Eating carbs in-ride and weight loss

[lukesdad]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[lukesdad]

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.

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.