Originally Posted by wolfchild

Stop obsessing about calories....Calories counting is completely unnecessary.

Originally Posted by livedarklions

4 weeks isn't really what I'm talking about. It's going from morbidly obese to normal range. If you try to do that really fast, you can make yourself very sick. 20 pounds isn't trivial, but it's not massive weight loss.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

I find it's such a fine balance that counting calories is sometimes necessary to hit a specific target weight. I certainly don't calorie count all the time, but if I want to get from my "normal" 80 kg to 75 kg for a specific event then calorie counting is absolutely necessary for me. Using an App like MFP makes it pretty painless too. The alternative of just guessing doesn't really cut it for me. If I eat too little my performance starts to suffer and if I eat too much I don't hit my target weight. I have tried to get down to my fighting weight without calorie counting and failed every time. I might lose a couple of kg at best that way. If I wasn't trying to beat personal performance targets none of this would really matter.

Originally Posted by wolfchild

Stop obsessing about calories....Calories counting is completely unnecessary.

Originally Posted by genejockey

Yeah, we already covered this already. Stop assuming your experience is universal, especially since a bunch of us already debunked it.

Originally Posted by Milton Keynes

Well, I had the best weight loss when I was counting calories and making sure I didn't overdo it when eating. I think most people tend to "forget" or not realize how many calories they're eating in a day and then overestimate the number of calories they're burning, and then wonder why they can't lose weight.

Originally Posted by genejockey

It's entirely possible, but maybe not without paying attention to both sides of the Calorie equation. I say this because I lost 30 lbs last year. I was only able to do so by counting Calories rigorously and riding 3000 miles. It doesn't require a huge sacrifice in what you eat, just fewer snacks, smaller snacks, not going back for seconds quite as often, having a glass of water instead of yet another Coke or a beer. Those little things add up, and combined with Calorie-burning exercise, will take weight off.

BTW, I've also tried just riding a lot and NOT paying attention to what I eat. I got fitter, but never got below 220. Now I'm right around 200, +/-2 lbs, and have been for 7 months. I've also had years where I hardly lost weight at all, because I more than compensated at the dinner table for what I burned on the bike.

Originally Posted by Awesomeguy

do you continue to eat the same as you did when losing weight through calorie counting, or do you naturally eat less after weight loss? Like lower appetite?

Originally Posted by genejockey

or little 1/4 cup of nuts could be 1/5 of a days calories.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

So true! My mother-in-law has been trying to lose weight forever. She got the idea to eat nuts as a more healthy snack (which they are) but she didn’t take into account their calorie density. So she munched her way through large packets of nuts and wondered why she was still putting on weight. Whenever I eat nuts I literally weigh out a sensible portion size into a dish and put the bag out of reach!

Originally Posted by genejockey

Hmmmm. I eat a bit more than I did while losing the weight, but not as much as I did before. I'm more mindful of what I'm eating. And some days, I fall off the wagon. But a lot of it is paying attention when I'm shopping for food not to buy the things I'm likely to binge on. After calorie counting for most of a year, you remember things like a Coke is 1/8 of a day's calories, or little 1/4 cup of nuts could be 1/5 of a days calories.

Originally Posted by Awesomeguy

when you were cutting calories did you feel hungry and weak? I’ll give you an example if I cut 200 calories by switching to egg whites for breakfast I get so tired and weak, mind you I eat 3 meals a day and my breakfast is 750 calories , my largest meal (100g oatmeal, 4 whole eggs and banana ), and I have 1 snack between bf and lunch and lunch and dinner

Originally Posted by genejockey

That's not how I looked at it. Instead, I went with a website (MyFitnessPal) that took my weight and age, my target weight, and when I wanted to get there, and it gave me 2160 calories a day as a goal.

My usual breakfast is about 280 calories, which gets me through till 1 PM not feeling either weak or hungry. Then lunch is about 500 calories, and that gets me through till 6 PM. Dinner is about 900-1000 calories, and that leaves another 300 calories for snacking. If I ride, that's between 500 and 900 calories extra I can eat, depending on how long and how hard I ride. If you're not eating out and you're cooking your own food, a 900 calorie dinner can be quite a lot of food. Just don't eat fried crap.

The biggest problem for me is that I'm often really hungry by 6PM and if dinner isn't ready I can vacuum up the snacks.

Originally Posted by genejockey

That's not how I looked at it. Instead, I went with a website (MyFitnessPal) that took my weight and age, my target weight, and when I wanted to get there, and it gave me 2160 calories a day as a goal.

My usual breakfast is about 280 calories, which gets me through till 1 PM not feeling either weak or hungry. Then lunch is about 500 calories, and that gets me through till 6 PM. Dinner is about 900-1000 calories, and that leaves another 300 calories for snacking. If I ride, that's between 500 and 900 calories extra I can eat, depending on how long and how hard I ride. If you're not eating out and you're cooking your own food, a 900 calorie dinner can be quite a lot of food. Just don't eat fried crap.

The biggest problem for me is that I'm often really hungry by 6PM and if dinner isn't ready I can vacuum up the snacks.

Originally Posted by genejockey

Exactly. Once you start counting calories, you start discovering just how far off your estimates have been.

Originally Posted by Awesomeguy

how tall are you? And your total weight loss was 30lb sticking to 2160 calories?

Originally Posted by Branko D

When calculating calories based on power meter data, no - conventional wisdom has it that cyclists don't actually differ all that much (the range last I looked at studies - admittedly with trained cyclists - was about is +- 10%) when it comes to turning calories into watts. Of course your basal metabolic rate differs based on age, sex, weight, height and so on but taking that into account is a bit iffy - you'd have expended (a good part of) that anyway just being alive.

Generally, 200W (which on a road bike on flat terrain with no wind is good for about 31-35 km/hr depending on how aerodynamic you are and how efficient the bike is) requires about 720 kcal plus whatever your basic metabolic rate is (which depends on weight, sex, etc) comes out to let's say about 800 to get a nice round number, so 430 kcal for going hard for half a hour is entirely feasible (or more, or less).

As long as you're watchful what and how much of it you put in your mouth, cycling is going to help.

Originally Posted by Troul

if age, gender & lbs were not factors for the amount of calories burned, then explain why it's part of the one type of formula used.

Originally Posted by GhostRider62

Most of those formulas are for idiots.

Which formula is your favorite?

Originally Posted by Awesomeguy

This is interesting, so you think things like age, gender, and weight, make no difference when considering calories burned?

Also, if 200w on a road bike is equivalent to 31-35km/hr, what would the velocity to watts be, if i'm 15 mph on a fitness hybrid bike?