RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Still riding as much, but I have gained two pounds(20 posts)

Still riding as much, but I have gained two poundscyclingforhealth
Sep 28, 2003 5:22 AM
I have gained weight during the past week. I have gained two pounds to be exact. I am very discouraged by this. I am going to try harder next week. I can't uderstand why I am exercising eating better and gaining weight. I am under a little stress at home but I have been using the bike to releive it.
Still trolling as much--still finding it amusing?cyclingforwealth
Sep 28, 2003 6:07 AM
How hilarious can it be to read the responses to your "work", responses which are almost as predictable as your posts? Suggestions for further posts: Something causes you to wind up in the hospital (briefly) but brings your family back to your side. Recovery from hospital/family unity issue requires that you give up riding, but you ride anyway. Commute to work, colleagues laugh at you for riding. Bike stolen, police won't help. Your first century. Ad nauseum.
Are you making fun of yourself cyclingforhealth? (nm)Mr Nick
Sep 28, 2003 3:54 PM
Never mind cyclingforhealth and wealth look the same (nm)Mr Nick
Sep 28, 2003 3:55 PM
Well, it is possible they are the same-(spankdog)! nmthe bull
Sep 29, 2003 8:36 AM
re: Still riding as much, but I have gained two poundslyleseven
Sep 28, 2003 8:29 AM
i think the giveaway here is "eating better" and "stress"-- the combination will put on the weight!
I think everyone one the board has gained about 50 lbs.Spoiler
Sep 28, 2003 12:53 PM
I blame it on the 50-lb bag of horsesh!t you've been feeding us.
Totally...pnitefly
Sep 28, 2003 4:26 PM
Quit chasing the scale and get out there and ride! Most of us on this board use it for road biking information, but there seems to be a select few who use it for attention and to drum up sympathy. It's not that hard, ride your bike and don't expect instant results or take a sh*t before you weigh yourself. Now enough of this...
I'll say it again...53T
Sep 29, 2003 6:45 AM
Riding will improve your cardio-vascular health, diet will decrease your body weight. If your weight is not where you want it, eat less.

Riding for an hour every two days is not going to put a dent in the caloric balance of a 300 pound man. You need to start doing push-aways.
CFH is not a real person, but...Kristin
Sep 29, 2003 7:04 AM
What you posted is not true on many levels.

1. Riding more improves your cardio-vascular health AND can decrease body weight. Do you think that riding burns the same amount of calories as sitting in an arm chair? Riding more and eating the same diet can allow for weight loss, depending on the calories consumed.

2. Riding more increases muscle mass--which can actually cause weight gain.

3. Your point about eating less is true. It also decreases body weight--fat stores first, then muscle mass.

You're ideas about weight loss are simply incorrect. Riding for 1-2 hours 7 days a week will certainly put a dent in any weight problem. Even a 150 problem.

Now, as for this post. CFH is not a real person. This poster has been rehashing old posts that, for some strange reason, he remembers. He posts a lot of things that are similar to posts either myself or Doug has posted. And he is also the same person as Spankdoggie. Probably a mental institution reject--but that's neither hear nor there. This post strangely resembles something I posted when I first began riding road. I gained about 5 pounds initially, yet I was slightly overweight. It turned out to be muscle mass gains, and the fact that I was riding at an anaerobic pace 100% of the time, which caused me to burn only available fuel and not any stored fuel.
But I am correct53T
Sep 29, 2003 8:06 AM
Even if CFH is fiction, he does provide a forum for debate.

You correctly state that ridng 2 hours a day 7 days a week will effect weight loss. Of course, I said that riding every other day for 1 hour wold not significantly effect the weight of a 300# man. You are right, but I am certainly not wrong.

The statement you make in point #1, "Riding more and eating the same diet can allow for weight loss, depending on the calories consumed" is too wishy-washy to be considered a valid point. All weight loss depends on calories consumed, regardless of riding or sitting in a chair.

Let's do the math:
300# man base metabolic rate would be what? 3500 cal/day?
Riding every other day at out-of-shape intensity for an hour would be what 200 cal/day max?
That's a 5.7% increase in calories burned. Sounds promising, except that one package of fat-free Fig Newtons is 200 calories. The non-dairy creamer in 6 cups of coffee is probably about 200 calories.

When I say it doesn't make a dent, I really mean it. Sure, you are correct that riding even once a week will induce weight loss if caloric intake remains constant, but how the hell can we measure caloric intake that closely?

This guy (real or imaginary) needs to learn how to fall asleep hungry. That's where 150# weight loss comes from.
Your math is off somewhereKristin
Sep 29, 2003 8:39 AM
I was a moderately overweight rider, averaging 11 MPH on a comfort bike for two 1 hour rides and one 2 hour ride each week for 3 months and lost 20 pounds without changing my diet. My experience flies in the face of what you've said. And the 2 hour ride included a 25 minute rest at the halfway point. (I'd stop and read a book for a while, so you can't count it as a continuous workout.) On two others days of the week, I'd walk for 3 miles in the evening. I'd keep a sloths pace and doubt my HR ever climbed over 130 during that time. How do you explain my weight loss based on your math???

Weight loss works better when you exercise at out-of-shape capacities than when you go anerobic. Anyone will lose more efficiently if they keep their HR below 60%. Going Anerobic hinders fat loss.

There was never any mention of the amount of calories consumed, so to base any opinions based on how many calories are consumed is speculation. In the post it says, "eating better." No one really knows what that means so...
sure?DougSloan
Sep 29, 2003 8:50 AM
"Going Anerobic hinders fat loss."

I've read that this is a largely a myth. Going anaerobic means that your percentage of fat burned will be less, but you are burning a lot more calories at that rate. In other words, if you ride 100 miles at 130 bpm or 100 miles at 160 bpm, your fat burned will be the same, but your total calories consumed will be greater at the higher hr.

Doug
hold on, I re-thought thisDougSloan
Sep 29, 2003 8:59 AM
You are talking about anaerobic riding; I was thinking just riding faster, not anaerobically. No one can ride a century above AT the entire time. So, any anaerobic riding will be for very short time periods, in which you may well be burning almost all CHO, but then only for limited times.

http://www.ultracycling.com/nutrition/calories.html

Doug
Them's fighting words!53T
Sep 29, 2003 9:27 AM
There is nothing wrong with my math, thank you very much.

What you might be overlooking is basal metabolism. You, in a "slightly overweight" condition might have been burning 1800 cal/day. CFH is closer to 3500. Your riding and walking (which is excercise 7 days per week, BTW) was a much higher percentage of your basal than CFH's three times per week rides.

In the abstract, any increase in activity will result in weight loss if all else remains constant. In reality, all elese never remains constant. You are sure that your diet did not change. I don't believe it. Unless you are on a space ship, or suspended over the Thames in a plastic box, your diet will change in ways that you will not record. If you weigh 300# and go for a bike ride, you'll have an extra spoonfull of mashed potatoes at dinner.

As Doug mentioned, anaerobic riding only inhibits fat burning if it makes you end the ride early. Otherwise, you burn fat right through the field sprint. The difference is, that on the last lap you are burning whatever is left of your glycogen in addition to the fat.
And when did you weight 300 pounds?Kristin
Sep 29, 2003 11:09 AM
You make a lot of assumptions. That's one things I've noticed when reading your posts. Whenever there information is not provided, you fill in the blanks with a guess instead of asking. You seem to know a lot about the eating habits of overweight people. However, I will make an educated guess that you yourself have never been overweight, not even by a little bit. Am I correct?

And, actually, anaerobic riding inhibits 90% of fat burning. Your body uses engery that's readily available. It converts very little of what it uses from fat stores...10% I believe. You must eat in order to maintain an anarobic pace. If you don't, you bonk. End of workout. The result is still the same. Very little fat burned off. Keeping your HR under 60% means that much more of your workout is fueled by fat that's being converted.
I'm not following you53T
Sep 30, 2003 7:09 AM
I thought we were talking about CFH. He weighs 300#. Where is the confusion? The asumptions that I add, such as quantitative examples of caloric intake, are not just wild guesses. Therse are real averages from real people in the U.S. I really believe that adding numbers adds a helpful dimension of reality to the discussion.

Do I add numbers to your comments in particular? I'll admit to that. I think you're alergic to math, and a total immersion program might help.

Although it is certainly a red herring, I have been overweight, but not too bad. I'm 160-165 now and I was 185-190 about 5 years ago. Please explain why this matters? Are you trying to suggest that skinny people can't do math?

"Actually", I don't believe that anaerobic riding inhibits anything. Your second statement, that anaerobic riding only derives 10% of its energy from fat, is plausible. The other 90% has to come from non-fat.

Simplified Example: (caution: may contain assumptions)
I ride the first hour of an easy RR at 70% of MHR, completly aerobic. I burn 700 calories of fat and about 100 calories of carb (there were some small hills).
A small group attacks and here we go. The next 30 minutes are ridden a little above threshold, 91% MHR, and I am digging deep into carb stores. If they don't let up soon I am toast. My calories burned from carb stores have increased from 100 cal/hour to about 600 cal/hour.

Have I stopped burning fat? No way, I'm still burning 700 cal/hour from fat. I need 1300 cal/hour to keep from getting dropped. Here is the math part: my percentage of total fuel from fat has dropped from 88% to 54%. This does not mean I decreased the amount of fat I was burning. Nothing has been inhibited.

There may be small adjustments that other more learned people would want to make to this example, but to a first order approximation I think it's pretty accurate.

You are correct that at 60% HR, much more of my workout is being fueled from fat. It just doesn't necessarily follow that harder efforts burn less fat.

And another thing. Eating habits of overweight people are very similar to the eating habits of humans in general. I don't see anything in my posts where I have assumed any bizare dietary practices for CFH, or anybody else. If I have, please be specific.
Hey Kristin...spankdoggie
Sep 29, 2003 11:05 PM
don't go by the scale...go by how your clothes fit! (nm)ColnagoFE
Sep 29, 2003 8:11 AM
the "am I embarrassed to ride in my skinsuit" test ;-) nmDougSloan
Sep 29, 2003 9:00 AM