Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 10, 2016 6:09 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:03 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 5611
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
well done bud, good luck with future goals.

i gave myself a change of plans for this year and so far so good.

i used to live in the gym, lifting weights and with work and bikes i had an extra large appaetite and supplement regime too, and after 15yrs of this was shocked at how much my 18st 4lb was to lug around on scenic bike rides.

i used to slim to around 16st-17st during the summer but started to relax on that too.

so last year i changed my routines, deciced to concentrate on things that willl see me into my 30s (now 32) healthier and fitter, less gym and more riding was the plan.

went into xmas at 17st, lost huge amounts of muscle from legs, back, arms etc but felt so light and didnt mind one bit.

xmas day i broke my ribs and damaged my wrist, mostly that would be a chance to sit tight, get lazy and fat....not for me, i was on track.

new year i was 16st 13lb, and now im 15st 12lb, have cut out snacks and loads of rubbish, not entirely strict, just sensible calories. never been in a pub since boxing day, and cycled 500 miles in winter on fatbikes that give you a huge workout.

going into sumer in the 15st area is unheard for me, i feel great and look better, dont miss my big muscles as much as i thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:33 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
Student Bob wrote:
Wow, nice going Rob!! That’s some impressive commitment, and it’s good to see that you’re getting the results you deserve!!

I’m gonna chuck in my 2p’s worth in case it helps, I’m currently writing my Masters thesis on obesity in public health and exercise physiology. Basically, current thinking is that all the exercise guidelines and whatnot are based on and aimed at normal weight people, if you’re overweight or obese, your body reacts differently to exercise so you should be doing less.

I’ve got a research trial starting in a few months to prove this point, but the pilot study finished last week, we reduced exercise by 20% for an overweight guy and got a 5% reduction in waist circumference (‘cos that’s the most important health indicator in obesity – and it means your jeans aren’t as tight…) after 8 weeks with no dieting or any other lifestyle change. The result was the same as we would have expected for a normal weight person.

There’s a few points you can take from that, firstly, if you’re running, you’re running too fast and too long. Everyone assumes that you have to run fast, you really don’t, it actually reduces your ability to lose weight. A light jog, barely above walking pace is about right. You’re looking for 65% of your maximum heart rate (220 minus your age is as good as anything), which you can check by counting your pulse at your wrist for 15secs and multiplying by 4. My trial would propose that you run at that pace for 190 minutes each week – or 38 minutes for five days a week.

The low running pace means that you’re a LOT less likely to get injured, and running becomes easier and therefore more enjoyable!!

We’re getting results with no dieting, because you don’t want to be dieting the rest of your life, and, if we had to make you either diet or exercise to lose weight, it’s gotta be exercise. Diets are getting so extreme nowadays that people are dying, that’s not right… Besides, if you’re stable at a certain weight, then it means that your body has balanced the energy input with output, so we’re simply adding more output at a level that won’t encourage stuffing yerself with chocolate digestives when you get home.

Man, that’s a lot of typing…. Sorry. I’ll stop now….

Not that I'd wholly disagree with what you've written - and I understand the thrust of where you're coming from.

But, most studies seem mainly about the physiological aspect of exercise and diet adherence for weight loss / maintenance.

We're all probably - largely - all on the same page, with the science - do more than you take in: weight loss; do less than you take in: weight gain. Partitioning, exercise, macro-nutrient breakdown and bodycomposition can be hugely variable, and multi-factorial, there.

Where I'm coming from, is that the biggest barrier, either to weight loss, sustained weight loss, or maintenance, for most, is the psychological aspects and adherence.

To my mind - although many don't want to hear it, these days, and would opt in favour of something more results orientated - dealing with the psychological and hormonal issues would be beneficial to most that have entered into some weight loss regime (be that more about appetite and leptin issues, insulin resistance, or more behavioural / landscape hormones like seratonin.

Lyle wrote about that in his book about bromo - which is an book that's oft confused by many as to it's purpose.

All the same, I see your point that for many at the weighter end of the scale, their demands for increased activity and exercise are often less than truly required - at FIRST though.

But then that's simple logic, the longer weight loss goes on, the harder it will be. And I get that people are inherently lazy, and the concept of advocacy of doing less might seem to be a boon - until you consider long-term and behaviourism.

Adherence is the biggest stumbling block to it all - short term 6 months to a year, perhaps even a couple of years are cream cheese, it's after that, that's a problem.

That rarely gets addressed, and is as much (if not more so) the bigger picture. I understand where you are coming from - obesity is perhaps at epidemic proportions in the US, and looks to be approaching that over here - and the basic idea of getting bums of seats and doing more is probably where a lot see a need.

I don't hugely have a problem with it - but all the same, adherence is STILL the biggest major issue for any groups that you get started - it's where they're going to be in 3 or 5 years time - stats say for some there will be a rebound effect, for many (perhaps most) they'll be worse off than they were.

Your thrust seems to be how to get it less daunting, more tempting and perhaps less harming at first - and I have no huge issues with that.

But the real issue is what will keep them there.

I get that the initial rush of blood and enthusiasm for newly found (or regained) exercise routines can often be more than required, and perhaps can cause physiological damage in themselves - but if the safey issue can be controlled, what's of greater benefit is sufficient reward and enjoyment out of something that keeps it at the fore.

I'm just not sure I buy that the make it easy and less daunting (exploiting the inherent laziness) is such a long-term victory (I guess more from a behavioural perspective).

I suppose there is the prospect that valid research showing less exercise or physical exertion than most would think is required, may be enticing - but at the end of the day, what will really matter, is what's kept people on track for years.

Most people who commit to something long term, probably are helped if it's not too daunting. All the same, they want to see progress and achievement. But biggest of all, they need steps, help, understanding - and perhaps other biological assistance that addresses the behavioural / psychological issues of weight control.

It's a thorny landscape looking forward, and some (typically who've never had problems) think it's fairly easy, they just despise the presumed laziness in some, some just think it's the physiological and perhaps biological issues that could be helped, and others get what truly helps keep people on the straight and narrow.

I have no significant qualifications in this field, although some years ago, I did work in the health and fitness industry, and I have spent decades (since the mid 80s) training in gyms, training outside of gyms, studying and reading various aspects of exercise, diet, nutrution and endocrinology - and I have to say, out of it all - the biology and physiology seems the most straightforward bit - it's the mind, behaviour, psychology, and endocrinolgy aspects that are the main obstacles to long term health and weight control.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:10 pm 
Windmilling for a Scotch Egg
Windmilling for a Scotch Egg
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:27 am
Posts: 4840
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
I suppose there is the prospect that valid research showing less exercise or physical exertion than most would think is required, may be enticing - but at the end of the day, what will really matter, is what's kept people on track for years.

I totally agree.

I'm not particular fat (I can ride a bike for a few hours so it can't be too bad) but there is no way I could run 36m a day 5 days a week when I started. I couldn't do it now.

He also suggests that no change in diet or lifestyle is needed. Err no! Running 40 mins might burn 500 calories at best, but I assure you I could quite easily eat 4000-5000 calories a day so that ain't gonna help one bit. Properly obese people can eat a lot more than this too. It's remarkably easy - I know, I've been there.

Simple equation - less in, more out will make you lose weight. Do it steadily and success is guaranteed.

But you're completely right, you've got to change your mindset to succeed. Also there are good rules to follow (low fat food, cut portions, exercise) but not all the "ways" might be suitable for yourself. For instance you're meant to weigh yourself once a week but that would make me think "I can eat more today and catch up later in week" which has failed me in the past. I weigh myself twice a day - if I appear to have lost a bit it encourages me, if it's a bit higher than I expected it makes me determined to stick with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:02 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:45 pm
Posts: 10946
Location: kent
your body wont start to burn fat till after 40/45 minutes of exercise .

hence why it is recommended to exercise at a low pace for longer .

but there are ways to train your body to burn fat quicker . a diet with less carb and more protein will help , a balck coffee before exercise , and intervals .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:38 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
cchris2lou wrote:
your body wont start to burn fat till after 40/45 minutes of exercise .

hence why it is recommended to exercise at a low pace for longer .

but there are ways to train your body to burn fat quicker . a diet with less carb and more protein will help , a balck coffee before exercise , and intervals .

And again with this myth - burning fat whilst exercising is nothing, really, but an artifact - IT DOESN'T MATTER a damn to overall, bodyweight loss / fat loss over time.

The house always wins - so "fuelling" exercise from fat, means energy isn't getting taken from another fuel source, and excess, long term, will go right back into long term body energy storage - bodyfat.

Energy is conserved, laws of physics aren't broken, and there's no tangible metabolic advantage.

Now by all means, if you personally (or even lots of people) prefer to exercise in the "fat burning zone" then fine, do so - but please, don't continue to peddle some myth that it actually matters a damn to either long-term body composition, or weight loss - because it doesn't.

For weight loss / bodyfat loss goals, it doesn't matter whether you train shorter and more intense, or longer and less intense, all that matters, day-in, day-out, is how much you're burning. In fact, there's something to be said for resistance training, when trying to lose weight and bodyfat, because it encourages the body not to lose lbm (well really more, muscle) when losing weight (asssuming sufficient dietary protein).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:44 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
Rob Atkin wrote:
I suppose there is the prospect that valid research showing less exercise or physical exertion than most would think is required, may be enticing - but at the end of the day, what will really matter, is what's kept people on track for years.

I totally agree.

I'm not particular fat (I can ride a bike for a few hours so it can't be too bad) but there is no way I could run 36m a day 5 days a week when I started. I couldn't do it now.

He also suggests that no change in diet or lifestyle is needed. Err no! Running 40 mins might burn 500 calories at best, but I assure you I could quite easily eat 4000-5000 calories a day so that ain't gonna help one bit. Properly obese people can eat a lot more than this too. It's remarkably easy - I know, I've been there.

Simple equation - less in, more out will make you lose weight. Do it steadily and success is guaranteed.

But you're completely right, you've got to change your mindset to succeed. Also there are good rules to follow (low fat food, cut portions, exercise) but not all the "ways" might be suitable for yourself. For instance you're meant to weigh yourself once a week but that would make me think "I can eat more today and catch up later in week" which has failed me in the past. I weigh myself twice a day - if I appear to have lost a bit it encourages me, if it's a bit higher than I expected it makes me determined to stick with it.

With the main concern of some being the increasing obesity issues in society, and the whole getting bums off seats rationale - it's a difficult nut to crack, from a behaviourism perspective.

It becomes creeping and endemic - almost a silent culture of laziness. I'd like to think simple ideas, like getting off a bus or a tube a stop early, taking the stairs rather than lifts / escalators, walking when you really don't need the car - all those sorts of simple ideas to get people to be more active would help, but I'm not convinced.

People seem to just be increasingly lazy - seeing the car as a personal extension of the sofa - getting in the car for a 5 minute walk to the corner shop, or school runs when it would be beter for everybody concerned to walk. I don't buy that it's just that it's not too expensive to do so with a car - I don't think it's the cost, per se that would change things.

What I would say, though, is if we can't get society to be slightly more active on simple things, we're going to struggle with mild - albeit lengthy - exercise regimes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:55 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:45 pm
Posts: 10946
Location: kent
I dont pedle any myth .
but I ( and I am sure others ) needed to start somewhere .

I hate doing trainng in that zone , and much prefer to train in a much higher zone .
I cycle , run and eat crap because I enjoy it .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:12 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
cchris2lou wrote:
I dont pedle any myth .

Yes - yes you are.

With the whole "your body wont start to burn fat till after 40/45 minutes of exercise" - like it matters.
cchris2lou wrote:
but I ( and I am sure others ) needed to start somewhere .

I hate doing trainng in that zone , and much prefer to train in a much higher zone .
I cycle , run and eat crap because I enjoy it .

Fine - then train at whatever zone or rate you like, or suits your goals.

I just object to the ever continuing peddling of a myth and bro-science, that people need to train in the "fat burning zone" for weight and fat loss - 'cos it's bunk - unless it suits other goals or preferences, it makes not one jot of a difference.

If it did, why wouldn't it make sense to say - "Well, if fuelling exercise from fat is such a great idea for bodyfat loss, let's go one step further - let's get people to burn fat for fuel ALL the time, by advocating ketogenic diets for everybody that can safely adopt them".

And do you know why that is based on a flaw? Because there's NO TANGIBLE METABOLIC ADVANTAGE from using fat as a fuel source. It may be advantageous for other reasons (personal preference, exercise goals, adherence, hormonal response, insulin resistance) but over time makes no notable difference to weight or bodyfat loss.

Because as I said before, the house always wins.

If losing bodyfat is a goal, then you need to be in caloric deficit, and my tip - do all that you can to preserve lbm in that scenario, rather than worrying about using fat as a fuel source.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:44 pm 
Windmilling for a Scotch Egg
Windmilling for a Scotch Egg
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:27 am
Posts: 4840
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
Well I've lost 26lbs of fat as of today in 11 weeks and I've never run more than 35 minutes in one go so that "you only start burning fat after 45 minutes" is crap. Only done 2 bike rides in that time which have been a few hours....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:57 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:45 pm
Posts: 10946
Location: kent
:lol:

maybe you should go out a bit more Neil and spend less time on your keyboard . lets all be on a Ketogenic diet and die of a heart attack at the age of 50 .

it is obvious for the long term , a lot of things need to change , eatings habits , being more active etc... , but it wont happen overnight and i doubt it will ever happen at all . too much money involved .

for most people , the 45 minutes has no relevance , but when training it does matter .

@ Rob , you probably lost a a fair amount of liquid , your 26lb loss is not 100% fat unless you have been followed by a doctor who carried out tests before and after you are gong to reach a plateau in your weight loss and will have to be more specific in your training and diet if you want to carry on .


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group