Cycling UK Forum

I find that on a cycle tour my appetite is somewhat depressed, which seems weird. I find it difficult to eat as healthily as at home too. I enjoy sampling local bakery goods as much as the next cyclist! But I generally lose a bit of weight on tour.

I was the same until I got to about 30. I was 10.5 stone and ate like a horse. Now I'm averaging 1600 cals per day (maintenance not doing any exercise is 2100) and it's tough to lose it. I've been dieting for more than 2 months and have lost maybe 8 pounds, if that. It's all the wine! I can easily drink the same amount of calories of wine as I am currently eating in a day. 1100 cals of food, but then 1100 cals of wine.

Cycling would naturally encourage more eating but overeating is all down to the person to keep a close eye on. I've had days where I went out on half a bag of crisps (like 13g of crisps, around 50 calories) and done a long bike ride.

Times I have lost weight, was when I wasn't even trying to or aware I was.

Given that an average glass of 12% ABV wine is around 158kCal, you need to be drinking 7 glasses of that to reach 1100kCal. Around half the guideline weekly maximum in just 1 day.

Cycling definitely makes me hungry. I've found that if I eat a protein snack afterwards rather than carbohydrates it helps to prevent me from overeating 'empty' calories. The protein snack can be a chunk of cheese. It seems counterintuitive that cheese high in protein and fat would help to keep a healthy weight. There is science to back it up. Protein meals do signal to the brain satiety centre to reduce hunger and the desire to eat. Crisps are amongst the worst ultra processed foods (UPFs) because the added chemical flavourings are indicating a nutritious protein packed treat but all the gut receives is a soggy salty ball of starch. Taste and smell may be fooled but the gut isn't and it signals the brain accordingly leading to more consumption. These UPFs are engineered to create a craving for more. It's a cynical ploy by the food manufacturers. A give away that it's a UPF is on the label - if the ingredients contains substances that you won't find in a home kitchen (gums, emulsifiers, flavour enhancers etc) it's a UPF. Many store bought sandwiches are stuffed with these. Don't be fooled, eat unprocessed nutritious food after cycling to help maintain a healthy weight.

**Edited 14/5/24 to replace the term 'Highly Processed Food' with 'Ultra Processed Food'

Good advice about HPFs, there's a lot of dirty calories in foods we think are 'healthy' I just admit to a craving for crisps now and again, but I'm weaning myself off them

What is the difference between HPGs and UPFs? Lot of talk these days about health impacts of UPFs but never come across HPFs. Difference in degree? or something more fundamental?

Ian

Nearholmer wrote: ↑12 May 2024, 6:13pm Of course it’s true that weight is governed by energy in vs energy out, but I don’t read the question to be about that, I read it to be about whether cycling encourages over-eating, put another way does it lead to a tendency to take in more energy than one burns?

I have a feeling that, under some circumstances it can, and I think those circumstances might be when you make calls on the body’s energy stores that it is unused to.

The first thing I noticed when I started “proper bike rides” again after nearly three decades of short commutes, family rides and the odd jaunt, was that it made me insanely hungry, tempting me to eat way in excess of energy burned. After a bit, that settled down, balance was achieved, but I do notice that if I have a prolonged period of very little cycling, then go up again to a decent amount, the same thing happens. Once “back into it”, my food intake returns to its ordinary level, and I then slowly loose weight: a good weight for me is 75kg, which goes up slowly 78kg if I’m lazy, and down slowly to 73kg if I’m very active.

I think it can but as others have said it maybe entirely individual thing. there are always people who take up cycling and claim to lose tens of kilos very quickly

but I know when I first shifted from just pottering about on a bike to much longer endurance riding, Id get home after a ride feeling absolutely famished and binge my way through the fridge, and ended up gaining weight for months till I managed to curb the hunger post ride and got some balance back.

I was told it was because my body was used to a certain level of calorie intake & not burning through them so quickly, but with the increased cycling whilst I wasnt in actual calorie deficit, even if I was burning more calories, my body was trying to restore its own calorie equilibrium it was used to, which meant I ate more than I needed, hence the weight gain.

once Id also started fuelling properly on rides, fasted rides really just postpone you eating more later ime & drinking enough water, the weight started to come down but very slowly, and I have to keep ontop of it in terms of how many miles vs how much Im eating as if the mileage drops, the weight goes back up very quickly.

literally the easiest way to lose weight, other than dont eat junk all the time, is just eat smaller portions.

Audax67 wrote: ↑9 May 2024, 5:26pm I'd say yes, especially when you get home. The good feed is a reward, and you just have to put back all that energy you've used.

That's eating, not overeating...

Pete.

LittleGreyCat wrote: ↑12 May 2024, 6:41pm Possibly one thing to note is that muscle efficiency is likely to increase as you increase the amount of exercise, and so you can do more miles/hours on the same amount of food.

Allegedly...

It's a few years since I studied this. But TTBOMK training doesn't increase muscle efficiency. It may increase muscle size, blood flow, oxygen use, maximum force and maximum power.

Jonathan

Psamathe wrote: ↑13 May 2024, 7:53pm What is the difference between HPGs and UPFs? Lot of talk these days about health impacts of UPFs but never come across HPFs. Difference in degree? or something more fundamental?

The various systems of classification:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-pro ... efinitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification

(I expect these to change as we work out what causes what.)

Jonathan

Why would it ?????

Jdsk wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 1:06pm

Psamathe wrote: ↑13 May 2024, 7:53pm What is the difference between HPGs and UPFs? Lot of talk these days about health impacts of UPFs but never come across HPFs. Difference in degree? or something more fundamental?

The various systems of classification:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-pro ... efinitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification

(I expect these to change as we work out what causes what.)

Jonathan

I should have used UPF as the term. Apologies for the confusion.

Pinhead wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 1:28pm Why would it ?????

Generally systems of classification will be designed to be useful. Already the simplistic UPF classification is proving to be misleading eg UPFs are bad, higher consumption of UPF was associated with a higher risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases. Except research (2023) is now showing vegetarian & vewgan UFPs do not show a similar effect. So the UPF classification could mislead some people.

Ian

Psamathe wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 1:41pm

Pinhead wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 1:28pm Why would it ?????

Generally systems of classification will be designed to be useful. Already the simplistic UPF classification is proving to be misleading eg UPFs are bad, higher consumption of UPF was associated with a higher risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases. Except research (2023) is now showing vegetarian & vewgan UFPs do not show a similar effect. So the UPF classification could mislead some people.

Ian

Interesting. Do you have a link to the paper? I'm speculating that maybe UPFs are still bad but a vegetarian/vegan diet is protective against their harmful effects?

Psamathe wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 1:41pm

Pinhead wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 1:28pm Why would it ?????

Generally systems of classification will be designed to be useful. Already the simplistic UPF classification is proving to be misleading eg UPFs are bad, higher consumption of UPF was associated with a higher risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases. Except research (2023) is now showing vegetarian & vewgan UFPs do not show a similar effect. So the UPF classification could mislead some people.

Ian

If that was the paper in the Lancet it's worth noting that the data they used was I believe about 20 years old. Looking around the supermarket now at the available UPF vegetarian and vegan products I wonder if that still holds true.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lane ... 4/fulltext

Cyclothesist wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 1:47pm

Psamathe wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 1:41pm

Pinhead wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 1:28pm Why would it ?????

Generally systems of classification will be designed to be useful. Already the simplistic UPF classification is proving to be misleading eg UPFs are bad, higher consumption of UPF was associated with a higher risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases. Except research (2023) is now showing vegetarian & vewgan UFPs do not show a similar effect. So the UPF classification could mislead some people.

Interesting. Do you have a link to the paper? I'm speculating that maybe UPFs are still bad but a vegetarian/vegan diet is protective against their harmful effects?

Possibly:

"Consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases: a multinational cohort study":
Cordova et al 2023
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100771

Jonathan

Edited: Crossed post.