If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)

Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is cycling effective for weight loss..?

Fender76 · 2011-03-16 15:25:58

I know that running for example is much more beneficial for weight loss.. I've seens a fair few rotund individuals at sportifs who can kick ass on a bike but they have big beer belly's etc. So can you be fit but fat...?

Options

Comments

Options
#92 19-07-2011 6:35pm
leftism

Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2004

Posts: 493

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.

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.

+1 on everything you said there! The number of definitions methods of attaining the transition from aerobic to anaerobic exercise is unlimited. In addition, the whole concept of the transition is quite ambiguous even in the scientific community (without even beginning to confuse laymen). Again i'd like to reitterate that i'm in no way criticising the way UCD present their information to the punters coming into the lab. My personal opinion is that "less is more" when it comes to Joe Blogg who is coming in to get an idea of where his training zones should be. I suppose the current example with andy69 is what should be avoided...

To get back on thread: Exercise good, eating bad! :P

0