@tjagain, well done. You’re starting to realise what a constructive comment should look like. It would have been more helpful if you’d done that first eh? But I am a little confused why you cherry picked some responses. I take it you agree with all the comments that molgrips made apart from the one about fasted riding?
And on that, what are your reasons for thinking that structured asted rides to deplete glycogen stores does not create an efficiency improvement in your ability to burn fat as fuel?
I cannot believe I am about to get drawn into this again but:
there is one simple way to lose weight - run a calorie deficit.
As has been said many many times, and you want to ignore - your body is not a simple machine. It varies the calorie expenditure based on what you put in. Your metabolic rate will change depending on how much you eat. That's why (for example) weight training has been proven to be more effective than calorie restriction for weight loss.
Calorie restriction DOES work, of course, for many people particularly the obsese; but for many people such as those trying to train hard and/or who are looking to drop a few % body fat it is not the best way. You say you have a BASIC knowledge of physiology, but it's just that - basic. We are talking about a more specific situation.
You have read some journals. Well done - I have done a lot of experimentation on myself, and I have discovered certain effects which are also backed up by other things I have read. You have to remember that scientific papers have to be limited to highly specific experimental conditions, and if those conditions do not match what any particular rider is experiencing, the results will not apply.
Relying on malto dextrin - a mix of very highly refined sugars of dubious provenance - you don't even know what mix of sugars it is.
It's made from corn starch, and the label gives you a percentage pure maltodextrin. They might be lying, but since it's illegal I doubt it. You could accuse them all of lying, but that's incredibly unhelpful.
[url= https://www.bulkpowders.co.uk/maltodextrin.html ]This is what I've been using.[/url]
all this does is kick your insulin response into a hiugh gear leading to sugar crashes. maltodextrin is simply sugar that does not taste sweet
What you are saying about high insulin response leading to sugar crash is correct *at rest*. However when you are exercising hard, the situation is different. Insulin promotes uptake of glucose into muscle cells, which is exactly what you want when exercising intensely.
There is a lot of debate surrounding eating carbs immediately after working out, but much of this is aimed at debunking the things written by those selling column inches to gym bunnies, not cyclists. I can tell you from personal experimentation that for me, it is much easier to control how much carbohydrate I consume if I use maltodextrin during and after a ride. If I simply eat big meals, I will probably end up consuming too much carbohydrate and not lose weight. The longer I spend with low glycogen stores, the hungrier I'll get. If I have maltodextrin after a ride, then two hours later when I'm ready to eat a meal, I'll have a normal appetite and I can eat a sensible amount of low GI carbs which will include lots of veg and pulses etc. If I don't, I'll be starving and end up eating a much starchier meal so the veg will be replaced by bread or rice or whatever. This is not as good for me.
Do you have any experience of actual training and weight loss efforts, TJ? Or do you just ride recreationally?
Also - fasted riding is talked about on the British Cycling website. I choose to believe they have more than 'a basic knowledge' of physiology.
[url= https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/nutrition/article/izn20150818-All-Cycling-Fasted-Morning-Rides-0 ]Here's a link.[/url] The bit you'll quote I'm sure is that "The research study jury is still out on the performance benefits of fasted training" but you'll note that is followed by "but the anecdotal evidence from riders is strong". That's why I suggest trying it.
You'll notice that I'm strongly advocating personal experimentation. You however are simply arguing that you know best. I don't think you have much actual experience in this area.
No - I am arguing that what you say and the science differ greatly. anecdote is not evidence
for example on the cho / protein onein the article quoted above it refers to one study showing positive effects and five that do not ie the scioence is far from conclusive
Maltodextrin is a byproduct of industrial farming that the producers keep on trying to find uses for and is a mix of different length CHO chains and you do not know the composition of the mix.
From your link molgrips
"Maltodextrin is a sugar called a polysaccharide. It is manufactured from starch and gets its name due to its formation from Dextrose [b]polymers of different lengths[/b]" so you actually do not know the GI index of this industrial waste you are taking as a food supplement
As has been said many many times, and you want to ignore - your body is not a simple machine. It varies the calorie expenditure based on what you put in. Your metabolic rate will change depending on how much you eat. That's why (for example) weight training has been proven to be more effective than calorie restriction for weight loss.
Utter bollox. running a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight and there is no way on earth that expending 1000 calories with one form of exercise will make you lose weight more than expending 1000 calories in a different form of exercise
Utter bollox. running a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight and there is no way on earth that expending 1000 calories with one form of exercise will make you lose weight more than expending 1000 calories in a different form of exercise
From what i've read, that's not true? Certain exercise types give an 'after-burn' effect where the metabolism stays higher than others for longer, e.g high intensity exercise etc ? Which in turn has an effect of burning more calories ?
Utter bollox. running a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight and there is no way on earth that expending 1000 calories with one form of exercise will make you lose weight more than expending 1000 calories in a different form of exercise
Please don't get angry TJ. It's not going to help anyone.
If you do 1000 calories worth of intense exercise, you will deplete your glycogen stores. Your body needs to replenish these, so you either do so via a carbohydrate drink or some other food. In my experience it's easier to control carbohydrate intake (i.e. not eat too much) with carb drink than normal food.
As I understand it, if you eat carbs when your glycogen stores are low, the insulin released will promote glucose uptake and replenish your stores. If you eat carbs when your glycogen stores are full, the released insulin will encourage lipogenesis i.e. fat creation.
If you do 1000 calories worth of low intensity exercise, you will mostly burn fat, and then your glycogen stores will not be depleted, and you should not have a carb drink.
So it does matter what exercise you do.
Also, if you deplete your carb stores and keep them low, two things will happen. You will not be able to exercise as intensely, so your 1000 calories of exercise will likely end up being less, but also your base metabolic rate will slow eventually. So whilst you might be doing say 800 calories of exercise, when you *aren't* exercising you will be using fewer calories. So your overall expenditure could end up being the same or even lower.
Again, this is why calorie restriction has been shown scientifically to be less effective than calorie restriction. Suggest you google for papers.
From your link molgrips
"Maltodextrin is a sugar called a polysaccharide. It is manufactured from starch and gets its name due to its formation from Dextrose polymers of different lengths" so you actually do not know the GI
Well if the chain lengths follow a consistent distribution then yes you would know the GI. And its GI has been tested and is known. It's high. Which is what we want from it.
I'm not going to get drawn into the emotive and passive aggressive elements of your posts. Let's keep it rational.
anecdote is not evidence
Indeed, which is why I'm suggesting the OP try different things and figure out what works on a personal level.
Well if the chain lengths follow a consistent distribution then yes you would know the GI. And its GI has been tested and is known. It's high. Which is what we want from it.
they do not follow a consistent distribution tho so the GI index of any particular batch is not known. I have seen tests on maltodextrin that have been high and low GI results. Its usually close to glucose.
this is my issue with your assertions molgrips - basic misunderstandings of the starting position so GIGO
ts usually close to glucose
Then that's good, it's what we want.
basic misunderstandings of the starting position
No, I understand everything you say, and I have also read same and been told for 20 years. What I am talking about [i]moves on[/i] from that to more specific circumstances relating to amateur cyclists trying to lose stubborn weight whilst getting faster.
What a shame, the direction this thread has taken.
I'm not going to agree or disagree with any of the posts above but I think in the context of the OP's situation he's got some more basic steps to take with his diet before he starts looking at the complexity of fuelling his workouts.
When you're first starting out, small changes and consistency are what create positive results.
And you can't out-train a bad diet. He needs to get his diet sorted first. If he eats well then he'll have the energy to exercise.
good post Wallop
Sorry for my part in making this a pointless argument. I just get so frustrated with people making statements that are marketing bumf presented as fact
I just get so frustrated with people making statements that are marketing bumf presented as fact
Yes, me too, but that's not what I'm doing. If you read my comments from the start, you'll see that the first thing I suggest is to stop eating the chocolate and get fuel from real food.
THEN I suggest that using carb drink *can* help control hunger cravings after lots of exercise, and that the OP may wish to experiment with such. Then you lost your shit, and said some things that apply to sugary drinks taken *at rest* not carb drink taken during exercise.
My point is he needs to experiment, to try and find what works for him and his exercise. He should of course cut out the chocolate, but he will need to replace it with something if he's feeling shaky and weak.
and said some things that apply to sugary drinks taken *at rest* not carb drink taken during exercise.
More basic misundertanding
there is no metabolic difference between "sugary drinks" and maltodextrin. Maltodextrin is sugar. Sports drinks containing maltodextrin are "sugary drinks"
CAN BOTH OF YOU STOP NOW PLEASE K THANKS
there is no metabolic difference between "sugary drinks" and maltodextrin. Maltodextrin is sugar. Sports drinks containing maltodextrin are "sugary drinks"
I know why you are saying this. But I suspect you do not know the whole story.
And you can't out-train a bad diet. He needs to get his diet sorted first. If he eats well then he'll have the energy to exercise.
This is true, and stated by a few of us from early on. My issue was that tjagain just jumped in with blanket criticism rather than making the effort to be constructive.
People can be constructive and incorrect, it’s more helpful to point that out rather than insulting them
remember reading something Joe Barnes said once about him hoovering bowls of mashed potato before races as its the perfect fuel?? might be complete bollocks but i didnt need to hear any more - i effing LOVE mashed potato!!
jeez, this has gone scientific real quick.
Next question, anyone know where I can lease a car from?
*asking for a brother in law 😆
there is no way on earth that expending 1000 calories with one form of exercise will make you lose weight more than expending 1000 calories in a different form of exercise
Surely 1000 calories of muscle building exercise (weightlifting) will burn more calories than 1000 calories of slow jogging? Having more muscle will increase daily calorie burn?
Surely 1000 calories of muscle building exercise (weightlifting) will burn more calories than 1000 calories of slow jogging?
You might want to think about that 🙂
No he's right.
Different exercise has different effects on the body. If you expend 1000 calories lifting heavy weights, that's a big workout, and your metabolic rate will be higher for a while afterwards because you're repairing the damage you do i.e. responding to stimulus. Do this regularly and you'll increase testosterone levels which on their own will make you leaner regardless. Also you'll build more muscle which itself will use more energy to keep alive even when you're sleeping. Do you ever go on a long hard bike ride then find you're warm afterwards as your body recovers? You get warm legs in bed that night? I do. That heat is a by product of your increased metabolic rate as you recover.
1000 calories worth of light jogging won't do much except use about 500 cals of fat.
Getting back on topic I would seriously recommend my fitness pal to the OP. He can log his food and his exercise and see the levels of various nutrients. Including sugar! In his diet
He said he’s already using it...
Though he’s not getting enough of a shock from all the calories he must be logging!
Wallop / jonnyboi -0 point taken but its tricky when nonsense is posted like ......................... muffled screams
And another positive thread giving an OP some fairly decent advice descends into yet another pointless arguement.....
Though he’s not getting enough of a shock from all the calories he must be logging!
Gotta use it right.
I think the OP is trying to diet too hard and then ending up giving in to the cravings frequently, so he's ending up eating more at the wrong times and his body is getting its calories one way or another to maintain weight. Bodies want to maintain weight. Careful judicious use of energy drink helps me keep this under control.
TJ - just a tip. If someone posts something you don't agree with, don't go off on one ranting and raving. Just cordially disagree and post an alternative. If you were in the pub I'm sure it's what you'd do, I can't imagine you'd be ranting and raving like you do on here. At least not for the first few pints 🙂
Molgrips just a tip. Perhaps lay off the passive aggressive bulshit. I have read the whole thread and TJ doesnt seem angry at all.
Different exercise has different effects on the body. If you expend 1000 calories lifting heavy weights, that's a big workout, and your metabolic rate will be higher for a while afterwards because you're repairing the damage you do i.e. responding to stimulus
This is however pure bull shit and like the best bullshit its got some facts in it. At the end of the day 1000 calories is 1000 calories. Sure intense exercise will keep your metabolism higher for longer, but that means the exercise burnt more than 1000 calaries!!
This is however pure bull shit and like the best bullshit its got some facts in it. At the end of the day 1000 calories is 1000 calories. Sure intense exercise will keep your metabolism higher for longer, but that means the exercise burnt more than 1000 calaries!!
I'd suggest that using the word 'bullshit' is aggressive itself.
But you are splitting hairs - I thought it obvious what timidwheeler meant and he is still right. 1000 calories of weight lifting will burn more than 1000 calories in total. An important and useful point.
I'd suggest that using the word 'bullshit' is aggressive itself.
Harden up princess. I'd suggest it just means he thinks you are talking bollocks
My point was that after a 1000 calorie light work out you burn no additional calories. After a 1000 calorie weightlifting work out you will have a greater muscle mass which will raise your BMR leading to further increased calorie burn. There is nothing difficult or controversial about that observation.
How are all the experts getting on with their recommendations?
Cook properly, move more, eat less.
Cook properly, move more, eat less.
And when that leaves you feeling weak, what should you do?
As a passing observer, I would suggest the OP stands to lose a chunk of weight if he ditches the chocolate. In the context of the STW sub forum about diet/weight loss, this is a pretty straightforward case, doctor.
Have I understood that right and can we move on?
PS: FWIW OP, and from experience, the sugar cravings stop after a week or so and you'll find the taste of really sugary food less pleasant afterwards. You just have to get through the first week.
In the context of the STW sub forum about diet/weight loss, this is a pretty straightforward case, doctor.
Well, the thing is that he is eating them because he is hungry, and he's hungry because of the amount of exercise he's doing. So he'll need to replace them with something else. Simply having bigger starchier evening meals may not be the solution; likewise simply MTFUing and not eating.
timidwheeler - Memberafter a 1000 calorie light work out you burn no additional calories. After [b]a 1000 calorie weightlifting work out you will have a greater muscle mass [/b]which will raise your BMR leading to further increased calorie burn. [b]There is nothing difficult or controversial about that observation[/b].
Except it's wrong. Lifting weights isn't going to mean you have more muscle mass unless you do it consistently and in a calorific surplus.
Well, the thing is that he is eating them because he is hungry,
Is he hungry though, or does he just think he's hungry? I'd suggest it's just habit, does exercise, feels dizzy as that's what always happens, etas chocolate, stops feeling 'dizzy', magic chocolate has worked.
The whole thing is just a habit that can be stopped with a bit of rational thought and determination.
Oh and fasted riding works well for me which I usually do around March to get rid of the last remaining winter bulk.
Molly, I respect and have taken useful pointers from your posts on this subject but aren't you over-thinking this?
Replacing sugary snacks with better options of high satiety/low GI value is the way to go. After the OP's sussed that he can look at the nuances of LCHF and fasted exercise etc.
Except it's wrong. Lifting weights isn't going to mean you have more muscle mass unless you do it consistently and in a calorific surplus.
No, it's factually correct.
However I assumed that it was blindingly obvious, that to have any significant effect, there would need to be more than one workout. Thank you for clarifying.
timidwheeler - MemberExcept it's wrong. Lifting weights isn't going to mean you have more muscle mass unless you do it consistently and in a calorific surplus.No, it's factually correct.
Go ahead and increase your muscle mass on a calorie controlled diet. Post pics in 6 months.
Molly, I respect and have taken useful pointers from your posts on this subject but aren't you over-thinking this?
In respect to the OP - not really.. all I did was offer some things he may wish to try. I am advocating experimenting to find out what works. First thing I said was to put the chocolate down.
If ever a thread needing splitting this is it!.
1. OP just needs to cut the shite out of his diet and not necessarily reduce calories - GIGO
2. there's an interesting conversation to be had about aerobic exercise and lean muscle mass impacting resting metabolic rate. also the importance of refuelling after exercise to ward off the harmful effects of glycogen depletion.
And when that leaves you feeling weak, what should you do?
Crumble and have a can of coke?
Also, you won't have more muscle mass after doing a 1000 calorie weights session. You will have more muscle mass after you've fuelled your body with enough protein and your muscles have had enough rest to rebuild and grow.
