Have you a no weight gain over xmas contingency plan ?
Comments
-
@Pokerface
Bhima mentioned effort/power which you picked up on.
Well we can't all measure power output can we? That's why i mentioned about power meters. The thread you pointed to, even referred about power and meters. So fair's fair.
A good way to burn off more % of fat calories. You can't just burn off carb and fats seperately. It's a mixture. Pedalling faster burns more fat calories which will lose or maintain his weight for longer which is his goal.
Plus pedalling faster raises metabolic rate which burns more calories.0 -
Treat yourself over the New Year. You can eat as much as you want for up to 5 days maximum. However, you must lose it ALL within 5 days or some of the weight will be retained.
You can lose it all by exercising for 10 hours over 3 of the 5 weight lose days and eating around 3000 calories per day. It's like liquid fat coming off, but go over the 5 days and the fat becomes solid.0 -
You done more effort at your usual cadence and produced more final power, regardless of your HR. Whoopieee.
BUT
Doing a higher cadence than your body is ever used to requires much more effort and demand. The body has never adapted to that kind of faster, intense exercise. So it draws on vast amounts of energy supplies. Result more calories burned. I don't need to rely on HR or power output. I can rely on the weigh scales at the end of the day as proof, as the weight loss is staggering.0 -
giantsasquatch wrote:You done more effort at your usual cadence and produced more final power, regardless of your HR. Whoopieee.
BUT
Doing a higher cadence than your body is ever used to requires much more effort and demand. The body has never adapted to that kind of faster, intense exercise. So it draws on vast amounts of energy supplies. Result more calories burned. I don't need to rely on HR or power output. I can rely on the weigh scales at the end of the day as proof, as the weight loss is staggering.
PLEASE STOP NOWMore problems but still living....0 -
No point in denying yourself at xmas/new year IMO. Just keep on the bike and eat what you want for a change. That's what I ususally do and it keeps my weight steady.0
-
giantsasquatch wrote:You done more effort at your usual cadence and produced more final power, regardless of your HR. Whoopieee.
BUT
Doing a higher cadence than your body is ever used to requires much more effort and demand. The body has never adapted to that kind of faster, intense exercise. So it draws on vast amounts of energy supplies. Result more calories burned. I don't need to rely on HR or power output. I can rely on the weigh scales at the end of the day as proof, as the weight loss is staggering.
This is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to start. But I would suggest you go and do some reading before trying to advise other people on training as you are simply giving inaccurate advice. Not just inaccurate - but very misleading.0 -
Pokerface wrote:ride_whenever wrote:In absolute figures yes, calorie use is power output. But how do measure it...
Power at the wheel will not take into accout the efficiency of the human body at different cadences. Take three extremes, 20rpm, your ideal cadence, 200rpm...
All turning the wheel over at the same speed against the resistance (ignoring drivetrain stuff) Which is easiest? At your ideal cadence... Because you're producing that in the most efficient way, so you'll consume the fewest calories.
Simply put - you will not produce the same amount of power at 20 RPM as you will at 200RPM. The resistance will not allow you to. Gearing on a road bike can't accommodate such a wide range.
Read this thread for the whole debate on power vs calories burned, etc: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... ower+watts
Cheers for that pretty interesting. Never knew efficiency was so unvarying!0 -
More power is not necessary more calories burnt!
One is energy released, the other is mechanical energy produced.
Don't tell me higher cadence is no good for burning calories when it is.
Pedal faster, Run faster whatever you burn more calories. I don't think you can cope without your power meter.0 -
-
giantsasquatch wrote:More power is not necessary more calories burnt!
Are you sure?Complicating matters since 19650 -
Tip number 20952.
Instead of eating your calorie intake of 3 meals, eat the same calories in more meals spread out throughout the day.0 -
The OP never mentioned FAT but secretly he wants to burn more FAT. More FAT calories burnt, the more the weight stays off.0
-
Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?Complicating matters since 19650
-
DaSy wrote:giantsasquatch wrote:More power is not necessary more calories burnt!
Are you sure?
Yes because more power can come from muscle energy stored.0 -
Muscle energy stored and then released as power is measured as Calories...Complicating matters since 19650
-
giantsasquatch wrote:DaSy wrote:giantsasquatch wrote:More power is not necessary more calories burnt!
Are you sure?
Yes because more power can come from muscle energy stored.
Umm since when...?
Isn't your body less efficient at metabolising fat than glycogen stores, hence why 'the bonk' slows you down so much?"I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
<Grabs popcorn. Sits back to watch>0
-
Pokerface wrote:
I beleive I asked some piercing questions. :P
Don't think I'll get many answers from giantsasquatch though, he is busy out burning fat on a compct somewhere. Not that it will do him any good. Mind you is that liquid fat or hard fat ?
0 -
:shock: crikey what have i started !!0
-
giantsasquatch wrote:Tip number 20952.
Instead of eating your calorie intake of 3 meals, eat the same calories in more meals spread out throughout the day.
Why?0 -
-
More power equals a higher metabolic rate which burns more calories not necessary more calories burnt. Well we can't all measure power output can we? Doing a higher cadence than your body is ever used to requires much more effort and demand. A good way to burn off more % of fat calories. You can't just burn off carb and fats seperately. It's a mixture. Pedalling faster burns more fat calories which will lose or maintain his weight for longer which is his goal.The body has never adapted to that kind of faster, intense exercise. So it draws on vast amounts of energy supplies. The power produced (no matter what the cadence) is what determines how many calories are burned.
Simple0 -
In answer to the OP, become a triathlete then you'll have superior training and nutritional knowledge and end up looking like an adonis. Just ask 20/20
0 -
nasahapley wrote:giantsasquatch wrote:Tip number 20952.
Instead of eating your calorie intake of 3 meals, eat the same calories in more meals spread out throughout the day.
Why?
You less likely have cravings. Only so much food can only be digested at one time. Any excess calories gets stored as fat. If a meal has a high GI and too much, again the excess is easily stored as fat. You less likely to over indulge on big meals if you eat little and often. If you go too long without a meal your metabolism slows down so you end up burning less calories. You keep your metabolism higher eating little and often.
If you eat a meal all carbs with no fat then some of those carbs get converted and stored as fat. More fat is stored when insulin is high. It wise to eat good fats, the body need it to do essential functions, even to lose weight more efficiently.
If you have a slow metabolism, less calories burned. Metabolism slows down at the end of the day, less calories burned at that time.0 -
Sorry, but that "more, smaller meals" idea does NOT increase your metabolic rate if the same calories are ingested. It's long since been proven a myth. Look at people who follow the warrior diet. Total calories are what matter, not how often you eat.0
-
I've never heard about the metabolism thing but it is inherently more sensible to eat little and often to smooth out the energy levels and to minimise cravings and gorging.
I'm not sure I agree with the total calories thing though. An extreme example but I don't think it would be particularly good if you ate your daily calorie intake in one meal so it kind of does matter really.0 -
giantsasquatch wrote:
The closer you go to your maximum heartrate, the more calories are burned. That's a given more often than not.
I couldn't agree with you more to a certain extent. :roll:
Something is a given or it is not, it cannot be a given sometimes.
Everything else you said seemed like it suffered from being underresearched, misunderstood or badly mangled in the translation. Or all three.
That's a given.Where the neon madmen climb0 -
giantsasquatch wrote:DaSy wrote:giantsasquatch wrote:More power is not necessary more calories burnt!
Are you sure?
Yes because more power can come from muscle energy stored.
Epic physiology fail."A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150
