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:[email hidden]...

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:[email hidden]...
::: 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:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:54:47 -0400, "Dave" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message 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:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:54:47 -0400, "Dave" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message 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:
http://catfood.phred.org/getmsg.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.

[censored] you too.

"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.....

[censored] off.

"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:

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

Quoted message 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.....

[censored] off.

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).