1) I disagree - see point 3
2) I don't believe this to be the case - see Pat's post
3) I disagree - but I can't be bothered explaining why - again.

This is getting tedious

I see no-one has directly answered this so here's what I believe to be true.

Exercise burns both fat and glycogen. As intensity rises, the ratio of fat to glycogen being burnt decreases (less fat/more glycogen). After exercise, if you have excess fat, the body can still continue to function as it still has energy stored in that fat. Eat too much of the wrong stuff and the fat will be replaced.

If you burn all your glycogen, your body needs to replenish it - either by Protein conversion (see Pat's post) or by eating carbs. It requires this to be replaced to function normally again which is why I believe most 'experts' prefer 'fat calories burned' as being a better indication of what you'll actually lose. This is why some HRM's indicated calories burned and fat calories burned as separate items.

At the end if the day, having a calories in - calories out deficit is correct BUT over simplified. If you were to exercise at a level where you only burnt glycogen, how could you ever expect to lose that spare tyre of fat? And how on earth could you keep it up, day after day.

The original post was directed at people who wanted long term, sustainable, weight loss. No-one is suggesting people don't go out of the fat burning zone - although Richard Cranium would have you believe that. It's simply that the most efficient zone for burning FAT is the 65-80% range - and that has not been refuted.

// k

Get a clue and try using Google. If you Google "Fat Burning Zone" you'll find:

The Truth About the Fat Burning Zone
http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardiow.../aa022601a.htm
Also,

http://www.prevention.com/article/0,...4219-1,00.html
and,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep27.html
and,

http://www.ezinearticles.com/?Fat-Bu...Zone&id=306481
There are many more...

Bottom line: the Fat Burning Zone is a myth, and for weight loss it doesn't matter whether you burn mostly fats or mostly glycogen when you exercise (you'll be burning both anyway...it's not a freakin' on/off switch!).

Gentlemen........please. A good cycling program contains a spread of effort levels and riding styles: shorter & harder, longer with fast intervals, moderate paced long distance, and, especially for the 50Plus Viagra burning crowd, lazy "bike-walk" recovery rides (that don't take us down to the ice cream shoppe).

Perhaps we should focus on sound cycling training and let the fat globules fall away as they may and will. Oh, and eat sensibly.

*** If I limited myself to only being attracted to 50Plus women who were svelte, Heidi Klum look-alikes, I would be a lonely fellow indeed. Perhaps we should value our own appearance with as much sense as we've learned to appreciate a woman's.

Just think of how much fat evidently hasn't been burned by the reading of, typing, and cognition that has enveloped these recent postings! But, a lot of glycogen seems to have been consumed, so I guess I will have to eat dinner to replace that.

BTW, how do you suppose someone loses fat weight and percentage by exercising while still eating the same amount as previously if some of that fat isn't used to replenish energy levels?

The problem with your logic is that if the intensity is too high, it won't be sustainable, especially by someone who is heavy and/or untrained.

Case in point, try sustaining an effort level at VO2Max for over 6 minutes. How many calories will be burned in 6 minutes?

How about at vLT or lactate threshold velocity? That's about 60 minutes at 85 to 90 percent of VO2Max or 100 percent of LT. How many calories are burned in 60 minutes at this intensity?

Now, how long can one go at 70 to 75 percent of VO2Max (or 92 percent of LT)? I would bet hours and hours and hours. How many calories can one burn during a century (5-7 hours at 70 - 75 percent of VO2Max (or 92% of LT)? I'm willing to bet that it's more than the previous two effort levels.

Ok. So after doing a session at VO2Max or 100% vLT, who in their right mind would want to do another the next day and the next day and the next day? Very few and the others would be lying. But, how many could, if they had the time, go hours and hours and hours at 70-75% of VO2Max (~92% of LT)? Most recreational riders can.

I'll leave you with this related training resource:

http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/esource.htm

WTF....who but you retired and/or leisurely-wealthy dudes has the available time for "hours and hours" except on weekends. If I didn't intersperse long moderates with short quicks, I wouldn't get in much training at all. Not-riding is the hardest way of all to burn calories and the easiest to not-lose weight. Some of us have to be creative about getting regular miles and have to shape training accordingly. Coach Troy, lovable tyrant that he is, saves my short day, wintery butt with high VO2 training on weekdays when evening darkness shuts me down.

The ideal training program seldom meets the real daily schedule for some of us.

I didn't cite the biranmac site because it didn't contain much info relevant to weight loss and didn't seem very authoritative.

With respect to the issue of intensity:

http://www.ezinearticles.com/?Fat-Bu...Zone&id=306481
As you can see from this, nobody is suggesting that we go out and hammer till we puke. But all of those resources that I posted note that for weight loss it's best to exercise with whatever level of intensity you can muster for the time available, instead of toodling along in the so-called Fat Burning Zone.

So, if you only have half an hour available...go really hard. If you have an hour available...go hard. If you have 4 hours available, go as hard as you can for 4 hours.

The problem with the "Fat Burning Zone" myth, as has been mentioned previously, is that many people use it as an excuse for never breaking a sweat. Look at all the folks walking at 3 mph on treadmills in their "Fat Burning Zones" thinking they're burning lots of fat...in reality, they're only burning about 300 calories per hour, which they'll probably replenish with a sport drink and an energy bar as soon as they're done. :rolleyes:

Every does what they can.

Are you bending crank arms for Trisports Coach Troy Jacobson? In person or on DVD?

I see google has made you an instant expert. Congratulations, everyone else is clearly wrong. I could just as easily point you to Nancy Clark or Chris Carmichael or Polar or explain diminishing returns but I've had it with you people.

I'm beginning to see now why Blackberry and FarHorizon disappeared.

//k

Simple, it's being burned at the lower intensities - as has been stated a million times already - but it ain't replenishing glycogen.

Anyone who does any sort of exercise will, for the bulk of the time, find themselves burning fat. I contend it would be virtually impossible to exercise for any period of time at glycogen only burning level - but clearly that message has been missed by those who choose to miss it.

I've studied the issues surrounding weight loss for years, both recreationally and professionally.

re: Nancy Clark

Here's what she has to say on the subject:

http://www.active.com/story.cfm?stor...at_right&num=0

I carefully studied above post and they leave me befuddled. Perhaps I am too old so these concepts do not apply?
I eat very well and correct. That means fish and veggies, oatmeal, fresh fruit, wholesome German home cooking which is veggies and potatoes. My vice is good red wine.
I train 90 minutes/day at high intensity. Do 50 miles/day at least 3 times/week at high intensity. Did 3000 mile tour at high intensity. Trained for the tour over 1000 miles at high intensity.
Bottom line? My weight is the same. I rest my case.

That just illustrates that there are two aspects to the weight loss equation - Calories Out and Calories In.

It seems clear that you have the exercise component (Calories Out) well in hand.

Thus, you need to look at your diet. Even if you're eating "healthy", it's likely you're still overeating. Try to find 200-500 calories you can cut from your daily diet and you will start to lose weight (unless your body is somehow immune to the laws of thermodynamics).

Maybe less potatoes and less wine...a few small changes each day can result in substantial weight loss over time.

imho

:D

We need a beaten dead horse smilie. :)

You are absolutely correct but now you are talking serious stuff called "Giving Up Fun".
Will:eek: :D :D

Turning food into science won't do it. What worked for me was; More miles, less food. Try it.

Equating food with recreation (or, with pleasure, comfort, etc.) makes weight loss/management much more challenging.

I heard an interesting interview once with a young woman who'd had gastric bypass surgery because she was morbidly obese. She lost significant weight and regained her health, but had become depressed following her surgery. The reason was that for many years food had been her "best friend"...but the surgery took that "friend" away from her.

That said, I still love my daily bit of chocolate, and a good glass of cab with dinner (but at 6', 167, I can afford to indulge)!

Surely, you jest. How could it be that simple? We're on the fourth page of guessing, I mean science here and you're trying to simpify it by that statement. Shame on you. ;)

Aha! I see now i had it half right. More miles, more food. The light has come on! :D

Me 6', 197 as of this morning. Now you make me feel fat.:eek: :eek: ;)

You had it right all the time. Just face it- if you did more miles on the bike- And cut down of food- You would have to get a new saddle to cater for the weight loss. Running in new saddles is painfull.

One of the things that no-one has mentioned yet is the progression of weight as we get older. At 18 I weighed 128lbs. At 34 I weighed 128 lbs at 44- after a 10 year lay off to sort the job- the family and the change of lifestyle- I weighed 140 lbs. Kept at that for the next few years, but gradually worked up to 155lbs. Put more into cycling and lost 8lbs but that is what I am stuck at.

The change of lifestyle that many of us have when the family comes along- the pressures of work and a few other lifestyle changes- such as the wife learns to cook and you learn to appreciate good food, are going to affect you. I may not appear to have a problem with weight but 128 to 155- that is a fair %age gain, and that is for a guy that has always been active. I have someone at work that has put that gain on in a year. He will probably put the same weight on next year aswell.

At least most of us on this forum are doing something about it. I don't have to diet to lose weight- Just more exercise. Unfortunately there are only so many spare hours in a week so roll 2012- when I will be able to find more time.

I would be the perfect weight if I was 6'6". SSP, how can I grow taller?

Will your software help me do that?

There is no way exercising puts weight on. That would be like saying your car gets better mpg at 100mph than 50mph.

How about an 18kg weight loss in 33 days with a minimum 4000 cal daily intake, see this link.

http://www.wildworks.co.nz/csr/stats.php

Photos
http://www.wildworks.co.nz/csr/photographs.php

Can't help you there, Denver...perhaps HGH? :eek:

As for the software, download it for yourself and see...there's a 30-day trial version, and since you already have weight records going back a ways, you could enter those so there's more history from startup.

The statement that exercise is good for the heart but doesn't keep the weight off get's my vote for the top 10 (fill in the blank) list.

My grandfather observed, when he was in his late 70's, that there comes a time where you don't care so much what it looks like as long as it still works. Having said that, he shaved twice a day and indulged in a splash of Bay Rum (not the drinking kind) every day.