Any cycling enthusiasts 'round here? About This Page:

[Pax]

Originally Posted by Coop

1- 1000 cal at any fast food restaurant is too much. It's done every day yes, but it is too much

3000 calorie a day required intake. 3 meals. How many calories per meal?

Hint: the answer has four digits; three of them are zeroes.

Now I'm done with you.

Likewise.

[Ashli]

Ok, I am not a medical professional of any variety, but I do avidly work out and research exercise and nutrition, and I have to agree that I have never heard of 3,000 calories being a RDA for anyone besides a body builder. Definitely not for someone trying to LOSE weight. Will you lose weight eating 2200 cals a day if it is less than your normal intake and you had been maintaining weight, yes. Could you have far greater results if you ate a healthy diet with less calories? Yes. But the results are 100% dependent on what you decide you want to put into it. Exercising more is a great start, so keep it up and ride on!

[Pax]

::sigh::

Originally Posted by Ashli

Will you lose weight eating 2200 cals a day if it is less than your normal intake and you had been maintaining weight, yes. Could you have far greater results if you ate a healthy diet with less calories? Yes.

2,200 calories is the recommended intake for adult men of healthy weight, according to the USDA (the source of things like the food pyramid, the recommended daily intake information on all your food, etc). So for a man, "less" would not be healthy, unless he was unusually short and/or had an unusually light build.

My target weight is a modest 200# - about 30# overweight for my gender, age, and height, but still ~150# lighter than when I started losing. I also expect to get at least 30 minutes to an hour of solid, vigorous exercise almost every day (I was distinctly unhappy that the 90+ temperatures, and near-100 dew point, made it unsafe for someone in my physical (out-of)-shape to go out cycling).

According to the calorie calculator at the Mayo clinic, I should be eating 2,750 calories per day, once I reach that weight, in order to maintain it - and that's if I tone down my activity levels. If I keep up with daily, challenging cycling routes (which eventually, even at a brisk 10mph pace, will be 2 or 3 hours apiece on average) ...? That same calculator says 3,250 calories, to maintain that weight.

Even if we set the calculator to 175 pounds - right around the top end of "not at all overweight" for my height, age, and gender - the intake to maintain that weight is 2,950/day. Close enough to 3,000, really.

...

Because, that's the thing: there is no always-going-to-work, one-size-fits-all caloric intake that will work for everyone, all the time, period. How many calories you need is based on several things, chief among them your gender, your activity level, your height/build, and your weight.

When losing weight, you do NOT want to crash down to a significantly lower weight, too rapidly. That is unhealthy, in itself. 1 pound per week, is a pretty good, and fast-but-safe, rate of loss. With 1 pound of body fat being roughly the equivalent of 3500 calories, shorting your Maintenance intake by 500 calories per day is a good benchmark to produce moderate and "not unsafe" weight loss.

Let's go back to that Mayo Clinic calculator, then. It says, for my level of activity, current weight (280#), height (5 foot 10 inches), and gender ... I should be taking in between 2750 and 3250 calories, per day. Split the difference, that's 3,000; cut 500 from that, we're looking at a 2500/day diet.

Almost 150% of the 1800 calorie citation that started this whole unpleasant .... "thing".

If I maintained my planned level of activity, an 1,800 calori per day diet would drop me to 80 pounds. EIGHTY. I haven't weighed so little, since I was ten years old! Maybe younger!

For comparison, the BMI for a 42 year old, 5'10" tall man weighing 80 pounds, is only 11.5; the BMI for that same man weighing a properly healthy 170 pounds is 24.4 ...

1800 calories per day, for me or anyone generally similar (height, weight, gender, activity level) would be dangerously unhealthy.

...

And yes, great, you've done research ... for yourself. A woman. Men need more. At healthy weight, and assuming identical height and age? A man is going to weigh more - skeletally, as well as the attendant muscle structure. Feeding all that extra mass, is going to take extra calories.

Age 31-50, average height, moderately active: a woman needs 1800 kcal/day, a man needs 2200 kcal/day. To maintain their average, healthy-range weight.

1800 kcal/day for a man, would be like ... well, proportionately? About 1,470 kcal/day for a woman. IOW, about 18.8% below the USDA's recommendation.

[Ashli]

All I'm going to say is please see a weight-loss specific doctor/nutritionist because you do not seem to understand weight-loss nutrition. Eating less than 2200 cal as part of a healthy diet is NOT unhealthy (even if you are a man). My husband went from 300# to msintaining 180, so please stop with the condescending sppech about how my research has only been for a mere woman. Again, please see a nutritionist trainer if you hope for healthy results. It isn't only about calories if you want to actually be healthy, and as your planned meal at KFC/Taco Bell shows, you don't get that.

[Ashli]

Healthy Eating Plan

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood institute specifically says here that a diet of 1200-1600 calories is an acceptable weight loss level FOR MEN.

[Pax]

Originally Posted by Ashli

Eating less than 2200 cal as part of a healthy diet is NOT unhealthy (even if you are a man).

My husband went from 300# to msintaining 180, [...]

Great - congrats to him.

Now ... did he exercise (more than he was previously)...? Or did he maintain his prior activity level, just reducing his daily intake to achieve that weightloss?

[...] please stop with the condescending sppech [...]

"Disagreeing" and "condescending" are not synonyms. Neither is "pointing out factual errors".

[...] about how my research has only been for a mere woman.

Right. Sexism. Yayy.

I never used, nor implied, "mere". Were this ANYwhere else than PassPorter, the flamethrower would be out and lit right now. Keep your misandry to yourself.

[...] as your planned meal at KFC/Taco Bell shows, you don't get that.

Actually, that KFC meal shows nothing of the sort.

See, as I explained before - even if I had stayed home, I was going to have something for lunch. One can of soda, and a bowl of soup or similar. About 600 to 700 calories.

If I burned ~1000 calories getting to and from KFC, and while there, added an extra 300 or 400 calories to that lunch? (That 1K figure is based on traveling 50% further, so, burning 50% more calories.)

I would still be at negative six hundred calories, compared to having just stayed home.

Even doing that EVERY DAY (presumably varying where and what I ate out, and of course, supplying my other nutritional needs during other meals at home), I would lose two pounds per week.

Originally Posted by Ashli

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood institute specifically says here that a diet of 1200-1600 calories is an acceptable weight loss level FOR MEN.

Uh-huh. For someone minimally active, and losing weight only through reducing intake.

Or did you not read the part where they were calling those diets a reduction of 500 to 1000 calories? Well, gee, 1200-1600, plus 500-1000? mens they were looking at a range of 2100 to 2200. Which in turn, is for a slightly active lifstyle - not one where you're cycling 5+ miles a day, every day (or nearly so). And, is for men already in their target weight zone.

Once again, this calculator here - plugging in my height (5'10"), weight (280), age (42), and just "5x/week" for exercise? And no, NOT the "intensive" activity level ...

It suggests:

• Maintenance: 3187
• Weight loss: 2549
• Extreme weight loss: 2240

Now, that ride 2/3 of the way to KFC, 4.6 miles, burned 688 kcal. You should be able to see it here: Second Ride on 2013-06-29 | cycling Training Log Entry | MapMyRide

Again, if I went 50% further over similarly-hilly terrain, logically, I should burn 50% more calories. It's a reasonable guesstimate, anyway. So ... call it 1,000 calories.

What's 2549, minus 1,000?

...

...

The answer is 1,549. And boy oh boy, doesn't that fit nicely into your "1200 to 1600" thing? (BTW, yes, now I am being condescending. You've bloody well earned it.)




And here's the really fun part of all of this, first with Coop, now with you: I post here, about how excited I am to be starting a new exercise regimen, and the continuing weight loss I expect to enjoy.

Then along comes first Coop, and then you ... who apparently have nothing better to do than put me on the defensive. Did you even try to think before you posted ...? Good grief, SERIOUSLY ... what exactly did you expect to accomplish by reviving an argument that had already gotten distinctly unfriendly, a whole week after it ended?

What was your aim? What was your goal?

What reaction did you think I would have??

If your goal was to tick me off, congratulations, you've accomplished it.



I came to this forum to talk about my cycling, because I knew there were others here who wer ealso working to lose or control their weight. I knew there would be people who shared my enthusiasm, and would maybe give me a bit of encouragement.

I did not come here looking to have people tell me I was doing something "wrong" (read: "not as good as I should have done"). Yet, between Coop and you? That's what I got.

So, yeah.

Thanks for that.

Yayy, and stuff. [/sarcasm]

[duck addict]

Please, let us eliminate the personal attacks on this subject.

Sean on your continued weight loss program

To the others, please limit your 'suggestions' to PM's to Sean (Pax), where he can choose to enter a dialogue or not, at his discretion.

Thank you!