Do I need a HRM?

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I am 34 years old, no health problems other than Asthma,
and ride about 100 miles a week. I have never used a HRM
but after reading several posts about HRM's I was
wondering if I'm at risk of hurting myself or something?

I commute to work 1 or 2 days a week, take training rides
in hilly areas, and long slow weekend rides. I ride with
an average speed (AVG on bike computer) of 19-20mph on
most rides unless there's strong head/tail wind or
something. I'm not planning on racing or anything but
would like to complete my first century this year if time
permits.

I kinda figured that I didn't need a HRM unless I was
training for a race or something since people have been
riding long before HRM were invented. But am I risking
serious injury since I have no idea if my heart rate if at
it's max?

No, if you're healthy, you won't injure yourself if you run
your HR to its max; all you do is make yourself very tired.
On the other hand, unless you feel like you're pushing
yourself to your absolute limit, then your HR won't be at
its max either. Unless you're a racer training for maximum
performance, an HRM is just another gadget for number freaks
like me to play with. They have little practical use other
than that, and won't help you get ready to finish a century
any more than what you're already doing.

I only use mine when I'm going out for a ride where I expect
to push myself, and use it to help judge my workout
intensity, though I'm getting pretty good at judging it by
my RPE (rate of perceived exertion) anyway.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

BanditManDan wrote:
:: I am 34 years old, no health problems other than Asthma,
:: and ride about 100 miles a week. I have never used a HRM
:: but after reading several posts about HRM's I was
:: wondering if I'm at risk of hurting myself or something?

No...

::
:: I commute to work 1 or 2 days a week, take training rides
:: in hilly areas, and long slow weekend rides. I ride with
:: an average speed (AVG on bike computer) of 19-20mph on
:: most rides unless there's strong head/tail wind or
:: something. I'm not planning on racing or anything but
:: would like to complete my first century this year if time
:: permits.
::
:: I kinda figured that I didn't need a HRM unless I was
:: training for a race or something since people have been
:: riding long before HRM were invented. But am I risking
:: serious injury since I have no idea if my heart rate if
:: at it's max?
::
:: Dan.
::
::
::
:: --

David Kerber said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am 34 years old, no health problems other than Asthma,
and ride about 100 miles a week. I have never used a HRM
but after reading several posts about HRM's I was
wondering if I'm at risk of hurting myself or something?

I commute to work 1 or 2 days a week, take training rides
in hilly areas, and long slow weekend rides. I ride with
an average speed (AVG on bike computer) of 19-20mph on
most rides unless there's strong head/tail wind or
something. I'm not planning on racing or anything but
would like to complete my first century this year if time
permits.

I kinda figured that I didn't need a HRM unless I was
training for a race or something since people have been
riding long before HRM were invented. But am I risking
serious injury since I have no idea if my heart rate if
at it's max?

No, if you're healthy, you won't injure yourself if you
run your HR to its max; all you do is make yourself very
tired. On the other hand, unless you feel like you're
pushing yourself to your absolute limit, then your HR
won't be at its max either. Unless you're a racer training
for maximum performance, an HRM is just another gadget for
number freaks like me to play with. They have little
practical use other than that, and won't help you get
ready to finish a century any more than what you're
already doing.

I wouldn't draw the line at "training for maximum
performance." A HRM lets you train smarter, and make
better use of the time you spend on the bike (or whatever
other activity). Want to be able to finish that
mountainous century you dropped out of two years in a row?
Are you riding more and harder than ever, but not really
improving? Maximum amount and intensity of training isn't
always the answer.

Quoted message said:

I only use mine when I'm going out for a ride where I
expect to push myself, and use it to help judge my workout
intensity, though I'm getting pretty good at judging it by
my RPE (rate of perceived exertion) anyway.

I'm pretty good at that too, having done various endurance
sports my whole life, *and* having been a serious competitor
at one point. I probably should use a HRM anyway.

Matt O.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I kinda figured that I didn't need a HRM unless I was
training for a race or something since people have been
riding long before HRM were invented. But am I risking
serious injury since I have no idea if my heart rate if at
it's max?

A HRM is not going to tell you when your HR is at it's max.
You can usually tell when you are right at your max. For me
it usually happens when I am going up hill as fast as I can.
I don't need to peek at my HRM to tell I am there.
------------
Alex

From personal experience, HRMs are NOT only for training for
max performance, but for gauging where you are for whatever
kind of training you want to do. I was training at a PRE of
like 7, and my HR was about 85% of max, which was NOT
teaching my body to use fuel effectively, By tkaing a field
test and estimating my max from that, then using the calcs
in the HRM books, I was able to figure I needed to be at 140-
145BPM to get high quality fat burning going, and train my
body to use fat as a fuel source, rather than
glycogen/protein as it had been doing at high intensity.

That, combined with cadence work (100 PRM) for 2 hr rides 3x
per week, then the Sunday hammer fest with the group, and I
melted off 25lbs in 8 weeks, and got faster to boot, without
even trying that (yet).

HRMs are divine.....

Dave

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2ic3bgFl6l11U1@uni-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

David Kerber said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am 34 years old, no health problems other than
Asthma, and ride about 100 miles a week. I have never
used a HRM but after reading several posts about HRM's
I was wondering if I'm at risk of hurting myself or
something?

I commute to work 1 or 2 days a week, take training
rides in hilly areas, and long slow weekend rides. I
ride with an average speed (AVG on bike computer) of
19-20mph on most rides unless there's strong head/tail
wind or something. I'm not planning on racing or
anything but would like to complete my first century
this year if time permits.

I kinda figured that I didn't need a HRM unless I was
training for a race or something since people have been
riding long before HRM were invented. But am I risking
serious injury since I have no idea if my heart rate if
at it's max?

No, if you're healthy, you won't injure yourself if you
run your HR to its max; all you do is make yourself very
tired. On the other hand, unless you feel like you're
pushing yourself to your absolute limit, then your HR
won't be at its max either. Unless you're a racer
training for maximum performance, an HRM is just another
gadget for number freaks like me to play with. They have
little practical use other than that, and won't help you
get ready to finish a century any more than what you're
already doing.

I wouldn't draw the line at "training for maximum
performance." A HRM

lets you

Quoted message said:

train smarter, and make better use of the time you spend
on the bike (or whatever other activity). Want to be able
to finish that mountainous

century

Quoted message said:

you dropped out of two years in a row? Are you riding more
and harder

than

Quoted message said:

ever, but not really improving? Maximum amount and
intensity of training

isn't

Quoted message said:

always the answer.

Quoted message said:

I only use mine when I'm going out for a ride where I
expect to push myself, and use it to help judge my
workout intensity, though I'm getting pretty good at
judging it by my RPE (rate of perceived exertion)
anyway.

I'm pretty good at that too, having done various endurance
sports my whole

life,

Quoted message said:

*and* having been a serious competitor at one point. I
probably should

use a

Quoted message said:

HRM anyway.

Matt O.

Dave wrote:
:: From personal experience, HRMs are NOT only for training
:: for max performance, but for gauging where you are for
:: whatever kind of training you want to do. I was training
:: at a PRE of like 7, and my HR was about 85% of max, which
:: was NOT teaching my body to use fuel effectively, By
:: tkaing a field test and estimating my max from that, then
:: using the calcs in the HRM books, I was able to figure I
:: needed to be at 140-145BPM to get high quality fat
:: burning going, and train my body to use fat as a fuel
:: source, rather than glycogen/protein as it had been doing
:: at high intensity.
::
:: That, combined with cadence work (100 PRM) for 2 hr rides
:: 3x per week, then the Sunday hammer fest with the group,
:: and I melted off 25lbs in 8 weeks, and got faster to
:: boot, without even trying that (yet).
::
:: HRMs are divine.....
::
:: Dave

I agree that they are a good training/exercise tool, but the
OP was asking a very different question.

::
::
::
:: "Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2ic3bgFl6l11U1@uni-
:: berlin.de...
::: David Kerber wrote:
:::
:::: In article <[email hidden]>,
:::: [email hidden] says...
:::
::::: I am 34 years old, no health problems other than
::::: Asthma, and ride about 100 miles a week. I have never
::::: used a HRM but after reading several posts about HRM's
::::: I was wondering if I'm at risk of hurting myself or
::::: something?
:::::
::::: I commute to work 1 or 2 days a week, take training
::::: rides in hilly areas, and long slow weekend rides. I
::::: ride with an average speed (AVG on bike computer) of
::::: 19-20mph on most rides unless there's strong head/tail
::::: wind or something. I'm not planning on racing or
::::: anything but would like to complete my first century
::::: this year if time permits.
:::::
::::: I kinda figured that I didn't need a HRM unless I was
::::: training for a race or something since people have
::::: been riding long before HRM were invented. But am I
::::: risking serious injury since I have no idea if my
::::: heart rate if at it's max?
::::
:::: No, if you're healthy, you won't injure yourself if you
:::: run your HR to its max; all you do is make yourself
:::: very tired. On the other hand, unless you feel like
:::: you're pushing yourself to your absolute limit, then
:::: your HR won't be at its max either. Unless you're a
:::: racer training for maximum performance, an HRM is just
:::: another gadget for number freaks like me to play with.
:::: They have little practical use other than that, and
:::: won't help you get ready to finish a century any more
:::: than what you're already doing.
:::
::: I wouldn't draw the line at "training for maximum
::: performance." A HRM lets you train smarter, and make
::: better use of the time you spend on the bike (or
::: whatever other activity). Want to be able to finish that
::: mountainous century you dropped out of two years in a
::: row? Are you riding more and harder than ever, but not
::: really improving? Maximum amount and intensity of
::: training isn't always the answer.
:::
:::: I only use mine when I'm going out for a ride where I
:::: expect to push myself, and use it to help judge my
:::: workout intensity, though I'm getting pretty good at
:::: judging it by my RPE (rate of perceived exertion)
:::: anyway.
:::
::: I'm pretty good at that too, having done various
::: endurance sports my whole life, *and* having been a
::: serious competitor at one point. I probably should use a
::: HRM anyway.
:::
::: Matt O.

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

No, if you're healthy, you won't injure yourself if you
run your HR to its max; all you do is make yourself very
tired. On the other hand, unless you feel like you're
pushing yourself to your absolute limit, then your HR
won't be at its max either. Unless you're a racer training
for maximum performance, an HRM is just another gadget for
number freaks like me to play with. They have little
practical use other than that, and won't help you get
ready to finish a century any more than what you're
already doing.

I only use mine when I'm going out for a ride where I
expect to push myself, and use it to help judge my workout
intensity, though I'm getting pretty good at judging it by
my RPE (rate of perceived exertion) anyway.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts
in the newsgroups if possible).

Thanks, I was kinda thinking along these lines.

Dave said:

By tkaing a field test and estimating my max from that,
then using the calcs in the HRM books, I was able to
figure I needed to be at 140-145BPM to get high quality
fat burning going, and train my body to use fat as a fuel
source, rather than glycogen/protein as it had been doing
at high intensity.

That, combined with cadence work (100 PRM) for 2 hr rides
3x per week, then the Sunday hammer fest with the group,
and I melted off 25lbs in 8 weeks, and got faster to boot,
without even trying that (yet).

HRMs are divine.....

Dave

I'm wondering for those who are already doing low-carb and
"presumably" burning fat over glucose, if the body doesn't
go into this 'fat burning' sooner and stay there longer at
the appropriate training level and duration.

(It's certainly melting off the fat, at any rate. I look
completely different this morning than when I began my
'biking vacation' about 12 days ago!)

-Badger

Badger_South said:

Dave said:

By tkaing a field test and estimating my max from that,
then using the calcs in the HRM books, I was able to
figure I needed to be at 140-145BPM to get high quality
fat burning going, and train my body to use fat as a fuel
source, rather than glycogen/protein as it had been doing
at high intensity.

That, combined with cadence work (100 PRM) for 2 hr rides
3x per week, then the Sunday hammer fest with the group,
and I melted off 25lbs in 8 weeks, and got faster to
boot, without even trying that (yet).

HRMs are divine.....

Dave

I'm wondering for those who are already doing low-carb and
"presumably" burning fat over glucose, if the body doesn't
go into this 'fat burning' sooner and stay there longer at
the appropriate training level and duration.

(It's certainly melting off the fat, at any rate. I look
completely different this morning than when I began my
'biking vacation' about 12 days ago!)

-Badger

I would imagine that if you're on a low carb diet you will
just bonk faster. Remember bonking is defined as running
out of carbs. If you are riding at low intensities you
never run out of carbs no matter what diet you're on. The
trick is to raise the intensity levels and still burn fat
instead of carbs.

Kind of how I lost 10 kg by starting to eat a decent
breakfast so my body didn't think I was in starvation mode
any longer and returned to normal metabolism.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

I agree completely. If you're any kind of athlete, low carb
is ludicrous. Your body burns carbs, and if you have to
convert in order to get em, you're making your body do
unnatural things, and you're screwing with the natural body
chemistry. Thes elow carb fads are all about ketosis, a
long term bad thing for your body. And if you're trying to
be athletic at all, as the previosu poster said, you'll
just bonk.

Balance, balance, balance....

"Per Elmsäter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Badger_South said:

Dave said:

By tkaing a field test and estimating my max from that,
then using the calcs in the HRM books, I was able to
figure I needed to be at 140-145BPM to get high quality
fat burning going, and train my body to use fat as a
fuel source, rather than glycogen/protein as it had
been doing at high intensity.

That, combined with cadence work (100 PRM) for 2 hr
rides 3x per week, then the Sunday hammer fest with the
group, and I melted off 25lbs in 8 weeks, and got
faster to boot, without even trying that (yet).

HRMs are divine.....

Dave

I'm wondering for those who are already doing low-carb
and "presumably" burning fat over glucose, if the body
doesn't go into this 'fat burning' sooner and stay there
longer at the appropriate training level and duration.

(It's certainly melting off the fat, at any rate. I look
completely different this morning than when I began my
'biking vacation' about 12 days ago!)

-Badger

I would imagine that if you're on a low carb diet you will
just bonk

faster.

Quoted message said:

Remember bonking is defined as running out of carbs. If
you are riding at low intensities you never run out of
carbs no matter what diet you're on. The trick is to raise
the intensity levels and still burn fat instead of carbs.

Kind of how I lost 10 kg by starting to eat a decent
breakfast so my body didn't think I was in starvation mode
any longer and returned to normal metabolism.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

Dave said:

I agree completely. If you're any kind of athlete, low carb
is ludicrous. Your body burns carbs, and if you have to
convert in order to get em, you're making your body do
unnatural things, and you're screwing with the natural body
chemistry. Thes elow carb fads are all about ketosis, a
long term bad thing for your body. And if you're trying to
be athletic at all, as the previosu poster said, you'll
just bonk.

Balance, balance, balance....

Dave, from what study or experience do you posit the above?

If it's just 'conventional wisdom', don't forget, the whole
nutrition 'establishment' is now coping with the fact that
they've been proven wrong on many fronts.

The dietitians still think that 'eating fat deposits fat on
the body', and 'eating cholesterol causes cholesterol to be
higher in the blood'.

After 40 years, they're finally revising the food pyramid,
although they're saying they -knew- it was wrong, but put it
that way for some reason (b/c protein was expensive??).

Low carb may seem 'ludicrous' if you're any kind of athlete,
but yet, I do it, and IMO, am a better athlete than many 53
y.o., and still improving. In fact, I try to take it to the
extreme, and still no bad reactions. Maybe I'm not riding at
the 'acceptable' intensity, or long enough. However, since I
did a half century at my age after only 7-8 months of
riding, and on a horrid junker 45lb mtn bike, that has to
show that you can go LC and still have some endurance and
intensity.

I -do- eat carbs during the 'glucose window' that surrounds
exercising. I just eat lower amounts the rest of the time.
(don't forget gluconeogenesis!). I just resist the idea that
you 'need' to eat 30-40 percent of your calories from carbs.
There is no dietary requirement for carbs, as there is for
protein and fat.

Finally, the carb fads are about ketosis, and that's a long
term bad thing? Cites? Be aware that 'benign dietary
ketosis' is NOT the same as diabetic ketosis.

So, in summary, I'd like to hear your opinions, but only on
things that you, yourself have tried and experienced and
experimented with, b/c there's certainly enough 'dogma'
being spouted by the 'know-it-alls'. (and a little by the LC
people, too...<g>😉.

I'll certainly keep the group informed as to my exploits in
trying to ride that century on LC. Now that I have a decent
ride, shouldn't be too long. ;-p

-Badger

-Badger "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

Quoted message said:

I agree completely. If you're any kind of athlete, low carb
is ludicrous. Your body burns carbs, and if you have to
convert in order to get em, you're making your body do
unnatural things, and you're screwing with the natural body
chemistry. Thes elow carb fads are all about ketosis, a
long term bad thing for your body. And if you're trying to
be athletic at all, as the previosu poster said, you'll
just bonk.

Balance, balance, balance....

For another view on this, see: catfood.phred.orggetOpen ↗
msg.asp?Filename=tandem.10310.0335.eml

Regards,

Chris Neary [email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you
ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I loved" -
Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

No formal medical training, just anecdotal evidence, some
good books, and, yes, common sense. Let's face it. Your body
does not "burn fat" by itself. It needs carbs. Carbs are
what your muscles need to perform, and depriving it of them
forces unnatural states in the body, and anecdotally, you
will just plain bonk.

Cutting carbs to put your body into ketosis, which is what
Atkins is all about (which is where this low/no carb stuff
in it's latest incarnation came from) can surely help you
lose weight. That's been proven. However, we're bicycle
riders here. Aerobic (HIGHLY aerobic) exercise such as this
cannot be effectively performed in that ketotic state. If
you want to lose weight, sure, try it out. (I personally
think it is a crock, because you will never maintain that
lifestyle and as soon as you put carbs back in, the weight
comes right back (again, anecdotally from several friends
who yo-yo on it), because you've not made the requisite
changes in you body AND lifestyle to keep it off). But if
you're gonna ride your bike, you need carbs, or you're not
going to do much more than "slower rides" (i.e. club rides,
cruises etc - you're not going to be effective in the A+
club rides, crits, road races or centuries)

And BTW, I took off over 50 pounds by managing my riding
program (spinning, lactic threshold, high HR, tempo rides
and so on) and the only change to my diet was to *lower* the
*simple* carbs such as breads, pastas and such. Easy change,
easy to maintain for the rest of my life, I can do what I
want, I taught my body to burn fuel properly, by not getting
drastic on it. (BTW, on the program, suggested by
Charmichael when I signed up, I lost the first 25 lbs in 8
weeks just spinning at 65% max) I've been a strong rider for
15 years now, and this is the first thing that actually took
the weight off and has kept it off for over 2 years now,
with nothing drastic done. (it's great riding without
carrying 2.5 extra bicycles with me ;-) I don't ride any
more than I used to, I actually eat MORE than I used to (I
get to eat chocolate now ;-); all I did was make some small,
yet focused changes.

So no, no doctor here, but take it from a guy who, at 40, is
kinda skinny for the first time in his life and had tried
many, many things in the past; drastic, like no (or
extremely low)carbs, ain't gonna do it long term and your
riding WILL suffer....

Dave

"Badger_South" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:48:33 -0400, "Dave"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree completely. If you're any kind of athlete, low
carb is

ludicrous.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your body burns carbs, and if you have to convert in
order to get em,

you're

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

making your body do unnatural things, and you're screwing
with the

natural

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

body chemistry. Thes elow carb fads are all about
ketosis, a long term

bad

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thing for your body. And if you're trying to be athletic
at all, as the previosu poster said, you'll just bonk.

Balance, balance, balance....

Dave, from what study or experience do you posit the
above?

If it's just 'conventional wisdom', don't forget, the
whole nutrition 'establishment' is now coping with the
fact that they've been proven wrong on many fronts.

The dietitians still think that 'eating fat deposits fat
on the body', and 'eating cholesterol causes cholesterol
to be higher in the blood'.

After 40 years, they're finally revising the food pyramid,
although

they're

Quoted message said:

saying they -knew- it was wrong, but put it that way for
some reason (b/c protein was expensive??).

Low carb may seem 'ludicrous' if you're any kind of
athlete, but yet, I do it, and IMO, am a better athlete
than many 53 y.o., and still improving.

In

Quoted message said:

fact, I try to take it to the extreme, and still no bad
reactions. Maybe I'm not riding at the 'acceptable'
intensity, or long enough. However, since I did a half
century at my age after only 7-8 months of riding, and on
a horrid junker 45lb mtn bike, that has to show that you
can go LC and still have some endurance and intensity.

I -do- eat carbs during the 'glucose window' that
surrounds exercising. I just eat lower amounts the rest of
the time. (don't forget gluconeogenesis!). I just resist
the idea that you 'need' to eat 30-40 percent of your
calories from carbs. There is no dietary requirement for
carbs, as there is for protein and fat.

Finally, the carb fads are about ketosis, and that's a
long term bad

thing?

Quoted message said:

Cites? Be aware that 'benign dietary ketosis' is NOT the
same as diabetic ketosis.

So, in summary, I'd like to hear your opinions, but only
on things that you, yourself have tried and experienced
and experimented with, b/c

there's

Quoted message said:

certainly enough 'dogma' being spouted by the 'know-it-
alls'. (and a

little

Quoted message said:

by the LC people, too...<g>😉.

I'll certainly keep the group informed as to my exploits
in trying to ride that century on LC. Now that I have a
decent ride, shouldn't be too long. ;-p

-Badger

-Badger "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

Dave said:

No formal medical training, just anecdotal evidence, some
good books, and, yes, common sense. Let's face it. Your
body does not "burn fat" by itself. It needs carbs. Carbs
are what your muscles need to perform, and depriving it of
them forces unnatural states in the body, and anecdotally,
you will just plain bonk.

Wrong, and wrong. Your muscles can use alcohol, glucose
and ketones.

So just keep doing what you're doing if it works for you and
stop top posting..., er, trying to advise others.

-Badger "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

So I guess yours are the only correct viewpoints and you're
the only one qualified to advise others? Guess that's why
you bonked so badly on your 75 miler.

"Badger_South" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:29:45 -0400, "Dave"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No formal medical training, just anecdotal evidence, some
good books,

and,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

yes, common sense. Let's face it. Your body does not
"burn fat" by

itself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It needs carbs. Carbs are what your muscles need to
perform, and

depriving

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it of them forces unnatural states in the body, and
anecdotally, you will just plain bonk.

Wrong, and wrong. Your muscles can use alcohol, glucose
and ketones.

So just keep doing what you're doing if it works for you
and stop top posting..., er, trying to advise others.

-Badger "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

So I guess you're the only one qualified to give advise and
any opinions that differ from yours are wrong, bad and
should not be communicated? Read my posting. It is full of
"this is my opinion". Wish I would have know that Badger-God
was on this newsgroup to espouse the divine truth; I would
not have wasted my time.

Opinions are like [censored]. Everyone's got one. Or in your
case, a dozen.....

"Badger_South" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:29:45 -0400, "Dave"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No formal medical training, just anecdotal evidence, some
good books,

and,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

yes, common sense. Let's face it. Your body does not
"burn fat" by

itself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It needs carbs. Carbs are what your muscles need to
perform, and

depriving

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it of them forces unnatural states in the body, and
anecdotally, you will just plain bonk.

Wrong, and wrong. Your muscles can use alcohol, glucose
and ketones.

So just keep doing what you're doing if it works for you
and stop top posting..., er, trying to advise others.

-Badger "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

Badger_South said:

Dave said:

No formal medical training, just anecdotal evidence, some
good books, and, yes, common sense. Let's face it. Your
body does not "burn fat" by itself. It needs carbs. Carbs
are what your muscles need to perform, and depriving it
of them forces unnatural states in the body, and
anecdotally, you will just plain bonk.

Wrong, and wrong. Your muscles can use alcohol, glucose
and ketones.

I don't know about alcohol and ketones. But I do know that
glucose in the muscles is made from carbs. Actually Glucose
is a carb. I think what you mean is glycogen which is what
is stored in the muscle and made form glucose which is a
carb. When there is no more glycogen in your muscles they
will start cannibalizing. Ie they will start using protein,
from themselves, as energy. Possibly this protein is turned
into alcohol and ketose for energy. I don't know, that is
just an unqualified guess. Anyway you do not really wanna
come to the state where your muscles start feeding on
themselves.

Dave pretty much has it covered as far as exercising goes.
Ie without carbs you cannot do any intense riding for very
long. However if you're losing weight and happy to just
cruise around on the bike that is fine for you. Once you get
to a point where you start eating more carbs you'll notice
you'll be a mean bikerider both on and off road and not just
on bikepaths.

--
Perre
"Ha! Got you, you bikepathing cityslicker"

Dave said:

So I guess you're the only one qualified to give advise and
any opinions that differ from yours are wrong, bad and
should not be communicated? Read my posting. It is full of
"this is my opinion". Wish I would have know that Badger-
God was on this newsgroup to espouse the divine truth; I
would not have wasted my time.

Opinions are like [censored]. Everyone's got one. Or in your
case, a dozen.....

My, my, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

-Badger "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Dave said:

No formal medical training, just anecdotal evidence, some
good books, and, yes, common sense. Let's face it. Your
body does not "burn fat" by itself. It needs carbs. Carbs
are what your muscles need to perform, and depriving it
of them forces unnatural states in the body, and
anecdotally, you will just plain bonk.

Wrong, and wrong. Your muscles can use alcohol, glucose
and ketones.

Alcohol and glucose are both carbohydrates. I don't know
about ketones, though.

...

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).