# Is weight loss equivalent to riding a lighter bike?



## S​​usspect (May 12, 2017)

This seems like a forum where people may have thought this through...

I'm wondering how weight loss (of your body) interacts with bike weight.
In other words, how does losing 10 pounds compare in efficiency/endurance/speed increases to riding a bike that is 10 pounds lighter?

I'm not a weight weenie, my bike weighs 30+ pounds... but in the last 8 months, I've also lost 30+ pounds. Common sense tells me this weight loss is not the same as riding a bike that weighs _nothing_. No matter what my body weight is, the bike is separate from my body and needs to be wrestled along the trail with my feet and hands, so I'm assuming losing a pound of bike weight has more impact than losing a pound of body weight.

Any thoughts about the science of this?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I’ll bite. 

One, separate the two from each other, completely. It’s not a good way to think about this at all. 

Your body losing weight is almost certainly more beneficial. For starters, the simple math of watts per kilogram. You’re carrying less of you up the hill. Second, you are perhaps more efficient now. You have less flesh to pump blood to and from. And, you have less flesh to keep hydrated, and to keep cool. 


So, you a) are faster because of w/kg, b) faster because you have less flesh to supply blood to, and c) faster because you aren’t as hot. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

I agree with Le Duke. Also, whatever you've done to lose the weight via exercise will result in increased lung capacity, muscle endurance and cardiovascular health...not to mention the mental health benefits.

While this is the weight weenie forum, none of my bikes are built solely with weight in mind.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Force = mass x acceleration. Work = Force x distance. So yes, if the total weight you're moving, bike plus you, is less...it requires less work.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

noapathy said:


> While this is the weight weenie forum, none of my bikes are built solely with weight in mind.


This. I could have built my ASRc a lot lighter than the 22.6lbs or whatever it is right now.

But, I wanted a dropper post, and parts that had proven reliability for the way I ride, at my riding weight. That said, a lot of people seem to throw the heaviest **** they can find on a bike. Simply because that component is "burly", which is often synonymous with under/poorly engineered, and over marketed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## S​​usspect (May 12, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> Your body losing weight is almost certainly more beneficial.


Okay! I'm a little surprised, but in a good way, if this is the consensus. I mean, clearly being in better, leaner condition is a big plus, But I would've thought that shaving a pound of bike weight (3.3% of a 30 pound bike) would have more of an impact than shaving a pound of fat (.05% of a 200 pound man). I expected the weight of the bike to be seen as proportionally more impactful.



Le Duke said:


> separate the two from each other, completely. It's not a good way to think about this at all.


Yes, I was halfway aware of that. The combination of factors is too complex to make simple determinations of benefit. Either way, I'm feeling a bit less concerned that my 31 pound bike is not a 28 pound bike. And more importantly, glad to be in better shape these days.

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

otoh, I'm 140 and at this point, I'd rather lose 5 lbs off the bike than myself.


----------



## GRPABT1 (Oct 22, 2015)

Whilst I generally agree with the concesus here I don't think it's that clear cut.

For example: I can notice a couple pounds of bike weight, climbing and descending. I can't notice a couple of pounds of body weight. Body weight is distributed evenly for the most part and a bike (or any gear you wear) is an extension onto your body that you must maneuver. Losing significant amounts of weight is clearly beneficial, above and beyond insignificant weight savings that can be had on a bike. But that does not make bike weight less important than body weight, quite the contrary in my opinion. The weight loss is much more noticeable for me from the bike than myself. 

This said I've recently lost about 25kgs and the PR's don't lie.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Work done/energy expended over a given period of time is related to the total amount of mass that you are moving, no matter if that weight is on the bike, on you, or you. If you are riding the same bike over the same course on two different occasions, but weigh less (or the bike weighs less) on the second occasion, you will do less work/expend less energy. If you weigh less but pedal harder in order to maintain the same amount of work done, you will go faster over that course.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

It's not quite that simple, there are other factors.

Me riding a 90 lb bike would not be the same as a 200 lb rider riding a 30 lb bike.

200 lb rider + 30 lb bike = 230 lbs
140 lb rider + 90 lb bike = 230 lbs


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

chazpat said:


> It's not quite that simple, there are other factors.
> 
> Me riding a 90 lb bike would not be the same as a 200 lb rider riding a 30 lb bike.
> 
> ...


Yea, but what about a 250lb rider riding a -20lb bike?


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> It's not quite that simple, there are other factors.
> 
> Me riding a 90 lb bike would not be the same as a 200 lb rider riding a 30 lb bike.
> 
> ...


Can you cite the physics behind that, or is that just something that seems to make sense to you?


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

chazpat said:


> It's not quite that simple, there are other factors.
> 
> Me riding a 90 lb bike would not be the same as a 200 lb rider riding a 30 lb bike.
> 
> ...


Well, no. If you take the same person starting at 140 on a 90 bike and put him/her on a fattening diet, and every pound gained is taken off the bike then the work required to go from point A to B will always be the same ....

Obviously if you do not do that (taking the body weight added off the bike) the biker will require progressively more work to go from A and B ... until he/she collapses in a heap at a combined 290 lbs :eekster::eekster::eekster:


----------



## Ziggy-Stardust (Jan 26, 2004)

The correct answer boils down to body composition. Two scenarios at both ends of the spectrum:

1. If you are fit and at your ideal weight with lean muscle mass and minimal body fat, then losing additional body weight will not effectively be the same as losing bike weight. Losing additional body weight from that point will *decrease *your peak athletic performance on that same bicycle (you will become weaker). In contrast, losing bike weight (keeping ideal body weight the same) will increase your net athletic performance on that bike.

2. If you are unfit and at well above your ideal weight with little lean muscle mass and a high level of body fat? Then losing additional body weight will - again - not effectively be the same as losing bike weight. Losing additional body weight from that point will *increase *your peak athletic performance. This is especially true because your heart and lungs must provide oxygen to all that fatty tissue that otherwise would go to your muscles powering you forward. This subtracts from your peak athletic performance. So in this case, you're much better off losing body weight than bike weight. Another way of looking at it is that if you are 20 lbs overweight, your muscles must not only carry that dead weight around, but your heart and lungs must also oxygenate and provide energy to those fat cells at the same time (while that fat does nothing in terms of creating power). It's a double whammy, whereas if you have a bike that's 20 lbs overweight - but you are at ideal weight - you just have to muscle the bike around. The extra metal in that bike doesn't require oxygen and nutrients from your body in order to function the same way.

There are other scenarios in the middle which depend on the type of riding you're doing. A rider participating in an extreme endurance ride spanning many hours or even days across the frozen tundra might actually benefit from having a higher fat content in their body. Whereas a typical XC rider with much shorter sprints in warm weather would benefit from the leaner body types typically associated with weight weenie XC-ers.


----------



## Sage of the Sage (Nov 10, 2011)

In terms of speed, lighter=faster in most disciplines. Harvard did some studies (I’m looking for them right now) in which they discovered that among runners, added weight, no matter how fit the athlete was, decreased overall speed in hot weather. It wound up being something like minutes per mile between a 170lb runner and a 200lb runner on a 90F day. 

As was stated earlier- unless you’re at your ideal weight already, weight off you is more important than weight off the bike. On average, 1lb of fatty tissue adds a mile of blood vessels to your circulatory system. That’s a lot of additional work...


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Ziggy-Stardust said:


> The correct answer boils down to body composition. Two scenarios at both ends of the spectrum:
> 
> 1. If you are fit and at your ideal weight with lean muscle mass and minimal body fat, then losing additional body weight will not effectively be the same as losing bike weight. Losing additional body weight from that point will *decrease *your peak athletic performance on that same bicycle (you will become weaker). In contrast, losing bike weight (keeping ideal body weight the same) will increase your net athletic performance on that bike.
> 
> ...


Eh, sort of.

A lot of very fit people (non-cyclists) carry around a lot of muscle that is absolutely useless for delivering power to the pedals of a bicycle.

And, "ideal weight" is a pretty subjective thing. I'm 5'6", 143lbs, and a "pro" XC racer. To some people, I'' super skinny; others think I'm overweight. I'm guessing my ability to produce power would not drop in the slightest if I could carve 10lbs of man meat off my body, mostly in the torso and arms. Having raced against world class racers on both the road and MTB, I can assure you that muscle mass is not a requirement to produce massive amounts of aerobic power on a bicycle. And it doesn't help the denominator in the w/kg ratio.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> Can you cite the physics behind that, or is that just something that seems to make sense to you?





Ziggy-Stardust said:


> The correct answer boils down to body composition. Two scenarios at both ends of the spectrum:
> 
> 1. If you are fit and at your ideal weight with lean muscle mass and minimal body fat, then losing additional body weight will not effectively be the same as losing bike weight. Losing additional body weight from that point will *decrease *your peak athletic performance on that same bicycle (you will become weaker). In contrast, losing bike weight (keeping ideal body weight the same) will increase your net athletic performance on that bike.
> 
> ...





Le Duke said:


> Eh, sort of.
> 
> A lot of very fit people (non-cyclists) carry around a lot of muscle that is absolutely useless for delivering power to the pedals of a bicycle.
> 
> ...


Bingo. as I said, it's not that simple. There's more to it than just the simple work calculation.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Davide said:


> Well, no. If you take the same person starting at 140 on a 90 bike and put him/her on a fattening diet, and every pound gained is taken off the bike then the work required to go from point A to B will always be the same ....


Not exactly. The ridiculously heavy bike will require a higher output. It's going to take more effort to move that bike around. There's more to it than just pedal output.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ziggy-Stardust (Jan 26, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> A lot of very fit people (non-cyclists) carry around a lot of muscle that is absolutely useless for delivering power to the pedals of a bicycle.


Absolutely true. But what I was driving at in my earlier statement was your ideal weight for _cycling_. Not ideal weight for weightlifting or rowing or some other sport. The OP's question pertained to cycling and that's what my response pertained to.



Le Duke said:


> And, "ideal weight" is a pretty subjective thing.


No it's not. If you carefully and scientifically define what it is you (or any person) are trying to accomplish athletically, your ideal weight can be broken down and determined scientifically within a coupla pounds.



Le Duke said:


> I'm 5'6", 143lbs, and a "pro" XC racer. To some people, I'' super skinny; others think I'm overweight. I'm guessing my ability to produce power would not drop in the slightest if I could carve 10lbs of man meat off my body, mostly in the torso and arms.


If that's true, then quite obviously you're carrying around 10 lbs of dead weight for the purposes of athletically competing on your bicycle. Simple fact based on what you've stated. By definition, you are _not _at your ideal weight for peak cycling performance. Carrying ten pounds of excess weight is like slipping two bricks into your camelback. Obviously it will negatively impact your performance.



Le Duke said:


> Having raced against world class racers on both the road and MTB, I can assure you that muscle mass is not a requirement to produce massive amounts of aerobic power on a bicycle. And it doesn't help the denominator in the w/kg ratio.


I think I understand what you're trying to say and I mostly agree with you. But technically what you've actually said isn't really true. In order to create _"*massive *amounts of aerobic power on a bicycle"_ you're going to need strong, powerful legs/glutes and a strong set of heart and lungs (to consistently deliver power over prolonged periods of time). You'll also need an efficient liver. Not strong as in _"hey that guy can leg press 900lbs"_, but still quite strong and efficient in order to deliver "massive" power. Power is torque x angular velocity (i.e rpm). In order to deliver massive power either the rider must spin like a demon or deliver massive torque or some combination of those two. No two ways about it. And the way to deliver massive torque is through massive leg strength (leaving out slight variations due to crank length).


----------



## HerrKaLeu (Aug 18, 2017)

Some things to consider that will impact riding:
- heavy rider vs. light bike will have higher center of gravity
- heavy rider needs to use more energy (heart, lung capacity etc.) for core muscles and to keep upright
- what makes the person heavy matters: fat, muscles that are relevant to riding, or muscles irrelevant for riding? 
- if you lose weight you gain speed, unless your weight loss is all leg muscle. If you gain weight, you become slower, unless that gained weight is all relevant leg muscle.

As a rule of thumb, if you are overweight (mainly due to fat etc.) losing weight in fat etc. will make you faster. if you are very slim, any weight loss may be muscles as well. 

Obviously the convenient answer is to throw money at the problem and buy a lighter bike to save 2 lb. To some this is easier than eating better and lose 2 lb. 

The correct answer: it depends.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Ziggy-Stardust said:


> Absolutely true. But what I was driving at in my earlier statement was your ideal weight for _cycling_. Not ideal weight for weightlifting or rowing or some other sport. The OP's question pertained to cycling and that's what my response pertained to.
> 
> No it's not. If you carefully and scientifically define what it is you (or any person) are trying to accomplish athletically, your ideal weight can be broken down and determined scientifically within a coupla pounds.
> 
> ...


In the context of pro cycling, or many other sports, of course. For a lay person, who isn't doing this for a living, again, it's a bit more of a personal choice.

Re: my own weight, I agree. My day job, which pays for my flailing around on a bicycle, requires me to be able to carry a significant amount of weight, run, jump and pull myself over or across obstacles. I'm carrying way too much upper body mass. Which, as I alluded to up thread, not only hurts my w/kg ratio, but requires resources to keep that extra tissue alive and well.

My point about strength is that, if you compared the requirements to produce 350w at 90rpm, it doesn't require much raw power. If you can stand up quickly from a seated position, you have the raw power required to do it. Now, can you do it for 5min, 10min, 20min, an hour? Past a couple of minutes and it becomes almost entirely aerobic; anaerobic and neuromuscular components providing very little.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Not exactly. The ridiculously heavy bike will require a higher output. It's going to take more effort to move that bike around. There's more to it than just pedal output.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Well, yes. I depend where you put the weight on the bike. Put it on the frame, and having extra fat of the same amount would produce the same result ... Anyway the point is that dead weight is dead weight, it does not matter if the extra weight is "inside" your fat butt or hanging under your saddle!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Davide said:


> Well, yes. I depend where you put the weight on the bike. Put it on the frame, and having extra fat of the same amount would produce the same result ... Anyway the point is that dead weight is dead weight, it does not matter if the extra weight is "inside" your fat butt or hanging under your saddle!


See above comment about center of gravity.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

chazpat said:


> See above comment about center of gravity.


Center of gravity does not really have any effect of force or work ...


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Unscientific for sure. A couple of my friends that ride a lot and are larger guys like me, 6ft + and over 230lbs figured one day that losing 5 pounds off your bike is like losing 25lbs. off your body. We have all done both and that is about how it feels. 

There you go.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

The science is pretty much indisputable. If 2 riders each apply 200 watts of force to the pedals and are the same total weight (bike & body) they will go the same speed no matter what the proportions are. Aerodynamics and physiology aside a 199 pound rider with 1 pound bike will be the same as a 1 pound rider with a 199 pound bike.

As mentioned though body weight loss would usually be more beneficial because it can improve your body's efficiency.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Davide said:


> Center of gravity does not really have any effect of force or work ...


But we're talking about riding bikes, center of gravity has a lot to do with that.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Davide said:


> Center of gravity does not really have any effect of force or work ...


It absolutely does. A change in center of gravity reflects a repositioning of an object's mass. This in turn can effect the object's moment of inertia and make it easier or more difficult to accelerate the object in a given direction.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> The science is pretty much indisputable. If 2 riders each apply 200 watts of force to the pedals and are the same total weight (bike & body) they will go the same speed no matter what the proportions are. Aerodynamics and physiology aside a 199 pound rider with 1 pound bike will be the same as a 1 pound rider with a 199 pound bike.
> 
> As mentioned though body weight loss would usually be more beneficial because it can improve your body's efficiency.


That's only true if traveling in a straight line on a smooth surface.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ziggy-Stardust (Jan 26, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It absolutely does. A change in center of gravity reflects a repositioning of an object's mass. This in turn can effect the object's moment of inertia and make it easier or more difficult to accelerate the object in a given direction.


If you had two rider+bike systems and each had the same mass but different moments of inertia, given the same power the two bikes would still accelerate the same way on the ground (all other things being equal). Unless the rider was riding in outerspace and his legs could somehow produce rocket thrust in a vacuum and that thrust was applied at a distance from the centroid, then what you would see would be differing angular accelerations between the two bike+rider systems. But, that's an absurd hypothetical, so you can't be talking about that, right?

Moment of inertia pertains to a rotating mass. Unless we're talking about someone jumping and doing mid-air summersaults, it's hardly relevant in analyzing the question posed by the OP; _"how does losing 10 pounds compare in efficiency/endurance/speed increases to riding a bike that is 10 pounds lighter?"_ The primary relevant factors are total mass and the other physiological elements mentioned earlier - not moment of inertia.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Ziggy-Stardust said:


> If you had two rider+bike systems and each had the same mass but different moments of inertia, given the same power the two bikes would still accelerate the same way on the ground (all other things being equal). Unless the rider was riding in outerspace and his legs could somehow produce rocket thrust in a vacuum and that thrust was applied at a distance from the centroid, then what you would see would be differing angular accelerations between the two bike+rider systems. But, that's an absurd hypothetical, so you can't be talking about that, right?
> 
> Moment of inertia pertains to a rotating mass. Unless we're talking about someone jumping and doing mid-air summersaults, it's hardly relevant in analyzing the question posed by the OP; _"how does losing 10 pounds compare in efficiency/endurance/speed increases to riding a bike that is 10 pounds lighter?"_ The primary relevant factors are total mass and the other physiological elements mentioned earlier - not moment of inertia.


All other things being equal assumes a flat surface in a straight line. Changing moment of inertia will change the amount of effort needed to react to turns, bumps, off camber sections, etc. where the bikes angle must be manipulated.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Black Squirrel (Oct 13, 2016)

Watched this a while ago, don't remember the outcome, don't really care, honestly.

Lighter bike is always better, but there's a point where it won't matter (or won't be strong enough to ride).

Lighter body is only better if you aren't doing strength:weight.

Considering that a large amount of riders are 20, 30, 50+ pounds over weight...... They are better off dropping some weight vs wasting $$$$ to drop 2lbs off their bike.


----------



## Ziggy-Stardust (Jan 26, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> All other things being equal assumes a flat surface in a straight line. Changing moment of inertia will change the amount of effort needed to react to turns, bumps, off camber sections, etc. where the bikes angle must be manipulated.


The OP asked _"how does losing 10 pounds compare in efficiency/endurance/speed increases to riding a bike that is 10 pounds lighter?"_ He didn't ask if there's some subtle nuance difference in handling due to changes in moment of inertia. Unless there's a massive disparity between the two bike+rider scenarios, the difference in moment of inertia will be effectively negligible in terms of handling.

Further, most people with fairly decent bikes are quite limited to how much weight they can trim from them, irrespective of how much money they're willing to spend. If you have a modestly priced $1500 XC bike that weighs 25lbs, throwing a coupla thousand at it could bring it down to 20lbs or maybe a little less. A total loss of well under 10lbs (for a bike that can do the same job). If the rider of that bike lost 7lbs instead (retaining the original 25lb bike), the "moment of inertia" and subsequent handling differences would be negligibly small.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Ziggy-Stardust said:


> The OP asked _"how does losing 10 pounds compare in efficiency/endurance/speed increases to riding a bike that is 10 pounds lighter?"_ He didn't ask if there's some subtle nuance difference in handling due to changes in moment of inertia. Unless there's a massive disparity between the two bike+rider scenarios, the difference in moment of inertia will be effectively negligible in terms of handling.


It's not just a subtle difference in handling. In fact I haven't even mentioned differences in handling you brought that into the discussion. Those "nuances" potentially cost energy and if they are high frequency and repetitive that repeated energy expenditure can add up to a significant number.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Some things I'd like to see addressed:

1. Losing weight on the wheelset specifically.
2. Downhill. Just downhill.


----------



## S​​usspect (May 12, 2017)

OP here. My take-away from this lively discussion is that it is absolutely better (and thankfully much cheaper) to lose the weight from self, rather than bike.... _as long as you have the weight to lose._

This pretty much answers my question. Hope I haven't misunderstood some of the deeper nuances of the issue. Thanks for breaking it down.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

phlegm said:


> Some things I'd like to see addressed:
> 
> 1. Losing weight on the wheelset specifically.
> 2. Downhill. Just downhill.


Losing weight on the wheels is big. At a minimum losing weight just at the hub reduces the unsprung weight. The further out the weight is lost allows the wheel to accelerate easier.

Downhill goes back to what I've been talking about. The lighter the bike the less energy needed to manipulate and move it around.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Losing weight on the wheels is big. At a minimum losing weight just at the hub reduces the unsprung weight. The further out the weight is lost allows the wheel to accelerate easier.
> 
> Downhill goes back to what I've been talking about. The lighter the bike the less energy needed to manipulate and move it around.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Indeed, but what curious what people had to say about momentum.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It absolutely does. A change in center of gravity reflects a repositioning of an object's mass. This in turn can effect the object's moment of inertia and make it easier or more difficult to accelerate the object in a given direction.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


You are splitting hairs instead of recognizing the obvious fact that losing 10 pounds of (excess) fat or ten pounds of (unnecessary) bike weight produces exactly the same result in terms of the work needed to go from A to B.

Get slim! It is cheaper than staying fat, and certainly cheaper than loosing pounds from a bike.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Davide said:


> You are splitting hairs instead of recognizing the obvious fact that losing 10 pounds of (excess) fat or ten pounds of (unnecessary) bike weight produces exactly the same result in terms of the work needed to go from A to B.
> 
> Get slim! It is cheaper than staying fat, and certainly cheaper than loosing pounds from a bike.


No, it does produce exactly the same amount of work. You cannot make absolute statements like that and complain about splitting hairs. Where that weight is distributed will have a potentially major impact on bike handling resulting in an increase in the amount of energy needed just to keep the bike on its intended line. Is it a tremendous increase/decrease, most likely not. Is it the exact amount of work, most definitely not.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Get a power meter, then do some tests and find out!


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Ziggy-Stardust said:


> Absolutely true. But what I was driving at in my earlier statement was your ideal weight for _cycling_. Not ideal weight for weightlifting or rowing or some other sport. The OP's question pertained to cycling and that's what my response pertained to.


We're not talking about road biking in a straight line here.


Ziggy-Stardust said:


> No it's not. If you carefully and scientifically define what it is you (or any person) are trying to accomplish athletically, your ideal weight can be broken down and determined scientifically within a coupla pounds.


Depends on the course, but each has different physical demands.


Ziggy-Stardust said:


> If that's true, then quite obviously you're carrying around 10 lbs of dead weight for the purposes of athletically competing on your bicycle. Simple fact based on what you've stated. By definition, you are _not _at your ideal weight for peak cycling performance. Carrying ten pounds of excess weight is like slipping two bricks into your camelback. Obviously it will negatively impact your performance.


Unless there are obstacles to avoid, corners, or basically anything that requires good core strength to navigate. While you can get away looking like a twig on the road, you have to have at least some upper body strength to play in the rough.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, it does produce exactly the same amount of work. You cannot make absolute statements like that and complain about splitting hairs. Where that weight is distributed will have a potentially major impact on bike handling resulting in an increase in the amount of energy needed just to keep the bike on its intended line. Is it a tremendous increase/decrease, most likely not. Is it the exact amount of work, most definitely not.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Well ... it is basic physics. A ton of feathers weights the same of a ton of lead.

But if anything taking off excess fat will lower your combined center of gravity. The opposite by taking it off your bike and leaving the fat up there in your belly. So body weight loss should still come ahead when it comes to handling.

But the discussion is bit moot. Yes, maybe shaving off a pound from rotating components (wheels) might be more effective than shaving off a pound of belly, but that's about it. Nobody rides a 90 pounds bike, most ride 25 to 35. And shaving off 2-3 pounds from a good bike requires the contortions you see so nicely documented on these pages. But many bikers carry along much more extra weight in fat, and if you shave off 5, 10, 20, 40 pounds you will see a big big difference ....


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Davide said:


> Well ... it is basic physics. A ton of feathers weights the same than a ton of lead.


Yes, but total weight is only one component. How an object's weight is distributed effects how easy or difficult it is to influence a change in acceleration, ie a change in direction, on that object. That is basic physics as well.



Davide said:


> But if anything by talking off excess fat from your body you will lower the center of gravity. The opposite by taking if off your bike. So body weight loss should still come ahead when it comes to handling.


Yes and no. Yes it potentially lowers the center of gravity. No, it does not guarantee an easier time handling the bike.

The rider and the bike are not a single system. They are two seperate detached entities that influence each other. The bike will have its own momentum and the rider their own as well. Sometimes those are moving in the same direction, at others they are not.

In the case where they are not the rider inherently has more control over correcting their body, infinitely more "contact points" with itself, the ability to quickly move center of mass, etc. The bike does not have these advantages. Due to its own momentum a heavier bike will be more resistant to a change in acceleration, again change in direction, than a lighter bike.

If you need real world examples go read reviews, or even better a comparison, of a sled bike like the Wreckoning and flickable bike in the same category. The reviewer will talk about how one will not leave its line and the other will change lines on a whim. Yes, in this example there is more at play than just weight but that is the same effect that disparate weights influence.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

Weight loss on either the bike or body really matters most for climbing or accelerations. On flat ground it's just drag vs power. While descending added weight helps overcome drag; ie descending on road bikes with my 140 pound 6'3"+ kid I just roll away from him, and the bigger shorter guys roll away from me. 
In my experience, it 'feels' like 10% off the bike is the same as 10% off the body (and 5% off the wheels would equal 10% off the body). I've tried climbing a bit on a DH bike, I've put up to a 40 pound kid on the kid-seat on the back of my bike, pulled a kid trailer, and also pulled a kid on a tag-along tandem.
When climbing on my cx bike it feels like it really launches compared to my hardtail when I stand up climbing on a steep trail, and it's about 5 pounds lighter than the HT, I can really feel the difference, but my body weight can fluctuate 5 pounds and I don't seem to notice. 
Generally as you lose weight through exercise you will also be gaining endurance, and a lot of times power too; not many of us experience body weight loss by itself (without gaining power and endurance while losing weight). When I was heavier (quite a bit heavier) I was also in really bad shape.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

chazpat said:


> It's not quite that simple, there are other factors.
> 
> Me riding a 90 lb bike would not be the same as a 200 lb rider riding a 30 lb bike.
> 
> ...


What if you take the 140 pound rider and give him a 90 pound bike vs a 30 pound bike and a 60 pound weight vest?


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Only marginally scientific, but may be of interest:


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

juan_speeder said:


> What if you take the 140 pound rider and give him a 90 pound bike vs a 30 pound bike and a 60 pound weight vest?


Again, center of gravity. Which one can corner faster? Slowing down means lost momentum, means more work. And where is the weight on the bike? If it is in the wheels and tires, more rotational mass to deal with. But that weight would have less effect on the suspension. Some of the "work" in riding a bike goes into compressing the suspension (without meaning to) and even flexing the frame. Bike riding is actually extremely complicated, physicist still can't 100% explain it.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> ...
> In the case where they are not the rider inherently has more control over correcting their body, infinitely more "contact points" with itself, the ability to quickly move center of mass, etc. The bike does not have these advantages. Due to its own momentum a heavier bike will be more resistant to a change in acceleration, again change in direction, than a lighter bike.
> ...


As I said, if you are lucky you can shave off 1-3 pounds from a good bike. Shave off the same amount from you overweight body and the result will be the same very minor one, with no detectable difference in the handling of the bike. Shave off 10-20 pounds from your overweight body and you will see a sizable difference in the way you ride. 30-40? Now we are talking.

BTW: not sure what the paragraph above means but it might be time to end this conversation.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Davide said:


> As I said, if you are lucky you can shave off 1-3 pounds from a good bike. Shave off the same amount from you overweight body and the result will be the same very minor one, with no detectable difference in the handling of the bike. Shave off 10-20 pounds from your overweight body and you will see a sizable difference in the way you ride. 30-40? Now we are talking.
> 
> BTW: not sure what the paragraph above means but it might be time to end this conversation.


If you're not sure what the above paragraph means then it is easy to see why you can't grasp the concept. It's basic physics as you said, but not "ideal" physics.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> If you're not sure what the above paragraph means then it is easy to see why you can't grasp the concept. It's basic physics as you said, but not "ideal" physics.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Yes, right, sorry for not being at your intelligence level, but the statement:

"In the case where they are not the rider inherently has more control over correcting their body, infinitely more "contact points" with itself, the ability to quickly move center of mass, etc."

is really quite cloudy. Especially when "contact points" in a body (whatever you mean by that: tendons? muscles? bones?) are discontinuous and flexible, while the "contact points" in a frame are continuous and rigid and much more capable of transferring accelerations with no energy loss.

Anyway, that sub-discussion does not even matter. You keep ignoring the elephant in the room: there ain't a 90 Kg bike to compare a 90 Kg over weight body to. We have bikes overweight by a few pounds, and tons of people overweight by dozens. :eekster::nono:


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Davide said:


> Yes, right, sorry for not being at your intelligence level, but the statement:
> 
> "In the case where they are not the rider inherently has more control over correcting their body, infinitely more "contact points" with itself, the ability to quickly move center of mass, etc."
> 
> ...


Your last paragraph is moving the goal posts. The entire debate has been centered around losing weight on a bike vs the body.



Davide said:


> Well, yes. I depend where you put the weight on the bike. Put it on the frame, and having extra fat of the same amount would produce the same result ... Anyway the point is that dead weight is dead weight, it does not matter if the extra weight is "inside" your fat butt or hanging under your saddle!


You understood what I meant about the body perfectly based on how you described it. However, the contact points on a bike are not fixed. There are four primary ones, hand and feet, and maybe a leg, offering a miniscule amount of control when compared to the control the body has over itself. Not to mention that the body has quite a bit more natural suspension than any bicycle on the market. There's also the matter of the mass of the two. The rider is by far the heavier body and as such will resist being deflected off its course to a much higher degree. That means that to control five extra pounds on the bike it will take more energy than to control five extra pounds on the body.

If moving on a perfectly smooth surface in a straight line you are correct. However, as soon as you hit a bump and your bike and body move in different directions where that weight is begins to effect the total amount of energy expended.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Ugh, I need to drop 5# to get back down to about 8% BF which is sort of my fighting weight as I'm at 11% right now which is quite high for me.

Thanks for the inspiration guys.

I will say this, I can genuinely feel a 1 pound loss on my bike, but not on my body. But when I was at my leanest (around 6%) I felt extremely strong and fit overall.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Your last paragraph is moving the goal posts. The entire debate has been centered around losing weight on a bike vs the body.
> 
> ....


Yes, and I am saying that given that at most you can loose 2-3 pounds from a good bike: (1) loosing those or 2-3 pounds in excess fat has an identical, rather minute, effect, while (2) loosing 5-10-20-40 pounds of excess fat makes a, progressively, huge difference.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Davide said:


> Yes, and I am saying that given that at most you can loose 2-3 pounds from a good bike: (1) loosing those or 2-3 pounds in excess fat has an identical, rather minute, effect, while (2) loosing 5-10-20-40 pounds of excess fat makes a, progressively, huge difference.


 No, the effect isn't minute or identical. Anecdotal evidence, myself included, has said in this thread that one pound off a bike is noticeable. For me it's when I hit an off camber bump at speed that tries to throw the bike off line the lighter bike fights me less. On a bike, where you are not fixed to it, as in a car, weight on the bike matters more than weight on the individual considering an equal amount of weight. Some of us do not have forty or even ten pounds of fat to lose.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, the effect isn't minute or identical. Anecdotal evidence, myself included, has said in this thread that one pound off a bike is noticeable. For me it's when I hit an off camber bump at speed that tries to throw the bike off line the lighter bike fights me less. On a bike, where you are not fixed to it, as in a car, weight on the bike matters more than weight on the individual considering an equal amount of weight. Some of us do not have forty or even ten pounds of fat to lose.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


People seem to be ignoring unsprung weight vs. sprung weight when considering what is lost from a bike.

Losing 2 pounds in your wheels will make the bike feel *much* different from losing 2 pounds off of the rest of the bike. THis is due not only to the rotating weight being more important than non-rotating, but because your suspension has less to do when the wheels weigh less. Car people have known this for decades.

Also, losing 2 pounds off of the saddle/seatpost (not usually possible, but I'll throw it out there) would have way more of an effect on handling than losing 2 pounds off of the crank/BB. The saddle/seatpost are basically on the end of a long lever compared to the BB/crank.

But the bottom line for climbing is overall weight. If you follow road racing, the riders have all finally figured out that even a gram on their body is a drawback unless it contributes to greater power output. In Professional road racing, they have a *minimum* bike weight, so that some bikes actually need ballast now to meet the standard. Since every bike weighs pretty much the same, most of the riders now look like skeletons above the waist. Photos simply can't tell the story. You need to see a pro road racer in person to realize what freaks they are. Some are 6 feet tall and 135 pounds. Even runners have more of an upper body than the climbers in road cycling.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

honkinunit said:


> People seem to be ignoring unsprung weight vs. sprung weight when considering what is lost from a bike.
> 
> Losing 2 pounds in your wheels will make the bike feel *much* different from losing 2 pounds off of the rest of the bike. THis is due not only to the rotating weight being more important than non-rotating, but because your suspension has less to do when the wheels weigh less. Car people have known this for decades.
> 
> ...


I mentioned unsprung weight briefly and yes the bottom bracket area is the least effective area to lose weight from, heck that's where road bikers add the ballast. The interesting thing is other than cranks there isn't much weight to be lost in that area on most bikes. In reality most weight well either be on the wheels, cassette included, or bar height or higher.

The physique is probably the biggest difference in mountain and road. For mountain, especially gravity oriented disciplines upper body strength isn't optional. There is a reason Richie Rude and other enduro pros look like linebackers.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

JScoot said:


> Okay! I'm a little surprised, but in a good way, if this is the consensus. I mean, clearly being in better, leaner condition is a big plus, But I would've thought that shaving a pound of bike weight (3.3% of a 30 pound bike) would have more of an impact than shaving a pound of fat (.05% of a 200 pound man). I expected the weight of the bike to be seen as proportionally more impactful.


First of all, only the total mass matters. And second, which has been pointed out, if losing 30 pounds made you more fit, that was probably a huge benefit over any amount of weight savings on the bike.

I have long argued that there is WAY too much emphasis on bike weight and your thread now illustrate why. Even the people who are quite serious about bike weight have to admit that it's way easier to take weight off of the body until you reach a really high level of fitness.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

twodownzero said:


> First of all, only the total mass matters.


No, no it does not.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> Second, you are perhaps more efficient now. You have less flesh to pump blood to and from. And, you have less flesh to keep hydrated, and to keep cool.


But less surface area and water volume for evaporative cooling. But then also less insulation.

Hmmm, an interesting engineering problem.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Schulze said:


> But less surface area and water volume for evaporative cooling. But then also less insulation.
> 
> Hmmm, an interesting engineering problem.


Wouldn't the surface area vs. volume relationship change for the better?

Example: A cylinder. As radius goes up or down, volume expands faster than surface area. As it goes down, volume shrinks faster than surface area.

But, yes, a very interesting problem to think about. Oddly enough, I was looking at a new intercooler for my car just now. "More surface area, same volume as OEM."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

If you do the heat transfer equations for a water heater (keeping the internal water volume constant), you can increase the thickness of the insulation (by increasing the outer radius of the cylinder) to a certain thickness, but beyond that the increased heat loss due to convective heat transfer from the outside surface area actually overcomes the effect of the thicker insulation. It's a surprisingly short distance, too.


----------



## sissypants (Sep 7, 2016)

Lots of good points, but I insist losing bike weight will be more important (if you aren't hugely porky).

1. Rolling weight in your wheels is constantly being impeded by bumps, ruts, rocks, etc. and that weight needs to accelerate after every obstacle
2. Center of gravity is NOT constant, as your arms and legs move somewhat independently of your bike. When your bike hits a rut, your weight shifts forward and helps your bike over it,but your bike needs to accelerate again.
3. Handling your bike is more challenging the heavier it is, resulting in decreased ability to navigate obstacles and pin it on the corners.
4. Smooth technique involves using your body to maintain momentum while your bike "floats" beneath you. When you're going really fast on the trails (like KOM speed) you'll notice this much more than if you're sitting down feeling the bumps. Carrying your bike with you is harder the heavier it is.

I used to weigh 178 lbs. I now weigh 168lbs. I have ridden 30lb bikes and 17lb bikes, and independent of my weight, lighter bikes always win out.

Now, does 100g make a difference? Probably not. At that point I'd hire a personal trainer instead of getting Trickstuff Piccola brakes and Tune hubs.

The fastest guys aren't always on the lightest bikes, but a lighter bike isn't a disadvantage.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

sissypants said:


> The fastest guys aren't always on the lightest bikes, but a lighter bike isn't a disadvantage.


A lighter bike can be a disadvantage. Noodly wheels, flimsy tires, and other ww parts can often be slower. I don't think I've ever seen a 17# trail worthy bike.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> A lighter bike can be a disadvantage. Noodly wheels, flimsy tires, and other ww parts can often be slower. I don't think I've ever seen a 17# trail worthy bike.


Mine is just under 18 lbs, and I'm giving up nothing for XC use. I agree that there's always a limit though.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

phlegm said:


> Mine is just under 18 lbs, and I'm giving up nothing for XC use. I agree that there's always a limit though.


ok I stand corrected, they are unusual though. Shurter's bike is about 20#, I can't afford that.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 17, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> ok I stand corrected, they are unusual though. Shurter's bike is about 20#, I can't afford that.


His full squishy Scott is 21lbs, while the hardtail is sub 19lbs iirc.



J.B. Weld said:


> A lighter bike can be a disadvantage. Noodly wheels, flimsy tires, and other ww parts can often be slower. I don't think I've ever seen a 17# trail worthy bike.


There's no point in going light if it cannot do its job. This is true in all forms of racing which are predicated on lightness, and lightness w/o giving up strength. That's why we have carbon, carbon, and more carbon. Just because its stupid light doesn't mean it is weak. I don't think I know of a single racing formula that doesn't put lightness as one of its tenets, except maybe...

Ironically, its DH that comes up with bizarre philosophies. They like heavy bikes, floppy wheels, and other crazy crap that would make an engineer cringe. XC is basically road racing distilled down on dirt. XC racers have to deal with aero and positioning for reduced drag.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> Ugh, I need to drop 5# to get back down to about 8% BF which is sort of my fighting weight as I'm at 11% right now which is quite high for me.
> 
> Thanks for the inspiration guys.
> 
> I will say this, I can genuinely feel a 1 pound loss on my bike, but not on my body. But when I was at my leanest (around 6%) I felt extremely strong and fit overall.


One pound off your bike might be a 4% change. One pound off your body might be closer to a .6% change. I added a pound onto my bike's weight and - due to more efficient tires - gained speed on the climbs. It just depends....


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

thesmokingman said:


> His full squishy Scott is 21lbs, while the hardtail is sub 19lbs iirc. .


Aren't those both about 20 pounds?

Either way faster guys are faster even with heavier bikes. Weight matters but even a 17# bike wouldn't change my place in the group ride pecking order, nor would it change my race results.


----------



## sissypants (Sep 7, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> A lighter bike can be a disadvantage. Noodly wheels, flimsy tires, and other ww parts can often be slower. I don't think I've ever seen a 17# trail worthy bike.


Just because you haven't seen a 17-lb trail-worthy bike doesn't mean they don't exist. Take a Scott Scale RC SL and switch out tires for Schwalbe Racing Ralph, drivetrain for 1x11 SRAM XG-1195/RF Next/PYC SL chain/XTR shifting, cockpit for boutique carbon and you've got a trail-worthy, Leadville 100-ready and Marji Gesick 100-ready bike under 17 pounds.


----------



## sissypants (Sep 7, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> ok I stand corrected, they are unusual though. Shurter's bike is about 20#, I can't afford that.


You can build a bike for cheaper. Don't buy the brand-name rip-off stuff.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Whatever, I'm not fighting about it. You guys must just live in a higher rent neighborhood than I do.

Fact remains that guys podium on 25# bikes regularly though, and I still think weight is weight. JMO. If you have no body weight left to lose, or have enough disposable cash then I think a lighter bike that doesn't sacrifice capability for sure is a good thing.


----------



## sissypants (Sep 7, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Whatever, I'm not fighting about it. You guys must just live in a higher rent neighborhood than I do.
> 
> Fact remains that guys podium on 25# bikes regularly though, and I still think weight is weight. JMO. If you have no body weight left to lose, or have enough disposable cash then I think a lighter bike that doesn't sacrifice capability for sure is a good thing.


Well said! For the record, I'm a grad student packing PB&J for lunch but bikes are my "one thing". For perspective, each spoke on my wheels are worth 5 PB&J sandwiches.


----------



## ElwoodT (Mar 13, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> Aren't those both about 20 pounds?
> 
> Either way faster guys are faster even with heavier bikes. Weight matters but even a 17# bike wouldn't change my place in the group ride pecking order, nor would it change my race results.


How could it not, (unless you are already at the top)? if your bike now weighs, say, 24 pounds, wouldn't a seven pound loss equal many minutes in a race?


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 17, 2009)

ElwoodT said:


> How could it not, (unless you are already at the top)? if your bike now weighs, say, 24 pounds, wouldn't a seven pound loss equal many minutes in a race?


This!

Anyways, I don't think there are any racers in the Elite Men's in the XCO riding 25lb sleds. Fwiw, they are all riding sub 22lb full squish bikes and 18lb hardtails or in that range. However as fast as somebody is with a 25lb bike, they will be even faster with a 20lb bike. Is anyone disputing that? And if you are doing this as a career, why would you intentionally ride a 25lb bike? Your livelihood and sponsors are on the line.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

ElwoodT said:


> How could it not, (unless you are already at the top)? if your bike now weighs, say, 24 pounds, wouldn't a seven pound loss equal many minutes in a race?


It depends I guess, the group mtb rides I do usually have lots of little climbs that are maybe 1/4 to 1 mile long. Dropping 8 pounds might save me 10 seconds on a half mile ~8% climb. It's possible that might change my status but I kind of doubt it, chasing, or being chased can add extra watts.

The last race I did started with a 5 mile ~5% hell climb and on paper shedding 8 pounds would have saved me about a minute, but how much time would I have lost one the downhill? It was super rough and ww tires might not have gotten me to the bottom. In that particular race 1 minute, or even 2 wouldn't have changed my position one way or another but I admit it could have.

Anyway now that I see how many seconds I'm losing on climbs I'm going to have to junk my old beater and pawn a few things so I can up my game


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

I'm calling that its more important of the body!.

You can take as much weight as you like off the bike. If your a fat bastard, your still a fat bastard. It will make limited impact to your riding. 

But, Stop eating the pies and get down to a lean weight you will be riding like a motherfarker in no time


----------



## dlittle800 (May 22, 2020)

One way to think about efficiency in bike racing is to compare it to Formula One car racing. In the 1950's, winning an F1 race used to be all about having the biggest engine. 

The weight of the car wasn't much of a concern, since they typically had big V12's and the engines in the front of the car. In 1958, Engineer John Cooper put the engine in the back and started winning the races with a much smaller engine and lighter car. 

Now all F1 cars have the engines in the back. Winning an F1 race is about the combination of all the elements of the car - areodynamics, vehicle weight, engine, and tyres. 

For biking, I think you need just the muscle necessary for biking (not weightlifting). Having the least body fat and the most power from fitness would make you better at climbing. But less climbing muscles would mean less weight, so you'd be faster on flats. I remember reading that Greg Lemond used to train 3 times a week - one workout was with flat riding, one on rolling hills and the third was a mountain climb. 

Also, I believe that riding up the steepest hills on the lightest possible bike would burn the most fat while creating the most fitness since fat burning is a process of oxidation. The steepness of the climb would train your muscles for the most power at the same time.

I do long 4-5 hour rides that don't seem to burn nearly as much fat as cycling up hills. I believe that the heaviness of my bike determines whether my effort is turned into an aerobic (muscle building) workout or anerobic (cardio building and fat burning) workout.

Anyone have thoughts on that?


----------



## celswick (Mar 5, 2020)

I want a bike that is durable and works. I don’t really care about the weight. I’m at least 40 pounds overweight. It’s not the weight of the bike that’s slowing me down. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dlittle800 (May 22, 2020)

If you're 40 lbs overweight, I'd suggest eating a keto diet and doing long rides. The weight of the bike is not nearly as big of an issue as is comfort (for long rides). Get yourself a comfortable touring bike, an MP3 player, a few good audiobooks and a road map. For faster results, alternate days of only drinking bone broth.


----------



## choan (May 6, 2016)

No you put both of them @100w and they will go at the same speed.


----------



## circuitsports (Aug 11, 2020)

If your over weight try intermittent fasting, eat 1x a day at 1230pm as much as you want though air fryed chicken and something with vitamin c with lots of water will be better. Weight loss is actually achieved when you exhale under heavy work there’s a fascinating Ted talk about the exact process of weight loss in the body. Also exercising in a sauna will help as will cold showers and getting quality blackout sleep with no lights and no devices within 45 minutes of bed, water before bed too. If you can pick a schedule like 4am to 10pm and never change it, even if your supposed to to to daylight savings make it 9-3 etc. Some weight loss like the wheels can have a big impact 4/6-1 equlivelant to static weight for climbing and accelerating but downhill speeds may suffer. The biggest change will be grip, traction and weight are not linear so reducing weight can produce more perceivable grip depending on body position so work on fitment.


----------



## circuitsports (Aug 11, 2020)




----------

