Eating back calories burnt??

CyclingObsession

I'm finding it very hard to eat back the calories I burn each day, ive races each week and train 40miles per day and long rides at weekend, typically burn 1500 calories per day, do you have any advice on what to eat as I'm usually leaving a few 100 left as I'm too full to eat any more I do not want to lose any more weight.

P_Tucker

If you're not sure about something, rub it against a piece of paper. If the paper turns clear, it's your window to weight gain.

amaferanga

Burgers, chips, kebabs, anything fried. That should sort you out.

P_Tucker

Try brushing your teeth with icing sugar

dw300

Fat will provide you with more calories gram for gram .. protein and carbs give 4 cals/gram, fat gives 9 cals/gram. But don't just eat fatty stuff, make sure you're getting enough carbs to replenish your glycogen stores if you're riding every day .. if you just eat sticks of butter you'll be bonking before you know it.

Eating handfuls of sliced almonds or mixed fruit & nuts of your choice between your meals is a good way to top up your calories. Alternatively, weight gain shakes are a great blend of protein, simple and complex carbs and fats .. drinking your calories makes it easier to hit your targets.

Herbsman

Eat high calorie nutrient rich foods, dude

Nuts are ace - I wish I could eat them. Also try eggs, pasta, rice and fish

ut_och_cykla

Gainer powders in an emergency, but nuts are fat & protein rich - a good mixture might work if you're not allergic - marzipan. Choose full fat products - yoghurt milk cheese, and not so much full grain stuff (which is more filling) so you can eat a bit more. Eat more snacks between meals, and consider a small but calorie rich meal before bed. Do all you can to minimise calorie use off the bike - keep warm, don't stress or rush too often, sit or lie down when you can etc.

jibberjim

~3000 calories a day should be trivial to eat for anyone.

bockers

Oh I wish I had this problem. I can quite easily eat and drink enough after a 100mile ride to be able to put on weight still!

bigpikle

how do you know that accurately how many calories you are burning? If you're using a HRM or typical Garmin etc then you're likely nowhere near reality anyway. Even a power meter telling you kj of work done requires you to know your exact efficiency from lab tests, otherwise its still likely to be far enough out that a few 100 calories may well be too much detail to work to.

CyclingObsession

using polar Ft7 ~HRM monitor and they have to accurate as they use ur HR rate rather than a calculation,

okgo

Loving the Dr Nick advice

Can't see its that hard to eat what you need to eat. 40 miles per day doesn't burn that much does it? I do around 35 most days and doubt I eat much more than 2500, and I really do have to reign myself in. I could eat 5000 quite easily.

jibberjim

CyclingObsession wrote:

using polar Ft7 ~HRM monitor and they have to accurate as they use ur HR rate rather than a calculation,

HR doesn't provide enough information to be an accurate measure of calories.

Eat to hunger, if you're doing sufficient exercise this is almost certainly enough.

dw300

okgo wrote:

Loving the Dr Nick advice

Can't see its that hard to eat what you need to eat. 40 miles per day doesn't burn that much does it? I do around 35 most days and doubt I eat much more than 2500, and I really do have to reign myself in. I could eat 5000 quite easily.

jibberjim wrote:

~3000 calories a day should be trivial to eat for anyone.

Yeh, because everyone stomach size, appetite and metabolism are exactly the same ..

okgo

Of course not. And eating 2500 calories of tuna would indeed be quite an ask, but come on, you can get through 2500 on 3 sandwiches per day for Christ sake!

CyclingObsession

Well I'd rather go by a Hr Monitor any day than a calculation that has calculated a few hundred over, obviously it is not exact it is always going to be off by a few, I would rather not eat deepfried censored evryday as that brings other issues, ill prob stick wi the nuts

dw300

okgo wrote:

Of course not. And eating 2500 calories of tuna would indeed be quite an ask, but come on, you can get through 2500 on 3 sandwiches per day for Christ sake!

LOL .. don't get all pissy with me ..

If you can't conceive of how someone can't eat 2500 calories a day, then why are you typing flippant useless posts that are going to get flamed?

amaferanga

CyclingObsession wrote:

Well I'd rather go by a Hr Monitor any day than a calculation that has calculated a few hundred over, obviously it is not exact it is always going to be off by a few, I would rather not eat deepfried shoot evryday as that brings other issues, ill prob stick wi the nuts

I don't think you understand. The HR based calorie figure IS a calculation. It's actually little better than a guess since HR doesn't tell you anything about the work you are doing. So your HR monitor may, if you're lucky, be giving a figure that's close to reality or it may be way off. How many calories an hour are you burning according to your HR monitor?

CyclingObsession

but surely it works off your heart rate and bases a calculation from that rather than just calculations? It tells me I burn 1500 calories for a 2hr n 15min workout

jibberjim

CyclingObsession wrote:

but surely it works off your heart rate and bases a calculation from that rather than just calculations? It tells me I burn 1500 calories for a 2hr n 15min workout

What other sort of calculations could it use?

The physical reality of eating 3000 calories a day is really simple, no adult would have any issue doing that if they forced themselves to eat. The fact you feel "full" doesn't mean you are full, it just means your appetite regulation has stepped in to say you've eaten enough. For all but a tiny minority of people this means you are eating enough to go to your correct bodyweight, satiety (feeling full) is the mechanism the body uses for ensuring you eat enough. Don't try to double guess it, it's a lot more reliable than you are.

Counting calories is utterly foolish here - you cannot know what you actually use, you cannot know what you actually get (the numbers specified on packets aren't what you can generally actually digest) and small differences in either are enough to make massive differences in weight over a month. Rely on your signals. They tend to only go wrong and lead to obesity if you start feeding your thirst mechanisms with calorific drinks, or have high access to very palatable food that you eat for enjoyment. Both of which lead to over eating not under.

dw300

jibberjim wrote:

CyclingObsession wrote:

but surely it works off your heart rate and bases a calculation from that rather than just calculations? It tells me I burn 1500 calories for a 2hr n 15min workout

What other sort of calculations could it use?

The physical reality of eating 3000 calories a day is really simple, no adult would have any issue doing that if they forced themselves to eat. The fact you feel "full" doesn't mean you are full, it just means your appetite regulation has stepped in to say you've eaten enough. For all but a tiny minority of people this means you are eating enough to go to your correct bodyweight, satiety (feeling full) is the mechanism the body uses for ensuring you eat enough. Don't try to double guess it, it's a lot more reliable than you are.

Counting calories is utterly foolish here - you cannot know what you actually use, you cannot know what you actually get (the numbers specified on packets aren't what you can generally actually digest) and small differences in either are enough to make massive differences in weight over a month. Rely on your signals. They tend to only go wrong and lead to obesity if you start feeding your thirst mechanisms with calorific drinks, or have high access to very palatable food that you eat for enjoyment. Both of which lead to over eating not under.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your first main paragraph. I'm not saying it's not a good guide, but I'd back it up with data.

I'd have to check my facts, but I'm pretty sure hunger is down to the stretch receptors in your stomach only, and the signals they send lag behind the fullness of your belly by what could be 10-15 mins. You can overeat a lot in 10-15 mins. The reason why most regular people are overweight is that they eat when they're hungry, and eat till they're 'full'. You'll get away with it if you train lots, but maths is a better way to track your needs if you know how to use it.

The calories are only absorbed into your system after they pass out of your stomach, there is no feedback on what nutrients you need at that point except in the long term, by monitoring the variety and amount of food, versus your weight, health and performance. Nearly every time you feel hungry you'll still be absorbing nutrients from your last meal or meals.

You're right that you don't absorb all the calories you put in your mouth, but if you maintain your intake for 2-4 weeks and measure weight during that time, it's easy enough to figure out whether you need more or less once you calculate everything out. If you take my example of Joe Public, they should be recording their intake and if they are heavier a month later they should be reducing it for a month and see how that goes. I'd rather do this than trust my stomach. I bet my life that a higher percentage of 'eat when hungry' people are overweight that those that count calories.

You're right that you can't be accurate to less than 100 cals, but that doesn't make it a useless tool. Also remember that your stomach will stretch if constantly overfilled, you risk becoming hungrier sooner and getting stuck in a vicious circle if you eat when you're hungry. The OP can gradually eat more in each meal and get his stomach used to the feeling of being full and perhaps promote some extra hunger responses which might help him eat more, but I'd be doing it scientifically and recording data to compliment it. It'll take at least a month to get used to eating more and make it a habit.

mattshrops

Using a garmin 705 with hr monitor i'm apparently burning ~750 cals per hour(average intensity i.e. trying).
Using the powertap(therefore pretty accurate data) its~ 450cals per hour (similar intensity)

Therefore in my case the hr calculation is way too high.Cant see that polar would be dramatically different.

Heres a pretty good test for you.
Q> are you losing weight?

A1-yes >eat more
A2-no >oh thats ok then
A3-no but i'm putting weight on> eat less.

by god i think i've cracked it!

Alex_Simmons/RST

CyclingObsession wrote:

but surely it works off your heart rate and bases a calculation from that rather than just calculations? It tells me I burn 1500 calories for a 2hr n 15min workout

HR tells you how fast your heart beats, not how much energy you are metabolising. HR based calorie calculations are guesstimates as best, seriously misleading at worst.

Muffintop

mattshrops wrote:

Using a garmin 705 with hr monitor i'm apparently burning ~750 cals per hour(average intensity i.e. trying).
Using the powertap(therefore pretty accurate data) its~ 450cals per hour (similar intensity)

Therefore in my case the hr calculation is way too high.Cant see that polar would be dramatically different.

Heres a pretty good test for you.
Q> are you losing weight?

A1-yes >eat more
A2-no >oh thats ok then
A3-no but i'm putting weight on> eat less.

by god i think i've cracked it!

+1. As the man says, if you're loosing weight eat more, if not don't fuss. I've stopped using the calorie counter function as it comes out with some odd results.

Mx

thiscocks

And you realise it burns calories actually eating the food? Best to take that into account too.

jibberjim

dw300 wrote:

I'd have to check my facts, but I'm pretty sure hunger is down to the stretch receptors in your stomach only

Nope, satiety is driven by much more than that, if it's driven by that at all which is very debateable.

dw300 wrote:

I bet my life that a higher percentage of 'eat when hungry' people are overweight that those that count calories.

Not a chance, calorie counting is almost only done by the overweight.

bigpikle

^^ Just like all the stats that people who don't drink alcohol are more unhealthy than those that drink in moderation - a large % of those that don't drink have had serious drink problems in the past!

bahzob

jibberjim wrote:

dw300 wrote:

I'd have to check my facts, but I'm pretty sure hunger is down to the stretch receptors in your stomach only

Nope, satiety is driven by much more than that, if it's driven by that at all which is very debateable.

Just on this. Though somewhat extreme stomach stapling (bariatric surgery) has been shown to be one of the most effective (both in terms of outcome and cost) ways to treat obesity.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428652.700-brain-rewiring-offers-slim-hope-for-obesity-epidemic.html

An interesting and unexpected side effect has been that not only does the procedure reduce overall appetite it can also causes changes in the way that the brain perceives different types of food. (quote from below taken from related article behind New Scientist paywall)

"But a strange thing was happening after bariatric surgery - food cravings were immediately, massively dampened. "People who have lost weight after surgery don't report a compensatory increase in food cravings or hunger the way dieting people do," says Stephen Benoit, a behavioural neuroscientist at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, who studies obesity. Quite the opposite: they tend to report reduced levels of hunger, fewer food cravings and an overall altered relationship with food.

Food cravings aren't simply reduced, they are transformed. Within hours of any weight-loss surgery, many people can't stand the taste of sugar or fat and sometimes find the very smell offensive, says Carel le Roux, a bariatric endocrinologist at the Imperial Weight Centre in London. For Roux-en-Y, the effects linger. "In the long-term, we find people shifting their food preferences and going for the salad bar instead of a burger and fries," he says. "

All of which poses some interesting ethical questions in the face of the ongoing/growing obesity epidemic.

Zingzang

CyclingObsession wrote:

I'm finding it very hard to eat back the calories I burn each day, ive races each week and train 40miles per day and long rides at weekend, typically burn 1500 calories per day, do you have any advice on what to eat as I'm usually leaving a few 100 left as I'm too full to eat any more I do not want to lose any more weight.

You might benefit from psychotherapy.