What type of bike?

"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

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

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

wrote:
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.


My wife is a type-2, it really comes down to what affects blood sugar
levels, in Canada and many metric countries they use different numbers
then in the US which seems hell bent on sticking to the old "english"
system, that even England is in the process of abandoning.

In Canada you need a number between 5 and 7, if you can eat lots of
carbs, and still not exceed 7 for a period of time, then that's fine.

The real issue, for type-2 is weight, most type-2's are overweight, and
it's proven that by reducing that weight, there are fewer instances of
high blood sugar counts. Mind you, the fastest way to turn a 12 into a
6, is to go for a 2 mile walk, or a ride up that really ugly hill, that
leaves you wondering if the granny gears are low enough.

You need some fats, and you need some carbs just to survive, the ideal
though is to balance them in moderation. And to use activity to enhance
the process. A long distance cyclist or hiker can often intake a lot
of calories, and lose weight, because they are burning a lot too.

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

Type 1 is the result of low insulin amounts, Type 2 is being unable to
make insulin work, they are very different diseases, unfortunately the
results are often the same. Excersize makes the available insulin for a
type 2 work better.

Saw a show on CBC this morning about fat kids in the US, you wonder, the
kid eats crap, gets an SUV ride to school in the morning, is in school
at a desk all day, and gets an SUV ride home in the afternoon, to sit in
front of the idiot box all evening. And they wonder why obesity and
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.

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.

W

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

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

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.