Increasing my base and improving fat burn

cookiemonster

Hi

I did a metabolic assessment yesterday with Pete Byworth at http://www.vo2fortri.com/ getting an idea of my vo2max, lactate threshold, aerobic threshold and bunch of other stuff

Just to get the first thing out of the way - he gets a huge recommendation if you're after a snapshot of where you stand in terms of fitness and type (strengths, weaknesses) and advice on what you should be looking at doing to meet whatever goals you're trying to aim for. He's a very straight forward guy with good solid realistic advice. I was a little sceptical as to whether this would be vfm, but for me, its probably the single most important influence on how I think about my cycle training

I wanted three questions answered (in laymans terms):

1. I felt that I had an imbalance of power over endurance - I can keep with just about anyone in a sprint or 20-30 minute session, but on sportives i tend to hit a wall at around 60miles, suffer terribly, and then get it back together. I used to think I wasnt eating enough, but I'm actually eating loads and loads - probably more than I could actually process. So, where am I in terms of power vs endurance?

2. Do I actually lack base endurance? Is that my weak point and should i be targeting my training more in that direction (rather than the more interesting higher intensity stuff) - or is my problem just with eating and drinking on a long ride?

3. If I do lack endurance, what specific training levels and the like should I aim for to improve matters?

We talked through the results in detail, but its a lot of info to take in - Pete is sending through everything in writing, but im going from memory here at the moment.

Basically my top end is very good - vo2max in the mid 70's, which especially being in late 30's I really cant complain about. It also explains my short duration performance (i havent been cycling that long but can keep up with most people in a sprint or 20-30 minute blast) and high altitude ability (cycling up the khardung la at 18,000 feet for example). However, I hardly burn fat - max percentage of fat/carb is around 40% and when I'm at 155bpm or so then fat is a very small proportion of my energy burn. This explains my "60-mile" crashes - im burning carb and cant actually process enough through my intestines to make up for it

So, I want to increase my fat burning ability - or base endurance level. The well known path here is longer rides, minimum 1 hour, probably better starting at 90minutes upwards at a steady pace in your fat burning zone (so im at 125-135bpm).

I've got two questions -

1. Anyone got links to research or articles on other/additional methods to improving fat burn? (As much for my general interest in this stuff as looking for things to do)

2. Is there a way to measure improvement outside of going back to get a metabolic assessment?


As an aside I do reckon that a large number of cyclists suffer from this - a lot of guys in my club have the same "crash" at 60 miles or something into a sportive, and then pick it up and carry on, blaming food or drink intake. I reckon we tend to focus so much more on short high intensity training (2x20's etc) and the need to feel that we're really putting the effort in during our short training schedules (especially if you work long hours in an office job) that we neglect the lower level stuff.

Cheers for this

Jon

ob

Hi Jon

Firstly, I don't really have an answer to your questions, sorry! But I read what you've found with interest, as I recently took a metabolic profiling test at my gym (Reebok Sports Club London).
I found largely the same thing as you. I've not been cycling for too long, and haven't managed to work my way up to 60mile rides yet, but I imagine I'd find the same thing, as my fat burning at high BPM is terrible.

I never really thought about this before, as "endurance" for me had only reached an hour's ride, with all of it working in my top heart rate zone. I was pretty sure that being able to maintain that sort of effort meant I was fit, but the metabolic profiling showed me that being "fit" doesn't necessarily mean having good fat burning ability.

I was given a 12 week plan working in the lower heart rate zones for quite a bit with some interval work as well. In theory I go back for another test in 12 weeks time to see how I've progressed. The problem with this plan is that it really disrupts my plans for hardcore training over the next 3 months! It should definitely be worth it in the long run though.

I'm keeping an eye out for any shortcuts to improve fat burning, but I've not found anything yet, except lots of work in the lower heart rate zones.

ride_whenever

Generally if you want to get better at something do it more.

To improve your endurance do a lot of long UT2 sessions, if you want a good book, try the complete guide to endurance training, you can find it on amazon. Amazingly useful book on the subject, with sample training plans for various different disciplines

Infamous

ride_whenever wrote:

Generally if you want to get better at something do it more.

Fantastic sentence. Sums up any kind of training.

cookiemonster:
If you want to train for 150km sportives, ride for 150km regularly. If you want to sprint faster then sprint regularly. Don't think that you are genetically determined to be good at riding for 30 mins, but bad at riding 60 miles plus. It all comes down to what rides you have done in the past.

As for fat burning, do you really think that by riding slower you will burn more fat? It doesn't work like that, it's a myth. The only way to burn more fat is to ride harder and faster.

binlinus

Cookiemonster

I wouldn't dismiss the 2x20 stuff but you do need to get out once a week and do a hard tempo ride -- 2 or 3 hours at a brisk pace. Some clubs do a hard ride like this riding two abreast on a Saturday morning of up to 4 hours. If you are feeling good sit on the front and do the work. If they are going a bit fast for you then sit in and let someone else work. You need to eat some solid food on the ride as well as plenty to drink. Get off the front, go to the back and have a snack, then come back and work on the front of the group. This ride should feel hard and you should get an hour's sleep after eating and showering when it's over.

Get out the next morning and do an easy ride of about an hour or so to recover.

Bin

cookiemonster

Infamous wrote:

As for fat burning, do you really think that by riding slower you will burn more fat? It doesn't work like that, it's a myth. The only way to burn more fat is to ride harder and faster.

Hi, interestingly this is exactly what the assessment shows - and is very clearly understood within sports science: at different intensities of effort your energy comes from different proportions of fat versus carb. As you increase effort, you will start burning more carb and less fat (both absolute and proportionally), so when i get to around 158bpm I'm not getting my energy from fat at all - its all from carb.

So the "only way to burn more fat is to ride harder and faster" is sadly incorrect, and I guess many cyclist (as I was doing until recently) take your view that "faster and harder" must equal better. This will only get you so far.

Also, the problem with the "if you want to do something well, do more of it" approach is that I can do 150km rides at the moment (my normal sunday run is 140km with just over 2000m climb), but I'm doing them on my carb reserves. If I keep doing them at my current pace I am just teaching and improving my bodies ability to burn carb which is limiting in the long term. In order to move to using more energy from fat, I have to train at my fat-burning zone more, i.e. 128-133 ish. Lots of theory backing this up if you look at any cycling training or sports science text. Only by "not" doing the thing that i want to improve, will i improve it.

Also - just to give some perspective, I've no problem today with fast 3-4 hour rides. On club rides i'll do my share at the front, and sportives I'll be in the gold. I've done the alps and cycled in the himalayas and can generaly hold my own. I'm reasonable sports cyclist looking to get closer to my potential, rather than a beginner looking to complete my first 100k

Jon

doyler78

How's about reading this. Always good to get another perspective I find. Just because there is a fat burning zone doesn't mean its the most useful way to train.

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0895.htm

binlinus

cookiemonster wrote:

[at different intensities of effort your energy comes from different proportions of fat versus carb. As you increase effort, you will start burning more carb and less fat (both absolute and proportionally), so when i get to around 158bpm I'm not getting my energy from fat at all - its all from carb.

Wrong (I'm pretty sure about this). As intensity increases you will burn more carbo relative to fat. But you are not burning less fat. What happens is that you can't burn fat fast enough to keep up with demand. So you have to keep topping up with carbo.

What you need to do is raise your Functional Threshold Power (FTP). By raising your threshold you will conserve carbohydrate and be able to rely on your fat reserves more. You can't train your body to burn more fat. But you can raise your fat-burning zone to a higher intensity, ie raise your FTP.

Riding at tempo improves your ability to store muscle glycogen as well as raising FTP. 2x20s raise your FTP

Since you are doing a 140k club run and doing 3 or 4 hour rides I can only think you are not doing these hard enough. I think you would be better off doing 100k at a hard pace.

Doing a long ride like 140k can also lower your testosterone levels and limit your ability to recover and train.

Your earlier posts gave the impression you weren't doing any longer stuff. What training are you currently doing?

Bin

Al_38

cookiemonster wrote:

i tend to hit a wall at around 60miles, suffer terribly, and then get it back together.

So when you say you get it back together, is this because you eat / drink a load of sugar to try and compensate? Or is your body switching from glycogen use to fat use?

I would say that ride_whenever is about right suggesting if you want to improve at something to do it more - so to help teach your body to fat burn you would need to reach the point where you feel like you are running out of energy and then start riding at the intensity where you are burning the highest absolute amount of fat. To speed this up could you not ride hard for an hour or so to exhaust glycogen supplies quicker and then start trying to increase fat usage?

Alex_Simmons/RST

cookiemonster wrote:

If I keep doing them at my current pace I am just teaching and improving my bodies ability to burn carb which is limiting in the long term. In order to move to using more energy from fat, I have to train at my fat-burning zone more, i.e. 128-133 ish. Lots of theory backing this up if you look at any cycling training or sports science text. Only by "not" doing the thing that i want to improve, will i improve it.

Can you provide the sports science references that suggest this?

There are a multitude of factors at play with endurance performance and the combination of FFA/CHO utilisation.

One can, for instance, burn more fat simply by eating more fat in the diet (we burn what we eat). What is your general diet like? (that's a rhetorical question btw)

But there could be an issue of pacing as well. Surging on a ride (e.g. going hard up the hills) will have the tendency to utilise CHO more than perhaps an overall steadier effort might.

The use of FFA as a fuel depends entirely on our oxygen transporting capacity. Training to improve our oxygen uptake also improves our ability for fat utilisation. That training comprises efforts from endurance pace right through to working on developing our VO2 Max/MAP although it is the higher intensities that have a greater impact on this capability. So for any rider looking to ride longer events, they still need a mix of rides along the power-duration curve, although that mix might be different to say a TT specialist.

As for the testing, well firstly it is power that determines the intensity we are riding at and not HR. HR is used as a proxy for intensity, which is generally OK in a lab as HR-power relationship is fairly reproduceable. Unfortunately that relationship doesn't hold nearly so well once we head outdoors.

mclarent

You need to consider many factors in what your talking about, aerobic fitness is one of them, but also diet and exercise intensity. As an aside, I would also ask about your long rides fit into your training schedule? Are you hitting it hard the day before, and if so are you giving yourself enough recovery and replacing your fluids/glycogen/protein stores?

As mentioned above, the "fat burning zone" is about the proportion of your energy that comes from fat, not the overall amount of fat you are burning (common misunderstanding, repeated to me by gym instructors - I trust the books on this one). As intensity increases, so the body cannot keep up with the energy needs through fat alone, and so tops up with carbs. Given this, as mentioned, surging up hills etc will clearly require that the body consumes higher amounts of carbs than setting a steady pace.

Basically, the body's ability to transform fat into fatty acids (the energy source) improves as fitness improves. This improvement can be generated by any kind of riding (short high intensity or long endurance) and the training should try to fit the individuals goals. However, mixing up the training is beneficial for everyone According to my sources however, training should stay aerobic.

Much of that is repeating what Alex said in simpler terms, but hopefully it's helpful!

Infamous

cookiemonster wrote:

Hi, interestingly this is exactly what the assessment shows - and is very clearly understood within sports science: at different intensities of effort your energy comes from different proportions of fat versus carb. As you increase effort, you will start burning more carb and less fat (both absolute and proportionally), so when i get to around 158bpm I'm not getting my energy from fat at all - its all from carb.

Well really, you want to burn carbs! It means you are working hard.

cookiemonster wrote:

So the "only way to burn more fat is to ride harder and faster" is sadly incorrect, and I guess many cyclist (as I was doing until recently) take your view that "faster and harder" must equal better. This will only get you so far.

If you ride slowly and only burn fat, after the ride, as soon as you eat some carbs they will be turned into fat. If you ride quickly and burn lots of carbs (glycogen), the carbs you eat will be turned into glycogen. So basically, the ride that burns the most fat, is the one that burns the most calories, ie, ride faster and harder.

cookiemonster wrote:

Also, the problem with the "if you want to do something well, do more of it" approach is that I can do 150km rides at the moment (my normal sunday run is 140km with just over 2000m climb), but I'm doing them on my carb reserves. If I keep doing them at my current pace I am just teaching and improving my bodies ability to burn carb which is limiting in the long term. In order to move to using more energy from fat, I have to train at my fat-burning zone more, i.e. 128-133 ish. Lots of theory backing this up if you look at any cycling training or sports science text. Only by "not" doing the thing that i want to improve, will i improve it.

What utter nonsense (no offense!). It's well known in many sports that races are often the best forms of training! ie, by doing exactly what you are trying to achieve, you train correctly. To suggest that riding 16 mph for 6 hours on a sunday (for example) will make you faster is ridiculous, it'll make you better at riding 16 mph for long periods.

cookiemonster wrote:

Also - just to give some perspective, I've no problem today with fast 3-4 hour rides. On club rides i'll do my share at the front, and sportives I'll be in the gold. I've done the alps and cycled in the himalayas and can generaly hold my own. I'm reasonable sports cyclist looking to get closer to my potential, rather than a beginner looking to complete my first 100k

I wasn't suggesting you are a novice! I'm sure you're a great rider, I was just pointing out a common myth that you have been told.

ob

I think there's at least some truth to what cookie is saying. On my metabolic profiling test I was found to burn the following:

In the lowest zone I burnt 6.9Cal per min, of which 2.9Cal was fat.
In a higher zone I burnt 17.2 Cal per min, of which 1.7Cal was fat.

I haven't got the data/graphs with me, so that's just form memory, and I can't remember what my zone BPMs were offhand.

I always used to be of the opinion that this sort of thing was rubbish - after all, it's just maths, comparing calories you take in to calories you expend. But when you're talking about long rides, your body's effectiveness at mobilising the fat and turning it into energy surely plays a part - it has to, unless you're consuming 4000Calories during the ride (which I don't *think* is recommended). And if these metabolic tests have found (empirically anyway) that the best way of doing this is training at the lower intensities, then who's to say that's wrong?

Caveat: this assumes that the data is correct regarding calorie burning and where the energy is coming from!

Alex_Simmons/RST

ob wrote:

I think there's at least some truth to what cookie is saying. On my metabolic profiling test I was found to burn the following:

In the lowest zone I burnt 6.9Cal per min, of which 2.9Cal was fat.
In a higher zone I burnt 17.2 Cal per min, of which 1.7Cal was fat.

I haven't got the data/graphs with me, so that's just form memory, and I can't remember what my zone BPMs were offhand.

I always used to be of the opinion that this sort of thing was rubbish - after all, it's just maths, comparing calories you take in to calories you expend. But when you're talking about long rides, your body's effectiveness at mobilising the fat and turning it into energy surely plays a part - it has to, unless you're consuming 4000Calories during the ride (which I don't *think* is recommended). And if these metabolic tests have found (empirically anyway) that the best way of doing this is training at the lower intensities, then who's to say that's wrong?

Caveat: this assumes that the data is correct regarding calorie burning and where the energy is coming from!

The problem with your logic is it assumes you could sustain the higher intensity on a long ride, which you couldn't. So FFA will end up being a major fuel source anyway. That is normal.