4 years to get fit

[AntLockyer]

Everything is going great so far. I have Mondays scheduled as no bike, I've done an hour at Zone 2 (120bpm HR) each day since then. Re-did my cleat position, messed with saddle angle a tiny bit. Trainer is not a nice place for my back side but I put Youtube on and just turn the pedals. I've been tricking myself too, I've had 1 slice of bread this week where normally I'd have 2 a day, 4 squares of chocolate in the evening not 8.

Keeping a log, I think I might look back and think the notes section is a bit cheesy. Will be fun for my future self

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

[RichTheRoadie]

I've been tricking myself too, I've had 1 slice of bread this week where normally I'd have 2 a day, 4 squares of chocolate in the evening not 8.

This is my downfall - and I'm probably worse now I'm full-time work from home with no intent of that changing. Any tips for someone with awful willpower most welcome!

[AntLockyer]

For me, it's about having a reason. I put on my old race jersey, I want it to fit round the middle and not look like I'm hiding something in there.

[Bewheels]

This is my downfall - and I'm probably worse now I'm full-time work from home with no intent of that changing. Any tips for someone with awful willpower most welcome!

One method is to not have it in the house. If it isn’t there to eat, you can’t eat it. :)

[AntLockyer]

Thats a good couple of weeks.
Screenshot_20201212-090901_MyFitnessPal.jpg

[guido]

The fat-burning heart-rate zone is a myth: How exercise and weight loss really work | Washington Post

"If you’re the kind of exerciser who constantly checks your heart rate to ensure you’re in the fat-burning zone, you should stop. You’ll probably never meet your weight-loss goals that way. That’s because there’s no special fat-burning zone that’s key to getting lean. Here’s what you need to know about the myth and about the true relationship between exercise and weight loss.
A burning question

Yes, we know. If you look at the wall charts or cardio equipment in a gym, or listen to many personal trainers, you’ll be indoctrinated about the “fat-burning zone.” The standard advice for getting in this zone is to workout at about 60 percent of your maximum heart rate. That level of exertion is relatively low intensity; most people can talk in complete sentences while exercising at it. Working in this zone, it’s said, will burn more fat and result in greater long-term weight loss, compared with doing the same exercise at higher intensities.

There’s substance to part of this claim. Your body primarily fuels itself by burning a mix of stored fat and carbohydrates. The less active you are at a given moment, the greater the percentage of that fuel mix comes from fat. As your intensity of activity increases, the percentage of carbohydrates in that fuel mix also increases. At rest, fat constitutes as much as 85 percent of calories burned. That figure shifts to about 70 percent at an easy walking pace. If you transition to a moderate-effort run, the mix becomes about 50 percent fat and 50 percent carbohydrates, and it moves increasingly toward carbohydrates the faster you go.

So, it’s true that at some workout intensities, you’re burning a higher percentage of fat than at other intensities. But that doesn’t mean this biological process is the key to losing weight from exercise. Experts explain that those who believe in a lard-melting zone simply aren’t seeing the forest — i.e., what it really takes to lose weight — for the fat-burning trees. They’re forgetting about calories.

Get out of the zone

First, although it might sound better for weight loss to burn a higher percentage of fat, the real-world effect of that intensity on your body composition is next to nil. “The idea that all of a sudden when you hit this zone the fat is just being sucked out of your system is simplistic,” says Christopher Breen, an exercise physiologist and online coach in Long Island. “That completely ignores that losing or maintaining weight is basically a matter of calories in versus calories out.”

If the key determinant of weight loss were the percentage of fat you’re burning, then your best bet would be to remain still, because that’s when you’re burning the highest percentage of fat relative to carbohydrates. But, as Breen says, total calories burned is what matters, and that fact leads to the second big problem with the fat-burning zone.

“If you’re exercising at this lower intensity, you’re burning fewer calories per minute,” says Christine Brooks, a University of Florida adjunct instructor and the coaching science coordinator for USA Track & Field. “The average person walking for an hour is going to burn only a couple hundred calories.” In that time, you could burn more than twice as many calories running, cycling or using an elliptical machine at a moderate intensity.

Let’s be real: When you schedule a workout, you probably think in terms of time, not number of calories burned. So, in the likely scenario that you have 30 or 45 minutes for exercise before or after work, you’re just not going to burn that many calories if you spend that time in the would-be fat-burning zone. “I’m all for people being more active, but most aren’t going to regularly put in the time at a lower intensity to create a calorie deficit,” Brooks says.

Also, if you want to get all geeky, the math argues against the fat-burning zone. Walk two miles in an hour, and you’ll burn about 200 calories, with roughly 140 of them fueled by fat. Cycle moderately for that time, and you’ll burn about 500 calories, with about 250 of them fueled by fat — so you’ll burn more calories and more fat. “When I worked with people in a gym, I would tell them, ‘Ultimately, it’s a matter of calories; the fat burn will take care of itself,’ ” Breen says.

Another chit for more vigorous workouts: You get an after-burn effect. “You maintain a higher metabolic rate after higher ­intensity exercise,” Brooks says. “The reason is that more damage is being done to various systems, so you have an increased heart rate while the body is making its necessary repairs.”
Get the balance right

“I have a real beef with the way this fat-burning idea is promoted,” Brooks says. “It’s a very strange way to talk about exercise.” She and Breen agree that the myth persists because it’s an easy concept to grasp. “It’s a way of making exercise machines more appealing — if I’m working at this speed, I’ll burn more fat than at another speed,” Breen says.

None of this is to suggest low-intensity exercise is a waste of time. Even the top athletes in the world regularly and purposefully work out at a light effort. A gentle jog or easy spin is a great way to clear your head, get reenergized, improve your health, spend time with friends and family, and, yes, burn some calories.

“Mix it up,” Breen says about structuring your workouts. “Have some harder, high-intensity days, followed by easier, low-intensity recovery days.” Also aim for different durations. When you have the time, do longer workouts at a comfortable level of effort. When you’re pressed for time, work a little harder. The table in our guide to heart-rate training will help you construct a well-rounded exercise program.

Variety in your workouts will keep you fresher physically and mentally than if you do the same thing day after day after day. That freshness will make it more likely that you exercise consistently. And that’s the zone that will result in long-term weight loss."

[ides1056]

When I lived in NYC I rode in Central Park every day. There was a woman who began riding one day. She was about 300 lbs I would have guessed. I'd see her routinely, year after year. Three or four years in she was 140 or so.

Just do it a day at a time.

[AntLockyer]

Appreciate the input. My training is for fitness, the weight loss will come through a combination of that and calories. I'm loosely working base, build and speciality training. Although with no specific goals at the moment I'm content with getting a solid base and doing some general build work in a few months that will enable me to get around my local environment a bit better. Ultimately I'd like to be able to ride my bike for several hours at a time and enjoy it with little pain other than general fatigue.

[rgordin]

Very helpful thread. I am 72 and managed to drop my weight from about 198 lbs to 173 lbs over about 16 months. One thing that helped me was buying a health scale and forcing myself to get on it first thing every morning. I think just that discipline kept me mindful of what I was eating and my daily activity. The weight part of the scale has been accurate. Although things like body fat percentage and bone density are not accurate on a home health scale, at least I could see my relative progress, or lack thereof, each day. I also began to notice things I did or ate during the day and the apparent effect they had over the next few days. Based on those observations, I began to limit how many meals I had with bread or pasta, for example. Over time, I did not deny myself anything I liked. But I did begin to change my eating habits.

[AntLockyer]

The couple of weeks since starting this thread have been great. I realised after a bit that I'd probably gone too hard in week 1 an hour a day is hard to build from when it is trainer 5 days a week at the moment, so I scaled back to half hour on the trainer. Did a threshold HR test and generally enjoyed the process of improving my health.

In that time I've messed about with bike setup quite a bit, always having the allen key set to hand. e-Richie said many years ago "be the fitter atmo", i.e. don't rely on someone else to tell you what you should be doing. With this advice in hand I've listened to my body and myself. I had some notions that were flat out wrong. My saddle was too high, this was because fitters had put me there to open up my hip angle at the top. It's not where I need to be and I settled on a much lower height. I have never been comfortable on a saddle and have tried many over the years. I'm now pretty sure a lot of this was due to having my saddle too high. It was exasperated by a silly notion of how you are supposed to sit on a saddle.

hampstenorp.jpg

That rearward pelvis rotation was mostly due to saddle discomfort I guess, also riding the wrong saddles because of my 'lack of flexibility'. I can just about touch my toes with a lot of effort. So I was riding saddles for the inflexible. Now I have my saddle somewhere right, I can rotate my pelvis forward, gain a bunch of additional body reach and am comfortable on the Fizik Arione that I should have been on all the time because my pelvis is flexible even though my hamstrings aren't.

I still get discomfort in my neck/upper back from looking forward when riding. That's the main focus right now when riding, working out how to relax that stuff and what needs to change on the bike, if anything. I'm riding a shorter stem that in that pic, I still feel like I could be shorter when I'm on the bike but we will see how another 50 hours on the bike changes that and whether going longer again ends up being the play. The picture above would suggest that is the right stem length but I know that's not the way to decide.

[rgordin]

So, FWIW. I was having issues around the neck and the back of my head. A fitter told me to sit keeping my lower back straight. When he had me do this, it actually felt like I was bending my lower back inward toward my belly rather than outward. In other words, from my point of view, I was pulling my lower back by arching it inward. But from his viewpoint, my back was straight. This resulted in a slightly more upright position. I now try to mentally think of my back as solid, attached at the waist like a door hinge. So if I lean down a bit, I try to move the hinge at the waist and not push up with my back to push my front down. This helped the neck issue a lot. Looking at the photo, your lower back is curved outward and your neck is bent back. But then, what do I know? Not much but you might try it.

[AntLockyer]

Yes, what you describe is how I am riding now, not the curved back in the older picture. Still get the neck issue, might just be conditioning, time will tell.

[Mabouya]

In my experience it's a lot simpler to not ingest calories in the first place than it is to eat them then burn them off via exercise. The human body is just too darn efficient to lose a lot a weight exercising, unless you have a tons of spare of time on your hands.

I've also found that the easiest way to reduce calories in a significant manner without going on some super-regimented diet (assuming you've already cut out the junk calories and are eating a generally healthy diet) is to reduce calories at supper and go to bed slightly hungry. You can't eat or snack if you're sleeping, and being hungry doesn't bother you (at least not consciously).

[Clean39T]

In my experience it's a lot simpler to not ingest calories in the first place than it is to eat them then burn them off via exercise. The human body is just too darn efficient to lose a lot a weight exercising, unless you have a tons of spare of time on your hands.

I've also found that the easiest way to reduce calories in a significant manner without going on some super-regimented diet (assuming you've already cut out the junk calories and are eating a generally healthy diet) is to reduce calories at supper and go to bed slightly hungry. You can't eat or snack if you're sleeping, and being hungry doesn't bother you (at least not consciously).

Maybe, but sleep is important and if a grumbling tummy keeps you up or prevents you from recovering, that's not a good trade-off.

Eating till you're full with a high-carb, high-fiber, low-junk, low-(or no) animal product diet and training moderately hard pretty much guarantees fat loss. Especially if alcohol is also eliminated.

[ides1056]

Just eat half. Anything put in front of you: half.

[AntLockyer]

The weight loss is the easy part in all this, biggest hurdle right now is ability to sit on a bicycle for several hours. I think like everything else relayed to my goal it will largely be dealt with by spending a lot of time on a bicycle.

That's the beauty of all this, my goal is basically be good at riding a bike, which means just ride a lot. Doesn't really 'need to be any more complex than that.

People may remember this thread from back in the day. It has played a big part in motivating me in the right direction. I want to be riding fast bikes fast and well. I want to look good and elevate myself above the norm.

[ides1056]

Two hours a day, six days a week. Ride a fixed gear.

[Mabouya]

Maybe, but sleep is important and if a grumbling tummy keeps you up or prevents you from recovering, that's not a good trade-off.

True, but in my case I don't let it get to the point where my stomach is grumbling or it prevents me from sleeping. It ends up being a "no snacks after supper" rule, and if I'm mildly thinking it might be nice to have something a few hours after supper I just don't do it.

[AntLockyer]

I don't eat in the morning. I'm never hungry, and always have things to do. I can go out on my bike for 2 hours, blood sugar doesn't change in that time. Come back and eat. I have to have 20 grams of carbs more than I take insulin for and that gives me a steady bs reading into dinner time.

I got a new set of scales for Christmas, they read 2kg more than the previous ones it seems. I've managed to lose 0.5kg since Christmas day, so in the right direction, maybe too fast, we will see.

[rec head]

Consistency is more important than accuracy with the scale. Losing weight over the holidays on its own is something to be proud of.

I saw you also mention in the Ride Thread about being comfortable for long rides. I think planks, pushups and downward dogs are pretty common recommendations. I don't know if what I do would be considered yoga but I have stolen some of their moves. With the downward dog I always thought of it as a calf and lower back stretch. Then I realized I could try and push my hands and feet away from each other and use those muscles instead of the lame stretch I was getting. It has been pretty helpful.