Cycling for weight loss. Update - Page 3 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-28-2004, 10:18 PM

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:15:08 -0400, "Daniel Crispin"
<calendyr@videotron.ca> wrote:

>Well been 3 weeks now. Lost 8 pounds on week 1, 6 pounds on week 2 and 2
>pounds last week.
>Loosing less and less will have to eat less and pedal more

But seriously
>first few weeks I know you
>loose a lot of water too, so that's most likelly normal. Now just gotta
>find a way to keep loosing 4 pounds
>per week and I will be happy.
>
>I read a lot about those carbs. I decided to lower my intake of the ones
>that spike insulin production. Will
>be hard since I am a pasta and rice guy. Good thing is that I am not a
>potato guy, 95 on the glycemic index
>is insane

>
>How about you guys that were doing the same?

I've lost about 2KG just putzing around enjoying the sights here in
the 10 days or so since I got my new bike. I try to ride 2 times a
day - once in the morning and once in the evening.

Right now, we have a typhoon bearing down on us!
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
I went out for a ride today and I could hardly make headway against
the high winds. There isn't a cloud in the sky yet and it will be 48
to 72 more hours before its actually here!

Michael J. Klein [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

06-28-2004, 11:30 PM

Well done on the weight loss, of course you have to remember that as well burning the blubber, your two-wheeled road rocket improves fitness and builds muscles. Muscle is heavy, muscle is good, so you may find you don’t always lose weight. The alternative diets involving denying your body the raw materials to burn fuel, and sitting around waiting for the weight to fall off, are a recipe for bad health, wind and halitosis. Skinny and unfit, does not equal healthy
Just eat a healthy diet and go for the burn, few things look better than a lean mean pedalling machine.
So take these words of wisdom from a man who is 40years of age, 100 kg in weight, doing 200+ a week and fit as a butcher’s dog.
:eek

-

06-28-2004, 11:30 PM

Well done on the weight loss, of course you have to remember that as well burning the blubber, your two-wheeled road rocket improves fitness and builds muscles. Muscle is heavy, muscle is good, so you may find you don’t always lose weight. The alternative diets involving denying your body the raw materials to burn fuel, and sitting around waiting for the weight to fall off, are a recipe for bad health, wind and halitosis. Skinny and unfit, does not equal healthy
Just eat a healthy diet and go for the burn, few things look better than a lean mean pedalling machine.
So take these words of wisdom from a man who is 40years of age, 100 kg in weight, doing 200+ a week and fit as a butcher’s dog.
:eek

-

06-28-2004, 11:30 PM

Well done on the weight loss, of course you have to remember that as well burning the blubber, your two-wheeled road rocket improves fitness and builds muscles. Muscle is heavy, muscle is good, so you may find you don’t always lose weight. The alternative diets involving denying your body the raw materials to burn fuel, and sitting around waiting for the weight to fall off, are a recipe for bad health, wind and halitosis. Skinny and unfit, does not equal healthy
Just eat a healthy diet and go for the burn, few things look better than a lean mean pedalling machine.
So take these words of wisdom from a man who is 40years of age, 100 kg in weight, doing 200+ a week and fit as a butcher’s dog.
:eek

-

06-28-2004, 11:30 PM

Well done on the weight loss, of course you have to remember that as well burning the blubber, your two-wheeled road rocket improves fitness and builds muscles. Muscle is heavy, muscle is good, so you may find you don’t always lose weight. The alternative diets involving denying your body the raw materials to burn fuel, and sitting around waiting for the weight to fall off, are a recipe for bad health, wind and halitosis. Skinny and unfit, does not equal healthy
Just eat a healthy diet and go for the burn, few things look better than a lean mean pedalling machine.
So take these words of wisdom from a man who is 40years of age, 100 kg in weight, doing 200+ a week and fit as a butcher’s dog.
:eek

-

06-28-2004, 11:30 PM

Well done on the weight loss, of course you have to remember that as well burning the blubber, your two-wheeled road rocket improves fitness and builds muscles. Muscle is heavy, muscle is good, so you may find you don’t always lose weight. The alternative diets involving denying your body the raw materials to burn fuel, and sitting around waiting for the weight to fall off, are a recipe for bad health, wind and halitosis. Skinny and unfit, does not equal healthy
Just eat a healthy diet and go for the burn, few things look better than a lean mean pedalling machine.
So take these words of wisdom from a man who is 40years of age, 100 kg in weight, doing 200+ a week and fit as a butcher’s dog.
:eek

-

06-29-2004, 05:33 AM

>No offense, but you're dreaming. Your goal of losing 4 lbs per week is
>unrealistic. It would require a daily deficit of 2000 calories (1 lb of fat
>= 3500 calories). That means you need to eat 2000 calories less than you
>burn each day.

>That is a nearly impossible rate of weight loss, and
>potentially unhealthy because it's hard to get sufficient vitamins and
>minerals. It's also hard to exercise with such a large calorie deficit.

>Most authorities recommend a much more modest rate of weight loss - a
>deficit of 500 calories per day is recommended and should result in about 1
>lb per week of weight loss.

I agree with this. The lb per week notion is good because that anything
greater entails a pretty drastic situation that can not be sustained.

Now, it is possible to lose weight faster. I went on a 2 week tour in the
Rocky Mountains. It had a about 70 miles daily plus quite a bit of climbing.
Plus it was a camping situation (at high schools and what not) but when you
have to put up your tent and tear it down and walk to the showers and so on,
you get in even more exercise. I figured I could lose some weight on the tour
so I ate all the carbohydrates I could to replenish my glycogen for the next
day and I avoided fats and ate a normal amount of protein. I was very
surprised when I got home and discovered I had lost 10 lbs in 2 weeks and it
all seemed to have been fat. But you can do that when you are on the bike oh 6
hours per day and active for another 3 hours or so. People did gain weight on
the tour by eating massive cheese burgers, fries and sundaes. So it seems no
matter how much you exercise, you can sabotage it by upping the intake.

06-29-2004, 05:33 AM

>No offense, but you're dreaming. Your goal of losing 4 lbs per week is
>unrealistic. It would require a daily deficit of 2000 calories (1 lb of fat
>= 3500 calories). That means you need to eat 2000 calories less than you
>burn each day.

>That is a nearly impossible rate of weight loss, and
>potentially unhealthy because it's hard to get sufficient vitamins and
>minerals. It's also hard to exercise with such a large calorie deficit.

>Most authorities recommend a much more modest rate of weight loss - a
>deficit of 500 calories per day is recommended and should result in about 1
>lb per week of weight loss.

I agree with this. The lb per week notion is good because that anything
greater entails a pretty drastic situation that can not be sustained.

Now, it is possible to lose weight faster. I went on a 2 week tour in the
Rocky Mountains. It had a about 70 miles daily plus quite a bit of climbing.
Plus it was a camping situation (at high schools and what not) but when you
have to put up your tent and tear it down and walk to the showers and so on,
you get in even more exercise. I figured I could lose some weight on the tour
so I ate all the carbohydrates I could to replenish my glycogen for the next
day and I avoided fats and ate a normal amount of protein. I was very
surprised when I got home and discovered I had lost 10 lbs in 2 weeks and it
all seemed to have been fat. But you can do that when you are on the bike oh 6
hours per day and active for another 3 hours or so. People did gain weight on
the tour by eating massive cheese burgers, fries and sundaes. So it seems no
matter how much you exercise, you can sabotage it by upping the intake.

06-29-2004, 05:33 AM

>No offense, but you're dreaming. Your goal of losing 4 lbs per week is
>unrealistic. It would require a daily deficit of 2000 calories (1 lb of fat
>= 3500 calories). That means you need to eat 2000 calories less than you
>burn each day.

>That is a nearly impossible rate of weight loss, and
>potentially unhealthy because it's hard to get sufficient vitamins and
>minerals. It's also hard to exercise with such a large calorie deficit.

>Most authorities recommend a much more modest rate of weight loss - a
>deficit of 500 calories per day is recommended and should result in about 1
>lb per week of weight loss.

I agree with this. The lb per week notion is good because that anything
greater entails a pretty drastic situation that can not be sustained.

Now, it is possible to lose weight faster. I went on a 2 week tour in the
Rocky Mountains. It had a about 70 miles daily plus quite a bit of climbing.
Plus it was a camping situation (at high schools and what not) but when you
have to put up your tent and tear it down and walk to the showers and so on,
you get in even more exercise. I figured I could lose some weight on the tour
so I ate all the carbohydrates I could to replenish my glycogen for the next
day and I avoided fats and ate a normal amount of protein. I was very
surprised when I got home and discovered I had lost 10 lbs in 2 weeks and it
all seemed to have been fat. But you can do that when you are on the bike oh 6
hours per day and active for another 3 hours or so. People did gain weight on
the tour by eating massive cheese burgers, fries and sundaes. So it seems no
matter how much you exercise, you can sabotage it by upping the intake.

06-29-2004, 05:33 AM

>No offense, but you're dreaming. Your goal of losing 4 lbs per week is
>unrealistic. It would require a daily deficit of 2000 calories (1 lb of fat
>= 3500 calories). That means you need to eat 2000 calories less than you
>burn each day.

>That is a nearly impossible rate of weight loss, and
>potentially unhealthy because it's hard to get sufficient vitamins and
>minerals. It's also hard to exercise with such a large calorie deficit.

>Most authorities recommend a much more modest rate of weight loss - a
>deficit of 500 calories per day is recommended and should result in about 1
>lb per week of weight loss.

I agree with this. The lb per week notion is good because that anything
greater entails a pretty drastic situation that can not be sustained.

Now, it is possible to lose weight faster. I went on a 2 week tour in the
Rocky Mountains. It had a about 70 miles daily plus quite a bit of climbing.
Plus it was a camping situation (at high schools and what not) but when you
have to put up your tent and tear it down and walk to the showers and so on,
you get in even more exercise. I figured I could lose some weight on the tour
so I ate all the carbohydrates I could to replenish my glycogen for the next
day and I avoided fats and ate a normal amount of protein. I was very
surprised when I got home and discovered I had lost 10 lbs in 2 weeks and it
all seemed to have been fat. But you can do that when you are on the bike oh 6
hours per day and active for another 3 hours or so. People did gain weight on
the tour by eating massive cheese burgers, fries and sundaes. So it seems no
matter how much you exercise, you can sabotage it by upping the intake.