Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    Senior Member mpearson76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    My Bikes
    Klein q-pro carbon, Record, Ksyrium SSC
    Posts
    276
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Replenishing glycogen bad for you? Somebody please help me make sense of this.

    Ok, I am posting the links to some blog entries by economist and fitness enthusiast Art DeVany, an advocate of what he calls "evolutionary fitness," which, while it may have merit, is not something I am really interested in because it is very anti-endurance sports and much more ideologically driven to results rather than enjoyment of the process, which is most of the reason why I cycle.

    However, he makes some seemingly good points about the unadvisability of glycogen replenishment and carb loading, siting several academic papers and the marketing motive of a lot of the sports drink companies. The basic point is this: while sports drinks and carbs do improve performance during the workout, they blunt the hormone-driven training adaptation, so one would benefit from avoiding them during training.

    Here are the links to the relevant posts. Some of the included sections of the academic papers are complicated, and the conclusions that Art draws and comments on do not necessarily follow from the papers, but he may be making a good point that millions of dollars of marketing may not want you to draw. However, since I am not familiar with the academic literature, I do not know if there are other studies that support or contradict these conclusions, or if his conclusion is the right one. So if some of you look at this stuff, perhaps we can collectively make more sense of it. I know it is a lot to read, but the top three are the most relevant. Thanks for your comments.

    http://www.arthurdevany.com/archives...xpression.html
    http://www.arthurdevany.com/archives...glucose_g.html
    http://www.arthurdevany.com/archives...ression_1.html
    http://www.arthurdevany.com/archives...rcise_d_1.html
    http://www.arthurdevany.com/archives...ttles_s_1.html
    DFL>DNF

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,295
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't know how one can operate with out Glycogen replenisment. Ask an athlete who tried the Atkins diet. The biggest con in medicine for decades. I personally have no interest in reading a fringe theory since I feel so much better when I eat to relenish Glycogen after riding then when I don't. I tend to go with consensus opinions on the science.

    Suggest you educate yourself on the principles of nutrition for both health and athletics. A very good place to start is Chris Carmichael's Food for Fitness. Carmichael is Lance Armstrong's personal trainer. He and Armstrong controlled the diet of USPOSTAL/Discovery during training and races. The book is coauthored with a nutritionist. The emphasis is general good health and how to eat to perform/recover well. It's consistent with the updated ('05) USDA nutrition guidelines which is a free 40 page download.

    Basically, you should eat "quality carbs" vice empty carbs when you eat to recover. Quality means you go for the vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. If you have a Triglyceride problem, minimize the simple carbs and go for the complex ones and recover a little slower.

    Al

  3. #3
    The Site Administrator: Currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes,please contact my assistnt admins for forum issues Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    My Bikes
    Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
    Posts
    16,155
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Al.canoe
    I don't know how one can operate with out Glycogen replenisment. Ask an athlete who tried the Atkins diet. The biggest con in medicine for decades. I personally have no interest in reading a fringe theory since I feel so much better when I eat to relenish Glycogen after riding then when I don't. I tend to go with consensus opinions on the science.

    Suggest you educate yourself on the principles of nutrition for both health and athletics. A very good place to start is Chris Carmichael's Food for Fitness. Carmichael is Lance Armstrong's personal trainer. He and Armstrong controlled the diet of USPOSTAL/Discovery during training and races. The book is coauthored with a nutritionist. The emphasis is general good health and how to eat to perform/recover well. It's consistent with the updated ('05) USDA nutrition guidelines which is a free 40 page download.

    Basically, you should eat "quality carbs" vice empty carbs when you eat to recover. Quality means you go for the vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. If you have a Triglyceride problem, minimize the simple carbs and go for the complex ones and recover a little slower.

    Al
    Basically, what the posts are saying, is that you need to train to operate in your fat metabolism instead of carb loading, and in some respects, re the bodies physiology, he is absolutely right. The body can operate very nicely operating on lipids. Matter of fact, there is 5X the available energy from lipid metabolism than there is from the Kreb Cycle and Glycolisis. The only drawback is that when you burn through the Glycogen completely, you bonk. The BONK isn't as much a physical thing as it is a neuro thing. The brain can ONLY operate on glucose to power the cellular metabolism of it's cells. The Bonk occurs when you begin to lose cognitive function from insufficient glucose for full brain operation. Basically, you deplete the glycogen, which stores in the muscles and the liver, there are no reserves for the liver to convert to glucose for brain operation and you bonk. We all maintain about a 24 hr reserve of glycogen in the body, under normal activity. Cycling is not under the normal category though if you are racing, or doing sustained rides. You can operate on a caloric deficit that is quite large, but you do need to replenish glucose/glycogen for the most efficient mental operation. This is primarily done in form of carbs, either simple or complex.

    A balance does need to be maintained as well as far as Carbohydrates and protein and Vitamins and minerals and electrolytes, all of them.
    on light duty due to illness; please contact my assistants for forum issues. They are Siu Blue Wind, or CbadRider or the other 3 star folk. I am currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes. I am making good progress, happily.


    . “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

  4. #4
    Senior Member mpearson76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    My Bikes
    Klein q-pro carbon, Record, Ksyrium SSC
    Posts
    276
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the response folks, but let me clarify. Al, I am not asking for opinions on the low-carb stuff or his whole exercise philosophy--I don't buy it. I mean, even if it is true, I don't want to live that kind of lifestyle. Body fat percentage is not the sole indicator of quality of life for me, and I want a healthy and enjoyable balance, so I am certainly not shilling for Atkins.

    However, what I am interested in is whether these academic papers on glycogen might perhaps revise what we "know" about glycogen depletion and replenishment. I know plenty about the current recommendations, but these studies are in peer-reviewed journals and appear to be well-designed. And while trainers also know plenty about nutrition, they do not actually generate the knowledge so much as they disseminate and refine what scientists learn from studies like this. So the question becomes what studies like this may do to refine our knowledge, even if it may take some time to distill itself to those who implement it, the trainers.

    This is not "fringe theory" (Art may be, but I am not asking about him, but the papers are just empirical studies, either they are well-designed or they are not, either their results are correct or they are not. You can't call the results "fringe" without some reason for rejecting the conclusions); we are talking about new studies in the very same journals that produced a lot of the knowledge that has become mainstream theory. It is fringe only in the sense that the results add something to our knowledge that we did not already know, but this is the task of science. A lot of conventional wisdom has been gleaned from isolated and very specialized studies that have not provided the complete picture. And it seems at least reasonable to me that it might actually be better for you to deplete your glycogen without reloading right away, even though the current wisdom of replenishing while exercising and immediately afterward might actually improve performance. It might actually be the case that not reloading may induce a better response to training, which means that while the current wisdom is better for competition, it might not induce the best training response.

    However, while it makes sense, I am not knowledgeable enough to glean a new training regimen from it. I linked to the blog because it has the abstracts to the studies conveniently gathered in one place, but I am not particularly asking about his whole "evolutionary fitness" philosophy. I am not dismissive of it either--there is probably something to it, but I just don't want to live that way.


    Any more thoughts on sorting it out would be appreciated.
    Last edited by mpearson76; 04-23-06 at 12:21 PM.
    DFL>DNF

  5. #5
    Senior Member DannoXYZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Saratoga, CA
    Posts
    11,507
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    He does have a point, but only in a limited scope. This is what happens when you take isolated lab-experiments that's of a very, very specific scope and examines just one minute detail out of thousands of interactions, and try to extrapolate to the whole; it ignores too many other things. What he doesn't realize is the extremes of intensity and distances a biker experiences in this sport, it is unlike any other and unless he gets into it fully, he'll never have the comprehensive scope to see that he's completely whacked! The metabolic processes that the body undergoes at a 100-150 watt output on a Sunday stroll is completely different from what happens under 1200-1500 watts of sprinting. Add in an endurance-ride of 4-6 hours of 100-miles+ and burning through 4000-5000 calories and he'll see that there's no way his ideas would work.

    Looking at the drinking-water example, he's completely psycho and may even be criminally negligent with his assertion if anyone were to take it seriously and die. Sure, there's been a problem with hyponatremia lately due to people drinking too much water and not enough electrolytes, but many, many more have died from heat-exhaustion and heat-stroke amongst hikers, runners, cyclists, gardeners, etc. There is absolutely zero benefit from dehydrating yourself during a workout unless you're competing in a desert-survival event. In order to improve in cycling at a maximum-rate, meaning improvements in muscular-strength, aerobic-capacity and energy-delivery, you need to do higher intensity and longer distances than this guy can even imagine; 40-minute workouts are just WARM-UP for us! Not maintaining even hydration will hamper sprinting (causing cramps), will hinder hours of tempo workouts just below LT, and you certainly cannot do a century for endurance without drinking at least 7 water-bottles or more.

    Same thing with his glucose assertion and it really depends upon the workout. The higher the intensity, the greater the percentage of glucose burned relative to lipids. When doing sprints, the ONLY energy-source your body uses is phosphocreatine and glucose. To get the most benefit and strength-increases, you need to keep your glycogen-supply from getting depleted or else your body's gonna start tearing apart its own muscle for fuel, effectively negating any improvements in strength you're hoping to get out of working out.

    This is true on the other extreme of cycling-workouts, the endurance ride. Sure, part of the purpose is to enhance fat-conversion and that's done through glycogen-depletion, but not into the bonking zone. But this is a time & intensity balance where a 4-6 hour ride at steady pace does you a lot more good than 2-3hours, which is about as far as you'd get if you don't eat. Bonking is inevitable and if you ride slow enough so that you can do the endurance-ride without eating, you've gone way, way too slow to get maximum benefits out of it... did I mention the risk of death if you don't drink on such a ride?

    The glycogen-starving idea may work if you're after ultra-endurance and want to maximize fat-metabolism, such as if you're planning on doing ultra-endurance events at 10mph. But it will sacrifice all sorts of top-speed and average-speed results. You won't have the muscle-strength to compete in sprints or top-of-the-hill intervals on club-rides (your muscles have been catabolized to replenish depleted glycogen stores).

    Cycling requires a vast range of workout intensities and distances. I requires optimizing recovery in between so that you can improve as quickly as possible. This develops the system of periodization where you do a different workout each time to give the various muscular, aerobic and energy systems maximum recovery-time. You can't take isolate lab-experiments and try to extrapolate it over the entire body because it ignores the other stuff (like his GLUT4 example on untrained sedentary couch-potatoes). It's like an obsessed weight-weenie who only focuses on the rear-derailleur and cluster and thinks that's the "holy grail" of performance. No matter how optimally and high-tech you make the RD and cluster, you're not gonna get a sub-10lb bike if you ignore all the other parts. That's what this guy is doing, he's picking only certain examples of physiology at a cellular level and not the entire body and he can't string the interactions over a long period of time either...
    Last edited by DannoXYZ; 04-23-06 at 02:17 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,295
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe
    Basically, what the posts are saying, is that you need to train to operate in your fat metabolism instead of carb loading, and in some respects, re the bodies physiology, he is absolutely right. The body can operate very nicely operating on lipids. Matter of fact, there is 5X the available energy from lipid metabolism than there is from the Kreb Cycle and Glycolisis. The only drawback is that when you burn through the Glycogen completely, you bonk. The BONK isn't as much a physical thing as it is a neuro thing. The brain can ONLY operate on glucose to power the cellular metabolism of it's cells. The Bonk occurs when you begin to lose cognitive function from insufficient glucose for full brain operation. Basically, you deplete the glycogen, which stores in the muscles and the liver, there are no reserves for the liver to convert to glucose for brain operation and you bonk.
    .


    I would add that the fat burning process is a very slow process. If you are doing anything more aggressive than a leisurely ride, you deplete your glycogen/ ATP very quickly without ingesting carbs periodically. Even at extreme endurance efforts, the majority of the ATP still comes comes from the fat burning process. I seem to remember something like 70 %.

    The first training stage after the winter layover requires long slow rides to build up the body's ability to burn fat at higher levels of effort to minimize the need for carbs.

    This subject is covered in great detail in the cycle training books and cycle physics books of the last 5 to 8 years or so.

    I would add to the bonk comments that body starts to consume muscle mass to get glycogen. it also starts to shut down a lot of body functions to provide sufficient glycogen to the brain, a major consumer. When the brain gets hungry, the eyes tend to be affected first.

    It happened to me once about 6 years ago. I lost the majority of my peripheral vision in both eyes for about 15 minutes. It was like looking though a thick straw. I actually didn't feel all that bad, but I had pushed myslf very hard and was not yet into carb loading after the ride, much less ingesting carbs (no fat, low protein) during the ride. Luckily, I had my doctors phone number (I was out of town). The fact I was still functional (he said alive, it could have been a bad stroke) and the details of the ride, he said I had a real good bonk. The French call it "meeting the man with the hammer".

    Al

  7. #7
    Senior Member mpearson76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    My Bikes
    Klein q-pro carbon, Record, Ksyrium SSC
    Posts
    276
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Very helpful comments, thank you. It seems that there might be something to not buying into the marketing hype that the more sugar you consume, the better, and also training your body to consume fats as well as sugars, but at the same time, this guy has extrapolated way to far from isolated studies and drawn a false dichotomy between sugar bingeing and his own plan. Perhaps there is a happy medium that does not necessitate getting caught up in the idea that the more sugary supplements I consume, the better I will perform (or rather, the better my weight loss and performance will be).

    Do any of you have experience with training a lot, eating well and still not being able to get rid of your belly fat? I am trying to lose my gut, so I am interested in tailoring my training plan to burning fat. It seems that I may hamper that goal if I go overboard on the gatorade, even if it improves my performance. On the other hand, of course, I don't want to do anything dangerous or risk my health for weight loss. I have lost 20 pounds in the last few months, slowly and steadily with lifestyle changes I can maintain, and I am starting to get into enough shape to put in a good 80 miles a week. I just want to avoid making my body resistant to dropping that last 10 pounds of gut because I have made myself insulin resistant or trained my body to be exclusively a sugar burner in the name of improved performance. That may be good for a pro, but the pro doesn't have the belly I have.

    Dude, am I wrong?
    DFL>DNF

  8. #8
    The Site Administrator: Currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes,please contact my assistnt admins for forum issues Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    My Bikes
    Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
    Posts
    16,155
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mpearson76
    Very helpful comments, thank you. It seems that there might be something to not buying into the marketing hype that the more sugar you consume, the better, and also training your body to consume fats as well as sugars, but at the same time, this guy has extrapolated way to far from isolated studies and drawn a false dichotomy between sugar bingeing and his own plan. Perhaps there is a happy medium that does not necessitate getting caught up in the idea that the more sugary supplements I consume, the better I will perform (or rather, the better my weight loss and performance will be).

    Do any of you have experience with training a lot, eating well and still not being able to get rid of your belly fat? I am trying to lose my gut, so I am interested in tailoring my training plan to burning fat. It seems that I may hamper that goal if I go overboard on the gatorade, even if it improves my performance. On the other hand, of course, I don't want to do anything dangerous or risk my health for weight loss. I have lost 20 pounds in the last few months, slowly and steadily with lifestyle changes I can maintain, and I am starting to get into enough shape to put in a good 80 miles a week. I just want to avoid making my body resistant to dropping that last 10 pounds of gut because I have made myself insulin resistant or trained my body to be exclusively a sugar burner in the name of improved performance. That may be good for a pro, but the pro doesn't have the belly I have.

    Dude, am I wrong?
    If you lose the weight slowly and steadily, you won't be cannibalizing muscle to lose the weight. If you lose too fast, except under certain strictly medically supervised regimens, such as post bariatric surgery, you wind up cannibalizing muscle tissue, as Al mentioned. This can be compensated for by ingesting a high protein diet, but this also has drawbacks, such as kidney damage due to too much urea/uric acid production if you don't hydrate sufficiently. 3-7 pounds a month is a sustainable natural weight loss rate. Also as Al mentioned, the routine espused would be primarily useful for the conditions of a looooooong slow race. Given you rate of loss, I would tend to think you were doing pretty good as far as diet goes, but to be sure, I'd need more data, such as a lipid panel and long term blood glucose data.
    on light duty due to illness; please contact my assistants for forum issues. They are Siu Blue Wind, or CbadRider or the other 3 star folk. I am currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes. I am making good progress, happily.


    . “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

  9. #9
    Senior Member DannoXYZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Saratoga, CA
    Posts
    11,507
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mpearson76
    Very helpful comments, thank you. It seems that there might be something to not buying into the marketing hype that the more sugar you consume, the better, and also training your body to consume fats as well as sugars, but at the same time, this guy has extrapolated way to far from isolated studies and drawn a false dichotomy between sugar bingeing and his own plan. Perhaps there is a happy medium that does not necessitate getting caught up in the idea that the more sugary supplements I consume, the better I will perform (or rather, the better my weight loss and performance will be).
    That's right, more carbs isn't the answer, neither is low-carb. Your diet must be tailored to match your level of fitness and types of workouts. There is no "perfect" formulae that will work for everyone under all circumstances. A TDF pro's fitness-level and workouts require a completely different diet than who rides less than 200-miles/wk.

    Quote Originally Posted by mpearson76
    Do any of you have experience with training a lot, eating well and still not being able to get rid of your belly fat? I am trying to lose my gut, so I am interested in tailoring my training plan to burning fat. It seems that I may hamper that goal if I go overboard on the gatorade, even if it improves my performance. On the other hand, of course, I don't want to do anything dangerous or risk my health for weight loss. I have lost 20 pounds in the last few months, slowly and steadily with lifestyle changes I can maintain, and I am starting to get into enough shape to put in a good 80 miles a week. I just want to avoid making my body resistant to dropping that last 10 pounds of gut because I have made myself insulin resistant or trained my body to be exclusively a sugar burner in the name of improved performance. That may be good for a pro, but the pro doesn't have the belly I have. Dude, am I wrong?
    No, it's not so clear-cut in all-or-nothing, yes/no, black-and-white blanket ideas. I've lost 65-lbs in the past year +3 months and I can tell you that it requires a vast and comprehensive plan that encompasses periodization in training aimed for maximum fitness-improvement rather than weight-loss. You can do some quick short-term weight-loss, but at the cost of sub-par fitness increases and even experience some muscle-loss. This will hinder the long-term goal of high-fitness and permanent weight-loss.

    You have nothing to worry about insulin-resistance, which is primarily experienced by sedentary couch-potatoes who tend to overeat and overload their system with food even when their muscle-cells are completely PACKED TO THE GILLS with glycogen already! That's the real problem, overeating and lack of exercise, nothing else contributes as much to their problem, not types of food; it's an imbalance of exercise vs. ingested calories.

    So... for your goals, slow and steady should be the plan. Eat less than you burn off and you'll have steady and continuous weight-loss (for the most part). I've found that trying to aim for too high a calorie-deficit per day/week ends up destroying too much muscle in the process of losing weight and my fitness-improvement isn't as fast as it could be. At -2lbs/week, I actually hit some pretty hard plateaus where I was sore for days and couldn't workout on my optimum schedule; I sacrified days that I could be exercising due to fatigue and apathy. In many ways biking requires the training of a bodybuilder combined with an ultra-marathoner in one. So I reduced the calorie-deficit to lose 1lb/week maximum and I was able to make much quicker improvements in fitness. That allowed me to sustain the weight-loss continuously without hitting too many plateaus.

    The other thing you want to watch out for is getting caught in no-man's-land in training where you do too much of the medium-intensity/distance workouts over and over again. Your body will get stronger and adapt, but only to the point of being able to deal with the stress and that's it. Once it gets strong enough to do those workouts, it will stop improving and the weight-loss will cease. You'll have to always and continually up the ante in training, add more intensity regulary each macrocycle. In the beginning, you might have 2-3 sprints one day a week, and your body will get stronger. But, you'll also have to increase this load to 4-5 sprints, then 5-7 sprints on a monthly basis to keep your body stressed beyond its limit as it gets stronger. Same for distance, start with 2-3 hour rides on weekends, then increase to 2.5-3.5 hours, then 4-6 hours. It's these longer rides that really take the pounds of fat off. That's because you can only burn about 300-400 calories/hr of fat and the only way to burn more is to do more hours. Fat-burning peaks around 55-65% of MHR and is fairly even until LT, after which it goes down, so you want to ride at tempo-pace on these rides. On the high side would be better due to faster glycogen-depletion and you can also train your endurance and energy systems at the same time.

    So...there's no simple holy-grail solution, it requires an intricate and varying programme that continually changes and adapts.

  10. #10
    Junior Member Pelon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd be skeptical of limiting glycogen replenishment for the following reasons:

    1) If this is an effective training plan, why are none of the top athletes using it? There may be a few exceptions, but every top distance athlete I know of does glycogen replenishment during training. If limiting glycogen replenishment works, why haven't we seen the results?

    2) Those same top athletes who consistently replenish their glycogen stores also consistently test high in efficiently burning fat. If glycogen replenishment inhibited fat metabolism, why don't we see that in these athletes?

    3) A high fat burning rate is only one component of fitness. Without enough glycogen in your system, you can't work at a high intensity. If you can't train at a high intensity, it is hard to challenge the lactate system.

    4) This sounds an awful lot like the old theory that working out on an empty stomach burns more fat. This may be true during the workout, but it ceases to be true when you factor in the total fat burned during the rest of the day after higher intesity exercise.
    "Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up." - Chinese Proverb

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,295
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DannoXYZ
    That's right, more carbs isn't the answer, neither is low-carb. Your diet must be tailored to match your level of fitness and types of workouts. There is no "perfect" formulae that will work for everyone under all circumstances. A TDF pro's fitness-level and workouts require a completely different diet than who rides less than 200-miles/wk.

    No, it's not so clear-cut in all-or-nothing, yes/no, black-and-white blanket ideas. I've lost 65-lbs in the past year +3 months and I can tell you that it requires a vast and comprehensive plan that encompasses periodization in training aimed for maximum fitness-improvement rather than weight-loss. You can do some quick short-term weight-loss, but at the cost of sub-par fitness increases and even experience some muscle-loss. This will hinder the long-term goal of high-fitness and permanent weight-loss.

    You have nothing to worry about insulin-resistance, which is primarily experienced by sedentary couch-potatoes who tend to overeat and overload their system with food even when their muscle-cells are completely PACKED TO THE GILLS with glycogen already! That's the real problem, overeating and lack of exercise, nothing else contributes as much to their problem, not types of food; it's an imbalance of exercise vs. ingested calories.

    So... for your goals, slow and steady should be the plan. Eat less than you burn off and you'll have steady and continuous weight-loss (for the most part). I've found that trying to aim for too high a calorie-deficit per day/week ends up destroying too much muscle in the process of losing weight and my fitness-improvement isn't as fast as it could be. At -2lbs/week, I actually hit some pretty hard plateaus where I was sore for days and couldn't workout on my optimum schedule; I sacrified days that I could be exercising due to fatigue and apathy. In many ways biking requires the training of a bodybuilder combined with an ultra-marathoner in one. So I reduced the calorie-deficit to lose 1lb/week maximum and I was able to make much quicker improvements in fitness. That allowed me to sustain the weight-loss continuously without hitting too many plateaus.

    The other thing you want to watch out for is getting caught in no-man's-land in training where you do too much of the medium-intensity/distance workouts over and over again. Your body will get stronger and adapt, but only to the point of being able to deal with the stress and that's it. Once it gets strong enough to do those workouts, it will stop improving and the weight-loss will cease. You'll have to always and continually up the ante in training, add more intensity regulary each macrocycle. In the beginning, you might have 2-3 sprints one day a week, and your body will get stronger. But, you'll also have to increase this load to 4-5 sprints, then 5-7 sprints on a monthly basis to keep your body stressed beyond its limit as it gets stronger. Same for distance, start with 2-3 hour rides on weekends, then increase to 2.5-3.5 hours, then 4-6 hours. It's these longer rides that really take the pounds of fat off. That's because you can only burn about 300-400 calories/hr of fat and the only way to burn more is to do more hours. Fat-burning peaks around 55-65% of MHR and is fairly even until LT, after which it goes down, so you want to ride at tempo-pace on these rides. On the high side would be better due to faster glycogen-depletion and you can also train your endurance and energy systems at the same time.

    So...there's no simple holy-grail solution, it requires an intricate and varying programme that continually changes and adapts.

    Amazing results and very good advice. I read an article last week on how hard it is to lose weight and improve, even maintain performance at the same time. Also, a survey a few years ago of something like 750,000 people world wide showed that those who are not overweight eat primarliy carbs. Not simple sugars, but quality carbs.

    The comprehensive plan, which for me are lifestyle changes, is the key. I've always done best at a loss rate of 3 or 4 ponds per month. The statistics show that slower weight loss results in a higher probability that the individual will keep the weight off which is really the objective.


    Al

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,295
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mpearson76

    Do any of you have experience with training a lot, eating well and still not being able to get rid of your belly fat? I am trying to lose my gut, so I am interested in tailoring my training plan to burning fat. It seems that I may hamper that goal if I go overboard on the gatorade, even if it improves my performance. On the other hand, of course, I don't want to do anything dangerous or risk my health for weight loss. I have lost 20 pounds in the last few months, slowly and steadily with lifestyle changes I can maintain, and I am starting to get into enough shape to put in a good 80 miles a week. I just want to avoid making my body resistant to dropping that last 10 pounds of gut because I have made myself insulin resistant or trained my body to be exclusively a sugar burner in the name of improved performance. That may be good for a pro, but the pro doesn't have the belly I have.

    Dude, am I wrong?
    My doctor told me once that belly fat has a different composition than fat over the rest of the body. For cardiovascular health, it is the mosr damaging and he also said it was the most difficult to lose. It took a long time.

    I think the best way is to just lose weight slowly through lifestyle changes and it'll eventually go away and stay away.

    By the way, you definitely are wrong. Tailoring your training to burn more fat will not burn stored body fat away. That's a misconception shared by many. The only way to lose fat is to burn more calories than you eat. It doesn't matter how you do it. That said, if you don't exercise, eating less will cause your body to burn fewer calories as it goes into the conservation/survival mode. Exercise keeps the body from doing that, at least for very long.

    Al

  13. #13
    Senior Member DannoXYZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Saratoga, CA
    Posts
    11,507
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mpearson76
    ...On the other hand, of course, I don't want to do anything dangerous or risk my health for weight loss. I have lost 20 pounds in the last few months, slowly and steadily with lifestyle changes I can maintain, and I am starting to get into enough shape to put in a good 80 miles a week. I just want to avoid making my body resistant to dropping that last 10 pounds of gut because I have made myself insulin resistant or trained my body to be exclusively a sugar burner in the name of improved performance. That may be good for a pro, but the pro doesn't have the belly I have.
    That's a LOT of weight to have dropped with only riding 80-miles a week, but as long as you don't any accumulations of negative effects, such as soreness, fatigue, low-energy and strength that seems to get worse, then just keep it up and increase the workout regimen's intensity and durations.

    Burning sugar vs. fat is simply based upon intensity. Burning 100% glycogen/glucose only occurs at efforts above LT such as sprinting and anaerobic intervals. Efforts below LT will always be burning both fat and carbs simultaneously. It's a common mis-conception that lower intensities burn more fat. It may burn a higher percentage of fat, but not more total fat calories/hr. If you follow low-intensity-burns-more-fat, then sitting around watching TV is the best because it burns pretty much 99% fat, but only about 70-calories/hr. In terms of total calories per hour, it looks more like this:

    BEGINNER RIDER
    50% max-HR = 500 Cal/hr = 75/25% fat/carbs = 375 fat-calories/hour
    65% max-HR = 650 Cal/hr = 60/40% fat/carbs = 390 fat-calories/hour
    80% max-HR = 800 Cal/hr = 25/75% fat/carbs = 160 fat-calories/hour

    ELITE FIT ATHLETE
    50% max-HR = 750 Cal/hr = 77/23% fat/carbs = 575 fat-calories/hour
    65% max-HR = 1000 Cal/hr = 70/30% fat/carbs = 700 fat-calories/hour
    80% max-HR = 1250 Cal/hr = 60/40% fat/carbs = 750 fat-calories/hour
    90% max-HR = 1400 Cal/hr = 25/75% fat/carbs = 350 fat-calories/hour

    As you increase intensity, both fat and carb-burning rates increase. Fat peaks around 50-70% of MHR and stays contant up to LT, then it drops. So regardless if you ride at 55% or 70% of MHR, the fat-burn rate is teh same, it just happens to be a lower-percentage at the higher intensity because you're burning more glycogen as well. So for maximum weight-loss rate, you'd want to ride just under LT at tempo pace to burn off as many calories/hr as possible for as many hours as you can spare, 3-6 hours on an endurance ride would be best. This will burn off as much fat as possible AND glycogen as well for the glycogen-depleting effect. You'll want to eat at a rate such that you're just about to bonk when you finish. Then stock up and replenish for the next day's workout.
    Last edited by DannoXYZ; 04-25-06 at 03:06 AM.

  14. #14
    The Site Administrator: Currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes,please contact my assistnt admins for forum issues Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    My Bikes
    Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
    Posts
    16,155
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DannoXYZ
    That's a LOT of weight to have dropped with only riding 80-miles a week, but as long as you don't any accumulations of negative effects, such as soreness, fatigue, low-energy and strength that seems to get worse, then just keep it up and increase the workout regimen's intensity and durations.

    Burning sugar vs. fat is simply based upon intensity. Burning 100% glycogen/glucose only occurs at efforts above LT such as sprinting and anaerobic intervals. Efforts below LT will always be burning both fat and carbs simultaneously. It's a common mis-conception that lower intensities burn more fat. It may burn a higher percentage of fat, but not more total fat calories/hr. If you follow low-intensity-burns-more-fat, then sitting around watching TV is the best because it burns pretty much 99% fat, but only about 70-calories/hr. In terms of total calories per hour, it looks more like this:

    BEGINNER RIDER
    50% max-HR = 500 Cal/hr = 75/25% fat/carbs = 375 fat-calories/hour
    65% max-HR = 650 Cal/hr = 60/40% fat/carbs = 390 fat-calories/hour
    80% max-HR = 800 Cal/hr = 25/75% fat/carbs = 160 fat-calories/hour

    ELITE FIT ATHLETE
    50% max-HR = 750 Cal/hr = 75/25% fat/carbs = 560 fat-calories/hour
    65% max-HR = 1000 Cal/hr = 70/30% fat/carbs = 700 fat-calories/hour
    80% max-HR = 1250 Cal/hr = 60/40% fat/carbs = 750 fat-calories/hour
    90% max-HR = 1400 Cal/hr = 25/75% fat/carbs = 350 fat-calories/hour

    As you increase intensity, both fat and carb-burning rates increase. Fat peaks around 50-70% of MHR and stays contant up to LT, then it drops. So regardless if you ride at 55% or 70% of MHR, the fat-burn rate is the same, it just happens to be a lower-percentage at the higher intensity because you're burning more glycogen as well. So for maximum weight-loss rate, you'd want to ride just under LT at tempo pace to burn off as many calories/hr as possible for as many hours as you can spare, 3-6 hours on an endurance ride would be best. This will burn off as much fat as possible AND glycogen as well for the glycogen-depleting effect. You'll want to eat at a rate such that you're just about to bonk when you finish. Then stock up and replenish for the next day's workout.
    Dannon, where did you get the caloric info? I am not doubting you, I am interested in the source because if it is an attributable source, I can use it for a paper I am doing for Anatomy and Physiology. The numbers are VERY close to the calculations I came up with and I'd like to look at the data to see if I missed any factors. Thanks in advance!
    on light duty due to illness; please contact my assistants for forum issues. They are Siu Blue Wind, or CbadRider or the other 3 star folk. I am currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes. I am making good progress, happily.


    . “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

  15. #15
    Junior Member Pelon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DannoXYZ
    As you increase intensity, both fat and carb-burning rates increase. Fat peaks around 50-70% of MHR and stays contant up to LT, then it drops. So regardless if you ride at 55% or 70% of MHR, the fat-burn rate is the same, it just happens to be a lower-percentage at the higher intensity because you're burning more glycogen as well.
    This wasn't the case for me during my last fitness test. My fat burning rate peaked at about 70% of my MHR and then steadily declined to zero as I reached my AT at around 85% of my MHR. My fat burning rate never got above 40% of total calories during the test. Based on the comparison graphs that came with the fitness results, my fat burning profile is consistent with someone who is reasonably fit (my VO2 Max is above average for any age group). The plateau is generally only seen in highly trained individuals. An untrained individual would generally have a lower peak at a lower MHR.

    I do agree with your advice to concentrate on total calories burned. While my percentage of fat burned is pretty low near my AT, the higher calorie burn rate leads to more fat loss during the rest of the day.
    "Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up." - Chinese Proverb

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,564
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ok ask yourself one question. or two...

    How many certified champion cyclists has this guy produced ?

    Then ask, how many has Dr. Ferrari produced ?


    Dr. Ferrari and a lot of others recommend sports drinks during training and
    races. you have to train with what you are gonna race with food wise,
    because you just do. train the stomach.


    By tuning your -wattage- and -heart rate-, that is how you direct the body
    what to burn for energy and when. not by skipping sports drinks during training


    skipping sports drink intake during training or cycling any real distance (1 hour or more)
    only puts the body in deficit mode. you can only get away with this on easy easy rides
    which burn fat stores. but even on easy rides, drinking sports drinks still helps burn
    fat reserves...because your body isn't using up all the stored glycogen, going
    into deficit, and going a little haywire with the balance of it all.

    cripes, I lost a huge load of fat by doing BLT training since December and I drank
    gatorade all the time....and the fat still melted right off. if I just drank water the
    fat would have gone nowhere, because I would have craved something
    later on that would set my body off-balance and stroe fat again.

    been there, done that. YMMV

    I went from 5'8" 189 lbs to my current 150 by doing BLT rides and drinking gatorade
    during training instead of my usual water only.
    Last edited by edzo; 04-24-06 at 08:00 AM.

  17. #17
    That darn Yankee TexasGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    West West Fort Worth
    My Bikes
    Mongoose XR-100, Eros Bianchi
    Posts
    4,286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by edzo
    ok ask yourself one question. or two...

    How many certified champion cyclists has this guy produced ?

    Then ask, how many has Dr. Ferrari produced ?
    Are you guys eating for the same goal though. If you look atsomebody who produces Mike Tyson and you look at somebody who produced Lance Armstrong and somebody's goal is to be Lance Armstrong, is advising that person to follow Lance Armstrong's diet going to be beneficial for his goal?
    I think alot of people are missing the OP's original goal/question.
    Life is about hanging onto what you think is important and finding out what really is important.
    "Stop Ruining my joke!", "No, a joke implies humor attached at no additional cost"
    So many sayings, so little sig space.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,564
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy
    Are you guys eating for the same goal though. If you look atsomebody who produces Mike Tyson and you look at somebody who produced Lance Armstrong and somebody's goal is to be Lance Armstrong, is advising that person to follow Lance Armstrong's diet going to be beneficial for his goal?
    I think alot of people are missing the OP's original goal/question.
    this is about

    Replenishing glycogen bad for you? Somebody please help me make sense of this.

    survey says...it is good. use logic and sense...it's what winners do

    that is all this is about.

    it's friggin good, period. [unless you have certain disease or chronic probs with sugars]


    this is bike forums not mike forums

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,295
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy
    Are you guys eating for the same goal though. If you look atsomebody who produces Mike Tyson and you look at somebody who produced Lance Armstrong and somebody's goal is to be Lance Armstrong, is advising that person to follow Lance Armstrong's diet going to be beneficial for his goal?
    I think alot of people are missing the OP's original goal/question.

    I don't think goals have much to do with it, but the answer is yes if the person is doing the same kind of cycling. For a boxer, probably not. Different stressors on the body I would suppose. Both pro and amateur athletes share the same physiology. Therefore, irrespective of your fitness, if you burn ATP faster than your fat energy system can replenish it, you better go for the carbs both during and immediately after the exercise (and for another two hours) . If you don't, your performance will suffer and you'll feel bad the next day much less do well on a ride.

    This concept has been verified in the lab, in practice by many thousand athletes, wins races and is well documented. I don't see why it's debatable until an opposing concept is proved superior in the real world. That hasn't happened yet.

    On the other hand, it's not the last word. There is still much to learn and refinements to make, but anyone who advocates going back to the "fat only" or the "high protein" days, is decades behind the science.

    I wonder if now someone is going to come out with a theory saying that lactate threshold training is not necessary to win races. Believe me, that works too. I can see the difference, as I can with the carb thing, and I only ride for enjoyment and fitness.

    Al

  20. #20
    Senior Member DannoXYZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Saratoga, CA
    Posts
    11,507
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe
    Dannon, where did you get the caloric info? I am not doubting you, I am interested in the source because if it is an attributable source, I can use it for a paper I am doing for Anatomy and Physiology. The numbers are VERY close to the calculations I came up with and I'd like to look at the data to see if I missed any factors. Thanks in advance!
    Here's some more info. Note that they used %VO2-max whereas I used %MHR:

    Journal Applied Physiology - Determinants of fat oxidation during exercise in healthy men and women
    Journal Applied Physiology - Effect of carbohydrate ingestion on metabolism during running and cycling
    Journal Applied Physiology - Exogenous glucose oxidation during exercise in endurance-trained and untrained subjects (basically says trained athletes burns higher fat%).

    Additionally VO2-max tends to occur at a higher HR than LT for just about everyone. This indicates an inefficient imbalance where the muscles reach their limit before the aerobic system is maxed out. This is however, just a matter of training and selecting proper gearing. Spinning lower gears at higher RPMs will tend to raise the LT HR closer to VO2-max, allowing you to generate more power and go faster at LT by utilizing more of your aerobic system.

    More interesting articles:
    Journal Applied Physiology - Effects of carbohydrate supplementation on performance and carbohydrate oxidation after intensified cycling training (high-carb reduces effects of overtraining)
    Journal Applied Physiology - High-fat hypocaloric diet modifies carbohydrate utilization of obese rats during weight loss (high-fat diet results in less weight-loss compared to low-fat)
    Journal Applied Physiology - Exercise increases fat oxidation at rest unrelated to changes in energy balance or lipolysis
    Journal Applied Physiology - Dietary carbohydrate, muscle glycogen, and power output during rowing training
    Last edited by DannoXYZ; 04-25-06 at 04:10 AM.

  21. #21
    Isaias NoRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Essex, MD
    My Bikes
    Ridley X-Fire (carbon, white)
    Posts
    5,174
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    +1 to everything Danno has posted.

    The same approach helped me go from a 200 pound couch potato to running road races and cycling:

    2009 mileage = 14,738 miles; 2010 mileage = 15,234 miles; 2011 mileage = 17,344 miles; 2012 mileage = 11,414 miles; 2013 = 12,169

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •