Hill problems

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:42:28 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, the other part of the routine, besides eating salads for lunch, is to
weigh myself every day. When for some reason or other (most likely differing
levels of water retention) my weight drops down a bit, I decide that's the
new semi-permanent target I want.

Cool. Most people in the 'diet ngs' say don't weigh yourself everyday, but
as you've shown there are good reasons to do it here...

What works for some doesn't work for others. What got me started on losing a
bit of weight was the Sequoia double-metric in '04. I came back 8 pounds
lighter at the end than I started; obviously, most of that was water. But
that became my target- keep those 8 pounds off. After two weeks, my weight
stabilized at the lower weight (and no, I didn't stop drinking water!).

Interestingly, I've done the same thing. You probably know that lots of
water is used in activating and burning up fat reserves, biochemically
speaking. If you were drinking water the whole time, you may have actually
had some fat loss, along with some catabolic muscle loss.

After the 8lbs loss, or say in the next short while did your cycling
clothes fit a little looser? Looser clothes can be a give-away that it's
not water loss (though some people seem to have water retention that they
don't need it seems, non-scientifically speaking...)

Quoted message said:

If I hadn't checked the scale, I wouldn't have had the motivation. The
changes in weight aren't fast, and that can cause problems for many, who
want to see big results quickly. That's probably the reason they don't
recommend weighing yourself every day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's really nice having a real weight that's lower than what's on the
driver's license. :>😉

What's your BF%? You could probably go do a free introductory visit to
gym and get a free caliper test. Might be interesting. You might find out
you could get down to 160 and still have the same energy. But you'd lose
that last few lbs of fat -very- slowly to spare your muscle, imo.

I could easily get down to 160 and not be in danger of losing muscle. Still
lots of extra stuff hanging around the middle! Oh, when I say I could
"easily" get down to 160, I don't mean that the process would be easy, just
that it could be done without sacrificing muscle.

You're in your late 40s, right? Ever had your T checked?

jj

Quoted message said:

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

jet said:

Quoted message said:

What works for some doesn't work for others. What got me started on losing a
bit of weight was the Sequoia double-metric in '04. I came back 8 pounds
lighter at the end than I started; obviously, most of that was water. But
that became my target- keep those 8 pounds off. After two weeks, my weight
stabilized at the lower weight (and no, I didn't stop drinking water!).

Interestingly, I've done the same thing. You probably know that lots of
water is used in activating and burning up fat reserves, biochemically
speaking. If you were drinking water the whole time, you may have actually
had some fat loss, along with some catabolic muscle loss.

After the 8lbs loss, or say in the next short while did your cycling
clothes fit a little looser? Looser clothes can be a give-away that it's
not water loss (though some people seem to have water retention that they
don't need it seems, non-scientifically speaking...)

Okay that was probably the dumbest post I've made this week...

Of course the 8lbs you lost then had to be almost entirely fluid. You were
talking psychological boost from a different number on the scale.

The act of drinking a lot of water -may- actually allow easier fat loss if
you are following a hypocaloric diet at the time. Fat is lost and is
expelled as water vapor and through the kidneys.

Looser clothes, over time can mean some fat lost especially if it's
waistline. Besides fat on your waist - you also have visceral fat, though
the deposition of fat can be on the waist, or on the hips and butt - might
be genetically determined, gender-determined...

duh

jj

"jet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:33:36 GMT, "Larry Hartman" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

I don't know what mileages you're getting per week, but just a bit of a
warning; I didn't start losing weight until I got up over 150 miles per
week. Now I was only riding at a sedate 16 to 17mph, and an average speed
of about 14mph, with all the turning around at neighborhood dead ends, and
slowing and circling at traffic lights. So at 22 mph speeds, you may be
burning a tad more calories. Not sure if you could get by with less
mileage, but riding with a group, I suspect you're at least getting around
100 per week..

JJ
I've figured my average weekly mileage since May, it's 181. I normally
do at least a Century on Saturday's. My group rides to breakfast on Saturday
morning. Normally it ends up being around 70mi. round trip, till I ride to
the start, and home from the start, I pick up another 35. Usually on Sunday,
if the wife allows, I'll do a few club rides picking up an additional 60mi.
I live at the base of a mountain, so during the week after work I've begun
taking a lap around the "block". My block consists of a 10mi. loop, up over
the mountain, east for about 4 mi., then back up over the same mountain on a
different road. I've probably done this 11 times now, I'm still waiting for
it to get easier. I think an infant can crawl faster than I am riding when I
reach the crest of the mountain. I thought the problem may have been wind
resistance, so I shaved off my beard Saturday night. In preparation for the
Lancaster County Covered Bridge Metric Century ride on Sunday. I learned a
few things on Sunday.

1. It's awful winding in Lancaster County
2. A beard makes no difference when it is windy
3. No matter which way you are riding, the wind shifts to be in your face
4. Riding on roads through cornfields, is very hot
5. Trying to dodge all the horse droppings from the buggies, can be a pain
and #6 the most important of all

6. Never and I mean never get in a pace line on roads where there may be
horse droppings
6(a). No matter how long you've known them, no matter how good of
friends you thought they were, when the horse [censored] shoots from the back tire
in front of you and sticks to the side of your mouth, everyone around is
going to laugh.

Later,
Larry

Quoted message said:

Looser clothes, over time can mean some fat lost especially if it's
waistline. Besides fat on your waist - you also have visceral fat, though
the deposition of fat can be on the waist, or on the hips and butt - might
be genetically determined, gender-determined...

The fat resides almost entirely above the waist line... that sort of thing
where, when you bend over, you feel a "plop" that tells you there's more
there than ought to be. The fat goes away everywhere else first,
particularly the face and upper body (chest area... reduction of male
[censored]?).

The goal is to be in better shape at 50 (next year) than I was at 35. I'm
getting very close to that. My weight will actually be a bit lower, but the
strength is what still needs some work. Endurance is better, but absolute
raw climbing power, particularly on super-steep stuff, is diminished. That's
where weight reduction is such a huge help, as, if I'm not able to get the
muscles a whole lot stronger, I can at least dramatically improve the power
to weight ratio.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"jet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jet said:

Quoted message said:

What works for some doesn't work for others. What got me started on
losing a
bit of weight was the Sequoia double-metric in '04. I came back 8 pounds
lighter at the end than I started; obviously, most of that was water. But
that became my target- keep those 8 pounds off. After two weeks, my
weight
stabilized at the lower weight (and no, I didn't stop drinking water!).

Interestingly, I've done the same thing. You probably know that lots of
water is used in activating and burning up fat reserves, biochemically
speaking. If you were drinking water the whole time, you may have actually
had some fat loss, along with some catabolic muscle loss.

After the 8lbs loss, or say in the next short while did your cycling
clothes fit a little looser? Looser clothes can be a give-away that it's
not water loss (though some people seem to have water retention that they
don't need it seems, non-scientifically speaking...)

Okay that was probably the dumbest post I've made this week...

Of course the 8lbs you lost then had to be almost entirely fluid. You were
talking psychological boost from a different number on the scale.

The act of drinking a lot of water -may- actually allow easier fat loss if
you are following a hypocaloric diet at the time. Fat is lost and is
expelled as water vapor and through the kidneys.

Looser clothes, over time can mean some fat lost especially if it's
waistline. Besides fat on your waist - you also have visceral fat, though
the deposition of fat can be on the waist, or on the hips and butt - might
be genetically determined, gender-determined...

duh

jj

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

The fat resides almost entirely above the waist line... that sort of thing
where, when you bend over, you feel a "plop" that tells you there's more
there than ought to be. The fat goes away everywhere else first,
particularly the face and upper body (chest area... reduction of male
[censored]?).

So if Johann did a butt check on you he'd be rubbing his chin and
pondering? <>

At 166, and what, 5'10, I'm surprised...

Betcha look ok in a medium jersey, though, huh? No obvious bulges?

The reason a lot of guys your age can't get rid of that belly fat might be
low test. levels. Grin and bear it or do HRM...

jj

Quoted message said:

The goal is to be in better shape at 50 (next year) than I was at 35. I'm
getting very close to that. My weight will actually be a bit lower, but the
strength is what still needs some work. Endurance is better, but absolute
raw climbing power, particularly on super-steep stuff, is diminished. That's
where weight reduction is such a huge help, as, if I'm not able to get the
muscles a whole lot stronger, I can at least dramatically improve the power
to weight ratio.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

Just keep riding hills.

I am 6'6" and weigh 250 lbs. I am not fat, but want to trim 20 lbs.

I ride about 2500 miles a summer here in Minnesota and during the winter I
ride a spinner. I want to lose about 20 pounds, and IMO have to do one
thing that you should: Eat less.

My legs are almost always spinning at 60-80 rpm. Down hill (unless
cruising) flat and uphill. That is what the gears are for. Push yourself.
Little by little it works. I find it is easier to ride maintaining the
cadence. I also ride with a friend, and the distraction of converstion
makes the miles go by easier.

I really do not down many carbs during riding. I usually only drink
icewater and then eat lots of protein after the ride. The night before on
long rides, I eat lots of protein. This works for me, it may not work for
you.

BTW I used to play college football, I weighed 290 lbs, was a lineman for a
big university, and rode a bike then too. (I am 48 now - that was 28 years
ago) I did not have any problems then riding up hills but then again I was
not fat at 290. We ran 3 to 5 miles a day during training and ran during
the week while being fed like "hogs". Diet was/is the most important thing
along with exercise/conditioning.

I eventually went down to 220 pounds when I was in the military after
college, and slowly crept up to 265, and lost the weight by control of
eating.

My two cents.

Ed

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I really acknowledge your commitment. I'm inspired by you.

I can totally relate to lure of climbing hills. I live out west and
it's a very rewarding thing to do. There're couple of suggestions I
have.

1. Keep both feet on the pedels, and pedel with both of them.
One-legged stuff is not recommended for some one with your short term
goals.

2. Climbing hills is not the most efficient way of losing weight.
It's likely that you're very quickly going anaerobic and your body is
being fueled almost exclusively by glucose (which, along with lactic
acid build-up may be why you crash after a while). If you want to lose
weight, get a heart rate monitor, and work out for an hour a day (six
days a week) between 65 and 72% of your max heart rate. You can do it
indoors or out. You will train your body to be a fat burning machine
fairly quickly by staying in that range. That's how you'll lose weight
(keeping a record of your daily calorie intake can help a lot too).
Then you'll be a monster on those hills. If you really want to get
specific, have a VO2 max test done at the gym and you'll get a very
accurate max heart rate to put into your heart rate monitor rather than
the age based calculations.

3. The second half of being a monster on those hills is training your
body to buffer lactic acid better. That's done through interval
traing. Bring your heart rate up (80 - 85%) and then back down (70%).
Do a little research into anaerobic threshold training. You can train
your body fairly quickly (a few months maybe) to buffer enough lactic
acid to keep up on those hills.

4. The third half of eating up those hill is covered fairly well in
all the other responses to your post.

Joe

In article <DR4Ne.4293$_D4.1198@trndny05>, Larry Hartman
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Hello Larry,

I like to instill a common saying to you and that is, the longer the
base you train (distance), the higher the space you gain (speed).

And you might wonder -- what's this?

It is simply to develop a riding base at your own most comfortable
speed and increase that base. If you ride up to 30 miles at 13 to
15mph, why not gradually increase that mileage to 40, 50, 60 all the
way up to a century first at the same pace? The key is to cycle at
your most efficient aerobic fat burning state (not anaerobic where you
will crash yourself in a jiffy ), but develop the necessary stamina and
power gradually. Once you develop a good solid working base, you can
then do a little speed training -- increase your base line up a notch
and a notch.
I think what you are doing right now is to try and kill 2 birds with
one stone --increasing speed and increasing distance all at the same
time.
This is not always a wise course of action for a beginning cyclist.

Your weight shouldn't be an issue to go fast on flats and uphills. I
know guys and gals who were in your shoes long ago and are now super
strong riders in their own might, beating the very same people who
dropped them years earlier.

David.