Weight Loss - why arent I losing more ?

[PaulSB]

I once rode about 750 hilly miles in Spain in 2 weeks but came home about 5 pounds heavier because of over-lavish meals in the hotel buffet, and post-ride beers! The next time I went I did the same distance, ate and drank less, and came back weighing about the same as when I went.

I have lost weight through cycling but it is much easier to lose it by being more careful about food and drink intake.

Exactly. Experienced this many, many times myself. Understanding diet, not "going on a diet," is the key to weight loss. Knowing one needs carbohydrates for fuel and proteins for muscle building and repair. Understanding if the body runs out of carbs it starts using protein as the fuel source. To work at its optimum the body needs the correct fuels, given it too much carbohydrate and it will simply store this as fat for a rainy day.

I did exactly this in the last four days. Sunday 85 miles, 4700 feet, avg 15. I got my nutrition right as we had a cafe stop and I wasn't in any way hungry when I got home. Tuesday night I got it wrong with 26 miles, 600 feet, 18.4 with no cafe stop. I'd eaten fish as my main meal before going out. Within an hour my body was screaming for food which lead to a binge on sultanas, nuts and, I'm a touch ashamed to say, hot cross buns at 10.30pm.

 

[nickAKA]

I feel like I'm becoming the forum's pub bore regarding the whole newbies fitness / weight loss thing but here's my 2p -
I spent the thick end of 30 years living a pretty physically destructive lifestyle, throw in a back injury which put me out of the game for 4 or 5 years and I was an overweight, unfit f**k-up (I can say this now with the benefit of hindsight )

I'd done a couple of half-arsed years at the gym when my daughter was born as I hit 40. I'd lost a few kg's but the gym membership got binned & I bought a hybrid bike. 4 years of recreational riding followed, I learned to skip LUNCH, which reduced, mainly, my bread intake I guess. I cut back on the booze substantially (having a baby is not conducive to 20-pint weekends) and when the weather turned I got out at weekends on my own for more challenging rides..
Bought a fitness tracker. Bought some smart scales. Bought a road bike. In those 4 years since the baby arrived I'd lost approx 4 or 5 kg's without really noticing or thinking about it. Bought a smart trainer. Signed up to zwift. I've subsequently lost 4 or 5 kg's in the last 6 months. It's taken some effort and plenty of time but I'm nearly at my "fighting weight".
As regards the OPs stats, they're not dissimilar to my own, but I feel fit and I can ride pretty much wherever & whenever I want so that's great & I've acheived what I set out to do (but I'm not finished yet!)

My only comment on the training regime, as has been mentioned elesewhere, is look at the heart rate zones... if your max heartrate / threshold is 175, from what I've read (in actual books, not on google...) the "fat burning zone" would be more towards 140bpm. If your aim is to lose weight that's where you want to be, 120bpm is too low (assuming you're not on meds like beta blockers obv).

Don't expect instant results - the diet thing is mind over matter, but you can do it - stick at it, see the results, obtain the motivation to carry on... good luck.

Apologies to those that have heard it all before.

 

[Alan O]

I'd done a couple of half-arsed years at the gym when my daughter was born as I hit 40. I'd lost a few kg's but the gym membership got binned & I bought a hybrid bike. 4 years of recreational riding followed, I learned to skip LUNCH, which reduced, mainly, my bread intake I guess. I cut back on the booze substantially (having a baby is not conducive to 20-pint weekends) and when the weather turned I got out at weekends on my own for more challenging rides..

That gives you a great target - to enjoy celebrating her 40th!

 

[zak3737]

I feel like I'm becoming the forum's pub bore regarding the whole newbies fitness / weight loss thing but here's my 2p -
I spent the thick end of 30 years living a pretty physically destructive lifestyle, throw in a back injury which put me out of the game for 4 or 5 years and I was an overweight, unfit f**k-up (I can say this now with the benefit of hindsight )

I'd done a couple of half-arsed years at the gym when my daughter was born as I hit 40. I'd lost a few kg's but the gym membership got binned & I bought a hybrid bike. 4 years of recreational riding followed, I learned to skip LUNCH, which reduced, mainly, my bread intake I guess. I cut back on the booze substantially (having a baby is not conducive to 20-pint weekends) and when the weather turned I got out at weekends on my own for more challenging rides..
Bought a fitness tracker. Bought some smart scales. Bought a road bike. In those 4 years since the baby arrived I'd lost approx 4 or 5 kg's without really noticing or thinking about it. Bought a smart trainer. Signed up to zwift. I've subsequently lost 4 or 5 kg's in the last 6 months. It's taken some effort and plenty of time but I'm nearly at my "fighting weight".
As regards the OPs stats, they're not dissimilar to my own, but I feel fit and I can ride pretty much wherever & whenever I want so that's great & I've acheived what I set out to do (but I'm not finished yet!)

My only comment on the training regime, as has been mentioned elesewhere, is look at the heart rate zones... if your max heartrate / threshold is 175, from what I've read (in actual books, not on google...) the "fat burning zone" would be more towards 140bpm. If your aim is to lose weight that's where you want to be, 120bpm is too low (assuming you're not on meds like beta blockers obv).

Don't expect instant results - the diet thing is mind over matter, but you can do it - stick at it, see the results, obtain the motivation to carry on... good luck.

Apologies to those that have heard it all before.

Thx - appreciate the thoughts.
My only query is exactly where the 'Fat Burning Zone is/should be then..........
Most articles show it to be at 60-70% of your 'Max', so assuming my Max is 165 (220-55), my Fat Burning Zone would be between 100 - 115. Thats what the Wahoo App 'auto calculates for me too.
Even if its 175 Max, thats still between 105- 122, which I'm in.

I think 140 HR puts me way higher up the Zones, in an area where I arent going to be burning Fat as Primary Fuel, or so it says here
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/how-target-your-heart-rate-get-into-the-fat-burning-zone/

In all honesty, its my Average thats between 117-123, but bearing in mind I'm warming up, building up, and finishing high, there's perhaps 30mins of my Hour session that are up at 135/145 anyway, so I'm perhaps doing a good combination of Burn & Burst training,.......Hopefully !

 

[screenman]

Forget that 220 rubbish. Go get your MHR tested it you are going to use zones seriously. To answer why you are not losing fat, you are eating too much.

 

[nickAKA]

That gives you a great target - to enjoy celebrating her 40th!

If I get to see that I'll be more than happy!

 

[nickAKA]

Thx - appreciate the thoughts.
My only query is exactly where the 'Fat Burning Zone is/should be then..........
Most articles show it to be at 60-70% of your 'Max', so assuming my Max is 165 (220-55), my Fat Burning Zone would be between 100 - 115. Thats what the Wahoo App 'auto calculates for me too.
Even if its 175 Max, thats still between 105- 122, which I'm in.

I think 140 HR puts me way higher up the Zones, in an area where I arent going to be burning Fat as Primary Fuel, or so it says here
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/how-target-your-heart-rate-get-into-the-fat-burning-zone/

In all honesty, its my Average thats between 117-123, but bearing in mind I'm warming up, building up, and finishing high, there's perhaps 30mins of my Hour session that are up at 135/145 anyway, so I'm perhaps doing a good combination of Burn & Burst training,.......Hopefully !

You would probably benefit from some 1-to-1 advice on the HR given your medical concerns, we've all got our own opinions & anecdotes but none of us are experts on you obviously... My HR is normally average 140 on an hour long effort which includes some warm up, sweet spot at about 140, FTP at 150-155 and big efforts over threshold 160+ so a mixture but not much coasting in there.
It's all academic of course, it works for me but that's doesn't mean it will work for you - get some expert advice but try and adjust your diet too for a couple of weeks. If it works, you've cracked it and you know what to do.

 

[The Jogger]

Personally I think you need to eat a High Fat Low Carb diet to lose weight and better health but if you think training is the key for fàt loss then this is an interesting read about the Maf Method.

https://philmaffetone.com/what-is-maf/

 

[PaulSB]

Forget that 220 rubbish. Go get your MHR tested it you are going to use zones seriously. To answer why you are not losing fat, you are eating too much.

I cannot fathom why people don’t understand this. I know so many in real life, fellow club cyclists, who can’t get to grips with it. One recently retired friend has joined the local gym along with his wife. We are talking just short of £2k per annum - has it made a difference? No.

Diet, diet, diet. No starving just understand the impact of good and bad food then cut out the bad. Simple and cost effective.

 

[The Jogger]

"Dr" Maffetone = quack.
MAF = marketing gimmick for useless supplements.

Well, I can't argue with that, I'll take your word for it but the HFLC science is far more convincing health wise than the low fat rubbish.

 

[Alan O]

Just a few thoughts on high-fat-low-carb eating, and other stories...

I'm not going to knock HFLC, as I know it can work - I know people who have been doing very well with that approach for years. At the same time, I don't think I'd generally recommend it, but only in the sense that I would not recommend any specific "high this, low that, specific food group" diet as a substitute for understanding basic nutrition.

As an aside, I read an opinion piece recently that suggested the reason for the success of HFLC diets is twofold. One is that they are easy to follow... How many Greggs Tuna Crunch baguettes can I have today? None! None is a much easier number to stick to than a calorie-counting number. The suggestion was slightly flippant, but I think there's merit in it. The other mooted reason is that HFLC is so boring you just don't want to eat more!

On another subject, a minor bugbear of mind is the "calories in < calories out = weight loss" argument, purely because it generates so much unneeded controversy. People who tell you it's wrong are essentially wrong (but in terms of how to apply it practically, they're often right).

The conservation of energy/mass principle would have to be violated for it to be wrong, and that's not going to happen.

The problem is that there are all sorts of subtleties in its actual application as a way to lose weight. If you spend a week eating fewer calories than you burn, will you lose weight that week? Maybe, maybe not. You'll lose some of your body's energy stores for sure, essentially fat, but you might retain water and perhaps even gain weight. The weight-loss plateau is real, and expecting a steady weight loss per week is what is wrong with applying the approach without fully understanding it.

Expecting a steady rate of weight loss for a steady calorie deficit is a mistake, and it can be demotivating to see weight loss becoming harder in the short term.

But in the long term, if your calorie input is lower than your calorie output, you will lose energy-store mass. If anyone claims otherwise, ask them to submit a paper to Nature (or wherever) explaining how they have overturned a fundamental law of physics - there's potentially a Nobel prize waiting for them.

While I'm on bugbears, how about the "exercise is for fitness, diet is for weight loss" thing? I think that is so so wrong in its very approach, as it is trying to compartmentalize human physiology when it is more of a holistic thing.

I've struggled to lose weight for years, and I've really only been achieving any success since I've been back to cycling and exercising at the gym. You want to tell me it doesn't work? I spit on your foot!

Again (as with the cals in minus cals out thing) I think we're looking at a tension between the pure physics and seeing the entire psychological whole that we are.

Sure, a couple of hours hard work at the gym might be no match for just not eating a Mars bar. But what if I'm already not eating the Mars bar? What if my hard work at the gym makes me feel so good that it boosts my motivation to not eat a Mars bar (or any other kind of empty calories)? I regularly have days when I burn up 4,000 kcals or more through exercise, and I simply can not physically eat that amount. Is it exercise or reduced diet that's doing it for me?

It's both, and it's just as bogus to try to separate diet and exercise as it is to separate Ant and... well maybe not that at the moment.

 

[The Jogger]

Alan O, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but that is all it is, no papers provided egg. We've had the hflc argument on here many times , so I won't go down that road again but there is lots of evidence it is the healthy way to go and also good for losing weight, so I am happy to agree to disagree.

 

[Alan O]

Alan O, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but that is all it is, no papers provided egg. We've had the hflc argument on here many times , so I won't go down that road again but there is lots of evidence it is the healthy way to go and also good for losing weight, so I am happy to agree to disagree.

Oh, I'm not knocking it - as I said, I know people who have been doing very well with that approach for years. I just don't agree with it as a "one size fits all" recommendation as a magic formula.

 

[Heltor Chasca]

Hi @zak3737 I started with TR on my Kickr Snap a little later than you. I’m shorter and lighter. In a fairly short time I lost fat but built muscle up so my weight actually went up a bit. It is only now, about 4 months later, that I am losing mass which I assume is the long term fat loss. I am also going through a stressful patch which makes me loose weight.

I listened to a great TR podcast where the head coach spoke of programmes for people where crash weight loss was dangerous and also resulted in loss of power (FTP) He also said it was not unusual for these weight loss schedules to be spread over 3 years. 3 years! It’s serious business and not to be treated lightly. He is the same coach that goes by the mantra, ‘Ounces are lost on the bike, but pounds are lost in the kitchen.’

 

[screenman]

I really do not see this build muscle thing, maybe thighs getting a little tighter but you have to burn off one hell of a lot of calories to build a pound of muscle. You only have to google it to see the myth behind it.

Get your fat content measured, you may be properly suprised.