Forum menu
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'.
CK - re-read my earlier post. I said the idea was to keep mild -ve energy balance when speed training.. ie keep the carb stores just under full. Starving myself and letting the stores get way low causes problems.
It was possible to starve myself to a much greater extent though whilst base training.
Oh and the car comparisom doesn't help - cars only have one type of fuel, people have three which are inter-related in certain ways and not in others.
If you like, it's a bit (but not entirely) like having several fuel maps in your ECU. Driving a particular way will use one map that favours say economy, and another way will bring in the performance map. Except they use different kinds of fuel. And those fuels are also used for other things and affect the driver, and his state of mind and his brain chemistry... and so on 🙂
I must admit I've lost track of the original post at this point!
Wow - poor OP asks for some advice and gets lots of arguing people...
If it helps from my real life experience - I tried to loose weight by strict calorie control (2500), I felt awful, dizzy etc.. and basically stopped training as I felt so bad
So instead I ate sensibly, swapped out a lunch time coke for squash, chocolate bar for apple etc... and started commuting to work - 5 miles or so each way. I commuted absolutely flat out and found that I lost a kg a week for the first 5 weeks then stopped.
What I realised was that I was in fact still losing a bit of fat after that but the muscle gain was outweighing it, so much that after a couple of months I started gaining a small amount.
What I did to measure progress was use a tape measure instead of the scales.
EDIT - btw I used a reward system (to justify bike bit purchases) based on achieving personal bests & completeing events rather than based on pure weight loss.
Reading this has made me really hungry, I've nothing here to eat and now I've got to go out and ride up Bear Road in the rain. It will be both intense and slow so at least I'm guaranteed to lose weight. 🙂
poor OP asks for some advice and gets lots of arguing people...
Welcome to STW, please enjoy your stay.
What I realised was that I was in fact still losing a bit of fat after that but the muscle gain was outweighing it, so much that after a couple of months I started gaining a small amount.
Apparently that's not really possible as the maximum rate of muscle creation is significantly lower than the possible rate of fat loss, so even with the different densities you'd have to be gaining muscle like a body builder on 'roids to even maintain weight while on a reasonably tame diet. (came from a bodybuilding friend of mine but has been repeated a few times by others since).
Coffeeking maybe unnecessary is the wrong word, but for most recreational athletes cross-training will give a better marginal improvement in overall fitness than additional time doing a single activity. The two biggest problems with gym work are motivation and lack of knowledge about the right kind of training. Once you get the training right and start seeing results the motivation takes care of itself.
Have to say that my experiences are very similar to molgrips, it might be a case of eat less move more but if the type of moving causes you to hurt for the next day or week its no good. I find it fairly easy to cut back my food intake but when I do and i'm doing intense exercise i feel much more fatigued, recovery type drinks can help to prevent this, or I just eat more, on the other hand I could cycle for ever at a steady pace!
CK it is possible. He was clearly gaining a small amount of muscle (not the maximum) and losing a small amount of fat - makes sense no?
CK it is possible. He was clearly gaining a small amount of muscle (not the maximum) and losing a small amount of fat - makes sense no?
Yup, c'est possible.