Upped mileage and weight loss has stopped

[paladin]

Hi,

I have been losing weight consistemntly all year until recently.

About 6 weeks ago I really upped my weekly mileage and intensity, from 80-100 km's per week to 160-200 per week.

I also stopped my interval type training, and started riding with someone a LOT fitter and leaner than myself.

The other thing that really changed is that my rides went predominantly from bike track to undulating country roads and very large and long hill (mountain) rides.

HOWEVER, My weight loss has stopped! Yes I have noticed "some" shrinking of the tape measure, but for the amount and work and intensity and mileage, this is a insignificant change. My weight seems to be bouncing off 101kg, and staying with a band or range of 101.5-102.6kg

I have not changed my eating habits and track everything I eat using TWO iphone apps. I am consistently under the calories required to lose the nominated weight by the nominated day.

I was losing between 6.5 and 1 kg per week, until the change in riding habits.


Please help, I amd becoming de-motivated!

All thoughts appreciated.

[twizzle]

Generating more force from in the muscles recruits Type-II muscle fibers, which are predominantly powered by stored glycogen instead of fat... You could try using a higher cadence (less force = more usage of Type-I muscle fiber), or return to your old riding habits.

Five years ago, when I first started riding again, I was losing ~ 1kg/week. Now that I'm really fit & I race, I lose nothing. Strangely, average HR is still about the same... but I have huge legs these days, and it takes a lot of fuel to keep them going.

[hannos]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that your muscle get more efficient at a particular activity the more you use them.
perhaps you should try running and/or swimming as well as your cycling?


I could also be totally and completely wrong.

[Addictr3]

Sounds like you are eating more than you are burning. Its your diet for sure.

[sogood]

A number of possibilities. Bear in mind that,

1) Weight loss is often non-linear. It may stagnate before the next drop off.
2) Muscle is heavier than fat ie. Denser.

What is possible in your case is that you are getting stronger as a rider and is bulking up in muscle mass. Weight is just generic indicator and for your aim, you want to shed fat and lose fat percentage. So falling waist line is a positive sign. If you specifically want to lose weight (i.e. Fat and muscle), then you probably shouldn't focus on high intensity riding but continue on endurance riding.

So don't lose heart! As long as you stay in negative caloric balance, you will lose fat, and more fat.

[r2160]

I have been reading quite a bit about weight loss.

What I have read is that exercise only accounts for up to 20% of your weight loss. The rest has to be by diet. While I can appreciate you tracking what you eat, maybe you arent eating enough.

A friend of mine was 101kg. He has just started a diet and is having 6 meals a day. He has lost 5kg in two weeks. He is eating approximately 1800 calories a day.
I have been eating around 900 calories a day and cannot lose any weight.

It is important to eat enough food. Cutting back on food quite often apparently has the opposite affect.

I will find that out over the next few weeks!

cheers
Glenn

[Mulger bill]

I'm with sogood on this, if the tape measure or a pinch test is shrinking then fat is being lost but muscle mass is increasing.

[wombatK]

If OP is not having a lend of us, I want to know if the opposite applies: if I lower mileage, will my weight loss restart

[sogood]

If OP is not having a lend of us, I want to know if the opposite applies: if I lower mileage, will my weight loss restart

I've been testing that for a while now. Unfortunately the answer is negative.

[Comedian]

Fat burn actually occurs at a lowish HR. It's possible you are now running faster than that. Or eating more because you're hungry.

To loose weight you want to be doing long rides in E2 I'm told.

http://www.cycling-inform.com/heart-rat ... ur-cycling

[toolonglegs]

A friend of mine was 101kg. He has just started a diet and is having 6 meals a day. He has lost 5kg in two weeks. He is eating approximately 1800 calories a day.

If I eat 1800 kcal per day I will lose about 3 kgs in the 1st 2 days ... But it is just the fuel or whatever in stored ( in the liver?) .... If I can then stick to 1800 I lose 1.5 kgs per week... But for it isn't sustainable no matter how I structure meals.

[paladin]

Thanks to all for their considered replies.

Fat burn actually occurs at a lowish HR. It's possible you are now running faster than that. Or eating more because you're hungry.

To loose weight you want to be doing long rides in E2 I'm told.

http://www.cycling-inform.com/heart-rat ... ur-cycling

Comedian, I have looked at older rides and compared to new. It appears I am staying in the "tempo-zone3" zone for the majority of ride (say 76%) compared to previously majority in zone 2.

I am 48 and am using the 220-48 formula, but have adjusted slightly to 182.

Worth investigating further!

Glenn:
Has crossed my mind that I may be eating too much or even not enough. I do seem hungry all the time, but am sticking fairly closely to the Weigh-it-up diet. I do fall off in terms of a bowl of yoghurt every day. but The calorie counts seem to be significantly down each day. Will look at upping calorie intake per day for a week or two and see.

Will go back to basics.
Long slow rides with intervals.
Double check what I am eating, and ensure the deficit each day is not too great as to cause body to starve mode.

Thx again!

[toolonglegs]

Fat burn occures at all levels... Even when you are asleep.

[PawPaw]

Paladin, more intense exercise damages muscle more. This damage needs energy to be repaired, and is the stimulus for muscle hypertrophy, which also needs energy. Higher intensity exercise can stimulate appetite dramatically, more than the additional energy burned beyond a more moderate pace.

As others have said, what is most important though is that you keep burning fat.
However, if the scales motivate you more, then you are better to reduce your exercise intensity. It is actually very stressful on the body's sub systems to do intense exercise on a Calorie deficit. Even though you might be building leg muscles, you are more likely to lose muscle from arms and trunk.

Also keep in mind, many smart phone diet apps do not calculate energy expenditure accurately. They are better at calculating the energy content of food.
Further, there's no room for guestimating food intake and energy expenditure. For the most reliable weight loss, you need accurate measurement of what you put in your mouth and daily energy expenditure. Guestimating usually always underestimates what's going in and overestimates what's going out.

[Mrfenejeans]

Make sure that you just stay at or just below the deficit required for your weight loss, and not eating less than 1200 calories a day (equal to your intake less exercise)

Personally i cant see how distance ridden would stop your weight loss. As long as you are using your exercise to aid your dietary requirements by eating more when you ride more, and not just exercising and dieting, keeping the two separate bringing your calorie deficit way below 1200calories per day.

My only other thought would be how tall are you in reference to your weight? and where does your bodies BMI sit (although the BMI is not 100percent accurate it can be used as a guide).

[eeksll]

how are you weekly distances being split up?

If you where doing 100km a week including your interval training, then dropping the interval training and upped the mileage to 200km. It sounds like you where working harder on your 100km a week vs your new 200km a week regime. Also possible the interval training would have made your body more efficient for the less stressful longer rides (if that is the way you ride the longer rides by comparison).

[clackers]

I have looked at older rides and compared to new. It appears I am staying in the "tempo-zone3" zone for the majority of ride (say 76%) compared to previously majority in zone 2.

I am 48 and am using the 220-48 formula, but have adjusted slightly to 182.

Worth investigating further!

Definitely worth checking, Paladin. Fat provides proportionally less of your calories burned in the higher heart rate zones, mainly because it requires much more oxygen than is available. At the higher zones, even the carbs have to cope with the lack of oxygen by switching over to a new burning mode that unfortunately generates lactic acid as a byproduct, which the body then has to deal with.




Of course, as others have said you might be putting on plenty of muscle. At an AFL club they'd confirm it with a skinfold test. Much more useful than a BMI rating, which would label most top level footy players as obese.

[Abby]

I personally have always found upping my high-intensity sessions is a key to weight loss. If I want to drop a few kilos, I'll add in a few more sessions when I get the heart-rate nice and high and the perceived effort close to red-lining. Works a treat.

But that's just me.

My advice would be not to drop your mileage - just add some intensity back into your program (assuming weight-loss is still your primary goal over performance).

Cheers,
Abby

[sogood]

A graph that is illogical and easily misleads the poorly informed.

Fact is, a joule/calorie is a joule/calorie, doesn't matter how it's used. The only important number is how much energy one burns in total and how much was taken in in total. For the same period of time spent in each HR zone and identical caloric intake, it's a no brainer that the one in the highest intensity zone will burn more and as a result lose more fat. Whether one can sustain for the same time period in the higher intensity zone is a completely separate question.

[Zynster]

It's hard to burn fat if you're eating lots of refined carbs. The body prioritises carb burning. A better strategy is to go low carb, or even fasted before a ride, then keep it slow and in the fat burning zone. You can have some carbs after the ride to replenish glycogen. Low carb is the bomb for losing weight.

[SlowUpHills]

It's hard to burn fat if you're eating lots of refined carbs. The body prioritises carb burning. A better strategy is to go low carb, or even fasted before a ride, then keep it slow and in the fat burning zone. You can have some carbs after the ride to replenish glycogen. Low carb is the bomb for losing weight.

I thought carbs were good for supplying quick food to energy conversion.
Don't you have to have some fuel in the tank at the start, even if it's from the night before?

[Zynster]

It's hard to burn fat if you're eating lots of refined carbs. The body prioritises carb burning. A better strategy is to go low carb, or even fasted before a ride, then keep it slow and in the fat burning zone. You can have some carbs after the ride to replenish glycogen. Low carb is the bomb for losing weight.

I thought carbs were good for supplying quick food to energy conversion.

They are. Which is why you end up burning carbs, not fat, if you are eating carbs.

Don't you have to have some fuel in the tank at the start, even if it's from the night before?

Most people eat carbs most of the time, which means our fat burning engine is mothballed most of the time. The human body can use two fuel sources, carbs or fat. Our fat burning engine is like a slow diesel. It can go all day but at a moderate pace. The carb burning engine is like a turbo engine. You use this when you're sprinting. If you want to lose weight, you need to turn off the carb engine and get the fat burning engine going. The best way to do this is to stop eating carbs, eat more fat, and do lots of slow miles.

Some further reading:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-t ... -marathon/
http://thatpaleoguy.com/2011/12/16/l-ca ... -exercise/

[toolonglegs]

I thought people had got past that fat burning zone myth ... the body doesn't care where it's fuel comes from...it burns what is available easily and at the same time takes it from slower sources depending on effort level.
We don't have a switch in us that say "fat only now" "glycogen only now".
Yes we burn a higher % of fat at a granny pace ...but we burn a hell of a lot more fat in total at higher rates of excercize....
Yes training at granny rate "teaches" your body to metabolize fat better...but only at granny rates,not at higher levels of effort when you might actually need the extra fuel.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/08/ ... one_134214
http://www.livestrong.com/article/33693 ... zone-myth/
http://www.active.com/triathlon/Article ... g-Zone.htm
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/bl ... h-debunked
etc etc etc
Eat a healthy diet with recommended levels of all food groups at the right times of day...if you want to lose weight eat less than you burn,but only a little bit less each day.

[Addictr3]

I thought people had got past that fat burning zone myth ... the body doesn't care where it's fuel comes from...it burns what is available easily and at the same time takes it from slower sources depending on effort level.
We don't have a switch in us that say "fat only now" "glycogen only now".
Yes we burn a higher % of fat at a granny pace ...but we burn a hell of a lot more fat in total at higher rates of excercize....
Yes training at granny rate "teaches" your body to metabolize fat better...but only at granny rates,not at higher levels of effort when you might actually need the extra fuel.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/08/ ... one_134214
http://www.livestrong.com/article/33693 ... zone-myth/
http://www.active.com/triathlon/Article ... g-Zone.htm
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/bl ... h-debunked
etc etc etc
Eat a healthy diet with recommended levels of all food groups at the right times of day...if you want to lose weight eat less than you burn,but only a little bit less each day.

This x2.

People always want a fast way to LOSE fat. listen, it takes just as much time to PUT on weight as it does to lose it, without considering water bloat (e.g. putting on weight after a big meal etc)

Simple fact is; work out your macros, work out your NEAT (how much you burn without any exercise) and then eat for weight gain/loss. Pretty simple. Not hard.

Carbs dont stop fat burning, Fat doesnt make you fat and try hit your required protein.

[Mrfenejeans]

+1 Addictr3

In losing my 32 kilos this year (sorry bout the self indulgence) I never once worried about being specific to not eating carbs or not eating this that or the other, I cringe at the thought. I just concentrat/ed on meeting my days goal, eating what I felt like eating to accommodate said goal, and having a few beers.

My biggest concern while upping my intensity/ distance was to eat foods before and during cycling that would provide the energy required to sustain fitness and concentration, not how much weight I'd lose.