Eating carbs in-ride and weight loss

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

MattHB

Proud Daddy
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

Rainbows aren't just for world champions
Location
Northern Ireland
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

Legendary Member
Location
Somewhere flat
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.
 
OP
OP
MattHB

MattHB

Proud Daddy
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

Guest
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.
 
OP
OP
MattHB

MattHB

Proud Daddy
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.
 

lulubel

Über Member
Location
Malaga, Spain
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

Rainbows aren't just for world champions
Location
Northern Ireland
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 :tongue:
 

lulubel

Über Member
Location
Malaga, Spain
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

Rainbows aren't just for world champions
Location
Northern Ireland
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).
I struggle to find words sometimes :sad: But you said what I was trying to :P
 
OP
OP
MattHB

MattHB

Proud Daddy
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

Guest
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.
 
Top Bottom