squirtdad

bummer. did some quick searching and it seems a lot of the arthritis sites are very supportive of using a stationary bike as it has benefits for the knee. They are also pretty supportive of regular biking with restraint. as always check with your doctor. just an idea for you

Null66

Size wise there are clydes, supers, pachys, ubers... By choice and act of god.

Super Clydesdale » Cycling for clydesdales


I'm well into the Pachy territory (if I'm remember right) and I'm both by choice and act of god... Some of the choices are good (I carry a lot of muscle) and some are bad (I'm carrying a lot of pizza and other simple carbs).

Null66

Yeah,
This describes me.

BP issues and every BP med has had side effects. I'm running out of options. I'm gonna try cutting down to 240, see if that helps. Gonna have to kick ass in the gym to try and hold as much strength as possible.

likely, I would be healthiest in the 220 range.
But there are some benefits at my size/strength.

Climbing is not one of them, descending is...

I really have to keep your question in mind...

Null66

Too low trashes my knees, especially the one that had surgery.

rideorglide

A certain amount of truth to that --- when it comes to health and climbing hills.

Somehow I did manage to add a bunch of muscle but I can't blame that on my 3rd or 4th time back in the Clyde Correctional Thread

Ditto that.

rideorglide

Nah. I've been in and out, but still posted when I was 193. this is a brotherhood and sisterhood some of us have been through and sometimes back in and out and in again.

Thinking a lot about our brother Tom Stormcrowe these days, any of you who pray, well he could use some help, he's been through a couple of strokes, and would love to regain some mobility to enjoy his life more again.

baron von trail 

I always get a kick out of the stories I hear from people who can't put on weight. People eating cheeseburgers and cheesecake while still dropping another 5 lbs off of their 150-lb, 6-foot frame. Imagine having that problem?

Solare

I will call BS on the max weight. When I was in the service at 6' my max was 203. So, I don't believe the 195. Just did a quick check and see that 206 is the max weight depending on your age.

baron von trail 

It depends on the chart. Some show max weights below 200 for people up to 6'4". Some will show max of 210 for someone 6'1".

i've been 230 with no fat and 250 with it. At 190, I was just a lot lighter than when 230, not more fit, but at 250 I was out of shape and felt like crap.

Solare

I believe those folks were never close to 6' tall.

linnefaulk

My father. There are twinkles in the house to help him gain some weight. Sigh.

TrikeRider1961

I believe it is a matter of health, not a label. I have also seen the charts and weight recommendations. Common parlance labels me a Clydesdale, and at 6'3"' 237lbs, I have 13% body fat. I will always be a Clydesdale, therefore I am facing a life sentence. In closing, live a healthy and happy lifestyle.

Thank you

rideorglide

13% body fat ... sounds like you're good to go to "Go," without going to jail.
Just a large muscular guy by the sounds of it. If you play ice hockey well, and don't mind dropping the gloves, we fans might have a role for you on the NY Rangers fourth line. Or, if no fighting in the job description, then defense.

Pamestique 

Baron:

Sorry I missed your thread when it started... welcome to my world. I'm surprised you think C & A is prison when you play down there in P & R! Alot of people come here just because its people friendly and encouraging regardless of what shape you are in... it's more like heaven...

Now, just 'cause I "know" and love ya... quit your whining and do something if you are so unhappy. Life could be worse as you know from reading posts from another P & R brother (TS). If you are fat and sloppy and feeling miserable, you know you can do something about it. And something to consider, one can be overweight and still be healthy... there are "fat fit" people like me out there. You engineer types get wrappefd up in number and not actuality. My guy keeps telling me he won't be actually fit until he hits 170 lb (he's 6'1") and keeps whining as about his weight loss (or lack thereof althouh he has lost close to 60 lbs) but in the meantime, he is now outriding me, has stopped taking most of his medication and is full of energy. Instead of how we look in the mirrir we need to focus on our performance and actions.

Anyway, I just brought a NutriBullet (900 Pro). I am following their diet plan and in a week have lost 6 lbs without trying (I'm still eating way too much junk food which would make JohnFX cringe). I like drinking a nutriblast (spinach, frozen fruit, granola, ice water) in the morning. It's keeps me revved up almost all day. Sometimes I also have one for dinner as well. Suggest you give it a try.

mlander

IMHO this is rubbish. Please keep in mind, I threw an "IMHO" in there so I have no burden of proof. I am not a doctor, but neither is your personal trainer acquaintance.

I think this idea is propped-up by Big Food, who would obviously have a stake in perpetuating the fallacy. Snack, snack, snack, buy, buy, buy.

Unlearning this was an absolute revelation for me. I am an intermittent faster.

Chitown_Mike

I have read about IFing (sounds dirty haha!) but never really looked into it. I have also read about juicing, but I don't have the stuff at home to do it and I don't feel like another kitchen gadget is what I need. Any good resources on IF? I have subscribed to the "eat multiple times a day" theory and plateaued at 220 (where I am now). While I still see gains on the bike, I don't see the lose of my fat gains around my waist. I'd be interested to read more into it.

linnefaulk

Lions are happy to eat once a day. Cows munch all day long. I doubt there is one best way for humans.

Wooden Tiger

He also stated that it also depended on WHAT you chose to eat, not just gorging. For some reason, you chose not to post that as part of the quote which was mentioned in my original post.

By eating SMALL meals throughout the day, it wouldn't be difficult to eat seven "meals."

mlander

This is what ultimately made me give it a try. It's a long and involved read:

Precision Nutrition » Experiments with Intermittent Fasting Summary

The biggest factor for me was to know I can be hungry and just deal with it. It's not an emergency. I have purposefully run a few 5k's on a totally empty stomach. My body did not care IN THE LEAST.

I've never been really big, but I want to be slim and fast on a bicycle. This approach is getting me there (relatively speaking - I am not kidding myself with being actually, like, fast fast).

It's ideal for my lifestyle. Enduring a little hunger is very similar to enduring miles in the saddle. I'm an all-or-nothing kinda guy. They say to find what works for you. This works for me.

In my daily life I absolutely won't talk about IF because people can be extremely and openly hostile to the idea. Diet is religion.

/soapbox

Chitown_Mike

Thanks for the info, I try to approach new and interesting dieting ideas like I do with differing political views than myself, meaning you aren't changing my mind and I may not change yours, but I do want to hear it out before I make a decision.

I am very much an "all-or-nothing" guy myself (drives my wife nuts I don't see the "gray" in things), and I do know that at times I don't feel hungry, or don't notice I haven't eaten in several hours, and feel fine. I usually do my long rides on weekends on an empty stomach because I am not always hungry. Thanks for the info link and I'll be reading more about this, need to get off this plateau.

stephtu

I agree about the eating 7 times a day being rubbish. I think the theory behind eating very frequently had to do with caloric expenditure for digestion. But it turns out that this is proportional to the amount of food being consumed, so eating 7 tiny meals doesn't increase this measurably over eating 2-3 larger ones. Also it's a massive pain to prepare 7 meals a day and to be careful to make them small enough that it's a reasonable total given so many meals.

You don't have to eat in order for your body to be burning calories, don't have to "eat breakfast to jump-start your metabolism". Your body burns calories constantly just being alive. If your metabolism wasn't started already, you'd be dead . If you want to burn more calories, outside of actively exercising or physically demanding job, the main thing to do IMO is maneuver to stand more hours out of the day rather than sitting.

I think bottom line is anything that accomplishes calories input < calories expended on average over weekly/monthly periods, that one can stick to long term, will get the job done.

As for intermittent fasting, I'm totally on board, worked/working great for me. But may not be the best for everyone, I think everybody needs to find something that they are comfortable with permanently. "IF" worked for me because I didn't have to completely give up any particular classes of food I enjoy, just changed the frequency and amount. I view it as more of a going "cold turkey" type of approach, but unlike with smoking/other drugs, obviously you can't go cold turkey from eating constantly & forever, just for 16-24 hour stretches at a time, depending on the approach used. There are multiple protocols proposed, they break down mainly into two broad types:
- severe calorie restriction (to ~25% of normal maintenance levels, ~500-600 calories per day on average) for 2, 3 days a week, up to every-other-day. Non-restricted days aim for 100% maintenance, daily calorie target for not losing weight, though some protocols let these days be true "ad-libitum", no target, eat as much as you want, claiming that even given no restrictions, people end up only eating 10% more than normal, not enough to wipe out the deficit created on the restricted modified fasting days.

or
- every day, restrict eating to an "eating window" of n hours, n <=8, no eating outside of window.

In either case one can adjust weekly total calorie targets for a certain amount of weight loss, you don't really lose weight any faster than a standard daily restricted diet, just your meal timing ends up different. It's just easier for some people to restrict severely part-time than to restrict more moderately all of the time. Also there is some preliminary research suggesting potential beneficial effects of giving the body long periods where insulin and other hormones can be lowered from the fasting, activating some cellular repair mechanisms, although I think most of this evidence is still only from rodent studies.

expatbrit

Yeah -- that's where I went!

mlander

Great post.

I stop eating at 8PM and pick it back up at 1PM the next day. I am not too rigid. Yesterday I played volleyball until 8:30, then ate after. No biggie. Also - I totally scrap it on weekends. So I IF for 17 hours, 5 days a week. It's been slow and steady.

HBCruiser1

baron von trail- love your attitude, whatever it takes! It's funny, as I read your first post for some reason I'm hearing John Candy say your words. Hilarious and good luck on "busting out"!

baron von trail 

Thanks.

I've been losing about a pound a week all summer. So, at this rate, I'll be sprung from jail in about 40 more weeks.