Overweight Cyclists?

[Zen]

Chris, I think you glossed over a very important point she was trying to make

... wait'll you go through That Part Of Your Life.

it was a whole lot easier to lose weight at 40 than it is at 52. And no, I'm not whining.

[dinabean]

SBS, I feel you, I really do! I am training for a TRI, too, and it sucks that the "big" clothes are several sizes too small. Believe it or not, I am eternally grateful to WalMart for carrying the Danskin fitness wear in XXL sizes that fit me (5'9" 235 lbs when I started, down to 227 after 10 weeks of mostly running x a week). It's not specialized Tri gear or bike gear, but it was at least stuff I wasn't embarassed to be seen in public in when I was doing Couch to 5K. I am also S-L-O-W (my 5K time is ~45 minutes) but it's all good. Don't you feel better? Stronger? I struggle with being annoyed that the weight isn't just pouring off (and I am watching intake, too) but it is what it is. At least I am healthier than I was a few weeks ago, and I hope to be even healthier by this time next year!

One other thought -- have you had D3 levels checked? I've done some reading that D3 level really effect weight, and a lot of docs don't check for it. I've heard anecdotal stories of people changing nothing other than taking 2000IU of D3 a day and the weight pouring off. Might be worth checking into.

[Kris]

I'm 60. I've lost 55 pounds in the last 18 months and have at least 10 left to go. The laws of physics apply no matter how old you are. I tried for several years to lose weight, and then all of a sudden I got myself in the right place mentally, started eating right and exercising more, and the pounds came off. I'm fitter now than I've been since I was in my 20's, and I feel 10 years younger than I did a year ago. It's never easy, but it is so worth the trouble.

[kenyonchris]

Chris, I think you glossed over a very important point she was trying to make

it was a whole lot easier to lose weight at 40 than it is at 52. And no, I'm not whining.

No whining detected. It is easier to lose weight at 20 than 40, easier at 40 than 52. Your body burns less effectively than it stores. That is a given, I am not glossing it over at all. But it CAN be done...the advice is for those who are saying that no matter how much they exercise and starve it won't come off. It WILL (unless the body is undergoing some physical problem). The problem is generally that the body has adapted, or is not being challenged in the most efficient manner so as to make it burn effectively. This happens in people of all ages, but is even more important with people who struggle to lose weight.

[staceysue]

Here's a little encouraging news for those who feel the weight just won't come off no matter what. I'm 40 (but have been through 'that part of my life' because I lost my ovaries) and I have been (am I going to say it out loud?) . . . . . . this is a big leap for me . . . . 152-157 lbs for about 15 years now. I'd take up an exercise program and do it for a few weeks and not see any change and quit, diet and quit, eat terribly for months on end, didn't matter. The great part of it is that my same clothes have fit for a long time. My body had very stubbornly decided that's the size it wanted to be and it wasn't taking any argument from me.

Since I started really cycling - at least 3 times a week, long distances when I have the time but never less than 10 miles, I'm definitely seeing some changes in my body. I've been cycling regularly since late August or early September and, though I felt a lot better, I wasn't seeing changes in my body or on the scale until just over the past week or so. I'm only down to 150, and my clothes still fit, but they're a little looser in places and they just seem to hang better. My body is certainly firmer.

There was a time when I would have seen the changes in 2-3 weeks instead of 2-3 months, but the changes are still happening!

It's slow going, but it's fun. It's not like the old days when I'd starve myself to fit into a size 2 or look in the mirror and cry my eyes out because I jiggled when I jumped up and down. I'm truly enjoying cycling and the way it makes me feel, and it's given me so much self confidence. I feel stronger and happier - and not like I'm trying to make my body fit some supermodel image. I'm not comparing myself to other women all the time, trying to get attention from guys.

I suppose if I was counting calories I'd see changes faster, but I don't want that kind of headache. I'm enjoying being physically active and I'm not pigging out and I rest assured knowing that if it takes me an entire year to lose 5 lbs, it doesn't matter. I'm going to be a year older in a year anyway, right? Time goes by pretty fast and if I'm 15 lbs lighter in 3 years that will be awesome. I've got at least a good 40 years left on this earth and I'm really not in any hurry.

I enjoy cycling and I'm happy that my body can take me the places I want to go!

[MomOnBike]

I've written (whined) already about how I just don't seem to be able to lose weight, and my frustration.

Still, I know I'd be a LOT bigger if I weren't riding. At least the bike is keeping me (somewhat) under control.

[OakLeaf]

It's really important to remember that while none of the laws of science change, both "calories in" and "calories out" are about two part physics and eight parts biochemistry.

The same food intake will translate to a wide range of energy input for two different people, and the same activity by two people of the same weight will translate into a wide range of calorie output.

I'm only a year and a half into menopause and haven't yet experienced any of that kind of change (although in the same period of time I've tripled my running mileage and doubled my cycling mileage), but I'm sure not going to dismiss the thousands of women who have experienced it.

[kenyonchris]

The same food intake will translate to a wide range of energy input for two different people, and the same activity by two people of the same weight will translate into a wide range of calorie output.

Agreed. So will fitness level and a zillion other factors. People who are having trouble losing weight need to look at their calorie output as it pertains to them to avoid that frustration of "I'm doing the same thing as my neighbor and eating less and not losing weight while she is".

[lph]

It's really important to remember that while none of the laws of science change, both "calories in" and "calories out" are about two part physics and eight parts biochemistry.

The same food intake will translate to a wide range of energy input for two different people, and the same activity by two people of the same weight will translate into a wide range of calorie output.

Now I know a lot more about physics than I do about biochemistry, so this intrigues me. I can understand two people of the same weight and similar lifestyle having a very wide range of calorie output just by watching how differently people move, some people are jumpy and on their feet all the time, some people are slower, relaxed and seem to conserve energy. And I assume how you dress and what temps you're in make a difference too. Which is why I've never really understood how calorie counting can work, it seems to me there are just too many variables in the equation.

But why would the same food intake cause a range of energy input? Do we process food that differently?

[Zen]

People are individuals and each have their own unique physiology.
Genetics, chronic disease, and undiagnosed conditions factor in as well.
A calories -in-calories-out approach is a broad brush.