The best Fat burner on a Spin/Turbo?

diy

I was perusing youtube looking for the stupidest spin/turbo videos, you know the type that have dance moves and hops in. Almost all seem to think this is the best way to burn calories/fat. Personally I think that sort of thing just distracts you. So it go me thinking.. If you were serious about putting the most fat burning intensive session together what would you come up with?

Based on your own analysis of the data, what do you reckon is the best <1 hour (say 35-45 mins) session to do on a turbo or spin bike to burn the most amount of fat? e.g. High resistance slog, Short Intervals, longer intervals, high cadence.

Can you actually affect the ratio of fat burned? Assuming an appropriately nourished participant at the start. I.e. imagine you have been tasked with creating "the best fat burning turbo trainer workout"

Genuinely interested in ideas, theories and of course abuse.

keef66

My guess would be to treat it as a time trial and go as hard as you can for the duration of the session. You'll burn off more calories, and if you're burning more calories than you consume, the difference can only come from body fat.

If you're really interested in losing body fat, then eating less is a lot more effective than exercising more.

diy

So effectively doing an FTP test. I was just wondering if you would actually consume more by working harder for shorter and having shorter breaks.

napoleond

You would consume the most calories by going as hard as you can in the time available.

However there is a school of thought that suggests high intensity intervals cause some kind of knock on metabolic effect burning calories for a lot longer after the session has finished.

Me, I just do what fits my goals in the time available.

bobmcstuff

As somebody who has lost 5.5kg since 5 January by doing a lot of turbo sessions I feel I can comment (also a bit of running, swimming and some rides in the real world). I also lost 12.2kg through 2014, with most of that falling between May and September (peak cycling season).

Losing weight wasn't the only goal of my sessions however, I'm also trying to get faster at cycling - I have been doing a mix of Sufferfest and Time Crunched Training Plan workouts.

Obviously it's a bit subjective, but I think best session I have done for that was 1h20 including 4x12 minutes "steady state" (92-94% MHR). This is also on paper the hardest turbo session I've done, in terms of the "calorie burn" on my Garmin (am aware this is basically just an educated guess), Sufferfest "Suffer Score", and the rate I lost weight (although obviously there are way too many other variables there for that to be scientific).

However I've also been aiming for a ~1000/day calorie deficit since 5 Jan and I'd suggest that this has more to do with the weight loss

In my experience, there are no shortcuts when it comes to losing weight: if [Calories in]<[calories out] consistently, your weight goes down.

diy

NapoleonD wrote:

However there is a school of thought that suggests high intensity intervals cause some kind of knock on metabolic effect burning calories for a lot longer after the session has finished.

I think they call that after burn. I've no idea if its made up or not. But the aim is to up the anti towards the end of the session rather than gradually cool down.

bobmcstuff wrote:

Obviously it's a bit subjective, but I think best session I have done for that was 1h20 including 4x12 minutes "steady state" (92-94% MHR). This is also on paper the hardest turbo session I've done, in terms of the "calorie burn" on my Garmin (am aware this is basically just an educated guess), Sufferfest "Suffer Score", and the rate I lost weight (although obviously there are way too many other variables there for that to be scientific).

Interesting so a flat hard workout gives you more burn that bumping up to Vo2Max, short recovery and off again?

cougie

I really think the key thing is to watch what you're eating. Get something like MyFitnessPal and record your calories.
A hard turbo session of an hour is probably around 600 calories for me. I could easily eat 600 calories extra in 5 minutes - no bother. Trying to drop fat on exercise alone will be almost impossible.

napoleond

cougie wrote:

I really think the key thing is to watch what you're eating. Get something like MyFitnessPal and record your calories.
A hard turbo session of an hour is probably around 600 calories for me. I could easily eat 600 calories extra in 5 minutes - no bother. Trying to drop fat on exercise alone will be almost impossible.

This. Definitely this.

timben83

It's most definitely a combination of the two.

There is also the fasted training school of thought. I'm fat and am working hard on loosing weight. 5 kilos in a couple of weeks so far. Trainerroad base as I'm also coming back from injury. But eating very little to nothing before hand an refueling with light snacks on the way.

HIIT usually also does the trick.

sloppyschleckonds

timben83 wrote:

It's most definitely a combination of the two.

There is also the fasted training school of thought. I'm fat and am working hard on loosing weight. 5 kilos in a couple of weeks so far. Trainerroad base as I'm also coming back from injury. But eating very little to nothing before hand an refueling with light snacks on the way.

HIIT usually also does the trick.

Jesus wept. There is so much wrong with this its not worth correcting.

sloppyschleckonds

bobmcstuff wrote:

As somebody who has lost 5.5kg since 5 January by doing a lot of turbo sessions I feel I can comment (also a bit of running, swimming and some rides in the real world). I also lost 12.2kg through 2014, with most of that falling between May and September (peak cycling season).

However I've also been aiming for a ~1000/day calorie deficit since 5 Jan and I'd suggest that this has more to do with the weight loss

In my experience, there are no shortcuts when it comes to losing weight: if [Calories in]<[calories out] consistently, your weight goes down.

Call me cynical, but taking fat loss advise from obese people is sheer stupidity.

bobmcstuff

Unfortunately for you I'm not obese by any measure (middle of healthy BMI now) and never was according to my BMI.

I can see you're a notorious troller on here, but exactly what part of "eat less and do more exercise " do you disagree with?

wavefront

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

timben83 wrote:

It's most definitely a combination of the two.

There is also the fasted training school of thought. I'm fat and am working hard on loosing weight. 5 kilos in a couple of weeks so far. Trainerroad base as I'm also coming back from injury. But eating very little to nothing before hand an refueling with light snacks on the way.

HIIT usually also does the trick.

Jesus wept. There is so much wrong with this its not worth correcting.

I love these forums, everyone contributes so much. I even learnt a new slang phrase tonight...(what SS is) and looked up whether you should say learnt or learned. I also read about the origins of why Jesus was weeping. Tonight has been truly educational!

bobmcstuff

diy wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Obviously it's a bit subjective, but I think best session I have done for that was 1h20 including 4x12 minutes "steady state" (92-94% MHR). This is also on paper the hardest turbo session I've done, in terms of the "calorie burn" on my Garmin (am aware this is basically just an educated guess), Sufferfest "Suffer Score", and the rate I lost weight (although obviously there are way too many other variables there for that to be scientific).

Interesting so a flat hard workout gives you more burn that bumping up to Vo2Max, short recovery and off again?

Yeah, I reckon so, but like I say it's pretty unscientific. It's probably more because 4x12 is 48 minutes worth which is quite a lot at that HR. Sufferfest seems to wind up having comparatively more stuff below threshold even if it has loads of hard bits.

But as above, it only works for weight loss if you also control what you're eating.

meanredspider

I'll contribute what I onow: that there's no "right answer". An ex-colleague is developing tests to be able to measure the fat and carbs that you burned through IVD. He's invited me to visit their labs in the spring - I'll share what I find out.

I've suggested it before (and got the usual ignorant responses from people that don't have a clue) but it's interesting to see what your blood glucose levels do during exercise (and generally through the day). Meters are pretty cheap (with some starter strips - like printer ink, the replacement strips get expensive). But it does give you a clue as to why eating little and often is a good weight loss strategy (avoiding sugar spikes and subsequent insulin spikes) and what your liver does when you start exercising etc (and, why exercising fasted, is, to my mind, a bit of a nonsense for lots of us: the first thing that happens when you start to exercise is that your liver pumps out a load of glycogen - how that promotes fat burning, is a mystery to me: all it does is depletes your glycogen)

The bottom line, though, is that we're all different.

And, whilst it's true that it's all about calories in vs calories out (like giving up smoking is just not lighting another fag), there are less effective and more effective ways of doing it.

bobmcstuff

cougie wrote:

I really think the key thing is to watch what you're eating. Get something like MyFitnessPal and record your calories.
A hard turbo session of an hour is probably around 600 calories for me. I could easily eat 600 calories extra in 5 minutes - no bother. Trying to drop fat on exercise alone will be almost impossible.

I agree with that, but mentally I find it much easier to (say) burn 3000 and eat 2000 than to sit around doing nothing and only get to eat 1000 calories. Plus riding my bike or running are both more fun than sitting around doing nothing.

diy

Some interesting thoughts, not least the challenge of how the hell you measure it. The diet advice is all sound but off topic (and I'm also not fat either). I'm interested in how someone would make a genuine "the best fat burning spin/turbo workout", rather than all the BS that comes from the fitness industry.

Given that you can change the ratio of carbs/fat using different zones, I was wondering if hitting it as hard as you can to get max calories burnt probably 80% from carbs 20% fat would result in more overall fat than using some recoveries, which would increase the ratio of fat burned. Also would you get more calories out doing this as you might be able to go harder during the work zones.

I think I will do some experiments and see how much total calories I can knock out on an FTP type test vs. an Interval test over the same duration. If I am off on the HIIT test calorie wise then I'd have to massively make up in the ratio of fat vs carbs. If the recoveries allow me to go harder, during the work phase, such that my overall calories are about the same, then I might be on to a winner.

cougie

I'd definitely say its easier to exercise to give yourself extra calories to eat rather than not exercise and just watch what you're eat.

If I'm bored - I'll be in the kitchen every few minutes. If I'm running or cycling - well all that time I'm not near the kitchen cupboards. :-)

bobmcstuff

meanredspider wrote:

And, whilst it's true that it's all about calories in vs calories out (like giving up smoking is just not lighting another fag), there are less effective and more effective ways of doing it.

Yeah, I do agree with that - and I have plenty of tricks to try and feel fuller, eating little and often etc - but IMO the danger of this comes in the extreme when some people place too much weight on certain methods or foods and then you end up with fad diets. I don't think this is a problem if people are sensible but you do see some wacky stuff out there and some right BS too, e.g., that Gillian McKeith (or whatever her name was) put out some absolute rubbish that was pretty mainstream for a while a few years back.

I feel that the best thing to do is to look at ways of reducing your overall calorie intake first. Personally I had plenty of "easy wins" like cutting out midweek beer, stopping drinking fancy coffee, switching snacks to fruit and so on, which made a massive difference without even thinking about anything more complex.

diy

Choosing a diet is personal, but we all have the same question to answer - Can I do this for the rest of my life? If yes its a good diet, if no its not going to be that great. For me intermittent fasting was the answer. 1. Its not hard to restrict your diet 1 or 2 days a week, 2 its supposed to really be about Growth factor and cholesterol reduction. It hasn't caused me any problems with cycling, in fact its helped increase my Vo2 Max as well as drop a few lbs. Its not so great with my other sports which require a bit of growth hormone.

team47b

meanredspider wrote:

I've suggested it before (and got the usual ignorant responses from people that don't have a clue) but it's interesting to see what your blood glucose levels do during exercise (and generally through the day). Meters are pretty cheap (with some starter strips - like printer ink, the replacement strips get expensive). But it does give you a clue as to why eating little and often is a good weight loss strategy (avoiding sugar spikes and subsequent insulin spikes) and what your liver does when you start exercising etc (and, why exercising fasted, is, to my mind, a bit of a nonsense for lots of us: the first thing that happens when you start to exercise is that your liver pumps out a load of glycogen - how that promotes fat burning, is a mystery to me: all it does is depletes your glycogen)

Completely correct.

If you exercise whilst blood glucose is going down your liver will flood your system with glycogen and then your pancreas will produce excess insulin. One of insulin's roles is to store fat, it will take some of this glycogen and store it as fat. The last thing you want to be doing when you are exercising is storing more fat. Eat carbs before exercise to allow your system the opportunity to run normally ie burning glucose, glycogen and fat as fuel in varying proportions dependent on level/duration of exercise.

napoleond

Part of me reckons all this diet stuff is boll0cks.

Anyhoo, what's the best wheelset for a 100kg cat4 racer?

diy

I'd agree that you need a small amount of carbs before doing any sort of high intensity training. Is the insulin glycogen issue to do with intensity levels? I read that bonk training is all about fat burning, but it is lower intensity and the aim is to train when glycogen is low.

e.g. http://www.superskinnyme.com/bonk-training.html

ollie51

You need to remember that whilst the carb:fat ratio increases with intensity, the actual amount of fat used stays fairly constant across aerobic intensities, with CHO varying (i.e. increased use with intensity). So if you have an hour, full gas for an hour would probably yield the highest amount a calories from fatty sources.

rollemynot

NapoleonD wrote:

Part of me reckons all this diet stuff is boll0cks.

Anyhoo, what's the best wheelset for a 100kg cat4 racer?

HANDBUILT

ai_1

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

....Call me cynical, but taking fat loss advise from obese people is sheer stupidity.

Taking it from people who have never been obese and lost the weight is no better.
Neither state indicates an understanding or relevant experience in the field. Equally either could be very competent to give the advice. The knowledge is academic, anecdotes from personal experience are of very limited value whoever they come from.

keef66

I find it perverse that advice on weight loss and fitness is frequently dispensed by people who clearly struggle with both themselves. My wife was recently referred to a physiotherapist who was apparently overweight and of limited mobility!

That's why I suppose I find Michael Mosely and his 5:2 diet and HIIT exercise so compelling; he's actually doing them himself.

ai_1

keef66 wrote:

I find it perverse that advice on weight loss and fitness is frequently dispensed by people who clearly struggle with both themselves....

My point was that someone who's always been in good shape is no better qualified to advise on weight loss than someone who's overweight. In many ways the overweight person is likely to at least understand the difficulties better. Many people who've never been overweight seem to consider the solution simple and can be quite disparaging of anyone who ends up overweight. In fact I think the previous comment regarding not taking advice from someone obese confirms this. Someone who has lost weight successfully in the past may have some advantage BUT their experience is not necessarily transferable to your case... So basically if you know the theory great. If you have personal experience, fine, it may or may not be relevant or helpful. Whether you are currently slim or obese is largely irrelevant.

Chunky101

keef66 wrote:

I find it perverse that advice on weight loss and fitness is frequently dispensed by people who clearly struggle with both themselves. My wife was recently referred to a physiotherapist who was apparently overweight and of limited mobility!

How do you work that out? I was 100lbs heavier than I am now and morbidly obese. I educated myself, worked hard and lost the weight and have kept it off for 3 years and counting. Someone who is overweight is far more likely to thoroughly research the subject and educate themselves than a thin bloke with little knowledge on the subject.

keef66

Chunky101 wrote:

keef66 wrote:

I find it perverse that advice on weight loss and fitness is frequently dispensed by people who clearly struggle with both themselves. My wife was recently referred to a physiotherapist who was apparently overweight and of limited mobility!

How do you work that out? I was 100lbs heavier than I am now and morbidly obese. I educated myself, worked hard and lost the weight and have kept it off for 3 years and counting. Someone who is overweight is far more likely to thoroughly research the subject and educate themselves than a thin bloke with little knowledge on the subject.

Well done on the weight loss. I probably would take advice from you given your history and success in losing / maintaining weight. I just think it's basic human nature to regard with suspicion advice dispensed by someone who clearly doesn't follow it themselves. It's not logical; an obese, wheezing 40 a day smoker might have some nuggets of wisdom on wellbeing, but I'm much more likely to be swayed by somebody who is practicing what they preach.

bahzob

Back to OP Dieting and weight loss can be a tricky subject, largely due to the wide variation between people, which means that what works for one person doesn't for another.

However one thing that does not alter is the basic physical law about conservation of energy. If you output more power then your body needs to burn more metabolically to provide the energy for this.

If therefore
> You want to lose weight
> Your training time is limited (equal to or less than 2 hours per day)

>> The best way to lose weight is forget "fat burning zones" and go as hard as you can for the full session with the objective of burning as many calories as possible, consuming little/no carbs during the workout and othewise eating a "normal" diet with majority of carbs being low GI.

This way when you rest and eat carbs they will go to replenish your glycogen stores. On the other hand if you just do "fat burning" the carbs you eat will just be converted into more fat especially if they are high GI.

Apart from burning more calories this approach will also make you fitter so that over time you end up doing even more work and thus use up even more, up to and beyond 1000kcal/hour is possible.

If your training time is unlimited then and only then will you have the option of doing real "fat burning" rides of 3+hours with only limited carb intake.

The same general principle applies outside of training. If you want to lose weight you need to get more active so your body has use what you eat as an energy source rather than save for a rainy day that never comes.

So get into the habit of at least once per hour doing some sort of exercise even if it just getting out of your chair and walking around for a few minutes.


(FWIW this advice has been the mainstay of losing 20kg 10 years ago and staying at around 70kg(1.74m tall) while still enjoying eating good food and drinking excellent beer since then.)