Help with fitness after being off bike

flyer

For the past 4 years I have averaged around 100 miles per week in summer but only about 50 in winter/turbo.

This year for a variety of reasons I have not done as much cycling and have put half a stone on in weight.

I am about to get back on after a 5 weeks break, what would be the best way to build up my fitness and loose weight before xmas?

I have been doing 40 mile trips and I am 50 years old and weigh 13.7 stone

Bike is a Roubaix Pro 2009

Many Thanks

aoeu

100mile weeks are a good effort and i'd say you're quite fit, so i don't feel that a 5 week break is that long nor does it require you to have any major break-in routine. So just saddle up and set out.

In regards to losing weight, I cant really say anything you probably don't already know. Watch what you eat, work your ass off. Weight loss is simple for the determined and complicated for the lazy.

John.T

Fitness will come with riding. Maybe add a few miles and hills. Weight loss is easy (in theory) just burn more calories than you eat.

fishyweb

I think it is true to say that riding at around 70-75% HRmax will help you lose weight quicker than if you work out at a higher %age, as your body metabolises more fat as fuel at the lower intensity.

Infamous

fishyweb wrote:

I think it is true to say that riding at around 70-75% HRmax will help you lose weight quicker than if you work out at a higher %age, as your body metabolises more fat as fuel at the lower intensity.

nope.

fishyweb

Infamous wrote:

fishyweb wrote:

I think it is true to say that riding at around 70-75% HRmax will help you lose weight quicker than if you work out at a higher %age, as your body metabolises more fat as fuel at the lower intensity.

nope.

Well, that post really adds to the sum of human knowledge!

Do a bit of Googling around, and you will find plenty of studies that show the fuel sources used by your body at different intensities. You can draw your own conclusions from these. The conclusion I've drawn in this context is that fat is metabolised at lower percentages of HRmax (or heart rate reserve, if you want to get more sophisticated). 70-75% uses plenty of fat (and has the added bonus of improving aerobix capacity). 60-70% uses even more fat, but doesn't lead to such a useful fitness gains in general. Above 75%, carbs are increasingly used in preference to fat.

jgsi

There are lots of studies found on Google.. a lot of them bollox as well

There is 1 fact that I adhere to - the fitter your are, the more your body will use its energy resources in the most effective and economical way -- glycogen 'stores' are good to go for a few hours at most - I know most endurance people tend to stuff their faces at every opportunity in an attempt to keep that supply going, but the body has a huge resource of fat which as an energy source is almost endless....
again the fitter you are the more your body can use this source -- how do you get fitter...? sometimes by NOT bimbling around for hours on end at sub 100watts.

amaferanga

fishyweb wrote:

Infamous wrote:

fishyweb wrote:

I think it is true to say that riding at around 70-75% HRmax will help you lose weight quicker than if you work out at a higher %age, as your body metabolises more fat as fuel at the lower intensity.

nope.

Well, that post really adds to the sum of human knowledge!

Do a bit of Googling around, and you will find plenty of studies that show the fuel sources used by your body at different intensities. You can draw your own conclusions from these. The conclusion I've drawn in this context is that fat is metabolised at lower percentages of HRmax (or heart rate reserve, if you want to get more sophisticated). 70-75% uses plenty of fat (and has the added bonus of improving aerobix capacity). 60-70% uses even more fat, but doesn't lead to such a useful fitness gains in general. Above 75%, carbs are increasingly used in preference to fat.

But burning a higher percentage of fat (as you do at lower intensities) does not equate to burning more fat. If you have an hour say and you want to burn the maximum number of calories then you'd be better exercising at a higher intensity. I'm no expert, but that's how I understand it and it certainly makes sense to me.

keef66

Correct. The articles that say you burn a higher % fat at lower intensities are correct, but often neglect to quantify what it's a % of. Common sense tells you that an hour spent climbing hills will burn more calories than an hour of bimbling around trying not to trouble your HRM.

And if you do go flat out so that you completely deplete your glycogen reserves, provided you don't go straight out and down 8 pints and a vindaloo, your body will then replenish them by metabolising fat.

Weight loss is all about calories in vs calories expended.

jgsi

keef66 wrote:

And if you do go flat out so that you completely deplete your glycogen reserves,.

if you did do that effectively.. and not replenish... more likely to suffer a true and awful bonk than carrying on regardless with body using fat to keep going................

we are not talking about '' oeer , feeling a bit weak missus" that some people equate with the bonk, but a real good un where you cant even lift a little finger as your lying on the tarmac

keef66

OK, I was taking it to the extreme. Praps I should have said "..once you regain consciousness your body will then replenish them by metabolising fat"

fishyweb

keef66 wrote:

And if you do go flat out so that you completely deplete your glycogen reserves, provided you don't go straight out and down 8 pints and a vindaloo, your body will then replenish them by metabolising fat.

Interesting, hadn't been aware of that. Is that only if you're running on empty? Most pundits seem to recommend getting some carbs inside you in the first hour after exercise (the "golden hour"), to top up your reserves, but that is probably assuming that you've not run down to zero in the first place.

keef66

Here, try this for a sensible overview that to me sound entirely rational

From http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0895.htm

Gary O'Donovan explains why high-intensity exercise is the best bet
for training and weight loss

The concept of the fat burning zone is highly attractive to the
exercise enthusiasts of today, many of whom are more interested in
weight loss than the pursuit of fitness. Training zone charts adorn
the walls of fitness centres up and down the country, and
body-conscious exercisers religiously adhere to the recommended limits
for exercising heart rates.

However, while moderate-intensity exercise may be appropriate for
beginners, athletes and serious fitness enthusiasts should avoid the
fat burning zone like the plague, except on light days or recovery
runs - unless they want to see a decline in energy expenditure and
fitness.

What is the fat burning zone?
Although the origin of the fat burning zone (FBZ) concept is unknown,
the fitness industry probably seized on the following key facts:

1. low- to moderate-intensity exercise is fuelled predominantly by fat;
2. an optimum fat burning rate has been identified (Figure 1) at 65%
of maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max) - the body's ability to take
on board and use oxygen during exhaustive exercise.

Because fitness centres don't usually own the gas analysers that
measure VO2 max directly, the FBZ is instead located indirectly, with
a heart rate monitor, at 60-70% of age-predicted maximum heart rate
(1). Age-predicted maximum heart rate is derived from the formula 220
- age, giving a 25-year-old, for example, a FBZ of 117-136 beats/min.
The use of this formula involves two considerable assumptions:

* that exercise heart rate can be used to predict oxygen consumption and
* that maximum heart rate is the same for everyone of a given age.

These assumptions will be questioned later.

Exercise intensity and fuel use
Supporters of the FBZ advocate a reduction in effort in return for the
promise of increased fat metabolism. However, fitness professionals
should receive the suggestion that such moderate-intensity exercise
will improve fitness or body composition with scepticism. Inherently
we are aware that performance becomes less efficient as exercise
intensity increases and that, if exercise duration is held constant,
an individual will burn more calories with high-intensity work.

At the start of exercise (regardless of the intensity), a cascade of
biochemical events is initiated by neurological stimulation.
Glycolysis (an anaerobic means of ATP/energy provision, fuelled by
carbohydrate) is primed by hormones and neurotransmitters to take over
from phosphagen-mediated energy sources (2). Thereafter, if the
exercise is of a low- to moderate-intensity, energy demands are met
increasingly by fat in the form of muscle triglycerides and plasma
free fatty acids. If the exercise is of a high intensity, energy from
carbohydrate-derived fuels predominates (3).

This shift from fat to carbohydrate oxidation during high-intensity
exercise is essential to increase both the magnitude and the rate of
energy release. Muscle can extract more energy per litre of oxygen
consumed from carbohydrate than from fat. Table 1 shows that more than
5 kcal of energy are liberated per litre of oxygen consumed if
carbohydrate alone is oxidised. On the other hand, the mixture of
carbohydrate and fat oxidised during moderate intensity exercise
releases only 4.86 kcal per litre of oxygen. Thus, although oxygen
uptake may be a limiting factor, the greater energy demands of
high-intensity exercise can be met. Unfortunately, though, the
'fast-twitch' muscle fibres recruited in high-intensity work are
relatively inefficient and bring about the decline in power associated
with intensive exercise.

The myth of the fat burning zone
We all know that the only reliable route to weight loss is to take in
less energy from food than we expend in activity - regardless of the
fuel for that activity. We also know that energy expenditure increases
in line with exercise intensity: Table 1 shows that 404 kcals of
energy are expended in 20 minutes of very high-intensity exercise,
compared with only 244 kcals in moderate-intensity exercise performed
for the same duration. Consider this also: Figure 1 shows that at 25%
of maximum oxygen consumption, the demands of exercise are met
entirely by fat. However, the minimal calorie cost of such exercise is
unlikely to make any meaningful contribution to daily energy
expenditure. Thus it is clear how the principles of substrate
metabolism have been misinterpreted: when it comes to weight loss it
is not the proportion of each fuel metabolised but the total calorie
expenditure that is crucial.

The real fat burning zone
There are two components involved in the total energy cost of
exercise: first, the energy cost of the activity itself, which
accounts for most of the caloric expenditure; secondly, the energy
expended in recovery while the metabolic rate remains elevated above
resting levels. This 'excess postexercise oxygen consumption' (EPOC)
is fuelled by fat. Intriguingly, not all exercise is sufficient to
bring about a meaningful EPOC: it is generally agreed that such
exercise must be carried out at more than 70% of VO2 max (4). Although
this mechanism is not entirely understood, it seems that the metabolic
disturbance of exercise determines the magnitude and duration of EPOC.

In order to recover from exercise, the body undertakes several active
(energy-consuming) processes for up to an hour afterwards: phosphate
is reunited with creatine and ADP; haemoglobin and myoglobin
(oxygen-carrying pigment within the muscle) are resaturated with
oxygen; lactate is oxidised or resynthesised to glycogen; circulation
and breathing increase. In addition, the return to homeostasis
following high-intensity exercise is further delayed by the demands of
glycogen resynthesis and increased hormonal activity. Interestingly,
in the glycogen-depleted state, this prolonged EPOC period is fuelled
by lipid as blood glucose is used to replace muscle glycogen (3).

This postexercise fat burning zone barely exists after
moderate-intensity exercise. In a 1992 study, participants cycling for
80 minutes at 29% of VO2 max experienced an elevated oxygen
consumption (and energy expenditure) for 0.3 hours, compared with 3.3
hours for those exercising at 50% of VO2 max and 10.5 hours for those
at 75% (4).

Clearly, the calorific value of EPOC has implications for those
seeking to reduce body weight. Indeed, after 20 minutes of high
intensity exercise (70% VO2max), Sedlock et al (5) observed an EPOC of
approximately 30 kcal and calculated that if such exercise were
performed five times a week for 52 weeks, the EPOC period alone would
amount to 7,800 kcal or the energy equivalent of approximately 1 kg
fat.

The fat burning zone and the training response
Trained individuals are better able to burn fat during submaximal
exercise than their untrained counterparts (3). This adaptation delays
the fatigue associated with the depletion of muscle glycogen - also
known as 'hitting the wall'. There is also evidence to suggest that
resting metabolic rate (RMR) is increased with endurance training. For
example, Lawson et al (6) noted a 13% increase in the RMR of six
subjects following 10 weeks of training (17 min 3 times/week during
the first week, progressing to 77 min 4 times/week by week 10).
Conversely, when exercise training is stopped for as little as three
days, RMR has been shown to decline by 7% (7). Since RMR is the
primary component of daily energy expenditure, elevation of metabolic
rate with exercise may be an invaluable tool in weight loss. These
training responses are muted with moderate intensity exercise
performed within the FBZ.

Exercisers and personal trainers alike should also be aware that the
FBZ is identified from an unsubstantiated prediction equation. The
research which gave rise to the formula for maximum heart rate (220
minus age in years) has never been published (8). Moreover, it assumes
that the maximal heart rate for a particular age is uniform. Given the
considerable individual variation in maximum heart rate (9), this
assumption will inevitably result in some people overtraining while
others undertrain.

Equally invalid is the assumption that percentage maximal oxygen
uptake and percentage maximum heart rate are directly comparable.
Oxygen uptake scores are approximately 5-10% lower at any given
intensity than those predicted using maximum heart rate values. An
intensity of 65% maximum heart rate, therefore, is likely to elicit
only 55-60% of maximal oxygen consumption. Crucially, this may not
reach the lower threshold for improvements in aerobic fitness of 60%
VO2 max set down by the American College of Sports Medicine in 1995
(10).

In conclusion...

* The fat burning zone is not the optimum exercise intensity for
weight management, fitness or performance.

* Although a greater proportion of energy is derived from fat within
the FBZ, total energy expenditure is greater with high-intensity
exercise.

* It is total energy expenditure, regardless of the source, that is
paramount for achieving sensible weight loss via negative energy
balance.

* Energy expenditure is greater both during and after high intensity
exercise.

* The moderate-intensity FBZ is unlikely to bring about a prolonged
excess postexercise oxygen consumption (EPOC).

* The prolonged EPOC component is fuelled by fat and may add an
additional 30+ kcal to each workout.

* It is unlikely that aerobic fitness will be maintained or improved
within the FBZ.

* Training within the FBZ will not bring about the preferential
metabolism of fat during exercise or higher resting metabolic rate
enjoyed by endurance-trained subjects.

* The variation in max heart rate undermines the use of prediction
equations in exercise prescription.

flyer

WOW.......................thanks for the info!

I guess its eat less of the fatty stuff and bike more and the weight will come off?

Not put any weight on for 4 years but the odd pound every month since May!!!

I intend to start on Sunday with a 30 miler and build up

Thanks for the advise

Flyer

Garz

To me it just seems these points are to bash 'fat burning' methods, If you read a lot of literature in any magazines from all walks of sport they seem to recycle the same information with contradicting opinions.

The concept of the fat burning zone is highly attractive to the
exercise enthusiasts

People who choose to cycle in order to 'lose weight' are not exercise enthusiasts, the high energy training your glorifying is more for people who are interested in competing or racing.

I read recently in one of the popular cycle mags the longer low intensity rides are the answer to shedding the lbs. While this isnt gospel, together with what earlier posters pointed out (eat less and exercise) is the standard effective method.

bompington

Try cycling, I've found it helps