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

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
eforce123
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:27 pm

by eforce123

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.

Solid information and props on the weight loss for many of us. It is a journey, not a sprint.

Nefarious86
Moderator
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
Contact:

by Nefarious86

eforce123 wrote:
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.
Start with Loren Cordain and work forward...

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

Using Tapatalk

by Weenie


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

by WinterRider

eforce123 wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 12:17 am
large amounts of protein is hard on your liver and kidneys to process.
Where.. is the science/proof behind that assertion? PubMed is full or studies that show no effect..IE: high protein diets aren't 'unhealthy' in healthy people.
YES in the weak aged.. in the lard ass group who've mostly whizzed their kidney's into nowhere... yes their challenged to process.. most anything in reality. But for them it depends on if they have only one foot in the grave or starting to slip #2 in too.

Your reply does underline the individual nature per each of us genetic makeup. But in this day and age w food so easily had .. what percentage of the pop actually LISTENS to their body? Been to wallyworld of late... :lol: 400 lb'ers + riding electric shopping carts..... geez Louise.

"Dieting is actually a simple process of calories in and calories (out)."

NOT true.. but I mean.. would you not expect me to take the contrarian side... :noidea:

IN simple terms for the simple of thought.. ok. But weight management is really about managing insulin levels... which again is genetically variable. LSS... keep those blood sugar spikes shorter and of short duration as insulin TELLS the system to make adipose tissue.. hold water et al. This MEANS less food load per event... a food load that matches one's immediate needs for fuel. Food really is just fuel.. not a way of life.. not a sedative--> pushing junk into one's face as a leisure event to quiet and sedate the grey matter.

Then.. define 'high protein'. That one is all over the map.... .8-1.0 gr/kg of body weight gets allot of scientific support... but who consumes that in the general pop? Look at the waist lines.. look at the muscle/lack of in older people-- granted much of that is anti-sweat life posture.. but by and large our 'society' comes to the call of sooey.. sooey.. sooey. :mrgreen:

joejack951
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:50 pm
Location: Wilmington, DE

by joejack951

WinterRider wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 11:39 am
Then.. define 'high protein'. That one is all over the map.... .8-1.0 gr/kg of body weight gets allot of scientific support... but who consumes that in the general pop?
Are you saying people in general don't eat enough protein? I think that's hardly the case. They are fat because they eat tons of protein...and sugar...and fat. The issue is eating too much yet the constant focus is on what to eat rather than simply eating less. Yes, dietary choices can make it easier to eat less but the constant focus on what frequently amounts to complex diet plans doesn't help anyone. Eat less; move more. Thank you, Marion Nestle, for putting it so succinctly: https://www.foodpolitics.com/2012/01/wa ... -eat-less/

eforce123
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:27 pm

by eforce123

WinterRider wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 11:39 am
eforce123 wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 12:17 am
large amounts of protein is hard on your liver and kidneys to process.
Where.. is the science/proof behind that assertion? PubMed is full or studies that show no effect..IE: high protein diets aren't 'unhealthy' in healthy people.
YES in the weak aged.. in the lard ass group who've mostly whizzed their kidney's into nowhere... yes their challenged to process.. most anything in reality. But for them it depends on if they have only one foot in the grave or starting to slip #2 in too.

Your reply does underline the individual nature per each of us genetic makeup. But in this day and age w food so easily had .. what percentage of the pop actually LISTENS to their body? Been to wallyworld of late... :lol: 400 lb'ers + riding electric shopping carts..... geez Louise.

"Dieting is actually a simple process of calories in and calories (out)."

NOT true.. but I mean.. would you not expect me to take the contrarian side... :noidea:

IN simple terms for the simple of thought.. ok. But weight management is really about managing insulin levels... which again is genetically variable. LSS... keep those blood sugar spikes shorter and of short duration as insulin TELLS the system to make adipose tissue.. hold water et al. This MEANS less food load per event... a food load that matches one's immediate needs for fuel. Food really is just fuel.. not a way of life.. not a sedative--> pushing junk into one's face as a leisure event to quiet and sedate the grey matter.

Then.. define 'high protein'. That one is all over the map.... .8-1.0 gr/kg of body weight gets allot of scientific support... but who consumes that in the general pop? Look at the waist lines.. look at the muscle/lack of in older people-- granted much of that is anti-sweat life posture.. but by and large our 'society' comes to the call of sooey.. sooey.. sooey. :mrgreen:
Awesome write up. I should of known to type something on the net and not back it up. I’ve read many medical journals on high protein intake. Hi protein depends on the individual (height, weight, level of activity, amount of muscle mass etc)

Protein is Harder to break down protein in smaller subunits (amino acids). Requires more enzymatic activity and the more fat in your protein (e.g. some steaks) the longer it will take to breakdown the combination of fat and protein. Fat takes the longest to digest and I believe you only breakdown ~8-10g fat/hr. So protein that isn’t lean will stay in your stomach longer and the bulk of your digestion happens in your intestinal tract - so the longer food stays in your stomach, the slower the metabolism and absorption. protein is much much higher in nitrogen and metabolizing protein (usually in the form of animal protein) produces toxins that the liver must break down and filter out.
More protein also increases the total pH-acidity of your stomach and GI tract which is damaging to tissues and cells.

eforce123
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:27 pm

by eforce123

Alkaline/pH levels open another discussion on cancer cells.
Many studies revealing that cancer doesn’t grow or metastasize when the body is in an alkaline state. This doesn’t cure or rid someone of cancer, but it can stop the growth etc.
(Another discussion for another time)

Back to dieting

TLN
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:50 pm

by TLN

joejack951 wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 12:53 am
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.
Well, I'm not excluding weight training, and I enjoy that too. I'm trying to replace running(cardio in general) with biking, as I find it more fun to do, and I can ride it for hours. I guess I need to set a goal (miles/week) and choose a way to train (interval training, staying within one HR zone, etc).
joejack951 wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 12:53 am
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.
I think doing all those physical tests is a next step in training and at my level I don't see a point doing that. It's more relate to racing rather then just a weight loss. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to optimize (maximize?) my training with new data (from wahoo). If I want to proceed further I'll probably need powermeter and doing extra testing, but I'm not at this level.

eforce123
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:27 pm

by eforce123

HR and power meter will give you a better indication of how many calories you actually burn. I have struggled with this since i started biking. (very new to this sport/hobby)

joejack951
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:50 pm
Location: Wilmington, DE

by joejack951

TLN wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 7:20 pm
Well, I'm not excluding weight training, and I enjoy that too. I'm trying to replace running(cardio in general) with biking, as I find it more fun to do, and I can ride it for hours. I guess I need to set a goal (miles/week) and choose a way to train (interval training, staying within one HR zone, etc).
Simply 'not excluding weight training' isn't going to allow you to add the bulk you need to be in the overweight BMI category with a low body fat percentage, unless you are some sort of muscle-building freak :D Again, for weight loss at your current BMI, all you need to do is get out and ride as much as you can. Trying to get 'scientific' about it is a waste of time without doing the necessary prerequisite work to figure out how you should be doing that training. At beast, you can hope to find a pattern in average heart rate that will give you some indication of how hard you can ride for a certain period of time, and then base longer or shorter efforts off that number. For instance, if you find you can ride at 160 bpm for an hour, for a two hour ride you'll want to stay below that on average. How far is anyone's guess at this point.
TLN wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 7:20 pm
I think doing all those physical tests is a next step in training and at my level I don't see a point doing that. It's more relate to racing rather then just a weight loss. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to optimize (maximize?) my training with new data (from wahoo). If I want to proceed further I'll probably need powermeter and doing extra testing, but I'm not at this level.
Your heart rate monitor will be essentially a gadget displaying a fairly meaningless number until you do some actual testing. The data it records you may give you a slightly more accurate sense of calories burned but again, unless you want to get all scientific and determine just how accurate those numbers are (i.e. do some testing plus calorie counting) it is just another number. The real proof is in the weight loss, something you'll see just by regularly getting out there. And if a heart rate monitor, or power meter, or whatever other gadget you decide to buy helps in that basic endeavor, then go for it!

bilwit
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:49 am
Location: Seattle, WA

by bilwit

TLN wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 7:20 pm
I think doing all those physical tests is a next step in training and at my level I don't see a point doing that. It's more relate to racing rather then just a weight loss. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to optimize (maximize?) my training with new data (from wahoo). If I want to proceed further I'll probably need powermeter and doing extra testing, but I'm not at this level.
It's primarily used as a measuring stick for fitness and performance, not necessarily racing. For racing, the numbers are only useful for setting a known pace for yourself in real time. Training by power (or heart rate) zone is the most effective way to get the most out of your workouts--that's not to say that you can't get by without it, it's just that you're kind of working out blind that way without some sort of baseline to go off of and compare with. Surely any way you cut it, training by power or HR goes hand-in-hand with weight loss, as calories-burned can be calculated through it. With measured power or HR, you can quantify the amount of work done and at what intensity relative to your zones (based on your maximum 1hr or adjusted 20min number).

If you don't want to drop $300+ on a PM you can get by with a HR monitor (I think the Wahoo one is like $40 or something). It isn't optimal in that your HR can lag behind your effort and be offset by different factors on any given day but it is definitely better than nothing. Remember that professional runners go by HR and pace alone.

eforce123
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:27 pm

by eforce123

bilwit wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 12:14 am
TLN wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 7:20 pm
I think doing all those physical tests is a next step in training and at my level I don't see a point doing that. It's more relate to racing rather then just a weight loss. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to optimize (maximize?) my training with new data (from wahoo). If I want to proceed further I'll probably need powermeter and doing extra testing, but I'm not at this level.
It's primarily used as a measuring stick for fitness and performance, not necessarily racing. For racing, the numbers are only useful for setting a known pace for yourself in real time. Training by power (or heart rate) zone is the most effective way to get the most out of your workouts--that's not to say that you can't get by without it, it's just that you're kind of working out blind that way without some sort of baseline to go off of and compare with. Surely any way you cut it, training by power or HR goes hand-in-hand with weight loss, as calories-burned can be calculated through it. With measured power or HR, you can quantify the amount of work done and at what intensity relative to your zones (based on your maximum 1hr or adjusted 20min number).

If you don't want to drop $300+ on a PM you can get by with a HR monitor (I think the Wahoo one is like $40 or something). It isn't optimal in that your HR can lag behind your effort and be offset by different factors on any given day but it is definitely better than nothing. Remember that professional runners go by HR and pace alone.
Good info, thank you

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

by WinterRider

LOL... so much regurgitated internet platter per the protein.

Nuff... :roll:

joejack951
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:50 pm
Location: Wilmington, DE

by joejack951

bilwit wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 12:14 am
Remember that professional runners go by HR and pace alone.
And many just go by pace alone. And/or perceived effort.

And remember that TLN is simply trying to lose weight. You don't need HR or power or anything other than perhaps a watch (to get you home on time I guess) for that purpose.

TLN
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:50 pm

by TLN

bilwit wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 12:14 am
TLN wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 7:20 pm
I think doing all those physical tests is a next step in training and at my level I don't see a point doing that. It's more relate to racing rather then just a weight loss. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to optimize (maximize?) my training with new data (from wahoo). If I want to proceed further I'll probably need powermeter and doing extra testing, but I'm not at this level.
It's primarily used as a measuring stick for fitness and performance, not necessarily racing. For racing, the numbers are only useful for setting a known pace for yourself in real time. Training by power (or heart rate) zone is the most effective way to get the most out of your workouts--that's not to say that you can't get by without it, it's just that you're kind of working out blind that way without some sort of baseline to go off of and compare with. Surely any way you cut it, training by power or HR goes hand-in-hand with weight loss, as calories-burned can be calculated through it. With measured power or HR, you can quantify the amount of work done and at what intensity relative to your zones (based on your maximum 1hr or adjusted 20min number).

If you don't want to drop $300+ on a PM you can get by with a HR monitor (I think the Wahoo one is like $40 or something). It isn't optimal in that your HR can lag behind your effort and be offset by different factors on any given day but it is definitely better than nothing. Remember that professional runners go by HR and pace alone.
Well, I got HR (and other sensors) with my Wahoo. My initial question was that doing normal rides (overall I'm focusing on weight loss) I'm going way above calculated values (HR-zones). So do I need to slow down (takes more time for same ride) or not? Pretty much how can I optimize my training for weight loss, with amount of data that I have(Speed, HR, Cadence) and I don't (Power and personal measurements).

bilwit
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:49 am
Location: Seattle, WA

by bilwit

joejack951 wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 2:19 pm
bilwit wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 12:14 am
Remember that professional runners go by HR and pace alone.
And many just go by pace alone. And/or perceived effort.

And remember that TLN is simply trying to lose weight. You don't need HR or power or anything other than perhaps a watch (to get you home on time I guess) for that purpose.
True, but technically you don't have to work out at all to lose weight--I just assumed we were treating training as way to fitness to supplement weightloss, with weightloss being their primary concern of course. In that case, getting the most out of your workouts can't be detrimental to weightloss.

Another thing I forgot to add to counter myself, is that working out to a number doesn't work for some people who really just prefer going off percieved effort. There are even some current professionals like Esteban Chavez who never did ANY structured training until he was a neo-pro so it's certainly not a requirement, just simply a tool that many people find useful. Personally, I find that training by zone keeps me honest. Sometimes I find myself just not motivated and feel like I'm already doing a good effort but then I look down and see that I'm just sitting in Zone 2 and, as a matter of fact, I have much more to give without blowing up. Obviously there's a fine line with over training and managing fatigue but with the calculated Training Stress Scores throughout your workouts, you generally have a good idea about what days you can push through and when to take it easy.

--

TL;DR You do not need to do "structured" training to lose weight, but I think we can all agree that gaining fitness is also very valuable to your health and if you can do so while it helps you get into calorie deficit then why not?
TLN wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 4:26 pm
Well, I got HR (and other sensors) with my Wahoo. My initial question was that doing normal rides (overall I'm focusing on weight loss) I'm going way above calculated values (HR-zones). So do I need to slow down (takes more time for same ride) or not? Pretty much how can I optimize my training for weight loss, with amount of data that I have(Speed, HR, Cadence) and I don't (Power and personal measurements).
How is the perceived effort? If you feel that it's consistently too easy throughout your zones (particularly at threshold) then that means you very likely have it set too low given your current fitness and need to test again to get the correct threshold so that your zones can be adjusted accordingly. Threshold (and therefore, all the rest of the zones) will change along with your fitness so that's why it's suggested to test every 6 weeks so that your zones are appropriate to your relative fitness. If you're doing this for the first time then it's a good idea to do the test a few times (maybe a couple times within a week) to confirm that what you have it set to is accurate. Threshold is supposed to be the maximum effort sustained for one hour so you're supposed to be emptying the tank (although it's better to do the 20 minute test, the 8 minute test is OK but for me it's easier to just bang out the 20 minute which feels a lot more accurate).
Last edited by bilwit on Thu May 10, 2018 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post