Is Subway a healthy option??

Neale1978

Ive never been in subway just because of the prices. You can get great sandwiches elsewhere for less than half what they charge on some plus you can make your own cheaply. No brainer imo, avoid :roll:

AchillesLeftKnee

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

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

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

Talking about dropping calorie intake without this. http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ :evil: :evil: :evil:

Which is probably up there with every other calorie use guesstimator in terms of it's usefulness and relevance.

"Probably" meaning you don't know. Glad to clear that up

Erm, no actually. My standard, run-the-numbers-through-a-wotsit BMR is about 2000cal. That had it at 1998cal.

My problem with this gem of information is...

Firstly, it's a guess. It's not my actual BMR, so it can't really be used in calculations.

Secondly, it takes no account of energy used on top of it, and I have no realistic means of measuring it. I've got plenty of things that pretend to calculate calories from exercise. They are all wrong.

Thirdly, in order for the result of adding the guess in the first point to the guess in the second point, I need to be able to determine my calorie intake, and unless I'm living off nothing but ready meals, that's also going to be a guess.

In other words, by the time you include the margin of error for each of the elements of the equation, you end up with a margin for error such that unless you're miles off either end of the scale, the result is "you may or may not be burning more than you consume, best go weight yourself regularly".

So what makes it truely useless? Well, if you fall into either of categories in which the final calculation is broadly valid, you don't need to numbers to tell you this - clothes falling off or becoming to tight and the scales telling you you're expanding or contracting, will give you all the info that you need. However, if you are within the considerable margin for error, all the final number serves to do is to confuse because it implies that something should be happening which quite probably isn't.

I'll happily accept that within a controlled environment where proper testing is available, the numbers approach is likely to be sufficiently accurate to make it effective, but for most people it's just a bunch of numberwang that's knocked into a cocked hat by a dose of common sense.

il_principe

sassse wrote:

Why not make your own food and take in to work with you.

This. F*ck knows how much sugar goes into Subway bread, but it'll be a lot. Make your own lunch, that way you know what's in it. Eat less, cut the cr@p, cut down on booze and ride more. Sod 'dieting'. I dropped from 75 to 69KG at the start of this year by just cutting junk from my diet, not drinking during the week and riding more over the winter, it's not difficult.

amaferanga

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

Erm, no actually. My standard, run-the-numbers-through-a-wotsit BMR is about 2000cal. That had it at 1998cal.

My problem with this gem of information is...

Firstly, it's a guess. It's not my actual BMR, so it can't really be used in calculations.

Secondly, it takes no account of energy used on top of it, and I have no realistic means of measuring it. I've got plenty of things that pretend to calculate calories from exercise. They are all wrong.

Thirdly, in order for the result of adding the guess in the first point to the guess in the second point, I need to be able to determine my calorie intake, and unless I'm living off nothing but ready meals, that's also going to be a guess.

In other words, by the time you include the margin of error for each of the elements of the equation, you end up with a margin for error such that unless you're miles off either end of the scale, the result is "you may or may not be burning more than you consume, best go weight yourself regularly".

So what makes it truely useless? Well, if you fall into either of categories in which the final calculation is broadly valid, you don't need to numbers to tell you this - clothes falling off or becoming to tight and the scales telling you you're expanding or contracting, will give you all the info that you need. However, if you are within the considerable margin for error, all the final number serves to do is to confuse because it implies that something should be happening which quite probably isn't.

I'll happily accept that within a controlled environment where proper testing is available, the numbers approach is likely to be sufficiently accurate to make it effective, but for most people it's just a bunch of numberwang that's knocked into a cocked hat by a dose of common sense.

I see what you're saying here, but the way I see it potentially working is this....

If you have an estimate for BMR and the calories you burn through exercise then that gives you a starting point. Then you need to weigh the food you prepare (and to be honest if you're serious about weight loss and having a good diet then you should be preparing most of your own food and not just eating salt/calorie packed pre-prepared crap). Most people eat the same meals fairly regularly so this is tedious at first, but once you've been doing it for a bit it gets easier and quicker.

So you then have an estimate of the calories you need and the calories you consume. If the weight isn't coming off then clearly the estimates aren't good enough. So you eat less or exercise more. Weight coming off now? If not eat less and exercise more until you reach a point where the weight starts to come off slowly.

That's got to be a more reliable way than just guessing how much you need to eat to lose weight, which will for most people either lead to them not losing weight at all or massively under-eating so that they feel crap all the time and have no energy.

And if you have a power meter for your training then you do have a pretty good estimate of the calories you burn from cycling.

lostboysaint

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

Talking about dropping calorie intake without this. http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ :evil: :evil: :evil:

That suggests that I need to UP my calorie intake

t.m.h.n.e.t

amaferanga wrote:

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

Erm, no actually. My standard, run-the-numbers-through-a-wotsit BMR is about 2000cal. That had it at 1998cal.

My problem with this gem of information is...

Firstly, it's a guess. It's not my actual BMR, so it can't really be used in calculations.

Secondly, it takes no account of energy used on top of it, and I have no realistic means of measuring it. I've got plenty of things that pretend to calculate calories from exercise. They are all wrong.

Thirdly, in order for the result of adding the guess in the first point to the guess in the second point, I need to be able to determine my calorie intake, and unless I'm living off nothing but ready meals, that's also going to be a guess.

In other words, by the time you include the margin of error for each of the elements of the equation, you end up with a margin for error such that unless you're miles off either end of the scale, the result is "you may or may not be burning more than you consume, best go weight yourself regularly".

So what makes it truely useless? Well, if you fall into either of categories in which the final calculation is broadly valid, you don't need to numbers to tell you this - clothes falling off or becoming to tight and the scales telling you you're expanding or contracting, will give you all the info that you need. However, if you are within the considerable margin for error, all the final number serves to do is to confuse because it implies that something should be happening which quite probably isn't.

I'll happily accept that within a controlled environment where proper testing is available, the numbers approach is likely to be sufficiently accurate to make it effective, but for most people it's just a bunch of numberwang that's knocked into a cocked hat by a dose of common sense.

I see what you're saying here, but the way I see it potentially working is this....

If you have an estimate for BMR and the calories you burn through exercise then that gives you a starting point. Then you need to weigh the food you prepare (and to be honest if you're serious about weight loss and having a good diet then you should be preparing most of your own food and not just eating salt/calorie packed pre-prepared crap). Most people eat the same meals fairly regularly so this is tedious at first, but once you've been doing it for a bit it gets easier and quicker.

So you then have an estimate of the calories you need and the calories you consume. If the weight isn't coming off then clearly the estimates aren't good enough. So you eat less or exercise more. Weight coming off now? If not eat less and exercise more until you reach a point where the weight starts to come off slowly.

That's got to be a more reliable way than just guessing how much you need to eat to lose weight, which will for most people either lead to them not losing weight at all or massively under-eating so that they feel crap all the time and have no energy.

And if you have a power meter for your training then you do have a pretty good estimate of the calories you burn from cycling.

Hijacking amaferanga's post as it was pretty much what I was typing. Not sure how anyone could put any trust in "eat less" and completely ignore a guesstimate base number that can be raised/lowered and calculated against.

Pretty absurd view there.

lostboysaint wrote:

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

Talking about dropping calorie intake without this. http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ :evil: :evil: :evil:

That suggests that I need to UP my calorie intake

Maybe you do need to.

Zoomer37

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

bungalballs

A tip for me for losing some weight was;

"Eat only when you are actually hungry, and only eat until you are not hungry anymore. And when you do eat, make the calories count".

So more training means more hunger, resulting in a larger meal, and I make sure I focus on healthy stuff. Obviously I would treat myself now and again, but this routine has stopped me eating biscuits with my cuppa in the afternoon, chocolate in front of the TV at night, ice cream/dessert after a meal etc.

I've lost 15kg since April at a steady rate, my speed on the bike has increased massively, and seem to have settled at a weight I am comfortable with, without affecting my training.

LegendLust

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

t.m.h.n.e.t

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

What did he do? What did he give you? What was your training to put on mass?

LegendLust

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

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

What did he do? What did he give you? What was your training to put on mass?

Quite a few things – Nutrition timing, intelligent use of carbs, eating more protein and fats. My eating regime was pretty good before seeing him but he really fine tuned it for me.

t.m.h.n.e.t

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

What did he do? What did he give you? What was your training to put on mass?

Quite a few things – Nutrition timing, intelligent use of carbs, eating more protein and fats. My eating regime was pretty good before seeing him but he really fine tuned it for me.

And training?

LegendLust

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

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

What did he do? What did he give you? What was your training to put on mass?

Quite a few things – Nutrition timing, intelligent use of carbs, eating more protein and fats. My eating regime was pretty good before seeing him but he really fine tuned it for me.

And training?

No I have a cycling coach for that.

t.m.h.n.e.t

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

What did he do? What did he give you? What was your training to put on mass?

Quite a few things – Nutrition timing, intelligent use of carbs, eating more protein and fats. My eating regime was pretty good before seeing him but he really fine tuned it for me.

And training?

No I have a cycling coach for that.

Ok I'll ask for the third time. How did you train?

LegendLust

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

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

What did he do? What did he give you? What was your training to put on mass?

Quite a few things – Nutrition timing, intelligent use of carbs, eating more protein and fats. My eating regime was pretty good before seeing him but he really fine tuned it for me.

And training?

No I have a cycling coach for that.

Ok I'll ask for the third time. How did you train?

What do you mean "How did I train"? I still train now - I follow a training programme so I can achieve my time trialling goals, so it just has a mix of tempo rides, endurance work and various interval sessions. I also do core strength work through the year and supplement this with weight training in the winter months - some leg work, squats etc

ugo.santalucia

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

What did he do? What did he give you? What was your training to put on mass?

Quite a few things – Nutrition timing, intelligent use of carbs, eating more protein and fats. My eating regime was pretty good before seeing him but he really fine tuned it for me.

And training?

No I have a cycling coach for that.

Ok I'll ask for the third time. How did you train?

What do you mean "How did I train"? I still train now - I follow a training programme so I can achieve my time trialling goals, so it just has a mix of tempo rides, endurance work and various interval sessions. I also do core strength work through the year and supplement this with weight training in the winter months - some leg work, squats etc

Mmmhh, a full time occupation huh? Still fun?

LegendLust

If it wasn't fun I wouldn't do it. I like to challenge myself and have some goals to aim for - gives me a reason to get up and ride my bike

BTW it's not full time - the beauty of using a coach is that they devise a plan around the time you've got spare, I'd love to spend ages on my bike but the upshot is I only train up to 10 hours a week, I just make sure I train smart and I get up early in the mornings to do my training.

t.m.h.n.e.t

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

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

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

What did he do? What did he give you? What was your training to put on mass?

Quite a few things – Nutrition timing, intelligent use of carbs, eating more protein and fats. My eating regime was pretty good before seeing him but he really fine tuned it for me.

And training?

No I have a cycling coach for that.

Ok I'll ask for the third time. How did you train?

What do you mean "How did I train"? I still train now - I follow a training programme so I can achieve my time trialling goals, so it just has a mix of tempo rides, endurance work and various interval sessions. I also do core strength work through the year and supplement this with weight training in the winter months - some leg work, squats etc

Finally an answer. Thanks

styxd

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

A calorie deficit is fine if you're a fat knacker who just wants to lose some weight.

If you're already lean and want to get even leaner then there's far more to it than just running a calorie deficit.

LegendLust

styxd wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

A calorie deficit is fine if you're a fat knacker who just wants to lose some weight.

If you're already lean and want to get even leaner then there's far more to it than just running a calorie deficit.

Well said

Bobbinogs

I have found that the more cycling I do and the harder I train, the more alchohol I have to drink to keep my weight steady at 65kg and my BMI at 20.1.

diy

I think there has been some good advice about balance diet and sensible portion sizes. It wouldn't work for me, I like food too much. I regularly have a foot long bmt for example. For me I can tolerate dieting a couple of days a week, so I do the 5:2 fasting diet. Lost a stone in the first month despite only really being about half a stone over ideal weight. I'm now in the low end of green for my BMI.

Eating a poor diet and managing weight loss with exercise will leave you with a big increase in cardiac, cancer and diabetes risk.

t.m.h.n.e.t

diy wrote:

I think there has been some good advice about balance diet and sensible portion sizes. It wouldn't work for me, I like food too much. I regularly have a foot long bmt for example. For me I can tolerate dieting a couple of days a week, so I do the 5:2 fasting diet. Lost a stone in the first month despite only really being about half a stone over ideal weight. I'm now in the low end of green for my BMI.

Eating a poor diet and managing weight loss with exercise will leave you with a big increase in cardiac, cancer and diabetes risk.

BMI is a terrible gauge of weight category. Might as well not bother.

Zoomer37

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

Uh?

My post and the article I linked too about calorie def is for FAT loss. Nothing to do with weight loss

You keep to around a 500-600 daily def under your maintenance level with a good amount of protein and FAT will go.

Simple stuff really, but again misunderstood..




On a

LegendLust

Zoomer37 wrote:

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

Uh?

My post and the article I linked too about calorie def is for FAT loss. Nothing to do with weight loss

You keep to around a 500-600 daily def under your maintenance level with a good amount of protein and FAT will go.

Simple stuff really, but again misunderstood..




On a

My reply was more about the fact that 'fat loss' is a lot more complicated than just calorie deficit.

diy

Ok put it another way... My beer belly is gone.

neeb

wilo13 wrote:

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

diy wrote:

I think there has been some good advice about balance diet and sensible portion sizes. It wouldn't work for me, I like food too much. I regularly have a foot long bmt for example. For me I can tolerate dieting a couple of days a week, so I do the 5:2 fasting diet. Lost a stone in the first month despite only really being about half a stone over ideal weight. I'm now in the low end of green for my BMI.

Eating a poor diet and managing weight loss with exercise will leave you with a big increase in cardiac, cancer and diabetes risk.

BMI is a terrible gauge of weight category. Might as well not bother.

This is so true. When I did Olympic weight lifting at uni I was 84kg (179cm) and I was classified as obesse when I had a body fat percentage of 11%. The problem is so many of these fancy TV shows (such as Supersize vs superskinny on channel 4) go on and on about BMI like its the gold standard measure when in reality its just a basic equation which uses your height and weight and takes nothing else into consideration.

Although interestingly (I just checked out of curiosity), the vast majority of professional road cyclists seem to have BMIs in the "normal" range at the end of the day (at least going by their heights & weights as given on Wikipedia). Climbers and skinny guys get down to 19 or a bit over and sprinters like Griepel get up to 24-25, but they are nearly all "normal". Even the really skinny climbers don't get into the "underweight" category, and the only one I could find who was "overweight" was Magnus Backstedt, and he's only just there at 25.2.

Track cyclists could be a different matter of course (Chris Hoy is nearly 27), but this does suggest that a "normal" BMI is not a bad thing to aim for if you are a cyclist and don't participate in other activities that require heavily developed upper body musculature, and if you are in the "obese" category you are certainly not going to be an optimal weight for cycling whether it's fat or muscle that's adding the weight..

pilot_pete

Zoomer37 wrote:

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

Uh?

My post and the article I linked too about calorie def is for FAT loss. Nothing to do with weight loss

You keep to around a 500-600 daily def under your maintenance level with a good amount of protein and FAT will go.

Simple stuff really, but again misunderstood..




On a

For those who think tha the calorie deficit idea is a good 'simple' one, they should read http://www.zoeharcombe.com/ and specifically her book http://www.theobesityepidemic.org/ I have posted it on these forums before because it blows apart the current thinking about weight loss, diet, fats etc and questions the supposed 'facts' that are often bandied around when the subject of weight/ obesity is talked about.

So, here is her opening question about the calorie deficit dieting technique;

2) We have got the mathematical formula wrong. “1lb = 3500 calories” and “To lose 1lb of fat you need to create a deficit of 3500 calories” has become folk law. Do you know where it comes from? Could you prove it? Don’t worry, nor can any of our government departments or obesity organisations and yet they use it all the time.

in the book she goes on to explain about thermodynamics (in relation to the burning of energy within the human body) she explains why a calorie deficit diet initially loses you quite a bit of weight, but then plateaus due to the body going into 'starvation' survival mode where it try's to prevent further weight loss to preserve what you have and it does this by making you feel like sh1t and lethargy sets in (to prevent further energy expenditure) and your brain is being constantly signalled to eat, because you are always hungry!

The 'calories in/ calories out' argument is also debunked. I strongly urge anyone who has an interest in weight loss/ maintenance to have a read.....it was revelatory for me and my wife and completely changed our long held views on obesity....most of which were the common held 'facts' pumped out by the various health/ food standards agencies.

So as a cyclist who wants to lose weight what should you do? Eat real food. Eat what our ancestors ate for millennia without obesity being an issue. Eat meat, eggs, butter, vegetables, fruit, grains and seeds. Cut down on the carbohydrates (mainly anything processed) and cut down the amount of sugar you consume. It is the processed carbs and sugar that has lead to our obesity epidemic. Consumption of carbs causes insulin production within the body. The insulin facilitates the storage of excess carbs as fat. The consumption of carbs also delays the chemical signalling to the brain that you are full, thus you eat too much. Eating a larger proportion of protein does not do this, hence you feel fuller earlier. You could say eat a smaller portion size, but you will naturally if you change from carb based meals.

So, going back to your Subway sandwich. Is it good or bad? Well it depends. It is probably not the best, nor the worst. The bread is probably not very good. The meat is probably not organically produced free range turkey, more likely processed slices pumped with other stuff (I stand to be corrected as I am not familiar with the exact contents). If you have salad it is probably ok, but it depends what it is. Peppers, tomatoes etc are good, lettuce is lettuce! But what about the spreads or sauces? Probably terrible nutritionally.

The solution? Buy a quality whole grain bread with as few additives as possible. Use butter, not margarine. Choose organic, free range meat and fresh salad and make your own sandwich. We have all got to lazy and convenience food is pumped full of sugar/ salt and anything else to make you crave more of it.

Oh, and finally, Zoe points out that saturated fat is not/ has never been proven to be linked to coronary heart disease by ANY study, yet the government advice is to cut down on its intake. Why? Ask them; they don't know why, or more honestly don't want to tell you why because the food industry has conveniently got the spotlight on saturated fat, which keeps it off the processed carbs and sugars being the real culprits! It all comes down to money........

PP

p.s. I have no links to Zoe Harcombe or her book in any way. Just a convert to her way of thinking. I have lost a stone in a year by cutting out the crap and eating more healthily. I don't watch portion size, don't count calories and never feel hungry.

pilot_pete

Oh, and a little something extra about bread! http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/09/conflicted-nutritionists-defend-bread/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed

PP

t.m.h.n.e.t

Pilot Pete wrote:

We have got the mathematical formula wrong. “1lb = 3500 calories” and “To lose 1lb of fat you need to create a deficit of 3500 calories” has become folk law. Do you know where it comes from? Could you prove it? Don’t worry, nor can any of our government departments or obesity organisations and yet they use it all the time.

She did a great job of un-debunking any claims herself. http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledg ... -calories/

Does it truly matter if 1lb fat = exactly 3500cals? Absolutely not, what matters is, to someone who has taken up exercise and a cleaner diet that there is a goal figure. Without goals nobody would get anywhere. A number can change but it's manageable, a total guess isn't.

in the book she goes on to explain about thermodynamics (in relation to the burning of energy within the human body) she explains why a calorie deficit diet initially loses you quite a bit of weight, but then plateaus due to the body going into 'starvation' survival mode where it try's to prevent further weight loss to preserve what you have and it does this by making you feel like sh1t and lethargy sets in (to prevent further energy expenditure) and your brain is being constantly signalled to eat, because you are always hungry!

Thing is. Starvation mode does not exist. The limitation is in metabolism which will only be able to run to the sum of calories you intake. Calorie deficits(worked out correctly and adjusted, not guessed) do not allow this. Loss does generally plateau but it isn't due to a fictional mode. It's due to calorie intake and body weight being equal enough to maintain. At this point you would adjust slightly.

The 'calories in/ calories out' argument is also debunked. I strongly urge anyone who has an interest in weight loss/ maintenance to have a read.....it was revelatory for me and my wife and completely changed our long held views on obesity....most of which were the common held 'facts' pumped out by the various health/ food standards agencies.

If it is debunked. Why have more people than I can vouch for globablly, lost weight successfully before Zoe Harcombe turned up? Are the people who have lost weight using methods Zoe claims to debunk, wrong?

So as a cyclist who wants to lose weight what should you do? Eat real food. Eat what our ancestors ate for millennia without obesity being an issue. Eat meat, eggs, butter, vegetables, fruit, grains and seeds. Cut down on the carbohydrates (mainly anything processed) and cut down the amount of sugar you consume. It is the processed carbs and sugar that has lead to our obesity epidemic. Consumption of carbs causes insulin production within the body. The insulin facilitates the storage of excess carbs as fat. The consumption of carbs also delays the chemical signalling to the brain that you are full, thus you eat too much. Eating a larger proportion of protein does not do this, hence you feel fuller earlier. You could say eat a smaller portion size, but you will naturally if you change from carb based meals.

Why are carbs and sugar instantly the devil? Your overall intake is the problem not the source of calories. But you've said it yourself, inability to control what is on your plate doesn't help.

Oh, and finally, Zoe points out that saturated fat is not/ has never been proven to be linked to coronary heart disease by ANY study, yet the government advice is to cut down on its intake. Why? Ask them; they don't know why, or more honestly don't want to tell you why because the food industry has conveniently got the spotlight on saturated fat, which keeps it off the processed carbs and sugars being the real culprits! It all comes down to money........

Processed carbs and sugars are not culprits. They are as measurable as any other calorie you consume and if you consume over your maintenance level then well, you are asking to put weight on.