Maintaining my racing weight

A little less than a year ago I wrote about attaining my racing weight again. That was 154 lbs or 11 stone in the UK, the weight I was when I raced back in the 1960s and 1970s. Actually after writing that piece I continued to lose and my weight finally settled at 150 lb.

I have maintained that weight, within a pound or so either way, for a year now. Even through last winter when I wasn’t riding my bike as much. I weigh myself every morning the moment I get out of bed and log my weight with the date.

This may seem excessive to some people, but it does make it easier to maintain a target weight. If, for example, I eat out in a restaurant, I can practically guarantee I will be a pound or two over the next day. But ride a few extra miles on the bike the following day, or cut back on my food intake and I am right back where I need to be.

Without that daily log it would be all too easy to gain a pound a day, and be 10 lb. overweight before I know it. And quite honestly I don’t want to go back there again, not now that I have discovered how good it feels to be slim and fit again.

I will admit part of my initial motivation was vanity. I have always cared about my appearance.

And quite frankly a large belly and back fat handles hanging over my belt, I felt did not look good.

If vanity is a crime then I am guilty, but I look around me, and there is way too much “Visual Pollution” in this world without my adding to it.

All it takes to lose and then maintain a healthy weight is organization and discipline. And the discipline part gets easy after a very short time, as your body adjusts to the new food intake. I rarely feel hungry. Riding a bike has become so easy.

So often I hear from others my age that “Growing Old Sucks.” It doesn’t have to. I’m not saying everyone should do it, but I can recommend it.

      To Share click "Share Article" below

My Racing Weight

I wrote last week about the Imperial vs. Metric weights and measures. People in the UK still measure their personal weight in Stones. I currently weigh eleven stone, which was my racing weight. There are 14 lbs. in a stone, so eleven stone is 154 lbs. American.

As a teen I was pretty skinny and weighed around ten and a half stone 147 lbs. But by the time I reached my twenties and into my thirties I had added some muscle and was consistently 11 Stone. It was the weight I strived for every spring after packing on a two or three winter pounds.

It was the weight I was when I arrived in New Jersey in 1979. I rode a few races here in the US.

The picture left shows me in my Paris Sport, New Jersey Bicycle Club kit, having my number pinned on before a race.

I didn’t like the US Criterium style racing. Plus guys were openly snorting cocaine in the changing rooms and even on the start line, which hardly seemed fair to me.

The thing I really didn’t like was the way everyone talked about crashing, and showed off scars like it was some kind of achievement.

I rode three maybe four races and at 43 years old, decided it was time to hang up my racing wheels for good. In the years that followed framebuilding took up all my time and there was little time for riding a bike anyway. I was never grossly overweight and I think the most I have ever weighed was 175 lbs.

In recent years, in spite of eating healthy and riding my bike a lot, I seemed to be stuck at 12 stone, (168 lbs.) and I had that annoying belly fat. I came to the conclusion that exercise alone is not enough to lose weight, neither is diet. It has to be a combination of the two.

The first thing I did was check into my Resting Metabolic Rate. (RMR) This is an estimate of the calories I would burn each day if I did nothing but lay in bed or sit on the couch all day. I found this useful calculator. Your RMR depends largely on your gender, age, height and weight. Mine turned out to be around 1,300 calories a day. The cruel reality is, as you get older your RMR goes down.

I started about three months ago. I made sure I consumed no more than 1,300 calories a day, plus I rode my bike between 100 and 150 miles per week. I usually do a 50 or 60 mile ride on Sunday and I try to eat a good meal, with bread or pasta, the night before. I also carry food with me on the ride, just in case I should run out of gas.

I weigh myself every morning as soon as I get out of bed, and keep a log. Looking back at the log, I weighed 168 lbs. when I started. I immediately lost 3 lb. in the first three days. After that I seem to be on a cycle of lose a lb. maintain that weight for a few days then lose another lb. The overall pattern has been one of steadily losing weight.

I have lost a stone or 14 lbs. which was my target. One doesn’t realize how much even 10 lbs. is until you hold it in one hand.

Simple movements like standing up from a chair or climbing steps are so much easier. My belly is now flat and I can get into some clothes that I haven’t worn in years.

Here I am, 36 years after my last race and I’ve reached my “Racing Weight” once more. It's a good feeling.

All I have to do now is maintain it. On the days I don’t ride I just have to make sure I don’t go too much over my RMR. 1,300 calories. 

Footnote: Before anyone makes comments about my socks. Three-quarter length cycling socks is the one current trend I refuse to follow. The reason is simple. When I am wearing shorts and sandals in a social setting, (Which is most of the year here in hot, sunny, South Carolina.) I do not need a sun tan line halfway up my calf. I'm sorry, deal with it.

 To Share click "Share Article" below 

Walking, running, cycling: Burning calories

In September of 2007 I wrote an article "Running vs. Cycling: Burning Calories." This one piece gets more hits per day than any other article; at least 150 hits per day, thanks to Google search.

It seems the article gets this many hits because it contains information that people seek out and are interested in. I used data that was gathered by fitness expert Dr. Edward Coyle; he stated that a person running one mile burned 110 calories.

It didn’t matter what speed you ran at, if you were an out of shape beginner, or a super fit athlete. This statement upset a lot of super fit and serious runners. I never intended to belittle the dedicated runner, but the fact is we were talking about distance covered, not speed.

Energy expended is measured in Horse Power, or Watts; both are the energy needed to lift a Weight, a certain Distance, in a certain time. Horse power is Foot/lbs per min, Watts is metric; Kilos/Meters per min.

Many could not grasp the concept that if a fit runner ran a mile in 6 minutes, he was using the same energy, burning the same amount of calories as an unfit runner running a 12 minute mile.

The reason is the slower runner is running at half the effort, but is running for twice as long; so the Wattage/Calories burned is the same.

If effort = y, then the faster athlete is running at (y) times 6 mins. While the slower runner’s output is (½ y) times 12minutes. Both are the same.

Today there is a wonderful website called Wolfram Alfra. You can type in “walking,” “running,” or “cycling.” You can then input time, speed, even gender and body weight, to calculate calories burned, and compare.

You can also add height, age, and resting heart rate, etc. if you want to get really precise.

According to what I found a fit male athlete weighing 150lbs. running one mile in 6 minutes. (Pace 6 mim/mi.) would burn 117 calories. Close to Dr. Coyle’s 110 calories quoted in the original article.

Here is where it gets interesting. Again not to belittle any dedicated runners, but a runner of the same weight and gender, running a mile in 12 minutes, would actually burn 124 calories. (Acording to this calculator.)

The only reason I can think of for the higher calorie burn for the slower runner is that during running or walking, a certain amount of energy is required just to support your body weight. It makes sense if you are on the road for twice as long; you are supporting your body weight twice as long.

The figures for walking also bring up a similar result. 150lb. man walking a mile in 15 minutes (4 mph.) burns 73 calories; a 150lb. man walking same mile in 30 minutes (2 mph.) burns 90 calories.

Also let’s say the unfit slower runner weighs 300lbs. double the fit runner’s weight. The 300lb. man would burn 248 calories. More than double the faster runner’s calorie burn at half the speed.

As pointed out in the original article, cycling is different because wind resistance comes into play, and the faster you ride the more calories burned for the same distance.

So a 150lb. male cyclist riding 10 miles in 30 minutes (20mph.) would burn 587 calories.

A 150lb. cyclist riding half the speed 10 miles in one hour (10 mph.) would burn 354 calories.

Considerably less even though the slower rider is on the road twice as long; however, the difference in wind resistance between 10mph and 20mph is huge.

Interestingly, an unfit 300lb. male cyclist riding 10 miles in 2 hours (only 5mph.) would burn 816 calories. That is more than the super fit cyclist riding 10 miles at 20mph.

It seems an unfit newcomer to walking, running or cycling can take some comfort in the knowledge that the extra weight they are carrying will initially cause them to burn more calories.

With running or walking, because wind resistance has little or no bearing on output, your calorie burn will drop as you lose weight. The only way to maintain the rate of calorie burn is to increase the distance, although not necessarily the speed. The only limitation will be the time available to you to walk or run.

However, with cycling as you lose weight and your fitness increases, so too will your speed increase, translating into more calories burned due to increased wind resistance.

More speed also means more distance covered in the same amount of time. The same is true for running of course, but with less effect on number of calories burned.

I feel the Wolfram Alpha program will be extremely useful for anyone starting an exercise regimen, or even a fit cyclist trying to figure out if a short fast ride is as beneficial as a longer ride at a slower pace. It will help an individual better manage the time available for exercise.  

                        

Bike to work, lose weight

Here is an inspirational story about Englishman Gary Brennan, who at the beginning of 2008 weighed 546 lbs.

He started riding a bike 7 miles each way to work, five days a week and in less that a year lost 224 lbs.

The top picture shows Gary as he was, and the picture on the left is as he is now.

Doctors had previously told him the only way he could lose the weight was to have gastric bipass surgury.

When he started riding to work the seven mile ride took him two hours. I cannot imagine the effort it must have taken to haul over 500 lbs on a bike, up even the slightest incline. Today the daily commute takes Gary about twenty minutes each way.

Read more about Gary Brennan here, and he also has some great cycling promo videos here.

Cycling is a great way to burn calories. It can be as gentle or intense as you wish to make it. I can imagine when Gary started out just the amount of weight he had to propel forward burned a lot of calories even at a slow speed.

The great thing about cycling is, the faster you ride the more calories you burn per mile traveled because of the increase in wind resistance.  As Gary lost weight and gained fitness, he rode faster and burned more calories.

Like all exercise, it is a chore at first, but when you reach a certain fitness level cycling becomes a joy and a pleasure.

Regular readers already know the health benefits of cycling, but here is dramatic proof of what can be achieved in extreme circumstances.

Share it with someone you know who could benifit from an inspirational story like this one

Footnote: For US readers, Gary talks about weighing 39 stone. A Stone = 14 lbs. (39 x 14 = 546 lbs.)