Follow up question to the "average speed" thread

amirm said:

Some interesting points were raised in discussions on the "average
speed" thread. Lindsey mentioned how intense her rides used to be in the
past, and how more effective it would be to keep the heart rate low on
long slow rides (LSR) to burn fat.

This intrigued me, because I have been riding regularly over the past
few years, and one main reason has been losing weight and improving my
fitness. I commute 5 times a week, and have been pushing as hard as I
can. Well, my fitness has considerably improved and not only I ride a
lot faster, I can easily go much longer distances. However, there was a
significant response in terms of weight loss only during the first year.
Then I caught chicken pox and due to its complications I dropped cycling
for about 6 months. I put some weight on. After recovery I have been
riding regularly again. It took me about a month or two to regain my
shape (fitness I mean). Though, I don't seem to lose weight at all.
Lately, I even take longer routes to work, but not much difference.

I thought I might take Lindsey's and other peoples advice on board for a
while and see if it makes a difference. Now my question:

If I want to incorporate this SLR concept to my commuting, which of the
following would be better:

1. Push hard in the morning, and do SLR in the afternoon.
2. Push hard and take SLR on alternate days.

Just remember that I aim at both losing weight and
maintaining/improving cardiovascular fitness. Any input is appreciated.

My training book says that although percentage-wise you do use more fat
than other energy sources when doing LSR, if you rode harder (but still
below your LT), you would burn more fat than LSR simply because you are
burning many more calories total, even though fat makes up a much
smaller percentage.

I guess the message is if you want to lose weight, burn as many calories
as you can by riding as hard as you can. After all, weight loss happens
when you are in calorie deficit (eat less per day than you use), so for
a given food intake, the harder you can go, the better.

&roo (who's lost 5kg over the last few months)

"Andrew Swan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1UACb.764

Quoted message said:

My training book says that although percentage-wise you do use more

fat

Quoted message said:

than other energy sources when doing LSR, if you rode harder (but

still

Quoted message said:

below your LT), you would burn more fat than LSR simply because you

are

Quoted message said:

burning many more calories total, even though fat makes up a much
smaller percentage.

Yeah, I read an article the other week about that. It basically
said that the whole LSD exercise to burn fat was a crock
and you should ride as hard as you can (below LT) to burn
the most fat - especially with restricted time for exercise.
Which training book are you referring to? I can't remember
any details of that article, sorry.

hippy

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

Quoted message said:

"Andrew Swan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1UACb.764

Quoted message said:

My training book says that although percentage-wise you do use more

fat

Quoted message said:

than other energy sources when doing LSR, if you rode harder (but

still

Quoted message said:

below your LT), you would burn more fat than LSR simply because you

are

Quoted message said:

burning many more calories total, even though fat makes up a much
smaller percentage.

Yeah, I read an article the other week about that. It basically
said that the whole LSD exercise to burn fat was a crock
and you should ride as hard as you can (below LT) to burn
the most fat - especially with restricted time for exercise.
Which training book are you referring to? I can't remember
any details of that article, sorry.

hippy

While it is true that the _proportion_ of fat burnt during lower
intensity efforts is greater, less calories are burnt per unit of
time.

In any case, the motive for long, moderate efforts is its effect on
appetite. If I am any guide, I tend to eat more food when my efforts
are harder for the same distance. ie, same calories burnt, but
hungrier when done at higher intensity. Since I am ill-disciplined, I
tend to eat more when I am hungrier, reducing any calorie deficit. In
my opinion, you are more likely to lose weight when undertaking
moderate efforts due to the effect it seems to have on appetite than
the effect due to fat burning.

Discipline on energy intake and expenditure is crucial to losing
weight. My contention is that difficult efforts tend to erode
discipline on the intake side.

2 cents
Ritch

"Ritch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Discipline on energy intake and expenditure is crucial to losing
weight. My contention is that difficult efforts tend to erode
discipline on the intake side.

So that's where I'm going wrong! I'm just riding _too_ fast! ;-)

hippy