bruce19

I'm older now and to say that my body has changed would be an understatement. Yet, even knowing that, this is confusing. At age 70 I am in fairly good shape. I went to the gym all winter and emphasized lifting for leg strength. Since April I've been riding 2-3 times a week for 70-80 miles. At the start I weighed 197 lbs. Probably 20 lbs over my "ideal" weight. Of course, ideal may not be attainable for me anymore. But, I have managed to get down to 190 lbs. And, my 34 jeans fit whereas my 36 jeans had been a bit tight. This was done with riding and a change of diet. Then I went to my ND and further tweaked my diet. Seriously cut down on starches and especially bread and the like. A couple weeks ago I was down to 188 lbs. Encouraged, I began keeping track of food intake and have been consuming 2,000 cals. a day on average. I've also done some good rides where I burned 2-3,000 cals. The result? I've gained 2.5 lbs. Not sure how this happened. If I was reading this I'd tell the OP that he must be eating more than he thinks. But, I absolutely know that is not true. FWIW, when I went to the ND I had an extensive battery of blood tests and I am in a really good place. No issues. I don't know what to think of this.

KBentley57

To the OP: You're eating too much.

But really, you're either eating too much (as you've stated, you're measuring, so that number is probably relatively close), or you're not burning as much as you think. On that note, how are you measuring calories burned? Everything number that doesn't come from a power meter might as well be measured from a magic 8 ball. Even at that, those small margins within each estimation (calories consumed and calories burned) can slowly add up on the side that gains you weight. Try a few weeks netting 1800 vs 2000 and see if the scale doesn't slowly return to normal.

Edit: I forgot to add that I'm sure you're aware that a gain in weight isn't due to additional muscle mass at this age, so it's either water weight or ... extra energy reserves .

Seattle Forrest

For the record, I'm about the same weight as you, and I need to ride about 50 hilly miles to burn 1,800 kCals. Or less on dirt roads. Measured with a power meter. If you're doing 80 mile rides, it's possible you're burning that much, but it might be over-stated, too.

Machka 

It is completely normal to gain some weight after a long and/or hard ride ... it's water retention.

A 2000 cal ride would be a 100 km ride, 3000 cal would be 150 km, so those are decent distances. What you should notice is that immediately after the ride, you'll be up a pound or two ... and then 2 or 3 days later, you'll wear a path in the carpet to the toilet, and the next day, you should be back to normal.

bruce19

To answer a couple questions.....I know what my baseline in both cycling and eating has been. And, I know that my riding is consistent and my eating has been reduced. Can I quote absolutely accurate numbers? Probably not. But, I know that there are differences. And, those differences would suggest weight loss. And, I have lost about 2" in my waist. It's also been 5 days since my last ride. It was a fairly strenuous one. About 50 miles with 3200 ft. of climbing, most of which was in the first 30 miles. So, is it still water retention? I could understand weight loss taking some time to occur and I'm just being impatient. But, why weight gain and my waist keeps getting smaller? I'm having trouble reconciling that. FWIW, based on the way I look and feel, my actual weight does not bother me. Wanting to lose some more is about being a cyclist and climbing.

Carbonfiberboy 

Metabolically, everyone is different, which is a good thing. Some people can pack on muscle without doing much, others struggle to gain anything. Lance had to lose 7 kilos of protein for his TdF comeback. Similarly with fat, some people overeat just a tiny bit and on it comes, other people can stuff themselves every meal and stay skinny. The only person who can really advise you is a personal coach or yourself, since you are apparently self-coached. You measure your waist but that's all? Why is that the only important measurement? At least also measure your chest, biceps, and thigh and chart them. You can't figure out what's going on without data.

Speaking of data, you probably have systematic errors in calorie intake and/or expenditure. Otherwise you couldn't gain weight. So take that as a given. Too bad you didn't keep track of calories during your period of weight loss, so you don't really know which it is or maybe it's both.

My guess is that you substituted protein for some of your carb cutback and now you're putting on muscle. Maybe when you were losing, you were losing both fat and muscle because your diet was too low in protein. Who can know without data? Besides calories in, you need to track your macros.

My system is not to track calories at all, only my weight. If I'm gaining, I eat less but keep the protein up where it needs to be, which is well over the minimum for youngsters. You can't ride it off. You can only eat it off. So ride as much as you want - more is better - but manage your weight with your diet. Today I weighed 6 lbs. more than when I was a somewhat skinny freshman and rode the hell out of my road bike. I rode RAMROD this past Thursday and weighed 10+ lbs. less than when I last rode it solo back in '04. No calories, just smaller portions.

jsk

If you're only a week or two into your new eating/training plan, it might be too soon to start drawing conclusions. Fluctuations of a couple pounds during the week are completely normal even if you aren't actually gaining fat. I can easily go up or down 2-3 lbs due to water retention, not to mention training stress, other stress, sleep, etc. So I would stay the course a little longer before drawing too many conclusions.

One thing I find useful is to weigh daily and pay attention to the running average rather than reading too much into any one scale reading. TrendWeight makes this convenient.

McBTC

It may be (there's some evidence for the belief but, who knows?) that it doesn't matter one wit what you think you're burning so don't even bother counting that toward you daily caloric requirement. For sure though, you can swing 4-5 pounds in a day just losing water weight so 2.5 lbs could even mean you lost a pound. At least in my experience, unless you actually weigh the food you eat (like Lance Armstrong did), you can be off quite a bit-- e.g., how much were those nachos, really: 1-serving... 450? Or, perhaps, 1,250?

sprince

You might have gained some muscle, or could be that your body is fighting the weight loss by slowing your metabolism. Really not enough info to tell. This is where you will be told by the calories-in-calories-out folks that you must have made a mistake. Truth is that your metabolism is not static, and calorie intake and estimated calories from exercise is only part of the picture.

DrIsotope

I would definitely not worry about 2-3lb fluctuations. I use the scale for one primary purpose: weighing myself before the ride, and weighing myself after, to see how much water weight I lost, so I know how much to put back in. I took in six 25oz bottles in a 4.5 hour ride (over 8 pounds of water) and still ended the ride 5lbs lighter than when I started.

Body weight can only be looked at over time, to track gains and losses over extended periods of time. I lost 50lbs on the bike, but will still fluctuate 7-12lbs on any given ride day. Also, that whole "muscle is heavier than fat" adage does apply. My waistband went down 5", and even though I've put on about 3lbs over the past 6 weeks, my clothes are still getting looser.

Obviously, everyone is different-- but I remain horrifically inefficient, burning over 700 calories per hour on low-Z2 efforts. Any "spirited" ride is 900-1000/hr, and all-out efforts can go 1200-1300 per hour. And yes, this is with a power meter. For instance, this morning was a mixed Z2/Z3 effort, where I burned ~55kcal/mi, just a bit over 1,000kcal/hr. But it was cool this morning, so I'll likely end the day a few pounds heavier than I started it, by remaining nice and hydrated.

bruce19

I went out for a ride with my gf yesterday. It was only 24.5 mi. with approx. 1300 ft. of climbing. The climbing is basically in the middle of the ride so it does slow you down. We finished at 14.4 mph but more importantly my legs ached and I felt tired the entire ride. My gf, who is a gym rat and nutrition focused, thinks I have changed my diet too drastically. Her theory is that I've cut back on carbs severely enough that it's actually hurting me. This reminds me of a conversation I had recently with a rep from Hammer Nutrition. I wasn't seeking advice other than how to get started with their products. But, he maintained that if I cut back drastically on calories my body could go into starvation mode and try to conserve fat. I'm beginning to think this may be affecting me.

sprince

Regardless of the cause, you are talking about just over 1% variation in weight, nothing to freak out about.

Machka 

1) Sorry but ... you won't have the same results as you would if you were 20.

2) Good ... but not much of a calorie burn.

3) Estimate high on the calorie intake (actually you can get a pretty accurate idea if you weigh and measure you food and log it into a site like MyFitnessPal). Estimate low on the calories burned.

And it's only been a couple weeks? That happens. Weight loss takes time. Weight loss is not linear. Weight loss does not happen exactly when we think it should. Lots of things affect weight loss such as ... exercise, the amount of sodium in our diet, the amount we drink, the weight of the food we eat. Food and beverages have weight.

4) You can tighten the accuracy up a bit.

5) Could still be water retention ... especially if you ate and are still eating foods high in sodium.

6) That happens. Especially after not riding for 6 days. But it probably wouldn't hurt to increase your carbs. Remember, when it comes to weight loss, only calories count.

And google "the starvation mode myth".

tarwheel 

Welcome to the strange world of weight tracking. I try to weigh myself every day and I'm often baffled by the fluctuations. Sometimes my weight will inexplicably spike or drop several pounds in a day. When my weight spikes, I can usually attribute it to:
- Eating out at restaurants the day before, as many of them use tremendous amounts of salt in their recipes.
- Working out intensely the day before, as your body retains fluids when repairing micro-tears in muscle. Lifting weights is notorious for this.
- Eating lots of salty food such as chips or soups, or eating food like watermelon with lots of water.
- Drinking a lot of beer.
- Not having regular bowel movements.

When my weight drops a lot, it usually seems to be related to:
- Dehydration from exercising or just being outdoors a lot in hot weather and not drinking enough.
- Bowel movements.
- Getting a lot of sleep.

Drew Eckhardt 

Note that on-line and heart-rate monitor estimates can be off by a factor of 2 or more.

2000 Calories is a 3 hour 60 mile/100km ride on flat ground, or a more moderate effort that distance with climbing.
3000 is generally a 100 mile ride.

If I wasn't measuring energy output with a power meter I wouldn't assume more than 25 Calories/mile in flat terrain or 35 in mountains.

I measured 3600 on my last long ride in the mountains, covering 104 miles and 10,000 feet

1 Watt = 1 joule/second, so 100W for 1 hour = 360,000 joules or 360kj. 1 Calorie = 4.2kj although cycling metabolic efficiency is never better than 25% so you can approximate 4 Calories in = 4.2kj out and round to 1 Calorie in = 1 kj out.

On "flat" terrain out-and-back using a power meter with +/-2.5% accuracy I measure about 100W averaging 15 MPH for 360 Calories / hour and 24 / mile; 150W at 17 MPH for 540 Calories / hour and 32 / mile; and 200W at 20 MPH for 720 Calories / hour and 36 / mile.

Weight adds some, but not as much as you'd expect.

50 pounds is about 23 kg.

1 mile is 1609 meters

23 kg * 9.8 meters/second^2 earth gravity * 1609 meters * .004 Coefficient of Rolling Resistance (unitless) = 1450.7 kg m^2/s^2 = 1450.7 joules = 1.4507 kj = 1.45 dietary Calories/mile on flat ground.

It adds more in the mountains, but still not much.

2000 vertical feet of climbing are 609 meters.

23 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 609 m = 137.2 Calories total
After long ride you can have a few pounds of water in your swelling.

Eating saltier food can add a few pounds too.

Dehydration takes you the other direction - I drop about 3% of my weight when doctors tell me to pass on solid food for a day, empty my bowels, and drink nothing after midnight.

If you're monitoring size changes you need to weigh yourself daily at the same time and watch the trends.

Seattle Forrest

Couldn't be either, because:

(1) If you're lifting weights (on a progressive resistance plan) and eating enough protein (1g per day per pound of lean mass - that's a lot) and enough carbs and eating a calorie surplus and have the testosterone of a 20 to 30 year old man, you'll build up to 1/2 pound of muscle per week.

(2) That doesn't happen. All throughout history, when prisoners of war aren't given enough to eat, they always lose weight as a result. Starvation mode is a popular diet myth, but it's a myth. It's true that as you lose weight, you need fewer calories to maintain fewer pounds. But that's a different thing than saying your body just prefers having extra weight and will maintain it without resources.

bruce19

This interests me just 'cause I like stuff like this. I don't have a power meter but I do post on Garmin, Strava and a site called FitDay - Free Weight Loss and Diet Journal. In addition, I have in the past used formulas from various on line sites that are associated with places like the Mayo Clinic and other medial organizations. And, I have a couple books on the subject including ones that address training issues for older athletes. All of them take into consideration age, gender, weight, effort (including mph and climbing) and using a variety of them always yields results that are fairly similar. Here's an example for the 50 mi. ride I referenced. This was 50 mi. w/3,000 of elevation at 14.5 mph. As I recall, riding time was around 3:15. And, my personal data would be Male, 70 yrs. old at 190 lbs. Calories burned according to :

Garmin...2995
Strava...2847
FitDay... 2884

This tracks pretty closely with the formulas I've gotten in books and on line. So, compared to using a power meter all of these can be off in a major way?

Carbonfiberboy 

Yes and no. It is true that calorie reduction can cause a slowing of the metabolic rate. The mechanism for that seems to be a decreased activity level which naturally happens during calorie restriction. However if activity level is maintained, as in the OP, then the metabolic rate does not slow:https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/ann...ie-restriction

Carbonfiberboy 

Your Strava data - what was Strava's estimate of kJ? kJ approximately equals calories burned, though there's a small fudge factor which I can't remember. Weighing ~145, I recently did ~153 miles and ~9100', Strava saying ~4800 kJ.

sprince

1) One gram per pound of lean body weight is more than is required for maintenance. Not everyone's testosterone plummets at age 30. And the way doctors prescribe the patches, pharmacies have to restock them by the pallet load. People can lose weight and gain muscle even without the testosterone levels of a teenager.

2) Prisoners of war as an analogue for middle aged dieters? Seriously?

bruce19

Strava says 1708 Kj of energy output and 134 estimated average power. I have little idea what these things mean.

FBinNY 

Short term immediately (the next day or two) after a hard ride is normal. Overwork "injury" to muscles causes water retention in the area the same way as any other physical injury causes swelling.

Also, there are fewer calories in lean tissue than fat, so it's possible to burn fat and make lean muscle tissue weighing more without a surplus calorie intake.

Weight is a poor measure of what's going on in your body. Things like waist size, the old "pinch an inch" test help round out the picture that weight alone only shows a corner of. My personal preference for an overall indicator is specific gravity. I dive, and use no weights when at good fitness, but if/when I gain weight, I need added ballast to sink that fat. In my case (we all vary) I need roughly 1# of ballast for every 3-4 pounds of weight gain (using the same wetsuit and dive equipment).

The other indicator I use is the height of the narrowest part of my waist. When fit, I'm significantly narrower a few inches below my lowest partial rib. I tend to gain weight at the waist and as I do so, my narrowest point moves up into the taper of my rib cage. So the "does the belt ride up or down test tells me immediately that I need to cut out ice cream for a week or two.

bruce19

Middle aged? This plays right into my saying that I just turned 35 for the second time. Awesome!

Seattle Forrest

You're right that you need less protein to maintain your existing muscle than to build new muscle. But you suggested that Bruce lost 2.5 pounds of fat and gained 2.5 pounds of muscle at the same time. That would involve building new muscle. Which requires more protein than maintaining. As you said.

Prisoners of war as a way to test a popular theory: "starvation mode prevents weight loss." Universally, the theory does not predict reality. Ergo, the theory fails. Unless you're going to tell me that prisoners of war just didn't restrict their food enough, like American dieters do.

Seattle Forrest

You realize those two ideas are at odds, right? If you're at a calorie deficit, and your body recognizes that, even thinks it's in a starvation emergency, it won't do both. The myth is that if you're not eating enough your body will refuse to let go of fat (stored energy) so it won't die of starvation. Now if it's going to those extremes, it's not also going build muscle, which is a metabolically expensive process, and results in tissue that needs more energy to maintain than fat.

As a general rule (there are exceptions, but relatively narrow ones) you don't build muscle at a calorie deficit. You need an energy surplus, and enough protein and carbohydrate, plus the right hormone environment to build significant muscle tissue. That's not going to happen while your body thinks it's dying of starvation. Sadly, muscles aren't made of pixie dust and wishful thinking.