Road Cycling to Burn Fat and Get Fit
Comments
-
meanredspider wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
While #1 is true, #2 is another myth and would make #1 is ineffective.meanredspider wrote:2. Exercising at <70%MHR conditions your body to increase the efficiency of the fat burning systems which will allow you to draw on fat reserves more effectively at higher intensities.
I'll quote the reference, Alex, but I'd be interested to see the counter-reference(s). I have no axe to grind on this but it's the entire basis of a highly-rated HR training book I have.
I should add that #2 isn't the whole story - it's combined with alternate days of exercising above 85%MHR and long-distance training at 75% - the idea being that you can maintain these alternate levels of exercise (especially for long-distance runners) for much longer than you can higher-intensity exercise whilst ALSO improving the adaptations to burn fat.
Reference (which itself is full of references) is "Heart Monitor Training" John L. Parker, Jr - the author of "Once a Runner"ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
HR zone or to Not HR zone is turning into a Helmet debate.. 2 sides with no definitive proof throwing figures around not really getting anywhere
The OP wants to lose weight on the bike.
Ride.
Eat less crap.
Have fun.
That's the magical formula.
0 -
I wouldn't worry about it too much. I've discovered that a set of tri bars fitted the wrong way round are just perfect for supporting a gut and a pair of moobs.
Purveyor of "up"
0 -
mattward1979 wrote:HR zone or to Not HR zone is turning into a Helmet debate.. 2 sides with no definitive proof throwing figures around not really getting anywhere
The OP wants to lose weight on the bike.
Ride.
Eat less crap.
Have fun.
That's the magical formula.
I concur completely. Ride, eat less crap and watch the flab drop off.
It isn't always about the weight though- muscle weighs more than fat so don't be disheartened if your weight INCREASES!!!0 -
Thebigbee wrote:mattward1979 wrote:HR zone or to Not HR zone is turning into a Helmet debate.. 2 sides with no definitive proof throwing figures around not really getting anywhere
The OP wants to lose weight on the bike.
Ride.
Eat less crap.
Have fun.
That's the magical formula.
I concur completely. Ride, eat less crap and watch the flab drop off.
It isn't always about the weight though- muscle weighs more than fat so don't be disheartened if your weight INCREASES!!!
I actually agree too - was only trying to postulate where the "Fat Burning Zone" myth might have arisen from.
Eat less than you burn - simples.
As for having fun, I chose the perfect morning to video my commute - absolutely bloody gorgeous out on the Highland roads with the sun burning away the last of the harr.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Peddle Up! wrote:I wouldn't worry about it too much. I've discovered that a set of tri bars fitted the wrong way round are just perfect for supporting a gut and a pair of moobs. as long as the tri bars are quite strong! 0
-
I thought the magical formula was simpler than that:mattward1979 wrote:HR zone or to Not HR zone is turning into a Helmet debate.. 2 sides with no definitive proof throwing figures around not really getting anywhere
The OP wants to lose weight on the bike.
Ride.
Eat less crap.
Have fun.
That's the magical formula.
Eat less calories than you use!!!!!!!
Any chance of me making a fortune pushing this as the radical new diet plan?0 -
Best results in 'fat loss' not weight loss, ive had are just by eating regularly.
If your burning a lot of calories then eating 4 - 5 times a day will keep your metabolism fired up and you wont hopefully suffer any possible side effects of just cutting out food i.e. loss of energy, nutrients the body needs to repair etc0 -
I prefer this one:meanredspider wrote:I'll quote the reference, Alex, but I'd be interested to see the counter-reference(s). I have no axe to grind on this but it's the entire basis of a highly-rated HR training book I have.
http://books.google.com/books?id=BC9SiA ... &q&f=false
Not all relevant chapters are available online like this (I use hardcopy text), but Chapter 11 is a good start. Chapters 13 & 14 are pretty handy too, and in there you will note that the ability of the body to utilise FFA at higher absolute work rates is best enhanced by improving our aerobic abilities/fitness (e.g. increased mitochondral density & capillarisation, enhanced VO2max etc) - and that is most effectively done through incorporating higher intensity work in our training, certainly >70% of MHR and preferably >75% MHR.
Better still include good doses of work > 85% MHR (which somewhat ironically almost exclusively relies on CHO) as that stimulates these positive adaptations in a very high bang for training buck sense.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
I prefer this one:meanredspider wrote:I'll quote the reference, Alex, but I'd be interested to see the counter-reference(s). I have no axe to grind on this but it's the entire basis of a highly-rated HR training book I have.
http://books.google.com/books?id=BC9SiA ... &q&f=false
Not all relevant chapters are available online like this (I use hardcopy text), but Chapter 11 is a good start. Chapters 13 & 14 are pretty handy too, and in there you will note that the ability of the body to utilise FFA at higher absolute work rates is best enhanced by improving our aerobic abilities/fitness (e.g. increased mitochondral density & capillarisation, enhanced VO2max etc) - and that is most effectively done through incorporating higher intensity work in our training, certainly >70% of MHR and preferably >75% MHR.
Better still include good doses of work > 85% MHR (which somewhat ironically almost exclusively relies on CHO) as that stimulates these positive adaptations in a very high bang for training buck sense.
Looks interesting at a quick glance - I'll take a look.
Well, interestingly, that's pretty much what my book suggests - alternate <70% days with >85% days and throw in some distance work at 75%. It's aimed mostly at runners but includes a cycling section. The idea of the <70% days is this fat-burning adaptation AND preventing you from overtraining whilst building base miles.
Anyhow - this is way OT. My original thought was that the same fat-burning adaptation maybe where the fat-burning zone myth came from. In any case, I tend to average around 80%MHR when I ride.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
bompington wrote:
I thought the magical formula was simpler than that:mattward1979 wrote:HR zone or to Not HR zone is turning into a Helmet debate.. 2 sides with no definitive proof throwing figures around not really getting anywhere
The OP wants to lose weight on the bike.
Ride.
Eat less crap.
Have fun.
That's the magical formula.
Eat less calories than you use!!!!!!!
Any chance of me making a fortune pushing this as the radical new diet plan?
Ah...... if only it were that simple.
The type of calories you eat are important too. No good eating 1500cals a day all from fat.
Good quality, healthy food - and then your magical formula comes into play in a bigger way!0 -
sensible eating so as long as you burn more calories than you are taking on board you will lose weight.
It's as simple as that, work on about 500 calories an hour (approx) when exercising and take an interest in what you are putting in your body. 0 -
I am 42 and got into cycling last year and have lost 2 stone 8 lbs since Christmas. I try to vary my cycling including cycling both on my own and also with other people. I have cut out rubbish from my diet and ride 3 times a week plus gym and occasional spinning classes. Riding with others really gives you a boost as you progress from hanging on to pulling others along. Try various options including long, short, interval etc until you find what works for you but make sure you enjoy it.
Happy cycling from the Channel Islands!!0
