Home
Dave Smith unleashes the fact burning zone

A couple of weeks ago I’d have worn out the batteries in my Face Palmer if I had one. Another online article that on face value appeared to make perfect sense, referencing a research paper no less, related to ‘fat-burning’ rides. The reality however was that the interpretation was erroneous, condemning numerous cyclists to riding along at 14 mph to ‘burn fat’.

The only thing that grates with me more than the use or even consideration of the use of the term ‘anaerobic threshold’, is the utter confusion that surrounds the term ‘fat-burning zone’. It’s understandable given the terms adoption by the fitness industry, but let me tell you a little secret. The fitness industry embraces the fat burning zones on their cardio equipment to help the unfit think they’ve done a valuable workout. I know this as a director of one of the world’s largest fitness equipment manufacturers said it to me. He conceded that ‘fat burning zones’ had little real value, but stated that “most people who go to a gym don’t want a strenuous workout”.

But back to bikes

The first issue with fat burning zone, is that it exists. There is certainly a level of intensity at which fat contributes a greater proportion of energy to fuel exercise. The level of intensity varies from one individual to another and also within one individual from day to day, based on training status and nutritional inputs.

For example, if you wake up and exercise in a fasted state, you’ll burn more fat and at higher intensities than after a carbohydrate breakfast.

So what’s my problem?

Quite simply, this fat burning zone is something you should pretty much ignore if you wish to lose body fat. That’s a prime example of those sneaky counterintuitive things. There are several reasons to eschew the slow plodding rides that will have you favouring fat over carbs as fuel.

The first is that you’ll burn very little body fat in the first place. One gram of fat is worth 9 calories. Since ‘fat-burning zone’ exercise burns roughly 140 to 180 calories in 30 minutes, with an estimate of 50 to 60 percent of those calories coming from fat it translates 8 to 12g of fat in 30 minutes - or two times that amount in an hour.

Good luck losing that stone. 

The second reason to avoid long slow training sessions is that they increase appetite, whilst high intensity intervals suppress appetite. So you may have done 3 hours and burned 60 grams of fat (whoop) but you’re more likely to reach for the tub of ice cream afterwards.

An interval session will have a greater calorie cost when recovery metabolism is included, and also suppresses hunger. Whilst losing body fat is not a simple case of ‘calories in calories out’, calories do play some part in waist management.

You don’t believe me, do you?

Boffins at Laval University in Quebec* had two groups participate in different exercise sessions. Seventeen subjects trained on an indoor bike four to five times per week for 20 weeks, with workouts lasting from 30 to 45 minutes and exercise intensity ranged from 60-85 per cent of maximal heart rate.



A second group of 10 subjects completed 30-minute workouts at an intensity comparable to that attained by the first group. However, the second group also conducted 19 short and 16 long interval sessions during their 15-week programme. The short-interval sessions consisted of 10 to 15 intervals lasting for 15-30 seconds, while the long-interval efforts were composed of four to five intervals with durations of 60-90 seconds.Total energy expenditure during training was twice as great in the first group as in the second group – they burned more calories. However, each group achieved about a 30% increase in maximal aerobic capacity. Most surprisingly however, the interval-trained athletes (who performed less total work remember) had a 9x greater loss of body fat than the first group.

This research was done more than 20 years ago, yet the misconception still exists that low intensity exercise in your ‘fat burning zone’ is best for losing body fat, hence my palming of the face last week.

Still not convinced? Try to recall the 100m final at the Olympics - men and women. What do the fastest men and women on earth look like? They’re not the fattest athletes on display are they? In fact, I suspect they have less body fat than marathon runners yet how much training time do you think they spend in their ‘fat-burning zones’?

So what should you do to lose body fat? Firstly, forget about your fat burning zone. And I hate to break it to you but ‘eat less, exercise more’ only has a 5% long-term success rate. It’s also not all about calories as we’re not a sealed unit where calories in and calories out have a great relevance – we have hormones and feedback loops and all kinds of bat-shit crazy things going under the skin.

The simple answer is to choose food and exercise that will control your appetite and hunger effectively, avoid switching on the sugar fuelled ovens in the body when you start the day, and focus on high intensity interval training. Choose foods that don’t encourage the storage of body fat, which in practical terms means that unless you’re exercising hard, set aside the sugar for the builder’s tea.

Oh, and lift heavy things. Make your muscle work hard regularly.

Now the bit where I contradict myself - it’s not all a big downer on exercising to become more efficient at burning fat. It does have an important role to play for enhancing endurance performance in longer events, preserving glycogen and allowing you to plod on without pockets and bottles full of sugar.

To become better at fat burning, ride in a fasted state and ride long. Don’t fuel up on cereals and gels before a sportive - that will switch your fat burning off. Do all of this and keep riding when you feel empty to force your muscle to make powerful adaptations - turning you into an efficient fat burning machine that will drag your bike though the darkness of a 600km audax, or the last hour of the Dragon Ride.

Just don’t do it to lose weight**. Please.

* 'lmpact of Exercise Intensity on Body Fatness and Skeletal Muscle Metabolism, ' Metabolism, vol. 43(7), pp 814-818, 1994)

**Although you will lose some weight.

Dave Smith has been involved in coaching cyclists in all disciplines for more than 25 years. A former GB national and Olympic road coach, Dave has trained Tour stage winners and Olympic medallists, world champions and numerous national champions. In addition he has applied his quirky and counter intuitive thinking to help dozens of regular cyclists, polo players and F1 drivers. He rides 250 miles a week on and off-road in all weathers.

136 comments

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [3322 posts] 2 years ago
1 like
kevvjj wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
wellsprop wrote:

Once again, I fail to understand a lot of the comments on these road.cc articles (go see lightweight vs aero). You have an author who's experienced in their field providing evidence and explanation then some members comment calling BS and then either provide no real evidence.

Dave Smith clearly has a fair bit of experience in his field (he's been working in his field longer than I've been on this planet!).

Eat less - do more, is fairly clearly BS. Go and look at people who do the crash diets (whatever you want to call them), where people basically starve themselves for a few weeks and do exercise - yes they lose lots of weight, but they put it all back on within a few weeks.

In the last year, I've got fitter than I've ever been, but my average ride length has halved. Why? Becuase I began working full time after uni so I don't have much time. This led me to do rides of around 60 mins doing HIIT - on the recommendation of the cycling club's fitness coach. My FTP has increased and I now find that rides of 70+ miles are fairly easy because I'm working way below the effort I'm used to.

The other great thing about 1 hour long hard cycles is that I don't have to eat before, during, or after the cycle, just an espresso beforehand. I'm doing not many more miles than before and I'm eating about the same (when I cycle commute a couple times a week). It's also helped me shed a couple more kg.

Except it's not is it, it's clearly not BS because the simple equation of consume fewer calories than you burn (eat less - do more) has the effect of reducing body fat %. You can argue all you like about crash diets and how most 'diets' are doomed to fail which is fairly well known and the reasons why they fail, but you outright called the very thing that DOES reduce body fat a load of BS which patently and obviously is incorrect.

If you reduce your daily intake by 150 calories and do more that burns 150 calories and repeat that every day then in one year you have a rough deficit in calories equivalent to between 29-38.5lb of body fat (based on body fat being 72-87% lipids) that's not to say that all of that deficit will be used in reducing the stored fat by those amounts but it will reduce your bodyfat % which is what you called BS.

I call BS on your response. If it was as simple as you say, why then does this not work for the majority of the population?  You simply can't ignore (as stated in the article) all of the individual complexities of each person's biology. Don't forget, insulin resistance and gut bacteria to name just two of the factors that control body weight and metabolism. Calories in vs calories out has, and always will be,  too simple to be anything other than BULLSHIT.

See, there you go, you don't understand the basics that are accepted and call me out, you're a  comedian!

Who said it was simple to achieve, I said the forumla to achieve fat reduction is simple and it always has been, to denounce that as the poster I responded to who called less calories-more work as BS is bullshit in itself.

There are many reasons why it doesn't work for the majority, the biggest reason is that the majority don't stick to the simple rules, it's as easy as that. yes in some examples there are a few people that will have it less easy but the formula of fewer calories in than you burn will reduce body fat is sound.

You better go ask someone else who is qualified in nutrition to explain it to you!

Avatar
zero_trooper [403 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
madcarew wrote:

The body fat %ge is much less about their sport or training style, than it is about the fact they are an elite athlete. 

Spot on, I'm never going to be an elite athlete, so tend to switch off when people start using them as examples.

Avatar
ConcordeCX [1222 posts] 2 years ago
4 likes
Grizzerly wrote:

Sorry guys, there are no short cuts to losing weight. The only thing that works is: Eat less and exercise more.

different types of food with the same energy content are metabolised differently, in ways which can lead to excess calories being stored as fat rather than used. The metabolism of fructose and glucose being classic examples. Fructose is responsible for a great deal of the obesity and syndrome X problems we see around us.

The equation is nowhere near as simple as you think.

Avatar
Sub4 [81 posts] 2 years ago
4 likes
crikey wrote:

Unfortunately the majority of cyclists these days get their 'wisdom' from the internet which means that poor information gets passed on from person to person very quickly. Hence the 'average' cyclist thinks that any kind of cycling requires gels and bars and energy drinks, then a recovery drink to finish off, even though the actual calorie expenditure is far less than the total of rubbish they think they 'have' to consume. See also those people who simply cannot ride for an hour without drinking at least a litre of fluid, and those who think that they have to 'replace those electrolytes'... The Sports Nutrition industry, and it is an industry, have been telling and selling you rubbish for years...

 

damn right! I ride with lots of folks who go cold turkey without a gel every half hour! It’s weird. I don’t feel the need to carbo load before or eat during. Often don’t eat after. Very rare that I ‘bonk’ & even then the out-of-date emergency gel stays in the pocket. The body contains a lot of accessible calories if you allow it to use them.

Avatar
Canyon48 [1147 posts] 2 years ago
1 like
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
wellsprop wrote:

Once again, I fail to understand a lot of the comments on these road.cc articles (go see lightweight vs aero). You have an author who's experienced in their field providing evidence and explanation then some members comment calling BS and then either provide no real evidence.

Dave Smith clearly has a fair bit of experience in his field (he's been working in his field longer than I've been on this planet!).

Eat less - do more, is fairly clearly BS. Go and look at people who do the crash diets (whatever you want to call them), where people basically starve themselves for a few weeks and do exercise - yes they lose lots of weight, but they put it all back on within a few weeks.

In the last year, I've got fitter than I've ever been, but my average ride length has halved. Why? Becuase I began working full time after uni so I don't have much time. This led me to do rides of around 60 mins doing HIIT - on the recommendation of the cycling club's fitness coach. My FTP has increased and I now find that rides of 70+ miles are fairly easy because I'm working way below the effort I'm used to.

The other great thing about 1 hour long hard cycles is that I don't have to eat before, during, or after the cycle, just an espresso beforehand. I'm doing not many more miles than before and I'm eating about the same (when I cycle commute a couple times a week). It's also helped me shed a couple more kg.

Except it's not is it, it's clearly not BS because the simple equation of consume fewer calories than you burn (eat less - do more) has the effect of reducing body fat %. You can argue all you like about crash diets and how most 'diets' are doomed to fail which is fairly well known and the reasons why they fail, but you outright called the very thing that DOES reduce body fat a load of BS which patently and obviously is incorrect.

If you reduce your daily intake by 150 calories and do more that burns 150 calories and repeat that every day then in one year you have a rough deficit in calories equivalent to between 29-38.5lb of body fat (based on body fat being 72-87% lipids) that's not to say that all of that deficit will be used in reducing the stored fat by those amounts but it will reduce your bodyfat % which is what you called BS.

As a way of losing fat, "eat less, do more" doesn't really work in practice. That's what I was trying to call out - just as it was called out in the article.

I accept that, in theory, it does work, most people can't sustain it.

"Eat better, excersize better" would better, surely?

Avatar
stevie63 [81 posts] 2 years ago
1 like

Right, this article is interesting but it does repeat certain weight loss myths. For example it refers to burning fat. Your body doesn't burn fat, instead in harmony with the principle of the conservation of mass it can only be converted into another form of mass. If you do some research on this you will see that if you lose 10kg of fat from your body, 8.4kg wil leave your body as CO2 and 1.6kg will leave as Water.

Once you start thinking about Fat as the atoms it is made up from (Hydrogen Carbon and Oxygen) you will realise that it isn't so much about the calories you eat (1 gram of fat still has the same amount of mass as 1 gram of sugar-so if you eat 50 grams of sugar or 50 grams of fat then the maximum weight you can increase by is still 50 grams) but about how you get those atoms out and that is simply by eating less and moving more (however you can eat loads of vegetables like brocolli and carrots because the mass of vegetables is mostly made up of water and fibre which passes straight through your body.)

So take me for example, if I cut out my bar of chocolate with my lunch as well as increasing my physical activity then I will lose weight as I am not replacing the atoms that have left my body. The problem is the diet industry and the health industry don't what you to see that it's that simple because they want you to buy into what they are selling. The reason that only a small percentage of dieters succeed is simply because we have made it more complicated than it really is.

Avatar
fukawitribe [2948 posts] 2 years ago
4 likes
stevie63 wrote:

Right, this article is interesting but it does repeat certain weight loss myths. For example it refers to burning fat. Your body doesn't burn fat, instead in harmony with the principle of the conservation of mass it can only be converted into another form of mass.

I think you might be mis-understanding what the word 'burn' means - it doesn't mean 'vanish from the known Universe'.

Avatar
ClubSmed [789 posts] 2 years ago
2 likes
stevie63 wrote:

he problem is the diet industry and the health industry don't what you to see that it's that simple because they want you to buy into what they are selling. The reason that only a small percentage of dieters succeed is simply because we have made it more complicated than it really is.

I see, so analysing everything you eat at an atomic level is making it less complicated?

Avatar
ConcordeCX [1222 posts] 2 years ago
1 like
stevie63 wrote:

Right, this article is interesting but it does repeat certain weight loss myths. For example it refers to burning fat. Your body doesn't burn fat, instead in harmony with the principle of the conservation of mass it can only be converted into another form of mass. If you do some research on this you will see that if you lose 10kg of fat from your body, 8.4kg wil leave your body as CO2 and 1.6kg will leave as Water.

Once you start thinking about Fat as the atoms it is made up from (Hydrogen Carbon and Oxygen) you will realise that it isn't so much about the calories you eat (1 gram of fat still has the same amount of mass as 1 gram of sugar-so if you eat 50 grams of sugar or 50 grams of fat then the maximum weight you can increase by is still 50 grams) but about how you get those atoms out and that is simply by eating less and moving more (however you can eat loads of vegetables like brocolli and carrots because the mass of vegetables is mostly made up of water and fibre which passes straight through your body.)

So take me for example, if I cut out my bar of chocolate with my lunch as well as increasing my physical activity then I will lose weight as I am not replacing the atoms that have left my body. The problem is the diet industry and the health industry don't what you to see that it's that simple because they want you to buy into what they are selling. The reason that only a small percentage of dieters succeed is simply because we have made it more complicated than it really is.

fat provides more energy per gram than sugar does, and is metabolised very differently. Indeed, assuming you mean sucrose, which consists of 50% glucose and 50% fructose, each of those sugars is metabolised very differently from the other. So your grams of input are by no means equal; nor are their energy equivalents, and the outputs are also very different, because even if 50g is the maximum you can increase by, it is not the minimum or only possible value.

It may be a lot simpler than the diet industry suggests, but it is also more complicated than you suggest.

Avatar
stevie63 [81 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
fukawitribe wrote:
stevie63 wrote:

Right, this article is interesting but it does repeat certain weight loss myths. For example it refers to burning fat. Your body doesn't burn fat, instead in harmony with the principle of the conservation of mass it can only be converted into another form of mass.

I think you might be mis-understanding what the word 'burn' means - it doesn't mean 'vanish from the known Universe'.

Please explain to me using Bio-chemistry how your body 'burns' fat then? genuinely I'm interested. 

Avatar
stevie63 [81 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
ConcordeCX wrote:
stevie63 wrote:

Right, this article is interesting but it does repeat certain weight loss myths. For example it refers to burning fat. Your body doesn't burn fat, instead in harmony with the principle of the conservation of mass it can only be converted into another form of mass. If you do some research on this you will see that if you lose 10kg of fat from your body, 8.4kg wil leave your body as CO2 and 1.6kg will leave as Water.

Once you start thinking about Fat as the atoms it is made up from (Hydrogen Carbon and Oxygen) you will realise that it isn't so much about the calories you eat (1 gram of fat still has the same amount of mass as 1 gram of sugar-so if you eat 50 grams of sugar or 50 grams of fat then the maximum weight you can increase by is still 50 grams) but about how you get those atoms out and that is simply by eating less and moving more (however you can eat loads of vegetables like brocolli and carrots because the mass of vegetables is mostly made up of water and fibre which passes straight through your body.)

So take me for example, if I cut out my bar of chocolate with my lunch as well as increasing my physical activity then I will lose weight as I am not replacing the atoms that have left my body. The problem is the diet industry and the health industry don't what you to see that it's that simple because they want you to buy into what they are selling. The reason that only a small percentage of dieters succeed is simply because we have made it more complicated than it really is.

fat provides more energy per gram than sugar does, and is metabolised very differently. Indeed, assuming you mean sucrose, which consists of 50% glucose and 50% fructose, each of those sugars is metabolised very differently from the other. So your grams of input are by no means equal; nor are their energy equivalents, and the outputs are also very different, because even if 50g is the maximum you can increase by, it is not the minimum or only possible value.

It may be a lot simpler than the diet industry suggests, but it is also more complicated than you suggest.

Please tell what the mass of energy is? 

What else do I need to do to lose weight?

Avatar
stevie63 [81 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
ClubSmed wrote:
stevie63 wrote:

he problem is the diet industry and the health industry don't what you to see that it's that simple because they want you to buy into what they are selling. The reason that only a small percentage of dieters succeed is simply because we have made it more complicated than it really is.

I see, so analysing everything you eat at an atomic level is making it less complicated?

No cos I don't do that, just eat less and move more which equals less Mass in through eating and more mass out via breathing. Our lungs are the primary means of weight loss and if you don't believe me then I suggest you look at this peer-reviewed published paper for more proof:

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7257

Avatar
fukawitribe [2948 posts] 2 years ago
1 like
stevie63 wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:
stevie63 wrote:

Right, this article is interesting but it does repeat certain weight loss myths. For example it refers to burning fat. Your body doesn't burn fat, instead in harmony with the principle of the conservation of mass it can only be converted into another form of mass.

I think you might be mis-understanding what the word 'burn' means - it doesn't mean 'vanish from the known Universe'.

Please explain to me using Bio-chemistry how your body 'burns' fat then? genuinely I'm interested. 

burn - Use (a type of fuel) as a source of heat or energy (Oxford Dictionaries case 1.3).

 

Nothing there about disappearing mass, nothing in the phrase 'burn fat' that implies disappearing mass. It's a phrase in common ussage in many cases, none of which are normally taken to mean a breakdown in the conservation of mass/energy, so i'm really not sure what you're trying to get at. What, biochemically, are you asking about ? Krebs, ATP production, phosphorylation ? It's been a long time since I had to look down at the sharp end of that, but you don't really want to be told anyway, do you ?

Avatar
kraut [170 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
crikey wrote:

Unfortunately the majority of cyclists these days get their 'wisdom' from the internet which means that poor information gets passed on from person to person very quickly. Hence the 'average' cyclist thinks that any kind of cycling requires gels and bars and energy drinks, then a recovery drink to finish off, even though the actual calorie expenditure is far less than the total of rubbish they think they 'have' to consume. See also those people who simply cannot ride for an hour without drinking at least a litre of fluid, and those who think that they have to 'replace those electrolytes'... The Sports Nutrition industry, and it is an industry, have been telling and selling you rubbish for years...

Amen.

Avatar
ClubSmed [789 posts] 2 years ago
1 like
stevie63 wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
stevie63 wrote:

he problem is the diet industry and the health industry don't what you to see that it's that simple because they want you to buy into what they are selling. The reason that only a small percentage of dieters succeed is simply because we have made it more complicated than it really is.

I see, so analysing everything you eat at an atomic level is making it less complicated?

No cos I don't do that, just eat less and move more which equals less Mass in through eating and more mass out via breathing. Our lungs are the primary means of weight loss and if you don't believe me then I suggest you look at this peer-reviewed published paper for more proof:

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7257

But it isn't as simple as eating less and moving more, as you yourself aluded to. If you eat less mass but substitute all your veg for chocolate you are not going to lose the fat you want.

Avatar
StantheVoice [125 posts] 2 years ago
5 likes

I think I've lost weight just reading the comments on this articel! 

Avatar
ConcordeCX [1222 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
stevie63 wrote:
ConcordeCX wrote:
stevie63 wrote:

Right, this article is interesting but it does repeat certain weight loss myths. For example it refers to burning fat. Your body doesn't burn fat, instead in harmony with the principle of the conservation of mass it can only be converted into another form of mass. If you do some research on this you will see that if you lose 10kg of fat from your body, 8.4kg wil leave your body as CO2 and 1.6kg will leave as Water.

Once you start thinking about Fat as the atoms it is made up from (Hydrogen Carbon and Oxygen) you will realise that it isn't so much about the calories you eat (1 gram of fat still has the same amount of mass as 1 gram of sugar-so if you eat 50 grams of sugar or 50 grams of fat then the maximum weight you can increase by is still 50 grams) but about how you get those atoms out and that is simply by eating less and moving more (however you can eat loads of vegetables like brocolli and carrots because the mass of vegetables is mostly made up of water and fibre which passes straight through your body.)

So take me for example, if I cut out my bar of chocolate with my lunch as well as increasing my physical activity then I will lose weight as I am not replacing the atoms that have left my body. The problem is the diet industry and the health industry don't what you to see that it's that simple because they want you to buy into what they are selling. The reason that only a small percentage of dieters succeed is simply because we have made it more complicated than it really is.

fat provides more energy per gram than sugar does, and is metabolised very differently. Indeed, assuming you mean sucrose, which consists of 50% glucose and 50% fructose, each of those sugars is metabolised very differently from the other. So your grams of input are by no means equal; nor are their energy equivalents, and the outputs are also very different, because even if 50g is the maximum you can increase by, it is not the minimum or only possible value.

It may be a lot simpler than the diet industry suggests, but it is also more complicated than you suggest.

Please tell what the mass of energy is? 

What else do I need to do to lose weight?

change the composition of your food intake so that its metabolisation produces less energy.

 

Avatar
kevvjj [485 posts] 2 years ago
1 like
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
kevvjj wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
wellsprop wrote:

Once again, I fail to understand a lot of the comments on these road.cc articles (go see lightweight vs aero). You have an author who's experienced in their field providing evidence and explanation then some members comment calling BS and then either provide no real evidence.

Dave Smith clearly has a fair bit of experience in his field (he's been working in his field longer than I've been on this planet!).

Eat less - do more, is fairly clearly BS. Go and look at people who do the crash diets (whatever you want to call them), where people basically starve themselves for a few weeks and do exercise - yes they lose lots of weight, but they put it all back on within a few weeks.

In the last year, I've got fitter than I've ever been, but my average ride length has halved. Why? Becuase I began working full time after uni so I don't have much time. This led me to do rides of around 60 mins doing HIIT - on the recommendation of the cycling club's fitness coach. My FTP has increased and I now find that rides of 70+ miles are fairly easy because I'm working way below the effort I'm used to.

The other great thing about 1 hour long hard cycles is that I don't have to eat before, during, or after the cycle, just an espresso beforehand. I'm doing not many more miles than before and I'm eating about the same (when I cycle commute a couple times a week). It's also helped me shed a couple more kg.

Except it's not is it, it's clearly not BS because the simple equation of consume fewer calories than you burn (eat less - do more) has the effect of reducing body fat %. You can argue all you like about crash diets and how most 'diets' are doomed to fail which is fairly well known and the reasons why they fail, but you outright called the very thing that DOES reduce body fat a load of BS which patently and obviously is incorrect.

If you reduce your daily intake by 150 calories and do more that burns 150 calories and repeat that every day then in one year you have a rough deficit in calories equivalent to between 29-38.5lb of body fat (based on body fat being 72-87% lipids) that's not to say that all of that deficit will be used in reducing the stored fat by those amounts but it will reduce your bodyfat % which is what you called BS.

I call BS on your response. If it was as simple as you say, why then does this not work for the majority of the population?  You simply can't ignore (as stated in the article) all of the individual complexities of each person's biology. Don't forget, insulin resistance and gut bacteria to name just two of the factors that control body weight and metabolism. Calories in vs calories out has, and always will be,  too simple to be anything other than BULLSHIT.

See, there you go, you don't understand the basics that are accepted and call me out, you're a  comedian!

Who said it was simple to achieve, I said the forumla to achieve fat reduction is simple and it always has been, to denounce that as the poster I responded to who called less calories-more work as BS is bullshit in itself.

There are many reasons why it doesn't work for the majority, the biggest reason is that the majority don't stick to the simple rules, it's as easy as that. yes in some examples there are a few people that will have it less easy but the formula of fewer calories in than you burn will reduce body fat is sound.

You better go ask someone else who is qualified in nutrition to explain it to you!

Thank you, I followed your advice (how did you know what I did for a living by the way?) and spoke to a qualified nutritionist... she said you are full of bullshit and don't have a clue. I'll leave it at that then.

Avatar
don simon fbpe [2997 posts] 2 years ago
1 like
kevvjj wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
kevvjj wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
wellsprop wrote:

Once again, I fail to understand a lot of the comments on these road.cc articles (go see lightweight vs aero). You have an author who's experienced in their field providing evidence and explanation then some members comment calling BS and then either provide no real evidence.

Dave Smith clearly has a fair bit of experience in his field (he's been working in his field longer than I've been on this planet!).

Eat less - do more, is fairly clearly BS. Go and look at people who do the crash diets (whatever you want to call them), where people basically starve themselves for a few weeks and do exercise - yes they lose lots of weight, but they put it all back on within a few weeks.

In the last year, I've got fitter than I've ever been, but my average ride length has halved. Why? Becuase I began working full time after uni so I don't have much time. This led me to do rides of around 60 mins doing HIIT - on the recommendation of the cycling club's fitness coach. My FTP has increased and I now find that rides of 70+ miles are fairly easy because I'm working way below the effort I'm used to.

The other great thing about 1 hour long hard cycles is that I don't have to eat before, during, or after the cycle, just an espresso beforehand. I'm doing not many more miles than before and I'm eating about the same (when I cycle commute a couple times a week). It's also helped me shed a couple more kg.

Except it's not is it, it's clearly not BS because the simple equation of consume fewer calories than you burn (eat less - do more) has the effect of reducing body fat %. You can argue all you like about crash diets and how most 'diets' are doomed to fail which is fairly well known and the reasons why they fail, but you outright called the very thing that DOES reduce body fat a load of BS which patently and obviously is incorrect.

If you reduce your daily intake by 150 calories and do more that burns 150 calories and repeat that every day then in one year you have a rough deficit in calories equivalent to between 29-38.5lb of body fat (based on body fat being 72-87% lipids) that's not to say that all of that deficit will be used in reducing the stored fat by those amounts but it will reduce your bodyfat % which is what you called BS.

I call BS on your response. If it was as simple as you say, why then does this not work for the majority of the population?  You simply can't ignore (as stated in the article) all of the individual complexities of each person's biology. Don't forget, insulin resistance and gut bacteria to name just two of the factors that control body weight and metabolism. Calories in vs calories out has, and always will be,  too simple to be anything other than BULLSHIT.

See, there you go, you don't understand the basics that are accepted and call me out, you're a  comedian!

Who said it was simple to achieve, I said the forumla to achieve fat reduction is simple and it always has been, to denounce that as the poster I responded to who called less calories-more work as BS is bullshit in itself.

There are many reasons why it doesn't work for the majority, the biggest reason is that the majority don't stick to the simple rules, it's as easy as that. yes in some examples there are a few people that will have it less easy but the formula of fewer calories in than you burn will reduce body fat is sound.

You better go ask someone else who is qualified in nutrition to explain it to you!

Thank you, I followed your advice (how did you know what I did for a living by the way?) and spoke to a qualified nutritionist... she said you are full of bullshit and don't have a clue. I'll leave it at that then.

Hmmm... The bullshit diet... I think I see a business opportunity...

Avatar
davel [2723 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
kevvjj wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
kevvjj wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
wellsprop wrote:

Once again, I fail to understand a lot of the comments on these road.cc articles (go see lightweight vs aero). You have an author who's experienced in their field providing evidence and explanation then some members comment calling BS and then either provide no real evidence.

Dave Smith clearly has a fair bit of experience in his field (he's been working in his field longer than I've been on this planet!).

Eat less - do more, is fairly clearly BS. Go and look at people who do the crash diets (whatever you want to call them), where people basically starve themselves for a few weeks and do exercise - yes they lose lots of weight, but they put it all back on within a few weeks.

In the last year, I've got fitter than I've ever been, but my average ride length has halved. Why? Becuase I began working full time after uni so I don't have much time. This led me to do rides of around 60 mins doing HIIT - on the recommendation of the cycling club's fitness coach. My FTP has increased and I now find that rides of 70+ miles are fairly easy because I'm working way below the effort I'm used to.

The other great thing about 1 hour long hard cycles is that I don't have to eat before, during, or after the cycle, just an espresso beforehand. I'm doing not many more miles than before and I'm eating about the same (when I cycle commute a couple times a week). It's also helped me shed a couple more kg.

Except it's not is it, it's clearly not BS because the simple equation of consume fewer calories than you burn (eat less - do more) has the effect of reducing body fat %. You can argue all you like about crash diets and how most 'diets' are doomed to fail which is fairly well known and the reasons why they fail, but you outright called the very thing that DOES reduce body fat a load of BS which patently and obviously is incorrect.

If you reduce your daily intake by 150 calories and do more that burns 150 calories and repeat that every day then in one year you have a rough deficit in calories equivalent to between 29-38.5lb of body fat (based on body fat being 72-87% lipids) that's not to say that all of that deficit will be used in reducing the stored fat by those amounts but it will reduce your bodyfat % which is what you called BS.

I call BS on your response. If it was as simple as you say, why then does this not work for the majority of the population?  You simply can't ignore (as stated in the article) all of the individual complexities of each person's biology. Don't forget, insulin resistance and gut bacteria to name just two of the factors that control body weight and metabolism. Calories in vs calories out has, and always will be,  too simple to be anything other than BULLSHIT.

See, there you go, you don't understand the basics that are accepted and call me out, you're a  comedian!

Who said it was simple to achieve, I said the forumla to achieve fat reduction is simple and it always has been, to denounce that as the poster I responded to who called less calories-more work as BS is bullshit in itself.

There are many reasons why it doesn't work for the majority, the biggest reason is that the majority don't stick to the simple rules, it's as easy as that. yes in some examples there are a few people that will have it less easy but the formula of fewer calories in than you burn will reduce body fat is sound.

You better go ask someone else who is qualified in nutrition to explain it to you!

Thank you, I followed your advice (how did you know what I did for a living by the way?) and spoke to a qualified nutritionist... she said you are full of bullshit and don't have a clue. I'll leave it at that then.

Hang on... Isn't 'dietician' the protected term, and 'nutritionist' is open to anyone who just wants to join a club that anyone could join?

Could well be wrong, but Ben Goldacre certainly seems to paint it that way, and Gillian Mckeith was a (massively unqualified) 'nutritionist' - as was Goldacre's dead cat.

Avatar
hawkinspeter [4406 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

Hang on... Isn't 'dietician' the protected term, and 'nutritionist' is open to anyone who just wants to join a club that anyone could join? Could well be wrong, but Ben Goldacre certainly seems to paint it that way, and Gillian Mckeith was a (massively unqualified) 'nutritionist' - as was Goldacre's dead cat.

I didn't know that. Apparently the correct term is "registered dietitian" or "registered dietitian nutritionist". A nutritionist can be anyone interested in nutrition (e.g. anyone reading this article).

Avatar
Simon E [3888 posts] 2 years ago
1 like
davel wrote:

Hang on... Isn't 'dietician' the protected term, and 'nutritionist' is open to anyone who just wants to join a club that anyone could join? Could well be wrong, but Ben Goldacre certainly seems to paint it that way, and Gillian Mckeith was a (massively unqualified) 'nutritionist' - as was Goldacre's dead cat.

Correct. Although Ben Goldacre doesn't need to 'paint' it as anything. Facts, plain and simple.

However, some nutritionists - and other people who don't call themselves that - may know a great deal about food, nutrition etc etc. Some may know more about the nutritional requirements of an elite athlete than a trained dietitian. The latter may be more used to dealing with sick people who suffer with eating disorders, food intolerance, weight problems, anorexia and so on.

So while Gillian McKeith is in many people's eyes a charlatan that doesn't make every nutritionist a con merchant.

Avatar
Simmo72 [720 posts] 2 years ago
1 like

I have found I ride better in the am in a fasted state.  Eating works against me unless it is 3-4 hours in advance, otherwise I just feel terrible.  I go out empty, and can ride at a reasonable pace for 50m without fueling.  If I know I will be longer I will start eating small amounts around 25m.  I find it strange when people are chugging gels after 10 miles.

 

Also completely agree with interval or HIIT type method of exercise for improvement.  I tried several years ago to keep rides in the 'fat burning zone', boring and absolutely no benefit for me.

 

Avatar
davel [2723 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Simon E wrote:

So while Gillian McKeith is in many people's eyes a charlatan that doesn't make every nutritionist a con merchant.

Thanks.

Care to refute any other points I haven't made?

Avatar
urbane [100 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Aerobics is cack except as a warmup, exercise top-up, or stamina training; too much just wears your lungs, heart, and joints out, including excessive cycling!

Most exercise should be heart stressing interval resistance training, that should include some weights because you can't do everything or controlled with just body weight; the fat burning then comes from the speeded up metabolism, not the exercise.

I've cycled for several decades, so had strong legs, but it wasn't until I was dead lifting increasingly heavy weights this year that my legs and knees got some serious controlled stress, and noticeably more power when cycling.  I can already dead lift 95Kg a few times, when fresh, after a 75Kg warm up, which isn't bad for my age, but I'm pushing to do a lot better, and expect even stronger cycling later!

Avatar
Kendalred [423 posts] 2 years ago
1 like

Okay - who else is really hungry now?

Avatar
mdavidford [123 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

What a lot of words over nothing. It's quite clear that the best exercise plan is gardening.

Avatar
rjfrussell [534 posts] 1 year ago
2 likes

The key to exercise is balance.

Drink with one hand, and wank with the other. 

Avatar
MariaMartinez [20 posts] 8 months ago
0 likes

Somewhat contradicted by meta-analysis: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/obr.12536

HIIT the same as traditional moderate‐intensity continuous training (MICT).

Your citation seems to be an outlier:  'lmpact of Exercise Intensity on Body Fatness and Skeletal Muscle Metabolism, ' Metabolism, vol. 43(7), pp 814-818, 1994)

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [2869 posts] 8 months ago
2 likes

All the advice and 'science' on nutrition and exercise seems to be relentlessly contradictory.  It's not surprising that so many people just switch off.

All I know is my weight goes down when I'm happy and goes up when I'm glum.  And that exercise - of the right kind - provides an alternative source of pleasure/purpose to eating, so for me is a double-benefit.

Pages