Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Training for Fat Loss

I decided to start a thread since I haven't had any luck with the search function.

I'm going to start cycling to lose fat and weight and be healthier overall. So far I haven't been able to find a program that I can follow to help me achieve my goals.

I have noticed that many of you have had amazing results and have lost tons of weight. I would like to know how you did it, as far as cycling in concerned. How many miles? Hours? Times per week? all that good stuff...

About myself, I'm a 20 yrs old 5'8" and weight 205 lbs.

Thanks for your help.

In my experience, cycling alone isn't going to take off the weight. You have to change your diet. Eat less calories. Cut out junk food, fast food, soda, etc. To get a handle on diet, log everything you eat for a week and count the calories. I suggest 1800 calories a day for weight loss.

For riding, I was riding 4 days a week, 1-2 hours each outing to start, gradually increasing distance. Now I ride about 5 days a week and cover up to 200 miles per week. Last week was 123 miles and 7 hours, 39 minutes in the saddle. So far this week, I've had 2 rides totalling 126 miles and 8 hours 51 minutes in the saddle. But I'm a year into it now.

Diet and exercise are both required.

Weight loss is about creating a calorie deficit. To create a deficit, you can either eat less, exercise more, or do both at the same time. I typically ride 4-5 days during the work week. I usually ride for an hour (~15 miles) when I would normally take a lunch break. I also do at least one longer ride on the weekend. These rides are typically at least 2-3 hours and 30-45 miles or more. These days, my time is evenly split between the road bike and mountain bike though the road bike seems to provide a much better workout. Coasting downhill on the mountain bike isn't nearly as difficult as pedaling along at 20mph on the road bike...

For myself, I find that my body is very efficient at turning simple carbohydrates into fat. When I'm trying to lose weight, I try to eat more protein (30-40% of total calories), less carbs (30-40% of total calories) and avoid simple carbohydrates at all costs.

hi,
I ve read articles that say if you keep your RPM up to around 80+ it will burn more liquid fats in your blood, hard pedaling or mashing tends to burn glucose or glucogen and requires a longer recovery different exercise .
So distance with a higher RPM will give you better results than mashing your pedals for short distances.
I reccomend a device that measures cadance, after only a couple weeks I ve seen improvement.
I was thinking I was pedalling fast but actually was only hitting around 70 rpm I now try to push that 88-92 rpm it will really lean you down faster.
Doug

http://www.biketiresdirect.com/pcestc/cat_eye_strada_cadence_cyclecomputer/pp.htm

The high cadence thing gets the HR up.

Whatever you do, don't believe it when people tell you you'll burn more fat if you ride more slowly. They mean well, but they've misunderstood things. The harder you work out, the more fat you will burn and more overall weight you will lose. Just don't overdo it and get injured or burned out.

The two went hand in hand for me. The more I started riding the bike, the easier it got to make the right choices with food. I've never ridden specifically to lose weight, but riding about 5 miles a day with more on the weekends and eating right made weight loss easy, if not unavoidable.

"Speed" is a very poor way of explaining how to achieve any given goal in cycling other than just getting down the hill the fastest.... most bikes have multiple gears and muscles are made of more than one type of tissue how these are employed create some very different results.

There are two different ideas of "slow" when riding: A slow cadence or a slow speed. A high, *sustained* cadence burns more fat than a slow, strenuous cadence which burns more sugar. Yes, both of these fuels can add to the waistline at the end of the day and burning more of them can serve to reduce it... BUT, it's a matter of availability versus need; If you burn through your store of sugars you will quickly "hit the wall" as the saying goes. This is the point at which your body cannot metabolize fat quickly enough for your body's needs and the quick fuel (sugar) is now lacking. Yes, both types of riding will burn both fat and sugar, but not in the same quantities.

The part where confusion comes in is that some people get the idea that if they're riding at 15MPH by really pounding the pedals for about 5 beats and then coasting to recover for 10 beats that they're going to burn more than someone riding at 10MPH and pedaling the entire time. Well, that or the folks who get it into their head that riding at 5MPH while moving their legs less than they would when walking is actually something resembling exercise.... they're better off just walking. The thing to keep in mind is that while you will burn calories during either type of riding you are far more likely to find yourself prematurely tired and much more sore if you work your body in such a way that the sugars are the primary fuel while on a *longer* trip (this is important).

Here's the other side of the coin: If you're only riding short trips a harder, more strenuous ride will burn more calories in sugars than a slow ride of the same distance will burn in fat.

Both types of riding have their penalties too.... time constraints, quicker tiring, muscle aches, sugar and carb cravings and so on. I get cravings BAD when I ride hard for anything more than a couple miles; if I ride 20 miles at a quicker cadence and more easily on my muscles I don't really get them... go figure (thanks to my neighbor for pointing out that one). ;)

It's all a matter of balance really. If you've got the time and want to get more out of your workout you'll find you can ride longer at a slightly slower speed and quite likely burn more energy... Don't have the time? Ride a little harder and burn off some of those sugars.

This does a decent job of explaining the relationship:
http://health.msn.com/fitness/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100138677
This is a decent overall explanation of the how's and why's:
http://www.hazon.org/go.php?q=/rides/trainingRides/10-trainingTips.html

If you want more this information is available all over the net, in most cycling & other exercise books, or ask a personal trainer... I've got my own personal trainer next door (too bad he talks over my head half the time). :D



EDIT:

A little bit about me: I quit smoking after 15YEARS, 2 years ago. I changed my diet and started exercising daily about a year ago. Last January I weighed around 270lbs.... Last Saturday I weighed in at 213.8 (damned straight the .2 matters! ;) ). I used to cycle and rock climb in my 20's... lethargy, depression and several other situational problems lead to a path of poor health. But I WILL get where I want to be!

As mentioned, diet is HUGE! I don't actually eat any less than I used to... it's WHAT I eat and what I do with the energy.

Best of luck!!!

In my experience, cycling alone isn't going to take off the weight. You have to change your diet. Eat less calories. Cut out junk food, fast food, soda, etc. To get a handle on diet, log everything you eat for a week and count the calories. I suggest 1800 calories a day for weight loss.


I would strongly advise looking at your personal information before picking a daily caloric intake. I know that I would be unable to function if I consumed 1800 calories a day. Remember that if you're actually adding in a reasonable amount of exercise, you will need calories to make that possible. Overstarving yourself won't help.

For a good idea of a baseline, at 205, you are probably burning around 2800ish calories a day, assuming you have an office job. Eating 1800 calories a day is a 1000 calorie a day deficit + your exercise. Some people can do that, I would kill and eat someone in the office out of pure famishedness. I've dropped something like 12-14 pounds this year averaging around 2800-3000 calories a day in intake. But, I get a lot of exercise.

For a reasonable estimate, you should either play with a calorie calculator a bunch or find a nutritionist.

^^^Definitely what I think to be the most important part of the equation. You can find a lot of valuable information on the Mayo clinic's website and there's some great info available via SparkPeople too.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/HealthyLivingIndex/HealthyLivingIndex
http://www.sparkpeople.com

The calories required depend on the person's metabolism, weight, and amount of exercise. So, first figure out a baseline for yourself...keep track of of what you're eating to maintain your weight, and then reduce that and/or increase your exercise. Figure a calorie deficit of about 500/day for a reasonable rate of weight loss of about a pound a week.

I decided to start a thread since I haven't had any luck with the search function.

I'm going to start cycling to lose fat and weight and be healthier overall. So far I haven't been able to find a program that I can follow to help me achieve my goals.

I have noticed that many of you have had amazing results and have lost tons of weight. I would like to know how you did it, as far as cycling in concerned. How many miles? Hours? Times per week? all that good stuff...

About myself, I'm a 20 yrs old 5'8" and weight 205 lbs.

Thanks for your help.

If you want to lose weight by cycling Id recommend that you plan on doing at least 3 rides per week of an hour or so and at least 2 rides of 2 hours with one stretching to 3 or more hours .That would start you with 7 hours per week on the bike and bring you up to 10 hours on average. That should give you at least 5 to 6000 calories consumed on a weekly basis. If you combine that with a sensible diet, eliminate junk food and processed food and dont pig out the rest of the time and my bet is that you will lose weight.

Ps ride along at a decent clip but dont kill yourself either.

Wow, thanks for the response, definitely a lot more than I was expecting.... Yes I know diet is a big part of it, but thank you for pointing it out anyway. Also I'm not counting on cycling alone to achieve my goal, cuz well that be boring :)

So it sounds like 15 miles a day at a cadence of 90-95 is the way to go.

"Speed" is a very poor way of explaining how to achieve any given goal in cycling other than just getting down the hill the fastest.... most bikes have multiple gears and muscles are made of more than one type of tissue how these are employed create some very different results.

There are two different ideas of "slow" when riding: A slow cadence or a slow speed. A high, *sustained* cadence burns more fat than a slow, strenuous cadence which burns more sugar. Yes, both of these fuels can add to the waistline at the end of the day and burning more of them can serve to reduce it... BUT, it's a matter of availability versus need; If you burn through your store of sugars you will quickly "hit the wall" as the saying goes. This is the point at which your body cannot metabolize fat quickly enough for your body's needs and the quick fuel (sugar) is now lacking. Yes, both types of riding will burn both fat and sugar, but not in the same quantities.

The part where confusion comes in is that some people get the idea that if they're riding at 15MPH by really pounding the pedals for about 5 beats and then coasting to recover for 10 beats that they're going to burn more than someone riding at 10MPH and pedaling the entire time. Well, that or the folks who get it into their head that riding at 5MPH while moving their legs less than they would when walking is actually something resembling exercise.... they're better off just walking. The thing to keep in mind is that while you will burn calories during either type of riding you are far more likely to find yourself prematurely tired and much more sore if you work your body in such a way that the sugars are the primary fuel while on a *longer* trip (this is important).

Here's the other side of the coin: If you're only riding short trips a harder, more strenuous ride will burn more calories in sugars than a slow ride of the same distance will burn in fat.

Both types of riding have their penalties too.... time constraints, quicker tiring, muscle aches, sugar and carb cravings and so on. I get cravings BAD when I ride hard for anything more than a couple miles; if I ride 20 miles at a quicker cadence and more easily on my muscles I don't really get them... go figure (thanks to my neighbor for pointing out that one). ;)

It's all a matter of balance really. If you've got the time and want to get more out of your workout you'll find you can ride longer at a slightly slower speed and quite likely burn more energy... Don't have the time? Ride a little harder and burn off some of those sugars.

This does a decent job of explaining the relationship:
http://health.msn.com/fitness/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100138677
This is a decent overall explanation of the how's and why's:
http://www.hazon.org/go.php?q=/rides/trainingRides/10-trainingTips.html

If you want more this information is available all over the net, in most cycling & other exercise books, or ask a personal trainer... I've got my own personal trainer next door (too bad he talks over my head half the time). :D



EDIT:

A little bit about me: I quit smoking after 15YEARS, 2 years ago. I changed my diet and started exercising daily about a year ago. Last January I weighed around 270lbs.... Last Saturday I weighed in at 213.8 (damned straight the .2 matters! ;) ). I used to cycle and rock climb in my 20's... lethargy, depression and several other situational problems lead to a path of poor health. But I WILL get where I want to be!

As mentioned, diet is HUGE! I don't actually eat any less than I used to... it's WHAT I eat and what I do with the energy.

Best of luck!!!


Excellent advice.

When mentioned about time constraints what I did was use my time in the morning (the time I used to use for lifting weights, I can't lift every morning now, or changed things up because of a shoulder issue). The time in the morning is used for my 1 hour ride. It does not matter how far I really go but I try to at least stay in the saddle for 1 hour. I usually get 10 miles out. In the afternoon when I get home I ride about 30 minutes before dark and that is my fast paced workout where I might even get just 20 minutes but it is a hard interval ride. I coast then mash the pedal for all I'm worth for 20 seconds on straight aways and coast 10 seconds. This is sort of like Tabata training. Believe me it has really helped me on my morning rides as well. My endurance is getting better week by week.

Also try shapefit.com and look at their online BMR and RMR calculators.

Good luck.

Cross train. Cycling alone is NOT enough!

Yeah, but you don't have to beat yourself up cross training to get it done. Maintaining muscle mass is one of the most important aspects of weight loss and it can be done one time a week if possible.

There's some great advice posted. I think you can summarize weight loss very simply as calories expended must be greater than calories consumed.

I'd throw in this tip: when you're done with your workout, your body will continue to burn calories at a higher rate as you recover for at least an hour or so depending on what you did. I make it a rule to only consume pure juices (I go a gallon of that V8 Fusion stuff each week) or fruits, and lots of it. Ideally the meal following shouldn't be eaten within two hours of finishing and it should be light (and it's a great time for that beer!). Force the body to draw on its internal resources (read: FAT) to recover. Also keep lightly active afterward, move around, walk. Don't veg in front of the TV.

Don't underestimate the immediate aftereffects of a workout and leverage it.

C.

I think it's a very good idea to get protein into your body right after a workout. I recover quite differently from ChuckD. If I've worked out hard, I'm drained, and depriving myself of food will kill my energy for the day. I eat a protein rich light meal (meat + small slice of bread, protein shake, anything about 3/1/1 protein carb fat) and come back to life.

I've got to eat after a workout as well. I never force myself and it's always lite. I'll usually snack on some granola or some nuts with fruit; I'll drink some juice and plenty of water.

Well, the original question was 'Training for fat loss'.
I found I can count on dropping a couple pounds a week by riding my 18 mile, hilly loop four or so times a week and following this regimen. I've also found these juices, or the 'Naked', or 'Odwalla' brands to be very satisfying.

Certainly if I wasn't fighting the Bulge, I'd need to replenish and recover more. But weight loss is tougher than weight maintenance. That's what works for me.

C.

Well, the original question was 'Training for fat loss'.
I found I can count on dropping a couple pounds a week by riding my 18 mile, hilly loop four or so times a week and following this regimen. I've also found these juices, or the 'Naked', or 'Odwalla' brands to be very satisfying.

Certainly if I wasn't fighting the Bulge, I'd need to replenish and recover more. But weight loss is tougher than weight maintenance. That's what works for me.

C.

My (admittedly rudimentary) understanding is that your body needs calories just post workout for muscle repair and building, and that you can benefit from reduced caloric intake with exercise, but that cutting out post-exercise food will impede strength/endurance improvement and lead to weight loss through muscle loss. This is what I've been told (paraphrasing of course) by trainers and nutritionists. Is it wrong?

He's asking about fat loss, not weight loss, and I believe your advice leads to muscle loss. If I'm wrong, do let me know, but I've gotten pretty consistent advice on this front.

EDIT: Naked and Odwalla juices are very high in carbs (not intrinsically bad, calm down people), and if you're consuming those directly post workout, you're getting the meal we're talking about.

One of the last things you want to do is sacrifice muscle in lue of fat loss. It can be done safely but Fat loss will be weight loss as well.

The two most important carb meals in your day should be Morning to stop the catabolic effect the body takes on during the night and Post workout carbs. Post workout carbs not only replinish spent glygogen levels but they also speed up the fat burning process by telling your body that it is okay to not try and store fat for energy.

This is what my main problem with diets like the adkins diet because from what I've read it forbids carbs of any sort If I'm wrong let me know. With no carbs even for recovery, I just believe muscle is being used as the first source the body goes to for energy if protein levels are not high enough, and the wrong kind of fats are being consumed.

Long moderate intensity at 65-70% Max HR for fat burn, and I do mean long will give you a greater percentage of fat loss to muscle weight loss. You'll get weight loss either way, though, either through high intensity wind sprints peaking yourself into Max HR for as long as you can until you puke, or through long moderate intensity endurance workouts.

One will make you faster, though, and the other will make you able to spend 20+ hours in the saddle and ride 300 miles in a 24 hour period. It just depends a lot on your long term goals.

Something that worked for me:

Schedule your rides in the early afternoon. Instead of eating lunch, have an apple and a latte (or whatever). The reduction in calories add up fast.

It's not surprising that most exercise regiments and diets are doomed to fail.... everyone forgets that there's a happy medium to everything. You can build muscle and tone at the same time. You can lose weight and eat the things you like. I'm sure you've all heard it before, and it's not a lie, moderation is key.

Moderation kills.

Moderation kills.

eh?

Im at work dont have time for long posts, google Esseltyn on heart disease and also see the Pleasure Trap..Basically if you are overweight and suffering from modern western diseases such as heart disease cad, diabeties etc. most will not be able to lose weight nor reverse the disease by using moderation.

http://www.heartattackproof.com/

http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm

There are several articles on this.

I see where you are going with this PSR215 but moderation is better than nothing at all. If anyone starts out with at least moderation their bodies will adapt and be able to do more in the long run.

Crawl before walk, walk before jog. jog before run run before sprint. ETC.....

Good points though.

If it were that easy to lose weight, then obesity would not be a problem in western countries. From a super simplistic point-of-view, if you eat less and work out more, you will burn more calories than you eat, and you will lose weight. Which always works on lab rats, or people when they are locked up in a hospital or some sort of fat-camp. Outside physically controlled situations, you know...in the real world, you also have to deal with your personal daily metabolism (especially how your body handles insulin), emotional factors, the eating behavior of family and friends that you eat with on a regular basis, work, other time obligations, etc.

The "trick" is to set up a way to lose and maintain weight that does not depend primarily on willpower for either eating or exercising. This is a tough one for me, and for many other people. Most of us can lose weight for a year or so, but keeping it off takes constant attention and vigilance. Lots of WORK.

The types of things that work best for me include:

Never go more than 5 hours without eating something. This keeps my blood sugar more stable. I prefer 100-calorie protein snacks when the time between meals is more than 5 hours (fat free yogurt, soy protein powder, low fat string cheese, etc.).
Only eat foods that are high in carbohydrates and are easy to digest once per day. This includes things like processed foods made out of white flour, white potatoes, white rice, sweets, all chips and crackers, and pasta. I still eat plenty of carbohydrates, but substitute things like oatmeal or another simple whole-grain cereal, lots of fresh fruit, sweet potatoes, beans, brown or wild rice, raw carrots, etc. These foods digest slower, and don't make my blood sugar spike right after I eat them. I always feel famished when my blood sugar drops down to normal after a big spike. It is a lot easier to ignore the sweets in the company break room and at home when I don't feel super hungry when I see them.
Try to make almost all of my proteins very lean. I eat a lot of low fat dairy, skinless chicken/turkey, fish, 90% or leaner beef, imitation crab meat, egg whites/substitute, and occasionally throw in some tofu with my stir-fry. I still eat regular meat like steak or regular hamburger, but less than once per week.
Make sure that I eat some healthy fats at every major meal. If I don't eat enough fat, my digestive system clogs up, and I generally feel lousy. I just try to make most of my fat come from things like olive/canola oil in salad dressings and/or stir-fry, olives, nuts and roasted seeds, baker's cocoa powder, etc. I've found that 100-150 calories of salty roasted nuts in the afternoon can really cut down on recurring and constant food cravings.
When I'm having a problem with eating too much for a while, weighing and measuring my food, and writing down each bite that I eat for a few days can get me back on track. It is hard to "see" how much larger my portions get, sometimes, and this sets me straight.
Make sure that most of my exercise is doing an activity that I really, really, really like to do. Or...at least helps me do the things that I like to do better. I like bicycling a lot. I know some other guys that like basketball, soccer/football, swimming, etc. If you train for the thing that you like to do, you are less likely to blow it off for extended periods of time.
Don't give up, and don't punish yourself for doing the wrong thing in the past. Everybody blows it for days, weeks, months, and even years at-a-time. You can't control what you did in the past. You can only control what you do today. The only way that things can get better is to deal with right now in ways that will make things better for tomorrow.

Sorry so long. That is what works for me. Good luck.

Yeah, so.... moderation. I think we've got more of a semantics problem here than anything. I munch all day long on healthy snacks and MUCH lower quantities than i would eat of them were I eating the same foods in one sitting... hence: moderation. I allow myself to go out for Mexican food once or twice a week as the mood hits, but I don't just grab it on the way home anymore because it's simply "on the way", hence: moderation. ;)

This is the ONLY way I've ever been able to lose weight and not feel guilty, tired, weak, ravenous or start binging... and my doc says I'm doing phenomenally; my whole family has blood sugar problems and/or adult onset diabetes... except me. :D I was heading that way fast, but not anymore and the best thing.... I am very comfortable with it all!

Also, if you look over my other posts on these matters I do press that changing WHAT you eat is HUGE! But I have yet to meet even ONE person who went on a diet which required them to flat out eliminate anything who managed to stick with it. I STILL EAT ICE CREAM!!!!! (just nowhere near often and in much smaller quantities) :P



Definitions of moderation on the Web: (thanks Google)

quality of being moderate and avoiding extremes
easing: a change for the better
temperance: the trait of avoiding excesses
the action of lessening in severity or intensity; "the object being control or moderation of economic depressions"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&ei=R_MBSuAKmJCzA6DIkfYF&sig2=fy4t4hzY7MVGYJrrKVy6CQ&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dmoderation&usg=AFQjCNGA13LJx6mt46Ydum6M0tigK_3bNQ)
moderating - lessening in intensity or strength
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=6&oi=define&ei=R_MBSuAKmJCzA6DIkfYF&sig2=pcuLiNBMvAKB0DzTL2aqoQ&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dmoderating&usg=AFQjCNGUP2aFRRgPNWvG6l6rVsdFaQbENQ)

The point of Essletyn and the Pleasure Trap is that the standard American diet is so full of rich addicitive foods that "extreme measures" have to be taken to be able to stay away from them or your dietary changes will fail so I would vote that moderation does no good when one is suffering from obesity or one of the diseases of excess diet. Im familar with Esseltyns writings and have viewed some of his talks on the internet and I have read The Pleasure Trap which has a whole section on why moderation is no good for you if you are trying to break yourself from refined foods, sweets, etc.. Unfortunately extreme measures are needed.. All you have to do is read this board to see all the yo yoing that goes on by those who attempt to be moderate in their approach.

A number of years ago when I quit smoking [mid 80s] I picked up and followed a diet that was extreme for the times.. My wife went along with most of it and our son at the time was just entering grammer school so he got caught in on my so called extremism. All this drove his teachers nuts as there was no Mc Donalds, cheap cookie,s nor butter or milk etc. for my son.. My mother went bonkers as she thought all this dangerous for him and me.. Moderation you have to follow moderation shed say.. Its not healthy for your son to be eating that way and you need some good ol protein from meat! A little meat chicken etc never hurt anyone just eat it in moderation.. And please dont pass up the the cake for you and your son and the next B'day party its not polite.. Moderation is the way to live..

Little did I know that my own mother was trying to set me up for a big disaster.. Of course after awhile of the nagging and so forth I broke and started following a more moderate diet.. Cut my exercise too which Mom and the rest thought was a bit extreme.. Wasnt too long before the weight came. I tried moderation to lose some and every year that moderation seemed to only add a few pounds here and there.. I only ate steak out. Ditto cakes and ice cream.. I kept most home meals simple and saved the fancy stuff for restaurants..My business got more successfull so I had more lunchs out so more breads and stuff. But my lunchs were all moderate type of food.. Fresh fish, rice, salad no dessert, maybe an extra piece of bread or two but all in moderation.. My son grew and went off to college and then graduate school so my wife and I being alone went out to eat more often.. Nothing too fancy, a dish of pasta now and then or a salad and then some fish.. I would only have a drink before dinner and maybe a glass of wine with it.. Some bread but not much, and we'd split dessert! All in moderation.. Problem is I started getting fat and it just wouldnt go away. I started biking more and added some running too, but in moderation.. But my butt kept getting bigger. Finally last fall after an emergent trip to the hospital where I escaped with no heart attack but a good scare I went back to my old books by Mcdougal and Pritikin and found some new ones by Fuhrman and Esseltyn and realized that I was right 25 years ago.. Should have stuck with the program.. The weight is gone now.. Not by moderation but by being extreme. F moderation.

One thing I do know every time Im out and look at a nice peice of fish on the menu is that if I ordered it I would just be being moderate and it wouldnt probably hurt just that once.. Nor would one hambuger now and then either.. Then I say to myself F moderation,.. Moms dead killed by a standard Americcan disease probably picked up from her moderate standard American diet, but if she were around right now Id tell her the same thing.. No moderation for I know that as soon as I start being moderate again the weight will come right back. F moderation.

Nothing works for everyone bud. I've gained more weight than I've ever lost from extreme diets and always crashed HARD when I fell off the wagon... I'm on year ad a half with my dietary changes and my.... dare I say it?... moderation and I've not gained one pound, not binged ONCE, lost ~60 pounds in the last year. Dietary change is a MUST, but extremism rarely works for many people (especially in a land of temptation and processed foods).

F moderation.

And dont call me bud..

If it were that easy to lose weight, then obesity would not be a problem in western countries. From a super simplistic point-of-view, if you eat less and work out more, you will burn more calories than you eat, and you will lose weight. Which always works on lab rats, or people when they are locked up in a hospital or some sort of fat-camp. Outside physically controlled situations, you know...in the real world, you also have to deal with your personal daily metabolism (especially how your body handles insulin), emotional factors, the eating behavior of family and friends that you eat with on a regular basis, work, other time obligations, etc.

The "trick" is to set up a way to lose and maintain weight that does not depend primarily on willpower for either eating or exercising. This is a tough one for me, and for many other people. Most of us can lose weight for a year or so, but keeping it off takes constant attention and vigilance. Lots of WORK.



Losing weight is easy:

1) Throw out the TV, the idiot box contains 16 minutes per hour of commercial content (US, slightly more in Canada), somewhere between 75% and 80% of that is for food products, overwhelmingly that is foods where the main nutritional component is high fructose corn syrup and the second is the trans fats it's fried in. This encourages the viewer to spend most of their TV watching time eating the same.

2) Sell your car, this forces you to use walking, cycling or transit for most trips. Don't live close to work, then move, only in America is the concept of living in a town 50 miles from the city you work in, with no public transportation between the two considered sensible.

3) Plan meals, then shop based on your plan, In most countries people do not buy food in bulk, instead they decide what they want and then stop at the market on the way home, to pick up what they need. There is a side benefit here, usually what you need can be stuffed in a pannier or back pack. :D Keep a reusable cloth shopping bag in your pannier/pack, then take that into the store with you, This keeps your pannier or pack clean as the bag can simply be thrown into the wash when dirty.

F moderation.

And dont call me bud..

An excellent point! Finding one's limits and the inner ability to assert one's self is absolutely crucial to any successful lifestyle changes.

I AM glad that you found something that works for you and that you want to share it... but I guarantee your way isn't the only way.

EDIT: I'm done with this... this threads getting derailed with the back and forth repetition from the two camps.

i want to tread lightly on this one guys, but i wanted to throw this out there(so shoot me for being out-of-line if i am)... i know that not everybody is built the same....as far as body-types and metabolism go, i'm at the "harder-to-lose-weight" spectrum...my family has a history of heart-disease and diabetes(lot of big peeps in my family)...i've struggled with weight-loss all my life...i've had moments(like my late teens, early twenties) where i could lose the weight if i really wanted to...by WANTING to(a serious mental battle in itself) , meant not only moderating, but ELIMINATING things from my diet...i have been the "bag-of-doritos-in-front-of-the-tv" depressed guy, and i have been the "tightly-monitoring-calories-while-maintaining-a-strict-exercise-regimen" guy...i've had much better results with the latter...but, time and time again...no matter how hard i work at it, it seems like the exercise is easier to do, than the complete diet-makeover...my doctor told me several times that it wasnt healthy for me to gain/lose 75+lbs per year...I told him i can lose the weight, then somehow i get lazy for a while (cut back on activity, but i would also eat less as well) then the pounds come back on....now in my mid-30's i've worked the exercise in more(biking) plus my present job involves alot of heavy-lifting (alot of upper-body work, where i also feel the burn in my mid-section too..the kind where my HR is up at 70 - 80% of my target, and i'm soaking wet in my sweatshirt at the end of the night) and i'm eating less, and the pounds aren't falling off like they should....I think heredity does play a factor, and makes it much harder for alot of people to achieve their goals...very frustrating indeed......but we ride because we love to ride, right? weightloss is just that added bonus we get, if we're lucky....right :innocent:

Pljthbox, You seem to think that I was trying to persuade you to not be moderate or to argue whether one should be moderate or not when I was not... And then you took offense, when nothing was aimed at you nor said to you at all let alone in a disparaging way.. All I was doing was reporting my own experience with moderation.. I could care less what you or others do.. For me F moderation and that is not open to debate for me ..

In addition calling someone bud has never been a friendly overture so why get upset if youre called on it..

"Speed" is a very poor way of explaining how to achieve any given goal in cycling other than just getting down the hill the fastest.... most bikes have multiple gears and muscles are made of more than one type of tissue how these are employed create some very different results.

There are two different ideas of "slow" when riding: A slow cadence or a slow speed. A high, *sustained* cadence burns more fat than a slow, strenuous cadence which burns more sugar. Yes, both of these fuels can add to the waistline at the end of the day and burning more of them can serve to reduce it... BUT, it's a matter of availability versus need; If you burn through your store of sugars you will quickly "hit the wall" as the saying goes. This is the point at which your body cannot metabolize fat quickly enough for your body's needs and the quick fuel (sugar) is now lacking. Yes, both types of riding will burn both fat and sugar, but not in the same quantities.

The part where confusion comes in is that some people get the idea that if they're riding at 15MPH by really pounding the pedals for about 5 beats and then coasting to recover for 10 beats that they're going to burn more than someone riding at 10MPH and pedaling the entire time. Well, that or the folks who get it into their head that riding at 5MPH while moving their legs less than they would when walking is actually something resembling exercise.... they're better off just walking. The thing to keep in mind is that while you will burn calories during either type of riding you are far more likely to find yourself prematurely tired and much more sore if you work your body in such a way that the sugars are the primary fuel while on a *longer* trip (this is important).

Here's the other side of the coin: If you're only riding short trips a harder, more strenuous ride will burn more calories in sugars than a slow ride of the same distance will burn in fat.

Both types of riding have their penalties too.... time constraints, quicker tiring, muscle aches, sugar and carb cravings and so on. I get cravings BAD when I ride hard for anything more than a couple miles; if I ride 20 miles at a quicker cadence and more easily on my muscles I don't really get them... go figure (thanks to my neighbor for pointing out that one). ;)

It's all a matter of balance really. If you've got the time and want to get more out of your workout you'll find you can ride longer at a slightly slower speed and quite likely burn more energy... Don't have the time? Ride a little harder and burn off some of those sugars.


This is the information I've sought out for quite awihle. In my last year of commuting and getting heavily into cycling, I've found very wierd cravings and all after my rides. I've experienced "hitting the wall" very early in a longer ride to the point that I actually cut my ride in half because I just didn't have it in me. Thanks for this info. I'll check the links and now I have the information I need to try to make some of my rides more enjoyable and make my 7 mile (one way) commute more beneficial.

But I have yet to meet even ONE person who went on a diet which required them to flat out eliminate anything who managed to stick with it. I STILL EAT ICE CREAM!!!!! (just nowhere near often and in much smaller quantities) :P


Hi, My name is Casey.
Now you've met someone that has :twitchy:


For the past two years I've eliminated:

all soda
all caffeine
all nicotine (yes, I was a smoker)
all alcohol (not that I drank much, but I drink none at all now)
fast food (this is a lie if you include pintos and cheese from Taco Bell that I include with a meal I make at home)
no bread (or bread products)


I'm more just elbowing ya. You've got great suggestions and facts. This one I just don't believe in so much. There's some things now that I'm trying to eliminate, but I've not got to that point yet. I'm trying to eliminate all candy. The only reason it's still on my list is that I tend to eat a trail mix that has the damn M&Ms in it and I get lazy and don't pick them out sometimes. There's stuff that I think we need to eliminate, but we're able to make excuses (or reasons) to keep them in our system. I've found I would much rather have a few good pieces of fruit versus a candy bar. I'm only down 70lbs or so over the last year (and actually gained some this winter due to lack of exercise and eatting more processed foods), but working that off now.


This thread has been one of the best I've seen on the forums. Some alternating points of view and discsussions on those various beliefs or facts, but noone being an *****. I've already copied half the thread to a Word document so that I can share with some friends that need the same facts/advice.

"My (admittedly rudimentary) understanding is that your body needs calories just post workout for muscle repair and building, and that you can benefit from reduced caloric intake with exercise, but that cutting out post-exercise food will impede strength/endurance improvement and lead to weight loss through muscle loss. This is what I've been told (paraphrasing of course) by trainers and nutritionists. Is it wrong?"

"He's asking about fat loss, not weight loss, and I believe your advice leads to muscle loss. If I'm wrong, do let me know, but I've gotten pretty consistent advice on this front."

Stepped out for a minute and missed this reply.
Where in the world is evidence that the body will consume muscle mass over fat? This defies logic.
Exercise to the human body is, by definition, damage to muscle tissue. The resulting increase in strength is it's response to repeated 'injury' to that tissue.

The body will first try to repair the micro-tears done to muscle tissue. Calories will be consumed both during the exercise and the recovery and the fuel for this will be first from carbs, then proteins and finally from fat. And I believe the old saying "fat burns in the flame of a carbohydrate" still holds true.

I'm afraid this talk of the body consuming muscle tissue to recover, over fat is highly confusing to novices. No muscle tissue is consumed. Certainly the rebuilding of muscle tissue may not be optimized, and we maybe don't get faster/stronger as quickly as a dedicated athlete (a subject I can talk about as an ex Cat. 2) but we're not here to condition ourselves for a time trial, eh? We're here to drop some pounds.

Please, I humbly request someone post a peer-reviewed link that shows we might sacrifice muscle tissue if we don't eat properly (and we have suitable fat reserves). I agree we may sacrifice expediency in strength development, but not muscle tissue itself.

C.