Peddle
the Pounds
Copyright ©2005 by John Mertus
All Rights Reserved
Carefully the attorney
sets down a triple venti skim latte onto his mahogany desk; its cinnamon tang
still on his lips. "Another
Monday, another pile of patents."
He picks up an overstuffed envelope with one hand, a gold letter opener
with the other, and mechanically slits the manila wrapper.
Before the caffeine
molecules even stir his brain, he stamps unapproved on the cover page. Despite meticulous computer drawn diagrams
of micro-gears and explanations about zero-point quantum fluctuations, the
invention was just one more perpetual motion machine. Such machines violate the most famous of all energy laws: you
cannot get out more than you put in.
Losing weight is subject
to exactly the same cold energy balance.
No matter how loud the TV announcer shouts his miracle diet, no matter
what chrome-plated gewgaw the red spandex clad model demos, in order to free
yourself of fat, you must expend more calories than you take in. Except for cutting off a portion of your
anatomy, and, personally, I happen to be fond of all my body parts, there is no
other way.
This energy equation is
simple, for each 3,500 calories you burn more than you ingest, you will lose
about a pound. Alas, the equation is
not a blueprint of the optimal way to lose weight. Is it better to eat less or exercise more?
The problem is that
trickster Murphy. You know him. He is the one who stabs with "if
anything can go wrong, it will," and then twists the knife, by adding
"and at the worst possible time. "
This Loki's dieting maxim is "Food has more calories when on a diet
than when off."
Although Murphy's laws
are not authentic laws of physics akin to the ones that prohibit PM machines,
they often have a basis in psychology, thermodynamics or physiology. Is there a truth in Murphy's dieting law?
Autumn in New England
ignites our forested hills into a million flames of red and gold; leaf peepers
drive hundreds of miles to worship at these magnificent pyres. A maple tree has no brain; unlike us, it
cannot read a calendar or listen to Fox News to learn winter is coming. The maple evolved a complex response to
shorter days and colder nights, and thus knows when it is time to suck the last
nutrients from its leaves.
Throughout recent human
evolution, we faced times where food was scarce and remained scarce for weeks
or months. To survive, our ancestors
responded to a slight decrease in food by lowering what we now call the Basal
Metabolic Rate. BMR is a measure of how
much energy our bodies use for the necessities of life, to keep our blood
flowing, our lungs breathing and our eyes glued to “The Simpsons” reruns. In moderately active people, the resting
BMR burns between one half and two thirds of the calories needed in a day. When we start to diet, like a maple tree
shedding its leaves, our body instinctually responds by lowering our resting
BMR. This is the core of Murphy’s quip.
The BMR reduction is not
just a bit of humorous curiosity. When
I decided to lose the weight gained from a herniated disk, I recorded my intake
at about 2800 calories per day. Just
about right for my 6’ 2’, 200 lb mid-fifties frame. My goal was to return to 185 lbs. For breakfast, I meticulously measured 1 cup of Cheerios, a
half-cup of skim milk, and a half-cup of fruit. I packed my lunch, and totaled up the 70 calories for each slice
of bread, 150 for ham and cheese; the mustard was free. I used lots of mustard. I reduced my intake about 500 calories per
day.
Two weeks later, hungry
as a bear after hibernation, I stood on the scale. I had lost not two pounds, as the energy equation predicts, I
lost, well, if I closed one eye, squinted with the other, and twisted just
right, I lost about the width of the scale needle. That was my introduction to Murphy and I badly wanted
vengeance. I retaliated with my
bicycle.
The resting BMR increases
with physical activity. With daily
exercise, even when the heart has slowed back to normal, the resting BMR
remains high. Commuting by bicycle is
an ideal way to impose daily exercise.
Also, if you ride in, no matter how tired you might be at night, you
must ride back home. It is the
recurrent activity, more than the intensity, which maintains the BMR.
After a few weeks of
daily commuting, if you miss a ride, your will discover your body craves exercise. Burning calories now becomes a
self-motivating activity. Rarely in
life do we find such a marvelous win-win situation where you also screw the
city out of parking fines.
Lots of web sites allow
you to calculate the calories burned when cycling, but hills, wind speed, and
tire inflation affect the actual rate.
Take all the calculators with a grain of salt.
For my moderate speed
commutes, I use a simple calculation: CM*Miles,
where CM is equal to .25 * Weight in Pounds. For me, CM works to about 50 calories/mile [2]. Although not perfect, this formula gives a
reasonable approximation of how many miles to ride in order to burn off that
glazed Krispie Kreme donut Store 24 forced me to buy when I stopped for a
bottle of Polar Spring Lime Seltzer.
One day you step on the
scale and find you are two pounds lighter.
You’re feelin’ good. The next
day, you eat less and find you have gained a pound. Weigh yourself every day and you will find your weight
fluctuates. Most of this is just the
loss or gain of water. On a hot day, I
will sweat out five pounds playing basketball.
Drink one 16 oz diet coke and you are one pound heavier. This is not the weight loss you should be
striving for because it has no effect on long-term health or body tone. Water debit is the miracle weight loss
program as seen on TV.
It is Monday
morning. “Why,” you wonder, “did I stay
up so late just to watch Buckner Ball?
Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice and it must be late September
and I’m a Sox fan. ” Even a shower and
a frappucino do not remove the lead in your legs. The decision looms, bike or car?
You might feel you will
not get much out of a sluggish commute; but surprisingly, the number of
calories burned in a leisurely ride and the number of calories burned in a hard
ride over the same distance is not that much different.
For example, a commute at
12 mph will burn about 20% less calories then the same commute at 17
mph[1]. The fewer calories per minute
in a slow ride are counterbalanced by the longer ride time. You just suffer longer by riding slowly.
Take two full 2-liter
bottles of soda. Hold one in each hand
and step on a scale. Feel how heavy and bulky they are. Now put down the soda. The scale will read about eight pounds less. Since fat floats in water, in order to lose
a mere eight pounds of fat, you must remove at least same volume from your
body. It is hard to even imagine where
that fat could fit. We set goals that
seem easy, 10 pounds, but that represents a significant amount of body fat,
about 6 quarts! No wonder it is hard
to thin down.
There are excellent sites
on the web about dieting and I suggest you explore this wealth of information
to find how to reduce calories that best suits you. Many people substitute high protein foods for carbohydrates. Others eat exactly the same thing every
day. I find portion control most
effective. No matter how you reduce
calories increase your daily exercise.
It does not have to be Lance Armstrong racing to be useful; moderate
bike riding every day is enough.
The ancient art of
Jujutsu teaches to work with and not against ones opponent.
John Mertus
September, 2004
Rumford, Rhode Island
References:
A Basal Metabolism
Calculator can be found at http://www.room42.com/nutrition/basal.shtml. Compute the Resting BMR by choosing couch
potato.
An activity calculator
can be found at http://www.efit.com/calculators/calorie.jsp
A Body Mass Indicator can
be found at http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/calc-bmi.htm
Remember, all are just
estimates!
For a more scientific
assessment about exercise and weight loss, see
[3]Dahlkoetter J,
Callahan EJ, Linton J: Obesity and the unbalanced energy equation: exercise
versus eating habit change. J Consult Clin Psychol 1979;47(5):898-905
[2]How I computed CM
The following table appears Bicycling, May 1989 for flat
road with no wind, riding upright.
|
Speed (mph) |
12 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
Rider Weight |
Calories/Hr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110 |
293 |
348 |
404 |
448 |
509 |
586 |
662 |
|
120 |
315 |
375 |
437 |
484 |
550 |
634 |
718 |
|
130 |
338 |
402 |
469 |
521 |
592 |
683 |
773 |
|
140 |
360 |
430 |
502 |
557 |
633 |
731 |
828 |
|
150 |
383 |
457 |
534 |
593 |
675 |
779 |
883 |
|
160 |
405 |
485 |
567 |
629 |
717 |
828 |
938 |
|
170 |
427 |
512 |
599 |
666 |
758 |
876 |
993 |
|
180 |
450 |
540 |
632 |
702 |
800 |
925 |
1048 |
|
190 |
472 |
567 |
664 |
738 |
841 |
973 |
1104 |
|
200 |
495 |
595 |
697 |
774 |
883 |
1021 |
1159 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I then
calculated the coefficient CM, by Calories/Hr/MPH/Weight, which give C/Lb/Mile
|
Weight |
C/Lb/Mile |
C/Lb/Mile |
C/Lb/Mile |
C/Lb/Mile |
C/Lb/Mile |
C/Lb/Mile |
C/Lb/Mile |
|
110 |
0.22197 |
0.225974 |
0.244848 |
0.254545 |
0.272193 |
0.29596 |
0.316746 |
|
120 |
0.21875 |
0.223214 |
0.242778 |
0.252083 |
0.269608 |
0.293519 |
0.314912 |
|
130 |
0.216667 |
0.220879 |
0.240513 |
0.250481 |
0.267873 |
0.29188 |
0.312955 |
|
140 |
0.214286 |
0.219388 |
0.239048 |
0.248661 |
0.265966 |
0.290079 |
0.311278 |
|
150 |
0.212778 |
0.217619 |
0.237333 |
0.247083 |
0.264706 |
0.288519 |
0.309825 |
|
160 |
0.210938 |
0.216518 |
0.23625 |
0.245703 |
0.263603 |
0.2875 |
0.308553 |
|
170 |
0.209314 |
0.215126 |
0.234902 |
0.244853 |
0.262284 |
0.286275 |
0.30743 |
|
180 |
0.208333 |
0.214286 |
0.234074 |
0.24375 |
0.261438 |
0.285494 |
0.306433 |
|
190 |
0.207018 |
0.213158 |
0.232982 |
0.242763 |
0.260372 |
0.284503 |
0.305817 |
|
200 |
0.20625 |
0.2125 |
0.232333 |
0.241875 |
0.259706 |
0.283611 |
0.305 |
Within
the range that I ride 12-14 and around my weight, CM is close to constant and
about .21. However, this consistently
underestimated the cycling calories given in other web sites. Moreover, the roads are never flat without
wind, so I quite arbitrarily added .04 to bring it higher and match the online
activity calculators and the affect of wind and hills.
[1]Consider
a 150 lb person. At 12 mph, the
calories burned in X miles is .213*150(X, at 17 mph .265*150*X. The percent calories reduction from 17 to
12 mph is 100*(.265*150 *- .213*150*X)/(.265*150*X) or (21.3-26.5)/.265 =
19.6%. Calculations with similar body
weight yield similar results.