BONK Training??
Comments
-
I'm back. Did I miss anything or just a bunch of fluff about what happens when you eat a bunch of crap and wonder why you go like a slug?
And to be frank I don't give a toss what happens on a day you decide to eat umpteen thousand calories of fat. If you are silly enough to do that then you get what you deserve.
Eat well, train smart & hard. Rest well.
This is a training forum after all.0 -
Davey
OUCH!
Now that hurts. Don’t have much time for religion myself, so you’ve landed a solid blow there mate.
I like to think I’m not so much taking “potshots at science”, as using good science to take potshots at bad.
The metabolic processes I’ve referred to aren’t controversial, new-fangled or out-on-a-limb, they’re in the textbooks used to train every medical doctor you’ve ever seen, read or been treated by.
Let me know which parts of the views expressed you want to have precisely what sort of “rigorous criticism” applied to, and I’ll try to do it.
Cheers!0 -
Davey
OUCH!
Now that hurts. Don’t have much time for religion myself, so you’ve landed a solid blow there mate.
I like to think I’m not so much taking “potshots at science”, as using good science to take potshots at bad.
The metabolic processes I’ve referred to aren’t controversial, new-fangled or out-on-a-limb, they’re in the textbooks used to train every medical doctor you’ve ever seen, read or been treated by.
Let me know which parts of the views expressed you want to have precisely what sort of “rigorous criticism” applied to, and I’ll try to do it.
Cheers!0 -
I guess I am getting the impression you are more concerned with telling us what is wrong than what you think is right. Though I have to admit, it becomes difficult to take away any sort of coherent message after reading several long posts which are not really to-the-point. Or maybe that's just my short attention span.
What are you trying to say? That we should not eat any carbs? Or if not, then what should our carb intake be?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
FWIW what Fatbee is driving at makes a lot of sense to me and DaveyL seems to be rather disingenuous and quite wrong with his remark about potshots at science. It seems to me that Fatbee has done no more than explain some basic science to us. Nobody else here seems qualified to contradict a single word he has said.
However, I agree with DaveyL about one thing and I would be interested to hear from Fatbee - what should a cyclist who is in quite hard training, but also wishes to lose some spare fat, do with regard to carbs and fat consumption? For a very active person there's nothing wrong with the policy of eating well and training well and not worrying about how many carbs are eaten, surely? Or are you saying this is entirely the wrong approach for people in hard training?
Ruth0 -
Perhaps I didn't make the point well, and my views are certainly coloured by fatbee's previous appearances on the forum (look 'em up), but I was trying to make the point that what I take away from his posts is more a criticism of certain theories rather him actually telling us what we should be doing.
Maybe I'm just missing the point though - his posts are hard work, at least for me.
I'd also be keen to hear his views on lipoprotein lipase, what it does and how it fits in to the grand scheme of things.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Are we talking Zone Diet here fatbee?0
-
BeaconRuth wrote:FWIW what Fatbee is driving at makes a lot of sense to me and DaveyL seems to be rather disingenuous and quite wrong with his remark about potshots at science. It seems to me that Fatbee has done no more than explain some basic science to us. Nobody else here seems qualified to contradict a single word he has said.
However, I agree with DaveyL about one thing and I would be interested to hear from Fatbee - what should a cyclist who is in quite hard training, but also wishes to lose some spare fat, do with regard to carbs and fat consumption? For a very active person there's nothing wrong with the policy of eating well and training well and not worrying about how many carbs are eaten, surely? Or are you saying this is entirely the wrong approach for people in hard training?
Ruth
As i have said most of the comments have been with a medical condition or small % of population in mind. When you listen to qualified people at universities who have studied for years you sometimes tend to switch of to pretty random one dimensional rants which have really turned into look what i know. Nice science bits though but probably the wrong place.0 -
That comes across as just a smidgen patronising I'm afraid. I've done my fair share of listening to academics in universities who have studied for years (allbeit in semiconductor physics, not sports science or nutrition) and I don't think Fatbee is one-dimensional, nor on a 'look what I know' mission.NJK wrote:....... When you listen to qualified people at universities who have studied for years you sometimes tend to switch of to pretty random one dimensional rants which have really turned into look what i know.
Nobody is able to say he is wrong, so it seems that instead people will claim he is on a rant or irrelevant. Shouldn't we be asking instead what impact the facts he is explaining have for fat-loss alongside a demanding training routine where carbohydrate intake is important?
Not in the wrong place if it interests some of us, surely? Did they teach you to be patronising where you studied?NJK wrote:Nice science bits though but probably the wrong place.
Ruth0 -
I'll again mention that anybody with interest in this area should take a look at the Horizon documentary on "Why thin people dont get fat". I
t makes admirable case demonstrating very large variability within general population (not medical extremes) in terms of causes for and reaction to a calorie imbalance.
What it also shows is that this is an subject no-one really knows all the answers and no one answer will apply to everyone. I've got a lot of time for Fatbee's views and don't think he's entirely barking either mad or up the wrong tree.
That said the proof of science is in the testing. I'd be interested in the answer to Ruth's question. At the end of the day this is a cycling training forum when all said and done and acid test of any hypothesis is that it allows reliable actions to be taken that will help us improve cycling performance.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
BeaconRuth wrote:
That comes across as just a smidgen patronising I'm afraid. I've done my fair share of listening to academics in universities who have studied for years (allbeit in semiconductor physics, not sports science or nutrition) and I don't think Fatbee is one-dimensional, nor on a 'look what I know' mission.NJK wrote:....... When you listen to qualified people at universities who have studied for years you sometimes tend to switch of to pretty random one dimensional rants which have really turned into look what i know.
Nobody is able to say he is wrong, so it seems that instead people will claim he is on a rant or irrelevant. Shouldn't we be asking instead what impact the facts he is explaining have for fat-loss alongside a demanding training routine where carbohydrate intake is important?
Not in the wrong place if it interests some of us, surely? Did they teach you to be patronising where you studied?NJK wrote:Nice science bits though but probably the wrong place.
Ruth
I'm patronising him i don't think so and i actually agree with some of his views, however they probably won't apply to a significant part of the population. Very possibly those that have exercised all throughout there lives or don't have a medical condition.
Sports nutrition is mainly about the eating the correct amounts at the right time in a balanced diet to improve performance, and there is certainly plenty of info out there.
Unless of course fatbee thinks that more qualified people than him are all wrong regarding the very simple if you eat more than you burn you will increase your body mass. I think the patronising maybe the other way round 0 -
bahzob wrote:I'll again mention that anybody with interest in this area should take a look at the Horizon documentary on "Why thin people dont get fat". I
t makes admirable case demonstrating very large variability within general population (not medical extremes) in terms of causes for and reaction to a calorie imbalance.
What it also shows is that this is an subject no-one really knows all the answers and no one answer will apply to everyone. I've got a lot of time for Fatbee's views and don't think he's entirely barking either mad or up the wrong tree.
That said the proof of science is in the testing. I'd be interested in the answer to Ruth's question. At the end of the day this is a cycling training forum when all said and done and acid test of any hypothesis is that it allows reliable actions to be taken that will help us improve cycling performance.
Yes i saw that programme very interesting especially the man who increased muscle mass by increasing calorie intake when others increased bodyfat significantly.
It pretty much states that you wil increase mass if you eat double what you should :shock: however it could be muscle or fat depending on your BMR if i remember it correctly.
This was general population i think, the people on this forum generally want to improve performance. The answer to Ruth's question is in all good sports nutrition books. It still equals calories in calories out. Carbs or no carbs especially in the exercising population which i think we are.0 -
But NJK the question then is what makes a good sports nutrition book? Is something like the Paleo diet for athletes a good book? There are successful athletes who use it. Personally I like The Complete Guide to Sports Nutrition by Anita Bean.
fatbee can you point us in the direction of the studies you read please? I would like to read more into this as it's a subject I'm quite interested in.
Also there's some interesting reading to be had here on the subject http://alancouzens.blogspot.com/
Wu Kong0 -
NJK wrote:
This was general population i think, the people on this forum generally want to improve performance. The answer to Ruth's question is in all good sports nutrition books. It still equals calories in calories out. Carbs or no carbs especially in the exercising population which i think we are.
As per SunWuKong the problem here is that there are many sports nutrition books. Fatbee obviously has some views on how these may or may not apply with specific reference to cycle training
Would be interested in his specific response to Ruth's question as this strikes to the heart of determining whether or not the ideas stand up to scruitiny.
"What should a cyclist who is in quite hard training, but also wishes to lose some spare fat, do with regard to carbs and fat consumption? For a very active person there's nothing wrong with the policy of eating well and training well and not worrying about how many carbs are eaten, surely? Or are you saying this is entirely the wrong approach for people in hard training?"Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
There is a lot of 'truth' in what fatbee has written. But I'm not sure its the whole story (there are other food hormones involved ie leptin) nor whether what he says is applicable to people engagaing i regular relatively hard exercise (a small percentage of the population after all!)
But I do know that here in Sweden avoid fat eat more the carbs/low GI take on losing weight is being strongly resisted by some doctors and increasingly more diabetes sufferers - as carbs of any sort (low of high GI) eventullay lead to an insulin spike.
Diabetics lack the ability to respsond to carbs and must therefore inject the insulin needed to bring down blood glucose levels. To suggest to these people that they should and can carry on eating carbs of any form and simply correct the problem with insulin does seem crazy!
This doctor http://blogg.passagen.se/dahlqvistannik ... %C3%A4nkar was almost struck off for recommending her diabetics a low/no carb diet!
and it is true that in Sweden anyway the carb producers have pushed pasta and bread very strongly in the sporting world - big sponsors etc. Swedes have never been fatter!
Jonas Colting is against carbs in vast quantities whilst training - prefering to use them only during competition.
And it is the case that recent research shows Miss Joe bloggs only consumes 1600kcal a day - which even allowing for under reporting is not much at all - and still we get fatter
And (another one!) daily consumption of fat has fallen in the UK from 121g per person in1970 to 74g in 2000. and still we get fatter.
As for Ruth's question. I'm pretty sure you can cut down on carbs a bit and more importantly create a small calorie deficit and still train! But I would guess its a very individual thing that can only be found by a bit of trial and error.. I've cut my total carbs a bit and shifted to low GI carbs and do feel better for it - livlier and less hungry. And improved my wattage by 15% over the last half year - but perhaps I was eating too many anyway!0 -
An article at the moment on cyclingnews.com regarding the "train low, race high" glycogen approach to training:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness.php? ... n_trainingLe Blaireau (1)0 -
Hi All!
brilliant bunch of responses here - many thanks for them all - I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am!
Sorry but I really won't have time to respond properly till Saturday at the earliest. It doesn’t mean I’ve gone away!
I promise I’ll address Ruth’s question, The Zone Diet, LPL / ll and other enzymes and Jonas Colting – IMVHO, Sweden as a nation, leads the world in the informed and sensible approach to carbohydrate in our diet.
But to try and leave a “watch this space” summary:
NJK asks “Unless of course fatbee thinks that more qualified people than him are all wrong regarding the very simple if you eat more than you burn you will increase your body mass”
Er yes, well sadly I do. And I know how implausible that must seem and how ludicrous it makes me look – so patronise away (I’m not saying anyone has) insult all you want, take the proverbial. I won’t be offended. What I won’t let go though is people who, whilst claiming expert knowledge and relevant academic qualification (and worse still who take other people’s money in return for dispensing same,) deride and dismiss without fronting up to the actual discussion and argument.
Look at it this way NJK . . . not one molecule of what I’ve said here is original. I got it all from people “more qualified” than I am (not difficult that BTW.) They are qualified doctors, professors, researchers, nutritionists, scientists and science-journalists. It just happens that a) you (and I do mean YOU) next-to-never hear from them, whilst you do hear, day-in and day-out from “the other side” and b) they all agree with me!! Or to put it less ridiculously and vainly – I agree with them. It has to be that way round obviously because they’d done all the science and published, long before I’d even heard of them, let alone read, or read about, their work.
But trust me, they’re out there and they’re just as qualified as those whom most of us, not unreasonably, assume to be correct “because they’re qualified”
fb x0 -
fatbee wrote:Hi All!
brilliant bunch of responses here - many thanks for them all - I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am!
Sorry but I really won't have time to respond properly till Saturday at the earliest. It doesn’t mean I’ve gone away!
I promise I’ll address Ruth’s question, The Zone Diet, LPL / ll and other enzymes and Jonas Colting – IMVHO, Sweden as a nation, leads the world in the informed and sensible approach to carbohydrate in our diet.
But to try and leave a “watch this space” summary:
NJK asks “Unless of course fatbee thinks that more qualified people than him are all wrong regarding the very simple if you eat more than you burn you will increase your body mass”
Er yes, well sadly I do. And I know how implausible that must seem and how ludicrous it makes me look – so patronise away (I’m not saying anyone has) insult all you want, take the proverbial. I won’t be offended. What I won’t let go though is people who, whilst claiming expert knowledge and relevant academic qualification (and worse still who take other people’s money in return for dispensing same,) deride and dismiss without fronting up to the actual discussion and argument.
Look at it this way NJK . . . not one molecule of what I’ve said here is original. I got it all from people “more qualified” than I am (not difficult that BTW.) They are qualified doctors, professors, researchers, nutritionists, scientists and science-journalists. It just happens that a) you (and I do mean YOU) next-to-never hear from them, whilst you do hear, day-in and day-out from “the other side” and b) they all agree with me!! Or to put it less ridiculously and vainly – I agree with them. It has to be that way round obviously because they’d done all the science and published, long before I’d even heard of them, let alone read, or read about, their work.
But trust me, they’re out there and they’re just as qualified as those whom most of us, not unreasonably, assume to be correct “because they’re qualified”
fb x
Come on fatbee stick a few journal articles on here and we will see how it relates to a healthy (not ill or medical condition)active cyclist who wants to improve performance.
By the way the advice i give is backed up by researchers in the the field of sports nutrition not doctors or science journalists.
I don't think you are worth anymore discussion on the topic. 0 -
How wrong you are. Try living here! Sweden is not what it seems - bit like the owls in twin peaks....fatbee wrote:and Jonas Colting – IMVHO, Sweden as a nation, leads the world in the informed and sensible approach to carbohydrate in our diet.
MASSIVE SNIP!
fb x
0 -
You've all gone WAY off topic here. The original post just asked if anyone has tried it, and is it safe. The answers are yes, and yes, up to a point.
There's a confusion here between training to lose weight, and training to increase performance. 'Bonk training' may well help weight loss but won't make you faster. Also, the scientific consensus is that a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet is the best for endurance athletes. I'm curious, as others have already asked, as to exactly how Fatbee thinks the role of insulin etc changes this thinking? It seems to me that if you want to ride as hard as possible for a reasonable distance, then filling up first with something stodgy like pasta or porridge is pretty much common sense.0 -
I don't know how on topic this is, but here's my experience.
I was on a Very Low Calorie Diet. I ate 500-525 calories a day. I also cycled lots. Almost every day I did 40 miles. At weekends I'd cover double that. I ate almost no carbohydrates. My body got all the energy it needed from burning fat and protein.
Whilst on this diet I could quite easily cycle all day with no food. I never bonked and I never felt lethargic.
I am now eating normal food and am finding training far harder. I find it far easier to push too far to a point where my performance tails off drammatically. I now have to watch my eating on the bike otherwise I run out of fuel, I never had this problem before.
For me it seems that burning fat is quite hard once the body is out of practice. Once I burn off my glycogen I suffer pretty badly. Before, when I had none, I had an endless supply of energy, now the energy is definitely rationed.0 -
Hi All!
unexpected windowette of op. so here goes, in reverse order.
guinea, your experience is very interesting, and I would claim (well I would wouldn’t I?) that it’s very much in line with what I’ve been saying, but I’ll leave others to decide that for themselves.
Edwin, sorry if you object to the direction this thread has taken, but I weighed-in (!!!) because I disagree with KKspeeder that in order to burn unwanted body fat “properly” it’s best to ingest carbohydrate whilst doing so. And I challenged Alex to explain his thinking because I believe his understanding of carbohydrate metabolism to be limited and thus fundamentally flawed, which I find unsatisfactory in somebody who (as I understand it,) charges people money for sharing this understanding.
You also say “'Bonk training' may well help weight loss but won't make you faster.” Well yes, I thought we were talking about losing weight, not improving performance. I’m sorry if I’ve missed the point, but for the record, I am talking about people for whom weight loss is the number one priority, and I believe that for the majority of those people (although by no means all admittedly,) shifting significant amounts of flab, AND improving athletic performance cannot optimally be achieved at the same time. Some people can do it with a lot of effort, for many others it just happens whilst following the sort of advice given by the RST boys, but for a lot of folks, it just can’t be done.
So I am taking the liberty here, of assuming that at least some of the people reading this, will have tried this “orthodox”/”commonsense” approach, and found that for them, it failed. For these people, and these people only, I am suggesting some significant benefit could accrue from a deeper understanding of the role of carbohydrate and thus insulin, in fat deposition and fat loss.
Not least, because one consequence of the current orthodoxy, as espoused by Alex and others, is that it turns the problem of overweight or obesity from what is in fact, a defect of metabolism (i.e. the current “healthy eating” actually being the wrong diet,) into a behavioural defect. That’s to say, if it doesn’t work, it must you that’s at fault, not the dietary/training advice. You must be eating too much because you’re weak-willed, and/or exercising too little because you’re not trying hard enough and are just lazy. Oh, and if you say that you’ve done everything they told you and it’s still not working, then you’re lying.
And this is just brilliant for people like Alex and Ric, because as a self-fulfilling prophecy, it means that they can never be wrong, they have the answer, the answer is always right, and anyone who says otherwise is either a greedy, lazy lardarse or an idiot (or both.) This analysis also has the added benefit of being simple, elegant and intuitively obvious. I mean it stands to reason dunnit? Everyone can see it, and anyone who has put on a small amount of weight, and then lost it as a result of slightly altering their “energy balance”, will consider themselves proof that this works. Let me just remind you though, of a couple of other obvious, observable truths : The earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. We can all see that too.
But what if carbs make you fatter and more hungry than other foods? And what if, (and here the first law of thermodynamics does apply – the human body being an energy system that seeks to redress energy lost through extra mechanical work (aka “exercise!”) by taking in energy through making you eat more,) exercise made you more hungry? Well d’ya know what? They do and it does. And what if your chosen expert either didn’t know this, or did but chose not to point this out to you? Well you’d be a bit screwed wouldn’t you?
Edwin, you ask “I'm curious, as others have already asked, as to exactly how Fatbee thinks the role of insulin etc changes this thinking?” I’d hoped I’d made it clear, but I’m happy to try again: Fat gain simply cannot and does not, take place in the absence of insulin, nor fat loss in the presence of significant amounts of it. And since the three main food groups possess vastly differing abilities to stimulate the insulin-producing beta-cells on the surface of the pancreas (carbohydrate a great deal, protein about one third as much and fat not at all,) it follows that when it comes to losing weight, it does matter which type of food you eat, not just how much of it, despite what Alex appears to think.
From a practical POV, if you’re prioritising fat loss – you’re “eating right” and “training smart” - and trying to put yourself as squarely as possible into fat-burning mode, and then I sidle up to you while you’re stopped at the t-junction or on the treadmill and say . . .
“Hi! I’m Professor Fatbee, mad scientist, would you like to try my evil magic potion, which as soon as it passes your lips will more or less completely put the kybosh on your efforts at weight loss?”
I imagine your response would be somewhere on a scale from “no thank you very much” to “**** off!” Yet if you use a commercial “isotonic”, “sports” “energy” or “recovery” drink, or fuel your exercise with any other significant amount of carbs, then that’s exactly what you’re doing. And any success you experience in shedding some flab whilst doing so, will be in spite of those carbs, not because of them.
Does everyone who doubts me think that all the GI and GL diets are complete rubbish too? Because both glycemic index and glycemic load (more the former) are strongly related to a given food’s ability to cause sharp rises in insulin, or not as the case may be.
Finally Edwin, you say “the scientific consensus is that a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet is the best for endurance athletes.” I agree with you. But we’re kinda not talking about athletes here are we? An overweight endurance athlete is, unavoidably, an inadequately trained one, surely? So if you want to be athletic but are too fat, then I suggest there are three explanations :
1) You’re not an endurance athlete and are never going to be one if you carry on as you are.
2) You’re not properly following the diet that is “best for endurance athletes” or
3) Whoever told you that in your case, “a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet is the best for endurance athletes“ is wrong.
Guess which one I vote for?
For the record, I also believe that “a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet is the best for” . . .
Obesity, Type II Diabetes, Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, some cancers, PCOS, IBS, stomach ulcers, Alzheimer’s, and many other “diseases of civilization” which are shown to be almost non-existent in primitive populations who eat a natural, unprocessed, high-fat, high-protein, low-carb diet.
TTFN0 -
Is it really true that for endurance athletes that the consensus is that high carb diets are best? From what I have been reading more and more riders are adopting diets around the Paleo or Zone Diets and that their on the bike feeding is the only high carb element to their diets these days and even that is being supplemented with protein in the on the bike feeds which were traditionally the domain exclusively of the recovery drink (though the protein proportion is still much higher than the 4:1 mix of an on the bike energy drink).0
-
Just found this, great thread!
fatbee, everything you have said I have heard many times before from bodybuilders. bodybuilders tend to hate "cardio" with a passion, they see it as a chore, and many don't do any. So they need a way of losing fat that means they can sit on their arse all day. and voila, the low carb diet is born.
As endurance athletes, we spend many hours training hard per week, we need carbs. Otherwise our training suffers and we get slower/less fit.
For anyone wanting to lose weight, read Alex Simmons's posts on this thread.0 -
Agreed, serious bodybuilders are fat meatheads for most of the year, and then crash diet to get the 'cut' or 'ripped' look for competition, a phase known as 'stripping', which often involves very unhealthy methods such as using diuretics to deliberately dehydrate themselves.
I doubt what guinea says is possible quite frankly. Forty miles a day on 500 calories? Double that at weekends? I make that 360 miles a week. When I train hard I'll do up to 200 miles a week, and eat anything up to 3000 calories a day just to maintain my weight. I would honestly pass out if I tried to do that volume on such a pitiful amount of food.
Fatbee - I think we're arguing at cross purposes here. I'm not overweight, so I read this forum with a view to improving performance.
I still think that the important thing is the total amount of calories you consume, compared with the volume and intensity of training. You've offered nothing whatsoever to convince me that whether or not those calories come from carbohydrate or not is a factor.0 -
People pay me to help them perform better. 1 world masters champion, 1 national masters champion, three state champions and three team event state champions and umpteen championship podium placings seemed to do just nicely this past six months based on me "sharing my limited and fundamentally flawed understanding".
I stand behind all I have said. I don't stand behind things Fatbee accuses me of suggesting. I don't throw out accusations nor put words in others' mouths, which it is apparent Fatbee does wrt to myself and Ric. And I post under my real name, not hide behind some veil.
Want to perform well?- you have to train hard and smart, eat a well balanced diet with appropriate quantities of the various food groups, and get plenty of rest.
Have a metabolic disorder? then this sure isn't the place to be looking for advice. It's a forum for cycling training.0 -
doyler - “Is it really true that for endurance athletes that the consensus is that high carb diets are best?” ? Yes, I think it is true that this is the current consensus re athletes who are not overweight. Doesn’t mean it’s the only way, but the proof that it works is that the vast, vast majority of high-end and elite athletes train and successfully compete this way. I don’t think that anyone can seriously argue with it and I’m not trying to. But I do believe that we will see more and more people using The Zone and Paleo type diets, (or other insulin-aware nutritional regimes) and bucking the high-carb trend to compete at the highest level.
Now. Whilst it’s also usually true that if these current high-carb athletes put on a little fat (like in the off-season or whilst recovering from injury,) they are able to lose it quickly and easily by following the RST type advice, my problem is with those who extrapolate from this, to the claim that this is therefore the best and only way for anyone and everyone to shed unwanted body fat. It doesn’t necessarily follow, and in this case it doesn’t. Mark Cavendish’s bike may be the perfect iron for him to win Milan-San Remo on. Doesn’t mean that it’s my best choice for a five week cycle-camping tour of the French Alps.
There are increasing instances of people cycling and running (and winning) largely without carbs (of which more later,) and to answer your earlier question doyler (and apologies for not having done so sooner,) I have read the Zone Diet. Personally, I found it too precise and rather anal (allowed “snacks” including if I recall correctly, “one olive”!) but Mr. Sears understands carbs and insulin (even though I don’t think he’s a medical doctor – I could be wrong) and he’s coached athletes to Olympic success apparently. So it’s up to each person individually to decide if his regime is right for them.0 -
Bugger. For just a short while I thought this thread had a hope of managing to avoid becoming the usual boring slanging match and instead might come up with some evidence based information. Sadly proves not to be the case.
Fatbee - You still have not answered Ruths question. This is not a weight loss forum. Its a cycling training forum. Weight loss is at best only a secondary objective for us. If you cant answer this question please find another forum.
Alex - While you have certainly trained good people you cant ignore the fact that there are other opinions at the top levels of cycle training. (and just to check, champions you mention, do they ride in events of 3+ hours duration?). My interest in this area was initially piqued when I read an article in Cycling Weekly which asked a UK road race champion (think it was Rob Hayles but chucked mag since) what he would eat during training and leading up to a big event. I was surprised to find that his diet was a lot lower in terms of carb percentage than received wisdom the balance being in monosaturated fats like olive oil. The specific reason he gave for this was that high carb diet just left him feeling hungry all the time. This chimed with how I feel. Also teams like Garmin and rider like LA are on record as training on low glycogen at certain points in the training year with a specific objective of building endurance.
The answer to this topic is that, as ever, there is no correct answer. What there will be is a number of factors for an individual to consider such as
- genetic predisposition
- point in training cycle
- event being trained for
- past history in terms of training/weight loss balance
- etc.
What we as riders need is balanced information on these factors so that we can consider and apply them to our own needs. We dont need religious fanatics telling us there is only one true path to follow and, naturally, its theirs.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
In terms of the recent events in which they have won/podium - mostly track endurance and/or road TT events.bahzob wrote:Alex - While you have certainly trained good people you cant ignore the fact that there are other opinions at the top levels of cycle training. (and just to check, champions you mention, do they ride in events of 3+ hours duration?).
I have no problem with others expressing opinions, but which part of what I've said below is incorrect?
Want to perform well?- you have to train hard and smart, eat a well balanced diet with appropriate quantities of the various food groups, and get plenty of rest.
What I have a problem with is people putting words into my mouth suggesting otherwise.0 -
just to point out the bleedin obvious. losing weight is an important part of improving performance for most roadies. that's why we measure output in watts per kilogram. admittedly it is less important for the testers and trackies.
I'm enjoying watching this thread.
I might add that I burn circa 8000 cals per week through exercise and generally maintain a calorie deficit. The periods where I significantly reduce the amount of refined carbs are also the periods where I see the most significant weight loss, regardless of overall calorific intake.This has been the case for the last couple of years.--
Obsessed is just a word elephants use to describe the dedicated. http://markliversedge.blogspot.com0
