My weight and fitness

[PH]

I find shorter rides (-20 miles) have absolute no weight loss effect.

Something isn’t quite right there, you can’t cycle without burning calories. Of course you’d have been burning some anyway but any difference has to come from somewhere.
Even quite leisurely riding will burn 500 calories an hour, while sitting around not doing much will only burn a couple of hundred. That difference isn’t going to make you suddenly shed tens of kilos, but it is significant enough not to be dismissed, particularly if you’re doing it every day. All else being equal it would lose you around 10kg over a year, the hardest part of that of course is keeping all else equal.

[PH]

Whilst its true an hour of cycling burns around 440 cals, It so easy to eat this amount afterward.

Easy yes, but still with a little discipline possible not to. I find I can do a lot of leisurely cycling without eating any more, 50 - 60 mile rides at 10 - 12 mph are fine on my normal daily diet. But as soon as I start pushing it I become uncomfortably hungry if I don't eat extra.

[AJ101]

That's probably because you're eating the wrong stuff, and because you view uncomfortable hunger as a bad thing, rather than a fantastic process of change if your aim is to lose weight.

I'm sitting on an article that we'll publish around this on Bikesy imminently. I guarantee it will change the way you look at cycling for weightoss.

[SpannerGeek]

Leisure cycling 10-12mph over flat terrain will burn no more calories per hour than walking at a moderate pace. Around 250-300 cals per hour. The old adage still applies, no pain no gain!

[661-Pete]

I find shorter rides (-20 miles) have absolute no weight loss effect.

Something isn’t quite right there, you can’t cycle without burning calories. Of course you’d have been burning some anyway but any difference has to come from somewhere.

I'm inclined to take Spannergeek's line here. The sort of cycling I do (most of it, 1 day per week, 20 miles round trip, fairly level) does not lead to a reduction in my monitored weight. Indeed, I've noticed a correlation going the wrong way: the day after I've done the cycling, my weight shows a slight increase, against the trend.

Nevertheless it's still good to keep up the cycling, even if only at this level. There are more benefits derived from cycling, than just weight loss.

On the other hand, eating a full-blown Xmas dinner (even if vegetarian) certainly does pile on the Kg: +1.5 Kg at today's weigh-in . I shall have to starve myself to get back. Perhaps it was a mistake to have potatoes in both the starter and the main...

[loch eck steve]

When i used to run marathons i was always told to have one long steady run a week , by doing this your body is not working hard enough to burn carbs so actually teaches it to burn fat , which as an energy source we have far more of in our bodies then carbohydrate's , are bodies just don't no how to use it , unless we teach it. Could I suggest by all means do the hilly rides to burn calories and work the heart , but also maybe do some long slow rides , gradually increasing the time out on the bike this way like a marathon runner you should start to burn fat .

[PH]

Leisure cycling 10-12mph over flat terrain will burn no more calories per hour than walking at a moderate pace. Around 250-300 cals per hour. The old adage still applies, no pain no gain!

Where are those figures from? I think you'll find it's that many above base, rather than that many in total which brings it in line with my claim above.
If someone is doing an hour's commute twice a day five times a week and all other things are equal, that is a significant amount of calories burnt.
I don't buy into the no pain, no gain idea, swimming, walking, easy cycling will all burn calories. Even standing at work rather than sitting will burn an additional 500 calories a day! The problem with people using exercise to lose weight is often that they expect too much too soon and if there is any pain it's in the effort to keep all other things equal.

[SpannerGeek]

Leisure cycling 10-12mph over flat terrain will burn no more calories per hour than walking at a moderate pace. Around 250-300 cals per hour. The old adage still applies, no pain no gain!

Where are those figures from? I think you'll find it's that many above base, rather than that many in total which brings it in line with my claim above.
If someone is doing an hour's commute twice a day five times a week and all other things are equal, that is a significant amount of calories burnt.
I don't buy into the no pain, no gain idea, swimming, walking, easy cycling will all burn calories. Even standing at work rather than sitting will burn an additional 500 calories a day! The problem with people using exercise to lose weight is often that they expect too much too soon and if there is any pain it's in the effort to keep all other things equal.

I didn't get them v from a 'Calories burned while cycling' online calculator... Which are fanciful to say the least. I took part in a glasgow university activity trial and had my calorific output scrutinised over a three month period. To burn 500+ real cals per hour you have to be riding at 16-17mph over undulating terrain. I was surpised myself how little energy is expended at 10mph over a flat route.

[SpannerGeek]

One hour sitting reading a book for a 190lb man = 112 cals per hr

One hour walking around on level ground 190lb man = 173 cals per hr

[PH]

I didn't get them v from a 'Calories burned while cycling' online calculator... Which are fanciful to say the least. I took part in a glasgow university activity trial and had my calorific output scrutinised over a three month period. To burn 500+ real cals per hour you have to be riding at 16-17mph over undulating terrain. I was surpised myself how little energy is expended at 10mph over a flat route.

Have you got a reference? All the calculators I've seen put the figure considerably higher than your claim. Also have you taken into account the weight of the OP?
Your original statement still makes no sense to me, the bicycle is indeed a supremely efficient machine, but even so the energy to power it has to come from somewhere.

[SpannerGeek]

The sitting and walking stats from Livestrong.com A very reliable source.

Cycling energy burned from comprehensive longitudinal study published by Glasgow University April 2016

Of which I was a cycling participant

Those online calculator's only tell gullible people what they want to hear!

Burning 250cals/h at low speed over flat terrain is not enough to lose any appreciable weight. That's half a Mars bar!!

No pain, no gain(loss)!

[SpannerGeek]

To put the figures into perspective, it takes a 3500 cal deficit to lose 1lb of fat, so at that rate = 14 hours of leisurely cycling..

And that's if you don't eat that extra half mars bar.

Strict diet and increasing the intensity of your cycling is the simple, if unpalatable answer!

[Bmblbzzz]

Haven't read the whole thread, but: look at any group of non-competitive cyclists. Most of them are overweight, just like the general population. Look at a group of non-competitive runners. Most of them are slim. I do not run...

[Eyebrox]

"SpannerGeek"

"Cycling energy burned from comprehensive longitudinal study published by Glasgow University April 2016

Of which I was a cycling participant."

2015?

[SpannerGeek]

The study is now over, the academic research data will be published in the Spring.