Effect of weight loss on speed?

[zoom-zoom]

Due to my broke-down right wrist I was 100% benched for >5 weeks and have only been gradually increasing my running and biking miles in the past 3 weeks. I have yet to do any outdoor rides since the crash. My wrist is still a long way away from being able to operate shifters and brakes well or be comfortable if I hit bumps. My grip is still quite weak.

So...I've lost 16#s during my convalescence (intentional). I'm assuming that this will make me faster, even with my loss of fitness, but by how much? And once I am back to the same level of fitness, how much speed (say, on a road bike) can I expect to have gained? My ultimate goal weight is another 12#s lost. At nearly 30#s off I'm assuming the difference in speed will be marked.

With running the rule-of-thumb is 2-3 seconds/mile/pound. So I'm hoping to maybe drop a minute off of my average/mile times. I might actually manage to be a true mid-packer, then.

[spokewench]

I don't think that weight loss per se will make you any faster (especially if you have lost fitness due to a forced stay off the bike); The whole thing with being lighter on a bike is the weight to strength ratio that really means something. You will notice it once you bring your fitness level back up, but I don't think you will notice it right away; but go see. The most marked changes you will see are climbing - you don't have to haul so much weight up the hill.

[ny biker]

I ride the same speed now that I rode when I was 10 pounds heavier. I ride the same speed on a carbon bike that I rode on a heavier aluminum bike.

[Melalvai]

The way to test it is go for a few rides with and without a 16 pound weight and see how that affects your speed!

[GLC1968]

When I lost about 20 lbs two years ago, it was blatently OBVIOUS on hill climbs. I mean, the ease at which I got up those hills in comparison to when I was heavier (thereby leaving me fresher for the rest of the ride) was phenomenal. But I lost the 20 lbs while training for tri, so I was also improving in fitness.

I think that once you get your bike fitness back, you will be faster...particularly on hilly rides. Just don't expect to go out there and fly immediately out of the gate.

[zoom-zoom]

I don't think that weight loss per se will make you any faster (especially if you have lost fitness due to a forced stay off the bike); The whole thing with being lighter on a bike is the weight to strength ratio that really means something. You will notice it once you bring your fitness level back up, but I don't think you will notice it right away; but go see. The most marked changes you will see are climbing - you don't have to haul so much weight up the hill.

I wish I could get outdoors, but our roads are covered in slush and I still don't have great use of my right hand. Indoor rides have felt good, though...after a couple of weeks of sit bone hell!

[Grits]

I ride the same speed now that I rode when I was 10 pounds heavier. I ride the same speed on a carbon bike that I rode on a heavier aluminum bike.

I thought I was the only one! Seems to defy the laws of physics.

[OakLeaf]

I think it only makes a difference on the hills. So it depends on what your terrain is like. And as Spokewench said and as you know, body composition is a really important part of the equation, and when you lose weight without being able to strength train, it tends to be disproportionately muscle that you've lost. When I saw your thread title, I honestly thought your question was about how much SLOWER you could expect to be before you have a chance to build your fitness back up.

My experience is that it will come back quicker than you think, WAY quicker than it took to build your fitness level to begin with. I really take all those formulas you'll read, with a grain of salt.

I think it's good that you're building your fitness up indoors. Less comparison to how you were before your injury, less head games slowing you down. By the time your weather's good enough for an outdoor ride you should be smokin'!

[zoom-zoom]

I wonder if we females have a different experience than the guys. DH lost ~30#s last Winter, IIRC. He found that it made a HUGE difference in his speed. My goal is to be down nearly as much by this next season (I was 155 or more when I crashed and would like to get down to 130).

Being faster on hills will be good. I'm signed-up for the JDRF ride in Nashville this Sept. HILLY!!!

[spokewench]

I don't think there is a really a gender difference; it is the fitness level and the weightloss. You need to have the aerobic and power (muscle mass) to see the gains I believe which is strength to weight ratio issue. You can't just loose weight and not train and expect to be a lot faster.

[zoom-zoom]

I don't think there is a really a gender difference; it is the fitness level and the weightloss. You need to have the aerobic and power (muscle mass) to see the gains I believe which is strength to weight ratio issue. You can't just loose weight and not train and expect to be a lot faster.

Of course--I wasn't suggesting that I could lose weight and sit around doing nothing and be faster than I was before losing weight. But all other things equal in terms of training volume comparing a 155# cyclist vs. one 25#s lighter. My hubby's training for 2012 wasn't significantly different than 2011's training style and volume. But he had lost a couple pant sizes. He went from top 5 placement in C cyclocross races to top 5 placement in B races...that's faster and longer races (45 minute races vs. C's 30 minute races).

He does have a lot of muscle mass for a guy his height. And he has HUGE quads (ask limewave). He's kind of a freak!