# What is best for weightloss?



## geopat (21 Aug 2010)

I am 6' 3" and 15 stone 10. I really want to get down to around 14 stone.

I do around 60 miles (3-5 rides) a week in the summer over varied terrain. Please advise on the following to maximise calorie/fat burning while on my bike:

1. Should I eat a meal before or after going out for my big 1.5 hour run? 
2. Should I put it in a lower gear on the flat and maximise revs or go in as big a gear as possible and as fast as possible?
3. Up hills should I do them in a granny gear or as big a gear as possible?
4. Does it matter when I go out e.g. evening and next morning or a bigger time gap?
5. Does a time goal help i.e. always trying to beat your best time over your usual route?

Any further advice gratefully received
Thanks


----------



## ASC1951 (21 Aug 2010)

If you have a finite amount of willpower - and most of us do - it is easier to lose weight by eating less than by exercising more, particularly if you already do 
a reasonable amount.


----------



## ColinJ (21 Aug 2010)

I think you are overcomplicating things!

You can lose a pound of fat in a week by either:


Riding your bike hard for a total of about 6-8 hours without taking in extra Calories.
Cutting your energy intake down by 500 Calories a day.


It is easier to do it by reducing the intake, but since you are a cyclist, you'll want to the cycling as well so do both and lose 2 pounds a week!


Use whatever gears you want. Climb hills if you want or just ride fast on the flat. Make sure you get a good sweat on and as you get fitter, keep on pushing yourself by riding further and faster.


----------



## Crankarm (21 Aug 2010)

ASC1951 said:


> If you have a finite amount of willpower - and most of us do - it is easier to lose weight by eating less than by exercising more, particularly if you already do
> a reasonable amount.



+1.


----------



## Alan Whicker (22 Aug 2010)

And if you haven't already, cut out bread. Makes a huge difference. Did to me anyway!


----------



## ChrisBD (22 Aug 2010)

Agreed with all of the above.

For some its easy; for others not. But it does work, even if it takes more time for some.

Good luck.


----------



## Garz (22 Aug 2010)

Cycle when you can.

You can still eat the same and lose weight as you will be exercising more, if you want to accelerate the process begin by eating healthier foods then when you start to plateau it's a acse of eating less or making sacrifices. Do it gradually over a longer time will make the adjustments more tolerable.


----------



## yello (22 Aug 2010)

ASC1951 said:


> it is easier to lose weight by eating less than by exercising more



Agreed. 

Further, high intensity exercise can actually make weight loss more difficult because you're often not burning off quite as much as you might think you are AND you'll give yourself the munchies big time after exercise. So if you don't carefully monitor what you're burning off and eating back (and have the incredible willpower to avoid the post-ride call of the fridge!) then you can end up putting *on* weight. 

Look at your diet and cut out any fast sugars/carb more-or-less completely (cake, sweets, desserts, soft drinks, bread etc, pre-packed meals, even potatoes)... the high GI stuff. Then look to reduce portion sizes (and get used to it; it's not a diet, it's a lifestyle change!).

It's not difficult though it does take dedication at first. You do get used to it and can build in an allowance for nights on the beer, or cake stops etc.


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2010)

Hi,agree with ColinJ on this one it sounds like you are over complicating things,the process is very simple use more calories than you take in and you will lose weight. However you do the exercise doesnt really matter,if you really want to get it right my advice would be to use HRM and ride at a pace that gets your HR to the right level for your age (google this for graph of HR/training level and age ). The benefits of this type of training is that you wont overtrain causing you to burn out early and end the exercise session which you may have done longer if you trained at the right level.The main thing is to enjoy whatever exerciese you do or you will not keep it up unless you have exceptional willpower !!Good luck and stick at it the weight will start to fall if you follow the simple rule of burning more energy than you take in.

Geo


----------



## yello (22 Aug 2010)

Sorry, my thoughts on the specific questions...

Eat normally and don't think of it as stocking or replenishing before/after exercise. Obviously, don't eat immediately before a big ride. I find I need at least 20 minutes to allow food to settle, and that's just a small meal.

If your aim is weight loss then don't knock yourself out on your rides. Consider your 'personal best' to be your weight targets. I'm not sure that it matters much when you do the exercise, though I have read morning rides before breakfast are effective for weight loss (though I'm not personally convinced). I like first thing rides myself but that's more for the head than the waist line! Equally, I'm not sure it matters whether you do one big ride or shorter ones morning and evening.

Re gearing, ride to be comfortable. If that means lower gears and faster pedalling then go that way. If you prefer pushing big gears then do that. Either way, try to avoid getting the heart rate thumping for prolonged periods. Increased, yes, but not pushing blood out of your eye sockets!

That's all said assuming that weight loss is the only aim. If you've got an eye of riding sportives etc then my thoughts would change.


----------



## Banjo (22 Aug 2010)

ride the bike how you feel suits you but its generally accepted that straining up hills in a big gear may damage your knees.The last thing you need now is to be laid up with an injury.

I found riding little and often with longer rides when I could fit them in worked well for me.The problem with all day rides is that you have to take on extra calories to keep going after a few hours then if you overdoe the extra food your ride will be a waste of time from a fat loss point of view.

Have a good look at what you are eating and try to make small changes to your diet gradually.

good Luck


----------



## gavintc (22 Aug 2010)

Your weight at nearly 16st has nothing to do with the bike. It is a result of a long period of eating too much of the wrong type of food / drink. cycling 60 miles a week, will have a marginal but nevertheless positive effect. If you are serious about losing weight, you need to have a look at what goes into your mouth. Eat less, change your diet to 'better quality' foods. I think if you sit down and think about it, you will know what the problem is. If you are trying to use the bike to justify no change to your intake, you will not lose any weight as 60 miles is just not enough to make an appreciable difference.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Aug 2010)

Let's get this right. You go out for four 15 mile rides each week?

That must be about 75 minutes of riding each. 

Rides of that length and duration don't deserve any extra nutrition.


If what you want is to be a more powerful rider, I suggest you get in the protein foods after the ride as part of your normal daily calorie allowance.


----------



## geopat (22 Aug 2010)

Thanks for the comments.

I realise I really need to watch what I eat and combine it with a good few miles on the bike. 

Weightloss ain't rocket science but it can be just as difficult...here goes.


----------



## karen.488walker (22 Aug 2010)

Heart rate monitors are good to make sure you are really working out on a ride. Exercise to help weight loss but don't count the extra calories. Diet.


----------



## 515mm (22 Aug 2010)

Right. I'll try and make this short. Take a look at this site - a calorie NEED calculator

http://nutrition.abo...n_guide_men.htm

Look at where you can cut FAT from your food - especially saturated (meat/dairy) fat. You'll find red meats are very calorie dense, however lovely! 

Lean protein rich meals are filling however and the nice full feeling (satiation) lasts longer than carbohydrate or fat rich meals. Protein builds muscle - you'll get stronger and muscle burns calories helping to keep you lean.

Every day you ride for more than an hour you can eat 500 more calories than a day you do not. Just follow the guide and lose a sensible pound a week - it sounds slow but the way you feel as you get leaner is actually far better than 1 pound a week sounds.

This does require a bit of planning and a willingness to cook creatively. It worked for me though - 4st of fat off and a stone and a half of muscle on.

Best of luck to you!


----------



## jimboalee (23 Aug 2010)

515mm said:


> Right. I'll try and make this short. Take a look at this site - a calorie NEED calculator
> 
> http://nutrition.abo...n_guide_men.htm
> 
> ...




I've just tried that website.

If I ate that much, I'd be the size of a house.

(They don't want anyone falling over dead.)

I eat about half of what they recommend.


----------



## marzjennings (23 Aug 2010)

515mm said:


> Right. I'll try and make this short. Take a look at this site - a calorie NEED calculator
> 
> http://nutrition.abo...n_guide_men.htm
> 
> ...




According to that site I need to be eating about 3400 calories a day to loose a pound a week.  

I've often wondered whether I eat enough everyday and whether by eating too little I've actually slowed my metabolism and hence any weight loss.


----------



## jimboalee (23 Aug 2010)

Banjo said:


> ride the bike how you feel suits you but *its generally accepted that straining up hills in a big gear may damage your knees*.The last thing you need now is to be laid up with an injury.
> 
> I found riding little and often with longer rides when I could fit them in worked well for me.The problem with all day rides is that you have to take on extra calories to keep going after a few hours then if you overdoe the extra food your ride will be a waste of time from a fat loss point of view.
> 
> ...



Climbing the cliff steps from the beach carrying the coolbox and windbreak with your three year old son on your shoulders is not harmful to the knees.

Riding a bicycle up an 18% gradient at 30 rpm is.


----------



## gb155 (25 Aug 2010)

ColinJ said:


> It is easier to do it by reducing the intake,



While you are not wrong, I think its important to make the point that EVERYONE is different. 

For me, Its been easier the other way round, but at the same time I am now doing both and as you say, doubling the results, but its important to test the waters and do what works best for you and your body.


----------



## Rob3rt (25 Aug 2010)

gb155 said:


> While you are not wrong, I think its important to make the point that EVERYONE is different.
> 
> For me, Its been easier the other way round, but at the same time I am now doing both and as you say, doubling the results, but its important to test the waters and do what works best for you and your body.



I think people play the everyone is different card way too often, the basic physiology is the same for everyone, there is just some variance in rates etc. The basic principles apply to everyone.

I agree with ColinJ completelly, all it takes is to not eat a mars bar to drop ~400-500 calories, thats 5 miles worth of running (roughly - ofc people burn different emounts per mile, but this is a rough estimate for the sake of example). So thats running 35 miles a week, or replacing a mars bar with an apple each day. Which one is easier? I know which one I think is easiest, 35 miles in a week is not a trivial amount of running for the average person (thats closing in on a non-competative/aiming to finish runners marathon training milage).


----------



## yello (25 Aug 2010)

I know what you're saying Robert. I was reading something recently about how relatively few calories exercise burns up (when compared to relative inactivity and a jam donut!). Add in the munchies factor that exercise can give you and you can see that exercise can lead to weight gain! 

Nobody's saying don't exercise (it's not all about weight loss anyway) but do be aware. It's easier and more effective to be generally active (walking to the shops, taking the stairs, etc) than slogging away on a treadmill if weight loss is your only aim. Then all it takes it the will power to avoid the mars bars! Easy really, says he!


----------



## gb155 (26 Aug 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> I* think people play the everyone is different card way too often*, the basic physiology is the same for everyone, there is just some variance in rates etc. The basic principles apply to everyone.
> 
> I agree with ColinJ completelly, all it takes is to not eat a mars bar to drop ~400-500 calories, thats 5 miles worth of running (roughly - ofc people burn different emounts per mile, but this is a rough estimate for the sake of example). So thats running 35 miles a week, or replacing a mars bar with an apple each day. Which one is easier? I know which one I think is easiest, 35 miles in a week is not a trivial amount of running for the average person (thats closing in on a non-competative/aiming to finish runners marathon training milage).



There are 2 types of people that I have met in relation this.

I know someone who claims to workout for 3/5 hours daily, eat no more than 500 cal's however at 5 foot and 19 stone they have a BMI of around 50 and its going up month on month and has done since I have known them.

However there is then people like myself who find it easier to lose weigh by cycling extra miles if I treat myself then I would by refusing to eat "treats" every now and again, to this end the Everyone Is Different Card is something that does affect all of us, but, some use it just as an excuse !!


----------



## Rob3rt (26 Aug 2010)

gb155 said:


> There are 2 types of people that I have met in relation this.
> 
> I know someone who claims to workout for 3/5 hours daily, eat no more than 500 cal's however at 5 foot and 19 stone they have a BMI of around 50 and its going up month on month and has done since I have known them.
> 
> However there is then people like myself who find it easier to lose weigh by cycling extra miles if I treat myself then I would by refusing to eat "treats" every now and again, to this end the Everyone Is Different Card is something that does affect all of us, but, some use it just as an excuse !!



Not to go all Jimbo on you but lets do some simple maths here, the average person must burn at least 300 calories (probly a hundred or so more) in 1 hour of training (assuming cardio work), so 3-5 hours of this is between 900 and 1500 calories. This same person eats 500 calories a day? Thats a bowl of porridge with some dried fruit and a drink of milk. So a deficit of 400-1000 calories a day, not including the base burn from normal bodily function which is likely to be over 1000 burnt a day. So this person burns about 1400-2000 calories a day, and eats only 500, a deficit of 900-1500 a day. Yet gains weight? Im skeptical (and I'd also be skeletal if I only ate 500 calories a day!!! ). Are you sure this person doesnt eat 5000 calories a day?

Of course if you treat yourself to a mars bar, then do cycle for about 60 mins to burn it of, and enjoy it, that might be easier for you psychologically, but my perspective, looking at this in terms of time spent to calorie deficit created, it takes around 2 hours cycling at a fair lick to compensate for that mars bar and still come away with a deficit of ~500 calories, so thats 14 hours a week on the bike if you eat a mars bar a day. Thats a substantial amount of time. Cutting back on the mars bars by eating an apple instead is surely easier in terms of fitting it into your day?



BTW im not saying you are wrong that its easier for you to ride more than eat less, your acheivement is inspirational, and its amazing what you have acheived and you know what works for you. I think we are both looking at it from a different perspective.


----------



## MrVandal (26 Aug 2010)

I found this useful:
http://www.bicycling.com/training-nutrition/nutrition-weight-loss/fry-fat-intervals


----------



## Fiona N (26 Aug 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> Not to go all Jimbo on you but lets do some simple maths here, the average person must burn at least 300 calories (probly a hundred or so more) in 1 hour of training (assuming cardio work), so 3-5 hours of this is between 900 and 1500 calories. This same person eats 500 calories a day? Thats a bowl of porridge with some dried fruit and a drink of milk. So a deficit of 400-1000 calories a day, not including the base burn from normal bodily function which is likely to be over 1000 burnt a day. So this person burns about 1400-2000 calories a day, and eats only 500, a deficit of 900-1500 a day. Yet gains weight? Im skeptical (and I'd also be skeletal if I only ate 500 calories a day!!! ). Are you sure this person doesnt eat 5000 calories a day?
> 
> Of course if you treat yourself to a mars bar, then do cycle for about 60 mins to burn it of, and enjoy it, that might be easier for you psychologically, but my perspective, looking at this in terms of time spent to calorie deficit created, it takes around 2 hours cycling at a fair lick to compensate for that mars bar and still come away with a deficit of ~500 calories, so thats 14 hours a week on the bike if you eat a mars bar a day. Thats a substantial amount of time. Cutting back on the mars bars by eating an apple instead is surely easier in terms of fitting it into your day?
> 
> ...



I think gb400 was emphasising the '*claims*' to work out and eat ca. 500 kcals 

But I do agree with him on the treats element of cycling for weight loss. I sadly don't need to commute to work, which is why I've put on weight over the last 12 years (exacerbated by periods of injury) as, if the weather's not good, I don't get out on the bike. So a treat - usually buying the paper on the way home and sometimes a small chocolate treat, usually Maltesers (FWIW a Mars bar of 57g - not super-sized - is 308 kcals) - is one way of encouraging myself out of the house on a day when the weather's less than great. Given that once I'm out, I'm unlikely to do less than 40km (1.5 to 2 hours, depending on the terrain - and everywhere's hilly round here) even if the weather changes, I'll have a net deficit of 500 to 1000 kcals. Since my BMR is only about 1600 kcals, reducing this by a similar amount most days (since I don't cycle every day either) is well-nigh impossible. So I see most benefit by riding regularly and having a few treats.


----------



## ColinJ (26 Aug 2010)

gb155 said:


> I know someone who claims to workout for 3/5 hours daily, eat no more than 500 cal's however at 5 foot and 19 stone they have a BMI of around 50 and its going up month on month and has done since I have known them.


There was a TV programme on a couple of years ago which featured a female celebrity (I can't remember her name, but I think she was American, living in the UK; wore black-framed glasses). She swore blind that it was impossible for her to lose weight, she ate a very healthy diet, it must be her metabolism and so on and so forth. She'd calculated that she had a large daily calorie deficit but her weight stubbornly refused to drop.

She was put on a machine that actually measured her metabolic rate and it was shown to be normal. She still refused to accept that she was overeating so they got her to fill out a food diary. Sure enough, it showed that she had that large calorie deficit, so why wasn't she losing weight?

She was extremely defensive and stated that there some people who just can't do it, but the the TV bods did another food diary on her behalf...

Sure enough, she _was_ eating a healthy diet. Unfortunately, she was actually eating a healthy diet but with enough food for two people. She had a fruit salad for breakfast every morning. How many calories? Zero, apparently, because it never made its way onto the pages of her diary. Fruit didn't count! It was a humungous bowl containing (say) an apple, a banana, a peach, a pear, a punnet of strawberries, a load of grapes... Hundreds and hundreds of calories which she had completely overlooked. Throughout the day she was ignoring calories taken in because she was convinced that they were insignificant. When the sums were done, she was way over what she needed to maintain her weight.

She was pretty shocked by what they told her, so she finally started keeping an _accurate_ food diary. She also began a regular exercise regime. Using stairs instead of lifts, getting her taxi to drop her off a few streets from her destination and walking the rest of the way, that kind of thing. 

Result? The weight started dropping off her... It's not rocket science.

It's definitely true that some people can eat almost what they like and not gain weight - they had one of them on the same programme. They got him to eat about 50% more than normal and his metabolism just speeded up to burn it off. The other people being tested varied from small weight gains right the way through to huge weight gains.

If you take in fewer calories than you need, then you lose weight. There is no argument about it unless you think that these people have some sort of nuclear reactor inside them to generate their energy - if it isn't coming from their food or stored body fat, then where is it coming from!


----------



## jimboalee (26 Aug 2010)

You may find there are some people who unwitingly walk round all day and burn off 1000 calories without noticing it.

In a previous job, I walked about 3 hours worth, 1200 calories per day. This was outside wearing a shortsleeve shirt and thin trousers even in the wintertime. The weight fell off me.

A good part of our calorific needs is simply to maintain body temperature. Any leakage through the skin is replaced automatically. Its like losing fat without exercising.

So turn the heating down, take off the wooly jumper and shivver it off


----------



## Rob3rt (26 Aug 2010)

Fiona N said:


> I think gb400 was emphasising the '*claims*' to work out and eat ca. 500 kcals
> 
> But I do agree with him on the treats element of cycling for weight loss. I sadly don't need to commute to work, which is why I've put on weight over the last 12 years (exacerbated by periods of injury) as, if the weather's not good, I don't get out on the bike. So a treat - usually buying the paper on the way home and sometimes a small chocolate treat, usually Maltesers (FWIW a Mars bar of 57g - not super-sized - is 308 kcals) - is one way of encouraging myself out of the house on a day when the weather's less than great. Given that once I'm out, I'm unlikely to do less than 40km (1.5 to 2 hours, depending on the terrain - and everywhere's hilly round here) even if the weather changes, I'll have a net deficit of 500 to 1000 kcals. Since my BMR is only about 1600 kcals, reducing this by a similar amount most days (since I don't cycle every day either) is well-nigh impossible. So I see most benefit by riding regularly and having a few treats.



I think I misunderstood that post by gb155, sorry, hah


----------



## ColinJ (26 Aug 2010)

jimboalee said:


> So turn the heating down, take off the wooly jumper and shivver it off


My mum has Parkinson's disease and really struggles to maintain her weight. Her consultant told her that it is because the tremors are like shivering. All those little involuntary movements really add up over the course of the day.

I don't like overheated properties. Some people have their thermostats set to 25+ degrees - aaaargh!

Most people who visit me in the winter complain about how cold my house is, but I don't have a problem with it. I like it at about 15-18 degrees. If it is really cold, I'd be wearing a long-sleeved base layer, a long-sleeved jersey and a jumper or lightweight fleece. The whingers seem to expect to be able to sit around in shorts and t-shirts in winter!


----------



## tyred (26 Aug 2010)

The other thing to bare in mind is that it is worryingly easy to underestimate what you actually do eat. I did it for years. I was going around thinking, "I don't know why I'm so fat, I don't eat much and am reasonably active" before making a serious effort to loose weight and looked seriously at what I ate and was left thinking "Good God, I eat way, way, way too much." It's easy to criticise but I have some sympathy for anyone who falls into this trap. Food of the high calorie variety is so cheaply and easily available nowadays that it's all to easy to over-indulge without thinking about it.


----------



## EssexRider (26 Aug 2010)

I used to be a fat kid, I didnt change the way I ate a single bit and I went from 15 stone down to 11 stone in a year just from riding 4 miles twice a day (to work and back)

with a bit of football on the weekends too...


----------



## ColinJ (26 Aug 2010)

EssexRider said:


> I used to be a fat kid, I didnt change the way I ate a single bit and I went from 15 stone down to 11 stone in a year just from riding 4 miles twice a day (to work and back)
> 
> with a bit of football on the weekends too...


I went to visit an old friend a few years back and immediately noticed that his previously large paunch had almost disappeared. It turned out that he'd started commuting just over a mile each way by bike and did one ride of less than 10 miles at the weekends. I couldn't believe how much difference 20 miles of cycling a week made to him.

His job got relocated so he couldn't commute by bike any more and his weight shot back up again.


----------



## gb155 (27 Aug 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> I think I misunderstood that post by gb155, sorry, hah



Hi Rob, Yes the person CLAIMS, we all know the sore, but they refuse to accept this, My Cal intake is around 1200 a day, and I cycle on a bad day for 90 mins/ Average day 2.5 hours/Great day 4 hours.

This person has told me how I need to lose weight and how I am doing it all wrong, It makes me laugh but its tragic at the same time, this person is so deep in denial that its not gonna end well, and yet they think that they are more successful than I am, truth be told, im losing while this person is gaining and that’s the reason why IMHO we MUST look at weight loss in a different way for different ways.



As an aside I was in the Gym when this person turned up one day, it was an eye opener, they claimed to workout ball-out for hours, they were there for around an hour and a half and basically did nothing (running machine at walking pace for 5 mins, rower at walking pace for 5 mins, stepper for 5 mins and the rest of the time was spent walking round the gym)

:-D


----------



## Becs (27 Aug 2010)

If it's any help I've lost 2 and a half stone this year using online weightwatchers (6 years of university level drinking hadn't done me any favours!). I was always very sceptical of these things and would never go to the meetings but the online thing was really easy (and cheap). It makes you realise how much you are eating (or drinking!) and how little you burn off with light-moderate exercise, but nothing is restricted - if I want to have a skinful it'll tell me how much running I have to do to compensate! I always put my cycling in as "cycling gently" even if I am beasting it so I don't overestimate the bonus points I'm allowed! 

P.S. I have no connection to the company!


----------



## 007 (27 Aug 2010)

Interesting thread, some great replies so far.

My take on this - it is all about control of carbs....sadly

1) Do not give a moments thought to the scales - bin them. Or if you must - weigh yourself once a month. Do not target being a weight in future. Target body fat percentage to work towards. Anything from 12% - 16% you will look good. 

2) Invest in a cheapo pair of body fat calipers. Measure yourself in the exact same spots once a week at the same time in the AM - does not need to be a percentage, even a mm measurement would do. As long as the numbers are dropping each week. You will notice fat loss with your clothes. Really, the best device that will never, ever lie in the fat is the mirror! Lots of advice on the web on this. 

3) Look into low carb diets. Now I am not talking Atkins as that is too extreme. However, I follow a carb-cycling regime, where on occasion I will go low carb Mon-Fri. Then on a Saturday a carb up. I am not talking 5 loaves of bread and a 12 bottles of beer here




- just a replenishment of glycogen stores. Or if a long ride is on the cards, carb up (not excessively) the night before. Then POST exercise only - some complex carbs, from fruit or veg. Or carb up in the AM, or drop the carbs as the day goes on. Lots of different approaches here.

Google ćarb timing for more advice on this 

Once a month, or if low carbing is becoming too hard or you hit a plateau - throw in a cheat meal. You want to eat mashed potato - have it. You want ice cream - do it. You want rice - eat it. Go wild. Your metabolism will be fired up after it. No cheat meals all the time though - keep these for when it becomes too much of a slog!

4) Booze - when you drink you will never lose weight, as alcohol will be burned as a fuel source by your metabolism before fat. So - the booze intake is at a minimum. 

Hope this helps. Good luck....


----------



## ColinJ (27 Aug 2010)

007 said:


> 1) Do not give a moments thought to the scales - bin them.  Or if you must - weigh yourself once a month.  Do not target being a weight in future.  Target body fat percentage to work towards.  Anything from 12% - 16% you will look  good.


I can see where you are coming from on this and agree that people shouldn't be slaves to scales, but I think they can be a useful tool. I weigh myself every day, but ignore the kind of daily variations I see. I average the readings over a week to determine what the trend is.



007 said:


> 2) Invest in a cheapo pair of body fat calipers.  Measure yourself in the exact same spots once a week at the same time in the AM - does not  need to be a percentage, even a mm measurement would do.  As long as the numbers are dropping each week.  You will notice fat loss with your clothes.  Really, the best device that will never, ever lie in the fat  is the mirror!  Lots of advice on the web on this.


The most obvious fat measurement is just to use a tape measure round the waist! Make sure you don't suck the belly in when you are taking the measurement, and always take it in the same position. Maybe round the navel, or an inch above, whatever.

The mirror is definitely useful. Jump up and down in front of one and if anything wobbles that shouldn't be wobbling, you still have fat to lose.



007 said:


> 3)  Look into low carb diets.


I've never found this to be necessary. I got fat through beer drinking. If I lay off the beer, I lose weight...



007 said:


> 4)  Booze -  when you drink you will never lose weight, as alcohol will be burned as a fuel source by your metabolism before fat.  So - the booze intake is at a minimum.


Did someone mention beer!


----------



## gb155 (27 Aug 2010)

ColinJ said:


> The mirror is definitely useful. Jump up and down in front of one and if anything wobbles that shouldn't be wobbling, you still have fat to lose.




But but but, The majority of my wobbles are now skin, not fat


----------



## RedBike (27 Aug 2010)

In the 2-3 months i've been off the bike despite having tried (rather unsucessfully) to reduce my food intake i've gone from 72kg to 89kg. 

I think that going out running / cycling and burning off 200/400kcal has a much bigger impact on your weight than simply reducing your food intake by 200/400kcal. 

My theory is that you continue to burn calories at a higher rate after exercise while you recover.

Ever noticed just how hungry you are for 2-3 days after a LONG ride?


----------



## ColinJ (27 Aug 2010)

RedBike said:


> In the 2-3 months i've been off the bike despite having tried (rather unsucessfully) to reduce my food intake i've gone from 72kg to 89kg.


Blimey RB, you'll soon be catching up with me at that rate, and I'm 3 or 4 inches taller than you! 

I suggest my informal salad/veg diet. Allow yourself unlimited size salads or portions of (non-starchy) vegetables and very controlled amounts of everything else. They are very filling, have loads of important nutrients and not that many calories. Don't smother them in high-calorie dressings. The bulk of them in your stomach leaves less room for the fattening stuff you might otherwise be tempted by. Oh, and drink a large glass of cold water before each meal. Or make a soup out of the water and those vegetables.



RedBike said:


> I think that going out running / cycling and burning off 200/400kcal has a much bigger impact on your weight than simply reducing your food intake by 200/400kcal.
> 
> My theory is that you continue to burn calories at a higher rate after exercise while you recover.
> 
> Ever noticed just how hungry you are for 2-3 days after a LONG ride?


I'm sure that's true - see the example of my mate (above). 20 miles of cycling a week can't possible burn many calories, but I think doing it kick-started his metabolism and had him burning more when he wasn't on the bike. He swears that he didn't change what he ate or drank and it made a huge difference to him.


----------



## jimboalee (27 Aug 2010)

Atkins did the low carb diet the wrong way round. He started low and progressively increased the CHO g until no fat loss was measured. This was good for results and morale, but brought on Ketosis, halitosis and a banging headache that lasted days.

The sensible method is to assess the CHO intake at present, then take OFF until fat reduction is noticeable.

Start with a calorie count of BMR. Start at 50% CHO. As CHO comes off, Protein goes ON.

You will learn the same "Threshold for fat loss" that Atkins gives you, but it is safer and less painful, and kinder to the people who have to stand and listen to you talking ( smell you breathing ).


----------



## Garz (30 Aug 2010)

Atkins is very bad for your breath, I once tried it and I don't think it ever recovered properly. As jim has stressed it's ok for results but not healthy for a long term diet.


----------



## jimboalee (31 Aug 2010)

For light exercise and everyday activities, the body predominantly uses fatty acids in the blood stream to fuel muscular movement. When exercise and activity get more intense, more Carbohydrates are used until at maximum exertion, CHO is used totally.

A simple measure of when the threshold occurs is breathing. If you need to inhale through your mouth, that is an indication of when you are changing from fats to carbs as fuel.

For the body to reduce its mass of adipose tissue, ie fat stores, EVERY carbohydrate molecule that goes down the throat MUST be used for muscular movement. If it isn't, it will be converted to adipose for future use.



In theory, Atkins is correct. Low activity demands low carbohydrate intake; until adipose is so low, malnutrition ensues.

The trick for athletes is to balance carbs and exercise so EVERY carbohydrate molecule is used, WITHOUT running short ( the bonk ). To do this, it is necessary to know the ratio of fat vs carbs usage for increasing exercise intensity.



Going for a slow bike ride where breathing can be accommodated through the nose and the mouth is kept SHUT, special carb intake is not necessary. You are running on fat and therefore, reducing the adipose storage.


----------



## yello (31 Aug 2010)

Good advice in a clear and easy to understand post jimbo. I like it.


----------



## thistler (31 Aug 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Going for a slow bike ride where breathing can be accommodated through the nose and the mouth is kept SHUT, special carb intake is not necessary. You are running on fat and therefore, reducing the adipose storage.



I am currently riding between 110-135 miles a week, and have a lot of fat to lose. I eat a low GI diet and am very careful about what goes in my mouth.

After I've warmed up I am breathing through my mouth, but with the exception of a sprint here and there it is a comfortable, not too taxing pace. Should I be riding slower/easier then to lose more fat? I think with the time available for me to go on rides, if I slow down I will be doing a less miles...my current belief was the more miles/hours I can ride the better...

I feel pretty darned good fitness wise, lots of energy, etc. since I started cycling again but my main goal at the moment is to lose the fat. I've got about 5 more stone to get off....I've lost 4 since Feb of this year.


----------



## Garz (31 Aug 2010)

What's the duration of these rides thistler?

If you can afford to ride slower as you have no deadline or family to spend time with then do so. You don't want to ride so slow as to not break sweat though try to keep it around 60% intensity and for over 40 minutes is what I believe is the point where fat burning is most effective.


----------



## EssexRider (1 Sep 2010)

Garz said:


> Atkins is very bad for your breath, I once tried it and I don't think it ever recovered properly. As jim has stressed it's ok for results but not healthy for a long term diet.



2 weeks max and you need to slowly cut down the carbs and then when youre done you slowly bring them back 

I've never done it though, I love my carbs too much.


----------



## jimboalee (1 Sep 2010)

Garz said:


> What's the duration of these rides thistler?
> 
> If you can afford to ride slower as you have no deadline or family to spend time with then do so. You don't want to ride so slow as to not break sweat though try to keep it around 60% intensity and for over 40 minutes is what I believe is the point where fat burning is most effective.




That's what it says in the manuals.

But 60% MHR is deadly slow. You can afford to take it to 80%. Your body will burn fat either during the exertion or after it. To lose bodyfat by exercising for 40 minutes at 80% MHR, don't eat for it,,, before OR AFTER.


----------



## chillyuk (1 Sep 2010)

I came back to cycling "seriously" about 18 months ago. I cover over 100 miles a week at an overall average of approx 12 mph, and I also walk a lot, three times a week I do a 6 mile walk. I am 19 stone and 63 years old. In 18 months I haven't lost an ounce. I quit smoking 2.5 years ago so although I may be too fat I hope that my cardiac system is gradually improving. At my age now I just can't be bothered with diets and worrying about what I eat. I will probably be dead within 10 years whatever I do, so am just enjoying my retirement and the few years I have left. Since I stopped trying to turn every ride into a therapeutic session I am enjoying my cycling far more. 

Having said that I understand people who who do look to improve their health, lose weight and improve their performance, and good luck to them.


----------



## thistler (1 Sep 2010)

Garz said:


> What's the duration of these rides thistler?
> 
> If you can afford to ride slower as you have no deadline or family to spend time with then do so. You don't want to ride so slow as to not break sweat though try to keep it around 60% intensity and for over 40 minutes is what I believe is the point where fat burning is most effective.



Depending on the wind/weather the rides last anywhere from 1-3 hours, generally avg speed about 13-15 mph. I always do at least 15 miles but if I've just done a long ride the day before then I'll take it quite easy. It is very flat here, I do a few short sprints but overall my speed/effort stays fairly consistent.  I don't know if it's 60%, it's a very comfortable pace but I can still tell I'm working. I'm breathing through my mouth but not very hard....


----------



## thistler (1 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> That's what it says in the manuals.
> 
> But 60% MHR is deadly slow. You can afford to take it to 80%. Your body will burn fat either during the exertion or after it. To lose bodyfat by exercising for 40 minutes at 80% MHR, don't eat for it,,, before OR AFTER.



I'm not sure what % I'm doing...     How long before and after a ride should I not eat?  What if the ride is longer than 40 mins, (they are always an hour or more) say 3 hours, do I not bring a banana? 


Thanks for all your help!


----------



## yello (1 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> To lose bodyfat by exercising for 40 minutes at 80% MHR, don't eat for it,,, before OR AFTER.



Well, you can eat... eventually! Just not RIGHT after.  Normal eating times sort of thing...

I am a bit confused here though. I though that you burned fat at higher rates of exertion too, but just not as much as at lower rates when expressed in percentage terms of the total calorific burn. That is to say for example (and I know the numbers aren't accurate, I'm just making them up for the sake of illustration), at 60% MHR energy is sourced 70% from fat, 30% from carb. At 90% MHR, it's 30% fat & 70% carb. 

So that might suggest, that even at the higher MHR you are still burning more fat than at a lower MHR... because 30% of the total spend is larger than 70% of a smaller spend.... or, as I say, whatever the numbers are.

I thought the 'you only burn fat at x% MHR' mantra was a bit of a white lie put about to make weight loss look less like hard work.


----------



## jimboalee (1 Sep 2010)

Here's what Brianmac says...


*Research*
Researchers from Birmingham University's Human Performance Laboratory attempted to pinpoint the exercise intensities at which fat metabolism is maximised in a study of 18 male endurance cyclists with a training background of at least three years. Their work found that the Fatmax Zone is between 68% and 79% MHR

Alternative research has suggested that when you cycle, swim, row or run at a modest intensity of only 50% VO2max (about 69% MHR), fat provides about 50% of the calories you need to keep going for the first hour or so. If you keep going after that, fat becomes even more generous, providing around 70% of the total energy after two hours and 80% or more if your work duration exceeds three hours. If you increase the intensity then the Fat contribution decreases - at 75% VO2max fat provides 33% of the energy.


----------



## ColinJ (1 Sep 2010)

yello said:


> Well, you can eat... eventually! Just not RIGHT after.  Normal eating times sort of thing...


Yes, what Jimbo wrote was correct - if you are trying to lose weight, then don't eat _*for*_ the ride, not don't eat at all. I.e. just eat your normal meals and don't eat extra to make up for what you burned on the ride. It is quite easy to do 90-120 minute rides on just water and wait for your normal mealtime, where you should just eat what you need to get you to the following meal feeling okay.


----------



## jimboalee (1 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> That's what it says in the manuals.
> 
> But 60% MHR is deadly slow. You can afford to take it to 80%. Your body will burn fat either during the exertion or after it. To lose bodyfat by exercising for 40 minutes at 80% MHR, don't eat for it,,, before OR AFTER.



The important words here are "eat for it". This means you shouldn't add anything extra to your daily intake for a 40 minute ride.

Rides longer than an hour, you will need to eat your BMR for the duration of the ride ( 65 kcals/hour ) plus more. 'More' is dependant on how much fat you want to lose.


----------



## jimboalee (1 Sep 2010)

ColinJ said:


> Yes, what Jimbo wrote was correct - if you are trying to lose weight, then don't eat _*for*_ the ride, not don't eat at all. I.e. just eat your normal meals and don't eat extra to make up for what you burned on the ride. It is quite easy to do 90-120 minute rides on just water and wait for your normal mealtime, where you should just eat what you need to get you to the following meal feeling okay.



You beat me by seconds.


----------



## yello (1 Sep 2010)

ColinJ said:


> just eat your normal meals and don't eat extra to make up for what you burned on the ride.



Agreed. This is what I was humorously trying to imply! I wasn't disagreeing with jimbo at all!!

Jimbo, that research you quoted - the "alternative research" seems to suggest that what I thought might be correct. Sadly, they don't mention total energy used, only the percentage contributions, so I still don't know if 30% of x is bigger than 70% of y.


----------



## jimboalee (1 Sep 2010)

yello said:


> Agreed. This is what I was humorously trying to imply! I wasn't disagreeing with jimbo at all!!
> 
> Jimbo, that research you quoted - the "alternative research" seems to suggest that what I thought might be correct. Sadly, they don't mention total energy used, only the percentage contributions, so I still don't know if 30% of x is bigger than 70% of y.



This a strange one because it is generally regarded that calorific usage doesn't vary that much in distance terms.

So, a mile ridden at a slow speed at a low intensity & lower HR will burn a greater amount of fat than a mile at full bat.
The same goes for any human powered transport, inc walking, jogging or running.

What is even more strange is that because the slow mile takes longer, the effect of windchill is greater and assists the calorific expenditure. Therefore, in cold weather with thin clothing, the slow mile will use MORE calories than the fast mile.

The very best calorific usage activity is......

Open water sea swimming in just your Speedos in the bay at Vancouver on New Years day.


----------



## e-rider (1 Sep 2010)

eat less, cycle more - simple!


----------



## thistler (1 Sep 2010)

tundragumski said:


> eat less, cycle more - simple!





That I get!!!


----------



## gb155 (2 Sep 2010)

tundragumski said:


> eat less, cycle more - simple!




Works for me, Simples


----------

