Weight Loss - I'm clearly not grasping something...

Pigeons in flight

huuregeil wrote:

bompington wrote:

I have to disagree with your opinion that this is unhelpful: and can anyone really claim that all the "advice" in this thread is going to help anyone put the concept into practice?
All the facts, figures and pseudoscience obscure the simple fact that, for most of us, the issue is simply that we will have to eat less than we want to, and so feel uncomfortably hungry, to lose weight. It's a matter of making a decision and having the willpower to carry it through, that's all.

No, this misses the point. You don't have to eat less than you want and feel uncomfortable to lose weight. If you eat the right foods, you: a) avoid the sugar lows that lead you to eat more than you should; b) fill your stomach up with foods that don't contain as much energy (think energy density, calories/litre - your stomach only holds so much) so you physically prevented from consuming more. So, yes, you can lose weight if all you eat is lard/sugar etc., but you will need to carefully weigh your food and have an iron will. At the other extreme, if you eat the right foods, calorie counting/willpower (other than not selecting the wrong foods in the first place - I'm talking portion size here) is redundant, because you have a built it safety net that stops you overconsuming. Free choice. As someone said above, the principle is obvious, the application is difficult and this is why there are various options to achieving this. Knowledge of the options is what people lack; I'm sure that the vast majority of overweight people in this country could tell you that they need to eat fewer calories to lose weight!

I agree. I think as well, it's difficult to put the simple deficit formula into practice if you prepare fresh food rather than from packages, which now mostly have a breakdown of the contents on the side. One person's perception of a portion size can vary widely to another's - unless you do the Lance thing and weigh everything that goes in your mouth, you're going to have to be able to learn how to do this, until you can look at a plate of food and calculate a (hopefully not too wide) ball park figure of what you are about to put in your body. Most of us have jobs...some of us have young families - and like we have pointed out, this is a lot easier said than done.

There are some obvious changes that can be made. My weaknesses are wine (I find it a struggle to have my evening meal without a glass or 2 of jaja...but I know that it's of no nutritional benefit to me)...chocolate (posh stuff like Green and Blacks), and espresso coffee to go with it. Which I know will bugger up my blood sugar and I'll be craving something sweet. If I can go a month without the booze and the chocolate (all other things being equal), my weight heads south.

As pointed out above, there are useful tips you can deploy. Such as drinking a lot of water (2 litres a day), eating something like raw carrot, celery, etc when you're hungry...not reaching for the biscuit barrel...drinking green tea (a recognised appetite suppressant)...etc.

It's not easy though. Any Gillian McKeith types who say it's simple....are being simple.

bompington

It is simple - just not easy!

SBezza

To the OP, forget about the mapmyride randomly generated calorie figure, it will be your undoing. What Alex has written above is far better in working out what you have used. It is OK saying it is a hilly route, but if you go up, no doubt you are coming down the other side freewheeling. Basically you have been out on the bike for one hour and unless very very fit and powerful you would have likely used around the 700-800 calorie mark for your commute.

That is around a 500 calorie difference to what mapmyride says, this over a week could be a 1lb loss you would be eating into if you tried to replace these calories that are very unlikely to have been used on the commute.

Pigeons in flight

This site gets a mention in the latest comic. I've only had a brief skim of it, but seems to have some useful tips. And it's free..
http://nutritiondata.self.com/dieting-weight-loss

dw300

bompington wrote:

It is simple - just not easy!

No, it is easy.

Learning to speak when you've been deaf and dumb from early childhood, surviving a concentration camp, or climbing Everest without having any legs are all hard things. Not putting food in your mouth when you know you shouldn't is not.

People that eat due to boredom, overindulgence or to comfort themselves from their first world problems, and think it's hard not to, just require a perspective reset.

dw300

What would Winston do?

Cleat Eastwood

I came across an old article from cycling weekly where a nutrionist/cylist says that you should eat all you need to on the bike but control what you eat off the bike. I think a lot of people face weight loss from the opposite direction.

portland_bill

You know what Clint, you could be onto something there. When I'm out for long days on the bike or in the hills or woods or wherever, I'm very careful about what I eat and what time I eat it at. Normal life I just grab and scoff.

Herbsman

The best way to lose weight is forget about losing weight and start enjoying your life.

I enjoy riding my bike. And I enjoy eating proper food... basically anything that's part of a plant or an animal. Anything else feels wrong so I avoid it.

Maybe I am blessed genetically, as I've always had a stick insect type physique... but my advice to you is just forget about losing weight , concentrate on enjoying doing your riding and eating quality food and being healthy and I will guarantee you will be happier. And possibly lighter.

pilot_pete

bompington wrote:

I can't believe all the waffle in this thread, even the stuff that isn't actually wrong is mostly not very helpful.

If you want to lose weight, eat less calories than you use. If you want to lose weight faster, eat less calories by a greater margin.

Difficult concept to grasp, huh?

Read The Obesity Epidemic by Zoe Harcombe to prove that concept to be flawed. It is too long to quote here, but most of us believe the 'calories in, calories out' argument that is scientifically incorrect. Harcombe goes into great detail explaining the thermodynamics behind it and much, much more about what caused the fat explosion and what we should do to counter it. It is a great read and certainly changed my opinion regarding losing those extra few pounds...

PP

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/

barrowmatt

I've lost a stone in the past month, from 16'12 to 15'12 just by calorie counting. I do eat cereal, some bread and if I have rice/pasta I generally have half the recommend portion, I drink a few times a week which can be from 2-5 pints, just add it to your calories. Doesn't take long to get into but you may need some scales and look up the calories for some items.

I keep a bit of paper on the side table and write the cumulative calories each day, i'd say it's much easier to do with a piece of paper than any kind of spreadsheet or 'app' that you quickly forget about. I know how many calories in my breakfast, know what i'm taking for lunch so fill that in before I go out, then do my evening meal later on.

There is no problem losing weight eating packaged food. I eat plenty of microwave meals typically at around 300 calories each, that's easy portion control.

I walk for around 1hr a day with the dogs and try to make it fairly brisk.

My target whilst losing weight is to be under 1500 calories/day. Some quick calculations on what I have written down, and i've average 1420 calories over the past couple of weeks.

The key is considering everything, weigh your typical bowl of cereal to get the calories and don't forget the milk calories too.

phreak

Wow, 1500 calories really is a small amount. Are you training as well on that kind of diet?

barrowmatt

I'm just getting back into cycling and physical activity in general so no i'm not training just focussed on dropping weight at the moment.

pilot_pete

barrowmatt wrote:

I'm just getting back into cycling and physical activity in general so no i'm not training just focussed on dropping weight at the moment.

And that's the point Harcombe makes in her book. Basically you are starving yourself slowly with such a low calorie intake per day. Sure the weight will come off (look at the concentration camps and the effect it had there), but it is 1. Not healthy and 2. Not sustainable and causes the body to start to limit your activity by feeling lethargic in order to preserve what you have left. Thus the weight loss line on your graph starts to level out and the initial weight loss peters out. The next side effect is that the body then makes you scoff like mad when you come off your calorie restricted diet, which is why nearly everyone who has been on a diet ends up putting all the weight, and usually more, back on.

Have a read of the book, it really is enlightening.

PP

barrowmatt

Pilot Pete wrote:

And that's the point Harcombe makes in her book. Basically you are starving yourself slowly with such a low calorie intake per day. Sure the weight will come off (look at the concentration camps and the effect it had there), but it is 1. Not healthy and 2. Not sustainable and causes the body to start to limit your activity by feeling lethargic in order to preserve what you have left. Thus the weight loss line on your graph starts to level out and the initial weight loss peters out. The next side effect is that the body then makes you scoff like mad when you come off your calorie restricted diet, which is why nearly everyone who has been on a diet ends up putting all the weight, and usually more, back on.

Have a read of the book, it really is enlightening.

PP

She is basically just saying the same as Atkins, and yes it works, a couple of years back I was over 18 stone and lost 2 stone very quickly on the Atkins diet but then got fed up with the limited choice and couldn't afford to eat so much fresh meat so went back to what I was doing, although I never really put much back on. (I don't like eggs, salad or nuts)

One thing I did find with a very low carb diet it is actually fairly low calorie, even though you don't count them, if your diet consists of lean meat, fish and green veg it is fairly difficult to eat 2500 calories a day. For example i'll have large piece of fish tonight with veg as a main meal and it will be less than 500 calories, 2 chicken breasts with veg is closer to 400. I would never consider eating that kind of meal 5 times a day.

I accept the idea of calorie counting may have some flaws if you eat too many calories even with a low carb diet you won't lose weight. The idea of the low carb diet is you won't have to count calories as you won't overeat. In a similar way even though i'm calorie counting I am eating lower carb to achieve it so it's swings and roundabouts.

I'm certainly not lethargic, i've recently started a new job so get up at 6am instead of 10am when I was self employed and working from home. I also walk the dogs twice as far each day.

SPOC

phreak wrote:

Wow, 1500 calories really is a small amount. Are you training as well on that kind of diet?

Depends if he's talking 1500 calories simply consumed, or 1500 calories net.

I've been training on 1500-1600 calories net for two months, 12+ hours a week no problems at all. If it was 1500 calories in total consumed though, I think it would have killed me and can't be good for you.

bompington

Pilot Pete wrote:

bompington wrote:

I can't believe all the waffle in this thread, even the stuff that isn't actually wrong is mostly not very helpful.

If you want to lose weight, eat less calories than you use. If you want to lose weight faster, eat less calories by a greater margin.

Difficult concept to grasp, huh?

Read The Obesity Epidemic by Zoe Harcombe to prove that concept to be flawed. It is too long to quote here, but most of us believe the 'calories in, calories out' argument that is scientifically incorrect.

Oh my goodness: up in the middle of the night, not sleeping due to gut ache, so I wind up having a quick look at this - and I'm just off to get my tinfoil hat...
All I'll say is that if anyone can prove that the "calories in, calories out" argument is scientifically incorrect, then my next diet will include my hat. I'm not asking for pages of pseudoscientific waffle, a rational explanation of where the body can find energy apart from food would suffice.

dw300

I'm pretty sure my friend Zac can disprove it .. do you know him? Zac Newton?

She's just tapping into the collective fear of being overweight, for her own personal profit. I mean think about it, if you can sell a few hundred thousand copies of a book you're set for life. Listen luv, just because you claim to want to solve world obesity doesn't mean you can BS everyone simply because you claim good intentions .. your not Laurence Gunderson!

Her angle is simply that people don't understand what food is actually made of, and specifically how bad processed food is, and that government health agencies are promoting eating things such as baked beans, when in fact natural beans not covered in sugary sauce have far fewer calories.

But anyone with any sense would know that if you asked them. She's presenting it as if we're all mindless slobs and she's got some big secret she'll tell us if we pay her money.

Apparently all male scientists know nothing of dieting, and only a female nutritionist who has done ever diet going, can really tell you how to loose weight.

Anyone that's travelled to a former Soviet state, or in Asia or Africa will be able to testify that there are very, very few overweight people about. That's all you need to know to prove that the high calorie content of processed western foods add to weight gain, along side sedentary lifestyle and overindulgence.

However the fact remains, calories burned > calories in = weight loss, even if you eating nothing but twinkies. So claiming it doesn't work is retarded.


From her "THE KNOWLEDGE" page ..

DID YOU KNOW…?

There are 0 vitamins & minerals in sugar - well duh..

2% of people maintain a 20lb weight loss - yup, the rest are known as dieters. If you want to be lean, change your lifestyle

2.7% of men & women were obese in the UK in 1972 - could have googled it

Olive oil has 9 times the saturated fat of pork - yeh, but a serving is about 100 times smaller

Obesity rates for women in the UK increased 10 fold between 1972 & 1999 - i'd noticed the lack of hotties

90% of people in the UK will be overweight or obese by 2050 - LOL .. eh no. While the amount of obese people rises, so does the number of people who do sports and join a gym, the nation is becoming more polarised

98% of people don’t lose weight or regain what they lost - what does this stat even mean?!

If the calorie theory were correct, every human would lose 104 lbs every year, with a 1,000 calorie a day deficit (no matter their gender, starting weight etc) - she's totally forgetting that there's water weight associated with storing fuel, and the reason it's not done often is that a 1000calories a day intake would be fairly torturous. You could probably drop 100lbs by burning 50lbs of fat with a 500cal deficit

The average Brit consumes 1,130 sugar and flour calories each day - 1,130 what? Elephants? Your site is so pro luv.

A vegan needs to eat 2,222 grams of sunshine grown mushrooms every day to get the RDA of vitamin D (10mcg) - um, you don't need to eat any Vit D, your body synthesises it from cholesterol and sunshine, and dont mushrooms grow in the dark?

The world’s heaviest man is 1,235 lbs (88 stone; 560kg) - he could easily loose 104lbs in a year!

912 million prescriptions were dispensed in Britain in 2007
There are 1.5 billion overweight or obese adults (20+) in the world

Lipitor, just one statin has an annual sales value of $12 billion - statins are drugs that stops the body producing the cholesterol that the body is designed to produce - smoking causes cancer, cancer treatment is a money spinner, but the government aren't promoting cigarettes. Well, not until they steal the patent on anti-neoplastins.

The USA diet market was worth $60.9 billion in 2009 - so you thought you'd get in on the act

The combined revenues of the (food, drink & drug) partners and premium sponsors of the American Dietetic Association are $467 billion - yes, they're businesses, and that association is probably good for their brand image. McDonalds and Cadburys sponsored the Olympics, but that doesn't mean their health foods. People have to use their brains a bit.

Tiltzey Boy

I've been trying to lose weight myself, specifically since starting my new job which allowed me to commute around 35 miles a day (5 days a week). This resulted in me losing around 3/4 of a stone over the course of around 8 to 10 weeks. This was obviously a great start.

I've since discovered a much faster way to lose weight. I've just lost a further stone in the last 2 weeks. The secret?

I've had a rumbling appendix (for some time now as it turns out), this resulted in a 4 hour operation to remove my appaendix and around half of my large intestine, the op obviously meant a stay in hospital for 7 days.

So that's it, get something which means you've got to eat disgusting hospital food for a week or two and it'll give you a proper kick start with the weight loss!!

Mind you, now that I've lost all that weight I look about as healthy as a malnutritioned Romanian orphan. None of my clothes fit me any more, so I'm completely skint 'cos I've had to go out and buy loads of new t-shirts and jeans and stuff, which means I can't afford to put the bike in to the LBS to get the headset fixed, which means that by the time I'm allowed to get back on the bike to carry on training, I won't be able to cos it's knackered, which in turn means I'm gonna put back on loads of weight cos I'm not getting any exercise, which in turn means I've wasted my time losing the weight in the first place as well as suffering thru a pretty miserable and painful time of late, and I'm back at square one, fat and heavy again!!!!!!

Oh well, that's life I suppose!

I guess what I'm trying to say is carry on as you are, steadily losing the weight, and keeping it off, while at the same time just enjoying being out on the bike and not worrying about power outputs, cadence, heart rate and all the other stuff you can track while on the bike!!!!!!

Not all that helpful I know, but, I guess it depends on how you look at it!!!!!

:-)

dw300

Woah, that sounds bad! Hope you recover soon.

If you're so concerned with getting back on the bike then make it a priority to get it fixed, especially if it's going to make a huge difference to your quality of life. And without seeming callous, if you aren't exercising you don't need to eat some much and you don't have to gain weight. Spend less on food and get the bike fixed.

Also, is the part of your bowel you had removed, a part that is absorbing nutrients normally. If so, you might not absorb as much of what you eat anyway.

Tiltzey Boy

Cheers DW.
Aye, on the mend now. The bike went in to the LBS this morning, but hopefully it won't be too costly to replace the headset. Any ideas on average costs to replace it? The bearing race(not sure of it's proper name, but it's the bearings and their race that sit at the top of the forks/bottom of the frame) is pretty corroded from what I could see so that needs replacing.
I normally tackle my own maintenance, but when it comes to more technical jobs, particularly where you need more specific/specialist tools like headset press and the likes, then that's where the LBS comes in to play for me!!

You're right though, keeping the weight off shouldn't be too difficult, I'm down to a weight that I haven't been at since I was 18 (I'm in my 30's now), so even if I put on a small amount, which I'm sure I will once I get back in to training, then it won't be disastrous.

I guess over the past 5 weeks of not doing very much other than recovering from the op, then some of the weight lost could be accounted for by muscle wastage, so I assume that naturally that will add some weight once I get back in to the training?

Anyhow, let's hope the OP continues the good work and doesn't get too bogged down or disheartened if the weight doesn't start "dropping off"!!!!

PompeyPaul

Hi
Hope im not too late to help out on this subject, i would like to pass on some ideas that helped me.

I returned to cycling after a long lay off and was about 2 stone overweight, i was riding a LOT of hard miles and still putting on weight! Godamn what to do? it was demoralising.

I started to google the problem and found some resources to help:

1) A book "Chris Carmichael's Food For Fitness: Eat Right To Train Right", this book basically follows a GI diet (glycemic index) it explains that its not only what you eat is important but also when you eat it, when training, Racing, Recovering, winter , summer etc.

Although the book offers some examples of recipies etc it is very USA focused, never the less the principles are the same.

2) It really is buying into a new lifestyle of eating patterns and making the correct food choices, i have lost the 2 stone and am still losing weight.

3) Plus there are bonus's in immune system, muscle growth and general well being.

However i have had to become quite a miserable s*d in the process

BowtomePhil

Didn't the Atkins diet inventor die of a heart attack induced by unhealthy eating. He was also 18 stone , 258 pounds when he died.

Somebody not practising what he preached.

Eat loads of chicken, rice and salad, cycle and lose weight : )

t.m.h.n.e.t

BowtomePhil wrote:

Didn't the Atkins diet inventor die of a heart attack induced by unhealthy eating. He was also 18 stone , 258 pounds when he died.

Somebody not practising what he preached.

Eat loads of chicken, rice and salad, cycle and lose weight : )

Yes he did.

Der Kaiser

A slow steady weight loss is the way forward. If it comes off fast it goes back on fast. I did the Atkins 9 years ago and lost loads. 3 years later I was heavier than when I started. In Atkins there is no exit strategy. It works short term.

You are doing things right. Exercise + Fruit and Veg + Water = gradual weight loss.

I feel that the slower it comes off the better as it stays off.

Don't be a slave to the scales and if you have to weigh yourself once a week to measure your progress.

Keep up the good work

ju5t1n

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

BowtomePhil wrote:

Didn't the Atkins diet inventor die of a heart attack induced by unhealthy eating. He was also 18 stone , 258 pounds when he died.

Somebody not practising what he preached.

Eat loads of chicken, rice and salad, cycle and lose weight : )

Yes he did.

His Wikipedia entry says he died from complications following a fall on ice

t.m.h.n.e.t

ju5t1n wrote:

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

BowtomePhil wrote:

Didn't the Atkins diet inventor die of a heart attack induced by unhealthy eating. He was also 18 stone , 258 pounds when he died.

Somebody not practising what he preached.

Eat loads of chicken, rice and salad, cycle and lose weight : )

Yes he did.

His Wikipedia entry says he died from complications following a fall on ice

They can't really announce that his diet caused his death can they? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

ju5t1n

Wikipedia doesn’t work like that, it’s pretty balanced. Check out Lance’s page as an example. The LAF don’t control it.

t.m.h.n.e.t

ju5t1n wrote:

Wikipedia doesn’t work like that, it’s pretty balanced. Check out Lance’s page as an example. The LAF don’t control it.

I didn't mention wikipedia

ShutUpLegs

ju5t1n wrote:

Wikipedia doesn’t work like that, it’s pretty balanced. Check out Lance’s page as an example. The LAF don’t control it.

Any mention of high cadence cycling :?: