What "effort" for fat burning?

gcwebbyuk

I am cycling an 9 mile road route a couple of times a week to try and lose some weigh - body fat is around 19-20% :oops: and then I do a proper off road route at the weekend.

When I am doing my road circuit - I usually try and push myself as much as I can, and try and increase my average speed each time.

Is this the best idea though for fat burning? or should I go at an easier pace - fat burn vs cardio?

I usually average a around 11mph on the road which is a fairly flat ride along the seafront with a hill at the end.

Nik_B

First thing I'd do is learn to spin and keep you rpm at 90-100 iirc. You'd usualy start this by dropping the gear you think you should be in by one or two to achieve the desired rpm. Once you keep this habit then try spinning in slightly harder gears which will result in you going faster but keeping the same rpm. Keep working at this avoid labouring slow turns by you legs and keep that rpm up. I believe the reason is to keep your heart rate up and avoid building bulky muscles on your legs, Imagine the analogy between doing 40 reps of 5 KG weights on your biceps as oposed to reps of 10 x 20 kg weights...that later will make your arms massive the former make learner muscle and work you heart more over a longer time.

Secondly do some reading on you diet. Try to cut out the processed carbs from stuff like white bread, pasta doughy stuff etc and of course sugar. Loads of info out there mate just do some googling

Also try and find some hills once yuor fitness gets better.

Stephen-Hawking

11mph sounds fairly slow for on the flat on road on an mtb, I would have though you should be looking at about 15mph or more.

There's some useful info on the other fat burning thread on here, as long as you ignore all of the guff about grammar, punctuation and smelling :roll:

http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/forums/vie ... t=12616867

Jetlag

Now, there's a question:


How fit are you? The fitter you are, the more efficient your cardio system is, the more fat you burn (and less glycogen) so the longer you can go.

It's true (to an extent) that less effort burns more fat, but more effort burns more fat AFTER you stop training.

Ignore the "fat burning zone" myth, PLEASE!

gcwebbyuk

My fitness level is probably average.

As for speed - that's average speed over the whole ride calculated by Garmin GPS - during the ride I get up to 20 on the flat sections of road.

Nik_B

Jetlag wrote:

Now, there's a question:


How fit are you? The fitter you are, the more efficient your cardio system is, the more fat you burn (and less glycogen) so the longer you can go.

It's true (to an extent) that less effort burns more fat, but more effort burns more fat AFTER you stop training.

Ignore the "fat burning zone" myth, PLEASE!

edited: wrong guy sorry

Your totally right about the fat burning zones its rediculous to believe that you can target fat burn. Fat is burned when the body hasn't got a ready supply of glycogen available to it. This is the basis of all these low carb diets. I don't eat carbs after lunch time or if I do they will be fibous carbs such as green beans which are hard to break down and don't flood you blood with sugar.

I'd advice reading about insulin production and what happens to carbs when you eat them, it will open the eyes of the OP. I allways thought a pasta was healthy but it isn't far off eatting spoonfuls of sugar. The body metabolises pasta, white bread etc very quickly and produces a wave of insulin to deal with the glycogen. Insulin is responsible for fat storage! Aditionally as the insulin goes to work on the glycogen you get a sharp drop in blood sugar levels which sends a message to you brain that you need more i.e HUNGRY.

Ditch Witch

Erm, that's not strictly true. The body always burns a combination of glycogen and fat. As I understand it, you cannot turn fat into fuel (for exercise) without glycogen.

It's true to say that more fat is burned at lower intensity (hence the fat burning zone idea), but what isn't commonly understood is that if you workout at a higher intensity, your body continues to require fuel well after you stop exercising. This fuel usually comes in the form of fat because you're body has the time to make the conversion. So, at lower intensity, you will burn more fat while exercising (AND improve your general cardio and ability to convert fat into fuel) BUT, you will burn fewer calories overall. So, if you're a couch potato, it's wise to lay off the carbs, but if you exercise regularly, and want to do so effectively, I wouldn't. But there are good carbs and not so good carbs, as you quite rightly state.


Too many calories is what is responsible for fat storage, more than insulin spikes.


It's not true to say that eating pasta is like eating spoonfuls of sugar, either. The GL of the two products is entirely different. For a start, the carbs in pasta is mainly starch, not sugars.


What should be of more concern regarding refined carbs is the load on your pancreas (in the creation of insulin to cope) which leads to type II diabetes, more than it turning straight to fat (which it doesn't).

blorg

I don't see the "fat burning zone" as a total myth. Lower intensity exercise does burn a higher _proportion_ of fat. Higher intensity will burn more fat overall but you won't be able to keep it up for as long.

If you are time-limited, higher intensity is a good idea.

If your exercise is more limited by your body than your schedule, with lower intensity you will be able to do more of it.

Ditch Witch

If you read my post above, I said that.

In fact, there's a really great article in Singletrack this month about it (specifically, Bonking, but it discusses how fat and glycogen are burned). I'd quote from it, but I dropped it in the bath last night :x

Ditch Witch

See:

http://www.divefitness.com/html/article ... o_role.pdf

Sustained exercise utilizes a combination of glycogen, fats, and protein for fuel.
Glycogen makes up the greatest percentage of fuel burned, with fats also being a
significant component. Except for extremely long duration exercise or when the body is
starved of fuel, proteins contribute a very small portion to our energy utilization.

So, all the while our body is burning glycogen, our body is consuming its fat stores.
When the glycogen stores run out, our ability to continue exercising goes kaput. For
workouts lasting greater than about 60 minutes, we can ensure that we continue to burn
fat by ingesting additional carbohydrates during the workout. Though the percentage of
energy derived from fat may increase, our total fat calories burned will diminish with our
workout intensity.

Just as important as ingesting carbohydrates is the timing of eating. Our bodies are
primed to store carbohydrates as glycogen for a period of about two hours immediately
following exercise. From there, our ability to replenish depleted glycogen stores drops
off precipitously. Instead, calories that would’ve been stored as readily available
glycogen are more likely end up stored as fat. Including some protein with post-workout
carbohydrates has also been shown to increase the amount of carbohydrates stored as
glycogen.

Nik_B

I agree in part and my analogy is simplified but if you eat the big bowl of starchy pasta at night (evening meal) and aren't excercising what happens to all that glycogen in your blood then? The information about insulin spikes and how it is responsible for fat storage came from several diabetic websites rather than a site selling the atkins diet and I absolutely don't profess to be an expert. But I am trying to figure out the best diet for my self. The reason there is so much knowlege about insulin is because so many people have diabetes and it is well studied.

As far as I was concerned starch flour and processed carbs are too easily converted to glycogen which unless burned by your body will be converted to fat and not held readily in reserve for any long period of time. This is why whole wheat breads and pastas and fiberous foods are much better and give a more stable release of glycogen in to the blood.

Please if there is some glaring gap in my understanding then please let me know as I am trying to learn.

Ditch Witch

That's exactly what I said.


If your glycogen stores are full, excess carbs will be converted to fat, eventually, absolutely. The key word is eventually. It doesn't matter what time of the day you eat carbs, it really, really doesn't (except post exercise, see below).

But we're not talking about people that sit on the sofa all the time If you don't exercise, then you'll never use enough glycogen to need replenishing.

If you're stores aren't full, then any carbs you eat will be turned to glycogen, not fat! Also, within 2 hours of finishing exercise, your body is at its most receptive. Any longer than that, and, as you say, the carbs are more likely to be stored as fat (even though, not all of them), whether your glycogen stores are full or not.


And there is no doubt that highly refined carbs (again, as I said above) places excess strain on the pancreas due to the insulin creation and leads to Type II diabetes. The diabetic website have that one nailed, too, as I understand it.


My point is simply that eating carbs does not inevitably lead to fat gain. It isn't accurate to say that it's automatically converted to fat (as is the basis of the anti carb brigade, but the diet industry is geared at people failing to lose weight, otherwise they'd go out of business. They're also geared at people sitting on their asses.).


I don't eat white bread because whole grain bread is better. Eat wholewheat pasta, not white. Eat brown, wild or basmati rice instead of long grain. But you CAN eat carbs and lose weight, particularly if you exercise regularly, simply because, if you exercise, you MUST have glycogen to convert fat into fuel.



No glycogen, no go. It's called Bonking.

Nik_B

I think we're actually in agreement I just type fast and skipped bits. Definately agree about the processed carbs especially I've allmost entirely cut them out except for when I ride I'll eat stuff that has a mixture of sugars and complex carbs. I used to have alot of sugar in my tea adn that was causing me to have sugar highs and crashes through the day but also because I wasn't eatting anything untill late afternoon.

I was also mostly focused on carb intake at night from a personal stand point as unless I've been for a big ride I just don't need the fuel to sit on my bum in front of the telly. Even if my science is a little flawed I couldn't help but be amazed when I measured the fattest part of my belly and found that I've losed somewhere from 1 to 1.5 inches down from 37.5 to just under 36 inches of belly fat in one week. Obviously the riding has alot to do with this but I'm trying to speed it up abit by cutting out processed carbs almost entirely except when I excercies and replace them with good fats good proteins and good carbs.

Nik_B

p.s internet arguements are working wonders for my not smoking, it's keeping me busy

Ditch Witch

I love it when a plan comes together



The bit I can never remember is which type of carbs you're supposed to eat before and after working out. I always have to look it up. :roll: I think it's supposed to be quick release before and slow release after or vice versa.



The thing to remember is that carbs play an important part in fuelling your body. Anything above what you need (be it carbs, fats or proteins) will be stored as fat. They're not special in that way. But, as you say, like fats, there are good and "bad" ones!


The really important time to get carbs is when you've just finished exercise, BUT, you can only eat 1200 calories, all of it carbs, and still lose fat. So, if you DO eat pasta at night, without having worked out, provided you're consuming fewer calories than you're eating, it will NOT turn to fat. Carbs are not immune from being used as part of your daily BMR.




You don't need to keep your mind of smoking because you hate it, remember?

Nik_B

I buy Oak cakes which I eat a bit before I ride. During a long ride I'm drinking juice from my camel back and after well...I guess you can have what you like thats the beauty of excercise . The carb content of the oak cakes is pretty much split 50/50 complex v sugar they seem to work pretty well. While sounding a bit hypocritical I would suspect starchy carbs like white pasta might replace glycogen quickly after a ride. There's my next research project for the day.

Yes I hate smoking but I want to eat my keyboard and break things....even the cat has gone in to hiding

Ditch Witch

I completely empathize. You're doing good, though!

Nik_B

Obviously a bit OT but here's an artical about post workout requirements.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _n6006157/

Ditch Witch

Good find!

I didn't know this:

What type of carbohydrate is best? Lower-fiber starches are usually good choices, since they're easily assimilated into blood glucose (blood sugar). Fruit-based foods take slightly longer, because their sugar (fructose) has to make a detour at the liver, where it's turned into glucose.

or this:

Research has shown that carbohydrate after exercise helps promote insulin release; insulin helps the amino acids from proteins to enter muscle tissue quickly

(although we've hijacked this thread a little :oops: )