The best Fat burner on a Spin/Turbo?
Comments
-
I'd generally agree with your post but I'm wondering about something. I'm not sure about this as I've never really paid close attention, but does high intensity exercise tend to make us crave high energy food more than an equal energy usage through lower intensity over a longer time? I agree with you that high intensity is needed to use large amounts of energy in the amount of time available to most of us but if the result is increased appetite for high energy foods making it very difficult to maintain a healthy diet then a high intensity strategy may ultimately be counterproductive for weight loss.bahzob wrote:>> 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...
I'd be interested in your opinions on this. I'm trying to recall when I've been most successful at limiting intake of high energy foods. I think it's generally been early in the year when I was doing mostly easy miles rather than periods when I was doing lots of higher intensity riding.
Has anyone noticed how popular diet coke is among those trying to lose weight? It's seen as low calorie and therefore compatible with weight loss. However what really happens is you eat or drink sweet food/drink, your brain registers the taste and expects an influx of calorific food. It never gets it. So there's a taste/content mismatch and you start craving more sweetness to satisfy the calorie deficit. Next step? Stuffing your face with the fattiest, sweetest foods available. I think "diet" foods are a really dangerous approach to weight loss. Naturally healthy food is fine because the taste matches the content, but when artificial sweeteners etc are used it can cause a lot of problems.
I'd agree with the general consensus here that food intake is more important than energy output through exercise when it comes to weight loss although both are obviously relevant.0 -
i don't agree with 'fat burning zones' as well but staying at the same pace (whether all out or at a comfortable speed) for the full 35-45min isn't the best way to burn fat from what i've learnt and hard to achieve (as well as more chance of picking up an injury if going all out)
just like anything the more repetition, the more your body learns to adapt
you want to shock the body and surprise it so it hits your fat stores as much as possible, the perfect way to do this (imo) is HIIT as mentioned above, interval training is great for workouts in limited timescales as well, giving it 110% for a period and then a rest period to bring your heart rate down and hitting it hard again and repeating works well and is more realistic than giving it 110% and trying to keep it up for 45min0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
Come on now. There's no such thing as giving it 110%. 100 is the most available out of 100. Let's try an keep this factual.calum001 wrote:...giving it 110%....
my sincere apologies, in light of that it would not be advisable to give a full 100% either as that woud push you to breaking point
so sounding like a parent on their kids sports day at school........just do the best you can0 -
"I'd agree with the general consensus here that food intake is more important than energy output through exercise when it comes to weight loss although both are obviously relevant."
Too right. Unless you have time to walk across the arctic circle or cycle round the world, restricting calorie intake is the most effective way of losing / controlling weight.
Every Christmas I put on about 5kg in the space of a fortnight because I eat and drink like a pig. This doesn't unduly worry me because usually it's gone by now, but this year I've lost almost nothing. I think I've reached an age where weight loss is harder than it used to be
.
So I've started on the (Michael Mosely) fast diet* . Mondays and Thursdays I'll eat / drink nothing calorific till the evening, and then only a 600 calorie meal. The other 5 days I'll eat normally but sensibly. I know from previous experience this works for me; I can cope with being hungry for 2 days a week, and if / when I reach my target weight I'll drop that to just 1 day a week. This should be even easier, help maintain a healthy weight, and also continue give the other health benefits associated with intermittent fasting.
* it's called a diet but I'm intending to stick to it permanently, so it's really a lifestyle change.0 -
I'd say you're using the word appropriately. Nothing in the word "diet" indicates an emergency intervention that will either be shelved when the objective is achieved or abandoned mid way for some other reason. A diet is just what you eat. A "diet" on the other hand seems to be a short term plan to quickly address a perceived problem. Sometimes sensible and well thought out but more often ridiculous and driven entirely by media hype and celebrity endorsement rather than sound nutritional/medical reasoning.keef66 wrote:* it's called a diet but I'm intending to stick to it permanently, so it's really a lifestyle change.0 -
Just to point out the original post was not about weight loss and dieting. I'm also a big fan of the 5:2 (been doing it nearly 3 years) not such a fan of his "fast Exercise" as I think he convinced a lot of fatties thar 3 mins, 3 days a week is all you need.
The goal of this thread is to find the best fat burner workout. i.e. which type of exercise (cycling obviously) will result in the most fat burned. not calories consumed or lb removed.
The primary choice seems to be between an high output FTP test type workout vs a HIIT workout. Both will yeild EPOC, so its really which will burn the most during and trigger the highest O2 debt to force increased O2 during recovery.
I've been playing with some 20 min tests and while not scientific (due to other exercise/recovery) I'm of the opinion that the constant high output is working better. HR recovery took longer which would suggest better EPOC.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
I'd say you're using the word appropriately. Nothing in the word "diet" indicates an emergency intervention that will either be shelved when the objective is achieved or abandoned mid way for some other reason. A diet is just what you eat. A "diet" on the other hand seems to be a short term plan to quickly address a perceived problem. Sometimes sensible and well thought out but more often ridiculous and driven entirely by media hype and celebrity endorsement rather than sound nutritional/medical reasoning.keef66 wrote:* it's called a diet but I'm intending to stick to it permanently, so it's really a lifestyle change.
As a biologist I agree with you. Diet is simply what you eat / drink. The term has unfortunately been hijacked to the extent that to most people it conjours up something extreme / temporary / unsustainable.0 -
diy wrote:Just to point out the original post was not about weight loss and dieting. I'm also a big fan of the 5:2 (been doing it nearly 3 years) not such a fan of his "fast Exercise" as I think he convinced a lot of fatties thar 3 mins, 3 days a week is all you need.
You still doing 5:2 or have you tapered to 6:1 like Dr Mosely?
Unfortunately his 3 x 3 mins of HIIT did produce some measurable results; like you I'm not sure he's done anyone any favours by publicising the fact though.
I generally find time for 2 midweek evening rides of about an hour; your little trial would seem to suggest that the time honoured 2 x 20 intervals would be the best way of filling them?0 -
I'm 6:1 most weeks - with a sort of mini second day 1000 calories, though after a bit of a boozy xmas I had a go at the 3 day fast. I was going strong up until June, but my weight was getting too low. I didn't do it to loose weight, I did it to lower cholestrol, IGF etc. 68kg is not a good look for me (I'm 43) - I look better around 71-72 (5'9). Plus I'm a bit of a tart so enjoy weights too.
I've has some good results from a cycling point of view, though its been hard trying to build some muscles due to the lower growth hormone factor. Really helped my endurance as I often trained pretty hard on a fasting day.
You do need to up the protien after fasting day to avoid losing muscle and of course there is always the risk of going silly on the 5 days and eating a really high saturated fat diet, because you can get away with it.
I do a macro diet on the day after fasting day, to protect the muscles a bit. for fasting day I go the whole day without anything - then I'll go for a dry fried egg before hitting the gym (or 35g of porridge). I keep my training to under 2 hours on fasting days, I'll then either have a salad or soup.0 -
diy wrote:The goal of this thread is to find the best fat burner workout. i.e. which type of exercise (cycling obviously) will result in the most fat burned. not calories consumed or lb removed.
I think that's going to be tough bordering on impossible, simply because there's so many other variables involved.
I can answer which give the best calorie burn figures using my Garmin (which uses the Firstbeat algorithm, according to DCRainmaker the best available HR-based method but still with some inaccuracy), but saying which burnt the most fat specifically is nigh on impossible because it is so dependent on what you've eaten that day and so on. And isolating fat loss from the other variables is also pretty much impossible (e.g., you could just be more dehydrated at weigh in).
All I can say with any degree of certainty is what my weight change has been (69.5kg now down from 75.5kg Jan 5th 2015 and 88kg Jan 1st 2014
), the mix of turbo/road riding/running and the amount I've eaten. Beyond that I can make a judgement about what type of workout has been the most successful (I think hard turbo threshold or over/under interval sessions) but it's bound to be pretty subjective. 0 -
4 years ago I was around 98kg having stopped running a few years earlier and put on a few kg. I started cycling with no particular attention to diet at first and dropped to around 92kg easily. Then over the next year or so I was down to about 88kg. And the last two years I get down to 85 or 86kg in summer and then rise to 90kg at Christmas. Gradually drifting up and down, not wild fluctuations. Once your weight has been up a bit your body doesn't like to assign a lower setpoint again unfortunately. However since last summer I've been pretty fixed at 86/87 only rising 1 or 2kg at Christmas and I intend to get to a more ideal weight for both cycling and running (the bike is more forgiving except on the steep hills but running would really reward a bit more weight reduction!). I've gotten to 85kg so far with just a little care not to eat much chocolate and crisps and drinking relatively little alcohol. My target is <83.5kg by April when I run my first marathon and <81kg by August when I do my first Ironman 70.3. We'll see.
Initially I'm just going to try and eat sensibly and limit my chocolate, crisps, bread and cheese intake. These are definitely the biggest offenders. If that's not sufficient I might try some other options such as those you're mentioning. On the plus side I really prefer lower GI "good" food. It's the convenience factor that often gets me. So a little planning and pre-preparation of food might be enough to make this do-able. Of course all the training for the half Ironman might help too.0 -
calum001 wrote:i don't agree with 'fat burning zones' as well but staying at the same pace (whether all out or at a comfortable speed) for the full 35-45min isn't the best way to burn fat from what i've learnt and hard to achieve (as well as more chance of picking up an injury if going all out)
just like anything the more repetition, the more your body learns to adapt
you want to shock the body and surprise it so it hits your fat stores as much as possible, the perfect way to do this (imo) is HIIT as mentioned above, interval training is great for workouts in limited timescales as well, giving it 110% for a period and then a rest period to bring your heart rate down and hitting it hard again and repeating works well and is more realistic than giving it 110% and trying to keep it up for 45min
I agree. Elsewhere on this forum I have posted an over/under session that allows you to add a lot of variety to your workouts and keep them interesting. This is an example, it burns 1000kcal per hour. https://app.strava.com/activities/243530337 Apart from being a great calorie burner it is also a good way to focus on other aspects of cycling such as cadence/technique.
This will burn far more calories than HIIT. Doing these will burn next to no fat since they are above threshold where near 100% of the energy comes from carbohydrate and will be more effective if losing weight is your prime goal.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:diy wrote:The goal of this thread is to find the best fat burner workout. i.e. which type of exercise (cycling obviously) will result in the most fat burned. not calories consumed or lb removed.
I think that's going to be tough bordering on impossible, simply because there's so many other variables involved.
Its more difficult than that, it is a meaningless question and asking it shows a fundamental misunderstanding that is the reason many fail at losing weight and keeping it lost.
It is a bit like asking how can I spend the most money, writing a cheque or taking money out of a cash machine? One will debit your account more quickly but in the long run both will be equal.
Physics trumps diet fashion every day. The way to "burn" fat is increase the amount of work you get your body to do and reduce/improve the mix of energy you provide it with in the form of food.
So if you are going to the trouble of doing a "workout" with the objective of losing weight then the objective is simple, burn as many calories as you can. If this is not your goal then you would be much better off not wasting 60 minutes or whatever on a "workout" but rather spend 5 minutes per hour doing some sort of activity that gets you to breathe heavily.
As a specific example. If you spend significant amount sat in front of a TV then you will burn far more fat simply by doing some sort of exercise at the same time. Just standing rather than sitting will make a difference. At the other extreme get an exercise bike and set it up so you can watch TV while pedalling. This will shift fat faster than going to the gym and doing "fat burning" "workouts" then coming home and collapsing on the sofa.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
'Its not a missunderstand of how fat burning works, I get that probably the best workout is going to be one that consumes the most calories and gives the best EPOC effect. Then you have to look at how you get the body to burn fat instead of carbs. What if there aren't any available carbs because you have say fasted for 4-6 hours or so before training? I'm just looking for out of the box thinking. There is a school of thought that glycogen depletion increases fat burning, but then other studies say you get an insulin response which causes you to store fat, so I guess you are looking at a scenario that increases the rate of fat / carbs without kicking off excessive fat storing as part of the recovery.
but an interestin point - almost every commercial training plan claims to be a "fat burner".0 -
Sort of off topic but kind of interesting.
My missus has a fungal infection on her hands and feet for many years now and after chatting with a friend of mine she decided to change her diet. The idea being that the fungal feeds on sugar so you have to try and starve it so that it dies off.
As a result she has cut out sugar, very low carb intake - no rice, no pasta, no potatoes,no milk and definitely no wheat. She can consume cream (she has loads of this!!), full fat greek yoghurt, berry fruits only, meat, veggies, cheese, eggs, fish and lots of nuts. She does no exercise other than running around after the two children. Over the past 7 months she's lost almost a stone going from 9 1/2 down to 8 1/2 (she's 5 ft 5). She is never hungry and seems immune to colds.
I know there is simple view of calories in versus calories out but as cyclist always trying to shed the odd pound here and there, I've been sort of amazed at what has happened to the wife. Furthermore, she had some blood tests done at the doctors as part of her 40 health check. The nurse knew what she ate from her blood and said she's in great health.
Personally, I've tried the purported zone 2 fat burning sessions on the turbo but they are mind numbing and I tend to bail early. I much prefer doing intervals and/or riding around FTP for an hour. As my fitness improves, I don't seem to struggle doing sessions like this all the time. If I eat rubbish, that's when I tend to struggle on the turbo the most.0 -
" The nurse knew what she ate from her blood and said she's in great health"
I'd be interested to know what kind of blood test reveals what you've been eating?0 -
You can tell quite a lot by the content of your blood.
Many types of Cancer, high cholestrol, diabetes, viruses, hormone issues, problems with major organs.0 -
There's a huge genetic aspect to body weight. I don't just mean you're born with genes that mean you'll be slim or obese. Genes being switched on or off is hereditary but gene activity levels can vary. There have been some relatively recent studies showing that different foods and proportions of foods in diet, can raise or depress these activity levels. The study showed that genes known to be connected with inflammation, diabetes, heart disease, weight, some cancers and Alzheimers could be effected by the proportions of carbohydrate, fat and protein in the diet. And the effect was fast taking only a few days. Their recommendation was that low carb and high carb diets are both wrong and the ideal balance seems to be a diet based on about 1/3 carbohydrates, 1/3 protein and 1/3 fat. So while the simple version of using an energy deficit to lose weight has some truth to it, it's certainly not the whole story. It looks like we're still fairly early in figuring out most of what that full story is. I for one will be trying to eat a bit less but mostly cutting back on carbohydrates which I was already aware form too big a proportion of my diet. Bread, cereal and sugars are just too damn convenient and more-ish!bisoner wrote:Sort of off topic but kind of interesting.
My missus has a fungal infection on her hands and feet for many years now and after chatting with a friend of mine she decided to change her diet. The idea being that the fungal feeds on sugar so you have to try and starve it so that it dies off.
As a result she has cut out sugar, very low carb intake - no rice, no pasta, no potatoes,no milk and definitely no wheat. She can consume cream (she has loads of this!!), full fat greek yoghurt, berry fruits only, meat, veggies, cheese, eggs, fish and lots of nuts. She does no exercise other than running around after the two children. Over the past 7 months she's lost almost a stone going from 9 1/2 down to 8 1/2 (she's 5 ft 5). She is never hungry and seems immune to colds.
I know there is simple view of calories in versus calories out but as cyclist always trying to shed the odd pound here and there, I've been sort of amazed at what has happened to the wife. Furthermore, she had some blood tests done at the doctors as part of her 40 health check. The nurse knew what she ate from her blood and said she's in great health.
Personally, I've tried the purported zone 2 fat burning sessions on the turbo but they are mind numbing and I tend to bail early. I much prefer doing intervals and/or riding around FTP for an hour. As my fitness improves, I don't seem to struggle doing sessions like this all the time. If I eat rubbish, that's when I tend to struggle on the turbo the most.0 -
Thats a lot of fat in your diet. If you are on a constant fixed diet, I'd look at something nearer 40% carbs, 40% protein and 20% fat macro-nutrients . If you are looking to support muscle growth.0
-
By modern "healthy" diet standards 1/3 fat is very high but historically I'm not sure if it is. Bear in mind this study was not aimed specifically at weight loss, muscle development or any other priority. It was purely looking at the impact of balance of nutrition between the 3 food categories on gene activity with a view to how this would effect general health.diy wrote:Thats a lot of fat in your diet. If you are on a constant fixed diet, I'd look at something nearer 40% carbs, 40% protein and 20% fat macro-nutrients . If you are looking to support muscle growth.
On the other hand, why not equal parts fat, carbs and protein? I would have thought that's more than enough protein for muscle development and repair?0 -
Depends if you are male or female and your age etc.. Then you've got genetic risks to cardio vascular issues etc. etc.
I guess if you eat the right quantity then its ok, but its a lot easier to consume 100kcal of fat than 100kcal of protein.0 -
One of the issues that the previosuly mentioned study was getting at is that eating less fat is not necessarily the best way to avoid cardio vascular issues. Heart disease linked genes appeared to be positively impacted by a balanced intake of the 3 food categories. This perhaps suggests a possible explanation of the French Paradox. i.e. the french tend to eat lots of high fat foods including lots of saturated fats and yet have very high average mortality rates.diy wrote:Depends if you are male or female and your age etc.. Then you've got genetic risks to cardio vascular issues etc. etc.....0 -
diy wrote:You can tell quite a lot by the content of your blood.
Many types of Cancer, high cholestrol, diabetes, viruses, hormone issues, problems with major organs.
I'm aware that there are blood tests that screen for all manner of things. I've had many of them myself.
I was perhaps a little tongue in cheek asking specifically about the claim that the blood tests revealed what she'd been eating0
