[Closed] weight loss advice

Your body gets used to your calorie intake and the amount of exercise taken. You always lose loads of weight at first, and then plateau. If you're eating sensibly, then just exercise more/harder, and be prepared for the weight to take more time to go, but it will happen. I lost three stone about 6 years ago, and that was what I found. Just keep at it, but have a treat once a week as well. The most important thing is just to be consistent with your diet and exercise.

At a guess three things.
You've reduced carbs from in your diet? - Carbs tend to need lots of water, so cutting them out reduces your weight quickly, but it's mostly water rather than fat you loose.
You've lost 5kg in fat and as a consequence you're calorific requirements have also reduced, so 2000 kcals has become the intake you need to maintain weight rather than reduce it.
Your calorie counting isn't accurate.
[url] http://foodfocus.co.uk/ [/url] is quite a good free site, for accurately recording calorie intake from food, and outlay from exercise.

20min runs or 5km bikes ride really aren't much exercise at all, try upping the duration/effort.

2000 calories a day of what though ?

...and you say you've been out for a few rides and commuted a few times.
Try and commute on the bike regularly and turn up the intensity.

Kev

forget about low intensity exercise, start doing intervals (google 'cardio HIIT') and resistance training, cut carbs apart from one day a week when you can blitz them, don't eat white foods (rice, pasta, bread) don't drink calories, cut dairy, drink loads of water. that's what you need to do, pretty much ignore anything otherwise that may be posted after this, its based on myth and ill-informed bullshit.

if you want to be a great cyclist once you lose your weight you need to do long rides, but for fat loss, forget it.

if you want to be a great cyclist once you lose your weight you need to do long rides, but for fat loss, forget it.

Wrong. Long slow rides really work - but it's damn hard work and takes a lot of time. Not only do you burn a lot of fat but you train your fat-burning metabolic pathways so that it becomes easier to burn fat.

If you do high intensity workouts you'll build muscle (which then will burn fat as you just sit around doing nothing) and for a while after the exercise your metabolism will be raised which will also burn some fat, BUT during the exercise you will use up all your muscle glycogen stores.. unless you manage your carb intake well this will probably make you incredibly hungry and make it virtually impossible not to eat shedloads to re-fill your glycogen stores. I guess this may depend on your metabolism but that's what happens with me.

Like I say, when I do high intensity workouts I get fast, and build muscle but I certainly don't lose weight.

molgrips, you're both misinformed and wrong on many levels

Gonna tell me why?

it would take more time than i can bear, but there are numerous research papers which demonstrate that intervals produce more fat loss than steady state, even when the total work done is great with steady state. ever seen a fat sprinter? they're usually leaner than marathon runners. fat burning zones is the greatest myth in the fitness industry. as a topical example, Eddie Izzard didn't look very ripped after his 43 marathons did he?

He's right y know, long an steady dull as but makes body more efficient at burning fat, high intensity builds muscle but depletes glycogen an ends up wi you starvin hungry an likely t gorge.....

I did some leaflet delivering for a friend, so I was literally walking for hours and hours a day. The fat just fell off me, I didn't get any injuries and I didn't get that bloody-hell-I'm-starving-to-death urge to totally empty the fridge and cupboards (I get it if I go swimming or a really long bike ride).

I've seen quite a few fat blokes on bikes out-sprint me at races, but never a skinny one. I've also noticed that sprinters are usually very big and muscle-bound.

I'd like to see the studies, I wonder how the calorie intake was controlled? It would be interesting to see a study on people who were given training plans to take home and consequently controlled their own diet.

There's also the fatigue part of it to consider. I found I could put in 15 hours of base training relatively easily (physically) but I can only do say 2-3 hours of speed training. According to cycling peaks, my cumulative training stress score (whatever it's called) was much greater in winter, which is why I've only ever lost weight in winter time doing base training.

OK, you're right Molgrips, what would I know, what with you working in IT and me having earned a living lecturing exercise physiology, presenting at fitness conventions and coaching people who won pretty major titles in quite a few sports...

It's not new it's just been buried by misinformation and marketing bollox in the fitness industry. there have been dozen of others since

Impact of Exercise Intensity on Body Fatness and Skeletal Muscle Metabolism, ' Metabolism, vol. 43(7), pp 814-818, 1994

>I've seen quite a few fat blokes on bikes out-sprint me at races,

They position the burger van at the end of the finishing straight.

if you are strating with 20 mins runs great but add some sprints in their to begin with, tribalc is right in what he says, but you have to build up to intensity I would suggest, intense work outs are better see crossfit and gym jones. Mix up your training go to the gym, swim, run, bike, walk, box, martial arts whatever you will get a better all round base fitness and then target what you want.
Above all enjoy it and there is nowt wrong in going for a slow run now and then. 😀

re: trib@lchief vs molgrips

Yikes! A fight. Soon, we'll have Mr Woppit dropping by to say he doesn't believe in weight loss, and then things will [i]really[/i] heat up.

Can I just say - eat less move more. its the only answer

[i]2000 calories a day of what though ?[/i]
Your question doesn't make sense. I'm going to guess your implying good calories over bad calories. Please don't.

Molgrips - I don't wish to cause you any offence but please stop typing what you're typing. It's utter rubbish.

Also whilst "Having muscle burns more fat" is technically true, the actual amount turns out to be pretty negligible (3-5 kcal per day per lb of lean mass).

If you have lost weight, and have stopped then you need to fix your energy balance - either more exercise (without increasing calories) or reduce intake - or ideally a bit of both.

The best method to do this is the one that *you can stick to* - in most studies it's clear that the biggest success factor is compliance, rather than the difference between high protein or high carb diets, HIIT or steady state cardio / weight training etc.

I have no qualifications in the field but I've done a fair bit of reading, and managed to drop about 20kg a couple of years ago and keep it off.

Come on TC I wasn't being an arse, I'm just interested, being a fat git on a bike myself...

Although whenever I hear about marketing hype causing the truth to be lost it makes me a little suspicious.... but I'll try and check out that paper and any others you can tell me about. It is unfortunate that people are falling over themselves to scream their ideas at you tho 🙁

Seriously, thanks for the responses. It is a bit frustrating, though, seeing as we have had threads about losing weight in the past when people have glibly chimed in with 'eat less; do more' (edit: à la TJ, above) yet it doesn't seem to be that simple.

I have spent five weeks eating substantially less, and doing (granted, only a little bit) more, and after the first bit, have lost nothing.

Above all, it is apparent that I have to be more intense about it. IanMunro's suggestion of using foodfocus.co.uk looks like it will help in terms of keeping better records, and I will certainly up my activity.

But goodness, it's hard if you have to fit it in, and taking care of your fitness has not been an integrated part of your life for a long time...

It is hard, SaxonRider. And TJ is being facile, it is clearly more complicated than he makes out he's clearly one of those congentially thin blokes who never had a trouble with weight.

Tribalchief.. I could only read the abstract of that paper. But it doesn't seem from that to be conclusive. They cite 120MJ of energy expenditure for the endurance training to 50MJ for the high intensity training. I do wonder though how the TSS values would compare.

I'm not sure how 120MJ of endurance training actually compares with 50MJ of speed - I mean which was harder for the participants to do? For example, a 10 mile time trial taking 25 minutes feels harder to do than a two hour ride at base training level. I could do two hours a day at base week in week out, but I doubt I could do a 10 every day.

Now I want to make it absolutely clear that I just want a discussion and to pick as many brains as possible to learn what I can, I'm not trying to win points.. I know I only work in IT 🙂

Carbs tend to need lots of water

what does that mean? Can you reference any evidence for the claim ? Bear in mind your body does not store carbs beyond a small amount of glycogen (100–120 g)

You've lost 5kg in fat and as a consequence you're calorific requirements have also reduced,

by a few calories a day...

[i] Can you reference any evidence for the claim [/i]

I haven't a clue. I'm just back from the pub after an enjoyable day running and gardening. But you're more than welcome to spend the evening finding references to support whatever arguments you want to have with yourself 😉

I was told 4g of water for every 1g of carbs stored. Hence seeming to lose weight after hard exercise despite remaining hydrated...

But you're more than welcome to spend the evening finding references to support whatever arguments you want to have with yourself

so you mean you can just make stuff up and post it an expect to be believed ?

I was told 4g of water for every 1g of carbs stored.

so 120g of glycogen require 0.5kg of water ?

to be honest i can't be arsed going into it in detail. my original post, outlines the best way to lose fat and also develop great cardio fitness. if you google HIIT and fat loss someone else has probably answered your questions already. these threads annoy the hell out of me as misinformation is regurgitated en mass. imagine trying to advise someone on an IT matter and having coaches say contrary 'facts' based on using a computer for their work? its a huge pet hate of mine, and i'm also grumpy today.

I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong. I was just after a discussion.. trying to understand what you're saying. Not saying I don't believe you.

FWIW I get my information from reading up about and trying to undersand the science involved not from the millions of hysterical websites out there which also piss me off.

Quick(ish) question for Tribalchief -

What duration intervals work best for weight loss

10sec sprints, 30 sec sprints or 60sec sprints? (and how long to rest in between?)
How many each session?
and how often? (is every day too often?)

Cheers!

hard to go wrong with 3 or 4 sets of 5 x 30 sec max/30 sec recovery, 3 mins easy between sets. great for fat loss and cardio fitness. three or four times a week

Molgrips - it is actually that simple - its calories in against calories out. You can complicate it and you can modify exercise to give differing effects but its a simple equation - if you take in more calories than you use then you gain weight - if you take in less calories than you use you lose weigh

I am a good stone overweight at the moment

tribal - what about ditching the cardio for serious weight loss ..... I've heard that multi-joint weight lifting exercises are the way forward?

Builds muscle and increases meatabolism for longer after actual exercise than cardio? Right?

Cheers!! 😀

I have the opposite problem. Can't get enough calories in to support the exercise I do. It's driving me nuts TBH. Without resorting to stuffing my face with a constant supply of shit food how do others manage it?

as TJ said, stop excercising so much 😉

Molgrips - it is actually that simple - its calories in against calories out.

Christ TJ. You can be a right arse sometimes. We have this thing called appetite.. which is pretty complex, and there are a load of other positive and negative feedback mechanisms that affect how easy it will be to moderate you calorie intake, how you'll feel physically and mentally and how you'll be able to do your exercise.

Sure you can just cut your calories right back whilst training but you might feel like absolute crap on a stick (like I do if I don't eat enough and keep trying to ride) to the point where you can hardly function at your job never mind on a bike... And for a lot of people that'll result in failure to stick to the plan and disillusionment and whatnot.

That's the last time I'm typing that to you, so remember it this time.

Nickc - try taking carbs whilst riding; either gels, bars, or drink. If drink upsets your stomach then mix it less than full strength. I find that if I ride hard and don't take carbs I become an eating machine and can't think about anything else - seriously.. and am never satisfied.

Also try recovery drink after riding. Torq is best by a mile.

hard to go wrong with 3 or 4 sets of 5 x 30 sec max/30 sec recovery, 3 mins easy between sets. great for fat loss and cardio fitness

Plus at least one long ride a week, surely?

I don't have any answers for you, but I just wanted to say that I never had trouble with my weight until I started eating more and exercising less.

Have cut out salty snacks (crisps and nuts, which I ate a lot of) completely for the last month and it's having a slow but steady effect, about a pound a week, FWIW.

OK, here is my anecdotal take on things to further cloud the issue

When I try and loose weight I tend to only loose a little and then get it all back with interest within a few months because I lose motivation after a very short while. Loosing weight for the sake of loosing weight just feels a bit pointless.

Recently I set my self the goal of running a half marathon in 2 hours, this was from a starting point of zero fitness. I had lots of little goals along the way, like beating my precious best time on my jogging route. At no point was my goal to loose weight. I gave up smoking along the way which would usually lead to weight gain, and I lost just over a stone in 4 or 5 months. I wasn't really over weight to start with, but I am a much better shape now.

Im not sure how this fits in with the interval training vs distance training debate as I was doing a bit of both, but what I think it does show is that you need to approach things with the intention of making a real lifestyle change rather than thinking you will just eat a bit less or cram 20 minutes of exercise in twice a week if you want to loose it and keep it off

Molgrips - you are the one spouting a load of rubbish! it doesn't matter how you do it but the basic equation is simple. Appetite and so on can me modified but the basic truth remains - its calories in against calories out

You're talking to us as if we're stupid again TJ. That annoys people...

At the end of the day though he's right, how you get there is your own personal struggle, but at the end of the day, overall, you can't argue with the laws of physics - if cals in < cals out you lose weight. The complexities of how that affects your mood and likelyhood of snacking etc are personal issues, but his primary comment is flawless.

As someone finding it really hard to lose weight at the moment I agree it often seems harder, but as an engineer I can't disagree with the laws of physics so I know it's just me being a muppet and going about the balancing of that equation the wrong way leading me to fail.

Forget the recovery drinks, it's just more calories, which you don't need, unless you're doing a high volume of training for performance gains. Yes do some longer rides also if you like.

also, it's ok to feel hungry. its no big deal, really, most of the world feel that every day. and it's usually thirst you're feeling. drink some water and MTFU.

you can't argue with the laws of physics - if cals in < cals out you lose weight.

If there was a Joey smiley on here I'd use it. Do you honestly think a) I don't know about energy balance and b) I'd be arguing about the laws of physics.

Here's a question - how do you know what your calories out is?

 

Forget the recovery drinks, it's just more calories, which you don't need, unless you're doing a high volume of training for performance gains.

It helps stop that massively hungry feeling that results from hard exercise without carbs. Which is what nickc seemed to be alluding to.

I give up, I really do. No wonder tribalchief gets cross.

Do you honestly think a) I don't know about energy balance and b) I'd be arguing about the laws of physics.

Some people like to argue against them, I don't know you well enough to know what you'd argue, but you seem to be thinking it is more complex than that, which it's not.

Here's a question - how do you know what your calories out is?

Thats the difficult part of course, but if you're not losing weight you're obviously not using enough cals. If you know your weight is steady and you know your intake, you know your outgoings. That's fairly simple too?

What's practical and useful in the real world is a long long way from simple energy balance (which is my point). So you're not helping much by banging on about it. Reading people's experiences posted here should hint at the complexity of the issue.

So you're not helping much by banging on about it. Reading people's experiences posted here should hint at the complexity of the issue.

But it forms the basis of everything you need to do. I'm not sure most peoples experiences help at all, I've read countless ones and "guaranteed" ways of losing weight, but never found a solution that worked better than eat less and move more. Sure I get cravings/headaches etc if done properly, but if I try to aleviate them I add more cals in and so it stops working. I enjoyed the eating and the resting to gain the fat, I must deal with the pain that comes with losing it too. Beat about the bush making it easier just extends the effort.

Have you looked at the crash diet they put you on to lose weight for operations - you're down to about 5-700 cals a day, and you have no choice, no matter how miserable you are about it, but the weight falls off you. Again, there's no reason to re-gain weight after a crash diet (providing it's not all about losing hydration) unless you forget to modify your normal eating behaviour too.

if it was easy there would be no fatties

exercise intensely, eat less (esp white carbs), drink lots of water, feel hungry quite a lot, lose weight [s]have fun, simple[/s]

Great thread.

What was the OP again?

I'm afraid I often have to agree with the 'eat less, do more' camp, but I also appreciate that it's often easier said than done.
There are a few truths to acknoweledge though:

- Very few people in developed society (bar the homeless/those on the poverty line) have experienced true hunger for a long time - a lot of what drives our eating is [b]appetite[/b]. This can be seen as the [b]desire[/b] for food. Hunger is your body actually [b]needing[/b] food. You can easily distract yourself from appetite, but it can be difficult

- Your body is incredibly efficient at storing excess energy, wheras it's harder to 'get rid' of it. Accept that, and you'll realise that it's not all in vain.

- Your body isn't always at 'energy crisis' i.e. every single calorie entering your mouth is needed to power the body. By this I mean cutting down 400 calories from your diet (per day) is unlikely to result in 'losing' 400 calories of fat per day, as the body's processes are fluid. Take the opposite - eating 500 calories extra per day (in some people) results in [b]excess heat production[/b] to counter the excess calories, as opposed to fat deposition.

So, although the concept is one of simple physics/chemistry, and generally, the notion of "if you're not losing weight you need to eat less" still holds true, the end result may not be as 'rapid' as you would hope, but bear with it and changes will occur.

The other thing to realise is that once you make a change to get to a certain weight, you need to maintain that change [b]forever[/b] i.e. as soon as you go back to your 'old ways', the weight returns.....

DrP

You can easily distract yourself from appetite, but it can be difficult...

I'm a genius!

DrP

I'm not sure most peoples experiences help at all

They do - they tell you the potential pitfalls, and hint at the processes involved and why well-meaning people fail. Us fatties aren't all idiotic gluttons you know.

you're down to about 5-700 cals a day, and you have no choice, no matter how miserable you are about it, but the weight falls off you

Right. So it's a great way to fit sustainable weight management into your lifestyle then?

Again, there's no reason to re-gain weight after a crash diet (providing it's not all about losing hydration) unless you forget to modify your normal eating behaviour too.

As long as you ignore the body's self-regulating effects. Ever lost weight during illness? When I had it bad both ends, I lost about 3kg, but put it straight back on despite having been at a steady state before, and after the weight gain.

[i]Theoretically[/i] I should've maintained the low weight, if things were as simple as you make out, but I didn't, possibly because of negative feedback effects associated with fat tissue. Have you read [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin ]this[/url] about leptin on Wiki?

TC is gonna hate me for this but I lost a shedload more weight when doing long slow rides than when doing short intense ones. When doing speed training I could only maintain weight, not lose it. Cutting calories only made me less able to do the intense workouts... on a high carb diet.

The other thing to realise is that once you make a change to get to a certain weight, you need to maintain that change forever i.e. as soon as you go back to your 'old ways', the weight returns.....

Again, not sure that's strictly true. The change you need to get TO that weight is fairly large, the change to be stable AT that weight is not as great. i.e. If stable at 16 stone I may have to massively drop intake to lose 2 stone in 6 months and reach 14 stone, but once at my ideal weight I can return to almost the same intake as I had originally (slightly less) to maintain that weight. The extra mass doesn't use up vast amounts of extra energy, only small amounts due to increased difficulty in motion etc) so providing you're stable now, you can be stable and lighter while eating the same amount after weight loss.

Right. So it's a great way to fit sustainable weight management into your lifestyle then?

How you lose the weight is irrelevant, provding you can identify a sensible eating level after you've lost the weight. If you can't control yourself then after the crash diet youre likely to pile it back on. Thats up to the individual.

As long as you ignore the body's self-regulating effects. Ever lost weight during illness? When I had it bad both ends, I lost about 3kg, but put it straight back on despite having been at a steady state before, and after the weight gain.

Yes, I lost 7lb after a 6 day food poisoning mission last year. I regained a small amount immediately through re-hydration, but never re-gained the weight.

Have you read this about leptin on Wiki?

I have, but ultimately that's just a mental issue - about appitite control, not about weight levels.

@tc- why are white carbs worse?

I assume this means white bread etc is that right?

molgrips for your last comment to hold any [s]weight[/s] water I assume you scientifically started from the same body mass before each method of weight loss? or better you lost no weight with high intensity then switched to low intensity and it just fell off?

how do you know what your calories out is?

same as my calories in as my weight is a constant +/- 1lb ?

also, it's ok to feel hungry. its no big deal, really, most of the world feel that every day

I have that - it makes food taste better 🙂

I have, but ultimately that's just a mental issue

Oh, so not at all important then?

🙄

or better you lost no weight with high intensity then switched to low intensity and it just fell off?

The other way round. I did base training and slashed my food intake, and it fell off. When I went to speed work I had to up the calorie intake to maintain performance gain.

That's the only time I managed to successfully lose any amount of weight without extenuating circumstances (about 8kg in 3 months).

So you lost a lot of weight to start with doing low intensity, then switched to high intensity and didn't lose as much...?

Well I've never heard of that before... losing a lot of weight to start with and then it getting harder to shift weight as you get slimmer / have less weight to lose? You are a weight loss conundrum for sure.

I lost a shit load of weight after my coffee this morning.....

Southern Yeti - stop being such a frigging smart arse, I'm desperately trying to have a reasonable debate here and failing...

I could show you the graph of my weight that year. It goes down sharply at first, then the rate slows a bit but stays steady for a good while, then my weight abruptly goes up about a kg and levels off as my training changes. It does not asymptotically approach a minimum level as you are suggesting.

If you were looking for evidence of the weight loss effects of different training regimes over a year in one individual, what would you expect to see in a graph? I'd expect to see a discontinuity in the graph, and I did.

I can't see how this is so difficult to get a consensus on. As I understand it:

1) Long+slow uses more %age of fat, and develops fat burning metabolism (raises threshold of lactate production).

2) Short+fast uses less %age of fat, and can result in low blood glycogen levels which raises appetite.

Cyclists do 1) in the winter when not racing, and 2) in summer. 1) tends to result in weight loss, 2) less so.

I never thought any of that was marketing bollocks, controversial, not backed up by evidence, or not recommended by experienced coaches.

HIIT I'm sure results in greater fat loss in some circumstances, but I'm guessing the OP was a cyclist and wishes to get fitter/faster?

Sorry, are you taking measurements as well as just monitoring your weight?
Intense training might be promoting muscle gain?

Intense training might be promoting muscle gain?

It did. That's part of it, although not all because I did make ad-hoc belt-hole measurements but didn't record them. I lost about 2" on my waist during the base training but it stabilised along with my weight.

OTOH, I only care about power/weight ratio (being an mtber), so I have to lose weight and gain power.

Yet another question is which is preferable? Low weight and high power or higher weight and even higher power still?

The fact that good mtbers seem almost entirely to be small would indicate that the former is more preferable, hence building muscle wouldn't be ideal, no? (note question mark here, I don't know the answer to this)

If you aren't losing weight (and you are over weight) then you are a) eating too much or b) not doing enough exercise.

How Frickin' complex can it be!!!???

Depends what sort of mountain biking you're doing...... DH/4X/XC/Marathon etc.

What shite!

How Frickin' complex can it be!!!???

Sigh.. it's complex.. most bikers I've spoken to weigh too much and wish they were lighter. So either a) we're all f*cking stupid or b) it actually is complex.

Whaddya reckon? Are you the ony intelligent biker out there?

Man, people who don't want to believe its as simple as calories in vs. calories out don't half come up with some tripe.

So either a) we're all f*cking stupid or b) it actually is complex.

or c) we're all greedy 🙂

As with SFB, most people eat too much, and don't "move" nearly as much as they think they need to.

Man, people who don't want to believe its as simple as calories in vs. calories out don't half come up with some tripe.

Oh my sainted aunt. I am going to go absolutely spare in a minute. Are you people not capable of reading and comprehending a few simple frigging posts?!

In principle it is calories in and calories out, of course, any frigging idiot knows that.

However - how to ensure that you can achieve this negative energy balance whilst:

a) feeling good
b) doing the riding/training you want to the standard you want
c) feeling happy about yourself
d) making sustainable changes to your lifestyle/riding
e) fitting in the rest of life
f) being able to keep it up in the long run

Is quite hard - as evidenced by the number of fatties on bikes on this forum.

No I've read what you've written molgrips, I understand what you're saying and further, I recognise most of it for the usual excuses that get trotted out for being a bit greedy. I'm like that myself. Unlinking consumption of food from contentment is v difficult. Developing self control is difficult, I've given in enough times to know all about it, but I'm not about to start making excuses for it.

However - how to ensure that you can achieve this negative energy balance whilst:

Indeed, but ultimately not really something anyone can help you with - everyone reacts differently, some people envelop themselves in the weight loss and enjoy the experience of punishing themselves into thin-ness, some people find it awful and need to do everything they can to fool themselves into thinking they're still eating as they were before and never having to experience hunger. No-one can tell how you're going to react, people are very varied obviously, so all anyone can advise is less in more out, everything else is just as bad as asking the best way to tackle a rock garden - everyone will have a different approach despite it the general course being "from top to bottom". Ultimately you have to accept that you ate too much, now you need to eat too little.

If you want fast results you can make a small change and still be happy. If you want fast results you need to make major changes, these may seem less sustainable, but thats based on your own point of view and commitment.

This is probably the only sports forum that I can think of where gym-training is widely considered to be unnecessary.

This is probably the only sports forum that I can think of where gym-training is widely considered to be unnecessary.

Few people here are pro-level, gyms are an unnecessary thing for general fitness and good riding. I know many road runners and road cyclists who have never seen a gym. Gyms are motivational miseries, boredom and single-view hell (IMO). Anything (generically useful, not aimed at weight training) you do in a gym can be done out in the field.

I recognise most of it for the usual excuses that get trotted out for being a bit greedy

It's not an excuse for being greedy. My riding performance and mental performance suffer if I don't get the carb intake to match my carb expenditure whilst training/racing. I have the self control to deny myself, and found that the above suffered. I had to increase my carb intake to improve things, and when I did this my weight stabilised (although perhaps not fat %age).

Now (when I'm healthy and training well which hasnm't been this year) I listen very carefully to my body and manage my carbs based on that - because I pay attention, I know how I feel when my carb stores are very low or full, or slightly low which is where I try and keep it for an optimium balance of performance potential and also weight loss.

Greed isn't part of it.

Greed isn't part of it.

Maybe not now, but that's why your weight is stable. Sure you can't work optimally without the carb intake, but you can't expect to lose weight AND maintain the carb intake - thats just daft. It's like saying I'd like to drive my car but not use any fuel thanks. In order to lose weight you're going to have to suffer a little. Ask any athlete, they don't have a miracle weight loss system. Actually, ask TC - he seems to be about the best authority on this!

This is probably the only sports forum that I can think of where gym-training is widely considered to be unnecessary.

That's cos it's MTBing, and most mtbers are out for a laugh, where as most runners/roadies etc are all about performance.

Perhaps that's also got something to do with why every discussion about weight ends up with 50% of the 'contributors' saying nothing more than 'put the pies down you pathetic, feeble, greedy, worthless over-eating piece of trash'.