# Eating carbs in-ride and weight loss



## MattHB (17 Feb 2012)

Ok, I know there just has to be a thread on this but I can't find it.

Having done lots of reading about needing to take on carbs for fuel ups after 90-120 minutes of riding to avoid the dreaded bonk I think I've got this to a fairly balanced level. 

My worry is this. Does taking on carbs in-ride reduce potential fat loss?

If so is it better to avoid long rides where you need to refuel and stick to shorter rides which won't use up stored glycogen? Or is it more efficient to ride longer and rely on the metabolism overdrive which carries on after you stop?

Or am I misunderstanding the whole yard of cake?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (17 Feb 2012)

MattHB said:


> My worry is this. Does taking on carbs in-ride reduce potential fat loss?


No. Diet deficit and calories out vs calories in makes the biggest difference.



> If so is it better to avoid long rides where you need to refuel and stick to shorter rides which won't use up stored glycogen? Or is it more efficient to ride longer and rely on the metabolism overdrive which carries on after you stop?


It all depends on the time you have available but either work. Carb up and carry on



> Or am I misunderstanding the whole yard of cake?


I'd say over-thinking


----------



## Sittingduck (17 Feb 2012)

You're thinking about it too much...

The longer the ride the more cals you will burn (assuming you are sticking to a reasonable pace). Got to be better to burn 2000 cals on a 3 hour ride and consume 500 (deficit 1500) than burning 900 in an hour at fast pace, right?

Also, I don't think you are going to bonk after 90 mins - 2hrs of cycling.


----------



## MattHB (18 Feb 2012)

Sittingduck said:


> You're thinking about it too much...
> 
> The longer the ride the more cals you will burn (assuming you are sticking to a reasonable pace). Got to be better to burn 2000 cals on a 3 hour ride and consume 500 (deficit 1500) than burning 900 in an hour at fast pace, right?
> 
> Also, I don't think you are going to bonk after 90 mins - 2hrs of cycling.



90-120mins is just what I've read really. I feel myself running out of go at about 2 hours, I tend to push quite hard and it's hilly around here.


----------



## yello (18 Feb 2012)

MattHB said:


> Does taking on carbs in-ride reduce potential fat loss?


 
It's a really good question. I think the short answer is 'yes' but I have to admit I don't really know. I think it's complex, and a detailed answer would require knowledge not only of your body chemistry but also of the processes involved.

On a hard ride (a sportive for instance), clearly you need to fuel and replace glycogen stores pretty quickly. So that points to fast acting carb. And yes,generally speaking, consuming fast carbs does lead to insulin spikes and associated fat storage (imho  ).

I think part of the problem (if you could call it a problem) is that we are not designed to be endurance athletes. We have minimal stores of glycogen that's best use is the short and intense effort. We're not built to do that over and over again over a period of hours. So on bike fuelling becomes a necessity. I think it's simply a compromise you have to except if you want to ride hard and/or long. Further, I believe that if weight loss is your prime aim, and you're serious about it, then DON'T exercise hard. Obviously, intense exercise has many, many benefits but I just don't happen to think it's conducive to loosing weight.

Obviously, a great deal depends on your levels of intensity. And clearly on the type of riding you want to do. You can keep your effort levels down on 'slow burn' long rides, and require little (or nothing) in terms of fast carb refuelling, but that's not much help if you want to work hard. The long, slow burn ride is still useful though if your aim is training to ride hard. It coaches your body to burn fat in preference to carb, preserving glycogen levels for when you need them.

I recall reading Sean Yates saying that back in his riding days when fuelling wasn't as well understood as it is today, the bonk (whilst not aimed for) was advantageous to the rides that followed. Riders felt supercharged after it. Basically, the bonk had given the body a crash course in carb deprivation. In the rides that followed, the body seemingly better protected the glycogen levels - so they were available when really needed (and riders were empty).

For the athlete that has accepted the need for on-bike fuelling via fast carb, the question is how to manage it. And here you need someone more knowledgeable than I! What I think you're aiming for is to consume only what you'll immediately burn. Trying only to keep the glycogen stores topped up and not overdosed. My naive belief is that this minimises the 'fat storage' effect of excess fast carbs. How you calculate the exact amount you'd need to take is where I've no idea! Sorry! But I think you have to accept that it IS compromise and not view your riding in weight loss terms.Weight loss is something you do via diet and not on the bike. 

Personally, I don't ride that hard so I don't require that level of sophisticated calculation. I'll happily ride 100km at an average of maybe 20-22kph on only a banana or fig roll. I'm going to be riding a sportive in April time, and for that I accept I'll probably use gels or somesuch. My aim then will be to keep to a minimum; a gel an hour sort of level.


----------



## MattHB (18 Feb 2012)

Many thanks yello, your thinking is very much the same as mine. It's a really complex subject so I've found! I do wonder if the bonk can be useful (although unpleasant) as it seems likely that taking in fast carbs almost trains your body AWAY from fat burning as it just doesn't need to.

I probably am over thinking it, but the science interests me. I have a couple of big rides coming up, a 53m sportive in April and a 100m sponsored ride in July so I need to get at least a working understanding of fuelling. But for fat loss I think I'll go water only and see just how it goes.


----------



## Lien Sdrawde (18 Feb 2012)

Great thread for us fatties.


----------



## lulubel (18 Feb 2012)

I think you're overcomplicating it. Fat/weight loss is about calories in vs calories out (with some very minor technical variations based on how your body uses different nutrients/eating at different times/etc, but these variations are so tiny that they're generally only talked about by people who are desperate to find "tricks" to lose weight rather than just eating less).

Assuming the same intensity and number of calories burned per hour, 2 x 2 hour rides will be more efficient for weight loss than 1 x 4 hour ride because you'll have to take on fuel during the 4 hour ride, which means more calories in, but the same total number of calories out.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> Assuming the same intensity and number of calories burned per hour, 2 x 2 hour rides will be more efficient for weight loss than 1 x 4 hour ride because you'll have to take on fuel during the 4 hour ride, which means more calories in, but the same total number of calories out.


You would be using the cals on the ride/recovery but the result is the same. The point to consider is if time is limited then short hard effort will burn a greater percentage of fat and be better for your cardiovascular system than long steady state cardio which is better for overall endurance but the same result.

The same applies for any sport that you can vary the intensity of so I purposely didn't mention cycling


----------



## lulubel (18 Feb 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You would be using the cals on the ride/recovery but the result is the same.


 
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand what you mean. We might be saying the same thing! Here's an example of what I meant.

Say I usually eat 2000 cals a day if I don't exercise.
If I go for a 2 hour cycle ride (burning 400 cals an hour), I might have a 200 cal snack when I get home, plus my usual 2000 cals.
If I go for a 4 hour cycle ride (burning 400 cals an hour), I could have 400 cals during the ride, 200 cals when I get home, plus my usual 2000 cals.

On that basis, if I'm cycling every day, 4 hour rides would be better for weight loss. I'm burning an extra 800 cals, but only consuming an extra 400.

But if all I can manage is 4 hours over 2 days, it's better for weight loss to do it in 2 rides of 2 hours (one each day) than 1 ride of 4 hours and nothing on the other day.

I agree that you burn more calories if you work harder (ie running for a certain length of time burns more calories than walking for the same length of time).


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand what you mean. We might be saying the same thing! Here's an example of what I meant.
> 
> Say I usually eat 2000 cals a day if I don't exercise.
> If I go for a 2 hour cycle ride (burning 400 cals an hour), I might have a 200 cal snack when I get home, plus my usual 2000 cals.
> ...


I struggle to find words sometimes  But you said what I was trying to :P


----------



## lulubel (18 Feb 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> I struggle to find words sometimes


 
I have the opposite problem


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> I have the opposite problem


----------



## MattHB (18 Feb 2012)

I'm not talking about deficits, I'm suggesting that by preventing bonk by fuelling midride, we train our bodies AWAY from fat metabolising by giving it another option. Sure the body can't convert enough fat to sugar fast enough, but I'm trying it's burning some of it, and forcing it to use that as an energy source rather than the quick fix sugar we feed it with bars, gels and drinks.


----------



## lukesdad (18 Feb 2012)

Intake calculation is the key, excess carbs and protein will be converted to fat by the body and it takes energy to do it.
So in answer to your question cals in higher than cals out equals fat.


----------



## col (18 Feb 2012)

Excess protein doesnt store as fat, the body gets rid of what isnt needed er naturaly


----------



## lukesdad (18 Feb 2012)

col said:


> Excess protein doesnt store as fat, the body gets rid of what isnt needed er naturaly


Im afraid it doesn t.


----------



## col (18 Feb 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Im afraid it doesn t.


 Ok Ill stand corrected


----------



## lulubel (18 Feb 2012)

MattHB said:


> I'm not talking about deficits, I'm suggesting that by preventing bonk by fuelling midride, we train our bodies AWAY from fat metabolising by giving it another option. Sure the body can't convert enough fat to sugar fast enough, but I'm trying it's burning some of it, and forcing it to use that as an energy source rather than the quick fix sugar we feed it with bars, gels and drinks.


 
And I still say you're overcomplicating the situation. If you don't give your body enough fuel to cover your activity, it has no choice but to metabolise fat to make up the deficit. From the point of view of weight loss (which I believe is what we're discussing here) it doesn't matter whether fat metabolism takes place during the ride or at some other time, as long as it happens. If you've moved on to talk about increasing endurance, then I agree that it's important to improve your body's ability to use fat as fuel during rides.

The only thing I can think of that I've read concerning not preventing bonk is from a running perspective. Runners use the term "hitting the wall" to describe what cyclings call "bonking", and the only research that I know of (with marathon runners) found that runners who have hit the wall once have an increased likelihood of doing so again - and often at an earlier stage - in a future marathon compared to runners who have never hit the wall. This suggests that it doesn't produce any improvement in fat burning capacity, in fact probably the reverse.


----------



## lukesdad (18 Feb 2012)

MattHB said:


> I'm not talking about deficits, I'm suggesting that by preventing bonk by fuelling midride, we train our bodies AWAY from fat metabolising by giving it another option. Sure the body can't convert enough fat to sugar fast enough, but I'm trying it's burning some of it, and forcing it to use that as an energy source rather than the quick fix sugar we feed it with bars, gels and drinks.


Are you trying to avoid the 'Bonk' or loose weight may I ask ?


----------



## MattHB (19 Feb 2012)

Loose weight.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (19 Feb 2012)

col said:


> Ok Ill stand corrected


If it's not burned directly to build/repair muscle fibre/for energy a process called "gluconeogenisis" happens,this process turns protein into glucose.

The human kidneys are very efficient at preventing protein loss through urination,it's as much as myth as unicorns.


----------



## MattHB (19 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> And I still say you're overcomplicating the situation. If you don't give your body enough fuel to cover your activity, it has no choice but to metabolise fat to make up the deficit. From the point of view of weight loss (which I believe is what we're discussing here) it doesn't matter whether fat metabolism takes place during the ride or at some other time, as long as it happens. If you've moved on to talk about increasing endurance, then I agree that it's important to improve your body's ability to use fat as fuel during rides.
> 
> The only thing I can think of that I've read concerning not preventing bonk is from a running perspective. Runners use the term "hitting the wall" to describe what cyclings call "bonking", and the only research that I know of (with marathon runners) found that runners who have hit the wall once have an increased likelihood of doing so again - and often at an earlier stage - in a future marathon compared to runners who have never hit the wall. This suggests that it doesn't produce any improvement in fat burning capacity, in fact probably the reverse.



Thanks lulubel and others. I was just interested in whether you can force the body into a higher fat burning efficiency by giving it no other choice. What lulubel is saying is that it doesn't, and that by trying it can make it worse! Very I the resting science!  

The good news is that I can still eat cake on rides


----------



## yello (19 Feb 2012)

I've said before that I don't like the 'calories in v calories out' model because it's black box. It assumes that whatever process occurs in the 'black box' is always the same, never itself influenced by variable factors. A slice of bread at 80 calories will be stored on a shelf in the body and will always be available as 80 calories of output energy. Like we have some ultra-methodical stock controller; goods in, goods out using an invariable stock control method.

True, as a model, it has an intuitive appeal. It doesn't seem like rocket science... because it isn't. It's body science. And we are all susceptible to hormonal variation. So, I feel you need to take account of some of the complexities.... sorry!

There is a naturally occurring chemical in the body, interleukin-6, that is produced during exercise (and other circumstances). Its function is varied but (and here I quote from a Cycle Active article from October 2011)...



> By far the most important is a shift upwards in your muscles' ability to burn fat in preference to carbohydrate *at higher exercise intensities*. We're not overstating things by saying this is one of the key factors to strong riding and losing weight.


 (My bold).

The article goes on to outline on you can induce the production of interleukin-6 by training to near carbohydrate depletion.



> It will feel quite uncomfortable, you will feel drained at the end of it, but once you've done this training session its effects last for a very long time


 
So it seems that Cycling Active believe you can force the body into higher fat burning efficiency, and tinker with one of the black box processes.

I was mistaken earlier when I said Sean Yates had commented on the benefits of bonking... it was Barry Hoban!


----------



## MacB (19 Feb 2012)

Does it not boil down to testing your personal boundaries and then keep testing them? If your primary goal is weightloss then minimising the intake, while still aloowing you to complete the exercise, would be the goal, no?

Bonking is a truly unpleasant sensation but you would only really arrive there if you were being bloody minded and ignoring numerous signals from your body. It's more likely to occur when doing something that's destination/time orientated rather than exercise focused. As in the result, rather than the process, become primary.

There's also the fun factor, I tried to lose too much weight too quickly via cycling and, while not bonking, my commutes home were becoming progressively more unpleasant as the week progressed. After some experimentation I found a level that allowed me to fuel for the ride home without overdoing it and I, at the least, maintained my weightloss level...more importantly I vastly increased my enjoyment.

I can't provide hard and fast values for any of this as it's never done against a static background. As in I was getting fitter and lighter throughout the process and it's not possible to attribute specifics. What I would say, as an avowed lardy ass, fuelling for exercise doesn't take a lot but timing can really matter. Also carry a bag of jelly beans or similar.


----------



## lulubel (19 Feb 2012)

yello, I think you're missing the point with regards to weight loss. In that situation, a calorie is a calorie and it doesn't matter where it comes from. It doesn't matter if every single calorie you burned during a cycle ride came from carbohydrates as long as you consumed less calories than you needed overall, because the body would have to turn to your fat stores for energy at other times. Hence, weight loss.

So, if you're trying to lose weight, exercise is not about burning fat - it's just about burning calories. As long as you do your bit to burn the calories, your body will take care of the fat.


----------



## Riverman (19 Feb 2012)

Just one thing guys. Isn't it dangerous not to replenish electrolytes on a long ride? Worth bearing in mind if you plan on trying to use fat stores as a fuel for the entire ride?



> *Rehydration*
> 
> In oral rehydration therapy, electrolyte drinks containing sodium and potassium salts replenish the body's water and electrolyte levels after dehydration caused by exercise, excessive alcohol consumption, diaphoresis, diarrhea, vomiting, intoxication or starvation. Athletes exercising in extreme conditions (for three or more hours continuously e.g. marathon or triathlon) who do not consume electrolytes risk dehydration (or hyponatremia).[1]
> A simple electrolyte drink can be home-made by using the correct proportions of water, sugar, salt, salt substitute for potassium, and baking soda.[2]
> Electrolytes are commonly found in fruit juices, coconut water, sports drinks, milk, and many fruits and vegetables (whole or in juice form) (e.g. potatoes, avocados).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolyte


----------



## MattHB (19 Feb 2012)

Riverman said:


> Just one thing guys. Isn't it dangerous not to replenish electrolytes on a long ride? Worth bearing in mind if you plan on trying to use fat stores as a fuel for the entire ride?
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolyte



This I would certainly do regardless of other fuelling issues.


----------



## yello (19 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> yello, I think you're missing the point with regards to weight loss.


 
I'm no more missing the point than you're not actually addressing what I wrote! I was commenting on the idea that we can change body function ('black box' processes) with specific regard to burning fat in preference to carb. I didn't suggest that burning one and not the other would lead to greater or lesser weight loss.

However, I would contest the notion that "a calorie is a calorie" (outside of the obvious tautology that is!). Personally, I feel the whole idea of calorific value of any foodstuff is misleading if we're to use the same terminology/unit to describe energy burn as well. It's comparing apples to oranges. I believe it's a shorthand (like 220 - age for max heart rate) and is perhaps useful in the weight loss or diet context but does not accurately describe what happens in the body. Suffice to say, calorie counting (as it is commonly known) does not work for all people.


----------



## MattHB (19 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> I was commenting on the idea that we can change body function ('black box' processes) with specific regard to burning fat in preference to carb.


 
this is the very crux of what Im on about  should it be possible, then although its probably impossible for _me_ to test, I might try to string out as long as I can before refueling on rides. Obviously I dont want to be experiencing a bonk every time I go out, so Ill be careful with this, which will mean listening very carefully to the signs my body is sending. It will be interesting over time to see if my ability to last gets longer, although again, it would be hard to measure because of all the other variables.


----------



## yello (19 Feb 2012)

One of the tips that Cycle Active mentioned (and something I've been doing for years) is to ride before breakfast. They only suggest an hour - though I'll do nearer 90 minutes, sometimes 2 hours - because you are riding on empty. No need to ride hard, and don't take food, just water.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Feb 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> If it's not burned directly to build/repair muscle fibre/for energy a process called "gluconeogenisis" happens,this process turns protein into glucose.
> 
> The human kidneys are very efficient at preventing protein loss through urination,it's as much as myth as unicorns.


Ooops missed out the middleman. (glucose)


----------



## lukesdad (19 Feb 2012)

If Im getting you right yello (and Im not sure I am) you are promoting fuelling a ride primarily from fat ?


----------



## MacB (19 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> One of the tips that Cycle Active mentioned (and something I've been doing for years) is to ride before breakfast. They only suggest an hour - though I'll do nearer 90 minutes, sometimes 2 hours - because you are riding on empty. No need to ride hard, and don't take food, just water.


 
As I posted elsewhere this is what I found when I was doing the 20 mile commute. Ride in no problem and eat after arrival. Whereas ride home got uncomfortable, though not bonking, unless I ate about half an hour before I left, especially later in the week.

I still find up to 2 hours is about my max without fuel and I prefer not to go beyond 90 minutes. But I'm happy to do a longer ride and start nibbling after 90 mins, rather than pre-loading before I set off. For really long rides, 80 miles plus for me, then I'd aim for pasta the night before and then follow the same routine. It's not scientific or anything and I'll alter it as I need to but that's been about my best approach so far.


----------



## MattHB (20 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> One of the tips that Cycle Active mentioned (and something I've been doing for years) is to ride before breakfast. They only suggest an hour - though I'll do nearer 90 minutes, sometimes 2 hours - because you are riding on empty. No need to ride hard, and don't take food, just water.



I'm hoping as mornings get lighter to be able to put in a pre work ride. This'll help get my milleage up. I'm so useless with no breakfast though it'll be a struggle to go out empty!


----------



## yello (20 Feb 2012)

MacB said:


> It's not scientific or anything and I'll alter it as I need to but that's been about my best approach so far.


 
Personally, I think that's the way to go - find what works for you.

I've read a fair bit on the subject of diet and nutrition (particularly for endurance events) but I put very little of it into practice! Well, not specifically and religiously anyway. I am however influenced by some of it and incorporate aspects (and the general sense of it all) into my approach.

And whilst obviously I'm going to be an advocate for my approach, I'd never say it's right nor the only way. Inherent in my belief is that we are all quite different, perhaps more so than we realise - even at a base biochemical level. So naturally I feel trial and error is sometimes necessary to find what works for you.


----------



## lulubel (20 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> However, I would contest the notion that "a calorie is a calorie" (outside of the obvious tautology that is!). Personally, I feel the whole idea of calorific value of any foodstuff is misleading if we're to use the same terminology/unit to describe energy burn as well. It's comparing apples to oranges.


 
No, it isn't. A calorie is an official measurement of energy, in the same way as a mile is a measurement of length, or a gram is a measurement of weight. There are not different types of measurement for different types of energy. They're all measured in calories (or the metric alternative). Our bodies accept their energy input in the form of chemical energy (in food) and it is output in a variety different ways, but it's still all energy and is measured in calories.


----------



## lulubel (20 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> I was commenting on the idea that we can change body function ('black box' processes) with specific regard to burning fat in preference to carb. I didn't suggest that burning one and not the other would lead to greater or lesser weight loss.


 
Sorry, I missed this part from my first quote. Since the thread was asking about weight loss, that's specifically what I've been addressing in my posts.



yello said:


> And whilst obviously I'm going to be an advocate for my approach, I'd never say it's right nor the only way. Inherent in my belief is that we are all quite different, perhaps more so than we realise - even at a base biochemical level. So naturally I feel trial and error is sometimes necessary to find what works for you.


 
This, I totally agree with. As long as you make a few basic generalisations that seem to apply to pretty much everyone (eat more than you need and you get fat, etc) there's a lot of variation in what works for different people.


----------



## yello (20 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> A calorie is an official measurement of energy, in the same way as a mile is a measurement of length, or a gram is a measurement of weight. *There are not different types of measurement for different types of energy*. They're all measured in calories (or the metric alternative).


 
Yes, they are _called_ the same thing but they do not measure the same thing, and I think that causes confusion.

For example, you can measure the calorific value of anything (wood, petrol) but that hardly means they'll produce that same calorific value as energy output in the human body.

Or stated t'other way - I can light a slice of bread but it'll hardly keep me warm. Or stick it in the fuel tank of my car and go nowhere. It's context related. Do you see the point?

So how does one measure the energy in a slice of bread? It's an abstract concept.



> Since the thread was asking about weight loss


 
Not entirely. It was also about trying to change from burning carb to burning fat...



MattHB said:


> this is the very crux of what Im on about


----------



## yello (20 Feb 2012)

lukesdad said:


> If Im getting you right yello (and Im not sure I am) you are promoting fuelling a ride primarily from fat ?


 
Sorry ld, I missed this. I have to be careful how I answer this since it appears to be as divisive as helmets or mp3 players 

I'm not promoting it as such. What people do is their own call.

However, I've read in many places that it is possible to coach your body to burn fat in preference to carb and it is something (as an idea) that interests me. At lower intensity levels, I think it is indeed possible and I think I do it. The problem comes at higher levels of effort - and I mentioned upstream the need to compromise on this one. That said, it appears to be possible to push the line between the two a little though, which is what the piece on interluekin-6 suggests. That is, to train your muscles to perform at a higher intensity on mainly fat stores.


----------



## yello (20 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> So how does one measure the energy in a slice of bread? It's an abstract concept.


 
Let me try a different approach....

I can measure the wind in kgs. Lets say a 10kg wind is one strong enough to move a 1 kilo object... or somesuch. It's a measurement, yes? One that seems to make intuitive sense. Yet it isn't measuring any inherent property of the wind. It's a relative measurement, depending on the 1 kilo object.

Likewise, I suggest 'a calorie' isn't an inherent property of a slice of bread. Not like you can analyse it's vitamin or mineral content. It's a reverse engineered description in relation to a supposed effect; that is, it will provide x calories worth of output energy.


----------



## yello (20 Feb 2012)

Well, that was interesting! Out of curiosity, I decided to find out how the calorific value of foodstuffs is calculated.

Originally, it was literally burnt! In an instrument called a calorimeter apparently. The food was set alight and placed in a container, then submerged in water. The resulting rise in water temperature formed the basis of the calorie count. These days, the foods' composition (fat, carb, protein, alcohol) is weighed and multiplied by an average calorific value for each component, the total giving the total calories.

Now all I have to do is find out how the calorie burn calculation for muscle is made.... I'm presuming it's not in a crematorium


----------



## MattHB (20 Feb 2012)

We used to do that very experiment in science at school  we burned biscuits and stuff like that.

Do you think a HRM would be essential to make sure you stay in lower intensities to maximise metabolism retraining?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Feb 2012)

MattHB said:


> We used to do that very experiment in science at school  we burned biscuits and stuff like that.
> 
> Do you think a HRM would be essential to make sure you stay in lower intensities to maximise metabolism retraining?


If you know your max HR then it would be pretty much essential.


----------



## lulubel (20 Feb 2012)

yello, your wind measurement argument is ridiculous. Wind is measured by the speed at which the air is moving, not by the amount of weight it can move.



yello said:


> Likewise, I suggest 'a calorie' isn't an inherent property of a slice of bread. Not like you can analyse it's vitamin or mineral content. It's a reverse engineered description in relation to a supposed effect; that is, it will provide x calories worth of output energy.


 
No, the number of calories in the bread is the number of calories (in the form of stored chemical energy) that the bread contains. It isn't a vague figure; it's exact. You can even divide the calories up by the bread's nutritional breakdown - 1g of protein/carbohydrate = 4 calories, 1g of fat = 9 calories.

When you eat a slice of bread, the number of calories in the bread is the exact amount of energy you're putting into your body (unless you're messy and you drop crumbs, of course). Your body breaks it down and does a variety of things with it, but the amount of energy never changes.

1st law of thermodynamics - energy can never be created or destroyed, it can only change form


----------



## yello (20 Feb 2012)

MattHB said:


> Do you think a HRM would be essential to make sure you stay in lower intensities to maximise metabolism retraining?


 
Not essential but it would certainly make life simpler. Decathlon have some affordable HRMs.


----------



## yello (20 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> yello, your wind measurement argument is ridiculous. Wind is measured by the speed at which the air is moving, not by the amount of weight it can move.


 
Hurrah! You see my point, even if not in the manner I intended. Yes, it IS ridiculous!



> 1st law of thermodynamics - energy can never be created or destroyed, it can only change form


 
And biological systems adhere to the laws of thermodynamics do they? I think the mechanics are somewhat different. But this is straying.

Lulubel, I'm of the opinion that you cannot not see what I am saying. I don't know why that is and neither do I wish to hazard a guess. Suffice to say, I'm not going to go further down this line because, frankly, I think I'm wasting my energies


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Feb 2012)

It's got to the stage now where people are talking about things they know nothing about by talking about unrelated things they know nothing about. A spade is a spade,it isn't a spoon thats 100x the size it needs to be.

My head hurts..


----------



## Lien Sdrawde (20 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> Decathlon have some affordable HRMs.


 
 I can vouch for that - 14 of our Great British pounds. I'm using it daily now, and cant believe the control needed to stay in 'Zone 1' - and I can only manage that on the turbo.... you've no chance of doing it out on a road ride. Get one and you'll see what I mean. 
At least the top end of 'Zone 2' feels like your achieving something - i'm sticking with it though as my girdle is noticably less tight already.
Neil.


----------



## MattHB (20 Feb 2012)

I just splashed out a bit and went for the garmin one thatll pair with my ANT+ iphone pack so cyclemeter can track everything, itll be really interesting to see the stats.

£30 well spent I hope!!


----------



## yello (20 Feb 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> It's got to the stage now where people are talking about things they know nothing about by talking about unrelated things they know nothing about.


 
That's a bit unkind, if you don't mind me saying.  I think it's natural for people to want to talk about what they understand, so will naturally try to draw the discussion towards that - even if it's not directly related. I have no problem with that, it's up to the other(s) to pull the discussion back... if they can be bothered  


> A spade is a spade,it isn't a spoon thats 100x the size it needs to be.


 
Semantics dear boy, semantics.... 



> My head hurts..


 
 Mine too! But I like that sometimes, tells me I've been using my noodle!


----------



## MattHB (20 Feb 2012)

I think its all fascinating  but complex. There are so many variables involved, but that just makes it more interesting.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> That's a bit unkind, if you don't mind me saying.  I think it's natural for people to want to talk about what they understand, so will naturally try to draw the discussion towards that - even if it's not directly related. I have no problem with that, it's up to the other(s) to pull the discussion back... if they can be bothered
> 
> 
> Semantics dear boy, semantics....
> ...


Not unkind at all,true would be closer. The entire point of the original question got buried in walls of unrelated drivel,mostly posted by yourself to be bluntly honest. You've spent all this time trying to be different and convincing yourself that you're right.
ps: I wasn't intending to address anyone directly until this point. So please understand I am not attempting personal attacks or anything 

Here it is to refresh memories:


> Does taking on carbs in-ride reduce potential fat loss?
> 
> If so is it better to avoid long rides where you need to refuel and stick to shorter rides which won't use up stored glycogen? Or is it more efficient to ride longer and rely on the metabolism overdrive which carries on after you stop?
> 
> Or am I misunderstanding the whole yard of cake?


 
It's really simple. If you eat more than you burn,then the point of exercising in the first place is wasted. At the same time,if you're out for 2 hours and starting to feel sluggish 60k from home,why wouldn't you consume enough carbs to get you back home without "hitting the wall"?

For example:The HIGH5 gel in front of me @ 30ml is worth 20g carbs and 5g sugar - 80 cals per gel and 3 recommended per hour.

Pace wouldn't need to be too high to burn 240 cals off per hour so the energy although quick release,would very much be used. Same goes if you eat 6 fig rolls @60cals each half way through a ride,the energy content will be metabolised.Obviously if you are stopping for buckets of chicken at KFC 1k from home then there is another issue entirely.
-------------------------
If you have 2 hours in which to ride,short intense ride which is not only more time efficient but heavier strain on your cardiovasular system is the way to go.

If you have 4 hours, long steady is the way to go. The net expenditure is the same but CV system is in better shape for endurance.

Better is a matter of time and personal preference.


----------



## lulubel (20 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> And biological systems adhere to the laws of thermodynamics do they? I think the mechanics are somewhat different. But this is straying.
> 
> Lulubel, I'm of the opinion that you cannot not see what I am saying. I don't know why that is and neither do I wish to hazard a guess. Suffice to say, I'm not going to go further down this line because, frankly, I think I'm wasting my energies


 
Um ... everything adheres to the laws of thermodynamics. They're not laws like the one that says you're not allowed to help yourself to other people's belongings (for example) that it's possible to break. They're not rules. They're just phrases that describe the way the physical world works. That's why it says "energy can never be created or destroyed" not "energy should never be created or destroyed" or "energy must never be created or destroyed". It isn't possible to break them, no matter how much you might like to. (If it was possible to break the laws of thermodynamics, we could solve most of the world's problems.)

The reason I can't see what you're saying is because very little of what you're saying makes any sense.


----------



## MattHB (20 Feb 2012)

As yello is so far the only one to understand my original point that probably means that I don't make sense either!


----------



## lulubel (20 Feb 2012)

I understood your original point, Matt. I just didn't agree with your argument as it related to weight loss. yello has gone off on some very wild tangents.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Feb 2012)

As did I,I think I even explained it a bit. Oh well


----------



## MattHB (20 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> I understood your original point, Matt. I just didn't agree with your argument as it related to weight loss. yello has gone off on some very wild tangents.


 
I wasnt stating that it was possible, only asking if it was possible to retrain ones system to favour fat burn.


----------



## lulubel (20 Feb 2012)

MattHB said:


> I wasnt stating that it was possible, only asking if it was possible to retrain ones system to favour fat burn.


 
OK. Yes, it is. That's what distance runners do with their long, slow training runs. At low levels of effort, your body naturally burns a higher percentage of fat relative to carbohydrate, and the more you practice doing that, the better your body gets at it. Then you start introducing short periods of harder effort (but not too much harder) amongst your long, slow efforts and your body gradually learns to incorporate that into the fat burning regime. As time goes on, you find your body will increase the amount of stored fat it uses relative to glycogen (stored carbohydrate), and you can go faster for longer.

That's a very, very brief explanation.

But, as I've already said, unless you've got time to ride for a few hours every day, shorter, faster rides, done more often, are better for weight loss.


----------



## lukesdad (21 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> Sorry ld, I missed this. I have to be careful how I answer this since it appears to be as divisive as helmets or mp3 players
> 
> I'm not promoting it as such. What people do is their own call.
> 
> However, I've read in many places that it is possible to coach your body to burn fat in preference to carb and it is something (as an idea) that interests me. At lower intensity levels, I think it is indeed possible and I think I do it. The problem comes at higher levels of effort - and I mentioned upstream the need to compromise on this one. That said, it appears to be possible to push the line between the two a little though, which is what the piece on interluekin-6 suggests. That is, to train your muscles to perform at a higher intensity on mainly fat stores.


 
I can and have on many occaissions rode all day at low intensity, with zero carb intake,with no problems. I have ridden at higher intensity for considerably shorter periods and had big problems. The problem is identifying at what level of intensity the line is drawn. Once you step accross that line you are going to need to start fuelling yourself pretty quickly. Fat alone IMO will not be able to do this quickly enough.Can you train your body to do this ? Once again in IMO doubtfull, at least to the extent required to produce the energy needed for high sustained intensitys.


----------



## lukesdad (21 Feb 2012)

MattHB said:


> Loose weight.


 My earlier statement of calories in vs calories out stands, but its not that simple. If it was, you'd just deplete your calories right down exercise and the weight would drop off. The reason for this is because the body senses the calorie drop and protects its fat reserves (Starvation mode).Now lets turn it around a little and instead of depleting the calories drastically, we try to deplete the fat reserves in the same way? The body will react in the same way.


----------



## MacB (21 Feb 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I can and have on many occaissions rode all day at low intensity, with zero carb intake,with no problems. I have ridden at higher intensity for considerably shorter periods and had big problems. The problem is identifying at what level of intensity the line is drawn. Once you step accross that line you are going to need to start fuelling yourself pretty quickly. Fat alone IMO will not be able to do this quickly enough.Can you train your body to do this ? Once again in IMO doubtfull, at least to the extent required to produce the energy needed for high sustained intensitys.


 
I think we're generally in agreement over this but also that it's a variable, especially in someone losing weight and gaining fitness to any significant degree.

Basically your level of all day intensity, sustainable without additional input, could be considerably higher than that of someone 5+ stone overweight and seriously unfit.

Taking a direct comparison on myself, my initial riding efforts were only about 3.5 miles to my local station. A distance, and effort level, that I was unable to break a 10mph average for or manage without a rest. Within 3 months my gentle effort level over 20 miles was 3mph faster than my original all out efforts.

If that sort of tracks through then a gentle fat burning pace, without requiring additional fuelling, could be as low as 5-6mph average for someone starting out. I would guess there may be a natural upper limit for the individual but that would only be knowable once weight and fitness targets were reached and then via experimentation.


----------



## yello (21 Feb 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> The entire point of the original question got buried in walls of unrelated drivel,mostly posted by yourself to be bluntly honest. You've spent all this time trying to be different and convincing yourself that you're right.


 
I'm sorry if that's how you've perceived it. Clearly not my intention. Threads drift and from that comes interesting tangents. If you haven't found it to be of interest, well, that's as it is. I don't find everything interesting either. The subject does however interest me and whilst I admit to thinking out loud, I don't accept I'm trying to be different. There are many that think similarly (let google be your friend it you don't believe me) and I only ever try to air the alternatives as I understand them.


----------



## yello (21 Feb 2012)

lukesdad said:


> The problem is identifying at what level of intensity the line is drawn. Once you step accross that line you are going to need to start fuelling yourself pretty quickly. Fat alone IMO will not be able to do this quickly enough.Can you train your body to do this ? Once again in IMO doubtfull, at least to the extent required to produce the energy needed for high sustained intensitys.


 
I agree with absolutely everything you've said there. This all started with the simple query of training your body to burn fat in preference to carb. I've read it can be done. I'm no bioenergeticist (if that's the field!) but the subject interests me and I'm prepared to read up on the subject... and be educated by people on this forum too!


----------



## yello (21 Feb 2012)

lulubel said:


> yello has gone off on some very wild tangents.


 
I accept that you didn't follow it, but believe it or not, I was actually trying to clarify what I was thinking via analogy. From my perspective, it's just a shame you couldn't say you didn't follow 

I'm glad we've all reached some consensus on retraining the body to burn fat though - since that was the nub of it all. What followed was a diversion into the general nature of calories, which seemingly served only to interest/amuse me!

I'm interested to read more on thermodynamics and biological systems though. My knowledge of thermodynamics is nought but I understand the energy transfer arguments in relation to chemical reactions in closed systems. And I know realise it's this very argument that underpins the 'calories in v calories out' model for weight loss. So that's been my 'learn something every day' box ticked!

I do think that is overly simplistic though. It doesn't tell me for instance _why_ the body elects to use or store fat/carb/protein, how it decides one in preference to the other. I feel that you have to consider the nature of the calorie and what its effect on body chemistry is. For instance, carb and insulin. I think if you venture a little down that line of investigation, you can better tune your diet for weight loss.

I know from past posts that some consider that of no importance, the body will burn calories and that's all that matters; that is, calories burnt = weight loss. And broadly speaking, I agree. In a sense, it's a statement of the obvious. I've said that before. I just think it a blunt tool and with just a little knowledge one can refine it - for instance, preferring a calorie intake with more protein than the current typical diet does.


----------



## lulubel (21 Feb 2012)

MacB said:


> Basically your level of all day intensity, sustainable without additional input, could be considerably higher than that of someone 5+ stone overweight and seriously unfit.


 
This is something I could have gone into, if I'd been being less brief 

Yes, one person's easy is always someone else's intense, and vice versa. But, if you look at each person as an individual, there's definitely room for most people to obtain more energy from fat stores at higher intensities, although, again how much more probably varies from person to person and their own physiological makeup. Also, top sports people obviously have trainers and dieticians working with them, and every aspect of their training is minutely analysed to get the maximum possible improvements. The rest of us mere mortals are going by guesswork, by comparison.



yello said:


> I'm interested to read more on thermodynamics and biological systems though. My knowledge of thermodynamics is nought but I understand the energy transfer arguments in relation to chemical reactions in closed systems. And I know realise it's this very argument that underpins the 'calories in v calories out' model for weight loss. So that's been my 'learn something every day' box ticked!
> 
> I do think that is overly simplistic though. It doesn't tell me for instance _why_ the body elects to use or store fat/carb/protein, how it decides one in preference to the other. I feel that you have to consider the nature of the calorie and what its effect on body chemistry is. For instance, carb and insulin. I think if you venture a little down that line of investigation, you can better tune your diet for weight loss.


 
Yes, I agree. You can better tune it for anything. That's actually where I am at the moment. I'm trying to fine tune my diet for optimum health/fitness/performance, while still indulging my love of choc chip cookies! I've done the weight loss, so I don't want to lose more than another 2 or 3 pounds, if that.

The reason I answered the way I did is because, for most people asking about weight loss, if you say, "eat less/ride your bike more," they'll say "great" and get out there and do it. Finding out that it doesn't have to be complicated is a great relief to a lot of people who have got bogged down in different fads and totally confused, and they're only too pleased to be told it's just a case of eating less and being more active. Obviously you - and I, to a lesser degree - want to take it deeper.

Yes, you did lose me with your examples, but as long as they help you to make sense of complicated ideas that's all that matters. I think we all use tricks like that, but they probably don't translate well when we try to explain them to other people. I find ideas hard to get across sometimes when I'm face to face with the person I'm talking to, with access to a load of "props" and pen and paper to draw diagrams.

I love talking about thermodynamics since I've really got to grips with it in the last couple of years, and I've come to understand the constraints the first law (especially) puts on us as a species, in practically every way.


----------



## paulw1969 (21 Feb 2012)

Despite the tangents folks i have enjoyed reading this thread....even i if dont understand all of it.....


----------



## lukesdad (21 Feb 2012)

MacB said:


> I think we're generally in agreement over this but also that it's a variable, especially in someone losing weight and gaining fitness to any significant degree.
> 
> Basically your level of all day intensity, sustainable without additional input, could be considerably higher than that of someone 5+ stone overweight and seriously unfit.
> 
> ...


 
As with most things individuals will differ, as you say fitness and weight even possibly age.

I think the thread got caught between two stools, the weight loss and the fueling for riding, never the less an interesting subject. Let's do it again sometime.


----------

