Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

How am I still 16st?

124

Posts

  • Kieran_BurnsKieran_Burns Posts: 10,052
    There's a truckers cafe near where I used to live called the Salt Box, and every time I went in for a breakfast / lunch on a Saturday there was a group of cyclists: full kit and some expensive bikes loading up on a HUGE fried breakfast with mugs of tea.

    To be honest I really couldn't blame them - hellishly great food in that place :D

    (for anyone wishing to try the place: Hatton between Derby and Uttoxeter just off the A50, you will thank me, I promise you)
    Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
    2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
    2011 Trek Madone 4.5
    2012 Felt F65X
    Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter
  • okgookgo Posts: 4,368
    Muscle doesn't weigh more than fat.

    How anyone can come out with that with a straight face I don't know!
    Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com
  • SewinmanSewinman Posts: 2,131
    For a lot of blokes it is inevitable that they will put on a bit of timber in their late twenties. Liken it to a young male gorilla becoming a Silverback.
  • jongingejonginge Posts: 5,945
    okgo wrote:
    Muscle doesn't weigh more than fat.

    How anyone can come out with that with a straight face I don't know!
    Weigh? Debatable. it is more dense, though.

    Simple google:
    http://answers.google.com/answers/threa ... 76481.html
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • MonkeyMonsterMonkeyMonster Posts: 4,628
    okgo wrote:
    Muscle doesn't weigh more than fat.

    How anyone can come out with that with a straight face I don't know!

    We all know a tonne of feathers weighs the same as tonne of lead, in such discourse when using body view as the measuring tool its fairly commonly accepted rule of thumb that what he means is I look leaner and am sure the wobbly bits don't wobble so much but why do I still weigh so much. Its then generally accepted that you can use an unsaid example that 1 cm2 of his muscle will weigh more than 1 cm2 of his fat and not being ridiculously censored about the whole idea of si units we use the colloqial of "muscle weighs more than fat" and ignore tagging "per volume of tissue" on the end of it.

    Of course I can't believe I said that with a straight face... :roll:
    Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
    The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]
  • il_principeil_principe Posts: 9,146
    DonDaddyD wrote:

    Also in MMA I'm in Clever Pun's weight class... just saying. :twisted:


    Now there's a fight I'd pay good money to see...
    2015 Canyon Aeroad CF SLX
    2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
    2020 Canyon Inflite SL 7
    On the Strand
    Crown Stables
  • DonDaddyDDonDaddyD Posts: 12,689

    Bolded bit is really working for me - I had some advice about it, and have started having porridge or other good carbs for breakfast every morning without fail. I've also stopped weighing and started measuring (would you rather be a 15st size 12 or a 10st size 18 etc) - 3" off my waist since the 1st of Jan!

    When you next at the Morpeth....

    Bom chikka wha wha....

    :P
    mm wrote:
    We all know a tonne of feathers weighs the same as tonne of lead, in such discourse when using body view as the measuring tool its fairly commonly accepted rule of thumb that what he means is I look leaner and am sure the wobbly bits don't wobble so much but why do I still weigh so much. Its then generally accepted that you can use an unsaid example that 1 cm2 of his muscle will weigh more than 1 cm2 of his fat and not being ridiculously censored about the whole idea of si units we use the colloqial of "muscle weighs more than fat" and ignore tagging "per volume of tissue" on the end of it.

    Of course I can't believe I said that with a straight face... Rolling Eyes
    Excellent retort!
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • AidyAidy Posts: 2,015
    okgo wrote:
    Muscle doesn't weigh more than fat.

    How anyone can come out with that with a straight face I don't know!

    Since starting the whole commuting by bike thing, I've put on about half a stone.

    Given as I'm pretty much the same shape, and I've always been able to do the whole "eat what I want without putting on weight" thing, I'm pretty sure that's just muscle gain.
  • hamboneshambones Posts: 407
    Since Jan 1st I've managed to drop from 14st 7lbs down to 12st 11lbs. According to some fairly primative calculations my body fat % is down to 10.5%. Waist has dropped from 35 to 31.

    The general consensus amongst family and friends is that I look worryingly ill as, at 6'3", they feel I should be heavier.

    All of this is down to eating far less (with the occasional 5k calorie day blowout!). Last year it took me until August to get down to 13st 4lbs so I am particularly pleased with the steady weightloss this time around. It is certainly helping on the hills!

    None of this weightloss is attributable to me being under the patio! :twisted:
    Still breathing.....
  • dhopedhope Posts: 6,699
    okgo wrote:
    Muscle doesn't weigh more than fat.

    How anyone can come out with that with a straight face I don't know!

    We all know a tonne of feathers weighs the same as tonne of lead, in such discourse when using body view as the measuring tool its fairly commonly accepted rule of thumb that what he means is I look leaner and am sure the wobbly bits don't wobble so much but why do I still weigh so much. Its then generally accepted that you can use an unsaid example that 1 cm2 of his muscle will weigh more than 1 cm2 of his fat and not being ridiculously censored about the whole idea of si units we use the colloqial of "muscle weighs more than fat" and ignore tagging "per volume of tissue" on the end of it.

    Of course I can't believe I said that with a straight face... :roll:

    A cm2 of muscle weighs exactly the same as a cm2 of fat, a cm2 of feathers and a cm2 of lead. It's that pesky 3rd dimension that causes all the problems.
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • itboffinitboffin Posts: 19,717
    hambones wrote:
    Since Jan 1st I've managed to drop from 14st 7lbs down to 12st 11lbs. According to some fairly primative calculations my body fat % is down to 10.5%. Waist has dropped from 35 to 31.

    The general consensus amongst family and friends is that I look worryingly ill as, at 6'3", they feel I should be heavier.

    All of this is down to eating far less (with the occasional 5k calorie day blowout!). Last year it took me until August to get down to 13st 4lbs so I am particularly pleased with the steady weightloss this time around. It is certainly helping on the hills!

    None of this weightloss is attributable to me being under the patio! :twisted:

    Good aids or bad aids? :roll:
    Rule #5 // Harden The censored Up.
    Rule #9 // If you are out riding in bad weather, it means you are a badass. Period.
    Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
    Rule #42 // A bike race shall never be preceded with a swim and/or followed by a run.
  • hamboneshambones Posts: 407
    itboffin wrote:
    hambones wrote:
    Since Jan 1st I've managed to drop from 14st 7lbs down to 12st 11lbs. According to some fairly primative calculations my body fat % is down to 10.5%. Waist has dropped from 35 to 31.

    The general consensus amongst family and friends is that I look worryingly ill as, at 6'3", they feel I should be heavier.

    All of this is down to eating far less (with the occasional 5k calorie day blowout!). Last year it took me until August to get down to 13st 4lbs so I am particularly pleased with the steady weightloss this time around. It is certainly helping on the hills!

    None of this weightloss is attributable to me being under the patio! :twisted:

    Good aids or bad aids? :roll:

    Yes I have considered the possibility of an underlying health issue. . . :wink:
    Still breathing.....
  • itboffinitboffin Posts: 19,717
    hambones wrote:
    itboffin wrote:
    hambones wrote:
    Since Jan 1st I've managed to drop from 14st 7lbs down to 12st 11lbs. According to some fairly primative calculations my body fat % is down to 10.5%. Waist has dropped from 35 to 31.

    The general consensus amongst family and friends is that I look worryingly ill as, at 6'3", they feel I should be heavier.

    All of this is down to eating far less (with the occasional 5k calorie day blowout!). Last year it took me until August to get down to 13st 4lbs so I am particularly pleased with the steady weightloss this time around. It is certainly helping on the hills!

    None of this weightloss is attributable to me being under the patio! :twisted:

    Good aids or bad aids? :roll:

    Yes I have considered the possibility of an underlying health issue. . . :wink:

    That itch you just can't scratch eh!? :lol:
    Rule #5 // Harden The censored Up.
    Rule #9 // If you are out riding in bad weather, it means you are a badass. Period.
    Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
    Rule #42 // A bike race shall never be preceded with a swim and/or followed by a run.
  • Greg TGreg T Posts: 3,266
    stopped weighing and started measuring

    (would you rather be a 15st size 12 or a 10st size 18 etc)

    - 3" off my waist since the 1st of Jan!

    This isn't even half the story....

    More measurements and preferably pictures....
    Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.

    What would Thora Hurd do?
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 18,223
    I'm just intrigued by the medical explanation behind a 10st size 18 :shock: :?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 7,710
    I think many people buy bikes to cycle to work at an average speed of 10mph and assume they will be able to eat cakes all day and the weight will still fall of like a bride's nightie. Not saying that this is DDD but many people do fall into this category......

    This. SO much this.

    If cycling ain't hurting, then I'm afraid you're doing it wrong. But that's me speaking as an obsessive compulsive roadie.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • SketchleySketchley Posts: 4,235
    Ben6899 wrote:
    I think many people buy bikes to cycle to work at an average speed of 10mph and assume they will be able to eat cakes all day and the weight will still fall of like a bride's nightie. Not saying that this is DDD but many people do fall into this category......

    This. SO much this.

    If cycling ain't hurting, then I'm afraid you're doing it wrong. But that's me speaking as an obsessive compulsive roadie.

    I have curious question on this subject. Whilst still being a simular weight my fitness has improved somewhat. 12 months ago crusing at 12-15 mph hurt took a lot of effort, the same (percived) effort now propells me at 17-20mph. Now surley the energy required to propel my weight at a certain speed for a certain distance is still the same, so I must be buring the a larger number of calories for the same (percived) effort at a higher speed over the same distance. Am I missing something?
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • jzedjzed Posts: 2,926
    Sketchley wrote:
    I have curious question on this subject. Whilst still being a simular weight my fitness has improved somewhat. 12 months ago crusing at 12-15 mph hurt took a lot of effort, the same (percived) effort now propells me at 17-20mph. Now surley the energy required to propel my weight at a certain speed for a certain distance is still the same, so I must be buring the a larger number of calories for the same (percived) effort at thigher speed over the same distance. Am I missing something?

    The required energy will be higher so you will be using more calories over the same distance. You are propelling the same weight at a higher speed with increased wind resistance. As you've cycled more you're muscles will be developed and your power output will be higher. Therefore whilst you only feel like your working as hard you'll be using more energy.*

    *Awaits the arrival of somebody to tell me I'm talking b0110cks.
  • lost_in_thoughtlost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Greg T wrote:
    stopped weighing and started measuring

    (would you rather be a 15st size 12 or a 10st size 18 etc)

    - 3" off my waist since the 1st of Jan!

    This isn't even half the story....

    More measurements and preferably pictures....

    Shut it, deadeyebumhole.

    :lol:
  • EKE_38BPMEKE_38BPM Posts: 5,980
    Greg T wrote:
    stopped weighing and started measuring

    (would you rather be a 15st size 12 or a 10st size 18 etc)

    - 3" off my waist since the 1st of Jan!

    This isn't even half the story....

    More measurements and preferably pictures....

    Pictures probably on the cover of a magazine sometime soon.
    FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
    FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
    FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees

    I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!
  • MonkeyMonsterMonkeyMonster Posts: 4,628
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'm just intrigued by the medical explanation behind a 10st size 18 :shock: :?

    Big hipped dwarf?
    Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
    The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]
  • dhopedhope Posts: 6,699
    jzed wrote:
    Sketchley wrote:
    I have curious question on this subject. Whilst still being a simular weight my fitness has improved somewhat. 12 months ago crusing at 12-15 mph hurt took a lot of effort, the same (percived) effort now propells me at 17-20mph. Now surley the energy required to propel my weight at a certain speed for a certain distance is still the same, so I must be buring the a larger number of calories for the same (percived) effort at thigher speed over the same distance. Am I missing something?

    The required energy will be higher so you will be using more calories over the same distance. You are propelling the same weight at a higher speed with increased wind resistance. As you've cycled more you're muscles will be developed and your power output will be higher. Therefore whilst you only feel like your working as hard you'll be using more energy.*

    *Awaits the arrival of somebody to tell me I'm talking b0110cks.

    I reckon you're talking b0110cks.
    Muscles more efficient too? So it's taking less effort/calories to move at the same pace as before, or the same to move faster*?

    *Awaits the arrival of somebody to tell me I'm also talking b0110cks.
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • notsobluenotsoblue Posts: 5,838
    dhope wrote:
    jzed wrote:
    Sketchley wrote:
    I have curious question on this subject. Whilst still being a simular weight my fitness has improved somewhat. 12 months ago crusing at 12-15 mph hurt took a lot of effort, the same (percived) effort now propells me at 17-20mph. Now surley the energy required to propel my weight at a certain speed for a certain distance is still the same, so I must be buring the a larger number of calories for the same (percived) effort at thigher speed over the same distance. Am I missing something?

    The required energy will be higher so you will be using more calories over the same distance. You are propelling the same weight at a higher speed with increased wind resistance. As you've cycled more you're muscles will be developed and your power output will be higher. Therefore whilst you only feel like your working as hard you'll be using more energy.*

    *Awaits the arrival of somebody to tell me I'm talking b0110cks.

    I reckon you're talking b0110cks.
    Muscles more efficient too? So it's taking less effort/calories to move at the same pace as before, or the same to move faster*?

    *Awaits the arrival of somebody to tell me I'm also talking b0110cks.

    I would presume there would have been a change in musculature after Sketchley had been cycling for a while. Muscle groups relevant to cycling develop more, and become stronger. So you could say that his cycling action has become more biomechanically efficient. Thus requiring less effort for the same amount of force. Not necessarily less energy though.

    Personally I notice this when I start a new exercise that I haven't done for a while. Theres a lag phase where it takes a little more effort until muscle memory and conditioning comes back for the exercise relevant muscle groups.
  • jzedjzed Posts: 2,926
    notsoblue wrote:
    dhope wrote:
    jzed wrote:
    Sketchley wrote:
    I have curious question on this subject. Whilst still being a simular weight my fitness has improved somewhat. 12 months ago crusing at 12-15 mph hurt took a lot of effort, the same (percived) effort now propells me at 17-20mph. Now surley the energy required to propel my weight at a certain speed for a certain distance is still the same, so I must be buring the a larger number of calories for the same (percived) effort at thigher speed over the same distance. Am I missing something?

    The required energy will be higher so you will be using more calories over the same distance. You are propelling the same weight at a higher speed with increased wind resistance. As you've cycled more you're muscles will be developed and your power output will be higher. Therefore whilst you only feel like your working as hard you'll be using more energy.*

    *Awaits the arrival of somebody to tell me I'm talking b0110cks.

    I reckon you're talking b0110cks.
    Muscles more efficient too? So it's taking less effort/calories to move at the same pace as before, or the same to move faster*?

    *Awaits the arrival of somebody to tell me I'm also talking b0110cks.

    I would presume there would have been a change in musculature after Sketchley had been cycling for a while. Muscle groups relevant to cycling develop more, and become stronger. So you could say that his cycling action has become more biomechanically efficient. Thus requiring less effort for the same amount of force. Not necessarily less energy though.

    Personally I notice this when I start a new exercise that I haven't done for a while. Theres a lag phase where it takes a little more effort until muscle memory and conditioning comes back for the exercise relevant muscle groups.

    Having looked at an identical journey over the last three months - I've come to the conclusion that I have no f****** idea. If I take average heart rate on a journey as an equivalent level of exertion, with my average spped increasing, I'd look at calories to see whether burning more or less energy. So look at calories and they are all over the show. I have commission an actuary to determine whether there is a curve that fits the results but there isn't.

    The only way I think I can prove this is if you all chip in to buy me a powermeter as this will provide more accurate stats. PM me and I'll send you my details. :lol:
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 7,710
    At the end of the day, some folk pootle along without being remotely close to breaking a sweat... and they think this will help them lose weight or allow them to eat cake all day.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • jongingejonginge Posts: 5,945
    Calorie counts from bike computers are bad guesstimates. FACT
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • notsobluenotsoblue Posts: 5,838
    jzed wrote:
    Having looked at an identical journey over the last three months - I've come to the conclusion that I have no f****** idea. If I take average heart rate on a journey as an equivalent level of exertion, with my average spped increasing, I'd look at calories to see whether burning more or less energy. So look at calories and they are all over the show. I have commission an actuary to determine whether there is a curve that fits the results but there isn't.

    Well its pretty hard to try and find trends when there are so many different variables that affect your performance on a commute. Your journeys might be identical geopgraphically, but theres plenty of other metrics like weather, traffic, nutrition, motivation, mood, the amount of sleep you got the night before, and if you had some competition on the route to speed you on. Also, calorie calculations are notoriously inaccurate. I suppose if you wanted to measure fitness increase you'd pick something like a 3xRP to measure it once a week with conditions as stable as you can get them.

    Incidentally, I find that improvements in running fitness are much easier to measure.
    jzed wrote:
    The only way I think I can prove this is if you all chip in to buy me a powermeter as this will provide more accurate stats. PM me and I'll send you my details. :lol:

    If you send me your bank account number and sort code, I will transfer de monies...
  • jzedjzed Posts: 2,926
    jonginge wrote:
    Calorie counts from bike computers are bad guesstimates. FACT

    True - I go with the fact why weight has stayed roughly the same but my calorie intake has gone through the roof. Therefore I must be using more energy to go the same distance, faster at the same effort. There may be some efficiency offset as dhope pointed out but not sure how much.

    All I've done is convince myself that I need a powermeter to add another dimension to stats.
  • DonDaddyDDonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    edited April 2011
    Someone asked how many takeaways I eat or when was the last time I ate a takeaway...

    Does that include trips to the restaurant or food at the pub?

    Good point, and I'm quite partial to a Guinness which is like a food substitute anyway... (so my Mummy tells me).

    So, following financial circumstance changes - :D - and commitments - :D:cry::D - I will only have takeaways once a month. All other Fridays (and possibly some Saturdays) will be home cooked home made takeaway day!

    That way I can control the quality of the food I'm eating.

    The second and hardest part is quaitity...
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • jongingejonginge Posts: 5,945
    jzed wrote:
    jonginge wrote:
    Calorie counts from bike computers are bad guesstimates. FACT

    True - I go with the fact why weight has stayed roughly the same but my calorie intake has gone through the roof. Therefore I must be using more energy to go the same distance, faster at the same effort. There may be some efficiency offset as dhope pointed out but not sure how much.

    All I've done is convince myself that I need a powermeter to add another dimension to stats.
    Fool your body's hunger mechanism by drinking more water

    but, yes, powermeter. Doooooo eeeeeeeeet!
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
Sign In or Register to comment.