I wanted to toss this out there and see what people think.

A friend of mine is on this program called Medifast. Basically its a really calorie and carb restricted control diet. You eat 5 of Medifast's "meals" a day and 1 meal consisting of a "Lean & Green" meal, usually a portion of green vegetables and 6-8oz of meat, depending on what meat you choose. At the end of the day, if you stay "on plan", you end up around 1000-1100 calories for the day with around 95-100 grams of carbs. I should probably mention that all their meals are soy based foods.. like shakes, puddings, soups, bars, etc.

The plan works.. my sister in law lost 60#s on it in a very short time.

When she's not riding, she loses weight. As soon as she starts back on the bike, she doesnt lose anything. I personally think the scale isnt telling the whole story. I think water retention is causing skewed readings.. I know when I ride, my weight goes nuts for several days afterwards. She doesnt seem to think thats the case.

Medifast only recommends 40 minutes of "moderate exercise" on this plan. Their nutritional support, while responsive, I dont think is used to dealing with people that do this kind of diet and push themselves like cyclists do. Case in point, the other week she told NS she was going to be riding 55 miles the next day and wanted to know how to fuel. The woman asked her "Whats that going to take? 5 or 6 hours?" She's been sticking to the 5 and 1 plan except on ride days, where she consumes some carbs pre-ride and a moderate amount of carbs during the ride. Peeing on a keto stick post ride shows a high level of ketones, which is common for post exercise, so she goes right back to 5 and 1, which should keep her in ketosis.

Id appreciate any input anyone may have. I'd like to be able to make a stronger arguement for riding.

I'm probably much bigger than her , but if I tried to watch TV , let alone ride on 1100 cals / day I'd die.

I am having trouble losing weight. I use Fitday.com which shows I eat too much fat & carbs, and not enough protein, and a Homedics scale which shows that while my weight is going down very, very slowly my fat is decreasing and muscle is increasing.

Im actually on the same diet. Riding isnt easy but if you keep the ride below 25 miles, its not bad. The longer rides, you just need to fuel smarter and youre okay.

MF has a pretty comprehensive food logging setup.. if you stay on plan, your fats vs carbs vs protein surprisingly are very well balanced.

Scale...is okay but use something more useful like body fat % calipers for more accurate assessment of what is going on.

I think that is too low of Calories to be active and the body is probably trying to hang onto whatever resources it can. If she is consuming more carbs around exercise, then her weight is going to change because more glycogen in the muscles == more water being retained.

Is this diet teaching her to eat properly when she is done dieting or is she going to ketose forever??

Scale...is okay but use something more useful like body fat % calipers for more accurate assessment of what is going on.

I think that is too low of Calories to be active and the body is probably trying to hang onto whatever resources it can. If she is consuming more carbs around exercise, then her weight is going to change because more glycogen in the muscles == more water being retained.

Is this diet teaching her to eat properly when she is done dieting or is she going to ketose forever??

No.. it has a very comprehensive "Transition" program and a "Maintenence" program when you finish the transition part of it. It's actually a pretty decent program with good support. The food is tolerable, as much as stuff made out of soy can be.

I also feel like its a water issue, both from hydration and muscles retaining. I can swing 5#s a day or so after a ride and it takes a few days of not riding to get back to "normal."

Umm aren't ketones in blood indicate that body is breaking down muscle tissue for carbs? Not a doctor, but I don't think thats a good thing...

Something tells me their body is jumping into starvation mode. Not enough calories to fuel the system so the body doesn't want to burn other sources of fuel. Watch out, the body can be eating away at the muscle instead of fat.

might she be loosing muscle mass?

how does anyone learn good habits for life drinking shakes all day?

eat real food

treat yourself good

who said anything about drinking shakes all day? i believe he said there are five meal replacements accompanied by one real meal that consists of healthy choices within the realm of the diet specification, followed by an extensive weaning off the program via their transition and maintenance phase, combined with the support of licensed nutritionists. might want to check into MediFast and why Johns Hopkins backs it up completely, before knocking the program. Its a very comprehensive program for people struggling to lose weight, based on a scientifically proven balance of carbs, protein, fat, and calories to keep the body from attacking the muscle tissue, to keep OUT of starvation mode, and in a MODERATE stage of ketosis. The problem is, the program was also designed for a maximum of 45 minutes of 'rigorous activity' daily. I don't exactly consider endurance cycling to meet these restrictions, and that's where the problem is.

Umney, since you asked...ketones are produces when fat is burned as energy as opposed to carbs, which is why despite carbing up for a ride, ketosis is immediately established post-riding. when an individual is in ketosis, they are able to survive their daily routines on such limited calories because their bodies are burning fat in addition to the calories being consumed, as opposed to relying solely on new calories being introduced into the system.

personally, i believe it is a matter of starvation mode. while the body IS burning fat and using ketones when the carbs consumed during the ride are depleted, the calories out is SO much greater than calories in that the body is holding on, literally for dear life, to any fat stores it can.

perhaps someone could suggest a better diet for a cyclist trying to lose a bit of weight. its obviously not as easy as calories in < calories out = weight loss. When a person has a daily caloric defecit of 2,000 calories, has a proper balance between carbs/fat/protein (ie: they eat healthy, not a ****wad of empty calories and fat)weight loss SHOULD be a given, wouldnt you think? Theres obviously part of the equation that is missing.

Sounds like a good plan...if you're a clueless couch potato with more money than sense.

At only 800-1000 calories per day, any serious exercise is probably not possible.

And, with most of your meals pre-packaged, you're not learning *anything* about how to eat healthy for the long term and the real world.

perhaps someone could suggest a better diet for a cyclist trying to lose a bit of weight. its obviously not as easy as calories in < calories out = weight loss. When a person has a daily caloric defecit of 2,000 calories, has a proper balance between carbs/fat/protein (ie: they eat healthy, not a ****wad of empty calories and fat)weight loss SHOULD be a given, wouldnt you think? Theres obviously part of the equation that is missing.

Actually, it *is* that easy. If you burn more calories than you consume, you'll lose weight.

Nobody can violate the laws of thermodynamics.

hmm, apparently i can, because i have a daily caloric defecit of between 2,000 and 4,000 calories (good, balanced calories, not sugar and fat) depending on if it was a ride day or not....and i havent lost a single pound this summer. contrastly, over the winter with a 1500 calorie defecit daily and no riding, just modest workouts at the gym, i lost 30# in about 12 weeks.

just because the theory looks good on paper, doesn't mean it works in the real world, 100% of the time. its about balance, not just greater than/less than. A quick google search on 'starvation mode' will give more than enough results to back this up.

hmm, apparently i can, because i have a daily caloric defecit of between 2,000 and 4,000 calories (good, balanced calories, not sugar and fat) depending on if it was a ride day or not....and i havent lost a single pound this summer. contrastly, over the winter with a 1500 calorie defecit daily and no riding, just modest workouts at the gym, i lost 30# in about 12 weeks.

just because the theory looks good on paper, doesn't mean it works in the real world, 100% of the time. its about balance, not just greater than/less than. A quick google search on 'starvation mode' will give more than enough results to back this up.

No offense, but you've clearly NOT been achieving a daily caloric deficit. If you had, you would have lost weight.

There are two sides to the calorie equation..."Calories In", and "Calories Out".

You have no way of actually measuring your daily calories burned ("Calories Out"). Online estimators are notoriously inaccurate.

It's also quite difficult to accurately measure calories consumed (most of us underestimate this number).


The fact that your weight has not changed is proof positive that your Calories In are roughly equal to your Calories Out.


BTW - a daily deficit of 2000-4000 calories is pretty ridiculous, damned near impossible, and probably unhealthy. If you were really at that level of deficit, you would be losing 4-8 lbs per week. Thankfully, you're not screwing up your body with such an extreme deficit.

ssp, i dont mean any disrespect, but youve made broad assumptions about me and you've got no idea of my diet personally, so im a tad bit confused as to why youd do that. when im dieting, im on a calorie restricted diet, medically supervised, to stay under 1000 calories a day.

At my age, height, weight, and gender, my BMR is 1700 calories a day....thats a BMR, mind you, not a daily caloric need, which, even when multiplied by 1.2 to calculate needs for an extremely sedentary individual (which i am not) still gives a daily caloric need of 2040. That starts me out with a caloric defecit of 1,040 right there, before I even hop on my bike or take a trip to the gym.

When you add in daily exercise consisting of something typical for me, which might be a 90 minute ride at 17mph, youve got an estimated 1470 calories burned on top of that. So let's see...if I have a 1,040 calorie defecit, and add to that an additional 1470 calories, im looking at a daily defecit of 2515 calories. This is typical for a weekday routine. My rides on the weekends are easily 3-5 hours, more than doubling the calories burned during the rides. I log my exercise and my food intake daily, and see the results in clear, easy to read charts and graphs, which is how I can assure you that no, it's not impossible. Unless calculators are SO inefficient at averaging the calories in raw vegetables and chicken breast, I'm fairly certain the information I plug in to my daily charts is accurate...

So while you might deem my routine 'ridiculous', it certainly isn't 'damn near impossible'. My dr says I'm in the best shape he's ever seen me in, so I also reject your claim that its 'probably unhealthy'. About the only thing I might come close to agreeing with you on is the fact that maintaining this kind of eating structure while trying to maintain an endurance training schedule is a bit ridiculous, which is why I reached out for a better plan to begin with.

The sole purpose of this reply to you is to demonstrate that no, its NOT simply a matter of calories in < calories out = weight loss. Unfortunately, I'm living proof that this theory is not always true. I understand you apparently make a living on selling people on this theory(based on the custome user title under your screen name and the link to WeightWare in your signature...for all i know, thats not yours, which is why i said 'apparently' lol), but for those of us who don't fit the mold that has brought you financial gains, this thread serves as a purpose to gather OTHER alternatives. I'm not knocking the idea of this theory, I'm just stating again, that it does not apply to me.

Back to the topic at hand...if anyone out there might be able to provide a better nutrition structure for people who enjoy endurance sports but still need to lose weight, I'm all ears, and I'm pretty certain other folks I've seen post about this issue (and get railroaded with the same one size fits all stuff that I've seen here) would be open to suggestions as well.

Thanks :)

So can you explain what it is your body is running on? If it isn't new food, its fat or muscle. Obviously it isn't fat or muscle since you aren;t losing weight. I don't see how it works the way you say it does.

re: your diet/exercise plan

For most folks, eating less than 1000 calories per day makes it very difficult to get adequate vitamins and minerals. And with your level of exercise, you're not providing your body with the resources it needs for recovery.

What kind of doctor is "medically supervising" your current regimen? I can't imagine any reputable health professional approving of a diet of less than 1000 calories per day for someone who exercises as much as you claim to do. Besides the risks of messing up your metabolism and thyroid functioning, your low level of intake will not allow your body to recover from your exercise. And it would undoubtedly have a negative impact on your cycling performance. And, clearly, it's not working for weight loss either!

Have you been assessed for an eating disorder? More importantly, are you still menstruating (assuming you're not post-menopause)?


re: Calories In vs. Calories Out

I've studied the subject quite a bit, and I'm not aware of ANY studies that disprove this simple formula. If you've got links to studies showing otherwise, please post them - I'd definitely be interested in reviewing that kind of research.

If you're truly burning as many calories per day as you say, and you're truly only eating around 1000 calories per day...then where does your body get all the extra calories it's burning? From the air??? Something doesn't compute....

SSP is absolutely 100% correct. while we are all different, it is a science. calories in and calories out. anyone who tries to dispute that is silly. later.

While it theoretically does sound as "easy" as calories in and calories out, when you throw in a vigorous exercise program on top of a caloric restriction diet, it makes it harder to maintain a negative balance (surprisingly).

On the NOVA special (google it - it's free online and a great show) which took 10 complete new runners and trained them to run the Boston marathon in 8 months, 100% of the people increased their VO2 by nearly twofold, only one person lost weight, and she was super-aggressively doing extra dieting on top. Similar phenomena have been noted by serious marathoners who find it difficult to lose weight while training hard unless they were really out of shape and overweight to begin with. In fact, most serious marathoners note that if they want to focus on weight loss, they need to do it in their lower-intensity off season, since the caloric deficit makes serious endurance training to a new level of performance nearly impossible.

Not to say that exercise isn't recommended for weight loss - it definitely is part of the "keep it off" recommendations, but just keep in mind that if you're training at more than a leisurely intensity or ramping up to a whole new level of performance, weight loss may be difficult if you try to maintain perfomance if you're not chunky to begin with.

This is one of those situations in which the simplicity of the formula is correct, but where in practice, it can be surprisingly difficult despite sounding like you're doing everything right.

While it theoretically does sound as "easy" as calories in and calories out, when you throw in a vigorous exercise program on top of a caloric restriction diet, it makes it harder to maintain a negative balance (surprisingly).

On the NOVA special (google it - it's free online and a great show) which took 10 complete new runners and trained them to run the Boston marathon in 8 months, 100% of the people increased their VO2 by nearly twofold, only one person lost weight, and she was super-aggressively doing extra dieting on top. Similar phenomena have been noted by serious marathoners who find it difficult to lose weight while training hard unless they were really out of shape and overweight to begin with. In fact, most serious marathoners note that if they want to focus on weight loss, they need to do it in their lower-intensity off season, since the caloric deficit makes serious endurance training to a new level of performance nearly impossible.

Not to say that exercise isn't recommended for weight loss - it definitely is part of the "keep it off" recommendations, but just keep in mind that if you're training at more than a leisurely intensity or ramping up to a whole new level of performance, weight loss may be difficult if you try to maintain perfomance if you're not chunky to begin with.

This is one of those situations in which the simplicity of the formula is correct, but where in practice, it can be surprisingly difficult despite sounding like you're doing everything right.

+1 - very well said.


The formula is "simple" (basically, ((Calories Burned - Calories Consumed) / 3500) = Pounds Lost).

But, just because it's simple, doesn't mean it's "easy".

+1 - very well said.


The formula is "simple" (basically, ((Calories Burned - Calories Consumed) / 3500) = Pounds Lost).

But, just because it's simple, doesn't mean it's "easy".

even better said.

a lot of folks misconstrue the statement that the science of weight loss is easy for losing weight is easy. it was extremely difficult for me to drop 70 lbs in one year. i to completely change my lifestyle. the fact is, i ate less and burned more. later.

i dont need to spend time looking up studies and posting them because for every study that backs me up, there will be another that disproves it. im really not trying to argue this anyways, guys, im really not, so please dont take my back and forth with you as an argument. im providing information to help figure out what in the hell is going on with this body of mine. so, for further explaination...

i'm 20# over weight. im 32 years old. i'm 5'11, and in case my avatar and screen name dont make it obvious, im female, lol. :) perfect case in point is today. i rode 55 miles today in 3 hours with an average heart rate of 81% my max, so this was not a sunday joy ride for me, i was putting forth some serious effort. My Garmin tells me I burned 4,070 calories, my Polar tells me I burned 3533. I always use the lower because I prefer to err on the side of caution. This does not take into account the calories I will burn today just pumping blood, walking around the house, taking care of my kids, etc. Based on the well known Harris Benedict equation, that'd be approximately an additonal 2,040 calories burned today. That brings the total to 5573 calories burned. My diet, which allows me to ramp up the protein and carbs on longer ride days, will consist of approximately 1200 calories today, consisting mainly of protein and carbs. That is a 4373 caloric defecit. For just one day. My Saturdays are always like this, and my weekday rides are half the length and time.

What the doc says is I am burning fat for energy, which is why my ketosticks register positive, and extremely positive after a ride, as I use the ketones produced from burning fat, as my main energy source. No, I have not been evaluated for an eating disorder, and I do take offense to that. The reason I am eating this way is based on my physicians structured diet, so unless you're insinutating my doctor is making an anorexic out of me, I don't know what else to say.

I know that in off season, when I am only in a 1500 calorie defecit daily and losing weight that I am losing fat because my body measurements decrease, and do so most drastically in my waist where I carry most of my weight.

The doc insists that I *am* burning fat. I understand the theory that I'm possibly gaining muscle, which would offset the loss in fat weight, but come on....I'd have some serious frog legs at this point to have offset the weight I would have thought I'd have lost based on calories in/calories out.

SOMETHING is going on. I am energetic and feel great, so it's not like the calorie defecit is making me lethargic, and believe it or not, the doc is impressed with my physical well being. We've tested the thyroid and all that as well, I'm not diabetic, I'm not anything.

Again, I don't put this stuff out there to make stuff up and bicker. I'm honestly stumped as to how I can put forth the effort on such little calories, remain healthy by my physicians standards, burn way way way more calories than what go into my system, and still have a complete weight loss stall as long as I'm on the bike. It seems the ONLY time I have any success at weight loss is when the difference between calories in/calories out is not as drastic, and my workouts are not as heavy duty, for instance, 45 minutes of cardio at 65% max HR, as opposed to 3 hours at 80%.

I'm really truly open to suggestions, and in my heart, believe that what you guys are saying is true. How can it not be? Body's got to get its energy from somewhere, and even if it IS my muscles, certainly THAT would still result in weight loss (altho obviously not the kind of loss I want...). Like I said, I'm not going to waste my time looking up links or referring back to studies I've read because there's always another link to disprove it. The best proof I have is my own body. I meticulously log calories and exercise on a daily basis, and until I get off the bike and opt for something less rigorous, I can expect to see the weight loss stall to continue. It sucks!

agarose, I think i read that study you were referring to, re: exercise is great, but might hinder weight loss if you go at it too hard. the study i read mentioned that if your BMI is above 30, you lose fat more easily, but if it is below 30 (mine is way below 30, lol) fat loss becomes increasingly difficult.

i suppose riding slower and less miles could bring me back into a reasonable range, but jesus, who the hell wants to ride slow? i worked hard to increase my speed in the first place, and its so much easier to go faster without the extra weight i was toting around last year. i dunno. im still open to suggestions.

with not enough calorie intake, your body is going into a reserve or starvation mode ... to where it slows the metabolism down real low ... to conserve what energy stores it has ...

you can keep doing whatever exercises you want, and keep eating 1200 calories a day .. and your body will stay in that mode ...

but if you were eating oh say 2500 calories a day, and using up a total of 2700 calories a day (for your base rate + exercise) and the calorie intake was evenly spread through the day, with 5 to 6 smaller meals. your body would start to raise its metabolism and let go of the energy stores (fat) that it has been holding onto ... and you will loose weight ... but still remain healthy.

fat loss is not 'increasingly difficult' as your BMI drops ... it is just something to where you have to monitor your calories in vs calories out more closely ... and your body is quicker to slow down its metabolism if it senses a shortage...

a note though, most 'gadgets' that count calories burned ... are way off on their estimates ...

and often times, doctors will just reccomend whatever the current trend is for dieting ... now if it was a nutritionist / trainer that deals more with sports. then you can get a more realisitic outlook. no there is not just 1 way that works .. but for the 1 or 2 ways that work at a healthy rate .. there are 20+ that work in a unhealthy way ... even though they may look good.

Keto, or low carb dieting works well if you use it correctly (no more than 5% of carbs per day 65% of calories from fats). I lost a ton of weight on it. That being said, it is the hardest diet I was ever on. Riding my bike was very hard because you don't have any glycogen in your liver (stored carbs). Your body uses fat for energy, which, while good for fat loss, is not fun when you are exercising intensely. Some people have a lot of energy on Keto, but it was not the case for me.

That being said, I managed to get down to 8% bodyfat on Keto where traditional diets had failed me. The trick with
Keto is to make sure to carbs up one day every two weeks. Otherwise your body gets used to the low carbs and makes dropping weight more difficult.

So, does it work? Yes, for sure. But it's not fun and it's not something I would personally want to do long term.

Also, I was able to take post carbs on Keto without falling out of the Keto state. The key was to limit it to about 20 grams of carbs post biking + weight lifting.

hmm, thanks guys. mmmm, calories. that sounds awesome! LOL Devil....i'd LOVE to find a sports nutritionist. I used to have a personal trainer and asked him if there were any in the area. He looked at me like I made up the term. I have called around to several nutritionists in the area, asking if any of them deal with athletes and endurance training. They all said no. Perhaps there is a different term to refer to nutritionists that deal with sports? Its been frustrating, to say the least. I finally went to this one lady, just to get some information from an actual nutritionist, and her 'plan' was so damned confusing, she couldnt even explain it herself. Id ask her a question about something one day and she'd give an answer, and I'd ask for clarification the next day, and she'd completely give me the opposite answer as what she said the day before. It was nuts!

Mccook..im doing a moderate low carb diet now. Its not Atkins low, but I stay below 100g of carbs each day to stay in a moderate stage of ketosis. You are right, its ridiculously hard to ride any length with no carbs/glycogen stores, which is why I was advised to carb up on ride days. Your point about carbing up one day every couple of weeks confirms something a friend of mine was telling me. He called it 'refeeding' and said it can help with the weight loss, so thanks for confirming that. He will be happy when I mention it ;)

What blows is I've pretty much perfected the healthy balanced diet thing when I'm not in weight loss mode. Im a good cook, I understand proper ratio, blah blah blah, and I can resume that once I dump off these 20 nagging pounds, but damn if I cant get them off of me!

I would have to agree with the calorie in calorie out unless you take in too little and try to burn alot of calories in which yes your metabolic rate is slowed rapidly. I think your doctor is a moron for telling you to ride that much and eat that little. You are obviously not near a competivitive level of you are 81% and riding at that speed but maybe you could be if you ate enough food... :)

lol im not competitive at all. i dont like losing. im faster than most the people i ride with. thats enough for my ego :D i had a 19.3mph avg for the first 40 miles but the last 15 were pretty much all uphill and i was out of steam. at that point, i was done impressing people, LMAO, i just wanted to make it back :D

Carb ups and refeeds are 100% necessary for long term weight loss. Most people just give up or try eating less when they hit a plateau. The best thing to do is to have a "cheat day" every two weeks or take a week off every month or so. This will get your metabolism going.

Why not switch up the riding style, a la "interval" intensity training/riding?

My Garmin tells me I burned 4,070 calories, my Polar tells me I burned 3533.

These are notoriously inaccurate. I started using a power meter and was blown away by how far off the old sources of calorie burn are. On a 55 mile group ride at the speeds you quoted elsewhere, I would expect your calorie burn to be significantly lower than either of these numbers, unless it is extremely hilly.

That is a 4373 caloric defecit. For just one day. My Saturdays are always like this, and my weekday rides are half the length and time.
The reason I am eating this way is based on my physicians structured diet, so unless you're insinutating my doctor is making an anorexic out of me, I don't know what else to say.

If your doc has you on such a sever calorie restriction in order to lose the last 20 pounds, you seriously need to consider finding a new doc. For a sedentary person, your calorie intake may be acceptable for weight loss, but for an athlete these levels are seriously unhealthy. Especially in season.

The doc insists that I *am* burning fat. I understand the theory that I'm possibly gaining muscle, which would offset the loss in fat weight, but come on....I'd have some serious frog legs at this point

There's almost no possibility that you are putting muscle on at your calorie deficit.

I'm honestly stumped as to....and still have a complete weight loss stall as long as I'm on the bike....
It seems the ONLY time I have any success at weight loss is when the difference between calories in/calories out is not as drastic
Sounds like you know the answer. If you continue to do the same thing and expect a different result than you've been getting....well, it's not very smart is it?

you guys are sweet to take the time out to provide some rational advice, and i appreciate it. it stinks to have to reconfigure a program that worked so well in the off season because its what ive grown accustomed to and like i said, it worked SO well. it wasnt initially to lose 20#. i lost a considerable amount of weight over the winter and was trying like hell to get all the way to goal before cycling season began again in april. it didnt happen, and ive been struggling with what to do about my balance of food and cycling ever since. sigh.

i know what i need to do, and im prepared to do it. i just dont understand where all this energy is coming from to sustain my body with these rides, and still be able to perform normal daily routines as well. i feel great. i have loads of energy. i do drink Vault Zero, a calorie-free, caffeine loaded diet soda (mmmm, i think ones calling me now actually, lol), but good lord, i only drink like a can a day, so surely that can of caffeine isnt what keeps me going. i dunno....i do have a horrible problem getting to sleep at night. maybe im mega super duper ultra sensitive to caffeine and thats where the energy comes from.

Wow! can I borrow a cup of that energy? At 5'11" that's not a lot of calories with all that riding at that intensity...

I am having a hell of a time balancing workouts with calories in. Seems like I am always eating way too much or not nearly enough...I'd prefer to find the discipline to acheive equalibrium myself rather than a plan, but I think I need help cause it ain't been happening.


I think for me it's food ratios - too many carbs. Not enough protein. and I definitely eat too much. But The older I get the harder it is to lose weight and that's the fact, jack.

i adhere to a 40/40/<30 carb/protein/fat ratio. it blows my mind when i see people who get most of their calories from fat, based on whatever diet they are following. its like uhm, youre trying to LOSE fat, how could you ingest that much fat and think its healthy? meh, who am i to talk? im the one doing endurance rides on 900-1200 calories a day. LOL

mine is more like 60 carb/35 fat/5 protein. It's worse when I cave and eat cheese - my other vice besides breads and grains....then the fat is mostly saturated....not a good thing

I've been good lately - just had the lowest cholesterol reading I've had ever - lower than when I was running a lot in my mid-20s. Mostly getting fats from nuts or olive oil.

I don't intentionally eat so much carbs and fats...but I clearly need to reorient my diet. I do eat fish and poultry (no red meat) but I guess I just need more protein.

My Garmin tells me I burned 4,070 calories, my Polar tells me I burned 3533.

And thats the problem. Divide the garmin number by 2 or 3 and you're probably closer to the real number.

And thats the problem. Divide the garmin number by 2 or 3 and you're probably closer to the real number.

Right, no matter how good a cyclist you are, there is no way you are on the caloric burning level of Tour de France pros, who burn something near your projected figure.

id think the tdf dudes would burn less calories than an overweight, out of shape female. LOL arent athletes supposed to burn calories more efficiently?

It is because they are literally PURE lean muscle, which requires alot of calories to maintain itself. They do burn calories more efficiently, mainly because of their proper diet, but the pure volume of calories they burn are much much higher than your average joe/jane.

so wait a minute - I use a Cat Eye HR10 - it tells me I burn something like 4000 calories if I ride about 40 - 50 miles with avg speed of 17 or 18 mph. Are you saying it's WAY off? If so , i have eaten lots of post ride pizzas in error....

Yes, unless you are SERIOUSLY mashing on that ride, up a 10% grade, you are more than likely burning half that much.

lol pgoat :) thank god i dont refuel myself with calories based on my polar readouts. id be gaining weight and crying about it, rather than wondering why im not losing. LOL

ok, so get this....if i divide this garmin/polar number by 2 or 3, giving us say, roughly 1200 calories burned for my long ride, and roughly 600 calories burned for my short, weekday rides, and use those figures in my equation from before, that brings my caloric defecit down to approx 2,000 calories on long ride days, and approx 1700 calories on short ride days. Wouldnt that blow the 'starvation mode is why you arent losing weight, you are toasting your metabolism' theories out? That still only brings me to an average of about 750 calorie defecit a week if I dont throw in a gym workout or something other than riding, and most weight loss routines out there say to average between 500-1000 calorie defecit a day to lose a safe 1-2 pounds a week. An average of 750 short per day is smack dab in the middle of that, and should leave me easily losing 1.5# a week. hmm....

Also....what do you guys think of the online 'calories burned' calculators that ask for age, sex, weight, exercise performed/how long/what intensity (such as, cycling/90 min/17-19mph). Are there accurate ones out there online or not?

Something doesn't make sense here. As I understand it at the beginning of cycling season you said you wanted to drop 20 lbs. I don't understand why you wouldn't put together a plan to lose .5 to 1 lbs per week which would have you reaching your target weight in 20-40 wks. Why the drastic calorie deficit? If you had a deficit of 250-500 cals/day you'd be where you want to be.

I suspect you are underestimating how many calories you're eating and perhaps you are more efficient at converting food to energy. Not everyone has the same efficiency but I haven't seen numbers outside the 20-30% range. To be more accurate you could rent/borrow a power meter and see exactly how much power you are putting out and work backwards.

i adhere to a 40/40/<30 carb/protein/fat ratio. it blows my mind when i see people who get most of their calories from fat, based on whatever diet they are following. its like uhm, youre trying to LOSE fat, how could you ingest that much fat and think its healthy? meh, who am i to talk? im the one doing endurance rides on 900-1200 calories a day. LOL

Why would it matter where you are getting your Calories from? If you were eating 1200 Calories of fat per day versus what you are doing now, what would be the difference?

#1) I don't trust output from those devices -- you can use them as an estimate which you are doing but they are not The Word

#2) If you are in a state of ketosis, then I find it hard to believe that you are riding very hard on your bike rides. The harder you ride, the more glycogen (carbs) you use and the less percentage of fat. This seems to be the case if you claim you are burning fat on a ride. Do you do any heart rate training?

How long have you been doing these bike rides?

so wait a minute - I use a Cat Eye HR10 - it tells me I burn something like 4000 calories if I ride about 40 - 50 miles with avg speed of 17 or 18 mph. Are you saying it's WAY off? If so , i have eaten lots of post ride pizzas in error....

That number is way, way out of line.

35-40 calories per mile is a more realistic estimate - use 35 if you're normal weight and riding where it's not too hilly. Use 40 if you're big and/or riding in the mountains.

greg, thats a good idea about borrowing a power tap. a friend of mine has one. ive really been considering going down to meredith college where they have the whole shebang down there for analysis. vo2 max via blood test and whatever else. its a huge lab and its really cool. its also kinda pricey and their operating hours stink. the reason i was on such a calorie deficient diet is because its the one i used during the winter when i wasnt riding. i like the plan, and have been trying to modify it for cycling purposes, but things just dont seem to be balancing out. its funny you say i could be under estimating my calorie burning on the bike, since everyone else here has said the opposite.

nickel, what does it matter if someone got 100% of their daily calories from fat? come on.... thats obviously unhealthy, unless the new trend the physicians are trying to sell these days is NOT to have a balanced diet.

lol im sorry you dont think i am riding hard on these rides. you can ask JayC what i performed like today. he was there :) i dont like to toot my own horn, so im not going to. my efforts on a bike are surely nowhere near as impressive as seasoned althletes or even other ppl with the same experience as i have, but im no 12mph-while-giving-it-all-my-effort rider, either. :) im also one of the fastest chicks in my group, and can hold my own with most of the guys as well.

while i AM in ketosis during the week, ive been instructed to carb up before and during the ride, which i do, but never enough to blow me out of ketosis. i can come home and register deep purple on a ketostick, and stay in a positive range from that point forward. i DEFINITELY ride faster, stronger, better when i am NOT on a calorie restrictive/moderately ketoic diet. i'd be a freakin machine if i was eating a balanced, calorie-rich diet. mmm, calories....oh, and i've been riding since last year. essentially still wet behind the ears. prior to riding, i was not exactly a role model for healthy living, as a smoker and weekend bar hopper. kinda sucks. i wish i had developed this love much earlier, but oh well. as for training...i dont. i get on my bike and ride because i like it. if i turned it into something i was purposely trying to excel at, i'd no longer love it. some might disagree with this perspective, but its my prerogative, and i like it that way :)

thank you SSP for that calculation for estimated caloried burned. 2200 calories for 55 miles sounds reasonable to me. where does this calculation come from? (im asking sincerely because i'm an information junkie, not because i dont believe you ;) )

ok - my apologies I am on crack:o

my wife says I was burning about 1700-1900 on those long rides....that makes more sense; 40 miles x35 cals=1400 cals burned for the ride. That's abit closer.

I still shouldn't have had those pizzas!!:eek:

thank you SSP for that calculation for estimated caloried burned. 2200 calories for 55 miles sounds reasonable to me. where does this calculation come from? (im asking sincerely because i'm an information junkie, not because i dont believe you ;) )

that's close to my amount burned too. My wife burned around 1200 on rides with me, but she weighs about 80 pounds less than I do and tends to ride with a higher HR.

If you are in a state of ketosis, then I find it hard to believe that you are riding very hard on your bike rides.

I ride with her regularly.. everything she's telling you about her diet is spot on. We've gone over this a thousand times, thus asking here for more insight.

She is fast and routinely drops most of the guys on our Saturday rides. She rode outside the draft for the majority of the ride today and still ended up dropping everyone but the fastest guys and stayed with them for a while.