How to cycle for weight loss

[Daniel Crispin]

Hello,

I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward weight
loss. I could buy
a HRM but I have already spent 600$ on my bike this month and would like to
stop spending
for a while.

Any trick that can tell me I am using the right effort for weight loss?
Someone told me that if I cannot
speak without feeling a little out of breath that is the right zone... is
that true?

Also I am been trying to pedal faster. I used to pedal slow and hard but
after reading some books
I now understand it's a really bad way to do it. I have no idea what my
current cadence is since my
computer doesn't have that feature but I think I am at around 1.25 turn per
second... that is of course
an approximate... it would mean 75 turns per minute which is close to what
is recommanded... I cannot
see myself pedaling faster, already feels like I am spinning way too fast ;)
How do you guys do 100 turns
per minute? Must be a mental issue, the legs don't seems to mind but geez
at a 100 I am not sure I could
even keep my balance hehehe!

Last thing... what should I eat before and during training? I love pasta.
I know they contain a lot of calories
but that is the food I like. On the other hand they give lots of carbs so
that can't be bad while training right?
Should I eat something different the days I train?

How about during training? I normal bring a Nutribar which is an meal
replacement designed for weight loss.
I has a balance of carbs, fats and proteins. Should I use something with
more carbs?

[psycholist]

"Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> Hello,
>
> I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward weight
> loss.

<bunch of stuff snipped>

Daniel,

I see lots of folks who take up cycling for weight loss and never lose
weight. Frankly, it's not exactly the best choice for weight loss because
it's a non-weight-bearing activity and most folks who have real jobs can't
do enough of it, or won't work hard enough at it, to get much benefit.

What I've read and what I believe based on years of observing various
riders, reading tons of stuff, etc. is that you absolutely will not lose
weight if you don't ride with some intensity ... at least a couple of times
a week. There was a long time when the popular theory was that, if you
spent all your time training in a certain, relatively easy, heart rate zone,
you were using fat as your fuel source instead of sugar. Therefore, staying
in that range all the time would make you lose fat. Great theory, but I
never EVER saw that work for anyone.

If you want to lose weight on the bike, you have to work HARD on the bike.
Lots of mile, lots of intervals of intensity, etc.

I don't have a "real" job. I'm self-employed and have a farm. I have a
flexible schedule and can ride alot. I get in 250 to 300 miles per week
pretty much all year round. I don't race, but I do centuries with the racer
folks and turn in sub-5 hour rides regularly. That's intensity for this 48
year old body. I say all that to say this ... even with all those miles and
near-race intensity, if I don't eat right, I gain weight. Carbs like pasta
can be great fuel before a big ride, but most of the time, if you want to
lose, you've gotta discipline your diet. I recommend you look at the Zone
diet and learn its principles. It's not really one of the fad diets. I'm
not a dietician, but the Zone principles seem to make sense ... balancing
your fat, protein and carbohydrate intake to keep your blood sugar at
optimum levels. It's really worked for me.

One last thing. Crosstraining. Bicycling is great, but I find it really
helps to add a second activity when I want to lose weight. For me, it's
just walking. As I said, I live on a farm and I simply walk the property
each morning. It takes about 20 minutes and gets the motor going. For some
reason, the addition of a second activity like this really pushes things
into higher gear for me and I lose weight quickly.

I hope some of this helps. I'm sure I'm going to get flamed 'cuz I'm not
offering any specific data to back up what I'm saying. This is just based
on personal experience and a decade of observation and "study."

Good luck.
Bob C.

[Warren Block]

Daniel Crispin > wrote:

> I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward
> weight loss. I could buy a HRM but I have already spent 600$ on my
> bike this month and would like to stop spending for a while.

How about free? And probably less biased than most, because it's not
selling anything:

http://www.hackersdiet.org

> Any trick that can tell me I am using the right effort for weight
> loss? Someone told me that if I cannot speak without feeling a little
> out of breath that is the right zone... is that true?

Not necessarily. Ride. Recover. Ride more.

> Also I am been trying to pedal faster. I used to pedal slow and hard
> but after reading some books I now understand it's a really bad way to
> do it.

As long as the pressure on your knees is low, I don't think it really
matters how fast you spin.

> Last thing... what should I eat before and during training? I love
> pasta. I know they contain a lot of calories but that is the food I
> like. On the other hand they give lots of carbs so that can't be bad
> while training right? Should I eat something different the days I
> train?

Read the book above. If you want to lose fat, you need to eat fewer
calories than you burn. In that book, cycling is rated at about 300
calories per hour. The good news is that is probably for what most
people think of as cycling--slow, easy rides on a bike path. Most of
the readers of this newsgroup will burn more.

> How about during training? I normal bring a Nutribar which is an meal
> replacement designed for weight loss.
> I has a balance of carbs, fats and proteins. Should I use something with
> more carbs?

How about something less manufactured and more grown? Bananas are good.
So are apples. So are fig bars, for that matter. (I have mixed
feelings about the current low-carb fad.)

--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

[Denver C. Fox]

I generally read about 35 calories burned per mile for modest biking, dependent
upon degree of effort, wieght of biker, etc. But, it is a good figure to start
with.

Cadence. Look at your watch while pedaling, when it gets to a "0", start
counting full revolutions until it gets to the next "0". I.e., 20-30, 0-10,
etc. Multiply the revolutions you counted by 6.

While not absolutely accurate, it will give you a good diea.

Over the past 6 years of riding (starting at age 58) my cadence has gone from
about 60-70 to 90-110, and I can get cadences up to 140-150 if I want.

It just takes time and practice.

Use the Zone Diet, or the Body for Life eating plan - they are pretty
comparable, and the BFL is really easy to implement. It takes exercise AND
good eating habits to lose weight.

I bike pretty intensely, getting my heart rate up to about 155 BPM on hills and
acceleration, which is pretty high for someone age 64.

Good luck!


http://members.aol.com/foxcondorsrvtns
(Colorado rental condo)

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)

[Gooserider]

"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Daniel,
>
> I see lots of folks who take up cycling for weight loss and never lose
> weight. Frankly, it's not exactly the best choice for weight loss because
> it's a non-weight-bearing activity and most folks who have real jobs can't
> do enough of it, or won't work hard enough at it, to get much benefit.

I agree that most people can't devote racer-like hours to training, and that
many people do not possess the intensity to burn lots of calories cycling.
However, weight-bearing has little effect, I think. The reason people don't
lose weight when they cycle is because they are consuming more calories than
they burn. Didn't we have a 100+ thread about this very subject not long
ago?


> What I've read and what I believe based on years of observing various
> riders, reading tons of stuff, etc. is that you absolutely will not lose
> weight if you don't ride with some intensity ... at least a couple of
times
> a week. There was a long time when the popular theory was that, if you
> spent all your time training in a certain, relatively easy, heart rate
zone,
> you were using fat as your fuel source instead of sugar. Therefore,
staying
> in that range all the time would make you lose fat. Great theory, but I
> never EVER saw that work for anyone.

Because they ate too much. It's easy to do---Powerbars, Gatorade, pre-ride
pasta gorge, post-ride beers and pizza. If they ate at maintenance level
calories and rode like you say, they will lose weight.

> If you want to lose weight on the bike, you have to work HARD on the bike.
> Lots of mile, lots of intervals of intensity, etc.

Long slow distance seems to be the rule. Of course, some Poliquin-type
interval training helps, too. But calories are the key. As bodybuilders say,
"great abs are made in the kitchen".

> I don't have a "real" job. I'm self-employed and have a farm. I have a
> flexible schedule and can ride alot. I get in 250 to 300 miles per week
> pretty much all year round. I don't race, but I do centuries with the
racer
> folks and turn in sub-5 hour rides regularly. That's intensity for this
48
> year old body. I say all that to say this ... even with all those miles
and
> near-race intensity, if I don't eat right, I gain weight. Carbs like
pasta
> can be great fuel before a big ride, but most of the time, if you want to
> lose, you've gotta discipline your diet. I recommend you look at the Zone
> diet and learn its principles. It's not really one of the fad diets. I'm
> not a dietician, but the Zone principles seem to make sense ... balancing
> your fat, protein and carbohydrate intake to keep your blood sugar at
> optimum levels. It's really worked for me.

Good for you. But tricks aside, you cannot escape The Law of Thermodynamics.
If anyone consumes fewer calories than burned, weight loss will occur. The
key is burning fat and not excessive amounts of muscle.

> One last thing. Crosstraining. Bicycling is great, but I find it really
> helps to add a second activity when I want to lose weight. For me, it's
> just walking. As I said, I live on a farm and I simply walk the property
> each morning. It takes about 20 minutes and gets the motor going. For
some
> reason, the addition of a second activity like this really pushes things
> into higher gear for me and I lose weight quickly.

Weight lifting would be ideal. Growing muscle helps to burn fat. Everybody
should strength train, if for no other reason than to maintain bone density.
I don't want to end up a stick-armed old man with great cardio ability. I
want to end up a strong old man with great cardio ability! :-)

[psycholist]

"Gooserider" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "psycholist" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> Daniel,
> >
> > I see lots of folks who take up cycling for weight loss and never lose
> > weight. Frankly, it's not exactly the best choice for weight loss
because
> > it's a non-weight-bearing activity and most folks who have real jobs
can't
> > do enough of it, or won't work hard enough at it, to get much benefit.
>
> I agree that most people can't devote racer-like hours to training, and
that
> many people do not possess the intensity to burn lots of calories cycling.
> However, weight-bearing has little effect, I think. The reason people
don't
> lose weight when they cycle is because they are consuming more calories
than
> they burn. Didn't we have a 100+ thread about this very subject not long
> ago?
>
>
> > What I've read and what I believe based on years of observing various
> > riders, reading tons of stuff, etc. is that you absolutely will not lose
> > weight if you don't ride with some intensity ... at least a couple of
> times
> > a week. There was a long time when the popular theory was that, if you
> > spent all your time training in a certain, relatively easy, heart rate
> zone,
> > you were using fat as your fuel source instead of sugar. Therefore,
> staying
> > in that range all the time would make you lose fat. Great theory, but I
> > never EVER saw that work for anyone.
>
> Because they ate too much. It's easy to do---Powerbars, Gatorade, pre-ride
> pasta gorge, post-ride beers and pizza. If they ate at maintenance level
> calories and rode like you say, they will lose weight.
>
> > If you want to lose weight on the bike, you have to work HARD on the
bike.
> > Lots of mile, lots of intervals of intensity, etc.
>
> Long slow distance seems to be the rule. Of course, some Poliquin-type
> interval training helps, too. But calories are the key. As bodybuilders
say,
> "great abs are made in the kitchen".
>
> > I don't have a "real" job. I'm self-employed and have a farm. I have a
> > flexible schedule and can ride alot. I get in 250 to 300 miles per week
> > pretty much all year round. I don't race, but I do centuries with the
> racer
> > folks and turn in sub-5 hour rides regularly. That's intensity for this
> 48
> > year old body. I say all that to say this ... even with all those miles
> and
> > near-race intensity, if I don't eat right, I gain weight. Carbs like
> pasta
> > can be great fuel before a big ride, but most of the time, if you want
to
> > lose, you've gotta discipline your diet. I recommend you look at the
Zone
> > diet and learn its principles. It's not really one of the fad diets.
I'm
> > not a dietician, but the Zone principles seem to make sense ...
balancing
> > your fat, protein and carbohydrate intake to keep your blood sugar at
> > optimum levels. It's really worked for me.
>
> Good for you. But tricks aside, you cannot escape The Law of
Thermodynamics.
> If anyone consumes fewer calories than burned, weight loss will occur. The
> key is burning fat and not excessive amounts of muscle.
>
> > One last thing. Crosstraining. Bicycling is great, but I find it
really
> > helps to add a second activity when I want to lose weight. For me, it's
> > just walking. As I said, I live on a farm and I simply walk the
property
> > each morning. It takes about 20 minutes and gets the motor going. For
> some
> > reason, the addition of a second activity like this really pushes things
> > into higher gear for me and I lose weight quickly.
>
> Weight lifting would be ideal. Growing muscle helps to burn fat. Everybody
> should strength train, if for no other reason than to maintain bone
density.
> I don't want to end up a stick-armed old man with great cardio ability. I
> want to end up a strong old man with great cardio ability! :-)
>

I do core strength work. I believe that's important. Weight training, per
se, can actually result in gaining weight. If the goal is strictly weight
loss, I'd opt for some core strength exercises that don't involve much in
the way of weights. You can do a lot with crunches, pushups, chair dips,
etc.

Bob C.

[AMG]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:30:33 +0000, Warren Block wrote:

> Daniel Crispin > wrote:
>
>> I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward
>> weight loss. I could buy a HRM but I have already spent 600$ on my
>> bike this month and would like to stop spending for a while.
>

Most of the previous posts have been to the point, but numerically (and
approximately),

Weight loss = (Calories out - calories in) / 3500.

If you push on the bike, rather than just cruising, you might burn 500
calories / hr. But it would still take about seven hours of pedaling to
burn off one pound of fat, assuming no change in diet. This is why you
have to watch it in the kitchen, too, since it is not too difficult to add
back a few hundred calories a day with the pasta, energy bars, etc., etc.
It doesn't take much, unfortunately...

The moral: if you want to be a bit more scientific about it, try actually
adding up the calories. Then you can find out where they came from and
where they went (and if you're not losing weight, why they didn't went).

Cheers, and happy pedaling. At least we have fun while we struggle...

[curt]

Bicycling is a great way to lose weight! I think most important is to ride
long and steady to lose. I don't use a HR monitor, so I can't help you
there, but there is an effective HR for weight loss, but it is different for
everyone and we would need to know more information about you.

If you like pasta, it will be harder to lose, unless you don't eat that
much. Sorry, that is just the way it is. A high carb diet makes it harder
to lose, it is just the facts. It can certainly be done and is done all the
time, but you need to cut calories, unless you are going to ride very long
distances 4+ days a week. I suggest lower fat if you are going high carb.
If you want to lose faster, then bag the pasta and eat chicken, fish, etc.

JMHO,
Curt


"Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> Hello,
>
> I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward weight
> loss. I could buy
> a HRM but I have already spent 600$ on my bike this month and would like
to
> stop spending
> for a while.
>
> Any trick that can tell me I am using the right effort for weight loss?
> Someone told me that if I cannot
> speak without feeling a little out of breath that is the right zone... is
> that true?
>
> Also I am been trying to pedal faster. I used to pedal slow and hard but
> after reading some books
> I now understand it's a really bad way to do it. I have no idea what my
> current cadence is since my
> computer doesn't have that feature but I think I am at around 1.25 turn
per
> second... that is of course
> an approximate... it would mean 75 turns per minute which is close to what
> is recommanded... I cannot
> see myself pedaling faster, already feels like I am spinning way too fast
;)
> How do you guys do 100 turns
> per minute? Must be a mental issue, the legs don't seems to mind but geez
> at a 100 I am not sure I could
> even keep my balance hehehe!
>
> Last thing... what should I eat before and during training? I love pasta.
> I know they contain a lot of calories
> but that is the food I like. On the other hand they give lots of carbs so
> that can't be bad while training right?
> Should I eat something different the days I train?
>
> How about during training? I normal bring a Nutribar which is an meal
> replacement designed for weight loss.
> I has a balance of carbs, fats and proteins. Should I use something with
> more carbs?
>
>
>
>

[Gooserider]

"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
>>
> I do core strength work. I believe that's important. Weight training,
per
> se, can actually result in gaining weight. If the goal is strictly weight
> loss, I'd opt for some core strength exercises that don't involve much in
> the way of weights. You can do a lot with crunches, pushups, chair dips,
> etc.

True. But someone who is 150 pounds at 10 percent bodyfat is in far better
shape than someone who weighs 150 pounds at 20 percent bodyfat. Weight alone
is not the issue(except for racers). We're not talking about becoming Mr
Olympia. Just general fitness, and nothing works better at building strength
than basic compound strength training exercises. Bench press, military
press, squat, deadlift. Difficult to duplicate with just bodyweight,
especially once one attains a basic strength level. :-)

[Marlene Blanshay]

"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward weight
> > loss.
>
> <bunch of stuff snipped>
>
> Daniel,
>
> I see lots of folks who take up cycling for weight loss and never lose
> weight. Frankly, it's not exactly the best choice for weight loss because
> it's a non-weight-bearing activity and most folks who have real jobs can't
> do enough of it, or won't work hard enough at it, to get much benefit.
>
> What I've read and what I believe based on years of observing various
> riders, reading tons of stuff, etc. is that you absolutely will not lose
> weight if you don't ride with some intensity ... at least a couple of
times
> a week. There was a long time when the popular theory was that, if you
> spent all your time training in a certain, relatively easy, heart rate
zone,
> you were using fat as your fuel source instead of sugar. Therefore,
staying
> in that range all the time would make you lose fat. Great theory, but I
> never EVER saw that work for anyone.
>
> If you want to lose weight on the bike, you have to work HARD on the bike.

I put on some weight a couple of years ago from a thyroid condition. About
15 lbs, which doesn't sound like much but it was on me! It was largely due
to metabolism. However, I found that I began to lose the weight during the
cycling season, and the best thing I can advise is lots of long rides.
Intensity is good, but if fat burning is the goal, long, steady rides are
best- not necessarily fast, but steady. I began to burn fat, and during the
winter would work out at the gym. I guess the muscle toning and fat burning
kick started my slowed-down metabolism and made me burn energy more
efficiently. I lost all the weight I gained and then some, 20 lbs
altogether. ANd you won't just lose weight, you'll lose inches.I gained and
then lost a pant size.

As for intensity, like hills etc, I think once you build endurance, that
comes easier. Also as you lose weight, climbing is easier. So get those
miles and go for a couple of really long rides a week and you'll not only
lose the weight, you'll keep it off. And when your metabolism is working
faster, you won't gain too much during the winter, unless you totally stuff
your face and do nothing but watch tv for four months.

[Arthur Harris]

"Daniel Crispin" wrote:
> I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward weight
> loss.

> Any trick that can tell me I am using the right effort for weight loss?

Ride lots.

If you're looking to lose a lot of weight in a short period of time, the
latest diet fad may be more effective than cycling. But if you're willing to
work at it, lose weight gradually, and keep it off (while improving your
overall fitness and energy level) cycling may be the ticket.

There's no magic formula, except that you must burn more calories than you
consume. Daily rides of 10-15 miles are good, but long weekend rides are
where you will really burn calories. Speed isn't the main thing. Yes, a
faster pace will burn more calories per hour, but riding the same distance
at a moderate pace (longer time in the saddle) is almost as good. Don't kill
yourself, but don't loaf either.

Combine a sensible diet (and smaller portions) with regular cycling and you
can't help but lose weight. After a long ride, you metabolism will stay high
for a couple of hours, helping you to burn calories.

Make cycling a life-long habit, not just something you're going to do for a
few months until you reach your target weight. The best way to do that is
make it fun, not something you have to endure. It may help to join a club or
ride informally with a few other people, especially on long rides.

> Someone told me that if I cannot
> speak without feeling a little out of breath that is the right zone... is
> that true?

That sounds like anaerobic threshold training, and is an effective way to
achieve fitness. But for weight loss it's all about miles.

> Also I have been trying to pedal faster. I used to pedal slow and hard
but
> after reading some books I now understand it's a really bad way to do it.

Initially, a fast cadence won't feel natural. Try for at least 75-80 rpms.
Lower gears and a faster cadence may increase your heart rate, but will be
easier on your legs.

> Last thing... what should I eat before and during training? I love pasta.
> I know they contain a lot of calories
> but that is the food I like. On the other hand they give lots of carbs so
> that can't be bad while training right?

Pasta is good, just be mindful of what you put on it.

> How about during training? I normal bring a Nutribar which is an meal
> replacement designed for weight loss.

Definitely don't starve yourself while you're riding, but keep the calorie
equation in mind (before, during, and after the ride). Normal food is just
as good (or better) than energy bars. Energy bars can be more convenient.
See what works best for you.

Good luck,
Art Harris

[psycholist]

"Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> Hello,
>
> I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward weight
> loss. I could buy
> a HRM but I have already spent 600$ on my bike this month and would like
to
> stop spending
> for a while.
>
> Any trick that can tell me I am using the right effort for weight loss?
> Someone told me that if I cannot
> speak without feeling a little out of breath that is the right zone... is
> that true?
>
> Also I am been trying to pedal faster. I used to pedal slow and hard but
> after reading some books
> I now understand it's a really bad way to do it. I have no idea what my
> current cadence is since my
> computer doesn't have that feature but I think I am at around 1.25 turn
per
> second... that is of course
> an approximate... it would mean 75 turns per minute which is close to what
> is recommanded... I cannot
> see myself pedaling faster, already feels like I am spinning way too fast
;)
> How do you guys do 100 turns
> per minute? Must be a mental issue, the legs don't seems to mind but geez
> at a 100 I am not sure I could
> even keep my balance hehehe!
>
> Last thing... what should I eat before and during training? I love pasta.
> I know they contain a lot of calories
> but that is the food I like. On the other hand they give lots of carbs so
> that can't be bad while training right?
> Should I eat something different the days I train?
>
> How about during training? I normal bring a Nutribar which is an meal
> replacement designed for weight loss.
> I has a balance of carbs, fats and proteins. Should I use something with
> more carbs?
>
>

Regarding cadence, I typically ride along at about 90 to 95 rpm and that's
common among lots of the racer-type folks I train with. Learning to do that
really transformed my cycling, shaving an hour off my time on some centuries
(over the course of a couple of seasons as I got the hang of the spin
thing).

Some tips ... The spin starts from the hip. Think of the old style
locomotive where there was a big drive wheel connected to the smaller wheels
by beams of steel. That's a bit how you should envision your spin. Your
hip is where the power is that helps drive the pedals. And you need to
learn to drive the pedals in circles. Make sure you're not just mashing
down on the pedals each time a foot reaches the top. You should work to
develop a very smooth pedaling motion where you actually feel power to the
pedal almost the entire way around the pedal revolution.

Get a set of rollers. Learn to ride them (they're like learning to ride a
bike ... you'll have it down in just a few tries). The secret to staying up
on rollers is speed ... kind of a gyroscopic effect. They force you to
develop leg speed. Also, if your pedaling dynamics are bad, they really
cure that, too. You have to pedal smoothly and evenly or you'll be all over
the rollers (and maybe on the floor ... but that's not to scare you off ...
they really aren't hard to learn. Just be sure to set them up in a doorway
at first so you have something to grab if you do start to go down).

As for determining cadence, count your pedal revolutions (each time your
right foot reaches the bottom, for example) for 10 seconds and multiply by
six. Or count them for six seconds and multiply by 10. Or count them for
15 seconds and multiply by 4. Or count them for 20 seconds and ...

Bob C.

[Badger_South]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 01:50:11 GMT, "curt" > wrote:

>If you like pasta, it will be harder to lose, unless you don't eat that
>much. Sorry, that is just the way it is. A high carb diet makes it harder
>to lose, it is just the facts. It can certainly be done and is done all the
>time, but you need to cut calories, unless you are going to ride very long
>distances 4+ days a week. I suggest lower fat if you are going high carb.
>If you want to lose faster, then bag the pasta and eat chicken, fish, etc.
>
>JMHO,
>Curt

Just one quibble on the 'if you like pasta it will be harder to lose'. I'm
in complete agreement, but it seems that -some- ppl don't actually have
'carb addiction', and it is really (so say those ppl) a matter of eating
less, moving more and having the will power, or determination to continue
on plan.

OTOH, if you find you eat 'comfort food', and this food is typically pasta,
bread, potatoes, then you -might- be a carb addict. If so, low carb, or
eliminating the cravings should help.

My feeling is when I'm in the right place in my low carb diet, I don't have
any 'cravings' for food. Going through the 'induction phase' was crucial
for my success.

But if you don't have cravings, then any diet will probably work.

-B

-Badger
"World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

[Badger_South]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 00:53:49 GMT, AMG > wrote:

>If you push on the bike, rather than just cruising, you might burn 500
>calories / hr. But it would still take about seven hours of pedaling to
>burn off one pound of fat, assuming no change in diet. This is why you
>have to watch it in the kitchen, too, since it is not too difficult to add
>back a few hundred calories a day with the pasta, energy bars, etc., etc.
>It doesn't take much, unfortunately...

Interesting calculation, since many beginner/intermediate bikes seem to
ride about 7 hours a week.

OK, that's over-simplified, but if it translates into a pound loss of fat
per week, that's pretty good.

I lose about 2-2.5 lbs per week during the 'optimal phase' of my dieting,
and then level off to about 1-1.5 lb per week on diet alone.

If you're recomposing and adding muscle to your legs, a wild ass guess, it
seems to me, would show a 2lb loss per week, with maybe 1/4lb per week gain
of muscle, maybe. So a 6-8lb loss of body weight per month, with, hopefully
most of the loss being fat, plus a net gain of 1 lb of muscle per month (if
you're biking hard and are a beginner), gives a final weight flux of minus
5-7lbs per month. This is what I'm seeing. (Note that it's almost
impossible to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, but it can happen
for beginners.)

As you get closer to goal, naturally, you'll have sticking points and the
rate of fat loss and muscle gain will slow.

Again, just wild ass guessing, off the top of my head, here. ;-p

-B

-Badger
"World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

[Mike Schwab]

Marlene Blanshay wrote:
<snip>
> As for intensity, like hills etc, I think once you build endurance, that
> comes easier. Also as you lose weight, climbing is easier. So get those
> miles and go for a couple of really long rides a week and you'll not only
> lose the weight, you'll keep it off. And when your metabolism is working
> faster, you won't gain too much during the winter, unless you totally stuff
> your face and do nothing but watch tv for four months.

Winter is training time for the Iditarod Impossible.
http://www.ultimateiditarod.com/Iditarod/update4.htm
http://www.icebike.org
http://www.bikewinter.org

[Mike Schwab]

Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health food
stores.

curt wrote:
>
> Bicycling is a great way to lose weight! I think most important is to ride
> long and steady to lose. I don't use a HR monitor, so I can't help you
> there, but there is an effective HR for weight loss, but it is different for
> everyone and we would need to know more information about you.
>
> If you like pasta, it will be harder to lose, unless you don't eat that
> much. Sorry, that is just the way it is. A high carb diet makes it harder
> to lose, it is just the facts. It can certainly be done and is done all the
> time, but you need to cut calories, unless you are going to ride very long
> distances 4+ days a week. I suggest lower fat if you are going high carb.
> If you want to lose faster, then bag the pasta and eat chicken, fish, etc.
>
> JMHO,
> Curt
<snip>

[Badger_South]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:53:09 -0500, Mike Schwab >
wrote:

>Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health food
>stores.

Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC people tout
this, but it's still bread.

-Badger
"World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

[Mike Schwab]

Sorry, wrong link.
Organizer's site http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/
Photo gallery
http://www.justridingalong.com/racing/iditabike_photo_gallery.php
Story http://www.justridingalong.com/racing/iditabike2004.php
CNN news story http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/14/offbeat.iditarod.ap/

Mike Schwab wrote:
>
> Marlene Blanshay wrote:
> <snip>
> > As for intensity, like hills etc, I think once you build endurance, that
> > comes easier. Also as you lose weight, climbing is easier. So get those
> > miles and go for a couple of really long rides a week and you'll not only
> > lose the weight, you'll keep it off. And when your metabolism is working
> > faster, you won't gain too much during the winter, unless you totally stuff
> > your face and do nothing but watch tv for four months.
>
> Winter is training time for the Iditarod Impossible.
> http://www.ultimateiditarod.com/Iditarod/update4.htm
> http://www.icebike.org
> http://www.bikewinter.org

[Mike Schwab]

With the whole grain bread / pasta, the sugar is consumed with the fiber
and is absorbed slower.
With the white bread, the sugar is absorbed very quickly.
This difference wass measured by having testing persons eating a
quantity of food then testing their blood surar.

This is from Dr. Arthur Agaston's book South Beach diet.

http://www.southbeachdiet.com/
http://www.glycemicindex.com/

Badger_South wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:53:09 -0500, Mike Schwab >
> wrote:
>
> >Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health food
> >stores.
>
> Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC people tout
> this, but it's still bread.
>
> -Badger
> "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

[Badger_South]

Before you go and cite some 'South Beach diet' or something, "Whole grain"
bread -still- spikes insulin, and in some people, just as strongly as white
bread.

If I were to start eating whole grain pasta and bread, I'd quickly
re-acquire my 'carb addiction'. So to suggest this to those on LC is
specious at best and purposefully misleading at worst.



On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:02:30 -0500, Mike Schwab >
wrote:

>With the whole grain bread / pasta, the sugar is consumed with the fiber
>and is absorbed slower.
>With the white bread, the sugar is absorbed very quickly.
>This difference wass measured by having testing persons eating a
>quantity of food then testing their blood surar.
>
>This is from Dr. Arthur Agaston's book South Beach diet.
>
>http://www.southbeachdiet.com/
>http://www.glycemicindex.com/
>
>Badger_South wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:53:09 -0500, Mike Schwab >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health food
>> >stores.
>>
>> Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC people tout
>> this, but it's still bread.
>>
>> -Badger
>> "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"


-Badger
"World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

[Daniel Crispin]

Well gaining muscle weight is a good thing... the more muscles you have
higher you BMR is and easier it is to loose fat weight.


"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gooserider" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > "psycholist" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >> Daniel,
> > >
> > > I see lots of folks who take up cycling for weight loss and never lose
> > > weight. Frankly, it's not exactly the best choice for weight loss
> because
> > > it's a non-weight-bearing activity and most folks who have real jobs
> can't
> > > do enough of it, or won't work hard enough at it, to get much benefit.
> >
> > I agree that most people can't devote racer-like hours to training, and
> that
> > many people do not possess the intensity to burn lots of calories
cycling.
> > However, weight-bearing has little effect, I think. The reason people
> don't
> > lose weight when they cycle is because they are consuming more calories
> than
> > they burn. Didn't we have a 100+ thread about this very subject not long
> > ago?
> >
> >
> > > What I've read and what I believe based on years of observing various
> > > riders, reading tons of stuff, etc. is that you absolutely will not
lose
> > > weight if you don't ride with some intensity ... at least a couple of
> > times
> > > a week. There was a long time when the popular theory was that, if
you
> > > spent all your time training in a certain, relatively easy, heart rate
> > zone,
> > > you were using fat as your fuel source instead of sugar. Therefore,
> > staying
> > > in that range all the time would make you lose fat. Great theory, but
I
> > > never EVER saw that work for anyone.
> >
> > Because they ate too much. It's easy to do---Powerbars, Gatorade,
pre-ride
> > pasta gorge, post-ride beers and pizza. If they ate at maintenance level
> > calories and rode like you say, they will lose weight.
> >
> > > If you want to lose weight on the bike, you have to work HARD on the
> bike.
> > > Lots of mile, lots of intervals of intensity, etc.
> >
> > Long slow distance seems to be the rule. Of course, some Poliquin-type
> > interval training helps, too. But calories are the key. As bodybuilders
> say,
> > "great abs are made in the kitchen".
> >
> > > I don't have a "real" job. I'm self-employed and have a farm. I have
a
> > > flexible schedule and can ride alot. I get in 250 to 300 miles per
week
> > > pretty much all year round. I don't race, but I do centuries with the
> > racer
> > > folks and turn in sub-5 hour rides regularly. That's intensity for
this
> > 48
> > > year old body. I say all that to say this ... even with all those
miles
> > and
> > > near-race intensity, if I don't eat right, I gain weight. Carbs like
> > pasta
> > > can be great fuel before a big ride, but most of the time, if you want
> to
> > > lose, you've gotta discipline your diet. I recommend you look at the
> Zone
> > > diet and learn its principles. It's not really one of the fad diets.
> I'm
> > > not a dietician, but the Zone principles seem to make sense ...
> balancing
> > > your fat, protein and carbohydrate intake to keep your blood sugar at
> > > optimum levels. It's really worked for me.
> >
> > Good for you. But tricks aside, you cannot escape The Law of
> Thermodynamics.
> > If anyone consumes fewer calories than burned, weight loss will occur.
The
> > key is burning fat and not excessive amounts of muscle.
> >
> > > One last thing. Crosstraining. Bicycling is great, but I find it
> really
> > > helps to add a second activity when I want to lose weight. For me,
it's
> > > just walking. As I said, I live on a farm and I simply walk the
> property
> > > each morning. It takes about 20 minutes and gets the motor going.
For
> > some
> > > reason, the addition of a second activity like this really pushes
things
> > > into higher gear for me and I lose weight quickly.
> >
> > Weight lifting would be ideal. Growing muscle helps to burn fat.
Everybody
> > should strength train, if for no other reason than to maintain bone
> density.
> > I don't want to end up a stick-armed old man with great cardio ability.
I
> > want to end up a strong old man with great cardio ability! :-)
> >
>
> I do core strength work. I believe that's important. Weight training,
per
> se, can actually result in gaining weight. If the goal is strictly weight
> loss, I'd opt for some core strength exercises that don't involve much in
> the way of weights. You can do a lot with crunches, pushups, chair dips,
> etc.
>
> Bob C.
>
>

[Daniel Crispin]

"Marlene Blanshay" > wrote in message
...
> I put on some weight a couple of years ago from a thyroid condition. About
> 15 lbs, which doesn't sound like much but it was on me!

I have a 100 pounds to loose ;) 15 would be a dream ;) I hate having a
desk job,
I do no exercise at work at all. My hobby is computer games... so 5 years
later 100 pounds...

> As for intensity, like hills etc, I think once you build endurance, that
> comes easier. Also as you lose weight, climbing is easier. So get those
> miles and go for a couple of really long rides a week and you'll not only
> lose the weight, you'll keep it off. And when your metabolism is working
> faster, you won't gain too much during the winter, unless you totally
stuff
> your face and do nothing but watch tv for four months.

Right now hills kill me. So I try to avoid them... After a few hills my
legs are too tired to continue. Once I get over that
it will become easier. Also I am trying to spin faster, that has reduced
leg fatigue. I should also stand when I climb but for
some reasons I am not comfortable doing that on my new bike.

[Daniel Crispin]

> How about free? And probably less biased than most, because it's not
> selling anything:
>
> http://www.hackersdiet.org

Thanks I will have a look ;)

> As long as the pressure on your knees is low, I don't think it really
> matters how fast you spin.

Well from what I have read spinning faster prevents you from getting tired,
thus allowing you to ride longer.
Also since you are actually doing aerobic cycling instead of strenght
cycling, your muscles will not be as sore
after the ride.

> How about something less manufactured and more grown? Bananas are good.
> So are apples. So are fig bars, for that matter. (I have mixed
> feelings about the current low-carb fad.)

Good idea. Bananas are great. fig bars... never seen those, will try to
see if they are sold at my supermarket.
I agree that the low carb thing is not a good way to go. Optimally I would
eat 50% carbs, 20% fat, 30% proteins.

[Daniel Crispin]

> If you push on the bike, rather than just cruising, you might burn 500
> calories / hr. But it would still take about seven hours of pedaling to
> burn off one pound of fat, assuming no change in diet. This is why you
> have to watch it in the kitchen, too, since it is not too difficult to add
> back a few hundred calories a day with the pasta, energy bars, etc., etc.
> It doesn't take much, unfortunately...
>
> The moral: if you want to be a bit more scientific about it, try actually
> adding up the calories. Then you can find out where they came from and
> where they went (and if you're not losing weight, why they didn't went).
>
> Cheers, and happy pedaling. At least we have fun while we struggle...

Thanks ;) I do. On a day I ride I usually loose from half a pound to a
pound. If
I am carefull on other days that means that in 100 days I will be back to my
normal
weight ;) Of course its not as simple as that but at least I have an idea
where I am at.

After reading here I think I will also take up walking during my lunch
breaks. If I can
walk of say 200 calories per day then it's gonna be that much faster.

[Daniel Crispin]

Well technically carbs are the lowers calories per gram you know. 4
calories per gram compared to fat that is 9 calories per gram.
Problem is that pasta contains lots of carbs ;) My usual serving is about
600 calories just for the pasta, and about 400 more for sauce.
I think you are right that I should eat less of it. Chicken and tuna are
the way to go. I will see if I can convince my will ;)



"curt" > wrote in message
...
> Bicycling is a great way to lose weight! I think most important is to
ride
> long and steady to lose. I don't use a HR monitor, so I can't help you
> there, but there is an effective HR for weight loss, but it is different
for
> everyone and we would need to know more information about you.
>
> If you like pasta, it will be harder to lose, unless you don't eat that
> much. Sorry, that is just the way it is. A high carb diet makes it
harder
> to lose, it is just the facts. It can certainly be done and is done all
the
> time, but you need to cut calories, unless you are going to ride very long
> distances 4+ days a week. I suggest lower fat if you are going high carb.
> If you want to lose faster, then bag the pasta and eat chicken, fish, etc.
>
> JMHO,
> Curt
>
>
> "Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward weight
> > loss. I could buy
> > a HRM but I have already spent 600$ on my bike this month and would like
> to
> > stop spending
> > for a while.
> >
> > Any trick that can tell me I am using the right effort for weight loss?
> > Someone told me that if I cannot
> > speak without feeling a little out of breath that is the right zone...
is
> > that true?
> >
> > Also I am been trying to pedal faster. I used to pedal slow and hard
but
> > after reading some books
> > I now understand it's a really bad way to do it. I have no idea what my
> > current cadence is since my
> > computer doesn't have that feature but I think I am at around 1.25 turn
> per
> > second... that is of course
> > an approximate... it would mean 75 turns per minute which is close to
what
> > is recommanded... I cannot
> > see myself pedaling faster, already feels like I am spinning way too
fast
> ;)
> > How do you guys do 100 turns
> > per minute? Must be a mental issue, the legs don't seems to mind but
geez
> > at a 100 I am not sure I could
> > even keep my balance hehehe!
> >
> > Last thing... what should I eat before and during training? I love
pasta.
> > I know they contain a lot of calories
> > but that is the food I like. On the other hand they give lots of carbs
so
> > that can't be bad while training right?
> > Should I eat something different the days I train?
> >
> > How about during training? I normal bring a Nutribar which is an meal
> > replacement designed for weight loss.
> > I has a balance of carbs, fats and proteins. Should I use something
with
> > more carbs?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Daniel Crispin]

I have purchased those in the past... why would they be better for weight
loss? They are most
likelly better for your health but I doubt they contain less calories.

"Mike Schwab" > wrote in message
...
> Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health food
> stores.
>
> curt wrote:
> >
> > Bicycling is a great way to lose weight! I think most important is to
ride
> > long and steady to lose. I don't use a HR monitor, so I can't help you
> > there, but there is an effective HR for weight loss, but it is different
for
> > everyone and we would need to know more information about you.
> >
> > If you like pasta, it will be harder to lose, unless you don't eat that
> > much. Sorry, that is just the way it is. A high carb diet makes it
harder
> > to lose, it is just the facts. It can certainly be done and is done all
the
> > time, but you need to cut calories, unless you are going to ride very
long
> > distances 4+ days a week. I suggest lower fat if you are going high
carb.
> > If you want to lose faster, then bag the pasta and eat chicken, fish,
etc.
> >
> > JMHO,
> > Curt
> <snip>

[Daniel Crispin]

Thanks Arthur,

> If you're looking to lose a lot of weight in a short period of time, the
> latest diet fad may be more effective than cycling. But if you're willing
to
> work at it, lose weight gradually, and keep it off (while improving your
> overall fitness and energy level) cycling may be the ticket.

Diets don't work. Starving yourself lower your BMR and when you go back
to a normal diet you explode. You also loose a lot of muscle mass while on
a diet so it compounds to problem. I have never been a dieter and don't
plan
on being one.

> There's no magic formula, except that you must burn more calories than you
> consume. Daily rides of 10-15 miles are good, but long weekend rides are
> where you will really burn calories. Speed isn't the main thing. Yes, a
> faster pace will burn more calories per hour, but riding the same distance
> at a moderate pace (longer time in the saddle) is almost as good. Don't
kill
> yourself, but don't loaf either.

Right, I was just trying to figure out an easy way to know just that, what
is a medium pace ;) hehehe if I am not out of breath it seems to me I am
doing an easy ride with little effort. How do I know I am in the right
zone?

> Make cycling a life-long habit, not just something you're going to do for
a
> few months until you reach your target weight. The best way to do that is
> make it fun, not something you have to endure. It may help to join a club
or
> ride informally with a few other people, especially on long rides.

I ride with friends mostly... not sure if that is good or bad. In a way
it's good because
being a social thing it encourages me to do it. On the other hand I can't
ride at limit
of my endurance if I want to ride with friends who may not be in as good a
shape or
are not interested in riding hard. I think I will have to do both. Long
rides with friends
and shorter heavier training alone.

> That sounds like anaerobic threshold training, and is an effective way to
> achieve fitness. But for weight loss it's all about miles.

Oh so that would be too high a level for long distance?

> Definitely don't starve yourself while you're riding, but keep the calorie
> equation in mind (before, during, and after the ride). Normal food is just
> as good (or better) than energy bars. Energy bars can be more convenient.
> See what works best for you.

Ya. Energy bars are convenient because they don't take much room. I can
put them in the small bag on
my steering bar. Someone suggested bananas. That takes more room but not
that much. I will probably try
that next time I ride. Fig bars sounds delicious too if I can find any.

[Daniel Crispin]

> Regarding cadence, I typically ride along at about 90 to 95 rpm and that's
> common among lots of the racer-type folks I train with. Learning to do
that
> really transformed my cycling, shaving an hour off my time on some
centuries
> (over the course of a couple of seasons as I got the hang of the spin
> thing).

I know that 100 rpm is pretty common in cycling. I watched the women's
world cup
on TV yesterday and they don't seems to be spinning as fast as I tought 100
rpm would be.
Maybe I am spinning faster than I think. I will have to count my rpm next
time I go out.

> Some tips ... The spin starts from the hip. Think of the old style
> locomotive where there was a big drive wheel connected to the smaller
wheels
> by beams of steel. That's a bit how you should envision your spin. Your
> hip is where the power is that helps drive the pedals. And you need to
> learn to drive the pedals in circles. Make sure you're not just mashing
> down on the pedals each time a foot reaches the top. You should work to
> develop a very smooth pedaling motion where you actually feel power to the
> pedal almost the entire way around the pedal revolution.

Well... that is hard ;) When I was using low rpm to pedal, I was using my
feet to
pull on the pedal upward while pushing on the other one do go downward. But
spinning faster I feel like it's a bit out of control, as if it's comming up
by itself without
being able to help it up... hard to explain. Last time I rode I found a
trick that seemed
to help, I kick my knee upward, and I could feel the increased power.

> Get a set of rollers. Learn to ride them (they're like learning to ride a
> bike ... you'll have it down in just a few tries). The secret to staying
up
> on rollers is speed ... kind of a gyroscopic effect. They force you to
> develop leg speed. Also, if your pedaling dynamics are bad, they really
> cure that, too. You have to pedal smoothly and evenly or you'll be all
over
> the rollers (and maybe on the floor ... but that's not to scare you off
....
> they really aren't hard to learn. Just be sure to set them up in a
doorway
> at first so you have something to grab if you do start to go down).

Ouf! I have developped a strong hatred for people on roller blades. Here in
Montreal
they are everywhere making cycling a pain. They block the trails and we
have to go in
the grass to pass them. I was thinking of installing a dual compressed air
horn like they
have on 18 wheelers on my bike to literally push them off the train... but I
think it is
illegal ;)

> As for determining cadence, count your pedal revolutions (each time your
> right foot reaches the bottom, for example) for 10 seconds and multiply by
> six. Or count them for six seconds and multiply by 10. Or count them for
> 15 seconds and multiply by 4. Or count them for 20 seconds and ...

Or count to 30 seconds and multiply by 2, or count to 60 seconds and
multiply
by 1, or count to 120 seconds and divide by 2... ok I am getting the hang of
this ;)

Thanks Bob, I will try it next time out.

[Marlene Blanshay]

"Mike Schwab" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Marlene Blanshay wrote:
> <snip>
> > As for intensity, like hills etc, I think once you build endurance, that
> > comes easier. Also as you lose weight, climbing is easier. So get those
> > miles and go for a couple of really long rides a week and you'll not
only
> > lose the weight, you'll keep it off. And when your metabolism is working
> > faster, you won't gain too much during the winter, unless you totally
stuff
> > your face and do nothing but watch tv for four months.
>
> Winter is training time for the Iditarod Impossible.
> http://www.ultimateiditarod.com/Iditarod/update4.htm
> http://www.icebike.org
> http://www.bikewinter.org

Or not!!!

[Marlene Blanshay]

"Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Right now hills kill me. So I try to avoid them... After a few hills my
> legs are too tired to continue. Once I get over that
> it will become easier. Also I am trying to spin faster, that has reduced
> leg fatigue. I should also stand when I climb but for
> some reasons I am not comfortable doing that on my new bike.
>
Well, 100 lbs is quite different than my situation, for sure. I think for
someone who is overweight and has that much to lose, and is probably not in
ideal shape, you want to start with fat burning, long rides without too much
strain. Don't try doing hills until you've lost some of that weight. The
thing you want to do now is burn fat, get your cardiovascular system working
better and eat the right foods.And put down that computer game!

[Marlene Blanshay]

"Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> > Regarding cadence, I typically ride along at about 90 to 95 rpm and
that's
> > common among lots of the racer-type folks I train with. Learning to do
> that
> > really transformed my cycling, shaving an hour off my time on some
> centuries
> > (over the course of a couple of seasons as I got the hang of the spin
> > thing).
>
> I know that 100 rpm is pretty common in cycling. I watched the women's
> world cup
> on TV yesterday and they don't seems to be spinning as fast as I tought
100
> rpm would be.
> Maybe I am spinning faster than I think. I will have to count my rpm next
> time I go out.
>
> > Some tips ... The spin starts from the hip. Think of the old style
> > locomotive where there was a big drive wheel connected to the smaller
> wheels
> >
> Ouf! I have developped a strong hatred for people on roller blades. Here
in
> Montreal
> they are everywhere making cycling a pain. They block the trails and we
> have to go in
> the grass to pass them. I was thinking of installing a dual compressed
air
> horn like they
> have on 18 wheelers on my bike to literally push them off the train... but
I
> think it is
> illegal ;)
>
>

You're in Montreal? I hear ya. Yesterday the bike path to lachine was a
ZOO- roller bladers, kids, families, etc. But what drives me nuts about
those stupid bladers is that they often go so SLOW, and take up the whole
lane. It was stop, start, stop, start, and I got off the path as soon as I
could. At one point, I called out to a woman roller blader, but she didn't
hear me because of her stupid walkman. So when I passed her I snapped my
fingers in her face a couple of times, like HELLO! HELLO!

HOwever, they weren't talking about roller bladers, but rollers, for
practicing your spin. Still, I agree about roller bladers, I think everyone
does.

[Badger_South]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 20:03:56 -0400, "Daniel Crispin" >
wrote:

>Well gaining muscle weight is a good thing... the more muscles you have
>higher you BMR is and easier it is to loose fat weight.

I keep telling you morons. If your fat is 'loose', use more duct tape!

-Badger
"World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

[Claire Petersky]

"Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Marlene Blanshay" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I put on some weight a couple of years ago from a thyroid condition.
About
> > 15 lbs, which doesn't sound like much but it was on me!
>
> I have a 100 pounds to loose ;) 15 would be a dream ;)

Preston Crawford, who used to hang around this newsgroup, lost about 150
pounds cycling and changing to a high fiber, vegetarian diet. If he hadn't
marked all his posts no archive, you could even see the before and after
photos.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[Terry Morse]

Badger_South wrote:

> Mike Schwab wrote:
>
> >Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health food
> >stores.
>
> Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC people tout
> this, but it's still bread.

Google "glycemic index" and "whole grain bread". Contrast with
"white bread". Note the difference.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Mike Schwab]

Badger_South wrote:
<snip>
> If I were to start eating whole grain pasta and bread, I'd quickly
> re-acquire my 'carb addiction'. So to suggest this to those on LC is
> specious at best and purposefully misleading at worst.
>
In phase two of the South Beach Diet, Dr. Agaston recommends adding 1
moderate carbohydrate food back at a time. A food that makes you hungry
is then isolated and you should avoid that food. And he specifies that
different people have different trigger foods. But one of his points is
to make the diet fit into a person's lifestyle as well as possible.

For bread, he suggests skipping bread entirely, put your hamburger in
lettuce. If you don't want to skip bread entirely, go with whole grain
wheat, the fiber slows absorbtion of the carb. If no whole grain, go
with sourdough, the acids slow absorbtion of the carbs, not as much as
the whole wheat. If no whole grain or sourdough, put on lots of real
butter, the fats slow absorbtion of the carbs, but not as much. Do not
use margarine, the partially hydrogenated oils (trans-fat) are worse
than lard for artery clogging deposits.

For pasta, instead of spaghetti and tomato sauce, have fettuchini
alfredo, the fats in the sauce slow down absorbtion about half as fast.

For pizza, get a thin crust bianca (white sauce like alfredo instead of
tomato sauce). Still pretty high in carbs, but a slower rate of
absorbtion.

Again, the goal is not to totally avoid carbohydrates, but to absorb
them slower. A high rate of absorbtion leads to high blood sugar levels
which leads to large insulin releases which stores the sugars as fat in
fat cells. Once the supply of sugar is absorbed, the insulin is still
high and drives the blood sugar levels low which makes you hungry and
you eat more. With the slower absorbing foods, the blood sugar does not
get as high, you dont release little insulin to store the sugar as fat,
your blood sugar goes down later and more gradually (about the time of
your next scheduled snack or meal) and you don't get as hungry. Since
your blood sugar levels don't get as low, you don't get as hungry, and
you eat less. Eating less results in weight reduction.

[Badger_South]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:46:02 -0700, Terry Morse > wrote:

>Badger_South wrote:
>
>> Mike Schwab wrote:
>>
>> >Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health food
>> >stores.
>>
>> Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC people tout
>> this, but it's still bread.
>
>Google "glycemic index" and "whole grain bread". Contrast with
>"white bread". Note the difference.

Ah, thus the highly successful "whole grain bread" diet.

Again, it still spikes insulin in many ppl, and it throws 'em out of
ketosis, and back into carb addiction, and it's still bread.

Many ppl who start LC-ing and can't handle the discipline try to 'cheat'
with stuff like this and then soon after you hear the 'tale of woe', and
how they have to re-start induction.

I prefer to get any carbs from milk, cheese and dark green leafy vegs. If
I'm adding carbs during the 'window' surrounding exercise, I use dark
chocolate, or dilute OJ.

YMMV.

-Badger
"World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

[Terry Morse]

Badger_South wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
>
> >Badger_South wrote:
> >
> >> Mike Schwab wrote:
> >>
> >> >Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health food
> >> >stores.
> >>
> >> Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC people tout
> >> this, but it's still bread.
> >
> >Google "glycemic index" and "whole grain bread". Contrast with
> >"white bread". Note the difference.
>
> Ah, thus the highly successful "whole grain bread" diet.

It's worked in the western and middle eastern world for a few
thousand years.

>
> Again, it still spikes insulin in many ppl, and it throws 'em out of
> ketosis, and back into carb addiction, and it's still bread.

You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":

"Some people advocate severely reducing carbohydrate intake to
reduce the insulin response and cravings. Others suggest that
choosing carbohydrate-containing foods with a lower glycemic
(gli-SE'mik) index also can lower insulin response and appetite.
There isn't enough research in this area for us to know what's
right. Also, individual responses may vary considerably."

And what they say about what constitutes a healthy diet:

"Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
from carbohydrates."

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4467
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Badger_South]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 07:07:05 -0700, Terry Morse > wrote:
>Badger_South wrote:
>
>> Terry Morse wrote:
>>
>> >Badger_South wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mike Schwab wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health food
>> >> >stores.
>> >>
>> >> Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC people tout
>> >> this, but it's still bread.
>> >
>> >Google "glycemic index" and "whole grain bread". Contrast with
>> >"white bread". Note the difference.
>>
>> Ah, thus the highly successful "whole grain bread" diet.
>
>It's worked in the western and middle eastern world for a few
>thousand years.

And look at what it wrought. Or is that 'hath wrought'? ;-p

>>
>> Again, it still spikes insulin in many ppl, and it throws 'em out of
>> ketosis, and back into carb addiction, and it's still bread.
>
>You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
>American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":

It's definitely not universal. YMMV. CC/BS, LS/MFT.

BTW, enjoyed the heck outta your homepage, particularly:

Trip Report: Black Mountain Loop, Mountain View, California

Thanks for putting that up, it's an inspiration to us piedmonters and low
landers!

-Badger

[Frederic Briere]

Marlene Blanshay > wrote:
> ZOO- roller bladers, kids, families, etc. But what drives me nuts about
> those stupid bladers is that they often go so SLOW, and take up the whole
> lane. It was stop, start, stop, start, and I got off the path as soon as I

Beginner bladers are the worst, as they really *need* the whole path,
weaving unpredictably left and right. And you don't dare call out to
them, lest they get startled and fall right in front of your wheel.

> could. At one point, I called out to a woman roller blader, but she didn't
> hear me because of her stupid walkman. So when I passed her I snapped my
> fingers in her face a couple of times, like HELLO! HELLO!

That's what empty water bottles are for. (What, does anybody drag these
things back home?)


As Dave Barry would say: this would be a great name for a band.
--
Frederic Briere <*>

=> > IS NO MORE: <http://www.abacomsucks.com> <=

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Marlene Blanshay" > writes:

> You're in Montreal? I hear ya. Yesterday the bike path to lachine was a
> ZOO- roller bladers, kids, families, etc. But what drives me nuts about
> those stupid bladers is that they often go so SLOW, and take up the whole
> lane. It was stop, start, stop, start, and I got off the path as soon as I
> could. At one point, I called out to a woman roller blader, but she didn't
> hear me because of her stupid walkman. So when I passed her I snapped my
> fingers in her face a couple of times, like HELLO! HELLO!

I think it helps to regard multi-user paths with a certain mindset --
to take them as linear parks to take a relaxing stroll in, the
same as one might in a public garden. That way, one doesn't mind
being stuck behind other people so much.

Instead of MUPs, 'garden spotting' rides in residential back
lanes or alleys can be quite enjoyable, especially if they
aren't paved and have some terrain to them (paved, flat lanes
tend to be busier with traffic of all sorts, as well as shinny
and basketball games going on.) Ride around and admire people's
back yard gardens, at your own pace. One can even sometimes
obtain a free fridge (or bike) that way. Or engage in some
conversation, and trade some of your gladiolus bulbs or
whatever for some salal or oregon grape or whatever, with the
proprietors of those gardens. That way they get to know you,
and it puts them at ease that you aren't casing their place.
And you can mix arterial, secondary street and sidestreet riding
to get to various locations around town -- places whose arcane
charms are unknown to most riders. And are inaccessible to
roller bladers. Just watch out for garbage trucks during
different areas' garbage days.

> HOwever, they weren't talking about roller bladers, but rollers, for
> practicing your spin. Still, I agree about roller bladers, I think everyone
> does.

Pedaling rather than coasting on downhills, regardless of whether
or not your getting any chain tension, might also be an effective
way to work towards a smooth spin. I find it can actually be more
challenging to get a smooth spin going when there's no chain tension.

Sheldon Brown has an article on 'The Evils of Coasting'; it's
an interesting read. I'd post the link here, but I'm offline
right now. But at least it's easy to find.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Badger_South]

On 7 Jun 2004 11:47:32 -0500, Frederic Briere > wrote:

>Marlene Blanshay > wrote:
>> ZOO- roller bladers, kids, families, etc. But what drives me nuts about
>> those stupid bladers is that they often go so SLOW, and take up the whole
>> lane. It was stop, start, stop, start, and I got off the path as soon as I
>
>Beginner bladers are the worst, as they really *need* the whole path,
>weaving unpredictably left and right. And you don't dare call out to
>them, lest they get startled and fall right in front of your wheel.
>
>> could. At one point, I called out to a woman roller blader, but she didn't
>> hear me because of her stupid walkman. So when I passed her I snapped my
>> fingers in her face a couple of times, like HELLO! HELLO!
>
>That's what empty water bottles are for. (What, does anybody drag these
>things back home?)

I'm riding mostly on the roads now (yay!), but still ride one section of
the bike trail. I met a group of teachers taking their first graders for a
walk - they had 'swarmed' the trail. I called out:

'move to your right, move to your right, please'.

Most did OK, but one teacher says:

"They don't know what that means!"

I replied, 'Well, maybe you should teach them right from left before you
leave the building'.

Sheesh. ;-p

-Badger

>
> As Dave Barry would say: this would be a great name for a band.
>--
> Frederic Briere <*>

[John Allen]

"Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> Hello,
>
> I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward weight
> loss.


I lost 14 lbs after cycling 3000 km last summer

[Roger Zoul]

Gooserider wrote:
:: "psycholist" > wrote in message
:: ...
::::
::: I do core strength work. I believe that's important. Weight
::: training, per se, can actually result in gaining weight. If the
::: goal is strictly weight loss, I'd opt for some core strength
::: exercises that don't involve much in the way of weights. You can
::: do a lot with crunches, pushups, chair dips, etc.
::
:: True. But someone who is 150 pounds at 10 percent bodyfat is in far
:: better shape than someone who weighs 150 pounds at 20 percent
:: bodyfat. Weight alone is not the issue(except for racers). We're not
:: talking about becoming Mr Olympia. Just general fitness, and nothing
:: works better at building strength than basic compound strength
:: training exercises. Bench press, military press, squat, deadlift.
:: Difficult to duplicate with just bodyweight, especially once one
:: attains a basic strength level. :-)

Lifting as Gooserider suggest also has the benefit of boosting the
metabolism for several hours after the training session. Hence, while one
doesn't burn a lot of calories lifting, one does burn more calories in the
period after lifting. Hence, lifting can promote weight loss while
minimizing muscle loss. IMO, lifting should be included in any weight loss
program.

Also, what Bob C said was a good point too. High-intensity interval
training (HIIT) has been shown to have the "afterburn" effect of weight
lifting, and one can end up burning up to 9 times more fat than with just
"flat" aerobic type cardio. Hence, jacking up the intensity in intervals
while biking pays bige dividends. Still, if one doesn't control diet weight
loss will not occur. Check out: http://www.wsu.edu/~strength/hiit.htm

My personal opinion on achieving weight loss works like this (in order of
importance):

1) diet (LC works great for me)
2) weight lifting with basic compound movements (BP, MP, squat, DL)
3) some other activity like cycling with HIIT thrown in.

So far, this has gotten 130 lbs off since i started back in October 2001.

[Terry Morse]

Badger_South wrote:

> >> Ah, thus the highly successful "whole grain bread" diet.
> >
> >It's worked in the western and middle eastern world for a few
> >thousand years.
>
> And look at what it wrought. Or is that 'hath wrought'? ;-p

Yeah, but we were doing so well until recently. Sadly, most of the
bakers have processed away the fiber and low glycemic index
ingredients. It's the same for lots of processed food.

> BTW, enjoyed the heck outta your homepage, particularly:
>
> Trip Report: Black Mountain Loop, Mountain View, California
>
> Thanks for putting that up, it's an inspiration to us piedmonters and low
> landers!

That's a nice ride, within the reach of most people if they take it
at their own pace. I usually ride there every Monday, but not today.
I'm recovering from yesterday's 200k, so I just cruised up Old La
Honda instead.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Per Elmsäter]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> So far, this has gotten 130 lbs off since i started back in October
> 2001.

Not bad Roger. Not bad at all. You have most certainly invested in several
extra years on this planet. Years that you can enjoy even more now that
you've found biking.

--
Perre

[Dominic Sansom]

I've found this is working well for me

1. Body for Life weight training 3 days a week

2. Cycling on the alternate days. Between 15 and 50km depending on th
day. I do a mix of hills, speed, and distance on different days

3. South Beach Diet (Phase 2)


-

[DRS]

"Terry Morse" > wrote in message


[...]

> You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
> American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":
>
> "Some people advocate severely reducing carbohydrate intake to
> reduce the insulin response and cravings. Others suggest that
> choosing carbohydrate-containing foods with a lower glycemic
> (gli-SE'mik) index also can lower insulin response and appetite.
> There isn't enough research in this area for us to know what's
> right. Also, individual responses may vary considerably."
>
> And what they say about what constitutes a healthy diet:
>
> "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
> most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
> from carbohydrates."
>
> http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4467

Thanks to retards like the AHA the Western world is more obese than at any
time in history.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[Chalo]

"Daniel Crispin" > wrote:
>
> I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward weight
> loss. I could buy a HRM but I have already spent 600$ on my bike this
> month and would like to stop spending for a while.

Well, it's been a few years since then, but here's how I did it:

1) Eat a purely vegetarian diet, vegan if possible.

2) Don't own any kind of motor vehicle.

3) Don't have a regular job or any daily commitments.

4) Keep your perspective limber by taking LSD once a week or so.

The pounds will just melt away! As a bonus, you will eventually learn
to recognize any neighborhood in your region by sound and smell as
well as by sight.

Chalo Colina

[Terry Morse]

DRS wrote:

> "Terry Morse" wrote:
>
> > You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
> > American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":
>
> Thanks to retards like the AHA the Western world is more obese than at any
> time in history.

Yeah, that's it. The AHA's to blame. Let's take 'em outside and
shoot 'em.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[DRS]

"Terry Morse" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>
>> "Terry Morse" wrote:
>>
>>> You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
>>> American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":
>>
>> Thanks to retards like the AHA the Western world is more obese than
>> at any time in history.
>
> Yeah, that's it. The AHA's to blame. Let's take 'em outside and
> shoot 'em.

I didn't say they were the whole problem. I said they were part of the
problem and they are. Their high carb low fat diets are retarded and so are
they. If you want to suppress appetite you lower your intake of simple
carbs as far as you can and you increase your protein intake. You also do
not reduce your intake of EFAs as these retards would have you do. That way
lies lots of health problems, everything from poor skin and hair to immune
system deficiencies. EFAs are not any sort of cardio threat, as any
nutritionist with a clue knows full well, and low fat diets are not healthy.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[AMG]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:31:20 -0700, Chalo wrote:

>
> 4) Keep your perspective limber by taking LSD once a week or so.
>

Where did I read recently, in a piece on 60s advertising,

"Ban takes the worry out of being close."

"LSD takes the worry out of being."

:-)

[DRS]

"AMG" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:31:20 -0700, Chalo wrote:
>
>> 4) Keep your perspective limber by taking LSD once a week or so.
>
> Where did I read recently, in a piece on 60s advertising,
>
> "Ban takes the worry out of being close."
>
> "LSD takes the worry out of being."

Whoever wrote that never had a bad trip.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[Roger Zoul]

Per Elmsäter wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: So far, this has gotten 130 lbs off since i started back in October
::: 2001.
::
:: Not bad Roger. Not bad at all. You have most certainly invested in
:: several extra years on this planet. Years that you can enjoy even
:: more now that you've found biking.

I can't begin to describe how much I enjoy biking....what a fabulous bonus!

[Daniel Crispin]

Well when I was younger... about 15 years ago, I lost 60 pounds during a
summer doing only biking. Of course I was doing like 200 miles per week
then ;)

"Claire Petersky" > wrote in message
news:jhSwc.11696$HG.1119@attbi_s53...
>
> "Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Marlene Blanshay" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I put on some weight a couple of years ago from a thyroid condition.
> About
> > > 15 lbs, which doesn't sound like much but it was on me!
> >
> > I have a 100 pounds to loose ;) 15 would be a dream ;)
>
> Preston Crawford, who used to hang around this newsgroup, lost about 150
> pounds cycling and changing to a high fiber, vegetarian diet. If he hadn't
> marked all his posts no archive, you could even see the before and after
> photos.
>
>
> --
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Petersky
> Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
> Home of the meditative cyclist:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
> See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
>
>

[Daniel Crispin]

Ha yes that Glycemic Index thing. Well can't say I believe in that.
Calories are calories, but whole grain is healtier... I was thinking of
getting spinach pasta as well. For now I will try lower pasta and switch to
a little rice with tofu, chicken and tuna.

"Mike Schwab" > wrote in message
...
> With the whole grain bread / pasta, the sugar is consumed with the fiber
> and is absorbed slower.
> With the white bread, the sugar is absorbed very quickly.
> This difference wass measured by having testing persons eating a
> quantity of food then testing their blood surar.
>
> This is from Dr. Arthur Agaston's book South Beach diet.
>
> http://www.southbeachdiet.com/
> http://www.glycemicindex.com/
>
> Badger_South wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:53:09 -0500, Mike Schwab >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health food
> > >stores.
> >
> > Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC people
tout
> > this, but it's still bread.
> >
> > -Badger
> > "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

[Daniel Crispin]

Well I don't eat much bread, I seldom use margarine and never use butter. I
buy olive oil margarine but 1 pound lasts
me about a year. Adding fat to reduce sugar absorbtion sounds ridiculous.
Adding 200 calories is not the way to go!

"Mike Schwab" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Badger_South wrote:
> <snip>
> > If I were to start eating whole grain pasta and bread, I'd quickly
> > re-acquire my 'carb addiction'. So to suggest this to those on LC is
> > specious at best and purposefully misleading at worst.
> >
> In phase two of the South Beach Diet, Dr. Agaston recommends adding 1
> moderate carbohydrate food back at a time. A food that makes you hungry
> is then isolated and you should avoid that food. And he specifies that
> different people have different trigger foods. But one of his points is
> to make the diet fit into a person's lifestyle as well as possible.
>
> For bread, he suggests skipping bread entirely, put your hamburger in
> lettuce. If you don't want to skip bread entirely, go with whole grain
> wheat, the fiber slows absorbtion of the carb. If no whole grain, go
> with sourdough, the acids slow absorbtion of the carbs, not as much as
> the whole wheat. If no whole grain or sourdough, put on lots of real
> butter, the fats slow absorbtion of the carbs, but not as much. Do not
> use margarine, the partially hydrogenated oils (trans-fat) are worse
> than lard for artery clogging deposits.
>
> For pasta, instead of spaghetti and tomato sauce, have fettuchini
> alfredo, the fats in the sauce slow down absorbtion about half as fast.
>
> For pizza, get a thin crust bianca (white sauce like alfredo instead of
> tomato sauce). Still pretty high in carbs, but a slower rate of
> absorbtion.
>
> Again, the goal is not to totally avoid carbohydrates, but to absorb
> them slower. A high rate of absorbtion leads to high blood sugar levels
> which leads to large insulin releases which stores the sugars as fat in
> fat cells. Once the supply of sugar is absorbed, the insulin is still
> high and drives the blood sugar levels low which makes you hungry and
> you eat more. With the slower absorbing foods, the blood sugar does not
> get as high, you dont release little insulin to store the sugar as fat,
> your blood sugar goes down later and more gradually (about the time of
> your next scheduled snack or meal) and you don't get as hungry. Since
> your blood sugar levels don't get as low, you don't get as hungry, and
> you eat less. Eating less results in weight reduction.

[Daniel Crispin]

Actually my personal guess about so many people being over weight is this:

Fast food + lack of physical activity X time = lots of extra fat on you.

If you make your own food and don't over eat, and have an active lifestyle
you will not be overweight. When you consider the caloric intake of a
single
meal at McDonalds there is no wonder people are overweight. 1800 calories
per meal is a great way to die young.



"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "Terry Morse" > wrote in message
>
> > DRS wrote:
> >
> >> "Terry Morse" wrote:
> >>
> >>> You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
> >>> American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":
> >>
> >> Thanks to retards like the AHA the Western world is more obese than
> >> at any time in history.
> >
> > Yeah, that's it. The AHA's to blame. Let's take 'em outside and
> > shoot 'em.
>
> I didn't say they were the whole problem. I said they were part of the
> problem and they are. Their high carb low fat diets are retarded and so
are
> they. If you want to suppress appetite you lower your intake of simple
> carbs as far as you can and you increase your protein intake. You also do
> not reduce your intake of EFAs as these retards would have you do. That
way
> lies lots of health problems, everything from poor skin and hair to immune
> system deficiencies. EFAs are not any sort of cardio threat, as any
> nutritionist with a clue knows full well, and low fat diets are not
healthy.
>
> --
>
> A: Top-posters.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>
>

[Daniel Crispin]

Sounds like you are in Montreal too ;)

Where do you cycle besides Lachine? Gouin is a nice trail but getting there
is about 30 mins of traffic for me... ;(

Any suggestions?

As for rollers... you mean the thing you put your bike onto to make it a
stationary bike?


"Marlene Blanshay" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Regarding cadence, I typically ride along at about 90 to 95 rpm and
> that's
> > > common among lots of the racer-type folks I train with. Learning to
do
> > that
> > > really transformed my cycling, shaving an hour off my time on some
> > centuries
> > > (over the course of a couple of seasons as I got the hang of the spin
> > > thing).
> >
> > I know that 100 rpm is pretty common in cycling. I watched the women's
> > world cup
> > on TV yesterday and they don't seems to be spinning as fast as I tought
> 100
> > rpm would be.
> > Maybe I am spinning faster than I think. I will have to count my rpm
next
> > time I go out.
> >
> > > Some tips ... The spin starts from the hip. Think of the old style
> > > locomotive where there was a big drive wheel connected to the smaller
> > wheels
> > >
> > Ouf! I have developped a strong hatred for people on roller blades. Here
> in
> > Montreal
> > they are everywhere making cycling a pain. They block the trails and we
> > have to go in
> > the grass to pass them. I was thinking of installing a dual compressed
> air
> > horn like they
> > have on 18 wheelers on my bike to literally push them off the train...
but
> I
> > think it is
> > illegal ;)
> >
> >
>
> You're in Montreal? I hear ya. Yesterday the bike path to lachine was a
> ZOO- roller bladers, kids, families, etc. But what drives me nuts about
> those stupid bladers is that they often go so SLOW, and take up the whole
> lane. It was stop, start, stop, start, and I got off the path as soon as I
> could. At one point, I called out to a woman roller blader, but she didn't
> hear me because of her stupid walkman. So when I passed her I snapped my
> fingers in her face a couple of times, like HELLO! HELLO!
>
> HOwever, they weren't talking about roller bladers, but rollers, for
> practicing your spin. Still, I agree about roller bladers, I think
everyone
> does.
>
>

[Daniel Crispin]

> Beginner bladers are the worst, as they really *need* the whole path,
> weaving unpredictably left and right. And you don't dare call out to
> them, lest they get startled and fall right in front of your wheel.

Yep ain't that true. Some roller bladers can go 20 Km per hour, and take
little
space. Problem is those represent about 5% of the roller bladders. I don't
understand
why they don't practice in a parking lot or somewhere where they will not be
a danger to
themselves and others until they can be decent at it.

> That's what empty water bottles are for. (What, does anybody drag these
> things back home?)

ROFL!

[Daniel Crispin]

> Pedaling rather than coasting on downhills, regardless of whether
> or not your getting any chain tension, might also be an effective
> way to work towards a smooth spin. I find it can actually be more
> challenging to get a smooth spin going when there's no chain tension.
>
> Sheldon Brown has an article on 'The Evils of Coasting'; it's
> an interesting read. I'd post the link here, but I'm offline
> right now. But at least it's easy to find.

Coasting? Who's coasting? When I hit a hill I go to the highest gear and
pedal the
heck out of my bike. I try to the get the highest speed possible. Not
doing so good
yet, my max is 60 Km/H but I suspect that might be the limit of my Cat Eye
computer...
anyone knows? I was sure flying when I did this.... had to slow down
because the road was in bad shape at the bottom too...
hitting a pothole at 60 Km/H is not something I want to try ;)

[Daniel Crispin]

> Well, it's been a few years since then, but here's how I did it:
>
> 1) Eat a purely vegetarian diet, vegan if possible.

What? The most vegetables I eat are in my tomato sauce for spaghetti ;)
Seriously I don't understand how people can like without meat.

> 2) Don't own any kind of motor vehicle.
Already done. Started commuting by bike today, will actually save on
bus passes, great thing.

> 3) Don't have a regular job or any daily commitments.
Well wish it was that easy ;)

> 4) Keep your perspective limber by taking LSD once a week or so.
I never touched drugs and never will. Too bad, most drug addicts are
really slim ;)

[David Reuteler]

Daniel Crispin > wrote:
>> 1) Eat a purely vegetarian diet, vegan if possible.
>
> What? The most vegetables I eat are in my tomato sauce for spaghetti ;)
> Seriously I don't understand how people can like without meat.

oh, hey, it's pretty easy, thanks. & with BSE gettin' easier all the time.
bon apetit!
--
david reuteler

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Daniel Crispin" > writes:

>> Sheldon Brown has an article on 'The Evils of Coasting'; it's
>> an interesting read. I'd post the link here, but I'm offline
>> right now. But at least it's easy to find.

I thought it was easy to find, but upon re-investigating I find his
diatri-, errm, opinions on the topic are embedded in a discourse
on fixed-gear. Maybe I also semi-recall reading one of his
UseNet posts in r.b.tech about why coasting is bad. Or maybe
I dreamed it(?)

> Coasting? Who's coasting? When I hit a hill I go to the highest gear and
> pedal the
> heck out of my bike. I try to the get the highest speed possible. Not
> doing so good
> yet, my max is 60 Km/H but I suspect that might be the limit of my Cat Eye
> computer...

Well then, you're doing better than me. I have to struggle to top
50 km/h, and my ride weighs lots. But I don't have the best
wheels in the world, and except for an occasional indulgent
exuberance, I tend to baby them. My Cheng Shin tires will
amplify every subtle bump and dip in the road surface -- above
about 48 Km/h, I'll start collecting 'air miles' on an uneven
road surface. Whether I want to or not.

But still, have you tried spinning smoothly while undergeared and
there's little tension on the chain (pedaling while coasting)? It
feels funny at first, as it amplifies the jerkier sectors of the
pedal strokes.

I /think/ it's a good way to smooth out one's spin, anyway.
But, maybe I'm wrong and Jobst Brandt will prove that I am.
It doesn't hurt to try it, though.

I'll hunt around for the manual for my Cateye computer and
see if it says anything about the highest speed it'll read,
and post it here. Unless someone beats me to the punch.


cheers,
Tom


--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Bernie]

Daniel Crispin wrote:

>>Pedaling rather than coasting on downhills, regardless of whether
>>or not your getting any chain tension, might also be an effective
>>way to work towards a smooth spin. I find it can actually be more
>>challenging to get a smooth spin going when there's no chain tension.
>>
>>Sheldon Brown has an article on 'The Evils of Coasting'; it's
>>an interesting read. I'd post the link here, but I'm offline
>>right now. But at least it's easy to find.
>>
>
>Coasting? Who's coasting? When I hit a hill I go to the highest gear and
>pedal the
>heck out of my bike. I try to the get the highest speed possible. Not
>doing so good
>yet, my max is 60 Km/H but I suspect that might be the limit of my Cat Eye
>computer...
>anyone knows? I was sure flying when I did this.... had to slow down
>because the road was in bad shape at the bottom too...
>hitting a pothole at 60 Km/H is not something I want to try ;)
>
I do the same. Max speed attained on my hybrid was 67 kph, but I didn't
have a computer on it for long...
I haven't put a computer on my touring bike yet, but suspect I've broken
that speed many times already. I seriously doubt your speedo stops at
60. More likely 120 or something.

I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city streets with too
many wild cards in the deck for reasonable safety.
Wear your safety glasses, stay well. Grit or a bug in your eye at speed
might really mess you up.
Bernie

>
>
>
>

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Bernie > writes:

> I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city streets with too
> many wild cards in the deck for reasonable safety.

It seems at the bottom (or even mid-way) of every decent
slope in the Lower Mainland, there's a stale green light.

Feel lucky? :-)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Bernie]

Tom Keats wrote:

>In article >,
> Bernie > writes:
>
>>I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city streets with too
>>many wild cards in the deck for reasonable safety.
>>
>
>It seems at the bottom (or even mid-way) of every decent
>slope in the Lower Mainland, there's a stale green light.
>
>Feel lucky? :-)
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom
>
At least traffic lights are predictable. It's the cross traffic doing
'taxi stops' at stop signs, drivers who barely slow down at red lights
because they are turning right, uphill traffic turning left... (need I
go on?)
That's what makes me feel a bit twitchy.
Best regards, Bernie

>

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Bernie > writes:
>
>
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Bernie > writes:
>>
>>>I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city streets with too
>>>many wild cards in the deck for reasonable safety.
>>>
>>
>>It seems at the bottom (or even mid-way) of every decent
>>slope in the Lower Mainland, there's a stale green light.
>>
>>Feel lucky? :-)
>>
>>
>>cheers,
>> Tom
>>
> At least traffic lights are predictable.

Well, there's the iffy-ness of stale greens while approaching
them at speed. Especially if the light has a different cycle
timing than most. I've bombed through the one at Knight & 33rd
more times than I care to remember, but I think I've grown out
of that now. For the most part. Sometimes it's sporting, and
sometimes it's discretionary about making the decision to shoot
the light or not. Thrills & screams, vs safe & secure. I
generally opt for the latter. But then, I've already had my fill
of thrills & screams. For the most part.

We're not getting older; we're getting wiser :-)

> It's the cross traffic doing
> 'taxi stops' at stop signs, drivers who barely slow down at red lights
> because they are turning right, uphill traffic turning left... (need I
> go on?)

No, I hear ya, and I agree.

> That's what makes me feel a bit twitchy.

Yer durn tootin'.

I've only begun to appreciate the unleashed joy of /real/
descending on terrainous highways, up-country. It's a lot
different from city streets, that's for sure. And I guess
that's where that approach belongs, not where you're running
the risk of getting T-boned or otherwise clobbered.

City riding is nice, too. I guess neither style requires
more care than the other -- it's just where you have to
focus your care.

In the city, intersections sure have a way of governing
one's approach to riding. In the country, car speeds are
higher, but so are bike speeds. It's an whole new world
for me. I like it.

It's been a most interesting experience for me to taste
both urban and rural riding.


cheers,
Tom


-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Roger Zoul]

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Well I don't eat much bread, I seldom use margarine and never use
:: butter. I buy olive oil margarine but 1 pound lasts
:: me about a year. Adding fat to reduce sugar absorbtion sounds
:: ridiculous. Adding 200 calories is not the way to go!

Not true. What happens is that the reduced carb intake results in decreased
appetite...so while someone may have added 200 calories, they still ate less
than otherwise, and hence ended up restricting calories (relative to
maintenance energy needs). Done long enough, this produces weight loss.

[Roger Zoul]

Calories are calories, but not all calories are the same. Some types of
foods will stimulate hunger due to BG swings, whereas other types of foods
won't. Many people can lose weight simply by restricting the amount of
certain foods (they eat way too much of these foods, usually carbs) which
then results in eatng less, i.e, calorie restriction. That brings fat loss.

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Ha yes that Glycemic Index thing. Well can't say I believe in that.
:: Calories are calories, but whole grain is healtier... I was thinking
:: of getting spinach pasta as well. For now I will try lower pasta
:: and switch to a little rice with tofu, chicken and tuna.
::
:: "Mike Schwab" > wrote in message
:: ...
::: With the whole grain bread / pasta, the sugar is consumed with the
::: fiber and is absorbed slower.
::: With the white bread, the sugar is absorbed very quickly.
::: This difference wass measured by having testing persons eating a
::: quantity of food then testing their blood surar.
:::
::: This is from Dr. Arthur Agaston's book South Beach diet.
:::
::: http://www.southbeachdiet.com/
::: http://www.glycemicindex.com/
:::
::: Badger_South wrote:
::::
:::: On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:53:09 -0500, Mike Schwab
:::: > wrote:
::::
::::: Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health
::::: food stores.
::::
:::: Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC
:::: people tout this, but it's still bread.
::::
:::: -Badger
:::: "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

[Roger Zoul]

Terry Morse wrote:
:: Badger_South wrote:
::
::: Terry Morse wrote:
:::
:::: Badger_South wrote:
::::
::::: Mike Schwab wrote:
:::::
:::::: Look for breads and pastas made with whole grain. Check health
:::::: food stores.
:::::
::::: Why? It's still going to spike your insulin. Tch; even the LC
::::: people tout this, but it's still bread.
::::
:::: Google "glycemic index" and "whole grain bread". Contrast with
:::: "white bread". Note the difference.
:::
::: Ah, thus the highly successful "whole grain bread" diet.
::
:: It's worked in the western and middle eastern world for a few
:: thousand years.
::
:::
::: Again, it still spikes insulin in many ppl, and it throws 'em out of
::: ketosis, and back into carb addiction, and it's still bread.
::
:: You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
:: American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":
::
:: "Some people advocate severely reducing carbohydrate intake to
:: reduce the insulin response and cravings. Others suggest that
:: choosing carbohydrate-containing foods with a lower glycemic
:: (gli-SE'mik) index also can lower insulin response and appetite.
:: There isn't enough research in this area for us to know what's
:: right. Also, individual responses may vary considerably."

Yet, they give recommendations....

::
:: And what they say about what constitutes a healthy diet:
::
:: "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
:: most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
:: from carbohydrates."

And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many American
(at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating 50-55 % of calories
from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like to move, but most don't.

As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on committee work
and not any sound scientific research?

[Roger Zoul]

Terry Morse wrote:
:: DRS wrote:
::
::: "Terry Morse" wrote:
:::
:::: You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
:::: American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":
:::
::: Thanks to retards like the AHA the Western world is more obese than
::: at any time in history.
::
:: Yeah, that's it. The AHA's to blame. Let's take 'em outside and
:: shoot 'em.

I would if I could...

[Roger Zoul]

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Actually my personal guess about so many people being over weight is
:: this:
::
:: Fast food + lack of physical activity X time = lots of extra fat on
:: you.
::
:: If you make your own food and don't over eat, and have an active
:: lifestyle you will not be overweight. When you consider the caloric
:: intake of a single
:: meal at McDonalds there is no wonder people are overweight. 1800
:: calories per meal is a great way to die young.

There is a lot of truth in what you say...fast food is both full of carb and
full of unhealthy fats...and people are too sedentary.

But there is still a question of how to correct the imbalance of overfat.


::
::
::
:: "DRS" > wrote in message
:: ...
::: "Terry Morse" > wrote in message
:::
:::: DRS wrote:
::::
::::: "Terry Morse" wrote:
:::::
:::::: You write that as if it were true and universal. Here's what the
:::::: American Heart Association has to say about "carb addiction":
:::::
::::: Thanks to retards like the AHA the Western world is more obese
::::: than
::::: at any time in history.
::::
:::: Yeah, that's it. The AHA's to blame. Let's take 'em outside and
:::: shoot 'em.
:::
::: I didn't say they were the whole problem. I said they were part of
::: the problem and they are. Their high carb low fat diets are
::: retarded and so are they. If you want to suppress appetite you
::: lower your intake of simple carbs as far as you can and you
::: increase your protein intake. You also do not reduce your intake
::: of EFAs as these retards would have you do. That way lies lots of
::: health problems, everything from poor skin and hair to immune
::: system deficiencies. EFAs are not any sort of cardio threat, as
::: any nutritionist with a clue knows full well, and low fat diets are
::: not healthy.
:::
::: --
:::
::: A: Top-posters.
::: Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> :: And what they say about what constitutes a healthy diet:
> ::
> :: "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
> :: most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
> :: from carbohydrates."
>
> And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many American
> (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating 50-55 % of calories
> from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like to move, but most don't.

NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are from.


> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on committee work
> and not any sound scientific research?

Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high fat
diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research, though, it
was looking at too narrow of a question to find the real answer they
were looking for.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Roger Zoul]

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Well technically carbs are the lowers calories per gram you know. 4
:: calories per gram compared to fat that is 9 calories per gram.
:: Problem is that pasta contains lots of carbs ;)

For many people, eating pasta will increase appetite. So restricting
calories will be hard to impossible. Their bodies say eat, they think they
are hungry, so they eat...and probably more carby stuff, which leads to more
eating. And probably some fatty stuff, which leads to fat gain (due to too
many calories).


My usual serving is
:: about 600 calories just for the pasta, and about 400 more for sauce.
:: I think you are right that I should eat less of it. Chicken and
:: tuna are the way to go. I will see if I can convince my will ;)

One you remove BG swings from the equation, much will power isn't needed.
All you need then is a desire to lose...

::
::
::
:: "curt" > wrote in message
:: ...
::: Bicycling is a great way to lose weight! I think most important is
::: to ride long and steady to lose. I don't use a HR monitor, so I
::: can't help you there, but there is an effective HR for weight loss,
::: but it is different for everyone and we would need to know more
::: information about you.
:::
::: If you like pasta, it will be harder to lose, unless you don't eat
::: that much. Sorry, that is just the way it is. A high carb diet
::: makes it harder to lose, it is just the facts. It can certainly be
::: done and is done all the time, but you need to cut calories, unless
::: you are going to ride very long distances 4+ days a week. I
::: suggest lower fat if you are going high carb. If you want to lose
::: faster, then bag the pasta and eat chicken, fish, etc.
:::
::: JMHO,
::: Curt
:::
:::
::: "Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
::: ...
:::: Hello,
::::
:::: I am wondering if there is an easy way to dose my efforts toward
:::: weight loss. I could buy
:::: a HRM but I have already spent 600$ on my bike this month and
:::: would like to stop spending
:::: for a while.
::::
:::: Any trick that can tell me I am using the right effort for weight
:::: loss? Someone told me that if I cannot
:::: speak without feeling a little out of breath that is the right
:::: zone... is that true?
::::
:::: Also I am been trying to pedal faster. I used to pedal slow and
:::: hard but after reading some books
:::: I now understand it's a really bad way to do it. I have no idea
:::: what my current cadence is since my
:::: computer doesn't have that feature but I think I am at around 1.25
:::: turn per second... that is of course
:::: an approximate... it would mean 75 turns per minute which is close
:::: to what is recommanded... I cannot
:::: see myself pedaling faster, already feels like I am spinning way
:::: too fast ;) How do you guys do 100 turns
:::: per minute? Must be a mental issue, the legs don't seems to mind
:::: but geez at a 100 I am not sure I could
:::: even keep my balance hehehe!
::::
:::: Last thing... what should I eat before and during training? I
:::: love pasta. I know they contain a lot of calories
:::: but that is the food I like. On the other hand they give lots of
:::: carbs so that can't be bad while training right?
:::: Should I eat something different the days I train?
::::
:::: How about during training? I normal bring a Nutribar which is an
:::: meal replacement designed for weight loss.
:::: I has a balance of carbs, fats and proteins. Should I use
:::: something with more carbs?

[DRS]

"David Kerber" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> says...

[...]

>>>> "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
>>>> most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
>>>> from carbohydrates."
>>
>> And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
>> American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
>> 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like
>> to move, but most don't.
>
> NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
> calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
> from.

It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works). High carb
diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what you don't want if you
want to avoid obesity.

>> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on
>> committee work and not any sound scientific research?
>
> Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high fat
> diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research, though,

Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and they're no
threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your weight, you are
confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense macronutrient with
eating excess calories. It is the latter which causes problems with weight,
not the former. Failing to distinguish between good and bad fats is simply
inexcusable in the 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good
fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
retarded.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> "David Kerber" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
> >>>> most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
> >>>> from carbohydrates."
> >>
> >> And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
> >> American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
> >> 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like
> >> to move, but most don't.
> >
> > NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
> > calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
> > from.
>
> It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
> naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works). High carb
> diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what you don't want if you
> want to avoid obesity.

All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it doesn't
matter where they come from.


> >> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on
> >> committee work and not any sound scientific research?
> >
> > Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high fat
> > diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research, though,
>
> Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and they're no
> threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your weight, you are
> confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense macronutrient with
> eating excess calories. It is the latter which causes problems with weight,
> not the former. Failing to distinguish between good and bad fats is simply
> inexcusable in the 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good

Like I said, the research was not properly designed to come up with the
answers they were looking for.


> fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
> retarded.

No more so than low carb; some people do better on one, and others do
better on other diets. Even "low fat" diets give you enough fats for
good health.

As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat diets,
and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more weight in
the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal in
their results.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[DRS]

"David Kerber" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> says...

[...]

>> It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
>> naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works).
>> High carb diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what you
>> don't want if you want to avoid obesity.
>
> All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
> doesn't matter where they come from.

In an absolute sense that's right. However, reducing sugars and increasing
protein makes it easier.

[...]

>> Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and
>> they're no threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your
>> weight, you are confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense
>> macronutrient with eating excess calories. It is the latter which
>> causes problems with weight, not the former. Failing to distinguish
>> between good and bad fats is simply inexcusable in the 21st century.
>> You must get an adequate supply of good
>
> Like I said, the research was not properly designed to come up with
> the answers they were looking for.
>
>> fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
>> retarded.
>
> No more so than low carb;

Not so. They are inherently retarded for reasons already outlined. You
*must* get enough good fats to be healthy. Low fat is inherently unhealthy.

> some people do better on one, and others do
> better on other diets. Even "low fat" diets give you enough fats for
> good health.

No, they don't. That's why they're retarded. Even when aiming to lose
weight you should not be dropping your fats targets to 20% or less, which is
what the low fats diets tell you to do. It's bull****.

> As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
> researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat diets,
> and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more weight in
> the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal
> in their results.

In weight, yes. In that strict sense calories are calories and fat still
has about 3,500 of them. But in a nutritional sense the low carbers are way
better off. You can always tell long term low fat dieters because their
skin looks like ****.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:58:46 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"David Kerber" > wrote in message

>> In article >,
>> says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>>> "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
>>>>> most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
>>>>> from carbohydrates."
>>>
>>> And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
>>> American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
>>> 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like
>>> to move, but most don't.
>>
>> NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
>> calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
>> from.
>
>It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
>naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works). High carb
>diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what you don't want if you
>want to avoid obesity.
>
>>> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on
>>> committee work and not any sound scientific research?
>>
>> Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high fat
>> diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research, though,
>
>Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and they're no
>threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your weight, you are
>confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense macronutrient with
>eating excess calories. It is the latter which causes problems with weight,
>not the former. Failing to distinguish between good and bad fats is simply
>inexcusable in the 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good
>fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
>retarded.

Just babbling here, but I'm wondering if the "plenty of research indicating
that high fat diets are bad for your heart and weight" were actually done
on diets that were also high carb?

Since the researchers had ignored the 'insulin connection', they may have
glossed over the fairly high carb content. As we all know a high carb high
fat diet -is- a recipe for disaster.

Just wondering...

-Badger

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:09:41 -0400, David Kerber >
wrote:

>All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it doesn't
>matter where they come from.

Fair enough. But it's -very- hard to "watch" you calorie intake, heh, as in
"I watched it go up as I ate more and more, and the hunger pangs increased
with each doughnut". OK, kidding, but if there was a 'magic bullet' and
people could just plan out their meals and then eat that and only that,
sheesh, it would be easy and we'd all be thin and happy.

It seems to require a 'trick', be it 'fad diet', or drugs, or stomach
stapling/gastro-bypass, or imprisonment on an island with only rats and
rice to eat. Given those, I'll chose BDK and the concommittant appetite
suppression that I experience.

Ya know ppl here are now saying 'ok you can cycle on LC, but even though it
seems like you're going fast and hard and long, you're really just pushing
it at a moderate pace'. Heck a couple years ago, they weren't even allowing
for that concession.

>> >> As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on
>> >> committee work and not any sound scientific research?
>> >
>> > Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high fat
>> > diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research, though,
>>
>> Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and they're no
>> threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your weight, you are
>> confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense macronutrient with
>> eating excess calories. It is the latter which causes problems with weight,
>> not the former. Failing to distinguish between good and bad fats is simply
>> inexcusable in the 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good
>
>Like I said, the research was not properly designed to come up with the
>answers they were looking for.
>
>
>> fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
>> retarded.
>
>No more so than low carb; some people do better on one, and others do
>better on other diets. Even "low fat" diets give you enough fats for
>good health.

Well, that's fair, but IMO, low fat diets are hard to deal with, b/c it
requires too much planning and stuff. When you're ravenous, the brain tends
to get a little dicey and you mess it up. I'm prepared to agree that all
the diets would work -if- you had your own chef, and if you only ate the
prepared meals, and somehow were prevented from cheating.

Hell, I'd love to go vegetarian, but it's so hard to do and still get
adequate protein if you're just 'a guy' buying veggies at the market, IMO.
<g> Also, I think a lot of vegs tend to eat junk food, with the though
'it's all ok, b/c it's not meat'. Oh well.

>As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
>researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat diets,
>and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more weight in
>the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal in
>their results.

I have strong doubts about any 'diet research'. It's just too hard to
control, even in a semi-quarantined environment. My first though was 'hey,
the Low fat group saw what success the LC group had and (consciously or
unconsciously) started limiting carbs and adding back some fat'. Wouldn't
that be funny.

It'll be interesting to see where all the 'LC fad' takes us in another
year. Maybe people will end up leaning towards a targetted ketogenic diet,
or cycling off on weekends, or getting really good at adding carbs during
the 'exercise window', and the serious recreational/fitness cyclers will
start looking a lot leaner and meaner.

-Badger

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> >Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and they're no
> >threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your weight, you are
> >confusing the fact that fat is the most energy dense macronutrient with
> >eating excess calories. It is the latter which causes problems with weight,
> >not the former. Failing to distinguish between good and bad fats is simply
> >inexcusable in the 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good
> >fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
> >retarded.
>
> Just babbling here, but I'm wondering if the "plenty of research indicating
> that high fat diets are bad for your heart and weight" were actually done
> on diets that were also high carb?

Considering that "high" in this context usually refers to *percentages*
of calorie intake, that's kind of hard to do. They were watching total
calories as well. But as with most studies, they were designed to get
the answer they expected, and didn't sufficiently examine confounding
factors. Later studies always find weaknesses in earlier ones, and that
includes LC.


> Since the researchers had ignored the 'insulin connection', they may have
> glossed over the fairly high carb content. As we all know a high carb high
> fat diet -is- a recipe for disaster.

If it were possible, it would be, but you can't have over 50% of your
calories from fat, *and* over 50% of your calories from carbs.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Terry Morse]

Roger Zoul wrote:

> As it occurred to you, Terry, that [the AHA's] advice is based on
> committee work and not any sound scientific research?

Sure. I posted the American Heart Association statements as a
"second opinion" to Badger's, who stated:

"Again, it (low glycemic bread) still spikes insulin in many ppl,
and it throws 'em out of ketosis, and back into carb addiction, and
it's still bread."

I'm sure there are third and fourth opinions to be found, and many
more.

What's really interesting to me is that the daily caloric intake of
the US population hasn't changed in the past 60 years. What has
changed is the amount of exercise people get, which has dropped to
almost zero.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:09:41 -0400, David Kerber >
> wrote:
>
> >All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it doesn't
> >matter where they come from.
>
> Fair enough. But it's -very- hard to "watch" you calorie intake, heh, as in
> "I watched it go up as I ate more and more, and the hunger pangs increased
> with each doughnut". OK, kidding, but if there was a 'magic bullet' and
> people could just plan out their meals and then eat that and only that,
> sheesh, it would be easy and we'd all be thin and happy.

It's easy for me! I eat all the same things I ever did, just less of
them. Instead of 3 or 4 pieces of pizza, I stop at 2. Instead of
getting the full value meal, I just get the sandwich (and if I'm thirsty
a small drink). When somebody has a birthday, I only have one piece of
cake.

>
> It seems to require a 'trick', be it 'fad diet', or drugs, or stomach
> stapling/gastro-bypass, or imprisonment on an island with only rats and

Yep; nobody wants to do any work on their own, or to have to exert any
will power.

> rice to eat. Given those, I'll chose BDK and the concommittant appetite
> suppression that I experience.

As long as it works for you, then great, but it doesn't work for
everybody.


....

> >Like I said, the research was not properly designed to come up with the
> >answers they were looking for.
> >
> >
> >> fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
> >> retarded.
> >
> >No more so than low carb; some people do better on one, and others do
> >better on other diets. Even "low fat" diets give you enough fats for
> >good health.
>
> Well, that's fair, but IMO, low fat diets are hard to deal with, b/c it
> requires too much planning and stuff. When you're ravenous, the brain tends
> to get a little dicey and you mess it up. I'm prepared to agree that all
> the diets would work -if- you had your own chef, and if you only ate the
> prepared meals, and somehow were prevented from cheating.
>
> Hell, I'd love to go vegetarian, but it's so hard to do and still get
> adequate protein if you're just 'a guy' buying veggies at the market, IMO.
> <g> Also, I think a lot of vegs tend to eat junk food, with the though
> 'it's all ok, b/c it's not meat'. Oh well.
>
> >As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
> >researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat diets,
> >and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more weight in
> >the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal in
> >their results.
>
> I have strong doubts about any 'diet research'. It's just too hard to
> control, even in a semi-quarantined environment. My first though was 'hey,
> the Low fat group saw what success the LC group had and (consciously or
> unconsciously) started limiting carbs and adding back some fat'. Wouldn't
> that be funny.

Yes, but I would hope that nobody in either group knew who was on which
diet. Otherwise you've got a very poorly-controlled study.

>
> It'll be interesting to see where all the 'LC fad' takes us in another
> year. Maybe people will end up leaning towards a targetted ketogenic diet,
> or cycling off on weekends, or getting really good at adding carbs during
> the 'exercise window', and the serious recreational/fitness cyclers will
> start looking a lot leaner and meaner.

I think the serious fitness people already have a pretty good handle on
their nutrition and weight control, and won't change much. The biggest
changes will likely be among those who aren't so serious and think they
need more help.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Top Sirloin]

Daniel Crispin wrote:

> Right now hills kill me. So I try to avoid them... After a few hills my
> legs are too tired to continue. Once I get over that
> it will become easier. Also I am trying to spin faster, that has reduced
> leg fatigue. I should also stand when I climb but for
> some reasons I am not comfortable doing that on my new bike.

Ride the hills and make losing weight more
important than eating. You should get _hungry_
before your next meal, not just experience a
desire to stuff your face with the nearest treat.
If you're not familar with what _real_ hunger
feels like, try not eating for a day to reset your
appetite.

Ignore any advice about "fat burning zones" -
they're an excuse promulgated by fat asses afraid
to break a sweat.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

[Roger Zoul]

David Kerber wrote:
:: In article >,
:: says...
::: "David Kerber" > wrote in message
:::
:::: In article >,
:::: says...
:::
::: [...]
:::
::::::: "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy
::::::: products, most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55
::::::: percent of calories from carbohydrates."
:::::
::::: And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
::::: American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
::::: 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we
::::: like
::::: to move, but most don't.
::::
:::: NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
:::: calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
:::: from.
:::
::: It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
::: naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works).
::: High carb diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what
::: you don't want if you want to avoid obesity.
::
:: All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
:: doesn't matter where they come from.

Your statement is true, but not useful in practice for many overweight
people.

[Roger Zoul]

DRS wrote:
:: "David Kerber" > wrote in message
::
::: In article >,
::: says...
::
:: [...]
::
:::: It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets
:::: they naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins
:::: works).
:::: High carb diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what
:::: you don't want if you want to avoid obesity.
:::
::: All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
::: doesn't matter where they come from.
::
:: In an absolute sense that's right. However, reducing sugars and
:: increasing protein makes it easier.
::
:: [...]
::
:::: Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and
:::: they're no threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your
:::: weight, you are confusing the fact that fat is the most energy
:::: dense macronutrient with eating excess calories. It is the latter
:::: which causes problems with weight, not the former. Failing to
:::: distinguish between good and bad fats is simply inexcusable in the
:::: 21st century.
:::: You must get an adequate supply of good
:::
::: Like I said, the research was not properly designed to come up with
::: the answers they were looking for.
:::
:::: fats to be healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are
:::: simply retarded.
:::
::: No more so than low carb;
::
:: Not so. They are inherently retarded for reasons already outlined.
:: You *must* get enough good fats to be healthy. Low fat is
:: inherently unhealthy.
::
::: some people do better on one, and others do
::: better on other diets. Even "low fat" diets give you enough fats
::: for good health.
::
:: No, they don't. That's why they're retarded. Even when aiming to
:: lose weight you should not be dropping your fats targets to 20% or
:: less, which is what the low fats diets tell you to do. It's
:: bull****.
::
::: As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
::: researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat
::: diets, and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more
::: weight in
::: the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal
::: in their results.
::
:: In weight, yes. In that strict sense calories are calories and fat
:: still has about 3,500 of them. But in a nutritional sense the low
:: carbers are way better off. You can always tell long term low fat
:: dieters because their skin looks like ****.

Yep.

[Roger Zoul]

David Kerber wrote:
:: In article >,
:: says...
::: On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:09:41 -0400, David Kerber
::: > wrote:
:::
:::: All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
:::: doesn't matter where they come from.
:::
::: Fair enough. But it's -very- hard to "watch" you calorie intake,
::: heh, as in "I watched it go up as I ate more and more, and the
::: hunger pangs increased with each doughnut". OK, kidding, but if
::: there was a 'magic bullet' and people could just plan out their
::: meals and then eat that and only that, sheesh, it would be easy and
::: we'd all be thin and happy.
::
:: It's easy for me! I eat all the same things I ever did, just less of
:: them. Instead of 3 or 4 pieces of pizza, I stop at 2. Instead of
:: getting the full value meal, I just get the sandwich (and if I'm
:: thirsty
:: a small drink). When somebody has a birthday, I only have one piece
:: of cake.

You apparently don't have any problems with glucose metabolism. Many
overweight people are well on their way to insulin resistance and diabetes.
Also, if you are well established in exercising, you can suffer many more
carbs than a nonactive person.

::
:::
::: It seems to require a 'trick', be it 'fad diet', or drugs, or
::: stomach stapling/gastro-bypass, or imprisonment on an island with
::: only rats and
::
:: Yep; nobody wants to do any work on their own, or to have to exert
:: any
:: will power.
::

Will power is a weak force compared to BG swings. It won't hold up for
long. How many people do you see how have really used only will power to
achieve anything?



::: rice to eat. Given those, I'll chose BDK and the concommittant
::: appetite suppression that I experience.
::
:: As long as it works for you, then great, but it doesn't work for
:: everybody.

For various reasons, too. Among them are ignorance and lack of skill.

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:19:59 -0400, David Kerber >
wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:09:41 -0400, David Kerber >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it doesn't
>> >matter where they come from.
>>
>> Fair enough. But it's -very- hard to "watch" your calorie intake, heh, as in
>> "I watched it go up as I ate more and more, and the hunger pangs increased
>> with each doughnut". OK, kidding, but if there was a 'magic bullet' and
>> people could just plan out their meals and then eat that and only that,
>> sheesh, it would be easy and we'd all be thin and happy.
>
>It's easy for me! I eat all the same things I ever did, just less of
>them. Instead of 3 or 4 pieces of pizza, I stop at 2. Instead of
>getting the full value meal, I just get the sandwich (and if I'm thirsty
>a small drink). When somebody has a birthday, I only have one piece of
>cake.

Cool, but do you get why it's hard for some ppl to just cut their portion
size? Do you think you have better than average determination, or
willpower? How do you deal with the desire to cheat?

IMO, the big value of the LC diet was that it mentally freed me from having
to blame myself, feel guilty and think I was a bad, low or stupid person
b/c I could not stop eating carbs, sweets and junk foods. After about 10-12
days on 'induction', I suddenly seemed to regain control of my brain, or
the part that planned and carried out my eating plan. It was really, really
neat!

>>
>> It seems to require a 'trick', be it 'fad diet', or drugs, or stomach
>> stapling/gastro-bypass, or imprisonment on an island with only rats and
>
>Yep; nobody wants to do any work on their own, or to have to exert any
>will power.

Man, I think I have tremendous will power. When I set a goal, I go for it
like nobody I know. My wife says, 'jeeze when B decides to do something
he's like a locomotive with one speed', be it learning computers and
programming, lifting weights, doing martial arts, running or biking,
studying nutrition, etc. But in trying to lose fat by getting control of my
eating, I'd try and not quite get there, recriminate, then try and restart.
The only way I was ever able to do it was through my jogging and triathlon
training. I was so compulsive about getting out there and doing it, I ended
up losing weight; -but- I was still eating a lot of junk, and I never got
the kind of definition I wanted. All because, imo, I was a carb addict and
didn't realize it.

When you're a carb addict the thing you're addicted to is NOT the carbs.
It's the feeling of comfort or rush, and that comes from the endorphins.
Saying you don't have the willpower to stop is not the point, b/c your own
endorphins are one of the most addicting substances. Now that I've stopped
the carb/sugar induced endorphin fixes, I don't have that lack of
willpower. You can parade nekkid wimmen carrying doughnuts and pizza in
front of me and I won't even be tempted! <g>

>
>> rice to eat. Given those, I'll chose BDK and the concommittant appetite
>> suppression that I experience.
>
>As long as it works for you, then great, but it doesn't work for
>everybody.

That's all I've ever said. YMMV, and it works for me, and here's how or
IMO, here's why.

<snippage>...

>I think the serious fitness people already have a pretty good handle on
>their nutrition and weight control, and won't change much. The biggest
>changes will likely be among those who aren't so serious and think they
>need more help.

Yep, I agree. But there are many bikers and triathletes that would love to
cut the fat even more, and it may be that a TKD, or CKD is the way to do
it. As one poster said, it's amazing when you show a pretty good / serious
athlete just how much fat they're carrying!

In addition, the 'serious fitness people' may still have a problem when
they hit middle age, or for some reason can't continue with their sport.
Perhaps this way of eating will help them.

-Badger

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:11:07 -0400, David Kerber >
wrote:

>
>Considering that "high" in this context usually refers to *percentages*
>of calorie intake, that's kind of hard to do. They were watching total
>calories as well. But as with most studies, they were designed to get
>the answer they expected, and didn't sufficiently examine confounding
>factors. Later studies always find weaknesses in earlier ones, and that
>includes LC.
>
>
>> Since the researchers had ignored the 'insulin connection', they may have
>> glossed over the fairly high carb content. As we all know a high carb high
>> fat diet -is- a recipe for disaster.
>
>If it were possible, it would be, but you can't have over 50% of your
>calories from fat, *and* over 50% of your calories from carbs.

Right, but I mean high in the sense much more than needed to maintain one's
activities. IOW, it might have been better to have a high fat, low carb
group, a high fat, moderate carb group, and a high fat, unrestricted carb
group, if that makes sense.

-Badger

[Steve Knight]

>All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it doesn't
>matter where they come from.

this depends on the person. my body does not seem to get enough energy out of
the foods I eat. I can eat about 3500 calories on low carb. but if I substitute
my large calorie lunch (about 1200 calories) for 2 to 3 cups of brown rice
steamed veggies and lean meat I gain weight. and I gain it fast. less calories
but more weight gain.
bodies are not mechanical machines and they don't all burn the same fuel the
same way.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

[DRS]

"Steve Knight" > wrote in message

>> All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
>> doesn't matter where they come from.
>
> this depends on the person. my body does not seem to get enough
> energy out of the foods I eat. I can eat about 3500 calories on low
> carb. but if I substitute my large calorie lunch (about 1200
> calories) for 2 to 3 cups of brown rice steamed veggies and lean meat
> I gain weight. and I gain it fast. less calories but more weight gain.
> bodies are not mechanical machines and they don't all burn the same
> fuel the same way.

No. The laws of thermodynamics are the same for everybody. What typically
happens when someone who has been on a LC diet eats a significantly higher
amount of carbs is that they put on weight very quickly but it's almost
entirely water gain. Remember the massive weight losses in the first week
or two of the LC diet? That's the same thing in reverse. Those big, quick
losses were water and all you've done is regain it. You have not gained
fat.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[Roger Zoul]

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:58:46 +1000, "DRS"
:: > wrote:
::
::: "David Kerber" > wrote in message
:::
:::: In article >,
:::: says...
:::
::: [...]
:::
::::::: "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy
::::::: products, most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55
::::::: percent of calories from carbohydrates."
:::::
::::: And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
::::: American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
::::: 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we
::::: like
::::: to move, but most don't.
::::
:::: NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
:::: calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
:::: from.
:::
::: It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
::: naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works).
::: High carb diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what
::: you don't want if you want to avoid obesity.
:::
::::: As it occurred to you, Terry, that their advice is based on
::::: committee work and not any sound scientific research?
::::
:::: Not true; there has been plenty of research indicating that high
:::: fat diets are bad for your heart and weight. Like most research,
:::: though,
:::
::: Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and
::: they're no threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your
::: weight, you are confusing the fact that fat is the most energy
::: dense macronutrient with eating excess calories. It is the latter
::: which causes problems with weight, not the former. Failing to
::: distinguish between good and bad fats is simply inexcusable in the
::: 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good fats to be
::: healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply retarded.
::
:: Just babbling here, but I'm wondering if the "plenty of research
:: indicating that high fat diets are bad for your heart and weight"
:: were actually done
:: on diets that were also high carb?

You know they were...

::
:: Since the researchers had ignored the 'insulin connection', they may
:: have glossed over the fairly high carb content. As we all know a
:: high carb high fat diet -is- a recipe for disaster.

You know they did, Badger!

::
:: Just wondering...
::
:: -Badger

[Roger Zoul]

David Kerber wrote:
:: In article >,
:: says...
::
:: ...
::
:::: Only if you eat the wrong kind of fats. Stick to the EFAs and
:::: they're no threat to your heart in the slightest. As for your
:::: weight, you are confusing the fact that fat is the most energy
:::: dense macronutrient with eating excess calories. It is the latter
:::: which causes problems with weight, not the former. Failing to
:::: distinguish between good and bad fats is simply inexcusable in the
:::: 21st century. You must get an adequate supply of good fats to be
:::: healthy even when losing weight. Low fat diets are simply
:::: retarded.
:::
::: Just babbling here, but I'm wondering if the "plenty of research
::: indicating that high fat diets are bad for your heart and weight"
::: were actually done
::: on diets that were also high carb?
::
:: Considering that "high" in this context usually refers to
:: *percentages*
:: of calorie intake, that's kind of hard to do. They were watching
:: total calories as well. But as with most studies, they were
:: designed to get
:: the answer they expected, and didn't sufficiently examine confounding
:: factors. Later studies always find weaknesses in earlier ones, and
:: that includes LC.
::
::
::: Since the researchers had ignored the 'insulin connection', they
::: may have glossed over the fairly high carb content. As we all know
::: a high carb high fat diet -is- a recipe for disaster.
::
:: If it were possible, it would be, but you can't have over 50% of your
:: calories from fat, *and* over 50% of your calories from carbs.

True, but you can eat a diet that includes excessive levels of calories, and
if you eat a lot of carbs and a lot of fat (relative to what your
maintenance levels), your body goes for the carbs first and then stores
whatever fat calories aren't needed. It also drives up the level of fat in
the blood, which does all sorts of things, before getting stored on your
butt, gut, and man-boos.

On the other hand, if you eat below your maintenace levels, and restrict
carbs, your body will use that fat for energy, rather than allowing it to
stay in the bloodstream and end up stored on your body. In that situation,
the fat is not nearly as harmful and it doesn't promote fat gain, either.


::

[Top Sirloin]

David Kerber wrote:

> As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
> researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat diets,
> and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more weight in
> the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were essentially equal in
> their results.

Let's just drop the idea of any diet having to be
a low-x macronutrient diet.

People need protein, essential fats, vitamins,
minerals, and phytochemicals. You can consume the
meat, veggies and fish oil caps you need to
provide these with fairly few kcals (I weigh
220lbs and can do it with whole food for 1200
kcals a day).

Fill in the rest of your daily energy balance with
whatever the hell you want. As long as you're
running a net energy deficit you'll lose weight.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

[Roger Zoul]

Top Sirloin wrote:
:: David Kerber wrote:
::
::: As usual, more research is tending to reduce the claims of the early
::: researchers. A recent study compared low carb diets to low fat
::: diets, and found that people on low carb diets tended to lose more
::: weight in the first 6 months, but after 12 months, they were
::: essentially equal in their results.
::
:: Let's just drop the idea of any diet having to be
:: a low-x macronutrient diet.
::
:: People need protein, essential fats, vitamins,
:: minerals, and phytochemicals. You can consume the
:: meat, veggies and fish oil caps you need to
:: provide these with fairly few kcals (I weigh
:: 220lbs and can do it with whole food for 1200
:: kcals a day).
::
:: Fill in the rest of your daily energy balance with
:: whatever the hell you want. As long as you're
:: running a net energy deficit you'll lose weight.

There's no question about it as long as you can do it.

[Dennis Ferguson]

DRS > wrote:
>"David Kerber" > wrote in message

>> In article >,
>> says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>>> "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
>>>>> most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
>>>>> from carbohydrates."
>>>
>>> And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
>>> American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
>>> 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like
>>> to move, but most don't.
>>
>> NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
>> calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
>> from.
>
>It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
>naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works). High carb
>diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what you don't want if you
>want to avoid obesity.

Could be, but it is also the case that an analogous argument is made in
favour of high fiber, and hence high carbohydrate, diets. The fiber
takes up room in the digestive system and makes one feel full, but has
no caloric value so total calorie consumption is reduced.

I have no idea what is true. What I do know is that the assertions of
the carbs-are-poison people who have all sorts of great reasons why only
low carb, high protein and fat diets can provide sustainable weight loses
don't seem to square with my personal observation that some of the
places in the world where obesity is relatively rare and people seem
to generally be a pretty good size are also places where a very high
fraction of the typical diet consists of unprocessed carbohydrates.

I don't think I buy the arguent that obesity can only be avoided by
limiting carbohydrate consumption unless it is accompanied by an
explanation of how whole nations of skinny people who tend to fill
their stomachs with large amounts of rice and vegetables, or noodles
and vegetables, along with bakery products, could exist. Why is that?

Dennis Ferguson

[Terry Morse]

Top Sirloin wrote:

> Ignore any advice about "fat burning zones" -
> they're an excuse promulgated by fat asses afraid
> to break a sweat.

I can't comment on "fat burning zones" when it comes to weight loss,
but it's a well known term for cyclists in training. With a heart
rate up to about 72% of your maximum, the fuel source is almost
exclusively fat. This is the "fat burning zone", where about 50% of
one's training time is spent (and virtually all the early season
training is done).

Long rides in your fat burning zone will increase endurance and
stamina, making it easier to recover from higher effort training
rides and races, and helping to prevent overtraining.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Per Elmsäter]

Badger_South wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 20:03:56 -0400, "Daniel Crispin"
> > wrote:
>
>> Well gaining muscle weight is a good thing... the more muscles you
>> have higher you BMR is and easier it is to loose fat weight.
>
> I keep telling you morons. If your fat is 'loose', use more duct tape!
>

In the civilized world we use corsets.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

[Daniel Crispin]

> Ride the hills and make losing weight more
> important than eating. You should get _hungry_
> before your next meal, not just experience a
> desire to stuff your face with the nearest treat.
> If you're not familar with what _real_ hunger
> feels like, try not eating for a day to reset your
> appetite.

Well that would work if I was not doing sports every day. When you are
hungry you don't
have much energy. I don't see myself pedaling 20 miles on an empty stomach.
I did lower my
food intake to 2000 calories per day (more or less). That is bellow my BMR
by about 200 to 1000
depending what you read ;) I burn on average 500-600 calories per day
cycling, playing tennis, weight
lifting and fast walking. On week ends multiply by 2 or 3.

> Ignore any advice about "fat burning zones" -
> they're an excuse promulgated by fat asses afraid
> to break a sweat.

I tend to agree there is nothing gained without effort. On the other hand
if you can do 3 hours at medium pace
and only 30 mins at a fast pace, the 3 hours are most likelly better. That
is why I wanted to know how to stay
in the right zone that you don't expend yourself but can go for hours.

[Daniel Crispin]

Ok... is there a sign that I am in that zone without having to use a HRM?

My legs hurt all the time since I started cycling last month. I think I am
overtraining but
it makes little sense since I did wait a day before riding again for the
first 5 times. Now I
commute to work by bike so I hope my muscles start to adapt soon, cause it's
no fun at all ;)

Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed Mount Royal
twice... once for the
Tour the Nuit event here in Montreal and a second time for the fun of it.
My legs have kicked up the pain one
nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol to the rescue.


"Terry Morse" > wrote in message
...
> Top Sirloin wrote:
>
> > Ignore any advice about "fat burning zones" -
> > they're an excuse promulgated by fat asses afraid
> > to break a sweat.
>
> I can't comment on "fat burning zones" when it comes to weight loss,
> but it's a well known term for cyclists in training. With a heart
> rate up to about 72% of your maximum, the fuel source is almost
> exclusively fat. This is the "fat burning zone", where about 50% of
> one's training time is spent (and virtually all the early season
> training is done).
>
> Long rides in your fat burning zone will increase endurance and
> stamina, making it easier to recover from higher effort training
> rides and races, and helping to prevent overtraining.
> --
> terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Daniel Crispin]

I see. That makes sense in theory at least.

Will talk it over with a diabetic friend of mine, he is used to adding
insulin levels, I will see what he has to say.


"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel Crispin wrote:
> :: Well I don't eat much bread, I seldom use margarine and never use
> :: butter. I buy olive oil margarine but 1 pound lasts
> :: me about a year. Adding fat to reduce sugar absorbtion sounds
> :: ridiculous. Adding 200 calories is not the way to go!
>
> Not true. What happens is that the reduced carb intake results in
decreased
> appetite...so while someone may have added 200 calories, they still ate
less
> than otherwise, and hence ended up restricting calories (relative to
> maintenance energy needs). Done long enough, this produces weight loss.
>
>

[Daniel Crispin]

I found mine ;)

My Cateye Tomo XC can read speed from 0.0 to 65 Miles per hour on 27 inch
wheels. So I was really going 60 Km/H

Will have to find a bigger hill with smoother road to go that fast. I was
only going at 37.5 MPH

I don't have a great bike. It's a Hybrid with 27 inches well, not sure how
large but let's say normal size ;)

It's worth about 300-600$, I purchased it half price for 300$ but I really
don't think it's worth 600$.

It's a Nakamura Royal, alum frame with front and seat suspension, 24 gears
with Shimano Acera equipment.
Wheels are double walled but the spokes are of low quality. I am thinking
of replacing my rear wheel with
one mounted with better spokes. I wanted to replace mine but the guy said
it's a waste of money becose spokes are worth 1-2$ each
and with labor it will cost me more than buying a new one with better
quality parts...

So far only thing I hate about that bike is that it's really noisy... always
cracking and making little annoying noises... probably due to my weight...
if I had to carry me around at 30 Km/H I would be making noise too ;)


"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Daniel Crispin" > writes:
>
> >> Sheldon Brown has an article on 'The Evils of Coasting'; it's
> >> an interesting read. I'd post the link here, but I'm offline
> >> right now. But at least it's easy to find.
>
> I thought it was easy to find, but upon re-investigating I find his
> diatri-, errm, opinions on the topic are embedded in a discourse
> on fixed-gear. Maybe I also semi-recall reading one of his
> UseNet posts in r.b.tech about why coasting is bad. Or maybe
> I dreamed it(?)
>
> > Coasting? Who's coasting? When I hit a hill I go to the highest gear
and
> > pedal the
> > heck out of my bike. I try to the get the highest speed possible. Not
> > doing so good
> > yet, my max is 60 Km/H but I suspect that might be the limit of my Cat
Eye
> > computer...
>
> Well then, you're doing better than me. I have to struggle to top
> 50 km/h, and my ride weighs lots. But I don't have the best
> wheels in the world, and except for an occasional indulgent
> exuberance, I tend to baby them. My Cheng Shin tires will
> amplify every subtle bump and dip in the road surface -- above
> about 48 Km/h, I'll start collecting 'air miles' on an uneven
> road surface. Whether I want to or not.
>
> But still, have you tried spinning smoothly while undergeared and
> there's little tension on the chain (pedaling while coasting)? It
> feels funny at first, as it amplifies the jerkier sectors of the
> pedal strokes.
>
> I /think/ it's a good way to smooth out one's spin, anyway.
> But, maybe I'm wrong and Jobst Brandt will prove that I am.
> It doesn't hurt to try it, though.
>
> I'll hunt around for the manual for my Cateye computer and
> see if it says anything about the highest speed it'll read,
> and post it here. Unless someone beats me to the punch.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
>
> --
> -- Powered by FreeBSD
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Top Sirloin]

Terry Morse wrote:
> Top Sirloin wrote:
>
>
>>Ignore any advice about "fat burning zones" -
>>they're an excuse promulgated by fat asses afraid
>>to break a sweat.
>
>
> I can't comment on "fat burning zones" when it comes to weight loss,
> but it's a well known term for cyclists in training. With a heart
> rate up to about 72% of your maximum, the fuel source is almost
> exclusively fat. This is the "fat burning zone", where about 50% of
> one's training time is spent (and virtually all the early season
> training is done).
>
> Long rides in your fat burning zone will increase endurance and
> stamina, making it easier to recover from higher effort training
> rides and races, and helping to prevent overtraining.

We're not talking about training effect though. If
he ever plans on racing he'd be well served to
lay down a nice base early on - I'm not going to
dispute that.

Most people only have x number of hours a week for
exercise, and going harder is going to result in
more calories burned than intentionally taking it
slow because you're "burning more fat".

For weight loss you're better off depleting your
glycogen stores during exercise so your body burns
more fat the _rest_of_the_day.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com
currently sitting on his ass burning 100% fat -
wooohoo!

[Daniel Crispin]

I found out (as posted earlier...) 65 MPH... so that's 104 Km/H... dang so
if exceed 104 I won't know my speed... sheeesh ;)

What do you mean safety glasses? I wear sunglasses...

"Bernie" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Daniel Crispin wrote:
>
> >>Pedaling rather than coasting on downhills, regardless of whether
> >>or not your getting any chain tension, might also be an effective
> >>way to work towards a smooth spin. I find it can actually be more
> >>challenging to get a smooth spin going when there's no chain tension.
> >>
> >>Sheldon Brown has an article on 'The Evils of Coasting'; it's
> >>an interesting read. I'd post the link here, but I'm offline
> >>right now. But at least it's easy to find.
> >>
> >
> >Coasting? Who's coasting? When I hit a hill I go to the highest gear and
> >pedal the
> >heck out of my bike. I try to the get the highest speed possible. Not
> >doing so good
> >yet, my max is 60 Km/H but I suspect that might be the limit of my Cat
Eye
> >computer...
> >anyone knows? I was sure flying when I did this.... had to slow down
> >because the road was in bad shape at the bottom too...
> >hitting a pothole at 60 Km/H is not something I want to try ;)
> >
> I do the same. Max speed attained on my hybrid was 67 kph, but I didn't
> have a computer on it for long...
> I haven't put a computer on my touring bike yet, but suspect I've broken
> that speed many times already. I seriously doubt your speedo stops at
> 60. More likely 120 or something.
>
> I am trying to cool it tho, as these rides are on city streets with too
> many wild cards in the deck for reasonable safety.
> Wear your safety glasses, stay well. Grit or a bug in your eye at speed
> might really mess you up.
> Bernie
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Per Elmsäter]

Daniel Crispin wrote:
> Ok... is there a sign that I am in that zone without having to use a
> HRM?
>
The easiest description of the so called aerobic zone is that you should be
able to keep a conversation going. But just barely.

> My legs hurt all the time since I started cycling last month. I
> think I am overtraining but
> it makes little sense since I did wait a day before riding again for
> the first 5 times. Now I
> commute to work by bike so I hope my muscles start to adapt soon,
> cause it's no fun at all ;)
>

Your legs will soon get used to the workload. But do taper yourself in the
beginning. I've heard numbers like a maximum of 20% mileage increase per
week. I don't know how correct that is, but it seems to make sense.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

[Terry Morse]

Daniel Crispin wrote:

> > Ignore any advice about "fat burning zones" - they're an excuse
> > promulgated by fat asses afraid to break a sweat.
>
> I tend to agree there is nothing gained without effort. On the
> other hand if you can do 3 hours at medium pace and only 30 mins
> at a fast pace, the 3 hours are most likelly better. That is why
> I wanted to know how to stay in the right zone that you don't
> expend yourself but can go for hours.

If that's your goal, I suggest you use a heart monitor, determine
your max. heart rate, then ride in the aerobic zone of 66%-72% of
max. You'll get the most aerobic benefit and ought to be able to
ride indefinitely without fatigue. Don't feel bad about not working
"hard enough". Even the pros ride in that zone most of the time.

And regarding carbohydrates, don't skip the carbs when exercising. A
study was done to evaluate the effects of low- and high-carb diets
on fatigue. The high-carb dieters were able to ride 37% longer than
the low-carb dieters before onset of fatigue.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Terry Morse]

Daniel Crispin wrote:

> Ok... is there a sign that I am in that zone (zone 2) without having
> to use a HRM?

Well, there's the perceived effort measurement, but that can be very
subjective. You should be able to hold a conversation in zone 2
(66%-72% of max.) without having to cut off your sentences to
breathe. You're forced to breathe through your mouth, but just
barely. But then, some people breathe more heavily than others. I
can chat away in lower zone 4 (which can be annoying to some riding
buddies). Abnormally big lungs for my size, I guess.

I still recommend a heart monitor. A basic one is inexpensive.

> My legs hurt all the time since I started cycling last month. I
> think I am overtraining but it makes little sense since I did
> wait a day before riding again for the first 5 times.

That sounds like muscle fatigue, which can take from minutes to days
to go away. Spinning at a higher than normal cadence can help, but
rest is still the best idea. Be careful, overtraining is cumulative.
You may want to check your diet to see if you're getting enough
protein. My legs were chronically tired a month or so ago, so I
increased my daily protein intake to about 120 gm. The legs are much
peppier now.

> Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed Mount
> Royal twice... once for the Tour the Nuit event here in Montreal
> and a second time for the fun of it. My legs have kicked up the
> pain one nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol to the rescue.

It's vitamin I for me (ibuprofen), the vitamin of choice for the
masters athlete.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Boatman]

Is there an online reference available which explains what the "zones" are,
the use of the HRM, etc.?

Boatman

[Bernie]

Tom Keats wrote:

>I've only begun to appreciate the unleashed joy of /real/
>descending on terrainous highways, up-country. It's a lot
>different from city streets, that's for sure. And I guess
>that's where that approach belongs, not where you're running
>the risk of getting T-boned or otherwise clobbered.
>
Downhills on good open roads can lead to spooky fast descents. Watch
for the rough spots about 150 meters ahead.

>It's been a most interesting experience for me to taste
>both urban and rural riding.
>
Country roads with light traffic and rolling hills are a treat. Maybe
it's time to dial in one of your "rescued" bikes and make a
roadster/tourer out of it? It is a different dimension in cycling imho.
I put a ton of miles on a Raleigh touring bike about 20 odd years ago.
The bike was old even back then. One of my brothers (the one with the
pickem up truck) found it in a ditch. A 15 or 18 speed, so triple chain
ring.
You've got to experience the Barnet Hwy from E.Hastings St. to Port
Moody on a sunny day with a tailwind. You'll be hooked!
All the best, Bernie

[Bernie]

Daniel Crispin wrote:

>I found out (as posted earlier...) 65 MPH... so that's 104 Km/H... dang so
>if exceed 104 I won't know my speed... sheeesh ;)
>
Do you think you'll be watching the speedo if you are doing 100+ kmph? ;)

>
>
>What do you mean safety glasses? I wear sunglasses...
>
Me too. Big ugly ones that fit over prescription glasses, and wrap the
sides and brow too. If I don't wear those or shop safety glasses in the
dark, my eyes tear up from the wind.
By safety glasses I meant any eye covering that will protect your eyes
from grit, bugs, whatever the wind brings you.
Best regards, Bernie

[Steve Knight]

>No. The laws of thermodynamics are the same for everybody. What typically
>happens when someone who has been on a LC diet eats a significantly higher
>amount of carbs is that they put on weight very quickly but it's almost
>entirely water gain. Remember the massive weight losses in the first week
>or two of the LC diet? That's the same thing in reverse. Those big, quick
>losses were water and all you've done is regain it. You have not gained
>fat.

I thought it was water too but it is still there after two weeks of no more
rice.
but foods are not always digested the same so some foods may go through a
person or some may be absorbed more then others. nothing is very clearcut when
we are talking living bodies.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

[Frederic Briere]

Badger_South > wrote:
> Most did OK, but one teacher says:
>
> "They don't know what that means!"
>
> I replied, 'Well, maybe you should teach them right from left before you
> leave the building'.

Yesterday, I noticed this kid, maybe five, riding from school and
displaying as much street savvy as you'd expect from a five-year-old.
As I watched him drift to the left of the road, and cross an
intersection with that I'm-looking-but-not-really-paying-any-attention
vacant look that's so common at this age, I couldn't help but wonder if
his parents were right in letting him ride a bike alone in the street.

Then I saw that they had made sure he was wearing a helmet.

At least their heart was in the right place.


"The helmet was wearing a cyclist before the crash."
--
Frederic Briere <*>

=> > IS NO MORE: <http://www.abacomsucks.com> <=

[Terry Morse]

Boatman wrote:

> Is there an online reference available which explains what the
> "zones" are, the use of the HRM, etc.?

Here are a couple of good pages that explain heart rate zone
training for cyclists:

http://www.cptips.com/hrmntr.htm
http://www.active.com/print.cfm?category=cycling&story_id=10760

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Daniel Crispin]

> Well, there's the perceived effort measurement, but that can be very
> subjective. You should be able to hold a conversation in zone 2
> (66%-72% of max.) without having to cut off your sentences to
> breathe. You're forced to breathe through your mouth, but just
> barely. But then, some people breathe more heavily than others. I
> can chat away in lower zone 4 (which can be annoying to some riding
> buddies). Abnormally big lungs for my size, I guess.
>
> I still recommend a heart monitor. A basic one is inexpensive.

Ok so when you have to breathe a little hard that is aerobic zone.
Good to know, a friend of mine told me the same but I wanted to
make sure. Right now my legs are slowing me down, not my
lungs... so as soon as that changes I will try to keep in that zone
for most of the rides and then perhaps add a few sprints on the
way back to crank off the calorie burning and increase muscle
strenght.

> That sounds like muscle fatigue, which can take from minutes to days
> to go away. Spinning at a higher than normal cadence can help, but
> rest is still the best idea. Be careful, overtraining is cumulative.
> You may want to check your diet to see if you're getting enough
> protein. My legs were chronically tired a month or so ago, so I
> increased my daily protein intake to about 120 gm. The legs are much
> peppier now.

It sure is muscle fatigue. Just odd that it lasts so long. I don't
remember
having had pain for more than a day before. Then again I was younger
and perhaps my body is just getting slower at healing the damage done.
Increasing protein intake is a good idea, thanks I will do that.

> It's vitamin I for me (ibuprofen), the vitamin of choice for the
> masters athlete.

Never heard of Vitamin I before ;) Will have to look into this.

Anyone has toughts on Glucosamine? It's being promoted heavilly
around here but I don't know anyone that have used it yet.

Friend of mine was a Spirulin addict but I never tried that either ;)

I don't really like the idea of vitamins in a pill I guess. I have serious
doubts that the body can absorb them correctly. When you take
them you notice a really strong change in color in your urine so that
means they get flushed away.

[Daniel Crispin]

> Most people only have x number of hours a week for
> exercise, and going harder is going to result in
> more calories burned than intentionally taking it
> slow because you're "burning more fat".
>
> For weight loss you're better off depleting your
> glycogen stores during exercise so your body burns
> more fat the _rest_of_the_day.

Good point that I had not tought about. It's true that if you deplete your
muscles
you will have to replace that glycogen and so the effect will be pretty
similar.
One of the reasons body building works well to loose weight. You deplete
the
muscles to exaustion and then the rest of the day your body uses the energy
to replendish
them and repair the damage. Also increased the muscle mass, that takes
energy too.

Right now I could not ride that hard even if I wanted to, but it's something
I will keep
in mind when my legs decide to catch up with my will ;)

[Daniel Crispin]

> If that's your goal, I suggest you use a heart monitor, determine
> your max. heart rate, then ride in the aerobic zone of 66%-72% of
> max. You'll get the most aerobic benefit and ought to be able to
> ride indefinitely without fatigue. Don't feel bad about not working
> "hard enough". Even the pros ride in that zone most of the time.

Well after reading a lot of good comments on this newsgroup I think what
I will do is set a distance or a time I want to ride. Then ride half way on
aerobic training and come back as fast as I can sprinting and riding hard.
This way if I get completelly exausted I will be close to home and a good
shower ;)

> And regarding carbohydrates, don't skip the carbs when exercising. A
> study was done to evaluate the effects of low- and high-carb diets
> on fatigue. The high-carb dieters were able to ride 37% longer than
> the low-carb dieters before onset of fatigue.

Yep, I know. I eat a banana before riding right now. Have not felt tired
during
the ride so far. Now I need to find a meal that will be very protein heavy
for after
the ride. I am thinking tuna, chicken and milk or something like that.
Perhaps a protein
shake but I don't really like them.. they taste aweful ;)

[Roger Zoul]

Dennis Ferguson wrote:
:: DRS > wrote:
::: "David Kerber" > wrote in message
:::
:::: In article >,
:::: says...
:::
::: [...]
:::
::::::: "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy
::::::: products, most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55
::::::: percent of calories from carbohydrates."
:::::
::::: And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
::::: American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
::::: 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we
::::: like
::::: to move, but most don't.
::::
:::: NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
:::: calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
:::: from.
:::
::: It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
::: naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works).
::: High carb diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what
::: you don't want if you want to avoid obesity.
::
:: Could be, but it is also the case that an analogous argument is made
:: in favour of high fiber, and hence high carbohydrate, diets. The
:: fiber
:: takes up room in the digestive system and makes one feel full, but
:: has
:: no caloric value so total calorie consumption is reduced.

High fiber != high carbs.

Most low carb diets are high in fiber, because most low carb diets keep the
high fiber veggies. Heck, I'd bet money that my diet is higher in fiber
than most here who don't eat a low carb diet.


::
:: I have no idea what is true. What I do know is that the assertions
:: of
:: the carbs-are-poison people who have all sorts of great reasons why

Carbs aren't poison...excessive carbs are a problem and that leads many who
are inactive to overconsume calories...

:: only
:: low carb, high protein and fat diets can provide sustainable weight

who made that claim? One can lose weight on a low fat diet, even though
low-fat needs to include EFAs.

:: loses don't seem to square with my personal observation that some of
:: the
:: places in the world where obesity is relatively rare and people seem
:: to generally be a pretty good size are also places where a very high
:: fraction of the typical diet consists of unprocessed carbohydrates.

Those people have entirely different lifestyles and probably can't get a
much energy-dense food as we can....

::
:: I don't think I buy the arguent that obesity can only be avoided by
:: limiting carbohydrate consumption unless it is accompanied by an
:: explanation of how whole nations of skinny people who tend to fill
:: their stomachs with large amounts of rice and vegetables, or noodles
:: and vegetables, along with bakery products, could exist.

who says they are eating "large amounts" of anything?

Why is
:: that?

It probably isn't...you're building in biases from the get-go...

::
:: Dennis Ferguson

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> :::: All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
> :::: doesn't matter where they come from.
> :::
> ::: Fair enough. But it's -very- hard to "watch" you calorie intake,
> ::: heh, as in "I watched it go up as I ate more and more, and the
> ::: hunger pangs increased with each doughnut". OK, kidding, but if
> ::: there was a 'magic bullet' and people could just plan out their
> ::: meals and then eat that and only that, sheesh, it would be easy and
> ::: we'd all be thin and happy.
> ::
> :: It's easy for me! I eat all the same things I ever did, just less of
> :: them. Instead of 3 or 4 pieces of pizza, I stop at 2. Instead of
> :: getting the full value meal, I just get the sandwich (and if I'm
> :: thirsty
> :: a small drink). When somebody has a birthday, I only have one piece
> :: of cake.
>
> You apparently don't have any problems with glucose metabolism. Many
> overweight people are well on their way to insulin resistance and diabetes.
> Also, if you are well established in exercising, you can suffer many more
> carbs than a nonactive person.

I'm sure it also helps that I've never been seriously overweight; the
highest I've ever been was 199 lbs, and I'm 6 feet tall. RIght now I'm
down to 179, and still have some love handles I'd like to finish getting
rid of.


> ::: It seems to require a 'trick', be it 'fad diet', or drugs, or
> ::: stomach stapling/gastro-bypass, or imprisonment on an island with
> ::: only rats and
> ::
> :: Yep; nobody wants to do any work on their own, or to have to exert
> :: any
> :: will power.
> ::
>
> Will power is a weak force compared to BG swings. It won't hold up for
> long. How many people do you see how have really used only will power to
> achieve anything?

If you include hard work in with will power, then I've seen many, but
they are still a minority. Most people have never achieved anything
worth striving for.



> :: As long as it works for you, then great, but it doesn't work for
> :: everybody.
>
> For various reasons, too. Among them are ignorance and lack of skill.

Yep.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> >It's easy for me! I eat all the same things I ever did, just less of
> >them. Instead of 3 or 4 pieces of pizza, I stop at 2. Instead of
> >getting the full value meal, I just get the sandwich (and if I'm thirsty
> >a small drink). When somebody has a birthday, I only have one piece of
> >cake.
>
> Cool, but do you get why it's hard for some ppl to just cut their portion
> size? Do you think you have better than average determination, or
> willpower? How do you deal with the desire to cheat?

I think the reason I can do it is that I don't feel like I *must* do it.
If I really feel like cheating, I cheat. Last weekend, I went to
Cumberland Farms (a local convenience store chain) and bought a
container of their premium ice cream. Usually I stretch it out over the
whole week, but for some reason that day I couldn't stop, and ended up
finishing the whole thing. But then I wasn't hungry for the rest of the
day, so I didn't eat any supper. It didn't bother me (except for the
gas it gave me :-P), and I didn't feel guilty about it, because I know
that a one day pig out isn't going to destroy two or three weeks of
gains, and I know that I'll make it up again over the next week or two.
I also occasionally (once every two months or so) go to the chinese
buffet restaurant and stuff myself silly. But again, it won't destroy
the gains I've made, so it doesn't bother me.


<interesting descriptions of personal experience snipped>

> >I think the serious fitness people already have a pretty good handle on
> >their nutrition and weight control, and won't change much. The biggest
> >changes will likely be among those who aren't so serious and think they
> >need more help.

....

> In addition, the 'serious fitness people' may still have a problem when
> they hit middle age, or for some reason can't continue with their sport.
> Perhaps this way of eating will help them.

Yeah, that's a good point. You also see it when they have an injury
which just puts them on the shelf for a couple of months or longer.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:11:07 -0400, David Kerber >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Considering that "high" in this context usually refers to *percentages*
> >of calorie intake, that's kind of hard to do. They were watching total
> >calories as well. But as with most studies, they were designed to get
> >the answer they expected, and didn't sufficiently examine confounding
> >factors. Later studies always find weaknesses in earlier ones, and that
> >includes LC.
> >
> >
> >> Since the researchers had ignored the 'insulin connection', they may have
> >> glossed over the fairly high carb content. As we all know a high carb high
> >> fat diet -is- a recipe for disaster.
> >
> >If it were possible, it would be, but you can't have over 50% of your
> >calories from fat, *and* over 50% of your calories from carbs.
>
> Right, but I mean high in the sense much more than needed to maintain one's
> activities. IOW, it might have been better to have a high fat, low carb
> group, a high fat, moderate carb group, and a high fat, unrestricted carb
> group, if that makes sense.

Ok, now I see what you're saying.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> DRS > wrote:
> >"David Kerber" > wrote in message
>
> >> In article >,
> >> says...
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>>>> "Combined with 2-4 servings of fat-free or low-fat dairy products,
> >>>>> most healthy diets will contain at least 50-55 percent of calories
> >>>>> from carbohydrates."
> >>>
> >>> And people following their advice get fatter and fatter. Too many
> >>> American (at least) just don't get enough exercise to be eating
> >>> 50-55 % of calories from carbs. Maybe those here do, since we like
> >>> to move, but most don't.
> >>
> >> NO! They just don't get enough exercise to be eating as many total
> >> calories as they do. It doesn't much matter what the calories are
> >> from.
> >
> >It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
> >naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works). High carb
> >diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what you don't want if you
> >want to avoid obesity.
>
> Could be, but it is also the case that an analogous argument is made in
> favour of high fiber, and hence high carbohydrate, diets. The fiber

High fiber does not necessarily mean high carbohydrates. Fiber provides
no dietary carbs.

> takes up room in the digestive system and makes one feel full, but has
> no caloric value so total calorie consumption is reduced.

....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> Ok... is there a sign that I am in that zone without having to use a HRM?
>
> My legs hurt all the time since I started cycling last month. I think I am
> overtraining but
> it makes little sense since I did wait a day before riding again for the
> first 5 times. Now I

One day is probably not enough.


> commute to work by bike so I hope my muscles start to adapt soon, cause it's
> no fun at all ;)
>
> Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed Mount Royal
> twice... once for the
> Tour the Nuit event here in Montreal and a second time for the fun of it.
> My legs have kicked up the pain one
> nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol to the rescue.

Try taking 4 or 5 days off. YOu won't lose enough conditioning to worry
about, and your legs will have enough time to recover, so you'll end up
going faster overall.

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Terry Morse]

David Kerber wrote:

> > Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed
> > Mount Royal twice... once for the Tour the Nuit event here in
> > Montreal and a second time for the fun of it. My legs have
> > kicked up the pain one nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol
> > to the rescue.
>
> Try taking 4 or 5 days off. YOu won't lose enough conditioning
> to worry about, and your legs will have enough time to recover,
> so you'll end up going faster overall.

Ooh, 4 to 5 days seems a long time to be completely off the bike.
Unless there's an injury, a few easy spin days shouldn't hurt, or
maybe some brisk walking until the muscle soreness (weakness?)
diminishes.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Top Sirloin]

Daniel Crispin wrote:

> nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol to the rescue.

Use of anti-inflammatories is only going to
prolong the problem. Muscles experience
inflammation for a reason: it's part of the repair
process.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

[Top Sirloin]

Daniel Crispin wrote:


> Well that would work if I was not doing sports every day. When you are
> hungry you don't
> have much energy.

You have to decide if you're riding to improve
your body composition or trying improve your
performance. The optimum approach to one isn't
the optimum for the other.

Good luck!

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> David Kerber wrote:
>
> > > Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed
> > > Mount Royal twice... once for the Tour the Nuit event here in
> > > Montreal and a second time for the fun of it. My legs have
> > > kicked up the pain one nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol
> > > to the rescue.
> >
> > Try taking 4 or 5 days off. YOu won't lose enough conditioning
> > to worry about, and your legs will have enough time to recover,
> > so you'll end up going faster overall.
>
> Ooh, 4 to 5 days seems a long time to be completely off the bike.
> Unless there's an injury, a few easy spin days shouldn't hurt, or
> maybe some brisk walking until the muscle soreness (weakness?)
> diminishes.

Yes, the easy spin days would probably work as well, as long as he can
force himself to make them *easy* spin days. I often find myself
pushing harder than I intended once I'm out there.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Roger Zoul]

David Kerber wrote:
:: In article >,
:: says...
::
:: ...
::
::::::: All I'm saying is that if you watch your calorie intake, and it
::::::: doesn't matter where they come from.
::::::
:::::: Fair enough. But it's -very- hard to "watch" you calorie intake,
:::::: heh, as in "I watched it go up as I ate more and more, and the
:::::: hunger pangs increased with each doughnut". OK, kidding, but if
:::::: there was a 'magic bullet' and people could just plan out their
:::::: meals and then eat that and only that, sheesh, it would be easy
:::::: and we'd all be thin and happy.
:::::
::::: It's easy for me! I eat all the same things I ever did, just
::::: less of them. Instead of 3 or 4 pieces of pizza, I stop at 2.
::::: Instead of getting the full value meal, I just get the sandwich
::::: (and if I'm thirsty
::::: a small drink). When somebody has a birthday, I only have one
::::: piece of cake.
:::
::: You apparently don't have any problems with glucose metabolism.
::: Many overweight people are well on their way to insulin resistance
::: and diabetes. Also, if you are well established in exercising, you
::: can suffer many more carbs than a nonactive person.
::
:: I'm sure it also helps that I've never been seriously overweight; the
:: highest I've ever been was 199 lbs, and I'm 6 feet tall. RIght now
:: I'm down to 179, and still have some love handles I'd like to finish
:: getting rid of.

Absolutely it helps....Until you've been seriously overweight, I just don't
think you an know the situation that really overweight people suffer with.
What they eat definitely makes a difference in their ability to control /
gain control of their weight. In the end, calories do determine whether you
lose, maintain, or gain. But the type of calories factor in strongly on
whether many can gain control (while remaining sane - mind you) of how much
they eat.

::
::
:::::: It seems to require a 'trick', be it 'fad diet', or drugs, or
:::::: stomach stapling/gastro-bypass, or imprisonment on an island with
:::::: only rats and
:::::
::::: Yep; nobody wants to do any work on their own, or to have to exert
::::: any
::::: will power.
:::::
:::
::: Will power is a weak force compared to BG swings. It won't hold up
::: for long. How many people do you see how have really used only
::: will power to achieve anything?
::
:: If you include hard work in with will power, then I've seen many, but
:: they are still a minority. Most people have never achieved anything
:: worth striving for.

NO! I don't include hard work in with will power. IMO, will power comes
into play when you're doing something you really don't want to do....hard
work is easy (ie, little will power needed) if you like what you're doing.
That why depending on will power to lose weight never works, people
generally don't enjoy restriction from food they enjoy. That's also why low
carb works for a lot of really overweight people -- they can eat stuff they
like, not feel hungry, reduce calorie consumption, and lose weight.

::
::
::
::::: As long as it works for you, then great, but it doesn't work for
::::: everybody.
:::
::: For various reasons, too. Among them are ignorance and lack of
::: skill.
::
:: Yep.
::
:: --
:: Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
:: newsgroups if possible).

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:26:22 -0400, David Kerber >
wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> David Kerber wrote:
>>
>> > > Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed
>> > > Mount Royal twice... once for the Tour the Nuit event here in
>> > > Montreal and a second time for the fun of it. My legs have
>> > > kicked up the pain one nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol
>> > > to the rescue.
>> >
>> > Try taking 4 or 5 days off. YOu won't lose enough conditioning
>> > to worry about, and your legs will have enough time to recover,
>> > so you'll end up going faster overall.
>>
>> Ooh, 4 to 5 days seems a long time to be completely off the bike.
>> Unless there's an injury, a few easy spin days shouldn't hurt, or
>> maybe some brisk walking until the muscle soreness (weakness?)
>> diminishes.
>
>Yes, the easy spin days would probably work as well, as long as he can
>force himself to make them *easy* spin days. I often find myself
>pushing harder than I intended once I'm out there.

Glad you said that, b/c only a reelly evol person would suggest being out
of the saddle for 4-5 days.

-B
I mean that's like a person who never really had a weight problem trying to
wax eloquently on how to eat and how to diet, ya know? ;-p

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> >Yes, the easy spin days would probably work as well, as long as he can
> >force himself to make them *easy* spin days. I often find myself
> >pushing harder than I intended once I'm out there.
>
> Glad you said that, b/c only a reelly evol person would suggest being out
> of the saddle for 4-5 days.
>
> -B
> I mean that's like a person who never really had a weight problem trying to
> wax eloquently on how to eat and how to diet, ya know? ;-p

Absolutely; I'm sure nobody around here would do that! <G,D&R>. Of
course, it takes a LOT of _will power_ to keep an "easy spin day" as
easy as it's supposed to be! LOL

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Roger Zoul]

Daniel Crispin wrote:
:: Thanks Arthur,
::
::: If you're looking to lose a lot of weight in a short period of
::: time, the latest diet fad may be more effective than cycling. But
::: if you're willing to work at it, lose weight gradually, and keep
::: it off (while improving your overall fitness and energy level)
::: cycling may be the ticket.
::
:: Diets don't work.

Sigh...I wonder what happened to the 130 lbs I used to carry around...

:: Starving yourself lower your BMR and when you go
:: back to a normal diet you explode.

Sigh...if you ever go back to eating more than you burn you will regain
weight. It don't matter much how you get back there (eating too much or not
exercising) the result is the same.


:: You also loose a lot of muscle
:: mass while on a diet so it compounds to problem.

Sigh...lift weights. if you lose mass, you will lose some muscle in general
(though, via weight training as a newbie, you can lose fat while gaining
muscle, but it doesn't continue like that for long)

:: I have never been
:: a dieter and don't plan
:: on being one.

Sigh...anyone who attempts to manage their weight is a dieter, no matter how
you do it.


::
::: There's no magic formula, except that you must burn more calories
::: than you consume. Daily rides of 10-15 miles are good, but long
::: weekend rides are where you will really burn calories. Speed isn't
::: the main thing. Yes, a faster pace will burn more calories per
::: hour, but riding the same distance at a moderate pace (longer time
::: in the saddle) is almost as good. Don't kill yourself, but don't
::: loaf either.
::
:: Right, I was just trying to figure out an easy way to know just
:: that, what is a medium pace ;) hehehe if I am not out of breath it
:: seems to me I am doing an easy ride with little effort. How do I
:: know I am in the right zone?
::
::: Make cycling a life-long habit, not just something you're going to
::: do for a few months until you reach your target weight. The best
::: way to do that is make it fun, not something you have to endure. It
::: may help to join a club or ride informally with a few other people,
::: especially on long rides.
::
:: I ride with friends mostly... not sure if that is good or bad. In a
:: way it's good because
:: being a social thing it encourages me to do it. On the other hand I
:: can't ride at limit
:: of my endurance if I want to ride with friends who may not be in as
:: good a shape or
:: are not interested in riding hard. I think I will have to do both.
:: Long rides with friends
:: and shorter heavier training alone.
::
::: That sounds like anaerobic threshold training, and is an effective
::: way to achieve fitness. But for weight loss it's all about miles.
::
:: Oh so that would be too high a level for long distance?
::
::: Definitely don't starve yourself while you're riding, but keep the
::: calorie equation in mind (before, during, and after the ride).
::: Normal food is just as good (or better) than energy bars. Energy
::: bars can be more convenient. See what works best for you.
::
:: Ya. Energy bars are convenient because they don't take much room.
:: I can put them in the small bag on
:: my steering bar. Someone suggested bananas. That takes more room
:: but not that much. I will probably try
:: that next time I ride. Fig bars sounds delicious too if I can find
:: any.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> :: I have never been
> :: a dieter and don't plan
> :: on being one.
>
> Sigh...anyone who attempts to manage their weight is a dieter, no matter how
> you do it.

Just as a matter of semantics, I would disagree with this. I would only
consider someone to be a "dieter" if they were managing their weight
either partially or completely by watching what they eat. In the
(admittedly rare) case where someone didn't care what they were eating,
but only managed their weight by changing their activity level, I
wouldn't call them a "dieter".

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:07:13 -0400, David Kerber
> wrote:

>I would only
>consider someone to be a "dieter" if they were managing their weight
>either partially or completely by watching what they eat.

And to split hairs another strand, a dietician would not limit dieters
to those that are attempting to lose weight. Most dieticians are
probably employed doing diets other than weight loss diets.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Roger Zoul]

David Kerber wrote:
:: In article >,
:: says...
::
:: ...
::
::::: I have never been
::::: a dieter and don't plan
::::: on being one.
:::
::: Sigh...anyone who attempts to manage their weight is a dieter, no
::: matter how you do it.
::
:: Just as a matter of semantics, I would disagree with this. I would
:: only consider someone to be a "dieter" if they were managing their
:: weight
:: either partially or completely by watching what they eat. In the
:: (admittedly rare) case where someone didn't care what they were
:: eating,
:: but only managed their weight by changing their activity level, I
:: wouldn't call them a "dieter".

So, if you change your activity level but don't change your eating to
control your weight, you're not dieting? I thnk you are. Otherwise, why not
eat more?

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Daniel Crispin" > writes:


[i]
> I found mine ;)

I'm still looking for mine. Oh, well. I have a certain
love/hate relationship with my computer, so maybe my
subconscious doesn't want me to find it.

> My Cateye Tomo XC can read speed from 0.0 to 65 Miles per hour on 27 inch
> wheels. So I was really going 60 Km/H
>
> Will have to find a bigger hill with smoother road to go that fast. I was
> only going at 37.5 MPH
>
> I don't have a great bike.

Sure you do. We all do :-)

> So far only thing I hate about that bike is that it's really noisy... always
> cracking and making little annoying noises... probably due to my weight...
> if I had to carry me around at 30 Km/H I would be making noise too ;)

My ride's quite phonic, too. Fenders, old style 'rat trap' rack
and various other accoutrements all rattle & squeak. Sometimes little
bumps in the street make my bell spontaneously ring. When I ride
through residential areas, people turn around to see where all the
noise is coming from. I consider it as a way to suggest to
neighbourhoods that they should see about having their pavement repaired.
It must have worked, because now whenever I go on the side streets,
they're blocked off with street repairs.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Roger Zoul]

Daniel Crispin wrote:
::: How about free? And probably less biased than most, because it's
::: not selling anything:
:::
::: http://www.hackersdiet.org
::
:: Thanks I will have a look ;)
::
::: As long as the pressure on your knees is low, I don't think it
::: really matters how fast you spin.
::
:: Well from what I have read spinning faster prevents you from getting
:: tired, thus allowing you to ride longer.
:: Also since you are actually doing aerobic cycling instead of strenght
:: cycling, your muscles will not be as sore
:: after the ride.
::
::: How about something less manufactured and more grown? Bananas are
::: good. So are apples. So are fig bars, for that matter. (I have
::: mixed feelings about the current low-carb fad.)
::
:: Good idea. Bananas are great. fig bars... never seen those, will
:: try to see if they are sold at my supermarket.
:: I agree that the low carb thing is not a good way to go. Optimally
:: I would eat 50% carbs, 20% fat, 30% proteins.


Nonsense....you'd lose weight quickly and easily on low carb. Exercise is a
poor way to lose weight, imo, because if anything happens to prevent you
from continuing it, you haven't changed your eating habits and you simply
regain the weight.

Weight loss and maintenance requires one major thing: diet control.
Exercise helps in terms of burning calories and in terms of improving
fitness, but it is secondary to controling energy balance, that is done so
much more efficiently by simply controling food intake. Low carbing is the
easy way to do that.

Fig bars are full of sugar. Gosh...

[Badger_South]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:53:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul" >
wrote:

>Daniel Crispin wrote:
>:: Thanks Arthur,
>::
>::: If you're looking to lose a lot of weight in a short period of
>::: time, the latest diet fad may be more effective than cycling. But
>::: if you're willing to work at it, lose weight gradually, and keep
>::: it off (while improving your overall fitness and energy level)
>::: cycling may be the ticket.
>::
>:: Diets don't work.
>
>Sigh...I wonder what happened to the 130 lbs I used to carry around...

Why Roger, I'm surprised at you. Don't you know it's all *water*! <eg>

>:: Starving yourself lower your BMR and when you go
>:: back to a normal diet you explode.
>
>Sigh...if you ever go back to eating more than you burn you will regain
>weight. It don't matter much how you get back there (eating too much or not
>exercising) the result is the same.

See, the calories in == energy out equation holds for both gainers and
losers. If you've lost the weight by using a 'fad diet', but then after you
hit goal, maintain by measuring calories, then at most you'll gain back
some water weight (10lbs) coming off the LC way of eating (theoretically),
but if you keep the calories vs energy balanced, you -shouldn't- regain any
more than any other way one loses weight.

Now, typically that's only in theory, b/c the hormones and chemicals in
your body are gonna push you to overeat to regain your set point. And maybe
your metabolism will be a bit screwy, so that maybe on paper the number of
daily calories to hold you at maintenence will be too high. But it's a lot
easier (I'd guess) to keep the will power going when you're at maintenence
and reaping the benes of looking good and feeling good and being able to
exercise at a higher level, and having more muscle...than it is trying to
lose the weight and seeing a fat fsk in the mirror every day, right?

So the 'it's a fad diet' folks can't have it both ways, can they. Either
it's a calories in vs energy expended, or it's not!!! <g>

>:: You also loose a lot of muscle
>:: mass while on a diet so it compounds to problem.
>
>Sigh...lift weights. if you lose mass, you will lose some muscle in general
>(though, via weight training as a newbie, you can lose fat while gaining
>muscle, but it doesn't continue like that for long)

At the end of a low fat diet you may be 'muscle poor'. At the end of a LC
diet, where you have the energy (protein and good fats) to lift weights (an
anaerobic activity, not dependent as much on carbs, except intelligent
supplimenting during the 'glucose window'), you'll have a lot more muscle.
Same thing with low caloric diets. There you -feel- like you're starving
yourself, and you may be. Plus you may be malnourished in some of the
micro-nutrients, etc.

>:: I have never been
>:: a dieter and don't plan
>:: on being one.
>
>Sigh...anyone who attempts to manage their weight is a dieter, no matter how
>you do it.

Anyway, here's a big 'phf-f-f-ft' to the 'fad dieters' who still are
overweight:

Today, I tried on my old 35" waist black jeans and they fit perfectly! Plus
I'm now down in the 220s, and thus only about 20lbs from goal, and there's
only a very little bit of 'jiggle'. My handles are almost gone (I blame
that on biking!), and just have a little bit in the belly and some on the
upper thighs. So, if I'm doing it wrong, I don't wanna be "right" (by their
standards)! <g>

-Badger

[Daniel Crispin]

5 days!!!! ;)

Well I will try to take 2 days off and see what it does ;) I commute to
work with
my bike now. 8 KM twice a day. If it starts raining it will mean days off
but so far
I have been doing it every day since I started last week ;)



"David Kerber" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> > Ok... is there a sign that I am in that zone without having to use a
HRM?
> >
> > My legs hurt all the time since I started cycling last month. I think I
am
> > overtraining but
> > it makes little sense since I did wait a day before riding again for the
> > first 5 times. Now I
>
> One day is probably not enough.
>
>
> > commute to work by bike so I hope my muscles start to adapt soon, cause
it's
> > no fun at all ;)
> >
> > Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed Mount Royal
> > twice... once for the
> > Tour the Nuit event here in Montreal and a second time for the fun of
it.
> > My legs have kicked up the pain one
> > nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol to the rescue.
>
> Try taking 4 or 5 days off. YOu won't lose enough conditioning to worry
> about, and your legs will have enough time to recover, so you'll end up
> going faster overall.
>
> ....
>
> --
> Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> newsgroups if possible).

[Daniel Crispin]

"Terry Morse" > wrote in message
...
> David Kerber wrote:
>
> > > Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed
> > > Mount Royal twice... once for the Tour the Nuit event here in
> > > Montreal and a second time for the fun of it. My legs have
> > > kicked up the pain one nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol
> > > to the rescue.
> >
> > Try taking 4 or 5 days off. YOu won't lose enough conditioning
> > to worry about, and your legs will have enough time to recover,
> > so you'll end up going faster overall.
>
> Ooh, 4 to 5 days seems a long time to be completely off the bike.
> Unless there's an injury, a few easy spin days shouldn't hurt, or
> maybe some brisk walking until the muscle soreness (weakness?)
> diminishes

Well it's like a heavy stiffness with a little pain. I notice it most at
night
when trying to sleep. Today it's not so bad, I guess my legs are finally
accepting their fate and will stop bugging me ;)

Last two days I was able to bring myself almost out of breath, something
I could not do before because the legs would quit before I got there.

[Daniel Crispin]

"David Kerber" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> > David Kerber wrote:
> >
> > > > Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed
> > > > Mount Royal twice... once for the Tour the Nuit event here in
> > > > Montreal and a second time for the fun of it. My legs have
> > > > kicked up the pain one nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol
> > > > to the rescue.
> > >
> > > Try taking 4 or 5 days off. YOu won't lose enough conditioning
> > > to worry about, and your legs will have enough time to recover,
> > > so you'll end up going faster overall.
> >
> > Ooh, 4 to 5 days seems a long time to be completely off the bike.
> > Unless there's an injury, a few easy spin days shouldn't hurt, or
> > maybe some brisk walking until the muscle soreness (weakness?)
> > diminishes.
>
> Yes, the easy spin days would probably work as well, as long as he can
> force himself to make them *easy* spin days. I often find myself
> pushing harder than I intended once I'm out there.


You do that too hey? ;) I can't ride slower, my brain will simply not let
me
ride slower than what I can go. When I slow down it means that something
is forcing me to: People, wind, hills. That's about it.

Oh and sometimes I find myself following a very cute cycling... I just don't
have
the heart to pass her... lol!

[Daniel Crispin]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel Crispin wrote:
> :: Thanks Arthur,
> ::
> ::: If you're looking to lose a lot of weight in a short period of
> ::: time, the latest diet fad may be more effective than cycling. But
> ::: if you're willing to work at it, lose weight gradually, and keep
> ::: it off (while improving your overall fitness and energy level)
> ::: cycling may be the ticket.
> ::
> :: Diets don't work.
>
> Sigh...I wonder what happened to the 130 lbs I used to carry around...

Are you trying to tell me you cut your food intake and did no exercise?
Dieting will make you loose muscle before it will make you loose fat.
When you are starving yourself your body goes in energy saving mode
and burn off muscle because they are too expensive to maintain. Gotta
do sports, excercise and training first, otherwise not eating will only make
matters worst when you return to a normal diet with half of your muscle mass
gone.

> :: Starving yourself lower your BMR and when you go
> :: back to a normal diet you explode.
>
> Sigh...if you ever go back to eating more than you burn you will regain
> weight. It don't matter much how you get back there (eating too much or
not
> exercising) the result is the same.

No it's not. If your BMR is 2100 before your diet and is down to 1500 after
your
diet, you will be over eating by having a normal meal. That is why you have
to keep
your muscle mass or improve it. So that when you reach your target weight,
you can
eat normally.


> :: You also loose a lot of muscle
> :: mass while on a diet so it compounds to problem.
>
> Sigh...lift weights. if you lose mass, you will lose some muscle in
general
> (though, via weight training as a newbie, you can lose fat while gaining
> muscle, but it doesn't continue like that for long)

Weight lifting is a great way to start. Cycling will burn more calories
because you can
do it for longer periods of time. I can't see myself weight training 5
hours in a day.
> :: I have never been
> :: a dieter and don't plan
> :: on being one.
>
> Sigh...anyone who attempts to manage their weight is a dieter, no matter
how
> you do it.

That is true and it is not what I meant as you most likelly know. Dieters
are people
going from one diet to an other an only getting worst as time passes.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Bernie > writes:

> Country roads with light traffic and rolling hills are a treat. Maybe
> it's time to dial in one of your "rescued" bikes and make a
> roadster/tourer out of it?

That's pretty much what I did. Actually, I just combined my
best Sekine with the Araya.

> It is a different dimension in cycling imho.
> I put a ton of miles on a Raleigh touring bike about 20 odd years ago.
> The bike was old even back then. One of my brothers (the one with the
> pickem up truck) found it in a ditch. A 15 or 18 speed, so triple chain
> ring.

This thing I've got just has the 48/39 up front, and an old
14-34 MTB freewheel and some old MTB rear der on the back.
But it does the trick, and even works more-or-less properly
somehow. But some of the roads up there really need fatter,
treadier tires.

> You've got to experience the Barnet Hwy from E.Hastings St. to Port
> Moody on a sunny day with a tailwind.

BTDT (except maybe for the tailwind.) I was going to Port Moody
for haircuts for awhile. One of these days I /must/ continue
past, up to Sasamat or Buntzen Lake. In my younger years I did
some rides up the Lougheed Hwy, too. That was before that
newfangled twinned Pitt River Bridge, and before the old Mary Hill
bridge got washed out. Now I don't even know if the Wild Duck
Inn is still there. Is it?

But those areas are all still so [sub]urban. The Barnett Hwy has
sulphur piles in the port to look at, and impatient commuters,
and gun ranges. Hwy 97 OTOH has people who might call themselves
'rednecks' but who can be surprisingly urbane and socially
articulate and friendly, even toward bike riders. Later at night
one might encounter drunk drivers heading home from the Oasis,
though. It also sometimes has relocated mountain sheep (from
the Rockies), strange & interesting weather patterns, geological
features, ginseng farms, long-horned rodeo kine and wild flora.
Unlike the city, it doesn't have many places to stop for a cup of
fair trade coffee, or a sachet of smoked almonds & a bottle of
iced tea. OTotherOH, riding to Dey's in Savona for a sachet of
smoked almonds & a bottle of ice tea sort of earns the pleasure of
those indulgences. Especially after the claw-&-crawl back up the
hill on a hot day. I think a lot of the (self-described) 'rednecks'
up there, when they someone riding a bike, would, rather than
mocking or razzing them, would feel sorry for them and offer to
give them a spare car or truck. Well, I guess their hearts are
in the right places, anyways.

So anyhow:

1) Country hills are more enjoyable than urban/suburban hills
when going down 'em. Worse ( <grin> ) when going up 'em.

2) I find country riding is interestingly different from city riding,
just by dint of the social as well as geological differences.

3) In another thread somewhere (I forget which), someone seemed
to be putting-down 'rednecks'. Just 'cuz they like Johnny Horton
and George Jones, and know how poach pheasants or plink gophers,
doesn't mean they can't discuss how Herman Melville and William
Blake have influenced our views of the natural vs social worlds,
or Henry Moore's use of positive and negative space as metaphor,
or whether Pink Floyd, Yes and Led Zeppelin will be classical music
in 200 years. Redneckery ain't necessarily slack-jawed stupidity,
anti-social hostility, or iggorance. In my admittedly little experience
it's city people who are more anti-cyclingly hostile than 'rednecks'
out in the boonies.

Here's to good people, free thought, and country hills. And Led Zep III
in 200 years.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Daniel Crispin]

Well one goes with the other. You train and burn as much as you can, and
you watch what you are eating too.

I have aimed at 2000 Kcalories per day, it's not an insane number like the
1200 KCals I have seen on some
diets and I am not hungry. I burn on average about 500-700 Kcals per day
and my BMR is anywhere between
2150 and 3000 depending where I check ;) So considering 2150, I am in debt
of around 650 KCals per day.
It is not extreme but I feel good and am not weak. I will see over a month
what it's doing. Over a month it should
make me loose about 6 pounds of fat. Not much but by then I should be in
shape so I will be able to burn more
and might be able to cut an other 100 KCals without noticing it since I will
be used to watching what I eat.

My main problem has been lack of excercise and portion sizes. I am making
sure that is fixed. Will go from
there.




"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel Crispin wrote:
> ::: How about free? And probably less biased than most, because it's
> ::: not selling anything:
> :::
> ::: http://www.hackersdiet.org
> ::
> :: Thanks I will have a look ;)
> ::
> ::: As long as the pressure on your knees is low, I don't think it
> ::: really matters how fast you spin.
> ::
> :: Well from what I have read spinning faster prevents you from getting
> :: tired, thus allowing you to ride longer.
> :: Also since you are actually doing aerobic cycling instead of strenght
> :: cycling, your muscles will not be as sore
> :: after the ride.
> ::
> ::: How about something less manufactured and more grown? Bananas are
> ::: good. So are apples. So are fig bars, for that matter. (I have
> ::: mixed feelings about the current low-carb fad.)
> ::
> :: Good idea. Bananas are great. fig bars... never seen those, will
> :: try to see if they are sold at my supermarket.
> :: I agree that the low carb thing is not a good way to go. Optimally
> :: I would eat 50% carbs, 20% fat, 30% proteins.
>
>
> Nonsense....you'd lose weight quickly and easily on low carb. Exercise is
a
> poor way to lose weight, imo, because if anything happens to prevent you
> from continuing it, you haven't changed your eating habits and you simply
> regain the weight.
>
> Weight loss and maintenance requires one major thing: diet control.
> Exercise helps in terms of burning calories and in terms of improving
> fitness, but it is secondary to controling energy balance, that is done so
> much more efficiently by simply controling food intake. Low carbing is
the
> easy way to do that.
>
> Fig bars are full of sugar. Gosh...
>
>

[Daniel Crispin]

Good to hear, 20 pounds from goal is great. How fast are you loosing
weight?

I am planing on gaining muscle before I really go at weight loosing. So I
am planing on
loosing about 6 pounds this month, next month I will crank up the burner and
plan on loosing 10-15.



"Badger_South" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:53:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul" >
> wrote:
>
> >Daniel Crispin wrote:
> >:: Thanks Arthur,
> >::
> >::: If you're looking to lose a lot of weight in a short period of
> >::: time, the latest diet fad may be more effective than cycling. But
> >::: if you're willing to work at it, lose weight gradually, and keep
> >::: it off (while improving your overall fitness and energy level)
> >::: cycling may be the ticket.
> >::
> >:: Diets don't work.
> >
> >Sigh...I wonder what happened to the 130 lbs I used to carry around...
>
> Why Roger, I'm surprised at you. Don't you know it's all *water*! <eg>
>
> >:: Starving yourself lower your BMR and when you go
> >:: back to a normal diet you explode.
> >
> >Sigh...if you ever go back to eating more than you burn you will regain
> >weight. It don't matter much how you get back there (eating too much or
not
> >exercising) the result is the same.
>
> See, the calories in == energy out equation holds for both gainers and
> losers. If you've lost the weight by using a 'fad diet', but then after
you
> hit goal, maintain by measuring calories, then at most you'll gain back
> some water weight (10lbs) coming off the LC way of eating (theoretically),
> but if you keep the calories vs energy balanced, you -shouldn't- regain
any
> more than any other way one loses weight.
>
> Now, typically that's only in theory, b/c the hormones and chemicals in
> your body are gonna push you to overeat to regain your set point. And
maybe
> your metabolism will be a bit screwy, so that maybe on paper the number of
> daily calories to hold you at maintenence will be too high. But it's a lot
> easier (I'd guess) to keep the will power going when you're at maintenence
> and reaping the benes of looking good and feeling good and being able to
> exercise at a higher level, and having more muscle...than it is trying to
> lose the weight and seeing a fat fsk in the mirror every day, right?
>
> So the 'it's a fad diet' folks can't have it both ways, can they. Either
> it's a calories in vs energy expended, or it's not!!! <g>
>
> >:: You also loose a lot of muscle
> >:: mass while on a diet so it compounds to problem.
> >
> >Sigh...lift weights. if you lose mass, you will lose some muscle in
general
> >(though, via weight training as a newbie, you can lose fat while gaining
> >muscle, but it doesn't continue like that for long)
>
> At the end of a low fat diet you may be 'muscle poor'. At the end of a LC
> diet, where you have the energy (protein and good fats) to lift weights
(an
> anaerobic activity, not dependent as much on carbs, except intelligent
> supplimenting during the 'glucose window'), you'll have a lot more muscle.
> Same thing with low caloric diets. There you -feel- like you're starving
> yourself, and you may be. Plus you may be malnourished in some of the
> micro-nutrients, etc.
>
> >:: I have never been
> >:: a dieter and don't plan
> >:: on being one.
> >
> >Sigh...anyone who attempts to manage their weight is a dieter, no matter
how
> >you do it.
>
> Anyway, here's a big 'phf-f-f-ft' to the 'fad dieters' who still are
> overweight:
>
> Today, I tried on my old 35" waist black jeans and they fit perfectly!
Plus
> I'm now down in the 220s, and thus only about 20lbs from goal, and there's
> only a very little bit of 'jiggle'. My handles are almost gone (I blame
> that on biking!), and just have a little bit in the belly and some on the
> upper thighs. So, if I'm doing it wrong, I don't wanna be "right" (by
their
> standards)! <g>
>
> -Badger
>
>

[Daniel Crispin]

ROFL! Well making noise is helping your community ;)

I don't have a bell. Find them pretty useless. I would love to have
compressed air horns though ;) That would scare the heck out of some
roller bladers blocking the whole path ;)

"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Daniel Crispin" > writes:
>
>
>[i]
> > I found mine ;)
>
> I'm still looking for mine. Oh, well. I have a certain
> love/hate relationship with my computer, so maybe my
> subconscious doesn't want me to find it.
>
> > My Cateye Tomo XC can read speed from 0.0 to 65 Miles per hour on 27
inch
> > wheels. So I was really going 60 Km/H
> >
> > Will have to find a bigger hill with smoother road to go that fast. I
was
> > only going at 37.5 MPH
> >
> > I don't have a great bike.
>
> Sure you do. We all do :-)
>
> > So far only thing I hate about that bike is that it's really noisy...
always
> > cracking and making little annoying noises... probably due to my
weight...
> > if I had to carry me around at 30 Km/H I would be making noise too ;)
>
> My ride's quite phonic, too. Fenders, old style 'rat trap' rack
> and various other accoutrements all rattle & squeak. Sometimes little
> bumps in the street make my bell spontaneously ring. When I ride
> through residential areas, people turn around to see where all the
> noise is coming from. I consider it as a way to suggest to
> neighbourhoods that they should see about having their pavement repaired.
> It must have worked, because now whenever I go on the side streets,
> they're blocked off with street repairs.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
> --
> -- Powered by FreeBSD
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Bernie]

Tom Keats wrote:

>In article >,
> Bernie > writes:
>
>>Country roads with light traffic and rolling hills are a treat. Maybe
>>it's time to dial in one of your "rescued" bikes and make a
>>roadster/tourer out of it?
>>
>
>That's pretty much what I did. Actually, I just combined my
>best Sekine with the Araya.
>
I din't know you had a road bike.

>
>
>>It is a different dimension in cycling imho.
>>I put a ton of miles on a Raleigh touring bike about 20 odd years ago.
>>The bike was old even back then. One of my brothers (the one with the
>>pickem up truck) found it in a ditch. A 15 or 18 speed, so triple chain
>>ring.
>>
>
>This thing I've got just has the 48/39 up front, and an old
>14-34 MTB freewheel and some old MTB rear der on the back.
>But it does the trick, and even works more-or-less properly
>somehow. But some of the roads up there really need fatter,
>treadier tires.
>
Sounds workable, alright. Does it fit?
Most roads need real world tires, imho. I am using 700 x 32's. Don't
think I want to get skinnier... just want to pump them up a bit more.

>
>
>>You've got to experience the Barnet Hwy from E.Hastings St. to Port
>>Moody on a sunny day with a tailwind.
>>
>
>BTDT (except maybe for the tailwind.) I was going to Port Moody
>for haircuts for awhile. One of these days I /must/ continue
>past, up to Sasamat or Buntzen Lake.
>
The tailwind comes most every afternoon. Sasamat and Buntzen are quite
busy traffic these days, if on Ioco Rd.

> In my younger years I did
>some rides up the Lougheed Hwy, too. That was before that
>newfangled twinned Pitt River Bridge, and before the old Mary Hill
>bridge got washed out. Now I don't even know if the Wild Duck
>Inn is still there. Is it?
>
Sad to say, it's not a bar any more. A hundred years ago, we underage
teens useta drink our faces off there, and sometimes meet women! A
great place to be back then.
I still like to ride the Lougheed to Albion, cross on the ferry, and
make my back via the Patullo Bridge to home. Sometimes it's too busy
and noisy, sometimes it's a blast. I need to do it on my Fuji just to
introduce it to some real road riding.

>
>
>But those areas are all still so [sub]urban. The Barnett Hwy has
>sulphur piles in the port to look at, and impatient commuters,
>and gun ranges. Hwy 97 OTOH has people who might call themselves
>'rednecks' but who can be surprisingly urbane and socially
>articulate and friendly, even toward bike riders. Later at night
>one might encounter drunk drivers heading home from the Oasis,
>though. It also sometimes has relocated mountain sheep (from
>the Rockies), strange & interesting weather patterns, geological
>features, ginseng farms, long-horned rodeo kine and wild flora.
>Unlike the city, it doesn't have many places to stop for a cup of
>fair trade coffee, or a sachet of smoked almonds & a bottle of
>iced tea. OTotherOH, riding to Dey's in Savona for a sachet of
>smoked almonds & a bottle of ice tea sort of earns the pleasure of
>those indulgences. Especially after the claw-&-crawl back up the
>hill on a hot day. I think a lot of the (self-described) 'rednecks'
>up there, when they someone riding a bike, would, rather than
>mocking or razzing them, would feel sorry for them and offer to
>give them a spare car or truck. Well, I guess their hearts are
>in the right places, anyways.
>
>So anyhow:
>
>1) Country hills are more enjoyable than urban/suburban hills
> when going down 'em. Worse ( <grin> ) when going up 'em.
>
>2) I find country riding is interestingly different from city riding,
> just by dint of the social as well as geological differences.
>
>3) In another thread somewhere (I forget which), someone seemed
> to be putting-down 'rednecks'. Just 'cuz they like Johnny Horton
> and George Jones, and know how poach pheasants or plink gophers,
> doesn't mean they can't discuss how Herman Melville and William
> Blake have influenced our views of the natural vs social worlds,
> or Henry Moore's use of positive and negative space as metaphor,
> or whether Pink Floyd, Yes and Led Zeppelin will be classical music
> in 200 years. Redneckery ain't necessarily slack-jawed stupidity,
> anti-social hostility, or iggorance. In my admittedly little experience
> it's city people who are more anti-cyclingly hostile than 'rednecks'
> out in the boonies.
>
>Here's to good people, free thought, and country hills. And Led Zep III
>in 200 years.
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom
>
Cheers Tom. Get an old wood guitar and you'll be a cowboy poet yet!
And what better modern cowboy steed than a tough practical bike with a
country boy mounted?
Best regards, Bernie

[richie]

I am cycling for weight loss and am in week 6 of my base fitness programme.
I started at 100kg (220 pounds) on a 170 cm frame (I can be described as
short and very well padded). I ride a Giant OCR 2 with three front gear
rings. I am 45.

I am now at 97 kg. Not a drastic reduction but the reason is still a love
affair with ice cream and fish and chips. I have vowed to change this. In
addition I have just started some weight training (low weights, high reps)
for tone and increased strength/suppleness.

I ride long rides primarily on the flat but with short (1-2km) hills twice
in the ride. I live at the top of a sharp climb so some hill work is
inescapable. I started weekly mileage at 210 km and I increase my weekly
total by 5% for three weeks in a row. I then have a rest week where I cut
my distance in half. I ride day on and day off with an occasional 2 or even
3 day break if my body says rest a bit more. I sleep like a baby. My weekly
kilometrage is now heading towards 280km. I'm aiming for 350-450 max per
week. With base fitness and a lot less weight (aiming for 10-15 kg off) I'll
move on to strength and speed work as there is a 160k race in November I
have my eyes on.

I don't get too disappointed at puffing slowly up the unavoidable hills as I
tell myself that every kg I lose will mean better speed and performance in
due course. When the weight is down and my fitness is sparkling I look
forward to trying myself against some big hills.

I spin at 90-100 rpm, trying to keep my beats per minute at 135-149. (max
BPM is around 176). I never use the top gear ring, nearly always the middle
gear ring. I use a Polar heart monitor and download every ride to my PC.
The growing graph database of distance/cadence/heart rate/time really helps
is my planning. During a ride my heart rate lets me know if I should ease up
or pour more on. I can always chat with fellow riders.

I believe this programme (for me) is the best to avoid over training/injury,
whilst ensuring shorter recovery times by high cadence spinning. Provided I
can be more disciplined on the diet side I am confident I can get under 90
kg ( my weight 14 years ago) and even more back to when I was a slim 18 year
old. I am relishing the work and the challenge.

cheers

richie



"Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
. ..
> > Well, there's the perceived effort measurement, but that can be very
> > subjective. You should be able to hold a conversation in zone 2
> > (66%-72% of max.) without having to cut off your sentences to
> > breathe. You're forced to breathe through your mouth, but just
> > barely. But then, some people breathe more heavily than others. I
> > can chat away in lower zone 4 (which can be annoying to some riding
> > buddies). Abnormally big lungs for my size, I guess.
> >
> > I still recommend a heart monitor. A basic one is inexpensive.
>
> Ok so when you have to breathe a little hard that is aerobic zone.
> Good to know, a friend of mine told me the same but I wanted to
> make sure. Right now my legs are slowing me down, not my
> lungs... so as soon as that changes I will try to keep in that zone
> for most of the rides and then perhaps add a few sprints on the
> way back to crank off the calorie burning and increase muscle
> strenght.
>
> > That sounds like muscle fatigue, which can take from minutes to days
> > to go away. Spinning at a higher than normal cadence can help, but
> > rest is still the best idea. Be careful, overtraining is cumulative.
> > You may want to check your diet to see if you're getting enough
> > protein. My legs were chronically tired a month or so ago, so I
> > increased my daily protein intake to about 120 gm. The legs are much
> > peppier now.
>
> It sure is muscle fatigue. Just odd that it lasts so long. I don't
> remember
> having had pain for more than a day before. Then again I was younger
> and perhaps my body is just getting slower at healing the damage done.
> Increasing protein intake is a good idea, thanks I will do that.
>
> > It's vitamin I for me (ibuprofen), the vitamin of choice for the
> > masters athlete.
>
> Never heard of Vitamin I before ;) Will have to look into this.
>
> Anyone has toughts on Glucosamine? It's being promoted heavilly
> around here but I don't know anyone that have used it yet.
>
> Friend of mine was a Spirulin addict but I never tried that either ;)
>
> I don't really like the idea of vitamins in a pill I guess. I have
serious
> doubts that the body can absorb them correctly. When you take
> them you notice a really strong change in color in your urine so that
> means they get flushed away.
>
>

[Badger_South]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:26:11 -0400, "Daniel Crispin"
> wrote:

>Good to hear, 20 pounds from goal is great. How fast are you loosing
>weight?
>
>I am planing on gaining muscle before I really go at weight loosing. So I
>am planing on
>loosing about 6 pounds this month, next month I will crank up the burner and
>plan on loosing 10-15.
>

I'm losing about 1-2lb per week, but there are the inevitable peaks and
troughs. I try to weigh myself only 2-3 times a week.

Good luck on your plan.

-B
But, dude, do me a favor and spell 'losing' correctly. You're cracking me
up! ;-p

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> ::::: I have never been
> ::::: a dieter and don't plan
> ::::: on being one.
> :::
> ::: Sigh...anyone who attempts to manage their weight is a dieter, no
> ::: matter how you do it.
> ::
> :: Just as a matter of semantics, I would disagree with this. I would
> :: only consider someone to be a "dieter" if they were managing their
> :: weight
> :: either partially or completely by watching what they eat. In the
> :: (admittedly rare) case where someone didn't care what they were
> :: eating,
> :: but only managed their weight by changing their activity level, I
> :: wouldn't call them a "dieter".
>
> So, if you change your activity level but don't change your eating to
> control your weight, you're not dieting?

Yes, IMO.

> I thnk you are. Otherwise, why not
> eat more?

Maybe because you don't want to? Or you can't afford to? Lots of
possible reason...


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Terry Morse" > wrote in message
> ...
> > David Kerber wrote:
> >
> > > > Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed
> > > > Mount Royal twice... once for the Tour the Nuit event here in
> > > > Montreal and a second time for the fun of it. My legs have
> > > > kicked up the pain one nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol
> > > > to the rescue.
> > >
> > > Try taking 4 or 5 days off. YOu won't lose enough conditioning
> > > to worry about, and your legs will have enough time to recover,
> > > so you'll end up going faster overall.
> >
> > Ooh, 4 to 5 days seems a long time to be completely off the bike.
> > Unless there's an injury, a few easy spin days shouldn't hurt, or
> > maybe some brisk walking until the muscle soreness (weakness?)
> > diminishes
>
> Well it's like a heavy stiffness with a little pain. I notice it most at
> night
> when trying to sleep. Today it's not so bad, I guess my legs are finally
> accepting their fate and will stop bugging me ;)
>
> Last two days I was able to bring myself almost out of breath, something
> I could not do before because the legs would quit before I got there.

In that case, you might look at running in a lower gear and raising your
cadence a bit. That's exactly what was happening to be before I heard
about faster cadences: I'd finish a ride and my legs would be so tired
I could hardly walk, and I wouldn't even be breathing hard. Raising my
cadence extended the life in my legs to the point where (after a few
months of it), my legs and lungs give out at about the same time, and
it's much further along than it was before.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:19:44 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> wrote:

>So, if you change your activity level but don't change your eating to
>control your weight, you're not dieting? I thnk you are. Otherwise, why not
>eat more?

If you are watching what you eat, you are dieting. The diet you are
watching is simply not a reduced calorie diet.

OTOH, the long distance cyclists that stop at any McDonalds and scarf
down milk shakes are probably not dieters.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[The Queen of Cans and Jars]

David Kerber > wrote:

> In that case, you might look at running in a lower gear and raising your
> cadence a bit. That's exactly what was happening to be before I heard
> about faster cadences: I'd finish a ride and my legs would be so tired
> I could hardly walk, and I wouldn't even be breathing hard. Raising my
> cadence extended the life in my legs to the point where (after a few
> months of it), my legs and lungs give out at about the same time, and
> it's much further along than it was before.

an easy way to remember it: if your legs hurt, shift to an easier gear
(spin). if your lungs hurt, shift to a harder gear (push).

a nice easy spin is usually the most effective way to go, both for speed
on the road and physical comfort.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> David Kerber > wrote:
>
> > In that case, you might look at running in a lower gear and raising your
> > cadence a bit. That's exactly what was happening to be before I heard
> > about faster cadences: I'd finish a ride and my legs would be so tired
> > I could hardly walk, and I wouldn't even be breathing hard. Raising my
> > cadence extended the life in my legs to the point where (after a few
> > months of it), my legs and lungs give out at about the same time, and
> > it's much further along than it was before.
>
> an easy way to remember it: if your legs hurt, shift to an easier gear
> (spin). if your lungs hurt, shift to a harder gear (push).

And if they're both hurting, you better hope the ride's almost over
<Grin>.


> a nice easy spin is usually the most effective way to go, both for speed
> on the road and physical comfort.

Yes, within limits. I rode last week with a guy who was on a MTB, and
he must have used a cadence of 110 to 120. But he only did it for a few
(up to 15 or so) seconds at a time, then coasted for a while. Made me
tired just watching him...

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[DRS]

"richie" > wrote in message

> I am cycling for weight loss and am in week 6 of my base fitness
> programme. I started at 100kg (220 pounds) on a 170 cm frame (I can
> be described as short and very well padded). I ride a Giant OCR 2
> with three front gear rings. I am 45.
>
> I am now at 97 kg. Not a drastic reduction but the reason is still a
> love affair with ice cream and fish and chips. I have vowed to change
> this. In addition I have just started some weight training (low
> weights, high reps) for tone and increased strength/suppleness.

It's good you're in the gym but training for endurance won't increase either
your strength or your suppleness. And there is no such thing as 'tone'. If
you want your weight training to assist your body recomposition goal you
need to train for hypertrophy (medium reps, medium weight) as well as diet
properly. Increasing your LBM will increase your BMR and training for size
always brings some strength gains anyway.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[The Queen of Cans and Jars]

David Kerber > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > David Kerber > wrote:
> >
> > > In that case, you might look at running in a lower gear and raising your
> > > cadence a bit. That's exactly what was happening to be before I heard
> > > about faster cadences: I'd finish a ride and my legs would be so tired
> > > I could hardly walk, and I wouldn't even be breathing hard. Raising my
> > > cadence extended the life in my legs to the point where (after a few
> > > months of it), my legs and lungs give out at about the same time, and
> > > it's much further along than it was before.
> >
> > an easy way to remember it: if your legs hurt, shift to an easier gear
> > (spin). if your lungs hurt, shift to a harder gear (push).
>
> And if they're both hurting, you better hope the ride's almost over
> <Grin>.

word. there comes a time when collapsing in a tired, sweaty heap is the
way to go. ;)

> > a nice easy spin is usually the most effective way to go, both for speed
> > on the road and physical comfort.
>
> Yes, within limits. I rode last week with a guy who was on a MTB, and
> he must have used a cadence of 110 to 120. But he only did it for a few
> (up to 15 or so) seconds at a time, then coasted for a while. Made me
> tired just watching him...

that's not spinning, though: that's being an idiot. a nice easy spin is
one you can keep going for as long as the terrain remains unchanged.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> David Kerber > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > David Kerber > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In that case, you might look at running in a lower gear and raising your
> > > > cadence a bit. That's exactly what was happening to be before I heard
> > > > about faster cadences: I'd finish a ride and my legs would be so tired
> > > > I could hardly walk, and I wouldn't even be breathing hard. Raising my
> > > > cadence extended the life in my legs to the point where (after a few
> > > > months of it), my legs and lungs give out at about the same time, and
> > > > it's much further along than it was before.
> > >
> > > an easy way to remember it: if your legs hurt, shift to an easier gear
> > > (spin). if your lungs hurt, shift to a harder gear (push).
> >
> > And if they're both hurting, you better hope the ride's almost over
> > <Grin>.
>
> word. there comes a time when collapsing in a tired, sweaty heap is the
> way to go. ;)

;-)

>
> > > a nice easy spin is usually the most effective way to go, both for speed
> > > on the road and physical comfort.
> >
> > Yes, within limits. I rode last week with a guy who was on a MTB, and
> > he must have used a cadence of 110 to 120. But he only did it for a few
> > (up to 15 or so) seconds at a time, then coasted for a while. Made me
> > tired just watching him...
>
> that's not spinning, though: that's being an idiot. a nice easy spin is
> one you can keep going for as long as the terrain remains unchanged.

That's my feeling too, but I didn't say anything other than to joke
about it with him. He kept sprinting away from the group, and then the
group would catch up with him while he coasted. He'll either figure it
out himself, burn himself out completely, or turn into the fastest rider
around.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Terry Morse]

David Kerber wrote:

> > that's not spinning, though: that's being an idiot. a nice easy spin is
> > one you can keep going for as long as the terrain remains unchanged.
>
> That's my feeling too, but I didn't say anything other than to joke
> about it with him. He kept sprinting away from the group, and then the
> group would catch up with him while he coasted. He'll either figure it
> out himself, burn himself out completely, or turn into the fastest rider
> around.

Maybe he was doing interval training. But that's very distracting on
a group ride.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Badger_South]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:51:58 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"richie" > wrote in message

>> I am cycling for weight loss and am in week 6 of my base fitness
>> programme. I started at 100kg (220 pounds) on a 170 cm frame (I can
>> be described as short and very well padded). I ride a Giant OCR 2
>> with three front gear rings. I am 45.
>>
>> I am now at 97 kg. Not a drastic reduction but the reason is still a
>> love affair with ice cream and fish and chips. I have vowed to change
>> this. In addition I have just started some weight training (low
>> weights, high reps) for tone and increased strength/suppleness.
>
>It's good you're in the gym but training for endurance won't increase either
>your strength or your suppleness. And there is no such thing as 'tone'. If

Whack 'im with a big tuning fork, and see if tone increased, I say!

-B

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> David Kerber wrote:
>
> > > that's not spinning, though: that's being an idiot. a nice easy spin is
> > > one you can keep going for as long as the terrain remains unchanged.
> >
> > That's my feeling too, but I didn't say anything other than to joke
> > about it with him. He kept sprinting away from the group, and then the
> > group would catch up with him while he coasted. He'll either figure it
> > out himself, burn himself out completely, or turn into the fastest rider
> > around.
>
> Maybe he was doing interval training. But that's very distracting on
> a group ride.

They were a little short for that; the longest he went was probably 15
seconds, but I suppose it's possible. But as you say, a group ride is
not the place for that.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Dennis Ferguson]

Roger Zoul > wrote:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>:: only
>:: low carb, high protein and fat diets can provide sustainable weight
>
>who made that claim? One can lose weight on a low fat diet, even though
>low-fat needs to include EFAs.

Oh. Then forgive me for thinking that this comment

>::: It does, actually. When people eat high protein low carb diets they
>::: naturally eat fewer calories (this is actually why Atkins works).
>::: High carb diets tend to stimulate appetite which is exactly what
>::: you don't want if you want to avoid obesity.

meant that there was a connection between high carb diets and obesity.
I'm sure it meant something else.

>:: loses don't seem to square with my personal observation that some of
>:: the
>:: places in the world where obesity is relatively rare and people seem
>:: to generally be a pretty good size are also places where a very high
>:: fraction of the typical diet consists of unprocessed carbohydrates.
>
>Those people have entirely different lifestyles and probably can't get a
>much energy-dense food as we can....

You need to get out and see the world more...

The particular place I was thinking of was Hong Kong, where I live part
of the year. Hong Kong has a per capita GDP about equal to that of the UK
or Australia. It has all the food choices of similarly wealthy places and
a populace which can afford to buy them. The eating place closest to where
I live there happens to be a McDonald's, there is a Domino's Pizza around
the corner from there and a Starbucks a block in the other direction. There
is a KFC close by, I've seen Pizza Huts, and I think I recall seeing a
Burger King. 7-Eleven stores are all over the place if you want their snack
food. As for lifestyle, the place is a modern, densely populated city with
a predominantly service oriented economy, similar to big US cities, so it
isn't like people are burning off their excess calories working in their
vegetable fields or something.

People are almost as free to choose how they live as in the US. People
seem to often choose to eat a diet high in carbohydrates (I actually
saw a diet comparison in a newspaper article last time I was there, though
it is also made obvious by the things people order in restaurants), yet
compared to the US there just aren't nearly as many obese people.

>:: I don't think I buy the arguent that obesity can only be avoided by
>:: limiting carbohydrate consumption unless it is accompanied by an
>:: explanation of how whole nations of skinny people who tend to fill
>:: their stomachs with large amounts of rice and vegetables, or noodles
>:: and vegetables, along with bakery products, could exist.
>
>who says they are eating "large amounts" of anything?

It is "large amounts" of carbs as a fraction of their total diet. It
is clearly not a large amount compared to their metabolic needs, even
though in Hong Kong most people are as free as Americans to choose the
amount they eat. Somehow the theory that people who eat a high carb
diet will tend to overeat doesn't work here.

> Why is
>:: that?
>
>It probably isn't...you're building in biases from the get-go...

Could be (often the things people say they eat on your diet don't sound
healthy to me), but from where I sit it looks at least as likely that you are
supporting your view that high carb diets make it harder to avoid obesity
by simply denying that contrary examples exist absent some other
distinguishing factors, like a lack of food or limited lifestyle choices.
There's no lack of food variety in Hong Kong, while if it is some lifestyle
choice available to big-city dwellers which tend to keep people there lean
without restricting carbohydrate consumption, then I find that admirable
and worth emulating.

Dennis Ferguson

[Daniel Crispin]

Well Richie, we have a few things in common. You do a lot of milage,
I wish I was doing that much. Right now I do a minimum of 16 KM per day
just for commuting to work. I do about 50 KM on week ends. This week end
I might do more since my legs are finally starting to adapt.

I will let you know of my progress tomorrow when I wake up. I decided to do
my weight checks on Saturday mornings after waking up and going to the
bathroom.

I am sure I lost a few pounds but not much. I feel a lot better than 2
weeks ago,
energy is up and I feel a lot stronger and fit. I am sure I gained at least
a pound of
muscle but that is hard to mesure.


"richie" > wrote in message
...
> I am cycling for weight loss and am in week 6 of my base fitness
programme.
> I started at 100kg (220 pounds) on a 170 cm frame (I can be described as
> short and very well padded). I ride a Giant OCR 2 with three front gear
> rings. I am 45.
>
> I am now at 97 kg. Not a drastic reduction but the reason is still a love
> affair with ice cream and fish and chips. I have vowed to change this. In
> addition I have just started some weight training (low weights, high reps)
> for tone and increased strength/suppleness.
>
> I ride long rides primarily on the flat but with short (1-2km) hills twice
> in the ride. I live at the top of a sharp climb so some hill work is
> inescapable. I started weekly mileage at 210 km and I increase my weekly
> total by 5% for three weeks in a row. I then have a rest week where I cut
> my distance in half. I ride day on and day off with an occasional 2 or
even
> 3 day break if my body says rest a bit more. I sleep like a baby. My
weekly
> kilometrage is now heading towards 280km. I'm aiming for 350-450 max per
> week. With base fitness and a lot less weight (aiming for 10-15 kg off)
I'll
> move on to strength and speed work as there is a 160k race in November I
> have my eyes on.
>
> I don't get too disappointed at puffing slowly up the unavoidable hills as
I
> tell myself that every kg I lose will mean better speed and performance in
> due course. When the weight is down and my fitness is sparkling I look
> forward to trying myself against some big hills.
>
> I spin at 90-100 rpm, trying to keep my beats per minute at 135-149. (max
> BPM is around 176). I never use the top gear ring, nearly always the
middle
> gear ring. I use a Polar heart monitor and download every ride to my PC.
> The growing graph database of distance/cadence/heart rate/time really
helps
> is my planning. During a ride my heart rate lets me know if I should ease
up
> or pour more on. I can always chat with fellow riders.
>
> I believe this programme (for me) is the best to avoid over
training/injury,
> whilst ensuring shorter recovery times by high cadence spinning. Provided
I
> can be more disciplined on the diet side I am confident I can get under 90
> kg ( my weight 14 years ago) and even more back to when I was a slim 18
year
> old. I am relishing the work and the challenge.
>
> cheers
>
> richie
>
>
>
> "Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > > Well, there's the perceived effort measurement, but that can be very
> > > subjective. You should be able to hold a conversation in zone 2
> > > (66%-72% of max.) without having to cut off your sentences to
> > > breathe. You're forced to breathe through your mouth, but just
> > > barely. But then, some people breathe more heavily than others. I
> > > can chat away in lower zone 4 (which can be annoying to some riding
> > > buddies). Abnormally big lungs for my size, I guess.
> > >
> > > I still recommend a heart monitor. A basic one is inexpensive.
> >
> > Ok so when you have to breathe a little hard that is aerobic zone.
> > Good to know, a friend of mine told me the same but I wanted to
> > make sure. Right now my legs are slowing me down, not my
> > lungs... so as soon as that changes I will try to keep in that zone
> > for most of the rides and then perhaps add a few sprints on the
> > way back to crank off the calorie burning and increase muscle
> > strenght.
> >
> > > That sounds like muscle fatigue, which can take from minutes to days
> > > to go away. Spinning at a higher than normal cadence can help, but
> > > rest is still the best idea. Be careful, overtraining is cumulative.
> > > You may want to check your diet to see if you're getting enough
> > > protein. My legs were chronically tired a month or so ago, so I
> > > increased my daily protein intake to about 120 gm. The legs are much
> > > peppier now.
> >
> > It sure is muscle fatigue. Just odd that it lasts so long. I don't
> > remember
> > having had pain for more than a day before. Then again I was younger
> > and perhaps my body is just getting slower at healing the damage done.
> > Increasing protein intake is a good idea, thanks I will do that.
> >
> > > It's vitamin I for me (ibuprofen), the vitamin of choice for the
> > > masters athlete.
> >
> > Never heard of Vitamin I before ;) Will have to look into this.
> >
> > Anyone has toughts on Glucosamine? It's being promoted heavilly
> > around here but I don't know anyone that have used it yet.
> >
> > Friend of mine was a Spirulin addict but I never tried that either ;)
> >
> > I don't really like the idea of vitamins in a pill I guess. I have
> serious
> > doubts that the body can absorb them correctly. When you take
> > them you notice a really strong change in color in your urine so that
> > means they get flushed away.
> >
> >
>
>

[Daniel Crispin]

I am using a fast cadence, was just badly out of shape. Getting better now
;)



"David Kerber" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > "Terry Morse" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > David Kerber wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Last weekend was perhaps over the top for my shape, climbed
> > > > > Mount Royal twice... once for the Tour the Nuit event here in
> > > > > Montreal and a second time for the fun of it. My legs have
> > > > > kicked up the pain one nocths since then ;) Good old Tylenol
> > > > > to the rescue.
> > > >
> > > > Try taking 4 or 5 days off. YOu won't lose enough conditioning
> > > > to worry about, and your legs will have enough time to recover,
> > > > so you'll end up going faster overall.
> > >
> > > Ooh, 4 to 5 days seems a long time to be completely off the bike.
> > > Unless there's an injury, a few easy spin days shouldn't hurt, or
> > > maybe some brisk walking until the muscle soreness (weakness?)
> > > diminishes
> >
> > Well it's like a heavy stiffness with a little pain. I notice it most
at
> > night
> > when trying to sleep. Today it's not so bad, I guess my legs are
finally
> > accepting their fate and will stop bugging me ;)
> >
> > Last two days I was able to bring myself almost out of breath, something
> > I could not do before because the legs would quit before I got there.
>
> In that case, you might look at running in a lower gear and raising your
> cadence a bit. That's exactly what was happening to be before I heard
> about faster cadences: I'd finish a ride and my legs would be so tired
> I could hardly walk, and I wouldn't even be breathing hard. Raising my
> cadence extended the life in my legs to the point where (after a few
> months of it), my legs and lungs give out at about the same time, and
> it's much further along than it was before.
>
> --
> Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> newsgroups if possible).

[Daniel Crispin]

"David Kerber" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> > David Kerber > wrote:
> >
> > > In that case, you might look at running in a lower gear and raising
your
> > > cadence a bit. That's exactly what was happening to be before I heard
> > > about faster cadences: I'd finish a ride and my legs would be so
tired
> > > I could hardly walk, and I wouldn't even be breathing hard. Raising
my
> > > cadence extended the life in my legs to the point where (after a few
> > > months of it), my legs and lungs give out at about the same time, and
> > > it's much further along than it was before.
> >
> > an easy way to remember it: if your legs hurt, shift to an easier gear
> > (spin). if your lungs hurt, shift to a harder gear (push).
>
> And if they're both hurting, you better hope the ride's almost over
> <Grin>.
>
>
> > a nice easy spin is usually the most effective way to go, both for speed
> > on the road and physical comfort.
>
> Yes, within limits. I rode last week with a guy who was on a MTB, and
> he must have used a cadence of 110 to 120. But he only did it for a few
> (up to 15 or so) seconds at a time, then coasted for a while. Made me
> tired just watching him...
>
> --
> Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> newsgroups if possible).

Is there a name for that technique? The burn all energy away spin maybe? ;)

[richie]

Go for it Daniel!

I am advantaged by being a house husband at present with ample time in the
week to put on the kilometres.

Diet I will ultimately master.

I always load pre-ride (usually mid morning) with wholemeal toast, hi-carb
drink and 500 ml of my ride drink). I aim for 750 mil approx of ride drink
per hour (check out any commercially available drink). Average ride is 2.5
hrs to 4 .25 hrs.

Stretching before and after (I forgot to mention) is a major. Before (I get
back back aches...especially lower back) is a necessity and afterwards a
real bonus. I concentrate on lower back and hamstrings.

Don't touch that pizza..eat lotsa tomatoes... keep carb comsumption in the
morning, never at night.. lay off the beer and try white wine.... I have
lots of tips (none of which are really original) ... I'll promote my wisdom
once it has actually worked for me.

So far the weight is declining, my energy levels are up, I sleep well, I
drink far less alcohol, and most importantly I am a better husband and
father.

cheers

richie

"Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> Well Richie, we have a few things in common. You do a lot of milage,
> I wish I was doing that much. Right now I do a minimum of 16 KM per day
> just for commuting to work. I do about 50 KM on week ends. This week end
> I might do more since my legs are finally starting to adapt.
>
> I will let you know of my progress tomorrow when I wake up. I decided to
do
> my weight checks on Saturday mornings after waking up and going to the
> bathroom.
>
> I am sure I lost a few pounds but not much. I feel a lot better than 2
> weeks ago,
> energy is up and I feel a lot stronger and fit. I am sure I gained at
least
> a pound of
> muscle but that is hard to mesure.
>
>
> "richie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am cycling for weight loss and am in week 6 of my base fitness
> programme.
> > I started at 100kg (220 pounds) on a 170 cm frame (I can be described as
> > short and very well padded). I ride a Giant OCR 2 with three front gear
> > rings. I am 45.
> >
> > I am now at 97 kg. Not a drastic reduction but the reason is still a
love
> > affair with ice cream and fish and chips. I have vowed to change this.
In
> > addition I have just started some weight training (low weights, high
reps)
> > for tone and increased strength/suppleness.
> >
> > I ride long rides primarily on the flat but with short (1-2km) hills
twice
> > in the ride. I live at the top of a sharp climb so some hill work is
> > inescapable. I started weekly mileage at 210 km and I increase my weekly
> > total by 5% for three weeks in a row. I then have a rest week where I
cut
> > my distance in half. I ride day on and day off with an occasional 2 or
> even
> > 3 day break if my body says rest a bit more. I sleep like a baby. My
> weekly
> > kilometrage is now heading towards 280km. I'm aiming for 350-450 max per
> > week. With base fitness and a lot less weight (aiming for 10-15 kg off)
> I'll
> > move on to strength and speed work as there is a 160k race in November I
> > have my eyes on.
> >
> > I don't get too disappointed at puffing slowly up the unavoidable hills
as
> I
> > tell myself that every kg I lose will mean better speed and performance
in
> > due course. When the weight is down and my fitness is sparkling I look
> > forward to trying myself against some big hills.
> >
> > I spin at 90-100 rpm, trying to keep my beats per minute at 135-149.
(max
> > BPM is around 176). I never use the top gear ring, nearly always the
> middle
> > gear ring. I use a Polar heart monitor and download every ride to my
PC.
> > The growing graph database of distance/cadence/heart rate/time really
> helps
> > is my planning. During a ride my heart rate lets me know if I should
ease
> up
> > or pour more on. I can always chat with fellow riders.
> >
> > I believe this programme (for me) is the best to avoid over
> training/injury,
> > whilst ensuring shorter recovery times by high cadence spinning.
Provided
> I
> > can be more disciplined on the diet side I am confident I can get under
90
> > kg ( my weight 14 years ago) and even more back to when I was a slim 18
> year
> > old. I am relishing the work and the challenge.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > richie
> >
> >
> >
> > "Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > > Well, there's the perceived effort measurement, but that can be very
> > > > subjective. You should be able to hold a conversation in zone 2
> > > > (66%-72% of max.) without having to cut off your sentences to
> > > > breathe. You're forced to breathe through your mouth, but just
> > > > barely. But then, some people breathe more heavily than others. I
> > > > can chat away in lower zone 4 (which can be annoying to some riding
> > > > buddies). Abnormally big lungs for my size, I guess.
> > > >
> > > > I still recommend a heart monitor. A basic one is inexpensive.
> > >
> > > Ok so when you have to breathe a little hard that is aerobic zone.
> > > Good to know, a friend of mine told me the same but I wanted to
> > > make sure. Right now my legs are slowing me down, not my
> > > lungs... so as soon as that changes I will try to keep in that zone
> > > for most of the rides and then perhaps add a few sprints on the
> > > way back to crank off the calorie burning and increase muscle
> > > strenght.
> > >
> > > > That sounds like muscle fatigue, which can take from minutes to days
> > > > to go away. Spinning at a higher than normal cadence can help, but
> > > > rest is still the best idea. Be careful, overtraining is cumulative.
> > > > You may want to check your diet to see if you're getting enough
> > > > protein. My legs were chronically tired a month or so ago, so I
> > > > increased my daily protein intake to about 120 gm. The legs are much
> > > > peppier now.
> > >
> > > It sure is muscle fatigue. Just odd that it lasts so long. I don't
> > > remember
> > > having had pain for more than a day before. Then again I was younger
> > > and perhaps my body is just getting slower at healing the damage done.
> > > Increasing protein intake is a good idea, thanks I will do that.
> > >
> > > > It's vitamin I for me (ibuprofen), the vitamin of choice for the
> > > > masters athlete.
> > >
> > > Never heard of Vitamin I before ;) Will have to look into this.
> > >
> > > Anyone has toughts on Glucosamine? It's being promoted heavilly
> > > around here but I don't know anyone that have used it yet.
> > >
> > > Friend of mine was a Spirulin addict but I never tried that either ;)
> > >
> > > I don't really like the idea of vitamins in a pill I guess. I have
> > serious
> > > doubts that the body can absorb them correctly. When you take
> > > them you notice a really strong change in color in your urine so that
> > > means they get flushed away.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Daniel Crispin]

Well, lost 8 pounds this week. Since this is my first week of training and
dieting full time some of that is
probably water. Anyhow it is encouraging ;)

"richie" > wrote in message
...
> Go for it Daniel!
>
> I am advantaged by being a house husband at present with ample time in the
> week to put on the kilometres.

Yes that is a big bonus, can ride a bit more than average. Just have to be
careful on the food side since some people
eat more while at home.

> Diet I will ultimately master.

I am not a diet freak. I cut my portions up a little, especially where I
used to abuse... I don't really need 2 big macs now,
do I? I cut down on the junk food like candy bars, cake and that sort of
things and replaced with fruits. I try to keep
my caloric intake bellow 2000 KCals per day and this week I only exceeded
once.

> I always load pre-ride (usually mid morning) with wholemeal toast, hi-carb
> drink and 500 ml of my ride drink). I aim for 750 mil approx of ride drink
> per hour (check out any commercially available drink). Average ride is 2.5
> hrs to 4 .25 hrs.

I would be careful about that... read the labels. If you use Gatorade for
instance, 750 ml of that is a lot of calories, more than
you are actually burning by cycling. I drink water when I ride, I should
have a second water bottle rack installed cause 1 bottle
is not much for a 4 hours ride. How do you manage to bring that much fluid
with you? 3L for 4 hours ride, do you drag a bag
with you? In terms of numbers, you will burn about 300 KCals per hour while
cycling, Gatorade is 250 KCal per 500 Ml if I
remember correctly, so you are gaining 25 Kcal per hour instead of loosing.
Of course those are not precise measurements but
overal you are cancelling out the gains your are getting... Have to be
really careful about this.

> Stretching before and after (I forgot to mention) is a major. Before (I
get
> back back aches...especially lower back) is a necessity and afterwards a
> real bonus. I concentrate on lower back and hamstrings.

I never stretch, I should start ... Just hate doing it and never felt
difference when I did it.

> Don't touch that pizza..eat lotsa tomatoes... keep carb comsumption in the
> morning, never at night.. lay off the beer and try white wine.... I have
> lots of tips (none of which are really original) ... I'll promote my
wisdom
> once it has actually worked for me.

Pizza in itself is not so bad. Just don't eat a whole pizza alone ;) 2
Slices of Pizza once in a
while is good. Contains cheese which is great and some veggies. I don't
drink at all thank god,
now there is one source of heavy calories ;)

> So far the weight is declining, my energy levels are up, I sleep well, I
> drink far less alcohol, and most importantly I am a better husband and
> father.

Interesting that the more we work out the more energy we have ;) I am glad
to read you are feeling better too. Good for you and keep it up. Let me
know
of you progress next week ;)


>
> cheers
>
> richie
>
> "Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well Richie, we have a few things in common. You do a lot of milage,
> > I wish I was doing that much. Right now I do a minimum of 16 KM per day
> > just for commuting to work. I do about 50 KM on week ends. This week
end
> > I might do more since my legs are finally starting to adapt.
> >
> > I will let you know of my progress tomorrow when I wake up. I decided
to
> do
> > my weight checks on Saturday mornings after waking up and going to the
> > bathroom.
> >
> > I am sure I lost a few pounds but not much. I feel a lot better than 2
> > weeks ago,
> > energy is up and I feel a lot stronger and fit. I am sure I gained at
> least
> > a pound of
> > muscle but that is hard to mesure.
> >
> >
> > "richie" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I am cycling for weight loss and am in week 6 of my base fitness
> > programme.
> > > I started at 100kg (220 pounds) on a 170 cm frame (I can be described
as
> > > short and very well padded). I ride a Giant OCR 2 with three front
gear
> > > rings. I am 45.
> > >
> > > I am now at 97 kg. Not a drastic reduction but the reason is still a
> love
> > > affair with ice cream and fish and chips. I have vowed to change this.
> In
> > > addition I have just started some weight training (low weights, high
> reps)
> > > for tone and increased strength/suppleness.
> > >
> > > I ride long rides primarily on the flat but with short (1-2km) hills
> twice
> > > in the ride. I live at the top of a sharp climb so some hill work is
> > > inescapable. I started weekly mileage at 210 km and I increase my
weekly
> > > total by 5% for three weeks in a row. I then have a rest week where I
> cut
> > > my distance in half. I ride day on and day off with an occasional 2 or
> > even
> > > 3 day break if my body says rest a bit more. I sleep like a baby. My
> > weekly
> > > kilometrage is now heading towards 280km. I'm aiming for 350-450 max
per
> > > week. With base fitness and a lot less weight (aiming for 10-15 kg
off)
> > I'll
> > > move on to strength and speed work as there is a 160k race in November
I
> > > have my eyes on.
> > >
> > > I don't get too disappointed at puffing slowly up the unavoidable
hills
> as
> > I
> > > tell myself that every kg I lose will mean better speed and
performance
> in
> > > due course. When the weight is down and my fitness is sparkling I
look
> > > forward to trying myself against some big hills.
> > >
> > > I spin at 90-100 rpm, trying to keep my beats per minute at 135-149.
> (max
> > > BPM is around 176). I never use the top gear ring, nearly always the
> > middle
> > > gear ring. I use a Polar heart monitor and download every ride to my
> PC.
> > > The growing graph database of distance/cadence/heart rate/time really
> > helps
> > > is my planning. During a ride my heart rate lets me know if I should
> ease
> > up
> > > or pour more on. I can always chat with fellow riders.
> > >
> > > I believe this programme (for me) is the best to avoid over
> > training/injury,
> > > whilst ensuring shorter recovery times by high cadence spinning.
> Provided
> > I
> > > can be more disciplined on the diet side I am confident I can get
under
> 90
> > > kg ( my weight 14 years ago) and even more back to when I was a slim
18
> > year
> > > old. I am relishing the work and the challenge.
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > richie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > > > Well, there's the perceived effort measurement, but that can be
very
> > > > > subjective. You should be able to hold a conversation in zone 2
> > > > > (66%-72% of max.) without having to cut off your sentences to
> > > > > breathe. You're forced to breathe through your mouth, but just
> > > > > barely. But then, some people breathe more heavily than others. I
> > > > > can chat away in lower zone 4 (which can be annoying to some
riding
> > > > > buddies). Abnormally big lungs for my size, I guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > I still recommend a heart monitor. A basic one is inexpensive.
> > > >
> > > > Ok so when you have to breathe a little hard that is aerobic zone.
> > > > Good to know, a friend of mine told me the same but I wanted to
> > > > make sure. Right now my legs are slowing me down, not my
> > > > lungs... so as soon as that changes I will try to keep in that zone
> > > > for most of the rides and then perhaps add a few sprints on the
> > > > way back to crank off the calorie burning and increase muscle
> > > > strenght.
> > > >
> > > > > That sounds like muscle fatigue, which can take from minutes to
days
> > > > > to go away. Spinning at a higher than normal cadence can help, but
> > > > > rest is still the best idea. Be careful, overtraining is
cumulative.
> > > > > You may want to check your diet to see if you're getting enough
> > > > > protein. My legs were chronically tired a month or so ago, so I
> > > > > increased my daily protein intake to about 120 gm. The legs are
much
> > > > > peppier now.
> > > >
> > > > It sure is muscle fatigue. Just odd that it lasts so long. I don't
> > > > remember
> > > > having had pain for more than a day before. Then again I was
younger
> > > > and perhaps my body is just getting slower at healing the damage
done.
> > > > Increasing protein intake is a good idea, thanks I will do that.
> > > >
> > > > > It's vitamin I for me (ibuprofen), the vitamin of choice for the
> > > > > masters athlete.
> > > >
> > > > Never heard of Vitamin I before ;) Will have to look into this.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone has toughts on Glucosamine? It's being promoted heavilly
> > > > around here but I don't know anyone that have used it yet.
> > > >
> > > > Friend of mine was a Spirulin addict but I never tried that either
;)
> > > >
> > > > I don't really like the idea of vitamins in a pill I guess. I have
> > > serious
> > > > doubts that the body can absorb them correctly. When you take
> > > > them you notice a really strong change in color in your urine so
that
> > > > means they get flushed away.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[richie]

Hi Daniel

I stay away from Gatorade etc instead I prefer Musashi Growling Dog. The
heightened metabolism post exercise helps as well as good energy intake
helping quicker recovery (I find).

Two 750 mil bottles plus another two behind seat.

richie



> > I always load pre-ride (usually mid morning) with wholemeal toast,
hi-carb
> > drink and 500 ml of my ride drink). I aim for 750 mil approx of ride
drink
> > per hour (check out any commercially available drink). Average ride is
2.5
> > hrs to 4 .25 hrs.
>
> I would be careful about that... read the labels. If you use Gatorade for
> instance, 750 ml of that is a lot of calories, more than
> you are actually burning by cycling. I drink water when I ride, I should
> have a second water bottle rack installed cause 1 bottle
> is not much for a 4 hours ride. How do you manage to bring that much
fluid
> with you? 3L for 4 hours ride, do you drag a bag
> with you? In terms of numbers, you will burn about 300 KCals per hour
while
> cycling, Gatorade is 250 KCal per 500 Ml if I
> remember correctly, so you are gaining 25 Kcal per hour instead of
loosing.
> Of course those are not precise measurements but
> overal you are cancelling out the gains your are getting... Have to be
> really careful about this.
>
> > Stretching before and after (I forgot to mention) is a major. Before (I
> get
> > back back aches...especially lower back) is a necessity and afterwards a
> > real bonus. I concentrate on lower back and hamstrings.
>
> I never stretch, I should start ... Just hate doing it and never felt
> difference when I did it.
>
> > Don't touch that pizza..eat lotsa tomatoes... keep carb comsumption in
the
> > morning, never at night.. lay off the beer and try white wine.... I have
> > lots of tips (none of which are really original) ... I'll promote my
> wisdom
> > once it has actually worked for me.
>
> Pizza in itself is not so bad. Just don't eat a whole pizza alone ;) 2
> Slices of Pizza once in a
> while is good. Contains cheese which is great and some veggies. I don't
> drink at all thank god,
> now there is one source of heavy calories ;)
>
> > So far the weight is declining, my energy levels are up, I sleep well, I
> > drink far less alcohol, and most importantly I am a better husband and
> > father.
>
> Interesting that the more we work out the more energy we have ;) I am
glad
> to read you are feeling better too. Good for you and keep it up. Let me
> know
> of you progress next week ;)
>
>
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > richie
> >
> > "Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Well Richie, we have a few things in common. You do a lot of milage,
> > > I wish I was doing that much. Right now I do a minimum of 16 KM per
day
> > > just for commuting to work. I do about 50 KM on week ends. This week
> end
> > > I might do more since my legs are finally starting to adapt.
> > >
> > > I will let you know of my progress tomorrow when I wake up. I decided
> to
> > do
> > > my weight checks on Saturday mornings after waking up and going to the
> > > bathroom.
> > >
> > > I am sure I lost a few pounds but not much. I feel a lot better than
2
> > > weeks ago,
> > > energy is up and I feel a lot stronger and fit. I am sure I gained at
> > least
> > > a pound of
> > > muscle but that is hard to mesure.
> > >
> > >
> > > "richie" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I am cycling for weight loss and am in week 6 of my base fitness
> > > programme.
> > > > I started at 100kg (220 pounds) on a 170 cm frame (I can be
described
> as
> > > > short and very well padded). I ride a Giant OCR 2 with three front
> gear
> > > > rings. I am 45.
> > > >
> > > > I am now at 97 kg. Not a drastic reduction but the reason is still a
> > love
> > > > affair with ice cream and fish and chips. I have vowed to change
this.
> > In
> > > > addition I have just started some weight training (low weights, high
> > reps)
> > > > for tone and increased strength/suppleness.
> > > >
> > > > I ride long rides primarily on the flat but with short (1-2km) hills
> > twice
> > > > in the ride. I live at the top of a sharp climb so some hill work is
> > > > inescapable. I started weekly mileage at 210 km and I increase my
> weekly
> > > > total by 5% for three weeks in a row. I then have a rest week where
I
> > cut
> > > > my distance in half. I ride day on and day off with an occasional 2
or
> > > even
> > > > 3 day break if my body says rest a bit more. I sleep like a baby.
My
> > > weekly
> > > > kilometrage is now heading towards 280km. I'm aiming for 350-450 max
> per
> > > > week. With base fitness and a lot less weight (aiming for 10-15 kg
> off)
> > > I'll
> > > > move on to strength and speed work as there is a 160k race in
November
> I
> > > > have my eyes on.
> > > >
> > > > I don't get too disappointed at puffing slowly up the unavoidable
> hills
> > as
> > > I
> > > > tell myself that every kg I lose will mean better speed and
> performance
> > in
> > > > due course. When the weight is down and my fitness is sparkling I
> look
> > > > forward to trying myself against some big hills.
> > > >
> > > > I spin at 90-100 rpm, trying to keep my beats per minute at 135-149.
> > (max
> > > > BPM is around 176). I never use the top gear ring, nearly always the
> > > middle
> > > > gear ring. I use a Polar heart monitor and download every ride to
my
> > PC.
> > > > The growing graph database of distance/cadence/heart rate/time
really
> > > helps
> > > > is my planning. During a ride my heart rate lets me know if I should
> > ease
> > > up
> > > > or pour more on. I can always chat with fellow riders.
> > > >
> > > > I believe this programme (for me) is the best to avoid over
> > > training/injury,
> > > > whilst ensuring shorter recovery times by high cadence spinning.
> > Provided
> > > I
> > > > can be more disciplined on the diet side I am confident I can get
> under
> > 90
> > > > kg ( my weight 14 years ago) and even more back to when I was a slim
> 18
> > > year
> > > > old. I am relishing the work and the challenge.
> > > >
> > > > cheers
> > > >
> > > > richie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Daniel Crispin" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..
> > > > > > Well, there's the perceived effort measurement, but that can be
> very
> > > > > > subjective. You should be able to hold a conversation in zone 2
> > > > > > (66%-72% of max.) without having to cut off your sentences to
> > > > > > breathe. You're forced to breathe through your mouth, but just
> > > > > > barely. But then, some people breathe more heavily than others.
I
> > > > > > can chat away in lower zone 4 (which can be annoying to some
> riding
> > > > > > buddies). Abnormally big lungs for my size, I guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I still recommend a heart monitor. A basic one is inexpensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok so when you have to breathe a little hard that is aerobic zone.
> > > > > Good to know, a friend of mine told me the same but I wanted to
> > > > > make sure. Right now my legs are slowing me down, not my
> > > > > lungs... so as soon as that changes I will try to keep in that
zone
> > > > > for most of the rides and then perhaps add a few sprints on the
> > > > > way back to crank off the calorie burning and increase muscle
> > > > > strenght.
> > > > >
> > > > > > That sounds like muscle fatigue, which can take from minutes to
> days
> > > > > > to go away. Spinning at a higher than normal cadence can help,
but
> > > > > > rest is still the best idea. Be careful, overtraining is
> cumulative.
> > > > > > You may want to check your diet to see if you're getting enough
> > > > > > protein. My legs were chronically tired a month or so ago, so I
> > > > > > increased my daily protein intake to about 120 gm. The legs are
> much
> > > > > > peppier now.
> > > > >
> > > > > It sure is muscle fatigue. Just odd that it lasts so long. I
don't
> > > > > remember
> > > > > having had pain for more than a day before. Then again I was
> younger
> > > > > and perhaps my body is just getting slower at healing the damage
> done.
> > > > > Increasing protein intake is a good idea, thanks I will do that.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's vitamin I for me (ibuprofen), the vitamin of choice for the
> > > > > > masters athlete.
> > > > >
> > > > > Never heard of Vitamin I before ;) Will have to look into this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone has toughts on Glucosamine? It's being promoted heavilly
> > > > > around here but I don't know anyone that have used it yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Friend of mine was a Spirulin addict but I never tried that either
> ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't really like the idea of vitamins in a pill I guess. I
have
> > > > serious
> > > > > doubts that the body can absorb them correctly. When you take
> > > > > them you notice a really strong change in color in your urine so
> that
> > > > > means they get flushed away.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>