Beer Belly!!

Tiltzey Boy

Right then folks, at the risk of being hammered with sarcasm, I'm making my first post on here as a newbie!
I've recently started a bit of a health and fitness regime to try and become the "New Me"! Basically I've been a bit of a porker for most of my life and wanna get shot of the beer belly and the Moobs. I've changed the diet (cut out the junk food and stopped drinking, sort of) upped the mileage on the ike (34 miles a day minimum commute) and am also considering taking some fat burning supplements. Anyone used any of these supplements and do they help? I know there is no miracle cure, other than working my ass off on the bike, but a very rich man once said "every little helps!". :shock:

dw300

2 hours in the saddle a day should be more than enough to help you burn fat. The problem is going to be maintaining the changes in your diet. Every time you feel like eating something you shouldn't pull up your shirt and look at your belly and ask yourself if you'd rather eat of get rid of it. I can't comment on the fat burning supps. You've made a good change already, just keep at it.

Tiltzey Boy

Cheers DW! Already made a decent start like you say, just gotta keep at it!! Gagging for a few beers though!! :P

dw300

Do you know how many calories are in each of your beers? Or how many miles extra you need to do to make up for each? I always find that learning those things helps you make the healthier (if less fun) decision.

styxd

I know there is no miracle cure, other than working my ass off on the bike

No, the miracle cure is eating correctly.

keef66

Forget the idea of fat burning supplements too. They'll only shed weight from your wallet.

Consume less and move about more. Simples as the meerkats would say.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Supplement fat burning diet with exercise and save your cash for bike bling,porn or bike bling

okgo

If you do enough miles then actually you don't need to worry about your diet that much.

I lost 3 stone without changing it, and more recently lost a further 3/4 of a stone by watching what I eat too, but I could have quite easily not done that and still been happy with the loss.

dw300

okgo wrote:

If you do enough miles then actually you don't need to worry about your diet that much.

I lost 3 stone without changing it, and more recently lost a further 3/4 of a stone by watching what I eat too, but I could have quite easily not done that and still been happy with the loss.

I kinda know what you mean, but your diet can't have been that bad. You can always out-eat your training .. you could easily eat more calories than it would take to ride 100 miles every day (or any daily mileage that you could keep up for the rest of your life).

Tiltzey Boy

Okgo makes a good point. I'm aiming to get down to 13 stone ish (currently about 13 st 4lb), although I don't tend to track my weight that closely. I tend to gauge it on how clothing fits and things like that! Got a pair of 32 inch waist jeans that I bought and have never worn, so the plan is to get in to those, and then I can relax a little bit and maybe have the odd bar of chocolate and pint without worrying about it too much!
I'm just concentrating on upping the mileage now!
Two reasons for that, firstly to carry on getting fitter, secondly, so I can justify to her indoors that I need a new bike, and it might as well be carbon too eh?!?!?!?!?!? :P

DavidJB

Also stick in zone's 1-3 for the entire ride (top of zone 2 ideally) these are the fat burning zones...anything higher and you're using you're readily available sugars.

http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/b ... c_bcf.html

keef66

Alternatively Google for an explanation of why Fat Burning Zones are a bit misleading.

You might get a higher percentage of your energy from fat when exercising in those zones, but you'll burn many more calories if you put more effort in. And after an intense workout you'll carry on burning calories for several hours.

keef66

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/bl ... h-debunked

For instance

dw300

keef66 wrote:

Alternatively Google for an explanation of why Fat Burning Zones are a bit misleading.

You might get a higher percentage of your energy from fat when exercising in those zones, but you'll burn many more calories if you put more effort in. And after an intense workout you'll carry on burning calories for several hours.

Aaaarrrghh, this does my head in!

Yes .. a higher percentage. If your target is to burn fat and you don't have limited time, why would you use the technique that burns less? HIIT sessions are usually less than an hour, often only 20-30mins. Even if you have an afterburn effect, it's not going to burn as much and doing an 2-3 hours work at low intensity.

Add the fact that HIIT everyday will soon leave you with sore muscles and general fatigue that low intensity won't, meaning you'll need to take rest days that with low intensity training you can still train on.

You're also going to have to eat more to replenish glycogen to be able to power your muscles sufficiently for hit HIIT, whereas you can do low intensity training with depleted stores.

I'm just saying that you need to lok at the context of the science. Bring it into a real life scenario rather than a one off session of each and if your goal is to loose fat low intensity work is a better strategy. However if you are wanting to increase performance, then you'll be doing HIIT anyway and won't need low intensity work unless you want to boost fat loss on a rest day.

keef66

"if your goal is to loose (sic) fat low intensity work is a better strategy"

No it isn't.

keef66

The fat-burning zone. Yes, it exists, but it has been misinterpreted.
The fat-burning zone is a concept that the body burns a greater amount of fat at lower-intensity aerobic exercise than it does at higher intensities.
Actually, the body burns a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities than at higher intensities. At lower intensities the body may burn 50 percent of the calories from fat, while at higher intensities it may only burn 35 percent.
But at higher intensities you burn way more total calories—and more fat calories overall—than you do at lower intensities.

Tiltzey Boy

Thanks for all the advice people, but it's all getting a bit too intense for me. So far I've been working on the principle that if I can burn more calories than I am consuming, then that will naturally lead to weight loss/body fat reduction. That principle seems to be working for me up until now, so i guess I ought to stick to that for the time being.
As I get more and more hooked on the cycling (which I am), then perhaps I'll start looking at this sort of thing in more detail and learning more about the science behind it!
As for now, it's a case of keep working hard, and trying to enjoy it at the same time! After all, I'm not, and never will be Bradley Wiggins!!
Thanks again for all of your help folks!!

ATB

keef66

"So far I've been working on the principle that if I can burn more calories than I am consuming, then that will naturally lead to weight loss/body fat reduction"

Is the simple truth!

It's not sexy or technical, it doesn't have a fancy name, nor does it require any special equipment.

dw300

keef66 wrote:

The fat-burning zone. Yes, it exists, but it has been misinterpreted.
The fat-burning zone is a concept that the body burns a greater amount of fat at lower-intensity aerobic exercise than it does at higher intensities.
Actually, the body burns a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities than at higher intensities. At lower intensities the body may burn 50 percent of the calories from fat, while at higher intensities it may only burn 35 percent.
But at higher intensities you burn way more total calories—and more fat calories overall—than you do at lower intensities.

I understand this. If I really wanted to loose weight I'd do an hour on the trainer on non training days, 1 evening 2hr ride and a 3 hour ride at the weekend, and take 1 rest day if necessary. Thats 9 hrs cardio a week. Lets say i do this at low intensity 500kcal/hr, that's 4500kcals. 2/3s is fat so approximately 3000kcal of fat/week.

To burn the same amount from HIIT : 1/3x = 3000, x = 9000kcals. At 750kcals/hr that's 12hrs of HIIT. Even at 1000kcals/hr that still 9hr/wk of HIIT.

Do you think that's really feasible for someone who's untrained or a beginner, and has a beer belly? Would you rather do 9 hours of low intensity or 9 hours of high intensity per week to burn the same amount of fat?

dw300

Tiltzey Boy wrote:

Thanks for all the advice people, but it's all getting a bit too intense for me. So far I've been working on the principle that if I can burn more calories than I am consuming, then that will naturally lead to weight loss/body fat reduction. That principle seems to be working for me up until now, so i guess I ought to stick to that for the time being.
As I get more and more hooked on the cycling (which I am), then perhaps I'll start looking at this sort of thing in more detail and learning more about the science behind it!
As for now, it's a case of keep working hard, and trying to enjoy it at the same time! After all, I'm not, and never will be Bradley Wiggins!!
Thanks again for all of your help folks!!

ATB

Sorry for ranting in your thread!

The important thing is doing what suits you well enough that you keep at it. The energy in < energy out principle will keep you right as long as you're consistent.

Tiltzey Boy

dw300 wrote:

keef66 wrote:

The fat-burning zone. Yes, it exists, but it has been misinterpreted.
The fat-burning zone is a concept that the body burns a greater amount of fat at lower-intensity aerobic exercise than it does at higher intensities.
Actually, the body burns a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities than at higher intensities. At lower intensities the body may burn 50 percent of the calories from fat, while at higher intensities it may only burn 35 percent.
But at higher intensities you burn way more total calories—and more fat calories overall—than you do at lower intensities.

I understand this. If I really wanted to loose weight I'd do an hour on the trainer on non training days, 1 evening 2hr ride and a 3 hour ride at the weekend, and take 1 rest day if necessary. Thats 9 hrs cardio a week. Lets say i do this at low intensity 500kcal/hr, that's 4500kcals. 2/3s is fat so approximately 3000kcal of fat/week.

No worries on the ranting dw, tbh I've enjoyed reading it all!
Like I said, I appreciate all the advice, and will definitely bare a lot of it in mind, particularly your last post!! It all helps towards me achieving my goals, and I've almost hit my first one!!

Once I've reached the first target, then it'll be time to plan the next one!