This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
So I do a lot of running and enter fell races and ultras - the vast majority of other runners I see are lean and fit looking.
Where as the vast majority of cyclist all seem to be seriously overweight. So my question is does it actually help you lose fat?
Why would running be better then cycling?
Nothing against cyclists except when they insist on riding two abreast blocking the traffic behind but that is for another day!!!!!
Where as the vast majority of cyclist all seem to be seriously overweight. So my question is does it actually help you lose fat?
Why would running be better then cycling?
Nothing against cyclists except when they insist on riding two abreast blocking the traffic behind but that is for another day!!!!!
1
8
1
In reply to notaclue:
Am riding my bike to and from work and it's helping me lose weight. Not as much as running did though. Might even get fit enough for running again soon
Am riding my bike to and from work and it's helping me lose weight. Not as much as running did though. Might even get fit enough for running again soon
Post edited at 19:38
1
In reply to notaclue:
Personally i think its easy to go on a long ride and put very little effort in while pretending to yourself that you are. Whereas a long run, even at a gentle pace, still requires some effort. Not saying you can't lose weight on a bike, you just need to try!
Personally i think its easy to go on a long ride and put very little effort in while pretending to yourself that you are. Whereas a long run, even at a gentle pace, still requires some effort. Not saying you can't lose weight on a bike, you just need to try!
4
In reply to notaclue:
I think a lot of cyclists at the moment are very new to the sport hence they've still got a bit of padding. Look at a person who's cycled for a while they'll be skinny.
I think a lot of cyclists at the moment are very new to the sport hence they've still got a bit of padding. Look at a person who's cycled for a while they'll be skinny.
In reply to notaclue: I see overweight people cycling. And I see overweight people running. And I always think "well done mate - good effort". Alternatively I suppose I could just sneer at them.
Perhaps you ought to take your lithe, honed body and try riding a bike - you might even learn about how to ride safely in a group.
Perhaps you ought to take your lithe, honed body and try riding a bike - you might even learn about how to ride safely in a group.
18
1
In reply to notaclue:
could also be that cycling is far more forgiving to the body than running is if you are overweight so may be more enticing to someone wanting to shift the extra weight.
could also be that cycling is far more forgiving to the body than running is if you are overweight so may be more enticing to someone wanting to shift the extra weight.
2
In reply to notaclue:
What, as in Troll sized?
Your observation, is of course, complete nonsense. Do you read the DM?
Nearly all ('vast majority") of cyclists are not clinically obese ('seriously overweight').
> "the vast majority of cyclist all seem to be seriously overweight"
What, as in Troll sized?
Your observation, is of course, complete nonsense. Do you read the DM?
Nearly all ('vast majority") of cyclists are not clinically obese ('seriously overweight').
1
In reply to notaclue:
youtube.com/watch?v=M-KRGUWQINg&
Bananaman's often misguided but here I feel he's bang on.
youtube.com/watch?v=M-KRGUWQINg&
Bananaman's often misguided but here I feel he's bang on.
In reply to felt:
Durian Rider does not evidence a single claim he makes in that video. I wouldn't trust his poorly informed opinion.
Durian Rider does not evidence a single claim he makes in that video. I wouldn't trust his poorly informed opinion.
In reply to Shani:
and yet " vast majority of cyclist all seem to be seriously overweight." goes unchallenged?
and yet " vast majority of cyclist all seem to be seriously overweight." goes unchallenged?
In reply to Indy:
Exactly like the gyms become popular after Christmas and first signs of sunshine.
I find bike riding now something I do at full pelt to be constantly heavy breathing. 6 months ago at nearly 5 stone heavier I was out of breath in the slightest undulation. I couldn't believe my wedding pictures in October this 181/2 stone guy in the pictures was me. I don't get to be away due to 3 young kids but instead of being a fat couch bloke I redesigned my life.
> Time of year innit.
Exactly like the gyms become popular after Christmas and first signs of sunshine.
I find bike riding now something I do at full pelt to be constantly heavy breathing. 6 months ago at nearly 5 stone heavier I was out of breath in the slightest undulation. I couldn't believe my wedding pictures in October this 181/2 stone guy in the pictures was me. I don't get to be away due to 3 young kids but instead of being a fat couch bloke I redesigned my life.
6
In reply to Andy Hardy:
The opposite. The entire point of a bike is to make movement more efficient - as such, its harder to get your heart rate REALLY high when cycling compared to running. On the flip side, you get to see more countryside for equal amount of effort.
Still perfectly easy to get it to a point where you're making improvements though.
> [...]
> It isn't.
> HTH
> Andy
The opposite. The entire point of a bike is to make movement more efficient - as such, its harder to get your heart rate REALLY high when cycling compared to running. On the flip side, you get to see more countryside for equal amount of effort.
Still perfectly easy to get it to a point where you're making improvements though.
In reply to ianstevens:
No it is not. Sprint on foot or sprint on a bike, your HRM will quickly get VERY high very quickly. Bikes are more efficient to cover distance, but that is not the same objective as raising HR.
> The opposite. The entire point of a bike is to make movement more efficient - as such, its harder to get your heart rate REALLY high when cycling compared to running.
No it is not. Sprint on foot or sprint on a bike, your HRM will quickly get VERY high very quickly. Bikes are more efficient to cover distance, but that is not the same objective as raising HR.
In reply to notaclue:
I'm a slightly podgy runner, but it's because I eat too much, and running just makes me want to eat even more. But I burn far more running than I do cycling, as unlike a bike it's effort going downhill as well, and going fast is more effort than on a bike.
Neil
> So I do a lot of running and enter fell races and ultras - the vast majority of other runners I see are lean and fit looking.
I'm a slightly podgy runner, but it's because I eat too much, and running just makes me want to eat even more. But I burn far more running than I do cycling, as unlike a bike it's effort going downhill as well, and going fast is more effort than on a bike.
Neil
1
In reply to notaclue:
You've made a sampling error here as you are comparing a high achieving subsection of runners with the general population of cyclists.
Can I recommend you take the 'Remedial Statistics for Trollers' course?
> So I do a lot of running and enter fell races and ultras - the vast majority of other runners I see are lean and fit looking.
> Where as the vast majority of cyclist all seem to be seriously overweight.
You've made a sampling error here as you are comparing a high achieving subsection of runners with the general population of cyclists.
Can I recommend you take the 'Remedial Statistics for Trollers' course?
Post edited at 22:02
4
1
In reply to ianstevens:
Burning 100 calories on a bike must require the same effort as burning 100 calories by running.
Burning 100 calories on a bike must require the same effort as burning 100 calories by running.
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Indeed, but you can ride a bike slowly and burn very little. Whereas running slowly is walking, so if you avoid walking you've got a certain minimum level of calorie burn rate (which is surprisingly high). There's also that on a bike downhills are free
Neil
Indeed, but you can ride a bike slowly and burn very little. Whereas running slowly is walking, so if you avoid walking you've got a certain minimum level of calorie burn rate (which is surprisingly high). There's also that on a bike downhills are free
Neil
In reply to notaclue:
Am I the only one that finds cycling (mountain bike) harder than (fell) running? Up a steep hill, when running I slow to a striding out walk,whereas on the bike you have to peddle very fast or stand up and push hard. Downhills may be "free" on a bike, but I find them much more scary than running, so probably too tense and not as relaxed and rested as you might think.
I guess you cover a longer distance, but I'm more tired after an hour on the bike than on foot!
Am I the only one that finds cycling (mountain bike) harder than (fell) running? Up a steep hill, when running I slow to a striding out walk,whereas on the bike you have to peddle very fast or stand up and push hard. Downhills may be "free" on a bike, but I find them much more scary than running, so probably too tense and not as relaxed and rested as you might think.
I guess you cover a longer distance, but I'm more tired after an hour on the bike than on foot!
In reply to Andy Hardy:
But for the expenditure of 100 calories, being on a bike gets you further than on foot. And if it's not hilly (or windy), there's not much work being done
> Burning 100 calories on a bike must require the same effort as burning 100 calories by running.
But for the expenditure of 100 calories, being on a bike gets you further than on foot. And if it's not hilly (or windy), there's not much work being done
In reply to nufkin:
This really is a no-brainer... Everybody is quite capable of expending 100 calories by bike, or by foot... The indisputable fact is that cycling is more efficient than running is.
How many calories did Wiggins burn, covering 33.88 miles yesterday?... Allow Farah the same amount of calories. Is he going to cover the same distance on it?
This really is a no-brainer... Everybody is quite capable of expending 100 calories by bike, or by foot... The indisputable fact is that cycling is more efficient than running is.
How many calories did Wiggins burn, covering 33.88 miles yesterday?... Allow Farah the same amount of calories. Is he going to cover the same distance on it?
Post edited at 00:15
In reply to Clauso:
That's a bit like saying a ton of feathers weighs less than a ton of rocks. For shifting blubber, 100 calories is 100 calories regardless of the distance travelled or whether the downhill is "free".
That's a bit like saying a ton of feathers weighs less than a ton of rocks. For shifting blubber, 100 calories is 100 calories regardless of the distance travelled or whether the downhill is "free".
In reply to notaclue:
According to Garmin, I used 7,600 calories on a 95 mile ride around the North York moors and a mere 2100 running the Sheffield half. What does that prove ? Absolutely nothing ! We're all different, so stop trolling
According to Garmin, I used 7,600 calories on a 95 mile ride around the North York moors and a mere 2100 running the Sheffield half. What does that prove ? Absolutely nothing ! We're all different, so stop trolling
In reply to Neil Williams & ceri:
If you find downhills on a bike 'free' then you are doing it wrong.
You can get just as tired riding down as up (time equivalent, not distance) by pedaling hard, working the trail and trying to pump. Plus the fear and adrenaline burns calories
If you find downhills on a bike 'free' then you are doing it wrong.
You can get just as tired riding down as up (time equivalent, not distance) by pedaling hard, working the trail and trying to pump. Plus the fear and adrenaline burns calories
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
It is, but certainly if you're heavy it's far easier[1] to shift 100 calories running than cycling. According to Strava a 2-hour half marathon takes nearly 2500 off me (I'm particularly heavy). That's an extra day's free food
I suppose I could spend 2 hours spinning really fast in a really low gear up hills on a bike, but I'd find a not-excessively-fast run in pleasant countryside far more enjoyable than that.
[1] Does your body feel the same about burning 100 calories whatever way you do it? Mine doesn't. Some exercise takes more of a toll on muscles, for instance, though it depends what you're used to.
Neil
It is, but certainly if you're heavy it's far easier[1] to shift 100 calories running than cycling. According to Strava a 2-hour half marathon takes nearly 2500 off me (I'm particularly heavy). That's an extra day's free food
I suppose I could spend 2 hours spinning really fast in a really low gear up hills on a bike, but I'd find a not-excessively-fast run in pleasant countryside far more enjoyable than that.
[1] Does your body feel the same about burning 100 calories whatever way you do it? Mine doesn't. Some exercise takes more of a toll on muscles, for instance, though it depends what you're used to.
Neil
Post edited at 08:52
In reply to Neil Williams:
You can't run a 2hr half marathon if you're fat <roll eyes>
I've lost more weight cycling than running, because it doesn't destroy me, so I can do it again a couple of days later.
You need to consider the impact on the body.
Also, cycling exercises the largest muscles in the body, allowing it to burn more fuel more easily.
It's also fun. Running is not fun.
You can't run a 2hr half marathon if you're fat <roll eyes>
I've lost more weight cycling than running, because it doesn't destroy me, so I can do it again a couple of days later.
You need to consider the impact on the body.
Also, cycling exercises the largest muscles in the body, allowing it to burn more fuel more easily.
It's also fun. Running is not fun.
4
In reply to Neil Williams:
My knees would be much happier if I burnt 100 calories cycling rather than running. I guess running uses more muscles so the fatigue is more spread, but since the legs will be doing the majority of the work in either case the difference is probably marginal
> [...]
> [1] Does your body feel the same about burning 100 calories whatever way you do it? Mine doesn't. Some exercise takes more of a toll on muscles, for instance, though it depends what you're used to.
> Neil
My knees would be much happier if I burnt 100 calories cycling rather than running. I guess running uses more muscles so the fatigue is more spread, but since the legs will be doing the majority of the work in either case the difference is probably marginal
1
In reply to SiGregory:
Yes you can 6' 4", 19 stone. Depends what you mean by "fat", but there's at least 4 stone too much on me, and it isn't too much muscle. Long legs help quite a lot, I find.
Thing is I'm overweight because I eat too much (but have no willpower to solve it), not because I'm aerobically unfit, IYSWIM. The two are kind of separate.
There is that.
Each to their own I have no objection to cycling, indeed I'd rather give up my car than my bike, but I mainly use it as a mode of transport that happens to have health benefits rather than an activity in and of itself.
Neil
> You can't run a 2hr half marathon if you're fat
Yes you can 6' 4", 19 stone. Depends what you mean by "fat", but there's at least 4 stone too much on me, and it isn't too much muscle. Long legs help quite a lot, I find.
Thing is I'm overweight because I eat too much (but have no willpower to solve it), not because I'm aerobically unfit, IYSWIM. The two are kind of separate.
> I've lost more weight cycling than running, because it doesn't destroy me, so I can do it again a couple of days later.
There is that.
> It's also fun. Running is not fun.
Each to their own I have no objection to cycling, indeed I'd rather give up my car than my bike, but I mainly use it as a mode of transport that happens to have health benefits rather than an activity in and of itself.
Neil
Post edited at 09:11
In reply to notaclue:
Some people ride for fun, not to lose weight and some choose to ride simply because running is too hard for them. I'm sure riding helps them compared with doing nothing.
Some people ride for fun, not to lose weight and some choose to ride simply because running is too hard for them. I'm sure riding helps them compared with doing nothing.
1
In reply to notaclue:
Because many of them thought this is a good way to lose weight, then go to the cafe 15 miles away have a full english and cake then cycle home.
Though on the flip side I've got some members in my club who are still overweight, but have lost vast amounts of weight. If they had tried to run it off they would probably have buggered their knees.
Though never overweight to most people, cycling keeps my weight low and I don't really watch what I eat, however unlike some cyclists I like to push myself rather than bimble around and so I burn more at a guess.
Because many of them thought this is a good way to lose weight, then go to the cafe 15 miles away have a full english and cake then cycle home.
Though on the flip side I've got some members in my club who are still overweight, but have lost vast amounts of weight. If they had tried to run it off they would probably have buggered their knees.
Though never overweight to most people, cycling keeps my weight low and I don't really watch what I eat, however unlike some cyclists I like to push myself rather than bimble around and so I burn more at a guess.
In reply to IMA:
Better to cycle to the cafe and have a full English and a cake than to drive there and do the same
Neil
Better to cycle to the cafe and have a full English and a cake than to drive there and do the same
Neil
In reply to ChrisJD:
I think he was talking about real cycling
> If you find downhills on a bike 'free' then you are doing it wrong.
> You can get just as tired riding down as up (time equivalent, not distance) by pedaling hard, working the trail and trying to pump. Plus the fear and adrenaline burns calories
I think he was talking about real cycling
3
In reply to Neil Williams:
Very true and as long as you enjoy it, aren't an arsehole to others then it doesn't matter (until a later rant appears about NHS costs )
My problem is I can't cycle after eating too much so I'll stick to an espresso and the odd piece of cake (lemon drizzle or chocolate if anyone wants to offer)
Very true and as long as you enjoy it, aren't an arsehole to others then it doesn't matter (until a later rant appears about NHS costs )
My problem is I can't cycle after eating too much so I'll stick to an espresso and the odd piece of cake (lemon drizzle or chocolate if anyone wants to offer)
1
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
LOl, but I think you'll find I was talking about proper biking ;-0
Freewheeling pootling downhill is the equivalent of getting off and pushing your bike uphill. Or a triple chain set on a road bike.
LOl, but I think you'll find I was talking about proper biking ;-0
Freewheeling pootling downhill is the equivalent of getting off and pushing your bike uphill. Or a triple chain set on a road bike.
In reply to notaclue:
The big guy is an American Football Player. I dare you to call him fat...
vimeo.com/129830637
The big guy is an American Football Player. I dare you to call him fat...
vimeo.com/129830637
In reply to fmck:
Careful - any admittance of actually putting effort in and going fast on a bike will have you vilified on here as a menace on the roads, despite still going slower than the cars.
> I find bike riding now something I do at full pelt to be constantly heavy breathing.
Careful - any admittance of actually putting effort in and going fast on a bike will have you vilified on here as a menace on the roads, despite still going slower than the cars.
In reply to notaclue:
I think it's the middle aged man thing.
Men like toys and gadgets.
There's a guy in my office spends thousands on kit, is on Strava, goes on European holidays, has a turbo in his garage and is working on his VDot in conjunction with a coach on the Internet. Takes is all very seriously.
His is overweight. If he lost 3stone he'd be a very good cyclist. Too much beer and food - not too little exercise.
Have you seen how many carbs the cyclists consume on those rides? A runner cannot process carbs while running. I think if many cyclists could keep bacon sandwiches hot on the bike, they would eat them while riding.
I think it's the middle aged man thing.
Men like toys and gadgets.
There's a guy in my office spends thousands on kit, is on Strava, goes on European holidays, has a turbo in his garage and is working on his VDot in conjunction with a coach on the Internet. Takes is all very seriously.
His is overweight. If he lost 3stone he'd be a very good cyclist. Too much beer and food - not too little exercise.
Have you seen how many carbs the cyclists consume on those rides? A runner cannot process carbs while running. I think if many cyclists could keep bacon sandwiches hot on the bike, they would eat them while riding.
1
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Once saw a guy in a triathlon with a Baguette strapped to the top bar of his bike . .. not sure whether it was filled or not though
Once saw a guy in a triathlon with a Baguette strapped to the top bar of his bike . .. not sure whether it was filled or not though
1
In reply to ceri:
You could always run faster, then you'd be more tired? Surely the effort you put in dictates how tired you get, not the method. Istead of slowing to a walk on the climbs, maintain a trott?
You could always run faster, then you'd be more tired? Surely the effort you put in dictates how tired you get, not the method. Istead of slowing to a walk on the climbs, maintain a trott?
In reply to notaclue:
The other weekend I did a 60 mile hilly bike ride. It took me 5 hours. A few days later a did a 4.5 mile hilly run, it took 45 minutes. The run was by far the 'harder' activity. Maybe it's because I'm not used to running, maybe it's because I was taking it quite easy on the bike.
On a bike there is ample opportunity to have little rests, whereas when you run, the only way to have a rest is to stop running. Obviously it's possible to push hard in either activity but I find that per unit of time, running feels harder for me.
The other weekend I did a 60 mile hilly bike ride. It took me 5 hours. A few days later a did a 4.5 mile hilly run, it took 45 minutes. The run was by far the 'harder' activity. Maybe it's because I'm not used to running, maybe it's because I was taking it quite easy on the bike.
On a bike there is ample opportunity to have little rests, whereas when you run, the only way to have a rest is to stop running. Obviously it's possible to push hard in either activity but I find that per unit of time, running feels harder for me.
2
In reply to Jimbo C:
Me too. And because of that I can't get enough time running to burn up much beer.
> On a bike there is ample opportunity to have little rests, whereas when you run, the only way to have a rest is to stop running. Obviously it's possible to push hard in either activity but I find that per unit of time, running feels harder for me.
Me too. And because of that I can't get enough time running to burn up much beer.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Thats what insulated panniers are for. Although have to stop to eat them.
Just wait till the serious e-bikes become more reasonable in price.
> I think if many cyclists could keep bacon sandwiches hot on the bike, they would eat them while riding.
Thats what insulated panniers are for. Although have to stop to eat them.
Just wait till the serious e-bikes become more reasonable in price.
In reply to IMA:
It can depend on the terrain, too, if you're bimbling around Sheffield & the Peak District (or similar), so long as you have to go up a few hills, you're probably going to be working harder than you might while out for a stroll, which is going to help in burning calories so long as you don't over compensate when you eat.
> Because many of them thought this is a good way to lose weight, then go to the cafe 15 miles away have a full english and cake then cycle home.
> Though on the flip side I've got some members in my club who are still overweight, but have lost vast amounts of weight. If they had tried to run it off they would probably have buggered their knees.
> Though never overweight to most people, cycling keeps my weight low and I don't really watch what I eat, however unlike some cyclists I like to push myself rather than bimble around and so I burn more at a guess.
It can depend on the terrain, too, if you're bimbling around Sheffield & the Peak District (or similar), so long as you have to go up a few hills, you're probably going to be working harder than you might while out for a stroll, which is going to help in burning calories so long as you don't over compensate when you eat.
Post edited at 14:41
I think it's nothing to do with what anyones said. You're comparing 2 different things in the first place.
You said:
If you do a lot of running, enter fell races and run ultras it means you run at a high level. The vast majority of runners don't do this, so they are probably a bit/lot fatter than the runners you spend a lot of time with.
You also said:
I think a fairer comparison would be to compare those runners to a better bunch of cyclists, so maybe go to a Cat 1 or 2 or 3 race and see how fat people are. I think this would be a better comparison of people of a similar standard and I think you'd find people are of a similar body fat content.
I run and cycle and find when I'm cycling more I loose weight more easily. I think this is because I spend a lot more time on the bike that the time I spent running. I can easily go out for a 5 hour ride on Saturday and another ride on Sunday. If I did that running I think it wouldnt go too well. I must admit though it's a lot easier to get away with a bit of extra weight cycling, than it is running.
You said:
> So I do a lot of running and enter fell races and ultras - the vast majority of other runners I see are lean and fit looking.
If you do a lot of running, enter fell races and run ultras it means you run at a high level. The vast majority of runners don't do this, so they are probably a bit/lot fatter than the runners you spend a lot of time with.
You also said:
> Where as the vast majority of cyclist all seem to be seriously overweight. So my question is does it actually help you lose fat?
I think a fairer comparison would be to compare those runners to a better bunch of cyclists, so maybe go to a Cat 1 or 2 or 3 race and see how fat people are. I think this would be a better comparison of people of a similar standard and I think you'd find people are of a similar body fat content.
I run and cycle and find when I'm cycling more I loose weight more easily. I think this is because I spend a lot more time on the bike that the time I spent running. I can easily go out for a 5 hour ride on Saturday and another ride on Sunday. If I did that running I think it wouldnt go too well. I must admit though it's a lot easier to get away with a bit of extra weight cycling, than it is running.
2
In reply to Matt250:
And that might be why I tend to lose more weight running. Sadly I don't have time to go out for 2 x 5 hour bike rides each week. What I can do, though is fit in a 50 minute run (8-10K depending on how I'm feeling) and a shower in my lunch break (just) about 3 times a week, each one burning about 1000 calories according to Strava. And then I cycle on top of that as a mode of transport for much shorter journeys.
Yes that's certainly true. Swimming even more so (while I don't swim competitively, I can be really quite quick as weight makes very little difference - I don't have any friends who can beat me in a swimming race, or at least none that have tried it, but many of them can out-run me and probably out-cycle me as well).
Neil
> I run and cycle and find when I'm cycling more I loose weight more easily. I think this is because I spend a lot more time on the bike that the time I spent running. I can easily go out for a 5 hour ride on Saturday and another ride on Sunday.
And that might be why I tend to lose more weight running. Sadly I don't have time to go out for 2 x 5 hour bike rides each week. What I can do, though is fit in a 50 minute run (8-10K depending on how I'm feeling) and a shower in my lunch break (just) about 3 times a week, each one burning about 1000 calories according to Strava. And then I cycle on top of that as a mode of transport for much shorter journeys.
> If I did that running I think it wouldnt go too well. I must admit though it's a lot easier to get away with a bit of extra weight cycling, than it is running.
Yes that's certainly true. Swimming even more so (while I don't swim competitively, I can be really quite quick as weight makes very little difference - I don't have any friends who can beat me in a swimming race, or at least none that have tried it, but many of them can out-run me and probably out-cycle me as well).
Neil
Post edited at 17:48
I have knackered myself walking and running and have moved more and more to a bike. After a day I feel utterly knackered; I tour, no pumpy rides, but often go out for days on end. Must be burning something, but the cake shops compensate.
The relative lack of pain, walking hurt like hell for as long as I can remember, means you can work for far longer. Hence being wabbit every night.
I am also a bloater.
Post edited at 19:49
In reply to notaclue:
I snapped my achilles for the second time Nov 2013, took me until Mar this year for the doc to say go running and during the interim, I put on 2.5 stone.
Duly went running and after a week or so had really bad tendonitis so decided to get out on my bike and I started in earnest probably mid April? I go out 5 times a week and do about 15-18 kms in about 40 minutes or so and a fairly steady pace and since mid April, I've lost just over 2 stone. Obviously a decent diet, I eat 3 or 4 smaller meals a day and do 50 sit ups and press ups each day and I've found it fairly easy and in the past when I've been running, I haven't lost that much as quick.
Anyway, stop being fattist.
I snapped my achilles for the second time Nov 2013, took me until Mar this year for the doc to say go running and during the interim, I put on 2.5 stone.
Duly went running and after a week or so had really bad tendonitis so decided to get out on my bike and I started in earnest probably mid April? I go out 5 times a week and do about 15-18 kms in about 40 minutes or so and a fairly steady pace and since mid April, I've lost just over 2 stone. Obviously a decent diet, I eat 3 or 4 smaller meals a day and do 50 sit ups and press ups each day and I've found it fairly easy and in the past when I've been running, I haven't lost that much as quick.
Anyway, stop being fattist.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...