Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
So what's the verdict on fasted cardio then?
Bananas would be great... if they were a less awkward shape.
I was going to suggest some storage solutions but I'll bet you can guess where I was going with that...
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.
This will improve as you train your body to use fat more effiecently. It will be crap at first as you will feel slow but eventually you will be able to ride at high intensity without needing easy access carbs during the ride.
The has two benefits, weight loss is one but you will also be less suceptable to bonking on a long ride as you body will be better at using fat for energy.
will give it a go. Cheaper than energy bars for the winter. If you hear stories of a bloke found curled up by the side of the A25, you're to blame.
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!!!!
A lot of research on all calories not being equal though. I also read somewhere a study about nuts (cashews I think but I suspect it applies to all) that although the portion size measured was around 600kCal the body only actually accessed a small portion of that. [url= http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/dining/are-nuts-a-weight-loss-aid.html?_r=0 ]THIS is an old article byt covers the gist of it from what I remember.[/url]
Anybody read the 4hr body by Tim Ferriss - http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-4-Hour-Body-incredible-superhuman/dp/0091939526
very interesting read (but with a fair bit of nonsense) but iirc essentially stating that -
> weight loss is down to diet/exercise/internal chemical balance (ie what you eat affecting hormones and how much you're able to absorb/burn).
> you only need to do a minimum amount of exercise to 'trigger' the optimum weight loss/calorie burn. Anything beyond that is diminishing return
molgrips - Member
...pretty much a pure sprint athlete in those days.
What events were you competing in?
Was the caffeine gel all you had for 11 hours?
I think with the gels and stuff...everyone is different
I do loads of road riding.....I never cruise...always hard and fast..when my legs left me
And I have bonked many times and it's a horrible feeling and it takes up to hours to replace your burned up carbs.
I find I can burn out my carbs in 2 hours....
Now I take with me 1 gel , and 800 cl bottle with 3 teaspoons of glucose init.....and I find I can last for fours solid riding get home and still feel good...sometimes I don't need the gel it's there as a back up...
My point is everyone is different , sometimes the gels are needed.....just try to fuel your ride as best you can...coz bonking ain't fun
eventually you will be able to ride at high intensity without needing easy access carbs during the ride
Yeah but not as high as if you did have carbs.
Cynic al - you sound like you are trying to start an argument?
My point is everyone is different
Very true but you can also change how your body works, to a point.
I agree on riding hard. As I think I said the only real reason I use them is practicality. My hard riding is not the same as my racing, nothing makes me push as hard as pinning a number on in a bunch and the relentless nature is rarely replicated on training rides so there is always time to chew.
In your case Cheekyget that is not the gel specifically it is the food generally. I bet if you had a handful of jelly babies and not the gel it would have the same effect - it doesn't need to be sugar wrapped up in a lot of marketing.
brassneck I can believe that. We don't operate at 100% efficiency in terms of nutrient absorption (look at sweetcorn!). I'm not sure what the method is for determining calories of food but I would guess there is a difference between the test and what our bodies actually get.
I'm not sure what the method is for determining calories of food
You burn it and measure the heat output, in layman's terms.
There are some good you tube vids of people 'testing the calorific content' of pringles*
* nearly burning their lab down.
Yeah but not as high as if you did have carbs.
That's not true. Your body stores glycogen. If you have trained your body to be good at using fat as an energy source you will use less glycogen for a given intensity and more fat. So when you put in an effort there is my glycogen left to call on. It doesn't need to be supplied in the moment by food in your guts.
Eventually if you run out of glycogen, no matter how chubby you are and how good your body is a using fat as a fuel, you will bonk. But until that glycogen is gone you can still ride at very high intensities. Carbs won't magically let you train harder, they will just fuel your body to replenish your glycogen stores.
And here's an interesting development...
[url= http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/health-care/2015/08/mit-harvard-find-master-switch-behind-obesity.html ]Metabolism 'master switch'?[/url]
I have been on a push to lose some weight recently so have been doing 1 hour, high intensity road rides fasted, I feel a massive (negative) difference compared to having some porridge or toast before leaving.
I really hope it is helping with the weight loss because the last few miles home are pretty unpleasant and I have to fight the urge to burst through the door and eat everything in sight within 30 seconds.
"It doesn't need to be supplied in the moment by food in your guts"
Hm. I suspect there is a difference between blood glucose from food and muscle glycogen stores, but only based on my own experience. Would be keen to read some science on that.
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,
I think the idea behind this is that if you're training for speed/endurance rather than weight loss you don't want to be calorie deficient, you want your muscles working at peak efficiency and not to be limited by the energy available. When I'm doing long distance runs (and I'm at my target weight) two gels / hour sounds about right, maybe even a little low. (Long distance here is >2.5-3 hours, I wouldn't bother with anything for less than 1.5 and may or may not for a 2 hour run).
While racing I'd be aiming to have two gels / hour + feed stations + all the water I want.
To us weekend warriors, racing is the same as our weekend rides, I want to buzz along on the flat, be pushing hard on the hills, and 'racing' myself. OK, nothing makes you work quite as hard as a number board and some stripey tape, but I still want to fuel properly so I can enjoy riding hard. Hence a gel every 30-40 mins or so, or similar (yes, bananas or flapjack or jelly babies too, but i quite like gels for the convenience)
If I had limitless time I'd be able to do more long and slow, but I don't.
So - to today. Two espressos for breakfast and then out. Fine for about 80 mins, albeit not pushing as much as I would (first 20 mins is always rel easy to warm the motor up), keeping to about 80% or lower. Then I reached staples lane, not steep but a couple of sections and a sustained pull. And that's where it felt like the plug was being taken out. I was surprised how quick; not bonk quick but heavy legged almost immediately. Went over the top and down combe lane into shere and had a gel there for the pull up to pitch hill quarry, which felt normal again. Down into ewhurst, right up barhatch going left onto hamlets and up the other climb to the same place at the top of winterfold, then home via Farley green, Albury, back of new lands, etc, with one more gel somewhere along the way. 40 miles, 850m climbing, 2:45 riding and only 4 slicesnof toast when I got home!!
had a gel there for the pull up to pitch hill quarry, which felt normal again
Do gels work fast for you? I've always found there's a lag of about 20-30 minutes?
Do gels work fast for you? I've always found there's a lag of about 20-30 minutes?
I find they take a bit less than that, but not immediate. Maybe 10 minutes or so.
I was surprised how quick; not bonk quick but heavy legged almost immediately.
Yeah - with me it's like, I'm riding along fine, feeling great, there's a short steep up, let's hammer up it ooooaaarrgghh.. that hurts, now I'm knackered. Then fine after a couple of minutes.
Let us know how you are tomorrow or the next ride jonv 🙂
10 mins or so - so necking it just as I crossed the a25, by the time I was on the foothills of Mont Pitch it was starting to have effect.
Last ride for a couple of weeks though, off on hollibobs tomorrow, but will give it another go when I'm bàck.
Subbed to read later, interesting thread 🙂
About the not eating fat as it makes you fat thing, i've had the best lean gains off high fat, high protein diet. Carbs spike the pancreas into producing insulin, insulin is a signal for store excess kcals as fat, usually around waist. In my experience refined carbs, simple sugars etc when in excess calorific state have more potential to develop that 1pac.
About the not eating fat as it makes you fat thing, i've had the best lean gains off high fat, high protein diet. Carbs spike the pancreas into producing insulin, insulin is a signal for store excess kcals as fat, usually around waist. In my experience refined carbs, simple sugars etc when in excess calorific state have more potential to develop that 1pac.
and the countries leading the obesity league have what sort of diet?
@wilbert too much refined sugar AND fat i'd wager. But its the sugar which adds kcals very easily. Fat satisfies gives a feeling of fullness. Sugar and refined carbs don't just causes blood insulin spikes, an integar to fat storage. The resultant insulin crash needing another carb laden calorie pick me up.
USA loves high fructose corn syrup, packed in all the fizzy drinks. All the low fat diet stuff has oodles of sugar instead.
Have a read here, basically unless your weight training, when in a none post exercise state, insulin from excess carbs isn't good 🙂
Crux of it here
"Conversely, when carbohydrates aren’t readily available and fat or protein is the primary source, higher levels of the hormone glucagon combined with lower levels of blood carbohydrate can lead to a higher rate of fat burning.2 Through manipulating your source of readily available fuel, different energy substrates can be used as fuel for exercise. "
and info on insulin here
"
What is Insulin?
Insulin is an extremely anabolic hormone that will make or break your physique. Too little and you’re doomed to flat muscles, poor recovery, and pre-shrinking your affliction t-shirts. Too much and you’ll resemble the Michelin Man and suffer from myriad health problems.
Insulin is a hormone made in the pancreas, an organ located behind the stomach. The pancreas contains clusters of cells called islets. Beta cells within the islets store and release insulin into the blood. Insulin plays a major role in metabolism. The digestive tract breaks down carbohydrates into glucose, but its with the help of insulin that cells are able to absorb glucose and use it for energy.5
insulin regulates nutrient entry into muscle cells. When insulin is seldom elevated, then muscle growth related benefits won’t occur. A higher carbohydrate intake when your body is increasingly sensitive, such as post-workout, promotes carbohydrates to initiate tissue repair and set the stage for muscle growth. Conversely, when the body is not sensitive to carbs and you’re crushing the pasta buffet, excess carbohydrates will be stored, building some brand-new layers of blubber on your waistline. Through proper timing and fluctuations, carbohydrates will be under your control, allowing the body to strip rolls of fat and build slabs of muscle.1
http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/ultimate-guide-for-lean-gains-part-1-carb-cyclin g"
I thought the whole nutrient timing theory had been proven to be be inaccurate?
For most of the general populace, calories in < calories out is still the key to weight loss. Perhaps fasted training has some benefit, but I'd be willing to bet it's marginal to your average enthusiast.
Sure, if you're on the verge of that pro contract, sub 10% body fat, and you're looking to drive some sort of physiological adaptation that preferentially burns fat, then knock yourself out. If you're an average cycling enthusiast at around 15-20% body fat, and looking to lose some weight then you're better off just eating at a calorific deficit and maintaining the level of exercise you're comfortable with!
Of course, if fasted training makes you feel more "pro" (see shaving your legs as a Cat 4 when you have no masseuse), then go for it. I'm not judging. Hell, I've even contemplated it myself, but it just seems to be a lot of work for very little benefit.
@cruzcampo thats the usual stuff put out by the pumped up community oftrn just before they sell you some whey protein!
If you look at the countries around the world with the greatest obesity issues they are the biggest consumers of meat and dairy not carbs. Sometimes this gets lost in a wealth gap but there are exceptions Japan for instance with a 3% obesity rate compared to the Wests 30%, its so low becuse the eat rice and veg with little meat and dairy. They also have good public transport reducing car use and encouraging walking.
If you want get pumped eat protein if you want to get lean eat clean carbs.
@curiousyellow wouldnt it be more important for someone with some fat to learn how to burn it than someone without any?
I would not recommend relying on CW as a useful guide to anything of a nutritional nature. I've read many of those CW articles and frankly, well, it's mostly BS as are the meals they print.
Cals in Vs Cals out, doesn't apply at an endocrine level and is quite possibly the most common error made when trying to apply the law of conservation to the Human body at that level.
However, the LoC does finally apply at a cellular level. But that doesn't equate to the simplistic and incorrect advise of running a Cal deficit.
Fat cells release fat when instructed to by any one or a combination of several hormones. However, insulin will block release of fat from the cell.
If one is looking to get the best result for minimum effort to reduce body fat. Then a diet of low glycemic load should ensure a reduced duration for serum insulin and so consequently an increased duration for fat release to occur.
Based on this simple process, you do not eat carbs to get "lean" not to mention all the other problems, consuming refined, easily digestible carbs provide for the body.
Individual variance on this theme will be observed and I would hope its obvious why. However if we all have the same underlying physiology, then the same rule, broadly, applies. Anyone suffering a related clinical condition may have a significantly altered outcome and I suggest qualified medical advise, in such a situation.
Some interesting stuff here about the whole 'carbs v fats' thing:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33905745 ]BBC Health[/url]
[url= http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00350-2 ]Original article[/url]
Which claims to debunk the whole 'carbs cause an insulin spike which causes more fat to be stored' thing. If I was criticising the study however I would question:
1. The sample size (19)
2. Length of study (2 weeks)
3. Source of funding. It was carried out at the NIH, which is funded by the US government, which has been accused in the past of giving in too much to food lobbyists.
However the methodology looks (otherwise!) sound, and most of all it is recent, so it'll be interesting to see what else is done to build on this.
There's nothing controversial about refined and easily digestible carbs inducing excessive fat accumulation in people, besides causing other problems also.
Therefore I'd suggest that anyone trying to prove otherwise or dish this information, certainly has an "agenda".
From the original article:
"[i]We investigated ten male and nine female subjects who all had obesity with a BMI of (mean ± SEM) 35.9 ± 1.1 kg/m2 (Table 1).[/i]"
😆
I'd not suggest running an experiment using subjects who at the outset already suffer with a related clinical condition.
What next? Testing a flat tyre for puncture resistance?
A great example of pseudo science at it's worst, that's been released onto the web to convince the public of a particular [i]fact[/i].
One might be forgiven for asking why?
Ok, ignoring obvious outliers, like people with marked hormone imbalances etc.
@wilburt
The most important thing for an average person who wants to lose fat is to find a way to lose it that they can stick with long term. Fat people are fat because they eat more than they need. I think we're all agreed there. Calories in < calories out works, and has been proven to work for millions of people who've dieted their way to a lower weight. Where does the energy for them to carry out bodily functions come from, if not from fat stores?
@Solo
Can you explain what you're implying in simpler terms please? The way I understand it, you're saying eating a "low GI" diet is best to force the body to preferentially burn fat. Are you saying this can be achieved without running a calorie deficit? I'm genuinely interested in your opinion as to why you think calories in < calories out is not the simplest way to achieve fat loss. Where does the majority of the energy come from if not from fat stores? Not looking for an argument, because I don't claim to be an expert. If you can explain why the deficit is not the way to fat loss long term is, then I'm very interested in learning it.
For anyone else, this article offers a detailed, accessible explanation of how calorie deficits work:
http://www.leighpeele.com/the-deficit-how-we-lose-fat
Perhaps fasted training has some benefit, but I'd be willing to bet it's marginal to your average enthusiast.
Depending on who you are, it's not marginal at all. Some people burn fat very well, stay skinny, and ride for hours eating nothing but a banana. Others don't. Fasted riding may make the latter more like the former, this is a good thing for an endurance sport, even if you're not a wannabe pro. It can help complete a decent ride without dying on your arse.
If you look at the countries around the world with the greatest obesity issues they are the biggest consumers of meat and dairy not carbs
No, I think they are the biggest consumers of fat AND carbs. The two together are the problem.
Wilburt, may I nicely ask if you've tried following a low or slow carb diet? The biggest consequence of it is what you find you can't actually eat. There aren't many complete meals you can eat that are really high in fat without any sugar or other carbs. You can't eat much cream on its own but you can easily drink a Venti Frappucino - or at least, I can. Likewise butter and cheese; I tends not to eat much on their own but I can easily demolish a stack of cheese sandwiches on white.
Right, I don't have loads of time, outside lunch break.
I've quickly scanned the link as far as I could before the deficit model in that article went too far wrong.
LoC doesn't apply to the entire endocrine system in simple terms of plus and minus cals. The endocrine system will up-regulate or down regulate cellular activity as desired.
At a cellular level LoC does apply, a fat cell, for example can only store or release fat (energy) a tissue cell can either use or not use energy in whatever form, glycogen, fat, yadda. So at a cellular level, theres your LoC.
Insulin is the key, it controls fat storage and release. Insulin in the blood, prevents fat release.
the longer the duration insulin is in the blood, the longer any stored fat remains stored and unused.
this can be exacerbated by consuming high GI load foods and drink and not using the resultant serum glucose. Which is then shuttled off, by insulin, to finally end up as body fat.
The higher glycemic load of your last meal, the longer insulin will be in the blood stream after that meal and the longer any stored fat remains locked away.
Counting cals doesn't address insulin response or whether a fat cell releases its fat. Number of cals is secondary to type of cals consumed.
My understanding is that they used people with a high BMI because these are the kind people who have the most to gain from losing weight, therefore making the trial clinically relevant.
I've been veggie for a couple of months, my diet mostly consists of fruit, veg, salad, past, rice and spuds, pulses and eggs. I've had a couple of meals served with fish and didnt want to offend so ate them but that aside meat, milk, butter, cheese free. I found milk and cheese the easiest to give up a bit like overly sweet foods once you adjust to not having them they become unpleasant.
In the two months I've lost a few kg some of which may be expected from a cyclist in July and August, but overall feeling great and at almost 50 setting the best times of my life.
re fasted rides, I don't think I advocated that entirely, rather that your average joe doing a 50 mile sportive@16mph doesnt need extra porridge before, half a dozen gels during and slap up meal after to avoid fainting!
And the more you become accustomed to riding withoit a full tank the better your (my) body seems to perform.
[i] shermer75 - Member
My understanding is that they used people with a high BMI because these are the kind people who have the most to gain from losing weight, therefore making the trial clinically relevant[/i]
As above. Do you test tyre puncture resistance using a tyre that already has a puncture or a standard, correctly inflated tyre?
Conducting a which is best test on subjects who's bodies already suffer a distortion of normal function is a trick someone is trying to slide by the reader.
Believe and think whatever you wish to.
🙂
I found milk and cheese the easiest to give up
When doing the iDave diet I found I had to keep eating those two things to make the rest of it work. A little bit of cheese in a meal made it satisfying, otherwise I never was.
@Solo
What do you think about the Twinkie Diet experiment?
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Or are there some qualifiers when you say calories in < calories out is secondary to type of calories?
[i] curiousyellow - Member
@SoloWhat do you think about the Twinkie Diet experiment?[/i]
😆
I think you remind me of someone who liked to stir things up like that.
Happy hunting.
😀
Nope, really not looking for an argument.
Feels like we're debating semantics here and things don't come across very well on text. I think you're stating fat loss is most efficiently performed by maintaining a low insulin level, using a low GI diet. I'm saying calorific deficit is the only way to weight loss, and incidentally fat loss because the fat reserves are what's burnt when there's no access to other energy sources due to the deficit.
The article I linked to made sense to me as a lay person. Calorific deficits have also worked in practice for me (and for millions of others). I think you may have greater knowledge about what you're talking about, but I still can't understand how calories in < calories out == weight loss doesn't make sense. I'd be interested in seeing any studies disproving it.
Cheers for your time. Happy riding. 🙂
fat loss is most efficiently performed by...
I don't think there's any 'best' way - what works depends on a huge variety of factors.. and there'll be more than one way.
I'm saying calorific deficit is the only way to weight loss
Not this again. Putting food in your mouth is only the start of what actually happens to it, and what your muscles end up using when you exercise. Much more complicated than a car engine. Just because you eat a calorie doesn't mean it's necessarily available for your muscles, or that it ends up under your skin as fat. A lot has to happen for fat to be laid down, and a lot of things affect the processes.
calories in < calories out == weight loss doesn't make sense
I've always understood that:
some calories leave as heat, some get stored, some are used to make you (or your internal gubbins) move and do stuff.
less calories in doesn't always result in calories being liberated from fat stores - the deficit might be made up in a different way
for fat loss, ultimately you have to do something that convinces your body to use more stored fat than it deposits; for *most* people a straightforward reduction in calories in will do that, for others its more of a struggle
How is the deficit made up then? I thought breaking down muscle and bone tissue for energy when fat stores were readily available was a very inefficient process.
It is most people I'm interested in. Not outliers like people with Marasmus, hormone imbalances, or undergoing a version of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
Most people will lose weight maintaining a calorific deficit. This weight loss will mostly be due to fat loss, and some of it will be the loss of retained water. If there's a way where you can lose fat while eating at maintenance, or at a calorific surplus then please share it. I'll even go as far as giving it a shot if you do.
If you find you're not losing weight while at a deficit, then chances are you're not sticking with it long enough to see the water weight drop. I've seen my own body retain up to 2kg in water weight over a week while eating at a deficit while increasing the volume of exercise.
If you exercise you can't always tell what fuel you are using, so unless you are doing long slow riding really well you'll be using up muscle glycogen. If you use up enough you'll either drive your appetite up to the point where you'll have to eat more; or if you can beat that with enough willpower you'll go slower and slower on subsequent rides and you will end up using fewer calories and if you are anything like me you'll feel absolutely shit and not be able to ride much at all . I hve a feeling that your metabolic rate slows down at this point too because I end up feeling really tired wanting to sleep a lot and unable to work.
In other words, your body does its best to reduce calories out and make you eat more. The less fat you have the harder it tries. That's why it's much easier to go fro 25% to 20% body fat than from 10% to 5%.
I think I've figured out the statement about CICO being false, depending on calorific composition. The argument is that calories from protein are not as efficiently stored as fat, as calories from carbs.
Ok, I can definitely buy that. I've also come across a study using diets with 3 groups. 2 had equal calorie counts, but one was low carb, high protein. The other ate at a deficit.
Counter to the CICO belief, the low carb, high protein group lost weight. I've learned something from this. So thanks to Solo etc for helping me get off my backside and look for it without putting blind faith in CICO, which I was.
Like someone stated in the thread, the problem with carbs is it's easier to consume a ton of calories without feeling full for certain foods (ice cream, sweets etc). Given this knowledge, perhaps low carb, high protein is the way to go, while getting carbs mainly from vegetables, and to a lesser extent, fruits.
Still not sure on fasted training though!
Solo you are missing the point there
Obese people (without bariatric surgery) are essentially incurably obesse, their hormone levels will never return to normal
Without surgery some will loose weight but keeping it off is virtually impossible, over 95% will never loose the weight. Their daily intake has to be 300 calories Les than a non obesse person just to maintain the same weight.
Extrapolating the study on these patients to all people, including those with normal hormone levels is certainly not without caveats, but it seems to be very well controled and will probably have some relevance outside of the obesse patients too.
Questioning the integrity of the NIH is a bit silly too, unless you have specific knowledge of the researchers interests (all of which they have to devlare) you are poo pooing the work of the largest scientific finding body in the world.
....calories from protein are not as efficiently stored as fat, as calories from carbs
The thing is, your body doesn't work with the "currency" of calories - the calorie is a chemists way of measuring the potential thermal energy content of a substance and is barely relevant when applied to the potential electrochemical energy avilaible.
Using science designed for steam engines to try and understand the body's "fuelling system" is pretty much as futile as it gets, to really evaluate food soures and their energy potential you need to consider if their primary route of metabolism is aerobic/anaerobic, what metabolic cofactors may be required, the presence of inhibitors/competitors for the enzyme systems and the mitochondrial redox potential - and that's just for starters!
But fundamentally, until you understand how energy is generated, stored, transported and utilised in biological systems you may as well stick to CICO &/or "what works best for me" because all this half assed pseudoscience is going to get you nowhere 😕
[i] If you use up enough you'll either drive your appetite up to the point where you'll have to eat more; or if you can beat that with enough willpower you'll go slower and slower on subsequent rides and you will end up using fewer calories and if you are anything like me you'll feel absolutely shit and not be able to ride much at all .[/i]
Good post and yes if you continue in that fashion your endocrine system will down regulate cellular activity to a) get you to slow your ass down and rest, b) to conserve remaining reserves and allow time for replenishment to support repair and adaptation.
and
[i] your metabolic rate slows down at this point too because I end up feeling really tired wanting to sleep a lot and unable to work.[/i]
Yes, this is your system reacting to expending significant quantities of energy and is another anecdotal example that it's not as simple as counting cals in or out.
Kimbers. You're so far wide of the mark, I don't think I can help. Good luck
Pretty much it. The more I look into it, the more it seems like CICO, eat less, move more are simplistic ways to weight loss. But that's what the general populace (your average overweight person) needs. They don't need to understand or even care about the minutiae.
What gets me about the pseudoscience is when it's used as an excuse to justify poor choices.
I agree the science behind loosing weight is complicated. The themes I see are that the old school CICO approach works for most people most of the time, but for it to work it has to not be temporary, it has to become the norm to eat healthy. Lots of apps and devices can now help people judge the in and the out. I quite like my fitbit.
One interesting article I read recently had an interesting reminder that we may all come from more/less the same gene pool but within our stomachs we all have different bacteria that have been shaped by our eating culture. Billions of organisms that have been encouraged or killed off by what we have eaten over our lifetimes. So if you go abroad and eat local you might get the runs whereas a local can stomach it. So, what our bodies does with the food, how it reacts, will be individual and this logically then extends into how much, of the different food types, gets stored or used as energy. Apparently Inuit's in the arctic eat 70% meat - whale/seals etc, its what is readily available, not much vegetation up north. They clearly get their energy from this diet without issue. In reverse, some Amazonian tribes live on more veg than meat and similarly still have energy. It seems us 'europeans' have fed ourselves largely on refined food diets and to me, looking around the office here, we have made a mistake.
I'm rambling and will now shut up. Have a look at national geographic paleo diets if you want to read up on it.
Solo, please educate me...
within our stomachs we all have different bacteria that have been shaped by our eating culture.
Heh. Bacteria, culture etc. I like that sentence...
It's [b]lose[/b], guys, not ****ing [b]loose[/b]. Unless you mean set the fat loose, in which case, as you were.
Solo... 98% of obesses people unable to lose weight
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302773
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587%2815%2900009-1/fulltext
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24911618
I'm not sure exactly what you've taken issue with
....What gets me about the pseudoscience is when it's used as an excuse to justify poor choices
and even worse, when the pseudoscioence is used to reinforce negative attitudes/habits on the basis that "my endocrine system isn't letting me do this"
day to day it's really a matter of 'eat less move more' with a big side serving of MTFU
and even worse, when the pseudoscioence is used to reinforce negative attitudes/habits on the basis that "my endocrine system isn't letting me do this"
That's probably well worth reinforcing.
To Solo and the weight-loss deniers, who seem adamant that it's basically impossible to lose weight and thrive while exercising at a 'deficit', how do you explain the physique of pretty much any endurance athlete?
For example, most runners in regular training, especially in marathon training, will lose weight (and some muscle mass, depending on cross training), regardless of what they eat. Building an endurance body requires many thousands of extra calories, but there's enough 'deficit' built in, especially in physical repair after first fuelling a run, that fat will be lost. Do you seriously think the 'endocrine system' is holding back runners doing 120 miles per week from losing weight? Do you think they lack the necessary energy to fuel their runs, even when they are in the process of getting lean for a target race?
It's not that people are all that different in their fuelling needs, it just depends on the level of training and the resultant level of adaptation to that training. The body will naturally learn to burn more fats and spare carbohydrate/glycogen the more you train your body through the repeated bout effect; that's just one adaptation to increasing exercise levels.
Spend most of your day on your feet/walking, and throw in some exercise, eat pretty much what you like, but aim for a largely Mediterranean type diet, avoid excess sugars from drink, and, unless you've got a metabolic disorder, you will likely continuously lose fat.
[i] day to day it's really a matter of 'eat less move more' with a big side serving of MTFU[/i]
Eat less? How do you suggest someone does that? Fewer calories, perhaps? .... oh, wait a minute......
😆
The suggestion to MTFU being made by someone trapped in a flawed and out dated paradigm is amusing.
Much more amusing than the patronising remarks about how Joe Public is too thick to understand what you know.
ELMM has an impressive history of totally failing to achieve its purpose.
But it allows those afflicted with a misplaced sense of superiority to admomish the "weak" and get a kick while doing so.
Alternatively, an intelligent person might question the wisdom of giving advice with such an ineffective history.
😉
That's likely all the STW fun I can handle today.
😀
...That's likely all the STW fun I can handle today
back under your bridge then matey 😆
...Joe Public is too thick to understand what you know.
ably demonstrated by just about any thread here on losing weight or eating healthy 😛
...Eat less? How do you suggest someone does that?
ummmmm, maybe eat a smaller portion, just off the top of my head like 🙄
Eating less and maintaining weight seems a contradiction to me unless there is a significant reduction in physical exertion. I must admit I'm sceptical.
There has got to be other factors which are not being measured. Little treats, snack etc.
I can see that various glandular problems etc could slow down weight loss, but effectively if less energy is going in that being expended, it's got to be impossible to gain weight without sundering several laws of physics - unless our method of measuring the energy capacity of some common foodstuffs is flawed.
Or could there be any truth in that Indian guy who claims to live on air? 🙂 (Breatharian?)
One of the biggest issues I have with these threads is the amounts of backward reinforcement that goes on.
Molgrips is pretty much spot on here, what works for you might not work for him, I can live pretty much carb free (and I do) I see from his posts that would make his life intolerable, so while I'm happy enough, telling him (or worse dragging up any number of scientific papers on the subject) to reinforce my belief about what works to loose weight is a best unhelpful, and at worst counter productive.
ELMM might work for you, or calorie deficit, understand though that there as many ways to sustainable weight loss as there are ridiculous diet plans. Any new way of eating has to bring rewards and be maintainable, if you find one, great. But trying to tell others that their ideas are all wrong, and unscientific is pretty much pointless.
EDIT: I'd add that, I'm not saying that "your" lack of weight loss success isn't your fault...It generally is, but what I'd suggest is learn to look at ALL the information that coming out about weight loss strategies these days, and learn to adapt your thinking and ideas.
It's not that people are all that different in their fuelling needs, it just depends on the level of training and the resultant level of adaptation to that training. The body will naturally learn to burn more fats and spare carbohydrate/glycogen the more you train your body through the repeated bout effect; that's just one adaptation to increasing exercise levels
From my own experience I don't agree with that. There is a significant adaptation to diet changes as well. Training is one half of the coin, diet is the other.
I was doing a fair amount of training - running 2-3 times a week, big ride on a sunday. mountain bike 2/3 times a week and circuit training. I never really looked at my diet but was always around the 75kg mark.
I decided to have a fitness test done because I wanted to have a go at racing and to see where i could improve
despite all that training my fat utilization was appalling. Right at the bottom of zone 2 (127bpm) I was only using 43% of my cals from fat
[img] 
[/img]
I then changed my diet (effectively followed the idave/four hour body diet) where ate a lot more eggs, no cereal and no high carbs. I re did the test after 5 months and that figure went from 43% to 84%. The trainer told me my body had become fat adapted ( I also dropped down to 68kg where i've stayed for the past 4 years)
As above. Do you test tyre puncture resistance using a tyre that already has a puncture or a standard, correctly inflated tyre?Conducting a which is best test on subjects who's bodies already suffer a distortion of normal function is a trick someone is trying to slide by the reader.
Just to clarify, this was a clinical trial, clinical in this instance meaning 'relating to the observation and treatment of actual patients'. It used people with a high BMI because obesity is one of the most far reaching and damaging health problems that we currently face, so it is important to help people like that to acheive a low BMI. It was not a sneaky trick to try and get one past the reader.
I think the confusion might lie with the fact that much of this thread has been concerned with people who are already reasonably or very fit and also reasonably slim endeavouring to get more fit and more slim, which is a great thing of course, and there is a lot of work that is being done in the sport science world that is entirely focussed on that which is also, obviously, great. But I feel that it seems a little rash to close our minds off to any studies that are carried out in the health science world, because it seems to me that there are times when the two very much overlap, with weight loss being a very good example.
I also feel that talking about tyres, punctured or otherwise, is a little misleading (although completely relevant to a bike forum, obvs 😉 ). There might well be a sound, physiological reason why someone with a high BMI will react to a specific diet differently to someone with either a low or a recommended BMI, so it might be more helpful to talk about that instead.
Well said shermer
trickydisco - MemberFrom my own experience I don't agree with that. There is a significant adaptation to diet changes as well. Training is one half of the coin, diet is the other.
I don't dispute your experience, but frankly my assertion about fat burning and glycogen sparing is not really in question. This is what happens with training. It is also why a beginner runner can't go for a 5k run without then getting home and raiding the biscuits and bread (if they lack willpower), while a trained runner can go for a 10 mile tempo run on water alone.
It's quite possible you substituted foods that are significantly healthier and less calorific than others and therefore lost some weight. It's possible your training (type, intensity, duration) changed when you hired a personal trainer.
But these are not to dispute the physiological changes that occur with increasing your endurance training loads. All running, cycling and other endurance sports, contrary to popular belief, heart rate 'zones' etc., burn a combination of fats and carbs. Intensity alters the fuel source, but the after-effects usually balance out the resource output. E.g. HIIT will use carbs as fuel during, but, afterwards, raise the metabolic rate for hours to use more fats to restore equilibrium.
And whatever anyone asserts, personal trainer or otherwise, heart rate training cannot accurately and definitively predict your fat utilisation. But that's a different matter.
Further, I think we're on different wavelengths about bodily adaptation to fat input/output. You can, as you may have done, train your body through diet to use more fats than carbs (through adaptation to ketogenesis). But how a heart rate would predict this is entirely unclear.
[i]hilldodger - Member
But fundamentally, until you understand how energy is generated, stored, transported and utilised in biological systems you may as well stick to CICO /or "what works best for me" because all this half assed pseudoscience is going to get you nowhere[/i]
I your particular case, and in light of TrickyDisco's post. I agree 😉
A precis for Hilldodger:
[i] despite all that training my fat utilization was appalling.
I then changed my diet (effectively followed the idave/four hour body diet) where ate a lot more eggs, no cereal and no high carbs.
.
The trainer told me my body had become fat adapted [/i]
It is what you eat, over how much. Type of cals over counting cals.
8)
During a six-day race from Sydney to Melbourne, Yiannis Kouros was said to have managed to take in 15,000 calories the first day, 12,000 the next, and 7,000 the third day. During the Phidippides run that traced the Athenian messenger’s route from Athens to Sparta (and back) for a total of 300 miles, Kouros consumed half of his calories as Greek sweets, eating every 20 minutes, and enjoying baklava, fresh creamy custard, and honey cookies. He says he doesn’t eat too much fat, using mostly carbohydrates and only loses weight in races if he wants to, even gaining weight in some. "But food is not the secret. While you have to avoid making mistakes with food, the Australian runners documented what I ate one year in an ultra-distance race and copied it the next year and I still won by 28 hours."http://www.runnersworld.com/trail-runner-profiles/on-the-trail-with-yiannis-kouros
This guy's taking in more than Tour de France riders to keep him fuelled. This shows how difficult it is to maintain caloric equilibrium when doing extreme endurance sports. Also, he's doing this on a strict vegetarian diet. Notice how he says he only gains weight if he wants to.
...Type of cals over counting cals
you don't get calories from food unless you burn them in an oxygen rich environment to total ash and measure how many degrees celsius you have raised a given mass of water by.
Your (and many others) fundamental failure of interpretation and lack of understanding of what a calorie is, and how innapropriate it is to use as an energy unit in a discussion on metabolic energy, reduces everything else you say to just background noise really 😆
When I lived in Oz, it was the norm to not feed our dogs 1 day in the week (obviously a rest day). This was to keep them fit and trim and their coats in good condition.
It seemed to work.
Now I wonder how good that would be for a human
... and whether my hair would regrow. 🙂