Weight Loss Discussion Thread

[hulver]

Well look at that.

Stick to a diet and you lose weight. Marvellous. 

3kg last week, I'm already using a different belt hole.

[L CC]

One day at a time hulver.
3kg is a lot.

[Chris S]

Well, I'm living proof that, even on next to no carbs, gluttony and sloth can still stall fat loss  .

My excuses: Comfort eating (been chased by The Dog, and lurgied), little in the way of exercise, boab's Crack Cocaine low-carb cheesecake supply.

Note to self: Candy Crush Saga is NOT a cardio workout.

[L CC]

Note to self: Candy Crush Saga is NOT a cardio workout.

Is it a strength workout then?

(You were supposed to put the cheesecake in the freezer, not your gob  )

[Chris S]

(You were supposed to put the cheesecake in the freezer, not your gob  )

It was in the freezer. Briefly.

[clarion]

Not being able to ride a bike doesn't help with weight loss.

[caerau]

From the weights reports thread:

Am I too late for this?

Nope. The weights graphs are (usually) updated weekly, and the data scraping code doesn't care if you join in late. If you have weights recorded elsewhere from previous weeks then you can add them also, they will be picked up. You could even fill in data for 2012 in the 2012 thread - the graphs show the previous 6 months. It mainly fusses over you putting stuff in the expected place and format, so if it doesn't work for you then PM me and I can investigate.

Ah, I might well go back and do 2012 as it's vastly more impressive than December/January have been.  Although my starting weigh in May is rather startling and embarrassing - mostly the reason my other half persuaded me to get a bike in the first place.
I've lost 25 kg since end of May last year  - hoping to lose up to 2 more this year but it's starting rather frustratingly.  I didn't have a debauched Christmas as I was too ill with flu all holiday but my weight loss has definitely plateaued in the last few weeks.  I might (rather than just cycling an awful lot) actually have to start being more careful with what I eat soon.  Boo!

[L CC]

Not being able to ride a bike doesn't help with weight loss.

I find riding a bike or not makes very little difference. Really.
It's much more effective to do other things, as riding a bike (particularly utility cycling) is not pushing my metabolism in any way whatsoever.

This is no help to you though, as the stuff that's stopping you riding will stop you doing anything else. 

[caerau]

lose 2 more stone that is (i.e. 12ish kilos)

This is vastly ambitious now mind you - I haven't been down to such weights since I was a first year student more than 20 years ago.  Not sure it's realistic but I do still have some gut to shift...

[clarion]

True enough, boabacca.  My problem is that I haven't got enough control over my eating to change gear abruptly when I'm not riding (which is just the time when I'm most stressed and heading for comfort eating, eating for the steroids, and eating from boredom).  And, yes, while I'd like to be doing other stuff (walking, gardening etc), I just can't

Still, I'm sure I can get back on track.

Thanks.

[mcshroom]

Boredom/comfort eating is my main problem. Cycling helps as if I'm riding I'm not eating or thinking about eating too much, but if I'm not then I just seem to graze and eat far too much.

I also know the answer to that is to HTFU and stick to rigid meals only, but I'm a wimp who doesn't like feeling hungry .

I'll add my weight this evening as I seem to be getting good at forgetting to weigh myself in the mornings

[geraldc]

Snacking after 9pm was my problem.

I've started cycle commuting again. My appetite has shot up, far more than the calories burned on a 90min daily commute.

[itsbruce]

Not being able to ride a bike doesn't help with weight loss.

I find riding a bike or not makes very little difference. Really.

Oh, it can, but most people vastly overestimate the energy consumption of cycling.

It's much more effective to do other things, as riding a bike (particularly utility cycling) is not pushing my metabolism in any way whatsoever.

Why does it have to push your metabolism?  All it has to do is consume some calories.  I'm hugely suspicious of any weight-loss regime which sells the idea that a particular variety of exercise helps you burn energy even when you're not being active - that's mostly myth.  There's exercising for fitness (which has an indirect and mostly long-term effect on weight loss) and exercise for direct weight loss.  If you're doing the latter, vigorous exercise can actually be counter-productive, as it tends to induce hunger pangs.  Stealth exercise (a good walk, a bit of gentle but extended cycling) can be a very effective addition to your regular routine and help you maintain a regular, healthy calorie deficit without even noticing.  I think this holds true both for somebody who is not that active and for those of us who regularly run, cycle and pursue other vigorous fitness activities (we arguably have less room for lowering energy input relative to activity).

[L CC]

Not being able to ride a bike doesn't help with weight loss.

I find riding a bike or not makes very little difference. Really.

Oh, it can, but most people vastly overestimate the energy consumption of cycling.

It's much more effective to do other things, as riding a bike (particularly utility cycling) is not pushing my metabolism in any way whatsoever.

Why does it have to push your metabolism?  All it has to do is consume some calories.  I'm hugely suspicious of any weight-loss regime which sells the idea that a particular variety of exercise helps you burn energy even when you're not being active - that's mostly myth.  There's exercising for fitness (which has an indirect and mostly long-term effect on weight loss) and exercise for direct weight loss.  If you're doing the latter, vigorous exercise can actually be counter-productive, as it tends to induce hunger pangs.  Stealth exercise (a good walk, a bit of gentle but extended cycling) can be a very effective addition to your regular routine and help you maintain a regular, healthy calorie deficit without even noticing.  I think this holds true both for somebody who is not that active and for those of us who regularly run, cycle and pursue other vigorous fitness activities (we arguably have less room for lowering energy input relative to activity).

Perhaps I should have thrown a few more "for me" in there.

For me utility cycling burns less than 400 kcal/hour. For me my time is better spent doing something else that pushes my metabolism/ increases strength & muscle mass, and therefore uses more calories, as for me my BMR is pitifully low and utility cycling is done at an average HR of less than 120.
For me gentle exercise/ being more active in your daily life isn't enough as it doesn't make enough difference.

[citoyen]

Down half a kilo on last week but I'm not reading too much into it because I suspect it's probably mostly dehydration after my running efforts yesterday...

boabacca, I'm with you on this. The idea that utility cycling can help with weight control is only really going to be useful to people who aren't already active in their daily life. If you regularly do 200km+ audaxes, it seems obvious that utility cycling isn't going to be as much use to you from an exercise point of view.

I've read lots of advice about other ways to boost your metabolism apart from exercise - some of it genuinely science-based, most of it pseudo-scientific nonsense... eg I've heard that chilli can boost metabolism by raising your heart rate. I'm completely addicted to chilli and I reckon I must have a fairly fast metabolism, so I wonder if there's something in that. Almost certainly not the answer to all your prayers, though. In general, more intense forms of exercise are going to be the best bet - might be worth doing some kind of muscle-building work, the principle being that muscle requires higher maintenance levels of energy than, ahem, non-muscle. Maybe invest in a set of dumbbells and get pumping iron?

d.

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

True enough, boabacca.  My problem is that I haven't got enough control over my eating to change gear abruptly when I'm not riding (which is just the time when I'm most stressed and heading for comfort eating, eating for the steroids, and eating from boredom).  And, yes, while I'd like to be doing other stuff (walking, gardening etc), I just can't

Still, I'm sure I can get back on track.

Thanks.

You need Shrinking Thinking! 

[Wowbagger]

I have definitely noticed significant weight loss after a hard day's riding, even after overdosing on fluids when I get home. It seems logical to me that if you are dehydrated and then you drink a lot of tea, fruit juice etc. your kidneys aren't immediately going to flush it straight out of your system leaving you dehydrated again. After last Thursday's tough ride (50 miles with a lot of headwind) even after pouring lots of fluid into me and ending up with multiple bladder-emptying opportunities, I was still down by quite a bit.

[hulver]

One day at a time hulver.
3kg is a lot.

True. I'm not starving myself though. I can't expect these results to continue for long, but it's looking good so far.

[clarion]

True enough, boabacca.  My problem is that I haven't got enough control over my eating to change gear abruptly when I'm not riding (which is just the time when I'm most stressed and heading for comfort eating, eating for the steroids, and eating from boredom).  And, yes, while I'd like to be doing other stuff (walking, gardening etc), I just can't

Still, I'm sure I can get back on track.

Thanks.

You need Shrinking Thinking! 

I need oxygen!

[crowriver]

Flabbergasted to discover I lost 2.2kg in one week. Waist 4 inches smaller too.

Caveats:

- Weighed morning after first 5:2 fasting day (ie. 600 calories intake).
- Did quite a few shortish, but occasionally intense, utility cycling trips yesterday.
- Probably mostly water loss due to fasting.
- Weight fluctuates anyway.

Still, crazily impressive.

Still to see what the long term effects are of this faddish calorie restriction technique.

[geraldc]

There was a documentary a while back, which looked at the 'myth' of fast and 'slow' metabolisms, by connecting everyone up to respirators to measure oxygen burnt while they went about their normal routine. They found that people with 'fast' metabolisms would pace around all the time, stand up and sit down a lot, effectively have nervous tics (or something like that) so they were always moving and burning calories, and this was even without doing real exercise. The people with 'slow' metabolisms (like me) could quite happily sit motionless for hours on end, and burn fewer calories. Many of us tubbies literally don't waste energy.

[L CC]

the principle being that muscle requires higher maintenance levels of energy than, ahem, non-muscle. Maybe invest in a set of dumbbells and get pumping iron?

The difference between the metabolic requirements of muscle and what we're euphemistically calling non-muscle, is, like the different in density between muscle and non muscle, an irrelevance. It's tiny. We're talking a calorie per kilo. Even on a lard bucket like myself, I can ignore it.
I need to pump iron for other reasons. Hills, for example. Bone density, for another.

[itsbruce]

boabacca, I'm with you on this. The idea that utility cycling can help with weight control is only really going to be useful to people who aren't already active in their daily life. If you regularly do 200km+ audaxes, it seems obvious that utility cycling isn't going to be as much use to you from an exercise point of view.

From an exercise point of view, now, but we're talking about weight loss.  I don't exercise to lose weight (for reference, I cycle, run and follow a strength training regime), I exercise for fitness.  Trying to use those activities for weight loss puts other goals at risk (and increases the risk of injury).  A healthy rate of weight loss is entirely achievable with a moderate calorie deficit that can fit entirely into recovery time (and be low impact).  If you're trying for more dramatic weight loss, that's a different matter.

To be fair, it's some years since I've needed to do more than trim back Christmas excesses, so it's easier for me to be patient and content with a 1.5lb-per-week average reduction.

Almost certainly not the answer to all your prayers, though. In general, more intense forms of exercise are going to be the best bet - might be worth doing some kind of muscle-building work, the principle being that muscle requires higher maintenance levels of energy than, ahem, non-muscle. Maybe invest in a set of dumbbells and get pumping iron?

The calorie-consuming benefits of muscle are even more frequently exaggerated than those of cycling   It's also very hard to make significant strength gains while on a calorie deficit.  Adding muscle bulk might also be incompatible with Boabacca's other goals.

[citoyen]

The difference between the metabolic requirements of muscle and what we're euphemistically calling non-muscle, is, like the different in density between muscle and non muscle, an irrelevance. It's tiny.

Well, there you go - maybe I need to improve the efficiency of my pseudo-scientific nonsense filter.

d.

[Glover Fan]

Nearly 3/4 of the way through my target and spot on schedule. Down to 10 stone 2 this morning and on target to hit 10 stone by the end of February.

Bit of a blip on Wednesday/Thursday, at a business event, so 3 course meal in the evening, lots of alcohol also. Thursday a fry-up and 2 Chinese meals.