fewer.  

"Fewer/less

Joy from the Words to the Wise forum mentioned this one, and it's
another one of my eye-rollers as well. All together now: if countable
items are involved, the word to use is fewer. If a non-countable
quantity is involved, it's less. Or, to employ the simple mnemonic
device I've been using since I was about seven: fewer apples, less milk.
And speaking of edibles, my eyes well up with tears of admiration every
time I go to my local grocery store and see the "15 items or fewer"
placard hanging over the register. "Someone got it right," I usually
whisper through my smile. Sometimes I break into a celebratory Steve
Martin-circa-1978-like jig right then and there, or turn a couple of
cartwheels. Then the manager asks me to leave, and I don't, and the
police get called...but I digress.

To be fair, there is one situation I can think of where the fewer/less
distinction blurs a bit, and that's the quantifying of time. If it's
8:55 PM CST on a Thursday night, do you have less than five minutes or
fewer than five minutes to get settled with a White Russian and some
circus peanuts before ER starts? The short answer: either word works.
Here's why:

Yes, minutes are items, and thus countable. But when we discuss a
specific, "counted-out" chunk of time, we're almost always (consciously
or not) picturing that chunk of time as a whole, as a thing unto itself.
When we hear the phrase "five minutes," we know that that's five counts
of sixty seconds each, or 300 seconds total. But we also think of "five
minutes" as a single block of time, just like we do with an hour or a
day or a year. And since time is intangible and invisible, we get the
sense that despite the numerous units that we've come up with to mark
off its passing, time is more like milk than apples. Time flows, like
liquid, and that means that we tend to view its progression as the
depletion of a quantity more than the subtraction of items. Or, to put
it another way: fewer minutes, less time."

source: http://chicklit.com/words/words4_page2.html

I took in about 20g carbs per hour of riding, along with protein before  
and after (and during, if the ride was long).  At no time did I ever feel  
burnt because of biking.  Note, however, that I ate fruit the day before  
long rides.  I also took in extra carbs immediately after finishing the  
ride.

While it's true that most cycling coaches don't recommend low carb, I've  
found that I can get by with way, way less (fewer?) carbs than  
recommended.  Most carb amounts are driven by athletes who ride daily.  As  
I ride 3-4 days per week (with 2 days lifting), relatively low carb still  
works well. I'd typically be low carb for Mon, Tues, Wed, Thurs, then I'd  
eat some fruit Friday and Saturday I'd be relatively high carb (no plates  
of pasta but other carbs).  Sunday, I tried to have a moderate carb day.

Hmmm...I'm not sure about this.  During my riding season last year, I  
really didn't lose much weight at all.  I was actually quite shocked.  
This year, I'm going to watch the amount I eat after riding, with an  
emphasis on getting enough carbs but not too many and fewer calories.

Not to open a can of worms, but that is one reason why most cycling coaches
recommend against LC.  Any form of endurance exercise requires carbs, and if
you deplete your glycogen stores, you'll get the dreaded "bonk". We all fall
into this nasty state from time to time (typically from trying to go too far
on too little fuel, or simply not eating enough for the level of effort).
But, it would seem to be an even more prevalent problem with LC'ers.

Did you consume any carbs on your 50 mile rides?  If you're riding 50 miles
of hills, there's really no way to do that without taking on carbs during
the ride (most recommend around 200-300 calories per hour, for rides over 90
minutes or so).

True - on a short ride, your natural glycogen levels won't be depleted even
if you don't consume carbs during the ride.  However, for weight loss,
you'll burn more calories by riding longer distances.

GG

I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity that
is very stenuous and done long enough.  For me, cycling long distances (at
high heart rate due to hills) and for many hours didn't help with weight
loss.  The reason for that is because doing so made me very hungry and ended
up with me eating way more food to replace the burnt calories...and also,
and even a much bigger problem than just being hungry, I'd go hypoglycemic
afterwards (after doing about 50 miles or so of cycling).  Then, eating LC
food just didn't help...my body needed carbs or I'd be zonked for hours and
hours.  Trying to balance expenditure with intake when you're doing extreme
levels of exercise is really hard

OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a time, none of
that stuff happens, meaning: I can eat normally and don't find that I go
hypo and need all of those carbs.

I'm not a swimmer....but I have am impression that swimming is a hard
activity...so my guess is that if you want to use it to lose weight, you
must do it in such a way as to be able to control your diet.  That may mean
controlling the amount of time you spend swimming while you're working on
weight loss.  Also, incorporate other activities in too, such as weight
lifting.

Hi everyone,

Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a dietician
recently told me that swimming is not good for weightloss. I did a bit of
googling and found this article which is really interesting:
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There are many
other sites out there with similar info.

Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im thinking my
swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my weightloss journey. On the
other hand I guess *any* excercise is better than none, especially if Im
watching my food intake. What's your opinion?

Caitlin