how do i lose a stone

feck sake lads

anybody got any good insight on how to loose a stone in weight .
i've cut out all the sweet things for lent but nothing is moving im still a stone over weight ,im getting some good spin's in this past couple weeks but i just find no matter what i do i cant loose any weight.
any thoughts lads thanks.

Nietzschean

just cycle more really, long easy cycles, try to have sensible food prepared at home before you head out so you don't order in takeaway when you get back.....

Nate--IRL--

feck sake lads wrote: »

anybody got any good insight on how to loose a stone in weight .
i've cut out all the sweet things for lent but nothing is moving im still a stone over weight ,im getting some good spin's in this past couple weeks but i just find no matter what i do i cant loose any weight.
any thoughts lads thanks.

Might be an Idea to ask on the fitness forum too. Read the stickies over there for more info on Diet.

90% of your weight loss will be achieved through diet.

Nate

Oh and it is Lose not Loose (sorry pet hate of mine)

RobAMerc

if you have only given up since the start of lent I think you are expecting a bit much a bit too soon.
I also notice that ny weight stays the same for a long while and then I lose 4 or lbs without doing anything differently.

As others have said - 1 = diet and 2 = long slow exercise.

Plastik

It's taken me about 7 months to lose 2 stone. Losing it ain't easy, not as easy as putting it on that's for sure! I reckon I have another 1 to go - which will probably be the hardest to cut.

Nietzschean

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

90% of your weight loss will be achieved through diet.

to each their own, but within 2/3 weeks of starting to loose weight i was eating more than i ever had, granted probably better food, but lots of it...

blorg

Weight loss is most effectively done through diet if you are overweight.

This does not apply to you Nietzschean as you were not overweight to start with.

Lumen

Eat less, move more.

projectmayhem

Nietzschean wrote: »

to each their own, but within 2/3 weeks of starting to loose weight i was eating more than i ever had, granted probably better food, but lots of it...

I was never overweight but unhappy with gaining an extra stone or two last year, so decided to sort it out. I eat more, and more regularly now then I did before. Often not eating can cause weight gain because you're body's not processing food at a decent rate, so you'll have huge meals you cannot process fast enough before the next huge meal.

Smaller portioned, concentrated meals 3 times a day (and if you really want to push it, 5 smaller meals a day are great). Make sure the meals are good for you. Using the weight watchers point system you can get a good grasp of what to eat and help cut out rubbish... and also get creative with what you make (i.e. peppers, tomato's and things like that are points-free in WW). It's a good food calculator.

Cycling is a great way to get fit but as others said, you won't necessarily lose the weight JUST by cycling alone. Cycling will do you wonders though, particularly for toning your body and building muscle as you drop weight.

Good luck with it!

TurloughT

Lumen wrote: »

Eat less, move more.

& be patient.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

Eat less, move more.

+1. All else is elaboration.

I'd place the emphasis on the first half of the above though. It might take me an hour to burn 500 calories, but I can consume that in less time than it takes a kettle to boil. Damn bikkies. Mmmm.

serendip

Concentrate on diet -- basically eating less -- and don't get carried away on exercise. When I step up my exercise levels -- more cycling, more running -- I just end up permanently hungry, eating more as a result and putting on weight.

So, eat just a little bit less or perhaps a little bit better, and be patient ... but don't try to work it off.

(But I'm sure you'll find plenty others who'll disagree.)

Nietzschean

blorg wrote: »

Weight loss is most effectively done through diet if you are overweight.

This does not apply to you Nietzschean as you were not overweight to start with.

BMI of 31.9 , 100kg, would have made me not overweight but obese yeah....

joker77

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Might be an Idea to ask on the fitness forum too. Read the stickies over there for more info on Diet.

90% of your weight loss will be achieved through diet.

Nate

Oh and it is Lose not Loose (sorry pet hate of mine)

What he said.

serendip

Ohhh. And here's another one.

One (k)calorie is the amount of energy it takes to raise one litre of water by 1 degree centigrade. That's a diet plan right there. You lose 37 calories just by drinking a litre of ice cold water. You lose plenty of calories just by going to the beach and sitting in the water for a while.

(I haven't tried this myself -- YMMV.)

Nietzschean

serendip wrote: »

Ohhh. And here's another one.

One (k)calorie is the amount of energy it takes to raise one litre of water by 1 degree centigrade. That's a diet plan right there. You lose 37 calories just by drinking a litre of ice cold water. You lose plenty of calories just by going to the beach and sitting in the water for a while.

(I haven't tried this myself -- YMMV.)

bit off topic for the cycling forum i suppose, but last i read on this there has been studies to show the energy loss is trivially useless from drinking cold water....

anoble66

my advice would be eat less bad carbohydrates...main example would be white bread, and up your protein intake. Increasing your protein helps maintain and build muscle, when your body is doing this its burning more calories.

Eat porrige for breakfast - porrige increases your body's metabolism allowing you to burn calories quicker - also helps lower your cholesterol and blood pressure.

Dont ever allow yourself to feel hungry. 4-5 small meals a day is way better for you than 2-3 large meals. If you ever feel hungry eat something eg fruit etc, or your brain will effectively put your body into survival mode and will slow your metabolism right now - therefore storing fat.

c0rk3r

Im just going to copy and paste what i wrote on the fitness forum earlier

Cycling, calories and losing weight
I've just been trying to get to grips with this too but a couple of things first.

Spend some money on an HRM which tells you the calories you burn. That takes all the guesswork out and it's the most useful money I've spent.

Then find out what your base metabolic rate is (what you need to take in if all you're doing is nothing!)

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/...

You'll find that would be below the 2-2500 we're told; that would depend on what you do with your day.

Say a person's BMR is 1500 and on top of that they burn 500 calories a day going about their normal business (exclude exercise just now)

If they consume 2000 and use 2000 calories a day they will stay at a roughly constant weight.

It takes about 3500 calories to put on or lose a pound of fat; that's the figure either way.

If all else remains the same and that person increased their intake by 500 calories a day, by the end of the week they will have gained 7 x 500 calories = 3500 cals or 1lb in weight.

If all else remains the same and that person decreased their intake by 500 calories a day, by the end of the week they will have lost 7 x 500 calories = 3500 cals or 1lb in weight.

I use my heart rate monitor to see what I'm burning up compared with what I take in.
If I'm doing a steady ride at 75-80% max heart rate I use about 700 calories per hour.
If I'm doing a fast ride at 90+% max heart rate I use about 1000 calories per hour.
The lower rate is more efficient at burning fat where the higher rate simply burns off the sugars (glycogen) you have stored.

Those are the sort of figures I have to look at but we're all different.

Im not too good at the diet side of things. Im of the opinion that i can eat whatever i like as long as i burn it off. Im sure people are looking at that in horror but i enjoy eating the odd mars bars, crisps etc just don't go overboard.

I intend on losing 4kilos over 3 weeks. Just lash the heart rate up to 181 for an hour or more for 4 days over 3 weeks and hey presto, job done... i think

Good luck with it anyway

serendip

Nietzschean wrote: »

bit off topic for the cycling forum i suppose, but last i read on this there has been studies to show the energy loss is trivially useless from drinking cold water....

Yes. I agree. It's a scientific curiosity, but not a great diet plan. The 37 kcal from a whole litre of ice cold water is probably the same as abstaining from about half a cookie.

bcmf

A couple of things I was taught. That doesn't mean I abide by them but they work.
Cut your portions in half for everything.
Once you start doing this your body will start to compensate by shedding excess water and burning off the 'easy' fat very quickly and you will drop a stone in no time.
Getting the other stones off will be a long more drawn out process. As mentioned above Weight watchers is a great way to taech about food.
Dont exercise to justify your eating. No point in going out and burning off 2000cals just to justify a pizza.

Lumen

serendip wrote: »

Yes. I agree. It's a scientific curiosity, but not a great diet plan. The 37 kcal from a whole litre of ice cold water is probably the same as abstaining from about half a cookie.

I'd have thought that your body will just move blood away from the skin to keep your core temperature the same.

Sitting in an ice bath would help, as you'd shiver. Eating less is easier.

Maybe sit in an ice bath whilst munching celery.

blorg

If you are overweight diet is most important.

If you are racing weight and looking at a hill climb exercise is most important. Racing and sensible eating will probably sort you out.

These are very different situations; I have been in both.

Nietzschean

blorg wrote: »

If you are overweight diet is most important.

My only point was that it is possible to do it without diet, modulating ones intake away from excessively fatty foods is probably a necessity but i managed 24kg weight loss over a 6 month period eating 3000+ calories per day. Now this did take 18 - 21hours a week in the gym but if one has the time for it....

Pete M.

Throw it onto a pebbly beach?

blorg

Nietzschean wrote: »

My only point was that it is possible to do it without diet, modulating ones intake away from excessively fatty foods is probably a necessity but i managed 24kg weight loss over a 6 month period eating 3000+ calories per day. Now this did take 18 - 21hours a week in the gym but if one has the time for it....

It depends where exactly where one is and what one's habits are, I was significantly more overweight but if you look at the effort to burn X compared to the intake for most people diet is more significant. 15 stone is not that overweight, different tactics could apply there. I want to lose now to do the Marmotte but am looking at racing not diet.

lamai

Nietzschean wrote: »

just cycle more really, long easy cycles, try to have sensible food prepared at home before you head out so you don't order in takeaway when you get back.....

that's bloody good advice!!!!!

blorg

lamai wrote: »

that's bloody good advice!!!!!

Sorry, I take it all back, if a stone is all you need to lose that is all you need to do. If you have problems motivating yourself on the exercise front consider your diet.

Nietzschean

blorg wrote: »

It depends where exactly where one is and what one's habits are, I was significantly more overweight but if you look at the effort to burn X compared to the intake for most people diet is more significant. 15 stone is not that overweight, different tactics could apply there.

Quite possibly, more I never managed to stick a diet, while excessive level's of exercise/gym somehow i could manage(oooh suffer fest). Nothing quite like counting the number of tiles in a ceiling, blocks in the wall or seconds in an hour to pass the time....

I want to lose now to do the Marmotte but am looking at racing not diet.

you could possibly do more cycling? i'm fairly sure you have a setup where you can cycle while asleep....

blorg

serendip wrote: »

Yes. I agree. It's a scientific curiosity, but not a great diet plan. The 37 kcal from a whole litre of ice cold water is probably the same as abstaining from about half a cookie.

I'd sit in this ice bath if I get to eat a cookie, where is it exactly?

Dunphus

Nietzschean wrote: »

My only point was that it is possible to do it without diet, modulating ones intake away from excessively fatty foods is probably a necessity but i managed 24kg weight loss over a 6 month period eating 3000+ calories per day. Now this did take 18 - 21hours a week in the gym but if one has the time for it....

Yeow, nice one man, well done!

sy

RobaMerc has given the best advice here. Watch what you eat and long easy spins. You have to train your body to burn fat and that involves prolonged exercise over many hours. Be patient and the weight will slowly start to disappear. It will take many weeks for this to kick in. Just be careful with the food intake.

AstraMonti

Very easy, just go in Spain and get Gastroenteritis.

6/2/2010: 78kgs
12/3/2010: 71.5kgs

Expect to be out of action for at least 3 weeks! I think if I go out tomorrow and do 100kms I 'll probably faint. So.. any Saturday boards spin?

Lumen

This "slow cycling trains your body to burn fat" business doesn't really make any sense to me.

If you cycle slowly, you'll get good at cycling slowly.

If you cycle fast, you'll get good at cycling fast (and cycling slowly).

Either way, if you use more energy than you eat you'll lose weight.

Of course, it's easier to cycle for 20 hours a week at 50% intensity than 10 hours a week at 100% intensity, but neither are necessary for weight loss.

I think it's better to just decide what sort of cycling you find fun, do that, and eat fewer calories.

I honestly don't believe it is possible to avoid losing weight whilst cycling a decent amount unless you eat crap. You'd need to be eating about 5 litres of porridge every day to consume 3000 calories.

irishmotorist

Lumen wrote: »

This "slow cycling trains your body to burn fat" business doesn't really make any sense to me.

If you cycle slowly, you'll get good at cycling slowly.

If you cycle fast, you'll get good at cycling fast (and cycling slowly).

Either way, if you use more energy than you eat you'll lose weight.

I've gathered from past reading (and also backed up by Username-in-use above http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64870380&postcount=18) that if you're at a very high percentage of your MHR then you are burning sugars which I imagine as active or short term energy - e.g. the mars bar or whatever you just ate. RAM if you will. If you're at a lower output (e.g. approx 80% of your MHR) then you'll be burning energy from your long term storage/fat or Hard Disk if you will.

Your RAM holds less but gives you more instant results.
Your HDD holds more and shows it's use over a longer stint.

That said, I tend to be a bit stupid at following these things to these might be totally wrong. Particularly the RAM and HDD bit.

Gavin

Hey Blorg where are some fatty and post fatty pictures to encourage the weight losing folks of the cycling forum ?

Gavin

irishmotorist wrote: »

That said, I tend to be a bit stupid at following these things to these might be totally wrong. Particularly the RAM and HDD bit.

Yeah I'd have gone for on-die cache myself for anerobic

Lumen

irishmotorist wrote: »

I've gathered from past reading (and also backed up by Username-in-use above http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64870380&postcount=18) that if you're at a very high percentage of your MHR then you are burning sugars which I imagine as active or short term energy - e.g. the mars bar or whatever you just ate. RAM if you will. If you're at a lower output (e.g. approx 80% of your MHR) then you'll be burning energy from your long term storage/fat or Hard Disk if you will.

None of that matters. The only thing that matters is your calorie budget at the end of the day. If you burn more short term energy (glycogen), it just gets replaced by calories from your diet and fat stores.

If you use more calories than you burn, you will lose weight. That's it.

mloc123

I have lost 7 stone over the past 16months or so. My advice is keep it simple, more calories out than in. Work out your daily requirements, the 2500 figure giving for an average man is too high imo. Cycle, run... do something you enjoy.

Each day work out how many calories you have eaten and how many extra you have burned through excercise and aim to come in 500 under. Give it time, you'll have good weeks/months and bad weeks/months but if you stick at it..

irishmotorist

Lumen wrote: »

None of that matters. The only thing that matters is your calorie budget at the end of the day. If you burn more short term energy (glycogen), it just gets replaced by calories from your diet and fat stores.

If you use more calories than you burn, you will lose weight. That's it.

Are you sure about that? If you're out for a whole day and you don't eat at all, your sugar will run too low and you'll bonk and go no further. However, being out for the day and eating as you go along will help keep the sugar levels adaquate while burning fat. If you try to go out and hammer it from the beginning keeping yourself at 95%, you won't last very long - or I won't at least. Long term fuel won't do much good to help here. This indicates to me that the 2 fuel types are used differently.

cdaly_

Lumen wrote: »

I honestly don't believe it is possible to avoid losing weight whilst cycling a decent amount unless you eat crap.

Ahem. <looks in mirror>...


But it's all turning to muscle, honestly...

Lumen

irishmotorist wrote: »

Are you sure about that? If you're out for a whole day and you don't eat at all, your sugar will run too low and you'll bonk and go no further. However, being out for the day and eating as you go along will help keep the sugar levels adaquate while burning fat. If you try to go out and hammer it from the beginning keeping yourself at 95%, you won't last very long - or I won't at least. Long term fuel won't do much good to help here. This indicates to me that the 2 fuel types are used differently.

Sure about what? The only thing that matters from a weight loss perspective is the calorie budget.

If you're going for long hard cycles without eating, you'll bonk. So eat on the bike. It won't make any difference to your weight loss provided that your end of day calorie budget is the same.

My basic point is: don't overthink it. Cycle for enjoyment, and control your calorie intake such that you'll lose weight.

Find me an overweight person who does a reasonable amount of aerobic exercise, doesn't drink alcohol and doesn't eat deep fried foods, sweets, crisps, chocolates or desserts. I don't believe they exist.

I used to share a flat with a woman who claimed she could never lose weight and didn't eat excessive amounts. She did no exercise and regularly ate an entire packet of chocolate digestives, each one smothered in extra chocolate or toffee spread. She weighed about 20st. It's not rocket science.

tunney

The "exercise slowly to burn fat" lark is excelelent 1980s sports science advice.

blorg

AstraMonti wrote: »

Very easy, just go in Spain and get Gastroenteritis.

Indeed, I was fortunate enough to get swine flu over the winter and came out of it around 3kg lighter.

Lumen wrote: »

This "slow cycling trains your body to burn fat" business doesn't really make any sense to me.

It does work, or it did for me. The problems with high intensity are (1) you CAN'T do that without fuelling it. Even if you are overweight you will bonk if doing high intensity without eating. Very difficult to put in high intensity efforts while also on a diet. (2) It is simply more difficult to do high intensity efforts while it is relatively easy to do long and slow. You can also do long and slow while on a calorie-restricted diet.

If you cycle slowly, you'll get good at cycling slowly.

I started cycling slowly and then got faster once I lost the weight.

I honestly don't believe it is possible to avoid losing weight whilst cycling a decent amount unless you eat crap.

Then why are there so many overweight cyclists? Even racing ones, just look around you in a race.

Gavin wrote: »

Hey Blorg where are some fatty and post fatty pictures to encourage the weight losing folks of the cycling forum ?

Hmm, they predate digital cameras. :pac:

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

Then why are there so many overweight cyclists? Even racing ones, just look around you in a race.

Because they eat too much crap.

lukester

The LSD/fat burning approach is flawed. If you have an hour to ride, the faster you go the more calories you'll burn in total. The percentage of those burned from fat will be lower, but the overall total will be higher. Read a good article on this recently which I can't find right now, will try to remember where I saw it.

For someone who is new to cycling, and just wants to lose weight, it's probably more important to just be able to enjoy the exercise, so LSD makes sense from that perspective.

Re diet, cut out the crap, and favour low GI foods- these convert to sugar more slowly, and keep you feeling full for longer.

xz

I personally find that cycling alone does not help me lose the weight, which I also have to work on. A couple of years ago when I started cycling, I found that combing it with walking and a sensible diet was more effective. The walking is great and combined with the cycling was a great way to lose weight as you are in effect exercising with both impact and non impact on your legs. At least 3 good walks of 30 mins to an hour a week combined with your cycling and a sensible diet should help. I lost 3 stone in about 3 months, which sounds excessive, but I was 20 stone, aim to lose no more than 2-3 lbs a week.
This is the regime I am going to re-embark on as I have been fairly inactive since before Xmas, and have put back on a stone

irishmotorist

Lumen wrote: »

Sure about what? The only thing that matters from a weight loss perspective is the calorie budget.

I agree that the calorie budget is the most important thing, but it's not the only thing. You can't just consider calorie budget and throw the rest out the window. Neglecting to pace yourself because you think that faster and harder is always better is one example of something that should also be considered. Of course there are a million other things that might be more important, this is just one thing that I've read in several places that might be helpful and is easier, imo, than measuring e.g. your protein:carb:fat ratio or other things that I'm not particularly adept at.

Lumen

irishmotorist wrote: »

I agree that the calorie budget is the most important thing, but it's not the only thing. You can't just consider calorie budget and throw the rest out the window. Neglecting to pace yourself because you think that faster and harder is always better is one example of something that should also be considered.

I'm not sure that we disagree. I wasn't recommending hard, fast cycling, I was recommending fun cycling and proper diet. Obviously fast rides tend to be shorter than slow ones. Personally, I have always been unable to cycle at fat burning pace, it bores the hell out of me.

Dietary management is just much more important than the finer points of whether you've cycled at 400 calories an hour for four hours or 700 calories an hour for two hours. The difference is only 200 calories, which is less than one Twix.

lukester

Lumen wrote: »

The difference is only 200 calories, which is less than one Twix.

I'd sell a nut for a Twix right now. Or any confectionery for that matter.

fasty

I don't get much exercise apart from my 10 mile daily commute into work. I'm just not bothered going to the gym. I tend to try and do that cycle as quickly as possible and I lost 1/2 of the stone I put on over winter in no time. I'm still a bit tubby though!

In terms of diet, I just cut out junk, booze and eased up on the size of paste/potato/rice/bread portions a tiny bit while upping the amount of veg.

irishmotorist

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure that we disagree. I wasn't recommending hard, fast cycling, I was recommending fun cycling and proper diet. Obviously fast rides tend to be shorter than slow ones. Personally, I have always been unable to cycle at fat burning pace, it bores the hell out of me.

I had been thinking the same thing myself. We'll agree to agree so