10 Miles a Day for Weight Loss?
#26
dot dash
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 12,573
Bikes: Shmikes
Liked 6,170 Times
in
3,321 Posts
Those of us who don't subscribe to the right journals can't read the study. However I found this quote from it in Nature:
Which seems a bit counterintuitive, knowing nothing about the science behind this finding. HOWEVER, it's really good to know that I can keep on eating my wife's dinner cooking without issues. That's been working for 50 years, no desire for changes there.
My guess at that finding is it's the old saw, "Fat burns in a carbohydrate flame." IOW, one can be more energetic with carbs in the diet than without, and more calories expended means that some of those "more calories" are from fat and one's fat burning ability is being augmented.
Which seems a bit counterintuitive, knowing nothing about the science behind this finding. HOWEVER, it's really good to know that I can keep on eating my wife's dinner cooking without issues. That's been working for 50 years, no desire for changes there.
My guess at that finding is it's the old saw, "Fat burns in a carbohydrate flame." IOW, one can be more energetic with carbs in the diet than without, and more calories expended means that some of those "more calories" are from fat and one's fat burning ability is being augmented.
#27
Senior Member
OP, Iride01 has it for not expecting to see real results. On Jan 1 I weighed 283lbs, 5 months later I've finally gotten down to 278, in between I even went up to 286. But every month I use a body imaging scanner, its shown a steady decrease in fat mass and a steady increase in muscle mass. The actual body measurements continue to bear this out. I've had to drop a size in shorts, while my t-shirts are becoming baggy though not yet to the point I can drop a full size there. Especially when increasing exercise, weight won't always drop, look to see where there might be other improvements.
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 5,969
Bikes: 2022 Salsa Beargrease Carbon Deore 11, 2020 Salsa Warbird GRX 600, 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX disc 9.0 Di2, 2020 Catrike Eola, 2016 Masi cxgr, 2011, Felt F3 Ltd, 2010 Trek 2.1, 2009 KHS Flite 220
Liked 3,373 Times
in
2,096 Posts
A few of us have jobs that give us access to pretty much the entire spectrum of relevant journals. It's a nice perk, at least for me, as the journals we are discussing here are quite far from those I actually need for my professional pursuits. It's nice that I can access them anyway. And quote from them here in lengths that don't exceed fair use.
#29
Here is a nice review of the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity from Kevin Hall, a giant in this field, who does actual research on people, showing why it is very unlikely to be correct.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn2016260
This is the consensus among real nutrition scientists.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn2016260
This is the consensus among real nutrition scientists.
The pdf as an attachment
#30
Nice to see it starts with a Karl Popper lesson ...
#31
Life Feeds On Life
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 2,151
Bikes: Too many Motobecanes
Liked 4,777 Times
in
3,193 Posts
Lost only 3 pounds after 1,000 miles due to needing the calories to push the pedals. Hard part losing weight cycling is being in the constant state of hunger.
#32
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,532
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Liked 4,074 Times
in
2,008 Posts
#33
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,168
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Liked 5,411 Times
in
3,734 Posts
I think some are using the term Calorie to mean something they eat as part of their diet. When some are saying there are good Calories and bad Calories, they are really saying there are good foods to get your Calories from and bad foods to get your Calories from. But in itself, a Calorie is a Calorie. It can't be bad or good in itself.
There are good carb's and good fats. And bad carb's and bad fats. Good carb's are nutritionally dense with all sorts of nutrients. Bad carbs are lacking a lot of nutrients. Similar for fats and proteins.
And actually even the previous good carbs and bad carbs is somewhat wrong too. As foods usually contain a mix of carbs, fats and proteins. Some are just thought of as one because they tend to be very high in that one category of carbohydrate, fat or protein. So really it's back to what foods are nutritionally dense and what are not. And is it ever okay to use a food that is not nutritionally dense.
There are good carb's and good fats. And bad carb's and bad fats. Good carb's are nutritionally dense with all sorts of nutrients. Bad carbs are lacking a lot of nutrients. Similar for fats and proteins.
And actually even the previous good carbs and bad carbs is somewhat wrong too. As foods usually contain a mix of carbs, fats and proteins. Some are just thought of as one because they tend to be very high in that one category of carbohydrate, fat or protein. So really it's back to what foods are nutritionally dense and what are not. And is it ever okay to use a food that is not nutritionally dense.
Last edited by Iride01; 05-12-24 at 11:11 AM.
#34
dot dash
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 12,573
Bikes: Shmikes
Liked 6,170 Times
in
3,321 Posts
Or there's always sci-hub, if you're okay with that sort of thing.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 5,969
Bikes: 2022 Salsa Beargrease Carbon Deore 11, 2020 Salsa Warbird GRX 600, 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX disc 9.0 Di2, 2020 Catrike Eola, 2016 Masi cxgr, 2011, Felt F3 Ltd, 2010 Trek 2.1, 2009 KHS Flite 220
Liked 3,373 Times
in
2,096 Posts
I think some are using the term Calorie to mean something they eat as part of their diet. When some are saying there are good Calories and bad Calories, they are really saying there are good foods to get your Calories from and bad foods to get your Calories from. But in itself, a Calorie is a Calorie. It can't be bad or good in itself.
There are good carb's and good fats. And bad carb's and bad fats. Good carb's are nutritionally dense with all sorts of nutrients. Bad carbs are lacking a lot of nutrients. Similar for fats and proteins.
And actually even the previous good carbs and bad carbs is somewhat wrong too. As foods usually contain a mix of carbs, fats and proteins. Some are just thought of as one because they tend to be very high in that one category of carbohydrate, fat or protein. So really it's back to what foods are nutritionally dense and what are not. And is it ever okay to use a food that is not nutritionally dense.
There are good carb's and good fats. And bad carb's and bad fats. Good carb's are nutritionally dense with all sorts of nutrients. Bad carbs are lacking a lot of nutrients. Similar for fats and proteins.
And actually even the previous good carbs and bad carbs is somewhat wrong too. As foods usually contain a mix of carbs, fats and proteins. Some are just thought of as one because they tend to be very high in that one category of carbohydrate, fat or protein. So really it's back to what foods are nutritionally dense and what are not. And is it ever okay to use a food that is not nutritionally dense.
Likes For MinnMan:
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 1,208
Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1
Liked 1,129 Times
in
560 Posts
It is true that what you eat is important and simply the total number of calories you consume is not the only measure of whether your diet is "healthy", but that's not what has been asserted in this thread. Rather, it has been alleged that different types of calories have different implications for weight gain/loss, and this alone is simply untrue, with the exception that not all caloric content of your food is necessarily absorbed by your GI system.
We are making an assumption here that people can burn the calories they consume.
What about insulin resistance? Considering that close to 40+% of Americans have IR, many on their way to T2...
IR in many causes large spikes in insulin when carbs are consumed, and since the body can't process the carbs as energy - they float freely in the blood stream and in turn get stored as fat. This could lead to a case of certain types calories consumed that are not burned, rather stored.
If you can't utilize/burn the calories you consume, and just about 1/2 of us have issues with this, the body can store them as fat.
In a normal functioning body - I agree. Calories are calories. But in a dysfunctional body - I don't agree.
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 5,969
Bikes: 2022 Salsa Beargrease Carbon Deore 11, 2020 Salsa Warbird GRX 600, 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX disc 9.0 Di2, 2020 Catrike Eola, 2016 Masi cxgr, 2011, Felt F3 Ltd, 2010 Trek 2.1, 2009 KHS Flite 220
Liked 3,373 Times
in
2,096 Posts
(I'm no doc or scientist, but the following is from my personal experience and learning about the condition)
We are making an assumption here that people can burn the calories they consume.
What about insulin resistance? Considering that close to 40+% of Americans have IR, many on their way to T2...
IR in many causes large spikes in insulin when carbs are consumed, and since the body can't process the carbs as energy - they float freely in the blood stream and in turn get stored as fat. This could lead to a case of certain types calories consumed that are not burned, rather stored.
If you can't utilize/burn the calories you consume, and just about 1/2 of us have issues with this, the body can store them as fat.
In a normal functioning body - I agree. Calories are calories. But in a dysfunctional body - I don't agree.
We are making an assumption here that people can burn the calories they consume.
What about insulin resistance? Considering that close to 40+% of Americans have IR, many on their way to T2...
IR in many causes large spikes in insulin when carbs are consumed, and since the body can't process the carbs as energy - they float freely in the blood stream and in turn get stored as fat. This could lead to a case of certain types calories consumed that are not burned, rather stored.
If you can't utilize/burn the calories you consume, and just about 1/2 of us have issues with this, the body can store them as fat.
In a normal functioning body - I agree. Calories are calories. But in a dysfunctional body - I don't agree.
Insulin resistance is a reason for somebody to avoid sugar spikes, but the weight gain formula doesn't change.
Also, something I should have mentioned previously is that it takes a fair amount of energy to break down proteins, meaning your GI system burns energy to break them down. So in fact, calories eaten as protein produce a little less weight gain/calorie. But very few diets includes a large fraction of total calorie intake as protein....
#38
dot dash
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 12,573
Bikes: Shmikes
Liked 6,170 Times
in
3,321 Posts
ALL calories consumed and absorbed are either burned as energy or ultimately stored as fat. The amount of fat that is stored is proportional to the excess calories - no matter whether those calories are consumed originally as carbs, fat, or protein - to the tune of approximatley 1 lb =3500 caloires, which is the caloric content of fat.
Insulin resistance is a reason for somebody to avoid sugar spikes, but the weight gain formula doesn't change.
Also, something I should have mentioned previously is that it takes a fair amount of energy to break down proteins, meaning your GI system burns energy to break them down. So in fact, calories eaten as protein produce a little less weight gain/calorie. But very few diets includes a large fraction of total calorie intake as protein....
Insulin resistance is a reason for somebody to avoid sugar spikes, but the weight gain formula doesn't change.
Also, something I should have mentioned previously is that it takes a fair amount of energy to break down proteins, meaning your GI system burns energy to break them down. So in fact, calories eaten as protein produce a little less weight gain/calorie. But very few diets includes a large fraction of total calorie intake as protein....
#39
Senior Member
A couple things. First, biking 10 miles doesn't burn a lot of calories at all on the scale of what your body burns each day. Second, with any exercise, your body will try to adapt to the exertion by trying to squeeze in rest and relaxation that takes away substantially from its fat burning effect.
For many people, cycling is a sit down low-intensity endeavor. My suggestion is to cycle A LOT such that you burn those calories and also develop the physical fitness to burn more calories per hour by going faster for longer. The more fit you are, the faster you can burn calories.
For many people, cycling is a sit down low-intensity endeavor. My suggestion is to cycle A LOT such that you burn those calories and also develop the physical fitness to burn more calories per hour by going faster for longer. The more fit you are, the faster you can burn calories.
#40
I don’t see much correlation between my weight and how much riding I do. For me it’s all about the calories. Cycling massively improves my aerobic fitness and general wellbeing, but good nutrition keeps my weight stable.
#41
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,168
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Liked 5,411 Times
in
3,734 Posts
So to me this is more about what type cycling will burn a larger proportion of Calories from fat stores as opposed to Calories from other stores in the body. Not so much what foods might be better for weight loss, which doesn't even require a bike ride.
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ellensburg,WA
Posts: 3,213
Bikes: Schwinn Broadway, Specialized Secteur Sport(crashed) Spec. Roubaix Sport, Spec. Crux
Liked 185 Times
in
96 Posts
Here is a nice review of the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity from Kevin Hall, a giant in this field, who does actual research on people, showing why it is very unlikely to be correct.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn2016260
This is the consensus among real nutrition scientists.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn2016260
This is the consensus among real nutrition scientists.
__________________
Sir Mark, Knight of Sufferlandria
Sir Mark, Knight of Sufferlandria
#43
dot dash
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 12,573
Bikes: Shmikes
Liked 6,170 Times
in
3,321 Posts
#44
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,532
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Liked 4,074 Times
in
2,008 Posts
Carbs vs. fat burning during exercise is certainly something to think about for performance, but regarding body weight gain/loss, I don't think it matters. That's just about energy balance (or imbalance).
#45
dot dash
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 12,573
Bikes: Shmikes
Liked 6,170 Times
in
3,321 Posts
#46
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,168
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Liked 5,411 Times
in
3,734 Posts
Glycogen is stored as 3 or 4 parts water to one part glycogen. So when that glycogen gets used, I assume the water get's sweated out or otherwise eliminated. So that might be a large part of any weight loss during a ride. Then when the glycogen stores are topped back up during the time between rides, the weight is right back up there where it was before. The body is going to replete it's glycogen stores to the level it wishes to maintain. No amount of exercise with make that be less. Other than temporarily when you exercise.
Body fat is about 3700 to 3800 Calories per pound. 10 - 30% of that pound is water and other stuff. When we ride our bikes, about the best we can hope for is that some of our Calories expended are from fat. I'd doubt fat is ever the predominant source of fuel though at times it might be the majority. So it's going to take a lot of time on the bike to expend enough Calories to get rid of that one pound of fat. If we assume 50/50 glycogen Calorie and Fat Calorie expenditure, then that's something like 11.6 hours of cycling to get rid of that one pound of body fat.
A hours long ride might not even be using much fat at all as it takes some time for the body to ramp up the fat conversion to energy to meet the current demand. Glycogen is going to get used even though the exercise may not be intense enough to be anerobic. And glycogen will be repleted after the exercise bringing back with it all that 3 to 4 parts of water and it's weight.
Body fat is about 3700 to 3800 Calories per pound. 10 - 30% of that pound is water and other stuff. When we ride our bikes, about the best we can hope for is that some of our Calories expended are from fat. I'd doubt fat is ever the predominant source of fuel though at times it might be the majority. So it's going to take a lot of time on the bike to expend enough Calories to get rid of that one pound of fat. If we assume 50/50 glycogen Calorie and Fat Calorie expenditure, then that's something like 11.6 hours of cycling to get rid of that one pound of body fat.
A hours long ride might not even be using much fat at all as it takes some time for the body to ramp up the fat conversion to energy to meet the current demand. Glycogen is going to get used even though the exercise may not be intense enough to be anerobic. And glycogen will be repleted after the exercise bringing back with it all that 3 to 4 parts of water and it's weight.
#47
dot dash
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 12,573
Bikes: Shmikes
Liked 6,170 Times
in
3,321 Posts
Glycogen is stored as 3 or 4 parts water to one part glycogen. So when that glycogen gets used, I assume the water get's sweated out or otherwise eliminated. So that might be a large part of any weight loss during a ride. Then when the glycogen stores are topped back up during the time between rides, the weight is right back up there where it was before. The body is going to replete it's glycogen stores to the level it wishes to maintain. No amount of exercise with make that be less. Other than temporarily when you exercise.
Body fat is about 3700 to 3800 Calories per pound. 10 - 30% of that pound is water and other stuff. When we ride our bikes, about the best we can hope for is that some of our Calories expended are from fat. I'd doubt fat is ever the predominant source of fuel though at times it might be the majority. So it's going to take a lot of time on the bike to expend enough Calories to get rid of that one pound of fat. If we assume 50/50 glycogen Calorie and Fat Calorie expenditure, then that's something like 11.6 hours of cycling to get rid of that one pound of body fat.
A hours long ride might not even be using much fat at all as it takes some time for the body to ramp up the fat conversion to energy to meet the current demand. Glycogen is going to get used even though the exercise may not be intense enough to be anerobic. And glycogen will be repleted after the exercise bringing back with it all that 3 to 4 parts of water and it's weight.
Body fat is about 3700 to 3800 Calories per pound. 10 - 30% of that pound is water and other stuff. When we ride our bikes, about the best we can hope for is that some of our Calories expended are from fat. I'd doubt fat is ever the predominant source of fuel though at times it might be the majority. So it's going to take a lot of time on the bike to expend enough Calories to get rid of that one pound of fat. If we assume 50/50 glycogen Calorie and Fat Calorie expenditure, then that's something like 11.6 hours of cycling to get rid of that one pound of body fat.
A hours long ride might not even be using much fat at all as it takes some time for the body to ramp up the fat conversion to energy to meet the current demand. Glycogen is going to get used even though the exercise may not be intense enough to be anerobic. And glycogen will be repleted after the exercise bringing back with it all that 3 to 4 parts of water and it's weight.
#48
Senior Member
Here is a good explanation of how different foods can modify the calories in calories out equation.
#49
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,168
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Liked 5,411 Times
in
3,734 Posts
Consumed glycogen isn't reconstituted by magic. The process is a big sink for dietary carbohydrate, such that, under conditions of calorie restriction, the body has to scrounge energy from other stores, i.e. fat. Hence, if you cut energy intake, you can burn fat after a workout during which fat consumption may have been negligible.
#50
dot dash
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 12,573
Bikes: Shmikes
Liked 6,170 Times
in
3,321 Posts
Apologies if I misunderstood. I interpreted your comment as implying that glycolysis doesn't result in consumption of stored fat in the face of calorie restriction.
Last edited by MoAlpha; 05-13-24 at 03:12 PM.