Fat burning myths
Comments
-
The mood has changed round here recently!chrisw12 wrote:........ some insanely stupid questions has ment this forum going downhill slightly on the advice front.
Ruth0 -
lol. you are sad and unbelivable and obviously have issues with yourself. your only contribution is to say i dont use capitals is low. sure i can punctuate. this is the net and forum not formal letter writing. look around forums majority dont use capitals for speed. why should i waste more time in a thread that has gone farsical.with contributing idiots. the text can still be read fine and the advice is sound. you cannot diss users without backing up with facts or you just make yourself look stupid. you are petty sound like a woman. wake up.what have your contributed lately? ...absolutely nothing. contribute something worthy on fat myths which is meant to be the topic of the thread or challenge me on the facts or shut up..0
-
Well it's hard to read your messages, so the content gets lost, but I did spot this little gem. I didn't realise being petty made one a woman :roll:sandbag wrote:you are petty sound like a woman.
Sometimes a little care on grammar, spelling and structure goes a long way to getting one's message across. It doesn't guarantee sensible content but at least there's a greater chance it'll be read.0 -
i find that so funny. you flaming me who is one giving factual helpful advice and contributing? how is it you dont attack the few who lower the tone with posts that are not even relevent to this thread?. i use commas, spaces, full stops. just because i dont use capitals you cant read? come on. the words are still there in sentances. i contributed on about 30 professional forums over time and this is first time this is mentioned. is it any wonder i call you petty. i know all about attention to detail due to my job. sorry i havent got time to hang around in thread making it perfect. i suggest you disregard my posts as it isn't for you obviously.
i think you need to get your priorities right.
I think you need to get your priorities right.
wow look at the second line. it all makes sense the first line was in chinese.0 -
my last advice is to Fungus about belly fat.
belly fat is slow to go because there is alot more layers of fat cells on stomach and deeper internally that is not visible. unless you change your routine quite dramatically, it be hard to shift especially being older.
you should workout how many calories you approx need to eat from your age and more. drop too many calories and it be harder to lose weight. you aim create a slight calorie defiency not alot. you eat 20% less calories of that calculated figure and monitor your weight each week. you then eat less or more of 20% of total calories needed to see what is ideal amout to lose no more than 2lb a week.
lots of calorie counters on web, here's one.
http://www.my-calorie-counter.com/calor ... ulator.asp
whatever exercise you do body eventually adapts and gets used to that same exercise routine and you stop dropping calories. so you have to mix it up so you body never gets used to the same exercise and keep the body guessing. this way you continue to burn calories. doing high intensity.or short fast sprinting for 30 secs to 1 min on cycling rides with 2 min recovry is good solution without having to use additional workouts.
the op is right the ideal fat burning rate is at 65% VO2 max which is 75% of your maximum heart rate. you dont blow yourself up like athletes doing high intensity. you do a form of high intensity abit less extreme that is still very effective. the importance is you do it regular like 3-4x a week.
i'm done. peace.0 -
I don't know if you were referring to my post or not but I found your comment (the one I had earlier highlighted) to be sexist, accordingly offensive, and hardly an indication of someone who says they contribute to professional forums.sandbag wrote:i find that so funny. you flaming me who is one giving factual helpful advice and contributing? how is it you dont attack the few who lower the tone with posts that are not even relevent to this thread?. i use commas, spaces, full stops. just because i dont use capitals you cant read? come on. the words are still there in sentances. i contributed on about 30 professional forums over time and this is first time this is mentioned. is it any wonder i call you petty. i know all about attention to detail due to my job. sorry i havent got time to hang around in thread making it perfect. i suggest you disregard my posts as it isn't for you obviously.
i think you need to get your priorities right.
I think you need to get your priorities right.
wow look at the second line. it all makes sense the first line was in chinese.0 -
Got to agree with Alex on this one, but your posts sandbag are a pain to read.
You may well be posting something valid but it's take a while to decipher your grammar and to be honest I get bored and give up.0 -
Ok, I tried the jokingly sarcastic way and it didn't go down well, so my apologies there.
I'll now try the nice polite way. Please sandbag I would dearly love to read your very informative posts but I am having great difficulty in making any sense out of them. I know how much of a helpfull person you are, so could you please break up your sentenses with capital letters in the appropriate places. That would be very helpful to me and others and would help to get your expert points across.0 -
I agree as well. If you've bothered to think about what you are going to post, why not take a few seconds more to write it properly? I can't beleive simply not bothering to hold down the shift key and capitalise the start of a sentence actually saves any time.
Sandbag has a few valid points (for example about spot reducing fat, that's a common misconception) but the way it's written will lead some people to assume the poster is uneducated, and not worth reading. That's not a personal criticism by the way, there's enough of that in this thread already!0 -
sandbag wrote:whatever exercise you do body eventually adapts and gets used to that same exercise routine and you stop dropping calories.
I've heard this before and still find it mistifying. If I go out every day and ride at 200w for an hour I will still burn 720 KJ every single day. Regardless of how often I have done it before. Gross efficiency may improve from 25% to 28% but thats small beer.
If you were talking about improving performance then you have a valid point, IMHO. But it is not relevant to a discussion about burning body fat?--
Obsessed is just a word elephants use to describe the dedicated. http://markliversedge.blogspot.com0 -
Yes. It is impossible not to burn calories when exercising. It's impossible not to burn calories whilst sleeping!0
-
liversedge wrote:If I go out every day and ride at 200w for an hour I will still burn 720 KJ every single day. Regardless of how often I have done it before.
You don't know that though do you? All you know about calories burned is what your HRM tells you which is in turn based on hypothetical data using personal info is it not? In turn your HRM doesn't know how your body's adapting/reacting to this repetitive training method but if your HR remains the same it'll keep churning out the same calorific value. :?
Did any of that make any sense or am I talking bollocks?
0 -
DanEvs wrote:liversedge wrote:If I go out every day and ride at 200w for an hour I will still burn 720 KJ every single day. Regardless of how often I have done it before.
You don't know that though do you? All you know about calories burned is what your HRM tells you which is in turn based on hypothetical data using personal info is it not? In turn your HRM doesn't know how your body's adapting/reacting to this repetitive training method but if your HR remains the same it'll keep churning out the same calorific value. :?
Did any of that make any sense or am I talking bollocks?
IF he uses a power meter then yes he does know that. I'm under the assumption that an accurate power meter will give you a very accurate figure of the amount of energy burnt during exercise.
Just for Bhima
Energy=power x time
1 hour=60*60 secs=3600s
E=200*3600
E=720000J=720KJ0 -
chrisw12 wrote:IF he uses a power meter then yes he does know that. I'm under the assumption that an accurate power meter will give you a very accurate figure of the amount of energy burnt during exercise.
A power meter will tell you how much power you are producing.
Wattage produced is a different thing to the energy required by the body to produce that wattage though isn't it. Different people have different efficiencies etc.
I'm no expert, just trying to look at it logically.0 -
Yes I use a powermeter. But of course, that is not the point. Doing the same thing every day will burn the same amount of calories every time (ignoring the tiny variances for improved efficiency, as stated earlier between 25 and 28%).
Just for completeness this highly cited research (pdf) has demonstrated a close relationship between gross efficiency and percentage of slowtwitch muscles. You can train hard to improve the percentage of type 1 but frankly, you're largely stuck with your genes. So hence improvements in efficiency over time are neglible.--
Obsessed is just a word elephants use to describe the dedicated. http://markliversedge.blogspot.com0 -
I will suck eggs, to everyone i offended i say now 'i Sorry' for remarks made and for my sometimes incoherent posts. I apologise i am techy not a writer. I got annoyed because i thought you should be worrying about your cyling fitness and fat loss more which is of great interest and importance to me. I thought my posts was easy in a blunt way, to a point without bafflement. I try to improve my grammar etc. Maybe i should shorten my posts too. I was abit confused as to who certain remarks were directed and so were others creating more confusion. The thread is good topic with liversedge's included research data. I thought it deserved respect as he gone to the trouble to collect all his data. The idiot posts assume it not important or like they know it already. I dont see them contributing. I like jokes too. I not content with being average cyclist. I sharing my nutrition and fat loss experiences over lots of years. I have done alot and learnt alot using my common sense, critical thinking along with science including diet and nutrition. I just trying to help make you a much better cyclist in a effective way in the shortest possible time. I understand if you not as interested as i am. I only touched the surface really and i see that sometimes a wrong conclusion is deduced from not posting enough details.
I have a technical background and mind that i apply to cycling too. I was summing up what works effectively and not to bore you. Surely that better than someone posting websites that you have to sit through hours reading and you still end up with a wrong conclusion. If i help one person thats good enough for me. What i found funny aside is 'r3 guy' says im talking all rubbish then at end he admits to drinking Red Bull. I have a long term health interest too. I include all aspects.
We all on the same side for better improvements. Some of you already know what works, of course there is millions of ways to exercise and has there own way. There are several good ways to workout. The fact that you do any workout gives some benefit and result. There is too much information, confusion and hype out there. I see so many have a good routine but are let down by there supposedly good diet. I always see with an open mind where improvements can be made, getting the cyclist to change there way of thinking and to do them is another matter. I am just gathering, cutting through all that and arriving with effective practical solutions that are hardcore effective.
Cheers. I hope i not bore you too much hehe.
At end of day it's just my opinion take it or leave it. No worries.0 -
Correct.DanEvs wrote:A power meter will tell you how much power you are producing.
And total energy metabolised = (power x time) / efficiency
Correct, although for any given individual, their efficiency remain pretty well the same. It can change very slightly over many years of training but it is for the purposes of training, a static value.DanEvs wrote:Wattage produced is a different thing to the energy required by the body to produce that wattage though isn't it. Different people have different efficiencies etc.
To measure efficiency you can perform a lab test using gas exchange analysis.
The other factor of course is the base metabolic rate, which can vary from individual to individual but compared to energy consumption during exercise, it is significantly less on a per unit time basis (~ an order of magnitude difference).
For example, I could burn the equivalent of my daily (24 hour) base metabolic rate, during a ride of ~ 2.5-3 hours.0 -
liversedge wrote:sandbag wrote:whatever exercise you do body eventually adapts and gets used to that same exercise routine and you stop dropping calories.
I've heard this before and still find it mistifying. If I go out every day and ride at 200w for an hour I will still burn 720 KJ every single day. Regardless of how often I have done it before. Gross efficiency may improve from 25% to 28% but thats small beer.
If you were talking about improving performance then you have a valid point, IMHO. But it is not relevant to a discussion about burning body fat?
It very simple and i will prove it.
After becoming proficient doing that same LSD exercise regular, I'm sure you will have noticed, how very quickly your breathing and body recovers to normal after doing it. Your body is no longer taxed and has adapted to the changes. You have trained the body to cope well for that purpose or rather the nervous system. It has learnt to use the fat more efficiently because of more demands on the body. It now needs less fat to do that same exercise, and so less fat calories burnt. Any same activity will burn the same amount of calories. There is variables like the diet on that day and how much sleep you had.
Explain to me after several months of doing LSD, how can you burn the same amount of calories doing the same exercise at the same pace and duration? The heart rate would become less at that same pace. :P
You would be burning fewer calories. You would actually be running at a faster pace than when you started, following your HRM. Why is it regular long marathon runners only lose small amounts of calories? :P
Metabolism is what affects calories burnt. When you don't eat your body protects itself and hangs onto the fat for survival. The metabolism slows down. That is why when you eat too few calories, it so hard to lose weight. The body thinks i need this fat. That is why when you skip breakfast or meals or not eat on long cycle journeys, you not doing yourself any favours. It the same with water stop drinking and body hangs on to it.
Do you notice a pattern here? Yes! the body is doing the opposite of what you trying to do. It's trying to normalize everything such as blood levels, water, sugars, temperature, fat.. The body doesn't want to lose fat dramatically unless it forced to lose fat dramatically. Whatever state the body is in, it keeps everything in balance for that state. There is a word for it, it's called homeostasis.
By doing high intensity exercise you constantly changing and upsetting the optimum balance of the body. The body designed to conserve fat for survival. The body doesn't properly get into a comfy state of balance to let it do that. If you do it often enough the metabolism is massive. That is why you get intense fat burning happening, especially doing it again the next day. You wake up in morning and get a shock.
.0 -
I'm not clear on what exactly you are proving?sandbag wrote:liversedge wrote:sandbag wrote:whatever exercise you do body eventually adapts and gets used to that same exercise routine and you stop dropping calories.
I've heard this before and still find it mistifying. If I go out every day and ride at 200w for an hour I will still burn 720 KJ every single day. Regardless of how often I have done it before. Gross efficiency may improve from 25% to 28% but thats small beer.
If you were talking about improving performance then you have a valid point, IMHO. But it is not relevant to a discussion about burning body fat?
it very simple and i will prove it.
after becoming proficient doing that same LSD exercise regular. i'm sure you will have noticed how very quickly your breathing and body recovers to normal after doing it. your body is no longer taxed and has adapted to the changes. you have trained the body to cope well for that purpose or rather the nervous system. it has learnt to use the fat more efficiently because of more demands on the body. it now needs less fat to do that same exercise and so less fat is burned and so less fat calories burnt. any same activity will burn the same amount of calories. of course there is variables like the diet on that day and how much sleep you had.
explain to me how can you burn the same amount of calories doing the same exercise at the same duration, and after several months becoming fitter, the heart rate becomes less at that same pace? :P
why is it regular long marathon runners only lose small amounts of calories? :P
metabolism is what affects calories burnt. when you dont eat your body protects itself and hangs onto fat for survival and so the metabolism slows down. that is why when you eat too few calories it so hard to lose weight. the body thinks i need this fat. that is why when you skip breakfast or meals or not eat on long cycle journey you not doing yourself any favours. it the same with water stop drinking it and body hangs on to what it's got.
do you notice a pattern here? yes! the body is doing the opposite of what you trying to do! it's trying to normalize everything such as blood levels, sugars, temperature, hold onto the fat. the body doesnt want to lose fat dramatically unless it forced to lose fat dramtically..whatever state the body is in it keeps everything in balance for that state. there is a word for it, it's called homeostasis.
by doing high intensity exercise you constantly changing and upsetting the normal balance of things which the body designed to conserve fat for survival.. the body doesnt properly gets into a state of balance if you do it often enough as metabolism is massive. that is why you get a dramatic shif in fat loss. you wake up in morning and get a shock.
.
Ride at 200 watts for an hour and you are required to metabolise the same amount of energy irrespective of how fit you are. Fitness does not change the body's efficiency at metabolising the available fuel substrates (primarily glycogen and free fatty acids).
Indeed, as one becomes aerobically fitter, the greater the proportion of FFA to glycogen one would use at the same power output. It is this fact that enables fitter endurance cyclists to sustain a higher pace for longer (since we have vastly more reserves of fats than glycogen), and not due to any mythical change in efficiency.0 -
If they can measure efficiency, how do oval rings measure up? and pedalling circles?Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:To measure efficiency you can perform a lab test using gas exchange analysis.0 -
Not that efficiency is all that important (it's getting to the finish line in the shortest time we are interested in, not how efficiently we do it) but nonetheless I am unaware of any studies demonstrating that non circular chainrings result in differences in efficiency. I am aware of several that demonstrate no measureable change, such as these:Infamous wrote:
If they can measure efficiency, how do oval rings measure up? and pedalling circles?Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:To measure efficiency you can perform a lab test using gas exchange analysis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1435158
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17369796
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1601563
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12955523
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11404667
As for pedalling techniques, I am unclear on what, if any, impact one would expect this to have on efficiency? If anything, trying to apply torque more evenly around the pedal stroke is likely to be less effective but I doubt it will have any impact on actual efficiency.0 -
The point referred stands true in the context in which it was said. Doing the same exercise at the same pace over time. I digressed. I will give you that one, referring to LSD. What can i say, it was late.
True LSD burns more fat calories at the time, but what does it matter, by the end of the week, you have lost alot more doing HIT, so you get a psychological boost. You can travel far from the endurance you have built up doing HIIT. I will say this, some of the older cyclists have great LSD capacity doing it for so many years, anyways this is fat loss.
You only burnt 167 calories? You better step it up a gear. lol0 -
Sorry sandbag - something's got lost in translation I think. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.sandbag wrote:The point referred stands true in the context in which it was said. Doing the same exercise at the same pace over time. I digressed. I will give you that one, referring to LSD. What can i say, it was late.
True LSD burns more fat calories at the time, but what does it matter, by the end of the week, you have lost alot more doing HIT, so you get a psychological boost. You can travel far from the endurance you have built up doing HIIT. I will say this, some of the older cyclists have great LSD capacity doing it for so many years, anyways this is fat loss.
You only burnt 167 calories? You better step it up a gear. lol0 -
Well surely more efficient = more power, so it will help you get to the finish line first. If someone can produce 300 watts for an hour, then if they suddenly get 3% more efficient, they'll produce 3% more power for an hour for the same energy.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Not that efficiency is all that important (it's getting to the finish line in the shortest time we are interested in, not how efficiently we do it) but nonetheless I am unaware of any studies demonstrating that non circular chainrings result in differences in efficiency. I am aware of several that demonstrate no measureable change, such as these:Infamous wrote:
If they can measure efficiency, how do oval rings measure up? and pedalling circles?Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:To measure efficiency you can perform a lab test using gas exchange analysis.
...
As for pedalling techniques, I am unclear on what, if any, impact one would expect this to have on efficiency? If anything, trying to apply torque more evenly around the pedal stroke is likely to be less effective but I doubt it will have any impact on actual efficiency.
Don't these oval ring makers claim they are more efficient (ie more powerful)? ins't that what their whole product is based on?
I'm saying if there's a way of measuring these, then there must be evidence one way or the other if they work. and looking at those papers, it seems that they have no effect.0 -
If you can output 300 watts, then all that being more efficient means is that the total energy metabolised by the body to produce that 300 watts is a bit less.
Being more efficient doesn't mean you'll be able to produce more power at the cranks. Just means you burn slightly fewer calories in order to produce that power.
If all manufacturer's claims of efficacy were true, we'd all be winning the TdF.
One manufacturer is still claiming to provide a 40% improvement in power output if you use his independent clutch cranks for example :roll:0 -
But surely I will be able to produce more power and burn the same amount of calories. Is my ability to burn x calories per hour suddenly reduced? or does it not work like that....Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:If you can output 300 watts, then all that being more efficient means is that the total energy metabolised by the body to produce that 300 watts is a bit less.
Being more efficient doesn't mean you'll be able to produce more power at the cranks. Just means you burn slightly fewer calories in order to produce that power.0 -
You have trained yourself to have a more powerful engine but alas your miles per gallon is still roughly the same.--
Obsessed is just a word elephants use to describe the dedicated. http://markliversedge.blogspot.com0 -
Even if a rider does make efficiency gains, they are done over the course of many many years of huge volumes of riding. Even then the changes are not large if at all.
So we focus on training to produce more power, which is what is effective, and pretty much just work with the efficiency hand we are dealt.
A more efficient rider does not necessarily make them more powerful. They may have a lower VO2 Max, or not be able to sustain as high a percentage of VO2 Max at threshold as another less efficient rider.
Getting the trifecta is pretty darn rare.
It's why we focus on sustainable aerobic power output as being what matters because that accounts for the interplay between all three of these factors and is the primary physiological determinant of performance potential.0 -
I see what you mean, however if someone had constant access to efficiency measurements, would they theoretically be able to train their efficiency as part of a regular training program?Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Even if a rider does make efficiency gains, they are done over the course of many many years of huge volumes of riding. Even then the changes are not large if at all.0
