Horrified

nigeve

Hmmm, Well I’m quite horrified with what our resident cycling specialist has just told me. Apparently I am not burning up any calories on my journey to work… And there I was thinking there would be gain after pain…
If my heart rate is too high I am in the anaerobic zone and all I’m doing is converting my breakfast (or my 5pm banana) into immediate energy… I need to slow down and get in the aerobic zone to burn more calories (and some of my ample body fat).
To be honest I have no idea what zone I’m in. I’m new to this and it’s all a painful slog that I’m determined to get through. But I’d be disappointed to think that I wasn’t burning off some fat with all this effort.
My diet, Porridge for breakfast. Chicken roll from staff canteen and apple for lunch. Banana at 5pm for journey home and normal diner (stir fry, chilli, pasta sometimes and sometimes a pie)… Lot’s of mint tea and water…
If there is anyone out there with a better understanding than me I’d be most interested to hear your opinions…
:shock:

Stuey01

Your resident cycling "specialist" hasn't got a fcuking clue.

HTH.

Cafewanda

5 small meals a day, loads of fluids (not beer!) and ride as fast as you can. Job done.

Results: tight bum, thighs, greater lung efficiency (or something), weight loss.......... or is that just me?

Harrid

the problem is that I'm so fat that my 100% zone IS 11 mph on the flat

I reach my 65% zone just getting out of bed to go to the fridge..

Greg T

Stuey01 wrote:

Your resident cycling "specialist" hasn't got a fcuking clue.

HTH.

What he said - this thread has a good overview.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=15444341&highlight=fat+burning+zone#15444341

This is what I said

The "fat burning zone" is a myth. The higher the intensity of your exercise the more calories you will burn. This increase overcomes the higher useage of fat at lower intensities just by the number of cals you burn.

When it comes to calorie burning during exercise, research shows that short, high-intensity aerobic session burn more calories than longer, lower-intensity aerobic workouts. According to the American College of Sports Medicine, more calories are burned in short, high intensity exercise.
For example, a 154 pound person who runs at a pace of 8 mph will burn 320 calories in 20 minutes. That same person, walking at 3 mph for an hour, will burn 235 calories.

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/cond ... 12701a.htm


Low reps / high power builds muscle = sprinters and body builders are big (and also low body fat).

If you spend your commute giving it the big hammer from the lights for 30 seconds and then dropping down for the next set you'll get big old quads.

High reps / low power = marathon runners and endurance cyclists - they look like Skeletor on a high fibre diet.

will3

I haven't got a 'kin clue either, but surely if you are burning your breakfast on your ride in you must be burning something else thereafter. Sure you may not be doing it the most efficient way, but if you're consuming fewer calories than you're burning, you must loose weight, no? (I mean E=MC^2 and all so if you cycle at the speed of light you consume consume calories in direct proportion to your weight, or something :roll: )

lost_in_thought

Borrocks.

There's a lot of stuff about 'zones' - fat-burning zone, anaerobic zone, derestricted zone, contaminated zone, twilight zone... personal trainers love 'em. I reckon they're a device to keep gullible people in the gym for longer. 'Oooooh if you work too hard you're not going to burn fat'.

My theory on it is the harder you work the more calories you burn, and if calories out is greater than calories in, you'll lose weight. Simples!

il_principe

lost_in_thought wrote:

Borrocks.

There's a lot of stuff about 'zones' - fat-burning zone, anaerobic zone, derestricted zone, contaminated zone, twilight zone... personal trainers love 'em. I reckon they're a device to keep gullible people in the gym for longer. 'Oooooh if you work too hard you're not going to burn fat'.

My theory on it is the harder you work the more calories you burn, and if calories out is greater than calories in, you'll lose weight. Simples!

+1 There is so much guff around this area. My sis is a personal trainer and some of the stuff her instructors tried to teach her was such total bollocks. Eat less censored , do more exercise and your body will sort the rest out.

Also Lit - wtf is it with people and those sodding meerkats? Grrrr rant rant rant sh1te advert etc...

Aidy

This seems like rubbish.

For a start, unless your commute is particularly short, you wouldn't be able to maintain anaerobic respiration for the entire trip.

Secondly, you move into anaerobic respiration after you've hit the aerobic threshold. Point being that you're still doing aerobic excercise - the anaerobic part is above and beyond this (or why would you have to bother breathing?).

Thirdly, anaerobic excercise takes it's fuel from energy stored in the muscles.

Are you doing work riding in? Yes? Then you're burning calories (or using energy), if you're not converting your breakfast into work done, then where do you think the resultant calories get stored?

To lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you consume. Heart rate concerns tend to be more for training purposes than for weight loss.

chaz81

lost_in_thought wrote:

Borrocks.

There's a lot of stuff about 'zones' - fat-burning zone, anaerobic zone, derestricted zone, contaminated zone, twilight zone... personal trainers love 'em. I reckon they're a device to keep gullible people in the gym for longer. 'Oooooh if you work too hard you're not going to burn fat'.

My theory on it is the harder you work the more calories you burn, and if calories out is greater than calories in, you'll lose weight. Simples!

+1

Says the skinny bloke with the beer belly.

MrChuck

lost_in_thought wrote:

My theory on it is the harder you work the more calories you burn, and if calories out is greater than calories in, you'll lose weight. Simples!

+1 again (apart from the "Simples" bit!)

I also don't know anything about the theory, just that when I'm doing badly (exercising less and/or eating more) weight comes on, when I'm doing well it comes off. Pretty straightforward.

Actually I very rarely weigh myself as I'm not that concerned about what the figure is, I just go by how my trousers fit!

Nadder

The longer and harder you ride - the longer you burn calories, your body continues after you have stopped. There are just different methods of shocking your body in to gains - a combination of long slower rides and shorter interval (fartlek) training will keep your body guessing.

In terms of weights - to get stronger you need to lift heavier regardless of reps!

If you want to track your calories use www.dailyburn.com - I did it for a while and it is a good indicator!

All round hero and good guy

Spiffington

Greg T wrote:

Low reps / high power builds muscle = sprinters and body builders are big (and also low body fat).

If you spend your commute giving it the big hammer from the lights for 30 seconds and then dropping down for the next set you'll get big old quads.

High reps / low power = marathon runners and endurance cyclists - they look like Skeletor on a high fibre diet.

Mr T, this is generally sound advice, but your misty-eyed nostalgia for He-Man has seen you fall into a humiliating trap. Skeletor has arms and legs the size of busses. He's quite the rippling, muscle-bound hunk.

Rich158

So what if you're burning off the food you've just consumed in the anaerobic zone. All that means is there isn't any surplus for your body to store as fat.

My understanding is that the body turns carbs, sugers etc into glycogen that's stored in the muscles as fuel. The muscles can only hold so much, so when they're full the body stores any surplus fuel as fat. This is probably a gross simplification, but so long as what goes in is less than what goes out, your body will top up the fuel stores in your muscles rather than adding to your belly.

davmaggs

Without going through an entire post about HR zones the concept in I read in one book is that if you think of the "fire triangle" as an example. You need fuel, heat and oxygen.

The reason that an large tubster hits the wall on the marathon is that whilst they are carrying KGs of fat, they don't have the fuel to burn it. If you do sprint work you'll use up your glycogen and feel tired, but your blubber only starts to be used late in the process.

So, for fat burning the HR theory is to go slow in that zone.

Plus it should be noted that many people over compensate with their food intake. They think they've done massive amounts of work, when really they've probably only burned off half a banana. Look at the amount of people buying energy bars/drinks

Headhuunter

Rich158 wrote:

So what if you're burning off the food you've just consumed in the anaerobic zone. All that means is there isn't any surplus for your body to store as fat.

My understanding is that the body turns carbs, sugers etc into glycogen that's stored in the muscles as fuel. The muscles can only hold so much, so when they're full the body stores any surplus fuel as fat. This is probably a gross simplification, but so long as what goes in is less than what goes out, your body will top up the fuel stores in your muscles rather than adding to your belly.

I'd agree with this. I've always heard that hammering at full capacity will not burn fat, however you will burn carbs that, if not used, simply turn into fat anyway.

Wallace1492

nigeve wrote:

Hmmm, Well I’m quite horrified with what our resident cycling specialist has just told me. Apparently I am not burning up any calories on my journey to work…

The only way this could happen is if you are tansported to work in the back of an ambulance in a state of suspended animation..... all other methods of commuting to work will burn calories.

Physicsman

I think what your cycling "specialist" was trying to say, is that if you are working flat out, you are not optimally burning fat but carbohydrates instead.
See the following chart, where it can be seen that above a certain level your fat burn decreases and carb burn increases exponentially. You want to hit that area where the fat burn is maximal. On the chart it is about 112-120 watts but that varies from person to person. HTH.

nigeve

Well, the simple truth is it takes me 50+ minutes to cycle 12 miles to work and 60+ minutes to get home (because I’m cycling into the wind).
I can’t go any faster yet because it hurts. When I come to a hill I give it some and my thighs and hamstrings burn. When I go down hill I lift my butt of the seat and enjoy 15 seconds of relief… I cycle to work primarily because I am aware that working in an office all day without taking any exercise makes you unfit. I’ve done this for 15 years and it shows when I take my shirt off. But I’ve found that I enjoy it and even start to crave my daily cycle rides. It’s cheaper than running a car and far better for the environment. But primarily I enjoy the challenge and the feeling I get at the end of my rides. Whatever zone I’m in…
And I simply can’t accept that cycling to work wont burn any calories… Also, I totally agree about overeating. Let’s not be fooled into thinking we can eat cake because we ride to work. It takes exercise AND good diet. And finally, surely Aleksandr Orlov is the funniest character on TV in a long time. People who don’t like his adverts must be exposed and sent to attitude correctional class…
Simples.

nigeve

BTW Physicsman, thanks for that. I think it'll be a while before I'm doing 900 calories an hour. I recon 12 miles in 55 minutes is about 250 calories an hour but I'll keep at it ...lol

MonkeyMonster

And as well as this what no one is mentioning is that if you run out of available "carbs" you will turn to using fat anyway. It just takes more energy and water to turn fat into a usable form for the body so you won't likely be able to be at full pace anyway.

There are so many factors that need to be measured in each case as to what and how you burn that these are generalities with (fairly) large error margins.

Using just weight as indicator of health won't work either as muscle weighs more than fat so you might gain weight but lose a trousers size.

Age is a factor too in regards to metabolism. Older people are better at endurance events because their metabolism is slower than the youngsters and provides a better coverage of energy release over time. Youngsters can do the sprints but they burn faster so have to eat more (than a crusty) to maintain the same level of release over a longer time period.

Make sense?

Wallace1492

I don't care what I weigh, but want to burn off my paunch.
I cycle 15 miles total commute, but tray and average it up to 20- 25 with some extra on way home. However, I am not a great one for watching what I eat, but do try and use fresh ingredients as much as possible, and have recentky overcame an addiction for cheese, except for the occassional Parmasan block. I also like my few beers and wine.

So, cycling has improved my leg muscles and overall fitness, and although I detect a lessening of body fat, it seems very little compared with the effort.

Would running a few miles say 3 or 4 times a week be of very good benefit, as long as I don't up the food intake? I recently ran and was surprised how far I could go without stopping.

Monkeypump

Spiffington wrote:

Skeletor has arms and legs the size of busses. He's quite the rippling, muscle-bound hunk.

Well, he certainly has a chiselled jaw-line...

sarajoy

Well, I find my body tells me when it's doing work.

If I hammer it along (which I have to do at some point anyway to get over the hill in the middle - I can't pootle uphill, I'd just come to a stop), then by the time I arrive at the other end, I can have a refreshing shower, and still feel hot-n-bothered once dry and dressed 15 mins or more after stopping.

If it's a flattish ride, even a longish one, and I take a nice easy pace all the way - it'll be maybe 5 mins before I'm back to normal after stopping.

There's some inertia, isn't there? For the 1st ride, pushing hard means it takes a while to spin down. For the 2nd ride, body is working the whole time, but loses momentum fast at the end.

I seem to remember something saying if you push hard for the first 15 mins, you set yourself up for good fast metabolising, and then you can keep on at a lesser rate while burning as much as you did in the first 15 mins, ish - like getting the bike up to a good speed requires lots of effort to begin with but once you're there (assuming flatness), actually cranking the pedals isn't any harder than it would have been at slower speed...

...probably all rubbish, mind. But my red face and body heat tells me when it's busy!

Rich101

Wallace1492 wrote:

Would running a few miles say 3 or 4 times a week be of very good benefit, as long as I don't up the food intake? I recently ran and was surprised how far I could go without stopping.

Wallace if you want to reduce body fat specifically you'd be well advised to add a resonable free weight program and pay more attention to the diet rather than putting in more cardio (you already do more than enough imho).

lost_in_thought

Il Principe wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Borrocks.

There's a lot of stuff about 'zones' - fat-burning zone, anaerobic zone, derestricted zone, contaminated zone, twilight zone... personal trainers love 'em. I reckon they're a device to keep gullible people in the gym for longer. 'Oooooh if you work too hard you're not going to burn fat'.

My theory on it is the harder you work the more calories you burn, and if calories out is greater than calories in, you'll lose weight. Simples!

+1 There is so much guff around this area. My sis is a personal trainer and some of the stuff her instructors tried to teach her was such total bollocks. Eat less censored , do more exercise and your body will sort the rest out.

Also Lit - wtf is it with people and those sodding meerkats? Grrrr rant rant rant sh1te advert etc...

Heehee! I like those ads. They make me smile.

And yeah, once you've burnt off your breakfast, there's only so much left for your body to burn, really. Unless it starts eating your internal organs, then you've got trouble. Big trouble. Dr. Gregory House levels of trouble. You will probably lose weight though. :shock:

rolf_f

Il Principe wrote:

Also Lit - wtf is it with people and those sodding meerkats? Grrrr rant rant rant sh1te advert etc...

Oh praise be! I'm not the only one who can't stand the wretched meerkats. That and 'back in the day'. I think I might have to start a whinge thread about the sudden emergence of instant annoying cliches that were done to death 5 minutes after first appearing let alone a year later. Bah Humbug.......

Jay dubbleU

Its true - they are real

http://www.comparethemeerkat.com/home

lost_in_thought

Rolf F wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Also Lit - wtf is it with people and those sodding meerkats? Grrrr rant rant rant sh1te advert etc...

Oh praise be! I'm not the only one who can't stand the wretched meerkats. That and 'back in the day'. I think I might have to start a whinge thread about the sudden emergence of instant annoying cliches that were done to death 5 minutes after first appearing let alone a year later. Bah Humbug.......

Hovis - back in the day when you were so busy dodging doodlebugs that you didn't care that your bread tasted like a sponge.

Jay dubbleU

Aaah them were the days - you could go to the pictures, have a couple of pints and you're bus fare home and still have change out of a farthing :roll:

suzyb

sarajoy wrote:

But my red face and body heat tells me when it's busy!

And everyone else :oops: