Energy/Sport Drinks in relation to dieting

[amaferanga]

The energy drinks may not have much influence on how much weight you lose, but unless you're racing then they're just a waste of money. Some squash and a bit of electrolyte powder if its really hot is all you should need for regular riding, especially if your rides are only around 2 hours.

 

[yello]

unless you're racing then they're just a waste of money

Whilst I agree personally, as a statement of my own needs, I wouldn't go so far as to say that's true for all - racing or no. It's a personal judgement as to what is a waste of money. If energy drinks work for someone and they want to buy them then I'm cool with that.

As to the OP, I think one has to be careful about the use of energy drinks if ones intention is weight loss. These drinks are designed to fuel your ride, ergo if you're looking at cycling as a means of weight loss then you're negating any calorie burn achieved by riding if you use energy drinks.

As an example, my rides aren't intensive exercise but if I'm riding for less than an hour then I do not take anything other than some water. For 2 hours, I might take a couple of fig rolls... but probably not eat them. I only really take food for rides of 100km (4 hours). And I don't ride for weight loss.

 

[lulubel]

It depends on which energy system you are using whilst training, it's not a trick. Short fast rides are more likely to utilise the anaerobic system (depending on how short and fast you go), whereas longer less intense rides will use the aerobic energy system. It's not as simple as energy input vs energy expended.

Another thing to consider is that calories and fat are wholly different parameters.

You're wrong. It IS as simple as energy input vs energy expended.

Fat is simply energy stored in chemical form, and energy is measured in calories, so they're not wholly different.

It doesn't matter whether your body dips into the fat stores during the ride or at another time of day, the result is the same - less fat. And the only thing that causes your body to dip into its fat stores is a calorie deficit. On the other hand, if you're consuming more calories than you need, it doesn't matter if you do ride in the "fat burning zone", the total amount of energy stored by your body as fat will increase.

 

[Mozzy]

You're wrong. It IS as simple as energy input vs energy expended.

Fat is simply energy stored in chemical form, and energy is measured in calories, so they're not wholly different.

It doesn't matter whether your body dips into the fat stores during the ride or at another time of day, the result is the same - less fat. And the only thing that causes your body to dip into its fat stores is a calorie deficit. On the other hand, if you're consuming more calories than you need, it doesn't matter if you do ride in the "fat burning zone", the total amount of energy stored by your body as fat will increase.

100% agree. I was fifteen stone and the start of the year; well, March to be specific. I'm rocking along quite nicely now at eleven stone twelve pounds. Being diagnosed a coeliac made a huge difference as my one vice was the biscuits. Simply put I just burn more than I take in now, which is guaranteed weight loss.

Energy wise, I have tried sports drinks when running and found little benefit. When I cycle after a giant sized smoothie, the energy seems to last for absolutely ages. probably high in calories but I burn between 250 and 300 per hour on the bike which TBF is less than when running, but I do really benefit by cycling in a similar manner to running. When I jogged, which was just that for around a half mile I would then sprint at around 80-90% of max to see heart rate soar. I'd maintain for say 200 metres, then jog steadily again to diffuse lactic build up. I'd keep this going for between 5 & 10K.

On the treadly, I peddle firmly but comfortable enough to only get a slight lactic kick when doing a hill. Once warm, I then go hard in a not so easy gear making certain I am working hard. When I can no longer stand the burn in my legs or chest, I ease up to recover. As soon as I feel recovered, (quite quickly) I do a hard ride again until I need a break. nearing 60 years of age (with a mentality of half that … generous) my target HR is 145 - 165. Whilst I find it harder on the treadly to get it up (please, no smut responses) once there I work hard to stay in the target zone. Biggest downside for fat burning is the HR gets harder and harder to stay in the target zone; hence recovery is extremely fast and down to sub 100 in no time. Then it becomes a battle between target HR and getting rid of lactic build up.

Sorry, I really waffled then, and didn't really get into the sport drink thing or your bread. Diet is an altogether different subject though.

Good luck with further weight loss.

Mozzy

HM Smoothie: Pear, plums, pineapple, cherries, kiwi, orange, banana heaped spoon of local beekeepers honey, half a large pot of fat free pro-biotic yogurt, half a litre of water, two ice cubes; duly wound up for 20 seconds or so, enjoy and lick lips. Feel inner buzz in around 10 minutes or so.

 

[Herzog]

You're wrong. It IS as simple as energy input vs energy expended.

Fat is simply energy stored in chemical form, and energy is measured in calories, so they're not wholly different.

It doesn't matter whether your body dips into the fat stores during the ride or at another time of day, the result is the same - less fat. And the only thing that causes your body to dip into its fat stores is a calorie deficit. On the other hand, if you're consuming more calories than you need, it doesn't matter if you do ride in the "fat burning zone", the total amount of energy stored by your body as fat will increase.

Another factor to consider is: where are these fat stores and how easily accessible are they at the point of need (i.e., during training whether intense or prosaic)? Short intense efforts will utilise readily available energy stored short-term in the muscles, whereas a less 'urgent' need is likely to draw upon the reserve energy stores (i.e., fat). The human body is an incredibly complicated organism, and it doesn’t fit well into universal maxims.

 

[jay clock]

2 hrs should be fine with no food/energy drink. I use High 5 Zero tablets (berry flavour). Up to three hours is ok. I take a gel or two with me just in case

 

[yello]

Personally, I think that whilst weight loss is a matter of 'energy in v energy out' at a very high and simplistic level, I think Herzog is right in addressing the lower level details. How you store and burn energy is relevant to a weight loss debate I feel.

The human body is an incredibly complicated organism, and it doesn’t fit well into universal maxims.

That's my take on it too, and I don't think we yet know the complications (of which genetics is one too it seems!) I think there are people getting quite depressed over not loosing weight yet they are making genuine efforts. It's just that they're not targeting those efforts. A bit of knowledge about the 'how' helps targeting.

 

[lulubel]

Another factor to consider is: where are these fat stores and how easily accessible are they at the point of need (i.e., during training whether intense or prosaic)? Short intense efforts will utilise readily available energy stored short-term in the muscles, whereas a less 'urgent' need is likely to draw upon the reserve energy stores (i.e., fat). The human body is an incredibly complicated organism, and it doesn’t fit well into universal maxims.

While I agree that the human body is complicated, it isn't immune to the laws of thermodynamics.

If you cycle fast for a short time and burn 500 calories, you are going to gain/lose the same amount of fat as if you cycle slowly for longer and burn 500 calories, as long as all your other eating and activity is exactly the same.

It doesn't matter where or how the energy is stored. It's the overall balance that's important.

 

[VamP]

While I agree that the human body is complicated, it isn't immune to the laws of thermodynamics.

If you cycle fast for a short time and burn 500 calories, you are going to gain/lose the same amount of fat as if you cycle slowly for longer and burn 500 calories, as long as all your other eating and activity is exactly the same.

It doesn't matter where or how the energy is stored. It's the overall balance that's important.

Quite right. Furthermore burning 500 calories at a higher intensity will be more time efficient than burning 500 calories at low intensity. Even if you're dipping into into the lactate zone periodically, as in interval training, you are still using more power and burning more calories, than someone cruising in the 'fat burning zone' for anything up to four times as long.

The differencies in 'economy' of energy store to power conversion in the human body are less than 5%, so can be effectivelly ignored as the ratio of power conversion from stored energy to power is around 5:1.


Herzog is just obfuscating to hide the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about



A separate issue, and one where riding in Zone 1 comes into it's own, is the question of recovery. It is possible to recover much faster, and therefore ride much more frequently if you stay in Zone 1 for a high percentage of your rides. Obviously, differently trained individuals travel at different speeds while both still in Zone 1.

 

[Herzog]

Herzog is just obfuscating to hide the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about

Where's someone with a sports science degree when you need one?

Edit: I don't have one

 

[yello]

It doesn't matter where or how the energy is stored. It's the overall balance that's important.

Again, as a high level statement I agree. In reaching that conclusion you have some knowledge of the 'how'.

 

[Fiona N]

Try the Lite Lucozade version if not anti-aspartame? I think it's 50cals a bottle and tastes ok, a couple of different flavours

And I seem to remember you said 'all gels taste horrible' and you drink this sh*t

No accounting for taste