# Advice on training to lose weight.



## dwl (Mar 4, 2012)

First off, my bike gained 2lbs. over the winter due to winter tires, wheels, and pedals, I, on the other hand gained much more. I wasn't able to ride as much as I normally do in winter due to the snow/ice thing on the roads. I know I should get a trainer.

Any how, it's time now to get serious about taking the excess weight off. I'm going with a "slow carb" approach when it comes to eating. Fiber rich foods with a decent amount of carbs such as legumes that will give you consistant energy on long rides. As far as training goes, I do intervals one day around 20 miles(my commute), and the next day is a more relaxed 30 mile ride(more on weekends). When it comes to hills, I shift into a harder gear right before I get to the base and get my speed up and go as long as I can before shifting into an easier gear, then ride at a leisurely pace after I top the hill for a while. Is there anything different that you would do or tweak?

FYI Last winter I experimented with Atkin's and as I'm sure you all know, burning fat for energy is not conducive to even moderate exertion when it comes to riding a bike. The energy stores just can't keep up.


----------



## JSWhaler (Nov 25, 2009)

I have found that counting calories works well for me. My fitness pal is a great free app in which you input your intake and can setup your own weight loss plan.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

I found portion control, leaving the table not full, lots of water and keeping moving during the day in addition to the riding worked well for me.


----------



## Silchas Ruin (Oct 24, 2013)

You should be strength training to lose fat and build lean muscle. I would advise three days per week. A circuit routine of 1 pushing exercise, 1 pulling, and one lower body ( squats are ideal). Light weights, and 20 to 25 reps each exercise. Warm up on a bike or tradmill for 5 to 10 min., get you HR up to around 115bpm, and do your circuit at a tempo that does not let your HR drop. 

Choose exercises that use the largest group of muscles as you can. Squats for example use almost all the muscles in you lower body, wide grip lat pull down are great, so are flat bench presses.

It's also good advice to eat every 3 to 4 hours , mainly so you don't get too hungry, that's bad eating decisions happen.

Of course, keep riding, but that part comes eays to those of us that love to ride. 

Jess


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

Paleo style eating and riding worked for me. I lost 80 pounds last summer and I've gained about 10# of muscle this winter from working out, not riding. My diet never made me feel like it was the weak link in my riding. I also ride/workout fasted sometimes. I find that working out is better fasted and riding is as good or sometimes better than if I had a pre-ride meal. Of course on really long rides...3 hours +, this might not be the case. I do take some food and gels or bloks in case I start to bonk.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

Check out this blog entry:
Joe Friel - Question on Power & Weight
What I took from this is that during he calorie deficit period, you'll likely not want to train with a lot of intensity. After stabililizing your weight and getting back to no calorie deficit, you can start building your power. 
Personally I found the best time to do the calorie cutting is the off season.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Ride a lot. Spend more time working out than paying attention to @$^#$^ fad diets.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Nubster said:


> Paleo style eating and riding worked for me. ..


What's paleo style riding?


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Silchas Ruin said:


> You should be strength training to lose fat and build lean muscle. I would advise three days per week. A circuit routine of 1 pushing exercise, 1 pulling, and one lower body ( squats are ideal). Light weights, and 20 to 25 reps each exercise. Warm up on a bike or tradmill for 5 to 10 min., get you HR up to around 115bpm, and do your circuit at a tempo that does not let your HR drop.
> 
> Choose exercises that use the largest group of muscles as you can. Squats for example use almost all the muscles in you lower body, wide grip lat pull down are great, so are flat bench presses.
> 
> ...


Very good general advice, IMO, and similar to what I do. Any benefit of lat pull downs over pullups or bench presses over pushups? I tend to favor the latter in both cases.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

looigi said:


> What's paleo style riding?


The secret to getting faster and losing weight. Duh. 

Out of curiosity, does this forum contain gluten?


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

looigi said:


> What's paleo style riding?


It's where you ride like a caveman. When you're ascending an 18% grade hill, you begin writhing your upper body like a maniac and start shouting inexplicable syllables.

Legumes are great for climbing, too. If you need that extra push and also happen to have gastrointestinal malfeasance brewing, you can invoke Newton's third law for that needed boost.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

Silchas Ruin said:


> You should be strength training to lose fat and build lean muscle. I would advise three days per week. A circuit routine of 1 pushing exercise, 1 pulling, and one lower body ( squats are ideal). Light weights, and 20 to 25 reps each exercise. Warm up on a bike or tradmill for 5 to 10 min., get you HR up to around 115bpm, and do your circuit at a tempo that does not let your HR drop.
> 
> Choose exercises that use the largest group of muscles as you can. Squats for example use almost all the muscles in you lower body, wide grip lat pull down are great, so are flat bench presses.
> 
> ...





looigi said:


> *Very good general advice*, IMO, and similar to what I do. Any benefit of lat pull downs over pullups or bench presses over pushups? I tend to favor the latter in both cases.


I respectfully disagree. While I agree that strength training is great and we should all do it, the OP is asking about losing weight and strength training is not an efficient means to this end. Spending the same amount of time riding would get him to his goal a lot faster. Strength training is not a calorie burner (at least not compared to riding).


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

vetboy said:


> I respectfully disagree. While I agree that strength training is great and we should all do it, the OP is asking about losing weight and strength training is not an efficient means to this end. Spending the same amount of time riding would get him to his goal a lot faster. Strength training is not a calorie burner (at least not compared to riding).


Bear in mind you said that to a woman who appears she could rip you in half like a phone book.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

SauronHimself said:


> Bear in mind you said that to a woman who appears she could rip you in half like a phone book.


Huh??


----------



## Silchas Ruin (Oct 24, 2013)

looigi said:


> Very good general advice, IMO, and similar to what I do. Any benefit of lat pull downs over pullups or bench presses over pushups? I tend to favor the latter in both cases.


Yes, for fat loss, because you need the high rep count ( 20 to 25 ). Most people are not going to be able to do that many pushups, all most nobody will be able to do that many pull ups.

If your just looking to get stronger, than push ups and pull ups are great. i'm a big fan of body weight exercises for athletes.


----------



## Silchas Ruin (Oct 24, 2013)

vetboy said:


> I respectfully disagree. While I agree that strength training is great and we should all do it, the OP is asking about losing weight and strength training is not an efficient means to this end. Spending the same amount of time riding would get him to his goal a lot faster. Strength training is not a calorie burner (at least not compared to riding).


 Strength training will teach your body to burn fat, and preserve lean muscle 24 hours a day. Cardio, like riding or running only burns calories while your doing the activity, and for a short time after.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

Silchas Ruin said:


> Strength training will teach your body to burn fat, and preserve lean muscle 24 hours a day. Cardio, like riding or running only burns calories while your doing the activity, and for a short time after.


Show me a study that supports that statement. Cardiovascular for weight loss, not strength training.


----------



## Clyde250 (Feb 24, 2007)

Don't train so hard that you are cooked for the rest of the day. Moving around during the day burns a substantial amount of calories. Also helps you not to binge after a hard session.


----------



## Silchas Ruin (Oct 24, 2013)

vetboy said:


> Show me a study that supports that statement. Cardiovascular for weight loss, not strength training.


 Do your own researh, there are countless studies on this subject. I was just trying to help. It's what I love to do, I earn a living in part, by helping people get lean while staying fit and healthy. I'm a trainer, and IFBB bikini pro. I think I'm qualified to give this advice.


----------



## Alfonsina (Aug 26, 2012)

Calories in, calories out. It is just math, but you have have to make the calories in count. You will always hear that weight loss happens mostly in the kitchen, unless you are doing a lot of daily cardio, this will be true. IMO a minimum of an hour a day of sweaty cardio is a basic requirement anyway for those of us otherwise sedentary, we should all be doing strength resistance and stretching too. And variety helps. Logging is your friend, try lose it or similar apps, do not use calories out though. Always underestimate calories out. Always overestimate calories in.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Do you do a lot of base miles? Hard not to lose weight doing that. I accidentally dropped to about 118lbs one season.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

looigi said:


> What's paleo style riding?


Hungarian Horse bow.



vetboy said:


> Show me a study that supports that statement. Cardiovascular for weight loss, not strength training.


You're wrong, she's right... based on everything I've read or been told and for exactly the reasons she mentioned, building muscle will keep burning fat even after the exercise.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

Silchas Ruin said:


> Do your own researh, there are countless studies on this subject. I was just trying to help. It's what I love to do, I earn a living in part, by helping people get lean while staying fit and healthy. I'm a trainer, and IFBB bikini pro. I think I'm qualified to give this advice.


Here's one from Duke University. It's great that you're trying to help - I'm doing the same. When a cyclist on a cycling website asks for weight loss advise, strength training is low on the list of best answers. Having more muscle will definitely burn more calories 24/7, but it is outweighed by the reality that cycling is primarily a fight against gravity (and aerodynamics) - no cyclist wants to bulk his/her upper body in an attempt at weight loss since they will then have to carry that muscle up hills. First and foremost in weight loss is diet management, next comes time spent exercising aerobically and then a little strength training won't hurt. The amount of strength training that will significantly increase calorie consumption will put on more muscle than any cyclist would want.

Aerobic Exercise Trumps Resistance Training for Weight and Fat Loss - DukeHealth.org

In fact one of the findings of this study was that the group who did strength training only (compared w an aerobic group and an aerobic/strength group) actually gained weight due to increased lean muscle mass.

Joe


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

Silchas Ruin said:


> Do your own researh, there are countless studies on this subject. I was just trying to help. It's what I love to do, I earn a living in part, by helping people get lean while staying fit and healthy. I'm a trainer, and IFBB bikini pro. I think I'm qualified to give this advice.


The posts I have seen from you so far illustrate a complete misunderstanding of literature / physiology (read broscience) or are an over simplification. 

While it is true that RT and HIIT (aerobic) can increase the skeletal muscle's ability to oxidize fat, is does not 'teach' it to burn fat per say. Type IIa fibers can increase their oxidative capacity primarily via AMPk /PGC1alpha. The ultimate oxidation of substrate in the post exercise period depends on metabolic flexibility and dietary intake (carb / fat / calories). EPOC is elevated with both RT and Aerobic exercise, not only with RT. [dose and intensity dependent]. Individuals who do severe RT bouts repeatedly do have increased rates of MPS and thus higher calorie needs. 

Total fat balance over time depends on (as others have mentioned) calorie intake and expenditure. There are intra individual factors which also change the 'in' part of that equation.


----------



## Alfonsina (Aug 26, 2012)

I want to teach my body fat burning. It would be awesome. Trainers at my local rec center do minimal hours to get that label and some of them are in fact fat, seem to have no understanding of basic physiology or heck, even major anatomy. I would not take the trainer title as an actual qualification. I would love to see that changed though, with a minimum 2 yrs of real anatomy and physiology and then enhanced with actual sports physiology for a 4 yr degree not a week community college night class. There is so much potential in this area. It is a fact that health care people do not understand diet and exercise, that is a gap to be filled.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I'd like to see her 20 minute power w/kg.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

looigi said:


> What's paleo style riding?


Alright smartass rrr:...for my weight loss last year, it was a combo of two things:

1. Paleo style eating 
2. Riding my bike as much as possible

I lost 80 pounds. Seems that proof is in the results. Energy was just fine. Built some leg muscle while doing it.

Easier to understand?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Can you dumb it down a shade?


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

JSWhaler said:


> I have found that counting calories works well for me. My fitness pal is a great free app in which you input your intake and can setup your own weight loss plan.


I would second this. Personally prefer LoseIt but basically the same. Samsung also has S Health. Careful though not to give yourself too much credit for exercise.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

Silchas Ruin said:


> You should be strength training to lose fat and build lean muscle. I would advise three days per week. A circuit routine of 1 pushing exercise, 1 pulling, and one lower body ( squats are ideal). Light weights, and 20 to 25 reps each exercise. Warm up on a bike or tradmill for 5 to 10 min., get you HR up to around 115bpm, and do your circuit at a tempo that does not let your HR drop.
> 
> Choose exercises that use the largest group of muscles as you can. Squats for example use almost all the muscles in you lower body, wide grip lat pull down are great, so are flat bench presses.
> 
> ...



I find I do much better with strength training mixed in. Trying to abide by the rest days in the current plan but have a feeling those may occasionally get strength or cross training mixed in. I don't like to rest.


----------



## Guod (Jun 9, 2011)

+1 For weight training. Regardless of what you believe in terms of what burns more RT or Cardio, more muscle requires more calories to maintain. Muscles work, fat doesn't. Though for me, RT is only an off season activity. I'll actually put on weight once the season ends. I cut weight by cutting out the weights and riding more. I went from 175lbs or so in December to about 165lbs right now by switching from heavy lifting for strength, to a few more weeks of high rep training, to just riding. Also, I changed how I was eating to help with all of this. Snacking on things like mixed nuts every couple of hours and eating lean with alot of protein.

FWIW, it just takes a good bit of activity and discipline to drop weight. Losing 80lbs off the paleo diet was probably a viable way to lose weight because you had 80lbs to lose. It becomes more difficult when it's 5lbs of going from 10% body fat to 7% or so.

The easiest way to think about it is eating and training, not diet and exercise. You can't starve yourself, but you can't pig out either. Just keep at it and remember to rest and recover on a regular basis. You won't get stronger and leaner if you run yourself into the ground.

And again, stay away from fad diets. You need fuel, eat what you need. Just don't over do it.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

looigi said:


> What's paleo style riding?


Maybe like Fred Flintstone's "car", but with 2 stone wheels instead of 4.
Some versions have "stream roller" style stone cylinders, front & rear.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

NJBiker72 said:


> Careful though not to give yourself too much credit for exercise.


Sounds like a wonderful excuse to spend a little more time on the bike.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

Eat less cals in then you burn. I've lost over 10lbs in the past 2 months and my FTP has raised more than 20w. I have found eating a small 100-200cal snack every 2 hours between meals helps with hunger and keeping meals to around 300-400cals. Record your calories and you will see that lemonade is the same as a meal. Cut out those big things and exercise and you will see results. 1-2lbs a week is normal and be conservative on goals.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

my understanding is that endurance athletes who incorporate strength training into their weight loss program lose primarily fat while those who do not lose both fat and muscle (reducing power). Increasing the percentage of protein in total calories as well also leads to more feelings of satiation, which helps with diet compliance. Isn't that the research basis for Fitzgerald's Racing Weight books?



sdeeer said:


> The posts I have seen from you so far illustrate a complete misunderstanding of literature / physiology (read broscience) or are an over simplification.
> 
> While it is true that RT and HIIT (aerobic) can increase the skeletal muscle's ability to oxidize fat, is does not 'teach' it to burn fat per say. Type IIa fibers can increase their oxidative capacity primarily via AMPk /PGC1alpha. The ultimate oxidation of substrate in the post exercise period depends on metabolic flexibility and dietary intake (carb / fat / calories). EPOC is elevated with both RT and Aerobic exercise, not only with RT. [dose and intensity dependent]. Individuals who do severe RT bouts repeatedly do have increased rates of MPS and thus higher calorie needs.
> 
> Total fat balance over time depends on (as others have mentioned) calorie intake and expenditure. There are intra individual factors which also change the 'in' part of that equation.


----------



## Brian J (Feb 1, 2014)

I started both cycling and slow carb at the same time.

what I've found I need to do to not run low on energy:
- really make sure i hit the legumes and have a good solid protein meal the night before
- my cycling days are usually cheat days. I still opt for high fiber options, like PB&J on high protein high fiber bread.
- on non-cheat days, I just do 1 higher carb meal prior to excercise

it does work, and with a shift in mindset, its very sustainable. 

The real key for me has been: Its not a diet, its not a fad, its not something I do until a pre-determined goal, its a permanent lifestyle change.


----------



## crowaan (Aug 13, 2013)

Silchas Ruin said:


> IFBB bikini pro.


I don't think that will mean much to people around here. But... nice :thumbsup:


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

sdeeer said:


> EPOC is elevated with both RT and Aerobic exercise


Would muscle not be more metabolically active than fat?
If it is, then more muscle would equal more calories burned all the time. Fat is passive and doesn't use many calories for maintenance.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Would muscle not be more metabolically active than fat?
> If it is, then more muscle would equal more calories burned all the time. Fat is passive and doesn't use many calories for maintenance.


Fair enough, but why is this relevant? Would you rather have extra muscle that allows you to burn more calories (and that you would have to carry up hills) and lose some fat, or just lose the fat by exercising aerobically, avoid the extra muscle mass, be lighter and go uphill faster? For cycling, I choose the latter.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

^ I have other interests in life besides cycling.

If you are super light and go up hills fast then good for you. That's not everyone's priority though.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> ^ I have other interests in life besides cycling.
> 
> If you are super light and go up hills fast then good for you. That's not everyone's priority though.


Well then by all means bulk up. The op asked for weight-loss advice as it relates to his cycling. Gaining muscle mass would be the opposite of what he is seeking. Hence my remarks.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

strength training is not the same as body building - muscle hypertrophy programs are different from strength training for cyclists - and endurance training mostly blunts hypertrophy anyway. It's possible to gain strength, lose weight, and not increase muscle mass.



vetboy said:


> Fair enough, but why is this relevant? Would you rather have extra muscle that allows you to burn more calories (and that you would have to carry up hills) and lose some fat, or just lose the fat by exercising aerobically, avoid the extra muscle mass, be lighter and go uphill faster? For cycling, I choose the latter.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I'm going to make this simple. Ride in zone 3 for an hour/day. Cut back on the carbs (eg, bread, rice, pasta, potato, etc); that means eat a little less.

Now reap the reward.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

I ride hills better now at 255 and stronger than I did at 238 and not as strong.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

Silchas Ruin said:


> Yes, for fat loss, because you need the high rep count ( 20 to 25 ). Most people are not going to be able to do that many pushups, all most nobody will be able to do that many pull ups.


 How many sets do you recommend?


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

Srode said:


> How many sets do you recommend?


To add to your question...
Does that include "body weight" excercises?


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> strength training is not the same as body building - muscle hypertrophy programs are different from strength training for cyclists - and endurance training mostly blunts hypertrophy anyway. It's possible to gain strength, lose weight, and not increase muscle mass.


I agree with all that, assuming you mean the weight loss is due to some aerobic exercise or diet management. The strength gain would not result in the weight loss as another poster suggested.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

Nubster said:


> I ride hills better now at 255 and stronger than I did at 238 and not as strong.


What does stronger mean? Does your power meter say you are putting out more power for a given climb? Image how much faster you would go if you maintained that current power output but got your weight back to 238.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

It is an interesting point; weight loss for cycling, weight loss in general, different shape. I try and do resistance and especially core stuff as well as cycle -- but my training goals aren't focuses on bike speed and racing, but on motorcycle track days. 

Plus I (selfishly) might lose 10lbs more if I was lucky, but much below 180 I start to look skeletal at 6'7. This is by the by for this thread though. 

Probably really important to understand where everyone is coming from.


----------



## the_gormandizer (May 12, 2006)

I have been focusing on body composition and successfully dropped from the mid-150's to 142 lbs last season without losing power. I think you have already had some good advice on this thread, and you are already doing some good things. Here is my advice (some of which repeats what some others have said.)


Use a calorie counting program (LoseIt or MyFitnessPal). Even if you give this up after a month or so, the process of counting calories will change your attitude to what you eat.
Continue to ride as much as you can. Intensity is good, and will burn more fat than low intensity, but you can't do high intensity every day. Low intensity (recovery and endurance) rides should be done such that they do not interfere with your intense interval sessions. 
Do some off-bike strength training if you want to. Opinions are divided on the optimal amount of strength training, what exercises to do, and whether it even helps. Core strength training is probably a good thing. I don't think it can harm your weight loss or your power on the bike, as long as it does not interfere with your riding. 
Focus on the _quality _of your nutrition. Cut out pastries, sugary sweets, snack foods, etc. Whole grains, legumes and other high-fiber carbs etc. are great if you can handle the fiber. Also consider healthy fats, anti-oxidants etc. To get guidance on which might help your performance, read a book on sports nutrition. You might be spurred to add things like flax or chia seeds or coconut oil to your diet, or to eat more salmon.
Cut out alcohol. Maybe a few oz of red wine with dinner is o.k.
Consider nutrient timing as outlined in Fitzgerald's book. For instance, eat carbs earlier in the day, taper towards dinner.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

vetboy said:


> What does stronger mean? Does your power meter say you are putting out more power for a given climb? Image how much faster you would go if you maintained that current power output but got your weight back to 238.


Never used a power meter. I've just become stronger doing CrossFit...so I'm stronger doing those kinda of movements...squats, cleans, deadlifts, ect. Because of that increased strength, I've found my climbing has improved even though I'm heavier which is my point...strength > weightloss for better climbing. In my case at least. But sure, if I could loose weight and not loose strength, that would be even better, but if I had to choose between just loosing weight or being a little heavier but stronger, I'll take stronger.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I struggle with the idea that someone 250lbs climbs stronger.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

I don't care what you struggle with...but it's true. I didn't say I was a great climber. I didn't say I'm out climbing the Alps or Rocky Mountains. But I am saying that I climb better today at 250+ pounds then I did last year at 238 pounds because I'm a lot stronger from working out (not riding) over the winter.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

headloss said:


> Hungarian Horse bow.
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong, she's right... based on everything I've read or been told and for exactly the reasons she mentioned, building muscle will keep burning fat even after the exercise.


I can easily ride extra hours at 900 kJ/hour. How much muscle mass will I need to gain to burn the equivalent calories as if I rode three extra hours a week? Four? Five?


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

Nubster said:


> I don't care what you struggle with...but it's true. I didn't say I was a great climber. I didn't say I'm out climbing the Alps or Rocky Mountains. But I am saying that I climb better today at 250+ pounds then I did last year at 238 pounds because I'm a lot stronger from working out (not riding) over the winter.


But again I ask, what does stronger mean? As an example, there are days I feel really good and "strong" on some of my local climbs, but when I get home and download the numbers, I wasn't particularly strong compared w previous rides which were also recorded objectively. By contrast, there are days I'm suffering like a dog on a climb and feeling anything but strong, but when I download, I was actually going pretty well compared to previous. Bottom line, how I feel about a ride is irrelevant wout objective measures to back it up. So when you say you climb "stronger" now at 250 compared with previous at 238, and that you haven't done any riding to explain the "strength", I'm very skeptical that you are actually stronger - in fact I'd bet big $ you are actually climbing slower at 250 than you were at 238, and physics has my back.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

Ride more, ride hard and eat less.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

it's easy if you have a set of Lightweight wheels...









spade2you said:


> I struggle with the idea that someone 250lbs climbs stronger.


----------



## Old Man (Apr 8, 2012)

Where it will make a difference is in my case. I am 6'2" 220, 48yo. Built to be thinish as in I do not pack on muscle easily. I also atrophy very quickly, I notice this anyway.. My ideal weight is about 180, however because I atrophy quickly it means I need to maintain at least some type of weight resistance workout. I am a weak 220, but if I do nothing and diet/ride only, I will lose strength as well, especially the upper body. 

I do not and will never look like the guy above, but that does not mean I can diet alone to loose weight...


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

I have found that the composition of the diet (low glycemic load) is as or more
important than just using calories in. Except on the bike (highest glycemic load)
The place to handle weight is diet. I also do core to stabilize my back. Bottom
line is no-compromise discipline diet is what works. Trying to lose on the bike
gets you into all kinds sub-optimal ride performance issues. Doing a lot of
non-bike related resistance training, especially high rep, detracts from your
reserves for the bike. Fine and dandy, if you have a balanced objective. I do not.
I ride pretty damn hard, and the notion that I could lift weights the next night
is absurd. I'm pretty beat up from the ride, if I did my job right. But that's just me.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

vetboy said:


> But again I ask, what does stronger mean? As an example, there are days I feel really good and "strong" on some of my local climbs, but when I get home and download the numbers, I wasn't particularly strong compared w previous rides which were also recorded objectively. By contrast, there are days I'm suffering like a dog on a climb and feeling anything but strong, but when I download, I was actually going pretty well compared to previous. Bottom line, how I feel about a ride is irrelevant wout objective measures to back it up. So when you say you climb "stronger" now at 250 compared with previous at 238, and that you haven't done any riding to explain the "strength", I'm very skeptical that you are actually stronger - in fact I'd bet big $ you are actually climbing slower at 250 than you were at 238, and physics has my back.


Well, in my case, stronger means the weight I can move in the gym is more now than it was 4 months ago. Pretty simple. 

On the bike it means, I'm riding hills at the same pace or faster all while using a smaller gear in the back (28 opposed to 32) with the same amount or less perceived exertion than I was 3 months ago(last time I was riding).


----------



## misterwaterfallin (Sep 14, 2012)

phoehn9111 said:


> . Doing a lot of
> non-bike related resistance training, especially high rep, detracts from your
> reserves for the bike. Fine and dandy, if you have a balanced objective. I do not.
> I ride pretty damn hard, and the notion that I could lift weights the next night
> is absurd. I'm pretty beat up from the ride, if I did my job right. But that's just me.


Depending on how you structure your training it is easily achieved. I would usually do 2 hard days over the weekend, recovery on Monday, then gym Tuesday AM with a recovery light spin Tuesday PM which got recovered enough for another moderately hard workout on Wednesday.


----------



## the_gormandizer (May 12, 2006)

I think that "calories in vs calories out" is valid but as an engineer (not an expert on physiology or nutrition) I think of it as a first-order equation. Clearly the relative proportions of macro-nutrients, their quality (e.g. types of fats, GI of carbs), and the timing relative to exercise and when you sleep are all important factors. You also need to be very careful not to run too large a calorie deficit if you are trying to build or maintain performance.

I do strength training at this time of the year, mainly core and lower body. Lower body includes various squats and explosive movements. I did two sessions per week in my base phase, but as my racing season approaches and intensity increases I have cut back to one off bike session and also reduced training volume. For me a typical schedule is as follows:
Sat: 4 hour group ride (surges into L5, normalized power @ L2)
Sun: 60-75 mins recovery ride (L1 - low L2)
Mon: 75-90 mins low L2
Tues: 90 mins with 60 mins hard intervals (L3-L5, 100+ TSS)
Wed: 60-75 mins recovery ride in early am (L1 - low L2); Off-bike work at lunch time.
Thurs: 60-90 mins low L2
Fri: 90 mins with 60 mins hard intervals (L3-L5, 100+ TSS)

I am an old fart, and need to be sensitive to the demands placed on my endocrine system, but this schedule seems to give me enough time to recover from my off-bike work. During racing season, off-bike work will be a distant memory.


----------



## Silchas Ruin (Oct 24, 2013)

phoehn9111 said:


> I have found that the composition of the diet (low glycemic load) is as or more
> important than just using calories in. Except on the bike (highest glycemic load)
> The place to handle weight is diet. I also do core to stabilize my back. Bottom
> line is no-compromise discipline diet is what works. Trying to lose on the bike
> ...


 If you feel " beat up" from every ride, your not doing your self any favors.

Light weight, and high reps ( for example, body weight squats) Your muscles build more mitochondria, increasing energy storage. That's about as simple as I can state it. It will not add size to your muscles. That guy in the picture, is doing very heavy weights, and low reps, likely 4 to 6 reps.

Try it. See if you can do 5 sets of 25 perfect form body weght squats, with a 3 min. rest between sets. You will feel a burn, very familar to a cyclist. your muscles will adapt, by increasing their ability to store energy ( not by getting larger). The benefits to a cyclist should be obvious


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

Didn't Pharmstrong do a lot of weight training for his comeback?

...never mind.


----------



## the_gormandizer (May 12, 2006)

Silchas Ruin said:


> Try it. See if you can do 5 sets of 25 perfect form body weght squats, with a 3 min. rest between sets. You will feel a burn, very familar to a cyclist. your muscles will adapt, by increasing their ability to store energy ( not by getting larger). The benefits to a cyclist should be obvious


Yes! There are many squat variations that can be done no weight or with some weight: side squats, overhead squats, front squats, pistol squats, etc.


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

Silchas Ruin said:


> Light weight, and high reps ( for example, body weight squats) *Your muscles build more mitochondria, increasing energy storage*. That's about as simple as I can state it. It will not add size to your muscles. That guy in the picture, is doing very heavy weights, and low reps, likely 4 to 6 reps.


Sorry, but you are wrong or grossly oversimplifying again.

For most cyclist who are already moderately trained, the amount of body weight squats required to elevate PGC1-Alpha (increase mito density) or even AMPk would be ridiculous unless they were completing them very late in an exercise bout or highly depleted (a la low glycogen training). 

And it is anyone's guess what you mean by 'increasing energy storage.'
Energy storage is defined as substrates (read carbohydrates/glycogen Fat /IMTGs and even protein or other intermediates). If you are saying that having greater mito density allows an athlete to use more fat for the same given absolute work rate, then you are correct (per se / it depends), but I don't think that is what you meant. 

And did you know?????? You said....."It will not add size to your muscles" ....that the muscle doesn't really care which rep range you use per se to 'drive the response you want. The total load, the intensity compared to the maximal amount you can do, and then nutritional status under which the training was undertaken all can influence the ultimate outcome. Links below.

low weight, high reps can add to muscle CSA (read cross bridges / muscle mass) when applied in certain circumstances. 

With that being said, for practical application, lower reps with high weight tend to lead to gain of strength and mass while lower weight with higher reps do lead to more 'endurance.'

But for the rabbit hole see: {not all directly pertain}
Resistance exercise load does not dete... [J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
Potential Mechanisms for a Role of Metabolic Stress in Hypertrophic Adaptations to Resistance Training - Springer
Proliferation of myogenic stem cells in human skeletal muscle in response to low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction - Nielsen - 2012 - The Journal of Physiology - Wiley Online Library
Is There a Minimum Intensity Threshold for Resistance Training-Induced Hypertrophic Adaptations? - Springer

commentary on the issues: http://download.springer.com/static...561_367d6aac8df21f3b66e73c41156a69bd&ext=.pdf


----------



## Silchas Ruin (Oct 24, 2013)

Getting training advise from a nutritionist, is like getting medical advise from a phamacist.


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

Silchas Ruin said:


> Getting training advise from a nutritionist, is like getting medical advise from a phamacist.


LOL...is that all you have as a reply?


----------



## Silchas Ruin (Oct 24, 2013)

sdeeer said:


> LOL...is that all you have as a reply?


 I gave good advise. I'm not willing to be involved in some low brow argument on an internet forum. Yu have no interest in helping anybody, you just want to be right, and boost your fragile little ego.

Have a nice day, Jess


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

Silchas Ruin said:


> I gave good advise. I'm not willing to be involved in some low brow argument on an internet forum. Yu have no interest in helping anybody, you just want to be right, and boost your fragile little ego.
> 
> Have a nice day, Jess


Advice not Advise.

You not Yu.

I have helped many understand and apply the data and previous posts (look at my reputation bar).

I don't 'want' to be right. I AM right based upon the current literature. Nothing to do with ego.

And finally, one of my main motivations for stopping/replying to your broscience and half truths is providing a true understanding of physiology and application to life for the others who may want to really get it. Not just the half truths and pseudo science.


----------



## Silchas Ruin (Oct 24, 2013)

Aye, your rep bar, LoL. The more little green squares, the better you feel about yourself. Is that how it works. 

Thanks for the spell check. I should just google, and copy paste like you.


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

Thank you, thank you thank you SDeer
Your input has been an invaluable asset to me personally
and I selectively use you and a few others and screen
out the 97 % mis\dis\information being peddled on this forum.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Undecided said:


> I can easily ride extra hours at 900 kJ/hour. How much muscle mass will I need to gain to burn the equivalent calories as if I rode three extra hours a week? Four? Five?


No clue, as I'm not personally invested in this stuff. Would love to know the formula if anyone knows of one. I've had several different trainers suggest the same thing to me when I complain about my body weight... "focus on building muscle to jumpstart the metabolism" (more or less, not exactly in those words). I hear it over and over again and my experience has been that most trainer's seem to be in agreement with what Silchas Ruin stated in an earlier post.

I'm not sure if the literature supports what she stated, but it seems to be in harmony with what is being taught by other trainers. I'm certainly not concerned enough to go spend a few hours at PubMed just to see if sdeeer is correct or cherry-picking data. Ultimately, I just don't care enough to go search for answers beyond what I've been told by qualified individuals. 

My personal take is that the best method to lose weight is to count and limit calorie intake. I haven't been in a hurry to do this myself, but maybe this will be the year. I'm mildly overweight at 190 for a 5'9" male. My lowest was 155# in bootcamp almost a decade ago. I think that anything below 170# makes me look anorexic. I need to lose 20#. I've been trying to lose 20# for the last five years, and honestly, riding my bike a lot (over 5000miles last year) hasn't changed a thing in my weight or metabolism. Maybe I should try strength training (since I hear this advice given over and over again) or maybe I should just cut out the sugary drinks and other crap that buffers my otherwise healthy diet with garbage.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

headloss said:


> "focus on building muscle to jumpstart the metabolism" (more or less, not exactly in those words). I hear it over and over again and my experience has been that most trainer's seem to be in agreement with what Silchas Ruin stated in an earlier post.
> 
> *I'm not sure if the literature supports what she stated,*


I think it does support the idea but it doesn't work to the extent that many people think.


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> my understanding is that endurance athletes who incorporate strength training into their weight loss program lose primarily fat while those who do not lose both fat and muscle (reducing power). Increasing the percentage of protein in total calories as well also leads to more feelings of satiation, which helps with diet compliance. Isn't that the research basis for Fitzgerald's Racing Weight books?


I am not sure about the claims in racing weight, but for the most part yes. 

When dietary protein intake does not match protein needs (of skeletal muscle mass) or protein needs due to lower energy intake, muscle mass loss will often occur. But the amount of protein for most endurance athletes is only 1.2 - 1.8 g/kg depending on the severity of the energy deficit and overall training load (volume / intensity). Depending on the time of the training year, the intensity on the bike may be enough to maintain LBM with most loss coming from fat.

But the classic LSD in base with a low energy intake and marginal protein intake, RT can sure rescue LBM losses and drive lost tissue from fat mass.

The best course of action depends on the overall goal and the part of the training cycle. Then you also must consider personal preferences and match dietary 'desires' to goals. 

Everyone wants a simple answer, but at the root, there are many ways to end up at the 'same' place. Some more optimally than others.

Keeping protein higher (120 - 180 g/day for most) does lead to greater satiety and greater maintenance of LBM. I personally do not like to use percents because the metabolism (body) works with absolute grams per meal / day. Granted on a low energy diet, the protein percent goes up with less calories, but the absolute protein needs are determined by the goals and the total energy intake.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Cardio burns fat when your doing it. Strength training burns fat 24/7 as muscle burns more cal even when not is use. Also, as we age, strength training is needed just to help defer the normal muscle atrophy and loss of strength that goes along with it. We're not talking major hypertrophy, but rather establishing and maintaining healthy muscle mass and strength. 

This is not new or some fad. It is well established, mainstream, and supported by many many studies.


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

phoehn9111 said:


> Thank you, thank you thank you SDeer
> Your input has been an invaluable asset to me personally
> and I selectively use you and a few others and screen
> out the 97 % mis\dis\information being peddled on this forum.


Another "thank you" here for Sdeer. He's been on this forum long time and the information he brings is invaluable. He really knows a lot about the latest studies. 

Silchas, your input is appreciated too. Personal experiences are good. If we wanted scientific studies only, then this forum wouldn't be the place to go. We would go to PubMEd or equivalent. This is a good place to hear about personal experiences. 

I just realize when I write something on the forum, I use the phrase "IMO", or "for me", or "I believe" because there are people here who really know the science well. Even Dr. Coggan (coauthor of Racing/Training with a Powermeter) chimes in every once in a while.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

looigi said:


> ....Also, as we age, strength training is needed just to help defer the normal muscle atrophy and loss of strength that goes along with it. .....


Totally agree. That's why the arguments regarding strength training have to be put in context. Are we talking about 20 year old riders or 60 year old riders.

At my age, strength training is critical.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Silchas Ruin said:


> I gave good advise. I'm not willing to be involved in some low brow argument on an internet forum. Yu have no interest in helping anybody, you just want to be right, and boost your fragile little ego.
> 
> Have a nice day, Jess


Whoah whoah whoah. There is absolutely no need for ad hominem here. Sdeer works with this stuff professionally and is scientifically literate. I realize you're trying to help, but it doesn't change the facts, and this has nothing to do with ego. If you think this is just a low brow argument, feel free to dismiss yourself from these forums lest you be dismissed involuntarily by continuously running your mouth. If you started talking out your rear on physics, for example, I'd be the first one to proverbially drop you like third period French, because that's where my higher education was. If you spoke improperly about mechanical engineering, AM999 would drop his own literary hammer as well because he was an engineer. If you spoke nonsense about pharmacology, spade2you would be on you like white on rice since he's licensed in that field.

You are an adult (I presume), so try to act like one please.


----------



## Silchas Ruin (Oct 24, 2013)

Sdeer, I tried to send this via PM, but your inbox is full.

I lost my temper, and I apologize for making it personal. I was angry at your use of the term " broscience", as well as your insinuation that I have no idea what I'm talking about, or my advice is somehow harmful. it's not accurate, and I felt insulted. It's no excuse for me to be a bi**h.

I was keeping my advice basic. This is the internet after all. If someone would like more, they can ask. There is a high likelihood, that anything posted here, will either be half read, or not at all.

I take it you're a nutritionist. I have the highest respect for your profession, and advise all my clients to work with one. The higher their goals, the more I insist on it. All of my advice, is based on my education, and experience. I try to stay within my area of expertise.

Thank you, and again, I'm sorry,

Jess


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

Nubster said:


> I think it does support the idea but it doesn't work to the extent that many people think.


Google suggests some interesting, entertaining, perhaps reliable, reading: How Many Calories Does Muscle Really Burn? (and Why It?s Not About Calories Anyway) | Mark's Daily Apple


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

Nubster said:


> Well, in my case, stronger means the weight I can move in the gym is more now than it was 4 months ago. Pretty simple.
> 
> On the bike it means, I'm riding hills at the same pace or faster all while using a smaller gear in the back (28 opposed to 32) with the same amount or less perceived exertion than I was 3 months ago(last time I was riding).


Of course you can lift more weight now, you've been weight training for several months. But you completely skipped over my discussion about perceived exertion being a questionable metric. I am very comfortable in saying you are not currently climbing stronger if you haven't been riding for three months and you weigh more now than you did then. Just ain't possible.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

Well, I don't know then. I weight more and climb faster and in a harder gear (28T opposed to 32T) on the same climbs I did last year. If that's not climbing stronger...well then you explain it.

I'm not going to comment on it anymore. It is what it is. Like it or not...I don't give a crap. I'm faster on climbs and I use harder gearing. That's it.


----------



## Old Man (Apr 8, 2012)

vetboy said:


> Of course you can lift more weight now, you've been weight training for several months. But you completely skipped over my discussion about perceived exertion being a questionable metric. I am very comfortable in saying you are not currently climbing stronger if you haven't been riding for three months and you weigh more now than you did then. Just ain't possible.


That might be true only in the sense of not riding for 3 months. I do believe that he is riding stronger on the hills, and I am certain that strength training helped that. 

More strength pushing the weight, he or I will tire faster now because of the extra lbs., but it does not mean that climbing is not stronger before fatigue.


----------



## Clyde250 (Feb 24, 2007)

T NATION | A Calorie Is Sometimes Not A Calorie

Here is a good article on the subject.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Alfonsina said:


> I want to teach my body fat burning.


You can do this. When you get up in the morning don't eat anything (coffee, no sugar is okay to jumpstart your metabolism) then do cardio (i.e. running or biking). It doesn't have to be super hard, but an endurance/tempo ride for about an hour. What happens is you are now at a glycogen debt and you are training your body to use fat as a fuel source. Yes, this ride will be somewhat uncomfortable and you may feel like crap (especially the first few times you do it). It also helps you in racing, it means you can go harder at the end if you're out of calories. This strategy won't be effective if you carb loaded the night before though. When you're done with this ride have a protein based meal. Yogurt is a good choice. I think these "Greek" style yogurts have less sugar/carbs compared to protein. Fage 2% for example has a whopping 20g of protein with 8g carbs and 4g fat for a 200g serving.

Another thing that helped me loose weight is eating more protein/fiber and less carbs. Don't discount high-protein "veggies" like quinoa and lentils. For dinner I usually boil up some quinoa then throw it in a salad with a few other things.

Have a large breakfast, a smaller lunch, and a smaller dinner. Yes, this goes against the natural flow of things (wake up, quick bowl of cereal before work, small lunch because I'm late for a meeting, then a huge dinner because I'm out with friends having fun) but try to stick to this in general.

If you want to count calories, get a power meter. You can very accurately count calories by seeing how many kJ your ride was.

And last but not least, most food you eat is seriously over-rated when it comes to taste. It has been months since I ate something fatty/salty/super bad for you that afterwards when I finished it I was like "wow, that was totally worth it!". Even these really high-end restaurants are very over rated. Foodies will probably tell me my palate has no sense of taste, but whatever I use this as a mental edge to keep me from eating.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

Look into intermittent fasting.


----------



## HBPUNK (Mar 25, 2006)

I'm a bikini model and I'm gonna tell everyone about it


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

HBPUNK said:


> I'm a bikini model and I'm gonna tell everyone about it


Don't tell us. Show us.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

deviousalex said:


> You can do this. When you get up in the morning don't eat anything (coffee, no sugar is okay to jumpstart your metabolism) then do cardio (i.e. running or biking). It doesn't have to be super hard, but an endurance/tempo ride for about an hour. What happens is you are now at a glycogen debt and you are training your body to use fat as a fuel source. Yes, this ride will be somewhat uncomfortable and you may feel like crap (especially the first few times you do it). It also helps you in racing, it means you can go harder at the end if you're out of calories. This strategy won't be effective if you carb loaded the night before though. When you're done with this ride have a protein based meal. Yogurt is a good choice. I think these "Greek" style yogurts have less sugar/carbs compared to protein. Fage 2% for example has a whopping 20g of protein with 8g carbs and 4g fat for a 200g serving.
> 
> Another thing that helped me loose weight is eating more protein/fiber and less carbs. Don't discount high-protein "veggies" like quinoa and lentils. For dinner I usually boil up some quinoa then throw it in a salad with a few other things.
> 
> ...


excellent advice


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

folks need to realize that diet trumps exercise when it comes to controlling weight. Ya can't out exercise a bad diet. First step is to reassess your diet, and cut all the bad stuff out (simple sugar, simple carbs), and eat more healthy carbs and healthy fats. Ditch the restaurants. Ditch the heavy dinner. Can you do this??? If you say no, then I'm sorry you will have a hard time shedding pounds.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> folks need to realize that diet trumps exercise when it comes to controlling weight. Ya can't out exercise a bad diet. First step is to reassess your diet, and cut all the bad stuff out (simple sugar, simple carbs), and eat more healthy carbs and healthy fats. Ditch the restaurants. Ditch the heavy dinner. Can you do this??? If you say no, then I'm sorry you will have a hard time shedding pounds.


You can, but not many people have the time or willpower to work out that much. Couple long rides and some intervals per week and you can eat just about anything.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> folks need to realize that diet trumps exercise when it comes to controlling weight. Ya can't out exercise a bad diet. First step is to reassess your diet, and cut all the bad stuff out (simple sugar, simple carbs), and eat more healthy carbs and healthy fats. Ditch the restaurants. Ditch the heavy dinner. Can you do this??? If you say no, then I'm sorry you will have a hard time shedding pounds.


+1. Even if you 'out exercise' your diet once you tone down the exercise the weight just piles back on.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

deviousalex said:


> +1. Even if you 'out exercise' your diet once you tone down the exercise the weight just piles back on.


If you tone it down. But realistically I agree.


----------



## rose.johnp (Jul 20, 2011)

JSWhaler said:


> I have found that counting calories works well for me. My fitness pal is a great free app in which you input your intake and can setup your own weight loss plan.


I use fitness pal as well. Works great. Been losing 2 lbs a week for over a month now.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

You can't out exercise a bad diet. The reason is simple: a calorie is not a calorie. There are many scientific lectures on from the UCSF tv series.
here's one example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y

if anyone think they can out exercise a bad diet, feel free to give science based advice, not bro-science.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> You can't out exercise a bad diet. The reason is simple: a calorie is not a calorie. There are many scientific lectures on from the UCSF tv series.
> here's one example
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y
> 
> if anyone think they can out exercise a bad diet, feel free to give science based advice, not bro-science.



Guy loses 100 pounds eating McDonald's and becomes an athlete

This guy claims he can get everything he needs from McDonalds. I actually wonder how healthy he is.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> You can't out exercise a bad diet. The reason is simple: a calorie is not a calorie. There are many scientific lectures on from the UCSF tv series.
> here's one example
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y
> 
> if anyone think they can out exercise a bad diet, feel free to give science based advice, not bro-science.


When I was younger, I had to eat fairly fatty foods and take weight gainer to maintain weight. 

I still don't eat great, but losing weight is a snap if I'm doing a lot of 2-3 hour rides. My cholesterol, labs, and blood pressure are pretty good. I get a free screening at work every year.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

First of all, I don't deny that there are some people that can eat anything they want and don't gain weight. But this is a very small exception to the game of weight control. Look at all the past super healthy cyclists, and look at them today. A lot of them have put on huge pounds, and not so healthy anymore. And if happens to ex-pro cyclists, who were taught and fed a healthy diet in their pro years, then it is only that much harder for a regular person to maintain weight.

Science is now shedding light into why we are becoming so fat. It has to do with our diet, and the introduction of cheap synthetic sugars. Simply put, eating less and exercising more does not work if you do not examine your diet.

Here's why, based on science, as explained by Dr. Lustwig, an endocrinologist at UCSF:

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 3): Hunger and Hormones- A Vicious Cycle - YouTube

As for the McDonald guy, it's a good anedote that I'm not sure I will believe it at all. Every conceivable scientific papers on diet say to avoid fast food such as McD, yet you have a science teacher (of all people) doing the exactly opposite. Could be one of those urban legend thing, who knows. But let's just assume that he did eat McD and lost weight, then that still doesn't mean he's healthy. See those bodybuilders always claiming to have a low body fat? You think they're healthy inside?

Spade,

most people are not like you. Fat and obesity is an epidemic and a disease. There's scientific reason behind it. You're in pharmacology right? You should know this.
I'm 5'7, 116 lbs, with extremely low overall cholestrol, extremely high HDL, low blood sugar, very healthy triglyceride level, and I check my vitals twice per year, and come out better then most veggetarians I know. I'm now in my mid30, but when I was in my teens and 20s, I weighed a bit more at 125 lbs, still a good weight right, but back then my cholestrol and sugar level and all the other vitals were nowhere as good. Diet is still important no matter how you think your body is. If it is already healthy, then an improved diet can only improve it even more. For an unhealthy person, diet is crucial. You're an exception, not the norm.


----------



## Old Man (Apr 8, 2012)

I actually watched the links.. Great info and I buy into the science of it. I am cutting down my sugar intake and dropping as much fast and processed food as possible.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Old Man said:


> I actually watched the links.. Great info and I buy into the science of it. I am cutting down my sugar intake and dropping as much fast and processed food as possible.


Well I'm glad that you're seeing the light. The real enemy here is sugar, specifically fructose. And unfortunately, almost everything we see on the shelves today has fructose in them. Even the table sugar (sucrose) is effectively a fructose sugar once sucrose enters your body.

That's why nutritional science is now saying "a calorie is not a calorie", and simply counting calories is not enough. Consuming 120 calories of fructose (eg, a can of Coke or Pepsi) may be much much more harmful than consuming 200 calories of healthy complex carbs and fats (eg, an avocado plus an orange). So no, a calorie is not a calorie, and counting calories alone is not good enough.

My rule of thumb is: any food label that contain the word "sugar" or "fructose" in it, I don't touch, or if I do, I will be mindful to eat very little of it, and only consume it immediately after an exercise (when your liver will actually use it and not store it as fat). 

Also, did you know that when you look at a food label, the ingredient that is listed first in the list is also exists in the highest amount (by % weight) in the product? Then comes the 2nd, 3rd, etc.. ingredients. My general rule of thumb is if "sugar" or "fructose" occur within the first 5 ingredients, I will consider avoiding it; and if sugar or fructose occur within the first 3 ingredients, then avoid like the plague for sure.

The medical community is screaming at the government (FDA) to do something about it, because it is a disease just like AIDS. But the lobbying from the food industry is very strong. And misinformation from them is even stronger. But the science is out there. People need to wake up.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

Sugar is said to be as addictive as illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

Nubster said:


> Sugar is said to be as addictive as illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin.


I freebase Gu before climbs.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

NJBiker72 said:


> I freebase Gu before climbs.


I find that shooting works quicker but freebasing is the next best option if you don't like needles.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I find it interesting that you won't go near sugar or fructose and recommend instead eating an orange. Of the roughly 130 calories in an orange, about 90 are from sugars (fructose, sucrose, and glucose). As for the science that's out there, Lustig is selling books and there is considerable evidence that he is inconsistent, cites animal studies that are known not to be relevant to humans, and frequently obfuscates over whether fructose is toxic, or whether it is simply excess calories that's to blame. Complicating the story is a way not to get millions of hits on youtube....

Re the liver claim, that is refuted in a recent meta-analysis. 

Chiu, S et al. “Effect of Fructose on Markers of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Feeding Trials.” European journal of clinical nutrition February 2013 (2014): 1–8. 

and a few recent relevant reviews: 

Tappy, L, and B Mittendorfer. “Fructose Toxicity: Is the Science Ready for Public Health Actions?” Current opinion in clinical nutrition and … 1 (2012): 1–9. 
Rippe, JM, and TJ Angelopoulos. “Sucrose, High-Fructose Corn Syrup, and Fructose, Their Metabolism and Potential Health Effects: What Do We Really Know?” Advances in Nutrition: An … (2013): 236–245. 


It's also interesting that in the search for an ancestral diet, when we look to chimpanzees we find about half their calories come from figs, which are among the highest fructose containing fruit. The notion that it's intrinsically toxic is the sort of meme that sells books but distorts the science (and makes people afraid to eat fruit like some Paleo types).






aclinjury said:


> Well I'm glad that you're seeing the light. The real enemy here is sugar, specifically fructose. And unfortunately, almost everything we see on the shelves today has fructose in them. Even the table sugar (sucrose) is effectively a fructose sugar once sucrose enters your body.
> 
> That's why nutritional science is now saying "a calorie is not a calorie", and simply counting calories is not enough. Consuming 120 calories of fructose (eg, a can of Coke or Pepsi) may be much much more harmful than consuming 200 calories of healthy complex carbs and fats (eg, an avocado plus an orange). So no, a calorie is not a calorie, and counting calories alone is not good enough.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

This Paleo type fears no fruit. I probably eat too much really...in the summer when there's lots available...there are days when that's all I'll eat. Can't say whether or not it's hampered my efforts to ride better and/or loose weight. The weight came off all last summer and my riding improved so my guess is fruit isn't all that bad.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

Nubster said:


> Paleo style eating and riding worked for me. I lost 80 pounds last summer and I've gained about 10# of muscle this winter from working out, not riding. My diet never made me feel like it was the weak link in my riding. I also ride/workout fasted sometimes. I find that working out is better fasted and riding is as good or sometimes better than if I had a pre-ride meal. Of course on really long rides...3 hours +, this might not be the case. I do take some food and gels or bloks in case I start to bonk.


If you aren't using supplements or roids and working out and eating normally, it's impossible to gain 10lbs of muscle in 3 months. Maximum muscle gain is 1 ounce per day max. Which equates to 24lbs a year. A study showed out of all their participants the most one showed was 18.4lbs gained working out 6-7 days a week for an entire year.



JSWhaler said:


> I have found that counting calories works well for me. My fitness pal is a great free app in which you input your intake and can setup your own weight loss plan.


To lose weight it's all about calories in and calories out. Eating a calorie deficit diet will help you lose weight. Eating a calorie deficit diet while working out will help you lose weight even faster.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> I find it interesting that you won't go near sugar or fructose and recommend instead eating an orange. Of the roughly 130 calories in an orange, about 90 are from sugars (fructose, sucrose, and glucose). As for the science that's out there, Lustig is selling books and there is considerable evidence that he is inconsistent, cites animal studies that are known not to be relevant to humans, and frequently obfuscates over whether fructose is toxic, or whether it is simply excess calories that's to blame. Complicating the story is a way not to get millions of hits on youtube....
> 
> Re the liver claim, that is refuted in a recent meta-analysis.
> 
> ...


Amen. Surprise, surprise, your body needs fructose - especially if you are a cyclist.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Well I'm glad that you're seeing the light. The real enemy here is sugar, specifically fructose. And unfortunately, almost everything we see on the shelves today has fructose in them. Even the table sugar (sucrose) is effectively a fructose sugar once sucrose enters your body.
> 
> That's why nutritional science is now saying "a calorie is not a calorie", and simply counting calories is not enough. Consuming 120 calories of fructose (eg, a can of Coke or Pepsi) may be much much more harmful than consuming 200 calories of healthy complex carbs and fats (eg, an avocado plus an orange). So no, a calorie is not a calorie, and counting calories alone is not good enough.
> 
> ...


Really? How does your body know where the sugar came from? Once it is broken down in the GI and enters the bloodstream as a simple sugar, the body has no way of knowing where it came from (fruit, grain, high fructose corn syrup - all the same once it's broken down). I agree that North Americans eat way too much sugar but it's not the sugar itself that's the problem, it's the amount. And a calorie is a calorie - you can measure it in a lab. I would love to race against anyone who is avoiding sugars - would make my job a lot easier.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

Nubster said:


> Sugar is said to be as addictive as illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin.


I'm not sure you can call it addiction when it's something your body needs, but I do agree that many tend to eat too much of it.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

vetboy said:


> I'm not sure you can call it addiction when it's something your body needs, but I do agree that many tend to eat too much of it.


But there's good sources and bad sources. Those that are addicted are eating junk...candy and sweets and stuff like that. They can't stop eating it like a junkie can't stop smoking crack.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> I find it interesting that you won't go near sugar or fructose and recommend instead eating an orange. Of the roughly 130 calories in an orange, about 90 are from sugars (fructose, sucrose, and glucose). As for the science that's out there, Lustig is selling books and there is considerable evidence that he is inconsistent, cites animal studies that are known not to be relevant to humans, and frequently obfuscates over whether fructose is toxic, or whether it is simply excess calories that's to blame. Complicating the story is a way not to get millions of hits on youtube....
> 
> Re the liver claim, that is refuted in a recent meta-analysis.
> 
> ...


Somehow I know somebody would bring up the fructose in fruits.

It's true that fructose is a naturally occuring sugar in almost all sweet fruits, and most fruits are sweet to some degree. But fruits also contain a bunch of other beneficial vitamins and other antioxidants. Also, perhaps eating fructose in their naturally occuring fruit may not have as bad of an effect as eating refined sugar and fructose. For example, honey also contain a lot of fructose too, but honey does not cause nearly the same amount rise in glycemic index as consuming the same amount of refined fructose. A banana has lots of fructose too, but it too is consider a low glycemic food (as long as it's not allowed to ripen to the point of mushiness). So your comparison of fructose naturally occuring in fruits and refined fructose is not exactly the same.

I don't know about you, but watching the video, it's pretty clear that Lustwig is aming at the refined fructose product, the stuff that they put Coke, Pepsi, donuts, candies, Twinkies, Snickers, the McDonald, Burger King, etc. That's where he's taking shoot at, and calling a fructose a poison as used by those mentioned. He does not take aim at naturally occuring sugar in fruits, nor does he take aim at a diet that consist of consuming sugar in their natural state. 

In his videos, he says that execess sugar will be converted to fat, one way or another. He says that not only do we need to pay attention to the fructose, but he also says that excess sugar will be converted to fat, and various intermediaries that lead to metabolic syndrome. So it's clear to me that he is not just swinging his bat randomly. He's mainly swinging it at the food industry.

While I will agree that the evidence is not a slamdunk, but I trust Lustwig than I trust the food industry!

Sure he has a book to sell, almost all professor that I know of has something to sell, a book, an agenda, a research study, etc. But if money from selling book is his goal, then I'm sorry but Lustwig would probably made a ton more money if he advocate for the food industry than advocating against it.

But in the meantime, I will buy into what Lustwig has to say, while waiting for further science to prove one way or another. But I will not hold my breath for the 100% slamdunk evidence, because the food industry will always be able pay for some research to shed light on the evidence, enough to create doubt.

Then from a personal experience, I avoid as much of the sweete shelfed food with fructose as I can. I still eats lots of fruits, both sweet and fatty fruits. 5'7" and 115 lbs tells me I'm doing it right. Anyone wants to consume high fructose product because they think the evidence against fructose is still weak, well that's their call isn't it? 

I'll bet you there are lots of studies that can also be cited that claim genetically modiefied corn (with its high sugar and fructose content) has not worse ill effect on the human body than the non-GMO corn. Plenty of studies that say that cow injected with growth hormone don't produce any more toxic milk than non-growth hormone ones. Plenty of studies that cite farmed fish fed with antibiotic are not worse than those that done. It looks like there is still a lot of scientific studies doubting the ill effect of chemicals (be it hormones or antibiotic) injected into our food source, from animals to plant. But I'm not buying those studies myself. For those who want proof before they'll take action, well more power to them I guess. How long did it take before the govt finally unequivocally accept that lead in paint and gasoline is a bad thing? And has the govt finally acknowledge that smoking causes lung cancer yet? Probably not.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Nubster said:


> But there's good sources and bad sources. Those that are addicted are eating junk...candy and sweets and stuff like that. They can't stop eating it like a junkie can't stop smoking crack.


That's right. Fructose in fruits are limited, and the fructose in fruits come with it a host of other ingredients in fruit, that may very well alter or attenutas the way the body uses or uptake fructose.

The fructose that is added to man-made cookies, sodas, and twinkies... cannot be naturally occuring in nature nor in correct quantity is it?

If people want to equate a fruit to a can of Coke because they hold the notion that "fructose is fructose", and disregarding the source of the fructose and the quantity,.. well... don't know what to say.

Lustwig in his videos (I foget which ones) also said that eating fructose is not bad when your liver is glycogen deficient. But it's bad when the glycogen is already topped off, and definitely is bad when your body doesn't need anymore sugar.

People forget that Lustwig's goal is taking shot at the food industry and his message is for the general population (which contain lots of fat and obesity). Better to over emphasize than under emphasize, is his intent too, me think.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Somehow I know somebody would bring up the fructose in fruits.
> 
> It's true that fructose is a naturally occuring sugar in almost all sweet fruits, and most fruits are sweet to some degree. But fruits also contain a bunch of other beneficial vitamins and other antioxidants. Also, perhaps eating fructose in their naturally occuring fruit may not have as bad of an effect as eating refined sugar and fructose. For example, honey also contain a lot of fructose too, but honey does not cause nearly the same amount rise in glycemic index as consuming the same amount of refined fructose. A banana has lots of fructose too, but it too is consider a low glycemic food (as long as it's not allowed to ripen to the point of mushiness). So your comparison of fructose naturally occuring in fruits and refined fructose is not exactly the same.
> 
> ...


I agree with a lot of what you say about food choices, and by eating the way you do ( non processed) I think you do yourself a wonderful service. Where I disagree is in calling any one nutrient "evil" as you are referring to fructose. There are no bad nutrients - indeed the body needs simple sugars (and lots of them) to function properly. The issue is not where the sugars come from, but how much we eat. The proper amount of fructose from a coke is just fine if that's the amount the body needs at the time. The issue is that processed foods have too much for most, and they don't have all the other "good stuff" you mentioned.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

vetboy said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say about food choices, and by eating the way you do ( non processed) I think you do yourself a wonderful service. Where I disagree is in calling any one nutrient "evil" as you are referring to fructose. There are no bad nutrients - indeed the body needs simple sugars (and lots of them) to function properly. The issue is not where the sugars come from, but how much we eat. The proper amount of fructose from a coke is just fine if that's the amount the body needs at the time. The issue is that processed foods have too much for most, and they don't have all the other "good stuff" you mentioned.


First of all even Lustwig says that your body can use fructose if the liver is low on glycogen (like endurance athletes experience in a 3-4 hours exercise). But this is not the main content of his message. His message is not for the cyclists crowd, not for the endurance crowd, but the fat and obese crowds, and how those got to the fat and obese point. They got there by eating junk, processed food, and he's telling them that it's the high content of fructose and sugar in these food that is the poison. And looking at the processed food on the shelves, it's very difficult to find a food that doesn't contain sugar.

Understand that Lustwig's intention is not taking aim at the endurance athlete crowds, who indeed can use fructose.

On a sidenote. I myself like to exercise in a fasted state in the morning, right out of bed, a lot. I don't eat any food. Just exercise on an empty stomach. Go at a medium intensity, usually zone 3'ish. And I can go like this for 2 hrs without issue, be it cycling or running. Shorter than 2 hrs if I push the intensity up a bit, and up to 3 hrs if I back off the intensity a tad. Now if it takes me this long to deplete my sugar level (to the point that I start to feel a bit lightheaded and feel like I can eat a horse), then I certainly think that most other regular Joe's with barely an exercise in their life,,.. well they are probably eating too much. On days I don't exercise, I only eat one regular meal in the afternoon (my usual lunch) and a yogurt or avocado at night. This tells me that other folks are eating way too much. I'm 5'7", 115 lbs, and I exercise 6 days/wk, at least 20 hrs/wk, mainly cardio stuff, but I also mix in weightlifting 2-3 times/wk too. I used to weigh in the 125-130 lbs range before deciding to cut almost all food containing ADDED fructose from my diet. I also cut down on the carbs too. I can't say if my weigh drop to 115 is due solely to cutting fructose or carbs or both, but it works! In fact i went on such a diet as a self-experimentation, and well I believe.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> On a sidenote. I myself like to exercise in a fasted state in the morning, right out of bed, a lot. I don't eat any food. Just exercise on an empty stomach.


I find that I do better when I can workout or ride fasted. Every other week because of work, I do CF at noon. I do it fasted. The other week I go in at 6pm and not fasted. My fasted workouts > non-fasted workouts. I also find that I ride better fasted up to around 1.5-2 hours. After that I start to bonk. If I know I'll be on the bike longer than 2 hours...I'll take in calories between an hour and 2 hours in to the ride but if it's a short 25-30 mile ride...I'll try to ride fasted when I can.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

Agree with all of that. But why center out the fructose? There's a lot of fat in those same processed foods. And of course it's hard to find food wout sugar. Food is either sugar, fat or protein so there's a pretty good chance that most foods on the shelf are gonna have sugar. 

At least we both agree that the culprit is the amount of food people eat that causes the problems. Calories in vs calories out is the problem. Quibbling about what makes up those calories is just fine tuning. 



aclinjury said:


> First of all even Lustwig says that your body can use fructose if the liver is low on glycogen (like endurance athletes experience in a 3-4 hours exercise). But this is not the main content of his message. His message is not for the cyclists crowd, not for the endurance crowd, but the fat and obese crowds, and how those got to the fat and obese point. They got there by eating junk, processed food, and he's telling them that it's the high content of fructose and sugar in these food that is the poison. And looking at the processed food on the shelves, it's very difficult to find a food that doesn't contain sugar.
> 
> Understand that Lustwig's intention is not taking aim at the endurance athlete crowds, who indeed can use fructose.
> 
> On a sidenote. I myself like to exercise in a fasted state in the morning, right out of bed, a lot. I don't eat any food. Just exercise on an empty stomach. Go at a medium intensity, usually zone 3'ish. And I can go like this for 2 hrs without issue, be it cycling or running. Shorter than 2 hrs if I push the intensity up a bit, and up to 3 hrs if I back off the intensity a tad. Now if it takes me this long to deplete my sugar level (to the point that I start to feel a bit lightheaded and feel like I can eat a horse), then I certainly think that most other regular Joe's with barely an exercise in their life,,.. well they are probably eating too much. On days I don't exercise, I only eat one regular meal in the afternoon (my usual lunch) and a yogurt or avocado at night. This tells me that other folks are eating way too much. I'm 5'7", 115 lbs, and I exercise 6 days/wk, at least 20 hrs/wk, mainly cardio stuff, but I also mix in weightlifting 2-3 times/wk too. I used to weigh in the 125-130 lbs range before deciding to cut almost all food containing ADDED fructose from my diet. I also cut down on the carbs too. I can't say if my weigh drop to 115 is due solely to cutting fructose or carbs or both, but it works! In fact i went on such a diet as a self-experimentation, and well I believe.


----------



## Alfonsina (Aug 26, 2012)

Is it desirable for a guy to weigh 115 at 5'7"? I keep thinking I am misreading something.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

r1lee said:


> If you aren't using supplements or roids and working out and eating normally, it's impossible to gain 10lbs of muscle in 3 months. Maximum muscle gain is 1 ounce per day max. Which equates to 24lbs a year. A study showed out of all their participants the most one showed was 18.4lbs gained working out 6-7 days a week for an entire year.


You have no idea. No steroids and depends on what you consider a supplement. I personally use whey protein and from time to time creatine. And yeah, people CAN gain that kinda muscle mass in that short amount of time. When I started lifting weights....back in 1998, I went from 170 to 200+ pounds in less than 6 months. I gained so quickly people talked about how I must be taking steroids...blah blah blah...well, I wasn't. I'm just genetically dispositioned to gain muscle easily. Just like some people can lift and do everything perfectly and not gain a thing. I get big and I get strong fast. I gained 65 pounds on my bench in 16 weeks without lifting a single weight...just from pushups and other assorted body weight movements we did in the police academy. So read all the studies you want because they don't relate to everyone. I have a friend who gains even faster than me plus he has a crazy metabolism that keeps him very trim as well. He is just a genetic freak.

I'm also not sure where you get 3 months. I've been doing CrossFit since October. If my math is correct, that's 5 months. More than enough time for me to gain a mere 10 pounds of muscle. Especially since by your calculation...I should have been able to gain as much as 12.5 pounds in that amount of time at 1 ounce per day. So it seems that I'm actually slacking a little bit...I better pick it up if I want to make my 24 pound gain for the year


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

My point is that Lustwig's central contention - that fructose is a poison - is propaganda, not science. The references I cited contradict the central points of the view you've suggested is "scientific." David Katz gets the implications of Lustwig's propaganda right (Katz literally wrote the textbook used by clinical nutritionists):

David Katz, M.D.: Perils of a Sugar-Coated Scapegoat



aclinjury said:


> First of all even Lustwig says that your body can use fructose if the liver is low on glycogen (like endurance athletes experience in a 3-4 hours exercise). But this is not the main content of his message. His message is not for the cyclists crowd, not for the endurance crowd, but the fat and obese crowds, and how those got to the fat and obese point. They got there by eating junk, processed food, and he's telling them that it's the high content of fructose and sugar in these food that is the poison. And looking at the processed food on the shelves, it's very difficult to find a food that doesn't contain sugar.
> 
> Understand that Lustwig's intention is not taking aim at the endurance athlete crowds, who indeed can use fructose.
> 
> On a sidenote. I myself like to exercise in a fasted state in the morning, right out of bed, a lot. I don't eat any food. Just exercise on an empty stomach. Go at a medium intensity, usually zone 3'ish. And I can go like this for 2 hrs without issue, be it cycling or running. Shorter than 2 hrs if I push the intensity up a bit, and up to 3 hrs if I back off the intensity a tad. Now if it takes me this long to deplete my sugar level (to the point that I start to feel a bit lightheaded and feel like I can eat a horse), then I certainly think that most other regular Joe's with barely an exercise in their life,,.. well they are probably eating too much. On days I don't exercise, I only eat one regular meal in the afternoon (my usual lunch) and a yogurt or avocado at night. This tells me that other folks are eating way too much. I'm 5'7", 115 lbs, and I exercise 6 days/wk, at least 20 hrs/wk, mainly cardio stuff, but I also mix in weightlifting 2-3 times/wk too. I used to weigh in the 125-130 lbs range before deciding to cut almost all food containing ADDED fructose from my diet. I also cut down on the carbs too. I can't say if my weigh drop to 115 is due solely to cutting fructose or carbs or both, but it works! In fact i went on such a diet as a self-experimentation, and well I believe.


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Well I'm glad that you're seeing the light. The real enemy here is sugar, specifically fructose. And unfortunately, almost everything we see on the shelves today has fructose in them. Even the table sugar (sucrose) is effectively a fructose sugar once sucrose enters your body.
> 
> That's why nutritional science is now saying "a calorie is not a calorie", and simply counting calories is not enough. Consuming 120 calories of fructose (eg, a can of Coke or Pepsi) may be much much more harmful than consuming 200 calories of healthy complex carbs and fats (eg, an avocado plus an orange). So no, a calorie is not a calorie, and counting calories alone is not good enough.
> 
> ...


 You're partially onto the truth, but the key indicator is glycemic index and corresponding glycemic load. Sugar is on the high side, but some
foods like bread are actually worse for spiking insulin and causing fat
storage. Low glycemic is the key for lowering body fat percentage


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> My point is that Lustwig's central contention - that fructose is a poison - is propaganda, not science. The references I cited contradict the central points of the view you've suggested is "scientific." David Katz gets the implications of Lustwig's propaganda right (Katz literally wrote the textbook used by clinical nutritionists):
> 
> David Katz, M.D.: Perils of a Sugar-Coated Scapegoat


I see your point. And like I said, he is over emphasizing his point about fructose (and by extension sucrose (table sugar)) to his audience who is looking to improve their health thru eating right. But Lustwig is not just emphasizing any fructose, notice that he does not blast fructose from fruits. What he does strongly blast is fructose from HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) added to food.

Now I'm pretty sure there will be PLENTY of evidence other expert contradicting Lustwig, not just Dr Katz that you link. If I google around, I could also come up with a load of other articles contradicting Lustwig too. 

But just like when there were (and still are) plenty of evidence showing that lead in fuel and paint is safe; and cigarette doesn't cause lung cancer ("associate is not causation", right?). Even the theory of evolution is not a proven causation. Anyone who's gone thru a four-year college with a degree in biological/biochemistry will have to agree that there is no absolute proof to most of what is being questioned out there about biology. If there's one field of science that has an equally proportioned viewpoints, it's probably biology/biochemistry. This is probably because living systems are complex to study, and scientists are not as smart as they think they are.

But having said that.... given the limitation of our understanding of biological systems... for me... I will listen to what Lustwig has to sell than what the food industry has to sell. 

Anyone who think that consuming fructose in the form of HFCS (which is what being used in industrialized food chain a lot) is ok because the science against HFCS is "not in yet"... well then let me comfort them with this link:

from "Sweetsurprise" (a pro sugar advocate) is a listing of testimonies/studies from prestigous journals and institutions supporting the use of HFCF:

HFCS Experts - Scientific Research on High Fructose Corn Syrup | SweetSurprise.com

so go on and indulge in HFCS!

But me I shall pass on this one


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

phoehn9111 said:


> You're partially onto the truth, but the key indicator is glycemic index and corresponding glycemic load. Sugar is on the high side, but some
> foods like bread are actually worse for spiking insulin and causing fat
> storage. Low glycemic is the key for lowering body fat percentage


that's correct. 

For example, the supposedly "100% whole wheat" we eat today is not the same wheat our ancestors ate 3000 years ago. The wheat today is high yield; good if you're in a famine and drought region of the world where food access to food can be scarce, but very bad in an industrialized world where these high-yield food is readily available, and at cheap prices. It's ridiculous that a slice of good ole white Wonderbread can have almost as much calories and almost as much bad carbs as a can of Coke! 

Couple this with a sedentary lifestyle, well there's a receipe for disaster. And it's manifested in the population in the form of obesity.

But I will say that some of the health advocates tend to also be a bit of an alarmists. That doesn't mean we should go out of our ways to discredit alarmists. Sometimes they're good for us. I'm ok with alarmists. I'll take their alarm warnings and I will decide for myself if their warnings are worth paying attention to.

Sidenote: I'm lucky enough to be able to spend about 2/3 of the year in the US and 1/3 of it in Asia. And in Asia, I get to see and live in lots of places from the the rural farmlands with (beautiful) rice paddies to the big mega-crowded-cities. What I can clearly see is that the city folks are pretty much eating like their US cousins (ie. fast food, more and more industrialized food) with plenty of sugar in them, and now they are getting fat, their kids are fat (there's a joke here, we call them fat little Chinese emperor). Doctors over there are now fully blaming the Western food cultures. But go out to the farmlands over there, you will be hard pressed to find a fat person. So to me it's appears that the type of diet, AND the quantity of food consumed, plays a huge role in determining overall health. Eastern philosophy already knows this concept for thousand of years in their religions and philosophies (it's called, "moderation"). But in the West, it's called nutritional science, which is a hot thing right now eh.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Alfonsina said:


> Is it desirable for a guy to weigh 115 at 5'7"? I keep thinking I am misreading something.


I don't know, but I'd love to battle with him in the hills.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> First of all, I don't deny that there are some people that can eat anything they want and don't gain weight. But this is a very small exception to the game of weight control. Look at all the past super healthy cyclists, and look at them today. A lot of them have put on huge pounds, and not so healthy anymore. And if happens to ex-pro cyclists, who were taught and fed a healthy diet in their pro years, then it is only that much harder for a regular person to maintain weight.
> 
> Science is now shedding light into why we are becoming so fat. It has to do with our diet, and the introduction of cheap synthetic sugars. Simply put, eating less and exercising more does not work if you do not examine your diet.
> 
> ...


The world can spend days publishing papers on things causing obesity. A sedintary lifestyle is almost always the cause. The only area where I'm currently an exception is how much time I spend on the bike. I can eat whatever I want when riding 8 to 10 hours a week. Take me off the bike and I'm definitely not allowed to do this.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> that's correct.
> 
> For example, the supposedly "100% whole wheat" we eat today is not the same wheat our ancestors ate 3000 years ago. The wheat today is high yield; good if you're in a famine and drought region of the world where food access to food can be scarce, but very bad in an industrialized world where these high-yield food is readily available, and at cheap prices. It's ridiculous that a slice of good ole white Wonderbread can have almost as much calories and almost as much bad carbs as a can of Coke!
> 
> ...


My former doctor was from the Philippines. She said she was shocked the first time she came to the US and ate in a restaurant. She said the serving sizes were disgusting and the amount of meat just on her plate was enough to feed her whole family for a meal. Of course she became westernized and got fat but evidently when she arrived her she was quite a small woman.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

hopefully everyone who has gone through a four-year college degree will also have taken a philosophy of science class and know that empirical science, whether it's physics or biology, is not in the business of proving anything. A proof starts with axioms and proceeds via deductive inferences to truth-preserving conclusions. Empirical science deals with inductive evidence and inductive methods of confirmation (mostly Bayesian). 

So, it's a red herring to suggest that biology is somehow limited by its inability to prove anything. More specifically, Lustwig makes a specific claim about fructose that's not empirically supported by the weight of empirical evidence on this question. The upshot is that what appears to be a specific claim about fructose ends up being trivialized into the old notion that it's caloric excess that drives obesity, not the ingestion of a toxic molecule. Of course, that doesn't sell books, but it has the feeling of truthfulness that appeals to people looking for a simple explanation for a complex problem...



aclinjury said:


> I see your point. And like I said, he is over emphasizing his point about fructose (and by extension sucrose (table sugar)) to his audience who is looking to improve their health thru eating right. But Lustwig is not just emphasizing any fructose, notice that he does not blast fructose from fruits. What he does strongly blast is fructose from HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) added to food.
> 
> Now I'm pretty sure there will be PLENTY of evidence other expert contradicting Lustwig, not just Dr Katz that you link. If I google around, I could also come up with a load of other articles contradicting Lustwig too.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Fructose killed JFK.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Fructose killed JFK.


Needs 3 more paragraphs and links to fancy schmancy studies. :idea:


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

So, sort of back to the OP...
Can anyone hook me up with a fat burning, muscle toning gym workout?
Not at all cycling related.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> hopefully everyone who has gone through a four-year college degree will also have taken a philosophy of science class and know that empirical science, whether it's physics or biology, is not in the business of proving anything. A proof starts with axioms and proceeds via deductive inferences to truth-preserving conclusions. Empirical science deals with inductive evidence and inductive methods of confirmation (mostly Bayesian).
> 
> So, it's a red herring to suggest that biology is somehow limited by its inability to prove anything. More specifically, Lustwig makes a specific claim about fructose that's not empirically supported by the weight of empirical evidence on this question. The upshot is that what appears to be a specific claim about fructose ends up being trivialized into the old notion that it's caloric excess that drives obesity, not the ingestion of a toxic molecule. Of course, that doesn't sell books, but it has the feeling of truthfulness that appeals to people looking for a simple explanation for a complex problem...


well when a lot of the bad sugar is coming from HFCS and injected into lots of food stuff on shelves of the big chain supermarkets, then fructose is effectively a poison. Can you find a "low sugar HFCS" food source on the market shelves? Can you find a healthy HFCS food product with the same nutritional value as that of a natural fruit like an (hopefully still natural) orange, apple, and or even sweet ole honey? Is a can of soda a natural source of fructose? Simply put, processed HFCS and their application across the food spectrum has effective turned fructose into a poison within out food supply system. 

And that is Lustwig's message. He is concerned more with the macro implication of HFCS and how that plays and contribute to macro health status of the population. He is looking at fructose from an epidemiological point of view, and not just from a biochemical point of view.

There are pleny of "skinny fat" people around. Lustwig mentioned that the fat from consuming excess fructose (which a person will certainly do if he consumes too much food products with HFCS, and in the US this quite easily and readily available at the cheapest prices) will be stored as visceral fat (as opposed to subcutaneous fat), and that the visceral fat plays a big role in contributing to metabolic syndrome (more so than subcutaneous fat).

IMO you're trying too hard to see the small details of fructose chemistry and goes to great extend to instill doubt and questions into Lustwig while completely ignore the bigger and practical message of Lustwig's message. It's simply not just a matter of "excess calories that drives metabolic syndrome" that you seem to wish to argue (surely you must know the difference between bad calories and good calories?). Because if it is just a matter of calories intake, and disregarding where those calories come from, then we would not have "skinny fat" people, you know, those with normal (or even low) BMI on the outside, but with very high cholestrol and body fat on the inside.

I will bet that despite all your argument, you seem to be the person who would read all his food labeling and looking for sugar content though.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Nubster said:


> My former doctor was from the Philippines. She said she was shocked the first time she came to the US and ate in a restaurant. She said the serving sizes were disgusting and the amount of meat just on her plate was enough to feed her whole family for a meal. Of course she became westernized and got fat but evidently when she arrived her she was quite a small woman.


As a person who is living on both sides of the Pacific for the last 20 years or so, I can certainly tell you that is exactly what I saw and continue to see. Asia Asians living in big cities are fat. Rural Asians when they moved to the big cities, they become fat. And fat Asians in Asia when they come to America, they become fatter. And even city Asians from Asia when they visit Texas, are mostly shocked by the sizes of the food portion there. It's a health epidemic, worldwide, not just in the US. But of course, if you listen to the food industry scientists, our food supply is normal. No it is not!


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

*Lustig is not Ludwig....And Lustwig = ????*

Ludwig = the director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital. Not pro-Fructose per se. 

JAMA Network | JAMA | Examining the Health Effects of Fructose

Lustig = 'an American pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) where he is a Professor of Clinical Pediatrics. He practices in the field of neuroendocrinology, with an emphasis on the regulation of energy balance by the central nervous system'

Totally anti fructose (way beyond what the data supports).

Lustwig = Combination of both researchers in this thread that is hopefully going to meet a moderate consensus on Fructose (that is way off the OP)


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

jlandry said:


> So, sort of back to the OP...
> Can anyone hook me up with a fat burning, muscle toning gym workout?
> Not at all cycling related.


Well this is a question that will get a million answers, from the gym rats to the PhD in the university lab. 

But let me just give you what I do that works for me. I have been lifting weight since the age of 16, 17 (highschool) and now I'm mid 30s. So that's 17, 18 years of weightlifing. I'm 5'7", and at the height of my "muscular" physique, I was around 143 lbs. I was in my late-20s then, and lifted twice a day, 5 days/wk. At 143 lbs, I look very cut, lean, and I had a lot of strength for a 143-pounder. I did not have that "steroid gut" or "human growth hormone gut" that you hear attributed to the big massive roidheads. But today, I'm 115 lbs, still liftweight, but mostly doing squat and deadlift. Yet, for a 115 lbs cyclist, my body still retain quite a bit of the upperbody muscles (I look nothing like a skinny like a procyclist with skinny t-rex arms, despite the fact that I weight less than almost all pro cyclists if we use weight/height as a criteria). My leg weightlifting routine today is basically the same ones had I used when I was at 143 lbs (and was trying to get as strong as possible). 

Basically it involves 8 sets of squat, ranging from light weight (where you can do at least 10 reps without failure) and get heavier, and as the weight gets heavier the reps also go down to 8 reps, then 6 reps. I don't do a weight where I can't do at least 4 reps without needing help (reason is injury prevention, so instead of doing 4, just do 6 reps at a slightly lighter weight). The only difference is back then, I would workout twice/day (eg, morning I might back and lats, and evening I would do chest). For something like squat, it's consider the king of all weightlifting exercise, so I would dedicate a whole day just for squat (and then some leg extensions, leg hamstring, but that was back then). In benching, deadlifting, or lats pull, or back leg hamstring, I would pretty much use the same number of sets and reps.

It's basically 8 sets, 6-10 reps/set depending on the weight, and I try to structure the set in a "pyramid" in that the heaviest weight occur around the 5th and 6th sets; the 1st - 4th sets and the 7th - 8th sets are flanking sets with lighter weight where I can do at least 8 - 10 reps for those. 

One other difference that I didn't mention is that my rest time between sets that I do today is under 1 minute, where as back then, I would rest about 3-4 minutes between sets. In hindsight, it would have been better to take a shorter rest, but this is just small detail difference.

Almost 2 decades of workout and I'm very content with the result. What the roidheads and science says does not mean much to me, and I've sort of stopped reading about them all together. They come and go with time. My heart rate today, both resting and max, is pretty much the same as when I was in my early 20s (when I started keeping track of these vitals), and I take that as a good sign that I'm doing something that my body likes (steady state is good right??). But I will say this, the older you get, the more it is you hava to pay attention to your diet, moreso than your exercise. Lots of exercise nuts don't seem to get this. They just think just because you exercise a lot, you can eat anything you want. No you can't. If you want a balance body and health, you need to look at the bigger picture than just asking the question "what exercise can I do to lose weight".


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> But I will say this, the older you get, the more it is you hava to pay attention to your diet, moreso than your exercise.


I did taekwondo and worked out for decades. My weight hardly ever varied since I wanted to fight in a specific weight class.
In my late forties I started gaining weight, slowly and steadily, despite maintaining the same training routines and pretty much the same diet. Working out more and more didn't help, it was very frustrating. I got really fat, and only when I cleaned up my diet did the weight start coming off.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

Nubster said:


> You have no idea. No steroids and depends on what you consider a supplement. I personally use whey protein and from time to time creatine. And yeah, people CAN gain that kinda muscle mass in that short amount of time. When I started lifting weights....back in 1998, I went from 170 to 200+ pounds in less than 6 months. I gained so quickly people talked about how I must be taking steroids...blah blah blah...well, I wasn't. I'm just genetically dispositioned to gain muscle easily. Just like some people can lift and do everything perfectly and not gain a thing. I get big and I get strong fast. I gained 65 pounds on my bench in 16 weeks without lifting a single weight...just from pushups and other assorted body weight movements we did in the police academy. So read all the studies you want because they don't relate to everyone. I have a friend who gains even faster than me plus he has a crazy metabolism that keeps him very trim as well. He is just a genetic freak.
> 
> I'm also not sure where you get 3 months. I've been doing CrossFit since October. If my math is correct, that's 5 months. More than enough time for me to gain a mere 10 pounds of muscle. Especially since by your calculation...I should have been able to gain as much as 12.5 pounds in that amount of time at 1 ounce per day. So it seems that I'm actually slacking a little bit...I better pick it up if I want to make my 24 pound gain for the year


I apologize as I was wrong about you as 10lbs of muscle is possible in 5 months, but that's theoretically the max and was never observed in the study. But as I stated, Impossible if you aren't on supplements and you obviously are (I don't mean you are taking roids). 

Taking creatine alone could potentially see huge increases as your muscles take on water. The question is, is that really adding muscle? 

You stated winter months, I don't know about you but winter is 1 season, 3 months. Obviously my assumption of 3 months is incorrect, since winter months now mean 5. :mad2:


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

r1lee said:


> I apologize as I was wrong about you as 10lbs of muscle is possible in 5 months, but that's theoretically the max and was never observed in the study. But as I stated, Impossible if you aren't on supplements and you obviously are (I don't mean you are taking roids).
> 
> Taking creatine alone could potentially see huge increases as your muscles take on water. The question is, is that really adding muscle?
> 
> You stated winter months, I don't know about you but winter is 1 season, 3 months. Obviously my assumption of 3 months is incorrect, since winter months now mean 5. :mad2:


I guess I included fall in there as well...pretty much the cold months I call winter. Thing is...with creatine, yeah, a lot of the initial gain is water weight but it allows you to work harder which in turns allows for more muscle to be built. So while the creatine may not directly build muscle it does help in the building of muscle. In my experience...a lot of the gains can be kept long term after stopping creatine use. I haven't used in maybe 6 weeks but my performance is the same and I don't feel that I've really lost any mass. A high protein diet I think helps preserve a lot of that.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> I did taekwondo and worked out for decades. My weight hardly ever varied since I wanted to fight in a specific weight class.
> In my late forties I started gaining weight, slowly and steadily, despite maintaining the same training routines and pretty much the same diet. Working out more and more didn't help, it was very frustrating. I got really fat, and only when I cleaned up my diet did the weight start coming off.


glad to see you've lost the weight. Though in my 30s, I'm too starting to realize that I have to take care of my body now. Can't wait till the 11th hour to start shaping up. I learn this by observing the older guys, most likely guys like yourself. And it's not just you, I see in other older guys who are in their 40s and 50s too, even those in endurance athletes like ironman and tri they too can struggle with weight. I have a buddy in his late 40s too, and the guy has competed in many Ironman events, even made Kona. Great all around athlete. He's about 5'10", around 165 lbs. It's not like he's fat for a guy his age, or any age for that matter. His diet is in general a balanced diet. But one day he asked how is it that I was able to go from 130 lbs to 115 in 3-4 months. I told him there is no secret.

I told him that I have to do several things with my diet. One is I have to watch my calories. And in a society where we are surround by the excess of food, "watch the calories" basically means "limit the calories" in this context. He did that, cut a lot of the bread and rice, and dropped 10 pounds in 6 weeks and retain all his power. Told me that he has never been so optimistic about placing higher in his ironman career. It's not the training, it's the diet.

Pretty much we have to make the best use of our limited calories. So this requires that we have to eat the "healthy calories" first. And after we have eaten enough healthy calories, any left over calories to spare we can use it for a piece of cake. But in a society of the excess food (hmm, not just excess food, but excess junk food), it is almost never the case that we would have calories left to spare. If we drink a Coke and eat a donut, well that pretty much kills our available calories quota for the day. Now we have to eat extra calories to get the required proper nutrients into our bodies.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I found this on the Naturalnews.com facebook page

It's a US cereal being sold in Europe and forced to follow EU food labeling regulations

As if all the sugar is not enough, look at all that asterisk'ed stuff and what they mean at the bottom. Well if this is not toxic, then it's pretty darn close.

but of course over at the USA, the label would show some % of vitamin A, C, Niacin, Riboflavins... basically all what appears to be "healthy" stuff, right. And with the sugar syrup in there, it should help the food last 10,000 years no problem. Yup, just the stuff our ancestors had evolved to consume.

Jeesh one would have to be either ignorant or paid to trust the US food industry labeling system.


----------



## misterwaterfallin (Sep 14, 2012)

spade2you said:


> I don't know, but I'd love to battle with him in the wind.


FTFY. 

This thread does a great job taking about physical health, but I know personally that when I try to cut out those extra calories to drop the last 5-6 pounds, it is exhausting on my mentally as well. I recently came to the conclusion that I would rather have the extra couple of pounds than fight it tooth and nail and wear myself down. There is more than one way to skin a cat as they say.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Alfonsina said:


> Is it desirable for a guy to weigh 115 at 5'7"? I keep thinking I am misreading something.


In general, probably not desirable nor even necessary to be this light. I simply made a conscious choice to eat less food as I get older.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

spade2you said:


> I don't know, but I'd love to battle with him in the hills.


That would be something interesting! Though I'm not a racer myself, I do ride with lots of them. In a typical 30 - 45 minute, 5% - 6% climb, I generally sustain a 4.2 - 4.3 W/kg, and is pretty much an all out effort for me.


----------



## irenecortws (Mar 14, 2014)

Does mountain biking make a difference? I Mountain bike for about an hour and 30 minuets to 2 hours and 30 minutes 3 days a week and I'm trying to loose weight. I race for a team but I am the slowest rider and loosing weight will help me get fast. I am also looking into road biking because I love biking any advice would be nice.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

irenecortws said:


> Does mountain biking make a difference? I Mountain bike for about an hour and 30 minuets to 2 hours and 30 minutes 3 days a week and I'm trying to loose weight. I race for a team but I am the slowest rider and loosing weight will help me get fast. I am also looking into road biking because I love biking any advice would be nice.


Sure it would. It's a great way to get in exercise. I find that mountain biking gives me a different workout than road cycling but about the same in quality. I think of it like this...mountain biking is more like intervals...short intense sprints with medium rests in between whereas road biking is more like a long moderate paced jog. Mixing them will give great results. I lost 80 pounds last year with bike riding as my only form of exercise a long with an improved diet.


----------



## irenecortws (Mar 14, 2014)

I just started biking about 2 months ago and I love it Im looking to get a road bike soon enough so i can start rode biking but for now i use my mountain bike to do road rides and I weight 196 So Im trying to loose at least 50 pounds to be healthy and work on getting lean


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

Nice weight loss there Nubster.

I find MTB riding to be less strenuous overall than road riding. There's a lot of terrain when you're can't pedal and descents take longer because they're much slower. Also I notice in my area that group MTB rides tend to have a lot of stopped and not riding time. You're not losing weight when you're standing around talking instead of riding.

But MTB riding is a lot of fun and it's still going to burn calories, just a bit less per hour as road riding. So if you like it, do it.

Most MTB racers do a lot of training on the road because they can get a more consistent workout there- less of a need to stop pedaling (assuming you're not in town), easier to fit intervals into the terrain, etc. Where I am many trails are closed in the winter to prevent damage while the ground is wet so there's fewer places to ride. And last, most people have to drive to get to the trails but can start a road ride from their house.

Edit: you clarified after I posted that you're riding a MTB on the road, which is of course road riding, not off-road riding. I'll leave my post as it was in case anyone cares.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

irenecortws said:


> I just started biking about 2 months ago and I love it Im looking to get a road bike soon enough so i can start rode biking but for now i use my mountain bike to do road rides and I weight 196 So Im trying to loose at least 50 pounds to be healthy and work on getting lean


There's a lot of guys (gals too I'm sure) that loose a lot of weight on a bike. One or the other or both. Last year I was probably 95/5 road to mountain biking. I'd like to do more mountain biking this year but it's so inconvenient driving to trails and in my area there's none within an hour of my house. I can however leave my driveway and ride some really great 50+ mile loops on my road bike...so it of course gets more ride time. That and I found that I actually enjoy riding the road a bit more.


----------



## irenecortws (Mar 14, 2014)

Well i mountain bike for my high school team but I do road ride but not as often as i would like to, my last road ride was probably like 3 weeks ago


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

ericm979 said:


> Nice weight loss there Nubster.
> 
> I find MTB riding to be less strenuous overall than road riding. There's a lot of terrain when you're can't pedal and descents take longer because they're much slower. Also I notice in my area that group MTB rides tend to have a lot of stopped and not riding time. You're not losing weight when you're standing around talking instead of riding.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I find that to be true. That's why I kinda liken it to interval training. You hit a short steep climb fast and furious and at the top instead of continuing...I find it's common to stop and rest at the top whether because you're a little winded or you have to wait for the rest of your riding party since you more or less take turns on the climbs when riding single track. There's also a lot more breaks in general. When on the road, in 50 miles, we might stop and take a very short break about every 15 miles or so...if that. That's usually a break for everyone else to wait for me to catch up...lol


----------



## irenecortws (Mar 14, 2014)

Nubster said:


> Yeah, I find that to be true. That's why I kinda liken it to interval training. You hit a short steep climb fast and furious and at the top instead of continuing...I find it's common to stop and rest at the top whether because you're a little winded or you have to wait for the rest of your riding party since you more or less take turns on the climbs when riding single track. There's also a lot more breaks in general. When on the road, in 50 miles, we might stop and take a very short break about every 15 miles or so...if that. That's usually a break for everyone else to wait for me to catch up...lol


Its so true that's always me with my teammates they take a break waiting for me because i am the slowest then continue as soon as i'm visible. But since we have trails like 5 to 10 minutes away Its really nice, I have a question I posted a thread about the road bikes I want to get I cant decide because i don't know much of road biking but I'm debating between the Scoot Foil team Issue and the Scott addict 10 The addict 10 is cheaper which is why I like it but I don't understand the big difference between the foil and the addict


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

r1lee said:


> Taking creatine alone could potentially see huge increases as your muscles take on water


Creatine should only add 5 pounds, tops. My workout partner is around 265, even on him it only adds five pounds.
It def helps with the lifting.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Creatine should only add 5 pounds, tops. My workout partner is around 265, even on him it only adds five pounds.
> It def helps with the lifting.


While you may only gain a little from the creatine directly water weight which makes the muscle look fuller...you will also gain some strength from that and increased endurance as well which allows you to lift a little heavier for a couple more reps than you would without the creatine. Thus you can build more muscle. If you stop using creatine you may loose the water weight but with proper diet you'll keep the muscle gains you made while on creatine. It's definitely not a miracle supplement but it does work for most people. It's just something that helps give a little extra that you might otherwise not have.


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

ericm979 said:


> Most MTB racers do a lot of training on the road because they can get a more consistent workout there- less of a need to stop pedaling (assuming you're not in town), easier to fit intervals into the terrain, etc. Where I am many trails are closed in the winter to prevent damage while the ground is wet so there's fewer places to ride. And last, most people have to drive to get to the trails but can start a road ride from their house.


One of the main reasons a lot of training is done on road bikes for mountain bikers is to help with recovery. The body simply cannot take the pounding of riding dirt for every training ride throughout the week and recover in time. Ditto for those who operate a jack hammer...

Some of that has been mitigated somewhat with today's full suspension technology, but you still really shake up your vittles and vitals and joints on rough dirt. 

Let's not forget gravel for great training rides as well. Nice scenery, very few cars (makes it ultra safe), and built in intervals as you try and outsprint the farmyard dogs...:thumbsup:


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

spade2you said:


> Ride a lot. Spend more time working out than paying attention to @$^#$^ fad diets.


pretty much the deal.

weight loss happens when one is a negative calorie cycle. two ways to do it

1) less calories in relative to calories out

2) more calories out relative to calories in

its that simple. want to lose weight? cut back on calorie and/or up your exercise.

have an understanding of how the body works, but dont get wrapped up in the details, its not that complicated. you can get all tweeked on calorie counting nonsense, but ultimately the clothes and the mirror do not lie. water, a gallon of water a day.....one of the cheapest, healthiest, fastest ways to increase metabolism, boost energy and stip off fat. try it, its a full time job.

there are as many "right way to do it and wrong" as there are diet gurus out there. and there are ways that are (marginally) more healthy than others. be cautioned of "diet", as there is only lifestyle choices. there is a difference. diets will fail you, and you will fail diets....lifestyle choice has more staying power.

yes there are supplements to help split the hairs on your weight loss (or gain) and performance program, however the majority of the work comes in the form of how and what you are getting your nutrition from. eg, if you are on a low carb, high workout plan eventually you will not be willing to get out of bed to do your workout (or anything else for that matter), as you have starved yourself of fuel. 

dieting/weight loss and muscle building are oxymorons, for mornons. it isnt possible. to gain muscle it takes calories and protein, cut back calories and you go catabolic.....only the best trainers in the world could even attempt to create a plan like that, even so they know that a gain/loss cycle is the best way, anyone tells you different, then they are telling you that they have the magic secret, or a god complex. be wary of the god complex.

wanna lose weight and go fast? pedal, pedal, pedal. drink, drink, drink. fuel, fuel, fuel.....but its $o much more effective to lo$e 2lb$ off the bike, aint it?


----------

