3000 miles in 10 months... so Why am I still fat?

Just Zis Guy

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 20:28:01 -0700, tomk2003@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
wrote in message <1ok2cc.92c.ln@bud.garden.local>:

>I don't understand the politics of overweightness, because
>I /cannot/ understand them. And that renders me incapable
>of realizing what other people have to go through.

I do, up to a point. I used to weigh 225lb (height 6'1") and
had a 40" waist. I was a fat bastard. So I started
exercising (and cut out beer and surplus fat from my diet)
and within three months I hit 185 and 34" waist. After six
months I started drinking beer again, and after 18 months I
stopped using the gym. I have now been around 180lb for
three years and maintain it despite drinking beer and eating
pizza simply by riding my bike for transport. Oh, and I stop
eating when I'm full.

The thing is, the only way to lose weight is to burn more
than you absorb. That fundamental has never changed because
it can't. You can use products to prevent you absorbing
food, which cause other problems, you can eat less, or you
can recognise that the human body is poorly adapted for
sloth and get on your bike. Or a combination of the above.

All the diet crazes seem to me to be attempts to fool people
that this is not so. Atkins was primarily designed for those
with a sedentary lifestyle (I saw him say so on TV), so it
has no relevance to me as a daily cyclist. In fact, because
I don't have a sedentary lifestyle, I don't have a weight
problem to start with, but even if I did the tinkering which
people propose to make Atkins suitable for someone who does
not fit the original parameters does not appeal. For
overweight couch potatoes who can't bring themselves to
exercise it may work wonders. I wouldn't know. It faces an
uphill struggle to gain credibility because there have been
so many quack diets over so many years all of which have
been supplanted by other quack diets, and the people on the
quack diets are still, for the most part, fat.

So I recommend the bike diet. Eat what you want, but ride
it off :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Daniel Crispin

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2s9ae0l7f3mgiu81vvff7e0vbej88ut2a3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 20:28:01 -0700, tomk2003@hotmail.com
> (Tom Keats) wrote in message
> <1ok2cc.92c.ln@bud.garden.local>:
>
> >I don't understand the politics of overweightness,
> >because I /cannot/ understand them. And that renders me
> >incapable of realizing what other people have to go
> >through.
>
> I do, up to a point. I used to weigh 225lb (height 6'1")
> and had a 40" waist. I was a fat bastard. So I started
> exercising (and cut out beer and surplus fat from my diet)
> and within three months I hit 185 and 34" waist. After six
> months I started drinking beer again, and after 18 months
> I stopped using the gym. I have now been around 180lb for
> three years and maintain it despite drinking beer and
> eating pizza simply by riding my bike for transport. Oh,
> and I stop eating when I'm full.
>
> The thing is, the only way to lose weight is to burn more
> than you absorb. That fundamental has never changed
> because it can't. You can use products to prevent you
> absorbing food, which cause other problems, you can eat
> less, or you can recognise that the human body is poorly
> adapted for sloth and get on your bike. Or a combination
> of the above.
>
> All the diet crazes seem to me to be attempts to fool
> people that this is not so. Atkins was primarily designed
> for those with a sedentary lifestyle (I saw him say so on
> TV), so it has no relevance to me as a daily cyclist. In
> fact, because I don't have a sedentary lifestyle, I don't
> have a weight problem to start with, but even if I did the
> tinkering which people propose to make Atkins suitable for
> someone who does not fit the original parameters does not
> appeal. For overweight couch potatoes who can't bring
> themselves to exercise it may work wonders. I wouldn't
> know. It faces an uphill struggle to gain credibility
> because there have been so many quack diets over so many
> years all of which have been supplanted by other quack
> diets, and the people on the quack diets are still, for
> the most part, fat.
>
> So I recommend the bike diet. Eat what you want, but ride
> it off :-)
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle
> after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
> Washington University

Well I will give you the point. It's hard to get far when
you are active. Problem is that if you are already fat,
being active will make you loose weight but very slowly. You
also need to cut back food. As time goes by, I don't think
there is any really Bad diet. The only thing is that the
diet will make you loose weight but if you don't get an
active life style, you will gain it back. Only thing people
have to understand is that you can't sit all day and expect
to be in shape.

Just Zis Guy

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 18:23:53 -0400, "Daniel Crispin"
<calendyr@videotron.ca> wrote in message
<OflFc.38920$t55.1185032@wagner.videotron.net>:

>Well I will give you the point. It's hard to get far when
>you are active. Problem is that if you are already fat,
>being active will make you loose weight but very slowly.
>You also need to cut back food. As time goes by, I don't
>think there is any really Bad diet. The only thing is that
>the diet will make you loose weight but if you don't get an
>active life style, you will gain it back. Only thing people
>have to understand is that you can't sit all day and expect
>to be in shape.

Well, like I said, I burned off 40lb in 3 months without
significantly reducing the amount I ate (although I did cut
out beer and excess fat). I don't know anyone who's lost
over 40lb due to dieting alone and not put it back on.
Cycling is a maintenance activity for me.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Michael J . Kle

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:42:59 -0700, Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>Pat wrote: "fad: A fashion that is taken up with great
>enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze."
>
>By what criteria does Atkins *not* constitute a fad? Oh,
>never mind.

No, I don't mind telling you this. Mom, a retired RN told me
recently that she used the Atkins diet in the early 60's to
lose weight. That almost qualifes it as a religion. ;p
Michael J. Klein mklein@mousepotato.com Dasi Jen, Taoyuan
Hsien, Taiwan, ROC Please replace mousepotato with
asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

Terry Morse

Michael J. Klein wrote:

> No, I don't mind telling you this. Mom, a retired RN told
> me recently that she used the Atkins diet in the early
> 60's to lose weight. That almost qualifes it as a
> religion. ;p

Your mom must have bee clairvoyant, because the original
Atkins diet book came out in 1972. Maybe she deserves
royalties.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Michael J . Kle

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 09:03:18 -0700, Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>Michael J. Klein wrote:
>
>> No, I don't mind telling you this. Mom, a retired RN told
>> me recently that she used the Atkins diet in the early
>> 60's to lose weight. That almost qualifes it as a
>> religion. ;p
>
>Your mom must have bee clairvoyant, because the original
>Atkins diet book came out in 1972. Maybe she deserves
>royalties.

You don't wanna know - you just wanna make smartassed
comments. If you were smart, you can figure it out from the
info I gave you.

Don't bother, I don't care.

Michael J. Klein mklein@mousepotato.com Dasi Jen, Taoyuan
Hsien, Taiwan, ROC Please replace mousepotato with
asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

Terry Morse

Michael J. Klein wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
>
> >Your mom must have been clairvoyant, because the original
> >Atkins diet book came out in 1972. Maybe she deserves
> >royalties.
>
> You don't wanna know - you just wanna make smartassed
> comments. If you were smart, you can figure it out from
> the info I gave you.

If I were smart, I wouldn't kick sacred cows. Especially not
fad diet sacred cows.

> Don't bother, I don't care.

Words typed from your keyboard suggest otherwise.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Rick Onanian

I can't believe this thread is still going.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:02:15 -0700, Terry Morse
<tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote:
>If I were smart, I wouldn't kick sacred cows. Especially
>not fad diet sacred cows.

Don't kick cows! What did cows ever do to you? Cows
are cool, and they go "Moo", and they provide us with
milk and beef!

http://www.bigdwarfrodeo.com/lyr/smoke_em/eat_steak.htm
--
Rick Onanian

gntlmn

I wonder if you are counting the sports drinks you consume during the ride. That can add up to a lot of calories.

I saw something recently that would suggest that you are burning maybe about 40 calories a mile on your rides. This means about 400 calories for a 10 mile ride. That's not much, really. Even the sports drinks you consume will put a big dent in that.

If you are craving sugars, you are burning mostly sugars during the rides. Maybe you ought to try riding slower and longer. That might knock the cravings down a bit. As the body adjusts to fat burning instead of sugar burning, maybe then it will start dropping weight as your appetite doesn't get so stimulated.

I think 10 miles for you is enough to stoke your appetite but not enough to lose weight. If you did more miles at a lower pace, I think you would notice appetite suppression and weight loss. If you told us that you had been riding 10 months and 30,000 miles instead of 10 mo. and 3,000, we would be shocked. Your mileage is not really that high. It wouldn't take 30,000, but for you, it seems that it will take a lot more than 300 miles a month. That's pretty minimal. 300 a week would be better and maybe about right for you. That would be about 12,000 calories a week burned instead of about 4,600 you are burning now.

It sounds like you are in good enough shape now to really get in good shape. Good luck.