Doing road miles fasted

shockedsoshocked

After a year of no cycling and plenty of wine and pizzas, need to lose around 25kg over winter.

I was looking in to fasted riding, a few people seem to recommend this, and I was wondering if people have experiences of doing it? The rides would be around 2 hours, only slow (probably little ring anyway, plus going fast on an empty stomach is impossible), as I need to build a base anyway.

I'd probably do that 2 or 3 times a week, and fuel up properly for turbo sessions through the week too.

Any suggestions?

slowbike

Cycle before breakfast? Just take water in the bottle.

bernardmcdonald

25kg in one winter is ambitious, but cycling on an empty stomach is nothing new.

Speaking form experience I expect you'll be going slowly whether you want to or not - intensity isn't an option without fuel, and excess fat is not an immediate enough energy source for speed unless you're going downhill.

Good luck.

shockedsoshocked

bernardmcdonald wrote:

25kg in one winter is ambitious, but cycling on an empty stomach is nothing new.

Speaking form experience I expect you'll be going slowly whether you want to or not - intensity isn't an option without fuel, and excess fat is not an immediate enough energy source for speed unless you're going downhill.

Good luck.

That's to previous race weight, March being my target. That's the thing, I'm slow anyway, so I'd rather be slow and shift a good amount of weight, I can build my power through turboing closer to race season.

slowbike

Eat little and train hard. I know someone who has dropped 1/4 of his body weight in the last year (he needed to lose it) and when he started I could've ridden him into the ground - now? No chance - he's back to fast TTing ...

A summary of his training method - eat less and train harder - mostly on the turbo.

diamonddog

Slowbike wrote:

A summary of his training method - eat less and train harder - mostly on the turbo.

^^+1 for this

zardoz

25kgs is a lot to lose in 6 months its 1kg every week for 25 weeks which equates to roughly a net deficit of 7700 calories each week or 10 hours on the bike assuming you don't eat anything, that is going to be tough. I shed about the same amount but over the course of a year and that was hard enough. I tried fasted rides but didn't work for me as I was so lacking in energy that the rides were just a waste of time and really not very enjoyable. In the end I made sure I was properley fuelled for my rides by having a big breakfast but hardly anything for lunch. You really need to look at your diet too, I didn't calorie count but I did become a lot more aware of what was in the food I ate, a lot of so called healthy foods are really high in calories, smoothies for example and bought salads.

I cut out alchohol almost completely, all snacks crisps, biscuits, chocolate bars etc, bought leaner cuts of meat and ate lots more fruit and veg. Definitely no Pizza's, some have unbelievable numbers of calories in them - more than your daily requirements! And rode my bike loads.

Good luck!

martinperry

I managed 30kg or 25% of my body weight over last winter.
As previously said I needed it!!
Little magic to it
Just stop putting so much into your mouth!
I found that once I had established a properly negative calorie balance, when I went out on the bike, I really did need some fuel,otherwise I wouldn't really have my wits about me, and I would get bloody cold (remember you are talking winter training rides)
Conversely I did tend to 30 min Turbo sessions whilst relatively fasted before evening meal.
Regarding what to consume, I was a lucky bugger in that I managed to stay on the booze. Interestingly when I went dry for January, it made no difference to the trajectory of the weight loss. As said before, obsessive calorie counting and a lot of vegetables (not fruit - loaded with calories) I also found porridge and sushi worked for me.
Good luck. Its a big ask but you will feel much better for it!

vs

martinperry wrote:

Regarding what to consume, I was a lucky bugger in that I managed to stay on the booze. Interestingly when I went dry for January, it made no difference to the trajectory of the weight loss.

http://www.bryanmarcel.com/calories-bee ... lcohol-fat

e999sam

I've gone from 111Kg to 92 since may still need to loose another 20 before the start of next season. I've done it by eating around 2000 cal Monday to Friday, on Saturday and Sunday I eat normally. Also I've been riding 313 Km commuting Monday to Friday.
My 60min commute to work is done without Breakfast and my 75min ride home is also done on an empty stomach.

shockedsoshocked

I'm back on myfitnesspal as off this week (using myself as a nutritional intervention for uni), and I had a good diet in first year when I got coached there (went from 80kg to 71kg). Muesli, brown pasta, lean meat, eggs and oily fish. I was lean! Alcohol is my downfall at the moment, luckily the GF has her netball season starting to no weeken drinking!

e999sam

I've still been drinking at the weekend probably average about 6 pints over the weekend.

shockedsoshocked

Slowbike wrote:

Eat little and train hard. I know someone who has dropped 1/4 of his body weight in the last year (he needed to lose it) and when he started I could've ridden him into the ground - now? No chance - he's back to fast TTing ...

A summary of his training method - eat less and train harder - mostly on the turbo.

What did he do on the turbo? What was his diet like?

bahzob

If you have only 2 hours to spend you would be better off riding fast not fasting and separately keeping a food diary of cals in vs cals out.

What matters for weight loss over the long term, like a full winter season, is maintaining consistent calorie vs energy deficit. (plus ideally at the same time breaking the eating habits that got you fat in the first place)

The faster you ride the more calories per hour you burn >> so as a general rule if you want to lose weight you want to ride at the highest average speed you can sustain for the training duration.

You only want to otherwise if you have unlimited hours per week (at least more than 20) in which to train.

Fasting stops you doing this. Carbs are needed to ride quick and these are either eaten during the ride/beforehand or stored as glycogen. You have around 400-500g of glycogen stored. This is stored in a 1:3 ratio along with water so this accounts for 1.5-2kg of body weight.

"Miracle" diets get most of their dramatic "I lost x lbs a week" claims simply from burning off this glycogen it only needs a total calories deficit of around 2000kcal to do this. Then it gets hard, every extra kg of fat will require around an 8000kcal total deficit. This takes a lot of shifting. It's even harder because if you have little glycogen stored you will get knackered pretty quickly if you do any serious exercise.

Getting back to your OP.

Assume for the sake of argument that your FTP is 250W.

You should be able to sustain 80-90% of this for a solid 2 hours. If you do then you will burn a total of around 1500kcal. With a normal store of glycogen you will comfortably be able to do a session like this without feeding during it.

However if you really are fasted and have little no carbs to burn then you will not be able to sustain this level of power. Exactly what you will be able to maintain will vary but it will be more around 65% of FTP. In this case during the 2 hours you will only burn around 1150kcal.

That's a difference of over 300cals per training session. Over a month that's the equivalent of 1kg of fat lost. If you combine this with a sensible diet that's includes enough carbohydrate (ideally low GI) to keep you fuelled up then you will lose weight consistently. Sustained workouts around 85% of FTP are also a great way to boost power, so doing them may well lead to establishing a virtuous circle where your FTP goes up so you end up burning even more calories per hour and losing more weight as a result.

All this would apply regardless, even more so if you are still planning to do "normal" turbo sessions. My advice would be don't do hard intervals at the same time as trying to shift weight. Interval sessions burn less calories per hour than high% steady state ones. Also alternating fast/feast as you are planning to do may just end up confusing your body and mess about with its insulin balance. Best just focus on losing weight and establishing a reliable, consistent eating pattern imo, once done transition to intervals imo.

NB: All the above is not to say that riding fasted has no place. It definitely does but more in pursuit of clear training goals, most especially increasing fat utilisation that helps sustain power for long 4+ hour rides. Training for this includes doing fasted rides but ideally these will be longer than 2 hours.

In terms of whether this works. Over 30 years of messing about with all sorts of diets this is the only approach that I have found works consistently allowing me to combine weight control with high performance. It helped me shift 20kg from 90kg and is helping me continue to chip away at my weight now to the lowest since I was a teenager. Other methods have worked, I found the Dukan diet was OK to shift a few pounds but it failed the moment I started trying to do some serious training.

If you have the willpower then the 5:2 fasting diet may also be worth trying, it's worked for some though I have not tried. But if doing this then my advice would be not to plan any workouts on the 2 fasting days and do hard steady state workouts as above on the eating ones.

bernardmcdonald

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

bernardmcdonald wrote:

25kg in one winter is ambitious, but cycling on an empty stomach is nothing new.

Speaking form experience I expect you'll be going slowly whether you want to or not - intensity isn't an option without fuel, and excess fat is not an immediate enough energy source for speed unless you're going downhill.

Good luck.

That's to previous race weight, March being my target. That's the thing, I'm slow anyway, so I'd rather be slow and shift a good amount of weight, I can build my power through turboing closer to race season.

A long time ago I lost about 30kg in one year (equal to about 25% of my original bodyweight), and it was a slog. Here are some of the things I learned.

There really isn't a big advantage in z2 riding over higher intensity riding for weightloss. The proporation of fat burned is higher, but you use a lower calorie total. In short, you'll lose weight a lot quicker riding harder (unless you can train full time).

I found (still do) that z2 riding makes me hungrier than tempo or threshold rides. Don't know why, but I find controlling my appetite easier when riding fast. You should try it and see what works best for you.

Turboing (moderate intensity) will shift more weight in an hour than 3 hours of z2.

The other thing to keep in mind is the psychological difficulty. That is a lot of weight to shift, and most people hit plateaus and fall off the wagon doing this. Don't underestimate this. Vary your training.

styxd

Fasted riding is done for performance gains rather than weightloss I’d have thought., it encourages your body to use fat for fuel. For best weightloss, you need to ride hard to burn more calories. You can ride hard fasted though, although it no doubt takes your body a while to adapt.

adam0bmx0

styxd wrote:

Fasted riding is done for performance gains rather than weightloss I’d have thought., it encourages your body to use fat for fuel. For best weightloss, you need to ride hard to burn more calories. You can ride hard fasted though, although it no doubt takes your body a while to adapt.

Completely disagree with both statements, because they're both mis-informed and wrong.

gryfon23

Look into a paleo/primal/stoneage diet. It will make fasted rides so much easier.

For example the book Paleo Diet for Athletes by Loren Cordain and Joel Friel.

Good luck with your project!

styxd

adam0bmx0 wrote:

styxd wrote:

Fasted riding is done for performance gains rather than weightloss I’d have thought., it encourages your body to use fat for fuel. For best weightloss, you need to ride hard to burn more calories. You can ride hard fasted though, although it no doubt takes your body a while to adapt.

Completely disagree with both statements, because they're both mis-informed and wrong.

Go on then, at least explain how they're wrong

BenderRodriguez

bernardmcdonald wrote:

Turboing (moderate intensity) will shift more weight in an hour than 3 hours of z2

I don't think so! The amount of fuel burnt per hour is directly proportional to the power generated. If your threshold is, say, 300 watts, 'moderate intensity' on a turbo might be 250 -270 watts (which, rather than being a 'moderate' effort is actually still going pretty hard) whilst on a 3 hour Z2 ride you should be able to average perhaps 180 watts. As a rough comparison of the total amount of work done, 270 x 1 - 270 whilst 3 x 180 = 540 which is twice as much. Even pootling along at an average of 140 watts for two hours will burn more slightly than that turbo session. So if you have the time a longer, slower ride will burn more calories in total. What's more a higher proportion of the fuel burnt on that slower ride will be fat and your recovery should be quicker than from a more intense turbo session, allowing you do do more sessions in total and so burn even more calories.

BenderRodriguez

styxd wrote:

For best weightloss, you need to ride hard to burn more calories.

Why not just ride more at an intensity that allows you to recover quickly and so train more frequently as well?

bernardmcdonald

BenderRodriguez wrote:

bernardmcdonald wrote:

Turboing (moderate intensity) will shift more weight in an hour than 3 hours of z2

I don't think so! The amount of fuel burnt per hour is directly proportional to the power generated. If your threshold is, say, 300 watts, 'moderate intensity' on a turbo might be 250 -270 watts (which, rather than being a 'moderate' effort is actually still going pretty hard) whilst on a 3 hour Z2 ride you should be able to average perhaps 180 watts. As a rough comparison of the total amount of work done, 270 x 1 - 270 whilst 3 x 180 = 540 which is twice as much. Even pootling along at an average of 140 watts for two hours will burn more slightly than that turbo session. So if you have the time a longer, slower ride will burn more calories in total. What's more a higher proportion of the fuel burnt on that slower ride will be fat and your recovery should be quicker than from a more intense turbo session, allowing you do do more sessions in total and so burn even more calories.

my experience would appear to contradict your calculation.

your estimation of moderate intensity may be accurate, but my z2 would struggle to reach the value you provide. additionally, you make no allowance for coasting/downhill - this is inevitable on a z2 ride (woudn't even contemplate this on a turbo) but cannot happen on the trainer - so you could knock a good 20% or more off your z2 number.

in any event it doesn't really matter. my point is that turbo at moderate intencity is more efficient unless you have loads of time available for training, and i think we do agree on that.

styxd

Also, if you're riding hard for an hour, your metabolism will get your metabolism fired up so you'll be burning even more calories after you've stopped riding. I dont think the same can be said for a Z2 ride.

simon_e

Do people think typing long, pointless paragraphs arguing about this zone and that zone, duration, intensity etc on forums is the answer?

It's not difficult. 1. Eat healthily. 2. Exercise frequently.

Yes, do some rides before breakfast or whatever, but I suggest you don't try to do the whole ride empty, I think that would be counterproductive. Take some rations and decide when you're going to eat them.

The biggest problem is likely to be discipline - for example, when you return from a ride hungry (so have something suitable ready or v. quick to prepare), when you're feeling low or if peer pressure / eating & drinking patterns are an issue. You can achieve great things, but only if you really want to.

BenderRodriguez

bernardmcdonald wrote:

you make no allowance for coasting/downhill - this is inevitable on a z2 ride... so you could knock a good 20% or more off your z2 number.

But I did take this into account in that I gave an average figure for the power output. True enough you will coast down some hills, but you will be also be going harder than the average, and for longer, when going up them. I think that few people today still believe that for a ride to be a 'zone 2' ride, you must never exceed 'zone 2' pace'. When doing such 'base' training as long you stay below the 'red line' you will still be building aerobic base.

bernardmcdonald wrote:

my point is that turbo at moderate intencity is more efficient unless you have loads of time available for training, and i think we do agree on that.

Perhaps you just need to go harder all round. You should certainly be able to easily average 50 - 60% of your threshold output when doing base training, or perhaps 75% when doing extended 'tempo' work, and in my experience, the intensity needed to make an hour on a turbo worthwhile is far from 'moderate'.

BenderRodriguez

styxd wrote:

Also, if you're riding hard for an hour, your metabolism will get your metabolism fired up so you'll be burning even more calories after you've stopped riding. I dont think the same can be said for a Z2 ride.

But why would you want to avoid ever 'going hard' (here meaning riding pretty close to your threshold) when doing a 'Z2' ride?

Big_Ring_Rider

What ever happened to "fuel in the tank" method of exercise? Training fasted, couldn't think of a more miserable way to spend a session, especially being aware of the fact there is nothing in the tank. Plenty of fore and against arguements (as this thread suggests), but if you aren't in control of your general calorie intake and diet, I fail to see any benefit.

BenderRodriguez

Big_Ring_Rider wrote:

Training fasted, couldn't think of a more miserable way to spend a session, especially being aware of the fact there is nothing in the tank.

But your body's glycogen stores should be good for a couple of hours of fairly high intensity exercise, and one's body fat will contribute a lot of energy as well, especially at lower levels of intensity, so if you are setting out with properly replenished glycogen stores, the 'tank' will be far from empty.

I find that I can usually do a typical endurance-level ride for 3 1/2 to 4 hours without it becoming 'miserable' due to not eating, although this will naturally vary as a function of how much higher-intensity work I do in that time, such as climbing.

Big_Ring_Rider

Each to our own experience I suppose. I probably got a bit carried away there, I run 10-15k on half a banana, but that's because I struggle to run directly after food, whereas cycling I can ride hard not long after breakfast.

I understand that our glycogen stores should keep us fuelled for x amount of time, but just through my own experience, I'm not comfortable with fasted rides.

bahzob

BenderRodriguez wrote:

bernardmcdonald wrote:

Turboing (moderate intensity) will shift more weight in an hour than 3 hours of z2

I don't think so! The amount of fuel burnt per hour is directly proportional to the power generated. If your threshold is, say, 300 watts, 'moderate intensity' on a turbo might be 250 -270 watts (which, rather than being a 'moderate' effort is actually still going pretty hard) whilst on a 3 hour Z2 ride you should be able to average perhaps 180 watts. As a rough comparison of the total amount of work done, 270 x 1 - 270 whilst 3 x 180 = 540 which is twice as much. Even pootling along at an average of 140 watts for two hours will burn more slightly than that turbo session. So if you have the time a longer, slower ride will burn more calories in total. What's more a higher proportion of the fuel burnt on that slower ride will be fat and your recovery should be quicker than from a more intense turbo session, allowing you do do more sessions in total and so burn even more calories.

Correct. If time is not a limiter the best way to lose weight is ride slow for ages. You can repeat this day after day and burn far more calories.

dw300

bahzob wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

bernardmcdonald wrote:

Turboing (moderate intensity) will shift more weight in an hour than 3 hours of z2

I don't think so! The amount of fuel burnt per hour is directly proportional to the power generated. If your threshold is, say, 300 watts, 'moderate intensity' on a turbo might be 250 -270 watts (which, rather than being a 'moderate' effort is actually still going pretty hard) whilst on a 3 hour Z2 ride you should be able to average perhaps 180 watts. As a rough comparison of the total amount of work done, 270 x 1 - 270 whilst 3 x 180 = 540 which is twice as much. Even pootling along at an average of 140 watts for two hours will burn more slightly than that turbo session. So if you have the time a longer, slower ride will burn more calories in total. What's more a higher proportion of the fuel burnt on that slower ride will be fat and your recovery should be quicker than from a more intense turbo session, allowing you do do more sessions in total and so burn even more calories.

Correct. If time is not a limiter the best way to lose weight is ride slow for ages. You can repeat this day after day and burn far more calories.

F*cking this ^

Trying doing enough HIIT in a calorie deficit, that burns the same as riding 4-6 hours a day. You'll last about 4-5 days before you're f*cked. brb, doing 2 hours of HIIT a day for the whole winter, that'll work, right?

If you're in a deficit, you have to be burning mostly fat to make it sustainable.

If time is a limiter, by all means do the tempo, threshold or higher intensity stuff. Just make sure you're spot on with your eating so you eat just enough to fuel your workouts, without gaining weight, or eating too little to complete them.