how much gym work and how much riding?

[copaiba]

need to drop 50 pounds AND build/tone muscles to get back in cycling shape. My plan is to eat and act as though i'm at my desired weight and be healthy about it. I'm a foodie and limiting myself to protein shakes and egg white omelets makes me very cranky so I'm going to try to count calories, do 5 hours of cardio a week, weight resistance 2-3 times a week. My question is, is this an average amount of exercise for people at their desired weight and NOT dieting? (never at my desired weight long enough!) and how much road cycling equals this kind of gym work?
any comments welcome!

[shootingstar]

Hard to know equivalent energy expenditure of what you are mapping out and how it compares to road cycling..when we are not certain about how many hours of cycling and degree of intensity.

But 50 lbs. sounds significant enough that you still need to adjust your food intake --decrease/eliminate types of unhealthy foods, limit size portions for good stuff, etc.

Unless you plan to lose 50 lbs. by cycling across the U.S. and eat same amount of food now.

The rule of thumb is to burn more than what you eat on a daily basis or similar.

To eat meals and feel 80% full.

YOu probably know how you ramped up to 50 additional lbs. from desired weight..

[kat_h]

I've been losing some weight lately, not really on purpose even. I'm not an expert but this is what's done it for me.

I like food. I like some things that are not so good for me, and a lot of things that are. I try to eats lots of the things that are good. At dinner time I fill half of my plate with salad and other veggies. That way I'm still eating lots but I figure no one ever got fat from too much broccoli (as long as it doesn't have a cheese sauce.) Steam some broccoli, add a little soy sauce and some sesame seeds and you're good to go.

I also hate exercise. It's boring. That's part of why I got into cycling. I don't see it as exercise. I see it as a cheap way to commute and a good way to explore. I also enjoy skating, hockey, skiing, and paintball. They're fun. Any calories burned are beside the point.

There was a great post last week that said eat food, not too much, mostly plants. I like that, and I'd like to add to it go outside and play.

[RoadRaven]

If you want to lose weight, remember not to do too much strength/power work in the gym. That type of work-out builds muscle and muscle and muscle weighs more than fat...

In my first year of cycling (and I pretty-much only cycle) I lost only a few kgs, but I did drop two dress sizes... So my body changed shape and lost fat, but because I was building muscle, the change was not so noticeable on the scales.

Like you, I don't want to (so don't) diet. I do watch what I eat and minimise fatty and sugar foods. "They" say to lose weight you should be lifting your heart rate to speed up your metabolism, but not to the point where you can't talk.

And be prepared for permanant weight loss by exercise to take time. If you have not done alot of exercise before, remember you are asking your heart, your lungs, your muscles to start responding to your demands in different ways - this is a metabolic change. It takes time. Its hard, but you should try and be patient.

[Zen]

My plan is to eat and act as though i'm at my desired weight and be healthy about it

No can do. You'll be starving yourself.
Try Weight Watchers. At least go long enough to get the required materials to do it on your own.
I lost 40 lbs using their points system and got my initial education about healthy eating there (i've since learned a lot more through college classes and other reading).

I know there are quite a few WW success stories on TE.

[Tuckervill]

No can do. You'll be starving yourself.

How so?

If you mean going from 2500 calories a day to 1500 calories a day, that might feel like starvation, but it really would only feel that way until you adjusted.

Didn't someone say here recently that it was recommended to them to determine the maintenance calorie level required for the desired weight, eat that, and let your weight "drift down"? I think that's what the poster is suggesting she is going to do, in so many words.

That's not starvation, unless it is under about 1300 calories. Active people of normal weight for their height who exercise can eat more than 1300 calories to maintain their weight.

Karen

[jayjay]

.... determine the maintenance calorie level required for the desired weight, eat that, and let your weight "drift down"? I think that's what the poster is suggesting she is going to do, in so many words.

That's not starvation, unless it is under about 1300 calories. Active people of normal weight for their height who exercise can eat more than 1300 calories to maintain their weight. Karen

I am so glad I found this thread ! I am very much like the author of this thread, 50 pounds over my ideal (I'll bargain at a 40lb weightloss, however), and need to calculate the Ultimate Lifestyle for my healthy weight, and just PLUG IT IN. I am starting today, figuring out the caloric needs to maintain 135, late 40's, with very active lifestyle of hiking most mornings with young spirited very athletic GermanShepherd , and afternoons of either a bike ride or another hike (with doggo). Then figure the calories around it, and I know I'll start losing a lot right away, and eventually it will slowdown, until I find the right balance. In the mean time, I will have gotten a lot of practice for my ultimate weight and lifestyle diet needs, catered around the whole foods I cook from scratch (including a treat of a little bit of homemade icecream most days (with less fat, less sugar!) and a big slice of homemade wholegrain toast some mornings , with a little bit of butter or a little more of peanut butter.)

I realize there must be so many diet programs which cash in on a dieter readjusting needs as they go.. making it very complex and very difficult for many people to adhere to, most importantly, never even reaching that level of 'reasonable maintenance' lifestyle that the dieter is working towards. In my thinking , I need to learn Who, Where, and What that point is. I must carefully calculate Who I am, What my cravings are, and Who I want to be, and theoretically figure out the plan according to ME, and then just Do It. It will be really hard at first, but it will get easier and easier and easier, and when I reach my goal weight, I will have had at least a year of maintenance practice.

[velogirl]

If you want to lose weight, remember not to do too much strength/power work in the gym. That type of work-out builds muscle and muscle and muscle weighs more than fat...

Roadraven, this statement is very misleading. I absolutely advocate resistance training for my weight-loss clients and use it when I want to lean down as well.


while muscle may be heavier than adipose/fat, most women will not bulk up because they lack sufficient testosterone. this is even more true later in life.

however, muscle burns more calories than fat does, which means the more muscle tissue you have on your body, the more calories you're going to burn just sitting around. this is a good thing.

[Zen]

That statement is misleading in another way as well.

One cubic inch of muscle cells weigh more than one cubic inch of fat cells.

or

a five pound mass of muscle cells is smaller than a five pound mass of fat cells.

or

a 140 pound woman who is 19% body fat but is more muscular wears a size eight

while a 140 pound woman who is 24% body fat and less muscular wears a size twelve.

[Wahine]

Roadraven, this statement is very misleading. I absolutely advocate resistance training for my weight-loss clients and use it when I want to lean down as well.


while muscle may be heavier than adipose/fat, most women will not bulk up because they lack sufficient testosterone. this is even more true later in life.

however, muscle burns more calories than fat does, which means the more muscle tissue you have on your body, the more calories you're going to burn just sitting around. this is a good thing.

+1 this is a very important point.

As for weight loss and eating, eating 80% of required calories is the optimal level for weight loss while maintaining a good metabolic hormone profile. If you eat less your metabolism goes haywire. Realize that required calories means recommended daily intake which for women is estimated as 1500 to 2000 calories a day (but is quite a bit higher if you're muscular), plus whatever you expend during exercise.

[copaiba]

Thank you all for your replies.
OK. I do think this is interesting because i like math - its SO abstract. I am 185 lbs and to lose weight I would eat 80% of calories needed to maintain a light to moderately active lifestyle= 1600-1900 calories. I want to be 135 lbs and that would require 1600-2100 calories to maintain. So a 1500 calorie/ 5 meals a day plus a cookie diet would work, right? Assuming I restrict sugar and refined/ over-processed foods, eat enough protein with veggies AND
If I do 2-3 weight resistance workouts per week, I should preserve muscle if not gain muscle. Right? I also just saw a guy who lifts 2-3 times a week instead of the 6 times he used to lift and his NECK SHRUNK thank god; he's more lean and less bulky which really is what I want. Bulking up is way too easy for me.
Good grief, it sounds so simple, doesn't it? Too simple? Balancing calories and exercise is so tricky when you look like a pre-columbian fertility goddess and you want to look as much like Charlize Theron as possible!
But I really love riding the bike, not going to the gym, and the reason for the weight gain is a knee injury caused by overtraining muscles that obviously weren't strong enough. I wasn't squatting, lunging, doing sit-ups, flies or stretching at the time so I guess my question is: how much of that stuff do you guys do? My goal is to tour on my bike - 40 to 70 miles a day - and the longest ride i've ever done was 45 miles - one day.
I really am not a natural athlete so skiing, paintball or anything fast isn't that fun for me. I like belly-dancing (not good at it, just like trying)...and hiking.

[RoadRaven]

Roadraven, this statement is very misleading. I absolutely advocate resistance training for my weight-loss clients and use it when I want to lean down as well.


while muscle may be heavier than adipose/fat, most women will not bulk up because they lack sufficient testosterone. this is even more true later in life.

however, muscle burns more calories than fat does, which means the more muscle tissue you have on your body, the more calories you're going to burn just sitting around. this is a good thing.

+1 this is a very important point.

As for weight loss and eating, eating 80% of required calories is the optimal level for weight loss while maintaining a good metabolic hormone profile. If you eat less your metabolism goes haywire. Realize that required calories means recommended daily intake which for women is estimated as 1500 to 2000 calories a day (but is quite a bit higher if you're muscular), plus whatever you expend during exercise.

My apologies ladies
You are right and thank you for clarifying what I said
I was in a rush and didn't explain myself well.

In fact, in the last week I have only just posted in the suggestions about what to teach women about how it would be useful for females to know how muscle/fat work in women...

Thank you for both being so eloquent. I was trying to highlight that huge muscles as a goal is not particularly useful if your goal is to bike, and that careful development of muscles is useful but bulking up like the hulk may be not so desirable... I will take more care when wording things in future posts.

[RoadRaven]

Roadraven, this statement is very misleading...

...muscle burns more calories than fat does, which means the more muscle tissue you have on your body, the more calories you're going to burn just sitting around. this is a good thing.

I meant to add:

I have a couple of friends who have worked at body building in their 40s and have been successful at "bulking up" - but it has taken alot of effort on their parts - more than the men around them seem to take. Thankyou for explaining the difficulty of this velogirl.

I didn't have a clear understanding of the testosterone/muscle/bulk-not bulk relationships...

Thanks again

[velogirl]

while most women won't bulk up, I will say that there are women who have excess adipose who appear to bulk up when they lift because the muscle (under the layer of fat) has increased in size. however, if they were to lean down (ie lose some fat), you'd still find that women don't bulk up naturally.

[Triskeliongirl]

I absolutely agree with you velogirl, weight training is a good idea for all women, as is eating a diet high enough in protein when trying to lose weight to preserve lean body mass. I also agree with you that women are unlikely to bulk up by weight training due to lack of testosterone, most women have to work really hard and eat in a very specific way to gain even a little muscle. But, I want to correct one thing, a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat, and in fact it is more compact.

For example when I gained weight and ended up at 174 lb, I viewed it as an 'unintentional bulk'. By that I mean when you gain weight, for whatever reason, you gain muscle along with the fat to tote all that extra fat around. SO, when I lost weight, I wanted to do everything I could to preserve muscle mass as I lost fat. I did that, so now at 141 lb, I am wearing the same size clothes (6) as I did when I weighed 120 lb but carried less muscle. At both weights I was at 22% bodyfat. I also feel better at this weight, and find it easier to maintain.

Even for cycling, its the mass to power ratio we are looking for to optimize performance, not to simply get as light as possible. A light body weight, without the muscle to power your rides, doesn't do you that much good.

The best indicator of progress is not simply your scale weight, but your %body fat.

[/I]

while muscle may be heavier than adipose/fat, .