[Closed] Stupid question about exercise and weight loss

are you riding on the road or some kind of conveyor belt?

I don't think that this is a stupid question at all, I would be very interested to know the answer myself. All I can find on t'web is that it takes 24-72 hours to break down, absorb and use the contents of a meal [url= http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/metabolizes-faster-fat-protein-1299.html ](link)[/url] but that doesn't tell me how long it takes to get the fat out of the adipose cells that the body uses to store them in. The same article also says that there is a 24hr delay before you can see fat reduction after dieting and exercise, although that is dependent upon many variables. Maybe that answers your question?

If you are utilising fat to produce some of the 3500 cals, then it has to be processed at the time, otherwise you won't get the energy.

The key thing is what proportion of the 3500 cals is actually from fat and not from glycogen stores or food, energy bars, malt loaf etc.

What happens afterwards and how your body 're-balances' is probably far more complicated.

Matt

Certainly not a stupid question. For anyone active and trying to burn fat and still recover from a ride/workout, the answer is the Holy Grail!

What matt said, don't eat anything, empty your glycogen stores and it'll be fat and muscle getting burnt with immediate effect. You'll still yoyo rehydrating and though.

Why does it matter, though?

Eat as little fat as possible,, eat less salt, eat 100/200g protein per day, carb up on unprocessed clean food, ride as much as you can, job done.

* unqualified interweb advice content. 🙂

Actually the myth about eating fat is in the process of being busted. The idea that you are what you eat is not necessarily true and actually a lot of the problems in recent years/decades is about our consumption of carbs and not fat, contrary to the anti-fat, pro carb propaganda we've been peddled over the last 30 years or so. The problem with the forms of carbs we often eat is that they cannot be used by the body so are converted to fat anyway (we've evolved to eat fat not carbs), so eating fat after exercise is not necessarily a problem. The key is what type of fat you eat.

Most of the problem of losing weight is nothing to do with exercise but how much we shovel down our throats anyway. We mostly eat too much. The human body is pretty efficient - it doesn't need many calories to do things, so it is a pretty inefficient approach to use exercise only to burn fat - it can help, but in the space of a few seconds you can consume the calories it would take a number of hours of exercise to burn, so attack the problem at it's source - restrict what you shovel into your gob! Easily said than done though, knowing what you have to do and doing it are two different things altogether.

My problem is two fold: portion control - I am good at not eating between meals, but I probably have double the portion size per meal than I should, and 'letting go at the weekend' - as soon as Friday comes around so do the beers, curries and those little treats!

Most of the problem of losing weight is nothing to do with exercise but how much we shovel down our throats anyway.

Hence why gastric bands work.

I agree, it's not to do with too much fat, sugars, etc the obesity problem is largely that of portion-size. Plates and bowls are nearly twice the size they were 20 years ago, and food is more affordable.

You can't out-exercise a bad diet, as they say.

Re portion size - so true. Was the biggest quick learning when i started trying to lose weight 30 months ago. I started with mfp and trying to keep to 1600cals by weighing out 'portions', latterly moving to 5:2 fwiw

1/ to start with you look at it on your plate and think 'shit! Is that it? Have i mismeasured?'

2/ You quickly start to work out what foods are calories rich per g and which are filling while still being relatively calories poor. Lean protein, like chicken and white fish for example is 'about' a calories per gram. Red meat about 2-3 times that depending on fat content. Bacon about 5x unless you trim all the fat off, which defeats the point of a bacon sandwich! Bread about 100cals per slice......

3/ In a calories per bulk basis, vegetables are great.

If you track your food intake, you maybe surprised on how much you consume.
I like to snack, I wish I didn't, but it costs so much in calories, that it hurts (with fat, I guess)
As above, we don't need to eat as much as we think.

One interesting fact (well, I found it interesting) - when you lose fat, where does it go? Well, you breathe it out.

[url= http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216212047.htm ]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216212047.htm[/url]

i heard that lady of the radio, bit obvoius though isnt it were else would it go? and its not actuall fat its the leftover after youve used it to fuel your body.

There was something on the radio earlier this week about different types of fat. subcutaneous fat and visceral fat. The one that is more inside you get lost first but shows less on your body type, Now I wonder if it also shows less in weigh and hence will effect the answer to your question

When fat cells get emptied, they fill with water (unsure of to capacity or not). The fat that was stored in them has gone, because it's been converted into energy, basically. So, in that sense, the fat goes right away.

But, your energy needs during exercise get met in lots of ways, from a variety of energy sources which includes fat cells. So in that sense, you don't necessarily lose that weight in that instant, because your energy needs may be met in other ways.

[i]Re portion size - so true.[/i]

Use a smaller plate, like a breakfast one instead of a lunch/dinner one.

It'll look piled up too 🙂

One of the sunbsequent benefits of my new diet is the much smaller food bill, for me personally c.50% of what it was, for that reason alone your unlikely to get food producers/retailers supprting healthy food consumption.

Last year and this year I went through trying to loose a stone each time using what I feel is common sense and suitable for my own body.

First off try using a calorie tracking app for a week. It really surprised me where my calories were coming from and also, what appeared to be small portions were actually still quite large. I used that knowledge to gauge what I ate as I didn't want to track everything for months.

I chose to aim for a relatively modest calorie reduction each day but for me the real effect came from what I did on days I cycled. Rather than carb load abit and eat a big breakfast pre ride. I'd eat the same as normal the night before, a small breakfast and then try to ride on the fewest calories possible. Sometimes skipping lunch but maybe one snack bar mid ride. Post ride I'd allow myself a larger than normal dinner.

This was following the process that food consumed post ride is efficiently stored to be burnt next time. As my system had few calories in it during exercise, I was forced to burn any fat. Each time I lost a stone in 2 months and kept it off.

If you are utilising fat to produce some of the 3500 cals, then it has to be processed at the time, otherwise you won't get the energy.

Yes, of course! Sometimes I overcomplicate the issue and forget the simple mechanics.

What happens afterwards and how your body 're-balances' is probably far more complicated.

This sounds interesting!

I'm wondering about the timescales involved when calories get burnt when you exercise

As most fat loss is breathed out as Co2, the amount you loose in exercise comes off pretty much straight away, I'd have thought?

It's a bloody mystery.

On the calorie front, if you eat 'well', almost no matter what the portion size, you struggle to eat the 'recommended' calorie intake a day anyhow!

To the op - just play around, experiment, get a bit obsessive and you'll eventually settle & realise what works for [i]you[/i]. 🙂

Pretty much everything you "burn" as fuel ends up as carbon dioxide and water as they are the elements which make up fats and carbs, you may as well say you piss the fat as exhale it.

BTW what sort of exercise are you doing that's burning 3500kcal? 😯

90kg man doing 'vigorous' road cycling at 14mph estimates at about 800 cals; same for mtbing. So a 4 hour ride is possibly a bit overestimated but not far off.

Some interesting stuff, thank you.

I suppose my question stems from looking at the exercise that I'm doing from purely a weight loss perspective. I have a regular 45 mile xc loop with around 2800 ft of climbing which I ride twice a week at present. Strava and MFP tell me I'm using up around 2700 cals each time and I am interested in making those count towards an overall weight loss. For the record I've dropped 7.5 kg (could do with losing another 10 unfortunately as well) in 2 months and as my fitness improves I'm looking to get the most out of each ride.

They already count to your weight loss, are you just eating them again the same day. I try these days not to over eat before or after execise, just let my body burn fat which seems to work so far.

i agree with @ Travis - if you track what you eat on your phone - plenty of apps out there, it's much easier to see what you're consuming in food but also exercise.

I've found that weighing myself throughout the day results in varying degrees of fluctuations. I seem to loose and gain weight throughout the day. Makes sense i suppose as you eat, sh*t and pi*s it out.

Which is why they always say weigh yourself at the same time every day....stick to a time and go with it.

Although i don't agree with weighing yourself first thing in the morning since you've effectively fasted/dehydrated for 7/8 hours, you're bound to be on the low side...

This is an interesting read.

I also want to loose some weight to make my trousers a bit loser. 🙂

My Garmin said I used a shade under 5000 calories on a 75 mile road ride today. Having had some cakes and sandwiches during the ride, then big dinner, beer and wine I suspect I'm no longer in calorie deficit 😳

I suppose my question stems from looking at the exercise that I'm doing from purely a weight loss perspective.

My understanding is that it takes the body around half an hour of aerobic exercise to use up its glucose and glycogen stores, and then it's on to using up the fat. I'm guessing that some of this will be in the blood stream already, as well as some in the liver, and then you're on to the stuff in the adipose cells. However, on not sure how that half hour estimate has been arrived at and it must be subject to variation, right?

My understanding is that it takes the body around half an hour of aerobic exercise to use up its glucose and glycogen stores, and then it's on to using up the fat. I'm guessing that some of this will be in the blood stream already, as well as some in the liver, and then you're on to the stuff in the adipose cells. However, on not sure how that half hour estimate has been arrived at and it must be subject to variation, right?

So I'm assuming that using energy gels etc throughout a ride just prolongs this initial process and limits the opportunity to burn fat? That's useful information for me, and pretty illuminating, although perhaps a bit bloody obvious when you think about it! 🙂

You weigh less in a morning because you've been burning fat for 6/8 hours and not eating. I find it the best time to weigh myself as later will be variable due to whatever you do through the day eat/exercise. You will be slightly under hydrated but consistently so if you otherwise keep your pee as clear as possible which is rule #1 for me.

don't forget your hormone levels e.g. cortisol/HGH ratio

...So I'm assuming that using energy gels etc throughout a ride just prolongs this initial process and limits the opportunity to burn fat?

If you're exercising to lose fat then yes, exercise semi-fasted and only drink water during the exercise.
You'll have to start on low duration exercise say about 30 minutes, but build this slowly and your metabolism will adapt over a few months.
If you combine this with a calorie deficient diet structured around low GI carbs and regular (4-5 a day) small protein/veg based meals you will lose weight in a maintainable manner and become leaner/fitter 🙂

You shouldn't be specifically targeting fat loss though, its calories you want to burn and if you create a deficit then the fat will be lost anyway. If you exercise semi-fasted and only drink water then you can only exercise at fairly low intensity (or for short periods as you burn up your glycogen stores) - that's good for training your body to better use fat as fuel source but not for fat loss. You're better off riding at higher intensities and for longer and using a lot more calories (obviously without wolfing down gels/cake/haribo) but some on-the-bike refueling is fine.

...that's good for training your body to better use fat as fuel source but not for fat loss

You won't "burn" fat during exercise until your body has been adpated to use it effectively

....You're better off riding at higher intensities and for longer and using a lot more calories

where do these calories come from if you haven't pre adapted your body to use fat as fuel?

It's why many people "give up" on losing weight, they think an hour or so of exercise needs carb loading before, a few sports drinks to "get through it" and a recovery drink afterwards - net calories balance, probably few hundred in the fat bank.

You have to do the semi-fasted mid intensity exrecise regime before you can go and "smash it" or you'll either be munching down sugar snacks after 1/2 hour or bonking badly.
Metabolic training is as much a part of becoming fit as the physiological and psychological aspects, and probably the part most people understand the least.

Agree with hilldodger, yesterday I had a banana and kiwi smoothie (with water) and a litre of water pre ride, did 50 miles @19.5mph with just water, then a egg sandwich(daughter was testing out some new camping gear) and a tarka dhall for dinner.

No need for extra "energy" food plenty in reserve with my 10kg of lard to burn!

There is an easier way, ditch the cardio and hit the weights. You use a shed load of calories repairing your muscles and weights are a good way to do that damage. Use big muscle groups (quads, glutes, hamstrings) and work to failure, weighted squats are good for this, find the weight you need for your 10 rep max and do 5 sets of that 4 times a week. You'll barely be able to walk but you'll lose weight. If you want to do cardio do hard, short stuff, 1 hour in the morning working at threshold with no fuel bar an espresso is very good for this.

And good, just eat less of it and try to eat clean not processed stuff, try and avoid carbs after 6pm as well. Don't need to complicate it more than that

+1 to dropping the gels and energy drinks.

Diet aside, and if you don't already, can I suggest throwing a few weight training sessions into your week? Fill an old duffelbag with sand and throw that around for half an hour (lots of guides on the internet on how to make and train with one). It will help with the weight loss.

And indeed, cut out the food during a ride. I can do 100 road miles at 16mph solo on water, a banana and a sarny at 75 miles, anything under 2 hours, arguably 3 you can do without any food at all.

Personally I found calorie counting apps to have a downside. Tendency to become obsessive about it, coupled with the number of people on there who clearly have disordered eating. The problem also with very calorie-restricted diets is that once you've lost the weight, you start eating more "normally" and then you will put it back on again. Changing the type of food you eat is as important as things like sensible portion sizes. It takes around 2-4 weeks for your tastebuds to get used to eating food with less sugar/salt, for example. Calories are not all equal, and we process energy from different foods in a different way. For example, we now know that fructose is metabolised in the liver, not by the digestive system.

Wow, what a thread!

A helpful member of this forum once shared some personal exercise data on another thread.
They is "Trickydisco" IIRC.
The data clearly demonstrated they burnt more fat while undertaking low intensity exercise.

Carry on.

Excellent info here. Tagged for reference.

If people are actually reading this I better correct my error on the previous page.

Eat as little fat as possible,, eat less salt, eat 100/200g protein per day, carb up on unprocessed clean food, ride as much as you can, job done.

Its weight based but Protein RDA is more like 50/80g thats not a lot and you can get it from non meat stuff quite easily.

Get a tandem. Take a fat chick for a ride every morning before breakfast.

(or vice versa if you're lady)

Use resistance exercise to increase your muscle mass too.

Nothing burns through calories like lean (muscle) tissue....even at rest muscle tissue needs an ungodly amount of calories to repair, maintain and grow.

Throw in a gym session when you perform some of the big exercises like squats or deadlifts and you'll be great, it'll probably help with cycling too.

Don't worry about 'getting too big'....this almost never happens, actually trying to gain muscle mass to the point your clothes don't fit and you look like a body builder is a lifelong endeavour for most people who are into it....it doesn't happen by accident when weights are used as supplementary exercise to something like cycling.

In answer to the original question, it will probably be over a period of time.

Initially your body will use glycogen. If you've eaten recently this will be replaced through your digestive system. If you've not I assume that your body responds (releases glucogon?) and starts to metabolize fat reserves. As someone pointed out, your body uses different fat at different times. A lot of it is stored around your organs for protection and you'll use this last, compared to the wobbly bits you see. If you exercise slowly enough then this should continue to happen which I think is why fasted, slow rides are claimed to work. However, go to hard, your blood sugar drops and you bonk.

After exercise you will still need energy. You body will need to repair itself (the recovery part) as everything in the body is pretty much driven by the same energy reactions (ATP) you will continue to burn extra calories while this happens. Again, if you don't eat this will probably come from fat but may be diminished and inefficient.

I've been trying to lose weight for the upcoming hill climb season. I'll consider it a success if I get to about 72kg losing about 3kg. For me that is enough to make me look skinny and not really sustainable as I like cake too much. My approach has been to eat sensibly on days when I'm training and not cut back on calories. I have been weighing a few things and it surprised me how little I need to eat even hitting 3000+ calories in a day. I have cut back calories on rest days but have made sure my diet is still balanced so I am recovering and not losing strength.

Don't cut out food while riding. Just be mindful of what you eat. You can become reliant on gels and drinks when in reality they are not needed for normal riding. I use them, but only in specific examples like racing or very (very) long rides where calorie counting is purely done to makes sure I'm in excess.

GI seems to have gone out of fashion recently but it is still worth considering. Complex carbs will help you feel full and regulate your blood sugar. Haribo and refined simple carbs cause spikes and dips which make it harder to control your appetite. Finally, eat lots of veg, you need to eat a hell of a lot of things like broccoli to get 2000 calories.

I have been weighing a few things and it surprised me how little I need to eat even hitting 3000+ calories in a day.

So true! I've recently taken to carrying a little Tupperware container of peanuts to college or on a long ride etc. It holds 200g, so I typed that into the Internet to see how many calories. 1,134!!!!

I am not sure about the relationship between calories used when cycling and weight loss - I don't seem to lose much weight even if I do a long (100 mile or more) ride.

Whereas if I run the weight drops off much more quickly.

I am lazy enough to mostly run right in the 'fat-burning' zone, whereas I guess that I am not in that zone when cycling.

re portion size - just get used to feeling slightly hungry before each scheduled meal, if you are not then cut back on the previous portion.

Agree with a lot of what has been written here.

I'm training for the Chester marathon at the minute and find the long runs of 2-3.5 hours can easily be done on water plus a banana.

I put this down to the intensity of the exercise. Your body does not use glycogen then fat, in that order, but a mixture of the two. At lower intensity your energy requirements are lower and so the slower 'fat metabolism' can satisfy a larger proportion of the requirement. This means that your glycogen stores will last longer.

The vast majority of my runs are done at 75% of my maximum heart rate or less, which I could probably maintain until my feet were burger meat.

Matt

I am lazy enough to mostly run right in the 'fat-burning' zone, whereas I guess that I am not in that zone when cycling.

There was a study recently that called the "fat buring zone" stuff into question. It basically showed that whatever intensity you trained your burned the same amount of fat. At higher intensities you were also buring more glycognen.

The differences between your running and cycling may be the other way round, running will naturally burn many more cals per hour than cycling, so it's simply the number of cals you are burning that causes you to lose weight from running. You may also be running in a more fasted state than you cycle as you subconciously fuel up for a long bike ride but are fasted when running.

I've found that to lose weight through cycling the best approach is fasted rides before/without breakfast. The intensity wasn't really important and most rides would include a couple of efforts at least due to where I live being bloody hilly. But over time my body became more adjusted to using fat as a source of energy. They only time I would feel exhausted was if I went over threshold. The effort was fine but afterwards my body wanted fuel to recover from the effort.

There was a study recently that called the "fat buring zone" stuff into question. It basically showed that whatever intensity you trained your burned the same amount of fat. At higher intensities you were also buring more glycognen.

That sounds interesting I'd like to read that. Have you got a link? 🙂

If you want to lose weight then you have to be at calorific deficit.

You have a certain number of calories your body needs for essential functions to keep you alive. You then require a certain amount of energy for whatever you do on top of that (e.g: bike riding, gym etc.).

If your calorie requirements are not met by your intake, then your body will burn fat to make up the deficit. If you take in more than you need, your body will store it as fat. That's all there is to weight loss and gain. Pretty much everything else is of negligible benefit to the general populace, and some of it is arguably harmful.

wobbliscott - Member
...we've evolved to eat fat not carbs...

I keep hearing that mentioned, but I wonder if it's a proven fact or an assumption.

I can't think of any of the apes that are particularly carnivorous. They will consume meat, but it's mainly a plant based diet, and our dentition is that of an omnivore.

Especially when you consider how many health problems seem to involve a large % meat diet.

Re. adding muscle / weight training, i've read various places that the calorie burning is more about the calories the "extra" muscle requires to recover & repair after training than simply burning through layers of fat whilst you sit & watch tv. Apparently at rest, pound for pound, muscle & fat cells require a relatively low amount of calories just to maintain & it's only when you start to really work the muscle it starts demanding considerably more.

Numbers i've seen floating around previously suggest that adding an extra 1lb of muscle will chew through 50cals per day just doing nothing, however other studies suggest it's closer to a tenth of that - which sounds more believable as otherwise anyone who stuck on 20lbs of muscle through weight training would require an extra 1000 calories per day just to prevent their body from gradually eating itself.

Weight training is very good for burning calories & I find it helps on the bike, even doing stuff like kettlebells which is good for building core muscle strength a couple of times per week helps loads. I do 2 x 45 minute classes per week - started mostly using the 12/14kg weights & now mostly use the 24/28kg ones & feel much stronger on the bike for it - still no 6 pack & rippling biceps though, my weight & general appearance are pretty much the same... maybe a bit more muscle and a bit less fat but not so you'd notice 😕

It takes very dedicated training, or access to some excellent anabolics to build 20lbs of muscle.

I think the figure quoted for newbie gains is 0.5lbs a week. So 40 weeks' worth of training for a man. The average giffer has probably quit the gym in 4 weeks to party with the lads, or because he HAS to have a bottle of red wine every Friday night, or because KFC night is a tradition with his housemate.

If you want to see your 6 pack, then lose fat by eating at a calorific deficit. Everyone has "abs" they're just hidden under a layer of fat.

Going from 2x10 to ss has made a difference for me same rides. still the gears for social rides. But working harder, working body harder and there's more bulk on the leg muscles

It's a lot more complicated than pepole think. A lot depends on your physiological profile, how your body responds and the kind of riding you do when you are riding. Two people can do the same ride at the same pace and one can burn lots of fat, the other lots of glycogen.

Losing weight AND training to improve at the same time can be easy if you are an unfit biffer, but CAN rather difficult if you are already quite fit and want to get down to race weight.

I've observed that the most weight loss comes from the biggest change in habit. People who have always been fit and are trying to get down to single digits body fat - that's hard. Couch potatoes who think crisps and pop constitutes lunch and then decided to clean up their act seem to be able to lose 30kg or so just by being sensible.

There was a study recently that called the "fat buring zone" stuff into question. It basically showed that whatever intensity you trained your burned the same amount of fat. At higher intensities you were also buring more glycognen.

That ties in with traditional thinking. The 'fat burning' zone isn't where you burn the most fat, it's where you burn the most fat for the least effort. So you need to stay in it for hours. Anything above that and you won't be able to stay in it for as long.

Well as I started this I suppose I should report back in 🙂

I rode my usual xc 40 miler yesterday at my usual pace but this time without any additional food before, nothing except water during, and nothing excessive after. Felt great throughout and for some reason a lot less fatigued afterwards. Given that I'm limiting myself to around 1500 cals daily and that I hadn't eaten since the evening before I expected to feel a bit shit on the ride particularly as most of 2800 ft of climbing is in the second half. Not at all though. Felt very comfortable, empty and kind of warm. I'm guessing that's the fat burning zone. It appears to be the case according to my scales today although I'm sure there's other factors like hydration in that also.

I think this approach combined with my 1500 cal daily limit and achingly wholesome diet should get me to where I'm going. Then I'll work on getting fast 🙂

That ties in with traditional thinking. The 'fat burning' zone isn't where you burn the most fat, it's where you burn the most fat for the least effort. So you need to stay in it for hours. Anything above that and you won't be able to stay in it for as long.

No, the traditional thinking was that out of the fat burning zone you switch from fat to gylcogen and don't burn fat. So intense exercise wouldn't help you lose fat.

That has been called into question. I think the study was reported on cycling weekly. I'll try to dig it out.

I rode my usual xc 40 miler yesterday at my usual pace but this time without any additional food before, nothing except water during, and nothing excessive after. Felt great throughout and for some reason a lot less fatigued afterwards. Given that I'm limiting myself to around 1500 cals daily and that I hadn't eaten since the evening before I expected to feel a bit shit on the ride particularly as most of 2800 ft of climbing is in the second half. Not at all though. Felt very comfortable, empty and kind of warm. I'm guessing that's the fat burning zone. It appears to be the case according to my scales today although I'm sure there's other factors like hydration in that also.
I think this approach combined with my 1500 cal daily limit and achingly wholesome diet should get me to where I'm going. Then I'll work on getting fast

This is all good to hear. If you are able to pull off this kind of regime and still feel ok then it sounds to me like you are quids in! Let us know how it goes 🙂

No, the traditional thinking was that out of the fat burning zone you switch from fat to gylcogen and don't burn fat

I'd never heard it explained like that, but I think a lot of people misunderstood it to be that.

Yossarian, that sounds like when I do fasted rides except it took me a lot of training to be able to do it, certainly was not able on my first try! You might find though that your fatigue builds up over a few rides.. But you might not!

So this fasted riding thing.

Normally before a ride I'd have something sensible like a bowl of porridge, and a cup of coffee. I then eat 'as needed' on the ride, so probably something every hour and that's usually a gel, or half a cereal bar, or (mid ride stop) a croissant or similar. So eating relatively frequently but way less than the sports science folks would have you believe, which is 2-3 gels per hour or equiv for someone of my body mass, riding at a reasonable intensity (last sunday's ride for example was 44 miles in 3:23 with 935m climbing; 28% at less than 70% intensity, 30% at 70-80% intensity, 31% at 80-90% intesnsity and 11% >90%, according to HRM. ie; not just a bimble)

I get the bit about necking an expresso and going for it, but then how long before starting to refuel? If i do the same ride as above (which i will tomorrow give or take) I know i can't do that on water and air alone. Do i ride until I reach the point where I feel hungry, which'll be quite quick, do i set an hour or 90 minutes and then start, or do i wait until I'm already thinking about the calorific content of grass and whether there are any discarded sandwiches in the bin at the bus stop before giving in?

[edit - and I understand longer rides at lower intensity being less bonk inducing, but i have a time window to stick to and in any case, with 900m in 40 miles and a few 20% gradients I'm going to be in Z4 or Z5 like it or not]

I'd never heard it explained like that,

Obviously it's not that simple!

But the general concensus was that there is a "Fatmax" intensity where you burn the most fat per hour. It was thought to be about 60% of VO2max. Over that and the theory was you burn less fat per hour, not just less fat as a % of total energy but less fat for the same amount of time.

The German study tried to replicate this but actually found that fat burned per hour was constant and didn't vary with intensity. So training at "Fatmax" had no benefit. If you had loads of time and wanted to minimise your training load the you could go lower than 60% of VO2max and still burn fat but if time is limited you will still burn as much fat if you train at 90% of VO2max vs 60%. Training at higher intensity is obviously better for us plebs who have to fit it in around the rest of life and therefore don't have endless hours to plod around at low intensity hoping to burn fat.

It is also easier to create a callorie deficit at higher intesities which has the added benefit of not just burning fat but preventing the body from being able to store new fat.

So basically if you go to the gym for 2-3 hours a week training in the fat burning zone is potentially twaddle.

I found the link: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/fitness/training/what-is-your-peak-fat-burn-intensity-22702

Ironically the new study is actually closer to your undertanding than the traditional views on the subject.

My experience of it is that fatmax and all this twaddle is bascially useless in an average person. What really makes the difference is diet combined with exercising while fasted. Your body can't burn glycogen at any intensity if there isn't any.

Yossarian, that sounds like when I do fasted rides except it took me a lot of training to be able to do it, certainly was not able on my first try! You might find though that your fatigue builds up over a few rides.. But you might not!

I was surprised at how good I felt. Kept waiting for the bonk which never came. I'm still carrying a couple of gels in case I get into trouble though!

I will be riding this loop 6 times in the next 12 days and every one of those is planned to be a fasted ride so we'll see how I feel at the end of that! 🙂

45 minutes.

The theory is that eating food promotes insulin secretion, and that insulin suppressed lipolysis. So if you eat something your body tends not to burn fat. Then when you exercise you ate burning more carbs, which depletes glycogen which makes you hungry for carbs and you then eat them and so it continues.

The effect of insulin on lipolysis might last many hours so before breakfast is ideal. Of course carb rich foods promote lots of insulin but all foods do a bit.

After 45 mins or so your body should have warmed up on fat and used a bit of glycogen stores, so then when you eat carbs during the ride the insulin is helping the muscles take up the stuff you eat.

That's what I was told anyway, seems to match my experiences. Be really fasted before you start, like 4 hours at least, then ride for 45 mins before your gel or jelly babies or whatever. I find that if I do this I end up consuming waaay less carbs throughout the ride, so it would seems to be working somehow or other. Also it's really good endurance training in itself regardless of fat loss.

Fasted training is a pretty old idea - train low, race high. However make sure you eat carbs afterwards to recover.

Ta. Will give it a go tomorrow. If you see a man chewing his own leg off on barhatch lane, you'll know I've waited too long.

I also find that I can ride very well on a fasted ride but only up to a certain intensity. If I sprint over a certain level that's when I feel knackered.

Solo - Member
A helpful member of this forum once shared some personal exercise data on another thread...The data clearly demonstrated they burnt more fat while undertaking low intensity exercise.

[i]"The fat-burning zone is a concept that the body burns a greater amount of fat at lower-intensity aerobic exercise than it does at higher intensities. Actually, the body burns a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities than at higher intensities. At lower intensities the body may burn 50 percent of the calories from fat, while at higher intensities it may only burn 35 percent. But at higher intensities you burn way more total calories—and more fat calories overall—than you do at lower intensities."[/i]

way less than the sports science folks would have you believe, which is 2-3 gels per hour

Do the sports science people work for the marketing department of people who sell gels?

I get the bit about necking an expresso and going for it, but then how long before starting to refuel? If i do the same ride as above (which i will tomorrow give or take) I know i can't do that on water and air alone. Do i ride until I reach the point where I feel hungry, which'll be quite quick, do i set an hour or 90 minutes and then start, or do i wait until I'm already thinking about the calorific content of grass and whether there are any discarded sandwiches in the bin at the bus stop before giving in?

[edit - and I understand longer rides at lower intensity being less bonk inducing, but i have a time window to stick to and in any case, with 900m in 40 miles and a few 20% gradients I'm going to be in Z4 or Z5 like it or not]

This was exactly the scenario I was in this time last year with a trip to the Alps pending. I needed to lose some weight to get up the road climbs. I managed to go from 90-95kgs down to 80kgs in about 7/8 months. My main technique was eating a lot less and fasted rides. All of my rides were in the peaks so hard to not be in Z4 all of the time!

The technique for a fasted ride depends on what presures you have on that ride, if you need to stay with a group or can ride at your own pace. I found at first I would eat about 90 mins to 120 mins into the ride to avoid a bonk and then only one gel or cerial bar, I did bonk a few times which hurts but doesn't really matter if it's just a training ride. After doing the fasted riding thing for a few months I could easily go for a 3 hour ride in the peaks without eating and put in a couple of 20 min threshold efforts during the ride.

You'll be suprised how far you can go on water and air once your body is used to it.

The challenge is when you finish you feel lilke you could eat the contents of the fidge and the fridge its self. Obviously you need to eat to recover but I found that dring copious amounts of green tea gave me a way of staving of the hunger and was able to resist eating apart from regular means.

You can become reliant on gels and drinks when in reality they are not needed for normal riding.

It always amazes me at how many people inhale what are essentially mini mars bars and cans of fanta dressed up as 'sports nutrition' on a ride.

way less than the sports science folks would have you believe, which is 2-3 gels per hour

That's the maximum amount you can consume - doesn't mean you should. Unless you are XC racing or something.

when in reality they are not needed for normal riding.

Depends what you mean by normal riding. Some people like a nice long spin, some get a kick out of smashing everything.

I started using energy drink because it made a massive difference to my energy and endurance on rides, which improved my enjoyment immensely. I was only about 20 at the time though, and pretty much a pure sprint athlete in those days.

That was excellent jfletch, thanks for posting that! Here's the original study if anyone's interested (I haven't read it yet):

[url= https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-0033-1349106 ]Link[/url]

Do the sports science people work for the marketing department of people who sell gels?

Noooo..... I'm sure it's entirely independent research.

Don't get me wrong. i can ride for hours on air and water, but only by managing my intensity at a level that is below a 'normal' ride for me. Which involves hills, and just the feeling of spinning along at a decent lick when i can, as opposed to endless hours at 12mph on boring flat roads.

Yeah I feel a marked difference between riding fully carbed up and fasted. I actually often feel worse carbed up, but when I put the hammers down I seem to have a huge reserve of power that lasts much longer that I just don't have when fasted.

I did my Trans Cambrian way ride fasted, which ended up working out remarkably well except for a major wobble about 4 hours in when I thought I'd never make it. A caffeinated gel set me off like a rocket though which got me through the following 11 hours!

I don't feel good until I'm running on an empty stomach and can pretty clearly tell when refuellings needed and if my goal is to loose weight thats not often, the point carbs are needed will be individual to you and you'll only know it after you've blown a few times.

A flat out ride in group that I can't control the pace has me eating every carb possible pretty quickly but that situation is rare and weight loss is not the goal.

We are concentrating on gels for carbs btw but I'll take anything and would probably prefer banana and dates but gels or drink additives are just convenient.

Bananas would be great if they weren't so fragile, and if they were a less awkward shape. Can we get some genetic engineers working on this?

Do the sports science people work for the marketing department of people who sell gels?

Yes, I always wonder about who's supplying the funding. I kind of wish they stated it as part of the citation! 🙂