The harder I ride, the less fat I burn? WTF?
So now that I'm into bicycling as my main form of fitness, I've been mostly doing interval-style rides. After a 20-25 minute moderate ride and a brief stretch, I do 1:1 ratios of intensity:rest. So I'll ride hard for 2 mins, easy 2 mins. I've been doing these pyramid style and have gotten up to 4 on, 4 off, then back down.
I've come across a couple of pieces of literature that say that in order to lose weight / burn fat, I can't get into anaerobic training because the oxygen deficit forces the body to use stored carbs as energy as opposed to fat. Basically, I have to keep my heart rate between 120-140, according to these sources, and keep the activity aerobic.
Yay or nay on this? If I have to do long, slow rides, I'm going to have to find a different way to train; part of the fun is weaving through idiots and slower people on a narrow lakefront trail at 15mph+.
If what I remember correctlly, it most likely was on this board too, but basically you burn the same amount of calories if you run for an hour or if you wealk for an hour.
The 120-140 for fat burning and 150-170 for cardio chart has been on every BPM-reading gym bike I've ever used.
Yes, but what is supplying those calories? That changes based on heart rate.
Originally Posted by ojgsxr6
Last edited by Shuma-Gorath; 8/03/2006 10:14pm at .
Absolute rubbish. It is a misinterpretation of the data.
While there may be a slight advantage in the percentages of fat/glucose burned by aerobic training, the total fat burned by anaerobic training is much higher.
On the downside, the incidence of burnout for anaerobic training by the dieting trainees is also much higher. Not sticking with a program is even worse for fat loss.
Originally Posted by ojgsxr6
That can't possibly be right.
Last edited by Tom Kagan; 8/03/2006 10:22pm at .
I suppose that the assumption that walking and running a mile is still the same distance so you burn the same amount.
I guess I can see a point in that, but when it comes to time (and not distance) then there is no way you can be burning the same amount of calories.
for example, a guy who runs 15 minutes will travel farther than the guy who walks 15 minutes, thus burning more calories.
a guy who runs a mile and a guy who walks a mile... that is where the argument takes place.
Not distance, time. If I run for an hour I burn the same calories as walking for an hour. Shuma brings up a good point, the difference is not how many calories are burned but what calories, fats, proteins or carbs.
Originally Posted by your mother
Tom is right. It's a gross oversimplification to say that at x intensity you're using one energy system and at y intensity you're using another. The proportion of fatty acid oxidization might be lower at higher intensities, but that's a percentage, not a total.
There is a lot of confusing data and you can drive yourself nuts. Yes the data supports that slower longer "aerobic" meaning your using oxygen to provide energy rather than Anaerobically does burn more fat, however it is negligible in a real world situation. The fact is to lose weight in general you have to expend more energy than you take in. combination of excersice and diet.
remember to that whenever you lose weight you also lose muscle and too much aerobic activity can burn muscle (Muscle is an energy source and easier to breakdown and use than fat) So make sure you keep up your protein intake and do some strength trainging to minimize muscle loss. Muscle also burns calories at rest so the more you have the better.
Keep doing what you are doing. Interval training is awsome and allows you to work both your aerobic and anaerobic systems at the same time. something you can also do is on days you have more time to ride, go longer for longer rides see how long you can go keeping a moderate pace and then other days do the shorter more intense intervals. Over time you should see that your base moderate pace on the longer rides will actually get fast. Basically by working this way you are increasing your anearobic threshold wich is that you are able to continue to produce energy aerobically at higher intensities and for longer periods of time.
Don't get bogged down by the research-Are you training for something specific?
Aerobically, your muscles are useless. After about 20 minutes of sustained-intensity training, you start burning off about an eggs-worth of protein every 10 minutes or so. The reason behind this is the fact that each pound of muscle you gain burns about 50 calories a day just lying around, which is considered wasteful when your fucking running marathons,
Steady state activity teaches your body to burn muscle and store fat. And when you do it on an empty stomach, it's even worse. Your saying, "Hey, a famine's coming, and I'm outrunning something but barely." so your body adjusts. It gets rid of muscle and starts storing more fat to prepare for long runs and famine.
Look at a sprinter versus a long distance runner, or a bear versus a cheetah.
Interval style training is more like real life, suddenly you sprint to get your son out of the middle of the road preventing the making of the Pet Cemetary movies. Or you run down and stab to death a bird, wait until they settle again, and run down and stab to death another bird. Your body thinks, "I need this muscle to continue running this fast with this response time, so I think for this activity I'm gonna need to get rid of fat, since this guy's getting plenty of food"
A calorie is a calorie, but it's manipulation of basal metabolism that's gonna make the difference, which is what the Abs Diet is centered around. It's a complete metabolism altering lifestyle change, as opposed to a strict diet and/or exercise regime. If your interested, pick up The Abs Diet by David Zinczenko at your local bookstore.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO