Weight loss keeping it simple

I'm not a doctor but… 
Cycling injury, recovery and health issues.
Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 23, 2014 10:17 pm

g-boaf wrote:What's your health worth to you?
Enough, that's why I changed my diet to improve my health. The doctors below are advocating diet primarily to improve your health with significant results. Plenty of people still have heart problems while being cyclists.
http://www.heartattackproof.com/
http://pcrm.org/shop/byNealBarnard/dr-b ... g-diabetes
http://www.drmcdougall.com/

g-boaf wrote:There is a point where you just need to try to make changes and look after yourself.
I totally agree. And to do that diet is more important than exercise from what I've seen of the evidence so far. Also by doing long distances you expose yourself to greater risk (just by exposure time) to having an accident that may ruin your health or ability to stay healthy through exercise. It's more expensive too as it cost more in food, bike parts and bikes. A 400Km per week commitment is hard to keep doing over a 10 year period.

Good for you that you are doing something for your health. But for most people it's cheaper and easier just to change their diet and exercise moderately.
Nobody
 
Posts: 6640
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

by BNA » Sun Mar 23, 2014 10:21 pm

BNA
 

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby g-boaf » Sun Mar 23, 2014 10:21 pm

phineas wrote:What really matters? Distance, or time on the bike?

How much time on the bike per week does one need to spend to see some significant fitness/weight change?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Distance and intensity I'd say, just from my own experience and watching the effects of it. Higher intensity, you can probably cut back the kilometres.
The steps I used were:

1. Getting used to those kilometres - doing the rides at steady speed
2. Doing those kilometres at gradually higher speed
3. Building in high intensity interval training (a couple of 45 minute sessions per week, offsetting less total kilometres).

Step one was the big step, and then step 3 brought surprisingly big improvements in fitness more quickly than I expected. I've still got a long way to go.

Nobody wrote:Also by doing long distances you expose yourself to greater risk (just by exposure time) to having an accident that may ruin your health or ability to stay healthy through exercise.


You could get badly injured just walking to get a coffee and tripping on uneven pavement. What you also get from that level of riding is the time you have where you can just clear your head of everything else. I accept that there is a risk, but it is one I can control to a degree.
Last edited by g-boaf on Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4053
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby anttismo » Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:45 am

So perhaps eat less, move more is overly simplistic, so I'd add a few others that help me.

- give up stress, particularly stressing about health, worrying about what you eat and how far you ride.
- eat stuff you like. I like processed foods so much I live almost entirely on them, particularly sugar - eat piles of the stuff
- do stuff you like. I like riding pushies and racing motorcycles. Don't care very much what either does for my health, but I'm going to keep doing them
- accept you are going to die. I'm ready to go, made peace with the universe. Get past this step and you can quite worrying, well about anything.
- smile a lot. Mental attitude is everything, as far as I can tell. If you think whole food and avoiding sugar makes you healthy, then it probably does. I believe being stress free, smiling a lot, eating mountains of whatever the heck I like, and spending lots of time with my hobbies makes me healthy.

And the only evidence I have to back it up is anecdotal. I'm as healthy a person as I know, as in never even take panadol, never get sick, always full of energy, spring in my step at 2am each morning, work enormous hrs when required, 25 hrs a week on the pushie, etc...

And yeah, I'm single and have no kids - 2 awesome benefits to great health :lol:

As far as weight loss goes, eat less, move more, smile a lot :)
Image
User avatar
anttismo
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:53 am
Location: SE Melbourne

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby malnar » Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:49 am

trailgumby wrote:Part of the challenge is in managing the feelings of hunger, which is why so many fail to achieve their goals. It is not a nice place to be, and is not really sustainable in the long term.

So eat less, ride more - while mathematically 100% correct :) - is perhaps not so helpful.

Many of those who suffer weight problems have other baggage (eg, poor impulse control, reflected also in the propensity many I see have for smoking, and dysmorphia, persuading themselves that the blob they see in the mirror isn't so bad, really).

What can we do to help keep it simple for them?


5:2 eating. i.e.
Pick two days of the week. Consume 500-600 calories on those two days. Eat normally on the other 5 days (overall I'm fairly sensible).

Fleeting (eg 30 min) episodes of hunger is something you become familiar with. A glass of water is good at those times. Eating a muffin or whatever on a 600 cal. day is just out of the question. Knowing I have the option of eating it the next day makes it ok, though often I don't eat it the next day anyway.

Started in May 2013 at 81 kg, now 72-73kg.
malnar
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 2:46 pm
Location: Melb - Werribee - City

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby brawlo » Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:32 am

It will really depend on how much weight you need/want to lose. The higher this figure is, the more relevant the eat less move more argument is.

Basically having an HONEST appraisal of your food and exercise if the first step. Modify the diet part in steps. Big changes are fraught with danger and failure.

If the figure you need/want to lose is lower, then you really need an in depth look at your diet/exercise, and it is usually these people that diets work well for as their existing diet usally isn't that bad.
brawlo
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:01 pm
Location: Goulburn, NSW

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby PapaJohn » Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:19 pm

Portion control - underestimated. Many of us are "locked into" eating a certain amount or certain types of energy rich foods. It's not hardship to have the veg option with the steak at the pub as opposed to salad and chips. The pepper sauce may be made with cream.
-It gets harder where someone has an obese spouse who makes the meals at home and they are large. Fill your own plate. Don't go stupid with the reduction. Eat slowly.
-Avoid the late night snack, your body will just pack it away to use when it is needed. Don't do without it, just substitute a less energy rich alternative if you must. Piece of fruit, maybe.
-Don't "diet" or "exercise" People all too often abandon regimes which are all about maintaining a level of activity (which might be a bit tough) and/or limiting food food quantities.
-Maintain a level of physical activity which you actually enjoy for the sake of it, not just because you want to lose weight.
-Feelings of denial and sacrifice must be avoided in order to be successful.
PapaJohn
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:22 pm
Location: Rural NSW

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby clackers » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:03 pm

PapaJohn wrote:Portion control - underestimated. Many of us are "locked into" eating a certain amount or certain types of energy rich foods.


Yes, PJ, the quantum of Tim Tams - the smallest quantity that can be consumed - is the entire box, in my experience. :P
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby Parker » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:54 pm

sogood wrote:
mick243 wrote:Even simpler...
Eat less, move more.

Errr... Is there really anything more to say after this?

Yep, the food industry does some really bad things to stuff, they put really bad things in food that we aren't designed to eat, it isn't THAT simple and we should be vocal about what is really bad and we should totally be vocal about the way the food industry uses science to keep you addicated to foods.

People do need to be educated about food, it isn't as simple as expecting them to research it themselves. I work in an office full of some incredibly stupid people who can't even put boxes together, I do not expect them to be able to research anything by themselves and be able to make an educated decision.

And no, it's not as simple as saying to people, just have a handful of chips, the food scientist have created a product that you need and must have, they've given you an addiction.
Parker
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:25 pm

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby skull » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:54 pm

clackers wrote:
PapaJohn wrote:Portion control - underestimated. Many of us are "locked into" eating a certain amount or certain types of energy rich foods.


Yes, PJ, the quantum of Tim Tams - the smallest quantity that can be consumed - is the entire box, in my experience. :P


They're got a competition on at the moment. Need to buy two boxes in one shop to enter.

2 boxes last less than 5mins

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
User avatar
skull
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby casual_cyclist » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:09 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Soooo what can we do to make the advice simpler and less confronting?

I don't think we can. I don't think it is simple. The simple answer is eat less, exercise more. Eat less than what? Exercise more than what?

Better advice is to rest smart, eat smart, exercise smart.

But what is eat smart? Is is vegan, vegetarian, paleo, low carb, high fat, high protein, raw vegan? There is no consensus and no right answer. I think the best answer is to eat mainly whole foods and minimal refined foods. The amount to eat is tricky though and people need to understand that. Eat too much and you will gain weight. Eat too little and you will slow your metabolism so that at some point you will start storing fat, even if you are eating less than before.

What is exercise smart? Is is HIIT, crossfit, running, walking, resistance training or long slow rides? There is no consensus and no right answer. However, people who exercise too much can experience health problems. People need to be made aware of that. http://chriskresser.com/why-you-may-nee ... rcise-less

A huge problem is the rise of the internet expert, you know the guy who ate a few bananas once and is now a health guru? I think that lots of people have lost weight and all of them have different opinions about how they did it. While the advice they give is well intentioned, it isn't based in science and won't necessarily work for another person.

I don't know anyone who lost a significant amount of weight and kept it off long term. I'm a bad example of that. In Jan 2012, I weighed 96 kg. Over 12 months of healthy eating, I dropped that to 86 kg. I am back up to 95 kg on the back on eating less whole foods and more processed foods.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby casual_cyclist » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:18 pm

I'm just reading some common food myths I see perpetrated in the weight loss threads on this forum. Very interesting reading.

Myth: calories impact weight. Truth: food quality impacts weight.

500 calories worth of processed or fast food does not have the same impact on the body as eating a 500-calorie meal composed of fruits, veggies, whole grain, lean protein, and heart healthy fat


Myth: the maths is precise (a calorie is a calorie). Truth: the maths is wrong.

several foods actually contain less [less calories than stated], because some components don’t get digested. Incomplete digestion means that rather than being absorbed into the body, where calories have to be burned, used, or stored, some simply travel through your digestive system, to become excreted as waste.


Myth: Counting calories is a surefire strategy. Truth: Limiting calories can cause cortisol levels to rise leading to fat storage.

Researchers found that when calories were limited, levels of cortisol, a stress hormone, rose. And calorie counting, even without limitations, also made the women more stressed. Cortisol is known to rev up appetite, spike cravings for fatty and sugary foods, and lead to an increase in belly fat, so causing it to surge surely isn’t a smart weight-control strategy.


Myth: All calories are created equal. Truth: All calories are not equal.

There are three types of calories your body needs: Carbohydrates, protein, and fat. Because each performs a unique function, they aren’t interchangeable, so getting the right amount of each is important.


[note: kinda blows the low fat and low carb diet plans out the window]

Myth: Counting calories is necessary. Truth: Counting calories is not necessary.

I’ve seen clients start to eat more calories and finally break a weight loss plateau, and achieve real and lasting results.


[note: I have had to do this too. When I hit a weight loss plateau, I had to eat more to resume my weight loss]

http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

We should keep a note of this article and if we see any of the myths perpetrated in the future, post a link to the article.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:35 pm

clackers wrote:
PapaJohn wrote:Portion control - underestimated. Many of us are "locked into" eating a certain amount or certain types of energy rich foods.


Yes, PJ, the quantum of Tim Tams - the smallest quantity that can be consumed - is the entire box, in my experience. :P

A lot of science has been put into manufactured products to get you to eat the entire packet. I could explain here but I don't want to go off topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A helmet saved my life
User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 14821
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby clackers » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:54 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:
http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

We should keep a note of this article and if we see any of the myths perpetrated in the future, post a link to the article.


That's a terrible article, CC.

Don't even know where to start.

You'll lose some of those 96kg again if you count the calories in and out - and stick with it.

This is the accepted principle dietitians and sports doctors work by.
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby Nobody » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:59 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:Soooo what can we do to make the advice simpler and less confronting?

I don't think we can. I don't think it is simple. The simple answer is eat less, exercise more. Eat less than what? Exercise more than what?
I agree. I'd argue the better you're educated about diet, the better chance you'll have of long term success.

casual_cyclist wrote:But what is eat smart? Is is vegan, vegetarian, paleo, low carb, high fat, high protein, raw vegan?
I only see two types of diet there.

casual_cyclist wrote:There is no consensus and no right answer.
There may be no consensus, but the below video points to an answer.

Warning: May offend some Atkins/Paleo followers.




casual_cyclist wrote:What is exercise smart? Is is HIIT, crossfit, running, walking, resistance training or long slow rides? There is no consensus and no right answer. However, people who exercise too much can experience health problems. People need to be made aware of that. http://chriskresser.com/why-you-may-nee ... rcise-less
Since it's mainly about diet, there's probably too much emphasis on exercise.
Nobody
 
Posts: 6640
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby anttismo » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:58 am

I reckon "food inc" is getting unfairly hammered....

You can go to the supermarket and fill your shopping trolley with huge amounts of great tasting, energy packed, nutritious stuff for bugger all money. It tastes great, feels great in your mouth, and lasts for ever. I have heaps of stuff kicking around that has been sitting opened for months :lol:

Anyway, this is just my opinion and applies just to me. I feel really, really lucky, and really blessed to live in this age. And super doper lucky I guess that I react to well to highly processed foods.

Obviously to a lot of others it is dangerous stuff. Like cocaine, alcohol, firearms, superbikes, and even bicycles. Bad when out of control, great when used appropriately :)
Image
User avatar
anttismo
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:53 am
Location: SE Melbourne

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby sogood » Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:44 am

Nobody wrote:As nice as that sounds, what happens if you don't have the time, ability and/or inclination to ride 400Km/week?

Then ride 100km and eat a lot less. But with a suitable caloric balance, the more one rides, the faster the weight loss.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16941
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby Nobody » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:07 am

anttismo wrote:I reckon "food inc" is getting unfairly hammered....
I tend to disagree. Good examples of why are below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magaz ... .html?_r=0

There is also the three part series of "The Men Who Made Us Fat".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jxzv8
Nobody
 
Posts: 6640
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby Stefan_A » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:10 am

anttismo wrote:I reckon "food inc" is getting unfairly hammered....

You can go to the supermarket and fill your shopping trolley with huge amounts of great tasting, energy packed, nutritious stuff for bugger all money. It tastes great, feels great in your mouth, and lasts for ever. I have heaps of stuff kicking around that has been sitting opened for months :lol:


can't agree.
energy packed? certainly.
nutritious? relative to what?

relative to fresh or frozen vegetables and fruit, processed stuff doesn't stack up. The reason processed food is cheap is because it doesn't include all the nutrients of more expensive fruits and vege. i.e. on your processed food packet, you are unlikely to find all of these in their natural form and ratios - bioflavinoids, anti-oxidants, phytochemicals,carotenoids, retinols, isoflavins,flavanols, lycopene

as a matter of fact, I honestly cannot understand why some people prefer processed foods to unprocessed. Suppose it's the same as some people preferring to live in an inner urban environment clogged with concrete, humans, dog poo, smog, and cars; rather than closer to nature.

on the subject of 'cheap', those who think fruit and vege are too exy might review their purchasing and consumption habits. most people I know end up throwing out some due to not planning or lazily excluding them from meals. f&v are too exy for me to do so these days. recently, I grimaced when I threw $4 worth of asian greens into the compost pile. $4 is $4.
Stefan_A
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby anttismo » Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:11 am

Nobody wrote:
anttismo wrote:I reckon "food inc" is getting unfairly hammered....
I tend to disagree. Good examples of why are below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magaz ... .html?_r=0

There is also the three part series of "The Men Who Made Us Fat".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jxzv8


Those exactly the kinds of articles I was thinking of. These blokes go to great trouble to optimise these great foods and are hammered for it because most people can't control them themselves. They are just good at their jobs. For some people, such as myself, they have done an excellent job creating more foods I can really enjoy eating, which is a very enjoyable pastime that I spend a lot of time doing. Basically, they have increased the quality of my life :)

But whether them increasing the quality of my life is a reasonable trade off for reducing the health of the population more generally is debatable, so not surprising that we "tend to disagree" :)
Image
User avatar
anttismo
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:53 am
Location: SE Melbourne

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby Constantheadwind » Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:14 am

Depends on your goals for weight loss, be it fitness, image, longevity etc.
The jury is in on who lives longest. Nope, not the skinny guys, nope not the normal weight ones either. In fact BMI 27 i.e. fat people. Looks like I need to eat more & exercise less to shift me up into the longevity bracket.
Constantheadwind
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:19 am

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby anttismo » Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:40 am

Stefan_A wrote:
anttismo wrote:I reckon "food inc" is getting unfairly hammered....

You can go to the supermarket and fill your shopping trolley with huge amounts of great tasting, energy packed, nutritious stuff for bugger all money. It tastes great, feels great in your mouth, and lasts for ever. I have heaps of stuff kicking around that has been sitting opened for months :lol:


can't agree.
energy packed? certainly.
nutritious? relative to what?

relative to fresh or frozen vegetables and fruit, processed stuff doesn't stack up. The reason processed food is cheap is because it doesn't include all the nutrients of more expensive fruits and vege. i.e. on your processed food packet, you are unlikely to find all of these in their natural form and ratios - bioflavinoids, anti-oxidants, phytochemicals,carotenoids, retinols, isoflavins,flavanols, lycopene...


Nutritious relative to a pile of dirt, lol. Now as I understand it, even pure sugar is nutritious - it is 100% a nutrient, by definition. All those lovely processed and packaged foods I buy are packed full of sugars and fats and protien. Probably devoid of al lot of other stuff that are important, so definately worth eating other stuff, fruits and veggies, for example. I wouldn't suggest for a minute that your diet should be 100% sugar...

Stefan_A wrote:...as a matter of fact, I honestly cannot understand why some people prefer processed foods to unprocessed. Suppose it's the same as some people preferring to live in an inner urban environment clogged with concrete, humans, dog poo, smog, and cars; rather than closer to nature...


I'll try and help you understand. It's because it tastes good. The clever people at those *cough* evil food companies spend a lot of time making food that is enjoyable to eat, tastes good, feels good, fulfills cravings, etc That's why I do it. I enjoy it. That's pretty much it. Some un-processed foods I like and eat a lot of too. But I really like some highly processed stuff.[/quote]

Stefan_A wrote:...on the subject of 'cheap', those who think fruit and vege are too exy might review their purchasing and consumption habits. most people I know end up throwing out some due to not planning or lazily excluding them from meals. f&v are too exy for me to do so these days. recently, I grimaced when I threw $4 worth of asian greens into the compost pile. $4 is $4.


Yeah I agree. Not on the cheap part - processed foods tend to be cheaper than the equvalent nutirents (i.e. calories) compared to fruit and vege. But anyway, I agree that wastage is bad. Basically everything that comes home from the supermarket gets eaten - meat, fruit, veg, processed foods, whatever. The processed keeps for a long time, which is extra convenient :)
Image
User avatar
anttismo
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:53 am
Location: SE Melbourne

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby casual_cyclist » Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:56 am

clackers wrote:You'll lose some of those 96kg again if you count the calories in and out - and stick with it.

This is the accepted principle dietitians and sports doctors work by.

Well, I was over 120kg and I got down to 86 kg without counting a single calorie. I don't care if calorie counting is the accepted principle dietitians and sports doctors work by. They are treating the fat people but it doesn't seem to be working does it?

All I did to lose weight was to eat more whole foods and less processed foods. To gain weight again I did not binge, over eat or eat ridiculous amounts of food. I just ate more processed foods and less whole foods. I bet you by the end of the year I will be under 90 kg again without counting a single calorie ever. All I will do is eat mostly whole foods and minimal processed foods. That's it. It will work. I guarantee it.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby casual_cyclist » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:02 am

Nobody wrote:
casual_cyclist wrote:There is no consensus and no right answer.
There may be no consensus, but the below video points to an answer.
Warning: May offend some Atkins/Paleo followers.

If there was "one answer" then we would not be having this discussion.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby biker jk » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:04 am

Constantheadwind wrote:Depends on your goals for weight loss, be it fitness, image, longevity etc.
The jury is in on who lives longest. Nope, not the skinny guys, nope not the normal weight ones either. In fact BMI 27 i.e. fat people. Looks like I need to eat more & exercise less to shift me up into the longevity bracket.


Unfortunately, these studies are based on BMI and not body fat, so take them with a grain of salt. Belly fat has been linked with early death.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Weight loss keeping it simple

Postby casual_cyclist » Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:22 pm

biker jk wrote:
Constantheadwind wrote:Depends on your goals for weight loss, be it fitness, image, longevity etc.
The jury is in on who lives longest. Nope, not the skinny guys, nope not the normal weight ones either. In fact BMI 27 i.e. fat people. Looks like I need to eat more & exercise less to shift me up into the longevity bracket.


Unfortunately, these studies are based on BMI and not body fat, so take them with a grain of salt. Belly fat has been linked with early death.

So all Constantheadwind needs to do is get his BMI up to 27 without putting on belly fat. Good luck with that! :wink:
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit