Fifty Plus (50+) - That weight loss thing?

Ok - I do not have a weight problem- but I read a very interesting article today about weight loss whilst exercising. By going out out hammering a ride- pushing yourself to the limit and doing lots of high milage does not work.

The way to burn off fat is to put the heart rate in the correct zone to burn fat instead of energy.
Find your maximum heart rate and your resting HR. In my case that is max 165 and resting of 70- difference of those is 95. The best heart rate for burning fat is at 65 to 80% of the difference so for me- My fat burning heart rate is between 132( 70 + 65% of 95) and 146 (70+ 80% of 95). Thats good as I like to ride between 140 and 145.

If you go above the upper limit your body changes from burning fat to burning energy (Muscle Glycogen) which is stored in the muscles. You need plenty of Oxygen to to burn off the fat so the bottom line is- if you are getting breathless- you will not be burning fat.

Now in the same magazine- It recommends that we reverse our normal eating process for rides. Normally we eat to build up energy for a ride and they recommend differently. Go for a ride and then pig out- Longer the ride- more you can pig out. The suggestion is a 4 hour ride in which you will burn off 1800 calories. Then you can have a Steak and kidney pie, Mash and gravy= 1280 calories and a couple of pints of Guinness= 420 calories. Net loss on the ride= 100 calories.

Sounds good to me- providing the pig out is a breakfast halfway on the ride, and instead of the Guinness- a good slice of pie at the end.

This explains a lot... I have never been able to lose weight by exercising... in fact I have gotten heavier each time I try.

If on the other hand I simply diet, I can lose weight.

Exercise is good for the heart, but doesn't keep the weight off.

This explains a lot... I have never been able to lose weight by exercising... in fact I have gotten heavier each time I try.

If on the other hand I simply diet, I can lose weight.

Exercise is good for the heart, but doesn't keep the weight off.

I think you missed one of the side points... vigorous exercise won't work, but moderate aerobic exercise will.

Ok - I do not have a weight problem- but I read a very interesting article today about weight loss whilst exercising. By going out out hammering a ride- pushing yourself to the limit and doing lots of high milage does not work.

The way to burn off fat is to put the heart rate in the correct zone to burn fat instead of energy.
Find your maximum heart rate and your resting HR. In my case that is max 165 and resting of 70- difference of those is 95. The best heart rate for burning fat is at 65 to 80% of the difference so for me- My fat burning heart rate is between 132( 70 + 65% of 95) and 146 (70+ 80% of 95). Thats good as I like to ride between 140 and 145.

If you go above the upper limit your body changes from burning fat to burning energy (Muscle Glycogen) which is stored in the muscles. You need plenty of Oxygen to to burn off the fat so the bottom line is- if you are getting breathless- you will not be burning fat.

Now in the same magazine- It recommends that we reverse our normal eating process for rides. Normally we eat to build up energy for a ride and they recommend differently. Go for a ride and then pig out- Longer the ride- more you can pig out. The suggestion is a 4 hour ride in which you will burn off 1800 calories. Then you can have a Steak and kidney pie, Mash and gravy= 1280 calories and a couple of pints of Guinness= 420 calories. Net loss on the ride= 100 calories.

Sounds good to me- providing the pig out is a breakfast halfway on the ride, and instead of the Guinness- a good slice of pie at the end.

That contradicts everything I've read about weight loss...the so-called "aerobic fat-burning zone" is a myth. For weight loss, it doesn't matter if you're burning fat or carbs. It's all about calories burned vs. calories consumed. When you ride at a low level of intensity, you're burning less calories per hour than if you were riding at a higher level of intensity...thus, you'll lose weight more slowly because you're not burning as many calories.

As for "pigging out" after a ride...that's just insane. I can't tell you how many cyclists I've talked to who say "I ride my bike 150 miles per week but can't lose a pound". Mostly it's because they use their cycling to justify "pigging out".

It's really easy to subvert a good exercise program with a few poor food choices each week, and intentionally "pigging out" is a really good way to keep the fat on. I demonstrated this myself on one of my first weeklong Bicycle Tour of Colorado vacations - despite riding over 400 miles, with nearly 35,000 feet of climbing, I gained weight over the course of the week! It's because I was using the hard cycling to justify 4 meals per day, and a couple of beers each night.

This isn't exactly news...it's been recognized for at least 20 years that strenuous short-term exercise draws from different energy stores than longer, more moderate exercise. I don't remember the details (it's been a long time since I read about it), but every exercise and serious (as opposed to fad) weight loss story I've read in years has made that point.
One problem for a lot of males is that this goes against the grain of the macho mystique or something--we want quick results, by God--it took us 10 years to gain 20 pounds, but if we don't take it off in 10 days, we get frustrated. And we're MEN, so we have no patience with sissy exercises like walking or riding at 10mph--we go hard for 15 minutes, get tired, quit, weigh ourselves, don't see any difference and decide exercise and diets don't work.
FWIW, two years ago I lost almost 50 pounds with a very moderate diet and 7000-10,000 calories of moderate, fairly easy exercise per week. When I stopped doing the exercise, the weight began to come back, and when I started again, it dropped back.

I am 51 1/2 years old
not over weight... by much... but at 5'10, I was up to 185, and had been slender all my life (165 would make me happy again)
When I started to bike commute regularly (17 miles round trip over relatively flat terraiin with a couple modest hills) I started to see weight moving down ... about 8-10 pounds over a 6-8 month period... of fairly regular (not daily) commuting. Each way it takes about 35 minutes... and I keep a good pace (12-14 mph). So... 2 x 35 minutes a day, 2-4 days a week.

This is key... regular pace, regular exercise. Yogurt and granola for breakfast... and don't pig out (cept for some Friday brews!)

If I get busy (having to drive due to errands) the weight returns.
This year I am going to bike the bullet and try to commute as much as possible in nasty weather... so activity is year round.

I have done different types of excercise in my life - from rock climbing to just walking. Time and getting the heart moving is everything.

I like to shoot for between 30 minutes to 1 hour at a time, or more. it is more important to excercise for long periods at a reasonable rate, than hammer it for a short period of time. Hammering is good for building power, but not for burning calories.

Currently my commute is about 30 minutes in the morning, about 50 minutes in the evening - lots of good calories are burned. I like to maintain a comfortable pace - which for me on rock is about 14 MPH. On the road I can get closer to 18. But, if it isn't comfortable and fun, I back down.

Even though rock climbing is an intense workout - I never lost a lb doing it - except from the motivation to lose weight!

Oh, just to show that people are different - I can't lose weight just dieting - but give me a bike and the weight just melts off.

I notice a lot of the daily commuters lose weight - I figure I might be burning 1,000 calories a day extra. All I have to do is not eat a lot extra and I will drop one or two lbs a week.

the way my lbs owner described it: take LSD.
Long, Slow, Distance :)

Worked for me, I was gaining weight with my riding until I adjusted my riding style (LSD) and my diet (more protein, less carbs)

That contradicts everything I've read about weight loss...the so-called "aerobic fat-burning zone" is a myth. For weight loss, it doesn't matter if you're burning fat or carbs. It's all about calories burned vs. calories consumed. When you ride at a low level of intensity, you're burning less calories per hour than if you were riding at a higher level of intensity...thus, you'll lose weight more slowly because you're not burning as many calories.

As for "pigging out" after a ride...that's just insane. I can't tell you how many cyclists I've talked to who say "I ride my bike 150 miles per week but can't lose a pound". Mostly it's because they use their cycling to justify "pigging out".

It's really easy to subvert a good exercise program with a few poor food choices each week, and intentionally "pigging out" is a really good way to keep the fat on. I demonstrated this myself on one of my first weeklong Bicycle Tour of Colorado vacations - despite riding over 400 miles, with nearly 35,000 feet of climbing, I gained weight over the course of the week! It's because I was using the hard cycling to justify 4 meals per day, and a couple of beers each night.

Finally SSP and I agree.

Calories in vs calories used.

In the end, they all use the same energy. If you draw from glycogen while exercising intensely, then that glycogen will eventually be replaced by body fat being used up.

This so-called "fat burning zone" is a justification and perhaps a motivator to get folks moving and doing things who are not doing anything at all.

It helps them not be scared of the kind of intense exercise that most of us do regularly. It is propaganda, pure and simple.

And SSP is right. Without a careful food plan, it is all to naught.

Finally SSP and I agree.

Calories in vs calories used.

In the end, they all use the same energy. If you draw from glycogen while exercising intensely, then that glycogen will eventually be replaced by body fat being used up.

This so-called "fat burning zone" is a justification and perhaps a motivator to get folks moving and doing things who are not doing anything at all.

It helps them not be scared of the kind of intense exercise that most of us do regularly. It is propaganda, pure and simple.

And SSP is right. Without a careful food plan, it is all to naught.

Thanks, Denver.

Since most of us are limited in the time we can devote to exercise, the rule of thumb is:

If you can't go long, go hard (double and triple entendres intended ;) )

Here's the thing.

I'm 52. I've been fairly active my whole life. I'm not overweight. I *do* have this spare tire though. It's not too big, but it is there. Some of the guys I work with, who ride, keep wondering why it's still there. Well, they give me a hard time about it anyway. They are all at least Ten Years younger than I am, of course.

I did too for a time.

I just figure that even biking 30 Miles a Day is just not enough exercise to get those washboard abs to come back.

The muscles are still there to some extent. I just don't have the definition I once did. Certainly, I've lost some strength over the Years. And reflexes.. and speed. This is getting depressing.

I know that if I got back into Soccer (football), like that is going to happen, it would hurt like Hell for a while, but I would definitely burn off the small amount of fat that just sits there, around my waist. My knees might not even be up to it at this point.

I'm don't think I'll worry about it too much.

Here's the thing.

I'm 52. I've been fairly active my whole life. I'm not overweight. I *do* have this spare tire though. It's not too big, but it is there. Some of the guys I work with, who ride, keep wondering why it's still there. Well, they give me a hard time about it anyway. They are all at least Ten Years younger than I am, of course.

I did too for a time.

I just figure that even biking 30 Miles a Day is just not enough exercise to get those washboard abs to come back.

The muscles are still there to some extent. I just don't have the definition I once did. Certainly, I've lost some strength over the Years. And reflexes.. and speed. This is getting depressing.

I know that if I got back into Soccer (football), like that is going to happen, it would hurt like Hell for a while, but I would definitely burn off the small amount of fat that just sits there, around my waist.

I'm don't think I'll worry about it too much.


If you have a noticeable spare tire, it's likely you are, in fact, "overweight".

Ab workouts won't reduce your spare tire...they'll just build your ab muscles. Your spare tire is just your body's way of storing excess fat. Most men tend to store their excess fat around the waist, unlike women who tend to store it on their hips.

FWIW, visceral fat has been associated with many negative health indicators...losing the fat via exercise and/or diet is a good idea. Since your exercise program is already in place (cycling 30 miles/day), you need to look to your diet...finding a way to cut out a few hundred calories each day will eventually whittle down that spare tire.

Hello,

I just can't help but put in my "TWO CENTS"

Most of you know I had gastric bypass surgery. Now, most would think that my main reason for doing this surgery was the weight. Well yes, but no. My main reason was the diabetes. See if you are diabetic (type II in my case) you do not lose weight like non-diabetic people. Plainly put, your endocrine system does not function right and does not know what to do with sugar, nutrients and fats. Being diabetic sets off a vicious loop of events in your body that defeats your efforts to lose weight. In my case my sugars would actually go real high when I exercised. When that happened I had no energy and would have to stop. My heart rate would also go very high due to the weight and the excess blood sugars. It was next to impossible for me to get any sort of a work out and stay in that "fat burning" heart rate zone. I was actually putting on weight, despite the medical supervised diets I had been on for over a year.

So weight loss isn't as simple as calories in/calories burned, at least for some of us. I am no doctor but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Linda

PS, I no longer have diabetes and have lost 73 lbs in 3 months. I can ride at an average speed of 19+ mph and have not felt this good in years. Getting older, wiser and thinner is GREAT! But it ain't easy being cheesy!

Hello,

I just can't help but put in my "TWO CENTS"

Most of you know I had gastric bypass surgery. Now, most would think that my main reason for doing this surgery was the weight. Well yes, but no. My main reason was the diabetes. See if you are diabetic (type II in my case) you do not lose weight like non-diabetic people. Plainly put, your endocrine system does not function right and does not know what to do with sugar, nutrients and fats. Being diabetic sets off a vicious loop of events in your body that defeats your efforts to lose weight. In my case my sugars would actually go real high when I exercised. When that happened I had no energy and would have to stop. My heart rate would also go very high due to the weight and the excess blood sugars. It was next to impossible for me to get any sort of a work out and stay in that "fat burning" heart rate zone. I was actually putting on weight, despite the medical supervised diets I had been on for over a year.

So weight loss isn't as simple as calories in/calories burned, at least for some of us. I am no doctor but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Linda

PS, I no longer have diabetes and have lost 73 lbs in 3 months. I can ride at an average speed of 19+ mph and have not felt this good in years. Getting older, wiser and thinner is GREAT! But it ain't easy being cheesy!

Isn't the net effect of the gastric bypass surgery less calories ingested and/or digested? Calories in (utilized) vs calories burned?

During the month or so that I haven't been able to cycle due to my knee, I started really noticing my weight beginning to shift - and not in a good way! Normally I teach Pilates 5 times per week, and do the workout with my class. The last month I've been "talking them through". The problem is that I continued to eat as though I was exercising. Thinking about it, though, I wasn't as hungry as when I was exercising by any stretch of the imagination -- but I'm not one of those people who loses their appetite when they have the blues. Definitely a stress eater. I've been missing all those good endorphins!

Back to Pilates and working up my cycling mileage. All is becoming well again.

Isn't the net effect of the gastric bypass surgery less calories ingested and/or digested? Calories in (utilized) vs calories burned?

Yes, that is true, but it is the bypass part of the surgery,the first five feet of intestine from your stomach)that is bypassed) that corrects the diabetes. This is the portion of your intestine that absorbs most of the sugars, calories, fats and all that other good stuff, thus the diebetes is corrected. Gastric Bypass is 98% effective in eliminating Type II Diabetes. Forme I can still eat about 1000 calories a day. Just had Chili, cheese and crackers. Yummy!

If you do a little research on the effects of diabetes on weight loss/gain, energy and the general health of you endocrine system. Combine that research wiht a modern day Rouex-en-Y Gastric Bypass and you wilbegint o see the havoc diabetes hason your health and ability to lose weight.

Scarry stuff!

Linda

I read somewhere (maybe at 53x12.com, or maybe at slowtwitch, this CRS is killing me) that riding with a high cadence, using the slow twitch muscles, burns fat. Mashing the pedals at a slower cadence, burns glycogen. So you want most of your ride to be just as described by the OP, saving the glycogen for a sprint at the end. These guys at these sites support the OPs info also and I am like Will Rogers, all I know is what I read in the papers. My experience has been that riding a high cadence (90 - 100) on some nice rides with a few climbs (12% for a .5 to 1 mile) has helped me to lose about 15 pounds since the first of August. I know that is just anecdotal evidence, but it has been my anecdote. LOL.

The only reason a harder workout isn't good for weight loss is that it usually makes you exercise for a shorter time, and time spent exercising is the real key for weight loss exercising. When they talk about the fat burning exercise level, they are talking about any exercising at that level or above. So, go ahead and enjoy some sprinting and riding hard, but not to the point that it makes you ride fewer hours.

Yes, that is true, but it is the bypass part of the surgery,the first five feet of intestine from your stomach)that is bypassed) that corrects the diabetes. This is the portion of your intestine that absorbs most of the sugars, calories, fats and all that other good stuff, thus the diebetes is corrected. Gastric Bypass is 98% effective in eliminating Type II Diabetes. Forme I can still eat about 1000 calories a day. Just had Chili, cheese and crackers. Yummy!

If you do a little research on the effects of diabetes on weight loss/gain, energy and the general health of you endocrine system. Combine that research wiht a modern day Rouex-en-Y Gastric Bypass and you wilbegint o see the havoc diabetes hason your health and ability to lose weight.

Scarry stuff!

Linda

But wouldn't you have lost weight, and cured your diabetes, if you had been able to limit your food intake to 1000 calories per day instead of having the gastric bypass?

SSP and DnvrFox have the latest that I've heard. The old "fat burning zone" or LSD has been refuted in recent studies. Like Dnver said, it's still calories in vs. calories used. Riding fast burns lots of calories so riding time can be lower to attain the same weight loss effect.

I"m still wondering how Stapfam could read that damn article while out hammering a hard ride? You got a book rack on that bike now? (grin)

But wouldn't you have lost weight, and cured your diabetes, if you had been able to limit your food intake to 1000 calories per day instead of having the gastric bypass?

Nope, did that limited calorie diet and tried medications to lose weight, Dr. supervised too, for over a year. Oh sure, I lost weight to start with but then as my body/endocrine adjusted to the calorie intake I started to put the weight back on. I lost 70 lbs to start with and managed to put back on 40 of the 70 I had lost. Of course this was diet number 999 of 1000.

Medical conditions/comorbidities have a huge impact on a persons ability to lose and gain weight. Just as I could not lose weight because of the diabetes others may have a hard time maintaing weight becasue of diabetes or other medical conditions. Weight loss/gain really is different for each of us as our bodies are each unique. Just like there is no single solution for obesity/overweight that covers everybody. We all react different to exercise, food and our environment.

If losing weight was as simple as restricting calories and exercising in the "fat burning zone" The world would sure be a lot lighter.

Linda

:roflmao:
I"m still wondering how Stapfam could read that damn article while out hammering a hard ride? You got a book rack on that bike now? (grin)

:roflmao: +1 Very good question!

I don't know, but my 300 lb. Samoan lawyer assures me that LSD is the answer!

I've read many articles over the years supporting the idea of prolonged medium intensity excercise as the best way to burn fat and lose weight. And I know that I lose more weight when I do a lot of long distance riding (and I never go really fast when I do that). But I'm certainly no expert. Maybe those of you who seem to react so angrily to this commonly held concept can share some references to support the contrary opinion.

Nope, did that limited calorie diet and tried medications to lose weight, Dr. supervised too, for over a year. Oh sure, I lost weight to start with but then as my body/endocrine adjusted to the calorie intake I started to put the weight back on. I lost 70 lbs to start with and managed to put back on 40 of the 70 I had lost. Of course this was diet number 999 of 1000.

Medical conditions/comorbidities have a huge impact on a persons ability to lose and gain weight. Just as I could not lose weight because of the diabetes others may have a hard time maintaing weight becasue of diabetes or other medical conditions. Weight loss/gain really is different for each of us as our bodies are each unique. Just like there is no single solution for obesity/overweight that covers everybody. We all react different to exercise, food and our environment.

If losing weight was as simple as restricting calories and exercising in the "fat burning zone" The world would sure be a lot lighter.

Linda

I guess I don't understand...are you saying you gained back 40 lbs while only consuming 1000 calories per day?

FWIW, everything I've read on the subject indicates that it really is pretty much as simple as "calories in vs. calories out". Your results post-gastric bypass would seem to confirm that. Unfortunately, just because it's simple doesn't mean that it's easy.

I've found that I have to exercise and diet. A modest diet with plenty of protein, good fats, complex carbs and fiber. No cookies, cake, pastry, candy, ice cream and severely restricted alcohol. No second helpings. I also have to add other exercise to the 50 - 80 miles per week riding - rowing, crunches, pull-ups, stair stepping, dumbells, and leg lifts. I had to stop push-ups for now because of shoulder pain.
With all that, I can achive about 1 lb a week.

The fitter you are, the more total fat you burn in each of the heart zones. The less fit you are, the less fat you burn in each zone. For example, if you are unfit, you will burn the most fat in the lower range, from zones 2 to 3. If you are tremendously fit, you will burn the most fat in zone 4 or 5. For long-term weight-management goals, the total number of calories you burn matters most, not the percentage of fat. This is from The Heart Rate Monitor Book for Cyclists by Sally Edwards and Sally Reed. Also the overall conclusion is that it's best for weight loss or maintenance to excerise longer periods of time in heart zones that you can sustain.

I haven't read all the responses, but I'm going to toss in my experiences.

My best weight loss/waist slimming comes from consistant mid-length rides...meaning every other day, and around 40 to 60 miles. My effort usually results in about a 70% to 75% of HR max average. I "front load" calories...eating before and during rides, with after ride eating held to a minimum. And I don't eat anything until 90 minutes after I have finished riding.

This may or may not add up to anyone's recommended guidlines for weight loss, but after ten years of struggling to make my love of riding pay off in fitness gains beyond cardio, this is what actually works for me.

I rode over 35 centuries during the summer/fall of 2005 with little improvement weight wise. I was so beat after a ride I had to pig out. Plus I usually had to rest at least two days before the next ride. With 60 miles I can control my after-ride eating, and can ride the next day fairly easily, or two days after very easily. (Higher average heart rates make me eat more after a ride.)

Also, riding with bananas and water rather than energy bars and sports drinks helps to. I can't go as hard for as long, but I get my ride in and my target heart rate is good.

If you burn more calories than you take in, you'll lose weight. If you take in more calories than you burn, you'll gain weight. Exercise, unless it's very extreme, doesn't really burn a lot of calories, so you probably need to reduce your intake if you want to lose weight. One problem we have is that our bodies seem to like to preserve fat, so if we just eat less, they'll tend to use up muscle and keep the fat. It's like heating a house by burning the furniture. So, generally, you should exercise at least enough to convince your body that it really does need to keep the muscles.

Calories in vs calories used.


Denver didn't say it first, but he did say it with bright colors and large font :D

But that doesn't mean that hammering is the best way to lose weight. If you ride longer at moderate intensity (instead of blowing through all your glucose and getting the bonk), you'll end up burning more calories overall.

And if you couple that with watching what you eat, you will lose weight. It took me a year of riding / working out a lot before I finally got it into my thick skull that diet matters. Of course, I knew that before, but apparently I had to prove it to myself :o And I still easily fall back into old habits and eat too much.

Nick

ELEM

eat less excercise more

If you draw from glycogen while exercising intensely, then that glycogen will eventually be replaced by body fat being used up.
This so-called "fat burning zone" is a justification and perhaps a motivator to get folks moving and doing things who are not doing anything at all.
hmmm, not sure I agree with this. Whilst I'm no expert (is anyone here an expert on this?) my understanding is once the Glycogen stores have been depleted they need carbs to replenish, not stored fat. Fat can't convert quickly enough to replace Glycogen in heavy excercise - the reason fat people can still bonk I guess.

Mind you, if you have some corroborating evidence I'd be happy to read it. From everything I've read, the fat/Glycogen burning ration reduces as excercise intensity increases. The harder you work, the less fat and more glycogen you burn. You still burn more calories, but the glycogen stores will need to be replenished next time you eat. The trick for weight loss is to find the zone where the most fat is being burned.

// kak

You asked for some research. This is from the AFAA - the best there is.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_5_20/ai_92840201

Who is getting burned? - Ask AFAA - explanation of the "fat burning zone" theory - Letter to the Editor
American Fitness, Sept-Oct, 2002 by Gregory L. WelchQuestion:

I am confused about the "fat burning zone" theory. I have learned from research articles that more fat is burned at a higher training intensity and not a lower intensity, as the theory suggests. However, some instructors tell their students they will burn carbohydrates, not fat, if they get their heart rates too high. Life Fitness also includes the low-intensity "fat burning zone" on their aerobic equipment (i.e., bikes, treadmills and cross-trainers). Who is right?

Sincerely,
Jasmine Pearson
Huntington Beach, CA
Answer:

It is frustrating to see fitness equipment manufacturers still in the dark. In addition to printing the "fat burning zone" diagram on equipment, some machines even offer the "fat burning zone" as a workout option. When using this option, the machine eases the intensity if the heart rate gets too high, furthering the misunderstanding that more fat is burned at a lower intensity. However, it is even more disappointing to hear fitness professionals are misinformed in their understanding of exercise physiology--this is part of the reason the "fat burning zone" myth continues to exist. The public does not stand a chance when they hear misleading information from professionals, only to have it supported by prominent equipment manufacturers. Everyone in the fitness industry should become educated before they attempt to educate. American Fitness has previously published the following information, but it may be time for a refresher.

Exercising within the "fat burning zone" refers to maintaining an exercise intensity of approximately 50 to 60 percent of aerobic capacity (i.e., V[O.sub.2]max). Burning fat, carbohydrates and proteins is referred to as substrate utilization and is determined by methods of calorimetry (McArdle, Katch & Katch, '96). This is where the "fat burning" myth originates and appears to have validity. As the exercise intensity increases, the substrate utilization shifts from a higher percentage of fat to a higher percentage of carbohydrates utilized, as evidenced by the respiratory exchange ratio (RER) (Wilmore & Costill, '99).

However, calorimetry identifies the ratio of substrates utilized in terms of percentages. The failure of the "fat burning zone" theory is revealed by the total calories expended per liter of oxygen. Referring again to the RER, as the shift from more carbohydrates than fat utilized occurs there is an increase in the total calories expended per liter of oxygen. In table one, Wilmore and Costill (1994) demonstrate the increase in calories expended per liter of oxygen, as the percentage of carbohydrate utilization increases, due to an elevated work intensity. When an individual is attempting to lose weight, the focus should be on the total number of calories expended (LaForge & Kosich '96).

Taking a Closer Look

Figure 1 is an example by LaForge and Kosich (1995) comparing an individual, with an approximate maximal oxygen uptake of 49 L/min, exercising for 60 minutes at 50 and 70 percent of aerobic capacity. At 50 percent V[O.sub.2]max, their computations determined that approximately 480 total calories were expended. With an RER of .86, approximately 50 percent of the total 480 calories burned come from fat. Therefore, 480 divided by 50 percent equals 240 calories. Converting this amount to grams of fat (240 fat calories divided by 9 calories per gram of fat) equals 26.6 grams of fat. At 70 percent V[O.sub.2]max, the total caloric expenditure equaled 660 calories. An RER of .90 yields approximately 40 percent of the total 660 calories burned, equaling 264 calories from fat. This converts to 29.3 grams of fat.

The significance of this example is that although the percentages of calories burned from fat are less than the calories burned from carbohydrates, at 70 percent V[O.sub.2]max, they are more than the number of fat calories burned at 50 percent V[O.sub.2]max. In other words, the higher the intensity, the more total calories burned--regardless of the amount of expended calories from carbohydrates.

To gain a better understanding of the difference between percentages of calories and total calories, consider the following analogy offered by Stanforth and Stanforth (1992). Two people are taking two different tests. One test has 100 questions and the other has 200 questions. The person taking the test with 100 questions answers 50 correctly, equaling 50 percent. The person taking the test with 200 questions answers 80 correctly, equaling 40 percent. Which person answered more questions correctly? Obviously, the person who took the second test answered more questions correctly, yet appeared to have a lower score according to the overall percentage.

This is a case in which a smaller percentage is actually a larger number because it is the percentage of a larger number. Clearly, a smaller percentage of a larger number is greater than a larger percentage of a smaller number. This is the problem with the "fat burning zone" theory. Because a greater percentage of fat is burned at lower intensities, people assume more fat calories are expended. However, since more total calories are expended at higher intensities, more calories come from fat--it doesn't matter that fat contributes a smaller percentage of those calories.

As exercise specialists, it is imperative we translate research information into accurate exercise recommendations for our classes and clients. All too often a personal trainer or instructor will take a "sound bite" of information and spin it into a new fitness training concept. The "fat burning zone" is the result of this problem.

Taking this point a step further, there is an additional concern. Can we be certain high-intensity exercise will be recommended in a prudent manner? Although the information would be correct, the application may be inappropriate. High-intensity exercise is difficult and requires a specifically progressive program before it is incorporated into a person's workout. To help prevent overuse and other traumatic injuries, adequate rest is imperative when working at higher intensity levels. Most importantly, high-intensity work is difficult to maintain over a long period of time and can lead a person to drop out of a program. If this occurs, we have defeated our purpose of instilling a positive lifestyle behavior.

A person can still expend calories when working at low-intensity levels; however, the duration of the exercise must be extended. Therefore, if weight management is the primary objective and time is not a factor, a person does not necessarily have to engage in high-intensity levels. Nevertheless, staying at low-intensity levels because of the belief that more fat will be burned is incorrect.

TABLE 1: CALORIE EQUIVALENCE OF THE RESPIRATORY RATIO AND
%KCAL FROM CARBOHYDRATES AND FATS

Energy %kcal

Respiratory Exchange Ratio Kcal L [0.sub.2] Carbohydrates Fats

0.71 4.69 0 100
0.75 4.74 15.6 84.4
0.80 4.80 33.4 66.6
0.85 4.86 50.7 49.3
0.90 4.92 67.5 32.5
0.95 4.99 84.0 16.0
1.00 5.05 100.0 0

Source: Wilmore and Costill, 1994

Figure 1.

Fat Carbohydrate,
and Total Caloric Expenditure
in 60 Minutes
at 50% and 70% V[O.sub.2] Max

V[O.sub.2] max 50% V[O.sub.2] Max 70%

50% CHO 240 kcal 60% CHO 396 kcal
50% Fat 240 kcal 40% Fat 264 kcal

480 Total Kcal 660 Total Kcal

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Source: LaForge and Kosich, 1995
Gregory L. Welch, M.S., is an exercise physiologist in California. He is president of SpeciFit: An Agency of Wellness in Seal Beach, California, and the director of personal training at Laguna Woods in Laguna Niguel, California. In addition to having published several articles, he is an instructor of the Senior Exercise Specialist Certificate program at California State University, Fullerton and lectures nationally on exercise for special populations.

Originally Posted by DnvrFoxIf you draw from glycogen while exercising intensely, then that glycogen will eventually be replaced by body fat being used up.
This so-called "fat burning zone" is a justification and perhaps a motivator to get folks moving and doing things who are not doing anything at all.


hmmm, not sure I agree with this. Whilst I'm no expert (is anyone here an expert on this?) my understanding is once the Glycogen stores have been depleted they need carbs to replenish, not stored fat. Fat can't convert quickly enough to replace Glycogen in heavy excercise - the reason fat people can still bonk I guess.

Many of the posts get close to an accurate understanding of the role of exercise intensity with respect to weight loss. Perhaps, these two statements will make things a little less confusing.

The reason, that exercising at the "fat-burning zone" is touted as an effective weightloss stratagy is based on the concept that longer term, less intense exercise is more likely to be sustainable by old and fat, really stupid cyclists who are already overweight, and need longterm weightloss programs the most.

The reason, that exercising at various different intensities is actually more effective at weightloss than longer, slower exercise sessions is based on the concept of increasing different energy/fuel pathway's capacities to transport all three major energy stores, glucose, glycogen AND fat.
Therefore, various bouts of exercises at higher and lower intensities develop your body's ability to burn more and more calories in shorter and shorter periods of time. "Fat burning" workouts by themselves, leave the exerciser in the SLOW BURN ZONE...........

You asked for some research. This is from the AFAA - the best there is.
I've just read this and it seems to agree with both what I said and the OP. It covers intensities up to 70% which is within the parameters given in the original post. The article you posted is critical of ranges from 50-60% which is well below the 65-80% Stapfam mentioned. This may be a reflection of the age of the original papers - 1995.

It also states that as intensity increases the percentage of fat burned decreases but the total calorie burn is higher - which is what I said in my post.

I guess people have to ask themselves whether they'd like to burn a higher percentage of fat or glycogen. Where I'm unsure of the accuracy of your previous post was that glycogen stores will simply be replaced with fat during heavy exercise. I don't believe this to be the case and nothing in the provided article suggests this is true - but I'm still open to verification.

There are several other areas of interest in the article. One is the appropriateness of high level exercise. Given that low intensity exercise (eg; walking) can be done every day, I'd theorise you could lose more weight than say, a runner, who would need to have days off to recover. Then there's the risk of time off due to injury etc. I think the low intensity exerciser is also more likley to sustain these efforts.

It's also interesting to note the use of percentages to support their case - especially when the percentages actually favour lower intensity exercise. A higher percentage of fat will be burned at lower intensities even though total calories burned are higher. I still believe glycogen stores will be quickly replaced once carbs are consumed; aka 'the carbohydrate window'.

Finally, I don't think the _average_ person is capable of doing extended exercise (90 minutes + @ >85%) but many of them could do this @ 70%. I know personally if I get up to 90-95% MHR I'm talking seconds or minutes rather than hours of duration - and the muscle burn is telling me I'm not burning fat:)

// kak

the way my lbs owner described it: take LSD.
Long, Slow, Distance :)

Worked for me, I was gaining weight with my riding until I adjusted my riding style (LSD) and my diet (more protein, less carbs)

A++ for this one. Bulls Eye. Ever seen a fat, or muscular marathon runner?

It is calories burned vs calories consumed.

However, there are some tweaks involved that I suspect the studies have not picked up. I have noticed that if I go out and really ride really hard that I come back from the ride RAVENOUS. That is because I have drawn down or nearly depleted my muscle glycogen and my body wants to replace the carbo pronto.

If I go out and ride a longer but more moderately paced ride in which I am burning relatively more fat, I seem to eat less afterwards.

Another thing is that if you deplete your carbohydrates and don't eat or not much you can suffer adverse consequences. The only fuel that the nervous system can use is carbohydrate. The body's energy stores are almost solely fat. So if you are not eating carbohydrates, the body will make some. The way the body makes carbohydrates is catabolyzing proteins (mainly muscles). For people exercising, losing muscle mass is not good. By the way, this is how people kill themselves on drastic diets or fasts. Eventually the body will destroy the heart to get carbohydrates to fuel the brain. This all sounds relatively dire and it is not something that most of us run into. The thing is that in a calorie restricted diet, people often lose more lbs in muscle mass than in fat mass. That is why diet and exercise is good. You can maintain your muscle mass and get rid of the fat. You look better and have more energy.

It is still about calories, but fat is tough to get rid of and burning it is a good thing. So I think there is some validity to the fat burning zone but it is not as absolute as people once thought.

I guess people have to ask themselves whether they'd like to burn a higher percentage of fat or glycogen.

With respect to weight loss, that's an irrelevant question. It doesn't matter if you burn 300 fat calories by walking for one hour, or burn 300 glycogen calories by running for 20 minutes...it's the 300 calories burned that counts.

For people with low levels of fitness, you are correct - it's better they start slow and build their fitness first.

But, once you have a base of fitness, spending your exercise time in the more intense exercise zones will burn many more calories, thus allowing you to lose weight more quickly (or, allowing you to not have to pay as much attention to diet).

That doesn't mean you go out and ride 3 hours at 90% of max...most folks can't do that. But, if you ride 3 hours at 75-80% of max, you'll burn quite a few more calories than if you ride at 60% of max in the so-called "fat burning zone", and you'll also get more aerobically fit in the process.

And, FWIW, runners burn many more calories than walkers per hour...on my local trails it's mostly the runners who look lean while most of the walkers look kind of "pudgy".

It doesn't matter if you burn 300 fat calories by walking for one hour, or burn 300 glycogen calories by running for 20 minutes...it's the 300 calories burned that counts.Wrong, exercising at intensities that deplete glycogen develop all the components of energy metabolism, low intensity exercise does not.

While it is true that fat has to be converted to glucose before it is metabolized, the fact that acute shortages of energy stores are created during exercise is the basis for ALL weight loss, whether or not glycogen levels are being restored in a timely manner.

I give up you folks, you're too thick............this is simple stuff, engines that work out "learn to use gas very quickly" -- engines that idle along for a long time - do not..........

End of this joke.....

While it is true that fat has to be converted to glucose before it is metabolized, the fact that acute shortages of energy stores are created during exercise is the basis for ALL weight loss, whether or not glycogen levels are being restored in a timely manner.

You seem to be saying that weight loss is possible only via high-intensity exercise. But real world experience (e.g., gastric bypass surgery, Weight Watchers, etc.) clearly shows that it's the daily caloric deficit that matters...regardless of how that deficit is achieved.

It is calories burned vs calories consumed.

However, there are some tweaks involved that I suspect the studies have not picked up. I have noticed that if I go out and really ride really hard that I come back from the ride RAVENOUS. That is because I have drawn down or nearly depleted my muscle glycogen and my body wants to replace the carbo pronto.

If I go out and ride a longer but more moderately paced ride in which I am burning relatively more fat, I seem to eat less afterwards.

That's some really good points. Many studies have shown that exercise can stimulate appetite, and many cyclists subvert their exercise programs by "rewarding" themselves with post-workout food, beer, etc. Even if you're riding 250 miles per week, you still have to be careful with what you eat.

It sounds like you've found an approach that works best for you...congratulations.

Note: you may find that you can ride at higher intensities if you fuel yourself better during the ride. That way, you won't be so glycogen depleted (and hungry) when you get home.

I know that if I got back into Soccer (football), like that is going to happen, it would hurt like Hell for a while, but I would definitely burn off the small amount of fat that just sits there, around my waist. My knees might not even be up to it at this point.


Ironically, this is one of the many reasons that as a former soccer player, I got into cycling. Soccer was great exercise, but as I got older, I just felt "beat up" after a game to such an extent that I couldn't even walk comfortably for a couple days after a tough game. So while I'm sure I burned a lot of calories on the day of the game, I did nothing for most of the rest of the week until the next game but recover. With cycling, I can go out nearly every day if I don't go 100%.

For me, it's like the guy who gets a $10/week raise and goes out and buys a Mercedes; keep it all in proportion.

That said, this season I rode longer, harder, and faster than last but didn't lose any signficant weight.

No wonder you're leaving Dauphin in the dust - unless he's doing something to get his core muscles to an equivalent level of strength.

Ya hear this, Dauphin?

I"m still wondering how Stapfam could read that damn article while out hammering a hard ride? You got a book rack on that bike now? (grin)


Pie stop.

On the original posting- The two items were from the same magazine but are not related. The staying in the fat burn zone is what I do on my rides so I cannot comment. As to pigging out on a ride- This was supposed to be taken lightly- but some have taken it as What I suggest- I don't. However- I do go out for a 4 hour ride on Sundays- Without breakfast and have that en- route. Then If I have overeaten- it will be a 5 hour ride.

I have been physically active all my life. In some of the sports I have been around the top end Nationally, and That takes a lot of fitness to be able to do. I have never had a weight problem, even though some of it is in the wrong place.( Admit to having a spare tyre) Now if I take a rest from physical activities- when I restart I will have a problem. The muscles will not be up to strength. For around a month or so- I will have to exercise those muscles to build them up. That means pushing myself to the limit and it hurts. For a couple of days after that exercise- I will be stiff. Then gradually the pain eases, I can push harder, and I feel better. What I do not do though is lose weight. Perhaps a couple of lbs initially but this gets converted back into muscle and muscle is heavier than fat. Then I start on my longer rides- or as it used to be- my 20 mile training runs, and the weight drops off.

My type of riding is now mainly XC mountain biking. 4 hour rides that I take in my comfort "Fat burning" zone. I have no intention of going out and hammering for 2 hours at 20mph+ for the simple reason I could not do it. And I don't think I want to. 30 years ago- Sport was not as Scientific as it has become. You either did it or you didn't. I was fortunate in that I was also good at it and kept doing it

I lost 40 pounds -- nearly 25% of my body weight -- four years ago by stepping up the exercise and cutting back on the food. And cutting out the junk. I've kept it off. Eat every few hours to keep blood sugar stable and appetite at bay -- something healthy, and not too much, and include some protein. Moderate portions at meals. (Restaurant portions of pasta can be six cups!) I don't eat anything I don't like, but I no longer suck down cans of Pringles washed down with magnums of soda. That lifestyle ended.

I lost 40 pounds -- nearly 25% of my body weight -- four years ago by stepping up the exercise and cutting back on the food. And cutting out the junk. I've kept it off. Eat every few hours to keep blood sugar stable and appetite at bay -- something healthy, and not too much, and include some protein. Moderate portions at meals. (Restaurant portions of pasta can be six cups!) I don't eat anything I don't like, but I no longer suck down cans of Pringles washed down with magnums of soda. That lifestyle ended.

Have to agree about the Junk food. At home I eat sensibly with only the odd stray onto the fattening pies. But when building up to a ride- or recovering from one. My taste buds tell me what I want to eat- Normally something fattie like a burger or bacon sandwich- and a great deal of sugary food. Have to admit though that my evening snacks are Fruit yoghourts and cheese. Something healthy-ish until I find that the 12oz block of cheese tonight was not enough and I want more.

That doesn't mean you go out and ride 3 hours at 90% of max...most folks can't do that. But, if you ride 3 hours at 75-80% of max, you'll burn quite a few more calories than if you ride at 60% of max in the so-called "fat burning zone", and you'll also get more aerobically fit in the process.

And, FWIW, runners burn many more calories than walkers per hour...on my local trails it's mostly the runners who look lean while most of the walkers look kind of "pudgy".

Fat burning zone is 65 to 80% of max. The figures you have stated. If you stay at the top end of that zone- ergo- you burn more calories than at the lower end. And I used to be able to ride for 4 hours a day at 90% then the rest of the 8 hr ride at 50% but shattered.

Now onto those Runners, I see quite a few on our hills as we have several Athletic clubs in my area. I used to run myself and you Do not see overweight runners about at all. The overweight ones either lose weight or give up. Fat walkers give it a try and then give up.
Unlike cycling where I often see "FAT" riders everywhere. Perhaps not going fast and in fact I see two "FAT" riders everyday on my way to work. One is still struggling up a hill, but 6 months ago he was wallking up it. The other one Is Obese. I had reason to talk to him last year as he had a puncture and I stopped to give him a hand. He is obese, and the reason is an accident that caused a thyroid problem. He looks at food and puts on weight- but the reason he cycles is that he likes it, and is the only form of exercise he can do. He commutes to work- albeit slowly but he only lives about 12 miles from work- as he put it.

Sounds good to me- providing the pig out is a breakfast halfway on the ride, and instead of the Guinness- a good slice of pie at the end.
Guinness is a whole food on its own , there are a few guys I used to know in Liverpool who could attest to that ! They used to give you a bottle if you gave a pint of blood ,a very fair trade in my book !