|
Originally Posted by DnvrFox
Calories in vs calories used.
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 |
Originally Posted by DnvrFox
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. 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/m...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. 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........... |
Originally Posted by DnvrFox
You asked for some research. This is from the AFAA - the best there is.
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 |
Originally Posted by backinthesaddle
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) |
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. |
Originally Posted by kakman
I guess people have to ask themselves whether they'd like to burn a higher percentage of fat or glycogen.
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. 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..... |
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium
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.
|
Originally Posted by Pat
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by jwbnyc
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.
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. |
Pilates 5x/wk!
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? |
Originally Posted by Baggsy
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.
|
Originally Posted by Hwy 40 Blue
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.
|
Originally Posted by SSP
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". 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. |
Originally Posted by stapfam
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. |
Originally Posted by kakman
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.
Originally Posted by DnvrFox
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.
http://www.lindt.com/public/canada/c...%20exercise%22 Training allows the muscles to use more of the oxygen offered to them by the circulatory system, so that the energy expenditure of the muscles can be more adequately covered by aerobic metabolism. This means that for a given level of exercise, more of the energy needs of the muscles can be met by the aerobic breakdown of fats, so reducing the demand on the limited carbohydrate (glycogen) stores. Similarly, if your glycogen stores (energy stores/main account) are always full then there is little reason for the body to dip into its saving account (fat stores). So if our glycogen stores are always full and we continue to eat carbohydrates, they are transferred to the body’s savings account – its fat stores. To reduce these energy stores, we must create a deficit in the body’s glycogen stores. This can be achieved through exercise and nutrition. When stores are low, then the body will begin using fat as energy, leading to a loss of body fat. How the body gets rid of fat All body processes require energy to run properly. When the body is expending more energy than it is taking in (e.g. when exercising), body cells rely on internally stored energy sources, like complex carbohydrates and fats, for energy. The first source the body turns to is glycogen, which is a complex carbohydrate created by the body. When that source is nearly depleted, the body begins lipolysis, the metabolism of fat for energy. In this process, fats, obtained from fat cells, are broken down into glycerol and fatty acids, which can be used to make energy. The primary by-products of metabolism are carbon dioxide and water; carbon dioxide is expelled through the respiratory system. |
Originally Posted by DnvrFox
Not simply, but eventually.
If the person backs off then they can probably continue at a lower intensity at which stage fat will be the main fuel again. It seems apparent fat can't 'convert' quickly enough to fuel high intensity exercise - which has been said by pretty much everyone in this thread. As the intensity gets higher the body finds it _necessary_ to swing from burning fat to burning glycogen. But look, at the end of the day, no-one has stood up as an 'expert' so we can all think what we like. The original post sounds reasonable to me. If you believe it to be 'propaganda' then so be it. // k |
Originally Posted by kakman
I still don't totally agree with this. My understanding is as Pat has said above: "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)."
If the person backs off then they can probably continue at a lower intensity at which stage fat will be the main fuel again. It seems apparent fat can't 'convert' quickly enough to fuel high intensity exercise - which has been said by pretty much everyone in this thread. As the intensity gets higher the body finds it _necessary_ to swing from burning fat to burning glycogen. But look, at the end of the day, no-one has stood up as an 'expert' so we can all think what we like. The original post sounds reasonable to me. If you believe it to be 'propaganda' then so be it. // k |
There's been so much posted here that my head is beginning to spin, but I do have a question. Do those supporting "fat zone" type riding feel that the body will burn its fat stores not to be replaced later after exercise ceases? If so, wouldn't that be similar to "spot" reducing, a theory debunked about 1960.
Actually, I don't know the answer but I did read many years ago that the body is continually in flux, building muscle, storing carbs for fuel AND storing fat for future use. If so, it still sounds like calories in vs. calories burned is the answer and no matter where the body gets its energy, it will return itself to some sort of balance in a couple of days, albeit bigger muscles and smaller love handles (but not through "spot" loss riding). |
Originally Posted by DnvrFox
I don't believe fat converts fast enough to supply the energy at the time of the exercise. I never said that, and I don't believe that. The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make was that the energy deficit will eventually cause the body to replenish the glycogen stores, including utilizing fat stores for this replenishment.
"Being used up" may have been a poor choice of words but certainly implies being burned during intense (glycogen depleting) exercise. I disagree. I still believe that the only way fat will replace glycogen as fuel is if the level of intensity drops. Even you concede that fat can't fuel high intensity exercise so I'm not sure what we're debating. If you're not OK with that we'll simply have to agree to disagree. // k |
Originally Posted by kakman
Actually you said it would be "replaced by body fat being used up" - not for replenishment.
"Being used up" may have been a poor choice of words but certainly implies being burned during intense (glycogen depleting) exercise. I disagree. I still believe that the only way fat will replace glycogen as fuel is if the level of intensity drops. Even you concede that fat can't fuel high intensity exercise so I'm not sure what we're debating. If you're not OK with that we'll simply have to agree to disagree. // k If you go for a hard bike ride or run, you'll mostly burn glycogen. But, after the exercise your body will replenish your glycogen stores by converting fat. This is why it's generally better to exercise at higher intensities - you burn more calories per hour when you exercise vigorously so it's more time efficient. |
Originally Posted by SSP
It doesn't matter if you're burning fats or glycogen, or both, when you exercise. For weight loss, it's the overall calorie deficit (calories in vs. calories out) that matters.
If you go for a hard bike ride or run, you'll mostly burn glycogen. But, after the exercise your body will replenish your glycogen stores by converting fat. This is why it's generally better to exercise at higher intensities - you burn more calories per hour when you exercise vigorously so it's more time efficient. There - you said it much better in 3 sentences than I did in 4 posts! |
I'm not reading anymore of this, but I just remembered how to put my "point" in baby talk.
Exercising in the "fat burning zone" DOES NOT "speed up" your metabolism. Bouts of higher intensity exercise during any amount exercise will "speed up" your metabolism. So, now you know how "speed up" your metabolism, whoop-de-freakin-dooh! I mean this whole thread is ajoke right? I mean most of you people already knew this, right? |
Originally Posted by SSP
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. |
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium
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..... This would seem to be a quibble but there are consequences. In an earlier post, I pointed out that the nervous system can not burn fat and has to burn carbohydrates. A number of posters have the idea that carbohydrate stores will eventually be replaced by fat. That just does not happen. You need to either eat carbohydrate or convert proteins (usually muscle) into carbohydrate to replenish carbohydrate stocks. If you go out and deplete your carbohydrate (BONK), you have to eat enough calories of carbohydrate to replenish your glycogen stores or about 2000 calories (which is a pot load of carbohydrates believe me). Now, even nothing but intense riding with the right diet would probably work fine for weight loss. In a person doing this, virtually all of their carbohydrate consumption would go into replenishing glycogen stores or in fueling the nervous system. In couch potatos, these carbohydrates would probably be converted to fat. The exercising person would probably burn mainly fat during non exercise periods. I think the trick to permanent weight loss is to find some blend of diet and exercise that works for you and that you can sustain over a life time. So the solutions would tend to be rather individual. I was out in Santa Barbara hiking in the mountains near the coast. I ran into an "old" guy (even older than me). We chatted a bit. He hikes about 15+ miles per day in the mountains so that he can eat his favorite food ...... ice cream by the quart :eek: !!!! Well, I guess it works for him. Pat |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:48 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.