A weight loss plan that works for average cyclists?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Preston Crawford said:

I know this is a possible flamewar post, but I have to ask this. And first
off, please refrain from flaming each other's diets.

Too many diets focus on what you eat. Yes, eating healthy does help,
but you can still get fat by eating too much healthy food. In order to
lose weight, you need to limit the total amount of food (total calories)
that you eat. Reducing your intake of high calorie foods (like sugar)
helps the most, but you don't need to completely eliminate carbs from
your diet as long as your total calorie intake goes down.

I too, plateau'd at about 225-230 for a couple of YEARS...

so...how did I start losing again?

I caught one WICKED case of the flu (couldn't eat)...and I stopped snacking
between meals...🙂

And I started drinking a LOT of water every time I got munchy-like rumblings
from the stomach area.

"Preston Crawford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I know this is a possible flamewar post, but I have to ask this. And first
off, please refrain from flaming each other's diets. I'm coming into this
eyes wide open, honestly asking questions about what people eat, what
works for them, etc. I don't want this to turn into another "Sheldon Brown
is a party doll" post. Just please, try to resist the urge.

Okay, as to my question. Many of you know my story. I went vegetarian and
started cycling 5 years ago and lost 160+ lbs. I went from over 400lbs. to
238lbs. at my lowest. I've, unfortunately, slowly climbed back up to
around 270lbs. I'd like to get back on track, but it seems like nothing
I've tried has worked. I eat some meat again. Eggs, fish and turkey. I'm
on a pretty decent diet. But basically I've hit a major 3 year long
plateau. My wife is on a plan that, while not Atkins, cuts out a lot of
carbs and emphasizes carbs like rice. i.e. You can't eat bread, but you
can eat rice, cous cous, stuff like that.

It's working well for her so far, but I just can't imagine not having
bread. I know from my own personal experience that refined sugars and
grains are a big problem. Cutting them out was a big part of why I was
successful. However, how far can someone who cycles quite a bit take that?

And a bigger question is this. Have any of you experienced a dramatic
weight loss, then a plateau? And if you have, what did you do to get
yourself kick-started off the plateau? I feel like, maybe in part because
of my dramatic weight loss, my metabolism or something has shifted to the
point where weight loss is more difficult than it was before. I don't know
if that's just bunk, but I can't explain otherwise why I've been stuck for
so long in spite of the fact that I'm still eating right.

Any experiences are welcome. Please no flaming. I'd just love to hear a
sampling of what's worked for those of you out there. Especially those of
you who have struggled with, and moved off of plateaus.

Preston

As for a weight loss plan that works for the average cyclist, here's mine:

Eat a little less, and/or ride a little more.

I know this sounds simplistic, but weight loss really is pretty simple
(though, clearly, not easy). You just need to achieve a modest daily
calorie deficit by eating less, or by exercising more, or (ideally) by doing
a bit of both.

Unfortunately, a lot of cyclists have stories similar to yours. There are
many cyclists who ride their bikes 150-200 miles per week, and are still
overweight due to over eating. It's easy to subvert a good exercise program
with a few extra slices of bread each day. You need to cut back slightly on
food intake, and not succumb to the temptation to pig out just because your
rode your bike 20 miles today.

Plateaus are pretty common in any weight loss program, but yours sounds more
like a back-slide than a plateau (you've gained 22 lbs since your low
point). You need to seriously think about how you can cut out a few hundred
calories each day. If you drink sodas with sugar, stop right now. If you
have any "problem foods", cut way back on them.

3 less slices of bread each day is around 300 calories. If you overeat by
this much, you'll gain about 0.6 lbs per week, or 31.3 lbs per year.
Likewise, if you undereat by this much, you'll lose a significant amount of
weight.

Best of luck.

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

GaryG said:

"Preston Crawford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I know this is a possible flamewar post, but I have to ask this. And first
off, please refrain from flaming each other's diets. I'm coming into this
eyes wide open, honestly asking questions about what people eat, what
works for them, etc. I don't want this to turn into another "Sheldon Brown
is a party doll" post. Just please, try to resist the urge.

Okay, as to my question. Many of you know my story. I went vegetarian and
started cycling 5 years ago and lost 160+ lbs. I went from over 400lbs. to
238lbs. at my lowest. I've, unfortunately, slowly climbed back up to
around 270lbs. I'd like to get back on track, but it seems like nothing
I've tried has worked. I eat some meat again. Eggs, fish and turkey. I'm
on a pretty decent diet. But basically I've hit a major 3 year long
plateau. My wife is on a plan that, while not Atkins, cuts out a lot of
carbs and emphasizes carbs like rice. i.e. You can't eat bread, but you
can eat rice, cous cous, stuff like that.

It's working well for her so far, but I just can't imagine not having
bread. I know from my own personal experience that refined sugars and
grains are a big problem. Cutting them out was a big part of why I was
successful. However, how far can someone who cycles quite a bit take that?

And a bigger question is this. Have any of you experienced a dramatic
weight loss, then a plateau? And if you have, what did you do to get
yourself kick-started off the plateau? I feel like, maybe in part because
of my dramatic weight loss, my metabolism or something has shifted to the
point where weight loss is more difficult than it was before. I don't know
if that's just bunk, but I can't explain otherwise why I've been stuck for
so long in spite of the fact that I'm still eating right.

Any experiences are welcome. Please no flaming. I'd just love to hear a
sampling of what's worked for those of you out there. Especially those of
you who have struggled with, and moved off of plateaus.

Preston

As for a weight loss plan that works for the average cyclist, here's mine:

Eat a little less, and/or ride a little more.

I know this sounds simplistic, but weight loss really is pretty simple
(though, clearly, not easy). You just need to achieve a modest daily
calorie deficit by eating less, or by exercising more, or (ideally) by doing
a bit of both.

Unfortunately, a lot of cyclists have stories similar to yours. There are
many cyclists who ride their bikes 150-200 miles per week, and are still
overweight due to over eating. It's easy to subvert a good exercise program
with a few extra slices of bread each day. You need to cut back slightly on
food intake, and not succumb to the temptation to pig out just because your
rode your bike 20 miles today.

If you are going to eat a large meal, do it before a long ride, not
after. Same for breakfast and dinner, eat a large breakfast if you must
but never eat a large dinner. This is one of the
American traditions that probably should be done away with. A big
breakfast can be worked off during the day, but you still need to be
careful and not overdo it. Lunch should be sized according to what your
afternoon is going to be like. Dinner should be as modest as you can
tolerate since you will be going to bed sometime not too long after
dinner. A large dinner gives your body nothing to do except convert it
to stored energy AKA fat.
FWIW I have gained a few pounds during the holidays due to the customary
big dinners and an addiction to chocolate. All of us deal with it but if
you can modify just a few habits the results should be worth the effort.

Quoted message said:

Plateaus are pretty common in any weight loss program, but yours sounds more
like a back-slide than a plateau (you've gained 22 lbs since your low
point). You need to seriously think about how you can cut out a few hundred
calories each day. If you drink sodas with sugar, stop right now. If you
have any "problem foods", cut way back on them.

3 less slices of bread each day is around 300 calories.

Read the labels before buying any bread and you will find that some are
nearly twice the calories of others. On a side note I was eating low fat
Turkey hot dogs and started reading the labels when I found out that the
bun had twice as many calories as the hot dog itself. Bummed out that
day. Try to find a way to bike at least a little bit every day, even if
it is at lunch and at work. Every little bit helps.
Read those labels before eating anything.
Bill Baka

If you overeat by

Quoted message said:

this much, you'll gain about 0.6 lbs per week, or 31.3 lbs per year.
Likewise, if you undereat by this much, you'll lose a significant amount of
weight.

Best of luck.

Bill Baka wrote:
|| If you are going to eat a large meal, do it before a long ride, not
|| after. Same for breakfast and dinner, eat a large breakfast if you
|| must but never eat a large dinner. This is
|| one of the
|| American traditions that probably should be done away with. A big
|| breakfast can be worked off during the day, but you still need to be
|| careful and not overdo it. Lunch should be sized according to what
|| your afternoon is going to be like. Dinner should be as modest as
|| you can
|| tolerate since you will be going to bed sometime not too long after
|| dinner. A large dinner gives your body nothing to do except convert
|| it
|| to stored energy AKA fat.
|| FWIW I have gained a few pounds during the holidays due to the
|| customary
|| big dinners and an addiction to chocolate. All of us deal with it
|| but if
|| you can modify just a few habits the results should be worth the
|| effort.

I disagree with this, Bill. If you only eat one meal a day - dinner - it
can be large (1500 to 2000 kcals) and if you burn more than that you'll
still lose weight.

Preston Crawford said:

I know this is a possible flamewar post, but I have to ask this. And first
off, please refrain from flaming each other's diets. I'm coming into this
eyes wide open, honestly asking questions about what people eat, what
works for them, etc. I don't want this to turn into another "Sheldon Brown
is a party doll" post. Just please, try to resist the urge.

Okay, as to my question. Many of you know my story. I went vegetarian and
started cycling 5 years ago and lost 160+ lbs. I went from over 400lbs. to
238lbs. at my lowest.

Rockin'.

Quoted message said:

I've, unfortunately, slowly climbed back up to
around 270lbs.

Hard to do on veggies. Takes a *lot* of calories to maintain
250 lbs of bulk. I know. I used to eat in a meal what I now
eat in a day, and I'm eating pretty hearty now.

Quoted message said:

I'd like to get back on track, but it seems like nothing
I've tried has worked. I eat some meat again. Eggs, fish and turkey. I'm
on a pretty decent diet. But basically I've hit a major 3 year long
plateau. My wife is on a plan that, while not Atkins, cuts out a lot of
carbs and emphasizes carbs like rice. i.e. You can't eat bread, but you
can eat rice, cous cous, stuff like that.

Atkins is nuts. All the research shows that it just bores people
into eating fewer calories.

Quoted message said:

It's working well for her so far, but I just can't imagine not having
bread. I know from my own personal experience that refined sugars and
grains are a big problem. Cutting them out was a big part of why I was
successful. However, how far can someone who cycles quite a bit take that?

Nothing is a "big problem" except total calories in minus total
calories out being a positive number.

Quoted message said:

And a bigger question is this. Have any of you experienced a dramatic
weight loss, then a plateau? And if you have, what did you do to get
yourself kick-started off the plateau?

I learned about food and energy and losing weight.

I thought I knew about it before.

Turns out I didn't, even though I actually had the information
all along. It's just never presented to us coherently, so it
looks haphazard, and we apply it haphazardly. And it doesn't
work because we find a way to defeat it inadvertently.

Quoted message said:

I feel like, maybe in part because
of my dramatic weight loss, my metabolism or something has shifted to the
point where weight loss is more difficult than it was before.

It has, but if you were still significantly fat at 238,
you weren't close to having a problem metabolism.

You won't see real problems until you're well under 10% bodyfat.

I don't know where that is for you, but even if you're a
tall, broad guy, it's probably when you're under 200 lbs.

Quoted message said:

I don't know
if that's just bunk, but I can't explain otherwise why I've been stuck for
so long in spite of the fact that I'm still eating right.

Define "eating right". Do you know exactly how many calories
you're eating now? Do you know how many you will eat tomorrow?

If you knew how many you were eating on average over the last two
weeks, and that your weight was stable at that rate, and that your
exercise is consistent (even if it's zero) and not merely occasional,
could you then be disciplined and reduce your calories by 300-800
per day? Or reduce your calories and increase your exercise to total
a 300-800 calorie difference per day?

Because if you can do that, you'll lose 0.5 to 1.5 pounds a week.

Period.

The trick is, you need to track it carefully to be sure
you aren't sneaking in things that are sandbagging you.

An unaccounted handful of pretzels, a bag of chips, anything,
done just once per day, can undermine your "eating right".

Even with my spreadsheet open 5 times a day, I have 100-200
calories of variation in my intake by the end of the day.

Every time I ignore tracking, I start to "forget" that
I'd already had a meal that was 100-200 calories over
the average, and do it again. At 5 meals a day, I can be
500-1000 calories over and hardly notice.

All that stuff about food composition and glycemic levels
and meal timing can modulate your loss rate by maybe 20%.
But sometimes focussing on that can help you get the
calorie balance right in the first place. Which may
be why every diet has a gimmick.

Quoted message said:

Any experiences are welcome. Please no flaming. I'd just love to hear a
sampling of what's worked for those of you out there. Especially those of
you who have struggled with, and moved off of plateaus.

Look for Tom Venuto's "Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle"
online. It's only available in e-book form (as a PDF file
you can probably read if you've ever used Adobe Reader in
your web-browser), but that means you'll have it in hours
instead of days.

It's kind of geared towards athletic people looking to
get ripped by cutting to very low bodyfat percentages, but
it's also applicable to anyone at any bodyfat percentage.
He doesn't have a fad or a gimmick to sell. He just
did the homework we all should have been forced to do in
grade school.

He'll spend 337 pages telling you what I told you above,
and then detail why it's that way, and then discuss the
things you can do to tweak it. If you're like me, you
won't be able to put it down.

And you'll probably be able to build your own working diet
out of the foods you like to eat now. Which is the point.

--Blair
"Lose 30 lbs in 30 days^h^h^h^hweeks!
Ask me how!"

This is what works for me:
(1) Read food labels and calculate your total energy intake.
(2) Calculate energy expenditure: Baseline is 10.000KJ plus what I spend training. Polar HR-monitors are very handy for counting KJ's spend during training.
(3) Keep a daily energy deficit of max(!) 2000KJ and you drop 0.5kg a week continously.

I kind of eat what I fancy, while keeping a lookout for getting the recommended amounts of fat, protein & carbohydrates.

Tips (all learned the painfull way):
- I never exeed the daily deficit of 2000 KJ, more than that impairs my training and makes me very prone to bying and eating all sort of sugary stuff 😉
- Always keep a little bag(50-80 grams) of candy in my home, that way I'll dont have to hit the supermarked when I get a lust for something sweet
- Don't go shopping hungry, that way you don't bring back loads and loads of 'nice' things :eek:
- Keep eating the food you really, just in smaller amounts so that you still keep the planned deficit. Personally I'm a sucker for Nutella and cupcakes, and any longer time without that makes me a very cranky customer:p

*Tommy*

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
|| Atkins is nuts. All the research shows that it just bores people
|| into eating fewer calories.

Nonsense

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:08:15 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

|| Atkins is nuts. All the research shows that it just bores people
|| into eating fewer calories.

Quoted message said:

Nonsense

Indeed. It /fools/ people into eating fewer calories, an altogether
different thing.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
|| On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:08:15 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
|| <[email hidden]> wrote in message
|| <[email hidden]>:
||
||||| Atkins is nuts. All the research shows that it just bores people
||||| into eating fewer calories.
||
||| Nonsense
||
|| Indeed. It /fools/ people into eating fewer calories, an altogether
|| different thing.

That's a strange way of putting it that sounds very negative. the bottom
line is that people need to eat less to lose weight. By removing excess
carbs from the diet, one gets stabilized blood sugars. Once that happens,
appetite is suppresed and people just eat less. So, using your logic,
eating a diet with excessive carbs /fools/ people into eating too much. I
don't like that notion any better, honestly. There isn't any trick
involved, just biochemistry.

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 08:06:41 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

|| [Atkins] /fools/ people into eating fewer calories, an altogether
|| different thing.

Quoted message said:

That's a strange way of putting it that sounds very negative. the bottom
line is that people need to eat less to lose weight. By removing excess
carbs from the diet, one gets stabilized blood sugars. Once that happens,
appetite is suppresed and people just eat less.

According to my understanding what actually happens is that proteins
act as an appetite suppressant. I recall a test in which calorie
intake for Atkins dieters was measured, and it was found that they
simply ran out of appetite earlier. Substituting things which tasted
the same but had less protein reversed the effect.

But you are right that the only way to lose weight is to put in less
than you put out. My biggest problem with Atkins adherents has always
been that they tend to view it as a way of avoiding this fundamental
truth. Even though Atkins turns out to be a refinement on the ELF[1]
diet, the fundamental problem of all diets continues to go
unaddressed, namely that the cause of overweight is generally idleness
and greed. People who cure one or both of these causes will lose
weight and keep it off, those who remain idle and greedy will always
have a problem. If they are on Atkins long term they may trade a part
of their weight problem for other problems like intestinal cancers or
gallstones, but they still have the fundamental problem.

Quoted message said:

So, using your logic,
eating a diet with excessive carbs /fools/ people into eating too much. I
don't like that notion any better, honestly. There isn't any trick
involved, just biochemistry.

No, greed and sloth fool people into eating too much. I need carbs,
me, because I ride a bike a lot. That's biochemistry. I eat and
drink what I like, and when I put on weight I turn down the mouth and
turn up the legs.

[1] Eat Less Food.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

: >I'd like to get back on track, but it seems like nothing
: >I've tried has worked. I eat some meat again. Eggs, fish and turkey. I'm
: >on a pretty decent diet. But basically I've hit a major 3 year long
: >plateau. My wife is on a plan that, while not Atkins, cuts out a lot of
: >carbs and emphasizes carbs like rice. i.e. You can't eat bread, but you
: >can eat rice, cous cous, stuff like that.
:
: Atkins is nuts. All the research shows that it just bores people
: into eating fewer calories.

You're wrong there! That one sentence shows you don't even know what the
Atkins diet is! Next time, speak from experience, not blowing smoke....

Pat in TX

:
: According to my understanding what actually happens is that proteins
: act as an appetite suppressant. I recall a test in which calorie
: intake for Atkins dieters was measured, and it was found that they
: simply ran out of appetite earlier. Substituting things which tasted
: the same but had less protein reversed the effect.

That's not all the diet does. It reduces cravings for sugar and sweetened
foods to the point that, if you eat something with sugar in it, you feel
revulsion.

:
: But you are right that the only way to lose weight is to put in less
: than you put out. My biggest problem with Atkins adherents has always
: been that they tend to view it as a way of avoiding this fundamental
: truth. Even though Atkins turns out to be a refinement on the ELF[1]
: diet, the fundamental problem of all diets continues to go
: unaddressed, namely that the cause of overweight is generally idleness
: and greed.

Jeez! Not that hoary chestnut again! Why is this continually brought up as
if it were science when it's nothing but "I'm not fat and you are so I'm
morally superior to you!" ego gratification. Or is it just more fun to blame
people for their condition?

: No, greed and sloth fool people into eating too much. I need carbs,
: me, because I ride a bike a lot. That's biochemistry. I eat and
: drink what I like, and when I put on weight I turn down the mouth and
: turn up the legs.
:
: [1] Eat Less Food.
:
: Guy

It's easy to see you're not in the health profession nor are you any sort of
a scientist. I, too, ride bikes a lot and I use a controlled carb diet. No
problem, there. That, too, is biochemistry. If you are thin, much of that is
hereditary, not some moral superiority.

Pat in TX

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
|| On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 08:06:41 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
|| <[email hidden]> wrote in message
|| <[email hidden]>:
||
||||| [Atkins] /fools/ people into eating fewer calories, an altogether
||||| different thing.
||
||| That's a strange way of putting it that sounds very negative. the
||| bottom line is that people need to eat less to lose weight. By
||| removing excess carbs from the diet, one gets stabilized blood
||| sugars. Once that happens, appetite is suppresed and people just
||| eat less.
||
|| According to my understanding what actually happens is that proteins
|| act as an appetite suppressant.

Protein does tend to reduce appetite, but many Atkins (or LC) dieters don't
eat more protein than anyone else, they simply eat less carbs. Fat
typically becomes the large macronutrient in the diet. Overconsumption of
carbs does result in blood glucose swings for people who have become insulin
resistant. During the drop in BG levels, hungry signals get sent to the
brain. People then eat again even though they have a full belly.

I recall a test in which calorie
|| intake for Atkins dieters was measured, and it was found that they
|| simply ran out of appetite earlier. Substituting things which tasted
|| the same but had less protein reversed the effect.

What things? They do have less appetite than prior to going LC (we don't
have to focus so much on Atkins, do we?) and that is primarily why they lose
weight.

||
|| But you are right that the only way to lose weight is to put in less
|| than you put out. My biggest problem with Atkins adherents has
|| always been that they tend to view it as a way of avoiding this
|| fundamental truth. Even though Atkins turns out to be a refinement
|| on the ELF[1] diet, the fundamental problem of all diets continues
|| to go
|| unaddressed, namely that the cause of overweight is generally
|| idleness
|| and greed.

You speak from a complete lack of experience. Many of us so-called "Atkins
adherents" recognize the imporance of not overconsumng and getting plenty of
exercise. The fact is, most people simply don't exercise, so the people
you're referring to are just your typical yo-yo dieters who jump from diet
to diet and in the process create the next big "fad diet". Atkins strongly
promotes regular exercise. Many just don't follow that recommendation - and
that's true about the standard recommendation of "eat less, exercise more."
It doesn't change what people do.

People who cure one or both of these causes will lose
|| weight and keep it off, those who remain idle and greedy will always
|| have a problem.

Please....greed comes in many forms....those who eat too much are not simply
greedy. Mostly just need to learn how to control BG swings as they have
become insulin resistant and typically have no idea about it. If you're not
among those, then you simply have no idea what it's like to be a fat person.
Hence, you speak from a complete lack of experience.

If they are on Atkins long term they may trade a
|| part
|| of their weight problem for other problems like intestinal cancers or
|| gallstones, but they still have the fundamental problem.

There is no evidence of this statement.

||
||| So, using your logic,
||| eating a diet with excessive carbs /fools/ people into eating too
||| much. I don't like that notion any better, honestly. There isn't
||| any trick involved, just biochemistry.
||
|| No, greed and sloth fool people into eating too much.

Nonsense. People do enjoy eating, this is true, but it has little to do
with greed or sloth. It has more to do with technology making available an
overabundance of cheap, low-quality foods and little, if any, understanding
of nutrition by people. Having proper knowledge would likely result in many
more people having control of their weight.

|| I need carbs,
|| me, because I ride a bike a lot.

I bike a lot too, and I typically can eat more carbs whene I bike. But
those who don't exercise a lot don't need to eat the same numbers of carbs.

|| That's biochemistry.

I think you might do some more reading.

|| I eat and
|| drink what I like, and when I put on weight I turn down the mouth and
|| turn up the legs.

By and large, exercise is a poor way to control weight. It helps, but diet
is the primary means. You're just lucky that you likely aren't very insult
resistant. You probably don't get blood sugar swings from overconsumption
of carbs - yet. I'm willing to bet that you've never been significantly
overweight, either. Yet, you seem willing to stand in judgment of others
because what warks for you doesn't work for others.

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> writes in part:

Quoted message said:

By and large, exercise is a poor way to control weight.

IME it's a pretty good way to control volume, though.
Since I've been doing physical labour work, I've had
to tighten up my belt a notch or two. I guess that
technically falls more under the 'activity' label, than
'exercise'. Anyhow, it's doing me a world of good.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:17:49 -0600, Preston Crawford <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I know this is a possible flamewar post, but I have to ask this. And first
off, please refrain from flaming each other's diets. I'm coming into this
eyes wide open, honestly asking questions about what people eat, what
works for them, etc. I don't want this to turn into another "Sheldon Brown
is a party doll" post. Just please, try to resist the urge.

Okay, as to my question. Many of you know my story. I went vegetarian and
started cycling 5 years ago and lost 160+ lbs. I went from over 400lbs. to
238lbs. at my lowest. I've, unfortunately, slowly climbed back up to
around 270lbs. I'd like to get back on track, but it seems like nothing
I've tried has worked. I eat some meat again. Eggs, fish and turkey. I'm
on a pretty decent diet. But basically I've hit a major 3 year long
plateau. My wife is on a plan that, while not Atkins, cuts out a lot of
carbs and emphasizes carbs like rice. i.e. You can't eat bread, but you
can eat rice, cous cous, stuff like that.

It's working well for her so far, but I just can't imagine not having
bread. I know from my own personal experience that refined sugars and
grains are a big problem. Cutting them out was a big part of why I was
successful. However, how far can someone who cycles quite a bit take that?

And a bigger question is this. Have any of you experienced a dramatic
weight loss, then a plateau? And if you have, what did you do to get
yourself kick-started off the plateau? I feel like, maybe in part because
of my dramatic weight loss, my metabolism or something has shifted to the
point where weight loss is more difficult than it was before. I don't know
if that's just bunk, but I can't explain otherwise why I've been stuck for
so long in spite of the fact that I'm still eating right.

Any experiences are welcome. Please no flaming. I'd just love to hear a
sampling of what's worked for those of you out there. Especially those of
you who have struggled with, and moved off of plateaus.

Preston

Just my own experience: about when I'd hit my early 40s got a desk job, suffered
an injury and quit smoking I went from 180 to 265 in about a year and a half.
Yikes. Did the Protein Power diet (hi pro, low carb - atkinish but with some
more science and a much better book) and dropped 50 pounds in seven months. Lost
the rest of it over the next couple of years.

Yes you can ride while on a controlled carb diet.

Face it you don't ride at the level that it makes that big a difference how you
eat. You are not riding for points, time or position. If you ride slower because
your body's burning fat instead of "Ultra-Carbo-Fuel-Gels" then so f-ing what.

One of the advantages of the high protein diet approaches is that it supplies
the body with enough good food that it doesn't struggle to support its fat
stores. A steak and half a head of cabbage is a lot of food and I lost a ton of
weight on dinners like that.

About plateaus, the body does strive to maintain the fat stores - obviously some
unpleasantness in the evolutionary history there - and when losing a lot of
weight you'll often find what had been slabs of hard fat replaced with sloppy
loose fat. Apparently the body uses the fat sites for water storage before
giving them up. This water storage weighs about the same. With persistence that
goes away too, usually abruptly, as in a 5 week plateau ends with 15 pounds
dropped in a week.

Another factor to consider is how your body is reacting to the exercise you do.
If you're doing only long slogs without high intensity work you'll end up
reinforcing the body's tendency to prepare for famine. High intensity work burns
off fat during the rest of the day, low intensity only burns while you're doing
it. Weight work is good, so are intervals and sprints. Favor intensity over
duration.

Grains are mutated grass seed, you don't need 'em. Many of us are allergic to
more than a few of them at a sub-clinical level, just enough to hurt, not enough
to do something about it. Lose the wheat and the sugars for a start.

Ron

Roger Zoul said:

Bill Baka wrote:
|| If you are going to eat a large meal, do it before a long ride, not
|| after. Same for breakfast and dinner, eat a large breakfast if you
|| must but never eat a large dinner. This is
|| one of the
|| American traditions that probably should be done away with. A big
|| breakfast can be worked off during the day, but you still need to be
|| careful and not overdo it. Lunch should be sized according to what
|| your afternoon is going to be like. Dinner should be as modest as
|| you can
|| tolerate since you will be going to bed sometime not too long after
|| dinner. A large dinner gives your body nothing to do except convert
|| it
|| to stored energy AKA fat.
|| FWIW I have gained a few pounds during the holidays due to the
|| customary
|| big dinners and an addiction to chocolate. All of us deal with it
|| but if
|| you can modify just a few habits the results should be worth the
|| effort.

I disagree with this, Bill. If you only eat one meal a day - dinner - it
can be large (1500 to 2000 kcals) and if you burn more than that you'll
still lose weight.

The "gas tank" theory doesn't work.

I know, it seems to make perfect, clear sense, don't it. The human body
regulates it's metabolism according to the type and quantity of available food.
Starve it and it finds a way to run on less.

There are people on medically supervised starvation diets, like 4-500 calories a
day who stop losing weight.

For a generally healthy person with a fairly high activity level who is only a
few pounds overweight your approach works, given a quality balanced diet. Those
aren't the people having the weight problems usually.

Ron

RonSonic wrote

Quoted message said:

The "gas tank" theory doesn't work.

I know, it seems to make perfect, clear sense, don't it. The human

body

Quoted message said:

regulates it's metabolism according to the type and quantity of

available food.

Quoted message said:

Starve it and it finds a way to run on less.

There are people on medically supervised starvation diets, like 4-500

calories a

Quoted message said:

day who stop losing weight.

For a generally healthy person with a fairly high activity level who

is only a

Quoted message said:

few pounds overweight your approach works, given a quality balanced

diet. Those

Quoted message said:

aren't the people having the weight problems usually.

Ron

But those folks who are not losing weight on such a "starvation" diet
are: 1) very few and far in between, 2) almost completely inactive.
Otherwise we could wipe out starvation by simply cutting back on what
we eat. A bit circular to my mind.
The algebra is pretty simple. For the vast majority of folks (almost
everyone and even a higher % among active people) More in than burned=
weight gain, Less in than burned= weight loss.
Of course there are always the issues of balance to get the full range
of necessary nutrients but why complicate such a simple concept?

gds said:

But those folks who are not losing weight on such a "starvation" diet
are: 1) very few and far in between, 2) almost completely inactive.
Otherwise we could wipe out starvation by simply cutting back on what
we eat. A bit circular to my mind.

This just isn't true. It's scientific fact that when you lose large
amounts of weight your body thinks it's starving and your system adjusts
to hold onto fat. Thus the reason (as I understand it) for plateaus. Plus,
metabolism is a factor as well. A factor that can change at times during
your life. Like I know my metabolism was pretty high when I was losing
weight. I was eating close to what I eat now and losing at a high rate.
Then I just hit the wall, for seemingly no reason.

Quoted message said:

The algebra is pretty simple. For the vast majority of folks (almost
everyone and even a higher % among active people) More in than burned=
weight gain, Less in than burned= weight loss.
Of course there are always the issues of balance to get the full range
of necessary nutrients but why complicate such a simple concept?

Because the human body is complicated. It's a lot more complicated than
calories in/calories out, I believe. *What* you eat matters as well.
Otherwise the human body could survive on a Double Whopper and Frys every
day.

Preston