Fat Burning Part 728.

SteveR_100Milers

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... etter-1065

Interesting reading. I think the point of inconsistent training times and laock of longer rides does hapmer weight loss as I have found out. I have spent the summer on a diet of time trials only (10's in the week, and 25's to 100's at weekend), with very little in between riding, maybe only 60-70 miles a week max.

I am going to try to fit 20 minutes easy turbo sessions every morning before breakfast / work this winter on top of any evening and weekend rides.

binlinus

Mmmm... I'm not so sure about that article. I've always thought that it's just about calories in and calories out. If you are riding a lot you need to eat a lot; if you are not riding you need to put less food on your plate.

Doing 20 mins of the turbo in the morning may be a great way to recover from a hard ride the day before but you've hardly time to warm up to do any hard traiining and burn some serious amount of calories. If you can't fit either some walking or cycling (or any other aerobic activity) into your daily routine then you need to eat a lot less than you would do if you are riding. And you also need to watch what you eat. Like cakes that give you a fast sugar hit and then leave you craving.

If you are doing a 100 mile TT on the weekend then you need to fuel up the day before, on the day, and probably the morning after. But that's it. You have to go back to small plates of food and watch what you eat for the rest of the week. You don't need to hugely carbo load for the 10 TT. A carbo snack before and a carbo snack afterwards should do it.

Of course it's easy for me to say all this as I've never had a weight problem. Maybe it's just the way I am. But having said that: I'm a vegetarian, I don't drink alcohol and I don't eat chocolate and I tend to follow a low GI diet out of choice (as opposed to necessity).

But at 45 I can sometimes feel a bit of fat around my belly and if I'm going cycling in the Alps I'll diet for a couple of weeks beforehand. Which just means being extra careful what I eat.

Eat less you fat bastard :evil:

Bin

SteveR_100Milers

I dont carbo load for anything less than a 50 miler. the 20 misn in the morning in the winter are just some extra minutes that I would otherwise miss, as my training time is limited.

I know its all basically about energy in / expended balance

nickcuk

binlinus wrote:

..... But having said that: I'm a vegetarian, I don't drink alcohol and I don't eat chocolate

If you'd added celibate, I would have said that was the most depressing sentence I'd ever heard

binlinus

nickcuk wrote:

binlinus wrote:

..... But having said that: I'm a vegetarian, I don't drink alcohol and I don't eat chocolate

If you'd added celibate, I would have said that was the most depressing sentence I'd ever heard

I wondered when someone would be along to say something like that

Bin

Johnpwr

I get the idea that the article is less about the total calories burnt in a session, but more about the proportion of fat to glyocgen that is being used.

From the standpoint that glycogen is a more finite resource than the fat calories available, then husbanding and protecting the glycogen available is much preferable to using it up, and if you want to sprint at the end of a ride, protecting the glycogen is all important.

Most post-ride nutrition articles are about replenishing the glycogen used, so not using it up will make that activity less important, thus limiting the amount of food necessary after a ride, so calories in goes down and we've come full circle to the calories in / calories out balance for weight loss.

So whether you want to lose weight, or perform better, burning more fat is the way to go.

BeaconRuth

That's a very accurate summation, I would say, Johnpwr. Which is why it's not a bad idea for all cyclists to improve their ability to metabolise fat with regular long, steady rides at some point during the year, even if not during a critical racing (or pre-racing) period.

Ruth

binlinus

BeaconRuth wrote:

That's a very accurate summation, I would say, Johnpwr. Which is why it's not a bad idea for all cyclists to improve their ability to metabolise fat with regular long, steady rides at some point during the year, even if not during a critical racing (or pre-racing) period.

Ruth

Hi Ruth

I've gone back and read that article by Joe Beer again, and I'm more confused. He seems to be saying a number of conflicting things.

First he talks about lactate threshold (LT) and that highly trained athletes have a higher LT than an untrained individual. He then tails off without explaining further before going on to talk about "fasted" riding. However, the implication from his unfinished discussion of LT is that the higher a rider's LT then they will burn proportionately more fat than carbohydrate. That is also my understanding.

So I would conclude from the above that to improve your fat burning ability you would have to raise your LT. In other words you would have to ride at tempo or near your 1 hour TT pace. 2x20 sessions seem to be the way to go for this.

But of course that's not what Joe Beer is suggesting. Instead he suggests riding on an empty stomach for up to 2 hours at an easy pace, because having no food in your stomach will force you to burn fat.

Now, to me this will obviously burn fat because your are riding aerobically as well as the fact there are no carbs in your stomach to use. But it is not raising your lactate threshold which seems to be the implication from what he was saying earlier in the article. I think the article is very badly written. I also think that riding fasted is a recipe for disaster. The only time I ride fasted is before doing very hard intervals and even then I'll have a little snack or energy drink before.

I have no problem with advocating long steady rides, as Ruth does. But surely the long steady rides train you to endure being the saddle for a long time, improve your pedalling and train your ability to eat and drink on the bike. I generally do a long ride once a week (90-100k) and a very, very long ride (160k) say once every one or two months because I like to do 150k sportives and the occasional 200k Audax.

But riding at long steady pace is not going to raise your LT as much as riding at tempo or 1 hour steady pace. Is it?

Bin

BeaconRuth

binlinus wrote:

First he talks about lactate threshold (LT) and that highly trained athletes have a higher LT than an untrained individual. He then tails off without explaining further before going on to talk about "fasted" riding. However, the implication from his unfinished discussion of LT is that the higher a rider's LT then they will burn proportionately more fat than carbohydrate. That is also my understanding.

TBH I think his paragraph about LT is out of place and not relevant to the rest of the points.

So I would conclude from the above that to improve your fat burning ability you would have to raise your LT. In other words you would have to ride at tempo or near your 1 hour TT pace. 2x20 sessions seem to be the way to go for this.

No, to improve your fat burning you need to ride at an intensity that optimises the burning of fat - at slightly lower intensity. Fitter riders have higher LTs and fitter riders burn fat more efficiently, but it doesn't follow that the best way to get better at burning fat is by targetting your LT.

I think the article is very badly written.

I'm inclined to agree.

But riding at long steady pace is not going to raise your LT as much as riding at tempo or 1 hour steady pace. Is it?

No, but the first thing to get clear in your mind is what are you trying to achieve with your training session - improving your fat burning or raising your LT? I wouldn't suggest cyclists should ride at long steady pace in a session where they're aiming to improve their LT.

Ruth

ut_och_cykla

If you want to burn fat by riding 'fasting' its important to remember that the pace needs to be what most would think is very easy and bare in mind that TOTAL calories used will be lower than if you did same time period much brisker. LS distance has many advantages but they are long and slow miles!

BeaconRuth

ut_och_cykla wrote:

If you want to burn fat by riding 'fasting' its important to remember that the pace needs to be what most would think is very easy and bare in mind that TOTAL calories used will be lower than if you did same time period much brisker. LS distance has many advantages but they are long and slow miles!

I often agree wholeheartedly with what you say, ut_och_cykla, but I think we have to be careful describing long rides as 'slow'. Before we know it the RST boys will pounce and tell us there's no point in riding at 65% of maxHR!

The only time I deliberately ride 'slowly' is when I'm doing a recovery ride. The long rides I'd advocate are 'steady' but not 'slow'. They're comfy enough to hold a conversation most of the time, but definitely not pootling or slow.

Ruth

ut_och_cykla

BeaconRuth wrote:

ut_och_cykla wrote:

If you want to burn fat by riding 'fasting' its important to remember that the pace needs to be what most would think is very easy and bare in mind that TOTAL calories used will be lower than if you did same time period much brisker. LS distance has many advantages but they are long and slow miles!

I often agree wholeheartedly with what you say, ut_och_cykla, but I think we have to be careful describing long rides as 'slow'. Before we know it the RST boys will pounce and tell us there's no point in riding at 65% of maxHR!


The only time I deliberately ride 'slowly' is when I'm doing a recovery ride. The long rides I'd advocate are 'steady' but not 'slow'. They're comfy enough to hold a conversation most of the time, but definitely not pootling or slow.

Ruth

Ruth I usually enjoy your balanced, common sense oriented comments BUT my understanding of fat burning rate as = HRM is around the level obtained by walking eg 65% (This from body builders' ripping' for exhibitions ...oops competitions) My understanding is that anything much higher will tend to involve proportionately more carbohydrat sources for energy.

Personally I'd never cycle this slowly as walking the dog is more fun My long steady rides tend to have an HR average of about 75%, and if they're longer than 2 hours I nibble on the way.

HAve a nice weekend BTW - its got warm again here 17C!!

TheGreatGatsby

surely though the whole long distance and slow rides are all dependant on the individual person? For example one persons idea of what constitutes a long ride may seem run of the mill to another and the same goes for the pace of said ride.

I ride between 25 and 40 miles a day and try for at least one 50-100 mile ride a week. Now to me a 40 mile ride is not long but to somebody else it could be and so I guess the intenstity of the ride for the individual will be reflected by how they perceive the length?

Dunno if any of that makes sense but I hope you can see where I'm trying to get too!

Gats

binlinus

BeaconRuth wrote:

No, to improve your fat burning you need to ride at an intensity that optimises the burning of fat - at slightly lower intensity. Fitter riders have higher LTs and fitter riders burn fat more efficiently, but it doesn't follow that the best way to get better at burning fat is by targetting your LT.

OK, I'm gonna stick my neck out here... I'm trying to understand what you said above.

If I ride at tempo of sub-threshold for 2 hours what I believe is happening is that I will use more fat (quantity) than I would than riding easy, but I'm also using more carbohydrate (quantity). I would be using less fat in _proportion_ to carbohydrate at tempo, than I would at riding easy. Is this true? This is what I've understood it to be.

However, although riding at tempo burns more quantity of fat per hour than at easy pace it does not train the body to burn fat as effectively as riding easy. Is that what you are saying? Because if it is, I'm not sure I agree.

Could you explain why riding at easy pace is training your body to burn more fat?

I'm going to stick my neck out and say: you are better off trying to raise your LT. Because a higher LT gives you a broader aerobic range.

Bin

BeaconRuth

ut_och_cykla wrote:

............ my understanding of fat burning rate as = HRM is around the level obtained by walking eg 65% (This from body builders' ripping' for exhibitions ...oops competitions) My understanding is that anything much higher will tend to involve proportionately more carbohydrate sources for energy.

I believe the balance of glycogen use to fat use changes on a sliding scale with intensity. There's no clear cut-off point you must keep below, although up around LT you'd clearly be working too hard.

It may well be that very nearly all energy can be obtained from fat at 65% maxHR, but the other training benefits of riding so slowly will be negligible. As with many aspects of training you end up looking for a trade-off of intensity and duration depending on your objectives - and the answer will be different for different people.

Ruth

mac220

But of course that's not what Joe Beer is suggesting. Instead he suggests riding on an empty stomach for up to 2 hours at an easy pace, because having no food in your stomach will force you to burn fat.

So the question we need to ask is what is the physiological mechanism that burns fat and how can it be trained. Answer that one and you;ll have your answer.

If you look at Andy Coggans nice little chart which desribes which adaptations you get from different intensities of training this will probably help

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp

In table 2, you will see that the mechanisms which increase fat burning are best trained between level 3 and 4 or to in the sweet spot and level 4 to be more precise. In the lower levels you will see minimal adaptations.

Regards,

Mac

binlinus

Hi Mac

So, if I understand Coggan correctly he is basically saying if your are increasing your glycogen storage it is the same as being more of a fat burner. Which seems to be saying: if you raise your LT, the rest will follow. Is that how you understand it?

Bin

Ric_Stern/RST

binlinus wrote:

Hi Mac

So, if I understand Coggan correctly he is basically saying if your are increasing your glycogen storage it is the same as being more of a fat burner. Which seems to be saying: if you raise your LT, the rest will follow. Is that how you understand it?

Bin

brief answer, i'm going on holiday!
as i mentioned to ruth previously (although i don't think she listened [read]) increasing e.g., mitochondrion density, and certain aerobic enzymes, etc, allows more fat (FFA) to be oxidised. In turn, as you get fitter than any absolute submaximal power output is covered more by fat oxidation than glycogen.

these are best trained at LT to TTpower.

plus it's down to expending more than you take in and you should therefore train as hard as you can in the time you have available (while being able to recover for consecutive days training).

ric

binlinus

You'll miss your flight!

Bin

Ric_Stern/RST

binlinus wrote:

You'll miss your flight!

Bin

well, i'm driving... just inbetween packing suitcases... :-). leaving in morning!

ric

Ric_Stern/RST

replying to my own posts... LT to TTpower, works out at zone 3 to 4 in the RST paradigm or Level 3 to 4 in Andy Coggan's zones

Ric

binlinus

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

LT to TTpower, works out at zone 3 to 4 in the RST paradigm or Level 3 to 4 in Andy Coggan's zones

Ric

Sounds like twin-zoned, parallel paradigms...

Have you got a power-meter on your car?

Bin

SteveR_100Milers

TheGreatGatsby wrote:

surely though the whole long distance and slow rides are all dependant on the individual person? For example one persons idea of what constitutes a long ride may seem run of the mill to another and the same goes for the pace of said ride.

I ride between 25 and 40 miles a day and try for at least one 50-100 mile ride a week. Now to me a 40 mile ride is not long but to somebody else it could be and so I guess the intenstity of the ride for the individual will be reflected by how they perceive the length?

Dunno if any of that makes sense but I hope you can see where I'm trying to get too!

Gats

Yep totally agree. RPE is the FIRST reference point. THEN you can start to tune with HRM and power meters.

SteveR_100Milers

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

binlinus wrote:

Hi Mac

So, if I understand Coggan correctly he is basically saying if your are increasing your glycogen storage it is the same as being more of a fat burner. Which seems to be saying: if you raise your LT, the rest will follow. Is that how you understand it?

Bin

brief answer, i'm going on holiday!
as i mentioned to ruth previously (although i don't think she listened [read]) increasing e.g., mitochondrion density, and certain aerobic enzymes, etc, allows more fat (FFA) to be oxidised. In turn, as you get fitter than any absolute submaximal power output is covered more by fat oxidation than glycogen.

these are best trained at LT to TTpower.

plus it's down to expending more than you take in and you should therefore train as hard as you can in the time you have available (while being able to recover for consecutive days training).

ric

Taking it to basics then of Newtonian physics: Explain to me then why from observation I lost more body fat from Jan to Apr when my average ride was lower in effort, and longer in time; yet from May thru to Sep I have not lost any significant weight in Kgs, nor in body fat despite riding
3 sportives flat out May to Jun,
club 10's every week,
three 25's,
two 50's,
9 or so open 10's,
a 100,
an aborted 12 hours at 75m.
I think I know why, but have nothing other than experience to explain it: I have done little or no easy long distance rides in between racing; I have lost all my weight in winter, when my HR rarely goes into Z4, whereas in summer its rarely below it. My diet during the period hasnt changed in fact I eat less in the summer off the bike! My waist size is still a 36" same as it was in April.

Alex_Simmons/RST

There is a sliding scale for the utilisation of the two main fuels (free fatty acids and glycogen) but it is not linear nor uniform and is dependent on a number of factors including:

- Type of muscular exercise: continuous or intermittent; brief or prolonged; light or heavy relative to the maximal aerobic power (MAP) of the engaged muscle groups

- Whether you are untrained or well trained

- Diet: high or low in carbohydrates

- Health: certain conditions such as diabetes affect the bodies choice of fuel

As has been stated, with an increase in intensity, there is a greater share of energy produced from carbohydrates (glygogen).

It should be noted that the utlisation of fat as a fuel depends on our oxygen transport capacity (use of fat as a fuel is wholly aerobic process) and the body's choice of fuel mix depends on the work rate relative to maximal oxygen uptake. Hence exercise which improves maximal oxygen uptake will increase fat utilisation at the same work rate. The fitter we get and the higher our MAP, the better we become at burning fat.

In general, the ratios of fat:carbo as fuel source goes like this:

From rest to about 50% of maximal oxygen uptake: 50% fat - 50% carbos
It then changes in a roughly linear fashion from that 50:50 ratio
so that at 100% of maximal oxygen uptake: 0% fat - 100% carbos

Now these are not precise and any individual might be up to 10% either way anywhere along this line, some are still utilising some fat as fuel at 100% of maximal aerobic uptake, while others may be using no fat as fuel at 90% of maximal oxygen uptake.

So the ideal intensity for "fat burning" is one that maintains a reasonably high proportion of fat as fuel, is also intense enough that the work rate is also high enough to burn more calories overall per hour but low enough so that we can sustain the exercise for 2-4, maybe even 6 hours. Add to that the higher our MAP, the higher the fat burning "zone" is and hence the greater overal fat fueled calories you can burn per hour.

So fat burning is best done at a moderate intensity but it also helps to include some training to increase MAP (and or Functional Threshold Power - FTP) as that will lift the overall rate that fat can be utilised. Hence Ruth suggesting that these longer rides are not meant to be slow, indeed they should be at a reasonable clip. But don't ignore lifting your MAP/FTP either.

For those with power, fat burning between 45% - 65% of Maximal Aerobic Power (or 60% - 80% of FTP) for rides between 1 and 6 hrs (duration will impact intensity). Note these are not comparable to Heart Rate Zones (where I would estimate the zone to be 70-85% of max heart rate). For lifting of MAP/FTP, then riding at higher intensities is required as Ric mentioned previously.

The other factors listed above, such as proportion of fat and carbos in diet, can have a large impact on the fuel mix utilised during exercise but I won't go into that.

Alex_Simmons/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Taking it to basics then of Newtonian physics: Explain to me then why from observation I lost more body fat from Jan to Apr when my average ride was lower in effort, and longer in time; yet from May thru to Sep I have not lost any significant weight

I can think of some possibilities:
- most likely is your observations of the energy balance between food intake and work done is wrong (do you measure and count everything you eat and maintain a strict food diary and use a power meter on every ride to ascertain actual work done?); or
- you have a medical condition that increases your metabolism in the winter (e.g. over active thyroid).
- you are performing other active pursuits in the winter besides the bike

SteveR_100Milers

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Taking it to basics then of Newtonian physics: Explain to me then why from observation I lost more body fat from Jan to Apr when my average ride was lower in effort, and longer in time; yet from May thru to Sep I have not lost any significant weight

I can think of some possibilities:
- most likely is your observations of the energy balance between food intake and work done is wrong (do you measure and count everything you eat and maintain a strict food diary and use a power meter on every ride to ascertain actual work done?); or
- you have a medical condition that increases your metabolism in the winter (e.g. over active thyroid).
- you are performing other active pursuits in the winter besides the bike

1. No I dont use a food diary - merely obeservtaion, I eat the same types of food though, just slightly less. In fact I probably eat more rubbish food also in the winter.

2. No medical condition I am aware of

3. 90% cycling, tiny bit of running

My point is that Ric proposes that the higher the intesnity, the greater the fat loss, i.e. there is no lower intesnity optimum intensity zone. I see the opposite effect, as do seemingly many other racers on the forum. If I have interpreted your previous post correctly, then you have confirmed the same observation: at LT your fat burn is much lower, maybe zero as you suggest because the metabolic process is just too slow at this level of intensity. The conclusion therefore seems to be that long steady riding IS ideal for weight loss / control! It would seem from most riders experience that there is no substitute for getting the miles in at a nice steady pace.

Ric_Stern/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

My point is that Ric proposes that the higher the intesnity, the greater the fat loss, i.e. there is no lower intesnity optimum intensity zone. I see the opposite effect, as do seemingly many other racers on the forum. If I have interpreted your previous post correctly, then you have confirmed the same observation: at LT your fat burn is much lower, maybe zero as you suggest because the metabolic process is just too slow at this level of intensity. The conclusion therefore seems to be that long steady riding IS ideal for weight loss / control! It would seem from most riders experience that there is no substitute for getting the miles in at a nice steady pace.

i'm just leaving, now...

unfortunately, you haven't understood what i said: that is, i said you should exercise at the highest intensity you can manage for the time you have available and be able to recover on a daily basis.

in other words, as people have different time scales available it'd change for each person, i.e., have 7 hrs available each day? well, it's gonna have to be very easy. Have 20-mins each day? it better be bloody hard.

i then said that more FFA are oxidised as your fitness increases at a given sub-max intensity. Interpret this to mean that if you have 7 hrs every day to ride, to cut some of that and do some higher intensity so that your metabolic and cardiovascular fitness increases. so that when you ride sub-,max your endurance is extended/your glycogen is spared.

that's as quickly as i can sum it and am i defintely going now. see you all in a week.

ric

Alex_Simmons/RST

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

My point is that Ric proposes that the higher the intesnity, the greater the fat loss, i.e. there is no lower intesnity optimum intensity zone. I see the opposite effect, as do seemingly many other racers on the forum. If I have interpreted your previous post correctly, then you have confirmed the same observation: at LT your fat burn is much lower, maybe zero as you suggest because the metabolic process is just too slow at this level of intensity. The conclusion therefore seems to be that long steady riding IS ideal for weight loss / control! It would seem from most riders experience that there is no substitute for getting the miles in at a nice steady pace.

Not quite. There is a difference between riding at intensities which improve your capacity to utilise fat as a fuel and riding at intensities which are effective at allowing you to actually "burn" the most fat as a fuel. The former is typically higher than the latter.

Note that LT is lower than maximal aerobic power and fat is still a source of fuel at these (LT) intensities as well (like 25% fat - 75% carbo).

An example:

Let's say your LT/FTP is 300 Watts.

A rider's overall efficiency is 23% - a typical level (just the energy reaching the rear wheel vs overall energy expended such as heat, moving bike/rider forward etc)

And say we have three rides, each 1 hour long:
1 hour at threshold, 300 W (fat is ~ 25% of fuel source)
1 hour solid endurance, say 240 W (fat is ~ 40% of fuel source)
1 hour low level endurance, say 170 W (fat is 50% of fuel source)

Threshold: 300W x 3,600 seconds = 1,080kJ / 23% = 4,695kJ. 25% from fat source = 1,174kJ

Solid endurance: 240W x 3,600 seconds = 864kJ / 23% = 3,756kJ. 40% from fat source = 1,502kJ

Easy endurance: 170W x 3,600 seconds = 612kJ / 23% = 2,661kJ. 50% from fat source = 1,330kJ

So, on a per hour basis, solid endurance will utlilise more fat than low level endurance. Since by definition FTP can only be sustained for an hour then it would be more effective to use the lower levels to burn fat since you can ride at these lower levels for longer periods.

Solid endurance for 1-3 hours quite readily possible and repeatable.
Low level endurance can be ridden almost indefinitely (OK a practical limit, let's say 5-6 hours but of course many can go longer)

So if I was limited to a max of 3 hours of riding/day, I would definitely be riding at solid endurance levels to most effectively "burn" fat.

YMMV

Alex_Simmons/RST

And just to add, if your are limited to 60-90 minutes, the solid tempo (270 W) in the example rider above (37% fat as fuel):

270 W x 3600 sec / 23% * 37% = 1,564 kJ of energy from fat per hour

So if I only had an hour or so, then I would ride even harder to burn fat.

Make sense?

Toks

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

And just to add, if your are limited to 60-90 minutes, the solid tempo (270 W) in the example rider above (37% fat as fuel):

270 W x 3600 sec / 23% * 37% = 1,564 kJ of energy from fat per hour

So if I only had an hour or so, then I would ride even harder to burn fat.

Make sense?

Nuff said! Well done Alex I think you absolutely smashed it!