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.