Oh for crying out loud

[Agentbolt]

Very annoyed at this point. A month ago I saw some pictures of myself at a wedding, and it wasn't a pretty sight. Ever since I got a desk job and started working the late shift, my weight has just gotten out of control. 6'3", 250 pounds.

Grabbing unhealthy food sometimes is my only option sometimes, due to serious time constraints, so I figured I should at least be vastly increasing my exercise levels, which I did. I started biking to work, which is 10 miles each way. It takes about 45 minutes - 1 hour on the bike each way, which means I'm working out about 2 hours a day.

I bike pretty vigorously, both to make time and because it's better exercise. Since hills and stuff make my average speed useless to compute, I go by how sore I feel afterwards, and my legs especially feel pretty darn abused at the end of the day.

So according to all the "calories burned" calculators out there, I should be burning between 1000-1400 calories that I wasn't before, due solely to the biking.

My eating habits have changed somewhat, in that I actually was eating a BIT more than I used to, simply because I've found myself being ravenously hungry throughout the day. I assumed it was because of the biking. It's mostly garbage fast food and candy and such, but that's what it was before the exercising as well, and I'm not eating significantly more of it than I used to.

So if I'm burning 1000-1400 calories more than I used to, and my eating habits haven't changed a whole lot, I'd have figured after 3 weeks I'd have dropped a few pounds, right? Nope. Went from 250 - 260. I don't know how accurate they are, but the little body fat analyzer pads on my scale indicated my body fat % jumped from 28 % to 30 % !

This is exceptionally demoralizing. Anyone has any advice, or especially any idea how this happened?

 

[Riverhound777]

Sorry, but your going to have to change your eating habits.

 

[apac]

It's mostly garbage fast food and candy and such, but that's what it was before the exercising as well, and I'm not eating significantly more of it than I used to.

Empty calories that are converted into fat. You aren't supplementing your muscle growth with any protein or complex carbohydrates, which means your body is having trouble building muscle, and while some of the sugars you're getting are used for energy, most of them are converted into fat.

Try eating balanced meals with lots of lean meats and fish, in addition to carbs containing whole wheat and grains.

 

[Safeway]

You identified all your problems. Now solve them.

Cut out the fast food.
Make lunches.
Eat healthy foods.
Don't eat 80% carbohydrates.
Eat fruits and vegetables.
Exercise without eating up your gains.

 

[dakels]

I think you may need to really tightly track your caloric intake. It's not uncommon for people who start exercising more to eat more, often more then they needed to balance it. In the end you may be taking in more calories then the new workout regimen is burning. Since you are doing cardio, I'd assume you would not be gaining too much muscle mass to be the big factor here.

Don't listen to the cheapo body fat scales. They can be grossly inaccurate. My guess is you gained a few pounds in muscle mass, water, and didn't lose too much fat due to increased caloric intake. You probably need to strictly manage your calories and change your eating habits. Stop eating junk. You can find ways to satiate your hunger within difficult schedules without hitting the vending machine or fast food.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: apac

It's mostly garbage fast food and candy and such, but that's what it was before the exercising as well, and I'm not eating significantly more of it than I used to.

Empty calories that are converted into fat. You aren't supplementing your muscle growth with any protein or complex carbohydrates, which means your body is having trouble building muscle, and while some of the sugars you're getting are used for energy, most of them are converted into fat.

Try eating balanced meals with lots of lean meats and fish, in addition to carbs containing whole wheat and grains.

At this point, I don't think the 'lean fish' suggestion is necessary. Just eat lean beef, chicken, pork, ... anything other than greasy fast food.

Snacks are almost always carbohydrates. Chips, pretzels, bread, cookies, ...

Eat vegetables and fruit instead.

 

[Agentbolt]

I guess I'd just boiled it down to simple math. X calories in - X calories out. Since I'd assumed I was greatly increasing the "out" side, and not increasing the "in" side by all that much, that should result in weight loss. I somehow managed to ingest 20,000 net calories more in three weeks of working out fairly strenuously than in the months before that of being basically sedentary? It just seems ridiculous, I don't feel like I'm eating THAT much.

But, I guess you guys are right. I'll have to start scouring the 'net for recipes and ideas, and stuff I can cook to bring to work for lunch. I've only not done it before now because my schedule is exceptionally hard to do it with.

One thing that makes it difficult is that I can't eat fruit. I don't know why, but any fruit makes me feel like throwing up. Apples, oranges, grapes, bananas, whatever. So a good portion of the "easy" food most people trying to eat healthy consume is out for me before I even start.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

A question on the carbohydrates: is a lot of carbs necessarily that bad, provided they are from whole wheat and/or have a low glycemic index?

If one eats a lot of carbs, but it's all whole wheat, brown rice, whole grains, is it still a bad idea?

As far as eating fruits, don't fruits just have a lot of simple sugars? I remember someone on here saying that orange juice isn't that good because it's just sugar.

 

[brikis98]

Not to sound mean or anything, but it's not likely you're breaking any laws of physics or biology, so if you gained 10lbs, it means one thing: you ate more calories than you burned over this 3 week period. I'm sure it's agonizing to hear, but assuming your scale is accurate (which is always worth checking!), there's just no way around it: you are compensating for the extra exercise with a disproportionate amount of food. Some things to consider:

1. This is exactly why you should track calories. If you had carefully tracked your caloric intake and expenditure on a site like thedailyplate.com or fitday.com, this would've never happened.

2. Junk food, especially if you're snacking a lot, has way more calories then you'd ever expect. I think the [l"Pictures of 200 Calories"]http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm[/l] page does a great job of illustrating this. If you're going to snack, try to eat something more nutritious and less calorie dense. I understand you're busy, but you can eat fairly healthy food with virtually no extra time commitment. For example, here are some snacks that take less than 30 seconds: carrots + hummus, any kind of fruit, cottage cheese + fruit or honey, protein shake, bowl of healthy cereal (e.g. Kashi Go Lean). These are way more nutritious than, say, a bag of chips, candy, donuts, etc.

3. It's worth noting that the "calories burned" calculators are notoriously inaccurate. There are just so many factors at play - such as your level of fitness, how fast you're riding, how hilly it is - that it's likely the calculators are way off. This is not to say you're not burning a lot of extra calories now, as 20 miles of biking a day is a good amount, but don't accept the numbers those calculators spit out at face value. In fact, that's also true for caloric intake: you'll just never be 100% accurate at calculating how many calories you ate. The best thing to do is to track both numbers to the best of your ability (using the sites in point 1) and monitor your weight on a weekly basis. If your weight moves in the proper direction, you're doing a good job of estimating. If it doesn't, you're mis-estimating somewhere and will need to make adjustments.

 

[Agentbolt]

I don't think I've been breaking any physics laws here, although I understand what you're saying. I obviously can't be breaking the law of Thermodynamics here or anything. It's just infuriating that I thought I was on the right path and was instead making things far worse.

Let's say before I started biking, I was eating 3000 calories a day. I have no idea if that's right, but let's just use it as a baseline. Then I started biking. So if we assume the "calories burned" charts are just way off, let's use something below the lowest of their calculations, let's say I started burning an extra 900 calories. That's makes my net intake 2100 calories a day, because I wasn't doing ANY exercise besides normal daily activities before this.

Since my weight was hovering steady at 250, that means with an extra 900 calories burned a day, for 5 days a week, for 3 weeks, means I burned an extra 12,000 calories. That's a loss of 6 pounds. Instead, I GAINED 10 pounds. That means 20,000 extra calories, 1200 extra calories a day. Over my 3000 I was eating before. Add the 900 I was supposedly burning per day, and that's 2100 extra calories a day. 2100 extra a day!!! Without even realizing it. It's just very frustrating.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
I don't think I've been breaking any physics laws here, although I understand what you're saying. I obviously can't be breaking the law of Thermodynamics here or anything. It's just infuriating that I thought I was on the right path and was instead making things far worse.

Let's say before I started biking, I was eating 3000 calories a day. I have no idea if that's right, but let's just use it as a baseline. Then I started biking. So if we assume the "calories burned" charts are just way off, let's use something below the lowest of their calculations, let's say I started burning an extra 900 calories. That's makes my net intake 2100 calories a day, because I wasn't doing ANY exercise besides normal daily activities before this.

Since my weight was hovering steady at 250, that means with an extra 900 calories burned a day, for 5 days a week, for 3 weeks, means I burned an extra 12,000 calories. That's a loss of 6 pounds. Instead, I GAINED 10 pounds. That means 20,000 extra calories, 1200 extra calories a day. Over my 3000 I was eating before. Add the 900 I was supposedly burning per day, and that's 2100 extra calories a day. 2100 extra a day!!! Without even realizing it. It's just very frustrating.

Well, it's not infuriating because you weren't on the right path. The first thing you need to do if you want to lose weight is get your diet in check. Exercising is good as well, but your primary goal is to get your eating habits down. Stay up 15 minutes late making lunch for the next day. Stock up on good foods - fruits, veggies, nuts, etc. You have time. Everybody has time. However people like to think they don't and they can just blame their problems on that. Make the time if you want to lose weight. It's that simple. Also, refer to my post that's stickied at the top of these forums. Hopefully that'll help.

EDIT: Btw, 1 pound of fat is ~3500 calories, therefore if you gained 10 pounds, you took in 35,000 extra calories. You seriously need to get your diet in check. Now.

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
I don't think I've been breaking any physics laws here, although I understand what you're saying. I obviously can't be breaking the law of Thermodynamics here or anything. It's just infuriating that I thought I was on the right path and was instead making things far worse.

Let's say before I started biking, I was eating 3000 calories a day. I have no idea if that's right, but let's just use it as a baseline. Then I started biking. So if we assume the "calories burned" charts are just way off, let's use something below the lowest of their calculations, let's say I started burning an extra 900 calories. That's makes my net intake 2100 calories a day, because I wasn't doing ANY exercise besides normal daily activities before this.

Since my weight was hovering steady at 250, that means with an extra 900 calories burned a day, for 5 days a week, for 3 weeks, means I burned an extra 12,000 calories. That's a loss of 6 pounds. Instead, I GAINED 10 pounds. That means 20,000 extra calories, 1200 extra calories a day. Over my 3000 I was eating before. Add the 900 I was supposedly burning per day, and that's 2100 extra calories a day. 2100 extra a day!!! Without even realizing it. It's just very frustrating.

Well, it's not infuriating because you weren't on the right path. The first thing you need to do if you want to lose weight is get your diet in check. Exercising is good as well, but your primary goal is to get your eating habits down. Stay up 15 minutes late making lunch for the next day. Stock up on good foods - fruits, veggies, nuts, etc. You have time. Everybody has time. However people like to think they don't and they can just blame their problems on that. Make the time if you want to lose weight. It's that simple. Also, refer to my post that's stickied at the top of these forums. Hopefully that'll help.

EDIT: Btw, 1 pound of fat is ~3500 calories, therefore if you gained 10 pounds, you took in 35,000 extra calories. You seriously need to get your diet in check. Now.

Ah, well. I don't know why I thought 1 pound = 2000 calories. I did already mention I can't eat fruit, but veggies and nuts and stuff I can stock up on, sure.

And I didn't say eating right is frustrating (it is, but complaining about it doesn't do anything useful), I was saying the fact that I ate SO much more that I completely invalidated any exercise I did (without even realizing it) is what's frustrating.

 

[Net]

okay i didn't read that large amount of text but here is my advice from what the title says:

don't measure weight! measure your body fat percentage. muscle is much heavier than fat, if you gained some muscle and lost some fat then the scale tells you nothing. body fat percentage is what your really concerned about.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: net

okay i didn't read that large amount of text but here is my advice from what the title says:

don't measure weight! measure your body fat percentage. muscle is much heavier than fat, if you gained some muscle and lost some fat then the scale tells you nothing. body fat percentage is what your really concerned about.

You really should read a thread before posting on it because he clearly stated that he was not lifting and was eating terrible. No offense - I just thought it was a bad idea to go in blind

 

[skace]

I've said it a million times, I'll keep saying it a million times. Calories in < Calories out is a massive oversimplification. People that follow it don't follow it to that degree. Otherwise you'd eat your calories in mars bars and save yourself the trouble of preparing a real meal. If anyone really believed calories in < calories out was a singular golden rule, then that person could easily keep a good calorie base by simply drinking soda.

I also do agree with net in that weight gain should not cause you to immediately lose hope.

You need to look at everything you eat, not just calories but substance. Are you getting enough fiber? Are you getting enough protein? These are areas that are common problems among the average unhealthy diet.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: skace
I've said it a million times, I'll keep saying it a million times. Calories in < Calories out is a massive oversimplification. People that follow it don't follow it to that degree. Otherwise you'd eat your calories in mars bars and save yourself the trouble of preparing a real meal. If anyone really believed calories in < calories out was a singular golden rule, then that person could easily keep a good calorie base by simply drinking soda.

I also do agree with net in that weight gain should not cause you to immediately lose hope.

You need to look at everything you eat, not just calories but substance. Are you getting enough fiber? Are you getting enough protein? These are areas that are common problems among the average unhealthy diet.

Technically, you could live off of soda and lose weight, since calories in < calories out is a biological law. However if you cut the calories to the point that you don't drop your metabolism into the zone that your body thinks it's starving then obviously you won't. It is a simplification, but not a massive one. It is a law of the biological being. It is the metabolism.

 

[dakels]

Again, this is mostly all unnecessary speculation and a most likely factor is one already stated. You probably have a combination of things such as added muscle, water weight, and increased caloric intake. You are in the first month of an exercise regimen without a diet change. You have roughly estimated caloric intake and used values. Maybe a single weight measure on a cheapo bathroom scale.

Take multiple weight measurements in the course of the day and average them. Try to get a more exact count on your caloric intake for the day. At least keep a journal of what you ate AND DRANK. Note how much salt you are taking in and any drugs you may be on. Since you probably don't have any numbers from the preworkout days, you can't compare exactly, but you will know what you consume compared to average statistics as to what you may need. Remember that most of the comparative models are meant as references and may not exactly match your situations. There are so many huge variables that can affect weight and fat gain/loss outside of simple calorie counting.

I wouldn't get bent out of shape about what the scale told you. You greatly increased the amount of cardio in your daily routine. This is usually a very good thing that will pay dividends both now and over time, not just physically but emotionally. Consider this a lifestyle change and not a short term goal. Accompany this with better eating habits and informed choices and you will no doubt see some good results.

 

[Net]

You really should read a thread before posting on it because he clearly stated that he was not lifting and was eating terrible. No offense - I just thought it was a bad idea to go in blind

i knew he wasn't lifting weights because i scanned it for such wording.

And I saw this:

I started biking to work, which is 10 miles each way.

that will increase the muscle in your legs. this is what i am referring to.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
Technically, you could live off of soda and lose weight, since calories in < calories out is a biological law. However if you cut the calories to the point that you don't drop your metabolism into the zone that your body thinks it's starving then obviously you won't. It is a simplification, but not a massive one. It is a law of the biological being. It is the metabolism.

If you believe that then change your diet to soda only with no vitamins or other supplements.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: net

You really should read a thread before posting on it because he clearly stated that he was not lifting and was eating terrible. No offense - I just thought it was a bad idea to go in blind

i knew he wasn't lifting weights because i scanned it for such wording.

And I saw this:

I started biking to work, which is 10 miles each way.

that will increase the muscle in your legs. this is what i am referring to.

No it won't, at least not to any appreciable degree. No muscle will be built from any activity if your diet is not in check.

Why do bodybuilders and athletes who want maximum leg size and strength train with squats and deadlifts and not just jump on a bike? The reason is that resistance training by far produces the best results in terms of leg size and strength.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt


Let's say before I started biking, I was eating 3000 calories a day. I have no idea if that's right, but let's just use it as a baseline.

Here's the problem right here - you need to actually start tracking exactly what you are eating each day using Fitday. Many people are surprised to learn that the amount of calories they think they are consuming isn't close to what they are actually consuming. It would also help to track your weight first thing each morning. Obviously there are more improvements that could be made, but those two are the biggest things that jumped out at me after reading your post.

 

[Net]

yes it will. he will gain muscle in his legs if he bikes 20 miles.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Special K
Why do bodybuilders and athletes who want maximum leg size and strength train with squats and deadlifts and not just jump on a bike? The reason is that resistance training by far produces the best results in terms of leg size and strength.

Because the bodybuilder and athlete is trying to push beyond the norm. Not comparable to a sedentary person who is just starting a new activity.

However, the average person that bikes daily will have bigger legs than the average person who does not. Bigger in the more fit department, and not the more fat department that is.

 

[ubercaffeinated]

I think you are overestimating how many calories you are burning going to/from work and underestimating how many calories you are really eating. Track your calories and stop eating junk at work, no matter how busy you are. I understand work is important and you have time constraints - but your health and self-image is just as important. You've got to make time to take care of yourself - look into packing your lunches or for better alternatives if you have to buy lunch.

 

[Agentbolt]

I am definitely keeping track of calories. Fitday seems pretty good. It's still kind of a rough estimate, as you can't really input the ingredients from a stir fry or whatever precisely, but it's a lot better than saying "I think I ate X calories today"

I do appreciate all the advice here. I'm going to try to keep the calories down to 1800-2000 a day (which seems pretty reasonable while still cutting back significantly) while keeping the biking going. I guess we'll see what happens in another 3-4 weeks. If I gain another 10 pounds I'll probably just say screw it and start injecting clarified butter into my veins