# Why no weight loss?



## Libby (27 Jul 2011)

I am just getting into cycling. Until 12 months ago I was a fitness instructor but since then I have changed to an office job and going from doing 2 - 4 hours exercise a day to siiting for 8 hours a day has meant weight gain (about 10kg) :-(

I started cycling 3 weeks ago and in that time I have done just over 380 miles. I use a heart rate monitor and am burning off a minimum of 6000 calories a week with cycling and gym work (I still do some weights and teach 1 spin class a week) and am watching what I eat (1600 cals a day in the week, 2000 a day at the weekend).

So far I have lost a big fat 0kg. Am I just being impatient or still eating too much? I am really enjoying the cycling though and do feel as though my fitness is improving again but need to lose weight!


----------



## tyred (27 Jul 2011)

It's possible you are over-rating the calories used by cycling.

It also takes time for these things to happen and there may be a bit of muscle gain and muscle is more dense than fat. Do you notice any difference in the fit of your trousers?


----------



## JiMBR (27 Jul 2011)

Give it time....I'm sure you'll find that the fat loss will kick-in.

Just keep doing what you're doing.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

As has been said Muscle is more dense than fat hence apparent weight status quo. Measure your vital stats and as if they chance. I have dropped two trouser sizes since January,


----------



## Libby (27 Jul 2011)

I'm used to the whole muscle weighing heavier than fat thing and have been trying to focus more on clothes fitting etc. But there doesn't seem to be much difference there either. In the past when I have needed to lose weight I trained about the same amount as I am now in terms of calories and was still losing at least 1kg a week. In reply to the over-rating the calories burned, my heart rate monitor is set up for me and has always been pretty accurate. For example last night I did a 33 mile ride, which took 2 hours 13 (1 hour 54 for the first 30 miles then really chilled for the last 3) Average HR was 140 and cals burned was 1410. I thought this seemed about right but let me know if you think differently?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

Libby said:


> I'm used to the whole muscle _*being denser*_ than fat thing and have been trying to focus more on clothes fitting etc. But there doesn't seem to be much difference there either. In the past when I have needed to lose weight I trained about the same amount as I am now in terms of calories and was still losing at least 1kg a week. In reply to the over-rating the calories burned, my heart rate monitor is set up for me and has always been pretty accurate. For example last night I did a 33 mile ride, which took 2 hours 13 (1 hour 54 for the first 30 miles then really chilled for the last 3) Average HR was 140 and cals burned was 1410. I thought this seemed about right but let me know if you think differently?



FTFY 

Maybe you have plateaued. You could be at your ideal size and weight and the calorific intake and exercise are balanced perfectly. Just a thought.


----------



## endoman (27 Jul 2011)

You can't turn an oil tanker round on a sixpence. You've stopped gaining weight so that's good. 

Report back in another month and I bet a few k's will have gone.


----------



## Becs (27 Jul 2011)

Sounds quite high to me. I started a thread a while ago about calorie counting on "my fitness pal" and the general consensus was that most of these things, HR monitors included, over estimate wildly. If I remember rightly a rule of thumb of 20-40 calories a mile was suggested (depending on your weight) for moderate paced cycling. I've not used a HR monitor but I tend to work on about 300 calories an hour unless I'm beasting it! (successful weightloss so far - but then I've also temporarily given up booze!


----------



## ColinJ (27 Jul 2011)

Becs said:


> If I remember rightly a rule of thumb of 20-40 calories a mile was suggested (depending on your weight) for moderate paced cycling.


That fits in with my experience. I burn about a pound of fat per 100 miles. 1 pound of fat = 3,500 cals, so 100 miles ~= 3,500 cals; 1 mile ~= 35 cals net loss for me at this weight. 

That is on long rides where I eat and drink a lot so I am actually making up for some of the calories burned. I probably take in 2,000 cals on a century ride so I reckon I actually burn more like 55 cals a mile, but I'm pretty big and most of my rides are hilly so I reckon 20-40 cals/mile would be in the right ballpark for smaller riders on flatter rides.


----------



## Friz (27 Jul 2011)

even if the figures are correct:


1600 x 5 = 8000

2000 x 2 = 4000

that's an intake of 12000 calories per week.

and you reckon you burn 6000 calories per week. That leaves a 6000 calorie credit per week. What's the average body burn when not working out?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

Friz said:


> even if the figures are correct:
> 
> 
> 1600 x 5 = 8000
> ...



(10 x weight) + (6.25 x height) - (5 x age) - 161 gives average calories burned in a 24 hour period if at rest.


----------



## LosingFocus (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> (10 x weight) + (6.25 x height) - (5 x age) - 161 gives average calories burned in a 24 hour period if at rest.



lbs or kg? cm or inches? years or days?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

LosingFocus said:


> lbs or kg? cm or inches? years or days?



10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) - 161.


----------



## Libby (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> (10 x weight) + (6.25 x height) - (5 x age) - 161 gives average calories burned in a 24 hour period if at rest.
> 
> 
> That would give me 1480 cals a day if at rest so I should be doing enough really. Def not at natural weight, as although I have always weighed fairly heavy (at my best I was 70kg but 20% body fat which is ok for a female) but I'm up at 79kg now which is far too heavy for me - and nothing fits!


----------



## Friz (27 Jul 2011)

Jeez you were serious...


One of these days I'll try and figure that out (no idea how much I weigh or how tall I am).



To the OP. Three weeks is still early days. Even with the previous experience in the gym your body is still learning a new way to cope with what you are doing now. Took me about 6 to 8 weeks before I noticed a difference. But after that the difference was drastic.


The Unislim brigade at work have noticed it too and they are none too pleased about it....


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> (10 x weight) + (6.25 x height) - (5 x age) - 161 gives average calories burned in a 24 hour period if at rest.
> 
> 
> That would give me 1480 cals a day if at rest so I should be doing enough really. Def not at natural weight, as although I have always weighed fairly heavy (at my best I was 70kg but 20% body fat which is ok for a female) but I'm up at 79kg now which is far too heavy for me - and nothing fits!



May I ask how tall you are?

Also as was just said three weeks in nothing. Give your body time to adjust to the new regime. I reckon you will notice a difference in a few months.


----------



## Libby (27 Jul 2011)

I'm 165cm (otherwise known as tubby shortass) :-) Thanks. cos I think you are all probably right about giving it time. I think I'm just having a bad day cos my legs are tired and I'm tired and I still want to cycle at least another 75 miles this week.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

Libby said:


> I'm 165cm (otherwise known as tubby shortass) :-) Thanks. cos I think you are all probably right about giving it time. I think I'm just having a bad day cos my legs are tired and I'm tired and I still want to cycle at least another 75 miles this week.



 I know that feeling. My training has taken a blow due to a re-occurrence of my insomnia. I cannot trust myself on a bike with only a few hours of sleep over the past 4 days


----------



## srw (27 Jul 2011)

You eat 10,000 calories a week. About 14,000 are needed for general body maintenance allowing for some weight loss (based on a conservative 2,000 calorie per day requirement). A further 6,000 are needed for your exercise routine. That gives you an enormous calorie deficit of 10,000 calories a week, or 1400 per day.

Is your body rather confused? Perhaps it thinks you're being starved and wants you to eat more. Until you do you may not be able to lose weight. The rule of thumb I've heard is that you should target a (very) few hundred calories per day as a calorie deficit.


----------



## srw (27 Jul 2011)

Libby said:


> I'm 165cm (otherwise known as tubby shortass) :-) Thanks. cos I think you are all probably right about giving it time. I think I'm just having a bad day cos *my legs are tired and I'm tired* and I still want to cycle at least another 75 miles this week.



That's exactly what I felt when I was running a very big calorie deficit and not losing weight. I upped my food intake and started feeling better and losing weight.

I then started eating too much again - but that's another story.


----------



## Libby (27 Jul 2011)

srw said:


> That's exactly what I felt when I was running a very big calorie deficit and not losing weight. I upped my food intake and started feeling better and losing weight.
> 
> I then started eating too much again - but that's another story.



I know what you mean. my weight has been a battle for the last 6 years. I initially lost 6 stone which was the easy bit but it's been keeping it off that's hard! I was ok until 2 years ago when a back injury put an end to running and most of the aerobic classes I was teaching and since then I have struggled even more.


Thankfully cycling is ok for my back but finding the right food balance is tough - and I am aware that it's a big calory deficit but that's always the way it's had to be for me to lose weight. I should really stop moaning and be happy that I have found an exercise that I can do without hurting my back and just hope that the weight loss will follow.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

Libby said:


> I know what you mean. my weight has been a battle for the last 6 years. I initially lost 6 stone which was the easy bit but it's been keeping it off that's hard! I was ok until 2 years ago when a back injury put an end to running and most of the aerobic classes I was teaching and since then I have struggled even more.
> 
> 
> Thankfully cycling is ok for my back but finding the right food balance is tough - and I am aware that it's a big calory deficit but that's always the way it's had to be for me to lose weight. I should really stop moaning and _*be happy that I have found an exercise that I can do without hurting my back and just hope that the weight loss will follow.*_



I have highlighted the most important bit of your post


----------



## LosingFocus (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) - 161.



2485 cal per day doing nothing... Ive done this wrong I think.

10*173 + 6.25*173 - 5*33 - 161


----------



## endoman (27 Jul 2011)

LosingFocus said:


> 2485 cal per day doing nothing... Ive done this wrong I think.
> 
> 10*173 + 6.25*173 - 5*33 - 161




you weigh 173 kilos?


----------



## Fiona N (27 Jul 2011)

Libby said:


> ...
> So far I have lost a big fat 0kg.
> ....



Sadly I think it's a function of being fit and a woman  

I get really jealous of these people who post on here and say 'I took up cycling 4 months ago and have been commuting 10 miles every day - loving it and I've lost 3 stones in weight'  I watch in wonder on training camps as fellow (male, usually) cyclists visibly lose weight while stuffing their faces every night at dinner while I have a piece of fish and a plate of salad and lose not weight in 2 weeks.

This Spring, I've done the Audax qualifying rides over March - June for the Paris-Brest-Paris event. This means half a dozen 200km, 300km, 400km and 600km rides - not to mention rides during the week and on my own at weekends - and, despite watching what I eat (and drink), I have also lost 0kg. 

I think the problem is that if you're fit and used to doing a lot of exercise over the long-term, your body becomes very efficient so you don't get the sudden weight loss that newbie exercisers get and you also have to work very hard to lose weight you gained as you reduced your exercise. 

So I'm afraid I don't have much joy for you and, if you find the answer, will you let me know. Since I started working from home 10 years ago, thus no daily commute, I've put on about 3 stones  Hasn't stopped me cycling but the hills are humungous now


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

LosingFocus said:


> 2485 cal per day doing nothing... Ive done this wrong I think.
> 
> 10*173 + 6.25*173 - 5*33 - 161



Same result - If you are 27 stone


----------



## Fiona N (27 Jul 2011)

srw said:


> You eat 10,000 calories a week. About 14,000 are needed for general body maintenance allowing for some weight loss (*based on a conservative 2,000 calorie per day requirement*).



That's not conservative - for a smallish female, BMR is close to 1500 kcals per day, as per Angelfish's (?) formula


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

Fiona N said:


> That's not conservative - for a smallish female, BMR is close to 1500 kcals per day, as per Angelfish's (?) formula



Not my formula - The credit for that goes to Mifflin-St Jeor see http://www.freedieting.com/calorie_needs.html


----------



## Friz (27 Jul 2011)

All these maths are making me hungry...


----------



## amaferanga (27 Jul 2011)

So you consume around 12,000 kcal per week. It can be hard to know exactly how many calories you consume and things do get forgotten so lets assume that could be an underestimate of 10-15%. So you maybe actually consume close to 14,000 kcal.

Now your BMR is probably about 1500 kcal/day so you need at least 10,500 kcal a week.

Your calorie estimate from your HRM sounds like its massively over - you may only be burning about 3000 kcal a week or less even.

So it could be that you're not actually running a calories deficit at all!


EDITED TO CORRECT MATHS FAIL


----------



## ColinJ (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> (10 x weight[kg]) + (6.25 x height[cm]) - (5 x age[years]) - 161 gives average calories burned in a 24 hour period if at rest.


For women. It's supposed to be (10 x weight[kg]) + (6.25 x height[cm]) - (5 x age[years]) + 5 for men. 

That takes into account the typically larger muscle mass of men but it must vary a lot according to how lean or fat you are? The daily energy needs of a 100 kg bodybuilder are surely very different to a 100 kg fat person (me!)?

I'm not sure why age is factored in. Why would a 60 year old use fewer calories to stay alive than an equally fit, identically sized 40 year old? I suppose that cells are not being repaired or replaced as quickly when you are older.

Anyway - according to the calculation, I need about 1,900 calories a day to just sit around accessing CycleChat!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

ColinJ said:


> For women. It's supposed to be (10 x weight[kg]) + (6.25 x height[cm]) - (5 x age[years]) + 5 for men.
> 
> That takes into account the typically larger muscle mass of men but it must vary a lot according to how lean or fat you are? The daily energy needs of a 100 kg bodybuilder are surely very different to a 100 kg fat person (me!)?
> 
> ...



I think you have answered your extremely valid question.


----------



## LosingFocus (27 Jul 2011)

LosingFocus said:


> 2485 cal per day doing nothing... Ive done this wrong I think.
> 
> 10*173 + 6.25*173 - 5*33 - 161





endoman said:


> you weigh 173 kilos?






Angelfishsolo said:


> Same result - If you are 27 stone



Fail. 173lbs.


----------



## lulubel (27 Jul 2011)

Let's go back to your first post. I'll assume the calories burned figures from your HRM are correct. I cycle around 100 miles a week, and burn over 4000 cals from cycling alone, so they look pretty close to my figures, considering the other exercise you do.



Libby said:


> I started cycling 3 weeks ago and in that time I have done just over 380 miles. I use a heart rate monitor and am burning off a minimum of 6000 calories a week with cycling and gym work (I still do some weights and teach 1 spin class a week) and am watching what I eat (1600 cals a day in the week, 2000 a day at the weekend).



You are consuming (1600*5) + (2000*2) = 12000 calories a week.
You are burning 6000 calories a week.
That leaves you 6000 calories a week to cover your BMR needs and general life. That's 857 calories a day, and is far too low.

If you've been eating significantly under maintenance level for some time (and at a rough guess for your height and weight, maintenance should be around 1900 calories before adding any calories burned through exercise) I would say your body is in starvation mode, and that's why you're not losing weight.

The fact that you also said you're tired and your legs are tired suggests to me that you're not eating enough for the amount of exercise you're doing (unless you know of another explanation, like not getting enough sleep).

For the sake of comparison, I'm 5ft3, 9 stone, burn around 4-5000 calories a week, and eat around 14-15,000 a week (leaving me with a balance of 10,000 or 1428 a day), and I'm losing about half a pound a week.


----------



## Klaus (27 Jul 2011)

I started cycling again in early 2010, weighing 85 KG (male - 5'8") - I do regular weekend trips plus occasional short rides during the week. Last month I was down to 84 kg - I am now back to 85 .... didn't really go into it for the weight loss, but I am feeling much fitter now.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

LosingFocus said:


> Fail. 173lbs.



Fail! The equation calls for weight in Kg - 173kg = 27.2428367stone


----------



## amaferanga (27 Jul 2011)

lulubel said:


> Let's go back to your first post. I'll assume the calories burned figures from your HRM are correct. I cycle around 100 miles a week, and burn over 4000 cals from cycling alone, so they look pretty close to my figures, considering the other exercise you do.



Just because the calories burned figure is similar to yours doesn't make it right! 

Almost all HRM based calorie ESTIMATES are probably at best +/-50%.


----------



## Crackle (27 Jul 2011)

What about food types? For me, wheat. Eat weight = no weight loss. Spaghetti is OK sometimes.


----------



## lulubel (27 Jul 2011)

amaferanga said:


> Just because the calories burned figure is similar to yours doesn't make it right!



And why would that be exactly? I burn around 40 calories a mile, riding in a hilly area. Libby's heavier and slightly taller than me, so even if she's riding in a less hilly area, chances are she's burning the same or more calories per mile, which means her HRM is probably pretty accurate.

However, I do understand your point about HRMs. Many of the cycling computers or GPS devices that include a HRM don't even use heart rate to calculate cals burned - they just use distance and speed.


----------



## Libby (27 Jul 2011)

Crackle said:


> What about food types? For me, wheat. Eat weight = no weight loss. Spaghetti is OK sometimes.




I do have to be careful about food types. I'll have carbs for breakfast (1 or 2 slices of toast), baked potato with beans for lunch and then if I am training in the evening either another slice of bread or 2 rice cakes as soon as I get home and then chicken/fish with salad or veg for dinner. (So in other words limited bread and no carbs after 6 in the evening). If anyone is thinking the calories don't add up, I allow for milk in my coffee and fruit as snacks).


----------



## Crackle (27 Jul 2011)

Libby said:


> I do have to be careful about food types. I'll have carbs for breakfast (1 or 2 slices of toast), baked potato with beans for lunch and then if I am training in the evening either another slice of bread or 2 rice cakes as soon as I get home and then chicken/fish with salad or veg for dinner. (So in other words limited bread and no carbs after 6 in the evening). If anyone is thinking the calories don't add up, I allow for milk in my coffee and fruit as snacks).



Not a lot there really. I have fruit and yoghurt for breakfast and soup (normally homemade) for lunch. I think that much toast and potato everyday would be detrimental to me losing weight. If I need something chunkier for lunch I'll have humus and cucumber. It just seems to be certain carbs which my body doesn't process. Rice is OK for me.


----------



## subaqua (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> As has been said Muscle is more dense than fat hence apparent weight status quo. Measure your vital stats and as if they chance. I have dropped two trouser sizes since January,




agreed . I have hit a plateau as far as losing weight is concerned but my trouser size has shrunk again . have gone from tight 42" trousers to 36" being loose and needing a belt  . 

wife says my legs look damn fine and my backside is better than it ever was. I can cope with staying at 107 Kg if it means i have a waist that small ( I am 6' 2" or 188cm ) and screw whether the chart says i am still obese ! ha


----------



## Becs (27 Jul 2011)

Fiona N said:


> Sadly I think it's a function of being fit and a woman
> 
> I get really jealous of these people who post on here and say 'I took up cycling 4 months ago and have been commuting 10 miles every day - loving it and I've lost 3 stones in weight'  I watch in wonder on training camps as fellow (male, usually) cyclists visibly lose weight while stuffing their faces every night at dinner while I have a piece of fish and a plate of salad and lose not weight in 2 weeks.
> 
> ...



This makes sense, and illustrated by my lab group. The 2 girls that are super fit (one a lot fitter than she looks) find it very hard to lose anything while the less fit types (myself included) can lose 2 -3 pounds a week with careful eating an a bit of exercise ( up to 7 in the first week of "being good"). I also find that while I can cycle 60 to 70 miles at a reasonable pace (14 ish mph) I struggle to jog 5k. When I just cycle I don't lose any where near as much weight as when I jog 2 or 3 times a week, maybe because I'm less adapted to it perhaps?

I also find that reducing (not cutting out - that would be silly) the carbs makes a massive difference for me, even if the total calorie intake stays the same.


----------



## Libby (28 Jul 2011)

I think there is definitely something in finding it hard to lose weight when you are reasonably fit. In terms of where I want to be I would not describe myself as fit, but then I am not that bad - I am cycling over 100 miles a week at a mix of paces (on a comfortable ride I am averagng over 15mph). So although I am overweight, my fitness isn't too bad so I guess it will be harder for me to lose weight than someone who has gone from doing nothing. After reading all the replies I have come to the conclusion that I just need to give it time, enjoy my bike and focus on training to be able to take part in some events next year and hope that the weight loss will happen. I do appreciate all the advice - so thanks.


----------



## Arsen Gere (28 Jul 2011)

Libby,
I'd give it a couple of months and if its not working for you mix it up with some intervals. I mean hard stuff that will leave your heart above its normal resting pace after an hour or two. These can be on anything, weights, bike, run, swim. Don't let your body get used to it. And measure inches not just weight.
Mrs Gere has a piece of string and uses that as a reference, say round your waist, thighs or whatever. Measuring stuff builds motivation as you don't know what is changing until you measure it, some folks see muscle gain before weight loss and this can be disappointing, but the inches go down before the weight falls off when this starts to happen. Look for your wonderful new muscles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training


----------



## Glover Fan (29 Jul 2011)

I have skimmed but I spotted your breakfast and instantly I saw failure. Bread is just pointless carbs, you want some porridge or healthy cereal in the morning. 

Toast for me is a treat. Saturdays for breakfast and maybe at a cafe stop.


----------



## Fiona N (30 Jul 2011)

Glover Fan said:


> ... instantly I saw failure. Bread is just pointless carbs, you want some porridge or healthy cereal in the morning...



What b*****ks

Maybe if you eat supermarket sliced white plastic but there's plenty of good bread out there - even in the supermarkets nowadays - at least as good as porridge or cereal (I assume by 'healthy cereal' you mean some sugar packed junk like fruit muesli ) - wholegrain bread is great, as is rye bread, pumpernickel, etc., breads made with non-traditional grains like spelt and triticale can be higher in protein than wheat too - or nut bread - yum. I love porridge in the winter as much as the next cyclists but let's not get stupid here - oats and cereal are carbs - just as empty or not as bread can be - it's all about the quality. I somehow doubt there's much nutrition in those sachets of instant, presweetened finely ground porridge that are all some people have time for on a morning.


----------



## ColinJ (30 Jul 2011)

Fiona N said:


> What b*****ks


Ho ho! 

It's amazing how faddy the nutrition business is. If you look at the advice over the past 50 years and watch how it went one way then the other, then back again ...

Eggs = good, then a bit bad, then very bad, then good again ...

Coffee = bad, then good, then okay ...

Alcohol = bad, very bad, okay in small doses, good in small doses ...

Bread = staple diet, okay, bad, will kill you within 14.7 ms ...

Salt = essential, killer, okay(ish) ...

Red meat ...

Fish ...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jul 2011)

ColinJ said:


> Ho ho!
> 
> It's amazing how faddy the nutrition business is. If you look at the advice over the past 50 years and watch how it went one way then the other, then back again ...
> 
> ...



If we followed food advice to the letter we would die I am sure. I am a firm believer in all things in moderation.


----------



## Fiona N (30 Jul 2011)

ColinJ said:


> Ho ho!
> 
> It's amazing how faddy the nutrition business is. If you look at the advice over the past 50 years and watch how it went one way then the other, then back again ...
> 
> ...


----------



## ColinJ (30 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If we followed food advice to the letter we would die I am sure. I am a firm believer in all things in moderation.


My motto is usually _"Too much is not enough!"_ but I'm changing it to _"All things in moderation, including moderation itself!"_


----------



## MacB (30 Jul 2011)

Liked the formula AFS, gives me a static daily requirement of about 1900 cals which is about right.

I am curious as to what exactly people mean about too little intake and the body going in to starvation mode. My first reaction is the body can only do so much to prevent weight loss by slowing metabolism etc.


----------



## lulubel (30 Jul 2011)

MacB said:


> I am curious as to what exactly people mean about too little intake and the body going in to starvation mode. My first reaction is the body can only do so much to prevent weight loss by slowing metabolism etc.



Starvation mode is the body's defence against famine.

To state the, probably, blindingly obvious here, we envolved in an environment were food supplies were far less predictable than popping down to Tesco. Survival of the fittest meant that those who were naturally best suited to a fluctuating food supply were most likely to survive and pass on their genes. What that means for us today is that our bodies are very good at storing energy in the form of fat, and also very good at making that fat energy last as long as possible through times of famine. Short periods of low food supply aren't usually a problem, probably because our ancestors were used to this, so their bodies would start out by using the fat stores, but if the shortage went on for too long, what we now call starvation mode would start to kick in, as an attempt to make the fat stores last as long as possible.

It obviously is possible to reach dangerously low weights. Anorexics consuming 500 calories or less a day become desperately thin because the body simply can't manage on that and has to use its fat stores (as well as cannibalising all its muscle), but for most of us eating more sensible amounts of food, the body can cope just fine. It gets very efficient at using less energy to perform the same tasks, and also forces us to slow down by making any activity very hard work. (It also has longer term effects because, once a body that has become very efficient in its energy use, getting it to become less efficient again is time consuming, tricky and generally results in temporary weight gain.)

This is why I try to follow a structured approach to weight loss that anticipates and plans for the body's attempts to hold onto its fat stores. The first way is to cut calories more drastically at first, and gradually increase them as goal weight approaches. The second is to alternate between higher and lower calories every few weeks (which is what I'm doing at the moment to get back to my "cycling weight" of 8 stone). Both of these approaches avoid letting the famine warnings take over because there's a regular increase in food intake, and make losing weight much less of a demoralising struggle.


----------



## Glover Fan (30 Jul 2011)

I personally think starvation mode is a load of rubbish. I've had a diet of about 1000 calories a day before to shift weight fast and it worked. Not just for a few days, but up to a month.

Ok this isn't a recommended diet, but makes me think the starvation mode theory is dubious at best.

I can understand the bodies reluctance to shed fat, but you can hardly defy the laws of energy production and I think we are possibly giving the human body more credit than its due in this instance.


----------



## ColinJ (30 Jul 2011)

Glover Fan said:


> I personally think starvation mode is a load of rubbish. I've had a diet of about 1000 calories a day before to shift weight fast and it worked. Not just for a few days, but up to a month.
> 
> Ok this isn't a recommended diet, but makes me think the starvation mode theory is dubious at best.
> 
> I can understand the bodies reluctance to shed fat, but you can hardly defy the laws of energy production and I think we are possibly giving the human body more credit than its due in this instance.


I'm cynical about a lot of things but the idea of 'starvation mode' makes perfect sense to me. I believe in evolution and evolutionary principles suggest that if there are two groups of people in a famine, then ones with a starvation mode would be the ones who tended to survive. Over repeated periods of famine, the people who couldn't cope with famines would be weeded out.

How would it work? Slowed down metabolisms!

If muscles need more energy to keep running than fat (which I believe they do) then people who use up all their fat first but maintained their muscles would need more each day on average to survive. The people who were effectively digesting their own muscles would be sparing some of their fat reserves for use later in the famine and also lowering their energy requirements at the same time.

(Having said all of that ... A bunch of lethargic people in starvation mode would eventually die in a long famine whereas those who stayed active and strong longer might have the strength to walk to somewhere outside the famine zone! Perhaps people who live in places that have frequent short famines will be good at surviving them, and people who live in far-flung countries that don't have many famines are the descendants of the fit ones who fled? )


----------



## MacB (30 Jul 2011)

ok, so I get the idea behind starvation mode but is there an order the body uses stores in? ie would it use fat before other stuff or use up muscle first, and how does that work?


----------



## lulubel (30 Jul 2011)

Glover Fan said:


> I personally think starvation mode is a load of rubbish. I've had a diet of about 1000 calories a day before to shift weight fast and it worked. Not just for a few days, but up to a month.



A month isn't a long time to be on a low calorie intake. And even if you have a requirement of 3000 calories a day to maintain your weight, a 2000 calorie a day deficit only represents a loss of about a stone over that month.

Also, you haven't mentioned what your weight was when you started that diet. Generally, the heavier you are, and the more fat you are carrying, the easier it is to lose weight, and the less likely it is that your weight loss will slow due to your body holding onto fat. It generally occurs in people who are already at a relatively low weight, which was why I brought it up in this thread.

I've been a member of a calorie counting and weightloss site for the last few years (haven't been trying to lose weight all that time, but like the community there), and I've lost count of the number of times people have posted about their weight loss stopping or slowing on low calorie diets, and they have solved the problem by increasing their calorie intake.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jul 2011)

ColinJ said:


> My motto is usually _"Too much is not enough!"_ but I'm changing it to _"All things in moderation, including moderation itself!"_



I like it


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jul 2011)

MacB said:


> ok, so I get the idea behind starvation mode but is there an order the body uses stores in? ie would it use fat before other stuff or use up muscle first, and how does that work?



Different stores are used by doing different exercise. Slow exercise burns fat whilst intensive exeercise used Glycogen I think.


----------



## lulubel (30 Jul 2011)

MacB said:


> ok, so I get the idea behind starvation mode but is there an order the body uses stores in? ie would it use fat before other stuff or use up muscle first, and how does that work?



The first thing your body will use is the most easily available energy, which comes from your glycogen stores.

However, totally emptying your glycogen stores isn't its goal because low glycogen means a serious loss of energy, and you might need a sudden burst of energy to survive. So, it will also take energy from another source, and this can either be fat or muscle.

Where it takes it from will depend on how much fat you have on your body, how much you are using your muscles, and whether you are taking in the right amount of food for your needs. Basically, it varies. Once your body reaches a certain tipping point in fat levels, which probably varies from person to person, it will stop using fat and choose muscle as its first preference. Hence the need to exercise and use the muscles (the body won't consume muscles that it uses regularly) and keep food intake at a reasonable level that doesn't trigger fat hoarding.


----------



## lulubel (30 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Different stores are used by doing different exercise. Slow exercise burns fat whilst intensive exeercise used Glycogen I think.



As far as I understand it (and this is getting a bit in depth for me), fat burning occurs all the time if glycogen stores aren't perceived to be sufficient, but there's a limit to the rate at which the body can generate energy from fat. Hence higher intensity exercise uses glycogen stores faster.

From the point of view of weight loss, it doesn't matter where the energy comes from. It's as simple as energy in must be less than energy out. However, if you're taking part in an endurance type activity, it makes sense to maintain a level of effort that uses glycogen stores as slowly as possible.


----------



## barongreenback (31 Jul 2011)

Just a quick recommendation to anyone who's interested in this subject - Sports Nutrition by Anita Bean. A very straightforward and common sense guide to nutrition in general (as well as sports specific advice). I've lent my copy to a mate but one thing that did stand out is that very low calorie diets usually result in lean muscle being used for fuel so these are to be avoided, unless that's the result you want of course! Also you need to consume an excess of calories to build muscle - weight loss plateaus aren't as simple as fat being replaced by lean muscle.

Anyway, she's got lots of letters after her name so I trust her book


----------



## MacB (31 Jul 2011)

barongreenback said:


> Just a quick recommendation to anyone who's interested in this subject - Sports Nutrition by Anita Bean. A very straightforward and common sense guide to nutrition in general (as well as sports specific advice). I've lent my copy to a mate *but one thing that did stand out is that very low calorie diets usually result in lean muscle being used for fuel so these are to be avoided*, unless that's the result you want of course! Also you need to consume an excess of calories to build muscle - weight loss plateaus aren't as simple as fat being replaced by lean muscle.
> 
> Anyway, she's got lots of letters after her name so I trust her book



That's interesting and seems to be born out by all the other posters as well, though there are different takes on what the 'right' diet should consist of.

Well, I'm giving a low carb Atkins style variation a go right now, I'll see how I get on.


----------



## lulubel (31 Jul 2011)

MacB said:


> Well, I'm giving a low carb Atkins style variation a go right now, I'll see how I get on.



Although low carb certainly isn't for me - I love my carbs, and need the energy they give me - I'm not going to criticise low carb diets because they do work for some (all diets only work for some because success depends on not reverting to your old eating habits as soon as you stop the diet, and regaining the weight).

Some points to bear in mind, though:

1) Low carb will mean your glycogen stores are constantly depleted, so any physical activity (including cycling) will feel harder.

2) All diets work by reducing calorie intake. Low carb diets make reducing calorie intake easier because carbs make up such a large amount of our normal calorie intake. Plus, protein and fat keep you feeling full for longer. The result is, most people tend to naturally consume less calories on a low carb diet.

3) Glycogen stores have weight! You can expect to lose a few pounds very quickly at the beginning of the diet as your glycogen stores empty, but also be prepared to regain these few pounds when/if you return to eating carbs and your glycogen stores refill.


----------



## MacB (31 Jul 2011)

Thanks Lulubel, that all makes sense, the one I'm doing is only really strict on carbs for the first two weeks, after that it's more up to you. I certainly intend introducing fruit and probably morning porridge after this point. I expect to up my intakes as the weight comes down, bearing in mind I'm dreaming about a 5 stone weight loss here. So my inital approach will be one of trying to get my body to use fat stores, longer slower rides would seem to be the order of the day for exercise. My main dietary approach will be cutting out/down the vast quantities of chips, crisps, bread, potatoes, etc that I have been eating. 

Once I've lost 3 stone, which I fully expect to achieve within 3 months, then I'll get more serious about the speciifcs of what I eat and when. However my past track record would indicate that I tend to eat less, and crave healthier stuff, the more active I am. Though I will have to watch for making sure I have enough fuel on board.

We'll see, I'm only on day 4 now and I'm fairly disciplined about weighing myself, never more than once a month...it drives my wife mad


----------



## lulubel (31 Jul 2011)

MacB said:


> I expect to up my intakes as the weight comes down, bearing in mind I'm dreaming about a 5 stone weight loss here.



There's no need to dream. That's pretty much what I lost a few years ago.

I regained some of it while I wasn't cycling, but nothing major really. I'm a healthy weight now, but I want to be as light as I can possibly be without compromising my immune system because it makes getting up the hills so much easier!


----------



## potsy (31 Jul 2011)

I think the 'dream' is Mac getting his bike(s) out of the garage 

I'm about to make another attempt to lose the 2nd of the 2 stone I planned to lose this year, the first one came off quite well but a lack of effort on my part diet wise has meant I need to knuckle down now and get on with it again.
No specific diet here, just a general reduction in calorie intake.


----------



## MacB (31 Jul 2011)

potsy said:


> I think the 'dream' is Mac getting his bike(s) out of the garage
> 
> I'm about to make another attempt to lose the 2nd of the 2 stone I planned to lose this year, the first one came off quite well but a lack of effort on my part diet wise has meant I need to knuckle down now and get on with it again.
> No specific diet here, just a general reduction in calorie intake.



You're a cruel man, but it's true, just been out for 14 miles though, trying some new handlebars  

See if I can stick to it properly this time, I believe my track record was:-

started cycling at 18 stone
got down to 14 stone
went back up to 18.5 stone - this is the bit that still staggers me, as in how could I have been such an arse!!!!!
am now down to 17.5 stone
12.5 stone is the goal, but I'll be pretty happy if I break the 14 stone barrier...it's been a few years for that one.


----------



## brockers (31 Jul 2011)

Forgive my gloating but I've just hit *9 stone 7* ! I've not seen that for twenty years! 

I put it down to rarely buying bread anymore. I found it was easy to forget about that crafty sandwich I'd knock up at 9 pm out of boredom when doing the daily calorie count. 

Oh god! Thinking about it has given me a craving for a rye loaf and Normandy butter. Must resist. Must resist.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

MacB said:


> You're a cruel man, but it's true, just been out for 14 miles though, trying some new handlebars
> 
> See if I can stick to it properly this time, I believe my track record was:-
> 
> ...



I have managed to reach 15 stone. I was 18stone at the start of the year after not cycling since the previous July.


----------



## Libby (31 Jul 2011)

I just thought I'd put in a quick update. Trying not to worry quite so much about the weight loss as I am hoping that so long as I am sensible that will come in time. And I managed to cycle 70 miles yesterday in 4 hours 47 mins (which could have been quicker if it hadn't been for enjoying the sun and chatting to my husband ). Considering I only got my bike 3 weeks ago and I have no aches today I'm quite pleased with that. Plan to keep training to do some sportives next year so hopefully the weight loss will come with that.


----------



## Nebulous (31 Jul 2011)

I took over a year to lose 5 stone at a pretty steady pound a week. I had the idea that if I did it slow and steady I would be more likely to make it stick. I tried to run a calorie deficit 5 days a week and eat a bit more at the weekend to try and prevent my metabolism slowing down. 

As the weight came down I had to up my exercise level to keep it going, as my body became more efficient at meeting its needs. 

James


----------



## Becs (31 Jul 2011)

Libby said:


> I just thought I'd put in a quick update. Trying not to worry quite so much about the weight loss as I am hoping that so long as I am sensible that will come in time. And I managed to cycle 70 miles yesterday in 4 hours 47 mins (which could have been quicker if it hadn't been for enjoying the sun and chatting to my husband ). Considering I only got my bike 3 weeks ago and I have no aches today I'm quite pleased with that. Plan to keep training to do some sportives next year so hopefully the weight loss will come with that.



Bloody good going! You may already have lots of gadgets but I am finding Cyclemeter and MyFitnessPal very useful apps for weight loss. I've also tried online weightwatchers (lost 2.5 stone in about 5 months) but MFP is better and free! Cyclemeter eats your phone battery a bit but it seems like a pretty accurate gps from the few rides I've done with it.


----------



## Sittingduck (2 Aug 2011)

Hmmm, interesting thread this. I have just signed up for MyFitnessPal... Looks quite good! I need to try to make a big push because I have only
managed to lose about 2 and a half stone in 3 years of cycling


----------



## Becs (2 Aug 2011)

Sittingduck said:


> Hmmm, interesting thread this. I have just signed up for MyFitnessPal... Looks quite good! I need to try to make a big push because I have only
> managed to lose about 2 and a half stone in 3 years of cycling



just watch out for the calories it thinks u need for cycling - you could end up over eating if you believe them!


----------



## Sittingduck (2 Aug 2011)

Damnit! I thought I was doing too well for day 1  Already finished dinner and apparently I have 820 cals remaining! The figues mentioned seem to be similar to quoted cals burned by Garmin and other sites. I think because I am super-heavy... the cals burned will be higher than most but maybe not almost 1000 cal per each way commute!


----------



## Becs (2 Aug 2011)

Sittingduck said:


> Damnit! I thought I was doing too well for day 1  Already finished dinner and apparently I have 820 cals remaining! The figues mentioned seem to be similar to quoted cals burned by Garmin and other sites. I think because I am super-heavy... the cals burned will be higher than most but maybe not almost 1000 cal per each way commute!



sorry to burst your bubble! I always enter my cycling at least a speed or 2 lower than I actually cycled otherwise I end up in the thousands too and don't lose anything! Maybe if you were riding a boris bike it would be different . . . .


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

I am proud to report I am now down to 15 stone. I was 18 stone in January!


----------



## Sittingduck (2 Aug 2011)

Becs said:


> Maybe if you were riding a boris bike it would be different . . . .



Went one one for the first (and last) time on Friday afternoon! Shocking


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

Sittingduck said:


> Went one one for the first (and last) time on Friday afternoon! Shocking



Why? Please elaborate


----------



## MacB (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am proud to report I am now down to 15 stone. I was 18 stone in January!



Excellent stuff AFS, I'm pleased for you, but jealous as well


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> Excellent stuff AFS, I'm pleased for you, but jealous as well


----------



## potsy (2 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> Excellent stuff AFS, I'm pleased for you, but jealous as well



Yes but you were jealous when he was 18 stone


----------



## MacB (2 Aug 2011)

potsy said:


> Yes but you were jealous when he was 18 stone



Oooh, I could slap you so hard you'd keep wobbling for a week


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> Oooh, I could slap you so hard you'd keep wobbling for a week


----------



## potsy (2 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> Oooh, I could slap you so hard you'd keep wobbling for a week



I can do that without being slapped 

Day 2 of my 'new' diet, it's going well


----------



## MacB (2 Aug 2011)

potsy said:


> I can do that without being slapped
> 
> *Day 2 of my 'new' diet, it's going well*



Ah, I'm crushing you then, this is day 5 for me!!!!


----------



## Becs (2 Aug 2011)

day 10, lost 8 pounds so far 









obviously it's all water at this stage . . . . . .


----------



## ACS (2 Aug 2011)

I have struggled down from 105 kg to 85 kg in about a year or so, no dieting just commuting and eating carefully. 

On Sunday I went back up to 89 kg. The cause of the dramatic increase, my wife came in with a set of new digital scales.


----------



## MacB (2 Aug 2011)

I won't know how it's going until the end of August, started on Friday 29/07/11 so first weigh in will be 29/08/11


----------



## potsy (2 Aug 2011)

I go for the weekly weigh in approach, each Sat morning at the same time.
Clothes are a good indication anyway, once I struggle to get in my 36" jeans I know it's time for another spell of good behaviour


----------



## Speicher (2 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> Oooh, I could slap you so hard you'd keep wobbling for a week


----------



## Speicher (2 Aug 2011)

I am making another effort to lose two stone.  Very slowly I have lost one stone.


----------



## MacB (2 Aug 2011)

potsy said:


> I go for the weekly weigh in approach, each Sat morning at the same time.
> Clothes are a good indication anyway, once I struggle to get in my 36" jeans I know it's time for another spell of good behaviour



hmmm, I can squeeze into 38" stuff, though 40" is easier, but I don't kid myself that's my waist size. I tried measuring taking a line a bit below the belly button....oh dear. If I ever want to wear trousers up round my armpits I'll need a mahoosive waist size, 10" more than normal  So I'll stick to fastening the trousers under the gut


----------



## ColinJ (2 Aug 2011)

Speicher said:


> I am making another effort to lose two stone.  Very slowly I have lost one stone.


Well done! 

Is that one of the two, or one of three and there are two to go?

I'm aiming for at least a three stone loss. That would take me down to 12 stone 11 pounds. I reckon I'd want another few pounds off after that, but I'll see when I get there!


----------



## Speicher (2 Aug 2011)

That is one of three, with two to go.


----------



## ColinJ (2 Aug 2011)

Speicher said:


> That is one of three, with two to go.


Well, you have a head start on me - keep it up!


----------



## zigzag (3 Aug 2011)

just finished 1l of tesco's finest caribbean rum & raisin ice cream while reading cyclechat and this topic. 1550kcal, 27g protein, 148g sugar and 85g fat  - feeling a bit dizzy now. but to my defence i was on a quick 46mile ride after work, averaging almost 20mph.

the most weight i've gained was in all-inclusive holiday a month ago (11lbs in 8 days - but was worth it..). when i came back, i was "punishing" myself by using the same hole in a belt. first week was very uncomfortable, but after three weeks i was back to normal. still need to lose 4lbs to reach my ideal weight. those last pounds are always the hardest to shed.


edit: spelling


----------



## potsy (3 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> Ah, I'm crushing you then, this is day 5 for me!!!!



Yeahbut you need the headstart you've got a lot more to lose than me


----------



## MacB (3 Aug 2011)

potsy said:


> Yeahbut you need the headstart you've got a lot more to lose than me



Oooh, that there's fighting talk, we going to have a gentlemans wager on this then? Set a target and a timescale and loser buys the fatboy breakfasts?


----------



## potsy (3 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> Oooh, that there's fighting talk, we going to have a gentlemans wager on this then? Set a target and a timescale and loser buys the fatboy breakfasts?



 My diets only last a fortnight so I might as well get you the brekky now!!


----------



## MacB (3 Aug 2011)

potsy said:


> My diets only last a fortnight so I might as well get you the brekky now!!



lightweight


----------



## VamP (5 Aug 2011)

Libby said:


> I am just getting into cycling. Until 12 months ago I was a fitness instructor but since then I have changed to an office job and going from doing 2 - 4 hours exercise a day to siiting for 8 hours a day has meant weight gain (about 10kg) :-(
> 
> I started cycling 3 weeks ago and in that time I have done just over 380 miles. I use a heart rate monitor and am burning off a minimum of 6000 calories a week with cycling and gym work (I still do some weights and teach 1 spin class a week) and am watching what I eat (1600 cals a day in the week, 2000 a day at the weekend).
> 
> So far I have lost a big fat 0kg. Am I just being impatient or still eating too much? I am really enjoying the cycling though and do feel as though my fitness is improving again but need to lose weight!




TBH you are probably still eating too much. I have read through the rest of the thread, and I would estimate that your cycling calories per week are probably half of what you think.

The important thing is not to get disheartened and to keep up the exercise. Try dropping another 200 calories per day intake, and keep up same exercise. Or stay at the intake levels you are at, and up the exercise.

The starvation response that others on here have referred to is not something that you should be worrying about at this point. This is something that kicks in after several days of starvation (less than 1000 calories per day food intake) and even then the body burns fat in preference over muscle.


----------



## Fletch456 (5 Aug 2011)

Libby said:


> I am just getting into cycling. Until 12 months ago I was a fitness instructor but since then I have changed to an office job and going from doing 2 - 4 hours exercise a day to siiting for 8 hours a day has meant weight gain (about 10kg) :-(
> 
> I started cycling 3 weeks ago and in that time I have done just over 380 miles. I use a heart rate monitor and am burning off a minimum of 6000 calories a week with cycling and gym work (I still do some weights and teach 1 spin class a week) and am watching what I eat (1600 cals a day in the week, 2000 a day at the weekend).
> 
> So far I have lost a big fat 0kg. Am I just being impatient or still eating too much? I am really enjoying the cycling though and do feel as though my fitness is improving again but need to lose weight!




Libby,

Earlier this year is first time I’ve ever wanted to really lose weight (I've always been slim to rake like, being 6'4" but middle age is causing a spread) and did it quite successfully. Am a bit of a nerd so look into things – too much at times, believe me (needed a new camera..I could tell you more than the shopkeeper about those of interest and others before I was finished) – and according to what I read, what you eat is a significantly bigger factor on weight than exercise.

Diets have always seemed too faddy and didn’t appeal until I came across the caveman diet in The Sunday Times. It made sense, we aren’t made for a sedentary lifestyle, I liked the logic and no such thing as counting calories (or points that weight watchers now use) as my Mum has done for many years – which didn’t appeal at all either. Within 12 weeks I lost 10lbs and that included eating what the heck I liked at least one day a week and a couple of weeks where I paid a bit less attention to it. 

Eat only - 1/3 meat or fish, 1/3 raw fruit / veg / nuts etc, 1/3 cooked veg. Or focus on this....not having any chocolate or cakes at all would be an impossibility. In an evening I made single square of good chocolate my pudding. Having lots more veg as I do at times is filling...you don't need a pud or so much later.

No carbs - no pasta, bread, rice or potatoes. This may be why I wanted a can of coke for the first time in years so I’ve reintroduced carbs but in smaller quantities. 

No dairy. No milk - except in tea or coffee.

Eat most of your food in a morning and at lunch and only have a light meal / snack in the evening. This can be challenging to do when working in an office. The best thing I found was cooked chicken drum sticks. In a morning I was regularly cooking steak (small one from bag of 10 that M&S do) and eggs – it also totally did away with mid morning cravings. (Or steak and salad, chicken breast and salad.)

Eat a variety – particularly with a view to fruit and veg and nuts. 

No or very limited alcohol. 

Other info:

Ice cream - have found some ice cream that is better than many - Ben & Jerry's Phish Food...they do a version part made with yogurt. Fat drops to 4.5% and calories arent that low still but are 200 / 100ml.

Snacks - have found bags of mixed nuts from M&S good - tasty and filling. Unlike Tesco they almost never include a bad nut and are always crunchy, never a bit soft. A habit I got myself to do before I started this was if I felt like some chocolate at work I made myself have an apple first then I had it.

As a fantastic consequence I have a stomach that also behaves much better than ever before. I could have entered a gasiest stomach and how often are you constipated competition but thought it was kind of normal as it's all I've known – maybe the volume of fruit and veg that doing this caused me to eat is what my stomach needs to work properly. Whilst much of this may / may not appeal, apply a few of these points (meat and fruit / veg focus, little to no carbs and more in a morning and less at night) and given my success with it I think anyone could make a difference with it within a few weeks.


----------



## Libby (5 Aug 2011)

Thanks for the advice - I weighed myself last night and the weight is starting to shift - not massive amounts but 2 kg gone so that's a start and I have noticed that my trousers are def getting looser.

I am curious as to why so many people say that the calories I am using are inaccurate though? Surely calories burned are a mathematical equation? My HR monitor takes into account my gender, weight, height, resting HR and vo2 max so how can people say this is widly inaccurate? Surely this has got to be more accurate than trying to say so many calories per mile which does not take into account the weight, gender, exhertion or fitness level of the cyclist? 

With regards to saying I am eating too much - I put the thread up as I have successfully lost weight in the past (over 6 stone). I then re-gained some and lost that by burning 6000 cals a week through exercise (according to my HR monitor) and eating between 1600 - 2000 calories a day (1600 in the week, 2000 at the weekend). I was disheartened at first as I thought I would lose weight as before immediately but guess I had just forgotten how much muscle I would be building initially.

The caveman diet is interesting but to be honest far too expensive for me to try so I am happy to keep doing what I am doing for now - my mileage is building nicely (I managed 500 miles in the first 4 weeks of having the bike and this should increase as I know that I can now do 70 mile rides comfortably and my average speed is increasing too).


----------



## amaferanga (5 Aug 2011)

Libby said:


> I am curious as to why so many people say that the calories I am using are inaccurate though? Surely calories burned are a mathematical equation? My HR monitor takes into account my gender, weight, height, resting HR and vo2 max so how can people say this is widly inaccurate? Surely this has got to be more accurate than trying to say so many calories per mile which does not take into account the weight, gender, exhertion or fitness level of the cyclist?



Calories burned on a bike relates to your power output. As has probably been covered on this thread already, the energy used to propel the bike (in kiloJoules) can be equated almost 1:1 to the kCal burnt (assuming human efficiency of 25%). So if you ride at say 200 Watts for 60 minutes you'd 'use' 720kJ of energy and burn approximately 720 kCal. Environmental conditions can influence the 1:1 relationship, but in the real world you'll probably not get a closer calorie estimate than you'd get from a powermeter on your bike. 

Unfortunately power output doesn't really correlate with heart rate in a way that allows a simple mathematical equation. If it did then no-one would waste several hundred or even thousands of pounds on power meters - they'd just get a £10 heart rate monitor instead. Manufacturers such as Polar and Garmin use various algorithms to estimate calories burnt, but they simply cannot be accurate due to the fact that there's no direct correlation between HR and power. 

Unfortunately again, most websites and HR monitors seem to overestimate kCal burnt, which is why many people are recommending taking a conservative ballpark figure instead of the ludicrous figures thrown around on this and other threads.


----------



## VamP (5 Aug 2011)

Libby said:


> Thanks for the advice - I weighed myself last night and the weight is starting to shift - not massive amounts but 2 kg gone so that's a start and I have noticed that my trousers are def getting looser.
> 
> I am curious as to why so many people say that the calories I am using are inaccurate though? Surely calories burned are a mathematical equation? My HR monitor takes into account my gender, weight, height, resting HR and vo2 max so how can people say this is widly inaccurate? Surely this has got to be more accurate than trying to say so many calories per mile which does not take into account the weight, gender, exhertion or fitness level of the cyclist?
> 
> ...



Congratulations on the weight now shifting. That obviously means that you are now getting the balance between calories burned versus calories eaten right.

The reason why we were suggesting that you *might* be eating too much was because your weight was not responding at all. Now that it is, just carry on doing what you are doing, and stick with it.

Amaferanga is correct about the HR monitor. It is misleading you. Your gender, weight, heart rate, VO2max and fitness levels are largely irrelevant to the *additional* calories you are burning due to cycling. The duration and the power output of the exercise are the only things that really matter. You've told us the duration and the approximate intensity (ave. speed), therefore we can see you are not burning more than about 3000 calories as an absolute maximum due to cycling. Probably less.

Obviously if your mileage goes up (has gone up already?) then so will your calorie burn. As you get fitter you will be able to sustain a higher power output, and that will increase your calorie burn also.

If you get a chance to play with a calibrated power meter, then that's a great tool for establishing your power levels at different speeds - you can then use this to work out more accurately your energy consumption.


----------



## MacB (6 Aug 2011)

Totally unsupported anecdote alert!!!!!


Was chatting with my wife earlier and one of her colleagues, science teacher, was involved in a long term study of diets. Something to do with a TV programme and Eamon Holmes...no idea of detail neither of us had ever heard of it. But they tested loads of different ones, I think it was over 18 months to 2 years. The Atkins, and variations, came out top, Weightwatchers was ok and all the rest weren't even on the same songsheet...apparently. I think they assessed weight lost, health, energy while on diet and speed, if any, of weight regain. Particularly bad were things like Slimfast which came as no real surprise to us.


----------



## Becs (6 Aug 2011)

I lost 2.5 stone on weightwatchers (it came back when I went on a bit of an eating and drinking out bender while not cycling much but that wasn't unexpected!). I reckon any of the diets that make you pay attention to your portion sizes and the calories in booze/carbs/cheese will do the job. Atkins works very well but it puts your body into a state of ketosis which is very bad for you in the long term, I think low carb but not no carbs has got to be the way to go. My collegue (super slim gorgeous rower turned marathon runner) refers to it as "earning your food" no exercise = no carbs, active 40 miles + on the bike = a nice amount of the carb of your choice. Seems to be working, I've dropped 9 pounds in 2 weeks (I always lose loads initially then plateau to 1 to 2lbs a week) with 1 naughty day a week (big meal out at a persian restaurant on Thurs - yum!).


----------



## MacB (6 Aug 2011)

Becs said:


> I lost 2.5 stone on weightwatchers (it came back when I went on a bit of an eating and drinking out bender while not cycling much but that wasn't unexpected!). I reckon any of the diets that make you pay attention to your portion sizes and the calories in booze/carbs/cheese will do the job. Atkins works very well but it puts your body into a state of ketosis which is very bad for you in the long term, I think low carb but not no carbs has got to be the way to go. My collegue (super slim gorgeous rower turned marathon runner) refers to it as "earning your food" no exercise = no carbs, active 40 miles + on the bike = a nice amount of the carb of your choice. Seems to be working, I've dropped 9 pounds in 2 weeks (I always lose loads initially then plateau to 1 to 2lbs a week) with 1 naughty day a week (big meal out at a persian restaurant on Thurs - yum!).



That sounds about right, the Atkins variation we're doing at the moment does allow carbs. You're meant to avoid them for 2 weeks except for in veg but after that you can relax to include fruit. I'll probably also include normal carbs on Fri/Sat and, where needed, if cycling. But the main thing is I'll avoid the crap, the crips etc.


----------



## Becs (6 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> That sounds about right, the Atkins variation we're doing at the moment does allow carbs. You're meant to avoid them for 2 weeks except for in veg but after that you can relax to include fruit. I'll probably also include normal carbs on Fri/Sat and, where needed, if cycling. But the main thing is I'll avoid the crap, the crips etc.




sadly I have discovered that cheese is the food of the devil when it comes to diets, this makes me sad!


----------



## Rykard (6 Aug 2011)

Becs said:


> sadly I have discovered that cheese is the food of the devil when it comes to diets, this makes me sad!



but it taste sooooooo good, we were holidaying in Yorkshire last month and stumbled upon the wensleydale factory and restaurant.. it was good. I have never seen so much cheese on a jacket spud..


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Aug 2011)

Becs said:


> sadly I have discovered that cheese is the food of the devil when it comes to diets, this makes me sad!



I care not  Cheese is one of my biggest weaknesses. The higher fat the better, on a crunchy baguette...... feeling hungry now!!!


----------



## lulubel (6 Aug 2011)

You can eat anything you like, in moderation, and if you're doing enough exercise. That's the philosophy I went with when I lost nearly 6 stone a few years ago. Cheese, crisps, chocolate, ice cream .... nothing was out of bounds.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Aug 2011)

lulubel said:


> You can eat anything you like, in moderation, and if you're doing enough exercise. That's the philosophy I went with when I lost nearly 6 stone a few years ago. Cheese, crisps, chocolate, ice cream .... nothing was out of bounds.



+1


----------



## Becs (6 Aug 2011)

lulubel said:


> You can eat anything you like, in moderation, and if you're doing enough exercise. That's the philosophy I went with when I lost nearly 6 stone a few years ago. Cheese, crisps, chocolate, ice cream .... nothing was out of bounds.




It's the moderation that is the problem! I could murder a massive cheese board right now! mmmmmmm cheeeeeeeese! I have a very pringle-like mentality!

However, I will be moderating my sauvingion blanc intake tonight - having attended the "Hampstead Hijinx" this morning I feel I deserve at least half a bottle!


----------



## potsy (6 Aug 2011)

Can you all stop talking about cheese please!! I am very aware of the large piece sitting in my fridge at the minute and don't want to be tempted into having some for an afternoon snack 

First weigh-in today, 2lbs lost this week


----------



## Willo (7 Aug 2011)

My weight doesn't fluctuate too much but I've added 3/4 lbs this year which I can't shift despite all the exercise. I starting to accept that it's a combo of muscle density and my age. Oddly a few people have commented recently that I'm looking fit and trim when actually I've put on weight. Stick with it, if there's weight to come off it will in time.


----------



## vickster (7 Aug 2011)

Willo said:


> My weight doesn't fluctuate too much but I've added 3/4 lbs this year which I can't shift despite all the exercise. I starting to accept that it's a combo of muscle density and my age. Oddly a few people have commented recently that I'm looking fit and trim when actually I've put on weight. Stick with it, if there's weight to come off it will in time.



Exactly the same here, my weight has been pretty static in a 2-3lb range all year ... feel fitter though and my knee is much better...just need to eat less crap, cheese not a bother but I d0 have a sweet tooth (indeed 30 or so sweet teeth!)  I lost about 15 kg, want to shift another 8 but nothing doing


----------



## barongreenback (7 Aug 2011)

lulubel said:


> You can eat anything you like, in moderation, and if you're doing enough exercise. That's the philosophy I went with when I lost nearly 6 stone a few years ago. Cheese, crisps, chocolate, ice cream .... nothing was out of bounds.



So true. I lost 10 stone in a year by doing exercise 4 times a week (running - going from 5k to 10k to half marathon distance and then knackering my knees training for a marathon). Nothing was off limits and I really, really wish I'd found this out rather than spending my 20s as a lardarse. Shame the knee problem meant I put about 4.5 stone back on!!! (now losing it again, 2.5 stone to go...)


----------



## Rikki1962 (8 Aug 2011)

u need to add some more weights, high reps to failure on each set, just work top half of body for 2wks then 2wks total body work out and finish with 2wks, 75% increase in weight, the weight will drop off.!! worked for me.


----------



## Rykard (9 Aug 2011)

or try some circuit training - this is pretty good for weight loss


----------



## MacB (12 Aug 2011)

potsy said:


> Can you all stop talking about cheese please!! I am very aware of the large piece sitting in my fridge at the minute and don't want to be tempted into having some for an afternoon snack
> 
> First weigh-in today, 2lbs lost this week



I stooped to your level, well ok Jane wanted to know, so weighed myself this morning, after 2 weeks I have lost 14lbs, or 1 stone


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> I stooped to your level, well ok Jane wanted to know, so weighed myself this morning, after 2 weeks I have lost 14lbs, or 1 stone



 Nice one


----------



## potsy (12 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> I stooped to your level, well ok Jane wanted to know, so weighed myself this morning, after 2 weeks I have lost 14lbs, or 1 stone



Excellent Mac, 1 down how many to go? 

MY calorie counting/food diary is going well, finding it quite easy to stick to my allowance so far and am hopeful of more weight loss tomorrow


----------



## MacB (12 Aug 2011)

potsy said:


> Excellent Mac, 1 down how many to go?
> 
> MY calorie counting/food diary is going well, finding it quite easy to stick to my allowance so far and am hopeful of more weight loss tomorrow



3 or 4, the latter being my personal desire the former being about the best I'm likely to achieve


----------



## Sittingduck (19 Dec 2011)

Quick 'big-up' to Becs for recommending Myfitnesspal back in August...!

I used it for about 2 or 3 weeks then had a massive blow out, during a weekend away and stopped logging. That was back in late summer.

Started again in the last week of October and use it religiously every day now. Have lost 3 stone in 8 weeks, so far. Still got quite a long way to go and expect it to slow down in the next few weeks


----------



## rich p (19 Dec 2011)

Sittingduck said:


> Quick 'big-up' to Becs for recommending Myfitnesspal back in August...!
> 
> I used it for about 2 or 3 weeks then had a massive blow out, during a weekend away and stopped logging. That was back in late summer.
> 
> Started again in the last week of October and use it religiously every day now. Have lost 3 stone in 8 weeks, so far. Still got quite a long way to go and expect it to slow down in the next few weeks


 
Good going Ducky. Keep up the good work. Fancy joining us for this?

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/anything-happening-in-west-sussex.91236/


----------



## ianrauk (19 Dec 2011)

Sittingduck said:


> Quick 'big-up' to Becs for recommending Myfitnesspal back in August...!
> 
> I used it for about 2 or 3 weeks then had a massive blow out, during a weekend away and stopped logging. That was back in late summer.
> 
> Started again in the last week of October and use it religiously every day now. *Have lost 3 stone in 8 weeks,* so far. Still got quite a long way to go and expect it to slow down in the next few weeks


 
Bloody hell man.. top work!!!


----------



## Sittingduck (19 Dec 2011)

Cheers Ian... I am fearing the next week, as mince pies and turkey dinners are looming! I'll settle for a period of stabalisation until Jan, most likely 



rich p said:


> Good going Ducky. Keep up the good work. Fancy joining us for this?
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/anything-happening-in-west-sussex.91236/


 
Thanks Rich. I did see that thread and had thought about it (I am coming back daarn saarf, after Christmas on the Tuesday and have the Weds off work). Will have to see what the weather forecast is like though and how my bank balance is, post Chrimbo! I haven't been doing much cycling aside from commuting recently, so might be due a longer ride!


----------



## ttcycle (22 Dec 2011)

Well done sd- that's some amazing loss- how are the spin classes going?


----------



## Sittingduck (22 Dec 2011)

Cheers TT... Spinning is addictive! I was in sheer agony after the first two but got used to it after that (in terms of recovering after). Didn't realise it was possible to burn so many calories in under an hour  I did 3 days on the trot last week but my schedule is a little bit out of sync this week and next week. Going tomorrow evening though and will have to get the most out of it because it's the only class I can make all week


----------



## Mice (22 Dec 2011)

Sittingduck said:


> Cheers TT... Spinning is addictive! I was in sheer agony after the first two but got used to it after that (in terms of recovering after). Didn't realise it was possible to burn so many calories in under an hour  I did 3 days on the trot last week but my schedule is a little bit out of sync this week and next week. Going tomorrow evening though and will have to get the most out of it because it's the only class I can make all week


 

Brill! Well done SD -

Happy Xmice!

M


----------



## Rykard (23 Dec 2011)

good read


----------



## ttcycle (23 Dec 2011)

Great to hear that sd!


----------



## Ghost Donkey (29 Dec 2011)

Libby said:


> The caveman diet is interesting but to be honest far too expensive for me to try so I am happy to keep doing what I am doing for now - my mileage is building nicely (I managed 500 miles in the first 4 weeks of having the bike and this should increase as I know that I can now do 70 mile rides comfortably and my average speed is increasing too).


 
There's a serious amount of weight loss going on here . I'll add if you want to loose weight you should always look at your nutrition as well as the exercise.

I don't do caveman as such but I eat mainly fresh food. If the only thing stopping you is the cost I can assure you it's really not that expensive unless you start going for grass fed organic meat which has a much higher cost at the supply end and therefore costs more to buy. If you can afford it then great. Sadly I can't at the moment. Fresh veg and salad items aren't expensive and free range chicken isn't much more than the cheaper type. Other meats in general aren't too bad either. I also go for full fat organic milk. It's done me well weight loss wise, even with reduced training, and hasn't hampered fitness progression. Saying that the Christmas binge has resulted in me being more biscuit than man at the moment.


----------

