GAINING weight?

Eyon

After following the advise on this very forum about loosing a few kg, I started to use Food Focus and log my calorie intake and my calorie burn. Using their sums I am to keep my net calorie intake around the 1800kCal mark, and I'm managing with ease just by cutting the snacks I have in the day out.

To put it this way, I'm 22 years old, 185cm (6'1"), large build, currently 86.9kg (roughly 190lbs), I want to be 78kg (170lbs). I know I am not particularly overweight for my height and build, but due to some health issues I do need to shed at least 5kg, ideally more.

However, I started at roughly 88kg, dropped to 86kg, now I'm back up at 87kg. My net calorie intake over the last month is a pitiful 1641kCal after exersize. FoodFocus recommend 2800kCal is optimum to maintain weight.

Any idea's where I am going wrong? I eat approx 800kCal for breakfast, for 250 for lunch, 400 for dinner, and the rest is just the odd bite to eat in the day. I exercise regularly too, cycling 3-4 days a week. In extreme cases I've managed negative kCal intake after days with long rides!

I understand muscle dencity is higher than fat, but surely my newly discovered cyclist legs aren't at fault for increase my weight? My calorie intake after exercise is now tiny, and still I put on weight?

Sorry for blabbing post, this one is really annoying for me, any advice?

Ian

danowat

You aren't eating enough I reckon.

ozzy1000_0

i know its a long shot... but.... you're 6ft 1" and 22yrs old.... you're probably still growing. blokes lay down muscle through their 20's. just compare your average fit 20yr old to an average fit 30yr old... the 30yr old will often have much more muscle density. yeah you can force this to be different through training/dieting but the default is that 30yr old guys are heavier and stronger but maybe not so fast...

i'm 5ft 9, when i was 22 I weighed about 10.5-11 stone, I'm now 34 and currently weigh 12stone 8lbs (80kg), I could loose more fat, but I have big shoulders and alot of my weight is upper body muscle... most of this happened around my mid 20's (the same time I lost my hair!!!) ...

it just an idea?

StageWinner

Two things - how are you measuring your calorie usage? If it's a HRM - that may be why your numbers are WAY out as they can seriously overestimate how much you are burning.

And it's not just how many calories you eat - it's the type of calories you take in. Are you eating healthy? (Low fat, good protein and carbs, etc)


And it's LOSE weight. Not LOOSE.

amaferanga

Overestimating calories burned or underestimating calories consumed.

How many calories are you assuming you burn for an hour cycling?

Eyon

amaferanga wrote:

Overestimating calories burned or underestimating calories consumed.

How many calories are you assuming you burn for an hour cycling?

According to the majority of websites on the internet, for a man of my weight, 1 hour at my average pace of roughly 18mph, I should be burning 900-1000kCal per hour. This is a fairly universal figure on the web.

All food is logged on FoodFocus, and all figures seem accurate.

Eyon

StageWinner wrote:

Two things - how are you measuring your calorie usage? If it's a HRM - that may be why your numbers are WAY out as they can seriously overestimate how much you are burning.

And it's not just how many calories you eat - it's the type of calories you take in. Are you eating healthy? (Low fat, good protein and carbs, etc)


And it's LOSE weight. Not LOOSE.

My Cateye V3 seems way out on calorie burn, a 2 hour cycle sometimes gives me the figure of 500kCal :?

Obviously the majority of my calorie intake is from Carbs, goes without saying, but its not excessive. Fat intake is fairly low, I dont eat a great deal of dairy apart from about a pint of semi-skimmed in the morning for my breakfast, and most of my meals consist of white meat boiled vegtables or salad. Don't eat much fried food, take aways or generally unhealthy food. I am partial to pizza but even then I tend to limit myself to how often I have one.

i know its a long shot... but.... you're 6ft 1" and 22yrs old.... you're probably still growing. blokes lay down muscle through their 20's. just compare your average fit 20yr old to an average fit 30yr old... the 30yr old will often have much more muscle density. yeah you can force this to be different through training/dieting but the default is that 30yr old guys are heavier and stronger but maybe not so fast...

i'm 5ft 9, when i was 22 I weighed about 10.5-11 stone, I'm now 34 and currently weigh 12stone 8lbs (80kg), I could loose more fat, but I have big shoulders and alot of my weight is upper body muscle... most of this happened around my mid 20's (the same time I lost my hair!!!) ...

it just an idea?

I understand what you're getting at, and it does make sense that I am certainly at the point in life where you start to bulk out. I'm by no means a small person, got big shoulders and legs, I used to weight train a lot but gave up once I found out how much more fun a bike is! But I still have a mound of fat hanging around my waist, its the only place it stays.

The main purpose is not to loose weight because I feel too heavy, I genuinly dont! However as mentioned above a recent health issue means I have to loose weight. If it wasnt for this, trust me, I wouldn't be bothering

fastandfurry

What are you using to measure the amounts of calories you're burning during exercise? There's quite a big margin for error here unless you're using a powertap.

The traditional saying is 'breakfast like a king, lunch like a lord, dine like a pauper'. It might be worth eating a bit more at lunch to stave off the afternoon snacking and support your evenings training and then cut back a bit on your evening meal. Starving yourself - and this is necessary for you to lost weight down to skinny cyclist weight - overnight is the least painful way to do it because you'll be asleep! Overall though, it sounds like something isn't quite right here if you're only eating 1600 calories/day and still not losing weight - this doesn't sound like enough food!

For comparison, I'm the same height as you and 79kg (and going down). I'm not organised enough to count my calories; I eat whatever I like pretty much as long as I go to bed feeling slightly hungry (definitely not stuffed); I also eat what I think I should eat for dinner...then leave it 20 minutes and if I'm still starving hungry eat a little bit more. I'm guessing I eat about 2500-3000 calories most days and up to 6-7,000 on big training days (3 1/2 hrs riding including 2 hrs racing).

My feeling is that the slower weight comes off, the more likely it is to stay off so very quick results would be a bad thing. How long have you been trying to lose weight for?

AidanR

You see, the problem is that mainstream dietary advice is sh!t. Why do you think so many people try and fail? The key problem is this:

1. The low-fat/high-carb diet was proposed as a way of reducing heart disease
2. This was based on conflicting and flawed evidence (see Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study, since discredited, that started the whole thing)
3. Despite the fact that this diet was designed (incorrectly) with heart-disease in mind, it has become the mainstay of weight-loss programmes based on nothing more than the idea that fat is dense in calories therefore bad
4. Carbs, particularly simple, low quality carbs, increase insulin resistance if eaten excessively making you more likely to put on fat
5. Fat itself doesn't make you fat - it's not like fat goes straight from your gut to your stomach/bum/thighs or wherever. It's processed just like any nutrient.

Have a look through this: http://www.marksdailyapple.com//welcome ... ily-apple/

It works for me. It may not work for you, but what do you have to lose?

Eyon

fastandfurry wrote:

What are you using to measure the amounts of calories you're burning during exercise? There's quite a big margin for error here unless you're using a powertap.

The traditional saying is 'breakfast like a king, lunch like a lord, dine like a pauper'. It might be worth eating a bit more at lunch to stave off the afternoon snacking and support your evenings training and then cut back a bit on your evening meal. Starving yourself - and this is necessary for you to lost weight down to skinny cyclist weight - overnight is the least painful way to do it because you'll be asleep! Overall though, it sounds like something isn't quite right here if you're only eating 1600 calories/day and still not losing weight - this doesn't sound like enough food!

For comparison, I'm the same height as you and 79kg (and going down). I'm not organised enough to count my calories; I eat whatever I like pretty much as long as I go to bed feeling slightly hungry (definitely not stuffed); I also eat what I think I should eat for dinner...then leave it 20 minutes and if I'm still starving hungry eat a little bit more. I'm guessing I eat about 2500-3000 calories most days and up to 6-7,000 on big training days (3 1/2 hrs riding including 2 hrs racing).

My feeling is that the slower weight comes off, the more likely it is to stay off so very quick results would be a bad thing. How long have you been trying to lose weight for?

I've now been trying since mid June seriously. I know 6-7 weeks isn't all that long but I was hoping to see some benefit. The best weight loss was when I had serious e.coli, knocked 5 stone off me in as many weeks, and fortunately I've only put 3 back on (10.5 stone wasn't a healthy place to be!). It worked well but I dont think I want to be in that situation again

I generally have a huge breakfast, I need to to get kick started in the day, hence the 800kCal. I normally have a cup of black coffee with 1 sugar at about 10.30 and sometimes some more food, a small-ish lunch at around 1 of 2 rolls sometimes a cup of soup, then dinner which is usually fairly large, then very rarely do I eat anything before bed. I dont go to bed stuffed but rarely starving for food! Also, as a side note, I do not drink Alcohol (or haven't for a year or so) so this isn't putting on weight. I also have v. good quality sleep every night for about 7 hours.

I'd have said at least 2500kCal+ is needed for my body to keep a stable weight, but I also have an exceptionally slow metabolism it seems as I just put weight on, slowly, but it goes on all the same.

On big ride days I will sometimes consume 4000kCal or more, but I cannot think of any way to consume more, how the hell do you find space in your body for enough food to fit 7000kCal worth of food in?

I am waiting on tests back for hyperthyroidism, that might hold the key, but I cant see me having it tbh!

Xommul

I lost 22 kg in 4 months.

Here is how,

P90x

No lie, I followed the exercise regime and the dirt plan and the weight dropped off. You do plateau but then the diet changes and the loss starts again.

I eat every 3 hours, at the start I only had 1 portion of carbs a day like a wholemeal bagel and I ate lots of proteins and veggies, very little fat and dairy. This made my body burn off my excess fat. After 5 weeks you up the carbs but only marginally, people always est too many carbs and fats and this is mainly the reason they don't lose weight.

Try eating more often, eat lean meats and reduce your carbs but keep on with the exercise.

Good luck

Pokerface

Eyon wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

Overestimating calories burned or underestimating calories consumed.

How many calories are you assuming you burn for an hour cycling?

According to the majority of websites on the internet, for a man of my weight, 1 hour at my average pace of roughly 18mph, I should be burning 900-1000kCal per hour. This is a fairly universal figure on the web.

Well - that's your first mistake. Calorie burn for an hour of cycling like you describe is closer to 600-800 calls, depending on the terrain. If it's flat and you're doing 18mph, then maybe 650 or 700. (I just went and checked my training logs and based on power readings, this seems fairly accurate - for me - as to calorie usage for that type of ride)

And I would suggest that your second mistake was relying on a carb-heavy diet.


Between those two things I'm not surprised you're not losing weight.

McBoom

AidanR wrote:

You see, the problem is that mainstream dietary advice is sh!t. Why do you think so many people try and fail? The key problem is this:

1. The low-fat/high-carb diet was proposed as a way of reducing heart disease
2. This was based on conflicting and flawed evidence (see Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study, since discredited, that started the whole thing)
3. Despite the fact that this diet was designed (incorrectly) with heart-disease in mind, it has become the mainstay of weight-loss programmes based on nothing more than the idea that fat is dense in calories therefore bad
4. Carbs, particularly simple, low quality carbs, increase insulin resistance if eaten excessively making you more likely to put on fat
5. Fat itself doesn't make you fat - it's not like fat goes straight from your gut to your stomach/bum/thighs or wherever. It's processed just like any nutrient.

Have a look through this: http://www.marksdailyapple.com//welcome ... ily-apple/

It works for me. It may not work for you, but what do you have to lose?

This man knows what's up.

I recommend Gary Taubes - Why we get fat for a read/listen. Explains why fat is good, carbs bad, and calorie counting is nonsensical.

Eyon

Pokerface wrote:

Eyon wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

Overestimating calories burned or underestimating calories consumed.

How many calories are you assuming you burn for an hour cycling?

According to the majority of websites on the internet, for a man of my weight, 1 hour at my average pace of roughly 18mph, I should be burning 900-1000kCal per hour. This is a fairly universal figure on the web.

Well - that's your first mistake. Calorie burn for an hour of cycling like you describe is closer to 600-800 calls, depending on the terrain. If it's flat and you're doing 18mph, then maybe 650 or 700. (I just went and checked my training logs and based on power readings, this seems fairly accurate - for me - as to calorie usage for that type of ride)

And I would suggest that your second mistake was relying on a carb-heavy diet.


Between those two things I'm not surprised you're not losing weight.

Surely calorie burn must vary with heart rate age and weight? I understand where you are coming from, but If I go to an online calculator (its the best I have right now), increase my age, decrease my weight and average heart rate, I get very simular figures to what you quote? Polars formula for HR is (for men): kCal/min = (-55.0969 + 0.6309 x HR + 0.1988 x weight + 0.2017 x age) / 4.184 so its obvious that these figures do play a big part.

So for a summary, I eat too many carbs, not a good idea I just stuffed my face with 2 bread rolls for lunch. My breakfast calorie intake is roughly 79% carb, 6% fat and 15% protein, which equates to approx 635kCal as carbs just for breakfast...eek! Perhaps that fry-up isnt so bad after all!

Pokerface

Eyon wrote:

Surely calorie burn must vary with heart rate age and weight? I understand where you are coming from, but If I go to an online calculator (its the best I have right now), increase my age, decrease my weight and average heart rate, I get very simular figures to what you quote? Polars formula for HR is (for men): kCal/min = (-55.0969 + 0.6309 x HR + 0.1988 x weight + 0.2017 x age) / 4.184 so its obvious that these figures do play a big part.

I've been corrected on this before - and I'll still get it wrong no doubt - but essentially the answer is NO. Calorie burn has nothing to do with age or heart rate. Weight - yes.

Why? Because calories used is to do with how much power you use. The heavier you are, the more power (watts) will be required to move you along the road. The hillier the terrain, the more weight comes into it. On a flat course/ride, your weight plays less of a roll.

Online calculators are close to worthless IMO.


(Now sits back and waits for one of the smart people to correct me or give a much more eloquent answer).

AidanR

Fry-ups are great, though can be time consuming to make. It's best to steer clear of the poor-quality oils, such as sunflower/rapeseed/vegetable oil, and cheap processed meats that give them a bad name and stick to eggs and vegetables.

Personally, I avoid processed foods, especially industrial vegetable oils, grains and sugar. It's essentially mimicking a notional pre-agrarian diet, and is linked to in my previous post if you're curious.

ozzy1000_0

Pokerface wrote:

Eyon wrote:

Surely calorie burn must vary with heart rate age and weight? I understand where you are coming from, but If I go to an online calculator (its the best I have right now), increase my age, decrease my weight and average heart rate, I get very simular figures to what you quote? Polars formula for HR is (for men): kCal/min = (-55.0969 + 0.6309 x HR + 0.1988 x weight + 0.2017 x age) / 4.184 so its obvious that these figures do play a big part.

I've been corrected on this before - and I'll still get it wrong no doubt - but essentially the answer is NO. Calorie burn has nothing to do with age or heart rate. Weight - yes.

Why? Because calories used is to do with how much power you use. The heavier you are, the more power (watts) will be required to move you along the road. The hillier the terrain, the more weight comes into it. On a flat course/ride, your weight plays less of a roll.

Online calculators are close to worthless IMO.


(Now sits back and waits for one of the smart people to correct me or give a much more eloquent answer).

I've allways heard the above quoted, and I get the logic... but... surely this is "calories of work done" not "calories burn't".

as you get fitter the effciency of your system improves? right ??ie you use your ingested calories to greater effect? take burning wood as an example, an open fire burns wood about 25-40% efficiently, so bunging 40,000calories of wood on the fire will only put about 12,000 calories of heat energy back into the room and the rest goes up the chimney... whereas a modern woodbruning stove might do 85% efficiency, by burning hotter and slower loads more of the energy is kept in the room and put to good use...

surely in cycling the same thing happens/ you could have two guys of the same body weight, one who's mega fit athlete dude and one who's a total wuss/wet blanket. they might both do 1000calories of work on a bike but I'd bet they've burn't totally different amounts of calories in doing it. the athlete might have been ticking over in zone 2-3 barely raiseing his body temperature, whereas the wussy-fart-wimp might have been redlined in zone 4-5 sweating buckets and over heating.... all the anearobic stuff would have meant more calories required for the same out put and he would have lost tonnes of calories in body heat.....

anyway, i guess my point is; surely the quoted calories from garmins etc is just about work done, not calories burnt??

but then again... the athelete would have done much more work for the same calories.. so maybe it does balance out... now i'm confused....

amaferanga

ozzy1000_0 wrote:

I've allways heard the above quoted, and I get the logic... but... surely this is "calories of work done" not "calories burn't".

as you get fitter the effciency of your system improves? right ??ie you use your ingested calories to greater effect? take burning wood as an example, an open fire burns wood about 25-40% efficiently, so bunging 40,000calories of wood on the fire will only put about 12,000 calories of heat energy back into the room and the rest goes up the chimney... whereas a modern woodbruning stove might do 85% efficiency, by burning hotter and slower loads more of the energy is kept in the room and put to good use...

surely in cycling the same thing happens/ you could have two guys of the same body weight, one who's mega fit athlete dude and one who's a total wuss/wet blanket. they might both do 1000calories of work on a bike but I'd bet they've burn't totally different amounts of calories in doing it. the athlete might have been ticking over in zone 2-3 barely raiseing his body temperature, whereas the wussy-fart-wimp might have been redlined in zone 4-5 sweating buckets and over heating.... all the anearobic stuff would have meant more calories required for the same out put and he would have lost tonnes of calories in body heat.....

anyway, i guess my point is; surely the quoted calories from garmins etc is just about work done, not calories burnt??

but then again... the athelete would have done much more work for the same calories.. so maybe it does balance out... now i'm confused....

Wrong. As I understand it your efficiency doesn't change (much).

AidanR

I'm no expert, but I'd imagine your efficiency changes relatively little. Your capacity to do work, however, grows. So you're not a newer wood-burning stove, just a bigger one

Pokerface

Metabolic efficiency is usually (IIRC) estimated to be between 20 and 25% for virtually all riders. Usually 21-23% for a trained amateur. So not a huge variation.




"A Calorie is also a unit of energy, but when we talk about Calories in this
context we are usually referring to the amount of energy the body is burning. The conversion from kJ to kCal is 4.184 to 1. So in reality, if you do a 3300 kJ ride, this is only equivalent to 789 kCal.

However, this makes the assumption that every Calorie your body burns actually goes into work done on the bike, which is incorrect. In fact, only 1 out of every 4-6 Calories you burn goes into this work. So what happens to the other 75-85% of the Calories? Some are used to support vital body functions, but the majority are lost in heat. And of course, all that heat produced means that your body has to work even harder (and thereby burn more Calories) to cool itself off.

This is where metabolic efficiency comes into play. An efficient pro cyclist on a steady endurance ride is probably close to the 25% efficiency mark (meaning that 1 out of 4 of their
Calories ends up helping to move the bike forward). So although 3300 kJ is only equal to 789 kCal, 25% efficiency would mean that that this rider burns 3156 kCal during this effort.

A less efficient rider or a rider completing a more variable effort (e.g. race, group ride, etc.) will be closer to 18% efficiency (1 out of every 5.6 kCal goes into moving the bike forward) so this rider would burn 4383 kCal for the same 3300 kJ ride."

ut_och_cykla

It's a common mistake to overestimate what you burn(work done) and underestimate what you eat (energy in) - believe me I know .

And my understanding is that the basic laws of physics are what determine how much you burn - moving 75kgs up an 8% hill on a bike takes about the same amount of energy regardless of whether you are me or Lance Armstrong.
The differences lie in how fast you do it and how easy it feels.

And if you are going up in weight clearly you are eating more than you need. A kilo a month is about 8000 kcal - ie just 250 or so calories per day too many. Reduce what you eat slightly every week until it starts to go down again.
Replace or cut out the highly processed foods (sugar in coffee! white rolls?) etc. And be as active as you can - walking, swimming whatever on days you don't/can't cycle.
Good luck!

susan@nlssm.com

I can empathise with your frustration at not losing weight despite watching your calorie intake versus energy output, I have been trying to lose weight for 8 years, I am disciplined and focused but could not shake off the weight permanently. I would lose some for a few weeks but then it would plateau followed by a slow weight gain. I have tried every diet approach and I exercise 5 days a week. I tried lessoning the time I spent training so as not to stress the adrenals, I cross trained etc. It was when I started to look at all the research surrounding calories in versus energy expenditure that I was surprised at how ineffectual it was. I agree with McBoom in an earlier reply, start with Gary Taubes, it gives you a base line about why the calorie measuring does not work. There are some excellent reports about following an alkaline diet, or high protein and carbs, and also about eating enough good fat like avocados, eating organic etc. The biggest switch for me was to include a program of strength training, power lifting into my regime, the weight has come off and stayed off, I still cycle and run lots, this has not changed but with the inclusion of weight training I have noticed a significant difference alongside all the dietary stuff, but I do not follow the calories diet as this has been the least successful of them all.

Pokerface

susan@nlssm.com wrote:

The biggest switch for me was to include a program of strength training, power lifting into my regime, the weight has come off and stayed off, I still cycle and run lots, this has not changed but with the inclusion of weight training I have noticed a significant difference alongside all the dietary stuff, but I do not follow the calories diet as this has been the least successful of them all.

Power lifting and weight training, while good for weight loss, is detrimental (or ineffective) for improving endurance cycling performance.