willibrord

True. There should be some moderation as to actual facts, people are just giving their opinion w.r.t. diet and cycling and weight loss.

livedarklions

What do you mean by "moderation as to actual facts?" Honest question--that's pretty unclear.

willibrord

Its all well and good to hear people's experiences about cycling and weight loss and what they eat, some people are saying things that just aren't true froma scientific perspective, it will lead people astray. The moderators are worried about personal attacks, which they should be, but they don't seem to be worried about the spreading of falsehoods.

Anyway, as much as I think this is a fascinating topic, I will bow out now and comment no more.

livedarklions

I'll respect your bowing out, but I really don't think it should be the role of the moderators to determine who has science on their side, especially in this area. This isn't an area where the scientific answers are anywhere near being "settled".

livedarklions

Just one? LOL.

Ultimately, I think the problem is that this is really an unprecedented condition in human history--a large population with an over-abundance of food. The scientific study of that condition is really in its infancy, and it's just too easy to cherry-pick stuff to support whatever fad diet comes along.

I'm in my late 50s. The thing I became aware of recently was that if I look at pictures of adults from the 1960s vs. now, there were a lot more "skinny" people then--neither muscular nor fat. The statistic that gets thrown around a lot is that as of now, 2/3 of adults in the U.S. are "overweight". Obviously, there are a lot more fat people now than there were in the 1960s, but my big revelation was that there are also a lot more muscular people now than there were then. BMI, which is what is used to determine whether someone is "overweight", does not discriminate between fat weight and muscle weight. That's probably why the "slightly overweight" group tends to be healthier than "normal weight".

Almost everybody eats more than what would be considered normal in the 1960s, a lot of this is whether we build muscle and burn calories, or we just gather fat. For a species genetically selected to constantly be prepared for times of scarcity, controlling eating when food is always abundant fights against all sorts of instinctive behavior

My educated guess is that I burn calories about 1.5 times faster in the gym than I do on the bike, but that I can tolerate about 2 times more bicycling time than I can gym time, and I'm definitely smaller during bike season. I don't eat as much as I did when I weighed approximately twice as much, but I can eat a lot more than if I was sedentary. I'm also feeling a lot better and having lot more fun.

OBoile

I think you nailed it. In addition to the science being in its infancy, it's also something that is very difficult to study. I tend to be very anti-dogmatic when it comes to diet (and exercise) these days as we just don't really definitively know much.
An excellent book called The Gluten Lie goes into just how easy it is to cherry pick things, and how weak the evidence is for many of the trends in nutrition.
This is a bit before my time (I'm 40) but it does seem like portion sizes have gotten bigger. My un-scientific observation is that the USA tends to have much larger portions than what you find in other countries too.

Trentc

I feel your pain. I cycled more last year than I have the previous several years, and lost no weight. My own fault, and that of my out-of-control sweetooth, though. Most nutritionists will tell you diet is 90% and exercise is 10% of weight loss.

wolfchild

Gary Taubes is not even a registered dietician or nutritionist or medical doctor nor has any background in fitness/training. He is just another journalist who likes to cherry pick stuff to fit his own agenda. That's a pretty good reason not to take nutritional advice from him.

radroad

Cycling isn't very good for weight loss. It doesn't build muscle mass or increase bone strength. It just makes you a more efficient cyclist, which means that the more you ride, the fewer calories you burn per mile.

I ride for fun and to take care of easy chores within a few miles. It's probably better for my health than just sitting on the couch, but the scale disagrees with me. :-)

radroad

Wise decision. The two posters you are responding are notorious for spamming threads non-stop. They have a lot more free time than you do. You can't win this one.

velojym

Weight loss happens in the kitchen (or menu), fitness happens on the bike (or... some other, less noble form of activity)

KraneXL

Challenging a conclusion or even a supposition is not a personal attack they do that all the time in academia -- and in congress although in some settings they're no always that polite about it. In my case, I welcome others to question my facts and ask for charity and request I provide references. Though others seldom do. Nothing is untrue until its proven untrue. Being in its infancy does not make a thing untrue. We know what we know until we know better.For the record, observation is not unscientific. In fact, its the first rule of the scientific model. Actually, its not. In a court room for example, jurors are instructed not to give a police officer any more credit as a witness than anyone else. The lack of credentials does not necessarily discredit someone's findings or their observations. I think you already know that. The fact is, him being wrong is what would discredit him.

Siu Blue Wind

You bet your bacon we are worried about personal attacks, it's in the forum guidelines. It is NOT in the guidelines about spreading "falsehoods". If you would like to become a moderator, I would love to have you on board, though. I need someone to volunteer on their personal time and research each and every claim that is posted here for validity so we can add "falsehoods" to our forum guidelines and infract people for this. Please say yes. Because at this time, with me having two jobs, all of my moderators having at least one job, it's kind of hard to do with the thousands of posts we get each day.

Please inbox me and I will get you on board immediately.

Thanks.

Siu BW Forum Lead

Leisesturm

Sugar does not cause diabetes, but a diabetic is strongly advised to stay away from sugar; a high testosterone level does not cause Prostate cancer, but should one contract Prostate cancer the FIRST thing the oncologist will do is get the patients testosterone levels as low as possible as soon as possible. See where I am going? Carbs are not the devil, as you say, but overweight people are strongly advised to drastically reduce carbohydrate intake. And with good reason, reducing carbs is probably the most meaningful adjustment to their diet they can make and usually provides the most visible results. Why would you quibble with that?

Leisesturm

India has 5x the population of the U.S. Anything studied there has zero correlation to realities on the ground here in the United States. Everyday, hordes of people in the U.S. are diagnosed as Type 2 and have no epigenetic factors at play. Millions more are totally unaware of the fact that they are diabetic because ... there are no epigenetic factors to give them a heads up. Why it matters: having a scapegoat allows people to avoid self-examination. Think about that. Also think about the fact that the price of Insulin has gone from around $200/mo. to $1500/mo. in a very short time. The only encouragement you are going to get to do the hard work of maintaining a rigorous diet and exercise regime regardless of your perceived risk of contracting Type 2 Diabetes is going to come from within.

livedarklions

Getting into causation of T2D is way off topic, but you really have no knowledge of the subject if you can make such statements. Obviously, behavior is a major factor, and it's good to focus on it because it is something we can affect. Age and genetics are also factors, and it is absurd to pretend that they are not.

The point of the Indian studies is that the same disease looks very different there than it does in the US, and that appears to be because it has somewhat different causes. Epigenetics refers to how behavior and environment affect gene expression. Way too complex to summarize here, but it appears that we inherit some of the effects of our parents ' environment and behavior. Indians have had great food scarcity within a generation and a half, and, on average, it appears that they have a higher percentage of body fat at all weight levels than people in the U.S. This is a relatively new area of biology, so stay tuned.

AlmostTrick

The low carb diets (as usually practiced) almost always means an increased consumption of meat, which has been demonstrated many times over to lead to a rise in heart disease and cancer rates. Lots of studies on this.

OBoile

What a ridiculous thing to say. Lots of things are untrue even if we can't prove it.
This, at least is correct.
No. We believe what we believe until the evidence indicates otherwise.
Anecdotal observation, without any control or tracking isn't exactly great scientific method.
This isn't a courtroom.

OBoile

Not really no.

Leisesturm

What more need be said then?

Take care of the pennies and the dollars take care of themselves. Did you get your 10,000 steps in yesterday? I did. More probably.

Leisesturm

I haven't looked at low carb diets in any detail but I'm sure you are correct. I drastically reduced my carb intake when I realized I was pre-diabetic. My wife joined me in support although she has a normal A1C. Our meat consumption has not changed. Nor should it for most people considering a diet change. Sadly there has been much good information in this thread though I have only seen the last few pages. American portion sizes ... mentioned earlier ... ya think??? Exercise (especially cycling) having little meaningful impact on weight control (as usually practiced) is the part most relevant to this thread, I think.

livedarklions

Yesterday, I did 1700 squats (unweighted). I lifted weights. I did 180 ab crunches with 90 pounds of weights. I spent an hour on high resistance on an elliptical.

I spend about 12 hours per week in the gym, and about twice as much as that on my bike during the summer.
My genetics are such that if I'm not very active, I will put on weight. I know lots of people who can do that with a lot less effort than I put in. I was diagnosed with T2D at one point, but I have reversed it so well with diet and exercise that I actually had a doctor indicate that the diagnosis was incorrect. I worked damn hard for that.

Any more moralizing you'd like to do?

Leisesturm

As I mentioned before I only saw this thread last night. I managed to scan quickly the last two or three pages of posts. I knew the temperature in the room had risen because I saw Siu Blue Wind as the most recent poster. Never a good sign. We take weight topics personally because we are (mostly) all addicted to food. Anything that threatens our access to calories must be destroyed or discredited. I'm not sure my posts on this topic so far have been helpful, but, fresh from a good nights sleep I intend to start the day right. I am going to reveal the secret to losing the weight your doctor wants you to lose, quick. fast, and in a hurry: It involves some up front cost, but as with most worthy purchases, a little shopping around can save you money. Step One: purchase a round-trip airline ticket to a popular destination of your choice. Sit next to the passenger that is sweating profusely and looks close to having a stroke. S/he is not just afraid to fly, s/he is quite ill and it is contagious. Step Two: when you realize the passenger is sick, do nothing. I tried to hold my breath for two hours. Don't bother, breathe deeply, relax, it's going to be worth it. Step Three. Get incredibly, violently sick with The Flu. You will want to die but you probably will not and when you eventually realize you are still on the hook for your tuition loans or other financial obligations you will also realize you are many pounds lighter. I lost 25lbs after four days of 104* fever. After one year I have put only 10lbs. of that back. I am apparently not the first to discover the effectiveness of the 'Flu Diet' because others I mentioned it to also knew about it. Has it been mentioned in this thread yet? Well now it has again. Independent corroboration of a truth makes it a fact.

baldilocks

When it comes to exercise for weight lose, it is my opinion that short bursts (15 to 20 seconds) of extreme output followed by 40 or so seconds of recovery is very beneficial. Unfortunately I haven't got it totally figured out on the bike as there is too much mechanical advantage. Still trying to figure out what gear/cadence I need to have to get my heart rate way up. I do believe I burn more calories out of the saddle. I also think If I went to our local mtb course I'd burn more calories than riding to work. If I can tame the sugar monster, I should continue to lose weight. Otherwise I will have to start riding more.

KraneXL

Cycling is not the best choice for weight loss. It is an aerobic form of exercise that builds stamina and endurance. Does it burn calories? Absolutely. Is it the most efficient method? Only during the exercise.<br /><br />Anaerobic exercise on the other hand, not only burns calories while you're exercising, but continues to do so long after your exercise session has been completed. Weight training builds muscle and muscle burns fat.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the overwhelming amount of weight loss however (80%~), is dependent on diet. No matter what form of exercise you choose, just always keep that in mind.<br /><br />NOTE: OP didn't say how tall he was, but from what numbers he gave us I'd have to assume he wants to lose more fat.