# Be honest: are you cut? Or sporting some flab?



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

I was getting dressed after a workout at the gym, and happened to glance at myself in a full-length mirror. While I wouldn't characterize my naked self as "hideous" or "obese," I wouldn't say my appearance is "fit, cut, and manly!" LOL

At age 53, I've got a bit of the mantit thing happening...plus some good love handles, and a little flab hanging off the back of my arms. My biceps don't bulge and while I don't have a big belly, I do have "comfortable padding." LOL

Now keep in mind that I look like this in spite of doing a hard 40-minute ride on a spinbike 4 days a week. I bicycle to work at least half the time, go for 6-mile hikes with the family on weekends carrying my 35lb son on my shoulders much of the way. And I can hop in my sea kayak and easily bang off 10 miles on the water without getting overly fatigued.

I'm not in bad shape and have some serious muscle mass in places...but two things:
1. I make no effort whatsoever to do balanced, full-body workouts—I don't give a flip about developing muscle groups that don't provide primary power for the sports I love to do. (Translation: I'm not doing hundreds of situps to mountain bike—even though yes, I get that core strength helps—but I'm not that hardcore.)
2. I eat a high-calorie diet. I'm definitely not vegan, and I enjoy a good, fat-laden burger, several thick slices of pizza, bagels in the morning, a beer or two in the evening, a handful of chips here and there. (I also eat salads, oatmeal, bananas, and other healthy foods.)

My point is neither to suggest I'm "good" or "bad" because of this. Rather, my philosophy in life is to steer right down the middle—moderation in all things (good things and bad, LOL). For me, that's the right balance, and the best balance. It works. (And my health is good—low BP, decent cholesterol numbers, etc.)

I'm not worried about attracting women because I'm happily married and have two great kids.

And this balance definitely leaves me NOT cut, and manly-looking with rippling muscles and a six-pack. It's just who I am.

Who else here is with me? :thumbsup:

Scott

PS - I'm in no way suggesting there is anything wrong with being ripped and manly-looking. I know there are plenty of people who work very hard to look like that—good for them! And sure, I wouldn't mind being ripped and manly...but it would require more sacrifice than I'm willing to make.

The bottom line for me is that as long as I can do the things I love (like riding and paddling) at a pace I'm happy with, without getting too fatigued, then I'm good—done deal!


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Moderation is great but think about how much extra weight you are pushing around on the bike.

My hub recently lost almost 20# just by tracking portion size and cutting out the crap. It's disgusting how easy it came off. Disgusting as in "how come it's not that easy for me?", not as in gross.


----------



## Mr5150 (Dec 20, 2011)

SWriverstone said:


> I was getting dressed after a workout at the gym, and happened to glance at myself in a full-length mirror. While I wouldn't characterize my naked self as "hideous" or "obese," I wouldn't say my appearance is "fit, cut, and manly!" LOL
> 
> At age 53, I've got a bit of the mantit thing happening*...plus some good love handles, and a little flab hanging off the back of my arms*. My biceps don't bulge and while I don't have a big belly, I do have "*comfortable padding*." LOL


Let's just say I am more of a man that I was at age 25. 

Now that I am retired (two months), I seem to be losing weight as I am more active and I joined a gym.


----------



## sleepyguy1001 (May 26, 2014)

I'm 6'1" 230 +/- 10 seasonal lbs, toting around a bit of belly. Hoping to stay healthy enough this year to take a few lbs off permanently, lyme disease robbed me of a lot of riding time last year. All in all I don't feel too bad about my appearance considering what a couch tater I've been for 20+ years.


----------



## BADDANDY (Feb 20, 2012)

I spent my early years getting ripped. Now I just try to keep excess fat from attaching to my bones as I'm a serious after work and rainy day couch potato. I feel soda is easiest way to gain fat so I rarely drink it. I eat middle of the road, drink lightly now, jog and ride a few times a week. I'm still working up to 50 push-ups from a moto crash. Besides that, I can pass the Air Force PT test for a 30 year old. I'm 55. I could get ripped again in only a few months if I felt like it, and I don't.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

formica said:


> Moderation is great but think about how much extra weight you are pushing around on the bike.
> 
> My hub recently lost almost 20# just by tracking portion size and cutting out the crap. It's disgusting how easy it came off. Disgusting as in "how come it's not that easy for me?", not as in gross.


I do sometimes think about the extra weight I'm pushing around. On the other hand, that's an endless one-way street-meaning, if you're buff and lean and at "fighting weight," someone could still say "Yeah but what if you lost another 10 pounds? That's like taking a 10-pound lead weight out of your shirt!"

I'm definitely overweight...but then I'm also far warmer in winter (seriously-skinny riders are freezing to death and cursing the cold when I'm comfortable and happy).

Anyway, I'm not defending my choices. Simply accepting them. And fitness is a continuum-not an "either you're fit or you aren't" thing. Compared with someone genuinely obese and weak, I'm an Olympic god. Compared with real Olympians, I'm pathetic. Who's to say what is "right?"

Scott


----------



## Bail_Monkey (May 8, 2007)

I think genetics plays a factor, especially when we get older... I'm 53.5, 5'10", 164 and asian (Japanese). I have a smaller bone structure up top, but a little thicker on the legs. 

At my heaviest weight, I hit 185 about 5-6 years ago. And like many, started cycling more both road and mtb. This and changing my diet has SLOWLY dropped my weight.

Rather than look at weight, I think more people should look at percentage of body fat. It is a hard think to track as there really is not an easy and reliable way to do it. There are methods for pro athletes which usually have a price tag, some not so bad. We have this hand held device at the gym at work that I have used for ball park figures. It states I'm around 17% body fat. I'd like to get down to 15% or so...

The nurse mentioned that we start loosing muscle as we age as well.

I'd like to loose some excess weight (Fat...lol) on the insides of my legs and the small layer around the mid section. (Glad I don't drink beer!)

I think about efficiency on the bike when climbing and I know the less fat that I have to tow up the hill the better.


----------



## ladljon (Nov 30, 2011)

MTBiking keeps me in shape....well between injuries...one yr ago at 62. This was skirt night time trial...


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Not ripped (never was) but @ 6'2"/170 lbs. I still weigh the same as I did in high school. I'd like to say it's due to clean living and healthy habits but in truth genetics is responsible.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> Not ripped (never was) but @ 6'2"/170 lbs. I still weigh the same as I did in high school. I'd like to say it's due to clean living and healthy habits but in truth genetics is responsible.


There is definitely truth to this, and it makes the "You're just lazy and afraid to do what it takes" argument null and void. I know several guys close to my age who *look* fitter than me (thinner, flat abs, etc.) and every time we do anything requiring cardio fitness I leave 'em behind-not because I'm so fast, but because my endurance is far greater.

Which is why I'm not going to whip myself daily (and eat rice cakes and celery-which let's face it, really suck) in some attempt to look like Jean Claude Van Damme. 

By the way, in case anyone posts up with anything along the lines of "stop seeking validation for your lame habits," I'm not at all-on the contrary, I'm pretty happy with myself overall...and just curious to know who else here (over 50) has a similar attitude.

I will say (FWIW) there's a huge amount of media coverage in society about how unhealthy it is that women are practically forced to be thin as rails or accused of being "fat" and how this destroys their self-image. I think the same is true of men, but nobody gets flack for portraying men with six-packs and bulging biceps-when the reality is most men are far from that.


----------



## cbrossman (Mar 23, 2004)

At nearly 55, I have had several medical issues over the past 15 years. I tend to be athletic, I've always been thin, though not always fit.
In the past 10 years, I've determined that fitness is my key for remaining healthy. I lift regularly (P90X), hike and bike as much as possible, stretch and do yoga.

I'm 6 weeks into bunion surgery (are you kidding me, a guy getting bunion surgery) and am finally able to work off the excess weight gain.
I haven't taken methotrexate or Enbrell for my Rheumatoid Arthritis (are you kidding me, a guy getting RA) since my lymphoma scare and the bone marrow biopsy 4 years ago.
I make up for my asthma (adult onset asthma 4 year ago, I had not even know it was possible) by trying to have an efficient body.
This is the first fall/winter in 3 that I haven't gotten an orbital pseudo tumor (who the hell even knew what that was) and had to eat prednisone like M&Ms.
I'm scheduled for another prostrate biopsy soon (really, I get the typical female issues and the guy issue), but dammit if/when they remove it is going to be low fat.

Moderate doesn't work for me, I just can't afford it.
6'1" 173lbs and heading back to 167lbs

Craig ... the fittest unhealthy guy you'll meet


----------



## Tribble Me (Aug 27, 2012)

> (and eat rice cakes and celery-which let's face it, really suck)


Rice cakes may be one of the worst things to eat in my mind. They have almost the same blood sugar response as pure sugar with a glycemic index rating as high as 91. Sugar is 100.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

SWriverstone said:


> I do sometimes think about the extra weight I'm pushing around. On the other hand, that's an endless one-way street-meaning, if you're buff and lean and at "fighting weight," someone could still say "Yeah but what if you lost another 10 pounds? That's like taking a 10-pound lead weight out of your shirt!"
> 
> I'm definitely overweight...but then I'm also far warmer in winter (seriously-skinny riders are freezing to death and cursing the cold when I'm comfortable and happy).
> 
> ...


_And this balance definitely leaves me NOT cut, and manly-looking with rippling muscles and a six-pack. It's just who I am.

Who else here is with me? _

Hmmmmm....

I'll take the opposite side of the thread title.

No, I am not with you at all. I've ridden up hills, and hiked up hills 10 pounds, 20 pounds, 30 pounds, and even 40 pounds heavier than I currently am. At 6'4", I thought I was in decent shape too at all of those weight points as well (210, 200, 190, 180). Why carry excess? For that matter - why eat in excess of what one's body needs (more calories than is required)?

Visceral fat (love handles and man boobs are the telltale signs of it) is the most *deadly* kind of fat for men when it comes to disease and health. So no, I don't want to be like you.:nono:  At least not these days. I somehow managed to get myself there in 2003 after three years of excess in my early 40's and made the decision to quickly reverse that. Dropped 30 pounds in a year at the time and have more or less settled in at what my natural body weight should be by avoiding excess. I'm at 169 right now.

I'm 54, lean and mean (cut) with no love handles, no man boobs, currently at or very near my ideal racing weight (excellent book written by Matt Fitzgerald available here), and keeping excellent health and fitness to avoid disease, improve quality of life and perform at the highest energy level I can in my work, family life, and recreational pursuits. The time it takes is really pretty minimal. 60 minutes of weight lifting per week. And of course, time on the bike varies with work schedule and season.

Eating wise - I enjoy it all as well. Wine, beer, any food I want. I just make sure I don't eat more calories than I burn. It's really simple math and doesn't take away from one's family life, social life, or the work place. CICO (calories in vs. calories out) is so simple, yet a post like yours seems to flip the bird at it and ask for justification, support, or whatever you want to call it. "Love me for who I am, because this is who I am..." posts are all over the internet, in print, and discussed around the coffee table. It's not about the time or effort in involved - it's all about the math. If you want to use math that has a result with man tits and love handles - fine. My math adds up differently and I prefer my math.:thumbsup:

When your gas tank is full at the gas station, do you keep pumping gas so it spills all over the ground? Nope. So why do it with your body?

Count me in on the first part of the thread title "Are you cut?".


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

> I do sometimes think about the extra weight I'm pushing around. On the other hand, that's an endless one-way street-meaning, if you're buff and lean and at "fighting weight," someone could still say "Yeah but what if you lost another 10 pounds? That's like taking a 10-pound lead weight out of your shirt!"


From the view point of a small female, if I'm pushing around an extra 10 or 20 pounds, that is a significant percentage of my body weight.


----------



## miatagal96 (Jul 5, 2005)

Rice cakes are my new go-to snack at work - as long as they're slathered with peanut butter. They don't always keep me out of the M&M's, but they help me reduce my consumption.

For longer than I can remember, I'd like to lose 5 lbs and just hasn't happened. I like chocolate and wine too much. I eat fairly healthy, but would like to make some improvements. Right now, with work and training, I don't have the time I'd like to do other things like spend time cooking (and investigating new things to get out of my current food rut), gardening, etc. That's on the top of my 'to do' list when I retire (which should be in about a year if I can curb my expensive new bike a year habit - damn you Ibis for coming out with the new Mojo 3!)


----------



## likeaboss (Jan 1, 2012)

In college I was 6'1" 185lbs. Soon after I experienced some health issue that required large and prolonged doses of prednisone. That stuff eliminates you body's ability to feel full. It also increases your appetite and makes you retain water. I got up to 235 until I finally had enough and had surgery that would eliminate the need for the prednisone. After surgery I got back to about 205lbs and now I fluctuate between that and 215lbs. I spent all last summer biking at Kingdom Trails and rode about 600 miles. I got back to 205 but could not get any lower.

My doc says I am in great condition and my belly is genetic. My cholesterol is around 135, my resting HR is about 55. I have some belly fat. My father, 4 brothers and I all have the same body shape after 40. Generally lean with a belly. My thinner better shape friends cannot keep up with me on the hills. I can pedal through pain pretty well and often push myself to achieve riding goals(top of climb, Strava personal best, etc)

I have accepted that I will never be that "cut" old dude but I am fit enough to enjoy my activities and be happy.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

My weight has been very constant over the years...

If I get below 175 I definitely have issues with endurance etc....

If I get above 190 my knees start to hurt...

Generally I live about 180 to 185....just north of normal on the BMI....

Docs all say I am fit don't worry about it.

Still would rather be 175 to 180...

but hey don't worry.


Getting back into Alpinetouring this winter


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

@BruceBrown - I respect your view (really!). I said in my first post that I'd like to lose 20lbs. But my post is no more seeking validation for my (perceived) lameness than yours is saying "Every other human out there is a fat lazy slob and doesn't deserve to live." 

I'm all for fitness, and I repeat what I said before-fitness is a continuum. There is no one perfect level of fitness that every human either meets or doesn't meet. And because it's a continuum, I could easily point to your best-ever race time and say "What's wrong with you? Why can't you knock [2 minutes or 5 minutes or an hour] off that time? Are you lazy?"

There is always room for a LOT of improvement in everyone-so if everyone doesn't constantly improve, are they all lazy?

I'm speaking rhetorically of course. 

Scott


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

formica said:


> From the view point of a small female, if I'm pushing around an extra 10 or 20 pounds, that is a significant percentage of my body weight.


It is for most of us!

One is_ supposed _to not gain more than 8% of their body weight during the off season for cycling - at least according to most things I have read by the cycling "experts" and coaches. I certainly did that this year with some serious fun Fall hibernation eating and drinking. If it wasn't nailed down, I ate it and drank it.

It's pretty amazing the difference - at least on the climbs - when it comes to 10 pounds, let alone 20 pounds. In fact, 20 pounds is the weight of an average car tire - hence the term "spare tire" when it comes to weight.



__
https://flic.kr/p/noCVnW
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

I just finished shedding all of the off season weight I gained and am amazed at how easy it is to climb again.

But you are right, 10-20 pounds on a small female that may weigh only 110-115 for ideal weight is getting up there in body weight percentage. My wife is 5'3" and 115 pounds. A mere 10 pounds for her would be an 8.7% body weight gain.

Regardless of one's size, this sucker is an albatross around the neck when it comes to going up hills.



__
https://flic.kr/p/DfkNsg
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

The good news is that we can enjoy the sport of cycling in our 50's (and beyond) no matter what our weight is. I just like going up hills fast...:thumbsup:


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

likeaboss said:


> My doc says...my belly is genetic.


What? I would switch docs immediately if I ever heard that.


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

cbrossman said:


> At nearly 55, I have had several medical issues over the past 15 years. I tend to be athletic, I've always been thin, though not always fit.
> In the past 10 years, I've determined that fitness is my key for remaining healthy. I lift regularly (P90X), hike and bike as much as possible, stretch and do yoga.
> 
> I'm 6 weeks into bunion surgery (are you kidding me, a guy getting bunion surgery) and am finally able to work off the excess weight gain.
> ...


Sorry to hear about the health issues. What do you do for your RA? My mother had severe RA, took methotrexate for four years--it allowed her to function rather than be bedridden. But then she was diagnosed with NHL and died six months later. I respect your choice to avoid the immunosuppressants.


----------



## DiRt DeViL (Dec 24, 2003)

Not flabby but sport a nice beer gut thanks to my love of bacon cheeseburgers and craft beer, I'm 5'8" 205lbs.

Biking keeps my weight in check so got a fatty and in addition to snowshoeing my winter activities are more fun, cheaper and often; decided to retire from snowboarding this year.


----------



## J_Bone (Dec 14, 2014)

SWriverstone said:


> I was getting dressed after a workout at the gym, and happened to glance at myself in a full-length mirror. While I wouldn't characterize my naked self as "hideous" or "obese," I wouldn't say my appearance is "fit, cut, and manly!" LOL
> 
> At age 53, I've got a bit of the mantit thing happening...plus some good love handles, and a little flab hanging off the back of my arms. My biceps don't bulge and while I don't have a big belly, I do have "comfortable padding." LOL
> 
> ...


It's all in what you eat. Each person is different in their body burns certain calories. 
Ironically, I upped my carbohydrates, lowered my fat and keep protein the same. In 3 week of not changing my physical routine, I lost 10lbs of fat while gaining 3lbs of muscle. And before I changed my diet, I've been at the same weight for 2 years despite all the riding and exercises.

You can use "my fitness pal" to track what you eat and make changes as needed.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

J_Bone said:


> It's all in what you eat. Each person is different in their body burns certain calories.
> Ironically, I upped my carbohydrates, lowered my fat and keep protein the same. In 3 week of not changing my physical routine, I lost 10lbs of fat while gaining 3lbs of muscle. And before I changed my diet, I've been at the same weight for 2 years despite all the riding and exercises.
> 
> You can use "my fitness pal" to track what you eat and make changes as needed.
> ...


There's no way you gained 3 pounds of muscle in 3 weeks. Even in the best case scenario, the most muscle weight that can be gained (and you have to be eating at a surplus in calories to gain muscle) is 1.8 pounds per month.


----------



## cbrossman (Mar 23, 2004)

Reminded me of this oh-so-appropriate web page.
Why Am I Not Losing Weight: 11 Reasons You're Failing To Lose Fat


----------



## J_Bone (Dec 14, 2014)

BruceBrown said:


> There's no way you gained 3 pounds of muscle in 3 weeks. Even in the best case scenario, the most muscle weight that can be gained (and you have to be eating at a surplus in calories to gain muscle) is 1.8 pounds per month.


My FFM went from 158.4lbs(2/4/16) to 161.5lbs(2/18/16). Sorry, 3.1.... It may include some water, which did go up 1lbs. 
On 1/21/16 my FFM was 155.61lbs, on 2/18/16 my FFM was 161.5. That's almost 6lbs. Now again, from that time my TBW went up 2lbs. So I would say thats almost 4lbs in a month. Is that possible? Or, are these machines faulty?

This was using Tanita monitoring health.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

J_Bone said:


> My FFM went from 158.4lbs(2/4/16) to 161.5lbs(2/18/16). Sorry, 3.1.... It may include some water, which did go up 1lbs.
> On 1/21/16 my FFM was 155.61lbs, on 2/18/16 my FFM was 161.5. That's almost 6lbs. Now again, from that time my TBW went up 2lbs. So I would say thats almost 4lbs in a month. Is that possible? Or, are these machines faulty?
> 
> This was using Tanita monitoring health.
> ...


Not sure what machine you have but....

The weigh scales with the % fat water and bone mass are not really very good....they will trend not bad but you have to remember electric circuit is basically up and down the legs...with of course some indication of the torso...

The one that have both feet contact and handles to hold on to, are better...

The measurement technique requires a number of corrections to calculate the actual numbers and the assumptions made are of course somewhat inaccurate.

Also how wet or sweaty your contact points are matters as well....


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

I'm trying to hard to minimize additional weight since I continue to race, or at least attempt to! It's hard work, but doable if you can control your diet. At our age, that's just as important as maintaining fitness via HIIT/interval workouts and weight training.


----------



## J_Bone (Dec 14, 2014)

jeffscott said:


> Not sure what machine you have but....
> 
> The weigh scales with the % fat water and bone mass are not really very good....they will trend not bad but you have to remember electric circuit is basically up and down the legs...with of course some indication of the torso...
> 
> ...


This is the machine I've been using.. 
http://www.thecompetitiveedge.com/shop/item/123-productId.184550551_123-catId.176160834.html

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## J_Bone (Dec 14, 2014)

Regardless of my muscle discrepancy, the topic was flab.. And I've seen considerable fat loss and weight loss with my original post of changing your diet. 

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

BruceBrown said:


> When your gas tank is full at the gas station, do you keep pumping gas so it spills all over the ground? Nope. So why do it with your body?


^ there it is in black and white.

Keeping your weight under control is the single most important thing you can do to prolong your life and to reduce the wear and tear on your body.

Carrying "a little extra" weight takes a similar toll long term as having high blood sugar or high blood pressure, the damage is gradual so you won't notice it until it's too late.

Lose the weight, improve your diet, live long and enjoy the benefits of good health in your "golden years".

Don't fool yourself, obesity is rampant in America, even people who are physically strong and have good aerobic fitness..


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

cbrossman said:


> Reminded me of this oh-so-appropriate web page.
> Why Am I Not Losing Weight: 11 Reasons You're Failing To Lose Fat


Love that link! It's brutally honest, that's for sure.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

6 ft., 200 lb. Not cut by any measure but not bad for 66 I suppose. In a few months I'll put away the skis and take out the bike which usually results in losing a couple pounds.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Whew! I thought you were asking, circumcised or not.

5-11 and I'm currently at my heaviest @172 lb. I need to reshape a little, but not too much.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Nurse Ben said:


> ^ there it is in black and white.
> 
> Keeping your weight under control is the single most important thing you can do to prolong your life and to reduce the wear and tear on your body.
> 
> ...


Definitely not fooling myself here-I know that ideally, I should lose some weight. I also know it's all in what I eat.

Where I think things get more difficult is in knowing where the line is, e.g...

• What is "ideal weight" for someone? Find ANY formula or specification and I guarantee you i can find dozens of PhD's and well-executed studies that debunk that number.

• Still other reputable sources say that weight fluctuation (up and down) is more dangerous than maintaining at a constant weight. While we can all agree maintaining a weight of 300 is too much, what about 225? Or 215? Or 200? In my case, my weight has been +/- 220lbs for over a decade (literally-it never budges). So in that sense I'm doing well!

• How skinny (or lean) is too skinny (or too lean)? Again, there seems to be no consensus on this. (It seems for example that medical evidence suggests increasingly that ultra-marathoners are actually destroying their bodies and cutting their lives short. Some think there is no upper limit to fitness, when the facts seem to suggest otherwise.)

Ultimately, it seems to me that the only things anyone can be 100% certain of (or maybe even not even these?) are blood numbers.

By federal government standards, i'm obese. That's fine, if I'm obese, then what is someone who weighs what I do but isn't remotely as fit? What is someone who is 6 inches shorter and weight 100lbs more?

My issue with a lot of this stuff is that there are big gray areas all over the place.

And don't even get me going on the reputable studies (by legitimate researchers) that seem to come out monthly saying that some food item we thought was bad may now be good (or vice-versa). There have literally been dozens (hundreds?) of such reversals based on new evidence.

And finally, what about people (because there are plenty) who smoke every day, drink every day, and eat bacon every day and live to be 95?

What about people who are lean and fit and drop dead of a heart attack at age 35?

My point is that in general, when you really start looking for specifics, health science is maddeningly vague.

Scott


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> ^ there it is in black and white.
> 
> Keeping your weight under control is the single most important thing you can do to prolong your life and to reduce the wear and tear on your body.
> 
> ...


Now this thread is getting somewhere!

Age is really insignificant when it comes to BMI, body fat percentage, good health, athlete vs. non athlete.

On another subject - and in terms of "cut" - here is a handy dandy photo chart for the males in terms of the percentage of body fat and what the "look" is...



__
https://flic.kr/p/EuwXDP
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Since this thread included the word "honest", I will attest to being at 14% body fat percentage. I would like to get down to the 10-12% level. I need to trim about 4-5 pounds from my current weight to achieve that (and find those dang ABS!!!) which I think is doable. Obviously the top row of those pictures is more "cut" than the lower rows.:thumbsup:

Nurse Ben has it right - obesity is rampant in our country. Sadly...


----------



## Bail_Monkey (May 8, 2007)

Based on the pics above, I'd place myself between the 15% and 20%. In an earlier reply, the handheld body fat monitor that we have at work pegs me at ~17%


----------



## Bail_Monkey (May 8, 2007)

BruceBrown said:


> When your gas tank is full at the gas station, do you keep pumping gas so it spills all over the ground? Nope. So why do it with your body?


This is a bit off topic as it does not fully pertain to people that are weekend warriors or those that mtb/exercise... People over eat due to psychological disorders like depression and many other issues. These people do not care about calories in/calories out or what they look like. They obviously do not care about their health and that they are taking years off of their lives...

Also since the industrial revolution, the amount of processed foods has increased decade over decade. I'm sure many of those that eat a lot of processed foods are not aware of how much salt, sugar and fat they are consuming on a daily, weekly, monthly basis...


----------



## Bail_Monkey (May 8, 2007)

Quote Originally Posted by likeaboss:
"My doc says...my belly is genetic"



BruceBrown said:


> What? I would switch docs immediately if I ever heard that.


Out of curiosity, do you think Oprah could ever sustain a slim body? Does her genetics play a factor with her being overweight?


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Bail_Monkey said:


> Quote Originally Posted by likeaboss:
> "My doc says...my belly is genetic"
> 
> Out of curiosity, do you think Oprah could ever sustain a slim body? Does her genetics play a factor with her being overweight?


OP's thread entitled "Be Honest: are you cut? Or sporting some flab?" is certainly wide open for all types of discussion, but I didn't figure that it would evolve into discussions of Oprah. But since it has, sure - Oprah is guilty of eating more calories than her body needs on a daily basis, hence those excess calories gets stored as fat. She has been up and down a few times which this picture captured one of her most recent yo-yo's quite well.



__
https://flic.kr/p/DxHWzb
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Her genetics are no different than 99.9% of the rest of us. The body is genetically coded to store excess calories as glycogen or fat to be used at a later time. The excess is stored in your liver, fat cells, and muscles. What does that mean? It means that continually eating excess calories - such as Oprah certainly has displayed to all of us over the years - causes your body fat stores to expand, which results in gaining weight.

It's nice to place blame on processed food, psychological issues, "big bones" and whatever excuse one can find. But it is pure math. Count what goes in and count what goes out. If more goes in than is burned - you gain weight.

The only way to get rid of that gained weigh is to create a calorie deficit to lose the excess calories your body has stored over the days/weeks/months/years as fat. In other words, the more that is burned over what goes in - you lose weight.

It's pure math. Consuming excess calories simply means you are eating/drinking more than your body can burn off in a day. *We are all *genetically coded to do that (store it).

Want to find out how many calories you, or Oprah needs on a daily basis to maintain, gain, or lose weight? Plug your numbers into this:

Calorie Calculator

Here's my "math" example with my information plugged into the calculator, and choosing the sedentary pull down menu to show how much I need to get through the day before I figure in the exercise that I do.



__
https://flic.kr/p/EneBVn
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

The math shows me how much I need to maintain my current weight, how much I need to eat to lose weight, and how much I need to eat before I gain weight.

It's pure math. The answer to "cut" or "flab" comes down to simple math. You either understand the math, or you don't.

If you are "cut", you probably pay more attention to the math. If you are sporting "flab", you have eaten more daily calories than your body needs and it has stored it in your fat cells - or "flab".


----------



## cbrossman (Mar 23, 2004)

BruceBrown said:


> Since this thread included the word "honest", I will attest to being at 14% body fat percentage. I would like to get down to the 10-12% level. I need to trim about 4-5 pounds from my current weight to achieve that (and find those dang ABS!!!) which I think is doable. Obviously the top row of those pictures is more "cut" than the lower rows.:thumbsup:


I have found those last few pounds to be a son-of-a-gun to get rid of, particularly when I feel I am always battling injury and illness, but "Never Give Up, Never Surrender" 
*(Calories In < Calories out)* baby!
BTW, I think I might have picked up that link referenced below from one of your posts.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Unfortunately, one's weight isn't always determined by the simplified notion that burning off as much, or more, as one's caloric intake will lead to a slimmed body. Too many other factors at play.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Crankout said:


> Unfortunately, one's weight isn't always determined by the simplified notion that burning off as much, or more, as one's caloric intake will lead to a slimmed body. Too many other factors at play.


Naaah I eat what I need generally a little less.....then I get hungry and either drink beer to top up the tank.....or eat fruit....ar a treat...

If I don't by the end of the week I am down a bit...

Now if you really want to understand what is going on you have to take the daily hydration issues and what ever dump you may or may not have had yet...

So weigh yourself immediately after your morning dump before having a drink of water....that is generally a very consistent number.

Of course it still varies with hydration but it sure is better than weighing before and after a hard ride.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Crankout said:


> Unfortunately, one's weight isn't always determined by the simplified notion that burning off as much, or more, as one's caloric intake will lead to a slimmed body. Too many other factors at play.


What are the "too many other factors at play" in terms of how the body functions with weight gain and weight loss when it comes to calories?

The flow chart commonly used at MFP (My Fitness Pal) website:



__
https://flic.kr/p/DyiLNt
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

The Brutal Bible Blog:

Why Am I Not Losing Weight: 11 Reasons You're Failing To Lose Fat


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

BTW I'm enjoying this thread.  BruceBrown, that's a handy chart. I'm right around the 25% mark. And looking at the photo of the "25% guy," I wouldn't grimace and say "Ohmygod that guy is FAT and out of shape!" Conversely, I'd look at 15%-and-below guys and say "Sorry man-you're nothin' but skin and bones." LOL

As to the "simple math" part of all this, that makes perfect sense—if we're all Vulcan-emotionless and clinical about every aspect of our lives.

The reality (as someone mentioned above) is that our physical health is very closely tied to our mental/emotional health. Put simply, if there's a lot of sh*t going on in your life (which doesn't even include potential brain chemistry imbalances), it can be enormously difficult to be a lean-mean-calorie-fighting machine.

People deal with myriad issues that are very real and have very real consequences on their physical health: lousy/difficult/overly time-consuming jobs; unhappy relationships; a flock of little kids at home; debt; extended family issues like aging parents who need care; the list goes on and on.

I've found that often (but not always) people who are paragons of physical fitness have pretty self-centered lives completely free of any of the difficulties others have—they often tend to be single, and/or in a relationship with no kids, and/or a dream job, and/or with lots of disposable income and free time, and/or no health issues whatsoever, etc.

Am I generalizing? Of course—but it's true to a significant extent. And the point is that it's vastly more difficult to get your health act together when the rest of your life is a constant struggle. (Why do you think so many poor people are in lousy shape?)

My life is fairly good on balance, but I do often work 50+ hours/week, have two toddlers in the house, have several other relatively sedentary passions besides mountain biking (like playing music, flyfishing, and birdwatching). So while I could certainly do better, it's just a big stretch right now. 

Which is why as long as my doc is giving me A's on my physicals, and my BP and cholesterol numbers are fine, and while I can still do 30-40mins of good cardio exercise everyday, I'm fine with my 220lbs (at 6'0) and 25% body fat.

Eventually, the kids will grow up, i'll have more money in the bank, and I'll work fewer hours each week—and when that time comes, I'll be better able to ride for 2 hours every day and focus harder on improving my diet.

Scott


----------



## cbrossman (Mar 23, 2004)

Yes it is.
If you consume more calories that you expend, you will gain weight. If you consume less, you will lose weight.

I am not saying it is easy to accurately determine how much you consume and expend.
I am not suggesting that people who overeat don't have issues, perhaps unfortunate trauma in their life or something similar.
I am not saying it is easy for overweight individuals to change their life style to adapt less calories and more exercise.
I am also not saying it is the type of calories you ingest.
I am not saying weight is an accurate prediction of fitness.

As Bruce is saying, it is pretty simple math.


----------



## likeaboss (Jan 1, 2012)

SWriverstone said:


> BTW I'm enjoying this thread.  BruceBrown, that's a handy chart. I'm right around the 25% mark. And looking at the photo of the "25% guy," I wouldn't grimace and say "Ohmygod that guy is FAT and out of shape!" Conversely, I'd look at 15%-and-below guys and say "Sorry man-you're nothin' but skin and bones." LOL
> 
> As to the "simple math" part of all this, that makes perfect sense-if we're all Vulcan-emotionless and clinical about every aspect of our lives.
> 
> ...


Now I feel like a real loser I am happy, happily married, no kids, make plenty of money, generally work 45 hours a week at a job I enjoy and I am still overweight! If I didn't love mountain biking so much I would be huge! I find it very difficult to be active unless it is something I enjoy. At least the cold winters of Maine help burn calories.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

For those of you using MFP to track food, exercise, which setting do you use for mountain biking? "biking BMX or mountain" just doesn't seem to give the right numbers.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

BruceBrown said:


> What are the "too many other factors at play" in terms of how the body functions with weight gain and weight loss when it comes to calories?
> 
> The flow chart commonly used at MFP (My Fitness Pal) website:
> 
> ...


Simple by design, difficult in implementation and maintenance.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

formica said:


> For those of you using MFP to track food, exercise, which setting do you use for mountain biking? "biking BMX or mountain" just doesn't seem to give the right numbers.


Best to use an App with a HR Monitor - be it a power meter, Wahoo Fitness, Garmin, etc... . And even then, by plugging in your information, many of those devices will overestimate the calorie burn. I use Wahoo with a HR strap, PowerTap with a HR strap, and my indoor stationary bike uses the Training Peaks WKO software which I trust more than the others. I can honestly say they all report "different" numbers - even though they are calibrated correctly.

MFP tends to "overestimate"...


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

likeaboss said:


> Now I feel like a real loser I am happy, happily married, no kids, make plenty of money, generally work 45 hours a week at a job I enjoy and I am still overweight! If I didn't love mountain biking so much I would be huge! I find it very difficult to be active unless it is something I enjoy. At least the cold winters of Maine help burn calories.


LOL!

I must be a self-centered, single, have no difficulties, have tons of freetime and disposable income failure as well because DANG! - I work at least 50 hours per week during the academic year which usually involves 7 days a week for my job (which includes the ebb and flow of stress that we all experience in the work place, the usual politics at work with all of the related issues, budgets, time management, etc.), have raised two wonderful children, am happily married, manage our investment portfolio, do chores around the house and yard, maintain our vehicles, have friendships, deal with family issues, do trail work, train, direct our state mtb race series, fund raise - all while making the lifestyle choices to maintain a healthy weight. What am I doing wrong?:eekster:

Working on keeping all of it - including physical health and weight in check - is either important to one, or it is not. We only get one shot at it.

Scott wrote:
_
I've found that often (but not always) people who are paragons of physical fitness have pretty self-centered lives completely free of any of the difficulties others have-they often tend to be single, and/or in a relationship with no kids, and/or a dream job, and/or with lots of disposable income and free time, and/or no health issues whatsoever, etc._

Balderdash!

At least your posts are masterful at deflection.

If anyone is really interested, take a trip over to MFP and see the millions of folks who have and are learning to manage it all. No Bro Science or Pop Psychology allowed. :nono: It's been a very eye opening experience for me the past couple of years. My motto is to "never stop learning".


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

BruceBrown said:


> LOL!
> 
> Scott wrote:
> _
> ...


I can see 'Scott's' point. To make it all work takes a high level of dedication and balance. I've had very good friends divorce in part due to their collective efforts in training for and participating in tri's and Ironman competitions at a pretty high level. Purely anecdotal, along with other similar stories, but they may carry some merit.

I've managed to stay married with 2 kids, FT gig, etc. and build in my training time. Gets easier as the kids get older.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

> If anyone is really interested, take a trip over to MFP and see the millions of folks who have and are learning to manage it all. No Bro Science or Pop Psychology allowed. It's been a very eye opening experience for me the past couple of years. My motto is to "never stop learning".


Even if you never change your habits, tracking everything you eat for a month or so is very educational. Think you are eating healthy? You could be in for a real surprise.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Crankout said:


> I can see 'Scott's' point. To make it all work takes a high level of dedication and balance. I've had very good friends divorce in part due to their collective efforts in training for and participating in tri's and Ironman competitions at a pretty high level. Purely anecdotal, along with other similar stories, but they may carry some merit.
> 
> I've managed to stay married with 2 kids, FT gig, etc. and build in my training time. Gets easier as the kids get older.


Yes, I see the point in terms of training hours. However, weight maintenance requires zero training hours. It's all in the kitchen... ;-)


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

BruceBrown said:


> Yes, I see the point in terms of training hours. However, weight maintenance requires zero training hours. It's all in the kitchen... ;-)


I have been making the kitchen my friend and it's helped a lot. I'm now getting close to my ideal weight for me and I feel much more energetic.

I believe family first. I have seen some people neglect their families for racing results but, it doesn't have to be that way. You can still race but, you may not place as high. No biggie.

Getting creative can sure help a lot. Get the kids in the kitchen and cook with them.

Do a one way training ride, meet up at the park, stop for pizza on the way home .

Go out and do a family ride. Ride on ahead. Do some hill sprints and intervals. Then turn around, come back and join them. Go out for ice cream.

My husband use to do this and had some great results.

The long rides don't need to be done every day. Just maybe one or two a week. Correct me if i'm wrong.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Well I will definitely check out MFP and go buy a digital food scale.  I'm sure it's eye-opening.

I swear I'm not looking for excuses—I've admitted several times that I eat some crap and my portion sizes are almost certainly too large.

But I know guys my age who are lean and muscular...and eat cheeseburgers and pizza and drink a lot of beer and eat greasy chips...and do NOT workout at all (or nowhere near the amount I do). Tell me that's not genetic! 

My point is that it's a mistake to think if someone's overweight it's just because they're fooling themselves or consume way more calories than they think. Sure, sometimes that's the reason, but there is a BIG difference in body types and in how our bodies burn calories (and produce fat).

I don't care what anyone says—it's plain as day to me that some people are just luckier than others when it comes to body types.

And here's the $20,000 question: is it better to be...
a) thin but completely out-of-shape, with no cardio fitness whatsoever? or...
b) 25% body fat, but able to comfortably workout (HR at least 160 for at least 30-40mins) every day without feeling unusually fatigued afterward?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question, and I'm not sure anyone does because there is so much of a gray area. Many just reflexively say "it's better to be thin no matter what," but I disagree—if you're thin but can't hike up a hill without getting winded and needing 6 breaks along the way, I'd say that's indicative of real trouble.

I know, I know—it's better to be lean AND in good shape! 

Scott


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

SWriverstone said:


> Well I will definitely check out MFP and go buy a digital food scale.  I'm sure it's eye-opening.


Feel free to mock. The River DeNial is deep and wide and attempted to be crossed by many.



SWriverstone said:


> But I know guys my age who are lean and muscular...and eat cheeseburgers and pizza and drink a lot of beer and eat greasy chips...and do NOT workout at all (or nowhere near the amount I do). Tell me that's not genetic!


It's not genetic. You would quickly find that for their age, their level of exercise that their CICO equation (calories in vs. calories out) is not tilted in the direction of them gaining weight. Again, it's simple math. Everyone's body functions primarily in the same way. Too many calories, it gets stored. Just the right amount, and one maintains their weight. Too few, and one loses weight. What you "think" is genetics is most likely that the guys your age who are lean and muscular are indeed not eating beyond their daily caloric needs.



SWriverstone said:


> My point is that it's a mistake to think if someone's overweight it's just because they're fooling themselves or consume way more calories than they think. Sure, sometimes that's the reason, but there is a BIG difference in body types and in how our bodies burn calories (and produce fat).


This is where you are wrong and is proven scientific fact.



SWriverstone said:


> I don't care what anyone says-it's plain as day to me that some people are just luckier than others when it comes to body types.


Wrong. Body type - ectomorph/endomorph/mesomorph has nothing to do with it. It's all about CICO. Simple math. Time to wash off all of that Bro Science.



SWriverstone said:


> And here's the $20,000 question: is it better to be...
> a) thin but completely out-of-shape, with no cardio fitness whatsoever? or...
> b) 25% body fat, but able to comfortably workout (HR at least 160 for at least 30-40mins) every day without feeling unusually fatigued afterward?


Again, plenty of studies have been done to show exactly what the health risks are of carrying excess fat. Visceral fat is thee single most dangerous fat for a man to be carrying in terms of heart health, diabetes, and cancer. One can make the conscious decision to ignore all of that and feel like they are in great shape, but scientific studies have shown what is and what isn't when it comes to health risk. Cut vs. Flab would have many of us banging our heads against the wall asking - if you have a young family, a wife, a family that depends on you, why would you consciously put yourself *at a higher risk profile* if you had the choice to lower that risk?:nono:



SWriverstone said:


> I honestly don't know the answer to that question, and I'm not sure anyone does because there is so much of a gray area. Many just reflexively say "it's better to be thin no matter what," but I disagree-if you're thin but can't hike up a hill without getting winded and needing 6 breaks along the way, I'd say that's indicative of real trouble.


Well, you are confusing aerobic conditioning (fitness) with body composition for health issues. They are two different animals so to speak. Ideally, one would be both in good fitness and have a good body composition. Excerise has health benefits. So to, does lower body fat percentage. You can have one or the other or both. It's your choice.



SWriverstone said:


> I know, I know-it's better to be lean AND in good shape!


Now you are adding 2 + 2 together.:skep:


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

SWriverstone said:


> Well I will definitely check out MFP and go buy a digital food scale.  I'm sure it's eye-opening.
> 
> I swear I'm not looking for excuses-I've admitted several times that I eat some crap and my portion sizes are almost certainly too large.
> 
> ...


Did anyone here say "it's better to be thin no matter what,"?

Some people are over weight because they're lazy and some it's genetics.

Some are muscular and lean no matter what and it doesn't mean they are healthy. Some people can work out and never get lean or have 
definition.

Everyone is different as far as athletic ability too. Things like lung capacity (VO2max} and muscle type (fast twitch, slow twitch). So we all can't make it to the podium. BFD!

I'm sure everyone can agree being healthy is most important and being skinny has nothing to do with it. I think the folks on this thread aren't that superficial or judgemental.

In all fairness I think we shouldn't judge others for working out, following a strict diet and being ripped and skinny either because we're jealous...lol!


----------



## Bail_Monkey (May 8, 2007)

BruceBrown said:


> Her genetics are no different than 99.9% of the rest of us.


I'll disagree, she is not like 99.9% of us. In the pic that you have shows her 'regular' self and her when she attempted a diet (numerous times and failed each one) This is when she can afford a personal trainer and a personal chef.

My guess is that she does not have a major psychological issues like depression b/c she does not have enough fame or money, etc...

Even with all the help that she could get, she still cannot keep the weight off. IMO, genetics play a major factor with Oprah. That and she enjoys eating a lot...

One can also look into genetics and pro XC mtb. Julien Absalon dominated for years. Why? IMO his genetics plays a factor, endurance/V02max and sustaining higher watts per kilogram than other riders. In the field, most of the riders have similar physique, similar body fat %, age and years of riding. But in the end, they could not keep up...


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Bail_Monkey said:


> IMO, genetics play a major factor with Oprah. That and she enjoys eating a lot...


I'm still not sure why we are discussing Oprah Winfry in this "are you cut or sporting some flab?" thread.

I don't know, Bail_Monkey - are you an Oprah fan?

Okay - so why not add thyroid issues, depression, lack of life being balanced, her love of potato chips, her hate of exercise, her lack of pleasure in her relationships forcing her to turn to the pleasure through food for an odd relationship with it.

All that being said - which I'm sure some of is true or partially true for her - it comes down to eating more calories than her body needs. That's the genetics for all of us.

The REAL Reason Oprah Has Gained Weight â€" Again! | Eat Without Guilt -- Weight Loss for Women Who Crave Thinner Peace

All of us would gain weight, if we headed to the Cheesecake Factory and ordered up the Factory Nachos with Spicy Chicken (which clocks in at over 2000 calories), and washed it down with a pint of beer for another 180 calories and ended with a slice of the Cheesecake Factory's Reese's Peanut Butter Chocolate Cake Cheesecake for another 2,780 calories - we would have just eaten 4960 calories.

At 6'4" and my age, I can only eat 2055 calories a day to maintain my weight. If I ate that meal at the Cheesecake Factory, or if I ate like Oprah, I'd be as big as her as well. So genetics are at play with me just as with your example of Oprah.

_For an average adult, the FDA recommends a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet, with 20 to 35% of those calories coming from fat (that's between 44 and 78 grams) and no more 7% coming from saturated fat (about 16 grams). You should also limit yourself to no more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium and 25 grams of added sugar._

It's pretty simple. If the calories going in are higher than the calories being burned - we gain weight. If it is equal - we maintain our weight. If less go in than are burned - we lose weight.

It's simple math.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

BruceBrown-thanks for the good points (really). I'm learning here.

So I get that it's all about calories in/calories out. And in a vacuum-absent all other factors-that makes perfect sense.

My impression, though, is that given an *identical caloric burn rate* (for the sake of discussion), all humans don't convert _the exact same number of calories into the exact same amount of fat._

I've never read anything that says all human bodies are identical in that regard (but maybe they are?)

My point is to suggest that it might be easier for someone to keep their body fat percentage low if their body converts calories to fat at a lower rate (given the same number of calories) than someone else's.

I know that visceral fat is a huge health hazard. I'm not 100% convinced it's the worst health hazard (there are many skinny alcoholics, for example).

Anyway, all good conversation. And I'm gonna go buy a digital food scale and start tracking! 

Scott


----------



## J_Bone (Dec 14, 2014)

BruceBrown said:


> I'm still not sure why we are discussing Oprah Winfry in this "are you cut or sporting some flab?" thread.
> 
> I don't know, Bail_Monkey - are you an Oprah fan?
> 
> ...


Is there a time frame to eat you meals? 
Say you only eat only 500 calories all day, but then you don't eat til dinner time and then consume a 1000 calories for dinner with 3 pieces of pizza?

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## telemike (Jun 20, 2011)

I'm a little over weight at the waist, not bad at all this time of year. I stay in mtb condition all year and I'm now enjoying the first good winter in the last four. My legs are like tree trunks, no flab at all. My arms and shoulders are hard and fit. My belly isn't too bad even given the excess eating I do and my high fat,high carbo diet.

There is no exercise in the world that gives a workout like climbing on skis. Legs, arms, hands, and the core are all stressed highly. Descending works the legs, thighs, and calves hard in tele turns and getting up out of the snow is a real task.

I don't believe in being "ripped" beyond what comes naturally from my sports (hike, bike, paddle, ski). I also don't believe that we should be rail thin as we age. At 68, I have a long standing lymphoma and I know that someday I'm gonna have to do chemotherapy. 

If we need chemo, If we get really sick, need serious surgery, etc some reserves is very important. So, when you see that little bit of flab, think of it as you "prepper" supplies ensuring that you body has the resources it needs in distress.


----------



## Onegear3619 (Jul 23, 2014)

51 185 slight muffin top. If I could stop drinking a few pints every night maybe things would be different.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

J_Bone said:


> Is there a time frame to eat you meals?
> Say you only eat only 500 calories all day, but then you don't eat til dinner time and then consume a 1000 calories for dinner with 3 pieces of pizza?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


It doesn't matter when you eat. Daily totals are daily totals. During the work week, I usually eat 300-400 for breakfast, 300-600 for lunch, and the rest in the evening.

Lots of myths and BS (Bro Science) surround it all. The best wake-up call I got a couple of years ago was this guy's blog...

Why Am I Not Losing Weight: 11 Reasons You're Failing To Lose Fat


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

Good discussion and one I've had many times at work. I was at about the 30% body fat (based on photos) after breaking my femur and tearing every ligament in my knee in a moto crash in 2009. I sat on the couch for (7) months recovering and put on 20 lbs. I got 80% of it off and then fractured my neck mountain biking in 2014. I put all the weight I lost and another 10 pounds on. By cutting out completely crappy foods and exercise, I'm 5 lbs away from my pre-femur break. It will be a big milestone for me but still only put me in the 18-10% body fat range.

All that being said, I call BS on the "absolutes' that some are spewing about carrying extra weight. EVERYBODY is different and I believe that genetics is more important than any other factor. My 84 year old Dad starting smoking at age 13 and smoked for 62 years but has never had a single serious health issue. He NEVER exercises and hasn't (that I'm aware of) since the 70's. I've had other relatives that were ultra-fit on the outside drop dead from heart attacks in their 50's. 

Now I'm not saying you can or should eat wahatever you want when you want and not expect to put on weight. All I know is you only get one chance to enjoy life and I'm not going to spend my time eating food like broccoli, cauliflower or kale when there's Ruth's Chris steaks, Texas BBQ and street tacos galore available to me!! To each their own...Ride On!!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Three years ago, I lost my job. I was 49, 5'9" and around 155 lbs. With the free time I had while looking for employment, I had plenty of time to trail run and mountain bike. That, probably combined with stress, caused me to lose 20 lbs, down to 135 in three or four months. My family started to worry about me, though I still had a little flab around the waist (not that you could see with clothes on), I was looking very gaunt in the face which made me look a lot older. 

Since then my weight has fluctuated, rising to 145 or a little more in the winter when I find less chances to exercise (not so much because of the weather, just busier at work) and dropping to 140 in the summer when I'm getting more miles in, especially running. So, I'm not sure what it would take to lose the spare tire (mines probably more like a 2.3 mtb than the car tire shown earlier) without looking really unhealthy overall. I'm a pescatarian but I eat a lot of cheese and sugar, though rarely soft drinks so maybe not as bad as I think. And no manboobs here.

chaz


----------



## milliesand (Jun 29, 2015)

Great thread. I'm STILL chunky (235, 6'2", 61 years old) but working on it. Based on photos on previous page about 25% fat. 

Much to learn yet and portion control will be the next tiger to tame. 

"Too soon old, too late smart"


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

At 149, not ripped but nowhere near overweight either. I was when I started, but I lost over 30 pounds since then, mostly due to a considerable increase in physical activity, particularly dancing and mountain biking.

Losing the first 20 pounds made me faster. Losing the last 10 did not. Losing it in the wrong place now (my legs).



BruceBrown said:


> It's not genetic. You would quickly find that for their age, their level of exercise that their CICO equation (calories in vs. calories out) is not tilted in the direction of them gaining weight. Again, it's simple math. Everyone's body functions primarily in the same way....


The math is simple, the inputs are not. The hereditary components include what kind of metabolism you have, which greatly affects calorie burn. An active lifestyle probably speeds up one's metabolism as well, but some naturally have a higher burn rate than others, which would greatly affect calories out. Some also digest food more efficiently than others (which affects calories in).

Overreliance on math also results in the question being changed from what was originally asked into something that can be easily measured. Losing weight doesn't necessarily make one "cut", as the body may shed more muscle than fat, if there isn't that much fat left (especially if the body goes into "starvation mode"). Lately most of my weight loss seems to be coming from my legs and not my belly.



BruceBrown said:


> Again, plenty of studies have been done to show exactly what the health risks are of carrying excess fat....


But how much is excess? That 3% guy doesn't look so good. Those I have known who were that thin always had severe medical issues. I assume he was included to show that there is such a thing as too little fat.

I'd be leery of photographs of torsos as a means of determining body-fat percentage anyway, especially among a group of bicyclists.


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 3, 2010)

I don't think CICO takes into account individual gut micro biome scenarios. http://m.ofid.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/1/ofv004.full

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

andytiedye said:


> The math is simple, the inputs are not. The hereditary components include what kind of metabolism you have, which greatly affects calorie burn. An active lifestyle probably speeds up one's metabolism as well, but some naturally have a higher burn rate than others, which would greatly affect calories out. Some also digest food more efficiently than others (which affects calories in).


Yes, and some - since we are cyclists at this website - can put out a heck of a lot of power based on their genetics. Many - based on their genetics - will scrap and fight through training to get an FTP in the 235-280 watt range. And there are those who have the genetics to put out 325 - 400 watts. It's not hard to figure out how much power one can put out, and likewise - it's not hard to figure out one's daily caloric needs. Even if one uses the simple calculators and adjusts it for the level of activity, age, gender, height, weight - it gives a very good starting base. One would quickly see that if eating the suggested amount results in maintaining weight, losing weight, or gaining weight. One simply adjusts from there +/- to target the goals.



andytiedye said:


> Overreliance on math also results in the question being changed from what was originally asked into something that can be easily measured. Losing weight doesn't necessarily make one "cut", as the body may shed more muscle than fat, if there isn't that much fat left (especially if the body goes into "starvation mode"). Lately most of my weight loss seems to be coming from my legs and not my belly.


When the body loses weight, yes it includes both fat and muscle loss. The word "cut" means a lot of things. Once the goal weight is achieved, body recomposition is typically used. If cutting weight, it is highly recommended to lift to maintain as much lean muscle mass as possible during the process. A cyclist who does a typical off season yo-yo weight gain (up to about 8% of their body weight) won't have much issue with this. Somebody who is carrying a bit too much extra flab will lose both fat and muscle weight while trimming down to a target goal. Lifting during that process will do wonders at maintaining as much muscle as possible.

The good news about a cyclist is - and it was well written in Matt Fitzgerald's book Racing Weight - is that the specific muscles used and needed for cycling develop and shape one's body in what it needs to be specific to the sport.



andytiedye said:


> But how much is excess? That 3% guy doesn't look so good. Those I have known who were that thin always had severe medical issues. I assume he was included to show that there is such a thing as too little fat.
> 
> I'd be leery of photographs of torsos as a means of determining body-fat percentage anyway, especially among a group of bicyclists.


3-4% is usually only attempted by competitive body builders. And even then, it is for a very short duration as that low of body fat percentage is dangerous and not healthy.

You can read a bit more about it in many places, but here is one: Body Fat Percentage Photos of Men & Women - BuiltLean

Male athletes are usually in the 10-14% range - including professional cyclists.

Tom Boonen - since he is 6'4" and 'around' 180 pounds, single day specialist and sprinter - represents what some of the "Big Guys" look like...



__
https://flic.kr/p/Er9gk1
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/



__
https://flic.kr/p/Er9gkm
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/



__
https://flic.kr/p/Ezh7FC
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

I would certainly call his phsyique "cut" and in the typical athlete's body fat percentage range. Obviously, at the end of the three week Tour de France, they all have lost so much weight from the event that they drop down into the "non sustainable body fat percentage" for a short time. They suffer both fat and muscle loss during that event.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Adim_X said:


> I don't think CICO takes into account individual gut micro biome scenarios. Open Forum Infectious Diseases | Mobile


Let's address the majority, who don't we.

Read #11 here: Why Am I Not Losing Weight: 11 Reasons You're Failing To Lose Fat

A little teaser from #11 at that link...

_I know we'd all like to believe that we're failing to lose weight because some mysterious outside factor is screwing up our results. The thing is, it's almost NEVER the case._


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 3, 2010)

You got that on copy/paste by this point. We get it..


----------



## woodway (Dec 27, 2005)

formica said:


> For those of you using MFP to track food, exercise, which setting do you use for mountain biking? "biking BMX or mountain" just doesn't seem to give the right numbers.


I use a heart rate monitor and then use a free heart-rate based calorie burn estimator.

Heart Rate Based Calorie Burn Calculator | SHAPESENSE.COM

Of course it's only an estimate, but in my view it's "close enough" to get me into the ballpark for burn so that I can balance my intake. I've been losing weight at about the expected rate so I know the values are good enough.


----------



## orvil (Feb 19, 2016)

I'm 54 (almost), 6'-2", 225# with a 34" waist and well defined pecs, biceps, triceps, quads and calves. I do carry some fat around my gut and I'm working now to reduce that. I've never had man boobs nor flabby arms and really don't think I ever will due to my strength training as well as, brace yourself, genetics. Adding and maintaining muscle has always been easy for me, but unfortunately so has adding belly fat. I'll deal with losing the belly fat because I know I can. I can understand counting calories and charting intake but I really don't want to. I'd rather eat a good, balanced, moderately portioned diet consistently and occasionally have an aw s**t night with too many burgers, pizza and beer because that's what makes life enjoyable for most people. And after those over-indulgent meals I'll just work harder the next few days to work off the excess. I don't race nor train like a racer. I ride for the enjoyment of the ride. Yes, I'll occasionally crank out a good, hard pace but only if I'm riding alone. There's too much pressure in life already so why would I make myself feel guilty for indulging in the pleasures of good food and drink? And I'm pretty sure the keys to the civilizations with the healthiest and longest-lived societies was exercise, a healthy diet, loving others and feeling satisfied with one's self. I doubt counting calories or weighing food portions was ever utilized. Just saying.


----------



## Bail_Monkey (May 8, 2007)

BruceBrown said:


> I'm still not sure why we are discussing Oprah Winfry in this "are you cut or sporting some flab?" thread.
> 
> I don't know, Bail_Monkey - are you an Oprah fan?


I'm not an Oprah fan, just used her as an example b/c of her genetics. Why discuss Oprah? She has an Endomorph body type and IMO, her genetics/body type naturally has her carrying a 'bit' of excess body fat. The OP mentioned carrying excess body fat and some people will tend to carry more than other naturally. There are a lot of other factors as people have already chimed in..........

The 3 Body Types Explained: Ectomorph, Mesomorph, and Endomorph ? Directlyfitness.com

A quote from the article: The endomorphic body type is the complete opposite of an ectomorph. This individual will usually be larger in appearance with heavier fat accumulation and little muscle definition. They find it hard to drop the weight even though they try several diets or workout programs.

I saw a 60 minutes segment more than a decade ago (I'm sure it is online somewhere) and the topic was about obesity in america. The reporter was an older guy that had a bit of a tire around his waist. He concluded that a few more calories eaten on a daily basis, weekly, yearly will all add up to excess fat. And as we get older, it shows. It was basically CICO and I have always remembered that.

I'm a mesomorph body type and in pretty good shape for 53.5 yo. I'd like to drop another ~5lbs of fat b/c I'd be more efficient on climbs and I will be able to cycling longer without hitting the wall. On the RB, I currently have no problem w/50 miles and 4k vertical.


----------



## orvil (Feb 19, 2016)

I don't follow cycling passionately enough to know who Tom Boonen is but I will add that he is paid to train and maintain his physique to ensure he is competitive whereas few of us here are. At least I'm not. And I'm pretty sure that once he retires from competitive cycling his physique will not be this lean nor will he train enough to maintain it in this form. Most likely he will have little interest to be this lean and cut. I could be wrong but most professional athletes tend to look more like the rest of us after retirement and no longer care for the rigorous training of their career. I'm sure he will still be a cyclist and probably will still kick ass in local races though. But he'll probably have a little higher BMI.


----------



## FrankZappa6 (Aug 9, 2010)

Great thread and discussion, but I've got to +1 on everything Bruce has said. It's calories. For me, tracking daily ins and outs has huge benefits. It becomes a mindset and is rewarding to see that it works. I gain when I have prolonged lapses in tracking. I maintain or lose when I hawk my calorie balance. 

How you approach your daily life can make a difference in that daily balance. Are you sedentary at work? Ever consider a sit to stand desk? Do you email instead of just walking over to visit your colleague? Do you walk the perimeter of the office/plant during the day? How often? Do you pack your lunch or just feed with the masses? Go to the gym before/during after work? 

Having sail all of that, my downfall is tasty beer & with beer, calories taste good. But I also know that it's calorie overindulgence that gives me midriff flab. Those calories are a personal choice, not a genetic requirement. I need to track them...and keep them under or equal to my output. Blaming it on anything other than willpower is a lame excuse, and I'm guilty of it.


----------



## woodway (Dec 27, 2005)

^^ +1

I'm 55, 6'-1", 185lbs. I'm very fit but still have a little flab around the middle that I am working now to get rid of.

In 2002 in my early 40's I hit 245 lbs. and decided I was tired of being a fat boy. I started counting calories in and tracking workouts to estimate calories burned. Over a couple years I honed the process and reduced down to 210 lbs and stayed there. In 2008 I discovered bike commuting and through consistent exercise another 25 pounds came off and generally stayed off.

I'm working now on losing another ten pounds using the tried and true method of tracking everything that I eat (My Fitness Pal) and the calories I burn through exercise (also on My Fitness Pal). The weight is generally coming off on schedule. 

Weight loss is not rocket science but it does take discipline.


----------



## cbrossman (Mar 23, 2004)

Good for you. The first step is not looking for excuses. You are either eating too much for you caloric burn, or you are losing weight.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

cbrossman said:


> Good for you. The first step is not looking for excuses. You are either eating too much for you caloric burn, or you are losing weight.


This is a good thread because it makes people think. From what I've read since jumping into this thread last week, everyone is capable of losing weight barring any unusual or rare medical issues.

Essentially, we overeat and are poor at estimating our caloric intake. And, our food choices are poor in proper, balanced macros.

Like Woodway mentioned, discipline is key. It's not easy, but it's certainly achievable for the majority. Most need to revamp their total diet, and establish a new way of viewing nutrition, making it a lifestyle in the long run. It's not anything that can be seen as a temporary Oprah-like fix.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Good comments. A couple things I'm still wondering about (and want to research if I can ever find the time):

First, if 10 people scrupulously monitor their calories in/out and keep them equal (or keep calories burned __% higher consistently), in all likelihood, those 10 people are going to LOOK very different (even if they all do the identical workouts). And they may even end up with differing amounts of body fat (if measured accurately). How is that? It has to go beyond body types. My point is that if you want to lower body fat and/or look great, you may well have to burn a greater number of calories relative to what you consume than someone else. If this isn't genetics, then what is it?

Second, if genetics doesn't play a role in any of this, then how does a certain percentage of the population do everything BAD and still live to be 95? (e.g. smoke for decades, eat bacon and burgers every day, lay on the couch every evening after work, etc.) Because while these people may not be numerous, they *do* exist—and their existence completely confounds health scientists. 

In my original post, I mentioned having a bit of a mantit thing going on. I don't like it, but (aside from my imperfect diet) I have them because 25 years ago I was a high-level whitewater slalom kayak racer. I trained like a madman twice a day, 5-6 days/week, all year-round for several years. all that high-speed kayaking gave me enormous back muscles (far bigger than any cyclist), as well as pretty huge and strong pecs.

Then I pretty much stopped kayaking for two decades. While muscle doesn't turn into fat, my large pecs became a "platform" for some added fat—giving me a bit of a mantit issue. And when I cycle, I'm still hauling around a huge amount of back muscle weight from all those years of kayaking. No way to get rid of it–short of carving it off!

Scott


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

SWriverstone said:


> Good comments. A couple things I'm still wondering about (and want to research if I can ever find the time):
> 
> First, if 10 people scrupulously monitor their calories in/out and keep them equal (or keep calories burned __% higher consistently), in all likelihood, those 10 people are going to LOOK very different (even if they all do the identical workouts). And they may even end up with differing amounts of body fat (if measured accurately). How is that? It has to go beyond body types. My point is that if you want to lower body fat and/or look great, you may well have to burn a greater number of calories relative to what you consume than someone else. If this isn't genetics, then what is it?


Most things I've read states that we are all within 200-400 calories (on a daily basis) of each other in terms of metabolism. That is a very easy adjustment to account for if one is striving for one of the three goals: losing weight, maintaining weight, or gaining weight

Most would decry the somatotypes (ecto-/endo-/meso-) as pseudoscience. We could throw in the genetics of muscle fiber types as well - not as pseudoscience, but to simply point out that we can use the hand we were dealt and still play the game. In terms of weight gain/loss/maintenance - again, it all comes down to eating the correct amount of calories. Hiding behind pseudoscience as an excuse just doesn't "cut" it. :nono:

Several who admit a bit of excess flab have mentioned in this thread that they just want to "enjoy" life. That's fine. But it also is a misnomer or at least a very overt implied assertation that those who eat within their caloric daily needs/means are not "enjoying" life. That's simply not true. Where did the line get drawn in the sand that eating more than one needs on a daily basis (calorie wise) equates to enjoyment, and one that eats the exact amount needed (or even a bit less) equates to non-enjoyment of life?:madman:



SWriverstone said:


> Second, if genetics doesn't play a role in any of this, then how does a certain percentage of the population do everything BAD and still live to be 95? (e.g. smoke for decades, eat bacon and burgers every day, lay on the couch every evening after work, etc.) Because while these people may not be numerous, they *do* exist-and their existence completely confounds health scientists.


In terms of heart disease (plaque build up in the arteries) - it can be genetic, it can be diet/lifestyle induced, it can be a combination of these, and for some based on genetics they were born with the get out of jail free card when it comes to heart disease. Justice Scalia just passed away at 79 with heart disease (coronary artery disease), type II diabetes, obesity, and was a smoker. Some of those cards he was dealt could have been played differently, for sure. But hey, he enjoyed himself.

Personally, I would like to play the cards I was dealt to my best advantage. Although I wouldn't advocate a lifestyle of laying on the couch after work, eating burgers and bacon every day, or smoking as any sort of a role model or statistical study - there is nothing wrong with a balanced lifestyle that does include the occasional couch potato evening, or the occasional burger, or bacon (not a fan of smoking though). Enjoy it all in moderation - especially if it still fits your daily calorie goals of the CICO equation.



SWriverstone said:


> In my original post, I mentioned having a bit of a mantit thing going on. I don't like it, but (aside from my imperfect diet) I have them because 25 years ago I was a high-level whitewater slalom kayak racer. I trained like a madman twice a day, 5-6 days/week, all year-round for several years. all that high-speed kayaking gave me enormous back muscles (far bigger than any cyclist), as well as pretty huge and strong pecs.


Man boobs can be one of two things - fat, or a condition known as gynecomastia due to a hormone imbalance. Some medications are known to contribute to a hormone imbalance, as is age, as are underlying health conditions. Worth checking out to really see what it is that has created yours. I doubt kayaking has created them.:skep:



SWriverstone said:


> Then I pretty much stopped kayaking for two decades. While muscle doesn't turn into fat, my large pecs became a "platform" for some added fat-giving me a bit of a mantit issue. And when I cycle, I'm still hauling around a huge amount of back muscle weight from all those years of kayaking. No way to get rid of it-short of carving it off!


It would be pretty easy to carve them off via weight loss until they are gone - the added muscle and the man boobs if that's what it is that is creating them. Unless they are there for one of the other reasons (underlying health issues, age, medications, hormonal imbalance). I deal with them as well if I go over 15% body fat.

Enjoyment of life? We can all enjoy the foods and beverages we want to eat and drink. That's not the issue. The issue is only introduced when we enjoy an amount that is more than our daily requirements/needs.

*How to handle it? *

My wife and I routinely will split a meal at a restaurant. Do I really need to eat the entire entree of Chicken and Biscuits from the Cheesecake Factory when it clocks in at 2260 calories? Sure, I can down the entire thing without even blinking an eye. However, that one entree alone is more than my daily requirements/needs. Throw in the bread and butter, a glass of wine, and the other two meals I would eat on that day and it is easy to gain weight if one doesn't bother to count the calories and follow simple math. Instead, I could eat 1/2 the entree (or get one that has less calories), enjoy the taste just as much and end the day without overeating. I'm not picking on the Cheesecake Factory - it could be any restaurant. Most list their calories right on the menu these days, but if not - nothing like the iPhone in your pocket to do a quick search before you order.

Ditto when it comes to beer. Pizza. Eggs and bacon. Dessert. Burgers. Pancakes. Cheese. Steaks. Chili. The wife's tuna casserole and homemade pie. You name it. We can eat it. But if we want to lose weight or maintain our weight - we can't eat larger portions (more calories) than our bodies require.

Again - it's simple math. No need to hide behind the excuse of genetics, or pseudoscience of somatotypes. We all have the option to make choices that end up in being "cut" or "sporting some flab". I've been both, so I know what it takes for me to get to either.


----------



## Rock (Jan 13, 2004)

I never have been, I'm sure at this age I never will be. That's OK.

If you are, good for you. I'm sure your life is great, keep it up!!!

We are all REALLY impressed, trust me.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Good reply BruceBrown—thanks!

And I agree 100% about there being no reason not to enjoy life without all the grease, salt, carbs and sugar. 

Interestingly, I've found two things to be true in my case (don't know about others, but it's certainly not true with my wife): my desire for calories (of any kind) is inversely proportional to how much physical effort I've done.

If I sit on my butt all day long and don't workout, I generally find I'm not hungry. I can literally go all day without eating anything (maybe my body is coasting on all that fat, LOL). I generally only feel hungry when I've burned a fair number of calories in a workout.

So on some days, my wife (who never works out beyond the calories burnt being a stay-at-home mom) will say to me at 5pm "I'm STARVING!!!" And I won't even remotely be hungry. So it's a constant tug-of-war over when we eat dinner. I'd rather not eat before 6:30-7pm...but she's gotta eat at 5pm or she'll keel over (so she claims). 

Scott


----------



## BADDANDY (Feb 20, 2012)

BADDANDY said:


> I just try to keep excess fat from attaching to my bones as I'm a serious after work and rainy day couch potato. I eat middle of the road, drink lightly now, jog and ride a few times a week.


I'm must be doing something right. 2 compliments this week that I'm looking fitter. My regimen must be overcoming my couch potato time!


----------



## Mr.Wizard (Feb 4, 2015)

All this reading is making me hungry...

Pass the Beer Nuts!


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

> So on some days, my wife (who never works out beyond the calories burnt being a stay-at-home mom) will say to me at 5pm "I'm STARVING!!!" And I won't even remotely be hungry. So it's a constant tug-of-war over when we eat dinner. I'd rather not eat before 6:30-7pm...but she's gotta eat at 5pm or she'll keel over (so she claims).


This may have to do less with activity level and more with what you eat during the day. Lack of protein and too many carbs/too much sugar leads to spikes/crashes which can bring on the 5 PM "hangry".


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

BruceBrown said:


> Let's address the majority, who don't we.
> 
> Read #11 here: Why Am I Not Losing Weight: 11 Reasons You're Failing To Lose Fat
> 
> ...


Now that ^^ is a funny link!

and it's absolutely spot on!!

I work in the health care industry; yes, I really am a nurse "practitioner".

If I had a dollar for every time someone mentioned one of these points as the reason they can't lose weight or they are gaining weight, man I could build a couple more bikes.

Seriously, people will ask me if the medication I'm describing can make them gain weight.

No ya dumb ass, medicine, physical changes DO NOT INCREASE WEIGHT nor do they change the laws of physics, you're simply eating too many calories!

It's called OVERSUPPLY.

Funny stuff


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

So I had this "disagreement" with a couple co workers over the importance of eating breakfast, which then settled onto a discussion of why eating three meals or even four meals was or was not the ideal way to manage intake.

To clarify things further, these coworkers are twenty somethings, whereas I am fifty.

One of the things that is hard for young folks to understand is how they will "feel" when they are older and how to manage the changes in their body, ie nutritional demands.

I think the culture of food in America has jumped the shark. In comparison to other developed countries, we eat far to many calories, fats, and proteins, as well, we are super consumers of processed foods.

American's use food as a pacifier, we want food and drink accessible at all times, which is what makes the argument for having meals more often so appealling. 

The reality is that our bodies are very good at storing energy, hence the "need" to eat often is really more mental than physical. The idea that your wife must eat at 5pm or she will crash is 100% steer doodoo. 

We could easily eat once a day and do quite well, though fasting requires a little bit of mind trickery...


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Nurse Ben said:


> So I had this "disagreement" with a couple co workers over the importance of eating breakfast, which then settled onto a discussion of why eating three meals or even four meals was or was not the ideal way to manage intake.
> 
> To clarify things further, these coworkers are twenty somethings, whereas I am fifty.
> 
> ...


Eating one meal a day is not good advice. Too many adverse effects. As for eating once a day for those of us that enjoy high levels of fitness...even worse advice.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

5'9 155lbs 7%BF. FTP is 363 (Activity | TrainingPeaks) You can see every vain in my body. My abs are 8 deep.  I prefer to be called shredded.

Lot of salads, lots of fish, lots of fruit. Zero beer, gluten, processed foods, and cookies. I consume about 3000cals per day. 4 small meals per day with a huge salad around 11am. Never fell hungry, if you're hungry, you're doing it wrong. The last 2 things I'm trying to kick are milk and cheese.

The book "racing weight" changed my life. I use to be 190lbs with a gut.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Crankout said:


> Eating one meal a day is not good advice. Too many adverse effects. As for eating once a day for those of us that enjoy high levels of fitness...even worse advice.


Really?

So I used to be an ultrarunner, I put in mega miles, high intensity, long hours, training on a nearly daily basis, and what I learned is that our muscles have a store of glycogen that allows humans to perform at high intensity for hours without taking in supplemental nutrition.

So how does this jive with the typical weekend warrior and their daily nutritional needs?

The human body evolved on a low calorie diet with irregular eating habits, the past hundred years means nothing in terms of human evolution.

Culturally, we've become sloths, the need to eat regularly is all in your mind.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

Nurse Ben said:


> Really?
> 
> So I used to be an ultrarunner, I put in mega miles, high intensity, long hours, training on a nearly daily basis, and what I learned is that our muscles have a store of glycogen that allows humans to perform at high intensity for hours without taking in supplemental nutrition.
> 
> ...


Humans evolved on a plantbase diet, I don't think the 1st humans gave 2 shits about the calorie intake. I'm also willing to bet they ate when they were hungry, which was more than once a day and consumed as much as they could until they were full or depleted the resource.

This talk about what cave men did is a joke.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> 5'9 155lbs 7%BF. FTP is 363 (Activity | TrainingPeaks) You can see every vain in my body. My abs are 8 deep.  I prefer to be called shredded.
> 
> Lot of salads, lots of fish, lots of fruit. Zero beer, gluten, processed foods, and cookies. I consume about 3000cals per day. 4 small meals per day with a huge salad around 11am. Never fell hungry, if you're hungry, you're doing it wrong. The last 2 things I'm trying to kick are milk and cheese.
> 
> The book "racing weight" changed my life. I use to be 190lbs with a gut.


It's a great book.

Dang, your weight and FTP puts you at the edge of Excellent to Exceptional!!! Great job.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Nurse Ben said:


> Really?
> 
> So I used to be an ultrarunner, I put in mega miles, high intensity, long hours, training on a nearly daily basis, and what I learned is that our muscles have a store of glycogen that allows humans to perform at high intensity for hours without taking in supplemental nutrition.
> 
> ...


One meal per day is not healthy or wise for both athletes and non-athletes. There are negative impacts on insulin levels, cholesterol and blood pressure if done for longer duration. Sure, intermittent fasting is the thing to do in some circles, but it's intermittent.


----------



## RIDESLOW (Dec 21, 2007)

I'll second the 11:00 salad ,with a chunk of meat. it worked for me on M F P.
I've been trying to get below 185 for over 10 years, now i'm 60 yo , 6'1" @ 179 lbs.
Hills are easier,pants are looser , i can see some ribs.
Can't say enough good things about my fitness pal.
A few posts back someone said the magic word - Discipline
feels great to have found it.


----------



## coyotegulch (Jun 25, 2008)

52 years old. 6' 2" 192-195 lbs. about 8% body fat. My problem is, I can't stay off the weights since I have lifted since I was 14. 
I know I would be faster without the extra muscle, but I like to eat and lift.
My best season of riding ever I was 185 lbs and finished in the top ten at a few 35+ races.
I stick to moderation in eating focused on ; fruits, veggies, and lean meats and stay away from junk (as much as I can). 
Sometimes I ramp up to my winter weight of 200 lbs to race Clydesdale.


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> 5'9 155lbs 7%BF. FTP is 363 (Activity | TrainingPeaks) You can see every *vain* in my body. My abs are 8 deep.  I prefer to be called shredded.


I can't decide if that word was misspelled intentionally...


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

Ptor said:


> I can't decide if that word was misspelled intentionally...


Yes . If I could have worked the word "douche" in there I would have.


----------



## mtnbiker64 (Nov 17, 2004)

I'll be hitting 52 this April. I'm 6' and weigh 185. I played soccer and basketball until my knee blew out in 1995. That's when I took to the woods on the bike. I do have a slight bit of belly flab. Since biking I haven't hit a gym. The only part that sometimes hurts on the longer rides is my cardio. Recently I bought a lab pup and have been walking him at lunch and at night daily, so this should help with the cardio. In now way do I feel out of shape. Most of the people I ride with are younger and I'm usually in the front of the pack. It's just a matter of watching what you eat, how much, and getting some exercise. Keep pedaling at any age.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

No matter what anyone else says, I think working out in a gym sucks. Totally uninspiring, deadly-dull, and a drag.  (At least for me it is.)

I do it—but only in the dead of winter, and I only ride a spin bike (pretty much a duplication of real riding).

Yes, I know it's pretty much mandatory if you're going to compete at a high level in just about any sport. Although when I competed (and was ranked in the top 20-30 nationally) in whitewater slalom racing (many, many, many years ago), I never lifted. I did 100% of my training in the boat, on the water. And was smart about it.

Of course I wasn't a world champion (and at least a few of those I knew in that sport lifted)...but my point is that for me, the primary goal of doing a sport is HAVING FUN. Not to get ripped or kick other people's butts. And lifting lead is NOT fun.

Scott


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

irishpitbull said:


> Humans evolved on a plantbase diet, I don't think the 1st humans gave 2 shits about the calorie intake. I'm also willing to bet they ate when they were hungry, which was more than once a day and consumed as much as they could until they were full or depleted the resource.
> 
> This talk about what cave men did is a joke.


Human evolution happened over millions of years, so geological speaking, a couple thousand years don't mean squat.

Even if you go back a few hundred years, the typical eating patterns were nowhere near what we insist is "best" now. We (specificall Americans) eat too much and we eat too often, we have a culture of eating and rampant obesity is the result.

If you travel outside the USA, you would see some very different ideas about meal planning and eating.

There may be some extreme athletes on this thread, but let's face it, most of us have jobs and are weekend warriors at best.

.. and it's this group ^^ that needs dieting help and it's this group ^^ that eats too much and eats too often.

Don't believe me, it's your right and it's your body, but the laws of thermodynamics will always hold true.

Why Am I Not Losing Weight: 11 Reasons You're Failing To Lose Fat

"The Cause, Effect & Result of Your Daily Calorie Intake"

Calories In Beats Calories Out = Caloric Surplus = Muscle gain, fat gain, or both. 
Calories Out Beats Calories In = Caloric Deficit = Fat loss, muscle loss, or both. 
Calories In Equals Calories Out = Maintenance = Everything remains the same.

Not to mention, being cut doesn't mean you're health or fit, it's just a measure of fat.

Are you fit? That would be a better title.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

irishpitbull said:


> 5'9 155lbs 7%BF. FTP is 363 (Activity | TrainingPeaks) You can see every vain in my body. My abs are 8 deep.  I prefer to be called shredded.
> 
> Lot of salads, lots of fish, lots of fruit. Zero beer, gluten, processed foods, and cookies. I consume about 3000cals per day. 4 small meals per day with a huge salad around 11am. Never fell hungry, if you're hungry, you're doing it wrong. The last 2 things I'm trying to kick are milk and cheese.
> 
> The book "racing weight" changed my life. I use to be 190lbs with a gut.


IIRC, you were at ~4.1w/kg in mid/late-2014. Is your jump up almost entirely from losing weight? That's a massive improvement.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

SWriverstone said:


> No matter what anyone else says, I think working out in a gym sucks. Totally uninspiring, deadly-dull, and a drag.  (At least for me it is.)
> 
> I do it-but only in the dead of winter, and I only ride a spin bike (pretty much a duplication of real riding).
> 
> ...


Some excellent benefits for lifting weights in the 50+ age class that has nothing do with competing.

#1. Lifting weights actually aids in keeping one's body weight in check by keeping our lean muscles mass (which dramatically drops at our age unless we do lift).

#2. Helps with bone loss and muscle loss due to aging, and improves our immune system. All of which are crucial as we fight aging and disease.

#3. Cyclists can address any muscle imbalances due to the sport specific ones we use while on the bike.

I personally prefer using my own home gym over going to a gym, but when traveling or working away from home will use a gym. I don't devote more than 2 hours a week to it in terms of moving the "lead", which is a small time investment for the dividends it pays.

HomeGymBike https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

I actually enjoy going to the gym for my various routines, and when it pays off, the motivation only increases. Just as important, though, is building in the rest days.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

I don't doubt the need to maintain lean muscle mass past 50. I'm concerned about it. And I'll hit the gym if necessary to maintain it. But I'd always rather do a balanced "collection" of outdoor activities (at fairly high intensities) instead.

For example, I know very few people who aren't sea kayakers or whitewater paddlers who regularly get on the water and paddle—but kayaking is extraordinary upper-body exercise, utilizing a wide range of core, back, shoulder, chest and arm muscles.

So to the extent I'm able, the ultimate workouts for me are to alternate paddling and cycling on a regular basis—that pretty much loops in your whole body. 

Scott


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

How do I explain this to my cat? She is quite overweight, I just fed her, and she is demanding more food.

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## orvil (Feb 19, 2016)

Your cat is obviously depressed and doesn't care about her caloric intake or appearance. There have been numerous references here to books you can read to her and sites you can show her to prove how much danger she is really in. And remember, its simple math.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

orvil said:


> Your cat is obviously depressed and doesn't care about her caloric intake or appearance. There have been numerous references here to books you can read to her and sites you can show her to prove how much danger she is really in. And remember, its simple math.


Fat cats are always disinterested....


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

They call me "Mrs. Guns" at the gym.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

Thanks Le Duke, power has improved 30ish watts (not sure what my FTP was then off hand) with a combination of weight loss, gym work, and different fueling choices. 

Dumping long z2 rides for a 4-5 hour sweetspot interval rides has dramatically improved power and fitness. Oh and stretching, lots of it.


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

formica said:


> They call me "Mrs. Guns" at the gym.


Good stuff formica!

My dedication has had some payoffs too. My arms and torso are strong and shaping up nicely plus I don't have that dreaded old lady butt either 

Like so many of you, I'm lifting primarily to be a better mountain biker. Learning movement patterns and increasing strength that will help me on the trail. Next stop, increasing my endurance so I can go faster, longer.... and I'm finding that running has helped.


----------



## gnarman (Feb 28, 2016)

I used to work as a strength coach. I think alot of mountain bike riders would benefit greatly from some solid barbell or kettlebell training. Kettlebells are great for developing strength and conditioning as well as mobility and injury prevention. Add some loaded carries and Google Stu McGill core exercises and you would be set. Find someone who is dragon door or strong first certified for KB and you can buy some and do it in your garage. You will notice huge improvements. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

formica said:


> They call me "Mrs. Guns" at the gym.


CCA permit?


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

If you're talking about a person in a narrow window of time (and I'm talking weeks if not days) then weight gain/maintenance/loss is dependent on "calories-in/calories-out. While a geneticist or biochemist might rightly argue that all humans are almost identical with respect to general metabolism, there are several very important confounding factors that determine how many calories taken in are actually biologically accessible or how they're used once assimilated. A really interesting factor, one gaining lots of attention and traction in the biomedical research community and which will soon make a big splash (small splashes being made now) in human medicine is the influence of the "gut microbiome" on health and nutrition. For those of you who don't know already, the human body has 10 microbes either in you or on you for every cell that you have in your body -- and they have a huge influence on your health (both positive and negative). These bacteria (principally those in the gut) are probably the second most important influence after a limited number of genetic loci encoded by your DNA in determining susceptibility to auto-immune diseases, allergies, and obesity. This year, maybe 2000 calories is what I need to ingest each day to "maintain", but as my gut microbiome changes through time it may be that I need 2200 or maybe 1800 to do the same thing. It's already happening that medical scientists are manipulating the gut microbiome (fecal transplants anyone?) to fix certain issues of malnutrition and intestinal inflammations. The opportunities to fine tune human health through manipulation of the gut microbiome will only increase in the years ahead. Linked below are a couple of articles about the influence of the gut microbiome on human health.

Microbesity
Obesity and human gut microbiome. 
An article about how fecal transplants recolonize the gut with "normal" bacteria

A second confounding issue about simply counting calories is illustrated by some basic research I stumbled on a few years back. The work detailed the astounding positive effects of intermittent fasting in mice. The experiment was to put mice on a high fat diet or a low fat diet, but some mice on each diet could only eat during an 8 hour period and others could eat throughout the day. They consumed the same number of calories, but those limited to eating during an 8 hour period (so fasting 16 hours) were slimmer and healthier in all sorts of ways -- lower cholesterol, increased insulin sensitivity, and more attractive to the opposite sex. They were just as healthy as mice fed a low fat diet that were allowed to eat whenever they wanted. Yeah, mice ain't the same as humans but there's a growing body of evidence that this and other types of intermittent fasting have real benefits. I offer links to two articles, with many more links to be had there to primary research, in support of the idea that (a) it's just not as simple as "don't eat so much" if you want to be cut and (b) science is damn cool.

A NY Times article on "Fasting Diets".
PNAS short review article on "Meal frequency and timing in health and disease"


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Ptor said:


> If you're talking about a person in a narrow window of time (and I'm talking weeks if not days) then weight gain/maintenance/loss is dependent on "calories-in/calories-out. While a geneticist or biochemist might rightly argue that all humans are almost identical with respect to general metabolism, there are several very important confounding factors that determine how many calories taken in are actually biologically accessible or how they're used once assimilated. A really interesting factor, one gaining lots of attention and traction in the biomedical research community and which will soon make a big splash (small splashes being made now) in human medicine is the influence of the "gut microbiome" on health and nutrition. For those of you who don't know already, the human body has 10 microbes either in you or on you for every cell that you have in your body -- and they have a huge influence on your health (both positive and negative). These bacteria (principally those in the gut) are probably the second most important influence after a limited number of genetic loci encoded by your DNA in determining susceptibility to auto-immune diseases, allergies, and obesity. This year, maybe 2000 calories is what I need to ingest each day to "maintain", but as my gut microbiome changes through time it may be that I need 2200 or maybe 1800 to do the same thing. It's already happening that medical scientists are manipulating the gut microbiome (fecal transplants anyone?) to fix certain issues of malnutrition and intestinal inflammations. The opportunities to fine tune human health through manipulation of the gut microbiome will only increase in the years ahead. Linked below are a couple of articles about the influence of the gut microbiome on human health.
> 
> Microbesity
> Obesity and human gut microbiome.
> ...


As interesting as all of that is, it really comes down to calories in vs. calories out. No need to complicate the simplicity...


----------



## SeaHag (Jul 14, 2011)

I don't want to get into a debate so I'll just throw this out there for those of you curious enough to do your own research; *but Calories in/Calories out is not the be all end all rule for weight loss. *Because a calorie does not equal a calorie. Your body reacts differently to carbohydrate calories, than fat calories or protein.

A person on a high protein and whole foods diet will have a much higher capacity for calories than a person eating processed foods of lower nutritional density.

I've read many articles on this stuff, but here was the first result off a google search: https://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/


----------



## J_Bone (Dec 14, 2014)

SeaHag said:


> I don't want to get into a debate so I'll just throw this out there for those of you curious enough to do your own research; *but Calories in/Calories out is not the be all end all rule for weight loss. *Because a calorie does not equal a calorie. Your body reacts differently to carbohydrate calories, than fat calories or protein.
> 
> A person on a high protein and whole foods diet will have a much higher capacity for calories than a person eating processed foods of lower nutritional density.
> 
> I've read many articles on this stuff, but here was the first result off a google search: https://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/


For me, I agree with that. I was maintaining my weight all while eating approximately 1500 calories a day. I increased carbohydrates, reduced the fat intake and keep my protein at the same, all the while increasing total calories to 1800 a day and I've been losing fat and gaining muscle at a much more noticeable rate. Of course I'm circuit training at a private gym 3 days a week and riding 4 times a week. 
But, it was just small tweaks in my diet that made a huge difference.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

HA! Calories in/out is a joke. Lets compare a guy who eats 2500 cals of cookies and donuts to a guy who eats a 2500 cals of lean meats and veggies. 

What you're saying is... macro-nutrients don't matter... Processed vs Whole foods don't matter...

This is wrong. Your intake of carbs, fats and protein matter.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

irishpitbull said:


> HA! Calories in/out is a joke. ...


It's still simple. If you eat less of the same food that you normally eat you'll lose fat.

Too much emphasis on weight seems wrong to me.

Changing the type of food you eat is a different factor.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

Velobike said:


> It's still simple. If you eat less of the same food that you normally eat you'll lose fat.
> 
> Too much emphasis on weight seems wrong to me.
> 
> Changing the type of food you eat is a different factor.


Eat your daily allotment of calories for a month in donuts and tell me how much fat you have lost.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Two thoughts as I catch up on replies...

First, I'm not at all convinced that messing with weights will help you be a better mountain biker. When I competed in whitewater slalom racing (an insanely technical sport), the people who won championships were the people who spent more time in the boat—period. The people who cross-trained and spent time in the gym (and less time in the boat) lost. Every time. They might have had better overall fitness, but they lost.

Mountain biking is similar to kayak slalom in that it's pretty technical. I think (but admittedly can't prove) that the benefits of more time on the trail—pedaling, balancing, reacting, picking lines, dealing with obstacles, etc. more than equals time spent with kettlebells. (Now if you can't ride as much—or don't want to ride as much—that's different.)

---
My second comment is that it strikes me some folks here a) don't have a demanding, high-responsibility full-time job, and b) don't have toddlers running around the house. 

Not that this negates any of the discussion on weight loss (I need to eat less!), but I'm sorry: having a demanding job and kids running around the house *absolutely* makes it far more difficult to lead a finely-tuned-and-honed training regimen with scientifically-constructed diets. LOL 

I know—i'm sure some here will say "I work 80hrs/week and have 6 kids and take care of my aging parents and run a home business and STILL train for bike racing 7 days a week and make all my own meals from scratch." If that's you, then my hat's off to you–you're superhuman...or a completely OCD maniac. ;-)

Scott


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

BruceBrown said:


> No need to complicate the simplicity...


I thought I was being simple -- my bad!

This will the the "ELI50" version: You're wrong. Even keeping the food intake and exercise volume the same, other factors that change over time determine how the food is absorbed and utilized. Some of those factors are in your control, some less so, some not at all.

See the above post for details and links to scientific evidence that supports the ELI50.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

irishpitbull said:


> HA! Calories in/out is a joke. Lets compare a guy who eats 2500 cals of cookies and donuts to a guy who eats a 2500 cals of lean meats and veggies.
> 
> What you're saying is... macro-nutrients don't matter... Processed vs Whole foods don't matter...
> 
> This is wrong. Your intake of carbs, fats and protein matter.


The difference will not be in weight gained or lost....the difference will be in nourshiment the donut guy is gonna have lots of vitamin and protein diffiencies...that will quickly kill him.....the guy eating proper nourshiment but too many calories will get fat and still have all the right nutrients.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

irishpitbull said:


> Eat your daily allotment of calories for a month in donuts and tell me how much fat you have lost.


If my daily allotment of calories is say 200 then I will lose weight starve to death and be malnourished...

If my daily allotment of calories is say 200 calories plus daily burn then I will gain weight and be malnourished and eventually die of malnourshiment.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

SWriverstone said:


> Two thoughts as I catch up on replies...
> 
> First, I'm not at all convinced that messing with weights will help you be a better mountain biker. When I competed in whitewater slalom racing (an insanely technical sport), the people who won championships were the people who spent more time in the boat-period. The people who cross-trained and spent time in the gym (and less time in the boat) lost. Every time. They might have had better overall fitness, but they lost.
> 
> Mountain biking is similar to kayak slalom in that it's pretty technical. I think (but admittedly can't prove) that the benefits of more time on the trail-pedaling, balancing, reacting, picking lines, dealing with obstacles, etc. more than equals time spent with kettlebells. (Now if you can't ride as much-or don't want to ride as much-that's different.)


I watched Emily Batty competing in the XC world cup for several years.....as her weight training increased she moved up more than a few places in the rankings.

Just biking will develop muscle imbalances that will begin to hurt a lot....

Need to do some other stuff as well.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

SeaHag said:


> I don't want to get into a debate so I'll just throw this out there for those of you curious enough to do your own research; *but Calories in/Calories out is not the be all end all rule for weight loss. *Because a calorie does not equal a calorie. Your body reacts differently to carbohydrate calories, than fat calories or protein.
> 
> A person on a high protein and whole foods diet will have a much higher capacity for calories than a person eating processed foods of lower nutritional density.
> 
> I've read many articles on this stuff, but here was the first result off a google search: https://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/


The difference you describe is how efficiently the body processes food....

The body process food very effieicntly...the difference in extracted calories will be far less than the errors involved in counting the calories.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

jeffscott said:


> The difference will not be in weight gained or lost....the difference will be in nourshiment the donut guy is gonna have lots of vitamin and protein diffiencies...that will quickly kill him.....the guy eating proper nourshiment but too many calories will get fat and still have all the right nutrients.


Ding, ding!

Good nutrition and controlling caloric intake, both are important for good health.

In the end, you can be an unfit skinny person or a fat fit person, but neither is ideal.

Lose weight by limiting caloric intake, improve the quality of the foodstuff you eat, look toward establishing balance and consistency over the long haul, be the turtle


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Velobike said:


> It's still simple. If you eat less of the same food that you normally eat you'll lose fat.


I'll lose something. I lose more muscle than fat at this point. I am no longer overweight and my body sheds muscle instead of fat now.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

jeffscott said:


> I watched Emily Batty competing in the XC world cup for several years.....as her weight training increased she moved up more than a few places in the rankings.
> 
> Just biking will develop muscle imbalances that will begin to hurt a lot....
> 
> Need to do some other stuff as well.


If MTB racing is just a sheer power contest, then yeah-I can see where he/she with the most muscle (and most well-balanced physique) wins.

In kayak slalom racing, being able to pick and stay on the fastest line makes more difference than being able to paddle fast. Which is why the people who have more hours in the boat, mastering the ability to choose and stick to that fastest line almost always beat the people who have spent less time in the boat. Technique beats power almost every time (assuming of course that the technician is still pretty strong).

Of course the ideal is both-have the body of a god and also be a supreme technician...but that's pretty tough to do.

Maybe MTB racing isn't as technical as I'm thinking it is? (Maybe all that really matters is to have the most powerful physical powerplant?)

(I know, a little off-topic.)
Scott


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

SWriverstone said:


> If MTB racing is just a sheer power contest, then yeah-I can see where he/she with the most muscle (and most well-balanced physique) wins.
> 
> In kayak slalom racing, being able to pick and stay on the fastest line makes more difference than being able to paddle fast. Which is why the people who have more hours in the boat, mastering the ability to choose and stick to that fastest line almost always beat the people who have spent less time in the boat. Technique beats power almost every time (assuming of course that the technician is still pretty strong).
> 
> ...


Sure but old guys really don't need a muscle imbalance


----------



## Markiel (Mar 26, 2015)

A couple of thoughts...

I'm in ok shape, definitely not too overweight, but I'm fortunate to have always been relatively skinny. 

I've recently had a pretty good health scare and tried to switch to a more organic, more vegetarian diet. Lots of vegetable juices, big salad, and less beer and grains. I lost 15 lbs in a couple of months. The lower weight is definitely noticeable when doing things like pull ups and push ups. I realize that the 15-20 lbs I've put on in the last 10 years probably has a bit to do with my decreased pull up count in that time frame.

So there could be something to carbs, gluten, etc. in the diet and that extra gut weight.

Secondly, I definitely notice the difference when I do circuit weight training. The weights really make a difference in my physic. 

I think that the long duration cardio associated with mountain biking is probably good for calorie burning, but as we age resistance training definitely has it's place.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Markiel said:


> I think that the long duration cardio associated with mountain biking is probably good for calorie burning, but as we age resistance training definitely has it's place.


Resistance training is a MUST for the over 50 crowd.

In terms of does it help one's mountain biking - which is a separate discussion from why the over 50 crowd should do resistance training - yes, it helps one be a better mountain biker. After this week of Spring Break vacation hitting the trails in St. George/Hurricane, Utah - I can attest to the muscle strength required to take on Gooseberry Mesa, Zen, Guacamole, Acid Drop, Three Fingers of Death, and other great trails.

BB


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

SeaHag said:


> I don't want to get into a debate so I'll just throw this out there for those of you curious enough to do your own research; *but Calories in/Calories out is not the be all end all rule for weight loss. *Because a calorie does not equal a calorie. Your body reacts differently to carbohydrate calories, than fat calories or protein.
> 
> A person on a high protein and whole foods diet will have a much higher capacity for calories than a person eating processed foods of lower nutritional density.
> 
> I've read many articles on this stuff, but here was the first result off a google search: https://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/


I've read tons of that "noise". Here's another one for you just like that HERE.

The take away at the end of your article:

_Even though calories are important, counting them or even being consciously aware of them is not at all necessary to lose weight.

In many cases, simple changes in food selection can lead to the same (or better) results than calorie restriction._

Again, if you eat at a surplus you will gain weight, no matter what the food selection is - counting or not counting calories. If you eat at a deficit you will lose weight, no matter what the food selection is - counting or not counting calories.

The take away at the end of the similar article I linked:

_It's apparent that a calorie is not a calorie in this case, so do calories still count when it comes to weight loss? *The answer is a resounding Yes!* Even though the study focused on diet quality, this is just one factor out of many that affect our weight. To be successful at maintaining a healthy weight, both the number of calories consumed and the quality of those calories matters._

There is only one proven method of losing weight through diet. The amount of calories eaten must be less than the amount of calories burned. Without that deficit in calories, weight loss does not occur.

It doesn't matter if the calories come from donuts, pancakes, bacon, spinach, apples, tuna, twinkies, cookies, steak, chicken, potatoes, black beans, ice cream, pizza, asparagus, chips, Mom's home cookin', etc.

Maintain a deficit to lose weight. Maintain a surplus to gain weight. Eat at your daily needs to maintain weight.

All diets succeed, no matter if it is low carb, protein based, plant based, the "all donut diet", IIMYM, etc... - for one simple reason: calorie deficit.

Why Am I Not Losing Weight: 11 Reasons You're Failing To Lose Fat

#5 from that link is key...

_*5. Too Many Carbs After 7PM Is Causing&#8230; Nope&#8230; It's Still Calories.*

Hi. Above all else, weight control and body composition really do revolve around calories. Eat more of them and you gain weight, eat less of them and you lose weight. Taaadaaa!

And yes, I know you've probably heard otherwise. I get that you've probably seen some person claim that the key to weight loss is everything from carbs, to fat, to avoiding certain food groups, to eating 6 small meals per day, to not eating after a certain time at night, to only eating healthy "clean" foods, and on and on and on.

That's all ********. (BS)

Truth is, the key to weight loss (and weight gain) is and always will be calories. Anyone who disagrees is an idiot who should be ignored. And the product they are likely trying to sell should be avoided, too.

So while a lot of this other stuff definitely matters in terms of overall health and still definitely plays an important role in helping you improve your body, it's always a distant second to calories when it comes to weight loss or a lack thereof.

More about this here: The Truth About Fat Loss_


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> Eat your daily allotment of calories for a month in donuts and tell me how much fat you have lost.


As long as you maintain a deficit, you'd lose weight.

This professor proved it by eating pretty much Twinkies, Doritos, Oreos, etc... and lost 27 pounds doing that for 10 weeks.

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com

I don't have a link at the moment, but a similar test was done eating nothing but McDonald's. Same result - weight loss, lowered bad cholesterol numbers, raised good numbers.

Again - it's all about the deficit.:thumbsup:


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

It seems to be working for Oprah


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> As long as you maintain a deficit, you'd lose weight.
> 
> This professor proved it by eating pretty much Twinkies, Doritos, Oreos, etc... and lost 27 pounds doing that for 10 weeks.
> 
> ...


Ah yes... This guy looks like the definition of health










When you're already fat **** it is easy to say look now I'm a normal fat ****.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> Ah yes... This guy looks like the definition of health.


He wasn't advocating the junk food as the _definition of health_, he just did it as a study to prove his points:

-----

*His premise:* That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
*
The premise held up:* On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily.

*So he followed a basic principle of weight loss:* He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

-----

I think we are all advocates of a well balanced, highly nutritional diet. Point being - when it comes to weight loss through diet, a calorie deficit in the CI/CO equation is the only proven way to lose weight.

I'm having pancakes this morning - the iHop Harvest Grain 'N Nut variety. Is that "nutty" enough for you. Bacon and 2 eggs over easy as well - all to fuel today's rides at Guacamole and Little Creek Mesa in Utah.

Yesterday, I ate 3736 calories. I burned over 4600 in exercise alone on the bike riding most of the True Grit Epic course.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

5'9" 165 pounds and 9% body fat. I have a hard time keeping weight on.


----------



## gnarman (Feb 28, 2016)

I promise you guys that doing some proper and well coached barbell and kettlebell work will do wonders for your injury proofing and conditioning. If you include hinges, pressing, pushing (bench or pushups), squats, loaded carries (farmers walks) and mobility work it is an absolute game changer. As to nutrition just eat like an adult veggies, rice, meat and water. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## gnarman (Feb 28, 2016)

jeffscott said:


> I watched Emily Batty competing in the XC world cup for several years.....as her weight training increased she moved up more than a few places in the rankings.
> 
> Just biking will develop muscle imbalances that will begin to hurt a lot....
> 
> Need to do some other stuff as well.


This! No professional athlete spends zero time in the weight room. I agree that you need to do your sport more often as much as you can, but ignoring strength training, mobility work and armor building is something that the pros can't afford to miss out on. They all have strength coaches and most run programs.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Mrs Guns here... I know for a fact that having super strong, well muscled upper body keeps my shoulders from exploding when I hit the ground.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

I get really overwhelmed and confused. I've always carried around an extra 10 lbs and that frustrated me for many years.

I've switched things up a bit and now I'm at a good weight but, if I do eat more then I need or (eat for the flavor as I call it) I get into trouble real fast.

I figured out my own plan that makes sense to me. No bad carbs as we have heard a million times. If I've worked out hard and need some sugar I eat sweet potatoes or something along those lines. 

I've been spending more time in the kitchen getting creative. I'm really trying to stay away from processed. I loosely follow the Paleo plan but focus it more on Vegetarian and food made by nature.

Once a week I go out and I eat whatever I want. I love food and find comfort and happiness in it. Is that a bad thing?


----------



## milliesand (Jun 29, 2015)

Fuzzle said:


> <<<snip
> 
> Once a week I go out and I eat whatever I want. I love food and find comfort and happiness in it. Is that a bad thing?


I sure hope not, as I have used "food rewards" when certain goals were reached, as well as making a regular diet of fruits, veggies, fish...


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

milliesand said:


> I sure hope not, as I have used "food rewards" when certain goals were reached, as well as making a regular diet of fruits, veggies, fish...


Last night I was at the store and I heard this tiny little voice scream out YAY ICE CREAM!!!


----------



## milliesand (Jun 29, 2015)

Ha! I've been using a Wii for the scale. It FINALLY stopped saying "obese" in favor of "over weight". Had the best Hot Fudge Sundae  And it was GOOD, gaddabit.

So if anything, we're both crazy as a loon. Cheers!


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Fuzzle said:


> Last night I was at the store and I heard this tiny little voice scream out YAY ICE CREAM!!!


IIMYM (if it meets your macros), if it keeps the CICO equation balanced (calories in vs. calories out) - eat it. Chow down and enjoy. Again, as long as you are not eating more calories than you body needs on a daily basis - you can eat it all.

If you consistently eat more than your daily needs, you need to start buying two seats in coach on your flights.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

This thread + being in the over 50 section reminded me of this Camille Paglia quote on Lena Dunham:
"We must also witness, like hapless medieval bystanders at a procession of flagellants, just how unappetizingly pallid Caucasian flesh can be made to be without cracking the camera lens."


----------



## oldbroad (Mar 19, 2004)

Cut? ha. Never have been, never will be. Flab? Sometimes more, sometimes less. Luckily, it's evenly distributed.


----------



## orvil (Feb 19, 2016)

I noticed awhile back that the name of our site spoken quickly sounds like "empty beer". After most rides there are post-ride empty beer bottles and cans lying around the garage. That's why I ride. So much for counting all those calories.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

orvil said:


> I noticed awhile back that the name of our site spoken quickly sounds like "empty beer". After most rides there are post-ride empty beer bottles and cans lying around the garage. That's why I ride. So much for counting all those calories.


That used to be one of the forum names years ago; maybe it's still down there at the bottom somewhere.


----------



## likeaboss (Jan 1, 2012)

I have been telling my wife for years that you cannot generate something from nothing and the key to losing weight is to limit intake. Her mom has a thyroid problem she uses as an excuse to continue eating poorly. Luckily my wife is very active and has a fairly high metabolism. She is 5'10" 130lbs at 47. I am 6' 217lbs at 50.

If nothing else, this thread has motivated me to lose some extra weight. I figured with the start of Mud season here in Maine, it is the perfect time to prepare for biking season. I cut back on total calories to roughly 1500 per day. I am loosely counting but not weighing food. I already eat a fairly balanced diet with very little processed foods.

Weekdays I do not eat breakfast until I am hungry and then it is either a piece of fruit or a greek yogurt. I will have a light snack of pistachios before lunch. Lunch is usually a half sandwich or a small portion of leftovers. Midafternoon is another piece of fruit and pistachios.

Lots of water all day. No soft drinks but that is easy as I rarely drink soda. That stuff seems like poison to me, especially the diet varieties.

Dinner is what we normally eat but with reduced portions. Lowfat milk with dinner. Usually some berries or grapes after dinner.

No organized exercise program. I do have a desk job but get up quite often and also walk around the warehouse a bit. After work is dog walking/playing. Biking once the mud is gone.

Weekends I indulge a little more by adding a few beers or some eggs for breakfast. I also ride on the weekends and hike/play with the dog a lot.

In 2 weeks I have lost 4-5 lbs. Down to 213lbs. Never felt like I was starving. I am a sweet freak so I do miss those but discipline is holding so far. I compare myself to people with real struggles and realize it is so easy to do this in comparison.


----------



## KRob (Jan 13, 2004)

Ok so I've read the whole thread and Bruce has convinced me that CI/CO is the irrefutable fact behind wait loss, but I still think I am an outlier as far as how many calories I can eat and still not gain weight.

I've never accurately weighed food and kept track of every calorie I eat but just guesstimating based on what I eat and how much, I'm pretty sure I eat 3000-4000 calories a day.... sometimes more. 

I do ride 5-6 days a week for 1 to 1.5 hours (2-3 hours maybe once a week or once every other week) but not at a super fast pace, and I don't do any other exercise other than yard work and walking (two blocks) to work and I do have a sedentary job (optometrist). I am somewhat careful about the type of calories I consume, meaning I try and avoid processed foods, don't eat out much, no soft drinks, limited desserts and added sugar, but I still weigh the same as I did in high school 5'11" 155-160 lbs.

It drives my wife crazy! She easily eats half as many calories as me and still gains weight (about ~2-3 lbs a year over that last 10-15 years) despite exercising 5 days a week (including weights 2x a week).

I've got this theory and I've finally heard a scientist/doctor say something that supports my theory (I watched "The Bitter Truth about Sugar" recently). I fart a lot. I mean A LOT. If I don't feel the need to pass some gas every 2-3 minutes especially following meals then it's very rare. I think many of the calories I eat get turned into gas in my stomach or intestines instead of being absorbed into my bloodstream and reaching my liver.

Am I crazy here???? Or just stinky? (That also drives my wife crazy btw... although she's blessed to be a bit insensitive to smells, ha ha).

Thoughts?


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 3, 2010)

Your not crazy. We all have unique gut biomes. I'm not gonna argue about cico. 

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

KRob said:


> Ok so I've read the whole thread and Bruce has convinced me that CI/CO is the irrefutable fact behind wait loss, but I still think I am an outlier as far as how many calories I can eat and still not gain weight.
> 
> I've never accurately weighed food and kept track of every calorie I eat but just guesstimating based on what I eat and how much, I'm pretty sure I eat 3000-4000 calories a day.... sometimes more.
> 
> ...


If that were the case you'd have the runs constantly. Some people, like me, burn a lot more calories doing the same thing as another person.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I have a simple proposition for anyone here.

For a nominal fee, I can help you lose at least 20lbs over the course of two months. Guaranteed.

I mean, it worked for Mudge, and it worked for me, and it worked for everyone else I know.

I will also help awaken your body and mind, and help you probe a bit deeper towards your true capacity to endure.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> I have a simple proposition for anyone here.
> 
> For a nominal fee, I can help you lose at least 20lbs over the course of two months. Guaranteed.
> 
> ...


Oh no, you're not sticking anything up my butt hole!


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

KRob said:


> I've got this theory and I've finally heard a scientist/doctor say something that supports my theory (I watched "The Bitter Truth about Sugar" recently). I fart a lot. I mean A LOT. If I don't feel the need to pass some gas every 2-3 minutes especially following meals then it's very rare. I think many of the calories I eat get turned into gas in my stomach or intestines instead of being absorbed into my bloodstream and reaching my liver.
> 
> Thoughts?


With a ridiculous theory like this, it's no wonder you buy into Bruces BS.


----------



## J_Bone (Dec 14, 2014)

Since increasing my calories, I've been losing weight..... 

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## cbrossman (Mar 23, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> With a ridiculous theory like this, it's no wonder you buy into Bruces BS.


Are you referring to CI/CO? If so, please explain why that is BS?


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

cbrossman said:


> Are you referring to CI/CO? If so, please explain why that is BS?


He's not man enough to refute it.


----------



## J_Bone (Dec 14, 2014)

BruceBrown said:


> He's not man enough to refute it.


I don't know about irishpitbull... 
But in my case, I was maintaining weight with a 1500 CI. I upped it to a target 1800 and I started to burn fat and lose weight. I added an extra workout so I've upped my CI to 2200 and I've continued to lose weight. With the extra workout, that was to balance the extra CO. 
But how am I losing weight after I increased my CI?

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

J_Bone said:


> I don't know about irishpitbull...
> But in my case, I was maintaining weight with a 1500 CI. I upped it to a target 1800 and I started to burn fat and lose weight. I added an extra workout so I've upped my CI to 2200 and I've continued to lose weight. With the extra workout, that was to balance the extra CO.
> But how am I losing weight after I increased my CI?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


If you've added an extra work out, your body may have more muscle mass. Muscle burns calories 24/7. Also if your intake of fat percentage is right, you can teach your body to burn more fat as opposed to burning muscle or relying on the carbs you ate for energy.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

cbrossman said:


> Are you referring to CI/CO? If so, please explain why that is BS?


It leaves out how efficiently our digestive systems work.
Now we are up to

CI*E / CO

Then there is CO. We can weigh our food and get a pretty precise read on CI, but how do we determine CO? CO is also greatly affected by individual metabolism. Some of us simply have a higher burn rate than others.

When we exercise, we burn calories, but how many? There is an entire industry devoted to making wearable devices to measure our calorie burn, but how accurate are they, especially if our calorie burn does not consist entirely of standardized exercises that one does in a gym, or running, walking or bicycling?


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

J_Bone said:


> I don't know about irishpitbull...
> But in my case, I was maintaining weight with a 1500 CI. I upped it to a target 1800 and I started to burn fat and lose weight. I added an extra workout so I've upped my CI to 2200 and I've continued to lose weight. With the extra workout, that was to balance the extra CO.
> But how am I losing weight after I increased my CI?
> 
> Of course I'm circuit training at a private gym 3 days a week and riding 4 times a week


The last sentence is from one of your earlier posts and points out why you are losing weight. I am fairly certain that in spite of the increased calories eaten you are enjoying, your calories out has increased more with all of the exercise which is why you are losing weight.

I ate between 2200 and 3800 calories per day in the past week, but I burned a heck of a lot in exercise and still lost 1.2 pounds in the past 7 days. Again, you cannot ignore either side of the CI/CO equation. Most get it wrong by underestimating the CI side and overestimating the CO side.

Eat a surplus - gain weight. Eat at a deficit - lose weight. Eat at maintenance - your weight stays the same.

There are very few rare "cupcakes" or reasons beyond the science, but boy does it sure stir up a conversation.

We all make choices when it comes to feeding our bodies and getting the equation correct...

Choices https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## KRob (Jan 13, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> With a ridiculous theory like this, it's no wonder you buy into Bruces BS.


Lol. I know it's ridiculous and I used to just joke around about it, but something Doctor Lustig said in the "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" video got me thinking that there might be some scientific basis for it (go to the 1:14:00 point on the lecture to here him explain it). If you eat most of your carbs and glucose with fiber it inhibits the absorption of the carbs from the gut. Then the bacteria in the gut feed off those carbs which creates gas as a byproduct which is expelled.

Am I stretching here? Seems to make some sense, right?

Ok maybe it is ridiculous, but for whatever reason I seem to be able to eat a ton and not gain weight.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> He's not man enough to refute it.


LOL Bruce you silly man.

1. Weight loss and fat loss are different.

2. Calories in/out seems like simple math but what it comes down to is metabolic rate of digestion.

3. Refined carbs are the devil. (waterboy voice) Fiber is your weight lose friend.

Harvard seems to agree with me. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0 and my body is kinda all the proof I need.

I eat mostly a plant base diet but by no means a veghead. I follow a 80/10/10 meaning 80% of diet is plant base carbs, 10% is animal protein, and 10% fat and system from racing weight the book.

When I was a fat **** I ate around 2500 cals a day, I eat around 3000-5000 today. I cant keep weight on. How am I able to eat over double the calories and still loose weight if cals in/out is valid? Why do so many cals in/out diets fail and you just put the weight back on?

It is because of the type of food you are eating. Cals in/out is half the story. It's like reading half a book.

FYI it is 8am and I consumed over 1500 cals and I'm full as a tick. Let me know you bu!!**** starving yourself diet is working for you.


----------



## J_Bone (Dec 14, 2014)

BruceBrown said:


> The last sentence is from one of your earlier posts and points out why you are losing weight. I am fairly certain that in spite of the increased calories eaten you are enjoying, your calories out has increased more with all of the exercise which is why you are losing weight.
> 
> I ate between 2200 and 3800 calories per day in the past week, but I burned a heck of a lot in exercise and still lost 1.2 pounds in the past 7 days. Again, you cannot ignore either side of the CI/CO equation. Most get it wrong by underestimating the CI side and overestimating the CO side.
> 
> ...


I lost weight when increasing CI and keeping my activity level the same. That was the first CI increase. 
The second part when I bumped up my activity, I bumped CI too. 
I was mainly asking about, when my activity level was consistent and when I increased CI I lost weight.

Thanks

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## J_Bone (Dec 14, 2014)

irishpitbull said:


> LOL Bruce you silly man.
> 
> 1. Weight loss and fat loss are different.
> 
> ...


For me, I've noticed what I eat, when I eat, and how much I eat has greatly reduced the fat % I have. I increased carbs mostly and it flipped the fat burning switch. I'm now at a 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> LOL Bruce you silly man.
> 
> 1. Weight loss and fat loss are different.
> 
> ...


How about we break down those results from that "study". I just read it: MMS: Error

Where the study failed - IMO - is that they did not measure the number of calories being consumed by the participants. :nono:

_*RESULTS*

Within each 4-year period, participants gained an average of 3.35 lb (5th to 95th percentile, −4.1 to 12.4). On the basis of increased daily servings of individual dietary components, 4-year weight change was most strongly associated with the intake of potato chips (1.69 lb), potatoes (1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (1.00 lb), unprocessed red meats (0.95 lb), and processed meats (0.93 lb) and was inversely associated with the intake of vegetables (−0.22 lb), whole grains (−0.37 lb), fruits (−0.49 lb), nuts (−0.57 lb), and yogurt (−0.82 lb) (P≤0.005 for each comparison)._

Suffice it to say, the amount of calories consumed through the chips, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, etc... totaled more daily calories being consumed than the calories found in vegetables, whole grains, fruits, nuts, and yogurt. Gee - that's a big surprise they gained weight - NOT. :eekster:

Again, it comes down to the amount of calories one ingests and how that number compares to their daily caloric needs.

By the way, my personal diary is open at MyFitnessPal. You would see that I am not suffering, starving, or depriving myself in any way, shape, or form. I do happen to eat yogurt every day, nuts, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. However, to maintain weight - I do not eat at a surplus. Steaks, chops, chicken, lamb, buffalo, fish, peanut butter, tuna sandwiches, smoked meat - all play a big part of my diet as well.

Again - most underestimate the amount of calories that they do consume, and overestimate the amount they burn. That's what leads to weight gain - or as your linked study calls it "life style changes". HA! And as the study says, it sneaks up on you with the slow and steady gains until suddenly - the clothes in the closet don't fit the same any more.:nono:

A simple serving of 11-13 chips (that's 1 ounce of potato chips) is 154 calories. Pretty hard to find people who stop at eating just one ounce. However, chips are not a problem to eat, but you simply have to know the counts and stop when you have had your amount. One medium sized baked potato with skin is 171 calories. Again, not a problem to eat at all. Ditto on a yam/sweet potato. One can of Coke is 138 calories. Again, not a problem if you know your numbers and daily needs.

One medium peach is 58 calories. One medium red delicious apple is 72 calories. 5 baby carrots is 20 calories. One cup of blueberries is 85 calories. One medium banana is 105 calories. 10 snow pea pods is 14 calories. One cup of chopped broccoli is 31 calories. One medium onion is 44 calories. One stalk of celery is 6 calories. One cup of avocado is 234 calories. One leek is 54 calories.

Point being - you can eat a lot of "volume" with the lower calorie foods. But in the end, it is the amount of calories - not the source - that causes weight gain. If I ate 25 bananas a day (2625 calories), I would gain weight just as if I bumped my calories up to that amount by eating more chips and drinking more Coke or beer or lemonade or insert your sugar drink here: _________.

_Aggregate dietary changes were associated with substantial differences in weight change (3.93 lb across quintiles of dietary change). Other lifestyle factors were also independently associated with weight change (P<0.001), including physical activity (−1.76 lb across quintiles); alcohol use (0.41 lb per drink per day), smoking (new quitters, 5.17 lb; former smokers, 0.14 lb), sleep (more weight gain with <6 or >8 hours of sleep), and television watching (0.31 lb per hour per day)._

Again - really? They had to do a study to figure that out?:madman:

All the "meanies" at MFP (MyFitnessPal.com) have instructed a lot of "cupcakes" out there who think they are genetically different than the rest of the human race when it comes to gaining, losing, and maintaining weight.

I would love to see an accurate count of your daily ingested calories, and your daily calories burned. Eating 3000-5000 calories a day means nothing to me (that's less than half of what a pro roadie eats on big training days and tour events). Assuming you race CAT I - you are most likely grabbing some good training hours getting ready for your season which accounts for the burn, and your intake. Maybe you need to up your calories to the 6K-8K range like a tour rider to keep your weight on. They have to, so why not you?

_At rest, we all burn roughly 90 calories an hour, or a little more than 2,100 a day._ - from the tour rider article linked above. How much we burn per hour per day at rest varies (within a more narrow range than one believes) based on age, gender, weight.

You, my friend Irishpitbull, are not a special "cupcake" and burning 3000-5000 calories a day at rest. You are burning some calories on the bike, at work, moving around - doing something.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> How about we break down those results from that "study". I just read it: MMS: Error
> 
> Where the study failed - IMO - is that they did not measure the number of calories being consumed by the participants. :nono:
> 
> ...


I didn't read your post because it is most likely wrong.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> I didn't read your post because it is most likely wrong.


Well, now you are participating and showing your true debating skills. As expected...


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> Well, now you are participating and showing your true debating skills. As expected...


It's so hard for me to take what you saying and debate it because it is like debating with a 4 year old that keeps telling me the sky is purple.

The idea that you think a can of coke and fruit calories are the same is crazy. Honestly... Mind blowing. Your thinking and the BS that websites like Fitnesspal spew are why the majority of the Americans are fat, riddled with cancer, and borderline retarded. Companies that sell "weight lose" products don't want you to loose, they want you to make marginal gains so you have to keep useing their product. My conspiracy theory. But back to Coke.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> It's so hard for me to take what you saying and debate it because it is like debating with a 4 year old that keeps telling me the sky is purple.
> 
> *The idea that you think a can of coke and fruit calories are the same is crazy. Honestly... Mind blowing.* Your thinking and the BS that websites like Fitnesspal spew are why the majority of the Americans are fat, riddled with cancer, and borderline retarded. Companies that sell "weight lose" products don't want you to loose, they want you to make marginal gains so you have to keep useing their product. My conspiracy theory. But back to Coke.


Glad to blow your mind with some truth :thumbsup: - and *Happy St. Patrick's Day* to you.

You still have not refuted the scientific fact that thermodynamics concludes that a calorie is a calorie and CI/CO (calories in vs. calories out) works.

Is a calorie a calorie?

_*CONCLUSION*

*We conclude that a calorie is a calorie.* From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.

In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. *As such, a calorie is a calorie.* Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another.
_

It's not about the Coke, or eating refined carbs, or eating plants, or timing when you eat, or the ratio of carbs to fat to protein...



__
https://flic.kr/p/EsLCgT
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Avoid the BS, _Irish_...

Why Am I Not Losing Weight: 11 Reasons You're Failing To Lose Fat


----------



## woodway (Dec 27, 2005)

irishpitbull said:


> The idea that you think a can of coke and fruit calories are the same is crazy. Honestly... Mind blowing.


If a can of fruit juice contains 100 calories and a can of coke contains 100 calorie then by definition they are the same. The ingredients are different and there may be other chemicals in a can of coke that do bad things to your body but from a weight loss perspective there is no difference.


----------



## joeduda (Jan 4, 2013)

irishpitbull said:


> The idea that you think a can of coke and fruit calories are the same is crazy. Honestly... Mind blowing. Your thinking and the BS that websites like Fitnesspal spew are why the majority of the Americans are fat, riddled with cancer, and borderline retarded. Companies that sell "weight lose" products don't want you to loose, they want you to make marginal gains so you have to keep useing their product. My conspiracy theory. But back to Coke.


I was one of those "american's riddled with cancer" for a couple of years. And I do feel half retarded at times form the poisonous chemo treatments. I'm a participant in a clinical trial and have about every test known to mankind done to me. Blood tests 3 times a week for months. I know what you are getting at, the calorie in/out stuff that gets spewed is not supporting good health, it's not taking it into account at all.

A calorie is calorie but is that calorie you just ingested supporting your health? Something to think about BruceBrown. Or not.


----------



## PineyRose (Sep 30, 2015)

I retired at 58 and started getting in shape. I was 162 pounds when I retired. Ten months later I'm 120 pounds and I have kept it off. I'm 61 now. At 5'5" that's a good weight for me. I'm female. Still, when you get past middle age, losing weight doesn't work like it did in your 20's. My legs are muscled and toned but even though I'm thin I have some excess skin from the weight loss on my upper arms and my belly is not 100% toned. It's not fat at 29 inches but I feel that at 120 pounds it should be smaller. Our skin doesn't bounce back like it did when we were younger and we tend to store some fat around our middle that we didn't store when we were young. We have to work a lot harder to fill that skin with muscle as we age too.

I don't drink but I can promise you that drinking beer doesn't help.  I like beer but it didn't work into my plan to get healthy and fit. Besides, I take medicine for cholesterol and beer is one thing I don't need.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

joeduda said:


> I was one of those "american's riddled with cancer" for a couple of years. And I do feel half retarded at times form the poisonous chemo treatments. I'm a participant in a clinical trial and have about every test known to mankind done to me. Blood tests 3 times a week for months. I know what you are getting at, the calorie in/out stuff that gets spewed is not supporting good health, it's not taking it into account at all.
> 
> A calorie is calorie but is that calorie you just ingested supporting your health? Something to think about BruceBrown. Or not.


We are discussing two separate issues. The first issue is CICO - the only proven way to lose, gain, or maintain weight. The second issue is the nutritional value of those calories.

Personally, I focus on..

•Calories for the overall total "score"
•Macros of carbs, protein, fat for my daily score
•I also track sodium and sugar for the kick of it

I am not in any way advocating for good health to load up one's nutrition with daily calories that don't have the most healthful benefits. I am simply busting some of the BS myths (Bro Science - or bull sh__) that have been proposed. A good well-balanced diet is what I advocate and what I eat. An occasional burger, can of coke, handful of chips, big aXX steak, slices of pizza, french toast, hot chocolate lava cake, eggs over easy with bacon, scone, nice hunk of cheese, a few Girl Scout Cookies - or whatever - is not going to hurt you in the context of a well balanced diet. You simply have to hit your daily calorie goals to (lose, gain, or maintain - whatever goal you are seeking).

Plenty of people believe in eating "clean". Plenty of people believe in eating a style called "If it fits your macros" (IIFYM). Plenty of people believe in eating low carb, or plant based, or pescatarian, or this fad, or that fad, - you name it. In all cases, to *lose weight* you must eat fewer calories than you burn, to *gain weight* you must eat more calories than you burn, and to *maintain weight* you must eat very close to what you burn on a daily basis.

As I said - that's the first issue being discussed.

The second issue you raise is of the nutrients within those calories.

A majority of my daily calories come from super foods, and immune boosting foods. I posted about that on the nutrition for geezers thread_ here_.

_I love to include as many super foods and immune boosting foods in my regular diet that I can: spinach, mushrooms, garlic, avocado, salmon, chicken soup, leafy greens, beans, walnuts, almonds, blueberries, dark chocolate, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, bok choy, yogurt, sweet potato, green tea, red wine, red bell peppers, oats, tuna, chicken, etc.

That being said, fueling myself with whatever I eat by trying to avoid eating excess calories has been the key to keep my weight in check. This means estimating and counting calories in terms of what goes in and what gets burned on a daily basis. I need around 2000 - 2055 calories a day to maintain my weight (before exercise). Knowing your daily number and making sure I don't underestimate the calories of what I eat and overestimate what I burn in exercise is the thing that works the best for me - no matter what it is I eat.

So, no 16 ounce rib eye steaks for me.... I will eat the 8 ounce cut though._

I'm sorry for your cancer and what you have been through. What kind of weight and health history did you have leading into being diagnosed with cancer?

I think it would be an important addition to the discussion. Why?

It's a well known fact that visceral fat in men is the most dangerous kind. The new term being used in the media "the Dad gut" which we always called a beer belly or pot belly or spare tire in prior decades/generations is being touted as "it's okay". In this thread, it's being called "sporting some flab gut".

But it's not okay!:nono:

It's the number one cause of disease (heart, diabetes, cancer) and in our discussion on this thread of "Are you cut. Or sporting some flab?" - my greatest fear are those diseases which again - are known to be a result of visceral fat. Knowing that you can drastically lower your chances of contracting those diseases - as a man - by trimming that visceral fat off (no love handles, no man boobs, and having lower body fat percentage of 20% or lower) is the best medical move one can invest in their health, disease prevention, and longevity. Who the F___ wouldn't take advantage of that totally FREE and wonderful benefit?:madman:

After spending my entire adult life in the 165 - 180 range, suddenly when I reached age 40 - 42 and during that two year period, I let myself drift up to 25% body fat through eating more calories than my body needed on a daily basis.:nono:

I got a big wake up call at the end of those two years back in 2003-04 when I had ended up at 212 pounds and suddenly qualified as a "Clydesdale" at a bike race or running race. I couldn't ride certain bike parts because I was "too heavy" and many had 175 or 180 pound weight limits. One could argue that 212 pounds is not really that heavy for somebody that is 6'4", but it was the classic "skinny fat" syndrome and that extra weight was mostly all being carried as excess in the danger area - visceral fat. Or belly. Or spare tire. Or beer belly. Or "Dad gut". Worse - my cholesterol numbers got ugly to the point I was steered to medication to lower it.:nono:

That's all I needed to hear, and I turned it around in 10 months by dropping back down to 180 (which was easier to accomplish than I thought it would be). Two years ago I decided to get more "cut" by trimming down to the 165 - 168 range (I am sitting at 168 right now). Cholesterol numbers and blood work are great without the need for any medication. Stamina, strength - all fine and dandy.

Just to recap: two separate issues are at stake in the discussion.

1. Calories rules the day when it comes to losing, gaining, and maintaing weight is the first issue - no matter where they come from for sources of food.

2. The nutrients in those calories are a separate issue in terms of discussion, but not when it comes to one's weight.

A man looks in the mirror and can make some choices about "are you cut or sporting some flab?"..



__
https://flic.kr/p/EuwXDP
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

A woman looks in the mirror and can make some choices about "are you cut or sporting some flab?"...



__
https://flic.kr/p/EKiB3a
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

BruceBrown said:


> Well, now you are participating and showing your true debating skills. As expected...


Calories and nutrients are separate issues.

In terms of weight management, it's the balance of calories in and out that counts.

Of course, eating healthier forms of calories makes all the difference when it comes to taking care of yourself.


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 3, 2010)

Dang Bruce 6ft4in and 165. I'm at like 17%/225lbs and 6ft1.5in. I will take this form over the 365 i was at when i bought a bike 5 years ago. It's so hard for me too lose weight at this point. I probably have 10 pounds of Loose skin but that that's a different issue probably skewing my bf%. I must be big boned or lifting too much. 

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk


----------



## joeduda (Jan 4, 2013)

Bruce, 

I'm 6'-2" and was 218 when diagnosed, definitely carrying around more than I should have been. I was otherwise "healthy" though and training for an 50 mile mtb race and progressing nicely when I started to decline. It got to the point where I was out of breath just taking a shower in the morning. Finally ended up in an ER, took a blood test and was told I was anemic. Probable cause: Leukemia. Bone Marrow Biopsy and on to chemo the next day. And a Stem Cell Transplant exactly 6 months later. 

Now at 178 with a lot more concern of what goes into my stomach. Some good stuff in your response, I appreciate it.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

Bruce, I can't reply with quotes because your posts are SO long winded. Happy belated St Paddy's day to you. I checked out early from work. I too got a new Rig from competitive, I wanted to be home for the delivery.

So onward... Why the type calories matter.

Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.

Some of these pathways are more “efficient” than others.

The more “efficient” a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.

The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.

Protein contains 4 calories per gram, but a large part of the protein calories are lost as heat when it is metabolized by the body.

The thermionic effect of food is a measure of how much different foods increase energy expenditure, due to the energy required to digest, absorb and metabolize the nutrients.

This is the thermionic effect of different macro nutrients (7):

Fat: 2-3%.
Carbs: 6-8%.
Protein: 25-30%.
Sources vary on the exact numbers, but it is clear that protein requires much more energy to metabolize than fat and carbs (8).

If we go with a thermionic effect of 25% for protein and 2% for fat, this would mean that a 100 calories of protein would end up as 75 calories, while a 100 calories of fat would end up as 98 calories.

Studies show that high protein diets boost metabolism by 80 to 100 calories per day, compared to lower protein diets (9, 10)

Put simply, high protein diets have a “metabolic advantage.”

There is also one study that compared two sandwich meals that had the same number of calories and macro-nutrients.

However, one sandwich was made with whole grains and cheddar cheese, while the other was made with refined grains and processed cheese (11).

Those who ate the whole grain sandwich burned twice as many calories digesting the meal.

Bottom Line: Protein calories are less fattening than calories from carbs and fat, because protein takes more energy to metabolize. Whole foods also require more energy to digest than processed foods.

Different calorie sources can have vastly different effects on hunger, hormones, energy expenditure and the brain regions that control food intake.

Even though calories are important, counting them or even being consciously aware of them is not at all necessary to lose weight.

In many cases, simple changes in food selection can lead to the same (or better) results than calorie restriction.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

woodway said:


> If a can of fruit juice contains 100 calories and a can of coke contains 100 calorie then by definition they are the same. The ingredients are different and there may be other chemicals in a can of coke that do bad things to your body but from a weight loss perspective there is no difference.


You understand that a calorie is just a unit of measure. Anything you ingest that can be metabolized by the body has calories, including chemicals. The crayons you ate as a kid, had calories. Drank some windex, yup there are calories. Calories in right... I'm on the Windex fuking diet baby... The calorie makeup from Windex is way different than calorie from a Banana.

By the way a crayon has 150 calories and 8 grams of fat.

The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.

These two seem almost identical. They have the same chemical formula and weigh the exact same.

But to your body, the two are completely different.

Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body's tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount.

Here are a few examples of why glucose calories are NOT the same as fructose calories:

Ghrelin is the "hunger hormone." It goes up when we're hungry and down after we've eaten. One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose.
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety.
A high consumption of fructose can cause insulin resistance, abdominal fat gain, increased triglycerides, blood sugar and small, dense LDL compared to the exact same number of calories from glucose.

Same number of calories, vastly different effects on hunger, hormones and metabolic health. Because a calorie is not a calorie.

Keep in mind that this applies to fructose from added sugars only, not the fructose from fruit. Fruits also have fiber, water and significant chewing resistance, which mitigate the negative effects of the fructose.

Bottom Line: Even though fructose and glucose have the same chemical formula, fructose has much more negative effects on hormones, appetite and metabolic health.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

joeduda said:


> Bruce,
> 
> I'm 6'-2" and was 218 when diagnosed, definitely carrying around more than I should have been. I was otherwise "healthy" though and training for an 50 mile mtb race and progressing nicely when I started to decline. It got to the point where I was out of breath just taking a shower in the morning. Finally ended up in an ER, took a blood test and was told I was anemic. Probable cause: Leukemia. Bone Marrow Biopsy and on to chemo the next day. And a Stem Cell Transplant exactly 6 months later.
> 
> Now at 178 with a lot more concern of what goes into my stomach. Some good stuff in your response, I appreciate it.


Your personal journey certainly has been difficult the past few years with everything you have been through physically and psychologically. I hope the prognosis is good for you from this point forward.

Heart disease is the number one leading cause of death in the US, and cancer is number two - followed closely by lower respiratory disease, unintentional accidents, stroke, Alzheimber's, and diabetes. I know I fight a family history that includes the first two.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

BruceBrown said:


>


Its weird how 30% for a guy looks fat, but 30% for a woman looks pretty good. ****, I'd hit that!


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

I think the 25 and 30 female pics need to swap.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Adim_X said:


> Dang Bruce 6ft4in and 165. I'm at like 17%/225lbs and 6ft1.5in. I will take this form over the 365 i was at when i bought a bike 5 years ago. It's so hard for me too lose weight at this point. I probably have 10 pounds of Loose skin but that that's a different issue probably skewing my bf%. I must be big boned or lifting too much.


Congrats on your drop from 365 to 225!!!!:thumbsup: I know I've seen a lot of photos at MFP of those that have lost a lot of weight like you have and then are left with the residual skin (which we all agree is way better than having the fat).

Big boned or lifting too much?

I certainly have the body type of tall and slender. The other "myth" one should debunk is about the somatotypes, but I would certainly fit the mold of one of those types described in the "myth". Regardless - it's not a tall man's world when it comes to bikes, cars, toilet height, kitchen sink height, buying clothes off the rack, head room in an airplane, door heights, trail overhang on the singletrack, etc.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> I think the 25 and 30 female pics need to swap.


I'd hit that one too!


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Its weird how 30% for a guy looks fat, but 30% for a woman looks pretty good. ****, I'd hit that!


Yes, they should have paid more attention to matching the men/women photos. Women's has a 50%, but men's only goes to 40%.

The website BuiltLean has much better drawings as well that did it right.

Body Fat Percentage Photos of Men & Women - BuiltLean


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I'd hit that one too!


Double Tap


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> Bruce, I can't reply with quotes because your posts are SO long winded. Happy belated St Paddy's day to you. I checked out early from work. I too got a new Rig from competitive, I wanted to be home for the delivery.
> 
> So onward... Why the type calories matter.
> Different calorie sources can have vastly different effects on hunger, hormones, energy expenditure and the brain regions that control food intake.
> ...


I appreciate the response, Irishpitbull. Thanks.

I've read a lot about what you mention as well - and it appears in droves at MyFitnessPal. In addition, I've read a lot about the metabolism and am always surprised that the range between where most people fall with metabolism really doesn't put all of us too far away from each other in terms of the number of calorie difference. Most things I've read state in ranges of 200-300, or I've even read as high as 400-500 for the very outliers (somebody with a fast metabolism compared to somebody with a slow one).

But back to the former point and what you raise about the energy and metabolism differences based on where the calories come from again show that the difference is very similar to the numbers in the 200-500 range.

In the greater scheme, I know that 200-500 calories can make a pretty huge difference day in and day out in terms of losing, gaining or maintaing weight. However, also in the greater scheme, for most people who are counting calories with a goal of losing, gaining, or maintaining weight - that starts to make things complicated enough that it just might deflect them off of reaching their goals due to the complexity and abandoning their disciplined eating habits to reach those goals. I believe that is why most prefer to focus on a more simplistic approach of the # in vs. the # out to - K.I.S.S. it so to speak.

So, yes, the balancing of one's macros, the timing, and all of that is complex and I'm sure can be very successful for many. Even the study I linked came to the conclusion that "a calorie is just a calorie" even when accounting for the make up of those calories.

The simple accounting principle of debits vs. credits, running in the red or running in the black - all makes what is known as CICO a rather easier method to "get it right" with the accounting when it comes to losing, gaining, and maintaining weight. Measuring food accurately seems daunting and complex for many, but it isn't that difficult. Combined with a bit of trial and error, using the Apps and websites available, the nutritional information at those restaurants that supply them, all the gizmos to guesstimate one's calorie burn through exercise - gets us close enough to make it work.

Either way or method used - when it comes to losing and gaining weight - you either have to eat less calories than your body needs, or more than it needs to gain weight. That's scientific fact that we cannot change. However we package it, or encourage methods that will have the account total up to one having a deficit (such as you mention) - it's all good. I'm not going to fight you on that point.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

*CICO, still skeptical? Come inside for a meticulous log that proves it.*

Another read for those still skeptical about CICO can be found HERE.:thumbsup:

CICO, still skeptical? Come inside for a meticulous log that proves it.

And....

*What's More Important for Weight Loss: Counting Calories or Exercise?*

What?s More Important for Weight Loss: Counting Calories or Exercise? - Hello HealthyHello Healthy


----------



## TheGweed (Jan 30, 2010)

I'm 52 with 27.9 body fat according to my latest physical. I know I need to lose some weight, but I definitely feel better than ever.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

BruceBrown said:


> Another read for those still skeptical about CICO can be found HERE.:thumbsup:
> 
> CICO, still skeptical? Come inside for a meticulous log that proves it.
> 
> ...


Good linkees. The more I ponder calories, weight mgmt, and macros, the more I am convinced that is primarily about caloric intake vs. output. I used to confound it with overall health and fitness, but that's a separate issue. One can weigh WNL but still be unhealthy.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

SWriverstone said:


> ...
> 
> I'm not worried about attracting women because I'm happily married and have two great kids.
> 
> ...


Interesting. Scott isn't interested in attracting women. What about being attractive to the woman he's married to? A lot of people are "happily married" until their spouse finds someone new. It's interesting to me how people justify being overweight and having poor eating habits.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Wow, eight pages.

So the OP's question was about being cut, but clearly the real issue is about being fat.

I read some of Bruce's stuff, he is quite long winded, but he tells the truth.

In my practice I speak to a lot of people about their weight and their health.

If I had a dollar for every excuse I've heard... but in the end there is no excuse, it's all about desire. 

There is not an adult alive who has normal cognitive functioning and is unaware of the importance of good health and having a healthy weight.

The costs of being healthy are that it requires work, it requires settling limits, and it requires sacrifice. The payoffs of living healthy are obvious.

We are all talking about the same things: Eating only what your body needs and eating healthy foods. There are clearly variations in that theme... eight pages worth


----------



## milliesand (Jun 29, 2015)

Can one be cut AND fat?

I for one learned a great deal in this thread and the links (*), 2 years ago I would have hemmed and hawed about losing weight. It took a wake up call to change, some planning for meals, and finding a way to exercise that felt more like PLAY TIME.

(*) one of Bruce's links had this gem associated 10 Strategies to Kick Food Cravings to the Curb - Hello HealthyHello Healthy


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

Ever wonder where the fat goes when you burn it? What happens to the actual fat tissue when you burn fat? The answer may surprise you.

Where Does the Fat Actually Go When You Lose Fat ? - Fitness and Power


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

milliesand said:


> Can one be cut AND fat?
> 
> I for one learned a great deal in this thread and the links (*), 2 years ago I would have hemmed and hawed about losing weight. It took a wake up call to change, some planning for meals, and finding a way to exercise that felt more like PLAY TIME.
> 
> (*) one of Bruce's links had this gem associated 10 Strategies to Kick Food Cravings to the Curb - Hello HealthyHello Healthy


Water, cup of hot tea (or coffee), eat an apple, move your body - all good strategies in that link that I use all the time.

Can one be "cut" and "fat" at the same time? Sure - if you want to model the physique of an NFL Offensive or Defensive lineman. Most average about 19.5 - 22.5% body fat compared to other players on the team that have more athletic body fat percentages. Of course, there are the outliers that skew the averages and may be higher (or lower), but we've all got the image in our heads of the lineman with the big guts carrying extra visceral fat weight than could be deemed "healthy".

Wide receivers, by the way, are the "most cut" NFL positions averaging around 5-6% body fat. Here are the NY Giants averages: Who Are the Strongest Guys on an NFL Team | Men's Health


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Its weird how 30% for a guy looks fat, but 30% for a woman looks pretty good. ****, I'd hit that!


Women carry a higher body fat percentage than men...

_There are many reasons why women have more body fat than men. One is biological. Body fat content is 25% for women at normal size compared to 15% for men._

And another...

_Fat in normal women represents between 18% and 20% of body weight, whereas in men it represents only 10% to 15%._

This image might be easier to compare than the former ones...



__
https://flic.kr/p/FA9otF
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

milliesand said:


> Can one be cut AND fat?
> 
> (*) one of Bruce's links had this gem associated 10 Strategies to Kick Food Cravings to the Curb - Hello HealthyHello Healthy


Being cut by definition means not being fat, so no.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> Wow, eight pages.


A bunch of old farts are just starting....this could go on for years.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

milliesand said:


> Can one be cut AND fat?


Razor blades?


----------



## milliesand (Jun 29, 2015)

Well, this is a lifestyle change, but I'm not using razor blades.

I suspect this journey has an addiction level.


----------



## SlimL (Aug 5, 2013)

Yeah I am still sporting some flab. I count calories, watch what I eat, and ride hard for two hours 3 times a week. But I look at the fact that I weighed 294 when I started mountain biking 2.5 years ago and weigh in around 228 now, +/-2 lbs. So I am OK with that. And right now, losing weight, is an ounce at a time. Maybe when I retire in a little over a year I can ride every day and make it easier. And I want to learn how to jump rope; that looks like fun.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

SlimL said:


> Yeah I am still sporting some flab. I count calories, watch what I eat, and ride hard for two hours 3 times a week. But I look at the fact that I weighed 294 when I started mountain biking 2.5 years ago and weigh in around 228 now, +/-2 lbs. So I am OK with that. And right now, losing weight, is an ounce at a time. Maybe when I retire in a little over a year I can ride every day and make it easier. And I want to learn how to jump rope; that looks like fun.


You can't be watching what you eat close enough.


----------



## SlimL (Aug 5, 2013)

alphazz said:


> You can't be watching what you eat close enough.


I take it you have never tried to lose those last 10 pounds. Eat right around 1700 calories, even on days I ride. I have been told it's because I am also building muscle which I understand is heavier then fat. I ride at 85-95% MHR for around 55 to 60 minutes then back off to around 70-80% for the second hour. Must not be in the calorie burning zone.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

SlimL said:


> I take it you have never tried to lose those last 10 pounds. Eat right around 1700 calories, even on days I ride.


Congrats on the 66 pounds you have dropped in the last 2 1/2 years. If you are counting your intake calories as accurately as possible, you should be dropping quite a bit per week eating only 1700 calories as you mention - especially on days you ride. Keep that up and you'll be sub 200 by the end of summer easily.



SlimL said:


> I have been told it's because I am also building muscle which I understand is heavier then fat. I ride at 85-95% MHR for around 55 to 60 minutes then back off to around 70-80% for the second hour. Must not be in the calorie burning zone.


You cannot build muscle in a calorie deficit. You have to eat at a surplus to build muscle. Even the best of the best can only gain about 1.8 pounds of muscle per month, that's how slow it grows with proper training and eating at a surplus.

A pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle. And they both weigh the same as a pound of feathers.:thumbsup:


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

SlimL said:


> I take it you have never tried to lose those last 10 pounds. Eat right around 1700 calories, even on days I ride. I have been told it's because I am also building muscle which I understand is heavier then fat. I ride at 85-95% MHR for around 55 to 60 minutes then back off to around 70-80% for the second hour. Must not be in the calorie burning zone.


Sliml, I'm with Bruce above, congrats on the weight that you've lost. Gaining muscle does account for the scale not accurately displaying the amount of fat lost at times, but people don't replace fat with muscle at equal amounts.

I am very curious about what your 1700 calories consist of and at what times of the day are you eating.


----------



## OwenM (Oct 17, 2012)

BruceBrown said:


> You cannot build muscle in a calorie deficit. You have to eat at a surplus to build muscle. Even the best of the best can only gain about 1.8 pounds of muscle per month, that's how slow it grows with proper training and eating at a surplus.


You don't know what you're talking about. On either count.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

OwenM said:


> You don't know what you're talking about. On either count.


Prove it...Owen.


----------



## SlimL (Aug 5, 2013)

To be totally honest I do have to admit that I did really slack off there for a few months; celebrating what I had lost (and you all know what that means). I am back to working it much harder now.

Cheerios, Clif bar, and a banana for B-Fast before I ride. Something from Subway or such, right around 400 calories for lunch. Salad or Meat & beans for dinner at work. Days I don't ride I will probably have a couple of string cheese and a glass of milk for breakfast and then Ginie cooks a decent meal for lunch before I go to work. P, B, & J for lunch again at work.

I am pretty sensitive about the plateau that I am on so my absolutely sincerest apologies if I came off poorly and I beg your forgiveness.

Everything that I have read said reaching a plateau is pretty normal for weight loss. Just have to keep hammering at it and that the results will come. Thank you so much for the encouragement.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

SlimL, you didn't say anything wrong. I was feeling bad about my comment. Do you have someone helping you with your diet? You are correct about just staying on course but maybe the course could be tweaked some to help out. From the little that you have said, I have plenty of questions.


----------



## OwenM (Oct 17, 2012)

BruceBrown said:


> Prove it...Owen.


That you don't know what you're talking about? You've already done that. Go google some more stuff to post up as "expertise".
That protein synthesis doesn't require a surplus of calories/gaining lean muscle mass is possible with a caloric deficit? That bodily functions don't stop just because you're not getting a prescribed number of calories?
Old news. Very old. Lots of people do it. I do it every time I go on a "health kick" to drop body fat and gain muscle simultaneously. Doing it right now. Haven't visited there in years, but bodybuilding.com even had a dedicated ketogenic forum over a decade ago, where that was the main focus. Requires some excess body fat, and is neither ideal for muscle mass, nor maintainable over the long term, but that's the whole point, since a diet and exercise are both means to an end.


----------



## singlesprocket (Jun 9, 2004)

thruster with a full squat



it gives me cut legs and a apple ass

and be balanced in a flexible manner?


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

OwenM said:


> That you don't know what you're talking about? You've already done that. Go google some more stuff to post up as "expertise".
> That protein synthesis doesn't require a surplus of calories/gaining lean muscle mass is possible with a caloric deficit? That bodily functions don't stop just because you're not getting a prescribed number of calories?
> Old news. Very old. Lots of people do it. I do it every time I go on a "health kick" to drop body fat and gain muscle simultaneously. Doing it right now. Haven't visited there in years, but bodybuilding.com even had a dedicated ketogenic forum over a decade ago, where that was the main focus. Requires some excess body fat, and is neither ideal for muscle mass, nor maintainable over the long term, but that's the whole point, since a diet and exercise are both means to an end.


It's a really, really old argument, Owen. But it does sell supplements, hope, and myth...

Adding Muscle While Losing Fat - Q&A : Bodyrecomposition


----------



## OwenM (Oct 17, 2012)

I realize how important being right on the internet is to you, and how frustrating it must be to get publicly called out for your bullcrap, but you a)as said, don't know what you're talking about, and b) suffer from a serious lack of reading comprehension, as evidenced by the fact that you linked to an article that took over a dozen paragraphs to sum up what I just told you in a couple of sentences and agrees with everything I said.

Maybe this will help you, Mr. Always Learning:
_"People on forums either want to know how to accomplish the above or make statements such as "I want to gain muscle without gaining weight." implying that they are replacing every pound of lost fat with the exact same pound of muscle. Others will hide it in the math of the situation, wanting to move from one weight/body fat percentage to another without recognizing what that implies for the numerical changes that they are seeking.

*Now, when I was younger and only thought I knew what I was talking about, I would often say that the above was impossible to accomplish. In hindsight, impossible was a bit too strong of a term; clearly it's not impossible as it does happen.* But it can sure be difficult depending on the situation.

*There are a handful of situations where the combination of muscle gain and fat loss occur relatively readily. The first of those is in overfat beginners.* I want to really stress the term overfat in the above sentence. This phenomenon doesn't happen in lean beginners for reasons I'm going to explain in a second.

*A second situation where this phenomenon occurs readily is folks returning from a layoff.* Folks who are previously lean and muscular but who get out of shape (whether deliberately or not) often find that they get back into shape much faster than they did initially: they seem to magically replace fat with muscle."_

Too funny


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

OwenM said:


> I realize how important being right on the internet is to you, and how frustrating it must be to get publicly called out for your bullcrap, but you a)as said, don't know what you're talking about, and b) suffer from a serious lack of reading comprehension, as evidenced by the fact that you linked to an article that took over a dozen paragraphs to sum up what I just told you in a couple of sentences and agrees with everything I said.
> 
> Too funny


Work through the BRO SCI and show us all the expertise, studies, results of gaining muscle weight while on a calorie deficit vs. cutting/bulking or bulking/cutting cycles based on surplus and deficit calorie consumption. Who benefits the most and has the best results from each method? Who doesn't? What would you recommend to the poster I was responding to in the first place: SlimL? What have your results been - current weight, body fat percentage, weight/height, etc.?

Feel free to criticize and help others.

All the way down the page to the end of that article, there is a nice summation which you find in nearly everything you read on the subject.

_So the idea of replacing every pound of lost fat with exactly one pound of muscle *will be essentially impossible for the intermediate/advanced trainee*. There's simply not enough fat/the fat cells don't want to 'give up their calories' and *the ability to stimulate rapid muscle gains isn't there any more*.

A followup question might be what about fatter but more advanced trainees. Certainly in that situation, fat cell insulin sensitivity/etc. can approach what is occurring with the overfat beginner *but there is still the issue of rate of muscle gain being drastically slowed*. * It's probably possible briefly at the start of the diet to get some caloric shunting but it's never going to approach a 1:1 gain in muscle with fat loss; the potential rate of fat loss (1-2 lbs/week) to rates of muscle gain (0.5 lbs/week if you're lucky) simply doesn't exist.*

As a final comment, I can say without hesitation that someone will post in the comments that they managed to achieve the above results in some form or fashion.  And while there are always going to be exceptions to any generality, that doesn't tend to disprove the generality. And generally speaking, the above is what happens in the real world._

Lean Body Mass vs. Muscle Gain

https://www.inbodyusa.com/blogs/inb...ody-mass-and-muscle-mass-whats-the-difference

Here's a study that supports your claim, but again - look at the summation. They were all beginners at weight lifting and overweight (27% body fat) in that study.

Can You Build Muscle in a Calorie Deficit?

Building muscle while eating at a deficit?

_It's a phenomenon that's generally limited to people who are very overweight and have never lifted weights before, or those who are returning to exercise after a layoff, where muscle memory comes into play.

Once you've moved past the overweight beginner stage, building a significant amount of muscle while losing fat is a goal that becomes progressively more difficult._


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Am I reading right? I did skim a little as I have to meet the family for Easter. You guys are arguing whether you can build muscle and lose fat at the same time? Of course you can do that. That's called getting into shape 101. I'll use myself as an example. I was 170 pounds and 6% body fat when I stopped going to the gym for ten years. During that time I degraded to 143 pounds and 18% body fat. I got back into the gym, worked really hard, dieted hard and after two years I got back up to 167 pounds and 9% body fat. I would have done a lot better, but a little medical issue has slowed me down a lot. You can teach your body to burn more fat by consuming the correct type of fats in the correct percentages. I do that and I also take about 60 extra grams of protien per day. By dieting, in my case, I don't mean cutting calories. For me, when I am very active, I have to eat a lot more. I get a ferocious appetite and I often joke that I could just graze nonstop all day long. So, eating a lot more, but eating the correct things, along with working my ass off is how I gain muscle mass and lose fat at the same time. By working out, I mean heavy weight training with small breaks in between sets. That keeps my heart rate high in the target zone for an hour and a half, at least, along with riding my MTB when I can.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Oh, calorie deficit. Yes even then you can build muscle. By teaching your body to burn fat and you have to eat a higher percent of protien.


----------



## Phillbo (Apr 7, 2004)

6'4" tall weighing 215# I'm in shape. 

Round is a shape- right?


----------



## SlimL (Aug 5, 2013)

alphazz said:


> SlimL, you didn't say anything wrong. I was feeling bad about my comment. Do you have someone helping you with your diet? You are correct about just staying on course but maybe the course could be tweaked some to help out. From the little that you have said, I have plenty of questions.


Thank you Alphazz for your kindness and understanding; I surely do appreciate it. As all the other posts show it is so easy to get our panties in a twist and for that I can be the worst.

As for questions; you and me both Brother. I just wish I had more time to get into it some more. The thought of good fats and fats and the effect on muscle growth sounds intriguing. But with retirement coming up and all the projects I need to get accomplished before in the next year and a half I just have to settle on eating the best I can, counting what calories I can, and riding the heck out of the bike.

I have friends in Gillette and plan on spending a bunch of time in Wyoming when I retire, if it get closer maybe I can stop by and visit when I am able.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Oh, calorie deficit. Yes even then to can build muscle. By teaching your body to burn fat and you have to eat a higher percent of protien.


How would you not bonk all the time?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

andytiedye said:


> How would you not bonk all the time?


By eating the proper fats and in the proper percentage of your overall diet. That teaches your body to burn fat as energy. I've never bonked weigh training. And if you're going to build muscle, weight training is the way to do it. It only takes an hour to an hour and a half of intense weight training per workout. Anyone trying to put on muscle should be able to make it through that. And when someone says calorie deficit, theres only so much of a deficit your body can deal with. But, you should be able to be negative a couple hundred calories a day and still be able to build muscle and lower you fat percentage.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

OwenM said:


> You don't know what you're talking about. On either count.


Bruce's thought process is "I'll post long a$$ posts full of bull$hit and they will have to believe me."

And of course you can build muscle while being calorie deficit that is basic knowledge. Your body just doesn't give up. :madman: Bruce, the $hit you're posting is so wrong. I honestly hope no one is taking it serious.

Can You Build Muscle in a Calorie Deficit?


----------



## Uly (Aug 18, 2009)

I was cut yesterday......my eyesight was pretty keen, too, yesterday.....not sure what happened....


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Oh yeah?! My bike can beat up your bike!

I don't really know who is right and I don't really care. But linking to some guy who is trying to sell you something's website to support your argument doesn't seem too convincing.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

chazpat said:


> Oh yeah?! My bike can beat up your bike!
> 
> I don't really know who is right and I don't really care. But linking to some guy who is trying to sell you something's website to support your argument doesn't seem too convincing.


Obviously you didn't read the link because there is nothing for sale on the page I linked. Mine included real medical studies. Effects of cross-training on markers of insulin resistance/hyperinsulinemia. - PubMed - NCBI

And my bikes would have no problem dispatching your bikes with gusto.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

Uly said:


> I was cut yesterday......my eyesight was pretty keen, too, yesterday.....not sure what happened....


It happens with age.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> Bruce's thought process is "I'll post long a$$ posts full of bull$hit and they will have to believe me."
> 
> And of course you can build muscle while being calorie deficit that is basic knowledge. Your body just doesn't give up. :madman: Bruce, the $hit you're posting is so wrong. I honestly hope no one is taking it serious.
> 
> Can You Build Muscle in a Calorie Deficit?


Had you actually taken the time to read my long a$$ post, you'd note that I already linked that article - and the conclusions are not so good. Not sure if you read the entire article that you linked and what the author, Christian Finn, thought about the study.

Christian's comments in the article...

_Firstly, the men taking part in the study were beginners, who tend to make rapid gains in muscle mass when they start training with weights.

They were also overweight (*bordering on obese*) with a lot of fat to lose. Take someone who is untrained AND extremely overweight (which these men were) and they'll often drop relatively large amounts of fat while gaining muscle at the same time._

_...the average gain in muscle tells you nothing about the individual results for each subject, which can often vary widely.

It's possible that a few of the men in the United States Sports Academy study got outstanding results, which would have boosted the average. *The large standard error shown in the results table would suggest as much*. But without seeing the individual results for each subject, it's hard to say for sure.

In summary, *some people* can and do build a decent amount of muscle while they're in a calorie deficit.

But it's a phenomenon that's generally limited to people who are very overweight and have never lifted weights before, or those who are returning to exercise after a layoff, where muscle memory comes into play.

*Once you've moved past the "overweight beginner" stage, building a significant amount of muscle while losing fat is a goal that becomes progressively more difficult.*_

Most believe that it is very limited to noobs lifting who are overweight - as in bordering on obesity, and even then the results are very brief and finite before you move beyond the _overweight beginner_ stage.

In the meantime, Irish - have at it. Grab the weights off the rack, load up the Olympic bar and jump right into hypertrophy while eating at a deficit. Watch your muscle mass accrue and grow to your heart's content.

You might just be one of those special *cupcakes* that can pull it off.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I see twice on the page where it says "See also: Flat Belly Cheat Sheet" click here which leads to:

THE FLAT BELLY CHEAT SHEET
Enter your email below and I'll send you a PDF copy of The Flat Belly Cheat Sheet

Have you submitted your email address? Wanna bet once you do, they are going to try to sell you something? Do you have some connection with this website?

Yeah, I skimmed a bit of the back and forth in your postings and like I said, I don't really care. But looking at it a little closer, yeah, I believe you can gain muscle while at a calorie deficit, if that is what you are arguing. I'm sure I've done it. But if you want to make an effective argument, I still say linking to "muscle evo" is not a good way to go about it. Every page on the site links to "the Flat Belly Cheat Sheet". Why didn't you just link to the abstract?

And my bikes are actually peace loving beatniks who would rather run than fight.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

You guys have to remember, a calorie deficit can be a very little deficit. Just like when people are getting fatter. Most people get fatter slowly, which means they are taking in only a small amount more per day than they are burning. Most people can stop getting fatter by just making a small adjustment in their diet. And, when you're building muscle and losing fat, that fat burning can fuel muscle growth. So, even though you are in a calorie deficit, you're unlocking fat and using those calories to fuel muscle growth and your daily activities.


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

It's harder to lose weight now than 30 years ago.

this study compared diet and exercise routines of people in the 1980s to those of people today. The researchers found that people are 10 percent heavier today, even when they're on the same calories and exercise as their '80s counterparts. The study concludes that the "calories in, calories out" model that has been so popular over the past couple decades is flawed.

The research finds possible reasons it's becoming harder to keep the pounds off:

1) People are exposed to pesticides, flame-retardants, preservatives, and other chemicals that mess with their hormones and cause them to put on fat.

2) Prescription drugs like antidepressants, steroids, have skyrocketed in popularity in the last 30 years, and many of them contribute to weight gain.

3) Gut microbiomes are changing, possibly because of antibiotic and pesticide accumulation in factory-farmed meat. The study's authors also think artificial sweeteners may affect gut bacteria.

Other factors factors that may contribute to weight gain that aren't related to calories or exercise: data-related stress, bright light at night, and the food your parents ate as kids.

sauce: 
https://www.bulletproofexec.com/why-it-was-easier-to-lose-weight-in-1980/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ose-weight-and-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

chazpat said:


> I see twice on the page where it says "See also: Flat Belly Cheat Sheet" click here which leads to:
> 
> THE FLAT BELLY CHEAT SHEET
> Enter your email below and I'll send you a PDF copy of The Flat Belly Cheat Sheet
> ...


But there is nothing for sale right? You don't have to enter a credit card and pay money right? You're just assuming this.

I'm not arguing anything, I'm stating Bruce is wrong.

I'm not sure what a "beatnik" is but I'll assure you, the only thing that's gonna run is your mascara.


----------



## milliesand (Jun 29, 2015)

irishpitbull said:


> But there is nothing for sale right? You don't have to enter a credit card and pay money right? You're just assuming this.
> 
> I'm not arguing anything, I'm stating Bruce is wrong.
> 
> I'm not sure what a "beatnik" is but I'll assure you, the only thing that's gonna run is your mascara.


Frankly, "stating Bruce is wrong" is hollow, at best, when your own link indicates the study was done with "obese, sedentary" participants.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

cyclelicious said:


> It's harder to lose weight now than 30 years ago. ...[/url]


You post a lot of good stuff in the diet thread but this is far from the truth. Yes, if you fill your body with all sorts of chemicals and processed foods, it will be hard for you to lose weight. That's no different than 30 years ago. The numbers of people on medication is at an all time high, but that is a choice for a large percentage of them. The numbers of people eating a LOT of processed foods is higher than ever before, but that is a choice. How much one is in contact with chemicals and other environmental crap is largely a choice that doesn't have to be much different than 30 years ago. 
I work with a lot of people who are obese. I would say that every one of them is obese because of their choices. If you are fat, you are fat because you have chosen to be fat. I know, that's harsh. Here's some science, just watch what people have in their grocery carts. It would probably be possible to pretty accurately categorize people by weight merely by categorizing how they get their calories.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

milliesand said:


> Frankly, "stating Bruce is wrong" is hollow, at best, when your own link indicates the study was done with "obese, sedentary" participants.


I think you missed the point in the conversation when we all started talking about people who could lose some weight.

Obese, fat, out of shape... they can build muscle while being calorie deficit.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

irishpitbull said:


> I think you missed the point in the conversation when we all started talking about people who could lose some weight.
> 
> Obese, fat, out of shape... they can build muscle while being calorie deficit.


Okay

Put your money where you mouth is....in a few sentences describe a recommended diet to enhance muscle growth while losing weight....

Further comment on the possible negative side effects that should be watched for while pursuing this diet.

Also comment on a recommended point at which the diet should change and then describe the diet once the target weight is reached.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

jeffscott said:


> Okay
> 
> Put your money where you mouth is....in a few sentences describe a recommended diet to enhance muscle growth while losing weight....
> 
> ...


Easy, at first it's all about keeping INSULIN low, increaseing protein synthesis, and HGH/test. Any diet that starts with a fat adaption phase will work. Low carb/ high protein. 2 weeks at the most.

Then move on to finding carb theshold level, mine is 30-35, We need to find the lowest amount of carbs you need in a day to not only feel good but hammer out on the bike. Use you CTL for 5 straight days then have Carb the ****up period. No processed foods or junk. Just whole foods with lots carbs. This spikes HGH and testosterone.

No more than 30 carbs per day or you will be creating a daily insulin spikes and it will have an adverse effect on growth hormone levels so follow this to the letter. I start the season with a 48 hour CTFU period then tighten it till I reach my weight & fat goal.

Side effects are crushing KOM's and being fit as hell. *Calories don't build muscle HGH and test do.*


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

irishpitbull said:


> But there is nothing for sale right? You don't have to enter a credit card and pay money right? You're just assuming this.
> 
> I'm not arguing anything, I'm stating Bruce is wrong.
> 
> I'm not sure what a "beatnik" is but I'll assure you, the only thing that's gonna run is your mascara.


You're the one linking to a website with shiny shaven muscle men, tough guy.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

irishpitbull said:


> Low carb/ high protein. 2 weeks at the most.
> 
> Then move on to finding carb theshold level, mine is 30-35, We need to find the lowest amount of carbs you need in a day to not only feel good but hammer out on the bike.
> 
> ...


There you go calibrate the carbs....duh calories in less than calories out...

Totally missed on the negative side effects of overdoing it though.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

There are no calorie restrictions. Only they type of calorie.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

Feel free to eat 3000 to 5000 cals a day. I do.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

irishpitbull said:


> Then move on to finding carb theshold level, mine is 30-35, We need to find the lowest amount of carbs you need in a day to not only feel good but hammer out on the bike.


Focus you calibrate how many carbs (calories) you are going to consume...Get it yet.

Too many o weight loss


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

jeffscott said:


> Focus you calibrate how many carbs (calories) you are going to consume...Get it yet.
> 
> Too many o weight loss


Calories and carbs are totally different. I honestly think there is a 7 year old child trolling me on the other end.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

irishpitbull said:


> Calories and carbs are totally different.


I think we can all agree on that.

Time to top of the glycogen stores for Saturday's 65 mile race. 45 mph wind gusts out to add a nice dimension...


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

BruceBrown said:


> I think we can all agree on that.
> 
> Time to top of the glycogen stores for Saturday's 65 mile race. 45 mph wind gusts out to add a nice dimension...


Geez Louise....4 cal/gram of protein....4 cal/gram carbohydrate and 9 cal/gram fat.

Glycogen stores will rebuild within 2 to 3 hours, after expenditure, with good feeding.

Maybe 8 to 12 hours via fat through liver to glycogen, without food.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

irishpitbull said:


> Feel free to eat 3000 to 5000 cals a day. I do.


Ok Irish, I gotta ask: How do you manage to consume 3000 to 5000 cals a day? From what you have said, I'm assuming you eat healthy, so it must be sheer volume? How big of a guy are you?

My body seems to have adjusted to my exercise routine, I don't get ravenously hungry from exercising. In the summer, I have to put in some effort to avoid losing too much weight as I increase my running and riding distances (read my post toward the beginning of this topic for more background), no more of those light beers and skim milk for me, I need the calories! But I don't think I can consume 3000 to 5000 a day. Well, unless I start drinking a lot more beer.

chaz


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

He's Irish, which means he doesn't have any teeth. His food doesn't get chewed properly so his body isn't able to extract all the calories from it.

Oh, I'm just kidding!


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

chazpat said:


> Ok Irish, I gotta ask: How do you manage to consume 3000 to 5000 cals a day? From what you have said, I'm assuming you eat healthy, so it must be sheer volume? How big of a guy are you?
> 
> My body seems to have adjusted to my exercise routine, I don't get ravenously hungry from exercising. In the summer, I have to put in some effort to avoid losing too much weight as I increase my running and riding distances (read my post toward the beginning of this topic for more background), no more of those light beers and skim milk for me, I need the calories! But I don't think I can consume 3000 to 5000 a day. Well, unless I start drinking a lot more beer.
> 
> chaz


If he's racing at the competitive level - you have to be on the bike nailing down some big hours per week which provides plenty of burn to stoke it with 3K, 4K, 5K eat days. So if you've got a 2, 3, or 4 hour training ride on top of your daily regular routine of work, and sustaining yourself with your normal eating - the exercise burn is how you get to eat 3-5K of grub on those days.

BB


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm not talking about how do you eat so much without gaining weight, I'm just talking about how do you consume so many calories. 

As I mentioned, I've had times when I was having difficulty maintaining weight. And what I haven't said is that my last blood test put me into the pre-diabetic range. My health insurance offered a free 1 hour 15 week class or a free one day class but some quick googling pretty much convinced me those were just going to be "1) exercise more 2) lose weight" and I probably don't need to do either of those. A couple of years ago I dropped to 135 and everyone was worried as I did not look healthy at that weight. Last summer I think I dropped to 140 and I think I'm about 145 now. So I'm going for the third option (not free): I'm seeing a dietician tomorrow. My guess is that she will advise some weight training and cutting of sugar/carbs but I'm just wondering how I'll maintain weight if I cut down on sugar and carbs. Not to mention how will I fuel my runs/rides.

chaz


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

chazpat said:


> I'm not talking about how do you eat so much without gaining weight, I'm just talking about how do you consume so many calories.


Ah....well that's not too hard when I include the ride snacks, post ride refreshments, and three meals for the day.

Here's from my food diary on a group 42 mile hilly gravel ride from two weeks ago. Mostly Zone 2/3 stuff with a few good efforts on climbs.

*FOODS* --- Calories

*Breakfast*

Spices - Cinnamon, ground, 1 tsp	6	
Blueberries - Raw, 0.25 cup(s)	21	
Coffee - Brewed from grounds, 3 cup (8 fl oz)	7 
Chobani - Greek Yogurt Plain Non-fat 5.3oz, 150 grams 90	
Post Selects - Great Grains Cranberry Almond Crunch , 1.2 cup (48g) 288

*Lunch*

Oroweat - Healthfull Flax & Sunflower Bread, 2 slice	160	
Generic - Smart Balance All Natural Chunky Peanut Butter, 2 Tbsp (3grams)	190

*Dinner*

Sweet Potato (Baked & Plain), 0.5 medium	90	
Spinach Salad Homemade (with onions/mushroom/dressing) 82	
Cabernet, 0.67 container	523
Hy-Vee - Take and Bake Multi-Grain Baguette, 7 inch slice 260	
Homemade - Ribeye Steak Grilled, 12 oz	984

*Ride & Post Ride Snacks*

Nature Valley - Sweet & Salty Nut Granola Bars - Peanut. 1.8 oz, 1 bar 1.8 oz (53g)	250	
Fiber One - Fiber One Bar, Oats & Chocolate, 0.75 bar (40g)	105	
Hammer Nutrition - Perpetuem- Orange Vanilla, 2 rounded scoops (69g)	270	
Fat Tire - Draft Beer, 18 oz	225

*TOTAL:	3,551*

We have lots of good snacks in the house (almonds, walnuts, apples, oranges, bananas, dark chocolate, grapes, berries, etc...), but I didn't reach for any of that when I got back home from the ride. A palm full of almonds or walnuts is a nice high calorie snack.:thumbsup:



chazpat said:


> As I mentioned, I've had times when I was having difficulty maintaining weight. And what I haven't said is that my last blood test put me into the pre-diabetic range. My health insurance offered a free 1 hour 15 week class or a free one day class but some quick googling pretty much convinced me those were just going to be "1) exercise more 2) lose weight" and I probably don't need to do either of those. A couple of years ago I dropped to 135 and everyone was worried as I did not look healthy at that weight. Last summer I think I dropped to 140 and I think I'm about 145 now. So I'm going for the third option (not free): I'm seeing a dietician tomorrow. My guess is that she will advise some weight training and cutting of sugar/carbs but I'm just wondering how I'll maintain weight if I cut down on sugar and carbs. Not to mention how will I fuel my runs/rides.


I'd be curious what they tell you tomorrow. There are lots of things to eat besides sugar.


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

chazpat said:


> Ok Irish, I gotta ask: How do you manage to consume 3000 to 5000 cals a day? From what you have said, I'm assuming you eat healthy, so it must be sheer volume? How big of a guy are you?
> 
> My body seems to have adjusted to my exercise routine, I don't get ravenously hungry from exercising. In the summer, I have to put in some effort to avoid losing too much weight as I increase my running and riding distances (read my post toward the beginning of this topic for more background), no more of those light beers and skim milk for me, I need the calories! But I don't think I can consume 3000 to 5000 a day. Well, unless I start drinking a lot more beer.
> 
> chaz


I'm 5'9 150-155lbs and sub-7% bf. I don't really eat any thing processed. If it has a ingredient i can't pronounce it doesn't get eaten. The only exception is Hammer Products

I don't count calories but I track them, the only time I really count them is when racing. I also plan my meals a week in advance. This way all the food is purchased and ready to be cooked and eaten. It's lot harder to order pizza when you have $$$ in the fridge that needs to be cooked.

Bruce's diet looks ok, just to much processed store bought stuff for me.

Breakfast

6 egg omelet
6 slices of bacon in omelet
3 cups of mixed veggies in omelet
Black Eye

Lunch

Costco Box of salad
3 6oz Grilled Chicken Breasts
Black Eye

Afternoon Snack - Carbs - March 1st to Nov 1st and only on training days.
Hammer bar
Perpetuem Cafe Latte - 2 scoops

On the bike
2 scoops of Heed

Dinner - Post Workout
8oz Tuna steak Rare
Brussels Sprouts w/olive oil
Sweet Potato medium
Salad

Should be like 4k-5k worth of cals. Now I agree that putting in big hours helps keep the weight off but if you cut the shitty processed foods, this in-itself will have dramatic effect on weight and body composition.

You also don't need mounts of sugar to be strong on the bike, fat is the most efficient fuel in the body. Getting your body fat adapted, reduces the need for a huge intake of sugars to preform well on the bike. Once you are fat adapted diet life is easy. Think of carbs lighter fluid and fat as diesel fuel. Lighter fluid burns fast, were as diesel burns slow and hot.

A sugar-burner can't even effectively access dietary fat for energy. A fat adapted person can burn all fuel sources effectively. It's just biology and science.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

I thought these fitness tips for the ladies were hilarious.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

*Fueling for longer race events and epic rides...*

Fueling for a 2 hour or less race is much different than fueling for grinding it out for longer hours. Today, I'll be racing 65 miles on gravel in winds of 20-30 mph. Carbs are loaded up and ready to go, and protein fuel for the duration as well (thank you Hammer).:thumbsup:

What's it take to fuel a calorie burn of 800-1000 calories per hour for four or five hours?

The Tour de France Diet - How to Consume 8,000 Calories a Day - Men's Journal


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

To continue the theme of those big epic rides/races fueling days - and to make sure we separate them from a _normal_ day of eating (much less calories), here's an example fueling I did yesterday. Goal was to perform well, and maintain weight (not lose or gain anything from the effort or the big fueling required).

It was a 62 mile gravel race in 30 mph winds with gusts of 50+mph. It was a challenging effort riding in any direction from the headwind, cross wind, and tail wind keeping everyone on their toes the full 4-5 hours. I road at Threshold for the first 2 1/2 hours - with some moments above. The tailwind sections allowed us to go about 28 miles an hour pedaling only at low to mid Zone 2 range for recovery. Going into the wind was full threshold just to maintain 10-12 mph. One stretch was 10 miles long dead into the 30mph wind with 50 mph gusts. Brutal stuff! Many bailed during the day, but I just kept swearing at the wind.

Starting morning weight yesterday: 167 (i'm 6'4")

Forgot my Hammer Nutrition Gels at home, so had to stop and pickup what I could at a convenience store (Snickers which I usually never eat, but I needed something in the top tube pack for the 5 hour effort).



__
https://flic.kr/p/FMWig5
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Morning weight the day after: 167:thumbsup:

No loss, no gain. 4745 calories eaten. Goal achieved!

That's much different than a _normal_ day for me where calorie consumption is in the 1580 - 2500+ calorie range depending on what I am or am not doing in terms of work, and training.


----------



## techfersure (Dec 17, 2010)

I'm 59,5'11",185lbs,32" waist. Body fat at 15%, no processed foods,organic and locally grown only,drink two to three high rpm IPA'S a day, but am very active overall and ride with much younger riders to keep it real.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

When I concentrate on road biking, I'm cut. When I concentrate on mtbing, I've a fair bit bit flab.


----------



## Zomby Woof (MCM700) (May 23, 2004)

I've never had a weight problem in my life. I'm 61 and do not watch what I eat to keep weight off. I suppose having always been a picky eater helps with that. Plus I only eat when I'm hungry. I don't eat because I'm bored. I'm not ripped either but I'm not at all flabby. I'm 5'11 and the most I ever weighed was 175 lbs.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

BruceBrown said:


> To continue the theme of those big epic rides/races fueling days - and to make sure we separate them from a _normal_ day of eating (much less calories), here's an example fueling I did yesterday. Goal was to perform well, and maintain weight (not lose or gain anything from the effort or the big fueling required).
> 
> It was a 62 mile gravel race in 30 mph winds with gusts of 50+mph. It was a challenging effort riding in any direction from the headwind, cross wind, and tail wind keeping everyone on their toes the full 4-5 hours. I road at Threshold for the first 2 1/2 hours - with some moments above. The tailwind sections allowed us to go about 28 miles an hour pedaling only at low to mid Zone 2 range for recovery. Going into the wind was full threshold just to maintain 10-12 mph. One stretch was 10 miles long dead into the 30mph wind with 50 mph gusts. Brutal stuff! Many bailed during the day, but I just kept swearing at the wind.
> 
> ...


Tough race for sure! nice work.


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 3, 2010)

Just to rehash and drop fuel on the CICO fire.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/0...eight-loss.html?_r=0&referer=http://digg.com/

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 3, 2010)

I am someone who has lost 145lbs through diet and exercise over the last 5 years, but live with a daily challenge to keep weight off and I often wonder if my hormones are off. Never had a base metabolic rate study. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Adim_X said:


> Just to rehash and drop fuel on the CICO fire.
> 
> After ?The Biggest Loser,? Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight - NYTimes.com
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


It doesn't change the fact that if you burn more calories than you consume, you have to lose weight. There is no other way around that. People are kinda like cars. Some cars get great gas mileage, and some get poor mileage. Some people need a lot of calories to make it through the day, some people don't need very many calories to make it through the day. It's a matter of learning how to refuel yourself properly.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> It doesn't change the fact that if you burn more calories than you consume, you have to lose weight. There is no other way around that. People are kinda like cars. Some cars get great gas mileage, and some get poor mileage. Some people need a lot of calories to make it through the day, some people don't need very many calories to make it through the day. It's a matter of learning how to refuel yourself properly.


I'm learning how true that is. I use to keep my weight stable and where I wanted it when I was riding more. Now I can't work out much so it's hard to remember that I don't need as much. it's a bit of a adjustment. I was thinking till recently no bad carbs was the answer.

I agree food is meant to be fuel especially for athletes. Eating junk is part of our culture and social occasions revolve around it, not to mention emotional eating.

I always feel self conscious when I go out with friends because some get on my case for my restricted diet.


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 3, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> It doesn't change the fact that if you burn more calories than you consume, you have to lose weight. There is no other way around that. People are kinda like cars. Some cars get great gas mileage, and some get poor mileage. Some people need a lot of calories to make it through the day, some people don't need very many calories to make it through the day. It's a matter of learning how to refuel yourself properly.


I completely agree, that CICO is still the answer ultimately. However, some of these people have lost so much efficiency with their metabolic rate it becomes an unrealistic challenge to maintain a calorie deficit.

I just find it interesting and I think these people are probably still statistical outliers.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Adim_X said:


> Just to rehash and drop fuel on the CICO fire.
> 
> After ?The Biggest Loser,? Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight - NYTimes.com


That's a show that focused on extreme and very rapid/fast weight loss with the incentive of a very large cash prize for the winner. Just the idea of competitive weight loss is a bit off the rocker, but what they put those contestants through and the methods used has always been insane - IMO.:madman:

I'm not sure the NY Times article includes as much data as this link in terms of the winners, 1st runner ups, 2nd runner ups and their current weight which gets continually updated.

If we applied the same dogma of dropping weight as quickly as that show has been criticized over (10-30+ pounds in the first week alone), compared to a more sustainable .5 lbs to 1 pound (or even up to 2 pounds) per week trajectory, we too might have some severe bounce back and mucked up metabolisms or other side effects from such rapid, competitive weight loss.

In other words, I'm not so sure using The Biggest Loser with a starting group of rather obese contestants who competitively tried to cut as fast and furious as possible (where they lost glycogen stores, water weight, muscle weight, fat weight without any thoughts of repercussions of what the body would do in reaction) without really making a long term commitment to lifestyle changes of diet, exercise, etc... is the best example we should be looking at to confirm that thermogenesis works or doesn't work.

The contestants were - for sure - taking measures to win the cash prize that most of us would not consider even in the neighborhood of being normal.

This one being quite an example. This guy was burning more than a Tour de France professional burns each day in the TDF (which only lasts 3 weeks and leaves most of them toasted in need of recovery for a good period of weeks/months following it). And he was banging it out for 4+ months at exercising 7 hours a day to win the cash prize!!!!

_Before the show began, the contestants underwent medical tests to be sure they could endure the rigorous schedule that lay ahead. And rigorous it was. Sequestered on the "Biggest Loser" ranch with the other contestants, Mr. Cahill exercised seven hours a day, burning 8,000 to 9,000 calories according to a calorie tracker the show gave him. He took electrolyte tablets to help replace the salts he lost through sweating, consuming many fewer calories than before.

Eventually, he and the others were sent home for four months to try to keep losing weight on their own.

Mr. Cahill set a goal of a 3,500-caloric deficit per day. The idea was to* lose a pound a day*. He quit his job as a land surveyor to do it.

His routine went like this: Wake up at 5 a.m. and run on a treadmill for 45 minutes. Have breakfast - typically one egg and two egg whites, half a grapefruit and a piece of sprouted grain toast. Run on the treadmill for another 45 minutes. Rest for 40 minutes; bike ride nine miles to a gym. Work out for two and a half hours. Shower, ride home, eat lunch - typically a grilled skinless chicken breast, a cup of broccoli and 10 spears of asparagus. Rest for an hour. Drive to the gym for another round of exercise.

If he had not burned enough calories to hit his goal, he went back to the gym after dinner to work out some more. At times, he found himself running around his neighborhood in the dark until his calorie-burn indicator reset to zero at midnight._

Come on - is that sustainable for anybody?:nono:

_On the day of the weigh-in on the show's finale, Mr. Cahill and the others dressed carefully to hide the rolls of loose skin that remained, to their surprise and horror, after they had lost weight. They wore compression undergarments to hold it in.

Mr. Cahill knew he could not maintain his finale weight of 191 pounds. He was so mentally and physically exhausted he barely moved for two weeks after his publicity tour ended. But he had started a new career giving motivational speeches as the biggest loser ever, and for the next four years, he managed to keep his weight below 255 pounds by exercising two to three hours a day. But two years ago, he went back to his job as a surveyor, and the pounds started coming back._

Anyway, it's not an excuse and I hope this "study" doesn't deter those who could greatly benefit from cutting weight to do so.


----------



## Tribble Me (Aug 27, 2012)

I was talking to a friend of mine recently and he was telling me that his daughter was playing college level soccer. They have a different meal selection for the starters versus the subs. The starters get almost twice the calories as the non-starters. 

IMO the CICO works fairly well if the diet stays the same. If you keep your diet the same (Meaning no change in the overall character of the diet, ie. % of carbs, protein, fats) and drop your calories a significant amount most of us will lose weight if we keep our activity levels the same. 

If you modify the diet by changing the basic fuel then CICO may not be accurate at all. The Atkins diet or Quick Weight Loss are examples of this. You can eat tons of food but virtually no carbs and you will drop weight like a rock. Your body will go into Ketosis and you are literally peeing out the calories that your body can not process.


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 3, 2010)

Being someone who has lost a tremendous amount of weight..even though I did it in a more reasonable time frame about 1 year for first 100 pounds and then the last 4 years have been a struggle to lose 45. I have reached a point of stasis around 225 lbs at 6ft1 where I have to starve myself to lose any more but, I can gain 5 pounds rather easily. 

I know this is probably still pretty porky by your standards I'm not a lazy person. I run, lift, mtb/cross race and rode about 5k miles last year. 

I have to watch what i eat and it will be a life long struggle. This year has been a bit slower as I just had a 360 lipectomy to remove 6lbs of leftover skin. But I will be hitting it hard soon enough. 


It makes me question my metabolism. I will inquire with my GP about a metabolic study just to humor myself. Would be interesting although not statistically significant to see if my rate has dropped as compared to where charts say I should be.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Tribble Me said:


> I was talking to a friend of mine recently and he was telling me that his daughter was playing college level soccer. They have a different meal selection for the starters versus the subs. The starters get almost twice the calories as the non-starters.
> 
> IMO the CICO works fairly well if the diet stays the same. If you keep your diet the same (Meaning no change in the overall character of the diet, ie. % of carbs, protein, fats) and drop your calories a significant amount most of us will lose weight if we keep our activity levels the same.
> 
> If you modify the diet by changing the basic fuel then CICO may not be accurate at all. The Atkins diet or Quick Weight Loss are examples of this. You can eat tons of food but virtually no carbs and you will drop weight like a rock. Your body will go into Ketosis and you are literally peeing out the calories that your body can not process.


The Atkins diet works on the same premise - it's about the number of calories. It may "seem like" you are eating tons of food - volume wise - but the calories still add up to a deficit. (I did the Atkins/low-carb thing back in 2004 for 10 months).


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Ok, I'm a bit late on reporting back on this. Diagnosed pre-diabetic at 5'9" and 145 lbs, trail runner, mountain biker/cyclist; went to see a dietician. As I figured, I do not need to lose weight nor exercise more. My body fat is 22%; looking at the pix Bruce Brown posted on the second page of this topic, yeah, I'm between those two guys. Goal for pre-diabetics is to be 25% or less so I'm already there.

I eat pretty healthy, I'm a pescatarian and my wife usually cooks from scratch. But I did have a bad habit of snacking at work. The blood sugar test I had checks your levels over the last 2-3 months. During this time, we had a big production coming up (we do large scale corporate events) and our office was well stocked on snacks. I was coming in and eating 2 bags of chocolate chip cookies right off the bat (I run in the morning every other day) and then in the afternoon eating a few candy bars. So I was probably shocking my system with heavy sugar injections. My lunches varied, I was often eating a couple of slices of bread with cheese with soup, though I did go for the whole grain breads.

So…I've cut down on the sugar and carbs and I'm checking labels more to find those surprise carbs; I never knew that beans are pretty high in carbs. I think I have dropped some weight, which I really don't want to do. I went through 2 lbs of mixed nuts in about a week; just bought a 4 lb can of peanuts to replace it. This week I've been experimenting with eating more protein at lunch at it does seem to make me less hungry during the rest of the day. I may be overdoing it with the protein, my lunch has consisted of tomato soup, cottage cheese (4% fat) with tomatoes and jalapeños, a hard boiled egg, and a can of sardines. If I continue to lose weight, I'll switch to whole milk with my breakfast cereal - I make my own mix of a couple of healthy cereals like plain Cheerios and bran flakes with a sweeter cereal like Honey Bunches of Oats and usually have strawberries or blueberries on it. The dietician said I could consume more carbs than they normally recommend due to the amount of exercise I do and I can gel if I'm going over an hour. I think I'll see if my doctor will put in for another blood test after a couple of months so I can see where I am rather than wait for my next annual check-up.


----------



## velo99 (Apr 18, 2014)

By doing area specific exercises the paunch can go away. I'm still working on it. In hindsight it's all in what you want to look like and your perception of fitness. 
Most of what I do in both exercise and diet are in moderation. I do go all out for the most part when I'm on my bike. Losing weight and exercising has made biking a lot more fun and productive. If you want a reminder drop a ten pound weight in your backpack before your next ride.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Fuzzle said:


> I'm learning how true that is. I use to keep my weight stable and where I wanted it when I was riding more. Now I can't work out much so it's hard to remember that I don't need as much. it's a bit of a adjustment. I was thinking till recently no bad carbs was the answer.
> 
> I agree food is meant to be fuel especially for athletes. Eating junk is part of our culture and social occasions revolve around it, not to mention emotional eating.
> 
> I always feel self conscious when I go out with friends because some get on my case for my restricted diet.


Tell them that your diet, appearance, and life choices are not about them, ie it's none of their business.

People worry about others because that helps them avoid worrying about themselves.

I'm a vegetarian, been that way for most of my life, and I can't count them number of times people have commented on my dietary choices, yet I never question or comment on the dietary choices of other.

Set limits on people, it's the only way to change how they treat you/think of you.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Adim_X said:


> Being someone who has lost a tremendous amount of weight..even though I did it in a more reasonable time frame about 1 year for first 100 pounds and then the last 4 years have been a struggle to lose 45. I have reached a point of stasis around 225 lbs at 6ft1 where I have to starve myself to lose any more but, I can gain 5 pounds rather easily.
> 
> I know this is probably still pretty porky by your standards I'm not a lazy person. I run, lift, mtb/cross race and rode about 5k miles last year.
> 
> ...


There is nothing a medical provider can do about your metabolism. If you can lose 145#, you can lose another 5#..


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

chazpat said:


> I eat pretty healthy, I'm a pescatarian and my wife usually cooks from scratch. But I did have a bad habit of snacking at work. The blood sugar test I had checks your levels over the last 2-3 months. During this time, we had a big production coming up (we do large scale corporate events) and our office was well stocked on snacks. I was coming in and eating 2 bags of chocolate chip cookies right off the bat (I run in the morning every other day) and then in the afternoon eating a few candy bars. So I was probably shocking my system with heavy sugar injections. My lunches varied, I was often eating a couple of slices of bread with cheese with soup, though I did go for the whole grain breads..


^ Your joking, right?

I would say that you are in a terrible state of denial. Eating bags of cookies and a couple candy bars every day is not a snacking problem, that is a terrible diet.

You cannot say you have a healthy diet because you eat fish and cook from scratch when the rest of your diet is garbage. A healthy diet is healthy all the time, not just at dinner.

If you charted your diet based in what you disclosed, what percentage of your protein, fat, and calories are coming from healthy foods? My guess would be less than 50%.

I'm not trying to trash you here, but this thinking is why American's struggle with weight, the availability of junk food has not only changed the way we eat, but it's altered our perceptions of what makes a healthy diet.

You are not "healthy" because you run in the morning and you eat junk food. You are healthy because you exercise and you are "unhealthy" because you eat junk food.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Just reading that post has reminded me of the one time I was given nutritional advice for cycling.

In the late 50s and early 60s I used to help out in a bike shop (learned all sorts of obsolete and useful techniques). The owner was probably in his 70s, and he gave me the advice that his apprentice master who was a racer gave him. I only recently realised that that means it was Victorian era advice. 

Nonetheless it works for me. 

To get cycle fit, get up in the morning, cup of coffee, black preferably, go for a ride to the edge of bonk. Then eat a couple of poached eggs and have a pot of tea. 

Do this daily to prepare for the riding season and after a few weeks you find yourself leaner and the distance to bonk further. (Speed training was a separate issue.) I have since seen something like this proposed as a way of kickstarting your metabolism.

I have no idea of whether there is any scientific merit to it, but I do know one thing, it works for me and it's a no faff way of doing it. It's about general cycle endurance rather than speed etc.

It seems to me modern cyclists find it necessary to dope their body with proprietary sugary products at frequent intervals, whereas I was told 3 decent meals a day was sufficient. An emergency bag of Jelly Babies would be reserved in case of bonk. 

In my youth I regularly rode 200 mile back to back days with a bike loaded with camping gear based on the 3 good meals a day basis - I didn't know any different. I was skinny as a rake though, 40lbs lighter than I am now.

Presumably it trains your body to rely on its fat reserves. If so I currently have a superb long range fuel tank.


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 3, 2010)

Nurse Ben said:


> There is nothing a medical provider can do about your metabolism. If you can lose 145#, you can lose another 5#..


Thank you Ben. You have saved me from asking a real medical person a dumb question. I'm thankful that you are so encouraging that I can lose more weight. Because after 145 pounds and 5 years of life altering decisions about my health..I have no clue what I'm doing anymore.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Velobike said:


> To get cycle fit, get up in the morning, cup of coffee, black preferably, go for a ride to the edge of bonk. Then eat a couple of poached eggs and have a pot of tea.
> 
> Do this daily to prepare for the riding season and after a few weeks you find yourself leaner and the distance to bonk further. (Speed training was a separate issue.) I have since seen something like this proposed as a way of kickstarting your metabolism.
> 
> ...


Much has been written and studied on fasted cardio. Some used to call it "bonk training" which has a rather negative connotation due to the severity of what a bonk can do to the body (as in dangerous). Here's a take from a sports dietician on fasted cardio...

Is It Beneficial to Fast Before Working Out? - Hello HealthyHello Healthy


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> ^ Your joking, right?
> 
> I would say that you are in a terrible state of denial. Eating bags of cookies and a couple candy bars every day is not a snacking problem, that is a terrible diet.
> 
> ...


Hence the "pretty" healthy and "bad habit of snacking". Agreed that if you look at it all as a whole diet, it falls down. If you've read my earlier posts, you've seen that I've had issues in the past at keeping my weight up; not the typical "American's struggle with weight". My challenge seems to be consuming enough healthy calories to keep my weight up. I'm now down to 140, which is still ok but when I hit 135 a few years ago, I was getting a lot of concern that I was not healthy at that weight. I've seen comments along the lines of "people don't know what healthy looks like" but I was looking in the mirror and scared at how much older I was looking. It seems the advice is always to consume more healthy fats such as nuts and avocados. I love both of these but that is a pretty narrow option list.

And just to clarify, the bags of cookies were the small Famous Amos Chocolate Chip; they had some at a meeting I was at this morning (did not eat) so I checked the carbs and it listed 38 grams so yeah, two bags was a big hit. And the candy bars were the "fun size", which, being that this is the 50+ forum, a lot of us probably think of as very small candy bars.

My wife's suggestion is that I should exercise less!

chaz


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Some people, like me can eat complete **** half the time, and eveytime I get a physical the Dr. tells me I'm off the charts healthy. everyone is different.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Some people, like me can eat complete **** half the time, and eveytime I get a physical the Dr. tells me I'm off the charts healthy. everyone is different.


Just you wait till you hit menopause.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Fuzzle said:


> Just you wait till you hit menopause.


I've never had a bleeding problem!


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

I did bonk training...

Works fine, but tends to hurt, so commitment is everything.

You end up with a lot more miles before a bonk.

This is useful in long endurance racing.


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

Velobike said:


> Just reading that post has reminded me of the one time I was given nutritional advice for cycling.
> 
> In the late 50s and early 60s I used to help out in a bike shop (learned all sorts of obsolete and useful techniques). The owner was probably in his 70s, and he gave me the advice that his apprentice master who was a racer gave him. I only recently realised that that means it was Victorian era advice.
> 
> ...


Haha yes this was called the "Colombian Breakfast" training method back in the 80's. I remember it well. We used to do the Bialetti pre and post ride, followed by eggs and a piece of toast with Land-O Lakes spread. Then we slept most of the day post-ride and did it all over again the next day. To drop weight fast we ate a lot of Rice a Roni with a can of stewed tomatoes in to add some extra flavor. Little to no protein as I recall, which totally dumb now that you think about it. Protein was considered calories.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

GSJ1973 said:


> Haha yes this was called the "Colombian Breakfast" training method back in the 80's. I remember it well. We used to do the Bialetti pre and post ride, followed by eggs and a piece of toast with Land-O Lakes spread. Then we slept most of the day post-ride and did it all over again the next day. To drop weight fast we ate a lot of Rice a Roni with a can of stewed tomatoes in to add some extra flavor. Little to no protein as I recall, which totally dumb now that you think about it. Protein was considered calories.


I suspect anything that drops weight fast isn't much good for you.


----------



## gnewcomer (Jul 2, 2011)

I was pretty cut, when I was riding 4 -5 times a week. Been off the bikes for two years and have a shiner bock belly that's starting to push me out of britches. Got me a new "to me" Niner Jet 9 and started riding the local dirt trails around the area. I'll get my love handles and beer belly burnt off in no time. (c:

gnewcomer aka OldMtnGoat


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

Fuzzle said:


> Just you wait till you hit menopause.


"Manopause" 
I'll give you an "A" for effort though.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Ha! I see this thread is still alive and well after 12 pages.  And browsing through many posts, the one central, recurring theme is this:

People have different genetics, and that plays a big role, period. Hence all the "I eat like crap and don't gain a pound" posts...as well as all the "I ride 2hrs/day and watch my calories carefully and still gain weight" posts.

As much as it makes sense, it seems obvious from anecdotal evidence that while reducing calories may reduce weight...it's not a 1:1 relationship that's the same for everyone. The *rate* at which people lose weight (at a given number of calories) seems to vary dramatically. And the *rate* at which people lose weight when riding more (or riding harder) also seems to vary dramatically.

Bottom line, I've seen absolutely nothing to disprove the observation that some people just have it easier than others—physiologically speaking.

Scott


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Ericmopar said:


> "Manopause"
> I'll give you an "A" for effort though.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Sportin some flab ain't no big thing. Most important thing is to be kind to be king to yourself.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2016)

Fuzzle said:


> Just you wait till you hit menopause.


and she will too..


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

SWriverstone said:


> Bottom line, I've seen absolutely nothing to disprove the observation that some people just have it easier than others-physiologically speaking.
> 
> Scott


Nice cop out.

Thermogenesis has been around and ruled weight for humans since the beginning. Eat less than your daily needs = lose weight. Eat more than your daily needs = gain weight. Eat the number of calories your body requires on a daily basis for the level of activity, gender, age, weight to achieve parity = maintain weight.

Brutally honest primer remains firmly planted in reality. No cop outs required.:thumbsup:


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

SWriverstone said:


> People have different genetics, and that plays a big role, period. Hence all the "I eat like crap and don't gain a pound" posts...as well as all the "I ride 2hrs/day and watch my calories carefully and still gain weight" posts.
> 
> As much as it makes sense, it seems obvious from anecdotal evidence that while reducing calories may reduce weight...it's not a 1:1 relationship that's the same for everyone. The *rate* at which people lose weight (at a given number of calories) seems to vary dramatically. And the *rate* at which people lose weight when riding more (or riding harder) also seems to vary dramatically.


The variation is not in the science one pound equals 3500 cal....the variation is in the stories people tell.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

BruceBrown said:


> Nice cop out.
> 
> Thermogenesis has been around and ruled weight for humans since the beginning. Eat less than your daily needs = lose weight. Eat more than your daily needs = gain weight. Eat the number of calories your body requires on a daily basis for the level of activity, gender, age, weight to achieve parity = maintain weight.
> 
> Brutally honest primer remains firmly planted in reality. No cop outs required.:thumbsup:


Don't you think you're being a bit harsh here? These studies mean nothing. Your evidence is no more solid then any others.

In the end it doesn't even matter. Let's not judge. People have issues with their weight for a number of reasons. Stress, medical, abuse, trauma etc... There s a mind body connection. Nothing in life is that clear cut and simple. Broaden your scope.

We are all doing the best we can :thumbsup:.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I've never had a bleeding problem!


I only have a bleeding problem when I piss off my wife


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Fuzzle said:


> Don't you think you're being a bit harsh here? These studies mean nothing. Your evidence is no more solid then any others.
> 
> In the end it doesn't even matter. Let's not judge. People have issues with their weight for a number of reasons. Stress, medical, abuse, trauma etc... There s a mind body connection. Nothing in life is that clear cut and simple. Broaden your scope.
> 
> We are all doing the best we can :thumbsup:.


Fuzzle, you don't happen to work as a therapist?


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

jeffscott said:


> The variation is not in the science one pound equals 3500 cal....the variation is in the stories people tell.


That, and poor math adding up what is eaten, and what is burned in exercise/daily chores.

But stories are easier to tell.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> I only have a bleeding problem when I piss off my wife


Haha!!


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Fuzzle said:


> People have issues with their weight for a number of reasons. Stress, medical, abuse, trauma etc... There s a mind body connection.


You are 100% correct here, there is a mind body connection. Peoples minds, who are overweight, can't keep their mouths from ingesting, chewing and swallowing to much food! There is no other way around that. Every living thing on this planet can lose weight by eating less calories than they burn, regardless of any condition, medical or otherwise.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> Fuzzle, you don't happen to work as a therapist?


Not a therapist. Thanks for the compliment though .

I'm hoping to go back to school in a couple years if I'm not to old and study psychology. I want to work for the County with at risk teens and young adults as a crises counselor.

I shall wait and see if the stars align.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> You are 100% correct here, there is a mind body connection. Peoples minds, who are overweight, can't keep their mouths from ingesting, chewing and swallowing to much food! There is no other way around that. Every living thing on this planet can lose weight by eating less calories than they burn, regardless of any condition, medical or otherwise.


Tell that to those who have been abused as children. Tell that to the young female Army private who was raped by her fellow solider's and now suffers PTSD.

These horrific events cause biological changes in the body. It can cause production of high amounts of cortisol which results in weight gain.

Also people who suffer trauma as children or adults often eat for comfort and a way to cope.

But they are all idiots who won't stop shoveling food into their mouths so they deserve to be fat.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Fuzzle said:


> Not a therapist. Thanks for the compliment though .
> 
> I'm hoping to go back to school in a couple years if I'm not to old and study psychology. I want to work for the County with at risk teens and young adults as a crises counselor.
> 
> I shall wait and see if the stars align.


It's a tough job, all my coworkers are therapists and social workers, I prescribe meds and practice "therapy lite".

It's good to do something where you can give back, even when it doesn't seem to help, you feel good trying.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> It's a tough job, all my coworkers are therapists and social workers, I prescribe meds and practice "therapy lite".
> 
> It's good to do something where you can give back, even when it doesn't seem to help, you feel good trying.


My son is ADHD and see's a therapist. She suggested I go back to school and make a 3rd career change :eekster:.

I feel like I've been a therapist my whole life. People have always come to me with their questions and concerns. I was always was glad to help. Not that I thought I had any great advice to give or anything. Basically it was lets dump on Carolyn and then dump her .

Over the years I've become very worn out and have learned to set boundaries. I also try to not let their issue stick to me.

That last straw was when I had this experience with a friend of my sons. I met her at the beginning of a nasty divorce and my co-dependent self was willing and ready to dive in and save her .

She ended up sucking the life out of me so bad and I had to cut her off. When I would see her I literally had to hide. It was painful to do but it was her or me.

I tried to apologize and explain why. I was also going through some challenges of my own. She never really forgave and I must must admit the whole situation hurt.

And I just went off topic here .


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Fuzzle said:


> My son is ADHD and see's a therapist. She suggested I go back to school and make a 3rd career change :eekster:.
> 
> I feel like I've been a therapist my whole life. People have always come to me with their questions and concerns. I was always was glad to help. Not that I thought I had any great advice to give or anything. Basically it was lets dump on Carolyn and then dump her .
> 
> ...


Wow, I have big respect for you!


----------



## OwenM (Oct 17, 2012)

There is a lot more to it than simply gross intake expressed in calories, conditions(or medication for whatever condition) that affect body chemistry notwithstanding.
For most of us, type and timing have everything to do with how our bodies process what we put in them. Just bracketing carb intake around periods of activity while dividing overall intake throughout the day can have a huge impact on metabolism, as can the type, duration and intensity of training we do. 
Pretty common stuff, but there seems to be a lot of talk about calories in and out here, as if that's all there is, forgetting that a person can lose or gain weight on the same _total amount_ of calories and exercise.



Fuzzle said:


> I tried to apologize and explain why...She never really forgave


For HER problems. No doubt you're better off with that person out of your life.
My, how we love to help and befriend them, though. I unentangled myself from all relationships that weren't positively impacting my life 6-7 years ago. There were some hurt feelings(same irony, there), but the best word I can come up with to describe the effect on my personal life is "liberating".


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Wow, I have big respect for you!


Thanks Shawn. I appreciate that


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

OwenM said:


> There is a lot more to it than simply gross intake expressed in calories, conditions(or medication for whatever condition) that affect body chemistry notwithstanding.
> For most of us, type and timing have everything to do with how our bodies process what we put in them. Just bracketing carb intake around periods of activity while dividing overall intake throughout the day can have a huge impact on metabolism, as can the type, duration and intensity of training we do.
> Pretty common stuff, but there seems to be a lot of talk about calories in and out here, as if that's all there is, forgetting that a person can lose or gain weight on the same _total amount_ of calories and exercise.
> 
> ...


That's good to hear. Thanks so much. It's been a process.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

OwenM said:


> There is a lot more to it than simply gross intake expressed in calories, conditions(or medication for whatever condition) that affect body chemistry notwithstanding.


Really? :skep:

_Calling all special cupcakes to aisle 9! Somebody thinks that your body works differently than the rest of the human race..._

It's much more comfortable to pretend it's something outside of one's control.:nono:

Eat clean.
Eat low carb.
Eat Vegan.
Eat Paleo.
Time your nutrients.
Get a gastric bybass.
Try this fad.
Try that fad.
Blame it on genetics.
Blame it on emotional connection to whatever.
Blame it on metabolism.:madman:
Blame it on medications and make sure not to make any adjustments to account for side effects.
Pass the buck.

What goes in the pie hole each day must match what gets burned throughout the day to maintain weight.

Put too much in, the body stores it and we gain weight.

Put too little in, the body burns fuel from other sources and we lose weight.

In the meantime - eat to exercise on your bike.

And...

Exercise on your bike to eat.:thumbsup:


----------



## singlesprocket (Jun 9, 2004)

cut like a fish...


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

BruceBrown said:


> Really? :skep:
> 
> _Calling all special cupcakes to aisle 9! Somebody thinks that your body works differently than the rest of the human race..._
> 
> ...


Sounds like you never met anyone was on atypical atypical antipsychotic medications, lithium, or had thyroid cancer.

Well i have. I live in the real world. Where do you live?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Fuzzle said:


> Sounds like you never met anyone was on atypical atypical antipsychotic medications, lithium, or had thyroid cancer.
> 
> Well i have. I live in the real world. Where do you live?


So, are you saying that you could just stop eating and not lose weight?


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> So, are you saying that you could just stop eating and not lose weight?


My son was on a medication for ADHD. It literally doubled his BMI. He ate the same, exercised a lot and gained a lot of weight.

There are other types of medications that cause one to have an insatiable appetite as well as cause weight gain on it's own. They also turn you into a Zombie. All you can do is either sleep or sit and stare at the wall so exercise is out of the question.

A know the woman who had thyroid cancer. Eats the same as she did before the cancer and when she was skinny. Now she's obese.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Fuzzle said:


> My son was on a medication for ADHD. It literally doubled his BMI. He ate the same, exercised a lot and gained a lot of weight.
> 
> There are other types of medications that cause one to have an insatiable appetite as well as cause weight gain on it's own. They also turn you into a Zombie. All you can do is either sleep or sit and stare at the wall so exercise is out of the question.
> 
> A know the woman who had thyroid cancer. Eats the same as she did before the cancer and when she was skinny. Now she's obese.


I understand what you're saying. It doesn't change the fact that if you eat less than you burn you have to lose weight. Some people don't need very many calories. Some people like me need a lot of calories just to break even.


----------



## weakendwarrior (May 19, 2016)

The Law Of Conservation of Energy is fact (so far as we know). If you make one calorie available (not necessarily the same as eating one calorie) and don't burn it, it will be stored. I don't think anybody here is disputing this. Having read through the entire thread, it seems to me that the arguement revolves around how people utilize ingested calories. Some people are efficient in absorbing and burning calories while others are not. This is where genetics comes in and if you are to counsel somebody regarding body homeostasis, this has to be taken into account. This doesn't even begin to take into account disease states, medications, etc. 

So, yes, CICO is technically correct but if you rely solely on this in an effort to counsel people regarding weight loss (or gain), you will likely fail. People are different, believe it or not. Basal metabolic rates vary widely from person to person and with age. There is a natural tendency for fat to replace lean muscle mass as one ages. Psychology plays a HUGE role and ignoring that factor almost guarantees failure.

To say it's "simply math" ignores the human condition completely and no amount of insults or name-calling will change that. Biological systems are complex and incompletely understood. For the record, I'm 6'0" and 150 lbs...59 years old...and have never had a problem with my weight (I chose my parents well) but, over the past thiry-one years, I have dealt professionally with a lot of people who have.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

I'm 5'9" and 165. I consider myself to be to skinny. Some people like you and me have the opposite problem. We can't keep weight on. Which has its own set of problems.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2016)

*are you cut? Or sporting some flab?*

well yea!!!


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Emily would like to invite you gentlemen to lunch.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2016)

Fuzzle said:


> Emily would like to invite you gentlemen to lunch.


emily's a babe.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

nvphatty said:


> emily's a babe.


She could have myany day!


----------



## OwenM (Oct 17, 2012)

Fuzzle said:


> I feel like I've been a therapist my whole life.


I see you have a knack for child psychology


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

Okay... the whole vision of miss Batty with burning bung running for the can, after Chipotle just turned me off for good. 
Besides, you can't trust the uber cute ones anyways, they always have a plot going of some sort. 

I prefer the real gals around here, plus my stashed away pic of April Lawyer on her bike.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Ericmopar said:


> Okay... the whole vision of miss Batty with burning bung running for the can, after Chipotle just turned me off for good.
> Besides, you can't trust the uber cute ones anyways, they always have a plot going of some sort.
> 
> I prefer the real gals around here, plus my stashed away pic of April Lawyer on her bike.


I promise not to hire a Lawyer


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

OwenM said:


> I see you have a knack for child psychology


Like I'm anymore mature...


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2016)

Fuzzle said:


> Like I'm anymore mature mature...


keeps the cost @ a minimum.


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

Fuzzle said:


> I promise not to hire a Lawyer
> 
> View attachment 1071780


That's a great picture of Miss April, but it's not the one I keep.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Fuzzle said:


> Emily would like to invite you gentlemen to lunch.
> 
> View attachment 1071767


You can calculate what she had in her Burrito Bowl right here:

https://www.chipotle.com/nutrition-calculator

I usually opt for the burrito with chicken, black beans, brown rice, guacamole, cheese, sour cream, lettuce, etc. and it totals 1385 calories. The Burrito Bowl with the same goodies I like would be 300 calories less. I rarely go there because of that, unless it is after a race or a really long training ride where I burn 1500 - 4000 calories.

She's a professional racer logging in the kind of weekly training hours on the bike that very few amateurs can relate to, so of course her calorie intake matches what her body needs for fuel. At her level of racing, BF% is very low for the power to weight ratio to be optimum to compete. A lunch of 800 - 1100 calories (depending on what she had in that bowl) is not out of the ordinary for the amount of calories she burns in her training/racing.

Lots of talk about all of that on the Racing forum, where LMN (pro racer Catherine Pendrel's husband) is a frequent contributor to all matters weight related for cycling.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

BruceBrown said:


> You can calculate what she had in her Burrito Bowl right here:
> 
> https://www.chipotle.com/nutrition-calculator
> 
> ...


I never even noticed she was eating Chipotle. Yuk! I just thought is was a cute pic and you guys might get a kick out of it.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Fuzzle said:


> I never even noticed she was eating Chipotle. Yuk!


Yum! I had me some Chipotle when I was in the big city last week and I thought it was quite tasty.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Fuzzle said:


> I never even noticed she was eating Chipotle. Yuk! I just thought is was a cute pic and you guys might get a kick out of it.


Fuzz, are you still paranoid about the old Chipotle scare? I was eating there right on through it all. It was marvelous to go into an empty food joint and own the place. Now, the lines have returned.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> Yum! I had me some Chipotle when I was in the big city last week and I thought it was quite tasty.


Did you go to Nordy's and shop?



Hawg said:


> Fuzz, are you still paranoid about the old Chipotle scare? I was eating there right on through it all. It was marvelous to go into an empty food joint and own the place. Now, the lines have returned.


A new one opened up here in Bends Red Light District. I'm not kidding Hawg. It's right down the street from that filthy strip club and the scandalous old Motel 6.

I went there all by myself because I was starving and had no other options, I got one of those low carb bowels and didn't feel so good after.

It's all DJ's fault.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2016)

Fuzzle said:


> Did you go to Nordy's and shop?
> 
> A new one opened up here in Bends Red Light District. I'm not kidding Hawg. It's right down the street from that filthy strip club and the scandalous old Motel 6.
> 
> ...


are ya sure the red light dist was about eats??


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Fuzzle said:


> My son was on a medication for ADHD. It literally doubled his BMI. He ate the same, exercised a lot and gained a lot of weight.
> 
> There are other types of medications that cause one to have an insatiable appetite as well as cause weight gain on it's own. They also turn you into a Zombie. All you can do is either sleep or sit and stare at the wall so exercise is out of the question.
> 
> A know the woman who had thyroid cancer. Eats the same as she did before the cancer and when she was skinny. Now she's obese.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Fuzzle said:


> My son was on a medication for ADHD. It literally doubled his BMI. He ate the same, exercised a lot and gained a lot of weight.
> 
> There are other types of medications that cause one to have an insatiable appetite as well as cause weight gain on it's own. They also turn you into a Zombie. All you can do is either sleep or sit and stare at the wall so exercise is out of the question.
> 
> A know the woman who had thyroid cancer. Eats the same as she did before the cancer and when she was skinny. Now she's obese.


They were both eating more calories than the were using....

Adjusting your eating habit to your body is very difficult, one can use all sorts of mind games to help.....but there it is.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

For the past several years, I have been gaining during the winter (more beer) to say 188lbs, then falling in the summer to 182 lbs.

Last winter added Alpine Touring once a week to the mix, now I am 182 lbs end of winter (less beer on Friday before the skiing). and just nosing under 179.

I started using more sugar to balance out the calories, rather than another Meal???


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

BruceBrown said:


>


I remember listening to this guy. He has some good points. I tried everything with my son for many years. End the end there was more of a risk to keep him off medication then to take it. It was so bad he was hurting and falling behind in school. It breaks my heart.

I agree illness is a result if toxins in our food and environment. Even though they are, some things are unavoidable. Like with my son who ate healthy from day one could have breathed in my neighbors lawn fertilizer. The fact of the matter is I have to act now because a healthy diet isn't working in real time.

Lets face it. I doubt a dangerous paranoid schizophrenic who is off his meds is going to eat a healthy diet to get better. I'd rather not worry what caused his condition. Let him take the pills, gain weight and stay safe.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

jeffscott said:


> They were both eating more calories than the were using....
> 
> Adjusting your eating habit to your body is very difficult, one can use all sorts of mind games to help.....but there it is.


You were not there. My son was NOT eating more. I'm his mom and I know because I watch and control his food intake.

Mind games... People under estimate the power of the tiny little pill.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

jeffscott said:


> For the past several years, I have been gaining during the winter (more beer) to say 188lbs, then falling in the summer to 182 lbs.
> 
> Last winter added Alpine Touring once a week to the mix, now I am 182 lbs end of winter (less beer on Friday before the skiing). and just nosing under 179.
> 
> I started using more sugar to balance out the calories, rather than another Meal???


I love XC skiing! When I'm craving desert I make coffee with cream and sugar. It's that or cupcakes .


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

Almond Roca.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Ericmopar said:


> Almond Roca.


Word :thumbsup:.


----------



## ravewoofer (Dec 24, 2008)

One hour was enough.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Fuzzle said:


> Lets face it. I doubt a dangerous paranoid schizophrenic who is off his meds is going to eat a healthy diet to get better. I'd rather not worry what caused his condition. Let him take the pills, gain weight and stay safe.


Chances are, with all do respect, such a candidate is not a regular singletrack rider, and finding themselves on MTBR.com on the Fifty+ Years Old Forum participating in a thread entitled _*Be honest: are you cut? Or sporting some flab?*_

Depends on how deep you want to label the _label_ of the "exceptions". Gets us back to Rule #11 HERE.The majority of us fall within the realm of normal and will respond to weight loss, weight gain, and maintaining weight the same way mankind - as we know it - always has.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

never mind.


----------



## bunnykiller (Sep 16, 2015)

jeffscott said:


> They were both eating more calories than the were using....
> 
> Adjusting your eating habit to your body is very difficult, one can use all sorts of mind games to help.....but there it is.


You are so ill-informed it's comical lol

Seriously.... the last person on earth that doesn't believe medications can cause changes in metabolism. Double facepalm here.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

bunnykiller said:


> You are so ill-informed it's comical lol
> 
> Seriously.... the last person on earth that doesn't believe medications can cause changes in metabolism. Double facepalm here.


Luckily, in many cases there are things one can do to combat it.

Getting fat: Should you blame your meds? - today > health - TODAY.com

Antidepressants and Weight Gain: What Causes It?

I, personally, take a medication that can cause weight gain. I combat that with the intake of what I eat, and the amount of exercise I do. I'm not saying all are able to control it, but again - many are able to consult their doctors to switch medications, come up with a plan to combat the slowed metabolism or increased appetite and mitigate the gain or loss caused by the medication.

_Drugs can cause weight gain in several different ways. Some can increase appetite or make you crave certain types of foods like those high in carbohydrates or fat. Other medications may slow down metabolism or cause fluid retention. However, the effect of prescription drugs on body weight is complex. Some drugs have no effect on weight, while others cause weight gain or weight loss. Also, the same medications can cause weight gain in certain individuals and weight loss in others. There are also drugs that initially cause weight loss and then lead to weight gain with long-term use. Most prescription medications associated with changes in body weight affect the central nervous system. These include antidepressants like monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), tricyclic antidepressants, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Mood stabilizers (lithium, valproic acid), antipsychotics, and anticonvulsants have also been linked with weight gain. Other drugs that have been reported to cause weight gain include diabetes medications (insulin, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones), antihypertensive drugs, certain hormonal contraceptives, corticosteroids, antihistamines, some chemotherapy regimens, and antiretroviral protease inhibitors. If you think a drug you are taking is causing weight gain, tell your health care provider. Do not stop any medication or change the dose without first talking to your provider._

Medications aside, and speaking of those not on medications, everything I have read says the difference in metabolisms for the majority of us is really not as widely spread as many think. And it is easily controlled with consumption.

Does metabolism vary between two people?

The 5 Biggest Myths About Metabolism - Life by Daily Burn


----------



## bunnykiller (Sep 16, 2015)

"In many cases" > In some cases might be more accurate. My kid was just as active ... ate probably less but the meds he was on changed the way his body processed calories.

You can't cut a kids food intake if he's eating normally. It wasn't one of those things that we even noticed right away. It was just all of a sudden ...whoa..he's not the lean kid we knew anymore. 

Those meds had other issues so we tried something else that worked better and fortunately the weight came off.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

BruceBrown said:


> Chances are, with all do respect, such a candidate is not a regular singletrack rider, and finding themselves on MTBR.com on the Fifty+ Years Old Forum participating in a thread entitled _*Be honest: are you cut? Or sporting some flab?*_
> 
> Depends on how deep you want to label the _label_ of the "exceptions". Gets us back to Rule #11 HERE.The majority of us fall within the realm of normal and will respond to weight loss, weight gain, and maintaining weight the same way mankind - as we know it - always has.


The only message I want to spread is that we shouldn't judge, jump to conclusions or think we have all the answers. Being this way only brings us much unhappiness.

Just because someone is sportin some flab doesn't mean it's their own fault or they are any less of a person.

Smile and be happy.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

bunnykiller said:


> You can't cut a kids food intake if he's eating normally. It wasn't one of those things that we even noticed right away. It was just all of a sudden ...whoa..he's not the lean kid we knew anymore.
> 
> Those meds had other issues so we tried something else that worked better and fortunately the weight came off.


I hear you on the "can't cut kids food intake if it's normal" and as a parent I totally agree. I've been posting in this thread about 50+ adults and what we face in our day to day regimens, habits, and lifestyle choices.

Glad the other medication worked out and your kid's weight came off again. It's not fun for any of us to to watch our children go through things like that.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

BruceBrown said:


> I hear you on the "can't cut kids food intake if it's normal" and as a parent I totally agree. I've been posting in this thread about 50+ adults and what we face in our day to day regimens, habits, and lifestyle choices.
> 
> Glad the other medication worked out and your kid's weight came off again. It's not fun for any of us to to watch our children go through things like that.


He is doing much better. I don't only rely on the medication. I work with him on impulse control and how to mange his energy so he can one day be med. free. No pill in the world is going to fix everything.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

bunnykiller said:


> You are so ill-informed it's comical lol
> 
> Seriously.... the last person on earth that doesn't believe medications can cause changes in metabolism. Double facepalm here.


Sorry the fact remains the excess calories that did not get consumed for what ever reason were stored up as fat.

Metabolism ranges from around 1600 cal/d to about 2400 cal/d.

If drugs pushes one from the max to the min that is 800 cal/d change....and that will lead to about a weight gain of 1.6 pounds per week....the rest may be water, that drugs can also change.

The numbers are simple and so are the results.


----------



## VChuck (Nov 23, 2009)

Just happy to be alive at 55 ,yup I'm not too happy with my weight 5'9" 220lbs want to get back to 168lbs(staying at Salvation Army did this).but after a series of accidents from a serious bike accident (hit from behind by a cop car) put into a coma ,cerebral hemmorage.lost memory,lost hearing in my righr ear, Gran mal seizure's lost income ,lost a roof over my head, lost 3 GT's,6 titanium pins put into my knee,angioplasty, back injury, I'm back to riding and rebuiding my GT armada.God is with me and is Very merciful to me!Oh Uhm Chicks are back to chasing me around still,Hahaha!Dangerous to live and ride where I live ,Daytona ,Ormond Beach,don't come here to vacation.It's turned into the GHETTO Beach!


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

Wow! You sure have been through a lot. You have a great outlook too so you will get there. 

Someone once told me when I was complaining that if you wake up upright and vertical it's a good day .


----------



## VChuck (Nov 23, 2009)

Amen Sister! I'm here to combat evil ,I suppose that God has a purpose for me to fulfill!
Perhaps you too! We need America back!
Forgive me Fuzzle ,This head injury affects me sometimes and I did not pay attention to your avatar!


----------



## bunnykiller (Sep 16, 2015)

jeffscott said:


> Sorry the fact remains the excess calories that did not get consumed for what ever reason were stored up as fat.
> 
> Metabolism ranges from around 1600 cal/d to about 2400 cal/d.
> 
> ...


Nice googling but that still just backs up what I said. You can't starve a kid that's eating normally. Arguing numbers is a pointless exercise unless you are an engineer. People's body's react differently to calorie intake.

That skinny person that does nothing but eat and never gains weight and the stocky guy that runs 4-5 marathons a year and never loses much...(yes I know both and I bet many do here as well) are proof that us humans cannot be broken down into robotic calorie intake/output calculations.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

bunnykiller said:


> Nice googling but that still just backs up what I said. You can't starve a kid that's eating normally. Arguing numbers is a pointless exercise unless you are an engineer. People's body's react differently to calorie intake.
> 
> That skinny person that does nothing but eat and never gains weight and the stocky guy that runs 4-5 marathons a year and never loses much...(yes I know both and I bet many do here as well) are proof that us humans cannot be broken down into robotic calorie intake/output calculations.


Didn't google anything.

You need to define your terms.

Anyone gaining weight beyond some rather broad limits should control their weight.

Reducing calories to achieve that is acceptable.

If and only if the nutritional requirements are meet.

It is very easy to meet nutritional requirements with diets down to 1200 cal/d.

It does require healthy foods and eating.

Your proof includes no data.


----------



## bunnykiller (Sep 16, 2015)

jeffscott said:


> Didn't google anything.
> 
> You need to define your terms.
> 
> ...












Here... re-read your comment in Beldar's voice... it's fantastic!


----------

