 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / July 2005Bike riding and calories/carbs
OK, last weekend I rode 50.4 miles, very hilly terrain with a bit of wind and relatively high heat toward the end of the ride; average HR of 154 (of a max of about 185, so an average HR as a percentage of Max HR of 83%) for the entire 4 hours, 15 minutes (approximately; includes two stops). I ride in the morning, so I drank a cup of coffee and one scoop (100 calories) of protein along with about 10 grams of carbs. During the ride, I had one Clif bar (270 cals, 30g carbs, 20g protein, 8g fat), one drink of coffee with 10 grams of carbs and less than 1/4 scoop of protein, and two water drinks with about the same (10-15g carbs and less than 1/4 scoop of protein; along with salt substitute); and plenty of additional water (90 ounces). This works out to be about 130 calories/hour of riding, or about 18g carbs/hour of riding. I've lowered this from what I used to eat because of Pat's numbers. I did some carb loading the day before -- it was my birthday party at work, so I had cake and also had pizza for dinner. I ate low carb after the ride, although I did have higher carb that day at dinner because it was my birthday. Oh yeah, I mowed the lawn after riding 50 miles. It was hot outside! I'm going on vacation at the end of this week; when I get back, I'll try to count calories and carbs for my rides and the days before and after the rides. I plan on riding long rides of 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 100, and 125 miles, along with two rides per week of 16-20 miles each and three days per week of "high intensity" weight lifting.  SignatureBob M remove ".x" to reply Clif bars are not low carb. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > OK, last weekend I rode 50.4 miles, very hilly terrain with a bit of wind > and relatively high heat toward the end of the ride; average HR of 154 (of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 125 miles, along with two rides per week of 16-20 miles each and three > days per week of "high intensity" weight lifting. > Clif bars are not low carb. And when you're riding your bike 50 miles, that's a good thing. GG > > OK, last weekend I rode 50.4 miles, very hilly terrain with a bit of wind > > and relatively high heat toward the end of the ride; average HR of 154 (of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > 125 miles, along with two rides per week of 16-20 miles each and three > > days per week of "high intensity" weight lifting. As slow as he's going, it not necessary at all. In fact, he's robbing himself of the perfect opportunity to use up some stored fat for energy. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> Clif bars are not low carb. > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> > 125 miles, along with two rides per week of 16-20 miles each and three >> > days per week of "high intensity" weight lifting. > As slow as he's going, it not necessary at all. In fact, he's robbing > himself of the perfect opportunity to use up some stored fat for energy. Thanks for illustrating your ignorance in this realm. FWIW, he probably burned around 2000 calories on that ride (around 40 calories per mile, or 540 calories per hour). Not eating during a long ride is just plain stupid. If you think your body has an unlimited ability to burn fat, without taking on additional carbs, during extended periods of aerobic exercise, then you're a perfect reflection of your sig line. Signature~_-* ...G/ \G http://www.CycliStats.com CycliStats - Software for Cyclists > >> Clif bars are not low carb. > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >> > 125 miles, along with two rides per week of 16-20 miles each and three > >> > days per week of "high intensity" weight lifting. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. His intensity level is about the same as you would have if you were walking. (not that you know anything about that) At that intensity level, you don't need additional carbs. How do know he used 2000 calories during his ride? (hint: you don't, you rely on wishful thinking) One more time, because you're really, really slow: the intensity level is very important. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> As slow as he's going, it not necessary at all. In fact, he's robbing >> himself of the perfect opportunity to use up some stored fat for energy. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > three >> >> > days per week of "high intensity" weight lifting. > You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is > very important. You ignorant f.ck. How the f.ck do you know how hard I'm riding? How dare you say that I'm not riding fast enough? You bring your overbearing fat f.ck a.s out here, and I guarantee I will crush you in a race of 50 miles. My average HR was over 83% of my Max HR FOR THE ENTIRE 4+ HOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am riding as fast as I can ride. I literally CANNOT ride faster. I have selected the hardest ride in my area. My ride is constant hills (hell, I live on a hill), and I've selected it to be that way. Show me the data. Show me any evidence that you can ride for four hours and 15 minutes at 83% of your Max HR. Of course you won't, because you're a f.cking jerk who does nothing but put people down. I, however, am about to buy a HR monitor that includes graphing capability. Once I do, I will post the results. Then, you can post your results. Also, show me that you can even ride for 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, and 125 miles. Will you? No, because you exist solely to put people down. You couldn't ride that far because you can't take pain. You're a f.cking a.shole. Bob, who's so pissed at the f.cking jerk JC that he had to buy a Supernews account solely to respond to the f.cking a.shole. :: On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:33:56 GMT, JC Der Koenig <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] :: people down. You couldn't ride that far because you can't take :: pain. You're a f.cking a.shole. We all know he's full of BS, Bob....no need to get upset about it. :: Bob, who's so pissed at the f.cking jerk JC that he had to buy a :: Supernews account solely to respond to the f.cking a.shole. Well, that, IMO, is a good thing! :) > :: On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:33:56 GMT, JC Der Koenig <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> > :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Well, that, IMO, is a good thing! :) I know that I shouldn't get upset, but JC happened to piss me off at the wrong time. Granted, my overall time makes it appear as if I'm not going that fast, and in terms of Tour de France competitors, I'm not. But I'm working my a.s off getting up these hills and I'm selecting the hardest hills to ride that are around me (and believe me it's not hard to find hills -- they're everywhere; hell, I was riding up one hill -- which I ride 3 times a week -- and the lady coming down the hill told me that I was crazy for riding up it, it's so steep). I'm coming here to find information about how many carbs (if any) should be taken in before and after riding and lifting, because I honestly don't know. When I was on low fat, I thought I knew, but now that I'm on low carb, the stuff I did on low fat makes no sense. Additionally, I keep cutting back on carbs (and calories) during my rides (and I don't take in anything for short rides under 40 miles), but at the same time, I don't want to get 30+ miles from my house and not be able to get home. There is no one to come pick me up. SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > > :: Bob, who's so pissed at the f.cking jerk JC that he had to buy a > > :: Supernews account solely to respond to the f.cking a.shole. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > want to get 30+ miles from my house and not be able to get home. There is > no one to come pick me up. Well, I do most of my exercise in the gym or pool, so if I did overdo it, I can still get myself home, so this is hypothetical for me, but I think you're venturing into into largely uncharted territory. And, there does seem to be a wide variation in how much of what type of fuel each individual performs best on. If you did get to a certain point and discovered you've run out of reserves, what would happen if you had a high carb energy drink (or whatever) at that point? If you waited for a half hour for the carbs to get in your system, should you be able to pick up and continue from that point or once you've bonked is that it for the day? If the former, you could just bring pack a suitable amount of carby food for if you need it. If the latter, then I'd probably consume moderate amounts of carbs along the ride to make sure you can get home. But, I think this is really a case of your body, your science project. Martha SignatureSig pending :: On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:06:58 -0400, Roger Zoul :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] :: should be taken in before and after riding and lifting, because I :: honestly don't know. Yeah, that's a hard one to figure, really. So many factors to consider when you really want to be low carb and not overdo it. When I was on low fat, I thought I knew, but :: now that I'm on low carb, the stuff I did on low fat makes no sense. :: Additionally, I keep cutting back on carbs (and calories) during my :: rides (and I don't take in anything for short rides under 40 miles), :: but at the same time, I don't want to get 30+ miles from my house :: and not be able to get home. There is no one to come pick me up. I have the exact same problem. Last summer, my longest unsupported ride (beginning and ending at my house) was 96 miles w/ plenty of climbing. I always take carbs with me. But I've learned pretty much what I can do inside 40 miles (mostly just fruit20) provided I'm not really trying to prove something. When I go beyond that, I plan to eat some carbs, otherwise getting home could be a real problem. Like the other poster said, you're in uncharted territory, and you're pushing it. Probably the safest bet would simply be to carbup on days when you ride (perhaps starting the carb up before - as you do) and eat as GG suggests (or less) as you ride, then go really low carb (and low calorie) on days between your rides. Track your calories over the entire week. When you get your HR monitor, you'd probably have to put a fudge factor of 0.5 on the calories burned number, too. IMO, it seems you're following a pretty reasonable plan now, though. Should I call the waaaaambulance for you? SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > There is no one to come pick me up. > > :: On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:33:56 GMT, JC Der Koenig <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> > > :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > ride 3 times a week -- and the lady coming down the hill told me that I > was crazy for riding up it, it's so steep). According to my estimates, your average speed was around 13.44 mph (50.4 miles, in 03:45). That's slow for on the flats, but a pretty respectable speed for riding in "hilly to mountainous" terrain. If you'll provide your age, height, and weight (plus an estimate for the weight of your bike), I can provide a more refined estimate of your calories burned. FWIW, JC is an idiot for posting that you're not burning more than you would while walking. According to my estimates, you were burning around 544 calories per hour - way above the rate at which one burns calories while walking (and, consistent with your average heart rate). GG > I'm coming here to find information about how many carbs (if any) should > be taken in before and after riding and lifting, because I honestly don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > want to get 30+ miles from my house and not be able to get home. There is > no one to come pick me up. You're making your estimates up as you go since you don't have any of the pertinent data, idiot. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> > :: On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:33:56 GMT, JC Der Koenig >> > <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >> is >> no one to come pick me up. > You're making your estimates up as you go since you don't have any of the > pertinent data, idiot. See my other post...I've made a professional study of calories burned while cycling. Over the last few years, I've developed what I think is one of the most sophisticated algorithms for calculating cycling calories burned into my CycliStats program (www.CycliStats.com). I've compared the estimates from my program with a variety of other sources, and I'm quite confident in my estimates. When I get Bob's age, height, and weight (and the weight of his bike), I can refine the estimate, but it won't be much different than the 2000 calories in the initial estimate. GG So basically you're saying that he's burning a lot of calories, but then he's pigging out to maintain his obesity. (he'll deny that too) SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> You're making your estimates up as you go since you don't have any of the >> pertinent data, idiot. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > GG What happened to your killfile? It sure looks like you're a sissy bike-riding poser from here. Just because you're at 83%, that doesn't mean you're doing more than walking, it means that your fatbody is out of shape. Perhaps you should practice more table pushaways rather than playing around on your bicycle. (No wonder that's as fast as you can ride.) One more time, because you're really slow: you don't need more carbs, you need to butch up, you WFFID. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Bob, who's so pissed at the f.cking jerk JC that he had to buy a Supernews > account solely to respond to the f.cking a.shole. Hey, when you're right, you're right. Way to go, Bob! Now, killfile the ignorant SOB and be done with it. Pat in TX :: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. :: :: His intensity level is about the same as you would have if you were :: walking. (not that you know anything about that) At that intensity :: level, you don't need additional carbs. I doubt his intensity level is that of walking with an average HR of 154 out of 185!! :: How do know he used 2000 calories during his ride? (hint: you :: don't, you rely on wishful thinking) :: :: One more time, because you're really, really slow: the intensity :: level is very important. You really do need to ride some long hills... :: -- :: Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] ::::::: Bob M ::::::: remove ".x" to reply > :: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. > :: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I doubt his intensity level is that of walking with an average HR of 154 > out of 185!! So he's out of shape because he's too fat. Why is it that all you bikers have the same problem? >>:: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. >>:: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So he's out of shape because he's too fat. Intensity is still there. There is a such thing call load, you know, or is physic beyond your ability? He can easily ride so slow as to keep his HR at a walking level. > Why is it that all you bikers have the same problem? Why is it that you can't think or see beyond your nose? >>>:: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. >>>:: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is physic beyond your ability? He can easily ride so slow as to keep his > HR at a walking level. Your HR will go way up while walking also, if you're that badly out of shape. Kind of like y'all are. But go ahead on and keep making excuses. >> Why is it that all you bikers have the same problem? > > Why is it that you can't think or see beyond your nose? > >>>:: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. > >>>:: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> > >> So he's out of shape because he's too fat. And if he was that out of shape, do you think he would be able to ride 50 miles of hills??? Thanks for poking a hole in your own ridiculous argument. GG > > Intensity is still there. There is a such thing call load, you know, or > > is physic beyond your ability? He can easily ride so slow as to keep his [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > Why is it that you can't think or see beyond your nose? If he goes slow enough. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > And if he was that out of shape, do you think he would be able to ride 50 > miles of hills??? > If he goes slow enough. Once again, you illustrate your ignorance. Out of shape people don't have the endurance to ride 50 miles on a bicycle, no matter how slow they go. And, more to the point, Bob was not going "slow". 13-14 mph in hilly to mountainous terrain is a pretty respectable speed. The fact that he was able to maintain an average heart rate of 154, for nearly 4 hours, clearly indicates that he is not "out of shape" (unlike your arguments, which seem to have devolved into childish repetition and name-calling). GG > > And if he was that out of shape, do you think he would be able to ride 50 > > miles of hills??? You probably get winded walking to your car. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> If he goes slow enough. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bicycle, > no matter how slow they go. > You probably get winded walking to your car. You really ought to be able to do better than this, JC.... >> You probably get winded walking to your car. > > You really ought to be able to do better than this, JC.... And y'all ought to be able to get in shape. I guess we all have our personal talents. > You probably get winded walking to your car. Did you swallow a stupid pill today? FWIW, so far in 2005 I've cycled 3,180 miles, with over 188,000 feet of climbing (that's an average of 108 miles per week, with 6400 feet of climbing). In June, I spent a week participating in the Bicycle Tour of Colorado (www.bicycletourcolorado.com) - it included 475 miles, with 31,000 feet of climbing (including 2 crossings of the Continental Divide, and elevations in excess of 12,000 feet). On the 5th day of the tour, I hooked up with 4 other 50-something guys, and in a day with 105 miles of cycling and 3,500 feet of climbing, we all set personal bests for average speed during a "century" ride...in my case, I completed the 105 miles in 4:50:45, for an average speed of 21.7 mph. A week later, on July 9th, I completed all 5 passes of the notoriously difficult Markleeville Death Ride (www.deathride.com) - 129 miles, with 16,000 feet of climbing. This ride was almost exactly equivalent to the hardest mountain stage in this year's Tour de France (stage 15). Last Saturday, I rode 60 miles with 3300 feet of climbing in the morning, and then hiked 3.5 miles with 2500 feet of climbing to watch the sun go down from the top of Brokeoff Mountain (in Mt. Lassen Volcanic National Park). I'm 52 years old, 6' tall, and weigh 166 lbs (about what I did in high school). I'm quite confident that I could kick your a.s on the bike, or any other way you'd care to have it (for example, like I'm doing in this thread). GG http://www.WeightWare.com Computer-Assisted Weight Management > >> If he goes slow enough. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > bicycle, > > no matter how slow they go. Uh oh. Another iteration of Flyinfinn. Are you going to come down to El Paso and look me up too? SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > I'm 52 years old, 6' tall, and weigh 166 lbs (about what I did in high > school). I'm quite confident that I could kick your a.s. > Uh oh. Another iteration of Flyinfinn. > > Are you going to come down to El Paso and look me up too? LOL - nahh, it's just as much fun poking holes in your arguments as it would be beating you on a hill climb on the bike. BTW - your recent snips sound like "Uncle" to me. You know, it's OK to admit when you're wrong. GG > > I'm 52 years old, 6' tall, and weigh 166 lbs (about what I did in high > > school). I'm quite confident that I could kick your a.s. You bikers are such a scary bunch. SignatureFor the sake of all that is good, admit that you are full of crap so we may all move on. -- MFW >> Uh oh. Another iteration of Flyinfinn. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > I'm 52 years old, 6' tall, and weigh 166 lbs (about what I did in high >> > school). I'm quite confident that I could kick your a.s. > You bikers are such a scary bunch. Is that the best you've got? What happened to the infamous, acerbic, and insulting JC? Sounds like you're losing it (along with your arguments in this thread). BTW - if you knew the sport at all, you'd know that it's "cyclists", not "bikers". Cyclists ride bicycles. Bikers are the fat guys in leather who ride Harleys (you know, like the guys your momma dates). GG > >> Uh oh. Another iteration of Flyinfinn. > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >> > I'm 52 years old, 6' tall, and weigh 166 lbs (about what I did in high > >> > school). I'm quite confident that I could kick your a.s. >> You bikers are such a scary bunch. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > BTW - if you knew the sport at all, you'd know that it's "cyclists", not > "bikers". Cyclists ride bicycles. Bikers are the fat guys. It's hard to tell most of you apart. > >> You bikers are such a scary bunch. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It's hard to tell most of you apart. LOL - perhaps you should get your eyes checked. They appear to be as defective as your ideas about exercise physiology. BTW, were you aware that snippage of the posts you're replying to is considered an admission of defeat? GG >>>>:: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. >>>>:: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Your HR will go way up while walking also, if you're that badly out of > shape. Kind of like y'all are. :) Nonsense. One reason I started cycling is because I can't get my HR up via walking.. > But go ahead on and keep making excuses. Go ahead and keep spouting off like an idiot. >>>Why is it that all you bikers have the same problem? >> >>Why is it that you can't think or see beyond your nose? >>>>>:: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. >>>>>:: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Nonsense. One reason I started cycling is because I can't get my HR up > via walking.. That's because you were walking too slow, because you were in such poor shape. HTH >>>>>>:: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. >>>>>>:: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > HTH No, it doesn't help. You fail. > >>>>>>:: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. > >>>>>>:: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > No, it doesn't help. You fail. LOL - his arguments have been completely shredded in this thread, and yet he persists with the insults. Exercise physiology is clearly not his forte. Nor are his debating skills. However, he does show promise in the "childish insults", and "foot stamping" arena. GG 10:1 says that even will all that bike riding you're still over fat. And weak. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> >>>>>>:: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. >> >>>>>>:: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > GG > 10:1 says that even will all that bike riding you're still over fat. And > weak. You'd lose that bet, just like you're losing all your arguments in this thread. According to the "Navy" method for estimating body fat, I'm currently at 11.4% (measured earlier this morning). Per US averages, I'm currently at the 14th weight percentile for someone of my age, gender, and height. So, your "over fat" argument clearly holds no water. As for being weak - that's just another pathetic attempt at a lame insult (which seems to be a pattern with you). A weak person would not be able to complete all 5 passes in the Markleeville Death Ride (www.deathride.com), like I did back on July 9th. If you're ever out in northern California, bring your bike - we'll go for a ride in the mountains around here, and then we'll see who's weak ~_-* ...G/ \G http://www.CycliStats.com CycliStats - Software for Cyclists > >> >>>>>>:: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. > >> >>>>>>:: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > > > GG Little girls can ride bicycles and they're weak. Post some pics of your fantastic 11.4%, poser. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> 10:1 says that even will all that bike riding you're still over fat. And >> weak. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >> > >> > GG > Little girls can ride bicycles and they're weak. > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > >> > > >> > GG At a loss for words? SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> Little girls can ride bicycles and they're weak. >> [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] >> >> > >> >> > GG > Little girls can ride bicycles and they're weak. Dumbass - little girls can't ride 129 miles with 16,000 feet of climbing. > Post some pics of your fantastic 11.4%, poser. Gotta get to work now...pics to follow. BTW - have you posted any of yourself lately? GG > >> 10:1 says that even will all that bike riding you're still over fat. And > >> weak. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > >> > > >> > GG Even Cubit had enough intestinal fortitude to post some pics, which of course raised his credibility about 1000%. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > Gotta get to work now...pics to follow. > Little girls can ride bicycles and they're weak. > > Post some pics of your fantastic 11.4%, poser. Back from work, so here you go. This one was from my cycling trip last year to see the Tour de France. It shows me at the top of the Col du Glandon (a 22.5 km climb, with about 1500 meters of climbing). After descending from this col, we rode across the valley and climbed the legendary Alpe d'Huez. FWIW, I was about 5 lbs heavier when this picture was taken than I am today. http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/TDF2004/TDF2004_013.htm I don't have many good photos of myself from this year (I'm usually the photographer on my bike rides, so rarely get shots of myself). But, here's one of me at the end of a week of cycling in Colorado (475 miles, with 31,000 feet of climbing, including two crossings of the Continental Divide): http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/BTC2005/BTC105.htm FWIW, the 11.4% body fat estimate was from the "Navy" method of body fat estimation. I've studied the research papers behind their algorithm, and their method seems reasonably accurate for most adults. This also correlates with my Tanita body fat scale, which is reporting 12.3%. Both are also consistent with my active lifestyle (108 miles of cycling per week), and my weight percentile (compared to US averages, I'm at the 14th percentile for weight, based on my age, height, and gender). Do you have pictures of yourself? Also, if you'll provide age, gender, height, weight, neck size (measured below the Adam's apple, if applicable), and waist size (at the navel), and hip size (if you're female), I'll provide you with your weight percentile, and your estimated body fat percentage. If you're shy about sharing this information, you can download the trial version of my WeightWare program (www.WeightWare.com), and run the numbers for yourself. SignatureGG http://www.WeightWare.com Computer-Assisted Weight Management > >> 10:1 says that even will all that bike riding you're still over fat. And > >> weak. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > >> > > >> > GG What are you expecting from JC? An apology? > > Little girls can ride bicycles and they're weak. > > [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > > >> > > > >> > GG > What are you expecting from JC? An apology? LOL - if he offered one, or simply admitted that he's wrong, I'd be very surprised. Mostly I just enjoy poking holes in his specious arguments, and giving him back some of what he gives to others (though I like to think I do it with more elan, and less spite than JC). GG > > > Little girls can ride bicycles and they're weak. > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > valley and climbed the legendary Alpe d'Huez. FWIW, I was about 5 lbs > > heavier when this picture was taken than I am today. http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/TDF2004/TDF2004_013.htm > > I don't have many good photos of myself from this year (I'm usually the > > photographer on my bike rides, so rarely get shots of myself). But, here's [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > > >> -- > > > >> Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than hat. -- > > MFW > > > >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > > >> > > > > >> > GG Where's your six-pack dude? At a supposed 11%, you should be pretty close to a six-pack. What are you hiding? SignatureEat less, exercise more. -- MFW -- >> Little girls can ride bicycles and they're weak. >> [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] >> >> > >> >> > GG > Where's your six-pack dude? > > At a supposed 11%, you should be pretty close to a six-pack. Yet agiain you're illustrating how clueless you are about human physiology. Six packs don't show until one gets well into single digits for body fat (especially for 50-somethings). > What are you hiding? I've posted my stats (6', 52 years old, 167 lbs, 31" waist, and 14.5" neck), and my pics. So what are you hiding? How about posting your own stats and pics? You claim to be an authority on all things related to diet and exercise, so let's see the proof of your supposed expertise. Unless you're ashamed of yourself (which might explain some of your bitterness). GG > >> Little girls can ride bicycles and they're weak. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > valley and climbed the legendary Alpe d'Huez. FWIW, I was about 5 lbs > > heavier when this picture was taken than I am today. http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/TDF2004/TDF2004_013.htm > > I don't have many good photos of myself from this year (I'm usually the > > photographer on my bike rides, so rarely get shots of myself). But, [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > >> > http://www.CycliStats.com > >> > CycliStats - Software for Cyclists hat. -- > > MFW > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > >> >> > > >> >> > GG >> Where's your six-pack dude? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Six packs don't show until one gets well into single digits for body fat > (especially for 50-somethings). You couldn't be more wrong even if you spent another whole year trying. >> What are you hiding? > > I've posted my stats (6', 52 years old, 167 lbs, 31" waist, and 14.5" > neck), > and my pics. 5'11", 44 years old, 180 lbs, 33" waist, and 16.5" neck. http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jcderkoenig/detail?.dir=/4373&.dnm=c53e.jpg&.src=ph > So what are you hiding? Not a damn thing, unlike you. I've posted this stuff many times. I'll be expecting an apology forthwith. Also, bike-riding low carbing expert, you still need to post a pic of your 11% six-pack. Unless you're all flabby like Jared, then don't bother. >How about posting your own stats and pics? You > claim to be an authority on all things related to diet and exercise, so [quoted text clipped - 165 lines] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > GG > >> Where's your six-pack dude? > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You couldn't be more wrong even if you spent another whole year trying. How many times in this thread are you going to demonstrate your lack of knowledge? FWIW, according to webmd.com ( http://my.webmd.com/content/article/82/97357.htm ): ""Six-pack abs is really a pre-cellulite phenomenon. It tends to be reserved for those in their teens and 20s," says Cotton. "It gets more difficult as we age because we get more subcutaneous body fat." However, with the right genetics and strict program, even people in their 30s and 40s can have six-pack abs." They go on to say: ""I personally think it's on the order of ridiculous," he says. "If you're spending that much time on your abs, you're wasting time and taking time away from other muscle groups. It's a show muscle. "When I have clients that are obsessed with that, I work on values and self-acceptance. People want a perfect body, they want a Lexus and they want a 3,000 square foot home. They're objectifying the body."" That sounds a lot like you, don't you think? > >> What are you hiding? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 5'11", 44 years old, 180 lbs, 33" waist, and 16.5" neck. http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jcderkoenig/detail?.dir=/4373&.dnm=c53e.jpg&.src=ph Do you think you could get a grainer, more out of focus black and white image to show us your two-pack? Seriously, those were some pretty awful shots. It also looks like you're carrying quite a bit of fat around your kidneys (which would explain your rather portly 33" waist). > > So what are you hiding? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Also, bike-riding low carbing expert, you still need to post a pic of your > 11% six-pack. Unless you're all flabby like Jared, then don't bother. a) I don't claim to be a low carb expert. I do, however, know a bit about exercise physiology and weight loss, especially as it relates to cycling. b) I'm not all flabby like Jared, so I won't bother posting vanity pics. But I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you: 1) Asserting that I'm not at 11-12% body fat? This would ignore the evidence of my height and weight, the two independent estimates of my body fat, and my exercise program. If you simply desire to see a picture of me without a shirt on...well, I won't give you the satisfaction (sexual?). I'm completely comfortable with my claim in this regard (the women in my life have urged me to not lose any more weight, else I'll look too "gaunt"). 2) Claiming that if I'm at 11-12% that I must have a visible six-pack? Although I have some abdominal definition, it's not really a six-pack. But, I'm primarily a cyclist and rarely lift weights or do ab exercises. Plus, I'm over 50, which makes it that much more difficult. The six-pack look has as much to do with good genetics as it does with training and diet (see http://www.vh.org/adult/patient/familymedicine/studenthealth/sixpack.html ). And, according to this web site (http://www.fatlosstips.com/abs.html): "If you have a high bodyfat percentage, the abs won't show no matter how much you work. Once your bodyfat falls below 8% for men, or 14% for women, your abs will begin to show through." This is in line with other estimates I've seen, though genetics can alter this (different people store fat preferentially in different areas). 3) Just being a dick? I suspect the latter... GG > >How about posting your own stats and pics? You > > claim to be an authority on all things related to diet and exercise, so [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >> > valley and climbed the legendary Alpe d'Huez. FWIW, I was about 5 lbs > >> > heavier when this picture was taken than I am today. http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/TDF2004/TDF2004_013.htm > >> > I don't have many good photos of myself from this year (I'm usually the > >> > photographer on my bike rides, so rarely get shots of myself). But, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > numbers > >> > for yourself. hat. -- > > MFW > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > GG >> >> Where's your six-pack dude? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 292 lines] >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > GG > It also looks like you're carrying quite a bit of fat around your > kidneys (which would explain your rather portly 33" waist). At around 10% bodyfat. You should be showing more abs then, with your waspish 31". Either that, or you're not anywhere near 11%. >> > So what are you hiding? Again. > a) I don't claim to be a low carb expert. For all that, you sure spout off a lot. > b) I'm not all flabby like Jared, so I won't bother posting vanity pics. What are you hiding? > But I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you: > > 1) Asserting that I'm not at 11-12% body fat? That's the first thing that you've gotten right. <snip excuses> > >> Where's your six-pack dude? > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 5'11", 44 years old, 180 lbs, 33" waist, and 16.5" neck. http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jcderkoenig/detail?.dir=/4373&.dnm=c53e.jpg&.src=ph BTW - the hair parted down the middle look went out of style about 20 years ago (not that it was ever considered very stylish even then). GG > > So what are you hiding? > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >> > valley and climbed the legendary Alpe d'Huez. FWIW, I was about 5 lbs > >> > heavier when this picture was taken than I am today. http://www.shastasoftware.com/CycliStats/biketours/TDF2004/TDF2004_013.htm > >> > I don't have many good photos of myself from this year (I'm usually the > >> > photographer on my bike rides, so rarely get shots of myself). But, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > numbers > >> > for yourself. hat. -- > > MFW > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > GG >> Where's your six-pack dude? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Six packs don't show until one gets well into single digits for body fat > (especially for 50-somethings). You are so far out in left field that you make yourself ridiculous. >> What are you hiding? > > I've posted my stats (6', 52 years old, 167 lbs, 31" waist, and 14.5" > neck), > and my pics. 5'11", 44 years old, 180 lbs, 33" waist, and 16.5" neck. http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jcderkoenig/detail?.dir=/4373&.dnm=c53e.jpg&.src=ph > So what are you hiding? Nothing, unlike you. I've posted this information about myself many times. Where is that 11% six-pack you're supposed to have? If you are not even close to a six-pack, then you are not at 11%. If you have a gut that resembles Jared, then you're overfat. I'll be expecting your apology forthwith. How about posting your own stats and pics? You > claim to be an authority on all things related to diet and exercise, so > let's see the proof of your supposed expertise. Unless you're ashamed of [quoted text clipped - 164 lines] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > GG >> Little girls can ride bicycles and they're weak. >> [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] >> >> > >> >> > GG Gary, you look great!! You have awesome leg muscles and look very fit to me. Your weight seems low for your height, though. You look as though you have a lot of muscle( which weighs more than fat), amazing you weigh as little as you do:) You also look very happy. > Gary, you look great!! You have awesome leg muscles and look very fit to me. > Your weight seems low for your height, though. You look as though you have a > lot of muscle( which weighs more than fat), amazing you weigh as little as > you do:) You also look very happy. Thanks! I feel pretty good about my body (thanks to cycling and watching what I eat). At 52, I'm strong enough to tackle some of the hardest bike rides in the US, and I weigh about what I did in high school. And, of course, I'm nearly always happy when I'm riding my bike(s). For me, nothing compares to the challenge of a long hard climb, followed by the rush of a fast twisting descent (well...almost nothing ;-) ). GG Not bad from someone with prepubescent boy arms and an old mans gut. You should probably try cutting some carbs from your diet. HTH SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> Gary, you look great!! You have awesome leg muscles and look very fit to > me. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > GG > Not bad from someone with prepubescent boy arms and an old mans gut. You're just jealous Mr. "Parts His Hair Down the Middle". > You should probably try cutting some carbs from your diet. That would be very bad advice for an endurance athlete who has no problems with carbs, and is already at the lower end of the weight scale for his height. But, bad advice and petty insults are your stock in trade, aren't they JC? What makes you so bitter? Even the picture you posted shows a scowl. Perhaps you're suffering from optirectalitis - that's where your optic nerve gets cross-circuited with your rectal nerve, giving you a shitty outlook on life :-). GG > HTH > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > > GG Of course. I've been trying to get my arms as small as yours and my gut as flabby, but I haven't been able to manage it. Kudos. BTW, if you're not interested in a low carb diet, then why are you here? To spew misinformation? To what end? SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> Not bad from someone with prepubescent boy arms and an old mans gut. > > You're just jealous > Of course. I've been trying to get my arms as small as yours and my gut as > flabby, but I haven't been able to manage it. Kudos. Jealousy certainly brings out the worst in you. Be happy with who you are JC, and don't worry about comparisons. However, I do strongly urge you to seek the help of a competent stylist. You might be happier if you were to address that god-awful parted-down-the-middle hairstyle. Have you ever considered something more contemporary? Like, say, a mullet? > BTW, if you're not interested in a low carb diet, then why are you here? To > spew misinformation? To what end? I comment on threads related to cycling, weight, etc. (i.e., the areas in which I have both personal and professional experience). Plus, there's the sport factor in pointing out your bad advice and your mean-spirited nature. GG > >> Not bad from someone with prepubescent boy arms and an old mans gut. > > > > You're just jealous Interesting that you feel a low carb diet is bad advice, troll. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> Of course. I've been trying to get my arms as small as yours and my gut > as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Plus, there's the sport factor in pointing out your bad advice > Interesting that you feel a low carb diet is bad advice, troll. I didn't say that...I said it's not advisable for folks who engage in endurance sports. Furthermore, I really don't need to lose any weight right now, so low-carbing is not a priority for me (FWIW, I've lost weight mostly through exercise and eating "right", not low-carbing, though I can see it may be a useful strategy for some folks). Gotta run now...I've got a date with an attractive, athletic woman (5' 4", 115 lbs and full of energy). What are you doing tonight (besides attempting to post insults)? GG > >> Of course. I've been trying to get my arms as small as yours and my gut > > as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Plus, there's the sport factor in pointing out your bad advice So, troll, what are you trying to accomplish here? SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> Interesting that you feel a low carb diet is bad advice, troll. > > I didn't say that...I said it's not advisable for folks who engage in > endurance sports. > > low-carbing is not a priority for me > So, troll, what are you trying to accomplish here? Sorry for the delay...I just got back from my date (you can use your imagination... ;-) ). As for your question - I answered that in a previous post in this thread, but to reiterate, I am: 1) trying to help people with questions about cycling (nutrition, bike gear, training, etc.) 2) trying to help dispel some of your bad advice on issues related to carbs and endurance sports 3) yanking your chain (because you're so negative and insulting towards so many others). GG > >> Interesting that you feel a low carb diet is bad advice, troll. > > > > I didn't say that...I said it's not advisable for folks who engage in > > endurance sports. > > > > low-carbing is not a priority for me So basically you want to help people ride their bikes are 12 mph, get little boy arms and old man guts, and not follow a low carb diet, even though this is alt.support.diet.low-carb, you have no experience following a low carb diet, and have no interest in following a low carb diet. Uh, yeah. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> So, troll, what are you trying to accomplish here? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > >> > low-carbing is not a priority for me > So basically you want to help people ride their bikes are 12 mph, get little > boy arms and old man guts, and not follow a low carb diet, even though this > is alt.support.diet.low-carb, you have no experience following a low carb > diet, and have no interest in following a low carb diet. > > Uh, yeah. And yank your chain...don't forget that part. BTW - have you made an appointment with a stylist to get that "parted down the middle" hair of yours updated? GG > >> So, troll, what are you trying to accomplish here? > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >> > > >> > low-carbing is not a priority for me Figures. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> So basically you want to help people ride their bikes are 12 mph, get > little [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And yank...don't forget that part. > You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > One more time, because you're really, really slow: the intensity level is > very important. You really are as dumb as a brick. From what you wrote above you really don't know what you are talking about. I suggest you now get a life. You have been here much too long and really need to do something with your life. Curt Are you still alive? What happened to your promise? Was it made in an alcoholic haze? SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Curt > You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, ignorant one. > > His intensity level is about the same as you would have if you were walking. > (not that you know anything about that) At that intensity level, you don't > need additional carbs. With a heart rate at 83% of max? Do you think his HR averages 154 bpm while walking? Get a clue, JC. You're wrong on this one...way wrong. An average speed of 13-14 mph over 50 miles, in hilly to mountainous terrain, is not bad at all. The fact that you think this represents a low level of intensity illustrates quite convincingly your ignorance of the sport of cycling. Or perhaps you live someplace that's as flat as your arguments, and you're simply ignorant of what it takes to ride up and down hill (trying to give you the benefit of the doubt). > How do know he used 2000 calories during his ride? (hint: you don't, you > rely on wishful thinking) I've made a professional study of calorie calculations, as they relate to cycling, and incorporated what I've learned in my CycliStats ride logging program (www.CycliStats.com). I've compared the estimates my program makes against many other sources, and I'm convinced that its estimates are as accurate as any currently available (outside of a sports lab, of course). I reached the 2000 calories estimate by plugging in some assumed numbers for Bob's age, weight, height, etc. But, even if my numbers were off, the overall estimate is definitely in the ballpark (40 calories per mile of cycling is a pretty good rule of thumb). > One more time, because you're really, really slow: the intensity level is > very important. For cardiovascular health, and training, yes. But, for calculating calories burned...no. Calories burned is only indirectly related to heart rate (it's like looking at the tachometer in your car - at the same speed, your car burns about the same amount of gas whether you're in 4th gear or 5th gear). Signature~_-* ...G/ \G http://www.CycliStats.com CycliStats - Software for Cyclists > >> As slow as he's going, it not necessary at all. In fact, he's robbing > >> himself of the perfect opportunity to use up some stored fat for energy. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >> > > >> > GG hat. -- > > MFW > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > three > >> >> > days per week of "high intensity" weight lifting. >> Clif bars are not low carb. > > And when you're riding your bike 50 miles, that's a good thing. > > GG Actually, I've selected my route to be as hard as I can make it. This 50 mile route includes a 16 mile route that's so hilly that it takes me longer to ride it than it does a 20 mile route (which itself includes two brutal hills -- both above 5% average gradient, though one's small and one's large). I used to ride the 20 mile route, but I'm trying to get my overall time for a century down to under 7 hours and the route I'll be riding for my (first) century this year is very hilly. Thus, I've started adding in more hills in my current rides. So, now I typically ride the 16 mile route, and I'm looking for even harder hills to ride. I've completed 77 miles in an MS ride this year; that took me 5 hours and 20 minutes, but it was very flat and quite an easy ride, except for the heat. Bob this is pretty impressive. Your bike riding has really come a long way! How much are you weighing now? Are you close to goal? I have been working out very hard the past week until yesterday when I pulled a hamstring. Lucky for me it isn't all that bad and I am walking okay today. I hope to be riding next week. Keep up the good work Bob. You are really in pretty good shape regardless of your weight. Curt > OK, last weekend I rode 50.4 miles, very hilly terrain with a bit of wind > and relatively high heat toward the end of the ride; average HR of 154 (of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 125 miles, along with two rides per week of 16-20 miles each and three > days per week of "high intensity" weight lifting. OK, here's some more data on my ride: I have three hills of 3.5, 5.5 and 5.0 percent average gradient from the "bottom" to the "top". This isn't necessarily the true bottom or top of the hill; just some locations I've selected on my GPS's topographic program. On my 16 mile ride, this is only 3 of 10 hills I ride, and only about 1000 feet of climbing. On my 50 mile ride, there's another brutal hill and a very long uphill of about 500 feet of climbing (the long uphill only). On longer rides, there are even more hills. SignatureBob M remove ".x" to reply |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.