Originally Posted by oldspark
I quit cycling in my 30's because of family issues, started cycling again a year and 1/2 ago hence the two times.
Like I said, it wasn't funny and I do apologize.
If you ride enough you do not have to change your diet, seems to be a no brainer to me.
Except for the fact that it only takes half-a-brain to realize that a person who weighs enough to limit their riding is not going to be riding 'enough to change their weight' through calories burned vs. consumption regardless of how much they 'should' be able to.
More calories burned than consumed-why do some people have a problem with such a simple solution?
Refer to above, the average person asking typically can not burn more than they're consuming currently.
You can't ask a 300 lb. person to break down and eat 1,500 calories instantly. There is a need to step down caloric consumption and increase energy expenditure in a concave pattern, not just "pop" go ride enough to burn the typical 4,000 calorie diet (it was mine anyhow) of fast food, soda, etc.
BTW, you realize that based off your premise - when I was obese, I would have needed to run 40 miles a day, or cycle 89 to burn off that amount, right?
...such a simple solution really, I must have been ****in lazy then I suppose.