Easy Cycling Diet
Comments
-
bobmcstuff wrote:SmoggySteve wrote:MiddleRinger wrote:Ride more. Eat less.
Think I've said this more times than I care to remember. Ride more. DON'T EAT LESS. Where do you expect to get your energy from?????? Eat healthy. Less little and eat often. Does not equate to eating LESS.
From my fat stores. That's the point.
To lose weight you need to have a calorie deficit, and you may need to eat less to achieve that.
We don't know what OP currently eats and what he would be burning - even if you ride an hour every day that's likely only between 400 and 700 calories burnt (depending on intensity etc.), i.e., unlikely to be game changing especially if you fall into the trap which many people do of doing a little bit of exercise then eating extra food.
Weight loss starts in the kitchen.
Thats where the misconceptions about 'eating less ' come from. Its not eating less its eating right. Right types of food at the right times of the same basic calorie count over the wrong refined sugars and low nutritional value will still help you lose weight without calorie counting or cutting down. If you eat the same and add in the exercise that was missing before there is your deficit. If you eat less and up your activities then you lose energy and crash. You need food to recover and keep your metabolism going. If your body begins to crave more than you give it you go into starvation mode and your body tries to cling onto caloriesas a self preservation act. If you eat right and exercise more you raise your metabolism and burn more calories naturally anyway.0 -
SmoggySteve wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:SmoggySteve wrote:MiddleRinger wrote:Ride more. Eat less.
Think I've said this more times than I care to remember. Ride more. DON'T EAT LESS. Where do you expect to get your energy from?????? Eat healthy. Less little and eat often. Does not equate to eating LESS.
From my fat stores. That's the point.
To lose weight you need to have a calorie deficit, and you may need to eat less to achieve that.
We don't know what OP currently eats and what he would be burning - even if you ride an hour every day that's likely only between 400 and 700 calories burnt (depending on intensity etc.), i.e., unlikely to be game changing especially if you fall into the trap which many people do of doing a little bit of exercise then eating extra food.
Weight loss starts in the kitchen.
Thats where the misconceptions about 'eating less ' come from. Its not eating less its eating right. Right types of food at the right times of the same basic calorie count over the wrong refined sugars and low nutritional value will still help you lose weight without calorie counting or cutting down. If you eat the same and add in the exercise that was missing before there is your deficit. If you eat less and up your activities then you lose energy and crash. You need food to recover and keep your metabolism going. If your body begins to crave more than you give it you go into starvation mode and your body tries to cling onto caloriesas a self preservation act. If you eat right and exercise more you raise your metabolism and burn more calories naturally anyway.
Personally I lost 18kg by calorie counting and cycling a sh*tload so I guess I'm biased. And have largely kept it off for over 2 years now (goes back up ~3kg in the winter).
I agree you do need to be careful about the level of deficit - I accidentally ended up with a ~2k deficit (accounting for the fact that it's not very exact) a couple of times when I'd done hard rides and you can feel really ill the next day if you do that. However I think most normal people can up their activity and take in a few less calories (possibly just by changing meals to be healthier as you suggest) without catastrophic results - as always the issues happen when you take it to excess.
Re: cutting out sugar etc. if you calorie count you quickly figure out which foods to ditch (if you're halfway sensible) because processed sugary and fatty foods tend to be very calorie-dense, so you hardly get to eat anything and never feel full for very long.0 -
If weight loss is the primary goal, I've learned the hard way that it's 10 times easier to lose weight by eating less than it is by exercising more, but both at the same time is also possible / effective.
Most people who are overweight are overeating to the extent that they can reduce intake and increase exercise simultaneously. I certainly was.0 -
SmoggySteve wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:SmoggySteve wrote:MiddleRinger wrote:Ride more. Eat less.
Think I've said this more times than I care to remember. Ride more. DON'T EAT LESS. Where do you expect to get your energy from?????? Eat healthy. Less little and eat often. Does not equate to eating LESS.
From my fat stores. That's the point.
To lose weight you need to have a calorie deficit, and you may need to eat less to achieve that.
We don't know what OP currently eats and what he would be burning - even if you ride an hour every day that's likely only between 400 and 700 calories burnt (depending on intensity etc.), i.e., unlikely to be game changing especially if you fall into the trap which many people do of doing a little bit of exercise then eating extra food.
Weight loss starts in the kitchen.
Thats where the misconceptions about 'eating less ' come from. Its not eating less its eating right. Right types of food at the right times of the same basic calorie count over the wrong refined sugars and low nutritional value will still help you lose weight without calorie counting or cutting down. If you eat the same and add in the exercise that was missing before there is your deficit. If you eat less and up your activities then you lose energy and crash. You need food to recover and keep your metabolism going. If your body begins to crave more than you give it you go into starvation mode and your body tries to cling onto caloriesas a self preservation act. If you eat right and exercise more you raise your metabolism and burn more calories naturally anyway.
Presumably that only works if you are eating the right amount in the first place though, ie if they conveniently happen to be eating the same amount as would sustain their normal intake with a slightly more active lifestyle. In reality most people are over eating a long way above what their standard activity plus a few bike rides would burn. If you absentmindedly eat an extra 1000kcal a day you are extremely unlikely to make that up by getting out on the bike a few days a week.0 -
HaydenM wrote:SmoggySteve wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:SmoggySteve wrote:MiddleRinger wrote:Ride more. Eat less.
Think I've said this more times than I care to remember. Ride more. DON'T EAT LESS. Where do you expect to get your energy from?????? Eat healthy. Less little and eat often. Does not equate to eating LESS.
From my fat stores. That's the point.
To lose weight you need to have a calorie deficit, and you may need to eat less to achieve that.
We don't know what OP currently eats and what he would be burning - even if you ride an hour every day that's likely only between 400 and 700 calories burnt (depending on intensity etc.), i.e., unlikely to be game changing especially if you fall into the trap which many people do of doing a little bit of exercise then eating extra food.
Weight loss starts in the kitchen.
Thats where the misconceptions about 'eating less ' come from. Its not eating less its eating right. Right types of food at the right times of the same basic calorie count over the wrong refined sugars and low nutritional value will still help you lose weight without calorie counting or cutting down. If you eat the same and add in the exercise that was missing before there is your deficit. If you eat less and up your activities then you lose energy and crash. You need food to recover and keep your metabolism going. If your body begins to crave more than you give it you go into starvation mode and your body tries to cling onto caloriesas a self preservation act. If you eat right and exercise more you raise your metabolism and burn more calories naturally anyway.
Presumably that only works if you are eating the right amount in the first place though, ie if they conveniently happen to be eating the same amount as would sustain their normal intake with a slightly more active lifestyle. In reality most people are over eating a long way above what their standard activity plus a few bike rides would burn. If you absentmindedly eat an extra 1000kcal a day you are extremely unlikely to make that up by getting out on the bike a few days a week.
Agreed but at no point has the OP mentioned he is overweight. If he is a healthy weight for his build and just wants to be a bit leaner then drastically reducing intake is not the way to go. He just says he wants to lose weight and has been cycling alot anyway so best to just eat normal and see how he goes first. If its not dropping them look if he needs to change his diet. No need to do so first. Test and adjust.0 -
keef66 wrote:If weight loss is the primary goal, I've learned the hard way that it's 10 times easier to lose weight by eating less than it is by exercising more, but both at the same time is also possible / effective.
Most people who are overweight are overeating to the extent that they can reduce intake and increase exercise simultaneously. I certainly was.
Me too...
Although as above OP hasn't necessarily said he's overweight.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:keef66 wrote:If weight loss is the primary goal, I've learned the hard way that it's 10 times easier to lose weight by eating less than it is by exercising more, but both at the same time is also possible / effective.
Most people who are overweight are overeating to the extent that they can reduce intake and increase exercise simultaneously. I certainly was.
Me too...
Although as above OP hasn't necessarily said he's overweight.
"I have just got into road cycling and I have been trainining quite hard to lose weight" suggests to me the OP thinks he's overweight, or at least for a cyclist.
If he isn't overweight, but states he is trying to lose weight, that would suggest issues around body image/anorexia/bulimia.0 -
keef66 wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:keef66 wrote:If weight loss is the primary goal, I've learned the hard way that it's 10 times easier to lose weight by eating less than it is by exercising more, but both at the same time is also possible / effective.
Most people who are overweight are overeating to the extent that they can reduce intake and increase exercise simultaneously. I certainly was.
Me too...
Although as above OP hasn't necessarily said he's overweight.
"I have just got into road cycling and I have been trainining quite hard to lose weight" suggests to me the OP thinks he's overweight, or at least for a cyclist.
If he isn't overweight, but states he is trying to lose weight, that would suggest issues around body image/anorexia/bulimia.
Yes, you would assume. I just added that line to keep Smoggy off my back
0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:keef66 wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:keef66 wrote:If weight loss is the primary goal, I've learned the hard way that it's 10 times easier to lose weight by eating less than it is by exercising more, but both at the same time is also possible / effective.
Most people who are overweight are overeating to the extent that they can reduce intake and increase exercise simultaneously. I certainly was.
Me too...
Although as above OP hasn't necessarily said he's overweight.
"I have just got into road cycling and I have been trainining quite hard to lose weight" suggests to me the OP thinks he's overweight, or at least for a cyclist.
If he isn't overweight, but states he is trying to lose weight, that would suggest issues around body image/anorexia/bulimia.
Yes, you would assume. I just added that line to keep Smoggy off my back
Never assume. I want to lose weight for the race season. In not overweight and I've not got image issues but I know a few kg less will make me a better climber.0 -
Thanks for all the replies, I think my plan is to watch what calories I'm eating. And TRY to stop the alcohol
0 -
I wouldn't bother counting calories as such, just eat a decent diet and not too much. Most people know what that means but try and either ignore it or over-complicate it. For me, this means:
*A good breakfast of something like museli, fruit and milk, so that you avoid any rubbish mid-morning snacks.
*A simple lunch (perhaps a couple of wholemeal rolls with tinned fish, etc,) and fruit
*A balanced tea/dinner that doesn't leave one too full.
*Alcohol? Just try and make 4 or 5 days alcohol free which is a good start.
*Cut out sugar in tea and coffee...and no other rubbish snacks at all.
Nothing fancy then and no science mumbo jumbo but if you do that AND cycle then you should be fine.0 -
Bobbinogs wrote:I wouldn't bother counting calories as such, just eat a decent diet and not too much. Most people know what that means but try and either ignore it or over-complicate it. For me, this means:
*A good breakfast of something like museli, fruit and milk, so that you avoid any rubbish mid-morning snacks.
*A simple lunch (perhaps a couple of wholemeal rolls with tinned fish, etc,) and fruit
*A balanced tea/dinner that doesn't leave one too full.
*Alcohol? Just try and make 4 or 5 days alcohol free which is a good start.
*Cut out sugar in tea and coffee...and no other rubbish snacks at all.
Nothing fancy then and no science mumbo jumbo but if you do that AND cycle then you should be fine.
This is the right answer.0 -
It is although I would switch the meusli to porridge due to the high sugar content of most ready mix meuslisMrB123 wrote:Bobbinogs wrote:I wouldn't bother counting calories as such, just eat a decent diet and not too much. Most people know what that means but try and either ignore it or over-complicate it. For me, this means:
*A good breakfast of something like museli, fruit and milk, so that you avoid any rubbish mid-morning snacks.
*A simple lunch (perhaps a couple of wholemeal rolls with tinned fish, etc,) and fruit
*A balanced tea/dinner that doesn't leave one too full.
*Alcohol? Just try and make 4 or 5 days alcohol free which is a good start.
*Cut out sugar in tea and coffee...and no other rubbish snacks at all.
Nothing fancy then and no science mumbo jumbo but if you do that AND cycle then you should be fine.
This is the right answer.0 -
I don't think I have the will power to stop eating coco pops XD
0 -
MrB123 wrote:Bobbinogs wrote:I wouldn't bother counting calories as such, just eat a decent diet and not too much. Most people know what that means but try and either ignore it or over-complicate it. For me, this means:
*A good breakfast of something like museli, fruit and milk, so that you avoid any rubbish mid-morning snacks.
*A simple lunch (perhaps a couple of wholemeal rolls with tinned fish, etc,) and fruit
*A balanced tea/dinner that doesn't leave one too full.
*Alcohol? Just try and make 4 or 5 days alcohol free which is a good start.
*Cut out sugar in tea and coffee...and no other rubbish snacks at all.
Nothing fancy then and no science mumbo jumbo but if you do that AND cycle then you should be fine.
This is the right answer.
Think a lot of people find doing a food diary or calorie counting for at least a short period helps; it's commonly recommended by various bodies and guidance anyway. It's probably not needed once you get used to it - these days I am quite good at not putting on weight without calorie counting - but when I started actively trying to lose weight (3yrs ago now) I found once I started keeping proper track that I was radically underestimating how much I was actually taking on, and I think a lot of people fall into the same trap.
Also it keeps you honest with yourself which might be helpful depending on your mentality.0 -
It's a proper eye opener if you accurately weigh and measure absolutely everything you eat and drink for a few days. Most people are consuming much more than they think in terms of portion sizes, snacks and overall calories, and it's depressing how quickly the calories add up.
I'm pleased to see the tide of scientific research and dietary advice is now turning away from low fat, high carbs in favour of a balanced diet with more fat and protein and reduced simple carbs.0 -
In terms of simple recipes, I would recommend following the Bodycoach on instagram (or buying one of his cookbooks). I'm sure people on here will have differing opinions about his style of delivery and the science behind it but in terms of food, his recipes are tasty, easy and can be pretty cheap.
I have found that cycling carbs works well for me. If i've ridden my bike, follow it with a protein and carb meal, if not then the meal will be protein and fat. Pretty simple to stick to for me.0 -
The other advantage of food diaries I've found is being able to see the breakdown of macros (protein, carbs and fat). I was very overweight, I'm still quite overweight, but watching the numbers, eating more protein, exercising and smaller portions all have helped and continue to help.0
-
The food diary I'm fine with, however the app tries calling AA when I add in the wine.Advocate of disc brakes.0
-
I am a chef by trade and found using the My Fitness Pal app as a food tracker worked really well,especially to the point that if I wanted a snack sometimes before I had found the bloody item on the app index, the craving had passed and I put it back in the fridge or cupboard.
0 -
Use the bar code scanner function.Advocate of disc brakes.0
-
If kcals in < kcals out you lose weight...simples...just make sure the kcals in a not processed...it's not hard.0
-
DavidJB wrote:If kcals in < kcals out you lose weight...simples...just make sure the kcals in a not processed...it's not hard.
Your body can't tell a processed calorie (whatever that might be) from an unprocessed one. Even if you live exclusively on cheap processed food, just consume fewer calories than you use up and you'll lose weight.
Whether or not you'll get all you need in terms of nutrition from cheap processed food is another question...0 -
keef66 wrote:DavidJB wrote:If kcals in < kcals out you lose weight...simples...just make sure the kcals in a not processed...it's not hard.
Your body can't tell a processed calorie (whatever that might be) from an unprocessed one. Even if you live exclusively on cheap processed food, just consume fewer calories than you use up and you'll lose weight.
Whether or not you'll get all you need in terms of nutrition from cheap processed food is another question...
Well I'm going to disagree. Processed food covers a very wide spectrum but as a general rule of thumb you can assume that it's going to contain more sugar, salt and fat. The body knows exactly what these products are and uses various processes to store and deal with them. Excess sugar for instance provokes a spike in insulin which stores the extra energy that cannot be utilised as fat. Excess salt intake affects the kidneys ability to remove water resulting in higher blood pressure. You get the picture.0
