That weight loss thing?
10-05-06 | 05:54 AM
#51
Banned.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,915
Likes: 13
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.
https://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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by DnvrFox; 10-05-06 at 06:08 AM.
10-05-06 | 06:37 AM
#52
one post at time
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: here and now
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
10-05-06 | 06:53 AM
#53
Banned.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,915
Likes: 13
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
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
10-05-06 | 07:20 AM
#54
Super Modest
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 25,397
Likes: 6,668
From: Central Illinois
Bikes: Trek Domane+x2, Trek Emonda
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).
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).
__________________
“Train hard until your legs are tanned, then keep going until the shape arrives.” -Jolanda Neff
10-05-06 | 07:27 AM
#55
one post at time
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: here and now
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
10-05-06 | 07:33 AM
#56
Software for Cyclists
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
From: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
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
"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.
10-05-06 | 07:36 AM
#57
Banned.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,915
Likes: 13
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.
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!
10-05-06 | 08:16 AM
#58
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,066
Likes: 69
From: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes
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?
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?
10-05-06 | 08:28 AM
#59
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 1
From: Orlando, FL
Bikes: litespeed, cannondale
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.
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.
10-05-06 | 08:40 AM
#60
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 1
From: Orlando, FL
Bikes: litespeed, cannondale
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.....
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
!!!! Well, I guess it works for him. Pat
10-05-06 | 04:06 PM
#61
one post at time
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: here and now
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.
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.
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
10-05-06 | 04:25 PM
#62
one post at time
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: here and now
Originally Posted by Trsnrtr
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).
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).
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
10-05-06 | 04:38 PM
#63
Software for Cyclists
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
From: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Originally Posted by kakman
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
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
https://exercise.about.com/cs/cardiow.../aa022601a.htm
The body does burn a higher percentage of calories from fat when involved in lower intensity cardio exercise. BUT, at higher intensities, you burn a greater number of overall calories which is what you should be concerned about when trying to lose weight.
https://www.prevention.com/article/0,...4219-1,00.html
It's true that the body burns a higher percentage of calories from fat during more mellow exercise like walking and easy cycling. But, when you pick up the pace for a higher-intensity cardio workout, you burn a greater number of overall calories (which should be your focus for weight loss) and subsequently just as much total fat.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep27.html
If you're trying to manage your weight, you should focus on how many calories you burn, not on what kind of fuel you're burning. In a given period of time you'll burn more calories by working out at a higher intensity (i.e., in the "cardio zone") than at a lower intensity (in the "fat-burning" zone).
https://www.ezinearticles.com/?Fat-Bu...Zone&id=306481
Although the “fat-burning zone” uses a higher percentage of fat for fuel; you need to look at the big picture which is calories burned.
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!).
10-05-06 | 04:49 PM
#64
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,023
Likes: 1
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.
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.
10-05-06 | 04:57 PM
#65
Banned.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,915
Likes: 13
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?
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?
10-05-06 | 05:03 PM
#66
Isaias
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,182
Likes: 0
From: Essex, MD
Bikes: Ridley X-Fire (carbon, white)
Originally Posted by SSP
Get a clue and try using Google. If you Google "Fat Burning Zone" you'll find:
-snipped-
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!).
-snipped-
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!).
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:
https://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/esource.htm
10-05-06 | 05:18 PM
#67
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,023
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by NoRacer
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:
https://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/esource.htm
I'll leave you with this related training resource:
https://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/esource.htm
The ideal training program seldom meets the real daily schedule for some of us.
10-05-06 | 05:20 PM
#68
Software for Cyclists
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
From: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Originally Posted by NoRacer
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:
https://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/esource.htm
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:
https://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/esource.htm
With respect to the issue of intensity:
https://www.ezinearticles.com/?Fat-Bu...Zone&id=306481
The bottom line: For individuals new to exercise it is recommended to start in this low intensity zone (60 – 70% of maximum heart rate). There will be some benefit in the first 2-3 weeks, initially they can experience even some weight loss.
But after this initial stage gradually we need to increase the intensity of our routine. Remember, this increase corresponds to a 70 – 85% of Maximum Hart Rate.
But after this initial stage gradually we need to increase the intensity of our routine. Remember, this increase corresponds to a 70 – 85% of Maximum Hart Rate.
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.
Last edited by SSP; 10-05-06 at 05:27 PM.
10-05-06 | 05:25 PM
#69
Isaias
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,182
Likes: 0
From: Essex, MD
Bikes: Ridley X-Fire (carbon, white)
Originally Posted by CrossChain
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.
The ideal training program seldom meets the real daily schedule for some of us.
Every does what they can.
10-05-06 | 05:32 PM
#70
Isaias
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,182
Likes: 0
From: Essex, MD
Bikes: Ridley X-Fire (carbon, white)
Originally Posted by CrossChain
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.
The ideal training program seldom meets the real daily schedule for some of us.
10-05-06 | 05:41 PM
#71
one post at time
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: here and now
Originally Posted by SSP
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!).
I'm beginning to see now why Blackberry and FarHorizon disappeared.
//k
10-05-06 | 05:46 PM
#72
one post at time
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: here and now
Originally Posted by DnvrFox
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?
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.
10-05-06 | 05:59 PM
#73
Software for Cyclists
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
From: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Originally Posted by kakman
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
I'm beginning to see now why Blackberry and FarHorizon disappeared.
//k
re: Nancy Clark
Here's what she has to say on the subject:
https://www.active.com/story.cfm?stor...at_right&num=0
Question: I run three to four days per week, mainly to lose body fat. At what intensity should I run to burn fat effectively?
Answer: Although low-intensity "fat burning exercise" burns proportionately more fat than carbohydrates, you are unlikely to lose weight faster if you do low-intensity workouts. (Two excellent "fat burning" activities are sleeping and sitting -- but these are not known for having weight-reduction benefits!).
For fat/weight control, you need to look at you whole day's calorie balance -- not just at fat burned during exercise. If, over the course of the whole day, you have created a calorie deficit by burning off more calories than you eat, you'll lose body fat. However, if you overindulge (as is easy to do after a hard workout because you somehow deserve to eat the whole pizza), you'll end up gaining fat.
The biggest benefits of low-intensity, fat-burning exercise are 1) you are less likely to get injured, and 2) you are able to exercise longer and thereby burn more total calories. But high-intensity exercise tends to contribute to lower percent body fat.
Research on 1,366 women and 1,257 men suggests those who did high-intensity exercise had less body fat than those who did lower-intensity "fat-burning" exercise. (Am J Clin Nutr., Feb '90)
Answer: Although low-intensity "fat burning exercise" burns proportionately more fat than carbohydrates, you are unlikely to lose weight faster if you do low-intensity workouts. (Two excellent "fat burning" activities are sleeping and sitting -- but these are not known for having weight-reduction benefits!).
For fat/weight control, you need to look at you whole day's calorie balance -- not just at fat burned during exercise. If, over the course of the whole day, you have created a calorie deficit by burning off more calories than you eat, you'll lose body fat. However, if you overindulge (as is easy to do after a hard workout because you somehow deserve to eat the whole pizza), you'll end up gaining fat.
The biggest benefits of low-intensity, fat-burning exercise are 1) you are less likely to get injured, and 2) you are able to exercise longer and thereby burn more total calories. But high-intensity exercise tends to contribute to lower percent body fat.
Research on 1,366 women and 1,257 men suggests those who did high-intensity exercise had less body fat than those who did lower-intensity "fat-burning" exercise. (Am J Clin Nutr., Feb '90)
10-05-06 | 08:59 PM
#74
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,646
Likes: 0
From: rockford, il
Bikes: Trek 7700, C'dale R2000
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.
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.
10-05-06 | 10:55 PM
#75
Software for Cyclists
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
From: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Originally Posted by will dehne
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.
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.
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.