BONK Training??

liversedge

doublepost. grrr.

guinea

Edwin wrote:

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.

You would struggle for a day or two. After that, if you avoid sugar, your body enters ketosis.

In ketosis your body burns fat whether youy use it or not. You have an almost limitless (depending on fat reserves) amount of this energy. You have plenty energy and no hunger.

Basically, my diet forced me to bonk for 8 months. During this time I was very active.

FYI, I cycled 38 miles every work day and around 50-80 on saturday or sunday.

One further point is that although I could cycle these distances it was all long steady miles. I didn't really have a punch when climbing or sprinting. Eating carbs definitely improved my performance in these areas.

BeaconRuth

fatbee wrote:

............ 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...............

I think this is where most of us are talking at cross purposes with you, Fatbee. I believe the vast majority of us looking at this thread are interested in improving performance first and losing a bit of excess fat second.

fatbee wrote:

........ 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.

Well maybe people would settle for non-optimally doing both if they lost some fat and made some progress with their athletic performance? Surely the answer isn't simply 'it can't be done?

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.

? "Can't"?

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.

I don't doubt what you are saying, but I'm interested primarily in performance improvement. Everything you're saying is primarily about fat loss.

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?

Agreed, so our slightly overweight endurance athlete should concentrate on training harder and eating a general, balanced diet, with plenty of carbs to fuel his/her training............... just as Alex says.

Perhaps the problem of obesity in sedentary people can be addressed on another forum another time?

Ruth

roger_merriman

chrisw28 wrote:

I have never deliberately tried that but I did once go out for a 50 mile hard training ride with only a bottle of water since waking up. It was the single most agonizing thing I've ever done...NEVER AGAIN!!!! :shock:

i have a habit of doing that luckly i normally can just about get away with it, not that i'm that fit but most of the time i don't bonk though i had fairly bad cramps last 50ish fast (for me) ride i did, though wasn't unsafe just painful!

liversedge

BeaconRuth wrote:

fatbee wrote:

............ 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...............

I think this is where most of us are talking at cross purposes with you, Fatbee. I believe the vast majority of us looking at this thread are interested in improving performance first and losing a bit of excess fat second.

Vast majority? Or just testers ;-) ? I see weightloss as an important part of improving performance - w/kg.

Edwin

"I see weightloss as an important part of improving performance" - well up to a point, yes.
There's a law of diminishing returns here, as once you get to a reasonable weight, losing any more isn't really going to help. Personally, I'm 5'10" and normally between 10st 9 and 10st 12. Recently I got down to 10st 6 and frankly I just felt weak, and hungry all the time. If anything, I rode slower, and I've been dropped plenty of times by riders who are 14st. I'm not a tester either, I race (3rd cat).
So, I don't consider myself overweight, and want to perform better at road racing. How can I improve? Well there's plenty of ways, but starving myself of carbohydrate is NOT going to be one of them!

I'm with Ruth on this one. Don't WeightWatchers have a forum?

bahzob

liversedge wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

fatbee wrote:

............ 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...............

I think this is where most of us are talking at cross purposes with you, Fatbee. I believe the vast majority of us looking at this thread are interested in improving performance first and losing a bit of excess fat second.

Vast majority? Or just testers ;-) ? I see weightloss as an important part of improving performance - w/kg.

Vast majority I hope. This is cyle training forum. Great to lose weight but not at the expense of cycling performance. That said usually two go hand in hand if following standard advice of Alex et al, weight loss = more cals burned than eaten, so train hard and eat a sensible balanced diet.

Point is Fatbee is suggesting something that goes contrary to normal advice and by his own admission
"........ 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. "

Interesting but comes a point where not subject of cycle training and way off scope of OP of this thread. If Fatbee can demonstrate that his method works and how it can be fitted into a plan in such a way as to not compromise training/performance then welcome to post back and say.

FWIW Speaking as someone who believes there is some merit in the OP idea of early morning exercise and disagrees with Fatbees view above, as I for one managed to shift flab and get lot fitter at same time.

Still nonetheless think there is some merit in his broader ideas both for weight loss and for athletes doing endurance events using low carb/high exercise combination at some points of the training year. But think we need a bit more research and fact based evidence on all the above. To which end I'll be doing some research of my own to satisfy my own curiousity.

fatbee

Bless you guinea!

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. “KETOsis” is the process by which your body turns stored fat into “KETOnes” or “ketone bodies”, and uses them for fuel. As in my previous post on the subject.

This is a normal natural bodily state and function, and not unhealthy, dangerous or fatal, as people like Messrs McArdle, Katch and Katch (and many others) would have you believe.

Your observation on sprinting and climbing is really interesting IMO. FWIW, if we ever get to the situation where top sportspeople are eating the way I suggest they could, (dream on fb!) then I strongly suspect (although I’m not 100% certain,) that carbs will be shown, still to offer an extra edge during competition, not for endurance, but for explosive and anaerobic efforts.

I believe this is how Jonas Colting trains and competes, and he’s not exactly a duffer is he? But ut_och_cycla is best placed to tell us about that. And ut-och, I apologise for my ignorant, sweeping generalisation about Sweden. I stand corrected.

Look, to people who think my posts inappropriate here, I’ll just say this for now : If you have successfully got down to your ideal weight as a by-product of training for competition (or training to improve performance generally,) then that’s great. Well done! You don’t need my advice –or anyone else’s for that matter. Thing is, then why are you reading this? If on the other hand, you are one of many (I suspect) on this board who have been told (and thus believe) that you can lose significant amounts of unwanted aft, whilst following a training and diet regime designed primarily to make you fitter/faster/stronger, and IF (and it’s THE BIG IF,) you’ve tried this but it hasn’t fully worked for you, then I respectfully suggest I might have something helpful to offer you:

IT WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY NEVER WORK!! If you’re one of those people who still has stubborn excess fat despite a high-intensity, carb-fuelled training plan (and come on, don’t tell me there’s absolutely nobody on this board fitting that description,) because of the effects of highly refined, high-GI carbohydrates (such as those contained in “sports” drinks,) on your insulin system, you are p’ssing into the wind. Sorry if that’s not nice to hear, but it happens to be true. In fact you’re not just p’ssing into the wind, you’re p’ssing into the wind having inadvertently faced optimally directly into that wind, aimed your outpouring at the perfect angle, and opened your mouth as wide as it will go, such that most of your p goes straight back in and will have to be p’d out again! You train like that and it’s very likely to be “two steps forward, one point nine-something steps back.” Again sorry, but it’s true.

Now whether any individual is or is not, so afflicted, is down largely to genetics. As I’ve said, I reckon about a fifth of us are not and will never have this problem. Quite a few more are only mildly affected and will get round it with hard work and determination (and of course a good training plan from Alex or Ric or Ruth or somebody else properly qualified – and no sarcasm here, I mean this sincerely,) plus you will be improving as a cyclist too which is fab.

But if you’re in the other camp, and if “eat less, train harder” isn’t working for you, and if you’re eating/drinking refined carbs a lot (and especially if you’re cutting back on fat and/or protein,) you could do a lot worse than bone-up a bit on human carbohydrate metabolism, and consider whether a period where you prioritise weight-loss might fit the bill.

liversedge, you say “I believe the vast majority of us looking at this thread are interested in improving performance first and losing a bit of excess fat second.” Well that’s fine. And as I say, if it’s working, it’s double-fine. But if it ain’t, you really are wasting your time and very probably your money too. I might be interested in sitting on my sofa 24/7 eating donuts first, and doing a PB in next Sunday’s 25 second. But I believe I that the pursuit of one goal rather interferes with the other.

I could describe in more detail the several ways in which a high-carb, calorie-restricted diet, combined with strenuous exercise, will tend to promote fat-gain not fat-loss, and can impede muscle repair and regrowth, but I think I’d upset more people than I’d interest – no change there then!

fbx

liversedge

The vast majority comment was Ruth not me.

fatbee

:oops: Very Sorry ! :oops:

Edwin

"I could describe in more detail the several ways in which a high-carb, calorie-restricted diet, combined with strenuous exercise, will tend to promote fat-gain not fat-loss, and can impede muscle repair and regrowth, but I think I’d upset more people than I’d interest"

No, go on then, I'd be genuinely interested, not upset. You still haven't explained how this works, despite threatening to dig out some proper research material. I'm not having a go by the way, it's just that if there's any evidence for this I'd like to see it. You're basically saying my whole approach is wrong - I'm fairly open minded, but I'm not going to change my diet against the vast majority of expert advice on the basis of one person's opinion on a forum.

fatbee

Hi Ruth

I’m very sorry that you’ve ended-up having to respond to my answer to another poster, before I’d got round to extending to you the common courtesy of an answer to your original question/s. Please accept my apologies.

Firstly, can I just say to you and everyone else who thinks I should be posting this stuff elsewhere on account of this being a “training” forum : 1) I will go away if you all tell me to (and FWIW, the personal abuse to my home email that I got last time has started again, so I’ll probably go away soon in any case!) And 2) This may indeed be a training forum, but this thread was started by somebody who asked about a carb-free riding plan FOR THE PURPOSES OF LOSING WEIGHT. Not one that was claimed would improve performance. So I don’t think it fair or accurate to accuse me of taking it “off-topic” and in the direction of weight-loss over training, it was that in the first place!

I stuck my oar in to question one of the RST boys, whom I believe lack one crucial piece of scientific/medical knowledge in this area, and also to contradict somebody who says you have to eat carbs in order “properly” to burn fat. This is not only metabolically incorrect, it’s so b@ck@ssw@rds, that I thought it could be useful to anybody who has tried the Dr. Chris Fenn theory of eating carbs to lose fat and failed, but assumes themselves not the theory, to be at fault.

So Ruth, to answer (finally) your question/s, which went :

“However, I agree with DaveyL about one thing and I would be interested to hear from Fatbee – (1) 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? (2) 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 (3) are you saying this is entirely the wrong approach for people in hard training? “

And my answers :
(1) Well, if they’re not significantly overweight, then they should “keep on doin’ what you’re doin’” if it ain’t broke, why try to fix it? But if not, then they could read-up on the metabolic effects of carbs and fat, and ask themselves if the “quite hard training” they’re doing (which of course was not primarily designed to aid fat-loss,) puts their system in the best condition for shedding fat. And they’ll find it doesn’t. Quite the reverse some of the time.
(2) Well of course there’s nothing wrong with “a very active person” “not worrying about how many carbs are eaten” if they’re a healthy body- weight. But if they’ve got spare fat, and this regime isn’t shifting it, then they should worry about carbs. Big time IMO. A genuinely “very active person” should simply not be overweight – it’s not natural or healthy (and if you don’t eat/drink large amounts of un-natural and un-healthy foodstuffs like refined carbohydrates, it will never happen anyway.) And if they can’t realistically (or don’t have time or want to) get yet more active, then the conventional wisdom is that they should eat even less. And if the resulting gnawing hunger pangs (which BTW are the body’s way of screaming “YOU NEED MORE FOOD!!”) can’t be ignored, then the sufferer is just weak and useless. Obviously. However, then consider that a) calorie-for-calorie, carbohydrate makes/leaves you far, far hungrier than fat or protein. b) High-GI carbs (like those in energy and recovery drinks,) promote wildly fluctuating insulin levels, leading to fat-creation when insulin is high, and then corresponding crashes in blood-sugar where insulin is low but glucagon high, causing the catabolism of muscle and other lean tissue, which if unused also gets stored as fat. Great!
(3) Am I “saying this is entirely the wrong approach for people in hard training “ ? Well yes. If that “hard training” still leaves them overweight, and they want not to be overweight, then it is the wrong approach – almost by definition, and certainly by analysis. Chronic calorie-restriction, i.e. (“eating less and riding more”) brings about profound hormonal changes which make fat-gain easier and more likely, fat-loss more difficult and less likely, and reduce the positive effects of exercise, by reducing output (i.e. making you feel less “energetic”, more sluggish and less motivated to exercise and more inclined to rest,) and increasing input (making you eat more and feel hungrier, and redirecting more of whatever calories you do consume to be put down as fat, than was the case before the calorie-restriction (aka “diet”) started.) This is where the first law of thermodynamics actually does usefully apply – the body being an energy system which seeks to address reductions in energy input (resulting from eating less) and increases in energy output (the result of more or harder exercise) by acquiring more energy (eating more) and using that energy more efficiently (trying to move less and/or more slowly and also to sleep more and store more energy as fat.) These changes only become stronger and more pronounced with time, and are exacerbated by the increased consumption of carbohydrate and a reduced intake of fat.

I really am only trying to be helpful with all this stuff. Honest. If RST’s approach really does work for one and work for all, then I’m wasting everyone’s time here and I apologise. But I don’t think that’s so is it? There are enough people posting enquiries and asides about their frustration in failing to lose unwanted flab on this ‘board, to suggest that there’s a fairly widespread problem even here : Everybody, absolutely everybody, is aware of the theory of calories-in v. calories out. So if it’s an immutable law of nature and a one-stop no-brainer, how come it’s failing for so many people? Are they all just useless numpties? Ric and Alex certainly seem to think so, but I disagree.

Just take a very brief look at the bigger picture here (and I’m sorry if you think this way off topic, but just think of the billions of pounds of your and my money that’s being shovelled into paying for obesity and its consequences, and imagine how much less well-funded and effective is absolutely any other part of the NHS whose services you might need between now and you’re the end of your natural, as a consequence of this – ordinary, non-athletic, sedentary people’s obesity, effects you in a big, big way, and it’s getting bigger all the time.)

Imagine, if you will, that the “Energy Balance” (i.e. cals-in v. cals-out) approach to losing weight were a commercially available consumer or financial product, like an iPod or an ISA or something. And imagine that you were “thinking of buying one” : You go onto your favourite interweb user-review site, and you’re initially very encouraged to see that absolutely zillions of people have bought one and reviewed it. And better yet, that its rating is 99.something% positive. All but five stars out of five! Hey! How cool is that?

However, when you actually start reading the reviews, you see that almost nobody reports that the thing actually works. There’s a handful of “does exactly what it says on the tin” types, but the overwhelming majority of reviews say things like “it broke - fell to bits on the second day. I bought another one but that broke straight away. But I’m sure it was my fault . I must’ve been doing something wrong. I’d still definitely recommend it.” OR “The interest rate fell to zero and then went negative in the first week. I lost all my money and had to pay the company £490 for the privilege. But I’m certain it wasn’t their fault, it was mine. I still think it’s the best product of its type. It’s the only option for anyone serious about making money.”

You’d suspect that something was at least a little awry wouldn’t you? Or more likely, you’d assume both that the product was utter pants, and that the people recommending it after it had failed them, were either idiots or loonies (or both.) Yet something very like this, is exactly where we’re currently at with the “energy balance” theory of obesity. For the vast majority of people, over the medium and long term, it fails completely, both to explain their condition and/or to offer an effective and long-lasting cure. And yet, almost everyone, it seems, sincerely believes that it’s the only game in town. And many of them say so.

What on Earth’s going on there then ? Shurely shome mishtake?

YUP!

bahzob

Thanks for your enthusiasm Fatbee. This is an interesting thread but think its getting confused due to conflating various different ideas. Just to summarise my understanding on what these are, what benefits they predict. (All are I think in status of "untested/unproven" except for last)

A Original one: Bonk training (stupid name,its not Bonk and not "Training First Thing in Morning Empty Stomach Fat Burn" might be better but bit of a mouthful. This is nothing to do with diet, which can remain unchanged. High carb/low carb/whatever.
Theory/Comments: Doing this will reduce fat% and/or reduce weight more than not doing this for a given cals in/cals out diet. Doing this will have no effect on training plan and can be done throughout year.

B Glycogen challenge: Idea of stressing glycogen through endurance training on low glycogen levels. Like what "old pros" did on long water only rides and cited in various links.
Theory/Comments: Primarily aimed at endurance athletes (events 2+ hours in duration). Should improve edurance through increase proportion of energy being derived from fat as opposed to carbs. May have secondary weight loss benefit though this is not prime goal. Doing this will compromise high energy/high intensity training so should be undertaken with caution maybe limiting to base training

C: Low carb diet (a la Fatbee). Idea of changing food balance to reduce carb intake.
Theory/Comments: High carb diet can cause body into dependency loop that reduces usage of fat and this leads, for some portion of population, to paradox where diet does not lead to weight or fat loss. Changing to reduce carb breaks this loop and stimulates fat burning response. Primarily for weight loss. Following this may have adverse effect on training so should be scheduled during off season or require suspension of normal training.

Cals In Less Than Cals Burned = Weight Loss: Established theory for weight loss.
Theory/Comments: Food is energy and if you take in more energy than you burn then you put on weight, vice versa you lose it. Almost certainly its more complicated than that but still its tried and quite trusted and any new idea needs to be at least as good.

My personal view is that all above have enough merit to at least warrant further investigation but equally none is perfect and fit for all. I have the opportunity to check out the "First Thing in Morning Empty Stomach Fat Burn" over the next few weeks and will do so to satisfy my curiousity.

Fatbee: just one other observation. I've been dieting for near 30 years now. Up to the point where I started cycling and paying attention to food I would have been very receptive to the theory that the "cals in/cals burned" theory was wrong for me, since it seemed that no matter how I dieted I still could not reliably lose weight.

Since starting cycling however, especially doing so for competition, I have lost 4 stone (and its stayed lost) I now realise I was kidding myself and the reality was that I was simply eating too much and exercising too little beforehand. In todays world this is remarkably easy. I would only trust claims that the "cals in/cals burned" theory does not work if backed up with an accurate food/exercise diary.

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

Since starting cycling however, especially doing so for competition, I have lost 4 stone (and its stayed lost) I now realise I was kidding myself and the reality was that I was simply eating too much and exercising too little beforehand. In todays world this is remarkably easy. I would only trust claims that the "cals in/cals burned" theory does not work if backed up with an accurate food/exercise diary.

Bingo.

bahzob

bahzob wrote:

.. I now realise I was kidding myself and the reality was that I was simply eating too much and exercising too little beforehand. In todays world this is remarkably easy. I would only trust claims that the "cals in/cals burned" theory does not work if backed up with an accurate food/exercise diary.

Just a specific example of this. Standard advice to those wishing to lose weight is "exercise regularly, e.g. do 30 minutes brisk walking each day".

While think this is good advice from general health point of view its not really that useful in terms of losing weight. "brisk" means different things to different people but even if you really do walk 30 mins at 3.5 mph (which really is quite brisk, most will do less than that) it will only burn up 120cals, the equivalent of 2 digestive biscuits.

Adding an extra 120cals per day to your daily energy burn is not really going to lead to weight loss. Worse (and I speak from personal experience having been there), its very easy to kid yourself that you can eat a bit more because you are exercising more. If you do this its very easy to eat more than you burn while exercising at such low levels and end up putting on more weight despite "exercising regularly". Doesnt need to be every day. Just an extra portion on onion bhajis Saturday evening will undo a weeks walking.

Fatbee: honestly this I think is the problem a significant proportion of the people you cite as having a problem with the cals in/cals burned method really have.

liversedge

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Since starting cycling however, especially doing so for competition, I have lost 4 stone (and its stayed lost) I now realise I was kidding myself and the reality was that I was simply eating too much and exercising too little beforehand. In todays world this is remarkably easy. I would only trust claims that the "cals in/cals burned" theory does not work if backed up with an accurate food/exercise diary.

Bingo.

Here's my food diary:
Ash Wednesday 25th February
25 8am Cup of Filter Coffee, 1 sugar
100 8am Round of Toast and Butter
300 8am Bran Flakes, Natural yoghurt, berry compote, skimmed milk
50 9am Tea, 2 sugars
2 10am Starbucks Coffee, 2 sweeteners
400 1pm Sandwich: Bacon, Avacodo and Chicken on Farmhouse Granary
60 1pm Can of San Pellegrino Fizzy Orange
50 3pm Cup of tea, 2 sugars
50 4pm cup of tea, 2 sugars
200 8pm DISASTER! dropped pesto and pasta on floor - v. small portion consumed
300 8pm couple of jacob's crackers with a bit of cheese
115 9pm Wild Berry Fruesli bar
1652
Thursday 26th February
6 8am Coffee, 2 sweeteners
260 8am 2 slices of wholemeal toast with flora and 2 scrambled eggs
115 11am Wild Berry Fruesli Bar
400 2pm Cheese, Ham & Mustard toastie, Salad.
50 2pm Lime cordial & soda water
6 4pm Coffee, 2 sweeteners
100 6pm Pint blackcurrant hi-juice and still water
400 6.30pm 2 beef sausages, new potatoes, sprouting purple broccoli and gravy
1337
Friday 27th February
0 7-9am No breakfast - tut-tut (Early commute deliberately on an empty stomach)
100 10.30am Coffee Latte, 2 sweeteners
0 11.00am 2 Glasses of water
300 12pm Baked potato with beans and chicken (clean)
2 12pm Diet coke "citrus zest"
100 12pm Small Coppice Pear
100 3pm Coffee Latte, 2 sweeteners
0 3pm 2 Glasses water
100 5.30pm Pint of blackcurrant hi-juice and water
250 5.30pm 100g SIS Rego
115 5.30pm Wild berry fruesli bar
300 6pm Chicken breast with verde pesto pasta
6 7.15pm Coffee, 2 sweeteners
1373
Saturday 28th February
200 9am Round of wholemeal toast with lemon Curd
6 9am Coffee, 2 sweeteners
100 11am Large Coppice Pear
115 1.30pm Post-ride Fruesli Bar
250 1.30pm 2 cumpets with dairylea
0 1.30pm Can of Pepsi Max
6 1.30pm Coffee, 2 sweeteners
300 1.45pm Ham Sandwich
25 3pm Small bottle of fizzy cranberry and raspberry flavoured water
6 4.45pm Coffee, 2 sweeteners
115 4.45pm Another Fruesli Bar
350 6pm Jacket, Apple & Beef Burger with baked beans
110 6pm Raspberry yoghurt
6 7pm Coffee, 2 sweeteners
1589
Sunday 1st March
300 10am Porridge with Honey
6 10am Coffee, 2 sweeteners
350 11am-2pm 100g PSP22, 1 Fruesli Bar
6 3pm Coffee, 2 sweeteners
400 3pm Ham and Cheese on Wholemeal Sandwich
4 4pm Can Pepsi Max
100 5pm Pint Blackcurrant hi-juice and water
450 6pm Roast Chicken, Pots, Runner Beans and Cauliflower with Gravy
110 6pm Raspberry Yoghurt
6 6pm Coffee, 2 sweeteners
0 8pm Raspberry and Echinacea Tea
300 8pm 3 jacobs crackers with mature cheddar
4 9pm Can Pepsi Max
2036
Monday 2nd March
6 8am Coffee, 2 sweeteners
250 8am 2 Rounds wholemeal toast and lemon curd
0 11am Echinacea and Raspberry Tea
250 11am 2 crumpets with dairylea
500 Midday Pre-ride Steak and Chips! (yum yum)
50 Midday Lime cordial and Soda
4 4pm Can Pepsi Max
100 6pm Pint blackcurrant hi-juice and water
4 6pm Another Can of Pepsi Max
350 6pm Home-made Macaroni Cheese
6 6pm Coffee, 2 sweeteners
115 6pm Fruesli Bar
1635

Tuesday 3rd March
300 7.15am Porridge with Honey
6 7.15am Coffee, 2 sweeteners
0 7.15am Pint of Water
100 11am Large Gala Apple
60 11am Can of San Pellegrino Sparkling Orange
0 11am V. V. V. Hungry but waiting for lunch!!
400 11:50 Chicken Bacon and Sweetcorn Salad on Farmhouse White
200 12:00 Blackcurranty-Apply Yoghurty Cheesecakey thing
0 3pm Raspberry, Ginseng and Vanilla Tea
0 4pm Raspberry, Ginseng and Vanilla Tea
300 6pm Small bag salted peanuts ... I know, I know
450 7pm Steak and Chips
50 7pm Lime Cordial and Soda
1866 .
Wednesday 4th March
300 8am Bran Flakes, Berry Compote, Natural Yoghurt and Skimmed Milk
200 8am Round of Brown Toast with butter
75 8am 2 small cups of filter coffee, 3 sugars
50 9.30am Cup of tea, UHT milk (blech) and 1 sugar
50 9.30am Cup of tea, UHT milk (blech) and 1 sugar
400 Midday Bacon, Avacado and Chicken on Farmhouse White
60 Midday Can Fizzy orange
100 Midday Large Braeburn Apple
25 4pm Cup of tea, UHT milk (blech) and 1 sugar
11pm Post workout "meal" long story, late workout (7-9pm) and got back late
110 11pm Tesco Scottish Raspberry Yoghurt
115 11pm Fruesli Bar
5 11pm Pepsi Max Bottle
1490 .
Thursday 5th March
400 8am Bran Flakes, Natural Yoghurt, Berry Compote, Skimmed Milk
200 8am Round of Brown Toast, Butter
75 8am 2 Small cups filter coffee, 3 sugars
380 8am Bacon and Scrambled Eggs
0 9am Raspberry, Ginseng and Vanilla Tea
25 10.30am Breakfast Tea, UHT Milk, 1 sugar
300 1pm "Sausage" hotpot soup (vegetable soup in reality)
110 1pm Buttered roll
60 1pm Can of San Pellegrino Sparkling Orange
100 1pm Large Braeburn Apple
115 4pm Wild Berry Fruesli Bar
550 7.30pm Sausages, Mash, Cauliflower Cheese and Brocolli (yum yum)
400 7.30pm Blackcurrant cheesecake (yeah I know the base is biscuit)
50 7.30pm Coffee, 2 sweeteners
2765 .
Friday 6th March
250 8am Toast Lemon Curd
6 8am Coffee, 2 sweeteners
250 10am 2 crumpets, dairylea
6 10am Coffee, 2 sweeteners
400 Midday Gammon, Eggs and Chips
100 Midday 2 pints Lime cordial and soda
115 3pm Fruesli Bar
400 5.30pm Spaghetti Bolognese
110 5.30pm Raspberry Yoghurt
6 5.30pm Coffee, 2 sweeteners
1643 .
Saturday 7th March
9am Tentative 40k ride - calf ok! yay!
200 1pm St James Royal Champagne Cocktail
2pm Quaglino's ... nice!
200 2pm Fois Gras, Figs, Campagne toast
400 2pm Seared Bream fillet, chirozo, coco beans, carrots and green beans
300 2pm Sticky toffee pudding and vanilla ice cream
100 2pm Glass red wine
200 5pm Kir royal
400 9pm Popcorn, Ice Cream and Watchmen (rubbish btw)
150 12pm Baileys with crushed ice
1950 .
Sunday 8th March
6 7.30am Coffee, 2 sweeteners
500 7.30am 2 rashers Bacon, Scrambled eggs, 2 Hash browns, Beans, Pork Sausage
150 11.30 Cafe Nero Coffee
800 Midday Haagen Das Ice cream sundae
115 3pm Fruesli Bar
400 3pm Cheese and Biscuits
450 5pm Baked spud, cheeseburger and beans
6 5pm Coffee, 2 sweeteners
2427

21763 TOTAL


Over the period here are my workouts:
Date TSS KJ
25/2 100 964
27/2 129 1412
27/2 125 1364
28/2 78 959
01/3 233 1207
02/3 113 1142
04/3 139 1545
06/3 108 1070
07/3 128 1170
total Cals: 10833
BMR (1800 * 12): 21600
total burn: 32433

DEFICIT: 32433 - 21763 = 10670

I *put on* 1 kilo over this period and my bodyfat percentage stayed the same. I am sure my calorie estimates are close enough, certainly not out by 50% anyway.

bahzob

Liversedge: Youve got me stumped. I found from keeping diary my BMR is 300 cals per day lower than theory for gender/body weight but that'snothing like to this extent. Assuming you've been keeping diary for longer than just the weeks cited and this shows similar?

Alex_Simmons/RST

liversedge wrote:

Here's my food diary:

I *put on* 1 kilo over this period and my bodyfat percentage stayed the same. I am sure my calorie estimates are close enough, certainly not out by 50% anyway.

If your hydration level was the same both times and you are 1kg heavier, then you must have consumed more calories than you used. You cannot create mass (energy) from nothing. It is a fundamental physics principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_th ... #First_law

So either your maths, your measurements or your assumptions are flawed, or a combination.

whitedragon101

TO FATBEE:

I think what is hidden in the hugely verbose replies of fatbee is his central premise:

"The calories in vs calories burned ratio does not dictate how much fat will be burned. This is because there are other mechanisms beyond the individuals control which make them overweight."


ITS NOT YOUR FAULT YOU'RE FAT
Now the thing I noticed most about the way fatbee argues is always to conclude that accepted weight loss logic as stated above does not work. But not to actually suggest a better way to loose weight. This indicates to me that the main point of the argument is to say, "If you are fat its not your fault." This is not an argument about weight loss method but a defence of the overweight. There is a well worn path of overweight people claiming this, so lets see some evidence below.

EVIDENCE?
Hard-
Now rather than complicate this with a verbose study I would simply direct everyones attention to the TV programme, "The Biggest Looser." Here contestants are in a closed environment where they eat a low fat, medium carb and high veg diet totaling 1200cal per day. While at the same time exercising heavily.
Result= Every single weak they weight falls off in kilos from every single contestant. No contestant has ever failed to loose weight on this regime in any country.
Why it works-
They follow the same basic diet and exercise plan that is as old as the hills. The only difference is it is a closed environment where they don't snack or slack off training.

Common Sense-
Yes there are metabolic variables to the bodies energy management system and yes people do vary. But, there is one BULLETPROOF strategy for weight-loss that everyone can agree on.

1)Eat a balanced diet (i.e lots of veg, medium carbs, low fat). The biggest looser calories of 1200 might be a good starting point (but this may need tweaking for an individual).
2)Exercise.
3)If not loosing weight, exercise more.

There we have it, thats it. Eating a balanced diet and increasing exercise until weight starts coming off.


PS
Sorry to digress from the BONK training theme, but this its not your fault you're fat stuff really needs to be put to bed.

doyler78

whitedragon101 wrote:

TO FATBEE:

I think what is hidden in the hugely verbose replies of fatbee is his central premise:

"The calories in vs calories burned ratio does not dictate how much fat will be burned. This is because there are other mechanisms beyond the individuals control which make them overweight."


ITS NOT YOUR FAULT YOU'RE FAT
Now the thing I noticed most about the way fatbee argues is always to conclude that accepted weight loss logic as stated above does not work. But not to actually suggest a better way to loose weight. This indicates to me that the main point of the argument is to say, "If you are fat its not your fault." This is not an argument about weight loss method but a defence of the overweight. There is a well worn path of overweight people claiming this, so lets see some evidence below.

EVIDENCE?
Hard-
Now rather than complicate this with a verbose study I would simply direct everyones attention to the TV programme, "The Biggest Looser." Here contestants are in a closed environment where they eat a low fat, medium carb and high veg diet totaling 1200cal per day. While at the same time exercising heavily.
Result= Every single weak they weight falls off in kilos from every single contestant. No contestant has ever failed to loose weight on this regime in any country.
Why it works-
They follow the same basic diet and exercise plan that is as old as the hills. The only difference is it is a closed environment where they don't snack or slack off training.

Common Sense-
Yes there are metabolic variables to the bodies energy management system and yes people do vary. But, there is one BULLETPROOF strategy for weight-loss that everyone can agree on.

1)Eat a balanced diet (i.e lots of veg, medium carbs, low fat). The biggest looser calories of 1200 might be a good starting point (but this may need tweaking for an individual).
2)Exercise.
3)If not loosing weight, exercise more.

There we have it, thats it. Eating a balanced diet and increasing exercise until weight starts coming off.


PS
Sorry to digress from the BONK training theme, but this its not your fault you're fat stuff really needs to be put to bed.

If you want to do weight loss then Manuel Uribe.

His diet is the zone diet which is an insulin response model.

The horizon program which has been referred to several times on here has many theories from eminent scientists regarding why people are the weight they are including why some obesse people will always tend toward obesity. If you are in the UK you should watch it on the BBC iPlayer.

If you think the arguments are settled then you are foolish. The more research there is the more it just suggests that we are all highly complex individuals who will always handle food differently. Some can eat themselves to destruction because they are genetically predisposed to it. Some can only eat a certain amount of food before they feel physical sick and thereby ensuring they can never over eat. Others by some magical process unknown why to scientists just yet can over eat yet any increase in mass is in muscle mass and not fat and that's without exercise. These are all examples of the top of my had that I could recall from the programme.

Seems we people that take the simplistic calorie in calorie out theory believe the body is perfect in how it handles food from one person to the next yet we are in a training forum which recognises the highly complex and individual nature each persons response to physical exercise and indeed to draw parallels we have those that can be extremely fit and competitive on little exercise and those that can train all they want but will never elite. It's nothing to do with them or their training it is simply the physiology they have been born with

Seems we are willing to accept this in training yet somehow we think everyone's same when it comes to food. To me that just seems silly.

whitedragon101

doyler78 wrote:

The horizon program which has been referred to several times on here has many theories from eminent scientists regarding why people are the weight they are including why some obesse people will always tend toward obesity. If you are in the UK you should watch it on the BBC iPlayer.

If you think the arguments are settled then you are foolish. The more research there is the more it just suggests that we are all highly complex individuals who will always handle food differently. Some can eat themselves to destruction because they are genetically predisposed to it. Some can only eat a certain amount of food before they feel physical sick and thereby ensuring they can never over eat. Others by some magical process unknown why to scientists just yet can over eat yet any increase in mass is in muscle mass and not fat and that's without exercise. These are all examples of the top of my had that I could recall from the programme.

Seems we people that take the simplistic calorie in calorie out theory believe the body is perfect in how it handles food from one person to the next yet we are in a training forum which recognises the highly complex and individual nature each persons response to physical exercise and indeed to draw parallels we have those that can be extremely fit and competitive on little exercise and those that can train all they want but will never elite. It's nothing to do with them or their training it is simply the physiology they have been born with

Seems we are willing to accept this in training yet somehow we think everyone's same when it comes to food. To me that just seems silly.

I do not think everyone is the same or that this is a simple process. I'm sure that eating certain foods, certain amount and certain training regimes work better for different people. But I was just trying to put things in perspective that while some people may be more predisposed than some you can never put on more weight than you eat minus what you burn.

The variability is in how we metabolise what we eat and how much exercise is required to remove it. If you gave a 1200cal diet to a sample of overweight people, some would loose weight at 0 exercise, some after moderate and possibly there may be some that require more. But my point is EVERYONE is somewhere on that scale. If you keep increasing the exercise everyone would loose weight at a certain tipping point depending on the person.

liversedge

oops, double post, again.

liversedge

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

liversedge wrote:

Here's my food diary:

I *put on* 1 kilo over this period and my bodyfat percentage stayed the same. I am sure my calorie estimates are close enough, certainly not out by 50% anyway.

If your hydration level was the same both times and you are 1kg heavier, then you must have consumed more calories than you used. You cannot create mass (energy) from nothing. It is a fundamental physics principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_th ... #First_law

So either your maths, your measurements or your assumptions are flawed, or a combination.

I believe that the composition of food intake and exercise type and intensity can have significant impacts upon your metabolism and thus your BMR. Given that it is the most significant contributor to calorie consumption then this could be a real issue.

I burn a LOT of calories and whilst I do succumb to cake and biscuits (I'm only human) I don't average a consumption of 2800 calories per day. My weight loss has gradually platuead looking at the long view (6 months), whilst my exercise frequency and volume has increased (intensity iaverages the .9 IF ballpark, which is quite high I am lead to believe) yielding an exercise only average of ~1k cals consumed (approximately). Whilst my calorie consumption has remained relatively static (~2k per day +/- 500). My weight has come down from 89kg to 80kg in 6 months. I lost the first 7kg in the first 3 months and have hovered at 80kg for 6 weeks!!. I am 6 1 and 42yrs old.

Getting back to the original topic, I do wonder what the *repeated* impact of me doing 2hr sessions at .85-.95 IF with no food has on my metabolism. Taking on food when you're blatting around isn't that easy!

I'm not saying fatbee is right btw. Just that it's more complex than cals out vs cals in when you consider the impact both have on your metabolism.

... but there seems to be f all research into the effects of nutrtion and exercise on BMR ... [actually there is a fair amount of research around this topic but it tends to be either short term or draws conclusions on the average result rather than consider the exceptions or variance in results]

liversedge

whitedragon101 wrote:

3)If not loosing weight, exercise more.

Sure fire way to injury too.

Alex_Simmons/RST

liversedge wrote:

I'm not saying fatbee is right btw. Just that it's more complex than cals out vs cals in when you consider the impact both have on your metabolism.

Which just means the calorie requirement is different to what you think it is. The calorie equation still holds.

Sure you might expell some before being fully absorbed, but otherwise you either use it or store it. It can't go anywhere else. Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed.

liversedge

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

liversedge wrote:

I'm not saying fatbee is right btw. Just that it's more complex than cals out vs cals in when you consider the impact both have on your metabolism.

Which just means the calorie requirement is different to what you think it is. The calorie equation still holds.

Sure you might expell some before being fully absorbed, but otherwise you either use it or store it. It can't go anywhere else. Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed.

Dur. Of course.

Which means we need to understand better the long-term impact of diet and exercise on our metabolism. Pithy and intuitive aphorisms like eat less exercise more don't really address this.

My guess is there are a lot of folks on here who have got down to a healthy range in BMI/body fat terms but need a more focused approach based upon evidence and science to get lower to ride faster.

whitedragon101

liversedge wrote:

whitedragon101 wrote:

3)If not loosing weight, exercise more.

Sure fire way to injury too.

I agree. Increasing your level of exercise is a concept that has no place on a cycle training forum and will surely lead to disaster.


(Ha ha ha ha ha [note to self, do not laugh at own jokes] )

bahzob

Just a caution re using laws of thermodynamics. There is a relationship but it is loose.

The "calorific" value of foods is measured by a test that turns them into heat energy via a calorimeter It is precise and the laws of theromdynamics do hold if you repeat this test and burn some some food to heat water.

However when the "real" calorific deterimined this way is converted to calories that appear on food labels and are the subject here a "frig" factor is applied, that reflects the fact the body derives energy from food in a way different from burning. This is in the mid 80s. This "frig" factor alerts that food calories are not pure energy. It also alerts that the value of the frig factor is not a constant, its an average and like all averages will have a distribution and possibly a skew. So it will be the case that 2 individuals eating same calories in food will actually convert to different "real" energy.

This is not necessarily true to to breaking laws of thermodynamics. Taking an extreme, a person with dysentery could consume 1000s of calories excess food a day but still lose weight. Explaining this via law of thermodynamic might make sort of sense (body very inefficient at processing food) but a far more informative explanation, in terms of understanding and treatment, is the fact person has a bug.


Update: For those interested here is how calories are measured, last couple of paragraphs page 2 especially relevant
http://www.oxygenbombcalorimeter.com/pdfs/literature/Measuring-Calories-in-Food.pdf

bahzob

PS to above. Horizon program cited earlier made interesting, though initially on face value unbelievable case for opposite of dysentery example. There is a known disease of poultry, caused by a virus, which as a side effect causes them to become obese. Interestingly signs of this virus has been detected in humans (consistent with other viruses jumping from poultry) which leads to the (unproved) hypothesis that some people may be fat because they have caught a virus.

Not saying this is right or wrong. But what is for sure that while, in the main cals in - cals burned is a general rule of thumb that works for majority there will always be outliers that run contrary to norm and there is more to this subject and worth keeping an open mind.

Alex_Simmons/RST

liversedge wrote:

My guess is there are a lot of folks on here who have got down to a healthy range in BMI/body fat terms but need a more focused approach based upon evidence and science to get lower to ride faster.

When in that state - the best approach for performance improvement by far is to train to become more (aerobically) powerful. In fact it's the best approach in just about every case anyway.