# Weight Loss with trainer



## Zeekster64 (Dec 23, 2010)

I got myself a Cyclops Fluid 2 trainer and have started to ride it. It came with a DVD which includes a 40 minute race, 15 minute warm up , a cool down and a few other short scenerios. I did the the 15 minute warm up, 40 minute race, the cool down and I gave it my all. Not going to lie, it was tough but not to the point where I felt ill. I definitely won't do this every day because of the intensity and because I know that my body needs rest.

My question is; on the days that I'm not doing the DVD, I would like to work the trainer for the sole purpose of losing weight. In this case, is low intensity, high cadence, long saddle time the way to go? Need I bother with pushing myself even a little or is long exposure to an elevated heart rate enough to start shedding the pounds?

Pardon my lack of knowledge, I've been riding the bike for a while but never though about actually training or attempting to get something out of it for the long term(weight loss)


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

If you have a heart rate monitor, work by that. There are 15 gazillion cycling books out there that will help you develop a training program that will help you lose weight.

I rarely ride the trainer for more than 90 minutes. I do a lot of intervals and other structured training, which helps pass the time a lot better than spinning away for the same duration. Some days will be harder than others, which is good. Hammering away all of the time will just get you tired.

Find something you can stick with, and do that for a few weeks until it becomes part of your routine. After a month or so on the trainer 5-6 days a week, the days I don't get on it feel weird.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

Unfortunately, diet matters a lot more than saddle time. Sure, burning 1000 calories on the trainer is great, but eat a big mac and you've basically negated it. 

So if your goal is to lose weight, you need to figure out how to run a calorie deficit. Cycling can help increase your burn rate, but it's just one component of your plan.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

shawndoggy said:


> Unfortunately, diet matters a lot more than saddle time. Sure, burning 1000 calories on the trainer is great, but eat a big mac and you've basically negated it.


This is exactly what studies show as well.* Most people only lose weight if they practice some sort of calorie restriction. OTOH, most people can't keep the weight off unless they practice regular exercise.

It's hard to under eat an inactive lifestyle, but still plenty easy to over eat an active one.

*In general, the only groups that have been shown to lose weight without attending to diet are those engaged in very high (probably unsustainable) levels of physical activity (e.g. military recruits going through basic training).


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

The amount of time you do on your "Off DVD" days is pretty much up to your tolerance of riding a trainer. I've done 3 hour days on my trainer before, however now I max out around 2 - 2.5 hours (2 hours being the usual long day with intervals).

The do help with losing weight, but as has been mentioned diet plays a big role in the weight loss.

With that said...it's not unusual for me to lose 20-30 pounds between the months of January and April for the race season with most of the riding being on the trainer (M - F)...and long rides outside on the road during the weekends.


----------



## IBOHUNT (Oct 10, 2011)

shawndoggy said:


> Unfortunately, diet matters a lot more than saddle time. Sure, burning 1000 calories on the trainer is great, but eat a big mac and you've basically negated it.
> 
> So if your goal is to lose weight, you need to figure out how to run a calorie deficit. Cycling can help increase your burn rate, but it's just one component of your plan.


And that is the answer. I was WAY(!) overweight when I started back into cycling in July. Got a heart rate monitor and figured if I take in fewer than I put out I'll lose the weight. Not really rocket surgery to figure that bit out. 4 1/2 months, ~1900 miles later I'm down 65 lbs with 40 to go. No telling how many chickens I've had a hand in killing but I'll eat 8 - 12 oz/day along with salads and a couple of apples or oranges. Mix in some Alligator, Venison, Caribou, Turkey or Antelope for a variety of lean meats and it's all good.

I'll eat a bit of fats but that along with sugar has long since been removed form my diet.

As for a trainer.. I have one but hate it even if I am watching a DVD. Unless it's raining I'll go outside. Saturday was 28F and 24 mph winds. A good day to learn how to spin


----------



## Zeekster64 (Dec 23, 2010)

If I was on a steady diet of beer, pop, chips, ground beef and gummy worms then I'd understand why I was 196 lbs at 5'10", but I'm not.


----------



## Matador-IV (Aug 2, 2010)

To answer your question.......Yes, the more time you spend on the trainer with an elevated heart rate the more calories you'll burn. But, you did mention "long term" results. That means don't spend so much time on the bike that you get burned out, and only you can determine your tolerance for training volume.

And....calories are calories, just because your not having beer,pop,chips,ground beef and gummy worms does not mean you shouldn't consider the idea of limiting some of your healthy calories.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

Zeekster64 said:


> If I was on a steady diet of beer, pop, chips, ground beef and gummy worms then I'd understand why I was 196 lbs at 5'10", but I'm not.


It's all about running a calorie deficit. Burn more than you consume. Burn more but still consume more than you burn = no weight loss. Combine cycling with some form of calorie restriction = weight loss. This isn't quantum physics.


----------



## WEG (Nov 6, 2005)

I do think that there is a role for low intensity workouts on the trainer

I recommend reading a book, surfing the internet or watching a movie for at least part of the time - otherwise the boredom will kill you 

If you are doing intensity the time passes more quickly


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

shawndoggy said:


> It's all about running a calorie deficit. Burn more than you consume. Burn more but still consume more than you burn = no weight loss. Combine cycling with some form of calorie restriction = weight loss. This isn't quantum physics.


That pretty much sums it up. Joe Friel had a question on his site recently where a guy wanted to lose about 20 pounds in 13 weeks or so. In other words, about 1.5 pounds a week. 

Friel thought that was a little aggressive and cautioned the guy about training too hard during the weight loss period. In other words, lose the weight but don't try to train too hard during that period. After the weigh loss, you can step up your intensity and duration.

Here is the link: Joe Friel - Question on Power & Weight

Personally I'm well into the weight loss phase and it's hard not to get excited about getting on the trainer and riding hard. Except when I try, my energy level is pretty low and I have to back off rather quickly.


----------



## Zeekster64 (Dec 23, 2010)

Thank you all for your input


----------



## ACree (Feb 5, 2006)

Try something like the lose it app for the iphone. Track calories in, and use the trainer as needed to burn calories so you hit your net calorie goal day in and day out. Getting stronger is good, and the trainer will do that. Losing weight and maintaining the same fitness gets to a higher w/kg and is also good. Lose weight and get stronger, and the gains will seem exponential.


----------



## rigelstar (Nov 12, 2011)

I started last February with a Kurt Kinetic trainer and have put on close to 4000 miles in it since. I have lost 90+ pounds and only have 20-30 lbs to go. I restrict carbs and eat almonds when I am hungry between small meals. The amount of energy now and my general sense of well being has increased beyond belief. Going to purchase a Felt Z4 in the spring and get out on the road more.


----------



## bmxhacksaw (Mar 26, 2008)

Here's my anecdotal input. I started riding about six years ago and lost about 35 lbs. initially. The next couple of years I would gain in the winter and struggle to take it off in the spring. I always get down to the 175 range but I would like to be closer to 155. Two years ago I had shoulder surgery and got released for activity in December. I sat on the trainer and just spun easily (and went to bed hungry) for a couple of months and got down to 165. This season I started a training program early in the season because I wanted to do a lot better at a particular race. While I was stronger I was only able to get down to 175. This is the way I see it/understand it. Your body is burning different things depending on your HR. If you do a high intensity work out you'll burn lots of calories but it won't necessarily be fat you are burning. As you get closer to anaerobic you body can't process fat fast enough to keep up with its needs so it burns all the glycogen in you muscles and liver and when it runs out of that it will burn muscle. So this year I've gotten a head start on "fat burning mode". 65% of your max HR is supposed to be the optimum zone so I sit on the trainer and pop a race dvd in and keep my HR below 70% of max (using a basic calculation of 220 - 50 [my age] = 170 to arrive at my max HR). It seems to work for me as I've already started to lose weight. This year however I plan on upping my 5-6 hours a week to 8-10. Instead of riding every other day as usual I plan on alternating hard day/easy day/hard day/etc. with my easy day being a "fat burning recovery day". Hopefully I'll be building a good EM (endurance miles) base on the harder days and burning fat/losing weight on the easy/recovery days for the next couple of months and then really kick it into gear in the early spring. As a side note I don't seem to lose weight when I'm riding hard during the race season because I eat like a pig to keep the engine fueled.

Any critique of this by other more informed persons is wholeheartedly invited.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Right but wrong*



bmxhacksaw said:


> This is the way I see it/understand it. Your body is burning different things depending on your HR. If you do a high intensity work out you'll burn lots of calories but it won't necessarily be fat you are burning. As you get closer to anaerobic you body can't process fat fast enough to keep up with its needs so it burns all the glycogen in you muscles and liver and when it runs out of that it will burn muscle.


This is true, but even if you stay "totally aerobic" and get a significantly higher portion of your calories from fat, your body will still "demand" that you replace those calories. If you do what your body demands, you will not lose weight because your body will replenish its fat stores. At then end of the day it is still determined by thermodynamics - calories in and calories burned have to be in the right balance or you will not get the desired result.

Just to put a further twist on it, intense exercise raises your metabolism for a longer period after the exercise stops and so you continue to burn at a higher rate. You might just burn more calories with shorter intense exercise than with longer less intense (same total calories burned during exercise, more calories burned afterward due to elevated metabolism). It still comes down to being hungry if you want to lose weight, regardless of the intensity level of your workouts.


----------



## rigelstar (Nov 12, 2011)

The part about being hungry is essential to avoid in order to maximize weight loss. When you begin to starve your body naturally begins to be put into the mode of fat storage. This is why it is more important to eat several small meals throughout the day rather than three larger meals while starving in between. Almonds are excellent for curbing that hunger feeling while also providing important protein and fiber while being relatively low in carbs. Feel hungry? - eat a handful of almonds and that hunger goes away.


----------



## rwgunn3 (Nov 19, 2011)

Dwayne Barry said:


> *In general, the only groups that have been shown to lose weight without attending to diet are those engaged in very high (probably unsustainable) levels of physical activity (e.g. military recruits going through basic training).


This is kind of funny. When I came out of Basic Training, I was in the best shape of my life. Don't get me wrong, they feed you all you can stuff your face with. The first few weeks, I ate like crazy at every meal... to the point where I felt like hell as soon as we had to "get back at it." I eventually learned to eat only enough to curb the hunger... thereby, greater activity actually influenced me to eat less. Funny how that worked.


----------

