Calorie Loss Flat/Hilly

I`ve been back on the bike now for 2 1/2 years, lost 15kg but stuck at 77kg (5`7") with the extra kg`s around the waist!!

Started on the 5:2 three weeks ago fasting on Monday and Thursday and it`s amazing what we can do on so little amount of calories... I ride a flat (live in Holland) 52km round trip commute to work on an empty stomach 3 days per week in zone D1 with a longer ride at weekends, so averaging approx. 10 hours per week.

First week lost 2kg and haven`t lost a lb since but I`ll stick with it!! Dropped alcohol consumption to a two glasses of wine at the weekend and cut out crisps and other sh1t altogether but tbh I had expected weight loss to be more though at 46 I realise that getting down to 10 stone (10kg weight loss) is never going to happen though I will try to stick this out for the winter until the racing season starts next February and see how much I can lose!!

It`s certainly interesting to read other people`s take on the whole exercise/diet debate

thebikeboy16 wrote:

IMO and it is just an opinion because I don't know very much it is a bad idea to diet while increasing miles. Isn't high intensity training the best way to burn fat?

The best way to "burn" fat is to expend more energy than you consume.

bobmcstuff wrote:

I thought consensus was that steady miles were the best way to burn fat, not HIIT. Although I favour the "calories out>calories in" approach, keep it simple.

There is no 'fat burning' zone anywhere, in reality. If weight loss is the aim, then you just need to be able to burn as much energy as possible in the time you have available. That might be five hours, in which case you will need to regulate your effort level to last five hours - or it might be one hour, in which case a higher intensity would have a similar effect. I think there is some evidence to suggest that a higher intensity is more effective in burning calories, as the process continues well into the recovery phase.

fat daddy wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I thought consensus was that steady miles were the best way to burn fat, not HIIT. Although I favour the "calories out>calories in" approach, keep it simple.

Well in some ways that is correct, but its been misinterpreted. The body does burn a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities than at higher intensities. At lower intensities the body may burn 45 percent of the calories from fat, while at higher intensities it may only burn 35 percent. ... but you burn more calories at higher intensities. .. ergo you loose more fat the more you do.

If you walk for 1hr, you will burn 200kcal and 50% will be fat ...... if you run for an hour only 35% will be burning fat .... but 35% of 1000cals

Yes that's what I was getting at by "best", best ratio of calories from fat.

I generally do intervals simply because of the time I have available.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Yes that's what I was getting at by "best", best ratio of calories from fat.

Best for what though?

Irrespective of the fuel substrate proportions used during exercise, what matters is the overall energy balance.

Best in terms of the highest % of calories from fat. I have seen it recommended in many places that steady exercise is better for fat loss for this reason. I don't agree with that.

Instead I agree with you; even if it was possible for all of the calories burnt to come from glycogen rather than fat, I've still burnt those calories and they still ultimately come from food, so it is the overall energy balance which matters.