High intensity V weight loss

reilig

My main reason for cycling is to lose weight. I also do it to get fit. Both go hand in hand. I cycle because I find other forms of exercise boring. I like getting on the bike and doing a good high intensive spin which gets my heart pumping and makes me sweat. I also like the social aspect of cycling where you can have a great conversation with the other people while you cycle.

Yesterday while on the club cycle we had a good conversation about weight loss. One of the lads is going racing this year and has shed almost 3 stone in the last 3 months. He's doing 300 - 400km per week and is on a low calorie diet. Some of the people on the spin expressed the opinion that us doing a 70 or 80km spin at an average of 25km was too high intensive for weight loss and that better weight loss results could be achieved by spending the same amount of time walking. (let's say on a similar low calorie diet)

What are people's opinion on this?

I certainly prefer to get on the bike for a couple of hours than walking.

Is the above explanation rational?

Is it possible to lose a good amount of weight with high intensity exercise? I know that high intensity builds a lot of muscle - I can see it over the last 8 weeks where I have been training hard.

Opinions welcome

rp

I think that the reason people promote walking for weight loss is that its the easiest thing to get sedentary people doing and not to give up on.
A 80km spin will prob burn something like 2500kcals in three hours, and even walking briskly, you might manage to burn 800kcal in that time, so everything else being equal, you should be 300g lighter after the cycle and only 100g after the walk.

shaka

Well 25km an hour average wouldn't be that fast unless your doing a lot of hills..

If you want to lose a bit of weight I'd suggest varying things training wise and cycling wise, a couple days in gym doing upper body/core exercises will do no harm or will throwing an odd high intensity session on the road- a 30 minute sprint session will blast the metabolism. You could also go for a 30 minute fast walk after an hour cycling to kick start your metabolism.

Best thing I have found for cycling was kettlebells, sweat like a mad yoke,lose a good bit of weight, tighten up the core and strengthened the legs.

Too low a calories intake combined with an increase in exercise can actually lower metabolism so be carefull there, make sure your getting enough protein.

Best of luck

Coronal

What does better weight loss results mean? 3 stone in 3 months sounds impressive enough to me!

I'm not entirely sure of the biology behind it all, but I think the general idea is to stay in fat burning zones and not move into sugar burning zones when exercising (or something). Now, these zones are probably quite different for different people, so it's hard to say if 25 km/hr is inside or outside the principal fat burning zone for a given person. Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows. I'm not sure that walking would burn off more fat than cycling - you do still need to burn more calories than you take in, whether that be through exercise or metabolic rate promotion. Cycling probably wins on both counts.

I think the main thing would be to make sure that you never burn off all your sugars and then go home and feel that you need to stuff your face with pizza and ice cream. You may build a lot of muscle but that muscle will be built on your legs more than anywhere else; fat should start to fall off other places. Either way, weight isn't the important thing, it's excess fat that you're trying to lose, right?

In my (non-expert) opinion: have fun. Ride your bikes. Don't eat too much. It'll be fine

petethedrummer

Do excercise to get fit. Eat correctly to control weight.

MPFG

One can lose weight by reducing calories and increasing metabolism through exercise ..(the in /out equation)

However one has to look at what fits with ones lifestyle and what is soemthing one can maintain....Losing weight is easier than keeping it off

As for diet I am not a fan of very low calorie diets as I feel they are rsstrictive, hard to maintain and reduce people metabolism
I prefer a low carb diet ( NOT no carbs) ......I think the Paelo diet is the business....first 2 weeks are the hardest but after that it is easy...it's target is to reduce sugar in the diet (which is the source of the west's epidemic of obesity IMO) -the weight especilay arounf the middle falls off
( and you can a day off every so often after the first 6 weeks)

As for exercise I believe interval training burns fat and is as effecive (or more effective) as long exercise workouts
I am a fan of SPRINT 8 - which is only 20 mins three times a week

http://www.mattmetzgar.com/2012/02/amazing-sprint-8-study.html

Other bike outing should be for cardivascular health, maintenance, fresh air and general fun
(of course walking is good too but you won't lose weight as fast as SPRINT 8 ...unless you walk for hours and hours)

Lumen

As has been pointed out, 25kph is not "high intensity" in any normal use of the term. High intensity more commonly refers to exercising over lactate threshold, i.e intervals. If 25kph is anywhere near lactate threshold then you just need to ride your bike more.

Exercising in the fat burning zone just means that you're using energy directly from fat stores rather than depleting glycogen, so you can cycle for longer without eating and recover faster between rides.

Ride your bike in whatever way pleases you. Overall energy balance is the only thing that matters. Calories in, calories out, with caveats about bioavailablity through processing or cooking of food.

Dieting is mostly about psychology and behavior. If fat people didn't lie to themselves they wouldn't be fat, therefore trying to persuade a fat person of anything using rational argument is like trying to teach a cat to swim.

dave_o_brien

Lumen wrote: »

Dieting is mostly about psychology and behavior. If fat people didn't lie to themselves they wouldn't be fat, therefore trying to persuade a fat person of anything using rational argument is like trying to teach a cat to swim.

This is a lie. Some fat people know they are fat, but balance the disadvantage of being fat with the advantage of eating whatever they want. Similarly, many elite cyclists balance the disadvantage of looking too skinny with the advantage of a far superior power/weight ratio.

Priorities, Lumen. Priorities, and cake.

Lumen

dave_o_brien wrote: »

This is a lie. Some fat people know they are fat, but balance the disadvantage of being fat with the advantage of eating whatever they want. Similarly, many elite cyclists balance the disadvantage of looking too skinny with the advantage of a far superior power/weight ratio.

Priorities, Lumen. Priorities, and cake.

I omitted the fat-but-happy contingent as they're by definition not seeking weight loss advice.

I'm currently 6kg over race weight and my current recipe of lies is "sure it'll fall off when I start racing after the clocks go forward".

dave_o_brien

Lumen wrote: »

I omitted the fat-but-happy contingent as they're by definition not seeking weight loss advice.

I'm currently 6kg over race weight and my current recipe of lies is "sure it'll fall off when I start racing after the clocks go forward".

I've been 6kg over race weight since 2011. I'm at my lightest now that I have been since then too, but still am 6kg over race weight. Oddly, despite the fact that I am 9kg lighter than I was at Christmas, I've never been more than 6kg over race weight...

Basically, don't ask me for diet advice.

petethedrummer

Diet wise you need to figure out what works for yourself. I have maintained my weight for the last 4 months with a reduced training load. I easily hover at 12stone ± a dump. Which has not been the case for years.

I don't plan to race myself thinner but race myself fitter. There is a crossover between weight and exercise but its not a huge crossover. I am firmly of the belief that if you eat correctly and feel better you will exercise more. Rather than the other way round. It's individual though. Others may feel the exact opposite.

Rofo

The diet part is not as straightforward and soundbitey as people would have you believe. Calories In v Calories Out is only part of the story - what those calories are made up of plays a huge role in satiety after a meal as well as insulin response. Yes a calorie enables you to do the same amount of work, no matter what it is made of, but if your body is trying to store what you have consumed (sugar/carb insulin response) instead of slowly processing it (fat/protein) you will become hungry again far quicker, making it more difficult to restrict calorie intake.

Brian?

Forget about low intensity v high intensity. It's irrelevant.

Weight loss is about calories in v calories burned. You need to count both accurately.

petethedrummer

Brian? wrote: »

You need to count both accurately.

Unpossible.

Brian?

petethedrummer wrote: »

Unpossible.

I don't mean 100% accurately. Just within reason. If you use something like myfitnesspal for the grub and a HR monitor for excercise that'll do.

dave_o_brien

I think a lot of people get hung up on the science in an overly anal manner. At the end of the day, you need to balance the amount of energy you consume, the type of exercise you do and the quality of what you eat.

For most people, just eat well, and watch your portion sizes. You know that 800 calories from a chicken salad is going to effect you differently to 800 calories from a bag of chips with extra vinegar. Similarly, eating 5000 calories of fish isn't going to help you lose weight. If you're at the stage where you're weighing out your daily consumption of protein, and concerned about your metabolic rate due to increased exercise load, you probably don't need to ask questions here.

petethedrummer

Brian? wrote: »

If you use something like myfitnesspal for the grub and a HR monitor for excercise that'll do.

I'd rather be fat.:)

Brian?

petethedrummer wrote: »

I'd rather be fat.:)

Me too. That's why I am.

Too fat though now. I'll drop 10-12kg between now and The end of June by counting calories and sticking to a
Daily goal. It's easy enough, I've done it plenty of times.

smacl

Brian? wrote: »

Forget about low intensity v high intensity. It's irrelevant.

Maybe not. A quick google suggests that cycling at a vigorous pace burns at most about 40% more calories than at a light pace. However, for many leisure cyclists such as myself, cycling all day at a modest pace is very doable, whereas cycling full tilt for more than an hour is a real challenge. So given enough available time, cycling for longer durations at a sustainable pace is a more achievable way of burning calories. This would certainly tally with my experience of tough turbo sessions versus long leisure spins.

petethedrummer

Brian? wrote: »

Me too. That's why I am.

Too fat though now. I'll drop 10-12kg between now and The end of June by counting calories and sticking to a
Daily goal. It's easy enough, I've done it plenty of times.

I do not mean to be offensive but if that was easy, you wouldn't be overweight now. And neither would the 10's of millions of calorie counters all round the world who are still fat. I think this approach is deeply flawed.

I have been overweight (approx 28.3 BMI at 27) with a set of man tits on the way, so I'm not a "naturally skinny" person who never puts on weight. Anyways I'm not about to give any dietary advice and I'm just picking holes in this approach, so i'll stop now.

Brian?

petethedrummer wrote: »

I do not mean to be offensive but if that was easy, you wouldn't be overweight now. And neither would the 10's of millions of calorie counters all round the world who are still fat. I think this approach is deeply flawed.

10's of millions of calorie counters the world over are not overweight, Its a lack of calorie control that has them overweight I'm over weight now because I couldn't care less if I am. I have trained for many years like a power lifter, being an over weight power lifter is a distinct advantage. Now I am doing a lot more cycling, dropping the fat is an advantage. So I will drop it.

There is absolutly nothing flawed about calories in v calories burned. It's how the body works. Eat too much and you store the excess as fat, too little and you burn your fat stores.

I shouldn't have said it's easy though. It's easy for me because I know how to do it. It's quite difficult for someone new to it. It is however very very simple. Burn more calories than you ingest and you lose weight. There are variables to this on how quick you lose the weight, but that's the basics.

I have been overweight (approx 28.3 BMI at 27) with a set of man tits on the way, so I'm not a "naturally skinny" person who never puts on weight. Anyways I'm not about to give any dietary advice and I'm just picking holes in this approach, so i'll stop now.

I don't think that has any relevance.

Lumen

Brian? wrote: »

There is absolutly nothing flawed about calories in v calories burned. It's how the body works. Eat too much and you store the excess as fat, too little and you burn your fat stores.

Pete's point is that "count calories" as a strategy clearly doesn't work for many people, because there are many persistently fat people diligently counting calories.

It's like advising a slow cyclist to buy a power meter to go faster. Accurate counting isn't the problem.

C3PO

smacl wrote: »

Maybe not. A quick google suggests that cycling at a vigorous pace burns at most about 40% more calories than at a light pace. However, for many leisure cyclists such as myself, cycling all day at a modest pace is very doable, whereas cycling full tilt for more than an hour is a real challenge. So given enough available time, cycling for longer durations at a sustainable pace is a more achievable way of burning calories. This would certainly tally with my experience of tough turbo sessions versus long leisure spins.

You're absolutely right but it still comes down to the principle of "calories in / calories out" - 3 hours at a moderate pace will burn more calories than 1 hour at a hard pace! Also helps that if you're actually on your bike you're unlikely to be eating!

rp

smacl wrote: »

Maybe not. A quick google suggests that cycling at a vigorous pace burns at most about 40% more calories than at a light pace.

That sounds about right, as I'd burn something like 600kcal/hr at an easy pace, but go up to more like 900 when pedalling vigorously, but the study >quoted here< suggests I'll go on to burn an extra 200 kcals just sitting on my arse, afterwards.

smacl wrote: »

So given enough available time, cycling for longer durations at a sustainable pace is a more achievable way of burning calories.

That's the hard bit: enough available time. Most of us have a very limited amount of time to to get exercise, so that's why I like to go flat out for as much of that time as I can.

MPFG

There is empirical evidence that high intensity exercise over a short period has as good ( if not better) benefits over long bouts of moderate exercise and given time constraints this is not irrelevant...Did you not see the Horizon programme on exercise a few months back ...very informative and crucial especially to those who do not like to or do not have the time to exercise

Also its is not anal science...there are scientists in Universities at present looking at diet and exercise discovering some very good markers in health improvement alone based on type of dietincluding weight loss , ie low sugar/low grain, intermittent fasting, etc

(I am not fat myself but I know people who are and in many cases they are addicted to sugar in their diet and by that I mean carbs or they use food as a substitute for other issues....society has become discriminatory and rude about fat people )....

kumate_champ07

Brian? wrote: »

Forget about low intensity v high intensity. It's irrelevant.

Weight loss is about calories in v calories burned. You need to count both accurately.

a 15sec high intensity sprint has been shown to have better health effects than 30mins of low/medium intensity exercise

a shock like that to the body will raise the metabolism and release beneficial hormones. obviously you will need a quick warm up before those 15seconds

petethedrummer

Brian? wrote: »

10's of millions of calorie counters the world over are not overweight, Its a lack of calorie control that has them overweight

Calorie control is not the same as Calorie counting. Maybe you just mean control and we're not arguing at all.:cool:

Brian? wrote: »

There is absolutly nothing flawed about calories in v calories burned.

I would argue that it is flawed and it depends where you get those calories. It is also very hard to measure calories in the food you eat. It is very difficult to judge calories burned through exercise and then factor calories burned at resting and doing daily tasks on top of it. In fact it is so approximate it is not worth bothering. If the article that links to this study is correct then the calorie content of sweet potatoes is raised by 39.4% when cooked. What it says on the bag is the uncooked calorie content. Mince 15%. 39.4% is a pretty large margin of error.

Brian? wrote: »

I shouldn't have said it's easy though. It's easy for me because I know how to do it. It's quite difficult for someone new to it. It is however very very simple. Burn more calories than you ingest and you lose weight. There are variables to this on how quick you lose the weight, but that's the basics.

Fair enough, if it works for you then who am I to argue. And we'll agree to disagree.

Brian? wrote: »

I don't think that has any relevance.

I was just pointing out that I wasn't coming from a place of total ignorance of weight gain. I wasn't trying to add gravitas to my point.

kumate_champ07

MPFG wrote: »

There is empirical evidence that high intensity exercise over a short period has as good ( if not better) benefits over long bouts of moderate exercise and given time constraints this is not irrelevant...Did you not see the Horizon programme on exercise a few months back ...very informative and crucial especially to those who do not like to or do not have the time to exercise

Also its is not anal science...there are scientists in Universities at present looking at diet and exercise discovering some very good markers in health improvement alone based on type of dietincluding weight loss , ie low sugar/low grain, intermittent fasting, etc

(I am not fat myself but I know people who are and in many cases they are addicted to sugar in their diet and by that I mean carbs or they use food as a substitute for other issues....society has become discriminatory and rude about fat people )....

you got there before me. didnt they show that some people are non responders to exercise?

the documentary on Tommy Bowe last week had genetic testing which showed his mother was a low responder while his younger brother was a high responder suitable for pro/elite sports, while Tommy himself was just medium level, not genetically blessed. his elite level comes from hard work and skill

dave_o_brien

MPFG wrote: »

Also its is not anal science...there are scientists in Universities at present looking at diet and exercise discovering some very good markers in health improvement alone based on type of dietincluding weight loss , ie low sugar/low grain, intermittent fasting, etc

If this was aimed at me, I didn't man to imply it is an anal science. Just that sometimes people become overly concerned with the specifics of dietary/exercise relationships when a simple dose of "eat healthier and exercise regularly" is a huge start if you're honest with yourself about what these things mean and what you're habits really are. Obviously at the pointy end of the science, it needs to be rigorous, but for most of us, it doesn't help to be told about the effect different types of protein will have post-exercise when greater gains can be made by basic things such as reducing refined carbohydrates and eating more fruit.

smacl

C3PO wrote: »

You're absolutely right but it still comes down to the principle of "calories in / calories out" - 3 hours at a moderate pace will burn more calories than 1 hour at a hard pace! Also helps that if you're actually on your bike you're unlikely to be eating!

True of course, but it also helps to think about what you're trying to achieve. My other half is now barely more than my other quarter thanks a strict calorie controlled diet. At the same time, I haven't been watching my food much at all, and I've gained about 7kg since last summer. I've also spent a lot of time on the turbo, using kettle bells, and doing other exercises, so those 7kg are still easy enough to haul up a hill on the bike. As the days get a bit longer, I'd hope to get a lot more long spins in and get back to about 200k per week, which will take the 7kg off for the summer and autumn. No doubt it will be back again next winter, but the trend year to year is steady.

I'm happier with lots of calories in and lots of calories out, even if the sum comes out the same. Give me six hours on the bike followed by beers and a kebab over half an hour of yoga and cabbage soup any day of the week

NeedMoreGears

Walking at 5 kph typically burns about 250 kcal/hr. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150 quotes 340kj/1600m = 50kcal/km)

Cycling at 25kph approximately takes 400kcal/hr. http://bikecalculator.com/

This would suggest that the cycling is better from a weight loss perspective

On that basis walking would use 100 grammes of fat, whereas cycling would use 155 grammes - the human body takes very little energy to move it around.

But the good news is that by cycling you consume an additional 450Kcal which happens to be a little more than the calorie content of a blueberry muffin (http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/blueberry-muffins?portionid=39101).

Hence a three hour cycle plus a muffin is better for you than a three hour walk alone. So get out on your bike!

chakattack

petethedrummer wrote: »

Calorie control is not the same as Calorie counting. Maybe you just mean control and we're not arguing at all.:cool:


I would argue that it is flawed and it depends where you get those calories. It is also very hard to measure calories in the food you eat. It is very difficult to judge calories burned through exercise and then factor calories burned at resting and doing daily tasks on top of it. In fact it is so approximate it is not worth bothering. If the article that links to this study is correct then the calorie content of sweet potatoes is raised by 39.4% when cooked. What it says on the bag is the uncooked calorie content. Mince 15%. 39.4% is a pretty large margin of error.

I think food composition/diet quality is important if you're trying to get pro cyclist/body builder lean and are relying on metabolic trickery to burn more fat after exercise, balance cravings and insulin levels but if you're trying to lose a belly/fat arse then calories in vs. out will work perfectly if you don't fool yourself and use accurate estimates of energy in vs. out.

I lost some weight this year by increasing my ice cream intake to match my training load at the weekend and eating less on days off but keeping a daily deficit of no more -250 kcals.

I know a girl who went from quite fat to very slim in about 3 months by eating frozen pizzas and other junk with zero exercise in a perfectly calorie controlled and disciplined way. She ate whatever she liked but less of it and less than her daily energy requirements.

petethedrummer

chakattack wrote: »

I lost some weight this year by increasing my ice cream intake to match my training load at the weekend and eating less on days off but keeping a daily deficit of no more -250 kcals.

Do did you keep an excel sheet and weigh your food? Did you record all your training sessions on a power meter or use a HR monitor? Did you do the in vs out calculation?

chakattack wrote: »

I know a girl who went from quite fat to very slim in about 3 months by eating frozen pizzas and other junk with zero exercise in a perfectly calorie controlled and disciplined way. She ate whatever she liked but less of it and less than her daily energy requirements.

Fair play. I hope she keeps it off for life. If I was a betting man i'd say she won't but I sincerely hope she does.

shaka

Re high intensity v low intensity. All muscles needed to be shocked occasionally if you don't your body gets used to the load it's under and will adjust and not need to burn as much calories to do the same exercise over time.

chakattack

petethedrummer wrote: »

Do did you keep an excel sheet and weigh your food? Did you record all your training sessions on a power meter or use a HR monitor? Did you do the in vs out calculation?


Fair play. I hope she keeps it off for life. If I was a betting man i'd say she won't but I sincerely hope she does.

5 mins/day on Myfitnessplan, a scales to measure out pasta/cereal initially, powermeter (assuming 1kJ=1kcal) and some common sense.

It's cool when you see you should really eat more on hard days.

She's kept it off for over 2 years and is very happy.

petethedrummer

chakattack wrote: »

5 mins/day on Myfitnessplan, a scales to measure out pasta/cereal initially, powermeter (assuming 1kJ=1kcal) and some common sense.

Grand, but given that calorie estimates are wildly inaccurate, I'd say it was the common sense that did it. But its not my story.

chakattack wrote: »

It's cool when you see you should really eat more on hard days.

Isn't that perfectly obvious without the use of a power meter?

chakattack wrote: »

She's kept it off for over 2 years and is very happy.

great stuff.

Right I'll bow out.

MPFG

I'll say one thing for the Reilig guy - he sure knows how to start a post that gets everyone going !!

And another thing -people are very diferent and what works for some does not work for others

Link to some of the Horizon programme

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7-h_w7bJrU

Also as well as diet there is the need for weight bearing exercise to keep your muscles up - body pump , kettlebells, etc.....I would say that is the one drawback to cycling alone

Also this video shows the benefits of high intensity exercise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQra-ME7vIo

C3PO

smacl wrote: »

I'm happier with lots of calories in and lots of calories out, even if the sum comes out the same. Give me six hours on the bike followed by beers and a kebab over half an hour of yoga and cabbage soup any day of the week

Couldn't agree with you more .... the problem for me is that even if the "lots of calories out" falls to "not so many calories out" the "lots of calories in" always stays the same or perversely sometimes becomes "even more lots of calories in"!!

cdaly_

dave_o_brien wrote: »

I think a lot of people get hung up on the science in an overly anal manner.

petethedrummer wrote: »

I easily hover at 12stone ± a dump.

You're tellin' me!...

Colonialboy

MPFG wrote: »

Also its is not anal science...there are scientists in Universities at present looking at diet and exercise discovering some very good markers in health improvement alone based on type of dietincluding weight loss , ie low sugar/low grain, intermittent fasting, etc

....

I think it all is a bit of an Anal science...
just look at the Tommy Bowe rubbish, all that science and its his brother who should be the world class rugby player not him...

all that science and they have come back to tell us beetroot juice and milk are the perfect recovery fluids.

granted at the elite level theres a science involved ,
I like my sport to be sport and my science to be science. Sure everyones elite ...

Im just old enough to rememebr when it was all fresh food, exercise and a helathy lifestyle, then science came along following the money and pushed every fad know to man , all quick fix and scientifically proven and now its all full circle back to eating fish, fresh fruit and regular balanced products but its got science to back it up so we should all be thankful for science.
give me break.

Brian?

Lumen wrote: »

Pete's point is that "count calories" as a strategy clearly doesn't work for many people, because there are many persistently fat people diligently counting calories.

It's like advising a slow cyclist to buy a power meter to go faster. Accurate counting isn't the problem.

I disagree, people who count calories and stay fat are either counting them wrong or have a medical issue that needs to be addressed. 9/10 the answer will be eat less.

Brian?

petethedrummer wrote: »

Calorie control is not the same as Calorie counting. Maybe you just mean control and we're not arguing at all.:cool:

I think we're agreed, what's the point in counting kcals if you aren't going to control the,.

I would argue that it is flawed and it depends where you get those calories. It is also very hard to measure calories in the food you eat. It is very difficult to judge calories burned through exercise and then factor calories burned at resting and doing daily tasks on top of it. In fact it is so approximate it is not worth bothering. If the article that links to this study is correct then the calorie content of sweet potatoes is raised by 39.4% when cooked. What it says on the bag is the uncooked calorie content. Mince 15%. 39.4% is a pretty large margin of error.

I see what you're saying, if you're counting kcals to lose weight there is always a margin for error. You need to be smart about it, eat whole foods as much as possible and tweak your input based on weight loss.

Fair enough, if it works for you then who am I to argue. And we'll agree to disagree.

We're largely in agreement though.

I was just pointing out that I wasn't coming from a place of total ignorance of weight gain. I wasn't trying to add gravitas to my point.

Fair enough.


I'd just like to say again, the worst thing you can do when trying to lose weight is over complicate things. Eat less, move more and get as good an estimate of kcals in v kcals out as possible. It's simple enough, but NOT easy.

Brian?

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

a 15sec high intensity sprint has been shown to have better health effects than 30mins of low/medium intensity exercise

a shock like that to the body will raise the metabolism and release beneficial hormones. obviously you will need a quick warm up before those 15seconds

Nothing wrong with high intensity cardio. Nothing wrong with low intensity cardio. The great thing about cycling is it's a good mix of both.

Coronal

Not necessarily, actually. If one has a slight intolerance to, say, glutten or sugar, then eating any food which has these will result in weight gain, despite eating very little. It's a thing of retaining water weight, rather than just simply burning calories. The problem with just going for calories in < calories out is that it can lead to the body reducing its metabolic rate, which leads to less calories required, less energy and so on down that messy spiral. Dietetians wouldn't exist if it was just that simple.

MPFG

Colonialboy wrote: »

I think it all is a bit of an Anal science...
just look at the Tommy Bowe rubbish, all that science and its his brother who should be the world class rugby player not him...

all that science and they have come back to tell us beetroot juice and milk are the perfect recovery fluids.

granted at the elite level theres a science involved ,
I like my sport to be sport and my science to be science. Sure everyones elite ...

Im just old enough to rememebr when it was all fresh food, exercise and a helathy lifestyle, then science came along following the money and pushed every fad know to man , all quick fix and scientifically proven and now its all full circle back to eating fish, fresh fruit and regular balanced products but its got science to back it up so we should all be thankful for science.
give me break.

I didn't see the programme but I would suspect that i was saying that physiologicallyhis brother is a better specimen …but we all know that that is not the onlytrait one needs to be an elite athlete …anI am sure it didn’t say Tommy Bowe was crap physically, just less than hisbrother

Science is applicable in all disciplines not just sport ….that is the purpose of science surely , to advane mankinds understanding of itself and the world...and it is a process of discovery (sometimes through experimentation), not a final journeys end

I feel if you were in charge we would all still be in the caves

Lumen

MPFG wrote: »

Science is applicable in all disciplines

Pope says no.

MPFG

Lumen wrote: »

Pope says no.

1. I don't believe that pope was infallable
2. I also believe Kings college London are looking at research to support ( or not) life after death....and as part of the process who knows where that will lead
3. We don't know what we don't know (in most cases) , so maybe God is waiitng to be discovered by science

dermur

Brian? wrote: »

Forget about low intensity v high intensity. It's irrelevant.

I wouldn't go that far - at low intensity (in the so-called fat burning zone) you may be burning off mostly fat but the rate at which it's being used is still less overall than with high intensity interval training.

Although the high percentage of fat being burned at low intensity sounds attractive, the total amount of fat being burned over the same time using HIIT will always be more.

reilig

Wow

I didn't expect to raise that much of a debate.

Firstly, I know that 25kph isn't high intensity in the relative scheme of things, but in comparison to normal walking, 25kph on a bike would be high intensity (well for some anyway).

In my own head, I think of long term weight loss being a result of raising your metabolism. Would people consider higher intensity exercise (than you are used to) to be a key to raising metabolism?

The theory of the "fat burning zone" was discussed at length yesterday. This was the argument about walking being better for weight loss than higher intensity cycling. It was argued that higher intensity exercise burns the carbs in your system before it starts breaking down fat to burn. Then when it has used the carbs, it starts to break down the fat, but at the same time it can also break down muscle - especially if you are not taking in proper nutrients, which can happen if you are on a low calorie diet. I'm not fully sure of the exact details, but that was the general theory.

It was just chat, but I thought it was interesting.

Lumen

reilig wrote: »

In my own head, I think of long term weight loss being a result of raising your metabolism. Would people consider higher intensity exercise (than you are used to) to be a key to raising metabolism?

You can raise your energy requirement by putting on muscle. Muscle takes a lot of energy to maintain. You won't do that cycling though.

Brian?

reilig wrote: »

Wow

I didn't expect to raise that much of a debate.

Firstly, I know that 25kph isn't high intensity in the relative scheme of things, but in comparison to normal walking, 25kph on a bike would be high intensity (well for some anyway).

In my own head, I think of long term weight loss being a result of raising your metabolism. Would people consider higher intensity exercise (than you are used to) to be a key to raising metabolism?

Long term weight loss is about continually eating less calories than you burn and then maintaining it. Changing your BMR(base metabolic rate) is all about adding muscle. Not something one can do much of cycling as pointed out.

The theory of the "fat burning zone" was discussed at length yesterday. This was the argument about walking being better for weight loss than higher intensity cycling. It was argued that higher intensity exercise burns the carbs in your system before it starts breaking down fat to burn. Then when it has used the carbs, it starts to break down the fat, but at the same time it can also break down muscle - especially if you are not taking in proper nutrients, which can happen if you are on a low calorie diet. I'm not fully sure of the exact details, but that was the general theory.

High and low intensity cardio burn carbs in the blood and stored fat in different ratios. High burns more carbs and low burns more fat.

As I was saying it really doesn't matter which you do in terms of fat loss, just eat less than you burn and you will lose weight.

For years I preferred HIT, but it's not really something you can do cycling on a Sunday club spin.

It was just chat, but I thought it was interesting.

It's a hugely interesting subject. People get caught up in the details of it way too much though.