Inpd

Hi,

I love riding my bike, but now realize its all about caloric in take. Sure riding a bike or any other regular exercise will get you to lose weight gradually, but if you really want to lose weight quickly then reduce your calories.

I started this thread https://www.bikeforums.net/clydesdale...ling-diet.html and in the mean time I ate a low carb low calorie breakfast and had a really large salad for lunch/dinner. I also drank a lot of water.

I'm supposed to eat 2000 calories a day and was eating about 1000, but fell very full: its hard to eat 2000 calories of vegetables! I was only riding 100 miles a week.

10 days later I lost 6 pounds and 2 inches around my waste.

yooperbiker

I think this plan is big, big mistake.

Research shows those going through this type of very rapid weigh loss are:
More likely to regain the weight.
Are losing muscle weight along with fat.
Cause a "starvation reaction" which lowers metabolism rates.

I think you should plan on 1-1/2 pounds or less weigh loss per week. Make sure protein intake remains sufficient even if calories are lower. The slow easy road is the right road.

chaadster

It's only 1/2 caloric intake.

The other 1/2 is caloric output.

DrIsotope

I set my goal for 1lb per week, and that has held pretty constant over the 9 month period. After the first 30 came off, it was all small drops and plateaus. I'm not (and never have been) as strict about the diet as everybody else seems to be-- I want my intake to be something I can sustain, not be the obnoxious so-and-so at every party who can't (read: won't) eat the carbs or any of the tasty treats. Wanna eat more? Ride farther, faster. My daily rides are getting longer and longer-- was an 18-20 miles a day 3-4 days a week guy in say June, now I'm a 200 miles a week guy. Same caloric intake (mostly.) And if I want a Costco Chicken Bake, I'm damn well gonna eat one. Like chaadster said, so long as the energy out meets or exceeds the energy in, everything's golden. I'm not training for the TdF. I just don't wanna be a sluggish fat guy again.

But I still want to eat Chicken Bakes.

Jarrett2

Yes, kinda but your macronutrient ratios are important as well.

I have been going by calories only for most of this year and have plateaued.

Just this week, I changed up the type of calories roughly following the no grains, no sugar plan when at home and now weight is flying off again.

NYSteve

Right on!

Gary Taubes writes very often about good calories vs bad.

"
TOWARD the end of the Second World War, researchers at the University of Minnesota began a legendary experiment on the psychology and physiology of human starvation -- and, thus, on hunger. The subjects were 36 conscientious objectors, some lean, some not. For 24 weeks, these men were semi-starved, fed not quite 1,600 calories a day of foods chosen to represent the fare of European famine areas: ''whole-wheat bread, potatoes, cereals and considerable amounts of turnips and cabbage'' with ''token amounts'' of meat and dairy.
As diets go, it was what nutritionists today would consider a low-calorie, and very low-fat diet, with only 17 percent of calories coming from fat.
What happened to these men is a lesson in our ability to deal with caloric deprivation, which means, as well, a lesson in any expectations we might have about most current weight-loss advice, and perhaps particularly the kind that begins with ''eat less'' and ''restrict fat.''
The men lost an average of a pound of body fat a week over the first 12 weeks, but averaged only a quarter-pound per week over the next 12, despite the continued deprivation. And this was not their only physiological reaction. Their extremities swelled; their hair fell out; wounds healed slowly. They felt continually cold; their metabolism slowed.
More troubling were the psychological effects. The men became depressed, lethargic and irritable. They threw tantrums. They lost their libido. They thought obsessively about food, day and night. The Minnesota researchers called this ''semi-starvation neurosis.'' Four developed ''character neurosis.'' Two had breakdowns, one with ''weeping, talk of suicide and threats of violence.'' He was committed to the psychiatric ward. The ''personality deterioration'' of the other ''culminated in two attempts at self-mutilation.'' He nearly detached the tip of one finger and later chopped off three with an ax.
When the period of imposed starvation ended, the subjects were allowed to ''refeed.'' At first they were allowed to eat more calories, but restricted as to how much. A subset under continued observation was then allowed to eat to satiety, which was surprisingly hard to achieve. The men consumed prodigious amounts of food, up to 10,000 calories a day. They regained weight and fat with remarkable rapidity. After 20 weeks of recovery, they averaged 50 percent more body fat than they had when it began -- ''post-starvation obesity,'' the researchers called it."


I am good without doing this to myself.

NYSteve

I always say, I hate "Bro Science"

You know when you talk to your peers and they only have a anecdotal evidence, but I do the same thing. I am trying hard to not do this.

Hey bro, you should take amino acids,

Hey Bro, you should take BCAA

Hey Bro, Eat 800 calories a day to lose weight.

Harvieu25

I went through all of those symptoms and more when I unknowingly had a big calorie deficit for around 6 months. Fall 2013 had me feeling at an all time low. Still eating a standard american diet, (crap) I was tired of being sick and tired. Quit sodas and quickly dropped 20lbs. Then in Feb14 I totally gave up all processed (except cheese) and fast foods. Fruits, veggies, meat and dairy were all still consumed, but only if I prepared it. The thing I didn't know was just how low my daily caloric intake was, <1k calories a day is not your friend! Went from 185lbs down to 130 lbs in less than 10 months. It was a bad lesson in how to loose much muscle and fat.

Oct15 I converted to vegan and have not looked back. But, I do keep track of what I eat and a daily minimum of 2k is attained quite easily. Eating that much plant food is a challenge at first, but if you like to eat (who doesn't) then you might like it. Have gained back 10 lbs since the start of 2015 and am now at 140 lbs. I eat like a horse to try and assure myself I am getting enough to support my new love, cycling.

I won't get into specifics of what I went through, but trust me, if you want to make a dietary change please join a calorie/nutrition tracking site so you KNOW that you are getting enough.

LGHT

5lbs??? I think I lost that this morning after a cup of coffee and a trip to the restroom.

If the goal is only to lose 5 lbs than pretty much anything will work even the “bro” diet lol. When you need to loose 50lbs or more you’re going to really have to work at it and have a much better plan other than “it’s all about caloric intake”….

CdaleNike21

this.

bassjones

Agree, though at first, any healthy changes are likely to result in big drops early on. That'll depend partially on how much weight you have to lose as well. If you're over 100 lbs overweight and start a healthy lifestyle eating change (NOT a diet, a permanent, sustainable change), you may see 10-15 lb weight loss weeks at times at the beginning. If you're a heavy beer or soda drinker, 100 lbs overweight, you could drop 30 lbs in a month, JUST by cutting out the liquid calories and drinking 80-100oz of water a day. Then it will slow down into a routine 1-2 lbs a week and you'll have to change some other things in your eating and maybe add or intensify exercise.

sstorkel

This. I lost 50lbs and kept it off by 1) eating better, and 2) riding a lot. I tried doing one thing or the other, but it wasn't until I put them together that I had any real success...

JohnJ80

Not according to my nutritionist. She says it's more like 75/25. If you're not losing weight, you'll get there faster by adjusting the intake the output.

J.

NYSteve

I am trying to make a move away from all dairy, just because of lactose. I quit eating fruit, and all processed foods, and any food that has sugar as an added ingredient.

I am a type 2 diabetic.

VCSL2015

and hows that workin for ya

NYSteve

It's working beautifully.

I have an A1C of 6.3 (thats down from 10.1)
I have a total cholesterol of 120
I have triglycerides 97

This morning for breakfast, I had diced Butternut squash, cooked in the renderings of Uncured bacon, with three sunnyside up eggs.

laflavor

No. Not this. "Starvation reactions" lowering metabolism isn't really a thing people in a modern country have to worry about. If you still have fat stores, your body won't go into "starvation mode." You can have malnutrition, but that isn't the same thing.

Your TDEE will go down when you lose weight and you could feel sluggish or extra hungry on a significant calorie restriction, but that's not the same thing as "starvation mode" nor is it permanent. Starvation mode, as the name should imply, requires you to actually be starving. If you have excess fat on you, you are not starving.

The Study NYSteve mentions isn't really applicable. This study was done to look at actual starvation and the long term effects. If you have extra fat stores, it doesn't apply to you at all.

For some of the other posters here:
1) It really is calories in vs calories out. End of story, there's nothing more to it.
2) If you reach a plateau, it's because your calories in and your calories out are roughly equal. Adjust one or the other. If you think you're at a calorie deficit and you aren't losing weight, you're counting your calories incorrectly. Make sure you measure by weight. Count your liquid calories. Don't trust fitness calorie counters (they are wildly and spectacularly inaccurate for the most part).
3) A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It's simply a unit of energy. There is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" calorie. If you use 2000 calories and only eat 1500, you will lose weight. From a weight perspective, it doesn't matter if the calories come from broccoli or twinkies. It will be easier to feel full and maintain proper nutrition if you eat broccoli, but you'll lose weight either way.

All that is not to say that losing weight is easy. Is it simple? Yes. But that's not the same thing.

JakiChan

It depends on how heavy you are, and what medical problems may come along with that sort of weight.

If you're heavy enough that you have Type II diabetes, or other medical problems, then the risks of an LCD or a VLCD may outweigh the risks of being morbidly obese. However, an LCD or VLCD or other rapid weight loss program should be conducted under the supervision of a doctor. (And yes, below 1200 calories for someone who's "supposed" to eat 2000 calories a day qualifies).

One of the reasons to see a doctor is that they can prescribe medication that will lessen the impact of rapid weight loss on your gallbladder, hopefully avoiding stones and/or surgery.

JakiChan

It's also the fact that most people underestimate intake and overestimate output. My doc used to question some of the calories on some of my rides (because she wasn't really looking at time or distance or anything, just that a 1000 calorie ride seemed unlikely to her) until I explained what a power meter does, and showed how that 1000 calorie ride was something that the heart rate monitor thought was 2500 calories.

(Side note: For gym cardio the Apple Watch is about the most sane tracker I've found. It's reading MUCH lower than anything else I've used.)

JohnJ80

I've been using my Garmin unit with a HRM then synced thru Tapiirik to Strava to get the calories into Apple Health where it's accessible by my nutrition monitoring app. That's kind of a round about way and I've wondered if using the Apple Watch in the Workout app would do ok. But the variance between HRM devices and applications has made me cautious. I'd be ok with using an Apple Watch in Workout mode to get the calories into the Health app and then track my workout stats in other things that make more sense for that.

What's your take on the Apple Watch for calories on cycling as a workout?

J.

JakiChan

If one takes power meter numbers as the gold standard then it's still way off. The reason being is that it has no way to know when you stop pedaling. It still racks up calories going down hill and at stoplights. I tried it shortly after I got mine and it was still way higher than the power meter calories. But for constant effort things (like a treadmill) it's awesome.

JohnJ80

How much is it off compared to the power meter in general for you (%-age)? What about compared to other HRM methods?

HRM based data is better than just ride/time/speed/weight based. Power meter is better than HRM.

J.

JakiChan

I don't recall the exact percentage. I can say this: I use the Wahoo TICKR X HRM. So one I got the power meter I used their app and my Garmin/power meter. The Wahoo app (with heart rate data) was often 2X the power meter data.