# Weight loss



## Badger1 (14 Jul 2012)

From a weight loss or fitness point of view is it better to do 3x 1hr rides or 1x 3hr ride. Assuming the same average speed.

I guess I'm asking whether 'binge' cycling is good for you!!

Cheers

Pete


----------



## CopperCyclist (14 Jul 2012)

It's a good question, I've wondered the same. To narrow it down a bit more, I wondered a whole back if two fifteen mile rides (one on Saturday, one on Sunday) would be the equivalent of a single 30 mile ride on one of the days.

Calorie wise the (very rough estimate) various sites seem to suggest they would be the same overall calorie count, but part of me thnks surely the thirty mile is higher, so surely it burns more to keep going. Or does the more 'balanced' side of things having exercise each day cancel it out? I couldn't find an answer, not that I looked too hard.

One thing is certain - if you are trying to build up to do greater distances, then two shorter rides definitely don't compare to one longer one.


----------



## HLaB (14 Jul 2012)

If they are vigorous rides, I'm guessing it better to get your heart going on 3 separate occasions rather than one but I'm no weight loss expert.


----------



## PedAntics (14 Jul 2012)

I've attached a link to an article and programme shown earlier in the year, The Truth About Exercise.They suggested short but intensive training helps the body to better break down the glycogen stores in the musles, that's if I've understood it correctly! May not fully answer your question but hope it's of use anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251


----------



## black'n'yellow (14 Jul 2012)

Badger1 said:


> From a weight loss or fitness point of view is it better to do 3x 1hr rides or 1x 3hr ride. Assuming the same average speed.
> 
> I guess I'm asking whether 'binge' cycling is good for you!!
> 
> ...


 
depends entirely on what fitness goal you are trying to achieve. If your goal is to never be able to ride for longer than an hour, then stick to 1hr rides. If your goal is to be able to ride long distances, then 3hr rides are a good (if not slightly ambitious) place to start. Most ride a combination of long/short each week. If your goal is weight loss, then you will only achieve that by a calorie deficit, which usually means eating less, as well as cycling.


----------



## Pauluk (14 Jul 2012)

I would think that 3 X 1 hr rides would be better for me as over a shorter distance I would be able to work harder. This may reduce the amount of fat getting into my blood more effectively than one "easier" but longer ride.

However, as you said the same average speed, then I guess the shorter rides would be easier than the longer ride. This is because I suspect my average speed would be naturally lower over a longer ride so I would take it easier on the shorter ride to keep my average the same.

In terms of fitness I would think that vigorous 3 X 1 hour rides over 3 days may be better than 1 X 3 hour ride over the same 3 days but I'm not sure.

In terms of weight loss, it won't make much of a noticeable difference as exercise doesn't result in much weight loss, if any at all.


----------



## MrJamie (14 Jul 2012)

Id expect separate rides to raise your heart rate more, but i doubt it would make much difference to calories burnt let alone weight loss.

Ultra-marathoners training for big distances sometimes train by doing a long very run one day and a long run the next day before their muscles have recovered rather than going out and running the full distance one day, so i guess it still builds endurance too.


----------



## boydj (14 Jul 2012)

From my marathon-running days when I did a bit of research on food and exercise the main point I remember is that it generally takes about 30 minutes of exercise for your fat-burning metabolism to kick in. Up to that point you are primarily using the glycogen stored in your muscles to fuel the exercise. Endurance training is all about improving your fat-burning capability in order to preserve glycogen reserves. The glycogen is generally replenished within a day.

I'd guess that a 3-hour run would burn a lot more fat than 3 1-hour runs, since your fat-burning would be running for 2.5 hours - and also give you a longer afterburn.


----------



## black'n'yellow (14 Jul 2012)

Fat burning is a bit of a misconception. I'm burning both fat and carbs as I type this, and you are all burning both fat and carbs as you are reading it. There is no point after which fat burning occurs, because you are doing it all the time. Low level exercise will burn a higher proportion of fat to carbs though. High intensity exercise will 'burn' the most amount of calories though, regardless of duration.


----------



## Sittingduck (14 Jul 2012)

What B&Y just said is true^
I would try and do as much as you can, as fast as you can, for as long as you can for the most burn. Of course, it's good to mix it up and do long but steady and short intense rides or even long intense rides! Try it out and see how you get on


----------



## captainhastings (14 Jul 2012)

I think for weight loss you need to do what ever for an hour and more. Once you get over the hour it starts too eat fat. No real idea what I am talking about just what I have read. But I do know when I started running for more than an hour at a time the weight really dropped off me. I guess it would be similar for cycling but maybe slightly less.
Nice little article there
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/health-how-to-burn-fat-better-1065/

pretty much what boydj said


----------



## lulubel (14 Jul 2012)

Weight loss happens as a result of being in a calorie deficit, not from exercise, so from that point of view, there's no difference.

If you're eating the same amount, the 3 separate rides would probably mean a (fairly minimal) increase in the calorie deficit because you can work harder for 1 hour at a time than you can for 3, but it is minimal, and I wouldn't use it as the basis for a decision one way or the other.

However, if you're trying to use all the calories you burn doing exercise to create a calorie deficit, the 3 separate rides are much more effective because of the size of deficit you can create. If you burn 500 calories per hour, and you ride for one hour, it's fairly easy to undereat by that amount of calories in a day. If you burn 500 calories per hour, but ride for 3 hours, you'll find it hard to undereat by 1,500 calories in a single day, so you'll end up eating some of the extra calories you burned through cycling, and this will slow your weight loss.


----------



## MarkF (14 Jul 2012)

Binge is good. I cycle maybe 2 hours a day, Mon-Fri, maybe 4 or 5 hours over the weekend, my weight remains static. I recently cycled 5-6 hours a day for 2 weeks, ate like a pig and lost 6kg.


----------



## Pauluk (14 Jul 2012)

lulubel said:


> Weight loss happens as a result of being in a calorie deficit, not from exercise, so from that point of view, there's no difference.


+1 

It takes a lot of exercise (see MarkF post above) to take weight off. By burning calories and then not putting them back in (or all of them) you create a calorie deficiency. The body is quite smart though. When you use calories it will expect them back so often you can feel hungry after a calorie burn. Some people will just put the calories they have used straight back for this reason.


----------



## defy-one (14 Jul 2012)

Longer periods in the saddle should mean less time with your nose in the fridge 
Also the afterburn will be higher the next day.
Binge cycling is good imo


----------



## stephen.rooke (15 Jul 2012)

more shorter rides are better as you wont have to eat while riding so calorie defecit will be bigger, if you do a long ride youll need to eat more calories to get you through the ride


----------



## redcard (15 Jul 2012)

Quite a few folk here pretending they have knowledge that they don't!

Ride more and eat less.
If you lose weight then keep doing it.
If you don't then eat a bit less.
Rinse and repeat.


----------



## Nebulous (15 Jul 2012)

Try mixing both - a 3 hour ride and 2 one hour ones! You need to run a calorie deficit, and exercise can play its part, but you may need to do more than you think.

The only other thought I had about the 3 hour ride versus 3 one hour ones is the effect on your metabolism. You haven't given a timescale, but if you are talking about doing them over a week then 3 sessions will help keep your metabolic rate up more than a single session will.


----------



## MattHB (15 Jul 2012)

redcard said:


> Quite a few folk here pretending they have knowledge that they don't!
> 
> Ride more and eat less.
> If you lose weight then keep doing it.
> ...



This is the most sensible advice here so far. I did this and lost over 2.5 stone. 

You don't need to get complicated about it. Weigh yourself once a week, under the same conditions, preferably with scales that show you changes in body fat. If you're leaner, keep doing what your doing, if not, ride more or eat less.

Also watch you're not over compensating for fuel burned. Most people VASTLY over estimate calorie burn then think they can have 2 dinners as its in the bank!

Aim to get leaner, not lighter.


----------



## black'n'yellow (15 Jul 2012)

redcard said:


> Quite a few folk here pretending they have knowledge that they don't!


 
which ones exactly? As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone has said the same thing as you - that a calorie deficit is the way forward.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Jul 2012)

MattHB said:


> *This is the most sensible advice here so far. I did this and lost over 2.5 stone.*
> 
> You don't need to get complicated about it. Weigh yourself once a week, under the same conditions, preferably with scales that show you changes in body fat. If you're leaner, keep doing what your doing, if not, ride more or eat less.
> 
> ...


No it isn't.



redcard said:


> _*Quite a few folk here pretending they have knowledge that they don't!*_
> Ride more and eat less.
> If you lose weight then keep doing it.
> If you don't then eat a bit less.
> Rinse and repeat.


How do you know the OP can actually eat less? All too often people on here (and other cycling forums) people post diets and it simply isn't _enough_ intake. I don't understand how you can prescribe the solution without knowing the cause.

Your opening statement said a lot about you only.


----------



## MattHB (15 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> No it isn't


 
it is.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Jul 2012)

MattHB said:


> it is.


You'll need to explain how it's sensible advice to recommend eating less - when nobody knows what the OP eats in the first place.


----------



## MattHB (15 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You'll need to explain how it's sensible advice to recommend eating less - when nobody knows what the OP eats in the first place.


 
he clearly says in the first line, 'ride more and eat less'... he wasnt intending to be accurate but was merely illustrating that it didnt need to be that complicated (which it doesnt). 

why get so picky just for the sake of it? we get his point.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Jul 2012)

MattHB said:


> he clearly says in the first line, 'ride more and eat less'... he wasnt intending to be accurate but was merely illustrating that it didnt need to be that complicated (which it doesnt).
> 
> why get so picky just for the sake of it? we get his point.


Yes it clearly says "ride more and eat less" which people tend to take literally. Advice you cannot give until you know, what the person consumes in a day and how much the person rides.

When you're giving dietry advice it's always worth getting the facts before dispensing the "eat less move more" advice, often it isn't that simple and if it was - nobody would be overweight or obese.


----------



## Andrius.B (15 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You'll need to explain how it's sensible advice to recommend eating less - when nobody knows what the OP eats in the first place.


 
There are only two possible reasons for being overweight which I can think of:
- weight related illness
- calorie imbalance (too much eating + not enough exercise)

The OP did not say anything about any weight related illness, hence I guess the extra weight built up because of too much food intake versus exercise, and if this is the case (let OP decide) then the obvious solution is to do the opposite: eat less + exercise (cycle) more. Takes a strong will, but that's the way to do it.

Edit: and by the way, there is no point to do more and more exercise to lose weight if you don't cut down the food input first. Instead of increasing your daily exercise by +20 min you could just not eat that chocolate bar, or eat 30% smaller dinner. And please don't say that by eating less you can deprive your body from energy, because as long as you are overweight, your body is getting more food than it needs to sustain you in relation to your current activity level.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Jul 2012)

Andrius.B said:


> There are only three possible reasons for being overweight which I can think of:
> - weight related illness
> - calorie imbalance (too much eating + not enough exercise)
> - eating too little


Fixed that for you.



> The OP did not say anything about any weight related illness, hence _*I guess*_ the extra weight built up because of too much food intake versus exercise, and* if this is the case (let OP decide)* then the obvious solution is to do the opposite: eat less + exercise (cycle) more. Takes a strong will, but that's the way to do it.


You guessed as did others that the OP eats too much without the OP posting any form of dietry example. That is a pretty stupid thing to do when you all also advise to eat less and exercise more. None of us know exactly as yet what the story is,so to dispense advice is a tad premature.

In fact - the OP only wanted to know which was better 1x3hr or 3x1 hr rides. Truth is it doesn't matter if your diet is insufficient or crap - you will never outexercise it.


----------



## lulubel (15 Jul 2012)

You lot are funny. You give people unsolicited advice (ie don't answer the question the OP asked), and then argue over whether the unsolicited advice was correct or not.

(I agree with T.M.H.N.E.T, by the way. Unless you know someone is overeating, advice to eat less is unhelpful at best, harmful at worst.)


----------



## Andrew_Culture (15 Jul 2012)

lulubel said:


> (I agree with T.M.H.N.E.T, by the way. Unless you know someone is overeating, advice to eat less is unhelpful at best, harmful at worst.)



This. I followed the advice to eat more and not only am I slimmer I also feel a LOT better!


----------



## black'n'yellow (15 Jul 2012)

Andrew_Culture said:


> This. I followed the advice to eat more and not only am I slimmer I also feel a LOT better!


 
There we are. Proof - if any was needed - that eating more makes you thinner. Now, where's the biscuit tin....


----------



## stephen.rooke (15 Jul 2012)

best way to lose weight is to have something you'll stick to, point eating like a rabbit if your not going to stick with it. generally try to eat better and cut out mars bars and fizzy drinks etc. enjoy your rides whether you choose lots of short rides or less long rides. if your enjoying what your doing you'll be more likely to stick to it


----------



## Andrius.B (15 Jul 2012)

I got it, finally. Eating more *is* the way to lose weight.


----------



## stephen.rooke (15 Jul 2012)

Andrius.B said:


> I got it, finally. Eating more *is* the way to lose weight.


 
great news i'm off to the shop to buy all the chocolate


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Jul 2012)

Andrius.B said:


> I got it, finally. Eating more *is* the way to lose weight.





stephen.rooke said:


> great news i'm off to the shop to buy all the chocolate


A fine example of how to fail at reading.


----------



## stephen.rooke (15 Jul 2012)

its


T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> A fine example of how to fail at reading.


called being sarcastic


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Jul 2012)

stephen.rooke said:


> its
> called being sarcastic


Hard to tell when your posts in this thread are contradictory bolleaux


----------



## Andrius.B (15 Jul 2012)

This is the best thread ever


----------



## stephen.rooke (15 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Hard to tell when your posts in this thread are contradictory bolleaux


 
how are they. my posts were if you do a long ride, i.e 60 miles, your likely to be using energy bars etc to get through the ride so negating alot of the calories your burning. 

if you cycle more shorter routes. i.e. 20 miles each day you can just have your normal meals without having anything extra so will lose more weight.

if someone chooses a diet that is healthier i.e. less calories but is unlikely to stick with it then there going to revert to there old ways. if they have a slightly higher calorie diet but something theyll enjoy the weight loss may take longer but itll stay off.

please tell me whats contradictory. ive lost 3 stone this year so should be allowed to have my say on the matter


----------



## stephen.rooke (15 Jul 2012)

and its slightly obvious that someone is joking when on a weight loss page they say there going to buy loads of chocolate


----------



## Andrius.B (15 Jul 2012)

just because a food has less calories does not mean it is healthy. A good died is more about balancing the nutrients. For example, eating a balanced diet with a correct amount of vitamins, fiber, minerals, fats etc that gives you 3000 calories a day is better for you and will make you gain less weight then a diet that is unbalanced and lacks vital elements/vitamins/etc which gives you 2500 calories a day. Why? Because an unbalanced diet will make your body systems (digestive system, endocrine system, etc) not as effective in their functions which will affect the way your body extracts, uses and stores energy.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Jul 2012)

stephen.rooke said:


> how are they. my posts were if you do a long ride, i.e 60 miles, your likely to be using energy bars etc to get through the ride so negating alot of the calories your burning


Don't you think during a 60mile ride it would be pretty important to replace some of the calories,especially given the chances of already being in calorie deficit? 80cals for a gel (High5) really is nothing over the latter part of a long ride,even if you take <insert number of> You have to eat it before you can burn it..

ie: If your maintenance intake is 3000 per day - you deficit yourself to 2500 - then burn 1500 on a long ride. Don't you see how the maths doesn't work there? The deficit is huge and eventually unsustainable,you have to make that back up. You've essentially left 1000 calories for your body to run on for a day,that includes just breathing - working - recovering - mending itself. It will lead eventually to breakdown,very quickly if on a regular basis

**A sustainable deficit is generally considered to be 1000cals per day made up of diet and exercise**



> if you cycle more shorter routes. i.e. 20 miles each day you can just have your normal meals without having anything extra so will lose more weight.


No. Overall deficit is key the distance is irrelevant. If you have to consume some food on 2 70mile rides then why not? The net result is the same.



> if someone chooses a diet that is healthier i.e. less calories but is unlikely to stick with it then there going to revert to there old ways. if they have a slightly higher calorie diet but something theyll enjoy the weight loss may take longer but itll stay off.


Healthier doesn't mean less calories,I would apply that term quicker to the source of the calories ie:the food. Huge deficits aren't on the longterm sustainable,they may show short term results but in the end people go back to their old habits. For similar reason I feel it is unwise to advise people to eat less when there is simply no way to know what they are consuming. I'm waiting for someone to do this and the OP revealing that he or she is anorexic(most likely not this thread but it will happen eventually somewhere). I can imagine such topic being interesting.



> please tell me whats contradictory. ive lost 3 stone this year so should be allowed to have my say on the matter


Maybe contradictory was the wrong term. Lemme change it to "ill-informed"


----------



## Stonepark (16 Jul 2012)

From the OP's point of view the correct answer is 3 rides of 1 hour duration, each ride ( 1 3hr or 3 1 hr) will use roughly the same calories (give or take a few) but the heightened metabolism following a ride persists for up to 24 hours after a ride and will continue to burn calories at a greater rate in expectation of further exercise forthcoming. Therefore 3 extended burn periods are better than 1.

I am building up to a 1 hour(10 miles) bike ride each day (not having been in the saddle for 10 years) and gaining too much body fat due to a sedentary office job. Last week with new bike was building up from 0 miles to 5 miles every second day (breaking in muscles, bottom and bike), this week 5 miles daily and then next week 5-10 miles daily and then see how I feel with 10 miles daily for a week and then increasing from there.

Once I have got up to a level I am happy at, with weekend extended rides I will be looking to build up my distances on a Saturday and having Sunday as recovery with no riding.


----------



## Badger1 (18 Jul 2012)

I didn't realise my thread would cause so much discussion!!

For the record - i eat reasonably healthy but put on some weight about 4 years ago that i'm looking to lose - I am probably 2st overweight (14st vs 12st ideal) but its been constant for the past 4 years. I guess my intake is the same as my output hence the constant weight. What I'm doing now is introducing more exercise into the mix to try and lose it.

I'm currently doing 2x 1hr rides during the week with a longer one at the weekends - but was wondering if i was better off doing a even longer one at the weekends.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Jul 2012)

Badger1 said:


> I didn't realise my thread would cause so much discussion!!
> 
> For the record - i eat reasonably healthy but put on some weight about 4 years ago that i'm looking to lose - I am probably 2st overweight (14st vs 12st ideal) but its been constant for the past 4 years. _I guess my intake is the same as my output hence the constant weight._ What I'm doing now is introducing more exercise into the mix to try and lose it.
> 
> I'm currently doing 2x 1hr rides during the week with a longer one at the weekends - but was wondering if i was better off doing a even longer one at the weekends.


Not strictly true, you may not be eating enough also.


----------



## black'n'yellow (18 Jul 2012)

Badger1 said:


> I'm currently doing 2x 1hr rides during the week with a longer one at the weekends - but was wondering if i was better off doing a even longer one at the weekends.


 
If you have the time, then use it - make the weekend ride as long as possible. If you have 4 hours available, then pace yourself to 4 hours...


----------



## MarkF (19 Jul 2012)

Badger1 said:


> I didn't realise my thread would cause so much discussion!!
> 
> For the record - i eat reasonably healthy but put on some weight about 4 years ago that i'm looking to lose - I am probably 2st overweight (14st vs 12st ideal) but its been constant for the past 4 years. I guess my intake is the same as my output hence the constant weight. What I'm doing now is introducing more exercise into the mix to try and lose it.
> 
> I'm currently doing 2x 1hr rides during the week with a longer one at the weekends - but was wondering if i was better off doing a even longer one at the weekends.


 
Badger, I was about a stone overweight before I cycled across Spain, I am 50 and 6'1" so it was no big deal but I wanted to shift it, I was cycling quite a bit and eating ok, my weight remained static, has done for over 2 yaers..

I read the calorie deficit comments, hmmm. I doubt if I ever ate anywhere near 2000 calories in a day for the first 2 weeks. Toast and cereal for breakfast, self made baguette with either tuna, cheese, or salmon along with fruit for lunch, in the evening maybe one small tapas, plate of olives maybe. I was cycling 6 hours a day regularly, some days more. I was running a huge calorie deficit every day. I felt good and I felt better with every day, if my cousin had have agreed I'd have happily upped the daily mileage as I was stopping when I didn't yet want to. Whilst cycling I only drank water and nibbled fruit. By the time I'd got to Seville I'd lost 5kg and I felt bleedin great! I was never tired and never lacked energy apart for one bad day entirely down to alcohol intake.


----------



## LosingFocus (19 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> ie: If your maintenance intake is* 3000 per day* - you deficit yourself to 2500 - then burn 1500 on a long ride. Don't you see how the maths doesn't work there? The deficit is huge and eventually unsustainable,you have to make that back up. You've essentially left 1000 calories for your body to run on for a day,that includes just breathing - working - recovering - mending itself. It will lead eventually to breakdown,very quickly if on a regular basis


 
3000! Are you having a laugh? I'm usually taking in between 1100 and 1600 calories per day, usually burn of 400-600 riding/jogging 4 times per week. I cant imagine anyone outside of elite sports people who need 3000 per day.


----------



## Sittingduck (19 Jul 2012)

I am


LosingFocus said:


> 3000! Are you having a laugh? I'm usually taking in between 1100 and 1600 calories per day, usually burn of 400-600 riding/jogging 4 times per week. I cant imagine anyone outside of elite sports people who need 3000 per day.


I am consuming around 3k per day at the moment. I figure about this amount to maintain, maybe a slight loss.


----------



## BSRU (19 Jul 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> 3000! Are you having a laugh? I'm usually taking in between 1100 and 1600 calories per day, usually burn of 400-600 riding/jogging 4 times per week. I cant imagine anyone outside of elite sports people who need 3000 per day.


An average guy requires 2500 calories a day, a British Army daily ration pack is 4000 calories, less than 1000 and you would be starving yourself.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (19 Jul 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> 3000! Are you having a laugh? I'm usually taking in between 1100 and 1600 calories per day, usually burn of 400-600 riding/jogging 4 times per week.


Congratulations you're undereating!



> I cant imagine anyone outside of elite sports people who need 3000 per day.


But could you imagine them living on 1100-1600cals per day?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (19 Jul 2012)

BSRU said:


> An average guy requires 2500 calories a day, a British Army daily ration pack is 4000 calories, less than 1000 and you would be starving yourself.


At last,someone who understands.


----------



## LosingFocus (19 Jul 2012)

BSRU said:


> An average guy requires 2500 calories a day, a British Army daily ration pack is 4000 calories, less than 1000 and you would be starving yourself.


 
Amazingly, Im not in the army nor am I built like your average squadie (a lot less muscle bulk to carry about)


----------



## BSRU (19 Jul 2012)

Apparently Wiggins is consuming 9000 calories a day.


----------



## LosingFocus (19 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Congratulations you're undereating!


 
Aye, thats what you do to lose weight.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (19 Jul 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> Aye, thats what you do to lose weight.


Unfortunately for you it isn't.


----------



## black'n'yellow (19 Jul 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> Aye, thats what you do to lose weight.


 
what, under-eat..?


----------



## black'n'yellow (19 Jul 2012)

BSRU said:


> Apparently Wiggins is consuming 9000 calories a day.


 
during three-week stage races perhaps. Not every day of the year though, or else he'd be as big as a house....


----------



## LosingFocus (19 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> what, under-eat..?


 
Yes, eat less that I used to. I used to eat about 2.5k per day, ballooned to almost 16st. Now, controlling intake I have dropped to just over 11st. Not rocket science. Unless you are really really active, you dont need 2.5k or 3k calories per day.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (19 Jul 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> Yes, eat less that I used to. I used to eat about 2.5k per day, ballooned to almost 16st. Now, controlling intake I have dropped to just over 11st. Not rocket science. Unless you are really really active, you dont need 2.5k or 3k calories per day.


Eating less and undereating are very different things.


----------



## LosingFocus (19 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Eating less and undereating are very different things.


 
Rhetoric is all well and good, but you are not backing it up with anything. I've stated that currently I'm on about 1100-1600 per day, then burn between 400-600 4 times per week on short bike rides or runs. I've lost weight, I'm not ill, I'm functioning fine (in fact I've never had such... "focused" mental ability), leading a normal life fine (working 8-9 hours per day, looking after 2 young kids, looking after a house etc). If I went back to 2500 calories per day I would be massive again. That would be an extra 7500 per week!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (19 Jul 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> Rhetoric is all well and good, but you are not backing it up with anything. I've stated that currently I'm on about 1100-1600 per day, then burn between 400-600 4 times per week on short bike rides or runs. I've lost weight, I'm not ill, I'm functioning fine (in fact I've never had such... "focused" mental ability), leading a normal life fine (working 8-9 hours per day, looking after 2 young kids, looking after a house etc). If I went back to 2500 calories per day I would be massive again. That would be an extra 7500 per week!


It's all great until it goes wrong fella.


----------



## LosingFocus (19 Jul 2012)

So still nothing to back up this "going wrong" thing..


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (19 Jul 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> So still nothing to back up this "going wrong" thing..


Selective reading,I like it


----------



## LosingFocus (19 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Selective reading,I like it



Your entire reply was a quote of me and the line "ok all ok until it goes wrong" or similar. Still nothing more the rhetoric...


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (19 Jul 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> Your entire reply was a quote of me and the line "ok all ok until it goes wrong" or similar. Still nothing more the rhetoric...


 
Actually it said "It's all great _*until*_ it goes wrong fella" I've bolded the important word for you. Do you know why you put weight on when you eat more?


----------



## LosingFocus (19 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Actually it said "It's all great _*until*_ it goes wrong fella" I've bolded the important word for you. Do you know why you put weight on when you eat more?


 
That's a bit like saying "Well, I was winning the race until I lost"; a pointless, throwaway statement designed to infer some sort of presumptive hindsight so the sayer can look back and say "well, I was right" no matter what the outcome. If it goes wrong you say "told you so"; if it doesn't you say "well, it will" ad infinitum... weasel wording I believe is the modern term for it.

What you need to do, to stop yourself falling down a dark hole of rhetoric and cliché, is to provide a back up of what could go wrong, when it could go wrong and why. Any chance?

You put weight on as your eat more - kinda self explanatory really...


----------



## Sittingduck (19 Jul 2012)

You need to build deficits yep. I would try to do this by eating a sensible amount and doing as much exercise as possible. I lost a lot in a comparitively short space of time and can count the number of days I consumed less than 2000 cals on my fingers and have digits leftover!

Different things for different people, I suppose but I believe the best way is to make losses by sheer hard work and sensible, controlled eating. Maybe this is because I'm natrually a greedy guts but have no problem doing a lot of exercise. Most people are the other way round, in my experience.


----------



## black'n'yellow (19 Jul 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> Yes, eat less that I used to. I used to eat about 2.5k per day, ballooned to almost 16st. Now, controlling intake I have dropped to just over 11st. Not rocket science. Unless you are really really active, you dont need 2.5k or 3k calories per day.


 
how are you measuring your calorie intake, out of interest..?


----------



## Powely (19 Jul 2012)

Badger1 said:


> I am probably 2st overweight (14st vs 12st ideal) but its been constant for the past 4 years.


 
Just out of interest, what height are you?


----------



## LosingFocus (19 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> how are you measuring your calorie intake, out of interest..?



Recording on MyFitnessPal but using exact figure obtained from label rather than wild guesses. As for calories out, I take the average figure from across 3 different apps (track gps and hrm) and ten subtract 10%


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (19 Jul 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> That's a bit like saying "Well, I was winning the race until I lost"; a pointless, throwaway statement designed to infer some sort of presumptive hindsight so the sayer can look back and say "well, I was right" no matter what the outcome. If it goes wrong you say "told you so"; if it doesn't you say "well, it will" ad infinitum... weasel wording I believe is the modern term for it.
> 
> What you need to do, to stop yourself falling down a dark hole of rhetoric and cliché, is to provide a back up of what could go wrong, when it could go wrong and why. Any chance?
> 
> You put weight on as your eat more - kinda self explanatory really...


Currently you are technically heavily calorie restricting which slows metabolism down (this is rather common) when you begin eating more -weight gain is pretty much a given. It's a starvation response often referred to by the ignorant as "starvation mode" When the body is deprived of calories it will quite happily metabolise stored fat leading to weight loss,when there is nothing else it has to slow down to compensate for the intake. 1100-1600 is NOT a sustainable intake for an active male,no book,study or leaflet you find will ever state as such.

Great you lost weight! But you like many others before and many to come have found out the hard way in that - you now cannot eat normally. Your weight loss was really quick wasn't it?

Congratulations


----------



## LosingFocus (20 Jul 2012)

I did reply last night but it seems the forum bummed out.



T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Your weight loss was really quick wasn't it?


Quick? Not really, unless you consider just over a stone in just over a year quick...



T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> 1100-1600 is NOT a sustainable intake for an active male,no book,study or leaflet you find will ever state as such


Sustainable? Well, seems to be for me, didnt know all people were exactly the same. In fact, it's quite obvious that they are not, as a friend of mine can eat and eat and eat and not put a pound on.



T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> But you like many others before and many to come have found out the hard way in that - you now cannot eat normally.


I eat normally too, 3 meals per day plus snacks, just not large portions. Hell, I have days when I have a large breakfast or I know I'm having a large dinner, so I compensate by eating less at the other meals.



T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Currently you are technically heavily calorie restricting which slows metabolism down (this is rather common) when you begin eating more -weight gain is pretty much a given. It's a starvation response often referred to by the ignorant as "starvation mode" When thqe body is deprived of calories it will uite happily metabolise stored fat leading to weight loss,* when* there is nothing else it has to slow down to compensate for the intake.


I've highlighted the point for you. I'm currently just over 11st, and trust me I have a lot of fat left to go. When I'm at a healthy weight, I will slowly increase the calorie consumption by a few hundred to I maintain the weight level. So your point is kind of loss. You lower you calorie in take so your body burns up the fat to make up for the loss. When said fat is gone, you increase the calorie intake. Pretty bloody obvious to me.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Jul 2012)

> Quick? Not really, unless you consider just over a stone in just over a year quick...


Nope that is incredibly slow



> Sustainable? Well, _seems_ to be for me, didnt know all people were exactly the same. In fact, it's quite obvious that they are not, as a friend of mine can eat and eat and eat and not put a pound on.


We aren't that different. Seems to be sustainable? It's evident that you aren't actually sure yourself now,thats a good thing. Your friend at this point has no relevance to the conversation.



> I eat normally too, 3 meals per day plus snacks, just not large portions. Hell, I have days when I have a large breakfast or I know I'm having a large dinner, so I compensate by eating less at the other meals.


1100-1600 calories for a grown man is not normal. Thats barely more than the average intake for a woman. Are you a woman? ( No need to answer this because I know you aren't)



> I've highlighted the point for you. I'm currently just over 11st, and trust me I have a lot of fat left to go. When I'm at a healthy weight, I will slowly increase the calorie consumption by a few hundred to I maintain the weight level.


You will put on weight.



> So your point is kind of loss. You lower you calorie in take so your body burns up the fat to make up for the loss.


Yes you lower it, not half then still take some off. What do you expect to do when loss stops (if it hasn't already)? Lower your intake to an even more dangerous level?



> When said fat is gone, you increase the calorie intake. Pretty bloody obvious to me.


No. By keeping intake high yet within sustainable deficit the body is much happier to allow fat to be burned. By keeping intake high when plateau hits (ie: when weightloss stops) you can further reduce the cals slightly to continue. As your weight decreases so does the required intake to maintain current weight. Reducing cals so dramatically is a really good way to ensure you put weight back on again when calorie intake is raised again.

You can't do any of this. The net result when you begin increasing calories is : weight gain


----------



## Andrius.B (20 Jul 2012)

I see what you are saying T.M.H.N.E.T. pieces of the puzzle are slowly coming together...
Couple of more pages of posts and I might have the full picture.

Keep talking guys


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Jul 2012)

Andrius.B said:


> I see what you are saying T.M.H.N.E.T. pieces of the puzzle are slowly coming together...
> Couple of more pages of posts and I might have the full picture.
> 
> Keep talking guys


Getting info outta this chap is like getting the last bit of toothpaste out of the tube, without using scissors.

What pieces are you currently missing Andrius?


----------



## lulubel (21 Jul 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> Yes, eat less that I used to. I used to eat about 2.5k per day, ballooned to almost 16st. Now, controlling intake I have dropped to just over 11st. Not rocket science. Unless you are really really active, you dont need 2.5k or 3k calories per day.


 
Me: female, 5ft2, 7st 5lb cycle 10-12 hours a week and spend the rest of my life sat in front of a computer
Food intake: average 2,500 cals a day


----------



## disorganisedmum (21 Jul 2012)

lulubel said:


> Me: female, 5ft2, 7st 5lb cycle 10-12 hours a week and spend the rest of my life sat in front of a computer
> Food intake: average 2,500 cals a day


Hi lulubel.Would you mind at all posting roughly what you eat in a day?I am virtually the same height as you yet nearly 3 stone heavier.I realise that as I do exercise alot that some may be muscle mass but am looking to get my weight down which is obv more diet related.However I would like to be getting in a similar number of hours on the bike but not sure of the best foods to eat to fuel it.Here is a rough breakdown of what I eat.Thanks

Before bike ride-banana
After bike ride-Protein shake (kinetica)
Breakfast-Porridge with spoonful of golden syrup
Snack-handful of nuts and piece of fruit
Lunch-wholeweat bagel,proscuito or wholemeal wrap with tuna and sweetcorn
half an avocade
Snack-couple of rice cakes with peanut butter or some fruit with greek yog
Dinner-lean meat/fish with loads of veg,no starchy carbs

prob don't drink enough water but am trying.


----------



## lulubel (21 Jul 2012)

disorganisedmum said:


> Hi lulubel.Would you mind at all posting roughly what you eat in a day?


 
No problem. This is today's food:

Breakfast - cornflakes, all bran, milk, sliced banana and 15g protein powder (423 cals)
Lunch - beans on toast with some grated cheddar on top (393 cals)
Dinner - cous cous, butternut squash and (a little) goats cheese on a green salad with pitta bread (684 cals, which is quite a big dinner for me)
Snacks - yoghurt, choc chip cookie, probiotic yoghurt drink, glass of soya milk, 10g dark chocolate, banana, pear, peach, cherries, banana and cinnamon bun, tiny piece of shortbread (1022 cals)
Total - 2522 cals

The protein powder at breakfast is for no other reason than it seems to help my allergies. I have no idea why. The snacks tend to be small, but frequent (the cookie and bun were around 150 cals each).

The breakdown of calories from different places is 16.4% protein/20.3% fat/63.3% carbs.
Actual amounts by weight are 99.6g protein/54.8g fat/409.5g carbs.

Fat is a bit low. I'd generally try to get closer to 90g protein/65g fat and the remainder carbs.



disorganisedmum said:


> prob don't drink enough water but am trying.


 
I probably drink over 5 litres of fluid a day, including peppermint tea and coffee, but it's incredibly hot here at the moment (38 when I was cycling this morning), so drinking that amount in the UK climate would be excessive for most people.


----------



## disorganisedmum (21 Jul 2012)

lulubel said:


> No problem. This is today's food:
> 
> Breakfast - cornflakes, all bran, milk, sliced banana and 15g protein powder (423 cals)
> Lunch - beans on toast with some grated cheddar on top (393 cals)
> ...


 

Thanks alot for that,it's very interesting to compare.Diet is my big prob cos I am a terrible snacker.Maybe I need to eat a little more (of the right things) at each meal as even having porridge for breakfast,I am hungry less than 2 hours later.
Not sure what to do about this,may speak to a nutritionist or something.I am a real comfort eater too and the above is based on a "good" day where I haven't eaten a choc bar and packet of crisps!
How do you organised your rides?Do you just ride or do you do hills one day,lsd another day,intervals and so on.Thanks for your help.


----------



## black'n'yellow (22 Jul 2012)

disorganisedmum said:


> Maybe I need to eat a little more (of the right things) at each meal as even having porridge for breakfast,I am hungry less than 2 hours later.


 
You're not hungry - you just think you are. Discipline plays a huge role in losing weight. Similarly, eating more at meal times just to compensate for fewer snacks strikes me as being a little counter-productive.


----------



## BSRU (22 Jul 2012)

disorganisedmum said:


> Maybe I need to eat a little more (of the right things) at each meal as even having porridge for breakfast,I am hungry less than 2 hours later.


People often confuse thirst for hunger.


----------



## lulubel (22 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> You're not hungry - you just think you are. Discipline plays a huge role in losing weight.


 
That's a valid point, but possibly a little over-simplified. There are lots of reasons for "imaginary" hunger - thirst, stress, tiredness, boredom, etc. Also, if you're in the habit of eating at a certain time, your brain will remind you by triggering hunger signals.

For women, it can be further complicated by hormones and contraception. Increased hunger at certain times of the month is a well known phenomenon, and progesterone based contraception (injection, implant, some pills) are also known to cause artificial hunger. I'm on the injection, and it wouldn't be much of an exageration to say I'm constantly hungry. That's why I calorie count - because I can't trust my body's hunger signals.

Chocolate bars and most crisps are just empty calories, and won't do anything to help hunger.



disorganisedmum said:


> How do you organised your rides?Do you just ride or do you do hills one day,lsd another day,intervals and so on.Thanks for your help.


 
I generally do a longer (2.5 - 3 hours) ride on Fridays and Sundays, and the other 4 rides are about 1.5 hours each. Within that, I mostly just ride. I certainly don't plan in advance, but see how I feel when I get on the bike. If I'm tired, I take it easy, if I'm feeling good, I'll push a bit/lot harder. Where I live, there's no way to avoid hills, but I can vary the amount of climbing depending on how I feel. I don't do any kind of structured intervals. I don't see the point, unless you have much more specific goals than just getting fitter/riding faster/further.


----------



## colin miller (17 Aug 2012)

If you want to lose weight why not aim to add some muscle as this would help to burn more calories


----------



## black'n'yellow (17 Aug 2012)

colin miller said:


> If you want to lose weight why not aim to add some muscle as this would help to burn more calories


 
how would that work..?


----------



## colin miller (17 Aug 2012)

You burn more calories the more muscle you have.


----------



## colin miller (17 Aug 2012)

Get out and start riding some hills build up some leg muscles. This would help to burn more calories.


----------



## black'n'yellow (17 Aug 2012)

colin miller said:


> You burn more calories the more muscle you have.





colin miller said:


> Get out and start riding some hills build up some leg muscles. This would help to burn more calories.


 
whoa there, fella - that's a bit inaccurate. Calorie expenditure relates to power output - not muscle size. And building leg muscle bulk is not helpful for an endurance cyclist.


----------



## MrJamie (18 Aug 2012)

I find writing down what I eat really helps me with working out where to cut back and realising how much im overeating, but ultimately for me its a bout will power and self discipline. The most important things for me were finding the striggers which you could put down to boredom (eating to occupy/distract myself) and drinking, even a couple of pints would often be enough to break my resolve and have me stuffing my face at midnight. The difference between losing and gaining half a pound a week isnt much and at the end of the year it could be over 3 stone different (+/- over1.5),

A few years ago I went from about 22 stone down to 16 and despite cycling a few times a week have simply eaten too much and gained back up to 19, although there is some muscle gain in that. Ive started again last week and im pretty much just eating considerably less and only avoiding high cal food like take-aways/chocolate. The science of it isnt particularly complicated when youve got a fair bit to lose IMHO as it takes a considerable amount of calories to sustain especially if you're active.


----------



## Nebulous (18 Aug 2012)

> ="MrJamie, post: 1990288, member: 18788" The difference between losing and gaining half a pound a week isnt much and at the end of the year it could be over 3 stone different (+/- over1.5),


 
My weight gain was positively glacial compared to that, but I got there all the same! If you put on a pound every 3 months, that's difficult to measure accurately, but gives you 4 pounds a year, 40 pounds in 10 years, and in my case 80 or so in 20 years.

It then took me 14 months to take it off at a pound a week, and I've kept it off for the last 15 months or so. I'm much more haphazard at recording than Lulubel, but I reckon I'm on over 3000 calories a day, on around 8-9 hours cycling a week.


----------



## david k (18 Aug 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> It's a good question, I've wondered the same. To narrow it down a bit more, I wondered a whole back if two fifteen mile rides (one on Saturday, one on Sunday) would be the equivalent of a single 30 mile ride on one of the days.
> 
> Calorie wise the (very rough estimate) various sites seem to suggest they would be the same overall calorie count, but part of me thnks surely the thirty mile is higher, so surely it burns more to keep going. Or does the more 'balanced' side of things having exercise each day cancel it out? I couldn't find an answer, not that I looked too hard.
> 
> One thing is certain - if you are trying to build up to do greater distances, then two shorter rides definitely don't compare to one longer one.


 
think for calorie burn a quicker shorter ride but for fat burn a slow longer ride

so id presume for people who are very overweight they should go as far as possible and not worry about speed

for burning off extra calories a quicker burst

Just MO


----------



## david k (18 Aug 2012)

i was told when considering weight loss diet affects it by 80% and exercise by 20%

so if weight loss only is the target then concentrate on what you eat

I recall a doctor on a weight loss tv programme some years ago saying about someone who was training hard but not necessarily eating much less *"there are plenty fat fit people out there"*


----------



## Nebulous (18 Aug 2012)

david k said:


> i was told when considering weight loss diet affects it by 80% and exercise by 20%
> 
> so if weight loss only is the target then concentrate on what you eat
> 
> I recall a doctor on a weight loss tv programme some years ago saying about someone who was training hard but not necessarily eating much less *"there are plenty fat fit people out there"*


 
It depends on how much you are doing. That programme on sports drinks recently was talking about 30 minutes exercise 3 times a week. Now with all due respect, that may be better than nothing, but I cannot see it shifting a lot of weight on its own. I'm doing about 9 hours hard exercise a week and reckon I need about 800 calories a day to compensate for it. That's getting to a level where the exercise makes a substantial difference. A younger 'serious' competitive cyclist may well be doing twice the time/ miles that I am, and might be struggling to eat enough without some good dietetic help. Then goodness knows what the pros are doing- they're on a different planet altogether. 

I remember reading that despite the obesity crisis we are actually eating about 400 calories a day less than we did in the 50's. The snag is we are burning 5-600 calories a day less. Central heating, motor cars and less manual jobs are all part of that, but that leads me to the view that sedentary lifestyles are at least as much of the problem as the rubbish we shovel down our throats.


----------



## david k (18 Aug 2012)

Nebulous said:


> It depends on how much you are doing. That programme on sports drinks recently was talking about 30 minutes exercise 3 times a week. Now with all due respect, that may be better than nothing, but I cannot see it shifting a lot of weight on its own. I'm doing about 9 hours hard exercise a week and reckon I need about 800 calories a day to compensate for it. That's getting to a level where the exercise makes a substantial difference. A younger 'serious' competitive cyclist may well be doing twice the time/ miles that I am, and might be struggling to eat enough without some good dietetic help. Then goodness knows what the pros are doing- they're on a different planet altogether.
> 
> I remember reading that despite the obesity crisis we are actually eating about 400 calories a day less than we did in the 50's. The snag is we are burning 5-600 calories a day less. Central heating, motor cars and less manual jobs are all part of that, but that leads me to the view that sedentary lifestyles are at least as much of the problem as the rubbish we shovel down our throats.


never thought of it that way, thats a great insight

i think on an individual basis, most very obese people are so due to poor diet and exercise. therefore in this case exercise alone wont get the desirered results

the idea of long slow exercise is to burn fat not calories as such
when i started walking 10 years ago it was because i couldnt run (not due to weight but ilness) when i tried to run it hurt so much i didnt do it. so i started walking and it was fantastic for me. not just the exercise and calories burnt as these could be negligible on short/medium walks but the fresh air, sense of achievement, walking not eating all makes you happier

my advice is try to do as much as possible but not so much you dont enjoy it as then you will stop


----------



## Nebulous (18 Aug 2012)

david k said:


> never thought of it that way, thats a great insight
> 
> i think on an individual basis, most very obese people are so due to poor diet and exercise. therefore in this case exercise alone wont get the desirered results
> 
> ...


 
Anything people can do is better than nothing, and I didn't mean to disparage that. It feeds into the whole virtuous cycle, self-esteem, increased well-being, and simply not eating when you are out walking. So diet will play the biggest part for a start, but if you keep at it the balance does shift in favour of exercise rather than reducing intake.

I was heading for 50, 5'9" and the wrong side of 18 stone. From what I could do I think I was fitter than many of the beginners on here, who describe a great deal of distress cycling a mile. I could run up stairs, I could climb a large hill with a picnic, I could cycle 10-15 miles with my children with no ill effects, possibly a bit of breathlessnes, but I rarely did any of these things. I was however at risk of health problems, and decided to do something about it. I focused almost entirely on diet, with small exercise changes, walking to the shops at lunchtime instead of taking the car, for instance. I was 8 months in, and down to 15 stone 10 before I started cycling. 14 months from starting dieting I was down to 13 stone, and had become very serious about my cycling, which had taken over from any idea of weight loss. By then I was getting a lot of pressure from people around me to stop losing weight. It's funny how colleagues, family and casual acquantances suddenly had a view that I had a problem, when none of them had ever said 'You're getting very porky, aren't you?'

So I'm now fitter, probably than I have ever been, certainly since my teens, and lots of people are surprised at how much food I can put away. I'm at a level, as I said earlier, where my exercise has a major impact on the calories I need.


----------



## stephen.rooke (18 Aug 2012)

david k said:


> i was told when considering weight loss diet affects it by 80% and exercise by 20%
> 
> so if weight loss only is the target then concentrate on what you eat
> 
> I recall a doctor on a weight loss tv programme some years ago saying about someone who was training hard but not necessarily eating much less *"there are plenty fat fit people out there"*


 
way i look at it is if you eat a mars bar thats 250kcal so your going to have to put in a 15/20min ride to burn it off, so cut out the mars bar and that 20 mins of riding is a bonus. 

cut out the junk, ride and have fun and the weight will come off


----------



## MrJamie (18 Aug 2012)

Nebulous said:


> It depends on how much you are doing. That programme on sports drinks recently was talking about 30 minutes exercise 3 times a week. Now with all due respect, that may be better than nothing, but I cannot see it shifting a lot of weight on its own. I'm doing about 9 hours hard exercise a week and reckon I need about 800 calories a day to compensate for it. That's getting to a level where the exercise makes a substantial difference. A younger 'serious' competitive cyclist may well be doing twice the time/ miles that I am, and might be struggling to eat enough without some good dietetic help. Then goodness knows what the pros are doing- they're on a different planet altogether.
> <snip>


I find it very easy to "compensate", especially as more exercise makes me more hungry and my "full" mechanism appears to be broken. I eat pretty healthy home cooked meals, low fat, lean stuff, porridge breakfast etc, vitamin supplements but portion size is always a problem and i only drink at weekends and socially. Its got me in the weird situation where i usually cycle about 80-100 miles a week purely for leisure and run 5-10k two or three times, but im still able to easily maintain or gain at 19 stone. It definitely affects my speed a lot running, but i dont think much when cycling - I tried a 10 mile TT course recently on my 20kg hardtail and averaged over 18mph which im more than happy with, but i struggle way more than i would like to up hills. Im trying to lose weight partly because next year id like to run a marathon and in a reasonable time, I did a half in 2 hours so far and partly because my hill speed cycling is disgraceful. I do think its very possible to be fat and fit, although no doubt its not as healthy as being fit and slim.

Gonna go and try to cycle away some more belly!


----------

