Dieting & commuting, is it possible to do both?

[Barrettscv]

I would like to lose 40 pounds in the next 6 months.

I'm a 240#, 51 year old who has started cycling again. I'm spending about 90 minutes cycling (about 20 miles) almost every day. I'll start depending on the bike 3 days a week as transportation to work. Soon I’ll have a 10 mile one-way commute.

I’m concerned that if I also reduce calories that I will feel it during the work day. I’m happy to cut out fat, sweets and junk food, but I don’t want to be low on energy or hungry. What should I eat? Should I avoid serious weight loss & dieting at this point?

Michael

[esaunders]

Michael,

Totally doable. I've managed to lose 30 pounds in 4 months (a couple of times :rolleyes:) without cycling using low-carb plans, Atkins specifically. This is without cycling and I'm female (which makes it harder)

Try looking at low-carb for hunger management. I've found they work better for that purpose and remember that higher levels of carbs pre-cycling tend to get burned off fairly quickly. (of course that means non-processed carbs like colorful veggies, berries, melons, nuts etc)

Erica

[CACycling]

I'm 48 and started riding seriously the first of this year. I came into 2008 at a little over 250 lbs. (highest of my life) and am at 222 lbs. now (lowest in 25 years). Only change in diet is I eat a piece of toast with peanut butter in the morning before my commute (I used to drive in and skip breakfast). No other real diet changes (actually, I think I'm eating more now) so if you cut out the junk and ride as much as you are you should get it done pretty easily.

[zpl]

I find that bike commuting ramps up my metabolism dramatically and I can eat more and still lose weight. My commute though is 23 miles each way so that's a lot or riding - I rarely bike commute two days in a row. If you're exercising and replacing empty calories (sweets, sodas) with quality foods you should be positioned well to drop pounds. Have fun and celebrate your successes, both with riding and eating well.

[Caincando1]

First off low carb is for seditary people, not athletes. You need a balanced diet as an athlete so don't go the low carb route. Just watch the scale and cut back your intake until you lose 1 lbs a week. There's no majic to it, if you are eating a balanced diet you should have plenty of energy with a 1 lbs loss.

[wrk101]

As long as you control intake, sure. You will know within the first couple of weeks whether you are cutting down enough on the food. If you are not losing about two pounds per week, you are eating too much (at least to reach your target). Stay away from the vending machine. Recognize that you will be building muscle too which can slow the weight loss somewhat. I would shoot for about 100 to 125 miles per week.

[andrelam]

I am no nutitional expert, but most of the literature I've seen regarding diet and cycling warn not to drop too much of the carbs. If you go with an Atkins style diet, you may run into serious carb deficiency and it will cause you great problems with energy.

What appears to be most important is to eat a healthy balanced diet with most of your carbs coming from complex carbs - with low glycemic index. Whole grains for instance will give you nice snow release of energy over an extended period of time. This prevents spikes and keeps you feeling full longer. If you have access to a nutricianist it may be helpful to find out what you are eating now and how you can adjust to ensure you have energy for the ride, yet are still burning more calories that you are consuming. There also appears to be lots of evidence that low fat dairy helps with holding back hunger and helps the body loose weight more quickly, not to mention you will get plenty of calcium. Good sources of low fat protien will also be important to feed the muscles as you gain strength.

Happy riding,
André

[Wavy]

Sure you can.

Skip all sugar --- including everything wheat and potatoes. Learn to enjoy 100% rye bread.

When hungry for sugar, stuff you face with organic carrots and apples. Don't expect to sleep immediately after that much sugar tho.

If you absolutely must have candy, eat a couple of figs.

For oil and protein, eat almond butter. Peanuts contain mold and are difficult to digest.

If you're serious, get Eat right for your Type and Cook Right for Your Type from the library.

[talleymonster]

I posted a few days ago on this topic in the weight loss thread in the Clydes/Athenas Forum.

The main thing people need to realize is that you still have to eat. Starvation is not the way to do it, and you're usually in a worse condition in the end than when you started. Sure, you may look better, but at what cost? Rapid weight loss is never a good thing, in most cases (for people who are morbidly obese, for example, rapid weight loss could be considered a justifiable risk to get themselves out of that danger zone as fast as possible). You only weigh 240lbs. Depending on your height, that might not be that bad. Lose too much weight too quickly and your body starts feeding on your muscles. The key is eating the right foods. You'd be surprised how much food you actually have to eat when you're eating right.


Determining your Basal Metabolic Rate (http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=811783)

Scroll about half way down the page to where it says:
First Step: Calculating Your Basal Metabolic Rate
This article is from a bodybuilding website, but pay no attention to that. Eating the right foods transcends all sports. It' a real good article about consuming the right amount of calories in a day. Yes it is a little biased towards weightlifting, but the information is there.
The author says to lose weight, take your final BMR(Basal Metabolic Rate) and shave off 20% of it. It's not an exact science though. People with faster or slower metabolisms will have to adjust it a little bit.

[talleymonster]

Whoops.....didn't realize that I was in the Clydes/Athenas forum when I posted this. For some reason I thought I was in the Commuting forum. Maybe because the thread was about commuting.....

My mistake.....oh well:bang:

[Wogsterca]

I would like to lose 40 pounds in the next 6 months.

I'm a 240#, 51 year old who has started cycling again. I'm spending about 90 minutes cycling (about 20 miles) almost every day. I'll start depending on the bike 3 days a week as transportation to work. Soon I’ll have a 10 mile one-way commute.

I’m concerned that if I also reduce calories that I will feel it during the work day. I’m happy to cut out fat, sweets and junk food, but I don’t want to be low on energy or hungry. What should I eat? Should I avoid serious weight loss & dieting at this point?

Michael

Forget diets, the first part of diet is die, which is what many people who go on one, think they are going to do. The problem is that diets are temporary in nature, so many people go on one, then 6 months later when they have lost the 40lbs, they go back to eating the way they did before, and put on 50lbs. The key is not a diet, the key is a lifestyle change to eating better.

Food is not comfort, food is not social, food is not entertainment, food is fuel. The best fuels are ones that come packaged as nature intended, Initially most processing was developed as a preservation technique. This includes beer, wine and spirits, as ethanol is a preservative. 100 years ago, if you wanted strawberries in May, in a northern climate, the only way to get them, was via preserves, of course now they can harvest and freeze almost immediately, but cheap oil has meant they can pick them unripe, and ship them 10,000 miles by truck, even in the dead of winter. Of course, oil being more expensive has meant that a $2.00 basket of berries is now about $4.50, so people may go back to buying a few flats when they are in season for $20 for 12 baskets and freezing them at home.

I have said before, and I will say it again, if you want to lose weight, sell your car, and throw away the TV. These items encourage people to sit on their widening back sides, and to eat at the same time, and that is not good. I've gone half way, when the car died almost a year ago, I didn't replace it.

[B Piddy]

Michael - yeah it's very do-able.

Trust me, not too sound like a freaking total hippy, but wait till gas is $10/gal. We'll see who's smarter, the fat douce in the Hummer or the super fly dude on the bike. Food for thought.

[lil brown bat]

If you're serious, get Eat right for your Type and Cook Right for Your Type from the library.
I hate to step on anyone's pet diet, but there really is absolutely zero empirical or scientific evidence to support the assertions of the "type" author.

[Wavy]

lil brown bat wrote"
I hate to step on anyone's pet diet, but there really is absolutely zero empirical or scientific evidence to support the assertions of the "type" author.So two generations of testing and clinical study are "zero empirical evidence"?
The books are aren't about "diets"... they are about foods.

[Richard_Rides]

Yes, the "Type Diet" is junk science. Utter hogwash.

[Wavy]

So two generations of testing and clinical study are "junk science utter hogwash"?

Instead we're supposed to believe you scientific types, who arrive at "conclusions" such as "flies cannot hear without their wings" and "bumblebees aren't capable of flight".

I prefer evidence to scientific theory and pronouncements.

Perhaps the OP would prefer you take this to another thread... or PM... or even into the ring...

[Richard_Rides]

Well, crackpot diets aside, the OP will find that his appetite will actually diminish as a result of exercise. And the Low Carb diet is only for sedentary people. Low Carb works because it puts you in Ketosis, which we cyclists call by another name: Bonked.

[Richard_Rides]

Perhaps the OP would prefer you take this to another thread... or PM... or even into the ring...

LOL

[lil brown bat]

lil brown bat wrote"
So two generations of testing and clinical study are "zero empirical evidence"?

Cite please? Here's some of mine:

http://www.acu-cell.com/btd.html

"Of course there are people who claim that since following the "eat-right-4-your-type'' recommendations
they had lost some weight, or otherwise felt better, however when asked about any specific changes
made, they invariably consisted of lifestyle changes that are universally considered to be beneficial -
regardless of someone's blood type - such as cutting out junk food, and/or eliminating foods which
either cause, or have an unfavorable impact on specific medical problems one is suffering from."

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/d'adamo.html

"It may well turn out that there are important interactions with between certain foods and one's blood type. D'Adamo, unfortunately, offers little in the way of scientific evidence, relying instead on a collection of anecdotal reports and case histories. His speculation that the one gene responsible the ABO blood type could exert such a dominant influence over everything else is unable to stand on its own merits. In the end, D'Adamo adds the caveat that individual variations still occur within blood types, so you shouldn't expect all of his recommendations to apply to you. It's nice to have it both ways, especially where book sales are involved."

http://earthsave.org/news/bloodtyp.htm

"One of the book's most disturbing characteristics is the frightening images that the author calls forth without providing scientific documentation. For example, D'Adamo hangs much of his theory on the action of lectins, proteins found on the surface of certain foods that can cause various molecules and some types of cells to stick together. He blames lectins for serious disruptions throughout the body, from agglutination of the blood cells to cirrhosis and kidney failure...If one is going to make a statement like that - and publish it in a book destined for the New York Times bestseller list and intended to change the eating habits of a nation - I believe the author is obligated to present solid scientific evidence of supporting their assertions, which D'Adamo repeatedly fails to do."

http://skepdic.com/bloodtypediet.html

"There is no reasonable scientific basis for the claim that blood type should determine one's diet, though [D'Adamo] claims to have collected "over 1,000 scientific articles on blood types and their correlations to disease, biochemistry, nutrition, and anthropology."* Even so, he's never done a controlled study on blood type diets. Yet, he claims that blood type determines body chemistry to such an extent that those with type A blood should go vegetarian and meditate, those with type O should eliminate grains and do aerobics. He suggest similar nonsense for types B and AB."

The books are aren't about "diets"... they are about foods.

You can label it however you want. It's still not valid.

Please... keep opinions to yourself when you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Going to be like that, is it? Then how about this: Please... don't recommend fad diets (or fad whatever-you-wanna-callits) when asked for advice on diet and nutrition.

[Wavy]

Originally posted by Richard Rides
LOL

Glad you enjoyed that. If we need to get all snarky we can visit the asshats in the Road forum.:)

[noteon]

Well, crackpot diets aside, the OP will find that his appetite will actually diminish as a result of exercise. And the Low Carb diet is only for sedentary people. Low Carb works because it puts you in Ketosis, which we cyclists call by another name: Bonked.

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.

I feel best, think most clearly, and have the most energy when eating a low-carbohydrate diet. Not necessarily strict, induction-level Atkins, but low. Say, under 40-50 grams/day.

I commute 28 miles/day and don't bonk.

[Spartan112]

Avoid fad diets like the plague. I recommend starting to use a calorie counter like daily plate or calorie king and track what you're eating. What you need to do is assess what you are eating and make healthy changes. Replace alot of the garbage you are likely eating with whole grains, fruits, vegetables. Avoid sauces, milk based dressings etc. Try not drinking your calories. It's hard but the results are your reward. Make sure not to completely deprive yourself, find snacks that you can have on occasion that feel like cheats but aren't that bad. My personal favorite is edy's slow churned ice cream. They end up being about 120cal/serving. Oh yeah, that reminds me...look at what a real serving size is. A serving of ice cream is 1/2 cup. That's a big adjustment to what you are probably used to (I started eating slower and taking smaller bites!).

Set real goals...overall goals are good but have intermediate goals as well (10 lbs at a time, etc).

Good luck.

[Spartan112]

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.

I feel best, think most clearly, and have the most energy when eating a low-carbohydrate diet. Not necessarily strict, induction-level Atkins, but low. Say, under 40-50 grams/day.

I commute 28 miles/day and don't bonk.

Lotta hills in NYC?

[noteon]

Lotta hills in NYC?

A few. They're called bridges.

They're also called "flats" if you're pulling 140 pounds of trailer at an average of 12 mph.

Oh, and this one, which I do at the end of that daily 28 miles:

http://homepage.mac.com/noteon/Sites/facebook/bike_elevation.png

Any other smart comments?

[bautieri]

This opinion is strictly my own. I am not a scientist or a nutritionist, nor do I play one on TV.

Yes you certainly can diet and commute. I do it with no ill effects and notice quite a difference on days that I commute vs. days I drive to work. Mainly when I ride my bike to work I eat less, I'm just not as hungry. I wake up and eat an apple, check my tire pressure, pack up my cloths and lunch then push out the door. I ride to work with a big stupid grin on my face, about an hour after arriving at work I microwave a half cup of plain oatmeal with 1/2 a packet of salt in it. Sorry, I still can eat plain oatmeal plain, tasteless sludge barely made palatable by the salt. During the work day I am much more energetic, I also find that I go straight to water rather than having a mug of coffee first. My lunch is sparse and I walk about the capital complex to get away from my desk. The ride home I have the same stupid grin. When I get home I am less hungry, I clean up then cook my dinner.

Days I don't ride to work I get up and eat a hard boiled egg and piece of toast with natural peanut butter. I get to work and am slugish, drink more coffee than I should, and can't wait until 12 to get into my lunch box. (kind of like today, I didn't ride to work because I have to pack up my stuff. I start a new job Monday with double the commute:giver:) By time I get home tonight I'll be starving and likely will eat a larger dinner than I should before going out for a quick ride.

So as I've found out bike commute helps my dieting not in the sense that it's extra calories burned (ok that helps too) but in the sense that I have less desire to eat. Maybe it will be the same for you too.

Good luck and let us know how it goes.

Bau

[Wavy]

lil brown bat wrote:
Cite please?

You claiming no evidence proves you haven't read the book.

Both the author and his father were MDs who studied, tested, and refined their theories.... for TWO generations.

I know MDs who have used the books. Their results agree.

The recommendations in the book worked for me, and others I know.

Like I said, I believe evidence over "scientific" pronouncements.

Yet about 15 years ago a lab technician ranted at me for a long time that blood type has nothing to do with how food is processed in the body. There was no changing what she learned in school... even when she witnessed my better health.

“You will never change someone’s mind just because you have facts and results on your side. People will stubbornly cling to a welded-in belief... even when it clearly is hurting them.” - John Carlton

lil brown bat, I APOLOGIZE for insulting you by saying you don't know what you're talking about. That was mean of me, and unwarranted. I'm sorry.

As for your citings, on the interweb one can find pro and con on any subject. That you or anybody else who can post stuff on a website choose to believe or not to believe it... well, bumblebees can't fly.

I've read on another subject at quackwatch, and arrived at a conclusion.

The witch burners at quackwatch are obsessed with destroying anything that doesn't involve drugs or technology. They are terrified of anything that in their narrow-minded view threatens the western medicine pharmaceutical monopoly.

[Barrettscv]

Well, crackpot diets aside, the OP will find that his appetite will actually diminish as a result of exercise. And the Low Carb diet is only for sedentary people. Low Carb works because it puts you in Ketosis, which we cyclists call by another name: Bonked.

This is exactly my concern.

What I am gathering is that I should avoid junk food but eat & drink what I need as an active person. Based on the info, I'm using about 2000 calories a day when sedentary and about 3200 calories a day when biking 20 miles a day. I’ll lose weight if I consume less than 3200 calories per day, but I will need to eat right or I could “Bonk” at work.

Michael

[Spartan112]

A few. They're called bridges.

They're also called "flats" if you're pulling 140 pounds of trailer at an average of 12 mph.

Oh, and this one, which I do at the end of that daily 28 miles:

http://homepage.mac.com/noteon/Sites/facebook/bike_elevation.png

Any other smart comments?


The weight is impressive...I still don't recognize those as hills.

[noteon]

I’ll lose weight if I consume less than 3200 calories per day, but I will need to eat right or I will “Bonk” at work.l

And LOTS of water. More than people who don't bicycle.

I think the bottom line is that you figure it out as you go. Nobody in this forum actually knows what works best for you, no matter how insistently they make their cases. Just try stuff that makes sense to you and see how it goes. When you screw up, go another way.

[noteon]

The weight is impressive...I still don't recognize those as hills.

Then you're not looking far enough to the right.

And you're also missing the main point:

Low carb, 28 miles, daily, feel good, think clearly, no bonk. That means telling people they will bonk if they go on a low-carb diet is questionable advice, at best.

I don't know whether low-carb will work for the OP, and neither do you.

[lil brown bat]

lil brown bat wrote:


You claiming no evidence proves you haven't read the book.

It proves nothing of the sort. I have read the book. The author claims he studied this and did
that; he doesn't provide data.

The recommendations in the book worked for me, and others I know.

Like I said, I believe evidence over "scientific" pronouncements.

That reasoning says that if I ride down the street wearing a green shirt in the belief that this will keep it from raining, and it remains sunny all the way home, my green shirt is what kept the rain off, and if I'd worn a red shirt it would have dumped buckets. You take an action in the belief that it will cause a certain result, and when you get that result you're sure that your action was the cause, when in fact the chain of causation could be quite different. It's been found that people "get results" on nearly any diet or nutritional system or whateveryouwannacallit, even ones that are diametrically opposed to each other...why? The answer is that while they're all over the map as far as their nutritional soundness, they have one thing in common, and that's that they make people pay attention to what they're eating. This almost always gets results, no matter what the governing principle, because (at least temporarily) it makes a more aware eater -- and that is always a good thing. Followers of the blood type books pay attention to what they eat -- they have to, in order to avoid that nasty toxic-to-me wheat (or whatever). The wheat is just your red shirt, that's all.

“You will never change someone’s mind just because you have facts and results on your side. People will stubbornly cling to a welded-in belief... even when it clearly is hurting them.” - John Carlton

Please show me your facts. What you have shown me so far is that you've had "results". You haven't shown me the causation behind them.

lil brown bat, I APOLOGIZE for insulting you by saying you don't know what you're talking about. That was mean of me, and unwarranted. I'm sorry.

Apology accepted.

As for your citings, on the interweb one can find pro and con on any subject.

And you can find plenty of anecdotes speaking positively on the blood type diet -- you just can't find any scientific studies to support it. The con, on the other hand, doesn't just talk of the lack of such studies, but explains the science behind why D'Amato's core assumptions are not valid. It's pretty hard to refute those.

That you or anybody else who can post stuff on a website choose to believe or not to believe it... well, bumblebees can't fly.

I know you hate it when I quote the interwebs, but here we go again (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_045.html):

According to an account at the Institute of Physics the story was initially circulated in German technical universities in the 1930s. Supposedly during dinner a biologist asked an aerodynamics expert about insect flight. The aerodynamicist did a few calculations and found that, according to the accepted theory of the day, bumblebees didn't generate enough lift to fly. The biologist, delighted to have a chance to show up those arrogant SOBs in the hard sciences, promptly spread the story far and wide.

Once he sobered up, however, the aerodynamicist surely realized what the problem was--a faulty analogy between bees and conventional fixed-wing aircraft. Bees' wings are small relative to their bodies. If an airplane were built the same way, it'd never get off the ground. But bees aren't like airplanes, they're like helicopters. Their wings work on the same principle as helicopter blades--to be precise, "reverse-pitch semirotary helicopter blades," to quote one authority. A moving airfoil, whether it's a helicopter blade or a bee wing, generates a lot more lift than a stationary one.

Now, if you want to disdain science based on a much-repeated anecdote about an offhand comment supposedly made at a dinner party, and believe that that old story means that "you scientific types" generally and continually assert that "bumblebees aren't capable of flight", why, you go right ahead.

[mwrobe1]

Low carb, 28 miles, daily, feel good, think clearly, no bonk. That means telling people they will bonk if they go on a low-carb diet is questionable advice, at best.

Yeah...I have to agree with that as well. All this low carb is for sedentary people is BS too. It can (and has been) done. Unless you're pulling a metric per day on your commute and you're doing that everyday...you really have nothing to worry about doing a low carb diet; but then again...if you're doing a metric everyday, you probably don't need to lose any weight. ;)

I am still in the process of losing the weight I gained whilst staying around the house more taking care of my wife while she was pregnant with our 2nd. I've commuted just over a 1000 miles since March, eliminated refined sugar (sweets), breads, beans, rice, pasta and potatoes from my diet. I pretty much eat lower carb fruits, all vegetables, beef, chicken, fish, eggs, cheese, and nuts...thats it. I'm down 30 pounds since March of this year (284 down to 254 today...I'm 6'5" if you're curious) My commute is 16 miles one way...the one thing that I DO make sure of, is, that I have plenty of water, and a snack about an hour before I ride (usually the snack is some fruit, nuts, or some beef jerky) I can't say I've bonked at all either.

[Spartan112]

Then you're not looking far enough to the right.

And you're also missing the main point:

Low carb, 28 miles, daily, feel good, think clearly, no bonk. That means telling people they will bonk if they go on a low-carb diet is questionable advice, at best.

I don't know whether low-carb will work for the OP, and neither do you.


Yeah, just caught that thing to the right...that's a hill...one hill...

[noteon]

Yeah, just caught that thing to the right...that's a hill...one hill...

Which was never relevant in the first place, unless we're having a macho competition.

I have twin boys.

Your turn.

[Wavy]

lil brown bat wrote"
Now, if you want to disdain science based on a much-repeated anecdote about an offhand comment supposedly made at a dinner party, and believe that that old story means that "you scientific types" generally and continually assert that "bumblebees aren't capable of flight", why, you go right ahead.The bumblebee story has to be folklore, as does the "flies cannot hear without their wings" story. Both are meant to demonstrate that scientists don't know everything, despite thinking they do.

And now you'll think that because i'm too lazy to find a story or citation to prove that scientists were wrong once, I've just admitted that you're right. So you are.

The red shirt - green shirt argument is similar to the story of the suburban North American who rang a cowbell every night to scare away tigers.

But that's not how it was for me. I paid attention to the book after not one, not two, but three doctors had it on their desks.

ERfYT is not a fad diet, it is an eating lifestyle. I have seen it work -- not only on me, but also on others. And the three physicians I know still use it.

If the author, or me, or anybody -- can't demonstrate to your satisfaction why, does it mean it's not valid? Apparently to you it does. So you're a scientist.

My issue with scientists?

1. Closed minds.

Simply because they can't understand, or can't find "scientific evidence", they dismiss it.

One very senior, well-renowned physician once laughed when i said I was allergic to something. She looked me in the eye and said "Allergies are all in a patient's head".

That's crazy. Plenty of people have no idea they're allergic until their bodies react. Sometimes deadly allergies appear later in life.

2. Belief that drugs and technology are the only answers.

For decades medics laughed at the mention of healthy eating. They'd never expect their cars to run if they pissed in the gas tank, but had no problem saying, "What you eat doesn't matter". Faced with overwhelming -- if not scientific -- evidence, they're finally coming around.

3. Focus on symptoms instead of causes.

Sometimes this method not only works, but also is necessary. Yet killing the symptom doesn't always remove the cause. Allopathic medicine only treats the symptom.

If I'd accidentally consumed what I am allergic to, that aforementioned physician would have ordered core samples (biopsies) and burning (radiation) to control the swelling. Screw that. There are better methods.

4. Fear of losing their monopoly status.

As people (especially baby boomers) increasingly refuse to live with symptoms medics can't fix, they seek out other modalities -- unknown or unacknowledged by medics -- that work. Doing so threatens the scientist's narrow drugs/technology monopoly. Quackwatch represents the worst of that mentality.

[bautieri]

...snip ERfYT is not a fad diet, it is an eating lifestyle....snip

Bing bing bing!

What lil brown bat is pointing out is that correlation does not equal causation. That an a lack of scientific facts which you dismiss as irrelevant. The diet worked for you and thats great, big congratulations on the weight loss :thumb:.

You've also had some crappy doctors which aren't scientists btw.

[bautieri]

Aw crap he's trolling isn't he?

*kicks feet in the dirt* I didn't mean to feed the troll.

[deraltekluge]

This is exactly my concern.

What I am gathering is that I should avoid junk food but eat & drink what I need as an active person. Based on the info, I'm using about 2000 calories a day when sedentary and about 3200 calories a day when biking 20 miles a day. I’ll lose weight if I consume less than 3200 calories per day, but I will need to eat right or I could “Bonk” at work.

MichaelAre you sure about that 2000 calories? If it's true, you'd probably gain about a pound a week cycling 20 miles a day and eating 3200 calories. Continue with the 2000 calories, and cycle 20 miles, and you'll probably lose about a pound a week. 1200 calories/day is equivalent to about a pound of fat every three days.

If you want to lose weight, eat less and/or exercise more. Exercising more, and then eating more to make up for it is not a formula for weight loss.

[deraltekluge]

About the bumblebee flying story...

The "laws" of aerodynamic that aircraft designers used were far from being laws. The were approximations that gave reasonably good results for particular sizes, weights, and speeds of aircraft. For example, you wouldn't try to use the same formulas for a 1000 lb airplane flying at 100 mph as you'd use for a 40,000 lb jet fighter at mach 2.

You'd hardly expect the approximations used for either of them to also be valid for an insect with a mass of a fraction of a gram, flying at a few mph.

[lil brown bat]

lil brown bat wrote"
The bumblebee story has to be folklore, as does the "flies cannot hear without their wings" story. Both are meant to demonstrate that scientists don't know everything, despite thinking they do.

Strawman.

And now you'll think that because i'm too lazy to find a story or citation to prove that scientists were wrong once, I've just admitted that you're right. So you are.

I'd say that if you claim something is wrong, but you won't support it with evidence or proof, your assertion is worth somewhat less than the paper it's not printed on. Damfino exactly what it is you're claiming here, though; the sentences above don't make a lot of sense to me.

The red shirt - green shirt argument is similar to the story of the suburban North American who rang a cowbell every night to scare away tigers.

Couldn't agree more. So when are you gonna stop ringing that cowbell? :D

But that's not how it was for me. I paid attention to the book after not one, not two, but three doctors had it on their desks.

ERfYT is not a fad diet, it is an eating lifestyle. I have seen it work -- not only on me, but also on others. And the three physicians I know still use it.

That's nice for you and them; that doesn't make it good science. Look, the "type", uh...lifestyle...whatever you wanna call it...doesn't give advice that is harmful, in most cases. It won't hurt for most people to follow most of its advice. It's just not the case that the results they get from doing so are the result of eating foods that are "right" for their blood type.

If the author, or me, or anybody -- can't demonstrate to your satisfaction why, does it mean it's not valid? Apparently to you it does. So you're a scientist.

You're using the word "valid" in a very sloppy sense. The assertion that certain foods are "right" for an individual based on an individual's blood type is what's not valid, and it isn't valid because it hasn't been validated. Furthermore, neither you, nor the author, nor anybody else has made an attempt to validate it, by supplying evidence in support of said assertion. You won't often succeed at something you don't try.

My issue with scientists?

1. Closed minds.

2. Belief that drugs and technology are the only answers.

3. Focus on symptoms instead of causes.

4. Fear of losing their monopoly status.


Bosh, bosh, bosh, bosh.

[Barrettscv]

Are you sure about that 2000 calories? If it's true, you'd probably gain about a pound a week cycling 20 miles a day and eating 3200 calories. Continue with the 2000 calories, and cycle 20 miles, and you'll probably lose about a pound a week. 1200 calories/day is equivalent to about a pound of fat every three days.

If you want to lose weight, eat less and/or exercise more. Exercising more, and then eating more to make up for it is not a formula for weight loss.

This topic is starting multiple disputes :fight: .

First, I stated that my sedentary calorie burn was 2000.

I've lost 30 lbs in 2 months while consuming 2200 calories and working out at the YMCA for 1 hour every other day.

I'm simply going to eat healthy foods in moderation and track if I lose weight by commuting alone. If I'm not losing weight, I'll have to count calories (at the minimum) to achieve my target weight of 200#.

Michael

[Spartan112]

Which was never relevant in the first place, unless we're having a macho competition.

I have twin boys.

Your turn.

I'm from Boston...city of champions, your turn...:thumb:

[noteon]

I'm from Boston...city of champions, your turn...:thumb:

I thought we were comparing masculinity, not poor driving ability.

[Massken]

hey hey hey, NYC isn't known for its great drivers either...

At least we can all agree that we are better than NJ drivers lol jk/ jk

[Spartan112]

I thought we were comparing masculinity, not poor driving ability.

I'm still trying to figure out what having twins has to do with you masculinity.

[noteon]

I'm still trying to figure out what having twins has to do with you masculinity.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're even doing in this conversation.

[Richard_Rides]

http://homepage.mac.com/noteon/Sites/facebook/bike_elevation.png

Any other smart comments?

This looks like a pretty easy ride, except for the vertical flight stage at the end. That's a near instantaneous altitude gain of 450 feet. And while dragging a 140 pound trailer to boot. I would say you're a world class athlete and perhaps one of the fittest men in the world. Quite inspiring!

[bautieri]

I thought we were comparing masculinity, not poor driving ability.

I take it you've never been a victim of the Pennsylvania pull out have you haha

[noteon]

I would say you're a world class athlete and perhaps one of the fittest men in the world!

Now that's more like it!

It's not as instantaneous as it looks; the bikeradar.com elevation gizmo could be a little more finely tuned. It's more like a rise of 250 feet, most of which occurs in... I dunno... a quarter mile or so.

[Spartan112]

I'm still trying to figure out what you're even doing in this conversation.

Being a pain in your tail.