Peter Hitchens on cycling and weight loss

[thelawnet]

https://thelampmagazine.com/2022/04/21/ ... -on-paper/

He is quite right of course. I have cycled more and been fatter, and less and been slimmer, but there isn't a great correlation between cycling and weight loss.

[Jdsk]

From a previous thread:

Exercise with dietary change is probably more effective than dietary change alone for losing weight.

eg Cochrane Systematic Review: "Exercise for overweight or obesity":
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/do ... .pub3/full

But taking more exercise would be good for most people anyway.

viewtopic.php?t=147763

Jonathan

[axel_knutt]

there isn't a great correlation between cycling and weight loss.

There is a great correlation between cycling (and other exercise), and calories burnt by the body.
In addition to the data from the ACSM Compendium of Physical Activities, I have my own personal data from recording daily exercise hours, calorie intake, and weight for the last 20 years. Here's my data with the ACSM data superimposed on it:

Not a bad fit really, for a bit of home science.

Exercise with dietary change is probably more effective than dietary change alone for losing weight.

This is my experience from collecting my own data for two decades.

If you do little or no exercise, and you cut your calorie intake, your body is presented with two choices, one of which is to burn fat in order to make up the deficit, in which case you lose weight. The other is to say "well, if he's not exercising much, I can conserve energy to better survive the famine by reducing his metabolic rate to match the new lower calorie intake".

In my experience, it's the latter that happens. You reduce calorie intake and you lose weight at first, but within 4-5 days the weight loss stops, and you start feeling cold and lethargic, which is a motive to reduce whatever limited activity you are doing, and then you start gaining weight instead of losing it. At this point the whole cycle can repeat again and again, and you either descend into a downward spiral, or an alternate fast-feed cycle. This experience seems to fit well with the complaints I hear from frustrated dieters.

The escape from this vicious cycle is exercise that demonstrates to your body that you need all the energy that its metabolising so that it won't be tempted to reduce metabolic rate, but it needs to be short duration, medium-high intensity, low intensity exercise just doesn't seem to curb the body's drive to save energy. Since my health has prevented me from doing anything but very low intensity exercise over the last 10 years, I've struggled to avoid weight gain, and gone up from 69kg to 79kg.

[mattheus]

There is also the bigger picture: weight (or even fat weight) is not the only major influence on good health.

Regular exercise fixes a lot of problems (or prevents them), and it generally won't make you fatter.

[sussex cyclist]

That’s a great piece, thanks for posting it.

Exercise, I can testify, does not make you slim. It only makes you less unfit.

Amen.

[horizon]

I think it is generally known and agreed that you cannot work/cycle weight off. AIUI, those people in the past who did manual jobs were thin because food was scarce and expensive.

The upside of this is that a few calories will allow you to do a lot of things, like exercise. If we really did burn off calories that easily, we would spend our days eating. Thank goodness a small amount of food goes a long way! In fact, (again AIUI) if you remove meat and processed food from your diet, you really will have to spend a lot more time eating (and preparing) to get the calories you need.

[simonineaston]

I'm sure there's a simple correlation between the efficiency of the cycle as a machine and the way that weight loss might be achieved. In fact, I'd venture to suggest that it involves just fairly straightforward sums. It's well-known that the bicycle is quite an effective way to convert energy into forward motion. So, it must follow that using the machine as part of a regime to lose weight, whatever that means, is likely to require a great deal of time & effort.
Thinking harder about the very general term, we might arrive at some more detailed conclusions, such as wanting to exchange fat for muscle or reducing waist measurement, or simply "losing a few pounds", however, to make the unconnected leap to assuming that riding a bike for a few miles each day is going to help with any of those specific aims is almost certainly a step too far.
I recall a colleague years ago who rode a heavy 3 speed shopper to and fro' our place of work - Northwick Park Hospital, in Harrow - "Why not buy a nicer bike?" I asked, to which he replied, "Not going to get much exercise out of a nice bike, am I?" (I paraphrase...)

[Dingdong]

I've rarely lost weight by cycling alone. It's always been a combination of watching what types of did b eat and avoiding the usual suspects.

[Nearholmer]

This is very well worth watching https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0KpxLSC1esI

(The guy ‘presenting’ is a bit amateurish at doing that, but the guy he interviews is seriously worth listening to and he gets into hard-core cycling later)

My personal experience is that cycling makes me very hungry, and I have to be a bit careful to avoid troughing any old junk to compensate. No coincidence that cafes are full of cyclists eating cakes!

[thelawnet]

I'm sure there's a simple correlation between the efficiency of the cycle as a machine and the way that weight loss might be achieved. In fact, I'd venture to suggest that it involves just fairly straightforward sums. It's well-known that the bicycle is quite an effective way to convert energy into forward motion. So, it must follow that using the machine as part of a regime to lose weight, whatever that means, is likely to require a great deal of time & effort.

Don't think that is right.

Cycling's efficiency means you get somewhere fast, cf. say running.

Probably running burns slightly more calories per hour, but otoh you can cycle all day much easier than you can run.
Of course if you are cycling to work you might not be trying very hard, if you don't want to arrive in a sticky mess.

I think it is more about exercise 'in general'. In general, you need to do a rather large amount of it, which most people don't have time for. And in practice, if you for example cycle once a week on Sunday with a coffee and lunch break, and eat and drink too much the other six days, then you're not making much impact.

I have cycled every day for 1-2 hours and not seen in any weight loss, and also cycled much less and lost weight. latter due to lack of food, former while eating lots of it

[Sweep]

As implied upthread, watch what you eat and cycle a bit (1 hr to 1.5 hours) low intensity most days.
We've all done those tough long day rides followed by a "reward" in front of the telly, alcohol/food/snacks which almost certainly have significantly more calories than you could possibly have burned on the ride.

(and of course you will almost certainly have been fuelling on the ride anyway to avoid the bonk)

(oh - and don't wear those down jackets/portable sleeping bags in the street - better to walk a bit cold and burn off some energy to warm you up)

[Pebble]

I think the body is just programmed to desire at least a 1000 calories per day than you burn, exercise just makes you more hungry. The only way I can keep my weight down is to not eat everything I see at every opportunity.

I have been calorie counting now for nearly two years and I know if I can keep my average below 3500 per day my weight is good. My average 130 mile per week riding allows me this extra 1000 calories per day ( recommended 2500kCal per day for men) but this extra food is just lost in my near permanent state of being hungry. I think I am only ever truly satisfied on days I consume 6000 calories.

If cycling does have an impact on diet it is only that food tastes better than ever.

[Sweep]

I think the body is just programmed to desire at least a 1000 calories per day than you burn, exercise just makes you more hungry. The only way I can keep my weight down is to not eat everything I see at every opportunity.

I have been calorie counting now for nearly two years and I know if I can keep my average below 3500 per day my weight is good. My average 130 mile per week riding allows me this extra 1000 calories per day ( recommended 2500kCal per day for men) but this extra food is just lost in my near permanent state of being hungry. I think I am only ever truly satisfied on days I consume 6000 calories.

If cycling does have an impact on diet it is only that food tastes better than ever.

a tad surprised that you can eat an extra 1,000 calories a day even with that cycling and not gain weight.
I did lose some weight a few years ago using the myfitnesspal app and trying to calorie count to 1,500 calories a day with some moderate cycling each day.
It did work and I can recommend the app.
One thing it did highlight to me - as simon says - cycling is damn efficient - even with the hills round my way I don't think I was burning off that many calories though it did help.
I was probably actually taking in a bit more than 1,500 a day - hard to count exactly - but a good aim.

[pwa]

As someone who has always been a bit overweight, without being obese, I have never found that increasing cycle mileage leads to weight loss. My feeling is that the more I exercise, the more I eat. If I had the self-discipline to cycle more but without eating more, I expect the weight would come down. If anyone asked me for weight loss advice, I'd say go and ask someone who has had more success with this. But then I would add that in terms of priority, diet control probably comes before exercise. For weight loss. For fitness, a good level of exercise is always advisable.

[Nearholmer]

It’s worth being very wary of the “men need 2500kcal each day” thing too.

Just out of curiosity, I monitored my calorie burn on ‘non cycling’ days by using a Fitbit watch for a while, and assuming it to be accurate if demonstrated that c2500kcal amounts to a pretty busy/active day. When I was working full time and commuting I did get through that, like wise of at home on a busy day, or on a day out, but have an easy day, go to the cinema, spend s couple of hours driving somewhere and ….. far less energy burned. I reckon an easy day only uses 1500-1800.