Is cycling effective for weight loss..?

leftism

andy69 wrote: »

It's great for weight loss, provided ur doing it right. I assume you mean 'fat loss', and that's achieved quite easily by training just below your lactic threshold for min of 2hrs to make a significant impact. Hard part is to determine the lactic threshold but a performance test will get that for ye.
I wouldn't run to save my life, but i imagine the heart rate would be well above latic threshold, and in that case ur burning carbs, not fat. Percieved weight loss might just be fluid loss, but I don't run so I might be wrong about it being above latic threshold?

Just a terrible idea! Exercising for 2 hours at or near your lactate threshold is virtually impossible, with the exception of some of the worlds fittest endurance athletes. Recommended training volume for just below your lactate threshold is interval training with total workload not exceeding 60 mins (work:rest ratio of 4:1 or 5:1). I would definitely not suggest going out and hammering at TLac for 120mins!!!

Another post made the suggestion that the fat burning zone is nonsense. Again i'll have to whole-heartedly disagree! The optimal exercise intensity for fat oxidation is easily calculated via the Respiratory Exchange Ratio (RER). An RER of 0.7 would indicate that nearly 100% of your energy is being provided via fat oxidation. An RER of 1.0 (or higher) indicates that 100% of your energy is provided via carbohydrate metabolism. By the way, your RER near lactate threshold will be very close to 1.0 so you're effectively burning NO fat. In reality, the optimal zone is somewhere around 0.85 where there is roughly a 50:50 ratio of fat:carbohydrate fuel consumption. This is an intensity which has a low rating of perceived exertion and can be maintained for long periods of time without fatigue. The longer the exercise duration, the better for weightloss!

Regardless of exercise intensity, making sure that daily energy expenditure is greater than daily energy intake is for sure the best long term solution to weightloss. Whether this is achieved through running, swimming, cycling or any other form of exercise, the outcome will be the same i.e-a reduction in overall body mass.

CramCycle

leftism wrote: »

the optimal zone is somewhere around 0.85 where there is roughly a 50:50 ratio of fat:carbohydrate fuel consumption. This is an intensity which has a low rating of perceived exertion and can be maintained for long periods of time without fatigue. The longer the exercise duration, the better for weightloss!

I would have thought the optimal zone for an obese subject would be a bit lower? what do you think, I've heard some (over at the ECSS in Liverpool that I presume you were at) advising 0.65 for obese subjects(my memory could be faulty though), not my area so I would be interested to hear your opinion.

andy69

leftism wrote: »

Just a terrible idea! Exercising for 2 hours at or near your lactate threshold is virtually impossible, with the exception of some of the worlds fittest endurance athletes....

hmmmm... possibly a mis-understanding of what I wrote?...

Let's take my particular case for example:
Not the youngest, or fittest person around, by any stretch of the imagination, and my Lactate Threshold is at approx 130bpm. Max HR is 180.
So, it is actually very easy for me to train for hours on end at or near the 130bpm, as it would be for anyone.

I checked back, and I have this from my last performance test....

"Lactate threshold is the transition between
easy- to moderate-intensity cycling exercises.
In other words, it is the pace that you can sustain for a
long duration exercise"

...so were you maybe referring to Lactate Turnpoint? Again, an extract from my report...

"At your lactate turnpoint pace, you reach a non-steady
state, corresponding to the heavy-intensity domain.
At this pace, an anaerobiosis takes place
(i.e., a mismatch between the oxygen demand and supply)
leading to a metabolic acidosis (decrease in pH, sub-products
accumulation)...."

Lumen

@andy69, those definitions are bollocks.

Lactate threshold is the point at which cycling becomes deeply unpleasant.

CramCycle

andy69 wrote: »

"Lactate threshold is the transition between
easy- to moderate-intensity cycling exercises.
In other words, it is the pace that you can sustain for a
long duration exercise"

What Lumen said, were did you get this report?

andy69

From ucd sports performance institute, just last year.
Now I'd tend to believe them, but now I'm left wondering!
Could you guys be mistaken, or are you qualified above and beyond ucd? Not being smart, just wondering how ucd could get it so wrong (if indeed they are wrong)...?

mloc123

andy69 wrote: »

From ucd sports performance institute, just last year.
Now I'd tend to believe them, but now I'm left wondering!
Could you guys be mistaken, or are you qualified above and beyond ucd? Not being smart, just wondering how ucd could get it so wrong (if indeed they are wrong)...?

The definition they give sounds more like aerobic threshold than lactate threshold.

Lactate threshold run tests HURT, my max HR is 196 and my running LTHR Is 183... racing at LTHR hurts alot, alot.

el tel

Would all this sciencey thresholdy lactating stuff have been known and understood in coppi's day or even Merckx's day? Just wondering is all.

andy69

So it might just be the names they use to describe the different phases...
Originally I was talking about training just below the point where latic acid can be detected in the blood samples they take every minute or so during the test.
As explained to me, that was called the lactic threshold.
Next stage or point was where ye get into difficulty and that was the 'turnpoint'. Strange they didn't use the same names everyone else seems to....would've saved a lot of confusion!
I'll get in touch with them to clarify the terms...must be some logic to it, they're a highly educated bunch ;-)

andy69

el tel wrote: »

Would all this sciencey thresholdy lactating stuff have been known and understood in coppi's day or even Merckx's day? Just wondering is all.

:-) probably not, but we're not all fortunate to be blessed with such natural ability, nor have the time with other pressures in life so performance tests can be valuable for poor untallented punters like me ;-)

Lumen

andy69 wrote: »

So it might just be the names they use to describe the different phases...

http://www.elitevelo.com/products/lactateprofile/the-science-behind-the-test

andy69

...exactly! Ucd called LT1 'lactate threshold' and the turnpoint is LT2. Same principles, but using names that caused some confusion unfortunatly :-(

jaqian

Yes it does but its best to combine it with something else like walking. I've lost 2st since January last year, which I put down to diet, cycling (24km per day) & walking (6km per day). Still too fat but working on that.

leftism

CramCycle wrote: »

I would have thought the optimal zone for an obese subject would be a bit lower? what do you think, I've heard some (over at the ECSS in Liverpool that I presume you were at) advising 0.65 for obese subjects(my memory could be faulty though), not my area so I would be interested to hear your opinion.

Didn't get over to the ECSS this year unfortunately, but several of the guys in the lab went. I've been reading the book of abstracts over the last week and i'm gutted i didn't go in the end. Just writing up my thesis at the moment and i couldn't afford to lose 2 weeks preparing powerpoints and posters etc. What did you make of the conference? Did you present at it?

Dead right about lower intensities for an obese population. The emphasis on very low exercise intensity for obese subjects is in part due to the fact that moderate exercise can quickly become fatiguing due to the difficulty in general locomotion associated with their body mass. 0.65 seems low for an RER though. I've never seen an RER that low anyways...

RE Andy69: The Lactate Threshold seems way off the mark! Did you get a lactate concentration for your TLac at 130 beats.min-1?

leftism

CramCycle wrote: »

I would have thought the optimal zone for an obese subject would be a bit lower? what do you think, I've heard some (over at the ECSS in Liverpool that I presume you were at) advising 0.65 for obese subjects(my memory could be faulty though), not my area so I would be interested to hear your opinion.

Didn't get over to the ECSS this year unfortunately, but several of the guys in the lab went. I've been reading the book of abstracts over the last week and i'm gutted i didn't go in the end. Just writing up my thesis at the moment and i couldn't afford to lose 2 weeks preparing powerpoints and posters etc. What did you make of the conference? Did you present at it?

Dead right about lower intensities for an obese population. The emphasis on very low exercise intensity for obese subjects is in part due to the fact that moderate exercise can quickly become fatiguing due to the difficulty in general locomotion associated with their body mass. 0.65 seems low for an RER though. I've never seen an RER that low anyways...

RE Andy69: Your Lactate Threshold seems way off the mark! Did you get a lactate concentration for your TLac at 130 beats.min-1?

CramCycle

andy69 wrote: »

From ucd sports performance institute, just last year.
Now I'd tend to believe them, but now I'm left wondering!
Could you guys be mistaken, or are you qualified above and beyond ucd? Not being smart, just wondering how ucd could get it so wrong (if indeed they are wrong)...?

I am qualified upto the same level as some on that side of the building but not in that area (although alot of people in my lab are) so I'm not much good but I know leftisms work focuses alot on the excercise area, my area is Diabetes. Knowing some of the guys there though I'd say it was just a stupid mistake (one they shouldn't be making) but it does look like they are wrong.

@leftism: others in my lab presented at it, I went over on a whim for a few days because I had some spare travel money before my funding runs out, if I'm still writing up next year I might submit because its an area I'm hugely interested in even if its not my specific are, there is alot of cross over.

andy69

leftism wrote: »

RE Andy69: Your Lactate Threshold seems way off the mark! Did you get a lactate concentration for your TLac at 130 beats.min-1?

emmmm...ye have me there now. Computer Science is my field, so i'm just a visitor into the facinating world of limits and thresholds etc. Pity I seem to have been given the wrong titles for the different phases

tbh I don't know, I just got the figures where a) lactic acid starts to be detected in the blood (the point LT1 from the earlier link/graph, and the point which my report calls 'threshold'....easy pace, can be maintained for hours), and then b) the LT2 point, or 'turnpoint' from my report, which is where ye get into difficulty and can't maintain for very long....where ye would be doing interval training for example).

So for me, using the link/terms from above, it's:
- approx 130bpm is the LT1 point
- approx 155bpm is the LT2 point
- 180bpm is max hr.

....does that sound about right? (as opposed to way-off) ?

Lumen

@andy69, this may help:

http://www.trainingpeaks.com/hunter/power_training_levels.pdf

In the table, the "Lactate Threshold" level would be the LT2 level in the graph I posted above. This is the most common usage of the term, also called OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation).

All the % HR values in the table are % of LT(2) HR.

LT is a handy measure around which to plan training as it's easy to derive empirically, to acceptable accuracy. You basically just do a 1 hour time trial (without killing yourself at the end) and take your average HR.

That first LT1 inflection point is more difficult to determine outside the lab.

(Note: I am completely unqualified in this area)

leftism

I'll never understand why labs insist on plotting inflection points down around 1-2mmol.L-1. It confuses the hell out of regular athletes (as is the case with the current debate) and from a training perspective i don't see their benefit. UCD are not alone in this regard and i know several labs in the UK that look at first and second inflection points. In reality, there will be inflection points the whole way along a lactate curve but most are not of any real significance.

When it comes to collecting lactate data, my own opinion (and it is just my opinion) is that there are two pieces of valuable information worth attaining.

1) A single Lactate threshold (TLac) which clearly defines the onset of signifcant anaerobic exercise. Dmax or V-Slope are the two methods i would use to give a threshold which defines your anaerobic transition. This will usually occur at concentrations between 2.5-3.5 mmol.L-1 and at heart rates of 80-95% of HRmax.

2) Maximal lactate concentration. This is a useful measure of ones lactate tolerance, or ability of the muscles to continue working in the presence of high concentrations of lactate. Put another way, how much can you hurt...

These two measures are useful because appropriate training will result in a quantifiable shift in their values. Long term (3 months minimun) aerobic training at the correct intensity willl increase your power at TLac. An increase in power at TLac signifies an improvement in aerobic efficiency. Anaerobic training at high intensities will result in a higher lactate tolerance, measured as a higher maximal lactate concentration and (hopefully) a higher power output. Thus we can quantify your aerobic and anaerobic fitness through these 2 measures. A lot of the other lactate measures (inflection points at low concentrations etc.) are surplus to requirement and just muddy the waters in terms of providing athletes with clear training information.

@ Andy69: I'm a PhD student in the Physiology Department in Trinity. I work most days in Human Performance Lab with Bernard Donne. For the record, the guys in UCD are not wrong, just some of the measures are not necessarily required (IMO). Why provide an athlete with 2 Lactate thresholds when 1 proper threshold will do? It only confuses things...

If you're still worried about where your threshold intensity is, take Lumens advice! Go out and do a 25km TT as hard and consistent as you possibly can. Your average heart rate for the ride will accurately represent your heart rate at anaerobic threshold. I did a 10mile TT with boards.ie last year. It took me about 25mins to do and at the end my average heart rate was EXACTLY (to the beat) the same as the heart rate at TLac tested in the lab.

Or you could pay us 60 euro and we'll do the whole lot in Trinity for ya! (shameless plug ) Its a lot cheaper than UCD, but not as cheap as a free 25km TT...

mloc123

30 minute all out TT with average HR for the last 20mins is an easier/more repeatable LTHR test.

munsterleinster

Hey scienticians.. Any chance of some layman talk for a while?

Is a straight answer possible on the best way to loose 5kg/10kg etc?

TinyExplosions

munsterleinster wrote: »

Hey scienticians.. Any chance of some layman talk for a while?

Is a straight answer possible on the best way to loose 5kg/10kg etc?

Cycle more, eat less and you'll lose the weight eventually

Kevo

I was 83 kilos last summer, started cycling to work (~14k each way) and within a few months I was down to 73. I cycled maybe 2/3 days a week.

I was also a little lucky that the canteen at work only had healthy food.

munsterleinster

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Cycle more, eat less and you'll lose the weight eventually

Helpful:rolleyes:

TinyExplosions

munsterleinster wrote: »

Helpful:rolleyes:

Anything else is just a variation on the same theme mate! You can go on and on about efforts, heart rates and protein/carb/fat consumption, but if you reduce your portion sizes, and get out on the bike more, you will lose weight.

seamus

munsterleinster wrote: »

Hey scienticians.. Any chance of some layman talk for a while?

Is a straight answer possible on the best way to loose 5kg/10kg etc?

Get at least 3 hours of exercise per week, five hours ideally. The exercise doesn't have to be gruelling, but you should at least be breathing heavily afterwards.

Eat a small but filling breakfast, like porridge or something. No toast or any such, just a bit o' milk and a cup of tea if you fancy it. If you feel hungry between breakfast and lunch, have a piece of fruit. Eat a dinner-sized portion at lunchtime. Avoid anything fried or roasted and avoid desserts.
Again, if you feel hungry between lunch and dinner, again, piece of fruit. Turn culchie and have your "tea" at dinnertime. This should be a small enough meal. Higher in protein and fat than carbs. So avoid eating a mountain of toast, a big of chips or a bowl of cereal or anything like that. Maybe scrambled eggs or a couple of grilled sausages or a bowl of soup or whatever.

There's no cheating. A biscuit is not an equivalent substitute for an apple between meals. A bag of crisps is not OK with your lunch. If you find yourself feeling hungry, suppress your appetite with tea, coffee or diet coke. Only drink tea, coffee & water. Or a diet drink if you're really craving. If you're drinking lots of tea/coffee, switch to semi-skimmed milk, at least. Ideally fully skimmed.

Drink lots of water, regularly. Like a litre between meals. You'll piss like a racehorse, but after a couple of days you'll notice a difference.

If you like your pints, eat a protein-only evening meal and switch to guinness or vodka + a diet mixer. Drink more slowly as you'll get pissed easier on the emptier stomach.

Do that for about five weeks and if you're currently overweight and inactive you can expect to lose around five kilos.

Jawgap

I agree with Tiny - more out and less in will lead to weight loss.

All the mumbo-jumbo being spoken by the medicine men is powerful juju, but it essentially means the same. You can apply the science to control how quickly, or slowly, the weight comes off while also improving your performance, but if weight loss is your main concern then cycle more (within reason) and eat less (again, within reason).

EDIT - I think aiming to take in 200 calories less than you put out is a safe target, but I'm open to correction

StudentC

@ leftism, andy69, cramcycle, lumen

(apolgies for dragging the thread back to the sciency stuff)

Re the lactate turnpoints thresholds etc

There's a million different terms used in the literature in trying to define thresholds - lactate threshold 1, lactate threshold 2, lactate threshold, lactate turnpoint, anaerobic threshold, onset of blood lactate accumulation, aerobic threshold, individual anaerobic threshold, aerobic-anaerobic threshold, etc etc. Lots of ongoing disagreement about what the points actrually represent and what they should be called, and then a whole other argument about how exactly they should be measured or caculated.

So I think you have to interpret things you read about lactate threshold with caution, until you're sure exactly what the author is referring to. And I wonder if maybe there is also some differences in what are the more established meanings in the academic literature and then the more layman's cycling training literature? I don't know about that, just a suggestion.


Re lab test reports
I'm based in the exercise physiology lab in UCD, so I thought I'd just throw my two cents worth in. I don't run the performance tests and don't write the reports, so I'm not here to defend them.

i agree with what you're saying leftism about the need/not need for mentioning two lactate points, and how it confusing. I would expect that the reason both are specified on the UCD report is because the guy who write those reports is very, very keen on attention to detail, and wouldn't want to hold back any information from the participant, so he gives them alot of info and then expects them to use it approriately. You could certainly argue that a 'less is more;' approach might be better for the layman, personally I tend to vary the level of feedback I give to participants quite a lot depending on what I think they will benefit from/need/understand, I don't have a fixed formula. The guy who does the testing isn't here today so i can't ask him why he reports it like that, but as I said, I think he just wants to give people the information they have paid for.

CramCycle

StudentC wrote: »

@ leftism, andy69, cramcycle, lumen

(apolgies for dragging the thread back to the sciency stuff)

Re the lactate turnpoints thresholds etc

There's a million different terms used in the literature in trying to define thresholds - lactate threshold 1, lactate threshold 2, lactate threshold, lactate turnpoint, anaerobic threshold, onset of blood lactate accumulation, aerobic threshold, individual anaerobic threshold, aerobic-anaerobic threshold, etc etc. Lots of ongoing disagreement about what the points actrually represent and what they should be called, and then a whole other argument about how exactly they should be measured or caculated.

I was asking one of the guys out of your lab today (not on the specific report but on the terminology), I think it as you said is a simple case of very similar terminology for similar or related things and just confusion between different groups, once it is fully explained what a person mean by their definition then it should be fine. As I said not my area but I get what people are on about or at least understand them when they talk to me about it.

i agree with what you're saying leftism about the need/not need for mentioning two lactate points, and how it confusing. I would expect that the reason both are specified on the UCD report is because the guy who write those reports is very, very keen on attention to detail, and wouldn't want to hold back any information from the participant, so he gives them alot of info and then expects them to use it approriately. You could certainly argue that a 'less is more;' approach might be better for the layman, personally I tend to vary the level of feedback I give to participants quite a lot depending on what I think they will benefit from/need/understand, I don't have a fixed formula. The guy who does the testing isn't here today so i can't ask him why he reports it like that, but as I said, I think he just wants to give people the information they have paid for.

Looking back I think the fact that your guy explained his definitions makes it better as its consistent for his work but then leads to confusion when someone like andy69 comes online to a relatively focused group of people who might have a different interpretation of the words used if they don't see the full report. As well as confusion on the part of those who receive the report and only use the terms rather than the explanation to find out were to go next with their training.

Dr.Millah

I agree with the simplistic view on this.

All this talk of lactate turnpoints and thresholds will turn someone off the idea of cycling due to over complication.

Eat healthy food and portions, go out and ride the bike more often. If your feel like your working too hard then you most likely are. Tip away at a nice pace and enjoy it.
Over time you will notice that the same pace becomes easier for the same effort, and as the weight begins to drop you will up your pace for the same effort even more.