How to cycle for weight loss

David Reuteler

Daniel Crispin <calendyr@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> 1) Eat a purely vegetarian diet, vegan if possible.
>
> What? The most vegetables I eat are in my tomato sauce for
> spaghetti Seriously I don't understand how people can
> like without meat.

oh, hey, it's pretty easy, thanks. & with BSE gettin' easier
all the time. bon apetit!
--
david reuteler reuteler@visi.com

Tom Keats

In article <fbbxc.22819$yp6.1489455@wagner.videotron.net>,
"Daniel Crispin" <calendyr@videotron.ca> writes:

>> Sheldon Brown has an article on 'The Evils of Coasting';
>> it's an interesting read. I'd post the link here, but I'm
>> offline right now. But at least it's easy to find.

I thought it was easy to find, but upon re-investigating I
find his diatri-, errm, opinions on the topic are embedded
in a discourse on fixed-gear. Maybe I also semi-recall
reading one of his UseNet posts in r.b.tech about why
coasting is bad. Or maybe I dreamed it(?)

> Coasting? Who's coasting? When I hit a hill I go to the
> highest gear and pedal the heck out of my bike. I try to
> the get the highest speed possible. Not doing so good yet,
> my max is 60 Km/H but I suspect that might be the limit of
> my Cat Eye computer...

Well then, you're doing better than me. I have to struggle
to top 50 km/h, and my ride weighs lots. But I don't have
the best wheels in the world, and except for an occasional
indulgent exuberance, I tend to baby them. My Cheng Shin
tires will amplify every subtle bump and dip in the road
surface -- above about 48 Km/h, I'll start collecting 'air
miles' on an uneven road surface. Whether I want to or not.

But still, have you tried spinning smoothly while
undergeared and there's little tension on the chain
(pedaling while coasting)? It feels funny at first, as it
amplifies the jerkier sectors of the pedal strokes.

I /think/ it's a good way to smooth out one's spin, anyway.
But, maybe I'm wrong and Jobst Brandt will prove that I
am. It doesn't hurt to try it, though.

I'll hunt around for the manual for my Cateye computer and
see if it says anything about the highest speed it'll read,
and post it here. Unless someone beats me to the punch.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Bernie

Daniel Crispin wrote:

>>Pedaling rather than coasting on downhills, regardless of
>>whether or not your getting any chain tension, might also
>>be an effective way to work towards a smooth spin. I find
>>it can actually be more challenging to get a smooth spin
>>going when there's no chain tension.
>>
>>Sheldon Brown has an article on 'The Evils of Coasting';
>>it's an interesting read. I'd post the link here, but I'm
>>offline right now. But at least it's easy to find.
>>
>
>Coasting? Who's coasting? When I hit a hill I go to the
>highest gear and pedal the heck out of my bike. I try to
>the get the highest speed possible. Not doing so good yet,
>my max is 60 Km/H but I suspect that might be the limit of
>my Cat Eye computer... anyone knows? I was sure flying when
>I did this.... had to slow down because the road was in bad
>shape at the bottom too... hitting a pothole at 60 Km/H is
>not something I want to try
>
I do the same. Max speed attained on my hybrid was 67 kph,
but I didn't have a computer on it for long... I haven't
put a computer on my touring bike yet, but suspect I've
broken that speed many times already. I seriously doubt
your speedo stops at
60. More likely 120 or something.

I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city
streets with too many wild cards in the deck for reasonable
safety. Wear your safety glasses, stay well. Grit or a bug
in your eye at speed might really mess you up. Bernie

>

Tom Keats

In article <40C561C6.3080406@mouse-potato.com>,
Bernie <bmcilvan@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city
> streets with too many wild cards in the deck for
> reasonable safety.

It seems at the bottom (or even mid-way) of every decent
slope in the Lower Mainland, there's a stale green light.

Feel lucky? :-)

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Bernie

Tom Keats wrote:

>In article <40C561C6.3080406@mouse-potato.com>, Bernie <bmcilvan@mouse-
>potato.com> writes:
>
>>I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city
>>streets with too many wild cards in the deck for
>>reasonable safety.
>>
>
>It seems at the bottom (or even mid-way) of every decent
>slope in the Lower Mainland, there's a stale green light.
>
>Feel lucky? :-)
>
>
>cheers, Tom
>
At least traffic lights are predictable. It's the cross
traffic doing 'taxi stops' at stop signs, drivers who barely
slow down at red lights because they are turning right,
uphill traffic turning left... (need I go on?) That's what
makes me feel a bit twitchy. Best regards, Bernie

Tom Keats

In article <40C575B9.9060305@mouse-potato.com>,
Bernie <bmcilvan@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>
>
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>>In article <40C561C6.3080406@mouse-potato.com>, Bernie <bmcilvan@mouse-
>>potato.com> writes:
>>
>>>I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city
>>>streets with too many wild cards in the deck for
>>>reasonable safety.
>>>
>>
>>It seems at the bottom (or even mid-way) of every decent
>>slope in the Lower Mainland, there's a stale green light.
>>
>>Feel lucky? :-)
>>
>>
>>cheers, Tom
>>
> At least traffic lights are predictable.

Well, there's the iffy-ness of stale greens while
approaching them at speed. Especially if the light has a
different cycle timing than most. I've bombed through the
one at Knight & 33rd more times than I care to remember, but
I think I've grown out of that now. For the most part.
Sometimes it's sporting, and sometimes it's discretionary
about making the decision to shoot the light or not. Thrills
& screams, vs safe & secure. I generally opt for the latter.
But then, I've already had my fill of thrills & screams. For
the most part.

We're not getting older; we're getting wiser :-)

> It's the cross traffic doing 'taxi stops' at stop signs,
> drivers who barely slow down at red lights because they
> are turning right, uphill traffic turning left... (need
> I go on?)

No, I hear ya, and I agree.

> That's what makes me feel a bit twitchy.

Yer durn tootin'.

I've only begun to appreciate the unleashed joy of /real/
descending on terrainous highways, up-country. It's a lot
different from city streets, that's for sure. And I guess
that's where that approach belongs, not where you're running
the risk of getting T-boned or otherwise clobbered.

City riding is nice, too. I guess neither style requires
more care than the other -- it's just where you have to
focus your care.

In the city, intersections sure have a way of governing
one's approach to riding. In the country, car speeds are
higher, but so are bike speeds. It's an whole new world for
me. I like it.

It's been a most interesting experience for me to taste both
urban and rural riding.

cheers, Tom

-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Roger Zoul

Calories are calories, but not all calories are the same.
Some types of foods will stimulate hunger due to BG swings,
whereas other types of foods won't. Many people can lose
weight simply by restricting the amount of certain foods
(they eat way too much of these foods, usually carbs) which
then results in eatng less, i.e, calorie restriction. That
brings fat loss.

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Ha yes that Glycemic Index thing. Well can't say I
:: believe in that. Calories are calories, but whole grain
:: is healtier... I was thinking of getting spinach pasta as
:: well. For now I will try lower pasta and switch to a
:: little rice with tofu, chicken and tuna.
::
:: "Mike Schwab" <MASchwab@Wamusa.com> wrote in message
:: news:40C3A286.28EC7320@Wamusa.com...
::: With the whole grain bread / pasta, the sugar is
::: consumed with the fiber and is absorbed slower. With the
::: white bread, the sugar is absorbed very quickly. This
::: difference wass measured by having testing persons
::: eating a quantity of food then testing their blood
::: surar.
:::
::: This is from Dr. Arthur Agaston's book South Beach diet.
:::
::: http://www.southbeachdiet.com/
::: http://www.glycemicindex.com/
:::
::: Badger_South wrote:
::::
:::: On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:53:09 -0500, Mike Schwab
:::: <MASchwab@Wamusa.com> wrote:
::::
::::: Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain.
::::: Check health food stores.
::::
:::: Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even
:::: the LC people tout this, but it's still bread.
::::
:::: -Badger "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

Roger Zoul

Terry Morse wrote:
:: Badger_South wrote:
::
::: Terry Morse wrote:
:::
:::: Badger_South wrote:
::::
::::: Mike Schwab wrote:
:::::
:::::: Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain.
:::::: Check health food stores.
:::::
::::: Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even
::::: the LC people tout this, but it's still bread.
::::
:::: Google "glycemic index" and "whole grain bread".
:::: Contrast with "white bread". Note the difference.
:::
::: Ah, thus the highly successful "whole grain bread" diet.
::
:: It's worked in the western and middle eastern world for a
:: few thousand years.
::
:::
::: Again, it still spikes insulin in many ppl, and it
::: throws 'em out of ketosis, and back into carb addiction,
::: and it's still bread.
::
:: You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's
:: what the American Heart Association has to say about
:: "carb addiction":
::
:: "Some people advocate severely reducing carbohydrate
:: intake to reduce the insulin response and cravings.
:: Others suggest that choosing carbohydrate-containing
:: foods with a lower glycemic (gli-SE'mik) index also can
:: lower insulin response and appetite. There isn't enough
:: research in this area for us to know what's right. Also,
:: individual responses may vary considerably."

Yet, they give recommendations....

::
:: And what they say about what constitutes a healthy diet:
::
:: "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy
:: products, most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55
:: percent of calories from carbohydrates."

And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too
many American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to
be eating 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here
do, since we like to move, but most don't.

As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on
committee work and not any sound scientific research?

Roger Zoul

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Well I don't eat much bread, I seldom use margarine and
:: never use butter. I buy olive oil margarine but 1 pound
:: lasts me about a year. Adding fat to reduce sugar
:: absorbtion sounds ridiculous. Adding 200 calories is not
:: the way to go!

Not true. What happens is that the reduced carb intake
results in decreased appetite...so while someone may have
added 200 calories, they still ate less than otherwise, and
hence ended up restricting calories (relative to maintenance
energy needs). Done long enough, this produces weight loss.

Roger Zoul

Terry Morse wrote:
:: DRS wrote:
::
::: "Terry Morse" wrote:
:::
:::: You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's
:::: what the American Heart Association has to say about
:::: "carb addiction":
:::
::: Thanks to retards like the AHA the Western world is more
::: obese than at any time in history.
::
:: Yeah, that's it. The AHA's to blame. Let's take 'em
:: outside and shoot 'em.

I would if I could...

Roger Zoul

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Well technically carbs are the lowers calories per gram
:: you know. 4 calories per gram compared to fat that is 9
:: calories per gram. Problem is that pasta contains lots of
:: carbs

For many people, eating pasta will increase appetite. So
restricting calories will be hard to impossible. Their
bodies say eat, they think they are hungry, so they
eat...and probably more carby stuff, which leads to more
eating. And probably some fatty stuff, which leads to fat
gain (due to too many calories).

My usual serving is
:: about 600 calories just for the pasta, and about 400 more
:: for sauce. I think you are right that I should eat less
:: of it. Chicken and tuna are the way to go. I will see if
:: I can convince my will

One you remove BG swings from the equation, much will power
isn't needed. All you need then is a desire to lose...

::
::
::
:: "curt" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
:: news:nLuwc.9373$QT3.7995@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
::: Bicycling is a great way to lose weight! I think most
::: important is to ride long and steady to lose. I don't
::: use a HR monitor, so I can't help you there, but there
::: is an effective HR for weight loss, but it is different
::: for everyone and we would need to know more information
::: about you.
:::
::: If you like pasta, it will be harder to lose, unless
::: you don't eat that much. Sorry, that is just the way it
::: is. A high carb diet makes it harder to lose, it is
::: just the facts. It can certainly be done and is done
::: all the time, but you need to cut calories, unless you
::: are going to ride very long distances 4+ days a week. I
::: suggest lower fat if you are going high carb. If you
::: want to lose faster, then bag the pasta and eat
::: chicken, fish, etc.
:::
::: JMHO, Curt
:::
:::
::: "Daniel Crispin" <calendyr@videotron.ca> wrote in
::: message
::: news:rapwc.210963$YP4.1634569@wagner.videotron.net...
:::: Hello,
::::
:::: I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my
:::: efforts toward weight loss. I could buy a HRM but I
:::: have already spent 600$ on my bike this month and would
:::: like to stop spending for a while.
::::
:::: Any trick that can tell me I am using the right effort
:::: for weight loss? Someone told me that if I cannot speak
:::: without feeling a little out of breath that is the
:::: right zone... is that true?
::::
:::: Also I am been trying to pedal faster. I used to pedal
:::: slow and hard but after reading some books I now
:::: understand it's a really bad way to do it. I have no
:::: idea what my current cadence is since my computer
:::: doesn't have that feature but I think I am at around
:::: 1.25 turn per second... that is of course an
:::: approximate... it would mean 75 turns per minute which
:::: is close to what is recommanded... I cannot see myself
:::: pedaling faster, already feels like I am spinning way
:::: too fast How do you guys do 100 turns per minute?
:::: Must be a mental issue, the legs don't seems to mind
:::: but geez at a 100 I am not sure I could even keep my
:::: balance hehehe!
::::
:::: Last thing... what should I eat before and during
:::: training? I love pasta. I know they contain a lot of
:::: calories but that is the food I like. On the other hand
:::: they give lots of carbs so that can't be bad while
:::: training right? Should I eat something different the
:::: days I train?
::::
:::: How about during training? I normal bring a Nutribar
:::: which is an meal replacement designed for weight loss.
:::: I has a balance of carbs, fats and proteins. Should I
:::: use something with more carbs?

David Kerber

In article <10cbb7d32ueosd5@corp.supernews.com>,
rogerzoul2@hotmail.com says...

...

> :: And what they say about what constitutes a healthy
> :: diet:
> ::
> :: "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat
> :: dairy products, most healthy diets will contain at
> :: least 50-55 percent of calories from carbohydrates."
>
> And people following their advice get fatter and
> fatter. Too many American (at least) just don't get
> enough exercise to be eating 50-55 % of calories from
> carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like to move, but
> most don't.

NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many
total calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the
calories are from.

> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based
> on committee work and not any sound scientific research?

Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that
high fat diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most
research, though, it was looking at too narrow of a question
to find the real answer they were looking for.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

Roger Zoul

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Actually my personal guess about so many people being
:: over weight is this:
::
:: Fast food + lack of physical activity X time = lots of
:: extra fat on you.
::
:: If you make your own food and don't over eat, and have an
:: active lifestyle you will not be overweight. When you
:: consider the caloric intake of a single meal at McDonalds
:: there is no wonder people are overweight. 1800 calories
:: per meal is a great way to die young.

There is a lot of truth in what you say...fast food is both
full of carb and full of unhealthy fats...and people are too
sedentary.

But there is still a question of how to correct the
imbalance of overfat.

::
::
::
:: "DRS" <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
:: news:ca32qr$hve$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
::: "Terry Morse" <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:tmorse-
::: 5A4A26.17460507062004@news.covad.net
:::: DRS wrote:
::::
::::: "Terry Morse" wrote:
:::::
:::::: You write that as if it were true and universal.
:::::: Here's what the American Heart Association has to say
:::::: about "carb addiction":
:::::
::::: Thanks to retards like the AHA the Western world is
::::: more obese than at any time in history.
::::
:::: Yeah, that's it. The AHA's to blame. Let's take 'em
:::: outside and shoot 'em.
:::
::: I didn't say they were the whole problem. I said they
::: were part of the problem and they are. Their high carb
::: low fat diets are retarded and so are they. If you want
::: to suppress appetite you lower your intake of simple
::: carbs as far as you can and you increase your protein
::: intake. You also do not reduce your intake of EFAs as
::: these retards would have you do. That way lies lots of
::: health problems, everything from poor skin and hair to
::: immune system deficiencies. EFAs are not any sort of
::: cardio threat, as any nutritionist with a clue knows
::: full well, and low fat diets are not healthy.
:::
::: --
:::
::: A: Top-posters.
::: Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

David Kerber

In article <ca4d5m$hji$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au says...
> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b2f788ab0edcfa89897f7@news.ids.net
> > In article <10cbb7d32ueosd5@corp.supernews.com>,
> > rogerzoul2@hotmail.com says...
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat
> >>>> dairy products, most healthy diets will contain at
> >>>> least 50-55 percent of calories from carbohydrates."
> >>
> >> And people following their advice get fatter and
> >> fatter. Too many American (at least) just don't get
> >> enough exercise to be eating 50-55 % of calories from
> >> carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like to move, but
> >> most don't.
> >
> > NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as
> > many total calories as they do. It doesn't much matter
> > what the calories are from.
>
> It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb
> diets they naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually
> why Atkins works). High carb diets tend to stimulate
> appetite which is exactly what you don't want if you want
> to avoid obesity.

All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and
it doesn't matter where they come from.

> >> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is
> >> based on committee work and not any sound scientific
> >> research?
> >
> > Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating
> > that high fat diets are bad for your heart and weight.
> > Like most research, though,
>
> Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs
> and they're no threat to your heart in the slightest. As
> for your weight, you are confusing the fact that fat is
> the most energy dense macronutrient with eating excess
> calories. It is the latter which causes problems with
> weight, not the former. Failing to distinguish between
> good and bad fats is simply inexcusable in the 21st
> century. You must get an adequate supply of good

Like I said, the research was not properly designed to come
up with the answers they were looking for.

> fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets
> are simply retarded.

No more so than low carb; some people do better on one, and
others do better on other diets. Even "low fat" diets give
you enough fats for good health.

As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims
of the early researchers. A recent study compared low
carb diets to low fat diets, and found that people on low
carb diets tended to lose more weight in the first 6
months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal
in their results.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).