Fat burning myths

liversedge

Why bother? It doesn't win races. Better to target some w/kgs.

Infamous

because theoretically it would win races. It's a possible edge that may or may not exist.

liversedge

it would only win races where you weren't allowed to eat ?

we are talking about the same thing here right - efficiency

Wogan

OK, I've taken the LSD. Now what?

OMG MY BEER BELLY IS ON FIRE AAAAAGH!

No wait, it's floating away to the sound of a backwards xylophone.

Bye bye fat.

Buy by fat.

Bat.

Bat?

BATS! AAAAAGH!

:shock:

BeaconRuth

Infamous wrote:

because theoretically it would win races. It's a possible edge that may or may not exist.

No - the efficiency of the 'fuel consumption' is not a limiting factor in cycle race performances. A Formula One car is probably very fuel-inefficient, but it would beat the latest green, fuel-efficient car in a race because it's more powerful. Human 'fuel-efficiency' has got essentially nothing to do with winning races.

Ruth

Alex_Simmons/RST

Infamous wrote:

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.

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?

Theoretically, yes, if they rode hard for 30,000km/year for say 7-10 years.

But in essence, since the movement in cycling is pretty well constrained (as opposed to running or swimming), then efficiency changes, if they occur, are more likely due to physiological than (bio) mechanical changes. Of course there are small variations in efficiency that occur in the day to day nature of training, due to the slightly different energy yield from O2 depending on the mix of carbohydrates and fats being oxidised.

As I understand it, there is some correlation between more dominant slowtwitch people and increased efficiency but I am unclear if that also indicates causation. Hence an area that is speculated to have an impact on efficiency is changing the composition of a rider's muscle fibre type composition (which take years and years of high volume training to occur - even then there is a limit to what we are born with that can be changed).

Coyle, E.F., L.S. Sidossis, J.F. Horowitz, and J.D. Beltz.
Cycling efficiency is related to percentage of Type I muscle fibers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
24(7):782-88, July 1992.

And if you are already predominantly slowtwitch, then there's no-where to go on that front anyway.

There is also some evidence that efficiency and VO2 Max are inversely related in professional cyclists:

Lucia, A., J. Hoyos, M. Perez, A. Santalla, and J.L. Chicharro.
Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 34(12):2079-84, December 2002.

Conclusion: A high CE/GE seems to compensate for a relatively low VO2max in professional cyclists.

The fact that pro riders, on average, are no more or less efficient than regular cyclists, would suggest that changes in efficiency are unlikely to occur to any great degree through training mechanisms. But that is not to say it's not possible.

So, end of the day, focus on improving sustainable power output. That's what matters.

Infamous

Thanks alex, great post.

BeaconRuth wrote:

Infamous wrote:

because theoretically it would win races. It's a possible edge that may or may not exist.

No - the efficiency of the 'fuel consumption' is not a limiting factor in cycle race performances. A Formula One car is probably very fuel-inefficient, but it would beat the latest green, fuel-efficient car in a race because it's more powerful. Human 'fuel-efficiency' has got essentially nothing to do with winning races.

Ruth

Yes, I'm not thinking about how much fuel the cyclist is burning, but how good he is at turning stored energy into watts. Not thinking about economy at all.

Think of it this way, if you had 2 bikes, one that's 6.8kg and one that's 20kg, the lighter one will be more efficient when going uphill, therefore it's faster than the other less efficient bike.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Infamous wrote:

Thanks alex, great post.

BeaconRuth wrote:

Infamous wrote:

because theoretically it would win races. It's a possible edge that may or may not exist.

No - the efficiency of the 'fuel consumption' is not a limiting factor in cycle race performances. A Formula One car is probably very fuel-inefficient, but it would beat the latest green, fuel-efficient car in a race because it's more powerful. Human 'fuel-efficiency' has got essentially nothing to do with winning races.

Ruth

Yes, I'm not thinking about how much fuel the cyclist is burning, but how good he is at turning stored energy into watts. Not thinking about economy at all.

Think of it this way, if you had 2 bikes, one that's 6.8kg and one that's 20kg, the lighter one will be more efficient when going uphill, therefore it's faster than the other less efficient bike.

Well you could think in those terms but that is a red herring wrt a discussion on efficiency.

The weight of a bike might impact performance but it doesn't change the efficiency of the rider.

liversedge

How good he is at turning stored energy into watts is EFFICIENCY and, as has already been stated, doesn't change much in an individual even with years of training. It is related to the relative percentages of type 1,2a,2b muscles, and at the very extremes can be as low as 19% in some individuals and as high as 24% in others (and these are the extremes). FWIW, the Coyle research cited by Alex (correlating percentage of slowtwitch to effciency) is available online in full for free as a pdf (which us quite rare with this kind of research) and is linked to in one of my earlier posts on p3.

Yes you would require less power to cycle a lighter bike up hill at a constant speed ... you are now talking about sustainable w/kg which as I stated earlier is a much better focus because (a) you CAN make significant improvements through training and diet and (b) it will help to win races. BUT it has nothing to do with your mechanical efficiency.

Hope that helps.

edit: darn it, alex beat me to it, in a more concise response!

Alex_Simmons/RST

liversedge wrote:

edit: darn it, alex beat me to it, in a more concise response!

I've been taking lessons in the art of pith.

Infamous

liversedge wrote:

How good he is at turning stored energy into watts is EFFICIENCY and, as has already been stated, doesn't change much in an individual even with years of training.

I know that's what I've been saying!

We are arguing over the same thing here.

Alex wrote:

The weight of a bike might impact performance but it doesn't change the efficiency of the rider.

I know, it was just an example. That efficiency doesn't just mean the same power using less energy, but also more power for the same energy.

liversedge

I think you mean more speed for the same energy right? i.e. lose weight, get more aero and you go faster for the same calories/power.

Alex_Simmons/RST

I'd just like to add some further comment about efficiency changes over time. You may have noted I said that these changes through high volume of riding are speculative. That's partly because obtaining evidence for it is quite difficult to do (requires longitudinal studies). But absence of evidence in not evidence of absence so the possibility remains.

Nevertheless, there is a newish study published by Dave Martin et al, which I don't think has hit pubmed yet, so I have reproduced the summary here. In essence, it does not support the conclusion that efficiency is improved through years of heavy training.

Cycling Efficiency In A Pro Tour Champion: A Case Study: 2911: Board #58 May 30 9:30 AM - 11:00 AM.
Martin, David T. 1; Quod, Marc J. 2; Lee, Hamilton 1; Gore, Christopher J. FACSM 1

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 41(5) Supplement 1:500, May 2009.

The hypothesis that cycling efficiency improves with years of heavy training is not Supported by cross-sectional data from recreational and elite cyclists. However, longitudinal data presented in two case studies describes improved cycling efficiency in a Tour de France champion and improved running efficiency in a marathon world record holder with maturation.

PURPOSE: To examine cycling efficiency over multiple years of training in a cyclist that became a UCI ProTour Champion.

METHODS: From 1995 - 2001, a maximal graded exercise test (GXT) was performed annually on a dynamically calibrated electromagnetic cycle ergometer (accuracy ±1.8% between 100-800W). The test protocol began at 100W and increased 50W every 5min until volitional exhaustion. Expired gas analysis was performed using an automated first principles indirect calorimetry system incorporating gas analyzers calibrated against 3 alpha grade gases (±0.03% accuracy) and direct measurements of expired gas volume via a Tissot gasometer every 30s. Data from the last 2 min of 150W-400W stages (RER <1.00) were averaged for analysis. VO2, RER and Lusk equations were used to calculate Gross Efficiency (GE) and the inverse of the energy produced - energy expended regression was used to calculate Delta Efficiency (DE).

RESULTS: Between 18-24yrs this cyclist can be characterized as: 62-68kg; 172-173cm; 380-455 W and 6.1-7.3 W•kg-1 at VO2pk; 4.59-5.65 L•min-1 and 73-87 ml•kg-1•min-1 VO2pk. Economy (mean±SD; range) was 80.2±1.9; 77.5-82.5 W•(VO2 L•min-1)-1 or 401±10; 387-413W at 5 L•min-1 VO2. GE was 22.6 ±0.6; 21.8-23.4% and DE was 23.6±1.1; 21.9-25.4%. The correlation between GE and DE was low (r=0.20; p=.10; n=7). Correlations between age and GE (r=-0.67), and age and DE (r=0.05) did not reflect improvements in cycling efficiency with maturation.

CONCLUSIONS: These data do not support the hypothesis that years of heavy training improve cycling efficiency. VO2pk and corresponding power output in this champion cyclist were exceptional when expressed per kg body mass. However, measures of cycling efficiency were not unique. Accurate data describing how physiological characteristics respond to years of training in elite athletes are difficult to obtain and need to be interpreted with caution because of the challenges of maintaining calibrated equipment.

sandbag

liversedge wrote:

Gross efficiency may improve from 25% to 28% but thats small beer.
But it is not relevant to a discussion about burning body fat?

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Sorry sandbag - something's got lost in translation I think. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

The point was to liversedge mainly. That little difference could mean all the difference in a TT.

I'm saying, just doing LSD for training, fat loss is giving diminishing returns in the end. I mention another factor. LSD does efficient fat burning for long periods but you losing muscle(catabolic) at the same time. The better you get at LSD the faster you go for that long period. You get weaker and weaker because of that reducing muscle, plus less efficient fat loss. Don't you need your muscles for hills, explosive power etc.

You would have to change your routine to build up the muscle you lost. Yikes. This means eating more so you end up putting the fat back on . What a mess. Is it better to not lose it in the first place and just lose the needed fat?

Training with high intensity you train for shorter periods, lose more fat and keep the precious muscle(even more fat loss) to give you the strength,endurance for continued improvement all at the same time. More muscle = more protected joints + less tiredness = less chance of injury.

It's a fine balance to lose fat, increase strength, maintain muscle and keep light. In the real world you can't just rely on LSD for training and fat loss.

sandbag

Infamous wrote:

Well surely more efficient = more power

Exactly! It's results in a increased sustained power gain over performance. You perfect a better training rhythm with your body into energy efficency. If you train pedal with effort all the way round, the force is better evenly distributed.

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.

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 doesnt take many years to make a big improvement of VO2 max and efficiency. They make there biggest improvements before then. If they train hard and lose fat good, they quite capable of increasing it 20% over 6 months. A top cyclist with proper training, there VO2 max will level off after a couple of years. It takes those extra years to get a extra small increase in efficiency and better lactic acid threshold before age becomes a contributing factor in there decline..

Alex_Simmons/RST

sandbag wrote:

It doesnt take many years to make a big improvement of VO2 max and efficiency. They make there biggest improvements before then. If they train hard and lose fat good, they quite capable of increasing it 20% over 6 months. A top cyclist with proper training, there VO2 max will level off after a couple of years. It takes those extra years to get a small increase in efficiency and better lactic acid threshold before age becomes a contributing factor in there decline..

Changes in efficiency, VO2 Max and lactate threshold are different things.

It is unlikely anyone will change their efficiency much, no matter how much they train.

As I have said elsewhere, VO2 Max is definitely trainable and improvements from 0 to 100% are possible depending somewhat on how well trained you are to start with. The largest gains, not surprisingly, are from an untrained state.

One can continue to improve LT over many seasons.

Power at LT is what matters most.

BeaconRuth

Infamous wrote:

Think of it this way, if you had 2 bikes, one that's 6.8kg and one that's 20kg, the lighter one will be more efficient when going uphill, therefore it's faster than the other less efficient bike.

I think you need to go back to a GCSE definition of 'efficiency'. A bike can not be more efficient than another because of its weight. Efficiency is the ratio of useful work to expended work. A bike does no work so cannot be discussed in terms of being 'efficient'.

Sandbag seems confused too:

sandbag wrote:

That little difference could mean all the difference in a TT.

Nope. Horse power is what you need in a TT, not fuel efficiency (or economy). Improving fuel efficiency without improving horse power will not help in a TT one iota.

Ruth

Infamous

BeaconRuth wrote:

Infamous wrote:

Think of it this way, if you had 2 bikes, one that's 6.8kg and one that's 20kg, the lighter one will be more efficient when going uphill, therefore it's faster than the other less efficient bike.

I think you need to go back to a GCSE definition of 'efficiency'. A bike can not be more efficient than another because of its weight. Efficiency is the ratio of useful work to expended work. A bike does no work so cannot be discussed in terms of being 'efficient'.

If you have a heavier bike, more of your energy is wasted on carrying the bike up the hill. Therefore less efficient.

efficiency doesn't just mean fuel economy.

BeaconRuth

Infamous wrote:

If you have a heavier bike, more of your energy is wasted on carrying the bike up the hill. Therefore less efficient.

Admittedly the word 'efficiency' has come into frequent use in a very broad, non-scientific (and often incorrect) sense. You've given a good example of how it is misused. If a certain amount of energy is expended climbing a hill and only a proportion of that is considered 'useful' energy then you can talk in terms of efficiency. But in your example, you would have achieved more useful energy on the heavy bike as well as more wasted energy (the energy gain climbing the same hill would be greater on the heavier bike), so there would be no difference whatsoever in the efficiency. Hence your example is not one related to efficiency.

efficiency doesn't just mean fuel economy.

I'm afraid it does just mean (human) fuel ecomomy in the way Alex, Liversedge and I have been using it. It has a very precise definition in exercise physiology.

Ruth

Infamous

BeaconRuth wrote:

I'm afraid it does just mean (human) fuel ecomomy in the way Alex, Liversedge and I have been using it. It has a very precise definition in exercise physiology.

Ruth

Yes ok fine, it's largely semantics, but still more efficient (in yours, alex's and liver's definition) is still more powerful.

The heavy bike thing was just an analogy, as was your car example.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Infamous wrote:

Yes ok fine, it's largely semantics, ...

We can't simply dismiss it as "largely semantics".

If we are going to discuss matters concerning physiology and biomechanics and try to explain what is going on, then one needs to use precise language, at least in the scientific sense. It is far better to make sure that we agree and understand those common definitions, so that we can effectively communicate the issues at hand.

Otherwise, I (or anyone else) could make any claim we like and say it is so because it agrees with my own (or their) definition. This is of course what advertisers do all the time, base claims on their own twisted definition of terms.

Infamous wrote:

The heavy bike thing was just an analogy, as was your car example.

You might think of the heavy bike comparison as an analogy but really it is just a red herring (i.e. is irrelevant to the discussion because it has nothing to do with efficiency).

Riding a heavier bike affects performance (as measured by time up a hill for example), but does not affect the power one is capable of generating, nor a rider's efficiency (the total amount of energy converted in order to produce that power).

Ruth's car example was relevant because it demonstrated a difference in the importance of power vs economy/efficiency.

Infamous wrote:

..., but still more efficient (in yours, alex's and liver's definition) is still more powerful.

The problem you seem to be getting caught up in is exploring a premise that:

i. a rider can potentially become measureably more efficient via some mechanism (when in fact this has not been scientifically demonstrated); and

ii. that becoming more efficient (as unlikely as that is) means that one will become more powerful, when again that is not the case. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that rider efficiency is not correlated to power output and that even the most powerful riders, on average, are no more or less efficient than ordinary cyclists.

Infamous

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

The problem you seem to be getting caught up in is exploring a premise that:

i. a rider can potentially become measureably more efficient via some mechanism (when in fact this has not been scientifically demonstrated); and

Well that was my original question, if certain equipment or techniques which claim to improve efficiency can be measured, then can we measure them and prove or disprove them?

And you have answered this.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

ii. that becoming more efficient (as unlikely as that is) means that one will become more powerful, when again that is not the case. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that rider efficiency is not correlated to power output and that even the most powerful riders, on average, are no more or less efficient than ordinary cyclists.

Ok that's fine, but I was just imagining a possibility of someone suddenly becoming more efficient (which will not happen, it's just an idea), then they will not only use less energy for the same power, but have more power from the same energy. In theory, on paper, not in the real world etc.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Infamous wrote:

Ok that's fine, but I was just imagining a possibility of someone suddenly becoming more efficient (which will not happen, it's just an idea), then they will not only use less energy for the same power, but have more power from the same energy. In theory, on paper, not in the real world etc.

Well there's no harm in dreaming about having the "golden triangle", ie. high efficiency, high VO2 Max and an LT at a high % of VO2 Max.

Whoever has it and has the desire, determination and skill would be a pretty fearsome competitor!

Alex_Simmons/RST

Infamous wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

The problem you seem to be getting caught up in is exploring a premise that:

i. a rider can potentially become measureably more efficient via some mechanism (when in fact this has not been scientifically demonstrated); and

Well that was my original question, if certain equipment or techniques which claim to improve efficiency can be measured, then can we measure them and prove or disprove them?

And the answer is yes, one can measure efficiency via gas exchange analysis in the lab.

But in reality, someone making a claim of improved efficiency due to some new product or method is more than likely throwing out a red herring* - it's improved performance that one should focus on. Such claims should be treated with appropriate skepticism.

* IOW - they are incorrectly using the term "efficiency", and/or their claim is not supported by evidence, but more importantly, it's a red herring because efficiency on its own isn't all that relevant - it's performance that matters.

"Improving efficiency leads to an improvement in power" is a fallacy of the consequent.

r3 guy

Apoligies required -

Wanted to apoligise for being a bit of a D:ck. I had said that there was a lot of rubbish being spouted.

Untrue!

Basically, like texting i have learnt to never post while pissed off at life

Sorry to one and all :oops:

sandbag

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Changes in efficiency, VO2 Max and lactate threshold are different things.

It is unlikely anyone will change their efficiency much, no matter how much they train.

BeaconRuth wrote:

Nope. Horse power is what you need in a TT, not fuel efficiency (or economy). Improving fuel efficiency without improving horse power will not help in a TT one iota.

Ruth

I start again. I not saying efficiency is the same nor am i talking about fuel efficiency. I am talking about other individual factors that you build up to give you more seperate efficiency. I was using efficiency in a broad sense to equate to more perfomance.. Yes efficiency won't hardly change much in later years but only if there training right to begin with. eg. learning to keep there upper body stiller equates to a better efficiency. It also possible to pick up bad habit, technique over the years and not realise. I also mentioned pedalling efficiency in the same breath. Recruiting more muscle fibres is a form of efficiency, muscle efficiency.

The correct proper term of efficiency your talking about is total body energy converted to mechanical energy. Indeed, someone who is more efficient could beat a rider with a higher VO2. I wasn't saying fuel efficiency is the whole factor in performance it just one part of the jigsaw. If they did a superior form of training to what they been doing, then all these several improved factors would lead to a greater efficiency. If you build a bigger engine and then use that bigger engine to pedal at a higher cadence for less muscle expenditure, to use later when you most need it, then that is a form of higher efficiency. The new rotor cranks that eliminate a dead spot could be a improved form of efficiency.

Yes efficiency won't change much in later years. but that only assuming they are already maximising there potential, training with good technique, and getting the best out of there body to begin with. I was trying to impress that If they do the right strong training from the off then you have a bigger noticeable climb in efficiency than years later. An improved VO2, bigger heart, more oxygen delivery, refined muscles, stronger blood capillaries, better LAT. All these factors combined contribute to perfecting a better seperate efficiency. The gains in later years are less slight.

Let's talk about performance as efficiency is just one factor.

I hope i don't have to type efficiency ever again. lol

Murr X

In recent years the word efficiency has been very frequently misused. Not just in sports science but in many walks of life and I must say it really annoys the hell out of me. :x

Remember efficiency is not the same as effectiveness and should not be used to describe it.

sandbag

Murr X wrote:

In recent years the word efficiency has been very frequently misused.

Holds my hand up.

chrisw12

So Alex, where do you stand on the debate about Amstrong and the professor (Ed Colyle) who determined that Armstrong's efficiency had increased and that was one of the reasons why he became so dominant after cancer. Against your compatriot (Ashenden) who stated that efficiency would never increase by as much stated.

I don't mind if you don't answer that as it might be a too contravessial a question for one working in sport science, but have I got the jist of the arguments right?


Read here if anyone is un- familiar with the case.:- http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden


Apologies for taking this thread way off topic.

sandbag

I am not knocking LSD, It essential. The longer rides develop a good aerobic base and good cadence for hills, but doing LSD you end up thin, not lean. LSD builds a thicker heart but not strong.

I am recommediing to do high intensity and ideally some strength training as well, as long as your heart is in good working order. High intensity develops a stronger bigger heart to pump more blood to muscles. It is more load bearing, so good for your bones, but thats debatable

One other problem, LSD solely trains you good for one speed. LSD you only mainly training slow twitch, type I muscle fibres. What if you could train all types of muscle fibres all at the same time? You be a better all round rider to cope with everything. Good on flats, good on hills, faster, endurance.

High intensity training done a certain way 2x a day 5x a week, trains all type I II IIb muscle fibres at same time, extra advantage is they recover all together. After warming up you train at 110RPM in hardest gear you can do for 2 mins then drop down a gear to 100RPM for 1 min recovery. Alternate between both and repeat 20x.