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