Botto is cranky today

Low-fat milk is a product from which an ingredient - fat - has been removed. So compared to regular milk, calories are removed, which is good.

On the other hand, the sugars remain. This is bad.

And the body isn't tricked into thinking it's full of food by drinking watered down milk. Drink enough low-fat milk to equal the calories found in a serving of regular milk, and the amount of sugar consumed will be higher than consumed with regular milk. And the fats we also need to live would be reduced (or missing in non-fat milk).

So drinking low-fat milk with neither assuage hunger, or help anyone lose weight.

As for low-fat foods in general, while an 8 oz can of Coke has 27 grams of sugar, and 97 calories, a 6 oz. container of "low-fat" Yoplait yogurt has 27 grams of sugar, and 180 calories.

Therefore I'll reiterate my advice: To lose weight, cut down on sugar - sodas, pastas, desserts, candies, and keep away, too, from foods labeled "low-fat," because they contain lots of sugar. (Eat healthy foods that contain protein, fats, and non-processed sugars, like those found in fruits and vegetables. And keep exercising.

Eating healthy foods and exercising are far less expensive methods to lose weight than purchasing power meters and heart rate monitors, and eating well and exercising are still be necessary even if we buy those devices if we want to lose (or even maintain) our weight.

Yeah, Cheesecake Factory = pure evil. Same goes for most chain restaurants. When you look at the most profitable restaurants, and the restaurants that offer the highest-calorie meals, you start to see a trend. People love calories. Calories sell. Plain and simple. You don't see too many wildly successful chains at which they sell sensible, low-calorie foods with balanced nutrition.

You can take it a step further too. People like easy-to-eat calories more. The easier a food is to chew, swallow, and digest, usually means it's less healthy. Compare a 1/4 lb of McDonald's fries to a 1/4 lb apple or 1/4 lb of brocoli. Hot dog vs. salmon.

Avacado would be a notable exception...

You can take it a step further too. People like easy-to-eat calories more. The easier a food is to chew, swallow, and digest, usually means it's less healthy. Compare a 1/4 lb of McDonald's fries to a 1/4 lb apple or 1/4 lb of brocoli. Hot dog vs. salmon.

Avacado would be a notable exception...

You are wrong. You obviously didn't read what I wrote earlier. Merlin does a good job of explaining it:

From January, my average through 408 hrs of riding is 34 kJ/mile. Too lazy to try to figure out the average power.

Well that's great if you are trying to lose a lot of weight and you are riding primarily for exercise/losing weight. Not so great if you are already in shape, only trying to lose a tiny amount, and are training hard and/or racing. To some extent, you have to micro-manage it, because you are on a razors edge. Let me remind you that the OP is "6'2 and about 180" and only trying to lose 10-15 lbs.

Again we are talking about a tiny amount of weight loss, and to further the goal of "riding faster", not riding for the sake of weight loss.

The problem with all of your calculations is that it is assuming someone that is substantially overweight to begin with. Also, BMR is not based on weight but primarily on lean body mass. Fat is mostly metabolically inactive and you should not be considering that weight in determining how much your baseline consumption would be. The Harris-Benedict formula is flawed in that it does not take lean body mass into account.In other words, a 200lb man may require 2400 cal/day to stay 200lbs, but if he was 30%bf then he really only need ~1750 cal/day to maintain his body. If he ate that amount every day, he would be appear to be running a defecit of 650 cal/day, and losing weight but not really running an actual defecit for maintaining his lean mass. If he ate 2400 cal/day, he is really eating a surplus to maintain his fat stores.

Now, let's say that we are talking about someone who is not so overweight, like say, the OP. 180lbs, not fat so maybe 12% bf (just pulling a number out of my ass), with a lean body mass of 158lbs. If he lost 10 pounds, then he would be 7% bf. There is not going to be mearly as much difference between the weight maintence calories and the BMR, so there is not nearly as much room for an "apparent" defecit. So we are talking much smaller margins here, and running thousands of calories defecits on higher volume days are going to be a recipie for low energy, failed workouts. In the OP's scenario, as well as my own, and probably many other people here, having some notion of the consumption and the expenditure is going to be recommended, if not necessary.

"1KJ at the power meter = 1 dietary calorie."

I'm fine with that and I stand corrected -- I only did a quick google search. But even at 12,000 calorie deficit, it is not inconceivable to easily recoup those calories in diet. Ok, maybe not in one trip to chilis, but certainly it is easy to do in one week on a poorly managed diet.

He's riding to lose weight. AND he wants to lose weight to be faster. Therefore he is riding for the sake of weight loss. AND to be faster. They don't exclude each other.
There is no problem with my calculations. They work whether someone is 6'0/250 or 6'2/180.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. If you want to look at it that way, fine, either approach works. If I'm 200lbs and want to be closer to my lean mass of 170, I can "net" exactly my maintenance calories for 170lbs and I will eventually get there, with the loss curve flattening out the closer I get.

Or I can set a goal of losing a pound per week (running a weekly 3500cal deficit), and trimming that amount off of my maintenance calories for 200lbs. The catch is that I have to recalculate maint. calories along the way as I lose weight. Either way works, and in both cases, the closer one gets to lean body mass, the more the loss curve flattens out.
Yes, the closer one gets to lean mass the smaller the margins get. But my point still stands that the OP is better served by paying attention to dietary calories than to exercise calories. He's not racing/training, running thousands of calorie deficits in one day. He's not 165 looking to be 160 and seeking a safe way to eke out those last few pounds safely. He's a recreational rider at 180 looking to lose 10-15 lbs or 6-8% of his body mass. He will be better served by changing his intake calories than getting obsessed over exercise calories and ratcheting up that end of the equation.

I'm just saying it makes sense to pay attention to both sides of the in/out equation.

"Today"? ... Well, I guess that's correct -- every day is "today". :p

Mmmmostly, but what people need to pay attention to as they try to lose weight is to also gain (or maintain) strength. It's possible to lose weight and lose muscle at the same time, so you'd end up fifty pounds lighter but no faster or stronger than before (done that, too). That's why it's important to monitor both intake and output.

In my case, and to pick a specific body part -- I don't remember seeing any definition in my deltoids at any point in my life until this spring. Seeing them in my bathroom mirror was as motivational as anything.

He's already riding, and he is already at a healthy weight, and now he wants to lose weight. They don't exclude each other but it's a different motivation and purpose. He's not saying he wants to exercise more to lose more weight, he just wants a handle on how much he is currently burning and eating so he knows where he stands.

I have to say that I find it a little puzzling that he is at 6'2/180 and wants to be 170 or 165. But then everybody is different and every body is different. I'm 6' and I would look starved at 180. It could be at 6'2/180 the OP has a bit of a gut, as he says.

I have nothing meaningful to add to the actual topic at hand. But, I wanted to thank the OP for starting this thread, since weight loss threads always seem to bring up pics of Jillian Michaels, and she's smokin' hot. :thumb:

http://blog.whocanisue.com/wp-conten...n-michaels.jpg

I should probably eat some more today...

http://www.photoscene.com/kimandsteve/images/11378.png

Time for some Cheesecake Factory, then... :D

Some calorie counting tips ...
 

1. Read the labels on packages.

2. Have a look on my Links page here: http://www.machka.net/links.htm

Scroll down to the Bicycle Fit, Health, and Nutrition section, and have a browse through the links.

3. Read the Canada Food Guide website: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/food-gu.../index-eng.php

4. Exercise more ... be more active in general. Aim for 60-90 minutes a day of exercise.

Counting calories is a waste of time. It's really just a matter of what you eat and when. I would suggest talking to a nutritionist in person. They will be able to get you on the right track.

Certain kinds of carbs will break down into sugar. Milk is like that, as are a lot of other things, mainly processed carbs such as white bread, dough, etc... Beer is REALLY bad too.

Having had a nutritionist, I must disagree strenuously. Sticking to a reasonable calorie goal Will lead to one of two outcomes. Either you starve yourself with empty calories and give up after a couple of weeks, or you end up eating thue kind of nutrient rich foods a nutritionist would recommend.

I should clarify, counting calories is a waste of time for MOST people. if you're exercising a lot, and are eating right, weight gain will be in the form of muscle, not fat. So unless you're trying to maintain a certain weight and you're already fit, just eating well will get you plenty lean.

BTW this is coming nationwide. Calorie labeling in menus was in the health reform bill.

Totally agree with this and I have seen it first hand. This past weekend I rode for ~2 hours on both Sat & Sun. On Sat I worked a little harder and my average HR was 149 and I burned 1525 calories in 2 hrs 8 min of riding. On Sun my average HR was down to 142 and I only burned 1428 calories in 2 hrs 10 min of riding. Both figures are from my Polar F6 HRM by the way. I have been working on improving cadence the last couple of weeks and it is forcing me to work a little harder which is equating to more calories burned. If I were to go out and simply ride leisurely along at a 10 mph pace I'm sure I would burn nowhere near the same amount of calories.

I'm still trying to figure out how to pound off 90 minutes on the trainer when it's 2c and raining out. Borrrrrring.

Find what works for you calorie wise, nutritionist, exercise etc. But you have to marry it. Permanently. The biggest mistake people make is "I earned it". It just doesn't work.

If you're a unix geek:
s/possible/highly probable/

It it is almost impossible -- if you're trying to drop a significant percentage of body weight -- to lose fat and not lose some muscle. That is unfortunately just the way it works. If you're talking about shaving 5lbs, probably not an issue.

We don't need to hear about your autoerotic adventures man.

eat less, ride more.

if tracking to drop pounds, over estimate intake and under estimate expenditures.

use a free account at TrainingPeaks.com to track it all. best free nutritional database out there since it gives you access to all user custom foods. its a bunch of runners and cyclist who have already added the foods we generally eat; Fat Tire, Cliff Bars, Hammer Gels, Fat Tire, Dairy Queen, Fat Tire, ect.....

later.