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

[Doug Cook]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Cook wrote:
>

(snip)

> This doesn't have to be expensive or inconvenient. One of my friends is
using a
> coach who works online. You just plug in your eating and riding stats,
plus a
> few other things, and get recommendations every few days by email or
phone. The
> cost is less than, say, a couple of meals out a month. I can get you the
info
> if you're interested.
>
> Matt O.


Matt, I would be interested in more info. Could you email it to me?

Thanks

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

....

> :: FWIW, you don't have to go anaerobic to deplete your muscle
> :: glycogen. Simply riding at a lower cadence with the same power
> :: output will accelerate the depletion rate. Glycogen usage is tied to
> :: muscle effort.
>
> Er, riding at a lower cadence with high power output (like going uphill in a
> high gear or going very fast on a flat in high gear) is the same thing as
> going anaerobic. Anaerobic activity is what uses sugar for fuel.

Which is another way of saying the EXACT same thing.

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

 

[curt]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> > Terry Morse wrote:
> > ::
> > :: Reading "you don't have to watch you(r) fat intake" doesn't scare
> > :: me. It makes me laugh. If P.T. Barnum were still alive, I think he'd
> > :: also find the humor in it.
> >
> > Where is the humor in it? I've lost 130 lbs on a low carb diet without
> > worrying about fat intake other than to not eat too many calories. And
I
> > have improved blood lipids to show for it.
>
> The humor is that it is a ridiculous statemet. If you eat too much
> food, no matter what it's made of, you will gain weight. The
> statement should correctly read "you don't have to watch your fat
> intake, as long as you don't eat too much of it". Wow, there's a
> revelation!
> --
> terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

How silly this is. Usenet at its finest. I guess I need to state the
obvious when speaking to someone like yourself. Of course you shouldn't
over-eat. My point was, you don't have to concern yourself with how much
fat you eat. Not meaning you can eat as much food as you want. You still
need to find the amount of calories that is right for you.

Geez.
Curt

 

[BanditManDan]

Steve Knight wrote:
> >Well, for much of human history people were lean indeed on a diet of
> >complex carbs, mainly in the form of grains, vegetables and very
> >little animal protein. It is quite easy to have a diet like that and
> >be quite lean.
> humans only started eating grains when we learned to cultivate. we did
> not evolve eating grains.


But how long has cultivation been around? This is not a new technology
or anything and the planet wasnt overall fat a 100 to 200 years ago.



--

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Steve Knight wrote:
> > >Well, for much of human history people were lean indeed on a diet of
> > >complex carbs, mainly in the form of grains, vegetables and very
> > >little animal protein. It is quite easy to have a diet like that and
> > >be quite lean.
> > humans only started eating grains when we learned to cultivate. we did
> > not evolve eating grains.
>
>
> But how long has cultivation been around? This is not a new technology
> or anything and the planet wasnt overall fat a 100 to 200 years ago.

Last I read, 8000 to 10000 years is the current best estimate.

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

 

[\El Paisano\]

"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 19 May 2004 13:46:26 GMT, [email protected] (Pbwalther) wrote:
>
> >The thing is that you can do a pot load of exercise and not burn much
fat.
> >Now, assuming burning 50 calories per mile, your 3,000 calories would be
42 lbs
> >of fat. However, many people up their food consumption in response to
exercise
> >and that is probably what you have done.
>
> You lost me here. 42 lbs of fat? huh, who what? Typo?
>
I think that would be 3000 miles not 3000 calories. And about 40lbs of
weight loss not 40lbs of fat.

Matthew

 

[BanditManDan]

Psycholist wrote:
> Cycling alone won't do it. It's non-weight bearing. If you're going to
> rely heavily on cycling, you'll need to do MUCH more of it (3,000 miles
> may sound like a lot to you. I've done 5,300 so far this year). You'll
> also need to do some intense rides each week. Don't just go through the
> motions of pedaling. You're going to need to do some hard riding.
> All that may not be enough. Adding a cross-training activity would help.
> I walk in the mornings and I do 15 minutes of core strength exercises.



I don't know why cycling alone wouldnt be enough. It's a great calorie
burn and as long as your not consuming more than you burn it should
result in weight loss. Not that theres anything wrong with weight
bearing exercise or cross training but a person can lose weight even
without exercise if they control their diet sufficiently.

Dan.



--

 

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 17:17:21 GMT, "curt" <[email protected]> wrote:

>How silly this is. Usenet at its finest. I guess I need to state the
>obvious when speaking to someone like yourself. Of course you shouldn't
>over-eat. My point was, you don't have to concern yourself with how much
>fat you eat. Not meaning you can eat as much food as you want. You still
>need to find the amount of calories that is right for you.
>
>Geez.
>Curt

I think it bears repeating. One of the 'problems' with low fat or low
calorie diets is all the tedious calorie counting and weighing of food that
you have to do. Sure, ppl learn how to do it and soforth.

But on LC you don't have to ever weigh anything or count any calories. The
appetite is under control, you decide what you eat with your intellect, and
for me, I feel better without all that food in me.

After you get through the induction phase you spend your time looking at
the numbers on the scale dropping and grinning like a fool, usually high as
a kite and going shopping for the next smaller size pair of black jeans.

-B

 

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 17:38:22 GMT, BanditManDan <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I don't know why cycling alone wouldnt be enough. It's a great calorie
>burn and as long as your not consuming more than you burn it should
>result in weight loss. Not that theres anything wrong with weight
>bearing exercise or cross training but a person can lose weight even
>without exercise if they control their diet sufficiently.
>
>Dan.

A non-scientific comment on this. When I was in college I rode my bike
everywhere, and it was nothing to go ride to the next city and back on a
lark, and suffered nary a sore muscle, ever.

Now, I ride at 15mph for 10-15 miles and I'm cooked, down 4-5lbs, even
drinking some water, and I feel the same as after jogging three to four
miles, or lifting weights for 90 minutes. (Of course I'm larger, more
muscular, body-builder type physique, and 80lbs heavier. Then I was skinny
and 145lbs)

So it -appears- to me that I'm burning up a lot of calories, and in
addition I stay warm for several hours, and have to open all the windows in
the winter.

It might be an effect of age, or efficiency on the machine, or metabolism.
But it appears that for some this amt of biking would be very efficient at
burning calories, while for others it would be a sub-optimal workout, and
more like a stroll in the park, if you'll pardon some hyperbole.

-B

 

[curt]

No, but I play one on T.V.

Seriously, I am not a Doctor, but I took the time to read the book by Dr.
Atkins. I just can't stand these people that claim to be experts on low
carb, if they have not even read anything on it. It is like me arguing
about something I know nothing about.

I am not saying everyone should be on a low carb diet, but if you are going
to tell everyone it is ****, you should at least read a book on the subject
to understand what you are putting down.

All I ask is go to the library and read. It isn't that hard to do. If you
disagree with what Dr. Atkins says after you read the book, tell us why.
Most people think low carb eating means you don't eat veggies or fruit and
we all eat steak deep fried for breakfast. It is so silly.

Curt

"Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "curt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
> > I suggest you stick to your X armature body building status and no try
and
> > be a Doctor or nutrition.
>
> Are you a doctor or nutritionist?
>
> C.Q.C.
>
>

 

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:56:47 GMT, "curt" <[email protected]> wrote:

>No, but I play one on T.V.
>
>Seriously, I am not a Doctor, but I took the time to read the book by Dr.
>Atkins. I just can't stand these people that claim to be experts on low
>carb, if they have not even read anything on it. It is like me arguing
>about something I know nothing about.
>
>I am not saying everyone should be on a low carb diet, but if you are going
>to tell everyone it is ****, you should at least read a book on the subject
>to understand what you are putting down.
>
>All I ask is go to the library and read. It isn't that hard to do. If you
>disagree with what Dr. Atkins says after you read the book, tell us why.
>Most people think low carb eating means you don't eat veggies or fruit and
>we all eat steak deep fried for breakfast. It is so silly.
>
>Curt

Why, oh why?

After all, more meat for us. <g>

There must be some kind of perverse drive to proselytize, I admit, but
perhaps it would be better to just laugh maniacally.

-B
(or, actually, howl and make carnivore noises)

 

[Roger Zoul]

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Wed, 19 May 2004 11:31:28 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <[email protected]> wrote:
::
::: Badger_South wrote:
::::: On Wed, 19 May 2004 10:15:42 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
::::: <[email protected]> wrote:
:::::
:::::::: But don't stop with just these suggestions. Get the bible "The
:::::::: Ketogenic Diet" by Lyle McDonald, and "Protein Power" by Eades
:::::::: and learn the facts yourself.
::::::
:::::: Right. I recommend Lyle's book, but PP is great too (better than
:::::: Atkins on the science).
:::::
::::: The thing is, you (the OP) can not just go by what ppl say. You
::::: have to understand the 'science' behind it. It's all based on
::::: insulin response.
:::::
::::: It doesn't mean you have to be committed and disciplined. For me,
::::: though, being on LC allows me to 'intellectually' take control of
::::: my eating. Otherwise, being a carb addict, I could eat a horse
::::: made of pizza twice a day. <g>
:::
::: Me too. Actually, there are many who fall into the same boat.
::: Understanding the science of it will allow you to understand why
::: you can pick up 10 lbs of weight over a weekend, but then lose it
::: quickly the following week once you resume LC eating.
::
:: This is, as you know, the TKD diet, in which you allow carbing up
:: (within reason) on weekends, presumably to reset your system and
:: metabolism.

No, what I described is the CKD...you do it to refill my glycogen so that
you can train harder the next week (assuming you're lifting). The TKD is
where you take much smaller amounts of carbs (say 50 g) either pre or post
(or both) workout. The former is usually much harder to do well and results
in a lot of water-weight gain. The latter is much easier to do, and usually
doesn't land you with 10 lbs of water weight, but it is not as much fun. On
a CKD you want to limit fat intake as well.

::
:: If you can do this, very good. I on the other hand have to keep a
:: much tighter reign on my carb intake. One slice of pizza and I know
:: I risk 'falling off the wagon'. It's more a mental thing, and I know
:: that's atypical. It does allow me to foist a smug and superior
:: attitude upon all the weak and slovenly ppl around me though. (LOL,
:: sarcasm meter pegging out to the max).

Lots of people are you like. I can, however, do a CKD. I've done enough
of them to be able to get right back on track the following monday. The
hard part for me is keeping the CKD clean - that is, limiting the fat intake
while getting the carbs and protein.

 

[Roger Zoul]

DRS wrote:
:: "BanditManDan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:[email protected]
::: Psycholist wrote:
::: > Cycling alone won't do it. It's non-weight bearing. If you're
::: going to > rely heavily on cycling, you'll need to do MUCH more of
::: it (3,000 miles > may sound like a lot to you. I've done 5,300 so
::: far this year). You'll > also need to do some intense rides each
::: week. Don't just go through the > motions of pedaling. You're
::: going to need to do some hard riding. > All that may not be
::: enough. Adding a cross-training activity would help. > I walk in
::: the
::: mornings and I do 15 minutes of core strength exercises.
:::
::: I don't know why cycling alone wouldnt be enough. It's a great
::: calorie burn and as long as your not consuming more than you burn
::: it should result in weight loss. Not that theres anything wrong
::: with weight bearing exercise or cross training but a person can
::: lose weight even without exercise if they control their diet
::: sufficiently.
::
:: You can lose weight by losing fat and you can lose weight by losing
:: muscle. Reducing your calorific intake whilst not maintaining
:: anaerobic exercise levels wil result in excessive muscle loss.
:: Since muscle is more metabolically expensive than fat, by
:: maintaining your muscle mass you are actually able to burn more
:: calories than someone with less muscle. Cycling is an aerobic
:: activity. It does little to preserve muscle mass because it
:: primarily recruits Type I fibres (endurance). It also doesn't burn
:: as many calories as people think. You go for a ride, work like
:: crazy to burn a few hundred calories and then put it straight back
:: on again and more with a single Big Mac and fries. Cardio has its
:: place in weight loss regimes but it's third in importance after diet
:: and anaerobic exercise.

Correct!

 

[Jacques Moser]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 22:16:03 +0000, Doug Cook wrote:

> The story thus far....

> My fitness level has increased tremendously. I use to struggle on 10 mile
> rides. Now I do at least 3-4 weekday rides of 15-30 miles each and one
> weekend ride for 50-70 miles - all solo.

Being rather frail (130 lb, 5'9"), I don't know anything about diets
and have never really needed to lose weight. But with the years, although
riding a bit (50 miles/wk for commute and leisure), I began to develop a
small but definite (beer ?) belly.

Last fall I did 2 weeks of cycle touring, 80 mi/day with heavy luggage. I
ate tons of food, all kind from fresh vegetables to canned meat, beer and
chocolate. At the end I had lost 15 lb and my small belly.

During the winter, cycling less, I regained some weight.
But more recently, I started training harder for endurance rides. I am
now in the 120 miles range once every about two weeks, with commuting and
easier rides to fill the gaps. Again, it seems that I am burning much
more food in these long, hard rides.

From this, my empirical recommendation would be: for your body to start
really burning fat, you probably have to ride even harder, especially
longer, day long rides.

But before you do anything silly following my incompetent advice, ask
your doctor first ;-)

Jacques

 

[Dennis Ferguson]

Doug Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Dan Daniel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 22:16:03 -0600, "Doug Cook"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>> >
>>
>> No answers, but a congratulations! You sound like you are in good
>> shape, getting better. A nice comeback.
>>
>> Do you still look the same? Muscle is denser than fat, so people often
>> don't lose weight as they shift from fat to muscle, but the body takes
>> on a different look.
>
>No, I haven't changed shape. I should have mentioned that I carry almost
>all the weight around my waist. Personally, I think I'm rather oddly shaped.
>Chest and butt look normal... just a big fat gut in front. I've thought
>about the muscle-for-fat theory, but my waistline hasn't changed, and my
>clothes don't fit any differently. That's why I'm pretty sure my body just
>doesn't touch it's fat stores.

Does diabetes run in your family? You are describing the classic body
shape of someone who may be predisposed to that.

If this is a possibility you might want to seek professional advice about
your diet. The friend I had who matches your description eventually
discovered (if I recall correctly) that to lose fat he had to not only
tip the calorie balance but also dramatically reduce the amount of simple
sugars he consumed, replacing it with calories from other sources. The
problem involved something about how borderline diabetics' bodies
process sugar, though I didn't pay enough attention to be able to tell
you more than that.

If this is your situation I think you'll want professional advice about
what to do about it. You can't just cut all sugar out of your diet since
some sugar consumption (e.g. fruit) is necessary for your health, so if
you are serious about losing the weight you really need someone to help
you manage this.

Dennis Ferguson

 

[BanditManDan]

Drs wrote:
> You can lose weight by losing fat and you can lose weight by losing
> muscle. Reducing your calorific intake whilst not maintaining anaerobic
> exercise levels wil result in excessive muscle loss. Since muscle is
> more metabolically expensive than fat, by maintaining your muscle mass
> you are actually able to burn more calories than someone with less
> muscle. Cycling is an aerobic activity. It does little to preserve
> muscle mass because it primarily recruits Type I fibres (endurance). It
> also doesn't burn as many calories as people think. You go for a ride,
> work like crazy to burn a few hundred calories and then put it straight
> back on again and more with a single Big Mac and fries. Cardio has its
> place in weight loss regimes but it's third in importance after diet and
> anaerobic exercise.


I won't disput what you are saying and in my case I lost 90lbs doing
both aerobic & anaerobic exercise. However my primary exercise came
mostly from cycling because that's what I ejoyed the most, currently I
cycle exclusively and have not gained a pound back. I also know people
who lost weight simply dieting and walking as their only form of
exercise. I realize that a person can only lose so much weight this way
but it does work. As I see it, anything you do to increase activity will
burn calories. As long as you consume fewer calories than you burn you
will lose weight. Once at the desired weight you simply balance the
intake/output.

Its just that simple. (although I know there is much more scientific
information on the subject I'm just summarizing).

Dan.



--

 

[Roger Zoul]

Mathias Koerber wrote:
:: On Wed, 19 May 2004 02:44:51 +0000, Badger_South wrote:
::
::
::: You may be surprised just how much you're eating, how much you're
::: eating at one meal, how much sugar and starch you're eating, and
::: may be overestimating the mileage. If you're ranging from 95 to 190
::: miles during the week that sounds inconsistent. It may be that
::: you're unknowingly sabotaging your efforts, by binging during the
::: low mileage weeks. Perhaps you can smooth it out more, and get 150
::: miles per week but ride everyday.
::
:: One more comment (though I too am neither a dietician nor in any way
:: trained or experienced in any health-related field).
::
:: It seems that the body starts burning stored energy (fats) only after
:: about 1hr (ymmv) orf excercise, so you will need a longer ride to
:: burn off the readily available energy before you start using up the
:: reserves.
:: a 15-30 mile (short ride) daily will thus provide a generally good
:: training but do nothing (much) for loss of weight.

I disagree. It all comes down to whether you are controling diet correctly.
A short ride simply won't burn as many calories as a long ride. Also, at
the beginning of exercise the energy system is primarily anaerobic, but the
longer it continues the greater the shift will be to aerobic (assuming
standarding bicycling, not hard sprints or climbing). it doesn't matter
where the energy comes from to fuel the exercise because your body will just
put it back from the food you eat unless you create a deficit.

::
:: I lost abt 18kg in the first few month of starting cycling again
:: (after 16 years) and ascribe that to the fact that while I did not
:: change my eating habits much, I went for long rides regularly (at
:: least 2hrs usually 3 or more) which seems to have made a difference.
:: Now (a year later)
:: I mostly 2 15km rides a day, and do not lose any more weight unless I
:: do get around to do longer rides (which is rare).

It made a difference because you burned more calories with longer rides.
The fact that you do shorter rides now but don't lose any more weight is
simply the result of you not creating sufficient calorie deficit - you're
lighter now, so you either need to do more shorter rides (for greater total
time spent riding) or you need to eat less.

 

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 15:36:03 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>No, what I described is the CKD...you do it to refill my glycogen so that
>you can train harder the next week (assuming you're lifting). The TKD is
>where you take much smaller amounts of carbs (say 50 g) either pre or post
>(or both) workout. The former is usually much harder to do well and results
>in a lot of water-weight gain. The latter is much easier to do, and usually
>doesn't land you with 10 lbs of water weight, but it is not as much fun. On
>a CKD you want to limit fat intake as well.

Ah, right you are. I stand corrected. I use a version of the TKD, but
wasn't paying attention as you described the Cyclical Ketogenic Diet. I
think I would find that harder to do, but I'm WAGing. ;-)

>:: If you can do this, very good. I on the other hand have to keep a
>:: much tighter reign on my carb intake. One slice of pizza and I know
>:: I risk 'falling off the wagon'. It's more a mental thing, and I know
>:: that's atypical. It does allow me to foist a smug and superior
>:: attitude upon all the weak and slovenly ppl around me though. (LOL,
>:: sarcasm meter pegging out to the max).
>
> Lots of people are you like. I can, however, do a CKD. I've done enough
>of them to be able to get right back on track the following monday. The
>hard part for me is keeping the CKD clean - that is, limiting the fat intake
>while getting the carbs and protein.

Ah so. What would a typical weekend menu under your CKD regime?

Interesting - thx for the details!

-B

 

[Roger Zoul]

David Kerber wrote:
:: In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
:: says...
::
:: ...
::
::::: FWIW, you don't have to go anaerobic to deplete your muscle
::::: glycogen. Simply riding at a lower cadence with the same power
::::: output will accelerate the depletion rate. Glycogen usage is tied
::::: to muscle effort.
:::
::: Er, riding at a lower cadence with high power output (like going
::: uphill in a high gear or going very fast on a flat in high gear) is
::: the same thing as going anaerobic. Anaerobic activity is what uses
::: sugar for fuel.
::
:: Which is another way of saying the EXACT same thing.

EXACT same thing as what? My point was that you generally do have to go
anerobic to deplete muscle glycogen.

 

[GaryG]

"Doug Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The story thus far....
>
> 12 years ago - single, 6'3", 180lbs., hair, and competing in citizens
class
> triathlons.
>
> Fast forward to last July... Married, two kids, mortgage, no hair,
> sedentary, 279lbs.
>
> Sick of that fat man in the mirror, I bought some XXL cycling clothes,
> dusted off and tuned up my old Trek, and started riding again. Now 10
> months and close to 3000 miles later... I still weigh 274! I mean... come
> on! 3000 miles for 5 pounds?!
>
> My fitness level has increased tremendously. I use to struggle on 10 mile
> rides. Now I do at least 3-4 weekday rides of 15-30 miles each and one
> weekend ride for 50-70 miles - all solo. My computer puts my average
speed
> for these rides between 16-18mph depending upon the particular ups&downs
of
> the ride. My HRM says my average rate is usually right about 75% of max
> (although that can vary, usually on the high side, when the ride has
> climbing). I feel lean and mean while I ride, but when I get home I
wonder
> who that fat guy in the mirror is!
>
> I don't diet per se, but I do eat sensibly. The days that I've tracked my
> caloric intake it's usually right between 2500 - 3000. One friend who is
a
> "wellness" expert suggests I'm not eating *ENOUGH*. Although she readily
> admits she doesn't specialize in athletes ("slovenly couch potato" is how
> she describes her typical client), she says that with my activity level my
> BMR is 5300... as she explained it that's the number of calories needed to
> just maintain my weight! Therefore she thinks my body thinks it's being
> starved and refuses to let go of the fat. She thinks by eating MORE the
> body will move away from this starvation reflex and start shedding pounds.
> She also suggested riding easy first thing in the morning BEFORE breakfast
> so the body has to switch to fat because the glycogen stores will be low
> (sound like a recipe for the BONK to me).
>
> Well, I tried to eat 4000 calories today and about died! I felt horrible,
> stuffed, tired, etc. I tried riding with just water (no sport drink), and
> found myself craving sugar after the ride.
>
> Any experts lurking out there that would like to comment? Are there any
> coaching services online that could help customize my training to help me
> lose weight? I can't afford to hire a coach.
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>

First, congratulations on not being a couch potato! Being physically active
is an important component in health, and weight loss.

But, as others have noted, you need to focus on the food (intake) side of
the weight loss equation. It seems clear that you are consuming too much
(which is easy to do when you ride a lot).

Your current Body Mass Index is 34.2, which puts you well into the "Obese"
category. To get your weight down, you need to aim for a long-term, slow
weight loss of around 1 lb per week. To achieve this, you need a calorie
deficit of 500 calories per day. I recommend that you focus on reducing
sweets, sodas, snacks and portion sizes. Even a relatively small reduction,
if maintained over time, will result in significant weight loss.

<plug warning=on>
The trick here is knowing when you are on track, because your weight can
fluctuate by 2-4 pounds per day and counting calories is difficult and
time-consuming. I've recently released a weight management program called
"WeightWare" (www.WeightWare.com) that you may find useful. By weighing
yourself daily, and using the built-in analytical tools in the program,
you'll have a much better idea of whether or not you are on track. You can
download a free, fully functional version from the website and try it for 45
days to see if it meets your needs.
<plug warning=off>

Best of luck, and keep cycling!

~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com - Software for Cyclists
http://www.WeightWare.com - Your Weight and Health Diary