17%! Do you actually ride a bike sometimes?! 😛

You are deluding yourself

You’ve really got no way of knowing that!

MOlgrips – in the scenario you outlined above how much cola / maltodestrin were you taking? In a previous discussion on this you fessed up to around 4000 calories a week in refined sugars?

and yes – it is a simple as calories in v calories out. Various factor effect both sides of this but you cannot destroy or create energy ( unless you have a nuclear reactor in your guts) Basic physics

Two summers ago I was eating nothing for breakfast, meat and veg for lunch and low gi for dinner. On the way to work I rode a brisk 40 mins and on the way back it was 90 mins of smashed singletrack at Swindle, as hard as I could. I remained 91kg, but my legs ached badly and I didn’t recover.

I suspect you weren’t “smashing” it as hard as you thought or you were eating more than you admit. When I’m training hard for an event I always lose weight.

MOlgrips – in the scenario you outlined above how much cola / maltodestrin were you taking?

None.

you cannot destroy or create energy

Are you even listening?

If you don’t gain weight, it’s not being destroyed, it’s being shat out.

How else do you explain people who eat loads and never get fat?

Actually, you know what, this is futile. I posted this because it’s more evidence that human bodies are complex systems with many systems and effects all operating on different stimuli, and that has different effects on how we ride, how we eat, what happens between the riding.

But you lot simply don’t **** listen do you? To me or anyone else who agrees with me. So it’s futile. What would it take for you to listen? Nobel prize winning scientists? What?

No matter how much evidence and science I post up you just go ‘no’.

Nope. You are seeing what you want to see.
If you stopped eating & drank only water while continuing to exercise you would lose weight. I think I can pretty much guarantee it.
It is almost certainly the case that different people will lose or gain weight in a complex way dependent on their metabolism & how they react to certain foods. However. For each individual, that won’t vary. You should be able to work out how much food/exercise causes stasis and then decrease one and increase the otther. Bingo! you will lose weight.

Everybody I know who fails to lose weight lies (often to themselves) about how much they eat or how much exercise they take.

and yes – it is a simple as calories in v calories out. Various factor effect both sides of this but you cannot destroy or create energy ( unless you have a nuclear reactor in your guts) Basic physics

Big Bang Theory scripts is not Basic Physics – 2/10 🙂

Humans are not closed systems and have different efficiencies thanks to us all being different.

Take a room of people of the same size and feed them the same food and make them do the same exercise for a week and then tell me the weights at the end of it.

If the weights are all the same then I’ll admit you may be right.

I have a doctor friend who tells me The Two Foods You Must Avoid (No 2 Will Amaze You) are lettuce and low calorie drinks.

Because all the chubsters who waddle into her surgery swear that all they eat is salad and all they drink is Diet Coke.

No matter how much evidence and science I post up you just go ‘no’.

stop posting article about weight loss then?

For each individual, that won’t vary.

Wrong. Training in different ways changes your body’s responses. Ask someone who’s tried fasted training. Like say, me.

Everybody I know who fails to lose weight lies (often to themselves) about how much they eat or how much exercise they take.

I lose weight. But I put it back on again as circumstances change. I seek to understand the system as best I can so that I can do the right thing more consistently. But the biggest factor is my own state of mind, which varies. But I’m under no illusion as to why it goes back on. That is very clear – too much much junk food.

But what interests me is why if I eat little enough it gets harder to lose weight. I’ve found this many times. It interests me so I posted the link. But you all know better of course.

I now have a pretty good idea of what works well for me.

Now I do less and eat more, including more junk, I’m 87kg.

I now have a pretty good idea of what works well for me.

Or Not
which is it ? or neither unless you are 7ft tall then 87kg would be ok

Actualy thats abit harsh
If I am right you work behind a desk , away from home doing IT / motorcar stuff.
So not the best environment for menu planning , long duration bike rides and burning calories whilst at work.

The fittest man I know – Bjorn Dunkerbeck, windsurfing champion – is 6’4″ and 93Kg.

Point is that eating more junk has resulted in lower weight.

I’ve lost more weight since June than I have trying the eat even less concept outlined above. This was my original point.

Longer rides of 3 hours to be done fasted
Short rides to be high intensity and drinking carbs from the start.
Carbs taken after riding as per iDave instructions
Protein breakfast of eggs and bacon
Lunch of carbs including brown bread if activity level high
Snack afternoon of bread acceptable only if activity level high
Strict iDave compliant meals in the evening
One long ride per week at least three hours pref more
One or two short intense rides per week
One or two runs – one long and gentle one intervals
KBs on non riding days.

The tactical brown bread makes this easy to follow and importantly feel good on, not starving and knackered.

This works for me, where I am now.

If you are thinking I’m in denial, I’m not. I gain weight when I eat junk food. But that seems to be when I try to eat too little. This always results in me pigging put again. Eating too little has negative effects on me. So I will not try and repeat my dramatic losses of the initial iDave attempt, because I don’t think that works the third or fourth time onwards.

Allen – slight crossed purposes. If an individual is gaining weight then they have a calorie surplus, if loosing weight they have a calorie deficit is what I meant – ie talking about individuals. Of course some folk have more efficient metabolisms than others but you cannot gain weight without a calorie excess and you cannot lose it without a calorie deficit.

to suggest as molgrips does that you can change this is bunkum.

Longer rides of 3 hours to be done fasted
Short rides to be high intensity and drinking carbs from the start.
Carbs taken after riding as per iDave instructions
Protein breakfast of eggs and bacon
Lunch of carbs including brown bread if activity level high
Snack afternoon of bread acceptable only if activity level high
Strict iDave compliant meals in the evening
One long ride per week at least three hours pref more
One or two short intense rides per week
One or two runs – one long and gentle one intervals
KBs on non riding days.

The tactical brown bread makes this easy to follow and importantly feel good on, not starving and knackered.

So basically you’re eating loads and not doing that much exercise?

So basically you’re eating loads and not doing that much exercise?

Yes, and losing weight! Amazing isn’t it? Not been under 88kg since 2011.

Anyway, thread’s not meant to be about me. Just the article talking about some of the effects.

I reiterate that diets make you fat.

You need to find a way of eating that keeps you lean but satisfies you for the rest of your life. And most importantly, suits you.

The iDave/Paleo/Low GI/Low Insulin approach suits me but doesn’t fit most peoples’lifestyle.

i think you’ll find it does. or have you also found a way to magically create energy?

There have been some very odd things said on both sides of this argument about energy and mass. The human body is a bag of chemical reactions. In chemical (as opposed to nuclear) reactions mass is conserved. If you ingest a kilo of chemicals by eating, drinking and breathing in, and you excrete a kilo of chemicals, by the standard excretion methods and sweating and breathing out, your mass will not change. Your mass will only increase if your body retains some of those chemicals and uses them to build new tissue. What the argument is about is under what circumstances the body will do that, and what kind of tissue it will build.

Exactly my point. Yes it’s a chemical reaction, and yes mass is conserved, but to do so we have to expel the waste product causing us to lose mass.

You certainly did a better job of explaining it, but at the end of the day the body sacrifices mass to create energy and there’s really no way around that.

No, there isn’t.

So either you are eating less now that you did or exercising more. There is no other way that what you observe can be true

Or you’re shitting more…

So either you are eating less now that you did or exercising more. There is no other way that what you observe can be true

I could be shitting more energy out. I could be burning more energy whilst not riding. I could be mildly gluten intolerant and my but not absorbing energy properly, due to the extra bread. I could be warmer at night and sticking my leg furher out from under the blanket.

Also – define ‘exercising more’. Do you mean longer? Or more intensely? if I ride up a hill at maximal effort, am I using the same amount of actual energy as I was two years ago? Am I exercising at the same percentage of max?

So many variables. So many other ways to affect fat deposition.

No you couldn’t be shitting more energy out unless you are seriously ill.

Exercising more – burning more calories thru movement.

I for example have lost 20 kg over 3 years with no change in diet and cycling less. why? ‘cos the job I do now is much physically harder

Really Molgrips – you have a serious blind spot on this and you are inventing a whole new biology.

There is a third option of more eaten allowing an even greater quantity and quality of exercise.
If you try to restrict intake too much and cut carbs too far then it hugely compromises both how hard you can exercise and how soon you recover to go again. You in effect cause yourself to be ‘bonked’ 24/7.

That’s what I said earlier fifeandy.

And tj I’m not inventing it, it’s in the article I linked to.