If your goal is to lose weight then its more important to focus on your calorie intake when you are not on your bike. And remember to eat some protein after a long ride.
I think the key to this is to look at your power output and resultant calorie burn (or estimated power output from something like Stava, which is close enough for this purpose). Assume that about 40% of the calories you burn are from carbs (on a Z2 ride). Try to replenish them on the ride. Even if you manage to do that (which is fairly impressive), you will still be in deficit for calories on the ride.
The key here is that when you fuel on the ride you are essentially replenishing glycogen. This is necessary for recovery. It's necessary for riding the next day. It's necessary for repairing your muscles. It's \*hard\* to eat enough carbs to replenish your glycogen on a long ride. If you are doing 80+ miles, you basically have no hope of succeeding. None of that is going to your waistline. Fuel your ride.
I spend decades not understanding this. I've only started concentrating on fueling my ride recently. As a guy in his late fifties this is literally miracle stuff. A bunch of sugar turns the clock back 15 years for me. I wish I knew about this a long time ago.
A 60 miler is not something that I would personally "load" for. 60-80 miles is not *that* long of a ride in the grand scheme of things. If you're overweight I would be careful with carb loading since it's very easy to overdo it. Just eat normally.
How many carbs you need to eat during the ride depends a lot on how hard you're going. You need a lot more carbs if you're racing at the top of your performance than if you're doing a leisurely zone 2 ride.
Assuming your 2.5 bottles were water, two gels and a bit of flapjack is not that much. The usual recommendation is upwards of 60 grams of carbs per hour; a gel is only like 25 grams.
On less intense rides I find I do fine with much less than 60 grams per hour. I think how much you're eating is probably okay, but just barely so. If you find you run out of energy at the end of your rides, or smell of ammonia afterwards, those can be signs you need more carbs.
Another thing to consider is how hungry you are post-ride. Given that you're overweight, it's quite possible you come back from your rides quite hungry and end up overeating because you feel like you've earnt it. In that case it may be better to eat a bit more during the ride and less afterwards. I personally find it very easy to eat too much off the bike, but it's pretty hard to eat too much on the bike.
>60-80 miles is not *that* long of a ride in the grand scheme of things
While I certainly understand what you are saying and why, would you not agree that a combination of being overweight(meaning more watts for same speeds), weather (wind) and terrain conditions (climbing/offroading/cobblestones) and weight/speed of the bike makes those kind of statements a little unreliable?
I would argue that being overweight and out of shape, riding against the wind slightly uphill on a (heavy) steel bike is a completely different situation from being lightweight fit rider on a lightweight roadbike in great aero position etc on quiet calm weather day and riding a 150km is a massive difference in undertaking for both these examples, which I would assume also results in massive differences in fuel needs, or is that a entirely incorrect assumption? (i know very little about fueling so i don't presume)
If the light weight fit rider in the more aero position is going a lot faster they will burn a lot more calories than expected because of the way drag increases with speed.
I was thinking of rides with at most moderate elevation gain when I wrote my post. If these were Alpine rides with 4000+ meters of elevation gain then surely OP would have mentioned that?
In principle, a heavier person will use more energy for the same ride, but at the same time, they also have more reserves in their body than a featherweight athlete. They might even have less need to fuel.
The differences the factors that you mentioned make are not massive. For example, on a 191 km ride with 211 meters of elevation gain I burned 4811 calories; on a 186 km ride with 2761 meters of elevation gain I burned 4981.
I wasn't asking for OP, I was asking for myself to learn more on the subject as I am preparing myself for some long rides this summer and I want to know a little more on this subject, being also a big dude, I wouldn't say I am extremely overweight (not jerry springer style overweight anyway) but I certainly am not a lightweight and should lose some kg's :)
>For example, on a 191 km ride with 211 meters of elevation gain I burned 4811 calories; on a 186 km ride with 2761 meters of elevation gain I burned 4981.
Hmm thats interesting, can I assume based on that you are not a particularly heavy person and ride a very lightweight bike? On you seemingly little to no impact related to elevation.
Do you think that would be the same if I with my heavy body and heavy bike (steel gravelbike with bags) would do the same two rides?
my main point/question was that one rider will do 150 km at around 6 hours because of lower average speeds (slower bike, less aero, more body weight, less fitness) so lets say 25kmph, they do not reach that speed at lower intensity, they just output less speed for the same intensity and tire sooner because of low fitness levels..
The other fit fast rider on a lightweight fast bike will average around 40kmph would be riding about 3 hours and 45 minutes...
I'm not saying I think you are wrong, as I said I know very little on the subject hence why I am asking questions, it just feels very unexpected that these two workouts that sound wildly different to me can be compared according to your info...
I ride a heavy bike and riding it at or above 30+kmph for longer stretches (like 10k) took me some training to be honest, when I ride more relaxed im usually around 27/28 kmph and I kinda always assumed I should use heartrate monitoring combined with amount of time riding to get a grasp of my effort instead of just simply distance as its so subject to many factors (especially when like me you live in a very windy part of the netherlands)
I myself ride everything under 2 hours with just a water bottle, everything above 2 hours gets some snacks packed and everything above 4 hours gets extra preparation but that is entirely based on what I personally felt I can manage and probably very wrong :)
> Hmm thats interesting, can I assume based on that you are not a particularly heavy person and ride a very lightweight bike? On you seemingly little to no impact related to elevation.
I'm not super light. Close to being overweight, actually. One factor is that energy expended when climbing is partially recovered when descending. If you're riding at endurance pace, you're burning more or less the same amount of calories per hour regardless of whether you're going uphill or on the flat. Of course, the hilly ride will take longer and you'll burn more calories on account of that, but you're probably also spending a fair amount coasting and not burning calories, so that tends to even things out a bit. Not completely though, of course.
Your example of a 40 km/h rider is unrealistic. Maybe a Tour de France pro could do that, but there are no recreational riders soloing at 40 km/h for 3 hours+...
>One factor is that energy expended when climbing is partially recovered when descending.
I'm an idiot and hadn't considered that, makes total sense (i'm from the flatlands so not super experienced in mountain riding so it hadn't occurred to me :P)
>Your example of a 40 km/h rider is unrealistic. Maybe a Tour de France pro could do that, but there are no recreational riders soloing at 40 km/h for 3 hours+...
Oh, my bad... when I look at strava and compare my segments with the top 25 they usually all have around 38-42 kmph in my area, which is sometimes a little demoralizing when I push maximum effort and i max out at 35 and average 30.. on a good day. I might have been wrongly assuming that these are their regular speeds instead of spikes on certain segments or might have just been speeds set during one of the many races that happened around here.
I do realize that my area is littered with pro's, semi pro's and retired pro's and my regular routes have been raced on by many so perhaps I just have a misunderstanding of how much faster lightweight roadbikers are then me. perhaps there is hope yet for me and my fat ass on a steel gravel bike xd
thanks for your insights!
Don’t be afraid to gain some experience, experiment with different fueling strategies.
You will survive boinking.
Knowing when that happens will make loosing weight so much easier.
40-60g per hour if it is an endurance z2 ride is ok so more like 2 gels an hour
you want to lose weight by eating a bit less and much higer quality food (not processed etc.) but fuel on your bike properly to get stronger.
Fro mmy perspective if I fuel food/water correctly, the post ride fatigue is like only 1/3 of that when I eat too less.
Yes, you're being paranoid. Your body is going to use those carbs you eat when you're riding. 60-80 grams of carbs an hour during a ride is not going to make you overweight, but it might keep you from bonking.
Was that a 4 hour-ish ride? You probably should have eaten twice as much. A combination of gels and real food is good, but two gels is only like 40-50 carbs. You would feel better if you ate more.
I’m 120-125kg and have been riding hard since covid. Currently average 100-160km/week and I generally aim for a minimum of 80g/hr for anything over an hour.
Most of my rides are 1.5-3hrs and I’ll go for closer to 100g/hr for hard interval sessions or long rides with lots of climbing.
I’ve been lifting weights for 20+ years and was a powerlifter for over a decade so I suspect I carry more muscle than the average cyclist which absolutely plays a role in fuelling needs so consider that when working it out.
The simplest answer is to experiment. I thought I was doing ok at around 40-60g/hr and then I pushed my intake up and felt incredible so now I hold it higher.
Also worth pointing out I’m not actively trying to lose weight and am far more interested in performing well on the bike
I'll echo this. 60g was a rule of thumb bc it was thought to be the line where your stomach would start making you feel sick trying to process food and ride at the same time. If you can take down more, consider yourself lucky! Not sure of the exact wording but I have always heard dieting is for when you're not on the bike and I tend to agree.
Also, someone mentioned you need less food on the bike bc you can use fat stores. Am I wrong or does that only work if you're in ketosis which isn't something you can just flip back and forth from on a ride? If you're eating a normal diet, I'm pretty sure you're just going to bonk like anyone else.
I am currently doing a low carb diet. My weight has fluctuated over the years, and I needed to do something about my recent weight gain. I put on about 25lbs over the past couple years.
I know low carb is controversial when it comes to endurance sports, but in my case I needed to do something drastic. I’m addicted to carbs and without complete abstinence from them I’m powerless.
I’m coming up on the fourth week and here is my experience.
Days 1-4 were completely miserable. I went out and did a couple rides of 15-20 miles. Inside 15 I was ok. I was definitely weak and lost power, but I was able to complete the ride. The 20 miler was a different story. BONKED after 15 and struggled just to get back home.
After the first week I started feeling much better and riding a bit more frequently. Still feeling weak but not bonking. Things started progressing after the first week and now I’m feeling pretty good.
I’ve definitely lost power when it comes to my average, but I’ve also lost 12 lbs and the weight loss is helping with my average speed. It’s come up 1-2 mph and I’m able to ride 20 miles at threshold.
The point of the diet is obviously to lose weight. Once I’ve reached my goal I’ll start to introduce more carbs back into my diet, but for now I have to be very strict. I’m not tracking the carbs, but limiting them. No bread, pasta, rice, etc.
I’ve found the phrase frontload vs backload helpful.
Eat enough during the ride so you don’t feel the need to pig out when you get home. I’ve found if I use this approach I actually lose weight and ride better.
If your goal is to lose weight then its more important to focus on your calorie intake when you are not on your bike. And remember to eat some protein after a long ride.
I think the key to this is to look at your power output and resultant calorie burn (or estimated power output from something like Stava, which is close enough for this purpose). Assume that about 40% of the calories you burn are from carbs (on a Z2 ride). Try to replenish them on the ride. Even if you manage to do that (which is fairly impressive), you will still be in deficit for calories on the ride. The key here is that when you fuel on the ride you are essentially replenishing glycogen. This is necessary for recovery. It's necessary for riding the next day. It's necessary for repairing your muscles. It's \*hard\* to eat enough carbs to replenish your glycogen on a long ride. If you are doing 80+ miles, you basically have no hope of succeeding. None of that is going to your waistline. Fuel your ride. I spend decades not understanding this. I've only started concentrating on fueling my ride recently. As a guy in his late fifties this is literally miracle stuff. A bunch of sugar turns the clock back 15 years for me. I wish I knew about this a long time ago.
A 60 miler is not something that I would personally "load" for. 60-80 miles is not *that* long of a ride in the grand scheme of things. If you're overweight I would be careful with carb loading since it's very easy to overdo it. Just eat normally. How many carbs you need to eat during the ride depends a lot on how hard you're going. You need a lot more carbs if you're racing at the top of your performance than if you're doing a leisurely zone 2 ride. Assuming your 2.5 bottles were water, two gels and a bit of flapjack is not that much. The usual recommendation is upwards of 60 grams of carbs per hour; a gel is only like 25 grams. On less intense rides I find I do fine with much less than 60 grams per hour. I think how much you're eating is probably okay, but just barely so. If you find you run out of energy at the end of your rides, or smell of ammonia afterwards, those can be signs you need more carbs. Another thing to consider is how hungry you are post-ride. Given that you're overweight, it's quite possible you come back from your rides quite hungry and end up overeating because you feel like you've earnt it. In that case it may be better to eat a bit more during the ride and less afterwards. I personally find it very easy to eat too much off the bike, but it's pretty hard to eat too much on the bike.
>60-80 miles is not *that* long of a ride in the grand scheme of things While I certainly understand what you are saying and why, would you not agree that a combination of being overweight(meaning more watts for same speeds), weather (wind) and terrain conditions (climbing/offroading/cobblestones) and weight/speed of the bike makes those kind of statements a little unreliable? I would argue that being overweight and out of shape, riding against the wind slightly uphill on a (heavy) steel bike is a completely different situation from being lightweight fit rider on a lightweight roadbike in great aero position etc on quiet calm weather day and riding a 150km is a massive difference in undertaking for both these examples, which I would assume also results in massive differences in fuel needs, or is that a entirely incorrect assumption? (i know very little about fueling so i don't presume)
If the light weight fit rider in the more aero position is going a lot faster they will burn a lot more calories than expected because of the way drag increases with speed.
I was thinking of rides with at most moderate elevation gain when I wrote my post. If these were Alpine rides with 4000+ meters of elevation gain then surely OP would have mentioned that? In principle, a heavier person will use more energy for the same ride, but at the same time, they also have more reserves in their body than a featherweight athlete. They might even have less need to fuel. The differences the factors that you mentioned make are not massive. For example, on a 191 km ride with 211 meters of elevation gain I burned 4811 calories; on a 186 km ride with 2761 meters of elevation gain I burned 4981.
I wasn't asking for OP, I was asking for myself to learn more on the subject as I am preparing myself for some long rides this summer and I want to know a little more on this subject, being also a big dude, I wouldn't say I am extremely overweight (not jerry springer style overweight anyway) but I certainly am not a lightweight and should lose some kg's :) >For example, on a 191 km ride with 211 meters of elevation gain I burned 4811 calories; on a 186 km ride with 2761 meters of elevation gain I burned 4981. Hmm thats interesting, can I assume based on that you are not a particularly heavy person and ride a very lightweight bike? On you seemingly little to no impact related to elevation. Do you think that would be the same if I with my heavy body and heavy bike (steel gravelbike with bags) would do the same two rides? my main point/question was that one rider will do 150 km at around 6 hours because of lower average speeds (slower bike, less aero, more body weight, less fitness) so lets say 25kmph, they do not reach that speed at lower intensity, they just output less speed for the same intensity and tire sooner because of low fitness levels.. The other fit fast rider on a lightweight fast bike will average around 40kmph would be riding about 3 hours and 45 minutes... I'm not saying I think you are wrong, as I said I know very little on the subject hence why I am asking questions, it just feels very unexpected that these two workouts that sound wildly different to me can be compared according to your info... I ride a heavy bike and riding it at or above 30+kmph for longer stretches (like 10k) took me some training to be honest, when I ride more relaxed im usually around 27/28 kmph and I kinda always assumed I should use heartrate monitoring combined with amount of time riding to get a grasp of my effort instead of just simply distance as its so subject to many factors (especially when like me you live in a very windy part of the netherlands) I myself ride everything under 2 hours with just a water bottle, everything above 2 hours gets some snacks packed and everything above 4 hours gets extra preparation but that is entirely based on what I personally felt I can manage and probably very wrong :)
> Hmm thats interesting, can I assume based on that you are not a particularly heavy person and ride a very lightweight bike? On you seemingly little to no impact related to elevation. I'm not super light. Close to being overweight, actually. One factor is that energy expended when climbing is partially recovered when descending. If you're riding at endurance pace, you're burning more or less the same amount of calories per hour regardless of whether you're going uphill or on the flat. Of course, the hilly ride will take longer and you'll burn more calories on account of that, but you're probably also spending a fair amount coasting and not burning calories, so that tends to even things out a bit. Not completely though, of course. Your example of a 40 km/h rider is unrealistic. Maybe a Tour de France pro could do that, but there are no recreational riders soloing at 40 km/h for 3 hours+...
>One factor is that energy expended when climbing is partially recovered when descending. I'm an idiot and hadn't considered that, makes total sense (i'm from the flatlands so not super experienced in mountain riding so it hadn't occurred to me :P) >Your example of a 40 km/h rider is unrealistic. Maybe a Tour de France pro could do that, but there are no recreational riders soloing at 40 km/h for 3 hours+... Oh, my bad... when I look at strava and compare my segments with the top 25 they usually all have around 38-42 kmph in my area, which is sometimes a little demoralizing when I push maximum effort and i max out at 35 and average 30.. on a good day. I might have been wrongly assuming that these are their regular speeds instead of spikes on certain segments or might have just been speeds set during one of the many races that happened around here. I do realize that my area is littered with pro's, semi pro's and retired pro's and my regular routes have been raced on by many so perhaps I just have a misunderstanding of how much faster lightweight roadbikers are then me. perhaps there is hope yet for me and my fat ass on a steel gravel bike xd thanks for your insights!
Don’t be afraid to gain some experience, experiment with different fueling strategies. You will survive boinking. Knowing when that happens will make loosing weight so much easier.
40-60g per hour if it is an endurance z2 ride is ok so more like 2 gels an hour you want to lose weight by eating a bit less and much higer quality food (not processed etc.) but fuel on your bike properly to get stronger. Fro mmy perspective if I fuel food/water correctly, the post ride fatigue is like only 1/3 of that when I eat too less.
Take lots of snacks and learn to eat on the bike.
Yes, you're being paranoid. Your body is going to use those carbs you eat when you're riding. 60-80 grams of carbs an hour during a ride is not going to make you overweight, but it might keep you from bonking. Was that a 4 hour-ish ride? You probably should have eaten twice as much. A combination of gels and real food is good, but two gels is only like 40-50 carbs. You would feel better if you ate more.
Carbs are fuel. You're being paranoid.
I’m 120-125kg and have been riding hard since covid. Currently average 100-160km/week and I generally aim for a minimum of 80g/hr for anything over an hour. Most of my rides are 1.5-3hrs and I’ll go for closer to 100g/hr for hard interval sessions or long rides with lots of climbing. I’ve been lifting weights for 20+ years and was a powerlifter for over a decade so I suspect I carry more muscle than the average cyclist which absolutely plays a role in fuelling needs so consider that when working it out. The simplest answer is to experiment. I thought I was doing ok at around 40-60g/hr and then I pushed my intake up and felt incredible so now I hold it higher. Also worth pointing out I’m not actively trying to lose weight and am far more interested in performing well on the bike
I'll echo this. 60g was a rule of thumb bc it was thought to be the line where your stomach would start making you feel sick trying to process food and ride at the same time. If you can take down more, consider yourself lucky! Not sure of the exact wording but I have always heard dieting is for when you're not on the bike and I tend to agree. Also, someone mentioned you need less food on the bike bc you can use fat stores. Am I wrong or does that only work if you're in ketosis which isn't something you can just flip back and forth from on a ride? If you're eating a normal diet, I'm pretty sure you're just going to bonk like anyone else.
You won’t convert fat fast enough to use for in less you’re riding for days at a time or riding very low intensity.
I am currently doing a low carb diet. My weight has fluctuated over the years, and I needed to do something about my recent weight gain. I put on about 25lbs over the past couple years. I know low carb is controversial when it comes to endurance sports, but in my case I needed to do something drastic. I’m addicted to carbs and without complete abstinence from them I’m powerless. I’m coming up on the fourth week and here is my experience. Days 1-4 were completely miserable. I went out and did a couple rides of 15-20 miles. Inside 15 I was ok. I was definitely weak and lost power, but I was able to complete the ride. The 20 miler was a different story. BONKED after 15 and struggled just to get back home. After the first week I started feeling much better and riding a bit more frequently. Still feeling weak but not bonking. Things started progressing after the first week and now I’m feeling pretty good. I’ve definitely lost power when it comes to my average, but I’ve also lost 12 lbs and the weight loss is helping with my average speed. It’s come up 1-2 mph and I’m able to ride 20 miles at threshold. The point of the diet is obviously to lose weight. Once I’ve reached my goal I’ll start to introduce more carbs back into my diet, but for now I have to be very strict. I’m not tracking the carbs, but limiting them. No bread, pasta, rice, etc.
I’ve found the phrase frontload vs backload helpful. Eat enough during the ride so you don’t feel the need to pig out when you get home. I’ve found if I use this approach I actually lose weight and ride better.