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



On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:54:07 -0400, Badger_South <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I drink Diet Ginger Ale, one of the ones with very little if any
>after-taste, IMO. Diet Dr Pepper is probably equal or better, but I always
>feel bloated if I drink more than half a can of that.
>
>Wonder if they'll come out with a 'splenda' version. Despite the chlorine
>warnings that stuff is pretty good. Canadians have been drinking it for
>years.
>
>OTOH, I now have three of those funny hats with the fold down ear flaps.
>It's puzzling.


I missed something...how did hats come into this?

Hats with fold-down ear flaps are great, although out of season
here.
--
Rick Onanian
 
"curt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You should buy that Atkins book. You don't have to follow it, but you
> should understand the principles of it. It will be a very big help in
> losing weight. I would suspect if you cut your carb intake to below 100 a
> day, you would lose 30 pounds in two or so months with your exercise.

That
> is a guess, but you being a male and riding a bicycle, you will drop fast
> most likely.


When you say "cut carbs to 100 a day" - are you saying 100 grams of
carbohydrate (400 kcal), or 100 kcalories from carbohydrate (25 grams)?

Thanks
 
Denver C. Fox <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Some of your fat has been converted to muscle


> A physiological impossibility!


Ok. How about a slight reduction in amount of fat with a corresponding
increase in the amount of muscle resulting in no net gain or loss in body
weight?
--
---
Eric Yagerlener
remove "usenet" from email address to reply
 
>>Now, assuming burning 50 calories per mile, your 3,000 calories would be 42
>lbs
>>of fat.


Whoops 3000 miles time 50 = 150,000 calories and at 3500 calories per lb of fat
42 lbs.

>You lost me here. 42 lbs of fat? huh, who what? Typo?


See above.

> I did a 2 week bicycle tour in the rockies. We did an average of
>>75 miles per day with quite a bit of climbing and then walking around seeing
>>things on top of that. I made sure I ate plenty of complex carbs and
>>vegetables to replace my


>glycogen each day. I ate some sweets also on the rest
>>stops and took ate a modest amount of fats and meats. After I got back, I

>was
>>amazed that I had lost 10 lbs in 14 days. So it can be done.

>


>Did you maintain the loss of the 10 lbs after you came back? Was it really
>fat, i.e., did your waistband feel loose?


Yes. It all seemed to be fat loss.
 
>During RAGBRAI, I'll usually put on close to 5 pounds, and I'm
>usually riding about 70 miles average every day for the week.
>
>Too much imbibing of the four basic food groups of Iowa: pork
>burgers, butterflied pork chops, 1" thick, corn husk smoked pork


>chops and brautworst!


I thought those things were all Iowan version of powerbars.
 
>You don't metion your normal weight here, and that's an important part of
>the picture. IOW if you were 165 and dropped to 150 that might signify near
>dangerous catabolism


Naw, I am not that dumb. I can be pretty dumb mind you but not that far gone.

I weighed 200 lbs and 6' at the start of the tour and 190 lbs at the end. So I
had excess weight to jettison. I had been at say 170 lbs, I wouldn't pull that
kind of stunt. As you said, the weight loss would have come from things you
probably don't want to lose.

By the way, now I weigh about 180 lbs.

>Skipping ahead for a moment, it may be that the body goes into a different
>state when you're essentially riding all day and staying at or near the
>'sweat zone' for what, 8 to 10 hours with say six breaks to eat and take
>pictures -


I wasn't riding quite that long. But it was one of those camping tours and I
recently did one of those. There is extra exertion besides cycling on one of
those. Setting up the camp, toting your gear, cleaning clothes, walking to
dinner, walking to breakfast, walking to the showers, walking to see stuff. It
all comes out to at least 5 miles of walking.

At home, I do a long ride, I come home and lie on the couch and eat.
 
>The reason this point needs to be made is because for some 20 to 30 years in
>the US it has been claimed that eating fat make syou fat. Excessive calorie
>intake makes you fat.


That is my understanding. I think the Atkins Diet and others like it work and
often don't limit fat because people will feel full and stop eating before they
eat too many calories.

The notion of quite a few diets is to limit certain classes of foods. The diet
is a bit boring and people eat fewer calories as a consequence.
 
>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).


Well, I agree with this. It isn't really a matter of weight bearing vs non
weight bearing. It is just a fact that it takes quite a while to burn a lb of
body fat and that means a lot of miles.

>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.


I would disagree depending on what you mean by "intense" rides. He could even
lose weight by cruising at 12 mph on flat terrain, he would just have to spend
hours doing it to burn up many calories.

>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.


You do enough cycling and you can burn up the calories and you don't need no
stinkin cross-training. As I posted above, I burned off 10 lbs of fat in 14
days by doing a lot of cycling in the mountains and doing a sort of reverse
Atkins diet - lots of carbs to replace glycogen, low fat and a little protein.
Remember, quantity has a quality all its own.
 
Badger_South wrote:

> >I lost close to 15 pounds during a cross country tour. Of
> >course it was fully loaded and there was some serious climbing
> >during the ride, and it took 6 1/2 weeks.

>
> You don't metion your normal weight here, and that's an important part of
> the picture. IOW if you were 165 and dropped to 150 that might signify near
> dangerous catabolism.


Losing 15 pounds on a cross-country tour is pretty common for males.
Females, for some reason, reportedly don't lose nearly as much.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/
 
On 19 May 2004 18:11:53 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
>> We evolved eating most anything which nourish us, and that includes wild
>> grains. Why would we have started cultivating grains if we didn't
>> already know they were good to eat? And fruit is one of the major food
>> sources in forested areas. The entire primate family eats lots of both
>> plant and animal materials for food, and that includes humans.

>
>I thought theory was we didn't evolve much brainpower until the diet included
>fish, which contains an oil that contributes to brain growth. Then enough
>brainpower developed for mankind to process grains?


Yeah, like whenever I watch the Discovery Channel and they do those Alaskan
Salmon and Grizzly bear shows, I'm thinking "Any minute a super-smart Bear
with this giant forehead is gonna come walkin' out of the shrubbery..."

"...with a bunch of fishermen crammed head down in his fishing bag"

-B
 
Terry Morse <[email protected]> wrote:

> Probably because the dieting has reduced their lean body mass.


Just removing calories does indeed reduce lean body mass. The body
actually robs from muscle mass (including the heart muscle) in order
to create glucose to feed your brain while preserving the fat. It's a
starvation response, and insulin plays a key role in this.

The original poster is showing the classical signs of insulin
resistance and should probably be tested for diabetes -- can't lose
weight in spite of limited caloric intake and excercise. High insulin
levels promote fat tissue creation. The high level of fat tissue
induces further insulin resistance, leading to even more resistance to
burning fat. It's a cycle that levels off only when the pancreas Beta
cells finally say "Enough!" and can't pump out any more insulin.

The trick is to reduce caloric intake without triggering the
lean-body-mass-robbing starvation response. This is done with a
low-carb diet. A low-carb diet AND excercise is essential to breaking
this cycle; there's really no other way around it.

Several posters commented that humans naturally eat a high proportion
of carbohydrates: complex grains, fruits, and so forth. This is
correct, but many of us eat way too much carbs (how many sodas will
you drink today?) for our activity level. Low-cal, high carb "diets"
results in insulin resistance, which results in fat storage. Once
you're fat, reducing calories simply does not work.

Others have noted the possible increased risk for cardiovascular
disease from a low-carb diet. The link between high insulin levels and
cardiovascular disease (along with a whole host of other problems) is
proven and the mechanisms are well understood. Reducing caloric intake
by replacing high calorie proteins and fats with lower calorie carbs
also increases incidence of heart disease by inducing a starvation
response that robs lean muscle mass from the heart muscle.

RFM
http://www.masoner.net/bike/
 
[email protected] (Pbwalther) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>You don't metion your normal weight here, and that's an important
>>part of the picture. IOW if you were 165 and dropped to 150 that
>>might signify near dangerous catabolism

>
> Naw, I am not that dumb. I can be pretty dumb mind you but not
> that far gone.
>
> I weighed 200 lbs and 6' at the start of the tour and 190 lbs at
> the end. So I had excess weight to jettison. I had been at say
> 170 lbs, I wouldn't pull that kind of stunt. As you said, the
> weight loss would have come from things you probably don't want to
> lose.
>

On a x-Canada ride I went from 144 to 130 and that was eating
everything I could get my hands on, but I just couldn't seem to keep
up. We were doing 100+ miles per day and it took 53 days.
 
"Fritz M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Terry Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The original poster is showing the classical signs of insulin
> resistance and should probably be tested for diabetes -- can't lose
> weight in spite of limited caloric intake and excercise. High insulin
> levels promote fat tissue creation. The high level of fat tissue
> induces further insulin resistance, leading to even more resistance to
> burning fat. It's a cycle that levels off only when the pancreas Beta
> cells finally say "Enough!" and can't pump out any more insulin.
>


You make a very good point, if he is already eating correctly and
exercising and still can't lose weight he probably does need to be checked
for diabetes.

>
> The trick is to reduce caloric intake without triggering the
> lean-body-mass-robbing starvation response. This is done with a
> low-carb diet. A low-carb diet AND excercise is essential to breaking
> this cycle; there's really no other way around it.
>


This is exactly what a diabetic's diet consists of.

> Several posters commented that humans naturally eat a high proportion
> of carbohydrates: complex grains, fruits, and so forth. This is
> correct, but many of us eat way too much carbs (how many sodas will
> you drink today?) for our activity level. Low-cal, high carb "diets"
> results in insulin resistance, which results in fat storage. Once
> you're fat, reducing calories simply does not work.
>


I agree that ppl eat too many carbs, especially sodas, but I want to clerify
your point about low-cal diets. A low-cal, high carb diets may lead to
insulin resistance but that does "not" mean that a low-cal, balanced diet
would. A balanced low-cal diet consists of 20% protein, 30% fat, and 50%
carb calories and unless a person is already pre-disposed (hereditary or
already partially insulin resistant) to diabeties this diet won't create a
significant problem.

Are you saying that nobody has ever lost weight on a low-cal diet once they
became fat?

>
> Others have noted the possible increased risk for cardiovascular
> disease from a low-carb diet. The link between high insulin levels and
> cardiovascular disease (along with a whole host of other problems) is
> proven and the mechanisms are well understood. Reducing caloric intake
> by replacing high calorie proteins and fats with lower calorie carbs
> also increases incidence of heart disease by inducing a starvation
> response that robs lean muscle mass from the heart muscle.
>


Bottom line balance your diet, high-protein or low-cal. Too much of
anything is "not" a good thing.....except cycling. ;)

Dan.
 
Fritz M wrote:
:: Terry Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
::
::: Probably because the dieting has reduced their lean body mass.
::
:: Just removing calories does indeed reduce lean body mass. The body
:: actually robs from muscle mass (including the heart muscle) in order
:: to create glucose to feed your brain while preserving the fat. It's a
:: starvation response, and insulin plays a key role in this.
::
:: The original poster is showing the classical signs of insulin
:: resistance and should probably be tested for diabetes -- can't lose
:: weight in spite of limited caloric intake and excercise.

I'm not so certain of that. Based on what he wrote and the way he wrote it,
I'm not at all convinced he really knows how much he is eating.

High insulin
:: levels promote fat tissue creation. The high level of fat tissue
:: induces further insulin resistance, leading to even more resistance
:: to burning fat. It's a cycle that levels off only when the pancreas
:: Beta cells finally say "Enough!" and can't pump out any more insulin.
::
:: The trick is to reduce caloric intake without triggering the
:: lean-body-mass-robbing starvation response. This is done with a
:: low-carb diet. A low-carb diet AND excercise is essential to breaking
:: this cycle; there's really no other way around it.
::
:: Several posters commented that humans naturally eat a high proportion
:: of carbohydrates: complex grains, fruits, and so forth.

How do you define "naturally" in this instance? Sure, that's what humans in
the US eat now, but that's by no means natural, imo. We basically live
engineered lives now, so who knows what the impact of our diet will be on
us.

This is
:: correct, but many of us eat way too much carbs (how many sodas will
:: you drink today?) for our activity level. Low-cal, high carb "diets"
:: results in insulin resistance, which results in fat storage. Once
:: you're fat, reducing calories simply does not work.

While I agree with almost all of what you're saying, it is not exactly true
that one you're fat, you can't lose weight by reducing calories. I've been
a type 2 diabetic since age 23 (I'm 46 now) and I lost 100 lbs on a low fat
diet with lots and lots of exercise (did I say lots & lots?). As a type 2,
I was fully insulin resistant. Of course, all of that exercise and
restricted eating worked to make me less and less insulin resistant over
time, but I still lost easily when I was very large (we're talking 360 lbs
here). So the point here is: it depends. A lot of people are as you
describe, btw.


::
:: Others have noted the possible increased risk for cardiovascular
:: disease from a low-carb diet.

That claim is nonsense, imo.

The link between high insulin levels
:: and cardiovascular disease (along with a whole host of other
:: problems) is proven and the mechanisms are well understood. Reducing
:: caloric intake by replacing high calorie proteins and fats with
:: lower calorie carbs also increases incidence of heart disease by
:: inducing a starvation response that robs lean muscle mass from the
:: heart muscle.

Right! However, I'm not sure I believe the claims of the body robbing lean
mass from the heart muscle. While I can see that under the most severe of
conditions, why would the body rob from a vital organ when there are leg
muscles, butt muscles, back muscles (most of the muscle mass on the body is
in those locations) that have plenty of mass to pick from? The body is
amazingly smart at protecting itself, so someone is going to have to provide
me with a lot of reference material before I accept that notion so easily.
 
Doug Cook wrote:
> 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?!


Possible hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid). See your doctor; people with
moderate or severe hypothyroidism will not loose weight unless it is
treated. Diagnosis is via a simple blood test and treatment is usually by a
hormone suplement pill taken daily. IIRC, you mentioned carying the weight
mainly around the waist. This is another hypothyroidism characteristic.

I'm actually surprised that no one has suggested it already.

Austin
 
On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:51:16 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>While I agree with almost all of what you're saying, it is not exactly true
>that one you're fat, you can't lose weight by reducing calories. I've been
>a type 2 diabetic since age 23 (I'm 46 now) and I lost 100 lbs on a low fat
>diet with lots and lots of exercise (did I say lots & lots?). As a type 2,
>I was fully insulin resistant. Of course, all of that exercise and
>restricted eating worked to make me less and less insulin resistant over
>time, but I still lost easily when I was very large (we're talking 360 lbs
>here). So the point here is: it depends. A lot of people are as you
>describe, btw.


May I ask a rather personal question, and feel free not to answer...

At what age did you lose the weight, and were you young enough so that your
skin was elastic enough to contract to a reasonable degree?

I forget what you said you weigh now, but I figure right about 190-200?

I was about 270 in 1997, and at 47, mine did and at 200lbs, I only could
pinch an inch.

I'm not sure why I care, I guess I'm thinking that men are pretty lucky in
this regard.

As I mentioned, my visceral fat decreased substantially so that my waist
size was below that when I was 180-190, ten years earlier.

A corollary might be, man the LC diet can be some powerful mojo. <g>

-B
 
Rick Onanian wrote:
:: On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:19:30 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <[email protected]> wrote:
:::::: True, to an extent. If he has a belly then perhaps losing some
:::::: of
:::::: it might help him ride even better. Let's face it, lugging
:::::: around
:::::: fat is going to slow you down.
:::::
::::: Only uphill. It's got practically no effect on flat, and provides
::::: a great gravity assist downhill, as well as a more aerodynamic
::::: shape.
:::
::: Really? I would have thought that on a flat weight still makes some
::: difference, just not as much as going uphill. And down hill (and on
::: flat), you still have wind resistance due to surface area due to
::: being big. Is that not so? I know you'll get the gravity assist
::: downhil, though, since I get that myself and catch up with smaller
::: guys...
::
:: The beauty of an aerobelly is that it has no more frontal area at
:: all, but stores additional inertia.

Good point!

::
:: On the flat, it requires a slight increase in effort to accelerate,
:: but once going, you keep on going.

No, you have to supply power to keep going.

This means that a gust of wind
:: won't slow you down, or for that matter steady wind, as much as it
:: would if you lopped off the aerobelly. The aerobelly is made for
:: cruising.

Interesting. However, speaking of the aerobelly and wind -- it is rare that
you encounter only head winds. I read in some cycling book that only winds
coming from an angular range of about plus/minus 160 degree aft really work
for you in cycling. So, any side wind is going to see more area, while a
true frontal wind won't. So it would seem (and hey, I may be completely off
base here -- I'm a cycling noob) that while frontal area isn't increase,
cross-sectional area is, so the aerobelly (is that some kind of common term
in cycling?) would work against you. If I'm off, please don't hesitate to
let me know how/where.

::
:: Downhill, it provides the gravity assist with no cost whatsoever.

Can't see a problem with that.

::
:: Aerodynamically, while it has no more frontal area, it does provide
:: a better aerodynamic shape than a flat torso.

Is that really true? First off, if I want speed, I don't want to be sitting
high on the saddle, so I get low. The the only thing I can see the
"aerobelly' doing in this instance is making it harder for me to do so and
also making it harder to breathe..... Am I wrong?

If the rounded
:: front-end wasn't more aerodynamic, autos would all look like this:
:: http://www.sweptline.com/hist/big1_coe.jpg

:) Were you pulling my leg here, Rick? The notion of an aerobelly is
pretty funny, actually, but none of the pro cyclist have one, do they?


:: --
:: Rick Onanian
 
Michael Libby wrote:
:: On Wed, 19 May 2004 10:49:11 -0400, Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: It's going to be hard to do a lot of extra stuff after riding for
::: 70 miles. Most people don't do that much work in an entire week.
::: Remember, this guy is around 275lbs.
::
:: I don't disagree-- in fact, that's what I was talking about with
:: compensation.
::
:: I know I'd be beat after a 70 mile ride, and I'd probably end up
:: sitting around a lot for the next day or so. I might also end up
:: eating more than
:: I probably should because my body would be working on rebuilding.
:: That
:: would actually be counter-productive, though.
::
:: But 70 miles a week at 15 MPH, works out to an average of 40 minutes
:: riding each day. That's not too shabby, but it's really not that
:: much in terms of calories burned by cycling (maybe 400 if he's
:: really grinding).
::
:: For schedule reasons, most people would take one day a week off at
:: least-- that means you have to ride 47 minutes, six days a week to
:: keep up the same activity level. So then why not just up the ride
:: time to
:: an hour? It's only a few more minutes per day-- and if you're already
:: making time to ride, probably the extra 13 minutes isn't going to
:: make or break your schedule.
::
:: If you average 15 MPH on six hour-long rides a week, you're getting
:: in 90 miles a week. But after those 15 mile rides, you're not going
:: to be that worn out. Certainly nothing like the pounding you'd get
:: by trying to do 70 miles in one day.
::
:: So you can get a lot more mileage each week, but you're also making
:: it easier to recover from the rides. This means not only will you
:: burn more cycling, but you'll be more active the rest of the time
:: and burn more calories overall.

Good points! But obviously some of us like to get the long rides in....I'm
training for my first century which will happen in August.

::
::: I wouldn't. 3000 kcals is a lot of food. Depending on his age and
::: LBM, that might be a lot. And keep in mind that is what he got on
::: the days
::: it bothered to count. He might be eating well over 3000 kcals per
::: day. hence, he really needs to track what he eats and start limiting
::: calories.
::
:: Again I don't disagree that. 3000 kcals intake probably is on the
:: high
:: side. For me it would be a maintenance level. But I'm not him. But
:: before
:: he worries too much about adjusting the diet, he needs to know how
:: much
:: he's really burning off on an average day.
::
:: If he thinks he's taking in 3000 kcals a day, but finds out he's
:: really
:: only burning 2500, then he's either got burn more or eat less (or
:: maybe some of both). It's obvious from his results that his caloric
:: intake is as high as his energy expenditure.
::
::: How does one define a "healthy balance?"
::
:: I mean a diet where calories from carbs, fats, and protein are in
:: balance-- not necessarily equal, but not where there is an attempt to
:: reduce one or the other of those sources to where it contributes
:: less than 5 or 10 percent of the total.

Why? See, that's where the problem lies. there is no essential carb, so
knowing how to define a "balance diet" is very tricky, imo. The only thing
I know for sure if that you can safely eat a lot more carbs if you get
plenty of exercise on a regular basis. If not, then those same carbs will
end up with you becoming fat, since they stimulate insulin, blood sugar
swings, and energy storage.

If someone can do a low-carb
:: diet or a
:: low-fat diet and it works for them, fine. My only concern is getting
:: enough vitamins, minerals, and protein. But those things are pretty
:: easy
:: to come by with a balanced diet.

Pretty easy to come by on LC and LF, too. One simply has to pay attention.
Also, one can eat a so-called "balanced diet" and still not get enough of
the essentials.

::
::: Obviously, for the OP, who already said he eats sensibly, what
::: worked
::: for you isn't going to work for him.
::
:: But how does one define "eats sensibly"? :)

Well, it was his term :)

::
:: I don't think I said what worked for me would work for him. I was
:: just throwing out my idea of what "eats sensibly" would mean as food
:: for
:: thought, not as the last word on the topic.

Right. You had some excellent points -- I enjoyed reading them.
 
On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:01:47 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>:: Aerodynamically, while it has no more frontal area, it does provide
>:: a better aerodynamic shape than a flat torso.
>
>Is that really true? First off, if I want speed, I don't want to be sitting
>high on the saddle, so I get low. The the only thing I can see the
>"aerobelly' doing in this instance is making it harder for me to do so and
>also making it harder to breathe..... Am I wrong?


I always felt Rick was saying this tongue-in-cheek.

The presence of too much belly causes (at least) two things:

1. your knee(s) may bump into it at the top of the stoke, meaning your leg
on the other side has to put more pressure into the stroke to force the
knee into the belly; or you have to sit up more. (yecch)
2. it forces your knees apart, in the 'low' position, causing a rather
large decrease in aerodynamics...er increase in what, drag/resistance, you
get the picture.

-B