A weight loss plan that works for average cyclists?

[Blair P. Houghton]

Kevan Smith </dev/null> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:31:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (C) from a2i
>network wrote:
>
>>Reducing your intake of high calorie foods (like sugar)
>
>Sugar isn't high calorie. It's pure carbohydrate.

I take your point (4 cals/gram for sugar vs. 9 for fat)
but most food is about half water and fiber. So food with
more sugar and less water and fiber is high-calorie food.

>Here's the breakdown:
>
>Carbohydrates 4 calories per gram
>Protein 4 calories per gram
>Fat 9 calories per gram
>Alcohol 12 calories per gram

Alcohol is only 7 calories per gram.

It also completely shuts down your liver while your
body panics and tries to detoxify the poison you have
injected into your bloodstream.

No liver function means no conversion of glycerol to fuel
which means your metabolism drops, you move less, and you
burn fewer calories.

So its contribution to your fat load is amplified, so
maybe I like your "12 calories" erratum.

>It's easy to see what to trim: fats and total calories.

Well, you're right, but not for the reason you're using.

We get way too much fat in the average diet, because it's
a selling point. And way too many calories, because we're
rich and food is cheap and entertaining and comforting and
we have total control over it and it links us with our past
and other cultures and yadda yadda yadda.

The US RDA works out to 50% or more of calories from carbs,
about 30% or fewer calories from fat, and 0.36 grams of
protein per pound of bodyweight per day.

The total number of calories to eat can be determined
simply by counting them for two weeks, seeing which way
your weight trends, and adjusting the slope by (usually)
subtracting 500 calories per day for each pound per week
that you need to decrease the slope.

Don't go over 2 lbs/week loss, or you'll enter starvation
mode and you'll burn a lot of muscle.

--Blair
"I've read this before somewhere."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>Read those labels before eating anything.

It's funny how after just a few days you internalize that the
manufacturers are treating the nutrition labelling just
exactly the way salesmen treat the fine print on a deal.

It's the real nuts and bolts of the transaction, but it's
hidden so you are maximally affected by the meaningless
dreck on the front of the package, and cost yourself more
to profit them the most.

--Blair
"There ought to be a 45/40/15 aisle
in the supermarket."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

toa <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>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.

How are they estimating it from heart rate (and I assume
age and weight)?

If it's an average over a set of medical data, expect tens of
percent in margin of error.

Still, it'll be somewhat correct to compare one day to another.

And do you wear it 24/7, or do you just add your training
total to your basal metabolic rate estimate?

>(3) Keep a daily energy deficit of max(!) 2000KJ and you drop 0.5kg a
>week continously.

That's about 500 calories/day to lose 1 lb/week, for those
of us still living in colonial times.

>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

Fruit is better; even dried fruit. The fiber slows the
sugar down.

>- Don't go shopping hungry, that way you don't bring back loads and
>loads of 'nice' things
>- 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

Fat+sugar == stored fat. You're jamming your diet every
time you do that. It has to do the double-reverse to get
you back into fat-burning mode. Without the cupcakes,
you could be dropping faster.

But 1 lb/week is the sweet-spot, so don't change what works.

--Blair
"Mix + message == usenet."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:16:50 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Bill Baka wrote:
>>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.

I lost 37 lbs in 39 weeks eating one ~1500 calorie meal a day.

And rather than plateauing, I got into a situation where I
gained 15 lbs back because I couldn't do the one-meal-a-day
thing effectively (work stress plus schedule changes put me
back into breakfast/lunch/dinner mode).

Then I got back on the one-meal-a-day plan, lost the 15
lbs, and got impatient.

That's when I started riding again, kicked myself into
starvation mode, and all hell broke loose.

I had to increase my intake to allow myself to keep riding,
and there was no way I was going to stop riding once I started
again. Not after 12 years of subconscious self-hate for stopping.

But it's hard to eat 2000-2300 calories in one sitting,
so I switched to the other extreme, 5 meals a day.

Now I'm in total control, losing about 1 lb/week,
exercising like I'm goofy for spin-class instructors (not
that I couldn't go blooey for the right girl with ripped
calves), coming off a successful fall goal-achievement,
and looking for the right goal to meet for the equinox.

--Blair
"Sometime around the apocalypse, I may
actually get a six-pack..."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

gds <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

That's exactly how it works. We cut back on what we eat,
we die, and we're not starving any more.

--Blair
"Bariatric brilliance."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

gds <[email protected]> wrote:
>But that isn't the point! Sure plateaus can/will happen. But if you
>keep the equation correct, that is intake < burned you will lose
>weight. It is a tautology.

And therefore a fallacy? (I make the pun.)

Yes, it's tautological because you limit the variables.
But when you consider the rest of the system, it's no
longer a mystery.

Basal metabolic rate can drop drastically. So while you
think you're "active" because you're exercising, every
time you sit, you sit more still, and when you sleep you
completely lock down.

Your body can cut 800-1000 calories of output and you
won't really notice, you'll just feel like you need a nap
every once in a while.

To "keep the equation correct", you end up eating less
and less and less until you're eating nothing but your own
muscles and organs. And you'll still probably have a roll
of flab around your middle, because your body is saving
it for those three or four days when you're lying on the
desert floor waiting for the rain to grow a sprig of grass
into your open mouth and maybe you'll have enough calories
left to chew it and swallow and move to the next one.

Starvation mode is evil, and should be avoided (therefore
Atkins is evil, and should be avoided, but that's another
fight).

--Blair
"Almost time for Dinner_1."

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles]

Preston:

I've read through the various posts, and maybe I've missed it somewhere, but
what has your doctor told you? Obviously the answer is a bit more
complicated that ride more/eat less for some people. You've been through
quite a bit in terms of different diets and exercise regimes, such that it
might be difficult for someone here (in this newsgroup) to suggest something
new & different from what you've already done.

And, of course, it's possible that the design for your particular body was
simply supposed to be big. I don't know how tall you are, but we have a
couple of customers in your weight range, a bit taller than 6', and they're
what I'd call exceptionally sturdy, but not in any obvious way too heavy or,
heaven forbid, obese (struggling with political correctness here). And these
guys are very strong riders, who, while they don't climb with the fastest,
still do very well.

So, what did the doc say?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member

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

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Preston Crawford <[email protected]> wrote:
>eaten red meat or pork for 5 years. My daily meals generally consists of
>cereal

Sugary-**** or unsweetened?

>with rice milk

Nonfat cow's would be better. Rice milk is 30 grams carb and
1 gram protein while cow's milk is 13 grams carbs and 9 grams
protein.

>orange juice

Way sugary. I'd cut this out. You're getting plenty of
carbs in the cereal and milk.

>a little sliced turkey
>a container of fat free, sugar free (sweetened with fruit) yogurt

Good stuff.

>4 or 5 slices of sprouted wheat bread with a little Spectrum Spread

Spread out over the day, okay, but at one meal?

>an apple, a banana, a

Good stuff, I try to get 2 fruits a day but only seem to
fit one in. (You're actually getting 3, with the OJ, but
as I said, OJ = hidden evil).

>bowl of steamed brocolli

It's really, really hard to overeat regular veggies.
They're so non-dense, caloriewise.

>and for lunch a big salad.

With dressing all over it? Dressing is about 50% fat and
25% carbs, so a tablespoon comes out to like 90 calories,
and the average "big salad" needs 3-4 tablespoons to be
"good".

If you do the dressing-on-the-side, dip-your fork
(vertically, not like a spoon) method, you still taste
the dressing, but you don't have a spoonful of it in every
bite. I can barely see the dressing dish level drop from
start to finish. Maybe a gram of fat, total.

>That's a typical day
>for me, without differentiation made between when I usually eat it, etc.
>Just the sum of what I eat. That's not to say I've never snacked, but when
>I snack it's generally more bread.

Some breads are good. Some have a lot of sugar and fat
in them.

>I don't drink soda, except the occassional root beer on the weekend. I

Stick to diet, if you must.

>don't drink alcohol.

Good for dieting. 7 calories per gram of alcohol, plus
whatever carbos are in your daiquiri mix, plus it shuts
down your liver which interferes with your fat-burning
momentum.

>I do drink orange and apple juice, which I suppose

Wait; you didn't mention the apple juice above. To me, that's
a clue that you're compartmentalizing information and could be
missing HUNDREDS OF CALORIES A DAY!

(I'll climb down off the table now.)

>could be a culprit. That's what I'm trying to figure out, though, because
>by and large the mass of what I eat is salad, veggies, sprouted wheat
>bread, some cereals, like I mentioned above.

It's not the mass; it's the calories. Count those up
religiously for two weeks. Watch your weight over that
time. If you gain no weight, you'll know how many calories
"maintenance" means.

(Calories I ate per week) - 3500*(pounds I gained per
week plus pounds I want to lose every week) = (calories
I should eat every week).

Example:

I averaged 3400 calories per day, and gained two pounds,
and I want to lose a pound a week.

3400*7 - 3500*(2 + 1) = 23800-10500 = 13800 calories/week.

13800/7 = 1970 calories, what I should eat every day.

Don't set the loss rate over 2 pounds per week or you'll
go into starvation mode and mess yourself up. 1 pound
is a good target to start with and easy to stick with.
That's 500 calories per day below maintenance.

>As far as it being a back-slide, I suppose you could consider that to be
>the case. I maintained 245 for 3 years, though. So the slide to my current
>weight has been recent. I was literally stuck with the same diet at 245
>for years.

I was at 220 for a year. Then I got a trip to Dallas and
in just 3 weeks of surveying the Texas BBQ landscape I
gained 15 lbs.

I kid you not.

BTW, metabolism slows with age. Considerably. It's worth
about a pound a year.

>> 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.
>
>So no bread then? That doesn't leave much except fat, meat and veggies.

That's all food (including bread) is. Fat, meat, and veggies.

I wouldn't cut bread out. It makes for a soul-defeating
diet, which makes it all fall apart.

Set your total calories 500/day below maintenance,
for protein, eat at least 0.4grams/pound of bodyweight (1.6
calories/pound), figure 20% of daily calories from fat, and
make the rest come from carbohydrates, preferably starchy
and fibrous carbohydrates rather than sugars, unless
the sugars are in a fibrous form like whole fresh or
dried fruit.

A spreadsheet helps. Once you have a few meals worked
out, it's pretty easy.

Don't forget the protein in the bread. Entire cultures
have survived on it.

And don't sweat small stuff like "there's milk sugar in
milk" because you can get away with small stuff. It's big
stuff like "milk is good for you; what could one glass
over my calorie target hurt?" that makes you fat.

>> Best of luck.
>
>Thanks.

For endomorphic people it's an uphill ride all the time.
We can't "wing it" in any way. You'll need sharp eyes as
well as luck. The "willpower" thing is overdone. The only
will you need is the will to see and do what's apparent.

--Blair
"Like posting and asking questions."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
>Preston Crawford wrote:
>.
>||
>|| So no bread then? That doesn't leave much except fat, meat and
>|| veggies.
>||
>
>That's plenty.

Atkins is stupid.

--Blair
"Just plain stupid."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Tom Keats <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> writes in part:
>
>> 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've used every hole on my belt, and had to DRILL FOUR MORE.

It's a trophy.

>I guess that
>technically falls more under the 'activity' label, than
>'exercise'. Anyhow, it's doing me a world of good.

I eat about 8 baked potatoes a week, btw.

Atkins is teh ********, and exercise helps control weight
by allowing a more satisfying food intake at the same
calorie deficit.

--Blair
"Getting buff don't hurt."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
>Well, if you follow a plan like Atkins you should learn that it is not hte
>potato that's bad. It's he fact that we eat too much carb for our activity
>levels. Over time, that has bad effects on the body due to too much insulin
>floating around in the blood. It doesn't happen to everyone, but it's
>happening more and more these days.

Over time?

Over an hour, maybe.

And only if you don't buffer it by eating fiber and protein.

Atkins and his forced ketosis are nuts.

--Blair
"Duck! It's the cult!"

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
>Well, if you follow a plan like Atkins you should learn that it is not hte
>potato that's bad. It's he fact that we eat too much carb for our activity
>levels. Over time, that has bad effects on the body due to too much insulin
>floating around in the blood. It doesn't happen to everyone, but it's
>happening more and more these days.

Over time?

Over an hour, maybe.

And only if you don't buffer it by eating fiber and protein.

Atkins and his forced ketosis are nuts.

--Blair
"Duck! It's the cult!"

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
>Preston Crawford wrote:
>|| On 2004-12-28, Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>||| 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.
>||
>|| That's precisely the direction I didn't want this thread to take.
>|| "Greed and sloth"?????
>
>You can't control a thread once you release it on usenet in an unmoderated
>ng.

You can if you eat right and exercise.

--Blair
"I found my truck, my dog came home,
and my girl wants me back."

 

[Gooserider]

Preston--

I know it is anathema to many of the dedicated cyclists here, but
to lose the weight you want and do it more efficiently, you need to
incorporate strength training. More muscle = more calories burned at rest. I
did the Body For Life program(Google it) which consists of three days
strength training(upper body/lower body/upper body, alternating weekly) and
three days of interval cardio. If you ride you can use it as your cardio,
and more cardio is better. The diet is pretty simple. 6 meals a day,
with each portion no bigger than your palm. No gimmicks, just clean eating.
Lean meats, fresh vegetables, and carb sources like potatoes, brown rice,
and whole grains. The founder of the program started a supplement company,
but using meal replacements is optional. A little extra whey protein after
lifting is a great idea though...

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> writes:

> Atkins is teh ********, and exercise helps control weight
> by allowing a more satisfying food intake at the same
> calorie deficit.

I notice folks are talking lots about eating, but
not much about exercise/activity/doing stuff.


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

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Preston Crawford <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2004-12-28, Blair P Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Oh, I definitely didn't eat all veggies. There's a little salad dressing
>here. Or cheese there, etc. So by vegetarian I don't mean vegan, nor do I
>mean that my diet didn't contain only veggies. When I lost it and
>afterwords it was mostly veggies, fruits, and a decent helping of carbs
>every day. I've tried to shift some of those carbs to meat, but with no
>success so far.

Some carbs have a lot of protein. Some meats have way more
fat than you think and some (many modern hams, for instance)
have way less. But most can be assume pretty fatty if
you don't see the fat content in numbers.

>> Atkins is nuts. All the research shows that it just bores people
>> into eating fewer calories.
>
>In the interest of not pooring gasoline on flamewars I wanted to avoid, I
>won't comment on that except to say that I think there are definite
>benefits to avoiding certain carbs. So I believe there is some truth to
>what the low-carbers are pushing. But the science on it right now is so
>confused as to be hard to figure out.

The hype is hard to figure out. The science is biology
and Atkins wasn't the only doctor who knew about persistent
ketosis, he's just the only one who thought it was part
of a "diet". The rest consider it a disease. I'm on their
side. Drastic measures aren't necessary.

>> Nothing is a "big problem" except total calories in minus total
>> calories out being a positive number.
>
>I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps that's my problem and perhaps keeping
>track is the answer. In the end, though, I wonder about *what* I'm eating
>as well.

Get Tom Venuto's book. www.burnthefat.com. It will tell
you everything I'm telling you, and it won't forget the
things I'm forgetting.

>> It has, but if you were still significantly fat at 238,
>> you weren't close to having a problem metabolism.
>
>I wasn't really fat at 238, actually. By the BMI charts, yes. But unless
>there are hidden stores of fat between my thigh muscles, I'm extremely
>muscular in my lower body and thus I don't really see (at that weight)
>where I could have lost more weight.
>
>> 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.
>
>Maybe.

Could be right near 200 lbs.

You should get a bodyfat caliper and measure yourself.

There are cheap ones available online.

It's an educated guess at the actual value of your bodyfat
percentage, but it's a great way to know when your weight
loss is coming from fat rather than muscle.

And it gives you one more trackable item to take solace in
when the scale says you didn't lose any. If the caliper
says you've got fewer millimeters of fat in any one of the
tested locations, you know you're still progressing and the
scale is just reading the last glass of water you had.

>> Define "eating right". Do you know exactly how many calories
>> you're eating now? Do you know how many you will eat tomorrow?
>
>No clue. I just try to eat the right things.

Lots of things I used to think were the right things
turned out to be hard to fit into a weight-loss diet.

Avocados have a ton of fat, "good" fat or not. Olive oil
is very "good" fat, but has the same problem: It's still
a lot of fat. Lean roast beef has three times the fat
of turkey. Roast chicken breast with the skin vs. without
the skin. Fruit juice has several times more sugar than
the same weight of the fruit it came from. Cheese has as
many grams of fat as protein.

They can be fit in, especially in small and carefully used
quantities. But they're not in the base set of things that
fit.

>> 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.
>
>Thanks for the advice. I snipped because there was nothing more to say.
>I'll look into what you suggested. Thanks.

Yer welcome.

--Blair
"It'll work."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
>Preston Crawford wrote:
>||| Nothing is a "big problem" except total calories in minus total
>||| calories out being a positive number.
>||
>|| I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps that's my problem and perhaps
>|| keeping track is the answer. In the end, though, I wonder about
>|| *what* I'm eating as well.
>
>I've lost 125 lbs on LC and I count and track calories as well as carbs. It
>works.

You've accelerated your rate of muscle loss by restricting your carbs.

Depending on how hypertrophic you were in places you didn't
want to remain hypertrophic (and why would a bikie ever want
big legs?) that may or may not be a bad thing.

--Blair
"The brain isn't really a muscle,
so that's not a worry."

 

[Paul Turner]

Blair P. Houghton

>>orange juice
>
> Way sugary. I'd cut this out. You're getting plenty of
> carbs in the cereal and milk.

I agree strongly with this suggestion. I've lost 50 lbs. since May, and
one of the things I did was think about stuff I was eating that has a
reputation for being good for us but has many more calories than we
realize. One of the big ones was fruit juice, and I stopped drinking it
and started eating lots more fruit instead. It's easy to drink 250
calories worth of orange juice, but hard to eat 250 calories worth of
oranges. Juice doesn't make you feel full in the same way either.

--
Paul Turner

 

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"Preston Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote in message .cobrala...

>> perhaps kick-start my metabolism. Thus my interest in what works for
> others. I know for many "exercise more than you eat" works fine. For some
> of us, though, even this isn't enough.

Even the best sometimes need a bit of help at the beginning of the season,
it's too bad that it is so hard to get Pondimin and dexfenfluramine nowadays.

Some other product to try are Bontril (phendimetrazine tartrate),
Desoxyn (methamphetamine) and Adipex-P (phentermine).

Don't seek qualified medical advice as that profession always seems
to err on the side of caution and you really have to do a major hit on
your brain levels of serotonin. Ask a good cyclist for advise.

Bottom line is to mix anorectics drugs and find out what combo
works best for you. If side effects bother your Central nervous system
too much then just try a different combo of anorectic class drugs.

You will lose weight.

 

[Mike Kruger]

Gooserider wrote:
> Preston--
>
> I know it is anathema to many of the dedicated
cyclists
> here, but to lose the weight you want and do it more
efficiently, you
> need to incorporate strength training.

Another reason is shock value. You've been riding a while,
so the same rides have become easier. Get some new muscles
involved and go up the learning curve again.