How many calories does road cycling burn?

[tuxbailey]

I did a ride this afternoon and the stats are as follow:

Male, 48 years old. 193 lbs, 5 ft 8".

Distance: 19.6 miles
Speed/Effort: Moderate, 12-14 mph. (actual avg speed is 12.9 mph.)
Time: 1 hr 30 mins.

According to various online calculator, including the one in my food tracking app, this event burned about 900 calories.

Does that look accurate? That seems very high to me. If that is the case then I am surprised that everyone who are trying to lose weight doesn't pick up cycling. That is like one meal worth in calories.

[Black Dog]

I did a ride this afternoon and the stats are as follow:

Male, 48 years old. 193 lbs, 5 ft 8".

Distance: 19.6 miles
Speed/Effort: Moderate, 12-14 mph. (actual avg speed is 12.9 mph.)
Time: 1 hr 30 mins.

According to various online calculator, including the one in my food tracking app, this event burned about 900 calories.

Does that look accurate? That seems very high to me. If that is the case then I am surprised that everyone who are trying to lose weight doesn't pick up cycling. That is like one meal worth in calories.

Unless there was a ton of climbing or a very stiff headwind the number is high.

[zzy]

Measure with a power meter. Anything else is a guess.

[Mark McM]

Unless there was a ton of climbing or a very stiff headwind the number is high.

Ditto. Most 'calorie burn estimators' are wildly inaccurate, and tend to over-estimate calories burned. There are too many variables that these estimators can't account for.

[wallymann]

Measure with a power meter. Anything else is a guess.

maybe so, but to burn 900 calories in 90 minutes on a road bike you'd need to be going faster than 12-14mph.

maybe 900 kcal estimate includes the human metabolic burn just living in addition to the exercise?

[John H.]

I would say 400-500 if you keep pressure on the pedals most of the time.

Do you have a smart trainer or have access to one? If so, ride the trainer at same effort for one hour and look to see the metric KJ. It will be pretty close to calories expended.

[BobbyJones]

General rule of thumb if you're trying to monitor your weight using burn estimations and calorie counting: Cut the estimate in half and see where you are in a month. Adjust as necessary.

[kppolich]

maybe so, but to burn 900 calories in 90 minutes on a road bike you'd need to be going faster than 12-14mph.

maybe 900 kcal estimate includes the human metabolic burn just living in addition to the exercise?

This statement about 'faster' is incorrect.

12-14mph on a 10% climb requires more power, and therefore calories than 12-14mph on flats.

Powermeter will tell you exactly how many kJ of total work you put in.

[Dekonick]

Judging the time, distance, speed and lay of the land (Howard County - I am guessing) there were probably rolling hills if out west, and potentially good climbs in Ellicott City. With an average of 12-14, I am guessing Ellicott City. Am I right?

Bonnie Branch is one of my favorite climbs... steady 8% +/- 2 miles. Illchester right next to it to descend and repeat the 8% climb... great loop. If you want to puke, you can climb Illchester...

[tuxbailey]

Judging the time, distance, speed and lay of the land (Howard County - I am guessing) there were probably rolling hills if out west, and potentially good climbs in Ellicott City. With an average of 12-14, I am guessing Ellicott City. Am I right?

Bonnie Branch is one of my favorite climbs... steady 8% +/- 2 miles. Illchester right next to it to descend and repeat the 8% climb... great loop. If you want to puke, you can climb Illchester...

haha. Close. Landings to Ilchester and then headed out to Lake Elkhorn and then back.

Yes the ride does include about 975 feet of climbing in that 90 minutes.

[tuxbailey]

I would say 400-500 if you keep pressure on the pedals most of the time.

Do you have a smart trainer or have access to one? If so, ride the trainer at same effort for one hour and look to see the metric KJ. It will be pretty close to calories expended.

Good suggestion. I do have a Wahoo Kickr. Need to do that except I can't coast....

[giordana93]

the answer is always the same for me: not enough

seriously though, I know too many people who spend easily over 10-12 hours a week riding pretty hard who still can't get rid of the gut and it just seems to get worse with age, so any diet/exercise plan has to rely on some portion control. It would be nice to have some easy calorie intake/output calculus but there's just too much individual variance to be very precise

[tuxbailey]

the answer is always the same for me: not enough

seriously though, I know too many people who spend easily over 10-12 hours a week riding pretty hard who still can't get rid of the gut and it just seems to get worse with age, so any diet/exercise plan has to rely on some portion control. It would be nice to have some easy calorie intake/output calculus but there's just too much individual variance to be very precise

That is definitely true.

I have lost about 20 lbs since the new year but it was not from exercise. Intermittent fasting plus calorie monitoring seems to be doing the trick.

I have gotten used to drinking black coffee in the morning and I was a latte guy before.

[echappist]

Measure with a power meter. Anything else is a guess.

This

Yes, I know some will say, "you have to account for metabolic efficiency". But most fall within a narrow range (21-24%), which means that work output is a very good proxy for caloric expenditure

[rnhood]

19 miles at 12.9 mph average... you should try riding a bike, you'll get more exercise.

[mhespenheide]

I suspect that it's not an easy question to answer, in part because it depends on your own efficiency (for lack of a better word) on the bike.

I don't know how to explain that in scientific/medical/nutritionist/physiologist terms, but I've been riding since '87 or so. One of my coworkers is about my height and weight and I suspect general fitness, but he's been a runner for decades and is only just now picking up cycling. He spends way more effort than I do at a given pace. I strongly suspect that has to play into the calories that we each burn over a given amount of time.

I know that this has been studied for runners, c.f. "running economy". I'm not familiar with any similar studies among cyclists.

[nmrt]

tell that to kipchoge running a marathon at 13 mph. ;)

19 miles at 12.9 mph average... you should try riding a bike, you'll get more exercise.

[tuxbailey]

19 miles at 12.9 mph average... you should try riding a bike, you'll get more exercise.

Yeah, woes to be middle age, overweight, and out of shape. Thanks for the encouragement /s

[giordana93]

19 miles at 12.9 mph average... you should try riding a bike, you'll get more exercise.

*** is that supposed to mean?

[tuxbailey]

*** is that supposed to mean?

Well, can't blame the comment since the stats were quite awful :banana:

[rccardr]

On a trainer/spin bike with readouts, perspiring freely and copiously and averaging about 165 watts, I burn an average of about 10 calories per minute, or 600 per hour.

But there's no freewheeling on a spin/trainer, so I figure maybe 450 per hour on a bike at 16 mph on a hilly ride unless it's hours of uphill like Skyline or Thunder Ridge.

[Louis]

The number I remember is ~10 calories / minute.

Less if you're going pretty slow on flat ground, more if you're going faster or climbing.

[Jef58]

I think monitoring heart rate would be good, and help with the calorie estimate.

[R3awak3n]

Well, can't blame the comment since the stats were quite awful :banana:

still a dick comment and how did he know you didn't climb 5k in 19 miles?

[LouDeeter]

I'm happy to get out the door to ride, any distance, any average. 12.9 average is a good pace, better than sitting on the couch for sure, particularly considering slowing for intersections and such. 90 minutes of exercise is good for the body and the brain. Keep at it. As for as caloric burn, I used to use 600 calories per hour unless I was going really slow or really fast, so I don't think that is far off. As I age, I have dialed the estimate down a bit and don't watch the calories as much as I do how I feel, what I eat, and what the scale shows. I've used 3500 calories per pound of fat too, although someone once told me that for every pound of fat you lose, you also lose a mile of blood vessels and a small amount of blood needed for that fat, so there is a small extra bonus.

[tuxbailey]

I'm happy to get out the door to ride, any distance, any average. 12.9 average is a good pace, better than sitting on the couch for sure, particularly considering slowing for intersections and such. 90 minutes of exercise is good for the body and the brain. Keep at it. As for as caloric burn, I used to use 600 calories per hour unless I was going really slow or really fast, so I don't think that is far off. As I age, I have dialed the estimate down a bit and don't watch the calories as much as I do how I feel, what I eat, and what the scale shows. I've used 3500 calories per pound of fat too, although someone once told me that for every pound of fat you lose, you also lose a mile of blood vessels and a small amount of blood needed for that fat, so there is a small extra bonus.

Come to think of it, 600 cal per hour or 10 cal per minute is not a bad estimate. If I pedal at 70 rpm for one minute burning 10 cal each minute doesn't seem unreasonable.

[dgauthier]

Trying to calculate expended calories is kinda complicated without some kind of measurement device (ie: powermeter).

I remember I initially lost about 2 lbs each week riding 130 miles a week. This gradually tapered off until I reached 193, at which point I dropped no further.

Clearly, I became so fit I stopped expending any calories at all! ;)

If one cycles without losing weight, what is one trying to discover by counting calories? If one eventually stops losing weight while cycling, does that mean cycling has no weight loss benefit? Perhaps there's more than one thing going on...

[echappist]

I suspect that it's not an easy question to answer, in part because it depends on your own efficiency (for lack of a better word) on the bike.

I don't know how to explain that in scientific/medical/nutritionist/physiologist terms, but I've been riding since '87 or so. One of my coworkers is about my height and weight and I suspect general fitness, but he's been a runner for decades and is only just now picking up cycling. He spends way more effort than I do at a given pace. I strongly suspect that has to play into the calories that we each burn over a given amount of time.

I know that this has been studied for runners, c.f. "running economy". I'm not familiar with any similar studies among cyclists.

running economy (a measurement of biomechanical efficiency) is not the same as metabolic efficiency (mentioned upthread, which is a measurement of energy produced over fuel burned). The latter has a narrow range, which, coupled with known work output, gives a fairly narrow range for energy burned.

Well, can't blame the comment since the stats were quite awful :banana:

still uncalled for. IIRC, aren't you coming back from a rather horrific crash?

[XXtwindad]

I did a ride this afternoon and the stats are as follow:

Male, 48 years old. 193 lbs, 5 ft 8".

Distance: 19.6 miles
Speed/Effort: Moderate, 12-14 mph. (actual avg speed is 12.9 mph.)
Time: 1 hr 30 mins.

According to various online calculator, including the one in my food tracking app, this event burned about 900 calories.

Does that look accurate? That seems very high to me. If that is the case then I am surprised that everyone who are trying to lose weight doesn't pick up cycling. That is like one meal worth in calories.

At the risk of sounding snide (which is definitely not my intent) I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. Quantifying something that you theoretically do for enjoyment will not lead to sustainable health results. Cycling confers many benefits in addition to fat loss: cardiovascular health, muscular endurance, and more efficient metabolism. If you perceive cycling as a "numbers game" it takes away from the visceral joy of the sport - which is why many of us do it in the first place.

Go for a ride. Have fun. See some things. The results will follow ...

[XXtwindad]

19 miles at 12.9 mph average... you should try riding a bike, you'll get more exercise.

Chris Froome is "slumming" on the Paceline whilst he's recuperating 😎

[tuxbailey]

still uncalled for. IIRC, aren't you coming back from a rather horrific crash?


Yeah, riding on the road is still kind of hairy. I have been doing more MUP riding when I can. I was kind of nervous yesterday because I couldn't get my Fly12CE to work correctly and almost didn't go.

[tuxbailey]

At the risk of sounding snide (which is definitely not my intent) I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. Quantifying something that you theoretically do for enjoyment will not lead to sustainable health results. Cycling confers many benefits in addition to fat loss: cardiovascular health, muscular endurance, and more efficient metabolism. If you perceive cycling as a "numbers game" it takes away from the visceral joy of the sport - which is why many of us do it in the first place.

Go for a ride. Have fun. See some things. The results will follow ...

Thanks. I do try to keep that in mind. One of the reasons I try to get a decent estimate on it is that I am monitoring my calorie intake as I found that is what actually work for me as far as weight loss is concerned. So I want to add that to my tracking...

[Mark McM]

At the risk of sounding snide (which is definitely not my intent) I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. Quantifying something that you theoretically do for enjoyment will not lead to sustainable health results. Cycling confers many benefits in addition to fat loss: cardiovascular health, muscular endurance, and more efficient metabolism. If you perceive cycling as a "numbers game" it takes away from the visceral joy of the sport - which is why many of us do it in the first place.

Go for a ride. Have fun. See some things. The results will follow ...

The question comes up often, "Which form of exercise burns the most calories?" While there are a variety of academic answers, the practical answer is "the one you are likely to do most often and for the longest periods."

I suppose a person who is motivated but highly time limited might purposely choose an exercise which has the fastest calorie burn, but for many people staying motivated and diligent can be a challenge, so it might be better to choose an exercise that they actually want to do (and keep doing). After all, weight loss and health are not events, but are processes.

[chiasticon]

Male, 48 years old. 193 lbs, 5 ft 8".

Distance: 19.6 miles
Speed/Effort: Moderate, 12-14 mph. (actual avg speed is 12.9 mph.)
Time: 1 hr 30 mins.a data point, if it's worth anything... I'm about 40 lbs lighter and will often do a 1:45-ish ride, but it's 30 miles. similar elevation. with a power meter it generally says around 900 cals. so your estimate's probably not too far off, given the extra weight. but yes, I'd say it's a little high.

also 100% agree with what Marc McM says above. most important part is doing something you enjoy doing and will thus continue to do.

[tuxbailey]

a data point, if it's worth anything... I'm about 40 lbs lighter and will often do a 1:45-ish ride, but it's 30 miles. similar elevation. with a power meter it generally says around 900 cals. so your estimate's probably not too far off, given the extra weight. but yes, I'd say it's a little high.

also 100% agree with what Marc McM says above. most important part is doing something you enjoy doing and will thus continue to do.

Thanks for the data point!

[jimoots]

This statement about 'faster' is incorrect.

12-14mph on a 10% climb requires more power, and therefore calories than 12-14mph on flats.

Powermeter will tell you exactly how many kJ of total work you put in.

I read yesterday that most cyclists operate at 25% efficiency; i.e. you put out 500w, your body is actually doing work equivalent to 2000w.

So unless I'm missing a trick - and more than happy to be corrected - work into the pedals isn't the same as calories burnt.

[jimoots]

Also for what it's worth my Garmin with power meter seems to go with 500 calories per hour when riding fast/hard in hilly and undulating terrain.

I take this with grain of salt, weight isn't falling off me and I certainly don't eat 2000 calories to 'balance the ledger' after a 4 hour ride.

[kppolich]

I read yesterday that most cyclists operate at 25% efficiency; i.e. you put out 500w, your body is actually doing work equivalent to 2000w.

So unless I'm missing a trick - and more than happy to be corrected - work into the pedals isn't the same as calories burnt.


1 Calorie=4.186 kJs.

Full read here:
https://zwiftinsider.com/how-many-calories/

Strava Definition:
Total Work
Total Work, expressed in kilojoules (kJ), is simply the sum of the watts generated during your ride. There is a close 1–to–1 ratio with Total Work and Calories expended during a ride.

[Macadamia]

I read yesterday that most cyclists operate at 25% efficiency; i.e. you put out 500w, your body is actually doing work equivalent to 2000w.

So unless I'm missing a trick - and more than happy to be corrected - work into the pedals isn't the same as calories burnt.

it would be added to your Basal Metabolic Rate is maybe what you're thinking of? Your body is burning calories through the various processes that keep you alive, in addition to cycling. Would be curious to see what it was you read

[echappist]

1 Calorie=4.186 kJs.

Full read here:
https://zwiftinsider.com/how-many-calories/

Strava Definition:
Total Work
Total Work, expressed in kilojoules (kJ), is simply the sum of the watts generated during your ride. There is a close 1–to–1 ratio with Total Work and Calories expended during a ride.

minor quibble, but given that the person to whom you responded has the foggiest sense of energy expenditure, best to write 1 kiloCalorie = 4.186 kiloJoule

For whatever reason, kiloCalorie in the U.S. got turned into simply as "Calorie" on food labels (as a side note, the food I bought in the Netherlands have listings under kJ and KCal, but not Cal)

-----------------------------------------------------------
As for the physics lesson, energy = power * time. kCal and kJ are both units of energy. Watt is a unit of power and is defined as 1 J/s.

Say someone averages 300 W for an hour, the work (defined as energy output by person/thing) is 300 J/s * 3600s = 1,080,000 J or 1,080 kJ

For someone who is 21% metabolically efficient, that amount of work done would require ~5150 kJ of energy burned. For someone who is 25% metabolically efficient, it would require 4320 kJ. Still a bit of scatter. It just so happens that 1 kJ = 0.239 kCal, and for simplicity, we have the approximation that 1 kJ of work done (as measured by a power meter) ~ 1 kCal of energy consumed. This approximation is still a lot better than what most other approximation provides, alas the prevalence in its usage.

[jimoots]

1 Calorie=4.186 kJs.

Full read here:
https://zwiftinsider.com/how-many-calories/

Strava Definition:
Total Work
Total Work, expressed in kilojoules (kJ), is simply the sum of the watts generated during your ride. There is a close 1–to–1 ratio with Total Work and Calories expended during a ride.

Yeah sure, if we work on ~25% efficiency that makes sense, given that a 1kj is ~25% of a calorie.

I was just confused at work on the pedals being stated as the calorie burnt, which it is not.

it would be added to your Basal Metabolic Rate is maybe what you're thinking of? Your body is burning calories through the various processes that keep you alive, in addition to cycling. Would be curious to see what it was you read

Dug it up, I was interested in the oxygen requirement for a given wattage stuff but it noted the efficiency of cyclists which stuck in my head.

https://sportsscientists.com/2010/07/cycling-performance-what-is-possible/

[tuxbailey]

Closing the loop.

I did a 30 minutes ride last night and the calories calculated by Wahoo Kickr is similar to what Strava estimated for Monday's ride. And they are about 2/3 of what the online calculators estimated. The number of calories I burn is about 400/hr or 600/90 mins, so not 900s.

I am surprised that the Strava estimated average power (107) is very close to the Kickr's value (116.)

Monday's ride:

https://tuxbailey.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p3831098106-5.jpg
https://tuxbailey.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p3831098097.jpg

Last night:

https://tuxbailey.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p3831098105-5.jpg
https://tuxbailey.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p3831098102.jpg

[benb]

Time to get a PM. They’re very affordable these days.

I’m taller and lighter than you are, that estimate would be very high for me.

I do have PMs on my 2 road bikes.

I’m super out of shape right now. Winter and injuries unfortunately.

My last ride said 500 calories. 52 minutes @14.5 mph with 627ft of elevation gain. Heavy bike and draggy winter clothes. Avg power 160ish, normalized power 190ish.

I don’t know, I’d rather gain some mass these days, but maybe it’s just cause everyone else is huge.

I have definitely burned 1000 calories in 90 minutes but more like averaging 18-19mph solo with > 1000ft of elevation gain, average power 200 or so.

It’s not linear.

[uber]

Just a thought; wattage is very cadence dependent. Many find more efficient power output at a cadence of 90. Shifting to a slightly easier gear and maintaining a faster cadence might allow you to have a higher wattage. Maximal speed should be related to wattage as well.
If the goal is to control weight, nothing impacts my weight more than diet. Enjoy!

[Ti Designs]

As for the physics lesson, energy = power * time. kCal and kJ are both units of energy. Watt is a unit of power and is defined as 1 J/s.

Say someone averages 300 W for an hour, the work (defined as energy output by person/thing) is 300 J/s * 3600s = 1,080,000 J or 1,080 kJ

For someone who is 21% metabolically efficient, that amount of work done would require ~5150 kJ of energy burned. For someone who is 25% metabolically efficient, it would require 4320 kJ.

I love finding equations that can be used for biomechanics. For example, if a rider learns to isolate large muscle groups they will find they have two FTP numbers - all glutes or all quads. Their FTP using both muscle groups will be 1/(1/Pg + 1/Pq) which just happens to be the equation for impedance of resistors in parallel.

Efficiency of the human body isn't that simple. First, it's a moving target, it changes with time. Second, people aren't on/off switches, the increase in metabolic rate doesn't stop when the pedals stop. If you must use accurate measuring devices to get a precise number, I suggest this exercise: Get yourself a digital caliper and go measure a block of jello at room temperature...


Here's what I tell the riders I coach:

Winter is about base mileage. Base mileage has a number of goals which can't be confused with the goals of later, more intense workouts. The primary goal of base mileage is to drain the battery and teach the body how to recover. This has to be done at low intensity (zone 3 - you should be able to talk while riding), it's slower than you think and longer than you can imagine. If you don't start taking a mental inventory of your refrigerator an hour before you get home, you're not spending enough time on the bike. here's the simple equation: you start out with 1500 - 2000 calories, you burn 600cal/hr, the best you can hope to process is 300cal/hr while riding. Given a target of 4 hours to drain the battery, the eating part becomes the most important factor (and the only one you can control).

I'll skip the part about base mileage being a learning stage in pedal stroke work 'cause nobody [else] spends that much time thinking about how they pedal, and get right to the real reason(s) for base mileage. At some point next season you're going to want to go on a really long ride, be it a century, a charity ride or you just get really lost. Learning how to eat on the bike, teaching your body to both turn the pedals and process food, is how you finish in style instead of that death march I see so often. If you're actively training for something you'll hear the term TSS or Training Stress Score, which is how intelligent athletes keep themselves from overtraining. Base mileage, the act of draining the battery and recovering, increases TSS capacity. So the long, low intensity work in the winter pushes the high intensity work later on - it doesn't work the other way around.

Should I bring up fixed gears now???

[tuxbailey]

^^^

Thanks. One of the goals I have this year is do a charity century again. I haven't done it for many years and the excuse is always I don't have time to train with work and family, blah, blah, blah.

The death march thing describes me exactly for this longer rides. I uusually finish long after others, barely making the cut off.

[echappist]

Closing the loop.

I did a 30 minutes ride last night and the calories calculated by Wahoo Kickr is similar to what Strava estimated for Monday's ride. And they are about 2/3 of what the online calculators estimated. The number of calories I burn is about 400/hr or 600/90 mins, so not 900s.

I am surprised that the Strava estimated average power (107) is very close to the Kickr's value (116.)

Monday's ride:

https://tuxbailey.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p3831098106-5.jpg
https://tuxbailey.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p3831098097.jpg

Last night:

https://tuxbailey.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p3831098105-5.jpg
https://tuxbailey.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p3831098102.jpg

I hope this comes out the right way, but strava ought to be more accurate at low speeds. Among all the drag forces your output overcomes, aero is the one that doesnt scale linearly and is unpredictable (nothing in the algorithm accounts for wind speed, direction, and any shielding you could get, whereas gradient changes are known)

At low speeds, that contribution (power to overcome aero) is reduced, thus also reducing the associated error.

Conversely, if this were from a criterium, Strava would spit out a nonsensical power estimate

[Tony T]

….. I am surprised that everyone who are trying to lose weight doesn't pick up cycling. That is like one meal worth in calories.

That (and eating more fruits and vegetables) is how I dropped the pounds :banana:

[Mark McM]

Just a thought; wattage is very cadence dependent. Many find more efficient power output at a cadence of 90. Shifting to a slightly easier gear and maintaining a faster cadence might allow you to have a higher wattage. Maximal speed should be related to wattage as well.
If the goal is to control weight, nothing impacts my weight more than diet. Enjoy!

It's not quite as simple as this. Watts at the pedals are the same (for the same speed and load) regardless of pedal cadence. However, the efficiency of the human can change with cadence. But it goes in the opposite direction than what is implied above - higher cadences actually decrease human efficiency. Maximum human efficiency actually occurs at lower cadence than most experienced rider pedal (closer to 60 rpm). Why do experienced cyclists pedal faster? Because there are more important considerations than mere energy efficiency - the limitation for most cyclists is muscle fatigue and glycogen depletion, and higher cadences can improve these.

What you say about weight control is true though - diet typically has a bigger impact on weight than exercise.

[tuxbailey]

I hope this comes out the right way, but strava ought to be more accurate at low speeds. Among all the drag forces your output overcomes, aero is the one that doesnt scale linearly and is unpredictable (nothing in the algorithm accounts for wind speed, direction, and any shielding you could get, whereas gradient changes are known)

At low speeds, that contribution (power to overcome aero) is reduced, thus also reducing the associated error.

Conversely, if this were from a criterium, Strava would spit out a nonsensical power estimate

Thanks.

Now I am seriously thinking about getting a power meter since there are so many viable options.

[FlashUNC]

^^^

Thanks. One of the goals I have this year is do a charity century again. I haven't done it for many years and the excuse is always I don't have time to train with work and family, blah, blah, blah.

The death march thing describes me exactly for this longer rides. I uusually finish long after others, barely making the cut off.

The LSD thing isn't necessary to get to fitness goals either. I've found power invaluable for making the most of the time I've got with training structured accordingly.

https://thesufferfest.com/blogs/training-resources/dropping-lsd-why-base-training-doesnt-make-sense-for-time-crunched-athletes

[XXtwindad]

I'm a little confused here. Do you want to lose fat, or become a fitter (and possibly) cyclist? If fat loss is the ultimate goal, I don't think outdoor cycling is necessarily the best vehicle. (Unless you're consistently doing longer rides)

[tuxbailey]

I'm a little confused here. Do you want to lose fat, or become a fitter (and possibly) cyclist? If fat loss is the ultimate goal, I don't think outdoor cycling is necessarily the best vehicle. (Unless you're consistently doing longer rides)

Both, but I do enjoy riding outdoors when I can.

[XXtwindad]

Both, but I do enjoy riding outdoors when I can.

Well, if fat loss is the main concern, I'd focus on consistent low-grade movement and adjusting your diet.

[cgates66]

1) Always good to ride, and more riding is better.
2) Long-slow has a place, but if you are time-limited, then adding more sustained peak efforts in your rides (e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute - even if just a couple per ride), which, if you don't delight in sprinting will hurt, will improve your fitness and fat loss much faster, and help build some muscle.
3) You can burn a lot of calories riding, but as others have said, without a power meter, its' difficult to get reliable estimates due to the dominance of aero effects above ~15MPH, and the many variables.
4) The more you ride, the more calories you'll burn. The more you ride fast, the more calories you'll burn off the bike. You have an 800W peak up there - the more of that you see, the more you'll burn sitting on your duff drinking beer.
5) Diet and sleep matter, for motivation and performance. Make sure to eat mindfully, including enough good fats. Low fat diets *can* be bad for fat loss because you sub in carbs, mess up your hormones etc. There are exceptions to this - dietary stuff is complicated and very personal - but the old food pyramid nonsense was based on fabricated research by some zealot. I don't remember the details, but the net is, don't hide from fats.
6) If you are really getting after it, obviously you have to eat enough.
7) If you have time, any amount of weight training will help. You don't need much to get a big difference (just a few exercises really), but again, the limited work you do has to be focused.

[XXtwindad]

1) Always good to ride, and more riding is better.
2) Long-slow has a place, but if you are time-limited, then adding more sustained peak efforts in your rides (e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute - even if just a couple per ride), which, if you don't delight in sprinting will hurt, will improve your fitness and fat loss much faster, and help build some muscle.
3) You can burn a lot of calories riding, but as others have said, without a power meter, its' difficult to get reliable estimates due to the dominance of aero effects above ~15MPH, and the many variables.
4) The more you ride, the more calories you'll burn. The more you ride fast, the more calories you'll burn off the bike. You have an 800W peak up there - the more of that you see, the more you'll burn sitting on your duff drinking beer.
5) Diet and sleep matter, for motivation and performance. Make sure to eat mindfully, including enough good fats. Low fat diets *can* be bad for fat loss because you sub in carbs, mess up your hormones etc. There are exceptions to this - dietary stuff is complicated and very personal - but the old food pyramid nonsense was based on fabricated research by some zealot. I don't remember the details, but the net is, don't hide from fats.
6) If you are really getting after it, obviously you have to eat enough.
7) If you have time, any amount of weight training will help. You don't need much to get a big difference (just a few exercises really), but again, the limited work you do has to be focused.

Strength/resistance training isn't optional for being fit.

[echappist]

Strength/resistance training isn't optional for being fit.

yep, especially for the overwhelming majority of recreational cyclists (regardless if one is racing).

maybe the flyweight climber may not want that additional weight, but for most of us, strength training helps with a lot of things (e.g. sprinting power, holding a posture when time trialing, etc)

[tuxbailey]

1) Always good to ride, and more riding is better.
2) Long-slow has a place, but if you are time-limited, then adding more sustained peak efforts in your rides (e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute - even if just a couple per ride), which, if you don't delight in sprinting will hurt, will improve your fitness and fat loss much faster, and help build some muscle.
3) You can burn a lot of calories riding, but as others have said, without a power meter, its' difficult to get reliable estimates due to the dominance of aero effects above ~15MPH, and the many variables.
4) The more you ride, the more calories you'll burn. The more you ride fast, the more calories you'll burn off the bike. You have an 800W peak up there - the more of that you see, the more you'll burn sitting on your duff drinking beer.
5) Diet and sleep matter, for motivation and performance. Make sure to eat mindfully, including enough good fats. Low fat diets *can* be bad for fat loss because you sub in carbs, mess up your hormones etc. There are exceptions to this - dietary stuff is complicated and very personal - but the old food pyramid nonsense was based on fabricated research by some zealot. I don't remember the details, but the net is, don't hide from fats.
6) If you are really getting after it, obviously you have to eat enough.
7) If you have time, any amount of weight training will help. You don't need much to get a big difference (just a few exercises really), but again, the limited work you do has to be focused.

Thanks for the advice. I am going back to the gym and starting beginner weight training. I am using the GZCLP (https://saynotobroscience.com/gzclp-infographic/) beginner routine to get into it. The complication is that I have a herniated disk and I have to be careful or it will trigger lower back pains.

[Mikej]

Maybe caloric restriction?

[tuxbailey]

Maybe caloric restriction?

I am doing that. Currently doing intermittent fasting plus calories reduction.

According to my scale reading this morning, I have lost 23 lbs since New Year.

[Black Dog]

I am doing that. Currently doing intermittent fasting plus calories reduction.

According to my scale reading this morning, I have lost 23 lbs since New Year.

Good for you. However, research shows that loosing more than 1~2 pounds a week is generally not sustainable weight loss. Be careful not to loose weight too fast or it will come back; you will push your body into starvation mode where you metabolic rate will drop and your body will catabolize muscle and not fat.

[tuxbailey]

Good for you. However, research shows that loosing more than 1~2 pounds a week is generally not sustainable weight loss. Be careful not to loose weight too fast or it will come back; you will push your body into starvation mode where you metabolic rate will drop and your body will catabolize muscle and not fat.

Thanks for the tips. I try to go under my maintenance calories but not by too much. I find that the rationale behind intermittent fasting makes sense from the perspective of lowering insulin level, thus promote fat burning process... well that is in theory :)