Have you a no weight gain over xmas contingency plan ?
Comments
-
I find that sessions where I use my power meter I burn calories, if I don't use the power meter I don't burn any because it doesn't give me a reading and I pile the weight on.
The cadence thing is a myth. I used to pedal at 85RPM and now 95. Yet I'm still chubby.0 -
Pokerface, you're right. That was quite an amusing read.
0 -
giantsasquatch wrote: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.
Meh. Sounds like nutritionist twaddle to me. I generally eat two massive meals a day and I've been the same weight for the last ten years with body fat under 10%, so I reckon I'll just carry on.0 -
pedylan wrote: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.
I put it like that because you can't rely on HR every zillionth time as a accurate measurement of intensity. Same for perceived effort. A power meter is more accurate. Say if your tired, dehydrated, had lack of sleep, or different temps, your HR is not predictable. I was covering myself against the power meter brigade
. 0 -
smithy1.0 wrote: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.
I didn't say it increases. I said it keeps it raised. Metabolism is the amount of energy (calories) your body burns to maintain itself. If you don't eat a meal for say 6 hours, then the body chemistry changes dramatically. Metabolism starts to slow down. You start burning muscle as it less important than fat. When body gets regular meals, it keeps the fires burning, keeps you burning more calories throughout the day.
Another way to raise metabolism and so burn more calories is to add more muscle. Muscle weighs 3x more than fat. You can be fooled into thinking you putting on more fat or not losing it when you actually improving your body composition and putting on more muscle.0 -
3 times more han fat, I just dont believe it..0
-
dmclite wrote:3 times more han fat, I just dont believe it..
And you'd be right. Muscle weighs about 1.06g/ml, fat about 0.9g/ml, so muscle is around 18% more dense than fat. So GS is a little bit out by saying it's 200% more dense, but I'm sure the rest of what he's saying is totally accurate.0 -
"nutritionist twaddle" - love it!
That's what the interweb is so good at, proliferation of urban myths and ill-conceived pseudo-science. People are so hungry for it.0 -
giantsasquatch wrote:Muscle weighs 3x more than fat. You can be fooled into thinking you putting on more fat or not losing it when you actually improving your body composition and putting on more muscle.
I think you'll find that a pound of muscle weighs exactly the same as a pound of fat. 8)0 -
Muscle is alot denser than fat so it weighs more 8) .0
-
giantsasquatch wrote:Muscle is alot denser than fat so it weighs more 8) .
By that logic - you must weigh a LOT more than me - as you are clearly a lot denser that I am. :P
A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat. End of.
Muscle is indeed denser than fat - and so weighs more BY VOLUME than fat. About 18% more - hardly a LOT.
It means a litre of muscle weighs more than a litre of fat. That is based on VOLUME. A pound is a pound is a pound.0 -
You need to edit that. No such thing as a cubic litre. Well, not in the 4 dimensional universe I inhabit. Might be a valid unit on whatever planet Giant Muskrat comes from.
Agree that a pound is a pound is a pound; more concerned about the possibility that a pound is a pound is a Euro.0 -
Don't know if its worth chiming in here but,
If you want to be a better cyclist then focus on power output and nothing else.
Not that its worth fighting over but just because there may be 300W going to the pedals does NOT mean that the energy required to do it will always be the same. Untrained riders will in general use more oxygen*/energy than trained riders for the same given power output - thus more heat will be produced by the body and therefore more energy will be used.
For instance going up a hill cranking out 300W out of the saddle at a high cadence is ikely to use more energy than going up smoothly in the saddle at lower RPMs. As an extreme example at 20rpm struggling to hit 100W can use more energy than riding at 200W riding comfortably. If you want to be silly doing 200rpm you will probably be using more energy than you would at 90rpm assuming power output is the same.
Now, can you increase energy expenditure by upping cadence over what you typically ride at? Perhaps. But not much when already riding hard, which is what you should be doing if you want to burn calories.
Anyway a near pointless debate.
* The amount of heat produced by the body is directly related to the amount of oxygen utilized. It is much easier to measure oxygen use than to measure expelled heat.0 -
Keep it coming, thanks Napd, I was confused before. I think if you ride your bike lots and eat well you may improve. just a thought.........
0 -
Pokerface wrote:giantsasquatch wrote:Muscle is alot denser than fat so it weighs more 8) .
By that logic - you must weigh a LOT more than me - as you are clearly a lot denser that I am. :P
A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat. End of.
Muscle is indeed denser than fat - and so weighs more BY VOLUME than fat. About 18% more - hardly a LOT.
It means a litre of muscle weighs more than a litre of fat. That is based on VOLUME. A pound is a pound is a pound.
I can't believe you've had to explain that to someone.
"What's heavier, a ton of lead, or a ton of feathers?""A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
Murr X wrote:Not that its worth fighting over but just because there may be 300W going to the pedals does NOT mean that the energy required to do it will always be the same.
Actually, it DOES. 300w is 300w
It's a power measurement and the energy required to produce that power WILL always be the same.
i think what you're trying to imply though is - that a trained cyclist will find it easier to produce 300w and hold it for longer. But they will use the EXACT same amount of energy to produce that 300w as a novice. That's kind of the point of power measurements.
Don't confuse power with endurance or fitness.0 -
Pokerface wrote:Actually, it DOES. 300w is 300w
It's a power measurement and the energy required to produce that power WILL always be the same.
Well actually 300W measured at a Powertap takes a different amount of energy to measure 300W using a Cinqo/SRM due to mechanical losses in the drivetrain.0 -
Energy metabolised = (Power*Time) / Your body's efficiency
It doesn't get more simple than that.
You can change the power you produce, but the other two are out of your control, unless you're Fabian Cancellara who has somehow mananged to warp time.
300W at 90 RPM uses the exact ammount of energy than 300W at 200 RPM.0 -
redddraggon wrote:Pokerface wrote:Actually, it DOES. 300w is 300w
It's a power measurement and the energy required to produce that power WILL always be the same.
Well actually 300W measured at a Powertap takes a different amount of energy to measure 300W using a Cinqo/SRM due to mechanical losses in the drivetrain.
Fair enough - but if me and Mark Cavendish both use an SRM - and both produce 300w using the same piece of equipment - then it would require the same amount of energy for either of us to do so.
The perceived effort would be a lot lower for Cav than for me though. But we'd use the same amount of energy.
Is that pedantic enough for you. 0 -
Not quite, well indeed 300W is 300W but as I explained in my earlier post the energy required to produce 300W is not always the same. You can be applying ZERO watts to the cranks and still be burning lots of calories. 8)Pokerface wrote:Murr X wrote:Not that its worth fighting over but just because there may be 300W going to the pedals does NOT mean that the energy required to do it will always be the same.
Actually, it DOES. 300w is 300w
Anyway we could argue forever about this but everything I said in my previous post is correct.
Murr X0 -
If Cavendish happens to have a higher efficiency of for instance 23% compared to say 19% of you then he will be using LESS energy and less heat will be produced by his body (assuming both are riding at identical power output). If less heat is produced by his body then he is using less energy - this is always the case without exception.Pokerface wrote:redddraggon wrote:Pokerface wrote:Actually, it DOES. 300w is 300w
It's a power measurement and the energy required to produce that power WILL always be the same.
Well actually 300W measured at a Powertap takes a different amount of energy to measure 300W using a Cinqo/SRM due to mechanical losses in the drivetrain.
Fair enough - but if me and Mark Cavendish both use an SRM - and both produce 300w using the same piece of equipment - then it would require the same amount of energy for either of us to do so.
The perceived effort would be a lot lower for Cav than for me though. But we'd use the same amount of energy and his body will be expending less heat
Is that pedantic enough for you.
For more see my earlier post.0 -
Murr X wrote:
If Cavendish happens to have a higher efficiency of for instance 23% compared to say 19% of you then he will be using LESS energy and less heat will be produced by his body (assuming both are riding at identical power output). If less heat is produced by his body then he is using less energy - this is always the case without exception.Pokerface wrote:redddraggon wrote:Pokerface wrote:Actually, it DOES. 300w is 300w
It's a power measurement and the energy required to produce that power WILL always be the same.
Well actually 300W measured at a Powertap takes a different amount of energy to measure 300W using a Cinqo/SRM due to mechanical losses in the drivetrain.
Fair enough - but if me and Mark Cavendish both use an SRM - and both produce 300w using the same piece of equipment - then it would require the same amount of energy for either of us to do so.
The perceived effort would be a lot lower for Cav than for me though. But we'd use the same amount of energy and his body will be expending less heat
Is that pedantic enough for you.
For more see my earlier post.
You are correct in pointing out the differences in efficiency. But we are talking about a few % either way at the most.
So yes - a more efficient rider will expend less energy to produce 300w. But only marginally so.
And, in general, most non-pro riders will use the same amount of energy to produce that 300w.
I thought what you are implying is that there is are HUGE differences in energy used to produce a certain wattage.
Certainly, the SAME rider producing 300w at various different cadences - WILL use the same amount of energy as their efficiency won't change. No?0 -
Pokerface, no I wasn't intending to apply that there were huge differences. You are correct in what you wrote above except on the last point - of efficiency not changing in the same rider at different cadences, yes efficiency does vary in the same rider if different riding styles are used certainly that is the case.
All the best
Murr X0 -
I give up.0
-
Well you are pretty much right on the mark from what I can see except on an essentially moot point that really does not even matter.Pokerface wrote:I give up.
As I mentioned this is a pretty much POINTLESS debate anyway lol. Its not going to change the way anyone trains, and at the end of the day that is all that matters.
MurrX0 -
Different riders have different inherit gross metabolic efficiency levels, so each rider will metabolise slightly different amounts of fuel when riding at the same power output as measured at the cranks.
That GME is typically in the range of ~ 19-24%
On average, trained club riders are no more or less efficient than elite riders.
Acute variances in GME can occur, due to a range of factors such as environmental conditions (e.g. hot days can reduce efficiency), fatigue levels and cadence to name a few.
In general, lower cadences are more efficient (60 rpm < 90rpm < 120rpm) but efficiency really isn't a consideration, as it's effectiveness (power output) that matters.
Focus on power/effort level and choose a gear that feels good.0 -
NapoleonD wrote:The cadence thing is a myth. I used to pedal at 85RPM and now 95. Yet I'm still chubby.
No, that's probably because you was pedalling far too easier at 95RPM. Your body is probably not adapted to the new cadence long enough due to the harder training at that cadence. With higher cadence you still have to pedal with effort against good resistance to burn more calories. It takes alot time to get efficient at a higher cadence.
The reason you don't find higher cadence effective for burning calories such as 100RPM is because you picking too light a gear.0 -
giantsasquatch wrote:NapoleonD wrote:The cadence thing is a myth. I used to pedal at 85RPM and now 95. Yet I'm still chubby.
No, that's probably because you was pedalling far too easier at 95RPM. Your body is probably not adapted to the new cadence long enough due to the harder training at that cadence. With higher cadence you still have to pedal with effort against good resistance to burn more calories. It takes alot time to get efficient at a higher cadence.
The reason you don't find higher cadence effective for burning calories such as 100RPM is because you picking too light a gear.
He was making a joke. WAY over your head!!
OK - IF, and ONLY IF you use a higher cadence AND the same gearing you were using at a lower cadence will you burn more calories. Why? Because that would mean you are pushing more power!!
If, like you said, you simply up your cadence but lower your gearing, then you will be using the same or even lower power, meaning you won't be burning significantly more calories.
In a way we were both correct, but your advice to simply "up your cadence" is a bit simplistic. You need to up your cadence without changing down the gearing to make it easier!0
