Riding and weight loss?

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:53:39 GMT, "nash"
wrote:

You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what actually happened
to
me. I was on a fairly strict LC diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles
per week just does not result in significant weight loss at my age, even
with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if it doesn't fit your experience
or expectations.


Some people like me can stay slim just by not eating more than you use.
I do not ride 35 miles a week anymore and I do not do physical labor lifting
a ton of mail a day. That is what he means. There are many factors we do
not know about you like leanness, metabolism, age, etc so I could not say it
is not right for you. Maybe it's the LC diet. Like I said a while ago you
need to stomach hungry not mouth hungry.
Cardiologist diet: If it tastes good spit it out. : + )

He probably means something else, such as 'by the book'. But he's an
excellent example (no diss intended) of the difficulty of losing weight by
cycling. ;-)

Might have something to do with the body's set point, or insulin
resistance. Don't know. It's probably advantageous, survival-wise, but not
so much in times of relative plenty.

I -thought- that by working up a good sweat for 40 min a day along with
fairly normal eating, but it doesn't until I -really- restrict calories.

"Set" wrote in message

:: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:17:11 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::: "Set" wrote in message
:::
::::: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:49:39 -0500, Ernie Willson
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into
:::::: recreational riding. This could be 45 minutes in one
:::::: day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes every 4
:::::: days and so on.
::::::
:::::: This being the case, is there an optimum riding
:::::: schedule to maximize weight/fat loss. For example
:::::: would 45 minutes a day be less effective that 90
:::::: minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times
:::::: 7) minutes once each week?
::::::
:::::: TIA, EJ in NJ
:::::
::::: Along with a reasonable diet (no sweets, sugar,
::::: binging), I have to hit above 150miles/week at a
::::: modest tempo (15-17mph avg speed, flat terrain) to
::::: achieve weight loss. Cycling is just not that
::::: strenuous at recreational levels.
:::
::: This is just complete nonsense. Exercise doesn't need
::: to be strenuous to aid in weight loss. All it needs to
::: do is burn calories. The rest has to do with how much
::: you eat in relation to what it takes to maintain
::: current weight. As long as you're not eating too much,
::: one can lose weight on any amount of exercising
::: (including zero). Your problem is you're simply eating
::: too much to achieve weight loss on less riding than
::: that amount. It has little to do with strenuous.
::
:: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what
:: actually happened to me. I was on a fairly strict LC
:: diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles per week just
:: does not result in significant weight loss at my age,
:: even with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if it
:: doesn't fit your experience or expectations.

Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that to happen you'd have
to do with I do. Frankly, I don't think you are and I don't think you
really know what it required to lose weight, if you haven't been able to do
it using cycling.

No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will result in weight loss if
you eat too much. It doesn't matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not
(especially if you aren't counting calories). The amount of cycling you did,
with no mention how much you ate, and what you're requirements are for
maintance, lead to the conclusion that you didn't pay attention to the
correct variables in the equation, and hence didn't achieve weight loss.
Now, you're claiming that cycling isn't strenuous enough to lead to weight
loss. Nonsense.

I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles, without weight loss. How
can this be? I wasn't trying to lose weight. You can't determine weight
loss by simply counting exercise.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:28:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

:: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what
:: actually happened to me. I was on a fairly strict LC
:: diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles per week just
:: does not result in significant weight loss at my age,
:: even with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if it
:: doesn't fit your experience or expectations.

Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that to happen you'd have
to do with I do. Frankly, I don't think you are and I don't think you
really know what it required to lose weight, if you haven't been able to do
it using cycling.

No I'm not riding nearly as much as you, only about 3.5k miles per year,
70-80/week, a bit higher in summer.

No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will result in weight loss if
you eat too much. It doesn't matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not
(especially if you aren't counting calories).

I don't dispute this. What may, in fact, be happening is that there are
hidden calories - handful of nuts here, couple of dabs of ketchup there,
maybe a few extra glasses of milk. It may be that riding at the level of
100mi/week people tend to slack off their energy expenditure the remainder
of the day, rest more, lie on the couch all day Sunday. I don't know. I'm
not talking about breaking the laws of physics. I'm just saying that until
-I- get up to 150+ miles per week, no matter what I do short of near
starvation, I don't start losing appreciable weight. OK?

The amount of cycling you did,
with no mention how much you ate, and what you're requirements are for
maintance, lead to the conclusion that you didn't pay attention to the
correct variables in the equation, and hence didn't achieve weight loss.
Now, you're claiming that cycling isn't strenuous enough to lead to weight
loss. Nonsense.

I also think cycling is much less energy expenditure than most people
think, at recreational rider levels. Maybe too much freewheeling?

I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles, without weight loss. How
can this be? I wasn't trying to lose weight. You can't determine weight
loss by simply counting exercise.

Oh give me a break. You'd be jumping for joy if you could lose those last
30lbs. Thing is, even when you get stricter in your diet, you just can't
lose it, no matter what you do. You gonna stay tubular for life? ;-)

There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there past 40 or 50 who
weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And what about 'master fattie'. Those guys
do everything to lose that last little bit and it never comes off.

"Set" wrote in message

:: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:28:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::::: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what
::::: actually happened to me. I was on a fairly strict LC
::::: diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles per week
::::: just does not result in significant weight loss at my
::::: age, even with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if
::::: it doesn't fit your experience or expectations.
:::
::: Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that
::: to happen you'd have to do with I do. Frankly, I don't
::: think you are and I don't think you really know what it
::: required to lose weight, if you haven't been able to do
::: it using cycling.
::
:: No I'm not riding nearly as much as you, only about 3.5k
:: miles per year, 70-80/week, a bit higher in summer.
::

I don't think how much you ride is really at the issue, however. That's
plenty to achieve weight loss.


::: No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will
::: result in weight loss if you eat too much. It doesn't
::: matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not (especially
::: if you aren't counting calories).
::
:: I don't dispute this. What may, in fact, be happening is
:: that there are hidden calories - handful of nuts here,
:: couple of dabs of ketchup there, maybe a few extra
:: glasses of milk. It may be that riding at the level of
:: 100mi/week people tend to slack off their energy
:: expenditure the remainder of the day, rest more, lie on
:: the couch all day Sunday. I don't know. I'm not talking
:: about breaking the laws of physics. I'm just saying that
:: until -I- get up to 150+ miles per week, no matter what
:: I do short of near starvation, I don't start losing
:: appreciable weight. OK?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "near starvation". You can ride way
less than 150+ miles a week and lose weight, without starving. Most people
who lose weight do exactly that.

::
::: The amount of cycling you did,
::: with no mention how much you ate, and what you're
::: requirements are for maintance, lead to the conclusion
::: that you didn't pay attention to the correct variables
::: in the equation, and hence didn't achieve weight loss.
::: Now, you're claiming that cycling isn't strenuous
::: enough to lead to weight loss. Nonsense.
::
:: I also think cycling is much less energy expenditure
:: than most people think, at recreational rider levels.
:: Maybe too much freewheeling?

What are you basing this on? You'll burn about 4000 calories in 100 miles.
That bearly over 1 lb in a week. That's a reasonable about to burn over a
week too, from exercise. Hence, if you eat at maintanence, you should be
able to lose 1 lb a week from riding 100 miles.

::
::: I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles,
::: without weight loss. How can this be? I wasn't trying
::: to lose weight. You can't determine weight loss by
::: simply counting exercise.
::
:: Oh give me a break. You'd be jumping for joy if you
:: could lose those last 30lbs. Thing is, even when you get
:: stricter in your diet, you just can't lose it, no matter
:: what you do. You gonna stay tubular for life? ;-)



I think you're bumping up on what people are willing to do to lose weight
rather than what cycling will do. The closer to goal you get the harder it
will be. And, people who tend to carry extra weight do so because they have
a propensity to do so (my personal belief) which then means that for them,
losing those last few pounds may be really, really hard. BUT, that's not
cycling's fault....it's just some people aren't or won't be able to muster
the stuff to climb that last weight loss hill.

::
:: There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there
:: past 40 or 50 who weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And
:: what about 'master fattie'. Those guys do everything to
:: lose that last little bit and it never comes off.

What is 'master fattie'? Anyway, okay, I don't disagree. But riding a bike
ain't a guarantee of weight loss because it's only of secondary importance
to diet for weight loss. And, I find that riding too much can impair weight
loss because it might cause a person to want to eat too much. Sometimes,
less is more.

"Set" wrote in message

:: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:17:11 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::: "Set" wrote in message
:::
::::: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:49:39 -0500, Ernie Willson
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: I can afford to put about 45 minutes a day into
:::::: recreational riding. This could be 45 minutes in one
:::::: day, 90 minutes every two days, 180 minutes every 4
:::::: days and so on.
::::::
:::::: This being the case, is there an optimum riding
:::::: schedule to maximize weight/fat loss. For example
:::::: would 45 minutes a day be less effective that 90
:::::: minutes every two days etc? How about 315 (45 times
:::::: 7) minutes once each week?
::::::
:::::: TIA, EJ in NJ
:::::
::::: Along with a reasonable diet (no sweets, sugar,
::::: binging), I have to hit above 150miles/week at a
::::: modest tempo (15-17mph avg speed, flat terrain) to
::::: achieve weight loss. Cycling is just not that
::::: strenuous at recreational levels.
:::
::: This is just complete nonsense. Exercise doesn't need
::: to be strenuous to aid in weight loss. All it needs to
::: do is burn calories. The rest has to do with how much
::: you eat in relation to what it takes to maintain
::: current weight. As long as you're not eating too much,
::: one can lose weight on any amount of exercising
::: (including zero). Your problem is you're simply eating
::: too much to achieve weight loss on less riding than
::: that amount. It has little to do with strenuous.
::
:: BTW, you might cite yourself as an excellent example of
:: how hard it is to lose weight cycling. You've been stuck
:: at 230-240lbs for several years and you ride centuries,
:: correct?

More like 225 - 230, but not stuck.

::
:: Why not just lose that additional 40-50lbs and be slim
:: and trim?

Personal choice. For one thing, I'd like too skinny at that weight (though
I'd be faster). For another, I'd have too much extra skin. Remember, I used
to weigh 367 lbs.

The difference here is that I don't claim that cycling is not good for
weight loss because I *choose* not to continue to lose weight. I simply
have been content to stay at my present weight. I don't ride for weight
loss, I ride for enjoyment and health benefits. And I continue to lift.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:29:45 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

"Set" wrote in message

:: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:28:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::::: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what
::::: actually happened to me. I was on a fairly strict LC
::::: diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles per week
::::: just does not result in significant weight loss at my
::::: age, even with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if
::::: it doesn't fit your experience or expectations.
:::
::: Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that
::: to happen you'd have to do with I do. Frankly, I don't
::: think you are and I don't think you really know what it
::: required to lose weight, if you haven't been able to do
::: it using cycling.
::
:: No I'm not riding nearly as much as you, only about 3.5k
:: miles per year, 70-80/week, a bit higher in summer.
::

I don't think how much you ride is really at the issue, however. That's
plenty to achieve weight loss.

Yet it doesn't happen. Believe me, I'm pretty surprised. Again, just
reporting my results.

::: No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will
::: result in weight loss if you eat too much. It doesn't
::: matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not (especially
::: if you aren't counting calories).
::
:: I don't dispute this. What may, in fact, be happening is
:: that there are hidden calories - handful of nuts here,
:: couple of dabs of ketchup there, maybe a few extra
:: glasses of milk. It may be that riding at the level of
:: 100mi/week people tend to slack off their energy
:: expenditure the remainder of the day, rest more, lie on
:: the couch all day Sunday. I don't know. I'm not talking
:: about breaking the laws of physics. I'm just saying that
:: until -I- get up to 150+ miles per week, no matter what
:: I do short of near starvation, I don't start losing
:: appreciable weight. OK?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "near starvation". You can ride way
less than 150+ miles a week and lose weight, without starving. Most people
who lose weight do exactly that.

OK typical eating when doing strict LC is one cup steak cubes for
breakfast, hburger on lettuce for lunch, chicken, burger or fish for
dinner, with one side dish of veggies. No sugar. No obvious carbs. Nada
white carbs. Unlimited drinks. (coffee, milk, unsweetened sodas). Snacks
were handful of nuts, cheese, fried egg. Chocolate milk or replacement
drink in the hour window.

::: The amount of cycling you did,
::: with no mention how much you ate, and what you're
::: requirements are for maintance, lead to the conclusion
::: that you didn't pay attention to the correct variables
::: in the equation, and hence didn't achieve weight loss.
::: Now, you're claiming that cycling isn't strenuous
::: enough to lead to weight loss. Nonsense.
::
:: I also think cycling is much less energy expenditure
:: than most people think, at recreational rider levels.
:: Maybe too much freewheeling?

What are you basing this on? You'll burn about 4000 calories in 100 miles.
That bearly over 1 lb in a week. That's a reasonable about to burn over a
week too, from exercise. Hence, if you eat at maintanence, you should be
able to lose 1 lb a week from riding 100 miles.

You'd think that wouldn't you. Maybe the estimates are too high the loss
too gradual? Like many I probably go impreceptively off plan when losses
aren't too obvious (motivational). Maybe the caloric estimate for cycling
it too high in the books for people 40-50? Maybe being insulin resistant
just makes it too easy to put every unexpended calorie into fat storage in
certain people. I think it's common among overweight, but dedicated
cyclists.

::: I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles,
::: without weight loss. How can this be? I wasn't trying
::: to lose weight. You can't determine weight loss by
::: simply counting exercise.
::
:: Oh give me a break. You'd be jumping for joy if you
:: could lose those last 30lbs. Thing is, even when you get
:: stricter in your diet, you just can't lose it, no matter
:: what you do. You gonna stay tubular for life? ;-)



I think you're bumping up on what people are willing to do to lose weight
rather than what cycling will do. The closer to goal you get the harder it
will be. And, people who tend to carry extra weight do so because they have
a propensity to do so (my personal belief) which then means that for them,
losing those last few pounds may be really, really hard. BUT, that's not
cycling's fault....it's just some people aren't or won't be able to muster
the stuff to climb that last weight loss hill.

Makes sense. Note that even if we do everything the same, the books say
that people gain x% increase in our weight every year after middle age.
(Clearly some people remain rail thin, probably no matter what they eat.
That's got to be the other side of the coin, n'est ce pas). Maybe we're all
victims of our thyroids.

:: There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there
:: past 40 or 50 who weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And
:: what about 'master fattie'. Those guys do everything to
:: lose that last little bit and it never comes off.

What is 'master fattie'? Anyway, okay, I don't disagree. But riding a bike
ain't a guarantee of weight loss because it's only of secondary importance
to diet for weight loss. And, I find that riding too much can impair weight
loss because it might cause a person to want to eat too much. Sometimes,
less is more.

Yeah. Sure. Again, just sayin' for me, I start to lose at a certain level
or distance - multifactorial, feedback loop inhibited, yada, yada. ymmv.

Just as an aside, that gap between riding 80-100 miles per week and riding
150-160 miles per week is a pretty big threshold in more ways than one (at
least for me). Even riding a flat course, I was having to get extra rest
just to be able to cope with ~23 mi/day every day for weeks on end (that's
prob. mostly mental/psychological), whereas 12-15 mi per week is pretty
doable just with normal living.

I've made the jump several times. I've also spend a few weeks only getting
40-50 miles here and there. I'm hoping the trend is upwards, though.

"Set" wrote in message

:: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:29:45 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::: "Set" wrote in message
:::
::::: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:28:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::::: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating
:::::::: what actually happened to me. I was on a fairly
:::::::: strict LC diet at the time. Riding from 80-100
:::::::: miles per week just does not result in significant
:::::::: weight loss at my age, even with a moderately
:::::::: strict LC diet. Sorry if it doesn't fit your
:::::::: experience or expectations.
::::::
:::::: Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that
:::::: to happen you'd have to do with I do. Frankly, I
:::::: don't think you are and I don't think you really
:::::: know what it required to lose weight, if you haven't
:::::: been able to do it using cycling.
:::::
::::: No I'm not riding nearly as much as you, only about
::::: 3.5k miles per year, 70-80/week, a bit higher in
::::: summer.
:::::
:::
::: I don't think how much you ride is really at the issue,
::: however. That's plenty to achieve weight loss.
::
:: Yet it doesn't happen. Believe me, I'm pretty surprised.
:: Again, just reporting my results.
::
:::::: No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will
:::::: result in weight loss if you eat too much. It doesn't
:::::: matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not
:::::: (especially if you aren't counting calories).
:::::
::::: I don't dispute this. What may, in fact, be happening
::::: is that there are hidden calories - handful of nuts
::::: here, couple of dabs of ketchup there, maybe a few
::::: extra glasses of milk. It may be that riding at the
::::: level of 100mi/week people tend to slack off their
::::: energy expenditure the remainder of the day, rest
::::: more, lie on the couch all day Sunday. I don't know.
::::: I'm not talking about breaking the laws of physics.
::::: I'm just saying that until -I- get up to 150+ miles
::::: per week, no matter what I do short of near
::::: starvation, I don't start losing appreciable weight.
::::: OK?
:::
::: I guess it depends on what you mean by "near
::: starvation". You can ride way less than 150+ miles a
::: week and lose weight, without starving. Most people
::: who lose weight do exactly that.
::
:: OK typical eating when doing strict LC is one cup steak
:: cubes for breakfast, hburger on lettuce for lunch,
:: chicken, burger or fish for dinner, with one side dish
:: of veggies.

That doesn't sound like much, I admit. I don't think I'd last long on that.

No sugar. No obvious carbs. Nada white
:: carbs. Unlimited drinks. (coffee, milk, unsweetened
:: sodas). Snacks were handful of nuts, cheese, fried egg.

Now these snacks can be real killers. If you have big hands, a handful of
nuts can have over 200 kcals. Add some cheese and there goes your weight
loss, or at least slows it down a lot so it becomes harder to notice.

:: Chocolate milk or replacement drink in the hour window.

Yeah, gotta recover!

::
:::::: The amount of cycling you did,
:::::: with no mention how much you ate, and what you're
:::::: requirements are for maintance, lead to the
:::::: conclusion that you didn't pay attention to the
:::::: correct variables in the equation, and hence didn't
:::::: achieve weight loss. Now, you're claiming that
:::::: cycling isn't strenuous enough to lead to weight
:::::: loss. Nonsense.
:::::
::::: I also think cycling is much less energy expenditure
::::: than most people think, at recreational rider levels.
::::: Maybe too much freewheeling?
:::
::: What are you basing this on? You'll burn about 4000
::: calories in 100 miles. That bearly over 1 lb in a week.
::: That's a reasonable about to burn over a week too, from
::: exercise. Hence, if you eat at maintanence, you should
::: be able to lose 1 lb a week from riding 100 miles.
::
:: You'd think that wouldn't you. Maybe the estimates are
:: too high the loss too gradual?

Could be. But, as you likely know, slower is better in terms of keeping it
off.

Like many I probably go
:: impreceptively off plan when losses aren't too obvious
:: (motivational). Maybe the caloric estimate for cycling
:: it too high in the books for people 40-50?

Could be, too. Weight lifting is good to help keep the metabolism up,
though.

Maybe being
:: insulin resistant just makes it too easy to put every
:: unexpended calorie into fat storage in certain people. I
:: think it's common among overweight, but dedicated
:: cyclists.

IR can be a real problem. Weight lifting helps there too.

::
:::::: I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles,
:::::: without weight loss. How can this be? I wasn't
:::::: trying to lose weight. You can't determine weight
:::::: loss by simply counting exercise.
:::::
::::: Oh give me a break. You'd be jumping for joy if you
::::: could lose those last 30lbs. Thing is, even when you
::::: get stricter in your diet, you just can't lose it, no
::::: matter what you do. You gonna stay tubular for life?
::::: ;-)
:::
:::
:::
::: I think you're bumping up on what people are willing to
::: do to lose weight rather than what cycling will do. The
::: closer to goal you get the harder it will be. And,
::: people who tend to carry extra weight do so because
::: they have a propensity to do so (my personal belief)
::: which then means that for them, losing those last few
::: pounds may be really, really hard. BUT, that's not
::: cycling's fault....it's just some people aren't or
::: won't be able to muster the stuff to climb that last
::: weight loss hill.
::
:: Makes sense. Note that even if we do everything the
:: same, the books say that people gain x% increase in our
:: weight every year after middle age. (Clearly some people
:: remain rail thin, probably no matter what they eat.
:: That's got to be the other side of the coin, n'est ce
:: pas). Maybe we're all victims of our thyroids.

Perhaps. But going by books that sample everyday people who are couch
potatoes probably ain't a good idea. Personally, I don't sweat this too
much, as long as I'm doing what I want to do and feel good doing it. If I
were 25, I might have different notions.

::
::::: There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there
::::: past 40 or 50 who weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And
::::: what about 'master fattie'. Those guys do everything
::::: to lose that last little bit and it never comes off.
:::
::: What is 'master fattie'? Anyway, okay, I don't
::: disagree. But riding a bike ain't a guarantee of weight
::: loss because it's only of secondary importance to diet
::: for weight loss. And, I find that riding too much can
::: impair weight loss because it might cause a person to
::: want to eat too much. Sometimes, less is more.
::
:: Yeah. Sure. Again, just sayin' for me, I start to lose
:: at a certain level or distance - multifactorial,
:: feedback loop inhibited, yada, yada. ymmv.
::
:: Just as an aside, that gap between riding 80-100 miles
:: per week and riding 150-160 miles per week is a pretty
:: big threshold in more ways than one (at least for me).

Me too. I can do 80-100 on the weekends alone...but I need to ride weekdays
in the evening to get to 150. That's just the way it's going to be for me.
I'm good with that level too. I only get that in the summer, though. I could
do more, but then it would be like working!

:: Even riding a flat course, I was having to get extra
:: rest just to be able to cope with ~23 mi/day every day
:: for weeks on end (that's prob. mostly
:: mental/psychological), whereas 12-15 mi per week is
:: pretty doable just with normal living.

All that riding makes you rest well, right?

::
:: I've made the jump several times. I've also spend a few
:: weeks only getting 40-50 miles here and there. I'm
:: hoping the trend is upwards, though.

Yeah, I think it happens for everyone. I spent some portion of the year
traveling, so I took a hit on the miles. That's what life is about --
adapting to the situation.

"Set" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:28:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

:: You might think that Roger, but I'm just relating what
:: actually happened to me. I was on a fairly strict LC
:: diet at the time. Riding from 80-100 miles per week just
:: does not result in significant weight loss at my age,
:: even with a moderately strict LC diet. Sorry if it
:: doesn't fit your experience or expectations.

Doesn't meet my experience or expectations? For that to happen you'd
have
to do with I do. Frankly, I don't think you are and I don't think you
really know what it required to lose weight, if you haven't been able to
do
it using cycling.

No I'm not riding nearly as much as you, only about 3.5k miles per year,
70-80/week, a bit higher in summer.

No amount of exercise, cycling or otherwise, will result in weight loss
if
you eat too much. It doesn't matter if you're on a strict LC diet or not
(especially if you aren't counting calories).

I don't dispute this. What may, in fact, be happening is that there are
hidden calories - handful of nuts here, couple of dabs of ketchup there,
maybe a few extra glasses of milk. It may be that riding at the level of
100mi/week people tend to slack off their energy expenditure the remainder
of the day, rest more, lie on the couch all day Sunday. I don't know. I'm
not talking about breaking the laws of physics. I'm just saying that until
-I- get up to 150+ miles per week, no matter what I do short of near
starvation, I don't start losing appreciable weight. OK?

The amount of cycling you did,
with no mention how much you ate, and what you're requirements are for
maintance, lead to the conclusion that you didn't pay attention to the
correct variables in the equation, and hence didn't achieve weight loss.
Now, you're claiming that cycling isn't strenuous enough to lead to
weight
loss. Nonsense.

I also think cycling is much less energy expenditure than most people
think, at recreational rider levels. Maybe too much freewheeling?

Say what?? Cycling is an *excellent* way to burn calories! The rule of
thumb is about 40 calories per mile. And, unlike running or swimming, with
cycling you can keep going for hours...it's a whole lot easier to burn 2000
calories on the bike (by riding 50 miles) than it is by running (which would
require about a 20 mile run).


I regularly ride (during season) 125 to 150 miles, without weight loss.
How
can this be? I wasn't trying to lose weight. You can't determine weight
loss by simply counting exercise.

Oh give me a break. You'd be jumping for joy if you could lose those last
30lbs. Thing is, even when you get stricter in your diet, you just can't
lose it, no matter what you do. You gonna stay tubular for life? ;-)

Of course you can lose it...nobody is immune to the laws of thermodynamics.


There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there past 40 or 50 who
weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And what about 'master fattie'. Those guys
do everything to lose that last little bit and it never comes off.

They may be "dedicated riders", but if they weight that much then they're
also "dedicated eaters".

It just goes to show how easy it is to subvert a good exercise program with
a few poor food choices each week.

FWIW, I just turned 54 years old, and average about 90 miles per week year
round. At one time, I too was nearly 200 lbs. But, then I got serious
about exercise, and watching what I shoved into my pie hole. And for the
last few years, I've averaged 168 lbs (and I'm 6' tall). It's not rocket
science.

GG

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:24:41 -0800, "GaryG"
wrote:

Of course you can lose it...nobody is immune to the laws of thermodynamics.


There are a -lot- of pretty dedicated riders out there past 40 or 50 who
weigh in excess of 200-225lbs. And what about 'master fattie'. Those guys
do everything to lose that last little bit and it never comes off.

They may be "dedicated riders", but if they weight that much then they're
also "dedicated eaters".

It just goes to show how easy it is to subvert a good exercise program with
a few poor food choices each week.

FWIW, I just turned 54 years old, and average about 90 miles per week year
round. At one time, I too was nearly 200 lbs. But, then I got serious
about exercise, and watching what I shoved into my pie hole. And for the
last few years, I've averaged 168 lbs (and I'm 6' tall). It's not rocket
science.

GG

You are an exception. The number of people who can lose weight and keep it
off for five years is -extremely- small. In addition if you do the same
exercise and diet each year you'll gradually gain weight, so each year
requires more strictness.

Good job, though!

Set wrote:
SNIP
OK typical eating when doing strict LC is one cup steak cubes for
breakfast, hburger on lettuce for lunch, chicken, burger or fish for
dinner, with one side dish of veggies. No sugar. No obvious carbs. Nada
white carbs. Unlimited drinks. (coffee, milk, unsweetened sodas). Snacks
were handful of nuts, cheese, fried egg. Chocolate milk or replacement
drink in the hour window.
SNIP
Dear Set:
You are aware an eight ounce glass of milik contains about 12 grams
of carbohydrate, aren't you?

Robert Leone