|fat burning question [again]||scott gower|
Jan 10, 2002 1:38 PM
|i read all the recent posts on how working out at 50-70% of your max Hr will lead to fat buring.
everywhere else on my body is lean except my stomach. i was wondering how long at one time and how many times a week would you have to workout at 50-70% to see any results.
|Burning Love (handles)||Dog Breath|
Jan 10, 2002 2:04 PM
|Heres what works for me:
I ate 6 Eggos (drank coffee) for breakfast. Started ride two hours later. Consumed one PowerBar during the ride, and plain water. Rode 6 hours in a 42x17 or 42x16 spinning, but not making an effort to spin too fast. Rode very slowly up the hills. I managed to loose about 2lbs. I weighed myself today, after reydration and breakfast to confirm the result.
Up until this ride, I have been doing 4-5 hour rides. I've dropped alot of weight, and my waistline has improved. If you use the right level of exertion, you will probably begin to see results after a few rides, provided you watch your diet on days you are not on the bike. Try to avoid the temptation to reward yourself too much at the end of the ride.
My own experience is you want to go slow enough that you don't get very hungry, that would seem to mean you are burning fat, while you are decreasing your intake of carbos. Also - the slow pace means you can spend more time on the bike on a given ride, which burns even more fat. This might also increase your endurance level, and the efficiency of your body's fat burning.
It is still early in the year. This is a great time to improve your spin and establish a base by riding at a moderate pace. Burning fat is an added benefit. Long slow rides are also easy to recover from, allowing you to accumulate more miles by riding further and on consecutive days.
|2 pounds in one ride||"Top" Dog|
Jan 10, 2002 5:12 PM
Either your pulling this guys leg or you are a total idiot!
Oh wait! We already knew that. If you lost two pounds after eating six eggo waffles then you must have forgot to take a sh!t that morning.
|re: fat burning question [again]||koala|
Jan 10, 2002 2:10 PM
|I read a site that said fat burning range varied a little with age but in general 75 to 100 pecent of your lactic threshold is ideal. I simply try to stay in the 105 to 150 bpm range and its working-8 pounds to go.|
|Isn't there a post below...||Wayne|
Jan 10, 2002 4:14 PM
|that went on and on about this! Anyway, it's between about 65-75% of max HR to maximize fat burning. At LT your almost relying exclusively on glycogen/glucose for fuel, so don't go out and ride all out for an hour if you want to burn fat (This will still burn fat, since the increase in the metabolism you get from this effort, the Excess Postexercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) is going to rely largely on fat not glycogen for fuel). Anyway, remember it basically comes down to more calories expended than consumed so you could ride yourself into the ground but if you're still eating too much your probably not going to lose weight.|
|Isn't there a post below...||koala|
Jan 11, 2002 6:36 AM
|That is a very narrow range. It just seems logical that ultimate fat burning would be tied to lactic onset and not max rate. I got the info from a runners site. Maybe somebody can come up with a reference on this for cyclists.|
|Isn't there a post below...||Wayne|
Jan 11, 2002 8:36 AM
|Why does it seem logical that ultimate fat burning would be tied to lactic onset? Lactate threshold is essentially (well close, since LT is usually about 85-95% of Max VO2 in a trained athlete) the point when the ATP demands of the cell out-strip the oxidative abilities of the cell to provide those ATP molecules. Since only a portion of the lactate produced from glycolysis can be oxidized, the excess is released from the muscle cells to be taken up by other non-active cells (a very small portion), the liver (to be converted back to glycogen) or the heart to be used as an energy source. Glycogen and glucose provide ATP at much faster rate than fat, so as the demand for ATP increases as you go harder your body shifts toward those fuel sources until around LT your burning almost no fat (since there is so much product of glycolysis to oxidize) but exclusively glycogen and glucose. As you continue to go harder (i.e. increase the ATP demand) the products of glycolysis continue to outstrip the oxidative ability of the cells and more and more lactate is released into the blood.|
|if you're looking for number||cyclopathic|
Jan 11, 2002 9:15 AM
|it is ~75-80% of LTHR. LTHR would be much better reference sinse it's easer to determine and it actually refers to metabolic processes not like 220-age formula ;)|
|Get a swiss giant rubber ball!||tempete|
Jan 10, 2002 2:26 PM
|Sorry about this long comment.
Man! Same thing. It's a shitty winter, but still winter, so I can't ride. But I train a lot these days with my main goal being losing weight. I've noticed my cardio-vascular capacity has leaped way higher than expected; weight loss and slow distance training made great improvement on my form.
I've gone from 200+ to 176 since July. Not much, but I follow my plan and reach all my goals. I'm 32, 5'11, big bones, I've never been lighter than 156 in my early 20's racing years. But I feel stronger now! except I don't have those abs........
I get up and have half a lemon in a glass of water BEFORE training for one hour (doesn't matter if it's some intevalles, musculation or mid-intensity). I have my breakfast AFTER. If I'm going on a long distance run (up to two hours at the moment) I'll eat lightly; fruits and cereals and soy milk.
I found this works FOR ME. It's been fantastic but I spent a while hanging at 180 pounds wondering. (I was about to post my despair here!!!)
The fat that is gone was located on my chest, back, legs, buttocks, arms, face even... Plus I suppose there is a lot of deeper, under-muscular and internal fat (UGLY FAT!) but the last bits to go are at the abdominal belt. "THE TIRE". That is the LAST FAT TO GO... Some genetic protection for the soft tissues?
Running is more efficient. So less time consuming. If you have plenty of training time, here's my suggestion:
Looks like you've already trimmed a lot, so...
Do plenty of abdominal work, on top of your regular training. AND/or,
How about running every morning for 20 minutes (5 times a week, 3 times minimum) before breakfast AND on top of regular training. I mean a very ordinary jog, you know?
Within two months, jogging 20 minutes 5 times a weeks, eating BETTER, I lost the first 15 pounds, At the beginning, I could barely do the 20 minutes!!!
I do those crunches and sit-ups every days, and she says I look better and better. He he!
|Simple answer||Kerry Irons|
Jan 10, 2002 5:32 PM
|You will lose fat if you: 1) exercise and 2) consume fewer calories than you burn. You will lose 1 lb. of fat for every 3500 calorie deficit you run. Coincidentally, 3500 calories is about 100 miles of riding (and a dozen donuts). So if you eat as though you were not getting any exercise and you ride 100 miles a week, you would lose a pound a week. That's a 500 calorie per day deficit. If you just ran the calorie deficit, your body metabolism would slow down, you would shift to "fat sparing" and you would lose muscle instead of fat. Exercise is critical to losing "only" fat. Also for reference, you will burn about 200 calories of fat per hour while exercising, so you have to have some glycogen in order to exercise, either stored in the muscles, the liver, or as food in your digestive system. Claims that "I lost 2 lb in a 100 mile ride" are absolute nonsense - you could only burn 1200-1400 calories of fat in that time. Your body burns fat round the clock and if you are simultaneously running a calorie deficit and exercising, you'll attack the fat faster - your body will turn to fat to satisfy the calorie deficit.|
|Simple? not so||cyclopathic|
Jan 10, 2002 7:17 PM
|problem is that even if you burn 700Cal/hr only 200-300 of them come from fat. Other 400-500 come from glycogen and need to be replenished or your body will go into "powersave" mode. Your hypothetical 500cal/day deficit would also mean that you have to ride 3-5hr a day to afford it. This of cause assumes you care about your glycogen capacity.
Second, claims "I lost 2lbs in a 100mi ride" are not absolute nonsense. You burn glycogen and yes you loose weight when glucose converted to CO2 and H2O. Actually more weight per burned calorie as glucose has lesser energy value then fat, 1:4. Yes it is only temporary until you refill glycogen, but that's a diff story. And it would be hard to verify thanks to hydration aspects.
If his goal is to loose fat I would suggest to combine long/slow century type rides with lowcarb diet. Excluding carbos from your diet would force you use fat exclusively and then you indeed can burn 1lb of fat over 100mi.
Jan 11, 2002 6:22 AM
|Why would you exclude carbs from your diet? My understanding of the claims that low-carb (caveman, Atkin's, etc.) diets make are unsubstantiated. If you're not taking in carbs how are you going to replace glycogen or supply glucose for nervous tissue (short of breaking down muscle)? I've also read that people who are exercising and therefore depleting their glycogen stores beyond what they would anyway for supplying nervous tissue convert almost all consumed carbohydrate to glycogen. Plus if it gets converted to fat that uses up about 25% of the calories in the conversion process. I don't think it's been proven that you can train your body to burn fat by eating a high fat diet. Although, you can influence your bodies fuel source by the pre-exercise meal to some extent, basically if there's glucose in the blood you'll use it, if there's fat in the blood you'll use it (which isn't really the fat you'd like to be burning if you want to lose adipose tissue), my understanding of the relative amount of glycogen/fat that you use during exercise is almost entirely determined by the effort level. Ranging from about 50/50 at very low levels of exercise (like a brisk walk, real easy ride) to 100/0 when exercising around LT. Low-carb diets probably work because the people are eating less calories than they would otherwise (afterall they've eliminated a significant portion of their diet) and the lack of carbs in the diet prevent (plus slow digestion of fats/proteins) blood glucose swings that affect food cravings. So in short, they eat less calories and lose weight. But that doesn't mean it's a good diet for an exercising athlete (and I don't even think the people who advocate these diets suggest them for anybody who is doing anykind of serious exercising) who is making considerable demands on their glycogen stores.|
Jan 11, 2002 8:59 AM
|but if my goal was to loose fat I would.
With respect to "My understanding of the claims that low-carb (caveman, Atkin's, etc.) diets make are unsubstantiated" I have no comment I am not to start another religious war. The answer to this really depends on your believes, not the scientific facts which being manipulated by both sides.
One of the aspects of low-carb diet is that you limit your body to only source energy available: fat. Avg body burns ~2000Cal/day with depending on diet 10-30% of them coming from fat. Switching to fat would increase that rate to ~90%. On avg slow century you burn ~1000 fat Cal, low-carb diet would double if not triple this number.
And last I never stated that this diet would be good for competitive athlete. However, exercising while on lowcarb diet would help to loose fat.
|Yes it is simple||salmonwheel|
Jan 11, 2002 10:34 AM
|The idea that your body uses a higher percentage of fat for energy when working out at moderate intensities than high intensities is true, but does not mean that it is the best way to lose weight. As a cyclist this body mechanism is important because cycling is an endurance sport and you want to last a long time without depleting glycogen. BUt we need to think about the fat thing. Fat is what our bodies use to store calories (a unit of energy). You don't work out to direcly burn the fat and like magic ts gone. Your body needs calories, period. If you burn more calories you will lose weight faster, providing your body doesn't do those crazy famine response things which can generally be avoided by eating enough, and actually using your muscles. It's basically a calorie balance equation, a healthy body will convert fat to energy when it needs to say restore glycogen stores. Losing fat is about calories not fat molecules, fat molecules are just a way of storing fat. |
I've read quite a bit on this recently, and for most healthy people there is nothing wrong with working out hard. To lose weight you need to expend more energy than you take in, as long as your body is healthy and allowed to operate properly. Another point to consider is that we burn most of our daily calories just being alive. Muscle requires a lot of energy just to maintain, and muscle requires a lot of energy to maintain, which is why we store energy as fat not muscle. Strength training is very helpful for losing weight. If your asleep and your body needs energy it metabolizes energy stores like fat and glycogen. Get ye to a gym and lift some weights,get on a bike and don't worry about a magic heart rate zone for losing fat. But go at a pace that conserves glycogen stores if you plan on doing a long ride. If you're riding for an hour or less open up and pedal as hard as you feel comfortable, assuming you are in good health.
The evidence is quite clear on the protein diet plans, I think smoking crack might be a bit healthier way too lose weight. Who are the "sides" that manipulate data, non-profit government (USDA) and University research versus companies developed to sell and promote a diet plan. And by the way the USDA is the same agency that is pushing Milk and Cheese on all of us, but promotional branches and research branches are largely independent.
There is nothing magic about losing fat. 1 # of fat generally equals about 3500 calories
Jan 11, 2002 11:49 AM
|it basically comes down to calorie balance. If you only ate three Donuts a day you would lose weight (providing you didn't have the metabolism of a turtle) but it wouldn't be very healthy. Although you said, "a healthy body will convert fat to energy when it needs to say restore glycogen stores", thats not quite accurate. Your body lacks the ability to convert fat to glucose (which is normally the only fuel your brain tissue and neurons can use for energy) so if you're not taking in carbohydrates you may start producing Ketones from protien breakdown (i.e. your muscles) to fuel the brain, which is probably not a good thing.|
|..and we are back to square one||cyclopathic|
Jan 11, 2002 12:18 PM
|if you wanna loose fat you have to do what burns fat calories. 3600 calories are only equals to 1lb of fat if they came from fat burning.
with respect to your Ketosis phobia, all crnivores use it and you can't claim that their metabolism is inferior to herbivores. Our assessors started planting food ~10,000 ago, and we had millions of years before that to shape our metabolism. btw I don't recall reading about any evidence that they had diabetes, were fat, had heart problems or bad teeth.
|..and we are back to square one||SnowBlind|
Jan 11, 2002 12:46 PM
|Wow, you have access to the writings older than 10000 years!?!?!
Seriously, it would be hard to tell from the extremely few skeletons what they died from, certianly fat and heart problems would be hard to diagnose without soft tissue to examine.
|I will not get deeply into this one but...||Ahimsa|
Jan 11, 2002 4:48 PM
|A bit of fuel:
A) Evidence suggests that 10,000 years ago our ancestors likely all had the same blood type. Not true today (adaptation to agrarian foods).
B) Ketosis is irrelevent if applied to the carnivorous vs. herbivorous diet with respect to an omnivorous species like homo sapiens.
C)This battle is raging among doctors, dieticians and anthropologists with far greater grasp of the subject than is represented here and they fail to come to terms.
Therfore: Eat right and exercise and you shall lose weight. Claim to fully understand human nutrition and metabolic process at your own peril. Same for the current wave of fad diets, including Atkins.
|One thing to consider||Softrider|
Jan 11, 2002 8:54 AM
|Generally, a 250lb. person will burn more calories per hour of excercise than a 125lb. person (assuming all other variables remain the same).|| |