#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave B." wrote ... I am somewhat afraid of posting this because I just read 30 minutes of posts that tore people to shreads regarding their size but hopefully 1 person that knows something will respond. I started this year at about 500 pounds and right now am about to break the 400 pound mark. I would like to get a bike but am not sure exactly what I should look for. I thought that a recumbent really looked like the bike for me (except for the price) and then I have recently seen these comfort bikes. Are there bikes that out there that can safely support my weight? and if so, why type of frame etc should I be looking at? Thanks in advance, Dave Rivendell Bicycle Works (www.rivendellbicycles.com) recently did an article in their magazine (the Rivendell Reader) describing a bicycle built for riders in your weight class. Extra strong steel frame, wide tires, high spoke count wheels, etc. The cost of the bicycle was something around $3000, due to the small production volume anticipated, and due to the high quality/high strength components used. The article proposed that these bikes be bought by weight loss groups, to be used by one person until he/she was light enough to ride a more conventional bicycle and then passed on to the next person. I think they handed the idea over to Co-Motion. A more affordable approach would be to find a 1980s steel framed mountain bike with no suspension and 36 spoke wheels at a thrift store/used sporting goods store, true and/or rebuild the wheels and put on the biggest slick tires that will fit. The low standover height of a mountain bike would make mounting and dismounting easier than on a full size road or touring bike, and the 26" wheels would not be as prone to spoke breakage as a 700C or 27" wheel. If you found yourself breaking too many spokes you could switch to a 40 or 48 spoke tandem wheel. -- mark |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Chuck wrote:
On 2005-06-24, The Wogster wrote: C.J.Patten wrote: "The Wogster" wrote in message . com... snip Weight is a simple formula, Energy-In - Energy Out = Weight-Change. If you take in 1000 calories (Energy-In), and sit in front of the idiot box for four hours, burning 100 Calories, then Weight Change = 900 Calories, so you gain weight. If you take in the same 1000 Calories, and go ride your bike up big-ass hill, burning off 1900 Calories, then Weight-Change = -900 so you lose weight. snip Agreed with all you were saying. The *encouraging* thing is the changes that need to be made to lose weight are comparatively small! Cutting 500 calories a day from most people's diet isn't that difficult. A can of pop is 100+ calories, a chocolate bar is 250ish... there's 350 right there! A few slices of cheese puts that over 500. A few *small* changes, turning them into habits and you end up with a healthy lifestyle. I'm speaking from personal experience here. Last month I was 260lbs. I'm now down to 248lbs. YAY! 8D Congrats. A good thing to do is target, maybe that double century ride the local bike club does every summer, target it for next year. That means you need to be start training, now. Cycling at 10MPH burns around 26 calories per mile (150lb rider), the heavier the rider, the more calories burned. The faster the rider, the more calories burned. Each pound is 3500 Calories, so you need to find the balance point, at what point does Energy-In equal Energy-Out, it's different for everyone. I was wondering when somebody was going to mention that. Back when I had Graves disease, I'd eat 6000+ calories/day and still lose weight whether or not I would exercise. Fortunately, decreased performance helped me in seeking treatment. Even though I'm cured of the Graves, between biking and running I find it hard to keep my weight up. I like the idea of being fit, but not have pencil thin arms and flat chest with huge legs. Crosstraining is the key. For me, the average week of 175 miles biking, 25 miles running, 6hrs, weighlifting, allows me to gorge like a pig on whatever I feel like having. You need to eat more, stuff that is carb rich, but still good for you. Diabetics need to avoid carbs, so a good book on diabetic eating might help, just invert the advice, a diabetic needs to avoid starches and sugars, sugars are often bad, but a small steak with a good pile of potatoes and carrots would do nicely, just you can probably have the butter, that C.J. and I need to skip...... Then intentionally balance to the negative, so that energy-in is less then energy-out. That could mean that you can have the burger with the works, and no desert, or have the salad with no dressing, and the pie. Or have the burger and the pie, followed by a 100 mile bike ride, all up hill...... At some point, you decide to have the salad with no dressing, skip the pie, then do part of the bike ride anyway. It's a good idea when the goal is to lose weight, or recovering from injury. The injury thing is scary because once you get used to eating a certain way and then take away the exercise the results could be bad. Where it gets difficult is like here, it's easy to log 200 miles a week, when temps are over 25C, and the sun is up until 9PM, it's a little harder to do when the temp is -17C and the sun makes a brief appearance for a few hours when everyone is at work...... Often you have to the same as bears but in reverse, you actually gain a few pounds in the winter that you work off in the summer. Mind you a good winter excersize is snowshoeing, you just need to dress right for it. W |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Wogster!
You're going to be surprised at this, but the establishment (American Diabetes Association) "diet" for people with diabetes (www.diabetes.org) is a high carbohydrate diet! There are two basic reasons for this. The first is that the ADA is freaked out about the damage "fats" (remember, this goes back decades) could do to cardiovascular health (about two thirds of people with diabetes die of cardiovascular disease, including strokes), and about the damage high-protein could do to already-damaged kidneys. The other reason for the "high carbohydrate" diet for people with diabetes is that while the poroportions of carbohydrate are high, it's low in the actual amount of food. I ought to mention now this particular field is very, very, very controversial. Notable contrarians include Dr. Richard K. Bernstein, a diabetes specialist who has type 1 (the autoimmunte system seeks out and destroys the cells that produce insulin -- type 1), who recommends an exceedingly low carbohydrate diet. A fair proportion of the posters on alt.support.diabetes also prefer low carbohydrate diets. And those that like high carbs often select carbohydrates that digest or affect blood glucose very, very slowly. The shocking part is that most of this dispute is carried on the level of theory, not on studies. My favorite very recent study came from the University of Sydney -- four cohorts of overweight college student were free to eat as much as they wanted of specific diets, a 55% carb, 15% Protein, 30% fat regular glycemic index diet, the same with low glycemic index foods, and similar diets with the proportions of 40% carb, 25% protein, 30% fats. The percentage is based on energy value (calories) form foods. After 3 months, ALL groups had lost weight. Admittedly, the regular glycemic index high carb group has lost the least amount of weight, by a margin of about 1.5 pounds, but if these people had eaten as much food in their previous lives as they had during the study period, when they were free to eat as much as they wanted, they wouldn't have been able to be IN the study because they wouldn't have been overweight.... You'd think this is pretty dumb, after all food isn't rocket science. I'm beginning to think food is a lot harder than rocket science. Especially when you get into the "your mileage may vary" stuff. Some folks just can't take carrots, for example. The Wogster wrote: SNIP You need to eat more, stuff that is carb rich, but still good for you. Diabetics need to avoid carbs, so a good book on diabetic eating might help, just invert the advice, a diabetic needs to avoid starches and sugars, sugars are often bad, but a small steak with a good pile of potatoes and carrots would do nicely, just you can probably have the butter, that C.J. and I need to skip...... SNIP W |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:05:43 -0400, The Wogster
wrote: type 2 diabetes are on the rise. Sure there are school sports, but most of those are aimed towards jocks. There are very few P-E programs aimed towards ordinary students. I'm not sure if you're still talking about the US or Canada when you say this. In my area of the US (eastern Washington state), PE is still a very much required course for youngsters through the 10th grade (about age 15). I do agree with the sentiment that, in general, most kids do not get enough excercise. When I was in school, in the late 1960s and 1970's, if you lived less then a mile from school, you walked, if you were over a mile and less then 10, you rode a bike, more then 10, you got bused. Safety is a concern in many places. Places that were safe to walk and bike in when we were kids may no longer be safe. My kids did a lot more walking and biking before they reached driving age; they could use a bit more biking and a bit less driving at this point (as can I....that's why I'm biking more!) Lauri in WA I like my email spamless |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Lauri wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:05:43 -0400, The Wogster wrote: type 2 diabetes are on the rise. Sure there are school sports, but most of those are aimed towards jocks. There are very few P-E programs aimed towards ordinary students. I'm not sure if you're still talking about the US or Canada when you say this. In my area of the US (eastern Washington state), PE is still a very much required course for youngsters through the 10th grade (about age 15). I do agree with the sentiment that, in general, most kids do not get enough excercise. I can remember such wonderful sports as "power bench warming", but I also recall sports like cross-country skiing, cycling and square dancing. When I was in school, in the late 1960s and 1970's, if you lived less then a mile from school, you walked, if you were over a mile and less then 10, you rode a bike, more then 10, you got bused. Safety is a concern in many places. Places that were safe to walk and bike in when we were kids may no longer be safe. My kids did a lot more walking and biking before they reached driving age; they could use a bit more biking and a bit less driving at this point (as can I....that's why I'm biking more!) I was 24, before I bought my first car, up until then biking, walking and buses worked amazingly well. However there are plenty of other issues, for example new housing. Why do they build suburban housing so that the only way to get anywhere is by car. They can't even run public transit because the density is too low to make sense. W |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:10:16 +0000, Chrono-Z wrote:
I'm a rather large man myself. I started a few months ago at 400 pounds and am now down to 350 thanks to cycling. I had good luck with a Trek 820ST. Granted it doesn't have the nicest componets, but the beefy steel frame seemed to have no problem supporting my girth. How's the suspension fork holding up? I suspect that the OP might want to have such a thing replaced by a rigid replacement fork, such as the inexpensive cromo one by Surly, to avoid hassles. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Autofaq now on faster server | Simon Brooke | UK | 216 | April 1st 05 10:09 AM |
Some questions etc.. | Douglas Harrington | General | 10 | August 17th 04 02:42 AM |
Duct Tape reduces vibration! | Wayne Pein | Techniques | 22 | April 29th 04 11:35 PM |
First road bike: braking? | Alan Hoyle | General | 47 | September 28th 03 11:40 PM |
FAQ | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 27 | September 5th 03 10:58 PM |