???GAINING weight from CYCLING?? How can this be?

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

Quoted message said:

This is my Third season returning to cycling since "Growing Up",
reaching sixty.
This year I have been much more serious, not missing a day. I ride a
Hybrid on perhaps 10% pavement, 90% trails, dirt roads, and woodland
paths.
Since determining last season that a horsefly has a Vmax of about 8
MPH, I have been diligently striving for average speeds of ten or
higher. {Keep the bragging for some other thread, OK? At least I am
out there every night! Respect your elders! :-) }
So, in the last month, my endurance has improved markedly, especailly
uphill, and the Rest Stops are farther apart.
I have NOT change my diet at all! Toast or oatmeal for breakfast, a
salad or sandwich for lunch, and a late meal of some protien and a
vegetable, minimal starches.
I have been feeling great but a few minutes ago, remembered to weigh
myself, and to my disgust, see I have gained nine pounds!
Given the calories being expended now, compared to a snowbound Winter,
how is this possible?? It calorically does not balance!
Thoughts are welcomed because I am baffled, and not a little
disappointed!
Thanks...

Muscle weighs more than fat.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:10:04 GMT, "Neil Brooks" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thoughts are welcomed because I am baffled, and not a little
disappointed!
Thanks...

Muscle weighs more than fat.

*****BLUSH*********

Thanks.

Duh. :-)

Specialized said:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:10:04 GMT, "Neil Brooks" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thoughts are welcomed because I am baffled, and not a little
disappointed!
Thanks...

Muscle weighs more than fat.

Muscle may weigh more then fat, but I dont' think it's possible to have
the same intake, increase exercise, and gain weight. My guess is he's
upped his intake. A little more at each meal perhaps.

Rich

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

Quoted message said:

Specialized said:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:10:04 GMT, "Neil Brooks" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>Thoughts are welcomed because I am baffled, and not a little
>disappointed!
>Thanks...

Muscle weighs more than fat.

Muscle may weigh more then fat, but I dont' think it's possible to have
the same intake, increase exercise, and gain weight. My guess is he's
upped his intake. A little more at each meal perhaps.

Rich

Ditto...a weight gain of 9 lbs, at age 62, with moderate cycling as the
primary exercise, seems unlikely to result in 9 lbs of new muscle.

More likely it's due to a little bit of muscle, and a fair amount of "I just
rode my bike 15 miles, so now I can have that [beer, cookie, cake, etc.]".

GG

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

Quoted message said:

Specialized said:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:10:04 GMT, "Neil Brooks" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>Thoughts are welcomed because I am baffled, and not a little
>disappointed!
>Thanks...

Muscle weighs more than fat.

Muscle may weigh more then fat, but I dont' think it's possible to have
the same intake, increase exercise, and gain weight.

It is for me.

Quoted message said:

Ditto...a weight gain of 9 lbs, at age 62, with moderate cycling as the
primary exercise, seems unlikely to result in 9 lbs of new muscle.

More likely it's due to a little bit of muscle, and a fair amount of "I
just
rode my bike 15 miles, so now I can have that [beer, cookie, cake, etc.]".

Hate it when that happens. I was on a gradual weight-gain plan over the
years, without recognizing it. I had rationalized that, as long as I rode, I
could eat. Doesn't work that way. There's that darned thing where your body
becomes more efficient (sounds better than saying your metabolism slows
down, y'know?), so much so that I got to the point where I could eat 4
ounces of ice cream and gain a pound of weight. Internal cold fusion, as it
were.

Finally stopped going to Doughnut King after rides, and all was better. Got
the weight back down from 185 or so to 171... now it's drifted back up to
176 due to this never-ending winter we've had, so a bit more work to do.

Still, what we don't know about this particular guy is whether he might have
actually been a bit underweight to begin with. It's possible that cycling
might have helped his system reach a healthy equilibrium.

But more likely it's those post-ride doughnuts...

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Ditto...a weight gain of 9 lbs, at age 62, with moderate cycling as the
primary exercise, seems unlikely to result in 9 lbs of new muscle.

More likely it's due to a little bit of muscle, and a fair amount of "I
just
rode my bike 15 miles, so now I can have that [beer, cookie, cake, etc.]".

Hate it when that happens. I was on a gradual weight-gain plan over the
years, without recognizing it. I had rationalized that, as long as I rode, I
could eat. Doesn't work that way. There's that darned thing where your body
becomes more efficient (sounds better than saying your metabolism slows
down, y'know?), so much so that I got to the point where I could eat 4
ounces of ice cream and gain a pound of weight. Internal cold fusion, as it
were.

Finally stopped going to Doughnut King after rides, and all was better. Got
the weight back down from 185 or so to 171... now it's drifted back up to
176 due to this never-ending winter we've had, so a bit more work to do.

Still, what we don't know about this particular guy is whether he might have
actually been a bit underweight to begin with. It's possible that cycling
might have helped his system reach a healthy equilibrium.

But more likely it's those post-ride doughnuts...

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Boy,
Can I relate to that never ending winter. We finally had a nice day in
the valley above Sacramento and I went out for about 40 miles. I also
couldn't wait to get back and eat everything in sight but settled for a
low calorie veggie stew my wife made. Sigh, no chocolate. A bit of a
warning too, don't try going out after skipping breakfast because you
get really tired after a bit. 30 miles into I was wondering why I was so
tired, then it hit me, even the drinks I took were diet.
DUH, Bill.
Fortunately, there are no temptations en route in the country.
Bill Baka

To lose weight try riding at 75% of your maximum heart rate for a
minimum of at least 30 minutes 5 days a week. If you want to get
serious try throwing in a few sprints. Another thing that also really
helps is to join a cycling club.

Kenny said:

To lose weight try riding at 75% of your maximum heart rate for a
minimum of at least 30 minutes 5 days a week. If you want to get
serious try throwing in a few sprints. Another thing that also really
helps is to join a cycling club.

Hmm. Thanks, folks.
Well, the food around here has not changed, but I will check and see
if there are fewer leftovers! That's the only thing I can think of.
I generally do not completely finish lunch on workdays, but I am
getting suspicious of emptier plates at supper.
One thing I have noticed is that it takes less time for my pulse rate
to slow down after riding. I have added "sprints" in the last two
weeks, partly for practical reasons. First, I get a couple of bad
hills "Over With", so as not to prolong the struggle.
Because of homebound commuter trafiic at evening rush hour, I do a
max effort sprint from my ridng areas once I hit pavement, partly to
minimize my exposure to frantic cagers on my narrow road, and partly
out of vanity, to drive my CatEye Max and average speeds up, so I can
look at it and gloat to myself. Yeah, I know, _briefly_ hitting 30
MPH will get me yawned and laughed at on here, but for me, it's like
the Sound Barrier. A 36 Lb. Expedition with Armadillo tires is not
exactly the easy way to do it, I suspect. At least for me.
I have been meeting more and more people on my rides, and have joined
some a few times, but am embarrassed at what I feel is my poor
endurance, though it is improving. The hardcore trail guys who do the
rocky stuff, I call "The Big Kids" when I see them, provoking a lot of
laughter and joking.
Last night I got chased home by a thunderstorm...An interesting sprint
motivator. The rain felt good.

Rich said:

Specialized said:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:10:04 GMT, "Neil Brooks" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

> Thoughts are welcomed because I am baffled, and not a little
> disappointed!
> Thanks...

Muscle weighs more than fat.

Muscle may weigh more then fat, but I dont' think it's possible to have
the same intake, increase exercise, and gain weight. My guess is he's
upped his intake. A little more at each meal perhaps.

Yeah, this is what I think of as riding enough to work up an appetite.

Cycling isn't really very calorie consuming unless you do it at high
intensity levels -- power (and calories) go up with the cube of speed.
Low speed cycling is more efficient than walking.

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

Quoted message said:

This is my Third season returning to cycling since "Growing Up",
reaching sixty.
This year I have been much more serious, not missing a day. I ride a
Hybrid on perhaps 10% pavement, 90% trails, dirt roads, and woodland
paths.
Since determining last season that a horsefly has a Vmax of about 8
MPH, I have been diligently striving for average speeds of ten or
higher. {Keep the bragging for some other thread, OK? At least I am
out there every night! Respect your elders! :-) }
So, in the last month, my endurance has improved markedly, especailly
uphill, and the Rest Stops are farther apart.
I have NOT change my diet at all! Toast or oatmeal for breakfast, a
salad or sandwich for lunch, and a late meal of some protien and a
vegetable, minimal starches.
I have been feeling great but a few minutes ago, remembered to weigh
myself, and to my disgust, see I have gained nine pounds!
Given the calories being expended now, compared to a snowbound Winter,
how is this possible?? It calorically does not balance!
Thoughts are welcomed because I am baffled, and not a little
disappointed!
Thanks...

You are probably drinking more water as a result of the cycling, but have
also developed better leg muscles. Stay off the scales for a while and use
clothes fit or body measurements to determine the results.

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

Quoted message said:

Specialized said:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:10:04 GMT, "Neil Brooks" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>Thoughts are welcomed because I am baffled, and not a little
>disappointed!
>Thanks...

Muscle weighs more than fat.

Muscle may weigh more then fat, but I dont' think it's possible to have
the same intake, increase exercise, and gain weight. My guess is he's
upped his intake. A little more at each meal perhaps.

Rich

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to gain 9 pounds of muscle in
that time frame. Most bodybuilders are lucky to gain 5 pounds or so of
muscle a year, and that's with a training program and diet geared toward
gaining muscle. I would guess that the OP has misjudged his calories
somewhere. That's barring some sort of medical condition, that is.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Specialized said:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:10:04 GMT, "Neil Brooks" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>>Thoughts are welcomed because I am baffled, and not a little
>>disappointed!
>>Thanks...
>
>Muscle weighs more than fat.

Muscle may weigh more then fat, but I dont' think it's possible to have
the same intake, increase exercise, and gain weight.

It is for me.

Not unless your metabolism totally disregards the laws of physics. It is
impossible to gain weight without being in caloric surplus. People act as if
things are complicated. They are not. Caloric surplus = gain weight. Caloric
deficit = lose weight. Maintenance calories = maintain weight.

GaryG said:

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

Quoted message said:

Specialized said:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:10:04 GMT, "Neil Brooks" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>>Thoughts are welcomed because I am baffled, and not a little
>>disappointed!
>>Thanks...
>
>Muscle weighs more than fat.

Muscle may weigh more then fat, but I dont' think it's possible to have
the same intake, increase exercise, and gain weight. My guess is he's
upped his intake. A little more at each meal perhaps.

Rich

Ditto...a weight gain of 9 lbs, at age 62, with moderate cycling as the
primary exercise, seems unlikely to result in 9 lbs of new muscle.

More likely it's due to a little bit of muscle, and a fair amount of "I just
rode my bike 15 miles, so now I can have that [beer, cookie, cake, etc.]".

The "gas tank" theory of weight gain and loss is abjectly oversimplified. Yes,
at some level it is effective, but those points are at the extremes, not in that
broad range in which most of us live.

I'm fifty and ride a very aggressive 6 - 9 hours a week on the trails. I haven't
lost weight in forever, but my clothes fit very differently than they did a year
ago. With less aggressive riding and / or an older metabolism it wouldn't
surprise me a bit to gain weight.

Even more likely - and everyone here is ignoring it - storage of water and
glycogen in the muscles. A regular riding program will require/cause that. With
no other change in diet, lean mass, fat percentage or any other thing it's real
easy to account for nine pounds - one gallon of water and a pound of fuel. If
our OP was sedentary he wasn't carrying that, if he's riding at all vigorously
he is now.

Ron

RonSonic said:

The "gas tank" theory of weight gain and loss is abjectly oversimplified. Yes,
at some level it is effective, but those points are at the extremes, not in that
broad range in which most of us live.

I've wondered about that oversimplification.

I was once told that food calorie values were obtained by burning the
food in a bomb calorimeter and measuring the number of BTUs (or
calories) given off. Recently, I read that it's no longer done that
way, that they just separate and get the mass of protiens, fats &
carbos, then multiply each by an appropriate number of calories per
gram.

But how do they take into account the calories excreted? Surely that
stuff has some caloric value, and the amount must vary with the type of
food consumed. Aren't different food digested with different
effiiciencies?

I'm just curious. But not curious enough to start measuring my
calories "out."

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

RonSonic said:

The "gas tank" theory of weight gain and loss is abjectly oversimplified. Yes,
at some level it is effective, but those points are at the extremes, not in that
broad range in which most of us live.

I've wondered about that oversimplification.

I was once told that food calorie values were obtained by burning the
food in a bomb calorimeter and measuring the number of BTUs (or
calories) given off. Recently, I read that it's no longer done that
way, that they just separate and get the mass of protiens, fats &
carbos, then multiply each by an appropriate number of calories per
gram.

It is also not as simple as the food labels would have you think.
Carbs and protein are not 4.0000 calories but some non integer value.
I have never found an exact reference but you just know it isn't that
exact. Alcohol, BTW, is about 6 calories per gram, and while it looks
like a carbohydrate it isn't.

Quoted message said:

But how do they take into account the calories excreted? Surely that
stuff has some caloric value, and the amount must vary with the type of
food consumed. Aren't different food digested with different
effiiciencies?

Short answer is yes. Carbs, especially sugar are absorbed the best, fats
probably the next, and proteins take some breaking down. As for food
out, it does have some energy left over, as when dried it will burn.
This came to me by accident when I learned one of the reasons cows are
sacred in India. Their droppings make good cooking fires in a country
where wood is almost non-existent.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

I'm just curious. But not curious enough to start measuring my
calories "out."

- Frank Krygowski

Gooserider said:

Not unless your metabolism totally disregards the laws of physics. It is
impossible to gain weight without being in caloric surplus. People act as if
things are complicated. They are not. Caloric surplus = gain weight. Caloric
deficit = lose weight. Maintenance calories = maintain weight.

They can't sell enough books using that logic... it's gotta be "what
kind of calories" or "working the right muscles" or whatever.

I know I've told a million people the same thing, and they normally
look at me like I'm telling 'em the moon is made out of green cheese.

In my younger days, I'd lose five pounds in the off-season, the build
it back up by the end of summer.

Now I ride pretty much the same miles year round (an advantage of
living somewhere warm) and it's different. Now when I take a couple
weeks off the bike, I'll put on six or seven pounds, which then slowly
(grrrrrr) fall off over a couple months. No doubt that it's not as
easy as it used to be!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Gooserider said:

Not unless your metabolism totally disregards the laws of physics. It is
impossible to gain weight without being in caloric surplus. People act as if
things are complicated. They are not. Caloric surplus = gain weight. Caloric
deficit = lose weight. Maintenance calories = maintain weight.

They can't sell enough books using that logic... it's gotta be "what
kind of calories" or "working the right muscles" or whatever.

I know I've told a million people the same thing, and they normally
look at me like I'm telling 'em the moon is made out of green cheese.

In my younger days, I'd lose five pounds in the off-season, the build
it back up by the end of summer.

Now I ride pretty much the same miles year round (an advantage of
living somewhere warm) and it's different. Now when I take a couple
weeks off the bike, I'll put on six or seven pounds, which then slowly
(grrrrrr) fall off over a couple months. No doubt that it's not as
easy as it used to be!

Your metabolism isn't what it used to be. Just one of those complicating
factors.

Ron

RonSonic said:

Mark Hickey said:

Gooserider said:

Not unless your metabolism totally disregards the laws of physics. It is
impossible to gain weight without being in caloric surplus. People act as if
things are complicated. They are not. Caloric surplus = gain weight. Caloric
deficit = lose weight. Maintenance calories = maintain weight.

They can't sell enough books using that logic... it's gotta be "what
kind of calories" or "working the right muscles" or whatever.

I know I've told a million people the same thing, and they normally
look at me like I'm telling 'em the moon is made out of green cheese.

In my younger days, I'd lose five pounds in the off-season, the build
it back up by the end of summer.

Now I ride pretty much the same miles year round (an advantage of
living somewhere warm) and it's different. Now when I take a couple
weeks off the bike, I'll put on six or seven pounds, which then slowly
(grrrrrr) fall off over a couple months. No doubt that it's not as
easy as it used to be!

Your metabolism isn't what it used to be. Just one of those complicating
factors.

Ron

I will side with the laws of thermodynamics. You just can't put out
energy and gain weight unless you are taking in more than you are
putting out. If you could do that we might be driving our cars just to
fill up the gas tank and go to the station to sell the excess.
There is no perpetual motion machine and the same goes for people.
My mother used to claim she could gain weight by 'looking' at food but
when she stopped eating completely, 'total abstinence' she did lose weight.
You just can't deny nature it's dues.
Bill Baka