Cycling at a deficit?
257_Lag
Posts: 1,249 Member
Is it similar to lifting at a deficit where you get to a point that you can't seem to improve much?
I casually cycled for 2 years on a hybrid while losing weight. Just out putzing around not paying attention to anything.
In June I got a decent road bike and a bike computer and started trying to get faster in either or both cadence and avg MPH. It's just not happening. I ride 3 or 4 times a week in the 12 to 18 mile range in gently rolling hills, nothing substantial in slope but not much flat either. My average is only 67 rpm and 13.7 mph, again and again and again. Even in a 3 mile sprint loop I can't seem to get my rpms higher than 78.
I'm seriously considering not using the display so I can get back to enjoying my rides!
47 year old male down from 257 to 197 over 2 1/2 years.
I casually cycled for 2 years on a hybrid while losing weight. Just out putzing around not paying attention to anything.
In June I got a decent road bike and a bike computer and started trying to get faster in either or both cadence and avg MPH. It's just not happening. I ride 3 or 4 times a week in the 12 to 18 mile range in gently rolling hills, nothing substantial in slope but not much flat either. My average is only 67 rpm and 13.7 mph, again and again and again. Even in a 3 mile sprint loop I can't seem to get my rpms higher than 78.
I'm seriously considering not using the display so I can get back to enjoying my rides!
47 year old male down from 257 to 197 over 2 1/2 years.
0
Replies
-
To me if it gets to be a chore I would stop because you don't want to stop completely0
-
I have no idea but you may want to increase your protein a bit and eat a few carbs right before your rides.0
-
Is it similar to lifting at a deficit where you get to a point that you can't seem to improve much?
I casually cycled for 2 years on a hybrid while losing weight. Just out putzing around not paying attention to anything.
In June I got a decent road bike and a bike computer and started trying to get faster in either or both cadence and avg MPH. It's just not happening. I ride 3 or 4 times a week in the 12 to 18 mile range in gently rolling hills, nothing substantial in slope but not much flat either. My average is only 67 rpm and 13.7 mph, again and again and again. Even in a 3 mile sprint loop I can't seem to get my rpms higher than 78.
I'm seriously considering not using the display so I can get back to enjoying my rides!
47 year old male down from 257 to 197 over 2 1/2 years.
My husband is an avid cyclist (I'm a wannabe), and he has done three things that have made a difference: 1) Squats, 2) Increasing time on the bike (since you ride 3 or 4 times a week already it might mean just longer rides), 3) Spin class in the winter.
Edit: He isn't cycling at a calorie deficit though. I think you have a point there. Maybe reduce your deficit slightly?
0 -
I now mountain bike but previously cycle commuted. While in deficit, I have been able to improve on my speed. I don't understand your cadence number though. You should try to keep you cadence around 80-90 rpm by using your gears.0
-
While being in a calorie deficit can impair performance I don't think that's the limiting factor for you.
Average speed and average cadence can be quite poor metrics for assessing improvements as a lot of things can skew the figures (such as differing amounts of wind resistance, amount of traffic or elevation profile of the route and so on.) If you have access to a power meter or a gym which has something like a Wattbike you can get a more accurate picture of whether you are improving my doing tests every few months to check your progress.
In the meantime you just need to ride more (I would lengthen at least one of your rides particularly) and make sure you give it your best with each ride. I wouldn't worry too much about monitoring cadence - just find a gear or gears which are challenging but manageable and continue to go for it.
Give it some time (2 months effort is way to short to know anything) and your speed will improve.0 -
I now mountain bike but previously cycle commuted. While in deficit, I have been able to improve on my speed. I don't understand your cadence number though. You should try to keep you cadence around 80-90 rpm by using your gears.
Yeah, I don't get this either. Hence my dilemma. A coworker is an experiences cyclist and he can average 90 for 30+ miles. I'm hardly a gear snob (I used to be) but I can't seem to spin that fast for any length of time regardless of the gear. Truth be told I was faster when I was a gear snob and road in a heavy gear often. Probably (guessing) only doing 40 rpm. I do OK cardio wise but my legs just don't want to move like my brain is telling them too.
I do much better on Sunday morning rides as opposed to after work, maybe some of it is due to riding after work?0 -
I now mountain bike but previously cycle commuted. While in deficit, I have been able to improve on my speed. I don't understand your cadence number though. You should try to keep you cadence around 80-90 rpm by using your gears.
My thought also, cadence is determined by the gear chosen. Everyone has a different comfortable cadence but a faster cadence should give better results. I try to stay around 80 - 90.0 -
Probably (guessing) only doing 40 rpm.
Maybe you have conditioned yourself to shift to soon. How are you monitoring your cadence? I had a Garmin watch and cadence sensor and it had an option to give me an beep when I dropped too low (80 rpm) and different sounding beep when I went too high (95). That is when I shifted. Unless climbing a hill, I still don't understand why you can't keep a higher cadence. I suggest setting a lower cadence range and try to improve on it each week.
0 -
I still don't understand why you can't keep a higher cadence.
I'm guessing it is because he used to be a heavier guy and over time his physiology developed to reflect that reality - in other words more muscular endurance ability but less CV ability. So mashing for him makes sense because that is where his strengths lies but spinning will be much harder as it needs to tap into a less developed CV system.
Personally, I think that training cadence is a largely an unnecessary distraction which came to life because people wanted to mimic Lance Armstrong's ultra high cadence (while all the while forgetting about his freakish CV ability...and errrr, other stuff...). Before that most people were quite happy with their self selected cadences.
0 -
While being in a calorie deficit can impair performance I don't think that's the limiting factor for you.
Average speed and average cadence can be quite poor metrics for assessing improvements as a lot of things can skew the figures (such as differing amounts of wind resistance, amount of traffic or elevation profile of the route and so on.) If you have access to a power meter or a gym which has something like a Wattbike you can get a more accurate picture of whether you are improving my doing tests every few months to check your progress.
In the meantime you just need to ride more (I would lengthen at least one of your rides particularly) and make sure you give it your best with each ride. I wouldn't worry too much about monitoring cadence - just find a gear or gears which are challenging but manageable and continue to go for it.
Give it some time (2 months effort is way to short to know anything) and your speed will improve.I still don't understand why you can't keep a higher cadence.
I'm guessing it is because he used to be a heavier guy and over time his physiology developed to reflect that reality - in other words more muscular endurance ability but less CV ability. So mashing for him makes sense because that is where his strengths lies but spinning will be much harder as it needs to tap into a less developed CV system.
Personally, I think that training cadence is a largely an unnecessary distraction which came to life because people wanted to mimic Lance Armstrong's ultra high cadence (while all the while forgetting about his freakish CV ability...and errrr, other stuff...). Before that most people were quite happy with their self selected cadences.
and....0 -
Sit down and enjoy the show...this is getting good.0 -
Probably (guessing) only doing 40 rpm.
Maybe you have conditioned yourself to shift to soon. How are you monitoring your cadence? I had a Garmin watch and cadence sensor and it had an option to give me an beep when I dropped too low (80 rpm) and different sounding beep when I went too high (95). That is when I shifted. Unless climbing a hill, I still don't understand why you can't keep a higher cadence. I suggest setting a lower cadence range and try to improve on it each week.
You could be right! When I tooled around on the hybrid I always chose the heaviest gear I could handle figuring exertion = speed. My fastest ride EVER was my first ride on the road bike. I was actually worried that I made a bad choice because I was in the heaviest gear most of the time. Averaged 14.9 and haven't been over 14 since that day.
Now I try and ignore the gear itself and use whatever I need to. Guess I just need more time.
My bike came with RideSense sensors on the spoke and crank. It transmits ANT+ data which I pick up on a very cool android app called ipBike. Tons of information but I keep cadence and MPH on the main screen.0 -
Personally, I think that training cadence is a largely an unnecessary distraction which came to life because people wanted to mimic Lance Armstrong's ultra high cadence (while all the while forgetting about his freakish CV ability...and errrr, other stuff...). Before that most people were quite happy with their self selected cadences.
To a point maybe, but just in terms of efficient power, the range for virtually everyone is 80-95. Running is similar - optimal is around 180 (90 per leg, per minute). I mean, if it didn't matter you wouldn't need gears. Just ride a fixie and mash or ultra-spin.
OP, don't just shoot for 80 right off the bat. Just try and increase it. Get up to 70. If you are below 70, shift down and get back up even if it feels slower. You will adapt quickly, and your speed will go up later. No reason you can't be 20mph. Also if you are on a trainer, try 1 leg pedaling for 1 min each leg, 3 times each.
0 -
I still don't understand why you can't keep a higher cadence.
I'm guessing it is because he used to be a heavier guy and over time his physiology developed to reflect that reality - in other words more muscular endurance ability but less CV ability. So mashing for him makes sense because that is where his strengths lies but spinning will be much harder as it needs to tap into a less developed CV system.
This is exactly how I feel! CV = constant velocity? Sorry, don't know the term.0 -
Personally, I think that training cadence is a largely an unnecessary distraction which came to life because people wanted to mimic Lance Armstrong's ultra high cadence (while all the while forgetting about his freakish CV ability...and errrr, other stuff...). Before that most people were quite happy with their self selected cadences.
To a point maybe, but just in terms of efficient power, the range for virtually everyone is 80-95. Running is similar - optimal is around 180 (90 per leg, per minute). I mean, if it didn't matter you wouldn't need gears. Just ride a fixie and mash or ultra-spin.
OP, don't just shoot for 80 right off the bat. Just try and increase it. Get up to 70. If you are below 70, shift down and get back up even if it feels slower. You will adapt quickly, and your speed will go up later. No reason you can't be 20mph. Also if you are on a trainer, try 1 leg pedaling for 1 min each leg, 3 times each.
I'll see what I can do. I did ride 12 a few days ago keeping it in the 70's gearing if I hit 69 or 80 and paying attention to nothing else. It didn't help my speed any (13.5) but I felt good and recovered quickly.
0 -
When I ride I use a strategy similar to my running - I more or less totally ignore speed (pace) and aim to hit a particular heart rate range while at the same time keeping my cadence near where it ought to be.
If you do that for the bulk of your cycling you'll build up endurance and will train yourself to spin at a cadence that is appropriate for you that will likely be higher than where you are at now. Forget speed (pace in running) and just focus on improving your form on the bike. Speed will come.0 -
I eat at a deficit and cycle with no issues (although I do bring fuel for longer rides - 30 miles or more). A large part of gaining speed on the bike, like running, is a matter of riding more.
I went from a hybrid to a road bike last June....I had a small initial bump in speed, but the vast majority of my speed gains have come from consistent training over the past year (I do triathlons). I went from averaging 13mph on my hybrid to maybe 14 on my road bike just from the bike itself, to 15-16mph by the end of last season (not counting races), to now 17-18mph after a solid year of training (including many, many hours on a trainer in the winter). For the past 4 weeks, I averaged 4 hours and about 70 miles a week on the bike.
As far as cadence - my coach wants me around 90 for all my rides, because that is the ideal cadence to hop off the bike and go right into a run. But he NEVER wants to see my cadence below 80. Mashing is inefficient, and if you ever encounter a big hill on a ride where you try to mash up the hill, you will totally gas your legs and be walking.
That said, it takes a LOT of dedicated work to increase your "natural" cadence (and I put that in quotes, because you'll likely always need to be conscious of your cadence) - and the best time to work on cadence is in the winter when you can put your bike on a trainer and have absolutely no variables of terrain, wind, and traffic, and can monitor your cadence the whole ride (vs glancing at it now and then because you have to pay attention to the road) - not saying you can't start working on it now...you can and you should....but the trainer is the best for cadence training. I had many trainer sessions over the winter that involved 60+ minute rides (thank you netflix) with an average cadence goal of 100 or 105. That type of training got me from averaging 70-75 outside to averaging 85-90 outside.0 -
Personally, I think that training cadence is a largely an unnecessary distraction which came to life because people wanted to mimic Lance Armstrong's ultra high cadence (while all the while forgetting about his freakish CV ability...and errrr, other stuff...). Before that most people were quite happy with their self selected cadences.
To a point maybe, but just in terms of efficient power, the range for virtually everyone is 80-95. Running is similar - optimal is around 180 (90 per leg, per minute). I mean, if it didn't matter you wouldn't need gears. Just ride a fixie and mash or ultra-spin.
Sure but that presumes that a large difference over self selected cadence can be realistically trained and improved and even if it can whether it is worth the time devoted to that aspect of training and further whether it translates into a meaningful increase in sustainable threshold power as opposed to efficiency.
Frankly I'm not convinced it is worth bothering with on all of the above.I still don't understand why you can't keep a higher cadence.
I'm guessing it is because he used to be a heavier guy and over time his physiology developed to reflect that reality - in other words more muscular endurance ability but less CV ability. So mashing for him makes sense because that is where his strengths lies but spinning will be much harder as it needs to tap into a less developed CV system.
This is exactly how I feel! CV = constant velocity? Sorry, don't know the term.
Lol - no cardiovascular ability
0 -
Personally, I think that training cadence is a largely an unnecessary distraction which came to life because people wanted to mimic Lance Armstrong's ultra high cadence (while all the while forgetting about his freakish CV ability...and errrr, other stuff...). Before that most people were quite happy with their self selected cadences.
I'm not going to disagree because frankly I don't know, but I will say they I have found higher cadence (80-90) and not mashing has been better for my knees.
0 -
Personally, I think that training cadence is a largely an unnecessary distraction which came to life because people wanted to mimic Lance Armstrong's ultra high cadence (while all the while forgetting about his freakish CV ability...and errrr, other stuff...). Before that most people were quite happy with their self selected cadences.
I'm not going to disagree because frankly I don't know, but I will say they I have found higher cadence (80-90) and not mashing has been better for my knees.
Fair play and if you have found a general cadence which suits you and your riding then more power to you.
I guess what I am saying is outside what the fashionable advice is at the moment which, in my opinion, arose from a time where power meters were less commonly used and available.
Training cadence is not a training goal to me - improving threshold power is though and the cadence / gearing to achieve that is a personal thing.0 -
Being at a slight deficit didn't harm my training or progress at all - but I did fuel my longer (2hrs +) rides properly. Trained for and completed my first century while still losing weight.
I have a naturally low cadence (under 70) but managed to break that habit using an indoor trainer. Gives you completely controlled conditions unlike outdoor rides. Power meter showed what an easy way to boost performance that is. Much easier to spin your legs 15% faster than to try and gain a 15% strength improvement.0 -
For my next trick I will start a debate on crash hats...
If anyone, including the OP, is interested on a fairly good article on the subject of cadence training then see here:
To spin or not to spin, that is the questionIn short, you should choose a cadence that mirrors your power output; unless you’re an elite rider, it’s unlikely you’ll benefit from using cadences exceeding around 80rpm. However, world-class athletes can push into 100 rpm range for the most efficient cadence that will produce the greatest performance.0 -
*Raises hand* Yep! Another former clydesdale here - that was my experience as well.
The path out for me was taking one of my weekly rides and just hammering cadence, and not worrying about distance. It basically became an interval session - hammer, pant for a while, hammer, pant for a while. Plus make at least one of the other rides longer. As sucky as it sounds, there's just no substitute for miles on the legs.
0 -
Personally, I think that training cadence is a largely an unnecessary distraction which came to life because people wanted to mimic Lance Armstrong's ultra high cadence (while all the while forgetting about his freakish CV ability...and errrr, other stuff...). Before that most people were quite happy with their self selected cadences.
I'm not going to disagree because frankly I don't know, but I will say they I have found higher cadence (80-90) and not mashing has been better for my knees.
Fair play and if you have found a general cadence which suits you and your riding then more power to you.
I guess what I am saying is outside what the fashionable advice is at the moment which, in my opinion, arose from a time where power meters were less commonly used and available.
Training cadence is not a training goal to me - improving threshold power is though and the cadence / gearing to achieve that is a personal thing.
I wouldn't necessarily call 80-ish a "high" cadence, and that should be reachable by any amateur on anything up to a 5% grade (unless it's really long).
But if someone is targeting Armstrong (and dare I say it...Froome) style spinning where you're at 100-ish going up Ventoux, it's worth keeping in mind that Lance's doping regimen would have produced physiological changes best expressed as a high-cadence riding style. It's debatable that style is suitable for someone on a more....normal..."food" intake.
0 -
For my next trick I will start a debate on crash hats...
If anyone, including the OP, is interested on a fairly good article on the subject of cadence training then see here:
To spin or not to spin, that is the questionIn short, you should choose a cadence that mirrors your power output; unless you’re an elite rider, it’s unlikely you’ll benefit from using cadences exceeding around 80rpm. However, world-class athletes can push into 100 rpm range for the most efficient cadence that will produce the greatest performance.
What about those of us without a way to measure power output?
0 -
It sounds like you are treating cadence as a performance goal in its own right. This is a distraction. You don't win the TdF by being the person who can spin their legs the fastest.
If your cadence is in the 60-70 range then personally I would change down a gear to get the legs moving faster, unless I was specifically targeting a strength workout.
I believe you would benefit from setting goals related to distance/time, rather than cadence.
Just change down a gear and remove your cadence sensor :-)
0 -
80-90 is generally recommended to minimize the stress on the joins. It's not gospel; just go at your self selected cadence and increase it as you get get more fit. To go faster you need to produce more power (not to be confused with strength, hence weight lifting does nothing for cyclists, and note strength is not a limiting factor to cycling performance). Higher cadence allows one push that envelop further out due to limitation of gearing (as in sprinting). There is a lot of BS out there. Just because someone is duped up, winning, and spin at 100+ rpm doesn't mean it works for everyone.
That said, my cadence for Zone 1-3 is around 90 and Zone 4-5 is around 80-85 on the flats. On climbs it is around 70 and much lower when it pitches up. On sprints I usually bring it up pass 130 (but it's been a long time since that rpm corresponded to a speed of 40+mph on the flats). It took me six years of constant riding in my youth, HS followed by collegiate racing, to be comfortable/natural with those cadences. When I retook up the sport after 23 years hiatus, it took me over a year to get my spin back up.
I got back into cycling for loss weight. Since May 2014 I have loss just short of 50 pounds while eating at a net deficit. My rides are my deficits. I didn't like to starve myself and used the rides so that I can eat at maintenance but maintain a net deficit for a one pound per week weight loss. Since June I been concentrating on increasing my power output so the weight loss has ebbed; I got tired of being dropped on my weekend group rides. I'm within one pound of my initial goal but need to loss another ten and increase my FTP by 50w (250 now) to bring my w/kg up to a reasonable range.
I use IpBike also. If you are not riding in windy conditions or lots of climbing, give the VP mode a try. It's pretty constant, especially indoors, although the accuracy is not there. (I got a sense how the VP matched to my other matrices - HR, speed, and cadences - from riding indoors.) It's better than nothing and you can monitor your effort with power which is nearly impossible with other matrices. There is no subjectivity in the results; either you are producing or your not. Get Golden Cheetah, free, and track you progress. Read "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" to get an understand on how to interpret the data. Good luck.
PS. set you efficiency to 25% or higher. On VP, I had it set at 27%. The calories estimate will be on the conservative side. Range for human efficiency is between 20-25%, with a few exceptional at 27%. Elite cyclist are in the 23-25% range. The higher % setting offset underestimate of my food intake and higher power estimate from IpBike. Mine VP was off by 20 watts compared to my Stages PM (glad I intuitively made that call).0 -
This is really interesting for me, because I don't pay attention to cadence as much as I probably should. Now, I'm a pretty novice mountain biker, mostly ride on gravel roads, maybe some single track. I'm a wimp, no doubt about it; 53-yr old female just out to have fun rides. And now I do try to keep in the 60-80 cadence given fat tires and rough roads. BUT, my competitive spirit kicked in last summer when I just could not keep up with a couple women, older than me, who would blast by me on hills. It drove me nuts.
Like the OP, I started at 220, lost 75 pounds, down to 145. I'm simply not as strong CV-wise as I could be, no doubt, maybe as a result from losing weight while not really paying attention to maintaining lean muscle in the process. And I thought I sort of made up for part of it with the strength in my tree-trunk legs. Two years riding, though, and I still couldn't keep up with these two women.
So this past winter, and now this summer, I changed up a few things, and the following has made a huge difference:
1. Weightlifting. For overall strength building, I joined a gym, hired a personal trainer, and got on a barbell compound-lifting program. I realized my legs may have some decent quads, but my hamstrings and glutes were almost non-existent. Deadlifts and squats really helped round out my leg and lower posterior strength, helping my biking on both strength and speed.
2. Read this: cyclesportcoaching.com/Files/CyclingSpecificStrengthTraining.pdf. Suggests not only cycling-specific leg strength training, but also the single-leg pedaling as mentioned above, which I also incorporated during the winter on a spin bike.
3. Re-adjusted the fit on my bike. By getting a less-padded seat (still padded, but straight across rather than two padded, rounded spots for my butt) and by lifting the seat up and back a smidge and lowering the handlebars, I am now leaning more forward and placing my lower butt bones on a harder seat. Before, I was more upright, with the pressure on the seat at my mid-butt (if this makes ANY sense at all). The difference between the ride before doing this, and the ride after doing this (nothing else changed), is AMAZING. My glutes and hamstrings are much more actively engaged, versus mostly my quads; and my pushing ability has improved significantly. With that one change I'm a stronger rider.
None of these may have any bearing on your situation, but they made a difference for me, so I thought I'd pass along. I do need to work on my cardio endurance, but I can really tell the difference between my riding last summer and this summer. The entire group I bike with have also made individual comments to me, it's that noticeable.
I do think you can become a stronger rider in a deficit; maybe on riding days, pack in the energy before a ride, and look at weekly calorie totals versus maintaining a deficit every day?0 -
hebdenbiker wrote: »It sounds like you are treating cadence as a performance goal in its own right. This is a distraction. You don't win the TdF by being the person who can spin their legs the fastest.
If your cadence is in the 60-70 range then personally I would change down a gear to get the legs moving faster, unless I was specifically targeting a strength workout.
I believe you would benefit from setting goals related to distance/time, rather than cadence.
Just change down a gear and remove your cadence sensor :-)
yeah, I wouldn't train for cadence...if anything, monitor cadence to relieve wear and tear on the knees and whatnot, but that's it.
just gear down OP and work from there.
0 -
"single-leg pedaling" is noise and only purpose is to demonstrate how poorly one can peddle with one leg.
PS - To get a real smooth spin, ride a track bike (fixed). The lack of freewheel mechanism forces you to spin with the rotation of the wheels. Do it without brakes for added fun. My spin grew leap and bounds after getting mine and riding it a few days per year during winter. Its also a great tool for improving one's sprint.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions