Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

So I was reading some literature on exercise today.

In general I've been feeling pretty good about the riding the bike. It puts things in perspective when you figure that it takes about 30 minutes of pretty solid workout to burn off one snickers bar. It really makes you rethink what you eat during the day.

Then I discovered that one pound of fat is equivalent to 3900 calories. So in order to lose one pound of fat, you have to burn 3900 calories more than you take in.
Maximum recommended caloric deficiency is 900 calories in one day. That's 4.33 days to lose one pound.

So assuming that the bike riding is my only caloric deficiency, to hit 900, I'd have to ride continually for an hour and a half a day at my current rate. And at that rate, it would take me three years to hit my goal.

So I need to make some changes.


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
May. 15th, 2004 12:41 am (UTC)
good pace
hold on hold on! 4.33 days/lb is a good pace. 3 years is a good pace if your math holds think about it. 4.33 goes into 365 days 84 times. Eighty four pounds per year is an incredible pace! My personal aim is designed for 5 years and I assure you, it's a lot less than 84#/year!

Just what are you trying to do? Got a big boxing match coming up? ;-)
May. 15th, 2004 04:37 pm (UTC)
Re: good pace
Nah, worse. Woman-hunting in a year or so. :)
May. 16th, 2004 12:17 pm (UTC)
Re: good pace
I second that bit about a good pace. You can cut back on your portion sizes and continue your current exercise regimen (increasing the intensity as you get 'comfortable' with the workout), and do Just Fine.

Consider how many years it took to gain the weight... three years doesn't look too bad in perspective. I want to lose 40 lbs, myself. That's about 10 months of work, at the rate of 1 lb per week. Given it took me the better part of 6 years to gain the weight, I think it is a decent trade-off.
May. 17th, 2004 01:10 am (UTC)
Re: good pace
Yes, but if you take into account that I'm nowhere near that rate yet, it's discouraging.

I'm just impatient.
May. 15th, 2004 09:12 am (UTC)
You are making an error though - things are better than you think.

You are assuming this:

Get on the bike - increase caloric burn rate
Get off the bike - back to your old slovenly self.

Untrue! After your hour of riding, your metabolism is STILL burning calories at an increased rate. As you bathe in your hot tub, watch television, debug code, your metabolism is going, "burn burn burn the maniac may get on the bike again AT ANY MOMENT"

This effect lasts for a while (I don't remember how long, but it is over an hour)

May. 15th, 2004 03:32 pm (UTC)
You continue to burn calories at a much higher rate for a full 24 hours, and even 48 hours later you will be burning calories at a quicker pace than you otherwise would, but its good to work out ever day to really keep it up. Further, you dont really start to burn the fat until after 30 minutes of working out, but after 90 minutes, you body starts to consume muscle for energy, so again to maximise your workouts you should lift weights for 30 minutes, then bike for an hour (or at least 30 minutes). That way you will also build muscle, and muscles additionally burn calories while you are not working out, so the bigger they are the better as well. Also, many suggest workouts are best first thing when you get up and before you have eaten, you will burn more fat then, and your metabolism will be up all day, but then slightly decreased by the time you are ready for bed. yes, I have been reading as well.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

April 2012


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow