Anyone lost a lot of weight, and kept it off?

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
Fiery
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:21 am

by Fiery

WinterRider wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 1:10 pm
We evolved essentially eating protein, fat and some greens.
Any sources to read more about this? In particular, what are we talking about when we say "we evolved", what time period?

AJS914
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

It's called the Paleo diet. Books and info are everywhere.

by Weenie


joejack951
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:50 pm
Location: Wilmington, DE

by joejack951

TLN wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 9:59 pm
Define significantly. 230lbs at 6'4 is not significantly to me. my goal is to get under 220. Last year I touched 200-205, but it's not fun.
No I haven't done any zone testing, might consider that in future though, but not sure if that's neccessary for me at this point.
Question was: since I'm riding at aerobic zone (above fat burn) - is that still good for fat burning or not? I found out that it's pretty comfortable for me to stay there, and going at slower pace (and hear rate) is no fun to me.
So should I slow myself down or it's not needed?
I don't want to argue about BMI, but will state that I used to be in denial about BMI until I actually tried losing more weight only to find I had a lot more to lose than I thought. Per the BMI chart, you have at least 25 lbs. to lose (BMI = 28 now, BMI of 25 would be 205 lbs.). I'd call that significant. When I had a similar BMI, weight melted away. I think I lost around 25 lbs. in 3 months just randomly riding my bike and a little cleanup of my diet. Losing the rest (BMI = 22 now) got a lot harder.

The 'fat burning zone' has little to no relevance to weight loss. It is only highly relevant in training for extended periods of exertion where your body doesn't have enough stored easily-accessed energy to burn and must resort to burning stored fat. What matters for weight loss is simply burning calories and you burn calories by getting your heart rate up and keeping it there. So whatever maximizes those two items, keeping in mind that working too hard will cut the amount of time you can work out and not working hard enough might leave calories on the table so-to-speak if you are time crunched, will maximize your weight loss.

Both Shrike and mentok answered this question with excellent answers already.

AJS914
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

Losing the rest (BMI = 22 now) got a lot harder.
IME, the first big chunk of weight is always easier than the last bit.

I'm down around 60 pounds from my all time high from 10 years ago. I've sustained that weight loss but losing the last 25 pounds has been very hard. Part of that is that I've cleaned up my diet so that there is no low hanging fruit like quitting sugar or quitting junk food. The other part of that for me is that I don't like dieting and feeling hungry. I've recommitted and calorie counting with a low goal of 2 pounds per month seems to be working.

Shrike
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm

by Shrike

See when you guys are doing your BMI numbers, do you use a glycogen repleted figure or not? Difference in weight for me is about 2kgs(4.4lbs).

When I'm dieting hard like at the moment I know I have hardly anything stored (I lose about a kilo a day for the first two days if I go hard then I level off and true weight loss is really slow after that.

Didn't take any interest in BMI in ages but wanted a go now at the calc, just not sure to use current weight or current weight + 2kg!

TLN
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:50 pm

by TLN

joejack951 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 5:49 pm
TLN wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 9:59 pm
Define significantly. 230lbs at 6'4 is not significantly to me. my goal is to get under 220. Last year I touched 200-205, but it's not fun.
No I haven't done any zone testing, might consider that in future though, but not sure if that's neccessary for me at this point.
Question was: since I'm riding at aerobic zone (above fat burn) - is that still good for fat burning or not? I found out that it's pretty comfortable for me to stay there, and going at slower pace (and hear rate) is no fun to me.
So should I slow myself down or it's not needed?
I don't want to argue about BMI, but will state that I used to be in denial about BMI until I actually tried losing more weight only to find I had a lot more to lose than I thought. Per the BMI chart, you have at least 25 lbs. to lose (BMI = 28 now, BMI of 25 would be 205 lbs.). I'd call that significant. When I had a similar BMI, weight melted away. I think I lost around 25 lbs. in 3 months just randomly riding my bike and a little cleanup of my diet. Losing the rest (BMI = 22 now) got a lot harder.

The 'fat burning zone' has little to no relevance to weight loss. It is only highly relevant in training for extended periods of exertion where your body doesn't have enough stored easily-accessed energy to burn and must resort to burning stored fat. What matters for weight loss is simply burning calories and you burn calories by getting your heart rate up and keeping it there. So whatever maximizes those two items, keeping in mind that working too hard will cut the amount of time you can work out and not working hard enough might leave calories on the table so-to-speak if you are time crunched, will maximize your weight loss.

Both Shrike and mentok answered this question with excellent answers already.
I totally get that it's always easier to lose 1st chunk of weight.
I can agree about BMI, and that fact that I can lose more. "Middle of BMI" will be like 85-87kg (195lbs I guess), which is below my goals. Natually I tend to be on a heavier side, so personally I see no goal of losing all the weigh I believe BMI excludes fat level, so you can be lean and strong or just have extra fat and have same BMI.

I'm doing 50km (30+mil ride) couple times a week (was skipping some rides because of a weatther). Can easily do 100+mil/week. Since I got a Wahoo now (HR/Cadence/Speed) I'd like to maximize the result of my training.

joejack951
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:50 pm
Location: Wilmington, DE

by joejack951

TLN wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 10:49 pm
I totally get that it's always easier to lose 1st chunk of weight.
I can agree about BMI, and that fact that I can lose more. "Middle of BMI" will be like 85-87kg (195lbs I guess), which is below my goals. Natually I tend to be on a heavier side, so personally I see no goal of losing all the weigh I believe BMI excludes fat level, so you can be lean and strong or just have extra fat and have same BMI.
BMI does exclude fat level as you've noted but if you are just out riding a bike there is no way you will get enough muscle mass to be considered overweight but very fit. You may look more fit than the general population but that isn't saying much these days ;-) A dedicated weight lifter could add enough lean muscle mass the be 'overweight' and not be carrying much fat but unless you are a freak of nature, aerobic exercise won't get you there. I also used to think that I was just 'dense.' And I might be because people were/are always surprised at what I weighed for how I looked. But losing all that weight (through exercise and diet changes) has made me feel a lot better in general and also helped me get faster on both the bike and with running.
TLN wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 10:49 pm
I'm doing 50km (30+mil ride) couple times a week (was skipping some rides because of a weatther). Can easily do 100+mil/week. Since I got a Wahoo now (HR/Cadence/Speed) I'd like to maximize the result of my training.
TLN wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 10:49 pm
No I haven't done any zone testing, might consider that in future though, but not sure if that's neccessary for me at this point.
On one hand you want to 'maximize results' but on the other hand you don't want to do any testing. These are at odds with each other. Of course, with the amount of weight you have to lose you really don't need much focus; you just need time on the bike.

joejack951
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:50 pm
Location: Wilmington, DE

by joejack951

Shrike wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 7:35 pm
See when you guys are doing your BMI numbers, do you use a glycogen repleted figure or not? Difference in weight for me is about 2kgs(4.4lbs).
I use my morning weight, pre-breakfast, pre-exercise, post-bathroom break. That is typically 1-1.5 kg. less than my night time weight. I can be an additional 1-1.5 kg less if I exercise (and sweat) first but I don't consider that a 'real' weight.

User avatar
WinterRider
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:46 pm

by WinterRider

AJS914 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 5:17 pm
It's called the Paleo diet. Books and info are everywhere.


Paleo has become like all things diet.. a marketing tool. Mostly irrelevant today.

Back before the lords and nobles and all that raft controlled the human herd.. the Goobers and Gooberettes lived in smallish tribes... got up in the morn and ran a few maskadons off a cliff. Had what one has to think as the mother of all barbeques.. got full and proceeded to mate to make more of same. No drive thru, no isles of boxed she*t w no big box store, no sugar pop.. just what nature had evolved in the way of grub. Eat or be eaten.. and some of them were.. supper too. 8)

AJS914
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

I was just answering the question not making an endorsement either way...

Shrike
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm

by Shrike

joejack951 wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 12:56 am
Shrike wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 7:35 pm
See when you guys are doing your BMI numbers, do you use a glycogen repleted figure or not? Difference in weight for me is about 2kgs(4.4lbs).
I use my morning weight, pre-breakfast, pre-exercise, post-bathroom break. That is typically 1-1.5 kg. less than my night time weight. I can be an additional 1-1.5 kg less if I exercise (and sweat) first but I don't consider that a 'real' weight.
Yeah agree with that. I'll use my morning weight + 1kg as I'm probably way more depleted than your average person at the moment :o

Fiery
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:21 am

by Fiery

WinterRider wrote:
AJS914 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 5:17 pm
It's called the Paleo diet. Books and info are everywhere.


Paleo has become like all things diet.. a marketing tool. Mostly irrelevant today.

Back before the lords and nobles and all that raft controlled the human herd.. the Goobers and Gooberettes lived in smallish tribes... got up in the morn and ran a few maskadons off a cliff. Had what one has to think as the mother of all barbeques.. got full and proceeded to mate to make more of same. No drive thru, no isles of boxed she*t w no big box store, no sugar pop.. just what nature had evolved in the way of grub. Eat or be eaten.. and some of them were.. supper too. 8)
The vast majority of hunter-gatherers today have a carb-based staple food that forms the basis of their diet. Is there evidence that it was any different throughout human evolution? I would not consider popular books on modern “paleo diet” evidence though.

User avatar
WinterRider
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:46 pm

by WinterRider

Fiery wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 8:49 pm
WinterRider wrote:
AJS914 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 5:17 pm
It's called the Paleo diet. Books and info are everywhere.


Paleo has become like all things diet.. a marketing tool. Mostly irrelevant today.

Back before the lords and nobles and all that raft controlled the human herd.. the Goobers and Gooberettes lived in smallish tribes... got up in the morn and ran a few maskadons off a cliff. Had what one has to think as the mother of all barbeques.. got full and proceeded to mate to make more of same. No drive thru, no isles of boxed she*t w no big box store, no sugar pop.. just what nature had evolved in the way of grub. Eat or be eaten.. and some of them were.. supper too. 8)
The vast majority of hunter-gatherers today have a carb-based staple food that forms the basis of their diet. Is there evidence that it was any different throughout human evolution? I would not consider popular books on modern “paleo diet” evidence though.
"vast majority of hunter-gatherers today"

I do not see them as hunter-g/people.. rather tribes who live in huts at best, drive water full of waste and eat whatever available to procreate the next generation of 'H/G' people of this era.

HG people... inuit.. native Americans. Low population density.. the romantic idyllic life.. no corn based society.

IMO.. depends on how the genetics evolved per selection. Some strains adapt to higher carb intakes sans insulin levels that essentially wear the system out sooner. Some do not.. course the real culprit is over-eating and no sweating.

eforce123
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:27 pm

by eforce123

Dieting is actually a simple process of calories in and calories. However, not all calories are the same.
100 calories of cookies (1-2 small cookies)
100 calories of spinach (A lot of spinach to get to 100)

You need to learn your on body. Some people do very well on a high fat (healthy fats) and lower carb diet. Others do well with the opposite. Protein is a must but not to be oversimplified with how much you weigh and exercise. Similar to bodybuilding large amounts of protein is hard on your liver and kidneys to process. You want the adequate amount for your body weight and activity level.

eforce123
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:27 pm

by eforce123

AJS914 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 5:17 pm
It's called the Paleo diet. Books and info are everywhere.
info is endless! however, I have never met someone who does a true paleo diet. We all adjust to the lifestyles we are living.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post