Movement vs Diet for Fat Loss

[XXtwindad]

Just got done reading a book called "Why We Get Fat." The author totally dismisses the "calorie in/ calorie out" theory and lays all the blame on diet (particularly carbohydrates)

One quibble with this theory: someone who is "chubby" but moves consistently is going to be fitter (all things considered) than someone who is "skinny" but never moves at all. Also, the author cites studies that show vigorous exercise will result in an increased appetite, particularly in the form of easily digestible fuel (carbohydrates) thereby negating its benefit in terms of weight control. But this doesn't allow for the fact that many people who do a Gran Fondo do it for enjoyment rather than fat loss.

So here's my question: how many Paceliners have achieved fat loss through adjusting their movement habits vs their eating habits? And have they found long term success with either one?

[Mzilliox]

Just got done reading a book called "Why We Get Fat." The author totally dismisses the "calorie in/ calorie out" theory and lays all the blame on diet (particularly carbohydrates)

One quibble with this theory: someone who is "chubby" but moves consistently is going to be fitter (all things considered) than someone who is "skinny" but never moves at all. Also, the author cites studies that show vigorous exercise will result in an increased appetite, particularly in the form of easily digestible fuel (carbohydrates) thereby negating its benefit in terms of weight control. But this doesn't allow for the fact that many people who do a Gran Fondo do it for enjoyment rather than fat loss.

So here's my question: how many Paceliners have achieved fat loss through adjusting their movement habits vs their eating habits? And have they found long term success with either one?

I agree with him on calorie in vs calorie out, thats a terrible way to do things. I do not agree that eating fuel because you are active negates weight loss efforts.
Not all calories are equal, period. its foolish to suggest otherwise. What is it about our culture that has so much trouble knowing how to eat? is it our removal from actual food that grows in soil? is it because people actually have no concept of real food? is it our rush to get our faces fed so we can consume more capital goods?

the person who consumes 3k calories of fruit, vegetables, legumes and whole grains will always always always always and every time be healthier than the person who consumes the same amount of calories in diet foods, soda, burgers, pizza, trader joe's meals, that new food cart down the road, anything in a box or plastic wrap, anything not prepared by a human at the time of the meal, etc etc etc.

why do we try so hard to fool ourselves otherwise? consumption? industry? DOW?

sorry about the rant, i have had a few of these food related convos lately, and its always the same.

so in summary, if you only eat food, you should be healthy. its all the non food people eat making them sick.

lastly, to say movement or diet choose one is even sillier. everyone knows a good diet and movement is the way to be healthy, we know it so deep down, yet we have to convince ourselves of this simple fact constantly.

[NHAero]

I'm a lightweight to start - 5'9" on a tall day and 145-150 pounds. I stopped eating sweeteners and anything made with flour starting at the beginning of December, and I lost my modest spare tire in 2-3 weeks. Same or maybe even lower activity level, being winter (of sorts!) in New England.

Diet is based on the book Bright Lines Eating, which has helped a good friend with lifetime weight issues take off the weight and keep it off (maybe 2 years now?)

My dad died of complications of adult onset diabetes so I was interested in a lower glycemic index diet and its effects.

[54ny77]

I've been a year now on a modified diet that also incorporates periodic intermittent fasting, and am down 30 lbs from the peak. Lowest was down about 45 or so, but I've since normalized to being down ~30lbs on average, give or take, holding at around 165-170. A 5-10 lb fluctuation is no big deal, and is influenced primarily by travel/work- related events (it's hard, but not impossible, to eat or drink very little or at least be picky about food & drink choices when with clients).

In my experience, diet is def. not binary, i.e. one vs. the other only. There needs to be balance, other than during periods of intense focus or specialization. Basically keeping weight down for me, it's fewer calories in, period. And the calories in are good calories. With an allotment for beer or wine, of course!

[yinzerniner]

Just got done reading a book called "Why We Get Fat." The author totally dismisses the "calorie in/ calorie out" theory and lays all the blame on diet (particularly carbohydrates)

One quibble with this theory: someone who is "chubby" but moves consistently is going to be fitter (all things considered) than someone who is "skinny" but never moves at all. Also, the author cites studies that show vigorous exercise will result in an increased appetite, particularly in the form of easily digestible fuel (carbohydrates) thereby negating its benefit in terms of weight control. But this doesn't allow for the fact that many people who do a Gran Fondo do it for enjoyment rather than fat loss.

So here's my question: how many Paceliners have achieved fat loss through adjusting their movement habits vs their eating habits? And have they found long term success with either one?

Couple of contradictory or simply wrong statements / questions / simplifications going on here, and the OP's question is rather vague.

Carbohydrates aren't the boogeyman, but rather the excess consumption of refined foods which are usually high in carbohydrates which then are converted to fat. So the abuse is what's causing health issues, not the actual building block.

And while increased activity will inevitably lead to increased appetite it will also lead to increased heart, vascular, muscle and joint health which easily negates any weight increases which might occur.

BMI is the single greatest boondoggle to ever influence public health. You can't tell me Saquon Barkley is unhealthier than Russel Brand just because his BMI is in the range of "obesity."

If you're simply looking to "LOSE FAT" then getting the body into a state of ketosis is the most efficient method, over any kind of diet change, caloric cutbacks or exercise. How one activates the ketosis is a whole 'nother matter.

If you're looking to burn fat while also keeping up a certain level of fitness a balance of dietary adjustment (reducing caloric intake if possible, but definitely staying away from processed foods), varied workout routine and plenty of sleep is the best course of action. Simply upping one of the three methods above won't provide the long-term gains nor sustainability as having all three work in concert.

As for my own experience, have gotten off the train for a while now but the biggest personal differences were as such:
-Biggest weight loss - trying a low-carb diet. Also felt like utter ass all the time, and most noticeably when working out or doing any sort of athletic activity.
-Biggest change in fat percentage - when I started cooking more for myself. Much less processed foods, was able to create good-tasting meals that didn't rely on TONS of salt/sugar/oil/etc, and greatly widened the palette of foods that I would regularly eat so avoided always reaching for the first bag of chips or candy.
-Biggest change in overall fitness - lower weight, high rep weight training combined with regular aerobic activity and plenty of sleep (min 8 hours a night). Never dragged, even when working out first thing in the morning, and multi-day soreness basically disappeared.

[rain dogs]

science has proven time and time again that 70% of it is calories in/calories out. Sure, the other 30% of the minutiae and outliers* exist, but predominantly, if you burn significantly more calories than you consume you will lower bmi.

The argument that exercise increases appetite IS a calories in/calories out argument. They are saying that you burn more calories and then you eat more calories after the fact.

*some people have medical situations that complicate matter beyond calories (hormonal etc.) but that is an outlier.

[AngryScientist]

analysis paralysis.

too much "science" - not enough common sense.

portion control with good healthy food, unhealthy stuff in moderation, and exercise all work together IMO.

[KarlC]

I find it simple -Eat healthy, eat less, move more = weight loss.

The issue I have is doing that day in day out week after week. But when I do it it works.

Also just because that works for some people it does not mean it will work for all people.

.

[shoota]

The argument that exercise increases appetite IS a calories in/calories out argument. They are saying that you burn more calories and then you eat more calories after the fact.


Yes and it goes a step further. Not only do you eat to replace what you've burned during exercise but you will then need to eat after that to feed the muscle rebuilding process. That's why after a particularly hard ride it can sometimes feel impossible to eat enough the rest of the day.

[rain dogs]

analysis paralysis.

too much "science" - not enough common sense.

portion control with good healthy food, unhealthy stuff in moderation, and exercise all work together IMO.

I think there is too much pseudo-science and fad literature. There is not enough actual science.

Unfortunately, common sense when it comes to diet and exercise is undermined by nurture, advertising and other cultural factors.

But as many here have said "Eat less, mostly plants, move more" is 90% if the battle.

[Mark McM]

When I want to lose weight, I use a simple approach. Maybe its too "common sense" to meet scientific requirements but ...

Like most Americans, my diet consists of a mix of "healthy" foods (raw and minimally cooked vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean meats, etc.) and "junk" foods (chips, pastries, processed meats, heavy creams, etc.). When I want to loose weight, the alteration I make is to cut out some of the "junk" portion of my diet until I reach the weight loss rate that will move me toward my target weight. No special foods, no fasting, just reducing the portion of my diet that is the least beneficial to good health.

[saab2000]

My experience is that in the quest for lower weight there is no substitute for dietary discipline. None.

Was listening to LA's podcast the other day and he was discussing this but also discussing how endurance athletes MUST consume a lot of carbohydrates as fuel. He's not wrong. Obviously training for the TdF is different than what most folks here do but it's also a given that we need fuel.

Anyone here who struggles with weight can almost certainly, if they're honest with themselves, admit that there are some pretty low hanging fruit to make these changes. Alcohol is one.

[kmac]

from birth to about age 23, i was an overweight guy. i topped out at right about 270 lbs (at 6'1"). after what was a pretty catastrophic injury (where amputation of my foot was the recommended course -- i politely declined), i knew i needed to change my life a bit. i tried doing exercise, but mostly focused on diet. i was able to lose a lot of weight (got down to around 190), but couldn't seem to keep it off. for the next 4 years, i steadily climbed back up until i reached almost 240 again. only once i found cycling and started incorporating a fitness-focused lifestyle in with my diet (which i did not change from the initial weight-loss) was i able to get things under control.

what i did find was that the human body is STUBBORN. if i deviated from my new routine of calorie-restriction+activity, i'd start to creep up again. in my experience, it takes YEARS of telling your body "this is how it's gonna be, get used to it" before it decides that you have won, and allows you to keep that weight off.

at this point (age 46), i've been right around 170 for 10 years or so, and have no plan to go back. i've noticed that because it's been a while like this, i seem to have reset that "set point", and can take my foot of my gas when i need to (vacation, holidays, etc), and my body wants to now return to that new 170 lb area.

but at least for me, i couldn't seem to get there without having both reduced calories and increased activity. and something i always made sure to avoid was the whole "food as reward for activity" thing. i get the impression that this does in a lot of people (a 20 mile ride probably does NOT offset 3 boston creams). i've always wondered if this is why so many theories say how much more important calorie-restriction is -- because the people who do both end up sabotaging their base calorie reduction via "earned treats" once they incorporate some movement.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BXWg9KNjeio/

[tctyres]

My experience is that in the quest for lower weight there is no substitute for dietary discipline. None.

...
Alcohol is one.

Agreed.

The others are saturated fats and empty calories. Fats are calorie rich. When you eat them (after a workout) and what you decide to eat are important. Tree nuts are great, but their fats are calorie rich.

Empty calories are really a terror: chips, sweets, etc. Once I cut them out of my diet (I've been off of all that stuff for a few weeks now), when I eat them they taste artificial and gross.

[Mark McM]

When I want to lose weight, I use a simple approach. Maybe its too "common sense" to meet scientific requirements but ...

Like most Americans, my diet consists of a mix of "healthy" foods (raw and minimally cooked vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean meats, etc.) and "junk" foods (chips, pastries, processed meats, heavy creams, etc.). When I want to loose weight, the alteration I make is to cut out some of the "junk" portion of my diet until I reach the weight loss rate that will move me toward my target weight. No special foods, no fasting, just reducing the portion of my diet that is the least beneficial to good health.

And just to get back to the original question regarding activity vs. diet:

For me, I've found that diet is the key to weight loss - just varying activity volume results in little loss. And that shouldn't be surprising: For most people, calories used for physical activity is smaller than their Basal Metabolic Rate (daily calorie intake just stay alive)*, so there is less potential available for losing weight via activity changes than from diet changes.


*Obviously, bicycle stage racers and some other ultra-undurance athletes are different, and their exercise calories may be greater than their MBR, but that's just a very specialized group of people.

[tctyres]

but at least for me, i couldn't seem to get there without having both reduced calories and increased activity. ...
https://www.instagram.com/p/BXWg9KNjeio/

Really nice work there. :hello:

[Charles M]

Overcomplicated... There isnt a versus...


You take in x calories and you burn y. You get there with a mix of burn and eat.

[AngryScientist]

just to touch on another topic that i find amazing, and get's back to my common sense approach, that most people seem to lack.

portion control

i work in a business where boozy lunches that last 3 hours are not uncommon. it amazes me how many people seem to think they should/need to finish everything on their plate at a meal.

i always field the questions of why i didnt like the food, or if i dont feel well when i stop eating before my plate is empty...

....yes, i liked the steak very much, but i really dont need to consume a half pound of it in one sitting!

i think Americans are ingrained to thinking they are getting ripped off if they eat out and dont get huge portions.

it's not hard to see why people struggle with weight if they think they need to be in the "clean plate club".

[shoota]

just to touch on another topic that i find amazing, and get's back to my common sense approach, that most people seem to lack.

portion control

i work in a business where boozy lunches that last 3 hours are not uncommon. it amazes me how many people seem to think they should/need to finish everything on their plate at a meal.

i always field the questions of why i didnt like the food, or if i dont feel well when i stop eating before my plate is empty...

....yes, i liked the steak very much, but i really dont need to consume a half pound of it in one sitting!

i think Americans are ingrained to thinking they are getting ripped off if they eat out and dont get huge portions.

it's not hard to see why people struggle with weight if they think they need to be in the "clean plate club".

Dude this is so true. It took me forever to get my wife on board with not HAVING TO FINISH everything on the plate. She's like, "it's wasteful." I'm like, "it costs $10 whether you it all or not." It finally sunk in. Portion control is so huge.

[Mark McM]

just to touch on another topic that i find amazing, and get's back to my common sense approach, that most people seem to lack.

portion control

i work in a business where boozy lunches that last 3 hours are not uncommon. it amazes me how many people seem to think they should/need to finish everything on their plate at a meal.

i always field the questions of why i didnt like the food, or if i dont feel well when i stop eating before my plate is empty...

....yes, i liked the steak very much, but i really dont need to consume a half pound of it in one sitting!

i think Americans are ingrained to thinking they are getting ripped off if they eat out and dont get huge portions.

it's not hard to see why people struggle with weight if they think they need to be in the "clean plate club".

First world problems. I agree that portion size in the US is generally too large. But on the other hand, throwing away good food (because the portion size is too large) is a waste, also. If only we could convince people that 'less is more', when it comes to portion size - and if they want more food, they should just order more portions.

[shoota]

But on the other hand, throwing away good food (because the portion size is too large) is a waste, also.

And there it is lol

[pasadena]

carbs are immediate fuel.
don't specifically eat them when you are not exercising.

eat basically like an upside down food pyramid.
good fats, proteins, veg, fruit

portion size - just eat till you're full.

avoid wheat, sugar and processed 'food' and 'vegetable oil'
I say 'food' and 'vo' because that $hit will kill you.

It's simple, but hard to do in the US because the food system is so f'd.

[Mark McM]

And another comment regarding activity vs. diet for weight control ...

For a long time, many people in the fitness industry have been extolling the idea that muscle building is the key to weight loss, because muscles burn more calories than fat. While this not completely false, the claims are exaggerated. Testing has shown that a pound of muscle burns about 6 - 10 more calories per day than a pound of fat. So to burn an extra cookie's worth of calories per day, you'd have to put on about an extra 20 lbs of muscle.

[Mzilliox]

from birth to about age 23, i was an overweight guy. i topped out at right about 270 lbs (at 6'1"). after what was a pretty catastrophic injury (where amputation of my foot was the recommended course -- i politely declined), i knew i needed to change my life a bit. i tried doing exercise, but mostly focused on diet. i was able to lose a lot of weight (got down to around 190), but couldn't seem to keep it off. for the next 4 years, i steadily climbed back up until i reached almost 240 again. only once i found cycling and started incorporating a fitness-focused lifestyle in with my diet (which i did not change from the initial weight-loss) was i able to get things under control.

what i did find was that the human body is STUBBORN. if i deviated from my new routine of calorie-restriction+activity, i'd start to creep up again. in my experience, it takes YEARS of telling your body "this is how it's gonna be, get used to it" before it decides that you have won, and allows you to keep that weight off.

at this point (age 46), i've been right around 170 for 10 years or so, and have no plan to go back. i've noticed that because it's been a while like this, i seem to have reset that "set point", and can take my foot of my gas when i need to (vacation, holidays, etc), and my body wants to now return to that new 170 lb area.

but at least for me, i couldn't seem to get there without having both reduced calories and increased activity. and something i always made sure to avoid was the whole "food as reward for activity" thing. i get the impression that this does in a lot of people (a 20 mile ride probably does NOT offset 3 boston creams). i've always wondered if this is why so many theories say how much more important calorie-restriction is -- because the people who do both end up sabotaging their base calorie reduction via "earned treats" once they incorporate some movement.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BXWg9KNjeio/

absolutely and good job. The reward thing for work done is incredibly harmful in so many ways. no amount of work done can offset putting 3 doses of poison in your body, in fact one could argue the opposite, its actually quite poor for your body to fuel itself with sugar snacks post ride, what a disservice you are doing to try and fuel up with that kind of no use filler.

great stories everyone. seems like most things in life, we know the answers, but find a million ways in our consumer culture to distract ourselves fomr what should be obvious.

power to the people, stick it to the man! :banana:

[pasadena]

portion control



no portion control is a symptom, not the problem.

With real food, the body easily self regulates. Eat as much as you want.

The problem is the type of food most eat, messes up the body and acts more like a drug than food.

[echappist]

science has proven time and time again that 70% of it is calories in/calories out. Sure, the other 30% of the minutiae and outliers* exist, but predominantly, if you burn significantly more calories than you consume you will lower bmi.

The argument that exercise increases appetite IS a calories in/calories out argument. They are saying that you burn more calories and then you eat more calories after the fact.

*some people have medical situations that complicate matter beyond calories (hormonal etc.) but that is an outlier.

pretty much all of this

a similar thread is getting a lot of attention over on slowtwitch as well (spurred by the book The Obsesity Code). The author of that books pins most of the difficulty with weight loss on hormonal changes. To be fair, the author is not wrong that significant change in hormones can have significant effects on metabolism, but there's never anything to suggest that all who are overweight (ranging from those who put on five pounds all the way to the obese) have hormonal issues.

More pertinently, concerning the readers of this forum and slowtwitch (viz. active individuals) who may have put on 3% more weight during the winter, it is not at all clear that advice for someone with hormonal issues is of much relevance to most of the readers.

What is important is that kcal in vs kcal out is a very good first order approximation to things. While it may not be a straight kcal in vs kcal out, the equation gets pretty close. We cyclists should thank our lucky stars that we have equipment that would allow us to track our physical exertions quite accurately. Most others go by miles ran/walked and just slap an estimate; we get to use a powermeter.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I've gone from 30.5 waist and 68.5 kg (back in my cat-3 road racing glory days in summer of 2016) to 33 waist and ~73.3 kg a month ago (though granted, much of the gain was in the last few months, as I hovered around 31.5 and 70.5 kg when at least somewhat active). Back when I raced a lot, I'd generate about of 800 kJ of work per day, which, depending on my efficiency (unknown quantity), would mean 800 - 900 kcal of food needed to maintain weight. At an estimated baseline (not basal) expenditure of 2400 kcal/day, this mean at least 3000 kJ of food/day. Didn't really need to watch my diet that closely, and if i wanted a pint of gelatto, then I went and bought a pint.

Due to an injury and other changes, I'm exercising a lot less now, more like 450 kJ of work per day. Losing excess weight has also become more difficult. Literally took me three weeks to see a veritable weight reduction (down to 32.5 waist and 72.5 kg). I had to restart a food diary (last real entry was back in late 2016) and watch my diet closely (with occasional cheats).

It's very difficult to face up to the reality that the old way of doing things could no longer work, and I had to go hungry quite often. Sometimes, the weight wouldn't even budge, despite going under my caloric intake for a few consecutive days and going to bed quite hungry. Then all the sudden, without much perceived change, the weight would drop half a kilo. No idea how or why, it just happened. This, I would say, is even tougher to take than the diet watching, as there could be very little sign of change for a long time before something happens...

[kppolich]

no portion control is a symptom, not the problem.

With real food, the body easily self regulates. Eat as much as you want.

The problem is the type of food most eat, messes up the body and acts more like a drug than food.

Winner.

[KarlC]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BXWg9KNjeio/

Good work man, stick with it !

[bshell]

Calories ARE identical. Calories and nutrition are different topics.

Movement helps.

[NHAero]

This is a principal message in the Bright Lines Eating book as well, and she addresses why for some people, some of these foods are addictive.

I find that I don't do moderation well, so I do best when I decide, I'm not eating THAT anymore - in this case, any desserts, bread, pasta (well, almost), chips, etc. I'm not trying to do low carb - I do grains and potatoes and sweet potatoes - it's what my brother calls "white foods" I'm avoiding

no portion control is a symptom, not the problem.

With real food, the body easily self regulates. Eat as much as you want.

The problem is the type of food most eat, messes up the body and acts more like a drug than food.

[Mzilliox]

no portion control is a symptom, not the problem.

With real food, the body easily self regulates. Eat as much as you want.

The problem is the type of food most eat, messes up the body and acts more like a drug than food.

its literally this simple, but because human brains are involved, we have to make it complicated. its pretty fascinating.

[bshell]

It is the complexity of the human brain and the human experience that prevents this from being a simple task or subject.

[makoti]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BXWg9KNjeio/

Good work. It's never easy.

[Clean39T]

I find it simple -Eat healthy, eat less, move more = weight loss.

The issue I have is doing that day in day out week after week. But when I do it it works.

Also just because that works for some people it does not mean it will work for all people.

.

Agree with all of this.

I'm at my fittest and healthiest when I eat vegan and don't drink..

I kind of fell off that wagon early summer last year, and now have 15-20lbs to lose to get back where I feel best.

You'd think I'd have learned the last time around. Silly humans.

But I've done it before, and I know it can be done.

---

As for carbs - they work. I have my best training sessions when I stay on top of eating gels and fueling during the day.

Training is for gaining strength/fitness.

The rest of the day is for losing weight through disciplined eating.

Starving yourself on the bike is a disaster all the way around.

[XXtwindad]

from birth to about age 23, i was an overweight guy. i topped out at right about 270 lbs (at 6'1"). after what was a pretty catastrophic injury (where amputation of my foot was the recommended course -- i politely declined), i knew i needed to change my life a bit. i tried doing exercise, but mostly focused on diet. i was able to lose a lot of weight (got down to around 190), but couldn't seem to keep it off. for the next 4 years, i steadily climbed back up until i reached almost 240 again. only once i found cycling and started incorporating a fitness-focused lifestyle in with my diet (which i did not change from the initial weight-loss) was i able to get things under control.

what i did find was that the human body is STUBBORN. if i deviated from my new routine of calorie-restriction+activity, i'd start to creep up again. in my experience, it takes YEARS of telling your body "this is how it's gonna be, get used to it" before it decides that you have won, and allows you to keep that weight off.

at this point (age 46), i've been right around 170 for 10 years or so, and have no plan to go back. i've noticed that because it's been a while like this, i seem to have reset that "set point", and can take my foot of my gas when i need to (vacation, holidays, etc), and my body wants to now return to that new 170 lb area.

but at least for me, i couldn't seem to get there without having both reduced calories and increased activity. and something i always made sure to avoid was the whole "food as reward for activity" thing. i get the impression that this does in a lot of people (a 20 mile ride probably does NOT offset 3 boston creams). i've always wondered if this is why so many theories say how much more important calorie-restriction is -- because the people who do both end up sabotaging their base calorie reduction via "earned treats" once they incorporate some movement.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BXWg9KNjeio/

This is truly inspiring. And highly unusual. (See the travesty called "The Biggest Loser") You should consider giving talks.

[XXtwindad]

Calories ARE identical. Calories and nutrition are different topics.

Movement helps.

Exactly this. But you can't write a whole book around this. Or create a "brand."

The biggest flaw with the "Paleo Diet," for example, is that we don't live in Paleolithic times. We don't run like hell to avoid a saber-toothed tiger, and he don't chase and kill our own prey. And we also don't do constant low-grade movement. Most of us, anyway.

From a famous study by the University of Tennessee on the Amish. Full fat foods (including plenty of carbs) but still among the fittest and healthiest people in the country.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/14707772

[OtayBW]

no portion control is a symptom, not the problem.

With real food, the body easily self regulates. Eat as much as you want.

The problem is the type of food most eat, messes up the body and acts more like a drug than food.

Winner.
This. I don't buy the argument that 'calories are calories'. There is a qualitative aspect to how calories are processed - e.g., glycemic index, processed foods, etc. Try eating ~300 calories worth of Cinnabon Pecan Roll every morning for breakfast for a month vs. 300 cal of steel cut oatmeal. I'd bet that your little spare tire and your fasting glucose levels would be quite different.

[bocobiking]

Ten years ago in the fall, I wanted to train for an event the following summer. I also wanted to lose 5 pounds, but I was confused about what and how much to eat when. A guy at work turned me on to MyFoodDiary.com, which helps you track calories and nutrients as well as calories expended. I was surprised at how many calories I actually ate when I thought I was eating moderately.

I began using MFD every day, religiously tracking calories in and out, paying less attention to other nutrition elements. Instead of 5, I lost 20 pounds. I have continued to use MFD for the last 10 years, calories in calories out every day. I also have weighed myself ever morning. I have held steady at 160 for these 10 years.

I found that without this discipline, it’s too easy to fool myself and think I'm eating just fine given my bike riding. Calories in/calories out works for me.

[dbnm]

Stop eating man made, junk food after 8pm.

If you need to snack after dinner, fruit and nuts.

[Jaybee]

Stop eating man made, junk food after 8pm.

If you need to snack after dinner, fruit and nuts.

I do this, but I think the IPA I have at the same time defeats the purpose.

[Clean39T]

I do this, but I think the IPA I have at the same time defeats the purpose.Caories plus estrogenic effects -- beer is my cycling kryptonite... :crap: [emoji481] :no:

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Vientomas]

It's OK to be hungry. We have food at our instant disposal at all times and tend to reach for it without a thought when we feel the hunger stirring inside. Ignore it, it will pass and you will survive. In the same vein, who says you must eat 3 times a day? You can live on way fewer calories than you may think. Big ride day? Gonna eat accordingly. Day at the office? Not so many calories. My caloric intake varies according to the the demands placed on the body.