What will make me slimmer? Zone 3 or zone 4 training?
- Thread starter SpecializedMok
- Start date
OK I was going to leave it at that but there seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread so I'll try to clear it up some. First, some units: 1 watt hr = .86 kcal. You can therefore convert average power output on the bike (Pavg) into kcal's of work by multiplying by hours ridden, then 0.86. This gives the number of kcal's OUTPUT by your feet onto the pedals.
How much do you have to INTAKE (eat) to output this amount of kcal's? It turns out that the range from Lance Armstrong to the fattest least efficient people is about 20-25% efficiency. So, you have to eat 4-5 times as much as you put out on the bike, which means you take the number above and multiply by 4 or 5 to get the range for all people. (You can also get lab tested to see exactly how efficient your particular body is but it's not worth the effort since the range across people is so narrow anyway.)
Example 1: Tony's number
Average power for one hour = 220w
kcals OUTPUT to pedals = 220*1hr*3.6*.239 = 189kcal
kcals INTAKE (what you need to eat) = 189*( 4 - 5) = range of 757 to 946 kcal
So bottom line is that the most Tony could possibly use in 1hr at 220w is 946 (i.e., nowhere near 1100), and very probably more like 850 because I just don't believe given the athlete that Tony is that his body is among the least efficient on the planet.
Example 2: The 10 hr ride/race
To burn 10,000 kcal over 10 hrs you would have to burn 1000 kcal per hour on average. Using 4.5 for efficiency (the midpoint), that gives Pavg=1000/4.5/.86=258 watts, so a typical person would have to average 258 watts for 10 hrs straight to burn 10,000kcal.
Others can chime in here, but I'm going to speculate that this is nearly inhuman. I.e., Lance Armstrong could probably do it, but it would be hard even for him. A more reasonable number would be something like Pavg=180w, which gives about 7000kcal for the ride, still a lot of calories.
How much do you have to INTAKE (eat) to output this amount of kcal's? It turns out that the range from Lance Armstrong to the fattest least efficient people is about 20-25% efficiency. So, you have to eat 4-5 times as much as you put out on the bike, which means you take the number above and multiply by 4 or 5 to get the range for all people. (You can also get lab tested to see exactly how efficient your particular body is but it's not worth the effort since the range across people is so narrow anyway.)
Example 1: Tony's number
Average power for one hour = 220w
kcals OUTPUT to pedals = 220*1hr*3.6*.239 = 189kcal
kcals INTAKE (what you need to eat) = 189*( 4 - 5) = range of 757 to 946 kcal
So bottom line is that the most Tony could possibly use in 1hr at 220w is 946 (i.e., nowhere near 1100), and very probably more like 850 because I just don't believe given the athlete that Tony is that his body is among the least efficient on the planet.
Example 2: The 10 hr ride/race
To burn 10,000 kcal over 10 hrs you would have to burn 1000 kcal per hour on average. Using 4.5 for efficiency (the midpoint), that gives Pavg=1000/4.5/.86=258 watts, so a typical person would have to average 258 watts for 10 hrs straight to burn 10,000kcal.
Others can chime in here, but I'm going to speculate that this is nearly inhuman. I.e., Lance Armstrong could probably do it, but it would be hard even for him. A more reasonable number would be something like Pavg=180w, which gives about 7000kcal for the ride, still a lot of calories.
lanierb said:
LOL! Boy, if I took some of you guys seriously, I'd be in a nut house staring at Nurse Ratched's breasts (One Flew Over Cuckoo's Nest reference) like 'ol McMurphy (Jack Nicholson).
To address this experts
rolleyes "analysis" of my comment regarding the amount of calories I burn, obviously his/her ability to read/comprehend my comment failed him/her. As stated, my numbers quoted are from an Expired Gas Analysis lab test conducted at the Peake Center in Burnaby, B.C., by Paul Hatano, Exercise Physiologist.LOL! You can put that in your pipe and smoke it...
edit: a little more info for you to get high off of:
From said lab test -
Power - 220w
HR(bpm) - 135
Lactate(mMol) - 1.39
VO2(L/min) - 3.64
VO2(ml/kg/min) - 39.9
Fat(g/min) - 0.57
CHO(g/min) - 3.27
You do math, Einstein, considering 1g Fat is ~ 9cal and 1g of CHO is ~4cal.
What about exercise-induced stress? It seems like if you depend on short efforts and don't modify your diet enough, you could be setting yourself up for a pear-shaped body. It may be possible for the body to start conserving calories if it thinks it's under stress.swampy1970 said:
I actually looked this up, and the link between exercise-induced cortisol and getting fat is so far just a theory.
If you had said "INCIDENTALLY fat stores do not replenish glycogen", you wouldn't have sounded like you thought anaerobic exercise didn't do anything for weight loss.tonyzackery said:
What's the point of pointing out that fat stores don't replenish glycogen?
Where does the energy to replenish glycogen come from, if not from your food?
Where is that energy not going to go, if it goes to replenishing glycogen?
How is it not germane to the discussion, so that it would constitute fighting someone else's battles?
And again, I put it to you, WHAT DO THE GODDAMN VOTERS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?????
lanierb said:
Hey, pal, I've been wrong before too. Just 'fess up to it and move on.
There's no shame in admitting it - really...
garage sale GT said:
You really are denser than I claim to be - or your reading comprehension is below the 1st grade level; maybe both.
Here's a tip for you - go read the Enriss character's edit paragraph of the entry you originally captioned. There you will find the clue that you never had in the first place
...
Well, if that's how we're going to argue, then you smell like an elephant's butt.tonyzackery said:You really are denser than I claim to be - or your reading comprehension is below the 1st grade level; maybe both.
Here's a tip for you - go read the Enriss character's edit paragraph of the entry you originally captioned. There you will find the clue that you never had in the first place
I guess you started to believe your own misdirect.
I am aware that Enriss thought fat stores replenish glycogen.
However, I (not Enriss) am making the point that fat stores do not have to refuel glycogen in order for anaerobic exercise to cause weight loss.
garage sale GT said:
According to your previous comments directed at me, it is verifiably clear that your above statement is disingenuous, at best. More like an outright, cover-my-ass lie to me
.Be gone, little person. I'm done with you...
jollyrogers said:
Whoops - wrote that backwards. Should read:
work performed divided by the energy required to perform that work equals efficiency
garage sale GT said:
Right, that's why I stated my point from the outset, in the very first comment I posted on this thread, which you can see above.tonyzackery said:According to your previous comments directed at me, it is verifiably clear that your above statement is disingenuous, at best. More like an outright, cover-my-ass lie to me
I am glad you know when to quit.tonyzackery said:
I don't think you know what "incidentally" means. It means your correction to Enriss about glycogen not being replenished from fat stores is:
A. Correct, and
B. Still not germane to a discussion on weight loss.
tonyzackery said:LOL! Boy, if I took some of you guys seriously, I'd be in a nut house staring at Nurse Ratched's breasts (One Flew Over Cuckoo's Nest reference) like 'ol McMurphy (Jack Nicholson).
To address this experts
LOL! You can put that in your pipe and smoke it...
edit: a little more info for you to get high off of:
From said lab test -
Power - 220w
HR(bpm) - 135
Lactate(mMol) - 1.39
VO2(L/min) - 3.64
VO2(ml/kg/min) - 39.9
Fat(g/min) - 0.57
CHO(g/min) - 3.27
You do math, Einstein, considering 1g Fat is ~ 9cal and 1g of CHO is ~4cal.
That's a shame man ~ 18% efficiency, probably a hair lower. Are you a monster sprinter? Are you at least a killer sprinter?
jollyrogers said:
Don't be so pessimistic, bud. Inefficiency is good in the respect that it will take much concerted effort for me to get fat and/or obese
, unlike an almost majority of the population. Applying this to cycle racing, shorter, flatter races are definitely better for me - and I have no issue with this, so neither should you.Hmmm, am I a sprinter?? Perhaps. A few clues: long jumped almost 26 feet; run a 40yd dash in less than 4.4secs, 100m in 10.7secs; vertical jump of 35", etc...not too hard to figure out. I've done ~1800w uphill...
Hopefully the OP is inefficient as well. Won't be too hard to slim down if that's the case...
Hopefully Alex or Andy will post and let us know what's going on with your test. From what I've read it would be next to impossible for your body to be that inefficient, so here are some possible explanations that I can think of but it could be something else too:tonyzackery said:
1) Your lab screwed up
2) You screwed up transcribing the results
3) Your body was temporarily consuming extra calories for some reason. Possible explanations: you were very fatigued and recovering from something or perhaps the opposite: your body was temporarily using up calories that could be recovered later somehow (though I don't know if that's possible).
lanierb said:
I understand this is the best you can do where admitting your mistake is concerned. No problem.
I appreciate you listing what you think were my issues concerning my test. I've bolded what I think is your issue in your "analysis" - you need to get out of the book and get into the real world. Try going to an actual lab. Believing everything you read can send you down the primrose path if you allow it...
tonyzackery said:I understand this is the best you can do where admitting your mistake is concerned. No problem.
I appreciate you listing what you think were my issues concerning my test. I've bolded what I think is your issue in your "analysis" - you need to get out of the book and get into the real world. Try going to an actual lab. Believing everything you read can send you down the primrose path if you allow it...
I don't know exactly how "low" GME can be.
More importantly, I'd have been shocked if Tony was anywhere but on the lower end of the efficiency scale. Coyle's work showed a close correlation between fiber type and efficiency.
You don't run a < 4.4 40, jump almost 26 feet, and become an NFL player (at a speed position) unless you are very, very heavily fast-twitched muscle typed. The time course for efficiency changes, if you accept that they happen, is on the scale of years, so the results again, seem to be in the ballpark of where you'd expect someone of Tony's physiology to be.
I know it is a popular myth to think that road race sprinters are big-time fast twitchers but I'd argue anybody who is finishing stage races and grand tours, even as a so-called sprinter, be it cavendish or Boonen or cipollini or their ilk, is probably an all-arounder with a bit higher NM & anaerobic capabilities than their fellow enduro peers.
lanierb said:
Trying to remember some of the efficiency numbers Dr. Coggan used in his recent USAC coaching webinar. The examples were acomplished cyclists and I seem to recall one with efficiency in the very low 20s, if not lower. In that cyclist's case, a monster VO2max helped compensate for a relatively low efficiency.
DancenMacabre said:
Thanks for bringing some rationality back to this thread, DM. You can always be counted on you to leave the emtional investment in your position at the door. Ad hominem arguments are not your style as well. Good on you
...To continue your thought, I'm quite happy with the percentage of typeII muscle I chose when I was born
...it has served me well...it also tells me that I probably won't reach my "peak" with regard to endurance performance for quite some time - if ever...it's also good to know I'm still on the upward slope of that bell curve...
The difference between Tony's 18% efficiency number from his lab test and the "average range" of 20-25% doesn't seem that big to me. Considering that generalizations are intended to apply to a population not an individual, what his genetic type and training has been, and that the lab test he took has a margin of error associated with it, the results don't seem all that unlikely.
dhk2 said:
Nah - you've got it ALL wrong. In actuality, I'm simply a bald-face, no credibility having, liar who fabricates stories/anecdotes/etc... in between 5k bike rides with the intention of garnering one-upmanship points on various internet cycling forums...
And tonyzackery is my fictitious screename...LOL!
Similar threads
