Lots of Cycling and Little Weight Loss
Comments
-
Just eat chicken and salad, fish and salad, salad and salad, and have a cheat day at the weekend.
I just wish I could listen to me.Advocate of disc brakes.0 -
homers double wrote:I just wish I could listen to me.
"Losing weight is easy, I just need to cut out the snacks" - is what I say to myself when I open the cupboard to get yet another Mini roll.0 -
I amazed myself. More than a stone overweight I gave the 5:2 diet a go. Eating normally 5 days a week, but only 600 calories on the other 2 (Monday and Thursday so a) I'm at work and not surrounded by food temptation and b) I can pork out at the weekends)
Soon gave up on the frankly bizarre menu suggestions in the book which were trying to eke out 600 cals over 2 or 3 meals and with snacks. I eat nothing on fast days till 6:30 pm, then I have egg or beans on toast so it feels like a normal meal. Lost 18 pounds I didn't realise I was carrying.0 -
keef66 wrote:I amazed myself. More than a stone overweight I gave the 5:2 diet a go. Eating normally 5 days a week, but only 600 calories on the other 2 (Monday and Thursday so a) I'm at work and not surrounded by food temptation and b) I can pork out at the weekends)
Soon gave up on the frankly bizarre menu suggestions in the book which were trying to eke out 600 cals over 2 or 3 meals and with snacks. I eat nothing on fast days till 6:30 pm, then I have egg or beans on toast so it feels like a normal meal. Lost 18 pounds I didn't realise I was carrying.
You know, since I might be off the bike for a couple of weeks I've been wondering about giving that a go, as I reckon I could just go without eating anything a couple of days a week then have a normal dinner in the evening.
Are you saying you basically just didn't have anything to eat at all, from waking up until your evening meal? I've got 28lb to lose so could be worth a go.0 -
markhewitt1978 wrote:keef66 wrote:I amazed myself. More than a stone overweight I gave the 5:2 diet a go. Eating normally 5 days a week, but only 600 calories on the other 2 (Monday and Thursday so a) I'm at work and not surrounded by food temptation and b) I can pork out at the weekends)
Soon gave up on the frankly bizarre menu suggestions in the book which were trying to eke out 600 cals over 2 or 3 meals and with snacks. I eat nothing on fast days till 6:30 pm, then I have egg or beans on toast so it feels like a normal meal. Lost 18 pounds I didn't realise I was carrying.
You know, since I might be off the bike for a couple of weeks I've been wondering about giving that a go, as I reckon I could just go without eating anything a couple of days a week then have a normal dinner in the evening.
Are you saying you basically just didn't have anything to eat at all, from waking up until your evening meal?
Yep, cup of tea first thing in the morning to wake me up, then it's just water or herbal tea for the rest of the day. Snack like something on toast, chunky soup, half a pizza with salad. 600 calories is easy to manage; a lot of decent ready meals fall under 500.
Now I'm down to 10 stone I'm a bit more relaxed and drink tea with milk during the fast days, and don't always stick rigidly to 600 cal for the evening meal.
I seem to be OK for a 15-20 mile bike ride after the evening snack without any ill effects, and which helps to burn a few more calories.0 -
5:2 worked a treat for me too, although I can understand it isn't for everyone.0
-
Thanks for all your feedback and suggestions everyone.
I think I am going to have to mix up the exercising - and add some weight training as well. I am going to concentrate on reducing down the calories to about 2,600 per day on the days I cycle (I count everything already - and can strip out about 400 cals - just skipping the 3 large bananas I have as snacks each day will take care of most of that.)
Eating 600 cals twice a week is not an option really - I feel faint just thinking about it.0 -
[quote="TimmyVee"
I think I am going to have to mix up the exercising - and add some weight training as well. I am going to concentrate on reducing down the calories to about 2,600 per day on the days I cycle (I count everything already - and can strip out about 400 cals - just skipping the 3 large bananas I have as snacks each day will take care of most of that.)[/quote]
Try eating 50 bananas a day instead
Eating 600 cals twice a week is not an option really - I feel faint just thinking about it.
I dunno. So far today I've had 200kcal, some porridge for breakfast, feel ok so far! As far as I can see 5:2 is nothing more complicated than standard calorie reduction, but concentrated into 2 days instead of every day. Although I would guess it depends on not eating over maintenance on non-fast days.0 -
I pretty much agree with sleeper service on this (though I calc the sums slightly differently). There is already a lot of myth in the other posts and we are only on page 2. Even given the OP's size I doubt he could build net muscle for fat loss. Probably max he could do would be 4-5kg of muscle per year, but has the potential to drop 20kg of fat. Unfortunately its a case of eating too much. I'd second the need for muscle training during weight loss to prevent the loss of lean muscle mass which comes as a result of calorie deficits.
With regards to the 5:2 - the benefit is you have it grim, just 2 days a a week rather than 7. Studies have shown that the BIO indicator improvements you'd get are greater than conventional weight loss strategies. Lean muscles loss for example.
If you lose weight too quickly you burn muscle and fat and that means your BMR will drop when you get to a decent BMI. Obviously we want high BMR so we can eat lots without getting fat0 -
diy wrote:With regards to the 5:2 - the benefit is you have it grim, just 2 days a a week rather than 7. Studies have shown that the BIO indicator improvements you'd get are greater than conventional weight loss strategies. Lean muscles loss for example.
600 calories for the day vs TDEE of 2,200 = 1,600. 1,600*2 = 3,200. Considering that 1lb of fat is supposedly 3,500kcal then that's 1lb loss right there. Again assuming you eat your TDEE on the other days. Any exercise is on top of that.
Alternatively you can eat 460kcal less every day, amounts to the same thing.
And yes I think that's the idea, the two days are hard but you know that at least the next two are 'normal'. I say being only 8 hours into the thing 0 -
"Eating 600 cals twice a week is not an option really - I feel faint just thinking about it."
Which is exactly what I thought before I tried it. I was startled to find it quite easy, and I've concluded that food cravings are 99% a psychological phenomenon.
If you think about it, we did nearly all our evolution when food was relatively hard to come by. Our bodies are equipped to store excess calories in times of plenty, and enable us to run on our fat reserves when there's nothing to eat. That's what insulin and glucagon are all about. 5:2 eating just exploits it to good effect.
Our ancestors certainly didn't evolve eating 3 calorie dense meals a day with snacks in between!0 -
markhewitt1978 wrote:I dunno. So far today I've had 200kcal, some porridge for breakfast, feel ok so far! As far as I can see 5:2 is nothing more complicated than standard calorie reduction, but concentrated into 2 days instead of every day. Although I would guess it depends on not eating over maintenance on non-fast days.
I am not sure I could function on 500 cals per day. I guess this is one of those different strokes, different folks things.
Weekdays I am cycling about 45 miles a day, and on Sunday I play rugby. Saturday I normally just try and relax and not think about exercising or what I am eating.0 -
I manage double spin class and weights quite happily on 100kcal. Your not surviving on 600kcal, your getting the rest from glycogen and stored fat. The avg bloke with a bmi of over 25 would have well in excess of 20,000kcal stored.0
-
diy wrote:I manage double spin class and weights quite happily on 100kcal. Your not surviving on 600kcal, your getting the rest from glycogen and stored fat. The avg bloke with a bmi of over 25 would have well in excess of 20,000kcal stored.
Like I said - different strokes, different folks.0 -
Have you got an indoor trainer? An interval training session done first thing in the morning on an empty stomach a couple of times per week will have much more benefit than cutting out a few bananas or lifting some weights. I'm 55 years old, 183cm (6ft) tall and 76kg (167 lbs). I eat lots of bananas and reckon you're much better off eating a banana than eating something else as a snack.
What I do to stay trim and I was 102 kg before I started cycling 6 years ago is:
Cut out sugar wherever I can. Sweetners in coffee instead of sugar
Eat lots of fruit. Fruit on my breakfast cereal instead of having extra cereal. Banana when I have my morning coffee. Banana with lunch. Apple for afternoon late snack. Yoghurt and fruit for dessert / supper.
No white bread. Soy / Rye breads instead. Tastes better anyway.
Follow a training program that includes high intensity intervals. I'm usually lighter the next day after an interval training session. I use the Trainerroad training plans. I train 5 - 6 days per week.
Weigh myself daily and record it.
Set weight specific goals e.g. In 6 months I want to be 72kg for my main event of the year. That for me means being very careful what I eat for 2 months to lose the 4kg. I don't have to diet but rather not eat any junk food or have extra helpings of dinner as I often do.Strava Profile: http://app.strava.com/athletes/20060660 -
Lots of good advice already. Most of what I have to say is re-iteration. Key things:
Get an HRM (and a powermeter, if you can afford one). Then you'll have a much better estimate of calorie burn. A fitness band of some sort won't hurt, either - helps you get a more accurate picture of your other calorie use.
Be absolutely obsessive about food tracking. 50g of peanuts (two pub handfuls) is 300 cals. Always assume you've overestimated calorie burn and underestimated input. When targeting weight reduction I aim for a 500 calorie average daily deficit, and achieve about a 300g average weight reduction per week; it should be 500g which is the clue that my input/output data is flawed. The discipline of being hungry is the hardest part. But remember you're an athlete, not Gwynnie, so you need to eat food you can use as fuel. Match GI to exertion timing, and make sure you get enough protein to realise the training improvement.
Get a turbo - it's much easier to deliver a targeted work load at a specific work rate on a trainer than it is on the road, especially if your ride is a commute with the inevitable constant pauses for lights and slow sections when weaving through traffic.
Sleep properly. Not getting enough quality sleep massively reduces the effectiveness of training, and affects your metabolism. This is the bit I wish I could do - I have a back problem that's stopping me sleeping at the moment, and it's wrecking my training.0 -
[quote="964Cup"Get an HRM (and a powermeter, if you can afford one). [/quote]
100% of this. A powermeter can be difficult to justify because of the cost, but a heart rate monitor really isn't. Even if you don't have a cycle computer having the likes of a Wahoo Tickr which will talk to your phone and keep a log is invaluable. At first it was a bit of a hassle having to put it on every ride, but now I wouldn't contemplate riding without one.
Having a power meter and a heart rate monitor means that I'm not actually that bothered about how many miles and how much climbing I've done on a ride - except for my own enjoyment - it's all about the training stress score!Get a turbo - it's much easier to deliver a targeted work load at a specific work rate on a trainer than it is on the road, especially if your ride is a commute with the inevitable constant pauses for lights and slow sections when weaving through traffic.
I agree to an extent because I live too far from work to commute so I often do morning fasted rides on the turbo instead (at least I did before I did my back in) and that means I'm starting the day on minus 500 calories.0 -
0ced0 wrote:markhewitt1978 wrote:What's your height?
When it comes down to it it's all about Calories in vs Calories out.
that is actually NOT true. need to take the macros into account. all calories are not equal.
Calories are not equal in terms of what they do for your body.
In the scientific sense of 'in' vs 'out', it is absolutely, undeniably true. You cannot create or destrory energy, just convert it to a different form. If you use more than you eat, you absolutely, 100% certain, will lose weight.0 -
Alex99 wrote:
Calories are not equal in terms of what they do for your body.
In the scientific sense of 'in' vs 'out', it is absolutely, undeniably true. You cannot create or destrory energy, just convert it to a different form. If you use more than you eat, you absolutely, 100% certain, will lose weight.
Exactly. When it comes down to weight loss, then it's a thermodynamic equation, quite simply. You could lose weight just by eating the required number of chocolate bars every day and nothing else. But that's quite separate from your nutritional balance and the effects it would have on your body other than the weight loss.0 -
markhewitt1978 wrote:Alex99 wrote:
Calories are not equal in terms of what they do for your body.
In the scientific sense of 'in' vs 'out', it is absolutely, undeniably true. You cannot create or destrory energy, just convert it to a different form. If you use more than you eat, you absolutely, 100% certain, will lose weight.
Exactly. When it comes down to weight loss, then it's a thermodynamic equation, quite simply. You could lose weight just by eating the required number of chocolate bars every day and nothing else. But that's quite separate from your nutritional balance and the effects it would have on your body other than the weight loss.
Indeed. If you got all of your calories from choccy bars or lard, I think you'd find it hard to burn them off because you'd feel lousy in the short term, and would be in ill in the long term.0 -
TimmyVee wrote:Hello All - Hoping some of the group might be able to help with this predicament.
I am doing lots of cycling but not dropping any weight.
I am cycling about 70 km five times a week for my commute. Burn about 3,600 calories per day cycling, plus another 2,100 per day just being alive. I eat very clean (no sugar, no fruit juice, or booze) and try to consume about 3,000 calories a day on my cycling days. Cycled about 3,200 km so far in 2016 but the weight doesn't want to move (dropped about 3 kgs since Jan 1st.)
Age: 43
Weight: 110 kgs
BMR: 2,100
Any advice would be most welcome - or if you need more info please let me know.
Thanks - Tim.
Something definitely not right with the calorie on bike estimate.
For 70 km, assuming e.g. 25 kph average speed, the time on the bike is 2.8 hours. So, 1285 kcal per hour. That's approx 360 watts (assuming a normal ish efficiency). Even for a large rider, 360 W and 25 kph would mean you're riding with the brakes on, or the calories used is an over estimate.0 -
Alex99 wrote:TimmyVee wrote:Hello All - Hoping some of the group might be able to help with this predicament.
I am doing lots of cycling but not dropping any weight.
I am cycling about 70 km five times a week for my commute. Burn about 3,600 calories per day cycling, plus another 2,100 per day just being alive. I eat very clean (no sugar, no fruit juice, or booze) and try to consume about 3,000 calories a day on my cycling days. Cycled about 3,200 km so far in 2016 but the weight doesn't want to move (dropped about 3 kgs since Jan 1st.)
Age: 43
Weight: 110 kgs
BMR: 2,100
Any advice would be most welcome - or if you need more info please let me know.
Thanks - Tim.
Something definitely not right with the calorie on bike estimate.
For 70 km, assuming e.g. 25 kph average speed, the time on the bike is 2.8 hours. So, 1285 kcal per hour. That's approx 360 watts (assuming a normal ish efficiency). Even for a large rider, 360 W and 25 kph would mean you're riding with the brakes on, or the calories used is an over estimate.
I think we've pretty much established thus far that the Strava calorie estimate he's using is wrong, probably by a factor of two, which accounts for his lack of weight loss.0 -
markhewitt1978 wrote:Alex99 wrote:TimmyVee wrote:Hello All - Hoping some of the group might be able to help with this predicament.
I am doing lots of cycling but not dropping any weight.
I am cycling about 70 km five times a week for my commute. Burn about 3,600 calories per day cycling, plus another 2,100 per day just being alive. I eat very clean (no sugar, no fruit juice, or booze) and try to consume about 3,000 calories a day on my cycling days. Cycled about 3,200 km so far in 2016 but the weight doesn't want to move (dropped about 3 kgs since Jan 1st.)
Age: 43
Weight: 110 kgs
BMR: 2,100
Any advice would be most welcome - or if you need more info please let me know.
Thanks - Tim.
Something definitely not right with the calorie on bike estimate.
For 70 km, assuming e.g. 25 kph average speed, the time on the bike is 2.8 hours. So, 1285 kcal per hour. That's approx 360 watts (assuming a normal ish efficiency). Even for a large rider, 360 W and 25 kph would mean you're riding with the brakes on, or the calories used is an over estimate.
I think we've pretty much established thus far that the Strava calorie estimate he's using is wrong, probably by a factor of two, which accounts for his lack of weight loss.
Does going over old ground burn more calories?0 -
Alex99 wrote:Does going over old ground burn more calories?
Don't be silly, it's the same calories if it's old or new ground. Haven't you learned anything
0 -
markhewitt1978 wrote:Alex99 wrote:Does going over old ground burn more calories?
Don't be silly, it's the same calories if it's old or new ground. Haven't you learned anything
Darn. In that case, I'll try to stick to new ground. 0 -
markhewitt1978 wrote:I think we've pretty much established thus far that the Strava calorie estimate he's using is wrong, probably by a factor of two, which accounts for his lack of weight loss.
Yes – this is clear. I have reevaluated everything and this is what the week has looked like so far:
Average daily calorie consumption: 2,700 (I religiously track everything I eat, so this number is accurate)
TDEE: 2,600 (BMR of 2,100 and another 500 from walking around, etc.)
Average cycling activity calorie burn: 1,500
So over the course of the week from Monday through Thursday I have:
Consumed: 10,800 calories – let’s say this is 12,000 to avoid any underestimation
Calories burned from being alive and going to work and moving around: 10,400
Cycling activity should have burned 6,000 calories – changing this to 5,000 to avoid being too generous.
Total consumed:12,000
Total burned: 15,400
Total deficit: 3,400 (or 850 per day)
I think 850 is a pretty decent daily deficit to record. I have been working like this since January 4th (running a daily calorie deficit of around 800 cals based on a reevaluation of the numbers). I guess I just gotta keep hammering out the miles, watching what I eat and adding in some strength training as well.0 -
Interesting. If those numbers are right then you should have been seeing approx 1lb per week weight loss.0
-
If those numbers are right, he should have lost 1.1lbs (500g) by Thursday; it's 7000 calories per kilo, on or off. So either he's sleep-eating or something, or he's retaining water, or the numbers are wrong. I think the calorie estimate is still high, but it doesn't matter. There should be a deficit, and the weight should be coming off.markhewitt1978 wrote:Interesting. If those numbers are right then you should have been seeing approx 1lb per week weight loss.0 -
Of course the danger is that the numbers from the cycling are still not even remotely right. He might just be exceptionally efficient at cycling!
The general advice is that to be sure and consistent with losing weight you need to eat under your TDEE, without exercise counting. Then any exercise is on top of that.
The only thing I could suggest at this point is for him to cut his consumption 500kcal and see what happens.0
