Blog.
What a funny word.
Hi, I'm Bakari Kafele.
You may remember me from such blogs as:
http://apps.biodieselhauling.org/blog/
http://neapolitanblog.blogspot.com/
and
http://www.myspace.com/pyrococcus_furiosus/blog
If so, you may have noticed that I have content scattered all over the place, none of which is well organized or easy to find or read.
Well that is all about to change.
For anyone who doesn't know who I am:
I'm Bakari Kafele. I already said that.
I often use the name Jacob Aziza when I am writing on the internet. I also sometimes use the name David Craig Hiser. And Lenard E. Simpleton (or sometimes just Lenard Simp)
We are all the same person, (like Tyler and his best friend, except that I have always been aware of it.)
I'm just a random ordinary guy.
I live in an RV which is partially solar powered, both for the environmental benefit and the major cost savings.
Living with me are girlfriend Jessica and non-human roommate Fushi, who also goes by the name Chairman Meow.
I run a small independantly-certified-green moving, hauling and handyman business BioDiesel Hauling, using my biodiesel powered truck. I've been doing this for over 5 years, beginning immediately after I finished 4 (simultaneous) associate degrees.
Before that I held over 30 jobs in my lifetime, including biology lab tech, bicycle messenger, private security officer, armored truck driver, carnie, factory worker, fundraiser, liquor store cashier, bicycle mechanic and gigs as a TV commercial actor, ditch digger, medical test subject, "adult" actor, and election polling place supervisor.
Currently, in addition to BioDiesel Hauling, I am in the Coast Guard Reserve, and I still take occasional shifts with the BikeStation where I used to work.
I am vegetarian, I drive a motorcycle with a very small engine, and I am very opinionated on just about everything. I also go through phases where I really enjoy writing, although I have been out of that phase for over a year now.
My old blogs have several years of content, some of which (at least in my own narcissistic opinion) is pretty good, so to begin with, I will be reposting old content which most likely no one has ever read (MySpace anyone?) to here where it will be more accessible.
I realize I will probably never get a huge following, since I have no real theme and no motivation to seek publicity, but if you happen to want to subscribe, I've made it easy with the top boxes in the right side bar.
Enjoy.
Sunday, 22 January 2012
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Buying a good used bike from Craigslist.
For my first post on this new blogger account, I'm going to write a guide to how to select a decent used bicycle.
My VERY first post.
Even before I introduce this new blog website of mine, which is taking the place of my old MySpace blog (remember MySpace?) and the free blog that came with my businesses web domain hosting (with its character limit). My second post here will introduce it a little more thoroughly than these three sentences, and after that I will start moving old existing content here.
But first I will take a break from my usual political ranting, personal stories, and posting of links I found fascinating, to fulfill a promise I made to a fellow reader of a different blog (one with actual readership, MMM) in the comment section to share some of my knowledge of bikes and of Craigslist for an audience that may not know a good bike from a bad one. Imagine that, something useful!
First, for anyone who came here via link or Google, and doesn't know me personally, my credentials on the subject:
I began riding regularly for fun and transportation in 1992, when I was 12. The next year I began riding to school every day, so that I could keep the bus money for other things. In high school, in addition to daily commuting (to school and internship) and weekend rides of 40-100 miles, I began annual 4 day trips down the CA coast with a group of teachers and friends. After college I went with the couple that had organized those annual rides from San Francisco to Puerto Vallarta Mexico, and went solo from there along the coast to Acapulco and then North to Mexico city (over an 8000ft pass) for a total of 2800 miles over 2 months. When I returned, I took a job as a bicycle messenger. I eventually ended up also working as a messenger in New York City.
In 20 years of serious riding, I have had a bmx bike, a steel touring bike, a British internal-hub drop-frame from the late 60s, a carbon fiber racing bike, an aluminum mountain bike, and two folding bikes, all of which together I paid a grand total of $450 for (of which $400 was the carbon fiber road bike).
Eventually I returned to CA where, for the past 6 years, my primary job has been as a hauler (mover, and handyman) which involves picking stuff up that people don't want anymore, and then finding new owners for those things. This involves either selling or giving away anything which is still useable (which is most of what I pick up), frequently on Craigslist.
My second job for the past 5 years has been as a mechanic in a tiny bike-shop of sorts, the Bike Station, whose primary service is FREE secure valet attended bicycle parking, but also offers relatively low-cost repairs. Because we don't sell new bikes, and because we never turn anyone away for lack of bike quality, I have been able to work on a great variety of bikes, of all types and ages and cost levels, which is rare in any one shop.
(My third job is a reserve for the Coast Guard, but that isn't relevant to this at all)
And now... on to the content!
1) This is the most important thing of all:
DO NOT BUY A DEPARTMENT STORE / TOY STORE BIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ever. Don't even consider it. Seriously. Not even for your kid. They are absolute garbage. They shouldn't be legal to ride on public streets. They should be considered toys at best. This includes pretty much anything you can buy at WalMart, Target, or Toys'R'Us, or whatever local equivalent you may have where you live. The most common brands are Huffy, Murry, Magna, Next and Roadmaster. Generally anything branded with a car/truck name (GMC) is one of these also. One of these bikes brand new is worth less than a real bike that is 30 years old. (Actually, my favorite bike, the one that I rode to Mexico and used a messenger is almost 40 years old).
I can not emphasize this enough. Having worked on these many many times, I can say with absolute certainty that they are not worth the price if you are given one for free. They use the cheapest parts that can be found, parts which have been obsolete for decades in the rest of the bike world, and those parts are put together by people who know literally nothing about bike mechanics. I have rarely seen one, even brand new, that had everything adjusted properly. They are so cheaply made, and so poorly assembled, that they are dangerous.
The best clue that the bike you are looking at is a department store bike is if it has a one piece crank.
This is a one piece crank:
Notice how the crank arm bends where it meets the bike frame, and goes straight into the bottom bracket.
Here, in contrast, is a 3 piece crank:
Notice that in this one, the crank arm is straight, and it is bolted to the axle.
Here are the two kinds, cut-away and side-by-side (one-piece on the left):
Another clue that the bike you are considering is a rolling pile of crap is brakes that look like this:
or
Called simple caliper brakes.
Note that most road bikes will have compound caliper brakes, which are similar in shape, but slightly more complex. The keys to the crappy brakes are the rectangle brake pads and the flat metal brake arms, with just one single pivot point in the center.
Note also that occasionally older bikes may have simple caliper brakes (though they won't have flat brake arms or square pads), and it doesn't necessarily mean the bike is crap. If a bike less than 30 years old has them, stay away.
Now that all that is out of the way, lets get into what you should look for.
But wait, no, before we get to that, you have to establish just what it is you are looking for.
2) Type of bike:
Like in everything else in life, every choice you make is a series of tradeoffs. There are a lot of different kinds of bikes, that are good for different kinds of things. You can use pretty much any bike for anything, but some will make the trip a lot easier.
Presumably most people reading this are looking for something practical to commute on, (and not a racing bike or a bike to do tricks on)
Some questions to ask yourself are:
Will I want to carry a lot of stuff with me?
Will I want to go fast sometimes? (I found I am often running late, and ended up using my racing bike to commute pretty often)
Are the local roads well paved, and/or will I ever want to venture on trails?
Will I have to climb any steep hills and/or pull a trailer?
Will I ever ride in rain/snow?
How important is comfort?
How important is efficiency?
Will I be working up to high mileage sometime in the future?
If you want to carry alot, consider touring bikes or something meant specifically for commuting or hauling (of course, you can always retrofit any bike with a trailer, so that's another option)
If you want to go fast, and you don't need to carry much with you, a road-sport / racing bike will help you get there quicker with much less effort
A road-sport or racing bike, however, does poorly off-road, or with major potholes, gravel, glass, and curb-jumping
For steep hills, no matter what kind of bike, you will want not only gears, but low gears - generally that means 3 chainrings (the 3 big gears in the front, attached to the crank), like this:
Some bikes - especially ones specifically intended for casual riders or for commuting have the gears hidden inside the wheel. This has the advantage of being cleaner and simpler for the user, because all moving parts are hidden. They are also less prone to being broken and are more weather resistant for the same reason.
The trade off is that they are more expensive (to buy and to repair), heavier, and the lowest gear of an internal system will not be as low as with external gears. For this reason, if you have to ride up steep hills, go with external gears. If you ride mostly flat or only small hills, its a matter of preference.
For inclement weather, a mountain bike, hybrid, or purpose built commuting bike will outperform most road bikes - although you can put fenders and lights on anything, you can't put wide tires on a racer. This is especially true for snow.
Just like with a Cadillac and a Geo Metro, there is a trade off between comfort and efficiency. Beginners often get a bike with a wide saddle and tall handle bars, so they can sit up-right like a big rolling sofa, and then get discouraged when all the cool kids on real bikes pass them by at twice their speed everyday. Its not just that they are weak - there is a reason racers have low handlebars: the biggest factor in bicycle efficiency is wind resistance, and when you are upright, your torso is like a big parachute. So that comfort comes at the cost of twice as much effort to go the same speed. On the same note, a mid-range hybrid or mountain bike can weigh literally twice as much as a high-end road bike, which is a lot of extra pounds to lug with you up the hill to your house at the end of the day.
None of that is to say don't buy the hybrid, just understand that there are trade-offs. They are trying to be decent at everything at once, without costing much and making new riders comfortable, which means they excel at nothing.
The best compromise, in my opinion, between efficiency, bad road/trail worthiness, and bad weather capability, is a cyclo-cross bike, which is a road bike meant to be used off-road, however they are somewhat hard to find, and therefor usually expensive.
The next best all-around option, (again, in my personal opinion) which also includes cargo hauling capacity built in, is a road touring bike (which would be why that's been my primary bike for the last 2 decades).
But that isn't to say that you can have a perfectly good long-term commuting experience with a mountain bike, racing bike, hybrid, cruiser, or a 60 year old bike from before special purpose bikes existed.
If its possible, I'd recommend seeing if you have any friends with various types of bikes you can borrow for at least one ride, to see how they differ in riding position, gearing, handling, and so on.
If nothing else, maybe you can find a local bike shop and do a test ride on a couple of different bikes.
You may be taking advantage of them even more in the next step (since you will ultimately buy used directly from someone), but to make up for wasting their time, plan on buying all your accessories (minimum: helmet, lights, gloves, bell) from them, and/or having them do a basic check/tune of your new (used) bike once you get it.
3) Fit:
The only way to really get it exactly perfect in every way is to go to a bike shop and find someone who really knows all the variables, preferably with access to an adjustable bike fit machine (a stationary bike where you can change the lengths and angles of all the components and frame parts).
They often don't charge for this if you are planning to buy a bike from them, but again, if you go for a bike fitting, and don't buy a bike from that shop, you should really buy your accessories and/or service from them. Bike shops operate with a pretty small margin.
Given that you are looking to buy a bike used, and not get a frame custom built to your specifications, knowing your perfect fitment doesn't really matter anyway.
As a super quick and simple rule of thumb, when you stand over a bike frame (in front of the saddle) with your shoes on and feet flat on the ground, there should be at least 1 inch, preferably 3 or 4, between the top tube and the beginning of your... special parts. For one thing, if you were to be in a minor crash and fall forward off the saddle, you don't want to be impacting a big steel (or aluminum, or carbon) bar of bike frame. This is also an indication that the frame more or less fits you. If, when you straddle the bike, the top tube is actually touching you, that bike is much too big for you, and no matter how much you love it and no matter how good the price is, it just isn't the bike for you. I'm sorry.
On the opposite end, you can use the seatpost to judge if a bike is too big.
When you ride, your knees should be 99% of the way straight at the bottom of each pedal stroke (not 100%, or locked-out, but almost). If you don't extend your legs all the way, (imagine how it looks when an adult rides a tricycle meant for kids), you will end up hurting your knees.
In fact, if you have ever had hurting knees from riding a bike, this is the most likely reason. Your seat was too low.
(this bike is too small for him)
The seat post (the part that attaches the saddle to the frame) should have a line on it marking the maximum its meant to be extended (it may or may not say words to that effect). By loosing a screw, bolt, or quick release lever at the place where the frame clamps the post, you can raise or lower the seat height. If the post is at its highest (at the line) and when you ride the bike your legs are not extending fully, then the bike is probably too small for you. You can always buy a slightly longer seatpost if it's close, but if the seat needs to be higher than about 10 inches above the frame (assuming the top tube of the bike frame is horizontal, more on that soon), chances are the rest of the dimensions are too small for you anyway.
Of course, many bikes don't have a straight horizontal top tube running from the handlebars to the seat. The sloping top-tube or the drop-frame that used to indicate "girl's bike" (in order that the bike could be ridden in a skirt or dress) has become common on mountain bikes and commute oriented bikes and many hybrids for both genders, as well as continuing to be common for female specific road bikes. With a sloping top tube you can't just stand over it and measure the distance between your body and the frame to determine fit, and the seat-post will have to be extra long. In that case you just draw an imaginary line (or better yet, use a level and some string or a broomstick or something) where the top tube would be if it went straight across.
There is really a lot more to it than that, (such as the length of the top tube and the angle of the seat tube) but to keep things simple, 1-5 inches between you and the bike frame (or where the frame would be if it were straight) with your feet flat on the ground is about the best approximation there is.
Once you find one bike that fits, you can check the frame size (usually printed on the seat tube) and have a rough idea of what other bikes will also fit you - generally mountain bikes and hybrids will be measured in inches, road bikes in centimeters. But be aware that the numbers can vary between bike styles, brands, ages and depending on whether the top tube is horizontal or not.
So now you have some idea of what kind of bike you are looking for, and what size it needs to be.
4) Frame and components
There are hundreds of brands, with even more choices in components, so it is impossible to recommend any specifics, or break down all of the possible combinations. They all have high-end and low-end stuff, so never assume a bike is good or bad just based on the brand of the frame or the components.
Older bikes can be very good quality, just try to stay mostly on this side of the 80s, when most manufacturers switched from carbon steel or high-tensile (Hi-Ten) steel to chromoly (ChroMo) steel. The only modern bikes that still use carbon steel or hi-ten are the department store bikes, but pre-80s they were the standard for all but the most high-end bikes.
Some of the more high end older bikes did have good steel frames, particularly those made of Reynolds 531 or Columbus steel.
If you can find one, in good condition, you are looking at a good frame even though it is older.
However, unless the prior owner kept up with upgrades throughout the years, you should still consider a newer bike, as many advancements in components have been made since then.
Some brands which are in department stores today were once legitimate bike companies (most notable is Schwinn: a 10-20 year old Schwinn is likely a good bike, while a 2010 Schwinn is probably from a department store - better than a Murry or Huffy, but still not a good choice)
If it has a sticker (usually on the seat tube, near the frame size sticker) that tells frame material, avoid high tensile steel. Cromo steel, aluminum, titanium, and carbon fiber are all good frame materials, with their own pluses and minuses, but for practical commuting purposes, you should mostly be looking for steel.
Aluminum is also decent, and usually a little lighter. I prefer steel for a practical commute style bike, because it is the strongest of all frame materials, and it can be bent back after a crash and keep going strong. Any other frame type, once damaged or bent, is no longer safe to ride. However, if you find a bike that is perfect in every other way, don't necessarily shun it just because it is made of a more exotic material.
Suspension adds weight, complexity, and cost, and unless you ride off-road, doesn't serve much purpose, but if you do ride-off road, (or have giant and frequent pot-holes to contend with), it can make the ride more comfortable and give you better control. In general, for a commute bike, I would recommend skipping it.
Skinny, high pressure tires have less rolling resistance and less weight, therefore you can go faster / further with the same amount of effort. However they have less grip in bad conditions (esp mud or snow), give a bumpier ride, and are (in theory**) more prone to flats.
** In my personal experience, I have not had any more flats on my road bikes.
The curved style of handlebar found on road bikes gives you more possible hand positions, which can be nice on long rides once your hands get tired, but ultimately handlebar shape is a matter of personal preference. If possible, try a couple different styles out on the open road before becoming committed to any one type.
I would recommend an adjustable height and/or angle stem for any new cyclist, so you can choose whether to be more upright (more comfortable, but higher wind resistance) or more low and sleek, or anywhere between and change between them whenever you want, as you ride more and find what you like. Most older bikes (10 years or more) have an adjustable height stem standard. Most modern bikes have a "threadless headset" (commonly called "Ahead-set", which is actually a brand name) which are not adjustable in height, but you can attach an adjustable angle stem to it:
On the left is the traditional adjustable height stem. To change the height, you loosen the hex bolt in the center, twist the bars a little to break the connection, and pull them up. Don't go higher than the marked limit line.
On the right is the newer (threadless headset) which has limited to no height adjustability. Sometimes you can switch the position of the spacers to get a small height change.
Adjustable angle stems.
As long as this already is, I am deliberately leaving out gobs of information, because this is a basic guide, and because you are buying something used and have limited choices. You aren't custom ordering a $3000 bike, so if you have a hard-core bike fanatic friend, you can safely ignore most of what she tells you about frame butting, spoke counts, gear ratios, or the superiority of Campy parts over Ultegra and Dura-Ace. Remind her that your goal is to get from one place to another, not to win a criterium. Tell her you don't even know what a criterium is.
5) Craigslist
In case you didn't already know, Craigslist is awesome. It is one of the most effective tools combating the worst aspects of the American consumerism cycle in which we are constantly throwing away things that still work in order to buy a slightly newer version, wasting our own money along with massive amounts of natural resources. Craigslist helps recirculate our money in our own communities instead of having it siphoned off by giant soulless corporations, keeps good stuff out of landfill, and prevents material extraction and energy consumption to create new stuff, all by the simple act of bringing together people who have stuff they don't want with people who want stuff they don't have.
If you are lucky enough to live in a reasonably large city, with at least a moderate amount of cyclists, than chances are good you can find a large selection of high quality bicycles on your local Craigslist page.
If not, though, the same principals apply to buying from a yard sale or flea market.
Another option is a used bikeshop. They will generally charge a bit more than buying directly from the previous owner, but you get the advantage of a bike that has been checked out by a mechanic, and a knowledgeable person to help you with the selection process.
Expect to spend at least $100, but unless you are lucky, probably $200, possibly more. Yep, that much, for a used bike. Even an old one, or a simple one. Less than that, and the chances are good you are buying a department store bike, a 40 year old bike which was low quality when it was new, or a bike that has been left out in the rain and generally not taken care of . Spending less will likely mean that you have to spend much more in parts and service in order to get it up to decent operating condition. If a bike is decent quality, well taken care of, and severely underpriced, it may well be stolen. Don't support bike thieves. They will end up stealing the bike back from you again. That's called Karma.
A decent new bike from a bike shop is generally $600 and up, so you are still saving plenty of cash by spending $200. Of course you can always get lucky and find someone who has no idea what they have is actually worth (like I did with my $400 carbon fiber racing bike), but don't expect it.
At the same time, be aware that there are a great many over-priced bikes on Craigslist. Depending on your market, it may take some patience to find a good one. Do a Google search of the make and model of any bike you are considering. In general, look for bikes no more than 20 years old, and of course, avoid department store bikes like the plague.
So say you have read this far, determined what you need, figured out the size, and browsed around and found a few ads that seem to have good quality bikes.
Keep in mind that someone is selling the bike for a reason. More often than not, the reason is because they just never ride it. Which usually means it hasn't had any maintenance in... ever. If its been stored indoors where it is dry, that may not be a problem, but in a damp basement or a back porch, there is likely internal rust that you can't see. If you see rust on the outside, unless the person is a bike enthusiast that you trust maintained the bike, assume there is internal rust as well. A bike bought by someone who never got around to riding it is more likely to have been cheap to begin with and to not have had much care taken in its purchase.
These are obviously not hard and fast rules, but if they are selling due to a move out of state, or due to having several other bikes, the chances are a little better the bike was taken care of.
Take hold of the wheels, and try to move them side to side (perpendicular to the way they turn). There shouldn't be any play in them side-to-side, against the axle. Do the same for the cranks (what the pedal attaches to) and the handlebars, trying to wobble them side-to-side, not the way they are supposed to turn. If they are loose and wobbly, that is a sign the bike hasn't been taken care of. Those things are easily tightened (although some require specialized bike tools) but if they have been ridden loose, they are likely to need more extensive repairs.
Spin the wheels while holding the bike off the ground, and watch how the rim moves relative to the brake pads. If the rim moves so much that it hits the brakes on every revolution, this is usually repairable (by "truing" the wheel - adjusting the tightness of each spoke) but it is another sign of a bike that wasn't maintained.
Avoid a bike with any obvious dents or cracks anywhere in the frame. If a bike has been in a severe crash, there may be more damage than meets the eye. I've had a frame suddenly break on me. It isn't pretty.
Tires and handlebar tape can be replaced, and a bad paint job can discourage theft, so try not to let the aesthetic elements overwhelm the mechanical ones.
Expect a test ride, but offer to leave something with the seller (like your ID) so they know you don't ride off with it, since it is essentially its own built-in getaway vehicle.
Once you have (FINALLY) found a good bike that fits your needs, its time to make the deal.
Because this is Craigslist, don't forget you can try to negotiate. But don't be a jerk about it. Don't show up and then at the last minute claim you "only have $100" as though you forgot the asking price.
Bring cash (it lets the seller know you aren't a scammer), and show up in person (but bring a friend who knows bikes if you have one)
Always make a receipt (preferably make it in advance with blanks for the bike and seller info). It should have the make and model of the bike (both are usually written somewhere on the frame), and as much descriptive information - color, frame type, size, age, any notable features - as possible. It should also say the purchase price, date, and the buyer and sellers names. And above all, it absolutely should have the bikes serial number, which will usually be stamped into the metal somewhere on the underside of the bike (you have to turn it over to see it), most often on the bottom bracket (the thing the crank axle goes through)
If the person refuses to provide their name, or seems hesitant to have you check the serial number, there is a good chance the bike is stolen, and you should politely move on.
Having a receipt will also be useful in recovering the bike should it ever get stolen from you, or in having insurance replace it if it isn't recovered.
6) Now that you have it... time to spend a little more money
It's a good idea to have it checked out by a qualified mechanic, or at least a friend who is a bike nut. This is a perfect opportunity to pay back the local bike shop that helped you out with advice while you were shopping.
If there isn't a local bike shop around that you owe a favor to, Bike Nashbar offers some of the lowest prices you can find anywhere on bike accessories.
While you are there, you need, at a bare minimum, a new helmet. Don't use a helmet that came with the bike, or any other used helmet. They get internal damage from absorbing the energy in a crash, which may not be visible from the outside (it is basically a bundle of microscopic bubble wrap, and in an impact, the little air bubbles pop). Therefor, a bike helmet is one-time use only. If it is used, there is no way to be sure it hasn't been in a crash already. Even if it hasn't been in a crash, repeated drops, even just from 4ft up to the ground, can gradually wear away its impact protection, as can UV exposure from the sun and ozone exposure from traffic.
If you ride at night, a headlight is absolutely essential, along with the reflectors that come standard (or reflective tape if someone removed the standard reflectors). Even better is an extra bright headlight, a tail light, the standard reflectors AND reflective tape. Run the headlight even when it is light out anytime there is reduced visibility, such as when there is sun glare at dusk and dawn, or on an overcast day. I've noticed I can see cyclists better when I am driving when they leave their headlights on in daytime, therefore I now run my lights ANY time I'm on the bike, day or night, even when its clear out.
Getting hit by cars is not fun.
(I go into much more depth on both lighting, and not getting hit by cars in general in my post on riding safely in traffic: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/06/please-ride-your-bike-in-street.html)
Other very good things to have are gloves, which absorb road bumps and protect your hands in a fall, and a bell to warn pedestrians without having to yell.
Some people swear by cycling shorts, which have a pad built in to supposedly make sitting more comfortable. I have never cared for them. More important is to get a saddle that fits you properly. It should be slightly wider than the distance between your "sit" bones - you can feel them protruding at the bottom of your pelvic bone when you squat. Measure that distance (preferably at home alone) and look for a saddle no more than an inch or two wider than that (and definitely no narrower than that). Having that distance correct will make more of a difference than any cut-outs or gel inserts or shock absorbers or any other gizmos and "features" you find on modern saddles.
The saddle should be firm. This will feel more uncomfortable at first, but as you get used to it, and you put more miles on the bike, it will be more comfortable (and do less potential damage to important body parts) than a squishy saddle. The reason is because you sink down into a soft saddle, and it puts pressure on all parts equally, while a hard saddle supports the sit bones only, keeping everything else above it, like it should. I know the big wide cushy gel seat seems like riding an easy chair. You just have to trust me.
The reason I put this under the accessories section, and not the components, is because saddle selection varies so widely, both by gender and among individuals, that you shouldn't expect to find a bike that has a comfortable saddle for you already in place. You might get lucky, but don't reject an otherwise good bike because the seat is uncomfortable. If possible, try to find a shop that will let you trade, if the one on your bike is in good shape, but just not right for you.
"Clipless" pedals - a system of a pedal and shoe combination which snap together - are much safer than the old "clip and strap" (cage) style pedal, and are much more efficient than simple flat pedals.
On the left, the old clip 'n strap style pedal. On the right, an example of "clipless" pedals. The most common, by far, is called SPD. Your foot locks into the pedal, but it snaps off easily in a crash (unlike with the cages). Both types allow you to pull back, up, and forward on the pedal, so you are pedaling in circles, not just pushing down, which makes more efficient use of your muscles. They also give you greater control over the bike.
For maximum versatility on a commute bike, you can get a pedal which is clipless on one side, and flat on the other:
These have SPD on one side (left) and are flat on the other. There are many styles to choose from.
Having ridden many miles on flat pedals, cages, and clipless, I personally feel the clipless is worth it.
However, between the shoes and the pedals, the system can cost anywhere from $100 to $500, so just stick with whatever pedals happened to come with the bike at least until you have a well established relationship with cycling.
7) One last thing
A bicycle is considered a vehicle, and as such, they are required to follow the same traffic laws that cars do. Ride on the right side of the street. Stay off of the sidewalk (unless expressly allowed in a particular location). Stop at red lights. Stop at stop signs***. Ride predictably and signal your turns when warranted. The majority of bike/car collisions are partially or entirely the cyclists' fault. Two of the most common causes of crashes are bike riders riding on the sidewalk, and bike riders riding the wrong way (on the left side of the road). Another common cause is lack of visibility on the part of the cyclist. Eliminating these few (totally controllable) factors actually makes riding a bike statistically safer than driving a car. The thing most new cyclists worry about - getting clipped from the rear by passing cars - is actually relatively rare. Crashes happen primarily at driveways and intersections, and they happen because the cyclist was somewhere the driver didn't expect them to be.
If you are in the SF Bay Area, consider taking the FREE traffic safety course sponsored by the local Bicycle Coalitions: http://www.ebbc.org/safety
If not, check with your local shops, riding clubs, or bicycle coalition to see if anyone offers something similar.
UPDATE: I just wrote a new post specifically for new riders who aren't used to being in traffic, to help you avoid getting hit by a car.
This post has been way more popular than I ever expected, and since it is intended for new riders, I thought it would be pretty important to help y'all not only pick out a new bike, but not get run over while you are riding it!
Read this before you get on the road: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/06/please-ride-your-bike-in-street.html
*** I won't pretend I stop at stop signs, or even try to convince you to. But at least slow down for them, and look both ways before you cross. And always come to a full stop if there is cross traffic which has the legal right of way.
[Someone has written an article with counterpoints to this one. Personally, I disagree with him on a few points (1st off, that you should never buy a used bike!), but it is always worth getting 2nd opinions and different perspectives: http://hiawathacyclery.blogspot.com/2012/01/bike-buyers-guide-for-beginners.html]
My VERY first post.
Even before I introduce this new blog website of mine, which is taking the place of my old MySpace blog (remember MySpace?) and the free blog that came with my businesses web domain hosting (with its character limit). My second post here will introduce it a little more thoroughly than these three sentences, and after that I will start moving old existing content here.
But first I will take a break from my usual political ranting, personal stories, and posting of links I found fascinating, to fulfill a promise I made to a fellow reader of a different blog (one with actual readership, MMM) in the comment section to share some of my knowledge of bikes and of Craigslist for an audience that may not know a good bike from a bad one. Imagine that, something useful!
First, for anyone who came here via link or Google, and doesn't know me personally, my credentials on the subject:
I began riding regularly for fun and transportation in 1992, when I was 12. The next year I began riding to school every day, so that I could keep the bus money for other things. In high school, in addition to daily commuting (to school and internship) and weekend rides of 40-100 miles, I began annual 4 day trips down the CA coast with a group of teachers and friends. After college I went with the couple that had organized those annual rides from San Francisco to Puerto Vallarta Mexico, and went solo from there along the coast to Acapulco and then North to Mexico city (over an 8000ft pass) for a total of 2800 miles over 2 months. When I returned, I took a job as a bicycle messenger. I eventually ended up also working as a messenger in New York City.
In 20 years of serious riding, I have had a bmx bike, a steel touring bike, a British internal-hub drop-frame from the late 60s, a carbon fiber racing bike, an aluminum mountain bike, and two folding bikes, all of which together I paid a grand total of $450 for (of which $400 was the carbon fiber road bike).
Eventually I returned to CA where, for the past 6 years, my primary job has been as a hauler (mover, and handyman) which involves picking stuff up that people don't want anymore, and then finding new owners for those things. This involves either selling or giving away anything which is still useable (which is most of what I pick up), frequently on Craigslist.
My second job for the past 5 years has been as a mechanic in a tiny bike-shop of sorts, the Bike Station, whose primary service is FREE secure valet attended bicycle parking, but also offers relatively low-cost repairs. Because we don't sell new bikes, and because we never turn anyone away for lack of bike quality, I have been able to work on a great variety of bikes, of all types and ages and cost levels, which is rare in any one shop.
(My third job is a reserve for the Coast Guard, but that isn't relevant to this at all)
And now... on to the content!
1) This is the most important thing of all:
DO NOT BUY A DEPARTMENT STORE / TOY STORE BIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ever. Don't even consider it. Seriously. Not even for your kid. They are absolute garbage. They shouldn't be legal to ride on public streets. They should be considered toys at best. This includes pretty much anything you can buy at WalMart, Target, or Toys'R'Us, or whatever local equivalent you may have where you live. The most common brands are Huffy, Murry, Magna, Next and Roadmaster. Generally anything branded with a car/truck name (GMC) is one of these also. One of these bikes brand new is worth less than a real bike that is 30 years old. (Actually, my favorite bike, the one that I rode to Mexico and used a messenger is almost 40 years old).
I can not emphasize this enough. Having worked on these many many times, I can say with absolute certainty that they are not worth the price if you are given one for free. They use the cheapest parts that can be found, parts which have been obsolete for decades in the rest of the bike world, and those parts are put together by people who know literally nothing about bike mechanics. I have rarely seen one, even brand new, that had everything adjusted properly. They are so cheaply made, and so poorly assembled, that they are dangerous.
The best clue that the bike you are looking at is a department store bike is if it has a one piece crank.
This is a one piece crank:
Notice how the crank arm bends where it meets the bike frame, and goes straight into the bottom bracket.
Here, in contrast, is a 3 piece crank:
Notice that in this one, the crank arm is straight, and it is bolted to the axle.
Here are the two kinds, cut-away and side-by-side (one-piece on the left):
Another clue that the bike you are considering is a rolling pile of crap is brakes that look like this:
orCalled simple caliper brakes.
Note that most road bikes will have compound caliper brakes, which are similar in shape, but slightly more complex. The keys to the crappy brakes are the rectangle brake pads and the flat metal brake arms, with just one single pivot point in the center.
Note also that occasionally older bikes may have simple caliper brakes (though they won't have flat brake arms or square pads), and it doesn't necessarily mean the bike is crap. If a bike less than 30 years old has them, stay away.
Now that all that is out of the way, lets get into what you should look for.
But wait, no, before we get to that, you have to establish just what it is you are looking for.
2) Type of bike:
Like in everything else in life, every choice you make is a series of tradeoffs. There are a lot of different kinds of bikes, that are good for different kinds of things. You can use pretty much any bike for anything, but some will make the trip a lot easier.
Presumably most people reading this are looking for something practical to commute on, (and not a racing bike or a bike to do tricks on)
Some questions to ask yourself are:
Will I want to carry a lot of stuff with me?
Will I want to go fast sometimes? (I found I am often running late, and ended up using my racing bike to commute pretty often)
Are the local roads well paved, and/or will I ever want to venture on trails?
Will I have to climb any steep hills and/or pull a trailer?
Will I ever ride in rain/snow?
How important is comfort?
How important is efficiency?
Will I be working up to high mileage sometime in the future?
If you want to carry alot, consider touring bikes or something meant specifically for commuting or hauling (of course, you can always retrofit any bike with a trailer, so that's another option)
If you want to go fast, and you don't need to carry much with you, a road-sport / racing bike will help you get there quicker with much less effort
A road-sport or racing bike, however, does poorly off-road, or with major potholes, gravel, glass, and curb-jumping
For steep hills, no matter what kind of bike, you will want not only gears, but low gears - generally that means 3 chainrings (the 3 big gears in the front, attached to the crank), like this:
Some bikes - especially ones specifically intended for casual riders or for commuting have the gears hidden inside the wheel. This has the advantage of being cleaner and simpler for the user, because all moving parts are hidden. They are also less prone to being broken and are more weather resistant for the same reason.
The trade off is that they are more expensive (to buy and to repair), heavier, and the lowest gear of an internal system will not be as low as with external gears. For this reason, if you have to ride up steep hills, go with external gears. If you ride mostly flat or only small hills, its a matter of preference.
For inclement weather, a mountain bike, hybrid, or purpose built commuting bike will outperform most road bikes - although you can put fenders and lights on anything, you can't put wide tires on a racer. This is especially true for snow.
Just like with a Cadillac and a Geo Metro, there is a trade off between comfort and efficiency. Beginners often get a bike with a wide saddle and tall handle bars, so they can sit up-right like a big rolling sofa, and then get discouraged when all the cool kids on real bikes pass them by at twice their speed everyday. Its not just that they are weak - there is a reason racers have low handlebars: the biggest factor in bicycle efficiency is wind resistance, and when you are upright, your torso is like a big parachute. So that comfort comes at the cost of twice as much effort to go the same speed. On the same note, a mid-range hybrid or mountain bike can weigh literally twice as much as a high-end road bike, which is a lot of extra pounds to lug with you up the hill to your house at the end of the day.
None of that is to say don't buy the hybrid, just understand that there are trade-offs. They are trying to be decent at everything at once, without costing much and making new riders comfortable, which means they excel at nothing.
The best compromise, in my opinion, between efficiency, bad road/trail worthiness, and bad weather capability, is a cyclo-cross bike, which is a road bike meant to be used off-road, however they are somewhat hard to find, and therefor usually expensive.
The next best all-around option, (again, in my personal opinion) which also includes cargo hauling capacity built in, is a road touring bike (which would be why that's been my primary bike for the last 2 decades).
But that isn't to say that you can have a perfectly good long-term commuting experience with a mountain bike, racing bike, hybrid, cruiser, or a 60 year old bike from before special purpose bikes existed.
If its possible, I'd recommend seeing if you have any friends with various types of bikes you can borrow for at least one ride, to see how they differ in riding position, gearing, handling, and so on.
If nothing else, maybe you can find a local bike shop and do a test ride on a couple of different bikes.
You may be taking advantage of them even more in the next step (since you will ultimately buy used directly from someone), but to make up for wasting their time, plan on buying all your accessories (minimum: helmet, lights, gloves, bell) from them, and/or having them do a basic check/tune of your new (used) bike once you get it.
3) Fit:
The only way to really get it exactly perfect in every way is to go to a bike shop and find someone who really knows all the variables, preferably with access to an adjustable bike fit machine (a stationary bike where you can change the lengths and angles of all the components and frame parts).
They often don't charge for this if you are planning to buy a bike from them, but again, if you go for a bike fitting, and don't buy a bike from that shop, you should really buy your accessories and/or service from them. Bike shops operate with a pretty small margin.
Given that you are looking to buy a bike used, and not get a frame custom built to your specifications, knowing your perfect fitment doesn't really matter anyway.
As a super quick and simple rule of thumb, when you stand over a bike frame (in front of the saddle) with your shoes on and feet flat on the ground, there should be at least 1 inch, preferably 3 or 4, between the top tube and the beginning of your... special parts. For one thing, if you were to be in a minor crash and fall forward off the saddle, you don't want to be impacting a big steel (or aluminum, or carbon) bar of bike frame. This is also an indication that the frame more or less fits you. If, when you straddle the bike, the top tube is actually touching you, that bike is much too big for you, and no matter how much you love it and no matter how good the price is, it just isn't the bike for you. I'm sorry.
On the opposite end, you can use the seatpost to judge if a bike is too big.
When you ride, your knees should be 99% of the way straight at the bottom of each pedal stroke (not 100%, or locked-out, but almost). If you don't extend your legs all the way, (imagine how it looks when an adult rides a tricycle meant for kids), you will end up hurting your knees.
In fact, if you have ever had hurting knees from riding a bike, this is the most likely reason. Your seat was too low.
(this bike is too small for him)
The seat post (the part that attaches the saddle to the frame) should have a line on it marking the maximum its meant to be extended (it may or may not say words to that effect). By loosing a screw, bolt, or quick release lever at the place where the frame clamps the post, you can raise or lower the seat height. If the post is at its highest (at the line) and when you ride the bike your legs are not extending fully, then the bike is probably too small for you. You can always buy a slightly longer seatpost if it's close, but if the seat needs to be higher than about 10 inches above the frame (assuming the top tube of the bike frame is horizontal, more on that soon), chances are the rest of the dimensions are too small for you anyway.
Of course, many bikes don't have a straight horizontal top tube running from the handlebars to the seat. The sloping top-tube or the drop-frame that used to indicate "girl's bike" (in order that the bike could be ridden in a skirt or dress) has become common on mountain bikes and commute oriented bikes and many hybrids for both genders, as well as continuing to be common for female specific road bikes. With a sloping top tube you can't just stand over it and measure the distance between your body and the frame to determine fit, and the seat-post will have to be extra long. In that case you just draw an imaginary line (or better yet, use a level and some string or a broomstick or something) where the top tube would be if it went straight across.
There is really a lot more to it than that, (such as the length of the top tube and the angle of the seat tube) but to keep things simple, 1-5 inches between you and the bike frame (or where the frame would be if it were straight) with your feet flat on the ground is about the best approximation there is.
Once you find one bike that fits, you can check the frame size (usually printed on the seat tube) and have a rough idea of what other bikes will also fit you - generally mountain bikes and hybrids will be measured in inches, road bikes in centimeters. But be aware that the numbers can vary between bike styles, brands, ages and depending on whether the top tube is horizontal or not.
So now you have some idea of what kind of bike you are looking for, and what size it needs to be.
4) Frame and components
There are hundreds of brands, with even more choices in components, so it is impossible to recommend any specifics, or break down all of the possible combinations. They all have high-end and low-end stuff, so never assume a bike is good or bad just based on the brand of the frame or the components.
Older bikes can be very good quality, just try to stay mostly on this side of the 80s, when most manufacturers switched from carbon steel or high-tensile (Hi-Ten) steel to chromoly (ChroMo) steel. The only modern bikes that still use carbon steel or hi-ten are the department store bikes, but pre-80s they were the standard for all but the most high-end bikes.
Some of the more high end older bikes did have good steel frames, particularly those made of Reynolds 531 or Columbus steel.
If you can find one, in good condition, you are looking at a good frame even though it is older.
However, unless the prior owner kept up with upgrades throughout the years, you should still consider a newer bike, as many advancements in components have been made since then.
Some brands which are in department stores today were once legitimate bike companies (most notable is Schwinn: a 10-20 year old Schwinn is likely a good bike, while a 2010 Schwinn is probably from a department store - better than a Murry or Huffy, but still not a good choice)
If it has a sticker (usually on the seat tube, near the frame size sticker) that tells frame material, avoid high tensile steel. Cromo steel, aluminum, titanium, and carbon fiber are all good frame materials, with their own pluses and minuses, but for practical commuting purposes, you should mostly be looking for steel.
Aluminum is also decent, and usually a little lighter. I prefer steel for a practical commute style bike, because it is the strongest of all frame materials, and it can be bent back after a crash and keep going strong. Any other frame type, once damaged or bent, is no longer safe to ride. However, if you find a bike that is perfect in every other way, don't necessarily shun it just because it is made of a more exotic material.
Suspension adds weight, complexity, and cost, and unless you ride off-road, doesn't serve much purpose, but if you do ride-off road, (or have giant and frequent pot-holes to contend with), it can make the ride more comfortable and give you better control. In general, for a commute bike, I would recommend skipping it.
Skinny, high pressure tires have less rolling resistance and less weight, therefore you can go faster / further with the same amount of effort. However they have less grip in bad conditions (esp mud or snow), give a bumpier ride, and are (in theory**) more prone to flats.
** In my personal experience, I have not had any more flats on my road bikes.
The curved style of handlebar found on road bikes gives you more possible hand positions, which can be nice on long rides once your hands get tired, but ultimately handlebar shape is a matter of personal preference. If possible, try a couple different styles out on the open road before becoming committed to any one type.
I would recommend an adjustable height and/or angle stem for any new cyclist, so you can choose whether to be more upright (more comfortable, but higher wind resistance) or more low and sleek, or anywhere between and change between them whenever you want, as you ride more and find what you like. Most older bikes (10 years or more) have an adjustable height stem standard. Most modern bikes have a "threadless headset" (commonly called "Ahead-set", which is actually a brand name) which are not adjustable in height, but you can attach an adjustable angle stem to it:
On the left is the traditional adjustable height stem. To change the height, you loosen the hex bolt in the center, twist the bars a little to break the connection, and pull them up. Don't go higher than the marked limit line.
On the right is the newer (threadless headset) which has limited to no height adjustability. Sometimes you can switch the position of the spacers to get a small height change.
Adjustable angle stems.
As long as this already is, I am deliberately leaving out gobs of information, because this is a basic guide, and because you are buying something used and have limited choices. You aren't custom ordering a $3000 bike, so if you have a hard-core bike fanatic friend, you can safely ignore most of what she tells you about frame butting, spoke counts, gear ratios, or the superiority of Campy parts over Ultegra and Dura-Ace. Remind her that your goal is to get from one place to another, not to win a criterium. Tell her you don't even know what a criterium is.
5) Craigslist
In case you didn't already know, Craigslist is awesome. It is one of the most effective tools combating the worst aspects of the American consumerism cycle in which we are constantly throwing away things that still work in order to buy a slightly newer version, wasting our own money along with massive amounts of natural resources. Craigslist helps recirculate our money in our own communities instead of having it siphoned off by giant soulless corporations, keeps good stuff out of landfill, and prevents material extraction and energy consumption to create new stuff, all by the simple act of bringing together people who have stuff they don't want with people who want stuff they don't have.
If you are lucky enough to live in a reasonably large city, with at least a moderate amount of cyclists, than chances are good you can find a large selection of high quality bicycles on your local Craigslist page.
If not, though, the same principals apply to buying from a yard sale or flea market.
Another option is a used bikeshop. They will generally charge a bit more than buying directly from the previous owner, but you get the advantage of a bike that has been checked out by a mechanic, and a knowledgeable person to help you with the selection process.
Expect to spend at least $100, but unless you are lucky, probably $200, possibly more. Yep, that much, for a used bike. Even an old one, or a simple one. Less than that, and the chances are good you are buying a department store bike, a 40 year old bike which was low quality when it was new, or a bike that has been left out in the rain and generally not taken care of . Spending less will likely mean that you have to spend much more in parts and service in order to get it up to decent operating condition. If a bike is decent quality, well taken care of, and severely underpriced, it may well be stolen. Don't support bike thieves. They will end up stealing the bike back from you again. That's called Karma.
A decent new bike from a bike shop is generally $600 and up, so you are still saving plenty of cash by spending $200. Of course you can always get lucky and find someone who has no idea what they have is actually worth (like I did with my $400 carbon fiber racing bike), but don't expect it.
At the same time, be aware that there are a great many over-priced bikes on Craigslist. Depending on your market, it may take some patience to find a good one. Do a Google search of the make and model of any bike you are considering. In general, look for bikes no more than 20 years old, and of course, avoid department store bikes like the plague.
So say you have read this far, determined what you need, figured out the size, and browsed around and found a few ads that seem to have good quality bikes.
Keep in mind that someone is selling the bike for a reason. More often than not, the reason is because they just never ride it. Which usually means it hasn't had any maintenance in... ever. If its been stored indoors where it is dry, that may not be a problem, but in a damp basement or a back porch, there is likely internal rust that you can't see. If you see rust on the outside, unless the person is a bike enthusiast that you trust maintained the bike, assume there is internal rust as well. A bike bought by someone who never got around to riding it is more likely to have been cheap to begin with and to not have had much care taken in its purchase.
These are obviously not hard and fast rules, but if they are selling due to a move out of state, or due to having several other bikes, the chances are a little better the bike was taken care of.
Take hold of the wheels, and try to move them side to side (perpendicular to the way they turn). There shouldn't be any play in them side-to-side, against the axle. Do the same for the cranks (what the pedal attaches to) and the handlebars, trying to wobble them side-to-side, not the way they are supposed to turn. If they are loose and wobbly, that is a sign the bike hasn't been taken care of. Those things are easily tightened (although some require specialized bike tools) but if they have been ridden loose, they are likely to need more extensive repairs.
Spin the wheels while holding the bike off the ground, and watch how the rim moves relative to the brake pads. If the rim moves so much that it hits the brakes on every revolution, this is usually repairable (by "truing" the wheel - adjusting the tightness of each spoke) but it is another sign of a bike that wasn't maintained.
Avoid a bike with any obvious dents or cracks anywhere in the frame. If a bike has been in a severe crash, there may be more damage than meets the eye. I've had a frame suddenly break on me. It isn't pretty.
Tires and handlebar tape can be replaced, and a bad paint job can discourage theft, so try not to let the aesthetic elements overwhelm the mechanical ones.
Expect a test ride, but offer to leave something with the seller (like your ID) so they know you don't ride off with it, since it is essentially its own built-in getaway vehicle.
Once you have (FINALLY) found a good bike that fits your needs, its time to make the deal.
Because this is Craigslist, don't forget you can try to negotiate. But don't be a jerk about it. Don't show up and then at the last minute claim you "only have $100" as though you forgot the asking price.
Bring cash (it lets the seller know you aren't a scammer), and show up in person (but bring a friend who knows bikes if you have one)
Always make a receipt (preferably make it in advance with blanks for the bike and seller info). It should have the make and model of the bike (both are usually written somewhere on the frame), and as much descriptive information - color, frame type, size, age, any notable features - as possible. It should also say the purchase price, date, and the buyer and sellers names. And above all, it absolutely should have the bikes serial number, which will usually be stamped into the metal somewhere on the underside of the bike (you have to turn it over to see it), most often on the bottom bracket (the thing the crank axle goes through)
If the person refuses to provide their name, or seems hesitant to have you check the serial number, there is a good chance the bike is stolen, and you should politely move on.
Having a receipt will also be useful in recovering the bike should it ever get stolen from you, or in having insurance replace it if it isn't recovered.
6) Now that you have it... time to spend a little more money
It's a good idea to have it checked out by a qualified mechanic, or at least a friend who is a bike nut. This is a perfect opportunity to pay back the local bike shop that helped you out with advice while you were shopping.
If there isn't a local bike shop around that you owe a favor to, Bike Nashbar offers some of the lowest prices you can find anywhere on bike accessories.
While you are there, you need, at a bare minimum, a new helmet. Don't use a helmet that came with the bike, or any other used helmet. They get internal damage from absorbing the energy in a crash, which may not be visible from the outside (it is basically a bundle of microscopic bubble wrap, and in an impact, the little air bubbles pop). Therefor, a bike helmet is one-time use only. If it is used, there is no way to be sure it hasn't been in a crash already. Even if it hasn't been in a crash, repeated drops, even just from 4ft up to the ground, can gradually wear away its impact protection, as can UV exposure from the sun and ozone exposure from traffic.
If you ride at night, a headlight is absolutely essential, along with the reflectors that come standard (or reflective tape if someone removed the standard reflectors). Even better is an extra bright headlight, a tail light, the standard reflectors AND reflective tape. Run the headlight even when it is light out anytime there is reduced visibility, such as when there is sun glare at dusk and dawn, or on an overcast day. I've noticed I can see cyclists better when I am driving when they leave their headlights on in daytime, therefore I now run my lights ANY time I'm on the bike, day or night, even when its clear out.
Getting hit by cars is not fun.
(I go into much more depth on both lighting, and not getting hit by cars in general in my post on riding safely in traffic: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/06/please-ride-your-bike-in-street.html)
Other very good things to have are gloves, which absorb road bumps and protect your hands in a fall, and a bell to warn pedestrians without having to yell.
Some people swear by cycling shorts, which have a pad built in to supposedly make sitting more comfortable. I have never cared for them. More important is to get a saddle that fits you properly. It should be slightly wider than the distance between your "sit" bones - you can feel them protruding at the bottom of your pelvic bone when you squat. Measure that distance (preferably at home alone) and look for a saddle no more than an inch or two wider than that (and definitely no narrower than that). Having that distance correct will make more of a difference than any cut-outs or gel inserts or shock absorbers or any other gizmos and "features" you find on modern saddles.
The saddle should be firm. This will feel more uncomfortable at first, but as you get used to it, and you put more miles on the bike, it will be more comfortable (and do less potential damage to important body parts) than a squishy saddle. The reason is because you sink down into a soft saddle, and it puts pressure on all parts equally, while a hard saddle supports the sit bones only, keeping everything else above it, like it should. I know the big wide cushy gel seat seems like riding an easy chair. You just have to trust me.
The reason I put this under the accessories section, and not the components, is because saddle selection varies so widely, both by gender and among individuals, that you shouldn't expect to find a bike that has a comfortable saddle for you already in place. You might get lucky, but don't reject an otherwise good bike because the seat is uncomfortable. If possible, try to find a shop that will let you trade, if the one on your bike is in good shape, but just not right for you.
"Clipless" pedals - a system of a pedal and shoe combination which snap together - are much safer than the old "clip and strap" (cage) style pedal, and are much more efficient than simple flat pedals.
For maximum versatility on a commute bike, you can get a pedal which is clipless on one side, and flat on the other:
These have SPD on one side (left) and are flat on the other. There are many styles to choose from.
Having ridden many miles on flat pedals, cages, and clipless, I personally feel the clipless is worth it.
However, between the shoes and the pedals, the system can cost anywhere from $100 to $500, so just stick with whatever pedals happened to come with the bike at least until you have a well established relationship with cycling.
7) One last thing
A bicycle is considered a vehicle, and as such, they are required to follow the same traffic laws that cars do. Ride on the right side of the street. Stay off of the sidewalk (unless expressly allowed in a particular location). Stop at red lights. Stop at stop signs***. Ride predictably and signal your turns when warranted. The majority of bike/car collisions are partially or entirely the cyclists' fault. Two of the most common causes of crashes are bike riders riding on the sidewalk, and bike riders riding the wrong way (on the left side of the road). Another common cause is lack of visibility on the part of the cyclist. Eliminating these few (totally controllable) factors actually makes riding a bike statistically safer than driving a car. The thing most new cyclists worry about - getting clipped from the rear by passing cars - is actually relatively rare. Crashes happen primarily at driveways and intersections, and they happen because the cyclist was somewhere the driver didn't expect them to be.
If you are in the SF Bay Area, consider taking the FREE traffic safety course sponsored by the local Bicycle Coalitions: http://www.ebbc.org/safety
If not, check with your local shops, riding clubs, or bicycle coalition to see if anyone offers something similar.
UPDATE: I just wrote a new post specifically for new riders who aren't used to being in traffic, to help you avoid getting hit by a car.
This post has been way more popular than I ever expected, and since it is intended for new riders, I thought it would be pretty important to help y'all not only pick out a new bike, but not get run over while you are riding it!
Read this before you get on the road: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/06/please-ride-your-bike-in-street.html
*** I won't pretend I stop at stop signs, or even try to convince you to. But at least slow down for them, and look both ways before you cross. And always come to a full stop if there is cross traffic which has the legal right of way.
[Someone has written an article with counterpoints to this one. Personally, I disagree with him on a few points (1st off, that you should never buy a used bike!), but it is always worth getting 2nd opinions and different perspectives: http://hiawathacyclery.blogspot.com/2012/01/bike-buyers-guide-for-beginners.html]
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Dramatically reduce unemployment - with no cost to government - by instituting a 35 hour work week
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 (UPDATED 15 SEPT 2013!; new petition currently active)
Dramatically reduce unemployment - with no cost to government - by instituting a 35 hour work week
Please sign my federal petition:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/a-35-hour-work-week-will
Whatever the response is, it will at least bring this issue to the attention of American politics which is the first step toward action.
It may never happen, but it will get people thinking about things they take for granted; like the purpose of the economy, production, employment, unemployment, distribution of wealth, etc.
It has become common practice when talking about the economy or the market to treat them as though they were an end in and of themselves, and inherent good regardless of their effects. We seem to have completely forgotten that the whole point of having an economy in the first place is to serve and better the lives of actual people. Over the past half century improvements to the economy have not translated to improvements in the lives of the majority of Americans. We all need to stop, step back a moment, and ask the question: in that case, what is the point?
When individual citizens are asked to make sacrifices for the sake of "the economy", that means citizens are here to serve the markets, instead of the markets being here to serve the citizens.
The petition website has a character limit; here the original text I wrote for it:
A 35 hour work week will create 22 MILLION jobs without costing the federal government or tax payers anything.
There are currently 14 million unemployed American's, so this will eliminate all unemployment, and then it will push wages up as employers are forced to compete for a limited labor force.
Literally ALL arguments against a 35 hour work week (that it would hurt business or make America less competitive, etc) can be countered by the simple fact that those same arguments were made against the 40 hour work week, and none of those things happened.
The 40 hour work week dates back to the early 1900s, with it becoming federal law in 1932.
Since that time productivity per worker has increased well over 1000%. This means each US Worker produces more than ten times as much in an hour of labor than when the current work week was created.
This has not manifested a corresponding 10 fold increase in average wages.
Productivity has increased over 400% since 1970 alone. In that same time, total GDP has increased even more dramatically, by 1400%.
And yet, since that time, wage income (adjusted for inflation) has been completely stagnant.
The reason for this disparity is that literally 100% of the additional profits made possible by new technology and globalization have gone to corporations and investors, while 0% have benefited the working and middle classes. The average worker produces approximately $100 thousand a year in output, yet receives less than $40 thousand in wages.
While many employers will object that they can not afford it, the enormous increases in productivity per worker and total GDP prove indisputably that they can. Income inequality is at an all-time high, and thanks to patent, tax, and labor laws there is no longer any correlation between income and how much an individual contributes to society or how hard they work. The unprecedented profits which have gone to corporations and investors between the time the 40 hour week was created and today are more than enough to cover the minor costs associated with taking the next step to a 35 hour work week.
The 35 hour work week must apply equally to hourly wage AND salaried workers, and even to commission based employees. In our current system millions of people are forced to work unpaid overtime hours because they are paid salary. These people should be entitled to overtime at a rate of 1.5 times their weekly pay (annual pay divided by 52) divided by 35 hours. This needs to be stated explicitly in the law to prevent abuse by employers. No industry should be exempt, the only exception being if an individual or union VOLUNTARILY chooses to waive their rights.
In order to protect the lowest paid workers, a 35 hour work week must be coupled with an increase in minimum wage so that full-time employment at minimum wage constitutes a living wage. A minimum wage of $11.50 would equal $20,000 a year (before taxes, assuming 10 days of holidays, vacation and/or sick days per year).
Finally, in order to protect American jobs from outsourcing (and reclaim jobs which have already been outsourced), the 35 hour work week could also be coupled with a tariff on any goods sold by a US based company, which was manufactured or assembled in another country, unless that other country has labor and environmental laws as strict or stricter than the US, or if the individual company voluntarily abide by US labor and environmental laws.
A 35 hour work week would give hard-working families a much needed and deserved break, while creating enough jobs to end unemployment completely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have already received a number of very good questions and comments about this idea - but I have answers for them all:
Legitimate point:
"How could you prevent this from decreasing productivity?"My response:
I don't claim it won't drop total productivity, although it is possible that as a side effect of more free time people will become more productive.
My point is productivity per person has ALREADY increased 1000% since the 40 hour week was enacted. And that 1000% increase has not resulted in a 1000% increase in wages, nor a 1000% decrease in working hours, nor a 1000% decrease in CPI, nor any combination of the three.
We don't need as much productivity as we have.
That's why unemployment is so high.
If, in order to just maintain, you have to be growing at all times, then the system is obviously inherently unsustainable, and yet growth is the only solution normally proposed to absorb all of our excess labor capacity. Yet we all consume too much as it is.
If everyone were to, say, discover Mr Money Mustache and join in, there would be a lot less consumption, and a lot less needs to get done. But there will always be people in the accumulation phase who need work.
Even without that scenario, if consumption doesn't grow fast enough, there are more people who need work than there is work that needs to be done.
Our current "solution" is to have some people work full time, and pay others to look for a job.
We could just as easily have everyone work just a little less, and spread the effects out across the entire labor force - and not have to pay any unemployment.
The reason it creates job is because right now you have 130 million employed people doing 5.2 billion hours of work per week.
That means the current economy needs 5.2 billion hours worth of work done per week. If there was more or less than 5.2 billion hours worth of work to do, companies would be hiring or firing people accordingly.
But now say each person can only work 35 hours, or else the employer has to pay them time and a half. That's a pretty steep premium.
Now, in order to get 5.2 billion hours of work done, you need 148 million people to do it. Boom, instant 18 million jobs.
18 million is more than the total number of unemployed people. In other words, it becomes a employees market - which raises wages due to supply and demand.
If, as many suggest, it had the effect of creating more overtime hours instead of more jobs, I'd consider that a success too, it is still allowing employees to reclaim some portion of their own productivity that has been lost over time.
Legitimate point:
"I am payed for 40 hours, I actually work around 45 to 50 per week for the same pay. Sometimes I work even more, nights and weekends for the same pay... If we have a 35 hour work week, I loose 20 hours of pay/mo and still work 45-50 hours, nights and weekends. I am on a salary... Won't work for me"
My Response:
In California at least (except for a few specifically exempted professions) people on salary are still entitled to time and a half pay for hours over 40 in a week. If you are not being paid for working overtime, you should be looking for a good labor lawyer. See: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_overtime.htm
The fact that this law is almost never followed has more to do with the decline of unions than probably anything else.
Regardless of the length of the work week, there should be a similar law on the federal level that explicitly states that overtime laws apply to workers on salary and commission. Not only does it demean human dignity that money is put above everything else in life, but an overworked workforce is less productive per hour anyway. Forced overtime should also be illegal.
So, I also propose to explicitly include salaried and commissioned workers in the 35 hour week. Even on salary, anyone who went beyond 35 hours would be required to be paid time and a half based on what their weekly salary divided by 35 hours works out to, as it is in California. So a person in your situation would actually benefit even more than wage earners, as you would either get much more free time and/or a substantial boost in pay.
Legitimate point:
"The French tried that already, and it didn't accomplish what it was supposed to. They eventually gave it up"
My response:
First of all, it has not been given up yet.
Further, there were always some differences between France in 2000 and us today. One of the more significant ones is that French employers are not allowed to lay off workers when business is slow, which makes them even more reluctant to hire new ones than our fixed per worker costs.
Another difference is the size of our economy, and how much tangible goods we manufacture and export.
Overtime after 35 hours is as little as 1.1 times (+10%) regular pay in France (as opposed to our 1.5, +50%), so employers had less incentive to hire new workers rather than just pay existing ones slightly more for 4 hours a week.
Plus, apparently the way they set it up left a lot of big loopholes from the start, (for example, a 5 minute break could be considered off the clock even if it wasn't considered off the clock before the rule, so instead of actually reducing hours, employers could just redefine them). Apparently no one kept any records of how many hours workers actually worked before and after the law, but it is likely to have been a much smaller change in reality than on paper.
In 2003 (2 years after it went into affect) the law was changed so that overtime could be paid at regular wages (making the 35 hour standard meaningless in practice - yet still retaining the 35 hour as a standard)
Despite all these caveats, 300,000 new jobs were in fact created during the 3 years the law was fully active.
Unemployment dropped from 11.5% in 1997 (a year before the first, voluntary, phase of the law went into affect) to 8.5% in 2001 (a year after the mandatory provisions went into affect). After it was weakened in 2003 unemployment went up to about 9.3% for 3 years, dropped briefly, and then was essentially repealed completely in 2008, after which unemployment immediately climbed from its 7.6% low back up to 10% within one year.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country:fr&ifdim=country_group&tstart=859186800000&tend=1314169200000&hl=en&dl=en&uniSize=0.035&iconSize=0.5&icfg
How much these changes were due to the 35-hour work week and how much to other economic factors is debatable, but the data definitely doesn't support the idea that the 35 hour week hurt employment.
Legitimate point:
"It seems like the current unemployment is the result of an unusually large recession, and the fact that much of our previous boom was built on fake housing prices and borrowing, so the jobs related to that disappeared when the bubble popped. To fix it in a free-market sense, you need existing industries to keep growing ...and new industries to grow. "
and
"I too would like to see a more bell-shaped distribution with a smaller standard deviation. But if the "area under the curve" starts to decrease (GDP decrease), then everyone looses."
My Response:
One of the main reasons I hope to get this idea talked about is to get away from the traditional view of the economy.
Most specifically, I want to challenge the mind-set that "growing the economy" (mainly by increased consumerism) is inherently good and the primary goal of policy, as well as the only way to improve living standards.
The problem with expanding the economy in order to create jobs is that, as a society, we really have everything we need (and then some) already.
The flip side of consumption is production. The whole idea behind encouraging American's to buy more stuff is to "grow the economy". All the stuff that gets produced has to be bought by someone. The environmental impact of 300 million people working 40 hours a week at our current productivity levels is simply unsustainable, because it would necessarily mean an enormous amount of natural resource extraction for the purposes of production, and a corresponding increase in consumption. Therefor I believe it makes more sense to share the work we already have, rather than try to force there to be more work to do - especially since the marginal effect of additional wealth on the happiness of middle class Americans has consistently been shown to be zero
It is basically Jacob's (of Early Retirement Extreme) "Broken Window" theory of jobs. If someone throws a rock through your window, you have to hire a glassmaker to come and put in a new one. Now that glassmaker has a job and money just traded hands. So, technically, GDP has increased, and supposedly this is good for "the economy" and therefor society. However, nothing new of value has been created. In fact, resources were used up and wasted. This means that, while on paper, society is richer for the broken window, in reality we are poorer for it. The paper accounting and the reality are in direct opposition to each other.
The "service economy" is more or less just economic masturbation.
It reminds me of the story by Kurt Vonnegut where in the future automation had made work obsolete, so the government has people building multiple bridges over the same river, just in order to give people something to do since society is convinced it is morally irresponsible to just give everyone welfare checks even if society can afford to.
Growing the economy for its own sake, once a comfortable standard of living has been established, is actually counter-productive.
Legitimate point:
"1) Why not go further? Research shows part-time workers are more productive than full-time workers per hour, AND, they have better involvement in family and community...
2) Part-time workers need protection for basics like healthcare benefits"My Response:
1) I didn't go further because I know there would be enormous resistance as is, and it would be stronger the more extreme the change; both from employees (who would be losing 12% of their salary upfront) and employers (who have some fixed per/worker costs and therefor prefer the smallest possible workforce)
2) Healthcare should be provided by the government.
Legitimate point:
"How does the tariff relate to WTO and such? Is it even legally possible at this point?"
My response:
I don't know the details, but my idea is that you would bypass trade treaties by only applying tariffs to goods made by US companies. If it is a US based company already, then the "imports" aren't affecting the trade balance. The idea is just to de-incentivise employers building factories in 3rd world countries for cheap labor and then shipping products around the world back to US marketplaces.
- Incidentally, I have dropped this part of the proposal from my more recent petition -
"The downside of this is fat countries like the US will see a flattening of the wealth curve and regression to the mean which means a lowered standard of living for us while the rest of the world enjoys the benefits of world capitalism. I probably won't live to see the day when human capital will flow across borders as monetary capital has done for centuries. But you might and you won't like it when a desperate kid from the Mekong delta can do your job for $1/hour and be happy to get it. So much for a 35 hour workweek..."
My response:
Even though I personally stand to lose from a lowered standard of living overall in the US, I actually find that to be a perfectly reasonable outcome. We have way more than we need. We have so much that more has no affect on happiness. We are living way over the sustainable rate of natural resources regeneration. And we didn't earn that privileged, we got lucky by being born in the US. On top of all that, nearly all American's could easily maintain their current standard of living with 1/4 to 1/2 their current income, if they just stopped wasting so much of their money. If we didn't have so much excess, we would learn to stop throwing it away.
(I have become a big fan of Mr Money Mustache and Early Retirement Extreme of late)
If I were king of the world, the extreme wealth of the top 0.01% of the US would not be distributed to the American middle class. It would be distributed to the Third World.
However, all that said, this proposal has provisions to decrease outsourcing. There is nothing about it which would make "human capital" any more able to cross our boarders. The situation being described is the situation we have been facing for decades, which this proposal aims to amend. Outsourcing is one of the reasons for increased profits for wall street at the expense of employment and wages. Protecting those profits will not do anything to help the situation.
Legitimate point:
"for someone who's used to spending $X and desiring more money rather than more time, they wouldn't be happy to have to "sacrifice" their annual flat screen upgrade for an extra 5 hours per week.
A further problem in the US is that hiring extra workers comes with more fixed costs (benefits). It's in the interest of the way the system has been set up to have as few workers working as much as possible. Not a very smart way to do it, but that's the starting point."
My response:
I know that many many people will object - both the workers who lose hours and therefor pay, and employers who have fixed costs per employee. I don't expect it to happen (at least not anytime soon). But I do think it should be something people are talking about, if only to set the stage for the future, or even if only to challenge peoples assumptions about things they take for granted; like the purpose of the economy, production, employment, unemployment, distribution of wealth, etc.
Then again, the 40 hour week must have seemed just as impossible to the people who fought for it in the early 1900s - at a time when 80hour weeks were considered normal - and it eventually became an almost worldwide standard.
Legitimate point:
"I am more interested in changing the way business reward workers. It'll be nice to be rewarded as a function of economic output instead of the amount of time a person show up at a business.
It drives me nut to sit for 8 hours while doing 2 hours of real work for most of the year."
My response:
I'm with you in principal, but I can't think of any practical way to put that into practice universally. Can you?
Even if it were to be done, my original point - that wages have not kept up with productivity gains - would still be true. You generate more towards GDP in your 2 hours than a 1850 worker did in 12 hours.
Besides, there is good reason to believe that a shorter workweek would actually increase productivity. Note that in Europe, where the average work week is several hours lower than our own, productivity per worker per hour is actually higher.
For a likely explanation of that, see: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/25/the-joy-of-part-time-work/
Legitimate point:
"I am afraid this will be an automatic no-go. Wally*World will never let it fly. Wally hires people "under" a 40 hour week in order to consider them part time. This is why most of the WW people have no benefits."
My response:
Wally already hires people for 34 hours a week, which is still less than 35. They currently offer healthcare plans to anyone over 24 hours per week, so this change would not affect that threshold at all.
---------------------
The following questions were asked to me by someone who not only supports the principal, they are actually actively advocating an even shorter work week (20 hours, which I fully support in principle, but I am not sure it is as politically feasible at this time.)
1.- Why only 50 signatures? I was thinking maybe 100000 to really be take seriously. 50 is too low.
Because 50 is the threshold I have to generate before moveon makes the petition live on their site for the general public to see and sign. Then it can build it's own momentum.
2.- I really don't believe in writing politicians because they could care less if we have 100, 1000, or 1000000 signatures. All they see in those papers is something that can be used when they run out of toilette paper. If they see 1 million signatures on one side, from citizens requesting to do one thing or to vote one way, and on the other side they also see 1 million dollars in campaign contributions from corporations to do the opposite, the politicians are more likely to do what corporations ask, no question about it. However, I will still sign your petition because your goal is mostly to create momentum and awareness. I do have a similar petition, but for Sharan Burrows, head of the largest union in the world, ITUC, to call for a global strike to implement the 4 hour work-day. You can check it out by clicking on this link http://www.change.org/petitions/sharan-burrow- general-secretary-of-the-ituc- please-call-for-a-global- strike-to-implement-the-4- hour-work-day-worldwide
You answered your own question. My "goal is mostly to create momentum and awareness."
3.- 35 hours is not enough. If we do the math, 4 hours a day is not enough either. It should be 3, like Keynes predicted it (and I am not a Keynesian, but he was right about this). 35 is too short of a reduction. It could be easily reversed, like the French did. It would not be the same to tell people to work one more hour (from 7 to 8 hours) than to tell them to go from 4 back to 8 hours. It is harder to reverse a 4 hour work-day. The jump is higher and people will fight it. Also, a 4 hour workday request leaves room for negotiation, because corporations will fight against it for sure. We might not achieve the 4 hour work day but maybe the 5 or 6 hour work day. It's like selling a car. If you want to get $10000 for the car, list it for $12000 so you can have some room for negotiation and still get what you wanted. With 35 hours, you have nowhere else to go but back to the status quo of "40 hours" (And I put it on quotation marks because we work more than 40 hours a week) These are not the strongest reasons why we propose 4 hours (the strongest reasons are the economic reasons explained in my website) but I mention it just so you can have a different perspective.
I agree 100%. But, again, my goal is creating awareness. What 1 million signatures would do is potentially grab media attention. From conversations with people, I suspect 35 will be more palatable for larger numbers of people. The math works out that we should have 4 hour work WEEKS, given the rise in productivity since the 40 hour week began. But almost no one considers math or history when they form opinions. My primary intention is to just crack people's assumption that "40" is somehow a magical default number, the given standard. I want people to realize that WE (society) choose the number, it is not arbitrary, or handed down from the Gods, and that it can - and should - change proportionately with productivity. I want people to realize that the gains of productivity have gone disproportionately to the top 0.1%, and this is the primary reason for growing wealth inequality.
4.- There is nothing impossible in this world. Women did not think that fighting for her right to vote at the beginning of the 1900's was impossible. Martin Luther King did not think that his dream was impossible either. Relying on politicians to implement a 4 hour work day worldwide (yes, not just the US but worldwide. More on that later) is however highly unlikely. That's why we need to do it via a strike, a global strike, the same way we reduced the work day from 16 to 12 and then from 12 to 8.......with strikes. When you shut down the flow of money to the corporation's pockets, they will begin to listen.
That's not really a question! :P
As before, I agree with you 100%. The trick is getting a large enough portion of the general public involved. OWS is what started to make me think there was a chance in today's environment of making real progress on economic issues.
5.- why a reduction in income? That will not only gain opposition from the politicians and corporations but also opposition from the citizens, public in general. They would not support an idea that reduces their income, specially during a recession. With work-time reductions, income can remain the same. Business will have higher labor costs, yes, but also will have higher revenues due to the increase in aggregate demand, caused by full employment and a switch of bargaining power from the employer to the employee. That will allow them to cover the higher labor costs and still report profits. I explain that in more detail in my website.
Mainly because it would be very complicated to try to have everyone keep a fixed income with a change in hours when some are paid hourly, others on commission, still others on salary, and current work hours vary wildly. Could government effectively enforce a mandatory across the board 15% raise? I doubt it. Plus, there would already be many loud cries, on all sides of the political spectrum, that small and medium business could not afford to hire more workers to replace the lost hours.
Also, I believe the American middle class makes more money than anyone really needs. We, as a society, need to eventually start valuing life as much as we value consumption. We are extremely wasteful, and there are ecological consequences to that. Anyone who (for example) buys a new car is not hurting for money - though they may be making poor choices as a result of being used to excess wealth.
6.- I have issues with tariffs because it creates a distortion on the market. I am not a big fan of the market system either but that is what we have unfortunately. If I was the CEO of a US company and I am faced with tariffs on US products made overseas, I will bring the production plant back to the US but I will make it fully automated, which will be even cheaper that producing the goods in China. That will not generate the many jobs we want, unless of course we reduce the workday dramatically, like 3 or 4 hours a day. Another reason why I think 35 is not enough.
I think free trade causes distortions in the market. It is facilitated by a finite supply of artificiality cheap petroleum. It is used to circumvent labor, tax, and environmental laws. Any place we import from should be held to US labor and environmental laws, and if not, I see no distortion in evening things out with tariffs.
That said, I have dropped that portion of the idea from the current petition, to keep it simple and to the point.
7.- why just the US? If we reduce the work-day only here and the Canadians don't, then the Canadians will have more competitive advantage than the US. The reduction needs to be everywhere. You might be thinking that France implemented the 35 hour work-week alone and therefore it would be ok for the US to do it alone (and you might be right) but that brings me back to the point that 35 is not enough of a reduction.
Because no one people can force change on everyone else. I happen to be a US citizen, so this is where my focus is. At the same time, the US is the economic and cultural center of the world (for now), and places that are more politically liberal that might be more inclined to do something like this on their own are more likely to follow America's lead than the other way around. The US was the first country to adopt the 40 hour week (prior to which there was no maximum at all), and the majority of the developed world has followed suite since then.
8.- You seem to understand very well the concept of work-time reductions (you even seem to know more things that I do). You also seem very passionate about it too. Is there any reason? I am just curious. I hope we can work together on this endeavor.
I'm just an average ordinary guy. I have an associates degree in economics. I try to pay attention to how the world works. In this case, I saw a problem which (unlike most) actually has a clear solution, but very little of the general public, politicians, activists, or anyone else (present company excluded, of course), seems to have any awareness of it. If I could change that - from home, just using the internet(!) - I have to at least try.
==========================================================================
If you have actually read through all this, and haven't gotten bored of the topic yet, here are a few more articles I have written questioning the conventional wisdom - shared by both sides of the political spectrum, but completely wrong - regarding the economy:
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/06/poor-person-never-gave-me-job.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/04/spoiled-economic-downturn-luxury-as.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/01/SupplySideEconomics.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/06/free-market-vs-democracy-1-0.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/02/numero-ocho-in-which-i-point-out-that.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/04/22-wealth-should-be-taxed.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/03/heading-14-in-which-reparations-are.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/12/anarchy-vs-capitalism-anarchycapitalism.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/07/in-which-progressive-writes-article.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/06/flat-tax.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/03/article-11-in-which-inheritance-should.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/03/capitalists-libertarians-and-anarchists.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/06/response-to-turning-hustlers-into.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/12/comments-from-mmm-economics-philosophy.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/07/if-i-were-elected-king-of-country.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/04/spoiled-economic-downturn-luxury-as.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/01/SupplySideEconomics.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/06/free-market-vs-democracy-1-0.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/02/numero-ocho-in-which-i-point-out-that.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/04/22-wealth-should-be-taxed.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/03/heading-14-in-which-reparations-are.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/12/anarchy-vs-capitalism-anarchycapitalism.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/07/in-which-progressive-writes-article.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/06/flat-tax.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/03/article-11-in-which-inheritance-should.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/03/capitalists-libertarians-and-anarchists.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/06/response-to-turning-hustlers-into.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/12/comments-from-mmm-economics-philosophy.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/07/if-i-were-elected-king-of-country.html
Friday, 7 January 2011
Be Healthy, part 2 (sub-section: fat management)
Friday, January 7, 2011
Be Healthy, part 2 (sub-section: fat management)
As I mentioned in the main "Be Healthy", I found when writing it that this subsection of overall health was just too large to fit comfortably in with the rest (no pun intended). While not one of the basic fundamental pillars of health any more than any other specific ailment, given that the majority of individuals in our culture have unhealthy body fat percentages, maybe it is actually worthy of its own essay. Just keep in mind that everything to follow is meant to be considered from within the context of the main "Be Healthy" essay.
(Since blogs are listed with the most recent entry on top, the main essay is immediately below this one. If you have not already, read that one first)
Having below a certain percent body fat does not automatically make you healthy...
*I've been using the term "weight" for the sake of simplicity, and out of laziness. We've all gotten accustomed to talking about weight. The common charts list something called "body mass index (BMI) which considers only height and weight. Weight is not a useful measurement. Arnold Schwarzenegger weighed 260lbs back when he competed. That gave him a body mass index of 33. In other words, he was technically morbidly obese. However, he had a bodyfat percentage of only around 6%. The average American is around 25%(male)/35%(female). The average American is right on the border between "overweight" and "obese"; judged not by weight, but by the amount of the body which is composed of stored fat. A healthy fat percentage is nearly half of what most of us are, 6-12% for men and 14-20% for women (women naturally have more fat than men, even when perfectly healthy). Our friend Arnold, despite being characterized as obese by BMI standards, had half the bodyfat of an average healthy person at only 6%. Muscle weighs more than fat. If you are trying to get more healthy, and not just look a certain way (and hopefully you are) you are exercising in addition to dieting. If you are exercising (at least if you are doing it right) you will gain muscle. Since muscle weighs more than fat, the number on the scale may actually go up, even while you need to use ever tighter holes on your belt to keep your pants from falling off.
Weight means nothing.
It is excess fat, not excess "weight", or pounds, that contributes to a host of diseases, lack of fitness, and lack of longevity. Everyone has heard the list.
Two much more meaningful measures are fat percentage and strength-to-weight ratio. The first can be measured most accurately by being weighed while underwater (fat floats, muscle does not). More feasible and convenient, you can approximate body fat percentage at home with a tape measure and any of several free online calculators.
http://www.healthcentral.com/
or
http://www.scientificpsychic.
They take different measurements, so will give you slightly different answers, but they will give you a good general idea of your fat percentage.
The second is measured simply by what you can do. How many body weight exercises, such as push-ups and pull-ups, can you do? If the number is zero, you are either too heavy, or too weak, or both. This leaves plenty of room for people of different frame sizes or body types. As opposed to, for example, a list that shows your "ideal weight" based on nothing more than your height, or an arbitrary strength benchmark, it scales to the individual, and it is a reasonably objective measure. Strength-to-weight ratio makes the difference between lumbering through life in a shell that just contains you, or having your body work for you however and whenever you want. The difference between just living and being able to fully thrive. The "athletic skill level" charts by CrossFit listed in part one of "Be Healthy" takes all measurements of strength as a percentage of body weight, which means they are all measures, not of absolute strength, but of strength-to-weight ratio.or
http://www.scientificpsychic.
They take different measurements, so will give you slightly different answers, but they will give you a good general idea of your fat percentage.
Two common mistakes people make when making the decision to take control of their health and fitness is either not tracking progress, or tracking it too often.
Remember that change comes slowly. Because it is gradual, you are unlikely to notice it if you don't keep records. An excel spreadsheet or a notebook with date, weight, measurements, and fitness benchmarks as well as any medical issues, and overall outlook on life, can keep you motivated by showing how much progress you have made when it may feel like there has been none. Taken over a long period of time, looking back at old notes and seeing the trend of improvement can be a major motivator to continue.
The best way to tell, over a long period of time whether what you've been doing is really helping is to keep records. If there are no signs of positive change, keeping records lets you know that you need to do something different.
Remember that change comes slowly. Because it is gradual, you are unlikely to notice it if you don't keep records. An excel spreadsheet or a notebook with date, weight, measurements, and fitness benchmarks as well as any medical issues, and overall outlook on life, can keep you motivated by showing how much progress you have made when it may feel like there has been none. Taken over a long period of time, looking back at old notes and seeing the trend of improvement can be a major motivator to continue.
The best way to tell, over a long period of time whether what you've been doing is really helping is to keep records. If there are no signs of positive change, keeping records lets you know that you need to do something different.
The other mistake is the opposite extreme, checking too often. Again, change happens gradually. There will be normal fluctuations, both up and down, in both weight and strength, every day. Seeing those can be even more discouraging than not tracking at all. Pick one day a week to do an assessment, and don't step onto a scale in between; otherwise these daily fluctuations may discourage rather than encourage.
It seems to fit in with our general cultural agreement that we should never be uncomfortable, that changing body shape and composition should be easy and painless and relatively quick. We want the sort of solution where we do some very specific thing, and then the problem is solved and we never have to think about it again. We want a quick fix.
When looking at excess fat as a health issue, and not just an appearance issue - as being one small part of the greater issue of fitness in general - drugs, surgery, and extreme fad diets don't make so much sense. They don't actually solve the problem. They, like most medicine, only address a symptom.
Drugs, surgeries, herbs, special foods, exercise classes and exercise machines all make someone money. America is all about marketing.
In truth we have all known the fat loss "secret" all along. It was never hidden. But if someone wrote a new book on weight management that said "the transition will be extremely difficult and uncomfortable, and once you reach your goal you will have to make certain major lifestyle changes permanent", it would never sell enough copies to become a household word; (or even a gym word.)
In addition to the popularity of the "quick/easy fix", there has been growing for a few decades a pervasive "politically-correct" movement which says that the number one priority is not to hurt anyone's feelings. Of course making someone feel bad about themselves for its own sake is not productive. But neither is lying to people. This has nothing to do with cultural perceptions of beauty, or patriarchy, or fashion magazines. Its not about being sexy or being accepted. In part one of this essay I listed a number of examples ranging from everyday life to rare emergencies where fitness makes a qualitative difference in ability and therefor on quality of life. Having a high ratio of fat to muscle makes all of those things more difficult. And of course the list of diseases directly caused by or closely correlated with excess fat is just as long. Despite all this, there has been a cultural backlash against encouraging people to be healthy, where the emphasis is instead put on accepting one's self as is.
Imagine that concept being extended to any other area of life. In order to improve self-esteem, telling young students that if school is hard, focus on accepting bad grades, because it is not a reflection of who they are on the inside. Instead of going to college which is time-consuming, expensive, and has the possibility of failure, just learn to love yourself. Society sets unrealistic expectations for how much money a person should make, so in order to foster self-esteem, stop encouraging people to try to get good jobs. Actually, you could make a decent argument that education and income really aren't that important, that ignorance, stupidity, and poverty really aren't reflections on what kind of person someone is. Perhaps an even better analogy would be encouraging a smoker or drug addict to accept themselves for who they are, despite the substantial health risks that go along with them. People should indeed feel good about themselves. That doesn't mean we should stop encouraging people to improve themselves and their lives within their ability. After all, cholesterol, diabetes and cancer really don't care what societies standards are.
Between these two things - people wanting quick and easy answers, and it being un-PC to say that excess fat is unhealthy, a lot of misinformation has become widely circulated and popularly accepted. Its easy to get away with since most people don't have much background in the chemistry and biology which lie at the heart of understanding nutrition.Advice on body fat management geared toward overweight people is occasionally lumped together with "media" which supposedly encourages people (women specifically) to be "unrealistically" or unhealthily thin. The reality is that anorexia is a psychological condition in which an individual sees an alternate reality (looking in the mirror at 10% bodyfat and seeing 30%). Obesity is a physical condition. While anorexia is a serious problem for those who suffer from it, it only affects around 0.25% of the population, while 60% of the population has an unhealthy level of excess fat.
Because so much of the population has excess fat stores, what we consider "over-weight" has been re-normalized - both in terms of the medical definitions, and individual perception. Having just a slight amount of excess fat is considered normal, because "normal" is measured against "average", not against healthy. As a result, many people think of themselves as having less body fat than they actually have - in some cases even people who are clinically obese.The Fundamental Issue
Calorie balance. It's scientific fact. There are layers of complexity, but in the end it comes down to calories in VS calories out. The human body can not produce fat tissue out of air and water. It just can't be done. It would violate the most basic laws of physics. If a person, no matter what their genetic make-up, no matter what their hormone balance, no matter what their stress levels, stops eating entirely, they will lose weight. Unless one dies (or goes into cryogenic storage) the body burns calories by staying alive. While the body will try to slow down metabolism if you are in calorie deficit, the heart still needs to beat, the lungs still need to expand and contract, the brain still needs to fire neurons, cells need to regenerate. All of these things use calories. If those calories do not come from food, the body has no choice but to start breaking down fat and muscle to provide for basic life functions.
Just as the body can break down fat for energy, it can, and will, break down excess muscle. Overall weight is a simple issue of calories in / calories out, and if a person is far enough obese, it may be safe to assume that any significant weight loss is in the form of fat. If, however, you are in (or close to) the healthy weight range (for your height and gender) but still have excess fat, then the goal needs to be more specifically losing fat. Allowing muscle loss while keeping fat is only going to make the strength-to-weight ratio even worse, and lower metabolism further. Yet another reason why, (even if your goal were just losing fat and not increasing fitness), you still have to do weight bearing exercise. Losing muscle won't make you less fat, even if the scale has a lower number. Exercising regularly will build muscle, which in turn burns calories 24/7, and forces the body to break down fat if it is in calorie deficit.This is not to say that anyone should stop eating all-together for the purpose of losing weight. While long-term fasting can in fact be extremely effective, there are a couple of major drawbacks.
Short term fasting (24-48 hours) is actually very healthy. Not only in terms of aiding in fat management, (even with a healthy body-fat level, where total calories are not restricted), fasting every other day (continuously, one day eat, one day fast) reduces insulin sensitivity, cholesterol, risk of cancer and heart disease, increases stress resistance, and (at least in lab animals) causes significantly longer life spans. In fact, most of us technically fast every night, as it takes only 8-12 hours for the body to switch from using our last meal for fuel to using stored glycogen.
A significant danger with long-term fasting is that some vitamins and minerals (especially water soluble vitamins, C and B), don't store well in the body. Because of this, fasting is one situation in which daily vitamin pills are actually necessary.
Done excessively, fasting can eventually lead to the sort of malnutrition based conditions listed in "Be Healthy" part 1. Long-term fasting by a person without excess fat stores to burn can cause the brain and vital organs to be deprived of glucose, leading to permanent damage or death.
The example of 100% calorie restriction is merely meant to be illustrative of the basic principal taken to an extreme. Without going into all of the details (yet), if a person consumes more calories than they burn, they WILL gain weight, (almost) guaranteed(The word "break-fast" is literally what it is)
Many people have gone on long term fasts (more than a day, as long as a month) with minimal or no ill health effects. However, there are a number of problems with complete fasting. First and foremost, it is just extremely hard. Going against one of the most basic biological drives is beyond the willpower of most people. Furthermore, unless the diet is very deliberately controlled and balanced after ending the fast, many people put all of the fat they lost back on again within a few months.A significant danger with long-term fasting is that some vitamins and minerals (especially water soluble vitamins, C and B), don't store well in the body. Because of this, fasting is one situation in which daily vitamin pills are actually necessary.
Done excessively, fasting can eventually lead to the sort of malnutrition based conditions listed in "Be Healthy" part 1. Long-term fasting by a person without excess fat stores to burn can cause the brain and vital organs to be deprived of glucose, leading to permanent damage or death.
There are some (extremely rare) cases where a persons body is incapable of turning fat into glucose, and in these cases it may be possible to cause starvation type damage even with excess fat stores available. For this reason, if you have never successfully lost fat in your life, never restrict diet to fewer than 1000 calories a day without consulting a doctor.
('Almost' only because it is possible for food to pass through the body unused, especially in the case of certain illnesses)
If a person consumes less calories than they burn, every day, they WILL lose weight.It is easy to find people who object, and claim they have "tried diet and exercise", and no matter what they do, they "can't lose weight". Therefor, they say, it does not come down to calorie balance, but rather to hormone levels or genes or processed foods or...
It is true that some biological factors (such as hypothyroid) will lower the body's resting metabolic rate. However this fact does not change the calorie balance equation. It just means that the lower metabolism has to be taken into account when determining how many calories to eat.
On closer inspection, what many people are doing for exercise tends to be less intense activities, generally done for no more time than is recommended for general health (30 minutes a day, 5 days a week). Many diets may cut out certain foods, but aren't necessarily reduced overall in terms of total calorie intake. If a person does not have an overall calorie deficit, even if a person is technically dieting and exercising, they will not lose weight.
There are simple benchmarks to tell you whether what you are doing really counts as exercise: for strength exercises, you should be sore the next day. If you aren't at all sore, you weren't really working out. You were just doing repetitive movements and killing time. For aerobics the feedback is even more immediate: you should be sweaty and out of breath. If you can hold down a conversation easily, without pauses to catch your breath, you aren't working hard enough!
An efficient exercise burns as many calories as possible in your limited work out time. Ideally it activates major muscle groups, core stabilizer muscles, and the cardio-pulmonary systems all at once.
A short list of examples of real exercise, (along with the calories they burn if done for an hour straight, with no rest):
Running upstairs/hill .. (1000)
Rock climbing ............... (650)
jump rope ...................... (600)
burpees .......................... (550)
running ........................... (450-700 depending on speed)
boxing / martial arts .... (400-600)
elliptical/stationary ...... (up to 400-600 on high resistance, at high speed)
mountain biking ............ (500)
rowing ............................ (450 at roughly 2min/500m rate)
aerobics .......................... (450)
moving furniture .......... (400)
swimming ...................... (370)
yoga ................................ (300)
sex .................................. (300)
skating ........................... (300)
road bicycling ................ (250)
weight lifting .................. (200)
(note that weight lifting increases muscle, and muscle increases metabolism, so the long term benefit is substantially higher)All of the calorie burn levels vary by weight and gender and fitness level, but the relative values stay about the same. For gaining aerobic capacity, improving overall fitness, or losing weight, stay near the top of the list (or find other activities which are as much work, like a game of soccer, being a forest fire fighter, or military bootcamp). Again, this is not to say that low intensity exercises don't have value. But don't expect to get results by taking the easy route. It is perfectly possible to make the activities lower on the list intense... it's just that it is very easy to do them less than all-out, to coast on the bicycle, to swim at a relaxed pace. Running up hill or doing burpees is inherently challenging, even if you try to do them slowly.
It is true that some biological factors (such as hypothyroid) will lower the body's resting metabolic rate. However this fact does not change the calorie balance equation. It just means that the lower metabolism has to be taken into account when determining how many calories to eat.
On closer inspection, what many people are doing for exercise tends to be less intense activities, generally done for no more time than is recommended for general health (30 minutes a day, 5 days a week). Many diets may cut out certain foods, but aren't necessarily reduced overall in terms of total calorie intake. If a person does not have an overall calorie deficit, even if a person is technically dieting and exercising, they will not lose weight.
There are simple benchmarks to tell you whether what you are doing really counts as exercise: for strength exercises, you should be sore the next day. If you aren't at all sore, you weren't really working out. You were just doing repetitive movements and killing time. For aerobics the feedback is even more immediate: you should be sweaty and out of breath. If you can hold down a conversation easily, without pauses to catch your breath, you aren't working hard enough!
A few very common things which don't really count as exercise:
-walking
-yoga
-lifting weights so light that you can easily do 15 or more reps without rest
-anything which is supposed to encourage "tone, not bulk"
-yoga
-lifting weights so light that you can easily do 15 or more reps without rest
-anything which is supposed to encourage "tone, not bulk"
(women are physiologically incapable of becoming "bulky" without steroids. Don't worry about it.)
-treadmill, elliptical, or stationary bike at a low resistance and/or low speed.This isn't to say these activities have no value at all. Burning some calories is definitely better than none at all, (and yoga has significant benefits to flexibility and for many people for stress reduction). But they aren't exercise. You could do them for 5 hours a day and you won't increase your aerobic capacity or get any stronger.
An efficient exercise burns as many calories as possible in your limited work out time. Ideally it activates major muscle groups, core stabilizer muscles, and the cardio-pulmonary systems all at once.
A short list of examples of real exercise, (along with the calories they burn if done for an hour straight, with no rest):
Running upstairs/hill .. (1000)
Rock climbing ............... (650)
jump rope ...................... (600)
burpees .......................... (550)
running ........................... (450-700 depending on speed)
boxing / martial arts .... (400-600)
elliptical/stationary ...... (up to 400-600 on high resistance, at high speed)
mountain biking ............ (500)
rowing ............................ (450 at roughly 2min/500m rate)
aerobics .......................... (450)
moving furniture .......... (400)
swimming ...................... (370)
yoga ................................ (300)
sex .................................. (300)
skating ........................... (300)
road bicycling ................ (250)
weight lifting .................. (200)
(note that weight lifting increases muscle, and muscle increases metabolism, so the long term benefit is substantially higher)
Spend a few days doing the highest intensity exercises for 30 minutes at a time without resting, to get a feel for what real exercise should feel like.
(NOTE: if you are over 40, have been totally sedentary for years, or have medical issues, consult a doctor, or at least a personal trainer, first. Exceeding your limits too quickly will lead to injury.)
Once you know how it should feel, you can substitute pretty much any activity, so long as you do it at a level that is equally as difficult. And it is ok to occasionally do low impact work as well. Just keep in mind that if an exercise is 1/2 the intensity, you have to do it more than twice as long to get the same benefit.As with overall weight, losing or gaining fat is dependent on overall calorie balance. The average person burns, about 2000 calories in a day. Of the calories burned more than half is from basic metabolism - heart beat, digestion, thinking, etc. Even if you don't get out of bed all day, you burn (very roughly ) 1200 calories (it varies significantly depending on size, gender, muscle mass, age, and medical conditions). The rest of the calories burned each day are from moving around and doing things. Every time a muscle contracts, whether its pushing a stalled car down the street, or smiling, it uses calories to do it. Obviously the calories burned from movement are variable, and under our conscious control. Mostly.
A lot of our physical movement is actually not under our conscious control. Our brains make decisions we aren't aware of, and then has us do things without our consent. It sounds kind of creepy (at least when I put it that way) but it's true. Similar to the (mythical) "sugar high", having excess calories will tend to make us feel more energetic. We will tend to fidget more. It's one of the bodies ways of regulating itself. If you eat too much or exercise too little, you will tend to tap your toes or drum your fingers. You won't know why you're doing it. You might not even notice. If you are in calorie deficit you will tend to do these sub-conscious activities less. That will make your total calories burned each day go down. Little, non-exercise movements can add up to 350 calories in a day.
While this is largely sub-conscious, we can choose to compensate for it. Little things, like parking father from the door, washing the dishes by hand, taking the stairs instead of the escalator, or standing up instead of sitting, even though they aren't really "exercise", they all add up. Even seemingly minuscule things, like getting up to get something. Playing video games or reading a book instead of watching TV will burn ever so slightly more calories because your hands are moving, and because it takes more brain power - it actually takes more calories to think then it does to zone out!
Speaking of TV and computers, set a timer when doing any of these activities, and stick to a daily maximum. Don't get me wrong - I'm not one of those "kill your TV", "TV kills brain cells" people. I love TV. The problem is just that it is so easy to spend hours a day on it, which is time you aren't spending doing something more active. At the very least, get up and do a Tabata workout during every commercial break, or every 15 minutes.
Keeping the thermostat slightly lower than comfortable, or drinking cold water, means your body has to use calories to warm you up.(This will be easier to stand if you follow the last piece of advice, and do some brief exercise every 15 minutes.)
I mentioned before that these sort of things won't increase aerobic capacity or strength, but they do all contribute to burning calories and they add up over the course of the day. These deliberate changes can compensate for a body which just naturally doesn't want to move around much.Metabolism is variable too, but it is (mostly) not under our control. As has been (correctly) noted by the anti- calories-in/calories-out crowd, when a person is in calorie deficit the body naturally slows down metabolism in order to preserve fat.
Here is an example:
Say you're slightly over-fat, your weight is stable, and you exercise at moderate intensity a few times a week. Perhaps you consume and burn about 2500 calories a day (on average - exercise days it will be higher, rest days it will be lower). You decide to take control of your body, and actively manage your fat percentage as a sub-component of your over-all fitness and health. You force yourself to eat slightly less, and exercise slightly more. You burn 100 calories more each day by exercising a little more (2500+100=2600), and you eat 100 calories less (2500-100=2400).
But at the same time your body is able to compensate for that 200 calorie a day deficit (2600-2400=200) with decreased fidgeting throughout the day and a slightly lower metabolism. Your body uses 200 calories less per day, and your new metabolic baseline becomes 2400. So you are still in calorie balance, and will neither gain nor lose weight. And after 4 months with no progress, you give up in frustration. If you go back to your old habits (eating 2500 calories a day) while your body still only needs 2400, and you end up gaining more weight then if you hadn't done anything at all!
The Major Caveat to the Fundamental Issue: HungerIt does this because we have been evolving for 100,000 years, and until a couple generations ago our food source was never guaranteed from year-to-year. Our biology has never had to deal with and adapt to a world where we have an essentially endless supply of cheap food. If we are in significant calorie deficit, the body assumes an actual famine has hit and there is a danger of starving to death. So it drops as much non-essential calorie use as possible to wait it out until the food supply returns. Key word: "non-essential". There is only so low it can be dropped. It's generally around 20% of total calories normally consumed, minimum. Even if your body shifts into "starvation" mode, you still burn at least 800-1000 calories a day, just by being alive.
The fact that the body does these things to try to prevent fat loss doesn't make fat loss impossible. It does make it a lot more challenging. It means that, when figuring out how much to eat and exercise you have to take your body's natural resistance into account as well, and compensate accordingly.In addition to lowering metabolism, and reducing fidgeting, your brain will try to get you to exercise less (by making you feel tired) and eat more (by making you hungry) if it senses a calorie deficit. This is not because your brain wants you to be fat. This is because, just like our conscious minds, the human body fears change. Gaining muscle or losing weight is much, much harder than maintaining fitness once you have it. Let that be a motivator; like giving up smoking, the transition will be really hard, but once you get past it, it will be relatively easy, and you'll feel better overall.
Here is an example:
Say you're slightly over-fat, your weight is stable, and you exercise at moderate intensity a few times a week. Perhaps you consume and burn about 2500 calories a day (on average - exercise days it will be higher, rest days it will be lower). You decide to take control of your body, and actively manage your fat percentage as a sub-component of your over-all fitness and health. You force yourself to eat slightly less, and exercise slightly more. You burn 100 calories more each day by exercising a little more (2500+100=2600), and you eat 100 calories less (2500-100=2400).
But at the same time your body is able to compensate for that 200 calorie a day deficit (2600-2400=200) with decreased fidgeting throughout the day and a slightly lower metabolism. Your body uses 200 calories less per day, and your new metabolic baseline becomes 2400. So you are still in calorie balance, and will neither gain nor lose weight. And after 4 months with no progress, you give up in frustration. If you go back to your old habits (eating 2500 calories a day) while your body still only needs 2400, and you end up gaining more weight then if you hadn't done anything at all!
There are two ways around this. One way is to make the calorie deficit very small. If it is only 100 a day, the body will generally not attempt to compensate. This is a perfectly healthy and long-term sustainable way to go about it. However, it is extremely challenging, because with such a small deficit, one would have to be very meticulous and thorough with tracking literally every calorie. 100 calories is one single cookie, cup of yogurt, or 1/2 an apple dipped in peanut butter. Its one banana, 10 chips, or 1/10th of a hamburger. Without obsessively tracking calories, it is impossible to keep such a small margin, and tracking every single calorie gets old very quickly. The other challenge arises because one pound of fat contains 3500 calories. At a rate of 100 calories a day it would take over a year to lose just 10lbs. Most people don't have that kind of patience. One may get bored and/or frustrated far before then and give up.
On the other hand, this is the best way to make changes long term, and to avoid the common "yo-yo" weight loss and gain. After all, chances are it took years to gradually put on extra fat. It is reasonable for it to take as long to take it back off.
The other way is to have the deficit be enough to over-compensate for the body's compensation. This means a combination of an additional 200-600 calories a day less consumed than burned, for a total deficit in the range of 400-800. Even though your body may stop subconscious fidgeting, it can't stop you from choosing to get up and move around and going out to run for 30 minutes a day. Having a deficit of 400-800 calories a day from combined diet and exercise, where food is consciously limited and metabolism is kept high from a combination of anaerobic (intervals, brief sprints at a pace that can not be continuously maintained) and strength exercises, the body's attempts at conserving fat become totally futile.
On the other hand, this is the best way to make changes long term, and to avoid the common "yo-yo" weight loss and gain. After all, chances are it took years to gradually put on extra fat. It is reasonable for it to take as long to take it back off.
The other way is to have the deficit be enough to over-compensate for the body's compensation. This means a combination of an additional 200-600 calories a day less consumed than burned, for a total deficit in the range of 400-800. Even though your body may stop subconscious fidgeting, it can't stop you from choosing to get up and move around and going out to run for 30 minutes a day. Having a deficit of 400-800 calories a day from combined diet and exercise, where food is consciously limited and metabolism is kept high from a combination of anaerobic (intervals, brief sprints at a pace that can not be continuously maintained) and strength exercises, the body's attempts at conserving fat become totally futile.
Note that a calorie deficit of more than 800-1000 calories may limit essential vitamins and minerals to a dangerous degree, and so, like with total fasting, it would be important to take a multivitamin. Also, since this is combined with strength training exercise, which breaks down muscle and requires protein in order to rebuild it, the calories which are consumed on a highly calorie restricted diet should be mostly protein, in order to get enough of it.
The problem with this method is you may feel lethargic - making it even more of a challenge to work out - and you are practically guaranteed to feel hungry.It is un-PC to say so. People have been fighting the idea that fat people are lazy or gluttonous or weak-willed. Because of this, it is emphasized over and over that successful dieting is "not a matter of willpower". It is implied that it is outside of our control whether or not we give into hunger. What would be more accurate would be to simply say that all human willpower is in fact limited, for everyone, much more than most of us want to believe. As Christians have long noted, ALL humans give into temptation of some kind. Some more than others, but it is a part of the human condition. Free-will has its limits. This is true in every aspect of life where we are faced with temptation. If we don't consider drug addiction or giving into lust in inappropriate situations (like say with the really hot person we just met and really don't know that well, or perhaps with our partners, but when we are already running late for work...) to be personal failings of character, neither should giving into hunger or appetite. As I mentioned before, 93% of people who try to stop smoking fail. Nicotine is addictive. We tend to blame the makers of cigarettes for that, not the addict. And with food it is even more complicated, because giving it up cold turkey simply isn't an option. Eating some food is a prerequisite for life. Staying in calorie deficit is undeniably difficult. For some much more so than for others. That is the part which may have genetic or environmental factors: how hungry a person gets and how challenging it is for them to ignore it. Whether or not you choose to call hunger an issue of willpower is up to you.
Consider the meaning of 'brave'. Being brave does not mean feeling no fear. In a dangerous situation feeling no fear is a sign of stupidity. Being brave means feeling fear, and acting anyway. The firefighter going into a fire or cop going into a shoot-out fear for their lives, but they do what needs to be done anyway. Similarly, your genes may decide how hungry you get, and how often, but only you can decide when and how much to eat.
Much research has been directed lately into our obesity "epidemic". There are signs pointing to genetic components, hormonal components, and various food additives. But on close examination, very little of the effect of leptin, the thyroid, or high-fructose corn syrup relate directly to metabolism or digestion itself. What they primarily affect is appetite. None of these things "makes people fat". They make people hungry. Because they are hungry, they eat more. Eating more causes a calorie excess. The calorie excess causes fat gain.
Of all the factors that have changed in American life over the past few decades - how much more we drive, how much more automated our lives are, how much more processed food we eat - none is a larger difference than the difference in how many total calories we eat. Remember, a typical, mostly sedentary person requires (very roughly) 2000 calories a day. In 1961 the average American ate 2882 calories a day (note that people were also more active back then, so this was probably close to balanced). In the year 2000 we eat, on average, 3816 calories a day. That's about a 1/3 total increase. While other things may be factors, none comes close to the simple fact that we, as a nation, eat massively more than we used to - and massively more than we actually need.
Humans never had a really reliable source of food. Being omnivores, we could deal with that, since if one source dried up, we could switch to another. But sometimes its just a sucky year, and there are no good fruits OR bugs around to eat. We, like other animals without a more or less unlimited supply of food, are built to store excess calories in times of plenty to be used up in times of famine.Because of this safety mechanism, the body doesn't generally object to a calorie surplus. It figures, just to be on the safe side, may as well accept the extra. On the other hand, in a deficit, the body screams at the mind. It can't "make" you eat when it wants, but it can make you feel like the world is coming to an end if you don't listen to it and eat. The problem then, is that for the first time in history, due to both farming techniques and cheap transportation, it is always "times of plenty". Even the poorest among us can afford enough food to get fat.
The big secret which nearly all fad diet plans willfully ignore is that in order to lose fat, (without the use of drugs or surgery) it is practically guaranteed that you will feel hungry.
The single most important change, one which is absolutely vital to losing fat, is
(to steal a phrase from my internet friend Mr Money Mustache):
"Learn to appreciate mild hunger":
In other words:
It HAS to be both. Of the two, however, the dieting part will play the greater role.
In fact, ironically enough, the poorest tend to get fatter than average. A common claim is that this is because they can only "afford" unhealthy food. This claim makes no sense. Junk food may be cheaper on a dollar-per-calorie basis, but eating less of it is still less expensive than eating too much. For example, if a burger, fries, and shake costs $3 on the "value menu", then eating just the burger means it costs $1 per meal. $1 is less than $3, and there are much fewer total calories. More to the point perhaps, is that junk food is only cheaper when considered on a per-calorie basis. However, if a person is overweight, obviously they are not in particular need of more calories. If food is considered on a per-nutrient basis, fresh produce is in fact cheaper.
Because we evolved this contingency mechanism which we no longer need, it is easy to gain weight.The big secret which nearly all fad diet plans willfully ignore is that in order to lose fat, (without the use of drugs or surgery) it is practically guaranteed that you will feel hungry.
The single most important change, one which is absolutely vital to losing fat, is
(to steal a phrase from my internet friend Mr Money Mustache):
"Learn to appreciate mild hunger":
"it’s an unusual feeling for a rich-world person, but once you get used to it, having a slight craving in your tummy can make you feel invigorated and warriorlike. When you are really hungry, eat a good meal. But if you’re just slightly hungry, imagine that your body has moved its suction tube from the usual “stomach” setting, over to “stored fat reserves”. It is now a positive challenge to maintain this mild hunger as long as possible, because you want to keep that suction going for many hours each day. You should still strategically throw in nutrients during this stage, like a plate of celery, cucumber, or carrots. But keep the burn going and build your hunger enjoyment skills – it can lead to a whole new level of control over your appetite, and thus you can maintain any weight you like, right down to the last half-pound."
(By the way, I am a huge fan of MMM, and highly recommend you start reading his blog immediately. As great as I think I am, I think his blog is better. He will help you become rich, both literally and metaphorically.)
If you diet, but don't exercise, your body slows metabolism and burns muscle along with fat. Exercising raises metabolism and builds muscle, in addition to burning extra calories directly. If you exercise without dieting, your body increases appetite, so you eat more to compensate for the calories burned in exercise. In other words:
It HAS to be both. Of the two, however, the dieting part will play the greater role.
Let's use a hypothetical example of someone who is currently gaining weight, and wants to start losing it:
The average American, remember, eats 3800 calories a day. Basic life processes only need around 1500, and with moving around in daily life, maybe 2500 total. That makes an excess intake for our example of 1300 per day. Since this hypothetical person has a daily caloric excess, they will be currently gaining weight (fairly quickly at that!) In order to lose weight you need a calorie deficit of between 100-800. That means some combination of reduced intake and increased output has to change the balance from the current +1300 to (around) -500.
That's a total change of 1800.
The average American, remember, eats 3800 calories a day. Basic life processes only need around 1500, and with moving around in daily life, maybe 2500 total. That makes an excess intake for our example of 1300 per day. Since this hypothetical person has a daily caloric excess, they will be currently gaining weight (fairly quickly at that!) In order to lose weight you need a calorie deficit of between 100-800. That means some combination of reduced intake and increased output has to change the balance from the current +1300 to (around) -500.
That's a total change of 1800.
(1300 current excess + 500 goal deficit = 1800 change necessary to go from current to calorie deficit)
This could, hypothetically, come all from increased activity (burning 1800 calories a day in exercise) or all from dieting (eating 1800 calories less each day, which would mean going from 3800 daily to only 2000).Burning 1800 calories a day from exercise would mean running uphill for an hour and 45 minutes (not counting any rest time) 7 days per week. Seriously; who wants to do exercise of that intensity 2 hours non-stop 7 days a week? Doing a more realistic level of exercise would require 4 hours a day (including resting between sets, at least 5 hours a day)
Compared to trying to burn that much with exercise, creating the deficit by dieting only necessitates eating less. Eating less requires no time at all, and costs less than no money. While it would take about 28 hours a week of exercise to equal 1800 calories a day, it is easy to eat 2000 or more calories in one single meal. Without seconds. Not counting side dishes. Without even a beverage. There are more than a few restaurant meals that come that way:and it is easy to create equally as dense plates of energy at home.
While eating 1800 calories fewer each day then one is used to is a lot more doable than burning 1800 calories more each day, it is still certainly no easy task. Of course, both of these are extremes, and there is no need to do either, since one is both dieting AND exercising anyway. The point of these examples is to show that relatively more of the change in calorie balance will come from the diet component simply because food calories add up much faster than exercise calories do.
Losing fat boils down to the simple and long known issue of calorie balance. Why, then, are there about 2 million different diets and tips and tricks and drugs for it? This is only an example. Individual calorie needs vary widely. To figure out the appropriate numbers for yourself specifically, the formulas on this website:
http://www.shapefit.com/basal-
will let you approximate your own basal metabolic rate (resting calorie burn), your overall daily calorie use, and your goal calories for fat loss (or muscle gain).
It also has detailed explanations of the terms and formulas.
http://www.shapefit.com/basal-
will let you approximate your own basal metabolic rate (resting calorie burn), your overall daily calorie use, and your goal calories for fat loss (or muscle gain).
It also has detailed explanations of the terms and formulas.
Note that these formulas do not take individual metabolic rates into account. If you have reason to suspect that (for medical reasons) you have a higher or lower metabolism than other people of your size age and gender, adjust the numbers up or down accordingly.
Once you know these numbers for yourself, it is a very good idea to keep track of how much you are actually eating relative to how much you should be, at least for a few weeks. There are many free online tools to help with this. After a few weeks, assuming you see progress, you should have a better idea of what your own goal calorie intake looks like and what a calorie deficit feels like, and you may not need to keep track anymore. If you don't see progress, you can look back over the records and figure out what needs to change.One of the most common mistakes people make when making these calculations is grossly overestimating their activity level. It might be a good idea to actually keep track for one random, typical day, exactly what you do each hour. Chances are high that you are less active than you guess.
They are (almost) all about controlling hunger and appetite, whether they say so or not.
Most of them fail because of an over-emphasis on making it easy. Like with giving up smoking, dieting is most likely to succeed if a person goes into it with full acknowledgment and acceptance of the fact that the transition will be uncomfortable, probably very uncomfortable.
Hunger sucks.
While there are many techniques that can help keep hunger to moderate levels, in the end hunger, like all forms of discomfort, is tolerable. Like using meditation to deal with pain, it can help to remember that it is just a sensation, an experience, and a temporary one at that. If you take the stoicism, Mr Money Mustache view, you can learn to actually enjoy the sensation, because whenever you feel it, that means you are currently burning fat to fuel your metabolism.
Perhaps due to a proliferation of public service announcements and after school specials, anorexia has gotten a lot of public awareness. Because of that, there is occasionally a perception that anyone who diets or makes an effort to lose excess fat is exhibiting an eating disorder. It is important to understand the difference between losing fat when a person currently has 40% bodyfat (healthy), and losing fat when one has 5% bodyfat (potentially deadly).
Some aspects of staying healthy require short-term discomfort. Getting vaccinations and blood tests hurt. Dental work hurts. Exercise is exhausting and sweaty and leaves you sore the next day. We don't do these things because we are masochists. We do these things despite the pain because it makes us healthy. By the same token, not eating when you are hungry does not make you a masochist. It does not make you anorexic. Being hungry does not mean you are "starving" yourself. It is in fact literally impossible to starve while a person still has fat stores (more than 5-10% bodyfat).
While it may feel like you are depriving yourself, you are actually taking care of yourself by consciously managing your health.
Some aspects of staying healthy require short-term discomfort. Getting vaccinations and blood tests hurt. Dental work hurts. Exercise is exhausting and sweaty and leaves you sore the next day. We don't do these things because we are masochists. We do these things despite the pain because it makes us healthy. By the same token, not eating when you are hungry does not make you a masochist. It does not make you anorexic. Being hungry does not mean you are "starving" yourself. It is in fact literally impossible to starve while a person still has fat stores (more than 5-10% bodyfat).
While it may feel like you are depriving yourself, you are actually taking care of yourself by consciously managing your health.
Hunger, and a willingness to experience it's discomfort, can actually be a tool to assist in calorie balance. As long as the body is functioning normally, hunger is a sign that the body currently has a calorie deficit. If one is trying to lose excess fat, the goal is to have a calorie deficit. Daily tracking of the calorie content of every food and calorie usage in every activity can be rather time consuming and tedious. But the body has its own built in ways of tracking. If, at the end of the day, one has no feeling of hunger at all, that's a pretty sure sign that they have had a calorie balance, (or even surplus), throughout the day. While it is still important to have at least a general sense of how many calories are in each meal, just going to bed hungry implies an overall deficit for the day. Instead of seeing hunger as a sign of self-deprivation, it can be seen as a symptom of losing excess fat and becoming healthier. Not "oh my god, I feel like I'm going to die" hungry, but at least "I could sure go for a light snack" hungry. Once you are asleep, it won't bother you anymore, and your body will turn to fat stores to fuel your dreams.
I can't emphasize this enough. It is OK to be hungry. If you take only one single thing away from this essay, let it be that. It is OK to be hungry. You don't have to eat just because you are hungry. Hunger is a sign of calorie deficit, and calorie deficit is the only possible way to lose fat. Therefor, it will be literally impossible to lose fat without feeling hunger. When you feel it, you have to find a way to deal with it other than by eating.
I can't emphasize this enough. It is OK to be hungry. If you take only one single thing away from this essay, let it be that. It is OK to be hungry. You don't have to eat just because you are hungry. Hunger is a sign of calorie deficit, and calorie deficit is the only possible way to lose fat. Therefor, it will be literally impossible to lose fat without feeling hunger. When you feel it, you have to find a way to deal with it other than by eating.
That being said, and with the understanding that it will be impossible to lose fat without experiencing some degree of hunger, there is certainly still plenty of room for methods to minimize (not eliminate) hunger. It's an important base to start from to accept that change is uncomfortable, but there is not really any need to stop there.
Especially since most of the methods for reducing hunger are actually healthy steps to take anyway!
The body uses a number of different sensors and feedback loops to determine when to send a signal to the conscious mind that says "feed me", and then later that says "ok, that's enough". If you consistently fool one system, sooner or later another one is going to compensate. In order to manipulating hunger long term it may help to pay attention to more than one hunger system.
One way your body decides to tell you it's hungry or satiated is how physically full your stomach is. Another is your blood sugar level. Part of it relates to hormone levels (which are also affected by stress, disease, current fat percentage, age, activity level, and medical conditions, among other things). Yet another is simply the time of day and the pattern the body is used to.
-When a meal has multiple courses, always eat the vegetables first. If you end up being full before everything has been finished, its better to end up not eating the calorie dense, low nutrient foods.
-Be aware of high calorie foods and add-ons (like toppings or sauces) which may be dense in calories yet not very filling. Try mustard instead of mayo, spices instead of cheese, sauces that are not oil or cream based. Like with sweet beverages, things added for flavor can sneak in extra calories without the body noticing.-Eat high protein things, especially at the beginning of a meal and for snacks. Digesting protein (and fat) releases more leptin into the blood stream than digesting carbohydrates (starches and sugar) does.
Fill the stomach with things you need anyway, which have zero calories. Having a full stomach makes you feel full, displacing room for food.
-Drink a full glass of plain water before every meal and before every snack. Then drink another full glass after. You need to drink water anyway. Extreme college frat hazing aside, you can't realistically drink too much water.
For the purposes of hydration, any beverage counts. Soda, juice, milk, even coffee and alcohol, count towards your hydration needs. They (obviously) do not help in the context of displacing calories. In fact, they are worse than not helpful - they are a significant part of the problem. Again, going back to human evolution: in nature there are no flavored beverages.
There is only water. The feeling of thirst is designed to get us to hydrate. When we get in the habit of drinking sweet things, we add in extra calories when our body just needed plain water, and as far as your body's hunger sensors are concerned, those calories 'don't count' - you can drink 500 calories (2 standard 20oz bottles) in a minute or two, and still be as hungry as if you hadn't eaten anything. Problem is that in terms of calorie balance, they most certainly DO count.
-Eat lots of vegetables, with every meal. Have some more. When you do eat carbs, avoid starches, and eat only whole grains. The difference between "whole" and "refined" or "white" is mostly whether or not the fiber has been removed. Eat more vegetables. Fiber is good for you. It also can not be digested by the human body. It takes 2 to 4 stomachs to actually extract calories from fiber. (That's why cows and sheep can live off of a diet of grass, and you can't).There is only water. The feeling of thirst is designed to get us to hydrate. When we get in the habit of drinking sweet things, we add in extra calories when our body just needed plain water, and as far as your body's hunger sensors are concerned, those calories 'don't count' - you can drink 500 calories (2 standard 20oz bottles) in a minute or two, and still be as hungry as if you hadn't eaten anything. Problem is that in terms of calorie balance, they most certainly DO count.
And it doesn't matter if it is high-fructose-corn-syrup*, cane sugar, honey, agave, or all natural fruit juice. They are all liquid calories. They are all equally bad for you. If you are trying to lose fat, drink ZERO liquid calories, of any type.
*Incidentally, all of the studies on the evils of HFCS invariably compare it only to cane sugar (sucrose). This is sloppy science at best, and dishonest at worst. Honey, agave, and fruit juice (as well as actual fruit) all contain as much or more fructose than HFCS does. Any effects that HFCS has on the body would apply equally to these natural sweeteners as well. The problem with HFCS isn't that it is 'synthetic'. The problem is that it is put into so much processed foods in such massive amounts. Replacing it with any other form of sugar does not change this.
Even synthetic sweeteners such as nutra-sweet or splenda, which have few or even zero calories have been shown to stimulate an insulin response in the body. What this means is that you taste something sweet, and the body thinks it is sugar, and begins preparing for digestion. Once the digestive system is ready, when the calories don't come in after all, it gets all disappointed and annoyed, and responds by making you feel hungry so that it didn't make all those preparations for nothing.
OK, so maybe I am anthropomorphizing the digestive system, but that is basically how it works. Drinking diet drinks will actually make you hungrier than drinking water, indirectly leading to more fat gain.
-When a meal has multiple courses, always eat the vegetables first. If you end up being full before everything has been finished, its better to end up not eating the calorie dense, low nutrient foods.
-Be aware of high calorie foods and add-ons (like toppings or sauces) which may be dense in calories yet not very filling. Try mustard instead of mayo, spices instead of cheese, sauces that are not oil or cream based. Like with sweet beverages, things added for flavor can sneak in extra calories without the body noticing.
This is a big part of why diets such as Atkins and Paleo, (although both are based on principals which have little to no scientific or historic validity), end up working for so many people. Atkins claims that carbs are too easy to digest. Paleo claims that carbs are too hard to digest. The truth is carbs are perfectly healthy. However, they don't do as much as protein and fat to quell hunger. In the context of controlling hunger in order to facilitate consistent calorie deficit, anything which provides calories without providing the feeling of satisfaction is counter-productive. Carbs aren't as bad as sweetened beverages in this regard, but they are a close second. Add to that the fact that, unlike with fats and proteins, we don't actually need carbs to rebuild cells, or for any other basic biological process, and it stands to reason that if a person is going to cut back on total calories consumed, carbs are the first things to cut back on.
That being said, take careful note that high-protein high-fat diets have been well established as very unhealthy in the long-term. Cutting back on high density carbs does not mean eliminating them, and it most certainly doesn't mean replacing them with even denser calorie animal products. It means taking the classic food pyramid, and just switching the positions of vegetables and grains, like this:
-Be consistent with when you eat, in order to balance out your blood sugar levels and prevent craving inducing spikes and valleys. Being inconsistent leads to suddenly feeling overwhelmingly hungry which tends to promote binging. Since we know there are limits to anyone's willpower, better to not put ourselves in that position to begin with.
There are different strategies on this, which are basically opposite:
Some advocate eating lots of very small meals, 6 or more, evenly spaced throughout the day, or 4 small meals with frequent tiny snacks between them.
Eating frequently keeps you from ever feeling actual hunger pangs - the brief sharp pain that lasts seconds or less because you are really hungry - which can help prevent binging. In this strategy you eat before you are hungry, because when you are already very hungry there's a better chance you'll overeat. The challenge is that if you miss a single meal, you will be totally unused to ever having any drop in blood sugar, and the temptation to binge will be higher than ever. (Note that even with this strategy, you will still feel hungry if you are in calorie deficit. That hunger just won't be as sharp or sudden)
Others advocate having only one big meal (ideally breakfast, soon after getting up, to fuel the days activities), or even just one single meal once every other day. One advantage is that having one single meal makes it a lot easier to track calories. Another is that once the body gets used to it, it learns to regulate insulin and blood glucose better, reducing the weakness or "brain fog" many people experience from having a meal later than usual. People who alternate-day-fast tend to eat fewer calories overall, even without attempting to limit them, and a host of health benefits occur independent of calorie restriction.
The end goal is the same, whether eating small amounts throughout the day or just one big meal in the morning - eliminating the blood sugar / insulin spikes and dips which are a significant part of hunger regulation.The time of this day you eat this meal makes a difference. If it is breakfast, you have a whole day's worth of activities to use those calories. If it is dinner, all day as you move around you get more and more hungry and end up having a giant dinner - and then immediately go to sleep. Now you are using minimal calories, and the body stores all of that food away as fat - especially once it catches on that it probably won't get any breakfast the next morning either. Skipping breakfast and eating big dinners is a technique that sumo wrestlers use to deliberately put on extra weight for a sport where being massive is a decided advantage. Unless you happen to be a sumo wrestler in training, don't eat at bedtime (including before a nap). In fact, avoid eating anything within a few hours before bed.
Actually, that tip is valid for both methods. One thing that has been noted is a correlation between over-eating and not getting enough sleep. The reason turns out to be because if you stay up later, it gives you more time to eat! Few people can eat while they are sleeping.
Ideally, try to have dinner relatively early every day, if at all, and then don't eat anything else for the rest of the evening.
(If you do, you should see a sleep disorder specialist. I can refer you. I know a guy...)
When we ignore being sleepy because we have work to do or a good show is on, our bodies - which were preparing to shut down for the evening - eventually decide that if you are going to be up burning calories, we had better feed ourselves to fuel the midnight oil burning. So we get hungry again. That episode of hunger would have never occurred were we fast asleep in our comfy comfy beds. The next time its past bedtime and you get hungry all of a sudden, instead of taking it is a sign you should eat, take it as a sign that you need to stop what you are doing and go to bed. Your work will still be there in the morning. Thanks to TiVo and internet TV, even your show will still be there in the morning. If its something due early, set the alarm to wake you early, instead of staying up late.Ideally, try to have dinner relatively early every day, if at all, and then don't eat anything else for the rest of the evening.
The 2nd method will be much harder to adapt to at first because it is so different than we are used to. Many people feel not just hunger pangs, but also cranky, weak, even faint, whenever their blood sugar drops.
This is not an inevitable part of life!
It occurs only because having the luxury of always-available food "spoils" our metabolic system. Transitioning to (for example) a every other day diet, one would have those symptoms frequently and severely; at first. But after a few days, a couple weeks at most, the body will adapt, and no longer will one be a slave to blood sugar levels (with the exception of certain medical conditions like diabetes or anemia).
Particularly if a person has extra fat stores, the body does not actually need a continuous external source of sugars in order to function. It just prefers it. Even more than with hunger, it's important to realize that the feelings associated with low-blood sugar will pass, and if suffered through for a few days may never recur again.
Consider the fact that many millions of people over the course of history have fasted, for reasons of health, religion, or protest, and managed to survive and live life just fine. Its never easy, but it does get easier after the initial shock.
Either way, the point is to not wait until you feel famished, and then eat. Either eat before you are hungry, or set a schedule or eating curfew, and stick to it.-Eat only until you are satisfied, and then stop. Satisfied means no longer feeling hungry. It does not mean feeling "full". Feeling satiated will almost always come before a feeling of fullness - (although if eating until full is what a person is used to, one may not even notice when they are satisfied). If you eat until you feel full, you have almost certainly eaten more than your body needs. If you eat until you are "stuffed" you have definitely eaten way too much!
One of the main things which affects appetite, obviously, is hunger itself. If a person is in calorie deficit, or if they have a condition (such as hypothyroidism) which makes the body think it has a calorie deficit even when it doesn't, this component of appetite may be impossible to eliminate. The steps above on hunger can help to minimize it.
Beyond actual hunger though, anything which makes a person want to eat is affecting appetite.Being hungry is something that goes along with weight loss. However, once a healthy body fat percentage and strength-to-weight ratio is achieved, it is acceptable - nay, necessary!!! - to then change from a calorie deficit to a neutral calorie balance (eating exactly same calories each day as you burn, no more and no less). At that point one should never have to feel hungry again!
(excepting for medical conditions that upset the hormonal feedback loops - which can generally be controlled with drugs)
But since hunger isn't the only thing to trigger appetite, the risk of slipping back into the same habits that caused excess fat accumulation in the first place always remain.
The most important life-long life-style habit change is:
eating for one reason, and one reason only: to provide sustenance and nutrition that your body needs.
eating for one reason, and one reason only: to provide sustenance and nutrition that your body needs.
Many people eat out of boredom, or as a distraction from being sad. Find other things to do. Try a double whammy by exercising for 10 minutes whenever you realize your appetite is emotion based.
One of the most common reasons people eat when they aren't even hungry is because other people around them are eating.
Don't eat just because people around you are eating, just because it's a party or because you are at a restaurant.
Its ok to say no.
Its ok to tell people you aren't hungry.
People may look at you funny, or even resort to peer pressure, but they will ultimately understand. And if not understand, they will at least let it go. And if not, well then nuts to them! Anyone who actually wants to bully you into eating something may not really be your friend.
Seeing or smelling something delicious can make us want to take a bite, even if we don't actually need any calories. Sweet things particularly tend to be extremely calorie dense, so even "one little bite" can go a long way to undermining a diet, (especially if the goal calorie deficit margin is low).
You don't have to try a bite of something just because someone offers.
You don't have to taste something just because it looks or smells good.
People eat just because its "meal time". Don't do that. Don't eat because of what the clock says, if you aren't actually hungry (unless, obviously, that is your method for controlling blood sugar induced hunger)
Its important to be totally conscious and deliberate about each and every thing you consume. Just like with fidgeting, all the little things add up over the course of the day.
It sounds pretty crappy, I know, but remember the purpose of eating is to provide nutrients and energy in order to live. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the food you do eat, since you do have to eat anyway; but, as they say "eat to live, don't live to eat". There are a lot of wonderful things about life besides deliciousness. Enjoy them! Play and relax and enjoy entertainment and social interactions and music and sunshine for pleasure. Eat food in order to provide your body nourishment. Never eat when you are full. Never eat when you are satiated. Never eat if you aren't actually hungry.
Not one word of this should be taken as implying that any particular food should ever be "off limits". No need to ban your favorite food outright.
All foods vary in two important relevant aspects: calorie density and nutrient density. For the purpose of fat loss, all that really matters is calorie density. For the purpose of nutrition all that really matters is nutrient density. For the purpose of health both are really important.
But neither one dictates exactly what you have to eat, nor exactly how much of it. In order to be able to eat a reasonable amount and maximize health, it's a good idea to try to eat foods which have the most nutrients for the least calories.
Its a good idea, but it is absolutely possible to lose fat on a steady diet of junk food.
You don't have to take my word for it:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/
or
http://www.kktv.com/home/
This most certainly isn't a good idea, but it is illustrative. The problem with this diet isn't that it is processed or that it has refined sugars or that it has carbs. The problems with it are 1) it doesn't have enough nutrients, and 2) it will leave you hungrier than a healthier diet, making it harder to maintain.
On the same token, it is equally possible to gain excess fat on healthy foods:
http://www.themedguru.com/
Eating the right things, but eating too much of them, will still make a person fat. Having excess fat, even with healthy food choices, is still unhealthy.
The majority of "diet plans", the ones that have a name (Warrior, South Beach, Atkins, Paleo, The-Fabulous-Famous-Whatever-Diet) usually dictate exactly what, when, and/or exactly how much a person can eat. Studies of dieters indicate this may well be a part of why so many of them end up failing at changing long-term habits. One part of their early success may come from the fact that, by putting enough foods off-limits, one consumes less calories just by default. But sooner or later the body adapts to and craves the new foods, or the dieter falls off the wagon with a chocolate craving, and one way or another total calories consumed drifts back toward the old baseline. Alternatively, by considering only portion control, but not the nutrition of individual food (like Weight Watchers, for example), it is possible to have tiny amounts of extremely rich foods that add up to a lot, while still needing more food to satisfy actual nutrient needs.or
http://www.kktv.com/home/
This most certainly isn't a good idea, but it is illustrative. The problem with this diet isn't that it is processed or that it has refined sugars or that it has carbs. The problems with it are 1) it doesn't have enough nutrients, and 2) it will leave you hungrier than a healthier diet, making it harder to maintain.
On the same token, it is equally possible to gain excess fat on healthy foods:
http://www.themedguru.com/
Eating the right things, but eating too much of them, will still make a person fat. Having excess fat, even with healthy food choices, is still unhealthy.
The solution to both, then, is to both be aware of calorie density, and be aware of portion size.
Keep in mind that each and every bite consumed is a trade off between it, and something else you could be eating. This does not necessarily mean weighing food and tracking each and every calorie, but at least knowing the general caloric density of the broad types of food, and being able to estimate.
(As mentioned above, it is a good idea to track each and every calorie for a few weeks. This will help you learn to estimate accurately from then on.)
Imagine taking exactly one pound of different types of food. The total weight is the same, but the amount of calories in them will vary wildly. Take these examples:
| Foods | Cal/Lb | Cal/cup |
|---|---|---|
| High Calorie | ||
| Oils | 3,900 | 2000 |
| Potato chips / Fries | 2,600 | 1200 |
| Meat | 2,000 | 1100 |
| Cheese | 1,600 | 1000 |
| Refined Flour | 1,800 | 500 |
| Medium Calorie | ||
| Poultry | 900 | 400 |
| Fish | 800 | 260 |
| Eggs | 700 | 210 |
| Whole Grains | 600 | 400 |
| Low Calorie | ||
| Beans | 350 | 200 |
| Starchy Vegetables (potato, corn, squash) | 350 | 150 |
| Fruits | 250 | 65 |
| Green Vegetables | 100 | 30 |
These are all rough estimates, because they are broad categories, and weight and volume measurements differ between different foods within them. However, they show the range of relative differences between the categories.
The foods that the vast majority of people's daily diets are primarily based on are 10 to 20 times as high in calories as vegetables, for the exact same amount of food!!
In just one single pound of french fries or chips, there are enough calories for an entire day.
That's less than one large bag. As calorie dense as a burger is, the large fries that comes with it as a "side" may well have even more. The range of calorie density is just massive. Compare this chart to the healthy food pyramid. Contrast it to how most of us eat. (Contrast it also to the official USDA food pyramid, which was largely influenced by the commercial food lobby!)
Notice that oil is almost 40 times more calorie dense than veggies.
Say you start with a healthy, nutrient rich, low calorie salad. Then, for flavor and variety you add in some shredded cheese, croutons, maybe some chicken or bacon bits, and then top it all off with a generous pour of oil or cream based dressing. That dressing which you think of as just a little garnishment for flavor probably has more calories than all the vegetables put together. It may even have more calories than the entire rest of the salad! All of a sudden a meal that you thought of as being down at the bottom of the list has shot up towards the top.
(Don't be like Homer)
For example, there are quite a few restaurant salads which have over 1000 calories - so this one dish, which is sometimes used as an appetizer or side, actually has close to half of one's needed calorie intake for the entire day.
No one is really surprised that long time vegans tend to weigh less than people who subsist on mostly fried foods, but this chart shows exactly why. Aside from oil, most plant foods reside all the way at the very bottom, while animal foods dominate the top.
Not on the list is alcohol, which has zero nutrients, but has more calories per gram than carbs do. Because of this "low carb" beer is somewhat silly, since the alcohol itself is a source of calories. Since it is in liquid form, like soda, alcohol doesn't satisfy hunger, but beer has anywhere from 100-250 calories per bottle.
Another way to visualize calorie density is to keep calorie size constant, and see the size of portions for different foods. The following pictures were all borrowed from: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-
Click the image for a full size view:
(depending on your browser, you may need to click the image that comes up in a new window as well)
Notice that some foods completely fill the plate, and look like they could actually be a meal in themselves. Others look kind of sad, and wouldn't even qualify as a complete snack. Yet, as far as your bodies metabolism is concerned...
every one of those pictures is the exact same amount of food
(200 calories each - one can of beer is about equivalent as well).
Because there is such a huge range of calorie densities, trying to limit calories by controlling portion size alone is impossible. And simply banning certain foods and then ignoring portion size won't do it either, as a few generally healthy foods, (like nuts, vegetable oils, and dairy) are dense in calories. But looking at food in terms of its caloric density gives the question a new perspective. Imagine you wanted a 200 calorie snack. You can pick anything from those pictures you want. It is absolutely fine to pick the chocolate. Just realize that its a trade off. It's not "cheating". But it does mean giving up the giant bowl of vegetables, fruit, or cereal, or the medium sized bowl of pasta or yogurt. Its up to you if it's really worth it. At the end of the day, you can only eat so many calories while having an overall deficit. How you choose to spend them is entirely up to you. Of course, the pat of butter or shot of Bailey's Irish Cream is not going to satisfy your hunger nearly as much as anything from the top of the list, and they won't give you the same nutritional value.
You have to realize, remember, and keep in mind, that which ever thing you pick is INSTEAD of something else. If you pick the 1/3 of a candy bar, or the little chunk of cheese, that's it, thats the meal. If, in our examples from above, you are starting with a baseline of 2000 calories a day, and trying for an 800 a day deficit, that means you can have 6 items from the plates in the picture above, per day. Total, among all your meals, however you split that up.
Obviously if you choose the bacon, hotdog, shot of liquor, piece of cheese, a two kinds of candy, you are going to feel desperately hungry pretty much all the time. On the other hand, if you chose the vegetables and fruit, and maybe a bowl of whole grain cereal, that amount may actually fill you up and leave you reasonably satiated. Look at that picture again, and the relative sizes of portions that make 200 calories. Imagine only being able to pick 6 of them for your entire days food. That is the trade off you are facing every time you pick a food to eat.
This visualization also shows why the "processed foods VS home cooked food" dichotomy is a ridiculous over-simplification. Yes, there is a lot of candy, junk snack food, and fast food near the bottom. But there are also a number of ingredients commonly used to cook with. Butter, cheese, and oil, are all denser in calories than even the highly-processed sugar-filled candy. If home cooking consists of lasagnas and pies, fried food and mammal meat, or is even just cooked in oil or butter, is heavy on carbs, or is covered in cheese, it will be just as calorie dense as anything purchased ready-made.
Whatever you choose to eat, it is vital to match portion size to calorie density. The denser it is, the less of it you can have.
Everything you choose is displacing something else, so choose wisely.
As I talked about in part one, nutrient density is also a variable. There are certain things we need to eat a minimum of, regularly if not every day; specifically protein, fat, vitamins, minerals, and water. Looking back at the picture, it just so happens that nutrient density more or less varies inversely with calorie density. Vegetables and fruits are higher in vitamins and minerals then meat, dairy, and carbs. How convenient!! Given that you have to eat a certain amount of the type of foods high on the picture in order to get enough nutrients, it leaves less and less room for the crap at the bottom. Since the point of dieting is health, it would be counter-productive to cut out nutrient rich food.
The point is, eat vegetables and more vegetables. And then some fruits. And then even more vegetables. Occasionally a little meat or dairy or oil or whole grains.
Occasionally does NOT mean every meal.
It does not even mean every day. As mentioned in part one, we don't need nearly as much protein as most people think. Until very recently, very few cultures ate protein and fat rich food with every meal. In order to lose fat, 50% of food consumed should be vegetables, absolute minimum.
Of course there are going to be times when you eat things other than vegetables. Even if you manage to make your diet 50% vegetable (which you should, if you really want to lose fat), you will go out to eat with people, others will cook for you, you won't have time to cook, and whatever else. It isn't necessary to cut out high calorie foods completely (or any particular food). Match portion size to calorie density. If something is high in sugar, oil, meat, dairy or refined carbs, eat just a tiny bit of it. Eat as much (non-starchy, i.e. not corn or potato) vegetables as you want.
Controlling appetite is about preventing eating when one isn't really even hungry.
When we do eat, however, it is easy to eat too much; even when one doesn't have an appetite for it.
There are ways to minimize that too:
-Use smaller plates and bowls. Seriously. A lot of this is psychological. We naturally tend to fill a container. And we naturally tend to eat as much as is in front of us. Once we start eating, we may not notice that we are satiated until the stomach actually starts to hurt, and by that time we have already overeaten - by a lot! If you fill a large plate only 1/2 way, it looks like a small amount, and it seems like it won't be satisfying. If after finishing a small plate full you actually are still hungry, you can always go back for seconds.
-Eat slower. Using a small spoon helps you take smaller bites, so that it takes longer to finish. There is a delay between eating and when the body realizes it's full, so eating slower gives the body's feedback systems a chance to catch up. By the same token, be deliberate about chewing, and wait a few minutes before getting those seconds, to see if you really are still hungry.
-Decide on your serving size in advance. Again, you can decide to have more later, but if you don't think about it chances are you just pile an arbitrary amount on the plate, and then eat it all just because its there.
-Don't feel you have to finish everything on the plate! Its totally ok to have leftovers. This is especially true in restaurants, where they typically serve 2-4 "servings" of food on a single plate.
-When eating pre-packaged foods, take a look at the serving size. If it says there are 4 servings per container, don't eat the whole box in one sitting.
-Be aware of condiments and other add-ons. Just one tablespoon of mayo - the amount you might spread on a sandwich - has 110 calories. Because oil and cream based sauces and dressings are so extremely dense, they add up really fast. Just how fidgeting burns few calories, but adds up over the course of the day, a tiny amount of added sugar or cheese or even the oil that sticks to food in a stir-fry, all ends up adding significantly to the days total calories.
-Be especially conscious when eating socially. Maybe its the distraction. Maybe its something about being around other people who are eating. For whatever reason, people eat more when they are around lots of other people. To a lesser extent, people also eat more with distractions like television, when putting fork to mouth goes into autopilot, and the mind doesn't fully register that its been eating all along.
-Eat slower. Using a small spoon helps you take smaller bites, so that it takes longer to finish. There is a delay between eating and when the body realizes it's full, so eating slower gives the body's feedback systems a chance to catch up. By the same token, be deliberate about chewing, and wait a few minutes before getting those seconds, to see if you really are still hungry.
-Decide on your serving size in advance. Again, you can decide to have more later, but if you don't think about it chances are you just pile an arbitrary amount on the plate, and then eat it all just because its there.
-Don't feel you have to finish everything on the plate! Its totally ok to have leftovers. This is especially true in restaurants, where they typically serve 2-4 "servings" of food on a single plate.
-When eating pre-packaged foods, take a look at the serving size. If it says there are 4 servings per container, don't eat the whole box in one sitting.
-Be aware of condiments and other add-ons. Just one tablespoon of mayo - the amount you might spread on a sandwich - has 110 calories. Because oil and cream based sauces and dressings are so extremely dense, they add up really fast. Just how fidgeting burns few calories, but adds up over the course of the day, a tiny amount of added sugar or cheese or even the oil that sticks to food in a stir-fry, all ends up adding significantly to the days total calories.
-Be especially conscious when eating socially. Maybe its the distraction. Maybe its something about being around other people who are eating. For whatever reason, people eat more when they are around lots of other people. To a lesser extent, people also eat more with distractions like television, when putting fork to mouth goes into autopilot, and the mind doesn't fully register that its been eating all along.
This has been an awful lot of information.
I have deliberately avoided as much of the technical side of digestion, metabolism, the glycemic index, and the like as possible.
And it is only a subset of the bigger picture on health.
Is it any wonder that there are so many attempts to over simplify and take short cuts?
Ideally you should take all this information as a base with which to build your own plan that will work for you.
I will make my attempt at summarizing and simplifying everything I wrote into 4 simple rules, with one vitally important note. This is just one approach, and there are many others that can work just as well, (and which may work better for you).
1) No starches (commonly called "carbs") i.e. bread, cake, pasta, fries, chips, etc
2) No added sweetener of any kind. This includes "natural" sugar, honey, agave, and calorie-free artificial sweetener
3) Zero liquid calories. Drink water. Coffee or tea are fine, as long as they are straight, with no sweetener, cream, or flavoring added.
4) Daily food curfew about 4 to 6 hours after you wake up. This means eating breakfast, and possibly lunch, but nothing at all between lunch and bedtime. (Assuming you wake up between 6am and 8am, this would mean a food curfew at 12 noon.) This gives the benefits of short term-fasting, and also naturally restricts calories without the tedium of counting and tracking.
And the vitally important note is that you WILL feel hungry all the time, and that the only possible success will come from accepting it.
This plan must be done while continuing to exercise. In order to prevent losing muscle mass, it is important to get enough protein. Once you reach your target bodyfat percentage, you should GRADUALLY increase daily calorie intake until it exactly matches the calories you burn each day. At that point you should eat until you don't feel hungry, but never more than that.
The good habits you picked up during the dieting process all need to become life-long habits, or else you will gain back all the fat you lost.
For the first couple weeks I recommend tracking your calories - literally every thing you eat as well as your daily exercise, and using a calorie calculator (use Google) to make sure you are in calorie deficit. Once you have established a pattern, and know what calorie deficit feels like, you may not need to track any longer.
Once you have reached your goal bodyfat percentage, you do not need to tolerate a constant low-level hunger anymore. You should eat until satiated. However, that doesn't mean that just because you are now thin and strong and healthy you have license to eat "whatever you want". If you return to your old habits, you will return to your old bodyfat percentage. The same steps for losing fat happen to coincide with healthy eating habits for anyone of any size. Once you reach your goal, the only thing that should change is total calories consumed. The rest needs to be lifelong.
Don't forget what I wrote in the beginning: everything above is meant to be considered from within the context of the main "Be Healthy" essay!
Health includes avoiding illness, fitness, and nutrition, not just being thin. Whether you or those around you are happy with how you look is irrelevant.
I am not, as you may be aware, a trained professional on any topic remotely related to all this. I'm just an ordinary guy (with a background in science), who likes to stay healthy and loves collecting information, understanding things, and putting together the big picture out of lots of seemingly independent details. I'm also someone who likes to share what he learns from others.
But I don't expect you to take my word for it.
Here are just a few of the sources from which I gathered data for this essay:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html
http://www.shapefit.com/basal-
http://www.diet-blog.com/07/
http://www.munaabuawad.com/?p=
http://www.intermartialarts.
http://www.
http://www.healthygo.com/
http://jama.ama-assn.org/
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/
http://www.annals.org/content/
http://ps.columbia.edu/news/
http://www.diet-blog.com/10/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
http://www.worldhealth.net/
http://www.post-gazette.com/
http://www.reuters.com/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/
http://www.ajcn.org/content/
There are others as well, but I encourage you to find your own information.
Google is your friend.
When you are done reading, get off the computer, and put what you have learned into practice!
Be healthy, my friend.
http://www.diet-blog.com/07/
http://www.munaabuawad.com/?p=
http://www.intermartialarts.
http://www.
http://www.healthygo.com/
http://jama.ama-assn.org/
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/
http://www.annals.org/content/
http://ps.columbia.edu/news/
http://www.diet-blog.com/10/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
http://www.worldhealth.net/
http://www.post-gazette.com/
http://www.reuters.com/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/
http://www.ajcn.org/content/
There are others as well, but I encourage you to find your own information.
Google is your friend.
When you are done reading, get off the computer, and put what you have learned into practice!
Be healthy, my friend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)