looking to lose weight,get leaner and a lot fitter....

t.m.h.n.e.t

ianbar wrote:

hello. there are a few reasons for all of this, one i am getting married in may, two, i want to make big strides this year after my first year of road cycling.

i am 6'3" and currently nearly 16st 6lbs.i was aiming for about 14 stone( i made it down to close to 15st last summer).
i have in the past done some running (4 great north runs) so i have a decent level of fitness inside somewhere lol. i do work nights so the short days limit my cycling to the weekends. my training aims are as follows...

2 good rides over the weekend, at this time around an hour long. during the week i aim for certainly 2 runs of about 30-40 mins. other than that i may have a turbo session during the week too. i would like to fit a little resistance training too if i can find the time.

certainly at this time of year we have a lot of veg mainly from the slow cooker so my main meal is generally very good. i think for work i am taking porridge ad top with blueberries, walnuts. some days i will take weetabix with some greek yogurt on.

i just wonder if anyone has any pointers to where i could tighten this up at all? or if anything seems strikingly wrong! thank you.

Work out your BMR : http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/

Multiply by your activity level: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calcu ... -equation/

Create a deficit:http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/calorie-intake-to-lose-weight.php

Resistance/weights isn't a bad idea either. Your diet isn't complete,post a full days worth and be honest about it.

The Man Chump wrote:

Suzy B is correct, The muscles have approx 2000 calories worth of Gylogen stored in them (30 miles or so approx) Glycogen is used mainly anaerobically though so if you can keep your workload aerobic you will burn more fat rather than glycogen, carb or even worse protein. Weight loss requires good sense in that if you are exersising well, eating well is ok (Even with the odd naughty day) but if you aren't expending those calories you have to be so tight on the intake.
I only know this from the book I just read, worth a read. The complete book of long distance cycling (Burke and Pavelka)

Naughty meal would be slightly more acceptable

saunaboy wrote:

IMO one of the best ways to get stored fat off is to put some lean muscle on. It's metabolically very active & will be burning calories after a ride when you're resting. The more muscle you have, the more calories it takes to maintain it & the more fat will slowly, but constantly, get burnt. Everyone is different, but I can lose & gain flab and muscle quickly. It goes fastest when I'm in the gym AND on the bike, so maintaining all round good muscle function.

By far the biggest deal for me keeping the poundage off when I'm not exercising is booze (or lack of).

Burning cals to tear muscle fibre during resistance/weights - burning cals to repair muscle fibre - burning cals to maintain muscle density - burning more cals overall.

Just need to be eating enough to fuel it all

ianbar

My diet this week (remember I work nights). Up halve cup of green tea, then tea from slow cooker tonight was a cottage pie(limited mash), couple cups of tea at same time. Cp of coffee before work then off I pop, on break either weetabix or porridge(with some nuts and blueberries on), tend to drink just water while at work.finish work off for half hour run or turbo session. Home and essentially whole meal pitta with egg and lots of salad in. I should point out this is obviously what I have been eating this week and not while putting the weight on!!! At weekend I may eat a little more for tea but I aim for more excessive too.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Just at a quick glance,your calorie intake for the level of activity you do and your current size is far too low. When you don't eat enough your body burns muscle instead of fat as the human body by default,is greedy. It can store fat very easily and will do unless you are giving it a reason to let go.

I started at 17 1/2st @ 6ft3 (very similar to yourself) and my current intake at <14st is 2600 a day but I do weight work alongside swimming,cycling and running.

I'm 23 though,age does become a factor

ianbar

Oh right, I admit it's work in progress, I have been trying to eat more things like nuts and greater variety of veg. I think my meals are ok I think I need a snack here or there. I worked out my bmr activity and says I should be having 3400 which seems a lot. Theory I'm 1000 calories short of that most days? Have not started the weights yet but aim to put that into motion over the weekend, mainly body weight moves and a bit with a medicine ball, when I think back I did end up quite trim when I mixed weights and cardio.

t.m.h.n.e.t

ianbar wrote:

Oh right, I admit it's work in progress, I have been trying to eat more things like nuts and greater variety of veg. I think my meals are ok I think I need a snack here or there. I worked out my bmr activity and says I should be having 3400 which seems a lot. Theory I'm 1000 calories short of that most days? Have not started the weights yet but aim to put that into motion over the weekend, mainly body weight moves and a bit with a medicine ball, when I think back I did end up quite trim when I mixed weights and cardio.

It seems like a lot but don't forget,your body has to support itself and the extra weight it's carrying,it needs calories do do this.

1000 deficit a day is a lot when you also add on any calories burned cycling or at work,it doesn't leave much to fuel just existing. 15-20% off your daily needs figure is generally a good starting point.

keef66

MattC59 wrote:

keef66 wrote:

Ignore any advice about fat burning zones. If you have an hour to ride, you'll burn more calories the faster you go, and the harder you push yourself the longer you'll continue to burn calories afterwards too.

If you're burning more calories than you're taking in, you'll lose weight. It isn't rocket surgery.

You're right, it's not rocket surgery, but unfortunately, what you have stated isn't correct.

Which bit isn't correct?

t.m.h.n.e.t

keef66 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

keef66 wrote:

Ignore any advice about fat burning zones. If you have an hour to ride, you'll burn more calories the faster you go, and the harder you push yourself the longer you'll continue to burn calories afterwards too.

If you're burning more calories than you're taking in, you'll lose weight. It isn't rocket surgery.

You're right, it's not rocket surgery, but unfortunately, what you have stated isn't correct.

Which bit isn't correct?

The bolded bit. Burn off more cals than you consume and the results will follow

styxd

I cant see how it isnt correct?

If you have an hour to spare, what would be the most effective way to do it then?

t.m.h.n.e.t

Your body burns more fat at lower intensity and more overall cals at higher intensity

styxd

I read a book called "racing weight" and it suggested either works, but obviously if you only have an hour then going harder is better. Works for me anyway.

t.m.h.n.e.t

styxd wrote:

I read a book called "racing weight" and it suggested either works, but obviously if you only have an hour then going harder is better. Works for me anyway.

Both work eventually,it isn't about how you burn cals off,it's about how many and how much of a daily deficit you are within.

Working at high intensity the body will favour carbs over fat for fuel at it can metabolise carbs easier. Low intensity = fat as preferred fuel.

Pross

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Your body burns more fat at lower intensity and more overall cals at higher intensity

As someone explained earlier, it burns a higher percentage of calories as fat. Depending on how hard you are riding it may or may not be more fat in total.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Pross wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Your body burns more fat at lower intensity and more overall cals at higher intensity

As someone explained earlier, it burns a higher percentage of calories as fat. Depending on how hard you are riding it may or may not be more fat in total.

What matters is that you are burning calories,and creating a daily deficit. How you burn the calories is irrelevant.

griffsters

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Pross wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Your body burns more fat at lower intensity and more overall cals at higher intensity

As someone explained earlier, it burns a higher percentage of calories as fat. Depending on how hard you are riding it may or may not be more fat in total.

What matters is that you are burning calories,and creating a daily deficit. How you burn the calories is irrelevant.

I don't think anyone doubts this, as its patently obvious!

It seemed to me that the discussion had moved on, more specifically about fat burning zones and how to burn more fat. In the bit quoted by Pross above, it isnt clear whether you understand that at lower intesity exercise a higher percentage of fat is burned. This doesnt necessarily mean more as you stated.

Its a very interesting subject, I'd well recommend anyone to read Anita Bean's A Complete Guide to Sports Nutrition. A good read backed up by quoted research - in a good format for mere mortals to read!

t.m.h.n.e.t

Griffsters wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Pross wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Your body burns more fat at lower intensity and more overall cals at higher intensity

As someone explained earlier, it burns a higher percentage of calories as fat. Depending on how hard you are riding it may or may not be more fat in total.

What matters is that you are burning calories,and creating a daily deficit. How you burn the calories is irrelevant.

I don't think anyone doubts this, as its patently obvious!

It seemed to me that the discussion had moved on, more specifically about fat burning zones and how to burn more fat. In the bit quoted by Pross above, it isnt clear whether you understand that at lower intesity exercise a higher percentage of fat is burned. This doesnt necessarily mean more as you stated.

Its a very interesting subject, I'd well recommend anyone to read Anita Bean's A Complete Guide to Sports Nutrition. A good read backed up by quoted research - in a good format for mere mortals to read!

I do. Pross put it better than I did

griffsters

Phew!

keef66

Sorry, it's all my fault. I came back to the thread after a few days laid low by a virus, and had the temerity to ask what was wrong in my post. I still maintain nothing.

t.m.h.n.e.t

keef66 wrote:

Sorry, it's all my fault. I came back to the thread after a few days laid low by a virus, and had the temerity to ask what was wrong in my post. I still maintain nothing.

Nothing wrong with a stimulating thread But everything wrong in blanket statements that more speed =more cals burned. That is as individual as fingerprints. Calorie expenditure has many more factors that how fast you can turn the cranks.

griffsters

keef66 wrote:

Sorry, it's all my fault. I came back to the thread after a few days laid low by a virus, and had the temerity to ask what was wrong in my post. I still maintain nothing.

It looks spot on to me. Higher intensity exercise = burns more calories inc more fat and a speeded up metabolism to keep burning the buggers. Whats not to like?

Edit: A key part of what you said IMO was up to an hours excercise. Beyond this you can get into the realms of fuelling so as not to run out of carbs. Without enough carbs, fat cannot be metabolised and more protein is used for energy, ie, muscle.... think someone touched on this earlier. Anyone had a whiff of ammonia after a hard workout? That'll be that protein being broken down for energy.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Griffsters wrote:

keef66 wrote:

Sorry, it's all my fault. I came back to the thread after a few days laid low by a virus, and had the temerity to ask what was wrong in my post. I still maintain nothing.

It looks spot on to me. Higher intensity exercise = burns more calories inc more fat and a speeded up metabolism to keep burning the buggers. Whats not to like?

Edit: A key part of what you said IMO was up to an hours excercise. Beyond this you can get into the realms of fuelling so as not to run out of carbs. Without enough carbs, fat cannot be metabolised and more protein is used for energy, ie, muscle.... think someone touched on this earlier. Anyone had a whiff of ammonia after a hard workout? That'll be that protein being broken down for energy.

Some quotes are "high intensity" some are "high speed" Just fyi

Most should be ok with avoiding muscle catabolism although getting to that state is easily done. Little rest,crap diet and overtraing are all major contributors but keep the carbs coming and don't be afraid to have a day off.

griffsters

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Some quotes are "high intensity" some are "high speed" Just fyi

The intensity is relating to the exercise, the 'speeded up' is reference to your metabolism, not sure how different to word it tbh? Would Increased make it clearer

t.m.h.n.e.t

Griffsters wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Some quotes are "high intensity" some are "high speed" Just fyi

The intensity is relating to the exercise, the 'speeded up' is reference to your metabolism, not sure how different to word it tbh? Would Increased make it clearer

The quotes are getting confused a tad lol.I was referring to this

keef66 wrote:

Ignore any advice about fat burning zones. If you have an hour to ride, you'll burn more calories the faster you go, and the harder you push yourself the longer you'll continue to burn calories afterwards too.

You could push hard for 60mins or push twice as hard for 30 and get better overall results and better efficiency. Although long efforts are physically easier they really do increase mental snore factor yet intensity is physically harder and a lot more mental prep needed.

griffsters

Aye fella, always difficult to get across everything as you mean on a forum, i normally cant be arsed tbh

I think i read kef66's post as he intended - too easy to get into semantics on this ere t'internet, hence the above!

t.m.h.n.e.t

Poor OP :):):)

ianbar

......i lost 4lbs last week!