training for fitness

louthepoo

i'm 39, 5'7", 14st10 and have just got into cycling (girlfriends dad has a LBS so has done me some good deals on bike and equipment). I want to get the weight down and fitness up so obviously i'm gonna be using the bike to get this done. The problem i have is the girlfriend has post natal depression and doesn't like being on her own so i have 2 choices, either go out every day for a short ride - 30 mins or go out a couple of times a week for longer - 90 mins when her sister will keep her company. Which would be better for losing the weight? I know Its not a great situation and hopefully will change but thats the choices i have at the moment. Thanks.

ut_och_cykla

How about a tandem for you both to enjoy riding. Or a bike for the girlfreind too.Physical activity is meant to be good for depression (tho' perhaps you will then have baby care issues

louthepoo

forgot to mention, she's pregnant again so she wont go on a bike! Not a great situation but i'm sure it will get better some time in the distant future :?

meanredspider

louthepoo wrote:

forgot to mention, she's pregnant again

Sounds like you need a saddle fitted that cuts off the blood supply and feeling down there!

TBH the best way to lose the weight is just to eat less (smaller portions not a silly diet). And "getting fit" is a very broad church - things like aerobic fitness & stamina. For losing weight, longer, slower rides are best: you can burn fat only so fast so time in the saddle helps. For aerobic fitness, shorter, sharper bursts are probably better. The best is to combine the two. 2 or 3 really fast shorter rides (HR over 85%) and maybe a couple of longer rides (60 min +) HR at or below 70%.

One thing you must avoid to lose weight is to overcompensate for the calories you burned by eating more - it's a common trap.

blackhands

meanredspider wrote:

louthepoo wrote:

forgot to mention, she's pregnant again

For losing weight, longer, slower rides are best: you can burn fat only so fast so time in the saddle helps. For aerobic fitness, shorter, sharper bursts are probably better.

I don't know who taught you physiology - but I'd ask for my money back!

meanredspider

blackhands wrote:

I don't know who taught you physiology - but I'd ask for my money back!

Explain

doyler78

meanredspider wrote:

blackhands wrote:

I don't know who taught you physiology - but I'd ask for my money back!

Explain

I think it has to do with the fact that the fitter that you become the more efficient your body becomes at using energy and thus it can use fats at a much higher level of strain than before. If you accept that then anything which raises your aerobic fitness is great for fat burning. Riding around at low heart rates does nothing to increase your aerobic fitness therefore it only teaches your body how to burn fuel ineffeciently and you doesn't actually make you a better cyclist into the bargain so a lose/lose situation.

meanredspider

doyler78 wrote:

I think it has to do with the fact that the fitter that you become the more efficient your body becomes at using energy and thus it can use fats at a much higher level of strain than before. If you accept that then anything which raises your aerobic fitness is great for fat burning. Riding around at low heart rates does nothing to increase your aerobic fitness therefore it only teaches your body how to burn fuel ineffeciently and you doesn't actually make you a better cyclist into the bargain so a lose/lose situation.

I understand your point but it's the EXACT opposite of fast-slow-fast method of training. The slow days are the one that actually train your body to burn fats and build your aerobic base. It's duration that increases mitochondrial and enzyme activity within the cells whilst minimising the depletion of glycogen. This in turn builds your ability on the fast days. Just going fast all the time depletes your glycogen and leads to fatigue.

xraymtb

meanredspider wrote:

I understand your point but it's the EXACT opposite of fast-slow-fast method of training. The slow days are the one that actually train your body to burn fats and build your aerobic base. It's duration that increases mitochondrial and enzyme activity within the cells whilst minimising the depletion of glycogen. This in turn builds your ability on the fast days. Just going fast all the time depletes your glycogen and leads to fatigue.

A lot of this depends on your ability to recover from exercise and also your goals.

If your goal is purely weight loss and you are limited for time, plus can recover quickly from exercise, then high intensity exercise will burn more calories in the same space of time and increase your EPOC to continue burning calories for long after you stop riding.

That said, if you take three days to recover sufficiently to train again and overcompensate for the glycogen depletion by stuffing your face with whatever comes to hand over those three days then it wont work.

The whole 'fat-burning zone' whilst technically true (lower intensity exercise is fuelled predominantly by fat) is a bit of a myth in terms of weight loss as you dont burn as many calories in total.

If you are training for fitness (as the post suggests) then some lower intensity work will help, but to make it worthwhile it needs to be over a longer duration to build a base. It wouldnt be worth doing 30 minutes of low intensity work every day. Better to do a couple of hard fast sessions in those times and also try to do a couple of longer, easier days.

meanredspider

xraymtb wrote:

The whole 'fat-burning zone' whilst technically true (lower intensity exercise is fuelled predominantly by fat) is a bit of a myth in terms of weight loss as you dont burn as many calories in total.

Agree totally. I'm not talking about "the fat burning zone". I'm talking about the increasing ability to burn fat in all zones - hence the fast-slow-fast not slow-slow-slow. I first came across this when I hit a plateau in my running - I used to just go out and run 5-10k as fast as I could and could understand why I wasn't getting quicker. I then tried this approach and, hey presto, times started to tumble. The science behind it seems to make sense (I'm no physiologist) and, in my personal experience (from a very similar start point as the OP) it worked for me.

zummerzet-lou

Do you work? Any chance you could cycle to work? Or what about your lunch hour?

If not, then doens't sound as though you have many choices. 30 mins isn't really long enough - although obviously better than nothing.

Have you considered buying a wind trainer? Then you could stay at home and still cycle, and then save that 90 mins a week to get out on your bike?

As for your girlfriend - exercise has been proven to be a huge benefit to easing depression so also consider swapping 1 or 2 of those 30mins for a walk together.

All the best,
Lou

louthepoo

thanks for all your advice guys. I'm gonna try and get out as much as possible. Lou - i work in a school so have just started my 6 week summer hols so not cycling to work yet, but i will. And by the way i wish i was living in christchurch, beautiful part of the world and loved my visit there. If only she'd be willing to leave her family we'd be living over there already! and stop press - i've literally just found out i've got some carbon wheels coming so even more reason to get out on the bike!

Alex_Simmons/RST

xraymtb wrote:

The whole 'fat-burning zone' whilst technically true (lower intensity exercise is fuelled predominantly by fat)

It's not even technically true.

We are burning at least as much glycogen as FFA even when performing very light exercise and for some even when at rest (provided we are not glycogen depleted).

xraymtb wrote:

is a bit of a myth in terms of weight loss as you dont burn as many calories in total.

That's certainly the case if duration of effort is the same.

I find it amusing when people talk of teaching our bodies to burn fat. It already knows how to do that.

For example - want to burn more fat? Then eat more fat (we burn what we eat).

Weight loss is fundamentally about maintaining a sustainable calorie deficit over the period of desired loss. With respect to riding a bike, if weight loss is THE goal, that's best achieved through:
i. practicing the art of fork control
ii. riding as sustainably hard as you can for the duration you have available to train (the fuel substrate mix utilised is largely irrelevant).

However it is my experience that the best results (both performance and weight wise) come from training to become more powerful and eating to get lean.


For the OP - you might want to invest in a home trainer and associated bits (big fan, motivational aids such as music, video etc) so that you can do more but still be at home.

meanredspider

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

xraymtb wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The whole 'fat-burning zone' whilst technically true (lower intensity exercise is fuelled predominantly by fat)

It's not even technically true.

We are burning at least as much glycogen as FFA even when performing very light exercise and for some even when at rest (provided we are not glycogen depleted).

xraymtb wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

is a bit of a myth in terms of weight loss as you dont burn as many calories in total.

That's certainly the case if duration of effort is the same.

I find it amusing when people talk of teaching our bodies to burn fat. It already knows how to do that.

For example - want to burn more fat? Then eat more fat (we burn what we eat).

I think your quoting's gone wrong

I think you simplify the arguments too much. Of course our bodies know how to burn fat. Adapting your body to optimise these things is what training (and, essentially, "getting fit") is all about.

And saying we burn what we eat is patently untrue. Excess fat is stored, sugars/carbs are stored, protein is excreted. It's shown that your body leans more and more heavily on fat as the duration of exercise goes on (to a limit) whilst burning glycogen all the time (until exhausted)

But I do agree that fork control is the key to losing weight (as I said in my first post).

louthepoo

i have pretty good fork control, its pint glass control to blame!