Calorie Estimates....

In article ,
says...
If you want to loose weight then far more important than
cycling/energy expenditure etc is diet.
I recommend the ELF diet which is the only one which actually works.
ELF stands for 'eat less food' and also 'especially less fat'.
Cycling helps of course in that you feel the benefit and get
motivated, and get generally fitter, but you'd have to cycle a huge
amount to loose weight if you don't also alter your eating habits.
Calory counter on your monitor is just a daft gimmick designed to
appeal to techie geeks..

ELF combined with CycleMor (TM) can prove dangerous. ASROSF (A Steady
Reduction Of Sugary Foods) is probably a better idea.

Agree with the gimmick thing though. I did wonder how it knew. Now I
realise that it probably doesn't!

Jon

Jon Senior wrote:

In article ,
says...

If you want to loose weight then far more important than
cycling/energy expenditure etc is diet.
I recommend the ELF diet which is the only one which actually works.
ELF stands for 'eat less food' and also 'especially less fat'.
Cycling helps of course in that you feel the benefit and get
motivated, and get generally fitter, but you'd have to cycle a huge
amount to loose weight if you don't also alter your eating habits.
Calory counter on your monitor is just a daft gimmick designed to
appeal to techie geeks..


ELF combined with CycleMor (TM) can prove dangerous. ASROSF (A Steady
Reduction Of Sugary Foods) is probably a better idea.

Agree with the gimmick thing though. I did wonder how it knew. Now I
realise that it probably doesn't!

Jon

Yeah. Mind you, it's still really quite rewarding to see it sat saying
I've burned 1609 calories on a shorter sunday ride..

I have to say, I've tried ELF on it's own, and it doesn't work.
CycleMor coupled with trying ETS is still proving hard to shift *weight*
but it's shifting flab into muscles. At some point it'll run out of
muscles to make, at which point I'm hoping I'll see the weight start to
drop, and then I'll be sprinting up hills like lightning (yeah..
right..) and lovely and thin again...

Still dreaming...

--


Velvet

If you want to loose weight then far more important than
cycling/energy expenditure etc is diet.
I recommend the ELF diet which is the only one which actually works.
ELF stands for 'eat less food' and also 'especially less fat'.

Well both I and my GP friend would disagree with that to some extent. As it
happens I AM limiting my food intake and tend not to be overly fond of
either sugary or fatty foods anyway. I'm not suggesting that it's possible
to eat like a hog and lose weight SIMPLY by exercising..... What I'm
saying is that it's better to create a 400/cal/day defecit over the rate
necessary to keep your weight stable by riding 10 miles than cutting your
food intake by 400 /cal/day from your base level and doing little or nothing
by way of exercise..... OBVIOUSLY any intake over the level necessary to
keep your weight stable has to be cut away. In my case that meant the
nightly four-pack of lager got kicked into touch as did most (but certainly
not all) of my trips to the chippie.

And frankly, anyone who DOES over-eat would still benefit from my approach
since they would at least slow-down the rate of weight-gain and generally
improve their state of health.

Cycling helps of course in that you feel the benefit and get
motivated, and get generally fitter, but you'd have to cycle a huge
amount to loose weight if you don't also alter your eating habits.

I apologise if I seemed to suggest otherwise. But by riding just 10 miles a
day 5 days a week, on average figures, you'll loose well over a 1/2 lb per
week.. More if you can up the effort. What's more, as you gain more lean
muscle your BMR will rise

Calory counter on your monitor is just a daft gimmick designed to
appeal to techie geeks..

Possibly so since it doesn't actually seem to be based on any real measure
of _all_ the data available to the computer...

But there is a danger for those that want to loose weight in that they're
liable to go out, do their ten miles, then wash it down with two pints of
lager and a bag of chips! If they have _SOME_ sort of numerical targets to
monitor and maintain it does help keep a perspective on the input\output
balance...

Velvet wrote:

I have to say, I've tried ELF on it's own, and it doesn't work. CycleMor
coupled with trying ETS is still proving hard to shift *weight* but it's
shifting flab into muscles. At some point it'll run out of muscles to
make, at which point I'm hoping I'll see the weight start to drop, and
then I'll be sprinting up hills like lightning (yeah.. right..)

If you want to be Monarch Of The Mountains then it helps to be a
whippet, but to get up hills at a fair pace just needs the right
muscles, gears and cardiovascular backup. You can get both of the
physiological bits most easily by... getting out and going up hills.
And then getting out and going up hills again. And again.

I'm no lightweight, and my bike is certainly not a lightweight, but I
get up some evil braes faster than some lighter people on lighter bikes
because my muscles have got me up a lot of hills in their time (on one
local CTC meet which took in the nasty climb from Balmerino the ride
organiser told me people had asked her if 'bents were particularly good
at climbing having seen me go up!).

There's no substitute for practice when it comes to getting up hills. I
know the hills where you are (my cousins stay in Betchworth, near
Reigate, and we go over the scarps of the Downs to visit them) and that
they really are evil, but if you get practice in at getting up them
you'll get a lot better and you'll get better fast. Just go out if
you've got a spare half an hour and head up the nearest one and see how
you do. If you can't go on it's downhill all the way home. Next time
see if you can get as far, or maybe a little further.

And your muscles don't need to be big if you have low gears, they just
need to be able to keep spinning, which is far more about stamina and
aerobic workout than power and strength. Compare Paula Radcliffe's
muscles to a sprinters for evidence. Again the case that the best way
to train to get these for hills is by going up hills.

lovely and thin again...

The 2 don't necessarily equate. Being thin is a means to an end, not an
end in itself. And if you can achieve the end without being a stick,
why worry about being a stick?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote:

much snipped


And your muscles don't need to be big if you have low gears, they just
need to be able to keep spinning, which is far more about stamina and
aerobic workout than power and strength. Compare Paula Radcliffe's
muscles to a sprinters for evidence. Again the case that the best way
to train to get these for hills is by going up hills.

True, but my bike doesn't have ultraultralow gears, despite a triple.
Yes, I know, it's hill practice I need, specially after seeing the
improvements on the flat. I know I've improved on hills, it might be a
different set of hills giving the impression I'm back at square one, of
course....

I don't mind really, I'll get there in the end. I know it'd be easier
hauling me and the bike up hills if it wasn't for the flab I'm carrying
though! Quite chuffed to have just realised I was doing the increased
speed on the flat c/with a pannier, something I've not had the last
couple of times I've been out and faster than before but slower than
sunday... woohoo, big improvments indeed!

lovely and thin again...


The 2 don't necessarily equate. Being thin is a means to an end, not an
end in itself. And if you can achieve the end without being a stick,
why worry about being a stick?

Cos I want to be thinner than I am right now ;-) It'll be healthier for
me, for a start.


Pete.


--


Velvet

I have to say, I've tried ELF on it's own, and it doesn't work.
CycleMor coupled with trying ETS is still proving hard to shift *weight*
but it's shifting flab into muscles.

Whis is probably good..... weight is a limited indicator...

Slim-ish is good In my estimation, but most women who have a good
underlaying structure can carry the odd pound or two to good effect.... IMHO
that is...

Velvet wrote:

Cos I want to be thinner than I am right now ;-) It'll be healthier for
me, for a start.

But note that "thinner than I am right now" and "not a stick" are /not/
mutually exclusive terms unless you're already verging on stickness,
which you rather imply you're not.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 20/7/04 11:05 am, in article , "Peter
Clinch" wrote:

If you want to be Monarch Of The Mountains then it helps to be a
whippet, but to get up hills at a fair pace just needs the right
muscles, gears and cardiovascular backup. You can get both of the
physiological bits most easily by... getting out and going up hills.
And then getting out and going up hills again. And again.

I'm no lightweight, and my bike is certainly not a lightweight, but I
get up some evil braes faster than some lighter people on lighter bikes
because my muscles have got me up a lot of hills in their time (on one
local CTC meet which took in the nasty climb from Balmerino the ride
organiser told me people had asked her if 'bents were particularly good
at climbing having seen me go up!).

Dundee isn't reknowned for being flat (the last Milk Race/Pru tour used the
climb up the Law as the prologue) so Pete and I certainly get lots of hill
practise.

I was absolutely pants at hills so I set out to improve my cardiovascular
and legs by doing a circuit that included the local hill. (fortunately this
is less than a mile from my house so I can bail out and go home when I get
bored/run out of time) The first time I did it without having to stop was a
major achievement. After doing this for a few weeks I would expect to be
able to do it without stopping. Then I changed the rules. They now say 'no
stopping' so I have to keep moving. Then the number of climbs increased so I
would be able to go out for about an hour and do the circuit three, then
four then five times. I haven't done it for a while but the training it gave
enabled me to ride much better on my commute (the way home is all uphill)
and helps on longer rides.

Helped shift a bunch of weight too.. to the point that people at work
started commenting. (8" off the waist and two and a half stone [20cm and 15
kilos] If I lose another inch I'll have to go and get more holes in the belt
for the third time).

As for the ELF diet, it works to a point. But if you eat too much less the
body will think it is being starved and not burn up the reserves so quickly.
So I developed a new variant - ELFEOS which is 'ELF except on Sundays'.
Alcohol is limited to the number of units per week being less than the
number of pounds weight lost in the last month. ELFEOS persuades the body
that there is still plenty of food available so there is no famine.

I find that fat is not the problem but processed carbohydrate is. So I avoid
most bread/biscuits, all sugar, limit the amount of potatoes. Eat loads of
fresh fruit and veg, and plenty of protein.

The discipline is the key thing. It takes me about two weeks to settle into
a change of diet (ie stopping that mid afternoon chocolate bar) so that it
feels normal. The first week is tough, the second week is worse, the third
week is easy.

...d

Peter Clinch wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Cos I want to be thinner than I am right now ;-) It'll be healthier
for me, for a start.


But note that "thinner than I am right now" and "not a stick" are /not/
mutually exclusive terms unless you're already verging on stickness,
which you rather imply you're not.

Pete.
Um, indeed :-)

I *used* to be a stick. It's possible if I ramp up the cycling to the
ultra-serious addict level then I'd eventually be stick-insectish again,
but I seriously doubt my body's capable of going back to that, given the
physiological changes over the years etc.

Slim would suit me fine. I'm just bored of slowing lugging the flab up
the hills with me ;-)

--


Velvet

James Hodson wrote:


My usual hill climbing method is to get into the lowest gear, pedal
away with a grimmace or my face, and then search hopelessly for some
non-existent larger cogs.

Yesterday, using a mixture of Armstrong and Virenque as my inspiration
(some sort of genetic research my be indicated here), I decided to
stand up whilst climbing a moderately steep but mercifully short bit
of road. Lo and behold, I got up that hill a lot faster than usual,
without anywhere near as many facial expressions and with far less
trouble.



James

I've been thinking of trying this, but find it very hard to get out the
saddle - been practising on the turbo occasionally though with limited
success to might give it a go soon.

Partly this is due to having realised I can romp away up and over a very
small ripple hill (read: ripple in the road to most of you lot LOL) in
my middle chainring, and not in the biggest cog at the back (second
biggest, ok, not much, but mine stop at 22/23 or something on the back
so they're not all THAT low) easier than if I change down and spin up it.

Only works for very short inclines, but powering up and over in a larger
gear at a lower cadence but higher speed seems to be easier than lower
gear, higher cadence, lower speed - actual time spent climbing is a lot
shorter, and though it stresses the legs more it's for less time.

I've just lacked the guts to actually try getting out the saddle and
doing this on anything longer, but I'll remember you managed it and give
it a go myself I think.

Keep your eyes peeled for my 'I tried getting out the saddle when
climbing a hill and fell off' post some time in the next couple of weeks ;-)



--


Velvet