Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

Does riding trim stomach fat?

7K views 50 replies 27 participants last post by  Dream Plus 
#1 ·
Really got back into biking because of health issues and my laziness to exercise. Gas prices have also helped me see the light. Im reading up alot of info on here and to tell you the truth its quite daunting the amount of info on this site. Im overloaded lol. Ive just gotten to this Nutrition section and it got me wondering if riding will help get rid of my stubburn belly fat? If so how long before I see results to my total body? Ive heard the quads refered to as "your second heart" and that its responsible for the shape of your body. Ive already changed my eating habbits but it hasnt really helped. Any help appreciated.
 
#2 ·
Snakebitten said:
Really got back into biking because of health issues and my laziness to exercise. Gas prices have also helped me see the light. Im reading up alot of info on here and to tell you the truth its quite daunting the amount of info on this site. Im overloaded lol. Ive just gotten to this Nutrition section and it got me wondering if riding will help get rid of my stubburn belly fat? If so how long before I see results to my total body? Ive heard the quads refered to as "your second heart" and that its responsible for the shape of your body. Ive already changed my eating habbits but it hasnt really helped. Any help appreciated.
Spot reduction is a myth. To lose weight eat less and exercise more. Eventually your belly fat will go away also. Rule of thumb re: fat is first on, last off. In men that usually means belly...in women it's the butt and thighs.
 
#3 ·
Yes, for most men the belly is where excess fat goes, but every individual has a unique pattern of fat storage.

Seems like most successful, persistent weight loss is acquired through a combination of exercise and caloric restriction. I've seen lots and lots of people do it.

Another weight loss "secret" is getting plenty of sleep. IMO when you are sleep-deprived you are more likely to go for excess calories as a way of making up for your tired state.
 
#4 ·
pretender said:
Yes, for most men the belly is where excess fat goes, but every individual has a unique pattern of fat storage.

Seems like most successful, persistent weight loss is acquired through a combination of exercise and caloric restriction. I've seen lots and lots of people do it.

Another weight loss "secret" is getting plenty of sleep. IMO when you are sleep-deprived you are more likely to go for excess calories as a way of making up for your tired state.
i found this true as well. i read your body uses fat while you sleep.
 
#8 ·
i completely disagree. there are so many wack diets out there, I truly believe that most people do not understand the simplicity of weight loss. if more calories go in then are burned, you gain wait. you can eat "low fat" all day long, but if you over consume, you will gain wait. if I need 3k calories per day, I can eat 4 egg mcmuffins and still lose weight. there are varying ways to remain fit, healthy, full of energy etc, as you lose weight, but it is all about calories in the end.
 
#9 ·
Calories burned burns fat, fat comes off your body throughout the entire body, torso, face, hands, feet. Problem with biking many times your caloric intake goes up because you are famished.

For every 1 lb of muscle you put on your body, you will burn an extra 15 calories while you sleep.
 
#10 ·
Completely agree. Weight loss is not rocket science.
 
#13 ·
something else to consider is that areas that get the most muscle usage, seem(at least in my case) to be the leanest. my legs are more lean then my upper body for example. there is a correlation to the fact that 98% of my exercise is cycling. my point is: don't forget to workout your stomach muscles if a 6 pack is part of your goal along with weight loss
 
#14 ·
There is more to it than just calories. You need to get adequate micro-nutrients and avoid foods that cause problems. You could have a Wheat Belly problem. Exercise alone will not fix this.
 
#15 ·
as said above, you cannot target specific fat loss zones. Your genetics decide where your fat stores go. Want less fat? Burn more fuel by increasing excersize. Eating better, less junk, less high glycemic foods. Build muscle is also key to weight loss. True, muscle weighs more then fat however, more muscle requires more fuel to maitain that muscle. Put some more good meat on the bones and it will raise your metabolic rate. You'll burn more fat in your sleep and during inactivity like at work.
 
#16 ·
MikeBiker said:
There is more to it than just calories. You need to get adequate micro-nutrients and avoid foods that cause problems. You could have a Wheat Belly problem. Exercise alone will not fix this.
I don't see any reliable evidence of a "wheat belly" phenomenon. For example, look at what this doctor recommends:

If you don't believe it, try this experiment: Eliminate all forms of wheat for a 4 week period--no breakfast cereals, no breads of any sort, no pasta, no crackers, no pretzels, etc. Instead, increase your vegetables; healthy oils; lean proteins (lean red meats, chicken, fish, turkey, eggs, Egg Beaters, yogurt and cottage cheese); raw nuts like almonds, walnuts, and pecans; and fruit. Of course, avoid fruit drinks, candy, and other garbage foods, even if they're wheat-free.

If a person actually were to follow such a plan, of course it would lead to weight loss, because there would be a net caloric deficit. It's the calories, not the wheat.

AFAIK there is no evidence that different kinds of food target different fat stores.
 
#17 ·
MikeBiker said:
There is more to it than just calories. You need to get adequate micro-nutrients and avoid foods that cause problems. You could have a Wheat Belly problem. Exercise alone will not fix this.
This is an anecdotal claim that clearly mixes different factors such that you can't blame anything on "wheat" per se. Simply stated, if one eliminated a similar amount of calories from non-wheat sources, you would likely see the same outcome.
 
#19 ·
I know whenever I used to run a lot it was much easier for me to lose weight
than it is for a comparitive amount of time in the saddle. That doesn't compute.
I often see somewhat paunchy middle-aged dedicated cyclists, not so many runners
fit that demographic and body type. That shouldn't be, according to the in-out theory.
 
#20 ·
phoehn9111 said:
I know whenever I used to run a lot it was much easier for me to lose weight
than it is for a comparitive amount of time in the saddle. That doesn't compute.
I often see somewhat paunchy middle-aged dedicated cyclists, not so many runners
fit that demographic and body type. That shouldn't be, according to the in-out theory.
apples to apples please
if you're riding and running at the same energy output then the results should be more similar.

But all things aren't equal
You can't coast while running.
You can't soft pedal.
you can't draft

Also running is more anerobic because of the impact work the legs are doing. You'll build more muscle mass then spinning. Greater muscle mass = higher resting metobolic rate = more fat burnt during inactivity.
 
#21 ·
phoehn9111 said:
I know whenever I used to run a lot it was much easier for me to lose weight
than it is for a comparitive amount of time in the saddle. That doesn't compute.
I often see somewhat paunchy middle-aged dedicated cyclists, not so many runners
fit that demographic and body type. That shouldn't be, according to the in-out theory.
1. The caloric "in-out" hypothesis is proven fact, as much as the earth rotating around the sun. What makes the whole thing tricky, and why the weight loss advice "burn more calories than you eat" is worthless, is because calories don't get consumed or burned in a vacuum. The timing and content of what you consume influences how many calories you burn, and vice versa. Add in real-world concerns like job, family, little time for sleep, the expense of fresh healthy food vs the cheapness and easy availability of processed calorically-dense food, etc etc, and you start to see why weight loss in the real world is difficult.

2. Unless you are really railing it on the bike, running easily burns more calories per unit time than cycling. Also, running generally requires that your stomach is empty, so there is a good two to three hours of pre-run fasting that isn't required for cycling. I also think there is selection bias: fat people can indeed cycle quite well, because the bike supports all of one's weight, but fat people are at tremendous disadvantage in running. People are more likely to stick with an exercise in which they are competent.
 
#22 ·
phoehn9111 said:
I know whenever I used to run a lot it was much easier for me to lose weight
than it is for a comparitive amount of time in the saddle. That doesn't compute.
I often see somewhat paunchy middle-aged dedicated cyclists, not so many runners
fit that demographic and body type. That shouldn't be, according to the in-out theory.
You do realize that you could be mistaken in your observation, or your observations are real but don't apply to the population as a whole, or maybe runners burn more calories than cyclists or diffrent body types choose to run vs. cycling or....a hundred other explanations. That is why we do controlled studies to try to get at underlying causes as best as possible.

The "in-out theory" at least on the surface has to be correct from a basic thermodynamics perspective. Of course, clearly something could affect the "in or out" so it becomes less obvious. E.g. perhaps eating wheat depresses basal metabolism so there is less "out" or maybe we're really efficient at digesting wheat so that a 100 cal in the mouth ends up being a hundred calories in the cells, where as some other food we don't digest so well so 100 cal in the mouth doesn't get fully digested and actually puts less than 100 cal in the body to use as energy.
 
#23 ·
You are, of course, absolutely correct. I should know better than to spout
off vague generalities and subjective BS, especially in this forum where
measureability and objectivity should be paramount. Apples to apples, indeed.
 
#24 ·
thoughts...

When weight is lost, it will come from wherever your body chooses. You can't do anything to pick where.

I gain 7-8 pounds every winter and always have a hard time losing it, to get down to my preferred 132-134. It's very easy to consume far more calories in energy drinks and power bars than you expend riding. Most estimates of calories consumed per mile are exaggerated.

I would not eat any extra calories on any ride of 2 hours or less. If you know you'll be out for a lot longer than that, take an energy drink or power bar (either one being about 240 calories), but not both. When I ride 3 hours, I drink 120-240 calories in energy drink on the road and my consume that much in a recovery drink when I get home, but eating much more often causes weight gain rather than loss.
 
#25 ·
I can't believe we are still having this debate. lose weight = eat fewer calories. supermodels don't do intervals, they starve themselves and smoke cigarettes. they may be unhealthy inside, but it works to lose weight. now if you want to be super fit/healthy and lose weight, you need to be mindful of *what* you eat and how much. the kind of exercise is irrelevant if you know your caloric burn. also helpful is a BMR. the most elegant answer to this debate on pure weight loss is still "eat fewer calories then you burn". when and how you burn, and when, what you eat are irrelevant
 
#26 ·
C-40 said:
When weight is lost, it will come from wherever your body chooses. You can't do anything to pick where.
but doesn't what you eat affect this? maybe this for example?

if i eat only protein after a hard ride, i am probably going to feel more tired. but won't my body become more lean after the process?

versus if i eat all simple sugars after that same ride, wouldn't that more likely appear as body fat? my body wouldn't have to so hard work to use this food.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top