raydog

I train at about 140 miles weekly, always run hard, and keep up with most, including youngins (except hills!). Last summer I got down to under 200, briefly, and felt SO fast. Alas, I'm back up in weight now and, short of starvation or 3 centuries a week, it's really hard to loose! When, at the gym, I pick up a 50 pound dumbell, I think, "this is the extra weight I carry around, no wonder I lumber up the steeps". All that being said, I'm in great shape, bp is 116/66, blood panel is fine. (also, I'm 64 yrs old)
Does anyone else have these thoughts or should I just enjoy who I am? (the "kids" all say how strong I am for my age but it seems I should perform at a higher level).

Please don't flame this, I'm just trying to ask an honest question...

10 Wheels

Enjoy what you have ........

Jaytron

What does your diet look like?

shawmutt

I've found out the hard way, weight is about the diet, not so much the exercise. Exercise keeps a person fit, but years of carrying around the extra weight starts to take its toll.

steve0257

How tall and what kind of frame do you have?

goldfinch

You are in good health and get good exercise. Enjoy what you have.

kevrider

based on BMI calculations (of debatable value)... a 220# person would be over 6'6" feet tall if their BMI is within normal limits (my calculator stops at 78"). as mentioned above... calories out > calories in = weight loss. that recovery drink contributes calories in.

raydog

You are right, I must confront diet....I drop in weight when I think about nutrition, otherwise, eating whatever I want will never get me where I want to go! Gawd I love food though. (I'm 5'11", heavy frame btw)

shawmutt

I've had good success with livestrong.com as far as counting calories. My problem was I met a goal and then stopped using the site! Tomorrow, once again, I get back on the wagon!

goldfinch

If you look at the raydog's situation from a population standpoint he is best off not doing anything. If he loses weight the odds are he will gain it back and be even heavier than he is now and may have less muscle and more fat. Raydog, go for it if you want to take the risk. But bear in mind that it will be tough to lose the weight and maybe tougher to keep it off. Are you willing to live your life obsessed?

Signed, the party pooper.

kevrider

that's what happens to people who "diet" as described by shawnutt. it has to be (cue cliche) a lifestyle change. drinking water instead of ordering coke or beer... putting smaller portions on the plate... etc. temporary changes net temporary results.

billydonn

63.9 years old and about 215 here... you are not alone. I'm 5'9" with heavy frame. I do agree with the need to control the diet more, especially to cut down on the portions and the high fat foods. Hard to do it with exercise alone.

raydog

I read some research recently how, as one ages, I think the loss is about 4% yearly after age 65. I may be off somewhat there but in any case there is a loss attributable to aging....all else remaining constant (level of exercise, etc.). So in some capacity I see at least SOME weight loss as I age as compensation for the aging loss....in other words, a 190 pound me at 68 might outperform a 220 pound me at 64 yrs.! Also, since I'm retireing on my 67th birthday, think of all the additional miles I'll be free to ride! (my wife already knows what to expect and supports that). Remember, I'm just thinking out loud here (and I appreciate the responses).

goldfinch

To lose weight you have to reduce calories lower than what is necessary to maintain your current weight. Call it a diet or call it a lifestyle change, the body still knows it is not getting as much calories as it wants. And, the odds are good that you will gain the weight back. This seems to be true no matter how the weight is lost.

shawmutt

Lifestyle changes come about when we realize how our portions are skewed and how many extra calories we pack in a day. It doesn't take much, a couple extra hundred a day and the pounds come on.

The easiest way for me to do this is by keeping a food diary--that is my "lifestyle change". The internet/iPod food diaries make it a breeze. The problem comes in when I revert back to my old lifestyle.

skilsaw

You might be an ectomorph.

Your Body Type - Ectomorph, Mesomorph or Endomorph? | Muscle ...




www.muscleandstrength.com › ArticlesCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Male body types - ectomorph, mesomorph and endomorph. How to understand your body type and work your training and diet around it.

XR2

I recently read Taubes' books. I'm just starting on that journey so no definitive answers yet. But I do feel better so far. Something to look at.

terbennett

I wanna flame because I think you're over analyzing this. If you have younger guys telling you that you're strong, it's because you are. they might look at your age but when they're comparing strength, generally, people are using their strength as a comparison. 220 lbs. isn't light but I know that one of my buddies is 6'4, 250 lbs., and he will give 170 lb guys a run for their money up hills. Granted, he's only 39 like myself, but he gone up against lightweights in their 20's that are on racing teams. Basically, what I'm saying is if you want to lose the weight, do it. You have before so you can again. The difeerence is I you take advantage of that strength. Lighter guys have less to move but they tend to have less strength too. I doubt that an average 170 lb. seasoned rider can climb a hill with 50 lbs of weight on them as fast as a 220 lb. seasoned rider. He just doesn't have the strength to do it, whereas the 220 lb. rider carries that weight all of the time. If I'm wrong, can someone please explain how I could be?

Chaco

I always find it amusing how people under 40 keep coming up with the same mantra about "calories in, calories out" and simultaneously argue that losing weight is no big deal -- all you need is a little willpower. I remember 40 some odd years ago when I was 20, and weighed 165 lbs at 6'1". I could go up to 185 in the winter, then drop 20 lbs. in a couple of months with no problems at all.

What I've found is that as you get older, you no longer have the same metabolism. And the "calories in, calories out" thesis, which would be overly simplistic for an automobile engine, is hopelessly simplistic for the human body. Everyone knows that a relatively small change in your valve timing can drastically alter the consumption of fuel by your car. Yet when it comes to the human body, we have all sorts of people making it out to be something that is less complex than a two cylinder gas engine.

I just say this because at your age (I'm 63 myself, and also 223 lbs.), losing weight is a whole new ballgame. I'm down from 270 lbs. 5 years ago, and that's partially because I don't try to lose more than 10 lbs. a year. For me, a low carb diet was absolutely necessary because I was borderline T2 diabetic. That's what led me to Taubes's books. Whether or not you agree with him, you have to admit that scientists are discovering new complexities to human metabolism every day, from the effect of various food types on the storage of fat, to the influence of chemicals like leptin.

While you should be thankful your blood panels are good, I wouldn't take the extra weight for granted. Eventually, the odds are that it will hurt you. But in my case, I had to take a very long view of losing the weight. I'd like to drop below 220 by the end of the year (probably won't make it though), and hopefully get down to 210 by the end of 2012, and maybe hit 200 by the end of 2013. At that point, I'll still be considered "fat" by BMI standards, but it's a hell of a lot better than where I was 5 years ago.

And yes, I totally understand your frustration. There are some months where I ride my heart out, watch my diet, and my reward is staying at exactly the same weight for 3 months in a row. I did 90 mile ride 6 weeks ago, and 2 days later, was 3 lbs. heavier!

At our age, losing weight is no longer a footrace; it's a lifelong pursuit. You may never get to your target weight, but trying is 2/3 of the battle. Good luck!

Rowan

More excuses. More justification for staying the same.

The simple fact, from my reading, Raydog, is that you are riding all the time in heart rate zones that don't allow you to burn the fat you have stored on your body.

It's something I repeat time and again, but all the "experts" on this forum, who ironically are themselves overweight, keep coming up with "heavy frame", "lower metabolism", "BMI measurements are inaccurate", and the newest one, "you'll have to be obssessed to keep the weight off".

Think about doing this, Raydog. Go for some rides that don't include the fast pack, and keep your heart rate (you do use an HRM, don't you?) between 100 and 120bpm. Ride as long as you like (the longer the better). You can ride up hills, but use low gears and spin easily and keep your HR down.

You don't necessarily have to eat anything, but keep well hydrated with water.

The essence of this style of riding is that you are taking energy from your adipose stores, not directly from your liver.

The way you are riding at the moment, I can almost guarantee that you are riding at a very elevated heart rate, probably for less than two hours, and consuming food along the way to "sustain" you throught the ride.

So, effectively, you are riding on the glycogen stored in your liver (which is enough to sustain your for about... you guessed it... two hours). With the top-up food on the bike, you aren't altering the balance at all.

And, equally as essentially, watch your diet at other times. Cycling and exercise is not panacea for losing weight, but combining with sensible eating (portion control particularly plus removal of alcohol intake) the weight will come off.

tony_merlino

This is what usually happens to me, and I guess to most of us who have been up and down in weight all our lives.

One thing that occurred to me a while ago, (but that I haven't been able to put into practice yet), is to approach compulsive eating as an addiction, like alcohol, tobacco or drugs. An addict in recovery doesn't measure success by how much he's recovered - the concept is meaningless. Success is measured in terms of getting through another day without indulging in the compulsive behavior, i.e. getting through one day at a time.

I think it's a mistake, for long term success, to keep looking at the scale, to set weight goals, to keep track of the ticker... When we do that, the reinforcement that keeps us going is the movement of the scale. When the scale stops moving (because we've reached our goal), there's no more motivation, and before we know it, we're fat again.

I've been trying to imagine a program where the (1) diet and exercise program are permanently sustainable, i.e. right from the beginning, you eat the maintenance diet for the weight you want to be, do the amount of exercise you can sustain permanently (e.g. 45 minutes to 1 hour per day), EVEN THOUGH this means you lose weight more slowly, (2) you measure success one day at a time, based on whether you were faithful to the process that day, and (3) when you fall off the wagon, you get back on ASAP, once again taking it a day at a time, not focused on the scale, but on sticking to the process.

A calorie/exercise monitoring program could be useful to get you started, but shouldn't be necessary after a while, as you get used to gauging what you're doing.

Bill in Houston

OP, you're prolly just eating too much. Happens to a lot of people. Nobody is really "designed" to carry 40 extra lbs of fat. Whether you change it or not is up to you. Just depends what you want.

FrenchFit 

Utter nonsense, that's exactly what alot of bodies are engineered to do. Look at the genetics at play in many families, same eating habits, it's undeniable.

Raydog, I think the answer is in a radical change in your diet. No amount of exercise will change things once you get older. No bread, no sugar, maybe vegetarian, etc., etc. If you go zealot in your dieting habits the pounds will fall off. Will you be healthier and happier? Maybe not. The trick isn't losing the weight, its finding the balance point between weight, health, daily happiness about your lifestyle. You may find weighting 175 and maintaining that weight is miserable and unhealthy, or not.

raydog

Wow, you guys (terbennett, Chaco, Rowan, Tony, French, et al) I'm so grateful for your responses. Great food for thought (pardon the pun) and it's always nice to see that others have some similar thoughts...although we all think we are so unique. After much thought, I think the medium level fat burning intensity lures me the most and yes, I am always riding at 80-100% effort! It does make me a fast cruiser but minimizes fat burning like you said (Rowan). As to reducing overall food consumption, I just am not very good at that but will keep trying! Raydog

Gravity Aided

Dennis Coello, who wrote the book "Touring on Two Wheels" 1988-Nick Lyons Books- p 107- states that " muscles weigh about 5 times as much as fat." . I'd say maybe you should ask the doctor about a nutritionist visit and a Body Mass Index test. That way, you'll know if there is a problem. You'll alsoprobably hear what to do about it. Or, you may just be muscular....