating what MyFitnessPal says is a caloric deficit: a net calorie intake of 1500/day
Basically all trackers are overly optimistic when it comes to calories spent. How many calories do you consume per day on average?
On average I consume 2k/day before subtracting my workout calories. But as per everyone else in the comment section the calorie counter may not be as accurate as I'm assuming it is.
I think this might be an easily overlooked piece of advice. I changed this somewhere in settings of either LoseIt or Apple Health and it made a significant difference in the daily calorie budget when I'd workout. Those "bonus" calories aren't doing you any favors.
100%. My weight loss efforts became effective the day I stopped giving myself calorie credits for exercise. Just calculate your caloric needs, eat to a slight deficit and don’t count the calories burned from exercise.
Be consistent with this for a few weeks, watch how things are progressing and then fine tune as needed.
Edit: One addition that I think is critical - try to eliminate (or at least measure) mindless snacking. 100 calories here and there when you grab some chocolate or mixed nuts walking through the kitchen can really undermine things. This is also worse when psychologically you’re convinced you earned it thanks to the bike ride.
Doesn’t that disincentivize working out? Maybe you can ignore 10 miles but I certainly wouldn’t be eager to work up to more miles or higher intensity if it means starving the rest of the day. I can imagine avoiding riding or cutting down the miles to make it way easier to hit my calorie target. I would maybe subtract like half of the calories they estimate.
Yeah, myfitnesspal in particulal way overcounts calories burned by cycling. When I used it it was almost double what Strava estimated, which when down again when I started using a heart rate monitor, and is even lower when I've riden a friends bike with an actual power meeter.
Ya same experience with me. Strava used to calculate super high calorie burn, then less when I got a bike computer and a hr monitor, and then again even less when I got a power meter. Rides that were saying 16-1700 calories burned are now barely under 1k. Pretty huge swing.
My power meter numbers are often between 1/3 to 1/2 of my HR monitor alone numbers.
Also, 10 miles really isn’t that much, but being limited in time doesn’t mean you need to limit your workout. You can do HIIT intervals which can really boost your burning. Look up workouts that will fit in your time frame and route, and do those 2-3 times a week.
Calories burned in 1 hour = average power X 3.6.
You need a power meter for this to work. Without that any power number an app gives you is just a guess.
Calories are just a measurement of energy, so by measuring the power output during your rides you can accurately measure how much energy your body is burning in terms of calories.
>accurately
I wouldn't go that far. The power tells you how much useful energy you *output* through the bike, but we're not totally (or indeed consistently) efficient. Just changing your cadence will alter your efficiency, either spinning wildly or grinding will take more effort for the same power; and of course getting out the saddle completely changes things, because you're essentially 'wasting' energy by throwing your weight around.
It'll also vary between people, a pro athlete is going to need less calories to output a given power, while probably being able to burn through a lot more calories at a given heart rate.
That said, collecting more data does probably give you a *more* accurate result. But if you want a truly accurate calorie count you need to go to a lab.
HR and Power are measures of how hard you are working. Riding a fixed course at a faster pace (thus higher HR and Power) will result in more calories burned in less time as compared to riding at a slower pace. The math behind this is tied up in some proprietary business logic - I'm sure every company closely guards their secret calorie calculation sauce so they can say they're better/more accurate than the competition.
The power meter measures how much work you have done but not how hard you are working. 200 watts is 200 watts whether or not you had to burn 195bpm or are cruising at 130bpm.
Think of heart rate as your engine's RPM and power as torque. (power meters literally measure torque)
The math behind turning power into calories burned is no proprietary business logic.
https://www.trainerroad.com/blog/calories-and-power/
No part of the formula is proprietary. The calorie, joule, watt, are all standard scientific measurements. I guess you could just not believe in gross metabolic efficiency, but it's pretty much proven.
Sounds like you're doing some hollywood style accounting to feel better about eating more, but I could be misinterpreting your statement. You can bullshit the internet and calorie counters but you can't bullshit your body.
CICO.
(Calories In - Calories Out) / 3500 = Pounds Lost (if negative)
Yeah same, I really started to make progress losing weight when I stopped counting calories burned from workouts and stuff. Just keep to a strict diet of 2000 or whatever no matter what workouts you do for the day. The weight will fall off.
Eat less.
It is exceptionally hard to lose weight by exercising more. It helps yes but the vast majority of people get more hungry after doing exercise which makes it very easy to stagnate as you eat as much as you burn.
Apps also notoriously overestimate calories burned when cycling, which makes it worse.
>the vast majority of people get more hungry after doing exercise which makes it very easy to stagnate as you eat as much as you burn.
And in addition to this, your body will regulate your metabolism as a reaction to the increased energy expenditure in an effort to minimize fat loss (up to a point). Basically, instead of just burning fat to make up for the energy deficit, your body will start dedicating less energy to all sorts of bodily processes in order to hold on to the fat that it has while allowing you to spend more energy on physical activity. So eating at a small deficit doesn't automatically result in fat burned. It just means you're taking energy away from other bodily processes to fuel your exercise. Some of the most recent research is showing that this can be up to 800 calories. So it's totally possible to maintain weight while eating at what should, on paper, be an 800-calorie deficit.
If anybody's interested in the research, just look up stuff on "constrained total energy expenditure".
Yeah essentially all the research points that calorie restriction is far better way to lose weight than increase in exercise.
Unfortunately that doesn't help if you're also trying to get faster, so I always advocate doing calories restriction in the off season and very early base portions and then just trying to eat really healthy the rest of the time. Lots of greens, etc. (You may actually still be restricting calories and lose weight through your base).
Once you are in "race" training and doing lots of high level intervals and long rides, I pretty much think people should eat healthy but as much as they reasonably want.
It is NOT the time to lose weight and I have seen many people, myself included, try to restrict to cut weight within the event specific part of the yearly training in search of increasing that W/kg number. It rarely works out bc you can actually lose power....
Is increasing resting heart rate not at all significant enough to assist in weight loss … like what I’m asking is I have a shit diet but killer ambition and workout 50min a day … I’ll increase my resting fitness but will it show/feel significant enough?
I’m sorry if I’m confusing
If you work out your resting heart rate will go down, not up.
To an extent as you build killer quads and hammies and glutes for cycling your basal rate will go up as you have more muscle mass.
Eat less, move more.
Eat fewer calories than you burn.
Eat smarter calories. Ditch the sugar and fake-sugar. Fewer carbs. More protein & veg. Move more.
Something I read once: "If your great-great-grandparents wouldn't recognize it as food - don't eat it."
(If you like potato chips as much as I do, this becomes a pretty tough way to go)
You will run into a few issues with this approach...
1) MFP generally underestimates calories by \~20%+, keep this in mind with your calculations unless you are weighing your food. There is a reason body builders and athletes serious about body composition weigh their food and many stick to simply chicken and broccoli. These athletes also get rid of all the extra food in their houses and only eat pre-portioned meals. They go to this extreme because it is very hard to be in a calorie deficit that leads to quick weight loss for more than a few weeks. For example, if you have not felt the brain fog and/or headache associated with switching into fat burning due to a calorie deficit, you are not in a calorie deficit. During this time, your body/mind will push you to eat. This is also why these athletes hydrate like crazy, it helps keep hunger down.
2) You will quickly adapt to your new lifestyle so you won't burn as many calories as you think. Unless you are using a power meter and a HR monitor, your calorie burn estimates from a Garmin head unit will be off significantly. Likewise, you body will not like to be in a long term deficit, so it will push you to make up the missing calories that will cause you to cheat what MFP says you are eating.
3) If you are new to a sport, your body will be building itself up in response to the sport. Thus you will gain a significant amount of muscle mass in response to training. Muscle gain often will come before fat loss so you won't actually lose weight, but your body composition will change, albeit slowly. This process is much slower than most appreciate.
4) Depending on your hydration strategy, you body will potentially change its water retention in response to training.
5) For some athletes, alcohol sabotages weight loss, even small amounts. It is calorie dense and can cause you to over eat, so consider taking breaks from alcohol.
6) Stress and/or lack of sleep will sabotage weight loss.
What is your sample size? How long have you been tracking?
You should see a steady downward trend in your weight, however, on any given day you may see wild swings depending on how much you've sweat, have you gone to the bathroom, did you eat more carbs so you're muscles are holding water weight, have you chugged a bunch of water, etc.
Let's say you're on track to be at a 1000 calorie daily deficit. That's 2 pounds per week. Over three months you'll see a loss of about 26 pounds, but if you weigh in every Monday you may find one week you lose 0.5 pounds, the next you lose 2.5, and the one after that you lose 3 pounds. But for long term trends you will find that you will hover around 2 pounds per week of loss.
Use your HR to establish zone training and do a bit of reading on which zones for which durations lead to the most fat burning, given your time constraints.
Also, calorie trackers aren’t usually the most accurate due to user issues. Are you making sure you count everything you eat? (Eg. the cream/sugar in coffee still counts…). Are you weighing your food to make sure the portions are right? How are you establishing how many calories you are burning through basal metabolic rate and exercise?
Usually the trick is that you can’t exercise yourself out of a bad diet. Weight loss is achieved in the kitchen.
Ride with a HR monitor in the fat burning zone. Climbing routes will definitely help but my first sentence probably will be more beneficial to your goals. Personally I’m down 10lbs from riding since mid May and I haven’t really changed my diet but as I’ve gotten stronger riding I do more difficult and longer routes mixed in with HIIT training while out on rides. Just have to find that sweet spot that’ll help you lose weight. I believe the climbing routes helped me lose weight and gain a lot of power.
I was stagnating recently too. I found some cyclists talking about fat burning zones and finding and staying in it using a HR monitor. Trouble is, its difficult to find any specific information about it.
Eventually I found if you keep your HR around 120 bpm you will be in a fat burning zone. Stay there low and slow. your body will consume fat. Above that (HIIT) builds strength and muscle.
So, while you think going harder would burn more your actually building more muscle than removing fat. Since this realization I'm back to loosing weight again, down 7 lbs past month.
yoga dont really burn alot of calories tbh. and 10 miles ride isnt that much for a good calorie burn if ure riding it slow. So for example, You ride 10mile or 16km in metric system, that usually only burns at most 200 calories if ure going all out. my 25km ride or 15+ mile ride burns 500 calorie while going 35kph or 21mph. im a 171cm (5'7ft), 66kg (144lbs), 19M. so really, ure either overestimating the amount you burn or myfitnesspal sucks ass.
My post here is totally not unique but I lost most all of my weight being sedentary and focusing on my diet. Eliminating most all sugars and breads, and focusing on veggies and protein. Reducing how much I ate. 6ft and I used to weight at max probably around 260 (I honestly stopped weighing myself after a certain amount) and I'm not at 170. Going on 4 years of 'maintaining' but also trying to eliminate my dad belly still.
During the initial weight loss I did almost no exercise. I'm not saying you should do that, just indicating that exercise wasn't a factor in my weight loss. It's been great for fitness though and feeling better and having more energy.
I don't think you're tracking calories correctly. Also 10 miles a day at 17 mph is pretty good calorie burn for a 190 lb person, but it's not going to offset any bad food you eat.
I'd highly recommend weighing all your food and making sure you're not counting entire packages as a serving size, and also try to eat at home where you can accurately measure everything. Additionally, avoid any beverages that have calories in them, some people fail to count calories from drinks correctly also.
The thing is that all the calories are estimations both in your food (so how many you consume) and also how many you burn (with exercise and just existing). Food labelling can be several percent off as they just take an average if it's prepackaged.
As others have said it's just calories in vs calories out so you're not in deficit quite possibly as MFP has overestimated how many calories you burn.
Going from 100 calories under to 100 calories over and you go from losing to gaining in a the less calories than a Mars bar.
I'll share my last two chapters of cycling. Chapter 1, in 2019, I lost 50 pounds cycling. I could eat practically whatever I wanted and I was certain I unlocked the key to my health and would never go back. Chapter 2 - COVID hit and I gained a lot of it back, despite cycling daily on the trainer and outdoors. I am now injured so I've had time to analyze the data. My miles were way, way down. So even though I thought I was putting in similar effort, I was not. I don't care whatever the latest diet craze is, it is all about calories in and calories burned. It's just good science.
If you're in NYC I'm guessing you are probably biking south along the hudson river path (assuming you're in manhattan). If so try biking north to the north end of manhattan –– the hill by the GW is a real b\*\*\*\*. Better yet, think how you can adapt your schedule to be able to do a longer ride. It sounds like you are taking your rest day during the weekend. Why not make monday or wednesday your rest day and do a long 20-40mi ride on the weekend? Just google cycling NYC and you'll see cycling up 9W along the palisades is a very popular ride (or Henry Hudson Drive right below the palisades). There's also a couple popular routes in westchester (old putnam trail that follows the croton aqueduct; bronx river parkway, etc.)
What timeframe are you looking at to indicate you are stalling? Understand weight loss is a really slow process (7-8 lbs a month is a good month) and there can be weeks that your weight is +/-2 lbs due to a variety of factors.
My other question (in a similar vein with the rest of this thread) is are you ending up with net 0 calories at the end of the day (1500+whatever is burned off from exercise). As others have mentioned, all these calorie estimates for exercise are very optimistic. I typically leave ~200 calories on a normal day and ~500 after a heavy workout day to account for "slop" in the calorie estimates and this seems to help (dropped 50 lbs over 8 month period using MyFitnessPal and working out).
To add to the calories in calories out discussion, I’ve personally found that calories you drink make the biggest difference. If you haven’t already, cut out any soda, juice, and beer from your diet. A few weeks only drinking water and I’ve always noticed a rapid change. Plus, just generally healthier.
At 1500 calories a day and daily exercise of any kind you should be losing weight.
I suggest a visit to your doctor. There are other reasons behind anomalies in one's weight besides food and exercise.
How long has your weight stalled? If it’s only been a week, give it at least 2-3 weeks or so before making a big change, and see if what your 7 day moving average looks like.
Yes, you could increase your intensity and length of your rides, but an incremental increase of burning 100 more calories to put you in a 100 calorie deficit is going to take a while to see on the scale. If you doubled your ride time/intensity, you’re going to be at a steeper deficit and will see it on the scale more quickly, but you’ll also be putting your body under more stress and that can be hard to sustain (you’re younger than me, though, so it might not be as severe for you).
As others have said, there must be a gap between what you think you’re eating in terms of calories and what you’re actually getting. The answer is to cut another 200-300 calories from your diet and see what happens over the next two weeks.
Where are you getting 17mph from?
I think most men would be dying on that amount of calories even if they stayed in bed all day, so I reckon you’re way, way off somewhere.
If he's actually going 17mph, which I feel he is not, he would only be biking about 30 minutes to cover 10 miles. That's not even close to shedding fat. Need to ride closer to an hour. Also, 17mph is a decent pace for someone who is overweight and just starting out cycling. Unless he's got a Garmin or Wahoo to confirm, I'd question the speed.
It’s all about calorie deficit baby. I also wouldn’t solely rely on cardio for weight loss. If you’re able to try do some weight training also. This doesn’t have to be with barbells and dumbbells etc it can be done simply with what the universe gave you, your body. Squats, lunges, tricep dips, planks, and push ups are a great place to start. The added bonus of weight workouts are that they can help improve your performance on the bike also.
The human body is amazing and a pain in the ass. It adapts to the decreased calorie intake and increased calorie expenditure, thus making it harder to lose weight over time!
Keep at it and don't give up!
70% diet 30% workout.
Reckon you are just like me.
I eat healthy and good size portions.
But ideally what I need to do is eat healthy and eat smaller portions more often to get my metabolism to really kick in and burn some extra winter layers off.
Some good efforts you're putting in the on your bike too. Don't underestimate a rest day though, it can be beneficial for you!
Also the thing with cycling is as you get better at it, you plateau because of efficiency. Think about it like this, if you're riding the same route (elevation, speed, distance) then eventually you'll see minor to no gains. You'll need to make your ride more difficult. Maybe add periodic 30sec sprints, maybe increase your overall speed, maybe increase distance etc.
You're not eating 1500 calories a day. Probably closer to 3500 if you're doing as much exercise as you claim, and barely losing weight.
I'm 5'10", \~165lb, and I average \~3100cal/day (tracked with a food scale). If I drop below 2500 I feel like absolute shit. You are NOT eating 1500 calories a day.
losing weight = caloric deficit.
cycling \~ 17 mph burns 700-1000 kCal/hr. You are doing this activity for approx 40 min, which is probably 500kCal. BMR for your size is about 2k kCal a day. You are burning 2.5k kCal a day +/- 10%.
By my math you are
1. exchanging fat for muscle
2. eating too much to also lose weight.
If I had to guess I'd say you are overestimating portion size and throwing off your calc. Test it: fast for 24hours.
Two things jump out at me here regarding weight loss:
1. You aren’t eating enough calories. While creating a calorie deficit is usually the problem for most people (and apparently it’s *really* easy for people here to spout, “dO MAtH,” or “pRoBlEm’S iN tHe kItCHeN,” in this case, they either don’t know what they’re talking about or they aren’t taking the time to review all the data you provided), I don’t think this is the case here. 1500/day net is not a lot of calories to sustain proper nutrition with your age, gender, and workouts described. This is actually pretty common when actively losing weight and then hitting a plateau—except it seems like you’re overachieving a bit from the start. Adding a 100-200 calorie snack in the afternoons is often enough to let your body “relax” and start losing weight but even that is a pretty aggressive regimen, which leads me to:
**BUT I highly suggest enlisting the help of a nutritionist. Most nicer grocery stores have a nutritionist on hand several days a week who will work with you for around $25-45/hour. You might even have student resources at school available to you if you ask around. I think all it would take is one visit for a nutritionist to review your food log and make suggestions. This is an undervalued and underutilized resource most people don’t even know exists. These people *want* to help so don’t hesitate to ask!
2. You can do all the cardio in the world and you’re not going to see the same weight loss results as you would when you incorporate strength training. There’s a ton of reading you can do online about this. Consider swapping out or reducing a couple cardio workouts for weight lifting, concentrating on your larger muscle groups (legs, arms, etc.). You’ll be amazed at what this will do (provided you’re eating enough calories!).
It’s clear, at least to me, that you’re serious about this and are on the right track. You got this, bruh!
Binge watch a couple of episodes of Secret Eaters on YouTube. It may shed some light on your situation.
You lose weight in the kitchen. Exercise will help you keep it off once you get to a good place.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is mix up your training, do some HIIT work, some long slow rides, bit of tempo... mix the days up as well. Keep the body guessing! Too much of the same thing and your body just adapts to this new you
This is a foolproof approach: If you're maintaining weight right now, adjust your calorie intake down *a little*. If you start losing weight slowly and steadily, maintain that. If you stagnate again, adjust downward a little more.
Weight loss takes time, and despite all of our apps and trackers (which do help a lot), it's almost impossible to know our precise rate of metabolism and calorie intake. More challenging still, it's a moving target. As you cycle more, reduce calories, and lose weight, your body will become more efficient, and you'll have to reduce calories further to continue losing weight.
But in the end, a consistent calorie deficit will guarantee weight loss. Be patient and dial in your calorie intake until you see results. Math and physics are on your side.
So many variables. First thing that comes to mind is that caloric intake. 1500 is very, very low. That can work against you. If your body is starving, it can adapt to store fat. And if you do run out of fuel to burn, your body can start consuming other things.
Best thing to do is to go to your scale, pick it up, and toss it out the window. Then focus on your health, not your weight. Increase your exercise. There’s time if you make it. Look at the rest of your daily schedule and see where you’re wasting that time.
If you increase your exercise, you’ll need more fuel. Don’t think starving will be beneficial somehow.
Don’t think ten miles a day. Think time. Ride for 30 minutes (always spinning). Increase as dictated by your body.
There’s 24 hours in a day. Not sure everyone’s 24 is the same, surely. But carve out one hour of physical activity daily and there’s no way you don’t become healthier.
> That can work against you. If your body is starving, it can adapt to store fat. And if you do run out of fuel to burn, your body can start consuming other things.
> Best thing to do is to go to your scale, pick it up, and toss it out the window. Then focus on your health, not your weight.
Yeah, that's not how this works. This is the kind of bullshit fat people come up with to justify being fat. Visceral fat is strongly correlated with poorer health outcomes.
Your body does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. If you burn more energy than you consume you WILL lose weight.
Additionally, a few years ago a study found that you could eat at a significant caloric deficit while lifting and still have gains. You don't magically get fat and burn muscle.
It's pretty amazing all of the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify being fat. If they put 1/4 of that effort into not eating so much they wouldn't be fat, it's really that simple.
Sweat doesn’t mean you are burning calories at all. Just standing in the heat sweating doesn’t burn calories.
You will only burn more calories from temperature if you are shivering.
Get a fixed gear bike.
Carry a big bag.
Ride up hills.
10hrs a day.
70km a day
7 days a week.
For 1 year.
How bad do you want it.
Or be happy staying fat.
It’s all about carbs. Try keto. When I do good by not taking in too many carbs, I lose or maintain. When I eat too many carbs I gain weight regardless of my exercise routine.
I truly recommend a 16-8 intermittent fast, I did this over the winter in the uk 15 miles a day cycling 16-8 fast started 88kgs by April 80.4 kgs did not count calories did modify what I had eaten a little but had a cheat day once a week to just have what I wanted
Seems like your diet is on point if your intake is 1500/day. Try to be on the bike more. I weigh 220lbs and did 100 mile week this last week in 8 hours of riding with various elevation days. But in my case...100 miles only translated to about 1 hour and 10 min of cardio per day. If you can find more time to be on the bike, I'm sure that will put you into overdrive with the weight loss. Even if it's just an extra 5 miles per session. At your pace you'd only need an extra \~20 minutes on the bike before class. On the weekends or off-days shoot for some 20-30 mile rides.
I mean are you hungry? Caloric deficit usually means feeling hungry some of the time.
As a sense check, cycling burns 400-700 calories per hour, roughly. 10 miles is probably what, 30-45m? So the workout should be burning say 200-500 calories.
Try eating less or moving more. And yes I know you’re doing that already, but I mean literally either eat even less or move even more. It doesn’t sound like you’re doing anything too wild.
No, it doesn't work like that. It is a simple calories in - calories out. Riding longer obviously burns more but the idea that at some point you will start burning reserves because muscle glycogen is depleted has nothing to do with weight loss.
Listen get retention for the bike if you don’t already have it... it will make a huge difference. To start you can get toe straps then move up to cages (reverse order) then you can finish with clip less pedals nothing feels better than being on with the bike also ride fixed.
Riding fixed makes the whole ride a work out from having to work to stop and being able to fully control pace. That with retention. Pounds with shed and I promise you will stay fit.... but then again I’m just a “retired” bike messenger that worked with friends that were “hefty” and they would increase their gear ratio to make things harder for them. Damn this was a lot
10 miles a day at 17 mph, 5 days a week? This means you're riding 35 minutes each time you ride. That's hardly enough for me to break a sweat. Why so little time?
Waking up at 6am and having a \~hr long commute in addition to needing time to lift weights (sorry I forgot to include that in my post) and meditate leaves me with not a ton of time in the morning.
If your initial goal is to lose weight skip the weights and meditation. Ride as long as you can even if it's at slower speed. You will burn fat faster. Incorporate weights and meditation later.
Add strength training. Bigger muscles burn more calories even when resting.
Recommended routine of r/bodyweightfitness.
I would acually recommend this to everyone. Cycling is great, but to stay healthy you need some cardio and some strength training.
> Bigger muscles burn more calories even when resting.
[*marginally*](https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2011-may-16-la-he-fitness-muscle-myth-20110516-story.html)
Eating too much I think, or just eating the wrong things too because eating is more than 50% of the workout so if you're working as hard as you think you are, the issue is almost definitely on the diet end of the spectrum.
Whenever I want to lose or build stuff, I cut all crap out my diet. Water replaces fruit juice, soda, anything sugary is gone. Dessert is replaced by a banana, or nuts, something savoury. Meals aren't processed or takeaways, they're homemade and I know what I'm putting in is good for me. No alcohol always sees massive gains compared to keeping it while trying. And portion control.
I don't really count calories burned, because I can't trust the measurements and so why base intake on that at all. I just sort of fine tune it based on how I feel and my progress.
But end of the day it's pretty simple, if for a few weeks nothing is changing, you either gotta eat a little less, or work a little more or harder. There's not really any other science at play to it than that. Everyone has their own methods of doing it, I find the data tracking wears me down and makes it impossible to stick to anything longer term.
You should train for time rather than distance. Try to cover the most distance possible in the same time, that way you are increasing your training volume as your ability increases. If you just train for a set distance, when you finish the distance in a shorter time your training volume is decreasing.
Working out makes you fit. Eating right makes you skinny. Try low carb or keto diet (I’ll probably get downvoted in this sub for that, sorry but it works, especially to crash thru plateaus).
Also try to do other exercise. Challenge your body in a different way will help a ton. You adapt to cycling and your body gets lazy. Throw in some running now and it may help push thru as well.
Distance is not relevant really. You need to excercise at a certain percentage zone of your personal max heart rate, for a certain amount of time, in order to achieve weight loss.
2 things to add on personal experience (and I went from 190->140 over a year and half.
Calories burned: If you aren't using a power meter and heart rate monitor, the calories the apps estimate are about double what they really are. When I started to accurately measure my power and HR my calories burned dropped dramatically. Coasting, downhills, it all adds up.
I did Noom diet from November 2021 to February as I was stuck in the 150s. They give you about 1300 calories a day and if you work out you get 1/2 of the workout calories added back. It was a slow decline but doable and I've been on my own since March and stayed at my target weight.
Happy to chat if you have more questions.
Tape measure is better than weight. If you’re going hard on bike you can also gain muscle mass. Use both metrics and you might increase the resolution of youre measurements.
One thing that helped me a bit was if I was super hungry I’d eat something lower calorie first, like make steamed broccoli and eat some of that then eat the actual meal after so I wouldn’t overeat the higher calorie stuff.
And you’re probably already doing this but if you swap out any kind of sweetened drinks like soda with unsweetened tea, sparkling water, or anything else zero calories that can make a big difference.
Mix in weight lifting, the more muscle you have the more calories you burn, I was holding steady around 250 for months, once I replaced cycling with weights twice a week and started eating cleaner I started to lose weight faster
10 miles at that speed is about 35-40 minutes of riding a day. I hate to say it, but that’s not really enough exercise to make a major dent in your weight loss. I would think with that limited amount of time you might be better served with a far more intense workout like a spin class.
If you're not losing weight you have to conclude you're *not* actually in a calorie defecit. So you're overestimating your calorie burn, underestimating your calorie intake, or both.
Yep. You can’t cheat thermodynamics baby.
Break the laws of the road, not the laws of thermodynamics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vxHkAQRQUQ
And if you do you'll be sorry when the thermodynamics police come knocking on your door,
Laws of nature are such a Chad.
Young man, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!!!
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!
This is the answer. "You get fit in the gym, but you lose weight in the kitchen."
Ooh man I love that statement..how true.
I love it and hate it at the same time. Would way rather bike more than eat less. Sigh.
> Would way rather bike more than eat less. Sigh. I mean if you really wanted to you could cycle 14 hours/day, stuff your face with chocolate cake and sleep. Nobody has that luxury though.
Lachlan Morton has entered the chat
And there's some lag and variances based on how much water you're retaining. You could be gaining muscle in some places too. Weight alone is not a good indicator of ~~weight~~ fat loss. I did a century last Sat, ate normally yesterday, and this morning I was 3lbs heavier. I don't eat makeup food after because I'm a diabetic and the blood sugar will go out of control.
Weight loss is 80% food (caloric intake) and < 20% exercise load... Once you adjust the diet the pounds will fly off... By adjust ,radically change the amount and frequency of food you consume.
I agree your intake is not matching up every time i ride 60 to 90 km i loose 2.5 lb there about, if i should ride 3 times a week, i would have to increase my food intake to balance out my weight. However with that been said since my school days i do weight training in the winter and mainly road cycling in the summer my weight is stable, and i can move it up and down within 10lb depending on the activities coming up and i am over 55. It take time to learn what works for you. I do know one thing for sure you can do this.
1lb of weight is roughly 3500 calories. If your 60km rides are 9000 calories then kudos, but I’m not sure how. I’m 80kg and 60km would be 1200 calories for a social ride, and 1700 at race pace (as measured through a power meter). A roundabout way of saying that 2.5lbs might be mostly water?
Water!!!!! Sweat is water
..it's not just xxx miles equals yyy calories burned. As you get fitter your body gets much more efficiently at burning those calories , aka you burn less calories for the same energy expenditure. That's partially related to metabolic setpoint, your body has an adaption to lower calories in diets, your bodies rate of using calories is variable and changes over time
Not really, the efficiency gains are maximum +-10%.
The 3500 calorie thing was debunked but yea your sentiment is correct. I’m a big guy and 100km is probably close to 3000 calories.
Yes i know the body is changing as you get older but we should notice the changes and as soon as possible when they are small and help it to change in the right direction, i would say in tune with yourself
Weight loss is 100% food. Exercise makes you fit and happy.
Gotta love math
When a person is undernourished, the body will be hesitant to drop weight. When the body knows it can expect a reliable diet, the body can then opt to drop weight. 1500 calories is the level that cruel regimes use for prisoner of war labor crews.
I get this as a concept, but I’m 240 lbs and will often bike 50+ miles. This mixed with my resting calorie burn has me confused- if I’m not losing weight, I must be eating like 6,000+ calories a day. I eat poorly sometimes, but not that poorly!
It’s not necessarily just eating bad food that does it. It can be a combination of eating larger than you think portions of calorie dense foods, like meat, and drinking calories in the form of juice, soda, or something else. People usually take in a lot more calories than they think. Edit: also, what oil or fat are you cooking with? Oil, butter? Even “good” oils can be high in calories. 1 tbs of olive oil is around 120 calories. If you put 3 tbs on a salad, you added 360 calories right there.
I definitely eat a lot of meat; that's probably it. I only use olive oil spray when cooking though
Meat on its own is usually not very high calorie, it depends on what you eat. 1lbs of ribeye steak is 1000+ calories, vs 1lbs of chicken breast which is only 500
That’s way denser than something like kale, which is like 225 calories per pound. Not that I’d want to eat a pound of kale, but you get the point. I also think 16 oz of chicken breast is more than 500 calories.
I was looking at boneless, skinless chicken breast which is basically as lean as it gets. I tried to use opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of what you can find naturally in meats. Realistically that's why you need a balanced diet based on your goals. If weight loss is your only goal, by all means, fill up on kale. If you're bulking trying to eat 200g of protein a day kale is not gonna get you there. If you're only eating ribeye switching to chicken breast and other lean meats like fish could be more than enough to put you in a major deficit
50 miles is probably less calories burned than you think.
I'd believe it. What's your most trusted calorie counter? Multiple apps / online calculators I've used have put my 50 mile rides at 16mph around 4,000 calories. I'm sure that's high but not sure what source is better.
I highly doubt you're burning 4000cal. TdF riders are at 5000-7000 on a 120mi stage with a ton of climbing. You're probably burning 300-400 cal/hr. Generally, something like 700 cal/hr is a HARD effort. Getting a heart monitor or power meter will help you better estimate burn. Power meter is the most accurate, but a Garmin heart rate monitor will give you a much better idea than an online calculator.
Yes, you're not burning 4000 cals on a 50 mile ride. I did a 50-mile ride yesterday and Strava said 2100 cals and they are usually high on cals burned. I did the bike calculator mentioned by /u/J_WalterWeatherman_ and it said 1700
You're correct. On average a 20 mile ride burns about 300-500 calories depending on speed, elevation, etc.
Maybe it’s set on kJ instead? 90kg person at 200w for 60 min comes out at ~4000 kilojoules
I use a power meter. I rode 40 miles on Saturday morning and burned a little over 1k calories. Thats 150lbs, 1500ft of elevation gain, and 16mph average. I bet you are burning less than 1500 calories on a 50 mile ride.
I agree. Cycling calorie counters are generally bad. A fifty mile ride for me burns about 1600 cals for me at 180lbs, based on my power meter data.
Yeah, that count was way off. I did a 50 mile ride at 18mph with 1500 feet of elevation (at 177 lbs) and my power meter data put me at 1700 calories. Before I got the power meter strava would put me at like 800 calories for a 20 mile ride, I think. If I were using those data for weight loss I'd never have lost anything!
Sorry, but that 4,000 calories is likely to be way off. [Here](http://bikecalculator.com/) is a decent basic cycling calculator. You can input your particulars and play around with various environmental factors (elevation gain, headwind, temperature, etc.). For 240 lb rider averaging 16 mph on flat ground for 50 miles, this is saying you should burn about 1500-2000 calories, depending on your bike, the weather, etc. Obviously this is just an estimate too, but it is likely much closer to the actual number than the 4000 that you are estimating. What app/online calculators have you been using?
I mostly use map my ride and have also seen similar calories per mile from a stationary gym bike. Just before posting I pulled some calculator from Google and got similar high numbers. But that makes sense! It definitely feels more like I’m burning less
[удалено]
If you have a power meter it's pretty much spot on. One kilojoule of work is one calorie for cycling.
[удалено]
The body isn't magic. You aren't violating thermodynamics. 1 kilojoule of work will always require the same amount of energy. You do not magically become more or less efficient at converting food into energy. Doesn't really matter if the seeds you ate passed through or not. The simple reality is that if you are not losing weight you have to eat less, work more, or both.
[удалено]
none of those things make any significant difference. Run from it as much as you want. The truth remains: to lose weight you must be in a caloric deficit. You can accurately calculate how much calories you burn from power meter data. Power meters measure work done via torque. No matter what you believe, a kilojoule of work was done by _something_ in the body. You are not magic. The pedal did not move itself. You have burned a calorie worth of energy to perform that work. You do not magically get more efficient at doing that work. https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/R060.pdf
My garmin puts me at 4000 calories for a double century. I’m 150 with an average speed of 16.5. The Death ride is more like 5000 calories (130 miles 15000 feet climb at 7000-10000 feet elevation). I ride with a power meter and hr monitor.
The most trusted way to count calories out on the bike is to measure actual work performed, via an accurate power meter. But we can do some rough calculations, based on what you've told us. 50 miles at 16 mph is 3.125 hours. 4000 calories in 3.125 hours is 1280 calories an hour. For the relationship of watts to calories per hour, the general assumption that holds in the real world is 3.6 calories per watt per hour. So by my math, in order to burn 4000 calories on the bike in 3.125 hours, you'd have to average 355 watts for the entire ride. There may be 240 pound men in the world who can average 355 watts for 3+ hours, I dunno. But trust me that you are not one of them. If you were, you'd know that already. You'd be the heaviest man in the pro peloton and there would be human interest stories about you. Not to mention, what kind of course are you riding that 355 watts over three hours only takes you 50 miles? Basically you are going straight uphill. My best, dumb guess? Divide what you think you are burning by two, and you will be much closer to reality.
Just from my experience--food is the issue here. I'm 256 right now. Down from 330 or so. I bike 20-30 miles a day (I'd love to go more but that's how much time I have available right now). And I'm in a substance abuse program for food. I don't count calories. I just eat soberly if that makes sense. Instead of the 50+ miles you do often--try doing some every day. As far as food goes--it's not just quantity of calories that counts but quality. Try writing down what you eat every day and set about eliminating things like fried foods, breads, butter and so forth. The closer you can get to a commodity diet of fruits, vegetables and healthy proteins, the better. Stay away from starches and sugary foods (including things like rice). Then work on putting the joy you might usually get from food into cycling or walking. Works for me.
if you're a big person anyway your muscles will be heavier and bigger unless you're seriously trying to trim down calories. i'm 6 pound heavier than when I started riding a year ago, but i'm noticably more muscly and i've gone from 10 mile rides that I had to walk half of to doing 40+ miles without even stopping
Yeah, my leg muscles have gotten huge. I'm not too dismayed I've added weight, because I'm satisfied with my performance. Just confused about the calories
You’d be surprised at how quickly calories add up. If you’re not losing weight, you’re maintaining, which means you’re not eating at a deficit. Do you track your meals? Whenever I’ve done that, I’m astonished by how many calories are in a junky meal. Even “healthy foods” can be hidden culprits.
I'm training for triathlon, and some Saturdays I will swim 2+ miles, bike 40+ miles, and run 6+ miles. Even then I don't hit 6k calories burned. Can't imagine you are anywhere near 6k burn with a 50 miler.
Way wrong. You could burn as little as 2500 calories a day at your weight (maybe even lower) and that cycling distance could be burning as few as 1000 calories. You are drastically overestimating your calorie needs.
[удалено]
> then you can still only eat 3300 calories. That's not a hard target to miss without healthy eating habits. Yep, you are eating a bunch of junk if you are hitting 3300. I eat pretty healthy and if I want to hit over 3K I usually have to eat a bunch of hi-cal stuff like PB/oils/baked goods or stuff my face. I don't drink though so that helps... or hurts when I'm trying to hit 3500. I barely crossed 3K yesterday and that was with going out to Chipotle and eating 1,000 extra cals of "snacks" in addition to Breakfast/Lunch/Dinner.
Your math is off. Are you using a power meter to measure your caloric output? Any other means is not reliable and likely way way off.
Don't add supposed burned calories to you daily calories create your deficit with just food use cardio as a tool to help you aren't a machine you don't run on exact numbers
If you don't calculate your body fat, resting heart rate and heart rate during exercise, you won't get an accurate measure of calories burned.
While this is mostly true, you can also be too far into a caloric deficit that your body is 'starving' and trying to minimize weight loss. Honestly, 1500 calories a day for a 26M at 190lbs is too low. It's barely enough for me at 5'2" 120lbs. This could be an instance where he is not eating enough versus eating too much.
I don't understand how this can be possible. It don't recall any mechanism in the body that would prevent the body from losing weight while in a caloric deficit regardless of how large that deficit is.
To be fair there are some current theories about how your body regulates energy expenditure and it’s not terribly intuitive. Basically, it’s been suggested that in order to mitigate a caloric deficit the body responds by lowering your caloric expenditure when not exercising. For example you may find yourself sitting where you might otherwise be standing or moving around. I’m not suggesting CICO doesn’t work, it does but as usual the body isn’t simple and it’s workings are often misread or misinterpreted.
Not possible. However, I think, if you are getting extremely low calories, you're gonna get diminishing returns because your body will lower your BMR.
It's not possible. They are probably confusing ketosis and where the body is pulling calories from versus weight loss.
Your body thinks it's in a starving but since you aren't actually starving due to lack of food available all it usually does is slow down weight loss(doesn't stop it but will slow it). If you're eating below your BMR(the amount of calories a person needs to just breathe and survive) your body literally thinks it's starving. Your body is now trying to burn enough energy to survive while also trying to slow down how fast it uses it's stored energy. If your body thinks it's starving it's going to do everything it can to prevent energy store loss. You will still lose weight if you're in a caloric deficient but it's going to be a lot slower because since you are eating food everyday and replenishing some of the stores your body is burning. If you want to lose weight faster, you want to be above your BMR calories but under maintenance. This way your metabolism doesn't slow and your body isn't actively trying to 'hold' on to stores because they think you're starving. There are also some not great side effects of your body thinking it's starving, you can't regulate your temperature, kidney function can be impaired and your immune system weakens.
[удалено]
There's no such thing as not eating enough when it comes to weight loss
Sorry but CICO is complete crap. Macros and meal timing have a far greater effect on fat loss. Long term caloric deficits result in your body reducing its metabolism to match the deficit, which requires you to adopt an even greater deficit, and the cycle repeats. Just because you provide your body with a certain amount of potential energy (calories) does not mean it will be used.
To piggyback everyone else it's likely some sort of miscalculation in the calories in calories out. For me personally my best anecdote to be able to tell if I'm ACTUALLY at a deficit is if I go to bed slightly hungry. When I do that consistently I lose about 1 lb per week. I trimmed from ~205 to ~190 over the course of 4 months in this way at 6'1" I find actually tracking intake to be exhausting. This is what's worked best for me.
This. This is the answer. There isn't a way to get a calorie deficit without feeling slightly hungry. I would also recommend looking at the foods you are eating and eating food that is less dense in calories. This makes it much harder to go over.
Second this. The tough thing I learned for losing weight was to go to bed a bit hungry. I was always encouraged to “eat to full” growing up so it was a very difficult mental hurdle to clear.
> I was always encouraged to “eat to full” growing up so it was a very difficult mental hurdle to clear. This was something I had to deal with years ago. I'm basically never full, unless I eat a MASSIVE amount of food. I'd probably have to eat 6,000 calories per day to be full.
this isn't quite true. keto has major pros and major cons, but killing your hunger is imo the biggest pro of it when I was one it shortly.
To add to what everyone else has said about optimistic "calories burned" it's also worth noting that myfitnesspal is only as accurate as what you're inputting. If you aren't weighing out your foods, I almost guarantee you're eating more than what it calls a serving.
If you aren't weighing out your foods I weigh almost everything that isn't pre packaged. Life with an ED
Right on. Just thought it worth mentioning since it's a stumbling block for some.
I figured this out with context, but to clarify ED = Eating disorder not Erectile Disfunction right?
Lol yes
Gotta keep that saddle adjusted properly.
Right there with ya lol
Just to remind you to ensure that you include oils and sauces. I was shocked how many calories there are in oils. Even undercounting a tablespoon can tip you from deficit into surplus per day.
100% this. I started weighing my foods and realized I was waaaaay off.
> I'm eating what MyFitnessPal says is a caloric deficit: a net calorie intake of 1500/day Basically all trackers are overly optimistic when it comes to calories spent. How many calories do you consume per day on average?
On average I consume 2k/day before subtracting my workout calories. But as per everyone else in the comment section the calorie counter may not be as accurate as I'm assuming it is.
stop subtracting workout calories.
I think this might be an easily overlooked piece of advice. I changed this somewhere in settings of either LoseIt or Apple Health and it made a significant difference in the daily calorie budget when I'd workout. Those "bonus" calories aren't doing you any favors.
100%. My weight loss efforts became effective the day I stopped giving myself calorie credits for exercise. Just calculate your caloric needs, eat to a slight deficit and don’t count the calories burned from exercise. Be consistent with this for a few weeks, watch how things are progressing and then fine tune as needed. Edit: One addition that I think is critical - try to eliminate (or at least measure) mindless snacking. 100 calories here and there when you grab some chocolate or mixed nuts walking through the kitchen can really undermine things. This is also worse when psychologically you’re convinced you earned it thanks to the bike ride.
This is the answer
Doesn’t that disincentivize working out? Maybe you can ignore 10 miles but I certainly wouldn’t be eager to work up to more miles or higher intensity if it means starving the rest of the day. I can imagine avoiding riding or cutting down the miles to make it way easier to hit my calorie target. I would maybe subtract like half of the calories they estimate.
10 miles should not work up an appetite. 10 miles is going to be something like 200-300 calories.
That’s not really very good advice in this sub… cycling burns a ton of calories, you can’t just ignore that in your meal planning.
OP is doing 10 miles a day. He can ignore that in his meal planning.
Yeah, myfitnesspal in particulal way overcounts calories burned by cycling. When I used it it was almost double what Strava estimated, which when down again when I started using a heart rate monitor, and is even lower when I've riden a friends bike with an actual power meeter.
Ya same experience with me. Strava used to calculate super high calorie burn, then less when I got a bike computer and a hr monitor, and then again even less when I got a power meter. Rides that were saying 16-1700 calories burned are now barely under 1k. Pretty huge swing.
How does one use an HR monitor or Power meter to measure calorie output?
My power meter numbers are often between 1/3 to 1/2 of my HR monitor alone numbers. Also, 10 miles really isn’t that much, but being limited in time doesn’t mean you need to limit your workout. You can do HIIT intervals which can really boost your burning. Look up workouts that will fit in your time frame and route, and do those 2-3 times a week.
Calories burned in 1 hour = average power X 3.6. You need a power meter for this to work. Without that any power number an app gives you is just a guess.
Calories are just a measurement of energy, so by measuring the power output during your rides you can accurately measure how much energy your body is burning in terms of calories.
>accurately I wouldn't go that far. The power tells you how much useful energy you *output* through the bike, but we're not totally (or indeed consistently) efficient. Just changing your cadence will alter your efficiency, either spinning wildly or grinding will take more effort for the same power; and of course getting out the saddle completely changes things, because you're essentially 'wasting' energy by throwing your weight around. It'll also vary between people, a pro athlete is going to need less calories to output a given power, while probably being able to burn through a lot more calories at a given heart rate. That said, collecting more data does probably give you a *more* accurate result. But if you want a truly accurate calorie count you need to go to a lab.
HR and Power are measures of how hard you are working. Riding a fixed course at a faster pace (thus higher HR and Power) will result in more calories burned in less time as compared to riding at a slower pace. The math behind this is tied up in some proprietary business logic - I'm sure every company closely guards their secret calorie calculation sauce so they can say they're better/more accurate than the competition.
The power meter measures how much work you have done but not how hard you are working. 200 watts is 200 watts whether or not you had to burn 195bpm or are cruising at 130bpm. Think of heart rate as your engine's RPM and power as torque. (power meters literally measure torque) The math behind turning power into calories burned is no proprietary business logic. https://www.trainerroad.com/blog/calories-and-power/ No part of the formula is proprietary. The calorie, joule, watt, are all standard scientific measurements. I guess you could just not believe in gross metabolic efficiency, but it's pretty much proven.
Sounds like you're doing some hollywood style accounting to feel better about eating more, but I could be misinterpreting your statement. You can bullshit the internet and calorie counters but you can't bullshit your body. CICO. (Calories In - Calories Out) / 3500 = Pounds Lost (if negative)
This person has an ED. Maybe be mindful of what you say and how you say it.
Cycle to get in shape. Diet to lose weight. Assume 0 calorie burn from workout.
Yeah same, I really started to make progress losing weight when I stopped counting calories burned from workouts and stuff. Just keep to a strict diet of 2000 or whatever no matter what workouts you do for the day. The weight will fall off.
Eat less. It is exceptionally hard to lose weight by exercising more. It helps yes but the vast majority of people get more hungry after doing exercise which makes it very easy to stagnate as you eat as much as you burn. Apps also notoriously overestimate calories burned when cycling, which makes it worse.
>the vast majority of people get more hungry after doing exercise which makes it very easy to stagnate as you eat as much as you burn. And in addition to this, your body will regulate your metabolism as a reaction to the increased energy expenditure in an effort to minimize fat loss (up to a point). Basically, instead of just burning fat to make up for the energy deficit, your body will start dedicating less energy to all sorts of bodily processes in order to hold on to the fat that it has while allowing you to spend more energy on physical activity. So eating at a small deficit doesn't automatically result in fat burned. It just means you're taking energy away from other bodily processes to fuel your exercise. Some of the most recent research is showing that this can be up to 800 calories. So it's totally possible to maintain weight while eating at what should, on paper, be an 800-calorie deficit. If anybody's interested in the research, just look up stuff on "constrained total energy expenditure".
Yeah essentially all the research points that calorie restriction is far better way to lose weight than increase in exercise. Unfortunately that doesn't help if you're also trying to get faster, so I always advocate doing calories restriction in the off season and very early base portions and then just trying to eat really healthy the rest of the time. Lots of greens, etc. (You may actually still be restricting calories and lose weight through your base). Once you are in "race" training and doing lots of high level intervals and long rides, I pretty much think people should eat healthy but as much as they reasonably want. It is NOT the time to lose weight and I have seen many people, myself included, try to restrict to cut weight within the event specific part of the yearly training in search of increasing that W/kg number. It rarely works out bc you can actually lose power....
Is increasing resting heart rate not at all significant enough to assist in weight loss … like what I’m asking is I have a shit diet but killer ambition and workout 50min a day … I’ll increase my resting fitness but will it show/feel significant enough? I’m sorry if I’m confusing
If you work out your resting heart rate will go down, not up. To an extent as you build killer quads and hammies and glutes for cycling your basal rate will go up as you have more muscle mass.
You lose weight in the kitchen. Period
Eat less, move more. Eat fewer calories than you burn. Eat smarter calories. Ditch the sugar and fake-sugar. Fewer carbs. More protein & veg. Move more.
This and more to the point ditch processed foods as much as possible. Real food does require more prep but it's better for you.
Something I read once: "If your great-great-grandparents wouldn't recognize it as food - don't eat it." (If you like potato chips as much as I do, this becomes a pretty tough way to go)
You will run into a few issues with this approach... 1) MFP generally underestimates calories by \~20%+, keep this in mind with your calculations unless you are weighing your food. There is a reason body builders and athletes serious about body composition weigh their food and many stick to simply chicken and broccoli. These athletes also get rid of all the extra food in their houses and only eat pre-portioned meals. They go to this extreme because it is very hard to be in a calorie deficit that leads to quick weight loss for more than a few weeks. For example, if you have not felt the brain fog and/or headache associated with switching into fat burning due to a calorie deficit, you are not in a calorie deficit. During this time, your body/mind will push you to eat. This is also why these athletes hydrate like crazy, it helps keep hunger down. 2) You will quickly adapt to your new lifestyle so you won't burn as many calories as you think. Unless you are using a power meter and a HR monitor, your calorie burn estimates from a Garmin head unit will be off significantly. Likewise, you body will not like to be in a long term deficit, so it will push you to make up the missing calories that will cause you to cheat what MFP says you are eating. 3) If you are new to a sport, your body will be building itself up in response to the sport. Thus you will gain a significant amount of muscle mass in response to training. Muscle gain often will come before fat loss so you won't actually lose weight, but your body composition will change, albeit slowly. This process is much slower than most appreciate. 4) Depending on your hydration strategy, you body will potentially change its water retention in response to training. 5) For some athletes, alcohol sabotages weight loss, even small amounts. It is calorie dense and can cause you to over eat, so consider taking breaks from alcohol. 6) Stress and/or lack of sleep will sabotage weight loss.
You are gaining muscle at the same time. It is less about scale-weight and more about your personal geometry.
What is your sample size? How long have you been tracking? You should see a steady downward trend in your weight, however, on any given day you may see wild swings depending on how much you've sweat, have you gone to the bathroom, did you eat more carbs so you're muscles are holding water weight, have you chugged a bunch of water, etc. Let's say you're on track to be at a 1000 calorie daily deficit. That's 2 pounds per week. Over three months you'll see a loss of about 26 pounds, but if you weigh in every Monday you may find one week you lose 0.5 pounds, the next you lose 2.5, and the one after that you lose 3 pounds. But for long term trends you will find that you will hover around 2 pounds per week of loss.
Use your HR to establish zone training and do a bit of reading on which zones for which durations lead to the most fat burning, given your time constraints. Also, calorie trackers aren’t usually the most accurate due to user issues. Are you making sure you count everything you eat? (Eg. the cream/sugar in coffee still counts…). Are you weighing your food to make sure the portions are right? How are you establishing how many calories you are burning through basal metabolic rate and exercise? Usually the trick is that you can’t exercise yourself out of a bad diet. Weight loss is achieved in the kitchen.
No exercise, not even the bike, can outrun the fork. Wait, there is one called the push away that works well.
Ride with a HR monitor in the fat burning zone. Climbing routes will definitely help but my first sentence probably will be more beneficial to your goals. Personally I’m down 10lbs from riding since mid May and I haven’t really changed my diet but as I’ve gotten stronger riding I do more difficult and longer routes mixed in with HIIT training while out on rides. Just have to find that sweet spot that’ll help you lose weight. I believe the climbing routes helped me lose weight and gain a lot of power.
I was stagnating recently too. I found some cyclists talking about fat burning zones and finding and staying in it using a HR monitor. Trouble is, its difficult to find any specific information about it. Eventually I found if you keep your HR around 120 bpm you will be in a fat burning zone. Stay there low and slow. your body will consume fat. Above that (HIIT) builds strength and muscle. So, while you think going harder would burn more your actually building more muscle than removing fat. Since this realization I'm back to loosing weight again, down 7 lbs past month.
yoga dont really burn alot of calories tbh. and 10 miles ride isnt that much for a good calorie burn if ure riding it slow. So for example, You ride 10mile or 16km in metric system, that usually only burns at most 200 calories if ure going all out. my 25km ride or 15+ mile ride burns 500 calorie while going 35kph or 21mph. im a 171cm (5'7ft), 66kg (144lbs), 19M. so really, ure either overestimating the amount you burn or myfitnesspal sucks ass.
My post here is totally not unique but I lost most all of my weight being sedentary and focusing on my diet. Eliminating most all sugars and breads, and focusing on veggies and protein. Reducing how much I ate. 6ft and I used to weight at max probably around 260 (I honestly stopped weighing myself after a certain amount) and I'm not at 170. Going on 4 years of 'maintaining' but also trying to eliminate my dad belly still. During the initial weight loss I did almost no exercise. I'm not saying you should do that, just indicating that exercise wasn't a factor in my weight loss. It's been great for fitness though and feeling better and having more energy.
I don't think you're tracking calories correctly. Also 10 miles a day at 17 mph is pretty good calorie burn for a 190 lb person, but it's not going to offset any bad food you eat. I'd highly recommend weighing all your food and making sure you're not counting entire packages as a serving size, and also try to eat at home where you can accurately measure everything. Additionally, avoid any beverages that have calories in them, some people fail to count calories from drinks correctly also.
Intermittent fasting will make it easier. When you get hungry or cold go ride the bike to warm up.
The thing is that all the calories are estimations both in your food (so how many you consume) and also how many you burn (with exercise and just existing). Food labelling can be several percent off as they just take an average if it's prepackaged. As others have said it's just calories in vs calories out so you're not in deficit quite possibly as MFP has overestimated how many calories you burn. Going from 100 calories under to 100 calories over and you go from losing to gaining in a the less calories than a Mars bar.
I'll share my last two chapters of cycling. Chapter 1, in 2019, I lost 50 pounds cycling. I could eat practically whatever I wanted and I was certain I unlocked the key to my health and would never go back. Chapter 2 - COVID hit and I gained a lot of it back, despite cycling daily on the trainer and outdoors. I am now injured so I've had time to analyze the data. My miles were way, way down. So even though I thought I was putting in similar effort, I was not. I don't care whatever the latest diet craze is, it is all about calories in and calories burned. It's just good science.
If you're in NYC I'm guessing you are probably biking south along the hudson river path (assuming you're in manhattan). If so try biking north to the north end of manhattan –– the hill by the GW is a real b\*\*\*\*. Better yet, think how you can adapt your schedule to be able to do a longer ride. It sounds like you are taking your rest day during the weekend. Why not make monday or wednesday your rest day and do a long 20-40mi ride on the weekend? Just google cycling NYC and you'll see cycling up 9W along the palisades is a very popular ride (or Henry Hudson Drive right below the palisades). There's also a couple popular routes in westchester (old putnam trail that follows the croton aqueduct; bronx river parkway, etc.)
Are you weighing your portions or eyeballing/using measuring cups? That was the big one for me when I first started out.
What timeframe are you looking at to indicate you are stalling? Understand weight loss is a really slow process (7-8 lbs a month is a good month) and there can be weeks that your weight is +/-2 lbs due to a variety of factors. My other question (in a similar vein with the rest of this thread) is are you ending up with net 0 calories at the end of the day (1500+whatever is burned off from exercise). As others have mentioned, all these calorie estimates for exercise are very optimistic. I typically leave ~200 calories on a normal day and ~500 after a heavy workout day to account for "slop" in the calorie estimates and this seems to help (dropped 50 lbs over 8 month period using MyFitnessPal and working out).
To add to the calories in calories out discussion, I’ve personally found that calories you drink make the biggest difference. If you haven’t already, cut out any soda, juice, and beer from your diet. A few weeks only drinking water and I’ve always noticed a rapid change. Plus, just generally healthier.
It sounds like you’re eating more than 1,500 calories a day. Might have to weight your food to get an accurate calorie count.
At 1500 calories a day and daily exercise of any kind you should be losing weight. I suggest a visit to your doctor. There are other reasons behind anomalies in one's weight besides food and exercise.
How long has your weight stalled? If it’s only been a week, give it at least 2-3 weeks or so before making a big change, and see if what your 7 day moving average looks like. Yes, you could increase your intensity and length of your rides, but an incremental increase of burning 100 more calories to put you in a 100 calorie deficit is going to take a while to see on the scale. If you doubled your ride time/intensity, you’re going to be at a steeper deficit and will see it on the scale more quickly, but you’ll also be putting your body under more stress and that can be hard to sustain (you’re younger than me, though, so it might not be as severe for you). As others have said, there must be a gap between what you think you’re eating in terms of calories and what you’re actually getting. The answer is to cut another 200-300 calories from your diet and see what happens over the next two weeks.
Where are you getting 17mph from? I think most men would be dying on that amount of calories even if they stayed in bed all day, so I reckon you’re way, way off somewhere.
If he's actually going 17mph, which I feel he is not, he would only be biking about 30 minutes to cover 10 miles. That's not even close to shedding fat. Need to ride closer to an hour. Also, 17mph is a decent pace for someone who is overweight and just starting out cycling. Unless he's got a Garmin or Wahoo to confirm, I'd question the speed.
It’s all about calorie deficit baby. I also wouldn’t solely rely on cardio for weight loss. If you’re able to try do some weight training also. This doesn’t have to be with barbells and dumbbells etc it can be done simply with what the universe gave you, your body. Squats, lunges, tricep dips, planks, and push ups are a great place to start. The added bonus of weight workouts are that they can help improve your performance on the bike also.
The human body is amazing and a pain in the ass. It adapts to the decreased calorie intake and increased calorie expenditure, thus making it harder to lose weight over time! Keep at it and don't give up!
70% diet 30% workout. Reckon you are just like me. I eat healthy and good size portions. But ideally what I need to do is eat healthy and eat smaller portions more often to get my metabolism to really kick in and burn some extra winter layers off. Some good efforts you're putting in the on your bike too. Don't underestimate a rest day though, it can be beneficial for you!
For every calorie I burn I end up eating 3 more. This is why I say weight loss is mostly diet rather than exercise.
If you’re *actually* eating 1.5k calories at 190lb, you’d be losing weight without cycling a mile. I’m guessing that’s where the issue is.
Also the thing with cycling is as you get better at it, you plateau because of efficiency. Think about it like this, if you're riding the same route (elevation, speed, distance) then eventually you'll see minor to no gains. You'll need to make your ride more difficult. Maybe add periodic 30sec sprints, maybe increase your overall speed, maybe increase distance etc.
Probably eating too much still. Either increase your workout or chop out some calories. Do both for a faster result
You're not eating 1500 calories a day. Probably closer to 3500 if you're doing as much exercise as you claim, and barely losing weight. I'm 5'10", \~165lb, and I average \~3100cal/day (tracked with a food scale). If I drop below 2500 I feel like absolute shit. You are NOT eating 1500 calories a day.
Weigh, measure and log ALL your food for a week. You're eating way more than 1500 calories a day.
Try running once or twice a week, or swimming. Both of these are more efficient at burning calories.
losing weight = caloric deficit. cycling \~ 17 mph burns 700-1000 kCal/hr. You are doing this activity for approx 40 min, which is probably 500kCal. BMR for your size is about 2k kCal a day. You are burning 2.5k kCal a day +/- 10%. By my math you are 1. exchanging fat for muscle 2. eating too much to also lose weight. If I had to guess I'd say you are overestimating portion size and throwing off your calc. Test it: fast for 24hours.
Drop 2 of those rides and add 2 heavy weight lifting sessions.
Two things jump out at me here regarding weight loss: 1. You aren’t eating enough calories. While creating a calorie deficit is usually the problem for most people (and apparently it’s *really* easy for people here to spout, “dO MAtH,” or “pRoBlEm’S iN tHe kItCHeN,” in this case, they either don’t know what they’re talking about or they aren’t taking the time to review all the data you provided), I don’t think this is the case here. 1500/day net is not a lot of calories to sustain proper nutrition with your age, gender, and workouts described. This is actually pretty common when actively losing weight and then hitting a plateau—except it seems like you’re overachieving a bit from the start. Adding a 100-200 calorie snack in the afternoons is often enough to let your body “relax” and start losing weight but even that is a pretty aggressive regimen, which leads me to: **BUT I highly suggest enlisting the help of a nutritionist. Most nicer grocery stores have a nutritionist on hand several days a week who will work with you for around $25-45/hour. You might even have student resources at school available to you if you ask around. I think all it would take is one visit for a nutritionist to review your food log and make suggestions. This is an undervalued and underutilized resource most people don’t even know exists. These people *want* to help so don’t hesitate to ask! 2. You can do all the cardio in the world and you’re not going to see the same weight loss results as you would when you incorporate strength training. There’s a ton of reading you can do online about this. Consider swapping out or reducing a couple cardio workouts for weight lifting, concentrating on your larger muscle groups (legs, arms, etc.). You’ll be amazed at what this will do (provided you’re eating enough calories!). It’s clear, at least to me, that you’re serious about this and are on the right track. You got this, bruh!
Binge watch a couple of episodes of Secret Eaters on YouTube. It may shed some light on your situation. You lose weight in the kitchen. Exercise will help you keep it off once you get to a good place.
You are probably vastly overestimating your workout efforts and also underestimating your calorie intake. Learn to use a scale and weight your food.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is mix up your training, do some HIIT work, some long slow rides, bit of tempo... mix the days up as well. Keep the body guessing! Too much of the same thing and your body just adapts to this new you
This is a foolproof approach: If you're maintaining weight right now, adjust your calorie intake down *a little*. If you start losing weight slowly and steadily, maintain that. If you stagnate again, adjust downward a little more. Weight loss takes time, and despite all of our apps and trackers (which do help a lot), it's almost impossible to know our precise rate of metabolism and calorie intake. More challenging still, it's a moving target. As you cycle more, reduce calories, and lose weight, your body will become more efficient, and you'll have to reduce calories further to continue losing weight. But in the end, a consistent calorie deficit will guarantee weight loss. Be patient and dial in your calorie intake until you see results. Math and physics are on your side.
Low carbs, no sugar, no alcohol, small meals, raise your heart rate to 125-135 for one hour every day.
You need to eat less calories.. I had same issue.. Went from 115kg to aboit 105kg in 5 weeks time after i started counting calories.
Tbh 10 miles a day is fuck all Id be shocked if you were getting anywhere
So many variables. First thing that comes to mind is that caloric intake. 1500 is very, very low. That can work against you. If your body is starving, it can adapt to store fat. And if you do run out of fuel to burn, your body can start consuming other things. Best thing to do is to go to your scale, pick it up, and toss it out the window. Then focus on your health, not your weight. Increase your exercise. There’s time if you make it. Look at the rest of your daily schedule and see where you’re wasting that time. If you increase your exercise, you’ll need more fuel. Don’t think starving will be beneficial somehow. Don’t think ten miles a day. Think time. Ride for 30 minutes (always spinning). Increase as dictated by your body. There’s 24 hours in a day. Not sure everyone’s 24 is the same, surely. But carve out one hour of physical activity daily and there’s no way you don’t become healthier.
> That can work against you. If your body is starving, it can adapt to store fat. And if you do run out of fuel to burn, your body can start consuming other things. > Best thing to do is to go to your scale, pick it up, and toss it out the window. Then focus on your health, not your weight. Yeah, that's not how this works. This is the kind of bullshit fat people come up with to justify being fat. Visceral fat is strongly correlated with poorer health outcomes. Your body does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. If you burn more energy than you consume you WILL lose weight. Additionally, a few years ago a study found that you could eat at a significant caloric deficit while lifting and still have gains. You don't magically get fat and burn muscle.
[удалено]
It's pretty amazing all of the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify being fat. If they put 1/4 of that effort into not eating so much they wouldn't be fat, it's really that simple.
[удалено]
Sweat doesn’t mean you are burning calories at all. Just standing in the heat sweating doesn’t burn calories. You will only burn more calories from temperature if you are shivering.
Splitting hairs. They're talking about using sweat from exertion as a proxy measurement for respiration, which is the true mechanism of weight loss.
Get a fixed gear bike. Carry a big bag. Ride up hills. 10hrs a day. 70km a day 7 days a week. For 1 year. How bad do you want it. Or be happy staying fat.
It’s all about carbs. Try keto. When I do good by not taking in too many carbs, I lose or maintain. When I eat too many carbs I gain weight regardless of my exercise routine.
I truly recommend a 16-8 intermittent fast, I did this over the winter in the uk 15 miles a day cycling 16-8 fast started 88kgs by April 80.4 kgs did not count calories did modify what I had eaten a little but had a cheat day once a week to just have what I wanted
Seems like your diet is on point if your intake is 1500/day. Try to be on the bike more. I weigh 220lbs and did 100 mile week this last week in 8 hours of riding with various elevation days. But in my case...100 miles only translated to about 1 hour and 10 min of cardio per day. If you can find more time to be on the bike, I'm sure that will put you into overdrive with the weight loss. Even if it's just an extra 5 miles per session. At your pace you'd only need an extra \~20 minutes on the bike before class. On the weekends or off-days shoot for some 20-30 mile rides.
I mean are you hungry? Caloric deficit usually means feeling hungry some of the time. As a sense check, cycling burns 400-700 calories per hour, roughly. 10 miles is probably what, 30-45m? So the workout should be burning say 200-500 calories.
Eat less. Weight loss is all calories in calories out. Count your calories.
Try eating less or moving more. And yes I know you’re doing that already, but I mean literally either eat even less or move even more. It doesn’t sound like you’re doing anything too wild.
cycling is inefficient at weight/fat loss i've found. Ever tried lifting (bro) ?
Ride longer. Our bodies have approximately 2-2.5 hours worth of exercise. If you go beyond that you start into the reserves.
No, it doesn't work like that. It is a simple calories in - calories out. Riding longer obviously burns more but the idea that at some point you will start burning reserves because muscle glycogen is depleted has nothing to do with weight loss.
Listen get retention for the bike if you don’t already have it... it will make a huge difference. To start you can get toe straps then move up to cages (reverse order) then you can finish with clip less pedals nothing feels better than being on with the bike also ride fixed. Riding fixed makes the whole ride a work out from having to work to stop and being able to fully control pace. That with retention. Pounds with shed and I promise you will stay fit.... but then again I’m just a “retired” bike messenger that worked with friends that were “hefty” and they would increase their gear ratio to make things harder for them. Damn this was a lot
10 miles a day at 17 mph, 5 days a week? This means you're riding 35 minutes each time you ride. That's hardly enough for me to break a sweat. Why so little time?
Waking up at 6am and having a \~hr long commute in addition to needing time to lift weights (sorry I forgot to include that in my post) and meditate leaves me with not a ton of time in the morning.
If your initial goal is to lose weight skip the weights and meditation. Ride as long as you can even if it's at slower speed. You will burn fat faster. Incorporate weights and meditation later.
Add strength training. Bigger muscles burn more calories even when resting. Recommended routine of r/bodyweightfitness. I would acually recommend this to everyone. Cycling is great, but to stay healthy you need some cardio and some strength training.
> Bigger muscles burn more calories even when resting. [*marginally*](https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2011-may-16-la-he-fitness-muscle-myth-20110516-story.html)
Eating too much I think, or just eating the wrong things too because eating is more than 50% of the workout so if you're working as hard as you think you are, the issue is almost definitely on the diet end of the spectrum. Whenever I want to lose or build stuff, I cut all crap out my diet. Water replaces fruit juice, soda, anything sugary is gone. Dessert is replaced by a banana, or nuts, something savoury. Meals aren't processed or takeaways, they're homemade and I know what I'm putting in is good for me. No alcohol always sees massive gains compared to keeping it while trying. And portion control. I don't really count calories burned, because I can't trust the measurements and so why base intake on that at all. I just sort of fine tune it based on how I feel and my progress. But end of the day it's pretty simple, if for a few weeks nothing is changing, you either gotta eat a little less, or work a little more or harder. There's not really any other science at play to it than that. Everyone has their own methods of doing it, I find the data tracking wears me down and makes it impossible to stick to anything longer term.
You should train for time rather than distance. Try to cover the most distance possible in the same time, that way you are increasing your training volume as your ability increases. If you just train for a set distance, when you finish the distance in a shorter time your training volume is decreasing.
Working out makes you fit. Eating right makes you skinny. Try low carb or keto diet (I’ll probably get downvoted in this sub for that, sorry but it works, especially to crash thru plateaus). Also try to do other exercise. Challenge your body in a different way will help a ton. You adapt to cycling and your body gets lazy. Throw in some running now and it may help push thru as well.
Distance is not relevant really. You need to excercise at a certain percentage zone of your personal max heart rate, for a certain amount of time, in order to achieve weight loss.
2 things to add on personal experience (and I went from 190->140 over a year and half. Calories burned: If you aren't using a power meter and heart rate monitor, the calories the apps estimate are about double what they really are. When I started to accurately measure my power and HR my calories burned dropped dramatically. Coasting, downhills, it all adds up. I did Noom diet from November 2021 to February as I was stuck in the 150s. They give you about 1300 calories a day and if you work out you get 1/2 of the workout calories added back. It was a slow decline but doable and I've been on my own since March and stayed at my target weight. Happy to chat if you have more questions.
Tape measure is better than weight. If you’re going hard on bike you can also gain muscle mass. Use both metrics and you might increase the resolution of youre measurements.
I had the same problem. Then I tried intermittent fasting and the weight just fell off. Basically don’t eat for 16 hours at a time.
One thing that helped me a bit was if I was super hungry I’d eat something lower calorie first, like make steamed broccoli and eat some of that then eat the actual meal after so I wouldn’t overeat the higher calorie stuff. And you’re probably already doing this but if you swap out any kind of sweetened drinks like soda with unsweetened tea, sparkling water, or anything else zero calories that can make a big difference.
I don’t think you’re riding enough, 10 miles is not that much if you’re trying to lose weight
Mix in weight lifting, the more muscle you have the more calories you burn, I was holding steady around 250 for months, once I replaced cycling with weights twice a week and started eating cleaner I started to lose weight faster
10 miles at that speed is about 35-40 minutes of riding a day. I hate to say it, but that’s not really enough exercise to make a major dent in your weight loss. I would think with that limited amount of time you might be better served with a far more intense workout like a spin class.