Now I know how fat people feel!

[David Lloyd]

I put on 1Kg over Christmas. I wasn't worried by this, as I lost more
than this over the past year. At 70Kg, I was the same weight as I was
when I was 25. (I hit the big 4-0 at the end of this month. Anyhow,
since I've decided to get back to racing club 10s & 25s this year, I
went to get my limits and other parameters scientifically measured.

The outcome of the tests is that I have 4Kg of fat to loose, and my
aerobic (fat burning) zone is vertually non-existant. Basically, I
don't burn fat on its own, which means I'm nowhere as efficient as I
should be. When obese people complained that it was their metabolism
that stopped them from loosing weight I had little simpathy, but now I
see what they mean.

To get over this situation, I've got to go back and put in a lot of
time riding at a pulse rate of between 111 and 124 beats per minute.
This is very disturbing, since it is not even at the top end of what I
thought of as getting warmed up. Plus, the rate at which I had been
riding to work at would have put me in what is now my level 4, but I
never even felt sore.

One very confused
David Lloyd

 

[Duncan Smith]

>
> To get over this situation, I've got to go back and put in a lot of
> time riding at a pulse rate of between 111 and 124 beats per minute.
> This is very disturbing, since it is not even at the top end of what I
> thought of as getting warmed up. Plus, the rate at which I had been
> riding to work at would have put me in what is now my level 4, but I
> never even felt sore.
>

You're lucky to have only put 1kg on! Out of interest, how did you
calculate that your fat-burning zone was between 111 and 124bpm?

Regards,

Duncan

 

[David Lloyd]

On 9 Jan, 11:42, Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > To get over this situation, I've got to go back and put in a lot of
> > time riding at a pulse rate of between 111 and 124 beats per minute.
> > This is very disturbing, since it is not even at the top end of what I
> > thought of as getting warmed up. Plus, the rate at which I had been
> > riding to work at would have put me in what is now my level 4, but I
> > never even felt sore.
>
> You're lucky to have only put 1kg on!  Out of interest, how did you
> calculate that your fat-burning zone was between 111 and 124bpm?
>
> Regards,
>
> Duncan

I did a sports test on a Kingcycle rig, under the direction of a
physiologist. On the output graph, 111 to 124 was the only zone in
which the relevant lines had the correct line on top, with sufficient
separation. Don't ask me what each line represents, I didn't take that
much in. All I needed to know was it wasn't quite right.

Regards,
David

 

[naked_draughtsman]

> I did a sports test on a Kingcycle rig, under the direction of a
> physiologist. On the output graph, 111 to 124 was the only zone in
> which the relevant lines had the correct line on top, with sufficient
> separation. Don't ask me what each line represents, I didn't take that
> much in. All I needed to know was it wasn't quite right.

The equipment in the gym I go to has a chart which gives heart rates
for the different 'zones' (65% = fat burning, 80% = aerobic training)
depending on age.

It seems quite crude though as I think on a very gentle ride my heart
rate is somewhere between 65 and 80 whereas on a 'normal' ride it is
often above the 80%!

peter

 

[David Lloyd]

"naked_draughtsman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fc2b913d-2dfc-48d6-9a73-f2e7a26cff96@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> I did a sports test on a Kingcycle rig, under the direction of a
>> physiologist. On the output graph, 111 to 124 was the only zone in
>> which the relevant lines had the correct line on top, with sufficient
>> separation. Don't ask me what each line represents, I didn't take that
>> much in. All I needed to know was it wasn't quite right.
>
> The equipment in the gym I go to has a chart which gives heart rates
> for the different 'zones' (65% = fat burning, 80% = aerobic training)
> depending on age.
>
> It seems quite crude though as I think on a very gentle ride my heart
> rate is somewhere between 65 and 80 whereas on a 'normal' ride it is
> often above the 80%!
>
> peter

These charts are a generalisation, and don't work for everyone. My anaerobic
threshold is at 144 (very low) and my max HR is 172. Most of my riding (when
I had my HRM on) was between these two figures. The only way to be sure of
your limits is to have them scientifically determined.

Actually, looking back at my consultation notes, my aerobic zone (level 2)is
between 114 and 124. Level 3 is between 134 and my anaerobic threshold at
144. These zones should shift as I rebuild my aerobic capacity.

David Lloyd

 

[David Lloyd]

"naked_draughtsman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fc2b913d-2dfc-48d6-9a73-f2e7a26cff96@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> I did a sports test on a Kingcycle rig, under the direction of a
>> physiologist. On the output graph, 111 to 124 was the only zone in
>> which the relevant lines had the correct line on top, with sufficient
>> separation. Don't ask me what each line represents, I didn't take that
>> much in. All I needed to know was it wasn't quite right.
>
> The equipment in the gym I go to has a chart which gives heart rates
> for the different 'zones' (65% = fat burning, 80% = aerobic training)
> depending on age.
>
> It seems quite crude though as I think on a very gentle ride my heart
> rate is somewhere between 65 and 80 whereas on a 'normal' ride it is
> often above the 80%!
>
> peter

Our Plant Manager has become keen on sportif rides and has been trying to
loose weight by doing spin classes. He complained that he was exercising
regually ad 90%, but not loosing weight. So I set him straight on this
point.

The physiologist I went to said that with a reading of 310 Watts, I had a
power output greater than several of the sportif riders that came to him. My
problem would be that if I couldn't continually ingest carbs, I wouldn't
have the energy to last the day.

David Lloyd

 

[Ekul Namsob]

naked_draughtsman <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I did a sports test on a Kingcycle rig, under the direction of a
> > physiologist. On the output graph, 111 to 124 was the only zone in
> > which the relevant lines had the correct line on top, with sufficient
> > separation. Don't ask me what each line represents, I didn't take that
> > much in. All I needed to know was it wasn't quite right.
>
> The equipment in the gym I go to has a chart which gives heart rates
> for the different 'zones' (65% = fat burning, 80% = aerobic training)
> depending on age.
>
> It seems quite crude though as I think on a very gentle ride my heart
> rate is somewhere between 65 and 80 whereas on a 'normal' ride it is
> often above the 80%!

My maximum heart rate, at the age of 34, is at least 200. I am
repeatedly told by people that it shouldn't be that high. I repeatedly
remind them that the age-related business is meant to show the average
MaxHR over a large population sample, just as BMI is meant to be used on
a large scale and not for individuals.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[David Lloyd]

On 10 Jan, 17:03, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> naked_draughtsman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I did a sports test on a Kingcycle rig, under the direction of a
> > > physiologist. On the output graph, 111 to 124 was the only zone in
> > > which the relevant lines had the correct line on top, with sufficient
> > > separation. Don't ask me what each line represents, I didn't take that
> > > much in. All I needed to know was it wasn't quite right.
>
> > The equipment in the gym I go to has a chart which gives heart rates
> > for the different 'zones' (65% = fat burning, 80% = aerobic training)
> > depending on age.
>
> > It seems quite crude though as I think on a very gentle ride my heart
> > rate is somewhere between 65 and 80 whereas on a 'normal' ride it is
> > often above the 80%!
>
> My maximum heart rate, at the age of 34, is at least 200. I am
> repeatedly told by people that it shouldn't be that high. I repeatedly
> remind them that the age-related business is meant to show the average
> MaxHR over a large population sample, just as BMI is meant to be used on
> a large scale and not for individuals.
>

Very true. I was shocked to come away with a max HR of 172. If 221-age
was an absolute, it would make my age 49, not 39.

I did my first road ride under the basic program that Sportstest laid
out for me, this morning. I was to ride between 60 & 100 minutes with
HR between 114 and 124. 100 minutes was the time it had taken me to
get to work when riding between 136 & 156, meaning there was no way
I'd get to work on time. In fact, I averaged 12mph instead of my usual
17. So, I did what I used to do and parked up at half distance.

This afternoon, I am down to do 2.5 hours in the same zone, so I will
make a wide loop around the country lanes, get home, refill my bottle
and then go fetch the car.

David Lloyd