General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Weight Loss

Old 10-25-17, 12:10 PM
  #101  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 27,699

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times in 47 Posts
Originally Posted by dwing View Post
It takes discipline and serious change in eating lifestyle habits to drop and sustain significant weight loss.
Five years ago I disciplined myself to stop eating between meals and skip deserts and sugary drinks in order to lose weight while on a six month overseas assignment. My average weekly bicycling mileage dropped from about 125 to 25 miles during this assignment. My work schedule of 12hours/7 days a week kept me busy but did not require strenuous activity. I never missed a meal at the available government dining facilities and ate well 3 times a day, but without desserts, pastry and the like. Never counted calories; lost about 35 lbs. in the six months and never was hungry. Have sustained the weight loss for the last 5 years in retirement by continuing to mostly skipping between meal snacks and sugary drinks and upping my weekly mileage to about 70 miles/week.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 02:28 PM
  #102  
Maelochs
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,498

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5449 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 76 Posts
I don't eat between meals ... i make my snacks big enough to be meals in their own right.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 02:29 PM
  #103  
Pendergast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by General Geoff View Post
You still haven't provided any citations to suggest that a calorie (actually kilocalorie, which is a scentific unit of energy measurement equivalent to 4184 Joules) of chocolate will in any way take more effort to burn than a calorie of, say, broccoli. While the energy densities of these foods are vastly different, if you're measuring by calorie and not volume, then you've already corrected for that factor.
I posted 3 links earlier in the thread to studies that showed calculated calorie counts aren't the whole story when it comes to useable calories for food. Here's one of them(a 32% discrepancy between calculated calories and useable calories for almonds): http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296

Nuts seem to be the most affected by the inadequacy of calculated calories to capture the real digestive calorie content of foods, but I would not be surprised if it's significant enough with other foods to make a difference for people who are pure calorie counter dieters.

Even the form of a food can affect available calories. Whole peanuts provide fewer available calories than peanuts that have been turned into peanut butter.
Pendergast is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 03:21 PM
  #104  
Ryder1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 127

Bikes: 2019 Evil Following, 2017 D'back Haanjo, 2011 Kona Unit SS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"Put down the spoon."

Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post
Whole peanuts provide fewer available calories than peanuts that have been turned into peanut butter.
Yeah, I've read nut butter has ~25% more digested calories than when chewing them up. And if I'm not mistaken, chewing has some sort of hormonal and/or psychological effect that increases satiation. I've stopped with the nut butters (e.g. Nuttzo) - it's one of the few foods where I have trouble controlling how many calories I take.
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 03:54 PM
  #105  
General Geoff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 640

Bikes: 2018 Lynskey Cooper CX; 2007 Cannondale F4

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post
I posted 3 links earlier in the thread to studies that showed calculated calorie counts aren't the whole story when it comes to useable calories for food. Here's one of them(a 32% discrepancy between calculated calories and useable calories for almonds): http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296

Nuts seem to be the most affected by the inadequacy of calculated calories to capture the real digestive calorie content of foods, but I would not be surprised if it's significant enough with other foods to make a difference for people who are pure calorie counter dieters.

Even the form of a food can affect available calories. Whole peanuts provide fewer available calories than peanuts that have been turned into peanut butter.
Thank you for the citation! This does point out a significant discrepancy in measured calories vs metabolized calories. I'd love to see if similar discrepancies exist for other unprocessed foods.

This points to a problem with measurement, though, not the overall premise.
General Geoff is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 03:56 PM
  #106  
adamhenry
MUP World Champ
 
adamhenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 365

Bikes: '17 Defy Adv 2, Electra Verse 21D

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
Yeah, I've read nut butter has ~25% more digested calories than when chewing them up. And if I'm not mistaken, chewing has some sort of hormonal and/or psychological effect that increases satiation. I've stopped with the nut butters (e.g. Nuttzo) - it's one of the few foods where I have trouble controlling how many calories I take.
The level of mastication changes the level of digestion of nuts. Different people will get differing amounts of calories from the same amounts of nuts. This probably applies to other foods to some extent but I haven't seen any studies on it.
adamhenry is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 04:31 PM
  #107  
Pendergast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Here's a study comparing the energy expenditure of digesting meals of equal calories but differing in how processed the food was. The variables don't seem (to me) to be very well controlled in the study, but the authors' take is that the body uses less energy to digest processed foods. Not really what someone trying to lose weight would want.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897733/?report=classic
Pendergast is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 05:32 PM
  #108  
rachel120
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 711
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 620 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post
I posted 3 links earlier in the thread to studies that showed calculated calorie counts aren't the whole story when it comes to useable calories for food. Here's one of them(a 32% discrepancy between calculated calories and useable calories for almonds): Discrepancy between the Atwater factor predicted and empirically measured energy values of almonds in human diets

Nuts seem to be the most affected by the inadequacy of calculated calories to capture the real digestive calorie content of foods, but I would not be surprised if it's significant enough with other foods to make a difference for people who are pure calorie counter dieters.

Even the form of a food can affect available calories. Whole peanuts provide fewer available calories than peanuts that have been turned into peanut butter.
I wish I had known that during my calorie reduction diet. I looked at the nutritional information, saw how many calories raw nuts had and how little protein they had, and treated them like the occasional "cheat on my diet" snack.
rachel120 is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 05:41 PM
  #109  
Ryder1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 127

Bikes: 2019 Evil Following, 2017 D'back Haanjo, 2011 Kona Unit SS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by adamhenry View Post
The level of mastication changes the level of digestion of nuts. Different people will get differing amounts of calories from the same amounts of nuts.
And absorption drops in general as you get older. And all this varies between individuals. This is part of the reason I refuse to count calories. Also, it's just not how I want to live my life. I'd rather listen to my gut. Literally.
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 06:28 PM
  #110  
Pendergast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rachel120 View Post
I wish I had known that during my calorie reduction diet. I looked at the nutritional information, saw how many calories raw nuts had and how little protein they had, and treated them like the occasional "cheat on my diet" snack.
I don't feel guilty about snacking on almonds, walnuts, pistachios, or cashews even though they do have a lot of calories. Eating them on a regular basis improves cholesterol, and I rarely eat so many that I feel like I'm over-indulging.

Last edited by Pendergast; 10-25-17 at 06:44 PM.
Pendergast is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 07:58 PM
  #111  
FBinNY 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 36,019

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Mentioned: 122 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4342 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Bmach View Post
General, so are you saying that 600 calories from sugary foods/soda is the same as 600 calories fruits/vegetables? If it is then I’m dropping the veg/fruits and drinking a couple mt dews instead.
Yes, and no.

On a purely calorie or weight basis, yes, calories are calories. However diet is about more than calories. There are all sorts of other nutrients in that food, all of which are important. There's also a question of what I call the satisfaction index. Some foods offer high satisfaction as you eat them, and can stay in the stomach longer, so you're likely to be more satisfied longer, and eat less than you might with low SI foods.

So, calories are what matters, but how you get them is also important in subtle ways.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

“Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline  
Old 10-25-17, 08:35 PM
  #112  
rachel120
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 711
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 620 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FBinNY View Post
Yes, and no.

On a purely calorie or weight basis, yes, calories are calories. However diet is about more than calories. There are all sorts of other nutrients in that food, all of which are important. There's also a question of what I call the satisfaction index. Some foods offer high satisfaction as you eat them, and can stay in the stomach longer, so you're likely to be more satisfied longer, and eat less than you might with low SI foods.

So, calories are what matters, but how you get them is also important in subtle ways.
You are so right. When I was sticking to my diet I found that certain caloric tradeoffs made sense in the long run....a few extra calories now so I wouldn't want to eat later on vs a low calorie food that either didn't last or triggered a craving. Trail mix was a biggie, that satisfied my body and my mind even though it's higher calories than a lot of suggested foods for losing weight. Cheese was another one, I would put grated cheddar or colby jack on a lot of foods.
rachel120 is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 12:34 AM
  #113  
Maelochs
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,498

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5449 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 76 Posts
Originally Posted by rachel120 View Post
You are so right. When I was sticking to my diet I found that certain caloric tradeoffs made sense in the long run....
Yup. One reason I don't do all these "lo-fat" diets. A little fat creates a little more satisfaction (and the body needs some anyway.) Some nuts or cheese as a snack can prevent a second snack? Good deal.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 12:26 PM
  #114  
nycphotography
NYC
 
nycphotography's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,603
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1067 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by PedalingWalrus View Post
I agree. I used to do what the common majority trumpeted - eat 3-5 times per day. It just did not work for me. I started by completely skipping breakfast, thinking that if I haven't done anything to burn the calories of the preceding evening I sure do not need to stuff my face first thing in the morning before I head out to my office job where I sit on my butt and work out on my tactile keyboard. Everyone around me were saying: "ooh you should not do this...breakfast is necessary to start the day"... At first my mind and body screamed for attention but over time my routine developed to be without food until around 11AM and feel no significant physical or emotional impact. That has been approximately 2 years ago and I'm doing great. Now I'm working on limiting the evening hours of calorie intake. :-)
The most important thing to eliminate is the barking of the lardass walruses in your ear trying to convince themselves that you will fail because they are right and fatness is ok dont you body shame me and no its not because I have zero will power and more excuses than people to hear them and I'm not fat i'm big boned and how dare you try to lose weight by doing something so simple that I don't want to do you selfish bastard whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa it's not fair it's just not fair waaaaaaaaaaaaaa I need a snickers because i'm not myself when I'm hungryyyyyyyy.
nycphotography is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 12:30 PM
  #115  
nycphotography
NYC
 
nycphotography's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,603
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1067 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by rgconner View Post
I see the poop flinging has started.


yah, any time you suggest something asinine like "if you want to lose weight, eat less than you burn, and if you burn more it helps that side of the equation" you had better well expect to take a lot of incoming dung fire.
nycphotography is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 12:39 PM
  #116  
Flip Flop Rider
Senior Member
 
Flip Flop Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Carolina Upstate
Posts: 1,068

Bikes: 2010 Fuji Absolute 3.0 1994 Trek 850

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 21 Times in 13 Posts
all posters to this thread weigh in

ex: 6'2 340 "ding"
Flip Flop Rider is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 12:40 PM
  #117  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,192
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1211 Post(s)
Liked 107 Times in 64 Posts
Wow. If only ugly minds were as visible as peoples weight. What excuses would be made then.



For those who fast.

I just talked to my wife about this yesterday. If doing a 1 day fast is it better to go from after dinner one day to dinner the next or after breakfast one day to the next?

Yesterday I did a fast from dinner to dinner but found myself a little wonky in the afternoon (I bike commute and walk all day as a job). I attributed this to having no easily accessed calories during the day, as my last meal was the night before. It got me thinking that it might be better to eat breakfast and then fast as I would have energy during the day when I need it but not so much in the evening when I don't need it. My lowest point would be when I sleep whereas yesterday my lowest point was in the afternoon at work. Hope that makes sense.

Thoughts?

Ps. 215 5'11"

Last edited by Happy Feet; 10-26-17 at 12:43 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 12:46 PM
  #118  
caloso
Packfodding 3
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 38,028

Bikes: Ridley Excalibur, Gazelle Champion Mondial, On-One Pompino, Specialized Rock Hopper

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1817 Post(s)
Liked 137 Times in 83 Posts
90' at tempo on a mug of coffee. I only passed out 2 or 3 times and died once. Felt much better after a second coffee when I got to the office.

5'10" (178cm), 165lbs (75kg)
caloso is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 12:53 PM
  #119  
rachel120
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 711
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 620 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Weigh in: 5'2" 180 lbs. Before you sneer, 10 months ago it was 250+ lbs.
rachel120 is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 01:04 PM
  #120  
General Geoff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 640

Bikes: 2018 Lynskey Cooper CX; 2007 Cannondale F4

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
For those who fast.

I just talked to my wife about this yesterday. If doing a 1 day fast is it better to go from after dinner one day to dinner the next or after breakfast one day to the next?

Yesterday I did a fast from dinner to dinner but found myself a little wonky in the afternoon (I bike commute and walk all day as a job). I attributed this to having no easily accessed calories during the day, as my last meal was the night before. It got me thinking that it might be better to eat breakfast and then fast as I would have energy during the day when I need it but not so much in the evening when I don't need it. My lowest point would be when I sleep whereas yesterday my lowest point was in the afternoon at work. Hope that makes sense.

Thoughts?

Ps. 215 5'11"
I usually eat my meal in the evening after I get home from work, sometime between 9 and 11pm. Realistically it shouldn't matter, as long as you settle into a routine where you eat around the same time of day. I like to eat in the late evening because I'm always awake at that time. I don't always wake up at the same time or go into work at the same time, so it would be far more difficult to eat in the morning consistently.

But if you wake up at a set time every day and have the time to enjoy your meal consistently, there's no reason to not have your daily meal in the morning after waking.


6'0" 180lbs. Was 260 last november, started intermittent fasting and got down to a low of 178 in May. Since then, I hover between 179 and 185, depending on time of day and how much water I drink. I could lose more but my girlfriend says I'm already too boney
General Geoff is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 01:14 PM
  #121  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 27,699

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times in 47 Posts
Originally Posted by rachel120 View Post
Weigh in: 5'2" 180 lbs. Before you sneer, 10 months ago it was 250+ lbs.
70 lbs. loss in 10 months is very good. Congratulations.

The real test is maintaining a diet over the long haul that allows you to keep it off. If a weird, unsustainable diet was involved in shedding weight it may be impossible to keep it off. My nephew lost a 100 lbs but it involved some kind of diet of a propitiatory shake and he alas gained it all back when he returned to the eating habits that made him overweight in the first place.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 01:21 PM
  #122  
nycphotography
NYC
 
nycphotography's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,603
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1067 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
70 lbs. loss in 10 months is very good. Congratulations.

The real test is maintaining a diet over the long haul that allows you to keep it off. If a weird, unsustainable diet was involved in shedding weight it may be impossible to keep it off. My nephew lost a 100 lbs but it involved some kind of diet of a propitiatory shake and he alas gained it all back when he returned to the eating habits that made him overweight in the first place.
+1 on the kudos.

-1 on the weird unsustainable diet being impossible to keep off.... with the qualifier that you have (one has) to transition from a "losing weight" program to a "whatever you think comes after program".

for cycling, it can be cut weight, then build power and endurance. for non cycling it can be lose weight then maintain. slightly different diet and strategy.

you can always go back into lose weight mode for short periods if needed.
nycphotography is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 01:30 PM
  #123  
rachel120
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 711
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 620 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I stopped dieting altogether in July and my weight stabilized. I half-heartedly started dieting again beginning of last month and have lost nearly 10 pounds. Crazy as it sounds, the 2-3 pounds a week for six months appears to have been healthy.
rachel120 is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 01:58 PM
  #124  
PedalingWalrus
Senior Member
 
PedalingWalrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 833

Bikes: Surly Ice Cream Truck, Surly Disk Trucker, Salsa Warbird, Salsa Beargrease

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
6' 230lbs.

Was 270 last year and went on the no carbs bandwagon. Lost 25 lbs but could not move lower than that.

Regained weight to 265 as of September 2017

Went onto calorie counting diet and basic reeducation about eating less... lost 35lbs as of today.

Hope to go down to 200lbs by mid 2018
PedalingWalrus is offline  
Old 10-26-17, 03:00 PM
  #125  
rgconner
Senior Member
 
rgconner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,152

Bikes: Curtis Inglis Road, 80's Sekai touring fixie

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by nycphotography View Post
yah, any time you suggest something asinine like "if you want to lose weight, eat less than you burn, and if you burn more it helps that side of the equation" you had better well expect to take a lot of incoming dung fire.
Mostly by people that have something to sell you so you lose it "fast".

And then the no-carb guys start slinging poo at the no-fat guys, and the vegans just piss everybody off.
rgconner is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.