ScarcelyAware

Before I begin, yes, I'm aware that "diet and exercise" are the two keys to the weight loss door. However, I think I might be doing this wrong and need some input.

I'm 19, weigh 169lb, and am only 5'8". Before I started both riding and dieting, I ate like a MONSTER. I could easily eat a combo at McDonalds plus a 20 piece chicken nugget, AND go to a sit-down restaurant and eat my food and the food of others. Other days I could get by with just two pizza slices and a soda all day. I was gaining weight, but very very slowly considering it takes 3,500 of excess calories to gain a pound.

From what I've read on websites and here on BF, the consensus is that one must eat 500 calories less per week to lose a single pound. My problem is that I don't have a reference point because of my inconsistent eating. I decided as of this week that I'd limit myself to 1200-1400 calories per day and have been successful in maintaining this for a few days now by snacking every 3 hours.

The problem comes when I start riding. I use an app on my phone called "Cardiotrainer" and it estimates my calories burned. It's generous, giving me 400 calories for an 8 mile ride, so I just divide it and assume I burned 200. At 16 miles a day, I'm burning 400-500ish calories. Is this safe for someone of my height/weight/age? Should I eat more? Ride less? Also, for the rides I'm usually at 75-80% of my heart rate. Should I drop that and ride in the "fat burning zone"? <(there seems to be a lot of controversy over the existence/calorie-burning-efficiency of this).

Thanks guys. Trying to get down to 149lb. Help me make it happen.

ericm979

You need to use 3500 more calories than you consume to lose a pound of fat. There's no consensus about that, it's fact.
Most people find that a deficit of 500 cal/day is not too hard to deal with, but that will vary among individuals.

1200-1400 is pretty low. Your basal metabolic rate, what you need to exist without exercise, is probably 1800-2400 cal/day. Add riding, even a short distance, and your deficit is probably higher than 500 cal/day.

Also since you are 19 you are still growing. So you may need a bit more food to support that.

The "fat burning zone" as popularly understood is a myth. Lower intensities do burn a higher percentage of fat, but fewer calories overall. If you ride the same 16 miles in the "fat burning zone" you will lose less weight than if you went faster, because you burn fewer calories. OTOH, it's possible to go for longer rides at the lower intensity and burn more total calories for the ride. So it's worth riding a little easier if that allows you to go for a longer ride.

Personally I hate counting calories. I suggest you try eating less junk and watch your portion size, and ride more. That's asuming that your goals beyond losing weight include cycling in some form or another.

pdlamb

1200-1400 Calories a day is getting close to anorexic, even without exercise. That will kick your body into starvation mode pretty soon, and you won't lose any weight. I didn't see where you described what you were eating, but if it's two pieces of pizza and some soda, your diet isn't balanced.

I'm pretty suspicious of nutrition recommendations from strangers posting on the 'net, so I won't offer any. Instead, you might want to search for health and nutrition sites, perhaps WebMD. Figure out what your basal metabolism it, figure out how much you burn cycling, and then back calculate how many Calories to eat daily to lose a pound a week (3500 Calories). While you're there, look for how to put together a balanced diet. That should be your baseline. We can recommend tweaks to that, but I don't think anybody will seriously recommend four servings of Perpetuem, one Luna bar, and some beef jerkey as a daily diet.

beezaur

I lost about 80 lbs a while back, by restricting calories. I don't think it matters much what you are doing, you just have to consume fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight.

The issues I had were things like losing muscle and having various effects from poor nutrition. I maintained my muscle mass by exercising my muscles to assure my body would keep maintaining them instead of metabolizing them away, and by eating a balanced diet. For me this meant 20% of my calories from protein, 20% from fat, and 60% from carbohydrates. I did have to be careful on the carbs, to get them from whole grains and the like, or my metabolism would crash on that sugar low.

I lost about 2 lbs a week that way, which is about as fast as I would ever want to lose. That's a pretty aggressive rate if you keep it up for very long.

It is very easy for me to overeat after a ride, since it burns a lot of calories and makes me pretty hungry. As a general rule I have about 300 calories after a ride, heavy on carbs but with protein (a glass of milk and a fruit are perfect), and then wait at least 30 minutes before eating more.

beezaur

That's good advice.

The thing that helped my knowledge about nutrition the most is Nancy Clark's Sports Nutrition Guidebook. It was recommended to my by someone in the health and wellness profession. Clark is a Registered Dietician and is highly regarded in the sorts nutrition world. She's also very much in favor of ordinary food, not "engineered" (and expensive!) specialty foods.

Chaco

First of all, the human body is not some machine where calories in = calories out. You can't apply such simplistic logic to car engines, and certainly not to anything as complex as human metabolism [despite what so many people say about the "laws of thermodynamics"]. The fuel is the food you eat, yes. But the engine of your metabolism is influenced by a myriad of things. At 19, for example, you may be able to eat quite a bit more than you could at 59. You're still producing a lot of testosterone, which will have a big impact on your muscle development. Your bones may still be growing. In other words, all sorts of things influence your "engine", and that makes it very difficult to say with any precision how many calories you should take in to lose a given amount of weight.

One hint about your weight problem is in the description of the foods you like to eat. They are laden with sugar and easily processed carbs. Medical doctors and researchers are just beginning to understand that for most people, it's not fat that causes fat; it's excess sugar. When you eat that pizza and coke, your body will store as many carbs as it can in the form of glycogen, and the rest will go into producing more fat cells. And if you eat like this for the next 30 years, like 20 million other Americans, you will be a prime candidate for diabetes.

So the first thing you can do that will have a huge impact on your weight is cut out the easily digestible carbs -- sugar, sweetened fruit juices, high fructose corn syrup, white flour, white rice, etc. Get your carbs from fruits and vegetables, and to a lesser extent from whole grain [not whole wheat] bread and brown rice. You won't have to count calories if you do this faithfully, and you won't have to starve yourself.

80% of losing weight is about the food you eat, and only 20% is about exercise. Many people think it's the opposite, but none of the research supports this fantasy. Also, a lot of "heart monitors" in apps and on exercise equipment drastically inflate your calories expended. For example, your app tells you that you burned 400 calories in 8 miles, so if you did a century, you'd burn almost 5,000 calories. I did a century last Saturday - 105 miles, with 6,000 feet of climbing. I'm 223 lbs., and I burned 2,950 calories over the course of 6 1/2 hours.

I'd say a much more realistic estimate for you, at your weight, is roughly 25 to 30 calories per mile, at best.

I definitely would not try to lose more than 1 or 2 pounds a week. More than that, and you'll be burning more of your muscles than your fat cells.

If you do decide to go low carb, then the only time you should deviate from than is if you exercise longer than 90 minutes. After 90 minutes, you will deplete most of your glycogen stores, and if you don't get some easily digestible carbs into your body, you'll bonk. If you do take a ride lasting 2 hours or so, a great post ride recovery drink is a smoothie with fresh fruit, ice, a little salt, a scoop of whey protein, and some juice, blended smooth.

Photocyte

Curious what's so magical about 149? It's a very specific goal for someone who's only 5lbs "overweight" by BMI (not the best measurement, but it's all we've got from you to go on). What's your waist to hip ratio?

ScarcelyAware

Thank you all for your helpful posts.

Is there a more accurate way of determining my BMR other than the online calculators?

ScarcelyAware

About a year and a half ago, before I started cycling, I weighed 149. I used to jog and was religious about calorie counting. I looked my best at that weight, judging by the pictures of me at the time.

For cycling, 20 pounds off the gut would make a difference when I climb. There is no way out of my neighborhood without climbing, and anything to make the commute a little easier would rock. I'm also hoping that the weight loss motivates me to begin racing. No matter what anyone says, I won't feel ready unless I know I'm at or near my most efficient cycling weight. Think of it as weight-weenie-ism, only it's my body I'm dealing with.

beezaur

Some people will gain weight be exercising vigorously. They end up getting tired and resting, which burns fewer calories than their normal activity. So their consumption goes up because of the exercise, but their net calorie burn goes down because of the rest.

Makes sense when you think about it. A half-hour ride might burn 300 or 400 calories. You can easily make up for that by being more sedentary during the rest of the day.

ScarcelyAware

In my case, I do my rides at night mostly. It's been pretty hot in LA lately if you exclude this week's rain. The night air really helps me breathe a lot easier (asthmatic and I react to car fumes a bit) and it keeps me from soaking my shirts.

So really, after I come home, I get 10 hours of being sedentary/sleep. Time I probably wouldn't have been doing anything anyway.

I_like_cereal

As a 35 year old let me say this.
Understand that the USDA did not make up the 2400+/- calories per day thing. It's an average. Use that as a baseline. Now once you have that you need to settle on a lifestyle choice NOT A DIET. You need to decide what your goals are. At 5'8 and 169 pounds which puts your BMI at 25. According to the Department of Health you are 0.1 above healthy weight and into overweight. Which is nothing considering you may still be gaining height at 19.

My lifestyle choice is body type nutrition. I consume 60% carbs (mix of low and high glycemic), 25% protein, and the rest is fat. It works for me. I have to be mindful of what I eat and I have learned to trade things I want for things I need. Example. Do I need coffee I want it, no I need the caffeine. Coffee, according to some research, strips calcium, is highly refined, contains acids that rot teeth and has lots of caffeine. No I do not need the extra crap, but I will trade that for green tea. Green Tea has less caffeine, but does not have all the crap that coffee does plus it is cheaper.

Track your calories using a website to see where you are eating too much of. I used Livestrong when I started. Eat normally and enter your food. After a week look at what you ate and start targeting things to lower. Do it gradually. Too much change and the body revolts.

As far as exercise. You have to listen to your body not what other people say you should do. What works for me may not work for you.

I tell people this and they think I am nuts, but here it goes again.
Breakfast:
Whole grain cereal and skim milk
3 egg whites with mozz or chedd
2x toast with jam or butter
Greek yogurt with protein powder, old fashioned oats, and honey.
Green tea
Snack
Lunch - Left overs
Snack
Dinner
Snack
Bed.

I commute 10 miles of road gaining 600' in elevation to work and 800' to get home. I recently noticed that my glycogen stores are depleting rapidly. I started carrying candy with me so that when I summit a climb I can eat a few M & Ms and be ok until I can get home.

Protein at 19 is a bad idea in my book. At your age you should have no problems getting the protein you need unless you are vegan or veg head. In which case yes you will need it. Remember that some proteins contain, and will not state this on the label, banned substances for NCAA athletes. Cytomax has collegiate formulas that reportedly do not contain these substances.

To sum up. Talk to you doctor, Record your food, reduce what you don't need, increase what you do, don't over think the problem. It's just food. BTW 2 pounds a week is the max for weight loss. Anymore and you risk heart damage.

ALWAYS LISTEN TO YOUR BODY, CAUSE ITS YOURS NOT MINE!!!!

gregf83 

Yes, but it requires lab testing and is probably not worth it. You can calibrate your BMR by carefully counting calories for a few weeks and monitoring your weight gain/loss. If, for example, you estimate your BMR at 2000 Cals/day and you burn 500 Cals/day exercising you should lose 1 lb/wk if you maintain a 2000 Cal/day diet. If you gain or lose more then you can adjust your BMR. At 19 your BMR is likely higher than a 50 yr old so whatever estimate you start with should take into account your age.

There are lots of on-line or smartphone apps for counting calories. I suspect your BMR should be at least 2000 Cals/day. I would eat that amount and use exercise to generate the deficit. That way you don't to punish yourself quite so much. If you go for a 3 hr ride you should be able to easily burn 2000 calories and you can eat a little more on those days.

coldehammer

Just remember that it's not only the amount of calories you are consuming, but what those calories consist of. If you eat 1000 calories worth of Snickers vs. 1000 calories of spinach, totally different outcomes in the body. Also do not completely cut off luxury foods, slowly integrate them out so your body does not go into hypershock from not eating one big mac and then on week 4 you binge and eat 3 in one sitting.

Hydraulic

Eat healthy foods, get plenty of sleep, and ride. It will take time, but as long as your not over-eating and getting plenty of riding time you will lose the weight.

chandltp

Yours was the first time I saw the argument presented in terms of miles instead of time. To be quite honest, I thought it was probably wrong. I figured that if I rode 60 miles I was going to burn roughly the same number of calories per mile.

But I found this that supports your statement:
Calories Burned Cycling

Granted, I'm not going to be able to get my speed up from the 13-14 MPH I'm comfortable with over distances to something in the 18-20 range and be able to maintain it. So for maximum calorie burn, I'm slow by most standards.

DataJunkie

I never bothered figuring out my base metabolic rate.
Just pick a number and consistently try to hit it. Say 2500 or so. If you gain weight or it stays flat then cut a couple hundred calories out, increase your workouts, or both.

I lost a ton of weight through exercise alone but after a certain point discovered that my diet was the limiting factor.
In my experience the order of importance for loosing weight is diet and then exercise.
Also, trying to estimate your calorie burned is a load of BS IMHO.
I don't bother to add any extra calories into my diet unless I exercise beyond a certain amount.
Another thing I have discovered is that aerobic exercise did not give me the well balanced and toned body that I wanted.
To do this I have added in strength training and still workout on the bike like mad. It is working quite well.
My friends who have taken this route have ended up with a more balance physique. Those that just rode like crazy ended up a wee bit on the skinny fat side, especially up top. My 2 cents as it were.

____asdfghjkl

You sure you didn't grow taller? haha.

Personally, I don't count calories and I don't really care how many calories the computer has said I burned off - it doesn't seem accurate to me. I try to eat everything in moderation and yes I still eat junk some times

You sound pretty thin for your height. I always find it strange when people's goals are to lose a certain amount of pounds. I would think that when they get to a certain weight they would want to try to lose more than what they wanted. I try to think numbers don't matter. It would be nice to hear people say different goals like how they want to feel healthy or get rid of their asthma, etc. other than an amount of lbs they want to lose.

You could try to keep a journal of what you eat but don't put the calories down on paper. Then after a month you could probably look over what you have been eating. You should also talk to your doctor as well - forums are helpful in some ways but seeing a doctor is always best.

BarracksSi

Cutting calories alone won't help maintain strength. Exercising by itself won't guarantee weight loss.

I learned both of those myself. I didn't really start cutting good amounts of weight until I started sticking to a calorie budget (about 1900/day in my case). If I exercised, I could eat more and stay within budget; if I didn't exercise at all that day, I didn't eat any extra.

I didn't really change what I was eating, either, just how much. Of course, I began to read between the lines and started eating healthier stuff just so I could eat bigger meals (it's that "1000 calories of Snickers versus 1000 calories of spinach" again), but no matter what it was, my rate of weight loss was basically the same.

ScarcelyAware

I upp'd my calorie intake to 2100 calories per day and I still seem to be losing. I'm now weighing in at 167.5 with a variation of .4 from day to day (I weigh myself right before a shower in the morning having had no food or drink). I'm riding a bit less because of how gloomy it's been outside. I'm starting a weight lifting program with a friend of mine to get some more metabolically active muscle packed on. Hopefully it'll help to keep the weight off.

Thank you all so very much! Your input helped a bunch.

bluefoxicy

Stop that. Eat when you're hungry. Eat more often, eat less. Don't eat a whole pizza; eat a slice, but eat many slices. You eat 3 slices of pizza? Don't sit down and eat 3. Eat one, come back in an hour or so and eat the next.

By doing this, you are giving your body constant energy, but not overenergizing. Your body can live directly on fat and protein, no carbs, at all; it's not great, but it can be done. If you shoot yourself up with tons of carbs, part of the fat will go into cholesterol in the bile (thank the liver), which gets partially reabsorbed; the rest will go into muscles and dedicated fat storage cells. If you consume a balance, with a smaller amount of total energy input, your body will metabolize the fat and protein for energy as well; the protein is important for other things, so the fat goes first. Carbohydrates always burn absolutely before anything.

If you eat a ton, you'll be somewhat hungry in an hour or two, unless you just powered down 10 pounds of rice. Your pancreas releases tons of insulin to bind up the carbohydrates into glycogen in the liver, then burns that off by releasing glucagon to turn that back into glucose. When your blood sugar drops, you are hungry.

Spike your blood sugar less by eating less at once. That way you eat 3 pieces of pizza in 3 hours, instead of eating 3 pieces of pizza immediately and then over the next 3 hours chomping down a Snickers and a peanut butter sandwich on top of it.


For the same amount of time, "cardio" burns more fat. For the same amount of work, "Fat burning zone" burns more fat. If you continue to exercise, however, fat will move into your muscle cells instead of dedicated fat storage cells; in that case, aerobic activity actually burns fat directly by oxidizing the fat in the muscles for immediate energy. Because it's in the muscles, it can burn and produce the heat needed to activate the chemical process to produce and destroy ATP, which takes a lot of reactive energy to produce and releases a lot of reactive energy.

ATP usually gets stored ahead of time in mitochondria in the cell; burning a fatty acid is enough to trigger a huge energy release from breaking a triple phosphate bond. The process of deriving energy from fat stored in cells somewhere else in the body takes far more energy. When your body starts storing fat in the muscle cells themselves, it no longer needs to store it in dedicated fat cells, and so your muscles get bigger (and tougher) and your fat gets smaller.

I would stay in cardio. Your muscles will get stronger, you'll get better endurance, better fast twitch, and you're going to need the heart strength to support all the new blood vessels needed to support all the new muscle and all the heavy demand. It may take you longer to slim down, but you've obviously bypassed the fad diets already so let's bypass the fad exercises.

Don't do that. You will wind up dropping 5-10 pounds, then suddenly get a lot heavier. You'll get a lot of lean muscle mass replacing the fat after a while, and it's 18% denser. One day you won't believe you still weigh 160-165, because you're so much leaner and tougher and better toned.

cyclezen

+1

Stop eating ****, eat quality food
stop drinkin soda
drink water, need flavor, drink water with a lemon/lime/apple slice - then eat the slice...
drink 12 parts water to 1 part fruit juice.
drink water
a/one good quality bier is also fine
pizza is fine, a slice or two, occasionally
there's always a choice to not do fast food
your choice.
you're 19, 160's in weight is plenty good, iff'n it's bone, muscle, sinew and gray matter.
your body is still in the 'building' mode, all you have to do is fuel it properly.
really pretty simple
19 forgives a lot of errors, but double that with the same eating habits and pretty soon you're looking and smellin like a musk ox.
The human body has had over a million yrs of adaptation to a hard physical life, if you feed it right, you;d have a very hard time burning it up. Some good physical 'effort/work', every day is a good thing.
your choice

BarracksSi

Yup. I was telling my wife just yesterday about how mail-order exercise programs often include tape measures so that users could track their waistlines (and anything else, like arms or thighs) instead of only their weight.

contango 

Yep... people tell me I look like I've lost a stack of weight when in fact I've lost about 25-30 pounds. I've gained a lot of muscle though, and so look slimmer than before. I can tell in other ways too, like the number of times I have to pull my trousers up because I'm on the tightest hole on my belt and can't go anywhere from there until I buy a new belt.

bluefoxicy

The neat thing is just being better toned, even if your circumference is the same. Take the arms for example. Fatty, flabby arms sag and roll with gravity and force. This means when you look at them, they bulge at the sides at a certain apex (away from the center point, interestingly enough), and from the side they look bigger than normal and very soggy, because the fat is hanging down and bunching and bulging out. Turn that entire volume of fat into evenly distributed muscle mass and it'll hold its shape, so it'll always look slimmer even though it's just as thick and fat and bulging out just as much... just not in the same direction.

Abs are great too because, yeah, the fat hangs down and your gut bulges forward at the bottom. This is why when you're a bit chubby you sag outward for a hand's width just above the hips. Eliminate that, replace with ab and side muscles, and it's permanently spread over a HUGE area, nice and flat, a lot narrower overall. In this case, the actual peak circumference goes down, while the total volume stays the same.


I don't want to turn into a gym rat, hence why I bike to work; but one day I want my belly fat gone and I want nice abs. Tone and smooth, or some kind of washboard (4 6 8 12 18 pack), don't care. It's just an experience I've never had.