# not losing weight?



## picklemomma (14 Oct 2011)

I've been cycling between 25 + 50 miles a week for the last month but the scales aren't shifting, although I'm sure my clothes feel looser (but that could be wishful thinking...)

Is it that I'm just replacing fat with muscle so the scales won't move? Or is that a myth?

How long will I have to wait before I really see a difference and people start to comment?

I've only got 1 - 1 1/2 stone to lose to get to my ideal weight, and I know that the last stone is supposed to be the hardest.... 

Any advice / shared experience very welcome!

Cath


----------



## VamP (14 Oct 2011)

Unless you are on a calorie controlled diet, the mileages that you are cycling will by themselves not result in any weight loss.


----------



## picklemomma (14 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> Unless you are on a calorie controlled diet, the mileages that you are cycling will by themselves not result in any weight loss.



I'm watching the calories too, but would have assumed that if I'm eating the same amount now as I was when I was driving to work, there should be some weight loss as I'm burning a lot more calories?


----------



## VamP (14 Oct 2011)

picklemomma said:


> I'm watching the calories too, but would have assumed that if I'm eating the same amount now as I was when I was driving to work, there should be some weight loss as I'm burning a lot more calories?



You're probably not burning any more than 1200 - 2000 extra calories per week. That's a small enough amount over a week to disappear in calorie counting inaccuracies.

On the other hand if your clothes feel looser, then it's working, and the weight is a secondary indicator, so just persevere.

I don't believe that muscle growth will be significant at your mileages, unless you're combining with gym as well.


----------



## Ghost Donkey (14 Oct 2011)

I'm not sure if this will be helpful to you at all but how I'm losing weight is in the OP. This is certainly working for me. https://www.cyclechat.net/

I will add the strong disclaimer that I know absolutely nothing about nutrition and am not qualified to advise on it on any level. Please do your own research before changing diet etc.


----------



## gavroche (14 Oct 2011)

I have lost 1.5stone since I started last June. Also I have not altered my diet at all. I just eat the same as before. Can't be bothered with all that calorie counting, that's for girls. I only do between 10 and 20 miles about 3 times a week, all with a few hills thrown in.


----------



## Jim_Noir (14 Oct 2011)

Don't go with weight, go with dress size.


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

Lost 4 stone last year counting calories and excercising, just checked and definitely not a girl. 

Simple solution, to lose weight eat less calories than you use.

Scrap the muscle/fat idea that is only an excuse for those people who eat too much whilst trying to lose weight.


----------



## kedab (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> Lost 4 stone last year counting calories and excising, just checked and definitely not a girl.



but you were 'excising' so that's a bit cheaty 

i put on weight when i began my commute 6 months ago - about a stone to be inaccurate. this, i'm sure, is because my thighs have become rather large - my fiance put it beautifully a few months ago. looking at me with just my pants on she said, from your feet to your waist, you look like an athlete. from your waist up, you look like the skinny little sh!t you've always been 

so more calories burned that taken on will equal weight loss - but the muscle you'll improve/develop (on your bottom half at least) will mean that it won't necessarily happen all that quickly...in my unprofessional opinion


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

you have to burn 45,000 calories to produce a pound of muscle, according to some experts. I suggest you may have been eating more due to the cycling.


----------



## kedab (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> I suggest you may have been eating more due to the cycling.



there is absolutely no doubt about that screenman, no doubt at all - 45,000 calories for a pound of muscle though?! Wow, that's a lot of food...or a few BK Bacon Double Cheese XL's


----------



## moxey (15 Oct 2011)

kedab said:


> from your feet to your waist, you look like an athlete. from your waist up, you look like the skinny little sh!t you've always been



That's nice of her


----------



## Ghost Donkey (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> Scrap the muscle/fat idea that is only an excuse for those people who eat too much whilst trying to lose weight.




I agree with this bit




screenman said:


> Simple solution, to lose weight eat less calories than you use.



Disagree in part as it is an oversimplification I am not doubting for a minute that this worked for you or the effort and commitment involved on your part.

Do a t'internet search for endocrinology and fat storage. It helped me to understand how the body works in terms of storing fat and access to fat stores. You'll need to be wide awake unless it's your subject.



screenman said:


> just checked and definitely not a girl.



I don't know you but I'll trust your answer on this one








screenman said:


> I suggest you may have been eating more due to the cycling.



That was my problem. Lots of exercise = big appetite. That and a love of multi-layered hash brown sandwiches



. I severely overestimated the number of calories I needed to recover (yes I know I just said it's not just about calories). Especially starchy potato based calories (great for recovery) with added processed vegetable oil (not so great for recovery) 

Edited for typos


----------



## gavroche (15 Oct 2011)

You bunch of girlies. Stop worrying about calories and enjoy the cycling!. Just eat proper food and all will be well. Just keep away from junk crap food.


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

Easier said than done, I am married to a women who loves baking cakes, puddings, biscuits etc, then guess what she does not eat them herself but relies on me to clear the shelves. I have found about the only way to lose weight is tie her hands behind her back, trouble is then she cannot make my coffee, black of course less calories.


----------



## VamP (17 Oct 2011)

OK for you guys out there who think it's more about types/quality of food than the calorific balance, how do you explain this?


----------



## Klaus (17 Oct 2011)

I have been cycling regularly for about 18 months now, at week-ends mainly, about 30 to 50 miles a week. Started with 85 kg (I am 5'8"). My diet is reasonably healthy and it's been only recently that I lost some weight. Yesterday the scales told me 82.3 kg. I will keep track on this just to see how this works. Just persevere is my answer.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> OK for you guys out there who think it's more about types/quality of food than the calorific balance, how do you explain this?


We have a better example than that - our local weight loss supremo gb155 got huge eating only junk, and achieved most of his 27-odd stone loss while _still_ eating only junk!


----------



## yello (17 Oct 2011)

I don't expect to loose weight from cycling. My weight loss of 4kg in the last 6 months has been due entirely to diet change. I couldn't tell you the calorific value of the change since I don't count calories. Broadly speaking, I've cut down on carbs and eat a more protein based diet. Not Atkins, not primal - but inspired by both and the many other low carb advocates.

Ghost Donkey ,in both this post and others on the subject, touches on a number of points with which I am in agreement. There is a diverse range of opinion on the subject though and I do not profess to understand the science nor am I in a position to critique it. I simply read and form my own opinion.


----------



## VamP (17 Oct 2011)

ColinJ said:


> We have a better example than that - our local weight loss supremo gb155 got huge eating only junk, and achieved most of his 27-odd stone loss while _still_ eating only junk!




While you are right, gb155 has achieved his weightloss largely through a large increase in physical exercise. What's interesting about the nutritionist example above is that he reached his weight loss purely by reducing calorific intake, while purposely eating junk, and not increasing his exercise at all. It came about as a bet with his students I believe, many of whom thought it was impossible to lose weight without eating more healthily (read - cutting out junk food).

Oh and before anyone thinks that I am advocating eating junk, I'm not.


----------



## Ghost Donkey (19 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> OK for you guys out there who think it's more about types/quality of food than the calorific balance, how do you explain this?



I can't explain it but I like his style. Like I've said I'm not an expert, just read up on various aspects of science and tried making changes which have had a big effect on me personally. I'll stick to what I'm doing (sadly not junk food




).


----------



## screenman (20 Oct 2011)

I must admit I still took in junk food during my weight loss, however I did stay negative calories everyday.


----------



## PeteT (20 Oct 2011)

I think it also depends upon how you cycle. Taking your mileage in a slow, relaxed manner will burn a lot more fat than riding harder, as in the latter case, your body turns to readily-available carbs first; whereas when taking things steady, the body burns fat as it's first preference. Certainly worked for me when I got back on the bike.


----------



## screenman (20 Oct 2011)

PeteT, I have always been a bit confused by that one. 25 miles at say 25mph will burn more calories than at say 10mph as we know. I do know about fueling the systems from different sources, but not how it effects weight loss, perhaps you could enlighten us.


----------



## yello (21 Oct 2011)

PeteT said:


> Taking your mileage in a slow, relaxed manner *will burn a lot more fat than riding harder*, as in the latter case, your body turns to readily-available carbs first; whereas when taking things steady, the body burns fat as it's first preference. Certainly worked for me when I got back on the bike.



That claim is vigorously disputed by many, possibly to the point of it being generally accepted to be incorrect! Consensus is (and I accept it too) that you don't burn more, you just burn more _as a percentage_ of total burn. 

You're right in that at higher intensity levels your body switches to carbs for fuel but it's neither a 100% switch nor does it last that long. There's a limit to carb (glycogen) stores in the body, hence athletes topping up regularly with gels and the like, but fat is more plentiful. You still burn fat on a hard ride, it's just a lesser percentage of the total burn but not necessarily a lesser amount.

There's an interesting article in last month's CyclingActive (I think) about training your body to burn fat in preference to carb. In short, you're inducing bonk and forcing your body to switch to the fat stores. There's also an interesting comment from an ex-pro saying they didn't understand the science but they realised that it they bonked during a race that they'd feel stronger for it in the races/weeks that followed!


----------



## Crankarm (22 Oct 2011)

gavroche said:


> You bunch of girlies. Stop worrying about calories and enjoy the cycling!. Just eat proper food and all will be well. Just keep away from junk crap food.




+1. Your mouth is the only thing that is getting more exercise. Eat smaller portions, exercise harder and for longer. Simples. 

Forget these crap articles by pseudo medico nutritonists in mags such as CP+ or CPactive load of crap. Just eat a healthy balanced diet including carbs and fats as your body needs all food groups, but just cut down on how much food you eat and as I say exercise harder and for longer. It's not frikin rocket science.


----------



## DCLane (22 Oct 2011)

I lost 3 stone during this year; started in March and finished at the end of September.

Once I started cycling the weight didn't change for about 6 weeks. Clothes felt looser but I weighed the same - despite managing a reduced calorie diet carefully. I went for 5-6000 calories a week difference, which was boringly carefully managed. It was muscle replacing the fat, with muscle weighing more.

Then, once I hit May, the weight plummeted off - and I lost 1/2 a stone per month.

Keep going, but I'd add that I had to be doing 100+ miles a week. I'd started at 25, then tried 50 and it was only at 100 that the results really showed.


----------



## broomwagon (22 Oct 2011)

I've been doing three half hour sessions a week on the turbo, nothing scientific, just working up a fair old sweat getting myself fitter and getting out for shortish rides at weekends, 30-40 miles, and the weight's coming off. Everyone who sees me comments on how much I've lost. It's not much, just a few pounds, but apparently it's noticeable to others. Like has been said, I'm not eating any more either, but I do eat sensibly, putting in the right things regarding protein and carbs and exercising the heart to a good old rate.


----------



## yello (23 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> Forget these crap articles by pseudo medico nutritonists in mags such as CP+ or CPactive load of crap.



That's right! Just take your advice from angry posts on forums


----------



## Stig-OT-Dump (23 Oct 2011)

You might find this week's episode of Radio 4's "The Food Programme" interesting. It's discussing whether calorie counting or watching what you put in your mouth is the best way of losing / controlling weight. It should be available on the i-player here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search?q=the food programme


----------



## yello (23 Oct 2011)

Very good. I enjoyed that. Recommended listening.



> massively simplistic view that dieting is about eating less and doing more


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> That's right! Just take your advice from angry posts on forums



Your post doesn't make sense, prat alert!


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> Very good. I enjoyed that. Recommended listening.



Did you eat a bag of doughnuts to keep you going while you listened  ?


----------



## screenman (24 Oct 2011)

I like the simple approach, worked for me.


----------



## yello (24 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> Your post doesn't make sense, prat alert!



You have further endorsed my point. Why couldn't you be civil rather than resort to insult?


----------



## Crankarm (25 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> You have further endorsed my point. Why couldn't you be civil rather than resort to insult?



Merely replying to you in the same vein that you made your previous remark to me old chap.



> That's right! Just take your advice from angry posts on forums


----------



## yello (25 Oct 2011)

Firstly, I appreciate that you have not resorted to abuse.

Secondly, your reply was not in the same vein. I wasn't abusive. At worst, I was mocking. It was intended to both post my disagreement AND to pull your leg about the manner in which you gave your advice!


----------



## Mozzy (25 Oct 2011)

May help, may not. No matter what or how I have lost weight, I ALWAYS change several times throughout, as I find I just get used to whatever I am doing at said time. On occasions just by missing a main meal and substituting with something light/snacky works for many days for me.

This I suppose is my point, keep switching, oh and do get through at least 3 litres of water a day; I find that very helpful.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (25 Oct 2011)

Ghost Donkey said:


> (sadly not junk food
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Once you've stuck to it a while you'll discover that you don't _want_ to eat the junk food anymore - it just tastes vile!
I can remember the last 'soft serve' icecream I had; couldn't finish it!


----------



## VamP (25 Oct 2011)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Once you've stuck to it a while you'll discover that you don't _want_ to eat the junk food anymore - it just tastes vile!
> I can remember the last 'soft serve' icecream I had; couldn't finish it!




Oh. now you've piqued my interest, what's a 'soft serve' ice-cream?


----------



## SavageHoutkop (25 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> Oh. now you've piqued my interest, what's a 'soft serve' ice-cream?



The type that comes out a nozzle rather than being scooped - think a '99' with flake


----------



## VamP (25 Oct 2011)

SavageHoutkop said:


> The type that comes out a nozzle rather than being scooped - think a '99' with flake



OMG does that count as junk food?  I love 99s


----------



## SavageHoutkop (25 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> OMG does that count as junk food?  I love 99s



... because of the flake or because the ice cream actually tastes good?


----------



## VamP (25 Oct 2011)

SavageHoutkop said:


> ... because of the flake or because the ice cream actually tastes good?



Both. There's good and bad mind, but yeah I love the taste.


----------



## Crankarm (27 Oct 2011)

Slightly OT - one of Peter Kay's funniest is his sketch of life as an ice cream van seller and rivalry with another on his patch which ends in open warfare.


----------



## Mozzy (27 Oct 2011)

Oh go then, OT again. haagen dazs ice cream are looking for an apprentice tester.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3896444/Tasty-job-for-fans-of-ice-cream.html

Only in the Sun






Mozzy


----------



## Ghost Donkey (7 Nov 2011)

Not to bring up an old argument here (from a page or two back at least) but my none calorie counting approach pro natural food, natural fat doesn't make you fat, science of body fat storage/hormones/effects of food types on your blood etc approach is still working for me at least. I was getting changed in the bedroom last week and I caught a glimpse of something in the mirror and had to do a double take. Twas stomach muscles. A very pleasant surprise and not something I had previously expected to see. I Spent the next five minutes moving around in front of the mirror trying to find the best position to get them to show . They're now more prominent whilst not being a proper stand out six pack. I'd previously read being lean is more important for this kind of thing than being able to do lots of abdominal exercises. I struggle to reach 40 sit ups at the moment. Needless to say I'll be doing regular core strength work now including abdominal work. I'm actually exercising less than normal in general but regularly swim and am getting gradually faster in the pool faster as well as continuing to make improvements to my running speed. My food choices are not leaving me short on energy. The weight loss obviously helps with making running easier a bit.


----------



## screenman (8 Nov 2011)

So without counting calories you are eating fewer than you use up, well done.


----------



## Ghost Donkey (8 Nov 2011)

screenman said:


> So without counting calories you are eating fewer than you use up, well done.








Not my theory but we're all adults here.

There's so many well qualified individuals backing up every competing theory as well as a large number of lifestyle factors to consider it's impossible to have any concrete proofs or beliefs. There's most likely truth in your point on my calorie intake but my fat and protein intake is up (9 cals per gram fat, 4 or 5 cals per gram carbs in it's crudest calculation) and my two stone weight loss in under three months while still being active would have to be a huge calorie deficit compared to my previous eating. I do believe that it's not as simple as calories in/out but that's just me reading a lot of linked and agreeing articles and resources. I also believe that high calorie fats in their most natural form (nuts, meat fish, eggs, full fat milk, cold pressed olive oil, rapeseed oil) don't make you fat and also believe individuals are different. My mum is the best example I know of when it comes to low calorie intake not making you thin and she really tries and is very strict with her diets and calorie counting and has been for years. She's an individual though and a lot of factors come into play.

Bugger, gone off on one again. Apologies for hijacking the thread


----------



## screenman (8 Nov 2011)

I think I like to simplify things, counting calories seems easier than selective eating, however I fully appreciate everybody is different. I must say that I am yet to meet the person who eats negative calories and does not lose weight.


----------



## Ghost Donkey (8 Nov 2011)

[quotename='screenman' timestamp='1320753639' post='1913904']
I must saythat I am yet to meet the person who eats negative calories and doesnot lose weight.
[/quote]

I'd agree with that 100%. On apersonal note counting calories is a pain but selecting my food outof the ones I know I like and timing certain ones around training ismuch more agreeable. Fitting my choice in and around family meals andbasing it on the food I make for the children makes this even moreso. My wife likes topoint out I don't just "do" things but like to read up onthe how, why and opposing views so I can pretend I know what I'mtalking about 



.


----------



## yello (8 Nov 2011)

It's not that calorie counting doesn't work, it's that there are other ways to loose weight.

I think we might read the same things GD.


----------



## Crankarm (9 Nov 2011)

It's not calorie counting or lack of it that has resulted in your more svelte profile it is doing more exercise. A balanced diet and *frequent hard exercise* will mean you lose weight and become a much healthier person. It is staggering the amount of crap people convince themselves is the reason for their fatness or lack of fitness. Over eating and bone idleness are the causes. Most people are pretty lazy and then a large proportion of these are in denial, they cannot even be truthful with themselves let alone with others. If you really want to lose weight and also become fit and healthy you have to want to do it. There are two ways to do it. 1)Starve yourself and carry on as usual - yes you will get there in the end, size zero, but it will be a pretty miserable experience or 2) Eat a healthy balanced diet, and I don't believe people who claim ignorance as to what is healthy, and crucially do exercise, regularly and work hard. If they want to get fit and lose weight they will. If people are slobs in denial, making up all sorts of excuses and relying on fads, they won't. Period.


----------



## Andrew_P (9 Nov 2011)

To sumerise Crankarm and plaguerise Billy Connolly "Eat less, move more"


----------



## Ghost Donkey (9 Nov 2011)

yello said:


> I think we might read the same things GD.




It looks quite likely we are.


----------



## Ghost Donkey (9 Nov 2011)

Crankarm said:


> It's not calorie counting or lack of it that has resulted in your more svelte profile it is doing more exercise. A balanced diet and *frequent hard exercise* will mean you lose weight and become a much healthier person.


This may be true for a lot of people but I still believe it's not that simple. I disagree with this if you're referring to me. As you don't know me or me eating or training history I could not expect you to see this from my unique point of view and the following is not meant in a negative light towards you or your opinion if indeed you refer to me in your post. I've had a reduced training volume (intensity x duration) during this recent period of weight loss for reasons beyond my control. Several people I train with who race long distance races (ironman with or without the M dot branding) pointed me in the biology/endocrinology, reduced carb increased natural fat and protein direction initially when we were discussing weight management and my concerns with possible weight gain as a result of reduced training volume. They had also had success following this approach. Some recommended reading material and the other information I found following this proved invaluable to me and set me on my way to try and give myself a basic understanding of the subject. A bit of sports nutrition reading also helped with appropriate ways to apply this such as the timing of certain foods relating to training to ensure recovery. I trained six days a week through late spring and summer including once a week 4km open water swim from the spring onwards. My weight was around 13st with very little fluctuation before changing my eating habits. My training has fluctuated up to around June due to said problems out of my control but when time is limited I still train late at night when everyone is in bed. My weight was fairly constant. I have a nice photo of me at ~13st on the finishing line of a triathlon in August when I was at my fittest this year following my highest training volume and a bit of a taper. I currently train around four days a week and have done during this time of weight loss.

It's probably true there are many who are in denial and should eat less and do more as you said. If it were that simple though for every individual the health problems of the nation would be much more easily cured. some of the advice given out by well meaning people which is meant to help clearly doesn't. The diet industry is also exactly that, an industry. It is very easy to blame everyone who is afflicted as lazy. I don't count myself as the afflicted and I am lazy



.

I've done it again. Another long winded post with too many brackets.

I'll get my coat and leave this one alone I think. I'm dragging it on longer than necessary. I'll be in the café if you need me before failing to sort out the Greek economy.


----------



## yello (10 Nov 2011)

Crankarm said:


> It is staggering the amount of crap people convince themselves is the reason for their fatness or lack of fitness.



Some people, I'm sure, bit not all. 

I can agree to differ on the subject since, as GD points out, there is enough research and opinion out there to support any number of views. I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know and stick with what works for me. So I could never simplistically dismiss as lazy those people who are trying to loose weight but failing.


----------



## Glover Fan (12 Nov 2011)

I think the safest bet would be to say you are both right. However Crankarm's is a far simpler method and it will work for everybody.

To put another spin on it, I have noticed a lot of cyclists struggle with the plataeu effect. Lots of initial weightloss followed by nothing or little.

Do you know why? It is far too easy to not push yourself on a bike. Your body becomes far too efficient at cycling, and a lot of people convince themselves that because they are doing exercise per se, then its not their fault. They must have something wrong with their metabolism or the old favourite - "muscle is heavier than fat". It is, but I certainly haven't developed much muscle mass cycling!

Don't forget as well that a lot of people love cycling because you can buy fancy sugary drinks and stop at loads of cafes to stuff your face with cake, because otherwise you will bonk. On a 25 mile ride. It is just absolute overkill. I wouldn't start advising energy drinks until above 50 miles as well as a cake stop in the same distance.

So your average cyclist has 3 initial options:

Cut the crap unnecessary drinking and eating during shorter training rides. Water will suffice.

Try higher intensity workouts or increase distance.

Try cross training.

For me options 1 and 3 combined work beautifully, which is why since I have started running again in the past month I have started to lose a distinct fat pouch around my stomach gained from over indulgence on the bike in summer!


----------



## yello (12 Nov 2011)

Glover Fan said:


> However Crankarm's is a far simpler method and it will work for everybody.



IF (and it is a big if) you can know with any degree of accuracy how many calories you are consuming AND how you are burning them! As I've said plenty of times before, 'burn more than you consume to lose weight' is true (imho)... but it's an overly simplistic statement. Sure, by knocking yourself out on the treadmill and eating lettuce leaves, you will lose weight. But it doesn't have to be that hard. It's your choice and I'm not going to insist on any method.


----------



## yello (12 Nov 2011)

Glover Fan said:


> Don't forget as well that a lot of people love cycling because you can buy fancy sugary drinks and stop at loads of cafes to stuff your face with cake, because otherwise you will bonk. On a 25 mile ride. It is just absolute overkill.



I'd agree. Some (and I include myself in this) don't know how they're burning calories (and so, it follows, how many) and then underestimate how many they are consuming (and of what type).


----------



## Crankarm (12 Nov 2011)

yello said:


> IF (and it is a big if) you can know with any degree of accuracy how many calories you are consuming AND how you are burning them! As I've said plenty of times before, 'burn more than you consume to lose weight' is true (imho)... but it's an overly simplistic statement. Sure, by knocking yourself out on the treadmill and eating lettuce leaves, you will lose weight. But it doesn't have to be that hard. It's your choice and I'm not going to insist on any method.




Pro cyclists and athletes who run, cycle or swim frequently and hard struggle to eat enough. They cannot shovel it in fast enough.

I agree with GF that cycling, once one is reasonably proficient, may even be a plodder, there is little incentive to concentrate on technqiue and push oneself to raise your average speed from 12 through 14, 15 mph to 18,19,20 mph. This distinguishes the better and harder cyclists from the plodders who will stop for 90 minutes at the cafe downing all sorts of sugary delights after only 26 miles riding. This seems to be their raison d'etre for riding. For me it certainly is not. I used to cycle about 40 miles a day sometimes 60, 5 days a week then 80 on a weekend on the club ride, also running 6-7 miles each day 5 days a week with all the stretching exercises as well. No time for eating crap not because it wasn't enjoyable once in a while but because it impaired one's performance. I have never ever eaten an energy gel or drunk an energy drink they sound vile. Also the risk to your teeth of dental caries with all that sugar in your mouth is frightening.


----------



## yello (13 Nov 2011)

Indeed, couldn't agree more, the sugary delights are something to be wary of.


----------



## nhoj (13 Nov 2011)

This is a cycling forum, ferchrissakes. I want to read stories about the struggle to _put on_ weight!


----------



## yello (13 Nov 2011)

nhoj said:


> This is a cycling forum, ferchrissakes. I want to read stories about the struggle to _put on_ weight!



It's simple. No struggle involved. Just eat more.


----------



## nhoj (13 Nov 2011)

Sure, the opposite of losing weight, where you just eat less.


----------



## yello (13 Nov 2011)

I think we might be going around in circles  ... or saying the same thing... or misreading each other's (attempt at) humour... or a million other possibilities. Ah the joys of internet forums


----------



## nhoj (13 Nov 2011)

I don't mind going round in circles, as long as we can have a cake stop.


----------



## Ghost Donkey (13 Nov 2011)

Crankarm said:


> Pro cyclists and athletes who run, cycle or swim frequently and hard struggle to eat enough. They cannot shovel it in fast enough.
> 
> I agree with GF that cycling, once one is reasonably proficient, may even be a plodder, there is little incentive to concentrate on technqiue and push oneself to raise your average speed from 12 through 14, 15 mph to 18,19,20 mph. This distinguishes the better and harder cyclists from the plodders who will stop for 90 minutes at the cafe downing all sorts of sugary delights after only 26 miles riding. This seems to be their raison d'etre for riding. For me it certainly is not. I used to cycle about 40 miles a day sometimes 60, 5 days a week then 80 on a weekend on the club ride, also running 6-7 miles each day 5 days a week with all the stretching exercises as well. No time for eating crap not because it wasn't enjoyable once in a while but because it impaired one's performance. I have never ever eaten an energy gel or drunk an energy drink they sound vile. Also the risk to your teeth of dental caries with all that sugar in your mouth is frightening.



We're in complete agreement then




.

Your take on eating is my target. I use an energy drink for the latter parts of long training rides with a couple of gels stowed away in the event of bonking. Never needed them. The run I try and add immediately onto the end of a long bike ride plays a part in this.


----------



## Crankarm (13 Nov 2011)

Ghost Donkey said:


> We're in complete agreement then
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Similar POV. However I tend to end with the bike as I find tired legs pounding the ground give me injuries so I make sure I have a reasonable break and massage before starting running after cycling. It is easier being tired on a bike than running imho unless you bonk. My eating regime is a good breakfast, which doesn't include porridge as I can't stand the stuff, but on a long ride water before and during, dried fruit, couple of bananas and maybe a boiled egg and some nuts just like Stan Laurel. Since I was knocked down for the second time at the start of the year I don't ride on roads anymore so only off road which unfortunately isn't that often. My turbo trainer gave up the ghost some time ago so pretty much my only hard core exercise these days is running about 7-8 miles a day in the evening. Although a break has just been imposed as I was unexpectedly injured a few days ago.


----------



## bicyclos (13 Nov 2011)

The problem today is we are bombarded with food from all angles good and bad. 24 hr supermarkets to takeaways on street corners. We don't know the meaning of the word feeling "starved" or "hungry". Like America, we are over fed to the point of gluttony. Even our lifestles have changed a great deal. We walk less than people decades ago and travel more on comfy seated vehicles and are generaly more lazy. Hard manual labour, something I have been associated with for the past 30yrs in one way or another has changed for machanical devices in some areas but still hard work which has kept my weight down. I eat what I like and good portions, mostly veg and fruit plus a balanced percentage of red and white meats. If I worked in an office I would have to cut my portions down drastically..............


----------



## Ghost Donkey (14 Nov 2011)

Crankarm said:


> Similar POV. However I tend to end with the bike as I find tired legs pounding the ground give me injuries so I make sure I have a reasonable break and massage before starting running after cycling. It is easier being tired on a bike than running imho unless you bonk. My eating regime is a good breakfast, which doesn't include porridge as I can't stand the stuff, but on a long ride water before and during, dried fruit, couple of bananas and maybe a boiled egg and some nuts just like Stan Laurel. Since I was knocked down for the second time at the start of the year I don't ride on roads anymore so only off road which unfortunately isn't that often. My turbo trainer gave up the ghost some time ago so pretty much my only hard core exercise these days is running about 7-8 miles a day in the evening. Although a break has just been imposed as I was unexpectedly injured a few days ago.



I tend to do a twenty to thirty minute run on the end of the bike for that reason. The run follows the bike as I'm trying to improve my triathlon performance and get used to the transition from bike to run but I take your point regarding pounding the floor. I changed to lightweight racing flats last year and I've turned into a much more gentle runner compared to my impressively bad previous technique. That is a separate discussion for another day. I used to run three days a week until recently for the intensity and usually get a turbo session in for the same reason. Swimming with a club is very high intensity. The number of swim sessions is down to one or two ar the moment too. Swimming with a club never gets easier, just faster. Porridge is my Sunday morning pre-bike food of choice, with full fat jersey milk. A bit of milled flaxseed tends to give it a more agreeable taste and it's better for you than golden syrup.


----------



## yello (14 Nov 2011)

bicyclos said:


> If I worked in an office I would have to cut my portions down drastically.



Indeed. The evolutionary perspective would have a lot to say on that very point.


----------



## The Jogger (15 Nov 2011)

nhoj said:


> This is a cycling forum, ferchrissakes. I want to read stories about the struggle to _put on_ weight!




I've cracked that one........


----------



## Fiona N (15 Nov 2011)

Crankarm said:


> Pro cyclists and athletes who run, cycle or swim frequently and hard struggle to eat enough. They cannot shovel it in fast enough.



Well that's not true for everyone. 

Sure during the Tour de France, say, eating enough might become a problem but you only have to watch Lance Armstrong's videos where he's talking about pre-race training and making weight goals and saying there are days where you have to go to bed hungry to make those goals despite the hours of training... and I hardly think Bradley Wiggins would have been indulging in any face stuffing to get his weight down as he has the last two or three summers. Moreover, from my own experience on Mallorca cycling camps and talking to some of the guys there about their goals for the season, it's clear that the serious endurance guys don't eat hugely, certainly not platefuls of pasta. it's the weekend warriors who hit the carbs of an evening. 

And through my teens I used to swim competitively and train several days a week in the pool and the gym (with orienteering on Sunday) but I only ever ate the same at home as my brothers and sisters and took sandwiches to school for lunch. This was the days before snacks - I can't ever remember buying chocolate or packets of crisps as a kid and even at university where I had money to buy my own food, chocolate was mostly from the Army 10man-day packs we used at weekends on TA exercises. And I wonder if this is a key thing - having trained continuously from age 11 or so until my 40's for one endurance sport or another - I would say that I've never actually been unfit - maybe my body has changed what it needs compared to people who've been mostly unfit, eaten snacks and junk food their whole lives and then recently seen the light in their thirties or later.


----------



## yello (16 Nov 2011)

Fiona N said:


> you only have to watch Lance Armstrong's videos where he's talking about pre-race training and making weight goals and *saying there are days where you have to go to bed hungry* to make those goals despite the hours of training.



Ah-ha! There we have it! Damned from his own mouth! It's well known that one of the effects of 'chemical enhancement' is the munchies!!


----------

