How to cycle for weight loss

[Terry Morse]

Roger Zoul wrote:

> As it occurred to you, Terry, that [the AHA's] advice is based on
> committee work and not any sound scientific research?

Sure. I posted the American Heart Association statements as a
"second opinion" to Badger's, who stated:

"Again, it (low glycemic bread) still spikes insulin in many ppl,
and it throws 'em out of ketosis, and back into carb addiction, and
it's still bread."

I'm sure there are third and fourth opinions to be found, and many
more.

What's really interesting to me is that the daily caloric intake of
the US population hasn't changed in the past 60 years. What has
changed is the amount of exercise people get, which has dropped to
almost zero.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:09:41 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>
> wrote:
>
> >All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it doesn't
> >matter where they come from.
>
> Fair enough. But it's -very- hard to "watch" you calorie intake, heh, as in
> "I watched it go up as I ate more and more, and the hunger pangs increased
> with each doughnut". OK, kidding, but if there was a 'magic bullet' and
> people could just plan out their meals and then eat that and only that,
> sheesh, it would be easy and we'd all be thin and happy.

It's easy for me! I eat all the same things I ever did, just less of
them. Instead of 3 or 4 pieces of pizza, I stop at 2. Instead of
getting the full value meal, I just get the sandwich (and if I'm thirsty
a small drink). When somebody has a birthday, I only have one piece of
cake.

>
> It seems to require a 'trick', be it 'fad diet', or drugs, or stomach
> stapling/gastro-bypass, or imprisonment on an island with only rats and

Yep; nobody wants to do any work on their own, or to have to exert any
will power.

> rice to eat. Given those, I'll chose BDK and the concommittant appetite
> suppression that I experience.

As long as it works for you, then great, but it doesn't work for
everybody.


....

> >Like I said, the research was not properly designed to come up with the
> >answers they were looking for.
> >
> >
> >> fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
> >> retarded.
> >
> >No more so than low carb; some people do better on one, and others do
> >better on other diets. Even "low fat" diets give you enough fats for
> >good health.
>
> Well, that's fair, but IMO, low fat diets are hard to deal with, b/c it
> requires too much planning and stuff. When you're ravenous, the brain tends
> to get a little dicey and you mess it up. I'm prepared to agree that all
> the diets would work -if- you had your own chef, and if you only ate the
> prepared meals, and somehow were prevented from cheating.
>
> Hell, I'd love to go vegetarian, but it's so hard to do and still get
> adequate protein if you're just 'a guy' buying veggies at the market, IMO.
> <g> Also, I think a lot of vegs tend to eat junk food, with the though
> 'it's all ok, b/c it's not meat'. Oh well.
>
> >As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
> >researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat diets,
> >and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more weight in
> >the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal in
> >their results.
>
> I have strong doubts about any 'diet research'. It's just too hard to
> control, even in a semi-quarantined environment. My first though was 'hey,
> the Low fat group saw what success the LC group had and (consciously or
> unconsciously) started limiting carbs and adding back some fat'. Wouldn't
> that be funny.

Yes, but I would hope that nobody in either group knew who was on which
diet. Otherwise you've got a very poorly-controlled study.

>
> It'll be interesting to see where all the 'LC fad' takes us in another
> year. Maybe people will end up leaning towards a targetted ketogenic diet,
> or cycling off on weekends, or getting really good at adding carbs during
> the 'exercise window', and the serious recreational/fitness cyclers will
> start looking a lot leaner and meaner.

I think the serious fitness people already have a pretty good handle on
their nutrition and weight control, and won't change much. The biggest
changes will likely be among those who aren't so serious and think they
need more help.

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

 

[Top Sirloin]

Daniel Crispin wrote:

> Right now hills kill me. So I try to avoid them... After a few hills my
> legs are too tired to continue. Once I get over that
> it will become easier. Also I am trying to spin faster, that has reduced
> leg fatigue. I should also stand when I climb but for
> some reasons I am not comfortable doing that on my new bike.

Ride the hills and make losing weight more
important than eating. You should get _hungry_
before your next meal, not just experience a
desire to stuff your face with the nearest treat.
If you're not familar with what _real_ hunger
feels like, try not eating for a day to reset your
appetite.

Ignore any advice about "fat burning zones" -
they're an excuse promulgated by fat asses afraid
to break a sweat.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

 

[Roger Zoul]

David Kerber wrote:
:: In article <[email protected]>,
:: [email protected] says...
::: "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
::: news:[email protected]
:::: In article <[email protected]>,
:::: [email protected] says...
:::
::: [...]
:::
::::::: "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy
::::::: products, most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55
::::::: percent of calories from carbohydrates."
:::::
::::: And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
::::: American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
::::: 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we
::::: like
::::: to move, but most don't.
::::
:::: NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
:::: calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
:::: from.
:::
::: It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
::: naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works).
::: High carb diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what
::: you don't want if you want to avoid obesity.
::
:: All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
:: doesn't matter where they come from.

Your statement is true, but not useful in practice for many overweight
people.

 

[Roger Zoul]

DRS wrote:
:: "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
:: news:[email protected]
::: In article <[email protected]>,
::: [email protected] says...
::
:: [...]
::
:::: It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets
:::: they naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins
:::: works).
:::: High carb diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what
:::: you don't want if you want to avoid obesity.
:::
::: All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
::: doesn't matter where they come from.
::
:: In an absolute sense that's right. However, reducing sugars and
:: increasing protein makes it easier.
::
:: [...]
::
:::: Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and
:::: they're no threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your
:::: weight, you are confusing the fact that fat is the most energy
:::: dense macronutrient with eating excess calories. It is the latter
:::: which causes problems with weight, not the former. Failing to
:::: distinguish between good and bad fats is simply inexcusable in the
:::: 21st century.
:::: You must get an adequate supply of good
:::
::: Like I said, the research was not properly designed to come up with
::: the answers they were looking for.
:::
:::: fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are
:::: simply retarded.
:::
::: No more so than low carb;
::
:: Not so. They are inherently retarded for reasons already outlined.
:: You *must* get enough good fats to be healthy. Low fat is
:: inherently unhealthy.
::
::: some people do better on one, and others do
::: better on other diets. Even "low fat" diets give you enough fats
::: for good health.
::
:: No, they don't. That's why they're retarded. Even when aiming to
:: lose weight you should not be dropping your fats targets to 20% or
:: less, which is what the low fats diets tell you to do. It's
:: ********.
::
::: As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
::: researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat
::: diets, and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more
::: weight in
::: the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal
::: in their results.
::
:: In weight, yes. In that strict sense calories are calories and fat
:: still has about 3,500 of them. But in a nutritional sense the low
:: carbers are way better off. You can always tell long term low fat
:: dieters because their skin looks like ****.

Yep.

 

[Roger Zoul]

David Kerber wrote:
:: In article <[email protected]>,
:: [email protected] says...
::: On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:09:41 -0400, David Kerber
::: <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
:::
:::: All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
:::: doesn't matter where they come from.
:::
::: Fair enough. But it's -very- hard to "watch" you calorie intake,
::: heh, as in "I watched it go up as I ate more and more, and the
::: hunger pangs increased with each doughnut". OK, kidding, but if
::: there was a 'magic bullet' and people could just plan out their
::: meals and then eat that and only that, sheesh, it would be easy and
::: we'd all be thin and happy.
::
:: It's easy for me! I eat all the same things I ever did, just less of
:: them. Instead of 3 or 4 pieces of pizza, I stop at 2. Instead of
:: getting the full value meal, I just get the sandwich (and if I'm
:: thirsty
:: a small drink). When somebody has a birthday, I only have one piece
:: of cake.

You apparently don't have any problems with glucose metabolism. Many
overweight people are well on their way to insulin resistance and diabetes.
Also, if you are well established in exercising, you can suffer many more
carbs than a nonactive person.

::
:::
::: It seems to require a 'trick', be it 'fad diet', or drugs, or
::: stomach stapling/gastro-bypass, or imprisonment on an island with
::: only rats and
::
:: Yep; nobody wants to do any work on their own, or to have to exert
:: any
:: will power.
::

Will power is a weak force compared to BG swings. It won't hold up for
long. How many people do you see how have really used only will power to
achieve anything?



::: rice to eat. Given those, I'll chose BDK and the concommittant
::: appetite suppression that I experience.
::
:: As long as it works for you, then great, but it doesn't work for
:: everybody.

For various reasons, too. Among them are ignorance and lack of skill.

 

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:19:59 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:09:41 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it doesn't
>> >matter where they come from.
>>
>> Fair enough. But it's -very- hard to "watch" your calorie intake, heh, as in
>> "I watched it go up as I ate more and more, and the hunger pangs increased
>> with each doughnut". OK, kidding, but if there was a 'magic bullet' and
>> people could just plan out their meals and then eat that and only that,
>> sheesh, it would be easy and we'd all be thin and happy.
>
>It's easy for me! I eat all the same things I ever did, just less of
>them. Instead of 3 or 4 pieces of pizza, I stop at 2. Instead of
>getting the full value meal, I just get the sandwich (and if I'm thirsty
>a small drink). When somebody has a birthday, I only have one piece of
>cake.

Cool, but do you get why it's hard for some ppl to just cut their portion
size? Do you think you have better than average determination, or
willpower? How do you deal with the desire to cheat?

IMO, the big value of the LC diet was that it mentally freed me from having
to blame myself, feel guilty and think I was a bad, low or stupid person
b/c I could not stop eating carbs, sweets and junk foods. After about 10-12
days on 'induction', I suddenly seemed to regain control of my brain, or
the part that planned and carried out my eating plan. It was really, really
neat!

>>
>> It seems to require a 'trick', be it 'fad diet', or drugs, or stomach
>> stapling/gastro-bypass, or imprisonment on an island with only rats and
>
>Yep; nobody wants to do any work on their own, or to have to exert any
>will power.

Man, I think I have tremendous will power. When I set a goal, I go for it
like nobody I know. My wife says, 'jeeze when B decides to do something
he's like a locomotive with one speed', be it learning computers and
programming, lifting weights, doing martial arts, running or biking,
studying nutrition, etc. But in trying to lose fat by getting control of my
eating, I'd try and not quite get there, recriminate, then try and restart.
The only way I was ever able to do it was through my jogging and triathlon
training. I was so compulsive about getting out there and doing it, I ended
up losing weight; -but- I was still eating a lot of junk, and I never got
the kind of definition I wanted. All because, imo, I was a carb addict and
didn't realize it.

When you're a carb addict the thing you're addicted to is NOT the carbs.
It's the feeling of comfort or rush, and that comes from the endorphins.
Saying you don't have the willpower to stop is not the point, b/c your own
endorphins are one of the most addicting substances. Now that I've stopped
the carb/sugar induced endorphin fixes, I don't have that lack of
willpower. You can parade nekkid wimmen carrying doughnuts and pizza in
front of me and I won't even be tempted! <g>

>
>> rice to eat. Given those, I'll chose BDK and the concommittant appetite
>> suppression that I experience.
>
>As long as it works for you, then great, but it doesn't work for
>everybody.

That's all I've ever said. YMMV, and it works for me, and here's how or
IMO, here's why.

<snippage>...

>I think the serious fitness people already have a pretty good handle on
>their nutrition and weight control, and won't change much. The biggest
>changes will likely be among those who aren't so serious and think they
>need more help.

Yep, I agree. But there are many bikers and triathletes that would love to
cut the fat even more, and it may be that a TKD, or CKD is the way to do
it. As one poster said, it's amazing when you show a pretty good / serious
athlete just how much fat they're carrying!

In addition, the 'serious fitness people' may still have a problem when
they hit middle age, or for some reason can't continue with their sport.
Perhaps this way of eating will help them.

-Badger

 

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:11:07 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>
wrote:

>
>Considering that "high" in this context usually refers to *percentages*
>of calorie intake, that's kind of hard to do. They were watching total
>calories as well. But as with most studies, they were designed to get
>the answer they expected, and didn't sufficiently examine confounding
>factors. Later studies always find weaknesses in earlier ones, and that
>includes LC.
>
>
>> Since the researchers had ignored the 'insulin connection', they may have
>> glossed over the fairly high carb content. As we all know a high carb high
>> fat diet -is- a recipe for disaster.
>
>If it were possible, it would be, but you can't have over 50% of your
>calories from fat, *and* over 50% of your calories from carbs.

Right, but I mean high in the sense much more than needed to maintain one's
activities. IOW, it might have been better to have a high fat, low carb
group, a high fat, moderate carb group, and a high fat, unrestricted carb
group, if that makes sense.

-Badger

 

[Steve Knight]

>All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it doesn't
>matter where they come from.

this depends on the person. my body does not seem to get enough energy out of
the foods I eat. I can eat about 3500 calories on low carb. but if I substitute
my large calorie lunch (about 1200 calories) for 2 to 3 cups of brown rice
steamed veggies and lean meat I gain weight. and I gain it fast. less calories
but more weight gain.
bodies are not mechanical machines and they don't all burn the same fuel the
same way.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

 

[DRS]

"Steve Knight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>> All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
>> doesn't matter where they come from.
>
> this depends on the person. my body does not seem to get enough
> energy out of the foods I eat. I can eat about 3500 calories on low
> carb. but if I substitute my large calorie lunch (about 1200
> calories) for 2 to 3 cups of brown rice steamed veggies and lean meat
> I gain weight. and I gain it fast. less calories but more weight gain.
> bodies are not mechanical machines and they don't all burn the same
> fuel the same way.

No. The laws of thermodynamics are the same for everybody. What typically
happens when someone who has been on a LC diet eats a significantly higher
amount of carbs is that they put on weight very quickly but it's almost
entirely water gain. Remember the massive weight losses in the first week
or two of the LC diet? That's the same thing in reverse. Those big, quick
losses were water and all you've done is regain it. You have not gained
fat.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Roger Zoul]

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:58:46 +1000, "DRS"
:: <[email protected]> wrote:
::
::: "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
::: news:[email protected]
:::: In article <[email protected]>,
:::: [email protected] says...
:::
::: [...]
:::
::::::: "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy
::::::: products, most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55
::::::: percent of calories from carbohydrates."
:::::
::::: And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
::::: American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
::::: 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we
::::: like
::::: to move, but most don't.
::::
:::: NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
:::: calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
:::: from.
:::
::: It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
::: naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works).
::: High carb diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what
::: you don't want if you want to avoid obesity.
:::
::::: As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on
::::: committee work and not any sound scientific research?
::::
:::: Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high
:::: fat diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research,
:::: though,
:::
::: Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and
::: they're no threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your
::: weight, you are confusing the fact that fat is the most energy
::: dense macronutrient with eating excess calories. It is the latter
::: which causes problems with weight, not the former. Failing to
::: distinguish between good and bad fats is simply inexcusable in the
::: 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good fats to be
::: healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply retarded.
::
:: Just babbling here, but I'm wondering if the "plenty of research
:: indicating that high fat diets are bad for your heart and weight"
:: were actually done
:: on diets that were also high carb?

You know they were...

::
:: Since the researchers had ignored the 'insulin connection', they may
:: have glossed over the fairly high carb content. As we all know a
:: high carb high fat diet -is- a recipe for disaster.

You know they did, Badger!

::
:: Just wondering...
::
:: -Badger

 

[Roger Zoul]

David Kerber wrote:
:: In article <[email protected]>,
:: [email protected] says...
::
:: ...
::
:::: Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and
:::: they're no threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your
:::: weight, you are confusing the fact that fat is the most energy
:::: dense macronutrient with eating excess calories. It is the latter
:::: which causes problems with weight, not the former. Failing to
:::: distinguish between good and bad fats is simply inexcusable in the
:::: 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good fats to be
:::: healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
:::: retarded.
:::
::: Just babbling here, but I'm wondering if the "plenty of research
::: indicating that high fat diets are bad for your heart and weight"
::: were actually done
::: on diets that were also high carb?
::
:: Considering that "high" in this context usually refers to
:: *percentages*
:: of calorie intake, that's kind of hard to do. They were watching
:: total calories as well. But as with most studies, they were
:: designed to get
:: the answer they expected, and didn't sufficiently examine confounding
:: factors. Later studies always find weaknesses in earlier ones, and
:: that includes LC.
::
::
::: Since the researchers had ignored the 'insulin connection', they
::: may have glossed over the fairly high carb content. As we all know
::: a high carb high fat diet -is- a recipe for disaster.
::
:: If it were possible, it would be, but you can't have over 50% of your
:: calories from fat, *and* over 50% of your calories from carbs.

True, but you can eat a diet that includes excessive levels of calories, and
if you eat a lot of carbs and a lot of fat (relative to what your
maintenance levels), your body goes for the carbs first and then stores
whatever fat calories aren't needed. It also drives up the level of fat in
the blood, which does all sorts of things, before getting stored on your
butt, gut, and man-boos.

On the other hand, if you eat below your maintenace levels, and restrict
carbs, your body will use that fat for energy, rather than allowing it to
stay in the bloodstream and end up stored on your body. In that situation,
the fat is not nearly as harmful and it doesn't promote fat gain, either.


::

 

[Top Sirloin]

David Kerber wrote:

> As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
> researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat diets,
> and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more weight in
> the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal in
> their results.

Let's just drop the idea of any diet having to be
a low-x macronutrient diet.

People need protein, essential fats, vitamins,
minerals, and phytochemicals. You can consume the
meat, veggies and fish oil caps you need to
provide these with fairly few kcals (I weigh
220lbs and can do it with whole food for 1200
kcals a day).

Fill in the rest of your daily energy balance with
whatever the hell you want. As long as you're
running a net energy deficit you'll lose weight.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

 

[Roger Zoul]

Top Sirloin wrote:
:: David Kerber wrote:
::
::: As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
::: researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat
::: diets, and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more
::: weight in the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were
::: essentially equal in their results.
::
:: Let's just drop the idea of any diet having to be
:: a low-x macronutrient diet.
::
:: People need protein, essential fats, vitamins,
:: minerals, and phytochemicals. You can consume the
:: meat, veggies and fish oil caps you need to
:: provide these with fairly few kcals (I weigh
:: 220lbs and can do it with whole food for 1200
:: kcals a day).
::
:: Fill in the rest of your daily energy balance with
:: whatever the hell you want. As long as you're
:: running a net energy deficit you'll lose weight.

There's no question about it as long as you can do it.

 

[Dennis Ferguson]

DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>>> "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
>>>>> most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
>>>>> from carbohydrates."
>>>
>>> And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
>>> American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
>>> 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like
>>> to move, but most don't.
>>
>> NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
>> calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
>> from.
>
>It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
>naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works). High carb
>diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what you don't want if you
>want to avoid obesity.

Could be, but it is also the case that an analogous argument is made in
favour of high fiber, and hence high carbohydrate, diets. The fiber
takes up room in the digestive system and makes one feel full, but has
no caloric value so total calorie consumption is reduced.

I have no idea what is true. What I do know is that the assertions of
the carbs-are-poison people who have all sorts of great reasons why only
low carb, high protein and fat diets can provide sustainable weight loses
don't seem to square with my personal observation that some of the
places in the world where obesity is relatively rare and people seem
to generally be a pretty good size are also places where a very high
fraction of the typical diet consists of unprocessed carbohydrates.

I don't think I buy the arguent that obesity can only be avoided by
limiting carbohydrate consumption unless it is accompanied by an
explanation of how whole nations of skinny people who tend to fill
their stomachs with large amounts of rice and vegetables, or noodles
and vegetables, along with bakery products, could exist. Why is that?

Dennis Ferguson

 

[Terry Morse]

Top Sirloin wrote:

> Ignore any advice about "fat burning zones" -
> they're an excuse promulgated by fat asses afraid
> to break a sweat.

I can't comment on "fat burning zones" when it comes to weight loss,
but it's a well known term for cyclists in training. With a heart
rate up to about 72% of your maximum, the fuel source is almost
exclusively fat. This is the "fat burning zone", where about 50% of
one's training time is spent (and virtually all the early season
training is done).

Long rides in your fat burning zone will increase endurance and
stamina, making it easier to recover from higher effort training
rides and races, and helping to prevent overtraining.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Per Elmsäter]

Badger_South wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 20:03:56 -0400, "Daniel Crispin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Well gaining muscle weight is a good thing... the more muscles you
>> have higher you BMR is and easier it is to loose fat weight.
>
> I keep telling you morons. If your fat is 'loose', use more duct tape!
>

In the civilized world we use corsets.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

 

[Daniel Crispin]

> Ride the hills and make losing weight more
> important than eating. You should get _hungry_
> before your next meal, not just experience a
> desire to stuff your face with the nearest treat.
> If you're not familar with what _real_ hunger
> feels like, try not eating for a day to reset your
> appetite.

Well that would work if I was not doing sports every day. When you are
hungry you don't
have much energy. I don't see myself pedaling 20 miles on an empty stomach.
I did lower my
food intake to 2000 calories per day (more or less). That is bellow my BMR
by about 200 to 1000
depending what you read I burn on average 500-600 calories per day
cycling, playing tennis, weight
lifting and fast walking. On week ends multiply by 2 or 3.

> Ignore any advice about "fat burning zones" -
> they're an excuse promulgated by fat asses afraid
> to break a sweat.

I tend to agree there is nothing gained without effort. On the other hand
if you can do 3 hours at medium pace
and only 30 mins at a fast pace, the 3 hours are most likelly better. That
is why I wanted to know how to stay
in the right zone that you don't expend yourself but can go for hours.

 

[Daniel Crispin]

Ok... is there a sign that I am in that zone without having to use a HRM?

My legs hurt all the time since I started cycling last month. I think I am
overtraining but
it makes little sense since I did wait a day before riding again for the
first 5 times. Now I
commute to work by bike so I hope my muscles start to adapt soon, cause it's
no fun at all

Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed Mount Royal
twice... once for the
Tour the Nuit event here in Montreal and a second time for the fun of it.
My legs have kicked up the pain one
nocths since then Good old Tylenol to the rescue.


"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Top Sirloin wrote:
>
> > Ignore any advice about "fat burning zones" -
> > they're an excuse promulgated by fat asses afraid
> > to break a sweat.
>
> I can't comment on "fat burning zones" when it comes to weight loss,
> but it's a well known term for cyclists in training. With a heart
> rate up to about 72% of your maximum, the fuel source is almost
> exclusively fat. This is the "fat burning zone", where about 50% of
> one's training time is spent (and virtually all the early season
> training is done).
>
> Long rides in your fat burning zone will increase endurance and
> stamina, making it easier to recover from higher effort training
> rides and races, and helping to prevent overtraining.
> --
> terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Daniel Crispin]

I see. That makes sense in theory at least.

Will talk it over with a diabetic friend of mine, he is used to adding
insulin levels, I will see what he has to say.


"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Daniel Crispin wrote:
> :: Well I don't eat much bread, I seldom use margarine and never use
> :: butter. I buy olive oil margarine but 1 pound lasts
> :: me about a year. Adding fat to reduce sugar absorbtion sounds
> :: ridiculous. Adding 200 calories is not the way to go!
>
> Not true. What happens is that the reduced carb intake results in
decreased
> appetite...so while someone may have added 200 calories, they still ate
less
> than otherwise, and hence ended up restricting calories (relative to
> maintenance energy needs). Done long enough, this produces weight loss.
>
>