cubewheels

It's an acquired taste. They never get tasting as good as bacon cheeseburger, you may hate them at first but eventually, they taste just fine. You won't over-eat with those because they're not as artificially good tasting as junk food or food additives laced with chemical to get you addicted to eating.

Give it time for your body and taste buds to adapt, cut back on TV (television) with all that brainwashing that you need delicious foods to be happy. Eventually, you won't be craving for good-tasting foods anymore.

The food and healthcare industry only wants one thing to get you hooked on food. It's good for their business if you over-consume and get sick. That's all they care about and it usually contradicts goals to lose weight and to live long with zero healthcare expense.

Drew Eckhardt 

Low intensity which is forced by enough time riding. I lost over 60 pounds that way without being hungry.

That produces appetite suppressing peptide YY and doesn't deplete your glycogen stores as much leading to hunger.

Working out past your anaerobic threshold reduces hunger stimulating ghrelin production, but is too limited - you can't do that every day, and probably can't accumulate more than 30 minutes total. Instead you end up working somewhat hard which produces what runners call "runger" because you've depleted your glycogen stores without increasing peptide YY or decreasing ghrelin.

If you could ignore hunger you wouldn't be asking about weight loss.

Rob Gray's test results from the Wattage list, with FTP around 300W.

Iride01

I think you summed up what I couldn't. If the goal of riding is to lose weight, then just ride low intensity. I've always felt that high effort increased my hunger. I have a lot of trouble trying to ride low effort. Every climb, no matter the change of elevation or grade is a challenge for me. So I fail at trying to stay low intensity on short rides.

Longer rides wear me out of some of that energy. And I find that I can stay low effort for a longer percentage of my ride. And therefore I don't eat back the Calories I just rode off.

Carbonfiberboy 

Yes. I'm surprised by my weight loss from this low intensity regimen I've been doing. It's December, and I haven't been this weight since 2 summers ago. I consume maybe 75 calories (or less) in 2 hours and am not particularly hungry afterward or later. I have a apple.

Outdoors, I've been just staring at my stem and gearing down to keep my watts at least close to my supposed goal. Stupid low gears on shallow hills, no pride at all. I'll wind up with average watts below goal because descents. OTOH, that means I can stay out longer because of small partial rests.

BritishV8

Weight loss hasn't been top priority for me... instead I've been focused on getting stronger and faster in hilly terrain. My strategy has simply been to ride faster on hills, more often. For me, it's a happy coincidence that losing weight and climbing faster go hand-in-hand. Happily, I've lost 18 pounds since March (from ~196 to ~178) without any deliberate dietary change. If anything, I'm probably eating more than before - I enjoy eating well! - though my consumption of beer is probably down by several bottles/week.

My advice is this: whatever your goal is - and also whatever path you pursue for reaching that goal - you'll probably get best results by continuously measuring and recording inputs and outputs. What specifically should YOU measure? Choose what you like! Because (seemingly magically) whether you log your weight, count Calories, count Weight Watcher points, or count beers and snacks... logging any of these or any other related metrics will help you keep focused on your goal and committed to improvement.

In my case, I use Strava obsessively to track many aspects of performance. Leaderboards and personal records motivate me to push harder on segments... including specific hills. But yearly progression statistics are also very interesting to me. I get those from the excellent "Elevate" browser extension for Strava. So, it's convenient for me to tell you that so far this year I've averaged 4.35 rides/week, 22.55 miles/ride, 1386 feet of elevation gain per ride. I've only averaged 13.71mph, but I can tell from segment times that I'm certainly getting faster on hills.

Good luck!

Richard Cranium

The post demonstrates a limited understanding of exercise as well as metabolism.

The best exercise strategy for annacaptur is the exercise he/she will continue to practice. Hopefully that could include many kinds of bike rides.

mr_pedro

The OP posted 10 questions in 10 different sub forums, just to reach the target of 10 posts before he could post a link to whatever he was advertising. He also never came back after his original question here.

It is fun to see how the thread moves on. I guess it is OK as long as everyone is having fun, just don’t expect much interaction with the OP.

cubewheels

My riding lately has changed to alternating days of plenty steep hills and fast flat cruises with long steep climbs in the middle.

I'm now eating 5 meals a day. I don't track my calories but the amount of food I'm eating/day is now starting to hurt my wallet and I cook most of the food I eat!

Despite all that large intake of food, my weight held for 119 lbs for many weeks now.

I can say for myself that fast and hard (with 1.5 to 2 hr daily rides) so far has been incredible for weight loss despite increasing my food intake!

srode1

The problem with charts like this is the represent the calorie burn during the work and don't consider the afterburn, so they are misleading to some extent

Drew Eckhardt 

Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consumption and the accompanying glycolysis totals 6-15% of that during exercise.

Regardless, it's not enough to offset the increased food consumption from "runger."

srode1

yep, can't out work a bad diet for sure. Looking at a single chart for a specific workout can still be misleading vs looking at a longer term impact of the choice between an endurance vs HIIT session approach to weight loss. What is the impact on a person's metabolism and muscle mass as an example as well as endurance to more easily perform at higher intensity and burn more calories within a person'ts time constraints for exercise (which is the real world for most people). Definitely need to look at the whole picture including exercise choices along with dietary choices.

DaveLeeNC

This is just me - not everybody is like this. But for most of my adult life I have been at (roughly) my right weight or I have been 30-50 pounds overweight. There have been 3 extended periods ( multiple years) where I did serious exercise. I am talking like running (7 minute miles) 50 miles per week, or riding a bike 150-200+ miles per week. And then there have been 3 extended periods where I did not do those things,.

Without exception when I was not exercising I was (or was getting) fat. When I was exercising I was losing weight or was not fat. That is my personal equation. It probably does not work for everyone as I find lots of exercise easy and diet control hard. But this is not 'go for a casual spin on the bike' type exercise.

Back to the topic - burn 800-1000 calories a day at whatever level of effort works for me. I cannot speak for others.

dave

caloso

I’d also like to see how someone can can ride at 105% of FTP for an hour. The far right bar may as well be infinite.

DaveLeeNC

Per Training Peaks

Lactate Threshold (LT) is also referred to simply as threshold. Lactate Threshold Power is also referred to as functional threshold power (FTP). For most trained athletes this is similar to the maximum effort they can maintain for an hour.

So ftp is actually a lab measured metabolic thing and the 'one hour max steady effort' measure is an approximation. So some folks probably can do 105% of their actual ftp for an hour.

dave

gregf83 

The original point of FTP was that it was a relatively simple measurement to make in the field. It was never a lab based metabolic measurement. I don't think there has ever been a definition of FTP that would support riding at 105% for an hour. People that ride over 100% for an hour simply have their FTP set too low which is not uncommon as FTP is not constant over time.

mr_pedro

The fact that the vertical axis is labeled Cal per hour does not mean you have to ride for 1 hour. Just like you can ride at 20 mph during 30 minutes.

mr_pedro

I think the point that was being made is that the 1 hour point is not in the definition and some genetic freak might be able to do it. But I agree it is very unlikely because if FTP>1hr, then the part between 1hr and FTP TTE is not that steep.

This article explains how you could define FTP:https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/t...ing-protocols/

It is the point on the power curve when power suddenly starts to drop much faster, after it drops slowly from say 20min onwards.

DaveLeeNC

I believe that it was originally a lab based thing (the point at which you start to accumulate significant bloodstream lactate). The field measurements are a way to do this determination in the field without a lab. I have no idea how different they might be in some cases. And I agree that 5% more power (as opposed to 5% longer) is a big step. dave

asgelle

The article explains how you can measure FTP, not define it. There's a big difference.

asgelle

You are incorrect. There are many lab-based metrics for when someone exceeds a quasi-steady state (lactate threshold, anaerobic threshold MLSS, OBLA, etc.). FTP was introduced as a simple field-based metric to replace the need for lab testing. I was there when it happened.

mr_pedro

In the article it is mentioned that FTP is defined as the power at MLSS. It is also the highest intensity for which no anaerobic power is used.

DaveLeeNC

I do believe that we just said the same thing. dave

asgelle

Really?
FTP was never lab-based.

DaveLeeNC

[QUOTE=asgelle;21841418]Really?

FTP was never lab-based.[/QUOTE

I did not say that. It referred to whatever threshold (lab based or field based) you were using as a fundamental parameter of your training at that time.

Here is an interesting question. Assume the impossible where someone came up with a thermometer that would measure in 20 seconds either your ftp or your LT (precise definition of your choice). Which would be the better metric on which to base your training in the manner that we do today with power meters and ftp? I truly do not have an opinion - at least for well trained athletes.

dave

asgelle

Others with a stronger background in physiology or coaching can correct me, but my view is since FTP is a field-based surrogate for MLSS, if you had a way to quickly and accurately measure MLSS, it wouldn't make sense to use FTP. I'd add that whether MLSS is the best marker to use or not depends on what you plan to do with the information.

As for me, I shy away from using any single point metric and prefer to look at the full power-duration curve.