# How to lose weight : A realist's POV



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

Losing weight isn't rocket science. This deserves to be a sticky in itself. Tired of constant lip service being paid to the same question over and over. Is as follows.



Do everything you do normally except take calorie count of let's say, yesterday, and deduct 500. That's calories in a day, minus 500. Don't eat more than that, ok? Then after a month or two, if you're still eating too many calories *judgement call*, minus some more, but don't eat more that that, OK? I don't care if you eat three or twenty meals a day, don't eat more than that, ok?

*Don't eat more than that, ok?

Promise?

Pinky swear?

Ok? Good, then you should lose weight.
*


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

RichieB313 said:


> So how many miles should I cycle?
> Isn't like 25 miles a quarter pound?


You know there is some math to it. Simple math. Internet searches should give most people a reasonable idea of how many calories they should be eating to reach their desired weight. Activity does effect the amount of calories a person can consume... but not by as much as most people would think.

There are formula's for calculating calories burned while cycling (and for walking, jogging, dancing, and so on). The program I use says a 180 man bicycling for 2 hours at 12-14 MPH... should burn 1230 calories. A pound is 3500 calories. *So... in theory.. yeah! A 25 mile ride should be about 4-5 ounces lost.* Of course the math isn't perfect... but it isn't awful ether.

I actually gained weight while cycling before I realized that even a small treat after or during a ride could wipe-out any losses due to calories burned. 

Learning how many calories I should eat was my 1st step to losing weight. I used an app, that required me to log my weight daily. Then the app re-calculated how many calories I needed to maintain my weight. Every day, the app subtracted 1000 calories from what I needed. So the amount of food I ate got progressively smaller. 7000 calories less than needed per week meant I lost 2 pounds. Activity (exercise) is required to keep the body energized. By bicycling I was able to nearly double the weight loss. 

I actually lost 62 pounds in 4 months.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

It's simple, but it aint easy.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

looigi said:


> It's simple, but it aint easy.


Losing weight is simple. Getting faster is simple. Doing both at the same time, not quite simple.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

looigi said:


> It's simple, but it aint easy.


Yeah. The math part is simple. Everything else is a struggle with ourselves. Or having faith.... or both.


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

JasonLopez said:


> Do everything you do normally except take calorie count of let's say, yesterday, and deduct 500. That's calories in a day, minus 500. [/U][/B]


That's pretty much it......calorie control. 

Another big problem is that restaurants (fast food and normal) are set up to give too many calories. 

I find if I limit myself to a 4 or 5 dollar meal, it's pretty difficult to consume too many calories (Calories are somewhat a function of dollars paid). 

For example, Five Guys Burgers: for $4 and change you get their "small hamburger" and water. I also found this little Cafe that has great half sandwich and cup of soup for just under 5 bucks. 

About 80% of the time I eat the food I make, but sometimes you gotta eat out, and it's difficult to find those restaurants that have inexpensive, low cal meals.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Wrong formula*



Dave Cutter said:


> There are formula's for calculating calories burned while cycling (and for walking, jogging, dancing, and so on). The program I use says a 180 man bicycling for 2 hours at 12-14 MPH... should burn 1230 calories.


Your numbers are way off. A 180 lb (82 kg) at 14 mph (23 km/hr) on a road bike will burn about 270 calories per hour. The calorie burn at 12 mph is about 200 per hour. The number you quote is the calorie burn for slightly less than 20 mph (32 km/hr).


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Kerry Irons said:


> Your numbers are way off. A 180 lb (82 kg) at 14 mph (23 km/hr) on a road bike will burn about 270 calories per hour. The calorie burn at 12 mph is about 200 per hour. The number you quote is the calorie burn for slightly less than 20 mph (32 km/hr).


Yeah... I hear ya! The numbers I used are standard... I actually did NOT perform the tests myself. But I believe that data is what the CDC [_American_ Center for Disease Control] also uses for calculating calories “_for *diet purposes*_”. I am confident that the figures work.

I think the problems with these figure arise with cyclist when people look at “calories expelled as a form of power”. Consuming calories... and expelling calories as a form of energy measurement can't be can't be an even exchange. No machine... not even the bio-chemical human machine.... operates at 100% efficiency. You can't look at power generated and think this would be the required energy my body needs to consume.


----------



## kg1 (Apr 17, 2002)

*This is like...*



JasonLopez said:


> Losing weight isn't rocket science. This deserves to be a sticky in itself. Tired of constant lip service being paid to the same question over and over. Is as follows.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I heard someone say that this sort of solution to weight loss is like answering the question "Why is this room filing up with people?" by saying, "Oh it's because more people are coming into the room than are leaving it." It doesn't answer the real question: "Why can't I eat 500 less calories per day than I want to eat? I've tried and tried and tried, and I can't do it." 

Thanks.

kg1


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

kg1 said:


> It doesn't answer the real question: "Why can't I eat 500 less calories per day than I want to eat? I've tried and tried and tried, and I can't do it."


I have no idea. Seek help from a professional.

That's the crux of what I'm saying. * It's all about self control.* If you don't have that, frankly I can't help you. That's all on you.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

kg1 said:


> "Why can't I eat 500 less calories per day than I want to eat? I've tried and tried and tried, and I can't do it."
> 
> kg1


Humans are three dimensional. We are [of course] physical, as well as intellectual. And...._ like it or not_ we are also spiritual beings. Such complex interactions of the various sides of just ourselves... could drive good men (and women) to drink. Or... I would guess... any number of addictive and/or self-destructive behaviors. 

I found that by cutting high calorie foods (pasta, bread, chips, beef, and sweets) from my diet I could consume a lot of food. So I wasn't hungry all that often. I did go to bed hungry more than a few times though. I was surprised that it didn't keep me from sleeping.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I haven't tried to cut 500 calories all at once. I learned basically the same weight loss thing, but with 100 calories at a time and evaluating every two weeks.

I start by eliminating snacking. That's often more than 500 calories, let alone 100, so for a lot of people, that would actually be enough, and maybe even require subing a different snack or something. (Something else I've done in the past.) Snacks are an easy place for a bunch of calorie consumption to sneak in.

After that, I just reduce the amount of food I prepare. I still eat everything in front of me. There's just less. I still stop being hungry - there's supposed to be a delay between eating and feeling full, so making it harder to keep stuffing my face during that delay makes it easier for me to stick to my plan.


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> *There's supposed to be a delay between eating and feeling full*


Roughly ten minutes. That's a solid rule of thumb. Quote me on that.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Watch out, I will!


----------



## BigDweeb (Jun 26, 2007)

I had some success working my ass off (or course) and paying attention to carbs. I'm not talking about NO carb diets. I's just that once I started paying attention i realized that I eat a shirtload of carbs.

worked for me.

(and no it wasn't badass)


----------



## old_fuji (Mar 16, 2009)

Hint: It's not that simple.

For a healthy, active person in their physical prime (18-30) yes, it may be...but it's not nearly that cut-and-dry for every person out there. Even then, it's not as simple as not eating 500 calories...it's multi-faceted, trying to eat a balanced diet while cutting those calories out.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

I cut roughly 7000 calories a week from my diet. I did limit pasta and rice... both I really like but are just so calorie rich. But all I actually “cut” from my diet was potato chips [and other snack crapola] and cookies. Almost all of the snack stuff I had eaten when heavy, I ate in the evenings... or later at night. 

Now... if after dinner... I get really hungry... I might have a few carrot fingers or a celery stalk. But for the most part I practice a 12 hour [at least] fast between dinner and breakfast. 

I mostly stick with the old fashioned three square meals a day. I also try to balance the proper amounts of fruits, veggies, grains, dairy, and meat.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

old_fuji said:


> Hint: It's not that simple.
> 
> For a healthy, active person in their physical prime (18-30) yes, it may be...but it's not nearly that cut-and-dry for every person out there. Even then, it's not as simple as not eating 500 calories...it's multi-faceted, trying to eat a balanced diet while cutting those calories out.


You're so right!

I am well pass what would normally be called prime (I am a senior). Although I didn't consider myself un-knowledgeable about such things I did have to do a little food/diet research. It also took a little more menu planning as well. 

But the math of dieting is still simple. The CDC site is packed with information: CDC - Healthy Living


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Dave Cutter said:


> Yeah... I hear ya! The numbers I used are standard... I actually did NOT perform the tests myself. But I believe that data is what the CDC [_American_ Center for Disease Control] also uses for calculating calories “_for *diet purposes*_”. I am confident that the figures work.
> 
> I think the problems with these figure arise with cyclist when people look at “calories expelled as a form of power”. Consuming calories... and expelling calories as a form of energy measurement can't be can't be an even exchange. No machine... not even the bio-chemical human machine.... operates at 100% efficiency. You can't look at power generated and think this would be the required energy my body needs to consume.


Kerry already included efficiency, around 20-25%
@14mph only 60 watt goes to the rear wheel, in the ballpark 200 is "wasted" as heat. If the numbers you quoted were true most people would have a heat stroke going up hills.


----------



## RJP Diver (Jul 2, 2010)

JasonLopez said:


> Losing weight isn't rocket science.


Eat less. Move more.


----------



## Gudmann (Jun 6, 2012)

For me the exercise did not cause the weight loss.

I started to eat better to 
1) Not ruin the benefit of the exercise with a bag of potato chips or chocolate bar
2) Lose weight to be able to go faster and longer.

First to go where the plain extras, chips and candy ( chocolate is my poison of choice ) and tubs of icecream

Then fresh fruit for snacks, kill that 5 o'clock craving that had me eating a sandwich or two before dinner.

After that balancing meals better, more of fresh or boiled veggies, leaner meat, more fish, less potatoes, pasta and rice.

Lastly reducing portion size.

This has been two steps forward - one step back ongoing for three years with 33 - 35 lbs lost. I've taken periods of weeks or month of relaxing, but not allowing the weight to creap up more than 2 - 3 pounds, then starting again. Also weight loss has stopped for a few weeks even with careful eating and I've had to kickstart it with a "salad week".

What has kept me going this time is the exercise - seeing constant improvement in speed and endurance and not wanting to go ruin that. As I said earlier - it's not due to the exercise but the exercise keeps the discipline ongoing.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

BTW, Excellent book on the subject IMO:

"Sports Nutrition for Endurance Athletes", Monique Ryan.


----------



## cobra5514 (Aug 10, 2012)

RJP Diver said:


> Eat less. Move more.


I agree to a point. I also think people need to be mindful of what they eat and how it affects them. To me, that's being mindful of what's in what. I make it a point to read nutrition labels including portion sizes and the calorie counts of that amount. Most people I know are pretty suprised at what a single serving size really looks like.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

den bakker said:


> Kerry already included efficiency, around 20-25%
> @14mph only 60 watt goes to the rear wheel, in the ballpark 200 is "wasted" as heat. If the numbers you quoted were true most people would have a heat stroke going up hills.


 I know... a lot of people disagree with the numbers presented by the doctors and researchers. I just don't accept the idea that “the medical experts" are fools and idiots. I am really sorry... but I refuse to believe that my doctor only went to med school because he thought going to law school would be too hard. (Sorry again... _that's an inside joke_).

The standardized figures on exercise are about as widely accepted as the calorie/food charts. And... based on the experiences of millions of people.... [_it would seem to me to be_] just about as accurate. I, myself, have never performed any of the tests to measure the amount of vitamin C in an orange. Yet... I do believe that the standard figures given as to an orange's content.... are factual. 

You are free [of course] to discard any of the information presented by the medical experts.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

cobra5514 said:


> ........ read nutrition labels including portion sizes and the calorie counts of that amount. Most people I know are pretty suprised at what a single serving size really looks like.


I actually have and use measurement cups and a small kitchen scale to control portions of my meals at home. Both items can be purchased at a dollar store are easy to use and make a huge difference.

I also use a calorie/food searching app on my tablet.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Don't eat much - small portions, don't eat at night and exercise some. Losing weight is all about diet, not exercise


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I think it's both... but people's appetites will scale to maintain weight at almost any level of exercise. So trying to do it on exercise alone frequently doesn't work out.

When I was in college, actually I had the other problem. But I was training for something else pretty seriously, probably around twenty or thirty hours a week. And I was a lot closer to still having my teenager metabolism.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

If maintaining a healthy weight and diet was simple everyone would be the proper weight and we would never have this discussion. Assuming that the folks on this forum exercise and are in decent shape and still have a heckuva time maintaining a healthy weight, it shows just how difficult it actually is.
There is no simple solution, or rather there is, but the will power required to follow it is beyond most of us.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

So I can eat 3 Big Macs instead of 4? OK


----------



## cobra5514 (Aug 10, 2012)

nOOky said:


> the will power required to follow it is beyond most of us.


I don't think it's that simple. In my experience, part of its ignorance, ie. many people just don't realize how much a cup is. However, In my journey, noticed there's a certain cultural or social aspect too. There are certain norms and customs are seemingly not conducive to a healthy lifestyle such as "cleaning your plate." I find that if I do that I almost always overheat, which really isn't healthy. I also realized that many people don't know the difference between satisfied, full and stuffed. All in all it's a pretty complicated issue.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I think my weight is healthy.

I just think I'm faster at 140.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

David Loving said:


> Losing weight is all about diet, not exercise


wrong.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

This is great stuff!

Being older... I know that 50 years ago... weight wasn't nearly the problem it is today. It wasn't that people struggled to stay thin ether. Mom cooked with lard and we always had meat with meals (bacon was common). 

If we use an old trouble-shooters tool... to find the problem... we go back until we find a place (in this case date) as to when things worked. If I remember correctly weight problems began with adults in the late 60's (in the 80's with children). So in the 50's.... Americans [at least] had plenty to eat... yet no serious cultural weight problems (although we all knew some individuals who struggled). 

Well since I remember the 50's like yesterday I can tell you what changed. Processed foods. TV dinners were a new idea (so was a frozen pre-made Sara Lee cake). We hadn't yet been taught to fear, foods, or hunger. We ate normal, filling, old fashion meals. 

We also... dropped dead from heart attacks. We really did! Adult males were hit hard in the late 50's and 60's. That is when we started altering diets... in the 60's. About the same time processed foods became widely available. I guess... I blame processed foods.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

How to lose or maintain weight is not the hard part. We all know how to do it. It is the doing it that is hard. For me, losing 112 lbs, in a little over a year, I had to figure out 2 big things.

1) Why was I eating the way I was. It was not because I enjoyed it. I often ate in ways I was ashamed of (sneaking food, binges, over eat and feel lousy). I had a dependency issue in some ways similar to an addiction. While I will not try to say that food issues are as addictive as alcohol or heroine, you also cannot give up food either. I ate to compensate for things in my life. I had to figure that out, and find new ways to deal with them. One was to use not eating and eating healthy as a similar control trigger. Second was to exercise to relieve stress.

2) Figure out how to enjoy exercise. That is why I started cycling "for real". I made a goal of competing in triathlons, and it gave me the inspiration to get up early and bike or run. I realized I enjoyed both (never thought I would enjoy running). Now I don't just look to get through a 5k run, I look forward to a 10k. If you don't figure out how to enjoy exercise then you won't do it for the long term. It is very difficult to lose or maintain weight if you don't balance diet and exercise


----------



## kg1 (Apr 17, 2002)

*Helpful Stuff*

I found the last two posts were insightful and helpful, thank you for those.

My hat is off to those who can simply eat less and, as a result, weight less. That must take incredible self control. I understand that it is possible, through sheer will and determination, to lose weight and keep it off. I also understand that most people haven't been successful with this approach. As Dave Cutter notes, it hasn't always been this way.I came across the following today from a study summarized in this week's Science News:

"When a person downs too much linoleic acid, it is as if the reward-seeking switch in the brain gets stuck in the 'on' position. The impact -- at least in Hibbeln's mouse study -- is visible to the naket eye.

"Some of the animals in the study chowed down on a diet that derived 1 percent of its calories from linoleic acid, a proportion consistent with what American's typically at around 1900. Animals in the second group ate food in which linoleic acid supplied 8 percent of all calories, and amount in line what's found in a more modern U.S Diet. Even though both groups received the same proportion of their calories from fat and carbs, mice getting linoleic acid gained substantially more weight."

The full text of the article is here:

Tricks Foods Play - Science News

I really dislike blaming exogenous factors for personal failings, and I think that most obese people would consider their condition a personal failing. But the fact that this epidemic makes it more than simply personal. This is something that we as a society need to figure out. We are all paying for it know through our health insurance premiums (those of us lucky enough to have health insurance), and it will only get worse as we get fatter and older.

I am hopeful that there will be some identifiable cause of the problem that we can correct -- not enough sleep, too many screens, HFCS or linoleic acid. For me, now, the best solution is to avoid processed foods. This is a rather expensive and time consuming way to eat, and probalby isn't available to everyone, but boy do I feel better.

Kudos to you who struggle, and to those who succeed.

Thanks.

kg1


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

kg1 said:


> I found the last two posts were insightful and helpful, thank you for those.
> 
> My hat is off to those who can simply eat less and, as a result, weight less. That must take incredible self control. I understand that it is possible, through sheer will and determination, to lose weight and keep it off. I also understand that most people haven't been successful with this approach. As Dave Cutter notes, it hasn't always been this way.I came across the following today from a study summarized in this week's Science News:
> 
> ...


I plan on reading that article later, no time to get through it all now. I did want to comment on a couple things in your post.

-I think many obese people would not look at it as a personal failing. I didn't when I was. I was in denial, I said I was enjoying life, I said a lot of things... fail was not one
-Many obese people do not comprehend how bad they are. Avoid the scale, say the camera adds weight (or "not photogenic"), etc.
-The biggest hurdle to successfully losing weight and more-so keeping it off is goals. People start losing weight with a goal, and it works. If the goal is not solid (not realistic, not well defined, etc.) they may stop before they should. But say they reach their goal, then what? That is the key... the "then what". Why are you doing it? What is keeping you on track? I have food issues, I cannot trust myself to just maintain forever. So I have a goal. Triathlons before, and again in the future. Half Marathon in November. That is what keeps me on track.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

One cannot exercise enough or ride hard and far enough to offset bad food choices and large portions. Add alcoholic beverages and soda pop and see how you do. Good eating habits and moderate exercise will do it. Why do you think the pros in training weigh their food? I have lost about 30 lbs this year just cleaning up eating habits: Ideally, no processed foods. nothing 'white' except cauliflower, small portions etc. I'm hardly perfect at it. I don't drink. Cycling and lap swimming - but not as much as I used to do when I was younger (I'm 68). If it was mainly exercise, I'd be fine; but the eating regimen is difficult. It's worth it not to end up in one of those motorized chairs in 15 or 20 years.


----------



## SpinninWheels (May 15, 2012)

Here's my experience:

I dropped from 99kg (218lb) to 75kg (165) between 15 Jan and end May this year.

1. It’s all about will power. When you really want to lose the weight you will.
2. Definitely count the calories. A online database is easy to use. I would enter a food before I ate it, that way I could see what it did to my daily total BEFORE it was too late. In a lot of cases I put it back in the cupboard and had a big glass of water. Visibility is power! (and sometimes you are not really hungry, you just miss the full feeling).
3. My routine was to train Mon, Wed, Fri + a nice long social ride on Sunday. On the training days I would have my calorie count as a deficit (i.e. burn more than I ate) note: that is according to the calculator, wether is actually was or not is debatable, but the motivation to think I burnt more than consumed was huge.
4. Change habits. If you a serious about losing weight stop drinking booze and put the chocolate biscuits in the bin!! Buy lots of fruit, fresh veg and things like rice, tuna, lean chicken etc
5. Give yourself a goal reward. Mine was a shiny new S-Works Venge - makes all the hard work worth it.

When you get there you won’t believe how good you feel and how much more capable you are on the bike, running and a million other things.

Good luck!


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

David Loving said:


> ..... Cycling and lap swimming - but not as much as I used to do when I was younger (I'm 68). If it was mainly exercise, I'd be fine; but the eating regimen is difficult. It's worth it not to end up in one of those motorized chairs in 15 or 20 years.


I joke that taking care of myself will be for not... if while I am out cycling.. I am run-over by some texting motorist. 

I try to live like: Today may be my last day...... [_while planning to live to 100_].

I do a little walking/jogging after dinner or before breakfast for exercise and to burn calories. I bicycle a couple thousand miles a year... simply because I love bicycling. 

Some people seem perfectly happy carrying around a couple hundred extra pounds (and God bless them for that). Fifty extra pounds (_OK... 75_) made me miserable. But even the hassles of being fat might have been worth it if the extra pounds came from gourmet meals. But in my case it was store brand Frito's and Oreo cookies. 

I am much happier thin... than with with a plate of snack food that disappears without satisfaction or even a lingering of enjoyment.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Facts*



Dave Cutter said:


> I know... a lot of people disagree with the numbers presented by the doctors and researchers. I just don't accept the idea that “the medical experts" are fools and idiots. I am really sorry... but I refuse to believe that my doctor only went to med school because he thought going to law school would be too hard. (Sorry again... _that's an inside joke_).
> 
> The standardized figures on exercise are about as widely accepted as the calorie/food charts. And... based on the experiences of millions of people.... [_it would seem to me to be_] just about as accurate. I, myself, have never performed any of the tests to measure the amount of vitamin C in an orange. Yet... I do believe that the standard figures given as to an orange's content.... are factual.
> 
> You are free [of course] to discard any of the information presented by the medical experts.


Actually the standard figures for exercise have nothing to do with the real world of bicycling. They assume a beach cruiser with underinflated tires ridden by a totally out of shape couch potato. They are based on an extremely small sample that is not at all representative. Just as the "growth charts" used by nearly every pediatrician in the US were based on a small sample of kids at a parochial school.

Don't kid yourself about doctors being "scientists." There is a ton of data about how many watts it takes to go a given speed on a road bike, and assuming the standard 24% metabolic efficiency for a reasonably fit athlete your numbers are way wrong. You would have to have a metabolic efficiency of 11% in order for your numbers to be correct.

Any time you see a number reported for a speed range you can right away assume it is bogus. Just as example you cited a caloric expenditure for 12-14 mph. It takes 40% more power to go 14 mph than 12 mph.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Old pictures*



nOOky said:


> If maintaining a healthy weight and diet was simple everyone would be the proper weight and we would never have this discussion.


And yet if you look at family pictures from three generations back there hardly ever was an overweight person. We live in an age where massive amounts of calories are available to us all the time. We have evolved to put on weight and when you put those two things together you get a problem. I think soft drink consumption in the US alone accounts for an extra 700 calories per week compared to when we used to drink water when we were thirsty. That's a calorie driver to gain 10 lb. per year.


----------



## jschlesi (Sep 28, 2012)

If you are 20-30 lbs over weight then it is a simple math problem. Less in more out. 
More weight than that and really has nothing to do with food. It is just another symptom of other bigger issues. 

I was 320 lbs two rears ago. I was big as a


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Kerry Irons said:


> Don't kid yourself about doctors being "scientists." ...... *your numbers* are way wrong. You would have to have a metabolic efficiency of 11% in order for *your numbers t*o be correct.


Please... if you're not going to take the time to read my posts... don't respond to them. I had clearly stated in my post that these are NOT my numbers... they are merely the accepted and standard numbers used in most calculations. I quoted the CDC as the source... NOT me.

Apparently you have more confidence in YOUR numbers... based on some formula that you haven't shared. *I gladly admit, YOUR figures may be better* (or complete nonsense)... I have no way of knowing. So I accept the standard published figures. 

I would assume that a race-fit cyclist would realize that the efficiency differences would be huge. As would those same differences of a racer, and a 250+ pound man trying to lose weight. This is a thread about weight loss... not power meters.

Do you think that the differences in cycling calorie formulas are the cause for so many peoples struggles with weight control?


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Kerry Irons said:


> .... I think soft drink consumption in the US alone accounts for an extra 700 calories per week compared to when we used to drink water when we were thirsty. That's a calorie driver to gain 10 lb. per year.


I am old... but not THAT old! I really don't remember the water drinking. Coke was fist bottled in 1894. And KoolAid has been drank by kids since the 1920's. 

Water got much cleaner and tastier in the 70''s... and by then most of us drank other stuff (remember Tang?).


----------



## Gudmann (Jun 6, 2012)

SpinninWheels said:


> Here's my experience:
> ...
> In a lot of cases I put it back in the cupboard and had a big glass of water. Visibility is power! (and sometimes you are not really hungry, you just miss the full feeling).
> ...
> Good luck!


That is my experience as well, that I'd have to accept a bit of a hungry feeling.. although I don't want to call it hunger, more like a "Yeah, I could eat" - but then I don't.

It's not healthy to feel full all the time and I had conditioned myself to satisfy every appetite there and then.

It's fine to get hungry mid morning, then have lunch 2 hours later, the hunger feeling dissipates because it's not really hunger, it's habit.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

jschlesi said:


> I was 320 lbs two rears ago. I was big as a


as big as two rears?


----------



## jschlesi (Sep 28, 2012)

Sorry tapatalk closed on me 

I was a big kid but not fat graduated college and high school at 215. After that the weight came on. Finally decided to get serious a few years ago. When you are over 300 and trying to lose the first 30 comes off easy with just exercise. The next 30 you need to add more diligence with the diet and exercise. The next level is even harder. 
But when you are an eater it is hard to stay or drop without considerable effort. But like all addictions. Once you realize it isnt about the food. You are halfway home.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 8, 2006)

permanent weight loss isn't rocket science burn more calories than you consume PERIOD.

eliminate Wheat and Sugar outta of your diet and the weight will fall off and STAY off.

processed food is crap avoid anything in a bag, box or can...yes that includes carbonated beverages

eat FRESH vegetables, fruit and grass fed beef. 

we have been on the paleo diet for a few years now and feel fantastic gluten free isn't just a fad.


----------



## kg1 (Apr 17, 2002)

*Agree 100% with your whole statement*



Hello Kitty said:


> permanent weight loss isn't rocket science burn more calories than you consume PERIOD.
> 
> eliminate Wheat and Sugar outta of your diet and the weight will fall off and STAY off.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% with your whole post. If you had stopped after the first sentence, I would have said that your post was absolutely unhelpful. You didn't just eat less, you completely changed the way you were eating.The point isn't the eat less, weigh less formula; it's figure out what you need to do, what changes you have to make (e.g. "eliminate wheat and sugar"), so that you can eat less. That's the point. And the more I listen and read about people who have been successful in the long term in eating a healthy diet, the more it seems to point to the changes you have adopted.

Thanks for your post.

kg1



Thanks.

kg1


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Now that we're already talking about the The ________ Diets, time to cut the bull.

What makes losing weight NOT as simple as eating less and/or working out more is that in the RACER sub-forum, loss of fitness is not a goal. Try doing power intervals or a long base workout in a very fasted state. What's going to happen? You're going to have a piss poor workout. If you don't bonk, you're going to have lower power output than desired. 

Now, let's say you're eating adequate before the power intervals or long base workout. You consume too few calories after the workout. What's going to happen? Recovery will be much slower. 

Why are these problems? Hopefully you can figure that one out. As a result, I find that a very gradual approach is ideal if your goal is to be riding faster.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Kerry Irons said:


> Actually the standard figures for exercise have nothing to do with the real world of bicycling. They assume a beach cruiser with underinflated tires ridden by a totally out of shape couch potato. They are based on an extremely small sample that is not at all representative. Just as the "growth charts" used by nearly every pediatrician in the US were based on a small sample of kids at a parochial school.
> 
> Don't kid yourself about doctors being "scientists." There is a ton of data about how many watts it takes to go a given speed on a road bike, and assuming the standard 24% metabolic efficiency for a reasonably fit athlete your numbers are way wrong. You would have to have a metabolic efficiency of 11% in order for your numbers to be correct.
> 
> Any time you see a number reported for a speed range you can right away assume it is bogus. Just as example you cited a caloric expenditure for 12-14 mph. It takes 40% more power to go 14 mph than 12 mph.


It would be nice if a fast-ish long-ish saturday ride would result in a weight loss measured in pounds though.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Dave Cutter said:


> Coke was fist bottled in 1894


And until the 70s or 80s it was sweetened with sugar, real sugar. Then Coke and Pepsi changed to high fructose corn syrup. Occasionally our local Pepsi plant makes batches of "Throwback" Pepsi sweetened with actual sugar and the difference is amazing. The old style stuff tastes way better. I cut out new Pepsi altogether after realising how crappy it was compared to old Pepsi.

I've read Wheat Belly as per the recent thread. It refers to the changes in diet and food production in the 70s and 80s. This change coincides with the sudden epidemic of obesity. Seriously, take a look at how many items in your grocery store have HFCS in them! It's in almost everything, I couldn't believe it once I looked for it. 

Cutting carbs and not worrying as much about the fat has worked better for me than simply counting calories.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 8, 2006)

spade2you said:


> What makes losing weight NOT as simple as eating less and/or working out more is that in the RACER sub-forum, loss of fitness is not a goal.


already been addressed










when my wife and i first went wheat and sugar free our weekly "worlds" group training rides were torture talk about BONKING! 

after a couple of weeks your body kicks in again and you are back right where you were it is possible to lose weight an get faster, you can't do it overnight but it is possible.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Hello Kitty said:


> already been addressed


Yet we're getting MORE of the "it's simple, just work out more and eat less" comments.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

...and this would be why Friel and Chapple both say to take care of weight problems during base, so one is not still trying to lose weight during build cycles.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

AndrwSwitch said:


> ...and this would be why Friel and Chapple both say to take care of weight problems during base, so one is not still trying to lose weight during build cycles.


Anecdotally, I've done a few base rides on an empty stomach because I was too busy to eat. I found it difficult to do more than hour, even at that low intensity.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 8, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Yet we're getting MORE of the "it's simple, just work out more and eat less" comments.


Hey I'm just saying what worked for me and other cyclist nothing is written in stone I know your mileage may vary.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Hello Kitty said:


> Hey I'm just saying what worked for me and other cyclist nothing is written in stone I know your mileage may vary.


So, are you saying it might NOT be that simple?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

if I eat less, will my average speed go down?


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 8, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Anecdotally, I've done a few base rides on an empty stomach because I was too busy to eat. I found it difficult to do more than hour, even at that low intensity.


Because you have trained your body to crave fuel it doesn't need.

I remember going out doing 50 to 70 mile training rides and bringing along enough Hammer nutrition products to feed a small village in my back pockets. 

Now since my body is trained not to burn sugar since i don't eat wheat or sugar I can go out on those same rides with maybe some nuun in my water bottle and one hammer gel that more often doesn't get eaten.

Cycling is a hobby and not my job so the nutritional needs and calories that a professional racer has to have are not the same as a 47 yr old desk jockey.

I'm not trying to proselytize here but the crap/crutch I've seen fellow riders and racers eat is astonishing.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 8, 2006)

Creakyknees said:


> if I eat less, will my average speed go down?


Cavendish has slimmed down doesn't look like it's slowed him down.

Never seen a FAST fat cyclist.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Creakyknees said:


> if I eat less, will my average speed go down?


Eat less days before races. You'll go faster. It's really that simple.


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

old_fuji said:


> Hint: It's not that simple.
> 
> For a healthy, active person in their physical prime (18-30) yes, it may be...but it's not nearly that cut-and-dry for every person out there. Even then, it's not as simple as not eating 500 calories...it's multi-faceted, trying to eat a balanced diet while cutting those calories out.


If you are geriatric and not active then yes this is true. Some people are old in their 30's and some get old in their 60's (Mitt Romney). Use discretion, this is more directed towards active people.

Also, if you have a medical condition or take medication that causes you to gain weight, then yeah this also doesn't apply to you. Just gonna go ahead and cover that base before someone tries to slide into it.

However I assume we are all somewhat serious cyclists being on this forum so I still stand by my rule as it stands. Calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight effectively and healthily. 

Someone mentioned carb control, I didn't think I would also have to say "don't eat McDonalds every ****ing day" as well. Let's put on our thinking caps, put good foods in your body. Hell I've seen some cyclists eat McDonalds more than any human should and train it off riding 20 hours a week. Skinny as a pole but the highest cholesterol you can imagine.


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

Oxtox said:


> wrong.


Wrong.










If you think this girl goes to the gym you're in lala land. You can exercise 20 hours a week and still consume enough to carry fat. It doesn't work the other way. C'mon man that's so intellectually lazy of you just to respond "wrong".


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Yet we're getting MORE of the "it's simple, just work out more and eat less" comments.


It really is that simple if you can apply common sense. 

Does everything need to spelled out for you? Do you really need such a huge disclaimer on everything? Gah I didn't think we would have to discuss diet plans, someone ****ing shoot me. If you're not losing weight following my plan and saying, "Well I ate egg yolks for breakfast, 5 hamburgers between lunch and dinner, and then I woke up in the middle of the night and ate some icecream.", yeah this won't work for you. If you ride 2 hours a week, this probably won't work for you. 

*If you have to ask so many damn questions, this will not work for you.*


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

Hello Kitty said:


> permanent weight loss isn't rocket science burn more calories than you consume PERIOD.
> 
> eliminate Wheat and Sugar outta of your diet and the weight will fall off and STAY off.
> 
> ...


Should have stopped after the first line. I also agree with processed food (there are some rare exceptions, but overall correct).

As for your statement on wheat/sugar, this kind of stuff drives me nuts. There is nothing wrong with wheat. If eliminating it works for you then great, but is not necessary to lose and maintain weight. Cutting back junk food, poor forms of wheat, or disproportionate levels of wheat is good, but plenty of wheat products that are very healthy. Same for sugar. Most fruit is very high in sugar. To eliminate it means to stop eating fruit. Not many people who are trying to lead a healthy life will tell others to stop eating fruit.

As for the gluten thing, yes that is a fad. Again, if whatever diet you are on works for you great. More power to you, and no issue with you recommending it to others. But when people try to push it as the only way it drives me nuts. Nothing wrong with gluten for people without an intolerance (hint, vast majority of the people on the gluten fad are not seeing any benefit/harm from the gluten itself). Just because many bad foods have gluten does not mean that gluten is bad.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

JasonLopez said:


> It really is that simple if you can apply common sense.
> 
> Does everything need to spelled out for you? Do you really need such a huge disclaimer on everything? Gah I didn't think we would have to discuss diet plans, someone ****ing shoot me. If you're not losing weight following my plan and saying, "Well I ate egg yolks for breakfast, 5 hamburgers between lunch and dinner, and then I woke up in the middle of the night and ate some icecream.", yeah this won't work for you. If you ride 2 hours a week, this probably won't work for you.
> 
> *If you have to ask so many damn questions, this will not work for you.*


YOUR plan? You invented "work out more, eat less. It's THAT simple"? If so, congrats for inventing this.

Your plan is entirely too simplistic. I ride a _little_ more than 2 hours a week. Having followed a Friel plan for a few years and paying attention to my power meters, I've learned a thing or two. ...but feel free to educate us racers who obviously don't know nearly as much about diet and training plans as you.


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Your plan is entirely too simplistic. I ride a _little_ more than 2 hours a week. Having followed a Friel plan for a few years and paying attention to my power meters, I've learned a thing or two. ...but feel free to educate us racers who obviously don't know nearly as much about diet and training plans as you.


You train around 2 hours a week, with a power meter, wtf?

Wow, you're a joke in my book. You're one of those guys that spends more time analyzing his work outs than he does actually working out. No wonder "it's complicated" with you.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

JasonLopez said:


> You train around 2 hours a week, with a power meter, wtf?
> 
> Wow, you're a joke in my book. You're one of those guys that spends more time analyzing his work outs than he does actually working out. No wonder "it's complicated" with you.


I am assuming that was supposed to say per day... had to be what was meant.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

JasonLopez said:


> You train around 2 hours a week, with a power meter, wtf?
> 
> Wow, you're a joke in my book. You're one of those guys that spends more time analyzing his work outs than he does actually working out. No wonder "it's complicated" with you.


When I said I trained "a little more than 2 hours per week", I was being sarcastic with the use of "little". I train as much as my wife, job, and other social functions allow. I won't disclose my training hours primarily because it varies AND everyone on the internet trains 3x as much as I do and climbs mountains in a 53x11 all the time. 

I should be insulted by your jab, but I don't think anyone here takes you seriously. I'm well aware of how to lose weight and will likely hit my goal of 118lbs prior to the start of intervals and will try to keep myself at 119 or 120lbs on race day. I know a thing or two about making it to race weight and have learned a few lessons the hard way. More than a few times, I cut calories too much and compromised the workout and/or recovery.


----------



## kg1 (Apr 17, 2002)

*Pat on the back for you*



JasonLopez said:


> You train around 2 hours a week, with a power meter, wtf?
> 
> Wow, you're a joke in my book. You're one of those guys that spends more time analyzing his work outs than he does actually working out. No wonder "it's complicated" with you.


I don't know what you were trying to accomplish with your initial post.

If you wanted to put the discussion of weight loss/maintenance strategies to bed once and for all because you personally are tired of them, that really isn't your place, it it? This is a public forum.

If you were looking for a pat on the back for your self-conrtol -- here it is, a pat on the back for you. Way to go. I wish I could simply eat everything but 500 calories less of everything and keep my weight down where I want it, but I can't. Again, good on you.

If you were offering serious strategies to people who want to manage their weight, I don't think your initial post was very helpful. However, I've enjoyed some of the posts in this thread, so thanks for starting it.

kg1


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

kg1 said:


> .......The point isn't the eat less, weigh less formula; it's figure out what you need to do, what changes you have to make (e.g. "eliminate wheat and sugar"), so that you can eat less. That's the point. And the more I listen and read about people who have been successful in the long term in eating a healthy diet, the more it seems to point to the changes you have adopted.


I don't disagree... but I don't agree ether. 

I know the military had to crack down on vegetarianism a few years ago because of huge numbers of documented health problems. Many people looking for a healthy diet/lifestyle just weren't getting enough protein in their diets. Even though most got more protein than many healthy people around the world.

A persons diet often reflects generations of their bodies adaptation. Some Europeans (or those of that descent) are dependent on grains (like wheat) as a major part of their diet. However... other European nations based their diets around cereals (think oats and barley). Just like the “grass fed" beef (mentioned in an earlier post) were bred to live without grains. Human reproduction..... may be more hap-hazard than the predictable animal-husbandry. But the results are just as real.

Unfortunately... you and I can't go back and pick our grandparents. We're stuck with how we were born. But if your lineage seems to represent the Mediterranean.... maybe you might want to check out the Mediterranean Diet. And whereas not many cultures include a lot of “beef” in their diets. If your family tree dates back to being American since the Mayflower... you might be a born beef-eater. Grain fed beef could well be a good option to look at. 

The old saying goes: Tell me what you eat and I'll tell you what you are.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

JasonLopez said:


> .... Some people are old in their 30's and some get old in their 60's


HEY! Some of us remain healthy and youthful past our 60's.


----------



## SRV (Dec 26, 2006)

I don't know man. This method doesn't seem to work long term. Take a look around you when you're in public.

A good read:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259/ref=la_B0034P66MY_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349482842&sr=1-1

I wish I knew how to rename a link.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

JasonLopez said:


> C'mon man that's so intellectually lazy of you just to respond "wrong".


wtf would you know about being intellectual...?

seriously. you're striving for clown status here.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

SRV said:


> ....
> I wish I knew how to rename a link.


Type the "word or words" you would like to be the link. Then copy the link from the site you would like to embed [Ctrl + c]. Highlite the word(s) you typed then press the globe and chain-link button above







. In the pop-up that appears the HTTP:// will already be higlited just paste in the link [Ctrl + v].


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

kg1 said:


> I don't know what you were trying to accomplish with your initial post.
> 
> If you wanted to put the discussion of weight loss/maintenance strategies to bed once and for all because you personally are tired of them, that really isn't your place, it it? This is a public forum.
> 
> ...


This is a serious, fool proof plan. If you exercise more than Spade2You's unsarcastic 2 hours a week this will work. If you don't eat terribly this will work. If you have no medical reason to say otherwise, this will work.

All your attempts to say "it isn't as simple as eating less and better, and working out more" simply illustrate that you have never possessed the self discipline to be skinny. You either don't want it, or you don't care enough, or you can't control yourself.


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

Oxtox said:


> wtf would you know about being intellectual...?
> 
> seriously. you're striving for clown status here.


I'm not the clown parading as an intellectual. I'm just the clown making serious points.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

JasonLopez said:


> If you exercise more than Spade2You's unsarcastic 2 hours a week this will work.


Illnesses aside, I haven't worked out 2 hours or less in at least 8 or 9 years. Even my rest weeks are well over that. About 2 years ago I had a bad bout with the flu and took a week off the bike. Is that ok with you?


----------



## silverbullet84 (Oct 23, 2011)

*Well....*



gte105u said:


> Should have stopped after the first line. I also agree with processed food (there are some rare exceptions, but overall correct).
> 
> As for your statement on wheat/sugar, this kind of stuff drives me nuts. There is nothing wrong with wheat. If eliminating it works for you then great, but is not necessary to lose and maintain weight. Cutting back junk food, poor forms of wheat, or disproportionate levels of wheat is good, but plenty of wheat products that are very healthy. Same for sugar. Most fruit is very high in sugar. To eliminate it means to stop eating fruit. Not many people who are trying to lead a healthy life will tell others to stop eating fruit.
> 
> As for the gluten thing, yes that is a fad. Again, if whatever diet you are on works for you great. More power to you, and no issue with you recommending it to others. But when people try to push it as the only way it drives me nuts. Nothing wrong with gluten for people without an intolerance (hint, vast majority of the people on the gluten fad are not seeing any benefit/harm from the gluten itself). Just because many bad foods have gluten does not mean that gluten is bad.


Can anyone prove that gluten is good? About the only health benefits that are touted when citing the recommendation of including whole wheat in a diet is that it increases fiber intake. Fruit is a much different animal, as it tends to be high in water, fiber, and sometimes sugar. If you look at the serving sizes of fruit and where they come from, the colder weather fruits tend to be much lower in sugar than their tropical counterparts. Over consumption of fruit in certain circumstances would not be a positive thing, but I have yet to see someone who is overweight due to excessive fruit intake.

After studying plenty of research over the last ten years about macronutrient intake, fructose versus sucrose, high fructose corn syrup, sucralose, maltose, durum wheat, oats, barley, etc, it is clear that if a person were to take the approach that they only eat the foods that their bodies needed, it would amount to ample amounts of meats, fats, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and a few non-wheat grains to ensure that all essential amino acids are consumed in the diet, then their body fat would be in a safe range (men under 15 percent, women under 20). 

If you want to do an interesting study on yourself, go get your blood work done, then eliminate wheat, high fructose sugar, and all artificial sweeteners from your diet, replace the calories with those from fruit, vegetables, and nuts/oils, and do this until your next blood work. You might be amazed at the results. Disclaimer: this does assume that your thyroid and testosterone/estrogen levels are within normal values.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Sources*



Dave Cutter said:


> Please... if you're not going to take the time to read my posts... don't respond to them. I had clearly stated in my post that these are NOT my numbers... they are merely the accepted and standard numbers used in most calculations. I quoted the CDC as the source... NOT me.
> 
> Apparently you have more confidence in YOUR numbers... based on some formula that you haven't shared. *I gladly admit, YOUR figures may be better* (or complete nonsense)... I have no way of knowing. So I accept the standard published figures.
> 
> ...


These are not MY numbers. They are widely known among those who are interested in power and bicycles.

The gold standard for calculating wattage for bicycling is analyticcycling.com. You will find the wattage numbers there are WAY different than the "standard" tables you get from popular magazines and medical people. This is because the analtyticcycling numbers are based on actual physics and a large amount of field data. Another source is Bicycling Scince, 3rd Ed (Wilson) MIT Press.

These sources take rider weight into account specifically. If you want to do these calculations yourself you can use the following formulas:

calories/hr = [V*W(.0053 + %G/100) + .0083(V^3)]*7.2
watts = [V*W(.0053 + %G/100) + .0083(V^3)]*2

where V is speed, W is bike + rider weight in lbs., and %G is grade in per cent. The factors listed here (0.0053 for friction + rolling resistance and 0.0083 for aerodynamic drag) are obviously not absolute. They will vary with efficiency of the tires and drive train, and with the aerodynamics of the bike + rider combination. Both of these assume a racing position on a racing bike. A clunker bike or a more efficient riding position will change these numbers, which are averages anyway. Power to overcome friction and gravity is proportional only to rider weight and ground speed. Power to overcome wind drag is proportional to the cube of the air speed. For reference, 1 hp = 2700 calories (because of human metabolic efficiency of 24%); 1 calorie = 0.276 watts; 1 hp = 746 watts. Here, all calories are kg-calories, or "food calories."

I think that the reason people have difficulty with weight control is that they eat too much. Clearly many people are looking for reasons to "allow" themselves to eat more calories than they burn and express confusion when their calculations (based on poor data and formulas) tell them that they can eat more.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

silverbullet84 said:


> Can anyone prove that gluten is good?


Yes.

I think people forget that almost all foods being consumed today.... have been consumed by man since nearly the very beginning of known humans. Sure... when men lived in caves... we ate mice, bugs and who knows what else. But for the last [insert you own number of century's HERE.] Mankind ate what is still... common foods. Among those foods “in some cultures” is wheat. 

Many civilizations and cultures have failed. The ones that stood the tests of time did so partly by finding and developing reliable high energy foods. Wheat is as much of the human existent as any known food. To challenge its validity now... after it has been proven by the test of time makes little sense. 

Wheat has always been human food.... as has been fish and fruit.


----------



## silverbullet84 (Oct 23, 2011)

One has to ask if the wheat that we are currently consuming is the same as what our ancestors were eating. It appears that most of the wheat that is produced in the United States today is not the same as it was 60 years ago. Genetic modification, cross breeding, and nutrient poor soil has led to a crop that is simply not the same, and ironically coincides with the substantial increase in obesity rates.

While correlation in not causation, it appears that the FDA and USDA has little interest in pursuing whether or not our current crops of wheat and corn are safe for us to consume in the volumes that are recommended.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Kerry Irons said:


> These are not MY numbers. ..................
> 
> ...........I think that the reason people have difficulty with weight control is that they eat too much. Clearly many people are looking for reasons to "allow" themselves to eat more calories than they burn and express confusion when their calculations (based on poor data and formulas) tell them that they can eat more.


*Sorry... I knew they weren't YOUR numbers*... anymore than the figures I reference are MY numbers. The point I was trying to make is your chosen expert says one thing... while the expert I choose says something completely different. 

The big difference... is the experts I use are experts in weight control and health. While the experts who's figures you quote are expert in bicycle racing and power. 

*I completely accept the power/racing experts advice... in matters of their field of expertise. *

But this thread is about diet and losing weight... winning races do apply [here too] I am sure. But I feel confident that the diet experts have the best tools for this threads problems.

Power metering isn't anything I know a great deal about. But I understand the concept... I think. Race weight would be bare minimum (for the cyclist) then depend on very high energy processed [sugar] drinks and gels for race energy [instead of the body's fat reserves which are reduced to near nothing to reduce cycling weight]. These high energy foods(?) are very easy to calculate. If you have a 240 calorie cycling task to perform... 300 calories of gel should do the trick.

But... if your body has to actually process and digest a solid fuel... what is the rate of conversion? A 7 calorie raw carrot will require the body to use (roughly) 5 of its 7 calories to digest and process that food. Corn is very high calorie... yet I sometimes think corn is best for seeing how quickly my body is passing food. 

So... if instead of sucking down a packet of gel... I had a steaming bowl [1 cup] of corn soup and a carrot salad [2 ounces] for lunch.... do you think my 240 calorie lunch would be enough to perform the 240 calorie cycling task? What would happen to me.... if I failed to get the proper nutrients my body needs while cycling? Is it possible I could pass-out (faint) in traffic? Are these “power” questions or “health” questions? 

I think... the standardized figures are useful for calculating what a typical heavy person would require in healthy honest diet sensitive replacement food/energy for the listed efforts... whether walking, jogging, swimming, or cycling (even if your a somewhat experienced cyclist). *True if your a pro bicycle racer... you may need to adjust the figures a bit... with your own best guess*. 

*We both agree* that some people have difficulty with weight control (me being one that worked his butt off... lol). And we both agree that people need good data. I am not going to fudge the same data I used to lose my weight. I just don't think the other dieter “won't be able to catch on” (fat doesn't mean stupid). Knowledge is helpful in weight loss... but it isn't all facts and figures ether.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

silverbullet84 said:


> ..... It appears that most of the wheat that is produced in the United States today is not the same as it was 60 years ago. Genetic modification, cross breeding, and nutrient poor soil has led to a crop that is simply not the same.


That isn't what my farmer friends tell me. Although winter wheat was a game changer for grain farmers... but that was a long time age (late 1800's).

There are actually different wheats for different products... and not so much has changed.... as people would think. Crop fields are rotated... and the soil quality of American fields are the best the world has ever known.

100 years ago.... no human on planet Earth... had the year-round availably and assortment of high quality foods that even the poorest Americans can purchase with food stamps today. Sure... there is a bunch of packaged crap out there......... delicious, yummy, high-calorie, fatty, crap. But it wouldn't be in the stores... if we didn't put it in our carts.


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Illnesses aside, I haven't worked out 2 hours or less in at least 8 or 9 years. Even my rest weeks are well over that. About 2 years ago I had a bad bout with the flu and took a week off the bike. Is that ok with you?


Well that's fantastic, but if you're gaining weight still calories in > calories out.

Sorry buddy, unless your thyroid is trying to kill you this is the case for majority of cyclists out there.


----------



## kg1 (Apr 17, 2002)

*As simple as possible, but no simpler*



JasonLopez said:


> This is a serious, fool proof plan. If you exercise more than Spade2You's unsarcastic 2 hours a week this will work. If you don't eat terribly this will work. If you have no medical reason to say otherwise, this will work.
> 
> All your attempts to say "it isn't as simple as eating less and better, and working out more" simply illustrate that you have never possessed the self discipline to be skinny. You either don't want it, or you don't care enough, or you can't control yourself.


I concede the fact that this did work for you, and that it has worked for others. Also, I think that your intention was to be helpful, so thank you for that. What I am saying is that this isn't the solution for a lot of people. If it were this simple, we wouldn't have an epidemic on our hands. Your solution to weight loss is like telling someone that they need to make their wheels spin faster if they want lower their 40k TT time. Of course that's what they have to do, but that isn't really helpful. Explain the benefits of interval training. That is helpful. It sounds as though you've found a way of eating that works for you, and you've set some goals and been successful in attaining those goals. I am guessing that several people reading this thread would be interested to hear what you did.

I don't know who said this, but it goes something like this -- things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. 

Again, thanks.

kg1


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

JasonLopez said:


> Well that's fantastic, but if you're gaining weight still calories in > calories out.
> 
> Sorry buddy, unless your thyroid is trying to kill you this is the case for majority of cyclists out there.


Did I say I was gaining weight? Gaining weight means calories in>calories out? You truly are an intellectual.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

kg1 said:


> ..........I don't know who said this, but it goes something like this --
> Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.


I like that! And... thats the problem with the calories in calories out idea. It does work... but for many [if not most] it is too simple.

For every cyclist at this forum that has lost real weight [me included] there was a trigger. That one day when we knew.... this is where it stops. The reason humans over-indulge is because it feels good. We are hard-wired to avoid fear and pain and indulge in pleasure. 

I couldn't lose weight until getting fatter became a worst choice... than going hungry.


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Did I say I was gaining weight? Gaining weight means calories in>calories out? You truly are an intellectual.


I'm not sure what you're saying anymore, and frankly I don't care. What the hell are you contributing then? Are you disagreeing while agreeing with me? Are you racing every weekend (HUGE TIME SUCK) and training 2 hours a week because you don't have enough time? F-off, this isn't about you so stop making it that way.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

JasonLopez said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying anymore, and frankly I don't care. What the hell are you contributing then? Are you disagreeing while agreeing with me? Are you racing every weekend (HUGE TIME SUCK) and training 2 hours a week because you don't have enough time?


No, I'm not racing every weekend and training 2 hours a week. 



JasonLopez said:


> F-off, this isn't about you so stop making it that way.


You really shouldn't tell that to ANYONE on this forum. You're too new and quite frankly more than a few people realize you're a loud mouth without much common sense. Didn't you get a little vacation for doing that last time?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

silverbullet84 said:


> , but I have yet to see someone who is overweight due to excessive fruit intake.
> 
> .


I'm fairly confident actually have (though if you know the diet of every fat person you've seen feel free to correct me). Especially if you count fruit juice.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

Dave Cutter said:


> *Sorry... I knew they weren't YOUR numbers*... anymore than the figures I reference are MY numbers. The point I was trying to make is your chosen expert says one thing... while the expert I choose says something completely different.
> 
> The big difference... is the experts I use are experts in weight control and health. While the experts who's figures you quote are expert in bicycle racing and power.


You are completely missing the point. You presented extremely high numbers for calorie burn during exercise, numbers that do not reflect the reality of a road bicycle. In order for those numbers to be right, the bike would have to be grossly inefficient or the rider would have to have a metabolic efficiency around 11% (not possible).

You can talk about dietary effects all you want but it has nothing to do with the amount of calories burned per hour at a given speed. That number is a function of only two things: the wattage needed to propel the bike and the calories required to produce that wattage (the rider's metabolic efficiency).

The numbers you see quoted in the popular press and from many medical "experts" are not in any way rooted in the reality of a modern road bike. As I said before: when you see a number quoted relative to a range of speed, and the difference in the two speeds requires 40% more wattage to go the higher speed, you know that the numbers are meaningless.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Kerry Irons said:


> ..... You presented extremely high numbers for calorie burn during exercise, numbers that do not reflect the reality of a road bicycle.
> 
> The numbers you see quoted .... from many medical "experts" are not in any way rooted in the reality of a modern road bike.


Sorry Doctor. I hadn't realized you were licensed to practice medicine in the state where I live. Or are you an Internet Practitioner? Ether way... I am sure you are more qualified to to publish calorie findings.... than the CDC.

Your understanding of such things... is way over my head. I first owned a 10 speed bicycle [back in] 1964. And whereas I now own what I think you are referring to as a “modern” bicycle... I really can't see any HUGE changes that would somehow change the way a human body would metabolize food.

Although... I am sure you're a fine Doctor..... I think I will continue to take the advice and council from my own GP. *But thank you very much for sharing your own, highly regarded professional medical opinions.*

But I am sure once your calorie findings are fully published in the proper medical journals. And accepted by your medical peers the new information will be paramount in the cure for obesity. I sir, see a Nobel prize in your future. Let me be the first to congratulate you on the well earned success for your many years of hard research.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I think Kerry is kind of a trainer or something. Plus, his numbers sound about right. That kind of slow pace is pretty low effort, but I'm not 200lbs or going 12mph.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

spade2you said:


> I think Kerry is kind of a trainer or something. Plus, his numbers sound about right. That kind of slow pace is pretty low effort, but I'm not 200lbs or going 12mph.


Of course his power meter numbers are right! 

You don't need to be any kind of whiz to use a power meter.... do you? I have never once doubted the good Doctors [er... trainer?] understanding of the use of a power meter. 

*But I did get a little bored when he failed to explain how much corn chowder soup and carrot salad I need to eat to perform a given cycling task.* 

Most [other] Doctor's stand by the CDC's advice. And the CDC has given me information that I have found to be reliable. After only a few weeks on a calorie counting (and exercise) routine I was able to predict future weight loss. 

*I do understand and fully respect the power meter knowledge and advice... I really do.* But I really don't see how that particular performance related tool effectively translates well for diet use. I read one post on another forum where the performance/race cyclist guys had a new (and heavy) cyclist sucking down gels on his training rides! Like that is going to help him.

When are people going to realize that racing and losing weight ISN'T the same thing. A body can use a gel or sugar-water energy drink pretty darn easily. But *forcing a human body to tap the long un-used fat reserves is a completely different story. You are NOT going to get race-day efficiency levels. *

I think... I am done with this thread. I just hope that after the power meter technology is used to cure obesity... it is used to cure cancer as well.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I think you overestimate how much doctors know about clinical nutrition. Having been in a trauma hospital for over a decade, 99.999% of physicians, residents, and fellows will defer anything to a registered dietician.

Technically, I hold a doctorate, but I seldom advertise that. 

You can learn a lot here if you know who knows their stuff and who is full of BS.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

silverbullet84 said:


> One has to ask if the wheat that we are currently consuming is the same as what our ancestors were eating


It is nothing like what our ancestors ate. Roundup-Ready has got to be the most artificial thing there is. Might as well eat cellophane.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Dave Cutter said:


> Yes.
> 
> I think *people forget that almost all foods being consumed today.... have been consumed by man since nearly the very beginning of known humans.* Sure... when men lived in caves... we ate mice, bugs and who knows what else. But for the last [insert you own number of century's HERE.] *Mankind ate what is still... common foods. Among those foods “in some cultures” is wheat*.
> 
> ...


First of all you are very wrong. Humans didn't start eating wheat until Agriculture got figured out about 10,000 years ago. And in terms of human evolution 10,000 years ago isn't long ago at all. So the non wheat eating history of humans is 2-3 million years and the wheat eating part is about 10 thousand years. That's far from 'always'

Second of all even I you were correct that humans have always eat wheat: "it's always been that way" is hardly proof of anything.

I have no idea is gluten is good for humans or not but I do know that your "information" about why it is good it total BS.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I have no idea is gluten is good for humans or not but I do know that your "information" about why it is good it total BS.


Well thank you very much for your insight Jay! 

So you think that 10,000 years of humans (if... we can agree to disagree about the total number of years)... just wouldn't be able to evolve, adapt, *or even figure out that a primary food source wasn't working out for them*... huh? We must belong to a real BS (as you might say) species. 

There will always be food fads. I've been alive long enough to see nearly every eatable item known to man to be theorized as unhealthy.... _or complete poison_. Then after some industry funded grant/testing... the foods are again deemed fit for human consumption. *It gets old. * 

What you missed in my post(s) was “not all cultures eat wheat”. I am from a culture that never used wheat. So... gluten may not be that helpful in my diet. Milk is another culturally sensitive food. We don't just inherent eye color. 

Amazing you think modern humans have only been around for 10,000 years. My culture seems to think we've been around much longer. We must be a BS race of humans.... in your view.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

spade2you said:


> I think you overestimate how much doctors know about clinical nutrition. Having been in a trauma hospital for over a decade, 99.999% of physicians, residents, and fellows will defer anything to a registered dietician.
> 
> Technically, I hold a doctorate, but I seldom advertise that.
> 
> You can learn a lot here if you know who knows their stuff and who is full of BS.


Actually my own doctor is a good friend of mine as well.... and you're right... he is no diet expert. But I refer to the CDC... I think they may have the proper staff (a few dozen billions of dollars still buys alot). 

So... are you recommending that heavy people need power meters to lose weight? Or are you saying dieters shouldn't use decent (AKA modern) road bikes? Or... that the CDC doesn't offer exceptable advice?

All I am posting here is: Look at what statements we posters are making... *and under what context*. This thread is titled "_How to lose weight: A realist POV_". *I don't think a power meter is required to lose weight!* But, I do thnk the CDC's on line stuff IS helpful..... for weight loss.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Dave Cutter said:


> Actually my own doctor is a good friend of mine as well.... and you're right... he is no diet expert. But I refer to the CDC... I think they may have the proper staff (a few dozen billions of dollars still buys alot).
> 
> So... are you recommending that heavy people need power meters to lose weight? Or are you saying dieters shouldn't use decent (AKA modern) road bikes? Or... that the CDC doesn't offer exceptable advice?
> 
> All I am posting here is: Look at what statements we posters are making... *and under what context*. This thread is titled "_How to lose weight: A realist POV_". *I don't think a power meter is required to lose weight!* But, I do thnk the CDC's on line stuff IS helpful..... for weight loss.


anyone following the calorie burned estimate you quote will end up either loosing less than expected from calorie intake or even gain weight if calories out were close to calories in. 
that's the end story. That's what everyone is telling you. You don't agree? that's fine. It should be evident from the posts though which side of that argument is actually supported by something resembling arguments and facts.

edited: assuming what would be considered a standard bike in here and not riding up alpe d'huez.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Dave Cutter said:


> Well thank you very much for your insight Jay!
> 
> So you think that 10,000 years of humans (if... we can agree to disagree about the total number of years)... just wouldn't be able to evolve, adapt, *or even figure out that a primary food source wasn't working out for them*... huh? We must belong to a real BS (as you might say) species.
> 
> ...


What's even more amazing is your poor reading comprehension. Like I said I think humans have been eating wheat for 10,000 years and 10,000 years is a drop in the bucket as far as evolution goes. So not only did I not say "modern humans have only been around for 10,000 years" I implied the exact opposite by noting that is nothing in terms of human evolution.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Dave Cutter said:


> Actually my own doctor is a good friend of mine as well.... and you're right... he is no diet expert. But I refer to the CDC... I think they may have the proper staff (a few dozen billions of dollars still buys alot).
> 
> So... are you recommending that heavy people need power meters to lose weight? Or are you saying dieters shouldn't use decent (AKA modern) road bikes? Or... that the CDC doesn't offer exceptable advice?
> 
> All I am posting here is: Look at what statements we posters are making... *and under what context*. This thread is titled "_How to lose weight: A realist POV_". *I don't think a power meter is required to lose weight!* But, I do thnk the CDC's on line stuff IS helpful..... for weight loss.


By trade, most dieticians can stomp physicians with their specialized knowledge base. Not that it matters since physicians are too busy to treat illness and don't quite have the luxury to encourage wellness.

If you think I'm recommending that heavy people need a power meter, I think you have some insecurity issues that you probably need to address. Those who have a problem with guy with 2 hours a week on the bike and a power meter also have some serious insecurity issues. While it would be overkill, none of your business or mine. That being said, there's no disadvantage having a power meter when you know how to use it. 

On more than a few occasions, I have bonked or compromised recovery trying to cut calories a little too much or by being a little too busy to eat properly. I didn't feel as fresh and my power meter confirmed it. There's really nothing gained by bonking or slower recovery, so why do it in the first place? 

As for the CDC, spending billions probably only means a couple hundred thousand worth of benefits. I don't have the highest opinion of government or state run institutions after working for them. I think more than a few people are susceptible to the fads and I don't really care to follow them since I perform well enough and am able to lose weight with or without wheat gluten, among other things.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

spade2you said:


> ....
> 
> 1. I think you have some insecurity issues that you probably need to address. Those who have a problem with guy with 2 hours a week on the bike and a power meter also have some serious insecurity issues. While it would be overkill, none of your business or mine. That being said, there's no disadvantage having a power meter when you know how to use it.
> 
> ...


1. You have me mixed up with that other guy! *I am all for power meters!* I just don't think they are a diet tool. I like using the right tool for the job. And I couldn't care a rats behind about any other persons training... other than my own. 

2. We agree on government waste! But seriously... if you aren't using the CDC Site... you're missing a great free resource. They are a awesome resource for ANYONE who wishes to be healthier. 

3. I don't even have all the questions... let alone all the answers! *But I know one thing for sure.* People who use calorie burning data as an excuse to eat more... or somehow think OTHER PEOPLE would use such exercise data as an excuse to eat more... are very likely suffering from a food/eating disorder (addiction). CDC advice, or a power meter on their trek won't matter. They need the exact medical help... you guys are bad mouthing.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

den bakker said:


> anyone following the calorie burned estimate you quote will end up either loosing less than expected from calorie intake or even gain weight if calories out were close to calories in.
> that's the end story. That's what everyone is telling you.


I know.... *I've read their posts!* And I lost over 70 pounds using those exact standardized best medical advice stats that these same guys say... don't work. I was able to predict the weight loss to nearly the ounce (but closer to the pound). 

Going to med school... only makes a person a Doctor... and nothing more. I accept that. But if you have no trust in medical knowledge.... how do you know obesity isn't GOOD for you? Do you go to power meter salemen when you have other ailments?

You guys are saying... "hey don't trust the medical experts"... listen to the guys who use power meters. That's just crazy.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Dave Cutter said:


> You know there is some math to it. Simple math. Internet searches should give most people a reasonable idea of how many calories they should be eating to reach their desired weight. Activity does effect the amount of calories a person can consume... but not by as much as most people would think.
> 
> There are formula's for calculating calories burned while cycling (and for walking, jogging, dancing, and so on). The program I use says a 180 man bicycling for 2 hours at 12-14 MPH... should burn 1230 calories. A pound is 3500 calories. *So... in theory.. yeah! A 25 mile ride should be about 4-5 ounces lost.* Of course the math isn't perfect... but it isn't awful ether.
> 
> ...


Dave have you got a link to that app. I need to control my calories more.
Does that app have a simple how many cans of beer I can have in a week formula?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Dave Cutter said:


> 1. You have me mixed up with that other guy! *I am all for power meters!* I just don't think they are a diet tool. I like using the right tool for the job. And I couldn't care a rats behind about any other persons training... other than my own.
> 
> 2. We agree on government waste! But seriously... if you aren't using the CDC Site... you're missing a great free resource. They are a awesome resource for ANYONE who wishes to be healthier.
> 
> 3. I don't even have all the questions... let alone all the answers! *But I know one thing for sure.* People who use calorie burning data as an excuse to eat more... or somehow think OTHER PEOPLE would use such exercise data as an excuse to eat more... are very likely suffering from a food/eating disorder (addiction). CDC advice, or a power meter on their trek won't matter. They need the exact medical help... you guys are bad mouthing.


Power meters aren't a diet tool, but diet goes INTO your power on the bike. Like I said, it's one thing to _feel_ like you're bonking or not recovering. Seeing that data just enforces that too much of a caloric deficit will lead to decreased power output. 

I eat a fairly healthy diet, so minimal interest in changing things up. 

I like beer and cheese. Damn straight I'm gonna work out and have more homebrew and high end cheese.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

kiwisimon said:


> Dave have you got a link to that app. I need to control my calories more.
> Does that app have a simple how many cans of beer I can have in a week formula?


LOL... I think you would enter the beer as a food (I don't happen to drink). If the calories aren't on the packaging, search. You should be able to do a search that finds that information for you... right in the app. In the 5 months I followed the diet I was on I don't think I consumed 1400 calories in one day... but one time. Not sure there was any room in my program for beer drinking. But I did have an ounce of potato chips one time!

Believe it or not... dieting seems kinda popular. And there are ton of apps that calculate/tracks your nutritional intake. I am not sure any of them are any better or worse than any other one. The one I selected (called, lose it) worked on my android 4.0 tablet... and was a free download. Just read the reviews on such apps wherever you purchase your apps... for whatever device you use.

They are helpful tools. However the hunger you feel at bedtime will be your own... they ain't got an app for that yet. I practiced a minimum 12 hour fast between dinner and breakfast. 

For exercise while dieting I did a regular 3K walk/run in the morning before breakfast (but after my plain black coffee). Sometimes I repeated the walk/run after dinner as well. I also logged a couple thousand mile on my road bike... but I don't really like to think of cycling as exercise. I bicycle because I love to... I do it for fun... not benefits. 

Some will tell you the numbers are all wrong and/or un-reliable. THEY ARE CORRECT! No numbers.. not even the calorie labels the government requires... can be completely trusted. The numbers are all guides... but it won't take long till you get the feel for what works for you. 

Many nay-sayers will have a list of reasons why you can't be the weight or fitness level you want to be. I don't know why... they may be jealous... don't listen to them. Do some reading of at the CDC's lifestyle Web Site. The knowledge will help you with your task.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

spade2you said:


> .......Seeing that data just enforces that too much of a caloric deficit will lead to decreased power output.
> 
> I eat a fairly healthy diet, so minimal interest in changing things up.
> 
> I like beer and cheese. Damn straight I'm gonna work out and have more homebrew and high end cheese.


You might be right about the bonking... I did stop and drank a vitamin water (I think 120 calories) once. But mostly I depended on my fat reserves providing me with the energy I needed... and for the most part that worked.

[There is] Nothing wrong with enjoying food and drink! Life [IMHO] should be lived. I understand the idea of using exercise as a means to allow a person to indulge in more drinking and eating. I like the cycling saying: “I am just here for the pie”. 

Best of luck with your plan!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Dave Cutter said:


> You guys are saying... "hey don't trust the medical experts"... listen to the guys who use power meters. That's just crazy.


I know several of "you guys" are using peer reviewed medical data as the basis for the numbers. but I guess that's just crazy.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

den bakker said:


> I know several of "you guys"


Is that supposed to be some sort of racist remark? Who the heck is "you guys"?????


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Dave Cutter said:


> Is that supposed to be some sort of racist remark? Who the heck is "you guys"?????


origin: 


Dave Cutter said:


> You guys are saying... "hey don't trust the medical experts"... listen to the guys who use power meters. That's just crazy.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Oh... sorry... I get it now. You think the standards review board for power meters is a medical review board.... LOL. But you don't realize what the opinion the CDC is. LOL.

Sorry.


----------



## redlude97 (Jun 29, 2010)

Dave Cutter said:


> You might be right about the bonking... I did stop and drank a vitamin water (I think 120 calories) once. But mostly I depended on my fat reserves providing me with the energy I needed... and for the most part that worked.
> 
> [There is] Nothing wrong with enjoying food and drink! Life [IMHO] should be lived. I understand the idea of using exercise as a means to allow a person to indulge in more drinking and eating. I like the cycling saying: “I am just here for the pie”.
> 
> Best of luck with your plan!


If you are depending on fat oxidation as your primary energy source once you deplete your glycogen stores then you simply aren't riding very fast.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

1. Mr Cutter, learn what 'Peer Review" is before having a hissy fit.
2. Our diet and food is nothing like it was before agriculture developed. Corn fed pigs kept in tiny pens are not the same as wild game. A genetically engineered chicken kept in a one foot cube and pumped full of hormones and antibiotics is nothing like a pheasant. And wheat was not part of the human diet at all during our evolutionary phase.
3. CDC is a huge organisation with many responsibilities. Their billion dollar budget may cover only a few million for nutrition research. and much research is being done elsewhere that challenges current popular wisdom. That's how science works. Nutrition is a very new science.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

redlude97 said:


> If you are depending on fat oxidation as your primary energy source once you deplete your glycogen stores then you simply aren't riding very fast.


Really? Well that's news to me! But I always say: I am about the speed of store brand Ketchup (a bit faster than Heinz). But I wasn't racing.... after all I am an old man. In my age group [I think] anything over 15 mph isn't all that un-respectable.

Man.... I get the impression that the contributers to this thread are totally against cyclist losing weight. Posters to this thread have stated: Cyclist might actually gain weight if you don't use a power meter. Or that losing weight by calorie reduction was just too simple. Physiological reasons as to why people over-eat would be too overwhelming. Plus... can't trust the Doctor's to provide true or useful advice for dieting. The dieter would never stand a chance to ever.... just eat less. AND NOW.... you think a cyclist won't be able to ride fast enough... if they are dieting. 

Please... don't take offense guys.... but what a bunch of hooey. People have used the fun (even JOY) of bicycling to help burn calories, get fit, and just be active since long before anyone at this forum was ever born.


----------



## redlude97 (Jun 29, 2010)

Dave Cutter said:


> Really? Well that's news to me! But I always say: I am about the speed of store brand Ketchup (a bit faster than Heinz). But I wasn't racing.... after all I am an old man. In my age group [I think] anything over 15 mph isn't all that un-respectable.


Or worded another way, you aren't trying hard enough. Fat oxidation is too slow to keep up at a strenuous pace. Its simply a fact. It is fine to not eat if your goal for cycling is to simply lose weight, then calories consumed on the bike would be dentrimental for that goal, but you are delusional if you think you are performing optimally for extended periods without fueling during the ride.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> 1. Mr Cutter, learn what 'Peer Review" is before having a hissy fit.
> 2. Our diet and food is nothing like it was before agriculture developed. Corn fed pigs kept in tiny pens are not the same as wild game. A genetically engineered chicked kept in a one foot cube and pumped full of hormones and antibiotics is nothing like a pheasant. And wheat was not part of the human diet at all during our evolutionary phase.
> 3. CDC is a huge organisation with many responsibilities. Their billion dollar budget may cover only a few million for nutrition research. and much research is being done elsewhere that challenges current popular wisdom. That's how science works. Nutrition is a very new science.


Pigs are raised in lots... called pens. The pens areas can't be designed too small... pigs won't poop where they eat. If you give them too little room.... you have to stay there 24/7 to hose off the crap. Wild pigs... are any pig(s) that escapes from captivity. Once free.. domestic pigs turn feral. Many of the bred of pigs raised today have been raised for centuries. The Durham is the most popular hog raised for meat in America (or was last I heard). It was first captured wild and raised for food in Durham UK. They are fed corn, as well as waste meat products, and other items.... not much has changed.

A “genetically engineered chicked”...... *your joking.... right?* It is true chickens do get shots, as do all farm animals, beloved pets, and school aged children.

When was it... what year exactly... that the human “evolutionary phase” ended? I can't remember that date from history class... please enlighten me.

The CDC has a BILLION dollar budget? Why that would be a whole 1000 million dollars!!!! Sorry... the CDC get LOTS more than just a billion... several billion PLUS separate funds for special projects. Almost a billion in special funds for AIDS alone.

Nutrition is a very new science?? Wow... haven't read much history huh. OH... and trust me I know a little about peer review... and standards working groups as well. 

*So... Now lets add to list of why cyclist can't lose weight. Because the food supply has been tampered with.* _We just don't stand a chance do we!_


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

redlude97 said:


> Or worded another way, you aren't trying hard enough. Fat oxidation is too slow to keep up at a strenuous pace. Its simply a fact. It is fine to not eat if your goal for cycling is to simply lose weight, then calories consumed on the bike would be dentrimental for that goal, but you are delusional if you think you are performing optimally for extended periods without fueling during the ride.


Yet one MORE reason why cyclist can't lose weight: *It would be detrimental to cyclings true goal..... and cause the cyclist to become.... delusional. *_Beautiful.
_

Certainly.... all cyclist must be doomed to die fat. It would be foolish to even try to diet if your a cyclist.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

redlude97 said:


> ..... It is fine to not eat if your goal for cycling is to simply lose weight.


I know some people don't understand this. It sometimes has caused me to wonder if everyone who reads and posts at cycling forums.... even rides a bicycle.

But NO... I do NOT cycle as a goal to lose weight (simply or otherwise). *I ride a bicycle because I love cycling.* If you require some other reason to bicycle... we can't relate.


----------



## redlude97 (Jun 29, 2010)

Dave Cutter said:


> Yet one MORE reason why cyclist can't lose weight: *It would be detrimental to cyclings true goal..... and cause the cyclist to become.... delusional. *_Beautiful.
> _
> 
> Certainly.... all cyclist must be doomed to die fat. It would be foolish to even try to diet if your a cyclist.


You seriously can't be that obtuse...


----------



## Boombaux (Jul 21, 2012)

i find it quite easy to lose weight once you get into the routine of things.

currently on 1600 calories a day, weight training monday/wednesday/friday 
no bike yet as i'm still buying the groupset pieces individually, but i've started a running program which i do tuesday/thursday/saturday
sunday is a rest day.

I'm 6'1 179 (it sounds like I wouldn't have any chub but I have almost 0 muscle mass  )
Aiming for 155-160 by february, and then bulking to 170


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

redlude97 said:


> You seriously can't be that obtuse...


Repped.


----------



## Danimal (Jan 4, 2005)

Boombaux said:


> i find it quite easy to lose weight once you get into the routine of things.
> 
> currently on 1600 calories a day, weight training monday/wednesday/friday
> no bike yet as i'm still buying the groupset pieces individually, but i've started a running program which i do tuesday/thursday/saturday
> ...


Why bulk? Chicks dig the spoon chest. I'm 6' tall and 145 with over 5 lbs of belly flab. All depends on your body type. Mine is the sickly type they tell me.


----------



## Dan333sp (Aug 17, 2010)

This thread makes my head hurt... For what it is worth, I spent a few months really paying attention to calories consumed and burned with a few apps on my phone. I was more in a situation where I was curious to find out exactly how much I burn riding my bike by tracking all the various effects on my daily net calories and my weight loss for that month, versus "needing" to lose the weight, because I'm 6'3" and 175 and not too worried about getting more thin. Anyway, I used one of the counting apps ("my fitness pal"), and it consistently estimated that I was burning nearly 900 cal/hr while riding. I ate according to what it estimated would lose me .5lb/week based on my weight and exercise, and saw an increase in my weight. I cut calories until I started to actually lose weight, and based on the numbers I worked out, I was generally burning around 600-650 calories/hour of riding (when at tempo which can be between 18 and 22mph, less if cruising or doing recovery), so with my normal 7-12 hours of riding per week, I could accurately estimate the amount I needed to eat to either maintain or lose weight. Anyway, this is all anecdotal, but reading the first page of this thread made me raise my eyebrows when Dave got into a debate with Kerry that a cyclist is going to burn over 600 calories/hr at what most here would describe as a very leisurely pace (12-14mph). No offense to Dave, but I have seen so many websites/medical journals that dramatically overestimate what a cyclist will burn in a given amount of riding, and it just seems unlikely to me that I'm so efficient that I can burn 2/3rds or less of what the "average" rider does. Anyway, carry on.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

I went to Ghana for 10 days to do Microfinance In mid-septemeber -> weighing in at a reasonable 82kg for my height of 183cm (But I do naturally carry more fat than others)

On the 2nd or 3rd night I was sick 6 times.. the food was dodgy so I didn't eat much for the rest of the trip.

Came back weighing in at a slim 75kg. Rehydrated and ate properly. Now I'm happy 77kg.

Lost 5kg over 10 days and I'm at a pretty decent weight for me.. could probably loose some more fat but I don't really want to pay too much attention to diet so 77kg it is for now :thumbsup:

Moral of the storey? Go to Ghana.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

Dan333sp said:


> This thread makes my head hurt... For what it is worth, I spent a few months really paying attention to calories consumed and burned with a few apps on my phone. I was more in a situation where I was curious to find out exactly how much I burn riding my bike by tracking all the various effects on my daily net calories and my weight loss for that month, versus "needing" to lose the weight, because I'm 6'3" and 175 and not too worried about getting more thin. Anyway, I used one of the counting apps ("my fitness pal"), and it consistently estimated that I was burning nearly 900 cal/hr while riding. I ate according to what it estimated would lose me .5lb/week based on my weight and exercise, and saw an increase in my weight. I cut calories until I started to actually lose weight, and based on the numbers I worked out, I was generally burning around 600-650 calories/hour of riding (when at tempo which can be between 18 and 22mph, less if cruising or doing recovery), so with my normal 7-12 hours of riding per week, I could accurately estimate the amount I needed to eat to either maintain or lose weight. Anyway, this is all anecdotal, but reading the first page of this thread made me raise my eyebrows when Dave got into a debate with Kerry that a cyclist is going to burn over 600 calories/hr at what most here would describe as a very leisurely pace (12-14mph). No offense to Dave, but I have seen so many websites/medical journals that dramatically overestimate what a cyclist will burn in a given amount of riding, and it just seems unlikely to me that I'm so efficient that I can burn 2/3rds or less of what the "average" rider does. Anyway, carry on.


+1...I used myfitnesspal as well to get a handle on portion size and track all the calories I ate between meals which in my case was the difference between staying the same and losing weight. Anywho, I noticed the est cal burn that MFP would spit was excessively high cal/hr for cycling at any intensity. Total bs. I'd advise anyone using this app to not pay attention to the calorie burned estimates. In fact take what it estimates and divide it in half.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

Like most things the truth is likely in the middle. The people who try to count calories by power is way too simplified of a look at a complicated issue. Doing so it not much different than a simple speed/distance estimate. Those are known to be very inaccurate. At the same time most calculators do seem to overestimate. I have a garmin gps with heart rate and speed/cadence. They use a very entailed algorithm to calculate.calories. MapMyRun almost always adds a significant number to the import. Funny that when my heart strap was broken and so nit used in the calculation the numbers were much higher and fairly in line with MapMyRun.

Today I did a 35 mike ride in 1:52:33, 18.7 mph solo average. Calories burned per Garmin was 1392, 726 calories per hour. I am willing to think this number, which falls in the middle of the numbers the two sides support, is probably more accurate then either of the two extremes. MapMyRun said it was like 2100 calories. Funny thing is my run nubers usually line up pretty well.


----------

