Originally Posted by WizardOfBoz

My expert friend Kevin Hall would argue that its easier to consume mass calories when the food is hyper-refined. A 32 ounce big gulp will have about 150 g of carbohydrate, or about 600 calories. To put that in perspective, a normal healthy diet might have about 2500 calories more or less. And you don't get vitamins, fiber, protein, or fat (we need some fat in our diets).

To add another point, consider: your body has about 5 liters of blood. Fasting plasma glucose is about 90 milligrams per deciliter, or about 900mg/liter. So you have about 1350 mg, or a gram and a half of blood suger at fasting conditions. IF you're not diabetic, this goes up to maybe 4 g or so after a meal. So with a Big Gulp one is drinking, in highly absorbable form, about 30-100 times more sugar than your blood can absorb. This is a huge hit. Our bodies can handle this once in a while, but constantly pounding one's metabolism with this stuff is really detrimental. Especially so with high-fructose corn syrup which doesn't stimulate the body to produce insulin as effectively as glucose. Seems to me to be a recipe for "How can I induce overweight and diabetes in my body?"

I don't even drink soft drinks anymore.

Originally Posted by Last ride 76

Rather than attacking my use of an emoji, READ my post critically for it's content, not emojis, style or typos, and understand why that chart is misleading, at best. Then if you have something more cogent to say, please do so. Otherwise don't bother.


PS Food for thought: Pseudo-science is not science. Just because the word science is present, does not make it actually "science".


PPS I do not mean to be insulting or sound arrogant. I do mean to be emphatic. People who practice endurance sports, should be careful about extreme dieting.

When in a state of ketosis, one long hot day on the bike, with or without a little dehydration mixed in, can put a body in an unhealthy state.


If I offended ksryder or anyone else, my apologies. My only goal was to counter the false equivalencies and prevent misunderstandings which that chart promotes.

Ride well, Eric

Originally Posted by OBoile

I fail to see any false equivalencies in that graphic. It says how these diets work *for weight loss*. Not for health. In that respect, it's completely accurate. They all work by creating a caloric deficit, which, last I checked, is the only scientifically proven way to lose weight outside of surgery and the like.

Originally Posted by livedarklions

I've seen that graphic before, and I thought the point was to combat the thought that any one of these approaches somehow had some magic by which calories didn't matter. The disgusting awfulness of the keto diet is so obvious that its selling points have to be about the uniqueness of its benefits and wildly overstating its efficacy, which this graphic effectively counters.

The keto diet gives faster weight loss at the beginning than other diets, but that effect wears off very quickly. Apparently, people feel so sick on it at the beginning that they just don't want to eat. As people adapt or drop out because they can't adapt, it just has the same or worse crappy success rate as all of the others.

Originally Posted by OBoile

I fail to see any false equivalencies in that graphic. It says how these diets work *for weight loss*. Not for health. In that respect, it's completely accurate. They all work by creating a caloric deficit, which, last I checked, is the only scientifically proven way to lose weight outside of surgery and the like.

Originally Posted by RH Clark

I don't know where that info of success or failure comes from and I would doubt that Keto is any less effective than a standard calorie counting diet, and would think it is much more effective especially from my 40 years experience dieting.

I also think a huge disconnect is what different people call Keto. Personally,I only use the Keto diet info to discover new foods. My diet is really simple,no sugar at all in any form, no grains in any form and no starchy vegetables. I have found this to be very effective in loosing weight.

Now,whether it is good and even necessary for a top athlete to consume lots of carbs is another question entirely to the question that the OP asked and not even in the same context. If the context is loosing weight and using cycling to assist that,then I would still say to cut out all sugar,all grain and as much starch as possible if weight loss is the goal. The goal for a top athlete in a race is totally different and completely irrelevant to the topic.

Originally Posted by Last ride 76

Dear sir, you pick at nits. More than that, you pick at nits out of context.

Alert: This is a load of garbage masquerading as science. While it may be technically accurate to describe them as all working by "creating a caloric deficit", the way this is achieved is NOT the same and has very different potential outcomes, and potential SIDE-EFFECTS, not all of which have been studied in a truly systematic scientific way.


"It says how these diets work *for weight loss*. Not for health. In that respect, it's completely accurate."

NB I acknowlege that it is technically accurate. you say completely... A nit, found.
Do you also fail to see that people looking for information about different methods of weight loss, are concerned about their health, or just choose to ignore it?

I do not see why you choose to point out the chart's technical correctness, while giving this for profit company a pass on ignoring the very different health implications of the diets in their chart. I do not see how that adds to the general understanding of weight loss methods.

You go further in your remarks, to what purpose, I am not sure. I held you no animus. I don't think we have ever interacted before. I even apologized if I sounded rude or arrogant.

I doubt that you are a shill for the company, so why such a snarky tone... "which last I checked..." Ouch.

Check again, perhaps. Hopefully we can recalibrate and start afresh. Best regards, Eric

Originally Posted by Last ride 76

Dear sir, you pick at nits. More than that, you pick at nits out of context.

Alert: This is a load of garbage masquerading as science. While it may be technically accurate to describe them as all working by "creating a caloric deficit", the way this is achieved is NOT the same and has very different potential outcomes, and potential SIDE-EFFECTS, not all of which have been studied in a truly systematic scientific way.


"It says how these diets work *for weight loss*. Not for health. In that respect, it's completely accurate."

NB I acknowlege that it is technically accurate. you say completely... A nit, found.
Do you also fail to see that people looking for information about different methods of weight loss, are concerned about their health, or just choose to ignore it?

I do not see why you choose to point out the chart's technical correctness, while giving this for profit company a pass on ignoring the very different health implications of the diets in their chart. I do not see how that adds to the general understanding of weight loss methods.

You go further in your remarks, to what purpose, I am not sure. I held you no animus. I don't think we have ever interacted before. I even apologized if I sounded rude or arrogant.

I doubt that you are a shill for the company, so why such a snarky tone... "which last I checked..." Ouch.

Check again, perhaps. Hopefully we can recalibrate and start afresh. Best regards, Eric

Originally Posted by livedarklions

... I thought the point was to combat the thought that any one of these approaches somehow had some magic by which calories didn't matter. The disgusting awfulness of the keto diet is so obvious that its selling points have to be about the uniqueness of its benefits and wildly overstating its efficacy, which this graphic effectively counters.

Originally Posted by indyfabz

Carbon fiber frames are dangerous.

Originally Posted by livedarklions

Fiber is an important part of a diet, but not sure the carbon won't take you out of ketosis.

Originally Posted by indyfabz

Hasn't aluminum in the brain been linked to Alzheimer's? I forget.

Originally Posted by indyfabz

Carbon fiber frames are dangerous.

Originally Posted by OBoile

Out of context? Did you, or did you not say:
When it makes no claim about being scientific, and what statements it does make, are accurate according to the current top scientific beliefs?
The word "science" is not present in that chart. And again, it is factual.
I don't see any false equivalencies. All of these diets achieve weight loss by creating a caloric deficit. In that respect, they are equivalent.

Call it "picking at nits" if you want, but you're the one who is calling a graphic "garbage" because it doesn't do a deep dive into all of the potential benefits, drawbacks and unknowns of every diet listed - something that is impossible to do given the limited space available for this type of communication. I don't see it has hyping up keto, or any other type of diet, at all. Quite the opposite in fact. To me, the message was always what @livedarklions said: IMO, it's a very effective at this, quite the opposite of "garbage".

P.S. apologies for sounding snarky in my previous post. I do that too often online. It's something I need to work on.

Originally Posted by indyfabz

Almost as effective as a frame material thread.

Originally Posted by Brocephus

Cycling, being a low-impact cardio exercise, is an excellent way to lose body fat, in general. But (as you you seem to be asking about) , you can't target specific area for fat reduction (as with sit-ups, for example). Unfortunately, it just don't work that way.
.

Originally Posted by Brocephus

Cycling, being a low-impact cardio exercise, is an excellent way to lose body fat, in general. But (as you you seem to be asking about) , you can't target specific area for fat reduction (as with sit-ups, for example). Unfortunately, it just don't work that way.

Originally Posted by Jicafold

There is no proof that situps can help anybody lose belly fat specifically. It only improves muscle definition.

Originally Posted by EuanTait

Hi to all, I am a 16 year old and although I do have a good physical shape I would just like to ask if cycling can help with loosing belly/waist fat. I also do upper body/back/core training aswell but Im just looking for an answer if cycling can effectively help with excess fat loss around those areas.