No, I'm not dropping acid. Looking for opinions on a disagreement. In typical fashion, I, and a friend, both gained the extra 5-10lbs over the holidays. I blame my weight gain on my new job which has kept me out of the gym for three weeks. I guess when you go from working out (gym, running, riding) six days a week to maybe once a week coupled with Christmas goodies, the weight inevitably gets piled on. Luckily, the pressure of the new job is abating and I'm starting to workout again.

Losing weight ...which method is better?? Long, slow distance?? (LSD) or short, harder efforts?? On the running side, I have been doing 3-5 mile runs at a hard pace (for me) of just under 8 min/mile while my friend feels that taking a slower pace, but running 7-10 miles at a time will burn more calories. Same is true for riding...in the cold, I can't stand being out there for 4 or 5 hours so I will push it hard for 2 hours.

So, whaddyathink?? LSD or harder??

the old standby of 100kcal/miles is true so if he is running 7-10 miles even at a slower pace then he will burn more. As for cycling, I have found that high intensity workouts with lots of speed drills/climbing builds leg mass and puts on weight not takes it off. Sure fire way to lose the weight is to cut the calories at a coservitive leval and keep riding/running

For any given amount of time more intensity will burn more calories = more weight lost.

However, for some people it is not safe to work out with a lot of intensity, or they get burned out easily (can't deal with it psychologically).

If you have the time mix the best of both worlds. Go for a three hour ride and finish it off with a bunch of intervals at the end.

Whatever will get you on the bike is best.

So, whaddyathink?? LSD or harder??

After LSD all I see is pretty colors....:p

Like you said -- working hard burns more calories per hour, but you can go more hours at a moderate pace.

I don't know about this "running" thing, but if on the bike a hard 2-hour ride can see me burn about 1,500 calories (700 kCal / hr), then at a steady pace I'd use about 500 calories an hour. If I have the time and inspiration to ride for 4 hours, clearly I have burned more calories, but if all I have or felt like riding was 2 hours, I'd be better suited to the hard workout. There's no way I could maintain the hard-workout intensity for 4 hours.

I'm sure you pretty much knew this already...

If you can ride three hours at a pace that burns 500 cal/hr but only an hour at a pace that burns 750 cal/hr, you'll burn more total calories at the slower pace. The advantage of LSD for burning calories is that you can do lots of it. If you don't have the time or inclination to put in long days, you'll burn more calories by going harder.

If you can ride three hours at a pace that burns 500 cal/hr but only an hour at a pace that burns 750 cal/hr, you'll burn more total calories at the slower pace. The advantage of LSD for burning calories is that you can do lots of it. If you don't have the time or inclination to put in long days, you'll burn more calories by going harder.
..and the weather sucks. I think my plan will to use the running as LSD since LSD in running for me may be an hour or so. On the occasion I get to ride, I'll push it hard for a couple of hours.

Thanks

I have a regular 65 mile ride I do.

If I approach it with the "LSD" approach my Garmin tells my I burn almost 5,000 calories over the almost 4 hours.

If I hammer the ride, lead the packs, chase the breaks, etc...that calorie count drops under 2,000 for the same almost 4 hour effort.

Which one loses more weight? Not sure...but for me...I lose more weight w/ the LSD efforts.

Even though I work in the medical field, I've no expertise in the area of exercise physiology.
But I never lost a damn pound with intense workouts in the hospital gym, but lost 40lbs with LSD rides, so that's what I'm sticking with.

I have a regular 65 mile ride I do.

If I approach it with the "LSD" approach my Garmin tells my I burn almost 5,000 calories over the almost 4 hours.

If I hammer the ride, lead the packs, chase the breaks, etc...that calorie count drops under 2,000 for the same almost 4 hour effort.

Which one loses more weight? Not sure...but for me...I lose more weight w/ the LSD efforts.

I'm not sure what the Garmin is, but those numbers make little sense. It should take approximately the same calories to complete the same ride regardless of whether you take it easy or hard. You're moving the same mass over the same distance, thus performing the same total amount of work (assuming you're producing similar drag on the two rides). The only difference would be you'd finish in less time if going harder. You could save some calories by drafting more but burning over 50% less seems overly hopeful even if the entire goal of the ride was to be as efficient as possible, it makes no sense at all in your context.

Finally even Lance Armstrong couldn't ride at LSD pace and burn 5000 calories, that is way too high of a work rate (1250 cal/hour) when you consider that even a world class rider wouldn't burn much more than that in a maximum hour long effort.

I think other posts have nailed the "burned" side of the equation but don't forget how much you eat also matters. I've found that if I train intensly I get very hungry which makes eating the same or less difficult.

I'm not sure what the Garmin is, but those numbers make little sense. It should take approximately the same calories to complete the same ride regardless of whether you take it easy or hard (assuming you're producing similar drag on the two rides).
But drag force goes as velocity squared so it takes more power to go fast than slow and this more than makes up for the shorter time. An example using the defaults on analyticcycling.com except a flat course.
40 km/hr: 243 W * 3600 sec. = 875 kJ to cover 40 km
35 km/hr = 170 W * 40/35 * 3600 sec = 700 kJ to cover 40 km
20 km/hr = 42.6 W * 40/20 *3600 sec = 306 kJ to cover 40 km
So it takes more calories to cover the set distance as speed increases.

I'm not sure what the Garmin is, but those numbers make little sense. It should take approximately the same calories to complete the same ride regardless of whether you take it easy or hard. You're moving the same mass over the same distance, thus performing the same total amount of work (assuming you're producing similar drag on the two rides). The only difference would be you'd finish in less time if going harder. You could save some calories by drafting more but burning over 50% less seems overly hopeful even if the entire goal of the ride was to be as efficient as possible, it makes no sense at all in your context.

Finally even Lance Armstrong couldn't ride at LSD pace and burn 5000 calories, that is way too high of a work rate (1250 cal/hour) when you consider that even a world class rider wouldn't burn much more than that in a maximum hour long effort.

The Garmin is the Edge 305 cycle computer.

Aerobic level will "burn" more fat while anaerobic will build more muscle, no?

On the same ride, my wife, using the same model computer will also register similar results, although quantatatively smaller.

Lance is a tiny human being. On the other hand, I am 6'6 215lbs.

Isn't it safe to say I burn more fuel than someone 145lbs given the same effort?

The Garmin is the Edge 305 cycle computer.

Aerobic level will "burn" more fat while anaerobic will build more muscle, no?

On the same ride, my wife, using the same model computer will also register similar results, although quantatatively smaller.

Lance is a tiny human being. On the other hand, I am 6'6 215lbs.

Isn't it safe to say I burn more fuel than someone 145lbs given the same effort?

you're talking apples and oranges....calories burned is calories burned. Saying that doing a loop hard will burn fewer calories than doing the same loop easy is ludicrous. As DB said, the amount of work is equal....Losing fat is a very simple equation;
Calories In < Calories Out.....follow that and you will lose fat every time

Saying that doing a loop hard will burn fewer calories than doing the same loop easy is ludicrous. As DB said, the amount of work is equal...
Doing a loop hard may not burn fewer calories, but it also doesn't burn the same amount. I showed you my numbers, now you show me yours. Show me some data to support riding 40 km in 1 hour burns the same calories as riding it in less time.

Doing a loop hard may not burn fewer calories, but it also doesn't burn the same amount. I showed you my numbers, now you show me yours. Show me some data to support riding 40 km in 1 hour burns the same calories as riding it in less time.

my point wasn't that caloric burn was exactly equal, the point was that the numbers Padres comp spit out were in error....obviously drag increases with speed etc etc ad nauseum......

So it takes more calories to cover the set distance as speed increases.

True, but it wouldn't take 4 hours to complete both the LSD and the hard ride. My statement was referring to the OP saying 65 mile rides both of which were 4 hours.

Doing a loop hard may not burn fewer calories, but it also doesn't burn the same amount. I showed you my numbers, now you show me yours. Show me some data to support riding 40 km in 1 hour burns the same calories as riding it in less time.

Sure, but the OP said both rides were 65 miles in 4 hours.

the "fast" ride was about 20 min faster....hence the term "almost"

"Aerobic level will "burn" more fat while anaerobic will build more muscle, no?"

Probably not, it will affect the fuel "mix" between fat and glycogen.

"On the same ride, my wife, using the same model computer will also register similar results, although quantatatively smaller."

If I understand you, this makes little sense. I'd suggest something is fundamentally wrong with the assumptions the Garmin makes to estimate calories burned.

"Lance is a tiny human being. On the other hand, I am 6'6 215lbs."

That would affect the total amount work required it would not affect the rate of work. Since we know that even world class endurance athletes can only perform ~400-450 watts for an hour and that this equates to (off the top of my head) somewhere around 1200-1500 calories, then your numbers of 5000 calories for 4 hours (1250cal/hour) are unrealistic, probably even for Lance. It certainly wouldn't be LSD pace.

"Isn't it safe to say I burn more fuel than someone 145lbs given the same effort?"

Under most circumstances it would take you more total work to move an equal distance.

True, but it wouldn't take 4 hours to complete both the LSD and the hard ride. My statement was referring to the OP saying 65 mile rides both of which were 4 hours.
LSD:
65 mi, 4 hours = 16.25 mph: 80.1 W * 4 * 3600 = 1153 kJ

Hard and easy efforts:
65 mi, 2 hours @ 22.5 mph, 2 hours @ 10 mph = (2*186.4W+2*26.8W) * 3600 = 1535 kJ
65 mi, 2 hours @ 16.26, 1 hour @22.5, 1 hour @10 = (2*80.1W+186.4W+26.8W)*3600 = 1344kJ

It can be shown analytically that for a fixed average speed, isopacing always results in the lowest total energy expended, or in other words more calories are burned by throwing in periods of harder and easier effort.

LSD:
65 mi, 4 hours = 16.25 mph: 80.1 W * 4 * 3600 = 1153 kJ

Hard and easy efforts:
65 mi, 2 hours @ 22.5 mph, 2 hours @ 10 mph = (2*186.4W+2*26.8W) * 3600 = 1535 kJ
65 mi, 2 hours @ 16.26, 1 hour @22.5, 1 hour @10 = (2*80.1W+186.4W+26.8W)*3600 = 1344kJ

It can be shown analytically that for a fixed average speed, isopacing always results in the lowest total energy expended, or in other words more calories are burned by throwing in periods of harder and easier effort.

All I know is that when I go 65 miles hard = 2 In and Out double doubles, fries and a shake

So, whaddyathink?? LSD or harder??

More hours almost always equals more calories burned. If you can do a 1 hour ride at 250 watts, you can probably do a 3 hour ride at 200 watts. The shorter ride will burn about 900 calories. The longer one will burn about 2,160 kcalories. You're burning fewer calories per hour on the longer ride, but the greater duration more than makes up for the difference.

For the same reason, if your goal is really to lose weight, you're better off doing your LSD work on the bike rather than running. Since you can bike for longer, you can burn more calories on the bike than on your feet.

Padre: calorie estimates from anything but a power meter are notoriously unreliable. Even at your weight, you'd have to have a cat 2 or better level of fitness to burn 1250 kcal/hour. I've got no idea what your fitness is like or what the route looks like, but I'd suspect that if you *did* have that much power, your time for a 65 mile ride would be closer to 3 hours than 4.

isn't it also true that the harder you go, the more energy your body uses to recover, so that you continue to burn more calories after you've finished a hard workout than a lesser workout.
I don't have hard data to share, but I've read that and it makes sense to me.
I also think that, regardless, your strategy is driven by the amount of time you're willing to devote to this. If you have five hours, and you like spending five hours in the saddle, go for it. If you don't, then the circumstances have decided for you. If you only have an hour, you're not going to get very far on any metric unless you go pretty hard.

I'm a bit fuzzy on that, but IIRC, no, you aren't burning any extra calories/energy during recovery. Your respiratory rate and other cardiovascular functions remain elevated, so you *are* gaining a bit of fitness, just not losing weight. I could be wrong on this, though. Ask it on cyclingforums.com and you might get a response from Andy Coggan.

I'm a bit fuzzy on that, but IIRC, no, you aren't burning any extra calories/energy during recovery. Your respiratory rate and other cardiovascular functions remain elevated, so you *are* gaining a bit of fitness, just not losing weight. I could be wrong on this, though. Ask it on cyclingforums.com and you might get a response from Andy Coggan.
any metabolic activity requires energy. we are not perpetual motion machines. Rebuilding tissues will use energy. I think that the only question is whether it's a meaningful amount of energy, and I've heard that it can be.

So, whaddyathink?? LSD or harder??

Somewhere in the middle. I'll give you my "fer instances": Two weeks ago did an 80 mile ride @ about 20 mph avg, and averaged 207w for the ride. That equaled 2500 calories. Yesterday morning I did 90 minutes at 90% of FT (avg 263w) and burned 1500 calories. While the latter ride is 1000 calories fewer, it's also 3 more hours at home, and I didn't come home and need to take a nap. Bang for the buck wise, 90 @ 90% (on the trainer) is the quickest way to burn lots of calories.

any metabolic activity requires energy. we are not perpetual motion machines. Rebuilding tissues will use energy. I think that the only question is whether it's a meaningful amount of energy, and I've heard that it can be.

I couldn't quite remember the details, so I looked up the discussion from the wattage list. Here's a link, with more links to studies in the thread: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage/browse_thread/thread/ce19af18cafdaeff/ba343aad50f8cbb8?lnk=gst&q=recovery+calories&rnum=12&hl=en#ba343aad50f8cbb8

Summary: the caloric needs of recovery are either too small to measure or, even if measured, small enough to be insignificant.

It can be shown analytically that for a fixed average speed, isopacing always results in the lowest total energy expended, or in other words more calories are burned by throwing in periods of harder and easier effort.

Really, I don't doubt it at all. You're trying to convince me of something I believe is true as well. My responses were in the context of the original post in which the Garmin is telling the guy he's burning 5000 kcal on an easy ride and 2000 on a hard ride of the same distance. My point was merely that those "easy" numbers are probably inaccurate and the numbers for the two rides certainly don't make sense. He should burn roughly the same calories on the hard ride or more due to the factor you point out.

I just thought I'd add that LSD is not meant to be defined as long SLOW distance. It's meant to be used as long STEADY distance, which in most cases is significantly different.

If you're going faster in similar conditions, you're going to have to put out more power which means more calories burned.

Paul

For running, the data is pretty clear. Calories burned PER MILE is relatively independent of running speed. In other words, if you run a mile fast or if you run that same mile slow, you burn the same number of calories (approximately). THerefore, for running, you are better off with LSD for weight loss. You are much better off running 5 miles slowly, than 3 miles fast if what you want is weight loss and calorie burn. Calories burned per mile is largely determined by your bodyweight. Figure somewhere around 120-140 calories per mile. Do a google search and you can find some calculators out there that will give you a better number.

Mike

Summary: the caloric needs of recovery are either too small to measure or, even if measured, small enough to be insignificant.

I remember seeing a study that excess post-oxygen consumption (EPOC), which seems to me measures the increase in metabolism following exercise (I don't know if anyone knows if this is related to "recovery" or some other factors) is related to the total work performed. Regardless, if you think about it even during an easy recovery ride on a trainer in a cool room most people are working hard enough that they start sweating. OTOH, while I've definitely felt warm following very hard exercise (typically races), which is probably how we sense the increase in metabolism, the increase in oxygen comsumption has never been noticeable via increased ventilation or caused me to sweat like I was even exercising at an easy effort level. So it makes sense that any increase in metabolism post-exercise would be pretty small.

I personally have a tough time losing weight through cycling. It's quite easy to eat on a LSD and I'm tempted to eat to prevent the bonk on a long ride. When I get home I'm still starving and eat even more - I wasn't sure at the beginning if I was net gain or loss of calories. After training for a 12hour endurance race, I discovered that I could not have been net loss by very much since my weight never really dropped (I wasn't heavy to start with).

On the other hand, it's much harder to eat while running. Even during marathon training, eating more than 300-400 calories over 15-20 miles is difficult. And after getting home the hunger is there, but with some slightly upset stomach - which makes my eating volume more responsible. In my many years of light running I have always lost weight when I pushed past 3x/week or 15-20 miles/week.

Another trick for losing weight with running - commit to just a 3 mile run in the morning BEFORE breakfast. When you eat after you get back, eat your normal amount plus a little more (keep the extra below the 300-400 calories that you burned).

Also try running 3 miles before dinner and do the same thing in terms of calories. Save your long runs or bikes for the weekend.

If 3 miles is too much initially - do 2 miles. Just make sure you get yourself out the door.

When you work out at a LSD pace your body burns fat as the primary source of fuel. Once you start working at a higher heart rate your body cannot convert the fat to energy fast enough so it starts using sugars as fuel. So the best way to lose the excess weight is through LSD. You will burn the same amount of calories through both forms of exercise, but only the LSD will pull from your fat stores.
32 posts and I'm the first one to mention this?

When you work out at a LSD pace your body burns fat as the primary source of fuel. Once you start working at a higher heart rate your body cannot convert the fat to energy fast enough so it starts using sugars as fuel. So the best way to lose the excess weight is through LSD. You will burn the same amount of calories through both forms of exercise, but only the LSD will pull from your fat stores.
32 posts and I'm the first one to mention this?

Does it really matter though, it comes down to how many calories burned vs. how many you consume? If you burn glycogen rather than fats by exercising at higher intensities, you'll just use the carbs you ingest to replenish your glycogen stores, if already filled the carbs will be coverted to fats.

Even at the lowest levels of exercise you're burning roughly a 50/50 fat/carb ratio. If your goal is maximize the percentage of fat burns, sit around and do nothing, and lose weight by eating less.

""When you exercise vigorously, you get a robust hormonal change, which causes your body to burn more fat during your recovery time," says Janet Walberg Rankin, PhD, professor of nutrition at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg. Your metabolism also stays revved up five times longer after a vigorous workout than after an easy one. Over time, this can add up to burning an additional 100 to more than 200 calories a day."

From this article (http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-4-88-278-4219-1,00.html). I wonder, which hormones?

I wonder, which hormones?

Adrenaline and noradrenaline are typically some of the hormones you see associated with high-intensity exercise and I would think the ones that would increase metabolism.

I suspect even the 100-200 calories a day is optimistic.

Quoting Pam Hilton, take from it what you will.

During exercise muscles use fat and carbohydrate for energy. Exercise intensity determines which fuel will be used. At rest or during low intensity exercise (<50% of VO2max), the fuel of choice is fat - this fat can come from our diets if we've just eaten or from our fat stores if we're between meals. As exercise intensity increases, the proportion of energy that comes from carbohydrate increases and at max it's exclusively carbohydrate.

There are several reasons why this happens. As exercise intensity increases, more Type-II-b (white, fast-twitch) muscle fibers are recruited. These fibers lack the enzymes to do aerobic metabolism and must rely on anaerobic metabolism, which requires carbohydrate as an energy source. In situations where oxygen demand is high, carbs have an advantage over fats because less oxygen is required to burn carbohydrate. Consuming carbohydrate during training increases fat oxidation because it allows us to maintain higher exercise intensity, thereby expending more total energy and utilizing more fat. Here are the numbers to prove my point. While it is true that a greater proportion of the energy comes from fat when we are exercising at low intensity, the total energy used will be less (if the duration is constant) and so the absolute amount of fat burned will also be less than if we exercised at high intensity.

For example, riding at 10 miles per hour uses 6 kcal per kg per hour and 80% of those kcal come from fat. So if you rode for an hour at that speed, you would use a total of 600 kcal and 480 of them would be from fat. Contrast that with riding at 18 mph, which uses 12 kcal per kg per hour, but only 50% of the energy from fat. At the faster speed, you would burn 1200 kcal total and 600 kcal would come from fat. You can see that if your objective is to burn fat, being able to maintain a faster speed - i.e - higher intensity, would allow you to expend more energy and use more fat.

After eating a meal that is high in carbohydrate, the body goes into energy storage mode. Glucose is stored as glycogen and fat is synthesized and stored using excess glucose and amino acids. Insulin, a hormone that is secreted by the pancreas in response to an increase in blood glucose, is responsible for these changes in metabolism. During exercise (or fasting), insulin production is suppressed and the body shifts from fat storage mode into fat burning mode. The decreased insulin levels also allow for the release and use of stored fatty acids and for the breakdown of muscle glycogen into glucose. So, carbo-loading on pasta the night before a long training ride won't impair your ability to use fat during the ride because your insulin levels will shift your metabolism from fat storage to fat use.

As someone said, calories burned need to exceed calories taken in. Everyone is talking about how many thousands of calories they burn on a ride, but realistically, do you think you could do a 4000 calorie deficit in one day? Think about it...doing a 4 or 5 hr ride and then not eating. If all you want to do is lose weight, it won't matter if you burn 200 or 5000 calories by doing intervals or LSD or whatever and then eat it all back at the end. Just make sure you give yourself a deficit at the end of the day!

assuming you are restricting calories as well as riding, then you might not have the energy for a higher-intensity workout. Some books have suggested to keep your LSD rides in the 60-72% max HR range. From what I have read in Carmichael's "Food for Fitness" this would indicate that fat is the primary fuel source. Most people have plenty to burn.

If you are using a periodized plan then you'll probably be in some sort of "base" mode right now (ie LSD with S being slow and steady) which should be the perfect time to drop some lbs. I've had good luck with restricting calories to 11-13 cal/lb and getting in enough LSD riding/exercise to result in a 500 cal/day deficit....I lost 1-1.5 lbs week doing this. The plan was in "The Lance Armstrong Performance Program"...there is a chaper on weight loss by riding, you can skim it at a bookstore in just a few minutes.

Eventually you'll need to eat more as you ramp up intensity in the build/peak training periods and the focus shifts from weight loss to developing speed/power. But 5-10 lbs should be easy to ditch.

I think she has some physiology wrong.

"These fibers lack the enzymes to do aerobic metabolism and must rely on anaerobic metabolism, which requires carbohydrate as an energy source."

This is wrong. All muscle fibre types posses mitochondria and can produce energy oxidatively. They do differ in their relative glycolytic and oxidative capacities but to say Type IIb fibers "lack the enzymes to do aerobic metabolism" is not true.


"In situations where oxygen demand is high, carbs have an advantage over fats because less oxygen is required to burn carbohydrate."

This is not my understanding. I've always read that carbs can be oxidized faster than fats and that is why at high work rates you become almost entirely reliant on carbs. It is a flux issue, not an oxygen efficiency issue.


"Consuming carbohydrate during training increases fat oxidation because it allows us to maintain higher exercise intensity, thereby expending more total energy and utilizing more fat."

This would only become an issue if you're exercising hard enough for a long enough time that glycogen depletion becomes an issue thereby limiting power output. If anything you should avoid eating anything during or before exercise if the goal is to maximize fat burning b/c this will shift the ratio towards fat vs. carbs at any given submaximal intensity of exercise. Seeing as this advice is typically targeted for people getting on the treadmill or stairmaster for 30 minutes at the gym it is ass-backwards as the probability of them seriously depleting their glycogen stores to the point of compromising their power output is about nil. If you consume carbs and therefore carbs are circulating thru the blood you will burn them. If you've not eaten for awhile and aren't ingesting carbs during exercise, fat will be circulating thru the blood and you'll burn that.

[QUOTE=Dwayne Barry]I think she has some physiology wrong.

Right, so you know more about training and human physiology than her? I think I'll take her word for it. Unless of course you have published your own papers on the subject?
Please post a link if you can.

Pamela Hinton has a bachelor's degree in Molecular Biology and a doctoral degree in Nutritional Sciences, both from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She did postdoctoral training at Cornell University and is now an assistant professor of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Missouri-Columbia where she studies the effects of iron deficiency on adaptations to endurance training and the consequences of exercise-associated changes in menstrual function on bone health.

Pam was an All-American in track while at the UW. She started cycling competitively in 2003 and is the defending Missouri State Road Champion. Pam writes a nutrition column for Giana Roberge's Team Speed Queen Newsletter.

I think she has some physiology wrong.

"These fibers lack the enzymes to do aerobic metabolism and must rely on anaerobic metabolism, which requires carbohydrate as an energy source."

This is wrong. All muscle fibre types posses mitochondria and can produce energy oxidatively. They do differ in their relative glycolytic and oxidative capacities but to say Type IIb fibers "lack the enzymes to do aerobic metabolism" is not true.


"In situations where oxygen demand is high, carbs have an advantage over fats because less oxygen is required to burn carbohydrate."

This is not my understanding. I've always read that carbs can be oxidized faster than fats and that is why at high work rates you become almost entirely reliant on carbs. It is a flux issue, not an oxygen efficiency issue.


"Consuming carbohydrate during training increases fat oxidation because it allows us to maintain higher exercise intensity, thereby expending more total energy and utilizing more fat."

This would only become an issue if you're exercising hard enough for a long enough time that glycogen depletion becomes an issue thereby limiting power output. If anything you should avoid eating anything during or before exercise if the goal is to maximize fat burning b/c this will shift the ratio towards fat vs. carbs at any given submaximal intensity of exercise. Seeing as this advice is typically targeted for people getting on the treadmill or stairmaster for 30 minutes at the gym it is ass-backwards as the probability of them seriously depleting their glycogen stores to the point of compromising their power output is about nil. If you consume carbs and therefore carbs are circulating thru the blood you will burn them. If you've not eaten for awhile and aren't ingesting carbs during exercise, fat will be circulating thru the blood and you'll burn that.
aren't you arguing at cross-purposes here, Dwayne? I think she mostly agrees with what you're saying. Maybe she's using some shorthand. Maybe it's dumbed down a little. Maybe she saw different data, with the precise cause of this or that controversial. She still is saying what you've said -- more energy is used at intensity, regardless of, strictly speaking, the immediate source.
As for all of the vagaries of metabolic activity, it is always surprising to me how much and at the same time how little we really know -- or think we know -- about some basic metabolic functions. Look at lactic acid -- it is considered by many supposedly trained coaches and such that lactic acid is a limiting factor that needs to be cleared. You still see guys shaking out their legs on the road. All the evidence, however, points to lactic acid as a substance beneficial for endurance at intensity.

"Right, so you know more about training and human physiology than her? I think I'll take her word for it. Unless of course you have published your own papers on the subject?
Please post a link if you can."

Well I could list my credentials and my publications but they have about as much to do with those basic exercise and muscle physiology issues as Hinton's do. None of her publications touch on the statements I took exception to nor does her training seem any more appropriate than mine to make her an "expert" on those issues.

I'm sure I could dig up some references to support my claims but this is just knowledge I've gained from reading this sort of stuff for years now. How about this one for the very basic notion that Type IIb (more commonly referred to as Type IIX fibers these days) fibers don't have enzymes for oxidation?

Just grabbing a book of of my shelf I can find that Table 5.2, page 122 of the Academy of Sports Medicine's "Advanced Exercise Physiology" list the respiratory capacity of "Fast Type IIX" fibers as "lowest" and lists other aspects of their "Mitochondrial-related systems". Again, the idea that "These fibers lack the enzymes to do aerobic metabolism..." is simply not true according to what I've seen.

I think she mostly agrees with what you're saying.

Well she's just pointing out the well established notion that exercising at a low-intensity will not maximize the amount of fat burned and that to do this you should exercise at a moderate intensity. This has been circulating for years now because early on in the fitness craze people confounded the notions of relative and absolute fat burning. I was simply pointing out that she's surrounded that accurate observation with several others that either aren't true or seem like bad advice to me. Dumbing down is one thing (perhaps this is the case for the consume carbs during exercise advice), providing inaccurate information is another (muscle energetics stuff).

Well she's just pointing out the well established notion that exercising at a low-intensity will not maximize the amount of fat burned and that to do this you should exercise at a moderate intensity. This has been circulating for years now because early on in the fitness craze people confounded the notions of relative and absolute fat burning. I was simply pointing out that she's surrounded that accurate observation with several others that either aren't true or seem like bad advice to me. Dumbing down is one thing (perhaps this is the case for the consume carbs during exercise advice), providing inaccurate information is another (muscle energetics stuff).
to continue the amazement theme, as a lawyer who has occasion to consult with medical professionals, I am always flabbergasted to learn exactly how much disagreement there is over what seems as if should be basic, uncontroversial stuff. I think that lay people assume much more objectivity than is really out there.

I think that lay people assume much more objectivity than is really out there.

I would argue that in this case for the basic physiology ideas I am correct and I could provide the data to show that I'm correct if pushed to. I'm sure Dr. Hinton is more than competent at what she does, she's got a decent publication record, but I think she's got some basic facts incorrect. It's just an article for popular consumption and I think she's repeated some widely held, but unfornately wrong or poorly understood ideas probably because she's never really looked into them.

I think she has some physiology wrong.

"These fibers lack the enzymes to do aerobic metabolism and must rely on anaerobic metabolism, which requires carbohydrate as an energy source."

This is wrong. All muscle fibre types posses mitochondria and can produce energy oxidatively. They do differ in their relative glycolytic and oxidative capacities but to say Type IIb fibers "lack the enzymes to do aerobic metabolism" is not true.


"In situations where oxygen demand is high, carbs have an advantage over fats because less oxygen is required to burn carbohydrate."

This is not my understanding. I've always read that carbs can be oxidized faster than fats and that is why at high work rates you become almost entirely reliant on carbs. It is a flux issue, not an oxygen efficiency issue.


"Consuming carbohydrate during training increases fat oxidation because it allows us to maintain higher exercise intensity, thereby expending more total energy and utilizing more fat."

This would only become an issue if you're exercising hard enough for a long enough time that glycogen depletion becomes an issue thereby limiting power output. If anything you should avoid eating anything during or before exercise if the goal is to maximize fat burning b/c this will shift the ratio towards fat vs. carbs at any given submaximal intensity of exercise. Seeing as this advice is typically targeted for people getting on the treadmill or stairmaster for 30 minutes at the gym it is ass-backwards as the probability of them seriously depleting their glycogen stores to the point of compromising their power output is about nil. If you consume carbs and therefore carbs are circulating thru the blood you will burn them. If you've not eaten for awhile and aren't ingesting carbs during exercise, fat will be circulating thru the blood and you'll burn that.


Dwayne

You are sort of right...and so is she. Fast twitch muscles have a MUCH lower mitochondrial density than slow twitch fibers. They are also packed full of lactate dehydrogenase (enzyme that produces lactate) and have little pyruvate dehydrogenase. As a result, when fast twitch fibers are recruited, they produce lactate and metabolize carbohydrates anaerobically. Really though....there is a continuum of fiber types rather than just fast and slow. Really fast twitch fibers always metabolize anaerobically, intermediate fibers do some of both, really slow twitch fibers are always aerobic. Availability of oxygen has little to do with it. It has to do with what biochemists call the "law of mass action." Proximity of enzyme and substrate....

At higher work rates you become more reliant on carbs because you are recruiting large fast twitch muscles that are geared for burning carbs, not fats (because of their low mitochondrial density and high concentration of lactate dehydrogenase and large glycogen stores). She is right, fat requires more oxygen to burn. Carbs produce more ATP per unit of oxygen consumed. We can measure this with a metabolic cart (measures oxygen consumption and CO2 production). The value we measure is called RQ. It is higher for carbs than fat.

You are right about shifting the ratio of carbs to fat burning by consuming carbohydrates. However, it does not matter. For most people, all that is really important is calories in vs calories out. What you burn is relatively unimportant when it comes to weight loss.

"You are sort of right...and so is she. Fast twitch muscles have a MUCH lower mitochondrial density than slow twitch fibers."

I'm pretty up on muscle fibre types and aware of the different techniques to classify them and aware that in many respects they demonstrate a continuum of phenotypic traits, with their relative reliance on glycolytic vs. oxidative metabolism being one. I realize Type IIX fibers are highly glycolytic with a relatively poor oxidative capacity. I never said otherwise. She said they lack the enzymes necessary to perform oxidative metabolism. Do you not agree that the latter statement is in fact false? A relative paucity does not equal an absence!

"At higher work rates you become more reliant on carbs because you are recruiting large fast twitch muscles that are geared for burning carbs, not fats (because of their low mitochondrial density and high concentration of lactate dehydrogenase and large glycogen stores). She is right, fat requires more oxygen to burn. Carbs produce more ATP per unit of oxygen consumed. We can measure this with a metabolic cart (measures oxygen consumption and CO2 production). The value we measure is called RQ. It is higher for carbs than fat."

I don't disagree. My issue was the statement that this is why we burn carbs at high work rates. My understanding is that the why is because it allows for faster generation of ATP not because it's a more efficient process. Afterall, would you agree that what is driving the burning of the carbs rather than fat at high work rates in the increased glycolytic flux that results in more pyruvate (and possibly lactate if you believe Brooks and company) being shuttled into the mitochondria for oxidation?

"You are right about shifting the ratio of carbs to fat burning by consuming carbohydrates. However, it does not matter. For most people, all that is really important is calories in vs calories out. What you burn is relatively unimportant when it comes to weight loss."

I agree. Do you know where the notion (which I think is the reason behind her recommendation to consume carbs) that "fats burn in a carbohydrate flame" comes from? Everything I've seen suggests that this isn't true and that in fact you can shift towards more fat burning at given work rate by NOT eating carbs. Unless you're at risk for glycogen depletion because you are exercising relatively hard and/or long or severely restricting your carb intake via dieting this would not be an issue, no?

dude.. at this point this thread is completely useless. and weight loss is catered to the individual. What works for me will not work the same for rosie o'donnell. Sorry but I think i just provided the best advice on this thread. in simple..

eat less ride more.. you will loose weight. When you get to a weight you are happy with.. ride more and eat as much as you want.

if that doesn't work.. watch " What's eating gilbert Grape" and watch the part when they remove the mom from the house with a crane. then I think you will take the Twinkie out of your mouth and replace it with a rice cake.

My 2 cents... LSD will burn fat because it is using more oxygen to convert your fat to fuel. Harder will burn more carbs and protein. There is a lot of science behind which type of fuel (fat, protein or carbs). Heart rate (HR) and watt output are the best to tell you what you are burning. HR is the easiest and cheapest to use for measurement. The closer u are to the age predicted Max HR (220-age) the more carbs and protein you will burn. For most athletes age predicted Max HR is too low. I am 34 and my age predicted MHR is 186, but I have done several max VO2 testing (the only true way to find max heart rate) and my MHR is 209. Therefore 65% of that is 136, which is the lowest I want to be to burn fat. Keep it between 65% and 75% to brun fat. Above that is more carbs. 97% and above you will be breaking down protein. So...LSD will allow you to stay in the fat burning phase for long time. Throw in a few town limit sign sprints for a change in intesity to mix it up.

And drop the Chalupait will not help. (crappy, fatty, too may calorie type of foods, portion control!),

The closer u are to the age predicted Max HR (220-age) the more carbs then protein you will burn.
Given this formula applies to large populations only and shows no correlation with any single individual, why would an individual's substrate consumption be correlated with this formula? That doesn't make any sense.

he's not saying that the closer your max HR is to the formulaic prediction the more you etc., etc., he's saying that the closer you are to your max HR, whatever that may be. Which is a truism -- the harder you work, the more carb's you are burning relative to fat. Although I don't know where the protein is fitting in. Burning protein happens, I think, but isn't that a really last resort?
But the whole thing overlooks that the more energy you burn, the more energy you burn. If you use glycogen and carbs, the energy has to come from somewhere, and you'll use whatever stored energy you have be it fat or whatever to restore your glycogen.

I can only speak from limited experience on weight loss, but it's my observation that there are more factors at play other than calories in vs. calories burned. There are physiological changes that occur, particularly when you can spend lots of time on the bike that somehow change the equation for weight gain/loss.

Short, harder workouts don't seem to provide the same benefits as longer workouts, even if the same amount of calories are converted to work. One explanation for this phenomena that I recently read is that the bacteria in the gut of slender people is different from the bacteria in fat people and thus calories are processed differently. Maybe LSD gets you moving in the slender direction and the bacteria change takes care of the rest.

Before anyone goes ballistic on this suggestion, please consider I'm just throwing the idea out for discussion. I'd love to hear more about the bacteria theory if anyone has additional facts.

No matter fitness level the closer u are to YOUR MHR the higher your Respiratory Exchage Rate (RER) becomes. The higer your RER the better chance of breaking down protein for enery. That is science. American College of Sports Medicine.



Respiratory Exchange Ratio
Respiratory Quotient (RQ) reflects the composition of fuels oxidized by the cells during exercise.
At the cellular level, RQ is the volume of CO2 (VCO2) produced divided by the volume of
oxygen consumed (VO2 ) during the same period of time. Since these values are measured at the
mouth and not in the lungs, R or Respiratory Exchange Ratio is the term utilized to represent fuel
oxidation by indirect calorimetry.

No matter fitness level the closer u are to YOUR MHR the higher your Respiratory Exchage Rate (RER) becomes. The higer your RER the better chance of breaking down protein for enery. That is science. American College of Sports Medicine.
You put the explicit qualifier "age predicted" in your post, not me.
The closer u are to the age predicted Max HR (220-age) the more carbs then protein you will burn.
For my personal case (Max HR=202; 220-age=170), it's hard to read this any other way than the close I am to 170 ... This is English.

To Clarify, Age predicted it the generic way for the lay person to know a ballpark figure of their MHR. As I mentioned, the more fit a person is the higher their MHR would be compared to their aged predicted HR.

For a person to measure fitness and fitness gains there has to be a method and that is based on certain % of MHR. 65-75% burn fat but not working the cardiovascular system. 75%-95% will train Cardiovascular system.

To Clarify, Age predicted it the generic way for the lay person to know a ballpark figure of their MHR. As I mentioned, the more fit a person is the higher their MHR would be compared to their aged predicted HR.

Far a person to measure fitness and fitness gains there has to be a method and that is based on certain % of MHR. 65-75% burn fat but not working the cardiovascular system. 75%-95% will train Cardiovascular system.

Man....Bizzno...stop while you are ahead. You are putting out alot of bad info....fat burning zones...65-95% burns fat but does not work the cardiovascular system....the higher your RER, the more likely you are to be breaking down protein, 65%...which is the lowest I want to be to burn fat......

Sorry....all wrong and misinterpretations of the science. I have a little background in exercise physiology...Not trying to beat up on you but you shouldn't try to throw around science when you don't know what you are talking about....

Mike,

Exercise Phys? then u should be familiar with ACSM. By the way I did not say 65-95% burn fat read again, 65-75%.

And if u stay at those zones u will never train at your lactic acid threshold. Exercise Phys? Then u should be familiar with Lactic Acid Thresh Hold. Mike, you are throwing it back at me, but no explaination. I will keep my background to myself, but lets say that it is a bit more then "a little background in exercise physiology."

Exercise Phys? Then you should be familiar with the aerobic energy system and the creatine monohydrate energy system? Which both play a part in which fuels are being used.

Oh and u should be familiar with ATP and ADP and how enery is created? I am not taking it personal just would like to here how I, along with the ACSM are wrong?

All the "science" that I need to know is that after a few days of LSD my clothes fit a bit looser, even after eating the "wrong" atherogenic foods like pizza, carrot cake, pound cake...
I am brutal to my body on my LSD days, usually on Saturdays, going out for a 100+ miler ride without any breakfast, just a cup of Colombian coffee with X3 teaspoons of sugar and creme. I manage to crank steady on a 53-14 gear, >80 RPM's, sticking to a mostly flat and mostly windy course. I take 32 oz. of water and 24 oz. of Gatorade, and keep riding without a break, maybe once to pee, and make it back home in 43/4 hours to 51/4 hours, depending on the wind and how I feel. I also pre-medicate with X1 Celebrex 200mg.and Tylenol 1000 mg., just to keep the aches and pain under control.
I make sure I drink lots of water afterwards while I recover.

And if u stay at those zones u will never train at your lactic acid threshold. Exercise Phys? Then u should be familiar with Lactic Acid Thresh Hold.

It just seems to get stranger and stranger. While I have seen many references to lactate threshold, I have never seen anyone knowledgeable in Ex. Phy. refer to a lactic acid threshold. Especially in light of the fact the humans don't release a proton to form the acid form of lactate. cf., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactic_acid

I am laughing my ass off. That is awesome. But at that type of work out why cut out the pound cake?

It has always been considered the same, Lactate and Lactic Acid when being talked about for training purposes. But you are correct, Lactic acid does not exist as an acid in the body: it exists in another form called “lactate .

To be more correct, lets use the term Anaerobic Threshold. =)

ITo be more correct, lets use the term Anaerobic Threshold. =)
Or less.

Exercise Phys? then u should be familiar with ACSM. By the way I did not say 65-95% burn fat read again, 65-75%.

And if u stay at those zones u will never train at your lactic acid threshold. Exercise Phys? Then u should be familiar with Lactic Acid Thresh Hold. Mike, you are throwing it back at me, but no explaination. I will keep my background to myself, but lets say that it is a bit more then "a little background in exercise physiology."

Exercise Phys? Then you should be familiar with the aerobic energy system and the creatine monohydrate energy system? Which both play a part in which fuels are being used.

Oh and u should be familiar with ATP and ADP and how enery is created? I am not taking it personal just would like to here how I, along with the ACSM are wrong?

I have been a member of ACSM for years and have presented research at that conference on numerous occasions. ACSM is not wrong...sorry but you are. Creatine monohydrate pathway, what the heck is that? I know what creatine is, I have published some research on it, but there is no "creatine monohydrate pathway." Also, it is threshold not thresh hold. You are using a bunch of words that I doubt you know the meaning of. It is really kind of strange....and I doubt that you have more than a little background in exercise phys. Sorry to be so blunt but most of what you are saying does not make sense at all. It would take a 10 page response to straighten it out....,

Also, you are confusing fuel burning ratios with fuel burning rates (fat and carbohydrates). You are also a bit confused on what determines which fuel is burned (fat and carbohydrates). Not sure what you were talking about with burning protein above 97% or whatever....

I don't know much about Campagnolo parts. Thats why I don't submit posts about Campagnolo parts. If I did, they would be all messed up and somebody would call me on it. That's the way it is. When you post stuff like this, expect somebody to call you on it. That's the way it works....nothing personal.

And if u stay at those zones u will never train at your lactic acid threshold.

Almost any endurance training can improve an individuals LT depending on their starting fitness. A sedentary person who just goes out and walks vigorously at the lowest levels of what is considered exercise will see their LT increase.

Think of it this way, lactate threshold is determined the rate of glycolysis outstripping the ability of your mitochondria to oxidize most of the pyruvate being produced, resulting in lactate being produced. So any training that increase your oxidative capacity (which almost by definition is "endurance" training) will increase your LT because it will increase the rate at which you can oxidize pyruvate.

So for a couch potatoe just going out and walking at a HR > 50% of their max for 20 or 30 minutes a few times a week will increase thier LT because their oxidative capacity will increase despite the fact that they never train anywhere near their LT. Of course once you're highly trained it is likely that you will have to train at intensities around your LT or above to see further improvement.

I do not think u presented anything on Creatine LOL. I can' believe that u never heard of The Creatine System. It is the ATP system. Just like the Aerobic system is also called the Kreb Cycle.

The below link is not linking properly (cut and past.)

I have conduted many VO2 testing. Rate is a ratio. And there is a point when protein becomes more used as fuel due to the extreme intensity, which is identified during VO2 testing.



And "Thresh Hold" was a typo.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~hpe/creatine.htm

Just like the Aerobic system is also called the Kreb Cycle.
Of course, the aerobic system is not known as the Kreb [sic] cycle. At this point, it should be pretty clear to everyone you're just a troll.

[QUOTE=Bizzno47It is the ATP system. Just like the Aerobic system is also called the Kreb Cycle.

The below link is not linking properly (cut and past.)

I have conduted many VO2 testing. Rate is a ratio. And there is a point when protein becomes more used as fuel due to the extreme intensity, which is identified during VO2 testing.[/QUOTE]

ATP isn't a system, it is the molecule that transfers energy within cells. The energy to produce force and fuel the various "pumps" in a cell is provided when a phospate is split off (Adenosine TriPhospate becomes Adenosine DiPhophate). There are 3 major "systems" that replenish the very small pool of ATP by sticking a phosphate back on the ADP molecule so it is ATP.

The Phosphocreatine (or Creatine phosphate), glycolysis and then the oxidative system (Krebs cycle and oxidative phosphorylation).

Your description of VO2max testing sounds like you're talking about the lactate threshold (or something similar, anaerobic thresold, etc.) which is often identified. This has nothing to do with protein. Protein is almost always ignored in discussions of exercise/muscle energetics as it provides only a small contribution.

Thank you. It sounds like u know what I am saying, which was generic. I know ATP is not a system. I was talking about the ATP energy system. I left out the word energy in my previous.

I do not think u presented anything on Creatine LOL. I can' believe that u never heard of The Creatine System. It is the ATP system. Just like the Aerobic system is also called the Kreb Cycle.

The below link is not linking properly (cut and past.)

I have conduted many VO2 testing. Rate is a ratio. And there is a point when protein becomes more used as fuel due to the extreme intensity, which is identified during VO2 testing.

And "Thresh Hold" was a typo.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~hpe/creatine.htm

Uhhh....I actually do know a little something about creatine. Click the link below....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9294877&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Mike

dude.. at this point this thread is completely useless. and weight loss is catered to the individual.


Answer: A horse designed by a committee.

That's the joke I'm reminded of after I read some of the posts on this thread. Not everyone is guilty, of course. But what good is much of the rhetoric if you still have that spare tire...?

**************************************************

To the OP: Keep a log and try each method; as tete de la tour succinctly put it, everyone is different. Don't overthink this and by no means feel you have to buy some contraception like a garmin; a notebook and a mirror costs alot less and are simpler to use.

Personally, if I want to cut excess weight, I do the following...In the morning, I'll have a cup of coffee-no breakfast. Then I'll go for a 30-45 min run. Start easy, usually walking, followed by slow trot, followed by running. I'll either keep the pace moderate or throw in some hard efforts depending on if I'm going to ride or lift later that day. Afterwards, a shower and breakfast and onward with the rest of the day.

The weight-bearing activity done on an empty stomach first thing in the morning gets my metablism going. The short duration means I will have plenty of energy and motivation for other things in my life.

Once my weight goes down to where I want it, I reduce or eliminate the running to focus on riding or lifting to improve my riding.

Again - everyone is different, which means you will have to experiment. However, there is no need to design a camel when you want a horse.