Diet help need advice

poynedexter

ianspeare wrote:

I've always found it hard to gain weight (fast metabolism)

out of interest, how would you define a fast metabolism?

ianspeare

poynedexter wrote:

ianspeare wrote:

I've always found it hard to gain weight (fast metabolism)

out of interest, how would you define a fast metabolism?

Well up until I was about 19, I ate like rubbish. Crisps and chocolate everyday, regular pizza fast food etc, and I never put on any weight, but I wasn't particularly active either (used to hate sports) Basically I was skinny-fat and this made me wake up to the world of health & fitness

poynedexter

so the calories in v calories out rule, doesnt apply to all then, unless you actually only ate a low calorie amount of junk.

but the calorie counters out there claim that the rule must apply?

carrock

The advantage of a high protein low carb diet for serious weight trainers is that sufficient protein is taken to increase muscle mass, and just enough carbs are taken to fuel exercise with none being stored as fat.

The same number of calories being taken as pure carbs and no protein would cause increased fat storage as none of the calories ingested would go towards muscle building. That is the theory, although how it relates to cyclists is another argument

bernithebiker

Pointless eating anything on a sub 2 hour training ride.

ric/rstsport

bernithebiker wrote:

Pointless eating anything on a sub 2 hour training ride.

really?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846824

bernithebiker

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Pointless eating anything on a sub 2 hour training ride.

really?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846824

From said study;

"As a result, it has been well-established that carbohydrate ingestion during prolonged (>2 h) moderate-to-high intensity exercise can significantly improve endurance performance."

Which I would agree with.

But please note, I said SUB 2h.

ric/rstsport

and from same paper:
"Surprisingly, small amounts of carbohydrate ingestion during exercise may also enhance the performance of shorter (45-60 min), more intense (>75 % peak oxygen uptake; VO2peak) exercise bouts, despite the fact that endogenous carbohydrate stores are unlikely to be limiting."

carrock

bernithebiker wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Pointless eating anything on a sub 2 hour training ride.

really?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846824

From said study;

"As a result, it has been well-established that carbohydrate ingestion during prolonged (>2 h) moderate-to-high intensity exercise can significantly improve endurance performance."

Which I would agree with.

But please note, I said SUB 2h.

other thing that's relevant is level of intensity.

Certainly no one would argue that training at or above anaerobic threshold wouldn't necessitate keeping glycogen levels topped up. My point was that there is no need for carb loading on a low intensity fat burning/recovery ride

bernithebiker

^^this

carrock

another way of looking at it is to view the human body as a hybrid vehicle

in the same way that a Toyota Prius uses electricity for light loads and low speeds around town, the body uses fat stores for light intensity exercise.

when the load and demand increases to a level where the batteries cannot supply sufficient fuel, the prius switches to petrol engine.

In a similar way, when the energy demands are such that the body cannot fuel from stored fat alone, it burns glycogen- which it only has a limited supply of.

Then, and only then, is it essential to take carbs on board to keep glycogen levels topped up.

That, at least, is my understanding......

ric/rstsport

carrock wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Pointless eating anything on a sub 2 hour training ride.

really?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846824

From said study;

"As a result, it has been well-established that carbohydrate ingestion during prolonged (>2 h) moderate-to-high intensity exercise can significantly improve endurance performance."

Which I would agree with.

But please note, I said SUB 2h.

other thing that's relevant is level of intensity.

Certainly no one would argue that training at or above anaerobic threshold wouldn't necessitate keeping glycogen levels topped up. My point was that there is no need for carb loading on a low intensity fat burning/recovery ride

1) there's no such thing as "anaerobic threshold" it's a misnomer
2) 75% of VO2max or VO2peak is pretty low intensity (bear in mind that most people will be able to ride maximally for ~1hr at ~90% of VO2max or VO2peak

I'm not for one minute saying you need to be using gels etc or suggesting that you need to eat on all rides < 2 hrs, i am merely pointing out the fallacy statement made by berniethebiker, as it's incorrect.

Ric

carrock

There is a raft of scientific journals and information relating to anaerobic threshold/ lactate threshold.

On the graph below, it is defined as the point at which lactate levels in the blood exceed 4 mmol, and the lactate curve ramps up sharply.

bernithebiker

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

I'm not for one minute saying you need to be using gels etc or suggesting that you need to eat on all rides < 2 hrs, i am merely pointing out the fallacy statement made by berniethebiker, as it's incorrect.

Ric

I said it was pointless for rides of less than 2 hours.

For the 'average' rider (say 5 to 10 hours a week) looking to lose a bit of weight and gain fitness, I would stand by that. I think it's a good sign to finish the ride a bit hungry and have a good appetite at dinner time without resorting to gels/powders, etc.

If said rider was to do a 1 to 3 hour sportive, I would say eat little and frequently throughout the ride to keep levels topped up. As here, performance is key, and not weight loss / fat burning.

ric/rstsport

carrock wrote:

There is a raft of scientific journals and information relating to anaerobic threshold/ lactate threshold.

On the graph below, it is defined as the point at which lactate levels in the blood exceed 4 mmol, and the lactate curve ramps up sharply.

you're extremely wrong. To wit, you're aerobic all the way up to VO2max(or peak) by definition.

Lactate threshold is generally regarded as being the work rate that elicits a lactate response of around 2.X mmol/L. The term anaerobic threshold is a misnomer.

The 'correct' term to define work rates at 4mmol/L is OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation) but this is another metric that is no longer used.

ric

ric/rstsport

bernithebiker wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

I'm not for one minute saying you need to be using gels etc or suggesting that you need to eat on all rides < 2 hrs, i am merely pointing out the fallacy statement made by berniethebiker, as it's incorrect.

Ric

I said it was pointless for rides of less than 2 hours.

and that's my point. It's not. There is evidence to show that rides of less than 2 hours (less than 1 hour in fact) can be enhanced with carbohydrates.

Ric

bernithebiker

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

I'm not for one minute saying you need to be using gels etc or suggesting that you need to eat on all rides < 2 hrs, i am merely pointing out the fallacy statement made by berniethebiker, as it's incorrect.

Ric

I said it was pointless for rides of less than 2 hours.

and that's my point. It's not. There is evidence to show that rides of less than 2 hours (less than 1 hour in fact) can be enhanced with carbohydrates.

Ric

What does 'enhanced' mean?

nathancom

I think you are at cross purposes. I have never felt a real need to fuel on a <2hr ride and many feel that from experience, however in pure performance terms there is a benefit. Most of us are not really trying to produce our best performance in a 2hr ride.

I think the real question is whether fueling in a 2hr ride is going to make the workout tangibly more efficacious.

ric/rstsport

we're not talking at cross purposes. Bernie said it's pointless to eat on a 2hr ride. I called him out and said there's evidence to show that even on very short rides taking on extra energy improves performance.

there are many occasions where a significant majority are trying to produce best performances in a 2 hr ride (e.g. a 50-mile TT) or less (time).

Given that taking on additional carbs helps increase maximal performance it's highly likely that it could help at a lower intensities too (as there's a decline in power output with duration). Having seen many thousands of power files lots of people lose power on short rides (~2hrs) when going at a moderate effort (especially on back to back training days).

so, as i said before, i don't think there's a need to eat in every ~2hr session, but to say that it's pointless is stretching things.

ric

bernithebiker

But surely, if you're out on a TRAINING ride, does it really matter if your power drops off towards the end?

You're making nothing like max power anyway.

That's why I asked, how does fuelling 'enhance' your ride? If I'm doing 2 hours in Zone 1 and 2, knocking out 150W tops, what does taking a gel or two do for me exactly? Increase my average speed by 1km/h? So what?

I would rather make my body burn some fat, than give it carbs to feed on mid-ride.

Any nutrients my body needs (proteins, vitamins, etc.) can be provided by my next meal.

Of course this all changes if;

a) you are looking for peak performance sub 2hours, eg. 40km TT
or
b) 4 hour sportive, where you can start feeding in 1st hour.

So surely it needs to be taken in context?

ric/rstsport

Yes, it does matter if your power declines during a ride. In general the harder you can train, the fitter (more powerful) you can become. If power drop off doesn't matter (i.e., has no effect) then why would we bother training hard - we could just ride around really easy all the time.

So, sure, on some rides where power is really quite low and power may not drop off this might not be an issue. on the other hand if you go and do a 2 hrs MIET (aka sweetspot) ride power can drop off substantially and taking on carbs can prevent or lessen the decline in power. you made a blanket statement that rides of up to 2 hrs weren't necessary for taking on foods.

you could also make an argument that taking on energy during lower intensity exercise could be important (of course not taking on could also be useful as well) as it's important to recognise that taking on carbs can mediate hormonal responses that lead to picking up infections, such as those seen semi frequently in hard training athletes (e.g. upper respiratory tract infections). It's well known that taking on supplemental carbs during exercise or as soon as a session finishes can mediate these responses.

If your avg speed is increased by 1 km/hr from 1 gel then your average power has increased by ~6%, which would lead to you likely increasing your fitness, if you were to frequently do this.(?)

Your body's ability to oxidise 'fat' is determined by many things not least the foods you eat and your absolute fitness level. That is, the higher your absolute fitness level (i.e., sustainable power output) the greater amount of fat is 'burnt' at a given intensity. So, by training to increase your sustainable power you can shift the energy that is burnt from carbs to fat. If taking on additional energy allows you to become fitter then you're winning the battle.

Your body can already burn fat, it gets plenty of opportunity to do so when you're at rest!

so, to sum up, i'm not saying you need to eat on every ride (i don't) and there may be reasons to exercise in a fasted state (data is equivocal), but to say as a blanket recommendation that you don't need to eat on 2 hour rides is simply false.

Ric

bernithebiker

OK, but it's all about context.

If you reread the OP's 1st post, he's talking about low fitness levels and weight loss.

In THAT context (and that was the theme of this thread), taking on fuel for <2hr is counterproductive.

Many beginners are seduced by the magazines and marketing gumph that would have you necking 3 gels per hour on top of an energy drink, followed by a recovery drink, etc. etc. whatever the ride. To my mind, that is nonsense, and would probably cost you about £10 per ride anyway!

ric/rstsport

Sure, and the evidence wouldn't support *that* amount of intake. On the other hand just because someone is at a low level doesn't mean they shouldn't take on supplemental energy.

Again, i'm not saying people need to take on gels/energy drinks/food in every ride, but in some rides yes. the points i made before apply to people across the board. in fact lower fitness riders will oxidise more carbohydrate (at a given intensity) than higher fitness riders and are therefore more at risk of the bonk.

ric

top_bhoy

Sorry to interrupt gents, I think your arguing over nothing. Here's me thinking that someone overweight and a relatively low fitness level shouldn't be considering 2 hour rides until the fitness (or whatever the correct terminology is), has increased. I think spending your time steering the OP towards the goal of doing the 2 hour ride more comfortably would have been wiser.

30 miles isn't a huge distance but it is if you aren't sufficiently prepared. To my mind the OP is better off doing shorter more sustainable rides and building up the stamina and fitness?

carrock

bernithebiker wrote:

OK, but it's all about context.

If you reread the OP's 1st post, he's talking about low fitness levels and weight loss.

In THAT context (and that was the theme of this thread), taking on fuel for <2hr is counterproductive.

Many beginners are seduced by the magazines and marketing gumph that would have you necking 3 gels per hour on top of an energy drink, followed by a recovery drink, etc. etc. whatever the ride. To my mind, that is nonsense, and would probably cost you about £10 per ride anyway!

Totally agree.

Lots of people swear by early morning fat burning rides on an empty stomach

As a type 1 diabetic, I am acutely aware of the need to balance energy in with energy out against the backdrop of insulin and exercise- more so than non diabetics as a hypo when cycling is much worse than a bonk.

bahzob

Just watch the videos in the thread I posted here.http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12949447

Great food, prepared from raw ingredients quickly and cheaply that, quite literally, is good enough for the best cyclists in the world..

Just eat food like this and you will be healthy, in control of your weight and have no problem doing hard training sessions.

There really is no need for any "special" products unless you are already very fit and doing hard rides of 3+ hours. (Basic maths. If you are eating sensibly as per the links above you will have around 400g of usable carbs stored in your body. This is enough for over 2 hours of riding at a steady 250W which is well beyond the capability of most here and certainly beyond that of the OP.)

Even in this case you just need some carbs and a bit of protein (so a jam sarnie will be fine) unless you are in full on race competition mode, which is really the only case that justifies even thinking about gels or the like.

Camcycle1974

madasahattersley wrote:

Why are people so obsessed with protein shakes? Serious question - does Froomey wake up in the morning and down a protein shake? I'll bet the answer would be 'never in a million years.' Maybe having some supplemental protein as part of a much more comprehensive post-training recovery regime, but it's not the be all and end all.

Totally agree, especially when a pint of milk acheives the same thing for 50p. Supplement companies are there to make money, pure and simple. Same with energy drinks, pretty simple to make your own with glucose/fructose for a fraction of the cost.

dw300

Camcycle1974 wrote:

madasahattersley wrote:

Why are people so obsessed with protein shakes? Serious question - does Froomey wake up in the morning and down a protein shake? I'll bet the answer would be 'never in a million years.' Maybe having some supplemental protein as part of a much more comprehensive post-training recovery regime, but it's not the be all and end all.

Totally agree, especially when a pint of milk acheives the same thing for 50p. Supplement companies are there to make money, pure and simple. Same with energy drinks, pretty simple to make your own with glucose/fructose for a fraction of the cost.

Protein shakes are aimed at athletes looking to gain mass whilst keeping calories to a minimum, not to cyclists.

There are some recovery drinks with protein, but those aren't what is colloquially referred to as a protein shake.

Camcycle1974

dw300 wrote:

Camcycle1974 wrote:

madasahattersley wrote:

Why are people so obsessed with protein shakes? Serious question - does Froomey wake up in the morning and down a protein shake? I'll bet the answer would be 'never in a million years.' Maybe having some supplemental protein as part of a much more comprehensive post-training recovery regime, but it's not the be all and end all.

Totally agree, especially when a pint of milk acheives the same thing for 50p. Supplement companies are there to make money, pure and simple. Same with energy drinks, pretty simple to make your own with glucose/fructose for a fraction of the cost.

Protein shakes are aimed at athletes looking to gain mass whilst keeping calories to a minimum, not to cyclists.

There are some recovery drinks with protein, but those aren't what is colloquially referred to as a protein shake.[/quire]

Sorry but this doesn't make sense. To gain mass you need an excess of calories..it's how you manage the excess that determines how much fat you gain along with the muscle. I would wager that a bodybuilder trying to gain size would consume 3-4000 calls per day, similar to a cyclist with a heavy training schedule.

bahzob

Camcycle1974 wrote:

madasahattersley wrote:

Why are people so obsessed with protein shakes? Serious question - does Froomey wake up in the morning and down a protein shake? I'll bet the answer would be 'never in a million years.' Maybe having some supplemental protein as part of a much more comprehensive post-training recovery regime, but it's not the be all and end all.

Totally agree, especially when a pint of milk acheives the same thing for 50p. Supplement companies are there to make money, pure and simple. Same with energy drinks, pretty simple to make your own with glucose/fructose for a fraction of the cost.

Quite right. Watch the Sky video. Chris Froome gets up and has a porridge/quinoa mix, an omelette, some muesli and a variety of juice drinks. All made from fresh ingredients without any brand name artificial rubbish.

It really is very simple. No cyclist who posts on this forum will ever need to take any supplements or artificial products to allow them to train. We simply don't do enough hours at enough intensity to warrant this.

You are just kidding yourself if you think you take "special supplements like the pros" then you will ride like one. And be plain wrong as the best pro teams have more sense and just eat the right amounts of proper food.

The only occasion that warrants any special products are full on race days that involve 2 hours plus of very intense effort when finishing time is the main objective. Sports drinks, bars and gels may have a place then but only then.